August 13, 2002

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on August 13, 2002, at 9:02 a.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairman Truman Scarborough, Commissioners Randy O’Brien, Nancy Higgs, Susan Carlson, and Jackie Colon, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

The Invocation was given by Reverend Elmarie Parker, Co-Pastor of The Walk a New Presbyterian Church, Viera, Florida.

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

ACCEPTANCE, RE: BCC GENEALOGY COLLECTION

Assistant County Manager Don Lusk stated the County has accepted the genealogy collection of Brevard Community College; Certified Genealogist Michael Boonstra, who was formerly employed by BCC, has agreed to come to work for the County as a reference librarian; and that will allow him to continue to manage the collection and assist those interested in genealogy.

Chairman Scarborough stated the State cut back funding to community colleges; there was the potential for loss of the genealogy section at BCC; and fortunately it has been possible to incorporate that into the County library system so it will not be lost.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if Mr. Boonstra will be a full-time librarian or a full-time genealogist. Mr. Lusk responded he will come in as a reference librarian and do reference work; and he will also oversee the genealogy collection. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if there was an open position; with Mr. Lusk responding yes. Mr. Lusk advised he is not on board yet; and that will not occur until September. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if that is when someone will be leaving; with Mr. Lusk responding yes. Commissioner O'Brien stated he would like to know the name of the person Mr. Boonstra is replacing; with Mr. Lusk responding he will get that information.

Chairman Scarborough stated historically the County had genealogy sections in its libraries; this will bring all the resources together; and it will be good for the community.

CANCELLATION, RE: EXECUTIVE SESSION

County Attorney Scott Knox advised the Executive Session scheduled for today has been canceled.

REPORT, RE: SAMPLE THE ARTS

Commissioner Carlson stated this morning the Cocoa Village Playhouse has an exhibit in the lobby, where representatives of the historic Cocoa Village Playhouse can provide information on the upcoming season. She stated the organization has been funded through the cultural grant program administered by the Brevard Cultural Alliance; over 60,000 people attend the performances each year; and Executive Director Staci Hawkins-Smith is available in the lobby if anyone wants more information.

REPORT, RE: SWEAT GAZETTE

Commissioner Carlson stated she talked to someone in her District recently who publishes several publications including one called the Sweat Gazette; it talks about Brevard County sports and children's as well as adult programs; it is a free publication; and it celebrates sports and recreation in the County.

CONGRATULATIONS, RE: ASHLYN HARRIS

Commissioner Carlson stated she would like to send the Board's congratulations to Ashlyn Harris, a student at Satellite High School, who is being considered for the National Soccer Team; there are some concerns about her missing class time; but she hopes the School Board makes the opportunity come true for Ms. Harris.

Commissioner O'Brien suggested sending a letter to the School Board encouraging it to allow Ms. Harris to attend the U.S. Soccer Team Nationals. Commissioner Carlson stated she does not know what position Ms. Harris plays, but knows she has been vital to the Satellite High School team; and since Ms. Harris has a 3.5 grade point average, it would be a shame to not allow her to participate in this. Commissioner Higgs suggested Commissioners individually send letters to the School Board. Commissioner Carlson stated it is the School Board's call, but she hopes something is done to allow Ms. Harris to take advantage of this once in a lifetime opportunity. Commissioner O'Brien stated if the Chairman signed the letter, it would be powerful. Commissioner Carlson reiterated she wants to congratulate Ashlyn Harris.

RESOLUTION, RE: RECOGNIZING REPRESENTATIVE JOYCE CUSACK

Chairman Scarborough stated he would like to recognize Representative Cusack who is a member of the Florida House of Representatives; Representative Cusack started her career as a school health nurse; she has demonstrated many efforts in helping young people; and she will be visiting the County this weekend.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt Resolution welcoming State Representative Joyce Cusack of House District 26 to Brevard County as guest speaker at the North Brevard County Branch NAACP 2002 Freedom Fund Dinner and Awards Banquet. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: BLOOD DRIVE FOR DIXON CHERIN

Commissioner Colon stated this Friday, August 16, 2002 between the hours of 12:00 noon to 4:00 p.m. at the Calvary Chapel in West Melbourne, there will be a blood drive, sponsored by Pride Americans and the Space Coast Blood Bank, for a little boy trying to combat leukemia. She stated he is in need of AB-negative blood, but any blood donated will be donated under his name, which is Dixon Cherin; and she hopes the community will come out. She stated anyone having further questions may call her office.

STATUS REPORT, RE: MOSQUITO CONTROL

Commissioner Colon stated there has been information coming through the office on things people can do to protect themselves from mosquitoes; and she would like a status report on mosquito control.

Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer stated West Nile virus is in Florida; the County monitors for the presence of the virus with sentinel chickens, which are located throughout the County; and they look for any presence of the virus through those chickens. He stated some of the chickens have shown signs of the virus; but as of this moment, there are no human cases in the County. He stated it is important for the public to know there is no amount of mosquito control from the County's part that can completely protect the public, and it is necessary for individuals to take precautions for themselves. He recommended limiting activity during the hours of dawn and the evening hours when mosquitoes are most active, using mosquito repellant that contain Deet, and being sensible in protecting children. He stated the Brevard County website outlines those things that individuals should do to protect themselves, such as making sure there is no standing water around properties.

Commissioner Colon inquired if this information goes out to Parks and Recreation and the School Board because there are games that are being played at night; and inquired if the Little Leagues and schools are taking this issue seriously. Mr. Peffer stated he does not believe there is a major concern at this time; they rely on the Health Department and Dr. Heshmati to provide guidance; and there is no alert at this time, but just caution. He stated when sentinel chickens show signs of the West Nile virus, Mosquito Control intensifies spraying in those areas; and at this time all Mosquito Control employees are at work full-time, with no one on leave. He stated it is important for the public to understand there are things they can do for themselves.

Commissioner O'Brien advised of alternate methods of mosquito control.

RESOLUTION, RE: RECOGNIZING NATIONAL HOMELESS ANIMALS' DAY

Commissioner Colon stated the Board adopted a Resolution at the last meeting for Animal Guardians, but they were unable to attend; and read aloud the Resolution.

A representative of Animal Guardians expressed appreciation for the Resolution; and advised of donations and work for animals. Commissioner Colon stated when the County took over the adoption center, it challenged the volunteers; and the volunteers have stepped up to the plate; and expressed appreciation to the citizens of the community.

Commissioner Colon read aloud a resolution proclaiming August 17, 2002 as National Homeless Animals' Day in Brevard County, and encouraging citizens to support the event.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution proclaiming August 17, 2002 as National Homeless Animals' Day in Brevard County, and encouraging citizens to support the event. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Colon presented the Resolutions to representatives of the Animal Guardians.

RESOLUTION, RE: COMMENDING EAGLE SCOUT JOHN DeCOURSEY

Commissioner O'Brien read aloud a resolution commending John DeCoursey for attaining the rank of Eagle Scout.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt Resolution commending John DeCoursey for attaining the rank of Eagle Scout. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O'Brien presented the Resolution to Mr. DeCoursey; stated only 2.5% of scouts make Eagle Scout; and requested Mr. DeCoursey tell the audience what scouting is all about. Mr. DeCoursey stated the most important badges he has earned include Citizenship in the Nation, Citizenship in the Community, Citizenship in the World, Family Life, and Communications; and elaborated on the meaning of each.

RESOLUTION, RE: HONORING SPECIAL GATHERING

Commissioner Carlson read aloud a resolution commending The Special Gathering and its founding members for 20 years of dedicated service to mentally challenged citizens of the County.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt Resolution recognizing and commending The Special Gathering, Reverend Richard Stimson, Nancy Stimson, and Bill Stimson for 20 years of dedicated service to the citizens of Brevard County and an outstanding record of advocacy for the mentally challenged. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Carlson presented the Resolution to a representative of The Special Gathering, who expressed appreciation to the Board.

RESOLUTION, RE: COMMENDING FIREFIGHTERS FOR HELPING OSCEOLA COUNTY

Commissioner Carlson stated Osceola County had a tragic loss of two firefighters; and she would like to commend those Brevard County firefighters who helped Osceola County. She read aloud the resolution commending the firefighters who helped Osceola County.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt Resolution commending and expressing sincere appreciation to Brevard County Fire Rescue personnel who volunteered their time and efforts to insure a continuance of emergency services to the citizens of Osceola County during the funerals of Lieutenant John Mikel and Firefighter/EMT Dallas Begg, who lost their lives in the line of duty. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Carlson presented the Resolution to Fire Rescue Chief Bill Farmer and the group of firefighters. Chief Farmer expressed appreciation to the Board and the County Manager's Office for allowing them to use the resources for this purpose, and to those who gave up their time and effort to staff the Osceola County engines and rescue units at no cost to that County; and stated he is proud to be a part of this organization.

RESOLUTION, RE: COMMENDING JOAN ALLISON

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt a Resolution recognizing and commending Joan Allison for 50 years of dedication to accommodate Brevard County residents, visitors, and tourists as the operator of Beach Rentals. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O'Brien stated Ms. Allison has met many exciting people and was there to watch the original astronauts drive down the beach. He stated Ms. Allison met John Glenn and a few others over the years; with Ms. Allison advising she also met Walter Cronkite. Commissioner O'Brien commented on the evolution of surfboards from long boards to short boards and back to long. Commissioner O'Brien presented the Resolution to Ms. Allison. Ms. Allison expressed appreciation to the Board and to all here employees.

AMENDED AGREEMENT WITH TOWN OF INDIALANTIC, RE: TRANSPORTATION IMPACT
FEE DISBURSEMENT

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Third Amendment to the Transportation Impact Fee Trust Fund Disbursement Agreement with the
Town of Indialantic expanding the scope of its construction project without an increase in the project funding. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF RENEWAL, RE: POLICY BCC-40, WAIVER OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APPLICATION FEES

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to reaffirm Policy BCC-40, Waiver of Board of Adjustment Application Fees, which allows for administrative waiver of the fees under certain circumstances. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF ORDINANCES #2002-43 AND #2002-44 FROM CITY OF
PALM BAY, RE: ANNEXATIONS

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to acknowledge receipt of Ordinances #2002-43 and #2002-44 from the City of Palm Bay, annexing approximately 11.4 acres, of which 9.4 acres are located along the east edge of Babcock Street at the intersection with Waco Boulevard, and 2 acres at the northwest corner of the intersection of Palm Bay and Minton Roads. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FINAL ENGINEERING APPROVAL AND CONTRACT WITH OAK GROVE DEVELOPMENT
GROUP, RE: FLORIDA AVENUE

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to grant final engineering approval for Florida Avenue, subject to minor changes if applicable; and execute Contract with Oak Grove Development Group guaranteeing improvements to Florida Avenue. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND CONTRACT WITH THE VIERA COMPANY, RE: SUMMER
LAKES SUBDIVISION, PHASE 1

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to grant final plat approval for Summer Lakes Subdivision, Phase 1, subject to minor changes if necessary, receipt of all documents required for recording, and developer responsible for obtaining appropriate jurisdictional permits; and execute a Contract with The Viera Company guaranteeing infrastructure improvements for the Subdivision. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND CONTRACT WITH THE VIERA COMPANY, RE: VIERA
TRACT L, PHASE 2, UNIT 6

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to grant final plat approval for Viera Tract L, Phase 2, Unit 6, subject to minor changes if necessary, receipt of all documents required for recording, and developer responsible for obtaining appropriate jurisdictional permits; and execute Contract with The Viera Company guaranteeing infrastructure improvements in the development. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND CONTRACT WITH THE VIERA COMPANY, RE: AUBURN
LAKES SUBDIVISION, PHASE 1

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to grant final plat approval for Auburn Lakes Subdivision, Phase 1, subject to minor changes if necessary, receipt of all documents required for recording, and developer responsible for obtaining appropriate jurisdictional permits; and execute Contract with The Viera Company guaranteeing infrastructure improvements in the development. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

UNPAVED ROAD AGREEMENT WITH ROY V. SMITH, III, RE: TREY SMITH PROJECT

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Unpaved Road Agreement with Roy V. Smith, III for construction of an unnamed road (the Trey Smith Project.) Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF REQUEST FOR REDUCTION OF FINE AND RELEASE OF CODE
ENFORCEMENT LIENS, RE: 4775 LAKE MICHIGAN AVENUE, COCOA

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve the Special Master's recommendation to reduce the accrued fined for Case #96-2310 from $1,775 to Code Enforcement costs of $380, and Case #97-1193 from $8,603 to $471 on property located at 4775 Lake Michigan Avenue in Cocoa; and direct staff to prepare and execute release and satisfaction of liens upon receipt of payment. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF AMENDED POLICY BCC-39, RE: WAIVER OF FEES FOR
NOT-FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS FOR SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve revised Policy BCC-39, Waiver of Fees for Not-for-Profit Organizations for special event permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF PROJECT MODIFICATION TO FLORIDA INLAND NAVIGATION DISTRICT
GRANT, RE: INSTALLATION OF NAVIGATIONAL AIDS IN KIWANIS BASIN

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve a project modification to the Florida Inland Navigation District (FIND) grant and any necessary budget changes for permitting and installation of navigational aids in the Kiwanis Island Basin north of SR 520 to Sykes Creek Bridge; and authorize the Public Works Director, as Project Liaison, to proceed with permitting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

SPEED HUMP REQUEST, RE: SKYLINE BOULEVARD AND LEWIS CARROLL AVENUE

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve installation of speed humps on Skyline Boulevard and Lewis Carroll Avenue on Merritt Island. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

SPEED HUMP REQUEST, RE: TWO OAKS BOULEVARD

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve installation of speed humps on Two Oaks Boulevard on Merritt Island. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZE ENHANCEMENT OF ROADWAY AND DITCH MAINTENANCE, RE: CERTAIN
ROADS IN WEST CANAVERAL GROVES

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize the Public Works Director to enhance the maintenance of ditches along Satellite Boulevard, from SR 520 north to Cherven Road, to include 50 feet around intersecting streets and to begin maintaining the roads/ditches along Cherven Road, Maggie Drive, and Palmetto Avenue, east of Satellite Boulevard in West Canaveral Groves. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF REVISED POLICY BCC-77, RE: VACATING PUBLIC ACCESS TO
WATERFRONT PROPERTY, AND POLICY BCC-81, VACATING COUNTY ROADS,
RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND EASEMENTS

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve revised Policy BCC-77, vacating public access to waterfront property, and Policy BCC-81, vacating County roads, rights-of-way, and easements. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CONTRACT WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, AND
PERMISSION TO BID AND AWARD BID, RE: SARNO LAKES WATERSHED GRANT
AND PROJECT

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Contract No. WM830 with Florida Department of Environmental Protection for $300,000 to partially fund the Sarno Lakes Watershed Phase I Project in Districts 4 and 5; and authorize staff to bid the project and award the bid to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CONTRACT WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND
PERMISSION TO BID AND AWARD BID, RE: INDIAN TRAIL WATER QUALITY
ENHANCEMENT GRANT AND PROJECT

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Contract No. WM842 with Florida Department of Environmental Protection for $264,000 to partially fund the Indian Trail Water Quality Enhancement project in District 1; and authorize staff to bid the project and award the bid to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: CULTURAL EVENTS MATCHING GRANTS

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve the Tourist Development Council Cultural Events Category grants for Brevard Symphony Orchestra at $7,500; Space Coast Pops at $5,000; E.A.R.T.H. Awareness at $1,500; Melbourne Art Festival at $9,000; Brevard Nature Alliance at $1,500; Brevard Historical Commission at $1,500; The Henegar Center at $10,000; Brevard Museum of History at $10,000; Space Coast Art Festival at $10,000; and Valiant Air Command at $10,000 for a total of $66,000. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF CONTRACTS WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND
GRANT-FUNDED POSITION, RE: TITLE V BIGS IN SCHOOL MENTORING AND
CLASSROOM-BASED EARLY INTERVENTION AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS AT
SHERWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize the Chairman to execute Contracts with the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice associated with Title V grants for Bigs in School Mentoring and Classroom-based Early Intervention and Prevention Programs at Sherwood Elementary School; and approve a grant-funded position to support the Title V grant awards. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: AMENDMENT TO 2000-05 CONSOLIDATED PLAN SECTION 7.15.4.1,
PRE-AWARD FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve amendment to the 2000-05 Consolidated Plan, Section 7.15.4.1, Long-term and Short-term Objectives, to include the use of the pre-award process in funding of public facilities and improvement projects. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: BREVARD COUNTY HOME CONSORTIUM CONSOLIDATED ACTION
PLAN, CERTIFICATES, AND AGREEMENTS

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve the HOME Consortium Action Plan; authorize the Chairman to execute the required Certificates and SF-424 Applications for Federal Assistance Forms; authorize staff to submit the Consolidated Action Plan to HUD before the deadline of August 16, 2002; and authorize the County Manager or his designee to execute the CDBG and HOME Program Grant Agreements upon receipt from HUD, Disbursement Agreements with four cities, and contractual agreements identified in the Consolidated Action Plan as approved by the Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: 2002-03 COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY PLAN, AGREEMENT WITH
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, AMENDMENTS, AND BUDGET
CHANGE REQUESTS

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve the FY 2002-2003 Community Action Agency Plan; execute an Agreement with Florida Department of Community Affairs for $116,837; approve cash match of $2,337; approve Budget Change Requests as needed; and authorize the Chairman to execute future amendments to the Agreement upon approval by the County Attorney and Risk Management. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS, AWARD BID AND EXECUTE CONTRACT, RE:
RENOVATION OF BOARDWALK AT ERNA NIXON PARK

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to grant permission to advertise for formal bids and award bids to the most responsive bidder; and authorize the Chairman to execute the Contract for renovation of the boardwalk at Erna Nixon park. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AMENDMENT TO OPTION AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH
NEIL SCHOPKE AND TONY BARGE, AND THE NATURE CONSERVANCY,
RE: SCHOPKE/BARGE PROPERTY

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute First Amendment to the Option Agreement for Sale and Purchase with Neil Schopke and Tony Barge, and the Nature Conservancy, for 6.53± acres in the Florida Forever Brevard Coastal Scrub Ecosystem Project in Rockledge, extending the option expiration date until September 30, 2002. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

WRITTEN NOTIFICATION OF CONTRACT RENEWAL WITH WUESTHOFF REFERENCE
LABORATORY, RE: TOXICOLOGY AND HISTOLOGY SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Written Notification of Contract Renewal with Wuesthoff Reference Laboratory to provide toxicology and histology services for the Medical Examiner. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF ERRORS AND INSOLVENCIES, RE: 2002 EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES ASSESSMENT

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve the errors and insolvencies to the FY 2001-02 Emergency Medical Services assessment in the amount of $14,005.04. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CONTRACT WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, RE:
TEN-YEAR COOPERATIVE AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL PROGRAM GRANT

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Contract with Florida Department of Environmental Protection and accept a ten-year cooperative aquatic plant control program grant. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AMENDMENT TO USE AGREEMENT WITH A. DUDA & SONS, INC. RE: USE OF
RECLAIMED WATER

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Amendment to Agreement with A. Duda & Sons redefining the areas and methods that the County may use to dispose of excess reclaimed water on A. Duda & Sons' property. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPOINTMENT OF NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE, RE: WATER AND WASTEWATER
TRANSMISSION SYSTEM CONTINUING CONSULTANT SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to appoint Richard Martens, F. T. Steiner, and Craig Helpling to the Negotiating Committee to negotiate contracts for water and wastewater continuing consulting services. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: COST OF ADMINISTRATION AND COLLECTION OF COUNTY
OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE FEES

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve the projected cost, as submitted by the Tax Collector, for administration and collection of County Occupational License Fees from August 1, 2002 through July 31, 2002, at $226,634. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF POLICY BCC-26, RE: ACQUISITION OF CONSULTANT PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve review of Policy BCC-26, Acquisition of Consultant Professional Services, and the recommendation to retain the Policy as currently written. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ISSUE, RE: ANNUAL SUPPLY BIDS, QUOTES, AND PROPOSALS FOR
FY 2003

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize Purchasing Services to perform the following actions concerning the Annual Procurement Commodity and Services List, as follows: (1) solicit competitive bids and quotes and award to lowest, responsive, and most qualified supplier; (2) solicit competitive proposal, establish selection committee, award proposals and negotiate a contract with the best-ranked proposal, and authorize execution of the Contract; (3) exercise renewal options stated upon evaluation of supplier performance and recommendation from user departments/offices; and (4) authorize the Chairman to execute Contracts over $35,000 in annual value. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ISSUE, RE: OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS EXCEEDING $35,000 TO
APPROVE VENDORS OF RECORD FOR FY 2003

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize Purchasing Services to use vendors of record as listed; issue blanket purchase orders; authorize the Chairman to execute Contracts exceeding $35,000 to those vendors; and approve competitive
action in the event of unforeseen changes to the approved vendors and/or cooperative purchasing program. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

UTILITY AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF PALM BAY, RE: SOUTH MAINLAND SERVICE
COMPLEX

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Utility Agreement with the City of Palm Bay to furnish water and accept sewage for treatment for the new South Mainland Service Complex. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL TO SUBMIT NOMINEES TO GOVERNOR, RE: CHILDREN'S SERVICES
COUNCIL

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize staff to submit nominees Jewel Collins, Anselmo Baldonado, Tomas Lares, Jerry Abrams, Leonard Missavage, and Bernice Jackson to the Governor for consideration to fill a position on the Children's Services Council. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CANCELLATION OF WORKSHOPS, RE: AUGUST 22, SEPTEMBER 19, AND
DECEMBER 12, 2002

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to cancel the workshops scheduled for August 22, September 19, and December 12, 2002. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH MEGA LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE CO., RE:
BREVARD COUNTY V. AETNA HEALTH, MEGA LIFE, AND EXCESS, INC.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve a negotiated settlement for Brevard County v. Aetna Health, MEGA Life and Excess, Inc.; and authorize the law firm of Walters, Levine, Brown, Klingensmith & Thomison, currently representing Brevard County as outside counsel in the subject claim, to proceed with the litigation of this claim against the remaining defendant, Aetna/US Healthcare. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

SETTLEMENT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIM, RE: GEORGE AMBROSE

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve the settlement of a Workers' Compensation claim of George Ambrose in the amount of $24,000 inclusive of attorney's fees and costs. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AWARD OF CONTRACT TO THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,
RE: VOLUNTARY GROUP TERM LIFE INSURANCE

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to award the contract for voluntary group term life insurance to The Prudential Insurance Company of America effective January 1, 2003; and authorize the Chairman to execute the Contract. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: DESIGNATING BREVARD JOB LINK ONE-STOP OPERATOR FOR
TARGETED SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt a Resolution designating TTI American as the targeted services core one-stop operator for the Brevard Job Link. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPOINTMENTS/REAPPOINTMENTS, RE: CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARDS

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to appoint Janis Walters to the Committee to Review Special Master Procedures, and R. Craig Rastello to the Titusville-Cocoa Airport Authority. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: BILLS AND BUDGET CHANGES

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

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

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS/WREN
CIRCLE SOUTH IN BAREFOOT BAY, UNIT 2, PART TEN - BAREFOOT BAY
PROPERTIES

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating public utility easements/Wren Circle South in Barefoot Bay, Unit 2, Part Ten as petitioned by Barefoot Bay Properties.

