May 21, 2002

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on May 21, 2002, at 9:03 a.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairman Truman Scarborough, Commissioners Randy O'Brien, Nancy Higgs, Susan Carlson, and Jackie Colon, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

The Invocation was given by Deacon Roland Benoit of St. Luke’s Catholic Church in Barefoot Bay, Florida.

Commissioner Jackie Colon led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve the Minutes of April 2, 2002 Regular Meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: AGENDA ITEM III.D.1.

County Manager Tom Jenkins requested Item III.D.1., Confirmation of Appointments, Re: Spaceport Commerce Park Authority, be moved to new business so he can expand on it.

REPORT, RE: LETTER SUPPORTING GRANT FOR CIRCLES OF CARE

County Manager Tom Jenkins requested authorization for the Chairman to send a letter to the State supporting the grant application for Circles of Care to enhance and expand substance abuse treatment services provided as part of Drug Court.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize the Chairman to sign a letter supporting the grant application of Circles of Care, Inc. to enhance and expand the substance abuse treatment services provided by the Drug Court. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: AGENDA ITEM III.A.27.

Commissioner O'Brien recommended Kings Park be added to Agenda Item III.A.27., Authorization, Re: Brevard County Trailhead Program Enhancement Application, which has the

REPORT, RE: AGENDA ITEM III.A.27.

Brevard Zoo Trail, South Brevard Linear Trail, and East Central Florida Regional Rail Trail in Mims. Commissioner Higgs suggested the item be pulled for discussion. Commissioner O'Brien pulled Item III.A.27.

REPORT, RE: ENCHANTED FOREST AND SPACE COAST EXECUTIVE AIRPORT
CONFLICT

Chairman Scarborough advised he talked to County Attorney Scott Knox about his concern with the Enchanted Forest conflicting with Space Coast Executive Airport; and Mr. Knox thought it may be advantageous to get an FAA attorney to see to what extent FAA may preempt. He inquired if Mr. Knox needs permission to do that; with Mr. Knox responding it would be helpful to retain someone who has knowledge of FAA regulations. Chairman Scarborough stated the City of Titusville has annexed the Airport and is in the process of putting together an ordinance; to some extent, it may touch upon the trees in the Enchanted Forest, which is owned by the State and operated by the County; however, some of the ordinances may be justified under FAA and the County has some requirements when it purchases property, so the Board needs to see how the various laws work. He noted he does not think it is a complex question, but it may be important to have a rapid solution.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to authorize the County Attorney to hire an attorney knowledgeable of FAA regulations to review possible conflicts of the Enchanted Forest and Space Coast Executive Airport. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: PRESENTATION BY INDIALANTIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 4TH GRADE
CLASS ON TOURISM

Commissioner Higgs advised she is pleased to have Ms. Mickey Olinger’s 4th Grade class from Indialantic Elementary School here today; and they have been brainstorming the idea of how to attract tourists to Brevard County. She stated looking at the implications after September 11, they have been studying the problem and brought a considerable amount of brainpower and creative thinking to the concept of what would be a real attraction for tourists to Brevard County; and they are here to share that idea with the Board. She noted she hopes it is a springboard for everyone to think about how they can make the community better; they spent a lot of time, energy, and brainpower doing this; and she looks forward to their contributions today and for a long time to come.

Several students presented and explained segments of a theme park they thought would be the best attraction, with ancient times, dinosaur times, and future times put into one theme park called Time Quest, with prehistoric world; ancient world, that included ancient Greece, ancient Egypt, and the Lost City of Atlantis; and future world. They also described the blueprints of the rides and attractions for each theme park.

Commissioner O'Brien introduced Astronaut Bruce Melnick to the students who presented the space portion of the presentation; and advised that Mr. Melnick is a great astronaut and has been in space twice. Mr. Melnick stated it sounds like a great park.

Commissioner Higgs stated it was a wonderful presentation; and once people envision something and have that vision, they can make it happen. The Board gave the students applause for their presentation.

Commissioner Carlson stated it was a great presentation and great idea; and they should make a presentation to the Tourist Development Council. Commissioner Colon stated Universal Studios and Islands of Adventure need to be careful because Indialantic Elementary has the right idea and did a great job. Commissioner Higgs thanked the students, parents, and Ms. Olinger for sharing their project with the Board.

REPORT, RE: WESTSIDE ELEMENTARY MUSIC DEPARTMENT

Commissioner Carlson advised Westside Elementary Music Department was selected as a grammy signature elementary school; and the grammy award recognizes excellence in professional recording, honors elementary schools, music students, teachers, and principals who promote and preserve music education as a key part of their core curriculum. She stated all public elementary schools nationwide have the opportunity to apply for consideration as a grammy signature school; they go through various criteria to qualify; and the criteria is used by a screening committee of music and educational professionals from across the country. She stated the top 100 scoring schools were identified as grammy signature elementary schools; Westside was selected as one of the top 100 in the nation; all 100 schools become finalists for the gold status, which provides recipients with a grant of $2,500; and the Board will know more about that as they compete. She stated it is a wonderful honor to have a national signature elementary school in the County; and congratulated Westside, on behalf of the Board, for its recognition and accomplishments.

REPORT, RE: RESOLUTION SUPPORTING PASSAGE OF SENATE BILL 556

Commissioner Carlson stated she has a resolution supporting passage of U.S. Senate Bill 556, the Clean Power Act, which is supposed to sharply reduce pollutant emissions from power plants in Brevard County and elsewhere; and read the resolution.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt Resolution supporting passage of U.S. Senate Bill 556, Clean Power Act, to reduce pollutant emissions from power plants. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: ORDINANCE ON RIGHT TO SPEAK

Chairman Scarborough advised the Board has always afforded the public the right to speak at its meetings on any items before the Board; they can pull items from the Consent Agenda and have the ability to address other items at the end of the meetings; and the Board’s policies set forth that advisory boards are supposed to do likewise. He stated it says, “Each advisory board shall establish procedures of taking public comments on all matters”; there are two kinds of public comments, before a final vote, and to bring new items or issues before a committee; and that would be in tune with what the Board does. Chairman Scarborough stated an item came up for discussion at a Parks and Recreation Board meeting in North Brevard; the item was discussed briefly and the public was refused an opportunity to talk; since then, letters of apology were sent out; but the issue of should the Board move beyond the policy came up. He stated in discussing it with the County Manager and County Attorney, that provision could be put in an ordinance that would be codified; and if there is a violation, it could be grounds for the Board to remove the violating member of the board for failure to afford the public an opportunity to speak. He stated right now the Board cannot remove members of boards except for cause; and that would be an additional cause for removal.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to direct the County Attorney to prepare an ordinance providing the public the right to speak at advisory board and committee meetings. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: RAILS TO TRAILS PROJECT

Chairman Scarborough advised previously he reported that the trail the County is trying to acquire and fought hard to get from North Brevard through Volusia County and into Seminole County was at a standstill at the State level. He stated Representative Bob Allen’s office called, and apparently through some action, it is now going to move forward and they are going to acquire the property from Florida East Coast Railway, which has agreed to it.

