The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on August 8, 2000, at 9:05 a.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairman Nancy Higgs, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Randy O'Brien, Sue Carlson, and Helen Voltz, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

The Invocation was given by Commissioner Truman Scarborough.

Commissioner Helen Voltz led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the Minutes of the May 16 and 23, 2000 Regular meetings. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ITEM WITHDRAWN FROM AGENDA

County Manager Tom Jenkins requested Item III.A.1, Approval of Release Waiver and Installation of New Sprinklers, Re: Government Center Buildings A, B, C, D, and E be withdrawn.

REPORT, RE: POWER UP FLORIDA PROGRAM

Commissioner Carlson stated Governor Jeb Bush recently announced the expansion of a public/private partnership called "Power Up Florida" which is an initiative that works to eliminate the digital divide which is the division between certain groups in terms of access to technologyet. She stated beginning August 1, 2000 the State will take applications from communities that wish to participate in the new program; and requested staff get more details on the application process.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if this is a social divide. Commissioner Carlson responded it is mostly an issue of rural and urban communities and income levels, etc., which create the digital divide; but it is more a question of access to the Internet. Commissioner O'Brien stated beyond providing a safe place for youth to access computers, there will be mentors who will teach.

Commissioner Carlson stated the Power Up Program was started by General Colin Powell; it was part of America's Promise which includes the five promises, which are (1) one-on-one contact between young people and capable caring adults, (2) innovative content and curriculum, (3) adequate infrastructure, (4) professional training and (5) upkeep, evaluation and measurement systems. She stated the Power Up Program is trying to bridge the gap and bring the Internet to everybody as much as possible, but in a setting where there are mentors who can teach.

Commissioner Voltz stated if the Board is going to get a report on this, she would like to know what it is going to cost the County. Commissioner Carlson stated she does not know what the qualifications are and is not sure if there are costs associated with it because it sounds like it is all grant dollars. Commissioner Voltz noted there may be other costs involved.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the CBO funded Project Star is a similar group; and there may be communities such as Micco, Mims, or Scottsmoor that may be eligible for this kind of grant. Commissioner Carlson stated it usually is in a community center.

RESOLUTION, RE: RECOGNIZING THE FLORIDA WATER AND POLLUTION CONTROL OPERATORS ASSOCIATION

Commissioner Scarborough stated Brevard Community College is hosting the Florida Water and Pollution Control Operators Association conference; and he has a resolution recognizing them. Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt a Resolution recognizing the Florida Water and Pollution Control Operators Association. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PRESENTATION, RE: MARTHA BROWN, CENSUS 2000 - APPRECIATION TO TAMMY THARPE

Martha Brown, Census 2000, stated she would like to recognize Tammy Tharpe and Mel Scott. She presented an award to Mel Scott for allowing his employee Tammy Tharpe to serve as the liaison for the Brevard County Complete County Committee; and expressed appreciation for his assistance. She presented an award to Tammy Tharpe; and expressed appreciation for her work in support of Census 2000.

Chairman Higgs thanked Ms. Brown for presenting the awards and recognizing the contributions of County employees. Ms. Brown presented an umbrella to the Chairman.

PRESENTATION, RE: MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CERTIFICATES

Human Resources Director Frank Abbate advised the Management Certification Program includes three phases, courses, and exams; and advised of different courses in the Program. He stated Steve Barnes from Facilities Management, Sandra Johnson-Meehan from the Eau Gallie Library, Sally Lewis from Planning and Zoning, Michael Montanino from Court Alternatives, Theresa Petro from Library Support Services, and Fawn Sandberg from Satellite Beach Library completed the course; and Vern Buchanan from Code Compliance, Mary Templer from the Law Library, and Jeffrey Thompson from DeGroodt Library completed the course with honors.

Chairman Higgs congratulated everyone for participating and completing the program.

CHANGE ORDER NO. 4 WITH ADVANCED HURRICANE PROTECTION, INC., RE: SCHOOL BOARD HURRICANE SHUTTERS

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Change Order No. 4 with Advanced Hurricane Protection, Inc, increasing contract price by $22,516 for the installation of hurricane shutters at various schools. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF PROJECT AND BUDGET CHANGE REQUEST, AND AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE MATERIALS AND QUOTE SUBCONTRACTING WORK, RE: VALKARIA AIRPORT RECREATION PROJECT

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the Valkaria Airport Recreation project; authorize staff to construct the project; approve the Budget Change Request to provide funds for construction; and authorize the purchase of shelter materials and quote the subcontracting work. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION CONFIRMING PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR JUDY KAY ROAD PAVING MSBU

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant permission to advertise public hearing for August 29, 2000 to confirm preliminary assessment roll for Judy Kay Road Paving MSBU; and adopt Resolution acknowledging preparation of the preliminary assessment roll and setting the time and date for the public hearing. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION CONFIRMING PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR FARNSWORTH AVENUE ROAD PAVING MSBU

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant permission to advertise public hearing for August 29, 2000 to confirm preliminary assessment roll for Farnsworth Avenue Road Paving MSBU; and adopt Resolution acknowledging preparation of the preliminary assessment roll and setting the time and date for the public hearing. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: REMOVAL OF PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS FROM COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR USE AT OTHER FACILITIES

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize Public Works Department to remove private improvements from two medians within the County right-of-way on St. Andrews Boulevard east of Wickham Road for use at other facilities. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CONTRACT WITH KIM KAHLER, RE: INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS FOR HIGHLAND AVENUE

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Contract with Kim Kahler guaranteeing infrastructure improvements for Highland Avenue. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CONTRACT WITH FLORIDA SITE DEVELOPERS, RE: INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS IN STILL POINT SUBDIVISION, PHASE II

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Contract with Florida Site Developers guaranteeing infrastructure improvements in Still Point Subdivision, Phase II. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

EASEMENT TO BARBARA LAWRENCE AND DENNIS SIMPSON, RE: INGRESS/EGRESS FOR PARCELS 756 AND 758 OFF VALKARIA ROAD

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant an easement for access, pursuant to Ordinance No 97-02, to lots owned by Barbara Lawrence and Dennis Simpson to make them eligible for building permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT WITH DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND APPROVAL OF 2000/2001 COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN, RE: COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Agreement with Department of Community Affairs and approve the 2000-2001 Community Action Plan for Community Action Agency in the amount of $75,146; and authorize the Chairman to execute future amendments to the Agreement and budget, contingent upon approval of the County Attorney and/or Risk Management. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENTS WITH SEAN ANDERSON, SAM BARDWELL, WILLIAM POWELL, JR. AND KENNETH WEAVER, JR., RE: LEGAL REPRESENTATION OF INDIGENT RESIDENTS

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Agreements with Sean Anderson, Sam Bardwell, William Powell, Jr., and Kenneth Weaver, Jr. for legal representation of indigent residents, from October 1, 2000 through September 30, 2002. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AMENDMENT TO RATE AGREEMENT WITH DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, RE: SCAT TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FOR DIVISION OF VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Amendment to Rate Agreement with Department of Education, Vocational Rehabilitation Service, extending Agreement until September 30, 2000, for Space Coast Area Transit (SCAT) transportation services. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO BID, RE: SCAT 2000 VEHICLE ACQUISITION FOR VANPOOL PROGRAM AND REPLACEMENT BUSES

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant permission to bid the SCAT 2000 vehicle acquisition for the Vanpool Program consisting of 28 replacement passenger vans, 11 expansion vans, and seven replacement buses. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF CONTRACTS WITH GLACE & RADCLIFFE ENGINEERING AND WCG ENGINEERING, INC., RE: ACKNOWLEDGING MERGER

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Assignment and Assumption of Contracts with Glace & Radcliffe, Inc. and WCG, Inc. acknowledging merger of Glace and Radcliffe, Inc. into WCG Inc. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

EASEMENT ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT WITH DEVEREUX FOUNDATION, RE: CONSTRUCTION OF WALL ACROSS SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Easement Encroachment Agreement with Devereux Foundation for construction of a masonry wall across a sanitary sewer easement. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

EASEMENT ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT WITH TOWNE REALTY, INC., RE: CONSTRUCTION OF WALL ACROSS SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Easement Encroachment Agreement with Towne Realty, Inc. for construction of a masonry wall across a sanitary sewer easement. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO BID, AWARD BID, AND EXECUTE CONTRACT, RE: REHABILITATION OF GRAVITY SEWER LINES FOR CENTRAL MERRITT ISLAND/SOUTH BEACHES

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant permission to bid and award to lowest responsive bidder, and authorize the Chairman to execute contract for rehabilitation of gravity sewer lines in Central Merritt Island and South Beaches Service Areas. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 WITH WHARTON-SMITH, INC., RE: CONSTRUCTION OF SOUTH-CENTRAL REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Change Order No. 2 with Wharton-Smith, Inc. for construction of South-Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion, decreasing contract amount by $2,504,951.66 for deduction of amount of materials purchased directly, deduction of amount of sales tax saved on items purchased, additional costs for modifications to contract design due to identified field conflicts, design elements that were omitted from plans, additions to project design to better serve operations and maintenance needs, reduction in contract price for value engineering efforts performed by Contractor after bid award, and deduction due to chlorine system modifications, for new contract total of $6,027,015.56. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPOINTMENTS, RE: WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to appoint Carol Delaney and Marge Bartok to the Brevard Workforce Development Board with terms expiring on June 30, 2002. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RATE RESOLUTIONS, RE: VIDEOTAPING PROGRAMS IN COMMISSION ROOM AND DUPLICATION OF MEETINGS/PROGRAMS

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution providing a fee schedule to videotape programs in the Commission Room for entities external to the Board, and for duplicating meeting and program tapes for the public. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: AUTHORIZING DRAW FROM TAX EXEMPT COMMERCIAL PAPER PROGRAM FOR MSBU PROJECTS

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution authorizing a draw from the Florida Local Government Finance Commission Tax Exempt Commercial Paper Program providing an amount not to exceed $75,000 for a partial renewal of Draw A-11-1 which funded the Shellwood Drive and Sellers Lane MSBU projects; authorize the Chairman to execute the Resolution and all documents necessary to close on the loan; and authorize the County Manager to make necessary budget changes to implement the action. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: PROPOSED COST FOR COLLECTION OF COUNTY OCCUPATIONAL LICENSES BY TAX COLLECTOR

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the projected administrative cost of $205,839.00 for collection of County occupational license fees by the Tax Collector's Office from August 1, 2000 to July 31, 2001. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF PAYMENT, RE: COUNTY ATTORNEY'S MEMBERSHIP IN INNS OF COURT

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve payment of $250 for the County Attorney's membership in Inns of Court. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AND PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY'S FEES, RE: PINTER V. BREVARD COUNTY

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the settlement and payment of Plaintiffs' attorney's fees in Pinter v. Brevard County in the amount of $54,703, plus interest from August 17, 1998. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, RE: BREVARD COUNTY V. OUTDOOR SYSTEMS, INC.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize the County Attorney to execute the Settlement Agreement with Outdoor Systems, Inc. to receive $8,991 in the case of Brevard County v. Outdoor Systems, Inc. relating to removal of the last billboard from the Sheriff's Farm. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPOINTMENT, RE: CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARD

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to appoint Liz Hartman to the Brevard Commission on Aging, with term of appointment to expire December 31, 2000. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: BILLS AND BUDGET CHANGES

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Bills and Budget Changes as submitted. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING RIGHT-OF-WAY IN PORT ST. JOHN AND ACCEPTING DRAINAGE EASEMENT - BREVARD COUNTY LAND ACQUISITION (MELZER PROPERTY)

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating right-of-way in Port St. John and accepting drainage easement as petitioned by Brevard County Land Acquisition (Melzer Property).

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if there are any problems; with Cynthia Fogle responding no.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt Resolution vacating right-of-way in Port St. John as petitioned by Brevard County Land Acquisition (Melzer Property) and accept drainage easement. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS IN SNUG HARBOR LAKES UNRECORDED SECTION H - ABBOTT MANUFACTURED HOUSING, INC.

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating public utility and drainage easements in Snug Harbor Lakes Unrecorded, Section H as petitioned by Abbott Manufactured Housing, Inc.

There being no comment or objection, motion was made by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt Resolution vacating public utility and drainage easements in Snug Harbor Lakes Unrecorded, Section H as petitioned by Abbott Manufactured Housing, Inc. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: REZONING REQUEST FROM A. DUDA & SONS, INC.

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a rezoning request from A. Duda & Sons, Inc.