There being no objections, motion was made by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt Resolution vacating public utility easements/Wren Circle South in Barefoot Bay, Unit 2, Part Ten as petitioned by Barefoot Bay Properties. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING PUBLIC UTILITY
EASEMENTS/LOQUAT DRIVE IN BAREFOOT BAY, UNIT 1 - JACK E. AND
ELIZABETH L. HAWKINS

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating public utility easements/Loquat Drive in Barefoot Bay, Unit 1 as petitioned by Jack E. and Elizabeth L. Hawkins.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution vacating public utility easements/Loquat Drive in Barefoot Bay, Unit 1 as petitioned by Jack E. and Elizabeth L. Hawkins. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

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

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS AND ADOPTING
FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR TREASURE LANE ROAD PAVING MSBU

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider a resolution accepting improvements and adopting Final Assessment Roll for Treasure Lane Road Paving MSBU.

William Sambor stated he is the owner of property; a road was being paved four months ago on the side of his property; and tax assessments were made against ten individuals who had property on that road. He stated he did not have an opportunity to request an exemption to the tax assessment; and they sold the property on April 10, 2002 and did not realize a lien was put against his property until he was notified by his title company a week before the sale. He stated he called Mr. Vitale who told him the only alternative was to pay the lien, which was $4,200, and go to court or before the Board to contest; so, he paid the $4,200. He stated the property was sold; he was never notified for the eleven months prior to the selling date that he was going to be assessed on the back lot of his property; the property directly across from his property requested and received an exemption and did not pay any tax; but he had to pay the tax. He stated he was never notified in the year's time he was owner of the property that he was involved with the road project running along the east side of his property; his legal address is 3575 Grant Road, which is where his driveway is; and for eleven months trucks have been driving by, but nobody stopped to notify him that he was involved with the assessment.

Chairman Scarborough inquired if a person must be noticed before the County can tax. County Attorney Scott Knox responded he would receive the same notice everybody else does in terms of the property. Chairman Scarborough stated Mr. Sambor is saying he did not receive notice. Mr. Sambor stated the reason is two weeks before he bought the house in April 2001, the previous owner received a certified letter from the County and threw it away, but did not disclose that to him; and he was in the dark for eleven months. He stated he thought at some time someone in person or through the mail would have notified him that this was coming; but he was never notified of the lien. He stated he does not know when the lien was put on the property; but if he had known about it, he would have contested it last year. He stated he is trying to sell the house, and it came up that there is a tax lien. Mr. Knox stated given those facts, it sounds like the County did what it had to; the notice was given; it was just a matter of Mr. Sambor not receiving the notice which was delivered to the previous owner; and it probably should have been disclosed at closing. Mr. Sambor submitted paperwork and a map to the County Attorney; and stated everyone was charged the same amount, $4,200; the person across the street from his back lot was exempt, and did not pay; and his lot is just a vacant lot with no building or anything. Mr. Knox suggested looking deeper into this matter.

Public Works Finance Director Greg Pelham stated on the part of the lot being exempted across Treasure Lane from Mr. Sambor, there is a legal easement for access to the property from Grant Road; previously when that has been the case, the County has exempted them from the MSBU assessment, and required a covenant of non-deed restrictions to forbid them from accessing their property from Treasure Lane for a period of 20 years; and so the lot that was excluded cannot access the property from Treasure Lane for 20 years. Mr. Sambor stated if someone had driven down the road, they would have seen his three-tiered white vinyl 400-foot fence that goes from the front of his property on Grant Road along the adjoining back lot, and known the back lot is attached. Mr. Pelham stated legally there was no recorded easement at that time showing the property was being accessed from Grant Road.

Commissioner Higgs inquired are these all in a standard Dirt Road Agreement that people who own property on this road or who built a house there agreed to when they built their homes; with Mr. Pelham responding yes. Commissioner Higgs requested Mr. Pelham explain. Mr. Pelham stated the Dirt Road Paving Ordinance of the County requires that when a building permit is pulled for a house on a dirt road, the individual must sign an agreement that once 51% of the building permits have been pulled, he or she will enter into an MSBU for the paving of the road and will participate in it.

Mr. Sambor stated if he had been notified within the last year, he would have signed it and been exempt; but he was never notified.

Commissioner Higgs requested Mr. Pelham respond. Mr. Pelham stated when the MSBU project was started, the previous owner was the owner of record; all notifications were sent to that owner; the date that Mr. Sambor purchased the property was the day before the Board adopted the Preliminary Assessment and liens were placed on the property; Mr. Sambor's ownership was not recorded until several days later; so, when notifications were mailed of the liens, he was not listed as the owner of record in the Property Appraiser's files.

Mr. Sambor stated he was the owner of record for eleven months; during that eleven months, trucks were driving by; and if he had any idea he was going to be assessed, he would have contacted Mr. Vitale before now to get this straightened out.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if Mr. Sambor did not ask anyone who was working next to his home; with Mr. Sambor responding he asked a couple of people as they were going by, inquiring whether he was involved. He stated he waved to them; they waved to him; but nobody stopped and said anything. He stated the driveway to his house goes to Grant Road to the north; and the paving was done on the side road, which is Treasure Lane. He stated there are nine or ten other houses on Treasure Lane that were assessed; he can understand that because they have to have access to their houses via that road; but he has no reason to have access to that road. Commissioner Higgs stated Mr. Sambor has a lot on Treasure Lane. Mr. Sambor stated the lot is the back of his house.

Commissioner O'Brien stated Leonard Spielvogel is present; and suggested asking him; with Chairman Scarborough responding the Board cannot do that. Commissioner O'Brien stated it sounds like the previous owner did not reveal to Mr. Sambor that he signed off on the MSBU; that is a revelation he should have made upon sale, but did not. Mr. Sambor stated the previous owner is out of the country so he cannot contact him easily. He stated if he had just been notified in the last eleven months, he would have reacted to this and requested exemption. He inquired if he had made that request would he have gotten the exemption. Mr. Pelham responded if Mr. Sambor had requested exemption at that time, staff would have brought it to the Board to consider. Chairman Scarborough inquired would there have been legitimate grounds for the Board to grant it; with Mr. Pelham responding at that time there was no legal easement from Grant Road to access the property, so that would have been something for the Board to consider. Chairman Scarborough stated Commissioner Higgs said there is a lot that is buildable with access from the improved road; and inquired if he would have had to relinquish rights to build on that lot. Commissioner Higgs responded yes, the ones that got an exemption relinquished all building rights. Mr. Sambor stated he would have relinquished that right if he had the choice. Mr. Pelham advised it is not relinquishing the building right; it is relinquishing the right to access the property from Treasure Lane; so he would not have been able to put in a driveway going from Treasure Lane to the house. Commissioner Higgs stated they would have been unable to build if they were going to access it from Treasure Lane; and inquired what the property owners who got the exemption agreed; with Mr. Pelham responding they agreed to not access their property or subdivide the property where it could be accessed from Treasure Lane for a period of 20 years. Mr. Sambor reiterated if he had known, he would have done that. Commissioner Higgs inquired if there is a problem tabling this to the next meeting; with Mr. Pelham responding no.

Commissioner Higgs stated it might be useful to the Board to have a memorandum so that all the facts are in order; this is a standard MSBU proposal; when people build on a dirt road, they agree to these criteria in terms of an assessment for the paving; the owner of record at the time was notified; and Mr. Pelham has provided a thorough chronology that was sent out yesterday. She recommended tabling the item until August 27, 2002.

Mr. Sambor stated he knows it is complicated, so wants to have time for the explanation. Chairman Scarborough recommended Mr. Sambor save his comments for the next meeting.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to continue the public hearing to consider a resolution accepting improvements and adopting final assessment roll for Treasure Lane Road Paving MSBU to the August 27, 2002 meeting.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the previous owner was notified. Mr. Sambor stated if he had been notified in the eleven months, he would have contested. Commissioner O'Brien advised the County was not required to notify Mr. Sambor as it notified the property owner of record; and that owner did not reveal that to Mr. Sambor. Commissioner Higgs stated that is a good point; but the Board needs to look at all the facts.

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

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING DIVISION 4, CHAPTER 2, UNIFORM
ADVISORY BOARD

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Division 4, Chapter 2, Uniform Advisory Board.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt an Ordinance amending Division Four, "Uniform Advisory Board", of Chapter Two, "Administration," of the Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida by creating a new Section 2-213 providing for open meetings, public comment and agendas; establishing sanctions for failure to allow public comment; providing a severability clause; and providing an effective date. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE RESCINDING SELECT COMPANY ABATEMENTS

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance rescinding select company abatements.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt an Ordinance repealing Ordinances granting certain ad valorem tax exemptions for failure to continue to meet the criteria for such exemptions; repealing Ordinance 99-42 relating to the economic development ad valorem exemption granted Terion, Inc., 420 North Wickham Road, Melbourne, Florida; releasing Ordinance 00-44 relating to the economic development ad valorem exemption granted to Ecircuit, Inc., 100 N. Babcock Street, Melbourne, Florida; repealing Ordinance 01-08 relating to the economic development ad valorem exemption granted to WorldTravel Partners, 166 Center Street, Cape Canaveral, Florida; repealing Ordinance 98-47 relating to the economic development ad valorem exemption granted to GE Harris Railway Electronics, 1990 W. Nasa Boulevard, Melbourne, Florida; repealing Ordinance 01-10 relating to the economic development ad valorem exemption granted GE Harris Energy Control Systems, 655 Nasa Boulevard, Melbourne, Florida; repealing Ordinance 96-52 relating to the economic development ad valorem exemption granted to Marshall Manufacturing Corporation, 200 Imperial Boulevard, Cape Canaveral, Florida; repealing Ordinance 97-04 relating to the economic development ad valorem exemption granted Hydro Aluminum Rockledge, Inc., 100 Gus Hipp Boulevard, Rockledge, Florida; repealing Ordinance 97-21 relating to the economic development ad valorem exemption granted MSI of Central Florida Inc., 345 East Drive, Melbourne, Florida; repealing Ordinance 97-37 relating to the economic development ad valorem exemption granted to Braid Sales & Marketing, Inc., 320 North Drive, Melbourne, Florida; repealing Ordinance 00-25 relating to the economic development ad valorem exemption granted to Mid-Florida Steel Corporation, 870 Cidco Road, Cocoa, Florida; repealing Ordinance 01-24 relating to the economic development ad valorem exemption granted to Optical Process Automation, Inc., 525 John Rodes Boulevard, Melbourne, Florida; repealing Ordinance 00-48 relating to the economic development ad valorem exemption granted to Tantivy Communications, 1396 Babcock Street, Melbourne, Florida and providing an effective date. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he knows Harmon Electronics closed over a year ago; and inquired if this goes backward, or is it just effective today. Economic and Financial Programs Director Greg Lugar advised the company is still in existence; but Harris is no longer part of the company; and they cut back considerably in their employment numbers. He advised GE Energy Controls, instead of building at the place where the abatement was being provided, moved into the building on Nasa Boulevard. Commissioner O'Brien stated they closed the building down and auctioned off everything in the building.

The meeting recessed at 9:55 a.m. and reconvened at 10:08 a.m.

DISCUSSION, RE: ST. ANDREWS BOULEVARD

Commissioner Carlson stated the agenda item before the Board today is the final engineering approval and preliminary plat approval, Phase 1 and discussion about St. Andrews Boulevard and its connection to the Pineda Extension. She stated St. Andrews Boulevard will be addressed first; starting in May 2000, there was the first public meeting on the idea of connecting St. Andrews Boulevard to the Pineda; since then there have been approximately ten separate meetings; and at times it has been a very emotional issue. She stated the people in Suntree have been concerned that if the connection is done before the connection of Pineda to I-95, there will be a lot of traffic; so not only was it an emotional issue, but the community has worked hard to try to come to some resolution. She stated the Suntree Master Homeowners Association has worked diligently along with the Citizens for Responsible Growth; they put the case together and brought it to the Board; it has been impacted by that; and the Board can come to a resolution today that will please everybody.

Steve Sherbin, resident of West Melbourne and former resident of Suntree, stated he reviewed the tapes from the last meeting; he wants to clarify this is not an anti-development group; and he had that conversation yesterday with the Homebuilders and Contractors Association. He stated the group is trying to protect their homes, their neighborhood, and the quality of life they bought into; he understands Comprehensive Plans have been filed; but they are living documents. He stated there is nothing to prevent the developer from connecting to the Pineda Extension without the terminus of St. Andrews Boulevard being extended; and voiced support for the residents, the Suntree Master Homeowners, and Citizens for Responsible Growth, who put together a compelling argument.

Mike Haridopolos stated he sent out letters last week; he lives in Suntree; and he bought his house there in 1995 because of the unique way of life in Suntree. He expressed support for the Suntree Homeowners Association; stated he has been impressed by the way the Association has been willing to work with the people, as has the Board; and he appreciates that. He requested the Board hear the concerns of the people and understand the unique way of life in Suntree; and stated he applauds the efforts of those getting involved in their community. He stated this is a local decision; and there should be a local decision; but if he can be of assistance on the State level, he would be happy to help with beautification grants and other things. He requested the Board help preserve the way of life in Suntree; and stated he thinks the Board will find a fair solution for everyone.

Rob Johnson, representing Representative Bob Allen, stated Representative Allen supports the County in all legal options that would preserve the Suntree community; and he is convinced that preserving the community is best achieved by not connecting St. Andrews Boulevard to the Pineda Extension as an arterial road. He stated this is what Representative Allen will be pursuing when addressing any portion of this project dealing with the State and in working with the local Delegation to achieve what he feels is best for the citizens of Brevard County. He commented on the ongoing commitment to the MyRegion concept.

Mason Blake, representing A. Duda & Sons, stated he understands the sensitivity of the Suntree Homeowners Association and everybody present, but believes from a traffic standpoint in the long term, the ultimate connection is appropriate, and what they have bargained for in their donation agreement. He stated to the extent there is a delay in the connection, which is something the Board may decide, it is only fair that in terms of the DRI monitoring and modeling they be given credit for that road being there. He stated the Board may put up a roadblock and decide that is the best thing to do; but because they have made provision for the road, they should receive credit for it in the monitoring and modeling process.

Mark Cook expressed support for the Suntree Master Homeowners Association and Citizens for Responsible Growth; and stated it is inappropriate to link St. Andrews Boulevard to the Pineda Extension. He stated this is a residential community; and the character of the community should be maintained. He stated he hopes a final decision can be made today; and requested the Board look at the position of the SMHA, CFRG, and the residents.

Melissa Hoagland stated they have come before the Board on this issue for over two years; it is a matter of preserving and protecting the community; CFRG had a meeting on August 6 with 250 residents in attendance; and this is an issue of protecting the community. She stated Representative Bob Allen spoke at the community meeting concerning buying the concept of community, making an investment in community and depending on that, and living up to the concept of building community. She stated all Suntree wants to do is maintain the community; they are not opposed to growth; but they do believe in responsible managed growth that does not overload existing infrastructure or negatively impact existing communities. She requested the Board favorably consider the request today.

Steve McGeary, President of the Suntree Master Homeowners Association, stated he comes this morning regarding the request of July 9, which was: (1) St. Andrews Boulevard shall not be extended beyond its current terminus at the entrance of St. Andrews Isle; (2) Access to all additional development south of the current boundaries of Suntree shall be provided solely via the Pineda Extension; and (3) There shall be no consideration to connecting St. Andrews Boulevard to the Pineda Extension prior to the completion of an interchange at I-95 to the Pineda Extension. He stated yesterday morning the SMHA Board met again and moved unanimously to proceed with today's agenda and request that it be considered and acted upon by the Commission without further delay. He clarified their position concerning the future connection is that there shall be no consideration of connecting St. Andrews Boulevard to the Pineda Extension prior to the completion of an interchange at I-95 to the Pineda Extension; but it was their intent to convey in this statement not that they support a St. Andrews Boulevard connection when the interchange is built, but that they oppose even considering such a connection prior to that time; and at a town meeting last Tuesday, attended by over 250 Suntree residents, there was a strong desire not to have such a connection. He expressed appreciation to the people who have worked hard on this issue, to all Suntree residents who have packed the Board room on several occasions to support the cause, and to Representative Mike Haridopolos, Steve Sherbin, Representative Bob Allen, and candidate Mark Cook for their support to the cause. He stated Suntree is a great community; he is proud to be its representative; and thanked the Board for hearing their case. He requested the Board support the District 4 Commissioner Sue Carlson and vote to protect the quality of life in the community.

Jack Kirschenbaum, representing the Sawgrass developers, stated he has been before the Board countless times on this issue; he was just handed a copy of a memorandum from the County Attorney; and he strongly disagrees and believes would agree with him that if the County terminates the access to the northern portion of his client's property, that will constitute inverse condemnation and the damage will be immense. He urged the Board not to interrupt, vacate, block, barricade, or terminate the northern access to his client's property; and stated he strongly believes that is the only present legal access to the property, and that the taking of it would constitute an inverse condemnation. He stated they have been working on these projects for almost a year; the access has always been the access that has been contemplated for this property; and urged the Board not to take any action that would impair the access.

Anne Salemmo, member of the SMHA's Ad Hoc Committee on St. Andrews Boulevard, stated she has been asked to summarize the report by Planning Research Associates, which was presented to the Board on July 9 by Thomas Grimms; and Mr. Grimms' report is contained in the binders presented for the record on July 9, 2002. She stated projected traffic from buildout of currently approved development already exceeds by 1,893 trips per day the 5,000 vehicle trips recommended for residential roads in land planning reference materials; therefore, any additional traffic permitted onto St. Andrews Boulevard, other than traffic from existing subdivisions, should be strictly limited or not allowed for safety reasons. She stated to accomplish this, Planning Research Associates recommends no extension of St. Andrews Boulevard beyond its current terminus, with access to all future additional development south of Suntree to be provided solely by the Pineda Extension; the connection of St. Andrews Boulevard as a through-road from Wickham Road to the Pineda Extension should not be considered by the County at this time as it would place an overwhelming traffic burden on the existing Suntree community; and using St. Andrews Boulevard as a major connector road, for which it was not designed, will cause increased trip times, create unsafe traffic conditions, impede emergency vehicle access and increase emergency response times, and will create additional noise within the development. She stated upgrading St. Andrews Boulevard will be very disruptive, especially if it is done after an interconnection is done at Pineda and additional development is allowed to connect to St. Andrews Boulevard; and widening of St. Andrews Boulevard would impose additional inconveniences, traffic delays, and safety concerns for residents, and will likely impact property values in the Suntree community. She stated accidents can also be expected to go up significantly; and in the report, Planning Research Associates recommends the County decline any consideration of connection of St. Andrews Boulevard to the Pineda Extension at this time. She stated on a personal note, she first stood before the Board over 28 months ago expressing her concern over the negative impacts to the community posed by the traffic from development of land on Suntree's southern borders; and she asked then, and asks now for the Board to protect the Suntree community and its quality of life. She stated at the July 10, 2002 Board meeting, the applicant's prior attorney stated whether or not St. Andrews Boulevard is extended and whether it ever connects to the Pineda Extension lays squarely within the Board's discretion, and is a decision for the Board to make. She stated the Board has the power to protect the quality of life for the 4,000 Suntree families; and requested the Board approve the SMHA's three-part request.

Brian Dittenhafer, member of the Board of the Suntree Country Club, stated he is present to reiterate the safety concerns of the Suntree community; and the Board has a copy of his memorandum in the briefing book presented at the last meeting when this item was on the Agenda. He stated the Suntree Country Club Board of Directors strongly supports the position of the SMHA on the extension of St. Andrews Boulevard because of safety concerns, particularly for the golfers of Suntree. He stated the Suntree Country Club is an integral part of the community; last year 326,000 times a golf cart was legally on the streets of Suntree; currently built and already approved home construction will fill the roads to capacity; and allowing extension of St. Andrews Boulevard south of its current terminus will double the expected traffic volume and exceed safe capacity by 100%. He stated another safety issue is the presence of Suntree Elementary School; 1,200 children travel to and from that school on the Suntree streets, and at least 400 walk or ride their bikes to school; middle and high school students congregate on St. Andrews Boulevard and Interlachen Road while waiting for buses in the morning; there are ten bus stops on the two streets alone; and everyone knows how attentive teenagers are to their own personal safety when they are interacting with their friends. He stated for the safety of Suntree residents, particularly the golfers of Suntree, it is imperative that the Board take action to insure that no traffic volumes are added to Suntree streets beyond those lots already approved until the connection of the Pineda Extension with I-95.

