MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

July 21, 2009

 

 

 

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on July 21, 2009 at 9:02 a.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida.  Present were:  Chairman Chuck Nelson, Commissioners Robin Fisher, Trudie Infantini, Mary Bolin, and Andy Anderson, Interim County Manager Stockton Whitten, and County Attorney Scott Knox.  

 

The Invocation was given by Pastor Ralph Nygard, Eau Gallie First Baptist Church.

 

Commissioner Mary Bolin led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. 

 

 

 

Interim County Manager Stockton Whitten advised there are three employees present to receive longevity awards.  He stated Ray Gann, Emergency Management Office, started working for the County when he was 18 years old; he has worked for 30 years in the Public Safety sector; and he started with Emergency Medical Services as a maintenance employee and a Medical Supply Technician.  He stated during the consolidation of services and offices, Ray was transferred to Emergency Management as a maintenance technician; he later became Property and Logistics Coordinator; and he found his true love as a Radiological Trainer and Coordinator for Emergency Management.  He stated Mr. Gann coordinates with the Bureau of Radiation Control, the St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, the Radiation Protection Office, the County’s Fire Departments’ Hazardous Materials Team, and the Sheriff’s Office’s bomb squad for issues concerning radiation hazards. 

 

Mr. Whitten stated Cindy Peterson has been employed at the Melbourne Public Library for 30 years in the technical processing area; she began her career as a Clerical Assistant; she has been promoted steadily over the years to her current position as Technical Processor; and she takes great pride in a job well done.  He stated Ms. Peterson has been a mentor to many new technical staff members at other libraries over the years; and she is extremely well-liked, respected, and a valuable employee of the Brevard County Libraries.

 

Mr. Whitten stated Ted Stein began his career at the Eau Gallie Library in 1979; since then, he has worked in seven other libraries, including Franklin DeGroodt, Cape Canaveral, Satellite Beach, Cocoa Beach, Melbourne Beach, Palm Bay, and South Mainland; and Ted works hard to keep the libraries clean and well-maintained.

 

Mr. Whitten stated Lieutenant Joy Henry began her career as a Fire Fighter with Brevard County Fire Rescue on February 27, 1984; in July, 1992 she received her Fire Officer I Certification; in November, 1992 she was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant; and in January, 1993 Lieutenant Henry received her AS Degree in Fire Science.  He advised in 2006, Lieutenant Henry, along  with her crew, received the lifesaving award for saving the lives of two victims during an ocean rescue; this year, Lieutenant Henry received a Community Service Ribbon for participating in the American Cancer Society Fire Fighter Stair Climb for Lung Cancer; and Lieutenant Henry and her crew raised $635. 

 

Mr. Whitten noted also recognized for 30 years of service is Thomas D. McDevitt; being recognized for 25 years of service are Anthony Coco, Donald Stevenson, Dianne Cullen, Todd Hecky, Zoila Villanueva, Sheila Hicks, Juan Agosto, and Gary Perdue.

 

 

Commissioner Bolin read aloud a Resolution recognizing Guardian Ad Litem Volunteers.

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to adopt a Resolution recognizing Guardian Ad Litem Volunteers and proclaiming the week of July 20, 2009 as Guardian Ad Litem Week in Brevard County.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Theresa Flury, Executive Director, expressed appreciation to the Board for the Resolution and the recognition of the important work that the volunteers do. 

 

State Representative Steve Crisafulli expressed appreciation to the Guardain Ad Litem volunteers for all they have done; and the volunteers have helped thousands of children.  State Representative Poppel stated he also appreciates all the work the Guardian Ad Litem volunteers have done for the children.  Patrick Gavin, representing Congressman Posey, expressed appreciation to the volunteers; and stated for what the volunteers do for the children in the State, they cannot be thanked enough. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Anderson read aloud a resolution recognizing and commending The Dance Mania All-Stars.

 

Motion by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to adopt Resolution recognizing and commending The Dance Mania All-Stars for the promotion of athleticism, high moral standards, and the achievement of goals through hard work for Brevard County students.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Dana Parsons stated she is the owner of the dance studio; the team has competed at State, national, and world competitions; and all of the teams ranked, 4^th, 5^th, and 6^th in the world.  She noted to be on the team, the dancers have to have good academic standings with good report cards; and they have to be responsible at home and have good time management skills. 

 

 

 

Patricia Brown, Executive Director of Keep Brevard Beautiful, stated she is present to announce the winner of the 2009 Trash Bash Commission Competition; all of the Commissioners did really well; but Commissioner Fisher won in two categories of Most Improved and Most Volunteers; and she presented Commissioner Fisher with a check for $500 that Commissioner Fisher would like to donate to the Central Florida YMCA. 

 

 

 

Chairman Nelson advised Shelley Lauten, with MyRegion.org has been involved in an accident and will not be able to attend the meeting to give the Board an update on MyRegion.org.

 

 

 

Chairman Nelson read aloud a resolution supporting Tobacco Products Placement.

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Chairman Nelson, to adopt a Resolution in support of the placement of all tobacco produced “behind the counter” in all retail establishments to limit underage accessibility to such products.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.    

 

 

Renee Ruffin-Price stated Preventive Brevard receives the funding from the tobacco settlement dollars to do tobacco prevention and control in Brevard County; but Preventive Brevard really represents a coalition; the Brevard Tobacco Initiative is really implemented by a coalition of adults and youth; and they are active in representing all sectors of the community such as health care providers and child care providers.  She stated the coalition has been active for the past two years; and Preventive Brevard was just awarded another three years of funding, so those dollars will continue in Brevard County to support prevention and control.

 

Britney Gagny expressed appreciation to the Board for the Resolution as it protects her and the rest of the youth. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Bolin read aloud a resolution recognizing Eagle Scout Alexander Clark.

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to adopt a Resolution recognizing and commending Alexander Clark for attaining the rank of Eagle Scout and offering congratulations and best wishes for a successful future.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Alexander Clark expressed appreciation to the Board for the recognition; and he thanked his family and his Boy Scout Troop, without whom he would not have been able to get where he is.

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Infantini read aloud a resolution recognizing Eagle Scout Aaron Arrowood.

 

Motion by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to adopt a Resolution recognizing Eagle Scout Aaron Arrowood for achieving the rank of Eagle Scout and wishing him great success in the future.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Commissioner Infantini noted Aaron Arrowood could not be present today; but she will present him with his Resolution at a ceremony on July 25, 2009.

 

 

 

Chairman Nelson noted the resolution commending volunteer dentists will be on the Agenda for August 18, 2009. 

 

 

 

Stockton Whitten, Interim County Manager, advised Mike Knight, EEL Program Manager is going to address some concerns that were raised with regards to EEL input on the I-95 Interchange; and the Board has been given a memo regarding the situation.

 

Mike Knight, EEL Program Manager, stated he was asked to address some concerns; and although he is not familiar with the nature of phone calls that have occurred related to the issue, he will touch base on the discussions that he has had related to the issue.  He stated his office received two phone calls last week from what he understood to be consultants who were considering submitting applications or proposals for the RFP for the Interchange; and they had asked if the EEL Program would provide some input into the environmental impacts of the project.  He advised he expressed some concern about doing that because in the past, if the Program commented at all on projects that were not directly related to EEL Projects, there was a perception created that EEL was somehow blocking development plans; and he does not like to be in that position because the EEL Program is not a regulatory agency, so it stays far away from that.  He noted he told the callers that, and he told them EEL is not a regulatory agency; stated he told them the only time there would be a concern for the EEL Program is if the conservational lands themselves were being proposed for retention areas associated with the roadways or the interchange; and it is his understanding that they are not, as he has not heard anything to that effect.  He stated there are controlled burn operations that occur in that area; he let the consultants know about that activity, and that there would be a concern if there was an interest in restricting burn operations in that area as a result of a roadway; but that has not occurred anywhere else that EEL manages land; and so it is not seen as an issue.  He advised, in fact, the addition of the new roadway actually provides an alternate route for Micco Road, which gives EEL a benefit; if there is a need to close a road, there would be a new option to do that; he did not see any issues; and in fact, the subject property of the Interchange as planned was removed two years ago from the EEL acquisition list at the request of the owners in the City so that there was no perception that it was needed for conservation.

 

Commissioner Anderson stated he is glad the subject was brought up; the City Manager of Palm Bay had received input that there might have been some issues; but he does not know if there was a miscommunication between whoever was giving the City Manager or Mr. Knight information; and no one is trying to stop an interchange that needs to move forward as quickly as possible. 

 

 

 

Scott Knox, County Attorney, advised he would like to withdraw Item VII.E.1., Discussion, Re:  Tourist Development Tax Recovery Potential Litigation Against Internet Companies, and place it on the August 4, 2009 Agenda.  He noted the lawyers involved in the proposal are a team comprised Brevard County, Winter Park, and Seattle, Washington lawyers; and the lawyer from Seattle had a last minute conflict that he could not avoid, so he would like it put off until August 4, 2009. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated with her today is Lisa Rice, Sue Carlson, and Tyler Sirois; and they are going to talk about the Regional Aerospace Workforce meeting.

 

Lisa Rice, Executive Director, Workforce Development Board, stated the Board may remember a while back when she told the it about an innovation grant from the U.S. Department of Labor; that grant has now been initiated; Sue Carlson and Tyler Sirois are tasked with managing the project; and one of the chief goals they have is to facilitate a regional collaboration of economic development industry and education across the high-tech corridor.  She stated the partners from Volusia County, Orange County, Osceola County, and Seminole County and Workforce, joined together with the Florida High Tech Corridor and the first collaborative meeting was held on July 10, 2009; and she appreciates Commissioner Bolin attending the meeting.  She stated the Board has a list of the leaders that were at the meeting; there were industry people in the room that has truly not been talked to before; presentations were given about the state of the workforce, and what is known that is going to happen; and the Deputy Director of NASA commented to her that the workshop was the best one that she had been to on the topic in which there were some actual activities and actions and ideas.  She stated in the Board’s packages are the presentations that were given by herself and Frank DiBello from Space Florida; and Mr. DiBello understands it has to be a regional initiative.  She stated Page Eight of the Board’s package is where the Board will find information on the regional SWOT (Strength’s, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) overview; it was interesting to hear from people that there needs to be more coordination and regionally amongst the EDO’s, and amongst other business development bodies that might be in the region; there was a sense that there was not the synergy that there could be if there was more of that happening; but it was also acknowledged that when one is in EDO, they have hold very close to the chest what is being done to recruit companies; and there was also talk about expanding as well as recruiting.  She stated at the meeting there was a driving desire for more information to be out into the community about the whole aerospace transition; and some exciting things will be happening soon where businesses across the  corridor being able to tell what kind of  skills they need.  She

stated the next steps include the SWOT analysis, and a list of industries that can be clustered together and have focus groups with them and discuss the SWOT analysis with them as well; and it is very exciting to see business leaders inform her of their peers and who she can call upon to be involved.  She stated just because it is being done regionally, it does not mean Brevard businesses have been forgotten.

 

 

 

Commissioner Bolin advised the first draft of the Local Preference resolution is ready for the County Attorney; and she should be able to have it ready for the Board on July 28, 2009. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Anderson stated he would like to thank the Brevard County Sheriff’s Office; his aide, Dawn Johnson, spent Friday in the Field with the Sheriff’s Office; they chased bad guys through his District to get a handle on what is going on as far as law enforcement activities; and he would like to thank the Sheriff’s Office for accommodating them, and he would like to thank Ms. Johnson for doing that on a Saturday.

 

 

 

Chairman Nelson stated he would like to bring forward Item VI.E., Consideration, Re:  Review of Semifinalists for County Manager Position, as Mr. Baenziger needs to be on his way. 

 

Colin Baenziger, Baenziger and Associates, stated the search for a County Manager began two months ago; he put together some recruiting materials; there were approximately 120 applicants; some applicants dropped out, and it was decided that others were not the right fit; and he ended up with a notebook of materials on 11 candidates, and presented it to the County Commissioners.  He stated he met with each Commissioner yesterday, who all appeared to have read the book in some detail; stated what he would like to do today is select the five finalists for the Board to interview; and he has ballots for the Commissioners.  He stated what he is basically asking the Board to do is a straw poll so that he can get an idea of who it is looking at; the Board may agree on five candidates, although it is not likely; but if the Board agrees on five candidates on the straw poll, then there is no point in spending a lot of time discussing the candidates, as he and the Commissioners did that yesterday.  He stated usually there are three or four candidates that everyone wants to see; there may be three or four candidates that nobody wants to see; and there may be some discussion on some candidates.  He stated if the Commissioners like, they can vote for a candidate more than once; and if they feel strongly about a candidate and want to put two votes on someone, that can be done. 

