July 20, 2004

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on July 20, 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.

Pastor Calvin Gitner of the Pineda Presbyterian Church and Chaplain of the 920th Search and Rescue Wing at Patrick Air Force Base, extended greetings on behalf of Colonel Timothy Tarchek and all the men and women of the 920th Search and Rescue Wing; and stated the Board should take pride in having the world’s best combat search and rescue unit in Brevard County, but that would not be so without its support and the support of the local community. He stated for the past two years, as they have had men and women deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the support from the County was overwhelming to the families that were left behind and for the troops. He stated his unit is being reconstituted, which means they are back here on down time waiting on the opportunity when they may be called to service again; they look forward to the continued relationship with the County and the community as they work together to provide for the security of the local community and the nation; and with those words of thank you and recognition, he began the Invocation.

Commissioner Truman Scarborough led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the Minutes of April 13, 2004 Regular Meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORTS, RE: AGENDA ITEMS

County Manager Tom Jenkins requested Item III.C.1., Approval of Revisions to Policy BCC-56, Re: Public Use of Meeting Rooms at the Brevard County Government Center, be withdrawn from the Agenda.

County Attorney Scott Knox requested Item IV.I., Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 95-54, Re: Ambulance and Emergency Medical Services, be withdrawn for readvertising as there were issues with the Tax Collector.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired about The Great Outdoors issue; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding they will probably ask the Board to delay the matter until July 27, 2004.

Commissioner Scarborough recommended Items V.C. and VI.E.2. regarding Charter amendments be considered at the same time.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to consider Items V.C. and VI.E.2. at the same time. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATIONS

Commissioner Pritchard advised he sent the Board a memo about the Building and Construction Advisory Committee (BCAC) and its recommendations; one is that land development and building industry-related issues are forwarded to the LPA, and Planning and Zoning Board for recommendations, then to the Board of County Commissioners for public hearing and vote; but the BCAC is not part of the review process. He stated BCAC believes it needs to be part of the review process; and recommended any new or amended ordinances or fee resolutions pertaining to land development or the building industry be reviewed by the BCAC prior to placement on the Board’s agenda. Commissioner Pritchard advised it was also recommended that a staff person from the appropriate County Department address the BCAC on the new or amended ordinances when appropriate. He stated the BCAC voted unanimously at its June meeting to request the Board officially vote up or down on the issue of self-sufficiency for fee-based departments; and apparently the Committee is being instructed by staff that it is the Board’s desire to have all the fee-based departments become self-sufficient by raising the various fees they charge, yet they do not have anything in writing that leans toward that direction.

Chair Higgs recommended the items be taken in order.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve including the Building and Construction Advisory Committee in the review process of new or amended ordinances relating to land development and the building industry. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize an appropriate staff person to address the Building and Construction Advisory Committee on new or amended ordinances relating to land development and the building industry. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Pritchard advised the Board is going in the wrong direction by increasing fees it is charging for people to come in and use the services for which they pay taxes; it is a way to create a revenue stream and it is falling on the group that comes and asks for permits to do things; consequently, it is double taxation; and he does not like having the increase in fees to cover the operation of various department functions. He stated people who use the tennis courts pay $5.00 an hour; it is not a pro-rata share like the fee-based departments have come up with in their fee schedules based on persons, desks, furniture, lighting, heat, and every cost that is associated with the 30-minute function they might perform; it is too much of a charge and is passed down to people who not only use the service but also to the people who employ those services. He stated if a contractor obtains a building permit, the fee is passed on to the consumer; and a lot of people do not realize they end up paying twice for the same level of service.

Chair Higgs advised her philosophy has been that as opposed to raising taxes, they have the people who use the services pay; and that is how they have gone for the last few years. She stated people who live in the cities do not use the permitting functions of the County.

Commissioner Carlson stated she looked at it the same way; it is more of an added value because the majority of people do not use the services; and it is part of doing business in the community from the development side of things. She stated maybe there is something there, but the majority of the folks in the community of half a million do not use those types of services on an ongoing basis, maybe on an occasional basis; but it is part of doing business and trying to keep taxes low for the whole versus the few.

Commissioner Pritchard stated if the Board looks at the fee schedule and the way it has been orchestrated, and takes the analogy of a parking meter or tennis court, or paying to use a swimming pool, if a person were to pay at the same level as it costs to operate that pool per person, instead of a dollar or five dollars, they could be paying $25.00 admission; and that is the part that is unfair.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board needs to distinguish between the type of use for sports and permits for building; he heard over and over again that the County does not want to subsidize the cost of doing things for development; and it is contrary to everything he has heard. He stated people talked about why the referendum failed; he heard over and over again that impact fees are not at full measure so the Board cannot expect the people to approve a sales tax; and they do not want to be taxed for the cost of development. He stated Commissioner Pritchard can say it is paid by the consumer; everything is paid by somebody; and it is just in a process of development where they have somebody acquiring something and somebody else not wanting to pay a portion of the cost. He stated if he buys a new computer, he does not ask his neighbor through his sales tax to help pay for his computer; but if he buys a house, somehow that is supposed to be subsidized by his neighbor; and that is an inconsistency.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he disagrees with the concept because of the way the cost of doing business is based; the analogies that he used can also be used in a variety of other applications; and if those applications were treated the same, then he would say they have an issue of fairness; but when people pay taxes and get a permit and have to pay an excessive amount, maybe a couple of hundred dollars to do something in their backyard, and a portion of their taxes are going toward having the operation in place, then the person is being hit twice.

He stated there is a certain amount of unfairness to it; and if the Board is going to have fees that are going to be charged for various services, then it needs to be designed so that it is not a double impact on taxpayers.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if he has a major new home being built, there is a lot of cost to the County to go through the process of making sure the thing proceeds correctly; the Board has some responsibility to the ultimate owner under the Southern Standard Building Code for the whole project, and to make sure it drains properly, a number of things work right, etc.; however, if they are going to something that is minor like a screen enclosure, some of the fees are on the high side. He stated he does not mind looking at particular ones where they have individual fees that, because of the magnitude of what they are doing, are a little on the high side; and if Commissioner Pritchard wants to bring some specific items up, he would be glad to look at those. Commissioner Pritchard stated he would be happy to do that; and in fact, he will ask the BCAC to look at that and come back with a recommendation. He stated he is not opposed to paying a certain level for a specific service; he pays for parking meters, use of pools, and to play golf at County courses; but when he is charged because a person, furniture, and utilities are there, he feels he is being double charged.

Commissioner Carlson stated she knows Commissioner Pritchard means well; he has other things that they as a Board asked the BCAC; but if the Board does not come to a consensus here about asking it, she is not sure it should come before the BCAC unless the Board feels comfortable with it actually exploring the issue. She inquired if that is the intent.

Chair Higgs stated what Commissioner Scarborough was saying is if there are particular fees, he would look at those; and there seems to be a consensus if the majority of the Board is supportive of fees covering the cost of development permits and those things, but the Board could take a motion on that if it wants to react to the request to BCAC or it can continue with what seems to be the majority to give staff direction. Commissioner Carlson stated it is direction to the BCAC; she does not want it to be misconstrued coming back and having the Board look at it as being supportive of one way when it has voted the complete opposite way for years; so she wants that to be clear.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to clarify and incorporate that at this time the Board feels it is appropriate to continue with the fee-based philosophy; however, if there are certain fees for particular services because they are exorbitant in nature and are not fair and would allow for a smoother operation of the County if those fees were reduced, the Board would like to hear from staff as to those particular items.

Commissioner Carlson stated that is at least direction and better than Commissioner Pritchard putting himself out there.

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

REPORT, RE: EDC DEFENSE INFRASTRUCTURE GRANT

Commissioner Pritchard advised the Economic Development Commission must submit a defense infrastructure grant to Tallahassee this week; it is comprised of two parts, a flight termination system and equipment replacement; and both would be located at Canaveral Air Force Station. He stated Economic Development Commission requested the Board act as the official assignee for the funds, and upon receipt, assign it to the Economic Development Commission, because the funding requirement states it must be assigned to a county. He noted Ms. Busacca is aware of it and can answer any questions.

Chair Higgs requested additional information; with Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca responding the State has recently made some infrastructure grants available; the Economic Development Commission asked that it have the opportunity to move forward on the grant application; it feels the possibility of getting a grant is very good; and it would be an opportunity to help in the BRAC process because the more infrastructure that is put on the ground strengthens the viability of the Canaveral Air Force Station. Ms. Busacca stated the Economic Development Commission is asking to put Brevard County’s name on the grant application; and when the money comes in, it would pass through Brevard County to Economic Development Commission and be given to the contractor that will make the infrastructure improvements. Chair Higgs inquired if the County will have the opportunity to ensure a contract and maintenance of all the tracking mechanisms if its name is on it; with Ms. Busacca responding yes. Commissioner Carlson inquired if there are matching dollars; with Ms. Busacca responding the only match is in-kind work that Economic Development Commission is doing.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to authorize applying for a defense infrastructure grant for a flight termination system and equipment replacement for Canaveral Air Force Station; and upon receipt of the grant, assign the funds to Economic Development Commission for payment to the contractor that will make the improvements. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: EARTH AWARENESS

Commissioner Carlson introduced a representative with EARTH Awareness of Brevard; and noted she has a stand in the lobby for those who are interested.

The representative advised EARTH is Entertainers Against Ruining Their Home and is a not-for-profit organization created in 1997; it received its 501(c)(3) designation in May of 2000; and it was created to make a difference in the lives of children. She stated the entertainment industry professionals, musicians, artists, actors, environmentalists, and anyone who loves the arts, children, and the earth are dedicated to the preservation outlets and natural experiences for the youth in Brevard County; and advised of its activities.

REPORT, RE: BOB HARTMAN

Commissioner Colon requested prayers for Pat Hartman, wife of Bob Hartman, who passed away.

REPORT, RE: THAD ALTMAN

Commissioner Colon advised Representative Thad Altman’s little girl, who is nine years old, is at Arnold Palmer Hospital; and requested prayers and support be sent to the Altman family who are going through some hard times.

REPORT, RE: HAPPY ANNIVERSARY

Commissioner Colon expressed Happy Anniversary wish to her husband for 20 years of putting up with her.

Chair Higgs extended Happy Anniversary greetings to Commissioner Colon from the Board.

APPROVAL, RE: CREATION OF FLAG LOTS, EASEMENT LOTS, AND ROAD FRONTAGE
LOTS ON LIONEL ROAD

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve creation of six flag lots, seven easement lots and two road frontage lots accessing Lionel Road in Groveland Estates, as requested by Don McGee, and allow three access stems adjacent to each other. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: CREATION OF FLAG LOTS, EASEMENT LOTS, AND ROAD FRONTAGE
LOTS ON BROCKETT AND HAMMOCK ROADS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve creation of two flag lots, two easement lots, and three road frontage lots on Brockett and Hammock Roads in Sandy Grove, as requested by Keith and Clare Norman. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FINAL ENGINEERING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVALS, RE: STADIUM PARKWAY
EXTENSION, PHASES 1, 2, AND 3

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant final engineering and preliminary plat approvals for Stadium Parkway Extension, Phases 1, 2, and 3, subject to minor engineering changes as applicable and developer responsible for obtaining all necessary jurisdictional permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND CONTRACT, RE: STADIUM PARKWAY EXTENSION,
PHASES 1 AND 2

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant final plat approval for Stadium Parkway Extension, Phases 1 and 2, subject to minor changes if necessary and receipt of all documents required for recording; and execute Contracts with The Viera Company guaranteeing improvements in the development. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Contracts.)

ACKNOWLEDGE ANNEXATION BY CITY OF MELBOURNE, RE: PROPERTY ON
STAN DRIVE AND WEST DRIVE

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to acknowledge annexation #AR-2204-152, Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2004-8, and rezoning request 2-22-4-988 by City of Melbourne for 1.93 acres located on Stan Drive and West Drive. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

EXTENSION OF LEASES WITH L. B. SMITH/KEYSTONE CORPORATION AND GREAT
SOUTHERN CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, AND ACCEPT OWNERSHIP, RE: VOLVO
G710 MOTOR GRADER AND KAWASAKI WHEEL LOADER

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to extend Lease Agreement with L. B. Smith/Keystone Corporation for 15 months for a Volvo G710 motor grader, and Lease with Great Southern Construction Equipment for two months for a Kawasaki 80ZIV-2 wheel loader, and to accept ownership of the equipment upon completion of the leases. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH POINT & PAY, INC., RE: ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Amendment to Agreement with Point & Pay, Inc. for electronic payments using credit and debit cards for the Utility Services Department. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page
for Amendment.)

CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 WITH M. GAY CONSTRUCTORS, INC., RE: W. W. JAMES PARK

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Change Order No. 1 to Agreement with M. Gay Constructors, Inc. for athletic field lighting at W. W. James Park, in the amount of $75,774.50. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page
for Change Order No. 1.)

AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH ALLIANCE DELIVERY SERVICES CORPORATION,
RE: FUEL SURCHARGE FOR COUNTYWIDE POSTAL AND COURIER SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Amendment to Agreement with Alliance Delivery Services Corporation for postal and courier services, providing for a 5% fuel surcharge to cover the deficit it has experienced. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Amendment.)

PERMISSION TO BID AND ISSUE PURCHASE ORDER, RE: ABATEMENT OF INDOOR
AIR QUALITY ISSUES, CLEANING OF HVAC SYSTEM, AND REPLACEMENT OF
INSULATION AT HEALTH DEPARTMENT IN TITUSVILLE

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant permission to bid and issue purchase order for abatement of indoor air quality issues, cleaning of the HVAC system, and replacement of insulation at the Health Department in Titusville at approximate cost of $60,000. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF REVISED POLICY BCC-27, RE: CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve revisions to Policy BCC-27, Construction Contracts. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page
for Policy BCC-27.)

APPROVAL, RE: REVISED PRECINCT LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve revised precinct legal descriptions for changes to existing precincts due to annexations by the Cities of Cocoa, Melbourne, Rockledge, Satellite Beach, Titusville, West Melbourne, and Town of Palm Shores; and approve precinct legal descriptions for new Precinct 219 in West Melbourne and Precinct 220 in Palm Bay. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages
for Legal Descriptions.)

APPOINTMENTS/REAPPOINTMENTS, RE: CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARDS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to appoint Mike Myjak to replace Jim Messer, and appoint Larry Goethe to the Building and Construction Advisory Committee, with terms expiring December 31, 2004. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: BUDGET CHANGE REQUESTS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Budget Change Requests as presented. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Budget Change Requests.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING UNIMPROVED RIGHT-OF-WAY
(WESTWAYS DRIVE) IN MacADAM SUBDIVISION - PAUL AND BRENDA HAYDUK

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating an unimproved right-of-way (Westways Drive) in MacAdam Subdivision, as petitioned by Paul and Brenda Hayduk.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution vacating an unimproved right-of-way (Westways Drive) in MacAdam Subdivision, as petitioned by Paul E. and Brenda D. Hayduk. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 04-151.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING NORTHERLY EXTENSION OF
INTERLACHEN ROAD - MATTHEW HOLDINGS

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating the northerly extension of Interlachen Road, as petitioned by Matthew Holdings.

Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff advised the petitioner requested the item be continued to August 24, 2004.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to continue the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating the northerly extension of Interlachen Road, as petitioned by Matthew Holdings until August 24, 2004. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE
EASEMENT (PHILLIPS COURT) IN HOLIDAY COVE, UNIT 1 - RENATO (LEONARD)
AND JOSEPHINE TORDONE

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating a public utility and drainage easement (Phillips Court) in Holiday Cove, Unit 1, as petitioned by Renato (Leonard) and Josephine Tordone.

Josephine Tordone advised at the May 18, 2004 meeting, after sitting for nine hours, she did not fare too well, but did manage to ask to waive the fee on their petition; and this morning she will start out asking for the same waiver. She stated she wants to give the Board reasons why the easement should be vacated so they can screen their pool; the pool was built in 1978; at the time it was constructed and inspected, everything went well; and they were never notified of any easement or restrictions at that time. She stated while the pool was under construction, they had an inspector come out whose name was Ed Scott; and she tried to find out if he was still with the County, but it is pretty hard to find out those things because there are a lot of people who were employed by the County at that time and are not with the County today. She stated she spoke to Mr. Scott twice and he said everything was going as planned; the pool was being constructed the same way as it was planned; and after that time he came back twice and left notes that he was there. Ms. Tordone stated they were asked if they wanted the pool to be screened; at that time there was no reason to screen the pool; the backyard was wide open with no trees or bushes; meanwhile things have changed; in the past three years her husband was diagnosed with neuropathy, cannot get around, and has very little use of his hands and fingers; so they decided it was time to screen the pool. Ms. Tordone advised their permit was upheld only to find out there was an easement back there; in order to get the vacating on the easement, they would have to pay $600; and she had to think it over because she could not understand it at that time. She stated her husband did not get any better; meanwhile, they decided this was the time to get in and screen the pool only to find out they could not get the permit; so they went on and decided they might as well go for it and get it done because they really needed it. She stated it is not a luxury; it is something they have to have; so she contacted Cynthia Streeter who sent her the papers for the petition. She stated she filled out all the papers, thanks to some nice ladies who helped her with it, wrote out a check for $640, and delivered the petition personally because she wanted to make sure Ms. Streeter got it and wanted to get on with the project, only to find out that the survey she sent in was not accepted because it was one when the house was built in 1963. She stated Ms. Streeter told her they had to get a new survey; the County wanted a recent survey and wanted the easement on the survey; so she had Ms. Streeter hold the papers and the check and she would get back with her in a couple of days, which she did. She stated they had the property survey to the tune of $400, so now they were out $1,040; and she does not know how anyone else looks at it, but for her that is a lot of money to put out and get nothing in return. She stated they went on with it, everybody came out, the utility company came out, and there was no problem with any of them; she let everyone know that there would be no digging as the screen would be placed on the existing deck; their pool is a free-form pool, which means the deep end is more narrow than the shallow end; and a portion of the deck falls into the easement.

Chair Higgs advised Ms. Tordone her time was up and she needed to wrap up her comments. Ms. Tordone stated she will try to, but it is all important to her to let the Board know what is going on. Chair Higgs stated she will give Ms. Tordone a few more minutes but she needs to try and wrap it up.

Ms. Tordone stated on July 6, 2004, she called the County and asked how long the County keeps records of people who issue permits; one office told her ten to fifteen years; and she said then they cannot help her because her pool was built in 1978. She stated a staff person said she would connect her to another office; but she forgot to tell her there was a $40 search fee, and that search would not do any good because it only went ten to fifteen years; so she called the other number and got in touch with another office. She stated this is the part she thinks is very important; at first she told them to be patient with her because she had an unusual request; she wanted to know if at the time the pool was built if the easement was vacated; the person said she did not know, but if the easement was vacated, it would be on record; so she asked her what record so she could look it up; and told staff that whatever information it gave her she was going to go to the meeting, address them, and let them know what is going on. She stated then the person changed over about the pool; she told her the County did not have the records back there; she asked her if she issued permits and she said yes; so she asked her to tell her what it means if at the time the pool company was issued a permit, it was approved by the County and also by the utility companies; and she said there should not be any question about that, but the problem is the if.

Chair Higgs advised Ms. Tordone she has far exceeded her time limit; and requested if the Board wants to give her additional time. Commissioner Scarborough suggested Ms. Tordone be allowed to finish her comments.

Ms. Tordone stated she told staff she has the permit; and staff asked her if she still had the permit from 1978; and she said yes, she has two of them, one for the pool and one for the electrical work to be done for the pool; and she said that was all she needed. She inquired if the County and the utility companies can take back what they said in 1978, because she feels the pool was okayed to be screened at that time because she was asked if she wanted it screened. She stated she has proof of the permits for the contract when the pool was built and of the electric company; and she does not know what else to tell the Board, but she cannot give any more proof than that. She stated the only conclusion the Board can come to is why not vacate the easement for them; she does not see where it would do any harm to anybody; and if the Board wants to see the papers, she has all the papers with her. She thanked the Board for listening to her because it has not been easy for her .

Chair Higgs advised Ms. Tordone to pass the papers to the Board and they will be returned to her after review. Ms. Tordone gave the papers to Chair Higgs.

Chair Higgs inquired if the County has objections from Florida Power & Light Company and BellSouth; with Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff responding yes. Mr. Denninghoff advised the situation is such that if the screen is constructed on the pool deck, the ability for the utility companies to service their existing lines in the rear yard would be impaired and they would not be able to provide those utility services for their customers.

Commissioner Pritchard stated this is an unusual and difficult situation; but in another sense it is something that happens frequently in that they are finding pools that were built many years ago that were built into easements. He stated it is not the dirt the Board is concerned about, it is the overhead; his office asked the screening contractor to develop another way to build the screen enclosure that would not impact the easement; and they were not able to come up with any other way to build it. He stated what they have is a dilemma in that because of the physical conditions that have changed, they now need a screened enclosure to make pool maintenance easier, but because of the overhead wires, Florida Power & Light Company and BellSouth have said they cannot allow it; and it is their easement and it is for control of their wires; so the Board has a situation where the pool was built into an area where it should not have been, which was the fault of the contractor and perhaps review of the County staff at that time; but the Aluminum Company cannot build a screened enclosure that would not affect the overhead wires. He stated Florida Power & Light Company and BellSouth said they cannot allow anything that would prevent them from being able to maintain electric and phone services in the neighborhood; so that is where the Board is; and he is afraid that is where they are stuck; and there is no way they can allow the building of the screened enclosure without interfering with electric and telephone lines. Commissioner Pritchard stated his office went to the Tordones’ residence and looked at the situation and seen what would happen; the screening contractor said they cannot construct anything that would still allow Florida Power & Light Company and BellSouth access; so based on that, he does not see how the Board can circumvent the easement and allow the construction of something that would perhaps be disruptive to electric and phone services in the neighborhood. Commissioner Pritchard stated one thing Ms. Tordone brought up that he finds annoying is the amount she had to pay; it gets back to what he said earlier about fees for self-sustaining departments; but in this case there was additional cost not based on that, but on some of the rules the County currently has. He stated she paid $400 for a survey, $40 for a search, then $640 processing fee, including advertising and recording; that amounts to $1,080 for an enclosure that would run a couple of thousand dollars; so it is an exorbitant amount of money to pay to get to this point. He stated the Board needs to look at a way to at least reimburse a portion of what she had to pay of the $640, excluding advertising costs. Mr. Denninghoff advised the advertising cost is $100.67. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if there were other costs incurred; with Mr. Denninghoff responding no direct cost, but staff costs and time for processing the petition. Commissioner Pritchard recommended the Tordones be reimbursed their fee less the advertising cost.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to deny the vacating as petitioned by Renato (Leonard) and Josephine Tordone, and to reimburse the $640 processing fee minus $100.67 for advertising.

Commissioner Scarborough advised it is rare to find a major conflict with utility companies; the Board vacates easements all the time; and anybody going in to talk to Ms. Streeter does not bounce off this magnitude of a problem. He stated he appreciates the efforts of Commissioner Pritchard’s office in trying to make it work for the people; and this is as far as the Board can be this morning without harming the ability of other people in the neighborhood to receive services from Florida Power & Light Company and BellSouth.

Chair Higgs advised she is not going to support the motion because staff and the Board have spent a lot of time on the item; people all the time apply for permits they may or may not receive a favorable decision on; and that is what happened in this case. She called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE CREATING INSTITUTIONAL ZONING
CLASSIFICATION (FIRST READING)

Chair Higgs called for the first of two public hearings on an ordinance creating institutional zoning classification.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Enos advised him there are a number of churches that will be impacted by the ordinance; he asked Mr. Enos if they were noticed; and he said not directly yet on their individual impact. He requested all churches be notified with their impact of the proposed ordinance.

Commissioner Colon stated she wants it tabled even before the first reading and she does not want to go forward until they get more dialogue on it.

Chair Higgs inquired if the Board wants to continue the first reading and notify those people who may be affected; with Commissioner Scarborough responding it may be best.

Zoning Manager Rick Enos advised they have one application pending, which is depending on the timing of the ordinance; it is from Merritt Island Baptist Church; it will be heard by the Board in September; and they had anticipated the timing of the ordinance.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to continue the first public hearing to consider an ordinance creating institutional zoning classification until August 10, 2004.

Mr. Enos advised the second hearing has to be a night meeting; he has scheduled it for the August zoning meeting; and if it goes to the first reading in August, they will not be able to make the August night meeting because of the time requirement.

Chair Higgs advised the Board has a tentative millage hearing on Tuesday; and inquired if the churches could be notified by then. Commissioner Scarborough stated they can notify, but churches deal in committees and groups and they do not meet all the time; some of the smaller churches may not meet but once a month; and inquired how much impact will it have on Merritt Island Baptist Church if the Board gave more time to the problem; with Mr. Enos responding it would probably move them back a month; and they are looking to light their football fields.

Commissioner Carlson stated the Board had a long discussion not to long ago about the impact on adjoining neighborhoods and a lot of other things like the issue of community institutional uses within communities and how they are encroaching on those communities because they are getting larger. She stated a lot of churches will be impacted, and need to be apprised of what is going on; but she is not sure the Board needs to slow the train so much.

Commissioner Scarborough stated what the Board will see is this may in some way move churches as they grow into leaving their current locations for newer facilities; that is an ongoing discussion of when a church actually physically moves its location to get more on arterial corridors as they begin to service more and more people; and that happens naturally with all churches. He stated the dynamics of what is happening in the church congregation and what is happening here needs to be coordinated as opposed to being separated.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired what would be the effect of approving this first reading and moving on to the second reading with all the notification; with Commissioner Carlson responding she can support that.

Chair Higgs stated if the second reading is a night meeting, there is no reason not to get sufficient input from the public; and if the Board needs to continue it again, it would have still afforded everyone the opportunity to be heard. Commissioner Scarborough stated his only concern is with church groups it is sometimes hard to move the thing from being received in the church office to having it scheduled for a committee or board meeting. Chair Higgs stated all the Board would do today is move it to the night meeting and notify the people; the input can come at that night meeting; and the Board can continue the public hearing if it desires.

Commissioner Scarborough withdrew the second to the motion; and Commissioner Colon withdrew the motion.

Commissioner Colon inquired when will it come back; with Mr. Enos responding August 5, 2004.

Chair Higgs advised everyone will be notified and will have a chance to come to the evening meeting; they will have several weeks between now and then; and if the Board does not develop some sense of where it ought to go, it can table it again. She requested a motion to move it forward to the second hearing

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to move the ordinance creating institutional Zoning classification to the second hearing on August 5, 2004; and direct staff to notify all churches about the possible impact of the ordinance. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE; CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL 2004A COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR TRANSMITTAL TO DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS

Chair Higgs advised consideration to transmit additional 12004A Comprehensive Plan amendments to Department of Community Affairs is recommended for deletion.

The Board by consensus deleted the additional 2004A Comprehensive Plan amendments from the Agenda.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE GRANTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TAX
ABATEMENT FOR RMD AMERICAS, LLC

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance granting economic development tax abatement for RMD Americas, LLC.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt an Ordinance granting economic development ad valorem exemption to RMD Americas, LLC; 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 RMD Americas, LLC; and providing an effective date. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Ordinance No. 04-27.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: FUNDING PRIORITIES FOR FY 2004-05 COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP
PROGRAMS

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider funding priorities for the FY 2004-05 Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership Programs.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board wants to consider putting economic development back in the CDBG, which was taken out because of issues. She stated the TRDA issue came to the Board; it is interested in starting the incubator project in Melbourne; the City of Melbourne is doing a one-time $250,000 contribution to the effort from CDBG funds; and inquired if there is any interest on the Board to contribute to the project.

Chair Higgs advised it was her understanding that if the Board asks the CDBG Board to consider it, it would be part of next year’s plan; and inquired if that is the process; with Housing and Human Services Director Gay Williams responding that is correct.

Commissioner Carlson stated she discussed HUD’s definition of job creation with Ms. Williams; if the incubator program cannot define how it creates jobs from HUD’s criteria, then it is not the right way to do it; but Ms. Williams said HUD was going to evaluate Melbourne’s use of those dollars based on its criteria; and inquired when would HUD be doing it; with Ms. Williams responding probably within the next month. Ms. Williams advised HUD would come to look at the requirement to make sure it serves a mandatory public interest, which is required by HUD; and HUD will be looking to make sure the activity does create and retain full-time jobs based on the amount of funding that is provided to the economic development project. Commissioner Carlson stated Ms. Williams told her TRDA made a presentation to the CDBG Board, so they understand what the intent is; with Ms. Williams responding TRDA presented a business plan of the proposed workings of the project, and did it on off-season, not during the normal funding cycle. Commissioner Carlson stated she understood that TRDA would be coming back at one of the budget workshops; if that is the case, the Board ought to request if it has any proof of the other incubators it has been involved in of the permanent jobs that evolved from that; and that might be a positive step forward if TRDA wants to be part of the CDBG flow of dollars.

Chair Higgs inquired if Commissioner Carlson’s intent is to ask the CDBG Board to consider including economic development components in future plans; with Commissioner Carlson responding that is really the motion, but there has to be specific criteria and good oversight of any economic development aspects.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to request the CDBG Advisory Board to consider an economic development element in its next funding cycle.

Commissioner Colon stated she has concerns because if someone makes a presentation, it does not mean he or she has support or disapproval from the Board; and before the Board moves forward with this, it would be prudent to get feedback from the CDBG Board because the dollars are limited. She stated she does not have a problem putting the economic development concept there for consideration and the CDBG Board can determine if there are possibilities; but instead of taking action today, the Board should get feedback from the CDBG Board.

Chair Higgs advised the Board is asking the CDBG Board to consider it; and if it agrees, it could include it in the plan for next year. Commissioner Carlson stated the CDBG Board should not consider it until HUD comes back with its evaluation of Melbourne’s contribution because it would be a lost cause if it has a negative evaluation. Commissioner Higgs stated the CDBG Board may come back with an amendment to the plan, so the Board would get its feedback; and it is just asking the CDBG Board to consider it and approve the plan that went through public hearings before that Board and the public as presented. Ms. Williams advised there is no action required to approve the plan today; and it will come back on the 27th for approval.

