MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

October 10, 2006

 

 

 

 

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on October 10, 2006, at 9:02 a.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida.  Present were:  Chair Helen Voltz, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Ron Pritchard, Susan Carlson, and Jackie Colon, County Manager Peggy Busacca, and Deputy County Attorney Shannon Wilson.

 

The Invocation was given by Pastor Ken Delgado, House of Prayer, Palm Bay, Florida.

 

Commissioner Scarborough led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard to approve the July 25, 2006 Regular Meeting Minutes.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.   

 

 

 

Chair Voltz requested to pull Items I.A.6, I.B.2., and I.B.9., for discussion.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to renew Memorandum of Agreement with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas for use of environmental field station.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  (See page                                  for Memorandum of Agreement.)

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded Commissioner Carlson, to execute First Amendment to the Agreement with St. Johns River Water Management District and Brevard County for Controlling Abandoned Artesian Wells that reflects the Board approved Funded Program Change Request for FY 05-06 and a recurring budget for FY 06-07.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  (See page                                 for First Amendment to Agreement.)

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the Special Magistrate’s Recommended Order for John F. and John J. Dismore, Case No. 06-04, to grant the applicant’s vested rights petition.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the Restoration Plan for Wetland Impacts as submitted to the Natural Resources Management Office by Atlantic Environmental Solutions to resolve the Wetland Protection violation regarding Action File #05-0599.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

                                           

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the Stipulated Consent Acknowledgement for Wetland Restoration as submitted to the Natural Resources Management Office by Sunset River Properties, LLC, to resolve the Wetland Protection violation regarding Action File #05-1905.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution revising Land Development fees.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page              for Resolution No. 06-285.)

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Tri-Party Escrow Agreement with Adamson Creek Investment, LLC and Branch Banking & Trust for guarantee of performance for right-of-way improvements for Adamson Creek Subdivision, with the developer responsible for obtaining all necessary jurisdictional permits.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  (See page                           for Tri-Party Escrow Agreement.)

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to waive the five-acre minimum flag lot requirement for an easement and the requirement of only one easement

 

within a flag lot under Section 62-102 (B)(b), (8)&(10) of the Code for James and Jackie Brooks.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to direct staff to administratively rezone all improved properties with institutional uses that are affected by the creation of the Institutional (IN) zoning classification.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Binding Development Plan with George and Barbara Ogle for property located on the northeast corner of Church Road and North Tropical Trail.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  (See          page                  for Binding Development Plan.)

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant approval to advertise a Request for Proposals for Solid Waste Computer-Aided Landfill Operations System (CALOS); and to appoint a Selection and Negotiating Committee consisting of County Manager Peggy Busacca, or her designee, Information Technology Director Jon Sellers, or his designee, Solid Waste Operations Manager Richard Dees, Solid Waste Support Services Manager Conrad White, and Solid Waste Management Director Euri Rodriguez to evaluate the RFP responses and recommend firms for awarding the CALOS contract to the Board.  Motion  carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

                   

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant approval to advertise Request for Proposals for Solid Waste Engineering Services; appoint a Selection and Negotiating Committee consisting of Solid Waste Management Director Euri Rodriguez, County   Manager   Peggy  Busacca  or  designee,   Solid   Waste   Support   Services

 

 

 

 

Manager Conrad White, and Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff or designee, to evaluate the responses to the RFP; and authorize the Chair to execute the Professional Service Agreements with the selected firms. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  (See pages                             for Agreements.)

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant permission to award to low bidder, piggyback another Florida government unit, or purchase off State contract if unavailable locally, two water wagons, one loader 4WD, one loader, two off-road dump trucks, seven transfer trailers, one compactor, two tractor trucks, one wrecker truck, and one service truck budgeted for purchase in FY 06/07.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant approval to advertise request for proposals for Solid Waste SCADA Services; and appoint a Selection and Negotiating Committee consisting of Solid Waste Management Director Euri Rodriguez, County Manager Peggy Busacca or designee, and Solid Waste Support Services Manager Conrad White, to evaluate the RFP responses and recommend firms for awarding the SCADA Contract to the Board.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution and execute Waterline Easement and Bill of Sale with the City of Cocoa for the installation of an upgraded waterline to serve the Sharpes Detention Center.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  (See pages               for Resolution No. 06-286, Easement, and Bill of Sale.)

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the Solerno District Association, Inc.’s request for the Sheriff’s Office to provide traffic control

 

 

enforcement in their community; and execute Agreement with the Sheriff and the Association. Motion  carried  and  ordered  unanimously.  (See page                                  for Agreement.)

   

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to accept Temporary Construction Easement from Arnez Auto Service, Inc.; grant waiver of Phase I Environmental Assessments, Deed and Plat Restrictions, and all Florida Power & Light, BellSouth, and Public Utility Easements, which will be subordinated or relocated on a project-wide basis at a later date; and authorize Land Acquisition Office to order payment in the amount of $3,250.00 for the Easement and conduct closing for the property which is needed for the Wickham Road Widening Project between Nasa Boulevard and U.S. 192.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  (See page                                     for Easement.)

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to accept Temporary Construction Easement from Perry & Leighty, Inc.; grant waiver of Phase I Environmental Assessments, Deed and Plat Restrictions, and all Florida Power & Light, BellSouth, and Public Utility Easements which will be subordinated or relocated on a project-wide basis at a later date; and authorized the Land Acquisition Office to order payment in the amount of $6,000.00 for this Easement and conduct closing for the property, which is needed for the Wickham Road Widening Project between Nasa Boulevard and U.S. 192.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  (See page                                    for Easement.)

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve and authorize the Chair to execute the Annual Agreement with the State of Florida, Department of Health for operation of the Brevard County Health Department for FY 2006-2007, and to execute any future amendments to the Contract and the budget, contingent upon the approval of the County Attorney and/or Risk Management.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  (See page                          for Agreement.)

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to appoint Adrienne V. Dennis and Bobby Mutter to serve on the Community Action Board, with term of appointment expiring December 31, 2009.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt revised Resolution which establishes the fines and fees charged by the Brevard County Library System.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  (See page                   for Resolution No. 06-288.)

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the Dicerandra Scrub Management Plan under the Environmentally Endangered Lands Program.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution amending the rules and a schedule of fees for The Savannahs, The Habitat and Spessard    Holland  Golf  Courses.    Motion  carried  and  ordered  unanimously.    (See page                     

                            for Resolution No. 06-289.)

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize the Chair to execute the State’s standard Historic Preservation Grant Award Agreement for Special Category Grant for the Pritchard House, and authorize the County Manager to execute any other required documents and amendments that may be necessary for the Grant.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page                      for Agreement.)

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize the Chair to execute Professional Services Agreement Amendment No. 008 with Bussen-Mayer Engineering Group, Inc. for mitigation and additional electrical design services required at

 

Mitchell Ellington Park.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See        page                             for Agreement.)

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize the Chair to execute a Land Use Agreement with The Viera Company and a Land Use Agreement with the Suntree Viera Youth Football League for use of property north of the Government Center and east of the School Board.   Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

(See pages                        for Agreements.)

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize funding and the use of Youngblood Movers to relocate the Taylor Dunn historic house to property south of the Chain of Lakes property at Brevard Community College-Titusville campus.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to accept the Internal Audit Report for Building Permitting and Land Development.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to accept the Special Magistrate’s Recommended Order of Petitioner concerning Case No. 2006-01, Board of County Commissioners vs. Anthony Palmieri, Owner/Operator, Big Red Apple Preschool.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize staff to contract with Stottler Stagg and Associates for design of an approximately 7,500 square-foot facility for the Tax Collector, to be located adjacent to the new Clerk’s Archive Facility in Titusville; authorize permission to bid construction once design is complete; authorize the Chair to execute all associated contracts for design and construction of the facility;  approve Amendment to Agreement No. 1 with Stottler Stagg and Associates for additional design services needed for the Clerk’s Archive Facility;  and authorize staff to process any budget changes necessary to implement and complete both projects.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  (See pages                                           for Contracts.)

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize permission to bid construction once design is complete; authorize the Chair to sign all associated contracts; and authorize staff to process any budget changes necessary to implement and complete renovations to the Emergency Operations Center, located at 1746 Cedar Street, Rockledge, Florida.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  (See pages

                     for Contracts.)

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Natural Gas Sales Agreement with FPL Energy Services, Inc. for natural gas at County facilities; and authorize the Chair to sign all associated documents related to the Agreement.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  (See page                    for Agreement.)

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the purchase of consulting services from Idea Integration, Inc., which has submitted a price of $119/hour for consulting time based upon Florida State Contract #973-561-06-1, to expand the use of document management to incorporate the needs of the Permitting and Enforcement Department and other users of the Community Development System, upon conclusion of a successfully negotiated contract approved by the County Attorney’s Office.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

                                                                                                                    

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the purchase of computer hardware for the Community Development System as well as scheduled replacements for existing Information Technology Department servers at GSA contract pricing from e-TechServices.com at a price of $230,200; and approve the advertisement, selection, and negotiation of a proposal from qualified firms for consulting and implementation services for  the hardware not to exceed $45,000; and appoint a Selection Committee consisting of Information Technology Director Jon Sellers, the Permitting and Enforcement Director, and the Information Technology Support Services Manager for System Administration or their designees.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Triparte Agreement with the Brevard County School Board and Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc. (EH&E), to locate an air monitoring station at Atlantis Elementary in Port St. John.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page                 for the Agreement.)

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to reappoint Jack Armul, John Walter, Sam Lenck and Mark Cherry to the Internal Audit Committee, with terms of appointment expiring October 26, 2008.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the selection of Medicare HMO providers for the 2007 Health Plan Year as recommended by the Joint County and School Board Employee Benefits Insurance Advisory Committee (EBIAC); and authorize the Office of Human Resources/Employee Benefits to negotiate and execute all Agreements necessary to place this coverage effective January 1, 2007, and restructure premiums for group health plan members electing to participate in this health plan option.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve requisitioning one-twelfth of Fiscal Year 2006/2007 budgeted funds at the first Board of County

 

Commissioners’ meeting in October 2006, one-sixth budget in January 2007, and equipment (capital) budget for the Sheriff’s Office.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to acknowledge the Annual Financial Audits of the Board of County Commissioners and each County Officer for the Fiscal Year ended September 30, 2005.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution for the Brevard County Health Department updating selected fees to cover the costs of providing services.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  (See page                           for Resolution No. 06-290)

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson to appoint Finnbarr P. Murphy to serve on the Marine Advisory Council, with term of appointment expiring December 31, 2007.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the Bills and Budget Changes, as submitted.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  (See pages

                                  for List of Bills and Budget Change Requests.)

 

 

 

County Manager Peggy Busacca stated there is a Facilities Workshop scheduled for November 9^th; and the members of the Judiciary, Court Administration, Public Defenders Office and State Attorney’s Office have begun meeting to discuss court space needs.  She advised the first meeting is scheduled for next week; and inquired if the Board wants to talk about the court space needs as part of the workshop or if the Board would like to delay the workshop to allow the group to meet and have some formal discussions before the Board has the November 9^th

 

 

workshop.  She stated it would involve more than one meeting, as they have only scheduled themselves an hour next week. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to cancel the November 9, 2006 Facilities Workshop.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Ms. Busacca stated staff will coordinate with the committee and reschedule the workshop.

 

 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated the County has an MSBU process (Municipal Service Benefit Unit), which allows people to build roads and water services; when a developer comes in first, he is able to put all of the infrastructure in; but if a community did not have a paved road, it could come in and do that through the County and share the cost.  He stated this has never been applied to dirt roads; the idea of a dirt road becomes a problem for one person who may live three or four lots from where it would connect; and that person would have two options.  He stated that person could get all of the neighbors to agree to pay or he could front the cost and never be compensated, but yet his neighbors would have a dirt road built to County standards and be able to pull permits on it.  He stated that was something the Board has struggled with in a lot of discussions; staff has some good ideas together; and he would like to make a motion that the Board obtain a formal staff report, so the Board can consider it. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated he agrees; and his introduction to this was in Canaveral Groves.  He stated the concern he had was that some people were actually holding their neighbors hostage by not allowing them access on the road because the County requirement says that after three permits are issued, the fourth cannot be done unless the person improves the road at his expense; and this is a good step. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to authorize a formal presentation by staff concerning formation of MSBU’s for dirt roads to allow building permits.   Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated he appreciates the EDC (Economic Development Council), as it received the largest grant in the State, which is a $160,000 defense infrastructure grant; it was also awarded $179,300 in a defense reinvestment grant; and it has the largest such grant awarded in the State.  He stated the Board may recall that the EDC was instrumental in the base realignment and closure (BRAC) issues they had last year and the year before; so it is great for the EDC to get that kind of recognition.

 

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated he has ballot language from Broward County on the portability of Save Our Homes; and what it states is, “Shall the Florida Constitution be amended to allow Broward County residents, for purposes of ad valorem real estate taxes, to transfer the amount of their Save Our Homes homestead value limitation to the assessed value of a newly acquired homestead exempt property within Broward County.”  He noted what is being proposed in the Legislature is a 50% carry forward; this appears to be 100% carry forward, as long as residents are going to remain in the County; and it is something Brevard County needs to consider. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated the Suntree PUD includes two small subdivisions, Still Point and Portofino; and they are located on U.S. 1, south of Suntree Boulevard.  She noted they are separated from the Suntree PUD itself and are not associated with the Suntree Master Homeowners Association; in order to come into compliance with the Development Order for the PUD, an administrative rezoning can be done; and the two subdivisions are sufficiently small, so there will be no requirement to recalculate requirements such as open space.  She stated she would like to make a motion that the Board administratively rezone them, as they are not associated with the Master Homeowner Association and staff is in agreement.  

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to authorize initiating administrative rezonings for Still Point and Portofino Subdivisions as they are not part of the Suntree PUD or Suntree Master Homeowners Group.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated the item is an agreement with the Sheriff to patrol gated communities and the request is now in a standard format; and the Board anticipates all gated communities and private streets will ask for the same.  She noted Sheriff Parker is in support of this; each requires review by County and Sheriff Attorneys and Risk Management; and each requires some level of inspection and maybe a speed study by the Traffic Engineering Department.  She stated plats, including gated communities or private streets, now have a provision allowing EMS, Fire Rescue, and trash pick-up, so adding traffic enforcement to that provision would preclude the need for these contracts.  She stated she would like to make a motion that staff look into whatever it takes to proceed to make this an easier process.  She noted the Sheriff would like to see this, so it does not have to come up as a request every time; there are a lot of communities that are gated, but they pay their taxes and should have the Sheriff there, but there is an issue with the gated portion of the community;  and it would work more efficiently if it was in the Code and on the plats.

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to direct staff to investigate the possibility of including traffic enforcement provisions in plats for gated communities and private streets, similar to the provisions provided in plats that allow EMS, trash pickup, or Fire Rescue to use the streets, which would preclude the necessity of individual

 

communities coming to the Board for approval of agreements with the Sheriff for such service.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Colon stated the Board voted to have Odyssey Charter School go back and have mediation, because according to the letter the Board received from the School Board it was not clear as to what was discussed in the mediation; and the Board voted to have all of the parties get together one more time.  She stated the Board also talked about trying to get an opinion from the Attorney General to make sure it was on the right track in regard to the impact fees, and what kind of authority it has.  Commissioner Colon stated two points that are clear from the information that was presented says, “The County Commission has the authority to fund the construction of charter school facilities with impact fees and the County Commission has the sole freedom and authority to determine the amount of impact fees paid for the construction of a charter school facility.”  She stated having the information is very good because it gives the County Attorney the leverage that is needed; and hopefully this will give an opportunity to both parties to realize what the Board’s jurisdiction is, what it has the authority to do, and be able to have a more productive meeting.  She stated she would like Assistant County Manager Ed Washburn to attend the meeting with County Manager Peggy Busacca; and the Board would like the County Attorney to be as aggressive as possible because she was disappointed with what came back; and to her it seemed one-sided and it was not clear what the Board’s intentions were; so hopefully there will be some positive feedback from the mediation and something that all parties can feel was a fair decision. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated the analysis is that the amount of the impact fees that should be awarded to Odyssey School ranges between $2.25 million and $6.35 million, and not the alleged $1 million that was supposedly agreed upon.  He advised it is the sole discretion of the Board of County Commissioners; and it would be his intent to award the maximum.  He noted a student station costs $12,701, and he thinks the school is entitled to the $6.35 million.

 

Chair Voltz advised the letter states, “Educational impact fees are not an entitlement for the School Boards.  This misconception exists because the Counties that have created educational impact fee Ordinances have also entered into Interlocal Agreements with their respective School Boards for the use of these fees.  The misconception is understandable because until recently, local School Boards essentially had the burden of being the sole supplier of public school student stations in any given county.  The burden was sizable given the residential development could proceed at a very rapid pace with hundreds of builders, developers, and contractors building communities for tens of thousands of home buyers moving to Florida.”  Chair Voltz stated it is within the Board’s purview to do what it has done and to continue doing it.      

