MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

July 29, 2008

 

 

 

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on July 29, 2008 at 9:03 a.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida.  Present were:  Chairman Truman Scarborough, Commissioners Mary Bolin, Chuck Nelson, Helen Voltz, and Jackie Colon, County Manager Peggy Busacca, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

 

 

The Invocation was given by Pastor Sergio Reyes, Calvary Baptist Church, Melbourne, Florida.

 

Commissioner Colon led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve the April 25, 2008, April 28, 2008, and May 29, 2008 Special Meeting Minutes, and May 29, 2008 Zoning Meeting Minutes.

 

 

 

Commissioner Bolin read aloud a Resolution proclaiming Water Professionals Week.

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt Resolution proclaiming Water Professionals Week and recognized all water industry employees for their dedication and hard work providing safe drinking water to the citizens of Brevard County and throughout the State of Florida while protecting the environment and natural resources.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  (See page                                     for Resolution No. 08-143.)

 

 

Joan McGaughey, Region III Director of the Florida Water & Pollution Control Operators Association, expressed appreciation to the Board for the proclamation on behalf of the water and wastewater professionals of Brevard County.

 

 

 

Commissioner Voltz read aloud a Resolution recognizing Warner Robbins, Georgia, 2007 Little League World Champions.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to adopt Resolution recognizing Warner Robbins Georgia 2007 Little League World Champions, and offered them best wishes in all future endeavors.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Hunter Jackson expressed appreciation to the Board for the recognition.

 

Ron Pritchard, Hunter’s grandfather, stated three years ago Hunter came before the Board and said his team would win District, State, Regional and then the Series, and this year they did it; and expressed appreciation to the Board.

 

 

 

Commissioner Bolin read aloud a Resolution recognizing Kevin Trainor as 2008 Good Sport of the Year. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt Resolution recognizing Kevin Trainor as 2008 Good Sport of the Year by Little League International.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Kevin Trainor stated when his teammates are feeling low he tries to pick them up; and when the team was losing and everybody’s hopes were down he would once again try to cheer them up. 

 

Kevin’s family expressed appreciation to the Board, Mr. Dave Zavits, and Kevin’s Manager, Mike Neal.

 

 

 

County Manager Peggy Busacca advised there is a typographical error on Consent Item III.B.7., Agreement with Florida TODAY, Re:  Tourism Annual Vacation Planner Printing and Production with Map Insert at a Cost of $123,085; the total cost is $123,058; and the error in the Agenda Report reads $123,085. 

 

 

 

County Manager Peggy Busacca stated the Board asked that staff report back to it regarding enhancing the lifeguard program.  She noted at the Workshop on July 24, 2008, the Board inquired what could be done to enhance the lifeguards this season; and advised Chief Bill Farmer   and   Lifeguard  Captain  Wyatt  Werneth  will present the  program to the Board.   She

stated the information went out to the Board very late yesterday afternoon; and if a Commissioner did not receive it, copies are available. 

 

Chief Bill Farmer stated yesterday, himself, Chief Werneth, and Mark Peterson, met to discuss the enhancement of the lifeguard program; and before the Board is both the current fiscal year proposal and a fiscal year proposal for next year.  He stated the Volusia County Beach Control utilizes a program in which if there are towers within close locations of each other, rather than staffing them with two lifeguards, they are staffed with one lifeguard; and that increases the coverage by as much as 200 yards of additional beach.  He stated Chief Werneth is comfortable with the program; the program was mapped out on the Brevard County coastline; and now the proposal is in front of the Board.  He stated in approximately one week, which is needed to build chairs, Fire Rescue can put seven additional seasonal lifeguard towers in the north end, and one additional seasonal tower in the south end with the current staffing of the sitting lifeguards; and additional supervisors will be needed to increase that many zones.  He advised one additional tower each will be located at Cocoa Beach Pier, Shepherd Park, Murkshe Park, and Futch Park; there will be two additional towers each at Lori Wilson Park and Coconuts; and the total cost for the enhancement for the remaining fiscal year is $141,828 and requires 12 FTE (Full-Time Equivalent) position control numbers in order to hire personnel as full-time lifeguards.  He stated under the next fiscal year, with the enhancements made this current year, five year-round towers would be opened up, including one each at Shepherd Park, Lori Wilson Park, Coconuts, Cocoa Beach Pier, and Futch Park; stated those towers would be open 365 days per-year depending on the weather; and when the weather is inclement, or if there is not enough population, lifeguards will work on maintenance of the equipment, towers, training, and recruitment.  He advised the seasonal towers will increase from 13 to 21; those include an additional tower each at Cherry Down Park, Tyler Park, Cocoa Beach, Fischer Park, Murkshe Park, and two additional towers at Shepherd Park and Lori Wilson Park, plus their year-round towers, one at Coconuts and Futch Park, plus their year-round towers, three towers each at Pelican Park, Boardwalk Park, and Spessard Holland Park, and one additional tower at Ocean Avenue; and the total cost over the current fiscal year is $411,675.  He stated he believes the Department can absorb the cost for the remaining fiscal year; in working with the Budget Office and looking at the General Fund transfer, he believes the Department can also, without any additional General Fund transfer, take care of the $411,675 for the next fiscal year; and there would not be any change in what the Board has already seen in its budget.  He stated he would like to request the Board approve the two enhancements for the current fiscal year, and next fiscal year.

 

Chairman Scarborough stated as Chief Farmer knows, the Board is in the middle of its budget; and the Board may approve one now and the other as a part of the development of the budget; but the Board does not normally talk about taking items out of next year’s budget. 

 

Commissioner Colon inquired who Chief Farmer talked to about the enhancement; with Chief Farmer responding Joe McManus met via conference call and he was included in all drafts; he is very supportive of the proposed plan; and Jerry Storrs could not attend the meeting, but he has an email from him in support of the enhancement plan.  Commissioner Colon stated $188,000 is in the budget and she was trying to transfer those dollars and become proactive; she does not have a problem approving the $141,000 because it was the discussion the Board was  having;  but she is interested in  knowing where  Chief Farmer will be getting the $411,000,

because the Board is going to have to make some major decisions this year.  Commissioner Colon stated she likes the fact that the plan is going to provide more coverage; and inquired if Chief Farmer is going to hire more employees.  Chief Farmer replied he will be hiring 12 FTE lifeguards, but that is for the supervision of what is being utilized now; the only way Chief Werneth could put in additional seasonals immediately was to look for a different staffing profile; and Mr. McManus put Chief Werneth in contact with the Volusia County Lifeguard Captian.  He stated even with splitting the towers, there are not enough full time supervisors to supervise them.  Commissioner Colon stated she still does not understand the math because she has concerns if the Board approves the $141,000, Chief Farmer is going to hire 12 full-time employees; and that ties the hands of the Board because it will have to fire 12 employees if things look bad during the budget. 

 

County Manager Peggy Busacca stated Chief Farmer believes the lifeguard enhancement can be handled with the proposed budget as it stands for FY 08/09.  Chief Farmer stated that is correct; the Board will not have to find an additional $411,000 out of his budget, as it will be out of the proposed budget.  Commissioner Colon stated $411,000 plus $141,000 means the Board will be committing itself to $.5 million to hire 12 people.  Chief Farmer stated it is already in his budget.  Ms. Busacca advised the proposal is $.5 million in the FY 08/09 budget. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated she appreciates Chief Farmer looking into enhancing the lifeguard program; and it is a necessary thing to do as Brevard County has some of the worst beaches as far as drownings.  She inquired if Chief Farmer is only looking at hiring 12 supervisors; with Chief Farmer responding affirmatively.  Chief Farmer stated the 12 supervisors will be sitting towers in the off season; and at peak season the 12 core professionals then become supervisors within zones to take care of the high school and college employees that are sitting towers.   Commissioner Voltz inquired who is doing that now; with Chief Farmer responding high school and college employees, who are being supervised by seasonal employees; but stated he is getting ready to lose the majority of that staff.  Chief Farmer stated the County can maintain some of the most seasoned lifeguards it has ever had by hiring now.  Commissioner Voltz inquired if Chief Farmer is saying he found $.5 million in his budget.  Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten advised the refinement in the budget is because of some labor distribution that was already budgeted and that does not need to occur; and in essence it is a reallocating of the labor distribution dollars from labor distribution to this particular program proposal. 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated it was her understanding the Board was trying to get more seasonal lifeguards on the beach as soon as possible to help the situation.  She stated hiring full-time lifeguards is going to be a budget issue, which the Board has not discussed yet; she thought the Board was going to see how many seasonal people it could get immediately trained to get on the beaches; and the proposed program is beyond what she wants to address at this time. 

 

Gerald Storrs stated he is also speaking on behalf of Joe McManus, who is in charge of operations in Indian River County.  He stated he co-authored the report and it involves over 60 years of hands-on professional lifeguard experience; and the report is not a casual, statistical exercise.  He stated the report began in November and was published in March; the group writing the report came up with a dozen full-time locations to be added; and the Chief’s report came up with the same thing.  He stated a full-time corps is a necessity for the supervision that is necessary,  along  with extension of  coverage on the  ends  of the season, which is essential;

and the reality is the budget the County is facing.  Mr. Storrs stated Chief Farmer’s proposal is a substantial fallback, but it does get a hardcore of the necessary full-time lifeguards that are needed; and Chief Farmer’s proposal is the best possible proposal for the needs of safety on the beaches and the needs for an affordable budget.

 

Chairman Scarborough stated the Board is not criticizing Chief Farmer, because it asked him to put the proposal together; and Chief Farmer came back with some positive proposals.  He stated the issue needs to be addressed, but there is a lot of information and data that needs to be digested; and inquired to what extent can the Board move forward with current year’s budget adjustment and have subsequent discussions on the FY 08-09 budget year.  Chief Farmer replied the only Board action he needs today is the creation of the FTE lifeguards.  Chairman Scarborough inquired if the number of FTE’s is 141; with Chief Farmer responding affirmatively.  Chairman Scarborough inquired if that is the current year budget allocation; with Chief Farmer responding yes, it is currently in the budget.  Chairman Scarborough inquired to what extent is the Board taking steps to making budget decisions for next year.  Chief Farmer replied the Board would be hiring people for three months, and if it decided to cut the proposed budget of the $411,000 that is already there, then he would end up laying off the 12 employees; and if the Board were to approve the 12 FTE’s, it would be improving the enhancement for next year as well, or he will have to lay off people he just hired.  He stated if the Board is not willing to do that, Chief Werneth can look at the towers that are close together and put on at least two or three extra lifeguards at places like Lori Wilson or Shepherd Parks; and that can be done with the existing supervisory personnel.  He stated if that can be done he will send a report to the Board stating with existing personnel and no increase at all, the department has been able to open up four or five towers by following the Volusia County staffing profile.  Chairman Scarborough stated Chief Farmer and Chief Werneth can discuss it further and come back to the Board at the end of the meeting.

 

Commissioner Colon stated Chief Farmer went above and beyond what the Board asked him to do; however, the Board has to be careful during the budget time; and it would be inappropriate to take the major decision of $.5 million without having more time for discussion.  She stated she appreciates Chief Farmer, Chief Werneth, and all those who contributed to the report.

 

Commissioner Nelson inquired if the proposal would cover the area where the most recent drownings occurred; with Chief Farmer responding probably not.  Chief Farmer advised it is unfortunate that after steps have been made and the budget has increased by $.5 million, an unfortunate death could occur the next day because all the beaches cannot be covered all the time; and death is not going to ever be 100 percent prevented at the beaches.  He stated the proposal enhances the program significantly with current dollars; and he is proud of Chief Werneth for what was put together on a short notice. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated he would like Chief Farmer to talk to the beachside cities and see if they agree on terms of the placement of lifeguards, or if they have concerns because the County may have missed an area.  Chief Farmer stated he can talk to the cities.  Commissioner Nelson stated it would be helpful if the Board knew the amount of beach the County is covering; and it would be helpful to put it into footage of coverage.  He stated the Board talked to some of the hoteliers; as Lori Wilson Park is expanded there is going to be guarded areas in front of two hotels; one of the hotels indicated willingness to cost-share; and the Board may want to

continue that discussion to see if the hotel would like to participate.  Chief Farmer stated if the County could cost-share with some entities, it would not have to draw the full amount from the General Fund.  Commissioner Nelson stated the central part of Cape Canaveral and Cocoa Beach contribute to the lifeguard programs and also Melbourne and Indialantic in the South; but the mainland needs to pick up a bigger share because while they have the beachgoers, they are not always contributing to the tax base of the beachside communities, which has additional law enforcement costs as well as other things. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated she tends to think it is the other way around; the Board spent millions of dollars to bring tourists to Cocoa Beach; and the ten deaths from last year were tourists.  She stated the hospitality industry is responsible for the tourists; therefore, the share must be not only by the private sector, but also the municipalities; and she would not want to rule that out because the responsibility is not only with Brevard County.  Commissioner Nelson stated he does not disagree that there are some cities that contribute; but there are also some cities that do not; and Palm Bay does not contribute as a city, but it buses children to Indialantic, which has an impact.  He advised the beachside communities pay some significant tax dollars into the County General Fund; staff has been tasked numerous times to come up with the numbers collected beachside and to see what the return is; and some of the beachside communities have become donors to the General Fund.  He advised it is a countywide issue and should not be placed on the beachside communities; and if all cities want to participate it would be great, but not all cities are participating. 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated it would be prudent for the Board to take action today to implement the program because it will change the methodology; and that will give the Board the ability to analyze whether it is a prudent expenditure of $411,000 in future years.  He stated there are questions Chief Farmer has raised for his staff as to if there is something less than $141,000, and can that be a possibility; and inquired if Chief Farmer can come back at the end of the meeting with a lower figure than $141,000.  Chief Farmer stated he can come back at the end of the meeting.

 

 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated last evening she spoke at the graduating class, Number 121, Brevard Community College Fire Academy; and there are a lot of nice graduates that have gone above and beyond. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated she would like to move Item VIII.A.2., Offer From Snug Harbor Master Association, Re:  Purchase Water and Wastewater Sites from the Barefoot Bay Water and Sewer District, prior to the 10:30 a.m. time certain; and although a lot of people are present for the item, most of them will not be speaking.  Chairman Scarborough asked for a show of hands from the audience of those who plan to speak on Item VIII.A.2.; and advised one group was given a time certain, and if another group speaks first, then it is no longer a time certain. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Colon stated last evening the Town of Malabar held a banquet for those who volunteered during the Palm Bay wildfires in May; a lot of citizens in the south part of the County lost their homes; she is grateful to the Town of Malabar for the award given to her and she expressed appreciation to the Town of Malabar, Brevard County Firefighters, Palm Bay Firefighters, and every municipality that helped during the fires.  She stated she would like to thank the Town of Malabar for the honor given to her; the Commissioners are public servants and do not have to get a thank you for what they did during the fires; there were 1,000 men and women firefighters who came to Palm Bay from all over the State to help; and she inquired if Chairman Scarborough could send a letter on behalf of the Board to the Counties that assisted in the fires and thanking them for their service.

 

Chairman Scarborough stated when falling upon hard times, certain things have come up that the Board may need to address in the budget discussions; there has been discussions about Code Enforcement and abandoned houses; and sometimes there are animals that are left behind in an abandoned house.  He stated he would like County Manager Peggy Busacca to speak to the different departments to find out if there are certain things that occur in an economic downturn when people leave their property; and it could be Code Enforcement, Animal Control, or certain issues within Housing and Human Services; and directed Ms. Busacca to bring a report to the Board during the budget process.