Attorney Scott Price, representing the Suntree Master Homeowners Association, stated today and in previous meetings, the Board heard the residents of Suntree give practical and political reasons to provide access to the Sawgrass South development via the Pineda Extension and not via St. Andrews Boulevard; the Board also heard from the developer's attorney that taking that action would violate the developer's property rights; the developer's attorneys have been throwing around legal phrases like equitable estoppel and inverse condemnation in order to convince the Board that it is not free to consider the Suntree residents' request to limit further traffic impacts to the community; and his purpose today is to prod the Board with the legal opinion that the Board can decide that access to Sawgrass will be via the Pineda Extension only, and that the Board can decide that St. Andrews Boulevard will not be extended southward without violating the developer's property rights. He stated the decision before the Board today is legislative in nature; it is not a quasi-judicial decision like rezoning which requires the Board to follow strict procedures and apply existing Ordinances; but because the decision is legislative the law allows the Board great discretion in making its decision; and as such, the Board's preference as to how traffic should be directed in this area is adequate grounds to sustain its decision in this matter. He stated in order for the Board to inversely condemn the developer's property, it would have to deny the developer access to every public right-of-way serving its property; but refusing extension of St. Andrews Boulevard does not do that because the developer currently has two other options by which it may connect to a public right-of-way. He stated the developer currently has the ability to connect his property to the Pineda Extension by exercising his option to purchase Phase 3 of Sawgrass South, which abuts the current terminus of the Pineda Extension; pursuant to the Agreement with A. Duda & Sons dated March 5, 1996 and its amendment, the County has the ability to require donation of a parcel of land from the current terminus of the Pineda Extension to the current property boundary of the Sawgrass South development; by utilizing either of the options, the developer would be provided access to the public right-of-way; and while there is no guarantee the Board will not be sued by the developer, the Board should have confidence that the likely outcome of such a lawsuit would validate the Board's actions. He stated the County Attorney's memorandum of August 2, 2002 reaches the same conclusion, that the Board may act without creating a cause for action for inverse condemnation. Attorney Price stated in order to be successful in a claim of equitable estoppel, the developer would have to show that he relied on promises from the County that he could utilize St. Andrews Boulevard for public access instead of the Pineda Extension and that the developer's reliance has caused it significant damage. He stated the Board can use its own common sense to realize that access from the Pineda Extension will not affect the viability of the Sawgrass South development; the Grand Haven development is a perfect example of a viable successful development with public access coming via the Pineda Extension; and the County Attorney's memorandum also reaches the conclusion that the Board is not equitably estopped from conditioning access to the Sawgrass South development via the Pineda Extension. He stated the decision before the Board today is a legislative one; County Ordinance 86-103 acknowledges this and contemplates the Board will determine the location of a subdivision's access to a public right-of-way; the County is under no legal obligation with the developer or any other party to allow connection of St. Andrews Boulevard to the Sawgrass South development or to Pineda Extension; and the Board is free to make the decision it deems best for the developer and the 14,000 residents of Suntree.

Commissioner Colon inquired what are Mr. Knox's comments; with Mr. Knox responding since Mr. Price agrees with him, he will agree with Mr. Price.

Guy Hoagland stated he has nothing to add.

Commissioner Carlson stated the community is speaking together on this issue; and she will reiterate a couple of points in terms of her own personal position on the issue so the Board knows where she is coming from. She stated she has always supported the position of the Suntree Master Homeowners Association as official representative of the Suntree community; and she has looked to that group for guidance. She stated she agrees that access to any future development south of Suntree needs to come from the Pineda Extension; and she does not support the connection of the Pineda Extension to St. Andrews Boulevard unless it is supported by the SMHA. She inquired if the Sawgrass Land Development Company has access to its property from the Pineda Causeway Extension; with Mr. Knox responding in his opinion, they have the ability to provide that access even if they do not buy the property. Commissioner Carlson inquired is the access from the Pineda Causeway Extension, and if so, from what point on the Extension; with Mr. Knox responding that depends on where the Board decides to create the intersection; but if the current alignment as proposed is Estuary, that is available to them at this point. Commissioner Carlson stated that is really the only access point they have because that is the terminus of Pineda. Mr. Knox advised it could be anywhere along the Pineda based upon the Agreement; the Board can move that access point anywhere it wants to; but right now, that is where it is being proposed. Commissioner Carlson stated the point is the developer does have alternative access to his property; that is what the Board needs to know pertaining to the Agenda item and the alignment; and she would like to make a motion to establish the alignment of the future St. Andrews Boulevard so that it intersects the Pineda Causeway Extension across from Estuary Boulevard, that all future development south of Suntree be accessed solely from the Pineda Causeway Extension, that the current terminus of St. Andrews Boulevard be maintained as is, and that no consideration be given to a through connection of St. Andrews Boulevard to the Pineda Extension until there is an interchange on I-95 for the Pineda Extension.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to establish the alignment of future St. Andrews Boulevard so that it intersects the Pineda Causeway Extension across from Estuary Boulevard; approve all future development south of Suntree be accessed solely from the Pineda Causeway Extension; provide that the current terminus to St. Andrews Boulevard be maintained as is; and provide that no consideration will be given to connect St. Andrews Boulevard to Pineda Causeway Extension until there is an interchange at I-95 for the Pineda Causeway Extension. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Carlson expressed appreciation to everyone who has worked hard on this issue, including the Suntree Master Homeowners Association and the Citizens for Responsible Growth; stated she recommended they get all their evidence together, bring it to the Board, and present a good argument; and they did that. She stated that has made the decision much easier; and inquired about the status of the right-of-way vacation, which was a previous Agenda item, that has been worked at staff level. She stated the issue was the right-of-way along Interlachen and St. Andrews Boulevard; and her understanding is as long as the County can retain through easement access to utilities, that is a possibility. Mr. Knox responded if Commissioner Carlson is talking about vacating the right-of-way along the 100-foot right-of-way and reducing it to 50 feet, the vacation would be subject to whatever exists; and if FP&L has power lines in that right-of-way, it will have the right to continue having those lines there, and whatever vacation would be subject to that. County Manager Tom Jenkins stated the question was if the County could make the additional 50 feet available to the Homeowners Association, but still allow easement for utilities. Mr. Knox responded if the Board vacates the right-of-way, it goes to the abutting property owners; based on what he has seen, most of that is owned by the Homeowners Association; but there are some individual lots that back up to the right-of-way, and so would be the ones receiving that right-of-way. He stated the underlying fee simple title would go to the abutting property owners, but it would be subject to whatever rights the utility companies have with existing pipelines within the right-of-way, so there would be an easement there. Commissioner Carlson inquired if this can be brought back at the next meeting to decide whether or not it can be done; and stated she brings this up because a lot of people would be comfortable in the fact that if that is done, then they would know there would not be any four-laning. Mr. Knox stated he does not think there is anything that stops the Board from vacating the right-of-way; the Board asked for a report on the consequences of such an action; and the legal consequences are as he described. He stated staff is trying to work out some decision on what the consequences would be to the utility companies and where the utilities are. Commissioner Carlson stated the only consequences are the utilities would have to move if it was vacated; the Board is not interested in moving utilities; but it is interested in an easement to be sure those utilities can be maintained.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the County derives income from those rights-of-way, and would be losing that; quite a few years ago, there was a right-of-way near Patrick Air Force Base that the County sold; the County did not give it away, but made the people pay for it; and they had the choice of the County not vacating the property or they could purchase it. He stated for the Board to give away the rights-of-way to this extent is shortsighted; some place in the future there could be regional traffic problems that could require four-laning of this road; he does not think something that started out as good pre-planning should be pocketed because of political want-to-be's; and this is not the way he wants to go. He noted the Board talked about this once three months ago.

Commissioner Carlson stated the only reason she brought it up was to see if it was easy to do; and the Board can bring it back to have some resolution on it; but it would make the community more comfortable. She stated the motion that just passed made the community feel pretty good; but it would be nice to bring this issue back if it is not that complex. Mr. Knox stated the Board could vacate for road purposes and leave whatever other rights are there.

Commissioner Higgs stated this issue is not on the Agenda today, but she assumes the staff is working on the report; and to take this action would require surveys, legal descriptions, and those kinds of things. Mr. Knox stated all that would have to be worked out. Commissioner Higgs stated it is more complicated than just making a motion.

Commissioner Carlson stated that is what she wanted to know. Mr. Knox stated nothing would stop the Board from bringing back the order to direct staff to prepare the necessary paperwork to do that. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board would have a problem if she asked staff to do that; with Commissioner O'Brien responding he would, and the Board already talked about this once. Commissioner Carlson stated she can make a motion to bring it back, and Commissioner O'Brien can vote against it. Commissioner O'Brien stated the issue failed just six or seven weeks ago; now Commissioner Carlson is trying it again; and the Board has to realize in the future school buses will need a place to pull over so cars can get by, and that right-of-way will be needed. He advised it will also be needed for future public transportation; this should be left for the future; and he does not want to do this just to appease the Suntree-Viera Homeowners Association, which is all the Board would be doing.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board is going to get a report; that was the direction; and inquired what is the status of the report. Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca responded all of the utility companies have to locate all their lines; that is a substantial amount of work due to the amount of property this entails; and staff has requested this; but they knew it was going to take several months to do it. Commissioner Carlson stated that is fine; she just wanted to make sure it was not as easy as being able to vacate and have a utility easement on top of it; and inquired when the report will come back; with Ms. Busacca responding she would expect it be at least another 30 days.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 62, SECTION 62-1901,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 62, Section 62-1901, Conditional Use Permits.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 62, "Land Development Regulations," Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida; amending Section 62-1901 to reference 62-2271, Performance Standards; providing for conflicting provisions; providing for severability; providing for area encompassed; providing an effective date; and providing for inclusion in the Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 62, SECTION 62-2117(C),
STORAGE OF ROAD MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 62, Section 62-2117(C), Storage of Road Maintenance Equipment.

Jerry Wall stated he is pleased with what has been done to this point; the item before the Board is on storage of commercial equipment; and the Board has discussed this several times. He stated they live on dirt roads in Canaveral Groves; the dirt roads are private property and not maintained by the County; they need the ability to maintain the roads; and the Board and the LPA have agreed in the past that there is a need. He urged the Board to pass the ordinance.

Commissioner O'Brien stated within the ordinance there is nothing that says if the road becomes County-maintained or is paved, the equipment will have to be removed; there is nothing that says six months after a road is paved, the equipment must be sold, removed, or whatever; so although this says privately maintained upaved roads, it loses sight that in the future neighbors may say they do not want to live next door to someone with a bulldozer in the yard. He stated to make the ordinance effective in both ways, there should be a timetable such that after any road is paved, the people have to remove the equipment from their property; and inquired if that makes sense; with Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott responding yes. Mr. Scott stated the way it is written now, staff would be referring that to Code Enforcement; one thing the Board should consider in analyzing Commissioner O'Brien's proposal is whether or not the Board wants to make it that there are no privately maintained roads in Canaveral Groves; as the ordinance is written, in five or ten years, if the roads start being paved, there will still be a fairly extensive network of privately maintained roads; and inquired if the intent of the amendment is to have these phased out as Canaveral Groves is entirely paved down the line. Commissioner O'Brien stated the intention is that as roads become public rather than privately owned, people will have to dispense with bulldozers or whatever they are using to take care of the privately owned roads. Mr. Scott inquired if there would be no objection if someone who was still on a dirt road, maintained or retained the equipment to do the rest of the network; with Commissioner O'Brien responding as long as it is still privately maintained unpaved road.

Chairman Scarborough stated the language says equipment which is necessary to maintain a privately maintained road; that is the first criteria; and inquired if it would be satisfactory if the necessity is eliminated, that the property owner has six months to remove any equipment. Commissioner O'Brien stated that is exactly what he is looking for. Chairman Scarborough stated he thinks that is the intent, but this puts a timeframe on it. Commissioner O'Brien stated staff is under orders to stay to the letter of the Ordinances; there is no elasticity; and if the County paved the road on Monday, Code Enforcement could come on Tuesday to say the tractor has to go, which would not be fair. Chairman Scarborough stated that can be done when the motion is made.

Commissioner Higgs stated she has a concern; if she lived in the area and had commercial equipment, she could contend almost without anyone being able to defy her that she is maintaining private roads in the development; this is a huge area; and she could keep commercial equipment on her property while maintaining private roads as a commercial business. She stated there is no enforcement provision; so this is an ordinance that is almost unenforceable. She stated she is going to vote no; there is a better way to do this; this is not the way to do it; and this is giving Code Enforcement a Code that it cannot possibly enforce because of the way it is written.

Commissioner O'Brien suggested putting a time limit on it.

Commissioner Higgs stated the minute the ordinance is adopted, it is unenforceable because someone can avoid it by saying he is maintaining private roads; it is a bad idea; and she understands Commissioner O'Brien's concept about the time limit, but it is not going to work.

Chairman Scarborough stated there is the problem of people having to maintain these roads; they have to have equipment to maintain them; and inquired if not on their property, where would that equipment be stored. He stated this leads to multiple issues; and this may not be the only answer, but it does answer some questions fairly well.

Commissioner Higgs inquired how she defines the road she is able to maintain with her equipment, and if she lived on Missile Avenue, would she be able to maintain a road a mile away that she is paid to maintain. She stated that is what the ordinance says; she could almost understand if it said maintaining the road in front of her house because she would need a piece of equipment such as a tractor with a box blade to do that; but if she is going to maintain all the roads and be compensated for that, she would be running a commercial business, which is not the intent of the ordinance. She stated what the Board is trying to say is the road in front of a house can be maintained by the property owner's piece of equipment; but that is not what the ordinance says.

Chairman Scarborough inquired if that is necessarily bad; and stated if everybody was maintaining the piece in front of their home, then everybody would need a piece of equipment to do it; but if he bought a piece of equipment and his neighbors decided to compensate him in some small manner for what he was doing, it would accomplish the task without everybody having a piece of equipment. Commissioner Higgs stated she does not necessarily think that is bad either; it is a nice cooperative effort by people; but then it is a commercial business with a commercial piece of equipment, which should be maintained in a commercial atmosphere in the right kind of zoning. She stated it is a wonderful idea, but not on a GU or AU property.

Commissioner Carlson stated Code Enforcement can go out if there is a complaint to see if there is an occupational license, and if not, it is a Code violation against them. She stated that would solve the problem; having people take care of the road is a good idea; but she does not agree with the commercial aspect of it. She stated if they are putting heavy equipment on their property and should not be, if a neighbor complains, that is the only way Code Enforcement would know to react.

Commissioner Higgs stated as crafted, the ordinance before the Board does not do that, and there are too many loopholes that need some additional work.

Len Beckett stated he understands the concerns; but the reality of West Canaveral Groves is that many of the property owners out there would not be able to afford to have commercial equipment on their properties, and must rely on their neighbors who do have the equipment. He stated there are five individuals who regularly run a chain down Satellite Boulevard to keep it from washboarding between scheduled maintenance; and that also happens on every one of the side roads. He stated where there are several individuals taking care of their neighbors, he does not see that as a bad thing; and nobody is going to get rich by having the necessary equipment to maintain the roads in West Canaveral Groves. He stated he does not think anyone is going to start a business out there because most of the property would not be suitable for equipment storage as the equipment would sink. He stated the issue is the County has refused and does not want to maintain the roads out there; it has given back the easements to many of the property owners; and there are very few easements with the exception of Satellite Boulevard, Cherven Avenue, and Magee Drive. He stated if the County is not willing to spend money to maintain the roads and ditches on the side roads, someone has to; and that someone happens to be the homeowners. He stated they do not need the County telling them what to do or not allowing anyone out there to have the equipment to maintain the roads; if they cannot maintain it, they have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to have a company come in and maintain the roads; and it does not make any sense. He urged the Board to adopt the ordinance as written; and stated the ordinance clearly states "the equipment that is necessary to maintain unpaved roads or access easements, which is not otherwise used for offsite commercial purposes." He stated that is pretty clear; and if a road gets paved, the equipment is not allowed.

Commissioner Higgs inquired what does offsite mean; with Mr. Beckett responding off the private property. Commissioner Higgs stated if offsite means off the private property or off the parcel, that means Mr. Beckett cannot do what he is talking about doing cooperatively working with the neighbors. She stated in that case, a person would have to use the commercial equipment on his own site. Mr. Beckett stated that is what it says; it is not perfect; but the fact is they need to be able to have equipment. He suggested eliminating "offsite" and keeping "commercial purposes." He stated it says "offsite commercial purposes"; it does not specify offsite as off the property, meaning he is charging someone the commercial rate for the use of the equipment, and as such is operating a business; and he should be able to give his neighbor who happens to have a tractor $20 for gas. He recommended using common sense.

Commissioner Colon stated she will support the ordinance; and requested Mr. Wall come forward. She stated Commissioner Higgs has a legitimate concern; and requested Mr. Wall shed some light on the issue. Mr. Wall stated one of the aims of the Homeowners' Association is to foster community spirit; this is a rural area; and they wish to maintain the rural area, ecology, and environment as much as possible. He stated they are trying to maintain the roads; they realize it is their responsibility to maintain the private roads; but this all started with a Code Enforcement action concerning a tractor and a box blade. He stated a gentleman was told to get rid of his tractor; he had a tractor and a bushhog along with implements for the tractor such as a box blade; and he was using them on his rural property. He stated the properties are zoned GU, AU, AGR, ARR, and PA; he was using the equipment on his property and also to maintain the road that he needs to get to and from his property; but he was told to get rid of the tractor and bushhog, and get a lawn mower like everyone else. He stated this is not practical; and the gentleman was also told to get rid of the junk debris, which consisted, in part, of the box blades. He stated they want to get along with the County and with Code Enforcement; when they formed the Homeowners' Association, they asked the County what they could do to help; and they wanted to work harmoniously within and outside the community. He stated no one is trying to start a commercial business maintaining roads; and all they are asking for is the ability to have the equipment necessary to maintain the roads. He stated during the problem with Code Enforcement, he was told even if a piece of equipment was rented, it could not be kept on the property over night because that would be considered storage of equipment, which is prohibited. He stated what they are trying to do is arrive at a common sense answer to the dilemma to allow them to maintain the dirt roads.

Commissioner Higgs stated there were not easements in West Canaveral Groves that the County gave away; part of the problem in West Canaveral Groves was that there were never rights-of-way or public easements for roads; and that is the dilemma with roads, among other things. Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca advised that is correct, but at one time the Board was offered the right-of-way in West Canaveral Groves and did not accept it. Commissioner Higgs inquired when was that; with Ms. Busacca responding in the 1970's.

Commissioner Carlson stated she is comfortable with it; she was concerned if this was laid over the entire County, but there is a provision in Section 62-1334.5 that it only applies to West Canaveral Groves, and if another area should apply, then it could be included. She stated she supports the motion.

Chairman Scarborough stated Commissioner O'Brien asked that an additional sentence be added reflecting if the road is paved, then rights to store equipment terminate. Commissioner O'Brien stated it would be once it becomes a public road; with Commissioner Higgs advising it could be a paved private road. Chairman Scarborough suggested paved private road or public road be added to the motion; the moment the need ceases, it is intended that the storage should end; and Commissioner O'Brien suggested it be defined that after six months the equipment has to be off the property if there is a paved private or public maintained road in front of a parcel.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 62, "Land Development Regulations", Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida; amending Section 62-2117(c), relating to the storage of road maintenance equipment on private property; providing for conflicting provisions; providing for severability; providing for area encompassed; providing an effective date; and providing for inclusion in the Brevard County Code of Ordinances, as amended to provide that six months after a road is privately paved or publicly maintained in front of a parcel, equipment can no longer be stored on the parcel. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF VESTED RIGHTS FOR
SUB-TRACTS IN TRACT D, INDIAN BAY ESTATES
Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider a request for determination of vested rights for sub-tracts in Tract D, Indian Bay Estates.

Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott advised the item has been pulled from the Agenda. Chairman Scarborough stated two people have submitted speaker cards; with Mr. Scott responding they want to speak on the next item.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF VESTED RIGHTS BY GARY
DOVER

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider request for determination of vested rights by Gary Dover.

Robert Hart and Ken Orlowski advised they are in favor of the vested rights determination.

There being no further comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve request for vested rights determination to recognize the validity of a Conditional Use Permit, which was approved for four docks on one tract for property owners Dover, Orlowski, Hart and Wilhite. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF VESTED RIGHTS BY
LOYAL ORDER OF THE MOOSE

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider a request for determination of vested rights by Loyal Order of the Moose.

