July 29, 2003

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on July 29, 2003, at 9:00 a.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairperson Jackie Colon, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Ron Pritchard, Nancy Higgs, and Susan Carlson, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

The Invocation was given by Pastor Eric Wright, Zion Christian Church, Palm Bay, Florida.

Commissioner Ron Pritchard led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

REPORT, RE: NEWSPAPER ARTICLE

Commissioner Scarborough stated there was an article in the newspaper concerning how many stars are in the universe; such article indicated there would be more stars in the skies than are grains of sand on every beach and every desert on earth; and one can think of the vastness that is out there and the curiosity of man and the challenge.

REPORT, RE: SCOTTS HISTORIAN PROFESSOR ALEXANDER TYLER

Commissioner Pritchard stated Scotts Historian Professor Alexander Tyler in 1787 wrote, “Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with a result that a democracy always collapses over lose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”

RESOLUTION, RE: COMMENDING JOANN MORGAN

Commissioner Scarborough stated JoAnn Morgan is a special person; she graduated from Titusville High School and has gone on to many different posts; she received her graduate degree from Stanford University and sits on the boards; and she has contacts throughout this planet today in space exploration and people know her. He noted Ms. Morgan represents Brevard County internationally; she has also played a key role in bringing the County into My Region; she committed enormous amounts of her time and those of her staff to attend innumerable meetings; and there is a greater awareness of not only the benefits, but the responsibilities the greater communities have to see that Kennedy Space Center (KSC) prospers and proceeds. He read aloud a resolution congratulating JoAnn Morgan on her retirement, effective August 3, 2003.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to congratulate Mrs. JoAnn Morgan on her retirement, acknowledge her outstanding service and accomplishments, and extend best wishes for success and happiness in her future endeavors. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

JoAnn Morgan expressed appreciation to the Board for the recognition; stated it is a great pleasure to see the leadership on the Board; she has enjoyed the wonderful partnership between the Board and KSC; and it has evolved to a different and stronger level over the last five years. She noted it is a pleasure working with Brevard County; and while she will be retired from NASA, she will not be gone from the area and will still be a champion of the County and its interest in the State and Nation.

Commissioner Scarborough presented the Resolution to Mrs. Morgan. Chairperson Colon expressed appreciation to Mrs. Morgan for everything she has done for the community.

PRESENTATION BY STEVEN WEBSTER, RE: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF FLORIDA
MARINE CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION

Commissioner Pritchard stated Steven Webster is actively involved in the Florida Marine Contractors Association; he has a proposal he would like to bring forward that would be a partnership; and he believes such proposal is a good idea as the County has a serious problem with getting dock permits that are currently being held up by the Federal Service, as well as State Fish and Wildlife Commission.

Steven Webster, Executive Director of Florida Marine Contractors Association, stated the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has not approved one single dock building permit in Brevard County since November 2002; it does not propose to approve any permits for at least another month and probably longer; well over 50 permits are being held in Brevard County; and the latest delay surfaced in May, when the Fish and Wildlife Service decided it must conduct a signage check of the hundreds of manatee zone signs that were placed in the river last year. He noted the Service is concerned that some of its speeding zone tickets may be thrown out because the signs are inadequate and the judge will therefore toss them; if that happens, the Manatee Club could have the Service back into court for breach of the Settlement Agreement, which calls, among other things, for adequate signage; there are 12 federal agents in the State of Florida; they visit Brevard County and enforce the zones two or three times a year; and in the meantime, there are hundreds of people employed by Brevard dock builders, whose jobs are in grave danger. Mr. Webster stated he would like anyone to name him a business that can go eight months without a single permit being issued and see how long they stay in business; it is costing Brevard jobs; there are over 300 Brevard jobs at risk and about 17 companies that provide this service; and he hears daily from frightened members who fear they may be forced to lay off more employees or even close their doors. He noted everyone spends a lot of money at County, State, and federal levels to attract business to Brevard County; he wonders how much the County would be willing to spend to bring 300 good paying jobs to Brevard County; there are 300 good paying jobs that could very well be forced out of the County because the federal government is not doing its job as a government agency; Congressman Weldon has stepped in to try to speed up this process of getting the sign issue resolved; and the last step of it was Fish and Wildlife Service saying it wants to see manatee zone signs every 1,000 feet apart on the river. Mr. Webster stated it sounds like a Tennessee backwards highway leading up to Uncle Jake’s fireworks stand; every 1,000 feet would be an outrage to anybody who loves to see the open river; fortunately, Florida Inland Navigation District (FIND) has negotiated the Service back to a sign every one-half mile; nonetheless, the $500,000 that has already been spent on signs will be increased by probably another $200,000 or $300,000; and there will be areas that will still not be adequately signed according to the Service. He noted Congressman Weldon is working on the issue and he needs help; this rule hurts honest businesses and homeowners who are trying to follow rules that no one knows how to interpret; thanks to Congressman Weldon, what could have been a year-long wait for the signage check has been cut to three or four months, but more pressure will mean faster results; and today he is asking the Board to issue a resolution urging Fish and Wildlife Service to release those held permits immediately. He stated he has a draft resolution for the Board’s review; and read the resolution as follows: ”Whereas, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has failed to release any marine construction permits in Brevard County since November 2002; and Whereas, the failure to release permits is the result of governmental inefficiency and red tape; and Whereas, reputable businesses and honest homeowners suffer direct harm from these facts. Be it resolved, that the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners demands that held permits be released immediately; that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service present itself before the Commission to explain its inability to process permits; and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service consult with the Commission to implement appropriate procedures to minimize delaying future permit processing.”

Chairperson Colon noted it does not necessarily have to be a resolution and it could be a letter from the Board; and in about one month permits will be allowed. Mr. Webster stated as of last weekend, the earliest possible date when signage could be available would have been 45 days out; David Roach of FIND gave him that estimate; initially it was thought the whole process would take a minimum of 90 days to figure out what would be done and then do the signs; but Congressman Weldon decreased the time. He noted Statewide, the Service apparently is not releasing any permits again; and the Association has yet to figure out a reason for it. Chairperson Colon noted she does not want to use the word “demand”; with Mr. Webster responding that is fine.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Fish and Wildlife Service and Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) only issue permits on the river itself; and permits on residential canals are not being impacted. Mr. Webster stated residential canal permits should be reviewed according to the Settlement Agreement, but generally once there is a County permit and Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) does not want to look at a permit, most homeowners and contractors would not be aware that the ACE would want to see them and would not provide them anyway. Commissioner Higgs noted the problem is on the river; with Mr. Webster responding not exclusively. Mr. Webster stated it is any place where the ACE has a permit outstanding, and there has not been one done since November 2002. Commissioner Higgs inquired where does the County have jurisdiction in regard to seawalls and permits.

Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer responded staff can report back to the Board; as far as permitting on the river, the State and ACE get involved; within the canals, the County’s Building Department works on permits for the docks; and staff will review it.

Mr. Webster stated in special aquatic waters, if a dock is under 500 square feet, the DEP does not review the permits; if a dock is under 1,000 square feet in general waters of the State of Florida, the DEP does not review the permit; only DEP forwards permits onto the ACE; so if a permit is not reviewed by DEP, it is not forwarded on. He noted nonetheless, the ACE says it wants to see all the permits; for example, in Lee County it is currently trying to chase down homeowners who built some 2,000 docks without ACE permits over the past three years; so that threat is always out there. He stated generally, the County is talking about riverfront docks.

Commissioner Higgs stated there are a number of points to this discussion; it is probably a new business item where the Board could take action on either a resolution or letter; it has permits on the river and canals; there are Fish and Wildlife Service and the Florida Conservation Commission; and reiterated the issue needs to be a new business item.

Commissioner Carlson inquired does the issue affect boat ramps also; with Mr. Webster responding affirmatively. Mr. Webster stated they are also affected by the Manatee Protection Plan (MPP) that was passed; Fish and Wildlife Commission at the State level is assuming that manatees travel as the crow flies; they are drawing a five-mile radius circle around potential sites by air determining how many manatees fall within that circle; and there are boat ramps and other facilities where manatees by water are many more than five miles away, but by air closer than five miles, and those ramps and facilities are being denied by the State. He noted the Rivers and Harbors Act, which is what is underlining all of this, basically says anything that is over the water has to be reviewed by the ACE. Commissioner Carlson stated as part of the discussion item, she would like staff to give the Board a status on the ramps the County has been trying to get; and it has had trouble getting those permits.

Mr. Webster stated the Association works Statewide; at its quarterly meeting, it set up a committee to attempt to draft a uniform dock building ordinance that any county, city, and the State could put into code and would put all of the instructions for dock building in one place; in Brevard County there are seven different chapters of the Building Code that relate to docks; and there is no one right answer for anything that comes up. He noted the Association would like the Building Department to join with it in a stakeholder meeting to help draft the uniform dock builders ordinance; homeowners would also be invited, including some regulators and builders, to try to come to a consensus with some prototypes that have been developed in other cities around the State, such as Cape Coral and Melbourne; and a process could be developed so that anyone looking at it can understand what the answer and the procedure would be. Mr. Webster stated if Ed Washburn or other people from the Building Department would like to join the Association, it would welcome them.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, to direct that the item be placed on the August 12, 2003 agenda under New Business; and direct the County Manager to select one or two representatives from the County to join in a committee to review and develop a uniform dock building ordinance.