 

 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated he has been requested to ask the Board if it would like to cosponsor with the City of Titusville a town meeting on the Space Program; the City wants to answer questions from the community about what is happening at the Space Center; and the City would need permission to use the County’s logo.  He advised the town meeting will be held August 13, 2008 at 5:00 p.m. at City Hall; and it will be televised.

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to grant permission to use the County seal for a town meeting cosponsored by the County and the City of Titusville on the issue of space.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Commissioner Bolin inquired who will be attending the town meeting; with Chairman Scarborough responding Bill Parsons and Congressman Tom Feeney; but he does not know who else is going to be part of the meeting.  Ms. Busacca stated it will be advertised so that all Commissioners can attend the meeting. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve modification and continuation of Board Policy BCC-84, Installation & Management of Petroleum Storage Systems.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to execute Cost Share Agreement with St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) for construction of the L-2 Canal Stabilization Project; delegate authority to execute change orders to the County Manager; and authorize the Road and Bridge Department to install piping and construct a junction box and swale in the L-2 Canal, per Florida Statute 255.20(1)(c)7.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to execute Contract with Rockledge Fiske Apartments, LLC, extending the timeframe for the completion of construction to December 31, 2008.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve the Special Magistrate’s Order allowing a two-year compliance period for Respondents to build a house on a lot that is the subject of an ordinance violation of Section 62-1340.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to execute Assignment and Assumption Agreement with the Florida East Coast Railway, L.L.C. and the Town of Grant-Valkaria transferring the maintenance responsibility from Brevard County to the Town of Grant-Valkaria for public grade crossing within the Town limits.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve Policy BCC-77, Vacating Public Access to Waterfront Property, and BCC-81, Vacating County Roads, Right-of-Way, and Easements.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to accept Drainage Easement from Meridian of Brevard, LLC by Towne Realty, nka The Meridian Condominium Association of Brevard, Inc. located in Merritt Island in Section 26, Township 24 South, Range 37 East.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to accept Sanitary Sewer Line Easement from Wuesthoff Health Systems, Inc. located in Section 13, Township 23 South, Range 35 East.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to accept Road Right-of-Way Deed and Drainage and Sidewalk Easement from The Richman Group of Florida, Inc./Timber Trace Apartments, Ltd. abutting Sisson Road in Titusville in Section 27, Township 22 South, Range 35 East.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to execute Sub-Grantee Agreement with the Florida Housing Finance Corporation to provide counseling services associated with foreclosure prevention; and authorize the Chairman to execute subsequent amendments and addendums contingent on approval of Risk Management and the County Attorney’s Office.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to authorize use of State of Florida Contract #250-040-08-1 for the purchase of computer hardware for the Integrated Library System at approximately $139,550.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve naming the playground area at Kiwanis Island Park the Tracey Bagwell Memorial Playground Area.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to execute Amendment One to Agreement with Calema Windsurfing, Inc. for the windsurfing facility at Kelly Park.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to execute Agreement to Extend Interlocal Agreement with the City of Titusville for one-year extension for the completion of the Downtown Urban Parks Project within the North Brevard Recreation Special District.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to execute Professional Services Agreement Amendment No. 17 with Honeycutt & Associates, Inc. for architectural/engineering services for Marina Park, not to exceed $156,972 for a new plan and $53,049 for services rendered.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to execute the Annual Vacation Planner Agreements for printing and production expenses of the planner and a 16 panel Countywide map insert at a cost of $86,169 for 150,000 copies, as agreed to in the original vendor agreement with Florida TODAY to produce and print the piece, with the cost of the inserted map at $36,889, making total combined cost for 150,000 copies and map at $123,058.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve the revised FY 2007-08 Cooperative Advertising/Marketing Assistance Program Handbook.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to acknowledge the City of Titusville’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for fiscal year ended September 30, 2007.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to acknowledge the Parrish Medical Center’s Resolution establishing the FY 2008-2009 Revenue and Expense Budget and Millage Resolution.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to authorize award of Bid #B-3-08-71 for Detention Center replacement of nine (9) AC package units to Hill York as the lowest, responsive, responsible bidder at the total price of $120,926.07.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to authorize permission to advertise a Request for Proposal for Continuing Architectural/Engineering Consulting Services for the Facilities Department; appoint Selection and Negotiating Committees consisting of Bill Clifton, Construction and Design Manager, Facilities Department; Carl Tucker, Special Projects Coordinator IV, Facilities Department; and Bill Ross, Construction Manager, Parks and Recreation Department; and authorize the Chairman to sign all associated contracts.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve Change Order with R.C. Tech, Inc. for County courier and mail service.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve the new review dates per Sunset Review Policy BCC-31, for BCC-48, Facilities Construction Fees; BCC-54, Solicitation, Picketing, Petitioning on County Property; BCC-60, Displaying United States Flag at Half-Staff; and BCC-61, Art in Public Places, for July 29, 2011.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to authorize permission to advertise a Request for Proposal for Continuing Structural Engineering Consulting Services for the Facilities Department; appoint Selection and Negotiating Committees consisting of Bill Clifton, Construction and Design Manager, Facilities Department; Carl Tucker, Special Projects Coordinator IV, Facilities Department; and Bill Ross, Construction Manager, Parks and Recreation Department; and authorize the Chairman to sign all associated contracts.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to execute Emergency Purchase Order for a replacement Heavy Rescue Unit (PR #334-0140), as the current unit is out of service and beyond repair; and approve all necessary budget actions associated with the request.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve the renewal of the Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity (COPCN); and authorize the Chairman to execute the COPCN with Brevard County Fire Rescue (ALS and BLS), Cape Canaveral Volunteer Fire Department (ALS), Coastal Health Systems of Brevard, Inc. (ALS and BLS), Kennedy Space Center (ALS and BLS), Canaveral Air Force Station (ALS and BLS), City of Palm Bay (ALS), Health First-Holmes Regional Medical Center-First Flight (ALS), City of Titusville (ALS), City of Cocoa (ALS), City of Cocoa Beach (ALS), City of Melbourne (ALS), City of Satellite Beach (ALS), City of Indialantic (ALS), and City of Rockledge (ALS).  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to adopt the revisions to Policy BCC-86, which addresses the public release of telecommunications recordings of requests for emergency services received via the E9-1-1 Emergency Communications System in Brevard County.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to rescind Board Policy BCC-33, “Management Information Systems Standardization Policy”.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to execute a County Deed transferring that portion of the west 13 feet of Lot 11, Block 101, Avon-by-the-Sea, Plat Book 3, Page 7,  Public Records of Brevard County, Florida,  that is not maintained by the County as the

public right-of-way known as Turtle Beach Lane.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve the continuation and modification of Board Policy BCC-36, Legal Services with Outside Counsel.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve the continuation and modifications to Board Policy BCC-68, Legal Representation for Lawsuits.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve elimination of Board Policy BCC-01, Employment and Compensation.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve elimination of Board Policy BCC-09, Uniforms.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve continuation of BCC-39, until 2011 to allow for the continued consideration of administrative waivers of special event permit fees for not-for-profit organizations under certain conditions.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve elimination of Board Policy BCC-87, Bikeway Development Policy.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to waive the general prohibition of mandatory arbitration clauses for the FPL Contract for Emergency Preparedness for FY 2008/2009 and FY 2009/2010; authorize the Chairman to sign the Contract; and authorize the County Manager, or her designee, to sign all further submissions to the Contract.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to adopt Resolution authorizing the issuance of industrial development revenue bonds up to $5.0 million for Sculptor Charter School, a charter school planning to expand in Brevard County.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to amend the Brevard County Investment Policy, BCC-49.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve the distribution of the Edward C. Byrne Grant Award for FY 2007-2008; authorize the Chairman to execute the necessary documents; and authorize all necessary budget changes associated with the acceptance of the Grant.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve letter of support for the relocation of TyraTech, Inc., a local biotech company to Palm Beach County.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

REPORT, RE:  TIME CERTAIN FOR ITEM VIII.A.2. (CONTINUED)

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to hear Item VIII.A.2. immediately following 10:30 a.m. time certain for Item VI.F.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

Kathy Bird stated it is difficult to be in front of the Board with what she has to relay, but she has confidence because there is an unresolved issue.  She stated she wants to get out of the situation she is presently stuck in because she needs oversight; and she knows Commissioner Nelson knows of her issue, but she wants to inform the other four Commissioners.  She stated there is a systemic issue at hand; the Board’s first line of defense failed; and the first line of defense is an employee on SHIP grants.  She stated she talked about the abuse when she was before the Board for the Affordable Housing Ordinance; the abuse is only as good as the monitoring; and another angle is that it is only as good as the application review, meeting the criteria and guidelines it is intended for to make sure the monies, which are State monies, are used appropriately and in the intent they are needed.  She stated she agrees with the Board that the money is needed; understanding the abuse requires research; and there is an inability to do basic research such as looking at the Clerks website, the Property Appraiser’s website, and the County’s website.  She stated the County has offered a grant for the longest run contract that was signed in February and awarded over $500,000 for the next 25 years in her neighborhood, which is a peninsula on the barrier island and has become Lord of the Flies.  She advised she addressed the situation before it happened and it still moved forward; the City of Palm Bay was kicking out a problem; and the problem was the seven or eight cease and desist orders of an operation that was going on with the Department of Corrections that was terminated within 24 hours because of substantial evidence that was there.  She stated over the last several months she has tried to rectify a contract the Board signed and was not aware of the details behind it, Palm Bay was wrapping up its problems; and in trying to get information from Palm Bay it became a nightmare to answer any question from Palm Bay by a County member.  She stated it was an investigation; and it is an unfortunate situation, but she would like to go back to the Board’s first line of defense.  She stated the first line of defense for the person who is supposed to review applications has to have a nose for what a ruse looks like or what a con might be; but the grant applications have criteria that needs to be met such as 10-year performance, and financial backgrounds; and the errors on the application are so significant that if the application were to be re-run, it would not meet criteria.  She stated she is asking the Board to look into the matter and rescind the contract that is in her neighborhood because as she is working with this issue she is also working on the small area study she has waited three years for because she has the intent to try to better her neighborhood; but she cannot prevent it when it is defended by the County because no one knows or wants to understand the research details which are easy to obtain.  She stated something such as this can corrode her neighborhood even though she is trying to work with the small area study; stated she is asking the Board to make sure it is rectified; and more and more abuses are going to be seen because it is simple to obtain grants.  She stated she would like some oversight to find out how the case is going. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated there is an item coming up later for a consolidated action plan; he is going to recommend the Board approve it, but not approve any projects until staff has gone through the procedures; and what Ms. Bird is talking about is a project that has exposed a lot of deficiencies in terms of procedures and how projects are reviewed that come before the Board.  He stated the Board has taken at value that there is a quality background check occurring, and as it turns out, within two months of filing an award, there is a filing of bankruptcy by the person; and it is a concern as to how County staff could miss something like that.

 

Chairman Scarborough inquired if Commissioner Nelson could put something on the Agenda for August 5, 2008; with Commissioner Nelson responding he was going to recommend that a report be done by the County Attorney, and not County Attorney staff; and the issue comes down to what kind of background checks the County is doing on the folks applying for the dollars, what is the fiscal history, and if they have the ability to perform.  Chairman Scarborough inquired if Commissioner Nelson would oversee the report and bring it back to the Board at a later date.  Commissioner Nelson stated he would like to thank Ms. Bird as she did lot of work on the issue.  Ms. Bird stated the person on the first line of defense angered her because the particular employee is the sweetest individual; and she might suggest the person not be so sweet.  She stated there are systemic issues at hand; one thing she believes in is fact and truth; she does not want to go to SHIP and talk about the mishandling of funds; and she would like Palm Bay to feel it has resolved it.  Commissioner Nelson stated he would like the County Manager to also be involved in the report. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated she brought to the attention of the Board the Policies of Napa County, California; and direction has already been given to the County Manager and the County Attorney.  She advised Ms. Bird has been very diligent in finding out what other communities are doing in regards to being the first line of defense when it comes to Homeland Security.   

 

Chairman Scarborough stated it would be beneficial for Ms. Bird to meet with the County Attorney and Commissioner Nelson to explain the research she has done.

 

 

Chairman Scarborough called for the pubic hearing to consider continuing consideration of outfall drainage ditch west of South Tropical Trail/Sanders Subdivision – Jerry D. Vaxmonsky.

 

There being no objection heard, motion was made by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to continue the public hearing to consider vacating an outfall drainage ditch in Sanders Subdivision in Section 28, Township 26 South, Range 37 East, as petitioned by Jerry D. Vaxmonsky to the September 30, 2008 Board meeting.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider resolution vacating plats, portions of plats and rights-of-way in Scottsmoor Subdivisions – Scottsmoor Partners.

 

There being no objection heard, motion was made by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to continue the public hearing to consider adopting Resolution vacating
plats, portions of plats, and rights-of-way in Scottsmoor Subdivisions – Scottsmoor Partners, to the August 5, 2008 Board meeting.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider resolution vacating pubic drainage and utility easements – Broadway Boulevard Replat of Hardeeville – Alan Guernsey, and Maryann and Ralph Wright. 

 

There being no objection heard, motion was made by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to adopt Resolution vacating public drainage and utility easements on Broadway Boulevard replat of Hardeeville – Alan Guernsey, and Maryann and Ralph Wright.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider resolution vacating public utility easement on Pecan Circle SW Barefoot Bay, Unit Two, Part Twelve – Jerry E. Mullett.

 

There being no objection heard, motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to adopt Resolution vacating pubic utility easement on Pecan Circle SW Barefoot Bay, Unit Two, Part Twelve – Jerry E. Mullett.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

 

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider ordinance for Florida Institute of Technology Tax Exempt Financing Project Home Rule Ordinance. 

 

There being no objections, motion was made by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to adopt Ordinance of Brevard County exercising its Home Rule Power and Authority to issue Industrial Development Revenue Bonds for the purpose of financing projects to be located on the campus of the Florida Institute of Technology in addition to other capital projects that may otherwise be financed under Chapter 159, Part II, Florida Statutes; and providing an effective date.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to execute Contract for Sale and Purchase with the Walgreen Company; and waived the Phase I Environmental Assessment, deed and plat restrictions on the project, and the Florida Power and Light, BellSouth, and public utility easements which will be subordinated or relocated on a project-wide basis at a later date, for property needed for the Wickham Road Widening Project between Nasa Boulevard and U.S. 192.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to grant the Central Brevard Humane Society a waiver of fees associated with a right-of-way permit for the improvements required within the County road, including a Stormwater Discharge at $300 and two Commercial Driveway connections at $500 each; and approve waiver of the sidewalk installation and the associated Sidewalk Waiver application fee of $200, for total of $1,500 in fees waived.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to execute Assignment of Option for Sale and Purchase with The Nature Conservancy for the Caron Balkany, Trustee property; and authorize exercising the Option for Sale and Purchase on or before August 8, 2008.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to approve all necessary budget actions to complete commercial paper debt service payments for Station 21 and the Fire Rescue Department’s Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) System.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired if there is a typographical error in the first paragraph of the Agenda report in which it should read January 1, 2009 instead of January 1, 2007.  Chairman Scarborough advised the Board can hold the item until later in the meeting. 

 

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider Resolution for Developers Agreement with M95 et al.