 

County Attorney Scott Knox advised the Chairman needs to make sure the Commissioners sign off on their ballot and mark which District they represent. 

 

Mr. Baenziger stated the votes will be tabulated, and he will return to the Board.

 

 

 

Stockton Whitten, Interim County Manager, advised the item will be brought back to the Board at a Board meeting in August. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to execute Proportionate Fair Share Mitigation Agreement with the City of West Melbourne and Joy, LLC in the amount of $43,760.00 for construction of an exclusive, westbound left turn lane at the intersection of Minton Road and Eber Road in the City of West Melbourne; and authorize the Budget Office to make any necessary budget changes to implement the Agreement.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to adopt Resolution and approve the Perpetual Storm Sewer Easement in favor of FDOT, which is located on Holder Road and necessary for the widening completion of SR 9 (I-95).  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to authorize the Public Works Director to issue a letter accepting transfer of the St. Johns River Water Management District permit from the Viera East Community Development District for the widening of Murrell Road Phase II from Crane Creek Boulevard North to Rockledge City Limits.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to execute Agreement to Extend Interlocal Agreement with the City of Titusville for a one (1) year extension to complete the   Downtown   Urban  Parks  Project.  Motion  carried  and  ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to authorize staff to initiate procedures to appoint a replacement member to EEL Program Selection and Management Committee (SMC).  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to affirm the Special Magistrate’s finding for consent vested rights for Bright House Networks, LLC.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to adopt the Special Magistrate’s recommendation to reduce the accrued fine for Case #05-3567 from $5,100 to $0; and direct staff to prepare and execute release and satisfaction of lien.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to adopt the Special Magistrate’s recommendation to reduce the accrued fine for Case #04-3700 from $5,350 to $0; and direct staff to prepare and execute release and satisfaction of lien.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to adopt Amended Resolution denying the vested rights application of Sharon B. Farrar; adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law proposed by the Special Magistrate; and accept the recommendations of the Special Magistrate to allow two years to relocate the captive wildlife to a properly zoned property.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to execute Federally-Funded Sub-Grant Agreement with the State of Florida, Division of Emergency Management, in the amount of $99,898 to provide planning, training, and exercises for Local and Regional efforts in relation to preparedness and response to an incident or disaster; and authorized the County Manager or designee to sign any documents associated with the grant and to make any necessary selections as required to execute the grant.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to execute Federally-Funded Sub-Grant Agreement with the State of Florida, Division of Emergency Management, in the amount of $91,000 to provide planning, training, and exercises for Local and Regional efforts in relation to preparedness and response to an incident or disaster; and authorize the County Manager or designee to sign any documents associated with the grant and to make any necessary selections as required to execute the grant.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to authorize the distribution of $8,261 in State Forfeiture funds to the City of Cape Canaveral in accordance with Florida Statutes 932.7055(5); and authorize any necessary budget amendments. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to authorize the purchase of equipment for the Florida Highway Patrol (Troop D) in the amount of $27,449.50 using State Forfeiture funds in accordance with Florida Statute 932.7055(5); and authorize any necessary budget amendments.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to accept the invitation for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG); designate the Brevard County Sheriff’s Office (BCSO) as the coordinating unit of government; and authorize the Chairman to execute any  necessary  documents.   Motion   carried   and  ordered  unanimously.  

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to appoint Carole Pope to the Historical Commission, with term expiring December 31, 2009.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve the Bills and Budget Changes as submitted.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Joy From submitted photographs to the Board, but not the Clerk.  She referenced her property in the photo, and advised she is on a pie-shaped cul de sac; the green area beside her kitchen and back door is what is in question; and it is highlighted in yellow on the third page.  She stated the area beside her kitchen and back door is her work area; and stated she would like to read her statement for efficient use of time.  “Good morning to you all.  The following is supporting information regarding my dilemma with Code Enforcement.  Item One, the plat map, shows my lot on a cul de sac with a pie-shaped access to my yard.  The driveway is about 25 feet wide and circles around a planted landscaping fountain.  Item Two, the survey, shows the kitchen and back entrance doors of the building, highlighted in yellow.  All my activity is contained in this small area; the rest of my yard is lawn, a few fruit trees, and lawn furniture, including patio tables to enhance my hospitality theme, because I’m working on this project to make Brevard beautiful, and I was happy to hear that there was recognition for it earlier.  Item Three is my fire escape staircase permit.  When I requested the final inspection I was told to submit a diagram showing alterations made during the project, which I promptly did.  They responded that they couldn’t understand my drawings, although they were circled areas highlighted from the original permit, and they are page four.  I also submitted about 10 or more color photos to show them accurately.  Then I waited and waited; and then I called and was told I had to get a new permit because the other had expired.  I had a problem with that; they did not come to inspect when there was plenty of time and they refused to extend it any longer; so I went ahead with the concrete pour, for which I did not need a permit.  This is when Code Enforcement made their latest assault against me.  After examining the photo submitted in his case against me, Mr. Russo  compiled his  photos  over a period of weeks as the project progressed.  His  photos are not dated and he makes it appear that my entire yard is represented, when only a very small portion is involved, and the project centers around my back door and shed.  This is very misleading and deceptive.  Items that appear this week will be gone next week, and other props will be moving across the stage.  I felt that not only had I been cheated out of the final inspection, but it seems I was purposefully set up for Code Enforcement to invade when I was in the midst of this huge concrete project, which was two pours totaling 20 ½ yards in the space of several months.  I dug all the footers and sat all the forms myself, so it was more time consuming because I work full-time on the night shift and I can only dig for a few hours each day.  All the dirt had to be wheel-barrowed to different low areas of the yard; the entire yard is a packed, gravel road base, so it is necessary to use a big, monster, drill with a one and a half bit, 24 inches long, to break through that hard gravel layer.  When I did go to get the replacement permit for this completed project, believe it or not, Mr. Picket was really able to use my original drawing and photos I had sent.  The one’s they said they couldn’t read.  I had to pay $205 for this.  Was this not a case of double jeopardy?  Item Four, Code Enforcement Case 09-226, was a complaint that I needed to get a permit for a work that was part of my home repair done in 2005.  I had been summoned to a hearing on July 9^th, when Mr. Sullivan came to my house.  I showed him a copy of the permit that the contractor had pulled in 2004; Mr. Sullivan said this case was closed and the hearing was cancelled.  They stamped “complied” on that notice, which was not accurate; there was no violation to begin with; the word “complied” is misleading and reflects badly on my good reputation.  It should be corrected to say “error” with an explanation of what really happened, and that it was an error on their part and should include an apology.  And I’m referring to that permit, which was issued August 31, 2004, and that was after all those hurricanes, and I never did get to finish my project until late in 2005 because of all the hurricane damage including the roofs that I helped repair during that interim.  Item Five, on May 21^st, Mr. Russo built his case around the phrase, “junk, litter, and debris,” while referring to a park bench that was to be assembled, and orange construction barrier around an excavation, a claw tub I use for bedding plants, chain link sections of a dog enclosure that was leaning on the shed during the time I was digging and pouring a footer to attach it to, that the dogs can’t dig under, and a concrete patio table with benches that were disassembled while I prepared a concrete base for it.  None of this is junk, none of it is litter, and none of it is debris.  I take exception to the use of these derogatory terms inferring that my expensive items are nothing but trash.  I put my construction junk, litter, and debris out to the curb twice a week for trash pick-up.  I was charged $550 for court costs and told I’d have to pay an accumulating fine of $50 per day until I was in compliance, without ever having the opportunity to read my statement, in my defense, at that hearing.  Compliance in this generic standard is impossible when I go from one construction project to the next.  The City of Cocoa has a brownstone area that is being restored and updated; they offer numerous incentives and perks to anyone willing to participate in their project to beautify and revitalize the old district.  I wonder if Brevard County might consider doing something similar on projects like mine that improve the County and keep its history from being lost.  I think I’ve shown very good will in all that I’ve done of my own accord.”

 

Chairman Nelson stated he would like staff to prepare a report on Ms. From’s Code Enforcement case.

 

 

Colin Baenziger, Baenziger and Associates, stated he will read the results of the voting.  He advised Mr. Clifton received one vote, Ms. Harris received three votes from three Commissioners, Mr. Hutchinson received three votes from Commissioner Infantini, Mr. Magnaghi received one vote from one Commissioner, Ms. McEwan received four votes from four Commissioners, Mr. Middaugh received two votes from two Commissioners, Mr. Tipton received four votes from four Commissioners, Mr. Witt received three votes from three Commissioners, Mr. Woodbury received five votes, three Commissioners gave him one vote and Commissioner Infantini gave him two votes.  He advised the ballot indicated to choose five or six candidates, and Commissioner Fisher had six that he would like to see.  He stated the situation the Board has at the moment is that Mr. Woodbury had five votes, so he would be a logical candidate to interview; Mr. Tipton had four votes, as did Ms. McEwan, so they would be logical candidates to interview; and then there are three candidates that received three votes each.  He stated the Board can re-ballot or have some discussion about the candidates, or the Board may want to decide if it wants to let Commissioners put both votes on one candidate.  He reiterated the three candidates that received three votes each are, Kathy Harris, Jeff Hutchinson, and Randy Witt.  He advised the Board can choose two of the three and whoever gets the most votes would be the two that would interview, and the third one would be the alternate.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if the Board could choose six to interview; with Mr. Baenziger responding yes, the Board can do that. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to select six semifinalists for the County Manager position to be interviewed as follows:  Paul Woodbury, Howard Tipton, Amy McEwan, Kathy Harris, Jeffrey Hutchinson, and Buford “Randy” Witt.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Mr. Baenziger advised the next steps in the process is July 30^th when the candidates and their spouses will be invited to Brevard County; some of them will come the night before; they will have a tour of the County; they will then meet with the senior staff; and interviews will begin on July 31, 2009 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:30 a.m.  He stated each candidate will be given 40 minutes with each Commissioner; they will be one-on-one interviews; and in the afternoon there will be a special meeting in which the Board will have an opportunity to interview each of the candidates one at a time as a full Board.  He stated on August 4, 2009 the Board will vote on the County Manager at its Regular Board meeting. 

 

Interim Assistant County Manager, Frank Abbate, stated the Board needs to schedule a Special meeting on the afternoon of July 31^st, because there is not one currently scheduled; and that would need to be a public meeting when the Board meets and interviews each of the candidates as a full Board.

 

Interim County Manager Stockton Whitten inquired if the Special meeting would be televised.  Chairman Nelson stated he did not know why it would not be televised, as it would be beneficial.  He inquired what time the Special meeting would begin on July 31^st.  Mr. Baenziger stated he would have to get back to the Board on the time of the meeting, as he will need to look at the schedule.  Mr. Abbate stated it is tentatively scheduled for 1:00 p.m.  Chairman Nelson stated the Board will vote on the Special meeting at the July 23, 2009 Budget Workshop.

 

 

 

Chairman Nelson called for the public hearing to consider Bresley Drive Extension Exemption from Landscaping, Land Clearing and Tree Protection Code.

 

Ernie Brown, Natural Resources Management Director, stated the Code reads that linear projects, such as Federal, State, and County roadways, such as arterial or collector roads, sidewalks, trails, and paths can meet the public interest.  He stated the subject road will become a public road once it is completed; and staff believes it meets the criteria should the Board concur.

 

There being no further comments or objections, motion was made by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve Exemption of Bresley Drive Extension (08SD-00136) from Landscaping, Land Clearing and Tree Protection Code.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Chairman Nelson called for the public hearing to consider approval of FY 2009/2010 Brevard County Home Consortium Consolidation Action Plan and FY 2009/2010 Annual Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Action Plan.

 

There being no objection heard, motion was made by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to conduct a Public Hearing as required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the purpose of receiving public comments on the goals and priorities set forth in the HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) Consortium’s Consolidated Annual Action Plan, and the recommended HOME and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding priorities set forth in Brevard County’s 2009-2010 Annual Action Plan.  The approval of the funding allocations, for the 2009-2010 Annual Action Plan, will be presented to the Board on July 29, 2009.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Chairman Nelson called for a public hearing to consider a resolution vacating right-of-way – Debbie Lane, Imperial Estates, Unit 5, as petitioned by Herrill Herring and Vernon Becker. 

