February 27, 2001

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special session on February 27, 2001, at 9:00 a.m. in the Government Center Florida Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairman Sue Carlson, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Randy O'Brien, Nancy Higgs, and Jackie Colon, *County Manager Tom Jenkins, *Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

PRESS RELEASE, RE: NORTH REACH

Commissioner O'Brien stated Virginia Barker gave him a press release, which is an important statement for Brevard County; and read the press release, as follows: "The progress made to date on building back Brevard's beaches is nothing less than staggering. Yesterday the contractor, Great Links Dredge and Dock completed construction of the second-third of Phase 1, also called the North Reach. The contractor is over two months ahead of schedule. Since November 13th, 6.9 miles of beaches in Cocoa Beach and Cape Canaveral, and another three miles along Patrick Air Force Base (PAFB) have been restored. What remains incomplete is the section between Route 520 and the Minutemen Causeway, incomplete because of insufficient federal funds; however, yesterday, Congressional subcommittees for the House and Senate, in accordance of last week's White House approval, granted transfer authority to the Army Corps of Engineers to cover the federal costs of competing the final third of the North Reach, effective immediately. This action will complete the North Reach by May 1st, a year ahead of schedule. Constructing the entire North Reach this year will avoid the cost of mobilizing all the dredges and equipment again next year, thereby reducing project costs by more than $500,000. Brevard County's Shore Protection Project, together with the PAFB Project will provide unbroken storm protection to our Barrier Island, from Port Canaveral to the PAFB Satellite Tracking Station. The two projects will provide 13 miles of public recreational beach along all of Cape Canaveral, Cocoa Beach, and most of PAFB. It is anticipated that the projects will also ensure healthy turtle nesting habitat for years to come. Many who know the rigorous federal funding process said that obtaining federal funds mid-year could not be done, not this early in the fiscal year and not during a transition between administrations in the White House. Proving them wrong, White House and Congressional approval of the fund transfer was made possible by incredible teamwork. The team was mounted by Brevard County, with outstanding and crucial leadership from Congressman Dave Weldon and his staff, Senator Graham and his staff, Governor Jeb Bush and his staff, the Army Corps of Engineers, Canaveral Port Authority and their staff, the Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association, many Washington, D.C. and Tallahassee representative, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), as well as local constituents and volunteers. Many thanks are due to this team of public servants for the relentless efforts. Brevard County would like to give special thanks to the contractor, Great Links Dredge and Dock Company, for outstanding performance building back Brevard's beaches." Commissioner O'Brien stated Ms. Barker is still doing an outstanding job as the County is saving $500,000, it is ahead of schedule, and is able to get more money to bring it up to speed before turtle nesting season begins.

PERMISSION TO REPRESENT BOARD, RE: DRAFT MANATEE PROTECTION PLAN

Chairman Carlson stated the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Bureau of Protected Species Management has offered to meet with a Board representative and County staff to discuss a review of Brevard's draft Manatee Protection Plan (MPP) on March 7, 2001; she has responded to meet with the Bureau staff; and inquired if anyone else is interested in getting a briefing on it.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if Chairman Carlson will be representing the Board; with Chairman Carlson responding yes.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize Chairman Sue Carlson to meet with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Bureau of Protected Species Management, representing the Board, on March 7, 2001 to discuss Brevard County's draft Manatee Protection Plan (MPP). Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired does the meeting on March 7, 2001 need to be advertised as he may also attend. Commissioner Higgs stated any Commissioner can meet with the Bureau separately, but Chairman Carlson is negotiating for the Board. Chairman Carlson stated the Bureau will be presenting its proposed speed zone changes, which have already been forwarded to the Board; and she is happy to meet with the Bureau. Commissioner O'Brien requested staff ask the Bureau if it is willing to change its mind on any of the proposed new or improved zones at this time; and inquired if it is not willing to make any changes, then why waste time have a meeting. Commissioner Higgs noted not all the Commissioners have been supportive of the different zone configurations.

DISCUSSION, RE: CRIMINAL JUSTICE ISSUES

Chairman Carlson stated she went to Tallahassee and discussed the criminal justice issues the Board had concerns about, particularly with the State sending down the predisposition of juveniles in the justice system and the potential of reducing dollars toward the Juvenile Assessment Center (JAC); Representative Randy Ball, who chairs one of the Criminal Justice Subcommittees, submitted his budget; and there is no mention of any reductions. She noted the detention and JAC did not make it on any recommended reduction list; so right now those cuts will not exist.

DISCUSSION, RE: COURTHOUSE EXPANSION

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated documentation has been provided on the need for additional court space based on the projected increase in judges and courts' personnel; the issues before the Board are where does it believe the courts should be expanded; the choices have been narrowed to South Brevard or the Harry T. and Harriette V. Moore Justice Center in Viera; and the next issues are how much does the Board propose to invest in expanding facilities and how does it want to fund the expansion. He advised the County currently has $500,000 per year available for debt service in the year 2002 and will have another $500,000 per year in the year 2015, all the monies coming from a civil traffic fine surcharge; using the surcharge revenues requires the General Fund to pick up approximately $130,000 currently being spent on domestic violence prevention education and child support enforcement; the $500,000 in 2002 and the $500,000 in 2015 will generate approximately $8.5 million in bond proceeds; and it should provide up to four new courtrooms, depending on the terms and other costs, which are unknown at this time. Mr. Jenkins stated another issue is the short-term needs, depending on whether the Legislature funds two new Circuit Court and one new County Court judges and where they can be located; putting two new judges in Titusville is the only practical solution currently available, but does not necessarily put the judges where the case load is being generated; the judges will be seeking approval from the Board for implementation of the use of jury districts; the Board has to take a formal action; and the Chief Judge will be discussing the item with the Board as part of the presentation. He stated staff tried to gather what demographic information is currently available; the new census does not come out until next summer; staff has had to work with the existing data and provided a considerable amount of information on demographics in terms of where the population growth is; and it has provided a number of options and variables. He reiterated the County could fund approximately four new courtrooms with the existing revenue stream, depending on the cost of land, etc.

Commissioner Higgs inquired are those constructions dollars and do not include operation and maintenance during the year; with Mr. Jenkins responding that is correct. Mr. Jenkins stated he does not know that building two more courtrooms somewhere is the best course of action; if the County cannot afford more than two courtrooms, it should acquire a site and plan for future funding to do it right as opposed to doing it halfway; and suggested the Board pick a location and work on a funding plan, as it has existing monies that can fund up to four courtrooms. He noted if it is going to cost more than that, the Board may want to look for alternative funding.

Chief Judge Preston Silvernail stated this past year, the judges of Brevard County applied for six new judges as a result of the number of cases they have heard; the judges used the methodology adopted by the Legislature, known as the Delphi process; and the Supreme Court certified the need for three new judges, two Circuit judges and one County judge. He noted one of the Circuit judges will probably sit in Seminole County; the immediacy of their need for courthouse space has been reduced as a result of that; the County still needs the other judges, but it is not realistic for it to think it is going to get those through this Legislative Session; and the judges will be going through the Article V transition process, and will have to come to the end of such process by the year 2004. He stated what it does to financing potential facilities and other court-related costs is something that is yet to be resolved; the judges will be sharing that with the Board in the near future, as it is not necessarily something that needs to be discussed at this time; there is a need for new courtroom space as the judges are out of courtrooms at this time; and they are constrained by the lack of courtroom facilities. Judge Silvernail stated the judges have discussed potentially using the Florida Room or Commission Chambers to try certain cases; reiterated the need for courtroom space is not as immediate, as he told the Board before, as a result of not getting the judges in a timely fashion; stated the alternatives before the Board are good ones; among those alternatives, the one that would serve the people of Brevard County best is to locate a court facility in the South Brevard area; and it would reserve expansion of the Viera facility. He noted Coleman Goatley indicated his organization would be willing to build an 80,000 square-foot shell for $3.25 million; and it is a good idea to identify a location and build something that can be expanded in the future as the need arises.