 

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve a Developer’s Agreement providing vesting for transportation concurrency, transportation impact fee reimbursement in lieu of transportation impact fee credit, and disbursement of Local Funding Reimbursement Agreement proceeds with Melbourne 95 New Haven LLC; Echo Trading Company, LLC; Floridana, Inc.; James E. and Barbara Fulcher; and the City of West Melbourne; approve the Local Funding Reimbursement Agreement (LFRA) and Resolution between Brevard County and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT); approve the maintenance traffic plan for John Rodes Boulevard; authorize the Chairman to execute both Agreements and the Resolution on behalf of Brevard County; and authorize the Budget Office to implement all necessary budget changes.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Attorney Doug Ackerman stated he is representing Larry and Tracy Butcherine; he was pleased the invocation at the beginning of the meeting included praying for the safety of the armed forces fighting the war on terrorists around the globe; and Mr. Butcherine is a Sergeant in the United States Army.  He stated since September 11, 2001, Mr. Butcherine has been all over the world; Mr. Butcherine has been to South America, Jordan, and had a tour of duty in Afghanistan; and Mr. Butcherine has risked his life, and it is possible he will be sent back to either Iraq or Afghanistan.  He stated the request is for the Board to hear Mr. Butcherine’s appeal from a determination that he violated the County’s wetlands regulations; Mr. Butcherine erected a garage behind his house; and Mr. Butcherine is not a developer seeking to make money for profit, as all he did was put a garage up behind his house.  He stated the County determined the garage violated Article X of the Code of Ordinances; Article X specifically states that the Board of County Commissioners has jurisdiction to hear an appeal of determination that Article X has been violated; and that is what he is asking the Board to schedule an appeal on.  He stated the County Attorney’s Office has taken the position that somehow the phrases, Administrative Order, Administrative Determination, and Administrative Decision, mean different things in the Code and therefore the Board does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal; he does not think the Code should be read that way; and he does not think the Board should adopt that interpretation, as it would be saying it does not want to have power over a wetlands determination.  He stated the other argument is that Chapter 162 of the Florida Statutes require the appeal go to the circuit court; he does not agree with that argument; the appeal to the circuit court would be after the Board’s determination and not after the Special Magistrate’s decision, just as any other decision of the Board sometimes gets appealed to the circuit court; and he is asking the Board to hear the appeal and if there is an appeal to the circuit court it be after the Board makes the decision, and not the Special Magistrate.  He stated the County Attorney takes the position that only the decision of the Department of Natural Resources can be appealed to the Board under Article X; there were two critical decisions made by the Department of Natural Resources in the case; and those two decisions were shoved off to the Special Magistrate and wrapped  up  in  what  was  called  a  Code  Enforcement  proceeding.   He advised one of the
decisions was that the property was wetlands to begin with; he would like the opportunity to present evidence to the Board that the property was not wetlands; and the other decision was that Natural Resources made the decision that the property could be feasibly repaired.  He noted Section E, Article X, provides clearly that in the event it is not feasible or desirable for the responsible person to perform the repair and maintenance of the wetland, then the responsible person shall mitigate for the wetland loss; and in the Code is the possibility that a wetland can be damaged and not able to be repaired.  He stated his client would like the opportunity, and the Board should want to hear, discussions where evidence is presented that the property cannot be repaired and that something should be offered in mitigation; and he believes that is a reasonable interpretation of the Code and also the County Attorney’s interpretation of the Code.  He stated when Department of Natural Resources said the property is a wetland and can be repaired, those decisions did not get put into a final order and was shoved off to Code Enforcement; and now his clients have been told they do not get an appeal.  He stated the Board should involve itself in this type of decision and he asks that the Board schedule a hearing an allowing him to present his client’s case.  He introduced Dan Mestayer who is an environmental engineer who is going to discuss the possibility that mitigation would be a much more desirable option for the Board; and it is the kind of evidence that would be presented at a hearing. 

 

Scott Knox, County Attorney, stated the matter was before the Special Magistrate as part of a Code Enforcement proceeding; the Special Magistrate has entered an order ruling on the issues presented, which he assumes included Mr. Brown’s interpretation, in which case that appeal goes to circuit court by Statute, that is the way it is; the Board’s jurisdiction does not apply to the Special Magistrate; and Mr. Ackerman is asking the Board to go around the Special Magistrate. 

 

 

Bobby Bowen, Code Enforcement Manager, stated the proposed ordinance limits the number of recreational vehicles and/or equipment located on the front property, establishing side setbacks; there are no front setbacks involved in the change in the Code; and recreational vehicles will be required to park perpendicular to the street rather than parallel to the street on properties of one-half acre or less.  

 

Richard Lee stated he is against the proposed ordinance; a lot of time was spent in 2005 hammering out an equitable ordinance; and because some people went beyond the letter of the law, a problem has been created.  He stated he agrees parking perpendicular to the street is better than parallel to the street; and he agrees people should not be living in their motor homes or planting trees and shrubs around an RV.  He advised he has spent a lot of time driving around areas in the County that do not have homeowners associations; he has found that most of the properties on a half-acre or less do not have 20 feet of clearance; at least 10 feet is needed to pour a slab to park an RV, which is what he did after 2005 when the ordinance was passed; and he can back his RV up beside the garage, but he does not have 10 feet between his  slab and his neighbors property.  He stated  he cannot park  his RV in his driveway because

four or five feet of the RV would hang out into the street; and he does not have access to his backyard because he lives on a canal off of Lake Poinsett.  He stated the majority of homes in subdivisions do not have 20 feet between houses; most people do not have access to their backyards; and his main complaint to the proposed ordinance is the 10-foot setback from the neighbor’s yard.  He stated if there is not a 10-foot setback, it would be beneficial to everyone who has an RV; he understands some people have qualms about an RV parked next to their house; and he thinks that portion of the proposed ordinance should be struck down.

 

Sandra Zent stated she is concerned about the proposed ordinance because she has an area dug out parallel to her house where she can park her RV behind trees and shrubs; her yard is very short with no space on either side; and she feels she should be grandfathered-in and allowed to keep the RV as long as it is not interfering with anyone else’s property.  She stated her RV is a sanctuary; it is security from a storm; and if the electricity is out in her house, there is electricity available in the RV for cooking purposes.  She stated she understands the loading time in the proposed ordinance would be reduced to 24 hours in which an RV can be parked in front of a house; when she goes on a trip she may be gone for three months; and it takes longer than 24 hours to pack an RV for a three-month trip because she has to load food and other supplies. 

 

Wayne Dickinson stated he lives on a quarter acre lot in Satellite Beach; he has approximately 10 feet on either side of his property; and he is working on constructing a circular driveway.  He stated on Lake Washington Road he observed a half-acre to two-acre property with a million dollar home and circular drive in the front; a motor home was parked parallel to the road and appeared to fit nicely on the lot; but his property is only a quarter-acre, and the proposed ordinance is residential discrimination because someone on a lot over half an acre is allowed to park anywhere; and if the ordinance is passed he will not be able to park on the side of his house.  He advised the proposed ordinance is discrimination against property owners; the proposed ordinance should be brought before the general public and voted on; and a two-thirds majority should win.

 

Floyd Rippetoe stated he sent the Board an email yesterday afternoon; he will not revisit the issues he raised in the email such as the deficiencies in the proposed ordinance; but his biggest concern is the infringement on property rights by taking away a person’s right to enjoy their property the way they would like to strictly to satisfy someone else’s opinion of what looks nice and what does not.  He stated the Board is being asked to codify one person’s opinion and aesthetic preferences as being superior to everyone else’s; and that is the wrong role for government.  He stated there will be a considerable expense to the majority of homeowners to meet some of the draconian requirements of the proposed ordinance such as tearing out existing pads because they are too close to the side yard; in many cases, homeowners cannot comply at all; and if an owner has a curved driveway and an L shaped house with a garage that does not face the street, the only way to park an RV perpendicular to the road would be to park at the beginning of the driveway, blocking it for any other use.  He advised it was pointed out at the LPA meeting that the ordinance is not going to be proactively enforced; the appearance of a neighborhood will not be changed; but it just becomes a tool for someone who wants to tell their neighbors  what  to  do.   He  stated  it has been easily  shown that having boats or RV’s in front

yards next to homes has enhanced property values in his neighborhood; there are two houses on his street that were sold two years ago that were the highest priced sales on the street; and both of the houses were next door to homes that had boats or RV’s in yards that did not comply with the new Code. 

 

Edward Arvonio stated he opposes the proposed ordinance; most people cannot comply with the ordinance; existing side setbacks range from seven and a half feet to five feet; and that has been the standard rule for many years.  He stated no one can comply with the 10-foot side setback rule in the proposed ordinance because there is not enough room on the sides of houses for the majority of the County.  He noted the improved surface condition in the proposed ordinance is not a good rule due to the fact that there would be drainage problems; most homes already have most surface area covered with asphalt and building as allowed by Code; and there is no place for water to go if more concrete is added.  He stated there are not many half-acre lots in Brevard County compared to the total number of single-family residences; there are more one-third to one quarter-acre lots than anything else because of maximum density; and the half-acre requirement is too discriminating.  He stated he does not want a fence because he likes to see what goes on in his neighbors’ yards; the people who are offended by recreational vehicles are well within their rights to start a homeowners association; and every subdivision in the County is different, and one rule cannot fit all.  He stated the ordinance is a waste of time and impossible to enforce because no one can comply; he agrees with the perpendicular parking of an RV; but if everything fits in a driveway it should be allowed; and it is excessive to say people cannot have both a boat and a motorcycle. 

 

Chairman Scarborough advised this is the first of two hearings; and the second hearing will be held on September 16, 2008 at 5:00 p.m.

 

Shirley Curry stated she has parked a motor home at her residence for over 20 years; there is a fine line between a person’s rights as a citizen and being a good neighbor; around the County there are people who are considerate of others, and there are people who do not care; and she agrees the issue needs to be addressed, but she concurs the setback regulation is impossible.  She stated her property is rather large, and she could not comply with the proposed ordinance; she has a septic tank and a drain field preventing her from moving her RV; and her RV is approximately four feet from her side property line.  She advised her RV is parked on a gravel surface, allowing water to flow; she agrees the issue needs to be addressed; and inquired if there have been numerous complaints.  She stated she believes in the 1970’s there was an ordinance restricting parking of a boat or RV beyond the front line of a property; and she does not know what happened to the ordinance, but it was a good idea for an RV to be flush with the house. 

 

Commissioner Nelson inquired if Ms. Curry parks her motor home on the side of her house; with Ms. Curry responding yes, she does.  Commissioner Nelson stated there is no 10-foot setback beyond the front edge of the house.  Ms. Curry stated she thought the 10-foot setback was from the property line.  Mr. Bowen advised the setback is only for the front yard side property line.  Ms. Curry stated she is fortunate she can do that, but a lot of people cannot.

 

Douglas Worth stated he lives at the west end of the entrance to the Lake Shepherd area; because he is at the west end of the entrance, his house is in clear view of people coming into the neighborhood; some of the issues from his neighbors are about their preference of what looks good; and preferences should not be legislated.  He stated he does not agree with the current content of the petition and proposed ordinance; the petition was circulated three months ago in his neighborhood by one of his neighbors; and the petition was delivered to the Board on April 1, 2008.  He stated the ordinance should not be revised as the petition requests; he is one of 3,000 South Patrick Residents Association residents and he is in favor of keeping the ordinance the same as was adopted in 2005.  He stated in September 2007 he bought a travel trailer; before deciding on a size, he obtained a copy of the current ordinance; and he determined what would be a good place to park an RV that would be within Code.  He advised six days after he parked his new RV a Brevard County Code Enforcement Officer came to his house stating there had been an anonymous complaint that the RV was not parked in compliance with Code; and the Code Enforcement Officer found the RV was within Code, and the complaint was unfounded.  He noted his house and yard are in clear view to the entranceway of Lake Shepherd, but his RV does not hide the front of his house from view; his RV is in front of his house and perpendicular to the street on the side yard; and the RV and the yard around it is well maintained.  He stated a group of residents in the South Patrick Residents Association area want the Board to change the ordinance to make it more restrictive and require a boat or RV to be parked out of sight; and the residents are using terms such as safety and quality of life to persuade the Board to revise the Code.  He stated he would like to ask the Board to not approve the proposed ordinance.

 

Chuck Frazier inquired when it became okay to park a 42-foot RV on a 70-foot by 110-foot lot; and stated he has never understood it and he never will.  He stated it is tough to balance consideration rules; everyone wants to have the right to do what they want to on their property; and without zoning, his neighbor could raise pigs and chickens.  He noted people need to consider parking an RV next to somebody’s lot line; people want to go outside and watch the sun come up, but cannot because of an RV that is against their property; and he thinks some recreational vehicles need to be stored.  He commented on an elderly woman in his neighborhood who was walking on the sidewalk with a walker and had to move off the sidewalk to go around an RV and fell and broke her knee.  He stated he knows the Board wants to be fair to everybody; but the Board has to consider the peoples’ rights to park on their own property as well as their neighbors’ right to have unobstructed views.  He commented on a homeowner in his neighborhood that has 11 boats in his yard and one RV. 

 

Scott Fifield stated he lives on a one-third acre lot; he built his house to accommodate an RV; if the ordinance is adopted he will not be able to park his RV on his lot; and he is opposed to the ordinance.

 

Nancy Bass stated she circulated a petition and is speaking on behalf of herself and her neighbors.  She stated the lots in her subdivision are less than one-half acre; when the ordinance was relaxed several years ago her lot size was not taken into consideration; and she and her neighbors are concerned about lots less than a half-acre.  She stated she feels it is reasonable  to request that RV’s not  be parked in the front yards of homes or parallel to streets;

and she also requests RV’s be parked with a safe setback.  She commented it is not the intent to infringe on anybody else’s property; but the integrity and safety of the community has to be protected.

 

Denise Elderkin stated she is speaking for the quiet majority who do not like seeing neighborhoods trashed and turned into boatyards and campgrounds and devalued by those who choose to use lawns as storage areas.  She advised she owns three properties in Melbourne Beach and two in unincorporated Brevard; but all of her properties are in subdivisions; and she owns a boat that she does not store in her yard and a pop-up trailer that she keeps in a garage.  She stated most vehicles in her neighborhood have not been moved in years; inquired how the housing market can be expected to improve when Codes are devaluing property; and inquired if one can afford a boat or RV and can afford the gas, then one can afford to store it.  She submitted pictures to the Board, but not the Clerk.

 

John Watkins stated reasonable restrictions on parking recreational vehicles are okay; when he built his house in 1974 he built an RV pad behind the front of the house nine feet from his fence line; and inquired if the setback begins behind the front building line of the house.  Mr. Bowen replied the setback only applies forward of the front building line to the front property line, the side setbacks.  Mr. Watkins stated for the people who do not have 10 feet on the side of their home, the setback should be reduced to five or eight feet. 

 

Jean Freeman stated she is representing the South Patrick Residents Association, which includes 3,000 residents on the beachside; South Patrick Residents Association is a residential neighborhood in North Waterway Estates; and many of the lots are only a quarter-acre, which do not support the same ability to accommodate several trailers or recreational vehicles or large work vehicles, as does a five-acre parcel in Mims.  She stated the current Ordinance allows large vehicles to park anywhere on residents’ property, which is not considerate to the neighbors; and she is asking for a change to the Ordinance to one that is more considerate to all residents. 