Chair Higgs called for a vote on the motion to send a request to the CDBG Board to consider including economic development in its next funding cycle. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he talked to Frank Kinney yesterday and he appreciates the problems the Board is going to have working through the CDBG; they talked about other options; and he would like the opportunity to look at other options. He stated the use of incubators is very important for a community to move into new and evolving industries; Brevard County is extremely unique in the entire State and the City of Melbourne has a unique environment when looking at the number of high-tech corporate headquarters in the state. He stated there are major corporations; nobody pays the dollars that the high-tech industry pays; and the Board needs to leverage the industry with universities. He stated it is an important issue; he does not want the problem to get in the way of an opportunity; it is something unique in Melbourne; and he would like to see the Board move forward with it.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to direct the County Manager to meet with Frank Kinney to see if there are other methodologies that could be employed in making the incubator program come to pass. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 62-507, VESTED RIGHTS,
TAKINGS, CLAIMS, AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INTERPRETATION APPEALS

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Section 62-507, relating to vested rights, takings, claims, and Comprehensive Plan interpretation appeals.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the lines that bother him are, “The Board will make its final decision based upon written materials only. No oral presentations are permitted.” He stated the Board would in effect be acting as an appeals court; respondents have an opportunity to say something in appeals court; so they should have that opportunity, albeit limited to five minutes. He noted at least the Board would have emotional and factual presentations by the parties.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised that is entirely up to the Board; and if it wants to do that, he can put it in the ordinance. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the appeal process to the special magistrate is already built in; with Mr. Knox responding there is a hearing before the special magistrate so people make their presentations before the special magistrate; the way the Board originally wanted it structured as he understood it, is that it did not want to have those prolonged hearings on vested rights applications that it had in the past; and that is why he deleted the hearing aspect in front of the Board of County Commissioners. He stated if the Board wants to open it up to what amounts to oral arguments it can do that; the problem is it may hear new evidence; and that is what happened in the past. Commissioner Carlson stated it circumvents the special magistrate process and takes the Board back to square one. Mr. Knox stated the Board would hear the same things the special magistrate heard or more. Commissioner Carlson stated so it becomes a circular argument not going anywhere and costing more money.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if there is some way to limit it the way an appeal court would; with Mr. Knox responding the appellate court will let the parties argue and not take any evidence from other people; so if there are people in the audience who have an interest in the case and are not parties, those people would not be heard. He stated the Board can limit the parties to five minutes of argument on what the special magistrate presented to the Board if it wants to do that. Commissioner Pritchard inquired what would the rule be that the Board could implement that would prevent the introduction of new evidence and limit the parties to the merits of what was presented to the special magistrate; with Mr. Knox responding they have to argue the application of the law to the facts found by the special magistrate; the Board cannot make new findings of fact as currently provided in the ordinance; the findings of fact will be set in the record that come to the Board; and it would be a matter of how the law applies to those facts. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if a petitioner would be capable of doing that or would it be better handled by an attorney. He stated he would assume the petitioner’s attorney would handle it; but if the person does not have an attorney, would he or she have the competence to handle only that specific issue. Mr. Knox stated each person is different, but if the Board identifies upfront what the rules are, sticks to the rules, limits it to parties, and only gives five minutes, it may not be that much of a problem. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if five minutes would be sufficient time to give them an opportunity to present their case; with Mr. Knox responding whatever the Board feels is appropriate.

Commissioner Scarborough stated it is hard to chair a Commission meeting and apply judicial rules because the belief of the public, when they come to meetings, is they are able to speak from their hearts and not based on rules of evidence; and generally that is how the Board does it. He stated the Board is more liberal than the courts; having said that, he still thinks there is some benefit in having a special magistrate hear all the evidence and structure the case; something the Board can do is come in with a presumption of correctness of the special magistrate; therefore, the party that the special magistrate does not find in favor of has the initial burden of overcoming that presumption. He stated if a Commissioner is chairing the meeting, he or she would recognize whichever side was the County and what side was the citizen; it would ask the special magistrate how he determined the findings of fact. He stated the Commissioner as chair would not be able to control the discussion because individuals will go on and the chair cannot say, “that is beyond the rules of evidence”; but if it did that, at least it would know it has it structured and it got a presumption that it is correct; and the person has the ability to come forward and present whatever needs to be presented, and the other side could also. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board would be dealing with a structured environment rather than a non-structured environment; it is an environment where the structure is created by one of the parties; and one of the big things he heard is that staff was structuring what the Board heard and controlling what it heard and the format it heard it in, but yet it was one of the parties. He stated by moving to the special magistrate with those things, maybe more people would feel comfortable; he would feel more comfortable, if he was chairing the meeting, to have the presumption concept; but he does not know what other Commissioners think about that.

Commissioner Colon stated based on experiences she had during the handful of vested rights hearings by the Board, once the evidence was presented, there were times the Board felt it had all the information but it did not; so she does not think five minutes is enough for someone to make a case. She stated each party would need at least ten minutes; and it should be in writing so both parties have an opportunity to see what each has. She stated she believes in the process; and even if she does not agree with the individuals, at least the Board should have the ability to listen to them and be the kind of form that the Board sticks to because in the past
some Commissioners supported one thing at one meeting and went against it at the second meeting, making it difficult for someone who was chairing the meeting. She stated Commissioners need to back up the chair and what they agree on; but based on her experience, ten minutes would be more appropriate and they need to submit everything in writing beforehand, which would be the right thing to do.

Chair Higgs inquired if the Board would have the special magistrate’s findings in writing from both parties and allow each party ten minutes for presentations. She stated in one case there was a large number of citizens who wanted to speak; so the Board needs some clarification about that.

Commissioner Carlson stated the issue is structuring to make sure the Board has all the facts, which is what Commissioner Colon commented on; all the Commissioners felt, in certain circumstances, that they did not have all the facts or the facts were askew so that they questioned the information they had; so structuring it from the special magistrate’s legal perspective is a great asset. She stated her concern is the looping; if the Board starts getting more facts that do not apply to the findings of fact, it would go back to the special magistrate for a rehearing; and the Board would end up with a loop kind of thing going on. She stated ten minutes per side for the attorneys representing the parties or the parties themselves to appeal and give their sides if they feel they were not given due process with the special magistrate would be adequate; and if there is new evidence, then that new evidence goes to the special magistrate so the Board does not get surprised after the fact. She stated there are times when new evidence can come and nobody has a clue where it came from or how it was angled.

Chair Higgs advised the Board needs to make a decision based on the evidence that it is given; the applicant is able to ask the special magistrate to present all the witnesses and evidence he has; and the petitioner could take the evidence he or she deems appropriate in that setting and be given ten minutes to present it to the Board. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the ten minutes given each side does not change the findings of fact, would the Board approve or disapprove based on what the special magistrate said; with Chair Higgs responding the Board has to base its decision on what it receives. Commissioner Scarborough suggested the ordinance be sent back to the County Attorney to look at it and visit each Commissioner. Mr. Knox stated he can accomplish what the Board wants to do, but not right now.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to continue the public hearing amending Section 62-507 relating to vested rights, takings, claims, and Comprehensive Plan interpretation appeals until August 10, 2004. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

STAFF REPORT, RE: MARINE TURTLE PROTECTION REGULATIONS

Terry O’Toole of Melbourne Beach advised he first moved to Brevard County in 1972 and lived in Satellite Beach; the first sea turtle he saw on the beach was being ridden by people and had a crowd around it; so there was not a lot of environmental knowledge or concern at that time. He stated the first hatchling he saw was on SR A1A by Mark Realty; but years have passed and environmental education has greatly increased for people in Brevard County and around the State. Mr. O’Toole advised he has been a park ranger at Sebastian Inlet State Park for 25 years and has seen tremendous increase in knowledge of sea turtles and many other things, as well as environmental education; it has been wonderful; and through the years they passed laws to protect the sea turtles, which he does not want to see weakened. He stated it is known and scientifically proven that sea turtle hatchlings are drawn to light; artificial light can affect sea turtles and make them move away from the ocean as they hatch out on the beaches; and Brevard County accounts for 40% of sea turtle nesting in Florida, and Florida accounts for 90% of sea turtle nesting in the United States. He stated there has been a concern about public safety, but he does not think it is a strong case; over the years there has been no increase in crime due to darkened beaches; and the lighting Ordinance has helped keep turtle hatchling disorientation at bay. Mr. O’Toole stated hopefully the County will keep the Ordinance it has to protect the sea turtles, as there is an economic impact. He stated for 25 years he has been giving sea turtle programs at Sebastian Inlet; they received press coverage this year in the New York Times, Miami Herald, Southern Living, and Jack Hannah’s Television Show; so Brevard County is world famous. He stated many people come to the motels to go on sea turtle walks, so the whole County prospers by having sea turtles here and being able to return safely to the beaches. He requested, to help the County and sea turtles, the Board keep the good Ordinance it has to protect the turtles on the beaches.

Commissioner Pritchard stated there is always the emotional issue tied in with quasi-science; that is the part he has problems with; the last speaker said many people come here to look at the sea turtles and that provides economic impact; unfortunately, people come here and buy fireworks and blow them up on the beaches also. He stated the Board needs to look at both sides of the issue; one problem he had with reading the review is that Dr. Witherington’s favorite site when he writes is himself, and he agrees with everything he has done; but what he has not done is given any qualifications that he might have as a lighting expert. He stated Dr. Witherington says, “no simple measure of light intensity can reveal whether a light source would be a problem”; and “the most reliable instruments to use when making judgments about lighting are the eyes of the observer.” He stated that is sheer nonsense; there are measurements; they need to be employed; and they can base something subjectively by being objective and ignoring that there is science that is driving the process and needs to drive the process. Commissioner Pritchard stated people can navigate by starlight; they have instruments that measure light; he went on a turtle excursion; and when he got down at turtle height, he could not see the lights they were talking about. He stated when he got up to five-foot plus, he could see the 40-watt yellow bulb that was a block and a half down the road; and they were told it had to be turned off because a turtle might navigate by it. He stated the same went for a light that was on top of an eight-story building; it was put there for airplane safety; and there needs to be some reasonableness to this issue. He stated Brevard County has a hatchling nursery on the coastline that is important to the turtle population; he has no argument with that; the argument he has is they need to find a way to effectively measure without relying on the human ability to look at something and make a determination that may be predisposed. He stated the report says, “An officer finding multiple dim light sources at a site where hatchling disorientation has occurred might decide that the many dim light sources have made a cumulative threat”; that is not good science; if they have a focus on simply stating they can see a light and because they can see a light the turtles can see the light, then they are not being very responsible and are not applying good science. Commissioner Pritchard stated he does not think the Board can use any data regarding lighting because it is all subjective; they need to have measurable criteria; and without definitive measurable and objective data, all the Board has is someone’s thoughts on what the requirement could possibly be. He stated there is a safety issue; #9 says, “How can one justify the sacrifice of human safety and security to save sea turtles?”; and the answer is thankfully no such choice is necessary. He stated that is emotion and pure bunk and needs to be addressed; they need to have measurable criteria and a truly objective look at it so they are not subjecting the entire Code Enforcement issue and whether or not they are actually doing anything that is enhancing hatchling survivability to someone’s purely subjective issue that, in his observation, is what he has concluded. He stated the Board is wrong in taking that approach; and it needs more scientific, measurable, and empirical data before running off on emotion again.

Chair Higgs advised there are no other cards and no lights from Commissioners, so there is no motion to change the current laws relating to turtle protection.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he was not done yet; what needs to be done is to have science look at it and come up with specific measurable criteria, not based purely on someone making an observation. He stated if they cannot hold something that says the light is going to disorient the turtles or if they cannot do something that is empirical, then the Board has done nothing other than allow someone’s emotions to control its process, so he would like to make a motion to ask staff to come up with empirical data, etc.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, to request staff come up with empirical data, light measurement techniques, and specific criteria that would provide the Board with guidelines that the enforcement officers can use so they do not have someone who says that there may be a cumulative effect of light sources because it either is or is not.

Chair Higgs called for a second to the motion; and hearing none, declared the motion died for lack of a second.

SPEED HUMP REQUEST, RE: JANINA ROAD

Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff advised the petitioner is not aware of the results of the speed study; they are apparently on vacation; and they did not know the date it would come to the Board.

Commissioner Scarborough advised it is probable the Board is going to deny the request and it would be easier with the petitioner here rather than rehear it, so he will move to continue.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to direct staff to bring back the request for speed humps on Janina Road at another meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

SPEED HUMP REQUEST, RE: WASHINGTON AVENUE

Commissioner Colon advised it by a school, is a safety factor, and meets the criteria.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve speed humps for Washington Avenue. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

SPEED HUMP REQUEST, RE: PINE TREE DRIVE

Commissioner Colon advised a lot of the area was surveyed to make sure there was good feedback from the community.

Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff advised 76% of the residents responded in favor of the speed humps, and it is a cut-through street between A1A and Riverside Drive.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve speed humps for Pine Tree Drive. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

SPEED HUMP REQUEST, RE: BIRCH AVENUE

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve speed humps for Birch Avenue. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: SUPPORTING CITY OF TITUSVILLE’S RIVERFRONT ACQUISITION
REFERENDUM

Chair Higgs advised there are no speakers on this item; and she wonders why the Board should take a position on the referendum in the City of Titusville, and wants the wisdom of getting involved in this. Commissioner Colon inquired if Commissioner Scarborough is in support of it.

Parks and Recreation Director Charles Nelson advised it is a City of Titusville issue; and the relationship the County has with the City is based on its District 1 MSTU. He stated the City, through an Interlocal Agreement, pays the County to maintain City parks; and should this pass, there could be some impact to the budget in District 1; but the City is looking at it as a way of preserving its waterfront. Commissioner Carlson inquired if there is ballot language; with Mr. Nelson responding the City Attorney is working on that for the City Council’s July 27, 2004 meeting.

Commissioner Scarborough advised the County purchases property in Titusville, but with a number of growth issues coming along, one of the ways to keep the waterfront open is by acquiring the property. He stated the City Council put together a committee; Lowell Gray is the Chair; and he can answer the questions the Board may have. He stated there seems to be a strong feeling that this is a good idea; and requested Mr. Gray tell the Board what the committee did and its thought process.