Attorney Leonard Spielvogel, representing the Merritt Island Moose Lodge, stated he appeared before the Board at a previous meeting; an issue came up that required research by the County Attorney dealing with issues of estoppel; he solicited memorandums from the attorneys who were participating; and he concurs with Mr. Knox's memorandum. He stated it is the law; and the result is that his client has authorized him to withdraw the request for vested rights. He stated the technicality was that the Health Department had been taken over by the State six months prior to instructing the Moose Lodge to put in a pump-out station; the provisions in the County Ordinances, which allow the Board to consider vested rights, speak about actions by the County; and since it was an action of the State, they do not come within the parameters of the Vested Rights Ordinance. He stated the Moose Lodge has been maintaining the 20 vehicles for 20 years since 1982 without Code Enforcement action or complaints; and requested the Board consider directing staff to bring back an analysis of legislative intent for the possibility of adding RV vehicles in an AU zone as an accessory use, either with conditions or a binding development plan. He stated they are prepared to limit the use for so long as they maintain the Moose Lodge at the current location, limit the number of units to the 20 for which they have pump-out stations in place, and do whatever is necessary to provide screening from adjacent properties.

Bill Jamir stated he owns the 25-acre parcel of land directly behind the Moose Lodge; it is a working citrus grove now; but he has always hoped in the future to divide the land, sell some lots, and build a home for himself as a neighbor has done to the south. He stated the neighbor has sold 20 acres in 2.5-acre plots, and they are starting to build quality homes there. He stated someone who is buying 2.5 acres to build a quality home is not going to want to see an RV park; it is not a nice looking park; no one would want it in their back yard; and it is not the right place for an RV park.

Commissioner O'Brien requested Mr. Spielvogel explain the alternative. Mr. Spielvogel stated there are existing accessory uses set forth in AU zoning presently; but there is not one for this particular private club and the use it is making of the AU property. He requested the Board ask staff to look at the legislative intent to see what the implications would be of permitting use of RV vehicles as an accessory use to a private club, so that it would be limited and with further conditions expressed either through a binding development plan providing if the Moose Lodge ceased to be there, the incidental use would go away, that there would be fencing to make it compatible with the neighbors, and limiting the area and number of units. He stated they are not trying to expand this; for years visiting members of Moose International have come with their vehicles; and there is no charge for their spending time there, but there is a limit on the amount of time they can stay. He stated they come to the area, participate in the area, and then move on; and those limits would all be set forth in a binding development plan. He stated beyond that mechanism, he defers to Mr. Scott; but there have been others who have come before and asked for these kinds of accessory uses. He stated it requires a Code amendment; but there would be limitations on it; so they are not talking about becoming an RV park. He stated there are those who ask why they do not go for rezoning; that would be setting a precedent they do not want; so this would be nothing more than an accessory use.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated what Mr. Spielvogel is asking for is an ordinance amendment and for the Board to ask staff to come back with the legislative intent.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to direct staff to come back with legislative intent for an ordinance to allow RV parking as an accessory use to a private club in an AU zoning classification.

Commissioner Higgs stated she is not ready for legislative intent, but would be interested in hearing a discussion; and advised in AU today, it is not possible to have RV park, which need RVP zoning. Chairman Scarborough inquired if Commissioner Higgs wants a report first. Commissioner Higgs stated this is a real leap of change; but she is willing to get a report.

Commissioner O'Brien stated in the case of alcohol, if a bar is not occupied for six months, the CUP is lifted, but there should be some other methdology of approaching this; and commented on Cape Canaveral's special use permits that go away if the Moose Lodge, for instance, ceased to be. Chairman Scarborough stated Commissioner Higgs has concerns.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to direct staff to provide a report and schedule discussion on the agenda concerning permitting the use of recreational vehicles in AU zoning as an accessory use to private club with a binding development plan, and what kind of ordinance amendment or policy is needed to venture into a special use permit situation where the County could issue a permit to a certain organization and if the organization ceased to be, the permit would be go away. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 11:17 a.m. and reconvened at 11:30 a.m.

ADVISORY STRAW BALLOT REFERENDUM REQUEST, RE: MERRITT ISLAND LIBRARY
TAX DISTRICT

Skippy Lober stated over 30 years ago she was a charter member of the Merritt Island Women's Club; with other community members, they worked successfully to establish a public library on Merritt Island; and she and her husband and late father-in-law were on the Merritt Island Library Board. She stated for almost a quarter of a century she taught English at Merritt Island High School; she and her students made frequent use of the library; and it was a excellent facility, which is even better today. She stated now that she is retired she uses the library for reference and personal reading; and recommended the facility remain in the hands of the Merritt Island residents.

Jim Mundhenk, representing the Merritt Island Executive Council, stated they did not realize this was coming up; and requested the Board table the issue until after the next Executive Council meeting on September 9, 2002, so they can get both sides of the picture. He stated so far there has only been one side of the picture which is that the residents love the library and have been supporting it since 1965; they have done a wonderful job, and would like to keep the library; but as they do not have the other side of the picture, they would appreciate the item being tabled.

Edward Fiannaca stated he opposes the straw ballot; the library belongs to the taxpayers of Merritt Island; they own the land, building, and most of its contents; it operates like a fine Swiss watch thanks to the Merritt Island Tax District Library Board; and there is no need to change a thing. He stated last year the Merritt Island Tax District Library Board requested the County start giving the library its fair share of the County library budget; and the County decided that if it did that, it could get rid of the Merritt Island Tax District Library Board and take control of the employees and ownership of the library. He stated this year the County, against the direction of the Merritt Island Tax District Library Board, decided to take control of the employees; he is upset at Commissioner O'Brien for not asking the taxpayers of Merritt Island what they would like to do; and if the taxpayers decide to transfer ownership of the property, it should first be appraised and the County pay the appraised value to the taxpayers who can decide what they want to do with the funds thereafter.

Joe Pessaro stated on April 30, 2002 he addressed the Board about the Merritt Island Tax District Library Board; at the time he thought the issue was about tax dollars; but after talking with many citizens of Merritt Island and other people in the County, he finds the issue is about control and ownership of the library. He stated he probably owes Commissioner O'Brien an apology because he said things at the last meeting that possibly he should not have said; they were all true to the best of his knowledge; but some were said for the wrong reasons. He reiterated he thought this was a tax issue; the Board has a legally binding Contract with the Merritt Island Tax District Library Board, which allows both the County and the Tax District Board to hire employees; but the County, without the consent of the Merritt Island Tax District Board, transferred seven employees to the County's payroll. He stated the employees were told in a meeting two years ago with Library Services Director Catherine Schweinsberg and Assistant County Attorney Shannon Wilson that if they were transferred, they would be given full tenure benefits; the County's only justification for this action is listed as to "to uniformly provide courteous and efficient service to the public"; and he does not know what that means as all library employees were always courteous to patrons and efficient. He stated he recently received information that the Tax District employees were put on probationary status just like new hires off the street; and they were told that if this transfer took place, no employees would be laid off, but one part-time employee was terminated and the position is not being refilled. He stated they were left with one part-time employee and a bookkeeper; in the past when employees have been transferred from the Library Board to the County, it has been under Contract with the County, Library Board, and Merritt Island Tax District Library Board; he recently learned the Merritt Island Tax District Library Board is supposed to be employing and discharging its Library Director, and this is not a function of the County Library Director. He stated the Tax District was created by Florida Statute 62.1289; the law states the Merritt Island Tax District Library Board shall be perpetual in its existence; the Contract with the County likewise states that it will be perpetual in its existence; so both the Legislature and the County Commission had the foresight to know the Tax District was a good thing for the citizens and its existence should be perpetual. He stated the Contract was signed in 1994 by then Commissioner Roger Dobson, and was amended in 1998; and requested the Board respect the wisdom of their former colleagues. He stated if the Board decides to have the straw ballot, it would appear to be the first, as apparently no other County Commission in the State has ever attempted to disband any State-owned corporation. He stated since his article in last weeks newspaper, he has received several phone calls; all have been favorable to keep the library; and some citizens are present today to support this effort. He stated many citizens have asked why the County would want to take over the Merritt Island Library; he told them he does not know; and the County Library Director said at one meeting that she was not sure why Commissioner O'Brien is doing this. He stated if Commissioner O'Brien feels strongly about abolishing the Merritt Island Tax District, he should go out and gather signatures; and requested Commissioner O'Brien withdraw his motion. He stated there are many items on the tax bills that are enhancements such as the Sheriff's Department's MSTU's, Tico Airport, and Parks and Recreation; the County has the authority to axe any one of those with the stroke of a pen, but it would be doing a disservice to the citizens of the County as all these taxes are necessary for the betterment of life in the community; and the Merritt Island Tax District Library Board and the citizens feel the same way about their Tax District. He stated Merritt Island has very little representation in the community; the citizens have to rely solely on the judgment of one elected official; the 140-page budget brief contains only one brief mention of the Merritt Island Library; and that is included with the $804,000 for additional library funding, and is labeled as equalization of Merritt Island. He stated the budget lists all sorts of items for new libraries, but not one dollar amount is shown for Merritt Island. He stated the program change justification indicates by doubling the fines on all library books throughout the County, it will be possible to raise the necessary $65,000 to pay for the next six months; he always thought this money was supposed to pay for extras for the library; but apparently now fines and fees are being used to pay for budget line items, which is wrong. He stated this is an unnecessary expense that the County Library Board has brought upon itself because a few individuals want ownership and control.

Chairman Scarborough advised Mr. Pessaro's time has expired.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to extend the speaker's time by two minutes.

Mr. Pessaro stated the library provides many enhancements for the citizens funded by the Tax District; and enumerated the items provided including additional books, periodicals, resource materials, additions and modifications to the Library, additional staffing, computers, insurance, lawn maintenance and beautification projects, requests from the Library Director, and educational benefits for the Director. He stated approving this straw ballot would do more harm than good for the residents of Merritt Island; good government should act responsibly for the benefit of all the people, not just some; and he hopes the Board does not support the straw ballot. He stated the entire straw ballot issue is a case of bad politics for the County and the citizens of Merritt Island; and he hopes the Board will return their employees and vote not to endorse this unnecessary ballot issue.

Madeline Bayer, First Vice Chairman of the Merritt Island Library District Board, stated at the April 30, 2002 meeting, Chairman Scarborough charged them with returning to the Merritt Island Tax District Library Board and finding out whether it is an asset or not; he said if the District Board does not want the Commission to go through with the straw ballot, it should say so; and she had a lot of thoughts about whether the District Board's time has come. She stated she researched and went over certain things; and advised of requests from the Youth Services Library Director and Acting Director for a data video projector to show family fun films, a printer to produce color bookmarks and posters, graphic arts software, and paperback and DVD racks, totaling $4,650, which the Merritt Island Tax District Library Board approved. She stated she has been a member of the Merritt Island Tax District Library Board since 1993; and advised of requests that were funded, including trash receptacles, microwave repair, lockers for staff, book drop cart, CD scratch remover, couch for the staff lounge, funding for children's programs, insurance fees, maintenance, and books. She advised of a request for staff by the West Melbourne Library, changes in book budgets, and having to rob Peter to pay Paul to fund everything. She stated the Merritt Island Tax District has funds for enhancement; it hired and supported nine employees; and advised how much the County has saved by Merritt Island carrying its own weight. She stated future plans included book borrowing and delivery to nursing homes, computer classes for seniors, and a branch library to be located according to demographics within Merritt Island. She stated libraries are a vital resource for everyone; the Library Tax District enhances the services offered; and an exciting children's services program develops a desire for lifelong learning at an early age. She stated they hope the Board will look at this and forget the straw ballot.

Commissioner O'Brien stated Mr. Pessaro notes in his editorial in Florida TODAY that the Merritt Island Tax District Library Board sets policy to administer the Tax District funds for the library, but did not mention that his board returned hundreds of thousands of dollars back to the County rather than set the millage at zero. Commissioner O'Brien outlined amounts the Merritt Island Tax District Library Board returned to the County year-by-year; and stated all that money was collected from the residents of Merritt Island and sent back to the County because the library did not spend it, while never lowering its tax rate. He stated in other words the people of Merritt Island donated over $200,000 to $300,000 to the County via their special tax, which means they paid their taxes twice. He stated the Library Board always had the ability to stop the tax; Port Canaveral, the hospital, and other entities stopped taxing the people; and Section 1289, Laws of Florida, allows the Merritt Island Tax District to be sued, which exposes the taxpayers of Merritt Island to lawsuits that could bankrupt them if something happened on library property. He stated it is still a marvelous library; it is paid for mainly by the library tax; and no one is saying anything bad about the library. He stated Mr. Mundhenk said this was a surprise; but he went to the County Board two years ago to bring up this topic to ask the public the question; and Mr. Mundhenk should have heard in that period of time. Commissioner O'Brien stated Mr. Fiannaca said the Merritt Island Library should continue to tax Merritt Island residents only; but the County Library tax already pays 100% of the expenses of the library; and he wants to ask the people what they want to do. He stated he is not imposing anything except to ask the question. He stated he appreciates Mr. Pessaro's apology; Mr. Pessaro said this is not a tax issue but a takeover; but it is not a takeover and is a tax issue. He stated Merritt Island residents pay double taxation for the library; and there is nothing wrong with asking the residents if they want to make the special assessment for the local library, which was done when the library was first created. He stated the time may have come because the Brevard County Library tax is now paying for the expenses of the library; the citizens of Merritt Island may say it is time to stop the tax; and the Board should let them make the choice. He stated the Board is not making the choice to disband the board as Mr. Pessaro alleges; but it is asking the taxpayers if they wish to continue to pay the special Merritt Island Library tax that no other community pays. He stated Mr. Pessaro indicates the straw ballot would not be for the benefit of the residents of Merritt Island; but the only residents who are going to vote on the straw ballot are those residents; and they can make that decision. He stated the public is not stupid and should not be treated that way; they have been very bright about their answers in past referendums; and reiterated a public ballot created the special tax district, and a public ballot can reaffirm that decision. He stated Madeline Bayer mentioned the items the special tax generates such as films, etc.; but the Cocoa Beach Friends of the Library were able to raise more than a quarter of a million dollars through charitable events and collections instead of a special tax; and the population of Cocoa Beach is only 18,000 compared to Merritt Island's population that probably will exceed 50,000 next year. He stated it is true the library is for everyone; the Merritt Island Tax District was established by Senate bill in June 1965 for the purpose of raising funds to create a public library, which it did; but just like tolls on the highway being stopped once the highway is paid for, it is time to stop the tax on the library. He stated at the end of FY 2002 all funding for the Merritt Island Library including staff, books, and other operating expenses has been included in the County budget; and he would like to ask the residents of Merritt Island whether they want to continue to pay the special tax. He stated there is nothing wrong with asking the public the same question that was asked in 1965 unless people are afraid of the answer; and it is not fair to the taxpayer to not ask the question. He stated a resolution for a straw ballot is before the Board; it says, Shall the Board of County Commissioners request the Florida Legislature to dissolve the Merritt Island Public Library Special District, and let the District's powers and duties be transferred to Brevard County; it is a simple question; the answer is for or against; and it should be on the ballot in November.

Commissioner Carlson stated she wants to clarify the basis for presenting this; she is looking at the Department's program changes, which says this is a unique situation that does not exist elsewhere in the County; and this area is receiving less benefit from County millage than any other similar size County Library. She stated the paper Commissioner O'Brien had shows the fiscal years down to 2000-2001 and the amount of money that was not spent; and inquired if it was not spent because there is the additional tax district. She stated she is trying to understand how the County is budgeting and whether the County is not having to budget for certain items because the District is covering those items.

Library Services Director Catherine Schweinsberg stated the Library Director turned all of this over to the County because he found it easier to ask the Tax District to pay for those things; so he was buying using Tax District money and budgeted money remained in the County budget.

Commissioner Carlson stated it was used for other things; she heard a lot of positive things, but not a lot of negative things for disbanding; it cannot hurt to ask the question; and if it comes back that the citizens want to keep it, that is fine, and they will be considered enhancement dollars. She stated Ms. Schweinsberg's memo says if the referendum question is asked and the District remains, the tax funds will be enhancement dollars, over and above what the County provides; and inquired if it passes, are the budget dollars still not going to be used. She stated she does not understand the logic. Ms. Schweinsberg responded the budgeted dollars would be used for operating the library including the staff, books, and operating funds; and all the money raised by the Tax District would be used for enhancement programs like extra children's programs, more books, and things like that.

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated over two years the County has increased the Merritt Island Library's funding level so now it is being funded comparable to what would be funded to other libraries in the system; whereas, before their tax dollars were being used to augment operating expenses. He stated the County would be paying for the basics, and the tax money would be for extras. Commissioner Carlson inquired if that can be done without a straw ballot; with Mr. Jenkins responding that is leaving it status quo. Commissioner Carlson stated all the Board is doing is asking the question whether the Merritt Island District wants the enhancement dollars over and above what the County provides.

Commissioner Higgs stated she is concerned there is no one from the public here or sending a petition requesting this be put on the ballot; she is happy to put questions to the public when there seems to be strong public support for the issue; but she does not see public support today, which is a telling sign. She stated if the people of Merritt Island want it on the ballot, she is happy to see some indication from them that they want it; but in the absence of that, she only sees support for it continuing, so is reluctant to go forward with another question on the ballot until such time as there is some support. She stated at the State level it is necessary to have a certain number of signatures on a petition to get an issue on the ballot; that gives a good indication of support; and as there is the question of whether things ought to go on the ballot, that is good guidance for the Board, so she is reluctant to vote today to put this on the ballot.

Commissioner O'Brien stated as a representative who lives on Merritt Island, he speaks to the residents and taxpayers; he has heard this comment many times across the past eight years; and that is why he went to the County Library Board two years ago to say he would like to put this question on the ballot. He stated the public has been speaking to him individually at various functions; the only ones the Board is hearing this morning are the Library Board and one or two individuals; but there is no huge turn out of people who want or do not want it; and he finds no good reason not to ask the question of the public. He stated it is a straw ballot, not a referendum; it is not something that requires getting 20,000 signatures; and the Board is not empowered to work on this except to go to the Legislature and say this is what the voters said.

Chairman Scarborough stated he was hoping there would have been a little more positive response today; Mr. Mundhenk has offered to take it to the Homeowners Association; and if they report back with a finding along with what Commissioner O'Brien is saying, that is fine, but if there is no interest, he would have a problem pursuing this. He stated the ballot is going to be horrendous; and unless there is some desire from the community to have something on it, it is problematic to keep adding things.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board's concern should not be the size of the ballot because it is only asking a question about whether to retain or not retain the Special Taxing District; that is only one extra thing for the Merritt Island residents only; and it is only fair to ask the residents that question. He stated it would be inappropriate for the Board to not ask the public how it feels; a lot of the residents work, and do not see this as a glowing issue because no one has made it one; but it is only fair to ask all the taxpayers in Merritt Island.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt Resolution for ballot language for straw ballot for Merritt Island Library Taxing District. Motion died for lack of a second.

Commissioner Higgs suggested tabling the item until there is indication from the homeowners or other groups that there is community support for putting it on the ballot.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table consideration of straw ballot referendum request for the Merritt Island Library Tax District until there is an indication from the homeowners or other groups that there is community support for putting the question on the ballot.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he cannot support that; he strongly feels it is only a question; it is fair to ask whether the residents want to pay the tax or not; and if it is not put before the elections office in a timely manner, the opportunity may be lost for this year.

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

Chairman Scarborough stated there are time constraints so if there is discussion, it needs to come back in a timely manner.

LEGISLATIVE INTENT, RE: REVISING LPA MEMBERSHIP TO ALLOW FOR SCHOOL
DISTRICT REPRESENTATION

Attorney Harold Bistline representing the School Board, stated he has discussed the issue with staff; the Superintendent has not had an opportunity to be briefed on whether the School Board would support a voting or non-voting member on the County's LPA; and requested this be tabled to the next meeting so there is an opportunity to get input from the Superintendent and report that back to County staff.

Chairman Scarborough stated he would like to take a straw vote as to the Board's preference so Mr. Bistline can take that back; personally he would like the person to be a voting member on all matters because it enhances the value of the membership; and inquired if anyone holds a contrary opinion, with no response heard.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table consideration of legislative intent to revise LPA membership to allow for School District representation to August 27, 2002. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT RETURNING ELECTION OF
BREVARD COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS TO DISTRICTWIDE VOTE

Helene Kansas stated as the Chairman remarked, the ballot is going to be horrendous; this request is an insult; and if the Board allowed it, it would be the third time. She stated after the first time some politicos said the public did not realize what it did, so it voted again; and the vote increased for separate districts for School Board. She stated Merritt Island has problems; the District had a great argument about starting a 7 to 12 Merritt Island school; those who were against this school arrangement wanted to defeat those who voted for it in the coming election; but they discovered they could not vote in that election because there are single-member districts; however, she does not believe the County adopted any kind of ordinance that would prevent someone from walking or driving to another part of the County, which is involved in the election, and working for or against any candidate there. She stated they did not realize that the numbers would not change because their votes would be diluted if involved in the entire County. She stated there are reasons to keep the present system; the public has a right to meet and discuss with candidates running for office as people are concerned about children; but a County 80 miles long and 15 miles wide cannot provide that. She stated the cost to candidates approaches sanity on a single district basis; and in the outlawed system, the cost for a School Board race is obscene for anyone. She stated the claim of parochialism is not true; the Commissioners are also in separate districts; and she would never accuse any Commissioner of not caring about District X because he or she is from District Y. She stated until the radical change of a special school for only a few students, which is geared to upset people, no one had any dissatisfaction; everyone was comfortable with the system; this is a political move; and even the language that was originally written is confusing to the public. She noted typographical and grammatical errors in the language; stated next year the Board will be appointing a Charter Review Commission to review the Charter; this year the people have a very big election with eleven referenda; and requested the Board not add this. She stated the Board should do this, if it must, next year when it has the Charter Review Commission.