Judge Silvernail stated when the State Legislature decided to move from voter registration to drivers licenses for jury pools, the judges were put in the position of having to draw a Countywide jury district due to constraints of law; because of changes in the law and additional capacity to break down the population better, the judges can break down the County jury pool so there can be one pool serving the North Brevard area; the dividing line would be at Canaveral Groves Boulevard; and one jury pool would serve the South Brevard area, which would include the Viera, Melbourne and Palm Bay Courthouses. He advised a majority vote of the Board is needed to break these down into jury districts; and it will better serve the public.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve one jury pool to serve the North Brevard area, with the dividing line at Canaveral Groves Boulevard, and one jury pool to serve the South Brevard area, including the Viera, Melbourne, and Palm Bay Courthouses. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he and Clerk of the Circuit and County Courts Scott Ellis met with Attorney Stephen Brewer and Judge George Maxwell to see if there was a conflict or not; the concern goes beyond the jury pool to the next issue of an attorney in South Brevard, his client driving to the North Brevard, losing a witness on the way and losing the case; there could potentially be the use of North Brevard and Viera, and South Brevard and Viera; and no one in the south would have to drive north of Viera and no one in the north would have to drive south of Viera. He noted a lot of the discussion and concerns from the judiciary and the Bar would be eliminated if that could occur.

Clerk of Courts Scott Ellis stated Commissioner Scarborough is referring to establishing districts for filing cases; the Clerk's Office does not have a problem with it; and the idea is that someone from South Brevard would not have to go to North Brevard and vice versa. Judge Silvernail stated the judges could work closely with the Clerk's Office to see it is accomplished; however, sometimes it may not be accomplishable due to the nature of the case or the number of cases in a certain area; but hopefully it would be an anomaly.

DISCUSSION, RE: COURTHOUSE EXPANSION

Commissioner Scarborough stated getting to court with witnesses and people is a complex issue; the closer one is, the easier it is to find a facility and the more likely there is going to be justice in the system; and if people are lost in the process, there is not justice.

Mr. Jenkins stated in County Court, cases are currently filed by the defendant's address, plaintiff's address, or attorney's address, and location of the offense; traffic is heard at multiple locations; and it is in Circuit Court when it is done by the selection of the judges.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the writ of mandamus makes a specific statement, including traffic courts, small claims courts, other short duration, non-jury, and non-prison would be appropriate in satellite facilities; it has been a part of the philosophy; the County would be adjusting the philosophy of the court opinion and could use Viera as a centralized facility that would move both north and south; and he does not know if it violates the prior thought process.

Mr. Ellis inquired is an administrative order needed from the Chief Judge to set up the filing districts and is it legal. Judge Silvernail responded it has been done before and is legal; the logistics need to be worked out; when a court facility is built, the County should build a full service facility; and the County has done a great job in Titusville of expanding and remodeling the court and holding facilities, and the judges are happy with it. He noted it is time to start adjusting the gaze to the south.

Chairman Carlson noted it makes sense to have full service facilities in all three locations; and requested Judge Silvernail provide a more accurate count of what he expects the County will need in terms of judges to the year 2020. Judge Silvernail responded the judges will work on it for the Board; and the six judges are consistent with five projected at the 2005 date as one judge will probably be in Seminole County. Chairman Carlson stated going to the year 2020 would be 14 judges, and inquired if it fits with the calculations; with Judge Silvernail responding that is a projection and the judges will work on it to make sure. Chairman Carlson stated on the Supreme Court's decision last year to provide two Circuit Court judges and one County Court judge, the County never received them; and inquired if it will happen this year. Judge Silvernail responded if the Supreme Court does not fund the judges this year, it will be the first time in the modern era that for two years in a row it did not fund them; last year was the third time in any one year that it had not funded judges; the Supreme Court has a lot on its plate; and the judges are worried about it.

Commissioner Colon stated Judge Silvernail indicated there is not an immediate need for space which helps the Board; she did not want to make the wrong decision based on rushing through the issue; she hopes the Board will discuss the use of the Commission Chambers for the judges; and taxpayers' buildings should be allowed for use by different departments. She noted County buildings need to look judicial and like law is being practiced there, not shells; the people need to know they are coming to a place of respect; and expressed concern with rushing into certain issues.

DISCUSSION, RE: COURTHOUSE EXPANSION

Mr. Jenkins stated in some cases the judges could use County facilities; the limitations are that once a trial starts, the judges have to have access to the facility for a certain number of consecutive days; the Commission Chambers gets used by the Board, as well as the Planning and Zoning Board and other entities; the biggest two issues would be scheduling so the judges could have it uninterrupted and the types of trials that are held there; and it would have to be strictly civil or non-risk cases. Judge Silvernail noted they are all pretty risky.

Commissioner Higgs stated she is supportive of it if the County can accommodate the judiciary and work out the security issues, but she is not sure it is ideal; the original plan with the Courthouse was the sharing of courthouse space and courtroom space; security in the Courthouse is the biggest issue; and that is why the Harry T. and Harriette V. Moore Justice Center was built the way it was. She noted use of the Commission Chambers and other available space at the Government Center in Viera is not a solution long-term.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to direct staff to work with the Judiciary in using the Commission Chambers and other available space at the Government Center in Viera for court facilities where security can be arranged. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Colon stated she would hope the Planning and Zoning Board meetings and other meetings that take place in the Commission Chambers would move to the Florida Room to allow the court system to take place in the Chambers. Commissioner Higgs noted it would limit the television ability. Mr. Jenkins stated another issue is the size of the crowd; and the Florida Room is limited in seating as opposed to the Commission Chambers. Chairman Carlson noted it is a priority issue; she agrees with Commissioner Colon's comment in terms of architectural speaking of the courthouse; and the County could have an architect or someone make sure the facility is architecturally fitting for a justice center.

Coleman Goatley, representing Bayside Lakes Development Corporation, stated the quality of government buildings in many ways reflects the quality of life in the community; it makes sense that a courthouse should represent the pride and respect that citizens have for their community; inferior design standards and a dreary appearance do not contribute to the prestige deserved by our system of justice; and a substandard location in an old district will never allow a building to develop the visual appeal that demands respect. He stated one of the biggest concerns is the population shift to South Brevard; it has been happening for many years and has the possibility of accelerating; and the County should expect the population in South Brevard to increase substantially in the next 10 years. He noted the County has seen many operations move to South Brevard, including Holmes Regional Medical Center; the school system has placed the Brevard Community College campus in Palm Bay and has built two new schools, Bayside High and Westside Elementary; the library system has a fine central library in Cocoa; but to serve the residents, a facility is provided in South Brevard. Mr. Goatley stated the same trend exists in South Brevard with businesses; there is a new Ford dealership on Malabar Road, a new Chevrolet dealership on Palm Bay Road, and a new Home Depot on Malabar Road; the trend and what people expect is continued development in South Brevard; and it makes sense to put a new court facility down there. He noted given the planned development of roads in the area, Bayside Lakes could be a good choice for the courthouse site; the County has an option to purchase 15 acres for $225,000; Bayside Lakes Development Corporation has ascertained that it could build an 80,000-square foot shell building on the property; and the total cost for the property and building would be $3.25 million. Mr. Goatley requested the Board consider the possibility; and stated the Corporation would be happy to enter into negotiations with the County.

Mr. Jenkins stated the County would have the ability to participate in the design of the exterior building; and it would do the interior finishing of the facility.

Commissioner Higgs inquired how many acres did the Board buy last year; with Facilities Management Director Hugh Muller responding 20 acres. Commissioner Higgs stated the 15 acres is the option the County has.