Lowell Gray of Titusville advised the City Council appointed five members to look at the riverfront and what could be done to assure the future of the riverfront as far as the public is concerned; they looked at 16 properties, from SR 50 north to Titusville High School on U.S. 1 and the river; some are large, some have submerged river rights, and some are narrow; and they looked at all of them to see what they could do to assure Titusville will always have a riverfront people can see and use for other purposes. He stated the committee selected properties and recommended them to the City Council; and at its last meeting, the Council voted to go with a referendum for the voters of Titusville to decide whether the riverfront was important enough to them that they would vote a tax upon themselves. Mr. Gray stated they have a plan that will entice the voters; they are only going to buy properties people are willing to sell; there are a couple of developments that are quite large in the area; and they are prepared to buy the land if any of those developments happen to fall through. He stated Titusville is a unique feature of Brevard County in that it is one of the avenues into Brevard County from the mid-central Florida area; they are excited about the possibility of getting the referendum on the November ballot; and the committee’s responsibility was to go as far as providing the land, clearing it to some extent so voters can see the river where they were not able to see it before, proceed to get it on the November ballot, and inform the people of Titusville so they will support it. He noted if they get the properties, it will make a way for some of the bikepaths and footpaths, that the County is aware of, to be placed on the properties and give access to the river; it should have been done a long time ago; unfortunately, they are into a season of speculation on what can be done with those properties by other people; so the property values have ballooned of late. He stated whether that will stay there is anybody’s guess, but they have presented their report to the City; the City Council accepted it; and he made a presentation to the North Brevard Parks and Recreation Department, which also supports it. He noted he has a copy of the committee’s report he can leave for the Board.

Commissioner Scarborough advised sometimes referendum funds are only for acquisition; Mr. Gray referred to funds to clean up some properties; and inquired if that is part of the language the City Attorney is drafting; with Mr. Gray responding some of the land drops off almost immediately to river level so it will need some fill; they have monies planned for that and for clearing and upkeep, basically mowing; and anything beyond that is for acquisition. He stated they are not putting money into picnic benches, but they will clear the land to make it presentable and ensure it is properly kept up. He stated there are a lot of vines on some properties and they are talking about clearing the view and not taking out the native species.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt a Resolution supporting the concept of the City of Titusville Riverfront Acquisition Referendum to be considered for the November 2004 ballot.

Chair Higgs advised she does not recall the Board ever endorsing a city’s referendum, but she certainly supports acquisition and preservation of land. Commissioner Scarborough stated he was told the problem is the City cannot get it on the ballot, as the Board alone has the access to the ballot. Chair Higgs stated she does not think that is true. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the City can go directly to the Elections Supervisor. Chair Higgs stated they do not have to come to the board. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the City has the right to go to the Elections Supervisor and have an item placed on the ballot; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding under some circumstances it could; but he is not sure how this item arose and would have to check on it. Commissioner Scarborough suggested couching the motion so that if the Board’s action is required to have it on the ballot, he would like to do it for the City; however, if the City has the right to go directly to the Supervisor of Elections to get it on the ballot, the Board’s action would not be necessary. Chair Higgs stated what is before the Board is a resolution in support of the referendum being put on the ballot, not the ballot language. Commissioner Scarborough stated some people were under the assumption it had to come through the Board. Chair Higgs stated it is not asking the Board to approve the ballot language and send it to the Supervisor of Elections. Commissioner Scarborough stated some of the information he received out of Titusville is that it felt since the Board puts things on the ballot and has that prerogative and the City does not, it had to get County approval. He recommended the item be held until later in the meeting and Mr. Knox touch base with City Attorney Dwight Severs on the issue of whether or not the City needs Board approval. He stated a resolution is not really what the Board is called upon fundamentally to be involved in; with Chair Higgs responding that is what the Board has. Commissioner Scarborough stated he appreciates that, but there may be some confusion that needs to be corrected. Mr. Gray stated the Committee would appreciate any encouragement it can get from the Board that it is a good idea. Chair Higgs stated she thinks it is a lovely idea and really supports land acquisition, but to her remembrance, the Board has never gone on record for any of the various cities’ referendum items. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board approves one city referendum, it assumes that the Board can also deny another; that would be interfering with the cities’ home rule; so that would be inappropriate in itself; however, if the Board needs to act, he would like to have the opportunity to bring it back and have the Board discuss its role in allowing the City to proceed with the referendum. He stated he does not want to be the one who stops it. Chair Higgs stated she does not want to be misunderstood; she absolutely supports putting it on the ballot; but she does not think the Board has ever gone on record with something like this. Commissioner Scarborough requested it be brought back at the end of the meeting.

By consensus of the Board, the item was postponed until later in the meeting.

PROPOSAL, RE: PILOT PROJECT EFFICIENCY STUDY

Chair Higgs inquired if it would be advisable to discuss the study as part of the budget discussions because it would be money in the new budget year.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the cost is $35,000 from Contingency; he talked with Cathy Schweinsberg and asked her if they had a bang-up strategic plan on libraries, would they save $100,000 or something like that; and she responded that they try to do things efficiently all the time, so it would be a surprise to her. He stated he is not at a point to look at it as part of the budget that includes Kay Burk losing $15,000 and Economic Development Commission losing $25,000 when that same $35,000 can fund two functions in the County; so he would recommend the Board take no action.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to take no action to approve a pilot project efficiency study. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

SUBGRANT AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS,
RE: HOMELAND SECURITY INITIATIVES

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute federally-funded Subgrant Agreement with Florida Department of Community Affairs for homeland security initiatives, including EOC enhancements, planning, training, and exercises; and authorize the County Manager or his designee to sign any documents or modifications to the Agreement. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Agreement.)

DISCUSSION, RE: STATE DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE COST SHIFT

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised every county in Florida is supporting the Florida Association of Counties (FAC) legal challenge to the State requiring counties to fund the detention of juveniles pretrial; most counties have participated in the litigation as named litigants; Charlotte County was the only one that voted not to do it at all, and another county voted to participate but not be a named litigant.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve payment of $3,570 assessment to cover legal costs of the Florida Association of Counties’ challenge to the State requiring counties to fund the detention of juveniles pretrial.

Commissioner Scarborough advised he was opposed to proceeding with Article V; it has destroyed the judicial system in the State; they are going to have a lot of problems; but a government does not sue a fellow government and ever win. He stated it is not the way to go because the State will take it away from the County some place else.

Commissioner Carlson stated she tends to agree with Commissioner Scarborough, but it is going to come back next year if the State gets a two-thirds vote; FAC is saying the State did not do it legitimately; so she is not sure the County cannot be part of the action in terms of what it means because the County has been fighting Article V for years.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the counties won with Article V and ultimately the system lost; the Board does not sit here for the County, it sits here for the people; and the people do not win in this type of maneuver.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the issue is that the Florida Legislature did not have the mandatory two-thirds majority vote; that is his issue; because of that, someone needs to say the Legislature did not do it right; and he wants to be part of that.

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

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize being a named party in the Florida Association of County’s legal challenge. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Scarborough and Colon voted nay.

RECONSIDERATION OF OCTOBER 16, 2001 BOARD ACTION, RE: MANDATORY
CONNECTION TO SEWER SYSTEM FOR PROPERTIES ON NORTH MERRITT
ISLAND AND TEMPORARY WAIVER FROM DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

Jeannie Gaydan of Cape Canaveral advised they are three property owners who operate small businesses on septic tanks; their three properties have household sewage and not industrial waste; the Florida Statutes allow for waiver if there are current sanitary tanks that are sufficient; and their septic tanks meet the requirements. She stated the expense to connect to a sewer system is between $60,000 and $100,000 for the three properties; and requested the Board’s support in requesting a waiver from the State.

Commissioner Pritchard advised he would like to hear from Utilities Services Director Richard Martens because it is interesting in that they have industrial zoning but not industrial usage; it came about in a convoluted way in that a property adjacent to their properties wanted to do something with the zoning; and that triggered the threshold with the sewer issue. He stated Dr. Heshmati, Director of the Health Department, offered a five-year waiver on connecting to the sewer system because of the circumstances with the individual properties; and inquired if Mr. Martens can add anything to that.

Utility Services Director Richard Martens advised the issue came up a number of years ago; there was a property that was among several that were in a land use category designated industrial; the property had a building on it without a septic tank; and when they came to get a septic tank permit, they found they could not get one. He stated one thing led to another and ultimately resulted in a notice of mandatory connection for the six or seven properties that were involved in it. He stated staff came to the Board two years ago and asked direction on how to proceed; they offered several options, one of which was to request a waiver from the Health Department; and the Board opted not to do that at that time. He stated since then, some properties rezoned out of industrial classification, which removed them from the arduous sewer connection provision; two of the properties are in the process of connecting right now; and the remaining three have come back requesting the Board reconsider the waiver issue. Mr. Martens stated he understands the cost of building the sewer line to connect them to the system
will be very expensive; the connection requirement is based on existence of a sewer line within 500 feet of the property; the closest sewer line is on the west side of North Courtenay Parkway, which is a four-laned divided highway; so this is an unusual situation and quite expensive to construct the sewer line that is necessary to make the connection required under State law.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to reconsider the October 16, 2001 Board decision concerning mandatory connection to the sanitary sewer system for three properties on North Merritt Island; and request a temporary five-year waiver from the Health Department with conditions they continue non-industrial use and the septic systems continue to function properly. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: TERMINATING ORDINANCE NO. 02-04, CREATING MELISSA COURT
WATERLINE MSBU, AND RELEASING AND TERMINATING LIENS CREATED BY
RESOLUTION NO. 02-035

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution terminating the Melissa Court Waterline MSBU, created by Ordinance No. 02-04; and release and terminate any liens created by Resolution No. 02-035. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 04-152.)

RESOLUTION, RE: TERMINATING ORDINANCE NO. 03-14, CREATING PARKWAY DRIVE
WATERLINE MSBU, AND RELEASING AND TERMINATING LIENS CREATED BY
RESOLUTION NO. 03-100

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution terminating Parkway Drive Waterline MSBU, created by Ordinance No. 03-14, and release and terminate any liens created by Resolution No. 03-100. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 04-153.)

RESOLUTION, RE: SUPPORTING CITY OF TITUSVILLE’S RIVERFRONT ACQUISITION
REFERENDUM (CONTINUED)

County Attorney Scott Knox advised City Attorney Dwight Severs said the City does not need the County’s approval but is looking for its support.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he supports the City in its efforts.

Chair Higgs stated she applauds the City for taking this effort and purchasing riverfront property for preservation. Commissioner Carlson stated she confirms Chair Higgs’ statement.

The meeting recessed at 10:45 a.m., and reconvened at 11:00 a.m.

AGREEMENT WITH THE GREAT OUTDOORS PREMIER RV/GOLF RESORT, INC.,
THE GREAT OUTDOORS PREMIER RV/GOLF RESORT COMMUNITY SERVICES
ASSOCIATION, INC., AND LAND PLANNERS AND ASSOCIATES, INC., RE: FIRE
PROTECTION SYSTEM

County Attorney Scott Knox advised they are close to finalizing the agreement, but are not done; and he hopes to receive a favorable vote from the Association on Friday so he can bring it back to the Board on July 20, 2004 completely approved by everybody but the Board.

Commissioner Scarborough stated it could come back under Mr. Knox’s report; with Chair Higgs recommending it be put on the Agenda so there are no surprises.

Craig Dixon of Merritt Island, representing Dixon Construction advised he realizes the agreement is still underway; he was not able to attend the last meeting at which some permits were released to several contractors; he is a contractor at The Great Outdoors; and he would like to know why he was not issued permits or what he needs to do to obtain permits.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised there were six permits released; four went to Land Planners and Associates, Inc., as party to the lawsuit; and they were the ones his Department negotiated a settlement with. He stated the other two were for a screened porch for a gentleman who was in attendance at the meeting last week, and for a lady who is suffering from physical illness problems, sold her house, is not able to relocate at this time, and is in limbo. He noted those were the six permits that were released.

Mr. Dixon inquired if he needs to file a lawsuit to get permits; with Mr. Knox responding no, if he could wait until next Tuesday, he would get everything released if things work out the way he thinks they will work out. Mr. Dixon stated he asked about a month and a half ago, through Commissioner Pritchard’s office, to be able to pour slabs and not impose any additional fire load because concrete prices are escalating all the time; and requested the Board’s approval to be able to pour slabs. He stated he is under contract, so when there is an increase in concrete, there is no relief for him; and inquired if the Board could consider to at least let him pour concrete without adding fire load. Mr. Knox stated that is up to the Board.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired how many slabs is Mr. Dixon talking about; with Mr. Dixon responding six. Commissioner Pritchard stated that is reasonable. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Mr. Dixon is going to our all six slabs between now and next Tuesday; with Mr. Dixon responding they could at least get started. Commissioner Scarborough inquired how many would he pour between now and next Tuesday; with Mr. Dixon responding they may not pour any, but would like to be on the concrete company’s schedule. He stated it took three weeks to get concrete for the last slab he poured; before the concrete fiasco, they would order concrete and have it within two days; now they are scheduled on a random basis and are expecting another increase in cost; so as soon as he gets a permit, he would call for the concrete; and if they say they will show up tomorrow, then they will pour slabs tomorrow. Commissioner
Scarborough stated the problem is if something fell apart, Mr. Dixon would have concrete poured and the structure not completed; and he is asking for something other than the complete permit.

Chair Higgs stated they have to have a permit in order to start a building. Commissioner Scarborough stated what Mr. Dixon is asking for now is something that would not mature into a certificate of occupancy. Chair Higgs stated if the Board cannot settle on the agreement, it may not be completed; and inquired if Mr. Dixon’s applications are in; with Mr. Dixon responding yes, they have been reviewed, approved, and are in hold status.

Commissioner Carlson inquired based on the fact that the agreement will be coming back, will that allow Mr. Dixon to go forward; with Commissioner Scarborough responding he can see a whole bunch of people coming in requesting things; Mason William came in; this is getting to be more than two cards and tabling; and inquired how many people are here to speak to the item on The Great Outdoors. Several people in the audience raised their hands.

Chair Higgs stated Mr. Knox indicated the agreement is not in place and the Board would entertain the agreement next Tuesday. Commissioner Carlson stated if it does not work out, maybe there is other direction the Board can provide to get things going. Commissioner Pritchard stated what Mr. Dixon is asking for, since he cannot get concrete scheduled in the next week, is to be put on the concrete company’s schedule. Mr. Dixon stated it would take a permit for the slab; if he got the Building Department to authorize the slab only at this time, he would proceed with ordering concrete; it could take a while based on the experience they have had; and it could take up to six weeks to pour six slabs. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if Mr. Dixon wants to lock in at today’s price; with Mr. Dixon responding yes.

Mr. Knox advised the Board could authorize release of slab permits only with the understanding there is a risk that the agreement will not be approved. Chair Higgs stated she does not think the County issues slab permits; it would have to give a building permit, but not authorize beyond the slab, and Mr. Dixon could get partly into the process. Commissioner Scarborough stated he thinks Mr. Dixon understands the risk. Mr. Dixon stated the homeowners would have to understand the risk as well; he will get letters from them so he does not take any more of a loss; and most of them have voiced agreement because they give him no relief for price increases. Mr. Knox stated the Board could authorize staff to make a notation on the building permits that it is slab only until next Tuesday.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to authorize issuance of building permits to Dixon Construction to pour six slabs only in The Great Outdoors; and direct staff to schedule the agreement with The Great Outdoors Premier RV/Golf Resort, Inc., The Great Outdoors Premier RV/Golf Resort Community Services Association, and Land Planners and Associates, Inc. for a fire protection system on the July 27, 2004 Agenda. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Scarborough stated they will become more and more invested in the favorable result of the agreement, so everybody needs to bring as much pressure to bear on the parties to make it happen and conclude the matter.

