MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

January 25, 2005

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard, Florida, met in regular session on January 25, 2005, at 9:00 a.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairman Ron Pritchard, D.P.A., Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Helen Voltz, Susan Carlson, and Jackie Colon, Interim County Manager Peggy Busacca, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

The Invocation was given by Assistant Pastor Joel Wells, First Pentecostal Church UPC, Titusville, Florida.

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

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the Minutes of July 15, and September 21, 2004 Special Meetings, and October 12, 2004 Regular Meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Interim County Manager Peggy Busacca stated staff has requested Item VI.A, Agreement with Wuesthoff Memorial Hospital, Inc. for Maintaining Lighted Sign on Mast Arm at Intersection of U.S. 192 and Wickham Road, and Item VII.E.1, Citizens Request to Discuss the South Tropical Trail and Banana River Aquatic Preserve, be deleted from the Agenda.

Interim County Manager Peggy Busacca stated the City of Palm Bay has formally requested that the Board meet with it at a joint meeting on March 1, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.; it has been cleared with all of the Commissioners? calendars; and she is requesting formal approval. She stated the City of Palm Bay has requested the meeting take place in Palm Bay.

Chairman Pritchard inquired if the meeting can be at Viera. Ms. Busacca responded the City of Palm Bay believes because it is a City issue that meeting in Palm Bay gives it more opportunity to have its citizens attend.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve a joint meeting with the Palm Bay City Council on March 1, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. at DeGroodt Library in Palm Bay to discuss conflict resolution for amendment of the EMS Ordinance, and related issues. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated the Board granted vested rights to Courtney Roberts; and subsequent to that action, an individual filed suit against the County and Mr. Roberts trying to seek the revocation of a building permit on the grounds that it was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He advised Judge Moxley has considered that issue, has ruled in favor of Brevard County, and has upheld the Board?s decision.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Clarence Rowe and Michael Fitzgerald have something to present to the Board this morning. He advised it is always good to see Mr. Rowe; and over the years he has been a courageous spokesman. Chairman Pritchard advised it is good to see Mr. Rowe back before the Board; and he misses him at Office Depot. He stated all of the times he went there Mr. Rowe was either coming in or going out.

Michael Fitzgerald stated in 1993 he and Clarence Rowe lobbied the Board to get the new Courthouse named after Harry T. and Harriette V. Moore; and the rest is history. He stated in 1994 they partnered with the Brevard Cultural Alliance, particularly Kay Burk, and got a commission done for a sculpture that hangs in the Courthouse; it is called "The Courage to Challenge"; and it is of Mr. and Mrs. Moore adjusting the scales of justice. He advised it was a collaboration between the Board and the private sector; and it stands proudly in the Courthouse today. He stated today he and Mr. Rowe are before the Board to present a picture of Mr. and Mrs. Moore; and hopes it will hang in the Courthouse. He advised it was a collaboration done all with private funds; they are here to thank the Board; and they thank it for all the assistance throughout the years in helping make the Justice Center what it is today. He stated a lot of people did not realize why some wanted the Courthouse named after Harry T. and Harriette V. Moore; in the 145-year history of Brevard County there was never a sitting African American judge on the bench; since that time there are two African Americans on the bench; and justice is better served.

Commissioner Scarborough stated one of the more challenging questions he was ever given was in the naming of the Courthouse, did he feel it was inconsistent to name it after two people who were murdered, and the murderers were never brought to justice. He advised justice is an objective to be achieved; it is never completely achieved; and having it named after Mr. and Mrs. Moore challenges people every day. He stated a person needs to work, use intellect, and good conscious to achieve justice.

Commissioner Colon stated on the weekend people were celebrating Dr. Martin Luther King at the King Center; and there was a wonderful video of living legends. She stated it gave a bit of history and what it went through; and she would like to encourage Space Coast Government Television to air it so people in the community can see the history of Brevard County.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Planner Steve Swanke advised him that he heard from Department of Community Affairs (DCA) regarding the Cocoa annexation; and the report finds the Cocoa plan in compliance. He stated he and Chairman Pritchard met with the community; and the Cocoa City Council has unanimously taken action.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize the Chairman to fax a letter to the Secretary of Department of Community Affairs reiterating the Board?s concerns with the City of Cocoa?s annexation. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated if the Board is going to try to do something about it in the context of a legal proceeding, there is only a window of 30 days to do that. He advised if the Notice of Intent is coming down shortly, the Board only has 30 days to file something.

Commissioner Colon stated the County is constantly challenging the municipalities; DCA would say there is no reason for it not to go forward; the Board should be proactive; and it is difficult when the Board and municipalities are at odds at one particular subject, and then try to work closely on another. She inquired what cases the Board has won over the DCA; it seems to take all of the cities to court; and DCA comes back and says the applications are fine. Attorney Knox responded the only City that has gone to any kind of a proceeding in front of DCA was Palm Bay, and that came back in favor of Palm Bay. He advised the other cases that were filed have been settled with reductions in density or accommodations by the City; and the Board protested other ones. Chairman Pritchard stated the City Council of Cocoa was split 3-2, with the Mayor and Councilman for that District voting in opposition; it is a question of density and the zoning the City is applying for; and the neighborhood in its quest for compatibility is saying four units to the acre should not be built when a neighborhood is one unit per two acres. He stated there is a valid concern with the issue of compatibility and what is being planned by the City; transportation issues that will be created along Friday Road and James Road will be a concern; and at the homeowner?s meeting it came up that the neighborhood was interested in a County referendum. Attorney Knox stated it came up in the context in what the County could do, if anything, about the issue of annexation; since Brevard County is a Charter County, the Board can initiate Charter amendments that would govern the methodology and procedure for conducting annexations in the County; and there is a possibility to have a procedure requiring a

referendum involving people who are affected by the annexation, even though they are not included in the annexation. He advised under Florida Law, people who live in an area immediately abutting property being annexed, even though impacted, have no standing to do anything about it; and the Charter does provide the Board a mechanism to do something for those folks. Chairman Pritchard inquired if the issue of referendum would only be for those people who would be potentially affected by the annexation. Attorney Knox responded it could be structured in a number of ways; and it could include those people affected by the annexation, people inside the City, people inside the area that is being annexed, or a lot of different permutations. Chairman Pritchard advised the concern the area and the Board have is the municipalities have a duty to the citizenry that it does not overburden the infrastructure by the increase in density; the City is discussing putting over a thousand homes on the south side of SR 528, and that is about 700 homes too many; the City cannot just annex an area and say it will do whatever it wants to with that area without regard for the compatibility with the neighborhoods; and people moved into those areas so they could have a one or two-acre plot. He stated a person does not want to have four units per acre sitting next to them; the Board needs to send a message to the cities that the task force is a great idea, but the cities need to slow down in terms of annexation; when the increase in density is detrimental to the neighborhood, a hard look needs to be given to that; and the Board may want to host a referendum for the affected parties in the annexation and to send a message to the cities that it is not right. He advised the affect is being felt Countywide.

Commissioner Colon stated it is not an issue that is unique to Cocoa; it is happening in South Brevard also; the municipality had attorneys who wanted to play let?s make a deal; and if the Board did not approve the kind of zoning they had, the municipality next to it would approve four thousand units more. She inquired at what point does the Board sit down with any municipality and explain it expects the same as it expects from the community, and it should protect the integrity of the community that abuts it. She stated she spoke to the neighboring municipality and it said the other municipality is trying to play her because they are not ready for that kind of development; she has quarterly meetings with the city managers in her District; and she would encourage each Commissioner to sit down with their city managers.

Commissioner Scarborough stated zoning is unique; and the Board has been able to work through some of the annexations quite well. He stated when he and Chairman Pritchard attended the meeting in Cocoa there must have been over one thousand people in the church. He stated when the first meeting was held on this item, the meeting room was so small most of the people could not get into the meeting; there was no broadcasting outside; and there were people there who needed to be heard. He stated sometimes there is an environment where there is an absence of letting a person talk at all; it begins with the methodology the cities use in the annexation and allowing the people to speak; and each one will be different and
have its own dynamics. He advised there is something wrong when people are denied the opportunity to participate; and he does not think there is any way the Board can avoid being called upon.

Commissioner Voltz stated she needs information from the County Attorney since it happened before she came into office; and for her to vote on this subject would not be appropriate.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize legal proceedings, if necessary, regarding the Cocoa annexation. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Voltz voted nay.

Chairman Pritchard inquired if the County Attorney will bring back a report to the Board at the next meeting with a potential cost for holding a referendum for the affected parties. He stated it is important the Board send a message; and the message would be clearer if the cities realized the affected parties are in opposition. He inquired when is the next Board meeting; with Ms. Busacca responding February 8, 2005. Commissioner Carlson inquired if it should be placed under New Business on the Agenda. Chairman Pritchard responded it is a good idea.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to direct the County Attorney to provide a report to the Board on February 8, 2005 and schedule it as an agenda item under New Business concerning the potential cost for holding a referendum for affected parties in the annexation. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Carlson stated she has a copy of a letter from the City of Rockledge, and there is an annexation issue between the City of Rockledge and City of Cocoa. She advised the Board needs to weigh in on it in terms of conversation with both entities because there is a Joint Planning Agreement between the City of Rockledge and the County; the parcel being annexed is in question of going to the City of Cocoa; the City of Rockledge would prefer it stay in their City; and it is a call by the owner of the property and not by the City. She noted the City of Rockledge requires a lesser density than what the applicant wants; the applicant wants to annex to the City of Cocoa because it will be allowed; she would like a report from staff regarding the issue; and the City of Cocoa was going to make a decision on January 11, 2005. She stated she would like to see if staff can get together with both parties; and the reason she is bringing it up is because the County has a Joint Participation Agreement with the City of Rockledge.

School Board Member Janice Kershaw stated VSA, formally known as Very Special Arts, is there to serve people with disabilities in the arts; and the purpose is to create learning opportunities in the arts for people with disabilities. She stated there are four focus areas, education, professional development, cultural access, and outreach; the aim is to help people

with disabilities to become more successful in the communities through the arts; and
she wants to highlight two activities they have been involved with recently. She stated under the direction of Lou Ann Weeks, and with some private funding from the Boeing Company, they were able to team ten adults with disabilities with ten non-disabled students who worked together over the summer to create a mosaic mural that is now permanently displayed on the Sherwood pool building in Melbourne; if the Board has not been by there she encourages it to take a look; and it is a beautiful undersea, fantasy mural that took all summer and through the hurricanes to complete. She stated not only did the experience provide a community-inclusion experience for the adults, it taught both the adults and students more about art, gave the students an experience in being more sensitive towards individuals with special needs, and the community benefited by having a beautiful piece of artwork that can be enjoyed by all. She stated another program is Start with the Arts; it is focused more on education; it is an early-childhood program that promotes literacy, school readiness, and inclusion for young children; and there are a couple of activities involved in the program. Ms. Kershaw stated first there is a training session being offered to not only teachers, but people who deal with childcare, and even some of the students who are studying to be teachers; that will be held on February 5, 2005 at the School Board building; anyone who is interested can contact her at the Brevard Achievement Center in Rockledge to sign up for that; and it is a free training being offered. She advised in conjunction with Start with the Arts training, a public program will begin called Start with the Arts Family Fun Nights beginning February 17, 2005 being held at the Space Coast Early Intervention Center; it will be a two-hour evening of fun enjoying activities for the arts; people can register for that program by calling the Space Coast Early Intervention Center or they can call her at 321-632-8610 for more information; and they are probably best known for the hands-on festival that is being held every year; it will be the 17^th year; and that festival will be April 13-15, 2005 at Brevard Zoo; the festival was a great success last year; and she encourages the Board to stop by, and will send an invitation to each member when it gets closer. She stated there are so many community volunteers that participate year-after-year; and thanked the Board for its support of arts and culture, and for helping bring opportunities to Brevard County.

Commissioner Carlson stated her daughter is disabled and her family has been a part of the VSA Festival for the past nine years; and it has improved every single year.

Commissioner Colon stated there have been some questions regarding the EMS Impact Fees, and the fact that they were not collected in municipalities; there is a municipality that may take the County to some sort of litigation because of it; the municipality has hired attorneys; and the Board should stay on top of the issue. She stated there is a controversy if each Board member is allowed to choose a representative for the community at large or if it has to be someone from a Commissioner?s actual District for the EMS Advisory Board; Dr. Rios is her appointment but

he does not live in District 5.; that is not the only Advisory Board there is an issue with; and the Board should not operate that way. She stated she would like to get some feedback from
County Attorney Scott Knox regarding her suggestion of hiring attorneys to protect the County?s interest. She stated she would like a report from Ms. Busacca regarding why the impact fees were not collected in the municipalities; and quick action needs to be taken on both issues she has raised.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised he has met the two attorneys representing the City of Palm Bay; one is an antitrust attorney and the other is a former city attorney from Ft. Lauderdale; he is of the opinion that Palm Bay does not have much of a case based on what those attorneys are representing to the County; and he has no objection to hiring an outside counsel to assist his office. He stated his office is good at litigation; it has not lost many cases in the eleven years he has been with Brevard County; getting someone not familiar with what is going on with the Ordinance, how it operates, and what the structure is behind it would be a big mistake; and his office has successfully defended three antitrust cases in the past. He noted the City of Palm Bay does not have a basis for an antitrust case in his opinion; he has no objection to hiring consultants as needed; if the City of Palm Bay wants to sue the County to enforce the impact fees, he will be happy to counterclaim against the cities who have not been collecting them; and it is a Countywide impact fee that should be collected by the cities, as well as the County on a Countywide basis. He stated the County does not have the ability to go into the City of Palm Bay or anywhere else and make those people pay impact fees as a condition of paying their permits or Certificate of Occupancy; the City of Palm Bay has that authority; and if the City has not been collecting the impact fees and wants to bring a suit against the County, he will counterclaim for the $1.8 million that is owed the County.

Commissioner Colon stated the City of Palm Bay brought it to the County?s attention that it has not been collecting impact fees; she does not know who is to blame; when the discussion began, she thought elected officials did not realize a library impact fee needs to be paid by every citizen in the County because everyone utilizes the libraries; and the Board needed to get to the bottom of it. She noted the citizens in the unincorporated areas are paying the full tab; and that should not be the case.

Attorney Knox stated Commissioner Colon began her comments by saying the County was threatened with a lawsuit; and if the municipalities are going to do that it is the position the County will take; in terms of resolving the issue without litigation, in the past when those things have been passed on a Countywide basis the County has entered into interlocal agreements with the cities; and the cities collect those impact fees. He noted the fee is then remitted to the County for the purposes for which it may use it, such as libraries, EMS, or whatever it may be; some of the cities do not have those agreements with the County; he is not sure some of the cities want to enter into those agreements; and it has typically been done in the past on other things like transportation impact fees.

Commissioner Colon inquired if it means that the County will not collect from every city that did not send a resolution supporting the impact fees of homes. She stated it has opened a can of worms that must be opened so everything can be straightened out; and she thought when she voted to approve an impact fee, such as libraries, that everyone is part of it. Commissioner Voltz stated she lives in the City of West Melbourne; and it has collected impact fees for libraries and other things, and hopefully turned them over to the County.

Commissioner Scarborough stated it sounds like Commissioner Colon would like a report on the uniformity of the impact fees; some of the impact fees the County and the cities have are different ones; and a good report of how it all breaks down would be appropriate.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to direct staff to provide a report of the uniformity of impact fees with the cities and the County.

Chairman Pritchard advised the Towns of Malabar and Palm Shores were receiving police protection for 20+ years; he does not think they ever paid for it; the County finally recognized that and took appropriate action; and it is an interesting lawsuit to sue the County to make sure it collects the money the City owes it. Commissioner Colon stated she did not say the City of Palm Bay was suing the County for that reason, but to take the County to litigation for the EMS issue.

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

City of Satellite Beach Councilman Dominick Montanaro thanked the Board for its support of the Mid-Reach beach sand dune issue at its January 11, 2005 and January 13, 2005 meetings and for allocating the $900,000 from General Funds that it approved at the January 13, 2005 meeting. He stated both Cities of Satellite Beach and Indian Harbour Beach support the requested action as recommended by staff and to make amendments or modifications to the contracts as necessary to effect a successful completion of the project. He stated the City would also like the Board to consider the Hightower Beach area; the City has a Joint Agreement with Brevard County, and is in the process of looking at putting a walkway across that area; and he would appreciate the County look at the area one-half mile to the north and south of that area to protect the public land for the residents. He stated on behalf of himself, the Mayor, the Council, and staff, he wants to thank the Board for its action on the issue.

Chairman Pritchard stated he asked Joyce Grant of the Pay or Appear Program to come to the meeting today; she made a powerful presentation before the Brevard Delegation; and the issue is one the Board needs to take appropriate action on.

Joyce Grant with the Pay or Appear Program stated she appreciates the continued funding from the County; and thanked the agencies she works with. She stated she met with the Brevard Delegation on January 5, 2005 requesting it lobby its support; and she is present to lobby the support of the Board. She stated several of the Board members were on board when the Resolution was adopted in 1996 recognizing there was a problem with child support issues in the County; that is how her position came to be; and that is what gives her the credentials to speak to the Board with a certain level of expertise. She stated the truth about child support enforcement is that it is a fraud; it affects the very people it should be helping; the children and families; and the taxpayers are subsidizing child support enforcement. She noted she likes to call it child support entitlement; in 1997 she spoke to the Board and brought citizens from the community forward; the Board acted and she was put in her position; and since then she has learned much about the law. She stated she knows why it does not work, but other people do too; people in the system know it is failing; several months ago they decided to take some of the chronic offenders, which they call frequent flyers; and they looked at their records compared to what they are doing in child support court. Ms. Grant stated she made a list of 19 people, and cross referenced the cases into the public record; she has with her a case of one of those gentleman; his name is Mr. Hampton; and he had 109 filings and is 43 years old. She stated he has three child support orders; four children are subject to those orders; and they are minimum wage orders. She advised the orders are from 1990, 1994, and 1999; to date Mr. Hampton owes over $75,000 to those families; he has paid a little more than $5,000; and the Department of Revenue has invested over $2,000 in costs and fees to collect the $5,000 from Mr. Hampton. She inquired what is the true cost of Mr. Hampton?s crimes on the taxpayers of the State of Florida; stated she estimates he is a million dollar man; he has been in the system 109 times and was picked up a couple of weeks ago for not paying child support; and he told her he cannot work because he cannot drive. She noted there is a 2004 driving offense on Mr. Hampton?s record and a record of aggravated child abuse by willful torture. She stated when she was before the Delegation on January 5, 2005, Senator Posey inquired what about abuse on children; and he indicated that people get punished more for abusing an animal than they do for the business with child support enforcement. Ms. Granted stated the real matter needs to be addressed; the laws in Florida for this business are civil; civil laws have no teeth; and the laws need to be changed. She stated there does not need to be any more entitlement programs; Mr. Hampton spoke with her and said he grew up in an intact family with one brother and one sister; his father passed away in 1992; and his father was a policeman. She stated government cannot continue to propitiate this fraud on the taxpayers; if it is not made a criminal offense to hold people like Mr. Hampton to a higher standard, it will only get worse; she does not recognize the new names coming through the system today; and she finds it scary. She advised several

years ago a criminal statute was passed; everyone was excited about it; and it turned out to be a joke. She stated to her knowledge not one person in the State of Florida has been prosecuted on that law; it is too complex; the public records are there to look at; the data is supported. She noted she wants to stop the business of the cycle of child support entitlement; people accountable; and there are huge budgets coming from the State for Pre-K Plus and children?s programs. She stated Brevard County is in a great place to send a message to Tallahassee; she has met with several representatives and Commissioners; and there is a lot of support behind the issue.

Chairman Pritchard inquired what did the Delegation decide to do about this. Ms. Grant responded last week she spoke to Representative Thad Altman; last year he submitted a workforce development bill targeting non-custodial parents; and it did not go through. She advised Representative Altman was going to resubmit the bill this year; if it is not an enforceable program she would be opposed to it they had workforce in the court system; and she instrumented a program directing individuals to workforce development. She stated concerning Commission on Responsible Fatherhood, there was a grant that came into Brevard County for two years where there were one-on-one counselors; a counselor was assigned to the offender; the offender was supposed to report to the counselor; and the counselor would assist the person by driving him or her around to get clothes and interviews. She advised 5 to 10% of the people participated; the number of people that stayed in jobs was probably less than that; the system has been allowing this type of behavior for years; and there are loopholes that a Mack truck could drive through.

Commissioner Scarborough stated this is not just a County problem, it is a State problem as well; and if there are State organizations the Board could further become involved with and support. Ms. Grant responded she also met with Representative Ralph Poppell; his Legislative Assistant is redrafting some statutory language; and it is a positive step from her point of view. She stated government knows the issue is a huge problem; there has been a lot of opposition and mixed emotions because many people tie moral issues and social issues into this business; and there is a lot of smoke. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if there are people beyond the Brevard County Delegation that the Board can support; stated if there is no network that it can move into that would be beneficial it becomes difficult; if there is any way to move some dialogue with a Statewide organization who is able to work with other delegations, it may be an approach the Board can work through because it has its contacts through the Association of Counties; and the Board does not need to tell Representatives Altman or Poppell what to do. He stated what the Board may be able to do is go to other commissioners, raise the issue, and have them go to their delegations within their counties. Ms. Grant stated the delegates, Commissioners, and other county commissioners would know more about what organizations and people are in touch with the issues.

Chairman Pritchard stated frequently the Board gets letters from other counties asking it to support their issue. He inquired what if the Board wrote every county and explained the

problem, and see if there is other support in how to address the problem. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is a good idea.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to authorize the Chairman to send letters to the chairs of every county in Florida advising of child support enforcement problems and how to address them, and requesting the counties speak to their respective delegations. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Pritchard stated particular wording is needed to draft the letter; and requested Ms. Grant work with the County Manager in drafting the letter.

Commissioner Voltz stated she understands there is a lobbying group out of Tallahassee that is working on a bill to address the issue; and if Ms. Grant calls her office they will give her the particulars.

Commissioner Scarborough read aloud a resolution commending David Morse for achieving the rank of Eagle Scout.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt Resolution commending David Morse for achieving the rank of Eagle Scout, and offering him congratulations and best wishes for a successful future. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Scarborough presented the Resolution to Mr. Morse.

Commissioner Voltz read aloud a resolution proclaiming Brevard County School Crossing Guard Appreciation Week.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution proclaiming February 7 through 11, 2005 as Brevard County School Crossing Guard Appreciation Week, and expressing appreciation to school crossing guards for their dedicated service. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Pritchard stated it is a pleasure when he drives by his favorite crossing guard on Merritt Island; he is the gentleman who is eighty something years old; and he is always smiling and waving. He stated the service and friendliness is appreciated by all.

A representative of the crossing guards stated the crossing guards appreciate the support given by the Board over the years. He stated the program has been in existence since 1993; and there has not been one child hurt at any of the crossings. He stated he contributes that to the dedication and professionalism of the lead workers, as well as the other crossing guards; and because of the Board?s support and vision to provide safety for the children.

Commissioner Voltz prsented the Resolution to the Representative.

Chairman Pritchard read aloud a resolution encouraging the Florida Cabinet to reject the request for a change in status of the Whitley Bay Marina.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution encouraging the Florida Cabinet to reject the request for a change in status of the Whitley Bay Marina from public to private use. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Pritchard stated he will present the Resolution to the Governor?s Cabinet in February 2005; and requested permission to attend the Florida Cabinet meeting.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to authorize the Chairman to attend the Florida Cabinet meeting on February 16, 2005. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Pritchard stated Item IV.C.6 was requested to be pulled by Michael Syme.