Mayor John Buckley, representing City of Melbourne, stated he agrees with Judge Silvernail that the courthouse should be built in South Brevard; the proper place to put it is the Wal-mart site on Babcock Street; the City has done population studies; and within a 10-mile radius, there are 123,000 people in the Bayside Lakes area, and 212,000 people in the Wal-mart area. He noted Wal-mart is in a better location with Babcock Street leading up to it; the City of Melbourne will be four-laning Eber Road; going to Bayside Lakes would be encouraging urban sprawl; and the population and location of attorneys are centered in the Melbourne area, not farther south. He reiterated that the best location for the courthouse is the Wal-mart site; based on the numbers published by the County, it would be half the cost; and requested the Board consider the Wal-mart site.

Mr. Jenkins stated the projection is that the County could acquire the Wal-mart site for approximately $3 million.

Commissioner Higgs inquired how many acres is the Wal-mart site; with Mr. Muller responding 10.8 acres.

Daniel Evans, representing Evans Butler Realty, stated Judge Silvernail and Facilities Management staff have visited the Wal-mart facility; he wants to make sure there is objectivity when comparing the presentation for a shell versus presentation of the value inherent in the Wal-mart; it has not been accurately portrayed; and it should be done objectively by an architect

DISCUSSION, RE: COURTHOUSE EXPANSION

who could look at the plumbing, electrical, roof, and all the specifications. He noted a shell has something to do with the site and whether or not utilities are to the site; and some of the engineering and architectural things that have been used in the past, the Board has availed itself of consultants to do that properly. He stated his Company is not trying to cause any friction between the two Cities; the Wal-mart site is a no-man's land as it was in an unincorporated area of Brevard County before Melbourne caused it to be part of its annexation in what it calls the "Southwest Sewer Expansion"; Palm Bay Road is the northern extremity of Palm Bay; the Board's decision-making as to whether the courthouse stays at Viera for the Clerk's reasons or financially is a good one; and the decision-making as to where it might centrally locate within South Brevard should be done objectively. Mr. Evans stated he would welcome any comments from Facilities Management staff that has looked at the two options; it can compare them more accurately which is important for the Board to consider rather than trying to respond to political pressures; and West Melbourne should be considered as it is a big part of the population, which should also be considered.

Mr. Ellis stated the Clerk's Office has not been pushing any of the sites; requested it only have judges at three sites; stated the Clerk's Office can have a service center as long as it does not have judges; such center is not too expensive to do; but if the judiciary is brought in, court clerks and jury clerks are also needed.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if the County tries to locate judges in a hurry, it can make a mistake; one facility is easier to operate; all of these things allow for a reduced cost in operation; and the people have a better presence of justice in the community.

Mr. Ellis stated the service facility could be set up similar to the Tax Collector and Property Appraiser's branch offices; such facility could collect tickets, fines, passports, and marriage licenses; but once the judiciary is involved, there are security issues and other court operations; and four locations for judges would get expensive.

Bob Nanni, City Manager of Palm Bay, stated the Board is being pulled in a lot of different directions; it is the decision maker on this issue; inquired is it thinking about something that needs to be in place immediately to provide short-term relief, or is it talking about a project that has to serve the residents of South Brevard for many years; and stated if the Board is looking at something that has to serve the residents for the next 15 to 25 years, it needs to know where the residents are going to be. He noted the population center keeps moving south and all the demographics point to that; unfortunately, the County does not have the 2000 Census figures, and without those, it is difficult to understand who is going to use the facility; the City of Palm Bay made a concerted effort with respect to the year 2000 Census and isolated staff to get out into the community; and the numbers are going to be larger in South Brevard than estimated. Mr. Nanni stated relative to costs, construction people and developers in Brevard County can provide numbers for the Board; the real issue is whether or not the numbers are the driving variable; the Board needs to make the decision based on the people who are going to use the facility and where most of them are located; and sometimes it is going to offset the dollar amounts.

Hank Simon, Deputy Mayor of City of Palm Bay, stated he agrees that a courthouse is needed in South Brevard; in looking at the demographics, most of the growth is taking place to the south, but west of I-95; the need for the courthouse is west of I-95; he spent approximately two years working on the feasibility study for the Babcock Street corridor; and it has now moved from feasibility to Project Development & Environmental (PD&E) assessment. He noted one of the things that was part of the feasibility study was looking at other arterials to go north and south from Palm Bay, and the conclusion was there are none; there are many roads that can be widened in Melbourne to move people down to Palm Bay, but there are no roads in Palm Bay that can be widened to move them north; and that has been one of the problems of the traffic congestion in Palm Bay. Mr. Simon stated the study showed that the corner of Malabar Road and Babcock Street, which are two main intersections from where the site is in Melbourne, is going to be at 80,000 trips a day at 2020; it would make it a level of service "F" or "G" road, well below the standard of any road; the Palm Bay and Babcock Street intersection is supposed to be busier than that; and inquired why would anyone consider putting a facility on a road that will never come to standard. He reiterated the facility needs to be west of I-95 so it can be the arterial that people are using to get to the facility; and stated it would be easy access from I-95 to get to the courthouse.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Harry T. and Harriette V. Moore Justice Center is designed to be expanded; the Board paid for studies which all say the same thing, centralization is important; one of the comments today referred to attorneys having to use two or three different courthouses; and many attorneys have to run between one case and another and may have three or four cases in one day. He noted the County does not want attorneys having to run back and forth between Palm Bay and Titusville; the State Attorney and Public Defender's Office would also need to be reviewed; the judges would like to be centralized and do not want to be running back and forth; and when staff is also running back and forth or communications break down, justice is not served. He stated the County could serve the citizens of Brevard County well at the Justice Center and that is where it should expand if it is going to expand at all.

Chairman Carlson stated she agrees with Commissioner O'Brien concerning expanding the Justice Center; it was created that way and the County needs to do that; but the Board needs to look 20 years out and not only short-term; and it cannot do it currently with the present funding. She noted the County may be able to do some short-term planning; there are discussions concerning the sales tax referendum and the County needs to include it within the context of looking into the future; she does not have a problem going forward today to expand the Justice Center; but there need to be accurate comparisons and architectural issues reviewed. She noted the County could go forward with two courtrooms at the Justice Center and come back with a conceptual plan for a new facility, whether it is a Wal-mart or in the donut; and inquired what would be the timeframe to get an architectural perspective. Mr. Muller responded staff could report back within 60 to 90 days, depending on availability of the firms. Mr. Jenkins stated if the County is going to design the exterior of the courthouse, it would select the firm that is going to design it; and it would not want to have one company design the exterior and someone else design the building. Commissioner O'Brien stated the County could redesign the entranceway to the Justice Center at Viera to make it look as beautiful, traditional, or historical as any courthouse in the State; and it does not have to build a new courthouse someplace to get that look. Chairman Carlson stated she is not talking about redesigning what the County has, but expanding; if it is going to build a new courthouse or renovate an existing structure, it needs some idea of what it is going to look like; if the structure cannot become what it would like, there is no reason to invest there; and it is better to invest from the ground up versus trying to renovate something else.

Commissioner Higgs stated the County went through an extensive process of selecting the architectural and engineering firm for Viera; it is not something that can be done in 90 days; and once the Board has decided where it is going to go and what it is going to go with then it goes through the process of accepting proposals in a competitive way. She noted eventually there will be expansion at Viera, but the County needs to expand in South Brevard; she believes the County is going to end up with three key facilities in Brevard County; and the opportunities are not there at the Wal-mart site to do what needs to be done long-term as the site is 11.8 acres. She stated Deputy Mayor Simon pointed out the difficulties on Babcock Street; the demographics are important to think about; the County should expand at a significant location in South Brevard; and someday there may be an additional expansion at Viera and the County built in the capacity to do that. Commissioner Higgs stated last year the County purchased property and owns 20 acres already; it has an option to purchase additional acres as it deems necessary; she supports using the land the County bought; and if it needs to buy the additional acreage, it moves forward to plan the facility, goes through the process of selecting a committee and the architectural and engineering firm, and moves forward to design and build. She noted the County needs to identify a timeframe to fund it, but it is not a decision that needs to be made today; her decision is to use the land the County already has; it is comparable to what is at Viera; and if the County needs to exercise the option for additional land, it can do so. She stated the demographics support it and the infrastructure will support it.