Attorney Harold Bistline, representing the School Board, stated his sense is that the School Board feels that it was not involved in the adoption of the single member district proposal in 1998 through the Charter Review Commission, and that based upon experience since that time, the single member district of electing School Board members has not proven compatible with the responsibility to provide a free public education throughout the entire District. He stated the School Board is asking the Board to allow the public to weigh in on this issue in the general election. He stated he does not know where Ms. Kansas came up with the fact that this was voted on twice; he recalls it being voted on once in 1998, and does not believe this has been before the electors more than just that one time; and it was on the ballot in a September primary election and not the general election in 1998. He stated he has faith in the voters being able to read 12 referenda items; if they can read 11, they can read 12; and this is an important issue that the School Board feels is serious enough to ask the Board, through its powers under the Charter, to put before the voters. He stated the School Board will be responsible for any costs; the cost would be minimal, if there is any; and requested the Board accept the School Board's Resolution, and put this question on the ballot at this year's general election.

Commissioner Carlson inquired given that there will be a review of the Charter, what is the urgency of doing this. Mr. Bistline responded one of the reasons is because in November there will hopefully be a large turnout of votes as opposed to the off years, and certainly better than any primary type situation. He stated the School Board feels this is an appropriate opportunity; it has lived with this for four years; it is the School Board's responsibility to provide for the education of the entire County; and if it thought it was easier to remain the way it is, it would not have done this, so the School Board feels this is important and that the November election would be a perfect opportunity. Commissioner Carlson stated the School Board would prefer to do it now versus in the Charter Review Commission and having it detailed; and inquired if the vote was unanimous; with Mr. Bistline responding no, it was four in favor and one opposed.

Commissioner Colon inquired if that means any time the citizens vote at a primary, and the Board does not like the answer, it should come back for the general election; with Mr. Bistline responding he is not saying that; but obviously there is a better turnout in the general election.

Chairman Scarborough stated there is one distinction with the prior item; in this case the School Board, which is an elected authority, has come to the Board; and inquired if the School Board has to come to the Board to get something on the ballot; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding yes, they have to come to the Board and get four votes or go out and get a petition signed. Chairman Scarborough expressed amazement at the Board's capacity under the Charter to control the School Board; and stated there were questions when this was originally put on by the Charter Review Committee. Mr. Knox noted he was privy to those discussions and was aware of that issue.

Mr. Bistline stated it is an open question whether what the Charter Review Commission did in 1998 was appropriate under the law; he knows the Board has experience with the power and reach of the County Charter; the School Board decided it would accept the situation as it was; and having experienced it for four years, and as a co-equal branch of government, the School Board decided to come to the Board to use this avenue to put the question to the voters.

Chairman Scarborough stated at the time he was selecting people for the Charter Review Commission, he had no idea that issues before the School Board would come, although that is not necessarily germane to the conversation now. Mr. Bistline stated the School Board members were surprised it even came up.

Ms. Kansas stated she was at all those meetings; it was a surprise and not in the plan; and it was not on the Agenda of the Charter meeting, but was very much approved after brief discussion. She recommended this be put off for a year or until the Charter Commission meetings.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board has to look at this the same as it did the last one; there is no public here to weigh in on the issue; the ballot is overcrowded in November; and inquired if they want to put one item on, why should they look at this one and not another. He noted there is a Charter Review Commission.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to direct staff to send to the Charter Review Commission the proposed resolution, calling a special election to amend the Charter to provide for Countywide election of School Board members, for its review. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners Carlson and Scarborough voted nay.

Chairman Scarborough stated he is voting in opposition; he has been challenged by the idea of the Board changing fundamental rules of a body that under the State law has equal authority; the Board has gone to a place where it does not have authority; and the Board needs to ask the Charter Commission to define the School Board issues separately. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board can do that in a separate motion. Chairman Scarborough stated the Board can do that when it gets the Charter Commission; if it is going to get into School Board issues, people appointed by the School Board should be driving those issues independent of the Board; and he does not know how to do that; but the Board should not have any business in some areas. Commissioner O'Brien stated it is on the Charter; therefore, on a second motion, the School Board can then bring it back before the Charter Review Commission for a change. Chairman Scarborough stated it would be a good idea to review the whole issue.

Commissioner Higgs stated she agrees with that; but it is not the prerogative of the Board to work on that issue; and suggested it may be the position that the School Board should take to challenge that particular part of the Charter. She stated she has problems with the way those got on the ballot; there were long discussions about those Charter amendments; but this was not one that was challenged. She stated it is the right of the School Board to challenge it if it so chooses.

The meeting recessed for lunch at 12:30 p.m. and reconvened at 1:30 p.m.

DISCUSSION, RE: REPORT FROM CARDWELL LAW FIRM ON SARNO LANDFILL

Chairman Scarborough stated the Board will go back to the regular Agenda after the time certain; and the first speaker is Jim French.

Jim French stated having read the article on the purchase and other information, he supports Commissioner O'Brien's efforts to get to the bottom of the transaction. He stated when he read "The Board of County Commissioners did not have a clue," he cannot argue; and inquired if the County always desired this property, why is there no record of negotiation with the Gleason family. He stated the County never pursued this property serious previously; and inquired why was there a headlong rush to purchase property when it cannot even be used for another 15 years. He stated Commissioner Carlson said, “That’s how we did things then. We don’t do them that way anymore"; now the responsibility and oversight of internal audit of County spending has been voted out from under the Clerk's Office and given to the County Manager; this removes an independent check on County government; and he does not see any other checks or balances that were added to compensate. He stated in 1998 Commissioner Carlson said, "I will work hard to make sure your tax dollars are used properly and not wasted by paying strict attention to every dollar spent"; but in this case millions of tax dollars have been wasted. He stated it is imperative the Board request an FDLE investigation to find out why those dollars were wasted; and in the future, he hopes when a Commissioner says he or she will pay strict attention to every dollar spent, he or she means more than just watching it go out the door.

Catherine Stanton stated she has more questions than comments; it might be better to wait until Commissioner O'Brien is finished with his proposal before making any comments; but when she first read this, she was astonished and angry that so many millions of dollars seem to have been wasted on this piece of property. She inquired how is it that the Commissioners did not know what the deal was; stated it went down just before the purchase; and it seems that Forte Macaulay should come up with some answers about that. She stated she would love to hear from them how this happened; and she is sure many of her questions will be answered in this session.

Janis Walters stated she does not like coincidences and there are too many here not to start asking questions. She stated they say truth is stranger than fiction; that is definitely so in this case; and encouraged the Board to go forward with an investigation by an agency with power of subpoena, and not allow just an in-house examination because in-house is where the ball was dropped.

Maureen Rupe urged the Board to do a criminal investigation; stated at the very least policies and procedures need looking at; already this year citizens have been complaining about the policies and procedures of Land Development and the Special Master; and it would put everything to rest if the investigation was done by an outside agency such as FDLE. She stated she does not personally believe it is any of the Commissioners, but if there is no investigation by an outside agency, the reality of perception will probably be that the Commissioners were the ones who did wrong.

Clark Swayze stated he does not pretend to be an expert, legal or otherwise, but he does possess a trait lacking at levels of today's political system, that known as common sense; and he is here today to discuss the disastrous preparations for the future Sarno Road Landfill expansion. He stated the County has now purchased another $7 million plot to join a $9 million plot on U.S. 192 purchased a few years ago; and together these purchases combine to make a boondoggle of epic proportions. He stated the County was undertaking the steps to acquire a landfill permit from the City of Melbourne on another piece of property when this latest fiasco came to light; and inquired what did that purchase cost the County and how much property is needed for landfill expansion. He stated over $16 million worth of properties have been purchased to accomplish a project that will not be needed for many years to come, provided the current Sarno Road Landfill is used to its maximum; the County allows buildings over 40 feet; and inquired why not a landscaped hill. He stated good old boy politics played a major role in the U.S. 192 property fiasco; and now some tough questions must be asked regarding the latest purchase of the Gleason property. He stated as a citizen, he no longer has the option of calling the wrongdoers into the street at high noon, nor may an application of tar and feathers be employed as a means of gaining a semblance of justice; thus the Commissioners are elected to find the answers and assure that justice is served. He stated the citizens have a right to know what occurred, who was involved, how the Fishers of Melbourne are involved in this charade, and how the three gentlemen were allowed to stuff their pockets to overflowing with public monies. He urged the Board to support a thorough investigation by FDLE; and stated to not do so would be a travesty and slap in the face for the citizens. He stated it may prove that there are no punishable offenses performed by the County staff; and the Board, separate from the FDLE investigation, should investigate and grade the performance of the County employees regarding this matter. He stated although the buck stops with the Board, the deal landed on a few desks prior to coming to the Board; Department heads, the County Manager, and the County Attorney were all involved; and not one of these staff members picked up even the slightest odor of dead fish. He stated he questions their qualifications for their positions as well as their concern for the citizens of the County; and their lack of common sense is evident. He stated the Commissioners, having been elected by the citizens, have let the people down in this matter; and for the Board to approve over $7 million without knowing all that is pertinent suggests the Board may place more dependence on staff than they merit and the citizens can afford. He stated should the three gentlemen sellers not end up breaking rocks and are allowed to continue to operate in our midst, the Board should remember the axiom let the buyers beware, should they come knocking on the County's door with a deal.

Richard Wagner, President of Tuttle-Armfield-Wagner Appraisals, stated he is one of the appraisers that appraised the property; and assured the Board the appraisal was done in conformance with the client's request, and with uniform standards of appraisal practice and the Appraisal Institute. He stated there was no bogus appraisal done; they followed guidelines and valued it as all permitting in place.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if Mr. Wagner lives and pays taxes in this community and cares about the dollars; with Mr. Wagner responding affirmatively. Commissioner Higgs inquired if Mr. Wagner remembers the exact figure of the appraisal that he gave the County on the property; with Mr. Wagner responding the appraisal is public record, but he did not bring it. Commissioner Higgs stated Mr. Wagner's appraisal was $10.2 million, and the County paid $7.25 million; with Mr. Wagner advising that is correct. Commissioner Higgs inquired if looking at that, would Mr. Wagner think the County got a good deal; with Mr. Wagner responding his opinion was the market value was $10.2 million, so if the County bought it for less, he would say it got a good deal. Commissioner Higgs inquired if Mr. Wagner followed standard appraisal methods that he uses for other properties; with Mr. Wagner responding affirmatively.

Commissioner Colon inquired what did Mr. Wagner base his appraisal on; with Mr. Wagner responding on the highest and best use under the permitting process, and on standard procedure. He stated he used direct sales comparison approach and a development approach to estimate the value with the permits in place.

Commissioner Higgs requested Mr. Wagner tell the Board what that means so people can understand those two methods of appraisal. Mr. Wagner stated the direct sales approach is where there are sales of similar properties and comparables are directly compared to the subject property to arrive at a value estimate for those parcels. He stated in the case of the landfill permits and conditional use permits and permitting, there are not many sales of this type property under standard appraisal policy; if there are not comparable sales, the only other way to approach the value is to do a development approach; and that is to look at the property under its highest and best use, what it is capable of producing, deduct the cost of creating and operating that property, and the income stream to that use is what the property is worth. Commissioner Higgs inquired if Mr. Wagner does appraisals for people around the County and State; with Mr. Wagner responding affirmatively. Commissioner Higgs inquired if Mr. Wagner is certified to do business in the State of Florida; with Mr. Wagner responding he is a State certified general appraiser. Commissioner Higgs inquired if he does work for banks and uses the same methods for a bank or any other business; with Mr. Wagner responding he not only does work for banks, but did a landfill for a bank, and followed the same procedures and policies as he followed in the County's appraisal. Commissioner Higgs inquired if any allegation that Mr. Wagner had no experience in landfills would not be true; with Mr. Wagner responding that is correct, he valued a landfill before the one he did for the County.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the appraisal says, “We attempted to gather information regarding the recent transfer of ownership of landfill properties or vacant land with similar permitting in place across the State of Florida. We consulted with other real estate appraisers and County Property Appraisers throughout the State, with other professionals active in landfill industry and were not able to verify any recent sales of existing landfills nor parcels of land permitted for a landfill. We conclude that sales of existing landfills or a vacant land with permitting in place are rare and infrequent, therefore, there’s not sufficient data to apply the sales comparison approach in the evaluation of Parcel B.” He stated Mr. Wagner gave an estimated market value; and inquired if he is saying there is no salable market to derive the value, the land is not improved on, and there is only one purchaser, the County. Mr. Wagner responded he does not understand the question. Commissioner O'Brien stated Mr. Wagner somehow derived a value of the land, but it says there is not sufficient data to apply the sales comparison approach. Mr. Wagner stated the sales comparison approach is different than the development approach; the sale comparison is the approach used with comparable sales; and what he said in the statement was that most areas do not permit landfills to individuals, including a county generally. He stated he did not have sales locally or throughout the State that he could find and develop a sales comparison approach; and in light of that, the only method left to value the land was to do a development approach, wherein one asks the highest and best use of the land, the demand for the land, what the land would produce in income under an improvement, and deducting the cost and operational expense of that land, the residual income after doing that is the value of the land. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if Mr. Wagner is not giving market values; with Mr. Wagner responding he did give a market value. Commissioner O'Brien inquired on what was it based; with Mr. Wagner responding on a development approach and a sales comparison approach; the sales comparison approach was used in comparison to the other parcels; and the development approach was used to compare it to value the landfill permitted land. Commissioner O'Brien stated Mr. Wagner said in the appraisal he could not use the sales approach; with Mr. Wagner responding he indicated he did not use the sale comparison approach for the land that was approved for the landfill because there were not adequate sales available, but he did say he used a sales comparison approach for the other portion of the land and a development approach for the land that was approved for the landfill.

Commissioner Colon inquired if Mr. Wagner was aware that this piece of property was bought by people who had just recently rezoned it for landfill by the City of Melbourne; with Mr. Wagner responding yes. Commissioner Colon inquired about its worth before that; with Mr. Wagner responding as vacant land without permitting in place, it would be in the $20,000 to $40,000 an acre range as light industrial because without permitting and a conditional use permit in place, it is a completely different scenario. He stated once one has the conditional use permit and permitting in place, the highest and best use of that property and its potential changes considerably; it changes from what would have been put on it like a light industrial building to another use as a landfill that produces considerable income that is attributable to the land and the landfill itself. He stated the development approach looks at it and analyzes in that light.

Amy Tidd stated she is here as a taxpayer to ask the Board to look into the value of the taxpayer's money; and requested a criminal investigation. She stated $6 million is a lot of money; and she wants the Board to consider a criminal investigation. She stated she was looking through the recommendations that the law firm came up with; and recommended they be looked at very carefully. She stated any significant land acquisition by one Department should be thoroughly reviewed by another County office; that is the wise thing; one hand has to know what the other hand is doing; and that is the third recommendation of the law firm. She stated recommendation number four is for at least one appraiser to be engaged without any recommendation, consent, or input from the seller of the property; there should be someone not connected to the seller; and that recommendation is excellent. She stated recommendation number six is most important to keep this from happening again; significant land acquisitions, which shall include any purchases over $1 million, should not be placed on the Consent Agenda; and such acquisitions should be considered by the Board only after a full public presentation by staff including disclosure of any and all recent transactions involving the property. She stated this needs to be kept out in the public eye; of the recommendations, those three are very important; and she would appreciate the Board looking into the matter.

Jim Fallace, Attorney representing Forte Macaulay, stated his client is not opposed to the proposed investigation; he has nothing to hide; the facts are the facts; and the facts were presented to the County at the time the Contract was being negotiated. He stated the appraisals set forth all of the relevant facts concerning the value; but in this short period of time, he will not be able to address or answer all the questions that have been posed. He stated a number of speakers have asked that questions be answered; that is a fair approach; unfortunately facts are being taken from newspapers that do not necessarily report the whole story; and it appears that the statements that have been made so far are nothing more than an attempt to criticize the County, its staff, and the Board for doing what it should be doing, which is long-range planning. He stated at the May 10, 1999 Board meeting, previous Solid Waste Management Director Richard Rabon made a presentation and indicated under the Comprehensive Plan, the Board is supposed to look at planning for solid waste disposal 20 years into the future, that it takes up to ten years of lead time to start one of the projects and have a facility online, and if the Board waits until the last minute, it is not going to be able to do anything to address solid waste problems. He stated Mr. Rabon also advised that once the County acquires enough land space for solid waste disposal, recycling, and yard waste disposal, it should not use it, but hold it for long-range planning. He stated that does not mean the County is never going to use it; the Sarno Road facility has a useful life of less than five years; and statements that the County is not going to be able to use this land for 15 years is not based in fact, or what has been presented to the County, or the reality of the permitting process. He stated Chairman Scarborough mentioned at the 1999 meeting that, "if hazardous waste facilities are not available, it will push people to basically dumping hazardous waste into the water, the environment, and other facilities, which are not user friendly for hazardous waste." He stated Mr. Rabon discussed the concept of air space at that meeting; air space is extremely valuable when it comes to landfills; and there are four components of the property the County bought, which County staff recognized as revenue generating, and which the appraisers, staff and everyone else recognized will generate for the County more than $20 million in revenue on property for which the County paid $7.2 million. He stated initially his client said he would not sell the property for less than $9.7 million; the County wanted to buy the property for $5 million; and the negotiated compromise was $7.25 million. He stated to look at the property in terms of what was originally purchased by Forte Macaulay under a Contract executed more than 13 months prior to the closing with the County is misplaced; the Gleason property was purchased by Forte Macaulay as a residential subdivision development; and the use changed. He noted his time has expired, but it is impossible to address all the questions in the time allotted.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to allow the speaker additional time to complete his comments. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Jim Fallace stated Forte Macaulay purchased the property in April 1999; the intention, as mentioned in the Contract which was attached to Mr. Liechtenberg's appraisal, was to build a subdivision, but that became economically impossible because it became clear the proper use was to concentrate on what County staff called horizontal expansion of the County's present facility; the Gleason property has four components; and the first is the commercial component, which is 15.65 acres. He stated the second component is zoned industrial, which is 25.1 acres; and the component that no one addressed, which is worth in excess of $4.8 million is the air space because when valuing a landfill, you do not value the land, but how high you can use for compaction and recycling. He stated in this particular instance, the Gleason property was extremely valuable because it had been changed to use the air space above the land, above 40 feet to an additional rezoning request of an additional 40 feet; and the value of the property that was rezoned is not in price per acre necessarily, but includes cubic yards of air space above the ground to be used by the County. He stated the County taxes the people for solid waste disposal; and it generates a very healthy profit; but it cannot continue to generate a profit if it does not have adequate air space and the ability to recycle and take care of solid waste. He stated there was an additional component to this property that made it different from any other property in the County, and that is called gap air space; taking the property alone, there is a setback, zoning restrictions, and other impediments on utilizing the full property; since the County had the existing landfill, it could use the gap between the two pieces of property; and in its initial $9.7 million offer, Forte Macaulay estimated 754,000 additional cubic yards of air space the County could use because of its existing facility, that no one else could use, which equated to an additional $2.5 million in pure value. He stated if the County did not buy this property, it would be searching within the next three years for property to try to replace it; again the County would be looking at cubic yards of available air space; but it would not have the benefit of the additional $2.5 million in value that it has at the Sarno location versus Palm Bay or Titusville. He stated Mr. Cardwell was well intentioned; he stated he was engaged by the County Attorney's Office to investigate and do a complete and thorough background check from 1966 to present regarding the purchase of the property in July 2000; and his conclusion was, “The price paid by the County for the Gleason property appears to be excessive.” He advised Mr. Cardwell advertises himself as specializing in sports law, election law, and local government law; there is nothing in the report that supports his conclusion that the price appears to be excessive; he does not talk about the revenues the County will get from the additional space or about another appraisal; but the County knows that there are draft proposals for value of the contiguous Florida Recycling property, done by appraisers outside the County, that comes to an initial value of $10.6 million and $9.625 million for less property than the County bought with no gap air space or compaction consideration, which is the three to one ratio considered by the County's appraisers. He stated the appraisers the County used, who are well respected and have experience in landfills, have done a more conservative value for the property the County bought than the property that is being evaluated by outside appraisers. He stated he has been reading in the press how this stinks and the Board wants a criminal investigation; and suggested the Board have a criminal investigation because there is nothing to hide. He stated Mr. Cardwell says in his report there is no evidence of criminal acts or personal benefit from the purchase of the Gleason property; and Mr. Cardwell's conclusion was, "in the absence of such factors that cause us to suspect a criminal act, we do not recommend that this matter be referred to a Sheriff or State Attorney." He stated the big item in the press is the fact that Mr. Cardwell does not subpoena power; and advised Mr. Cardwell never asked his client for any facts, never did any independent appraisal to support his "appears to be excessive" conclusion, and never indicated he had any personal experience in valuing property, let alone landfills. He stated the Cardwell Report is not a statement of facts; it is an opinion; and County staff did more than express an opinion when it researched it and obtained appraisals. He stated Mr. Leichtenberg attached the Gleason Contract as part of his appraisal; it is part of the Board's package; and the difference is airspace and the revenues the County will generate. He stated it is unfortunate that long-range planning is being used against the County for something it did; there may appear to be a $6 million profit, but there were also years of work, opportunity, ideas, and converting raw land space into usable revenue generating airspace; and reiterated the Board can have an investigation, but when it accuses someone of a crime, it should not do it lightly. He stated tagging someone as criminal and linking it to a report that does not say anything other than opinion is very dangerous.