Chairman Pritchard advised the people who represent the telecommunications towers need to be in Marathon later this afternoon; the time certain at 10:00 a.m. is going to take longer than

one hour; the telecommunications towers item is a 11:00 a.m. time certain; and requested the Board?s indulgance to take a break from the 10:00 a.m. time certain, go to the 11:00 a.m. time certain, since it will not be a lengthy discussion, and then go back t the 10:00 a.m. time certain.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant final plat approval for Summer Lakes Subdivision, Phase III, subject to minor changes, if necessary, receipt of all documents required for recording, and developer obtaining appropriate jurisdictional permits; and execute Subdivision Infrastructure Contract with The Viera Company for the project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant final plat approval for Capron Ridge, Phase IV, subject to minor changes, if necessary, receipt of all documents required for recording, and developer obtaining appropriate jurisdictional permits; and execute Tri-Party Escrow Agreement with Capron Ridge, LLC and Colonial Bank for the project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant final engineering approval for Viera West Basin WB-VI, subject to minor engineering changes as applicable, and developer responsible for obtaining all required jurisdictional permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant final engineering and preliminary plat approvals for Capron Ridge Subdivision, Phase 5 (St. Patrick?s PUD), subject to minor engineering changes if necessary, and developer responsible for obtaining all jurisdictional permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant final engineering and preliminary plat approvals for Palm Breeze Townhomes, subject to minor engineering changes if necessary, and developer responsible for obtaining all required jurisdictional permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant preliminary plat approval for Trafford Corners, subject to revocation if construction permit or final plat approval is not obtained within twelve months, and developer responsible for obtaining all required jurisdictional permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Contract Modification Agreement with The Viera Company guaranteeing infrastructure improvements for Auburn Lakes, Phase 4. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Extension Agreement with Viera Boulevard Joint Venture, Inc. guaranteeing improvements in Viera Boulevard Commerce Park. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Unpaved Road Agreement with Seth and Deborah Slater for a building permit off an existing right-of-way known as Hideaway Lane. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Binding Development Plan Agreement with Esther Teitelbaum, as Trustee for property located on the east side of U.S. 1, south of Canaveral Groves Boulevard. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Binding Development Plan Agreement with Intracoastal Group, Inc., Charles D. Crisafulli, and Beverly Crisafulli for property located on the south side of Chase Hammock Road, east of Winding Way. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Binding Development Plan Agreement with C. Steven and Debra K. Douglas for property located on the south side of Micco Road, west of Fleming Grant Road. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Binding Development Plan Agreement with Fedd Investment Corporation for property located on the south side of Valkaria Road, west of U.S. 1. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Binding Development Plan Agreement with Viera Boulevard Joint Venture, Inc. for property located approximately 700 feet south of Viera Boulevard, 930 feet west of U.S. 1. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant permission to utilize written quotations to acquire construction materials on a job-by-job basis; and authorize the County Manager or designee to award the quotes to the lowest responsive vendors through September 30, 2005 for materials on annual bid that contracted vendors are not able to provide during that time period. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant permission to utilize the Continuing Consultant Contract with Bussen-Mayer Engineering Group, Inc. and issue a Work Order for the firm to provide surveying for right-of-way acquisition, engineering, and permitting services for the Merritt Avenue Improvement Project, from SR 3 to North Tropical Trail, at a cost of $45,500 from MIRA fund. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant permission to bid replacement bulldozer, and award bid to lowest qualified and responsive bidder, and approve a Budget Change Request for the purchase. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Agreement with Brevard Alzheimer?s Foundation, Inc. for $140,000 to assist with construction of a North Brevard

Alzheimer?s Daycare Facility; and authorize the Chairman to execute future amendments contingent upon the approval of the County Attorney and Risk Management. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the 2005 Holiday Schedule for the Library System as outlined on the Agenda Report. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Interlocal Agreement with City of Cocoa for $150,000 from the Parks and Recreation Central Area Mainland Service Sector Budget for development and construction of pavilion/restroom/concession facilities at Provost Park. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Sovereignty Submerged Lands Lease with the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida, amending Lease #050010544 to reflect a change in ownership from Richard King Mellon Foundation, Inc. to the County, reduction in size of the dock, creation of a new boundary for the Lease, and changing the use of the dock from aquaculture operations to recreation. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve preparation of a Memorandum of Understanding with Fair Office, Inc.; and authorize Parks and Recreation

Director or designee to execute a Facility Use Permit and the Memorandum of Understanding for use of Wickham Park Main Pavilion area for a Jumbalaya Jam event from February 14 to 24, 2005. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize Space Coast Area Transit (SCAT) and the County?s Federal Lobbyist to seek Congressional Earmarks for bus replacements and funding for a replacement bus terminal in the amount of $4,500,000 in the Federal FY 2006 budget or under the new Surface Transportation Authorization Act. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant permission to advertise for bids for acquisition of up to 22 replacement vanpool vehicles and up to 10 expansion vanpool vehicles, and to award bids to the lowest qualified and responsive bidder(s) for Space Coast Area Transit for FY 2005. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to award Proposal #P-2-05-05, Landscape Maintenance for SR 520 Corridor (from I-95 east to Cocoa City limits) to Commercial Mowers, Inc. at $38,200 annually; and authorize the Chairman to execute the associated Contracts with Commercial Mowers, Inc. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution amending the Economic Development Tax Abatement Program guidelines as recommended by the Economic Development Commission of Florida?s Space Coast. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute the First Amendment to Investment Advisory Agreement with PFM Asset Management LLC, extending the Agreement through January 8, 2008 with all provisions remaining in force and fee rates to remain at the current percentage throughout the term. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize staff to use the previously approved Job Order Contract to complete additional repairs to Space Coast
Stadium damaged by Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne, with the exception of the sports lighting; waive formal bidding requirements; and authorize staff to obtain quotes for the sports lighting, award it to the lowest qualified responsive bidder, and the Chairman to execute the Contract. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize safety hazard pay for non-IAFF Fire Rescue employees who are assigned as fleet personnel for Brevard County Fire Rescue. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize the Sheriff to apply for and accept an Edward C. Byrne Grant of $42,862 from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, to be matched by $14,288, for a total grant of $57,150 to purchase nine replacement Intoxilyzer machines and printers. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to appoint Amy Tidd to the Citizen Budget Review Committee, with term expiring December 31, 2005; William Keyser

to the Contractors Licensing Board, with term expiring December 31, 2005; Grayling "Shawn"
Harris to the Community Development Block Grant Advisory Board, with term expiring December 31, 2006; Susan Stehman, PHR to the Personnel Council, with term expiring December 31, 2005; Paul A. Saia to the Planning and Zoning Board, with term expiring December 31, 2005; Roger Boatman to the Spaceport Commerce Park Authority, with term expiring December 31, 2005; and Charles Nash to the Valkaria Airport Advisory Board, with term expiring December 31, 2005; and to reappoint Heie Simonsen to the Marine Advisory Council, with term expiring December 31, 2005; and Bill Baer to the Valkaria Airport Advisory Board, with term expiring December 31, 2005. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the Bills as presented. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

HOUSING AUTHORITY, RE: PLACEMENT OF SATELLITE RADIO RECEIVER

Chairman Pritchard advised the only speaker for this item is Michael Syme; and inquired if he supports the item. Brevard County Housing Authority Representative Michael Syme responded he is in favor of the item.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Site Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding with Melbourne Housing Authority for placement of a satellite radio receiver at the Ramshur Towers facility at 1279 Houston Street, Melbourne. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Pritchard stated he has quite a few cards; he is sure everyone would like to speak; and if in the interest of brevity a person agrees with the previous speaker and would like to state if he or she agrees that would be okay.

Commissioner Carlson stated it might be good if someone could give some background so the speakers may be more pointed about their remarks.

Interim County Manager Peggy Busacca stated the item was brought forward at the request of Commissioner Voltz who asked that it be put on a meeting in January to be discussed.

Commissioner Voltz stated she wants to wait to make her comments until she hears from the speakers.

Commissioner Colon stated there was a 10:00 a.m. citizen request; the Board may want to hear what those people have to say; and it does not want to take action before hearing from those folks. Chairman Pritchard stated no action can be taken until this item is addressed. Commissioner Colon stated on Item VII.A.4 there cannot be any action taken because there are folks who would not had an opportunity to speak. Chairman Pritchard stated their request to speak later in the Agenda was made cognizant with Item VII.A.4. Commissioner Colon inquired if it will be heard at the same time; with Chairman Pritchard responding that would be fine. Commissioner Scarborough stated there are two requests from citizens for
actions that the Board can take; Commissioner Voltz brought an item up for discussion; and there is nothing for the Board to vote on. He stated one is a discussion and the two citizen requests are actually action items; and it is a blended conversation. Chairman Pritchard stated the two citizen requests, Items VII.E.2 and VII.E.3, are to be released from the impact fee. Commissioner Carlson stated those are the requests. Chairman Pritchard stated that is why it needs to be tied into the discussion even though the discussion under impact fee today would have to come back for public hearing should the Board take that action; he will give the people an opportunity to speak, but he has no cards on those items; and Item VII.A.4, Discussion of Educational Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance, Item VII.E.2, Citizen Request ? Laschober Construction, Board Intent Regarding Educational Facilities Impact Fees and Third Party Contracts, and Item VII.E.3, Citizen Request ? Thomas Harper, Waiver of Educational Impact Fee, will be heard under this item. He advised the first speaker is Jack Wiles, followed by Larry Hughes, and then Amy Tidd.

Jack Wiles stated he would like to recommend that the impact fee is not changed for the educational facilities; it is a case of pay me now or pay me later; and if it is postponed paying later is extremely expensive. He stated when Suntree was being developed he was a County engineer for the water and sewer systems to the County; the developer at that time rejected a master plan that would be a lift station; the Commissioner of that District convinced him that not many houses would be sold if they went to the master system he gave them but instead did it piecemeal; now instead of having three lift stations as his master plan called for, there are over 20; and the expense is now greater by far because of inflation. He stated the same reasoning would apply today; and suggested the County keep the same impact fee it has now.

School Board Chairman Larry Hughes stated he is speaking to the Board as a citizen and resident of Brevard County for 49 years; he considered the consultant report the Board commissioned and paid for, and irrefutable evidence it provides based on multi-year averages for what the impact to the schools are to each home and each residence; the Board followed through with a recommendation unanimously supporting the Impact Fee Ordinance as

recommended by the consultants; and the School Board is caught between the pinchers of class size reduction and growth in Brevard County. He noted one is law and one is practical reality; there are 1,500 students added to the system per year; it is two nice elementary schools, one middle school, or one high school; and Brevard County is at the top of the SID Awards in the State for school construction thrift. He stated the County is one of the top two districts in terms of percentage of dollars available put into the classrooms; the School Board is very efficient in how it uses the scarce resources it has. He stated about two-thirds of the districts in the State of Florida have impact fees to fund growth, at least in part; and Osceola County has impact fees that are almost $10,000 per single family residence, and it is looking at an increase in order to cover the cost of its tremendous growth. He stated the developers can avoid impact fees in part by donating land to help offset the cost; it is a practical way of not only meeting the school needs but adding value to the home sites; affordable housing has been raised as an issue that the almost $5,000 impact fee raises the price of homes for those who can least afford it; and they have choices, they do not have to buy a new home and it can be an existing home that does not have an impact fee. Mr. Hughes stated there have been questions asked about those who are moving within the district from one home to a newer home; it leaves a home on the market and students may well come into that; as an older family moves into a new home, they do not have children and may not have impact on the school system; but this is not to say that they will live there for the duration of that home. He stated eventually someone else will move into that home; there may be an impact from children in that home; Statewide impact fees have been demonstrated not to have an impact on the number of permits that are given in each county; and within Brevard County permits are continuing to be pulled at record-setting levels. He stated the need for new schools is real; impact fees can help; the level of the fees are appropriate and backed up by scientific data that the Board is not refuting; and growth is already at record levels. He inquired what is the problem the Board is trying to solve by revisiting the impact fees.

Commissioner Colon stated Mr. Hughes brought up some good points; and inquired what choices does the School Board have on its own without the impact fees that can be utilized. Mr. Hughes responded the School Board has none; as Commissioner Colon pointed out, some of the cities are not collecting impact fees; he was not aware of that; and the School Board needs to get on board with that problem. He stated the School Board does not have the ability to levy a tax; when the School Board tried to pass the one-cent sales tax jointly with the County and municipalities, one thing that was learned by that failed revenue measure was that people want the School Board to exhaust the sources of revenue it has before it today; the number one thing that the people told each of them in private and public meetings was to put an impact fee on so that growth pays for the price of development; and it needs to be done before it gets any worse. He stated if the School Board had the potential $25,000,000 that those impact fees would generate, it would cover the cost of facilities in Brevard County; it would free up other portions of the budget that would allow it to renovate and remodel some of the older schools; each of the Board members has schools in its Districts that are 35 years old; and they need help. He stated

Satellite Beach and Cocoa Beach were the new schools when he went there; and they need help today. Commissioner Colon inquired if Mr. Hughes could ask the residents of Brevard

County if they want a penny sales tax just for schools, not to be tied in the huge wish list the community did not like. Mr. Hughes stated like the Board of County Commissioners, the School Board can ask for a referendum just as the Board can ask for a referendum on impact fees; if the people want development to pay the price of growth; they have the option of going forward for ?-cent or full cent, and could even trade off against property taxes; there are a number of options; but the constituents have told them do not ask for sales tax, increase tax, or additional debt until it has exhausted the impact fee option. He stated he is not a big fan of impact fees; he wishes the State was providing adequate funding for new schools for construction; all counties could have the opportunity to provide equity in public schools; and that will not happen soon. He advised in the meantime everyone needs to shore up where they can, and impact fees are the first line of defense.

Amy Tidd stated she is an appointed member of the Rockledge Zoning Board, representing the School Board; she has been doing that almost two years; and she wanted to commend the Board when it passed the impact fee because she saw the great pressures that growth had put upon the schools and children that ended up being taught in portables because there was no money to build schools; and the Board?s decision back then was a good one. She noted it was well researched; it should stay the course; smart quality growth is making growth pay for itself; and the impact fees have brought a funding source to pay for the schools for the new residents? children that are coming into Brevard County. She stated if the Board looks at revisiting it, there were many rezonings held up because it was looking at the impact fee; the rezonings were then put through; and if the Board changes its mind and goes back on the impact fee what would happen to those rezonings.

Maureen Rupe stated she is speaking as the Natural Resources Chair for the League of Women Voters of the Space Coast; and she will read from the manual, as follows: "The League supports the impact fees for transportation, recreation and parks, correctional facilities, emergency services, schools, and libraries". She stated she is also speaking for the Partnership for a Sustainable Future; and it supports impact fees and growth paying for itself. She stated she is extremely disappointed that the issue is being discussed again; some of the arguments brought up last time do not apply this time, such as it has not slowed the building of homes in Brevard County; Larry Hughes? excellent presentation pointed out a lot of her points; and the impact fee has been passed by the Board and endorsed by the League of Cities, the School Board, parents, and anyone that wants growth to pay for itself. She noted the taxpayers should be subsidizing, as well as dealing with overcrowded roads and schools.

Commissioner Colon stated for a year and a half this issue has been discussed; she supports impact fees but where she has a problem is the amount; it is not the developer that pays for it, it is anyone who builds a new home; and someone in Brevard County who has been paying taxes for a long time should not have to pay an impact fee. She stated a person has a dream of building a home someday and should be given the opportunity to do so; she made the case that an impact fee was needed; but the amount is the problem she has; and $2,000 is a fair number. She advised she is staying consistent with what she has said all along; and people cannot afford another $4,000 on the mortgage to pay for growth.

City Manager of City of West Melbourne Mark Ryan stated the West Melbourne City Council has been active in the issue; and the Mayor and he appeared before the Board last year when the issue was being discussed. He advised the Mayor and Council have adopted a Resolution supporting impact fee studies for schools in Brevard County; it was reconfirmed by a majority of the Council; impact fees for schools are nothing new; and in 1987 the Board initiated a study for impact fees for schools, libraries, fire, and transportation. He noted what came out of that two years later was something short of that, which did not include schools; for 17 years the County is playing catch up by not having that revenue source available to fund adequate schools; he did an analysis in his community that had that 1989 impact fee been in place, West Melbourne alone would have generated from 1989 to 2001 $2,000,000 towards a new school in that community; and he did a further analysis recently concerning growth in his community based upon the new school impact fee. He stated the analysis indicated with the 1,800 homes built in the community that $8,000,000 would have been generated with school impact fees in the past three years; it is a total of $10,000,000 in the last 17 years; that is almost the cost of a school; and when new jobs are brought to a community the key things employers look for are quality of life issues. He noted one of those issues are schools; there is an opportunity to fund a quality of life issue of the schools; the cities and the County historically have always been looking for relief from mandates from State and Federal government; and Article V is an issue everyone has to deal with. He stated it is a mandate that has to deal with funding; no one wants to be told what they can and cannot do with money; he does not have children in the schools, his children have all gone; and he does not have people in the jail either, but he pays for it.

Ann Coburn stated Cocoa has recently annexed a few hundred acres south of Canaveral Groves; the zoning will allow one thousand homes to be built there; theoretically several thousand children could be added to that part of the school system; and Cocoa also seeks to annex another few hundred acres near Rockledge. She noted thousands of children could be added to that school system; a person does not know where the new schools will need to be built; the school district needs financial help; and the help could be called the help educational facilities impact fees, development fees, school impact building fees, or pass the buck fees. She stated whatever the name it is financial help for the children?s schools; she would support a solution that is fair, and would not be adverse to a smaller percentage fee on all homes, new or used; she is hoping the Board has some kind of a table that gives it those options; and part of the overcrowding blame can be laid on the developers and builders who seem to feel no responsibility. She advised it would be fair to assess a percentage increase on their fees, the amount to be set aside towards school construction; she called the City of Cocoa to find out about the impact fees; the lady in the budget office said she had no item for impact fees in her budget; so it is another item that needs to be looked into. She requested the Board keep the impact fees.

Gerry Laschober stated he is not here to speak to the general idea of the impact fees, but when the impact fees were approved in August; he has a subdivision in Titusville that is a townhome subdivision; a year and a half ago he entered into a contract with the landowner to develop and build in Arbor Ridge; and the landowner decided he needed to sell all of the land and the

adjacent land next to it. He noted he then brought in a financial partner to help him buy the land; they entered into a contract for a take down schedule for that land; he was given the sole discretion to develop, build, and sell those properties; and around the middle of August he spent a lot of time packing up pets and personal belongings, and boarding up his house as he had to leave town, like everyone else due to the hurricanes. He stated he has tried to put his personal life on track; there were 26 contracts prior to the impact fee imposition schedule of October 24, 2004; all 26 contracts were denied because of third party ownership; and his partner owns the land and he has a take down schedule for it. He noted he has the sole rights to develop, build, and sell those; he did what was appropriate, complied with all of the points given to him by the County, and had them in before the deadline; the one thing he was never notified about was a third party ownership; and these are real contacts within the subdivision. He stated the other issue is that Arbor Ridge was platted in 1987; the lots throughout the entire subdivision vary between 20 feet and 35 feet; he highlighted on the map the very narrow lots; and according to the City of Titusvilles Ordinances, up to a six-plex can be built. He stated in between buildings there has to be 20 feet; nothing lays out perfectly on a lot line; and part of the impact fee code said the legal description should not change.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board has been most lenient in trying to understand the dynamics of those individual transactions and not put anyone at risk; he does not
know if the Board wants to get into the particulars of this case because it tries to look around the abnormal entities of a particular transaction and to the basic equities of what occurred; if the Board wanted to get involved in this case, it needed to involve staff in a more
extensive discussion of where it falls within the parameters of prior.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated the Ordinance is drafted in such a way that it appears to draw a line at third party ownership, which says that even if the contract was in place before a person met all the requirements of the Ordinance other than the third party owner, it would not qualify for an exemption under the grandfather tradition.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he has something under contract, the concepts of the contract itself is making him the beneficial owner; and inquired if Attorney Knox would look at it in that sense. Attorney Knox responded if it is there, he agrees with Commissioner Scarborough; but if it is not built yet, there would be an issue whether or not it is the case. Attorney Knox stated staff struggled with this item; it did not see a big distinction between third party ownership and apartment complexes; when it came up again, staff had decided to consider to ask the Board for an amendment for that provision that makes it clear that those kinds of situations were covered; and even though the Ordinance is drafted the way it is, it does not treat the condominium buyers the same as apartment dwellers; and there is no practical difference in terms of what the impact is. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if this is an acceptable variation; with Attorney Knox responding those particular circumstances should fit within the exemption being created. Commissioner Scarborough inquired what kind of motion would the Board need to make; with Attorney Knox responding a motion to amend the Ordinance to include that language.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to authorize staff to amend the provision in the Educational Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance which draws the line at third party ownership to treat such ownership the same as apartment complexes, as there is no practical difference in terms of what the impact is. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Duke Salberg stated he served on the West Melbourne City Council; it voted to endorse the existing policy at a recent meeting; as a citizen he is against the reduction or elimination of impact fees in the County; and West Melbourne has been referred to as a speed demon of growth. He stated Brevard County has grown over 25% over the last year; as forecasted, the population will double in the next four years to 24,000 people; the highly rated schools of West Melbourne have families trying to get in; and the schools are full or nearly full. He noted those causing the need for additional schools should provide the resources for those schools; impact fees are needed to fund new school construction because of the massive building going on in West Melbourne; there are 3,000 homes coming on line in entering and exiting Minton
Road in the next three years; and in Heritage Oaks Subdivision alone entering and exiting Minton Road there are 130 homes. He stated at the present time there are 110 children in those homes; there are other building sites coming on board that do not exit or enter on Minton Road; it is unfair to put the burden of schools on current taxpayers; and it takes in excess of $13,000 a child to build an elementary school, $15,000 a child for a middle school, and $20,000 a child to build a high school. He stated builders and developers should be responsible for addressing their impacts on the school system; now they are doing it by transferring the fees to the buyer; Osceola County is at $9,000 and Lake County is at $10,000 plus; and those fees have not slowed building at all. He stated there needs to be vision as to where the County is going; and it does not need to look where it is, but where it is going to be. He stated all great leaders have vision; without vision a person is not a great leader; money spent on schools is a solid investment; and developers should be made to put their fair share in. He inquired who pays the price for population growth and the impacts of schools; and how will the construction be funded to handle flocks of people pouring into West Melbourne if there is no impact fee. He stated he hopes at the end of the day the County scoreboard does not read developers 1 students of Brevard County 0; newcomers create the need and should pay for it; and the County should let the people vote in a referendum.

Commissioner Colon stated each municipality has a responsibility to its citizens; for the past four years the Board could proudly say that it did not rezone a large subdivision; everything that came before the Board was already zoned that way; and she would like to challenge any municipality to match what the Board has done in the last four years. She stated last summer was the first time it allowed a subdivision, which was Lake Washington, and demanded that there was an impact fee; what the media is saying is incorrect; there are people who are under the impression that the growth happening in West Melbourne is because the Board has allowed the rezoning; and that is not the case. She stated she wants it to be clear that she and her peers made sure that there was that kind of responsible smart growth within the County, but that is the unincorporated area; the Board has no jurisdiction in what happens in a municipality; she

agrees with what Mr. Salberg has said; and her issue has always been regarding the amount and there needs to be an impact fee. She stated she would like an open dialogue with folks like Mr. Salberg, government, and municipalities; she does not hear too much from that end saying the same thing in regards to the development that is going on and responsible growth; she shared with the Board this morning that she had an attorney that was doing the lets make a deal; he insisted the County approve 5,000 units; and it is disgusting. She stated the property used to be orange groves; the Board has no plan for that because the property was an orange grove and it is not part of the Comprehensive Plan; and now there is a person who is saying he is putting in 5,000 units. She stated the Attorney said the neighbor next to him will allow nine thousand units; and inquired does the Board want 5,000 units or 9,000 units that a municipality will approve. She stated the municipalities need to be on the same page as the Board when talking about smart growth; frustration is on the County?s end too; and she would like to work with people so no one plays both sides. Mr. Salberg stated Commissioner Colon?s remarks are correct; and he was on the Planning and Zoning Board of West Melbourne for a year and stood up against some of the projects, but he was overruled.

Chairman Pritchard inquired where did he get the numbers for the construction of elementary schools and high schools. Mr. Salberg responded from Dain Theodore of the Board of Education Administration in Viera. Chairman Pritchard inquired what are the numbers again. Mr. Salberg responded $13,000 per child for elementary school, $15,000 per child for middle school, and $20,000 per child for a high school.

Frank Kaiser stated he is present to provide information and clarify misinformation that is propagated primarily by the press; his research over the past three years has indicated that 70% of new homes being built, or seven out of ten, are by existing residents of Brevard County; out of a Tindale-Oliver study, two out of three new homes have no children residing in them. He stated if a person does that math it is about two children in ten homes of which the County is collecting $45,000 in impact fees. He stated it is an unfair discriminatory tax on supporting the number one economic engine in Brevard County; the reason the economy is as robust as it is now is because Florida is collecting sales tax on all of the building materials that have gone into the commercial and residential construction; Florida is one of the few states in the country that collects sales tax on building materials; the sales tax is a huge economic engine to the State and County; and that is not being taken into consideration about growth paying for itself. He stated it is an impediment when it comes to economic development for attracting industry here to build facilities; developers do not pay those taxes, the homebuyers do; the newspaper does not seem to get that; and it impacts the affordability to the teachers that classrooms are being provided to. He stated it affects the policemen, firefighters, and young families with incomes under $40,000 who cannot qualify for a mortgage; it is not about another $4,500 on a person?s mortgage, which at 6% on a 30-year mortgage would cost $11,000; it is about the fact that a person will not qualify based on their income at a qualifying ration; and it keeps them from purchasing a home. He stated the used home prices are going up in valuation, which is increasing the tax revenue in the County; the new homes are driving the market and increasing those prices when comparables are done for an appraisal; and the used homes are going up to

the same price as the new homes even though an impact fee has not been paid. He stated Brevard County needs a broader based funding source to address the facilities needs; and they should be portable as the population moves around Brevard County as opposed to building permanent facilities that are probably going to be sitting vacant in a few years because demographics indicate because of the majority of the population being over 55, there will not be the demand in the future for children that the County has today at the same rate. He stated the Board needs to be flexible with its facilities; families buying resale homes are not paying anything and they are impacting schools; the young families living here are having children and impacting schools; and it is not necessarily the people moving here. He stated the School Board needs to take responsibility to enact the half-cent sales tax for schools; the full responsibility has been put on the Board of County Commissioners to find funding for schools; and it is the School Board?s responsibility. He stated it may not have been politically popular for it but it has the ability to enact a half-cent sales tax without the County Commission?s approval, and to take part of the responsibility for funding; that broad based funding would be more in line with what the requirements are to build the facilities that are needed, and will generate a lot more than the impact fees that are unfair and discriminatory; developers have donated free land for schools already; and in some cases some of that free land was turned down by the School Board and expensive land was bought instead. He inquired does the School Board need the money to offset the $3.5 million in property it cannot find; and stated it needs to manage its money better; growth is paying for itself; and inquired what is the amount of dollars increased by ad valorem revenues to the County for increased property valuation. He stated if that number could be found it would be helpful in determining this case.

Brian Collier stated he was present at the last meeting and addressed many points; one of the points was housing affordability; Larry Hughes said to buy a used home; but he has not taken basic economics to know that the used home prices go up when the impact fees are added. He stated it will affect low income and young people such as himself just as much with the used home prices; the School Board has plenty of money; over time it has been determined that government does a poor job at everything it does; and the community, through free markets, can run things more efficiently, and provide better service and products. He stated if government was producing computers it would still take up full rooms and use punch cards; in spite of that, one of the most important aspects of society, the education of children, is still left in the hands of government. He stated government education has been shown to be a failure time and time again; and when government programs fail the citizens hear the same song. He stated the song is more money is needed; there are forty missing laptops and all kinds of money missing from the School Board; there are million dollar computers for elementary schools; and The School Board is singing the same song. He stated with drugs and violence at school the citizens are hearing the same thing that more money is needed; with bad test scores, more money is needed; more money is not the answer; and he hopes the Board does not keep the impact fees and makes the School Board spend the money it has efficiently.