 

John Denninghoff, Public Works Director, advised at the previous hearing, the item was continued to today; staff has been in the process of trying to work out issues; and a meeting has been scheduled to take place between the neighbors involved.  He stated staff would like the Board to continue the item to the August 18, 2009 Regular Board meeting. 

 

There being no further comments or objections, motion was made by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to continue the public hearing to consider a resolution to vacate right-of-way – Debbie Lane, Imperial Estates, Unit 5, as petitioned by Herrill Herring and Vernon Becker, to the August 18, 2009 Board of County Commissioners meeting.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Robin Sobrino, Planning and Development Director, advised the item is the follow-up to a meeting in May in which the Board discussed the issue of sidewalk bonds and requested direction as to how to proceed with bonds.  She stated in order to make the discussion easier, staff has broken it into two separate Agenda items; Item VI.A. is seeking direction on where to go from this point forward with new subdivision projects; and Item VI.B. looks back at the bonds currently in place, and how the Board would like to see staff handle those. 

 

Stephen Johnson stated his comments will refer to both Agenda Items.  He noted The Viera Company has 22 sidewalk bonds totaling $2.5 million and includes approximately 750 lots; and he is uncertain how long it will take to absorb that inventory.  He advised The Viera Company also has built 4,200 homes in Viera East, and there are no missing sidewalks on any of those home sites; the housing market is in a severe slump; and it is uncertain how long it will take to sell the existing inventory.  He stated the sidewalks would be damaged during construction; it would be a waste of money; when the home is built there is no way to save the sidewalk; and to install a sidewalk prior to home construction would almost triple the cost of that sidewalk.  He noted the sidewalks range in cost from $900 to $2,200 per lot in Viera; it would cost thousands of dollars without much benefit; it is clear that all industries need to be cautious and conservative on expenses right now; and landfills would be filling up with broken concrete.  He noted there are several counties such as Hillsborough and Orange County that do not require bonds, as they just require insuring the sidewalks are built prior to CO (Certificate of Occupancy); and all of those communities have experienced significant growth.  He stated The Viera Company would prefer only a CO assurance; but if time limits are to be imposed, The Viera Company would like the Board to consider a longer period for existing inventories knowing the uncertainties of the local economy and the housing rebound.

 

Hassan Kamal advised he is with BSE Consultants; he has worked in Brevard County for over 21 years representing a variety of developers, whether it be large-scale developers such as The Viera Company, or smaller individual developers with 20 to 50-lot subdivisions; and throughout that time in working with Brevard County, BSE has not had any issues with sidewalks not being constructed in a timely fashion.  He stated currently the practice is that the common area sidewalks are built by the developers, and the individual sidewalks in front of the homes are built when the house is constructed; that process works well and insures the sidewalks are there when the residents are there; requiring sidewalks to be constructed ahead of the construction of the house poses a lot of practical and logistical problems in addition to the cost; sidewalks constructed before the houses can be a problem because in a lot of cases not all the utilities are in, such as Florida Power and Light and BellSouth; and the installation of those greatly increases the chances of the sidewalk  being  damaged.  He  stated when a house is being built there are numerous trades at the house; there are trucks parking off the curb, such as truss trucks, concrete trucks, and pool companies; and there are many instances where those trades have to have access to the lot, which means crossing the sidewalk and breaking it.  He stated if the sidewalks have to be constructed before the houses, the developer is paying for the sidewalk initially, and the homeowners will be paying for the removal of that sidewalk because it is broken.  He stated the County requires sidewalk and driveways to be thicker than a standard sidewalk; that is going to be a problem because if building a sidewalk across the front of the lot, it is not known where the front of the house will be, so a builder does not know where to thicken the sidewalk; and that is going to be an issue that is probably going to result in the removal of some of the sidewalk.  He stated as the Board works through the process and tries to figure out what to do, his recommendation for the existing subdivision and the existing contracts maintain the current practice of allowing the developer to extend the bond up to the five-year period; and at the end of the five-year period, the sidewalk requirement would follow with the house construction, and the house would have to have the sidewalk constructed prior to getting a CO.  He noted for future subdivisions, he would recommend Option Four, which staff describes as modifying the current Code to basically clarify that the common area sidewalks be built with the infrastructure and that the sidewalks be required as part of a CO requirement; and BSE feels that is the most practical option, as it addresses some of the issues he has raised regarding sidewalk construction ahead of the house construction. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated the whole concept is based on the fact that a house will eventually be built there; there are some bonds that go back to 1993; and something is not working in that equation.  He stated he would agree with Mr. Kamal if he knew it was going to be timely from beginning to end and that the sidewalk got built at some point, but there is something happening where either a lot is being bought in conjunction with an adjacent lot and a house is not being built on it, or the lot is unbuildable; but something is happening that is causing these continuances; and frankly, those will go on in perpetuity.  He stated his concern is that the community expects a completed pedestrian system; he does not think Viera has ever had that problem; but there are circumstances where it is not getting finished; and the Board needs to address it because if it does not get finished and there are no bonds, then homeowners are going to go to their Commissioners and ask why they do not have sidewalks in their community.  He stated there needs to be some assurance at some point that it is finished; right now that is not happening; while he understands the concept, the bottom line is the Board cannot make the builder build; and he would not want to build a policy around current economic circumstances, as he would rather deal with it as a normal, and then deal with the exception of the current economic circumstance versus creating a Code around a worst-case scenario like what the Board is in currently.

 

Mr. Kamal stated he does not know how prevalent the issue is of the straggling lot; he would presume it is an infrequent occurrence, and certainly one the County has to deal with; the majority of the subdivisions are developed and the sidewalks are built in a timely fashion; there are always going to be infrequent occurrences where there is a lot that either no one buys, or somebody bought and does not build on it; and he would caution the Board to not apply a Code that is going to end up imposing a significant burden and wasting a lot of money because of those infrequent occurrences.  He noted maybe a bond extension would work with those infrequent occurrences.

 

Chairman Nelson stated the problem is the Board is not changing the fact that it has bonds; the bond requirement is currently in place; and the Board has not discussed whether or not it is going to go away.  He inquired how many current bonds go beyond five years.  Tad Calkins, Assistant Planning and Development Director, advised there are 16 subdivisions currently that are past the five-year mark.  Chairman Nelson stated it would seem to him that 16 subdivisions beyond five years starts being substantial.  Commissioner Bolin inquired if it is one sidewalk in each development, or five in one development and 11 in another.  Mr. Kamal stated from reading the staff report, there was one bond that only had one lot, and there was one that had five lots.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated it is her understanding the Board is approaching the issue in a two-tiered step so that the first Agenda Item is going forward for all new developments; she is not overly worried about the homeowners that are going to be purchasing; and if the Board approves Option 4, as long as the buyer is aware that some of the sidewalks may never be completed, the only concern she has with Option 4 is the common area sidewalks do not have a final date for completion.  She stated Option 4 mentions turning it over to the Homeowners Associations, but that is presuming that every development taking place is going to have Homeowners Associations; and she would like to address the issue as two issues.

 

Commissioner Bolin advised she was also looking at Option 4, but she did not feel comfortable with the Homeowners Association being involved also; some subdivision may not have a homeowners association, and those that do, also have the ability to dissolve a homeowners association; and that added a layer she did not feel was necessary.  She noted she requested Mr. Calkins put together a new Option 4 that removes the homeowners association; and she would like to give it to the Commissioners to consider.

 

Commissioner Infantini inquired if the Board can add a time certain, as to a deadline when the sidewalks may take place, whether it be two years or five years from when the developers start selling the lots in subdivisions; she does not see a conclusion other than that there is going to be an infrastructure bond to support the building of the sidewalks, but it does not have a timeframe.  Mr. Calkins advised the common area sidewalks are built with the initial infrastructure of the subdivision. 

 

Commissioner Anderson inquired, of the list of subdivisions still without sidewalks, how many of those are in subdivisions where the homeowners association has sole authority over the maintenance of those sidewalks and if it is not something that will be conveyed to the County any time soon.  He stated he is only concerned with County sidewalks; homeowners associations are there to take care of their own; and inquired how many will be conveyed to the County.  Mr. Calkins replied staff did not consider that in the research; staff looked at just the sidewalks and bonds in general because if it is a private subdivision, it would fall under Private Streets, and then it would be the homeowners association’s responsibility; but what staff looked at was just the bonds currently being administrated.  Commissioner Anderson stated the Board needs to recognize that is something it needs to have information for; and if it is a private homeowners association that is not going to convey the maintenance of those sidewalks over to the County, then it becomes an issue for the homeowners association and not the County’s. 

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired when the bonds are floated, how much is the value of the bond to protect the sidewalk.  Mr. Kamal advised the developer has to do a certification letter that indicates the bond is 125 percent of the estimated construction costs.  Commissioner Fisher inquired what is the estimated construction cost of a sidewalk on a typical lot.  Mr. Kamal advised with five-foot sidewalks, the cost is approximately $19 per linear foot; and for a typical 70-foot lot it would cost approximately $1,300.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if 70 feet is the typical size lot for The Viera Company; with Mr. Kamal responding, yes, that is the average, but there are lots that range from 50 to 90 feet; and stated if it is a 100-lot subdivision, that number increases and then it is 125 percent of that number.

 

Ed Fleis stated he is on the BCAC, and he supports Option 4 to give full disclosure to the buyers through the platting and also to the homeowners associations.  He stated most of the projects he has been working on have been private developments in which all of the common areas are deeded over to the homeowners association for maintenance, including the overseeing of the sidewalks built on private property if they are damaged; and he would like to go forward without the requirement of bonds, but with the full disclosure.

 

Commissioner Bolin inquired how Mr. Fleis feels about removing the homeowners associations in Option 4 and having it directly between the developer and the person building the house.  Mr. Fleis advised he believes the developer steps completely out of the picture; once all the lots are sold, even though some people do not build on their lots, typically the developer would be out of the picture at some point in time.  Commissioner Bolin inquired since Mr. Fleis was part of the committee that made the recommendation, what was the thought behind putting the homeowners associations in the original option.  Mr. Fleis advised every project he is involved with seems to have a very strong homeowners association; they typically exist to be responsible for the requirements of the St. Johns River Water Management District for the surface water management plan; but they are also responsible for anything to do with the common properties; the homeowners associations are the one’s that take a special emphasis in their communities on preservation and quality of life; he did not see a problem with a homeowners association being responsible for following up on sidewalks, whether they are in the common area, or to have it in the covenants that it is strictly the responsibility of a homeowner to construct the sidewalk; and the building permit and the CO process are the other two areas that oversee the construction of the sidewalk. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated what he has seen in subdivisions is that a builder will build 50 houses out of the 60 lots in the neighborhood, and sells eight of the remaining 10 lots; and eight of those people decide to build, but there are two that do not build.  He stated in that case, there would be a 70-foot lot with no sidewalk in front of it; sometimes in new subdivisions there is not an active homeowners association; and inquired how does a developer get that person who is not ready to build, to build a sidewalk across their empty lot.  Mr. Fleis advised if the Board is trying to set a timeframe for the sidewalk construction, that can be addressed through the homeowners association, or through the sale of the property to an individual, that there are certain requirements about a sidewalk to be constructed by a certain date so that it becomes their responsibility and not the developer’s responsibility to build that sidewalk.  He stated many developments are where the developer sells to a purchaser at the time they are ready to build; and that would proceed quickly going into the construction  phase.   He stated  at the last BCAC meeting it was suggested for new developments that at the 90 percent completion, that the lot owner be informed they would have to build a sidewalk, or readdress the timeframe to build their home and the sidewalk; but it could be something in the development that tries to exercise some control over uncompleted sidewalks, as compared to the developer going in and building the sidewalks.

 

Chairman Nelson stated the County Code says there should be sidewalks, and the County has a relationship with the developer, then the developer passes it onto the homebuilder, but the way it is right now, it is the developer’s bond; and if it is passed onto the homeowners associations, it will turn political because that community will come into a Commissioner’s office and say they cannot afford to do it and will want to know why the County did not make the developer build the sidewalk.  He stated he is not inclined to want to pass that along to a future Commissioner to deal with because he does not think that is a fair way for the Board to deal with the issue; if sidewalks are going to be required, then one issue he has is there can be entire subdivisions with not sidewalks; another issue is sidewalks in bad condition; and those are all things the Board has to deal with, particularly in older communities.  He stated he is okay with extending the time out so that it is brought to conclusion, but there has to be time when the Board says a sidewalk has to be in place because burying something in a contract stating a homeowner may never have a completed sidewalk system is not fair to the consumer; and consumers want to believe there will be sidewalks in their communities.