Mr. Webster stated one aspect the Association is interested in is to move regulation less from those who apply for permits and more toward finding those people who are building without them; docks and other structures in the water that are constructed without permits can be a hazard; they are not built necessarily with proper consideration to the environment, whereas, a properly licensed and certified permitted contracted dock does those things; and with a cleaner code, there will be less margin for error and more room for enforcement on those other issues.

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

FINDING OF CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, RE: PROPOSED DONATION
ACCEPTANCE OF SCHOOL SITE BY SCHOOL BOARD

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve finding the Brevard County School Board’s proposed acceptance of property donation located in Viera PUD consistent with the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan; and execute letter to Harold Bistline, School Board Attorney, indicating such finding. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: INITIAL ASSESSMENT FOR TOBY AVENUE ROAD PAVING MSBU

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Initial Assessment Resolution ordering the acquisition and construction of assessable improvements for Toby Avenue Road Paving Municipal Service Benefit Unit. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH DELAWARE NORTH PARK SERVICES, RE:
VISITOR INFORMATION CENTER SERVICES AT KENNEDY SPACE CENTER
VISITOR COMPLEX

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Amendment to Agreement with Delaware North Park Services for a one-year renewal and scope of services change for Visitor Information Center services at the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

LEGISLATIVE INTENT TO AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 92-09, RE: LEVY AND IMPOSITION
OF FOURTH-CENT TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the legislative intent to initiate the process to amend Ordinance No. 92-09, Section 1(3), which provides for levy and imposition of the fourth-cent tourist development tax to include amended statutory language that allows counties to spend the proceeds from the fourth-cent for the additional purpose of promoting and advertising tourism; and authorize amending Resolution No. 01-242 to include the recently amended language. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTOMATIC AID AGREEMENT WITH OSCEOLA COUNTY, RE: FIRE/RESCUE SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Automatic Aid Agreement with Osceola County for service exchange to allow for fire rescue protection to the southwestern Brevard area known as the Fellsmere Grade area and the southeast Osceola area known as Deer Park. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT WITH ARCADIS GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC., RE:
ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR SITE RESTORATIONS AT MELBOURNE AND
MERRITT ISLAND AIRPORTS

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Amendment to Contract with Arcadis Geraghty & Miller, Inc. for one additional year for engineering services associated with site restoration services at the Melbourne and Merritt Island Airports. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

MASTER AGREEMENT AND TASK ORDER NO. 1 WITH BASKERVILLE-DONOVAN, INC.,
RE: CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to accept the recommendations of the Negotiating Committee; and execute Master Engineering Agreement and Task Order No. 1 with Baskerville-Donovan, Inc. for engineering and design services for the replacement of the biosolids centrifuge at the Sykes Creek Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

TASK ORDER NO. 7 WITH BOYLE ENGINEERING, RE: ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR
BAREFOOT BAY WATER PLANT IMPROVEMENTS

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Task Order No. 7 with Boyle Engineering for design, permitting, and construction services necessary for water quality improvements at the Barefoot Bay Water Treatment Plant. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS, RE: BREVARD COUNTY VS. BUTLER, ET AL

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize settlement of all claims with Richard and Irene Jones for a total of $7,500 and with Melinda Millsap for a total of $13,500 in connection with the Shore Protection Project. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

APPROVAL TO HIRE CONSULTANT AND CO-COUNSEL, RE: BLASKY V. BREVARD
COUNTY AND BREVARD COUNTY MOSQUITO CONTROL DISTRICT

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve hiring C. Allen Watts of Cobb and Cole, P.A. as consultant and co-counsel for Brevard County Mosquito Control District and Brevard County, Florida in the case of Blasky v. Brevard County and Brevard County Mosquito Control District, at an hourly rate of $185 with certain reimbursable expenses to be reimbursed at the approved County rate. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPOINTMENT, RE: ONSITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE BOARD

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to appoint Arthur (Corky) Priep to the Onsite Sewage Disposal Variance Board, with term of appointment expiring December 31, 2003. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: BILLS AND BUDGET CHANGES

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

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 92-23, RE: USE OF
ROAD AND BRIDGE MSTU FUNDS FOR DRAINAGE FACILITIES

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 92-23, Use of Road and Bridge MSTU Funds for Drainage Facilities.

There being no comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 92-23 of the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners which addressed former Article IX, Division 1, Section 20-93, Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida 1992 to add drainage facilities as a specific use for municipal service taxing unit funds; providing for severability; providing for area encompassed; providing for inclusion in Code; and providing for effective date. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ADOPTION OF TENTATIVE AD VALOREM MILLAGES FOR
FY 2003-2004

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider adoption of tentative ad valorem millages for FY 2003-2004.

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated staff is proposing to retain the current aggregate millage; and the Board was previously provided the breakout by District.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired on the Certification of Taxable Value, Form DR-420, what is line 11 under Section 2, Current Year Proposed Operating Millage, going to be; and stated last year it was 4.449 mills.

County Manager Tom Jenkins responded the current year proposed operating millage is 4.4495 mills under General Revenue Countywide; and it is being proposed at 4.4344 mills. Commissioner Pritchard stated there has been a lot of discussion about taxable value and increase in taxable revenue; there was an article indicating that Florida Inland Navigation District (FIND) was seeking a 10% tax increase; by keeping the rate at its current level of 3.85 cents per one thousand evaluation, the FIND Commissioners are ensuring tax increases for many homeowners whose property values typically increase; and inquired what is Brevard County’s situation. He stated its millage rate is going to be reduced slightly, from 4.44 mills to 4.43 mills; and inquired are property values increasing.

Budget Director Dennis Rogero responded the Certified Taxable Property Values, as provided by the Property Appraiser’s Office, show a property value increase. Commissioner Pritchard stated people will be getting an increase in taxes; with Mr. Jenkins responding if their particular property increased. Mr. Jenkins stated some properties increased, some stayed the same, and some properties could have been reduced; but it would vary on a property-by-property basis; and collectively, they have increased. Commissioner Pritchard noted overall the valuations for the County have increased, so the assumption can be that there will be an increase in revenue; with Mr. Jenkins responding affirmatively. Commissioner Pritchard stated in 1996, there was a vote on CAPIT; 80% of the voters approved CAPIT, which was to limit property tax increases to 3%; and inquired will the millage rate and the level of property valuations exceed 3%. Mr. Jenkins inquired did CAPIT refer to roll back; with Mr. Rogero responding it is still under discussion.

Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten stated the debate was CAPIT referred to revenue and did not refer to millage rates, so the whole discussion in regard to CAPIT was revenues versus the absence of millage rates. Commissioner Pritchard stated in looking at the percentage increase in revenue over prior year’s revenue, the County will be exceeding the 3% that the voters wanted to see when they voted for CAPIT in 1996; and inquired was the increase in 2001 about 8.7% and 6.4% or 6.5% last year. He noted that was the reason the Board took the position of seeing whether CAPIT was constitutional, which is why it is in appeal right now, so he does not want to get into the appeal issue.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board asked for a group of lawyers to clarify; they gave an opinion; subsequent to that there was a lawsuit by parties other than the Board; and that is the lawsuit that is under appeal. Commissioner Pritchard stated the three attorneys that were hired by the Board gave an opinion that supported the 3% tax limitation; and then there was the Sheriff, Kay Burk, and some other person filing. Commissioner Higgs noted those are totally separate entities from the Board; it was their individual right; they filed a lawsuit; and there is a counter-appeal by others who did not like the outcome of the lawsuit brought by those citizens, which is what is under appeal. Commissioner Pritchard stated the Board did not file it; when County Attorney Scott Knox appeared at the hearing, he took no position and sat there as an observer; he would have thought that the Board would have supported what the voters of the County wanted, which was a 3% tax limit; but instead, after 25 years of following the same methodology, the Board, in some fashion, encouraged Attorney Knox to come up with a different method of calculating how much of an increase it could live with, whether it was accurate or not. He noted after CAPIT came about in 1996 up until 2001 the methodology was followed, the same methodology that had been followed for 20 years prior to 1996; now the Board has a new way of living with itself, which in his opinion, violates what the intent of the voters was when they said limit it; the people said 3%; and the Board got creative, and he does not agree with it. Commissioner Pritchard stated when 80% of the people say a 3% limitation, the Board should abide by it; when the EELS Program first came about in 1990, it was voted down 3:2 so it came back because apparently it was not the right answer; then it was voted up 3:2. He stated here there are 80% of the people who say they want a 3% cap; and the Board decided it was not going to pay attention and would test the constitutionality of it. He noted he disagrees with the methodology that is being used; he agrees with a couple of the entities that are out there, both of which are Constitutional Officers and what they are stating about the increase; if the Board does not roll back the millage to where it gives the constituents what they asked for, which is no more than a 3% tax increase, then he is not going to support the tentative millage rate or the budget; and he is not going to support any of it that has anything to do with violating the intent of what the constituents wanted when they voted in 1996 to limit taxable increases to 3%.

