February 10, 2004

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on February 10, 2004, at 9:00 a.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chair Nancy Higgs, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Ron Pritchard, Susan Carlson, and Jackie Colon, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

The Invocation was given by Reverend Ray Johnson, First Baptist Church of Titusville, Titusville, Florida.

Chair Nancy Higgs led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the Minutes of October 21, 2003, October 28, 2003, and November 18, 2003 Regular Meetings. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RECOGNITION, RE: COUNTY EMPLOYEES

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated he would like to recognize several County employees this morning; and invited Facilities Department Director Sam Stanton and Library Services Director Catherine Schweinsberg to the podium. Mr. Jenkins stated the Facilities Department, as represented by Mr. Stanton, is going to present a rebate check in the amount of $19,140 from Florida Power and Light (FP&L) Company to Ms. Schweinsberg; this represents the installation of energy saving systems for air conditioning systems by the Facilities Department; and it is an incentive for FP&L customers to install energy saving systems since it lowers the demand for electricity, especially during peak hours. He noted the system makes ice at night when the electricity rates are typically lower and uses the ice during the day when the peak rates are applicable to operate the air conditioning systems; and this energy saving system is called the thermal energy storage system, which is being designed into the new Suntree/Viera Library project and other facilities as soon as possible.

Facilities Department Director Sam Stanton stated County staff is trying very hard to save money; they have numerous initiatives they are reviewing to save the taxpayers money and make it easier for the County to operate in a more efficient way; this is one issue he and Ms. Schweinsberg discussed; and it is a good thing for the County. Mr. Stanton presented the check to Ms. Schweinsberg.

Mr. Jenkins stated the Florida Emergency Preparedness Association has named Emergency Management Director Bob Lay as its Emergency Management Professional of the Year during the Organization’s Annual Conference last month in Orlando; Mr. Lay was nominated by Lee County Public Safety Director and outgoing Association President John Wilson; according to Mr. Wilson, he states, “Bob Lay took over a very good program in Brevard County and made it into one of the premier county programs in Florida. His program pioneered the use of the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, and it was the first County to provide an interactive electronic Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP). He also made creative use of grant funding to enhance the County Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and to help eliminate his community’s hurricane shelter deficit, the first County in Florida to do so. He has also played an instrumental role in representing Florida’s local emergency management community following the events of the wildfires of 1998 and the September 11, 2001 events. He has become a strong voice in examining and evaluating the direction Florida’s Preparedness and Response Program was heading. He became a critical, yet respected, voice in this process and expressed what many in emergency management felt, but could not express. He has served ably as the Local Emergency Management Representative on the State Working Group, on the Domestic Preparedness Executive Group, and the Orlando Regional Domestic Security Force.” Mr. Jenkins stated he knows Mr. Lay would also want to recognize his staff at the Emergency Operations Center, who assist him in all these endeavors; and congratulated Mr. Lay.

Emergency Management Director Bob Lay stated there were a lot of “he’s” in that; the “he’s really translate into not only his staff, but all the other members of the County team that are part of Emergency Management, because it is what Emergency Management is, a team effort, and not an individual effort; and expressed appreciation to everybody for the recognition.

Chair Higgs thanked Mr. Lay and all the members of his staff for an outstanding job.

REPORT, RE: MELBOURNE MUNICIPAL BAND ASSOCIATION, INC.

Commissioner Carlson stated Robert Bower is present to talk about the Melbourne Municipal Band, the Organization being presented in the lobby for Sample of the Arts.

Robert Bower, representing Melbourne Municipal Band Association, Inc., stated the officers, directors, and musicians send their gratitude for the sustaining of the County cultural community grant program; the Municipal Band is the core of the Concert Band of the Association; there are not only the Concert Band, but the Swingtime Band, which is the display in the lobby today; the Dixieland Jazz Band; a brass quintet, which is directed by one of the musicians who is also a nationally-recognized composer and arranger; a woodwind quintet; a brass choir, and other organizations that can serve any need in the County and beyond the community. He noted the trade territory of the operations range from Daytona Beach to Fort Myers and Orlando; the Municipal Band and Swingtime Band have appeared numerous times at Disney World, specifically conveying the merits of Brevard County to the national and international people; the grant that the City of Melbourne gives the Band, the funds from the County’s grant, and donations received are not quite sufficient to meet the $90,000 a year budget; and the Swingtime Band is the only organization within the Association that charges admission fees to its ten dances per year, held in the auditorium, as well as the contract gigs it plays. Mr. Bower stated the word “gig” is simply a contraction of the word “engagement”; the Swingtime Band is going to present its third concert in the Melbourne Auditorium tonight, tomorrow night, and Thursday night at 7:30 p.m.; the Melbourne Municipal Band is 39 years of age; and expressed appreciation to the Board for its support of the arts.

REPORT, RE: TOWN AND CITIES’ MEETING

Commissioner Colon stated this Saturday, February 14, 2004, at 10:30 a.m. at the Fee Library is her Office’s meeting for the Cities of West Melbourne and Melbourne, and Town of Melbourne Village; her Office had its meeting for the Beaches in January 2004; and the meeting in Palm Bay will be in March 2004 at the Senior Center.

RESOLUTION, RE: COMMENDING ANNE P. BIRCH

Commissioner Carlson stated Anne Birch has been with the County for 11 years and took over the EELS Program when Duane DeFreese left; the County has gone through many hurdles and Ms. Birch has done a valiant job at getting all those hurdles under control; and the Board appreciates all the time and effort of Ms. Birch. She noted she thought about all the times she had been out to the properties the County preserved; she remembers very vividly going out with a group of people to the Sebastian Buffer Preserve; they were looking for holes in pine flatwoods for red cockaded woodpeckers; and it was very educational for her. She stated the one thing that amazed her was a flower she saw in the field; there was nothing else there but the one flower, which was a pine lily; it was unbelievable that the lily would survive amidst the landscape; so she has stargazer lilies for Ms. Birch. She stated The Nature Conservancy will appreciate Ms. Birch’s time and effort, determination, perseverance, etc. that she will apply to her job there; the County is going to miss Ms. Birch; and thanked Ms. Birch for her leadership.

Commissioner Carlson read aloud a resolution commending Anne P. Birch for her commitment to the EELS Program.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution recognizing and commending Anne P. Birch for her tireless commitment and leadership to the EELS Program and citizens of Brevard County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 04-026.)

Parks and Recreation Director Chuck Nelson stated Ms. Birch showed up on his Department’s doorsteps a few years ago; the EELS Program was moved into his Department after having been started as an independent program; not only was it good for the EELS Program, but it was good for his Department as it softened and got better at managing its own properties; and it has been great marriage. He noted although this is not a divorce, it is more like a child leaving home; and wished Ms. Birch the best. He stated the County is going to miss Ms. Birch; she has been great; he has been able to let Ms. Birch do what she needs to do to be successful, and she has done that; and the County appreciates it.

Anne Birch expressed appreciation to the Board for the Resolution and lilies; stated it was unexpected; she mirrors Mr. Lay’s sentiments that it is not just her, but staff, volunteers, the citizens of Brevard County, the Board, and past Commissioners; and thanked the Board and Mr. Nelson for their support. She noted staff and the Committee are very talented and gifted; they are the ones who actually make it happen, and have made her job very easy; and the recognition is for them as well.

Commissioner Carlson presented the Resolution and stargazer lilies to Ms. Birch.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Enchanted Forest is a wonderful place; now he is even hearing about it from the students; Brevard County is unique; the Enchanted Forest is where the temperate zone hits the tropics, and one does not find things like it anywhere else; and it is precious. He expressed appreciation to Ms. Birch for everything she has done for Brevard County.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he first met Ms. Birch in the Leadership Brevard Program in 2001; in all the exercises, Ms. Birch was always a very common sense type of participant; it was one of the things he noticed and admired about the way she conducted herself; and she had a pragmatic way of looking at something and achieving a goal. He noted Ms. Birch has done that in Brevard County; she will be missed; and wished Ms. Birch the best.

RESOLUTION, RE: PROCLAIMING HAZARDOUS WEATHER AWARENESS WEEK

Commissioner Pritchard read aloud a resolution proclaiming February 22 through 28, 2004, as Hazardous Weather Awareness Week.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution proclaiming February 22 though 28, 2004, as Hazardous Weather Awareness Week in Brevard County, and urging the cooperation of the National Weather Service, Emergency Management,
municipalities, School Board, private schools, and the news media to inform all residents and visitors of appropriate safety measures that should be taken when hazardous weather conditions occur. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 04-027.)

Emergency Management Director Bob Lay stated it certainly is important that the Board recognizes Hazardous Weather Awareness Week; it is extremely important that the School Board and private schools do the same; the National Weather Service is the key focus as it provides the alerting and warning; and the County has been working with such Service to make sure Brevard County is weather prepared and on the right track.

Dennis Decker, National Weather Service, expressed appreciation to the Board for the Resolution; stated it is important that citizens are aware of the hazards citizens face in Central Florida; in the last month or so, he drew a map of all the tornadoes that hit the 10-county area in the last 10 years; and unfortunately, Brevard County took the top spot. He noted Central Florida gets a lot of tornadoes and severe weather; it is up to the Service and its partnership with Mr. Lay to make people aware; but it is also up to them to take on some of their own personal responsibility to know what is coming; and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather alert radio is a tremendous tool to inform people of impending severe weather, especially at night when televisions and radios are turned off. Mr. Decker expressed appreciation to Mr. Lay and his staff for the tremendous support they give the Service.

Mr. Lay stated February 25, 2004 is tornado drill day at all the schools, but it can also be at all businesses, government buildings, facilities, etc.; and the NOAA weather alert radio will be used to activate the tornado drill. He noted on March 20, 2004 will be a Hazard Weather Seminar Expo at Kiwanis Park on Merritt Island; and urged citizens to attend.

Chair Higgs expressed appreciation to Mr. Lay, his staff, and National Weather Service for all they do; and stated the County hopes people will take advantage of those opportunities to learn about the weather that can impact them and be prepared for that.

Commissioner Pritchard presented the Resolution to Emergency Management Director Bob Lay.

PRESENTATIONS, RE: EMPLOYEE LONGEVITY RECOGNITION

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated from time to time the Board likes to recognize those long- term County employees who have basically dedicated their entire adult lives to serving the citizens of Brevard County; this morning the Board is pleased to recognize six people who each have served 25 years with Brevard County government; and invited them to the podium for individual presentations.

Mr. Jenkins stated Ewell R. Gann, Emergency Management Department, while still in high school, had a strong need to help people in his community; he started working through the CETA Program as an ambulance driver and logistics person for the Brevard County Emergency Medical Services in 1977; he was hired by Emergency Medical Services full-time in 1978 and went on to work for Brevard County Fire Rescue; and he was asked to work in what was then called the Civil Defense in Logistics and Maintenance, and continued working in Emergency Management. He noted today, Mr. Gann is the Radiological Coordinator for Brevard County’s Office of Emergency Management; he is the radiological expert for this region in Florida; he is a key member of the Emergency Management Team; and he was selected as the Recipient of the 2002 Excellence in Public Service Award for Brevard County. Mr. Jenkins stated Mr. Gann lives in Cocoa with his son, Ray Gann, Jr.; and congratulated Mr. Gann.

Mr. Jenkins stated Cindy Peterson, Library Services Department, began her career 25 years ago with Brevard County working at the Melbourne Library; she started as a Clerical Assistant at the circulation desk of the Melbourne Library in 1978, since then becoming a Technical Processor at the Melbourne Library; she has also worked under four different library directors during her term; and she has watched the Brevard County Library System expand from nine libraries to the current day 17 libraries. He noted Ms. Peterson has also been an integral part of the library system progress into the new century; she served on the Library Systems Communications Committee that brought the Internet into the libraries; she has seen her job change from typing individual catalog cards on 3 x 5 cards to entering computerized records in an online catalog; and during her time with Library Services Department, she completed her Associate of Arts Degree from Brevard Community College and has completed the County’s Management Certification Program. Mr. Jenkins stated Ms. Peterson is a valued employee of the Melbourne Public Library and Brevard County libraries; and congratulated Ms. Peterson.

Mr. Jenkins stated Teddie Stein, Library Services Department, is a custodian at the Eau Gallie Public Library; he began as a part-time employee in 1979 and became full-time in 1984, and was custodian for both the Eau Gallie and Satellite Beach Libraries; more recently, Mr. Stein has stayed at the Eau Gallie Library and continues to serve as the custodian at that facility; and Mr. Stein is also a special needs shelter volunteer, which is somebody who shows up during a hurricane or disaster and goes to the shelter and volunteers their services to help other citizens in Brevard County. He noted the users and employees of the Eau Gallie Library greatly appreciate Mr. Stein’s services to the facility, which help make it one of the great libraries to visit in Brevard County; and congratulated Mr. Stein.

Mr. Jenkins stated Rebecca Jones, Parks and Recreation Department, has been with Parks and Recreation Central Mainland Service Sector as a Parks Maintenance Technician since 1978; she has performed many different tasks during those years, from mowing ball fields to maintaining recreation facilities; she has also assisted with the construction of several parks over the years and is well known for her landscaping skills; and she always works hard to serve the community. He noted Ms. Jones is an asset to Brevard County and consistently represents the Department in a positive customer service manner; and congratulated Ms. Jones.

Mr. Jenkins stated O. C. Christian, Jr., Solid Waste Department, began his employment in May 1978 as a temporary Solid Waste plant helper; in September 1979, he became a permanent County employee; he has progressed through the ranks to his current position of Solid Waste Floor Handler; and throughout his many years of employment, Mr. Christian has demonstrated his willingness to help his fellow employees and fill in when needed, such as his many donations of leave time to co-workers who were in need. He noted Mr. Christian is a team player and his contributions to the Department are appreciated; he is one of those behind-the- scenes generally unknown County employees who are very important to all of us in our daily lives; and congratulated Mr. Christian.