Commissioner Carlson stated the applicant requested to rezone a GU parcel fronting on Wickham Road to BU-1; and it is a 17.21 acre site, on which the applicant wishes to develop 2.98 acres and impact 2.2 acres of wetlands.

Hassan Kamal of BSE Consultants, representing A. Duda & Sons, stated after the last meeting there were a couple of issues they wanted to address and more research to do; and some were legal issues, while others were clarifications regarding the land ownership and where the proposed donation of the pedway corridor would be located. He presented an overall plan showing the configuration of the pedway system in relationship to the surrounding properties, the Interstate, and some of the property ownership. He stated they have added the conceptual location of the proposed park facility that is approximately one mile south of the Zoo, directly east of the old rest area; staff finds this to be a great location for a terminal with park facilities; and the final configuration has not been determined, but A. Duda & Sons is committed to working with County staff to create that area. He stated progressing south, the pedway corridor would continue and eventually tie into the anticipated Pineda interchange. He stated it is anticipated that as development of Pineda moves forward, the County will need to do some condemnation; and at that time, the exact alignment will be known. He stated they have revised the Binding Development Agreement to add an agreement to donate the land; such revisions occurred as late as last night after conversation between counsel for A. Duda & Sons and Brevard County; and distributed revised copies of the BDA. He stated they have included an exhibit that discusses how the mitigation areas will be monitored and maintained, as requested by Board; and other language was added to reflect how the deeds for the pedway facility would be granted to the County, placed into escrow until the County decides exactly what it wants and finalizes its design. He stated copies of the Agreement to donate land have been provided to County staff.

Commissioner Carlson stated hopefully the Board's questions have been answered; and the Board has gotten remarkable cooperation and partnership with A. Duda & Sons, the County, and the third party, which is the Zoo. She stated it is a 17.21-acre site; the applicant wants to develop 2.98 acres; 2.2 acres is wetland; and mitigation of the wetland is approximately 15 to 1, which means the total wetlands to be restored, mitigated, or preserved is 34.22 acres.

Commissioner Voltz inquired why is it so high; with Commissioner Carlson responding that is what was agreed to. Mr. Kamal stated the other components of the mitigation plan are the St. Johns River Water Management District and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers criteria; and those entities set those goals for this particular project because of the kind of wetlands they are. Commissioner Voltz inquired if the St. Johns River Water Management District set the 15 to 1 mitigation factor; with Mr. Kamal responding affirmatively.

Commissioner Carlson stated the application for this came in before December 14, 1998, which was the deadline for forested wetlands; the property is forested wetlands; so the mitigation is greater than would be expected for a herbaceous site. She stated there are 34.22 acres for wetland mitigation and donation of an easement for the linear park that equates to 15,920 linear feet by 50 feet, or 18.2 acres. She stated the applicant is going to be donating approximately 3,500 tons of base material for the linear park; they do not know at this time how wide the park will be; but they have provided 50 feet within which to work. She stated the County has received all the documents it needs; and expressed appreciation to A. Duda & Sons and Hassan Kamal for all the work they have done in trying to make this project successful. She stated hopefully when the engineering information on the Pineda Extension comes back, they will be able to have a good feel for how the linear park can be connected further south.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve the public interest determination, and rezoning request of A. Duda & Sons, Inc. for change from GU to BU-1 on 2.98 acres, located on the south side of Wickham Road, east of Murrell Road, subject to a Binding Development Agreement including provisions for mitigation and donation of easement for a linear park.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he is not going to vote against the motion, but does not see how any new wetlands are being created or stressed wetlands being brought back to life to replace the wetlands that are being lost. Mr. Kamal stated the mitigation has several different aspects; first is the preservation and restoration of the remaining 14 acres within the 17-acre site; and there are an additional 20 acres offsite which they will preserve and maintain. He stated the pedway facility ties into the mitigation proposal because it continues down through an area that has historically been a wetland slough; a large portion is in wetlands and in conservation easements through various subdivision plats and things of that nature, so there is some opportunity for public education which would help offset some of the mitigation; and taking all three facets in combination meets the public interest requirement. Commissioner O'Brien stated the applicant wants to build on 2.98 acres along Wickham Road; and inquired if it is just down the street from 7-Eleven and Denny's; with Mr. Kamal responding affirmatively. Commissioner O'Brien inquired how functional are the wetlands the applicant wants to build on; with Mr. Kamal responding they are functional but stressed because of the location adjacent to the major Wickham Road corridor. Mr. Kamal stated in analyzing and developing the project, the configuration they chose to develop was pushed toward Wickham Road because that was the area that was going to continue to degrade. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the other 14 acres are shown on the map as a red striped area; with Mr. Kamal responding yes, those are the areas they will be preserving and enhancing, and they will be monitored and maintained for a five-year period. Commissioner O'Brien stated some of that property is close to development; and inquired if it would not also be stressed; with Mr. Kamal advising of their plan to buffer along the perimeter to provide transition and minimize disturbance. Commissioner O'Brien stated in order to develop 2.98 acres, the applicant is going to improve 14 acres of wetlands to restore better function, and then 20 acres to the south. He inquired if the 20 acres are functional wetlands now; with Mr. Kamal responding they are. Mr. Kamal stated the wetland is completely surrounded by conservation areas, and serves as a drainage outfall for Suntree and Baytree, so there is significant benefit to placing those areas into a permanent conservation easement to make sure they do not get developed. Commissioner O'Brien stated they are already surrounded by conservation areas and the County's rule, since it is a functional wetland, would only allow development of one acre in five, if anyone could even get to it; so there is no additional benefit to anyone. Mr. Kamal stated they are taking a system which is the north end of a large drainage slough that has been stressed by adjacent development and the construction of the adjacent roadway, impacting a small portion of it, and helping insure that the balance of the slough that runs from Wickham Road down to Pineda is protected. Commissioner O'Brien stated it seems extraordinary for the mitigation ratio to be so high; and commented on the wetlands. Mr. Kamal stated the ratios are coming primarily from the St. Johns River Water Management District criteria, and they are higher when someone is just preserving and enhancing versus creating; and that is the standard that has been used, similar to what was used for the Post Commons project.

Discussion ensued on wetland functionality, mitigation of wetlands, St. Johns River Water Management District and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers criteria, mitigating existing wetlands, and definition of linear park.

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

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 102-44(b), ARTICLE II, CHAPTER 102, OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE TAX RATE

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Section 102-44(b), Article II, Chapter 102, Occupational License Tax Rate.

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated the County has not increased occupational licenses since 1995; the State allows a 5% increase every other year; and the additional funding would go for economic development.

Chairman Higgs stated it would be $1.40 increase.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt an Ordinance amending Article II, Chapter 102 of the Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida; specifically amending Section 102-66 to change the occupational license tax rate; providing for severability; and providing an effective date.

Commissioner Scarborough stated some years ago, the County moved from having occupational licenses based on the size of the operation to an across-the-board fee; and advised of calls he received concerning the disparity between small businesses and large businesses. He stated while the Board has the ability to touch the 5%, the bigger issue is whether or not the across-the-board fee is equitable and just, or should occupational licenses, if they are to support economic development, be based on the broader concept. He stated the question is whether it is prudent at this time to reach out for $23,000 in this year, rather than deferring it to next year and doing something more comprehensive; and he will vote against the motion.

Commissioner Voltz inquired how much of the occupational license fees are currently going to EDC; with County Manager Tom Jenkins responding it goes into the General Fund which funds EDC, so it could be argued that all of it does. Commissioner Voltz inquired how much is taken in annually; with Mr. Jenkins responding roughly $400,000 to $500,000. Mr. Jenkins stated the Board cannot increase it more than 5%, and does not have the ability to go to the graduated fee. Commissioner Scarborough stated he was under the impression that was possible, but the Board had failed to do so in time. Mr. Jenkins suggested the Board instruct Mr. Knox to research it. Commissioner Scarborough stated this is the first time he has heard that, and he has asked the question every year. Mr. Jenkins stated in 1994 when the Board set up the Occupational License Study Commission, that was the opportunity to restructure; and the Board is limited by the 5% every other year. County Attorney Scott Knox stated he recalls a portion of the Statute that says if a County wants to reclassify, it has to support it with a study, but he is not sure if that was a one-time thing, or whether it can be repeated. Chairman Higgs suggested getting a report on that. Commissioner Scarborough stated he raised this issue before, and wishes someone had said that sooner. Mr. Jenkins stated if the Board does not act on it today, Tax Collector Rod Northcutt will send out the notices at the current rate. Commissioner Scarborough stated $23,000 in additional revenue is a drop in the bucket; and there is a question in the minds of some people whether there is an equitable and just occupational license if it is the same for everyone. Commissioner Voltz stated it is probably not, but there is nothing the Board can do about it. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is not convinced because it has been discussed a number of times, and this is the first time he has heard that the Board could not readdress it.

Chairman Higgs stated there is a small increase in this budget year that could be applied toward economic development issues; in five years, there have been no increases; and she does not have a problem with the small increase in the fee, which raises a significant amount of revenue. She stated she does not have a problem looking at the bigger picture, but at this point the Board cannot do that; so the Board should take a little step.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the way the taxes get to be $3,000, $4,000, or $5,000 on someone's house is when governments raise taxes by 35 cents one year, 45 cents the next year, and $1.25 the year after that; it is never very much; and commented on the taxes he pays on his house. He stated occupational licenses are a fee; and the reason it was brought down from $5,000 for Wal-Mart to $35 is because it is a fee. He stated he should not have to pay more than anyone else for a license; government is not in the business of making money; and a fee should be fair, reasonable, and provide a level playing field. He stated it should not be based on what someone makes; and if the license was waived, the fee would not be necessary. He inquired what does an occupational license do for people other than provide a record.

Commissioner Carlson stated Commissioner O'Brien is right about the fee because they are paying for a service; and that issue blends well with the issue of impact fees. She stated if someone wants to pay their fair share for their impact to the community, then the Board should start talking about impact fees. She stated the Board tried to talk about that, but it failed; and recommended it come back for discussion.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he does not feel strongly about that; the Board discussed it many times; and impact fees are more punitive than anything else. He stated they did not generate enough revenue to compensate for the problems, but at the same time they drive the cost of a single-family home beyond the ability of a young couple to buy it.

Commissioner Carlson stated she is not talking about residential neighborhoods; she is talking about those that have a greater impact, which are commercial and industrial; and the Board needs to bring that issue back.

Commissioner O'Brien stated Wal-Mart, Burger King, Wendy's, Winn Dixie, and Publix probably pay the highest property taxes in the County; their impact is being paid every year; and the real impact of no impact fees is all the new stores that are popping up all over the place. He stated Brevard County is getting to be an old County with old stores, strip malls, and houses; and unless the County can get industry to come to the County and build new businesses, it is going to be an old rundown County. He stated if the County wants companies to come, it cannot waive ad valorem taxes, and then hit them with impact fees.

Commissioner Carlson stated impact fees are another way to provide an abatement to an industry that is coming into the community, but there are already more Wal-Marts, Burger King's, etc. than are needed; and they keep coming in and not paying for impacts. She stated even the cities within the County have continued their impact fees, so there are some real discrepancies.

Commissioner Voltz inquired what do other counties do regarding occupational license fees; with Mr. Jenkins responding most counties have what Brevard County used to have prior to the restructuring in 1995, which was different rates for different types of businesses. Commissioner Voltz stated normally a business moves in where the people are; and it does not happen the opposite way; so the business does not make the impact.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he will vote in favor because it will raise $23,000 additional for economic development; next year, it can be put back on the agenda to get an additional $23,000; and after five years, it will raise $100,000 more per year. Mr. Jenkins noted it can only be increased every other year.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion to adopt the Ordinance. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners O'Brien, Higgs, Carlson, and Voltz voted aye; Commissioner Scarborough voted nay.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to direct the County Attorney to report to the Board on how it could restructure the occupational license fee to a graduated fee.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if the fee is being used for economic development, it could be argued that the person with the larger operation benefits more from economic development than the smaller operation, as reflected in the overall gross income generated by the business.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he cannot support the motion. Commissioner Voltz stated she did not realize the disparity was so wide. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board can examine and set the fee; but it needs to get the information. Commissioner O'Brien noted Sea Ray Boats was paying close to $6,000 for an occupational license. Commissioner Carlson inquired what do they pay now; with Commissioner O'Brien responding $35.

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

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 62, ARTICLE X, DIVISION 4, WETLAND PROTECTION

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 62, Article X, Division 4, Wetland Protection.

Maureen Rupe, speaking on behalf of Clarence Rowe, requested the proposed ordinance be reviewed by the firm that is reviewing the Air Quality Ordinance, and the issue be tabled until such review is done.