REPORT, RE: FUNDING FOR MAX BREWER BRIDGE

Chairman Scarborough stated he was advised that the Max Brewer Bridge has been funded for $3 million by the State Legislature; and that is $3 million from Congress and $3 million from the State for a total of $6 million. He stated the Governor has not signed it yet because it is an unusual out of the process type of thing; and requested permission to contact the Governor on the Board’s behalf.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize the Chairman to contact the Governor requesting his support of the $3 million Legislative funding for Max Brewer Bridge. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: COMMENDING SHARON HELPLING

Chairman Scarborough read aloud a resolution commending Sharon Helpling for 31 years of public service, and extending best wishes for good health and happiness during her retirement.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution commending Sharon Helpling for 31 years of loyal and professional service to the citizens of Brevard County, and wishing her good health and happiness during her retirement. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Scarborough presented the Resolution to Ms. Helpling.

Water Resources Director Richard Martens presented Ms. Helpling with a bouquet of flowers; stated for 14 years she had the arduous task of keeping him organized; it has been a pleasure working with Sharon; and her efforts will be sorely missed.

RESOLUTION, RE: RECOGNIZING LT. JIM TOLLEY

Commissioner Colon read aloud a resolution recognizing Lt. Jim Tolley of the Melbourne Fire Department, for being selected by Governor Jeb Bush as Florida’s Firefighter of the Year.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution commending Lt. Jim Tolley on being selected as Florida’s Firefighter of the Year. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Colon presented the Resolution to Lt. Tolley, who thanked the Board for the Resolution; and stated the majority of their time is spent improving the safety of and services to citizens.

RESOLUTION, RE: PROCLAIMING AIR FORCE SERGEANTS ASSOCIATION
DIVISION 5 MONTH

Commissioner Colon read aloud a resolution proclaiming May 2002 as Air Force Sergeants Association Division Five Month.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution proclaiming May 2002 as Air Force Sergeants Association Division Five Month, and expressing sincere appreciation to the men and women for their service and dedication to the United States of America. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Colon presented the Resolution to a representative of the Association who expressed appreciation for the recognition; and stated the men and women certainly fight for the protection of all Americans.

RESOLUTION, RE: COMMEMORATING MEMORIAL DAY

Commissioner O'Brien read a resolution commemorating May 30, 2002 as Memorial Day, and explained what Memorial Day means.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt Resolution commemorating May 30, 2002 as Memorial Day and remembering the departed servicemen and women and the country they gave everything to serve. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O'Brien presented the Resolution to Ed Walsh who thanked the Board for the recognition on behalf of all the veterans; and noted the Resolution will hang in the hall of honor at the veteran’s center.

RESOLUTION, RE: PROCLAIMING CHAMBER OF COMMERCE WEEK

Commissioner Carlson read aloud a resolution proclaiming June 2 through 8, 2002 as Chamber of Commerce Week in Brevard County.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt Resolution proclaiming June 2 through 8, 2002 as Chamber of Commerce Week in Brevard County, and expressing sincere appreciation for the steadfast efforts of all those involved in its organization. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Carlson presented the Resolution to Geo Ropert who advised four Chambers serve the businesses in Brevard County and they work hard to promote the economic wellbeing of the community, and thanked the Board for the Resolution.

RESOLUTION, RE: COMMENDING THE BOEING COMPANY AND ITS EMPLOYEES
FOR SUPPORT OF CROSSWINDS YOUTH SERVICES

Commissioner Carlson read aloud a resolution commending the Boeing Company and its employees for their continued support of Crosswinds Youth Services.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt Resolution commending the Boeing Company and its employees for supporting Crosswinds Youth Services by contributing $165,000 to Crosswinds for youth in crisis and their families, and encouraging all citizens to recognize the Boeing Company for being a world-class corporation. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Carlson presented the Resolution to Bruce Melnick, who thanked the Board for the Resolution on behalf of the Boeing team locally and of the whole corporation.

Bruce Melnick advised the way Boeing gives is part of its culture; it goes a long way back; one of its founding fathers, John McDonald, always talked about being a member of the community is not a spectator sport; and the members of the Boeing Company live and breathe that culture. He stated someone mentioned what the employees community fund contributes locally; and last year, nationwide, employees contributed almost $40 million out of their salaries to the employees community fund to better serve their communities. He stated he wants to brag about their local employee who received the highest honor in the Boeing Company for volunteerism; every year the Boeing Company recognizes four people, one in each of the four geographic areas of the United States, for their volunteerism with the William M. Allen award, who was one of the presidents of the company from 1945 to 1968 and became chairman; and Liz Casper, who works in Brevard County, received that award. He stated she was one of four out of 190,000 employees, which is a tremendous honor for them. Mr. Melnick stated giving to organizations is a chance for him to give back; Boeing looks at it as if one is fortunate enough to work for the Boeing Company, there are always people less fortunate; and they need to give back to their communities. He stated on a personal note, he grew up on the West Coast of Florida, the son of a not too successful fisherman, and did not have much growing up; when Alan Shepard first went up in space was when he started having the dream of flying in space; no one in his family had ever been to college or took a college course; but he kept his nose clean and was able to get to college with support of a lot of people and the government. He stated he could have wavered being in an austere environment and not in an affluent environment, but with a lot of support he became successful; so he looks at himself as a true example that the American dream is still alive, and what they do in their charitable organizations here gives opportunities for those children who are not real fortunate to have a chance to live that American dream. He stated on behalf of the Boeing Company and Jan at Crosswinds, he thanks the Board for the Resolution.

ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT, RE: ANNEXATION BY CITY OF MELBOURNE

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to acknowledge receipt of annexation AR-2002-138 by the City of Melbourne involving approximately 9.29 acres at the northeast corner of the intersection of Eau Gallie Boulevard and I-95.

FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, RE: HONEYMOON HILL SUBDIVISION

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to grant final plat approval for Honeymoon Hill Subdivision subject to minor changes if necessary, receipt of all documents required for recording, and approval not relieving the developer from obtaining appropriate jurisdictional permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FINAL ENGINEERING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, RE: SUMMER LAKES
SUBDIVISION, VIERA CENTRAL PUD

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to grant final engineering and preliminary plat approval for Summer Lakes Subdivision, Viera Central PUD, subject to minor changes as applicable, and approval not relieving the developer from obtaining required jurisdictional permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, RE: VIERA, REMAINDER OF PARCELS H, I, AND J,
STAR RUSH DRIVE NORTH

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to grant final plat approval for Viera, Remainder of Parcels H, I, and J, Star Rush Drive North, subject to minor changes if necessary, receipt of all documents required for recording, and approval not relieving the developer from obtaining applicable jurisdictional permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, RE: VIERA, TRACTS F2 AND F3, WINGATE ESTATES
SUBDIVISION, PHASE 1

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to grant final plat approval for Viera, Tracts F2 and F3, Wingate Estates Subdivision, Phase 1, subject to minor changes if necessary, receipt of all documents required for recording, and approval not relieving the developer from obtaining applicable jurisdictional permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND TRI-PARTY ESCROW AGREEMENT, RE: GRAND
HAVEN SUBDIVISION, PHASE 6

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to grant final plat approval for Grand Haven Subdivision, Phase 6, subject to minor changes if necessary, receipt of all documents required for recording, and developer responsible for obtaining applicable jurisdictional permits; and execute Tri-party Escrow Agreement with Pineda Partners, LLC and Colonial Bank, guaranteeing improvements in the project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND CONTRACT WITH LENNAR HOMES, INC.,
RE: GRAND ISLE SUBDIVISION, PHASE 2

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to grant final plat approval for Grand Isle Subdivision, Phase 2, subject to minor changes if necessary, receipt of all documents required for recording, and developer responsible for obtaining all applicable jurisdictional permits; and execute Contract with Lennar Homes, Inc. guaranteeing improvements in the project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND CONTRACT WITH DON SIMS, RE: RIVER GROVES
ON THE TRAIL, PHASE 3

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to grant final plat approval for River Groves on the Trail, Phase 3, subject to minor changes if necessary, receipt of all documents required for recording, and developer responsible for obtaining all applicable jurisdictional permits; and execute Contract with Don Sims guaranteeing improvements in the project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CONTRACT WITH THE VIERA COMPANY, RE: NAPOLO DRIVE

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Contract with The Viera Company guaranteeing infrastructure improvements to Napolo Drive. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT WITH WATERSIDE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,
RE: CONVERTING WATERSIDE DRIVE TO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Agreement with Waterside Property Owners Association, Inc. to convert Waterside Drive (Tract H) from a private to a public right-of-way and assuming maintenance responsibility for the right-of-way, and to take ownership of Tracts C, D, E, and F in Waterside Subdivision. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING
CHAPTER 62, ARTICLE XII, SECTION 62-4216, COASTAL SETBACK AND
CONTROL LINES

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to grant permission to advertise a public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 62, Article XII, Coastal Setback and Control Lines, specifically amending Section 62-4216, Construction Requirements Seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line, to amend the wind speed requirements. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING
CHAPTER 22, BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to grant permission to advertise a public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 22, Building and Building Regulations, specifically to adopt the Florida Building Code, the Building Officials Association of Florida Administrative Section of the Florida Building Code, and establish the basic wind speed lines for the unincorporated area of Brevard County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARING, RE: EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY
WITH A. DUDA & SONS, INC. FOR TAX COLLECTOR’S OFFICE SITE

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to grant permission to advertise a public hearing to consider exchange of property with A. Duda & Sons, Inc. for a site for the future construction of a building to house the Brevard County Tax Collector’s Office at Viera. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: FUNDING FOR FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY GRADE
CROSSING REHABILITATIONS COUNTYWIDE

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve funding for Florida East Coast Railway grade crossing rehabilitation throughout Brevard County to restore acceptable levels of surface conditions for highway and railway traffic. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

WATERLINE EASEMENT WITH CITY OF COCOA, RE: GOVERNMENT CENTER
BUILDING A EXPANSION

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Waterline Easement in favor of the City of Cocoa for expansion of Building A at the Government Center. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

WATERLINE EASEMENT WITH CITY OF COCOA, RE: ALMA BOULEVARD
FIRE STATION #41, MERRITT ISLAND

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Waterline Easement in favor of the City of Cocoa for Fire Station #41 on Alma Boulevard in Merritt Island. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RIGHT-OF-WAY DEED, DRAINAGE EASEMENTS, AND USE AGREEMENT WITH THE
VIERA COMPANY, RE: AREA NEAR WICKHAM ROAD AND LAKE ANDREWS
DRIVE INTERSECTION

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to accept Right-of-way Deed, Drainage Easement, and Stormwater Drainage Easement from Central Viera Community Development District, and execute Right-of-way Use Agreement with The Viera Company for an area located at or near the intersection of Wickham Road and Lake Andrews Drive where the roundabout is currently under construction for proposed roadway improvements. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH BREVARD COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, RE:
IMPROVEMENTS AT FAIRGLEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Interlocal Agreement with Brevard County School Board for improvements at Fairglen Elementary School site. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT, RE: FLORIDA TRAFFIC AND BICYCLE SAFETY
EDUCATION PROGRAM

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to accept grant from Florida Traffic and Bicycle Safety Education Program of $2,000 and establish appropriate revenue and expenditure budget to enhance the Brevard County Traffic and Bicycle Safety Program. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZATION, RE: MUNICIPAL REVIEW OF LOCAL OPTION GAS TAX
PERCENTAGE ALLOCATIONS

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize the Clerk to the Board to mail a copy of the Local Option Gas Tax percentage allocations to each municipality for review, and to conduct final review of the allocations on July 9, 2002. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZATION, RE: SUBMITTAL OF PROJECT PRIORITIES TO BREVARD MPO

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize submittal of Palm Bay Road, from Minton to Conlan; Babcock Street, at US 192, Palm Bay Road, and Malabar Road; Wickham Road, Nasa/Ellis Intersection; Palm Bay Parkway, Malabar, US 192/I-95; and Max Brewer Bridge to the Brevard MPO for preliminary consideration. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: RENAMING NORTH AND SOUTH ANIMAL CARE CENTERS
AS NORTH/SOUTH ANIMAL CARE AND ADOPTION CENTER

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to rename North and South Animal Care Centers as the North/South Animal Care and Adoption Center. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF GRANT PROPOSAL, RE: RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT AND
CONTINUING CARE FOR ADOLESCENTS

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize submittal of a grant proposal to Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration for substance abuse treatment, improvement of the quality and availability of residential treatment, and continuing care for adolescents. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF GRANT PROPOSAL, RE: SUPER NOFA COMPETITIVE GRANT