Chairman Carlson inquired did staff do any number crunching on the 20 acres for building a courthouse. Mr. Jenkins responded Mr. Muller has standards he can get out of the construction standards book; the County could build up to four courtrooms, depending on the terms of the land and the ultimate cost of construction; it could get between two to four courtrooms with what the County currently has; and if it wants to build something larger and have growth space in the facility, it will have to look for an alternative funding source, such as the sales tax or some other item. Commissioner Higgs inquired how many acres does the County have in Viera; with Mr. Muller responding it has used approximately 15 acres, but has a total of 40 acres. Mr. Muller stated the County is under design for a South Brevard service complex at the Bayside properties, which will take up part of the 20 acres. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board could exercise the option for additional abutting acreage and share some of the infrastructure costs. Mr. Jenkins stated it is also possible to renegotiate the terms of the option as the Board may get more favorable terms. Commissioner O'Brien stated the County has 40 acres at Viera and has only used 15 acres for the Courthouse it presently has; it leaves room for expansion of property the County already owns; the information from Mr. Muller dated February 1, 2001, indicates it would be more costly to build a new building at a new site in comparison to expanding at the Justice Center; and if such Center is expanded, the State Attorney, in the near future, will require more space in Viera. He noted the cost-effective interim solution is to build a new office building for the Public Defender due to his need for less space; not only is the Board looking at it financially as being cost-effective, as it has the land and construction costs are lower, but it is also looking at reducing the cost to the public to move around the Public Defender and State Attorney; and the Board could make the decision today to expand at Viera as it already has the land. Commissioner O'Brien stated he cannot find any reason to go elsewhere at this time to build four new courtrooms when the Justice Center at Viera was specifically designed for expansion; the Board is throwing the studies in the trash can unless it expands at Viera; and it is time to heed what it was told to do.

Commissioner Colon stated she does not want to make any decisions today; the Board is gathering data and sharing information to make the correct decision for a full service facility for 10 or 15 years; taxpayers get upset when the Board makes decisions without having full data; and she will not support any decisions today as she wants additional information. She noted the data the Board is working with is 10 years old; the traffic congestion is an issue the Board needs to seriously look at; most of the growth is west of I-95; and the Board needs to look at what is best for everyone. Commissioner Colon requested the Board move slowly and obtain all the data it needs to make these major decisions. Commissioner Scarborough stated Viera is a big part of the plan; it is the center of the judicial system; the County could go beyond County Court to other things where possible; and access to the Circuit Court would be nice for people in South Brevard. He noted he wants to do it right and have something that makes sense with the functioning of the Clerk's Office and Sheriff; a lot of input is needed; and Brevard County would be happier with a commitment to South Brevard. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is not happy with the Wal-mart site; there needs to be a judicial feeling at the facility; it does not mean the County has to spend the maximum number of dollars, but the facility has to be right for the purpose; it needs to be cheap to operate; and should be where the whole community of South Brevard gets together.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, to direct staff to review the site in South Brevard owned by the County, including infrastructure, available roads, cost for a full-service facility, and how all the service facilities will work together; provide long-term costs; work with the City to understand the network planned and what will be available in the future; and return to the Board with a full report on the site and costs of additional options.

Chairman Carlson inquired what kind of information does Commissioner Colon need before she can make a decision; with Commissioner Colon responding the census data so she can show the community where the growth is. Commissioner Higgs stated the motion can include additional census data in the information that is coming back; preliminary numbers on the census should be available in April, 2001; and an additional workshop could be scheduled in 90 days.

Commissioner Higgs reiterated the motion, to direct staff to review the site in South Brevard owned by the County, including infrastructure, available roads, cost for a full-service facility, and how all the service facilities will work together; provide long-term costs; work with the City to understand the network planned and what will be available in the future; return to the Board with a full report on the site and costs of additional options; work with Judge Preston Silvernail and the judiciary to analyze the site owned by the County and option for additional land; provide additional census data; include discussions with Judge Silvernail on the judicial plan and with the City on its network plan in a report; and schedule a workshop in 90 days.

Mr. Ellis requested the Board maintain space in the Melbourne Courthouse as a service facility for people who live on the Beaches and in the Melbourne/Eau Gallie area if it decides to go south with the courthouse; and to allocate space for four or five Clerk's employees if the Board decides to bring the courthouse to Melbourne.

Commissioner Higgs advised service facilities are part of the analysis that needs to be discussed in terms of where they will be in the plan.

Commissioner Colon seconded the motion.

Chairman Carlson advised when the report comes back, the Board will see a perspective on all service facilities, acreage owned by the County, information on additional options, network plans, and how it is integrating, along with census data to know where the population is shifting.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired was the infrastructure part of staff's numbers for Bayside Lakes at $14.8 million; with Mr. Muller responding the assumption was made that the infrastructure would be there from the information they received from Bayside when it presented the option. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Clerk of Courts, Supervisor of Elections, and other offices are going to be there; and the County needs to re-look at the cost for expanding at Viera to have a good comparison of numbers.

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

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to direct staff to provide a time line for funding the options and how they would be funded, including short and long-term to the year 2020. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner O'Brien voted nay.

The meeting recessed at 10:25 a.m. and reconvened at 10:35 a.m.

*County Manager Tom Jenkins' absence was noted at this time and Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca was present.

DISCUSSION, RE: NOISE, VIBRATION, AND LIGHTING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott stated the Board requested staff review the noise and vibration standards as defined in the Zoning Code; staff also included particulate matter on the list; the Code has several performance standards, with noise, vibration, and particulate matter included; Grove Scientific & Engineering has been brought on board to look at the three performance standards; and introduced Dart Morales and Bruno Ferraro from the Company. He noted Messrs. Morales and Ferraro will explain the findings and analysis concerning Brevard County's performance standards and answer any questions the Board may have; the attached report focuses on defensibility and enforceability of performance standards; and Page 8-1 includes recommendations from the Company.

Mr. Morales stated he reviewed the County's previous and current Codes; Brevard County is moving in a good direction with adoption of numerical standards; some vague language has been removed from previous Codes, such as "loud and raucous"; the Company targeted its review and evaluation in terms of helping the County prepare an ordinance that is enforceable and defensible so that data collected is viable and understood by both plaintiff and defendant; and a sound ordinance will always be a controversial. He noted the biggest problem in noise ordinances is that people are rarely complaining about the sound pressure, but the informational content of the sound; the Company made a short list of recommendations that may help the County; the first recommendations address terminology, standards and definitions; it is a difficult area when dealing with enforcement of sound as people use the words in different ways; and the current Code could use some language that codifies the normally used terms that professionals like to use. Mr. Morales stated people say "the maximum sound," which, read by a decimeter, is a specific measurement of a certain duration; it is not the peak sound, which is an instantaneous sound for a short duration; it can be quite high, but unintrusive; and the first recommendation is to carefully clarify the terms that will be used for enforcement when discussing sound levels, violations, and equipment used. He noted there is a standard that can be adopted from American National Standards Institute (ANSI); it is adoptable by reference which means the County does not have to spell out every word; it will assist in enforcement actions; and he can provide a thorough list. He advised the second recommendation is numerical standards, which suggest that the maximum allowable value for nighttime residential use be raised; there is a choice to the County on how much to raise it; the current Ordinance has 45 decibels as a nighttime level; and it is the Company's experience that this level is difficult to meet in a modern urban or semi-urban type of scenario. He stated the recommendations are that the County go to a 50 or 55 decibel level; 50 is achievable in a small town; there is language in the current Ordinance which includes a two-minute allowance for a certain exceedance; and the County could use an average time period and minimum time period to average the sound which would simplify enforcement and achieve the same result.