Commissioner Fisher inquired if there is a five-year timeline on it, would the County go in after five years and build a sidewalk because it has a bond.  Chairman Nelson stated with the Bond, the County could do that; and part of the problem is that the Board has never done it, it has just extended the bonds.  Mr. Fleis stated he thought the discussion was on the new construction; moving forward there would be a clear distinction between the developer responsibility of the infrastructure and the property owner who clearly becomes responsible to build a sidewalk; and with that, there is full knowledge that the sidewalk next door may not be built unless there is a property owner that is building on that sidewalk. 

 

Commissioner Bolin inquired if the responsibility is on the person who bought the lot, is it possible to place a time element in a deed of sale.  Ms. Sobrino advised staff is typically not privy to transfer of property until it gets recorded and brought to staffs attention; and it would be a difficult thing to be tracking the disposition of all of the lots as they get transferred to a new owner.  Commissioner Bolin inquired how the Board can keep control of something like that.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if it is disclosed to the homeowners at closing that they have to build a sidewalk in five years, whether they build or not, and have the owners put up the money in a bond-type format, could that be done.  Chairman Nelson stated he thinks that would be a nightmare for Planning staff because instead of tracking bonds for subdivisions, staff will be tracking bonds for individual lots.  Commissioner Fisher stated as part of the sale, when that lot is transferred, it is the developer’s responsibility, if not floating a bond, to have that bond replaced by the homeowners; and it does not matter if it is the developer or the homeowners who puts up the bond. 

 

Mr. Fleis stated a way to address that would be that at the time of a sale, a person puts up cash into   the   homeowners   association   that   is   set   aside for that sidewalk; a lot of  people  are concerned about their closing costs, but that is one way that it will be returned to them at the time the house is constructed; and perhaps something could be put together along that line.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she would like to see the sidewalks completed in a timeframe, whether it be three years or five years from when the project starts, but she does not want to get into micromanaging everyone’s lot and the enforcement thereof of every individual lot; if the ultimate responsibility lies with the developer, where the Board gives them the opportunity to collect from the homeowner, that extra $1,400, and set it aside, the bond is with the Board and the developer will hold the bond, so eventually the Board only comes to the developer at the end of five years when the project is started, and go back to enforcing the things the Board put in place.  She stated the Board has to stop giving extensions; the Board needs to be accountable for the decisions and rules it makes; and she would be in favor of putting some type of time certain like that.

 

Scott Knox, County Attorney, advised another option is to consider setting a completion certainty on the sidewalks; if 80 percent of the CO’s have been issued for a particular subdivision, then the sidewalk has to be complete, then that becomes the rule; and let the private sector decide if they want to do that, whether through a bond or cash.  He stated the County needs to be in a position based upon the experience not dealing with trying to monitor each lot to try to figure out who is doing what and when they are supposed to do it, as opposed to setting out the general parameters as to how it is done. 

 

Mel Scott, Assistant County Manager, stated the point that Commissioner Infantini just made would be Option 3 on Item VI.A., which is a two-year bond with a three-year extension, and it has to happen within five years.  Commissioner Fisher stated the only problem with that option is that the developer at some point in time is trying to move on, and there may be bonds outstanding because someone the developer sold a lot to is not ready to build.  He stated if that responsibility to passed onto the homeowner through a bond, then it accomplishes the same thing and allows the developer to move on and the County will deal with the homeowners when the time comes.  Mr. Fleis stated he thinks that provides a good solution; Option 4 was trying to get a very clear distinction between those sidewalks that are being built on common property and unplatted lots, which is the responsibility of the developer, versus the sidewalks on the platted lots, which are the responsibility of the owners, and the developer would not be responsible for having a bond for those sidewalks that are going to be the responsibility of the homeowners; and he believes it is a solution that would provide assurance with some kind of time certain to make sure those sidewalks are done. 

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if staff would like to look at the issue again.  Chairman Nelson stated the difficulty is that the Board’s relationship is with the developer; right now the rule is that the County will pull the bond at some point and finish the sidewalks; the problem is that staff, because of lack of Board direction, has been extending it; even if 50 percent of the lots were sold after six or seven years, then that sidewalk has to be has to be finished because the bond it not going to be tracked; there are ways to try to avoid that, but there is no line in the sand; and he does not want to give up the ability to have it completed because the further removed from it the Board gets, the harder it will be and the more political it becomes individually, to deal with.  He advised he would prefer to deal with a timeline, whether it’s five years or seven years.   

 

Mr. Fleis stated it is becoming difficult for developers to get bonds; it is a current problem; and to get a bond basically means the developer has to put up the cash someplace, whether it is a line of credit, or even if it is in a bond.  He stated the way the Policy is written right now is that even though that sidewalk becomes the responsibility of the homeowner to build, and it is part of the permit and CO process, it is like having another guarantee by the developer that it is going to get done; there are ways of dealing with it in the future; and he is not sure that what is being talked about here would not work with some time certain on it.

 

Commissioner Bolin stated she is personally not leaning towards the bonds; the CO would be sufficient; she is struggling with how to create a time element; and she would like staff to take into consideration the Board’s discussion, and bring back something that gives a feel for where the Board is at this point, as she does not feel comfortable passing any of the Options today.

 

Chairman Nelson stated staff will also take under advisement the comments from the speakers as well as from the Board. 

 

The Board directed staff to revise options for it to consider regarding Section 62-2844(a) Performance Security, as it relates to new sidewalk bonds and responsibility for the construction of sidewalks within new subdivisions. 

 

 

The Board directed staff to revise options for it to consider regarding the administration of Section 62-2844(a) Performance Study as it relates to existing sidewalk bonds in residential subdivisions. 

 

 

The Board recessed at 11:00 a.m. and reconvened at 11:16 a.m.

 

 

Chairman Nelson called for the public hearing to consider adoption of the 2009-1 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Package.

 

Robin Sobrino, Planning and Development Director, advised the Board is hearing the adoption of Comprehensive (Comp) Plan Amendment Package 2009-1; Comprehensive Plan regulations by the State require a two-step process for adopting large-scale Comprehensive Plan amendments; the first regulation is that the Board can only adopt large-scale Comprehensive Plan amendments twice per year; and today’s Item represents the culmination of six months worth of Comp Plan applications that have occurred.  She advised the second regulation is the transmittal process, which is when staff packages up all of the Comp Plan Amendments and an analysis of each request and brings them to the Local Planning Agency which conducts a public hearing on each of the Amendments and then makes recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners; and then the Board hears the transmittal package.  She noted the package has gone through transmittal and to the State after the Board approved it for transmittal; once the State receives it, it goes through the process where it is distributed to a number of reviewing agencies, and the State packages up comments, objections, and recommendations, which is called an ORC Report; the ORC Report is then returned to the County for staff to respond to the issues that may be raised during the agencies’ reviews; once that is completed, staff packages up the Amendment Package to go back to the Local Planning Agency for the adoption phase of the Comp Plan Amendment; and yesterday the Local Planning Agency conducted its adoption hearing for the package and recommended approval with a couple of modifications, which staff will share with the Board.  She stated today, it is back before the Board for an adoption hearing; and if the Board chooses to adopt any or all of the Amendments in the package, they will go forward to the State as being the decision of the local jurisdiction.

 

Chairman Nelson stated all of the Commissioners received an email earlier from someone regarding the number of meetings associated with the Item; the person questioned why the Board is amending the Comp Plan after 60 years of the existing use; and the question related to the East Merritt Island Small Area Study.  He noted all of the Small Area Studies had numerous meetings; sometimes, if someone just received the notice, he or she may think it just happened; but there has been a long and lengthy process to get to this stage today. 

 

 

            Amendment 2009-1.4

                          

Lang Houston stated he owns property near the land being considered in Amendment 2009-1.4; and he supports the amendment.

 

John Evans stated the subject property concerns the Country Club Apartments on SR 3; it is approximately a 19.2-acre tract, currently designated Residential 15, which would allow 288 units; after meeting with the Planning and Zoning Board and the Board of County Commissioners, his client has amended the request to request the most westerly 150 feet to be Neighborhood Commercial, which would be a buffer from the residential neighborhood to the west; and the balance would remain Community Commercial.  He submitted pictures of the project to the Board; stated the apartment complex is 46 years old; it is functionally obsolete; he has provided the Board with the criminal report on the complex, which includes 250 calls last year; the complex will be torn down in the future; there is no environmental issues, as there are no wetlands; and it is suitable for in-fill development.  He stated when and if the project is torn down, the best use needs to be determined; his client believes a commercial use would be better than a 288-unit apartment complex; it can be agreed that it would be some kind of government subsidized housing; and it would be better for the neighborhood to have a commercial project.  He noted the Planning and Zoning Board passed the recommendation 9:1; the last time the Board heard it, Commissioner Infantini had a question concerning the traffic and public infrastructure; he has hired traffic engineers required by the State; and he would like the Board to hear from the Engineer.

 

Rhonda Pieper-Schmitz stated she is with Motorist Design of Merritt Island; she was tasked with addressing the State’s issues with the potential traffic impact of the subject site; and she coordinated with the County to find out what its involvement would be.  She stated the study was done on the current accepted practices; she received a request back because the study did not include Tropical Trail in the original analysis; and she has copies of the Tropical Trail analysis that has since been added.   She stated the results of each of the roadway lengths that was studied, which was both directions on North Courtenay from Lucas Road, SR 520, North Tropical Trail, and Lucas Road; and she normally would not look at a minor street, but because it is next to the site, she looked at that.  She stated all the roadways show more than enough capacity to handle the existing traffic, the proposed traffic, and the site if it were built at maximum capacity, which is a 400,000 square-foot shopping center.  She stated when a site plan is proposed in the future, it is at that point the developer will have to do an FDOT driveway permit study, which will require the developer to analyze Courtenay Parkway, the adjacent intersection, and whatever the County requires, since it will be a County site plan; and at that point in time the more detailed specifics will be looked at as to how each intersection and driveway work. 

 

Mr. Evans stated Dan Barber, with Re/Max, is present as well; there were earlier questions about where the residents would go if the apartment complex is torn down; and Mr. Barber would testify there is plenty of alternate locations for the current residents.  He noted the traffic report was based on 400,000 square feet; when the property was previously under contract, it was for a 150,000 square-foot shopping center; and the maximum capacity is nowhere near being met. 

 

Chairman Nelson passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Bolin.

 

There being no further comments or objections, motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve Plan Amendment 2009-1.4, a proposal by CC Group LLC and Roth II, LLC, to amend the Future Land Use Map from Residential 15 to Community Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial for approximately 19.2 acres located north of Lucas Road and west of Courtenay Parkway, in Section 23, Township 24, Range 36 East.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Vice Chairman Bolin passed the gavel back to Chairman Nelson.

 

 

            Amendment 2009-1.1

 

There being no objection heard, motion was made by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve Plan Amendment 2009-1.1, a proposal by Brevard County to change the Future Land use Map from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial for approximately 1.6 acres west of US Highway 1, east of Turner Road, approximately 900 feet north of Tkacs Road, in Section 12, Township 26 South, Range 36 East.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

            Amendment 2009-1.2

 

There being no objection heard, motion was made by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to approve Plan Amendment 2009-1.2, a proposal initiated by Turnbull Farms, Ltd. to change the Future Land Use Map series designation from Residential 1 to Neighborhood Commercial for approximately 2.75 acres south of Flounder Creek Road, west of US Highway 1, in Section 2, Township 20G, Range 34 East.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

            Amendment 2009-1.3

 

There being no objection heard, motion was made by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve Plan Amendment 2009-1.3, a proposal by Mims Property Joint Venture Partners to amend the Future Land Use Map from Residential 1 to Residential 4 for approximately 84 acres located east of Tracy Court, and south of Irwin Avenue, in Section 5, Township 21 South, Range 35 East.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

            Amendment 2009-1.5

 

Chairman Nelson advised Plan Amendment 2009-1.5 has been withdrawn by the applicant.

 

 

            Amendment 2009-1.6

 

Robin Sobrino, Planning and Development Director, advised Natural Resources Management proposed a slight modification of Policy 5.18.

