MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

September 26, 2006

 

 

 

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special session on September 26, 2006 at 4:30 p.m. in the Government Center Florida Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida.  Present were: Chair Helen Voltz, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Ron Pritchard, Susan Carlson, and Jackie Colon, County Manager Peggy Busacca, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

 

 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated the best way to look at the issues is as three trains leaving a station, and the four rezonings being heard got on a train that is going to meet its destination on November 2, 2006, which is the Zoning meeting.  He stated since that train has already left the station, those people cannot be pulled off the train; they are going to be heard on November 2, 2006.  He stated there was another discussion on a small area plan and a moratorium on any new filings; the Board determined anyone who got their application in by September 19, 2006, could get on a train; that train is going to pick up new passengers and they can get back on the train after the moratorium is over; and that is if the Board adopts it on October 5, 2006.  He stated there is one other train that is leaving the track and it is the crazy train they are talking about tonight; and they do not know who is on the train, how many stops it is going to make, or even if the train is going to meet its destination.  He stated the train is called the incorporation train, and the incorporation train has to get certain data prepared; David Laney, with the University of Central Florida, has to get certain data in to the Legislature; then it goes to the Legislative Delegation, and it has to approve it and be willing to move forward with it, and if that happens, it goes on the ballot.  He stated the last bridge the train has to go over is that the people have to approve it to go on the ballot; whether it ever arrives at its station is totally separate from the other trains that are leaving earlier, and they know when and how they are going to arrive.  He stated he knows of some people who are interested in opting out of the incorporation, and it may be best to have Fred Kusterer, who has taken over from Steve Jack, address the Board on the issues of boundaries. 

 

Fred Kusterer stated he is from the Mims Charter Group, which is different from the Mims Community Group; and he is part of that group but he is not taking Steve Jack’s place in the group.  He stated he and Shawn Harris discussed the boundaries and have come to an agreement on the boundaries for East Mims; the Charter Group had a meeting and the majority of the group voted to ask the Board to continue with the study; and due to the fact that they have East Mims and Sherwood Subdivision squared away, he does not see any reason why the study cannot continue.  He stated he and Mr. Harris had a long discussion, they have common goals, and he hopes in the future they can get together and work on those goals.

 

 

 

 

Shawn Harris stated the boundaries he and Mr. Kusterer discussed were south at Cuyler Road, north at Brockett Road, west at U.S. 1, and east would be the river.  He stated East Mims does want to be included in the small area study or in the feasibility study; he and Mr. Kusterer had a very constructive conversation about several different issues and they look forward to working together on some things in the future.  He was approached by a gentleman tonight who lives on Brockett Road and was not aware of the boundary line coming up to Brockett Road; and he wants to make sure it is brought to the Board’s attention. 

 

Dot Jones stated she and her husband own a business just north of the boundary line, but they also own property located within the boundary. She noted she was at a Commission meeting last week and was on the agenda behind Mims residents in order to get her road vacated, and was surprised the incorporation has gotten to where it is.  She stated people need to be aware that when they come before the County Commission they need to tell the truth and not use exaggerations, such as the gentleman in favor of incorporation who talked about Walkabout and stated the houses are so close, one could reach their arms out and touch both houses; that is not true; that is an exaggeration; and things like that should not be brought up when they are not true.  She stated the truth is that there are 1,200 acres in Walkabout and 60% of those acres are left as open land; those are 720 acres that will not be developed and are left for water resources and rainwater; and that is a lot of land left open for a non-development area.  She commented since last week she has talked to approximately 150 people who live in the area being discussed for incorporation; and out of the 150 people, two people said they did not care one way or another, and the rest of them were against incorporation.  She stated the Mims Community Group held its meetings for people who support incorporation, but it did not go out into the community and talk to homeowners; and it may have had more support and feedback if it had done that.  She stated she is against incorporation; she does not know the concept of the moratorium, but it seems to her that if someone owns property in an area, they should not be restricted with a moratorium; if they own the property they should have the rights other people have, to take their property before a Board and get it rezoned.

 

Gail Akins stated she is grateful to the Board for excluding them from the incorporation; but she wants to confirm where the boundary lines are.  She stated if the feasibility study does not go forward at this time, the Sherwood Area Homeowners Association wants to make certain the area is still excluded, so that should it arise again, it would not have to go through this process again.