Mr. Jenkins stated Carlton Hibbard, Transit Services Department, has been a lifelong resident of Brevard County; he began his career with Brevard County in 1978 as a part-time driver, becoming full-time in December 1978; Mr. Hibbard has served in many capacities while in Transit Services Department, such as a route safety supervisor, lead vehicle operator, and currently serves as the training lead for Space Coast Area Transit (SCAT); and among his many accomplishments are numerous first place finishes in the Local Rodeo, as well as an eighth place finish in the International Rodeo held in San Diego, California in 1992. He noted Mr. Hibbard has been a leader in the SCAT service; and congratulated Mr. Hibbard.

The Board recognized and presented Employee Longevity Recognition plaques to Ewell R. Gann, Cindy K. Peterson, Teddie M. Stein, Rebecca A. Jones, O. C. Christian, Jr., and Carlton H. Hibbard, who have achieved 25 years of service with Brevard County.

RESOLUTION, RE: STEP UP, FLORIDA!

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution encouraging all residents to set goals to improve their health and wellness as Step Up, Florida! is launched to motivate all residents to make healthy choices and strive for healthy lifestyles. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 04-028.)

Commissioner Carlson stated Step Up, Florida! is an initiative that has brought the State Health Department and County Health Department together for a promotional initiative to make people more active in the community; there are some statistics that were published that said in Brevard County, 55% of the adult population is overweight or obese; there will be a walk/run/cycle and any other activity people enjoy on February 16 and 17, 2004; and she will be participating in a walk/run over the Melbourne Causeway. She noted individuals are meeting at Front Street Park at 10:30 a.m. to do the run; it will be over the Causeway to Nance Park in Indialantic off of Fifth Avenue; another leg of it is down in Cocoa Beach, starting at Lori Wilson Park to Fisher Park; it is to create a regiment in people’s daily lives to promote health and well-being; and the contact person is Jim Richardson.

RESOLUTION, RE: SUPPORTING DESIGNATION OF PORTIONS OF U.S. 192 AS
HOWARD E. FUTCH MEMORIAL HIGHWAY

Commissioner Colon read aloud a resolution supporting Florida House Bill 9, sponsored by Representative Mitch Needelman and Florida Senate Bill 1398, sponsored by Senator Victor Crist designating certain portions of U.S. 192 as Howard E. Futch Memorial Highway.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution supporting Florida House Bill 9, sponsored by Representative Mitch Needelman, and Florida Senate Bill 1398, sponsored by Senator Victor Crist, designating certain portions of U.S. 192 as Howard E. Futch Memorial Highway. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page
for Resolution No. 04-029.)

RESOLUTION, RE: RELEASING CONTRACT WITH THE VIERA COMPANY FOR
WINGATE ESTATES SUBDIVISION, PHASE 4

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution releasing contract with The Viera Company for Wingate Estates Subdivision, Phase 4. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 04-030.)

FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND CONTRACT WITH THE VIERA COMPANY, RE: CAPRON
TRACE, PHASE 1

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to grant final plat approval for Capron Trace, Phase 1, subject to minor changes, if necessary, and receipt of all necessary documents required for recording; and execute Contract with The Viera Company guaranteeing improvements for Capron Trace, Phase 1. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Contract.)

APPROVE EXTENSION TO SITE PLAN REVIEW TIME, RE: AVANZA MARINE
CORPORATION

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve extension to site plan review time until April 9, 2004 for Avanza Marine Corporation in order for the applicant to gain site plan approval for the minor site plan. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVE EXTENSION TO SITE PLAN REVIEW TIME, RE: CARMELO PULIEO, MELO’S
ITALIAN RESTAURANT, INC.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve 90-day extension of site plan review time for Carmelo Pulieo, Melo’s Italian Restaurant, Inc. in order for the applicant to gain site plan approval for the minor site plan. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVE PROCEEDING WITH PAPERWORK TO CONVERT PRIVATE DEDICATION TO
PUBLIC DEDICATION ON RECORDED PLAT, RE: VIERA BOULEVARD
COMMERCE PARK

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve proceeding with paperwork to convert a private road dedication to a public road dedication for Silicon Avenue within the plat of Viera Boulevard Commerce Park. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ACKNOWLEDGE ANNEXATION AND SMALL SCALE AMENDMENT SSA 3-2004 BY
CITY OF TITUSVILLE, RE: PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF CARPENTER ROAD,
NORTH OF BAKER AVENUE, AND SOUTH OF EOLA AVENUE

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to acknowledge Annexation and Small Scale Amendment SSA 3-2004 by the City of Titusville for property located west of Carpenter Road, north of Baker Avenue, and south of Eola Avenue. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF TITUSVILLE, RE: DAIRY ROAD AND
SINGLETON AVENUE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to execute Interlocal Agreement with City of Titusville for the relocation of its utilities in conjunction with the Dairy Road and Singleton Avenue Improvement Project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Interlocal Agreement.)

RESOLUTION, RE: APPROVING INSTALLATION OF “NO PARKING ON STREETS
BETWEEN 12:00 MIDNIGHT AND 7:00 A.M.” SIGNS IN VIERA NORTH PUD,
TRACTS D-1, D-2, D-4, C-A1, AND C-A2

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution approving installation of “No Parking on Streets Between 12:00 Midnight and 7:00 a.m.” signs in Viera North PUD, Tracts D-1, D-2, D-4, C-A1, and C-A2. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 04-031.)

RESOLUTION AND JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION, RE: PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF REPLACEMENT
AIRPORT OFFICE MODULAR BUILDING AT VALKARIA AIRPORT

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution and execute Joint Participation Agreement with Florida Department of Transportation for purchase and installation of replacement airport office modular building at Valkaria Airport for a total project cost of $20,000. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages
for Resolution No. 04-032 and Agreement.)

CONTRACT WITH DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND AMENDMENT TO
BUDGET, RE: LOW INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to execute Contract with Department of Community Affairs and amendment to budget for Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program funds in the amount of $347,997. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Contract.)

AGREEMENT WITH COMMUNITY BASED CARE OF BREVARD, INC., RE:
PRIVATIZATION OF CHILD WELFARE SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to execute Agreement with Community Based Care of Brevard, Inc. in the amount of $1,000,000 provided by the Department of Children and Families for privatization of Child Welfare Services; and authorize the Chair to execute the follow-up Contract for prevention services as authorized by the Department of Children and Families for the Housing and Human Services Department to be the fiscal agent for up to $690,000 contingent upon approval by the County Attorney and Risk Management. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Agreement.)

AGREEMENTS TO AMEND AND EXTEND EXISTING AGREEMENTS WITH COCA-COLA
ENTERPRISES BOTTLING COMPANY, FLORIDA DIVISION, AND SUPER-FINE
VENDING, INC., RE: COUNTYWIDE VENDING MACHINE SERVICES FOR PARKS
AND RECREATION

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to execute Agreements to Amend and Extend Existing Agreements to February 15, 2005 with Cocoa-Cola Enterprises Bottling Company, Florida Division, and Super-Fine Vending, Inc. for vending machine services for Parks and Recreation Countywide. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Agreements.)

MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT RENEWAL WITH BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND, RE: CERTAIN SOVEREIGNTY
SUBMERGED LANDS AT LAKE WASHINGTON PARK

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to execute Management Agreement Renewal with Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund for certain sovereignty submerged lands at Lake Washington Park. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Management Agreement Renewal.)

REAPPOINTMENT, RE: PALM BAY REGIONAL PARK CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to reappoint Melvin T. Whitlock, Jr. to serve on the Palm Bay Regional Park Advisory Committee, with term of appointment expiring December 31, 2006. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVE WRITE-OFF, RE: UNCOLLECTIBLE AMBULANCE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve write-off in the amount of $2,881,017.64 for FY 2002-2003 uncollectible ambulance accounts receivable. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVE ISSUANCE OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL, RE: MARKETING AND
ADVERTISING FOR SPACE COAST AREA TRANSIT SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve issuance of a Request for Proposal for marketing and advertising services for Space Coast Area Transit; and appoint a selection committee consisting of the Transit Services Director or his designee, SCAT Manager of Operations, SCAT South Operations Supervisor, Tourism Development Director or designee, and a member of the Purchasing Office as a non-voting member. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: 2004 TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SPACE COAST AREA
TRANSIT

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve the 2004 Transit Development Plan for Space Coast Area Transit. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO SURPLUS, NEGOTIATE SALE, AND ACCEPT BIDS, RE: MOSQUITO
CONTROL AIRCRAFT NO LONGER NEEDED

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to grant permission to surplus, negotiate sale, and accept bids for the sale of a Piper Pawnee aircraft for a price equal or greater than $20,000; and if no county, district, governmental unit, or private nonprofit agency offers to purchase the aircraft, offer and accept bids from the general public. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVE REALLOCATION OF FUNDS, RE: PROJECTS IN THE WATER RESOURCES
FY 2004-2008 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve reallocation of funds within the Water Resources FY 2004-2008 Capital Improvements Program; and authorize budget actions required to implement. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AWARD OF BID NO. B-4-04-10 TO CLOUD 9 SERVICES, INC., RE: B-6 LIFT STATION
MODIFICATIONS

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to award Bid No. B-4-04-10, Construction of B-6 Life Station Modifications, to Cloud 9 Services, Inc. at $221,669.82; and authorize the Chair to execute the Contract. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Contract.)

REDUCTION OF FINE AND RELEASE OF CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN, RE: 720
NEWFOUND HARBOR DRIVE, MERRITT ISLAND

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve reduction of fine from $4,125 to $1,500, which is in addition to enforcement costs of $306; and approve release of Code Enforcement Lien upon receipt of payment. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVE EXTENSION, RE: NORTH COURTENAY PARKWAY CITIZEN RESOURCE
GROUP REVIEW OF NORTH COURTENAY PARKWAY CORRIDOR STUDY

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve extension for the North Courtenay Parkway Citizen Resource Group to complete its review of the North Courtenay Parkway Corridor Study until April 2004. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPOINTMENT, RE: BREVARD WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to appoint William A. Sample on the Brevard Workforce Development Board, replacing Mike Butchco, with term of appointment expiring June 30, 2007. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPOINTMENTS/REAPPOINTMENTS, RE: CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARDS

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to appoint and/or reappoint the following:

Building and Construction Advisory Committee

Appoint David Wickham to the Building and Construction Advisory Committee, with term of appointment expiring December 31, 2004.

Historical Commission

Appoint Alan Brech to the Historical Commission, with term of appointment expiring December 31, 2004.

Metropolitan Planning Organization Citizens Advisory Committee

Appoint Barry Rhodes to the Metropolitan Planning Organization Citizens Advisory Committee replacing Sharon Savastio, with term of appointment expiring December 31, 2004.

Suntree-Viera Parks Committee

Appoint Neil Jackson, Scott Hubel replacing Bill Roberts, Judi John replacing Bill Napert, and Nancy Sewell replacing John Law; and reappoint R. L. Jones to the Suntree-Viera Parks Committee, with terms of appointment expiring December 31, 2004.

Housing Finance Authority

Reappoint John Robert Murr to the Housing Finance Authority, with term of appointment expiring April 3, 2008.

Wickham Park Advisory Committee

Reappoint R. L. Jones and Cheryl Palmer to the Wickham Park Advisory Committee, with terms of appointments expiring December 31, 2004.

Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: BILLS AND BUDGET CHANGES

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve the Bills and Budget Changes as submitted. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages
for List of Bills and Budget Changes.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING RIGHT-OF-WAY (FIFTH STREET) IN
PLAN OF TOWN OF PINEDA - TIMOTHY STICKRATH, DEVELOPER, INC.

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating right-of-way (Fifth Street) in Plan of Town of Pineda, as petitioned by Timothy Stickrath, Developer, Inc.

Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff stated the applicant has requested a continuance of the item until February 24, 2004.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to continue the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating right-of-way (Fifth Street) in Plan of Town of Pineda, as petitioned by Timothy Stickrath, Developer, Inc. to the February 24, 2004 meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TAX EXEMPTION
FOR BOMBARDIER MOTOR CORPORATION OF AMERICA, AIRCRAFT ENGINES
DIVISION

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance for economic development tax exemption for Bombardier Motor Corporation of America, Aircraft Engines Division.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt an Ordinance granting an economic development ad valorem exemption to Bombardier Motor Corporation of America, Aircraft Engines Division, Challenger Road, Titusville, Florida; specifying the items exempted; providing the expiration date of the exemption; finding that the business meets the requirements of Chapter 196.012 Florida Statutes; providing for proof of eligibility for exemption; providing for an annual report by Bombardier Motor Corporation of America, Aircraft Engines Division; and providing an effective date.

A representative of Bombardier Motor Corporation of America stated the Company is launching a new venture, which is a revolutionary aircraft engine for general aviation; it is a piston engine; the program has been under engineering development since 1997; the Corporation introduced the product at the world’s largest air show, Air Venture, in OshKosh, Wisconsin last summer; and it was a success. He noted the Corporation is on target for certification by the FAA in 2004 and will be in market in 2005; and the operations the Corporation is looking to establish are sales, marketing, and service and things like a call center, shipping of parts, clothing accessories; and the short list includes a site in Titusville.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the average wage for employees in the facility would be $54,500.

Chair Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Ordinance No. 04-03.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: REQUEST FOR VESTED RIGHTS DETERMINATION FOR
RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX IN MIMS

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a request for vested rights determination for a residential duplex in Mims.

There being no comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve request by Brad Kuhns for a vested rights determination to vest a residential duplex that received a building permit in 1985 inconsistent with its RU-1-9 (single-family only) zoning classification. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

VESTED RIGHTS DETERMINATION, RE: COURTNEY ROBERTS V. BREVARD COUNTY

County Attorney Scott Knox stated the hearing procedure includes recommendations; he told both parties that they could expect the Board to perhaps make modifications to it; and it is unusual for the Board to give one hour for these kinds of presentations on both sides.