 

 

 

Chair Voltz stated on September 29^th and October 2^nd, Chief Farmer and others went to Barefoot Bay to look at all of the people who could potentially qualify for the low income

 

assistance on the Fire Assessment, and many people were concerned that the information they gave to the Board would be turned over to somebody else, and would not be confidential; the residents requested the information be kept in a locked cabinet; and while the Board does not have a lockbox, all the information will be held totally private and will not be available to anybody else.  She noted many people in Barefoot Bay did not know about the Senior exemption; but if someone makes under $23,000 a year, her or she can qualify for an extra $25,000 Homestead Exemption.  She stated many people did not know that, and she was wondering if there is something the Board can do to allow people to know exactly what it is.   She stated   she   understands   Mr.   Ford’s   Office   takes   a   hit   at   budget time because of the assessments; people need to understand it is not Jim Ford’s Office, but the State; and the State is the one that needs to change anything.  She commented everyone is upset about the assessments, but no one should blame Jim Ford.  She stated two weeks ago she was at the Florida Association of Counties conference, and something came up that she had not thought about; the Resolution the Board talked about to ask the State for no increase in assessments would essentially keep people’s property values and assessments low so they cannot make a profit on their home; she had not thought about that aspect; and it is something the Board may need to rethink.  Commissioner Pritchard stated he does not agree.  Chair Voltz stated that is the information she heard at the conference; and if the Board holds all of the assessments and asks the State not to increase the assessments, it would mean if someone’s house valuation went up, they could have sold it for a higher price.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated nobody sells their house for the assessed or appraised value;  a private appraisal is a threshold for the value of the house, not the Property Appraiser’s value.  He noted for the most part, the houses on the Property Appraiser’s website have property taxes 60% to 80% below what the market value would be, so he does not see the relationship; and if the Board can freeze the assessed values, then it is going to provide a benefit to the community, but on the other hand, the market value is whatever the market will bear.  Chair Voltz stated she agrees, but she is just bringing up issues that were discussed at the Florida Association of Counties conference. Commissioner Carlson inquired if there was any deliberation on an action or any support of anything; with Chair Voltz responding there was no action whatsoever. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated she knows that the biggest frustration of the citizens is because they do not comprehend exactly who is to blame for their huge tax bill, and they are at a point where they are blaming everybody from the City Councilmen to the Mayor and the County Commissioners.  She stated the Board has been trying to explain that it does not assess homes, and it is frustrating for the Property Appraiser’s Office because by law the Property Appraiser has to appraise homes at a certain amount.  

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated the aggregate millage has decreased slightly over the past ten years; but property has increased two or three times what it was worth, so the net effect is the Board has a $1.1 billion budget.  He noted the appraisals and assessments need to be fixed while the Board sorts this out, and the aggregate millage also needs to come down.  He stated if the Board cannot do 100% of the portability within the County, people are going to be trapped in their homes; there will not be the increase in a variety of fees that would support the infrastructure; and it needs to change.

 

Kevin Gholston stated he came before the Board in May and asked for the first approval for the expansion at his company, EDAK; EDAK Inc., is a small business and has been in Melbourne for 20  years;  and they  make  aluminum  transit  cases  for  the  military  and  homeland   security.   He noted the transit cases are for electronics, medical gear, and satellite antennas; and they are made out of fabricated aluminum.  Mr. Gholston stated they moved into their new building in December, and they have outgrown it already.  He stated the Marine Corps. came to his company in February with an important program for soldiers in Iraq and they needed it completed quickly; his employees worked for 45 days straight to get the job done; and they did it successfully.  He stated he is now running two shifts and is hiring a weekend shift; and he is trying to get prepared, because the Army is now coming to them with another project that will be larger than the Marine Corps. project.  He stated he is running out of capacity quickly and the tax abatement will help him to sell to his Board of Directors.  He advised the EDC has been very supportive of his organization, supplied logistical advice, and hooked them up with consultants.  He noted this year, EDAK Incorporated will probably have revenues exceeding $15 million; and last year, it only did $4.3 million.  He stated when he came to the Board in May, 2005, he had 16 employees and now he has 34 direct employees and 43 temps. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution qualifying EDAK, Inc. as an eligible business under the County’s Tax Abatement Program and authorizing a public hearing to consider adopting an exemption ordinance.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  (See page                                for Resolution No. 06-303.)

 

 

 

Ray Caldwell stated he is from Mims and last year he had a problem with a flood and the road runoff.  He stated he contacted Commissioner Scarborough’s office and was told someone would be out to check on the situation; not long after, people came out to see what they could do; and the finished project is better than he ever thought it would be.  He stated he, along with everyone else who lives on Andre Road, is appreciative of staff.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated the situation was more than just having Road and Bridge come out and clean a ditch; there was no place for the water to run, so Holly Pardy in Land Acquisition and Mike Powers from Stormwater were involved; the neighborhood came together and properties were transferred; and it is a case where people went beyond job descriptions, created a team, and worked with the community.

 

 

Commissioner Colon read aloud a resolution recognizing Romeo Dela Paz.

 

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution recognizing Romeo Dela Paz.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  (See page               for Resolution No. 06-292.)

 

Romeo Dela Paz stated this recognition has been done in the month of October, which has been declared Filipino-American Heritage Month; and there is currently a window display at the Palm Bay Public Library in celebration of the month.  Mr. Dela Paz stated he is also happy that his recognition is in 2006, which is the Centennial of the Filipino-American migration to Hawaii and the mainland.  He stated he just returned from one of the celebrations in Hawaii; two of the first State Representatives of Honolulu were of Filipino history and the first member of the Supreme Court of Hawaii had been to his hometown before being shipped back to the United States.  He stated in Florida he is happy to be in an environment that gives him the opportunity to be able to serve his community.

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard read aloud a resolution proclaiming October 13, 2006, as Senior Fest Day.

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution proclaiming October 13, 2006, as Senior Fest Day.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  (See page               for Resolution No. 06-293.)  

Ron Morgan thanked the Board for its continuous support of Senior Fest.  He noted this year there will be short seminars on Medicare Part D prescription and also to announce the latest improvements that have just been released by CMS in the prescription drug program.  He advised on November 9, 2006, there will be the final Triad forum for the year; Commissioner Scarborough is on the schedule, and it will be held at the Temple Baptist Church in Titusville. 

 

Chair Voltz thanked Mr. Morgan for all of his hard work with the Seniors of Brevard County. 

 

 

Commissioner Carlson read aloud a resolution proclaiming October as National Disabilities Employment Awareness Month.

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution proclaiming October as National Disabilities Employment Awareness Month.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  (See page               for Resolution No. 06-294.)

 

 

Bob Seemer thanked the Board for its support; stated he has found that it is the awareness of businesses to help persons with disabilities to obtain quality competitive employment, and the Board of County Commissioners has given them much support over the years.  He stated he would like to introduce the persons on the committee who make quality of life a possibility for

 

 

people with disabilities; and introduced Betsy Farmer, Director of the Brevard Business Leadership Network.

 

Betsy Farmer shared some success stories from the Brevard Business Leadership Network.  She thanked the Board for its letter of support for the grant that was submitted to Workforce Florida, Inc.; and advised they won the grant and received $175,000, and also received $382,000 in matching funds from Brevard County to go with the grant. 

 

 

 

Chair Voltz read aloud a resolution proclaiming October 15 – 22, 2006, as Mediation Week. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution proclaiming October 15–22, 2006, as Mediation Week.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  (See page                 for Resolution 06-295.)

 

 

Dolly Lyons stated she manages the Mediation Program for the County Courts and she set the proclamation based on the 35 or more mediators who volunteer their time in the court system; and to date this year, they have volunteered over 1,100 hours and mediated over 800 cases.  She thanked the Board for the recognition.  She advised next week, in the Viera Courthouse, there will be a table with some information on it to inform the public exactly what they do in mediation and also to invite them to join them as mediators.

 

 

 

Commissioner Carlson read aloud a resolution proclaiming the month of October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month.

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution proclaiming the month of October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  (See page                          for Resolution No. 06-296.)

 

 

Cindy Mitchell, from the Domestic Violence Program, thanked the Board for the opportunity to highlight Domestic Violence Awareness Month; and stated it is so important to the women and children in the community that they know how to get help.  She advised if anyone needs help with domestic violence, they can call the State hotline, 1-800-500-1119.

 

Commissioner Colon thanked Ms. Mitchell for her dedication to the Domestic Violence Program.

 

 

 

Chair Voltz noted she grew up in a home with domestic violence, and there were no programs available at that time; and she appreciates everything the Program does, because it is so important to protect people in those situations.

 

 

 

Chair Voltz read aloud a resolution recognizing October as Silent Witness Month.

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution recognizing October as Silent Witness Month.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  (See page                        for Resolution No. 06-297.)

 

 

Cindy Mitchell stated the Silent Witness is one of four domestic homicides in 2004 in Brevard County. She noted on October 15, 2006, on the Cocoa Campus at Brevard Community College, six domestic violence homicide victims will be remembered who lost their lives in 2005 in Brevard County.  She thanked the Board for its support and for the Resolution. 

 

 

Commissioner Scarborough read aloud a resolution proclaiming October 10, 2006 as Put the Brakes on Fatalities Day.

 

Gail Wentworth thanked the Board on the behalf of the Community Traffic Safety Team, for supporting the Resolution for Put the Brakes on Fatalities Day.  She noted it is a nationwide program that has been in existence for over ten years; and the Team is a group of people who come together to solve local problems regarding fatalities on the roadways.  She invited the community to join the Community Traffic Safety Team.

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution proclaiming Put the Brakes on Fatalities Day.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  (See page                   for Resolution No. 06-298.)

 

 

*Deputy Attorney Wilson’s absence and Deputy Attorney Eden Bentley’s presence were noted at this time.

 

 

 

Lisette Kolar stated she is representing the Interim Council of Grant-Valkaria.  She thanked the County for notifying the Interim Council of any pending site plans or plat approvals; stated the

 

Interim Council reviewed the plat and plans and has a concern; according to some of the language on some of the drawings, it looks like the developer is anticipating water and sewer to be provided by the City of Palm Bay; and at this time, Grant-Valkaria has no agreement with Palm Bay to allow that.  She stated the Council is concerned that if the Board approves the plan there will be an approval of Palm Bay providing water to the Eagle Crest River Subdivision.  She noted the Interim Council was told by the County there is a certificate of reservation from Palm Bay issued at the time of the approval of the application for concurrency.  She advised it is not that the Town of Grant-Valkaria does not want it, it is just that there is no agreement with Palm Bay in place right now for water and sewer; and the elected council will have to do that.  She stated the Interim Council’s attorney sent an email stating, “If the plan is approved with the language concerning Palm Bay and the developer relies on that approval, then we would be hard pressed to deny them these utilities through Palm Bay.”  Ms. Kolar inquired if the County would also approve a re-platting of the subdivision; stated the Interim Council’s attorney advised if the Town is going to authorize the County to review the new request, then it is implied that it can approve a re-plat; site planning is different from platting; and if the County was authorized to review a site plan and not re-plat, then it should not do so.   

 

Chair Voltz inquired where the northern boundaries are of the Town of Grant-Valkaria; with Ms. Kolar responding the Malabar Town limits. 

 

Attorney Phil Nohrr, Dean Meade Law Firm, stated in 1991 a BDP (Binding Development Plan) was approved on the property by the County Commission limiting development in the subdivision to 178 lots, two accesses, one dwelling unit per acre; in 2001 there was an issue between Palm Bay, West Melbourne, and Melbourne concerning service areas; the County got involved and there was a Settlement Agreement entered into and in paragraph 3.a. of that Agreement it states that in this particular area, if Palm Bay wishes to provide water and sewer services, it would have to come to the County and get the Board’s permission.  He stated in 2005 the issue came before the Board where it acted as a Water and Sewer Board and it granted permission for the developer to get sewer and water from Brevard County, and then the Board reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners and found the request in compliance with the plan.

 

Chair Voltz inquired if Mr. Nohrr is referring to getting water from Palm Bay and not the County; with Mr. Nohrr responding affirmatively.  He stated the property has a history on the issue of getting water and sewer from Palm Bay, has been on the table for a long time, and was specifically approved by the County Commission; and he realizes Grant-Valkaria was not in existence at that time.  He advised what has been happening since 2005 is that the developer has been getting approvals from the Commission and starting engineering and the permitting process; they are at the final stages now, when they ask the Board for preliminary plat approval and finalizing permits, and then they will start construction.  He commented Grant-Valkaria is coming into existence, and the developers recognize that and know that after Grant-Valkaria has its elections, the developer will be dealing with that administration as to issues that might happen within their town.  He stated Palm Bay’s water and sewer lines are within the City limits of Grant-Valkaria as it exists at the northwest quadrant of I-95 and Valkaria Road; the developers’ project is less than a quarter of a mile away from there, which brings into play

 

Florida Statute 381, dealing with health issues; and when there is a project of a residential subdivision of 50 residential lots or more and water and sewer is available, it is the State policy that a developer hook up to that, so the developer is in compliance with that as well.  He noted the developer’s plan provides for water and sewer to the project; and to then turn around and tell them they have to have wells or septic tanks would cause a significant delay in re-write and cost a substantial amount of money.  He noted in the Charter of the Town of Grant-Valkaria, it talks about a rural-type community; and the plan the Board has looked at is clearly rural in nature and follows the intent of the Town Charter.  He requested the Board to pass the staff recommendations.   

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the developer has a pre-annexation agreement with the Town of Grant-Valkaria, in which if they get water and sewer then they have to annex into the City.  Mr. Nohrr responded his understanding is that is not the case; the developer has not signed anything yet; and there is already a precedent in which one had been signed, then incorporation came into place, and he believes that nullified it.  He stated the resolution of that issue was in lieu of annexation, that property, will have to pay a 10% surcharge for water and sewer from the City of Palm Bay; and he anticipates that to happen with his client as well.

 

Assistant County Attorney Morris Richardson stated under Chapter 177, Florida Statues, ultimately Grant-Valkaria will have to approve the final plat before it is recorded; however, they are currently at preliminary plat approval stage, so the Board has the authority to do what the applicant has requested today.  He noted as to the water issues, the Board, before the incorporation of the Town, approved a provision of water and sewer services by Palm Bay in 2005; the Grant-Valkaria Charter expressly states a desire to keep out water and sewer, as the Town wants to provide only septic and well, which is not  necessarily the most environmentally sound policy for projects such as this one, which has already been approved; and the Board has the authority to do what it can without stepping on the toes of Grant-Valkaria’s authority.

 

Lisette Kolar stated she does not want it to appear that the Town Council does not want to support the project, but it is concerned that now that the Town is an entity, there should be an agreement, just as there was between the County and the City of Palm Bay, between Grant-Valkaria and the City of Palm Bay to bring water into the town; and it seems like something is being done over their heads. 

 

Mr. Richardson stated he placed a call to Carl Dunn; and the Board could have  a hard time telling people they cannot get water, when it was approved long before Grant-Valkaria existed.  He noted to deny the developer at this point is going to be a difficult issue for Grant-Valkaria if it ever wants to deny those services; and Mr. Dunn is concerned that once it is there, it will be hard to take it away.  He noted the Board already approved the provision in 2005; that is a much bigger step than the engineering; and the approvals the developer is asking for today do not add anything.

 

Ms. Kolar stated the Interim Council is inquiring if there should be some sort of formal agreement between the two municipalities to say this is okay; the Council does not want to deny the project, but she is just asking if there should be an agreement. She stated she would like to

 

hear from Mr. Dunn also, and maybe the Board can table the item.  Mr. Richardson stated there should be an Interlocal Agreement at some point between Palm Bay and Grant-Valkaria, but one almost has nothing to do with the other because what the Board is considering today has nothing to do with the provisions between Grant-Valkaria and Palm Bay ultimately.

 

Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Nohrr advised there is a 10% surcharge if the subdivision gets annexed, and that can affect the calculations for determining what the tax base will be.  She advised if there is anything in the Town’s Charter that Ms. Kolar would like to identify, then she needs to clarify it today.  Chair Voltz inquired if the Board tables the item until the Town’s Board comes into being, will it be a problem for the County Commission; with Mr. Richardson responding the Board can do whatever it wants, but it might be a problem for the developer. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated she thinks the Board needs to move forward today; it is clear that the project was already in the pipeline; and it was already approved by the Board of County Commissioners.  She stated the environmental aspect of the project is of concern to her; a subdivision cannot be built without water and sewer; and she agrees in the future there needs to be an agreement between the City of Palm Bay and the Town of Grant-Valkaria.  She stated the County Commission is fully aware that this is a responsibility that falls under its jurisdiction; it needs to finish what it started; and she would make a motion to go forward today.

 

Motion by Commissioner Colon, to grant final engineering and preliminary plat approvals for Eagle Crest River Subdivision.

 

 

Chair Voltz passed the gavel to Vice Chair Carlson.

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table consideration of final engineering and preliminary plat approvals for Eagle Crest River Subdivision.