 

Clarence Clarke stated he agrees with Ms. Akins, and does not need to speak.

 

Heather Calligan stated she owns 40 acres in Mims and found out about the incorporation from the newspaper; and she saw how far along the incorporation is, and that Sherwood and East Mims requested to opt out.  She stated no one has contacted her, so she contacted Commissioner Scarborough’s Office and submitted a letter before September 19^th requesting to opt out; she was advised that she would not necessarily be opted out, because it is a consideration that has to be looked into.  She commented she is not in favor of incorporation for  several reasons;   her property is a business,  and  not

 

residential; she feels taxes and water fees will be an issue, and those are things she is not prepared to deal with.  Ms. Calligan stated she wants to opt out, and if she cannot opt out, she is against incorporation, but if she can opt out, she does not care what happens. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated there is no deadline and earlier in the meeting he was referring to other people already being on a train that no one knows will ever get to the station.  He noted tonight the Board will decide if the boundaries can be withdrawn; David Laney is in the audience and he will express his concerns about the impact of the boundaries on the feasibility study.  He stated there has to be a line drawn for Mr. Laney to go forward and the time is running out, but there was no date that a letter had to be submitted by.  Chair Voltz advised the September 19^th date was for Zoning requests that had been in the pipeline.

 

Ms. Calligan commented she wants to make sure everybody knows she wants to opt out; and she wants to stay on top of it to make sure she does not get pushed into doing something she does not want.

 

R.C. Kirk stated there was a question about the boundary line for the East Mims District extending to Brockett Road; and he and his wife drove down Brockett Road and asked people whom they saw in their yards if they wanted to be in the East Mims District.  He noted they talked to 30 people, and 27 of them said they wanted to be in the East Mims District.  He stated they also talked to people regarding what they wanted for Mims. 

 

Mason Blake, from Dean Meade Law Firm, stated he is present on behalf of Kim Rezanka.  He commented his Firm represents Roper Harding Titusville Partnership, which has about 30 acres across I-95 from property that is being excluded from the incorporation; and their client asked that their property be excluded from the area of incorporation.  

 

Thelma Roper stated she lives in the area proposed for incorporation; and with everyone who is opposed to it, and those who want to opt out, she does not see going forward with it; and the majority of the people she talked to do not want to incorporate.  She stated when the Scottsmoor Community Association members told Steve Jack they did not want to be part of Mims, they informed Mr. Jack the boundaries they used for the SCA go all the way down to Grantline Road.  She noted Mr. Jack chose to go all the way up to Flounder Creek Road because that is where the little sign is on the highway; but the sign on the highway stops just north of Mims Elementary, before D&E Pump.  She noted the incorporation study should not move forward based on the voices that have been before the Board stating they want to opt out.  She stated she checked on the signatures; there were some who did not live anywhere in the boundaries, but just wanted to support Mims and what Mims wanted; and some of them wound up in the boundary. 

 

Walter Pine stated he lives in the area proposed of incorporation, and nobody wants to be part of Titusville; and Titusville says it will not incorporate further north, but that may change the next time there is an election.  He commented there has been the discussion of creating enclaves inside  the proposed  incorporation area, which could  be a problem;

 

when East Mims is pulled out, it could be defined as an enclave; if it is, it just means it can be incorporated without the opportunity to vote, and he does not think that is appropriate.  He stated he understands the desire to not become a part of the study area, and he would opt out if he could; and the issue is if the Board will go forward with the study as it is or change it and pay more money.  Mr. Pine noted the incorporation study has created a rift in the community and the longer it goes on, the more bad feelings it creates; and they are destroying a community and not building one.  He asked that the study be stopped; stated it is the best thing for the community; if the community wants to come back and do it again, that is fine, and if there is enough support for them to do it, then that is great; but right now he has not found anybody who does not have reservations, or who just purely does not want to be part of an incorporation.  He noted there are a few people who would like to have services such as water, road services, and some of those things, because they do not see the County properly providing those services; and it is not that they want to be the City of Mims, but they want the services they are getting.  He stated there is nothing stopping the community from doing its own study and paying for it themselves, so they are not being stopped from going forward; but they are just being stopped from the County paying for it and destroying the community.