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize submittal of grant proposals to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) through the Super Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) Competitive Grant Program under the following categories: McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Program TA, Resident Opportunity and Self-sufficiency (ROSS) Programs, Section 202; Supportive Housing for the Elder, Section 8 Housing Vouchers for Persons with Disabilities, Targeted Housing and Homeless Assistance Programs, and Youth Build Program. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF EXTENSION, RE: REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO CHAPTER
74, ARTICLE V, NO CAMPING IN PUBLIC PLACES

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve 90-day extension to allow staff to identify resources needed to apply a no camping ordinance in a fair manner to both residents experiencing negative effects of homeless behavior and those citizens experiencing homelessness. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: SHIP AND HOME FUNDING FOR AFFORDABLE RENTAL
HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve reallocation of $50,000 in SHIP funds and $100,000 in HOME funds for affordable rental housing for the elderly as recommended by the Affordable Housing Council at $75,000 for Richmon Group of Florida, Inc. and $75,000 for Creative Choice Homes XI, Ltd., and authorize the Chairman to execute award letters to the selectees. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: NEW POSITIONS FOR PARKS CONSTRUCTION

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve one Staff Specialist V, three Operations Specialist IV, and one Secretary I positions for Parks and Recreation - Parks Construction for a period not to exceed two years. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE AND CONTRACT, RE: MONDO ADVANCE FLOOR FOR
KIWANIS ISLAND GYMNASIUM

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize sole source purchase of Mondo Advanced Floor and installation by Mondo/America Flooring Systems for replacement of the Kiwanis Island gymnasium floor at a cost of $57,295.49; and authorize the Chairman to execute associated Contract. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: TRANSFERRING REAL PROPERTY TO ST. JOHNS RIVER
WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt Resolution transferring real property contiguous to portions of the old U.S. Highway 192 right-of-way needed for completion of the Upper Basin Project for restoration of the St. Johns River, to the St. Johns River Water Management District. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION AND LEASE AGREEMENT WITH CHILD CARE ASSOCIATION OF
BREVARD COUNTY, INC., RE: USE OF GIBSON COMPLEX

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt Resolution and execute Lease Agreement with the Child Care Association of Brevard County, Inc. for use of Gibson Complex from June 1, 2002 through May 31, 2003. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, PURCHASE AGREEMENT, AND PERPETUAL EASEMENT WITH
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, RE: PROPERTY FOR SR 520
ROAD IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt Resolution and execute Purchase Agreement and Perpetual Easement with Florida Department of Transportation for .672 acre required for SR 520 road improvements project; and authorize staff to prepare a letter to the State supporting the conveyance of .43 acre owned by the State and leased to Brevard County that is also required by Department of Transportation for the project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENTS AND EASEMENT WITH FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, AND
WATER/FIRE LINE EASEMENT AND BILL OF SALE WITH CITY OF TITUSVILLE,
RE: ELECTRICAL AND WATER SERVICES TO ENCHANTED FOREST

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Underground Conduit Installation Agreement, Underground Distribution Facilities Installation Agreement, and Easement with Florida Power & Light Company, and Water/Fire Line Easement and Bill of Sale with City of Titusville for electrical and water services to the Enchanted Forest Sanctuary. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PROJECT AGREEMENT WITH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION,
RE: HARRY T. AND HARRIETTE V. MEMORIAL PARK

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Project Agreement with Department of Environmental Protection for Harry T. and Harriette V. Moore Memorial Park, extending the grant to March 31, 2003; and approve temporary loan from the General Fund. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REESTABLISH NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE, RE: SHARPES COMMUNITY CENTER
AND GYMNASIUM

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to reestablish the Negotiating Committee for Sharpes Community Center and Gymnasium as Charles Nelson, J. B. Kenna, and Kim Brautigam or their designees, to negotiate with Holeman Suman Architects to complete the project’s construction drawings, specifications, permitting, etc. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT PROPOSALS TO U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE,
RE: FUNDING FOR TREATMENT OF INVASIVE EXOTIC PLANTS

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize staff to submit proposals for matching funds to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through its Partners for Wildlife Program, and to the Florida Bureau of Invasive Plant Management for $25,000 for treatment of invasive exotic plants in Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge; and authorize the Parks and Recreation Director to execute the grant documents. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

EASEMENT TO NANCY C. GAIZO, RE: CLEAR TITLE DEFECTS ON COUNTY PROPERTY

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute non-exclusive access Easement in favor of Nancy C. Gaizo to clear title defects on Steime/Sconn and
Sconn/Jacobs properties purchased by the EEL Program. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

OPTION FOR SALE AND PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH WGML INVESTMENTS, LTD.
AND PRN REAL ESTATE & INVESTMENTS, LTD., AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND, RE: BROOKHOLLOW WEST

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Option Agreement for Sale and Purchase with WGML Investments, Ltd. and PRN Real Estate & Investments, Ltd. and Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund for Brookhollow West property to expand the boundaries of Turkey Creek Sanctuary. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REQUEST FROM TOWN OF INDIALANTIC, RE: CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR ALS SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the Town of Indialantic to provide advanced life support first responder services. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REVISION TO CONTRACT WITH ARDAMAN AND ASSOCIATES, AND GRANT CHANGE
FORMS, RE: EL NINO DISASTER RECOVERY CDBG WELL GRANT

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve revision to the Engineering Contract with Ardaman and Associates for design, permitting and engineering of well sites minor changes at no additional cost, and authorize the Chairman to execute grant form changes to the El Nino Disaster Recovery CDBG Well Grant. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION AND JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, RE: SCAT SR 520 BUS EXPANSION

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt Resolution and execute Joint Participation Agreement with Florida Department of Transportation for $100,892 to expand SCAT SR 520 bus services. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, FUNDING REQUEST, AND LONG-RANGE BUDGET PLAN, RE: SHORE
PROTECTION PROJECT

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt Resolution supporting the Shore Protection Project and requesting State cost-share funding as a match for dedicated local funds; and authorize State funding request and long-range budget plan be submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection as a grant request for FY 2003-04. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF GRANT APPLICATION TO FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE
CONSERVATION COMMISSION ADVISORY COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL
EDUCATION, RE: CENTER PANEL FOR MANATEE KIOSKS

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize Natural Resources Management Office to submit a grant application to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Advisory Council on Environmental Education for $17,245 for production and completion of the center panel for the manatee kiosks. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF GRANT APPLICATION TO FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE
CONSERVATION COMMISSION ADVISORY COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL
EDUCATION, RE: BOATERS’ GUIDE TO BREVARD COUNTY