 

Ernie Brown, Natural Resources Management Director, stated Policy 5.18, which was recommended by DCA to be separated out from the glossary, currently reads, “By 2015 the County shall develop criteria to encourage the aggregation of private dock exemptions to avoid and minimize ecological impacts.”  He advised staff is requesting to remove the word “exemptions”, so it should read as follows, “By 2015 the County shall develop criteria to encourage the aggregation of exempt private docks to avoid and minimize ecological impacts.”

 

Chairman Nelson inquired if Mr. Brown could explain the difference between the two.  Mr. Brown replied it is a clerical clarification, but the docks need to be aggregated themselves, not the exemptions themselves.  Chairman Nelson inquired if there could be exemptions on multiple properties; with Mr. Brown responding there could be exempt docks on multiple properties.  Chairman Nelson stated instead of being able to aggregate multiple properties, Mr. Brown is talking about within a single property; and inquired if that is the impact of the change.  Mr. Brown advised the desired outcome is the same, it is just making sure the Board is not compiling exemptions, it is compiling docks themselves.  Chairman Nelson stated that would refer back to docks associated with a  specific  parcel  of  property  that  was  being  considered, versus taking multiple parcels of property and aggregating them, and in effect creating a larger setting, which is what the Board is not trying to accomplish. 

 

There being no further comments or objections, motion was made by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Infantini, to approve Plan Amendment 2009-1.6, a proposal by Merritt Island Development, LLC to amend the Coastal Management Element and Glossary regarding residential marinas.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

            Amendment 2009-1.7

 

Fred Jorge stated he is a general contractor with three homes currently under construction in the area of the proposed Plan Amendment; and he is in favor of the Plan Amendment. 

 

There being no further comments or objections, motion was made by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve Plan Amendment 2009-1.7, a proposal by Brevard County to amend the Future Land Use Map from Neighborhood Commercial and Residential 2 to Residential 4 on approximately 50 acres to reflect the densities permitted by the existing San Sebastian plat, located in Sections 14, 23, and 24, Township 30 South, Range 38 East.  Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Infantini voted nay.

 

 

            Amendment 2009-1.8

 

There being no objection heard, motion was made by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve Plan Amendment 2009-1.8, a proposal by Brevard County to amend the Future Land Use Map to implement the remainder of the Mims Small Area Study, on approximately 160 acres in northern Brevard County.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

            Amendment 2009-1.9

 

There being no objection heard, motion was made by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Chairman Nelson, to approve Plan Amendment 2009-1.9, a proposal by Brevard County to amend the Future Land Use Map to implement the recommendations of the North-North Tropical Trail Small Area Study on approximately 617 acres.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

            Amendment 2009-1.10

 

Robin Sobrino, Planning and Development Director, advised the Local Planning Agency recommends the property located at 2155 North Tropical Trail, rather than its recommended land use of Residential 1, instead be designated as Residential 4, as the adjacent neighbors to the west and north as designated; and staff is supportive of the request.

 

Chairman Nelson inquired of the nature of the issue on the request.  Ms. Sobrino replied when looking at the recommendations by the Study, for 2155 N. Tropical Trail, it appears to be just one lot that is designated as Residential 1, but traveling due west, all of the remaining properties would be designated Residential 4; and it did not seem to make sense that it was artificially held at Residential 1 when the other nearby properties similarly situated were being designated Residential 4.  She stated when staff went back to look at the basis for the recommendation by the Committee, it appears there was a subdivision line that was created, and the subject property was in a separate subdivision from its neighbors; but the development in the area does not seem to have any regard for that artificial subdivision line; and therefore, staff is recommending it should also be included in the Residential 4.

 

There being no further comments or objections, motion was made by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Chairman Nelson, to approve Plan Amendment 2009-1.10, a proposal by the Brevard County to amend the Future Land Use Map to implement the recommendations of the South-North Tropical Trail Small Area Study on approximately 329 acres, as recommended by the Local Planning Agency.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

            Amendment 2009-1.11

 

Karen Thime stated her property abuts the North Banana River Marina on the north end; and she would like to request the Board accept the Small Area Study as presented with the marina included.  She noted she has lived on Merritt Island for 50 years; it is a nice, quiet neighborhood that she and the neighbors do not want changed; and taking out the marina and changing it, would change the whole dynamic of the area. 

 

Craig Maytrott stated his concern is for the proposed Future Land Use Map and when it would come into play; he is concerned that if his house took substantial damage in terms of fire or hurricane, he would not be able to rebuild; his house is on a lot that is slightly over a sixth of an acre; and he is concerned about rebuilding if his house is damaged.

 

Ms. Sobrino stated the recommendations for the changes in residential density in the subject subdivisions would not affect the ability of any of the homeowners to rebuild on their platted lots; the residential density is right-sizing what the zoning already provides for in the area; and the subdivisions are entitled to recognition of that, so there is no problem if Mr. Maytrott’s home was destroyed.

 

Mr. Maytrott stated he does not understand what Ms. Sobrino is saying from the standpoint of is it a rezoning effort for property that is already built.  Ms. Sobrino advised staff is not rezoning, it is actually right-sizing the Future Land Use Map to be consistent with the zoning in the development pattern; and staff is making sure the density aligns with the zoning on the subdivisions, rather than it allowing for a higher density.  Mr. Maytrott inquired when the proposed Future Land Use Map comes into play.  Ms. Sobrino stated today is the adoption hearing for that action.  Mr. Maytrott inquired if that only applies to non-improved lots; with Ms. Sobrino responding no, it applies to any parcels which are identified on the maps as changing. 

 

Mr. Maytrott inquired if he or any of his neighbors’ houses were destroyed, would they be able to obtain a building permit; with Ms. Sobrino responding absolutely. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated generally, what was accomplished with the Study was to right-size and match up the existing patterns and zonings with the Comprehensive Plan; actually, the opposite could have occurred, and if everyone was knocked down and all the properties were then acquired by someone, they could have come in and argued that the Comp Plan would allow building at a higher density; and in effect, it is matching up the density from the Comp Plan with the zoning density to avoid later arguments about condominiums.

 

Antonio Rovira distributed advertisements that were done for the Study.  He stated he would like to ask the Board to please accept the East Merritt Island Small Area Study as it was returned from Tallahassee, with no changes; and the Board’s acceptance of the Study would be very much appreciated by the community.

 

Arlene Klein stated she recommends the Board adopt the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Package. 

 

Kathy Bird stated she would like to point out some letters that were submitted in the package presented to the Board regarding Banana River Marina/Pelican Bay, Mr. Gerr, and Mr. Zajdel; she would like to discuss Mr. Zajdel’s property, as it is an area north of the Study area; and if the Board respects the wishes of those three entities, it will put a stop to the entire process affecting the South Study Area, which the community needs closure on.  She stated Pelican Bay Acquisitions is asking that they be abated by the process because it has to do with the Working Waterfront Florida Statutes they claim the area has not met; but Natural Resources Management Director Ernie Brown has said the area has met the Florida Statutes of the Working Waterfront, and thus is the process of the CMP3 on the refining of it.  She stated there is also a claim that the Small Area Study did not address Pelican Bay’s unique parcel; the study group was looking at right-sizing the road use as well as the land use; it does not mean the group was looking at coastal elements, or was it looking at private property; and that is why the group did not address the bridge.   She stated regarding Mr. Gerr’s property, there has been some confusion in the past; she would like the Board to note Mr. Gerr used the word “zoning” in his request; stated Mr. Gerr wants the Board’s action to be a rezoning on his property; she would like the Board to explain to Mr. Gerr that what the Board is doing is a FLUM change; the action he is requesting to put five townhomes on .92 acres is another subject for another day; but the moment the Board sets precedence deep into the neighborhood, there will be some objections.  She stated Alan Zajdel’s request is to actually stop the process so he can be included in it; and the whole process was key to participation.  She stated she would like to explain the final results of the capacity study, as the results are not what everyone thought they would be; the capacity studies are only done on modern roads and they only capture intersections; when the study was done on South Banana River Drive, the final results were no longer 15,600, but is now 12,600; and what the capacity study results reveal is that there are 10,000 more cars available on the road, yet the Board can only look at expert testimony and facts.  She stated the Board has a long drawn out process presented to it as facts; she understands it is the Board’s pleasure to set the MAV values because what is unique about the entire  peninsula   is   that   it  is  on  a  barrier  island;  and  in  the  Comprehensive  Emergency Management Plan, it is the Board’s decision that holds it liable for the decisions of density they make on coastal barrier islands. 

 

She stated when the capacity study was done, engineers had to work with egress and ingress onto South Banana River Drive; therefore, they had to do the approximately four-mile length of Newfound Harbor Drive; when they looked at the capacity study for South Banana River Drive, they had to actually address Newfound Harbor Drive’s ingress and egress; and in doing so, their conclusion will show that Newfound Harbor Drive is at capacity MAV of 1,600.  She noted the engineer who did the study is saying Newfound Harbor Drive is at capacity, yet the conclusion, based on the capacity study process, shows that it is a pre-dated road with no sidewalks, no shoulders, non-breakaways, and is a sub-standard right-of-way; there are telephone poles that are at least eight inches off of asphalt; there is 16 feet worth of asphalt in some areas going up to about 24 or 26 feet in other areas that are a little bit more brought up to date; and there is a bridge that is a private bridge on a public right-of-way.  She stated the area needs to be captured in the County’s documents; and the Small Area Study was one of the only processes in which to do it. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated in terms of the request, Ms. Byrd is in concurrence with what the Plan calls for, for the marina site, in that it does not give any additional capacity for Banana River Marina; and so there are no changes there, although they have asked for something.  Ms. Byrd stated the request is a reduction in land use density to Residential 4 from Residential 15 with that particular site; the study group veered off on private talks in conversation with the parcel owner; in sticking with safety, that is how the Board makes its decision; and if the Board goes into the direction of what the private/public partnership is discussing, that would restrict the PUD discussion again.

 

Chris Scheetz stated he would like to address one parcel owner’s claim from the March 10, 2009 Board meeting, that they did not know of the Small Area Study; the letter the Board has in front of it was sent to the DCA following the transmittal of the Small Area Study; but Pelican Bay Development did have constructive knowledge that the Small Area Study was happening; the management of Banana River Marina acts as their agents; and they had to have known that the previous newspaper articles, as well as signs placed around the neighborhood, that it was happening.  He stated ironically, there were also community meetings hosted by Pelican Bay, which is where the topic came up; the Board also has verbatim testimony from April 6, 2006 of Jennifer Goins who stated she was hired by Pelican Bay to do a study on the vacant lots on the peninsula; and her study was prompted by the Small Area Study that was proposed in 2006.  He stated he would like to set the record straight on the issue because printing false accusations such as this is unprofessional and sheds dim light on the credibility of these owners; and he would like to request that the Board adopt the Small Area Study document without any changes.

 

Sharon Nelson stated she supports the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan.

 

Catherine Baldwin stated her property abuts the Banana River Marina; she would like the Board to adopt the package as it stands for the lowering of residential  density;  and  as  much  as  she would not mind a working marina behind her property, she feels the neighborhood should be right-sized. 

 

Chairman Nelson passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Bolin.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated the Small Area Study Committee did a great job under some difficult circumstances; and he supports what the facility has done and does not propose any changes to it. 

 

There being no further comments or objections, motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve Plan Amendment 2009-1.11, a proposal by Brevard County to amend the Future Land Use Map to implement the recommendations of the East Merritt Island Small Area Study on approximately 1,070 acres. 

 

 

Commissioners Fisher, Bolin, Anderson, and Infantini disclose that they met with Ms. Byrd and Mr. Scheetz. 

 

Vice Chairman Bolin called for a vote on the motion; Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

Vice Chairman Bolin passed the gavel to Chairman Nelson.

 

 

Chairman Nelson stated as the Board will recall, it received a letter from Federal Judge Presnell; Judge Presnell had expressed some concerns about the Board’s decision to create a position; and Judge Presnell’s concern was about if the Board would find someone within the salary range that it had proposed to accomplish the job as he envisions.  He stated the issue is related to the County’s jail overcrowding litigation; the Board is getting close to being able to resolve the issue and move on; the court system has made some significant improvements; the concern is that the Board may backslide; and the litigants are concerned that the Board shows a good faith effort to try to resolve it before they would be willing to drop the lawsuit.  He stated he would hate to see the Board paint itself into a corner on the issue because it is close to being solved; at stake is the fact that if the Board does not adequately address the issue and end up in a position where it has to expand the jail, that would be catastrophically large numbers; and the Board has not had a great deal of success in terms of going to the public for dollars to expand the jail.  He noted the Board does not have a representative that deals with the elected officials such as the Public Defender, State Attorney, and Sheriff on a toe-to-toe basis; as a Commissioner, he is not involved in it, although he was appointed to go to the meetings, but he is not involved on a day to day basis; and that is what it takes to keep the system moving along.  He stated his thought on the issue of the Jail Oversight Coordinator is that the original concept was a salary range of $60,000 to $80,000.