 

Vice Chair Carlson stated a motion to table supersedes all other motions.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated he agrees with Commissioner Colon, and he also agrees with Ms. Kolar, and this is like the chicken and the egg; and the application as stated by Mr. Richardson is that this has nothing to do with that, and that is going to be a part which will be resolved by the Town Council once elected.  He stated he does not see the need to table; it is just going to prolong the inevitable, because the Interim Town Council is not opposed to the subdivision; the action that could be taken today has been in the pipeline and the approvals have been given by the County; and rules cannot be changed in the middle of the game.  He noted the County Commission gave the initial approval and what they are talking about is a preliminary site plan; and he will not support a motion to table.

 

Chair Voltz stated she agrees with both sides and this is something the Board needs to look at; there are a number of issues and one is that the Interim Town Council has asked the Board to table the item so it can get all the information correctly; she has no problem with providing sewer and water, but with respect to the new Town, the Board needs to table the item.  She

 

inquired if the Board tables the item, will it come back to the Board at all, or will it go to the Town of Grant-Valkaria? 

 

Assistant County Manager Ed Washburn stated the Interim Council asked the County to proceed with helping it get projects approved that were in the process, and the Town is under the same regulations the County is under.  He advised the platting process is an extremely technical process; it has begun and is being carried through; if the Town is going to carry through with it, then it is going to have to hire people to do it; and the Town cannot do it without a staff.  He stated his concern is there are one or two others; the County has not been starting any new plats that will require the acceptance of the public right-of-way that would put a burden on the new Town; and the streets in the proposed subdivision are private, so that is not putting a burden on the new Town.  He noted after discussions with the Interim Town Council, he understood that the County was to continue with the platting process; and it would not continue with those that would be a burden to the Town.  He stated the County has told the developer he can continue through the process, but the final plat will have to be approved by the new Town, but if it is stopped now, it will be stopped for a while because the new Town is going to have to hire personnel to do it. 

 

Ms. Kolar stated the Interim Town Council is only concerned with the subdivision using water; and that is the only issue.  She inquired if the Board approves the item right now, and if for some reason Grant-Valkaria does not want water coming in, will it affect them and will they have to start all over; and advised the issue is water and sewer from another municipality.

 

Chair Voltz inquired how the developer will be affected if the Board approves the item today, and later the Town of Grant-Valkaria decides there will be no water and sewer and if they will be free to make those decisions.  Mr. Nohrr responded regardless of what the Board does today, the developer would be vested with the right to bring in the sewer and water by virtue of what has already happened.  He stated it is his opinion that it will not make any difference; if the Board tables the item today, it could put the developer behind by as much as six months to a year; and the developer may have to go back to step one and start over by resubmitting to the Town of Grant-Valkaria.  Chair Voltz inquired if the Town has the authority down the road to be able to say no to sewer and water.  Mr. Nohrr responded he believes the Town has the right to say yes or no when in final platting, but he will challenge that right if the Town denies it down the road.  He noted the developer will support an agreement with the City of Palm Bay, but they do not want to get caught in the crossfire.

 

Mr. Richardson advised the Board should keep in mind what it is looking at today is an engineering plan that includes a provision for water from Palm Bay but the fact is that horse left the barn in 2005 when the Board said yes to obtaining water and sewer from Palm Bay; today is just a preliminary plat approval and engineering plan and it is not going to give any additional weight to the argument that they can obtain water.

 

Chair Voltz withdrew her motion to table the item.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve the final engineering and preliminary plat approvals for Eagle Crest Preserve Subdivision, subject to minor engineering changes as applicable, and with developer responsible for obtaining all necessary jurisdictional permits.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated the City of Palm Bay is not present; it is Palm Bay’s water and sewer; and Palm Bay can opt not to provide outside its corporate limits if it wishes to.  He inquired if Mr. Nohrr can speak for Palm Bay as to that issue; with Mr. Nohrr responding he is not authorized to speak for Palm Bay on that issue, but he knows there are ongoing talks. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough advised while the Board is proceeding today, it may not be the last discussion. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated the Board of County Commissioners approved the subdivision in 2005 and it would be irresponsible for the County Commissioners not to move forward because it is clear that it was approved; Palm Bay is interested, whether Grant-Valkaria approves the site plan or not, and that is between Grant-Valkaria and the developer; and she is comfortable with the motion.

 

 

 

Chair Voltz inquired if the 30 minute presentation could be done at a workshop as opposed to a regular Commission meeting in January; with Assistant County Manager Don Lusk responding that would be fine, if that is what the Board wants to do.

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution extending the sunset date of the Persons with Disabilities Assessment Project to September 30, 2009; and approve the group giving a thirty-minute presentation at a workshop in January, 2007, to advise of the group’s progress and initial recommendations. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  (See page                          for Resolution No. 06-287.)

 

 

Chair Voltz stated she would like for the item to be tabled as she has not had an opportunity to read all of the information on it.

 

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to table consideration of the By-Laws/Rules and Regulations for Brevard Art in Public Places Advisory Committee.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

Chair Voltz recommended the item be placed on the next agenda.

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard read aloud a resolution recognizing Marilyn S. Hooper.

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution recognizing Marilyn S. Hooper.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  (See page                   for Resolution No. 06-291.)

 

 

 

Marilyn S. Hooper stated the County should be proud of Country Acres, as it is ahead of the system now that the State of Florida has made every county accountable for its own care of children, and Brevard County is about 30 years ahead. 

 

Commissioner Colon thanked Ms. Hooper and her volunteers for their dedication to Country Acres.

 

The meeting recessed at 10:59 a.m. and reconvened at 11:14 a.m.

 

 

 

Maureen Rupe stated she went to the meeting that the City of Titusville had on the issue of the building height limit.  She noted at that meeting there was a representative on the dais from Titan America, which is the largest cement distributor in the State, Tarmac Cement Mixed Concrete/Concrete Block supplier.  She stated the company was trying to persuade people to vote against having a height limit because of their plant, which is eight miles outside of Titusville and has 80-foot concrete silos and a 65-foot radial stacker. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated the proposed project would be in the City of Titusville and not eight miles outside of Titusville; with Ms. Rupe responding it will be at TICO Airport, which is in the limit of the City of Titusville.  She stated the concrete plant will be off of Golden Knights Boulevard, near U.S. 1; if the Board looks at the Rinker plant along Grissom Parkway, it is tremendous, and fortunately, along Grissom, there are no houses around it. 

 

Chair Voltz inquired if Ms. Rupe is referring to one of the agenda items; with Ms. Rupe responding no.  Chair Voltz stated it is on the agenda.  Commissioner Scarborough stated there is a vacation of Golden Knights Boulevard on the Agenda; but the Agenda item does not have anything to do with the cement plant.

 

Ms. Rupe stated the proposed cement plant is on U.S. 1, and across U.S. 1 there are houses all along the Indian River and the Oak Pointe Mobile Home Park.  She noted with two power plants in the area, which are going through pollution studies, there is now going to be a Rinker plant with 80-foot silos.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated it will be in the City of Titusville, and the Board of County Commissioners does not have jurisdiction over the City of Titusville.  Ms. Rupe stated she wants to make the Commissioners aware because of the pollution and traffic, and she wonders if the Commissioners can do anything such as send an objection to the FAA.  Commissioner Scarborough stated it will go to the citizens of Titusville as to the height limit; those who want to limit height will want to preclude this, and the people who want height will allow it; and the issue is if the height is limited to 35 feet, then the plan could not take place. 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated if it is a cement plant, then it is a Title V plant and the residents will have an opportunity to speak their concerns at any appeal process.  Ms. Rupe stated she will do that, because people have not heard about the proposed plant; she owns property, but she is not allowed to impact her neighbors; and the annexations by the cities are impacting the unincorporated area, which is Port St. John.

 

Curt Lorenc stated he has been trying to figure out the position of Director of Aviation.  He stated he has gone to Human Resources and asked for a job description of Director of Aviation, and they did not have one; and he has requested the flow chart for the County with the different job positions and there is no Director of Aviation on the flow chart.  He stated he would like to find out what the Director of Aviation does, what he oversees, and who has approved the position; and he needs the Board’s help to help him ascertain these things, because he has been unable to do it.  He stated he would like the County Manager to report back to the Board on the position.

 

 

 

Bea Polk stated she received a letter from Mr. Ford and would like to refer to some of the comments he made; Mr. Ford is referring to the $3 million suit against her; she knows the jury came back without any damages, and with $2 million; but the Courts signed an order for $3.25 million, and it makes her wonder what court she really went to.  She stated Mr. Ford told her it is a shame that she wastes Brevard’s time and his time; but she pays for Mr. Ford’s time.  She stated Mr. Ford never appears in front of the Board to face her; Mr. Ford said there was a 21% increase, and he was elected because he went for a 3% cap; inquired what the real percentage is with his salaries; and advised it is over $11 million, which does not include his salary increase.  She stated Mr. Ford told her there was not a confidential attorney; but all of the paperwork from the lawyer states, “Confidential Attorney Work Product”; and that is another thing Mr. Ford was wrong on.  She stated the paperwork indicates how great the assessments are done with DOR; and inquired if anyone has asked Department of Revenue how the assessments are done.  She stated the County overspends Mr. Ford’s budget by $168,000; she asked the Board to cut his budget; and the Board approves a budget the citizens pay for.  She inquired why the Board does not go to the State and ask it to pay for it, because then it would look at if and the budget would not be this high.  She stated no one wants to listen; it is like Washington; and everybody closes their eyes to Officials and lets them do what they want. She

 

stated the Board is responsible for the citizens’ tax money and where it is spent; if it is responsible for Mr. Ford’s budget, then it is responsible; and if the State is responsible, then the State should take it out of the State budget.  She stated Mr. Ford never comes to defend himself; no one every checks to see where the money goes, and no one cares.

 

Chair Voltz stated the Board will get Ms. Polk’s questions answered for her.

 

 

Linda Mason stated she is here to warn the Board about something.  She noted on January 24, 2006, there was a meeting to approve the Master Plan at Valkaria Airport; Commissioner Carlson gave a number of stipulations; and she indicated she would give her approval if certain things were included; such as night lights, no night flights, no jets, and no flight schools.  She noted a motion was passed and over 100 residents and pilots left the meeting believing those things were to be included in the contract with F.I.T. and they fully understood the Master Plan they were to create.  Ms. Mason stated months later they started seeing bits and pieces of a Master Plan coming out with all of that stuff in it; it was brought up at the F.I.T. meetings, and they wrote letters to the Commissioners; and were told it was not in the minutes.  She stated they checked the minutes and it was not in there, and they were told if something is not in the minutes, then it does not exist, and it is not in the contract.  She stated in the Master Plan are 80 hangars, night lights, night navigational aids, and all of the things that promote flight schools; she has the highest esteem for the two professors creating the site plan; and they do very nice work, but they are not the ones actually controlling what goes into it.  She stated the Board’s motion for the Master Plan had good goals; and it wanted to solve all of the conflict over the years; but unfortunately it looks like another 20-year battle because all of these things will constantly come up and be challenged. 

 

 

 

Joan Wheeler stated in Titusville there is a big issue about the height amendment that will be on the referendum. She stated there are two more issues on the ballot and very few people in Titusville know about them; one referendum from the County wants to public to vote to give Parks and Recreation $12 million to finish the projects; and the second referendum is for $40 million and has no plan for how it should be spent.  She stated the two referendums were not passed by the Board of County Commissioners except at a special meeting; and it is her understanding that $40 million is the price of the new bridge that will be built over the river.  She stated she is still upset about Marina Park; it is six years after the referendum and the City and County managed to get rid of all of the baseball games that went on in that park; and it is a waste to have passive recreation there, with some trees and a couple of fire pits.  She commented she read about birds that are endangered in nearby developments, she read that the County Commission was going to look into it; but she has not read anything in the local newspaper about it; and requested information from the Board on the birds. 

 

 

 

Barbara Davis stated she is a recruiter for Brevard County Schools, and she is here to announce Brevard’s first Walk for Education; the walk is in support of the teachers and students, and it will be held at Viera High School on October 21, 2006, at 7:30 a.m. She invited the Board to join them on the walk; and stated the walk is 2.5 miles around the track; there will be an EMT unit for those who may need it, and there will not be any counting of laps. 

 

 

 

Chair Voltz stated the County Attorney can address the comments concerning Mr. Ford and his budget.

 

Deputy County Attorney Eden Bentley stated there were a number of issues in Ms. Polk’s comments, and the County Attorney’s Office would like to itemize them and get back to the Board with the answers. 

 

Chair Voltz stated the Valkaria Master Plan is going to come back to the Board, and it makes the final decision, so it doesn’t matter what they talk about and discuss, as it is going to all come back to the Board in the end; and that is where the Board will have an effect on what is going on.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated Steve Borowski is the Valkaria Airport Manager, but his business card says Director of Aviation; and inquired what the issue is.  Assistant County Attorney Morris Richardson stated it was raised at some point, and there may be a misprint of business cards or miscommunication, and he is not sure it is an issue, but maybe Ms. Busacca or Mr. Washburn knows better.

 

County Manager Peggy Busacca stated staff has working titles, which may or may not be the same thing that is written down as the title, because there are classes that are put together; Mr. Borowski’s title on his job description is Valkaria Airport Manager, but frequently there are employees using other working titles because it is convenient, or it is more understandable to the public.  She noted her understanding is that when Mr. Borowski was hired, he went to Human Resources and asked what is his official title, and someone told him it is Director of Aviation, so he put it on his business card; as it turns out, there is no official Director of Aviation, but he meets the requirements and was hired as the Airport Manager.  Chair Voltz inquired if it is a problem; with Ms. Busacca stating it is not a problem, it is perfectly within the system, and there are many people within the County who have a working title that is different than the job description. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated there are three referendums in Titusville; two of them are Park referendums that the County has put up, and there is another one which refers to the cement plant.  He stated the issue was discussed in detail by the citizens when there was a forum last week; the issue is whether it is advantageous to limit height; and it is not appropriate for the Board to become involved unless it has some issue dealing with pollution.  Commissioner Carlson stated in the City of Melbourne there are two cement plants, and one was a Title V, which involves environmental agencies because it is an industrial polluter; as an

 

industrial polluter, they have to go through many hoops with the environmental agencies; and it does have all of the public hearing elements to it; and also provides citizen input on different levels.   She stated if the plant is in the County, it has certain policies to prevent Title V’s from going under the radar, and sometimes citizens are not aware of it.  She noted the City of Titusville will deliberate it, and the County, as well as the citizens, should have some stature in the process if they want to.  

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated in regards to the Park Referendums, there is one dealing with the 2000 referendum, which was developed by coming together with some projects, and also setting a millage and bonding capacity.  He stated the scope of the projects has increased, the cost has increased, and the County is accruing approximately $1.5 million in excess of what it originally borrowed; and that money is available to enhance and enlarge the projects, but only as it accrues over a period of time.  He stated he visited the Pier Committee last week, and originally, the pier was going to be refurbished; but since then, there have been hurricanes and boats have hit it; and simultaneously, there is a $40 million bridge coming in, built by the State, with brand new catwalks that will be part of a fishing composite.    Commissioner Scarborough stated the other referendum is new projects and additional tax; and if it was all rolled into one referendum, it would have been less readable and understandable.  He noted the County purchased property behind the hospital for $2.8 million; today the St. John’s River Water Management District is voting on is portion of the purchase; the $2.8 is coming back into the construction fund; and the advocates, such as the Little Leagues, the Valiant Air Command, and the Space Museum are going to be putting information out.  He stated the County will try to remain an informational source only, and in doing so, the risk is run of not providing enough information; and the Board puts it on the ballot and allows the citizens to be informed without prejudicing them one way or another.  He stated his office is willing to provide any information and include anybody in discussions. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated Commissioner Scarborough’s point about providing information is the critical component regarding any referendum; and even though it is not a new tax, it is a continuation of payment, and the payment always comes from the people.  He noted what the Board is doing is bailing out the 2000 Parks and Recreation Referendum; and inquired where the money comes from, and where does the revenue come from.  County Manager Peggy Busacca stated the money and revenue comes from the ad valorem taxes.  Commissioner Pritchard stated when the Board talks about where revenue sources are, it needs to make sure people understand that dollars could also be used for something else, such as buying down another debt instead of creating more debt.  He noted he is not advocating one way or another, because he voted to put it on the ballot and he thought it was up to the people to decide; but the people need to fully understand that there is always a cost behind what they do, and he wants to make sure both sides are addressed so people do not wonder what happened a couple of years after this November. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated it is a wonderful project and it is up to the citizens of Titusville if they would like to go forward.  She stated a lot of organizations came before the Board; they had an incredible presentation that was given to the Board; and she does not think it is a continuation of any of the referendums, because this is a project all on its own, and the citizens will decide if it is something they want to do or not. 

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated he was not speaking of just the Titusville referendum; he was speaking of what is almost a countywide referendum regarding the 2000 Parks and Recreation referendum on building all of the facilities the County needs.

 

 

Chair Voltz called for the public hearing to consider Resolution vacating portion of Golden Knights Boulevard, as petitioned by TICO Airport Authority.

 

There being no further comments or objections, motion was made by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve vacating portion of Golden Knights Boulevard, as petitioned by – TICO Airport Authority, subject to receipt of acceptable easements.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  (See page                  for Resolution No. 06-299.)