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize Natural Resources Management Office to submit a grant application to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Advisory Council on Environmental Education for $20,623 for production of a boaters’ guide to Brevard County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO BID AND AWARD BID, RE: WASTE CONCRETE REDUCTION
RECEIVED AT SARNO ROAD LANDFILL FACILITY

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize Solid Waste Management Department and Purchasing Office to bid and award bid to the lowest, qualified, and responsive bidder for reduction of waste concrete received at Sarno Road Landfill Facility on a per-ton basis. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO BID, AWARD BID, AND ISSUE PURCHASE ORDER, RE: INVASIVE
SPECIES CONTROL SERVICE

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to grant permission to advertise for bids and issue a Purchase Order to the lowest responsive bidder to provide grounds maintenance services, including control of exotic, nuisance, and invasive species, and after December 1, 2002, mowing and trash removal in the South Central Regional Wetland System. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS, APPOINT SELECTION
AND NEGOTIATING COMMITTEES, NEGOTIATE AND AWARD CONTRACT(S),
AND AUTHORIZE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN CONTRACT(S), RE: CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT DELIVERY SYSTEM CONTINUING CONTRACT

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to grant permission to advertise a new Request for Proposals; appoint Jaime Irizarry, Henry Minneboo, Jack Masson, and Sam Stanton to the Selection Committee; appoint Jaime Irizarry, Jack Masson, and Sam Stanton or his designee to the Negotiating Committee to review and negotiate proposals of up to five firms for construction management delivery system continuing contract(s) for projects up to $1 million in value; award contracts; and authorize the Chairman to sign associated contract(s) once a guaranteed maximum price has been negotiated. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS, APPOINT SELECTION AND
NEGOTIATING COMMITTEES, AWARD CONTRACT, AND AUTHORIZE CHAIRMAN TO
SIGN CONTRACT, RE: CONTINUING MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, AND PLUMBING
CONSULTANT SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to grant permission to advertise a new Request for Proposals for continuing mechanical, electrical, and plumbing consultant services; appoint Jaime Irizarry, Steve Stultz, and Sam Stanton to the Selection Committee; appoint Jamie Irizarry, Carl Tucker and Sam Stanton to the Negotiating Committee; authorize award of the contract; and authorize the Chairman to execute the contract. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: REFUNDING OF LIMITED AD VALOREM TAX BONDS, SERIES 1993

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt Resolution approving publication of the Summary Notice of Sale, delegating the County Manager or designee the authority to finalize the Preliminary Official Statements and Final Official Statement, approving selection of bond insurers, registrar and paying agents, and delegating the Chairman the right to award the sale of bonds based on the criteria set forth in the Resolution and to sign related documents; and authorize the Financial Advisor, Bond Counsel, and Disclosure Counsel to prepare bond documents and take necessary action to solicit competitive bids for refunding of the Limited Ad Valorem Tax Bonds, Series 1993. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: AUTHORIZING COMMERCIAL PAPER LOAN FOR TAX
COLLECTOR’S BUILDING IN VIERA

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt Resolution approving a commercial paper loan for construction of a new office building for the Tax Collector in Viera; and authorize the Chairman and County Attorney to sign the necessary loan documents and staff to make necessary budget changes. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: DELEGATING POWERS TO CITY OF SATELLITE BEACH
TO CREATE A COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt Resolution delegating powers to create and maintain the Satellite Beach Community Redevelopment Agency to the City of Satellite Beach pursuant to Florida Statutes Chapter 163, Part III. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
REVENUE BONDS BY ENTERPRISE FLORIDA

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt Resolution allowing Florida Development Finance Corporation, a subsidiary of Enterprise Florida, Inc., to issue industrial development revenue bonds up to $1.6 million for Fiber Science, Inc., a manufacturing company planning to expand in Brevard County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PURCHASE CONTRACT WITH BELLSOUTH, RE: NETWORK EQUIPMENT
FOR GOVERNMENT CENTER BUILDING A EXPANSION

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Purchase Contract with BellSouth for CISCO network equipment at $68,248.97 for use in the Government Center Building A expansion area. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO SCHEDULE EXECUTIVE SESSION, RE: LABOR AGREEMENT
NEGOTIATIONS WITH LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 678

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize a closed executive session with the County Manager and appropriate staff to discuss the status of negotiations with the Laborers International Union, Local 678 at the end of the Board meeting on July 23, 2002. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS AND APPOINT
SELECTION COMMITTEE, RE: GROUP TERM LIFE INSURANCE

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to grant permission to advertise request for proposals for voluntary group term life insurance coverage for eligible County employees; and appoint the Insurance Advisory Committee as the selection committee to review proposals. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT WITH ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER & CO., AND PERMISSION
TO INITIATE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS, RE: PROPERTY AND CASUALTY
INSURANCE SERVICE BROKER

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Amendment to Contract with Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. for placement of property, workers’ compensation, and liability insurance, extending the Agreement through October 1, 2003; approve broker’s annual fee for such services; authorize advertising Request for Proposals for placement of insurance brokerage services for property and casualty insurance; and appoint Jerry Visco, Scott Knox or his designee, Stockton Whitten or his designee, and Frank Abbate to the Selection Committee to review proposals and make a recommendation to the Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

WRITTEN NOTIFICATION OF CONTRACT RENEWAL WITH NATIONAIR INSURANCE
AGENCY, AND PERMISSION TO INITIATE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS, RE:
AIRCRAFT AND AIRPORT LIABILITY INSURANCE BROKERAGE SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Written Notification of Contract Renewal with NationAir Insurance Agency for placement of aircraft liability and airport liability insurance under the same terms as the original Contract through July 11, 2003; authorize staff to initiate Request for Proposals for placement of brokerage services; and appoint Jerry Visco, Scott Linkenhoker, and Jim Shimkus to the Selection Committee to review proposals and make a recommendation to the Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: FIRE HAZARD INCENTIVE PAY FOR MOSQUITO CONTROL PILOTS
WHO ROUTINELY ASSIST IN CONTAINING WILDFIRES

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize fire hazard incentive pay for Mosquito Control pilots who routinely assist in containing wildfires of 10% added to their base pay to compensate for ongoing fire training and practice, and double time and a half for actual flight time during a fire. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF POLICY BCC-88, RE: USE OF COUNTY SEAL

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve Policy BCC-88, Use of County Seal, providing direction for the use of the County Seal in accordance with Florida Statutes and the Laws of Florida. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF PAYMENT, RE: ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS FOR TILLMAN,
LENNEAR, ET AL LITIGATION