Chair Higgs stated the Board will proceed with Mr. Knox’s statement that they are all working together and hope to have an agreement by next Tuesday.

CITIZEN REQUEST - GLENDA BUSICK, RE: FOLLOW-UP OF MAY 18, 2004 BOARD
MEETING ON FIVE CHARTER AMENDMENTS FOR THE NOVEMBER 2004 BALLOT

Commissioner Scarborough stated there are proposals from Glenda Busick and Dale Young; and recommended those speakers be taken first. He stated he would like to hear from Ms. Busick then Mr. Young, then the Chair and take the rest of the cards; with Chair Higgs responding that is fine.

Glenda Busick of Melbourne stated many of the people in Brevard County are scared to death of the irresponsible growth, which is taking place in the County; she is here to ask each of the Commissioners to take a stand against the County’s irresponsible growth; she has listed five proposals that can provide solutions to some of the growth problems; and she needs to know today where each of the Commissioners stands on those items. She stated the (1) is setting up preservation districts; Orange County’s Charter contains a method to set up preservation districts; and it will keep portions of Brevard County rural. She stated (2) is restricting filling of rivers and lagoons; (3) is restricting filling of wetlands; (4) is limiting density increases in Brevard County by a four-to-one vote of any city council or county commission before density increases can be approved; and (5) is creation of a Brevard County growth management commission modeled after Volusia County’s Growth Management Commission that has been in effect 15 years. She stated she wants the public to know that Commissioners Pritchard and Colon said they will not vote on anything that is rejected by the Charter Commission; and she finds that almost malfeasance because it is their job as County Commissioners to review proposals to put on the ballot. She stated how people can get stuff on the ballot according to the Charter is: (1) citizen petition drives; (2) going through the Charter Commission; and (3) coming to the Board of County Commissioners. She stated there are three separate ways and they are redundant ways so that the will of the people can be heard; and for Commissioner Colon and Commissioner Pritchard to make a blank statement that they are not going to review anything that is rejected by the Charter Commission is just an excuse. Ms. Busick stated Commissioners appointed their members to the Charter Commission; time after time they voted no on all the growth management items; so they got what they wanted at the Charter Review Commission and got those things killed; and there is no way they want to come here and talk about each one of them and maybe override what their appointees said because their appointees did what they wanted them to do. She stated she wants the public to know that, and she wants to get a vote on each of the items so the public knows where each Commissioner stands on irresponsible growth in the County, and they will be on the record.

Dale Young of Melbourne stated he wants to give accolades to the Charter Review Commission (CRC); the members worked long and very hard; they were in Cocoa Beach until midnight one night; and they put in a lot of volunteer time. He stated the CRC was well appointed; there was a nice cross section of the County; they got everybody’s opinion; and they considered all the items that came up. He stated people had their say and the CRC had its say; so the items have been well considered. He stated as far as being afraid of growth, most places would be envious of Brevard County; growth brings in revenue; and it has in Brevard County by another billion dollars in new construction. He stated if the people are really afraid of growth, then the County should take the million dollars given to Economic Development Commission and put it towards taking care of that growth. He stated growth is coming whether people like it or not; and the only thing the Board can do is get in front of it and take care of it. Mr. Young stated as for Commissioners being guilty of malfeasance, the Florida Statutes say who does what; the Commissioners can have their opinions; the Florida Statutes also lay out how the CRC would work and the process; so that is not a question. He stated talking about certain appointees pursuing their agenda, the growth management commission amendment is coming up for the fifth time; it has been rejected four times by the CRC; a growth management commission would establish an autocratic appointed group that would overrule the Board, town councils, and State Department of Community Affairs; and it would be people who met every few months when called. He stated they would have very little knowledge about what they are doing; the staff would have to provide those people with the issues that are to be looked at; the autocratic commission would rule; and it is a non-elected group that is not needed. He stated he hopes the Board will pay attention to what the CRC said and get rid of it once and for all.

Commissioner Scarborough advised Mr. Young listed a number of amendments; and inquired if he was proposing those be considered; with Mr. Young responding yes, there are 35 he would like to get back for the Board’s review that are worth considering if the five the Board just heard are worth considering. Mr. Young stated he did not bring those up because it takes four of the Commissioners to vote for them. He stated he wants to see the outcome of the previous requests; they were done once and that is enough; however, if the Board is considering any of them, he would like it to consider all of them; and that is why he put them forward.

Maureen Rupe of Port St. John stated she is a member of the CRC but is speaking as an individual; in the 20 years she has been coming before the Board and many times met with each Commissioner individually, they have said to her they could not vote for it, it was not feasible, and gave her reasons that she could see and feel comfortable about; and this time she is not comfortable. She stated Section 7.3.1 of the Charter states, “The Board of County Commissioners, upon the concurrence of not less than four members, shall have the authority to propose amendments to the Charter not inconsistent with the State Constitution and with general law”; and it does not say except for five Charter amendments for the CRC. She stated Section 5.6 says, “All citizens and taxpayers are entitled to have access to their elected officials to present their grievances to their County Government and to participate in County Government in an effort to guide the future of the community”; she does not think that says to make up your minds before the people come before the Board with something that is re-addressed under the Charter; and she is very disappointed that two Commissioners, who are required to review and consider proposals, will not even consider what the public has a right to ask under the Charter. Ms. Rupe stated Commissioner Colon said she would not undermine the CRC; Ms. Busick came before the CRC and asked if anyone felt offended or undermined if she brought those proposals to ballot; not one person said they would be; and in fact, Commissioner Colon’s appointee encouraged her to do so. She stated Commissioner Pritchard said “a small local minority cannot be allowed to control County Government”; and she does not think it is a minority and would challenge him that if the growth management issues are put on the ballot, he will see who is the minority. She stated another remark Commissioner Pritchard made was that he did not believe those proposals belong in the Charter; and inquired where do they belong, how long will it take before Brevard County has a growth management commission, and will it be after their quality of life is impaired. She stated the County has not complied with some of the Comprehensive Plan requirements; they are still working on the Comprehensive Plan; and inquired how long has the County had the Plan, and why are some elements still not complied with. Ms. Rupe stated traditionally the Board likes to bring controversial issues to the ballot; Commissioner Pritchard gave an example of pregnant pigs in the State Constitution; she does not equate these amendments with pregnant pigs; but even the pregnant pigs issue was a statement by the people and the failure of the Legislature to listen to the people, so they collected citizen initiative, and the majority of the people in Florida agreed with them. She stated before drastic action like that is taken, she wishes the local government and Legislature would listen more to the people; she does support the growth management issues and environmental issues; and she certainly supports the Board considering all of them.

Maureen Parent of Titusville stated whether they be these proposals or those of the Board’s creation, she hopes it will place some growth management items on the ballot for citizens to consider. She requested the Board stay on the excellent course it has already set by allowing citizens to have maximum control of their own destiny.

Bobbie Bockman of Melbourne, representing Citizens for Resources Stewardship of Brevard, Inc., advised she found out yesterday from Mr. Jenkins that this issue was a time certain at 11:00 a.m. today; it was not on the agenda yet, but she was told it would be on the agenda; at five minutes to 11:00 she called her office and had her assistant check, and it was still not on the Commissioners Website; so the fact that the Board sees so many people in support of the requests does not have a lot to do with the fact it was publicized and well known. Ms. Bockman stated in May, when the CRC was winding up its hard work, they started a petition drive and slacked off because they thought it was an issue that was coming up; and she believes the Board got copies of the petitions she gave Mr. Jenkins yesterday, and she has more with her today, for a total of approximately 355 signed petitions. She stated it is virtually impossible to get business people and anybody who works for a living to attend a public meeting with less than 24 hours notice; her opinion is there was no notice of this item, and it was word of mouth; but she will get off that subject because the reason she is here is important. She stated in response to Ms. Buick’s comments, she does not feel there was any way any one of the Commissioners could have known a year or more ago, when the CRC was appointed, what amendment proposals would be coming up; therefore, there was no way for Commissioners to know who to choose to vote their way as Ms. Busick said. She stated her misconception when she got involved with the CRC issue was the same as Ms. Buick’s; she thought everybody had their own agenda and would vote their own way, and it would be a real battle and a difficult issue to discuss; but what she found out was all 15 members of the CRC took their job very seriously and there was not a consensus voting in either direction. She stated they spent the time and put in the effort to listen and debate each and every issue that came up; and they listened to 47 amendment proposals, many of which they listened to more than once, and many they considered and reconsidered; but all of them were given very serious debate and consideration. Ms. Bockman stated the CRC worked hard and long hours and should be commended for its work and conclusions; most of those issues that are coming up today are permanent fixes to temporary problems; and many of the proposals are issues that are being resolved between the County and the cities right now in another manner. She stated if they are put on the ballot and approved, they become a part of the Charter and would be almost impossible to remove or modify; and that is a serious issue that the Board should not enter into lightly. She stated when Commissioner Scarborough was discussing Titusville’s riverfront referendum and requested the Board’s approval, he summarized what citizens object to as threats to the home rule of municipalities; his comment about voting for the Board to approve the referendum would be interfering with the City of Titusville’s home rule and individualism; and that, in effect, is what most of the proposed amendments do.

Vicki Benoit of Micco, representing Little Hollywood, stated she supports inclusion of the Charter amendments on the November ballot; and regardless of how anyone feels, the voters of Brevard County should make the decisions, bear the brunt, and choose how their lives are going to be proceeding in the next decade. She stated Brevard County is on the edge where it an go one way or the other; it needs to control growth, not stop growth; they need to control growth so they grow in a way that promotes civic pride, safety in their homes, and where other people may want to live in a way that protects not only human life, but natural life and resources. Ms. Benoit stated this has to be a decision made by the voters; there are talks today about people feeling disenfranchised; and she feels people care about where they live; and if they read the proposals and it was on the ballot, they would be able to make the decisions.

Jan Black of Micco stated she finds it really amazing that the CRC did not see fit to include at least one growth management amendment or recommend one that could go on the ballot; out of all those that were reviewed, there had to be at least one that everybody could agree to; and she also found it interesting that some members and politically connected speakers consistently lobbied against each amendment and not one seemed to suit those same people. She stated perhaps Commissioner Pritchard is correct that they are only a small local minority; however, she disagrees, but there is one sure way to find out; and that is to put the amendments on the ballot. She stated if the Board feels those types of issues should not be made a part of the County Charter, which many CRC members and public speakers at the CRC meetings said they felt they did not belong in the Charter, then the Board needs to put each proposal on the ballot as a non-binding referendum. She noted she does not know if that is legal, but it would let the people decide and let all the voters give direction to the Board on what they prefer for the future of Brevard County. She stated she is a licensed Florida real estate agent; the more growth there is, the more money she stands to make; but quality of life is more important than any personal or corporate financial gain.

George Theriault of Micco stated on July 8, 2004, he attended the Micco Homeowners Association meeting, which the League of Women Voters was in charge of; he went prepared to ask three questions, but only one of the three was asked; and it was said the other two were too long. He stated he felt a lot of the questions were not asked because of their sensitive nature; and a lot of questions are not asked of the voters for that same reason. He stated the six Charter amendments before the Board today should be voted on by the taxpayers; a lot of taxpayers have very little time to attend meetings; but they make themselves well informed and they vote. He stated they have a Charter government so voters would have more say in government and not be censored.

Ed Slaney of Melbourne stated the judicial system is based on the premise of innocent until proven guilty; and inquired if an appeals process would be on the same innocent until proven guilty premise. He stated his appeal to the Board is that it give weight to the growth management amendments and consider them thoroughly before passing judgment. He stated Franklin D. Roosevelt once said, “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself”; and his impression is that there is a fear in allowing the electorate to vote on those issues. He stated it was said the voters interested in growth management are a minority; he would suggest to the Board the contrary exists; the majority of its constituency cares deeply about quality of life issues; and requested the Board get the amendments on the ballot and allow intelligent voters of Brevard County to have their say. He stated there is nothing to fear from them or anything to shrink away from.

Priscilla Griffith of Melbourne Village, representing the Partnership for Sustainable Future, Inc., stated they support the amendments of growth management and environmental issues known as CRC 8, 10A, 10B, 9, and 11. She stated all over Florida citizens are speaking out and organizing to get constitutional amendments around to the people because they care about the present and future of the State and its communities; and the citizens of Brevard County deserve the opportunity to help decide the future of this wonderful piece of Florida.

Walter Pine of Titusville stated in regards to some specific comments on the issue of limiting density where it impacts cities, he does not believe they have the authority as a Commission to limit those elected bodies; he thinks it would be wrong to do so; as it stands right now most County Ordinances do not apply within the cities because there is a conflict there; and if the people desire to be regulated by the cities, that is their choice. He stated the growth management commission takes way the control and exercise of authority by the people; it is clear that the commission in Volusia County acts autonomously and without the checks and balances necessary to protect individual rights; committees by their nature isolate politicians from negative impacts; and this is clearly used by every politician. He stated with the issue they are dealing with here in regards to the various proposals that were passed and not passed, there is a question of principle and precept; they are supposed to judge, both as individuals and elected officers, whether or not the proposals that come before them meet those principles and precepts necessary for good government; and they are also supposed to judge whether new proposals that come before them increase those principles. protect those principles, or better implement those principles and precepts. Mr. Pine stated he believes some of the projects do; he has to disagree with some of the comments; not every proposal was given adequate discussion; and on the issue of whether minorities control it, minorities can be right just as much as majorities. He stated the petition process by its nature is a minority influence over government; the proposals have not gone or attempted the petition process; it is wrong that anybody would state a predetermined decision; and he does not think that was the intent. He stated the issue of how one votes on it should be determined on the validity, principles, and precepts of each one of the amendments; he personally thinks they should all be considered; and he does not believe that if the Board is going to consider one it should ignore another. He stated if a person should come to the meeting and automatically re-introduce the amendments, the Board has the duty to look at what the CRC did to insure it was done and that what was done was best for the community; he spoke to every Commissioner and does not agree with everybody; but the part the Board is fighting for principle he agrees with. He stated as far as refusing to vote, he believes they have that right; and he told most of the Commissioners that; however, he would strongly oppose a predetermination of any vote that violates the very nature of what the Commissioners are elected to do, which is to judge each issue independently according to what is best for government. He stated it violates the Constitution and the whole purpose for which they were elected.

Thelma Roper of Titusville stated the five growth management amendments that have been brought up today, she can certainly understand the sentiment behind some of them; but when she looks at them she looks at where do they fall constitutionally, and where do they fall in affecting, removing, or limiting someone’s personal property rights. She stated in the past, she would say six months to a year ago, she has seen a strong concerted effort to remove more property rights or restrict them in any number of ways going back to the SEAS ordinance going on last year and carrying right on through. She stated these amendments may not be the same issues as the SEAS ordinance, but it is still an issue of restricting someone’s personal property rights or taking them away; and she has a problem with that and does not like to see anything that is not constitutional. She stated the Board has a duty and right to consider the amendments, but she thinks that the Board needs to consider them wholeheartedly, and Mr. Knox should look at the constitutionality of that type of thing, especially on the growth management board that is being proposed. Ms. Roper stated she looked at some of the background behind Volusia County’s growth management board and has seen that many of the people who proposed it, have been behind it, or helped put it in were members of the Thousand Friends of Florida, which is a group that tends to believe in not necessarily giving fair and just compensation when there is a land taking. She stated it was one of the groups that was very instrumental in this kind of board being put in; and when she looked at that kind of background on those types of things, it scared her to death because she saw the country more and more losing its rights and freedoms that it has under the Constitution, and seeing the Constitution being more and more destroyed and the country becoming more and more socialist or communist; and she does not like it. She stated people can laugh if they want to; the County is gaining that reputation; and it is scary because it is just one step in the process of doing that.