 

 

 

Chair Voltz called for the public hearing to consider Resolution vacating public utility and drainage easement in Villa De Palmas Sykes Cove Section 1, as petitioned by Susan and George Jacques.

 

There being no further comments or objections, motion was made by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve vacating Public Utility and Drainage Easement in Villa De Palmas Sykes Cove Section 1, as petitioned by Susan and George Jacques.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  (See page              for Resolution No. 06-300.)

 

 

   

Chair Voltz called for the public hearing to consider a Resolution vacating public utility and drainage easement in Villa De Palmas, Unit Six, as petitioned by Paul B. Fulmer, Jr.

 

There being no further comments or objections, motion was made by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve vacating Public Utility and Drainage Easement in Villa De Palmas, Unit Six, as petitioned by Paul B. Fulmer, Jr.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  (See page                     for Resolution No. 06-301.)

 

 

 

Chair Voltz called for the public hearing to consider an amendment to vested site plan for Surfcaster Motel.

 

There being no further comments or objections, motion was made by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve an amendment to a vested site plan for the Surfcaster Motel, with the applicant proposing to replace the motel with a three-lot single-family detached subdivision.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute a Cross Access Agreement with ETA Associates, Inc. and an Amendment to the Contract Addendum for the Endangered Lands Program acquisition at 91 East Drive, Melbourne.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  (See pages                                     for Cross Access Agreement and Contract Addendum.)

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson to approve installation of seven speed humps on Alan Shepard Avenue in Canaveral Groves Subdivision.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson to appoint Shawna Kelsch and reappoint Lisa Guri to serve on the Local Health Council of East Central Florida with terms of appointment expiring October 1, 2008.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Change Order No. 6 with Star Base Development, Inc., increasing the amount by $660,746.65 and time by 75 days for additional services involved with pedways for the Chain of Lakes Recreation Complex.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  (See page                     for Change Order.)

 

The meeting recessed at 12:00 p.m. for lunch and reconvened at 1:32 p.m.

 

 

 

 

Chair Voltz called for a public hearing to consider ordinance amending regulations governing parcels of land divided by public right-of-way to allow for residential docks on unimproved parcels.

 

Natural Resources Management Director Ernie Brown stated this is a zoning item, and there has been much discussion between the Zoning Department and the Natural Resources Office; Planner II George Ritchie, Planning and Zoning Director Robin Sobrino, and he discussed some of the challenges that may or may not exist, and they wanted to bring those to the Board’s attention.  He stated as it relates to the environmental interests, what they have is a series of unknowns and some potentially unintended consequences that may come down the path relative to some of the language; there are three additional paragraphs in the proposed ordinance itself; paragraph number four, which addresses the grandfathering issue of the existing subdivision; paragraph five, which addresses making this a permittable activity for all future subdivisions that meet the criteria; and paragraph six, which talks about the specificity of the application.  Mr. Brown advised one of the options the Board may want to consider to move forward is the omission of paragraph five; and Natural Resources has not had the opportunity to evaluate its potential ramifications in areas relative to environmental issues; building, construction, and design of docks themselves; and the potential impacts associated with that for the future activity.  He advised the omission of paragraph five would still address the Board’s original intent of resolving the grandfathering; and the members of the environmental community and some marine contractors he has spoken with reveal removing paragraph would satisfy some of their concerns at this time.  He noted that is one of the options the Board may want to consider, along with approving it as is, or denying it all together. 

 

Chair Voltz stated she is comfortable with the ordinance without paragraph five; and the Board can move forward without the paragraph five addition.

 

Maureen Rupe stated the proposed revision to the ordinance is poorly thought out and allows the placement of docks at 20 feet width, with no minimum lot depth defined.  She stated there has not been an attempt to provide a basic assessment of how many existing platted lots the ordinance would accommodate, much less how many new or replatted lots could be created; and there has not been any attempt to identify or quantify the scope of natural resource impacts that would be created.  She stated approval of the Ordinance would impact seagrass, submerged aquatic vegetation, any moored vessels, and an increase in density of ingress and egress pathways; and this approach is contrary to what is being done in most waterfront communities where shared docks are the preferred design, which is to reduce the amount of docks constructed, reduce shading of seagrass beds, and reduce the number of ingress and egress parcels, reduce likelihood of propeller scarring of sea grass beds, reduce the number of structures on the water that create hazards to navigation.  She stated the Save the Manatee Club spoke to DEP staff, and it is clear that DEP never contemplated lots being authorized to be platted at such a small size at 20 feet wide or that single-family residential docks would be associated with non-adjacent residential lots.  She commented waterfront landowners who bought for the view could suddenly be faced with at least a 5% increase in the docks and five times increase in traffic from the docks.  She noted parking will be a problem, as those

 

accessing the nonadjacent docks will drive to their docks with their supplies; and inquired if water and electricity will be available at the dock, and how the ordinance will address garbage collection.

 

Kathy Scheetz stated she is a member of the Partnership for a Sustainable Future; read a letter into record, dated August 17, 2006, and noted the organization’s objections to the proposed County Dock ordinance, including allowing the docks to be placed every 20 feet, increased boat propeller scarring to seagrass, and damage to the manatee population.  She read further that a substantial fraction of the sub-surface bottom will be shaded; and Brevard County does not have regulations for single-family docks such as insuring adequate water depth, dock access for parking, enforcement of dock use, etc.  She noted the changes will have a countywide implication, and the Ordinance should address the Code Enforcement exceptions, not create or replat substandard waterfront lots.  She read, “The proposed ordinance will cause severe damage to the Indian River Lagoon and should not be approved.”  She stated the letter was written by Maureen Rupe.

 

Doug Sphar requested the Board not approve the proposed ordinance, as it is bad for the St. John’s River, as well as the Indian River.  He commented to accommodate a small boat, a lift dock needs to be at least 10 feet wide and at least 20 feet deep, which obliterates half the shoreline and results in shading of a significant fraction of the shore bottom, and is not a good habitat for fish breeding.  He stated in the Lake Poinsett area, the western shore of the easternmost canal has homes on 100-foot lots with one dock per lot; the eastern shore of the canal is a horse  ranch that is for sale, and there are rumors of residential development; and he can see a developer making 20-foot lots along the canal as a marketing feature, and it would be incompatible with the homes on the west shore.  He commented on the problem of parking on the substandard lots, and trash containers at dock sites.

 

Jim Eagan, Executive Director of the Marine Resource Council, stated the Council is not concerned about any particular location that may be considered in terms of providing a solution to a specific location, but as a lagoon-wide potential policy; and there are a number of components that need to be looked at.  He stated he would like to clarify some of the previous comments by telling the Board what the Council knows through scientific research; currently docks are required to be a certain level above the mean-high water level which helps reduce shading; wood has to be treated in order to exist in a marine environment; and the wood’s treatment will not be effective if it is not actively leaching a certain amount of toxic components that keep organisms from boring into the wood.  He stated when density is increased to very high levels, the value of the sea grass is decreasing, whereas when they are placed where they are now, at a greater spacing, those impacts are greatly reduced.  He advised the shoreline and the near shore shallow water is the most productive area in the Indian River Lagoon; it is worth millions of dollars to the community; and if those areas are impacted unnecessarily, ultimately it will cost citizens.

 

Planning and Zoning Director Robin Sobrino stated the 20 feet is a result of the direction of the ordinance in the beginning; in looking at existing docks that were built outside of the zoning

 

regulations, the smallest lot size was 23 feet; and if it was the Board’s intent to craft an ordinance to allow the continuation of the existing docks, it would have to be at least 23 feet, and staff felt 20 feet would be a reasonable lot width.  She noted it does not exempt anybody from the side setback requirement for docks; and a 20-foot wide parcel would not allow anything

more than a five-foot wide dock, which would allow access to waterfront.  Ms. Sobrino noted staff did not define depth.

 

Chair Voltz inquired if the proposed ordinance would not permit replatting of current subdivisions to allow for the lots; with Ms. Sobrino responding the language only applies to new subdivisions and it does not address replatting, and that is if paragraph five is left in the ordinance; and if paragraph five is deleted, the ordinance will only affect existing lots in platted subdivisions.

 

Commissioner Carlson stated the Board needs a more comprehensive review of all of the potential negative impacts, both on the Lagoon and the St. John’s River; and she would support tabling the item until Mr. Brown and Ms. Sobrino can do a more comprehensive approach to the ordinance and make sure if the Board is going to approve it, it is the best possible product. 

 

Chair Voltz inquired if the proposed ordinance is only on canals, and not on the Lagoon; with Ms. Sobrino responding the question had been raised for properties fronting on a man-made canal.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated he has a problem with the 20-foot width because people will need to park their cars, and there will not be anywhere for them to park.  He noted he does not have a problem with public access to public waterways, but this would require a pier; a boat would be on a 20-foot wide lot; and someone may have a 22-foot boat that will encroach two feet onto their neighbors property.  He stated he thinks the lot width needs to be 50 feet, and that may mean lot owners will have to get together and create a single pier and use half of it; but that would at least provide for some parking of cars.   He stated there has to be spacing between the planks of approximately one inch to allow sunlight, or prisms could be put in at a specific location, so the sun can help with sea grasses.  He stated the ordinance needs to come back to the Board in another form; 50 feet is better than 20 feet; and something as small as 20 feet is going to create problems.

 

Chair Voltz stated if the Board approves 50 foot lots, then it will require two people who own two parcels to combine, and she does not think the Board can do that.  Commissioner Carlson stated that is the point; the Board needs a more comprehensive look at the whole thing; and if the Board is going to do anything, it needs to be bigger because 20 feet is not big enough.  Chair Voltz stated the Board needs to look at the parcels in question and find out what it needs to do to accommodate where they are without addressing all the other problems that could potentially happen.  She inquired if Natural Resources looked at how many neighborhoods it would affect; with Mr. Brown responding it did not do a full countywide evaluation of how many neighborhoods would fall within the criteria, but there a very few that they have potentially identified.

 

 

Commissioner Carlson made a motion to table the item and inquired of a time frame.

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, to continue the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending regulations governing parcels of land divided by public right-of-way to allow for residential docks on unimproved parcels.

 

 

Mr. Brown stated he would like Board direction, as there are two issues to look at; one is the Board applies the Ordinance to the limited scope of this particular type of pre-existing condition; the other study is what could be the potential ramifications to allowing this to become an approvable activity all across the Lagoon and the St. John’s; and if those are the studies the Board wants, he will need financial resources and approximately a year and a half to do the studies.

 

Commissioner Carlson stated the Board does not want to go that route, and it just wants to look at it specifically, but it needs to address the distance issues.  Chair Voltz stated the Board does not want to move forward with paragraph five; if staff does an assessment of the South Beaches, it may give them an indication Countywide; and if there are only two subdivisions, then maybe it is not a problem anywhere else.  Commissioner Carlson stated the Board could give staff 60 days to look at the implication of the distance between the docks and piers.  Ms. Sobrino stated there are not a large number of areas that have this situation; the one issue staff needs clarity on is that it is trying to address the pre-existing lots, knowing that some of them are as small as 23 feet, and knowing that runs at odds with the environmental interests; and the question is does staff wish to put in some provisions that establish a minimum lot width that relates to the environmental issues, not withstanding the fact there will be existing lots that will be out of luck. 

 

Chair Voltz inquired if a lot is as small as 23 feet, then what is the largest; with Ms. Sobrino responding not more than 30 feet; and 30 feet would be more typical.  Chair Voltz inquired if the Board approves 30 feet, could staff look at grandfathering in the smaller lots. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Commission needs to be aware of the fact there may be usage of joint properties that have not previously been there, and it may occur without notice; and people like to be notified of these things.  He stated he is very interested in knowing where all of the properties are and that notice be given to those persons whose property is adjoining; and it is tantamount to rezoning a new use and an issue of compatibility.  He advised the proposed ordinance has the potential of having property owners say they were not properly notified and could not be involved in the public discussion.

 

Chair Voltz stated staff could inform the abutting property owners of the proposed ordinance.  Ms. Sobrino inquired if the Board would like staff to come back with something showing the location of the potential areas so it has a sense of the scope of the issue and the general geographic locations. 

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated some of the issue with the Code Enforcement case had to do with the property owner across the street, whose property is on the canal; and the adjacent property was owned by the individual who was across the street.  He stated some subdivisions have covenants that prohibit a lot of things, and some of the issues can be addressed by the covenants in the subdivision.  He stated the Board needs to focus on what it can do that is not going to exacerbate a problem in terms of multiple parking on small lots; and whether there would be any water or electric on the lots would depend on the availability of the subdivision. 

 

Motion restated by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to continue the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending regulations governing parcels of land divided by public right-of-way to allow for residential docks on unimproved parcels.

 

 

Assistant County Manager Ed Washburn stated the Board may want Mr. Brown and Ms. Sobrino to bring a report back to it and take no action on the item today.

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to abate Code Enforcement.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Deputy County Attorney Eden Bentley stated the Board needs to address the Executive Session it continued; and the date is October 17, 2006, at 12:30 p.m.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to continue the Executive Session to discuss IAFF Negotiations to October 17, 2006, at 12:30 p.m.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Chair Voltz called for the public hearing to consider ordinance adopting twenty-fourth small scale plan amendment of 2006, 06S.24, changing the future land use from Private Conservation to Residential 6.

Bruce Moia stated he represents Newfound Lands, and what they are asking for is an amendment to the Future Land Use Map for a three and a half acre parcel located off of Sykes Creek Parkway, that abuts the Ulumay Wildlife Sanctuary.  He stated when Mr. Zajdel was going to purchase the property he visited the County offices to discuss the parcel; in speaking to the Zoning Office it was discovered there is an error in the Future Land Use Map; that issue was brought to the Board in October 2004, and it was confirmed by the Commission that there was

 

an error on the Future Land Use Map; and if the applicant could provide the proper documentation, he could come back to the Board and get the Future Land Use Map revised.  He stated on the three and a half acre piece of property, the Future Land Use Map showed the Private Conservation line going too far to the east; according to the Comprehensive Plan, only those lands zoned EA or wetlands should have that designation; and based on Board approval to move forward, the applicant had surveys completed and verified by the Office of Natural Resources, it has been walked by the St. Johns River Water Management District, and that line

is now shown where the wetland actually is; following the berm of the old mosquito impoundment.  He stated his client would like to get the Future Land Use Map corrected; and the property is already zoned residential, so it is not a modification to take it out of conservation and put it in residential; and because it is zoned AU and is three and a half acres, it does not increase density at all.  He stated the request is to correct the mistake, and a lot of the issues the Board will hear from the audience will be development rights and increased density, which the applicant is not asking for; and if he requests a zoning change in the future, he will be happy to address those concerns, but first he would like to get the future land use corrected, since the Board directed it to happen.

 

Chair Voltz inquired if two homes could be put on the property now; with Mr. Moia responding 12 units could go on the property currently.

 

Planning and Zoning Director Robin Sobrino advised the property is currently zoned GU, which is one unit per five acres, 

 

Chair Voltz inquired if anything could be put on the property right now; with Ms. Sobrino responding affirmatively.  Ms. Sobrino stated between the 1988 and 2000, staff used a scale of one inch equals 2,000 feet, so drawing a pencil line on a map could be a mistake of 200 feet; and at that time there was one land use designation for conservation lands, and anything noted to be environmentally sensitive was denoted to be conservation lands.  She stated when the Comprehensive Plan was updated in 1999, the Board directed staff to split out those lands under private ownership, and at that time, this property was included in areas under private ownership; however, it was viewed to be environmentally sensitive based historically upon the earlier Comprehensive Plan maps staff was using and received a new designation of private conservation as opposed to public conservation.  Ms. Sobrino noted Planning and Zoning came back to the Board in 2004 because it was brought to staff’s attention that this property is in private ownership and it was believed that it was not environmentally sensitive and not wetlands; and the direction given to staff was that if it was not environmentally sensitive and it was in private ownership, then it should not be given the private conservation land use designation.  She stated following up on that, the applicants came in with a wetland delineation that showed the property was not part of the wetland; as such, following Board direction, Planning and Zoning initiated a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change it to residential and take it out of the Private Conservation Land Use designation; and that is the question before the Board today.  She stated staff encouraged at the time, if the Board was going to be looking at this property for a land use designation, if there was an intent on the part of the applicant to ultimately rezone the property, this would be the best time to do so, so staff can look at it all in a

 

comprehensive fashion; however, the owners of the property chose not to pursue the rezoning at that time, and that is where they are today.

 

Chair Voltz inquired if the Board is not looking at approving any more homes, and not looking at approving any new development whatsoever; with Ms. Sobrino responding at this time, the property is not five acres in size and probably could not have a house on it; the land use designation would be changed from private conservation to whatever the Board sees fit, but at this time it would not enable the applicant to build a home on the property.  Chair Voltz inquired if the parcel is part of the other parcel and would make it one large parcel; with Ms. Sobrino responding there are different parcels under the same ownership.  Mr. Moia advised it is a 60-acre parcel overall, and includes the three-and a half-acres being considered today, which would give the applicant approximately 13½ acres of upland property with the residential land use. 