 

 

 

Shannon Wilson, Deputy County Attorney, advised the report by Judge Edelstein recommended a salary range of $75,000 to $95,000.  Chairman Nelson stated that would allow the Board to get someone who has been involved in the system; in all likelihood it would be an attorney or a retired judge or retired court administrator; and if the Board gets involved in it and it is not working, it can always go in a different direction.  He advised the downside is if the Board does not find that position up front, it may never know what it could have accomplished; and it would be harder to move forward later, than it is to back up at a later date, if the Board finds it is not necessary.

 

Commissioner Bolin stated she is yielding to the candidate’s experience as far as the pricing of the position; she was the one pushing for $60,000; but after further investigation and seeing all of the recommendations, she is willing to put some more dollars into it in order to get the correct person the first time around; and she is now leaning towards salaries of $80,000 to $85,000.

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if anyone has been interviewed for the position, and how does the Board know that salary would not attract a retiree who may be already earning a large salary.  Chairman Nelson stated there is no particular person in mind; the difficulty is that if the salary is set at a certain number, there is no way to ever know who would have been available; and that was his concern as well as Judge Presnell’s concern.  Commissioner Fisher stated he has concerns with the economy and the layoffs the Board has had to do; and inquired if there has been any input from the judges on whether they support the position.  Ms. Wilson stated she has not polled the judges; there are judges who have been involved in the process and are aware that the Board is moving forward with the recommendation; and she would be surprised if the judges would advocate one way or another given their positions and limitations from an ethics standpoint.  Chairman Nelson stated the Board has seen as much tweaking as it is going to see from the judges in the judicial system without additional effort on the Board’s part; the next steps are going to cost money, which is where the Board is really impacted; when it starts to cost to expand jails or build courtrooms at the jail, that is the next step; and the Board is trying to get the judicial system to accept there may be some additional opportunities to streamline the process.  He stated he would hate to see the Board not have the opportunity to have the special person just because of the salary, who might want to do it full-time.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated he would like to have some input from judges on whether the position is really important because one argument he has seen is the person has to have enough juice to stand head to head with the judges; those judges are independent elected officials who are going to listen to who they want to listen to; and he would like to know if the judges verbally agree on if the position is needed.  He stated his other concern is how does the Board know yet if it can get someone qualified if they are retired; some people want to stay home in retirement; and an extra $60,000 per year could make their day. 

 

Ms. Wilson stated in the criminal justice system, the entities that make up the system are inherently in conflict; there is the State Attorney who wishes to put people away; there is the Sheriff who takes the position that it is his job to keep people in custody; there is a Public Defender who takes the position that it is his job to zealously advocate for the defendants who represent, as do the criminal defense attorneys; and there is a Clerk who has an administrative obligation  throughout  that system.   She stated  there are many different  parties that have their own specific duties; while there are many times when they work well together, there are other times when there is no movement in getting them to work together; and since the County Attorney’s Office undertook the project, approximately two or three years ago, Sheriff Parker told her, reluctantly, that he felt he was going to have no option but to come to the Board for this fiscal year to staff and operate the fourth tent.  She stated through the mediation process, staff has managed, from last summer to this summer, to keep the jail population in the low 1,400’s; and she believes there is more to be done to reduce it further.  She noted the key is shortening the length of time for stays of inmates in the County jail; she believes there is more shrinking that can be done; and much of it can be done without the expenditure of a great deal of additional resources. 

 

Commissioner Anderson stated he is kind of disappointed with Jude Edelstein because it seems to him that Judge Edelstein went back to Judge Presnell and reported that the Board did not agree with his opinion, or his report, so Judge Presnell should send the Board a letter indicating it is a deal breaker.  He stated he believes the consultant should work for the Board; stated Judge Presnell’s letter recommended continuing the relationship, or the taxpayers of Brevard County continue paying for the consultant.  Ms. Wilson advised Judge Presnell made a recommendation that the Board continue to keep Judge Edelstein on at a reasonable dollar amount.  Commissioner Anderson stated from that standpoint, that is fine, but there is a Federal Judge interfering in local issues and telling the Board how much it is going to pay somebody; and from that principal standpoint he has issues.  He stated the other issue he has is what could occur if the Board goes down the road and Judge Presnell finds against the Board and does not want to settle, the Board can always appeal; the Board can always appeal and take the case to Atlanta, which is more conservative court, and probably win; and it does not mean the Board has to build a jail.  He stated the rumors that the Board has to build a jail if it upsets the judge is completely untrue; and the Board does not have to do anything, as it can appeal.  He stated he is a big believer in home rule; he knows of lawyers making $40,000 right now that are well qualified and have criminal justice experience that would be willing to take the position for $60,000; he wants to avoid the perception with the two judges, the consultant, and the acting judge, that there is some good ole’ boy thing going on and that they are trying to get one of their own in there; and so at this time he is not inclined to change his original opinion.

 

Chairman Nelson stated he was involved in talking to Judge Presnell, and he never had the impression that it was at all related to Judge Edelstein; he wants to make sure everyone understands what Judge Presnell’s role has been, which was as a volunteer to try to mediate the situation; and Judge Presnell is not the judge who is handling the case.  Commissioner Anderson stated the letter from Judge Presnell was pretty strongly worded; and he felt slightly insulted.  Chairman Nelson stated he would never want to go to Federal Court.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she was also insulted by the letter telling the Board it needs to hire someone with enough clout to talk to other judges; she does not know what it takes to talk to judges, as she thought citizens were allowed to talk to judges; she did not think one needed clout to talk to a judge; and she does not know what it takes to get clout.  She stated further, the Board had an Order signed in October 2004 by Judge James Perry; in that Order it directed the Board to have its Jail Oversight Coordinator work with the County; and it implied the Board already  had a  Jail Oversight Coordinator, which  was not presented to the Commission when it first started talking about having one because Judge Edelstein recommended it; and little did she know, with some research, the Board already has a Jail Oversight Coordinator.  She noted the job description of that Jail Oversight Coordinator basically mirrors the one recommended by Judge Edelstein, with the exception of asking somebody to look for grants; she knows someone who is working part-time at $8.00 per hour with a Bachelors Degree in International Affair, and they are doing grant writing and grant searching; and she does not think it takes someone earning $60,000 per year to look for grants.  She stated she also does not think the Board needs someone in this capacity, as there could be someone Countywide looking for grants for everybody within the County; she and her staff researched the statistics and Volusia County does not have things such as Pre-trial Release, and yet their statistics are the same as Brevard County’s with the incarceration rate between anywhere from 2.8 and 3.3 percent; in Volusia County, the judge either releases someone on their own recognizance, or a bond is set; and yet Volusia County has the same incarceration rate as Brevard County.  She stated she thinks the Board is creating an extra job; right now there is Marea Staples and she has been doing the job so well that she has gotten the jail overcrowding under control; stated she does not think there needs to be a new position; Ms. Staples earns approximately $52,000 per year; and she suggests the Board keep Ms. Staples on staff, although she understands Ms. Staples’ title is Special Projects Coordinator, but she works as a Jail Oversight Coordinator.  She stated she does not understand how the Board can be laying off 200 people, and yet it is supposed to hire someone because a judge told it to; and she was insulted Judge Edelstein was not present in front of the Board the other day, yet he took it upon himself to do a whole rebuttal to her objections about hiring for a new position.  She stated she will not approve the position period.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated the jail population is down, but if there is value in having a Jail Oversight Coordinator, then he would agree.  He inquired if the Board does have a Jail Oversight Coordinator, or if that is a misconception.  Ms. Wilson replied the Board has had that position since the early 1980’s; the title that Commissioner Infantini is referring to is a broad-based classification; the Special Projects Coordinator II falls under that broad-based job description; and that position existed four years ago when the jail population was beginning to rise.  She advised Ms. Staples provides a valuable service in terms of gathering information, disseminating information, and providing information to the folks at the Coordinating Council; but it is a different level of acting on that information; and the suggested position involves convincing people to do things differently. Commissioner Fisher inquired what Ms. Wilson means by that.  Ms. Wilson advised, for instance, at the beginning of the project, the County began to create lists of inmates who were in the jail for over two years without a trial; that was quite a large list, so staff began maintaining a list of the top 50 people; and through the process, by calling everyone’s attention to it, those lists have been whittled down.  She stated judges who have average case loads in excess of 500, have now dropped to 300; the State Attorney’s Office has added additional resources to the Early Resolution Program that has ended up in resolving close to 35 to 40 percent of cases, just by beginning to roll out additional information and statistics; one problem is that when people are sentenced, giving them access to programs that can test them for the kind of treatment they need for drug or alcohol, at times there has been a waiting list of four to six months, so more resources and grants are needed for that; but it has not been done up until now.  She stated if the Jail Oversight Coordinator was able and had the time to do that, it would have been done by now; there are providers in the community who are willing   to   partner   with   the   County   and  do  some  of  those  things,  but  it  just  needs coordination.  She stated she realizes it is a very difficult thing to ask the Board to do; and it is not easy to ask.

 

Commissioner Bolin stated she believes at a previous meeting the Board voted to establish the position, so that has already been voted upon; and what the Board is determining today is whether or not it is going to put another $20,000 into the salary to get the type of person needed.  Commissioner Fisher stated he apologizes for not being present at the previous meeting when the Board had the discussion on the position.

 

Chairman Nelson stated the reality is that based on what happens, the Board may be successful at $60,000 or it may fail; if the Board has to continue litigation it is going to cost the Board the difference between the two parties; and going to Federal Court in Atlanta is not inexpensive.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if the Board does not know if anyone will take the position for $60,000; and inquired if the position has been advertised.  Chairman Nelson advised he can only reflect on the conversations he has had with Judge Presnell and Judge Edelstein, and he thinks their concern was that the Board will not get someone who has the clout, or ability, to deal in a basis of respect with those elected officials; and he knows Marea does a great job, but the job the Board is asking for is not the job she is doing.  Commissioner Infantini stated yes, it is, as Ms. Staples is the Jail Oversight Coordinator, and she has done such a great job that the jail population decreased from about 1,900 to 1,400.  Chairman Nelson noted the jail population decline did not occur until Judge Presnell became involved and rounded up the elected officials in Orlando.  Commissioner Infantini stated she was looking into the meeting for the Jail Oversight Committee, which Chairman Nelson serves on, and when her staff asked for copies of the minutes, they were told minutes are not taken at the meetings; and maybe the Board needs to start with a Jail Oversight Committee that actually meets and takes minutes.  She stated she is not willing to go to her taxpayers and tell them she would like to fire two people from the County in order to hire someone to do the job that is already being done. Chairman Nelson stated he is not going to go to her taxpayers and tell them that because of $20,000 the County is going to be in a lawsuit that is going to cost more than that; and if the County loses the lawsuit, the outcome will cost millions.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated it appears the Board voted 3:1 at the last meeting to fill the position of Jail Oversight Coordinator; and he would like to have a conversation with the judges, but in the meanwhile, he would like to move in the direction to look for an opportunity to hire someone for what was formerly approved. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve proceeding with the hiring process of the Jail Oversight Coordinator Position, as previously approved by the Board.  Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Infantini voted nay.

 

 

Chairman Nelson stated the request is a similar circumstance to the one the Board saw at the last    meeting;   there   is   a   flag  stem  policy  related  to  trying  to  minimize  these  types  of developments because there is no criteria for things such as access and things typically seen in a subdivision; and he is going to recommend approval, but staff has to get a small subdivision process because it would address many of the concerns causing the Board to grant waivers.

 

Chairman Nelson passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Bolin.

 

Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve appeal of the administrative decision to deny a waiver to the requirement of Section 62-102(B)(2)(8), to allow access by easement across a flag lot on 3.92 acres, where a minimum of five acres is required.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Vice Chairman Bolin passed the gavel to Chairman Nelson.