Commissioner Colon stated one of the things Ms. Fallace brought up is that Forte Macaulay was in the subdivision business; and inquired when did they become Florida Recyclers because when they went before the Melbourne City Council, they made it seem like they were in the recycling business. She stated on February 8, 2000, the City Council approved the Comprehensive Plan Amendment; and in April 2000, which is just a few months later, not years later, the Florida Recyclers came to the County to sell. She stated there are a lot of questions and answers that need to be given to the City Council of Melbourne because it felt it was approving one thing, and did not know that Forte Macaulay had every intention of selling the property to the County. Mr. Fallace responded Florida Recyclers is a separate corporation. Commissioner Colon inquired when was that put together. Mr. Fallace stated Florida Recyclers of Melbourne initially purchased the property that is their landfill operation separate from Forte Macaulay in 1997; Forte Macaulay is a separate entity, which is in the land development business; and it originally established to acquire the Gleason property for purposes of a residential subdivision. He stated there are two different components; Florida Recyclers, which is in litigation with the City of Melbourne, is separate and apart; and Florida Recyclers in 1997 entered into a Contract with a Trustee of a Trust, to acquire the property for recycling and a C and D site, which is trash waste disposal. He stated it is an environmentally enhancing operation; it is a separate entity and separate piece of property; and it is contiguous to the property being discussed, which is the Gleason property. He stated the Gleason property was acquired, pursuant to a Contract by Forte Macaulay in 1999 to put up a subdivision, but it became obvious that was not economically feasible; and that is when it proceeded to pursue Comprehensive Plan amendments, a rezoning, and a CUP for purposes of using it in conformity with the surrounding property, which is the County landfill that has been in operation since 1950. He stated he cannot give an exact date when the intention of using the property as a landfill or recycling center came into being; but there is common ownership; that is not a secret between Florida Recyclers and Forte Macaulay; the plan did change; and nothing was done that was hidden within the City of Melbourne. He stated the City of Melbourne issue is entirely different; Forte Macaulay obtained a variance, which benefited the value of the property; and he is not aware of any restrictions on improving the value of ones property by changing its use through proper recycling components. He noted he does not have the Minutes of the Melbourne City Council with him; but he can go into what was presented before that body; and advised when asking for a variance on the height of a landfill, it is hard to say it was known that it was going to be a landfill. Commissioner Colon noted it is a privately owned landfill; with Mr. Fallace responding it does not matter; and Commissioner Colon advising it does matter. Mr. Fallace stated Florida Recyclers is privately owned, but benefits everyone in the County by serving as a recycling facility.

Clerk of the Circuit and County Courts Scott Ellis stated according to the documents he has, there is no airspace value; the airspace in the original presentation that was done by Forte Macaulay is between the Gleason property and the Melbourne landfill; and since the County does not own the Melbourne landfill, the airspace cannot be used by the County. He stated the properties are disjointed; there is about a hundred feet of common border; but there is no $2.5 million in airspace. He noted once the airspace is subtracted from the original proposal, the County paid exactly what was asked for by the seller, $7.25 million. Mr. Fallace stated Mr. Ellis was not part of the negotiations; there was a gross contract that was submitted and signed by the Board with his client; it did not separate out the components; and it did not say they were allocating or that the County was allocating money for the commercial or industrial use, although those are components that go into the value. He stated to say the County did not get the value of the airspace is completely ignoring the reality of why the property was purchased and what the County got, which is the permit. Mr. Ellis reiterated there is no airspace; one cannot have that much airspace between two disjointed properties; the document from Forte Macaulay to Mr. Rabon says the gap airspace is between the Melbourne landfill and the Gleason property; and the only way the County can use that airspace is if the County owns the Melbourne landfill. He stated there are two wedges that are parallel when it is done; if the County does not own the Melbourne landfill, it cannot use the airspace; therefore, as the situation exists now, owning Gleason and owning Sarno, the County cannot use the airspace and it has no value to the County. Mr. Fallace stated the letter Mr. Ellis is referring to is for $9.7 million, and that was reduced to $7.25 million. Mr. Ellis stated the value of the airspace was deducted from the $9.7 because it has no value; but today Mr. Fallace is saying there is a $2.7 million value to the airspace when the County cannot use it. Solid Waste Management Director Euri Rodriguez advised the common airspace, the usable wedge, has been calculated to be approximately 108,000 cubic yards as the properties stand now. Mr. Ellis stated to get to Mr. Fallace's figure, it would be necessary for the County to own the Melbourne landfill to fill in the larger wedge; and that is straight from the Forte Macaulay document.

Chairman Scarborough requested speakers representing others identify themselves as such.

Robert Leichtenberg, owner of Hanson Appraisal Service, stated he did one of the two appraisals ordered by the County on this property; he would like to start by giving his credentials because they are important; and people can read reports and say things, but if they have no credential, they have no training, and if they have no training, they are not experts. He stated he is a member of the Appraisal Institute, which takes seven or eight years, a lot of courses, peer review, and passing a final exam, which when he took it in Atlanta was eight hours; it is not something that is earned lightly; and he has testified in courts this year alone in four states as an expert. He stated it is getting to the point where this whole situation is based on innuendo; and Mr. Ellis does not have the qualifications. He submitted paperwork; stated in order to testify in court, one has to be an expert witness; in order to testify before the Board, one has to have credible evidence; and commented on a recent judgment which contended there was no credible evidence. He stated today it is all unsupported allegations; there is not the first shred of credible evidence that there was anything wrong with the appraisals or the value; and in two years, with probably a hundred thousand appraisers out there, no one has brought one appraiser to say it was wrong. He stated there is not one shred of evidence that says the property is worth less than $10.2 to $12.8 million; he has been to a meeting with Mr. Ellis in which Mr. Ellis questioned him; and never once did Mr. Ellis attack how he did this, or say he was doing the wrong procedure because this is not the way to appraise a sanitary landfill. He stated the Board will not find anybody else who will say that; and submitted an excerpt from The Encyclopedia of Real Estate Appraisals. He stated page 1,083, Approaches to Value, is for valuing sanitary landfill; this is some of what is available to appraisers; and they have credible evidence. He stated under approaches to values, it says the only appropriate method of appraising a sanitary landfill is to arrive at the present worth of the income stream from operations of the landfill over its remaining economic and physical life, which is a development approach. He noted it does not say it is one of the approaches or one of many; it says the only approach; and advised the value is the present worth of future benefits. He stated the only future benefit of the landfill is the income stream; the County is not going to build a house there when it is done; it is not going to do anything; landfills are bought simply for the cash flow; and private investors always buy these things based on their income potential. He stated he can provide articles from the Appraisal Journal from the Real Estate Appraisal Institute, from the New England Appraisal Journal, from the Real Estate Valuers Journal, and from every major organization in the country that tells how to do a landfill. He commented on things in the paper saying that appraisers do not know what they are doing or have done something wrong in valuing trees and dirt; and stated that is how he was instructed. He stated there are three other qualified appraisers in the room today, one of them nationally recognized; and they all did the same thing, although two of them did it on the piece next door, so they are either all wrong or Mr. Ellis is right; and that is up to the Board to decide. He stated the second area he would like to address is whether there is credible basis for estimating income and expense data; the first thing he did was find out how much capacity is left; he talked to the consultant hired by the County and to the seller, who both gave numbers; and as the consultant was on the low side and the seller on the high side, he averaged the two. He stated there is no other way to do it unless he hired an outside engineer; and that would always be open to debate, so he felt he did it the way it should be done. He stated if the seller and buyer are both not happy, that is usually the market value is right. He stated after he did that, he talked to a lot of people in collecting data; he looked at tipping rates in the County at $7.89 a cubic yard and at Florida Recyclers at $7.50 a yard; and they used $7.50. He advised they used a three percent inflation rate and a three to one compaction ratio. He stated this is a green dump where there is wood and material that will decompose, and go away; this is a dump where mulch will be sold; and they talked to the County's consultants and the sellers. He stated they went one or two steps further, and talked to Wayne Ewell with Waste Management Corporation of America, which has approximately 250 dumps; and he described the facility to Mr. Ewell. He stated he described a Class Three facility, what it was, and what it contained; Mr. Ewell indicated he thought a three to one ratio was appropriate; and he used that ratio. He noted he did not just pull it out of the air; he did not rely on a guess; but he relied on an expert in the field. He stated he interviewed Mr. Ewell and several recyclers about the cost of running a landfill and looked at the expenses of Florida Recyclers; so he knew what the cost was; and he interviewed the County's consultant and staff, and estimated an eight-year life. He reiterated it was not just pulled out of the air, but was based on expert witnesses.

Chairman Scarborough advised Mr. Leichtenberg's time has expired.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to extend the speaker's time. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Leichtenberg stated his appraisal was properly supported; it was done to standards; and it is an accurate appraisal. He stated if the Board wants a criminal investigation, most people would say the County stole the property; and that is the backward part of this whole thing. He stated he has never been before a group where there have been qualified experts telling them what a property is worth, but they have talked about a criminal investigation because they paid $4 to $6 million below the appraised value. He stated he disclosed the purchase price of the property from Forte Macaulay; he included a copy of the Contract; and explained they bought one thing and sold something else to the County. He stated they bought vacant land and sold the County a conditional use permit for a dump; zoning changes values; and if it did not change value, there would not be the Bert Harris Act. He stated it often works in reverse; if a property that was zoned residential was rezoned to commercial, it would increase its value; or if someone could get 68 acres on the Interstate rezoned for a casino, they might make a hundred or two hundred times what they paid for the property; and that is what happens with zoning. He stated the County has something that is a cash cow; landfills make a lot of money; there are a lot of private industries that are in this business today to make money; and the County bought the property for less than it is worth. He stated he does not know why people are here for this; he thinks they are here for something other than the dump; they are here because some people are running for reelection; that is why this came up two years later; and it is about classical political spin. He stated this is something the Board should get an "atta boy" about, but it has been spun completely around; the County bought property at a bargain price; the sellers made money; but that is not his fault or theirs. He stated the County knew the land was there; it should have moved on it; there has been a dump there since 1950; and maybe the County could not move because of constraints, but that was not part of his review. He stated the County did a good job; it bought a good piece of property; and somehow for political reasons it has been spun around. He stated he wishes every time he bought a piece of property he got it at 40 to 50% below value.

Commissioner Colon stated in regard to reelection, Commissioner O'Brien is not running for reelection; and Commissioner Carlson did not bring this issue forward, but she and Commissioner O'Brien did bring it forward. She stated she wants to set the record straight; and she was not on the Board when this purchase happened. She stated she just spoke with the County Attorney; one of the comments that was made by the citizens was that anyone who is going to be dealing with someone who will have business with the County in the future must immediately let everyone know; Mr. Leichtenberg is going to be coming before the Board on an area he owns that he wants to become a County road; perception is everything; and she does not want anyone to think she had anything to do with Mr. Leichtenberg behind the scenes. She stated she did not know who Mr. Leichtenberg was when he and his son came to her office; she did not know he had anything to do with this investigation; and she did not even know he was an appraiser at that time. She stated she wants to make sure everything is on the table so no one says she and Mr. Leichtenberg met in the past; and she was totally surprised when she saw him here, knowing there is a piece of property he is interested in the County looking at in the future.

Mr. Leichtenberg stated he appreciates that; he did not see any linkage in it; but he understands Commissioner Colon is more sensitive than he is about that. Commissioner Colon stated she is very sensitive as perception is everything.

Commissioner Higgs inquired at how much did Mr. Leichtenberg appraise the property; with Mr. Leichtenberg responding $12.8 million, which included the 25 acres of industrial and 14 acres of commercial parkway land. Commissioner Higgs stated the County paid $7.25 million; with Mr. Leichtenberg advising that is right.

Mr. Ellis stated the issue on the appraisals is the discounted cash flow analysis; and that was what was discussed at the meeting. Mr. Leichtenberg stated that was not what was discussed. Mr. Ellis stated it was the discounted cash flow analysis and how Mr. Leichtenberg arrived at the numbers for the discounted cash flow analysis. Mr. Ellis noted he is not up for reelection, and although he lives by the property, he did not know until a year and a half after it was purchased that the County purchased it, so it is not like people knew when it was purchased what was going on. He stated on the discounted cash flow analysis, Mr. Leichtenberg gave an annual volume of 450,000 cubic yards. He advised he started this in October; for four months he could not get the information because he was told it was not public record; then it was public record, but did not exist; and he still has not gotten it. He inquired what is the basis for the annual volume because the annual volume is what generates the revenue, which is what generates the value of this appraisal. Mr. Leichtenberg stated it generates from the County's engineer, the County's consultants, and staff, as well as the other consultants he talked about earlier. He stated he talked to people about how many years it would take for the landfill to fill up; and if the volume number is multiplied by three for compaction and divided by the eight years, that is where it comes from. Mr. Ellis inquired where does the eight years come from; with Mr. Leichtenberg responding it came from the County and its consultants. Mr. Ellis stated the consultant did not provide Mr. Leichtenberg any information on annual volume; he provided information on the total volume of the facility; and he got that memo too. Mr. Leichtenberg inquired from whom; with Mr. Ellis responding from Mr. Beladi. Mr. Leichtenberg inquired if the memo said Mr. Beladi did not provide him any information; with Mr. Ellis responding he did not provide Mr. Leichtenberg with information on the annual volume for revenue. Mr. Leichtenberg stated he was told the expected life of the facility. Mr. Ellis inquired how; with Mr. Leichtenberg responding he took the expected life of the facility, which was eight years, although Mr. Wagner used nine years; he multiplied the total capacity considering compaction, and divided it by eight, and that is the result. Mr. Ellis inquired what justification is there for the 450,000; and stated he understands where Mr. Leichtenberg got his information; but his point is what if he took 125,000 cubic yards a year. Mr. Leichtenberg inquired what if he took 600,000; with Mr. Ellis stating he has asked many times for the support documentation for that number because it generates the annual revenue. Mr. Leichtenberg inquired if Mr. Ellis asked him many times for that support document; with Mr. Ellis responding he asked, and asked Mr. Wagner in writing. Mr. Ellis stated he asked Mr. Leichtenberg at the meeting; and no one has the support number for that volume, so what Mr. Leichtenberg did was some very simple math on a very expensive purchase. Mr. Ellis inquired if the annual volume projected is 450,000, what is the true basis for it. Mr. Leichtenberg responded the true basis is the life expectancy based on the County's consultants and engineers, times the compaction rate, times the capacity, divided by eight years. Mr. Ellis inquired if life expectancy is based on annual volume as a factor of total volume; with Mr. Leichtenberg responding that is correct. Mr. Ellis inquired how Mr. Leichtenberg got the eight; with Mr. Leichtenberg responding it came from the County's consultant or staff. Mr. Ellis advised it did not come from Mr. Beladi; with Mr. Leichtenberg inquiring if Mr. Ellis is testifying for him now. Mr. Ellis responded he is testifying to what Mr. Beladi provided in writing; and if Mr. Leichtenberg got something verbally, that is a different issue. Mr. Leichtenberg stated he cannot recall, but believes he did. Mr. Ellis stated Mr. Leichtenberg says the annual volume is 450,000; but the other appraisal says the annual volume is 270,000. Mr. Ellis stated they are being hammered today like this is some kind of exact science; but it is nowhere near an exact science; and he has wide variations in volume which is generating revenue. He stated the projected revenue stream per year is $2.3 million; the other projected revenue is $2.2 million; and that is a 1.5 million per year difference in revenue stream. Mr. Leichtenberg inquired if Mr. Ellis is questioning whether the property is worth even $7 million; with Mr. Ellis responding affirmatively. Mr. Leichtenberg inquired if he were to give Mr. Ellis $2.2 million a year for the next ten years, would he pay him $7 million for it; with Mr. Ellis responding it depends on the interest rate. Mr. Ellis stated people do this all day long as investors; if someone took the $7 million and put it in a 30-year T-bill, it would be worth $30 million at the end of 25 years. Mr. Leichtenberg inquired at what interest rate; with Mr. Ellis responding 5.75%; and they ran those numbers. Mr. Leichtenberg inquired what if they put it in for ten or nine years; with Mr. Ellis responding this does not come into operation for ten to fifteen years, but the discount begins next year as if it is going to open. Mr. Leichtenberg stated they did not appraise it that way; they appraised it as the present value; and they were not asked to appraise it as the value ten years from today. Mr. Ellis stated it was appraised as a value as an income stream starting in the next year; with Mr. Leichtenberg responding that is correct. Mr. Ellis advised the income stream really does not start for ten to fifteen years out; and that is why the discounted cash flow analysis is not the proper method to use. Mr. Leichtenberg stated it could; with Mr. Ellis advising you cannot do a discounted cash flow analysis on a revenue stream starting in ten to fifteen years.

Chairman Scarborough stated he is going to interrupt now; this is getting into what could be called esoteric for most people watching; and the issue is a dollar fifteen years from today is not the same thing as a dollar today; so therefore, if someone buys a government bond or something that is maturing later, he or she does not pay the same amount because what it amounts to is there is a discounted value currently. He stated Mr. Leichtenberg has explained what he is doing; Mr. Ellis has explained what he is doing; and the Board understands what both have said; but it is not benefiting the overall dialogue at this time.

Mr. Ellis stated the simple point he was making is if one took the combined waste stream of the Melbourne Landfill facility and looked at the waste stream of the Sarno facility, that would give a good estimated annual waste stream for South Brevard; from that number, one could then try and project something out; but taking the gross capacity and being told it is good for eight years comes up with a number that may be totally off the market.

Mr. Leichtenberg stated he was not instructed, nor did he attempt to delay the cash stream fifteen years; they were instructed to know what the market value was on the date of appraisal; they were not told to assume or give a market value if the thing did not go into operation for fifteen years; and if they did that, they would also have to look at how much tipping fees would go up and everything else, so that would change the whole scenario. He stated he was not asked for that; and requested he not be held accountable for things he was not asked for. He stated staff made the decision not to put it on for fifteen years; and he did not.

Chairman Scarborough stated it is always dangerous to try to come in the middle of this and make sense of a discussion; Mr. Leichtenberg tried to take the value of the property that could have started generating income the next day, and did not have to look to fifteen years; and Mr. Ellis is saying the fact of the matter is the use would not have started until fifteen years later; therefore the values had to be discounted further back to current value. He stated he does not think either honestly disagreed with the idea of discounting. Mr. Leichtenberg stated Mr. Ellis is right, if that was his instruction, but it was not. Chairman Scarborough stated Mr. Leichtenberg and Mr. Ellis have just taken different postures; and recommended leaving it in peace. Mr. Ellis stated he understands Mr. Leichtenberg; he has been trying to find out since October the instructions Mr. Leichtenberg received to do the appraisals in this manner; and clearly this is not a normal appraisal on the discounted cash flow. Mr. Leichtenberg stated they do discounted cash flows almost every day. Mr. Ellis inquired if that would be on a non-existent business; with Mr. Leichtenberg responding they do them on proposed hotels, proposed subdivisions, and proposed shopping centers; and they do not exist. Mr. Ellis stated that is correct, but Mr. Leichtenberg uses existing businesses to get the numbers; with Mr. Leichtenberg advising that is what they did here too. Mr. Ellis disagreed; with Mr. Leichtenberg responding that is Mr. Ellis' opinion.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if Mr. Leichtenberg valued the parcel the County acquired at $12.8 based on the ability to use it tomorrow, if the Board wanted to; with Mr. Leichtenberg responding exactly. Commissioner Higgs inquired if Mr. Leichtenberg got instructions from the County staff and consultant, and presented the appraisal the same way he would present an appraisal to any business; with Mr. Leichtenberg responding exactly. Commissioner Higgs stated Mr. Leichtenberg presented it to the County; the County staff took the average of the appraisals, which would have been $11.4 million; and inquired if that is the usual process, taking the average in terms of public acquisitions; with Mr. Leichtenberg responding that has been his experience. Commissioner Higgs stated public entities take an average of two appraisals; and the County bought at $7.25 million. Mr. Leichtenberg stated he is doing something for the School Board now, and it is taking the average of three appraisals. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the average of two appraisals is the standard procedure from what Mr. Leichtenberg has observed; with Mr. Leichtenberg responding absolutely.

Mr. Rodriguez stated he wants to make one point clear about the usage of the property; the property was appraised as if it was going to start tomorrow; Mr. Ellis has said fifteen years; but actually the usage is controlled by the Board. He stated after the County starts building the stormwater, it can start using it any time.

Mr. Ellis inquired would the County not use that until after the current Sarno capacity is used; with Mr. Rodriguez responding the ideal situation would be to leave the land usage and save as much as possible for the future because it is a scarce commodity.

Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer stated in working with the City of Melbourne staff, the County has made a commitment both privately and publicly to work with the City about the ultimate development of this property to assure that the Melbourne residents could have some of their concerns addressed as this moved forward. He stated the entire Sarno development will be brought to the Board and the City to see in a comprehensive site plan, so everyone can work together and know exactly how that will develop out over the years.

Bea Polk inquired who hired the appraisers and was it the County; with Mr. Rodriguez responding the appraisers were hired through the engineering firm. Ms. Polk inquired which engineering firm; with Mr. Rodriguez responding the engineering firm that was under contract with the County. Mr. Polk stated the County hired two; and inquired when they came back with the price, did no red signals go up. She stated every time she talks about taxpayers' money, it is not like money coming out of our own pockets; and it bothers her. She stated there should be an investigation free from politics, although she has never seen that happen; the Board needs to get someone from somewhere else who is not involved to find out what really happened; and the public is entitled to know why the County paid that kind of price. She stated maybe fifteen years down the road, it may be worth that, but she is talking about now; this is taxpayers' money; and she cannot believe there was no public hearing even though this involved millions. She stated in talking about appraisers, she knows from her business, who the appraiser is going to work for; if she hires a consultant, she knows who he is going to work for; and inquired who did these people work for and who paid them. She stated she would like the appraisers to come to the microphone and give an account; and if the County paid them, this has gone too far. She stated the Board should vote to have a clear investigation; this should never have happened; and it should never happen again. She commented on the U.S. government, treating a million dollars like it is nothing, taxpayers' money, and need for an investigation. She stated the Board needs to find out what really happened, and publish it, because it wants a bond issue again, and the talk of the County is not very good on this. She noted Commissioner O'Brien is not running and Commissioner Carlson did not bring this up; and she is glad Commissioner Colon brought that up because the public has been asking these questions. She stated this has to be cleared up for the public's benefit even if it requires ten hearings; she is worried about the appraisers and what they said; she is not an appraiser; and requested the Board approve the investigation to clear the air.