 

Commissioner Carlson noted the agenda states the CRG (Citizen Resource Group) and the LPA (Local Planning Agency) recommended denial and requested acceleration of a small area study for East Merritt Island; and inquired if a small area study is already being done in that area; with Ms. Sobrino responding no.  Commissioner Carlson stated generally speaking a small area study is done before a small area comprehensive plan change.  Ms. Sobrino stated very often the Board asks staff to do a small area study, and it helps give it guidance.  Chair Voltz inquired how long it would take to complete a small area study; with Ms. Sobrino responding there are four small area plans stacked up right now, but staff could get started on it after the beginning of the year; and depending on how big an area is defined, it is reasonable to say a six-month process would allow the input of the citizens.  Mr. Moia advised that is just the input, and the whole area study could take as long as a year or two before one would be adopted.  Commissioner Carlson stated it could come back to the Board before June 2007.

 

Mr. Moia stated his client was hoping past Board direction would allow them to finish now, and should he choose to come back to change the zoning, they could address all of those issues. 

 

Richard Stevens commented on the precedent that will be set for all private conservation designated lands in the County as shown on the Future Land Use Map; stated he would like the Board to follow the recommendations of the LPA and the CRG and deny the proposed amendment, and initiate or accelerate a small scale study to fully evaluate how private conservation lands should be treated in the future; and the CRG requested an independent wetland study of the subject property.  He stated the request does not address the inconsistent designation of Residential 15 between the existing and proposed Residential 6 designations.  He commented the residents are concerned what the effect would be on the entire County; and they believe the right thing to do is to deny the proposed amendment as it is written today, initiate or accelerate a small area plan, fully evaluate how the issue will be treated in the future, and perform an independent wetland study.

 

Saundra Terry stated her family moved to Belford Court in 1965, and this issue is important to her;  her  granddaughter was hit by a car on  her way  to Audubon School;  and stated the roads

 

are dangerous.  She commented in 1965, when the house was purchased, they were told that land could not be built on because it was too narrow, but they did not say anything about conservation; and one real fear for her is snakes, such as pygmy rattlesnakes and moccasins.  She stated her mother was nearly bitten by a pygmy rattlesnake once, and the problem was terrible; and it was all because of the ongoing development. 

 

Maureen Rupe stated the background information advises the owner submitted a new survey showing the property as all uplands, and the Natural Resources Office confirmed the survey; but the only thing she can think that the Natural Resource Office has confirmed is that the owner submitted a new survey, and not that the property is all uplands.  She stated there has not been much rain this year, and it is possible the owner had the property surveyed during one of the significant dry periods; and there should be a site confirmation if the County is recommending changing the designation on the property.  She read a portion of the background information which stated private conservation future land use designations are not intended to include uplands or properties with zoning other than EA; stated the designation of conservation property as wetland is inconsistent with definitions from the State of Florida; and the State definition is, “State conservation lands means lands that are currently managed for conservation, outdoor resource space recreation, archeological or historic preservation except those lands that were acquired solely to facilitate the acquisition of other conservation lands.  Lands acquired for uses other than conservation, outdoor resource space recreation, or historic preservation shall not be designated conservation lands except as otherwise authorized under this section.”  She stated the subject property should be considered a buffer for protection of a significant natural resource, which would never justify a Residential 6 designation; and in light of the State’s definition of conservation property, the Commission does not even have the right to redefine conservation land that contradicts the State’s definition without a formal change to the Comprehensive Plan to allow review by the State.  Ms. Rupe stated she agrees with the East Merritt Island Homeowners’ Association that a small area study be acquired.

 

Jim Flanigan stated he would like the Board to follow the recommendation of the LPA and CRG Boards and vote against the amendment, as it would be a shame to lose the wetlands.

 

Arthur Christianson stated since the land is under private conservation the best thing that could happen to it would be for the County to acquire the land and make it part of Ulumay Park.  He stated there is a question on how the land would be accessed; the only way to access it would be beside his daughter’s place on James Street, which is a narrow residential street in a quiet neighborhood; and the street is unsuitable for big dump trucks to bring in soil to fill in wetlands.  He commented traffic on Banana River Drive is mainly from the Port going to Merritt Island, and it is very busy. 

 

*Deputy County Attorney Bentley’s absence and County Attorney Scott Knox’s presence were noted at this time.

 

Mike Napper stated the current owner bought the property in 2004; the previous owner had years to  dispute the  land  use designation  if he  or she  thought there  was  a problem;  but the

 

owner did not see a problem with it.  He stated they are actually discussing 60 acres that abut Ulumay; he does not think it should be carved into little strips; and a small area study to look at the proper use for all 60 acres make more sense than focusing on three acres.

 

Jerry Curran stated he supports a small area study before the Board takes any action.

 

Floyd Rippetoe stated he represents the East Merritt Island Homeowners Association and he is the Chairman of the Development Committee.  He stated their biggest concern is that they feel doing changes like this to address small fixes with the FLUM is inappropriate at a time when it has already been decided that a small area study is going to be done to review the overall picture.  He stated the other issue they have is the question of the berm the applicant referred to as the old mosquito berm; a lot of the old berms are in the process of being restored and culverts and pumps added as part of mosquito control; this property has some of the old berms on it, and to date, he cannot find where Mosquito Control has provided input as to whether this change of status on the land could compromise future control plans. He commented the neighbors feel the timing is wrong, and they recommend the LPA and CRG recommendations be adopted and the County proceed with a small area study.

 

Barbara Venuto stated she would like the Board to deny the amendment and request a small area study before the building begins.  She stated it was discussed at the LPA meeting that in 1988, when the Comp Plan was designed, the land owner was told of his property’s land use and had 21 days to object in formal procedure; and the owner of the property never felt inclined to protest and therefore enjoyed the low taxes assessed.  She stated the time limit has long passed for this deal to go through; the property owner knew the designation of the land when he bought it in August 2004; and 18 acres at $194,000 is a pretty good deal.  She stated transportation needs to be reviewed in the area and improvements need to be made on North Banana River Drive; the last study was in 1988, and since then there has been a lot more traffic on the road.  She noted Edgewood is a school of choice and the schools that need to be considered are Jefferson Middle School and Merritt Island High School.  Ms. Venuto commented on the history of the area tracing back to the 1600’s.   She stated at the CRG meeting on September 21^st, the vote was to deny the amendment and the CRG also requested a small area study and a third party survey; one of the CRG members knew of the property in question and could not believe it is not wetlands; and another Board member stated it is not possible to have both wetland and recharge soils together.

 

Juanita Baxley stated the decision the Board makes on the amendment will not affect her very much, but it will definitely affect the community and it will affect the quality of life for many of the residents of Merritt Island.  She stated anyone who makes a purchase of land and who is legally pure in every way, then has the right to do what they are privileged to do; however, just because something is legally right does not necessarily mean that it is morally right.  She pleaded with the Board to deny the proposed amendment and do a small area study.

 

Arlene Klein stated she is impressed with the way Government works, and that the public is given a chance to speak.  She stated the Board’s decision will be setting a precedent for future

 

decisions in the County; and requested the Board to deny the proposed amendment and conduct a small area plan so there is a unified plan for the usage of all land parcels in the area.  She stated no one knows for sure whether the owner’s plans are for a few homes at a lower density or for high density residential; and it will greatly affect the traffic on James Avenue, especially during the building phase.  She commented it will also impact the drinking water. 

 

Ken Klein stated he would like to re-emphasize that the decision the Board makes will set a precedent for all the other parcels of land to the north that adjoin Ulumay; and requested the Board deny the amendment.

 

Dave Bindig stated he is proud of the community and hopes they can continue to live in an area safe for their children.

 

Nancy Bindig stated her property abuts the subject property on the north side and she would be impacted on both sides if the amendment is approved.  She stated she and her husband purchased their property in December, 1999, when they were told by the realtor that this was an area that would not be built on; and they have also spotted two great horned owls on the subject property, who have returned to nest every winter for the last seven years.  She stated she opposes the proposed amendment from private conservation to residential; and requested the Board deny the amendment at this time.

 

Jim Egan, Executive Director, Marine Resources Council, stated the Council is concerned about some general principles; and environmentally endangered lands are not limited to wetland areas, so when assessing that, the Board needs to recognize that uplands directly adjacent to wetlands are very valuable in terms of habitat, as there are few species that will utilize just one and not have some needs for the other.  He stated another issue has to do with the wetland survey; and having County staff do a site visit would be a very good idea, because the Board may get a different assessment of the property.  He stated the Board should be hesitant about taking an area that has been zoned for many years for development and suddenly saying it is no longer capable of development; it is understood that the property owner made an informed decision when he purchased the property and he understood his rights at the time; and the rights of the adjacent property owners and the value of their land is very closely tied to these environmentally sensitive lands and their designations.  He advised the value of their property will change if development occurs in an area where no development was expected to occur. 

 

Mary Sphar stated a request to administratively rezone the property was considered in October 2004; the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan does not specifically spell out the types of land use that can have private conservation; and the Board was asked to determine whether the intent of the Comprehensive Plan was to include properties that were not wetlands in the private conservation land use designation.  She stated the Board’s other choice was to determine that the property owner can address the issues during an application for a future land use map amendment; unfortunately, in 2004, the Board was given only the two choices, and there was no other alternative that the intent of the Comprehensive Plan was to include wetlands and associated uplands necessary to preserve wetland functionality in private conservation land use

 

designation.  She stated the Board decided the intent of the private conservation land use designation was not to include upland areas or properties zoned other than EA; and the Board now has the responsibility to carefully reconsider the land use change. She urged the Board to table the item and request a staff report that thoughtfully re-examines alternate interpretations for the private conservation land use designation; and stated the staff report should also detail the types of land presently contained in private conservation land use designations and the acreage for each site. 

 

Bruce Moia stated he would like to try to separate the issue, as this is not a rezoning request; and no matter the density, only 12 units would be allowed on the property, which means issues like traffic, historical lands, schools, and land values, he is not even going to address because they do not apply to the request.  He stated changes are done to maps every day by County staff, and there is a lot of confusion about what the issue really is.  He commented the time frame given to dispute the designation when it was created did not alleviate anyone else from coming along and providing the evidence to show there was an error, and that is what his client has done.  He inquired why the Board would conduct a small area study, because if it approves the amendment, nothing will change; and his client would rather see the Board either approve or deny, rather than continue it until a small area study is done. 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated her biggest concern is the private conservation land issue; and inquired how the Board deals with private conservation lands that have been used to mitigate other development; with Ms. Sobrino responding when someone comes in to rezone and sets aside certain areas for mitigation, staff typically gets a legal description and rezones the property EA, and that is when the private conservation land use comes in.  Commissioner Carlson inquired if staff knows the historical perspective on the land in question; with Ms. Sobrino responding staff was looking at raw generalities, given the mapping limitations in the past.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated the minutes of the October 26, 2004 County Commission meeting states there was a motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Option One, to determine that the intent of the conservation land designation pre-update was not to include upland areas or property zoned other than EA, and authorized staff to ask the property owner to demonstrate the extent of wetlands on his property and to administratively change the future land use map to show Private Conservation on the wetlands portion of the property; and the motion carried and ordered unanimously.   He commented there is a lot of concern and confusion as to what the issue is today; as was said in the LPA meeting, one member noted it is taking the Future Land Use Map to where it is supposed to be because of an error that was made many years ago.  He stated the applicant is making the land compatible with the future land use, and based on Board direction, that is what they have done; it is not a rezoning issue, but the confusing part is the requested action says, “The Board of County Commissioners is requested to consider adoption of the 24^th Small Scale Plan Amendment of 2006, changing the future land use from Private Conservation to Residential 6,” and it was staff that recommended Residential 6, and explained that is what the vast majority of land in that neighborhood is designated.  He stated the request is not a zoning

 

request; what the applicant is doing is what the Board asked him to do; and it took two years to do it because the legal descriptions that had to be reviewed were so incredibly complicated that he went through two surveyors.  He stated it cost the applicant money to do what the Board wanted him to do; it is a future land use correction; and perhaps a rezoning request could come later with or without the amendment change.  He stated it seems disingenuous for the Board to not accept what the applicant has done at its request and try to put it into a future rezoning request; there are two separate and distinct issues; and they cannot be tied together.

 

Commissioner Colon stated she does not believe when the Board directed the applicant to have the property resurveyed, it guaranteed him that it would approve his request.

 

Alan Zajdel stated he would be happy at this point to stay with the GU zoning; and all he has been trying to do is correct an error on the future land use map, which shows part of his uplands as being wetlands, which they are not.  He stated the surveys are by St. John’s River Water Management District, BKI Consulting, and the Office of Natural Resources going out on the property and determining the uplands and wetlands.

 

Commissioner Colon stated Mr. Zajdel is still not guaranteed anything by the Board, and inquired if that was his impression; with Mr. Zajdel responding his impression was the Board voted unanimously to correct the error to the FLU map if he did the work of showing the correct wetland line. 

 

Ms. Sobrino advised the Board gave staff direction based upon a certain series of facts as to how the Comprehensive Plan reads and needing clarification as to whether upland areas should be designated Private Conservation or not, and the Board gave staff direction to initiate the Comprehensive Plan amendment if it showed that the area was uplands.  She stated there are other issues that have been brought out that she is hearing for the first time that may lead staff to consider this parcel of land should not be looked at in isolation from the rest of the ecosystem of the area; and she would appreciate some input from Natural Resources to discuss whether there should be further examination from an ecosystem standpoint versus a future land use designation.

 

Commissioner Colon stated she would also like to get some feedback from Natural Resources because the Board has to be careful about what it approves today versus looking at the bigger picture of what comes after this.

 

Natural Resources Director Ernie Brown stated his office can provide feedback; one question he has is if the Board would be looking for an evaluation of the ecosystem there and the interconnectivity associated with the uplands and the wetlands themselves, as it does coexist.  He stated his office can provide a more comprehensive evaluation of the wetlands that exist onsite, or it can provide an ecosystem evaluation. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated the citizens made it clear as to the impact on the area, and she is taking into account the testimonies coming from the community because as this area keeps

 

growing, she is concerned about the future.  She inquired if the Board has to approve the amendment today; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding no.  Commissioner Colon stated she is uncomfortable with the impact it is going to cause the residents in that particular area.  Mr. Knox stated it is a plan amendment, so it is not something the Board needs to make findings on, although he would suggest if the Board is going to deny it, it should instruct the Clerk’s Office to send out the notification of denial to the applicant.

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired what impact there would be on the residents, since it is a future land use designation and not a rezoning request and what does a representation of an ecosystem have to do with the future land use map; with Mr. Brown responding the issue is what are private conservation lands; without a doubt, wetlands do not stand in isolation without the riparian uplands to support a balanced ecosystem; and it becomes a policy decision as to whether or not private conservation lands will include exclusively the wetland portion of that ecosystem or the adjoining co-dependent upland riparian fringe.  Commissioner Pritchard stated the point is that it is a riparian issue and this is a housekeeping issue; the Board asked the applicant to have its error corrected at his expense, and he incurred an expense; and inquired how much the surveys cost Mr. Zajdel; with Mr. Zajdel responding the survey was approximately $10,000, the environmental study was another $8,000, and the most recent process was an additional $10,000 or $12,000.  Commissioner Pritchard stated the applicant has spent almost $30,000, and if the Board is going to turn down what it asked him to do, it should reimburse him for what he has done.  He stated he does not know how the Board can direct someone to do something, which takes two years to do and $30,000 because the Board is trying to separate public and private conservation due to the Board’s error. 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated a small area study should be done and it should have some historical context on the Ulumay boundaries; and if it is truly an issue of private conservation land that has been designated to mitigate density somewhere else, she would like know a little bit of that history first, before the Board takes a leap forward.  She stated when the Board voted on the issue two years ago there was some intention to understand the private conservation issue a little better; and from public input and the Board’s conversation, that needs to be addressed. She stated she would be in support of a small area plan and would make a motion.

 

Commissioner Colon stated the money people invest goes to show whether they are able to build there or not; and she does not feel that any fees should be waived.  She stated she would caution the Board that it has so many studies that she is afraid to throw in another study on top of the other studies it is working on; the Board is already asking so much of the County staff to conduct the studies; and she would like to ask staff how many studies are being worked on and the status of them; and once one study is done, the Board can request another one.  She noted she will not be supporting what is before the Board right now.

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, to deny the requested Small Scale Plan Amendment.

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated the applicant spent $30,000 based on unanimous Board direction; and inquired what that will do the next time someone comes along and the Board tells them it made a mistake and it wants the applicant to pay for it.  He stated if the request is going to be denied, then that is fine, but the applicant should be reimbursed, as it took two years and $30,000 to do it; it was a unanimous decision of the Board for the applicant to do what he did; and he is entitled to be made whole.