 

David Laney, representing the Institute of Government, at the University of Central Florida, stated he is interested to see if the boundaries of the study are going to change, and if so, how they launch back into addressing what the newly defined study might be, and what it is he may be faced with tomorrow morning.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated one question that has come up is the exclusion of the Sherwood Subdivision and East Mims, and if that would create any illegal enclaves or any problems in collecting data.  Mr. Laney responded until he sees what the defined proposed boundaries are of those areas, he cannot answer that; noted there will be much redefinition that will have to happen based on where the boundaries are drawn; and incorporation and feasibility studies are not like an Excel spreadsheet, where equations are entered once and then later they can go back and plug in new numbers; so he cannot answer Commissioner Scarborough’s question until he sees what the new boundaries are.  Commissioner Scarborough noted he and Mr. Laney talked about the approximate boundaries, and Mr. Laney began to wonder about having the study completed in time and if it would be of the quality that UCF would feel comfortable with.

 

Mr. Laney stated he has a concern about the quality of the final study, and he will not submit a final product until he is satisfied with the quality and can defend the data that is in there; there will be a considerable amount of data redefinition that has to be done to move forward, and he has significant reservations in obligating to the current established deliverable date and being able to produce a product that is appropriate and defensible and with all of the methodologies fully expounded upon.  He advised not knowing what the new boundaries might be, he would have some concern about meeting the current deliverable date; there may be some additional impacts resulting from the manner in which municipal services and current delivery distribution systems could be potentially redrawn by the lines; and there are a whole host of additional questions that will come into play that he does not have the answers to right now.  He commented the deadline he  is  currently  working with is the one  established  in  the  Contract with  the  Board of

 

County Commissioners, as administered by County Manager Peggy Busacca and Marilyn Crotty, the Director of the Institute of Government at UCF; and he is the one who set the deadline for the deliverable for the end of the first week in November.  He noted statutorily the incorporation feasibility study has to be submitted to the Legislature 90 days prior to the beginning of the next session; the final product also has to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners, as it contracted the study; it also needs to be presented to the Brevard County Legislative Delegation, and when time starts to add up for all of those entities to have the chance to review the results of the feasibility study before it moves forward to a subcommittee and committee action in Tallahassee, it ends up being the first week in November.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated he does not see any value in continuing the study as it is, and a small area plan for a variety of areas is going to be appropriate; a primary concern is what U.S. 1 will look like; and a corridor study for U.S. 1 would give the citizens a vision of Mims defined.  He commented as Mr. Pine stated, it is not a City that Mims wants, it is the services; he thinks that is a truism; what Mims wants is an identity and control of its destiny so it is not gobbled up by the near municipality; and it would have a hand in controlling where it is going.  He noted the route they took with trying to do the incorporation left out so many of the parties, it is not repairable, and it has created a division; and maybe the way Mims can get back its vision of what its destiny is going to be is with a corridor study and small area plans where appropriate.

 

Commissioner Colon inquired if Mr. Laney would be finished with the whole project in four weeks; with Mr. Laney responding yes, as it is currently defined, with no changes made.  Commissioner Colon inquired what a study is based on that it would be able to get the approval of Tallahassee, and if they look for a certain amount of population and square miles; with Mr. Laney responding the clearest definition that would answer that question are Florida Statutes 165.041 and 165.061, which stipulate the outline of requirements which have to be addressed by an incorporation feasibility study.  He stated amongst them are a minimum population, which is based upon the County’s population, there is also a population density requirement; and there are compact contiguous aspects and attributes of the community and a minimum distance from the nearest incorporation boundary of two miles.  He stated those are the clearest five, but then a complete evaluation has to be done of cost of municipal services, current methodology provision for municipal services, projection of five years of development and population increases within the area, and the provision for municipal services associated with that.