Melissa Hoagland stated she is speaking to the Board on behalf of Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. (CFRG) as President of the Board of Directors; the August 10, 2004 vote by the

Board to enact an educational facilities impact fee represented the culmination of over two years of cooperative efforts between the County and the School District; and it was proceeded by months of workshops, consultant reports, and extensive public input. She advised it was a lengthy process and it was a well considered decision in which there was ample opportunity for everyone?s voice to be heard; and it represented a major, positive step in providing for responsible managed growth in Brevard County. She stated it is growth where essential services and infrastructure keeps pace with residential growth; and planned growth that learned from the lessons of the neighbors in South Florida. She stated CFRG supported the impact fee in August, and was pleased to see its enactment; it comes before the Board with concern that the positive actions are now being called into question only months after the Ordinance went into effect; during the 75-day period between passage of the fee and its effective date, over 3,150 fee exempted building permits were approved; and this number of permits is greater than that approved for all of the proceeding year of 2003. She noted it would have generated over $14,000,000 in funds to build school facilities if impact fees had been applied; the residential development represented by those permits will be increasing the number of students in Brevard public schools for which classroom capacity will be required without the benefit of fees to cover that expense because of the grace period applied to the Ordinance; the School District is already going to be asked to find a solution to ordinance-generated aggravation in the overcrowding through its existing resources; and to repeal the Ordinance now, after allowing its impact in creating such a huge load of new homes, would create a double blow to the schools by burdening the district with the increase while removing the mechanism that generates funds to provide for the required new facilities. She stated many of the concerns expressed prior to the vote on the school impact fees centered on potential negative economic effects; with home sales, new home construction, and property values continuing to climb, the fears can be laid to rest; no compelling reason for a change is present; and conditions which lead to the consideration of an impact fee have worsened. She expressed concerns of potential negative effects if the fee had not occurred; stated although the decision that was reached is one that may be personally opposed by some of the Board, it was reached in an orderly and proper fashion by a duly elected governmental body; personal preferences of individual subsequently elected officials should not be grounds of a reversal of a procedurally proper decision in the absence and a change in the position of the electorate the Board represents; and the clearly expressed view of the majority of the public supports growth that pays for itself, and supports school impact fees. She stated there are a lot of people in the audience today that have come on the issue; many of the people who support the impact fees are wearing red; with the exception of Mr. Kaiser, who represents builders and developers, most of the other speakers have expressed support for the impact fee; and such fee was properly deliberated and enacted, and should stand unchanged at this time.

Janet Eastman stated she is a teacher and works for the Brevard Federation of Teachers; part of her job is to travel throughout the County and visit schools; she has had the pleasure of going into the schools that are not new, such as Sea Park and Coquina, that have around 25 or 30 years; and the impact fees are used only for new school growth and buildings. She stated if the impact fee is supported it would free money to be used to renovate those schools that are in

need; it is for modifying the classrooms, retrofitting for technology, and keeping the brightest and best teachers and students in Brevard County; the County has the highest number percentage of national board certified teachers and the test scores surpass many of the largest counties in Florida; and people need to support the impact fee to do what is right for the students in Brevard County. She stated many people are moving to Brevard County because of the educational system; and impact fees will support the students in the County.

Gretchen Klayman stated she is asking the Board to keep the impact fee at the amount it is; schools are so important; and the children are our best resource. She advised she has three sons; each is a product of the Brevard County school system; and it is important to do the good work the Board is doing. She stated it is important to keep up with the growth and support the schools; she represents no one; she has been a homeowner since 1958; and she pays taxes. She requested the Board keep the impact fee; commended Mr. Salberg; and stated the County should put him on one of its advisory boards.

Dale Young inquired why is the Board dealing with this to start with; stated it belongs to the School Board; and the County does not build schools. He stated a study by Tindale-Oliver said when the County reaches a certain threshold a house would pay for itself; it was about $180,000; it has been reached in the past; but the current median is around $182,000. He stated citizens presently pay a two-mill tax for building new schools; it has been supplemented by the constitutional amendment; and the revenue for this year will be over $57,000,000 from those two sources; and that many schools can be built. He stated the schools that have been mainly built are west of I-95; that should say something; the problem is not money, it is administrative; and in past good years there has been a $1 billion increase in the valuation of property in Brevard County; and this year it will be close to $2 billion. He stated if Brevard County does not have enough money now, it will never have enough to administer the schools; the figures from the School Board in the last ten years show a little more than 7,200 students added to the school system; some of them leave; and the $57 million would take care of the problem by itself. He advised impact fees are probably the most unfair tax a person can pay; it is very selective; it only applies to certain people; and it is being challenged in a couple of counties on the basis of fairness. He stated it does not apply to the people who really generate the problems; he does not think Mr. Salberg paid an impact fee on the house he is living in because he came in under the wire; it is the case with a lot of people; and they feel they got here first; and everyone else should have to pay the fee. He stated the School Board bonds out every penny it gets; it has in excess of $57 million in interest; so everyone gets a chance at paying for schools regardless of when it comes. He suggested the Board make the decision on facts and not on phony emotion.

Commissioner Colon inquired if Chairman Pritchard has a card for Thomas Harper for Item VII.E.3. Chairman Pritchard responded no as Mr. Harper is not present; there is an 11:00 a.m. time certain; and the Board will hear that at this time and come back to the 10:00 a.m. time certain after a break.

Interim County Manager Peggy Busacca stated this item was heard as a general issue at the last Board meeting; and the Cumulus representatives asked if they could have an opportunity to work with County Attorney Scott Knox to put together some specific information so the Board could consider moving forward on the issue.

Cumulus representative John Herron stated after the last Board meeting they did meet with Attorney Knox to discuss the particular project; they are going to make a brief presentation to the Board to let it know the specific proposal and work with Attorney Knox on a written agreement that can be brought back to the Board for its approval.

Marketing Manager of Cumulus-Melbourne Dan Carelli stated they met with Attorney Knox on Friday and went over the basic proposal with him; and he is not sure exactly how the Board wants him to proceed at this point.

Chairman Pritchard inquired if there should be further discussion. County Attorney Scott Knox responded the Board does not need discussion as far as the applicant presentation is concerned, unless it wants to hear from them. He stated the issue comes down to whether or not the Board wants to allow them to proceed on a private lease as opposed to a public bid situation; the opportunities Cumulus is offering the County in terms of co-locations with Sheriff facilities and EMS facilities on the same tower that they are going to build are unique in the sense that they would not be something the Board would see in the normal bidding process; since the land is owned by the Barefoot Bay Water and Sewer District, the Board does not have to go through a bidding process by law; so the only issue is if the Board, who sits as the Board of that District, wants to go through that process. He stated if it does not want to go through the process, the details of the deal are worked out.

Commissioner Voltz inquired if the Board should dismiss the Board of County Commissioners meeting and reconvene as the Barefoot Bay Water and Sewer District. Attorney Knox responded if the Board determines it wants to go out to bid it needs to do that; and if it is going to direct staff to go back and prepare a lease, then it will bring it back in that capacity later. Commissioner Scarborough stated if it is going to be put on the Barefoot Bay Water and Sewer District?s property, the Board should become that entity.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to recess as they Board of County Commissioners and convene as the Barefoot Bay Water and Sewer District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to convene as the Barefoot Bay Water and Sewer District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Pritchard stated it seems to be a good economic engine for the County; he likes the idea of using other antennas that may be elsewhere and adding tenants to that; cell phones are not a luxury any longer; and even his 89-year old mother has a cell phone. He stated the County needs the cell towers, the public safety communications, and a lot of things that are better served if the Board can tack itself onto the private enterprise, more so than to have public supported towers; there are a lot of maintenance and costs involved with it; and any opportunity the County has to attach itself to someone else who will pay the freight, yet derive a benefit from tenant space, is in the best interest of the County.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board should analyze it first as the Barefoot Bay Water and Sewer District. Chairman Pritchard stated he is; and inquired why is the Barefoot Bay Water and Sewer District concerned about cell phones. He stated the Board needs to be careful because there are two separate entities that may have separate interests; the cash flow benefits will go to the District; and inquired if there has been an analysis of what is prudent for the District independently of the other issues.

Utility Services Director Dick Martens responded like all transactions that happen in the enterprise fund environment, the case benefits that would directly accrue to the County?s umbrella organization from a lease like that would specifically accrue to the Water and Sewer District; how the Water and Sewer District dealt with the internal operations of the radio system, the tower operations would be a separate issue; the potential lease would be with the District; and the revenues generated from that lease would accrue to the District?s general revenue fund.

Attorney Knox stated one of the questions the Board asked last time was how the Water and Sewer District revenue fund could reimburse the County?s General Fund under this arrangement; what everyone needs to keep in the back of their minds is the District has a Contract with the County to operate and run that system for them; and County personnel runs that system. He stated the revenues from this transaction would augment those funds to the County in the sense that if those rents were assigned as payment under the Operations Contract between the District and the County, it would help defer some of those expenses. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the County is not being fully compensated at this time. Attorney Knox responded he does not know. Mr. Martens stated all of the expense incurred by County personnel to operate the Barefoot Bay system is funded through the revenues of the Barefoot Bay system. Commissioner Scarborough inquired is the County is being fully compensated; with Mr. Martens responding yes. Commissioner Scarborough stated there is no reason why the Board should accrue additional revenue just because it is obtaining it through this transaction. Mr. Martens stated there would need to be a separate set of negotiations with the Water and Sewer District?s staff administering those facilities; the County would still be dealing with Cumulus because it owns the tower; and the District simply has the land on which the tower lease would sit. Commissioner Scarborough stated this gets to be some of the complications; they are offering something free to the County; that fee compensation to the County is consideration to a different entity as opposed to the entity that should be receiving it; and if the County is receiving something free on the tower it should pay the District for that gift to

keep it at arms-length; otherwise, someone else is receiving the benefit rather than the District. Mr. Martens stated in that scenario if the Company is offering the County?s radio communication system free space on the tower in return for a no-cost land lease, then it would seem appropriate that the County?s radio system would pay the Barefoot Bay Water and Sewer System the equivalent value of that free space.

Commissioner Voltz stated down in the south part of the County the Micco Fire Department has a hard time with the radios and being able to communicate; and this would be a tremendous benefit. Commissioner Scarborough stated he did not want to do a sloppy transaction. Commissioner Voltz stated this is something totally different than what Commissioner Scarborough was discussing; the Board has decided that everyone out there should co-locate as much as possible and not be exempt from that; and if the County needs to co-locate with someone else it should be done.

Attorney Knox stated the monetary end of it, apart from the free space on the tower, there is a $35,000 credit for building a building that will house the equipment necessary to run the County?s facilities; it is $1,000 a month lease; and it is not a great deal of money overall. He stated there is nothing to say the County cannot enter into a sublease between the District and the County, which allows the free use of the tower because it happens all the time; there is a Florida Statute allowing not-for-profits to do that kind of thing for nothing; and it is up to the Board how it wants to handle this; and it is possible to do it legally from any way it wants to do it.

Commissioner Voltz stated Commissioner Scarborough is complicating things. Commissioner Scarborough stated maybe he is but the problem is since the Board sits as both boards, and it is primarily acting as Commissioners, it is easy to short-change its responsibility as the District Board; when that risk is there, the questions need to be asked; when a Commissioner puts another hat on he or she needs to make sure they are not compromising anything; and inquired if he was not a Commissioner, what would he be saying. He advised if it is looked at that way, it will be fair.

Chairman Pritchard stated the $1,000 a month income, he does not see it going to the Barefoot Bay Water and Sewer District Board because there will be a need for improvements; this will pay for the improvements; the Board should enter into a lease agreement with the District Board; and it would give the County access to the tower at no charge.

Commissioner Carlson stated as long as clarification of that can be brought back to the Board; she does not have a problem having the County Attorney negotiate the agreement with Cumulus; but the Board needs to make sure there is a clean transition.

Commissioner Voltz stated the Board can move forward now, and have the County Attorney bring it back to work out some of those details. Mr. Herron stated it would be a tri-party agreement that was entered into jointly with the Water and Sewer District and Brevard County to receive the benefits of the things being discussed; and if the Board desires, he does have a

short presentation if it wants to see it. Chairman Pritchard advised there is no time. Mr. Herron stated it is a win-win situation for Cumulus, the Water and Sewer District, and the taxpayers; and the savings of the tower, as has been calculated, are at least approximately $80,000 a year over the life of the lease, which is anticipated to be a 20 or 30-year lease. Commissioner Scarborough inquired how many years is that again; with Mr. Herron responding Cumulus was anticipating a 20 to 30-year lease with a couple of renewals.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to direct County Attorney Scott Knox to negotiate a tri-party agreement between Cumulus, the Water and Sewer District, and the County for the telecommunication tower to ensure there is a clean transition; and bring the agreement back to the Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Attorney Knox inquired if it is the Board?s intent to have a fair market value paid by the County to the District for the tower. Commissioner Scarborough responded it is all he will vote for.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adjourn the meeting of the Barefoot Bay Water and Sewer District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 11:28 a.m. and reconvened at 11:39 a.m.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated someone approach him at the break about removing Item VII.B.2, Discussion and Staff Direction, Re: Payment in Lieu of Taxes, Solid Waste Disposal Fees, and Cooperative Agreement with Housing Authority of Brevard County until the next Board meeting.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if that is where staff wanted to hire special councel as well. Interim County Manager Peggy Busacca responded Assistant County Attorney Terri Jones suggested the Board may want to talk to special financial councel about the item.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table discussion of options and staff direction in response to the Housing Authority?s request that the Board

waive past due and future payment of PILT, acknowledge the exemption of the Housing Authority from solid waste disposal fees, and enter into a new cooperation agreement, to the February 8, 2005 meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE (CONTINUED)

Commissioner Carlson stated before the Board makes its comments, she would like to give School Board Chairman Larry Hughes the opportunity to respond to the comments that came after he initially spoke.

School Board Chairman Larry Hughes stated the costs of existing homes would increase with the impact fees, which is not necessarily a bad thing for homeowners; other comments were made about the efficiency of the School Board and its ability to do construction; if one was to compare the costs of the school with A commercial facility or a home, it does look tremendous; and when a commercial facility or home is built a person does not have the same requirements the School Board does such as a shelter to certain safety features. He advised the only way to compare costs is to look to see what others in the State of Florida are doing; Brevard County is consistently one of the lowest per square footage; there are a number of reasons why that is; there is a very experienced crew who does an excellent job in facilities; and they build what is called prototype schools. He stated the schools are not architecturally stimulating, but they are inexpensive; and he is proud of what the School Board has done in terms of its ability to use existing dollars it has very carefully.

Commissioner Colon stated the schools are doing great regarding testing and graduation; some of those comments were made; and inquired if Mr. Hughes would elaborate on the fact that is not the case. Mr. Hughes responded Governor Bush commissioned an independent study that did not get much press; he looked at all 67 counties to see which was doing the best in terms of academic performance; and three counties were identified. He advised those three counties were Brevard, Santa Rosa, and Okaloosa; Brevard County is the only one of the ten largest counties in the State of Florida that was identified; it is number one in terms of graduation rates; and the School Board is improving on the difference in the achievement gaps such as minority, majority, and English speaking versus non-English speaking. He stated he contributes the academics doing so well to Superintendent of Schools Dr. DiPatri; he is recognized as being a very good superintendent; and he has just returned from the large school superintendent?s organization, which he is the current chair of. He stated math and science is something Brevard County schools are doing well nationally; there is a different situation relative to facilities; he grew up in Brevard County; and many schools have portable classrooms and it is a problem. He noted it is an economic development issue; if the County wants high quality jobs there must be good schools with permanent facilities; the School Board is doing all those things but needs the Board?s help at this point; and the citizens of the County have been clear 4-1 speaking this morning that they want the impact fees to remain where they are.

Commissioner Carlson stated there was an issue brought up regarding those impact fees if they were brought in and used that it would provide the School Board to go after some of the existing priorities, which are to improve existing older schools, buy additional equipment, and allow those scarce resources not to be so scarce; and if that is the intention of the School Board. Mr. Hughes responded absolutely; the impact fees that come in can only be used to address new growth; and it frees up the other dollars being used today to accommodate growth and allows remodeling, renovations, adding permanent classrooms to replace portables, and to bring in some of the things the community is demanding. He stated North and South Brevard are asking for auditoriums, which the School Board has been unable to afford because the dollars are not there. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the School Board appeals to the science and technology aspect of the system and how does it purport to put money into science and technology. Mr. Hughes responded it has been one of the School Board?s thrusts and part of its vision to excel in science and math; for the past two years it has brought every sixth grader in Brevard County to Kennedy Space Center to get hands-on information to see what science and technology and math is about; before that time, the Board brought the teachers out to get a day of hands-on training; and Brevard County swept the trophies at science fairs. He noted students always win, place, and show in every area and grade level; and the last year 29% of all the hardware was brought back to Brevard County from the science fairs.

Commissioner Carlson stated it is great to hear from the School Board, other administrators, and the teachers union; but the Board does not hear the voices of the teachers, children, or parents who want to make sure the children have a great education here. She stated everyone knows there is a good school system in Brevard County, but it needs quite a bit of improvement; the last line of defense is the impact fee and what can actually be done with it; when the County exempted impact fees to be collected, it caused an unintended consequence on schools because now there are all of those contracts out there that are time limited and are going to be getting into the school system quicker than expected; and those people tried to get under the wire to pay the impact fee. She inquired if Mr. Hughes knows how the School Board will deal with that aspect; with Mr. Hughes responding it will be struggling.

Mr. Hughes stated he would encourage the Board as elected officials to remember there is always room to listen to its constituency, listen to reasoned arguments about what the right thing to do is, and modify its position to do the right thing. He stated there has been discussion about reducing the impact fees, and it concerns him; the cost of doing construction will not go down by 60% because the impact fees went down; and if someone challenges the School Board legally he does not think it would be its basis for the additional dollars.

Commissioner Colon stated one of the things the Board gets emails on is the fact that the fee is a Bandaid, and the School Board has not done its job by asking the community if it wants a penny sales tax; and people are tired of elected officials putting so much on a ballot. She advised things that passed in her community seemed to have better history when it is one item on the ballot, and not a wish list; there are avenues that need to be taken; it is just a Bandaid to a bigger problem. She stated one of the things she mentioned to Dr. DiPatri was year round

schools; he sent data to her to show there had been workshops and discussions and why they are not working in other areas; and he was kind enough to share that data with the Board. She noted the impact fee is uncomfortable because she has no jurisdiction over the School Board; it is like handing those dollars to the School Board and it does whatever it needs to do from there; focusing on allowing municipalities that are going after charter schools starting to be part of the answer and helping is the right direction to go; and the average citizen of Brevard County does not get paid the kind of dollars the CEO?s and County Commissioners make. She noted she deals with those folks on a daily basis; she feels for that person who has to pay the impact fee; and it is not the developer who pays for the impact fee; and her agenda is to make sure that someone who cannot afford an impact fee is not hit to the full extent.

Mr. Hughes stated he knows that Commissioner Colon cares deeply about children, and he shares that concern; it is not a matter of accountability; the amount of oversight the School District has in terms of how it spends its money; it is not a matter of lack of accountability; and there is a certain lack of public faith in terms of the public officials doing the most it can with the dollars and that is what the School Board is trying to do.

Commissioner Carlson stated Commissioner Colon brought up the issue of affordability and the burden of the impact fee, yet the constituency that the School Board members have are teachers who are some of the lowest paid of the constituency; and it is acting in good faith representing them as individuals in the community that probably have two earner incomes. She stated they cannot afford to live off of a teacher?s salary; she knows that because her husband is a teacher now; and even with a Masters degree a person gets 50% less than what they would get in industry for teaching something that means so much to the children. She stated there are ways to get around that without just doing a subjective lower of the impact fee; the Board can do what Polk or Lake Counties did when it comes to the very low affordability issues; and they can be exempted and allow it to occur in a systematic way.

Mr. Hughes stated everyone has to purchase within ones own ability; by trying to address the low income by lowering all impact fees is like throwing the baby out with the bath water; the Board needs to come back to the question he asked it earlier; and inquired what problem is it the Board is trying to solve. He stated if the problem being addressed is an affordability issue, he is confident the School Board and Commission can find a way to work together on it.

Commissioner Voltz stated the entire time during the election she said she was going to bring the issue up; it is very unfair in many ways; but she understands there are people who have a difference of opinion. She stated it is important everyone works together and not shoot bullets at one another; there was a number of people who phoned her office in support of the impact fees; but the emails she received said to make the developers pay for such fees. She noted the Florida TODAY indicated the developer pays for the impact fees; but it is the homeowners and citizens who pay; the Board needs to work with the School Board to address the issue of overcrowding; the problem is the School Board has not stepped up to the plate; and it has been on the Board?s shoulders to do this. She stated she does not understand why it is always the

Board?s responsibility to pay for schools; the School Board has the legal right to ask the voters for a 1/2? sales tax; and that will raise much more money and be fairer than a $4,500 impact fee. She advised the heat is on the Board; it is not its responsibility to make sure the schools are funded properly. She stated Mr. Hughes said the School Board has spent money wisely; the voters do not believe that for some reason; and it is its responsibility that the voters know that it has been responsible. She stated it was in the newspaper that there was $3,000,000 of missing equipment; from the emails she has received, people clearly do not understand a couple of things; the new residents do not pay; and it is the citizens who end up paying for the impact fees. She stated if seven out of ten people buy new homes they are not impacting the system, yet they are paying; if she sells her home and decides she wants to downsize, she would pay an impact fee; she would pay for children in the school system; but the people who buy her home will not have to pay. She stated the valuation of the old home will go up and the schools will get more money; the cost of the impact fee is a tax directly on the price of the home; and $4,500 on a 6% loan ends up costing almost $11,000 because it is paid for over 30 years. She stated if that is all of the money the School Board will rely on to build schools, it is a major problem; the City of Melbourne has four high schools; Palm Bay is 50% bigger than Melbourne and only has one high school; and she does not understand that. Commissioner Voltz stated someone is not placing high schools where they belong; the City of West Melbourne is a perfect
example of how impact fees increase growth and development; and all of the City?s funding is on impact fees. She stated she understands the City of West Melbourne will not be looking at some sort of a property tax; it would be much fairer than an impact fee; and it has to allow for more growth. She stated there are 19 counties in the State of Florida that have an impact fee; the average impact fee is $2,474;Citrus County has $636 as the lowest impact fee, and Lake County has an impact fee of $10,775 as the highest; and only 27 out of the 82 schools are overcrowded according to the FDOE website. She stated the School Board needed to go before the taxpayers and ask for 1/2? sales tax; the County needs more roads and more schools; but some of the people who do not have children in school do not see the need for new schools. She stated many of the 18 to 25-year olds are moving away from the area; those are the people who will be having children and impact the school system; and the 55 and older community will be paying for the schools. She stated the Board needs to work with the State about changing the restrictions on the School Board to be able to spend its money differently; the Board should work with the School Board to discuss some of those things; she was at a meeting down south and there were some housing developments going up off of Micco Road that the School Board was unaware of; and the School Board makes the decisions and it needs to know exactly what to plan for. She noted it needs to know where the growth and development is going; she is not against building new schools or making sure they have adequate funding; building a home is cheaper than buying a used home; and the homeowner that is just starting out may not be able to get financing even for the smaller house because of the extra $5,000. She stated the newspaper said it was only $30 a month; $30 a month to some people is nothing; but to many people it is a lot of money. She stated she is willing to work with the School Board, but it should not put the responsibility of raising funds for schools only on the Board; and requested the School Board do its homework. She stated the School Board needs to let the taxpayers know what its needs are and put it on the ballot; and if the people are shown there is a need for the tax, it will pass.

Commissioner Scarborough stated impact fees are a fee; it is the same fee across-the-board; a person can have a half million-dollar home or a $70,000 home and it is still the same fee; and he wanted to explain why he voted for the impact fee and why he continues to support it. He advised he looked at the difference between the operating costs and the capital costs; when more people move into the community there is more revenue to pay light bills and teachers; there are several options; and one of them is do not build. He stated government is a key developer because unless there is government infrastructure there is a regression of the whole economy; the current taxpayers can pay; it has been proposed that the School Board could have the 1/2? sales tax; and when the County put a sales tax on the ballot one of the questions he was asked as to the schools and roads was the County at the level it can go to under the law with impact fees. He noted there is a connection back into the issue as it goes out on referendum; then there is the new unit question; the person that enters the new unit may not be the one who is causing the increase of the school population; but there is a direct relationship between the number of housing units and the need for schools. He stated unless
the County requires the old unit be demolished, it will continue to be a direct relationship; the question then becomes is it equitable and fair to the community to proceed in this manner; it has been indicated as the price of new homes with an impact fee increases it also increases the value of the home that already exists; and there is a crossing of the markets, and one price going up will drive the price of the older units. He stated it goes beyond that; government infrastructure does increase value of property; some people have told him there is a factor of 10% to 40% increase in value of property from one block to another dependent upon the grading of the school; to say the value does not go up when there are quality roads, schools, parks, and libraries is not being shown in the market; so there is a direct relationship by government infrastructure, quality of life converting over to the private sector, and enhanced values of property. He stated there is a correlation there; it will not be perfect; there are many things he would like to work on; but at this juncture he cannot in good conscience proceed with readdressing the issue.

Commissioner Voltz stated the old Century Junior High School building was horrible, filled with asbestos; it was not good for the school system; it had to be torn down and a new one built; and now there is a school there. She stated she does not understand why those decisions were made. She advised the School Board is not building the charter schools; they are being built by private entities; and they are being funded by tax dollars. She stated there has been a lot of charter schools wanting to come into the community; it saves the School Board a lot of money in building schools; that is another positive the Board needed to look at; and the burden should not be on the current residents and it is. She advised newcomers create the need; it would be fine if the Board could find a way to do that; and if someone moved into Brevard County in the last year a person should pay the impact because that person is making an impact.