Commissioner Higgs stated in the Charter language, Attorney Knox’s opinion was in taking the total revenue, which is what the CAPIT talks about, it becomes an almost unlimited ability of the Board to raise revenues; it has always been her position that the best measure of what the Board does is in the millage rate; such rate has been her benchmark for years; and it is what the Board levies and is the only thing it controls. She noted it does not control what the Property Appraiser does in terms of valuation of property, so the Board levies the millage; it is the most accurate measure of the taxes that it is levying; it is proposing and has discussed at length a millage rate that is not an increase; and it is as consistent with the Charter as many other interpretations that a variety of people are giving. She stated there are interpretations by the Clerk, Property Appraiser, County Attorney, and three other attorneys; the ultimate interpretation of that went to court; the judge threw it out as being unconstitutional; and it is under appeal. Commissioner Higgs noted her benchmark has always been to set a millage rate that is reasonable, fair, and does not present an increase on the millage rate; and that is what this budget does, it presents no increase. Commissioner Pritchard stated it presents an increase; with Commissioner Higgs responding it presents no increase on the millage rate. Commissioner Pritchard stated the millage rate is the multiplier; if the property values increase and are multiplied by the multiplier, there is going to be a higher amount of money; the millage rate could be the same; but if property values increase, the County is charging more money; and if it rolls back the millage rate to get the same level of revenue, it is the fair way of abiding by what the constituents want. He noted millage rate is only one portion of the calculation; the other side of it is how much did one’s property increase; and that is what the County is multiplying it by.

Chairperson Colon stated the County cannot be spending money in the middle of the year, then vote in favor of supporting the people who come before the Board requesting funds, and during budget time expect for there to be a balanced budget; and it is quite a challenge for County staff. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board passes the millage rate, does it include the changes that were following the budget workshop as of the July 28, 2003 memorandum; with Mr. Jenkins responding affirmatively. Commissioner Carlson noted such memorandum reflects the aggregate operating millage remains the same for FY 03-04 as the current from 02-03, which is all millages added together making the aggregate; and the General Fund Countywide millage continues to reflect a reduction from the current rate. Mr. Jenkins noted that is correct. Commissioner Pritchard stated by keeping the millage rate at its current level, the Board is ensuring tax increases for many homeowners whose property values typically go up; the Property Appraiser said that the Board increased property taxes for operating funds by 9% last fiscal year and is proposing an increase of 6.5% for next fiscal year; this year, the increase apparently is going to be 4. something percent, which is in excess of the 3%; and if 80% of the people want no more than 3%, then he is going to support them. Chairperson Colon stated she is not voting in favor of the tentative ad valorem millages; and her philosophy on things is how the votes have been taking place throughout the year, the increases that have taken place, and how the County has been spending money.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt the tentative ad valorem millages for FY 2003-2004 for the purpose of notification to taxpayers by the Property Appraiser; and instruct the Assistant County Manager for Management Services to complete the Florida Department of Revenue’s Certifications of Taxable Value, Form DR-420. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Pritchard and Colon voted nay.

Commissioner Pritchard stated there is going to be the first of two public hearings on September 9, 2003, and inquired when is the second public hearing; with Mr. Rogero responding September 23, 2003. Commissioner Higgs noted this is the tentative millage; she is interested to hear from Chairperson Colon and Commissioner Pritchard what changes they want in the budget that would be acceptable so the Board could perhaps come to a budget that is more in line with their thinking; and she would like to see what proposals there are that would achieve that in terms of specific cuts in programs. Chairperson Colon stated in September 2002, she asked the Board and County staff not to spend any more money throughout the year; she was specific; throughout the year, the County kept adding more and more and more; and this is based on what was spent. She inquired why should she support a budget when she told the Board she did not believe it should be approving all of the additions; stated it was not only the dollar amount, but accountability and showing the constituents that the Board was able to hold back; it is something that already happened; and the Board was specific with the Sheriff’s Department that it did not want any surprises mid-year. She noted she is talking more along the lines of things the Board had no control of, such as insurance; there was a hangar that the Sheriff’s Department wanted at the airport, but she did not support it either; and the County cannot keep spending money and expect during budget time to come up with $500,000, $1 million, etc. Commissioner Carlson stated she understands Chairperson Colon’s philosophy; the piece she does not get is the fact that the County gets encumbered by the State or increases in insurance, FRS, etc.; to keep a status quo budget, the Board does not have any other choices but to cut employees, cut back on services, and the quality of life issues that it has supported; and she finds it hard to follow in terms of principle-based philosophy as to how Chairperson Colon approached the budget. She noted if Chairperson Colon would like to express that in something simple in the next budget hearing on paper and give it to the Commissioners, it would be great; and they could understand exactly where Chairperson Colon is coming from as far as what she believes the Board spent money on that it should not have based on her philosophy. Chairperson Colon stated it was not based on her philosophy, it was based on her vote; she has voted at least five times this year 4:1 for the County not to spend money; it is on the record; she does not have to write a memorandum; and she is speaking English, not Spanish, and is clear. She noted she does not like the way the County has been spending money; she does not want to make a huge issue about it; she votes and that is the end of it; and she is not going to support the budget since the County is spending money throughout the year. She stated she has been doing this for eight years and she is not new at it; and she might be new to the Board, but she has been doing budgets for the last eight years as a public servant.

Commissioner Pritchard stated this is not a status quo budget; the budget message says that the adopted budget is “x” number percent less than last year’s amended budget; but the adopted budget always goes up; one can track the history of the budget, and it increases every year and does not go down; and there are large percentage increases in every department. He noted there is a move in most departments to go to self-sufficiency, which is another way to get the taxpayer in a roundabout fashion; there are increases of 23%, 14%, 11%, 15%, and 12% which is General Fund and where ad valorem goes, such as property tax; the decreases are attached to agencies within the County that are moving toward self-sufficiency; and they are not reducing their budget, they are just finding a new way to get the money. He stated one of the ways is to charge someone $275.00 when they apply for a permit, instead of $35.00; it does not go away and is a way of coming up with the same amount of money through a different source; government does not have a profit motive; and inquired if someone is in the private sector and going to operate a business, if they decide to expand it, are they going to charge more for a car and more for hourly service. Commissioner Pritchard noted it is facing a capitalistic society and it does not work that way if someone wants to stay in business; government says how can it become more creative, generate more revenue, and what other sources can it tap into; the message that is being given to the agencies whose revenue stream is being cut from General Fund is to be creative and charge more for services; so one way or the other, someone is going to pay for it; and there is no such thing as a free lunch. He stated Commissioner Higgs indicated she would welcome his idea of where to cut in the budget; it is not his job; his job is to protect the resources in a fashion that is commensurate with what the people want; and if the Board provides a directive to cut the budget by 10%, then Mr. Jenkins will come back and say this is how the County is going to do it. He noted he asked during the budget hearing for staff to prioritize any unfunded programs; it is not his job, but Mr. Jenkins’ job; he would like to see that; and perhaps Mr. Jenkins needs to come back with a budget that is reduced by 5% or 10% and show what effect it is going to have. Chairperson Colon stated the Board has to be fair in stopping spending; it tells County staff to balance the budget, but it adds other things to the budget; it cannot have it both ways; and inquired where does it end.

Mr. Jenkins clarified that the percentage increases or decreases are for both the adopted October 1st budget, as well as the amended budget that comes throughout the year and both were included in the budget message; there are few funded program changes in the proposed budget for next year, other than a mandated increase in the Florida State Retirement System charges that the State passes on to the County; it has been a significant cost increase; there has been a sizeable increase in the cost of providing health insurance; and those are two of the primary causes of the increase in the budget. He stated in looking at the current year’s budget, there is a community that is growing; demands for services and facilities exceed the available resources; departments, where historically they may have spent 93% of their budget, are now spending 97% or 98% of their budgets, which means there is less money left over at the end of year; it is called inflation; and increased population is increasing the demand for services and facilities, without a corresponding increase in revenues because multi-year increases and revenues the County receives are consumed before the budget process begins through built-in increases. Mr. Jenkins noted County staff has demonstrated over the years that it is more than capable of cutting the budget; it has done it before, it continues to do it, and looks for opportunities to cut the budget; the Board sets policy; and staff is fully prepared to carry out whatever policy direction the Board gives it.

Commissioner Higgs stated what has happened across the country is there has been a move at the federal and State levels to decrease taxes; it has put additional pressures from the federal governments and less revenue on states; the states have decided to make changes that affect the revenues to counties; and in order to try to operate the services that the County believes people want, it has been the philosophy of the Board that users pay for the services that directly affect them. She noted it has been through the use of fees as much as possible; it is something the County has done in a variety of different areas; it is a reasonable thing; if she uses the service, she pays the fee; and it is a fair way to allocate the responsibilities.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING RESIDENTIAL FENCING SETBACKS
AND HEIGHTS

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending residential fencing setbacks and heights.

Jessie Fleming stated in November or December 2002 he showed the Board pictures of the property he was referring to; there are no safety issues or traffic blockage with the fence being on the property line in this particular instance, as with a lot of lots in Port St. John; the lots are two lots deep on the block; and his corner lot backs up to a corner lot, so there are nothing but corner lots on the side street. He requested the Board adopt the proposed ordinance; stated if Code Enforcement ever gets proactive, in Port St. John it could issue 10 violations every Monday morning as the homeowners do not know of the Ordinance; and encouraged the Board to adopt the ordinance, not only for himself, but for all the residents in Brevard County. He noted after hearing about the budget, the County will never have money to put in sidewalks on his street; he would fight it because the street is two or three blocks long, and the traffic count is maybe 50 or 75 cars a day; and there would be no need for such sidewalks. He stated in the area he is located in Port St. John, it is about 99.9% built out; there may be one or two vacant lots in the area; and requested the Board support the proposed ordinance.