 

Commissioner Colon inquired what the population is; with Mr. Laney responding the current numbers project a little over 12,000.  Commissioner Colon inquired what the number is Tallahassee will not accept; with Mr. Laney responding the Florida State Legislature has never not accepted; there have been 41 or 43 exceptions and waivers requested associated with the statutory requirements of Chapter 165; and there have been more waivers granted than have been requested.  Commissioner Colon stated she is asking that question so she can have a better idea in regards to population, since it is the population the Board is looking at right now; with Mr. Laney responding for a County with a population greater than 75,000, the minimum population is 5,000, but at the same time, the Florida State Legislature has not waived any exception since the requirement

 

to perform and incorporate feasibility study was first enacted in 1974.  Commissioner Colon commented people have contacted her with concerns over their taxes, and have inquired once incorporated, what it will mean to them as far as how it will hit their pocketbooks.  Mr. Laney responded it depends on a lot of things, but one of the primary considerations is what is the proposed construction of the City Government, and what are the proposed methodologies for continuity of provision of municipal services; which is still to be provided by the Mims Steering Committee.  Commissioner Colon inquired if he was referring to Steve Jack; with Mr. Laney responding affirmatively and stating the construction of the proposed City Government, in the event Mims were to become a City, is contained and described within a required City Charter, which has to be developed parallel to a feasibility study and submitted to the Legislature.  Commissioner Colon stated no matter what, the Board owes Mr. Laney $20,000, and she would like to have that data to show where they are because she is still confused on the population. She inquired how many people are in Grant-Valkaria; with Mr. Laney responding 3,907 was the final number that was used, and the Mims area has even more.  Commissioner Colon inquired if population would not be an issue in this particular case as of right now; with Mr. Laney responding affirmatively.  Commissioner Colon inquired what else Mr. Laney is looking for in regards to the feasibility study; with Mr. Laney responding for the last five weeks he has been waiting for a decision to be made regarding boundaries of the study.  Commissioner Colon stated the boundaries were not an issue until two weeks ago.  Mr. Laney stated he would disagree with that; with Commissioner Colon responding if the Board has to pay the $20,000, it needs to figure out exactly how the data comes back, and at that point, the Board would have to decide if the numbers are there to move forward.  She inquired if Mr. Laney has looked at the area in question at all; with Mr. Laney responding he is not looking at anything in the event the Commission changes the boundaries, and he has to change the Contract.  

 

Commissioner Colon stated East Mims would seem to be more of an issue than Sherwood, because of the build-out. Mr. Laney inquired in what regards; with Commissioner Colon responding in regards to unbuildable land and future rezoning because of areas that will be built in the future, considering density. Mr. Laney responded he would think the East Mims area would have a greater potential for impacting the future deliverables of municipal services; and in the example of Sherwood being built out, the answer is yes.  Commissioner Colon inquired when tax information is put into the equation; with Mr. Laney responding that information gets put into the equation when he is provided with a proposed form of City Government, and when he is provided with a proposed methodology for continuation of municipal services.  Commissioner Colon inquired if Mr. Laney stated he was waiting for the citizens who want to be incorporated for that kind of information; with Mr. Laney responding affirmatively. Commissioner Colon inquired what the holdup was with them; with Mr. Laney responding she would have to ask them, but he would suspect it was because they did not know the direction the process would be going. 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated from what she has heard, if the Board gives him the boundaries and it extracts Sherwood and East Mims, Mr. Laney would not have the time table of the first week of November any longer; and inquired if that is a correct statement; with Mr. Laney responding he would not have confidence in being able to meet the current date associated  with the  deliverable date, which is November 6, 2006. 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated she is trying to establish the fact that he either can or cannot get the study done in time to get it to the Legislature, and it does not seem to her like he can get it done, because he is also going to need the City Charter done as well; she does not understand why the Board is even talking about doing it this year, because there is not time for Mr. Laney to do an accurate job; and she thinks it is the right of the people to do what they want to do.  Commissioner Carlson stated if they want to incorporate, they can vote on it, and those who want to opt out can vote against it, but that means they cannot opt out and will become part of the City.  She inquired if the cost of the study would change; with Mr. Laney responding there is no more cost, and in his email to Commissioner Scarborough, he addressed the time and effort expended to this point, and also the opportunity costs.  Mr. Laney stated he was asked to be involved with two other incorporation initiatives in Central Florida and he told them both no because of his obligation to Brevard County.  Commissioner Carlson stated the delay has been with the boundaries; and inquired if that affects how things will be going from his perspective, or is that something he is not involved in, and what is the outlook for the Mims committee if they no longer have a leader.  Mr. Laney responded he cannot speak for the Committee; as he has said before, he is not for incorporation or against incorporation; this is a process he has agreed to be involved with and to move forward in as objective a manner consistent with State Statutes as possible, but he is not in the position to propose what the situation might be with the Committee.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated Sherwood is a subdivision built around a golf course, and Walkabout is developing in a similar fashion; he sees several ways the Board could proceed, and as they listen to the public, it seems it becomes more problematic for getting a project in on time.  He noted the Board can tell Mr. Laney to go ahead and prepare the study as the Board originally instructed, but that is already past where the Commission is, because it has heard two definable communities say they want to opt out.  He commented what bothers him is if other groups are opted out this evening, then tomorrow morning he gets more calls and opts out more, the Board will default into the final posture, and the final posture which is that it is ahead of itself.  He stated the Commission does not come out and say it would like to see an area incorporate; it responds by saying it will have a study prepared because it is required by the Legislature, so the Board is basically paying for a product for the citizens so they can have a good product to understand the nature of the beast and have that presented to the Legislature.  He stated at this point it appears to him that in going through the four options, that Option One, where the Board proceeds with the study, is clearly not viable; and even the group is now agreed that it would not be prudent to include the platted subdivision of Sherwood, and they have also come to an agreement that East Mims should be excluded.  He stated adding additional opt-outs is beyond the capacity of the Commission this evening, because it could end up with an inability to define for the citizens in a timely manner what the product would be.  He commented the Board does not have the time tonight and it may be best to go back and regroup; there will be Legislative Sessions in ’07 and ’08; and this is not the way to do it.  He stated he feels the question is going to be whether it is not going to work, period; he understands what Commissioner Colon meant when she spoke about proceeding since they have come to this point; at least it is a product the Board has paid for, and if at that juncture the community does not want to proceed, at least the Board has paid for a product and can have something in hand.