Chair Higgs stated she thought Mr. Roberts had removed the vested rights and what the Board was really hearing was an appeal of an administrative decision. Attorney Knox noted that is correct. Chair Higgs inquired is it a quasi-judicial appeal; with Attorney Knox responding yes. Chair Higgs inquired what happens when the Board has heard previous testimony and there has been considerable discussion in the public, including some that the Commissioners may have been involved in, and how does it play into a quasi-judicial hearing and positions the Board may have made. Attorney Knox responded the Board bases its decision on the evidence it hears at the hearing; to the extent it feels any of the prior discussions should be part of the record, it can have the minutes prepared and make them part of the record; and whatever is presented is what the Board needs to make a decision on. Chair Higgs stated Attorney Knox represents the Board; the applicant is represented by an attorney; citizens are represented by an attorney; but staff does not have legal counsel, which concerns her. Attorney Knox noted it may be a concern to Chair Higgs, but it should not be; and he believes staff is perfectly capable of presenting its own position. Chair Higgs stated staff is quite capable, but sometimes procedurally there are maneuvers that attorneys make. Attorney Knox noted Chair Higgs is in charge as the Chair; Attorney Torpy has asked in a letter he received this morning about the possibility of cross examination of witnesses; his recommendation is no because usually the County does not do that; and if Chair Higgs feels there is a time when Attorney Torpy should be able to ask a question of somebody, then it is her discretion. Attorney Knox stated legal maneuvering usually is a result of rules of evidence and rules of procedures, which exist in the legal community, but the County does not have those here.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the Roberts’ issue has been a very convoluted process; since Attorney Knox made a proposal and the attorneys have made their agreement to the proposal, the only suggestion he would have instead of just blatantly saying one hour, he would say up to one hour; he does not want to shortchange the parties in this because it has become so convoluted; and it is most difficult to follow the train as to how things have happened. He noted the majority of this is going to issue on whether or not there are two lots; it may take a while to reach that determination; he does not want to manipulate the process by trying to cut someone back in the essence of time; and this issue, among all others the Board has done, is most important to have a full understanding of how the County has gotten to the point where it is. He stated it could easily take one hour on both sides; and he would like to move the item as it is and let it work itself out so that the County can reach closure on this.

Commissioner Colon expressed concern with allowing one hour on both sides; stated she would support giving extensions if they are needed; and inquired is it how the Board is going to do it from now on with every administrative decision that has to be made. She further expressed concern with cross-examination; stated she is totally against it; she has seen what happened in other cities when it was done; and it turned into a mockery. She noted the citizens, staff, and everyone involved were totally disappointed with the elected officials that allowed it to happen; she has seen it happen with other cities in Brevard County; and recommended the Board not allow it. Commissioner Colon stated both sides have been given 15 minutes in the past; and if the Board feels an extension is needed, that is different and up to its discretion.

Commissioner Carlson stated she agrees with Commissioner Colon’s comments; given the fact that 15 minutes is what has been given before, a 50-minute extension will hopefully allow each side to be able to say what they want to say, even though it is convoluted, which she agrees with Commissioner Pritchard, and is why the Board is talking about the particular process; she could live with one hour; and inquired with both sides sending evidence in writing seven days in advance, does it mean there is going to be no evidence accepted at the hearing. Attorney Knox responded no; the evidence is provided as means for everybody to know what is going to be discussed; what is said at the hearing will be evidence; and there should be no surprises.

Chair Higgs inquired would it be correct to say all sides; and stated there are more than two sides. Attorney Knox stated staff can change the language to say all sides; and the Board’s other option is not to have a prolonged hearing, make everybody submit the information in writing, and have the normal 10-minute presentations.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired is the sequence relevant here; stated if the Board offers a person one hour, he or she may very well take it; he would prefer to ask for one-half hour; and when relevant information is being heard, the Board has not cut somebody off.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve a hearing procedure with the appellant response of up to one-half hour, staff response up to one-half hour, closing arguments up to 15 minutes.

Chair Higgs stated she is going to vote against the motion; the appellant and client group have agreed to the proposed hearing procedure; she easily sees that the Board will have repeated requests for extensions of time; and while she is not sure one hour is needed, she would rather clearly have the rules and abide by them than go with 30 minutes and think it is going to allow additional time. She inquired does it include the attorney for the citizens. Commissioner Scarborough stated Attorney Knox indicated the County would give Attorney Nohrr 15 minutes, but it is not indicated. Attorney Knox stated it was going to give Attorney Nohrr five minutes per person he represents; he indicated he would not take more than 15 minutes and did not ask for a closing; so staff did not provide for a closing for him. Chair Higgs noted it seems unfair. Commissioner Carlson stated the County should provide it as an option in case Attorney Nohrr needs it.

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated the hearing also needs to be moved to March 2, 2004; it was originally directed for February 24, 2004; but one of the County’s prime contributors will not be available on that date. Chair Higgs stated the hearing was set for February 24, 2004 so the Board has to continue the hearing on that date to March 2, 2004.

Commissioner Scarborough amended the motion such that the client group Attorney Nohrr represents would be afforded the opportunity for closing the same as the other two parties for the vested rights determination for Courtney Roberts v. Brevard County, and Commissioner Pritchard accepted the amendment.

Chair Higgs called for a vote on the motion, as amended. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

Chair Higgs stated the last time the issue was discussed she tried to keep the participating parties to the time frame and she will do so again; the Commissioners will make the motions to continue, but she will try to keep to the rules the Board has established; and if the Board wants something different, it can let her know.

DISCUSSION, RE: APPLYING FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS MODEL (FIAM) TO REZONING
REQUEST

Commissioner Pritchard stated he spoke with Jack Callinan who is on the Citizens Budget Review Committee; after the last meeting when Dr. Fishkind made his presentation, the Committee came up with a summary, as well as a list of what it questioned about Dr. Fishkind’s method; and read information into the record, as follows: “Are projections made done on a line-by-line basis from a 10-year average association with each line? Is the 10-year average recomputed after each year’s projections are completed? Could the averages be manually adjusted to support future economic changes (housing revenues slow down due to interest rate changes)? Could the package support weighted averages?” He noted perhaps at a subsequent meeting the County could have a response by staff; he told Mr. Callinan the item may come up about 11:00 a.m. today, but the Board is ahead of schedule; and Mr. Callinan is not present, so he read the questions from the Committee into the record.

Commissioner Carlson inquired what is the next step for the item; and stated the Agenda Report indicates the Board may also wish to discuss thresholds, parameters, etc. She stated she reviewed the results; in the application of the model, the first example is a piece of property that was zoned BU-1 and is now zoned RU-10, and the difference between a commercial property and 19 units, and a residential scenario; and inquired in the comparison under the current land use, why was it not applied as if it were developed as commercial property to compare more apples to apples. She noted in this case it is obvious that one could side with the use that was currently imposed, which was the 19-unit condominium; there is not a way to tell what the highest and best use of the property is; the County is looking to see impacts, how much are they, and is it bringing in the dollars to cover such impacts; and she had a problem with any sort of comparative analysis because she could not determine what the best use of it was before it was rezoned and how it applies for future land use and all those other things the County looks at. Commissioner Carlson inquired does the -$39,000 and -$3 million include the cost of bonding the money if the County does not have it upfront; with Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott responding no. Commissioner Carlson stated it was a flaw in the model; she does not know how the County calculates it because of the issue; and those are the two things she thinks require more discussion and questions to Dr. Fishkind.

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca stated staff could easily put in some kind of model BU-1 land use; however, it would be a presumption on its part because there is such a wide variety of BU-1 land uses; staff could come up with some industrial and commercial projects and say these are the projects the County will always use as a base prototype; and if the Board agrees with those projects, it will understand it is always comparing this relatively hypothetical development against a development it knows a little bit more about. She noted she believes that is why the Board sees it being used as vacant land because staff did not know what kind of commercial to compare it with; but staff could develop those prototypes and provide them to the Board for its approval; and it can provide the built scenario versus the other built scenario, with the understanding that it is hypothetical.

Commissioner Carlson stated she understands it, but it is a lot more realistic than thinking the vacant land is going to stay vacant for 20 years.

Mr. Scott stated staff and the Board are learning this process together; when the County is looking at a final number, it is staff’s inclination to want to do that; it is looking at an operating revenue versus cost and a capital revenue versus cost, and then coming up with the final number; and there is a faulty premise of sorts in wanting to come up with a final number that is either in the plus or negative. He noted operating revenues show a surplus; such surplus serves to offset the deficit seen in the capital revenues versus cost; the County really cannot compare the two; and if there is a potential surplus in revenue in Mosquito Control, the County cannot roll those monies into making an intersection improvement. He stated staff would suggest in the future that the Board simply look at the implications of a development proposal in regard to its operating revenue versus cost and put it one place, and capital revenue versus capital cost put in another place, instead of trying to come up with the total number, which is in the plus or minus; it is mixing apples and oranges and becomes problematic; that was one of the biggest observations staff made; and there are many other observations as staff continues to fine tune this to the County.

Commissioner Carlson stated in looking at the fiscal impact and both the operating and capital, it has to be consistent with what the County understands in terms of application of fiscal policy; it is difficult to get one’s arms around it; going back to the application in terms of the vacant piece of property and the non-vacant, the second case was an existing PUD and went to 978 units, which is Grand Haven; and she is not sure if the PUD was expired, but had the County applied PUD zoning to it in some sort of hypothetical way and said one home per acre, it would probably find that the cost and impact would be much less than if it had gone 978 homes single-family.

Commissioner Scarborough stated one of the things he is struggling with is the capital side; he likes having a general number, but when getting to the specific capital, the problem is when hitting a threshold and getting to a level of service, there could be enormous cost for infill that is very difficult; inquired what is the cost of six-laning through Rockledge and Cocoa and how does one know that; and noted he has heard in MPO meetings it is activities in Commissioner Carlson’s District, including Suntree and Viera, that want to migrate north to work at the Kennedy Space Center. He stated he does not know where the traffic is going, but there are movements of traffic; it certainly is not building in Cocoa that is causing the six-laning of roads in Cocoa; he likes the idea and concept, but he is going to have a lot of difficulty with the capital and just saying this one is good and this one is bad; and there are questions coming up all the time. He inquired when he takes a cost, where does it trip and does it trip all of a sudden; stated he was extrapolating some numbers of what is supposed to be in building permits in Titusville; the population conceivably could jump 20% in a year; and that is not capable of being calculated for the community. Commissioner Scarborough noted people say everything breaks at its weakest link; the weakest link could be the most critical expensive link; inquired how does the County adjust it; and stated at least it understands the problem. He stated they will not be able to have perfection with this; but maybe it will be a little more sophisticated.

Chair Higgs stated the FIAM provides useful information, but maybe not definitive information; one of the concerns she had in looking at it is when the County takes the operating cost in the model, it is assuming it is totally happy with the level of operating cost and what it is funding; it may not be an assumption that everybody is ready to make; but the operating cost is based on what is, not what the County would like it to be; and it causes her difficulty.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he agrees with the Commissioners’ comments; this is a component of a decision-making process; it came about because of questions the Board asked; it is a good beginning; and the County is fine-tuning the process. He noted he is not looking for a number or ranking one through ten as to whether something is good, bad, or indifferent; he is looking at a way to look at the proposed project, seeing whether or not it is going to be economically viable, and what the potential benefit is going to be; Commissioner Scarborough’s point is very well taken; and it is not development in Cocoa that is causing six-laning, but traffic flowing from Point A to Point B that is driving through Cocoa. He stated the County needs to look at the cause and effect of whatever it is that it is considering to make sure it is not going to adversely impact something else such that the cost can be driven out of sight; it is a good start; the refinement part of it is going to come as the County moves further along into it; and because there are some talented people on the Citizens Budget Review Committee, the issues could be reviewed by the Committee and commented on.

Chair Higgs inquired is there a motion on what the Board wants staff to do. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if staff is ready to implement; with Chair Higgs responding it is whether or not the Board is ready to implement. Chair Higgs inquired does the Board want to see it at rezoning stages; with Commissioner Scarborough responding the only way to make sure the County starts working it is to start working it. Commissioner Carlson stated the County could get some better prototype for different zonings based on what it is and what it was, and compare the two; in terms of the operating revenue coming into the County, it shows a net gain; obviously, any development is positive if one was to look at the model; and the County has to have some sort of comparative way to say this is what it was, this is what it is, is this the best use for it, and could the use be put some place else versus here, depending on how the zoning is laid out. She noted she does not have any problem giving it a try as long as there is not a precedent set by using it when the County does not quite understand the whole model; if everybody feels comfortable with understanding how the numbers are working, that is fine; but she is not comfortable with it yet.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the more he works the model, the better off he will be in making suggestions how to tweak it; if the County keeps it in the theoretical, it is going to be more difficult for the Board to come to a consensus; so it can use it as a means of understanding as opposed to being a decision tool at this moment. Commissioner Carlson stated as long as the County does not use the model as a strict decision tool and set a precedent until it massages it and understands it better, and staff provides the prototypes for the various zonings in place, that is fine, and she would be happy with a motion to that effect.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated if the Board is going to use the model as a tool in making a decision on zoning cases it should be just that, one of the things it considers, but not the only thing it considers; there is no way to segregate and say the Board did not consider that; and once it has looked at it, it is part of its decision-making process. Chair Higgs stated that is true if the model is used at the public hearing; and the Board could use the model post-hearing applied to decisions. Attorney Knox noted if the Board makes its decision and brings the model in later to see what would have changed, if anything, that is fine; but if it is going to consider the model before it makes its decision, it has to take into account it is one of the things it is going to look at.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he has a real problem taking testimony and the Board making a decision, but not making it a part of the requirements or binding development plan; if the County is going to go there, it needs to have that component part as well; he would like to see the model as additional information and not for making the decision; and the Board could see how it can mature into it.

Chair Higgs stated it becomes a post decision-making tool of analysis. Commissioner Carlson stated when the Fishkind model was brought to the Board at the workshop, it was going to provide the County with an analytical tool to determine if the actual cost of growth was paying for itself and the impact fees the County was charging were significant enough to cover some of the cost; the model is helping, but the County needs to go back and reassess based on what the model has shown if the County is truly charging impact fees to the amount it should be charging them; and inquired does the County reevaluate impact fees based on the impact model Dr. Fishkind has brought. Chair Higgs stated the County knows from the impact fee study on transportation that it is at 30% of those costs. Commissioner Carlson inquired when the County uses the model, how does it help it analyze it better, does it say it should have been 50%, and what does the model really provide the County; and stated it needs to pin that down before it can use the model for any tool.