Jack Kirschenbaum, representing Buccaneer Pipeline, stated portions of the pipeline may go through a forested wetland; and presented a proposed amendment to clarify that the pipeline will not be a prohibited use within a forested wetland. He submitted a copy of the suggested language. Mr. Kirschenbaum stated the ordinance addresses industrial and commercial uses primarily; Buccaneer Pipeline's position is neither a commercial nor an industrial use; they are operating as a utility, and as such do not fit clearly into either category. He advised of discussions with staff; and stated the request is to add a new subsection to Section 62-3694 (c), "major improvements subject to review under the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Policy 2.4 shall be evaluated under the criteria of Policy 2.4, and are not prohibited by this Ordinance." He stated that will allow review under the Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.4 rather than prohibiting the use outright, as they are neither an industrial nor a commercial use.

Commissioner Scarborough stated it sounds like it exempts utilities from the provisions of the ordinance which may be contrary to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Kirschenbaum stated their argument is they are not a use that is within the Comprehensive Plan Policy, and the language clarifies it. Commissioner Scarborough stated there are no requirements on utilities, so utilities would not be covered by the Comprehensive Plan; with Mr. Kirschenbaum responding not under the Transportation Element. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if utilities can do anything they want because they are not covered by the Comprehensive Plan; with Mr. Kirschenbaum responding he is not suggesting that, but in this instance they are subject to the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Policy 2.4, and should utilize that criteria rather than the criteria that is within the ordinance.

Doug Sphar, representing Turtle Coast Group of the Sierra Club, stated he would like to look at Mr. Kirschenbaum's proposed language to evaluate it. He stated the group is pleased with the proposed wetland's ordinance including the changes recommended by the LPA, but see the need for one additional change. He stated the definition of wetlands on page 3 contains a sentence that is not part of the existing Wetland's Ordinance; and read aloud the definition. He stated a similar phrase was removed from Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.1 which referenced the County's acceptance of a State agency's wetland delineation and methodology; and the removed sentence said, "but shall not be limited by the threshold or connection requirement utilized by these agencies." Natural Resources Section Supervisor Debbie Coles advised it was an oversight on the part of staff and will be removed. Mr. Sphar stated given that change, Sierra Club supports adoption of the ordinance with the changes recommended by the LPA.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the Board adopted the ordinance with the one change which staff and the Sierra Club talked about, could the proposal form Mr. Kirschenbaum be advertised and dealt with later. County Attorney Scott Knox stated it could be a separate amendment. Chairman Higgs stated the proposed ordinance is a clarification of the previous Ordinance that brings it in line with the existing Comprehensive Plan changes; and the Board can go ahead with that and then review what Mr. Kirschenbaum is suggesting.

Commissioner Voltz stated there is no reason to rush it through; and inquired if it could be reviewed in one week; with Mr. Knox responding if a meeting can be arranged, it can probably be done this week.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, to continue the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 62, Article X, Division 4, Wetland Protection to August 29, 2000. Motion died for lack of a second.

Chairman Higgs stated there are a lot of implications to what is being discussed concerning utility corridors and wetlands; and she is not sure what can be put together in a week. Commissioner Voltz stated if they do not have something for the Board to look at in two weeks, then the Board can move on.

Commissioner O'Brien stated on page 2, there is a definition of "substantially surrounded"; and he does not like it when a property only has abutting commercial or industrial properties on two sides.

Discussion ensued on the language being a Comprehensive Plan definition, commercial uses on roadways, adding "on a road frontage", definition being misleading, previous Board discussion, and need to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Stipulated Agreement if change is desired.

Commissioner O'Brien stated if it is wrong, it should be corrected. Chairman Higgs noted it is only Commissioner O'Brien's conclusion that it is wrong; and she is not sure that substantially surrounded on two sides, when the third side would be an access, is not an adequate definition. Commissioner Carlson stated the Wickham site, which the Board just discussed with the linear park is substantially surrounded; it has commercial on all sides except the back, and has the infrastructure on the front; that is a perfect example; and she does not have any problem with it. Commissioner Voltz stated anything commercial is going to be on some sort of roadway, so it would leave one side open; with Commissioner Carlson advising it would not be completely surrounded, and that is all they are trying to say.

Discussion resumed on the definition of "substantially surrounded."

Chairman Higgs suggested adopting the proposed ordinance as it stands today, and move forward with Mr. Kirschenbaum's issue and on the definition of "substantially surrounded."

Commissioner O'Brien stated on page 4, Section 62-3694, it says, "the following uses shall be permitted provided they do not adversely affect the functions of wetlands within the County or result in the permanent degradation or destruction of the wetland"; and commented on the meaning of the provision. He inquired if someone has been managing a forest in the County for 50 years using best management practices, would the County, under the Ordinance, require the trees to be cut down or stop using best management practices because the wetland is being adversely affected. Chairman Higgs stated it says they would be permitted to proceed as long as they use the best management practices that do not degrade or destroy the wetland. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if they are adversely affecting the wetlands even though they are using best management practices, will the County require them to cut down the trees; with Ms. Coles responding the provision was written to accommodate silviculture activities where a grower is propagating wetland species and that sort of thing. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the Board used to prohibit people from growing wetland trees; with Ms. Coles responding the provision has been in the Ordinance since its inception. Commissioner O'Brien stated if this is to promote growing wetland trees and there was never a law against doing that in the first place, he is confused as to why the sentence is there. Ms. Coles advised the ordinance goes into permitted uses because the list of non-permitted uses would be a longer list, so by including the things that would be permittable, it shortens the ordinance. Commissioner Carlson inquired what is the purpose of the wording, "or result in the permanent degradation or destruction of the wetland." Ms. Coles stated she was trying to accommodate a portion of the Comprehensive Plan language; and it was meant to clarify the situation. Commissioner Scarborough stated he has the same problem Commissioner O'Brien does; the first definition is much broader, and the addition confuses him; and suggested striking the addition because he likes the word "adversely" better. Chairman Higgs stated the Board will strike the additional language.

*County Attorney Scott Knox's absence and Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley's presence were noted at this time.

Discussion ensued on the wording, permitted uses in wetland, and striking additional language.

Commissioner O'Brien stated page 5, paragraph c says, "wetland mitigation shall equal or exceed 125% or the required mitigation ratio of 2 to 1"; and stated the required mitigation is either 2 to 1 or 2.25 to one. Ms. Coles advised she did not craft the language; it was taken directly from the Comprehensive Plan; and it was a motion by Commissioner Scarborough. Commissioner Scarborough inquired what is the purpose; with Chairman Higgs responding it was part of the interchange language. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is better understood in the Comprehensive Plan; what has been taken from the Comprehensive Plan is not precisely what it says; and the Plan is much more lengthy in its comment. Commissioner Carlson requested Mr. Peffer explain his perspective.

Assistant County Manager Steve Peffer stated the language is confusing, although he understands the intent. He stated when Commissioner Scarborough's concerns about interchanges came up, the idea was to say because it was necessary to identify interchanges as being important and distinct types of areas, special rules were needed for interchanges; and (a) through (f) are to deal specifically with an interchange. Commissioner Scarborough read aloud from the Comprehensive Plan and the proposed ordinance; and advised it is not word for word, and the blending of concepts leads to confusion. Ms. Coles stated she would be happy to revert to exact language. Commissioner Scarborough recommended using the Comprehensive Plan language.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the LPA recommended minor changes and improvements to readability; but he is finding the proposed ordinance to be unreadable. He expressed concern that this is a wetland protection ordinance, but part B says that commercial and industrial development shall be prohibited in wetlands contained in properties designated on the Future Land Use Map; it says it is prohibited if there is a current over-capacity on the adjacent roadways, etc.; and inquired if that has something to do with wetland policy.

Commissioner Scarborough stated one of the big problems is creation of roadways; some areas will accommodate a great deal of traffic; and because there may be wetlands near that area, there could be restrictions that would require people to travel a longer distance on a roadway which would impact transportation, traffic flow, and cost to the County to put in additional roadways. He stated there was an attempt to balance and not apply the wetlands policy in the same way because in the end it may be driving development of roadways in an urban sprawl type of atmosphere. He stated if there is infrastructure, it should be utilized rather than applying the wetlands policy, resulting in urban sprawl; and that was the intent. He suggested taking what is in the Comprehensive Plan and inserting it into the ordinance.

Discussion ensued on the ordinance wording and putting people on notice there is a requirement for wetland mitigation.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired why are traffic impacts at I-95 intersections being brought in as being relevant to wetland protection policy; with Commissioner Scarborough reiterating his previous statement concerning using infrastructure and avoiding urban sprawl. Commissioner O'Brien stated the answer concerning wetlands has not appeared within the statement; and if there is another plan, code or policy concerning urban sprawl, the language may belong there. Chairman Higgs stated there are specific instances where there were wetlands at I-95 interchanges; and staff tried to specifically address that in the Policy.

Discussion resumed on wetland policies, commercial development, potential exceptions, more moderate policy, and relevance of traffic and infrastructure to wetland policies.

Commissioner O'Brien reiterated his concern about the term "substantially surrounded." He read aloud, "the proposed land development activity will not result in increased flooding problems on adjacent properties"; stated the language is not strong enough; and commented on flooding. He recommended requiring an engineered drawing of drainage. Mr. Coles stated drainage plans are a requirement of site plan for commercial and industrial development. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the policy is also in the site plan policy; with Mr. Coles responding affirmatively. Commissioner O'Brien inquired why it is repeated in the ordinance; with Chairman Higgs responding it delineates what can happen under the ordinance, that might otherwise be precluded. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if it is already in the Comprehensive Plan; with Commissioner Carlson responding not explicitly, and the February 23 date is the key.

Discussion ensued on duplication, referencing the policy, wording in the Stipulated Settlement Agreement, review by Natural Resources Management Office, exempting wetlands addressed by Florida Department of Environmental Protection or St. Johns River Water Management District, no permit for impact to wetlands, review for compliance of no net loss ratio, St. Johns River Water Management District policy, and thresholds for mitigation.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if someone applies for a permit from St. Johns River Water Management District and FDEP, does the County go out to see if the issue has been addressed, and if not the County addresses it; with Ms. Coles responding that is correct. He stated page 7 says, "all other development, except as provided, shall be prohibited in functional wetlands"; and requested an example of access to water being required through water's edge wetlands. Ms. Coles stated in a marina situation, a County park, or a residential situation access would be required through the wetland via a boardwalk or something of that nature. Commissioner O'Brien read aloud the definition of "water's edge wetlands"; and inquired how can there be a water's edge wetland if there is no connection to a surface water body. Mr. Peffer responded the language is from the existing Ordinance; and the intent is to not have the provisions of the ordinance prohibit access. Commissioner O'Brien stated it says, "development shall be prohibited in functional wetlands," and the language, "unless the activity enhances the function of the wetland," has been crossed out; with Mr. Peffer clarifying the language and intent. Commissioner O'Brien inquired about a specific scenario where a wetland would be enhanced; with Ms. Coles responding she cannot think of an example where development would enhance wetland function. Chairman Higgs stated by definition, development would involve a structure; with Ms. Coles advising it also includes land alteration. Commissioner O'Brien elaborated on concerns about wetlands.

Commissioner Voltz suggested continuing the public hearing to allow Commissioner O'Brien to get further information. Commissioner O'Brien stated he does not like some of the over-regulation and borderline nonsensical things that are being included. Commissioner Voltz stated she sent this out to a number of people requesting comments; and she would like to send it back out with the changes. Chairman Higgs stated everything in the ordinance has been previously discussed with the Stipulated Agreement and the Comprehensive Plan, with the exception of some wording that may not be as the Board would want them; and the concepts are all on board, and have been discussed at public hearings repeatedly.

Charles Moehle, representing Modern, Inc., voiced objection to some of the wording and concepts; and stated one is the burdening item concerning the threshold and connections requirements of FDEP and St. Johns River Water Management District. He stated that was discussed during consideration of the Comprehensive Plan amendment; but it was also brought up that zero tolerance is not a practical item. Commissioner Voltz advised that sentence will be removed. Mr. Moehle read aloud, "regulations shall apply to development requiring or in an existing site plan or a subdivision plat in or adjacent to wetlands"; and stated it is very subjective. He stated property owners will not know how to deal with wetlands that are adjacent to their property; they may not have the knowledge of an existing site plan that someone may have on record; and it is a burdening provision which needs adjustment. He read aloud from Section 4, "the following uses shall be permitted provided they do not adversely affect the functions of wetlands within the County or result in the permanent degradation or destruction of the wetland." Commissioner Voltz advised the Board discussed removing the addition. Mr. Moehle stated it is too subjective and onerous to put in an ordinance.