 

Dolores Kane inquired if there would be any waiver associated with the proposed ordinance in which if a neighbor does not object, someone could park an RV closer than 10 feet to the side property line.  Planning and Zoning Director Robin Sobrino replied since the section resides in the zoning code, that type of requirement is not viewed as a use requirement, but rather a setback requirement that could be considered by the Board of Adjustment.  

 

Chairman Scarborough stated the question is if someone visits Mr. Bowen and says their neighbor does not object to the parking of an RV three feet from the property line, can they obtain a waiver.  Mr. Bowen stated a waiver cannot be received from the Code Enforcement Office.  Chairman Scarborough inquired if the waiver can be requested, rather than after Code Enforcement is involved; and inquired if there is a form a person can get their neighbor to sign allowing an RV to be parked less than 10 feet from the property line.  County Attorney Scott Knox replied no, because it is an unlawful delegation of authority to the neighbors. 

 

Commissioner Bolin inquired if the Board can get a definition of the surface of a pad; with Mr. Bowen responding pads can be constructed of aggregate concrete, asphalt, gravel, masonry road base, or other similar-type materials that can be utilized to support RV’s and equipment. 

 

Richard Scalise stated the property adjacent to his home is larger than a half-acre; in December 2006, his neighbor put an RV on the property; towards the end of December, people moved into the RV; and it took three months to get the people evicted through Code Enforcement.  He advised on April 19^th another resident moved into the RV; those residents were not evicted until May 13 2007; and more residents moved into the RV on June 3, 2007 and were evicted on July 2, 2007.  He advised the fourth residents moved into the RV on November 15, 2007 and were not evicted until January 6, 2008.  He noted a fifth resident moved into the RV on March 5, 2008 and was finally removed on April 30, 2008; on May 4, 2008 another person moved into the RV and they were removed by Code Enforcement on May 21^st; and the last resident moved into the RV on June 1^st and were evicted on June 11^th.  He stated the RV has been removed from the property, but it has disappeared in the past and then reappeared; and he does not know if it has been sold or just moved off site.  He advised the fifth-wheel has continuously been hooked up to electricity from the house by an extension cord; but eventually the homeowner ran a conduit from the back of the house; and there is also a water hose hooked up to a water line.  He stated RVs should not be able to be lived in; Code Enforcement allows RV’s to be lived in for 14 days every 30 days; but if people are continuously living in RV’s something should be done by Code Enforcement.

 

Robert Harper stated he is against the proposed ordinance as it is currently written; the requirement of a half-acre or less only applies to certain sections; and inquired if the half-acre or less lot size applies to the whole ordinance; with Mr. Bowen responding affirmatively.  Mr. Harper stated he understands the need to connect RV’s and boats to electricity in order to charge batteries and to control climate inside to prevent mold and mildew; and maybe the ordinance can be revised to include water and sewer connection.  He stated the biggest problem with the ordinance is that there are large and small recreational vehicles; the ordinance currently states only one recreational vehicle can be parked on a lot; the one vehicle per lot can be a canoe, jet ski, pop-up camper, or an RV; and he proposes to rewrite the ordinance to divide out certain vehicles by height.  He stated he knows a lot of people who have poured a pad within the 10-foot setback and have two small jet skis parked on it; and that will be illegal if the ordinance is adopted.  Mr. Bowen advised the Code specifically allows for a boat trailer without the boat, within the side setback in the front yard in addition to an RV or boat on a driveway.  Mr. Harper stated the ordinance states there can only be one in the front yard, provided it is parked in the driveway area and sets back a minimum of 10 feet.  Mr. Bowen stated that is one section of the ordinance, and Mr. Harper needs to read further.  Mr. Bowen stated Section G states, “Empty boat trailers and jet ski trailers may be stored in the established front side property line setbacks.”  Mr. Harper stated that only applies to the trailer and not to someone who has two jet skis, or a canoe and a jet ski.  Mr. Bowen stated the trailer would have to be empty.  Chairman Scarborough stated if the language is ambiguous in the ordinance it should be clarified.   Mr. Bowen stated the intent is the empty trailers.  Mr. Harper stated the proposed ordinances should be posted on a website so everyone can have access to the proper

ordinance; and the proposed ordinance he printed off the County’s website several weeks ago is dated July 29, 2008.

 

Ayn Samuelson stated she is the President of the South Patrick Residents Association; and she has been approached by many residents to speak on the issue specifically addressing large RV’s parked parallel to the street in front yards.  She advised when she moved to Brevard County in 1988, the ordinances were more strict and people could not park even a small boat trailer in a front yard; in 2005, South Patrick Residents Association supported loosening the ordinance to allow panel trucks at residences for working people; the Association residents followed the public hearings closely, but did not expect the ordinance to be radically changed and approved at the same hearing; and that act excluded citizens such as herself and many other residents who did not get their voices heard.  She stated it is important to be concerned about her neighbors rights as well as her own; she does not expect her neighbors’ rights or enjoyment to be curtailed at her expense; but what she does on her property affects her neighbors, whether she wants to admit it or not.  She noted if she parks a large RV in her front yard parallel to the street, it adversely affects her neighbor with visual pollution and it can affect the neighbors’ ability to sell their property thereby impacting their rights; and the County’s communities depend on fair ordinances based on how they affect citizens on a daily basis.  She stated South Patrick Residents Association supports that less is more philosophy for codes with reasonable changes that ensure residents freedom to enjoy their homes and toys without curtailing the neighbors’ rights to enjoy their properties.

 

Marilynn Collins stated she is a member of South Patrick Residents Association and the director for Area Four; she deals with phone calls from her neighbors inquiring about problems with zoning and trash cans not picked up and yards not mowed; and zoning is a gray area because it is very subjective.  She stated the problem comes with a lot of homes in her area because they have single car garages; and that is where people have poured side pads in order to park a second car or a small boat.  She stated she agrees there should be criteria on sizes of recreational vehicles; and a jet ski or small boat is not a giant motor home that blocks the sun from the yard and the view of the neighbors. 

 

Patricia Blaha stated she is in favor of the proposed ordinance; her neighbor is very close to the side of her house and has a six foot fence; and towering above the fence is a gigantic bus size RV that stretches from the front of the house to the back.  She stated the RV is all she can see from her kitchen window; there is not an inch between the fence and RV; and her neighbor is using the RV as an extension to the house.  She noted the ordinance is good, but it does not go far enough.

 

Buddy Spakes stated the last speaker made him realize it is impossible to make anybody happy; and no matter what is done, somebody is going to complain.  He stated previous speakers have talked about property values; and it is hard to sell a house when a prospective buyer drives up to the house and a hateful man or woman comes out screaming.  He noted some speakers complained about the view; when he sees a boat or an RV he thinks it is a great view;  and  people  who  complain  should  buy an  RV or a boat and see what it is all about.  He

stated the Board should let citizens vote on whether or not there should be restrictions on parking recreational vehicles.

 

Nancy Swickert stated she is the one in the newspaper with the motor home parked in front of three bedrooms in her front yard; she had moved the RV to storage after getting complaints from her neighbors; and it was in storage for a long time at $60 per month.  She stated when the ordinance was revised in 2005 she did not want to park her RV in the front yard; Code Enforcement and Zoning told her she could put the RV anywhere she wanted to; and she was very unhappy about it.  She stated she knows of one neighbor who has complained about the RV; and another neighbor told her to plant flowers in front of the RV and it would not bother them. 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated the Board can go into questions at this time, or it could email Mr. Bowen questions to which he can respond in writing at the next meeting. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve scheduling the second public hearing for September 16, 2008 at 5:00 p.m. to consider language changes for Section 62-2117, Parking, Locating, and Storage of RV’s and RV Equipment.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated while she has been campaigning on Merritt Island she has taken 37 pictures in a three-block area of different motor homes and boats in front yards and side yards; and she would like to find out from Mr. Bowen which ones are legal and which ones are not.

 

 

Mortimer Rothstein stated he has been before the Board six times; and a lot of people are present who do not care about paying for water, but do care about paying an impact fee.

 

Jim Arpino stated he approves acquiring the property because it has always been there for the community; and when it was sold to the County, it was leased to make sure the people of Snug Harbor had a place to put RV’s and boats.

 

Alida Hirschfeld stated in 2002 she had her house water tested by an independent water company and the County Board of Health; she was told her water had bacteria in it and was unsafe for human consumption; and it was not potable.  She noted on January 28, 2003, she and several other residents went before the County Commission to explain the deplorable water conditions; Commissioner Higgs and Commissioner Scarborough voted to evaluate the purchase of the water and sewer facilities; on March 16, 2004, several residents were before the Board again asking to either purchase or condemn the water and sewer facility; and on May 18,  2004  the  Board  discussed  the  purchase.   She  stated  during  the  May  18, 2004 Board

meeting  the  Board  also  discussed the RV and  boat storage area,  which is in the sewer plant area; and Utilities Director Dick Martens also discussed the possibility after two or three years down the road, when the transfer was complete, the community would be able to get the amenity back.  She stated the water and sewer area is landlocked; it was approved by the Board that a quick condemnation would be done; and now the community has potable water and she is grateful to the Board. 

 

Jenerita Aldrich stated she is a member of the Master Board; she believes the rights of those in the minority should be protected, but the majority should be represented; and the property should be returned to the community.  She stated the roads to access the property are all private roads and they all belong to the Master Board of Snug Harbor; some aspects of the other offer looked good to the residents of Snug Harbor; but the problem with that is there is no guarantee that particular offer would be accepted because the Board would have to go to competitive bidding; and the reason the residents made the offer in the first place is the possibility that the property would be developed.  She stated she would like the Board to support the offer to purchase the property.

 

Commissioner Colon inquired if the residents of Snug Harbor would be protected in the amount of money they will have to pay for the property every year.  Ms. Aldrich replied she feels the residents would be protected; Snug Harbor is in a very good financial situation; most major projects that have had to be done have been done over the last few years with small increases in the rate; and the rate for the water and sewer facility would be minimal with most of it being funded by the people who actually use the facility.  Commissioner Colon inquired what the rate would be; with Ms. Aldrich responding approximately 75 cents per month, but the president of Snug Harbor would be able to better answer that question.

 

Theodore Wood stated he is present to see if the Board decides to accept Snug Harbor Master Association’s offer to purchase a County-owned property for the purpose of renting parking spaces for recreation conveyances; the Master Association conducted a survey of the property owners to determine what percentage of those persons were in favor of making the purchase; the County decided to conduct a survey of its own; and the result of that survey disclosed that the preponderance of the voters who chose to make the purchase were in the majority.  He stated although the County conducted a fair and unbiased poll, the particulars related to the acquisition of the conveyance through the property owners by the Master Association was heavily biased and grossly misleading; it was indicated that there would be an income from 52 parking spaces rented for 12 months of the year and the number would be increased to 58 spaces; and the income from the previous year indicated the accumulative number of parking spaces rented for a full 12 months totaled only 38.  He advised the financial report for the year ending December 31, 2007 indicated an excess of expenses over revenues to the tune of $4,649; and in the light of today’s energy crunch it is unlikely there would be an increase in demand for parking spaces.  He stated the issue should be tabled to a later date so the people of Snug Harbor have an opportunity to discover the truths relating to the issue. 

 

Dave LaFave stated he is President of the Master Association of Snug Harbor, and Vice President of the Condo  Association;  and  he is in favor of the acquisition on behalf of the entire

membership of both boards.   He stated  Mr. Woods’ numbers are incorrect; the audited records show that at the end of 2007, looking at the 18 months the property was rented, and kept all expenses associated with the property separate, there was an excess of $451; and the aim was to only cover expenses.  He stated the offer that was submitted had a financial analysis, which was done conservatively; assuming 58 spaces were rented, the impact to residents at large would amount to 71 cents per month; if 20 percent of the income was lost by losing renters, the rate would be another 75 cents per month; if all the renters were lost, the impact would only be $5.00 per month; and when looking at the benefit to the community, the cost risk is positive.  He stated the objectives are to have a rental space for the residents that need it and the avoidance of residential or commercial development that would increase traffic causing safety problems and hastening deterioration of the roads; another objective is the acquisition of a small storage building on the water plant which would provide needed storage; and the last objective is the enhanced value and sale ability of Snug Harbor property that substantially benefits all residents.  He stated resale value in Snug Harbor has continued at a brisk pace despite a depressed real estate market; there are 487 units in the combined village and lakes; 22 units were sold in 2007; and 2008 is going at the same rate.  He advised the Master Association has no intention of utilizing the property for financial gain; and only low intensity usage would be permitted.  He stated community support was realized through a survey, resulting in 87 percent in favor; and the County survey resulted in 68 percent in favor.

 

Commissioner Colon stated she wants to make sure it is on the record that the residents will be protected and will not see a drastic change in regards to how much they would have to pay per month; and inquired if Mr. Lafave can elaborate on if there was another election in regards to the 82 percent of the residents who were in favor of the acquisition.  Mr. Lafave responded the internal survey was conducted by the Chairwoman who chaired the annual elections of officers; secret ballots were placed in a box controlled in the office; the ballots were opened and counted in public; and the result was an 82 percent favorable vote. 

Chris Draper, Esquire, stated he represents Snug Harbor; the Master Association conducted a survey to see if it was something the owners wanted; out of approximately 470 unit owners, 270 actually responded; it is significant to get more than half the people to respond to a survey; and out of the 270 that responded, 82 percent were in favor of the purchase.  He stated the residents want to lock in their cost so that they do not see an escalation in costs in the next five or six years, or that the property gets sold.  He stated the Master Association has the legal right to borrow money; it can borrow from a bank, internally, or from a private person; and the Association also has $80,000 to $90,000 in accrued capital.  He stated financing is not a problem, even if all the people stopped using the spot to park their RV; and if that happened, the cost would only be $5 per person per month.  He stated the residents do not want a development occurring in the middle of their 35 year old residence; and the residents believe it is better to go through with the sale and continue the use the property has had, which is low density and good for the residents. 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated it is a cash transaction, and inquired if Mr. Draper is asking the Board to hold paper; with Mr. Draper responding no.  Chairman Scarborough inquired if Mr. Draper  was  contemplating  reverter  clauses  that  put  on  those  types of  restrictions; with Mr.

Draper responding it is his understanding that someone on the Commission said if the sale went through they would want a reverter clause.  Chairman Scarborough stated he cannot talk to one of the Commissioners but he heard one of the residents mention a reverter clause; and inquired if it is something that has been contemplated.

 

Mr. Lafave stated the reverter clause is something the Master Association volunteered in its offer.  Chairman Scarborough stated the reverter clause would be if there is some type of development on the property.  Mr. Lafave stated the offer originally mentioned deed restrictions; and County Attorney Scott Knox indicated there would have to be a reverter clause, which would be the enforcement mechanism of the deed restrictions.  Chairman Scarborough stated the County’s role would be only in the reverter and not with the deed restriction; it may be problematic with the deed restriction since other properties have already been sold; and if the Board goes to the reverter clause, the one thing that would concern him is there may be a moment in time when there are other forms of transportation and there will not be a need for RV’s.  He stated the value of the reverter is two-fold; one is that development is prevented on the property; and the other is that the residents are able to use it to be able to park recreational vehicles. 

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired if the reverter clause means the property would go back to the County.  Mr. Draper stated to make the offer more palatable to the County it would be restricted to low-density non-commercial use; and if the Association started using it in some other manner then the County could require it to revert back.  Commissioner Voltz stated if it has been paid for, it does not make sense to let the property revert back to the County.  Mr. Draper stated he would prefer the offer be modified.  Chairman Scarborough stated a reverter allows the continuation of a use for a particular purpose; his concern is that the Board does not want to define in the affirmative what the use is, but perhaps in the negative that would not devalue the adjoining properties. 