Chairman Carlson stated the numerical standards recommendation includes, "Change peak noise to maximum noise level and add, 'regulate impulsive noise' "; and inquired what is "impulsive noise" defined to be. Mr. Morales responded it is rapid onset, rapid decay of less than one-second duration. Chairman Carlson inquired how would impulsive noise be regulated; with Mr. Morales responding by giving a maximum exceedance for an impulsive noise, which would show up on a graphical chart prepared by a decimeter. Mr. Morales noted when the noise levels are graphed, one can find the peak that is exultant from the impulsive noise; it would not allow an impulsive noise to exceed a certain level which is 10 decibels; and the County could limit the hours during which one could have impulsive noises. Chairman Carlson inquired is it included presently in the County's ordinance; with Mr. Scott responding the current Code includes an acceptable daytime noise and a nighttime level that is acceptable. Chairman Carlson inquired will it augment what the County presently has. Mr. Morales responded by regulating impulsive noise separately, the County avoids burying the impulsive noise in the average period. He advised the third recommendation is minimum specifications; he suggests putting in the Code minimum specifications for equipment; it codifies some of the standards used in the industry; there is a minimum standard of quality in the equipment used to collect sounds; and it will keep people from using inexpensive, uncalibrated equipment to present a case that does not have merit as the equipment was not of sufficient quality to measure. He stated the fourth recommendation is consolidation of the Code; currently there are two different sections within the Code that address issues that are important to sound level management; and it would be best to include everything in one section to address all the issues pertaining to enforcement of sound. Mr. Morales stated the fifth recommendation is exceptions; the exception area is where a regulatory body can exercise its particular character for its area; important local issues can be addressed; and suggested adding exceptions for aircraft and airport activity, and vehicles on public right-of-way. He noted all of them are regulated by federal rule and is out of the ability of the County to do much about it; and it would be simple to add the exception into the current Code and may keep people from complaining about things over which the County has no jurisdiction. He advised the sixth recommendation is vibration which is a difficult area to regulate; his Company uses Orange County's Ordinance as a model; it said, "there shall be no vibration"; and it puts aside how it is going to measure and one cannot impact their neighbor by vibrating his house. He stated there are codes that have octave band frequencies; much of the thrust of a vibration ordinance tends to be night clubs and entertainment facilities where the bass can create vibration and deep sound away from the site; and it has been helpful to have an octave band and looking at only a frequency range in order to regulate these facilities. Mr. Morales stated if the County recognizes it does not want the neighbors impacted by having their walls and windows shake, there is nothing to prevent it from saying someone will not impact offsite with vibration; and that is the recommendation of the Company.

Chairman Carlson inquired how does someone regulate rock quarries in terms of vibration within a community. Mr. Morales responded the Fire Marshall is involved in the writing of regulations for this particular activity and has primacy over the issue. Mr. Scott stated in the Bill passed by the Legislature two years ago, the vibrations or nuisances which may emanate offsite from such an activity that are related to blasting are now exempt from local regulation; and the State Fire Marshall is promulgating rules and standards to address that. He noted there are sometimes complaints about the traffic that comes to and from the site; these performance standards cannot apply to public rights-of-way; it is a heavy activity and if there is a vibration occurring on the property, it is emanating offsite and not related to blasting; and the Code would still apply. Mr. Morales stated many counties and communities have tried to regulate aircraft sound levels through setting minimum altitudes and traffic patterns; they have all been shot down because it is the purview of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and it is its air space; the County can make measurements on vehicular sound levels, but it is not going to be able to do anything about it as the Department of Transportation (DOT) uses criteria to develop sound levels for highways and whether or not sound barriers are required to be erected; and it is not something that can be regulated on a local level, which is the problem the County is facing at this time which may change.

Bruno Ferraro stated he reviewed the County's dust standard, which is developed to prevent a nuisance of dust from an offsite facility impacting other sites; it may be an industrial activity, unpaved gravel limestone parking lot, or an unpaved road; the regulation is broad and the Code, as written, does not define whether it is an industrial, municipal, or other activity; however, from an industrial perspective, there are federal regulations and State air pollution regulations that require the industrial activities to control fugitive emissions, which is the technical term used for unconfined particulate matter or dust that would blow off of a stock pile, construction site or parking lot. He noted it is the unconfined particulate matter that causes the nuisance that puts dust on people's cars and various things which create a nuisance to the general public; he has provided reference to the federal and State regulations for staff to review; there are best management practices in the Florida Administrative Code, specifically referenced in Chapter 62-296, that give specific requirements on how these facilities will control fugitive emissions and their impact to offsite facilities; it includes things like paving the road and parking lot, use of water and other dust suppressants whenever the material can be unconfined; and it does not have to be applied during a working hour and they are responsible for it 24 hours a day. Mr. Ferraro stated the first recommendation is to make sure that when the County receives a request for an occupational license or building permit, it asks in the application whether or not the facility has determined if a State air permit is required; such permit is required for numerous types of facilities prior to starting construction; and the second recommendation is to require construction activities to use best management practices. He noted in the case of a construction activity, the building inspector would be educated on the fugitive mission rule; if such inspector determines that particular site is a nuisance during its activity, it could ask them to follow best management practices; the County's Code states that will be done; and language could be adopted as referenced in Chapter 62-296 on best management practices to include in buildings permits and other occupational licenses that would have this type of impact.

Commissioner Higgs inquired does it apply to all construction sites, including residential construction sites. Mr. Ferraro responded the best management practices are not specified on the size of construction activity; the Code exempts short-term impacts of landscaping and earth moving for a short duration; there will be times during certain construction or landscaping activities that the dust is going to blow; but if it is only going to happen for a few days or a week and then the problem is going to go away, that is a fair way of enforcing the Code. He noted if it is a long-term building project, such as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) or something that is going to go on for years, the Code states clearly that the County would implement best management practices; and it is a short list for the County to put into a building permit, Development of Regional Impact (DRI), or another document as part of the Code.

Mr. Morales stated the last recommendation is training which is the crux of a good County enforcement program; the technical terms can be confusing and use of the equipment requires a certain understanding of what it is that the County is recording and receiving; a four to eight-hour course can be put on where four people within the Code Enforcement group are able to use and collect sound level data, which becomes defensible when it goes before a judge; and in Orange County, consultants and others submitting data to the County must demonstrate that they have either taken the course or have equivalent training. He noted if Brevard County can adopt this part of the recommendations, it will be of great assistance when defending its enforcement actions. Chairman Carlson stated recommendation 8.4, training says, "Require a minimum level of training for individuals submitting sound level measurements"; and it is not only referring to the County training its own enforcement group, but also those who come forward and provide a certain measurement. Mr. Morales stated it is more applicable to a consultant; the County wants any citizen to be able to bring a complaint before the Board with whatever data they might have initially; but in terms of consulting people for hire, the County can ascertain that they have a minimum level of training.

Jerry Trotter stated he lives in Deer Run Subdivision located south of the Blackhawk Quarry; on occasion there are loud blasts in the area; it is severe at times and gets stronger through the years; he is one of the few in the back of Deer Run Subdivision, which is directly south of the Quarry; and the problem is not going to get any better and needs to be addressed.