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve payment of attorneys’ fees and costs at $7,130.02 to the plaintiff’s counsel James K. Green regarding Tillman, Lennear, et al litigation. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: AMENDED FLORIDA PETROLEUM REPROCESSORS SITE PRP
GROUP AGREEMENT

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Amended Florida Petroleum Reprocessors Site PRP Group Agreement reflecting the current purpose and objectives of the Group; and authorize the County Attorney or his designee to serve as the County’s Steering Committee representative, which will allow the County to actively participate in group negotiations with the Environmental Protection Agency. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: BILLS AND BUDGET CHANGES

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve bills and budget changes as submitted. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: RECOGNIZING RETIRING TEACHERS

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt Resolutions recognizing Deborah Ashe-Gordon, Ruby Borens, Margaret Carlson, Roberta Carter, Annette Doerr, Nan Ellis, Richard Gadapee, Glorida Goodison, Wortham Heard, Lorraine Hoctor, Michael Hoctor, Richard Librizzi, Janet McNutt, Eugenia Mosier, James Pedersen, Sylvia Stackhouse, Rebecca Sumner, Earlean Tooley, Janeeta Ward, Marye Wilkinson, and William Wood, for their outstanding commitment to the students of Brevard County, upon their retirement as teachers. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: CREATING BREVARD COUNTY ANIMAL SERVICES AND
ENFORCEMENT FERAL CAT ADVISORY GROUP

Susan Canada advised the committee is an excellent idea, but they want to wait one week to get more information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and she spoke to a senior agent at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service who requested waiting so they could find out who they need to send, a biologist, law enforcement, etc. She stated she would like to have time to discuss the committee with BASE and Don Lusk; right now is baby season for domestic and wild animals, and a busy time for anyone involved in animal issues; and BASE needs time to focus on major problems at shelters that have come to its attention. She stated they had a task force recently on pet overpopulation and did not get far due to many reasons; they need to make sure that all groups are included that currently are not on the list, such as wildlife rehabilitators, seasoned veterans like Chris Wise or Koons Run, Pet Rescue, which has been left off the list, and possibly a member of Alleycat Allies. She stated wildlife transporters transfer mostly wildlife, but many times she has gone out and returned with kittens in her backseat; and they need a chance to meet with BASE and Don Lusk to discuss who was left off the committee. She stated the committee is an excellent idea so they can all educate each other, work on the problems, and find solutions; but they need more time, even a week; and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has also asked for more time.

Animal Services and Enforcement Director Randy Jackson advised the group they put together is a wide-range of all kinds of organizations, including the Humane Society, feral cat organizations, and Alleycat Allies as a nonvoting member. He stated Alleycat Allies were in town and met with staff; they put quite a lot of work into assembling the group; and they would like to proceed with it if possible.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if Mr. Jackson received a letter from Fish and Wildlife Service saying there is an issue with the committee; with Mr. Jackson responding he received a letter, but the committee does not state who, whether biologist or enforcement officer; and each organization would be responsible for submitting a name. Ms. Canada stated they have no problem with that, but as to who is voting and who is not was not discussed with any group; and the wildlife rehabilitators and transporters have been left off, so they are asking for more time. She stated they want the committee and know Mr. Jackson put in a lot of work on it; they appreciate it and do not want it to go away; but they want more time to organize it better and squelch the rumors of who votes and who does not. She stated members from Port St. John Homeowners Association should be on it because it is one of the areas severely affected by feral cats; and Palm Bay is another area with most feral cats in the community, so someone from there should be included also.

Commissioner Colon inquired if there is a problem adding to the membership of the committee; with Mr. Jackson responding part of the failure of the last group was too many members with varied opinions so they could not get anything accomplished; and that is why they arrived at nine members in addition to technical advisors. He stated his Department is a nonvoting technical advisor, as well as Alleycat Allies and Department of Natural Resources; so there is quite a cross of different individuals involved. Commissioner Colon inquired if two more members could be added. Ms. Canada stated they would like to see three more, someone from Port St. John Homeowners Association, one of the wildlife rehabilitators, who is coming from U. S. Fish and Wildlife, and possibly a shelter such as Pet Rescue, which is most affected by feral kittens. Commissioner Colon stated she does not see anything wrong with adding those folks because they are all part of it; in Palm Bay there are at least 17 Homeowners Associations; and she would not want to exclude Palm Bay over another. She stated the folks should keep in mind the previous group was an issue because there were too many folks trying to give input and nothing was accomplished; but there is an issue in Port St. John; so the Board should move forward today putting the advisory board together because that cannot wait and needs to be resolved as soon as possible.

Commissioner Carlson stated she recognizes the issues and understands the difficulty of a lot of the issues when it comes to feral cats and make sure they get the best possible treatment; the Board has been supportive of that; and what Animal Services has done with the obvious assistance of Alleycat Allies, is included Alleycat Allies as a nonvoting member, which can also happen with other organizations. She stated the objectivity that was put into the nine individuals looks like the best way to go without getting rid of anyone’s input; everybody would have input at those meetings; and the members would be the Veterinarian Association, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Space Coast Feline Network, 4B’s, Inc., North Brevard SPCA, Central Brevard Humane Society, citizen homeowner representative designated by the League of Women Voters, representative from the Brevard County Health Department, and the Audubon Society. She stated she would go along with the recommended membership as long as those organizations Ms. Canada asked for, in terms of the nonvoting segment, are included. Ms. Canada stated out of over 2,000 animals she has spayed and neutered, all about four have come from rentals; and perhaps someone from the Board of Realtors as a nonvoting member would be good so they can educate those with rental property to be responsible pet owners and to make sure pets are altered unless they have reputable breeders, County tags, etc.

Commissioner Higgs stated Commissioner Carlson spoke well about the balance of the committee; the Board needs to move forward with it; input will be secured and everyone will have the opportunity to speak; so she will move the item as recommended.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt a Resolution creating the Feral Cat Advisory Group as recommended by staff.

Commissioner O'Brien suggested an agreement with the U.S. Postal Service to provide inserts in the packets that are given to people who are moving or changing addresses that says something about animal control.

Commissioner Colon stated there is nothing wrong with putting the other organizations on board as nonvoting members; it would give a nice balance; that is what the folks are looking for; and the criticism would not come that there was no representation.

Chairman Scarborough inquired if Commissioner Colon is amending the motion. Commissioner Carlson stated the intent is to bring in anyone as a nonvoting member who wants to be there as long as he or she is heard, but not to change the Resolution. Chairman Scarborough stated there is a difference being a member and being in the audience; as a member that person is recognized continuously for dialogue, while the audience is only heard once; and inquired if there is an amendment to the motion to allow the names suggested by Ms. Canada to be added as nonvoting members to the committee. Motion by Commissioner Colon to amend the motion to add nonvoting members from wildlife rehabilitators, Pet Rescue, wildlife transporters, Port St. John Homeowners Association, Palm Bay Homeowners Association, and Board of Realtors as nonvoting members to the Feral Cat Advisory Group.