 

Mr. Laney stated an aspect of the feasibility incorporation study is that it has to be presented to the Florida State Legislature as a definition of the sense of community identity; and he inquired how the Board would like him to address that, or if it wants him to proceed with the product.  Commissioner Pritchard commented he does not think there is a clear community identity; when the community says it does not want to be a part of anything, then there is no identity; if there is going to be a boundary, it needs to be defined and agreed upon; and there is none.

 

Commissioner Colon stated she wants to see the study, as it is, knowing full well it is not prepared to go before the Legislature; it would just be informational and basically getting all of the data and information Mr. Laney has gathered; she would definitely want the City Charter to be included in the data; and she is sure the community has something in mind of what kind of community it would want to mirror.  She stated she would not support carrying the study forward because it has a lot of holes in it at this point; a community that is divided is not the way to go; Mr. Laney’s and UCF’s reputations are on the line; and the November deadline is not acceptable at this point because November is around the corner, but she still wants to get something back versus telling Mr. Laney goodbye and losing $20,000.  She stated the Board owes it to the citizens of Mims to at least look at it; and if that is the action taken today, it would not go any further and would be more of looking at the information that came back.  She noted at this point it would behoove the Board to get all of the data back knowing it is just for informational purposes, and knowing it will not do anything with it because it is clear there are two areas in Mims that are interested in being excluded.  She inquired if Mr. Laney understands what she is saying about the County getting its money’s worth, and that the study is not going anywhere at this point because it will not meet the deadlines that are needed, and also the kind of comfort level Mr. Laney would need to put something together in that short period of time.  Mr. Laney responded he understands what Commissioner Colon is saying, but he cannot go forward with the feasibility study until he is provided with a City Charter, and if he is not provided a City Charter, he cannot proceed past this point; and he would be happy to give the Board the raw data that he has collected at this point, but he will not submit a product to anyone with his name on it that is not in full compliance with what the original Contractual Agreement was.  Commissioner Colon inquired if Mr. Laney heard her at any point say she did not want him to be given a City Charter; stated that data has to be given to him in order for it to be complete; the Board cannot do anything with the data, and it is getting its $20,000 worth; with Mr. Laney responding he is not the one who spent the $20,000.  Commissioner Colon stated the Board owes it to the citizens that all of the data he has gathered is given to them; and they know getting the final product is not realistic as far as submitting that kind of information to Tallahassee.