Kim Zarillo, representing Florida Native Plant Society, expressed support for the LPA recommendations to the proposed ordinance; and advised she was not present earlier to hear the changes.

Commissioner O'Brien advised the changes requested this morning were not the LPA recommendations.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to continue the public hearing to consider an ordinance amendment Chapter 62, Article X, Division 4, Wetland Protection, to September 13, 2000; and direct all of the items brought up today be brought back to the Board as possible changes to the ordinance.

Commissioner Scarborough stated some comments were made that he concurs with while others he does not; and he would like to have it brought back for further examination, but not necessarily incorporating all comments made by individual Commissioners. Commissioner Carlson suggested the comments to be brought back individually without changing the context of what the Board is looking at now. Commissioner Scarborough suggested setting the Comprehensive Plan up with the proposed ordinance to make sure there are no inconsistencies. Chairman Higgs stated the intent of the motion is to bring it back with the changes, such as typographical errors, in place, but with individual suggestions for changes delineated in a separate list of issues to be discussed. Commissioner O'Brien requested a list of everything that is in the proposed ordinance that is also in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Coles stated she can note the policy next to the insertion. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board may want to consider referring to the Comprehensive Plan rather than have staff write it all out again. Chairman Higgs requested a memo to outline why things were included and the value of them being in both places.

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

Mr. Peffer stated the Board discussed thresholds; the last sentence in the definition of wetland will be removed; there is a regulatory threshold which says beyond a certain point the County will regulate, but there is a mitigation threshold which the Board has also discussed; and if the sentence is removed, that point is unaddressed. He inquired if the Board wishes to direct staff to bring back specific language on whether the County will exercise a threshold for either regulation or mitigation. Chairman Higgs stated since so many issues have been raised today, that issue should be discussed as one of the items. Commissioner O'Brien commented on zero threshold. Commissioner Voltz inquired if the motion also included Mr. Kirschenbaum's issue; with Commissioner O'Brien responding no, but it can be a separate motion.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, to include the comments made by Jack Kirschenbaum as an issue for discussion.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he will incorporate it into the last motion; with Commissioner Voltz, as seconder of the motion, advising she accepts the addition.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he has no problem with receiving staff comment on it.

The meeting recessed at 10:52 a.m. and 11:09 a.m.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: GRANT APPLICATION FOR EL NINO DISASTER RECOVERY CDBG FUNDING

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a grant application for El Nino Disaster Recovery CDBG funding.

There being no objections, motion was made by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Grant Application for El Nino Disaster Recovery Community Development Block Grant funding, with Federal and State's match at $600,714 and local match at $66,746.

Public Safety Director Jack Parker stated the federal government has provided $533,968 to be matched with State funds of $66,746 and local funds of $66,746 for a total of approximately $667,000, which, if approved by the federal government, will be used to put wells and drafting sites in critical areas in unincorporated Brevard County. He stated following the wildfires of 1998, there was a workshop with the Board where it was decided there was a need to come up with a corrective action plan to improve ways to draw water for the purpose of fighting brush fires; they created such plan but did not have a funding source at the time; and EMS Director Bob Lay got the information that the grant was available, so they are applying at this time.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the budget will reflect an increase of $600,714 that is not local property taxes; with Mr. Parker responding affirmatively. Commissioner O'Brien stated things such as this drive up the County budget; and property tax only creates approximately 12% to 18% of the budget.

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

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: VARIANCE TO BREVARD COUNTY COASTAL SETBACK LINE FOR MR. AND MRS. KEN FENGLER

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a variance to the Brevard County Coastal Setback Line for Mr. and Mrs. Ken Fengler.

Matthew Soyka, representing the applicants, stated Mr. Moseby has been called out of town, and asked that the matter be continued.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired when can Mr. Moseby be present; with Mr. Soyka responding at the next meeting.

Harriet Fine stated she is one of the closest neighbors to the applicant's property; the owners of the lot are requesting a variance to build 16.5 feet into the Coastal Construction Setback Line; and submitted paperwork. She stated six of the closest neighbors to this house are affected; the property is in the Archie Carr Wildlife Preserve; and the lot in question is a small lot which was irregular but was changed recently in an exchange with another neighbor. She stated the people who bought the lot knew that it was a small irregular lot that would be difficult to build on; and they are requesting the Board give them a huge piece of land where they could not normally build. She commented on a newspaper article, building so close to the dune, erosion, and legal problem with exchanging the property lines. She stated she represents six people, four of whom could not be present today because they are working. She advised building over the Coastal Construction Line interferes with lights on the beach and nesting turtles; and cautioned against setting a precedent.

Alan Fine stated he lives 300 to 400 feet up the beach from the property requesting a proposed variance; and people will get rid of the Coastal Construction Line one variance at a time. He stated they wanted to put in a swimming pool but were told they could not put one in the Coastal Construction setback; his neighbors have an existing shed they wanted to rebuild, but were told they would not be allowed to reconstruct even in the same footprint; and once Pandora's Box is opened, there will be more houses built on the edge of the dune. He commented on the erosion; stated the County paid last year to fix the erosion; and presented a list of homes within 100 feet of the proposed variance. He advised of FEMA funds being used to repair the dune; and stated that means the dune is not growing as has been suggested. He stated he does not see how the Board can approve putting the house nearer to the edge of the dune unless it is going to also approve paying for the home when it falls in.

Chairman Higgs stated Mr. Moseby was present a couple of weeks ago; and the Board asked for additional information. She stated she checked the property, and knows what has happened in this area; and she does not know how the Board could approve a variance in this area in light of what has gone on there. She stated she has concern about going ahead without Mr. Moseby being present; but she does not see how she could vote for this kind of variance.

Commissioner Carlson stated there were changes to the property line to accommodate the site plan that might make this lot a non-buildable lot; and requested staff elaborate. Natural Resources Section Supervisor Debbie Coles advised there was some reconfiguration of the southern property boundary, and right now staff is analyzing whether that affects the ability to build on the lot.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he would not want to take action today because the applicants are not present and cannot defend themselves; and it would be inappropriate to deny their request. He stated if the entire lot is unbuildable, there may be a serious problem in that it may be considered to be a taking.

Commissioner Voltz stated the Board may not be able to approve it, but if the applicant has requested it be continued, the Board should do that. She requested the County Attorney look into the issue of what happens if the lot is unbuildable. Chairman Higgs stated the issue is the side property, not to the Coastal Construction Line. Commissioner Voltz stated it would still be unbuildable, whether it is the County's responsibility or the owner's responsibility. Commissioner Scarborough stated that issue arose because of what the owner did.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to continue the public hearing to consider a request for variance to the Brevard County Coastal Setback Line as requested by Mr. and Mrs. Ken Fengler to August 29, 2000. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: REVISIONS TO MERIT SYSTEM POLICIES FOR CLASSIFICATION PLAN, PAY PLAN, AND LEAVE

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider revisions to Merit System Policies for Classification Plan, Pay Plan, and Leave.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve amendments to Merit System Policy I, Classification Plan, to allow the County Manager to approve new classifications; Policy II, Pay Plan, to allow pre-approved use of compensatory time and jury duty time to count towards overtime, and to provide midnight shift differential rates for eligible, non-bargaining unit employees; and Policy IX, Leave, to allow compensatory time to be donated to needy employees on an hour-per-hour basis and to allow for a higher sick leave donation percentage to those employees who meet the requirements for retirement under the Florida Retirement System.

Commissioner Voltz stated it says allow for a higher sick leave donation percentage to those employees who meet the requirements for retirement under the Florida Retirement System; and inquired how much. Human Resources Director Frank Abbate advised it would be 50% which is the same amount that is currently provided for those with over 31 years of service.

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

Commissioner Scarborough requested Mr. Abbate explain the change concerning donation of leave. Mr. Abbate stated employees are provided the opportunity to donate their accumulated annual leave or in some cases, accumulated sick leave to other employees who have serious illnesses; and the change provides they can donate the leave at the same ratio that the County offers them when they leave County service for buyback of leave.

*County Attorney Scott Knox's presence and Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley's absence were noted at this time.

INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF ROCKLEDGE, RE: JOINT PLANNING

Don Griffin, representing the City of Rockledge, expressed appreciation to the County Manager, Mel Scott, and Jim Ward for helping to get this far with the Joint Planning Agreement. He stated the City of Rockledge is the first to get to this point; and based on changes by Board, he will take the Agreement back to the City Council for ratification.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to execute Joint Planning Interlocal Agreement with the City of Rockledge. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O'Brien stated it says the transfer of the right-of-way maintenance responsibility from County to City occurs only after 51% of the adjacent properties and roads have been annexed; and inquired if that would keep the City from annexing if it got close to 51%. Mr. Griffin advised he does not think that would be an issue; and it could be negotiated between the County and the City. Commissioner O'Brien stated if the City annexed a parcel with a store, the tax increase would only be $1,000, but picking up maintenance on the road could be $50,000; and the City may not annex because of the associated cost. Mr. Griffin advised of a recent annexation by the City; and stated modifications can be worked out.

DIRECTION, RE: PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS

Barbara Jagrowski urged the Board to consider the compensation ballot proposals very carefully; and advised the Commissioners are in a position now to name their own salaries, which is inherently improper. She requested the Board consider removing the entire compensation issue from its hands by placing a percentage package Charter amendment on the November ballot.

Maureen Rupe stated she just got a copy of Option 3; and inquired which increase does it refer to where it says, "of like population or the salary that results from the percentage increase is approved." County Attorney Scott Knox responded it would go by percentage increase including any cost of living, non-discretionary merit increase or other increase; and it is contemplated that it will be non-discretionary. Ms. Rupe expressed preference for Option 3; and commented on Commissioner O'Brien's concern about percentages. She suggested having the Commissioners' increases at one percent less than County employee increases; and stated the perception of the people is that the Commissioners have given themselves a huge pay raise and work part-time. She commented on the cost of the Constitutional Officers and five Commissioners, and monetary and ethical issues. She stated the question is whether elected officials should set their own salaries; this should have been in the Charter; and it should be taken out of the Commissioners' hands completely.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Commissioners want a salary increase that puts them at the same level as other county commissioners in similar counties; if it rescinds its previous action and takes the percentage raise that was given to County employees, and makes it retroactive, the Board will be paying itself more than commissioners in counties equal to Brevard County; and people will complain about that. He stated the Charter says the Commissioners should set their salaries, and they did that; it corrected the error of not having a raise in four years; and if four years prior to now, the motion had been made to take what county commissioners are being paid in other counties, and all raises were taken, it would still amount to the same $70,000 a year, so there is no differentiation. He stated it appears to be a substantial increase, but actually what was substantial was not accepting a raise for four years.

Ms. Rupe stated County Commissioners should not be setting their own salaries. Commissioner O'Brien stated one of the amendments before the Board today says it would be as the salaries of similar counties are set by State law; and that takes it out of the Board's hands and puts it into a regular pay schedule. He inquired if Ms. Rupe was an electrical engineer working for Rockwell and went to work for Boeing doing the same job, would she not want equal or more money. Ms. Rupe stated that is not the only option on the ballot; and she would hope the Commissioners would find a fair option that takes it completely out of the Board's hands. Commissioner O'Brien reiterated his question concerning equal pay. Ms. Rupe responded the Commissioners are not engineers, they are guardians of the County; with Commissioner O'Brien advising that is an equal job to commissioners in other counties, and he wants parity with his fellow commissioners in other counties. Ms. Rupe stated Option 3 is the one she would favor; and she is not as concerned about the monetary issue as the ethical issue.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there are currently 44 County employees who earn more than the Commissioners; if the Constitutional Officers and their employees are added, 68 employees earn more than the Commissioners; and if the Board goes forward with the pay increase, it is going to be even more. He stated money is not the issue; the issue is the fiduciary responsibility between employee and employer; the taxpayer is the employer; and there is a rule of law that an employee is not supposed to take advantage of his relationship in any way with his employer. He stated that could be construed that it would be inappropriate to make any increases or adjustments to salary; fiduciary responsibility is the highest responsibility recognized by law; and when the Board takes an increase that is abnormally large and has never been granted previously, it smacks of impropriety. He stated even though there is justification, the impropriety is the problem; and recommended removing the Board from the decision-making process to avoid any concept of impropriety. He stated if the Board looks to the Home Rule Charter, it comes back to the Board; some people say any increase by the Board is an abuse of fiduciary authority; and if the Board does that, it is going to be wrong, which will not only hurt the Board, but hurt everything it touches. He stated it is the Commissioners' responsibility to be good employees; if anything lessens their capacity to be good employees, they should remove themselves from it; and they should always put personal gains as subordinate to the responsibilities to the employer, which is the taxpayer. He stated the Board needs to make sure it has no involvement in the setting of salaries; the Board has information on various options, but in addressing Commission salaries in other counties, it does not address percentage increases; and there could be an environment where it would roll into a larger increase than that of the employees. He advised of the need to insure that no one is compensated more than in other counties or that nothing occurs that results in the Board getting something that is greater than what the employees get; and commented on the Home Rule Charter suggestion to use the employee's increase for the Commission. He stated all of the current suggestions need to be combined to create something better.