Commissioner Pritchard stated Cory Able wanted to speak on the item, but is not present; he is familiar with the situation, and took some pictures of Ms. Able’s property; and the drawing shows what the potential could be if one had the key lot, which is the center home between two corner lots, with the two corner lots facing side streets and the key lot facing the main street.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if Commissioner Pritchard is trying to address the exception for the key lot, he is ready to proceed with recognizing the uniqueness of the key lot and not making it a tunnel vision, unless he has something beyond what Mr. Scott briefed him on. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Commissioner Pritchard supports the ordinance with an exception where there is a key lot, encompassed in (1)(a). Commissioner Pritchard responded the problem he has with (1)(a) is in looking at the situation with the photographs, in order for Ms. Able to get a permit, she would have to apply for a variance, which is $580, to put up a $300 fence; in cases where putting up the fence is not going to give tunnel vision to the key lot, there must be a way for someone to apply for a variance and not have to pay $580 for a $300 fence; and Ms. Able put in the four-foot chain link fence, but there is a vegetated buffer that must be 20 feet tall. He stated the vegetated buffer does not allow Ms. Able’s dog to see through and would also be a barrier; it is the portion where she does not have the vegetated buffer that would extend approximately 30 feet in line with the vegetated buffer; it would take a right turn to the house; and that is where Ms. Able would like to install the six-foot fence so that the dog does not have opportunity to jump the fence. Commissioner Pritchard expressed concern that applying for a variance at $580 for a $300 fence makes it cost prohibitive and may encourage people to simply put up a fence without going through the permitting process; and inquired is there some way the Board can provide methodology for the people that fall into situations such as this that would allow them to apply and go through the process without extreme cost. He stated Planner Jim Ward also reviewed the property and indicated it is an unusual circumstance; he sees the reason why a six-foot fence would work in this situation; and it is not going to affect the key lot, but it is the cost factor.

Commissioner Carlson noted she can appreciate the circumstance and staff can review it within the Code; and inquired does Commissioner Pritchard see a change in the ordinance that applies to the circumstance that he would like to change; with Commissioner Pritchard responding not unless the Board drops (1)(a). He stated if such item is stricken, it would apply in Ms. Able’s situation; and inquired is that correct.

Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott responded if (1)(a) was stricken, then Ms. Able would be able to put up a fence, along with every other corner lot that was adjacent to a key lot, which might have the effect Countywide. Commissioner Pritchard noted then the County is on the slippery slope again; with Mr. Scott responding that is correct. Commissioner Pritchard stated that is the dilemma, how to treat somebody in Ms. Able’s situation without charging $580 for something as relatively simple as this; and it certainly is not going to take $580 in staff time to evaluate this. Commissioner Carlson inquired is Commissioner Scarborough suggesting accepting the ordinance, but acknowledging the key lot scenario. Commissioner Scarborough responded in his briefing, there was a fold-out with a key lot; such lot could end up with a tunnel vision and the key lot; one does not want to hurt the key lot; and now what he is hearing from Commissioner Pritchard is that there is a key lot that likes the idea of having the fences like Mr. Fleming is suggesting. He noted the question is how to go both ways in the ordinance; and inquired does Mr. Scott have a suggestion now or is it something he needs to consider further. Mr. Scott inquired what is the width of the key lot that is adjacent to Ms. Able’s property; with Commissioner Pritchard responding 85 to 100 feet. Mr. Scott stated there could be a provision that simply states that if the key lot has a width that exceeds 80 feet, then it would be outside of the site triangle of the key lot so there may not be the confining affect. Commissioner Pritchard noted in Ms. Able’s situation, the six-foot fence would not block the turn in the street as it is set back from the road; he does not know if it is something that needs to be considered; he is not encouraging having a six-foot fence obstruct vision; it has unique situations to it; and inquired is there any way to apply that as part of the suggestion. Mr. Scott responded the County could try to verbalize in the Code the unique circumstance that this property has; if the Board is comfortable with that effect Countywide, it would become part of the Code; and the County could try to put the particulars in the Code.

Commissioner Carlson stated if the Board is going to consider this one particular person’s need or interest and it wants to put some flexibility into it, it probably needs to review the issue further; and suggested the item be brought back after staff has had time to consider Ms. Able’s situation, plus anybody else’s situation that might fall into that. She noted there may be consequences that the Board does not see; and if it makes a motion today, it could impact others negatively. Commissioner Pritchard inquired could staff bring the item back to the August 12, 2003 meeting; with Mr. Scott responding affirmatively.

Commissioner Higgs stated conceivably the Board could adopt the amendments that the Commissioners could all agree to, which would deal with the big problem; and if it wants to further clarify, it can advertise again.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Ordinance amending Chapter 62, “Land Development Regulations,” Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida; amending Section 62-2109 (a) (c) and (f); providing for conflicting provisions; providing for severability; providing for area encompassed; providing an effective date; and providing for inclusion in the Brevard County Code.

Commissioner Pritchard noted the ordinance takes care of where there are two properties that abut each other, excluding a key lot. Mr. Scott stated the ordinance as is takes care of Mr. Fleming’s circumstance and those blocks that are two lots deep, so there is a corner lot’s rear yard that abuts the other corner lots rear yard.

Commissioner Higgs requested Mr. Scott explain the consequence of item (1)(b), which is written into the ordinance. Mr. Scott stated on the illustration provided on the last page of the proposed ordinance, the phrase concerning the corner lot that is on the top of the page references the fact that the six-foot high fence on the side street setback cannot extend beyond the furthest reach of the front yard’s structure; the garage that is facing north becomes the furthest point of that structure that the fence cannot extend beyond; and the County is saying that the side street’s six-foot high fence cannot extend into the front yards front setback. He advised it was a concern of the Local Planning Agency (LPA); its concern was for those circumstances where there would be a higher speed on a road; and if the Board is comfortable with a 25 m.p.h. neighborhood where the front setback is respected, there would still be visual site triangle for the traffic. Commissioner Higgs stated the LPA was supportive of (1)(a), but (1)(b) is what gave it concern. Mr. Scott noted (1)(b) was a point in particular that garnered some discussion at the LPA level; the LPA’s denial of the concept in total was as much a function of its concern with (1)(b), as it was the fact that there was not a lot of interest in the ordinance in the form it had in the public hearing; and the thought that garnered the most support was that if the Ordinance was not broke, do not try to fix it. Commissioner Higgs stated the immediate problem that has been presented to the Board could be covered by (1)(a); and if it wants to go further in discussing the situation Commissioner Pritchard brought up, it could consider (1)(b) and Commissioner Pritchard’s issue as well. Commissioner Scarborough inquired about items (2) and (3); and stated he assumes the motion would contemplate the passage of those items. Commissioner Pritchard responded that is correct. Commissioner Scarborough stated the only item that is going to be brought back is Commissioner Pritchard’s particular issue; with Commissioner Higgs responding no, (1)(b). Commissioner Higgs stated she is comfortable with (1)(a), (2), and (3). Commissioner Pritchard stated he would like to see a modification on (1)(b). Chairperson Colon suggested staff bring back (1)(b) and Commissioner Pritchard’s issue.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt Ordinance amending Chapter 62, “Land Development Regulations,” Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida; amending Section 62-2109 (a) (c) and (f); providing for conflicting provisions; providing for severability; providing for area encompassed; providing an effective date; providing for inclusion in the Brevard County Code, as amended, to include (1)(a), to allow construction of six-foot high fencing within the side street structural setback of corner residential lots, providing the subject side street lot line is not adjacent to the front lot line of an adjacent key lot; (2) allow flexibility from a strict interpretation of the six-foot height restriction in order to facilitate bottom edge airflow and/or decorative cap features; (3) allow flexibility from a strict interpretation of the good side out provision in order to allow shadowbox design solutions of equal aesthetic value; and staff bring back item (1)(b), that the six-foot high side street fence shall not extend toward the subject lot’s front lot line beyond a point even with the forward-most edge of any residential structure on the lot, and Commissioner Pritchard’s issue to the August 12, 2003 meeting.

Mr. Scott stated if the Board excludes item (1)(b), then staff does not know how far the six-foot high fence can extend to the north; such item is not related to the key lot provision; it articulates at what point the six-foot high fence within the side street setback can project north; and without such provision, there will be no regulation regarding how far the six-foot high fence can extend north into the front setback. He noted understanding that August 12, 2003 is only a couple of weeks away, if the Board wanted to start another ordinance anew to address a particular issue, it would have to go through several public hearings; and there is an economy of scale that might be achieved by simply tabling the ordinance for a couple of weeks.

There being no further comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to continue the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 62, Section 62-2109, relating to residential fencing setbacks and height to the August 12, 2003 meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 10:11 a.m. and reconvened at 10:23 a.m.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT IN BEL
AIRE SUBDIVISION - WADE AND DEBORAH McCRARY AND MICHAEL S. MINOT,
ESQUIRE

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating a public utility easement in Bel Aire Subdivision, as petitioned by Wade and Deborah McCrary and Michael S. Minot, Esquire.