 

Chair Voltz stated she was not on the Board when the issue was brought to it two years ago; she met with Mr. Moia regarding the issue and to her, it makes sense to move forward; however, she does not think that is going to be the direction of the Board at this time.  She stated she would be supporting a motion to deny the request; and she agrees that the Board should not be asking people to spend money and then turn them down.  Commissioner Pritchard stated the Board did an emotional backflip when some people got hit with a $60 fire assessment fee, but with $30,000, the Board just writes it off as if it is not really money; the Board should wipe the slate clean; and the motion should be to reimburse the applicant if the request is denied, as it was done at the Board’s direction.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated his concern is that many people come before the Board who have spent a great deal of money to increase the value of their property, and they are not always approved.  He noted he is concerned about the procedure that happened today and the proper notifications with the implications of what is occurring. 

 

Chair Voltz stated if the Board does anything, it ought to wait until the whole process is completed before it looks at giving back the money, because it does not know whether it has enhanced the property or not.  Commissioner Pritchard stated what Mr. Zajdel did was based on the direction of the Board, and was not self-initiated; and it was at Mr. Zajdel’s expense, and that part is not fair.  Chair Voltz stated she agrees, but she does not think the issue should be addressed right now, and it can be addressed in the future.

 

Motion restated by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to deny the requested Small Scale Plan Amendment.  Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Pritchard voted nay.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Chair Voltz, to reimburse Mr. Zajdel the full cost of what he had to go through based on the Board’s direction. Motion did not carry; Commissioners Scarborough, Carlson, and Colon voted nay.

 

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board is going to request a report from staff for a small area plan to see how many it has.  County Manager Peggy Busacca stated staff will provide that.

 

 

The meeting recessed at 3:40 p.m. and reconvened at 3:52 p.m.

 

 

 

Commissioner Carlson stated the TICO workshop is planned for October 19^th; and inquired who is supposed to be there and will the TICO Board be in attendance.  She advised some of her appointees are not sure they can make it to the meeting.

 

County Manager Peggy Busacca stated she will try to get that information to the Board by the end of the meeting.

 

 

                                            

Commissioner Scarborough requested the Chair extend the time allotted for Clerk of Courts, Scott Ellis to speak to the Board, as he is a Charter Officer, and the Board owes Charter Officers a little more consideration in time limitations.  He noted Mr. Ellis has a responsibility to the same electorate as the Board and he has staff employed with County monies to prepare information to help the Board.

 

Clerk of Courts Scott Ellis apologized for the delay in getting the report to the Board; and stated although 80% of it was completed in the first few months, it then hit delays with getting invoices and responses. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated Mr. Ellis is the Clerk of Courts and he would rather he give his business address, as opposed to his residential address.  Mr. Ellis stated his business address for the Board.

 

Mr. Ellis continued most issues with the audit deal with Post, Buckley Schuh & Jernigan (PBS&J); and one issue deals more with Board policy, which is the Emergency Group.  He stated the PBS&J Contract contracted out by the Emergency Board at a time when the County Commission was meeting in regular session, which is an issue the Board should address; and the Board should limit the powers of the Policy Group to times when the Board cannot meet.  He commented the concept behind the Policy Group was if a hurricane comes and wipes out the County, the Policy Group is all that is operating out of the bunker; contracts such as this should come before the Board for discussion, but it was presented to the Board after the fact; and it had been signed and presented to the Board to take a look at what had been done, and for ratification.  He stated issues the Clerk’s Office had on the PBS&J Contract include the reason field coordinators and some other people were higher priced was because they were PBS&J employees being brought in from around the country but based on what the Clerk’s Office saw for resumes and employment, that was not the case; and many people in the field coordinator positions at $50 and $60 per hour had no more qualifications than the Spherion people who were probably at $15 and $16 per hour.  He stated the Clerk’s Office had issues with the amount of management involved; his office researched the number of trucks with debris being brought in, the Spherion hours for people in the field watching, and management hours for PBS&J.  He noted what he saw after the hurricanes was as the amount of debris went down,

 

the number of Spherion people went down, and PBS&J and upper management stayed at a high level; and those are the primary issues, although there were issues with the billing.  He stated overall the billing is not as major an issue as what they get on a per hour basis and what they are being billed for; there was billing for hotels and mileage; but the bigger issue is the amount of money being paid for the quality of people to watch the people watch the people pick things up.  He commented Mr. Rodriguez has discussed the current Contract because when PBS&J was brought on, Crowder, Golf, and Ashbritt already had it in its contract to manage the operation; but it ended up not doing so and PBS&J was brought on.  He stated it is the belief of the Clerk’s Office that it was over-billed for the work that was done; primarily, he was concerned about the hours as there were upper management hours at 100 hours a week; and he has looked at the sheets and does not see how that amount of hours worked out.  He stated the other issue is he felt the County was overcharged for the quality people it got; if someone is brought in from Post Buckley, he would expect someone of a higher caliber than an out of work waitress; the Spherion people were there because they lost their jobs in hospitality due to hurricanes; and their job was to follow the trucks around.  He stated his belief is that the County paid $1 million for a lot of excessive management it did not need and he has strong concerns about how the County was billed. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Mr. Ellis is suggesting the Board seek reimbursement of $215,000, and how did arrive at that figure.  Mr. Ellis responded his office felt those were the hours it was billed at rates that were higher than what the County should have been charged for the individuals who did that job; and it was clear that upper level management was still billing at a very high rate as the work was dropping off to almost zero.  He stated there were fewer and fewer people in the field; the trucks were being dropped off at Solid Waste; and his office looked at the volume being dropped off because the contractors were being reimbursed based on the cubic yards they were bringing in.

 

Solid Waste Director Euri Rodriguez stated the Clerk is correct in that there were some duplications; there is a new contract for PBS&J; and there are new contracts under negotiation with Crowder, Golf and Ashbritt, eliminating the duplications.  He commented some of the duplications existed because at the time of the Crowder/Golf Contract, his office never envisioned bringing in an entity like PBS&J to oversee it; there were also some things in the original contract he disagreed with; and they were changed in the new contract.  He stated the Clerk recommended Solid Waste Management monitor the contracts more closely and the current contract be changed, and they have done that; and his office has also incurred some additional training in-house, as he had a lot of new people come in since the hurricane.  He added Solid Waste Management is doing the same thing for all invoices related to that hurricane; and it is a procedure normally done in preparation for the FEMA audit.  He stated his thoughts on the reimbursement of $215,000 are that the FEMA auditors are about to come in and will send a specialized audit group just for Solid Waste; they do that because the majority of the money that was spent during the hurricanes was spent in Solid Waste; and the audit is a long audit, so he would not want the Board to expect immediate results. 

 

 

 

Bob Paulson, Chief Operating Officer of PBS&J, stated Mr. Ellis touched on two major items, the rates charged for their Supervisors’ staff and the extent to which they stayed on the job.  He noted the timing of being on the job is not directly related to the number of people in the field; the project does not end when the people in the field are being reduced; and their rates are very

competitive and cannot be compared to the Spherion Staff, as Spherion’s rates are all labor rates and PBS&J’s include everything that they are responsible for as a corporation.  He stated when their people are working in the field, it is a $60 an hour rate; they have to pay their employees time and a half for any hours over 40; and on these projects some people will be working 40 to 60 hours overtime, so the overtime has to be absorbed in that rate.  He stated they are also faced with rental cars, as cars are damaged and they have to be paid for out of the company’s pocket; and there are a lot of expenses they incur that they cannot reimburse the County for.  He stated they have not had an experience of FEMA not accepting the rates, and FEMA approved the concept; the staff and the Commission have been very satisfied with their work; they have provided a very good service to the County; and it is unfair to ask for reimbursement two years after the fact.

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the FEMA analysis will be something that will act as a tool in further understanding the issue; with Mr. Ellis responding Mr. Rodriguez might know more of what FEMA is going to do; his Office started this research over a year and a half ago; and a lot of that time was spent trying to get information.  Mr. Ellis stated there are no definitions of what the qualifications are for the job positions; for $50 or $60 an hour, there should be some qualifications that represent that kind of a labor rate; and with any other job contracted out there and going to be minimum qualifications for certain labor rates.  He stated his Office was told PBS&J employees were being brought in from throughout the country; that was not the case with field coordinators and monitors, as they were temps and brought in from other states to work here; and based on what the Clerks Office has seen, and their applications and resumes, the same people could have been hired from Brevard County.

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Mr. Ellis has been provided with all the information needed; with Mr. Ellis responding his Office is as far as it can go at this point; and to go into greater detail on the traveling and to do the interviews again could take two more years.  Mr. Ellis noted if the County does another contract like this, it is critical that it knows exactly what it is getting, and it is more than just a labor rate, as it is also the quality of the people doing the job.   Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board pursues the $215,000 reimbursement to PBS&J, they are going to challenge the Board.  Mr. Ellis stated part of the challenge to PBS&J is to show the Board the qualifications of what it paid for; there is one item not related to PBS&J, which is issue of the Policy Group, and the Policy Group issued major contracts while the County Commission was still operating.

 

County Manager Peggy Busacca stated that has already been changed in the last six months and if Mr. Ellis would like to see the wording, she could provide it to him.  Mr. Ellis stated when FEMA comes, he would like to have his office close by to see what they are doing, but he does not know if FEMA takes work back or if it sends field people to Brevard County. Mr. Rodriguez stated FEMA will send field people and they will stay and determine what they will see and what

 

they will not see; when FEMA people comes they will ask Solid Waste for all the documentation it has; and if it has the Clerk’s audit report, it will put it in the package that goes to FEMA.  Mr. Ellis stated his Office would like to meet with FEMA representatives when they are here.

 

Commissioner Colon stated the County was in the middle of a hurricane and a huge crisis; what the Board is discussing today is having measures so that things like that will not happen in the future; she is aware that during an emergency there is not time to figure out who is going to be driving behind who; and Mr. Ellis stated the Cities of Melbourne and Palm Bay did the same thing without the assistance of an engineering firm.  Commissioner Colon stated it is critical for the Board to put things into perspective, and it is always important to figure out what it did wrong and what it can do differently; and it was difficult time, because the entire State was being hit with hurricanes.  She stated she is thankful to Mr. Ellis that he looks at all of the numbers and tries to make sure the Board is spending the money wisely.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated at the time, the County was trying to manage its own debris removal using County employees, primarily Parks and Recreation staff, and using them gave the County no reimbursement whatsoever; but when the County contracted with PBS&J, it recovered 95 cents on the dollar, so it was a good economic move.  He stated being reimbursed through the FEMA funds was of critical importance because there was a lot of money the County would not otherwise have gotten were it not for the reimbursement process; that was the first time the Board took that avenue; and it turned out to be a good decision, because it brought back 95 cents on the dollar. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Ellis and FEMA are going to benefit from each other; PBS&J has its position; and he thinks the Board is proceeding rationally in the process.

 

Commissioner Carlson’s absence was noted at this time.

 

Clerk of Courts Scott Ellis stated this is a resubmittal of a prior Agenda item as written the last time it was on the agneda, and his Office has not seen anything else submitted.

 

Fire Chief Bill Farmer stated the Board asked him to do a report on location costs for Station #83; and he provided a three-page memo outlining the fact that this is a seven-year CIP project.  He noted the five goals are to respond to incidences on I-95, and West Melbourne, reduce the call load on Engine #82, provide backup responses to Stations #86 and #87, and reduce the fiscal impact of a second station.  He noted one of the items the Board requested was a look at existing County property; the Station #83 location beat all of the time trials; if the County were to buy property and construct a station, it is estimated there would be an additional $246,000 in personnel cost and a $2.1 million cost for construction; and the entire new station would be approximately $3.1 million.  He stated if there were no monetary limitations or boundaries, it

 

would appear that Eber Boulevard and Dairy Road would be the best location to meet all five goals; but Melbourne has built a new station, which impacts that location and allows them to move a little further to the west.  He stated the City of Melbourne is willing to discuss automatic aid that would allow him to cover more area. 

 

Mr. Ellis inquired if the area could be contracted to the City of Melbourne, and I-95 area contracted to the City of Palm Bay; with Chief Farmer responding they have contracted with the City of Palm Bay and the result was that in one year they went from $181 per call to $425 per call; and that is a 134% increase in an open ended contract.  Chief Farmer stated based on 150 calls per year, it comes out to $67,500; however, the issues in West Melbourne, Grant and Valkaria will not be addressed.  He noted contracting with the City of Palm Bay would affect the I-95 issue; there is not a 100% guaranteed response to each of the 911 calls; and he has not yet seen a contract that does not have the caveat that if the City is unable to respond and maintain its level of service within the City, it does not have to respond.  Mr. Ellis stated that is not a true contract of service; for example, Cocoa Beach at one time contracted for Snug Harbor and the County paid Cocoa Beach for Snug Harbor; there are fire stations constantly being built next to fire stations, and now they want to build a County fire station in the City of Palm Bay; and a half-million will be spent to staff that Fire Station.  Chief Farmer stated it would cost                               $ 246,000    more   to   staff   a   second   station   further   west.  Mr. Ellis inquired why the station is there at all, as it is going to cost more than a half-million dollars for ten fire fighters and an engine; and if the primary area is Valkaria and Micco, then a fire station would be better at the Road and Bridge barn on Babcock Street, on property which the County already owns.  

 

Chief Farmer advised the engine has been in place for probably a year; there is a six-minute average response time to medical calls, and an average overall time of 7.6 minutes; and that shows calls are being answered in a timely manner.  He stated he does not disagree with Mr. Ellis that annexation causes cities to abut County stations, but that cannot be prevented.  Mr. Ellis inquired how many calls per day that station makes. 

 

Chair Voltz inquired if the issue is financial with Mr. Ellis, or if it is a policy issue that is up to the Board to decide; with Mr. Ellis responding he is here to provide the information and the Board can choose to do what it chooses to do.  Chair Voltz stated the Board has the information that has been provided and it is up to the Board to make the decision whether or not it trusts Chief Farmer to make the right decision as to where to put a fire station.  Mr. Ellis stated the Board has a financial issue as well as he does, as it just went through the fire fee; part of its forgiveness policy is it is going to get rid of stations it thinks it needs; and now it is in the process of building another one.  He inquired how many times a day the engine rolls out of Station #83 to make a call; and stated he received a number of calls the engine makes with an undefined period of time.  Chief Farmer stated he sent Mr. Ellis an email with the answer to his question; the 270 calls from station #83 were for more than a quarter of a year; and Mr. Ellis replied back to him that it would equal about three calls a day.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated he has always been supportive of Chief Farmer, but seven and a half minutes response time is not acceptable for an engine company; and inquired if the Chief

 

ran a station locator model and if the area would be better served if a fire station were built on Road and Bridge property.  Chief Farmer responded they did not use equipment for a station locator.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired if Chief Farmer found a majority of his responses were in an area that would be better served if a fire station were located on the other property; with Chief Farmer responding no, they utilized the call volume for responding to I-95 and the back-up to the City of West Melbourne and Valkaria.  Chief Farmer stated he gave the Board the overall response time but the average time for response calls is approximately 6.6 minutes.  He noted they looked at finding existing property as well, and were unable to find any property in the corridor of the optimum location; that is the problem it had for the last four or five years; and having the station there has had an impact on response times.  Commissioner Pritchard stated he believes in locating fire stations based on proximity to the response area, and if this location works best for the County then he does not see what grounds he has to question it and say it should go somewhere else because the land is cheaper. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Chair Voltz, to authorize staff to advertise a Request for Proposals from qualified architectural/engineering firms; authorize the establishment of Selection and Negotiation Committees; authorize Permission to Bid construction once design is complete; and authorize the Chair to sign all associated contracts for design and construction of an addition at Fire Station #83 in Palm Bay.    Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Valkaria Airport Manager Steve Borowski stated the item before the Board is to authorize staff to proceed with the design, bidding, and construction of the airport hangar project at Valkaria Airport.  He noted it was put into the Capital Improvement Plan in 2004, and they looked to get the 50% matching grant with FDOT; and then in 2005, the Board allowed 80/20 matching funds with FDOT and they have done that.  He stated the current project is in the FDOT 2007 budget right now at 80/20 funding, and it looks like it will be approved.  He advised it is an $800,000 project with $640,000 coming from FDOT and the County portion; and it would bring in $54,000 a year, with approximate expenses of $22,000.  He commented the project looked at 20 hangars, a manager’s office, and a flight planning area; the price of building has gone up dramatically; and they need to move forward with the Facilities Department to start getting the estimate and what everything is really costing.  He noted the Valkaria Airport Advisory Board made a unanimous decision to move forward with the project.