Commissioner Voltz stated she agrees it should not be in the Board's hands; three years ago when the Board discussed this issue she supported going with the State guidelines because no matter what the Board decides, it will not put the Board in a favorable light with the citizens. She stated she does not support a dollar value or percentage; she supports going with the State guidelines because they are fair and take the decision out of the Board's hands, the political realm, and staff's hands, and do not give the perception that the Board is giving employees an increase because the Commissioners will get the same increase. She stated unless the Board goes with the State guidelines, it will have trouble every year; that is why the State set the guidelines; and it is unfortunate that the Board did not make that decision three years ago.

Commissioner O'Brien stated Commissioner Scarborough made some good statements; and inquired why the Constitutional Officers do not have the same fiduciary responsibility; with Commissioner Scarborough responding because they do not vote on their salaries, and Commissioners have the discretion to act for their benefit or for the benefit of the taxpayers.

Chairman Higgs stated the best way to go through this and not be self serving is to leave it where it is right now, freeze it, and let the Charter Commission, when it is appointed in two years, review it and make the decision. She stated in that way the Charter Commission can make the determination to put it on the ballot; and any of the options the Board would put on the ballot would violate the fiduciary responsibility.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there is a petition action to rescind the Board's action increasing the salaries; and the Board can eliminate the need for that to be placed on the ballot by reversing its prior action and continuing the freeze on the salary.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to rescind the Board's action providing for a salary increase for Commissioners.

Chairman Higgs stated she and Commissioner Scarborough voted in the negative on the original vote; and inquired if she or Commissioner Scarborough could bring that up again. Mr. Knox responded he would need to research it, but the way the Charter reads now is that the Board has to adopt an ordinance at a certain time of the year, and once that is done, that is the salary the Board will get. Commissioner Scarborough stated he thought it was within a particular year, and the window was still open. Mr. Knox advised he will need to look at the timeframe. Commissioner Scarborough noted it does not take effect until January 2001. Mr. Knox stated the Board has to adopt an ordinance within a certain timeframe; with Mr. Jenkins advising it is by October 1. Chairman Higgs inquired whether she or Commissioner Scarborough could bring up a motion to reconsider; with Mr. Knox responding as it is a motion to rescind, anyone could bring it up.

Chairman Higgs seconded the motion.

Commissioner Voltz stated she will not support the motion because the same thing will happen two or three years down the road; whatever they agree to will be a dollar increase which will

make the Commission look bad; and the Board should take the initiative to start the process to do something now. She stated it seems like the Board is playing a game; it needs to put the issue on the ballot; and it needs to do something now.

Chairman Higgs stated she understands it eventually has to be determined by ballot, and supports that, but in the interim, the Board should freeze it and allow the Charter Review Commission to make a determination as to what goes on the ballot, because otherwise it could be perceived as being totally self-serving.

Commissioner Voltz stated the petitions are going to be signed, and will be brought to the Board requesting something be put on the ballot; and inquired what the Board will do then; with Chairman Higgs responding in that case the Board has to do something.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the petitioners had three items; one of them dealt with rescinding the action increasing the Commissioners' pay; and if the Board accomplished that, the petition would become moot. He commented on petitioners getting requisite number of signatures, asking the County Attorney about legality, and putting things on the ballot.

Mr. Knox advised he reviewed the Charter, and the Board has to do this before October 1 in even numbered years; and the Board took the action, but could still undo it at this point.

Commissioner Carlson stated this went through the Charter Review Commission; the Board got a product that has been a political football for several years; and recommended taking action now and getting the issue over so it will not have to be repeated. She stated sending it back to the Charter Commission does not mean it will not come back with the same problem; and recommended solving the problem now by having the State determine the salary.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the motion will put everything on hold as far as the Commissioners' salaries until the people get to speak to a way to make salary increases mechanical; and the Board will defer any decision on salary increases until it has a totally mechanical means of setting it.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion did not carry. Commissioners Scarborough and Higgs voted aye; Commissioners O'Brien, Carlson, and Voltz voted nay.

Commissioner Voltz suggested putting it on the ballot to go with the State guidelines, which takes it totally out of the Board's hands; and stated the Commissioners should not be setting their own salaries because it looks bad and could be perceived as being unfair. Commissioner Carlson inquired if that is Option 2; with Commissioner Voltz responding affirmatively.

Commissioner Scarborough advised of the situation in 1991 when the Board froze employee salaries, but the State continued to give Commissioners an increase, so the Commissioners returned their pay raises to Finance. He suggested a way to set salaries as no greater than the percentage received by employees; commented on merit increases; and stated the increase would end up as a blend, and remove the Board from that priority level.

Commissioner Voltz inquired if the Board was not able to give the employees a salary increase, could the Commissioners just leave their salaries. Mr. Knox stated the Board could do whatever it wanted; the Charter amendment that was proposed in the past would be what governed the Board's salaries; and if it said the salaries were set at a specific level and provided for adjustments, then that would determine what the Commissioners are paid. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board utilizes the State formula, it should require that any time the employees do not get a raise, the formula would not kick in, or if the State raised salaries by 5% and the employees got 3%, the Board would only get 3%; and it needs to be worded so there is no recapture because employees do not recapture. Commissioner Voltz stated the four years the Commissioners did not get a salary increase was a benefit to the community because there was no money.

Discussion ensued on fiduciary responsibility, inappropriateness of Commissioners voting for their salary increases, State formula based on population, conflict between State increase and employee increase, blend of what is appropriate in Brevard County versus what is appropriate Statewide, taking decision out of the Board's hand, and taking merit out of the formula.

Mr. Knox stated the Board could set it at non-charter county rate and provide a mechanism where the Board would not get increases if the employees do not get one.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to table consideration of the proposed Charter amendment concerning Commissioners' salaries to August 15, 2000. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Higgs stated the other amendment is on the issue of the review of amendments proposed by petition.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the last time the Board spoke about this he brought up the idea of creating a tribunal of three attorneys.

Mr. Knox stated the proposed amendment requires a 1% threshold for petition; the proposed change would then be submitted to a panel of three experts in local government law, and two of the three would have to approve the amendment as being consistent with State law and with the requirements related to the ballot language; if that is the case, the petitioners would be allowed to collect the additional signatures of 4% of the electors; and once that happens it would be placed on the ballot.

Commissioner O'Brien stated it is a good idea, but population is projected at possibly 525,000; that would require slightly more than 5,000 signatures to obtain the consistency opinion; and that seems low. Mr. Knox stated the percentages are just suggested; he went by the current Charter requirements; and the Board can raise the number.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board is not trying to prevent or damage the process being addressed by petition, but does not want to make it possible for a disreputable person to get 5,000 signatures, and present what he wants done. Commissioner Voltz stated the 1% is just to show there are enough people who are serious about the issue, and then it would be reviewed to see if they should go out to get the rest of the signatures. She stated it is unfair to say citizens cannot petition their government; but people should not go through the process of collecting all the signatures if what they are proposing is illegal and would not be put on the ballot. Commissioner Scarborough stated the citizens said it was unfair to have to get all the signatures, and then have opinions; the County is subordinate to and has to comply with the Constitution and the General Laws of Florida; and it is not fair to have people getting signatures for ballot language that is illegal. He stated the Board could go from 5% to 4%, but the provisions concerning the Constitution and General Law need to stay in. Commissioner Voltz commented on collecting signatures under false pretenses; and inquired what is the Board's responsibility. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board should try to work this amendment out; the way Mr. Knox has this laid out looks good; and she would favor putting it on the ballot. Commissioner Scarborough stated the rest of the information is coming back next week; and recommended getting the community fully involved and discussing it at that time. Commissioner Voltz inquired about the time frame; with Mr. Knox responding it has to be to the Supervisor of Elections 60 days before the General Election.

Chairman Higgs stated the intention is, at the next meeting, to discuss fully the review process that has been outlined, and give people another opportunity to comment. She stated there may be some small changes, but it is a reasonable procedure to use.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the Board should be reviewing a petition if the signatures were gathered by chicanery or misinformation, and should the Board also address that when it addresses a petition. Chairman Higgs stated that is why there is a three-step process; and the Board cannot control those kinds of issues. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Commissioner O'Brien is talking about incorporating a provision that would keep petitioners from misleading the public.

Discussion ensued on provision to prevent misleading the public.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct staff to bring back proposed ballot language concerning review of petition-initiated Charter amendments with provision to keep petitioners from misleading the public. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Carlson stated the Supervisor of Elections said there cannot be two amendments on the ballot of the same nature; and requested the County Attorney explain the legalities. Mr. Knox advised he has not researched the issue; but the Board can control whether its amendment goes forward or is pulled; and he is not sure about putting both on. Commissioner Carlson inquired if there is legal precedent; with Mr. Knox responding he has never seen one, but will research it.

The meeting recessed at 12:13 p.m. and reconvened at 1:03 p.m.

*County Attorney Scott Knox's absence and Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley's presence were noted at this time.

SPEED HUMP REQUEST, RE: GLENWOOD ROAD

Commissioner Scarborough advised Glenwood Road is near Atlantis Elementary School.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve request for installation of speed humps on Glenwood Road in Port St. John.

Commissioner Voltz stated she normally votes against speed hump requests except when they are near a school, so she will support the motion.

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

Commissioner O'Brien inquired how old are the street and the school, and why is there a question of speed humps now. He inquired if it is because there are young people speeding; and noted if so, they will all grow up and move away, but the speed humps will still be there. Commissioner Scarborough advised many of the arrests for speeding around schools are parents who are late for work. Traffic Engineering Director Dick Thompson advised that is his understanding. Commissioner Scarborough stated regardless of whether teenagers are there, there will always be certain parents who will speed. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the problem has been pervasive as long as the street and school have been there, why is the County just putting the speed humps in now, or is it a new problem. Commissioner Voltz stated the data shows there have only been two to three speeders exceeding 10 m.p.h. during the period when they evaluated the data.

SPEED HUMP REQUEST, RE: CARILLON AVENUE

Commissioner Scarborough stated Carillon Avenue is in the same area near Atlantis Elementary School.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve request for installation of speed humps on Carillon Avenue in Port St. John. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

SPEED HUMP REQUEST, RE: GREENHILL STREET

Artina Way stated she started the petition on Greenhill Street; the street is adjacent to Challenger 7 Elementary School; the road has been recently paved which increased the problem; and presented police reports illustrating the speeding problem. She stated it is not just people speeding; the road is being used for racing and to get to other streets. She presented a map, and described the area and the problem. She advised of children living in the area, accidents, and 107 signatures on petition.

Norma Rice and Jay Adamson expressed support for speed humps on Greenhill Street.

Commissioner Voltz inquired how many speed humps would be installed; with Traffic Engineering Director Dick Thompson responding nine humps in .8 mile.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve request for installation of speed humps on Greenhill Street. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT AND STAFF DIRECTION, RE: MINI-WAREHOUSES IN BU-1 ZONING CLASSIFICATION

Maureen Rupe expressed concern about spot zoning in Port St. John, people running businesses in mini-warehouses, and insufficient setback. She stated mini-warehouses look industrial; it is a problem when it is next to residential; that is why historically there has been RP zoning between commercial and residential; and suggested a 100-foot setback. She expressed concern about natural buffers and screening; advised Eckerds in Port St. John is an example of current lack of buffer; and suggested requiring trees to be a minimum age and size.

Carl Cunningham, representing one of the property owners, advised of his history in the self-storage industry; explained the difference in mini-warehouses and self-storage; and suggested a workshop be held to address the citizens' concerns. He advised it will be a fortress-type design; no exterior doors will be facing out; and commented on condominiums with garages which abut A1A. He expressed concern about what staff has submitted to the Board; stated staff has talked about looking at the old Code, but also provided parameters to look at in the new Code; and if the two are combined, it will make development in BU-1 for self-storage or mini-warehouse not economically feasible. He stated they would like to work with staff on outlining a guideline zoning regulation and conditional use that would meet with everyone's approval. He stated there are a lot of issues involved; in the majority of self-storage facilities businesses are not allowed; and mini-warehouses are different as far as the self-storage industry is concerned. He commented on landscaping, building to be in earthtones, no doors on outside, earthen berms, setbacks, and working with staff.