 

Tom Richards stated he believes the proposal is beneficial to the community; and he is the shadowy character who materialized to finance the purchase.  He stated after he made his commitment he talked to some area banks and made sure the community was getting the best deal it could get; and he will meet his commitment to put his money where his mouth is.

 

Commissioner Voltz stated she has spent a lot of time with some of the residents and she understands their concerns; but she also knows there were some concerns on if the surveys were valid; and she thought if the County conducted a survey it would be more beneficial to everybody and to the Commissioners.  She stated she supports the purchase because it is good for the community and the residents. 

 

Chairman Scarborough inquired if the issue will come back to the Board after the contract is obtained.  Mr. Martens stated he and the County Attorney put together a contract for sale and purchase; and there is a resolution prepared to authorize it.  Chairman Scarborough stated if a Commissioner has a question with the final contract, he or she can inquire further. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, acting as the Governing Board of the Barefoot Bay Water and Sewer District, to accept the offer from the Snug Harbor Master Association for purchase of the former water and wastewater treatment plant sites; adopt Resolution declaring the parcels surplus and authorize transfer of the property; and direct the Contract be brought back to the Board for approval.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

The Board recessed from 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.

 

 

PUBLIC    HEARING,   RE:     ORDINANCE     AMENDING     SECTION   106-5,   WRECKER 

     AND   TOWING    SERVICES,    VEHICLE    REDEMPTION,    MAXIMUM     FEES     AND

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider ordinance amending Section 106-5, Wrecker and Towing Services, Vehicle Redemption, Maximum Fees, and Resolution Adopting Changes in Maximum Towing Rates.

 

Bobby Bowen, Code Enforcement Manager, stated the proposed ordinance is an item the Board heard in March 2008 and tabled the resolution portion for further language to help protect consumers; and this morning he received a call from the Director of Consumer Protections from Miami-Dade County wanting a copy of the proposed ordinance.  He stated one complaint has been that customers have not been able to pick up their vehicles in a timely manner; private property towings are already addressed in the State Statute about responding within an hour after being called and they have to be available from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; and a violation of that is a felony.  He stated Code Enforcement used the same language as it relates to regular non-consensual tows in which a vehicle is towed from the street by a police officer or at an accident scene; and it has nothing to do with private property. 

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired if by private property Mr. Bowen is referring to a shopping center parking lot; with Mr. Bowen responding affirmatively, or even a residence.  Mr. Bowen stated the language was changed to mirror the State Statute, but it would be prosecuted as a misdemeanor if there is a violation of the ordinance and it would also be prosecuted the same as a misdemeanor for violating the maximum towing rate schedule that is established.  He stated the proposed ordinance is a wonderful tool for law enforcement and is something that has been needed because of rogue companies that do not want to play by the rules; and it will be enforced by law enforcement and Code Enforcement will not be involved at all.  He stated none of the rates in the proposed ordinance has anything to do with any revenue source for the County; and it is strictly for the tow companies.

 

Chuck McLelland stated he distributed to the Board State Statute 713.78 and he would like the Statute referred to in the ordinance after, “or authorized driver or agent,” because if a driver parks   on   private property or is  towed by the police department,  by  State Statute,  the towing

company cannot release it to the driver or an agent without a notarized statement.  Mr. Bowen stated that is not a problem. 

 

Mr. McLelland stated the resolution was tabled in March for a three percent increase; when working with Mr. Bowen years ago, he asked that a fuel surcharge be put in the resolution, but it did not go through; at that time diesel fuel was below $1.50 per gallon; and today diesel is $5.00 per gallon, which is a 200 percent increase in diesel costs.  He stated if he gets called by Highway Patrol for a service call at Viera Boulevard and if he gets there and finds nothing, he has burned $25.00 worth of fuel; and the resolution allows him to charge $51.35.  He noted three percent is a help, but it is not covering the rising costs of fuel and insurance. 

 

John Rios stated there is a one hour request in the proposed ordinance, and inquired if that is when someone calls after they discover their car is gone, or if it is when someone is physically at the towing site to pick up.  Mr. Bowen responded the one hour response would be incumbent upon the tow operator to respond within an hour of the request to pick up their vehicle.  Mr. Rios stated he is located in Indialantic and inquired if it is when someone calls his shop in Melbourne, or when they are at the site in Indialantic; with Mr. Bowen responding it is when he gets the call.  Mr. Rios inquired how long he should wait if the vehicle owner does not show up; with Mr. Bowen responding a reasonable period of time will cover the tow operator because he was there within the hour.  Mr. Rios stated other language in the ordinance states on private property towing, “must be open for purpose of redemption of vehicles,” and inquired if that means coming to a towing yard within the hour that a call is made.  Mr. Bowen replied if Mr. Rios is towing vehicles Monday through Friday for non-private property tows would be from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; if towing on a Saturday, Mr. Rios still has to respond within one hour, but he does not have to man the building.

 

Lee Daniel stated his only concern is that he would like the Board to allow tow operators to charge a fuel surcharge; every invoice he gets from his suppliers has a fuel surcharge; tow operators get a raise based on the consumer price index; but insurance and fuel far out pace that.  Chairman Scarborough inquired how Mr. Daniel would structure a fuel surcharge, and if anyone else is doing it in the State.  Mr. Daniel replied he does not know about other counties, but Brevard County is not; he is getting ready to start charging it in his private business; and it is going to be on a percentage basis of about ten percent of the total bill.  Chairman Scarborough inquired if Mr. Daniel could charge by the mile.  Mr. Daniel stated it is directly related and will be a percentage; there will be a base and a mileage; and if it is a percentage of the total bill it will work out to be about the same.  Mr. Bowen inquired what would happen if the price of gasoline or diesel were to fall; with Mr. Daniel responding it is not going to drop drastically. 

 

Mr. McLelland stated his rollback trucks are getting eight miles per gallon, which is over 60 cents per mile for fuel.  Chairman Scarborough what Mr. McLelland was previously paying; with Mr. McLelland responding when working with Mr. Bowen on the original ordinance, diesel fuel was below $1.50 per gallon.  Mr. Bowen stated it is not a problem to add a fuel surcharge to the ordinance if the Board desires to go in that direction.  Chairman Scarborough stated the issue of fuel is the ratio of how far a person has to travel as opposed to just being across the board.  County Manager Peggy Busacca advised the ordinance currently shows the surcharge is $3.12

per mile after ten miles; and it is costing Mr. McLelland $3.50 for eight miles.  Mr. Bowen noted that is what the consumer would be charged, so the tow operators do get some compensation.  Commissioner Nelson inquired if that rate includes labor; with Mr. Bowen responding no, it is just mileage.  Mr. Bowen noted under a class C wrecker, the mileage is $5.37 per mile beyond a ten mile range. 

 

Chairman Scarborough inquired how Mr. Bowen would recommend structuring the fuel surcharge.  Mr. Bowen stated a percentage of the tow bill would be better.  Chairman Scarborough inquired if the Board could add another 50 cents per mile.  Mr. McLelland stated the service calls are what hurts him the most because he may have to drive 20 miles one way and then have to drive back.  Mr. Bowen stated Mr. McLelland is talking about service charges; and the issue is non-consensual towing that has nothing to do with service charges.  Mr. McLelland stated he is talking about police calls because he does not do private property calls.

 

Commissioner Colon inquired if Mr. Bowen would explain what the Board is able to do by law and why it is discussing towing rates and fees.  Mr. Bowen explained in 1999 the State of Florida mandated that all counties establish a maximum towing rate; Brevard County was the third in the State to do that; and the towing rate was established with the help of the Highway Patrol and local tow operators.  Ms. Busacca inquired how someone would be affected by the maximum rate.  Mr. Bowen replied the maximum rate pertains to all non-consensual towing when the driver is not present and has no say in the matter of what happens to the vehicle. 

 

Mr. McLelland read aloud language in the Statute, which states a municipality can set the rates.  Mr. Bowen noted that is the language in the heading of the ordinance and the resolution.  Commissioner Voltz stated under Class B wrecker it states, “Hourly rate for waiting or working time on scene after the first 30 minutes”; and inquired what happens in the first 30 minutes.  Mr. Bowen advised the first 30 minutes are free.  He commented on an instance with an accident where the tow operator cannot immediately get to the vehicle.  Mr. McLelland stated it is working time also and not just waiting time; and the first 30 minutes is included in the base rate for the tow. 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated the mileage rate is beyond the ten miles, but that additional cost is being impacted at the front end; if talking about an additional 50 cents per mile it could be an additional $10 for a 20-mile round trip.  Mr. Daniel stated the ten miles is only from the scene back to where the vehicle is being towed.  Mr. Bowen noted in Section Seven of the resolution, mileage rates are towed miles one way from point of pick up.  Ms. Busacca stated the maximum base rate could be raised by $10.00.  Mr. McLelland stated if the base rate is raised, it would be a ten percent increase; and if there was a ten percent fuel surcharge on the entire bill it would be given to the tow operators.  Commissioner Nelson inquired how that would be calculated; with Mr. McLelland responding it would basically be the charges of the base rate and the mileage rate.  Chairman Scarborough inquired if only the base rate and the mileage would get the ten percent surcharge.  Mr. McLelland stated he does not think the labor or storage should be included; and the only thing incurred on the scene is the base tow and mileage and any labor time on scene.  Mr. Bowen stated he would hate to see the surcharge tacked onto the entire bill because  there  is other  things  going on; and the easiest thing to  do would be to  increase  the

mileage rate.  Commissioner Nelson inquired if tow operators track the mileage on each call; with Mr. McLelland responding affirmatively, but if it is under ten miles it is not documented.  Mr. Bowen stated tow operators have to provide consumers with an itemized list of all the charges, which is in the resolution.  Chairman Scarborough stated a new column could be added for just fuel surcharge of 50 per mile both going and coming; and as the price of diesel changes, the surcharge can change.

 

There being no further comments or objections, motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt Ordinance amending Chapter 106, “Traffic and Vehicles” of the Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida; specifically amending Section 106-5, Wrecker and Towing Services, Maximum Fees, by providing for vehicle redemption and requiring tow companies to release a vehicle within one hour of a request to redeem the vehicle; providing for conflicting provisions; providing for severability; providing for area encompassed; and providing for an effective date; and adopt Resolution for language and maximum towing rate changes for Section 106-5, Wrecker and Towing Services, Vehicle Redemption, and Maximum fees; and increase the mileage rate an additional 50 cents coming and going.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Marlene Adams stated she understands the condos and manufactured homes in a park are rated at .42 of a unit; nurseries with residences are rated at .42 also, and she assumes that is a full residence in a nursery, which is just like her house or anyone else’s house, which also is not included as a residence in a mobile home park, which happens a lot; and that was part of her complaint in the past about residents being in a mobile home park not being assessed anything.  She stated she would like to hear the Board’s explanation or clarification. 

 

Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten stated before the Board is the final assessment as updated from the Workshop; and the difference between what the Board received at the Workshop and what it has today is that Mr. Burton moved the condos to the first category of single-family home.  He stated a traditional single-family home represents a unit of one, and everything else in the other two categories are a percentage of that, but all are considered residences; for example, a condo that fits in the category of a manufactured home is an equivalent of .42 of a single-family residence; and that is what the chart is actually relating to.  Ms. Adams stated she understands it is a rate unit; .42 is what that would be rated as, as opposed to a 1.0 for a single-family; but many times, it states nurseries with a residence, and that would also include mobile homes with a residence; and mobile homes many times have a park residence home that is not a mobile home.  Ms. Busacca inquired if Ms. Adams is suggesting that in a mobile home park there is a stick-built house in the middle; with Ms. Adams responding some of them are block houses and she has seen them.  Ms. Busacca stated because of the way it is labeled by the Property Appraiser, Ms. Adams is concerned the house would  be appraised at the  lower mobile home rate.   Commissioner  Voltz inquired if  there is  a

particular house in a mobile home park that Ms. Adams is referring to; with Ms. Adams responding in the Skidmore Mobile Home Park. 

 

Mr. Whitten stated in looking at the Property Appraiser’s database the use code would be a single-family residence.  Ms. Adams noted the address is one address for the mobile home park and the house is in the back of the park.  Mr. Whitten stated the Property Appraiser’s use code is applied to each individual residence; and unless there is a specific example, the house in the mobile home park would be coded as a single-family residence.  Ms. Adams stated the house is coded as a mobile home park with a single-family residence within it.  Fire Rescue Chief Bill Farmer stated it is an issue for the Property Appraiser; it should be rated as a single-family home; the Property Appraiser may or may not be aware of it; and that is why there is the errors in solvency issue.  He stated if Fire Rescue is aware of something like that, it has the mechanism in the ordinance to fix it; and he will contact the Property Appraiser’s office to look into the Skidmore Mobile Home Park. 

 

Ms. Adams stated she has a concern over the assessment being collected at all on the tax bills based on the mechanics of how it was done two years ago and how it is being done now; and she has an issue with the agenda item stating the Board is going to approve a draft, but in essence it is approving the final rates and the approval of a $110,000 expenditure, which is misleading to the public.  She stated two months ago it was found that the letters the Board sent out in 2006 for rate Resolutions 06-236 and 06-237 were mailed late; and people were not given 20 days to write written complaints.  She stated on March 13^th Attorney Knox sent an email to Attorney Allen Watts stating the position of the legal office was that any deficiency in meeting the 20-day notice requirements brings the question of the Boards ability to continue to use the uniform method.  She advised according to the Department of Revenue if there is any change in the methodology then it is to be treated as a new assessment levied for the first time, and that requires a new resolution of intent before January 1^st, or with an agreement with the Property Appraiser and Tax Collector before March 1^st; but that did not happen with the change in the methodology.  She commented on the case law of Atlantic Golf Community versus the City of Port St. Lucie.  She noted what is disturbing is Brevard County’s Ordinance 06-045, which created the MSBU for the Fire Services Assessment, and it nailed the rates; and the Board is nailing down new rates but it has not created the new ordinance.  She stated the Ordinance states, “If the assessment is increased or decreased from that imposed in the prior year, the procedures required by State law for the establishment and collection of a new non-ad valorem assessment, including a public hearing if required, shall be followed”; and ‘shall’ means ‘mandatory.’  She stated that is in the County’s own ordinance; the County Attorney’s office knows when the Board has to do a change like this it has do a new resolution of intent and start over; and the County did the same thing for Solid Waste this year. 

 

Assistant County Attorney Morris Richardson stated Section 197.3632 of the Florida Statutes, which governs the use of the uniform method for collection of this type of special assessment, does require a notice of intent when levying a special assessment for the first time before January 1^st.  He noted it is important that the notice does not have the rates or methodology as it is just a notice of intent to use that method this first time it is done; and that was done in 2006 when the assessment was first adopted.  He stated any time the assessment rate is going to be changed a different part of the same section is looked at; subsequently, if the rates are
otherwise changed, then there has to be another hearing before September 15^th, which includes the newspaper notice; and that is the notice that has to be given when changing an existing assessment.  He stated the Board is changing an existing assessment; and it is not a new assessment to fund fire services, it is a change to an existing assessment just changing some of rates within the residential side of the assessment. 