William P. Pardue, Jr. stated he is a State certified general real estate appraiser and a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida; and he understands the value of landfills. He advised he read about this in the newspaper yesterday; and he is here today as a broker. He stated his company is Winter Park Properties, Inc.; and if the County wants its money back, he would like to list the property because he believes he can get it for the County. He stated he would like a listing on the property, the two appraisals, and 60 days; and he thinks the Board would be very surprised by the results. He noted he cannot guarantee it; but he knows the players in the industry and would like the chance to try. He stated he knows Bob Leichtenberg and Rick Wagner; they do not always agree; but they never totally disagree either, and he respects them both. He stated they are fine appraisers; he heard what they had to say today and totally agrees; and what they did was the only thing they could do. He stated the tough part of getting the projection right is to figure out how fast the landfill will fill up; and it is an interesting question because really it does not just fill up. He stated they try to recycle everything out; in many cases they can; sometimes it is 100% in and 100% out; with green waste, it is possible to make mulch or sell it in some way; and even with concrete, it is possible to use machinery to break the concrete up and take the reinforcing bars out so the concrete can be sold and the steel recycled. He stated these are very sophisticated business operations; and they are very much in demand. He stated Winter Park Properties are in Orlando; he has not had any listings of this sort in Brevard County; but this is the kind of thing that is sold Statewide; and he believes the County can get its money out of the property. He stated if the Board wants an investigation, that is fine; but he does not think it is needed yet. He stated if the Board looks at what it has and the validity of the appraisals, it will do fine. He inquired who he may contact to see if the County wants to list the property.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if Mr. Pardue is an appraiser; with Mr. Pardue responding he has been an appraiser for 46 years and a broker for 49 years. Commissioner Higgs inquired if what Mr. Pardue heard about the appraisers sounds reasonable; with Mr. Pardue responding affirmatively. Mr. Pardue stated they did what they could; these are not simple appraisals, particularly the absorption rate or how fast the landfill would fill up; in Brevard County there is a law that others cannot bring waste from outside the County; but if it was possible to bring it from outside the County and they just wanted to fill it up, there is plenty, and there is pressure from South Florida to haul waste out of there and put it somewhere, so there is not going to be any problem on absorption on this thing; and it is just going to be a question of how wide a market. Commissioner Higgs stated looking at the two appraisals, the average is $11.4 million; and inquired if it was reasonable to buy a parcel at $7.25 million; with Mr. Pardue advising he has not seen the appraisals, but based on the people and what he would expect to find, he thinks it was reasonable. Commissioner Higgs inquired was it a good deal; with Mr. Pardue responding it is good enough that he wishes the County would let him sell it for that or enough to get a commission on top of it.

Commissioner Carlson stated what would Mr. Pardue be able to market the property for; with Mr. Pardue responding for a landfill. Commissioner Carlson inquired what price would Mr. Pardue estimate something like this for; with Mr. Pardue responding speaking as a broker, he would like to market it at the lowest of the two appraisals which is still considerably more than what the County paid for the property and would allow for a ten percent commission on the sale. Mr. Pardue stated there is nothing wrong with making money; the sellers made $6 million when they got the property rezoned; that is when they made their money; and they realized their gain when they sold the property to the County.

Commissioner Colon stated enough people have made money out of government as it is already. Commissioner Carlson stated if the County decides it wants to sell the property, it can make $11 million. Mr. Pardue noted government can make some money back in this case; and there is nothing wrong with making money out of government. Commissioner Carlson stated it would be $7 million plus $4 million. Commissioner Colon stated she finds it offensive that Mr. Pardue is trying to make money when everyone is already upset about folks making $6 million from taxpayers' money; and South Florida can keep its garbage because the County does not want it towed here. Commissioner Colon stated she would not support it; and she took offense at anybody trying to make money off the hard times the County is going through. Mr. Pardue inquired if Commissioner Colon would find it offensive if the County made a couple of million dollars when it sold the property; with Commissioner Colon responding the County has already been sold a bag of goods. Commissioner Colon stated the City of Melbourne would never have allowed the CUP had they known what the parties were intending to do with it, because it is taxpayers' money. She stated she spoke to the Mayor and City Council; and as they are present today, they can speak for themselves. Mr. Pardue stated Commissioner Colon is speaking beyond his knowledge; he just came today because he would like to have a listing on the property; he believes he can get the County's money out of the property and some profit in addition; and if that is offensive, he apologizes. He stated he makes his living by earning people profit on their investments.

Clerk of Courts Scott Ellis stated his comments still go back to the appraisals; this goes back to the original contract when this was authorized; and this predates Mr. Wagner and Mr. Leichtenberg. He stated when the Board approved an item on March 14, it was to look at the Melbourne Landfill facility, which is the active landfill facility; parameters were put forth to do the two appraisals on that property; and in those parameters were four technical memorandums, the fourth one being the present work at the facility. He stated three of the four technical memorandums were never done; technical memorandum three, which was done, was faxed to Mr. Wagner two days before he completed his appraisal, and evidently was also faxed to Mr. Leichtenberg on the day he completed his appraisal; and he has not been able to figure out who the appraisers work for because all the information they kept being given was all verbal, and they were not getting written information, which would have formed an appendices to the appraisal. He stated the four technical memorandums that were clearly called for in the Task Order were not done; the County then billed the two appraisals off to that Task Order; none of the parameters were met for the appraisals; and it has been his contention, going all the way back to October, that because the appraisals were not done in accordance to contract, the engineering firm should not be reimbursed for those appraisals.

Pat Hartman stated she tried last week to get information on the Cardwell Report from the County; she called the County Manager's office and was told to call Mr. Rodriguez' office; Mr. Rodriguez' office said they were not sure it was a public document, but they were having a meeting to determine that, and requested she call back; and she got the document elsewhere. She stated she read the report and is glad the Board is taking this so seriously; and she thinks in a way the Board can use that to make something better out of it. She stated the Board can make its procedures more solid; it can do things so the perception of the public that the Board has done something wrong will not happen again; and the Board can be sure it plans, gets things out to the public, have public hearings, and take things off the Consent Agenda so that things that cost a lot of money can be discussed. She stated there are all kinds of things people want to talk about; the Consent Agenda seems to go so fast that nobody has a chance to say anything unless they have the ear of a Commissioner who will take the item off for them; and she is glad the Board is working on this. She stated the Board should investigate this; it seems like the Board followed the rules as they were currently; but the rules and methods of doing things need to be changed so people are more aware of what is going on. She inquired if the Board knew when it purchased the property when the last sale was and how much was paid, before the property received the permit from the City of Melbourne. She stated the Board should make sure it always knows what the price of the property was before the County bought it; if she was going to buy a piece of property even if it was vacant the last time it was sold, she would want to know how much it was and when it was sold before the house was built, which is what she does with residential property. She thanked the Board for addressing the issue.

Cheryl Palmer stated she just wanted to clear the air about a couple of things; one of the appraisers mentioned that this comes up at a time of reelection for some County Commissioners; and when she found out about the sale to the County, which was about a year after it actually occurred, the first person she met with was Commissioner Carlson, who brought in Mr. Rodriguez. She stated at the meeting Commissioner Carlson was not aware of the circumstances and the price difference; so she did not bring that up at election time as this is not an election issue. She stated the issue is the report coming in and things transpiring on this timetable, but it was not calculated; and the City of Melbourne was shocked to learn that its conditional use permits would sell for six million dollars in a day. She stated she hopes the Board takes another look at how it does business. She stated the appraisers have come forward to defend their position; a representative from Forte Macaulay defended its position; and nobody has really pointed fingers at anyone. She stated everyone has just said that it looks as if something is wrong; and encouraged the Board to go forward with the investigation to clear itself, clear Forte Macaulay, and clear the appraisers. She stated if there is any wrongdoing, the Board can find out; and if not, then it can just say the sellers made a good profit and the County may or may not have benefited. She stated time will tell; and encouraged the Board to move forward with the investigation.

Commissioner Colon stated she appreciates Ms. Palmer setting the record straight; she has been able to keep in touch with Ms. Palmer who has been very receptive to having an investigation; and Ms. Palmer was kind to also keep in touch with Mr. Rodriguez, who unfortunately came in towards the end of this transaction. Ms. Palmer stated all the Commissioners she spoke with were very helpful and forthcoming; and Mr. Rodriguez was also very helpful, which she appreciates.

Commissioner Carlson stated it would be good to reflect back on what the Board has been talking about; on May 23, 2002, the Agenda Report stated there was a need to identify disposal needs for 25 years and that the existing capacity of the Sarno Landfill was approximately 11 years; and by acquiring additional land from the neighboring site that is being discussed, the Board could meet that goal. She stated the purchase price was below the average appraisal price from the two appraisers; the oral statements from staff indicated that the two appraisals were $12.8 million and $10.02 million; and staff's comments included an estimated profit for the County's taxpayers of between $22.6 million and $33.3 million over the life of the landfill. She stated this seemed to be the basis for a good business transaction on behalf of the County's taxpayers; but when the sellers turned around a profit margin of $6 million in a single day, there is no way to make the story sound good, even if there were no illegal or unethical actions taken. She stated based upon that, a full criminal investigation of all aspects of the transaction is warranted; and if the community's trust and integrity of the County's operations is at risk, the Board needs to go forward with that action.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to authorize a complete investigation be held of the Sarno Landfill purchase and events surrounding it.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he was pleased to get the page handed out; it says the method of estimating value of sanitary landfills; this is the approach to value; and the only appropriate method of appraising a sanitary landfill is to arrive at the present worth of the income stream from operation of the landfill over its remaining economic and physical life. He stated this is what Mr. Ellis was bringing up earlier; present worth of the income stream is estimated by the income approach; the next paragraph says in estimating the value of the income stream of the landfill, attempts have been made to utilize the market comparison approach based on the cubic yards of remaining capacity; and the problem is in application of the market approach there are few comparable sales. He stated it may be necessary to search for sales in many different areas, possibly in several states, and to reach as far back as ten years to find usable comparisons. He stated even if an area of comparable sale did exist, the appraiser would have to make adjustments for differences in disposal fees, operating expenses, and size of the site; the parcel would require twenty years to fill is worth less per cubic yard than one that would require only five years to fill; and there appears to be little justification for applying the cost approach. He stated a private investor would purchase the parcel on the basis of present worth of the potential income stream, not on the basis of the cost to bring the site into operation. He stated part of the problem is that the seller, Forte Macaulay Development Consultants, Inc., formerly known as Forte Macaulay Development Company, Inc. is controlled by licensed real estate brokers, Hugh Evans, Jr. and Arthur Evans III, of Evans Butler Realty; brokers as real estate licensees have an ethical duty to the public to adequately disclose their interest and involvement in any real estate transactions; this duty may be construed to include disclosure of material facts that could affect the decisions to buy or sell by another non-realtor party; and the presumption is that realtors are better informed and equipped than the general public, and therefore have an advantage over non-realtors in negotiating real estate transactions. He stated realtors should not take advantage of non-realtors in real estate transactions; Mr. Evans was not the realtor in this capacity that he knows of, but both appraisals should be reviewed by a State licensed general real estate appraiser, preferably someone not associated with either of the two appraisers who appraised the landfill expansion site acquisition. He stated the engagement letter to the review appraiser should require a thorough desk review at a minimum, and should specify that any deviations from the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice be identified and addressed regarding possible ethics or standards violations. He noted he is not saying it is impossible or possible; he does not know; and that is part of the problem the Board has today. He stated the two appraisals both omitted any use of the sales comparison or market approach; this approach is most applicable to the evaluation of unimproved land; and neither appraiser presented a convincing argument for why their approaches to the value, cost and income were sufficient replacements for the sale comparison or market approach. He stated both appraisals failed to adequately address the difference between the $1.2 million purchase by Forte Macaulay and the value estimates of $10 million and $12 million; and inquired why was the $1.2 million sale not indicative of the as is market value of the land, unimproved and prior to the conditional use permit issuance. He stated based on the appraised values of $10 million to $12 million, the CUP adds $8.8 million to $10 million to the property's value; and this may be difficult to justify considering the lack of comparable sales data; both appraisals provided estimates of market value; however, neither was able to demonstrate that an active market for properties suitable for landfill operations exists in the State of Florida. He stated realistically, there is only one buyer for the subject property for landfill operation use, and that is Brevard County; and it indicates the subject is a special purpose property, which by definition entails a value in use, not a market value estimate. He stated a value in use estimate is the estimated value to be specified by a single buyer, and does not reflect market value per se, where there should be a number of buyers and sellers as demonstrated by comparable sales; here there are none; and realistically a value in use estimate can only be used to indicate a property's potential value to a specified user, and should be used for marketing purposes. He stated the two appraisals presented to the Board in support of the landfill expansion site acquisition may have been inadequate and may even be construed as having been negligent or incompletely prepared; and there is potential for civil action against the appraisers and the seller. He stated an investigation by FDLE may also reveal some basis for criminal charges, if there are any; and that investigation should develop information useful to any subsequent lawsuits which may come out of this. He stated Brevard County has some of the best, smartest employees; they are honest and dedicated; and they serve the people day in and day out. He stated some employees work forty hours a week at Viera and then go out two nights a week, away from their families and friends, and give a lecture or make a presentation to a homeowner group or civic organization. He stated the employees work hard for the public; and this request today is no reflection on anyone working for the County. He stated this is just trying to get to the bottom of things; it may be that a lot of people will be exonerated, and the issue will be over; but the Board must appease the public by going further with an investigation to put an end to it. He stated if something did occur, the public also wants to know that; and the Board has the responsibility to hunt down the guilty party and fine him, if that occurred. He stated no one is saying today that something occurred; something may have occurred; but the Board does not know because the report from the Cardwell Law Firm said there is no proof of wrongdoing or criminal activity regarding the purchase of the property. He stated the Board also heard that the Cardwell Law Firm did not have enough qualifications to look at the appraisals and understand the big picture; it did not have the right to subpoena, question people under oath, or check financial records; so the firm could not do the investigation that would have cleared anyone. He stated the thing that bothers him is how the appraisals were done; and the Board should go to a separate appraiser from somewhere else to look at this from an ethics standpoint and whether it is comparable. He inquired if he had a piece of property worth $10 million to $12 million, why would he sell it for $7 million; that is a lot of money to give because there is only one buyer; and that is why he says the deal smells. He stated the Evans were the principal officers, agents, and directors of Forte Macaulay; they are licensed real estate brokers; they negotiated the purchase of the Gleason property and its sale to the County; and he is not convinced there is not a possible conflict of interest, but wants to find out. He inquired if Hugh or Arthur Evans ever employed these appraisers for any of their properties; and stated if they have, that may be a conflict of interest. He inquired if there is any linkage between the principals of Forte Macauley and either or both of the appraisers, and do they have jointly owned properties. He inquired why there would be such a dramatic difference between the unimproved price and the still unimproved price for which it was sold to the County, when the property is already adjacent to the landfill and there is only one purchaser available, the County. He stated the Board should reach out to an independent review appraiser with the same qualifications as those used for the appraisal; and he should be asked to do a thorough desk review, which would specify any deviation from USPAP standards. He reiterated he is not accusing anyone of possible violations of ethics or standards; maybe there have been no violations; but the Board does not know, and should find out. He stated he would like the Board to appoint an independent appraiser.

Chairman Scarborough stated he will take one motion at a time. He stated the motion was to request an investigation; the Board has a drafted letter in the file; and inquired if it is the intent to use the letter. He stated if that is the intent, Mr. Knox should comment, because he asked him to review the letter. Commissioner Higgs stated she is not sure the Board wants this letter. He stated as far as the other issues with the appraisal, he will come back to that after the Board deals with the FDLE issue.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board was given the information on the average of two appraisals, which was $11.4 million; it purchased the property at $7.25 million; and she thought, and the Board unanimously agreed, that it was a good investment and business decision. She stated the public relations have not been a good deal for anybody; the Board is in a position where the investigation needs to clarify what really did go on; and it is her belief that the Board made a good business decision, but the better deal is to assure people that it was legal and there was nothing wrong with it, so she will support an investigation by an independent entity. She stated she does have concerns about the letter; and she would rather see the County Attorney draft a letter for the Chairman's signature.

Chairman Scarborough stated he would like to be sure the County Attorney drafts a letter; he asked Mr. Knox to review the letter in the package; and he had some comments. He inquired when is the next meeting; with Commissioner Carlson responding August 27, 2002.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if there is a problem with Mr. Knox drafting the letter and Chairman Scarborough sending it. Chairman Scarborough stated he does not have a problem doing that. Commissioner Carlson stated that is fine; and inquired what is the intent. Chairman Scarborough inquired are there any further questions on the motion to send a letter to FDLE asking it to investigate. Commissioner Higgs inquired if there is anyone else the Board needs to hear from before taking a motion; with Mr. Rodriguez responding no. Chairman Scarborough stated he talked to staff; it felt this was the best for the County because more than money, the County trades on integrity and confidence in the community; and to restore that is the most valuable thing. He stated the only way to do that is to proceed expeditiously into an FDLE investigation with recommendations from staff, the community, and the Board indicating a unanimous consent. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the Board is voting on the letter itself; with Commissioner Higgs responding no. Chairman Scarborough stated the Board is going to let Mr. Knox tweak Commissioner O'Brien's letter. Commissioner O'Brien stated generally the Board does that at the meeting.

Discussion ensued on the letter. Commissioner Higgs stated the motion includes authorizing the Chairman to sign the letter.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the letter says to "conduct a criminal investigation of actions of public officials" but that is wrong; and it should say "conduct a criminal investigation of the actions concerning the purchase of approximately 68 acres of vacant land." Commissioner Higgs stated the second paragraph presupposes a number of things; and inquired if Mr. Knox has recommendations. Mr. Knox stated the Board can draft the letter any way it wants; but he agrees with the change Commissioner O'Brien suggested. He stated he does not see anything objectionable in the rest, and it says what the circumstances are. Commissioner Higgs stated everyone agrees on the first paragraph; the Board wants to say to FDLE that it is its desire to fully have this matter investigated to make clear what occurred; but she does not think it is right to prejudice it with the report information. Commissioner Carlson agreed. Commissioner O'Brien stated the second paragraph stands on its own; and the Board has to give FDLE some reason to take action. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board did that in the first paragraph; with Commissioner O'Brien stated the second paragraph supports the first paragraph; and among the Commissioners' concerns are that the Cardwell report concluded there is not adequate support for a six million difference in the price paid in the morning for the property by Forte Macaulay and the price paid by the County in the afternoon. Commissioner Carlson stated FDLE will have the report. Commissioner O'Brien stated it is always nice to cut to the chase in any kind of letter; this is saying why the Board wants FDLE to take this action; and if the FDLE cares to read the whole report, it can do that. Commissioner Higgs stated everything the Board heard today indicates the appraisals were solid. Commissioner O'Brien stated if he was an appraiser who did the job, he would say the same thing. Commissioner O'Brien stated the sentence says, "gets paid in the morning"; frequently real estate transactions are done on a contingency; and she might sell her house in the morning and close on her new house in the afternoon. Commissioner O'Brien noted it is from the Cardwell report, which the Board paid for. Commissioner Higgs reiterated the Board already gave FDLE the report.

Mr. Knox stated the Board is writing a letter to a law enforcement agency; it has to direct the agency's attention to the point it wants investigated, which is whether anybody did anything wrong in coming up with a $6 million profit in one day; and that is what the second paragraph goes to.

Commissioner Higgs stated it really was not one day's activity; people were saying that Melbourne granted a conditional use permit for the landfill, which is what constituted the value; and it does not matter because FDLE is going to read the report.

Commissioner Carlson stated it is her understanding that the State Attorney's Office will be looking at this and then will be using some of the investigative work that has been done through the Cardwell firm. Mr. Knox stated if FDLE decides to do it, it will probably start with the Cardwell report, and use that as an outline on how to do the investigation.

Commissioner Colon stated she has all the newspaper clippings that will go with the letter, so FDLE can see how serious this is and the perception that is in the community, which should speak for itself.

Chairman Scarborough stated he has a letter with the deletion Commissioner O'Brien suggested; and if Commissioner Higgs wishes to amend the letter, she may make a motion. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board's concern is the profit made by the seller. Chairman Scarborough stated it is a direct quote from the Cardwell firm; and it is not like the Board is making a conclusion. Commissioner Higgs stated it is going to be assumed the Board embraces that statement; with Chairman Scarborough responding he does not read it that way. Commissioner Carlson stated she does not read it that way. Chairman Scarborough stated it is saying what has been alleged; and compared it to filing a criminal complaint against someone when he must work from an affidavit or other paperwork that has been filed. He stated the information that has been provided to the Board is the Cardwell report; the Board is forwarding that, but is not saying it is correct or incorrect; and it is just saying this item has caused the Board concern. Chairman Scarborough stated he does not have any problem with the way it is stated. Commissioner Higgs stated she thinks everyone is saying the same thing; but she has a problem with the "close in the morning, close in the afternoon." Chairman Scarborough noted that is what was said in the report; with Commissioner O'Brien advising it was a quote from the Cardwell firm. Chairman Scarborough stated it may not fully reflect the transaction. Commissioner Higgs stated there were some very useful things in the report; but she does not think that was particularly useful. Commissioner Carlson reiterated FDLE will read the report. Commissioner Higgs stated the statement does not fully reflect what transpired. Commissioner O'Brien suggested sending it back to the Cardwell firm to erase those words.