Commissioner Pritchard stated Commissioner Carlson has a good point; his understanding is that the Fishkind model was not to determine whether or not the County was paying a sufficient amount of impact fee; it was to determine what the potential valuation of properties would be depending on the use; there was also an environmental element, which would be the potential loss of not having the environmental element present by developing the process; and it was supposed to be a tool the County would use in order to evaluate whatever the project may be so that it would help in the decision-making process. He noted he was not looking for any rating of one through ten; he was looking for additional input that would be calculated from an economic point of view; that is the direction the Board is still going with a little tweaking and adjusting here and there; but the model is a component of the decision-making process.

Commissioner Carlson stated she agrees with Commissioner Pritchard; and the interpretation of the model needs to be clearly defined by Dr. Fishkind so the Commissioners and staff have the same interpretation so it is not skewed one way or another.

County Manager Tom Jenkins inquired if it would be feasible for staff to assemble the comments that have been made and try to come back with an approach. Chair Higgs responded that sounds wonderful.

The Board directed staff to assemble all comments and return to the Board with a possible approach for application of the Fiscal Impact Analysis Model (FIAM) to rezoning requests.

REAPPOINTMENTS, RE: ENVIRONMENTALLY ENDANGERED LANDS SELECTION
COMMITTEE

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to reappoint David Breininger, Mark Bush, Ron Hight, Charles Hinkle, Randall Parkinson, Paul Schmalzer, and Kim Zarillo to the Environmentally Endangered Lands Selection Committee, with term of appointment expiring December 31, 2005. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: ELECTRONIC PET CONTAINMENT SYSTEM REPORT (INVISIBLE FENCES)

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to acknowledge receipt of the Electronic Pet Containment System Report; and authorize establishing an ordinance review committee on electronic pet containment systems (invisible fences). Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CITIZEN REQUEST - LORETTA SILVER, RE: AMENDMENT TO ZONING REGULATIONS
TO CHANGE REAR SETBACK

Mike Putaggio stated he is from South Shores Development in South Melbourne Beach; and requested a Code change in the Development, from RA-2-6 to RU-1. He stated RU-1 states there needs to be a 10-foot setback required in the rear of homes in order to add a fiberglass roof to an existing screen enclosure; some homes in the neighborhood have already been granted permits to allow them to install fiberglass roofs on existing screen enclosures; approximately six to eight additional homeowners seeking to make this same improvement have already obtained estimates, submitted the proposals, and have been denied permits due to the RA-2-6 zoning, which requires a 20-foot rear setback; and the homeowners are now seeking a change in zoning to RU-1.

Chair Higgs stated the RA-2-6 and RU-2-10 classifications are roughly the same type of development, but there are different restrictions and different setbacks; and the Board needs to have staff look at the two requirements to see if they should be meshed, and provide an analysis of it. She noted the homeowners are not seeking at this point to change their zoning classification, but to have the County look at the requirements.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to direct the Planning and Zoning Director to prepare an analysis and comparison of RA and RU zoning classifications and report to the Board at the March 2, 2004 meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: ELECTRONIC PET CONTAINMENT SYSTEM REPORT (INVISIBLE FENCES)
(CONTINUED)

Gary Guido stated he has been on the Pineda Crossings Homeowners Association Liaison Board for four years, served as President of the Association for one year, and is very involved in the community; he has been called as a member of the Board of Directors several times because some people have the invisible fences and there have been problems; yesterday sitting in his office at his home he heard a commotion outside and young children screaming; and there was a large dog outside that had evidently broken away from its owner. He noted the children were terrified; the dog was going after some cranes; he ran out of his home and got in between the children and the dog; and the dog was not vicious and probably wanted to play more than anything else. He stated his point is that three children were terrified and cranes were in danger; it is the responsibility of government to protect the citizenry from harm; he has looked into these types of fences and talked to the manufacturers and people who have installed such fences; none of them will guarantee that the fences will work; and the manufacturers of several of these different types of fences say such fences are best used as a secondary defense. Mr. Guido noted a Florida Power and Light (FP&L) Company worker lost her ear when she was attacked by a dog; an elderly lady in another part of the State was killed by a pack of pit bulls; it is time not to think about electric fences, but to enforce what is already in the Code to make it tougher for people who have the animals, as well as the animals themselves; and he is not only talking about pit bulls, but the whole section of breeds that are vicious animals. He requested the Board do something; stated he spoke with Mr. Engelson and gave a report to Assistant County Manager Don Lusk; and the report gives the caveats about this type of fencing, etc.

Chair Higgs stated the Board’s action was to establish the committee and get its recommendations.

Commissioner Colon encouraged Mr. Guido to be part of the committee that is being put together. Mr. Guido stated he would be privileged to serve on the committee. Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Guido is going to be the appointee on the committee for his District.

The meeting recessed at 10:24 a.m. and reconvened at 10:36 a.m.

FINAL ENGINEERING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, RE: SAWGRASS SOUTH
AT SUNTREE

Attorney Jim Fallace, representing Sawgrass South Development, stated he does not need to go back over the five hearings that have taken place concerning the issue; he has written objections to clarify Sawgrass’ position to reopening the record; there is a Supreme Court opinion directly on point; at the last meeting, the Board did the right thing and vacated its prior rejection of the application for preliminary plat approval and final engineering approval; and it is certainly procedurally correct. He noted that takes it back to September 16, 2003; according to the Supreme Court Florida, as he reads the opinion, the Board is limited to making its decision based on the evidence prior to vacating it; therefore, while he understands Chair Higgs wants to hear public comment, from a legal position, the appropriate thing to do is for the Board to make a decision to approve or approve with modifications the application; and he has the written objections to present. He stated there was a question at the last hearing of whether Sawgrass would agree to certain modifications; it does agree to those modifications except for the imposition of any additional requirements beyond the permit Sawgrass has from St. Johns River Water Management District; he can go into detail if it becomes an issue; and Sawgrass would tender all of the evidence it submitted on September 16, 2003, including experts opinion. Attorney Fallace noted he believes the Board recognizes there are no eagles, no nest, and no viable reason to deny the application at this point; and requested the application be approved.

Frank Rockwell stated he lives in St. Andrews Isle in Suntree; the purpose of his presentation is to document the fact that the pair of bald eagles, who constructed nest BE17B last year in a tree on proposed Sawgrass South Lot 9, have returned to that nest and are currently in the process of refurbishing the nest; the back door of his home in St. Andrews Isle is approximately 120 feet due north of the nest; and he has an unobstructed view of the nest. He noted during November and December 2003, he observed no eagle activity in or around the nest; beginning early this January, he observed intermittent activity by a single eagle at a time; by mid-January, the activity started to become more regular and occasionally included both eagles; and between January 29, 2004 and February 1, 2004, the activity had become a daily routine and often included both eagles perched in the nest tree. He stated he could also regularly hear them in the evening around sunset and in the early morning around sunrise; late morning on February 1, 2004 he observed an eagle standing in the nest carrying on a loud discussion with its mate, who was perched nearby; they individually returned to the nest at various times that day carrying what looked like sticks or twigs in their claws; and he has continued to observe their activity on a daily basis since that time. Mr. Rockwell noted observing through binoculars it is clear that they take turns carrying sticks and other nest material in their claws; they swoop directly into the nest and dutifully arrange the material for about four to five minutes, then fly off to obtain additional material or hunt for food, which they have eaten while perched near the nest; the eagles can be absent from the nest area for anywhere from about 30 minutes to a few hours; however, one or both eagles are present working on the nest or perched in the tree much of each day and now, by hearing their sounds, throughout the night. He stated he has attached two digital camera prints of an eagle in the nest; he apologizes for the clarity; however, an eagle can be discerned in the nest. He noted eagle photo number one was taken by him at about 11:30 a.m. on February 2, 2004; eagle photo number two was taken by him on February 8, 2004; the nest takes up a larger fraction of the “y” in the tree in photo two; it is now a clearly irrefutable fact that the two eagles have returned to nest BE17B and are actually refurbishing the nest; and the eagles continue to want the same habitat protection that was afforded to them when they occupied nest BE17A. Mr. Rockwell stated the Millstone Drive section of Sawgrass South lies entirely within the mandated 750-foot primary protection zone around BE17B; the Waterloo Place section of Sawgrass South lies entirely within the 1,500-foot secondary protection zone; and urged the Board to strongly support Objective 9 of the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan, which states, “Protect endangered and threatened wildlife species and species of special concern from adverse impacts due to loss of crucial habitat.” He requested the Board reaffirm its September 16, 2003 denial of the Sawgrass South development in order to protect the crucial bald eagle habitat associated with nest BE17B; and stated the case for doing so today is even stronger than it was on September 16, 2003.

Dick Northrup, President of St. Andrews Isle Homeowners Association, provided information to the Board, but not the Clerk; stated residents are extremely concerned with the Sawgrass South development and its potential negative impact on both the community and environment; the eagles nest issue remains of paramount importance to the residents, along with the continued preservation of the wetland property; and hopefully, the Board will strongly support Objective 9 of the Comprehensive Plan, which states, “Protect endangered and threatened wildlife species and species of special concern from adverse impacts due to loss of crucial habitat.” He noted based on Mr. Rockwell’s discussion this morning and his photographic evidence of numerous eagle sightings in and around nest BE17B in Sawgrass South, the residents respectfully request the Board uphold its previous denial in order to protect crucial bald eagle habitat; in addition to eagle habitat protection, the residents have a number of significant issues with the Sawgrass South development; it is essential that the developer’s plans provide for an aesthetic buffer, which will substantially impede access to the homeowners’ private property, especially their lake; and the narrow strip of land, which homeowners own on the Sawgrass side of the lake, affords minimal access protection, which is impractical to police and enforce. Mr. Northrup stated the residents pay for the lake maintenance and originally purchased their property with the understanding they would have exclusive use of the lake, which is controlled by the covenants; unauthorized lake access would also cause security concerns to St. Andrews Isle, which is a 24-hour per day gated community; the residents pay for this expensive gate capability, which could be compromised through unauthorized lake access; another critical point on restricting lake access is the liability risk, which could result in very significant financial vulnerability to the entire community; and the developer should establish meaningful deed restrictions for his potential homeowners, as well as the above mentioned buffer, prohibiting them from accessing the lake in any way. He noted it is important that the buyers fully realize that they do not have access to the lake and that St. Andrews Isle could enforce the restrictions in a court of law, if necessary; the residents of St. Andrews Isle seek assurances that the proposed Sawgrass South development will be compatible in its covenants with those of St. Andrews Isle; and it is required, not only for aesthetics, but also to preserve property values. Mr. Northrup stated review of the draft Sawgrass South covenants reveal some incompatibilities, particularly with fences, which it would even permit lakeside with a safety waiver based on an occupant being less than age 10; this is not acceptable to St. Andrews Isle, where it does not permit any fences, even though it has many young residents meeting that age criteria; a final item is the matter of draining the Sawgrass South stormwater, including property runoff, which the residents certainly do not want channeled into their lake; and the residents required specifics as to the Sawgrass South methods of handling their stormwater separate from the lake. He requested the Board deny the final engineering plan and preliminary plat approval for Sawgrass South to protect the nesting eagles habitat and to obtain the developer’s resolution of the above-stated issues and concerns.

Edward Lopez, Vice President of Suntree Masters Homeowners Association, inquired in the event the Board approves the final engineering plan for Sawgrass South, can the Association be assured that the final engineering plan/binding development plan/preliminary plat will contain modifications made by prior Board actions and staff assertions; stated he refers specifically to requests previously made vis-a-vis Brisbane Boulevard, etc.; and inquired can they be assured that the Wetland A issue is properly documented and preserved.

Melissa Hoagland, President of Citizens For Responsible Growth (CFRG), stated because there seems to have been some confusion regarding CFRG’s position on the issue, she would like to restate it once more for the record; and she also has a request for clarification on one issue. She noted the CFRG’s position on this development is unchanged from its statement at the July 22, 2003 Board meeting and at meetings and communications thereafter on August 18 and September 16, 2003, January 10, 13, and 26, 2004; it was communicated to the Board by letter on January 10, 2004, in anticipation of the January 13, 2004 Board meeting, should it have decided at that meeting to rescind its denial of the request for final engineering plan approval; and the letter has been on the record for over one month now and is part of the revised Findings of Fact. She stated it is not and was not a new statement; the same letter was resubmitted to the Board as an e-mail attachment January 26, 2004 prior to the meeting on January 27, 2004, again in the event the plat denial was rescinded; first and foremost, the CFRG supports protection of the bald eagles if they are present on the parcel; the statement Commissioner Carlson read on January 27, 2004 from the CFRG’s January 10, 2004 letter, indicated that, “CFRG has no objections to the approval of the final engineering plan as submitted and modified by Board actions up to September 16, 2003 and with the staff actions indicated specifically, provided that the following conditions are in effect, and with regard to the eagles, ‘provided it is determined that the bald eagles nest BE17B is clearly documented by County Natural Resources personnel and County experts to be abandoned’. The second portion of our position, as stated repeatedly since July 22, 2004, is that the six Suntree community concerns enumerated by Suntree Masters Homeowners Association on that date and thereafter, and summarized in CFRG’s letter of January 10, 2004, must be addressed in any plan for development of this parcel and, in fact, we believe that the currently proposed final engineering plan, with the amendments agreed to by the applicant as outlined in the summary explanation of the agenda packet, covers four of the six requests made by the Association, mainly the limitation of extension of Brisbane Boulevard, removal of references to a paved and traffic connection at a later date, erection of a barricade north of the signage at the end of Brisbane Boulevard, and removal of references to a connection between St. Andrews Boulevard and the Pineda Causeway Extension. Further, under requested action, County staff has requested Board direction to change the wording on the binding development plan pertaining to the connection of St. Andrews Boulevard to the Pineda Causeway Extension, which would address the Association’s fifth concern.” Ms. Hoagland stated with regard to the sixth stated community concern, protection of Wetland A, the CFRG would like to request clarification on what measures would be undertaken at the County level for this protection, currently provided for only as a condition of the St. John’s permit; her understanding is that such measures can either take the form of an amendment to the binding development plan, which would require another public hearing, or as a provision of the final engineering and preliminary plat approval, which the Board could accomplish here today; if Wetland A protection were provided by a change to the binding development plan, such plan is a contract between the developer and the County, enforceable in a court of law; and inquired if this protection were to be provided instead as a part of the plat approval, how enforceable is that protection in the future.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to allow Ms. Hoagland additional time to complete her comments. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Ms. Hoagland stated the CFRG is not a no-growth organization; its goal is managed responsible growth for Brevard County; if the eagles are gone from nest BE17B, the proposal for this development as it is currently presented with the guarantee of protection for Wetland A, meets the criteria for such growth; and the current proposal is not perfect, but it answers the majority of the concerns raised by the community and, assume the eagles departure, with the proviso of wetland protection, preserves the environmental features of the area. She noted the CFRG appreciates the Board’s perseverance in fashioning a plan that takes principles for managed growth and preservation of the natural resources of the site into account.