 

Mr. Whitten advised at the July 17^th Workshop the Board approved the procurement actions and approved the final rates with the one adjustment being moving the condos to the first tier, which is the single-family tier. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated one question he is not sure was answered was related to methodology; and inquired if that has been reviewed.  He inquired if the Board is changing how it calculates who gets what rate, is it a change of methodology and does it trigger any other requirements.  Mr. Richardson stated it is a change of methodology but it does not trigger the resolution of intent to use; the resolution of intent only says the County is going to use a special assessment to fund fire services; and it does not have any methodology or rate information within it.  He stated the Board is going to need to adopt a new non-ad valorem assessment roll prior to September 15^th, which requires doing a mail notice and newspaper notice 20 days prior to the hearing and then a change in the ordinance, which will be accomplished at the same meeting, and the ordinance change will need to be advertised. 

 

Ms. Adams stated an opinion of the Department of Revenue reads, “To summarize this point, a first time levy is defined as a levy for a year not previously levied or adopted.  Since the assessment is levied for a period of years there is an issue whether one of the four factors in Section 197.3632 4a is triggered,” which is the resolution of intent requirement.  “For the purposes of this opinion, the expansion of the boundaries of an MSBU and the affecting of the newly affected owners might constitute a first time levy, which would trigger the notice requirements. If the method of calculation of the assessment is not common to the currently levying MSBU.  For the first time levy, the resolution of intent to use the uniform method of collection must be properly advertised and adopted prior to January  1^st.”  She stated the bottom line is the State Statute says the resolution of intent has to be for first time levies; and the Ordinance 06-045 says if it is increased or decreased it has to be treated as a new assessment.

 

Mr. Richardson stated the ordinance and Statute use different language; the ordinance language says it is treated as a new assessment and State law requirements are followed; and he reads that to mean the mailed notice, ad notice, and hearing prior to September 15^th, but it does not mean levied for the first time, which is the only thing that would trigger the resolution that would be required prior to January.  Ms. Adams inquired about the case law; and stated the court ruled that each time the stormwater fee was increased, or the rate was modified, such new assessment was levied for the first time.  Mr. Richardson replied that case law actually addressed the notice that is required later in the Statute dealing with the newspaper notice, mailed notice, and the requirement that the Board hold a hearing prior to September 15^th; and he does not think it addresses the resolution of intent.  Ms. Adams stated what it boils down to is citizens have to sue the County to follow the Statutes and its own Codes; and that is what she has seen for a year now. 

 

Buddy Spakes stated he has seen the Board waste money on a consultant and attorney for a second opinion to cover up the issue.  He stated he has studied the fire assessment fee and he knows what the Board has done is wrong; he knows the letters were late the first time; and the Board has to start over to continue the assessment.  He stated everything Ms. Adams presented states it is being levied for the first time; the Board needs to quit wasting money trying to cover it up; and everybody knows it is illegal, but the Board is trying to keep the money.  He noted the issue can only hurt the two Commissioners who are running for office; the idea in the community is that the Board is taking from the people; and the people are ready to take from the Board.

 

Chairman Scarborough stated he would like to have the Department of Revenue opinion in writing as soon as possible.  He stated he feels more comfortable having the condos in the single-family as opposed to the manufactured home.  He stated the Board will stand in recess for five minutes to give Commissioner Nelson time to review the spreadsheet.

 

The Board recessed from 2:34 p.m. to 2:37 p.m.

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to approve sending draft Notice of Public Hearing on Brevard County Fire Services Special Assessments; and approve final assessment rate methodology.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated he has a question about the annual increase or decrease; with Solid Waste, the Board used an across-the-board increase over a five-year period; and the question was not raised as to changing a rate without having a rate hearing.  He inquired if the Board used that same methodology and did an across-the-board increase over a five-year period, what would it look like.  He stated instead of having a 15 percent decrease and then no change, and then another increase, which are two different changes in the rates. 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated he thinks people understand that in the future there needs to be increases; and the Board has done the projections and unless there are  some changes these can be anticipated. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated if the Board sets a rate that is good for three or four years and it is based on financial projections, the Board does not have to deal with a rate increase or have someone say the Board gave an increase but did not give the citizens a right to speak.  Ms. Busacca stated there is a date certain that it would require an increase.  Mr. Richardson stated the 3.4 percent method would continue annually until it was needed to be revisited because of budgetary concerns; and the authorization is for an amount not to exceed, so it would be a 3.4 percent increase each year beginning in 2011.  Commissioner Nelson stated it would be his preference not to do that; and there could be a 3.4 percent increase from now until the end of time.  Chairman Scarborough inquired if Commissioner Nelson is going to alter the 15 percent for 2009 and no change in 2010, or is it just the discussion on 2011.  Mr. Whitten stated the first page of the spreadsheet is what is before the Board today, which is the 15 percent reduction; the second two pages are a five percent reduction for next year and no change to the reduction in 2010; and zero percent annual increases beginning in 2011.   He stated  the footnote states a

zero percent annual increase through 2017, but 11.3 percent increase projected in 2018; and the third scenario is a zero percent increase for next year, no change for 2010, and then zero percentage annual increases starting in 2011.  He stated the third scenario does not contemplate a reduction in the rates for next year.  Commissioner Nelson stated what it does is flat line them for an extended period of time.  Commissioner Voltz stated she prefers the first scenario.  Chairman Scarborough advised he prefers the first scenario also.

 

Commissioner Nelson inquired if there is a County Attorney opinion that it does not trip across the threshold of any changes in assessment not requiring additional notice.  Mr. Richardson replied it is part of the written opinion that Mr. Lewis from Burton and Associates is going to provide; and the Board’s upcoming hearing would be the hearing at which that increase is heard because that increase is going to be specifically noticed in advance so that people have a chance to be heard and will be on notice for the future. 

 

Ms. Busacca stated the letter talks about 2012 to 2013, but because it says it will continue to increase each year thereafter, no notice would be required after the 2012/2013 fiscal year.   Mr. Richardson stated that is the opinion of Mr. Lewis.  County Attorney Scott Knox stated it may behoove the Board to go ahead with the proposal that provides a 15 percent decrease and no change in 2010; and before 2011 rolls around, the Board may be able to get an opinion from the appropriate agency, whether it be the Attorney General or the Department of Revenue saying a notice does not have to be made once it has been done the first time.  Commissioner Voltz stated she agrees with Attorney Knox.

 

Chairman Scarborough requested Attorney Knox to repeat his recommendation.  Attorney Knox stated the Board can either do the 15 percent decrease this year with no change for 2010, and in the meantime ask for an Attorney General’s opinion, and the Board would have to do it again in 2011; or the Board can do what Mr. Burton has proposed which is 15 percent in 2009, no change in 2010, and 3.4 percent thereafter and ask for an Attorney General’s opinion.  Chairman Scarborough stated he would support the first scenario because it answers Commissioner Nelson’s question; and the Board has been criticized about doing things without notice. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to approve first option, 15 percent reduction in 2009, no change in 2010, and request an opinion concerning the notice from the appropriate agency, the Attorney General or the Department of Revenue, prior to 2011.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  Commissioner Colon’s absence was noted during the vote.

 

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired about the $110,000 that Ms. Adams mentioned.  Commissioner Nelson stated it is the value of the mail out, and the mail out has to be done; and Ms. Adams’ point was if the Board is going to go in a different direction, it should not be doing the mail outs.  Commissioner Voltz stated Ms. Adams was also mentioning that the percentage was set in stone as what was going to be the final assessment rate.  Attorney Knox stated Ms. Adams was trying to make the point that by sending out a notice saying the rate is going to be set at a certain  level,  the  Board  has  made  its  decision  without  a  public  hearing;  and  the Board is

required by law to send out that proposed rate, but it does not have to keep it at that rate should the time of the public hearing and it is decided to change it and go with another formula.  Chairman Scarborough stated it is like any other public hearing in which an ordinance is advertised and if the Board makes a substantial change from that ordinance it cannot go beyond it because it was not properly advertised.  Attorney Knox stated theoretically the Board could decrease the rate, but it could not be increased.

 

Mr. Richardson inquired if it is the Board’s intention that it is going to set the rate this year at minus 15 percent and it is going to stay at that rate until further action and hearing of the Board, but it is not going to be limited to just this year and next year; and for example, if the rate still works in three years, the rate will remain the same.  Chairman Scarborough stated that is correct, it takes an additional action on the Board with the full notice to change it.

 

Chairman Scarborough stated Mike Burton of Burton and Associates has done a remarkable job; when he sat down with Mr. Burton he was able to have all his questions answered; and for him it has been an enlightening exercise.  Commissioner Bolin stated she concurs with Chairman Scarborough; and it is enjoyable to work with a consultant who can answer any question on the spot without having to wait days or weeks.

 

 

REPORT, RE:  LIFEGUARD PROGRAM ENHANCEMENT (CONTINUED)

 

Fire Rescue Chief Bill Farmer stated for $66,000, which he has in his current budget, he can enhance the lifeguard program as noted in the document he gave the Board earlier.  Chairman Scarborough stated from that, Chief Farmer will be able to give the Board a read on whether it is working in enough time for the Board to make budgetary decisions in September to see how it should proceed for the next year. 

 

Commissioner Bolin requested Chief Farmer repeat what the $66,000 will buy.  Chief Farmer explained it will get the additional tower in Cocoa Beach, the additional tower in Shepard Park, two additional towers in Lori Wilson Park, two towers at Coconuts, and one tower at Murkshe Park, and an additional tower at Futch Park; and that will give Fire Rescue enough time to know whether or not the Board wants to pick up the program for the October budget.

 

Commissioner Colon inquired if this is the best way to have the enhancement; with Chief Farmer responding after Thursday’s meeting his office got creative with the restructuring and was able to take the budget and with what was already proposed in the ocean rescue, it will be able to be taken forward and continue without any increase to the proposed budget at all.  He stated if in the September program the Board is happy with the lifeguard program and approves the budget, Fire Rescue will be able to run without any additional dollars.  Commissioner Colon stated unless the Board makes any changes to Fire Rescue’s budget, the dollars are already there, which means it could take effect now, or October 1^st; and Chief Farmer explained that he used the same exact dollars and restructured them completely.  Chief Farmer stated with the proposed budget he has presented to the County Manager, Fire Rescue’s budget went down overall by 6.91, which is $5.8 million; but even with that $5.8 million  reduction, every where else

is negative; and if the Board approves Fire Rescue’s proposed budget, it can do the program without a single additional dollar. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to approve enhancing the Lifeguard Program at $66,828, adding eight lifeguard towers, including one tower at Cocoa Beach, one tower at Shepherd Park, two towers at Lori Wilson Park, two towers at Coconuts, one tower at Murkshe Park, and one tower at Futch Park.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider adoption of tentative FY 2008-2009 Ad Valorem Millages.

 

Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten stated before the Board is a request to approve the tentative millages that are outlined in the 2008-2009 tentative budget proposal.  He advised the aggregate operating millage rate is proposed at 5.4472, which is a 10.94 percent decrease from the aggregate rollback, or roll forward, millage rate. 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated he understands the Board does not need to read each one and approve them separately, as it can take a motion as a whole to proceed with the TRIM notice.  Mr. Whitten advised the Board is just approving the attachment. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated Brevard has the most special districts and special funds of any county in the State; because several of those have been reduced, next year when taxable values continue to go down, there is no place to go; and he is afraid the Board is really going to be hurting next year with the ability to operate some of the special districts when money can come from elsewhere.  He stated he had asked Mr. Whitten to take a look at if the Board stayed static in terms of the millages approved last year, what would it look like this year; and inquired what was the difference.  Mr. Whitten stated he emailed two different scenarios; one was the General Fund as proposed in the tentative budget and all of the other millages at the 2007-2008 rates; that is with the exception of the Merritt Island Operating, which was a positive difference of $2.7 million; and in other words, the revenue loss would be $2.7 million less than what it is in the tentative budget.  He stated the other scenario was that all the millages, including the General Fund at the 2007-2008 rates, with the exception of Merritt Island Operating, and that is a negative of $103,000; and that would cause the Board to lose more operating revenue. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated his biggest fear is that next year there will be no where to go; Road and Bridge’s districts took another hit this year from last year; and inquired if the Board is going back further than what was actually required by Amendment 1. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated one concern she has is the Mosquito Control and how bad the mosquitoes are; if the Board begins cutting Mosquito Control’s budget by 15 percent, what it is going to do to that Department; and she thinks the Board needs to look at that.  Chairman Scarborough  stated the Board has to demonstrate  to the public that it is doing the best it can to

follow through with Amendment 1, but it does not want to punish the public.  Commissioner Voltz stated it is about prioritizing and what is important.  Chairman Scarborough inquired if Commissioner Voltz would like to keep Mosquito Control intact; with Commissioner Voltz responding affirmatively. 

 

County Manager Peggy Busacca stated after the Board decides, it will take staff a few minutes to do the recalculations. 

 

Commissioner Nelson inquired what would the advertised percentage change be if the millages were held and consistent with Amendment 1, which reduced the taxable value.  Mr. Whitten replied he is not sure that to be consistent with Amendment 1, the Board wants to go to the roll forward rate because Amendment 1 allows the Board to go up to the roll forward rate.  He stated the second proposal to maintain the general revenue millage as proposed, and set all other millages with the exception of the Merritt Island Operating, at the current rates, it would take the Board from the proposed 5.4472 to 5.5197; the 5.4472 is 10.94 percent below rollback, and the 5.5197 is 9.75 percent below rollback. 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated he has always had a problem voting against a Commissioner on an MSTU that only applied to that Commissioner’s district; but if a Commissioner wants to take one of his or her MSTU’s and do something different with it, he is of the opinion that the Commissioner should not have the constraint of his lack of wisdom; however, the information Mr. Whitten gave him scares him as the Board has not had a full discussion.

Commissioner Bolin stated the South Brevard Recreation District was also almost cut in half.  Chairman Scarborough stated the Board can take one step at a time.  He stated the Board can keep Mosquito Control at the current millage; but there are complexities to that because there is a roll forward and the Board can go above the millage under the roll forward; and inquired what is Commissioner Voltz’s suggestion.  Commissioner Voltz inquired if the Board keeps the millage, will it leave Mosquito Control’s budget the same; with Chairman Scarborough responding no, because the value went down.  Chairman Scarborough stated if the Board wants to do that, it would have to use the roll forward millage.  Mr. Whitten stated there is no tax revenue loss to the Mosquito Control millage; and the revenue would be the same.

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Chairman Scarborough, to maintain the millage and keep the revenue the same for Mosquito Control.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated he would like to know if Commissioner Nelson wants to do anything with his district’s MSTU’s.  Commissioner Nelson stated he would like to hold the District 2 Road and Bridge MSTU at the current revenue.

 

Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Chairman Scarborough, to hold the current level of District 2 Road and Bridge MSTU; and instructed the Assistant County Manager for Management Service to complete the Florida Department of Revenue’s Certifications of Taxable value, Form DR-420.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

Commissioner Bolin stated she would like to discuss the South Brevard Recreation District.  Commissioner Voltz stated she does not support it because recreation is not something the Board needs to be addressing right now, as there are other things to discuss such as Mosquito Control. 

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired if a 15 percent reduction would hurt Parks and Recreation Department.  Parks and Recreation Department Director Don Lusk replied his department carefully went through all of its reductions; everything that has to be done is going to hurt in some fashion; but Parks and Recreation will be able to survive another year; and he is more concerned about what happens next year than this year.  He stated Parks and Recreation is beginning to use its reserve dollars for a referendum in the south end of the County to make sure it is still able to meet its obligations with the new centers that are coming online; and he has a concern for the long term in that area if the economy does not up turn. 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated it is not going to be easy on anybody; banks are laying off thousands of people, the construction industry is dead, and the State has had a massive reduction in the size of its budget; and he thinks what the Board is doing indicates it is part of the larger environment. 