Commissioner Colon stated she wants to be clear about the motion; and inquired in regard to the criminal investigation, will that include everyone who was a part of this, even those who were in the voting capacity. She stated no one will be excluded; and she does not want the community to think the Commissioners are excluding themselves. Chairman Scarborough stated it includes everybody involved in the transaction. Commissioner Colon stated she would be happy to have them check her out even though she was on the Palm Bay City Council at the time. Chairman Scarborough stated when FDLE gets into it, it will need to be able to investigate everything and everybody.

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

Chairman Scarborough stated Commissioner O'Brien was mentioning other items like having a different and separate appraisal. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board should reach out to an independent review appraiser with the same qualifications as those used for the appraisals; it should include a thorough desk review and should specify any deviations from USPAP standards as well as addressing any ethics or standards that were violated; and maybe none have been and everything is hunky-dory, or maybe something has not been done. Chairman Scarborough inquired how would the Board go about getting the appraiser; with Commissioner O'Brien responding it should go out-of-County. Chairman Scarborough inquired who is going to hire him; with Commissioner O'Brien responding the County has to hire the appraiser. Commissioner Higgs stated she wonders about referring it to FDLE and then beginning some parallel process; the Board needs to look at the recommendations in the Cardwell report; but she is concerned about parallel action that Commissioner O'Brien suggested. Mr. Knox stated he would be surprised if FDLE did anything more than talk to the appraisers; he does not think FDLE will hire its own appraiser; and he does not think it is going to hurt. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board should let FDLE complete its investigation and then do a follow-up; with Mr. Knox responding it might be helpful to FDLE to have a third party looking at it; and it may be something FDLE could actually use. Commissioner O'Brien stated an independent review appraiser could come back with recommendations saying in the future the Board should have this, this, and this in appraisals, and when the Board goes out again to hire appraisers, it should have these factors included and meet these standards. Commissioner Higgs inquired who is going to pick the appraiser; with Chairman Scarborough advising that was his question. Commissioner Higgs suggested getting a panel of appraisers. Commissioner Carlson inquired about the State Attorney. Chairman Scarborough stated if the Board hires an appraiser, it is asking for an investigation right now; and the question is whether it is going to have enough independence. He stated he is looking from the outside in to hire an appraiser who is going to be viewed independently; the Board is asking someone to criticize it; and when asking someone to criticize, normally that individual needs to be independent enough. He inquired how will the appraiser have the degree of independence so it does not appear the Board concocted this as a way to justify as opposed to analyzing critically. Commissioner O'Brien stated it will be necessary to go out of Brevard County to do that because as the Board saw today, in this industry, many of the appraisers know each other on a personal basis. Chairman Scarborough stated that is not where he is going; someone made the comment that whoever pays the person is presumed to have some control over the person's comments; and the question is how to have enough independence so if the report comes in, it is viewed with some degree of impartiality that would be acceptable by the public. Commissioner O'Brien stated professional appraisers are professional people; and anyone the Board hired would be just as professional. Chairman Scarborough stated if he is the seller, the appraiser would come to him to ask what he wanted; if he was the buyer, the appraiser would ask what he wanted; and the question is whether there is impartiality in the appraisal process. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board is not buying another appraisal; but it is asking whether the appraisals were done to standards. Chairman Scarborough stated it is necessary to have someone who is independent. Commissioner O'Brien stated he will review the appraisals to determine if they were done according to the book or whether they dropped out some place. Chairman Scarborough stated the reason the Board went to FDLE was because it is not going to respond to a call from him or do anything the Board asks; it should be likewise with the appraiser; and inquired how he is going to know there is enough independence there. Commissioner Higgs inquired if that has to be a part of what FDLE does; with Commissioner Carlson advising there has to be an investigation. County Manager Tom Jenkins stated the appraiser is not looking at the Commissioners; and he will be looking at the appraisals. Chairman Scarborough reiterated his comments about an appraiser's alliance to the person hiring him or her; and stated he could not support this unless there is some degree of independence.

Mr. Knox suggested contacting the Florida Association of Counties to see if it could make a recommendation or talk to one of the real estate appraisal associations for a recommendation.

Chairman Scarborough stated the Board does not have to do this today; and it could come back with recommendations on how to proceed.


Mr. Ellis inquired if a C&D facility would be considered a sanitary landfill; with Mr. Rodriguez responding they are not exactly the same thing. Mr. Ellis stated Mr. Leichtenberg gave the instructions for doing a sanitary landfill; a big part of the appraisal is the estimate of gross income based on market area, per capita generation of solid waste, and effective disposal fees; there is another clause to take a look at whether there are plans for a competing site to be placed in operation; and the appraiser should consider these things in defining the market area. Mr. Ellis stated there should be enough technical information to be able to figure it out; he has been trying to get the raw data; and it should be possible to develop that raw data, which is the solid waste that is generated per year, per person. Chairman Scarborough stated Mr. Ellis is talking about the technique; but the Board is not at that point until it makes a decision whether it wants to go there. Mr. Ellis stated if the Board insures they follow this technique, it gives the Board something to look at when the appraisal comes back to make it more independent. Chairman Scarborough stated he is an attorney and Mr. Ellis is an engineer, and they approach issues differently. He inquired if Commissioner O'Brien would like a report back on the methodology of doing this.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to direct staff to report back to the Board on how to select a review appraiser with the same qualifications as those used for prior appraisals to review the appraisals and determine whether they meet the standards and whether there are problems with ethics.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if Commissioner O'Brien wants them to go over the appraisal and determine if it meets the standards; with Commissioner O'Brien responding affirmatively. Chairman Scarborough inquired who is the Board going to have to do this. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board is going to get a report back.

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

Commissioner Carlson stated there were eight recommendations from the Cardwell report; and inquired if the Board wants to go through those. She stated staff gave its rebuttal to the Cardwell report; but the two that bother her are numbers six and eight. She stated number six is the significant land acquisitions, which should include any purchase costing more than a million dollars should not be placed on the Consent Agenda, and such acquisition shall be considered by the Board only after a full and public presentation by staff including disclosure of any and all recent transactions involving the property; and she would like to see policy drafted with something of that nature.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to direct staff to draft a policy to call for significant land acquisitions, including any purchase costing more than a million dollars, should not be placed on the Consent Agenda, but shall be considered by the Board after a full and public presentation by staff including disclosure of any and all recent transactions involving the property. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Carlson stated the second one is number eight, which is fast track or accelerated acquisitions should only be used in situations where the County will incur significant cost or will lose the ability to acquire the property; and the need for such accelerated acquisition must be fully and publicly disclosed to the Board including a finding of such need by the County Manager.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to direct staff to develop a policy that fast track or accelerated acquisitions should only be used in situations where the County will incur significant cost or will lose the ability to acquire the property; and the need for such accelerated acquisition must be fully and publicly disclosed to the Board including a finding of such need by the County Manager. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Higgs stated one of the things the Board talked about that it has never put into the policies is the financial history of parcels; the Board has not asked enough about that in the past; and that may be a part to include in the motion. Commissioner Carlson stated the first motion talked about a full public presentation by staff including disclosure of any and all recent transactions; and suggested amending the motion to include historical and recent transactions.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to direct that the staff presentation include disclosure of recent and historical transactions. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he would like to direct staff to look back across the last five years at all land purchases made by Brevard County government, and ascertain that the historical sales of the property were disclosed to the Board. Commissioner Higgs stated she does not think the Board can do that. Commissioner O'Brien stated he is not sure; but it would be important to ascertain if there is a flaw in the system. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board just corrected it, if there is a flaw; and inquired if that has been part of the process. Mr. Jenkins stated he does not think the Board has ever had that information in the past. Commissioner Higgs stated there have always been appraisals and average appraisals, but she does not think the Board looked at the history; with Commissioner O'Brien advising it should. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board just voted to do that. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board should look at the history of the properties it has already purchased and now owns; it should look at the sales price versus the price that the seller bought it for if it is within close proximity to the time the County purchased it; and it may find an ongoing thing. Commissioner Higgs stated people sell property to make money. Commissioner O'Brien stated sometimes there are excessive profits; and he would like to find out. Commissioner Colon indicated she would also like to know. Commissioner Higgs stated it would be necessary to have historical data as well such as how long they held the property; with Commissioner O'Brien advising that is very easily obtained for the Property Appraiser's Office; and the Board may find that some of the deals have the same people involved over and over again. Chairman Scarborough stated this can lead in a lot of different directions; somebody could have bought property back in the 1920's; and the Board needs to define what it is talking about to make some sense out of it. Commissioner Carlson suggested a time frame such as five or ten years.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, to get historical data on all previous purchases of property by the County, and make sense out of it.

Chairman Scarborough stated he was hoping the Board could define it beyond that. Commissioner O'Brien stated he is certain staff can find a format that is readable by the Board that says, for example, in 1999 the County bought a parcel, the previous owners paid $1 million for it in 1920, and the County just paid $19 million for it, so there is no problem; but the next person paid $25,000 for a parcel and sold it to the Board for $8 million, indicating something is wrong. Chairman Scarborough stated he would like to see this defined so it will make sense; and suggested getting a report back. Commissioner O'Brien stated the question is how many other deals has the County done without knowing it.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to direct staff to provide a report on a mechanism to review purchase prices on properties bought by the County versus previous sale prices. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 3:40 p.m. and reconvened at 3:54 p.m.

LEGISLATIVE INTENT, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING REGULATIONS
ADDRESSING CUP REQUIREMENTS FOR ON-PREMISES CONSUMPTION OF
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to consider the legislative intent for proposed amendments to Chapter 62, Land Development Regulations, regarding conditional use permits for on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages; and grant permission to advertise any proposed changes for a public hearing. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

STAFF DIRECTION, RE: CHIROPRACTORS AND BAIL BONDSMEN AS HOME
OCCUPATIONS

Commissioner Higgs stated she does not think it would be good to include chiropractors and bail bondsmen as home occupations.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to not include bail bondsmen as a home occupation. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Scarborough stated with chiropractors there are inconsistencies because physicians are doing things that are similar.

Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott stated since the home occupation provision entered the Zoning Code in 1994, it has become very popular; and the item before the Board is because the envelope is pushed daily with people wanting to do things at their homes. He stated the County has always embraced the basic tents in assuring the home occupation Ordinance remains something that does not send neighborhoods into upheaval; the secret to a successful home occupation Ordinance is that the occupations remain transparent to the neighborhoods; and there are a number of professions that are able to do this. He stated in the past, they have received requests from pediatricians, family doctors, and limited family medical practices that wanted to be able to receive their mail and do some insurance paperwork from the home; and they have always made sure that if they were going to actually practice medicine from their home, that they could only do it by making house calls. He stated one of the prohibitions for home occupation is that they are not allowed to generate toxic materials; a full-scale medical profession would involve drawing blood or administering shots; the by-product of those two practices is biohazard material; so they have always said house calls only. He stated chiropractors simply manipulate the joints of the body for their care; they may apply heated oils as part of their therapy; but, they are not necessarily resulting in the generation of biohazard materials.

Chairman Scarborough inquired if the chiropractors are doing that in their homes or are they going out. Mr. Scott stated it has come to his attention that there are both; and that is why he is seeking the Board's direction. He suggested if chiropractors were treated like other medical professions, they would be allowed to make house calls only and not see patients at the home.

Commissioner Higgs stated she would agree that the perfect home occupation does not generate people coming to the home. Chairman Scarborough stated there is perhaps an inconsistency between how the County is treating the two professions. Commissioner Higgs stated she has no problem with the paperwork and clerical kinds of functions; so the motion would be chiropractors only allowed as home occupations. Mr. Scott stated they would be allowed house calls only, so they must leave the premises.

Commissioner O'Brien stated chiropractors also have to take x-rays of patients, which would involve radiation; with Mr. Scott advising that would not be allowed.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board would probably allow a veterinarian to do the same thing. Mr. Scott stated it would be the same circumstances and conditions on their home occupation request.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to allow chiropractic practice as a home occupation with no patients to be seen at the chiropractor's home. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: REVISING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FEES

Commissioner O'Brien stated the annual recurring cost for a new position is $75,000 a year; and inquired if staff expects to meet the cost by the increase in the fee. Natural Resources Management Director Conrad White stated the majority will be taken care of by the increase in fees; they are asking for 10.5% across the board; and they are also asking for an additional fee similar to zoning where a letter is written for environmental assessment. He stated the salary will be mostly taken up by the increase.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution increasing the Development Review fees by 10.5%; and approve creation of a Management Specialist III position. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

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

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to recess as The Board of County Commissioners and convene as the governing body of the Barefoot Bay Water and Sewer District. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: FY 2002-03 BUDGET FOR BAREFOOT BAY WATER AND SEWER
DISTRICT

Water Resources Director Richard Martens stated the Board has a resolution before it for FY 2002-2003 budget for the Barefoot Bay Water and Sewer District, which contains the budget that was included in the workshop package; and by approving this, the budget will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for inclusion in the workshops or public hearings in September 2002.

Commissioner Higgs inquired is there a rate increase; with Mr. Martens responding, no, rates stay the same as they have for the past two years.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution approving the FY 2002-2003 budget for Barefoot Bay Water and Sewer District. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adjourn as the governing body of the Barefoot Bay Water and Sewer District and reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida.

APPROVAL, RE: RESOLUTION OF CLAIM OF ANGELICA KAY

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize settlement of all claims with regard to the lawsuit of Angelica Kay for a total of $28,500, which includes attorney's fees and costs, plus cost of mediation of $1,125.00. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF POLICY BCC-03, RE: CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Chairman Scarborough stated this is incorporating the Florida Statute into the Code; and he does not know why the Board would want to do that as the Code cannot be inconsistent with Florida Statutes. He stated if the Board wanted to, it could make it more stringent; it cannot make it less stringent; and when he asked Assistant County Attorney Kim Brautigam the question, she did not know why this was being done. County Attorney Scott Knox stated it came up under review. County Manager Tom Jenkins stated it is a policy. Chairman Scarborough stated the methodology ended up just incorporating the Florida Statute into the Code; and it is a redundancy that the County should not be practicing. Commissioner Higgs advised Chairman Scarborough could vote no. Chairman Scarborough stated it could cause tremendous problems as time goes on because the Florida Statute may change, and if the Board does not change its Code, there will be inconsistencies; and that could cause legal dilemmas, so this is dangerous.

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

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board has done this in lots of places. Chairman Scarborough stated normally if it does, it is when the Board wants to make it more stringent or go in a different direction; but this is a horrible way to do business. Commissioner O'Brien stated he agrees. Chairman Scarborough stated the Board might as well adopt all the United States Code and all the State Codes; then when they change, there will be inconsistencies; and the world will just be great for attorneys.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if, when the law changes, staff goes through the policies to make sure there are not any old policies the Board should deal with; with Mr. Knox responding yes, but staff does not catch everything. Chairman Scarborough stated it is a nightmare keeping up with statutory changes. Commissioner Higgs suggested referencing the Florida Statutes. Chairman Scarborough stated the Board does not need to reference the Statutes; it is compelled by law of the United States; and it is an insult to think the County's adoption adds or takes anything away. He recommended not adopting. Commissioner O'Brien agreed the Board should take no action. Mr. Jenkins stated the Board needs to get rid of it because the old version is already in the Code.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to delete Policy BCC-03, Conflict of Interest. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

PUBLIC COMMENT, RE: BOARD ACTIONS

Clark Swayze stated prior to acquiring emphysema, he ignored politics although he did vote; but now he has the time to become involved. He stated he cannot believe some of the actions that have been taken in the name of his betterment and protection by all levels of government; the multitude and scope of laws that control his every move are unbelievable; and it is well past time for the sheep to cease being herded and engage in the political process. He stated the process needs new perspectives; he has been active in all levels of government for the past two and one-half years, but due to his illness, he was forced to participate via letter and phone calls; now, however, his health has improved to the point that allows him to participate in person at least at the local level, so the Board will be seeing and hearing more from him. He stated he will be critical but fair; he will feel free to pounce when he believes the Board has done wrong; but he will applaud when the Board does well. He stated many of the Board's past actions have been extremely abrasive, unreasonable, and illustrate a complete lack of common sense; and in the future he would ask the Board to ponder the numerous past limitations and restrictions it has placed on the citizens of Brevard while considering new actions it might desire to impose. He stated it will take effort to get used to being a boss and having to speak last, but he will adjust; in most venues the boss speaks first; but for today, he will just ask the Board to remember the masses are the ones that heed its wisdom and protection, while special interest groups have held the podiums and scales of justice long enough.

Commissioner Higgs advised Mr. Swayze may speak on every item on the Agenda.

PUBLIC COMMENT, RE: AUDIT OF CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS

Bea Polk stated she is back because there is still disagreement with the audit of the Constitutional Officers; she has been going from one lawyer to another and gets all kinds of opinions; and inquired if the County gives the money, why can it not audit the books. She stated if the State gave the money, it would audit; and she wants it audited because a private attorney is being paid, not by the hour, but only by what he did. She stated she would like to know why a private attorney who works for the taxpayers does not put his time down.

Chairman Scarborough inquired if there are any requirements of how that is recorded and paid; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding he knows the bills Ms. Polk is talking about, but has no idea how the attorney is paid. Mr. Knox stated if he is paid by the hour, it would seem he would have to put his time down.

Ms. Polk stated no hours are shown; but every other Constitutional Officer in the State has hours down when they have a private attorney, unless it is a full-time attorney. She stated since the Board approved the budget to give these big raises to Jim Ford's certain employees, she is going to ask the Board to do the same thing for every County employee as there should be no difference. She stated she has asked where they money comes from; they get the 3% and the 6%, but they still get big wages; that is not fair to the County employees if they are not given the same kind of money; and if the Board does not believe it, it should go look at the salaries in the last two years. She stated when she pulls up salaries given by other Constitutional Officers, she does not find that; and requested the Board treat the rest of the employees in Brevard County the same as those in the Property Appraiser's Office. She stated she is not saying all the Property Appraiser's employees; certain ones get big raises every year; at the budget workshops, the Property Appraiser's budget was not even brought up because he is under the 3%; people were amazed; she saw the Board take the Sheriff's Department budget apart as well as the Clerk's Office and the Supervisor of Elections; but the Board did not have the one office that pays the biggest salaries to the less qualified people and go over his budget. She stated last year the Board told her she was not early enough to do anything; yet when she came down this year, the Property Appraiser was not there. She advised of various paperwork given out by the County; and suggested it be consolidated to pass out to the public to cut expenses. She stated the Property Appraiser is the one who wanted to cut it down to 3%; he is the man who advertised he will get taxes down; but the County gives him more money than it gives the others; and inquired what is the Board going to do about it. She stated someone suggested she look at the Sheriff's budget, but she does not see those kinds of salaries there; until she came up with some high-priced salaries, some of the big people in the Sheriff's Department were not paid what they are now. She stated she has not received information on where in the budget the Property Appraiser received the extra money; she wants it; and the public is not going to stop. She stated she cannot hit every meeting, but she wants to know how a man can pay an attorney $192,000 part-time and not even have any time listed. She stated the Board should find out because it is responsible.

Chairman Scarborough requested the County Attorney check on the requirements for attorneys; with Mr. Knox advising he can check on that.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Department of Revenue approves the budget for the Property Appraiser. Ms. Polk stated that is correct, but the State asks how many times the County ever disagreed with Mr. Ford's budget; and Mr. Jenkins says one time. Commissioner Higgs stated the County did not get anywhere. Ms. Polk stated nothing was sent to Tallahassee. Commissioner Higgs inquired what was the deadline date for appealing the Property Appraiser's budget; with Ms. Polk responding she does not remember the date, and does not want to give a date that is wrong. Ms. Polk stated the County gives the tax money; it does not come from the State; and suggested the Board go to the Legislature so the State can pay the Property Appraiser's salaries because the State will say how much. She stated there is no standard; the State says Mr. Ford knows what he needs; and that is a shame for the Department of Revenue to say that. She stated when someone is greedy, they need more and more; and commented on the number of employees and the amount of money given. She recommended the Board look at the salaries from 1999 to today; and inquired how many more years is the Board going to give Jim Ford every dime he wants and not object to it.

Chairman Scarborough stated the Constitutional Officers like the Property Appraiser, Clerk, Tax Collector, and Sheriff are elected independently; the Board has never had the opportunity to decide for them who or what type positions they have or what they pay for the different positions; that is not within the Board's prerogative; and even if the Board challenged the overall budgets, those are decisions of an administrative nature that are decided by the administrative charter officer who does have the prerogative to decide those issues. He stated Ms. Polk keeps bringing this up; and it is almost as if he was listening to AM and Ms. Polk was playing in FM, because he does not understand what she is saying.

Ms. Polk stated the Board should cut his budget so he does not have all that extra money.

Chairman Scarborough stated if the Board cuts his budget, then the issue is whether it can do that without him going to Tallahassee. Ms. Polk stated the County can appeal it; and inquired if the Board has ever appealed it. She stated the Board has that authority, but she has never seen it done. Chairman Scarborough stated he has problems understanding how the Board is going to accomplish that task under the laws of Florida.

WARRANT LISTS

Upon motion and vote, the meeting was adjourned at 4:19 p.m.

_________________________________
ATTEST: TRUMAN G. SCARBOROUGH, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
__________________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

( S E A L )