Chairman Scarborough called for a second to the motion; and hearing none, seconded the motion. Chairman Scarborough called for a vote on the motion to amend the original motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to amend the motion to add Friends of Scrub and Sierra Club as nonvoting members to the Feral Cat Advisory Group.

Chairman Scarborough called for a vote on the motion to amend. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. Chairman Scarborough called for a vote on the motion as amended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO CONTINUE NEGOTIATIONS, RE: PURCHASE OF PROPERTY FOR
NEW SOUTH BREVARD TRANSFER STATION

Edward Geier, Mayor of the City of Palm Bay, advised it is the opinion of the City Council that the Malabar Road site is not an ideal site for the proposed transfer station; it has a disadvantage of being in the 100-year floodplain; it is surrounded mostly by residential areas; and the area within one and a half mile radius of the site has 2,000 residences and a potential buildout of 7,000 residences. He stated the packers used to haul trash would travel through the City to reach the transfer station causing traffic problems up and down Malabar business corridor as well as the residential section; and without the beltway, there would be substantial difficulty providing access to tractor-trailers used in hauling trash to go to and from the proposed station location. Mayor Geier advised the current zoning for the land is AU, agricultural residential, and would not be appropriate for a transfer station; Palm Bay does recognize the need for a transfer station in the south end of the County, and suggests Site F be the location as it is close to Babcock Street corridor and convenient to I-95. He stated the Malabar site is located in a residential area versus a light industrial area; the transfer station should not be built unless the Palm Bay Beltway is completed; and if the Malabar site is chosen today, the Council requests the Board consider four-laning the rest of Malabar Road to the transfer station, and that all bridges that the trucks would use for hauling trash be upgraded to the weight limits of the trucks. He requested the Board postpone the purchase of the Malabar site and look hard at locating the site somewhere else in the south end of the County.

Commissioner Higgs advised Mayor Geier mentioned Site E but she could not find it on the map; with Mayor Geier responding it is near Black Hawk Quarry.

Chris Norton, Director of Planning and Economic Development for the City of Palm Bay, advised he has a letter he would like to read that was just finished yesterday; and apologized for not getting it to the Board earlier. He read the letter to Chairman Scarborough, County Commission, from Acting City Manager Dan Greenfield as follows: “The Commission is to consider purchasing property to build a south county transfer station at the west end of the City of Palm Bay accessed by Malabar Road. In discussions with your staff, we understand the study area is from Route 192 down to the southern terminus of the County. Because of this, the City does not feel this to be an appropriate site because of intense residential uses surrounding the proposed site and for other reasons cited herein. Traditionally transfer stations are found in light industrial districts. To place a transfer station in the middle of a residential area violates both the County’s and Palm Bay’s Comprehensive Plans and is wrong. If the County wishes to place a transfer station in the City of Palm Bay or any area within the County, the City respectfully requests the site be removed from residential areas and that the County purchase additional properties surrounding the transfer station site and turn it into a large light industrial park. In discussions previously held with the County, the City recommended that consideration be given to the purchase of a large portion of the undeveloped subdivisions known as Port Malabar, Units 51, 52, and 53. These Units would be more ideal, appropriate, and less costly for placement of a transfer station with the surrounding property being reclassified as light industrial. Units 51, 52, and 53 are part of the proposed replat joint study currently being considered by the County and the City. As you know, that was a joint effort that we are both working on that would look at this area in the south portion of Palm Bay to reduce density levels, which was the concern of the County and a concern of ours; and also look at creating industrial and other types of commercial uses. The zoning designation of the parcel under consideration by the Commission is AU, which stands for agricultural/residential, which is a classification that, “encompasses lands devoted to agricultural pursuits and single-family residential development of spacious character”; therefore, it is clear that the land in question was never intended to be utilized for a transfer station by the County. Furthermore across the street from the proposed site to the north and to the east there are approximately 7,000 residentially zoned lots. The County’s site location consultant, HDR, recommends avoidance of existing residential areas. The area in question is highly residential. As you are aware, the County is presently challenging a recent City of Palm Bay rezoning and Comprehensive Plan amendment on the basis of the City’s action violating various provisions of both the County’s and City’s Comprehensive Plans. Placement of a transfer station on the proposed site would be in violation of many of the same provisions and would therefore be inconsistent with County’s concerns and philosophies. Unquestionably, the placement of a transfer station on the site under consideration would violate the same Comprehensive Plan provisions, but to a much greater extent. It should be noted that in addition to the Comprehensive Plan violations, the County’s consultant considered the following factors to be disadvantages in selecting a site: (1) surrounded by predominantly residential area; (2) wetlands within the site; (3) road access is not designated industrial; (4) relatively distant from waste centroid; (5) portions of site within 100-year floodplain; and (6) access through residential area. That is to say, of the ten factors that the County’s consultants considered to be disadvantages, other than the size and number of owners, the site in question has six of them. As to those factors considered advantages by the consultant, only one has any significant to the quality of life, to-wit, ‘no existing residences’; and that is incorrect. As indicated earlier, there are 7,000 residential lots across the roads to the north and east of the site. With regard to some of the County’s policies as set out in the Comprehensive Plan, the site in question is not appropriate because:”

Chairman Scarborough advised Mr. Norton’s time has expired; and inquired if the Board wishes to extend his time.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to extend the time for Mr. Norton to complete his presentation. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Norton read, “With regard to some of the County’s policies as set out in the Comprehensive Plan, the site in question is not appropriate because: (1) odor, noise levels, traffic, site activity, and similar impacts will not be appropriate adjacent to the nearby residential neighborhoods; (2) an analysis has not been provided which identifies the reduction in value to nearby land; (3) a transfer station is not consistent with the existing or emerging pattern of the surrounding development; (4) a transfer station will adversely impact an established residential neighborhood; and (5) the proposed use will impact the transportation facilities adversely. Malabar Road and the bridge over C-61 would require significant upgrading to accommodate significant heavy truck traffic. Furthermore, the purchase of this site for a solid waste facility is not consistent with the Capital Improvements Element of the Comprehensive Plan. There were no purchases of land for a south County transfer station in the 2000, 2001, 2002, or 2003 Capital Improvements schedule. If the 1999 monies shown are intended for this project, the Comprehensive Plan must be amended and, it is respectfully suggested that the appropriate action by the County is to determine that all zoning and Comprehensive Plan criteria are met prior to committing to this site. Therefore, in closing, the City of Palm Bay respectfully requests: (1) the County Commission forego the building of this transfer station on the proposed site (Site E); (2) the County revisit proposed site F. This site is close to I-95, has truck traffic for Blackhawk Quarry already using the roads, and advantages much superior to the site in question; and (3) the County agree to constructing the Beltway and improving Malabar Road should site E be selected. On behalf of the Mayor and the City Council, we thank you for your time to present this information to you. Sincerely, Dan Greenfield, Acting City Manager.”