 

Chairman Scarborough inquired if Mr. Whitten could come back to the Board at the end of the meeting with the changes that have been made; with Mr. Whitten responding affirmatively.

 

 

 

Steve Stultz, Central Services Director, stated the item was before the Board in May 2008; having an annual financial audit from an external independent CPA firm is a requirement by Statute and by County Ordinance; and the request is to prove the release of the proposal, but also to establish a committee to evaluate the proposals that are received and also a negotiation committee.

 

Chairman Scarborough inquired if there are any thoughts on the nature of the negotiating committee.  Commissioner Nelson stated it is his understanding that Option 2 is how the Board has done it previously, and he does not have a problem with Option 2.  Commissioner Voltz stated Option 1 says to appoint the existing Internal Audit Committee.  Commissioner Nelson advised the existing Audit Committee is the committee members the Board appoints, and that may be overworking them for this process.  Mr. Stultz stated Option 1 is the Review Committee for the Internal Audit services.  Chairman Scarborough noted those members are from the private industry; and because they are from private industry, he favors Option 1. 

 

Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten advised he had a meeting with the chairman of the Internal Audit Committee in regards to the recommendation; the chairman’s only concern was because they are advisory, he felt is would be sticky getting into the operational issues such as selection of a firm due to the external audit; and he had some hesitation to be appointed as a committee  to select  the  external financial auditing firm.  Chairman Scarborough inquired when

the Board has to make a decision; with Mr. Whitten responding the sooner a decision is made, the more competition the Board will have. 

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired if those on the existing Internal Audit Review Committee are from private industry; with Mr. Whitten responding affirmatively.  Mr. Whitten stated the chairman of the Internal Audit Committee is concerned with regards to the Committee being an advisory board and getting into the operational issues of the County; and the selection is more of an operational internal issue.  Chairman Scarborough stated he would like to have people who are sophisticated enough to know who can do an audit.  Commissioner Nelson inquired if the Board can add a member from the Audit Committee to the existing committee.  Chairman Scarborough stated the Board can add three members including Clerks Finance, the Budget Office, and let the Internal Audit Committee choose one of its members to serve from private industry.

 

Mr. Stultz stated he would recommend three or five members.  Chairman Scarborough stated the Board can ask for three members to include Budget, Finance.  Ms. Busacca inquired if the Assistant County Manager from Management Services would be taken off, because it is currently part of the third option.  Chairman Scarborough stated the Board can do that, and then there will be two from the Internal Audit Committee. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to authorize a Request for Proposals for independent financial audit services; appoint a Selection Committee consisting of a representative of the Finance Department, representative of the Budget Office, two representatives of the Internal Audit Review Committee, and the Assistant County Manager for Management Services.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

Mr. Stultz advised there is a second request to establish a Negotiating Committee.

Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to appoint a Negotiating Committee consisting of a representative of the Finance Department, a representative of the County Attorney’s Office, and the Assistant County Manager for Management Services.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Chairman Scarborough inquired of the breakdown of the increases over the last few years.  Utility Services Director Dick Martens advised in 2005, as he prepared for the 2006 Budget, the Department had been running for several years with very close margins on one, right at what is considered the minimum safety margin, and proposed a four percent countywide wastewater increase for that year followed by a two percent the following year.

 

Chairman Scarborough inquired if he should have two or three pages in his document; with Mr. Martens responding there should be two pages; one page is a table showing all increases since 1988.  Chairman Scarborough stated Mr. Martens had indicated some were for sewer and some

were for water, but the information he has does not break them out.  Mr. Martins advised he did not have a table that had the water increases.  Chairman Scarborough inquired what the water increases were.  Mr. Martens replied Utility Services literally doubled the water revenue between 2001 and 2004 because the water rates were not paying their own way; the department went through an involved process of restructuring the rates and created a conservation rate structure in which there are four different tiers of rates for the water; and over four years it significantly increased the cost someone would pay for the high volumes of water they used during the springtime irrigation.  He stated that was implemented over four years, from 2001 to 2005; because of that, Utility Services did not include the water system in the rates in 2006 and 2007; but in 2007 when Utility Services implemented the 2008 increases, it included the water system.  He stated the three increases on the sewer system total 11 percent over three years, averaging out at 3.6 percent per year; since 2004, the change in revenue, including all the rate increases, total $3.6 million in service fee revenue; and over the same period of time, the County’s expenses went up by $3.8 million.  He stated through 2008, Utility Services increased four people on countywide staff; those four people are gone out of this year’s budget and the department is back at the 2004 staffing level, which drops the revenue increase back to the cost increase; and because of the down turn in the market, what is driving the test this year is the fact that the connection fee revenue is so low.  He stated Utility Services is projecting a very close compliance margin for 2008 and not meeting that for 2009.  He advised he is recommending the Board address the issues; and to do that, he is requesting an increase in the water and sewer fees, and the Board will need to hold a public hearing to do that.  He advised in order to have a public hearing, notice must be provided to the customers on the water and sewer bills; to do that will take five weeks; and if the process starts this week, all the notices will be out a week before the September 9, 2008 hearing.  He stated on Thursday, the Board talked about a number of different options including a South County water plant, or no water plant; the County has been carrying tight margins for many years on the long-term bond rating; and County Finance Director Steve Burdett made that comment himself either last year, or the year before, at the meeting which it was discussed. He stated he would like to ask the Board permission to advertise a rate increase to get it in the process so the program can be can be maintained.

 

Commissioner Voltz stated on Scenario’s 1, 2, and 3, it states, “Additionally, PRMG indicated the one-year delay in the construction schedule of the water plant in 2011/2012 would reduce the three-year rate impact of scenario 1 to 11 percent, eight percent, and three percent”; and inquired if that is for the countywide system; with Mr. Martens responding affirmatively.  Mr. Martens stated the one year delay would allow Utility Services to finance the with two of the three years of the program; and the Department would still be looking at some type of indexing after that because it is at it’s limit as costs go up and the rates need to match.  

 

Chairman Scarborough inquired if it can be delayed for two years.  Mr. Martens stated the original plan was to take a bank note in 2009 to finish the final design of the plant, go to the bond market in 2010 and build the plant in 2010 and 2011; and if construction of the plant can be delayed one year, go to the bond market in 2011, and build it in 2011 and 2012, then it is far enough out in the future to when the debt service actually hits, the County is close enough to 2014 to pay off the old bonds to where there is no impact; and that is why the third-largest increase drops off. 

 

Mr. Martens stated the original plan was construction in 2010 and 2011, with the one-year delay; the County would wait a year to borrow the money; and the alternative is to wait two years to bond the construction money and actually sell the bonds in 2011. 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated she has some questions regarding delaying the building of the plant; and inquired if there is concern about the current plant, and is the Board gambling on whether or not it will break down if it is delayed. 

 

Mr. Martens stated there is the relatively new issue with the sewer plant; and if the County sells bonds it can make the initial repair, or replace the sewer plant with a short-term 20-year commercial loan, or a shorter term loan, and wrap that into the bonds when they are sold in 2011.  He stated the water plant is certainly an issue; he has listed a half dozen or so components that needed to be replaced; there is a great mechanic that runs the plant and he tried all summer to fix a component and just was not able to do it; and staff is proceeding with a $90,000 repair at the water plant now.  He stated he has listened to discussions about the current conditions and he is aware of the impacts Scenario 1 would have on customers; he believes it is better to delay a year and get a new water plant, than not delaying a year and not getting a new plant; and that is just his personal opinion.

 

Chairman Scarborough stated what Mr. Martens is referring to is if it gets to be a blood bath, the Board may decide to do nothing; so there is a risk, and he has seen it before and will see it again; and it will get so bad that the Board will not do anything.  He stated it is not a good year; and Mr. Martens knows it is not a good year, and he is trying to make it palatable to survive the hearing.

 

Commissioner Voltz stated the Board is fiscally responsible for the bonds; and the Board has to make sure the Bonds are covered.  Chairman Scarborough inquired if the Board did not have the issue with the new sewer plant, what type of increase would be needed to meet Bond covenance; with Mr. Martens responding if Utility Services continues operating the way it has been operating for the last 10 or 15 years, and to fund the renewal and replacement program, over two years he would need six percent each year.  Mr. Martens stated if six percent this year keeps the program whole, he would project he would have to come back next year and ask for another six percent; and if he does not get the six percent, his department would have to start scaling back the renewal and replacement program.

 

Commissioner Voltz stated there is going to be a public hearing to set the rates at the highest, and then the Board can see what happens.  Chairman Scarborough stated there are increases in the sewer rates but not in the water rates; and inquired if there are people using water and not sewer, and people using sewer and not water.  Mr. Martens replied there is a single countywide system; it does not include Barefoot Bay; it has been in existence in its current form since the 1970’s; and the water and sewer funds are co-mingled.  He noted approximately 90 percent or 95 percent of customers on the countywide system are sewer customers; it is a single enterprise fund; and water and sewer dollars come into the fund and are co-mingled and used to fund either water or sewer projects. 

 

Chairman Scarborough inquired to what extent is there water customers that are not sewer customers, or sewer customers that are not water customers; with Mr. Martens responding in Mims there are approximately 3,000 water customers, of which about 1,500 or 1,800 are sewer customers as well; and countywide, there are approximately 62,000 sewer customers.  Chairman Scarborough  stated  Viera and  Port St. John are on  City Cocoa Water, but there are County sewer systems operating in those areas; Viera may be getting a bill from Cocoa, but yet it is on County sewer and is being charged an additional amount to improve a component part that is serving water customers in another area of the County.  Mr. Martens stated Scenario 1 includes that directive.

 

Chairman Scarborough stated essentially, Mr. Martens has said if there is not the water plant issue, there would be a six percent increase rather than an 11 percent increase; so that additional five percent is essentially being charged against sewer customers in Viera to provide a new water plant for people outside Viera.  Mr. Martens stated that is correct.

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired if that is the way it is always done when a new system is brought on line; with Mr. Martens responding affirmatively. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated he is not sure it is done exactly that way; for instance, with roads, the County makes sure it is brought up to standard; but the problem is the County is paying for a  system that was not up to standard when it took over; and Mr. Martens has done a good job of keeping it functioning, but the reality is that is has significant capital needs the rest of the system has to pay for.  Chairman Scarborough stated those are things that lead to the complex discussions. 

 

Mr. Martens advised the proposal is structured in three ways; one way is the unification way, which puts a single rate over County and Barefoot Bay, and unify the two enterprise fund systems into one; the second scenario was to leave the two systems separate; the County would still build the new water plant in the south end of the County and have a county service area, and then wholesale water to the Barefoot Bay system that would then redistribute and rebuild their customers; and there would be an extra charge placed above and beyond the rate for the increase for Barefoot Bay customers to pay for the amount of capital over time to build the new water plant.  He stated Scenario 1 was the 11 percent, eight percent, and eight percent; Scenario 2 for the County would have gone to 11 percent, seven percent, and seven percent; but for Barefoot Bay it would have been 14 percent, 14 percent, and 12 percent.  He advised in that scenario they pay for the new capacity through higher rates; the average customer in Barefoot Bay, and countywide customers pay approximately the same thing because of the low water usage in Barefoot Bay; Barefoot Bay actually has higher rates; and there could be two separate rates as long as there is a distinction in the customer base. 

 

He stated the six percent and six percent increase is a continuation of the bare bones financing the department has been doing; Mr. Lorry has recommended that for the countywide system there would be an 11 percent, six percent, and five percent over the next three years to get the coverage and margins up to what the bonding agencies would want; and Barefoot Bay would go to 14 percent, seven percent, and seven percent.  He stated if the County decides to build it, does  it want to have  it as part of the unified system,  or as a separate system; and if it does not

want to build the water plant, does it want to do something to start working now to improve the financial standing of the utility.  He stated if the County does not want to build the water plant, does it want to do something to start working now to improve the financial standing of the utility, or does it want to maintain the status quo in the financing.  He advised there are four options that  cover a lot of ground; as the  Board has  said,  that decision cannot  be  made  today; but if there is going to be some change in what it is doing, it needs to move forward with notification because it will take five weeks for the Cocoa and Melbourne water systems to get the notices out.

 

Commissioner Voltz stated when people look that far into the future they add it up and see a 30 percent increase over the next three years; a new water plant is needed in South County, and it has to be consolidated; and what is down there now is a big mess.  She stated she likes the idea of putting off a year with the countywide, with the additional one-year delay in the water plant. 

 

Commissioner Bolin inquired if Mr. Martens is saying the County cannot stay at status quo because of the Bond situation.  Mr. Martens replied if the County is not going to try to bond the new water plant, it will not need to go out for bonds for its other facilities for at least three or five years, or longer.  He stated the scenario of bringing the utility financing up to snuff in three years is aggressive if the County is not going to build a water plant; if the County is going to go one year at a time, he would look for direction from the Board as to whether or not to proceed with any work on the water plant now, or wait until the second year decision is made, because in just one year at 11 percent there will not be the ratings we needed to go to bond market; and it would be a risk to go ahead and spend money on the design in 2009. 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated it is her opinion that water is going to be as valuable as gasoline shortly, and she would like to work toward building the plant.  Commissioner Nelson stated he does not disagree that a plant needs to be built, but he questions who is going to pay for it; there are 95 percent of the wastewater customers who are paying for the plant; it is a hard sell to people; and most of his district is either on Cocoa water, the city sewer system, or on the county system for just wastewater. 

 

Mr. Martens stated 95 percent of the revenue has come from sewer and whatever projects have been needed, whether they are water projects or sewer projects, and regardless of their location in the County, that single consolidated fund has been used to build those facilities.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated each time one of the plants has come online, it has been different based on what the conditions were, or the acquisition price; and it may be how the Board has done it, but it is hard to go back and say it is exactly the same.  He stated Barefoot Bay had a huge problem and Mr. Martens stepped in and said the County needed to make sure Barefoot Bay had good water, but it did not impact the system generally at that time, and now it is at the point where it is going to impact it significantly.  He stated in just looking at the rates, the wastewater customer rates will go up by one percent and then two percent the following year; and three percent will be paid by those customers for that plant, and that is where he has an issue.

 

Mr. Martens stated in Scenario 2, the additional Barefoot Bay pays comes back into the rest of the system; and they will pay back the cost of the capital, it will just be over a long time.  Commissioner Nelson inquired if it would be 20 years; with Mr. Martens responding the numbers are for 30 years.  Commissioner Nelson stated for 30 years the other customers will be paying out to some point in the future; and it never comes back in the rate reduction for those who have paid it. 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated she questions how it is going to be funded; and inquired if everyone is moved who is sewer only, what percentage of people will be on the water.

 

Mr. Martens stated for Barefoot Bay’s limited customer base there would be a 50 percent rate increase to begin with; the sewer plant will be approximately $25,000 per year in debt service; but $25 million and five percent over 30 years is $1.7 million; and the total revenue stream out of Barefoot Bay right for water and sewer is approximately $3 million, therefore it is a 50 percent rate increase for both water and sewage.  He stated is the County is not going to build a new plant with some outside financing, then it can go back to plan B and renovate the old plant that is currently there.