Julie Russell stated she spoke to the Board on August 1, 2000 and today is a reiteration of what was discussed at that time; the residents have been dealing with the ongoing noise from the Blackhawk Quarry operation; the noise is equitable to living next to a railroad track with a train going by constantly; and the residents are unable to enjoy their homes and cannot have the windows open or sit on their patios during the Quarry's operations. She noted the noise comes from the industrial heavy equipment that is being used at the property; the noise is not only during the weekdays, but Sundays also; the residents understand there is a possibility of 30 years more activity at the site; and something needs to be addressed now as the area is growing. She stated since Brevard County allows industrial and commercial businesses to operate in a general zoned area and there has been a substantial population change in South Brevard and southeast Palm Bay, the residents feel justified to ask the Board to consider various items when it is working on the proposed noise ordinance changes; and requested the Board not allow grandfathering in the new ordinance and new performance standards apply to General Use zoned areas as they do to other zoned areas in Brevard County. Ms. Russell stated Mr. McGregor is going to speak to the Board regarding the residents' position on the Orange County Ordinance; they are in agreement with such Ordinance, except the dBA standard is not applicable to Brevard County; Orange County is a commercial and industrial structured County, where Brevard County is more semi-urban to rural; and the County cannot expect people to build homes upwards of $200,000 in these areas and not provide them with a normal residential habitat that is absent from loud industrial heavy equipment noises. She stated the growth that is coming to the South Brevard area creates potential tax dollars, not only for the City of Palm Bay, but Brevard County; the Board should protect the residents, as well as future operating revenue from tax dollars; the need for specific enforceable noise standards is paramount; and the residents of South Brevard appreciate the Board's efforts on working a new and improved noise ordinance that is enforceable.

Keith McGregor, representing Deer Run Community Association, stated he lives south of the Blackhawk Quarry; and inquired if Brevard County found out whether or not the State Fire Marshall delegated authority for enforcement to the County, and if so, when it will be done. He stated there is excessive noise in the Subdivision from the Blackhawk Quarry and a tremendous amount of vibration when explosions take place; the explosions have reduced; but the residents have concerns with the types of explosions going on. He advised there are over 464 lots in the development, which is only 20% built at this time; the Subdivision is averaging eight to 10 homes per year; the outgrowth of people moving into the area is tremendous; and requested the Board look at the Orange County Ordinance, including enforcement in Section 15-184, which states, "No person shall produce, cause to be produced or allow to be produced by any means, any vibration which is discernable at or beyond the property line of the parcel or lot from which the vibration is emanating." Mr. McGregor requested the Board include that particular paragraph in its new ordinance when it is written; inquired how enforceable the ordinance would be without supporting data from measuring equipment; and requested it not be eliminated, but included in the ordinance. He further requested Brevard County review Orange County's Ordinance to rewrite its Ordinance for noise and vibration standards; stated the County has a lot of tax base being developed in South Brevard and Palm Bay areas; and requested the Board review the issue seriously.

Attorney Leonard Spielvogel, representing Blackhawk Quarry, stated he is hearing about all this noise that is occurring at his client's project and how it is impacting surrounding territories and residences; a hearing was concluded before Code Enforcement 30 days ago; his client was brought up on charges by Brevard County based on complaints that he was starting work before 7:00 a.m. and making loud and raucous noise; and the conclusion of the special master who heard the proceeding was that his client was not guilty of the charges brought against him. He noted the Code Enforcement officer who conducted the investigation on behalf of the County had training; he indicated the meter needle did not move and he could not hear any noise; it was early in the morning; and the conclusion of the special master in a written order was that his client was not guilty of the charges. He stated Brevard County did not appeal that decision; he comes before the Board with some presumption that his client is not a noise maker; Blackhawk Quarry has been doing this legitimate work since 1982; and it has some difficulty when people get up before the Board and say they are here now and want the use to go away. Attorney Spielvogel stated nobody is accusing Blackhawk Quarry of doing anything unpleasant; it is not a Title V and has an operation with excellent material; the Company sells road base material to five or six different counties; one of its biggest customers is Brevard County; and it performs a public service. He noted if the Company was not there, the County would have to pay considerably more money for its material as it would have to go far to get the quality of material that Blackhawk Quarry produces; the City of Palm Bay is also a client of the Company; it is not as though the Company is doing something for which he has to apologize; and it has been doing it since 1982 and was there before the people were. He stated there has to be some obligation to take responsibility for decisions that are made; there has to be a way to protect businesses in Brevard County; and inquired how does it protect a legitimate business from the problems of development around its property and where is the responsibility on the part of the home purchasers to determine what is going on around them. Attorney Spielvogel advised Blackhawk Quarry did not come in after Deer Run; it was there, as in many other instances, where legitimate, income-producing and taxpaying businesses have located in Brevard County only to find that development has pressed in on them; he does not have a solution for it, but understands the problem; and people cannot always point the finger at the business and tell them to go away. He stated his client has extended an invitation for each Commissioner to see the operation; there is a bigger problem; it is not only Blackhawk Quarry; and it is a matter of protecting the integrity of the businesses in Brevard County. He noted Dade County has a lot of quarry operations and was having the same problems being discussed today; explosives were being used and people in homes were being distracted and disturbed; and Dade County was able to get a Special Act of the Legislature, which requires that notice be given and something be recorded in the Public Records of such County which puts people on notice that there are activities occurring in that section of the County that include explosives. He stated there has been a reduction in the volume of the explosion at Blackhawk Quarry as his client has adopted a different procedure of many small mini-explosions which do not throw out the kind of noise or vibration that one big one does.

Commissioner Colon stated when the hearing was taking place it was during the holidays; some of the people being affected were not able to attend; she has been to the site and has seen some of the things that are happening; and it is scary as everyone is passing the buck. She noted the citizens went to the City of Palm Bay, which said it was not its jurisdiction; the County was put in a position where the State has jurisdiction over what happens; it is up to the courts to decide whether the State or County will have jurisdiction; but the reality is that the problem does not go away. She stated she agrees with having a notice to inform the people; the problem is not going to go away and it is going to get worse; she wishes Brevard County would appeal so that the people were able to present their case; and the citizens feel the representation on the County's end was not adequate as a lot of information was not shared with the special master. She noted there is mining going on; it says in the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) that the County does not allow it; hopefully the County will have jurisdiction so it is able to protect the quality of life for its citizens; and since Brevard County is a customer, it has a responsibility to prove to the community that it is in no one's pocket. Commissioner Colon stated she does not want anyone to insult the Board's intelligence and say there is no noise going on as there is noise and vibration; it is heartbreaking what is happening to the citizens in Deer Run Subdivision; and the Board is moving in the right direction in regard to its Ordinance.

Commissioner Higgs inquired can the application of particulate to construction sites affect some of the complaints the County has had from citizens who are concerned about construction. Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca responded the County is currently enforcing particulate matter on construction sites, such as subdivisions under a different portion of the Code, which requires that as part of the stormwater system there not be any particulate offsite; best management practices are those things the County is requiring, including daily watering; and when it comes to using performance standards she is unclear as to whether that gives the County additional teeth or not over what it is currently using to enforce. She noted construction is a dirty business, and she is not sure the County is ever going to stop all particulate matter on construction. Commissioner Higgs stated she heard the statement made that businesses may have been there first and have certain rights; she accepts that the business at the site has a right to do its business; and inquired does it go beyond their lawful limits of the property line and do they have a right to expand their noise to someone else's property, or is there a property right on behalf of abutting property owners to non-particulate matter, certain air quality and noise levels. Ms. Busacca stated staff tried to keep all particulate matter off of abutting properties, but during construction and when conditions are as dry as they are currently, it is exceptionally difficult; barriers do not necessarily keep it down; staff requires vegetation to remain in place as a buffer; and the County can require water trucks on site.

Chairman Carlson inquired does the prohibited act by rule point on Page 7-2 put the County in a positive position in case the State law changes and there is transfer of enforcement rights to counties. Mr. Scott responded currently the County is discussing revisiting performance standards, which were revised January 25, 2000; potentially there would be another revision in 2001; without addressing the amortization or grandfathering, the County is currently applying the standards that were in place prior to January 25, 2000 to those uses in place prior to those revisions; and when talking about a new vibration or sound standard and an existing use, the County would need to decide whether or not these new standards would apply to the existing use. He noted in the case of Blackhawk Quarry, the County is applying a 1979 standard as it was in place prior to 1982.