Chairman Pritchard stated as Commissioner Scarborough?s position has not changed, his has not either; the imposition of an impact fee is unfair; it is a regressive fee; people in a lower income home pay a higher percentage of the home; and people in an upper income home pay a lesser percentage. He stated the question is whether or not a person can afford it; it is a

question of the fairness; the Florida TODAY keeps saying developers fought the fees and contributed plenty to some Commissioners? campaigns; and serving the developers is not true. He stated he does not know who writes it, but they are word impaired; twice in the past several years Florida TODAY has appeared before the Value Adjustment Board asking for reduction in its property taxes; it is nice to find an enemy; and the enemies that are usually found are the developers. He advised the developers are putting a $4,500 impact fee right back into the price of the house; a homebuyer is paying for everything; the impact fee is not fair; and single family residential homes have more children than condominiums or manufactured homes, so it creates a tiered system; and the Board ends up with people coming before it asking for exemptions because it is Habitat for Humanity or some other low income housing provider. He stated one of the things he proposed is a 1% real estate transaction fee; he was told it would require State law; if that does not work it is encumbered on the School Board to search for a 1/2? sales tax; and when the Board spoke about the 1? sales tax he was opposed to it because it was full of nonsense. He stated it was $100,000,000 off on what it could provide; it was so full of stuff it was soundly defeated; a lot of people he spoke with said if it was incarceration, education, and transportation he or she would support it; and he would support 1/2? sales tax on education. He noted he does not think they could get a 1% real estate transaction fee, but it is a broad based fee; it has been said time and time again that 60% to 70% of new homes people buy are childless; 60% to 70% of the new growth within a community comes from within; a lady at a homeowners meeting told him that when she moved to Brevard County she had eight children; and she moved into an existing home, did not have to pay a dime, and was thrilled. He noted the woman moved from and she said Palm Bay; he came to Brevard County with his wife; his children are grown; and he did not pay an impact fee. He stated he has a problem paying an additional fee that is reasonable and broad based; he has an issue with just how responsible the School Board is and how it is spending his money; it is his money as a taxpayer; and he wants to know why it is spending as much as it is and why it is not being as accountable as it should be. He stated he wants to know why Hillsborough County can build elementary schools for $8.5 million and Brevard County?s are $13 million; Hillsborough County?s auditoriums are $2.5 million and Brevard County?s are $9 million; they are building high schools for $38 million and Brevard County?s would be $46 million; and inquired why the audit report shows that fixed assets seemed to have been lost of $3.2 million, and there are differences between detailed property records of $370,000. He advised because it was underestimated the number of children who would be attending schools, the County owes the State $2.8 million; he would be happy to have anyone on the School Board tell him the Board is making a mistake or being irresponsible in its funding; he should be held as accountable as he intends to hold anyone else; and it is taxpayers money the Board is spending; and he wants to make sure it spends it appropriately. He stated he would like to know why the County does not go to year-round schools; he would like to know why Clark County, Nevada has such a successful program, yet the School Board tends to say it would not work; some people home school their children, some are charter schooled, and some go to private schools; and there is a movement to go to that type of education because a lot of people are fed up with public schools. Chairperson Pritchard stated a person can say as much as he or she wants about how good Brevard County is in the State, but start comparing the State of Florida to the nation; he does not like to be first in a State that is last in the nation; the

School Board needs to stop coming to the Board asking for more money; and if someone moves into an existing home, all they have done for the past 30 years is pay the operational costs, and not for a new school. He advised a family that moves into a home with five children impacts the school system; they do not pay a dime towards impacting such system; the comments he had in August 2004 have not changed; and the School Board has a
responsibility to make sure the money is spent properly. He stated it is locked into a nine-month school year; there needs to be a multi-track school year to make sure it is spending its money properly; he is not opposed to building new schools or seeing the children have the best that can be provided; but he is opposed to having an impact fee that only picks a very select segment of the population to pay. He stated the School Board needed to have a 1/2? sales tax put on the referendum; the impact fee is wrong; and he will not support it.

Commissioner Voltz stated something was brought up earlier regarding zoning issues and inquired what would happen if the Board did away with the impact fee. Planning and Zoning Director Robin Sobrino responded the County Attorney may want to answer from a legal perspective; but as far as the zoning taking place, the impact fees have been enacted.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated what the Board is stepping into is a law of unintended consequences if it decides to repeal the impact fee; before the impact fee was enacted, the Board would not approve any rezonings in increased density because it was prevented from doing so by the Comprehensive Plan; he has not come across one Comprehensive Plan that does not have a provision saying development orders cannot be issued that would result in increasing the over capacity of existing deficient public facilities like schools; and every Comprehensive Plan says there needed to be adequate public facilities. He stated when the impact fee was enacted, it relieved the need to comply with that consistency requirement because the Board had done something to overcome that issue; it was able to then go back and begin to rezone property; the unintended consequences of repealing it at this point would be to put the Board back into the posture it was before it enacted the impact fee; and arguments could be made that the Board has been arbitrary and capricious and it is an argument the Board will hear if that is what happens. Commissioner Voltz inquired who would say that; with Attorney Knox responding anyone who wants to challenge the Board?s actions or rezoning based upon the fact it now switched from the impact fee. Chairman Pritchard inquired if the value of an impact fee matters; with Attorney Knox responding the value of the impact fee is not the significant issue. Attorney Knox stated the Board needs to have a sort of fee that is somehow tied to the actual cost of the facility; and other unintended consequence would be the possibility that it could not issue any development orders because there are not adequate facilities.

Commissioner Colon stated the task force of the Space Coast League of Cities is the perfect place for those types of discussions to happen to put everyone together to see the kind of community it wants to be. She stated everyone is in their own little world and not looking at the bigger picture; she has spoken to some of the city council members; and they would like to see the discussion happen. She stated today is the perfect opportunity; and it should not wait until 2006; and it has to be discussed right now.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board went to a lesser amount on the impact fee for legal argument purposes, does it have to be based on the study it did; if so, would it have to look at the other part of that potential assessment, which currently is the $4,500; and if it decides to charge $2,000, where does the $2,500 come from. Attorney Knox responded there are two answers to the question; the first answer is that there is nothing in the law that he is aware of that requires the Board to set the impact fee at $4,500 because the State supports that amount; and it can be set at something less than that. He stated the question then becomes what is the impact of setting the fee at less than $4,500; $4,500 is what the consultants say is needed to offset the impact of new development as it comes into the County; the argument the Board will hear if it sets it at something less than $4,500 is that is not enough to support the growth that it is coming in; and no development orders cannot be issued because the Board would not be funding adequate facilities in the future to support the growth, and it will have to come up with that other amount from some place else.

Chairman Pritchard inquired what is the effect of having the tiered system; and what if the Board would add them together and divide it by 1/3 and come up with an average on the three. Attorney Knox responded there are probably different mechanisms for doing it; one thing he spoke to Commissioner Colon about earlier is that the Board could set lower threshold fees for lower income families; whether the Board could blend all of the fees, he does not know; and the consultant looked at it from the standpoint of the impacts of the different kinds of uses, and in order to justify some sort of composites more work would have to be done on the study. Chairman Pritchard inquired what about using Community Development Block Grants to assist with the lower impact fee for lower income. Attorney Knox responded it may be an alternative.

Commissioner Carlson advised there are two examples of how to deal with affordable housing, Lake County and Polk County; and the Board should know about that as well. Chairman Pritchard inquired what can the Board do regarding a 1% real estate transaction fee. Attorney Knox responded the Legislative Delegation would have to sponsor a State law that imposes that. Chairman Pritchard inquired is there any other way the County can enact the 1% fee on real estate transaction. Attorney Knox responded not without the authority of the legislature; and taxes can only be imposed by general law. Chairman Pritchard inquired is there a chance of something like this surviving; with Knox responding if the Board traded it off for impact fees it may be able to get away with it.

Chairman Pritchard inquired what about putting the 1/2? sales tax on the ballot. School Board Chairman Larry Hughes responded he can only speak for himself, but he believes the community made it clear that they want an impact fee before going to them with a sales tax; if the impact fee was revoked, it would fail; and if there was a trade the impact fee for 1/2?, then the voters could decide on that. He stated it is asking the taxpayers to impose a tax upon themselves rather than imposing a tax on the growth that is causing the expense. Chairman Pritchard stated the tax is coming to them anyway; if the price of a house is jacked

up by $4,500 it floats the boats; if it were explained so people could clearly understand what the ramifications would be, he or she may say a 1/2? across-the-board would be less than the 3% that is going to go up every year. Mr. Hughes advised he cannot speak for the School Board on how it would feel about 1/2? sales tax.

Commissioner Voltz inquired would Mr. Hughes be willing to go back to the School Board to ask its opinion on the 1/2? sales tax. She stated the referendum that failed did not have anything to do with the School Board; it was because there was too much on the ballot; in Palm Bay when the voters are asked for something for a certain amount of time they will support it; and the amount of money needed needs to be determined. She stated that way all of the schools will be paid for and the sales tax will go away; and she wants Mr. Hughes to make the commitment to the Board. Mr. Hughes stated the Board and School Board need to work on the situation together; and he will make a commitment to the Board to go back to the School Board to convene a joint workshop between the Board and the School Board to discuss the issue further. Chairman Pritchard stated if Mr. Hughes will look at the way the EELS Program was marketed, 70% of the people voted to support it; if the people know what they are getting, they will vote for it; and it is a better approach than hitting people with $4,500 for buying a new home. Mr. Hughes inquired if the League of Cities Growth Task Force will be in attendance at the workshop. Chairman Pritchard responded that should not be a problem. Mr. Hughes advised that is one way of tying the municipalities into it.

Interim County Manager Peggy Busacca stated Planner Steve Swanke has comments that will provide the Board with additional information if it would like. Mr. Swanke stated staff can recalculate the impact fee under a single residential category and eliminate the different rates for different types of residences if the Board desires; it will not necessarily involve adding the three rates together and averaging them; and there would have to be a little bit of work done by the consultant to do that. Chairman Pritchard inquired how much would it cost. Mr. Swanke responded he cannot say, but it is not a major effort; it would not be terribly time consuming since they have the information; and it would require public hearings. Chairman Pritchard stated rather than go through all of that, the Board can have its meeting and see where it goes; and hopefully it will be able to get the 1/2? off the ground and market it appropriately. Commissioner Voltz inquired if it would be appropriate to address some of the issues with the low-income people who make $25,000 or less a year; and is it possible to exempt those people. Attorney Knox responded he thinks it is. Commissioner Carlson advised that is what Polk County did for a certain period of time, because at some point in time those low-income folks will probably move out of that home; and it may be established by someone who can afford it.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to direct the County Attorney to provide a report to the Board regarding an exemption for low-income persons making $25,000 or less. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Pritchard stated Tom Harper has arrived at the meeting; he is the gentleman who had a citizen request under Item VII.E.3; and the Board can indulge him by letting him speak now. He stated then the Board will take a lunch break; and the 1:00 p.m. time certain will be heard at 1:30 p.m.

Tom Harper stated in 1989 he bought two acres at Fawn Lake with the hope to build his dream home; he knew the impact fee was coming; September 13, 2004 he signed a contract with his builder; all of the paperwork was submitted; and as far as he knew everything was done. He stated staff neglected to tell him he needed to walk 70 feet around to the other department and have the paperwork stamped; and requested he be exempt from the impact fee.

Interim Assistant County Manager Ed Washburn stated Mr. Harper and his contractors said they did not know they needed to be exempted; and they had the necessary permit filed, but did not take the other step to have it exempted.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve the request of Thomas Harper to waive the educational impact fee to build a home at 5560 Canvasback Drive, Mims, Florida. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The Board recessed at 12:50 p.m. and reconvened at 1:32 p.m.

Chairman Pritchard requested staff brief the Board on the issue before the speakers are asked to come forward to speak on the issue. He advised the speakers of the rules for addressing the Board.

Zoning Official Rick Enos stated the Board directed staff to come back to it with proposals on how to potentially regulate resort homes; staff has done a number of things; the first thing is to define what a resort dwelling is; and staff suggests using the State definition. He stated it is any single family or multi-family dwelling that is rented more than three times a year for periods of less than 30 days or one calendar month, whichever is less; the Board wanted to consider amortizing existing uses; there are a number of existing uses out there that may have already been permitted by the State as a resort dwelling; and in those cases where the existing homes do not meet future regulations the Board may want to consider amortizing them. He noted that can be for any length of time that is consistent with the desire to get the investment back out of the property; the County Attorney?s office has been looking at that specifically; the land use regulations the Board may want to consider is to permit them in all commercial and hotel zoning classifications, and multi-family and single family attached. He stated in single family, one is to prohibit them entirely, or if the Board chooses to permit them under certain circumstances it can

set conditions that range from density limitations based on the Comprehensive Plan, or location such as barrier islands; and if the Board does so it may want to consider setting performance standards for such things as onsite parking, overcrowding, and excess or late noise, establish requirement for local management, and set out the management?s responsibility for making sure the performance standards are maintained.

Commissioner Voltz inquired how would the duplexes and triplexes that are in the residential zoning be addressed. Mr. Enos responded the way he proposed it the Board would permit them in multi-family zoning classifications. Commissioner Voltz stated she is not talking about zoning; and the ones that are zoned residential but have a duplex or triplex on the property is what she is speaking of. Mr. Enos stated it would be a different possibility; the Board could choose to permit those that are duplexes regardless of what the zoning is; all new duplexes would have to be in multi-family zoning, but existing duplexes could be permitted even if they are not conforming; and the Board would have to make that specific determination. Commissioner Voltz inquired if a duplex can be built in RR-1. Mr. Enos responded no as duplexes require multifamily zoning.

Chairman Pritchard stated some of the specifics brought to his attention included something zoned RR-1 and it is next to a motel or duplex, yet it is zoned RR-1; it is beachside; and if the Board looked at beachside as being different it could be addressed that way. He inquired how would the Board address something like that. Mr. Enos responded if the Board wanted to consider permitting resort homes in single family zoning in some circumstances, it could do that but it would have to define the circumstances; and if the Board wishes to establish a circumstance where they would be permitted based upon their location or type of use surrounding them, it could be done. Chairman Pritchard stated the primary concern he had was the single-family residential neighborhood; there is the occasional resort home located in that community; and that seemed to be the majority of the complaints received by the Board.

Richard Torpy, Attorney for Mr. and Mrs. George Utting, stated the issue is something the Board has discussed for quite some time; he wanted to address both points, whether the Board should allow residential resort dwellings in single family neighborhoods, and if it decides not to, how long the ones that are there can remain; he has been in front of the Board so many times on zoning applications where someone wanted to change an existing use, which is then going to affect the neighborhood; and the Board spent a great deal of time to make sure the zoning changes do not adversely affect a neighborhood. He stated it is simple zoning to him; most people live in a single family zoning residential community; when he moved into his home there was nothing in the Code that said a persons neighbors home may become a weekly rental; and a person could be potentially surrounded by weekly rentals. He stated had a person been put on notice that could happen, he or she may not have moved there; a person wanted to enjoy the neighborhood for quiet enjoyment and not have the transient nature of a weekly or bi-weekly rental; there is nothing wrong with those types of uses; and the renters are vacationers and

want to relax, party, and stay up late. He stated it would bother him if were across the street from him; a zoning change is not being discussed today, but an ordinance that somehow would allow those kinds of uses to slide into the neighborhoods; if he wanted to change a use in any part of Brevard County he would have to come before the Board with a zoning change; and the zoning districts are single family residential. He stated no one could sit there and argue that a weekly, biweekly, or monthly rental is nothing more than commercial; the people who own them do not live there; the people who bought them did not buy them to live there; and they bought them to make money. He stated he does not think the Board can approve in any level the concept of being able to live by a home that was built for the purpose of someone living there as a residential dwelling and turning it into a hotel; he does not care that it is a one-room hotel; it is inconsistent with the zoning and the ordinance, and inconsistent with the property rights; and if the Board does say resort dwellings in single family residential neighborhoods, there would be a proliferation of houses being used as resort dwellings. He requested the Board say no to single family residential resort dwellings. He stated if someone can come to the Board and show that they bought a house in a single family residential district and put extra money into it because it was intended to be used as a resort dwelling, the Board has a process to consider that on a case-by-case basis; and he believes most people bought a single family home for the price of a single family home; they are using it for resort dwelling now. He noted if it was sold, it would sell for what was paid for it or maybe more; and the Board needs to have those people come before it as part of its vested rights procedure if it determines not to allow that use in single family residential.

Bruce Wechsler, representative of the Libertarian Party, stated history has shown worldwide that a peaceful, free society can only exist where property rights are recognized and protected; in the beginning of the country the settlements of Jamestown and Plymouth were abject failures because they were communal; it was not until property rights were recognized that there was Thanksgiving; and that was because they were profitable and succeeded because property rights were granted and protected. He stated in the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; he originally wrote life, liberty, and property; and Benjamin Franklin decided to expand that to include pursuit of happiness. He stated there are two issues and both are valid, he watched the last Board meeting on the issue and people have a true interest in actions of people in resort properties; they are sincere that there has been serious problems in certain cases; but he does not know how widespread it is amongst the different properties that exist. He stated a person?s rights have been violated; there is basic property rights of real estate ownership; in crafting the Bill of Rights the framers were careful to acknowledge two key truths; the first is that government does not grant rights, it acknowledges them; and they exist independently of government. He noted they are part of who and what we are; and the only legitimate function of government is to secure them. He stated the second is that government is a servant to whom we delegate powers, not a master who dispenses privileges; the Constitution carefully enumerates the powers we the people delegate to our government; and it specifically denies that government any powers not so delegated. He advised our rights lie beyond the pale of that delegation; they are sacrosanct;

and any government, which infringes upon them is engaged in an intolerable usurpation. He stated there are two things to consider, the rights of the neighbors to the resort rentals and the rights of the property owners; by going the direction of an ordinance and trying to create this nirvana of everything is nice and peaceful and everybody has things the way they are is a misdirected way to go; and Margaret Thatcher said, "Freedom is not synonymous with an easy life. There are many difficult things about freedom. It does not give you security. It creates moral dilemmas for you. It requires self-discipline. It imposes great responsibilities. But such is the nature of man and in such consists of glory and salvation." He stated Thomas Jefferson said, "Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." He stated maybe there is a different way to look at the situation as opposed to the out-right regulations of the resort homes; the rights of property owners need to be recognized to do with what they will with their property; and he does not believe government in any form has the right to deny that. He stated at the same time the Board needs to look at the interest of the neighbors; and neighbors may justifiably have some real problems and people have violated their rights; if people are making noise and infringing on his or her rights after a certain time, and government is not taking care of that problem, therein lies the problem; and suggested the Board look at the actual incidences. He stated he is not talking about deed restricted areas; that is a totally different thing; and people have voluntarily agreed to lose their freedoms there. He stated look at the instances and why law enforcement has not been able to do anything about it; the resort rental owners should form a voluntary association and come up with rules and guidelines that adhere to the best wishes of the community; and the Economic Development Task Force or Tourist Development Commission should work with those to advertise those members who keep that in good standing. He stated in order to get love a person has to give love; the same thing works for freedom; and in order to have freedom for yourself, a person must be willing to grant it to others.

Ann Samuelson, Vice President of South Patrick Residence Association, stated she is a business owner of residential rental property, which she leases by the year; homeowners look to elected representatives to make the best and most just decision on an issue that impacts them where they live and raise children; when she was on the radio this morning regarding this particular issue the subject of rights and responsibilities came up; and she often hears about rights but not so often about responsibilities. She stated when a person moves into a residential subdivision there are restricted covenants; not too many on the list; one of the Association?s covenants state there shall be no commercial uses in the area; the Uttings live in North Waterway as well, yet on the north and south side of them they have businesses or commercial dwellings there; and residents have the right to enjoy their communities. She noted they have the right to bring up their families; the expectations are there; they will not have such a business located next to them; and it carries over to elected officials to carry that through and make the best decision on their behalf. She stated according to the Brevard County Codes, weekly rental use is a business or a commercial use as defined in Florida Statutes, Chapter 509, as well as the Brevard County Ordinances in Chapter 102; weekly rental from her reading is neither listed or permitted in any residential zoning classification in County Code Chapter 62, but that is open

to lawyers getting involved there; any business plan that fails to include research into the State, County, and residential covenants for licensing before the purchase of the property is remiss. She advised it is the business owners responsibility to do the research or hire someone else to do that for them; it is the owners responsibility to insure that all licenses are current so they are lawfully operating; all Statutes and Ordinances are found easily on the Internet; and she was able to do the research in the afternoon. She noted after an applicant receives a State license the next step is application through the Tax Collector?s Office; she talked with Bill Marion with the Tax Collector?s Office and he said currently there are only two resort dwellings that are licensed in Brevard County; application is made to the Tax Collector?s Office, the application is sent to Zoning, and a red flag goes up; and if the occupational application is approved the flat license fee is $37. She noted the State will receive 6% tax; the County receives 4%; and that is the Tourist Development Tax, which goes to the Tourist Development Council; and should any business that is not licensed by the State and County be rewarded by not following the law through grandfathering or amortizing their expenditures to give them an increase in their investment. She stated there should be swift termination of unlicensed operation and protection for the stability of the neighborhoods; and requested the Board not allow resort dwellings in residential areas as they are incompatible with other residential properties and do not belong in residential zoning.

Barbara Van Dam stated she wants the Board to allow resort homes in the unincorporated area of Melbourne Shores in Brevard County; areas that are not otherwise deed restricted, and grandfather in the current property owners and make new rules for new property owners. She requested the Board consider permit with conditions; stated oceanfront homes can be exempt because they bring in a lot of summer tourists and snowbirds, and spend a lot of money in the County; and requested the Board consider one-month minimums in the single family areas, or three months at the very least. She stated the County has been very happy to take the tourist money for all of these years from people; it has never required an occupational license; and it needs to grandfather those people in at the very least.

Frank Maurer stated he purchased his home in 1990 and from that time on he has improved it; he rents it out by the year; but part of his goal was to live in it ? of the year and rent it out the other ?. He stated the Board should possibly have a three-month condition on this; he put a lot of money into his home; he has renters in the home now; and he has improved it beyond some homes that have been there for years. He stated he contributes to the tax base; he is disturbed that now after all of these years he may not be able to rent his home out except for possibly year long duration; and he contributed to Brevard County. He stated most people who come down to rent short-term are for three months; if the Board makes it a six-month period it will lose a lot of money; he has owned his home since 1990; he has put ? of the cost back into the home and improved it greatly. He noted it is advantageous for the neighborhood; and it shows he has great respect for the neighborhoods.

Commissioner Voltz stated the Board is looking at 30 days being the minimum, not 3 to 6 months. Mr. Maurer stated he did not know that but he did not want the Board to proceed because bureaucracy gets out of hand.

Juanita Brooks stated she is present to speak on her home, which is a triplex; she designed and built it in 1978; she lives in 2/3 of the home, and rents 1/3 of it as two separate one-bedroom units; and she always rented them year round until the taxes escalated. She stated her home is zoned multi-family; the Board may possibly exclude multi-family; and she encourages it to do that. She stated her home does not fit the profile that the Board has been speaking of; it primarily seems to be concerned about single family neighborhoods; north of her neighborhood is a national wildlife refuge, to the south is Archie Carr property, to the east is thousands of miles of the ocean, to the west is Highway A1A, and on the other side of A1A about ? block away is one dwelling. She noted the closest house to the north and south can barely be seen; the neighborhood consists of raccoons, fish, porpoises, and birds; she hopes the Board defines the population today, and with that definition it will exclude multi-family dwellings; and by doing so, it would exclude her particular property.

Laura Roy stated she came today to find out exactly what the definition of a short-term rental is, which she thinks is 30 days; she wants to confirm that people in the South Beaches could do three-month rentals.

Chairman Pritchard advised he spoke with Ms. Roy briefly during lunch; and if the Board said for the next 6 months those people could just go about their business. He stated if a person had a contract to rent in March that would take a person through May and would be allowed; there were a lot of people who had contacts for rentals; if a person had a contract prior to April he or she could utilize their contract; and Commissioner Voltz mentioned earlier that the Board was dealing with 30-day rentals. He stated he did not know if the Board was leaning towards 30 days or not; the State definition of short-term rental is 30 days; and he does not want to say he is leaning towards 30 days.

Ms. Roy stated she has a client who wants to rent for three months; and she is not sure what to tell him. Chairman Pritchard inquired if there is a contract; with Ms. Roy responding they do not have a contract yet. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the home was already used in the past for this purpose; with Ms. Roy responding it was in the past. Chairman Pritchard stated Ms. Roy has come in as the new property manager; it had not been rented for a while; and now that there is a new manager it looks like the property will be marketed. He stated if they have a contract for March, April, and May, he thought it was the intent of the Board to allow that contract to be executed. Assistant County Attorney Terri Jones stated the moratorium is only on the 30 days or less; and it was enacted December 9, 2004.

Regina Chesser inquired what is the State definition of resort homes.

Zoning Official Rick Enos responded any single family or multi-family dwelling which is rented more than three times in the calendar year for periods of less than 30 days or one calendar month, whichever is less. Ms. Chesser stated that is less than 30 days; she has been a licensed rental agent in Barefoot Bay for 15 years; the decisions the Board makes today will have an impact on her homeowners, so she wants to speak for them as well as herself; and when she read the newspaper on the issue, the problem for her had a lot to do with the terminology. She stated there is short-term, resort, vacation, and she does seasonal rentals; so there is a lot of definitions and everyone has to make sure he or she is on the same page. She stated the State of Florida defines short-term as six months or less for the purpose of collecting taxes; common sense tells a person that people on vacation stay about two weeks; and a lot of resorts have a maximum of two-week limitations on them. She stated she manages seasonal rentals; her tenants are snowbirds; they stay two to six months during the winter; and most are repeat tenants. She stated she does not manage resort or vacation rentals; for her they are problematic; and they are not worth income that she could get from them. She noted she often says she is not running a motel because she sees a difference between what she does and a vacation rental; she sympathizes with the County residents who have problems with the vacation resort rentals, and realizes the need to regulate them; she lives in an agricultural area and has a neighbor who decided to raise fighting 150 game roosters; and it was disruptive for quite some time. She stated she would prefer not to see any regulation, but before the Board throws the baby out with the bath water she wanted to ask the Board to give serious consideration to regulating vacation resort rentals of less than one month in residential areas. She stated it would allow the winter residents to continue to stay in Brevard; and continue to give the County and State the tax revenue that those seasonal residents generate by shopping, dining, and the 10% tax; and inquired if the Board was able to get the tax figures of what Brevard County receives for resort tax and does it know how much money the County will be losing by banning six months or less. Ms. Chesser stated the owners in Barefoot Bay are not investors; they bought the homes; they will come in the near future and live in them as residents; and it will be their retirement homes. She stated it helps get them a little bit of income to maintain the home until they are ready to retire.