Commissioner O'Brien stated there is a great distinction between self-storage and mini-warehouses; and advised of examples. He stated BU-2 is the proper zone for mini-warehouses because people work out of the small warehouses; and advised of limits put on the units on North Merritt Island. He commented on pollution involved in mini-warehouses as far as disposal or spilling of hazardous materials.

Commissioner Voltz stated this will allow mini-warehouses in BU-1 zoning with severe restrictions; and inquired how it will work. Zoning Official Rick Enos stated the proposal before the Board is intended for self-storage only; if a facility meets all the conditions, however they are designed, it would be available in BU-1; but if someone wants to build a mini-warehouse or office warehouse where people are running businesses in the units, that would still be a BU-2 use. Commissioner Voltz stated what the Board is considering is actually self-storage; with Mr. Enos stated he called it storage mini-warehouses, but he would be happy to make the change.

Commissioner Scarborough commented on cases on Merritt Island and on U.S. 192, doing things on a case-by-case basis, and looking at the negative side. Mr. Enos stated he would like to propose conditions that would be tailored not just to the zoning classifications but to the surrounding uses. Commissioner Scarborough stated it should demonstrate that there is a reduction in traffic, noise, etc.; and is performance based.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the County allows occupational licenses to be pulled if the address is a mini-warehouse; with Mr. Enos responding it is allowed in the BU-2 zone if they have adequate parking; but the intent is to write it in such a way that for self-storage, there can be no occupational licenses. Commissioner Carlson stated there have been some abuses, even in the BU-2. Chairman Higgs stated it may be better to leave it where it is in terms of BU-2 for mini-warehouse; and if the Board wishes to provide the self-storage, an application can be made for the specific use, and the Board can look at it. Commissioner Voltz inquired if Chairman Higgs is talking about BU-1 with a CUP; with Chairman Higgs responding for a specific use. Chairman Higgs stated the Board had two good experiences, but may not know until later how that works out. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board was able to respond to the requests where it was demonstrated it was correct; if the Board creates a methodology, it will cease to have any examination and will become just mechanical; and there may be cases where that is bad. Commissioner Voltz stated the criteria that is listed is good and she does not want to lose that. Commissioner O'Brien stated he has no problem with self-storage in BU-1 with the criteria as brought forward, and adding no occupational licenses shall be issued for BU-1 self-storage units; and inquired what kind of BU-1 properties will they be put on. Commissioner Voltz stated some of the criteria Mr. Enos brought up could be added in terms of architectural standards, setbacks, buffers, etc. Commissioner O'Brien advised of the change of the old Scotty's on SR 520 and the loss of the ambience of the street; and inquired if the Board wants to see self-storage on major thoroughfares.

*Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley's absence and Assistant County Attorney Shannon Wilson's presence were noted at this time.

Chairman Higgs called for a motion; and no response was heard.

RESOLUTION, RE: CONSIDER TAX ABATEMENT APPLICATION OF PERCEPTA, LLC

Commissioner Voltz stated Percepta will have 600 employees at an average of $22,000 a year; and it is a good thing. Commissioner O'Brien stated it is 600 jobs at approximately $11 an hour.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt Resolution requesting the Property Appraiser conduct the required analysis and EDC conduct an economic impact analysis of the application from Percepta, LLC for tax abatement; and authorize advertising a public hearing to consider an ordinance exempting Percepta from select County ad valorem taxes.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he cannot support the motion; the average the Board has used for wages is $26,133; the average for Percepta is approximately $4,000 below the average; and the Board does not want to finance itself into a poorer community. He commented on newspaper articles about increasing employees but not increasing wages; and stated if the Board is encouraging wages that are below the average, it is giving an incentive to move in the wrong direction. Commissioner Voltz stated this is something the Board needs to look at; there are a lot of people in the community who would love to have an $11 an hour job; and it is a good wage. She commented on wage levels and number of employees. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is not saying that it is not good to have jobs; but his point is tax abatement is a special privilege. He commented on a seminar in Orlando; and stated there are flaws in the County's program, but there is no reason to not recognize that the purpose of economic incentives through tax abatement is to offer people higher and better paying jobs. He stated there is no problem with jobs, but they should create the opportunity for upward mobility; and that is where tax abatement plays the most positive roll. Commissioner Voltz stated this project gives people who are just coming up an opportunity to learn a skill which will allow them to move up; and if they cannot get the beginning job, they will not be able to move up at all.

Commissioner Carlson stated she called Lynda Weatherman to ask about bringing in more high-tech jobs and promoting jobs that are below the average; and Ms. Weatherman's response was that the County will always want to bring in transitional type jobs. She inquired what type of people would take these kinds of jobs; with Economic Development and Legislative Affairs Director Greg Lugar responding Percepta and SubmitOrder.com have worked with EDC and Workforce Deveopment people at BCC, and they are looking to develop training programs for those people who want to step up to the next level of employment. He stated both companies are moving to the Babcock Redevelopment Area; it used to be South Brevard's main commercial hub until the mall drained the area; and advised of empty stores in the area. He stated the Board may want to consider that, and ask the EDC to justify that in bringing the applications in.

Commissioner Voltz stated these are step-up jobs; there is a need for that type of job; and the County should no have the service industry and then high-tech, but needs to have something in between.

Chairman Higgs stated Percepta is a wonderful company; it will bring necessary positions for people; they are looking at an annual volume of business of $31 million and average annual payroll of $13.2 million; and an annual abatement of $29,357 is not going to be the difference in whether the company moves to the County. She stated the County is better off in terms of the long-term health of the community in everyone contributing to the necessary taxes and infrastructure; and commented on perception of unfairness.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board is going to say every company that falls within the guidelines is entitled to abatement, then the next question will be about service oriented industries that pay higher wages; and commented on different levels of the service industry. He stated if there is justification for this abatement, there is justification for any abatement; and he cannot logically go along with that, so there is a place where the program has to be justified. He stated the justification should be that the people of Brevard County are offered better and higher paying wages through tax abatement which leads to a richer economy; and what is before the Board does not demonstrate that.

Commissioner Voltz stated the Board has been through the criteria a number of times; if the Board does not want to give a tax abatement to certain people, then it should not allow them to qualify under the guidelines; and commented on welcoming companies to the community. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the only way to welcome somebody is to abate taxes, the Board should abate taxes for every retiree who moves to the area. Commissioner Voltz stated the Board should make the criteria such that it will only give abatement to those it wants to, and not drag people through the process which is unfair to the companies.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board does not want to be a proponent for low-paying jobs, but $11 an hour is not a low-paying job. He stated the unemployment rate is currently very low; but when the economy falters, high-tech jobs may float away; and people will need $11 an hour jobs. He stated the jobs are going to an area where some of the people may lack higher skills; the companies are offering training for those who lack the skills; and this is an opportunity for people to step up from a $6 an hour to an $11 an hour position. He commented on the benefit to single mothers, people living in poverty, and people coming off welfare; stated this year the Board gave $500,000 to charity; and inquired if more people are working, could that money be reduced as less charity is required.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board wants to use the program as a means of employing the unemployed or those who are marginally employed, it can be done on a separate basis; but the basis for the abatement program has always been to improve and strengthen the overall economy by bringing in stronger and better paying jobs. He stated if the program is open-ended where the Board gives abatement to everybody, it will find the whole program being abused to the point where it will be abolished.

Commissioner Voltz stated the Board has set the criteria; the company meets and goes beyond the minimum number of jobs; and reiterated the motion.

Commissioner Carlson stated the Board has not honed in on what it really wants to do; it is allowing people to come in with an expectation; there is an image that the County is giving money for any kind of corporation; and the Board should hone in on specific types of industry. She stated the Board is basing everything on number of employees, pay scale, and capitalization; and that may not be where the Board needs to be focusing. She stated she would not normally support an abatement that worked with call centers; but for this area, it could be a stepping stone.

Discussion ensued on abatement meeting criteria, and revisiting criteria.

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

RESOLUTION, RE: CONSIDER TAX ABATEMENT APPLICATION OF SUBMITORDER.COM

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt Resolution requesting the Property Appraiser conduct the required analysis and EDC conduct an economic impact analysis of the application from SubmitOrder.com for tax abatement; and authorize advertising a public hearing to consider an ordinance exempting SubmitOrder.com from select County ad valorem taxes.

Commissioner Carlson advised of a typographical error on the economic development analysis. Commissioner Voltz stated this is for 700 jobs, at the same salary, for the same area as the previous item.

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

APPROVAL, RE: 2001 LEGISLATIVE REQUESTS

Chairman Higgs suggested the Board request the County Manager bring this back to a September meeting.

Commissioner Voltz stated in the meantime she has one more issue; and distributed information on the Juvenile Assessment Center.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he would like to add an item dealing with the utilization of private property for ATV's; sovereign immunity does not extend to the private landowner; and a Statute could be amended to allow immunity to shift to the private property owner with a lease or use agreement.

Discussion ensued on time constraints, long Agenda, and why the item is being delayed.

RESOLUTION, RE: CONSIDER TAX ABATEMENT APPLICATION OF eCIRCUIT, INC.

Commissioner Voltz stated this is in the same area as the other items, but involves 40 employees with an annual wage of $37,000 per year.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt Resolution requesting the Property Appraiser conduct the required analysis and EDC conduct an economic impact analysis of the application from eCircuit, Inc. for tax abatement; and authorize advertising a public hearing to consider an ordinance exempting eCircuit, Inc. from select County ad valorem taxes. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners Scarborough, O'Brien, Carlson, and Voltz voted aye; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

*County Attorney Scott Knox's presence and Assistant County Attorney Shannon Wilson's absence were noted at this time.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES - ART IRVINE, STEVE BOWMAN, VINCE RAKISTIS, AND VERN GODING, VALKARIA AVIATION ASSOCIATION, RE: LAND FOR PERMANENT FIRE STATION

Captain Vince Rakistis stated Art Irvine is a member of the Valkaria Airport Advisory Board, and requested the addition of an agenda item regarding the possibility of Valkaria Airport leasing land to the County for use as a permanent fire station. He stated they have learned that the FAA will allow a sale of the property for that use; and the Public Safety Director has been made aware of the possibility of moving forward with this idea. He stated the County has indicated it wants to purchase rather than lease the property, and was working on a piece of trust land, but could not work out an equitable deal. He stated the property that belongs to the Airport is adjacent to the property the Board was considering; if the County obtained that property, it would not exclude any other properties from the tax rolls; and basically it would be taking money from the left pocket and putting it in the right pocket, and everybody in the community would get what they wanted. He stated if the Board chooses, it may be useful to instruct staff as to the direction the Board would like it to go; and inquired if there would be any problem with buying land from the Airport if it is allowed by the FAA.

Curt Lorenc stated this issue was brought up before the Valkaria Airport Advisory Board; eight of the eleven members of that board are pilots; and they voted down the possibility of putting a fire house on the Airport property. He stated the vote was almost unanimous, and he is surprised Mr. Irvine would bring this issue to the Board. He stated the fire fighters are not too keen about the Airport property; there may be possible labor problems; and Mr. Parker and Chief Farmer do not seem to want the Airport property as a permanent location. He stated the County has other pieces of property such as the Broken Glass property and numerous others; one of the problems with leasing is the FAA says the rental fee must be 10% to 15% of the property value which means every seven to ten years, the County will actually be buying the property; and from an economic standpoint, it does not make sense. He commented on selling property at the Airport, Commissioner Scott Ellis' attempt to sell the golf course, and the opinion of the pilots. He stated the real issue is not public safety; some competent people have been working on this for a while; and the best thing to do is leave them with it. He advised fire inspections have never been done on the t-hangars since they have been built; the Ordinance mandates inspections annually; and suggested the Board look into that.

Chairman Higgs inquired if Captain Rakistis is talking about property on the north side of Valkaria Road; with Captain Rakistis responding it is adjacent to the property the County was looking at. Chairman Higgs stated she has no difficulty with Fire Rescue staff looking at the property; a long-term lease is not to the advantage of Fire Rescue; and if a sale could be considered, it may be worthwhile to look at it. She stated staff has been looking at a number of different parcels, and is putting together a package; and if this parcel is one of them, that is fine. She stated she does not know if the Board wants to send it to the Advisory Board or not; but if the price is right, she does not mind looking at the property.