 

Janis Walters stated she has a problem with the way the airport’s business is being done in this instance.  She commented each time the Board has taken action on the T-Hangar project, the price has been stated as, “not to exceed $600,000”, and today it is being asked to execute a grant for $800,000; and the airport manager also wants the Board to proceed today with design, building, and construction, which is not in the agenda report.  She inquired what is the

 

justification for the 25% increase over what the Board previously authorized.  She stated the Board authorized a 20-unit T-hangar building; the agenda report includes an office and a flight planning area in the new hangar building; and inquired why, when the airport bought and installed a new office trailer with a flight planning area in 2004.  She commented no location has been specified for the building; when the Board approved the project it was for 20 hangars to be built on the existing pavement of closed runway 422, in front of the manager’s office; pricing, and the Board’s approval, was based on the selected location; today, the airport is in the middle of a master plan update, which changes everything; and inquired where the new hangars are supposed to go.  She stated until the Board approves the master plan and a new location is chosen, it will not have accurate information on cost; a different location means earthwork, site prep, and extra permits; and it also changes the price or the number of hangars that can be built for the money, or both.  She stated another problem is the statement in the Agenda Report asking the Board to authorize the Chair to sign all paperwork related to the project.  She inquired who will be making all of the decisions on the other things that usually come back to the Board for approval, such as advertising and contractor selection, final contract approval for construction, and determining whether priority goes to the number of hangars or the total cost; and stated it is not wise to delegate that much future authority with so little information to go on.  She stated the Board does not have enough information to make an informed decision; and staff should always show its work and demonstrate the how and why of what it is recommending to the Board.  She requested the Board to do four things today: delete the office and flight planning area from the hangar project, retain future authority over the major decisions the Board has to make for the project, require staff to provide written estimates or quotes to determine the true cost of the project and the number of hangars that can be built, and to table approval and execution of the JPA until due diligence has determined the true cost and scope of the work. 

 

Curt Lorenc stated in 2003, staff brought the Board an Agenda item that was not to exceed $600,000; and on March 10, 2005, the issue came back to the Board, it was told at that time 20 T-hangar units and $600,000, and it approved staff going forward with 80/20 money.  He commented the Airport Manager’s check was condemned for bad air quality, so he bought a brand new hurricane trailer with a flight planning area; grant money was used to pay for it, and when that is done, it has to be kept for a 20-year period; and they are obligated to use the new office and flight planning area that is in place presently.  He noted there is $800,000 being requested; he contacted FDOT and inquired when the increase was asked for, and he was told it was November 7, 2005; so that is under the new airport management.  He commented he finds no authorization by the Board of County Commissioners to approve $800,000; and he believes staff is going off on its own and asking for money without consulting the Board.  He stated on January 24, 2006, the Board approved a master plan for approximately $59,000, and now staff is asking for $75,000 which was not approved by the Board; the Board needs to require staff to do what it approved; and staff cannot do anything it wants.  He commented if there are papers or approvals to be signed, the Board cannot delegate the government process to someone if it is required to come back to the Board by the Sunshine Law.   He stated there needs to be accountability and staff needs to come back with quotes and demonstrate confidence why the Manager needs the money.

 

 

Linda Mason stated she is seeing a pattern of non-accountability and keeping things out of the Sunshine Law.  She stated the Board should go forward with the $600,000 for the 20 hangars, but the citizens had no knowledge of an office or flight planning area, and they do not want those things to use up the money for the hangars; no notification was given for the extra $200,000; and the Valkaria Airport Board and the public did not have a chance to respond.  She commented the Airport Manager seems to be bypassing County procedures and the Board has enabled him in succeeding every time; if the Board approves the project, it allows the Airport Manager to do whatever he wants; and stated he does not have the experience that makes her feel comfortable giving him carte blanch.   She stated she wants the Board to keep the Airport Manager accountable and not give him a rubber stamp to do whatever he wants.   She requested the Board vote no on the extra $200,000 and not give Mr. Borowski the right to get only one vote for the whole project.

 

Assistant County Manager Ed Washburn stated he is accountable; he wrote the agenda item with Mr. Borowski and is confident they can proceed and get it done; and if the Commission does not want the money from FDOT, that is fine, but it is available.

 

Chair Voltz inquired of the timing of the date of the $600,000; with Assistant County Attorney Morris Richardson responding Mr. Borowski did not start as the Airport Manager until August 2005 and he has documents from FDOT showing the number contrary to what was stated as being dated November 2005; and has been in the JCIP with FDOT at least since June 2005 and was placed there by Mr. Shimkus at the Board’s direction.  He noted at the public hearing before the Board on April 26, 2005 Mr. Shimkus, the prior Airport Manager, advised the Board that the County made a request in July, 2004 to build 20 hangars at a cost of $800,000; and at that same meeting, Mr. Lorenc stated it was in the best interest of the community and the airport users to build the hangars.  He commented he does not understand why this is being made to be Mr. Borowski’s issue, as he inherited the project and he is just trying to see it through. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt Resolution and execute Joint Participation Agreement with Florida Department of Transportation; authorize staff to proceed with design, bidding, and construction of approximately 20 T-hangars with an Airport Manager’s office/flight planning room located on one end of the building; and authorize the Chair to sign all other necessary documents related to the project.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.   (See page                for Resolution No. 06-302.)

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated he would like Transportation Director John Denninghoff to address the item, as it is putting in stop signs to control speed, and stop signs do not necessarily control speed.

 

 

 

Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff stated the question of putting in stop signs as an effort to control speed is an item that has come up many times; when stop signs are placed improperly it stimulates contempt for the sign and people tend to run the stop sign; the opposing traffic under that circumstance often thinks the individuals are going to stop and obey the stop sign, but often it does not happen; and often there is an increase in stop sign running and collisions that result.  He stated in addition, often there is the effect of the opposite of what was intended to occur, which is slowed down traffic; what actually happens is traffic will accelerate; and within 150 feet of the stop sign, they are back up to the speed limit, accelerating, and trying to compensate for having to stop for the sign.  Mr. Denninghoff noted there was also concern about slowing down emergency response vehicles; the speed humps force people to travel the posted speed, whereas stop signs will slow down or stop the emergency response vehicles; and stated the speed humps do not have as dramatic an effect as stop signs do.  He noted the Federal Government mandates that states and local governments follow how and when stop signs are to be installed; and stop signs are not warranted under the current circumstances for the neighborhood.  He added his office has studied the travel speeds in the neighborhood in five locations and it was very consistent, as the average speed is 22 to 23 mph.  He stated his recommendation is to consider installation of speed humps as opposed to stop signs. 

 

Chair Voltz inquired if the subdivision would qualify for speed humps if people are not speeding; with Mr. Denninghoff responding the speeds measured indicate there would not be speeding associated with it, but that is not a requirement; sometimes an occasional individual will travel at a high rate of speed and it is frightening for the people who live in the neighborhood; and the speed measuring tools may not pick that up because they cannot measure 24 hours a day.  He noted in recognition of that, the Board does not mandate that there be the high travel speeds to warrant the installation of the speed humps; and there is still going to be a speeder going through at a high rate of speed.

 

Randal Godfrey, President of the Wingate Homeowners’ Association, stated he does not want to argue with Mr. Denninghoff, but he is an engineer too, and occasionally something is designed to meet all the requirements and it does not really work; and the design of the neighborhood does not really work to deter anyone from speeding.  He stated the biggest concern is the northern stretch of Auburn Lakes Drive, which is a quarter mile long, and it becomes a thoroughfare because the egress for the whole area is either out Clubhouse Drive, to Murrell Road, or to come through this street into Plantation Point.  He stated people driving north on Clubhouse Drive who then make a left are looking at a drag strip, and there is nothing to deter them from going any faster than they can go; and they are also asking that the speed limit be reduced in the entire neighborhood from 25 mph down to 20 mph, which would make them more compatible with the City of Rockledge.  He noted there are a lot of children in the neighborhood and a lot of kids who have to cross the streets to go to school in the morning; and that is when they see the biggest problem with people late for work and trying to get out of the neighborhood.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated the neighborhood wants stop signs, but it needs speed humps; and inquired if the Association would entertain speed humps; with Mr. Godfrey responding

 

affirmatively, although the feeling in the Association is that speed humps tend to be noisy and slow down emergency vehicles; and what he has seen in Georgia is that there are speed humps right at the stop sign, which they could look at also.

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to table to a subsequent meeting the request of Wingate Estates residents asking for all-way stop signs to be installed at four  locations  in the neighborhood and that the speed limit be reduced from 25 mph to 20 mph.

Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

Eric Anderson, with ARI Investments, stated he understands the Board is considering changing the October 14, 2006 deadline for the impact fees, and he is here to request the Board do that; his Company has been working on a building project for over a year and it only got its first submittal for site plan approval in as of September 1, 2006; and he only recently found out about the tripling of the impact fees for commercial properties. 

 

Fran Wells stated she is trying to build a home for her son, but even though they are working hard they may miss the Friday, October 13, 2006 deadline; and stated the last time there was a major impact fee increase people who were having houses built for themselves were allowed to submit certain documentation prior to the deadlines to avoid the increases.  She commented because her son is a middle class single-parent he does not qualify for the impact fee assistance programs; and he is going to have to pay a lot more taxes as he was not able to get homestead exemption and his tax bill is going to be big.  Ms. Wells commented if the Board goes back to the date of the actual adoption and counts 90 days, instead of the deadline being Friday, October 13, 2006 it would actually be November 6, 2006 because the Board did not actually adopt the Ordinance until August 8, 2006. 

 

Chair Voltz noted one of the options of the Board is to continue the deadline to December 31, 2006.  Assistant County Manager Ed Washburn stated Ms. Wells is talking about single-family residential, which still has a deadline of October 14, 2006; and what staff has proposed to the Board are options for multi-family and commercial site plans.

 

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to direct the vesting language for the Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance adopted August 8, 2006 be changed to reflect the date of December 31, 2006 for multi-family residential, and non-residential projects. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.    

 

                                                                                                             

Commissioner Colon stated when the Board talks about an impact fee it is not the developers who pay for it, it is for whoever is building the home; the only thing the developer cares about is selling the lot; and she would like to stick to the same deadline date for single-family so as to not cause any further confusion.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to direct the vesting language for the Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance adopted August 8, 2006 be changed to reflect the date of December 31, 2006 for single-family residential.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

Steve Swanke stated staff is still unclear, and on October 8, 2006 an ordinance was adopted; with Commissioner Colon stating the Board knows what it adopted; instead of the deadline being October 14, 2006 it will now be December 31, 2006.  Mr. Swanke stated that is Option 4 with the December 31, 2006 date; with Chair Voltz responding it was Option 2; with Mr. Swanke responding Option 2 changes it to site plan submittal, and that was not included in the original ordinance.  County Manager Peggy Busacca stated her understanding is that the intent of the motion was only to change the date; with Commissioner Colon responding that is correct.  Mr. Swanke stated staff will bring it back to the Board in an ordinance that will be retroactive. 

Don Brintle stated he is trying to be able to work on his car outside but within a fenced area; and he would like to find out what the Board’s action will be.

Greg O’Leary stated he owns ATM Recycling, located on the corner of Clearlake Road and Highland Street; and he is in BU-2 zoning, which restricts him to conduct all of his work soley  and completely in an enclosed building.  He noted his business has outgrown the corner and he has had some Code violations in the past due to not being able to work indoors.  He advised the only equipment he uses is no more than what a grocery store uses, such as a cardboard bailer, propane forklift, and an alligator shear, so he does not really have an industrial facility.  He commented he has located a new piece of property so he can move off of Clearlake Road and avoid the traffic situations; he has found a flag lot on two acres of land that has an open-faced building with three walls and a roof, but Code states he has to enclose the front of the buildings so that no one can see; and he thinks the Ordinance the Board can adopt is for a BU-3 or on a case-by-case basis to let them do some outdoor activity in BU-2, depending on certain criteria.  

 

Kathy Fisher stated before she bought property in Scottsmoor she visited the Zoning Office and the Building Department and told them she wanted to open a bus repair shop; on the side of the building she wanted to put in a 50-foot long by 2 ½ -foot wide pit for the buses to pull in on and her husband could go into the pit and work on them; and she was told by the County that that was fine and she could buy the property.  She stated it took two months to open the business and they have now had it for 21 years; and in August, she received a letter from Code Enforcement stating she has a Code violation for working outside of the building.  She advised in 1994 this came up, she paid Brevard County $100 to pull a permit, and the case was closed; now, twelve years later, it is being brought up again.  She stated she has a copy of that permit but she is being told it does not matter, and that she is in violation.  Ms. Fisher stated she is asking that her tenants be allowed to work inside the fenced-in area with a $7,000 pit that she put in 20 years ago; and she does not have the money to build a building over it. 

 

 

 

Chair Voltz inquired if Ms. Fisher has a Code violation right now; with Ms. Fisher responding affirmatively but it is being put off until this hearing is over with to see what to do about the violation.

 

Carl Chase stated he owns C&L Towing in Scottsmoor, on the property owned by Ms. Fisher; there is a two bay garage on the property; and auto repair has been going on there for years.  He commented he does road service and if someone breaks down, he goes out on I-95 and changes a tire; and he needs the 50-foot pit to be able to do the heavy vehicle repair that he does.  He stated the Code itself, by stating in general that no work can be done outdoors is wrong, and under BU-2 if a business is auto repair, then no items can be kept outside because they are used; but the local hardware store can store anything it wants outside because it is of a retail nature.  He noted there is an issue with the way the Code is written and he has talked with other auto repair owners in the north end of the County who are all in the same situation; and it is not feasible to say that all work has to be done within a structure of four walls. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated the problem is happening throughout the County; and she knows that the County is growing and it is almost like a double-edged sword because people do not want businesses out there that are an eyesore to certain folks; people in the unincorporated areas are used to having the businesses outside; and she would like to alleviate some of the burden that is happening to small businesses.  She stated the Board needs to look at another classification to try to make it easier for the small businesses.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated he is familiar with Mr. Brintle’s property and also some other properties that are currently doing things in violation of BU-2; and the business should be looked at as site specific.  He stated with Mr. Chase’s property, it was designed for a residence on the front and then commercial activity on the back; site specific approval and adequate screening so that it is not visible from the road is something he does not see a problem with; but he does not know if a new zoning classification of BU-3 is the way to go or how site specific would be applied to that, and there has to be some objective criteria.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated Option Three for the Board is Permitted with Conditions and it could either require a Conditional Use Permit or just conditions; he agrees with Commissioner Pritchard that it has to be site specific and that is through the CUP route; and the conditions are fine, but no two sites are ever the same and with the CUP the Board has the ability to tweak it.  He stated he can envision a wall that looks like a complete structure but it is just a wall, and that would satisfy the neighborhood with that type of configuration; and that may work for one place and not another place. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to direct staff to bring back legislative intent for a CUP-type mechanism to allow some auto repair and paint and body work to be done outside in BU-2 classifications; and direct that Code Enforcement be abated.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

 

 

Pat Burnette stated Commissioner Pritchard sent her some information concerning the Sheriff being able to control the situation of one cab company that has no taxi insurance and no County stickers and they run the hotels; and Merritt Square Mall has tried to ban them from the property and have the Sheriff look out for them, but they cannot be there all the time.  She stated the taxi fares need to be alleviated so people can be protected; and she would like to know what the Board has come up with.

 

Roland Carlson stated there are squealers in the County; and there are no complaints that anybody was being harmed.  He stated unless a person does a wrong, a wrong cannot be found, and he has better things to do than come to a Commission meeting and not get paid; and a law that makes a man a judge in his own cause, or a law that takes property from ‘A’ and gives it to ‘B’ is against all reason and justice for people to entrust a legislature with such power.  He stated if there are any lawyers on the Board they should not be working for the public, as they know how to scramble the words.   Mr. Carlson stated his taxi cab has the biggest prices on it and it also has the biggest lettering on it; there are other people who have fares that are lower and higher, and if they are not asked what they are doing, then they are going to use the higher prices; and Ms. Burnette’s rates are higher than his are.  He stated he does not work for the public, he works for himself and if he is hired, then he works for the public; and the Board is placing him into a corporation where it can tell him what he is doing that is not in violation of the health, safety, and welfare of the public. 

 

Chair Voltz commented she is not looking to regulate vehicles for hire, and Orange, Osceola, Seminole, and Volusia Counties do not do it.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated Brevard County has a major conveyance, which is the Port; there are hundreds of cruise ship passengers who get off at the Port and take whichever cab pulls up first; and if a cab pulls up with a $25 drop charge, then they end up taking the cab.  He stated it is an unregulated industry and it is a public conveyance; whatever the market decides the upper end should be is where the maximum should be; and the people in this type of occupation need to have regulated pricing so people are not gouged.  He stated one of the comments made with the cruise ship incident was that people were being taken advantage of by the cab companies; and it was a terrible situation with people trying to get to the hospital to try to see loved ones, and the cab companies took advantage.  Commissioner Pritchard stated he has a comment from the Canaveral Port Authority Chief Executive Officer Stan Payne that states, “This hurts the Port, it hurts tourism, and if these incidents are more wide spread than we are lead to believe, they must be dealt with”; advised he has another comment that states, “We need regulation so that when visitors come here they will have an idea of what prices will be when they take a taxi”.  Commissioner Pritchard commented it is one thing in a free market when people have an opportunity to shop, and it is another when they are faced with dealing with ‘first come, first served’, and if they do not know what the price is on cab number two, then they take cab number one.  He advised he has heard stories about being charged per bag, for multiple riders, and all things that seem to be grossly unfair, if not illegal; stated it is a public conveyance, and as such the Board has a duty and responsibility to see that the public does not get taken for a ride.  He stated the recommendation needs to come from within the industry, as to what it feels is reasonable, responsible, and profitable; and he understands there is a profit motive, but there is also a responsibility to the public that they are not taken for a ride.  He noted

 

it can be done with an annual permit or by inspections, and if it is not up to date and annually approved, then measures can be taken to make them come into compliance. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated she wants to make sure that vehicles for hire are regulated and that whoever is picking up someone has gone through the scrutiny that needs to be there.  She stated the Board is responsible for the safety and welfare of its citizens, and it is critical for Brevard County to pass something like this; and it is important to the tourists who come here to know that they are safe.  She commented there are other municipalities that are already doing this and some of them are even under the police department of those municipalities and not code enforcement; and when there are thousands and thousands of tourists coming in and out of Brevard County, anyone can charge whatever they want. 