There being no comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution vacating public utility easement in Bel Aire Subdivision, as petitioned by Wade and Deborah McCrary and Michael S. Minot. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE CREATING RIO LINDO MAINTENANCE
DREDGING MSBU

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance creating Rio Lindo Maintenance Dredging MSBU.

Martha Schmidt stated the proposal for maintenance dredging has caused emotional stress for her elderly parents, Cora Lee and Walter LeStrange, who live on the canal; since her last visit here, she has seen her mother’s health dramatically reduced since such dredging was initially discussed and voted on; her mother sees manatees frequently in the canal; and her stress level has increased as she thinks about the inherent danger to such manatees. She noted her mother sees boat owners coming and going, though her mother and father have never owned a boat in the canal, but such owners do not seem to have any difficulty with traversing the canal as often as they want; and the dredging is unnecessary and a tremendous burden on her parents. She stated her father was admitted to a nursing home about one week ago; and requested the Board deny the ordinance as it would create a financial burden for her parents.

Mary LeStrange stated she is here on behalf of her parents; her father would be here today but he is in a nursing home and her mother is at the doctor’s office; her parents are residents of Brookside Way, which is associated with the Rio Lindo Maintenance Dredging MSBU; and they have lived at their residence for more than 30 years. She noted against their vehement protest, they are being asked to financially support the dredging at a cost of more than $10,000; her mother has mailed documentation to the Board to support the fact of the tremendous financial burden; yesterday, her mother received additional medical bills; and within the last 10 days, she has received bills totaling $19,230.73. She stated the additional burden of the proposed MSBU is unbelievable; her father’s fee at the nursing home is $170 per day and $62,000 a year; these services are an extra cost; and after the 21st day, her parents must pay all costs as they do not have insurance to cover the services. She noted if her father dies, his pension dies with him; and her mother must be careful with her funds so as not to be a burden on her children or the State. Ms. LeStrange requested her parents be released of the additional financial burden of paying for the dredging of the canals referred to in the proposed Rio Lindo Maintenance Dredging MSBU.

Robert Morris, Jr., stated he has lived at his current address for the last 19 years and has gradually watched the canal system that his home abuts become a non-navigable waterway; while he recognizes that the cost of the proposed dredging is a significant financial impact, the cost of not dredging the canal has been a progressive halt in the expected rise in property values that most of the waterfront homes that are navigable in Brevard County have experienced over the last five years; and the canals are not navigable, in spite of observations by people of boats going up and down the waterways or the small canals. He noted this morning he looked at the canal, which has over three and one-half feet of muck exposed to the air from the canal walls; the only part of the canal that is navigable in front of his home is the dead center; he cannot even dock a rowboat; and his personal desire is to maintain the canal system as a navigable waterway as it was originally built and for which the homes were built on. Mr. Morris stated none of the homes are large by today’s standards, but they are enhanced by the ability to keep small craft behind them and to enjoy them for their recreational value; if the project is not approved, there will be no improvement in the situation and gradual worsening as there is runoff from the other side of Riverside Drive; the sludge and water that comes from rainfall at that site are progressively filled in the canals; and urged the Board to approve the MSBU so that the homeowners can enjoy the waterway once again.

H. J. Hurlbut stated he agrees with Mr. Morris’ comments; and urged the Board to approve the MSBU. He noted he bought his house about 12 years ago; it was purchased because it was on a navigable canal, which is no longer the case; he took a picture yesterday morning of a heron walking around in the canal in front of his house in about six or eight inches of water; when he bought the house, one could get a boat that drew three feet to his dock; and now he cannot get anything there, except maybe a small outboard boat. He stated the canal has filled in, in spite of some of the depth measurements that had been circulated regarding the fact that there is deeper water there; there is very little water in front of his house; he realizes the project could be a financial burden on some people; and if the canals are allowed to fill in, the property values are going to decline. He suggested something be done about the storm drains; stated there is a storm drain near his house and a lot of stuff in the street fills the canal in; it would be advisable, if funds are available, to put a catch basin or something there; and recommended the Board adopt the MSBU and dredge the canal.

Dr. Sal Martingano stated he has been a resident in the Indialantic area on the canal system since 1988; the canal system has probably been in existence since the early 1970’s, with virtually no maintenance whatsoever; the drainage ditches that surround the area get cleaned once in a while; it is only a matter of time before the entire canal system becomes totally impassible; and provided pictures of the canal to the Board, but not the Clerk. He noted he had a small 17-foot boat, but sold it as there was no place to put it; the only things that can navigate in the canal at this time are the mullet; when they make their dives, they come up with a head full of mud too; and the canal is a breeding ground for manatees. He stated the dolphin and other marine life come in every day and do their routine; there are signs all over the river system within 500 feet of shore to protect the manatees from boat traffic; but their actual habitat where they breed is withering away; and his property value is depreciating. Dr. Martingano noted he would like to be able to use the canal; there are 43 other homeowners that surround the canal; they pay taxes for waterfront property; and requested the Board adopt the ordinance.

Peter Anderson stated he and his wife have lived on Brookside Drive for about 23 years; they have been boaters for many years; they currently own a sailboat; and requested the Board support the project. He noted one has to ask why they purchased property on the water; the beauty is an issue, but access to the water was certainly prime in their decision to buy property on the water; the conditions are deteriorating and very serious; the canals are not functional any longer and need to be made functional; and the MSBU is hopefully the mechanism by which that will happen.

Dave Riemondy stated he supports the project; he purchased his house five years ago as waterfront property, recognizing that living on waterfront property is a good investment; he has been losing sleep lately in the fear that the investment is in jeopardy as the canals are silting to the point where they are unusable; and he is a boater and has a small boat. He noted he can get the boat to his dock, but his engine is pulling up muck; and reiterated his support of the project to protect his investment. He stated he checked into the property records for all the properties on the canal system to see what was happening in terms of their sale value; the properties along Malibu, which have better access to the canal and better water depth, have increased in value at a steady pace over the past 20 years; the properties in the Brookside area kept pace up through about 1990; coincidentally, as the canals began to silt, such property values decreased; and expressed concern that the silting of the canal is going to impact his investment dollar. He noted he is also concerned for the safety of the children in the area; and if a child were to fall into the canal and get stuck in the muck, he or she probably could not get out.

Michael Zarkowsky stated he lives at the end of one of the canals; when he moved to the community seven years ago, he purchased his home because it was on waterfront property; he has been a boater his entire life; and his family has always had boats. He noted he brought a boat down from New York, where he previously lived; he built a dock and was able to use his boat for the last three to four years; over the last three years, as the silting has become more intense, it has been more difficult to be able to get the boat on or off the boat lift; and he has a boat that is sitting high and dry on a boat lift and cannot be removed. He stated he has an unusable piece of navigable waterway, which needs to be addressed; there were comments made about the expense of the project; it is not an instant expense and there is a 10-year period when it can be paid; and in terms of hardship for someone who needs to allocate funds for near term expenses, it is not a near term expense and could be put off for a substantial period of time if the MSBU is approved. Mr. Zarkowsky noted maybe it is time for some people who have those kinds of financial conditions to consider a reverse mortgage to be able to fund the projects they need to do in their lives, including this one; he supports the project; he has been working with some of the people in his community for the last three years to get the project moved along; and they intend on being successful and are going to go through the process of making sure that the silting does not reoccur to the extent that it has. He stated the community will go through the necessary channels to make sure that catch basins, baffle boxes, and the like are installed, with various agencies funding the projects; there is a majority of the community in support of the MSBU; and requested the Board’s support.

Charles Krawczyk stated he has lived at his residence for about 25 years and loves the waterway there; living on a canal includes a sense of community responsibility; they should contribute to the canal, whether they use the entire canal or not; the waterway should be maintained; and the canal has not been dredged before. He noted the canal is filling in with silt; he would be happy to pay to dredge the canal in front of his house if he could, but he cannot do that; it is a community project; and people should not purchase property on a canal if they know they will not benefit from it and are not in a position to share in the contribution of keeping the entire waterway clear.

Paul Suchoski stated he has lived on the canal for about four years; he purchased his property due to its aesthetic appeal, investment value, and recreational value; it is not only the immediate residents of the canal that benefit, but it is also of general value to the community; and the water level raises and falls about two feet off and on during the course of the year, depending on the prevailing winds. He noted he took a picture of the canal two days ago; he has 10 feet of muck in front of his house; it does not have a great deal of aesthetic value; and he could not put a boat there if he wanted to. He stated there is a significant impact on his property value; at some point in time he will start challenging the amount of property taxes he pays if the canal is not addressed; he pays about $20,000 a year in property taxes; and from a recreational point of view, he does not have a boat right now and does not see any sense in getting one until the canal is addressed.