Commissioner Voltz stated all they are asking for is to be able to discuss it. She inquired if Mr. Parker has been working with the Advisory Board. Public Safety Director Jack Parker stated in order to enter into a dialogue, the Board would need to authorize Public Safety and Land Acquisition to discuss the possible transfer of ownership of the parcel; and the next step would be to get a survey and appraisal, and then make an offer up to the appraised value.

Chairman Higgs stated she does not have a problem getting the information; the property has direct access on Valkaria Road; and if the price is right, and everything comes together, that is the parcel that Public Safety thinks is right. She stated while she does not mind looking at it, there are a variety of parcels being looked at, and this would not be the only one.

Commissioner Voltz reiterated they are asking for permission to discuss the issue. Chairman Higgs stated she does not mind letting staff get a price; that does not commit the Board to anything; and it is up to the Board whether it wants to send it to the Advisory Board.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to grant staff authority to discuss with the FAA the possibility of transferring ownership of land at Valkaria Airport for use as a permanent fire station.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the last time this was discussed he requested a comparison of the tax MSTU tax revenues for the entire area compared to the MSTU revenues generated on properties south of Cocoa Beach and north of Patrick Air Force Base, but he has not received that. Mr. Parker advised he will be happy to get the information for Commissioner O'Brien. Commissioner O'Brien stated if the tax revenues are similar, then the Board should also be looking at building a fire station south of Cocoa Beach because the City is not going to make a deal with the County for response. Chief Bill Farmer advised there has been one successful conversation with the City of Cocoa Beach; everything is hinging on what happens Insurance Service Office (ISO)-wise for the City. He stated if they can get a commitment from ISO that the property remains the responsibility of Brevard County and does not impact the City's ISO rating, the City is willing to look at it; however, if it has a negative impact, the door may close. Commissioner O'Brien reiterated he would like to see cross comparisons of the revenues. He advised there is a fire station at Merritt Island Airport, and he sees no problem with putting one at Valkaria Airport.

Chairman Higgs stated more than tax value, there is concern about response time for individuals. Commissioner O'Brien stated if the Board is going to do it in one area, he wants it to be aware there is another area that has a terrible response time because response has to come from south of Patrick Air Force Base. He stated there is no written agreement with the City at this time; and if someone's house catches fire or someone has a heart attack or stroke in the area south of Cocoa Beach, they would be in trouble. Chief Farmer stated there is a mutual aid agreement with the City of Cocoa Beach that presently does not require the County to have units on scene; what they are trying to work out with the City is a step above that where everything would go directly to the City's dispatch center for automatic dispatch; and to some degree, there is already an enhanced response from the City. Commissioner O'Brien noted that is only if the unit is not already engaged someplace else in the City since there is only one unit; with Chief Farmer responding that is true.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the Board wants the Advisory Board to look at it; with Commissioner Voltz stating staff should work with the Advisory Board and with Mr. Shimkus. Chairman Higgs stated the Board made a commitment to come up with a final decision before November; and since it would involve selling off some property, the Advisory Board should take a look at it.

Chairman Higgs inquired if that is part of the motion; with Commissioners Carlson and Voltz responding affirmatively. Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion, as amended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERSONAL APPEARANCE - ROBERT DOUCETTE, RE: SPACE COAST GOVERNMENT TELEVISION AIRING OF PALM BAY CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS

Robert Doucette, President of Citizens Allied for Managed Partnerships (CAMP), stated they have been working for the last two years to try to bring cable broadcast of City Council meetings to the residents of Palm Bay; more public participation in government makes for a better government; and many residents are not able to come to City Council meetings because they are ill, disabled, have school or work at night, or have children to care for. He stated the City's excuse for not airing the meetings was cost, which the City estimated at $100,000 for equipment and several thousand for a person to make video tapes; and a few months ago, the City Council agreed that it was a good idea if the videos could be done free, so CAMP took it up. He stated CAMP believes airing the meetings is extremely important, and spent their own money to buy the equipment to make the video recordings; on their first attempt they were able to make broadcast-quality tapes; and Space Coast Government TV (SCGTV) told them their video quality surpassed that of other Brevard cities. He explained their problem that their tax money is being used to support SCGTV access which is government to government rather than government/government/public. He stated they went to the City Council for approval for broadcasting their tapes and were refused; City Council members Jackie Colon and Pat Woodard voted in favor of airing the tapes, but Mayor Ed Geier and Council members Norm Voltz and Hank Simon voted against it; and commented on Ms. Colon's race against Commissioner Helen Voltz. He stated the City demanded a written contract before approving the free video tape service; however, the City does not even have a written contract with its own City Attorney; and not one of the Council members who voted against airing the tape even asked to view it. He stated Mayor Geier did not allow the public to be heard on the issue before making a motion to deny CAMP permission to air the meeting tape; many people submitted speaker cards, but never got a chance to say anything before the vote was taken; and it is this kind of rude behavior and improper procedure that Palm Bay citizens need to be made aware of through video tapes. He stated Mayor Geier has routinely threatened to have police eject people from meetings; the City Charter states meetings will be held in accordance with City Council rules; and when they requested a copy of the rules, there were told there are none. He stated three politicians are trying to keep the general public from having access to City Council meetings; Palm Bay collects approximately 5% of the cable bill; and if the City is going to collect this money from citizens over and above property taxes, the City should allow its citizens to see the meetings on cable TV so they can get the whole picture. He commented on the proposed assessment change in Palm Bay, need for meeting on assessments to be televised, possible conflicts that were brought forward, people not getting the whole story, and differences in petition requirements between Palm Bay and the County. He submitted a copy of a Palm Bay Ordinance to the Chairman; stated the Palm Bay Area Chamber of Commerce and Committee of 100 helped write the Ordinance; and it was adopted by a vote of 3 to 2, even after it was contested as possibly being illegal. He stated the change is strictly for the benefit of realtors and will allow the City to place liens on property; and it is his opinion that the City does not have enough money to pay for its current bonds. He commented on a Supreme Court ruling on water and sewer hookups, liens on property, special assessment, and water and sewer being life and safety requirements. He stated Units 7, 11 and 13 are supposed to be under the $23 million bond package; Unit 13 may not get done because the City is running out of money; Unit 7 is supposed to be done, but is not; and they are playing with Unit 9.

Tom Bradley noted the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives in Washington, court trials, and home videos of events such as the Concorde crash are broadcast nationally, but the quality film that was accepted by SCGTV was rejected by the Palm Bay City Council. He stated Palm Bay Community College was willing three years ago to record and broadcast the Palm Bay City Council meetings, but that offer was rejected; and an offer made by a private group was also rejected by the City Council. He noted Palm Bay has lost some very expensive cases in court involving improper, illegal assessments and others; it lost in court on one violation of the First Amendment; and there have been numerous other First Amendment violations which the Council has not been charged with. He commented on First Amendment rights, public comment, lack of response from the City Council, and broadcasting City Council meetings. He stated if City Council meetings were broadcast, more people would be there for comments; and advised of apathy among the citizens of Palm Bay. He stated the Palm Bay City Council meetings should be televised so the citizens can see and hear what the Council and City staff decide without input from the citizens.

Henry Helmrich stated he has read the standards and guidelines for procedures on submittal and broadcasting of local government public meetings; and Mr. Doucette's tape submittals have met all the requirements. He stated he does not understand why it is necessary to obtain the approval of the local municipality prior to televising the public record information; Mayor Geier, and Council members Voltz and Simon voted not to let the meetings be aired to the public; and because of their wishes, the public in Palm Bay has been denied the right of freedom of information. He stated SCGTV provides a valuable service to the public, but because of a clause in the guidelines requiring approval of the local government, the people are being denied this service. He stated since the meetings are open government public meetings, and SCGTV is funded by tax dollars, as long as the submittals meet the criteria, there is no reason the public in Palm Bay should be denied the same public information as other municipalities. He stated CAMP put up its own money for equipment and provided personnel so the people of Palm Bay could be informed of local government issues; but because of one clause in the guidelines, three Council members have been able to deny the people the public information; and inquired why are they being allowed to deny the people their right to see and hear Council meetings that may affect their lives.

Allyn Newman advised of his past public service, top secret government clearance, and years of teaching and working with children; stated the City of Palm Bay receives money from cable franchise fees and telecom tax, and the public has a right to expect a logical return on these fees; and televising Council meetings would fit within that scope. He inquired where are the funds going; advised he is not a member of CAMP, but is aligned with the group; and stated CAMP has offered the City of Palm Bay broadcast quality taping, gavel to gavel, of City Council meetings. He stated the quality of the tapes has been approved; and all that is required is an okay from the City to start broadcasting. He stated he attends most meetings to watch the conduct of government and sees a need for the service; the group's intentions are in the public interest; and if the meetings were broadcast, shut-ins and workers would benefit through a closer association with City government. He stated sensitive City issues would become more public; government would be more visible and enjoyable; and inquired why such vehement attempts are being made to block the airing of meetings. He inquired if it could be that the real gravy items are ready for fruition, such as the CRA, U.S. 1 corridor, water and sewer expansion with the possibility to benefit private developer interests, assessment levies against citizens, and avoidance of in-depth budget review or performance audit. He stated the election is forthcoming, and some candidates may want viewing blocked; and it is a sham to place political aspirations over public need. He stated on July 20, they tried to bring their offer before the City; but before anyone could speak, Mayor Geier made a motion to refuse any offer awaiting requests for proposals; Council member Simon seconded the motion; the two speakers who were allowed to speak were constantly interrupted by Mayor Geier and Mr. Simon; and citizens were denied the right to address their representatives, although Council members Woodard and Colon tried to show some concern for the offer and gain some agreement. He stated the offer is to provide unedited, gavel to gavel, broadcast quality coverage of City meetings for viewing over cable TV; they have covered all the cable requirements for broadcast except for an okay from the City; and the guideline should provide that the City be made aware of the coverage but not have a right to reject or accept public viewing of the news, which is a First Amendment violation. He stated they offered to allow any operator or monitor the City wishes; they will train the operator at no cost to the City; and they are willing to sell the equipment to the City for $1,800, train the operator, and walk away. He suggested the people of Palm Bay call their homeowners' groups and flood City Hall with demands for citizens' rights. He stated their offer is sincere, but governmental procrastination is not in the citizens' best interest; and inquired what is the agenda of those in opposition to public access to government meetings.

Curt Lorenc stated SCGTV is funded out of the General Fund, so tax dollars are being used, but some people are not able to derive the benefit from that. He stated there is a loophole in the SCGTV rules that allows cities to not broadcast their meetings; and this is especially important in the case of Palm Bay because, in his opinion, it has the most blatant display of corruption he has ever seen at a City Council meeting. He stated when this issue came up, there were four or five speakers who put in cards, but they were not allowed to speak; and Palm Bay has been a problem for many people. He commented on annexation and sewer and water issues; stated Palm Bay tends to be a problem, so it is important that people be able to see what is going on there; and if it was televised a lot of behavior might diminish. He stated more citizen participation is needed in government; currently Palm Bay City Council voted unanimously to go out for RFP, but no funds were approved for televising the meeting; and this appears to be another stalling tactic. He requested the Board send a resolution to the Palm Bay City Council encouraging it to go forward in a timely manner to air its meetings; and stated if this does not occur, the people will be addressing the Board at budget time to question some of the funding of SCGTV. He stated they are also scheduled to go before the SCGTV Board to see if the rules can be waived.

Chairman Higgs inquired the policies of SCGTV are established by whom; with County Manager responding a committee consisting of County and municipal representatives. Chairman Higgs stated the County owns its equipment; and inquired if the municipalities own their own equipment; with Mr. Jenkins responding the only municipality that is broadcasting on the SCGTV channel is the City of Cocoa which contracts out to an individual. Mr. Jenkins advised Titusville broadcasts on another channel and owns its equipment. Chairman Higgs inquired does the Board approve the policies of SCGTV; with Mr. Jenkins responding they were written by County staff and municipal representatives collectively. Sharon Luba advised the Board accepted and acknowledged the report, procedures and policies; and the County, as well as each of the municipalities, has a vote on the SCGTV Council. Chairman Higgs inquired if the County provides all the funding for SCGTV; with Ms. Luba responding yes. Chairman Higgs inquired if the Board said the SCGTV group would set the policy; with Ms. Luba responding yes. Mr. Jenkins stated Time-Warner made the channel available to Brevard County and the cities, so it is jointly owned and shared; the Board stepped forward to fund it; and commented on the equipment and who paid for it. Ms. Luba advised the channel is jointly owned by the County and the municipalities.