Chairman Pritchard inquired if raising fighting game roosters is the same as cock fighting; with Ms. Chesser responding yes. He inquired if that is illegal; with Ms. Chesser responding it was not illegal at the time. Ms. Chesser stated it was Indian River County; and she fought it for four months. She stated it was legal to raise them but illegal to fight them; the sheriff and the county knew there was a lot of illegal things going on there and kept a close eye on it; and about a year later the sheriff arrested everyone. She advised there was a total of 700 roosters the humane society had to gather up.

Chairman Pritchard inquired if staff has an answer to Ms. Chesser?s question about a potential loss of State tax revenue. Commissioner Carlson suggested the information be requested from the Tax Collector?s Office.

Lucinda Coulter-Burbach stated she bought her property for the purpose of doing vacation rentals because she could not afford to buy it to live in; one of her neighbors asked why she did not just come here and stay; her home she pays her regular taxes on is $2,500 a year, but in Florida it is $12,000; and she cannot afford to live there, and cannot afford to keep the property if it cannot be rented. She stated it is a five-bedroom home; she does not do winter rentals; but in the summer the home is full from March 1 to the end of August. She stated she asked the realtor when she first bought the property if there were any restrictions on renting it short-term; she asked the attorney who handled the closing if there were any deed restrictions; and they both said no. She advised the home is zoned single family residential, but there is a motel with a restaurant three doors one way, and there are many other motels around the area; it is on the beachside in South Brevard County; she has fallen in love with Brevard County; and if she could afford to live here all year round she would. She stated she is bringing in family; she received an email asking if she rented to spring breakers; and the answer is no. She stated it is generally three generation families who rent the home; they are told it is a single-family residential neighborhood; they do have to be quiet; and she is glad for regulation. She stated she is willing to go by sound, noise, and parking regulations; and she will be sure to get it in the lease in the future. She stated she did not have the State resort license; and she learned recently her realtor was supposed to have a license that would cover that. She stated she noticed when she was at Commissioner Voltz?s office the other day that she had a long-range plan for Brevard County; one of the things she said was that she supported mixed use neighborhoods, a mixture of residential, commercial, and offices so to reduce gas usage; she would think the Commissioner would take some of this into consideration while making regulation; and she wants the Board to exempt beachside homes.

Commissioner Voltz stated she wanted to apologize for the mix up with her schedule while Ms. Coulter-Burbach was at her office; and she is sorry she was unable to see her.

Pam Pipher stated like the previous speaker, she bought two homes for short-term rentals; when she bought them she checked if it was okay to rent the homes; she cannot afford to keep the homes if they cannot be rented; and it is not like building a fence, they are homes that have been furnished. She stated her two homes face Highway A1A, and they are on the west side; they are not back in a neighborhood; and they are steps from Aquarina. She stated the gentleman who spoke earlier said people only bought the homes to make money; it is not against the law to make money; and this is her job. She stated she is a stay-at-home mom and takes care of the rentals; one reason she was not scared to do the short-term rentals was when she lived in South Carolina she lived next door to a rental home for eight years; in the eight years she lived there she did not have one problem; and she is careful who she rents to. She noted she speaks with the prospective renters at length about car limit she feels the people out; her homes are empty half of the time; and the people who rent homes generally have a little bit of money. She stated they go out to eat and shop; they are not there to reek havoc; she lives ? mile from her rentals; and she drives by a lot of the time. She noted usually she will stop and

say hello to her renters; it was allowed, and it is like changing the rules in the middle of a ballgame; she has invested a lot of time and money into the homes; and now to say a person cannot have short-term rentals is not right.

Gene Cimino stated he owns a home in a single-family RU-1-11 residentially zoned area; he has heard a few things from various speakers; when he bought his house he bought it not to live next to a motel or hotel; and he wanted a single family neighborhood and he thought he was getting when he bought his house four years ago. He stated as far as values, everyone knows the values of real estate have gone up dramatically in the past few years; everyone in the room who purchased a house even less than a year ago can get a substantial portion of their investment back; resort dwellings weekly rates are very high, and they are making a lot of money; and if he wanted to put an auto garage in his neighborhood he is sure it would not be allowed. He noted there would be people coming and going and making a lot of noise; that is what is happening with his situation; there are people coming down more than two families at a time; and the people party outside because they are on vacation. He noted the next week it is a new crew; he has complained to the police; for every one of the rental homes there are four private homes; and inquired what about the people who have invested to live in a single-family neighborhood. He suggested the Board prohibit the short-term rentals from single-family; and noted if it is amortizing them, do it for as short as possible.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there have always been snowbirds in the State of Florida; and inquired if that is the type of the people Mr. Ciminio is talking about. Mr. Ciminio responded no.

Ava Cronin stated she owns a State licensed triplex in the South Beaches on the east side of Highway A1A; the property was purchased in August 2004; there are two units on the bottom and one on the top; and the intention was for her parents in the next two to five years to retire and live in the top unit and run the bottom unit. She stated right now she is managing the units; she lives about 15 minutes away; she is there four to five times a week; but it is a wonderful job. She stated she wants the Board to make Highway A1A a tourist zone because there are such a variety of uses on that road; and requested it consider any ordinance to specifically exclude multi-family uses, not just multi-family zoning.

Eileen Coleman stated their home is one of those odd uses; they own a duplex and have lived there for 20 years and plan to retire there; they rent out one side of their duplex; and her home borders commercial property on A1A. She advised the ABC Liquor Store is only ? block from them; they are located in a tourist area; it is a mixed use type of neighborhood; and they did get their State licenses. She stated when she decided to do this they contacted the Planning and Zoning Department, as well as the Tax Collector?s Office; they were told by both that since they were already a rental they did not need any special licenses or zoning, and could rent the property any way they wanted; when she applied to pay State and County sales taxes, no one advised her of any licenses or permits that were required; and inquired if the Tax Collector

requires that a resort dwelling owner must have a State license and County occupational license, why is there no where on the application to list the license numbers. She stated there is nothing on the County application form instructions or in the letter from the Tax Collector?s office to her stating she needed an occupational license or State license; that is where so many of those people got caught in the loophole; a person could pay his or her taxes yet no proof of applying for any types of licenses is necessary; and with most duplexes there is a continual change of tenants at various times. She advised a person can walk to the beach from where her home is. She stated the RU-2-10 zoning permits many uses, some of which are group and foster homes, bed and breakfast inns, adult living facilities, and recreational facilities; she lives next door to her rental property; and she meets the tenants. She noted they spend a lot of money in the area; and she has not had any kind of problems.

Jennifer Tweeddale stated she is an owner of a resort dwelling unit; her property is located in a single-family neighborhood; she wanted to discuss the responsibility she knows she has and many other resort dwelling unit owners have; and they have formed an organization of vacation homeowners of whom she is the president. She stated they have been talking for several weeks for some reasonable performance standards that could be implemented with the help of the County; she has read over some performance standards that Zoning Official Rick Enos has given to the Board; some of them are good; and some could be expounded upon to make them work a lot better for the County. She stated she sympathizes with many of the residents who have had bad situations arise from the short-term rentals; but with some reasonable standards, a good playing field can be set for the tenants, homeowners, and property owners. She stated not many people know what to expect, with the eviction process; and she does not think homeowners have any idea that according to the State Statutes they can evict those tenants immediately that are undesirable. She stated there are Noise Ordinances and Maximum Occupancy Ordinances; if all of this was made public for all of the neighbors to know about, they would be more comfortable with the situation; she has not talked with one property owner that does not want to take responsibility for their property; and Mr. Ciminio has talked about out-of-state owners. She noted she is speaking about the short-term rentals that are already existing and not new ones coming into the neighborhood; someone needs to be responsible for that property 24 hours a day, seven days a week; the neighbors should know who is responsible for it; and many property owners want to work and coexist with the neighborhoods and it can be done with some standards.

Mike Minot stated he represents 14 owners who have a history and record of using their properties and renting them under the definition the Board is considering short-term rentals; it has heard varying testimonies of the distinctions between those properties that are multi-family zoned and multi-family use, which would be non-conforming; the functional difference is significant between people who live one wall away from each other, as well as common sidewalks and parking areas, and expectations of what is taking place around them; and he hopes the Board would limit itself to the single family residence situations, which is where the complaints are coming from. He stated Mr. Enos has put on the discussion table the issue of

geographically looking at certain properties; the Board has heard from his clients and others who are located in the South Beach area, be it east of A1A where the hotels, restaurants, and bars are; but directly across the street facing the east side the entire area is different than a traditional neighborhood is. He requested the Board?s consideration regarding the exemption of that area specifically on a geographic basis because of the mixed use that is there today; and inquired who would be subject to grandfathering and for what period of time. He stated it will be difficult, and he does not envy the Board in its discussion of fairness of who should be part of the group going forward because of the historical nature of how the County has disseminated information on this, and how the State has accepted the tax revenue for this with forms that do not suggest any need for a State license. He stated there are many people who have applied for State licenses before the moratorium, and because of the hurricane damage the State would not inspect their premises and disallowed any application because of hurricane damage; all of the hurricanes were before the moratorium; there are many other considerations that would be fair to people to consider the historical use of those properties; and he had the opportunity to read what Mr. Enos provided to the Board. He noted the proposed performance standards were cherry picked from other ordinances throughout the State; he spoke with Mr. Bowen who is the Code Enforcement Director; and there are more quantitative or measurable ways to create performance standards than those that are set forth in the package. He stated an example would be in identifying square footage of the dwelling for purposes of regulation for parking spaces as well as the occupancy of the number of people who will be there; to do otherwise would require the Code Enforcement Director to figure out how many people are there and the rooms that are there.

Allan Della Bella stated he would like the Board to look at the aspect that anybody east of A1A might be different than anybody renting west; if the current standards are kept and the prices continue the way they are going, only movie stars will be able to live east of Highway A1A if they are not able to partially rent their domiciles for short periods of time; his intention is to use his with his family and children for a good portion of the year, and for a small portion of the year to rent it out to prospective short-term renters; and he has a property manager, and the property manager is always makes sure that who the homes have been rented to have been fine, upstanding citizens. He noted credit checks are done; they ask who will be there and if they are related or not; in his particular situation, there are eight townhomes where he lives on Highway A1A; and besides himself, three other current owners have rented their places short-term prior to moving into them permanently, which is his intent to eventually do. He requested the Board grandfather anyone in who has being paying taxes and is a good citizen; and noted he has tried to follow all of the guidelines set forth by the County. He advised on the first page of the guidelines he distributed to the Board it can see he is multi-family zoned oceanfront; the home is in the South Beaches; along the street are restaurants, bars, etc.; and after that there is a property management agreement. He stated United Country Host Realty of Melbourne Beach has been paying his rental taxes; the next page there is a list of names of people who have been paying taxes on their homes; he does not have a State license to rent; and prior to the moratorium he tried to acquire a State license; but the State could not grant him one because of

the hurricane damage. He stated he would have to rebuild his townhouse and the State would come out and inspect it; his concern was that a deadline was going to be set for that to happen at some point; his deadline is going to be a good 4-6 months out because of the considerable damage he ascertained through both of the hurricanes that hit Melbourne Beach; and all of his neighbors have his personal phone number, office phone number, and cell phone number. He noted there is always a property manager right down the street; he has had no complaints ever; there are many people moving into the area and the kind of people he wanted in the neighborhood; and he would never rent to anyone who seemed undesirable.

Commissioner Scarborough advised Mr. Della Bella that his property is on Highway A1A; and if the Board exempts that property it will address his concern. Commissioner Colon stated she is glad for the accountability on Mr. Della Bella?s part; she sees where he pays $56 for a one-time occupational license; on the first page she is trying to figure out where it shows he is paying the extra taxes; and if someone owns a $500,000 home on the beachside they pay taxes for that home. Mr. Della Bella stated the taxes he is referring to are the taxes from the resort fees from the people coming in; he thinks it is 10%; and if a person rents a place for $1,000 a month the agent out of the $1,000 takes $100 and forwards that to the State. Commissioner Voltz stated on the information submitted by Mr. Della Bella it shows his address as Delray Beach; and it showed that he received homestead exemption. Mr. Della Bella stated he lived in Delray Beach; this is a second home he bought to retire into and use for vacation for his family; the reason it is homesteaded is because he bought it last January; and the people who lived there before him had it homesteaded.

Renee Della Bella stated she is a homeowner and mother; she has three children; and she and her husband bought the home for retirement; and she enjoys and misses it very much because of the damage from the hurricanes. She stated it is a joy to come to Brevard County on the weekends and holidays; if she and her husband are not able to rent the home, they will have to sell it, and all of those things would be taken away from her children; she tried to do research and contacted people in various counties to see what was going on; and a lot of the areas have addressed the issue of short-term rentals; and have chosen not to regulate that activity in multi-family neighborhoods. She stated she spoke with a knowledgeable lady in Isle Marada; she said if a person would not be able to do short-term rentals the numbers would be in the area of $3.1 million loss for the fishing captains, and a $3.7 million loss to restaurant people; and requested the Board make a valuable and knowledgeable decision for everyone.

Gina LaDrew stated she is a licensed resort dwelling owner in a single family residential neighborhood.; she did research and the Board is in a tough position; no one really wants to be at the meeting; but it is necessary so the standards can be raised. She stated she wants to be responsible, and many people she has met during the process wanted to be responsible; the Board did well by putting the moratorium in place; if there is a nuisance on the property not only would the owner have the right to make them leave, but the Sheriff would as well; and if an individual is not operating according to the State Statute they will be fined up to $1,000 and their

license can be suspended or revoked. She stated before a timeframe is established she requests the Board study the timeframe that they are looking at for the existing people who are operating within the realm of the law; she falls into that category; she has a 30-year mortgage and depends on this as part of her income; and she cares about her neighbors and wants to coexist with them.

Sylvia Hatcher stated when the proceedings began earlier today there was discussion and things read regarding residential single-family subdivisions versus multi-family and other zoning; where she is concerned is transient rentals period; and that is anything under six months and possibly under a year in a residential single-family subdivision. She advised the people who live east of Highway A1A, she can understand the zoning may be different there because of the different kinds of businesses; she lives in North Waterway Estates; it is a single-family subdivision; and she has owned her home since 1977 and did rent it out while her husband was stationed overseas for 6 ? years. She noted and it was rented on an annual basis; the only possible clause that was required was in case someone got transferred; has issues with transient rentals; and when she moved into her home in 1977 the street she lives on was mainly military retirees and other folks. She advised there were probably only six children on the street; and inquired do residents know if there is a registered sex offender that will stay in a rental for one day, two weeks, or 30 days. She advised no one will know if a background check is not done; when someone rents a home for a year a person can do a background check; and if someone moves in, research can be done to determine if there is an issue. She stated she has nothing against the people who have multi-family homes; it is a different scenario completely; she would not have bought her house in a single-family residential subdivision knowing that it was transient; she has lived in areas like that, but she lived in a condominium. She stated she cannot emphasize enough that with a residential single-family subdivision there does not need to be transient rentals; people said if there is a nuisance call the police; but if a person owns rental property and needed to evict a tenant it takes more than 24 hours; and some of the homes in her subdivision that have been a transient rental have had an enormous amount of people, more than a three bedroom or four bedroom home can accommodate. She stated she hops the Board looks at the situation from the perspective of a single-family residential subdivision versus multi-family and other resort rentals.

Fiona Stephan stated she lives in the single-family neighborhood of North Waterway Estates; she owns and lives in her home; she pays taxes to Brevard County; and she works in Brevard County; and she spends a great deal of money in the County. She stated she does not want any resort dwelling businesses in her single-family neighborhood.

George Utting stated a number of the previous speakers have eluded to the fact that this meeting and discussion would not be pertinent if a person has deed restrictions; everyone in North and South Waterway Estates have deed restrictions, which do not permit commercial use; but there is no enforcement and no way to enforce it.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated there is no way for the County to enforce it; but there is a way for private citizens who have those deed restrictions to enforce them. Mr. Utting advised that is what his attorney said; he said the amount of money and time would be highly excessive and not worth it; and presented a petition signed by 384 residents of North and South Waterway Estates to the Board. He stated of the 413 presented with the petition, 384 or over 92% signed the petition and 29 people declined; the petition stated the following: "Single family homes in our area should not be rendered for commercial use on a weekly or monthly basis as resort dwellings. Such resort rentals advertised on the internet of sleeping up to 11 persons are a noise and parking nuisance and decrease the value of adjacent residences of legitimate homeowners. Amortization or grandfathering of existing resort rentals and recovery investment should be no longer than six months. We know that the owners of these resort rentals will be able to sell at a profit because of the general increase of valuation that has taken place. The County abated the issuance of occupational licenses on August 24, 2004, effective through April 2005. Therefore, in evaluating the costs of existing transient rental properties in our area purchased in April and June of 2004, the costs of upgrading such properties during this period of license abatement should not be considered in the determination of recovering of their investment." He noted the people owning resort rentals in North Waterway Estates were well aware of the deed restrictions when they bought their property.

Evelyn Brown stated she is a realtor and landlord of long-term properties; she is opposed to short-term rentals in any residential neighborhoods regardless of whether it is single family or multi-family; a person?s home is their home regardless of the physical construction of that particular home; and she does not want to put her friends and neighbors at a disadvantage for benefit. She stated if it looks like a business, sounds like a business, it is a business; she has heard many people come before the Board today and say it is their job and business, and that is a business; and accordingly it should be zoned commercial. She stated it may be that some of the area should be zoned commercial; if the County zones her neighborhood commercial she will have to learn to deal with that; spot zoning is not beneficial; and if people familiarize themselves with areas that are spot zoned, it ends up leading to blight. She stated the city is not in the position to make property owners profitable; the market is the determining factor for making a property owner profitable; and she does not see it as the County?s responsibility that someone makes a big profit on a home. She stated she hopes the Board looked at the email she sent to it concerning using the income approach to a residential property; it is not appropriate for a residential property; and market conditions is what determine the appraisal for a residential property. She stated a person would not get more or less money because a person gets more or less rent when a person sells a residential property; it happens when a person sells a commercial property; and in her business one of things she adheres to carefully is not to violate federal guidelines on discrimination in rental property. She distributed a graphic to the Board concerning a house up the street from her.

Jean Freeman stated she is the Area Five Director for South Patrick Residents Association of 400 homes in North Waterway Estates; two of the short-term rental homes are located in her

area; she is asking the Board to make a decision that respects a family-oriented neighborhood; the residents purchased their homes in a residential area expecting to be part of the community. She stated the Board will hear pros and cons regarding the short-term rental issue; she wants it to consider people who purchased a house in North Waterway Estates so they could enjoy the residential area and not to reside next to a business; today is an important day in the lives of many in North Waterway Estates; and she wants the Board to do away with short-term rentals in residential areas.

Commissioner Voltz inquired if the County allows any sort of businesses to be in residential zoning.

Zoning Official Rick Enos responded only if it qualifies for a home occupation; and the Board has stated that a resort dwelling is not a home occupation. Commissioner Voltz inquired if the Code does not allow businesses to function in residential areas, why would be allow those people to amortize.

County Attorney Scott Knox responded the issue will boil down to whether or not there is a) non-conforming uses, b) whether the Board wanted to let them continue as non-conforming uses indefinitely, or c) if it wants to amortize them if they are non-conforming. He stated by definition non-conforming use is once legal at the time the Board changed the rules and it became non-conforming. Commissioner Voltz stated if the resort dwelling is in residential and the Code does not allow anyone to function as a business in residential, then whether a person has a license or not he or she is not permitted. Attorney Knox stated that is the issue that was wrestled with the last time the Board met; and Mr. Enos said it was not identified anywhere in the Code. Commissioner Voltz stated they are a business; they are functioning as a business in a residential area; and according to the Zoning Code it is not permitted. Mr. Enos stated the Zoning Code does not deal with this issue at all; it does not deal with length of stay in single-family residences; it is the State that defines the short-term rental as a business; and so for that reason it needs an occupational license. He stated the County is not issuing occupational licenses for that reason, but the Zoning Code is not what is defining it as a business. Commissioner Voltz stated there is no question that it is a business; and if there is a business running in a residential area it is illegal under the Code and the Board should not think about whether or not it should amortize them. Commissioner Carlson inquired prior to the moratorium did the County give out occupational licenses for this sort of activity. Mr. Enos responded no.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if he knew he was moving away from Brevard County and was going away for a couple of years he could rent his house while he is gone; when there is constantly something on the internet forming contracts every week that is totally different than having something where a person may rent their home for two to three years; and inquired at what moment does it shift into being a business. He stated when a person goes to church in January there are a lot more people present than in July; Brevard County has a lot of people

who come down as snowbirds; and inquired at what point does the Board push the snowbird out. Commissioner Voltz advised seasonal rentals are different than people coming in and out weekly.

Commissioner Carlson stated resort rentals on the website with constant movement in residential communities is something the Board wanted to stop; and inquired if that is still the current belief on the Board. Commissioner Voltz responded yes. Commissioner Carlson stated that could be addressed, including discussion about where to allow the residential dwellings, and the amortization of those who do exist in single family who should not exist there because the Board wanted to get rid of them due to the turmoil.

Commissioner Scarborough stated when it came up Attorney Knox had given three months; three months is more likely to be a snowbird likely environment; and there must be something in between the one month and three months that take it out of the problem for the single family neighborhood.

Chairman Pritchard inquired if the Board is proposing it still allow resort rentals in single family neighborhoods period. Commissioner Carlson responded she is addressing the short-term, thirty days or less rental that has been what is bothering the people who live in specific subdivisions that have complaints about the neighbors because they move in and out on a short-term basis, not anything past the short-term rental at this point. She stated the Board needed to pin down exactly if it does not like the short-term rentals in the neighborhoods; and if it does not like it, it needs to figure out an amortization or conforming versus nonconforming issue. Chairman Pritchard stated the short-term residential rental for less than 30 days could stay and just rent for more than 30 days; and if a person has a house and he or she has been renting that house for less than 30 days, and the Board said it will no longer be allowed, then the person could stay and rent for more than 30 days. He inquired why would the Board amortize anything.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated it is a good idea to amortize once the Board decids what it wants to consider a non-conforming use, because the only thing it needs to amortize is non-conforming uses; under the current circumstances he is not sure which ones qualify and which ones do not; and it seems like there is nothing that is really prohibiting those types of uses out there so they may all qualify. He stated there may be some because they are licensed under the State that qualify. Commissioner Carlson stated from the Board?s perspective it cannot say that a person cannot rent in a single family residential setting because there are snowbirds or the individual moves out of the State for a short period of time and rents the home for maybe one or two years; and inquired if the Board has the ability to do that. Attorney Knox responded he has not looked at that issue; it is a policy call if the Board wants to exercise its authority or not; and it sounds to him like the Board is looking at short-term not long-term type things. Commissioner Carlson stated it is her understanding that the real issue is the short-term transient nature of those resort dwellings; and that is where she has targeted her perspective.

Chairman Pritchard inquired who would be getting into the business of resort rentals, knowing a person would be renting for less than 30 days; and if a person is going to now decide to rent for 30 days or longer, what is the County amortizing. Commissioner Scarborough responded a person could continue the current practice in single-family neighborhoods of weekly rentals under an amortization schedule; and to what extent the Board amortizes would possibly enable the owners of weekly rentals to continue their current practice. Commissioner Carlson stated it is a 30-day limitation at least three times a year is what the State Statute states; and the Board regulates out business in certain areas it then becomes nonconforming and that is where amortization comes in.

Commissioner Colon inquired if it would be easier for the Board to work backwards; if the Board is talking about 30 days or more that is not a subject it wanted to touch; so anyone who is renting 30 days or more it is not part of the discussion. She stated the next issue is those who live in an area that is considered a tourist area; the Board needs to take action to see if those people should go home; the most difficult ones are the ones where the Board?s fears lay, such as a single-family home; and it needs to decide which areas are the ones it wants to consider exempt, and it should take action on those. She stated that way it will allow the Board to focus on where it has problems.

Commissioner Voltz inquired if Commissioner Colon wants to make a motion; with Commissioner Colon responding yes. Commissioner Voltz inquired is it 30 days all of the time or 30 days three times a year because there is a difference. Attorney Knox stated it is 30 days or less three times a year if he remembers correctly. Commissioner Carlson stated 31 days and greater the Board is not dealing with at this point. Mr. Enos stated if the Board would move the definition as described in the Agenda Report then that is how the definition would be written. Commissioner Voltz stated it allows someone to only rent his or her property three times a year. Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not think that is where the Board wants to go. Commissioner Carlson stated the issue is allowing the short-term rentals in the residential communities; and they may end up having to change how a person looked at that rental into a greater than 30-day rental. Commissioner Voltz stated if the Board only allows a person to do the 30-day rental three times a year it is a problem because what would a person do the other nine months out of the year. Mr. Enos advised a person would go to more than 30 days.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if a person can rent out for less than 30 days three times a year. Mr. Enos responded that is the State definition. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board needs to move away from the definition in the paperwork to what is being said, which is nothing less than 30 days. Commissioner Carlson stated the State definition says a vacation resort rental is less than 30 days three times a year; and if the Board is saying it does not want that kind of business in a single family area it should say it does not want that in single family areas period.