 

 

 

David Bogenrief stated his client is requesting to stop spending money on something that is not going to solve anything.  He advised the site plan required a six-foot buffer between BU-2 zoning and Agricultural zoning; the required wall runs along the east portion of ATM property; presently, the back of buildings and barrier fences already exist; and that is the crux of the argument.  He stated Mr. O’Leary bought the property from Dixon Electric, and he applied for a change of use; many County departments had to sign-off on the change of use, and everything was satisfied; he was in business for six months when he got a complaint about the noise from the owners to the north; and a 10-foot block wall was built to alleviate the issue, which it did.  He stated after the wall was built, Code Enforcement cited Mr. O’Leary for outdoor use in BU-2 zoning, and that he had close his operation; therefore, he had to go through the site plan process involving landscaping and a new septic system; and one remaining comment on that site plan review was that a wall is required on the north side as well, next to a presently owned landscaping business.  He stated Mr. O’Leary has spent a lot of money to bring himself into compliance; and the wall would be a big expense that does not accomplish anything.

 

Chairman Nelson inquired if Mr. O’Leary would agree not to do any activity in that buffer.  Mr. Bogenrief stated his client will agree to that condition. 

 

Chairman Nelson passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Bolin.

 

Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve a waiver to Code Section 62-3204(g)(4)(g) of the Land Development regulation that requires construction of a six-foot high masonry or solid wall along the east property line which abuts residentially zoned property, as requested by ATM Recycling; and direct the applicant to block the windows of the business, not utilize the buffer area for materials handling, and stipulated that any change of use in the area would have to come back to the Board for approval.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

Vice Chairman Bolin passed the gavel to Chairman Nelson.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve the allocation of $865,000 for affordable housing programs for The Greater Heights, LLC, Homes for Independence, Inc., and the Titusville Housing Authority; and authorize the Chairman to execute subsequent contracts, contingent upon the approval of Risk Management and the County Attorney.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  (See page                                               for Agreement.

 

 

Chris Gardner, Condev Homes, stated Condev Homes is the applicant of the Cottages at Meadow Ridge, which is an application seeking down payment assistance and closing cost assistance in the amount of $150,000; the application is broken down by area median income; Condev Homes has worked closely with staff and the Affordable Housing Council to find the largest lead in the market place; and he is present to answer any questions for the Board.

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Chairman Nelson, to approve the allocation of $780,000 for affordable housing programs for Condev Homes of Brevard, LLC, and River Bend Pineapple Partners, LLC; and authorize the Chairman to execute subsequent contracts, contingent upon the approval of Risk Management and the County Attorney.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Stockton Whitten, Interim County Manager, advised the current contract with Southern Strategies expires October 31, 2009; the Board has two renewal options; and the request is for the Board to consider either renewal of the existing contract or the issuance of an RFP (Request for Proposals.)

 

Commissioner Bolin the relationship the Board has with the current lobbyists, when there was a specific person employed there, it enjoyed tremendously; and now that that gentleman has moved on, she would recommend the Board go out for an RFP.

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve issuance of an RFP (Request for Proposals) for State Lobbyist Services by August 1, 2009 in order to complete selection process and contract by October 31, 2009.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated he agrees with an RFP, but he would also like to get a measuring tool on what kind of return on investment the Board had with lobbyists; but the Board can do that at a later time.  Chairman Nelson stated he has no issues with the existing group, but he will support the RFP.

 

 

 

Stockton Whitten, Interim County Manager, advised the Contract with Wexler Walker expires October 31, 2009 with two renewal options; the item is consideration of the renewal of that Contract or the issuance of an RFP; and the Eddy Pauley Contract is extended until May 31, 2010 and it expires with no renewal options.

 

Commissioner Anderson stated there are several firms that can do both State and Federal lobbying for less money; and inquired if firms would submit two different RFP’s, which the Board would take into consideration in negotiations.  Mr. Whitten stated he was envisioning two RFP’s but based on Board direction, staff can gear the RFP’s that way.  Commissioner Anderson stated if there is a firm that does both, how does the Board approach that during the award process; and inquired if the Board would go back and negotiate as two separate RFP’s and combine them into one.  Mr. Whitten stated the Board can do two RFP’s and ask if the firms have the capacity to do Federal Lobbying in the one contract, or vice versa.  Commissioner Anderson stated that is what he would prefer to see if the Board can save some money.

 

Commissioner Bolin stated she is questioning whether or not the Board would need Federal Lobbyist specialized in Space; stated she has had some reservations about the Wexler and Walker Company; and she is not comfortable with whether or not the Board has a Space specialty.  She stated instead of having someone on full-time retainer, perhaps the Board should have a special item that when something comes up that the Board needs special assistance with, that it could do it on an as needed basis versus a retainer.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she concurs with Commissioner Anderson regarding combining the RFP’s so that someone can bid on both; and inquired if the Board is locked into the $160,000 and $180,000, or can the firms come back and tell the Board how much they are willing to do the job for, rather than offering the $180,000 up front, as she is not certain what the Board is receiving for that money.  Mr. Whitten advised staff would issue an RFP not solely based on price, and so staff would give the firms the pricing that is being looked at within the RFP.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if the Board will also give them the services it wants to.  Mr. Whitten stated he would have to bring that back to the Board and give it an opportunity to look at that and look at the RFP and approve the structure of the RFP.  He stated in the Board’s package is the Palm Bay example for the State lobbyists, but he could not find one for the Federal or the Space related lobbying, so staff will have to come up with an RFP to present to the Board for approval.  Commissioner Fisher stated he thinks in the lobbyist world there are some people who specialize in Federal lobbying with D.C. connections, and there are the State connections; and he is not sure there is one firm that is good at both.  He stated he does not know what kind of value the Board has gotten out of the Wexler Walker firm as far as the return on the investment, but if the Board goes with Wexler Walker, he would like to see some kind of understanding of what they have been able to bring to Brevard County, and if that return is a lot higher than the $180,000 expense the Board is paying; and he is not saying they have not done a good job, but he has not seen a report card. 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated she is talking about the Space lobbyist, which is different than what the other Commissioners are talking about with combining the RFP; she likes the idea of having a lobbyist who is separate from Tallahassee, so the Board gets bigger bang for its bucks; through the EDC the Board had three people who were working diligently on behalf of Brevard County  to do  Space  issues;  and  then there  was the  Federal lobbyist  who was doing  Space issues.  She stated the Board has lost one member of the EDC because he was able to secure a very fine position elsewhere; instead of having a Federal Space Lobbyist, which she has dealt with since installed, she is not feeling she got her biggest bang from them; there are a lot of factors involved because there was a change over of the administration, there was a change over in the NASA Administration; but she would prefer to take the money and use it through having the EDC use it with specialty issues on Space.

 

Chairman Nelson stated early on it was very dynamic as to what was occurring in Washington, D.C. related to Space; the benefit at that time was there because it gave the Board an insider look at the issues; on several occasions, Bob Walker was involved in some Workshops; but what has happened is now there is a lull with changing administrators and dealing with what the new NASA will look like; and he is not sure the Board knows what the lobbyists are needed for at this time.  He stated he does not know that right now the Board needs someone associated with Space, as the Board may decide at a later date based on what it sees happening, that it might be appropriate to have someone in that role, but right now he is not sure.  He stated the other Federal Contract is the Eddy Pauley Contract, which is different than what the Board is talking about, and it is good through 2010 anyway.  He stated there would be no action necessary at this time.

 

Commissioner Bolin stated she has learned a lot of Space information through Eddy Pauley, as he is very good at corresponding and keeping the Board abreast of everything; and she has been very pleased with Mr. Pauley’s service. 

 

Commissioner Anderson inquired if the Board is going to let the Wexler Walker Contract run out on October 31, 2009, and RFP the State Contract.  Chairman Nelson replied affirmatively.

 

The Board took no action in considering options for Federal Lobbying Services.

 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated if the Board is in agreement that it does not want to continue with Wexler Walker, there is a clause in the Contract to give the firm notice and not pay them until October.  Mr. Whitten advised the Board has a 60-day notice to terminate for convenience, or to just let it lapse.  Chairman Nelson stated there are some things the Board can do in terms of coming up to speed and create a starting point; and that would be his preference instead of going through a termination.  Mr. Whitten stated he will have to give the firm a notice that the Board is not intending on renewing the contract.  Commissioner Fisher stated because special projects might come up and it would be fair if staff could go ahead and budget something for lobbying efforts.  Chairman Nelson inquired if the $180,000 is already in the budget.  Mr. Whitten responded yes, but he cut the contingency, so he will have to build it back up. 

 

 

The Board recessed from 12:55 p.m. and reconvened at 1:10 p.m.

 

 

James Teele stated he represents the City of Melbourne and Brevard County homeowners and businesses in the Upper Eau Gallie River Basin; the basin is bordered to the north by Parkway Drive, to the east by Wickham Road, to the west by Turtlemound Road, and south by Aurora Road; and at last count the area represents over 1,040 homeowners.  He stated over the past five or six years he has voiced concerns about the stormwater drainage in and around the Kingsmill Subdivision and the Upper Eau Gallie River Basin with both the representatives of the City of Melbourne and Brevard County; both the City and County work crews have been very cooperative during storm events; recently, on May 20^th, work crews corrected drainage problems during a multi-day storm event; but homeowners in this area have paid the price when the storm waters have receded.  He stated during and after Tropical Storm Fay the area was visited by newscasters from local and national affiliates, including various newspapers; nationally, everyone was aware of the situation; he contacted numerous Kingsmill homeowners as to their property damage after Tropical Storm Fay; and he will read the Board some of the results, which he has characterized in six different items.  He stated one homeowner had water intrusion in the garage all the way up to drywall repair and other problems; out of those that were contacted and replied back, there are items ranging from a $67,000 in damage to $5,000 to another $67,000, to $10,000, and most of these from $17,000 on up and down from those figures; and the most expensive one that he has on record was one homeowner that had over $40,000 damage to his house.  He stated he has been actively pursuing to have the County maintained drainage system corrected; his last meeting before the Board was in October 2005, when, again, nothing was corrected; recently he had a meeting with the Brevard County Public Works Department and several County Commissioners to review and better understand the aforementioned major items; and studies have been done, but more need to be done.  He stated tentative correction plans have been laid out and he is advocating a working team with implementation of a viable action plan to address each of the items he will be addressing between the City and the County. 

 

He stated the entire Upper Eau Gallie River Basin has been plagued by flood damage and evacuations for a number of years; it is clearly understood that the poorly functioning drainage systems are not in the City of Melbourne; and he is encouraging the City and County work out a plan that will include a timeline to correct three areas.  He stated the first area he would like to address is the Kingsmill stormwater drainage into the Upper Eau Gallie River Basin; the water drains south from this location and turns right and flows east; and that is where the Eau Gallie River physically begins.  He stated several culverts impede the high volume of runoff water downstream; and the drainage system should be engineered to accommodate the runoff that occurs in the area.  He stated in meetings with County staff, he was told everything east of Turtlemound Road has been modeled by different companies than everything to the west; and the County needs to do another modeling of all the area into one model, so it can change the outflow. 

 

He stated he would like to address the drainage from Park Place, along Parkway Drive, into the Kingsmill area; that particular subdivision was platted July 23, 1982, which was before the St. Johns River Water Management District was created by the State; therefore, it does not follow any of the rules the Water Management District would impose on any current subdivisions; and so that would fall back to the County.    He stated during moderate to heavy storm events, runoff from Park Place drains into the backyards, and at times, into and through the homes of the Kingsmill homeowners living on the north side of Rain Street; several homes in Park Place have existing berms to help route runoff water into the County ditch that runs along the south side of Parkway Drive; but during recent years several of these berms have been removed by Park Place homeowners, which has changed the runoff water into the Kingsmill property owners private lots.  He stated the third area he would like to discuss is the Lake Washington Road north side drainage ditch encroachment into the Kingsmill Monarch Street, east of the Kingsmill entrance; when Kingsmill was platted, the County drainage ditch was straighter and not as wide as it is currently; over the years this section has slowly progressed to a roadway to several homeowners’ backyards; a recent survey indicates there are two homeowners losing a large portion of their backyards into the drainage ditch; and in some areas that is over 14 and one half feet.  He stated some backyards have been reduced to less than 22 feet to the top of the bank, making it harder to erect privacy fences along property lines; in those cases, the property line is in the middle of the County-maintained ditch; and when the County maintains the ditch, they will set up equipment on the bike path to reach out to do any cleaning where the two waters meet. He stated it was prior to October 2005 when he met with Commissioner Carlson and the others with the Brevard County Roadway and Landscaping Department, with Billy Osborne as Director;  the problem at that time had existed for more than 20 years; on January 28, 2005 he had a meeting with Duwayne Lundgren who represented Commissioner Carlson; and at the conclusion of the meeting Mr. Lundgren showed a great deal of concern and referred to the gross encroachment of the drainage ditch as a liable problem the County may have to contend with at some time.  He stated he is asking the County to work with the City and to be involved with the engineering department to work collectively to come up with a solution and to come up with a timeline that those solutions can be implemented; and he understands the first thing that would have to occur is the modeling east of Turtlemound Road.