Commissioner Carlson inquired what would be the cost of broadcasting the Palm Bay City Council meeting; with Ms. Luba responding it is up to each individual municipality to decide the type of broadcasting, equipment, and number of operators they want. Mr. Jenkins noted they can contract it out. Commissioner Carlson inquired about the Board's cost for workshops; with Ms. Luba responding approximately a couple of thousand each time. Mr. Jenkins stated the City of Cocoa has a lower cost program.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the problem is the rule that there has to be government to government agreement. Ms. Luba responded the government channel is a government access, not public access channel; Time-Warner and the SCGTV Council were concerned about opening it up to the public, so the channel is limited to government and government activities only; it is up to the individual cities; and if a waiver is granted by the SCGTV Council, it could open it up to any citizen presenting a video of anything. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if it has to be structured or is there the capacity to consider other things, such as the SPCA showing animals for adoption. Mr. Jenkins stated the way it is currently structured, the County or any municipality could co-sponsor the SPCA. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if there is any way to structure that differently; with Mr. Jenkins responding that is the way the rules were originally written.

Commissioner Carlson stated individuals have come to her office asking her to sponsor a specific showing of something; and inquired if CAMP could get air time, could they get a different city to sponsor; with Mr. Jenkins responding if the city chose to sponsor it, it could.

Chairman Higgs inquired about First Amendment or access to public information issues; and if the group is denied by the SCGTV Council, have they been denied a First Amendment or public information right. County Attorney Scott Knox stated the answer is probably no. Chairman Higgs inquired if the issue should be researched any further; with Mr. Knox responding he will research it for the Board, but does not believe he will find any First Amendment issues involved in the particular scenario.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he agrees there would be no denial of First Amendment rights; there is a fear that the government channel can be overrun by citizen groups with their own political agenda in contest with a municipality; and he does not want to venture there. He stated if the City Council has stated that a contract with the City is necessary, it has the right to set City policy; the Board of County Commissioners should never override the policies of the municipality or enter into the local fray; and the issue should be won or lost at the City Council level. He stated the offer should not be made to the Board, but to the City Council; if the group wants to change the policy, it needs to change the elected officials; and to ask the Board to override the City's policy is inappropriate.

Commissioner Carlson stated the members of CAMP have said that they have not been given due audience by the Palm Bay City Council, and that a vote was taken without public input; and inquired if there is any issue there that can be addressed. Mr. Knox stated generally speaking public bodies, such as the County Commission or city councils, are not required to have public comment on anything unless it is in their rules; but if it is in their rules, they cannot deny it to anybody, so the issue is whether or not the Palm Bay City Council rules provide for it.

Chairman Higgs stated she would like to get further clarification by memorandum concerning the ownership of the government channel, how it is governed, how the rules have been derived, how they would be changed, and funding for the current operation; and the people who are present will have an opportunity to attend the SCGTV meeting on September 21, 2000. She inquired if that meeting is to be televised; with Ms. Luba responding no. Chairman Higgs stated everyone should get a copy of the report.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the School Board, Canaveral Port Authority, and Merritt Island Special Taxing District for the Library have not elected to broadcast their meetings; and the local level is where the problem has to be solved.

HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT WITH MEP AMERICA, LLC, RE: SALE TO BREVARD COUNTY

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Hold Harmless and Indemnification Agreement with Thomas M. Fortson and MEP America LLC to protect the County from liability during cattle removal from property purchased from MEP America LLC. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH MEP AMERICA, LLC, RE: SALE OF PROPERTY TO BREVARD COUNTY

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Amendment to Agreement for Sale and Purchase with MEP America, LLC amending time period for removal of billboards from 105 to 125 days after closing. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

WAIVE OBJECTIONS TO TITLE EXCEPTION FOR GAS, UTILITY, AND PHONE LINES, RE: MEP AMERICA, LLC

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve allowing exceptions to insurance for gas, utility and phone lines located along the boundaries of the 1,500 acres of land purchased from MEP America, LLC. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised former Commissioner Hugh Evans, Sr. is present.

Hugh Evans, Sr. commended Mr. Jenkins for his handling of this situation; stated there has been a little conflict between the seller and everyone else; and outlined the problems. He stated all problems have been resolved; and the only remaining thing is to get a Quit Claim Deed from some nearby owners.

Chairman Higgs stated the Board voted unanimously to approve everything; and thanked Mr. Evans for commenting.

PUBLIC COMMENT, RE: OLEANDER POWER PLANT

Chairman Higgs stated Marlene Waters has submitted four cards on four different issues; and she needs guidance from the Board. Commissioner O'Brien stated as long as the issues are different she should get five minutes per issue; with Chairman Higgs noting that is not how the Board has done it in the past. Chairman Higgs stated in the past someone has always been given five minutes under public comment.

Discussion ensued on the guidelines and waiver of rules.

Chairman Higgs inquired about the Oleander appeal. County Attorney Scott Knox stated staff met last Monday to work out preliminary answers to all the questions; there are 16 questions plus sub-parts; they have answered all of them; and he circulated a draft of the answers. He stated staff has reviewed the answers, and submitted changes. Chairman Higgs stated they submitted a formal appeal of an administrative decision; with Mr. Knox advising there is nothing to appeal at this point, but there will be something to appeal when it is finished. Commissioner Carlson stated no action has been taken.

Marlene Waters stated three of the four issues had nothing to do with Oleander, and were not related to the questions that were submitted. Chairman Higgs stated they all arose out of various staff and administrative decisions in regard to the Oleander issue. Ms. Waters stated they may have arisen out of an issue, but they need to be addressed; and requested she be afforded more than five minutes. Chairman Higgs stated under public comment an individual is given five minutes, but the Board may grant additional time.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to grant five additional minutes to Marlene Waters. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Ms. Waters submitted paperwork; and stated she submitted some questions by fax to the County Manager's Office relating to the Oleander issue, but the response she got was lumped together with letters submitted by others. She stated if members of the public take the time to submit questions, they deserve a personal response; her questions had nothing to do with the administrative hearing or appeal process, but with completeness of the site plan; and she does not appreciate having her response lumped with others. She advised of various groups which submitted letters; stated they all deserve a personal response; and it is in poor taste for the questions to be put together. She stated on administrative decisions and appeals, it is her understanding there has been no decision; what created the confusion was a letter of July 7, which was submitted by Attorney Leonard Spielvogel that said upon the advice of the County Attorney, they were pulling their petition for public interest review; and the County Attorney made the decision that no public interest review was required. She stated she asked if they are entitled to an appeal if they ask for one, and was told by Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca that she is not aware of any appeal process; and that is scary. She stated the next issue is the County Attorney's roll in the Oleander issue; the Board looks to the County Attorney as an advisor, not to make the decision; but on July 11, 2000, when she was complaining about the public interest review, the Board looked to Mr. Knox to say why it was removed. She stated it is not Mr. Knox's place to say why it was removed from the Agenda; it is his place to say what his opinion is on whether or not Oleander was subject to a public interest review last February; and advised the Stipulated Settlement said they were supposed to go by the rules of December 14, 1998 which would make them subject to public interest review, and it is clear that if they impact wetlands, they have to go under those rules. She stated she is sure everyone received a copy of the letter from Gregory Marks which was submitted to Mr. Knox on July 21. Chairman Higgs and Commissioner Voltz indicated they do not recall seeing the letter. Mr. Knox advised it was a threat to sue for $25 million; with Ms. Waters clarifying it is for $25 million for seven years, which is a lot of money. Ms. Waters stated the letter says if the County requires another public interest review, they are going to reinstate the other two lawsuits and file a new one for breach of contract. She inquired if the contract between the County and Oleander is unilateral or bilateral; with Mr. Knox responding it is bilateral. Mr. Knox noted most of the answers to Ms. Waters' questions are being worked on by staff, and she will get a full answer to each. Ms. Waters stated in a bilateral contract, both sides get something; and inquired if what the County gets is not sued; with Mr. Knox responding that is right. Ms. Waters commented on the four things necessary to make a legal contract, Stipulated Settlement Agreement, building under the rules of December 14, site plan submitted on December 14, new site plan, and taking impacts off wetlands. She stated on August 10, 1999, the County did a preliminary review of the original site plan which indicated a public interest review is required due to impact on wetlands; and each review after that indicated a public interest review is required.

Chairman Higgs advised Ms. Waters' time has expired. Commissioner Voltz requested Ms. Waters be given an additional minute.

Ms. Waters stated Oleander was well aware that a public interest review was required; all parties agreed to it before the Stipulated Settlement was entered into on August 10, 1999; and a petition to do the review was submitted and then pulled off suddenly; and she still does not know why. She stated an administrative decision has not been made, so the public cannot appeal the process; it was pulled off the Agenda based on the advise of the County Attorney; and inquired since when does the County pay Mr. Knox to give a developer's attorney advice. She stated Oleander has submitted new plans for two minor modifications, which is moving two 200-foot diameter water tanks and shifting a road and everything else; and inquired if that is minor. She stated the fourth paragraph on the second page talks about traffic engineering and a left-hand turn lane; but the Stipulated Settlement says there will be all right-hand turns. She stated the letter says that it has been suggested that the site plan or Stipulated Settlement is no longer valid because of revisions made to the plan based on County comments; inquired if the changes are based on County comments or trying to avoid a public interest review and the rules of December 14, 1998. She stated it is a breach of contract; and inquired what steps will the County take.

Mr. Knox advised all Ms. Waters' questions will be answered in the memorandum that is being prepared. Ms. Waters advised she raised a new issue; with Mr. Knox advising the answer is dependent upon how the Board interprets the contract; he only provides advice, which is not binding on the Board, and does not advise people outside the Board of County Commissioners; and even though it is not a formal appeal of a decision on how to interpret the contract, the Board may want to look at that issue when it comes to it.

Ms. Waters stated the latest set of revisions was not made due to County comments; the County did not say if they took off the wetlands, it would forget about the public interest review; and a public interest review was scheduled on July 11, 2000.

PUBLIC COMMENT, RE: COUNTY VEHICLE POLICY

Robert Doucette advised of First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution; stated it cost the City of Palm Bay $85,000 in federal court for trying to prevent an individual from addressing his government; and he was surprised to hear what Mr. Knox said about public comment. He inquired about County policy on vehicles; and stated last Thursday night Mr. Voltz was delivered to the City of Palm Bay Chamber in a County vehicle. He advised of a fax from Council member Norm Voltz concerning broadcasting of the City Council meetings and waiting for professional videotaping; and stated Mr. Voltz said that while he fully supports the videotaping of the City Council meetings, timing and finances are crucial. He advised of a July 28, 2000 newspaper article in which Council member Norm Voltz said the tape which Mr. Doucette's group recently took focused only on Deputy Mayor Jackie Colon who is running against his wife, Council member Pat Woodard, and Mayor Geier; and that is not true because the tape was done like the County Commission tapes with all Council members in a row. He explained a dark spot in the tape was caused by all lights being put out to look at an overhead projection; and stated one person stood at the podium wearing a Jackie Colon tee-shirt. He stated Council member Norm Voltz said a number of residents could not get water until the wording of the ordinance was changed; and the politicians in Palm Bay are not listening to the people or following the rules and laws. He stated he understood the Board could not make any ruling in reference to the cable TV; but the only way they could bring this before the public as to come to the Board. He advised of restrictions in getting information to the people of Palm Bay and his surprise at Mr. Knox's statements in reference to First Amendment rights.

Chairman Higgs instructed the County Manager to respond to Mr. Doucette's questions about policy on vehicles.

PUBLIC COMMENT, RE: COUNTY RECORD KEEPING

Maureen Rupe stated the bad record keeping and errors made have added to the confusion on the Oleander issue; and emphasized the importance of keeping accurate documents. She stated she is not surprised the County loses lawsuits; bad record keeping implies deals and guilt; questions will be raised; and she wishes there was more monitoring.

DISCUSSION, RE: PUBLIC COMMENT

Commissioner O'Brien stated the gentlemen from Palm Bay mean well; but next the Board will be hearing from the friends of Judy Parrish from Cocoa, or Alan Greenwood about what the City is doing wrong, or Norm Voltz to explain how right or wrong Palm Bay is. Chairman Higgs stated the Board may hear from Parrish Medical Center; with Commissioner O'Brien advising the Board could be hearing both sides of that issue as well; but these are not County issues that the Board should be hearing. He stated the issues brought forward today belong in the City of Palm Bay; and the County's cameras should not be used to get this message out.

Chairman Higgs stated the issue with regard to television is one that the Board does have responsibility for, so it does relate directly to the County business.

WARRANT LISTS

Upon motion and vote, the meeting was adjourned at 3:13 p.m.

ATTEST:

NANCY N. HIGGS, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK
( S E A L )