 

Chair Voltz stated Osceola County Code Enforcement administers the Vehicle for Hire Ordinance with two employees and a staff of two, so the Board is looking at building another department just to deal with vehicles for hire; she has no problem in looking that the vehicles are safe.  She commented when people come into a community and there is one cab company charging too much money, then there are other cabs they can call. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Commissioner Pritchard has talked to the Port Authority; with Commissioner Pritchard responding he spoke with Stan Payne and he believes something needs to be done.  Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board has some responsibility that someone does not get in a car that is not physically maintained; and he would like to ask Commissioner Pritchard to have a meeting with Port Authority Director Stan Payne.  He commented anytime there is price gouging it hurts people in many ways; legitimate people benefit by keeping people who are not legitimate from hurting others; and he thinks there is a way to regulate that is good for the community and will help the community’s reputation. 

 

Chair Voltz inquired how many complaints Commissioner Scarborough has had; with Commissioner Scarborough responding he has gotten complaints from the hoteliers in north Brevard; and it surprises him that the TDC is not weighing in, because they are involved.  Chair Voltz stated if it was a major problem, then the TDC would have gotten involved.  Commissioner Pritchard stated it became a problem when there was the cruise incident; and he noted he will set up a meeting with the Port Authority and staff and bring it back to the Board to discuss.   

 

Chair Voltz stated those are issues that she can support, and the Port is the biggest issue and it is where most of the tourists come into and where they get taxi cabs; with Commissioner Pritchard stating that is where the unsuspecting market is, along with the hotels. 

 

The Board reached consensus to authorize Commissioner Pritchard to meet with TDC Executive Director Rob Varley, representatives of the Port and Melbourne Airport, and appropriate staff to discuss issues involved with safety of vehicles for hire.    

 

 

 

 

 

Natural Resources Management Director Ernie Brown stated his office is seeking direction from the Board with regard to potential Comprehensive Plan changes. He noted last year, the 2005 Florida Session Bill 955 made some changes to some of the Statutes that required coastal Counties to include in the Future Land Use Element some incentives to encourage the preservation and promotion of water-dependent and water-related facilities; and staff has been moving forward with this, however, at this juncture, it could take up to two years to get it accomplished.  He stated there is an opportunity to move forward with these in the current cycle if the Board would so desire that; and the components could include some criteria in Chapter 163, but could also include some tax deferral programs for working waterfronts, a program to ensure no net loss of public and boating access and a wet/dry slip banking program; and those are just concepts seeking the Board’s direction as whether it would like staff to pursue this in the 2006B Comprehensive Plan process. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not want it to get beyond the Commission, and he is for it as long at it is not another SEAS.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated he and Jack Masson are going to be working on the Banana River Drive boat ramp, as it is a project he has a vested interest in, and he would be happy to provide the assistance in the process. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to direct Natural Resources Management Director Ernie Brown to proceed with Comprehensive Plan amendments for the 2006B Amendment cycle that address the preservation of working waterfronts and public access to waterways.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Attorney Kim Rezanka, representing MGM Properties, LLC, stated the subject property is halfway between S.R. 520 and Pluckebaum Road, on Range Road.  She noted there are mostly industrial uses along Range Road, and the subject parcel is 5.38 acres; there is an unused parcel to the north, then there is vacant land to the south toward Pluckebaum; and to the west of the subject parcel is a large parcel of mostly water, and there is also a strip of water immediately adjacent to the west side of the property.  She stated the subject property is very unique and long; the flag stem is 828 feet long and 75 feet wide; and the flag portion itself is 471 feet by 330 feet.  Ms. Rezanka stated she has been before the Board previously asking for a waiver of the requirement of the six-foot masonry wall, which will be required to be along the 1,300 feet along the south side and the 330 feet on the west side because it has the potential for residential uses.  She noted the property to the south is an old borrow pit, which the Board rezoned on September 6, 2006 to RU-2-8, and there is not a lot of the property available; it was denied the first time because it was incompatible as a residential use as compared to the industrial uses that are in the area; however, the Board did approve it in September.  Ms. Rezanka stated this is a very unique configuration; the parcel to the west of the property is not going to be able to be developed; what she is asking for is a waiver for a chainlink fence along the south end and west

 

WAIVER    TO   BUFFER   WALL    REQUIREMENT,   RE:    MGM    MINI   WAREHOUSES

      (CONTINUED)_____________________________________________________________

 

end of the properties with slats; and as there is now residential abutting part of the property, there will be opaque buffer requirements for landscaping at the site plan process.

 

Chair Voltz inquired where the buffer is going to be; with Ms. Rezanka responding the buffer would have to be along where the chain-link fence with the slats would be on whichever side the Board prefers.  She noted in the waiver request was language saying they would come back and put in a masonry wall if it were developed, and she would like to take that out of the application, as it cannot be enforced, and the whole idea is that a masonry wall is cost prohibitive for this property. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated he is not a fan of chain-link fencing; what got him was the office building; and he does not like the idea of having chain-link fence around an office building.  He noted the property to the north is industrial and the property to the south is AU and will be developed as affordable housing; and inquired if Ms. Rezanka is proposing to have a chain-link fence around the entire perimeter and where the buffer would be; with Ms. Rezanka responding it would be on the south side because it would have to be an opaque buffer due to the residential.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired what kind of buffer; with Ms. Rezanka responding it is going to be opaque by the Landscape Codes; and it will be whatever landscaping staff approves, as it is at the site plan stage now. 

 

Ms. Rezanka stated the other problem is that there is an easement there and she does not know whose property it falls on or if it is platted or not.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired what is the width of the easement; with Ms. Rezanka responding it is 75 feet. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if it would be left open; with Ms. Rezanka responding there is a 15-foot setback on the south side and a seven-foot setback on the north side, and that is where the access would be. Ms. Rezanka stated she does not know if the developer plans to fence it in, but there would not be the requirement of slats along Range Road; there is some intent for outdoor storage, so it would need to be secure at some point; and she does not know if it is going to be just around the flag portion or along the stem portion also.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired if Ms. Rezanka is looking at a six-foot fence; with Ms. Rezanka responding affirmatively.  Chair Voltz inquired how high the vegetative buffer would have to be; with Ms. Rezanka responding she does not know the Landscape Codes, but it would be whatever is required. 

 

Assistant County Manager Ed Washburn stated the Land Development Code states if it abuts residentially zoned property, it has to have a solid brick wall or a solid concrete wall; the Board has waived it in the past, but if it waives it and wants a buffer to replace it, it will want to know what the applicant needs to bring in; and the engineer needs to tell the Board what kind of buffer needs to be there. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated she is uncomfortable with waiving anything and the Board needs to hold them to exactly what the terms were from the beginning, because there will be a future Board that is going to be dealing with any future issues, and if that is what they are supposed to be doing, then that is what the Board should hold them to and not negotiate. 

 

 

WAIVER    TO   BUFFER   WALL    REQUIREMENT,   RE:    MGM    MINI   WAREHOUSES

      (CONTINUED)_____________________________________________________________

 

Chair Voltz noted Commissioner Carlson left a note before she left stating she has concerns about not having separation with the property to the south.  She inquired if the wetlands are on the GU property to the west; with Ms. Rezanka responding affirmatively and there is also the borrow  pit that is a lake now that abuts a portion of the property, and there is some property there that she does not think is developable. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated his concern is chain-link fencing; there was an issue on North Merritt Island where a developer was supposed to have a vegetative buffer, put out six palm trees that did not block anything, and the opaque barrier was netting on a chain link fence; and he does not want to promote that kind of unattractiveness, as the area to the south is going to be developed as residential.  He stated his concern about a vegetative buffer is what are they talking about, and Ms. Rezanka can come back to the Board with exactly what it is going to be.  Ms. Rezanka stated she would appreciate the opportunity to come back with more information if the item is tabled at this point.

 

Carl Loggins stated he has 20 acres adjacent to the subject property, and he is strongly opposed to any chainlink fence against his residential property that he plans to build townhouses on.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the applicant comes back and shows a vegetative buffer, would Mr. Loggins be approving of it; with Mr. Loggins responding he does not want a buffer or anything because the people who own the property do not maintain it and are not going to put anything there that will look decent; and they need a wall instead of a buffer. 

 

Chair Voltz stated the Board could require a wall on the south side and no one is going to be happy with anything other than a wall, so perhaps the Board can just look at the chainlink fence on the west and north side with a buffer.  Commissioner Pritchard requested Ms. Rezanka come back to the Board with the appropriate drawings, including what the landscape architect would come up with as well as what a concrete block wall would look like; with Ms. Rezanka responding affirmatively.

 

The Board acknowledged the comments of Attorney Kim Rezanka and Carl Loggins; directed the item be placed on a future Agenda; and requested the applicant submit appropriate drawings showing proposed landscaping and a depiction of the required masonry wall.

 

 

 

Kristin Bakke stated the Brevard Affordable/Workforce Housing has been a collaborative effort between the Brevard Workforce Development Board and Lead Brevard since September 2005; they put together a task force which included private, public, and non-profit sectors, including United Way of Brevard, the Economic Development Commission, Homebuilders and Contractors Association, the educational community, and others.  She stated the four goals were to: analyze the current trends and initiatives in the workforce housing area to identify potential solutions to meet those needs, to recognize the appropriate community and

 

governmental entities, to implement agreed-upon solutions, and to build consensus in the community on how to best serve the community.

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve the legislative intent; and grant permission to advertise a public hearing to consider an ordinance and administrative procedure for development and regulation of affordable/workforce housing.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated he thinks the County needs to speed up the permitting process, as it cannot afford to take six or nine months or a year to have something happen.

 

Commissioner Colon stated she made it clear to the people of Workforce/Affordable Housing that she would not be supporting to add anyone to the program; budgetwise, it was a very difficult year and she is going to closely watch the 3% over rollback; and any decision the County Commission makes as far as any addition to the budget puts it to the point it is above rollback.  She stated she knows there is a need and a lot of work has gone into this; she is thankful to have them; and they need to be congratulated.

 

 

Clerk of Courts Scott Ellis stated the Clerk’s Office is in opposition to the CRA; in general the CRA deprives the County General Fund of dollars; and in specific terms, the Board has never done one like this before.  He stated if the Board allows Melbourne to form a CRA because it has an alleged traffic blight on Wickham Road, it is going to have one with Rockledge on Barnes Boulevard and in Cocoa with Dixon Boulevard; and the whole west side of I-95 in Palm Bay could be declared a traffic blight area to build the beltway.  He stated it is a terrible precedent being set; the Clerk’s Office is adamantly opposed and feels if it is allowed, it will create many more; and the best way to kill it is to not participate in the study at all.

 

Chair Voltz stated she agrees; it is a bad move on the Board’s part to do this; and she does not support it. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated he has always had a problem with the ‘blight’ concept with some of the most prosporous areas collecting the revenues; and it limits the Board’s capacities.

 

County Manager Peggy Busacca stated she will write a letter to the City stating the Board discussed participation with the City of Melbourne in a planning study to determine if a CRA can be established for North Wickham Road, but took no action.

 

 

 

Debbie Fuenmayor stated she has been through the process of rezoning her property which she thought was rezoned; there was a problem with the wetlands; the lineage that was done was incorrect on one portion of it; she was told that to add that portion in, she would have to redo the zoning all over again and pay more fees; and she is looking for a waiver of that.  She noted it is a small portion on the north side and the front that was done incorrectly with the wetlands.

 

Planning and Zoning Director Robin Sobrino stated the Board would be reviewing the request in the context of its policy BCC-50, which sets forth policies for fee waivers for the Planning and Zoning Office; the policy states that a fee waiver should not be for a rezoning to BU-2 or more intense, and in this case it is for Industrial zoning.  She stated staff would also like to point out that the survey submitted by the applicant was prepared by a surveyor of their choice and if there was an error by the surveyor, it seems it would be incumbent on the surveyor to be responsible through errors and omissions to take care of its clients.

 

Chair Voltz inquired if Ms. Fuenmayor has gone back to the surveyor; with Ms. Fuenmayor responding it was not the surveyor who made the mistake, it was the environmentalist.  Commissioner Scarborough stated she would then need to get a refund from the environmentalist.  Debbie Fuenmayor stated the environmentalist suggested she come back to the Board to see if there is anything it can do.  Chair Voltz stated it is the fault of the environmentalist, and the environmentalist should be the one giving the refund.

 

The Board acknowledged the request of Jose and Debbie Fuenmayor for waiver of rezoning fee, but took no action.

 

Commissioner Colon requested when there is a citizen request, the Department Director should notify the Commissioners, because it is easier to know upfront, and the citizen may not have to wait through an entire meeting before the request is heard.

 

 

 

Chair Voltz stated speakers Janis Walters, Curt Lorenc, Nicki Kisner, Jerry Wall, and Linda Mason are no longer at the meeting to speak. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to grant permission to advertise public hearing to consider an ordinance exempting the County from Section 316.2123, Florida Statutes, regarding operation of all-terrain vehicles (ATV’s).  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Chair Voltz noted Commissioner Carlson’s comments on the item before she left were that approving the funding is okay with her, given the collaborative efforts with District 4 and The Viera Company.

 

Kevin Walsh stated he is a father of seven, Director of the Suntree/Viera Youth Football League, and serves on the South Brevard Advisory Board for Parks and Recreation; he got involved with the Youth Football League the first year it was in business, and he could not understand why they were the only league in the County practicing in eight inch-high grass; and when there were hurricanes all practice stopped completely because there had to be equal facilities for everyone, but they have not had equal facilities from day one.  He commented the league has expanded and he is here to ask the Board to allocate the funds necessary to build on the seven and a half acres that are on the north side of Viera Regional Park; stated because there has been so much growth in the area kids have to have a place to go to recreate; and it is no one’s fault, as it is just a combination of bad occurrences.   He noted the league raised $150,000 during the first season to outfit all of the kids with their equipment; these are kids who will go on to Viera High School; and he is not asking for money, but if they are in a situation in the Fall that there are funds to finish things, that field and park could be finished by having one or two football fields added, as a good playing surface is needed. 

 

Chair Voltz stated she agrees that Mr. Walsh’s league has a great need, but the 2000 referendum has been such a debacle, that for the Board to finish the projects it currently has is going to be a task just in itself.  She stated it is a good program for the kids and a positive thing for the community, but she is not sure about having extra funding.

 

Commissioner Colon stated right now the Board is crossing its fingers and hoping the referendum passes in a few weeks; and having the land already identified is a help to the Board.  She noted the Board needs to wait a few more weeks to find out what will happen with the referendum so it can find out where it is and start allocating some of the dollars to finish the projects. 

 

Chair Voltz inquired if the field is part of the 2000 Parks Referendum; with Interim Parks and Recreation Director Don Lusk responding no, it is not; however, if the referendum passes, there will be some decisions to make and if it does not pass, there will still be some decisions to make.  He advised as Mr. Walsh stated the league worked hard to get the land donated by The Viera Company, and it is possible the County would be able to work something out of the South Operating Budget. 

 

Chair Voltz stated the issue is not on the referendum; and inquired if the Board can use the money for other projects that were not on the referendum; with Attorney Knox responding it will depend upon certain things, but it is possible, and the referendum was originally drawn to allow projects that were not specified.  Chair Voltz stated she does not like that answer; and inquired if the people voted on certain projects for a certain amount of money, then how can the Board change them at any time.  Attorney Knox responded there were also some generic descriptions of projects; and it is possible for the Board to abandon one project and subsidize another project.  Chair Voltz stated if the Board is going to abandon any project, then it needs to be put to the vote of the people as they are the ones who need to decide. 

 

 

Mr. Walsh stated he has tried to piece together how the process works; what he understands is that the usage was never looked at for a football field; dollars were allocated for a dog park, baseball fields, and soccer fields; and he thinks the voters wanted fields, but it was not specified what kind of fields.

 

Chair Voltz stated she would like to make sure that if the taxpayers dollars are being spent, it is on what the people voted on.  Commissioner Colon stated the possibilities are there, and the Commissioners are going to have to make some serious decisions after the November elections.

 

Mr. Walsh stated there is an opportunity to do great things for children simply agreeing there needs to be a way to do it.  Chair Voltz stated she got into politics because of issues just like this one.

 

 

CANCELLATION OF WORKSHOP, RE:  VIERA DRI 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to cancel the Viera DRI Workshop scheduled for October 12, 2006.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.

  

 

 

 

 

ATTEST:                                                                     ___________________________________

                                                                                    HELEN VOLTZ, CHAIR

                                                                                    BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

                                                                                    BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

_____________________

SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

        (SEAL)