Commissioner Colon inquired if the motion is rentals for more than 30-day terms are exempt from the regulations; and that is it and should not be complicated. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the County Attorney would clarify the motion. Attorney Knox responded rental terms of more than 30 days are exempt from any regulations regardless of neighborhood. Commissioner Scarborough stated some people wanted it longer than that. Chairman Pritchard stated it is more than 30 days regardless of neighborhood; and that is the motion on the table. Commissioner Colon stated the decision needs to be made today; and it is going too far. Chairman Pritchard advised it appears it is less than 30-day rentals that is causing the problems.

Mr. Enos stated what the Board is doing now is defining what a resort dwelling is; and what it is saying is a resort dwelling is any rental of less than 30 days. Commissioner Scarborough stated that is not what Mr. Knox said; it is specifically exempted from the provisions of the ordinance any rentals of more than 30 days; and it is a totally different issue. He inquired would the Board want to talk about something more than 30 days, six weeks, two months, or something like that. Commissioner Carlson responded she is happy to talk about more time. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board is talking about single family neighborhoods; and he would feel more comfortable with a two-month period rather than a one month.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to exempt rental terms of more than 60 days from the regulations. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Carlson stated if the Board looked at what was given to it in the Agenda package there were good suggestions from Mr. Enos in terms of allowing short-term rentals in commercial and hotel zoning categories, RV parks, and making sure if the Board does that it is compatible with the current Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Pritchard advised this would be for rentals less than 60 days. Commissioner Carlson it looks like people would like the A1A corridor to be exempt east because of the access to the beach issue; and she would suggest areas of mixed use to try to get those who have multi-family homes in areas where there are hotels and businesses. Chairman Pritchard inquired if it would be easier to have single-family residential neighborhoods, meaning that more than five single family residential units comprise a neighborhood, or are there too many areas that would conflict with trying to do something like that. Commissioner Carlson stated the only issue that may come up is that in other types of zonings there are still some performance standards that need to be addressed because there will still be those issues and it may be in the multi-family side of things.

Commissioner Colon stated there are certain areas of Highway A1A that are obvious it is a tourist area; and the ones that abut a subdivision in the back is where the Board needs to be careful; there will still be regulations for the resort dwellings on A1A even if they are in a commercial area; and there would be a lot of regulations a person would have to abide by. She inquired what would be the best scenario regarding Highway A1A. She stated the east side

would be simple, but the west side would be more difficult to figure out. Mr. Enos stated the Board wants to permit short-term resort dwellings in commercial and hotel zones on Highway A1A; and inquired if the Board wants to permit them in multi-family regardless of location, or only in multi-family on Highway A1A. Commissioner Scarborough responded the Board has not talked about the multi-family yet; it wants to take the easier items first; and it is interested in any properties fronting Highway A1A. He stated once a person gets on A1A there is propensity to be in commercial; it is a major corridor; on the barrier islands in Merritt Island he will not go there because it is single-family; and the Board should look at A1A on both sides.

Commissioner Carlson stated the Board could have staff go through and research the multi-family and single-family attached residential zoning classifications where short-term resort dwellings could be permitted with conditions; it could look at the performance standards; and get rid of the ones the Board does not agree with under location; staff can come back and define how to define the Highway A1A corridor; and she would like to set out some guidelines for staff to come back to do resort dwellings as a permitted use based on the conditions it laid out in regard to Highway A1A and areas where it is obvious commercial, and then performance standards, looking at parking, overcrowding, noise issues, and local management responsibilities.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to direct staff to address multi-family and single-family attached residential zoning classifications, to allow resort dwellings that are permitted with conditions, with such conditions addressing performance standards, parking, overcrowding, noise, local management, and management responsibility throughout the County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to direct staff to address the A1A corridor and include resort dwellings permitted with conditions based on proximity to residential communities along the western side of the corridor. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Scarborough stated in the multi-family dwellings and an owner living on the premises, he is much more inclined to give more latitude there than where there is someone living in another state; so where there is an owner on premises, it needs to be addressed in staff?s report.

Chairman Pritchard inquired if the Board needs to address how it might amortize for 60 days or less in residential neighborhoods. Commissioner Carlson stated if the Board can look at those that have a State license and those who have been paying into the tourist tax specifically, it

might narrow the field down a little bit. She inquired what is the real process at the State level that the Board needs to abide by and follow because there are different ways to do it. Chairman Pritchard inquired how can it be determined who is a viable occupation.

Assistant County Attorney Terri Jones responded if the Board is going to 60 days it would have to go to the people who are paying taxes because those that fall out of the State definition are going to have the State licenses; but if it goes beyond that license it has 60 days and a person would still be required to pay the State resort taxes for six months or less, so those people would be picked up. Chairman Pritchard stated the Board can determine who is a viable occupation by the filings he or she has done. Ms. Jones stated if no taxes have been paid, then the individual did not have any business that he or she declared.

Commissioner Voltz stated there seems there are a couple of people who have requested licenses for two more facilities since the County requested the moratorium be put in; Gina LaDrew requested those licenses on December 6, 2004; and that is long after the fact.

Commissioner Colon stated this issue has been going on for so long; the second this issue was talked about the Board made it clear no more short-term resort dwellings would be allowed; and it would deal with the issues of those who were attempting to do it legally. She stated the Board was trying to be sensitive to those who had already started a business and attempted to go through all the proper channels to be sure he or she was doing it legally; and those who tried to get into the action now were not going to be allowed. She stated staff was supposed to notify the State the Board was very adamant. Commissioner Voltz stated in talking with the State, the representative said there were a number of people who were adamant that he or she would get resort dwelling licenses; it did not matter what the County would do because he or she would do it anyway; and the representative gave them the license but told them the County may take them away. She stated there are still people out there circumventing the system.

Chairman Pritchard stated the Board took a position it would not allow anymore short-term residential rentals in single-family residential neighborhoods. Commissioner Carlson inquired what is a good timeframe for those people to close shop. Chairman Pritchard inquired what does she mean by close shop. Commissioner Carlson responded if those people are non-conforming because there are some that exist. Chairman Pritchard advised that is the amortization part. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board has to identify how long that is. Chairman Pritchard stated he was getting to that next.

Commissioner Voltz stated in single-family areas zoned residential, those people are providing a business of short-term rentals; it is not legal because the County does not allow businesses in residential areas; and inquired why should the Board amortize them. County Attorney Scott Knox responded Commissioner Voltz?s assumption is that is not legal; staff has interpreted those types of operations are being permitted in the areas that they are currently being conducted; no one has ever appealed that to the Board to get a different determination; and if

the Board decided it was illegal based upon an appeal then he would say it was right. He noted it has never come before the Board, and the staff interpretation has always been that it is allowed. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board has to decide how to grandfather them in or amortize them out based upon new law it is about to set when it comes back in ordinance fashion. Commissioner Colon inquired before the Board gets into that discussion regarding what would be an appropriate amortization, could it make the motion so there is no question that Brevard County does not allow short-term residential units of 60 days or less. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board has an ordinance that is for 30 days or less; and inquired what is the current status. Ms. Jones responded there is no establishment of short-term rentals of 30 days or less; and the emergency moratorium was enacted on December 9, 2004 for six months. Chairman Pritchard inquired if that was for all zoning categories. Ms. Jones responded that is
correct. Chairman Pritchard inquired if it should be amended or create a new ordinance. Ms. Jones responded an emergency ordinance cannot be zoning specific; but a request can be done for advertisement to amend that ordinance to be zoning specific. Chairman Pritchard stated the Board needs a motion to prohibit short-term residential units in single-family residential neighborhoods. Commissioner Colon stated she does not want anyone on Highway A1A to have them popping up; and does not want anymore at all, not even on Highway A1A. Chairman Pritchard stated he does not feel that way. Commissioner Colon stated if it is a commercial area it goes without saying. Chairman Pritchard stated Highway A1A has a commercial application. Commissioner Carlson stated it is mixed use. Commissioner Colon stated if there is a residential home right now on Highway A1A, and all of a sudden a person would like to turn it into a short-term residential; the Board is trying to discourage anymore being created. Chairman Pritchard stated the Board did not say that. Commissioner Colon stated that is why she wants to have it in the ordinance. Commissioner Voltz stated staff is going to come back with some information regarding specifically Highway A1A; the Board would be dealing with that area; and what the Board is dealing with now is anything other than Highway A1A so it can get more information on the type of homes Commissioner Colon is talking about. Commissioner Colon stated she wants to be clear that the people who are doing the short-term rentals now on Highway A1A, and he or she is exempt, those people did it in good faith and would be allowed to do it; she wants to make sure the kind of wording the Board has that if there is a residential home on Highway A1A, that it is not turned into short-term residential. Commissioner Voltz stated she does not agree because if it is zoned in the middle of a commercial area it should be fine. Commissioner Colon stated that is the whole point; a person should be protecting their interest as of now; she is afraid of people going into that business and the Board is trying to stop it; and it has been more than accommodating to make sure all bases are covered. Chairman Pritchard stated he does not think the Board was trying to accommodate Highway A1A, but it was trying to accommodate single-family residential neighborhoods; and he does not look at Highway A1A as a single-family residential neighborhood because it is so much mixed use. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board talked about abutting properties on Highway A1A that may end up having setback requirements or something. Commissioner Colon stated there should be no more short-term rentals popping up; individuals should come before the Board to try to rezone it; and an ordinance should be

created. Mr. Knox stated the County is covered for five more months. Commissioner Carlson stated the moratorium is everywhere until the ordinance is in place and the Board has identified all of the particulars. Chairman Pritchard stated the Board would bring back the Highway A1A corridor.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to prohibit short-term residential units of 60 days or less in single-family residential neighborhoods. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Pritchard inquired how does the Board deal with the issue of amortization. Mr. Knox responded in order to substantiate any kind of amortization schedule, there needs to be some sort of economic analysis done; the County has consultants that have estimated costs of up to $20,000 to do that; so that is the first place to start. Commissioner Carlson inquired why does the Board have to do that. Mr. Knox responded the theory behind amortization is to allow the people who have invested into this kind of a business to recoup their investment before the Board puts it out of business; so no one gets something taken away from them. He stated in the case of those kinds of businesses, there is a mitigating factor in a sense that they are also single-family residences and they can be sold for that purpose at the end of the amortization period or rented it for more than 60 days; and the Board needs some sort of economic basis to back up the investment. Commissioner Carlson inquired how long will that take. Ms. Jones responded the economist who did the impact fee study is the one who quoted the figure of $20,000; the Board can go out to an RFP or an RFQ; this is exempt from bidding requirements because it is an expert witness; and the Board can hire them right now or go out for an RFQ.

Commissioner Scarborough stated it is conceivable the County may get into litigation; and inquired who Ms. Jones would feel more comfortable having as her witness. Mr. Knox stated the people who prepared the impact fee study also do it; they are thorough; and he would have no problem with having them do it.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve hiring Tindale-Oliver to do an economic analysis concerning the amortization schedule. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Colon inquired if the Board could put regulations or wait to get that back from Mr. Enos. Commissioner Carlson responded the Board is waiting for an ordinance to come back.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve legislative intent and grant permission to advertise a public hearing to consider an ordinance for the regulation of resort dwellings. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 4:07 p.m. and reconvened at 4:18 p.m.

GROVES SUBDIVISION ? LINDA AND GEOFF SCALES/ RICHARD AND KAREN

Chairman Pritchard called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating right-of-way in Canaveral Groves Subdivision, as petitioned by Linda and Geoff Scales/Richard and Karen Boogaerts.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt Resolution vacating a right-of-way in Canaveral Groves Subdivision, as petitioned by Linda and Geoff Scales, and Richard and Karen Boogaerts. Motion carried and ordered unanimously

Chairman Pritchard called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating portion of undeveloped plat and unimproved rights-of-way in Indian River Park Subdivision, as petitioned by Miami Corporation.

Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff stated the petitioner has requested approximately one month to continue this item; and he would suggest continuing to the March 8, 2005 Board meeting.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to continue the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating portion of an undeveloped plat and unimproved rights-of-way in Indian River Park Subdivision, as petitioned by the Miami Corporation, to the March 8, 2005 meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Pritchard called for the public hearing to consider a resolution, and accept new rights-of-way, access easement, and park tract vacating rights-of-way in Winslow Reserve Subdivision, as petitioned by Towne Realty, Inc.

Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff stated the vacating request had previously had a number of concerns that staff had expressed; the petitioner has addressed most, if not all, of the concerns; they are in a draft format; some of the documents are being reviewed; and the most difficult issues have been resolved. He stated he would suggest a two

week continuance to finalize all of those documents, which would be the February 8, 2005 Board meeting. He advised the petitioner is present and would like to make a presentation to the Board; and that may answer a number of questions the public may have.

Chairman Pritchard stated he has quite a few speaker cards; there are about 15 cards on this item; and if a speaker would prefer not to say something today and when it comes back in a few weeks speak then that is fine. Commissioner Carlson stated maybe there is a spokesperson who could give some of the concerns so that as staff is reviewing they can take those into consideration so that what comes back on February 8, 2005 would be something everyone could live with.

Mr. Denninghoff stated one of the major issues staff had was the square footage or acreage of the land to be vacated versus that which would be dedicated to the public was somewhat out of balance; that has been resolved; and it is down to about 3,000 square feet. He stated that was probably the only outstanding issue with the exception of parking associated with the northerly dune crossover; that parking could be provided at that location; there is property there the petitioner is proposing to dedicate to the public; and it would operate similar to other dune crossovers on the beaches that Parks and Recreation operates.

Kohn Bennett, representating Towne Realty, stated the Board is aware of the project as it has already been before it for two previous applications; one was a rezoning for a parcel; and the other was a dedication for a breezeway credit. He stated the property the Board sees before it outlined in red is accumulation of ten parcels and ten sellers that he has been working on for the better part of two years; once assembled the property is bisected by a portion of Azure Lane and Meridian Drive; and he is requesting the Board vacate those portions of the road and realign a portion of McKinley Avenue. He stated there is a beach crossover in the middle of the property; he is requesting that be realigned to the north end of the property whereby the Board would vacate that and the property would be dedicated; by looking at the site plan that is proposed, the Board would see that the road that was presently here is gone; and Meridian Drive is a cul-de-sac, and McKinley Avenue is just realigned across some of the property. He stated the beach access has been moved to the north; the improvements would be put on the very south end of the property to put as much of a buffer between the property to the north as possible; there have been several meetings on this item; and before the first application before the Board there had been neighborhood meetings conducted. He noted the first meeting was November 4, 2004; there was a follow-up meeting after some public hearings before the Board on January 6, 2005; the Planning and Zoning meeting was November 8, 2004; and the Board?s zoning meeting was December 2, 2004; and the breezeway issue was December 14, 2004. He noted there was a lot of good feedback from the neighborhood meetings; some changes have been made to the site plan from those meetings; one of them was to increase the buffer next to those homes on the front; and they will put in a privacy fence. He stated Attorney John Evans will speak to the Board about the development agreement that they are proposing that has the

obligation to them as a developer to provide that privacy fence; the condominium association wanted them to move the walkover as close to the south property as possible, which they have agreed to; they have agreed to put in parking for the County on the south dune crossover and reconstruct that; and a 30-foot easement was dedicated for the breezeway credit to increase this to 80 feet. He stated as staff has told the Board, they were concerned about the acreage; they looked at some other development property that was not originally part of the site plan, which is those 2 ? lots on the north end; they have amended to include that into the dedication. He stated staff requested some parking in this area of the dune crossover. He noted they would suggest it be more properly moved here and create more property and a bigger public purpose for the County residents; there were questions at the meetings regarding what would happen to the general traffic in the area; they commissioned a traffic study, and each Board member has a copy of that; and it was interesting. He stated because the density is decreased and the use is going from more of a rental property down to a residential condominium, the traffic dropped significantly; it goes from 599 daily trips to 334 daily trips, which is over 44%; in the p.m. peak hour is from 56 down to 30 trips; and the conclusion is significant and he will read it. He stated it says, "The impact of this vacation will not be adverse nor significant. This section is mostly utilized by the uses to be demolished to make room for the proposed condominium project."

John Evans, representing the applicant, stated they have prepared a developer?s agreement to address the issues that have been raised by the neighbors, staff, and some Commissioners; the first issue with the developer?s agreement is timing of the improvements; if he was a Commissioner he would be concerned he was giving up public lands and would want assurances that the applicant would build what they said they would build; and they have proposed that the resolution does not become effective until Towne Realty has built all the public improvements it has agreed to build as set forth in the developer?s agreement. He noted if Towne Realty does not build the improvements, the roads are not vacated; that is adequate protection for the public; they have agreed to give a 50-year shoreline protection easement in the developer?s agreement and public access easement over the sidewalk from Meridian Drive to McKinley Avenue; and it is about 100 feet further than it is today, but it is not a huge imposition. He stated they would deliver a title policy with every piece of land they propose to dedicate to the County; two residents are concerned about the parking lot; and they have agreed to build a six-foot wall to buffer them. He stated one gentleman is concerned the transaction may change his setback lines; they have put in the agreement that his particular setbacks would remain the same; through the developers agreement they have addressed any criticism or concern that staff or the neighbors have had; and the only thing not addressed is the parking by Winslow Beach Condominium on the north, but today there has been a proposal to deed the additional two lots to the County, which creates parking and resolves the issue between the neighbors to the north and the developer. He advised that would be incorporated into the agreement; the largest complaint regarding this particular project was excess traffic; and the traffic report clearly establishes the traffic is dropping from 600 trips a day to 344,

and peak traffic from 56 down to 30 trips. He stated the traffic would be less than the condition of the property today; it decreases the residential density, traffic volumes, crime, increases the ocean view to the surrounding neighbors, beach parking, tax base, property values for neighbors, and the aesthetic attractiveness of the neighborhood; redevelopment is the future of development; and this is a project that would be good for the neighborhood and the County. He stated he would appreciate the Board?s support in vacating the rights-of-way because it is essential for the project to proceed forward.

Chairman Pritchard stated he has ten speaker cards all from the Azure Lane and McKinley Avenue area; and inquired if everyone is speaking in support or against the item, and if the people have a spokesman who could speak for all of them. He advised he has cards for Robert Daly, Barbara Grewe, Werner Grewe, Roland Gagnier, Gloria Cathey, William O?Bryan, George McLeod, James Durocher, and Horst Rinck; and inquired if everyone has the same opinion. He stated he will call everyone?s name and if a person has something to say fine, if not, he or she can say they agree with the previous speaker; everyone has the right to speak, but ten cards at five minutes each is 50 minutes and the meeting will be running late as it is.

Janice Greene stated she is a property owner of numerous small duplexes located on Taft Avenue and South Azure Lane, which is to the south of the proposed development; she was under the impression that there is a moratorium in Brevard County on vacating any easement or access to water whether it is on the river or the ocean; in this particular request, the developer is not only asking the Board to vacate public roads so they can use it for a parking lot, but also to vacate a public easement giving access to the beach; and to offer a larger access in lieu of this existing easement right-of-way is unacceptable, and they already have the access. She stated to give the neighborhood a larger access in place of taking one away is no advantage to the public; in addition to asking the Board to vacate an easement, the developer is proposing the one road that currently runs the proposed vacated road and subsequent access to the beach become a dead end, and the other that presently feeds the vacated road to block off on the south side and do some sort of dogleg to the north, removing it from view on the entire beach access. She stated she is sure the traffic study in theory appears to apply everything would be fine; but it would be a disaster to the area and change the entire traffic flow and cause a major danger to many residents and visitors. She advised she wanted to highlight it to the Board; and distributed photographs. She stated on photograph number one it is a view from her front yard looking east down Taft Avenue to the beach access; this small quiet street is 25 feet wide at this point; and the beach access is only 50 yards away and can be viewed from the entire street. She stated the developers proposal, even if it is less traffic in their minds, by the nature of the building located at the end of the street would add 160 cars per day to this small Taft Avenue; in picture number two is a beach access view from the corner of Taft and South Azure; they already have a nice, wide, well maintained beach access walkway directly located at the end of the street; and a person can see palm trees and bushes, and this is sort of a park area the developer is offering to extend southward so they can knock the trees down and put extra

parking for their units. She stated it has always been part of the Cape Canaveral, Cocoa Beach identity that all roads have access and can be seen right through from Highway A1A to the beach access and back; if the Board takes it away it would be the only development of its kind in the Cape Canaveral, Cocoa Beach area that takes away direct beach access; photograph number three shows a view of the public road on the corner of Azure Lane; and this is the road looking northward that the County would be vacating. She stated on photograph number four it is a view from her front yard area currently on South Azure Lane; this is a small quiet street 25 feet in width with 210 feet around the corner to the beach access to the south, and only 350 feet to the public access to the north of her. She stated the blue buildings are currently the Winslow Beach Apartment areas that are going to go from a two-story building to a much larger development; and traffic flows along this road and along the public road behind her, which would be lost. She stated photograph number five is a view from the beach access; photograph number six is a view of the public beach easements that are proposed by the developer to be taken away so the building can be built over it; photograph number seven is a view of the road facing south, heading back up toward Azure Lane that the developer is asking the Board to vacate; and Towne Realty is a substantial company and well known in the area. She noted she is sure they have access to the best professional money can buy; and they can find a development that can work for them on their existing property. She requested the Board not take away public property access and property rights to private and profit their own development.

Robert Daly stated he is in favor of the development.

G. Daly stated she is in favor of the development.

Barbara Grewe stated she is in favor of the development.

Werner Grewe stated he has been a resident on South Azure Lane since the early 1970?s; he has enjoyed living there; he is familiar with the neighborhood; and he is in favor of the new project. He noted it will improve the neighborhood; there will be no reduction in beach access; he does not understand what the previous speaker?s argument is; and he plans to move into the new building.

Roland Gagnier stated he is a property owner in the Winslow Beach Condominium Complex, which is the complex to the north of the proposed project; he is generally speaking in favor of the proposed project; but he does have a concern about the creation of public parking at the beach access way. He stated he is opposed to the creation of parking at all in that area, but more opposed to the creation of parking within that access way; there are a number of seniors who live in the condominium complex; there is a historic trespassing problem with people gaining access to the beach through their property; and it is a public safety matter that needs to be addressed. He stated the creation of parking at that location would encourage trespassing.

Commissioner Colon inquired where does Mr. Gagnier recommend the parking go. Mr. Gagnier responded across from Azure Lane away from the water there is some property the developer spoke to that would be a more appropriate place to have parking; his concern is people are trespassing across their property to get to the beach; if the right-of-way is moved closer to the property and parking is added to that location it will encourage that to occur more and more. Chairman Pritchard stated he thought Mr. Bennett addressed that.

Gloria Cathey stated she is in favor of the project.

Brendan McMillin stated his concerns have been addressed recently; the property to the east of him would become a cul-de-sac turnaround; and he was concerned about losing the setback. He stated otherwise he is in favor of the project.

William O?Bryan stated the reason he is present is for the parking on the north end, and it has been resolved from what the builder said; he is not opposed to the condominium; and he is the president of the Winslow Beach Condominium Association, which is north of the development.

James Durocher stated he owns a small apartment building adjacent to the property; and he is in favor of the project. He advised redevelopment of older properties is inevitable and necessary; the project will enhance the neighborhood, increase the tax base, and decrease the density; it will keep something else from going into this property; and he would like to be included in the County?s decision regarding the parking. He stated the traffic will be a problem.

Horst Rinck stated he is in favor of the project.

Chairman Pritchard stated Mr. Denninghoff wants to continue the item. Mr. Denninghoff stated the proposed or draft form of the agreement staff received today, and it received an earlier version of it previously. He stated it has undergone changes, and staff wants to see
other changes to the agreement; the only concern contained in that agreement is the culdesac setback situation; the creation of a cul-de-sac at that location creates an increased frontage for that particular lot, which is the gentleman?s concern; and something must be undertaken to resolve that setback issue. He stated the traffic study has been reviewed by staff, and it agreed with the conclusions of the developer?s study. He stated to give the Board an idea of the amount of traffic that is out there, during the peak hour on the high side it was 18 during the hour.

Commissioner Colon inquired if this item needs to go to a second hearing. Mr. Denninghoff responded if the Board were to approve based on what it has today it would have to be conditioned on the County Attorney?s office and staff finalizing the agreement; there are enough conditions built in and questions that staff would be more comfortable if the Board had the opportunity to see that agreement in its final form; and it can bring that back to the Board on February 8, 2005. He stated the changes are not that dramatic, but there are a number of them.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to continue the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating rights-of-way in Winslow Reserve Subdivision, as petitioned by Towne Realty, Inc., and to accept new rights-of-way, access easement, and additional tract for a park, to the February 8, 2005 meeting at 10:00 a.m. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Pritchard called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating public utility and drainage easement in Holiday Springs at Suntree, as petitioned by Jack C. Durham.

There being no objectinos heard, motion was made by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt Resolution vacating a portion of a public utility and drainage easement in Holiday Springs at Suntree, as petitioned by Jack C. Durham. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page

for Resolution No. 05-018.)

Chairman Pritchard called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating 20-foot unimproved right-of-way in Section 11, Township 28S., Range 36E., as petitioned by James E. Fulcher.

Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff stated there has been one objection, and that is the right-of-way that is being petitioned for vacating is currently 40 feet wide; the results of the petition would reduce it to a 20-foot wide right-of-way; 40 feet is substandard and 20 feet would be more substandard; and staff?s concern is that it might be more appropriate to vacate the entire 40-foot right-of-way rather than the 20-foot. He stated the petitioner owns all of the surrounding properties, with the exception that a portion of the right-of-way fronts on I-95.

Commissioner Colon inquired if the other speakers are for or against the project. She inquired if staff would prefer to have the 40-foot right-of-way. Mr. Denninghoff responded yes; and staff would need to advertise again to increase the vacating area. Interim County Manager Peggy Busacca inquired since there is a subdivision that is depending on this would it be okay to do the 20-foot right-of-way and then re-advertise the additional 20 feet. Mr. Denninghoff responded that would be fine.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt Resolution vacating a 20-foot unnamed right-of-way in Section 11, Township 28 South, Range 36 East, as petitioned by James E. Fulcher. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Pritchard called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance for maintenance dredging of canals and canal entrances in Indian River Isles Municipal Service Benefit Unit (MSBU).