John Callinan of Merritt Island stated he was asked to look at this, come here, and give his opinion on it, which is always a dangerous thing for anybody to do because he does not usually know his opinion until after he has looked at something; but the Board knows his feelings towards policymakers being the ones to make policy. He stated he feels strongly about the policymakers they elect; it is a representative form of government; people elect Commissioners to make the decisions; and if they are not happy with the Commissioners, they know who to go after. He stated in many other cases, if they run into situations and it is pushed to the side, and it is not the policymakers that do that, they do not know who is responsible; but they know if they are upset about something, they can go after the Commissioners or anybody they want to. He stated he still loves the process and seeing people coming in and making an appeal, but by nature of an appeal, the bar gets raised; and the bar has been raised here so that four out of five have to vote as he understands it, but he thinks the bar has to be raised individually also. He stated he thinks it goes from preponderance of evidence up to a reasonable doubt that it is successful; and if the Board feels one of the items should pass, it has to be beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Callinan stated he thinks the Board has to look at all the amendments; that is his own view on it; since it is an appeal, that bar has to be brought up even higher; now the folks have an opportunity; and he is glad they are here exercising their rights. He stated in summary, if it in any way impacts the Board’s ability to make policy decisions, if the bar has not been raised adequately, he thinks the Board has no recourse than to vote against the issues; but on the other hand, if it feels strongly that it is absolutely beyond a reasonable doubt and is the right thing to do, then it ought to support it; but again that is his personal view.

Lee Bird of Scottsmoor stated he would like to speak about preservation districts and how they might help smaller rural areas of Brevard County; he is not against growth and is a small business owner in Scottsmoor; he would love to see a population explosion in the north end of the County because it would mean more business for his little fruit stand; and more people would translate into more sales of his oranges and grapefruits. He stated he is not against growth as long as it is controlled growth; he does not want to see Scottsmoor swallowed up by Titusville in future annexation plans; he is afraid eventually Scottsmoor would cease to exist as a separate community and just be known as north Titusville or north Mims; and it seems that is already happening. Mr. Bird stated even though he is located five blocks behind the Scottsmoor Post Office right in the heart of downtown Scottsmoor, the County lists his physical address as 6065 Magnolia Street, Mims, Florida on his tax bill; the Tax Collector’s office seems to have already combined Mims and Scottsmoor; any time Brevard County as a whole is being mentioned or advertised, the familiar slogan is from Micco to Mims; and inquired what about Scottsmoor, which is also in Brevard County. He stated in the early 20th Century, Scottsmoor was actually larger than Titusville; now Scottsmoor is fast losing its identity; that is where preservation districts can help; they do not limit growth, they address annexation issues only; and they provide for protection of small historically cohesive communities like Scottsmoor, Micco, Valkaria, and Mims to grow and thrive as unique separate communities and not be swallowed up by larger municipalities through annexations. He stated preservation districts have been in place in Volusia County since 1994, so they are not some half-baked idea of anti-growth proponents. He urged the Board to support preservation districts; and stated he would welcome the opportunity to discuss them further with the Board at any time.

Libby Duncan of Cocoa Beach stated someone mentioned that people were envious of the growth in Brevard County; growth is very good; but many people have moved here from places like Miami and Miami Beach to get away from all the good growth. She stated growth has benefits for many people, but it has to be managed well; in Cocoa Beach, over 80% of the people voted for limits on height and density; the people of Cocoa Beach are no different than other people in Brevard County; and people should get a chance to have their voices heard. She stated she would like to hear the voices of each Commissioner and how they stand on each of the proposals; it is something she would like to know; she appreciates their work; and she would also appreciate the people being able to vote on how they see their growth.

Sandra Clinger of Titusville stated she is a private citizen who lives in the unincorporated part of Titusville, but her mailbox address says Titusville even though she lives in the County; and requested the Board give the citizens the opportunity to voice their positions on growth and how the future of Brevard County will be crafted. She stated for most residents of Brevard County, the Board never has the opportunity to see them; they never come before the Board to speak or present their ideas; it is very intimidating for most people to come and present ideas; and they will not have that limitation at the ballot box. She stated she believes it would be a disservice to the residents to assume they do not know what they want and could not address the issues through voting or that only through representative government should their voices be heard. She stated she thinks that is contrary to what the government was set up to do; she thinks the people should have an opportunity to craft their own future; time and time again through the visioning process, the issues related to growth have come up as concerns of the residents of Brevard County; and growth brings increased tax base, but also increased demands for revenue expenditures from government for roads, sewer, water, fire, and police protection services, as well as jail space. She stated it is like encouraging people to use their credit cards and accrue debt; the interest rate rises faster than one can pay it off; and that is what the County is doing as it grows the way it has been growing historically. Ms. Clinger stated today the County is paying off debts that were incurred in the past; the Board does not force development to pay its true cost because it would be cost prohibitive; and it is not contemplating increased future costs that the residents will bear for things like conversion to alternate water supply. She stated that is coming because the amount of development has exceeded the ability of the aquifer to supply that amount of water; and those are costs existing residents will have to bear in addition to changes to their quality of life. She stated she heard a lot of talk about private property rights;
she lived in Brevard County most of her life; they bought ten acres that back up to the St. Johns River Water Management District’s property; and sandhill cranes, deer, and a bobcat have come through their yard. She stated as quickly as the area is developing, she does not know how long she will be able to enjoy her property the way she would like to with wildlife being able to come through it. Ms. Clinger stated she watched 40 acres on SR 405 get flat cleared; and inquired what kind of vision is that for the future of Brevard County. She stated Brevard County does not put back or preserve the amount of diversity it has; it is trying to buy as many properties as it can; but unless the County puts in some measures, not to stop growth but do it in a sustainable way, the preserved lands will in essence be nothing more than a museum of what Brevard County used to be. She encouraged the Board to put Proposals 8, 9, 10A, 10B, and 11 on the ballot for public referendum; and stated they are not asking the Board to make the decision, but are asking the Board to let the public decide.

Lilly Mockler of West Melbourne stated they feel the bulldozers have come and run them over; they used to be a nice country area and it is changing rapidly; and she is sure all her neighbors would like for all the proposals to be put on the ballot so they could speak. She stated most are working people and could not be at the meeting today.

Lisette Kolar of Grant stated the July 20th date was in the newspaper a week or so ago; some of it was word of mouth; but most people realized that and called the Commissioners’ offices and found out about the time certain; and although the Agenda was not updated, anyone interested could find out and come to the meeting. She stated she is here because she is concerned about the growth and future of their quality of life; their quality of life is threatened by a very vocal minority of developers and city governments that declare that property rights and home rule are the answers to all problems; the majority of citizens understand there are good aspects of growth for communities and the right of property owners to develop land and cities to determine their own destiny; however, with those rights comes responsibility. She stated development and cities do not exist in a vacuum; land use decisions affect more people in more ways than any other government decision; poor management has resulted in overcrowded schools, gridlocked roads, overwhelmed city services, higher taxes, paved-over open space, declining water supply, and environmental degradation; and that describes parts of Brevard County to a tee. Ms. Kolar stated the Growth Management Act of 1985 established the use of the Comprehensive Plan and was intended to control the rampant growth and sprawl characterized by Broward County; the Growth Management Act states, “a proposed development that is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan should not be approved by local government”; and many citizens today feel their local governments have failed to uphold
the thoughtful planning put forth in the Comprehensive Plans. She stated Comprehensive Plans have not helped because they have been and continue to be easily changed; the majority of people in this room are landowners; and they have rights too. Ms. Kolar stated they have a right to enjoy their homes in the kinds of communities they chose to purchase their homes in; if a person builds a home near an airport, then petitions to close the airport because of the noise, that person does not have much of a case; but by the same token, if a developer buys land zoned for rural use in a long-established rural area, then proposes to change the zoning to increase the density to urban use, adding more homes and introducing condominiums and townhouses, the developer should not have much of a case either. She stated constituents are here today to ask the Board to vote whether to place each of the Charter amendment proposals on the November ballot and let the voters decide the direction they want Brevard to go; the proposals attempt to create a city and County forum for discussion of proposed amendments, protect the rivers and lagoons, protect the character of established communities, and limit density; and some are modeled after existing charters in Orange and Volusia Counties. She stated research done by the sponsors of the amendments indicates that those approaches to growth management are working well; and they are needed in Brevard County. Ms. Kolar stated it was said only a vocal minority is in favor of proposals brought before the Board, but there are a lot of people here to show the Board differently. She inquired if the Commissioners read letters to the editor in the newspapers, are they aware of the large number of people who attend seminars and discussions on growth, and have they heard their new neighbors who moved from Broward or Dade Counties mention that Brevard County is becoming what they moved away from. She stated if, as some believe, it is only a local minority that supports growth management, if placed on the ballot they would be soundly defeated; but if the proposals are placed on the ballot and are approved, the voters whom the Commissioners and city officials represent will clearly have spoken on the subject of growth. She stated she commends Commissioner Carlson for recently proposing a penny increase in sales tax for road construction; it is not an easy thing to do; she understands something has to be done; but she also commends Commissioners Higgs and Scarborough for not agreeing for the right reasons. She stated they cannot build their way out of the mess; more roads with no growth control lead to more sprawl; and it is a vicious cycle. She stated they are not asking for Charter amendments that will stop growth; they are asking for the opportunity to amend the Charter to better manage growth with the goal of protecting the quality of life and natural resources; and requested the Board vote on each of the five amendments brought before it and give the people a chance to let the Board know what they want.

Steve Jack of Mims stated he is representing about 2,000 people in the Mims area; and a lot of them could not be here because they could not take off of work or did not feel they could get up in front of people to speak. He stated he is not a surveyor, developer, builder, realtor, attorney, or someone who wants to make money on land; he is someone who respects the land God gave them; and he was upset with Commissioner Pritchard’s statement in the newspaper that said preservation was nothing more than weeds in the front yard.

Commissioner Pritchard stated that is not what he said. Mr. Jack stated that was basically what the paper said. Commissioner Pritchard reiterated that is not what he said. Mr. Jack stated he was very upset and was hoping that was not what Commissioner Pritchard said. Commissioner Pritchard stated if Mr. Jack is going to allegedly quote what he said, he could at least get it right because that is not what he said and he is inaccurate. Mr. Jack stated he hoped Commissioner Pritchard did not say that.

Mr. Jack stated he worked on the preservation districts for several months with the CRC; Orange County is one of the fastest growing areas there is and it is not afraid of preservation districts; it is working it and is growing; and all those things should be put on the ballot. He stated there is no reason for people not to have the right to vote for what they feel is right; to do less is negligent on the part of the Board; and what he is asking for is to give the people a chance. He stated if Commissioner Pritchard was misquoted in the paper he is sorry, but that is the way he read it and was hoping that it was not that way.

Tiffany Johnson of Titusville stated she owns property in the County and in the City of Titusville; she is not here about growth management but about the proposals that are to be put on the agenda; they do not address growth, they address annexation and home rule of the cities; and if those proposals were put on the agenda, they would take away the Charter Section 2.4, which allows cities to have home rule. She stated if the people are saying growth, then they were not at the committee meetings she went to; they were led astray by emails to come in here and address growth management; and if the proposals go on the ballot, they are against all home rule for cities. She stated she lives in the City and wants the City to have its home rule and the County to have home rule; she believes in having a Charter, but if those proposals are put into the Charter, they are legislative actions and cannot be changed readily like home rules can. Ms. Johnson stated they went through annexations in Titusville; it was a wonderful process to see how the City and County can work together; citizens of the County can go to the City citizens and to Council meetings; and it is a wonderful process. She stated she attended a lot of CRC meetings; and once she became aware of what was going on, it was a wide awakening for her to see what was going on and how people felt. She stated a lot of people talked about signatures; Ms. Busick talked about ways to come before the Board of County Commissioners; one is by petition; proposals 8, 9 and 10 were brought in by petitions but they did not have 1% of the signatures to go on the ballot so they stopped collecting signatures and came to the CRC and put those proposals on the agenda; and now they are in front of the Board to be looked at. She stated that tells the Board something is wrong with the proposals if they go through that many processes; 11 has gone through the CRC five or six times and has been turned down; 8, 10, 10A and 11 went to style and drafting; 9 never went anywhere and was turned down the first time it was presented; and 11 went through the legal panel and was turned down two-to-one. She stated the proposals needed to have legal review; none of those have had satisfactory legal review; Mr. Bird talked about preservation districts; and people in Scottsmoor talked to her and are scared to death of them because they are afraid of losing their City Charter and other aspects and not having voluntary annexation. She stated some of the people who talked about cohesive communities in Titusville do not want to go into the City and want to become cohesive preservation districts; and those are people who have water agreements and do not want to come into the City now that the water has been provided to them after they requested it. Ms. Johnson stated Ms. Busick said Commissioners Pritchard and Colon’s appointees have voted straight down the line three-to-three; she is not here to dispute who voted where; and presented a document to the Board that did not show the alleged voting pattern. She stated proposals 9 and 10 did go to the Supervisor of Elections and were turned down; and she hopes the Board will turn all the proposals down and respect the CRC for its intelligence and for what it did.

George Reynolds of Merritt Island stated he supports public input but finds it outrageous that the Board would even consider additional proposals after thousands of hours spent by the CRC over the past year reviewing 47 proposals with maximum public participation. He stated three proposals were brought forward for the Board to place on the November ballot; at the July 8 meeting, the Board chose not to reconsider several proposals that were defeated by the CRC for the simple reason they were voted down by a group of 15 men and women selected for their expertise by the County Commissioners; and allowing these proposals to be heard again stands as the Board’s disloyalty to those who served at its request on the CRC.

Chris Christensen of Cocoa Beach stated he is one of the local minorities who made up 84% of the votes, not once or twice, but three times to uphold charter amendments for less height and density in the City of Cocoa Beach. He stated growth does not pay for itself; it is busting the County’s budget; and it is crowding the roads and destroying the quality of life. He stated Lake County consultants have recommended $10,000 impact fee for schools; Brevard County has none; and it talked about sales tax increase when it is known there is no support from the public. He stated the public in the County and throughout the State is hammering politicians to slow growth; there should be a building moratorium until some planning is done; the CRC turned down all amendments for controlling growth; and the Board has not originated any substitute amendments. He implored the Board to approve the amendments that are before it today or come up with some ideas of its own to meet the public’s wishes, otherwise it would appear to them that the Board supports developers and represents developers. He noted he is not sure if the Board wants that reputation.