 

Chairman Scarborough inquired what is the maximum capacity of water in February; with Mr. Martens responding the daily maximum was 811,000.  Chairman Scarborough inquired what the numbers would be if the 1 million capacity was re-worked; with Mr. Martens responding if the renewals and renovations are done that the plant needs, it will still be 1 million gallons per day.  Chairman Scarborough inquired how much it would cost to keep it working more efficiently and better; with Mr. Martens responding the estimate is $1.5 million over five years, and that is with Scenario 3.  Chairman Scarborough inquired if it costs $1.5 million to modernize a million gallon per-day plant, how much would it be to expand in the vision of the new plant; with Mr. Martens responding $25 to $25 million because it replaces the water supply.  Chairman Scarborough noted if Scenario 3 contemplates $1.5 million, and the other scenarios contemplate $25 million, the rate variations between Scenarios 2 and 3 are not that great.  Mr. Martens stated it is the bonding; and 30 years of $1.7 million in debt service is the difference. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated a lot of people in Barefoot Bay want to be customers, but they cannot be right now because the capacity is not there.  Chairman Scarborough stated if Mr. Martens gets $1.5 million, he would probably not go to bond market, but to commercial paper.  Mr. Martens stated that is correct.  Chairman Scarborough stated there is enough cash flow coming in to amortize a $25 million bond.  Mr. Martens stated in his model he assumed that in 2011, the County would get $1.5 million for commercial paper for 20 years.  Chairman Scarborough inquired how much does it take annually to amortize $25 million; with Mr. Martens responding over 30 years for $1.7 million.  Chairman Scarborough stated annually the amortization is greater than the total cost of refurbishing.  Mr. Martens stated in the South County facility there is a plant with limited capacity that the water quality regulations have moved past.  Chairman Scarborough inquired what would happen if $1.5 million was put into it; with Mr. Martens responding the marginal water quality would be maintained.  Chairman Scarborough inquired what the County will get for the $1.5 million; with Mr. Martens responding the County will continue with what it has with no improvement.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated in 1983, when all the systems were failing the County took over the utility systems and upgraded them, and it was a 120 percent rate increase; all the customers with the old system were paying some of the highest rates in the State of Florida because the systems had to be upgraded; and the customers went through that process and paid the highest rates; but the Board just said a 50 percent increase in Barefoot Bay was too much.  He stated if he system is going to be unified it needs to be brought up to standard and then consolidated, versus asking those same people who paid the maximum rates for the same privilege; and those who are going to receive the most benefit should be the ones to pay for it.

 

Mr. Martens stated the County got into the business in the late 60’s and 70’s; at that time, the Board was interested in building a utility system and it aggressively acquired little package plants all over the County; in 1983 there was not a choice; and when he came to Brevard County there were 11 treatment plants and one of them was not under administrative order or a moratorium from the State or the feds.  He stated in the 1980’s the County faced a $10,000 per day fine for fixing the system, and it did not have a choice; and Scenario 2 provides a mechanism for Barefoot Bay to pay that back over a long time.  He stated he has been advised that there can be different rates, but sometimes it is hard to get a straight answer; and Scenario 2 has a differential in rate increases between Barefoot Bay and the County; and that investment is paid back over 30 years, but he believes the amortization could be shortened to a shorter period of time.  He stated if there is a desire to move forward with the water plant, the question would be what type of repayment period would the County want, and what is equitable.  He stated the problem right now is with the current rates; and the Board can move ahead and set a public hearing and come back in 2009 and start the process all over again.

 

Chairman Scarborough inquired what Mr. Martens meant by 50 percent; with Mr. Martens responding the average customer in Barefoot Bay has an average water and sewer bill of $55, assuming it is going to go to $85.  Commissioner Voltz stated that is not going to happen in Barefoot Bay; and those people cannot afford that kind of money.  She stated if it were Commissioner Nelson’s district, he would not want his constituents paying 50 percent more; there is a need for a new water plant in South County, not just to replace the Barefoot Bay plant, but to also look at increased capacity; and she would rater support nothing than have a 50 percent increase in rates in Barefoot Bay.  She stated she is in favor of Scenario 1; and the Board needs to move forward with a public hearing and let the public decide.  She inquired how much is the average water bill; with Mr. Martens responding the average sewer bill is $31.80.  Commissioner Voltz inquired if the 11 percent increase is on sewer or water; with Mr. Martens responding the percentages for Scenario 1 are for everything; the study was just a general revenue sufficiency and it would be another step to go in and do rate structuring; and there may be room for some improvement, particularly in Barefoot Bay, where adjustments could be made.  Mr. Martens advised the 11 percent, eight percent, and eight percent, worked out to about $9 per-month over the three years; so the 11 percent and eight percent is going to be about two-thirds, or $6 per month over two years; and included in that is a three percent cost of living index.

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz to approve Scenario 1.  Motion died for lack of a second.

 

Commissioner Voltz stated after Scenario 3, it states, “Additionally, PRMG indicated a one-year delay,” and inquired if the two Scenarios can be put together.  Mr. Martens replied he would call that Scenario 4, and it would work with either Scenario 1 or 2, which propose building or bonding the water plant in 2010; the alternative is to  delay the bonding a year until 2011;  and if that is done, then both Scenarios 1 and 2 would be funded with the first two increases and the third increase going to whatever the inflationary index is.

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz to approve Scenario 4.  Motion died for lack of a second.

 

 

Chairman Scarborough inquired if the Board should be talking about more than just one year; and all of the proposals have multiple years.  Commissioner Voltz stated she agrees and inquired if that has to be done for the bond.  Mr. Martens stated if the County is going to bond the water plant in 2009 or 2010, the Board would have to do multiple years; and if the County is not talking about selling the bonds until 2011, or not selling them at all, there is no immediate need to fix the slim market margin coverage.  He advised If the Board is looking for something to do right now, such as a one-year, he would suggest a six percent countywide water and sewer increase, and ten percent is needed in Barefoot Bay to fund the sewer plant replacement; and to maintain the status quo, the Board would borrow up to $3 million in 2009 to fix the Barefoot Bay sewer plant and advertise it over 20 years.  Commissioner Voltz stated there needs to be a new plan.

 

Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Chairman Scarborough, to authorize advertising and conducting a public hearing on September 10, 2008 at 5:00 p.m. to consider the Water and Sewer Rate Schedule; and approve the scenario for advertisement maintaining the status quo with six percent increase Countywide for water and sewer, ten percent increase in Barefoot Bay for water, ten percent increase in Barefoot Bay for sewer, and permission to borrow up to $3 million n 2009 to fix the Barefoot Bay Sewer Plant, amortized over 20 years.

 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated it is going to be difficult to get through the public hearing; he would suggest that Barefoot Bay pay 12 percent, or twice as much, as they are going to be the ones benefitting substantially more than anyone else in the County.  Commissioner Voltz stated everybody in Barefoot Bay will be at the public hearing fighting the increase. 

 

Mr. Martens advised the proposal he made would have no extra benefit for Barefoot Bay; Barefoot Bay would already need a four percent increase to keep up with inflation, and will need six percent to cover the debt service on the $3 million sewer plant fix; and that is where he gets the ten percent increase.  He stated for both systems, as long as the status quo is continued, the Board is going to be looking for increases every year to pay the bills. 

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired if the Board is paying millions of dollars for status quo; with Mr. Martens responding yes, $3 million on the sewer plant, as it is broken and needs to be fixed. Mr. Martens stated in his model he assumed the County would make one, $1.5 million loan in 2010 or 2011; but that may be able to be spread out into smaller increments in 2010, 2011, and 2012, and have a small impact on the rates.   He stated there  is no  new capacity; the County will end

up with what is currently has with the old water plant that can do nothing more than produce the same water quality it already produces, but it is not going to produce any more water. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated Barefoot Bay is well wrapped by Palm Bay.  Mr. Martens stated Palm Bay City limits border only the west corner of Barefoot Bay.

 

Chairman Scarborough called for a vote on the motion and motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Voltz and Colon voted nay.

 

 

County Manager Peggy Busacca stated the public hearing is to be held on September 9, 2008, which is also the date the Board has decided to do the Fire Assessment; and she did not know if the Board wanted to have both public hearings on the same date.  Chairman Scarborough inquired if September 10, 2008 is available.  Ms. Busacca advised there is a second meeting scheduled for the budget, which is September 23, 2008. 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated he would prefer to hear this issue at a separate hearing because it is uncomfortable to have two different agendas. Ms. Busacca inquired if the Board will authorize staff to find a date that fits each Commissioner’s calendars; and currently available are September 4, 16, and 23^rd as evening meetings, but staff can find one more. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve the Brevard County FY 2008-2009 HOME Consortium Consolidated Action Plan and the FY 2008-2009 Action Plan; execute the required certifications and SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance Form for the CDBG and HOME Programs; authorize the County Manager or her designee to execute the CDBG and HOME Program Grant Agreements and the Disbursement Agreements with the four entitlement cities upon approval from HUD and sign contractual agreements for projects identified in the Action Plan after approval from HUD and sign contractual agreements for projects identified in the Action Plan after approval from Risk Management and the County Attorney’s Office; authorize Facilities Construction, Parks and Recreation, and Transportation Engineering as construction managers to use competitive bids, State contracts or sole sources to secure contractors to carry out the proposed projects; and direct staff to review the procedures before implementing any of the projects.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to approve extension of the Property Tax Roll prior to final certification by the Value Adjustment Board (VAB).  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

Dr. Wasim Niazi stated the item has been previously favorably ordered by the Commission unanimously in July 2006; and it is a request for a change of zoning to allow a CUP under very limited use. 

 

Commissioner Nelson inquired of the current requirements for a heliport.  Rick Enos, Zoning Manager, advised the Code allows consideration of private heliports on properties zoned AU or above as far as lot size; but it also requires a 500-foot setback from the helipad to the property line; and if a heliport is put on a property with 500-foot setbacks all around, it is a 23-acre parcel, which is contrary to reducing the minimum lot size of the zoning classifications.  He stated another way to look at it is the zoning classification does not matter if one has a 23-acre parcel; for Dr. Niazi to be able to qualify for a heliport, he would not only have to change the zoning classification, but the 500-foot setback would also have to be reduced. 

 

Dr. Niazi noted his property has been inspected by the FAA and was considered to be safe; it is a unique lot size on the waterfront; and it does not require flight over any homes.  He stated in the 1980’s the Zoning Code required one-acre lots for heliports.

 

Robin Sobrino, Planning and Zoning Director, stated in 1995 it was a conditional use in all residential classifications on lots of at least five acres; and that requirement was in place until 1998, when the Code was changed to require larger lot zoning and greater setbacks.  Dr. Niazi stated he believes in the 1970’s or 1980’s, one-acre lots were allowed; and what he is requesting is a very restricted CUP because of the unique nature of the lot.  He stated the Commission has voted in favor of his request, but somehow it was brushed off.  Chairman Scarborough stated he does not recall that; he recalls some occasions when there intense opposition because the Board moved to further restrict it; and recalls an intense discussion in the negative.  Dr. Niazi stated he was before the Board in July 2006.  Mr. Enos advised Chairman Scarborough is referring to the period between 1995 and 1998; in 1995, heliports were permitted in the SEU as well as any classification of at least five acres; there was a heliport in South Merritt Island and concerns were expressed about that; and in 1998, the Board tightened up those provisions by removing SEU zoning and increasing the minimum setbacks.

 

Dr. Niazi stated the Board has previously voted in favor of the issue.  Mr. Enos stated it was May 2006 when the Board directed staff, at Dr. Niazi’s request, to proceed with an ordinance; but in July 2006 the Board directed staff to stop the ordinance.

 

Chairman Scarborough stated he is not in favor of the request based on the minutes of the May 2006 meeting.

 

Motion by Commissioner Colon to direct staff to prepare Legislative Intent and Permission to Advertise Public Hearing for amendment to the SEU Zoning Code to allow a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for heliports under very limited circumstances. 

 

 

Commissioner Colon stated it is her belief there has been feedback from the community; and inquired if there has been any opposition; with Dr. Niazi responding there has not been any opposition.

Commissioner Voltz stated she remembers opposition at the last meeting on the issue.  Dr. Nizai stated there was someone in opposition, but he has sold his property.  Commissioner Bolin stated she has letters from neighbors in 2005; and inquired if Dr. Niazi has any letters from 2008 indicating there is no opposition.  Dr. Niazi replied he does not have any recent letters.  Commissioner Bolin inquired if it would be prudent to talk to the neighbors who voiced concerns in 2005; with Dr. Niazi responding affirmatively. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated she does not have a problem with the request because the neighbors were in favor of it. 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated it needs to be understood that it is not a change in the rules for Dr. Niazi, as it will allow within very small lots, the landing and taking off of helicopters; and it may be okay with Dr. Niazi’s neighbors, but as soon as it occurs in another location it will be legal.  Commissioner Voltz stated if it is a CUP, then each one can have additional conditions. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated he recalls opposition to the request as well; and stated the question is to what extent is noise an issue.  Dr. Niazi stated the heliport will be for recreational use and not commercial.  Commissioner Nelson stated if it were a fly-in community in which everybody bought homes knowing it was going to be that type of community, it is one thing, but to change it in an existing community is setting the Board up for a bad precedent.  He stated if the Board moves forward with the request, he would like to see a recorded noise easement. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated she will second the motion by Commissioner Colon. 

 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated she will support moving forward, but she would like to have a current discussion with the neighbors.

 

Chairman Scarborough called for a vote on the motion.  Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Nelson and Chairman Scarborough voted nay.

 

 

Commissioner Nelson inquired who would be considered a neighbor.  Commissioner Voltz stated there will have to be a noise study.  Ms. Sobrino inquired if the Board is looking for consent from the neighbors prior to coming back to the Board, or will it be considered at that time.  Chairman Scarborough stated it would be good to come back first with Legislative Intent.

 

 

 

Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten advised the Board has been given a revised worksheet reflecting changes in the Mosquito Control and Road and Bridge District 2 millage rates; and those were adjusted to hold harmless those two taxing districts in terms of revenue loss.  He advised previously for Mosquito Control, it was .1609 and now it is projected at .1827, and that is an increase in revenue of $834,811 over the proposed budget.  He advised the Road and Bridge District 2 was previously .2115, and the new scenario establishes the millage rate at

.2367, which is an increase of $109,448.  He stated the new aggregate operating rate would be 5.4720, which is a change from 5.4472, and the new aggregate is a 10.53 percent decrease from the rollback rate, and is a .46 increase from the current aggregate operating millage rate. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to adopt the FY 2008-2009 Tentative Millages for the purpose of notification to taxpayers by the Brevard County Property Appraiser, maintaining the millage and keeping the revenue the same for the Mosquito Control District, and holding current level of District 2 Road and Bridge MSTU; and instructed the Assistant County Manager for Management Services to complete the Florida Department of Revenue’s Certifications of Taxable Value, From DR-420.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  Commissioner Colon was not present for vote.

 

 

 

County Manager Peggy Busacca stated the public hearing on the water and sewer item will be September 10, 2008 at 5:00 p.m., which was an acceptable date by all five commission offices.

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to schedule public hearing for Permission to Advertise Public Hearing for Water and Sewer Rate Schedule on September 10, 2008 at 5:00 p.m.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  Commissioner Colon not present for vote.

 

 

 

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 4:34 p.m.

 

 

 

ATTEST:                                                                     ___________________________________

                                                                                    TRUMAN SCARBOROUGH, CHAIRMAN

                                                                                    BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

                                                                                    BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

_____________________

SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

      

          (S E A L)