Bob Galloway stated he has been a resident in the neighborhood for over 11 years; he purchased his property because he is a boater and enjoys waterfront living and the benefits it brings; the water level raises and falls about two feet a year; and each year, more and more land is exposed and it gets progressively worse. He noted there is no stop to the silting; people have spoken of the economic impact the dredging would have on them short term; some speakers have noted the project is not an immediate cost outlay and can be deferred; and many of the properties are selling at depressed levels from what they would be if the water in front of their homes were navigable and usable. He stated there are many environmental issues; the silt is high and dark; the water temperature last week was 88 degrees; it cannot support the oxygen to even support mullet; manatees in the past have used the canal for breeding; and the residents see fewer and fewer manatees in the area. Mr. Galloway noted the Lagoon is probably the biggest asset of Brevard County; many dollars should be used to improve the quality of such Lagoon; and this is an opportunity to start on that with the residents picking up the cost within the canal zone. He urged the Board to support the MSBU so there is not a continuing decline in property values and the quality of life in the community.

Bill Piticz stated he and his brother live in the Brookside community; he has lived there about five years and has seen the water condition diminish drastically; he and his brother own boats and have them on lifts; and at this time, such boats will not come off of the lifts as the lifts bottom out before the boats hit the water. He noted three years ago this did not happen; he and his brother also have small children and are good swimmers; but he has jumped in the canal before and gone up to his waist in muck. He stated if one of the children were to fall into the canal, it could be a bad situation; he is 100% in support of the dredging, although his and his brother’s homes are in the areas where the water is deeper and in better condition; but it is a community project; and support of the entire community is needed to make this happen.

Rob Perers stated he has lived at his residence on Malibu Lane for about two years; and expressed concern with the safety issue. He presented pictures of the canal to the Board, but not the Clerk; stated he does not have canal-front property, but muck-front property; the corner of the canal is probably eight feet from the road; and there is nothing blocking children from playing and jumping in the canal, or falling in it. He noted one day while he was walking his dog, the dog fell into the muck all the way to his snout; he had to pull his dog out of the muck; and he cannot imagine a child falling into the canal. He stated he spent a lot of money on swimming lessons for his two-year old son, and he can swim great; but if he were to fall in the muck, he would get sucked in as the muck is like quicksand. Mr. Perers noted he supports the MSBU; he pays a lot of property taxes; he does not have a problem with it as he purchased the property in the community, which is a great area to live; and it is a good investment. He stated the project needs the community’s support; and requested the Board move forward.

Robert Sheck stated he purchased his home in 1998; at that time, he expected to keep a large boat behind his property as the water was deep enough; his boat was a 36-foot pleasure craft; however, he cannot even get his jet ski off of the lift. He noted economically speaking, the residents are going to be better off by having the canal dredged; if it is not dredged, it is a matter of time until the houses decrease tremendously in value; so he supports the project.

Chris Johnson stated he lives on Brookside Way and has lived in his house since the mid- 1970’s; he is 100% in favor of the canal dredging project; he has a boat that pulls about 18 inches to 24 inches; and he cannot hardly get it to his dock. He noted he is dredging up muck as he is pulling through with his boat; the canal is unusable; and reiterated his support for the project.

Ray Ackley stated he lives on Brookside Drive; he supports dredging the canal; such canal is in a terrible, deplorable, and dangerous situation; he is going to be a grandfather as of today; and expressed concern if his granddaughter falls in the canal that he would never see her again. He noted he had a pet fall in the canal and was glad he was home to assist such pet out of the canal; and he is paying taxes for waterfront property, but does not have it.

Lucille Rugg stated she is not in disagreement with what the property owners are saying about the muck at the edges of the canal; her problem is that the dredging is not going to address those concerns as the County indicated such dredging is going to take place in the center of canal only; and it will not address the muck on the edges. She noted the County says there is no place to decant the muck if it uses a vacuum-type of cleaner to clean the center, so it will use a dredge; it will go through the center of the canal and stir up the muck; the muck will be hauled away in trucks, which is not an acceptable solution; and the muck needs to be vacuumed out, including along the edges. She stated the muck is terrible at the ends and edges of the canal; it is not being addressed in the study; the proposal is to clean out the center of the canal only; and in the center of the canal, there is not a lot of muck and it is usually averaging about four feet of water. Ms. Rugg noted the plan is ill conceived; it does not address the actual need; and reiterated the edges and ends of the canal need to be cleaned. She stated the silt is consistent with the silt in the Indian River Lagoon, which is also polluted; therefore, there is no provision for this situation not to occur again right away as it is how the whole River is; there is no outlet to the canals; and there needs to be some way for the water to circulate and go back into the River. She noted the expense should be shared by the residents, County, and the City together, instead of only the homeowners.

Sherry Nelson submitted pictures to the Board, but not the Clerk; stated she supports dredging the canal; she has lived on the canal for 23 years; and expressed concern with safety. She noted she cares about Brevard County and is pleased to live here; the canal is becoming a huge mudhole; and it is ugly and dangerous. She noted the residents want to see the canal cleaned up; the community needs to work together to do this; and she is concerned for the children that are moving into the neighborhood and the property values.

Edward Kasold stated he has copies of the cross-section of the canal study that was done two years ago for the City of Melbourne; and presented information to the Board, but not the Clerk. He noted the report includes a study of the depth of the canal and the muck; there is also a plat of the canals; the canal leg is depicted by numbers 6, 7, 8, and 9; and it is the north/south canal parallel to Brookside Drive. He noted Chairperson Colon is familiar with the muck in the canal; the project needs to be done and funding needs to be provided; a County MSBU is the proper way to fund the project; and 79% of the affected residents voted in favor of said project. He stated this is a community project; just like a road, the residents cannot opt not to pay road taxes because the road is fine in front of their houses; and the MSBU is the way to go. Mr. Kasold noted Howard Walls, the City Engineer for the City of Melbourne, is involved in overseeing the project; he is present today and may want to address some of the questions about the dredging; he has seen the proposal and permit that has been issued; and it is for dredging to five feet below the mean low water line to within 10 feet of the seawalls. He stated the canal is 80 feet; the center 60 feet will be dredged to a five-foot level; the last 10 feet of the muck will naturally fall into the center as the dredging is being done; and 100% of the muck and silt will not be out of the canals, but the dredging will make the canals navigable again and pull the muck away from the seawalls. He advised of his support for the MSBU.

Chairperson Colon stated she witnessed the canals for herself; and it is worse than the pictures illustrate.

There being no further comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt an Ordinance of Brevard County, Florida; creating the Rio Lindo Maintenance Dredging Municipal Service Benefit Unit; incorporating the terms and provisions of Chapter 98, Article II, Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida, entitled “Municipal Service Benefit Unit”, to authorize the acquisition and construction of certain capital improvements within such improvement area and the imposition of non-ad valorem assessments within such improvement area; and providing an effective date. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING ANIMAL-
RELATED ZONING REGULATIONS FOR CONSISTENCY WITH STATE
REGULATIONS

Commissioner Pritchard expressed concern that on the north end of Merritt Island, it looks as if a wild animal zoo or something to that effect is going to be built; stated even though it has not come into the permitting process yet, there have been announced groundbreakings; and further expressed concern with the possibility of excluding the public from public hearing or allowing wild animals, such as lions and tigers, to come into the proposed business without having the proper type of hearings, notifications, and restraints that would be expected with this type of endeavor. He inquired is the proposed ordinance going to have any effect on the public’s ability to be a part of the process and is it going to make the process easier, more difficult, or not change it at all.

Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott stated Commissioner Pritchard is referring to a proposal known as the Big Cat Rescue; staff is not sure what the intentions are of the perspective business owner; it has gone to the website, which proposes the groundbreaking; and it has had conversations with an architect of record that the website and proposal is intending to raise funds for the project and one day maybe to break ground. He noted staff does not know if the property owner is intending to have a zoo or exhibit, where citizens would be able to view the animals; if it were such a zoo or exhibit under the public eye, the issue would be debated in a public hearing; and staff does not have the details to directly respond to the proposal on North Merritt Island.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired why would the County want to change what it currently has; stated he spoke to Ray Thunderhawk and looked at the proposed establishment that Mr. Thunderhawk wishes to build; it looks like an animal exhibit, as it has cages and landscaping; and it is a borrow pit that Mr. Thunderhawk is going to ring with what is going to become a zoo of sorts. He noted Mr. Thunderhawk indicated he would like to bring children in so they can watch the shows; he shows mountain lions, cougars, etc. that he rescues in some fashion; and the concern people have in the area is not only the possibility of not being part of the process, but that escapes could happen. Commissioner Pritchard stated he asked about noise, with lions roaring and tigers growling, how far the lower base frequencies travel, and was it going to become a problem with future development; and there are a lot of concerns. He noted there is not an opposition to the venue; it is on the way to Kennedy Space Center; it would be an interesting attraction; but the public does not want to be excluded from the process.

Assistant Zoning Manager Robin Sobrino stated currently the County’s zoning regulations provide for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for wild animals and poisonous reptiles; staff has found by looking through the State’s regulations, that it has special requirements for the housing of animals that are considered to be kept wild animals; it has also had a circumstance where a request for a CUP for wild animals was denied by the Board; and on appeal to the courts, the courts found that the County’s current regulations for wild animals were vague and insufficient. She noted the courts have now remanded the case back to the County for reconsideration; staff is attempting, as part of the proposed ordinance, to bring the zoning regulations in conformance with the State’s regulations as the State permits such animals based on a certain minimum lot size and certain buffering requirements; it has new land use standards that the County could adopt; and it could be assured of the public safety and land use compatibility issues. Ms. Sobrino stated the proposed ordinance is going to be addressing minimum lot size and minimum setback requirements for maintaining wild animals; and staff is suggesting that the uses be limited to large lot agricultural areas to prevent them from being located in neighborhood lots in residential areas.