Commissioner Colon stated Ms. Hoagland supports the Association that abuts the development and its proposal; the Association wants something in writing from the developer if it shows there are no eagles in the area; but there have been testimonies this morning that the eagles have been seen.

Ms. Hoagland noted what needs to happen for both sides to feel comfortable with this is that it needs to be documented by a third objective party, which would be the County staff and personnel, not the expert or the Association, in trying to be fair.

Chair Higgs inquired is there any information from staff from the field today or in the last couple of days.

Natural Resources Management Interim Director Virginia Barker stated Ms. Kari Santy was at the eagles nest on Friday and again this morning; and she will let Ms. Santy comment on her observation.

Ms. Santy, Natural Resources Management Department, stated she went to the site Friday afternoon about 1:20 p.m.; one eagle was perched on nest BE17B; the second eagle arrived about 1:45 p.m. and landed on a branch about 15 above the nest; and the eagles stayed there for about one-half hour and then flew away. She noted the eagles were gone for approximately three hours and one eagle returned at about 5:20 p.m. and was perched on an adjacent tree to the nest; she did not view any nesting behavior and did not observe the eagles bringing any sticks or anything to the nest; they were perched on the nest, but were not doing much but looking around; and she did not see the eagles this morning when she was there from 8:20 a.m. to 9:20 a.m.

Commissioner Carlson inquired is Ms. Santy familiar with this case and the previous documentation that staff has made on observations of the nest; with Ms. Santy responding somewhat, but not real knowledgeable as she was asked upon resignation of her co-worker to go out and make observations. Ms. Santy stated her co-worker briefed her a little bit on what she had seen at the two nests; and upon receiving information from one of the residents that the eagle was being seen at nest BE17B, staff was asked to go to the site and verify if that was the case or not. Commissioner Carlson stated what the Board is looking for is some sort of written acknowledgement that the nest is truly abandoned or if there has been an indicator that the eagles are rebuilding the nest and attempting to use it. Ms. Barker stated Ms. Santy documented that the eagles were there on Friday; she took digital images with date stamps of the eagles on the nest, adjacent to the nest, and in the tree with the nest on Friday, but did not observe any other activity that would indicate that they were rebuilding the nest, abandoning it, sitting on eggs, or doing any other things one would need to document to know what the eagles intent with the nest is.

Chair Higgs inquired if the eagles were using nest BE17B, would staff during the observations expect to see something else going on or can Ms. Santy make any conclusion. Ms. Santy responded she would have to watch the eagles more to be able to make a decision because she was only on the site one afternoon; during that time the eagles did not exhibit any types of nesting behavior or that they were going to be mating, etc.; she is assuming there are no eggs in the nest due to the length of time the eagles were absent from the tree; and if there were eggs in the nest, they would be incubating and the eagles would be there more often. She noted other than that there is nothing to indicate that the eagles are trying to use the nest, although there is nothing that indicates they are trying to abandon it either.

Commissioner Colon stated she agrees there is no way staff can make those kinds of decisions based on one sighting; some of the testimony that has been given is that the eagles have been seen at different times; this is mother nature; and it is exactly what she was talking about at the last meeting where no one knows, but now there is even more concrete observation that this is where the eagles are staying. She suggested the County continue its observation as there is no way to make major decisions today and feel comfortable about it; it originally made a decision and should have stuck to it from the beginning; that is why the issue is so difficult because it is dealing with mother nature; and the County does not know exactly what is going to happen. She reiterated more observation from County staff is something that should happen.

Commissioner Carlson inquired based on eagle behavior, what is the normal anticipated time frame for an eagle to have set up a nest, had eggs in it, and to have fledglings appear. Ms. Santy responded she is not an eagle expert; she has some information she has not had a chance to go through and read up on; and she can get back to the Board on that information as far as time frame and contact one of the State’s biologists who focuses solely on eagles. Commissioner Carlson stated the County is at a disadvantage without having an expert here who can talk about the bald eagles; it had an expert before and Ms. Oddy knew what was going on as far as the breeding behavior, etc. and had previous knowledge and visuals as far as what the behavior of the eagles had been previously; and she is ready to talk about the other conditions and try to move this along, but it is going to be difficult to make a comfortable decision based on what the County has. She noted at the previous meeting she talked to the fact that it appeared that the nest had been abandoned, but the County does not have any written proof of that; the one thing staff has commented on is that they cannot say one way or another; the Commissioners are not experts and unfortunately, the Board has to rely on staff and other experts to tell it these things; and she is comfortable with the way the Corps of Engineers is handling it as far as it limiting impact to the eagles nest, if it is truly going to be a viable nest. Commissioner Carlson stated she needs feedback from the other Commissioners on how comfortable they feel to go forward; the eagle issue is the first issue that needs to be put to bed; once that is finished, the conditions can be discussed; the other option would be to look at the final plat and leave that section of the plat in abeyance until there is further observation, allowing part of the plat to go forward for development, which would be the area where Waterloo Drive is located; and the issue needs to be defined between St. Andrews Isle Homeowners Association and the developer in terms of what they are willing to do concerning the liability, which has not been ironed out.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the last report the County had was that the nest had deteriorated and was simply a pile of sticks; it was much less of a grouping of sticks than it had been; and inquired if Ms. Santy noticed whether the nest is a few sticks in a tree or is it beginning to look like something again. Ms. Santy responded it is more than a few sticks in the tree; it is obviously nowhere near in size comparison to the other nest; however, it is possible the nest has increased in size since it had deteriorated; and if the resident is correct and the eagle did bring some sticks back to the tree, then the nest could have been rebuilt to a certain point. Commissioner Pritchard inquired does Ms. Santy have before and after pictures of the nest; with Ms. Santy responding she has pictures from January 27, 2004 to February 5, 2004.

Commissioner Pritchard stated there are some other conditions the Board can discuss regarding proposed development of the area; and inquired if Mr. Northrup is objecting to any type of development in the Millstone Drive area, which is the area south of him where the eagle’s nest is located. Mr. Northrup responded separately from the eagle’s nest there are other issues, which he laid out this morning about access to the lake and buffer. Commissioner Pritchard inquired does Mr. Northrup have a specific objection to the area being developed; with Mr. Northrup responding he laid out pretty thoroughly in his presentation the issues of protecting property values, lake access in terms of liability, and the covenants and deed restrictions. Commissioner Carlson noted in a nutshell it is compatibility and liability. Mr. Northrup stated the fences in the Sawgrass South covenants are totally incompatible with St. Andrews Isle. Commissioner Pritchard stated it would be more in Mr. Northrup’s interest if the area was not developed; with Mr. Northrup responding yes. Commissioner Pritchard noted the eagle is a surrogate; whether it is there or not and whether it is coming through or not, it is still being used just as a way to say no to development of this area, the same as blocking St. Andrews Boulevard and Brisbane Boulevard is so there is not a through connection; one of the things he finds ironic is that the County is talking about a mandated 750-foot primary protection zone and another 1,500-foot around it, yet the one gentleman brings in photographs taken from his back door, which is 125 feet from the nest; so he has to question what is the reality of 125 feet from the nest and yet houses that are there are okay, but no one can put anything else in because the County is trying to protect an eagle that seems to be coming and going. He inquired since the eagles have a history of getting evicted by owls, what is going to prevent something like that from happening; stated the eagle issue to him is nothing other than a surrogate to prevent the development of this area; he knows there are other concerns, including liability and compatibility issues; and these are things that can be addressed, but to base a denial on two birds that are coming and going, and saying something should not be done because of that is foolish. He noted the County should not allow surrogates to determine what its land use regulations should be.

Commissioner Colon inquired has the applicant been provided copies of the concerns from the citizens, and is he willing to look at some of the things they have addressed. Attorney Fallace responded his client has seen the concerns; the first concern expressed was on the final engineering plan limiting the extension of Brisbane Boulevard to 20 feet beyond Millstone Drive; and his client agreed to that and it was discussed at the September 16, 2003 meeting. He noted the changing of the wording pertaining to the connection to St. Andrews Boulevard to the Pineda Causeway and substituting the word “may” was agreed to by his client; on the final engineering plan, removing any reference to pavement and traffic connection being extended at a later date was also agreed to by his client; and at the north end of Brisbane Boulevard, erecting Class II reflectors, dead end signage mirrors, and whatever other barricades that were worked out with staff was agreed upon also by his client. He stated any references to a connection between St. Andrews Boulevard and the Pineda Causeway Extension have been removed and his client agreed to it; there was a question at some point in the proceeding about preserving the tracts that were already under the permit issued by the St. Johns River Water Management District; the group of adjoining neighbors that call themselves the CFRG wanted something in writing on that; and there is something in writing, which is a permit that imposes obligations on his client and he intends to comply with the obligations. Attorney Fallace stated it is not appropriate for an independent group of neighbors to impose additional requirements; he does not believe they are trying to do that, but are asking if the applicant is going to comply with the permit; the answer is he is required to comply with such permit and there is no evidence that he is not; and in a sense, he has already complied with it. He noted with respect to the lake, the issue was discussed at length on September 16, 2003; it is a liability issue of the people who claim ownership of the lake; questions were raised and discussed about insurance coverage; and the homeowners have insurance coverage, but his client is not bound by what they want to do in their neighborhood. He stated if his client allows in the covenants to put up a fence for someone who has a minor child or handicapped child, that certainly is his prerogative; if the homeowners are concerned about liability, they should take action to protect themselves; they made that choice when the land was platted; and it is a choice they have to live with.

Commissioner Colon stated Attorney Fallace’s client has agreed to the other terms that have been discussed in the past; and requested Attorney Fallace review the information from the homeowners to see if there is anything his client can or cannot agree with. Attorney Fallace stated the issue with respect to the lake is an issue that is not going to change; Mr. Northrup’s group says they are worried about liability for the lake; they have that liability today; and if someone comes across his client’s property and drowns in the lake, the group has that liability. He noted his client intends to put up houses; his client has a permit because the only expert evidence here is that the decoy eagle nest is not an appropriate or viable nest; he agreed that he was going to comply with Fish and Wildlife Service’s requirements on the staggered development; and he has carved out from development Lots 8, 9, 10, and 11. He stated his client is protecting the nest, even though the Service says it is not; with the adjoining lots to the lake, the liability is no different than it is today; it is not appropriate to impose special conditions on his client’s use and development of the property that Mr. Northrup’s group did not take care of when they developed their property; and in looking at the history of their subdivision, it contemplated the development of his client’s subdivision, which is what his client is doing and asking for. Commissioner Colon inquired how does it fit in with the way Attorney Fallace’s client is going to be selling these lots, as waterfront property and access to the lake; stated these are the questions the citizens have; and inquired will it be in writing from Attorney Fallace’s client that the lake belongs to the other homeowners or not. Attorney Fallace responded his client presented a preliminary plat; the people were shown such plat, where their lots are, the easements and conservation easements, and permits that restrict their use of the property; but he is surprised that the Board would now take on the responsibility of limiting what his client tells or does not tell people he sells lots to. Commissioner Colon stated the Board has done it before and it is called protecting the integrity of the neighborhood; that is all it wants; she is not against the development; but she wants to make sure about the compatibility of the neighborhood. She noted the homes planned to be built are $400,000 and up; they are obviously going to be beautiful homes; she is not against any of it; and she wants to be clear about what is going to be coming into the neighborhood. Attorney Fallace stated it was done at staff level, which issued the agenda report on September 16, 2003 saying the development is compatible and in compliance with all of the requirements of the Ordinance; his client put it in writing and made it crystal clear; that is what the plat is; and he has declaration of restrictive covenants, which is in writing. He noted Mr. Evans is present if Commissioner Colon wants to ask him what is being marketed to people; but at this particular juncture, he does not believe he is marketing anything; he has to get preliminary plat approval; and he is not sure if the Board is asking his client to now submit something as to what he is going to tell people and have it bless that, when what they are going to be told is what is in writing, which is the preliminary plat that staff found compatible.

Hugh Evans stated he has had numerous discussions with the residents of St. Andrews Isle; they are trying to create a very unique situation; when he developed Sawgrass across the street that backs up to Suntree Estates, he put a lake in adjacent to those residents’ homes to protect and buffer them from Sawgrass; the residents are now maintaining that side of the lake; and Suntree Estates does not provide any additional insurance for that, but it maintains down to the water line. He noted on the north side of St. Andrews Isle, the same situation exists; those residents maintain down to the water’s edge; in this case, the residents on the south side do not wish him to maintain down to the water’s edge; and they want him to identify that the property line is there and that he has no access to the lake. He stated he told the residents he would be glad to indemnify them through the insurance policy of the homeowners association if he did maintain down to the water’s edge, which is the typical way it is done; what is being proposed is extremely unique; he is willing to accept that condition, deed restrict the lots, and identify to those individuals that they cannot go down to that area; and the people in St. Andrews Isle will maintain that from the back of their property line, at the top of the berm, down to the edge of the water. Mr. Evans stated the residents will have their mowers somehow maintaining that; he does not believe it is going to be a very attractive way to do it; but he is more than willing to limit that; there have been extensive discussions trying to come to some resolution about that; but it does not look like it is going to happen, which is fine and he understands. He noted he will put it in the deed restrictions that the lots along the lake have no access to such lake, so those individuals that buy the lots are very sure of that; regarding the fence restriction, he allows people who have children under the age of 10 or people who have handicapped individuals in their homes to apply to the homeowners association on a condition-by-condition basis to allow for a fence; he is not going to waive it; and he has seen accidents happen in those situations where a small child wanders out and may endanger their lives.