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 91-05 for maintenance dredging of canals and canal entrances in Indian River Isles Municipal Service Benefit Unit (MSBU). Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 62, ARTICLE VI, SECTION

Chairman Pritchard called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 62, Article VI, Section 62-1188, commercial nonconforming lots of record within Merritt Park Place Subdivision.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt Ordinance amending Chapter 62, Article VI, Section 62-1188, relating to commercial nonconforming lots of record within Merritt Park Place Subdivision. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Pritchard called for a public hearing to consider request by Earl J. and Denise Brookes-Holmes to rezone 1.71-acre parcel from RU-1-9 to RR-1, with a Binding Development Plan limiting the site to 3 horses.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve a rezoning request by Earl J. and Denise Brookes-Holmes to rezone 1.71-acre parcel from RU-1-9 to RR-1, with a Binding Development Plan limiting the site to no more than two horses. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Carlson voted nay.

Chairman Pritchard called for a public hearing to consider an ordinance, Notice of Proposed Change #6, and revised DRI Development Order for 2004-C Comprehensive Plan Amendments for The Great Outdoors DRI.

Commissioner Scarborough advised Item V. H, Ordinance, Notice of Proposed Change #6, and Revised DRI Development Order for 2004-C Comprehensive Plan Amendments for The Great Outdoors DRI, and Item V.I, Rezoning Request, Re: The Great Outdoors Premier R.V./Golf Resort, Inc. and Lynn R. Hansel, Trustee, are linked; and the Board should not take separate public comments because it is linked.

Lynn Hansel, applicant and Vice President of the Great Outdoors R.V./Resort, Inc., stated he is willing to relinquish his time and let other speakers speak; and at the conclusion of the speakers cards, he will answer any questions the Board may have.

Francine Novakoff stated she supports the DRI and hopes the Board would so it could go forward and make sure the fire safety gets done because everyone is still sitting out there without protection.

Vernon Weekley stated he would like to relinquish his time to Don Adams.

Pat McCarthy stated he agrees with Francine Novakoff.

Richard Baldwin stated he supports the items.

Richard Loehr stated he has owned property in the Great Outdoors since 2001; he rented two years prior to that; and his concerns go to the loss of the nature trails, the possible loss of the nature center, and the lack of any written commitment on the part of the development or St. Johns River Water Management District to provide nature trail access to the residents that have been there since the day he bought his property, and have future access and a nature center to go to. He stated it is an important part of the area; he is on the Nature Committee; and he is an officer who volunteers, clears the trails, sits at the nature center explaining the exhibits to people, and explains the trail systems. He stated it would have been a simple matter to include

the access and the continued enjoyment of the trail in the property that would now be turned over to the St. Johns River Water Management District; whether it was just an oversight on a part of the developer that they are losing the nature trail, or one more poke in the eye to the homeowners, he does not know the motives but is very disappointed they are losing that. He advised he has a hat that says "RV, Nature, and Golf Resort"; the sales literature on the top of page six promotes the nature trail as an asset within the Great Outdoors; and inquired why the residents cannot have hiking, and give the elderly and handicapped access to a trail the residents have been using for over a decade. He stated Mr. Tomsu raised a lot of questions about compliance issues in the DRI; and inquired where is the oversight and who is watching this. He stated the residents would be losing a trail that was mentioned in a 1997 DRI application; he is tired of the contentiousness between the developer and the homeowners; there always seems to be battles; and the homeowners always seems to be sued by the developer. He stated he would like to see the development wrapped up at the earliest possible date and have the developer go on to his happy life, and let the residents just run the place and enjoy it and not have all of the contentiousness; the three things he is asking is to give the residents access to the nature trails, give them the nature center, watch compliance with the DRI; and he wants to wrap the project up and get on with it.

Don Adams, Chairman Elect of the Board of Directors of the Community Services Association, stated he represents over 1,300 homeowners at the Great Outdoors; the number one priority for the community is to see the proposed fire system built with a water tower, and quickly improve the overall fire protection system; there needed to be sufficient water quantity and adequate pressure in all of the fire hydrants; and there are fire hydrants now that have no water in them. He stated the concerns being raised by the residents are important to him; he enjoyed the trail, it was an oversight, and they are trying to work out the issues; it is a relatively minor matter when compared to the fire safety issues in the community; and time is of the essence, and any delay in the DRI approval process only puts the residents closer to real fire danger. He stated the Central Florida dry season begins in June; the residents need an upgraded fire protection system, and they need it now; and requested the Board not delay the vital improvement.

Doug Tomsu stated he will be referring to the information he distributed when Richard Loehr spoke earlier; the residents do not want sewage backing up into homes; he does not want to take an average flow over a two-year period when infiltration has gone anywhere from 30% to 120%; and he is not against the developer getting the additional homes, but wanted the Board to delay approval until the developer meets the current criteria. He noted red flags should go up with this developer; he came before the Board last year on the fire suppression; the developer claimed he met all of the requirements; and he gave the Board a facility annual report yearly that showed 25,000 square feet of facilities have been built. He noted he asked staff what list it had and it had none; he provided a list; and staff has to agree the developer has built 17,000 square feet of facilities. He stated there seems to be a disconnect between the Board of Directors and the homeowners on the nature trail; the reason is the Board of Directors never

told the community the nature trail was going away; that is why the Board has had an outpouring of concern in the past few weeks; and his biggest concern is the lack of the nature trail. He noted the Board has control over that because it is within the DRI; but once it is outside the Board?s control, the homeowners who use it are at the mercy of the developer and St. Johns River Water Management District; and it is not fair to the elderly, handicapped, and those who enjoy the nature trail.

Bob Wilcox stated they are in full support of the DRI and the expansion; he believes some of those things can be worked out; as far as the fire suppression system, he has a schedule that things are moving forward, which is ultimately the most important item because it is an extremely dangerous situation; and when it comes to the nature trail, they maintain the trail it is beautiful. He noted St. Johns River Water Management District would probably work with the homeowners; it is a very elderly community; the nature trail is a beautiful place to commute; and there was some talk about golf carts driving on the nature trail. He stated it is a very aged community.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the nature trail issue is to have motorized vehicles there. Mr. Wilcox responded there are existing nature trails that are not part of that particular area. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board has not clarified with St. Johns River Water Management District because it has an overall policy dealing with motorized vehicles; when one thinks of motorized vehicles, he or she thinks of off-road vehicles as opposed to a quiet electric motor, which does not disturb; he would like to think the Board could use all the persuasion it has; it is not intrusive into the environment; and it would open the environment up to the residents who had enjoyed it previously. He stated the Board should take an active role; and it is a beautiful nature trail, the residents maintain it, and there are nice benches along the side.

Audrey Pisarz stated she is very concerned about the nature trails; she and her husband have been organizing the nature walks in the park for the past two and one half years; there are four to five walks a month from January to April; and she wanted to invite the Board to come. She thanked Commissioners Scarborough, Pritchard, and Colon for responses to telephone calls and letters.

Neal McCulloh stated he represents Community Services Association (CSA), which is in charge of the infrastructure; the DRI via an Agreement between the Developer, CSA, and County, included as part of the parcel the developer?s commitment to construct a water tower; as part of that Agreement the Association agreed to support the DRI, and is wholeheartedly behind it; and the issue regarding the nature trail he only heard about yesterday at 4:00 p.m. He stated he is not much up on the situation; he commends Commissioner Scarborough on his concept; it would be great if any controversy could be mitigated as much as possible by trying to seek a resolution with St. Johns River Water Management District to permit golf cart use on the nature trail and ensure the past activity of the Association in terms of use and maintenance can be preserved; and he hopes the County can take an active role in that endeavor.

Bruce Brown stated he supports the project.

Bonnie Groves thanked the Board for its help for the past six months; she would gladly trade the horse access to the trails for golf cart access; she would appreciate it if the Board could take formal action on the resident?s behalf, and ask for that access to continue as it is; and she is in support of the DRI resolution.

Joy Glodek stated she has some great concerns; the number one concern is the nature trail; there is not anything in writing; and if it is not written down it is not good. She stated if there are going to be restrictions or any change in the nature trail, it should be with written documentation with unrestricted access for The Great Outdoors owners; the second concern she has is the sanitary system; the DRI originally said there would be 2,000 units; and that would be 180,000 gallons per day. She stated with all the infections it is important to look at how the system would be affected with the increase of the number of units that would be developed; it would go down to 1,675 units; when it goes down because of the change in the size of the lots and homes, 239,980 gallons per day would be going through that system; and she is concerned that if there are not some constraints put on it to make sure the residents have additions to the sewer system there could be real trouble out there. She stated when she lived overseas there were a lot of sewage problems; in addition to the amount of sewage, it does not effect the swimming pools that are there; the amount of commercial and support facilities that are being put into this small community is approximately 73,000 square feet; and the request is for 114,000 square feet. She stated in addition, the support facilities should be 6 ? acres; 13 acres would be dedicated for facilities for commercial improvement; the last area is the 60/40 rule; and it should pertain to the developer. She stated the developer has 505 acres, which is 47% versus 54%; and the developer has proposed to go more than that, which would increase the areas developed by even more.

Ronald Brown stated he is a full-time resident of the Great Outdoors; until January 2005 he was a registered engineer in the State of Florida; and at age 70 he decided why keep it up. He stated he has held positions with the County Engineer and Deputy Director of Transportation in Lee County, and the Public Works Director in St. Lucie County; he understands how there is nothing more constant in life than change; what the Board is looking at in the DRI is a part of that; and it is a reflection on how Florida has grown. He stated he supports the DRI and recommends the Board move forward with it; but he wants the Board to know he has concerns. He stated Doug Tomsu has done a good job and a lot of research; and he would suggest the Board reconcile those issues. He stated his concerns are technical; he supports Mr. Tomsu?s concerns about Lift Station 5; he lives in fear that 200 units are developed, the pumping station is overloaded, and then there will be problems; and the residents would not know that unless there is confirmation from an independent engineering study. He stated the other issue is the traffic; his concern is the single access to the community and egress; there would be intersections on a long stretch of road that increases the likelihood of accidents and decreases flow; and he has not done a traffic study, but is concerned about the access road.

Carol Loehr stated she is one of the elderly who lives in the Great Outdoors the residents want the Board to keep an eye on the development that is going to be going on; she is frightened of the sewage problem that is going to come about; and she does not know what to do about it. She stated there was a problem with the water suppression system and now there would be another problem; she is concerned people are not keeping an eye on the developer; and she would like the Board to do that for her. She stated the Board knows what the community had gone through before and fighting for the water suppression system; she and the other residents are tired of coming before the Board and arguing with the developer; and it has gotten to the point that a watchful eye needs to be kept on the developer.

Robert Young stated he spent 30 years in technical management with NASA at the Space Center before moving to the Great Outdoors; he has held many offices at the Great Outdoors from the park level down; and he is presently the incoming president of the Fairways at the Great Outdoors Homeowners Association. He stated it has been said that the residents all want to see the DRI moved along and approved so they can get the firewater system in shape; because of the agreements that the CSA has had with the developer to support the DRI, it has been difficult for the average homeowner to learn the details of exactly what was being proposed and what the issues were; and they have only evolved in the past few weeks. He stated he supports the people who expressed reservations about the DRI; he did not realize the DRI and the firewater system were that inclined; and he thought they were two separate subjects. He stated he does not want to hold up those portions of the DRI that have already been agreed upon and supported by the Board; but if there is a possibility to only approve some of the DRI and hold back on those things that are issues then they can have the fire suppression system and the developer can have his new development north of the Addison Canal. He stated the nature trail is part of a tract of land that two years ago the developer agreed to deed to the CSA in return for its support of the DRI; because of the fire suppression system discussions, that Agreement got clouded; but ultimately the Board did support the DRI. He stated he understands the problem with sanitary lift stations is whether they should be sized by average or peak flow; peak flow denotes some things that are not necessarily applicable in this case; for six months out of the year they have near maximum capacity; and for the other six months there is probably only 1/3 capacity. He stated any averages taken about amenities, flow of sewage, and water uses is going to be skewed in the wrong direction; six months of the time there is hardly anyone using the facilities; he understands there was a definition of commercial and support space used earlier; and if a person looked it is flawed and it needs to be corrected.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he will read Titusville City Attorney Dwight Severs? statement into the record. "The City has no objection to the approval of the rezoning request, conditioned upon the owner being required to execute and record upon the public record the attached Notice of Disclosure and Waiver of Claims. The City has no objection to the DRI amendment or land use designation provided the approval does not address or determine who is supplying potable water to the 204 resort homes and real property which is within the City of Titusville?s

service area per Brevard County Ordinance 03-32." He stated whether the water comes from Cocoa or Titusville, the Board made a statement that it is not its business; and if that is reflected in all of its reports. Planner Steve Swanke responded he made the specific changes that Mr. Severs requested; that information has been distributed to the Board; and it will be the basis of what it will be adopting if it chooses to do that tonight. Commissioner Scarborough stated there are two documents that require the property owner to enter into; and inquired if Mr. Hansel would describe briefly for the residents what the documents say.

Mr. Hansel stated the document says the City of Titusville has built a wastewater treatment plant close to Highway 50; and the proposed development will be about 4,000 feet away from that plant. He advised the City wanted everyone to know that a person would be buying a potential homesite within more than ? mile from the wastewater treatment plant. Commissioner Scarborough advised the City of Titusville wanted to disclose the potential purchases because people could come in subsequently and say they did not know; there were a number of questions from the residents; and inquired if Mr. Hansel would answer them.

Mr. Hansel stated he needs the Board?s help to discuss the sewer system; Mr. Tomsu has indicated in his reports that he thinks there would be close to 342,000 gallons of sewage generated per day at build-out; the Board might want to write down 342,000; and that build-out would consist of 1,625 units. He stated there are a variety of units in the park; there are concrete slabs for a typical motor home, fifth wheeler, park homes, and resort homes a.k.a. single family dwellings; and there would be varying rates of flow. He noted Mr. Tomsu in his report came out with 342,000 gallons at build-out for 1,625 units; he secured the actual flows in the record sent to Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for the last three years; if the Board looked at those flows of wastewater going to and through the wastewater treatment plant in the peak season, November, December, January, February, and March, the average flows on a monthly basis going through that sewer system is 90,000 to 120,000 gallons; and there are approximately 1,200 units occupied in the park during the peak season, and 120,000 divided by 1,200 is 100 gallons a day per unit. He stated Mr. Tomsu?s projections contemplated 200 gallons a day per unit; the 200 units being proposed are going to be resort homes; but if they are done at 300 gallons a unit it would only be 60,000 gallons more a day. He advised it would be well short of Mr. Tomsu?s projections; he had Honeycutt and Associates, registered engineers in the State of Florida, review those DEP numbers; it reviewed the report generated in 2000 and Mr. Tomsu?s concerns; and it said Mr. Tomsu?s estimates are substantially overstated. He stated Mr. Tomsu does not agree with that; the park is generating 90,000 to 120,000 gallons of sewage with 1,100 to 1,300 units; and that is less than half of what Mr. Tomsu thinks he would generate when all units are built. He stated he complied with reviewing that matter again; it is clear that the projections are far in excess of what anyone could reasonably expect to happen; there is an executed Agreement signed by the Chairman of the Board of the CSA at that time explaining if the sewer system does not work or is found not to be able to work that the developer has a couple of options; and he could either quit developing or make whatever improvements are necessary to continue to improve build-out level.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Mr. Swanke would comment on the County?s position as to the sanitary sewer system. Mr. Swanke responded staff has received the information from Mr. Tomsu and Mr. Hansel; Brevard County is not the sanitary sewer service provider for the Great Outdoors; staff does not set level of service standards for the individual lift stations; and the County is not the permitting authority. He stated the County does not have a role in the compliance of development with regard to the issue; the CSA owns the plant and holds the permit; and if Mr. Tomsu and the other residents continue to have concerns about the development they need to present them to the Board of Directors of the CSA and allow those negotiations to occur between the developer and the CSA. He stated as far as the capacity to accommodate the sewage flows from the additional resort homes that are being developed, it appears there is adequate capacity at both the CSA plant or if they chose to connect to the City of Titusville?s plant.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Utility Services Director Richard Martens has any comment germane to the discussion. Mr. Martens responded the County has not been involved in the project; in listening to the discussion, the one issue he did think was germane was that in designing and reviewing the designs for pump stations connecting onto the County system, the County does use peak flows to evaluate and design pump stations; the pump stations have to be sized to handle not an average flow but a peak flow; and it does not do any good if for some unusual reason an event happens that generates a lot of water. He stated staff also uses methodologies that Mr. Hansel has described such as using existing flows in evaluating treatment plant capacities; in the Barefoot Bay system he has observed per unit flows that are significantly lower than in other parts of the system; so the numbers Mr. Hansel has quoted does not seem unreasonable.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he heard questions about both the system as a whole and Lift Station 5; and inquired if Mr. Hansel would address peak load at particular stations. Mr. Hansel responded if Station 5 needed to have the pumps upgraded to handle the additional flows, he is proposing under the DRI to upgrade those pumps. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if that would be part of the DRI; with Mr. Hansel responding yes. Commissioner Scarborough stated the people have taken all day to sit down and listen to the discussion; and he wants to make sure when they go home they are satisfied they received answers.

Commissioner Colon stated Commissioner Scarborough has been extremely supportive of the community; there is nothing wrong with County staff putting its two cents in; a homeowners association does not have as much influence as a board of county commissioners; and the Board is going to give its blessings it is important everyone works together; and it looks like that has been happening. She stated she would support Commissioner Scarborough fully if he gives direction that County staff must and should be part of the discussion.

Mr. Hansel advised the original Development Order specified that he would leave 60% of the 1,069 acres under the original DRI undeveloped; since then he has added eight acres and moved the number up a little; when he filed the NOPC in July there was a statutory provision that the Board is familiar with; and if a developer adds a certain percentage to a DRI it may be rebutted that it is not a substantial deviation. He noted the way he used the Florida Statutes to accomplish that was to propose to add 97 acres of land. Commissioner Scarborough stated he knows it is late and the item is complex, but the County has been sued on the issue, and there is no reason now at the last hour not discuss it; and he appreciates everyone?s patience.

Mr. Hansel stated in order to try to shorten the review times and trips by County staff and himself he utilizes a provision in the Statutes that says to only add a small portion to a DRI it is not a substantial deviation; in order to accomplish that he proposes to have the property outlined in yellow at the top of the aerial, consists of some 97 acres of land, in discrete parcels; if he takes out the 90 acres from all the undeveloped land in the DRI he is below 60%; and there is a paper shortage of 90 acres he has not left undeveloped. Commissioner Scarborough inquired what happened to the property he took out. Mr. Hansel responded he is going to fix that; and the land is and will remain undeveloped, but in order to meet the technical development order conditions he requests, and has presented Mr. Swanke with a map and legal description that the 109.06 acres immediately west of the proposed development site be added to the DRI. He advised Florida Statutes also provides that the addition of land to a DRI, which land is not proposed for development, is not a substantial deviation; this land will be subjected to the umbrella of the DRI; it is more than the 90 acres he has taken out; so on paper he will be 68% to 70% open space.

Mr. Swanke stated staff met with Mr. Hansel Thursday of last week and went through the undeveloped property at the Great Outdoors, and discussed how it would be calculated; at that time he felt like he would not be able to achieve the 60% undeveloped requirement; when Mr. Hansel appeared at the LPA Monday he requested the property be added in; and he has discussed with Mr. Hansel the requirements for substantial deviations in Florida Statutes, and he agreed with his interpretation. He advised if the Board chooses to amend this to include the additional property, as far as the Comprehensive Plan Amendment goes, staff would put the DRI land use category on that property and advise DCA that it was not something they reviewed during the transmittal stage; DCA would review it at that point and make a determination whether it is in compliance with Florida Statutes; he does not think there would be a problem with it; staff would need to amend the Development Order to include the legal description of the property, but it is not a substantial deviation. He advised because it is going to be undeveloped it would not have any impacts on the regional resources.

Interim County Manager Peggy Busacca inquired if that would require a legal advertisement and an additional public hearing to amend the Development Order. Mr. Swanke responded no because the Development Order has not been adopted yet, and there was not a legal description in the legal advertisement for the Development Order.

Commissioner Carlson inquired when does the Development Order come back. Mr. Swanke responded it is before the Board today; and approval of the Notice of Proposed Change and adoption of the Revised Development Order are issues being considered now, along with adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Mr. Swanke sees it as a substantial deviation. Mr. Swanke responded no, by definition it is not a substantial deviation. Commissioner Scarborough stated any time property is added that is not going to be developed it would not be a substantial deviation.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the parcel at the bottom that was removed is going to be developed; with Mr. Hansel responding no. Commissioner Scarborough stated the concept is that the property sits there, and inquired what is it. Mr. Hansel responded the parcel in the southern end of the project is 90.28 acres; and it would be deeded in fee simple to St. Johns River Water Management District. Commissioner Scarborough stated that is where the trail issue comes up. Mr. Hansel stated everyone wanted him to put in writing that the nature trail would remain accessible, so yesterday afternoon the Water Management District emailed Mr. Swanke the following: "St. Johns River Water Management District will manage the mitigation donations from the Great Outdoors as additions to the Canaveral Marsh Conservation Area. As such, they will be available for public recreation that includes, based on the nature of the individual area and water levels the following: hiking, horseback riding, bicycling, and boating. Motorized vehicles and hunting are prohibited. Accommodations for access to persons meeting the Statewide criteria for mobility impaired are made on a case-by-case basis." He stated on one hand the nature trail will remain available for access by horses, bicycles, and pedestrians; as a general policy the Water Management District says that on its lands it does not normally allow motorized vehicles; there was some inadvertent discussion today when some members of the Water Management District staff out of the Palm Bay office walked out of the courthouse during a conversation; and those staff members were cautiously optimistic that the golf cart question of access could be resolved. He stated he knows the residents probably would not believe that from him; and one of the CSA Board of Directors was part of that conversation.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if there is something the County needs to be involved in that has not been addressed. Mr. Swanke responded one of the remaining concerns deals with the amount of commercial and support space that has been constructed at the Great Outdoors; Mr. Tomsu has provided a list of what he feels is non-residential parcels and how they should be classified; he has gone through the list; and staff has met as a group in the Planning and Zoning office to review the list and make those determinations. He advised he wrote on January 20, 2005 the results of staff?s analysis; the Board was given a copy of that; in those cases where records were found on the Brevard County Property Appraiser?s site about building area, those figures were used; and staff calculated only the base area based on a definition of floor area in the Zoning Code. He stated the results were that staff found 24,810 square feet of commercial space and 45,886 square feet of support space; in some cases staff could not find information in the Property Appraiser?s database; and in those cases he used Mr. Tomsu?s figures because it was the best available information.

Mr. Swanke stated staff?s analysis indicates that the Great Outdoors is in compliance at this time with the limits on commercial and support space; Mr. Tomsu continues to disagree about some of the areas staff excluded, including overhangs, open porch areas, and things of that nature that he feels should have been included; but by the definition in the Zoning Code and the information available staff feels they are in compliance. He stated there are three properties that were not included as either support space or commercial space; one is the Great Outdoors Church; if the Board recalls from the Viera Development Order staff says institutional facilities like churches are allowed in any parcel in any amount in addition to the other development that is approved in those parcels; and to be consistent staff has excluded the space that is used by the Great Outdoors Church. He advised there is a 1,000 square foot nature center that exists; it is located right outside the DRI project boundaries; Mr. Hansel has indicated that property would come into the DRI if the NOPC is approved by the Board; but the existing structure would be demolished to make way for the development of resort homes. He stated a residential structure that was permitted out there under the residential development guidelines that is being used by a construction firm as an office; there have been complaints; those have been forwarded to Code Enforcement; and Code Enforcement has investigated and taken the appropriate action. He stated staff did not feel like the unauthorized use of a residential structure for commercial purposes was something that should throw the developer into noncompliance since the developer was not the one who was using the structure.

Commissioner Scarborough stated this project has been a tedious, difficult task; it came to the Board when Chief William Farmer advised there was immediate danger of not being able to suppress fires; and this is what drove the involvement of the County, the developer, and many other things. He stated with that in mind he would like to make some motions; as to the DRI there are some changes in adding some additional land; the Board has already covered City of Titusville Attorney Dwight Severs? concerns about implicating the County has some involvement in the water issue; and with those two things in mind he would move the Board proceed with that.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt Resolution approving The Great Outdoors Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Notice of Proposed Change #6 and the revised DRI Development Order, as amended, to include an additional 109.06 acres immediately west of the proposed development site. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Scarborough stated as to the zoning the City of Titusville has requested and the developer has agreed to the two documents disclosing that there is proximity to a sewage plant; and he wants to move the zoning with those two items.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve RVP (Recreational Vehicle Park) zoning, to be approved with Notice of Disclosure and Declaration of Covenant and Waiver of Claims. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he would like to proceed with two other motions; as to the nature trail, it is always helpful when a county passes a resolution; he is asking that a resolution be prepared and he be authorized to speak for the Board with anyone is appropriate with St. Johns River Water Management District to see if it could get the motorized golf carts as an exception to the general policy.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to prepare a resolution concerning the nature trail; and authorize Commissioner Scarborough to represent the Board and talk to St. Johns River Water Management District to see if the County can get motorized golf carts as an exception to the general policy at The Great Outdoors. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Scarborough stated lastly he would like to have the County be involved with Lift Station No. 5, and look at those numbers there.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to direct staff to be involved with Lift Station No. 5. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Swanke advised staff needs a motion for adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments with the land added into it.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt Ordinance amending Chapter 62, Article III, of the Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida, entitled "The 1988 Comprehensive Plan", setting forth Plan Amendment 2004-C of the Comprehensive Plan; specifically amending Part XI, entitled "Future Land Use Element"; amending part XVIII.G "Future Land Use Appendices"; providing for internal consistency with these amendments; providing legal status; providing a severability clause; providing for area encompassed; providing for conflicting provisions; and providing an effective date. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 6:05 p.m. and reconvened at 6:14 p.m.