Commissioner Pritchard noted the public is going to be better served by the proposed ordinance and it will be part of the process; the County is tightening up its zoning regulations to coincide with State requirements; and it would avoid the loophole problem with the previous court issue. Ms. Sobrino stated by setting forth specific standards that both the State and County feel may provide the proper protection of the animals and neighborhood, the County would make sure if somebody is able to comply with such standards, then locating the animals is an appropriate thing; if they cannot comply, then there is the issue of public safety or land use compatibility; and on that basis, it would not be permitted. Commissioner Pritchard inquired has Big Cat Rescue submitted any plans for review; with Ms. Sobrino responding no.

Chairperson Colon stated in 1998, the City of Palm Bay had a huge problem with this specific issue; some people had many cages of animals, including tigers; residents would hear the animals roaring in the neighborhood; and the City’s hands were tied. She noted it was hard to understand that in a residential area, these kinds of animals were allowed to be there; they were inside the City limits; some lots were 80 feet by 125 feet; and at that time, all throughout the nation there were incidents of attacks by animals to owners. She stated she does not want this happening to another community; it is a terrible hardship; neighbors moved out of their houses because they could not take it anymore; and they were concerned about the animals escaping. She noted the Board needs to move forward with the proposed ordinance.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he agrees with Chairperson Colon’s comments; when he spoke to Mr. Thunderhawk, he made it clear that the animals were under State guidance; he made it abundantly clear that where the animals were going to be were under the County’s guidance; and he wants to make sure that the public’s part of the process and such process is appropriate.

Mr. Scott stated there are circumstances where the public will not be part of the process with the proposal; that is because it used to be a CUP; the County has removed the ability in a number of land uses for someone to apply for the CUP; and it has said that this will now be permitted with conditions, relegated to the agricultural and larger lot settings of the County. He noted if someone had two and one-half acres or five acres zoned AU and met the conditions, the public would not be involved potentially in the introduction of the activity to that neighborhood; and even though the public was involved in the process potentially, the safeguards were not there if a judge was going to overturn the denials and the use was going to be able to move itself into a neighborhood by use of the fact that the courts are saying that the current provisions are vague and ambiguous. He stated the judge indicated the County needed to offer clear and convincing evidence that there was a danger; simply saying it is a danger without being the expert in that field was viewed by the judge as being vague and arbitrary; it is a difficult issue; and he wants to clearly represent the implications of the ordinance as proposed.

Commissioner Higgs stated what the County needs to look to in the ordinance, as it continues to review it, is being sure that the conditions under which they are permitted are accurate; it is important that the County was overturned on a decision with a CUP; and unless it inserts the proper conditions, either in a CUP or permitted with conditions, it is facing a situation that it would likely have its decision overturned. She noted the key to it is having permitted with conditions; the conditions are tight enough so it can go forward; or if there is a CUP, the conditions would be outlined; the County needs to be sure it has the right conditions for review; but it does not today, based on the courts decision. She stated the County needs to change it one way or the other; and reiterated it can be done as permitted with conditions or a CUP, as long as there are the right conditions in the ordinance.

Chairperson Colon inquired can there be direction from the Board to continue to work on this issue. Mr. Scott responded this is permission to advertise a public hearing to consider an ordinance; if the Board is comfortable with the concept today, there would be two subsequent public hearings, one during the day and one at night; and it is still an opportunity for the Board to give staff direction and tweak the ordinance if necessary. Commissioner Pritchard stated he would like to have a comparison of permitted with conditions versus CUP, which is something that could come back at the public hearing.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated the court threw the Ordinance out because it felt the conditions in the animal control CUP provision left too much discretion and there were no standards per se; the court sent it back to the Board saying it did not consider whether or not the County met the general conditions for CUP’s; however, staff is trying to get the specific conditions applicable to wild animals. He noted what it has chosen to do in this particular version of it is to present it as a permitted use with conditions; if the Board wants to hear from the public, that is not the way it would want to go; it would want to go with the CUP with specific conditions saying this is what one would have to meet in order to qualify for wild animals; so the Board needs to make a decision on whether it wants to go with permitted use with conditions or CUP as it cannot advertise both ways. Chairperson Colon stated she wants the public involved in the process. Commissioner Pritchard noted then the County is looking at staying with the CUP; and inquired how can it be tightened so there is not a problem with ambiguity. Ms. Sobrino stated the County could take the proposed conditions discussed today and use them as the criteria for applying for a CUP. Chairperson Colon inquired when will the Board see the item again; with County Manager Tom Jenkins responding the next step would be to advertise the public hearing. Mr. Scott stated the item will go to the LPA first and come back to the Board in September 2003. Commissioner Higgs inquired is it only the wild animal provision and does the Board want to review the kennel issue as CUP criteria. Commissioner Carlson noted that is fine as there are some issues, especially the BU-2. Commissioner Higgs stated permitted with conditions is not the way the County is going; it wants CUP’s and conditions outlined; and it is not the way the draft is. Ms. Sobrino noted the Board does not want to change the CUP for the kennels in the agricultural classifications, and require a CUP for kennels in the BU-2. Commissioner Higgs stated if the County is going to look at it in BU-1, then it should do same in the AU as well. Ms. Sobrino noted in the BU-2 it is permitted use; and inquired does the Board want the CUP in BU-2. Commissioner Higgs stated permitted with conditions in BU-2 is probably an appropriate thing; and expressed concern moving into the AU with not tight enough conditions as so much of the AU is residential. She noted the conditions were tightened and it is much better, but if the County is going with the CUP with tight conditions on some of the others, then it should look at that as well. Commissioner Carlson stated she does not feel strongly enough about the BU-2; the County has stronger conditions there; but she does not have a problem with what Commissioner Higgs is suggesting.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant permission to advertise a public hearing to consider an ordinance amending animal-related zoning regulations, including the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) requirement with conditions outlined. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: COMMUNITY BASED CARE/COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP MATCHING
GRANT

Cleave Frink, representing Project Response, stated Project Response is going to be in good shape; the Board has always acted, supported, and done the right thing when it comes to his organization; and expressed appreciation to the Board for its past support. He noted the organization realizes the County may not have a choice in adopting the new initiative on this item; Project Response provides a service for those people who cannot provide for themselves; if the initiative adversely affects the organization financially, there is a problem; and requested the Board consider the adverse effects. He noted social service organizations, such as Project Response, would go completely unfunded if there is no consideration given; Project Response has an agenda item for the Board’s consideration on August 12, 2003; and it appreciates any support it can provide. Mr. Frink requested the County make favorable mentions to the Community Action Board; reiterated Project Response’s concern with the new initiative; and stated it would be difficult for the organization to stay in business without the Board’s support.

J. B. Kenna, Community Revitalization Programs, advised there is an agenda item coming before the Board on August 12, 2003 requesting emergency funding; and Project Response and other agencies are included for consideration to the Board.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the potential for matching up $2 million is available. Mr. Kenna noted the terms of the grant are that the County has the ability, should it have the dollars available to leverage, to go to $2 million. Commissioner Pritchard inquired what was the leverage; with Mr. Kenna responding any general revenue dollars that have been or will be spent toward Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) eligible activities. Commissioner Pritchard inquired how much money was that; with Mr. Kenna responding it could be up to $2 million. Mr. Kenna stated staff’s initial estimates, taking into consideration the Board’s approval of Option 1, would be that the County could obtain about $1,354,000 with a 10% to 15% discount for potential unallowable cost, which would allow the possibility of matching about $1,151,000 over an 18-month period. Commissioner Pritchard inquired is it a 50-50 match; with Mr. Kenna responding no. Mr. Kenna stated it is a complex issue; and Jay Murphy, the consultant who is working with the County on the project, can answer the questions in better detail.

Jay Murphy, Senior Consultant with PCG, stated the grant is not necessarily a 50-50 match; it is an access grant that has been put forth by the Department of Children and Families (DCF), which is the single State agency that administers the TANF Program; with the County’s agreement to help fund Community Based Care (CBC) in Brevard County, the County will have access to up to $2 million in TANF dollars to fund human services locally; so for every $1 million contribution to the CBC, it would have the opportunity to access $2 million of TANF dollars for services that would conventionally be funded through CBO general revenue dollars.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he has so many numbers on the page it is hard to figure out how much is available, how much has the County budgeted, and how much is it looking for; there is the issue of a $1 million line of credit; and inquired can Mr. Kenna simplify it so that he can understand better what the County is talking about. Mr. Kenna provided information to the Board for clarification purposes.