Commissioner Carlson inquired is Mr. Evans willing to put into the restrictions and covenants of the new development compatible language that would reflect the St. Andrews Isle Homeowners Association covenants. Mr. Evans responded the only incompatibility was the fence issue; he has given his position on that; it is important; the fences are not unattractive, but wrought iron fences on a temporary basis; and when a child reaches age 11 or can swim, or the handicapped person leaves the domicile, the fence has to be removed. He noted the homes are 1,900 square-foot minimum homes, which will be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, probably in excess of the property values in St. Andrews Isle; the market has continued to improve over the last few years; the value of those lots has continued to increase; so the value of the homes will continue to be higher than it was even two years ago when the process began.

Chair Higgs stated Mr. Evans has agreed to the same deed restrictions other than the fence that are in St. Andrews Isle, so compatibility of the two developments has been addressed. Mr. Evans noted other than the fence issue, he does not know that there is anything that is not compatible. Chair Higgs inquired has Mr. Evans offered to buy the land that St. Andrews Isle owns that is on his side of the lake; with Mr. Evans responded the residents have not wanted him to access it any way, shape, or form. He noted it would probably be an insult to offer that to them; if it was something they would like to do, he would be glad to discuss it; but his sense is that they in no way want that to happen. Mr. Evans stated he has draft restrictions; and if there are particular items he can make more cohesive, he will be glad to try to look at those.

Chair Higgs inquired are there some conditions that are not in what has been previously agreed to by the applicant. Mr. Northrup responded there was no reaction to a buffer to restrict access to the private lake. Chair Higgs inquired about the deed restrictions of St. Andrews Isle versus what has been proposed. Mr. Northrup responded he has read Mr. Evans’ deed restrictions; they are of very general nature; the covenants include the fences; and it is a major area of incompatibility as St. Andrews Isle does not allow any fences whatsoever. He noted there are children in his subdivision; St. Andrews Isle takes that responsibility for their safety other than by fences; and even the fences side lot to side lot are incompatible with St. Andrews Isle’s covenants as well.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he has been involved with other homeowner associations that have a lake connecting the associations; one association owns the lake and the other does not; this is going to be a nightmare for the St. Andrews Isle residents on that side of the lake trying to patrol, monitor, and police the activity on the other side; and inquired what is going to prevent someone from throwing a fishing line in the water. He noted some associations could not prevent people from accessing a lake with a fishing pole, so they allowed it; but what St. Andrews Isle is wanting to do is take its lake and make it its lake alone; people on the other side that abut the water will have no access to it whatsoever; the residents of St. Andrews Isle have the right to do that; and reiterated they are creating a nightmare. He stated St. Andrews Isle is creating a monumental problem by the rigid position it is proposing; and inquired why the homeowners do not put a fence on that side of the lake or something that says it is their lake, stay out, and why is it incumbent on Mr. Evans to protect St. Andrews Isle’s interest when it is its property. Mr. Northrup responded depending on the final results of the development, that may be the case. Commissioner Pritchard inquired how much land on that side of the lake does the Association own; with Mr. Northrup responding it owns every bit of land all the way around the lake and goes three to five feet. Commissioner Pritchard stated the residents need to consider some sort of barrier if they want to prevent people from coming in; there is a gated community on one side; but if they do not want somebody coming in on the other side, it is incumbent on the homeowners to put up a barrier. Mr. Northrup stated one of the conditions that was laid out was the developer setting up a natural vegetative buffer. Commissioner Pritchard noted such buffer is not going to stop anyone; and he would be through there in a heartbeat with a fishing pole. Mr. Northrup stated it is a matter of impeding, not 100% stoppage. Commissioner Pritchard noted the homeowners want Mr. Evans to take out of his side something that is going to afford St. Andrews Isle protection; it is not Mr. Evans’ responsibility and is St. Andrews Isle’s piece of property; if the homeowners do not want someone to cross it then they should put the fence or some material that is going to keep people from the lake; and water is water, what is the big deal about having someone fish in the lake.

Commissioner Carlson stated St. Andrews Isle is part of the Masters Homeowners Association, which does not allow fencing; Sawgrass South does not belong to the Association; so it can do what it basically wants to; and it sounds very clear to her that it is going to do that. She noted what is moot at this point is providing any sort of vegetative buffer; even a fence is not always an inhibitor; there are people that could possibly put their toe in the water; so it is going to be very difficult. Mr. Northrup reiterated the issue of impeding. Commissioner Carlson stated she understands that, but it does not reduce the liability and the concern is liability; she understands the compatibility issue, but at some point, the Masters Association ends in terms of its membership; and at that point, the Association probably needs to address the issue of when a fence is applicable and is not. Mr. Northrup stated the aesthetics of a fence next to the St. Andrews Isle community is not there. Commissioner Carlson noted she understands that, but she does not see the applicant wavering from giving up the fence for the reasons he provided; she does not have any problems with the other conditions; it sounds like the developer and St. Andrews Isle have tried to come to some agreement that there is compatibility in the deed and covenants, other than the fence issue, which seems to be an issue that is not going to get resolved. Mr. Northrup stated he did not study in detail all of Mr. Evans’ structure covenants and whether an additional structure would be allowed in the backyards separate from the house. Mr. Evans noted sheds and that kind of thing are not permitted.

Chair Higgs inquired are any accessory structures permitted in the backyards; with Mr. Evans responding swimming pools, screens, and those sort of things would be permitted. Mr. Evans stated his subdivision will be every bit as nice as St. Andrews Isle subdivision; the people there will probably be every bit as nice as the people in St. Andrews Isle; and hopefully, everyone can be good neighbors.

Commissioner Carlson stated in the requested action, the second sentence reads, “Obtain Board direction to change the wording on the binding development plan pertaining to the connection of St. Andrews Boulevard to the Pineda Causeway Extension from ‘may to may or may not’”; and inquired since the terms “may or may and may not” mean essentially the same thing, can the County put the “may or may not” words on the plat without actually being contradictory with the binding development plan or opening up such plan.

County Attorney Scott Knox responded the binding development plan cannot be opened with a public hearing, so it would have to be advertised; and it would create a possible conflict in the plat and binding development plan, which is not a good idea. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the County wanted to advertise it, could it focus on just that language when it was open; with Attorney Knox responding yes. Chair Higgs inquired what difference is there between the language “may be” and “may or may not be”. Attorney Knox responded he does not know, but inventive people like Attorney Fallace come along and think of ideas why they are different. Commissioner Carlson noted not changing the language would probably create less of a conflict; with Attorney Knox responding that is correct.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, to approve final engineering and preliminary plat for Sawgrass South at Suntree, subject to minor engineering changes as applicable and developer obtaining and complying with jurisdictional permits, based on conditions in the agenda package, and with additional condition that compatibility between the restrictions and covenant language for Sawgrass South be as compatible as possible to that of St. Andrews Isle, minus the fence issue.

Chair Higgs stated the essence of the motion Commissioner Carlson made is one she would support; expressed concern about what the eagles are doing; and stated it is very difficult at this moment to know exactly what they are doing; however, what it says in the report from U.S. Department of Interior is that egg laying is in December or January; so it may be fairly clear, but it says depending on the geographic area, incubation may be initiated as early as November or as late as March. She noted the County is very close to that date; the incompatibilities between the deeds and development have been resolved; she does not believe the County can resolve St. Andrews Isle’s concerns about the lake; and there are ways that would better protect it than where it is right now, but she does not see that the County is going to contribute significantly to the resolution of that. She stated she believes there was a way to resolve it, but she does not think it is the County’s position to resolve it; she is concerned about the eagles and the County is so close to a date that would render that final outcome; Commissioner Carlson mentioned approving Waterloo Place; and this is in a two-stage approval. Chair Higgs stated maybe the Board could approve Waterloo Place first and Millstone Drive second; it could give until March 1, 2004 to look at Millstone Drive; that issue is going to resolve itself; and there is the 750-foot restriction and secondary zone. She noted the County could absolutely know what is happening in a few weeks; what is in the motion so far is consistent with where she would go; the deed restrictions are acceptable and protect St. Andrews Isle; and such subdivision is not doing what she would advise it to do in regard to the lake, but it is not going to go there. She stated the only question she has is the eagles; the eagles issue will resolve itself on the lots around Millstone Drive; and she would agree to the motion, with the exception that the County would wait until March 1, 2004 to do a final decision on Millstone Drive. Commissioner Carlson noted she does not know if the County can add that as a condition; and inquired how could it formulate such a motion that would work in that regard. She requested Mr. Evans address how much time it is going to take to get through the permitting process, etc. to start building; stated she knows it is going to take quite a while; and it may overshadow any other dates.

Mr. Evans stated before any activity would start it would be after March 1, 2004, including any physical clearing activity on the property. Commissioner Carlson noted Chair Higgs was talking about Millstone Drive and the fact that the County does not have conclusive evidence that there is a viable eagle’s nest that would basically put that issue to rest; if there are no eggs and no fledglings, then the nest could be considered to be secondary potentially, without the viability that the initial nest had; and inquired when does Mr. Evans think he would start moving dirt or anything. Mr. Evans responded it would be well after the March 1, 2004 date. Commissioner Carlson stated she agrees with Chair Higgs and would like to have it more conclusive, but she does not see the developer getting anything in line to do anything on that property until well after March 1, 2004; and inquired when is the end of the eagle nesting period.

Ms. Barker stated Fish and Wildlife Service’s report indicates in the southeastern United States, incubation may be initiated as early as November or as late as March, with eggs requiring about 35 days for incubation. Chair Higgs stated the eagles would be on the nest March 1, 2004, so everyone would know. Mr. Evans stated if there is evidence that there are fledglings on the nest, there is a whole different situation; but no evidence has been presented in that arena. Chair Higgs noted that may be an item of dispute to some people that there is no evidence, but the County would know by March 1, 2004; she is ready to approve the plat south of Brisbane Boulevard, with the conditions discussed; but she has a problem on the part around Millstone Drive.

Commissioner Scarborough amended the motion to exclude the lots on Millstone Drive, and Commissioner Carlson accepted the amendment.

Commissioner Higgs stated she will second the motion, as amended.

Commissioner Carlson stated she can incorporate the amendment in her motion and it is not a problem. She inquired what is the best language to use; and stated the Board could set a condition that says no development activity will occur up until March 1, 2004. Chair Higgs noted she is not ready to do that because it means she is approving the plat; and she does not want to approve the plat until she knows what is happening. Commissioner Carlson stated her initial motion was to approve the plat with the conditions, etc. Chair Higgs noted she is saying approve the plat south of Brisbane Boulevard.

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca stated if the County is going to do a phased approach, Phase 1 should include Brisbane Boulevard, as well as the subdivision south of that. Chair Higgs noted the only thing the Board would not approve is that around Millstone Drive. Ms. Busacca stated that would be Phase 2; and inquired about the general direction of making sure the deed restrictions are compatible. Commissioner Carlson stated what was laid out in the hearing today is what the Board is considering to be compatible, with the exception of the fencing issue.

Commissioner Pritchard stated Commissioner Carlson’s motion was to approve the plat; Chair Higgs wants to make it into two phases. Chair Higgs stated Phase A would be everything except those 18 lots around Millstone Drive. Commissioner Pritchard inquired would it be Waterloo Place; with Chair Higgs responding it would be Waterloo Place and Brisbane Boulevard. Commissioner Pritchard noted it would not include Millstone Drive, but that area has development criteria attached to it that would phase in, depending on what time of the year it is and whether or not there are any eagles there; and requested Mr. Evans explain that issue.

Mr. Evans stated under the permit issued by Fish and Wildlife Service, Lots 8, 9, 10, and 11 are to remain uncleared completely until there is release from the Service that it is okay to proceed; so no clearing activity can take place on those lots and the lots cannot be sold until the Service releases it and determines the eagle’s nest is decoy; he will have to re-petition the Service to do that; so there are plenty of protections that already exist there for what Chair Higgs is requesting.

Commissioner Pritchard stated if the Board approves the plat today, nothing is going to be done in that area until the Service gives the green light. Mr. Evans noted that is correct; and it would be a violation of the permit conditions, as well as federal law. Commissioner Pritchard stated Commissioner Carlson’s motion can cover something the County can take care of today; it does not have to address it in a future date or bring back for other discussion this, that, or the other; Fish and Wildlife Service is going to make the determination on Lots 8, 9, 10, and 11 when that can happen; and for all the County knows, that might not happen, but the rest of it can certainly happen. He noted he would support Commissioner Carlson’s initial motion; and the Board is complicating the process putting in another step that is unnecessary.

Chair Higgs inquired can the Board approve the item, excluding the lots on Millstone Drive. Attorney Knox responded the Board could approve a motion that would approve the portion of the subdivision that is south of Brisbane Boulevard. Chair Higgs stated it would not be south of Brisbane Boulevard, but include Brisbane Boulevard. Attorney Knox noted it could include Brisbane Boulevard and the lots south of Brisbane Boulevard, which is Block B; he does not see why the Board cannot split it up that way if it so chooses; and it could come back and review Millstone Drive, Block C after March 1, 2004.

Commissioner Carlson inquired can the Board require as a condition that the plat be developed in a phased approach with Waterloo Drive south of Brisbane Boulevard, and Brisbane Boulevard and south be developed first, and the other be developed second; stated the developer would be required to phase it in in a certain way; and if development occurred in a phased approach, with Waterloo Drive being the first phase, the other phase would have to take place or occur after March 1, 2004. She noted it is not going to impact the developer much, but it can be a condition so that the County can do what Chair Higgs wants to do; if she wants some assurances that nothing happens until after March 1, 2004 when there is a better understanding of what the status of the nest is, she can live with that; and she does not know if the developer has an issue with that since it is going to take so long to develop the property anyway.