Chairman Pritchard stated the first speaker is Dick Thompson, followed by Ralph Maccarone, Bonnie Wilhelm, and then Jerry Jester.

Dick Thompson stated this subject has been discussed several times over the past two to three years; and he is not certain how much more the Board wants to hear from him. He stated it is a request to get a waiver of the Ordinance that limits him to two lots per dirt road; he wants to put three lots additional on that dirt road; it is actually two additional lots in that one lot is already adjacent to a paved County road; and the existing dirt road he would use. He noted there are no changes there; and he has nothing else to say but will answer questions.

Commissioner Colon stated at the last meeting the Board discussed making sure it was in writing that the lot was not going to be subdivided; and inquired if it is in writing somewhere. Chairman Pritchard advised that was the two and one half-acre parcel that it would remain at two and one half acres.

Assistant County Manager Ed Washburn stated the Attorney said that if the Board approved the waiver it could put that language in the waiver.

Mr. Thompson advised his attorney is present and would be happy to answer any questions.

Ralph Maccarone stated the Board has already answered one of his questions; currently the access allowed for Mr. Thompson?s property is for one lot through the easement on Carambola Drive; and if the waiver is approved the easement would have five lots utilizing that access stem. He stated Section 62-102 allows two properties to utilize the same access stem; currently there are already three lots using this access; and by granting the waiver that number would increase to five. He noted it is more than double what Section 62-102 allows; his biggest concern is the future subdivision of Lot 3 if the waiver is approved; at the Board meeting on January 11, 2005 Commissioner Colon asked County Attorney Scott Knox if conditions could be put on the waiver request, which would not allow lot three or the other two lots to be subdivided again in the future; Attorney Knox replied that it was possible. He noted he is requesting if the waiver is granted that the condition of not allowing additional subdividing of Lot 3 or the other two lots in the future be included in the waiver request; and the Board should not grant the waiver at all.

Bonnie Wilhelm stated her problem is not with the road or size of the lots; Tract A does not have a road on it; she access through her neighbor?s property out of their driveway; right now as Tract A it is not effective; and one cannot get onto it. She stated all of the houses are accessing through a neighbor?s driveway; the man who owns it now told her no other houses are coming in on his property and he is putting a gate up; she is worried about if Mr. Thompson is going to build a road on Tract A to access or are the people who bought the lots going to have to build the road; and when she bought the property she was told she was entering in on Tract A and

she would have to maintain the road. She noted after the house was built she was told by her neighbor who owned the property that he built the culvert, he owned it, and he was letting her use it; and the new owner has no reason to let anyone use it.

Chairman Pritchard inquired if someone could show him where Tract A is located. Ms. Wilhelm showed Chairman Pritchard Tract A on the map. Chairman Pritchard stated it says Tract B and Tract C. Ms. Wilhelm stated she has the County records when she bought the house and it says Tract A. Chairman Pritchard inquired is what is shown on the map as Tract B and Tract C really Tract A. Ms. Wilhelm responded yes. Ms. Wilhelm stated the entrance comes in on the southern front lot; and it is her neighbors 22 feet. She stated the 25-foot that is the entrance for Tract B to the north of that she had plotted, but never put in a road because all of the utility lines and mailboxes would have to be moved. She stated now her neighbor is saying she cannot use his entrance.

Chairman Pritchard inquired which lot belongs to Ms. Wilhelm. Ms. Wilhelm responded she is Lot 1. Ms. Wilhelm stated South Merritt Estates Lake Section has no actual road; but it has empty land that could be a road. She inquired who would be responsible for making an access road. She stated she was told there was an access road and she was on it, but that dirt road is not; and she was lied to.

Chairman Pritchard advised Ms. Wilhelm is getting access to her property. Ms. Wilhelm stated she is but it is through someone else?s property who is not very happy about it now; every time an easement comes in onto the property it is on the corner of her property line; there is never a 15-foot buffer; and with four acres of land there should be a 15-foot buffer.

Jerry Jester stated he does not need to speak unless the Board has a question; and he would address Ms. Wilhelm?s issue by saying Tract A would be the road in and she would be allowed to use it.

Mr. Thompson stated Tract A was part of the original development project of South Merritt Estates Lake Section, of which Ms. Wilhelm?s lot is Lot 1; he owns the dirt road; it is in his name; and it has been for many years. He stated he does not know where Ms. Wilhelm is coming from as far as saying that someone else owns it; it is true that there is a parallel type of easement adjacent to his dirt road on the south side of it that serves those two lots; his easement expands out as soon as a person crosses the ditch; and he does not know what the concerns are about not having access, and they were given in perpetuity access and egress on Tract A, which he owns. He advised Tract A is called Tract B and C in the Development Plan for other reasons.

Commissioner Colon inquired if it is an actual dirt road. Mr. Thompson responded it is a dirt road and it has good base material. Commissioner Colon inquired if it can be driven on; with Mr. Thompson responding yes the neighbors and he drive on it all the time. He advised the road is in good shape and it is his intention to keep it in good shape; and the homeowners that

built their homes there would actually own a portion of that road. Commissioner Colon stated Ms. Wilhelm needs to come back up so she can understand she does have access to her home from that particular road.

Ms. Wilhelm stated she had a survey done and if someone comes out and goes to the edge of the property and measures 25 feet, a person would see that the dirt road is on the neighbors property; it is just the culvert; it does shift over; so once a person goes over the culvert it shifts over and that is the 25 feet, which is only 12 feet that is usable. Chairman Pritchard stated Ms. Wilhelm has been getting access to her property for over 19 years. Ms. Wilhelm stated from the neighbor?s culvert, not from Tract A; it is a very simple issue; the land must be plotted; and when this man puts a fence up on his property, which he just had surveyed that is on the culvert, there will be no access.

Chairman Pritchard stated the way the property is laid out it clearly shows a road of sorts that provides access; and he does not understand what Ms. Wilhelm is saying that someone would put up a gate and keep her from using that access. Ms. Wilhelm advised the access right now is right over the culvert; her access is the north half of the 50 feet on Carambola Drive; and the culvert is on the south 25 feet of the trail. Mr. Thompson stated that is not true. Ms. Wilhelm advised it is true because the neighbor just had it staked. Mr. Thompson stated part of the culvert is definitely there and part of it is his 25 feet. Chairman Pritchard inquired if Mr. Thompson needs to install a culvert on that 25-foot section of the road in order to provide access to the road. Mr. Thompson responded he could provide an additional section of culvert pipe. Chairman Pritchard advised it sounds like he has to. Mr. Thompson stated the road is there and has been in use for many years. Chairman Pritchard stated Mr. Vizioli said the culvert is on his property and those people have been going across his culvert to access Mr. Thompson?s road. Mr. Thompson stated at this time it is not his intention to add additional culvert pipe, but it has been something he has considered in the past. Chairman Pritchard stated it sounds like he has to add pipe because the pipe that has been providing access is on someone else?s property and that person intends to fence it off. Mr. Thompson stated there is no problem in adding another section of pipe.

Roger Vizioli stated he has the access coming across the drainage ditch and the culvert that is in there now; the property had been recently resurveyed because a friend of his just bought a lot; the stake for the front corner of his lot is Mr. Thompson?s; and if he needs the existing access that is across that culvert now it is about two feet before he falls into the ditch. He stated he has let the people use the access because they are neighbors, but the friend who bought the property said no one would drive across his property but him; and he intends to put up a fence. He stated if Mr. Thompson is saying he would put in the culvert so the neighbors can come straight off Carambola Drive into his property then there is no issue.

Commissioner Colon inquired how soon can a culvert be installed. Mr. Vizioli stated if Mr. Thompson agrees to put a culvert in, when he does that he can get in touch with the man who bought the lot and tell him to hold off putting up the fence.

Commissioner Voltz stated it is nice for people to work together in this kind of a situation; and if people are continuously being adversaries, it does not benefit anyone. She stated she appreciates everyone working together.

Chairman Pritchard stated this began as an eight-lot subdivision and was reduced down per some comments he made and was subsequently followed by Mr. Thompson; and he will read the minutes of January 14, 2005. "Mr. Washburn advised the Board has in other cases granted additional lots over an easement and normally grants one or two additional lots, which would give a total of three to four lots on that property." He advised he responded at the end saying, "Mr. Thompson come back with a drawing of the 25-foot access so the Board can see what it can do for Hidden Hollow and Staghorn, and save the trees. He stated it might not be a subdivision and it might be four houses." He stated it is now down to three houses; and there has been good faith.

Mr. Maccarone inquired if there could be the wording in the waiver request about not subdividing again. Chairman Pritchard responded yes. Commissioner Carlson stated it seems appropriate that not only the subdivision, but access to Merritt Estates Lake should be added to the waiver as a condition. Chairman Pritchard advised that would be the installation of the culvert so that it comes across where it should be.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to waive the minimum two-lot requirement to allow one lot abutting the street end of Carambola Drive and two additional lots to access an existing 20-foot wide dirt driveway with three existing homes; and approve inclusion of language in the waiver that there be no additional subdivision of Lot 3 or the other two lots in the future, and Mr. Thompson install the culvert for access to Merritt Estates Lake. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Carlson stated when the Board had the agricultural lunch with the Farm Bureau and such, Representative Thad Altman brought up the issue of trying to provide some means to make agriculture more productive; she wants to request the Board work with Agriculture and Extension Services Director Jim Fletcher; and she would like him to be part of the conversation and add insight to any scenarios that might benefit the community as a whole when looking at EELS properties.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the attached summary list from the January 13, 2005 workshop regarding the Environmentally Endangered Lands Program, which would be addressed at the February 24, 2005 EEL Program workshop; and request that Agriculture and Extension Services Director Jim Fletcher be involved with the agricultural interests. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to grant permission to bid, award the bid to the lowest responsible bidders, and authorize the Chairman to execute the contracts for repairs needed on the A. Max Brewer Memorial Causeway Bridge as a result of the recent hurricanes. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Change Order No. 3 with Dooley Mack Constructors, Inc., reducing the retainage from 10% to 2% of the work completed for Site A, Sarno Transfer Station, in the amount of $213,777.26. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to recess as the Board of County Commissioners. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to convene as the Governing Board of the Brevard County Water and Sewer District. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve request from McIntosh Highlands LLC to construct water and sewer facilities within the boundary of the Brevard County Water and Sewer District. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adjourn as the Governing Board of the Brevard County Water and Sewer District. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to reconvene as the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Natural Resources Management Director Ernie Brown stated the Board has before it an agenda item requesting five different actions, several contracts, and request to delegate authority to the Chairman and County Manager to make modifications as necessary to the contracts; staff did an amazing job working to negotiate some pricing, and came up with some very good solutions; and the Florida Inland Navigation District Commission came up with free sand to use on the beaches. Chairman Pritchard inquired what was the value of the sand. Mr. Brown responded staff?s current estimates are about $800,000 of usable sand.

Bruce Cooper, City of Satellite Beach Building Official Planning Director, stated on behalf of the City Council, City staff, and the residents, he appreciates the County?s support regarding the Mid-Reach Beach issues, and especially the allocation of $900,000; Cities of Satellite Beach and Indian Harbour Beach support the requested action as recommended by staff to make amendments and modifications to successfully complete the dune project, not to exceed the State funds of $8.27 million, other available State resources, and the previously approved expenditures of $900,000; Indian Harbour Beach City Manager Jackie Burns was present in the morning; and she supports the request. He encouraged the Board to continue to use previously allocated County funds along with the FIND sand, which would maximize the benefit of the devastated beaches and dunes of the Mid-Reach; and it is the most cost-effective approach that the Board is accomplishing.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to execute Interlocal Agreement with Florida Inland Navigation District (FIND) to use beach-quality sand from its Mims sand recycling facility for construction of the Interim Dune Stabilization Project at no cost
to the County, Agreements with Phillips & Jordan, Inc. and J. P. Donovan Construction as negotiated from the best and final offers, and Services Agreement with AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. for time and materials not to exceed $598,507 to provide oversight for construction of the Project; authorize use of available funds to create continuous dune lines in the most critically-eroded areas as determined by staff and approved by the Interim County Manager; and authorize amendments or modifications to the aforementioned Agreements as necessary to effect the successful completion of the dune project not to exceed State funds of $8.27 million, other available State resources, and the previously approved expenditure of $900,000 of general funds; and delegate its authority to the Chairman and the Interim County Manager to execute said modifications of amendments. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Virginia Barker, Office of Natural Resources Management, stated she needs one more decision; there are approvals on all of the attached Contracts from the County Attorney and Risk Management, with the one exception of the Florida Inland Navigation Contract; if litigation has to occur, it is standard the County Attorney recommends litigation take place in a court in Brevard County; the District wants it to take place in Palm Beach County; and she needs the Board to decide if it wants the free sand or if litigation can take place in Palm Beach County.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve in the FIND Agreement if litigation has to occur, it take place in a court in Palm Beach County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Colon suggested the Board send a letter to FIND to let it know how thankful the Board is for the team effort. Chairman Pritchard stated he will do that.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to recess as the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to convene as the Governing Board of the Mosquito Control District. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to grant permission to issue a purchase order, waive bidding requirements, and allow quotes to rent heavy equipment for mosquito impoundment repair to include debris removal and repair erosion on dikes. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adjourn as the Governing Board of the Mosquito Control District. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to reconvene as the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Interim County Manager Peggy Busacca stated the Port St. John Dependent Special District Advisory Board has a membership of seven elected representatives; there have been some questions of people trying to qualify for this because they feel it is an erroneous qualification process to serve as an elected official on an advisory board with no salary; so there are several

options for methodology to fill the vacancies. She stated currently the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board allows appointment by the Board with the advice and consent of the District Commissioner; and the Port St. John Dependent Special District Advisory Board can be amended to provide the same process.

Chairman Pritchard inquired when a person is elected to those boards does he or she have to fill out a financial disclosure form. Ms. Busacca responded yes and that has become the erroneous part of the process; and if a person is appointed, he or she would still fill out a form but it is less complex. Chairman Pritchard stated on the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board they have been lax on filling out the forms. He inquired if the two members he just appointed to the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board fall into the lesser financial disclosure form. County Attorney Scott Knox responded if they were appointments yes.

Linda McKinney stated she appreciates Ms. Busacca mailing her information; she has a point of contention with it; in the report, Ms. Busacca said that the Port St. John Dependent Special District Advisory Board has support within the community, and she disagrees. She stated the Advisory Board began with nine positions; it was soon lowered to seven; and there is talk now of lowering it to five by its own members. She advised at the last two election years, 2002 and 2004, there were many positions opened; only one person qualified each time; there have been more appointments lately than elections; and at the beginning it started out with a 71% voter turnout for that election year. She advised the highest elected official for the Board only got 4,681 votes; and that is not a lot of support.

Commissioner Carlson inquired what is the percentage of the 4,681 votes. Ms. McKinney responded she does not know;stated a person was allowed to vote for nine people;and the person who got the highest number of votes was 4,681 out of 71% voter turnout in all of Brevard County. Chairman Pritchard inquired if that was the first Board; with Ms. McKinney responding yes and it has gone down since then. She stated Commissioner Scarborough told past Chairman Carmine Ferraro in a phone conversation according to an email that Mr. Ferraro sent to everyone,that if the Board met this evening it could be interpreted as a violation of State law and the County may be compelled to refer the matter to the State Attorney?s Office for potential criminal prosecution;she has the email from Mr. Ferraro; and that is not a good thing for a board to do; she could not find the minutes; all boards should have minutes; she requested Freedom of Information Act requests through the chairman of the board; and Bill Bender complied immediately, and Carmine Ferraro stalled and threatened to sue her if she did not stop asking him in front of County staff. She inquired how many times does a person have to go through this; and the Board should abolish the advisory board.

Maureen Rupe stated the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board has been overwhelmingly successful; before 1996, Mary Tees and herself were almost monthly at the Planning and Zoning Board fighting rezonings of gas stations on residential corners where

school children were crossing; the two of them came before the Board of County Commissioners if Port St. John could have its own planning and zoning board made up of people who knew the area and the problems; and the Board agreed to take it to referendum, and it overwhelmingly passed. She stated since then the rezonings with non-compatibility and safety issues have not come up in Port St. John; people are always interested in controversy; and since the controversial issues have gone away, interest is waning in the community. She stated the State changed the criteria and changed where a person had to pay money and other things to be eligible to serve on that Board; it would be good at this point to begin to appoint and take away the inconvenience of the election process for a planning and zoning board; and she is asking the Board not to dissolve the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board as it has been the best watchdog for planning and zoning issues.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if another straw ballot is needed to make sure that is exactly what the community thinks; stated she can see the reason for keeping such a board in case something comes up; and then everyone does not have to go through the process again. Ms. Rupe responded she has never had any problem with a ballot.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he advised Mr. Ferraro in an email in very clear terms of his concern; there are citizens coming together informally and all of a sudden a person thinks a meeting can be formed; but he just wanted to make it in very clear terms. He stated he pulled a Consent Item that addresses a similar concern of his; the Board was going to appoint people to the Brevard County Investment Committee, and both Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten and Deputy Clerk Mark Peterson were on the same Committee; and there are problems with violation of the Sunshine Law. He stated maybe it is his over concern with the idea that a person can fall within the purview of things that could be a violation; if a person reads the law it says a person is not supposed to be communicating issues that would involve discussions of a certain nature outside of a forum which is advertised and recorded; he does not believe there is a need to go out and have another straw ballot; and he would prefer to go with Option No. 1 since it appears to be working at Merritt Island. Chairman Pritchard advised he does not appoint every member; an election is held; the last time there were three vacant seats; and two did not qualify; and he appointed two people for the seats that the people did not qualify for. He stated there is one elected member on the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board; and that person should be allowed to finish out their term.

Ms. Busacca stated the reason Commissioner Scarborough has not been able to bring it to the Board is because there are not sufficient numbers to have a quorum to make a recommendation; the current process in Port St. John is the Advisory Board makes a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Chairman Pritchard advised there is only one person on the Advisory Board. Commissioner Scarborough stated there is not a quorum to meet and they are not making recommendations.

Commissioner Voltz inquired why Ms. McKinney cannot get copies of minutes. Commissioner Scarborough responded because the Advisory Board is not meeting and that is part of the problem. Commissioner Voltz inquired when there was actual minutes from the last meeting and when the Advisory Board met last; and it is not a good idea not to give out public record documents when they have been asked for. Commissioner Scarborough stated anytime an item has come before the Board from Port St. John where action has been taken, there are minutes attached to it. Ms. Busacca stated in the event of a zoning item, the Zoning staff goes to the meeting, conducts the meeting as the regular Planning and Zoning Board, and the minutes are generated from the staff. She stated in those instances where the Advisory Board may meet without a zoning issue, it is the responsibility of that Board to put minutes together; it has been asked to make sure that minutes are provided to the County Manager, Commissioner
Scarborough?s office, and the library so there is a public record of that; when Ms. McKinney asked for additional records, there were none, so nothing could be provided other than what the Planning and Zoning staff had provided.

Ms. McKinney stated she referred to past Chairman Carmine Ferraro; in 2002, she appeared before the Board of County Commissioners because she had discovered discrepancies in the Sunshine Law; there were no minutes anywhere; she asked for them, but no one had them. She stated the library only had three; Commissioner Scarborough had about eight sets of minutes; and she asked Ms. Busacca, and she did not have many. She advised there were three sets of minutes on the website and seven agendas; she asked the former Chairman Bill Bender for records; and he immediately emailed her things, which means he had them available. She stated Mr. Bender knew he was supposed to turn them into the County, but he sent her things the County did not have; and after Mr. Ferraro refused to give her any minutes staff began to be at the meetings taking official minutes. Chairman Pritchard stated it has been resolved. Ms. McKinney stated that part has been resolved; and unless the Board term limits and does not get the same people in as in the past, the same situation will develop again.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Advisory Board has a specific function with the Board and that is to review zoning requests; the Advisory Board had a desire to meet on other issues of a broader context; it can request the Board?s authority to look at other things; but only if the Board consents to it. He stated part of the problem is the Advisory Board is an official body of Brevard County that has a function to review zoning recommendations; County staff should not be sent anytime the Advisory Board wants to get together and talk about issues; and it needs to be made clear when a new advisory board is restated that these are the rules.

Chairman Pritchard stated the Port St. John Board was the first Board and it became more of a hobby and a club; and it began to lose sight of what its function was. Commissioner Scarborough stated it needs to be clearly defined, and the people needed to have it spelled out; and the residents like the idea of when there are zoning items that they have it within the community. Chairman Pritchard stated the Advisory Board does not need to be an elected board; the one person who is elected could serve his term; the Board should appoint from now on; and many people do not want to expose their personal information.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to authorize members of the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board be appointed instead of elected as the rigors and expense for an unpaid elective position discourages candidates; and allow the one elected member to serve out his term. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve request by the City of Melbourne for endorsement of a State local bill to allow the City to hold an election in the Aurora Road enclave area for the purpose of annexing the enclave areas into the City. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Pritchard stated there was a meeting regarding this and it appears there is opportunity for the County to bring in a firm who is experienced in obtaining grants; and it would augment the County?s operations.

Parks and Recreation Director Charles Nelson stated Stan Hemphill does an excellent job as far as success rates; he would work with County staff who provides information so he puts together grant applications for the various programs; the County has been successful in the routine kind of departmental programs; and most everyone spoke highly of Mr. Hemphill in the Florida Communities Trust arena. He stated those kinds of projects are typically acquisition of lands that are ranging from endangered up to some of the more passive; they are not for the more active; but there can be combinations. He stated part of his process would be to sit down and look at what projects are currently on the board and identify those that may be most practical for a grant application; the contract could be piggy-backed with Broward County, which has been there for some years; the County can choose which ones it wants; and if the Board wants to do a Florida Communities Trust Grant then it could just do the one service. He stated it is an opportunity to get additional dollars; Mr. Hemphill has a good relationship in Tallahassee; and part of his success is that he can move up and down the halls freely and talk with people he needs to, and understand what the process is.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Broward County Contract was competitively bid; with Mr. Nelson responding yes. Mr. Nelson stated staff confirmed it was able to be piggy-backed and it was advertised as part of Broward County?s proposal. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the services that were piggy-backed would be the services that were outlined in the Agenda

package or would staff need to talk with Mr. Hemphill. Mr. Nelson stated the Board can pick and choose whatever it would like to use; staff needs to get permission to apply for a grant; and it would come back to the Board and request approval. Commissioner Carlson stated she wants to make sure how much it costs for the services just to see the cost benefit analysis. Mr. Nelson stated on some of the smaller grants it does not make sense, but on the larger grants it would.

Interim County Manager Peggy Busacca stated it is a continuing project and staff would bring back each specific project.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to authorize an agreement utilizing the services of an experienced leisure grants service organization for Parks and Recreation Department, piggy-backing the current Broward County Agreement as written due to time constraints; and appoint Assistant County Manager Don Lusk to act as liaison with the organization. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Pritchard expressed his thanks to former County Commissioner Sue Schmitt who brought this item to the Board?s attention; Ms. Schmitt is a board member on the Florida Communities Trust Board; the County needs to look into a lobbyist position to represent it; and there are firms that are available. He noted he does not know what the process is; the Legislature begins again in March; the Board needs to set itself up as soon as possible; and Brevard County should be at the table to gather some of the money available. He inquired if the Board needs to do an RFP.

County Attorney Scott Knox responded he would have to check but does not believe it is necessary. Chairman Pritchard inquired if Mr. Knox would suggest that at the next meeting the Board comes back with some names. Commissioner Carlson inquired how long is the time period for an RFQ. Mr. Knox responded the Board can make it two weeks if it wants to. Chairman Pritchard stated it should be an agenda item at the next Board meeting.

Commissioner Colon extended her thanks to Parks and Recreation Department for all of the work done to Paradise Park, which is now Howard Futch Park.

Commissioner Scarborough stated staff can come to the Board with recommendations at any time; and it can meet as a whole and and come together with group recommendations; if the community gets involved it begins to get in the purview of the Sunshine Law; and once staff is on that type of blended committee, it precludes it from doing what it could have done if it were

not on a committee. He stated if Deputy Clerk Mark Peterson and Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten had to talk about something in relation to the Investment Committee, they could be charged with a violation of the Sunshine Law; he wants to table the item and speak with Mr. Whitten and others more before the Board makes a decision; there are people in the community who are raising the issue today on how staff interfaces with Commissioners in a very broad sense of calling that a Sunshine Law violation; and he would feel better if he had another couple of weeks to check into the matter.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to table Resolution authorizing the appointment process and making reappointments to the Brevard County Investment Committee, to the February 8, 2005 meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Carlson stated based on the briefing she had with Mr. Whitten, they discussed short-term and on-going committees; on the ongoing committee side a person wants to look at the Sunshine Law issue; but on the short-term committee it hamstrings staff if it cannot work together in a short-term. She stated the two scenarios need to be discussed.

Chairman Pritchard stated the Investment Committee only has one person from the private sector; the County might be better served if there was a second person from the private sector; and suggested someone from the banking industry. Commissioner Scarborough stated he would feel more comfortable to have staff there to participate in an advisory capacity, but not vote; and increase the number of the private sector.

Commissioner Carlson stated East Central Florida Regional Planning Council Executive Director Sandra Glenn passed away from complications from diabetes; there will be services Saturday, January 29, 2005 at 11:00 a.m. at the Aloma Baptist Church in Winter Park; and in lieu of flowers, donations to Sandra Glenn?s Scholarship Fund for Seminole Community College would be appreciated. Chairman Pritchard suggested a $20 donation from each Commissioner.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 7:22 p.m.

ATTEST: _________________________________

RON PRITCHARD, D.P.A., CHAIRMAN

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

___________________

SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)