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board could get a report back on the data Mr. Laney has gathered so far; with Mr. Laney responding affirmatively.  Mr. Laney stated it will provide the Board with information specific to the boundary that is captured by the boundaries as they are currently described in the Contract; the data will show the total amount of acreage, the total number of parcels, and the exact land use designation of each one of the parcels; it will show what the adjusted values of the properties are, and what the taxable values are; and it will provide the Board with the current estimate of population within the boundaries.  He advised it will provide the Board with the projected

 

revenue streams as currently exist within those boundaries and information on the various revenue sharing constructs that the individual conducting the study is allowed to calculate; there are some areas that the Legislature and the committees in Tallahassee do the calculations for that the person conducting the study is not allowed to calculate; and the data will also provide the Board with a significant amount of demographic information pertaining to the area captured within the current proposed boundaries by the contract with the Commissioners.  Commissioner Carlson inquired if Mr. Laney could put a report together describing that information; with Mr. Laney responding affirmatively.  Commissioner Carlson commented if the Board has the data, everything is still going to change next year, such as demographics and other things; stated she sees the data as setting up a small area plan, because it seems like a lot of the data Mr. Laney has collected is going to lend itself to a small area plan; the Board ought to get whatever Mr. Laney has actually studied so far, unless the Board thinks it can get some boundaries defined with no time limit, taking East Mims and Sherwood out of the picture and let Mr. Laney start all over again; it sounds like he could do that for no less or no more money; and then something could be brought back to the Commission next year.  She stated they could do a small area plan and perhaps get the same kind of result.

 

Commissioner Pritchard agreed the data could be applied to a small area plan.  Commissioner Colon stated the data is crucial because the issue was not only about Mims becoming incorporated, but that the Board wanted to have a very good idea of the kind of growth that is going to happen in North Brevard County; the Board wanted to look at the bigger picture because of the rezoning that was coming before the Board; at that point the Board wanted to hit the brakes and possibly put a moratorium on the area because of the growth it was seeing and the subdivisions that are popping up; and she will support whatever Commissioner Scarborough wants to do.  She noted either way, Dr. Laney has said he wants to work with the Board and is not trying to charge the Board any more money. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated County Manager Peggy Busacca would like to sit down with Mr. Laney to renegotiate the contract; and the Commission wants to obtain the data that Mr. Laney has already extracted that could be utilized by staff as it examines the area in a small area study. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, for County Manager Peggy Busacca to meet with David Laney to amend the Contract.

 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated rather than the Board try to define a contract, it needs to define a concept, and if that is something that sounds feasible to the Board, he will make a motion for the County Manager meet to amend the contract; and this will eliminate the facets that become problematic.  

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to direct County Manager Peggy Busacca to renegotiate the contract, and obtain data that has already been extracted, that can be utilized by staff, as it examines the area in a Small Area Study.

 

 

 

David Laney stated he does not see a problem with it; the data that has been collected to this point is a wealth of descriptive data for the properties contained within the original proposed boundaries; and in discussions with Ms. Busacca and her staff, if they can provide him with some information of what it is, how they want to evaluate it, and what data needs they have that can be further correlated with what he has, he would be more than happy to assist them with that.  He noted there is a lot of information.

 

Chair Voltz stated when the Board looked at the Grant-Valkaria incorporation and giving them $20,000 for the study, the community was all together and there were 100 people at the Commission meeting to support that study; and although she had a number of people call her office and come to see her about the fact that they did not want to see incorporation happen, there were not groups coming before the Board wanting to opt out of the study.  She advised with that in mind, she thinks it is a train wreck; although she understands the reason why Grant-Valkaria incorporated because the people were worried about annexations, and people in Mims are concerned about annexations by the City of Titusville, she does not know how to get around that other than incorporation; and they can do JPA’s with the cities, but if someone wants to go into the City of Titusville for services, they are going to go to the City of Titusville.  She stated she will support Commissioner Scarborough’s motion; and that is the way the Board should go.

 

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

 

 

Upon motion and vote, the meeting was adjourned at 5:35 p.m.

 

 

 

                                                                        ____________________________

                                                                        HELEN VOLTZ, CHAIR

                                                                        BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

ATTEST:                                                         BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

 

___________________

SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK 

 

          (S E A L)          

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.