Attorney Fallace stated when a right-of-way is taken out where utilities are usually put in, etc., it is difficult to see what is being done from an engineering or development standpoint; he is asking the Board to approve the whole plat; there are protective measures from Fish and Wildlife Service; and if the Board made its approval consistent with what the Service has imposed on the developer, it would be consistent. He noted the developer is not going to develop those lots or do anything to clear such lots until the Service gives the developer the green light; what happens by the piecemeal process is the developer may come back and the County may have another plat for him to consider; there may be a public hearing or other reasons why the County will not permit it; and before the Board is a very good reason to go ahead with protective measures already in place so that if in March 2004, the eagles come back, which the developer’s expert has said most likely will not, it will not be any different than when his client comes back in April and the County says what about next year or the year after. Attorney Fallace stated he is requesting the Board approve preliminarily the plat today; the County knows his client cannot develop the lots that are affected; and it is hard to judge from utilities and other development reasons what the impact of piecemealing is at this process.

Commissioner Carlson stated she is not interested in separating it out as it is not the proper thing to do; the Board has the evidence it needs; she would like to feel more comfortable about the eagles; but she was thinking there could be some way to require the developer, as he develops with the final plat approval, to develop outside the March 1, 2004 date to make absolutely sure that the eagle is not going to be nesting and laying eggs, etc.; and it is in the best interest of the community as a whole, as long as the County can nail something down in terms of a date.

Attorney Fallace stated that is what Mr. Evans has indicated is going to happen; if the preliminary plat is approved today, he will agree not to do development work until after March 1, 2004 to analyze the situation; he does not want to come back for another plat approval and public hearing, and again, his client is not able to develop those affected lots anyway for years; it is not going to happen if the County wanted to footnote or do something that would be acceptable to Attorney Knox; and it can be done to protect the County’s concern about no development before March 1, 2004, and it is a concern of his client also.

Commissioner Carlson stated she is going to leave the motion on the table basically as it stands; the developer has agreed not to do anything until after March 1, 2004, which the County should have a pretty good idea if there are going to be any changes; if there are going to be any significant changes, then the Corps of Engineers will be notified; and whatever changes it requires will have to be applied. She noted this is in lieu of not having any sort of eagle protection management plan in place; if the County had one, it could have a lot more leverage at this point in time; but since it does not and it is still in the works, it does not have much to stand on in terms of how it approaches this.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Commissioner Carlson indicated in the beginning that the County would divide the project into two phases, but now she is saying she does not like it; and inquired why did she change. Commissioner Carlson responded she said in abeyance, not that the County would not okay the final plat, but that it would hold in abeyance those lots so it would find the liability issue, which was talked through pretty well; the other one was the eagle issue, being that in order to get a good feeling for what the eagle was going to do, the County could keep those lots in abeyance and not allow building on those lots, even though it finalized the plat; and permits would not be cut on those lots until such time the County is sure what the status of the eagle is. She noted that is what she was talking about in terms of putting the lots in abeyance, but not separating the plat and creating a lot of undue effort in terms of addressing; and it opens the County to a lot of legal issues. Commissioner Scarborough stated the County is talking approximately 20 days or so; property is going to be developed and once it is, it is irrevocable and gone; there apparently is some eagle activity out there; and he is not an eagle expert. He noted he does not have a problem tabling the whole issue for 20 days because right now it is not going forward.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the Board keeps tabling and bringing things back; every time the issue comes back it is going to have more and more issues, comments, and fairly meaningless discussion because the County knows where the parties are at this point; it is up to the Board to make a decision; and approving the plat as is and being consistent with Fish and Wildlife Service’s protective measures is doing what the Board should do to be responsible. He noted he does not know what the status of the other motion is; and the more appropriate motion would be to approve the preliminary plat consistent with Fish and Wildlife Service’s protective measures, and be done with it.

Commissioner Carlson stated there is a motion on the floor and it just needs to be called, so she will call the question; the motion was to approve the final engineering and preliminary plat, with conditions expressed in the agenda item, including the compatibility issue she brought up between Sawgrass and St. Andrews Isle with their restrictions and covenant language, with the exception of the fence.

Chair Higgs passed the gavel to Vice Chair Pritchard.

Commissioner Higgs amended the motion to exclude the lots on Millstone Drive until the March 2, 2004 meeting; and Commissioner Scarborough seconded the amendment. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Pritchard voted nay.

Vice Chair Pritchard passed the gavel to Chair Higgs.

Chair Higgs called for a vote on the motion, to approve final engineering and preliminary plat for Sawgrass South at Suntree, excluding lots on Millstone Drive, subject to minor engineering changes as applicable and developer obtaining and complying with jurisdictional permits, which include the conditions of his permit pertaining to the wetlands on the east side in Tract L, conditions included in the agenda item, and the compatibility issue between Sawgrass and St. Andrews’ restrictions and covenant language, with exception of the fence. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Colon voted nay.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he supports the motion because it is important to move forward; he has already raised his objection to separating the two items; and the County needs to move the item forward to get closure on it.

Chair Higgs stated the item is close to closure and the Millstone Drive issue will come back on March 2, 2004.

DISCUSSION, RE: TASK FORCE TO STUDY NEED FOR CONVENTION CENTER

Jim Johnson, representing Melbourne Airport Authority, stated for many years the need for a convention center has been talked about in Brevard County, and it is something that could bring a huge economic impact into the community and stimulate tourism travel; the County is one of the largest areas remaining in the entire United States that does not have an adequate convention center facility located in it; the size of the Ocean Center in Daytona Beach has tripled; and Orlando is doubling the size of its convention center to two million square feet. He noted Kissimmee has recently built facilities; Seminole County is attempting to build one; a number of years ago, the Airport got together with the City of Melbourne and Tourist Development Council (TDC) and commissioned a study collectively; there are a couple of studies that have been concluded; and they are anxious to turn those over to the County. He stated both of the studies indicated a convention center in phase 1 of about 150,000 square feet would be appropriate for the community, with the ability to expand in the future; following the heinous attacks of September 11, 2001, the meetings and convention business was the industry that first turned tourism around following those attacks; the issue is worthy of a task force to continue the studies that have already been started; and there are a number of people present today in support of a convention center.

Mayor John Buckley, representing City of Melbourne, stated Brevard County needs a convention center of enough size to handle everything; some people tried to do it in Melbourne, but it did not work out because they did not have ceilings that were high enough; something is needed like a convention center of approximately 150,000 square feet; and the City and Airport have done two studies so far. He noted such studies should be a good basis to start and create a task force to look at this because such a center is needed; a convention center will become an economic engine; he has had to go to Tampa, Fort Lauderdale, and Orlando; and if anybody wants to serve more than 1,000 people, a convention center is needed locally.

Mayor John Mazziotti, representing City of Palm Bay, stated there is a need for a large meeting venue in the area; many requests for conventions and other activities requiring a large building have been turned down in the past; the County has watched those events go to neighboring communities; and there comes a point in history of the community where it must decide is it ready for a civic building of this type. He requested the issue be studied to determine if now is the right time for this particular facility; and recommended the Board proceed with appointing a task force to study the concept of constructing a convention center and civic center in Brevard County. He noted the Airport is beautiful and has a lot of growth potential; the County needs to be taking advantage of it and the things it has in the area, and not just let them go astray; and requested the Board’s support for a task force to study the need for the convention center.

Richard Contreras, representing City of Melbourne, stated he dittos Mayor Buckley’s comments in support of the formation of a task force to study the construction of a Brevard County convention or civic center; as a 27-year military veteran, he has had the opportunity to travel throughout the United States and abroad; in most instances, there was one common thread that served many of the communities; and it was a convention or a civic center. He stated the centers were for business people, locals, artisans, etc.; it also became the backbone or a part of the backbone of a local community; and requested the Board approve the formation of a task force. He noted one element for a civic center or convention center could be for a catastrophic scenario, such as a devastating hurricane impacting Brevard County, and where mass casualties would be mobilized too.

John Banks, representing Wachovia Bank, stated he has been in Brevard County for 13 years and has seen a lot of improvements; one topic of conversation that continuously comes up is the convention center; whether or not the County can support it, needs it, or whether or not there is a return on investment, he does not know; but it is time to elevate it to the next level, being a task force and a study to determine same; and the people of Brevard County are entitled to it. He noted it is proper and timely to get this resolved and get direction; and he appreciates the Board’s consideration.

Dale Howlett, representing Riverside National Bank, stated Riverside is a local Florida company; it has grown to over 1,000 employees; when it looks for places to hold bankwide events, training, etc., it has to look outside of Brevard County as it does not have the facility to do that kind of thing here; and the County would be able to attract businesses here as it is a beautiful place. He recommended a task force be appointed to study the need for the convention center.

Commissioner Colon stated even though some of the representatives present today are from South Brevard, the task force will look at all of Brevard County; and it will decide strategically the best place to have a convention center. Mr. Howlett stated Riverside and Wachovia Banks have branches from north to south, so where the convention center is placed is not his concern; but that type of facility is needed.

Carey Gleason, representing Florida Institute of Technology, stated the University is Countywide; it supports the formation of a task force for the proposed convention center; and such center is a great need in the community.

Larry Wuensch, representing Melbourne International Airport, stated if there is one key concept in business and economic development it is diversification; the tourism industry is based primarily on individual tourists making a decision to come here; the County is missing a major segment of the tourism industry, which is the commercial side, the convention and meeting business; and in the United States, there are more than 12,000 of these each year, with an aggregate expenditure of about $12.6 billion. He noted there are over 75 million attendees to these major events; many companies do business, primarily through conventions, showing their wares and selling their products; unfortunately, because the County does not have a large box venue where it can hold major conventions, it has had to turn down this kind of business; communities have taken advantage of Florida’s wonderful climate; and Florida is very popular in the United States for having these types of business meetings. He stated it also has a way of boosting the regular tourism industry as well; it is a different kind of customer than in the past; these people do not stress the local infrastructure and are in and out, but they spend a lot of money while they are here; and now is the time, after these many decades of people saying there should be a convention center somewhere, to get serious and do a study to decide one way or the other whether it is a segment of the industry the County wants to participate in actively.

Thelma Roper inquired how will the convention center be funded, with the tourist tax dollars or regular tax dollars on the backs of the citizens; stated the funding is going to be one of the biggest issues for the convention center, as opposed to whether or not it is really needed; the need is going to be based on who funds it; and if the citizens are going to be funding it, they are going to say they do not need such center. She stated if the tourist industry is going to pay for it, there will be a different response; it needs to be reviewed; and the public would like to know that going into a task force reviewing the issue.

Commissioner Colon stated she requested the item be put on the agenda; the funding would not be based on the backs of the taxpayers of Brevard County, but the tourists; and she does not believe the Board would consider anything other than the tourists paying for the convention center. She noted the businesses, tourist industry, and citizens can come together to bring ideas, including the professionals and consultants, and give advice; and it does not mean the Board is going to accept any recommendations, etc.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired who laid out the phases one, two and three; with County Manager Tom Jenkins responding he did. Mr. Jenkins advised he received a proposal from the Airport Authority that had something similar; he modified and tweaked it a little bit; and he basically borrowed off the document the Airport Authority sent him. Commissioner Pritchard inquired would the study encompass phases 1, 2, and 3. Mr. Jenkins responded what he proposed was the County would do phase 1 and the results of phase 1 would be distributed to the Board, TDC, and any other economic development entity in Brevard County that is interested in the topic so that the results of phase 1 would be widely circulated; if any of those entities wanted to provide feedback at that opportunity they could; and depending on the outcome of phase 1, it could go into phase 2 and then into phase 3; but it would be on a step-by-step basis, depending on the outcome. Commissioner Pritchard inquired in phase 111, number one, how should the convention center be funded and financed, and should it be in phase 1; with Mr. Jenkins responding it could be. Mr. Jenkins stated he touched on it a little bit, such as will the facility be self-sufficient or require an operating subsidy; there is some overlap there; and if the Board wants to move phase 111, item 1 to phase 1, it could because it is already partially covered. Commissioner Pritchard stated it is going to be probably the most crucial question; and inquired how many other convention centers operate in the black and red. He noted the County does not need a public-funded albatross; a lot of communities say they would like to have an aquarium, which is probably one of the biggest holes one can throw money into because they never pay for themselves; it is always coming from the taxpayers to pay for a facility like that; he wants to make sure if the County is going to be looking at a convention center, that it is economically viable and not a draw on the current revenue streams it has; and if it is going to have ancillary benefit with other revenue streams coming in that will support it, then all this is good. He stated he cannot help but query why the County is always talking about bringing people here and showing them Brevard; then they move here and the County complains there are too many people; sometimes one wants to say do not tell anybody about Brevard County; and it is interesting how the County works both sides of the comment. Commissioner Pritchard inquired how much is the study going to cost and who is going to pay for it.

Tourism Development Director Rob Varley responded he does not believe the County is talking about a paid study so much gathering citizens together for some meetings; they will probably have to do surveys, etc. of the business community and community in general; the organizations on the list will be helping do some of those tasks; the funding issue needs to be reviewed; and there are a lot of studies out there in the industry that he can tap into to look at.

Commissioner Pritchard stated this is something that can be done at no cost; and it will at least provide the County some guidance as to whether it needs to move forward.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve establishing a Task Force to study the need for a convention center in Brevard County; and direct that Item 1 under Phase III, how should the center be funded and financed, be moved to Phase 1.

Chair Higgs stated the County should not say there is no cost, but the cost will be absorbed within the TDC at this point; it is not with no cost as there is staff time; but it is not a major cost at this point.