Lillian Banks of Merritt Island stated there is a lady here with flash cards; she sat at one meeting with her opinion on a shirt and Mr. Jenkins got up immediately and had her removed from the cameras; and she wants the lady taken out of the camera’s view as she has no right to sit there and be on camera if she could not be on camera.

Chair Higgs inquired if there is a rule regarding signs; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding the Board talked about enacting rules that would require signs to be located in the back of the room, but he does not think as a Board it enacted that rule. Ms. Banks stated she called Mr. Jenkins and asked him why she was taken off the camera; and he said because the County does not approve of having political statements. Chair Higgs stated unless the Board knows differently, she does not know of a rule that would require the Board to remove the signs, but staff will check on it to be sure everyone is treated fairly.

Ms. Banks stated she thought the proposals were a dead issue, but there are certain Commissioners and their followers who are going to try everything in the book to impose their will on the citizens of Brevard County. She stated in her opinion, the CRC was hijacked by their appointees; and review of the Charter and improving it for the better had nothing to do with why they were there. She stated the lawyer was a former president of 1000 Friends of Florida; if that does not make it good, she does not know what does; it all boils down to stopping growth and trying to run municipalities, etc.; and she has become very weary because a few Commissioners are trying to micromanage everything people do. She inquired what makes the Board think there is a bottomless pit of money and they can keep coming up with more. She inquired if the Board continues to restrict growth and turn down companies that want to come here because they do not fit the agenda, where does it think the money is going to come from to satisfy its appetite. Ms. Banks stated the Board has successfully priced the middle incomer out of a dream home; she is trying to save Brevard County for her grandchildren, as well as the alligators, scrub jays, black bears, turtles, and worms; but the Board needs to move on to bigger and better things. She stated because there are less roads is not necessarily because it has growth; part of that was probably a planned agenda because if they do not have roads, they can stop growth; there is money coming in all the time from gas taxes; and inquired if that was used for roads. She stated she wants to compliment the CRC members; they worked hard and for many hours; and they took time from their work to do it. She congratulated Commissioners Pritchard and Colon for their ability to open their ears and hear all the people, not just a small segment; and she disagrees with the comment that it is a large segment of Brevard County because it is not a large segment of Brevard County as most of the people are out working. She stated people come to her all the time and ask what is going on; people are forgetting they live on a coastal line where businesses go because that is where the transportation is; and businesses need people to serve. Ms. Banks stated if people want to live in rural areas, they can move 20 miles west of here; she has lived here 28 years and can still go out and sit on her patio and never hear a sound; and there are 540-plus houses in her subdivision but she can still walk or drive out. She stated she enjoys having a place to eat on the next corner instead of driving to Melbourne or Cocoa Beach; she can get anything she wants on Merritt Island and likes it that way; growth is being controlled in Brevard County; and inquired how much more does the Board want to control it. She stated it does not need to copy Volusia County; it does not need to copy California; it does not need to copy England; it has the brains and ability here; and it does not need to be another California. She stated they are moving here and working to make Brevard County another California; she is tired of it; they do not need another committee that is not elected; they have St. Johns River Water Management District and are paying $9.7 million a year to it; and they have EELS, four sanctuaries, and 5,000 acres of Brevard County parks, not including State and city parks. She stated Brevard County has a lot of green space; sustainable that they talked about is out of Agenda 21 and comes right out of the United Nations; and Commissioners can look that up on their computers. She stated over a million dollars is spent every year for the four sanctuaries; St. Johns River Water Management District is buying land; over 60% of Brevard County is in green space, churches, and facilities; and inquired how much more does the Board want to take off the tax rolls.

Georgia Phillips of Rockledge, representing the Space Coast League of Cities, stated when the Board was told the CRC was asked about bringing these proposals to the Board and nobody said no, she would not want to tell someone not to go and talk to their elected officials either; so she can understand the CRC’s point of view. She stated the comment was made that this is not about pregnant pigs; it is not about pregnant pigs, but it is about funding issues and additional layers of government; and it is about home rule for cities. She stated one of the primary benefactors of the Charter, when it was originally done, was the commitment of the CRC and the County not to allow the Charter to interfere with home rule; most of the people who spoke in favor of the amendments do not live in cities, although a few of them do; the CRC did its job; there were no mass agreements with anybody; but there were several large disagreements within the CRC on these issues. Ms. Phillips stated the Commissioners, as policymakers for the County and the city councilpersons as policymakers for the cities, need to make the commitment that their bodies get together and look at the proposals; there is not one that needs to be done by a charter amendment; everything can be done by an ordinance, interlocal agreement, or commitment between the policymakers of the County and the cities; and urged the Board not to support the amendments. She stated some of them do deserve support and review by the policymakers of the two entities.

Linda Mason of Grant stated she supports putting the growth management Charter amendments on the November ballot; but she specifically wants to talk about Proposal #8, setting up preservation districts and giving citizens the right to vote. She stated this is not communism, it is a democratic process; it does not diminish home rule of cities; other annexations need to be voted on by the citizens as well; and that is all they are asking for. She stated they want a democratic process and a voice; a voice gives them ownership; ownership gives them pride; and pride brings a sense of caring, happiness, and freedom. She stated that is what our country is based on; they want to love their communities; and to love them they have to be part of them and cannot be a helpless disenfranchised entity or someone who is told if you do not like it here, move out west. She stated that is not right. Ms. Mason stated she wants to speak for the citizens of Grant with respect to the proposal; it is a wonderful thing that could happen because it puts them ahead of development at this point; they do not want to stop it, but they want to make sure it is done right; and they want a voice because they care and love the community. She stated the Board has a lot of stars in its crown; it has old Melbourne, greenways, preserves, wonderful coastline, Cape Canaveral, new things, natural resources, historic sites, and a whole spectrum of things; Grant is a country setting; they have an ambience that draws people to visit their area; and it could be one of those stars. She stated there are historic sites and natural resources; and they are getting a greenway through the middle of Grant; they have river access, boat ramps, fishing piers, a park on the river, and community center, and they love it and meet there all the time. She stated they give scholarships to children; they have a seafood festival; they have a way of life that is uniquely tranquil that balances man, nature, and development; and they want to have a say and a vote on annexations. She stated they have a chance to do it now; and inquired if they do not do it now, then when. She requested the Board give them a vote for proposal #8 and open its mind to see the possibilities.

Tom Harmer, City Manager of the City of Titusville, recognized the Board for establishing a very fair and publicly active process; stated he watched a couple of CRC meetings on the Government Channel and also went to several meetings and spoke at those meetings; and he saw the CRC consider many factors and weigh the pros and cons and appropriateness of whether certain issues should be addressed in the Charter or in some other format. He read a portion of a letter dated July 2, 2004 from the Mayor of Titusville regarding the City Council’s discussions and actions on the issue as follows: “We would urge the Brevard County Commission to not add any ballot item that was previously rejected by the Charter Review Commission. We believe it would unfairly reflect on the work of the Commission if changes were made to the recommendations. Many hours have been spent by the CRC considering numerous amendments to the existing Charter and changes to the recommendations would reflect unfairly on their work and circumvent the process put in place by the voting public of Brevard County and favor special interest.” Mr. Harmer stated he heard some of the discussion and wanted to add a couple of comments; the cities are trying to address growth just as the County is and like many areas in Florida; and he will touch on some of the things Titusville has done over the past year as part of its responsibility and home rule issue. He stated the City of Titusville has recently reduced density in the shoreline mixed use area and lowered density on local roads; it requires by Ordinance a developer agreement on any new developments; and on any future rezonings or annexations, the City requires a binding conceptual site plan so that the details can be worked out upfront with that and the development agreement. He stated the City implemented neighborhood meetings; they had meetings in the Fox Lake Road/Carpenter Road area and the Parrish Road area; and tonight they are having one in the Riveredge Drive area. He noted the meetings have been occurring over the past three to six months. He stated they have extended their staff time to make sure there is adequate time for review of applications to ensure they meet existing Codes; they have a draft joint planning agreement before the County staff that the Council reviewed and approved; and the Council voted to put an item on the ballot to see if the public would support acquiring more riverfront property in the Titusville area. He stated those are things the cities are doing, specifically Titusville, to try and address the amount of growth; and he wanted to make sure the Board was aware of that.

Marie Dry advised she lives in the City of Cocoa Beach and supports the amendments being put on the ballot in November.

Joseph Wolf of Cocoa Beach stated he supports Glenda Busick’s issues and putting the Charter proposals on the ballot.

Dolores Kane of Merritt Island stated she has lived on Merritt Island since 1966 and has seen a lot of growth; and when they first came to Brevard County they had to go to Orlando to do their shopping, so growth is good for the people. She stated her hygienist lost two houses because they were over-bid; there are not enough houses for people; and she finally went to For Sale by Owners to get a house. She stated growth has to be controlled, but she supports Commissioners Pritchard and Colon and considers the charge by Ms. Busick to be abusive, unmannerly, and out of order; comments should be kept on the issues and not personalities because the people voted for the Commissioners; and the Commissioners have good reasons for voting the way they do. Ms. Kane stated she cannot understand how the Board can consider putting amendments to the Charter on the ballot that were voted down by the CRC; the amendments were researched; the devil is in the details; and they cannot be fully understood by the citizens because the details were not known to the general citizens. She stated they have gone back and forth and were researched, talked about, and debated by individuals who were knowledgeable; they are a republic and not a democracy, which can be a bad thing; but she believes in the republic form of government. She stated most of the items can be solved by local governments with home rule; and inquired if the Board is going to ignore the CRC, why does it have one. She stated if the Board decides to put Ms. Busick’s proposals on the ballot, she would like proposal #28 put on the ballot also; it is about notice to owners and persons affected in writing on land use changes; they put a poison pen on it by including municipalities; and another reason they did not want to do it was cost. She stated she cannot understand that people pay taxes on their land and complain about the County having to pay the cost of notifying them that their land use is going to change; and she considers it unconstitutional not to notify them individually. She stated she is a real estate agent; her land was changed without her knowing it 20 years ago; they do not look at those things in the newspapers every day; and they would need magnifying glasses to look at them. She stated anything put in the Florida TODAY is not known by those who do not subscribe to the paper or are on vacation; so when land use is changed, the County should notify individuals before the fact and not after the fact because the property owners cannot try to get their constitutional rights back economically. She noted it costs so much to fight deep pockets of County government. She stated she prays that the Board will vote the proposals down, not change it, and let the CRC do its work.

Beverly Piazza of Cocoa Beach stated it is a complex issue, but a lot of people in the County think it is time that something is done; and she supports, in general, the amendments or something the Board may feel would adequately address those issues. She stated if it can be done legislatively rather than changing the Charter, that would be fine; her particular interest is because she collected petitions for two of the items; and she does not agree it is a minority of the people. She stated she collected over 600 signatures out of 4,000 on two of the issues and met people face-to-face and talked to them; there is a groundswell of interest in managing growth in the area; it is difficult to meet everyone’s requirements; but the Commissioners are bright people who were elected by the people who count on them to do something about it.

Bill Myers of Cocoa Beach stated he has been a taxpayer in Brevard County since 1960; he found it a nice place to live and hopes he can continue to live here; however, in the past few years, the developers have descended on Cocoa Beach like a bunch of locusts. He stated they come with a lot of money and a battery of lawyers to get what they want; they come here because it is a good place to make money; controlled growth is a good thing; but the growth in Brevard County is out of control. He stated a small example is SR 520, from Merritt Island to Cocoa, at 4:00 p.m.; the traffic is lined up into Merritt Island; it is only one problem in the County; and he is sure there are many more places with similar problems that are getting worse. Mr. Myers stated he is sure developers do not care about traffic, schools, infrastructure, or quality of life; they care about making money; it is up to the Board to provide controls over development; and it can do it by enacting ordinances or putting the proposals on the ballot and letting the people decide. He stated if the Board does not do something soon, Brevard County will be like South Florida, a concrete jungle and not fit to live in; and requested the Board place the items on the ballot and vote on them individually.

Margaret Broussard stated she lives in the County between Indian Harbour Beach and Indialantic; growth does not pay its way and costs are greater than the income; she did not get the response she expected on how getting people to decide on issues amounts to communism; and someone else mentioned that it is going to be a permanent solution to temporary problems. She stated the problems are not temporary, they are permanent and need permanent solutions; when there were only a few people living in the area, it was possible for people to have a lot more individual freedom because they were not bothering the people next to them; the more people who come in, the more need there is for controls of some sort over what people can do; so the County is moving in the direction of less and less personal property rights because it has more and more people. Ms. Broussard stated she is wearing her Friends of the Scrub shirt because some of the members expected her to come and speak for them; just as the gentleman before her said, if the Board can approve the amendments and allow those things to happen, that is fine; but if it cannot or does not want to do that, then it should put them on the ballot and let the people decide. She noted that is not communism.

Jamie McGonagill from Sarasota stated she is 12 years old and her worse nightmare is imagining the world her children will grow up in if this kind of uncontrolled growth continues. She requested the Board allow the voters to decide whether they want growth management or not; and stated if it does not, when she is an adult it will be too late and there will be no land for her to vote to save. She requested the Board consider this and think about the future when it makes its decisions.

Rick Renfro of Melbourne, representing Citizens for Resource Stewardship, stated he lives in unincorporated Brevard County; and a lot of things he was going to say have already been said. He stated Mr. Reynolds discussed how the CRC put a lot of time and effort into the proposals, and he applauds the efforts of the CRC members; they were amazing; and they did a great job of completely going through 47 proposals and finding three were suitable to move on. He stated he understands the Board has the ability and authority to act without regard to the CRC recommendations; but just because it can take action does not mean it must or should. He stated it is disappointing to hear a lot of people using what sound like fear tactics and emotional appeals; he heard Brevard County could turn into a concrete jungle where there is pavement from Mims to Grant; however, 18,000? acres of land are owned by Brevard County that he does not think will be developed; and Brevard County has stringent development requirements, so developers cannot develop 100% of their properties He noted he hates hearing things like it is all going to be developed. He stated there is nothing wrong with letting people vote; the problem is the implementation; he will use an example of California and what happened when a lot of items were put on the ballot and the voters made decisions, and it was up to the governing authority to decide how to make it work; and they had a very difficult time. Mr. Renfro stated the Board needs to do the work it wants to do to fix the problems; if the Charter amendments pass, it will be virtually impossible to change or amend them if in five or ten years what they thought was a solution iss not a solution they thought it was going to be; and he hopes the Board does the right thing.

Coleman Goatley of Palm Bay stated he heard many remarks and is trying to put a pattern to it; he heard more concern about the quality of growth in the County than anything else; and that is a matter of different concern than just plain growth. He stated the CRC did a remarkable job; however, instead of dealing with the fundamentals of government process, the CRC was forced to deal with matters that came from people and groups with different agendas; and he thinks it was improper for those groups to present many of the items that they did. He stated the CRC should deal with fundamental matters of government; it is not appropriate for the Board to give away its powers to another body; and that is what would happen if it created a growth management commission. Mr. Goatley stated the Board appointed the CRC; and to vote against its findings is literally to vote against itself; and requested the Board accept the recommendations of the CRC as they stand without additional amendments. He stated there are other ways to deal with the problems and concerns; and those should be reserved to the elected officials and thought out thoroughly, not through a group of individual proposals that came forward, but rather as a body of knowledge.