Commissioner O'Brien stated if the County tries to apply these standards to Blackhawk Quarry, the new methodology may not apply. County Attorney Scott Knox responded it depends upon which course the Board decides to take; if the Board wants to go for amortization, it could allow businesses to continue under old regulations for a period of time and then they have to conform to the new regulations; if the County grandfathers them in, they are entitled to follow the old regulations; and if it decides to apply them immediately, they would have to comply with the new regulations. Attorney Knox stated the problem the County runs into is the Bert Harris Act; and if it can be proven that the property is devalued at any location where a business is being conducted, the County is going to be asked to pay the diminished value of the property by virtue of the new regulation. Commissioner Higgs inquired what would happen if the Bert Harris Act is turned over to the other side and someone says their property is being devalued because the County has not adopted a new ordinance or enforced an existing State law; with Attorney Knox responding it does not provide for that. Commissioner O'Brien stated if the County tries to apply these standards to Attorney Spielvogel's client, it is probable it would be sued; with Attorney Knox responding it may be one of the first recourses they would try to seek and may also say the County cannot put the Company out of business. Attorney Knox stated the Board will get a first-hand taste what it is going to be like as a Bert-Harris claim is coming before it in the next month or two.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve moving Section 8.0, Summary of Recommendations for Consideration, to be codified, which includes 8.1, Terminology, Standards and Definitions; 8.2, Numerical Standards; 8.3, Minimum Specifications; 8.4, Training; 8.5, Consolidation of Code; 8.6, Exceptions; and 8.7, Vibration; the public notice for codification be written in a broad manner; and direct staff to bring back the ordinance. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Higgs inquired about the recommendations concerning particulates. Chairman Carlson stated the Board will be reviewing the report; and inquired what is the next action on it. Mr. Scott responded Mr. Ferraro talks about the permit application and asking that question at application stage; and staff can bring the recommendation when it brings the ordinance that contains Mr. Morales' summary.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to direct staff to include recommendations concerning particulates at the permit application stage and requiring best management practices when it brings back the ordinance containing Mr. Morales' summary; and investigate what Dade County is doing concerning a recorded document in the public record that puts the public on notice that activities are occurring in certain areas of the County that include explosives. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Attorney Knox inquired does the Board want to make a decision today concerning applicability of the new standards or have staff come back with alternatives. Commissioner Higgs responded staff can report back to the Board with alternatives so that people have an opportunity to see what the County is talking about.

Parks and Recreation Director Charles Nelson stated the lighting of athletic facilities is unique; public agencies are probably the only people doing those types of facilities; when the Board was dealing with industrial and commercial activities, staff did not see it as impacting the County; and the wattage and height of the poles in the new lighting standards has been a problem. He noted athletic field lights are tall poles, usually 50 to 70-foot mounting heights and greater in some cases; the number of fixtures on a pole are typically more than three; the wattage is usually 1,000 to 1,500; and the new standards have affected County staff in all three of those areas. He advised a memorandum was provided to the Board on how it might be able to address the problem; staff may have overstated the exemption; it is not looking for an exemption from the Code, but flexibility for existing and new facilities; and it was trying to achieve not going through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process, but create a standard that says if certain things are done, a CUP is not required. Mr. Nelson stated the CUP process is time consuming; athletic field lighting is different and unique; and requested the Board give it its own standard so that if staff meets those standards, it does not need a CUP. He noted the County is buying lands that are sufficient size and staff will be able to meet the standards as they currently exist; where staff is going to struggle are on those facilities the County currently owns or manages that have athletic facilities that do not meet current standards for the sports represented there; Little League lighting levels went from 30 foot-candles in the infield and 20 foot-candles outfield to 50 foot-candles in the infield and 30 foot-candles in the outfield; and for safety reasons they increased the lighting levels on the athletic fields, which staff agrees with. He stated as part of the referendum, staff was going to upgrade a large number of facilities; it now cannot meet that standard; it puts staff in the position of having to continue to maintain a facility at a lesser standard than recommended by the organizations it is dealing with; and with the lighting technology changes, it can have a better impact on the neighbors by re-lighting and using the technology that it currently has. Mr. Nelson advised staff can make those lighting levels and decrease the amount of spill and glare by the new technology; but it cannot get all the way to the standard the County has established for its facilities; the cities and School Board are not subject to this; probably 75% or more of the County's facilities will not be subjected to its own standard; and it has always tried to meet the County or city standards, whichever was greater. He stated staff could follow whatever the legitimate codes are in the cities and on School Board property, and not be impacted on nearly 75% of the projects; but as a policy it is not a good idea. Mr. Nelson requested the Board address the issue on how the County gets to a position where it meets the user organizations' needs with higher lighting levels and improves what it can do and the impact it is having on the neighbors, and does it in such a way that it does not become a cumbersome process of CUP's or is unable to meet the Code. He noted it is not an exemption as much as it is a combination of steps that would get the County to a point where it could improve everything; all new steps will meet the Code; and it will pass the hurdle by creating its own standard for athletic field lighting. He stated one of the products the County uses is by Musco Lighting; there are representatives present who can discuss the technical issues; the real issue is not lighting levels, but the glare; and Suntree Little League recently put lighting on one of its fields and complaints started the next day. Mr. Nelson stated such field is 500 feet from the nearest residence; Suntree meets the standard, but the lighting technology it chose to use does not address the glare as adequately as the County proposes to use; and Suntree used one of the lower levels of lighting technology that is available.

Chairman Carlson inquired does the County's CUP currently talk about the particular technology out there and does it ask specifically for the glare-resistant type technology. Mr. Nelson responded it does, but not in terms that necessarily get the County there as it becomes subjective; there is no technical data related to glare, although there are some measurements available for glare; but it is different from foot-candles, which is the standard that is in the ordinance. Chairman Carlson inquired is there technology that would meet the County's standard as it currently is; with Mr. Nelson responding it needs enough land to do it. Mr. Nelson stated on some school facilities the County has light poles standing on property lines between it and residential; it was done that way years ago; and it does not have enough distance to move fields or reconstruct them in such a way to address the issue.

Chairman Carlson inquired are there ways to reduce glare on sports lights; with Mr. Nelson responding affirmatively. Mr. Nelson stated higher is better on the poles; the worst case scenario is low level lighting; if the County sets the lights at 31 feet, it would be under the limit and could put up enough lights to achieve what it needs to and meet the standard; but it would be a bad perspective from glare; so the lights need to go up.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he has a problem with the County creating one standard and the rest of the community using another standard; and requested staff come back to the Board and address the glare and objectionable issues as he would like to do a uniform amendment and have everybody living by the same rules. Mr. Nelson stated the County is not going to be able to address a uniform standard where it can meet the Code in all cases; reiterated the issue concerning light poles on property lines; stated staff will not be able to get to whatever standard the Board establishes and finds acceptable; staff can improve where it is and the impact to the neighborhood; but he cannot get all the way to no impact to meet that standard. He noted the Board is going to be faced with considering a grouping of projects outside of meeting the standard fully. Commissioner Higgs stated the standard the County has in a situation where somebody may be going back and redoing their parking lot and bringing their lighting to a higher standard is the same sort of standard it should have when it tries to retrofit a project; and she is uncomfortable that the County would have a standard that is not its standard. Mr. Nelson stated the bottom line is there will be some projects the County will not be able to re-light because staff cannot meet the standard. Commissioner Scarborough noted the County could change the base rules and say it is not going to deal with lighting at all; then there is not a problem; but if Mr. Nelson comes in with what he requires and it becomes the minimal standard, the Board needs to review it for everyone. Mr. Nelson stated the standard is going to be high; with the worst field scenario, the County is bleeding off seven or eight foot-candles off of the site; and it is a high standard, which he does not know if the Board would accept. Commissioner Scarborough noted it may, but before it has a dual standard, he would like to know how objectionable it would be in many other situations; and the County is talking about people's safety if they are in a grocery store parking lot at night and they happen to trip and fall.