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

CONTRACT AND APPROVE FUNDING, RE: FAMILY COURT RESOURCE ASSISTANCE

Joyce Grant, representing Court Resources, stated she is present to talk about children; she has met with each Commissioner; in 1998, by virtue of a task force established by the County and working with the judiciary, a concept was established to improve child support enforcement in Brevard County, which became the operation she now manages as an independent contractor; and since 1998, she has been working in child support enforcement, specifically with the Department of Revenue (DOR) cases. She noted she submitted a package to the Board showing a few studies that have been done; everything Court Resources does is based on analysis; the one spreadsheet is on the Pay or Appear Program, which she runs; and it was responsible last year for a minimum of $675,000 worth of child support collections. She stated sometimes it is higher and sometimes it is lower; sometimes the dockets have more people and sometimes they have less; if her position is vacated for lack of funding, the Department will no longer have the Pay or Appear Program; and it has a regiment in how it does things. Ms. Grant advised approximately three years ago, the DOR and the State tried to privately collect child support through different outside agencies; it failed miserably, cost Florida taxpayers many millions of dollars, and did not collect child support; the County has a similar situation in that it is being privately collected; however, it is a hands-on process that involves the court and DOR; and internally it has been very successful in Brevard County. She stated she believes Family Court Resource Assistance can be more successful if there is more consistency in the entirety of the process; that is where a huge problem lies, along with the fact that the laws are not sufficient in the State of Florida to enforce child support; it is a revolving door situation; and in one of the spreadsheets she gave the Board, she did a multiple case list. She noted she pulled out offenders she knows and has history with since 1998 who have upwards of eight-plus children; these are the people she sees regularly, who are not paying their child support, and are having more children; she knows child support is a court function; however, it trickles into the County because there are people receiving services that they otherwise may not need to receive if they receive what they were entitled to in terms of child support. She stated there has been huge success in the past five years; not only does she run the Pay or Appear Program for the court, but there are other benefits, as well as the hand-on contact; many people have been able to come through the system and get their problems addressed; and they are taken out of the system instead of recycling them through. Ms. Grant noted that is one of the services her office provides; what is seen often times with the State cases is they are mostly people that cannot manage their own finances and business; they are struggling to survive; and once they hit the legal system and it starts to take them down, if they do not get some help, they keep coming through. She stated it is a burden on the taxpayers; the court is hamstrung with what to do; and requested the Board approve funding for Family Court Resource Assistance. She noted because of Article V and termination of some of the relationships between the County and the court, her project will terminate June 30, 2004; the Department will not pick up the Pay or Appear Program because last year the State changed the ways it contracts with the Department contract attorney and the way he is paid; when she first saw the change come in, she saw non-enforcement deliberately for someone not being paid to represent the case; and fortunately, those circumstances have ironed themselves out now, but would somebody not have been paying attention to these things, there might be a different situation in the courtroom today. Ms. Grant stated she knows money is a bad thing to talk about; she also knows Representative Thad Altman is submitting a bill this year to help get some funds into the child support court; Mr. Altman has been around observing what such court does and is very interested in it; there is a huge pool of money in child support enforcement lost by the non-efforts of collection of fees and costs from the process; Mr. Altman knows about it and is working toward some kind of resolution to recover some of those monies in Brevard; and 66% of them go back to the federal government, and there is only a 34% collection incentive here. She noted there are things that could be done that are not being done; if the County will work with her again perhaps some of the greater issues can be addressed; she is the only person; and while she is here today she is missing her court session, which is very important. She stated if the County funds her again, she could get a few additional resources; she started a website this year that she hopes will be developed to become something that can help people all over the country and maybe be a revenue driver as well to offset some of her costs in the future.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired how much money is Ms. Grant talking about. Ms. Grant responded $65,000 was her original budget request in 1998; for some reason that money was chipped away; right now her current budget is $54,000; and she has been operating at a deficit for years. She noted she pays her own bills too; she gets an office in the courthouse, but everything else, including her phones, equipment, furniture, paper, etc. is paid for by herself; she cannot get out to take a class and does not have the money to bring professionals in to help her with things that really would be important, like the data collection. Commissioner Pritchard inquired where did the $54,000 go that Ms. Grant received last year; with Ms. Grant responding to salary and operating expenses.

Commissioner Pritchard stated apparently Mark Van Bever is not recommending the Board retain this service after July 2004; and inquired why. Ms. Grant responded she does not know as Mr. Van Bever said he would recommend retaining the service. Commissioner Pritchard stated the board said it did not want to retain such service; and inquired what board. Ms. Grant responded she does not know. Ms. Grant advised she had a meeting with Mr. Van Bever right before the holidays, and he indicated he would recommend that service to the Board. Chair Higgs stated the Board does not have that information. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the State is going to be taking over the judicial system, why is it not considering funding this. Ms. Grant responded she is not a State employee and what she does is unique; when Article V funding started to occur, there was a fear that she would not be funded in the State budget; and therefore, it did not include her. Commissioner Pritchard inquired is that what Representative Altman is working toward. Ms. Grant responded Representative Altman is submitting a bill that she understands will glean some fees off of the family or child support filings to put some money back into child support enforcement.

Commissioner Carlson stated she supports what Ms. Grant does; Ms. Grant approached Court Administration; and inquired why did it not promote the program since Ms. Grant brought so much money; and noted it is a very unusual job Ms. Grant does and the County needs that kind of position in place. She inquired if Ms. Grant’s job is not taken on contractually, why is it not being brought into the fold of the State so that she can apply her expertise as an employee of the State; stated it does not make sense to her if Ms. Grant is bringing in all this money collectionwise; and it sounds like Ms. Grant’s job would be paid for. Ms. Grant stated 56 positions were lost with the Article V funding; she does not really have a position; she is an independent there and is known as a neutral party; and she is not on anybody’s side, except the side of fairness. She noted sometimes things happen that she may perceive are not correct; and by virtue of being in that position, she has the ability to talk to people about it, rather than be an employee. Commissioner Carlson stated she understands that and it is a good point; Ms. Grant could be considered an external negotiator and be hired for that purpose versus having a contract; her contract is held by Court Administration, which was currently County; and she is trying to figure out how there is a way to make Ms. Grant’s position work and some other means that would benefit the system, and it sounds like it is very difficult to do that at this point in time. She noted the dollars Ms. Grant brings in do not come back to the Board for it to pay for her position, so it has a difficulty in trying to cover the cost of that; and inquired is there any way a percentage of those dollars can come back through the Board and go back to that kind of a service.

County Manager Tom Jenkins responded no, because these are dollars that go back to the families for child support; his recollection is that the County was paying Ms. Grant out of the traffic ticket surcharge; it is going away, unless it can be recaptured; that is where the money came from some years ago when the Chief Judge put the traffic surcharge on; and a small portion of it was used for this purpose.

Commissioner Colon stated she is going to remain consistent concerning the County’s budget and not spending it; the County has no money; it has to stay consistent with that, even though what is before it is something that is very important for child support; and the County cannot put a burden on the budget as there is no money. She noted she wishes the County had the money to be able to help people; Ms. Grant is not the only person who has come before the Board; she has to remain consistent; and she will not support anyone who comes to the Board and requests funding. She stated it is nothing against what Ms. Grant is doing; it is wonderful what she is doing; but she will not approve any monies from the General Fund.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there are areas in society that everyone can agree on that are really suffering; there was $675,000 distributed, according to court orders, that was rightly due certain children; he agrees with Commissioner Colon; however, he would never want to think that the County does not have a financial situation where it has some degree of flexibility. He noted as the County works through its budgeting process, it needs to have a capacity for flexibility because life is full of uncertainties that need to be dealt with; he hopes the Board will take the proposed item under consideration and come back with some methodologies on how to make it work; and it can let the Legislative Delegation know that is what the County wants and the Lobbyist can lobby for it. He stated the County does not know how Article V is going to come out and the effects of it; the judges are concerned about such things as conflict attorneys in certain cases, and capital cases in particular; the County is going to be hit with a number of problems; and it needs to be prepared to talk about them and respond. Commissioner Scarborough noted the people of Brevard County look to the Board to be constantly reexamining issues; Commissioner Pritchard wants to do cost-cutting; the County needs to know the impact, and with a dollar spent what is the net result; and the proposed item is dollars to the most needy in the community and is a one-to-ten return. He stated it is not a bad investment; and it will make the County a better community.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to direct the County Manager and Court Administrator Mark Van Bever to investigate funding options for Family Court Resource Assistance and see what options can be pursued.

Commissioner Carlson stated if the County is going to look to where it can get those dollars, she would like the County Manager to make sure it documents every place any other program might suffer as a result; and she wants to know exactly what the money trail looks like to get there.

Chair Higgs stated the County is looking at this as a part of the budget discussions that are ongoing; and July 1, 2004 is when Ms. Grant’s Contract runs out.

Chair Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Colon voted nay.

Commissioner Pritchard recommended contacting State Representative Thad Altman, Legislative Delegation, etc. to see what the status of the bill is.

BINDING DEVELOPMENT PLAN AGREEMENT WITH PANTELIS MARKOGIANNAKIS
AND PAUL VAN PELT, RE: PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF
HIGHWAY A1A, NORTH OF SEA DUNES DRIVE

Chair Higgs stated on the first page of the binding development plan agreement in the package, the specificity in one place went a little more than it needed to; the Board did not talk about item 3; and it needs to be deleted. She noted item 8 talks about the opaque vegetated buffer; the County usually defines it as a minimum height of six feet at planting and opacity to be achieved one year from the date of planting and clearing; and requested the Board approve those two amendments.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to execute Binding Development Plan Agreement with Pantelis Markogiannakis and Paul Van Pelt for property located on the west side of Highway A1A, north of Sea Dunes Drive, as amended to delete Item 3, and reword Item 8 so that the opaque vegetated buffer is defined as having a minimum height of six feet at planting and opacity is to be achieved at one year from the date of planting and clearing.

Commissioner Carlson stated she supports the motion; and the wording of Item 7 needs to be corrected to read “boundary” instead of “bound.”

Chair Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Binding Development Plan Agreement.)

PUBLIC COMMENT - BEA POLK, RE: VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD PROCESS

Bea Polk inquired which three Commissioners are on the Value Adjustment Board (VAB) this year; with Commissioner Pritchard responding Commissioners Carlson, Colon, and himself. Ms. Polk inquired when is the VAB going to meet; with Commissioner Pritchard responding he does not know when the next meeting is. Chair Higgs stated the Board will be happy to find out that information for her and send her a letter when the issues will be dealt with. Ms. Polk stated it has been since November 2003 and she is still waiting.

PUBLIC COMMENT - WALTER PINE, RE: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST

Walter Pine expressed appreciation to the Board for giving direction to do the e-mail system; stated he still has not received public records request he has made; requested the County provide those public records; and advised his public records request was put in writing, but he is sure the copy has probably been removed from the file or destroyed. He noted he is not going to provide another copy of his request; it needs to be researched; right now there is not a transparent system; and the County needs to review the information technology and carefully evaluate it. He stated almost every document that is created in the County is created on a computer; those documents, with proper upgrades and standardization, can be automatically filed and archived such that there are not documents disappearing, missing, or misrepresented; he spoke to the County’s Information Systems’ staff today; and the directions it has at this time do not allow them to consider the whole process and upgrade it to a transparent process. Mr. Pine noted it needs to be done for public records; the documents maintained on electronic databases and electronic means are just as important as the paper copies, and in many cases, more important; the documents cannot be as easily altered and are not as easily lost if they are properly archived and stored; it is much easier for the public to discover what the County is up to; and that is the purpose of Government in the Sunshine and the Public Records Act. He stated people have seen the situation with the Significant Environmental Areas (SEA) process, problems with Marina Park, and other problems; it is pretty pervasive; and requested the Board create a public committee to come up with an idea of what is necessary to have a truly transparent process, and direct Information Systems’ staff to create a single document that defines everything they currently have. He stated right now it is scattered throughout the system; it is not available from one place; reiterated a single document needs to be created; and the County needs to begin steps to create a transparent system. He noted the County does not have access to public records; it is something the County is legally required to have; it is its duty; and it would be a very important investment and foundation for a number of efficiencies and cost-saving ventures the County needs, especially at this time with short budget.

Commissioner Carlson inquired did the County Attorney’s Office start the paperless prototype for the County, and is there a status report the County Attorney can bring to the Board.

County Attorney Scott Knox responded he will provide a status report; and stated staff is still working through it and trying to get all the kinks out of it. Commissioner Carlson stated when the County discussed the issue a while back, there was an issue where it has to work with the Clerk’s Office as there has to be a receptacle for all these documents to come to and then to be archived, etc. and to potentially put them out on the website as part of the agenda items; the County has been working toward that for a long time; it has been waiting for the County Attorney’s Office to work through all of the problems with Information Systems; and requested Attorney Knox provide a status report to the Board.

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated there are plans to take the system Attorney Knox has and expand it to other agencies; the agenda would be one of them; however, he is still trying to work out some kinks; he has scheduled a meeting between Attorney Knox, himself, and staff to discuss this very topic; so it will be addressed in the very near future. He noted he will provide a report to the Board.

Commissioner Scarborough stated access to documents is important to the public; as the County continues to progress electronically, it is going to find better ways to provide information; hopefully someday someone can go on their computer, archive, and find a particular item and all that information; and suggested each Commissioner appoint someone to a committee, with the members having different types of interest in public records and some degree of understanding the ability to make it more available more conveniently, so if someone is at home, he or she can find information available over the Internet. He requested Mr. Jenkins come back with some ideas on the issue; and stated the citizens committee could report with some options on how the County can become more proactive in making things available and convenient to the public.

Chair Higgs stated the County had a committee that was doing exactly that; and if there is a scope of work that Mr. Jenkins identifies in the report, it could be brought to a committee of citizens who could then make some recommendations to the Board, and most specifically, the ability of citizens to access information. Chair Higgs requested Mr. Jenkins advise the Board in writing what is the issue in regard to some public records Mr. Pine does not believe he has received. Mr. Jenkins stated he can do that if Mr. Pine is willing to discuss it with him; and Mr. Pine has made a number of public records requests over months, so he is not exactly sure which one he is referring to. Chair Higgs stated the County will ask Mr. Pine to do that and clarify it so the Board will know; and requested Mr. Pine advise of his request.

PUBLIC COMMENT - THELMA ROPER, RE: CONVENTION CENTER AND LAW
LIBRARY

Thelma Roper stated she is interested in the convention center and would like to be on the task force. She noted she knows the Board is working through the budget process; she hopes it will keep in mind the Law Library as it is utilized a lot by the citizens; and it is real important to keep the Library open.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Commissioner Pritchard has requested the Law Library issue be placed on the agenda; and inquired which meeting will it be discussed. Commissioner Pritchard responded he does not recall a specific date; it seemed it was going to be 30 days after the last meeting; the County is seeking funding for the Law Library; and it is important. He stated the County needs to keep it going and it is looking at ways to make sure it stays open.

Chair Higgs stated the Board needs to proceed to its executive session.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 12:48 p.m.

WARRANT LIST

ATTEST:
__________________________________
NANCY HIGGS, CHAIR
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
___________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)