Kathleen Burson of Titusville inquired if the five proposals would promote their quality of life; and stated she is proud to say she is from the City of Titusville for many reasons as mentioned by the City Manager. She stated the five considerable proposals deserve the Board’s consideration and deliberation; they all want a good quality of life and quality place to live; and she does not believe it wants to be a depot for those running from population explosions because Brevard County is an easy catch. She stated Brevard County is a good place to live; it has natural resources and communities like Grant, Titusville, everything in between, and to the north all the way to Scottsmoor; and she wants it to be that way in the future because it is a great place to live. She stated they need to give consideration to the people who live here now; they do not want them running from a population explosion and want them to live here in the future because they have pride of what Brevard County is, and for their children to return here; the County is growing like crazy; and requested the Board make every effort to set standards for quality, and look at Titusville as an example. She stated the City passed Ordinance 24-2004 setting standards for quality growth, setting aside land for conservation, capping density, and allowing growth at a manageable rate; but the question remains, do the five proposals promote quality of life and do they deserve it.

Mary Sphar of Merritt Island stated she hopes the Board will carefully consider the proposals for amending the Charter; growth management is an extremely important responsibility of the Board; citizens have advanced ideas that may help shape the kind of Brevard County desired by the majority of people; and those ideas deserve the Board’s review with an open mind as it decides whether to place them on the ballot or not. She stated among the amendments are two that will help solve problems the Board is facing with annexations; and she hopes that the Board, representing the entire County, will keep in mind its responsibility to look at the big picture of the County’s growth. Ms. Sphar requested the Board give the citizens a chance to vote on the amendments that will minimize annexation problems and promote smart growth.

Ken Ward of Titusville stated he has a suggested revision to the make up of the CRC, and does not think any member of that commission should be able to present any proposals that they can lobby and advocate for themselves. He stated that removes their objectivity and their review of the proposals in a bipartisan manner; but what he came to talk about today is the democratic process of the CRC. He stated the CRC had 12 months of the process; and to arbitrarily ignore all the testimony and all the hours put in and forward failed proposals is a waste of time for the CRC and an insult to the body itself. He stated if the Board listens to the proponents, particularly for the growth management commission, what they are saying is they do not want their elected officials to make the policy decisions any more and want to transfer that power to an appointed body so they can make those decisions. He stated that is wrong and contrary to a representative form of government; and he heard a lot of testimony that hits right on point on that issue. Mr. Ward stated they are complex issues that the Board is being asked to consider today; he does not believe there is enough time to educate and properly inform the citizens of what they are going to be voting on, what the unforeseen consequences may be, and the additional cost of bigger and better government. He stated based on those proposals, one size does not fit all; they all live in Brevard County, but it is as diverse as any other county; the issues in Scottsmoor are not the same as those in Cocoa Beach; and it is beyond him to try and make it fit into that category. He stated there are plenty of venues, plenty of ordinances, and joint participation agreements to address the issues; nobody here is saying they do not want to protect their quality of life and not discuss managed growth; but the issue supported by the League of Cities and other opponents of the amendments is how they get there; and a Charter amendment is not the way to get there.

Bob Gardner of Cocoa, representing the City of Cocoa, advised the City Manager, through the Mayor, sent a letter to the Commissioners imploring the Board not to undo the important work of the CRC. He stated there are a lot of valid issues he heard here and at the CRC meetings he attended; as a planner with many years of service to local governments and citizens, those are common issues everybody deals with everywhere; and unfortunately for some elected officials it lands in their collective laps. Mr. Gardner stated it is important to realize they have a process that works; it can be fine-tuned; he does not like to hear catcalls in the background when he is speaking although that did happen during the CRC meetings; and he is glad he is not hearing that today. He stated there are already mechanisms in place that can deal with quality of life and growth issues; developers do not make growth happen; long before developers, people owned the land; and people sold the land that could or could not be developed. He stated everyone in the room has probably come from somewhere else; and if they have not, they all live in houses, enjoy shopping, enjoy their cars, movie theaters, restaurants and everything else under the sun; and it is all part of being in a community and moving forward.

Michael Myjak of Titusville, representing the Coalition of North Brevard Homeowners, stated to paraphrase a once common bumper sticker, “growth happens,” but smart quality growth does not happen on its own free will; the State is growing at 22%; that is a tremendous amount; the City of Titusville, depending on which number one uses, is growing from 28 to 38%; and sustainable growth is 2.5 to 3%. He stated there is a significant amount of growth; and inquired is it controlled and is it quality. He stated they do not have good metrics that indicate it other than indicators from two and three years ago; without looking at what is happening now, they cannot understand it; and if they cannot understand it, they certainly cannot control it. He stated he does not think there has been adequate discussion on the issues; and the depth of the issues and the level of detail that has been required of the citizenry by the CRC has been woefully inadequate. He stated there is nothing about sprawl that is free; sprawl boosters will argue that regulations and impact fees cover the cost of growth; they know they do not; its advocates cite the priority of jobs, affordable housing, expandable tax bases to pay for what limps behind for bad roads, environmental protection, and unfurbished schools; and that is exactly the situation they have in Brevard County. Mr. Myjak stated if the service utilization is at or above 100%, they should suspend any new permits to develop in those areas until those service utilizations fall below 100%; that is paying your way; but government is not doing that today; and there would not be a deficit of $330 million in roads if that were the case. He stated a recent article in the Orlando Sentinel identified a trial run of a computer program, which he believes is the Fishkind Study; it did a fiscal analysis of a 429-family subdivision with a taxable value of $110,000 each; and it equated to a shortfall in Hillsborough County of $1.44 million a year in tax revenue or the lack thereof, which was well over $20 million in 20 years before they even came close to breaking even. He stated if the Hillsborough analysis predicts a 20-year deficit of $500 million for infrastructure required to service its 831 homes approved last year, and applies that same ratio to the 156,000 single-family homes permitted in Florida in 2003, they are looking at an eye-popping $9.3 billion across the State. He stated considering the Lake County study indicating raising its impact fee to $10,000, Orlando’s Buddy Dyer acknowledging the lack of appropriate funds to control growth and suggesting new revenue for next year, not to mention Orange County School Board lawsuit, the commission on growth management is a well thought out and well researched issue. He stated there is a 15-year study going on in Volusia County; the mayors of the cities who were questioned indicated it was working; the mayors in the cities in Brevard County claim it would control or take away home rule; but the fact of the matter is it brings the rule back home from the County and State rather than having Department of Community Affairs making decisions. He stated it gives the County and cities the capability to have equal partisanship and membership to vote for those decisions that require a dispute to be settled; and right now those provisions do not exist with Department of Community Affairs. He stated Brevard County can have the kind of growth that it is going to get if it does nothing, or it can have the kind of growth that it wants if it would consider the proposals.

Dr. Monique Levermore of Grant stated this is the second time for her in this forum and the first time speaking; and she finds it very nerve-wracking, but realizes that she obviously has been too busy to pay attention to something that has been extremely important to her, and that is the community she lives in. She stated this is an emotional argument because Grant is critically important; there is something special and unique about the community that needs to be preserved; and she is sure there is something special and unique about the different communities that have been talked about today. Dr. Levermore stated the issues are very important to her and she hopes the Board will support putting the issues on the ballot so people can find out more about what is going on and vote on it.

Hugh Williams of Titusville stated the City of Titusville has a growth study commission it authorized a year ago; it looks at the previous three years and projects the next five years; and the anticipated growth of the City of Titusville is 2.45%. He noted there is a decimal point between the 2 and the 4.

Chair Higgs advised she has five cards for Item VI.E.2, and all except one spoke on the first item. She inquired if the Board wishes to have her continue; with Commissioner Scarborough responding the Board should take the comments together unless there is something it is not fully advised about. Chair Higgs stated she will recognize the next speaker.

John Mason of Grant stated he is concerned about the environment, quality of life, and his pocketbook; he has been a homeowner for 32 years and everywhere he lived he has seen the degradation due to uncontrolled growth; and he wants his grandchildren to enjoy a clean environment, a quality of life, clean drinking water, and a reasonable tax burden. He stated to that end, he requests the Board allow Proposals 8, 9, 10A, and 10B to be put on the ballot.

Commissioner Scarborough stated what has happened is three Commissioners asked that Mr. Lusk bring back a report on what Ms. Busick and Mr. Young requested; it is nice to talk in generalities, but at this particular moment each of them, for their own reasons, must move from the general to the particular and with that thought in mind, he thinks he has not only the right but the responsibility under the Charter to bring forward those items which he thinks would be beneficial for the people to vote on. He stated he had a number of people in his District request that he bring forward proposal #8; it is not people in the room, it is of general interest; therefore, he would like to move that the Board proceed to the next step with #8; and that is setting up preservation districts in Brevard County.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to place proposal #8, establishing preservation districts, on the ballot for the November 2004 election.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the Board wants to discuss each item or all the items together; with Commissioner Scarborough responding Commissioner Pritchard can discuss whatever reasons he supports or does not support it. Commissioner Scarborough stated the problem is when the Board is talking about five plus 15, it becomes a philosophical issue; he has gone past the philosophical to the specific; and so he would propose that one item.

Chair Higgs called for a vote on the motion to place proposal #8 on the ballot. Motion did not carry by super majority vote; with Commissioners Scarborough, Carlson, and Higgs voting aye; and Commissioners Pritchard and Colon voting nay.

Commissioner Scarborough stated that is something that exists in Orange County; another thing that exists in Orange County is an elected county comptroller; and it was not proposed by Ms. Busick, but by Dale Young. He stated the more information they have the more ability they have to serve wisely in a financial sense.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to place Proposal #46 on the ballot. Motion died for lack of a second.

Chair Higgs passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Pritchard. She stated she believes limiting density increases in Brevard County should be voted on by the citizens.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to place Proposal #9, limiting density increases in Brevard County, on the ballot. Motion did not carry by super majority vote; with Commissioners Scarborough, Carlson, and Higgs voting aye; and Commissioners Pritchard and Colon voting nay.

Commissioner Higgs advised she believes the filling of rivers, lakes, and wetlands are harmful in the long term to the health of the people.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to place Proposals 10, 10A, and 10B on the ballot.

Commissioner Scarborough requested the proposals be taken separately.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to withdraw the previous motion and place Proposal #10 on the ballot. Motion did not carry by super majority vote; with Commissioners Scarborough, Carlson, and Higgs voting aye; and Commissioners Pritchard and Colon voting nay.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to place Proposal #10A on the ballot. Motion did not carry by super majority vote; with Commissioners Scarborough, Carlson, and Higgs voting aye; and Commissioners Pritchard and Colon voting nay.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to place Proposal #10B on the ballot. Motion did not carry by super majority vote; with Commissioners Scarborough, Carlson, and Higgs voting aye; and Commissioners Pritchard and Colon voting nay.

Vice Chairman Pritchard returned the gavel to Chair Higgs.

Commissioner Carlson stated Proposal #11 is definitely worthy of consideration; she heard a lot of interesting input in terms of serving the public and giving the public the ability to vote on these things; the Board is here to serve and not to rule; and it needs to set policy and things like that. She stated there may be some alternatives to trying to get things done through the Comprehensive Plan and not through an amendment process; Volusia County’s growth management commission goal says, “to provide an effective means for coordinating the plans of municipalities and county in order to provide a forum for local governments in Volusia County to coordinate decision-making related to land use, the environment, and public services for the citizens of Volusia County.” She stated that could be a non-binding question to the citizens of Brevard County to find out exactly what they would like to see and maybe be able to come back and do something more. Commissioner Carlson stated she does not think the Board will get four votes today; that is obvious; but what that goal encompasses and what the County has been doing in JPA’s through its Comprehensive Plan planning process, is have an element in the Comprehensive Plan. She stated some cities will do that and some will not; even when they do it sometimes they do not follow through with it; and that is unfortunate so that leaves the County with the argument it came back with on annexation issues and things like that. She stated she believes the citizens should take a vote whether it is binding or non-binding right now; so she will move that item.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to place proposal #11 on the ballot. Motion did not carry by super majority vote; with Commissioners Scarborough, Carlson, and Higgs voting aye; and Commissioners Pritchard and Colon voting nay.

Chair Higgs advised all the motions have failed.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he kept hearing the emotion about uncontrolled growth; and inquired how much control does the County have on growth, and how many volumes, plans, books, ordinances, resolutions, etc. does the County have on growth; with Assistant County Manager Don Lusk responding staff has to research that and get back to the Board. Commissioner Pritchard stated the County has a library full of plans on how to manage growth; it is an interesting dilemma because nobody is opposed to height and density limits, but he is opposed to mob rule; and that is what the Board is looking at. He stated he read a letter in the newspaper last week that said, “I just moved here from Boston and I can tell you. . .”; that person is part of the problem; people who move here are creating the problem; Brevard County has attractive neighborhoods; and the Board needs to look at how it is going to manage that, what type of height, density, and controls are going to affect that, and how it is going to do it. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the Board is going to do it in its Charter and make the same mistakes the State made by including the light rail, pregnant pigs, and other items that do not belong in the State Constitution. He stated the Charter is not the place; the CRC spent 1,800 hours reviewing proposals and a full year of listening to people make proposals; and after it listened, it said 44 of those should not be accepted; now the Board wants to take the work of the CRC and throw it out the window; and he disagrees with that. He stated those people were appointed by the Board; they made the decisions; they decided it would be a super majority; he did not have any input on that; based on their decisions, input, and recommendations, they provided the Board with three outcomes; and that is what the Board should listen to. He stated he is not opposed to height and density limitations; but he is opposed to putting it in the Charter for the same reason he opposes the ridiculousness used by the State to include pregnant pigs in the State Constitution; and they do not belong in the Charter. Commissioner Pritchard stated the new champion of managing growth, Ms. Busick, likes to talk about how well she likes to manage growth; apparently it did not seem to bother her in 2003 when she sold her riverfront property and they put up a condominium; and before she sold it she had it rezoned to conditional use to allow a building height not to exceed 49 feet to develop a five-story multifamily condominium. He inquired where is growth management; and stated he thinks it is in the eye of the beholder; he does not like anyone who is disingenuous about what their efforts may be; the Charter is not the place to do it; the CRC recognized it is not the place to do it; and he is proud of what those people did. He stated the Board is taking the wrong avenue by bringing emotion into the issue of what should be demonstrated as fact; everyone likes to claim Brevard County is out of control; he thinks Brevard County has a lot of good rules; it can do better, but items such as preservation districts, limiting density, restricting fill, and creating a growth management commission should be discussed but not included at the Charter level. He stated if those are to come back, they can be reviewed, approved, or denied; and that way the public will know the cost, effect, and implications instead of emotions of putting it on the ballot.

Chair Higgs stated the Board has concluded its Agenda, including the Public Comments section earlier; and while she does have cards that were submitted for public comments, it was done earlier, so she will take a motion to adjourn.

WARRANT LISTS

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 1:08 p.m.

ATTEST: _________________________________
NANCY HIGGS, CHAIR
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

___________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)