Chairman Carlson inquired has staff looked at different types of lighting and specific lighting standards for specific uses, such as street lighting versus lighting a Wal-mart, gas station or sport activities. Commissioner Scarborough noted different levels of activity require different amounts of foot-candles because of the risk and hazard involved. Mr. Nelson stated athletic field lighting is unique; with Chairman Carlson noting it is hard to capture all the glare, unless staff can bring back some technology information that says it can capture some of the glare. Commissioner Higgs stated people have different values on the activity; the County needs to get as close as it can to compliance with all the Codes; it needs to look at what conditions can be attached that make it tolerable; and it has been done with other CUP's and the County has been able to minimize the impact on neighborhoods.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if someone is playing an active sport, they may need more light than if they are pushing a grocery cart; and the County needs to also review the public safety factor. Chairman Carlson noted she is also looking at the issue from the technology perspective.

Mr. Scott advised the Code requires cutoff fixtures in every instance; however, if the Board would like to have a non-cutoff fixture, it has specific specifications for the lower level bold that casts a soft light; the Code states the softer light can be used for a street scape or something of that nature; but one has to adhere to the offsite standards. He stated the Code also says that with any use, the County is going to care about the offsite spill; and if someone is coming in with a use that requires more than 50 foot-candles, the Board will have an opportunity to see it through the CUP process. He cautioned the Board that getting into a Code which seeks to identify what it will need onsite as a use will become much more of a challenging test than saying at the property line.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the County could say recreational uses require greater lighting than can meet this provision of the Code; therefore, in creating these it will be minimized and all consideration will be used to prevent glare by directing the light downward. Mr. Scott inquired would the Board have an exception that could be granted only by it or would it be built into the Code. Commissioner Scarborough responded it could be included in the Code; the individual needs to demonstrate they have done all they can to limit; and specifically address the glare as a separate issue. Commissioner Higgs stated the County needs to say there is an acceptable standard of light that goes off the site, whether it is the County's or anyone else's; and it is the standard they have to live by.

Chairman Carlson inquired if staff has talked to the cities and School Board concerning lighting performance standards; with Mr. Nelson responding negatively. Mr. Nelson advised the School Board is exempt entirely and the cities have no standards related to it; staff would look to achieving a standard that does not require the CUP; and for athletic lighting it could identify all those things that make it acceptable. He expressed concern with the 10:00 p.m. cutoff time at ball fields; stated it needs to be more subtle and say no inning can start after a certain time and the lights will be off at 11:00 p.m.; and it gives the ability to finish the game and get everyone out of there, so the County is not in violation. He noted at that time it is not the light issue, as much as it is the noise issue; and if staff can do all those things that make it acceptable and have them in the standard, whether it is with the cities or County, it can sign off and go ahead instead of doing the CUP. Chairman Carlson inquired would it be specific to sports usage; with Mr. Nelson responding affirmatively. Commissioner Higgs stated she is not supportive of two standards. Chairman Carlson noted the County may have to address the uses differently as there is not the same kind of lighting on sports fields as everywhere else; and it is totally different and needs to be addressed differently.

Mr. Nelson stated he is not concerned about all the new stuff; the County has enough room to meet that standard; his concern is where it is doing retrofits on existing fields; he is not saying create a broad range as all the new stuff will meet the Code that the Board is concerned with; and his dilemma is how to improve what the County already has, understanding he probably will never get to the existing Code. Commissioner Higgs stated she would be willing to consider ways to do that, but not just based on a use, but on anyone who is retrofitting; and there would be a standard that would be acceptable where one could get a permit to make changes, but they would meet a certain standard. She noted it is not right that there is one standard for the County and one standard for ball fields, but it is not all right for a shopping center. Mr. Nelson stated in a lot of different Codes the County ends up with the grandfathering issue and how does it deal with those that are not in compliance and get them into compliance, if possible. Commissioner Scarborough stated he has a problem in saying the County is exempt; but if there is a need for different levels of lighting, and it is going to create problems if it does not have them, and if someone wanted to do a particular type of facility, the County could say safety requires they have that level of lighting as well; and it is not a dual standard, but a standard that is specific for a certain type of use. He noted there is the CUP route and the County could look at each project individually. Mr. Nelson stated he is not required to do a CUP in the cities. Commissioner Scarborough noted the other option is to get rid of the Code in all places. Commissioner Higgs stated the CUP standard could be looked at in terms of retrofitting and new as opposed to uses.

Chairman Carlson inquired can the Board look at specific uses, such as sports facilities, gas stations and large parking lot facilities, such as commercial parking lots; with Attorney Knox responding affirmatively. Attorney Knox inquired if the Board would set up different standards for each use; with Chairman Carlson responding standards based on those three areas as they are the areas where there is the most light intrusion on adjacent properties.

Ms. Busacca stated staff will review lighting safety standards if they exists and an option similar to the County's amendment to vested rights if someone makes a certain percentage of improvements; and will report back to the Board with other options as a separate agenda item at a regular meeting rather than with the other performance standards.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the County's problem is its capacity to get people to engineer good lighting facilities and work with the neighbors in the area; that is the answer rather than trying to figure out how to regulate itself; and it is how to spend the right amount of money to make it work well for everyone. Chairman Carlson stated she wants to see how the County can work with the cities and School Board in terms of the Use Agreements and upgrade the athletic fields. Mr. Nelson noted once the Board decides what it wants to do, staff will match it on all the County's facilities; and he does not know if the Board wants to drag the cities into the issue. Commissioners Scarborough and Higgs responded negatively. Chairman Carlson stated then the County does not have a standard across-the-board; with Commissioner Higgs responding in the unincorporated area it has a standard.

Commissioner Scarborough stated when the School Board builds a facility, it has no inspections from the County or the city; if the County builds something in the city, the city building inspectors inspect the County's work; there are many rules already; and there are tremendous inconsistencies. Mr. Nelson stated whatever the Board decides will still be the highest standard in the County, so staff would go to that standard.

Chairman Carlson inquired when will staff report back to the Board; with Commissioner Higgs recommending the report be put on the agenda for a regular meeting. Mr. Nelson stated it will take at least 30 days as staff wants to look at specific problem fields and see how to address them.

Commissioner O'Brien requested staff notify the Chambers of Commerce of the Board's discussions concerning noise, vibration, and lighting performance standards; and stated the Chambers need to know if something is going to be retroactive or not, how the law may apply, and how it may affect their membership. Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not want to go back and resurrect a non-existent issue; and the Board needs to find out first where it is going.

DISCUSSION, RE: REQUEST FOR FUNDING FOR TELEVISION SHOW

Paula Hughes, stated she is a registered nurse and certified in chemical dependency and psychiatric nursing; she has worked in-patient substance rehabilitation for over 14 years, including dual diagnosis; she left that field because she was disillusioned; and she now has a television show called "Addicted". She provided the Board a videotape of the show; stated it is only a test run; and the actual airing will be done March 6, 2001 on a local channel. She noted she is passionate about informing the public that it does not matter what type of drug one uses; people need to know whether they have a chemical imbalance; because they put down one thing does not mean their life is solved and they are not going to pick up another drug; and the characteristics that go along with this disease are prevalent. She stated there are not too many children who come from stable homes; drugs are not going away as too many people are making money; pot is the most dangerous drug on the street; and it is being laced with other substances. Ms. Hughes stated the children need to be saved; and requested the Board's support in providing funding for her television show. She noted she is taking some of the skills she learned when she was working in-patient and using them; the patients told her which ones were most effective for them and thanked her later; and each show will address various substances that are used. She noted she does not know if funding is available from the County for this show; she had borrowed money to start it; the issue is important; and she would like to bring rehabilitation to television as she knows many wonderful therapists.

Chairman Carlson stated the County currently has a television station that is used for government educational issues; and perhaps Assistant County Manager Don Lusk can meet with Ms. Hughes to see if there are any opportunities to get her message out. Ms. Busacca stated she will ask Mr. Lusk to contact Ms. Hughes.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 12:25 p.m.

ATTEST:
__________________________________
SUSAN CARLSON, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
________________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)