 

Commissioner Bolin stated she has spent time with Mr. Teele working on the project, and she has also met with the City of Melbourne.  She stated there is progress going on regarding solving the issues

 

Ernie Brown, Natural Resources Management Director, stated he has had a lot of conversations about the status of the drainage problems; it is the Upper Eau Gallie Basin as well as the Sarno Basin study area; in approximately 2002 several studies were performed to delineate what improvements were needed; the City of Melbourne was involved in that process; and that came to conclusion with recommendations being made.  He stated after Tropical Storm Fay, it was clear that those models needed to be further refined because of the inter-connectivity of some of the crossovers; staff wanted to make sure that what was being proposed would not create a problem for somebody else downstream.  He stated the remodeling and combining has already been started; he expects to have that information by Fall, no later than November.  He noted the northern portion of the area is in District 4, the southern portion is in District 5; Commissioner Anderson is the receiving member of the waters; and staff has an express interest in ensuring that Commissioner Anderson’s citizens are dually protected from any unforeseen impacts.  He stated a great deal of improvements have already happened; staff is hoping to be under construction of these portions by Spring 2010; and there is a probability that the County will have to  purchase  more land to build a pond,  based  on  permitting.   He stated as for the  Park Place subdivision and the Kingsmill subdivision drainage issues, the subdivsions were designed and permitted prior to a lot of today’s standards; one item of particular interest is the assurance of maintaining historical drainage flow; the historical drainage in the area flows from north to south; staff is working with the City of Melbourne to work out some solutions because there are unincorporated and incorporated subdivisions that need a solution; and there is a high probability that the Upper Eau Gallie Drainage Basin improvements will serve to mitigate some of those problems by themselves. 

 

John Denninghoff, Public Works Director, advised for Item 3 of Mr. Teele’s Agenda Report, staff provided the Board with four options to be aware of; when the subdivision was constructed the ditch on Lake Washington was there; the ditches have a tendency to move around a little bit depending on a variety of things such as vegetation; there are approximately two lots that are more severely affected than other lots; but he would like to point out that it is a stable circumstance right now; and there is good vegetation growing along the ditch, and it is not actively eroding.  He stated staff has concerns that if any corrective action is taken to get the ditch out of those two lots that vegetation will be disturbed and possibly cause an erosion problem that would be difficult to regain control of; the ditch was always inside the subdivision boundary line; and the only way to completely get the ditch out of there is to pipe the system.  He stated because the project is located inside the City limits of Melbourne, MSTU funds are not eligible to be utilized for the project, so it would have to come out of the General Fund. 

 

Mr. Teele inquired if the modeling will also show the drainage system on Parkway Drive.  Mr. Brown replied the modeling system incorporates the entire Upper Eau Gallie Basin, which is part of that as well.  He stated with the increased traffic on Lake Washington Road, there are homeowners that cannot put up a fence on or near their property line because of the ditch encroachment; and they would like to put up a fence, but not in the middle of their yard.

 

Jenni Lamb, City of Melbourne, stated there was a very positive meeting between the City and the County regarding the issue; she believes there will be a great coordination effort between the two, as the City is on board with the County’s plans; and as was discussed, the City will help out where possible and try to get the project moving, along with potential cost sharing.

 

The Board took no action regarding the citizen request by James P. Teele regarding Kingsmill stormwater drainage, flooding drainage from Park Place, and Lake Washington Road North side drainage ditch. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Infantini, to confirm the appointment of Larry L. Collins as the new Brevard County Fire Rescue Department Director. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 RESOLUTION, RE:  PARKWAY SIGNAGE

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to adopt a Resolution addressing the status of the Parkway signage.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Stockton Whitten, Interim County Manager, stated the request is for issuance of an RFP (Request for Proposals) for internal auditing services; and the request is also to have the Internal Auditing Committee serve as the Selection and Negotiating Committee.  He noted the current Contract expires in September; and staff is trying to get the request to the Board in time to have it approve the RFP, which is ready to be issued.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she would like to have some discussion as to whether or not the Board should continue going forward with having outside external/internal auditors; stated when she was an auditor for the Clerk of Courts and did internal auditing of the County, although it was a different type of auditing because it was more specific, this is more procedural type of auditing; and an auditor does not have to be a CPA to do procedural types of auditing, as a CPA is only needed when doing financial audits.  She stated when she looked at some of the fees, they ranged from $65 to $200 per hour; the Clerks auditors with CPA’s and a Masters Degree only earned $31 per hour; and even if that is doubled because of benefits and encompassed hours, rather than an invoice for $51,000, it would be $13,000.  She inquired at this time, does the Board need to be hiring external/internal auditors; and inquired why the Board does not use some of the County staff that has been laid off, because one does not have to be a CPA to be an auditor.  She stated she knows the Board has approximately 30 to 40 accountants on the payroll that have a job description as an accountant, so the Board can use some of the staff that is being laid off to fill in as internal auditors and have them be provided oversight by the Audit Committee. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Infantini, to not issue an RFP for Internal Auditing Services, and instead let the Contract lapse.  Motion died for lack of a second.

 

 

Commissioner Anderson inquired if internal auditing services are mandated by the State.  Commissioner Infantini stated no, it is not; Florida Statute Section 218.391 states local governments are required to hire external auditors to do a financial audit; however, the County can elect to hire an additional firm to review and advise for procedures; and so it is not something that is mandated. 

 

Mr. Whitten stated it is certainly a value-added function; he would say the current firm’s audits go well beyond procedural audits; the firm can explain how they do the risk assessment; staff views it as something much more than procedural audits; and he would ask that the firm be allowed to come forward and present what they think is the value that they add.

 

Commissioner Bolin stated it is very hard for someone to do an audit who is part of the staff, because it is undue pressure that can be put on a person; and she likes the idea of remaining with an outside firm.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated when talking about undue pressure, the Parks and Recreation audit was actually completed by October, but because of one reason or another, the audit was not released until January; at times, even external firms can have undue pressure; most internal auditors work for an organization, which is a separate arm called an Audit Committee; and she would encourage the Board to not spend $200 per hour for a service it can receive for $31 per hour and keep current staff employed. 

 

Commissioner Bolin inquired if Commissioner Infantini is talking about forming another department within the Board of County Commissioners.  Commissioner Infantini replied yes, they would answer to the Audit Committee; and rather than pay someone $100 per hour, the Audit Committee would be paying $31 per hour plus benefits.  She stated she thinks there would be a huge cost savings because when she did the analysis, instead of a $51,000 invoice, which comes with benefits, the Board would be looking at an invoice of $13,000; and she is trying to save as much money and jobs as she can.  Commissioner Bolin inquired if the new department would be under the Budget Office.  Commissioner Infantini replied no, it would be under the Audit Committee, which currently provides oversight to the auditors.

 

Mr. Whitten stated he has not seen an outside Audit Committee made up of volunteers supervising staff; he has seen audit functions under the Board and the Clerk; and he has seen them contracted out, but he has never seen a group of volunteers actually supervise staff.  He stated the Board would have the issue of who provides the day-to-day oversight of those staff members.  Commissioner Bolin stated she does not think it is appropriate to have County staff supervised by volunteers.  Commissioner Infantini stated that is actually what takes place in any large corporation; and the audit committees are formed almost exclusively by volunteers. Commissioner Bolin stated she feels the Board should go out for an RFP in order to get the best price.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated he would like to have an understanding of what the audit does; he is considering the auditors a third set of eyes looking in on the organization and if things are being done in the proper manner, and making recommendations that he hopes saves the Board money while keeping it out of trouble at the same time.  Mr. Whitten advised it is the independence that is established by having the outsider’s look; it is the second and third set of eyes; it is A-political; and after over 30 audits there is a certain level of efficiency that has been gained by having the outsiders come in, as they have proven they can do it quicker than was done previously.  He stated the biggest bang for the buck is the value added by the recommendations, which are sometimes cost saving in nature and compliance, but not solely based on compliance; the current firm has done I.T. audits, and other audits that cover the gamut of value-added services; and for staff, the biggest bang for the buck is the independence and the second set of eyes. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated if he was on the board of directors of an outside organization, one of things that should be done is an outside audit to audit the organization and certifying that things are being done in the proper way.  Commissioner Infantini stated Commissioner Fisher is talking about financial audits, and the Board will still do that; the Board is still required to have financial audits, but the procedural audits are entirely separate; and financial audits require a CPA firm that knows how to  audit  governments.   Commissioner Fisher stated he  understands that, but there is a reason why someone is paid $100 per hour, as usually there is more expertise; and he is not sure that just anybody can do what they do.

 

Chairman Nelson stated there would be five audits versus one as Commissioner Infantini suggested; with the auditors put on staff, there would be 434 hours worth of work; and if they are not auditing anything, they are being paid regardless.  Commissioner Infantini stated for $51,000 the Board can employ one full-time person; and she did many audits for Clerk of Courts Scott Ellis.  Chairman Nelson stated he has seen Commissioners and Constitutional Officers use audits for political-based purposes that have nothing to do with risk assessment; and the Parks and Recreation audit was nothing more than that, as it was a political audit.  Commissioner Infantini stated no, it was an act in showing how money was being spent.  Chairman Nelson stated the Parks and Recreation Referendum was an issue in his campaign; it was on the ballot the same time he was; and it actually passed by a greater margin in that District than in any other Districts, so apparently the citizens understood it.  He inquired why the Board would take something this critical and turn it into internal service; and if it is going to get value for its money, the way to do it is have a contractor to do the work. 

 

Mr. Whitten advised the report the Board is referring to was written on January 23, 2001 and deals with the basic issue with regards to the report is the timeliness of the reports; staff discussed the independence associated with going to an outside firm, but largely the issue was if the reports could be done quicker, and if it could go beyond just compliance reporting; what the matrix showed was that there was a significant lag between the actual audit dates and when the final report was issued; and it was averaging well over a year in regards to how the audits were coming to the Board back then. 

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired what the previous Board decided.  Mr. Whitten stated the previous Board decided to contract out the auditing function.  Commissioner Anderson stated having a third party to do it is fine, but if the Board is going out for an RFP, he will support that, but the firms will have to sharpen their pencils; and he cannot justify to his constituents spending $65 per hour for an administrative assistant. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to authorize the issuance of a Request for Proposals for Internal Auditing Services; and authorize the Internal Audit Committee as the Selection and Negotiating Committee.  Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Infantini voted nay.

 

 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she would like to discuss one of the items that is going to be brought to the Board by the Citizens Budget Review Committee; the Board needs to get a handle on how much it costs to run a community center; some things are being put into play that the Board does not have funding for; and there are such reduced hours for the existing community centers, that she is concerned about building new ones.  She stated rather than building new community centers, she would like to put a hold on those; she would like to stop the projects before they go out to bid and just have the projects that are lower maintenance go forward; but the community centers cost so much to air condition and staff, that she would rather not go forward on them. 

 

Interim County Manager Stockton Whitten stated staff has given the Board a status report on the South Area Community Center; and at the Board’s Workshop on Thursday Parks and Recreation Director Don Lusk can discuss it with the Board.  Commissioner Infantini stated that would be fine with her.  Commissioner Anderson stated he would like the West Melbourne City Council to be invited to the Workshop. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated while listening to the Citizens Budget Review Committee is important, he also thinks it is important that this was a voter approved item, and he does not know how that can be ignored; additionally, it is about putting people to work at a time when jobs are important;  and if it is not built now, what will the cost be when it is finally built.  Commissioner Infantini stated the Board should not build something it does not have the money to run.

 

Commissioner Anderson stated community centers take a lot of employees to run, which is full-time because the centers are open to the public; but he thinks it is something the Board should look at; the residents are going to have to determine if they want their regular millage to raise to support the operations; and he does not think they want that either. 

 

The Board tabled discussion of community centers to the July 23, 2009 Board of County Commissioners meeting.  

 

 

                            

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 2:18 p.m.

 

 

 

ATTEST:                                                                     ___________________________________

                                                                                    CHUCK NELSON, CHAIRMAN

                                                                                    BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

                                                                                    BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

_____________________

SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

      

          (S E A L)