He stated staff anticipated looking at funds the County had already expended in order to leverage the match; the DCF changed the rules during the application process; now the County must start prospectively looking at funds, which means it does not know how much it spent yet; and staff is requesting the Board provide some direction to staff, if it is its intent to continue funding these types of TANF eligible activities of about $427,000 a year, in addition to the dollars that are spent in general revenue on TANF eligible activities already through Housing and Human Services Department.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the rules have been changed; the County is trying to maximize the match by examining those funds flowing through the CBO; and it is empowering the CBO to be proactive in capturing funds for the match. He noted option 1 is not the last bite at the apple and empowers this type of discussion to occur; and that is what Gay Williams shared with him.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he does not know how to provide any staff direction; that is his dilemma; it is requested that the Board provide staff direction in pursuing the community partnership matching grant TANF two-for-one; and inquired is it based on past expenditures. Mr. Kenna responded no, forecasted expenditures. Commissioner Pritchard inquired is the County forecasting to spend $427,000 next year. Mr. Kenna responded it is in addition to the County’s current budget, which has general revenue dollars that are traditionally spent toward TANF eligible activities. Commissioner Pritchard inquired how much money is staff forecasting to spend next year; with Mr. Kenna responding $427,000 through the CBO fund and $513,000 in traditional general revenue expenses through Housing and Human Services Department, for a total of $941,000. Commissioner Pritchard noted the County can get a two-for-one; with Mr. Kenna responding it would be the $941,000 and the two-for-one is misleading at times. Mr. Kenna stated half of it goes to Community Based Care and half of it goes to the County; it is a dollar for dollar match; the County also has the opportunity to bill for dollars that have been spent this fiscal year since July 1st, and also into the first three months of FY 04-05; and in addition to $941,000, it would be about $1.3 million. Commissioner Pritchard noted the $1.3 million is over 18 months, and inquired how much can the County get for $1.3 million. Mr. Kenna responded $1.3 million; and it is dollar for dollar. Commissioner Pritchard stated this is money that the County currently has budgeted; with Mr. Kenna responding yes, CBO dollars and dollars in the general revenue budget for Housing and Human Services Department. Commissioner Pritchard inquired what type of staff direction is needed. Mr. Kenna responded the reason why staff is asking for direction is because it does not set the budget; it is a Board decision; after consulting with one of the Assistant County Attorneys, staff cannot ask the Board to commit dollars for FY 04-05; so staff is asking for a feel from the Board because when it signs a contract with DCF for the TANF match, it needs some reasonable expectation that it will be able to reach the $1 million minimum threshold. Commissioner Pritchard stated what he said previously when the Board discussed the millage rate is if it comes back and says there is going to be less money available, then there is less than $1.3 million available to Housing and Human Services Department. Mr. Kenna noted if it was his Department’s budget that would be impacted, it would be a possibility.

Commissioner Scarborough stated option 2 would be a profound decision; the County would basically start over renegotiation of the contract; and option 1 is where to proceed as it allows the County to look at the ability to use CBO funds for matches.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve Option 1, to provide some level of assurance that the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) match could be met over the next two years and allow the start up process to continue regarding the Community Based Care/Community Partnership Matching Grant. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO BID AND AWARD BID, RE: PHASE IIIa INSTALLATION OF LANDFILL
GAS WELLS AT CENTRAL DISPOSAL FACILITY

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to grant permission to bid and award bid to the lowest, qualified, and responsive bidder for Phase IIIa Installation of Landfill Gas Wells at the Central Disposal Facility in Cocoa. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO BID AND AWARD BID, RE: CLOSURE OF WEST SLOPE OF CENTRAL
DISPOSAL FACILITY

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant permission to bid and award bid to the lowest, qualified, and responsive bidder for Closure of West Slope of the Central Disposal Facility in Cocoa. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPEAL OF JOHNNY SHAMROCK, RE: DECISION OF ONSITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL
VARIANCE BOARD

Johnny Shamrock stated he would like to appeal the ruling by the Variance Board; he did not attend the Variance Board meeting; the State approved the size of the septic based on an aerobic system and a setback variance he had; and he saw the packets that were to be submitted to the County. He noted the County denied his septic tank permit based on concerns on the size of his house; he bought his property two years ago and had two surveyors survey the lot; the septic tank is sized correctly to the size of the house; and reiterated the State approved it. He stated he did not use up his buildable spot and decided to build up; the house is designed to take care of his mom; there are two master bedrooms, one downstairs and one upstairs; and he has done a lot of extensive work with the Department of Environmental Health, and its recommendation is approval of the variance. Mr. Shamrock noted he has also done extensive work with Planning and Zoning Department and Office of Natural Resources; he received assurances from them that he met all the setbacks and variances; he polled about 90% of the neighbors on the street; and they signed a petition that said they believe what he is building is in harmony with the rest of the neighborhood. He stated since 1994, there have been six houses granted the same variance; without the variance, nothing can be built on the property; and he could downsize his house, but the septic is designed adequately for the size of the house.

Commissioner Carlson noted Mr. Hebert supplied her with a list of the homes that were given the permit and the blessing of the Variance Board, and inquired did the other Commissioners receive the information; with Environmental Health Services Supervisor Eric Hebert responding yes. Commissioner Carlson stated she does not know if there was a lot size or square footage size based on the lot size; and inquired was there some correlation that Mr. Shamrock brought up that would put him in a separate category of what has already been permitted through the Variance Board. Mr. Hebert responded this particular part of Lake Poinsett Shores is zoned RU-1-9; it was one of the first sections that was platted and zoned; the rest of the Subdivision is RU-1-11 or RU-1-13; so this particular section needs 12 or 13 lots needed to have a house, no smaller than 900 square feet, and the maximum that would be allowed would go back to gallons per acre per day that the septic tank permit would allow. Commissioner Carlson noted there was not any provision that would separate this particular request from any of the other variances that have been passed; with Mr. Hebert responding that is correct. Mr. Hebert stated the State of Florida has granted variances for the use of the aerobic system as proposed; and it was the Variance Board that denied Mr. Shamrock his application. Commissioner Carlson inquired was there any specific reasoning behind this item versus the others that were approved previously. Mr. Hebert responded he believes it had to do with the fact that this section was zoned RU-1-9 as opposed to RU-1-13; and the Variance Board commented that the house might be a little large for the surrounding neighborhood. Commissioner Carlson noted in fact, it is not. Mr. Hebert responded it meets all the State Codes.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve request by Johnny Shamrock to install an aerobic treatment unit as an enhanced onsite sewage treatment and disposal system for proposed structure in Poinsett Acres, Unit 2 Subdivision in Cocoa. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: VEHICLE FOR HIRE SECTION 118-1, BREVARD COUNTY CODE

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve legislative intent and grant permission to advertise a public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Brevard County Code, Section 118-1, Definition of Limousine-Vans and Shuttle Buses, to accommodate mini-van shuttles doing business in unincorporated Brevard County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC COMMENT - WALTER PINE, RE: ONE-PERCENT SALES TAX

Walter Pine stated if someone went to somebody’s house and offered them $10.00 for his or her vote, it would be illegal; if a Commissioner went to a community and said he or she promises to do a certain thing for them if they support him or her in the next election, it would be unethical; and that is exactly what the Board is doing with the 1% sales tax. He noted the Board is buying votes; when it makes the decision on what it is going to spend the money on, before it is voted on, it has disenfranchised the little person who lives on the end of a road where the fire department cannot get to his house as the road is impassible; and such individual does not have the political pull to get the project to fix his road. Mr. Pine stated the small person does not have the financial wherewithal to get the attention necessary; he thought when this occurred with the parks referendum project that it was an aberration when the list of projects was put out, but it appears it was not; when the Board plans the proposals ahead of time, it makes a decision on which ones will be considered and which ones will not; it is a decision that should occur in the Sunshine; and it is spending taxpayers’ money. He noted he went through a file today that shows that all kinds of decisions are being made, proposals are being considered, and interlocal agreements and contracts are being drawn up; if his senator or representatives had contracts written up before a project was bid or tax funding was passed, he would question what is going on; and he has a hard time with the ethics. Mr. Pine stated the Board is telling the public what they are going to get for the money; it is doing it to get a vote; and it is exchanging value for a vote, which is wrong. He noted the Board needs to consider the system it is using; and it needs to back up and take another look at it.

PUBLIC COMMENT - THELMA ROPER, RE: MARINA PARK

Thelma Roper provided information to County Attorney Scott Knox, but not the Clerk, regarding Marina Park.

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated it is important and typified by his Office and each Commission Office that all citizens in Brevard County are treated fairly; the County does not differentiate by the size of someone’s wallet whether or not they have access to him or a Commissioner; and it would be unfair to suggest that people are limited access based on their means or alleged stature in the community. He noted all of the projects that have been included in the referendum, which the voters will ultimately decide, were discussed at public workshops at least on two or three occasions; the information has been widely circulated; and it has all been discussed in the Sunshine. He stated the interlocal agreements that the speaker addressed are only those agreements with municipalities and School Board; they do not specifically address any projects; it is only for the distribution of the revenue formula, which the Board previously voted on of one-third, one-third, and one-third; and in terms of the projects that are on the referendum, there are basically two types of projects on the list. Mr. Jenkins noted one type is in order to sustain the existing quality of life in Brevard County by meeting a number of basic infrastructure requirements; there are additional projects that were intended to enhance the quality of life in Brevard County; those requests for projects and funding came to the Board through a wide range of citizen groups and interested individuals; and what has been presented to the Board and eventually will be submitted to the public are those project requests that have come from a wide and diverse group of individuals and organizations in Brevard County.

 

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 11:56 p.m.

ATTEST: __________________________________
JACKIE COLON, CHAIRPERSON
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

____________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)