Chairman Scarborough inquired if there is a time frame that requires the Board to act today; with Solid Waste Management Director Euripides Rodriguez responding not necessarily, and the only risk is if the site is sold, the County will be out of a site.

Commissioner Colon stated she would like to read a letter from Deputy Mayor Woodard with some concerns and options he suggested. Chairman Scarborough stated he received the same letter; it is his intention to visit with the City and Mr. Rodriguez, and review options before voting; and recommended the item be tabled.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, to table permission to continue negotiations for the purchase of a 160-acre parcel for a new South Brevard Transfer Station until July 9, 2002.

Commissioner Higgs advised the City raised significant issues; she applauds it for looking at the County’s Comprehensive Plan; and all government agencies should look at each others comprehensive plans to balance concerns locally. She stated the Board has not felt this is the best site it could choose because of its location away from the center of waste; there is a better site somewhere, but it is not going to be easy to find; and this site rose to the top because of the amount of residential homes around it and the ability to get it accepted. She stated there is a better place; the County should look for that; it needs the City’s cooperation; and it is part of the bigger plan that is going to resolve a number of concerns, so she will second the motion.

Commissioner Higgs seconded the motion to table. Chairman Scarborough called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: VACATE UNUSED RIGHT-OF-WAY IN SUNTREE

Guy Hoagland, Suntree Master Homeowners Association Board of Directors member, stated, on behalf of the entire Board and all the residents of Suntree, they request the Board consider the following: (1) vacate unused portions of right-of-way along the existing St. Andrews Boulevard, from its southern terminus to Wickham Road; and (2) vacate the unused portions of the right-of-way along Interlocken, from its southern terminus to Wickham Road. He stated over the past year, the Board heard testimony from many residents of Suntree voicing opposition to proposals of extending St. Andrews Boulevard and increasing traffic on the internal collector road in their community; and the Board of Directors supports having no further extension of St. Andrews, no consideration of connecting St. Andrews with the Pineda Causeway extension until after I-95 interchange and access for all developments south of the current terminus of St. Andrews Boulevard be off the Pineda Causeway extension. Mr. Hoagland stated on April 6, 2002, Commissioner Carlson held a public briefing to clarify concerns related to those issues; and at that meeting County staff and Commissioner Carlson voiced their support that no consideration of connecting St. Andrews Boulevard to the Pineda be entertained until I-95 interchange is built. He stated County staff presented traffic projections and proposed roadway options relating to the issues; the current rights-of-way along St. Andrews Boulevard and Interlocken are 100-foot rights-of-way, making possible four-lane thoroughfares; and the current roadways are utilizing only half of the rights-of-way being two-lane roadways. He stated County staff’s traffic projections, as related in the community briefing on April 6, 2002, show that by 2020 when the area is completely built out, traffic counts will not be high enough to warrant expansion of those roadways; therefore the unused portions along those roads have no purpose and no proposed use. Mr. Hoagland stated similarly, in 1993, when it was determined that Turtlemound Road would not be going through, the County vacated that right-of-way in favor of Suntree and returned it because it was not going to be used. He stated currently the County derives no benefit from retaining those rights-of-way; it has no plans for possible future use; the Suntree community receives no benefit from County ownership of that land; but one of the issues the Suntree Board has to deal with is spending over a quarter of a million dollars annually to maintain County rights-of-way throughout Suntree. He stated that has been an issue with the residents since 1998; and vacating the rights-of-way will address that issue. He requested the unused rights-of-way be vacated in favor of Suntree Master Homeowners Association so they can maintain their own property and put it to the best use for the benefit of the community.

Anne Salemmo, Citizens for Responsible Growth Board member, stated they support the request made by the Suntree Master Homeowners Association Board of Directors; and they have been before the Board many times over the past two years voicing concerns for their community’s wellbeing and requesting the Board to provide leadership for a responsible, proactive, and managed growth process, which does not harm existing communities in the process of providing services for growing segments of the County. She stated County staff has indicated they have no plans to use the rights-of-way in question to widen St. Andrews Boulevard and Interlocken Road through Suntree; therefore, they feel the request to return the unused portions of those rights-of-way is reasonable and request the Board vote to approve it. Commissioner Carlson stated she appreciates the Suntree folks coming forward and the Homeowners Association providing the Board with its concerns; however, there are some legal things the Board has to address before it can go forward. She stated it needs to look at any possible utilities that might be in those rights-of-way and whether or not the Suntree Master Homeowners Association has any standing in terms of who actually gets the vacated property. She stated the point that was brought up about the quarter million dollars spent on rights-of-way maintenance has to be looked into; she does not know the history of how much the Homeowners Association has put in for taking care of the County’s rights-of-way; and it also needs to look at the legal recipients of the vacated property and the obvious impacts of traffic flow, etc. Commissioner Carlson stated there is a legal process to go through for vacating; she has not had an opportunity to talk to staff about that; and recommended a report be brought back to the Board to get some idea of where it stands on the vacatings that will require legal stuff on the part of the County Attorney. She stated she appreciates the folks bringing it to the Board; it could be a good idea; and hopefully it can come to some balance and agreement with the issues at hand in Suntree.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to direct the County Attorney to bring back a report on the issue of vacating property under the ownership of the County along Interlocken and St. Andrews Boulevard that is currently unused by the County.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he has a problem with the request; the word “currently” is significant; currently the County has no plans for the use of the rights-of-way; and it currently has no idea what it would need those rights-of-way for, but it has to look into the future. He stated responsible growth was mentioned; that includes insight into the future; and the Board has no idea what transportation may be like 25 years from now and whether deceleration and acceleration lanes may be needed on those roads. Commissioner O'Brien advised 25 years ago nobody planned on reuse waterlines; there were no rights-of-way to put in reuse waterlines; and a lot of communities had problems getting the reuse water into their properties because of that. He stated the County owns the rights-of-way at this time; for protection of the public in the future, it should keep those rights-of-way; as the south side of the Pineda Causeway builds up, it may not have an effect on St. Andrews Boulevard and it may stay the way it is; but nobody knows what it is going to be like in the future.

Commissioner Carlson stated she is in full agreement with Commissioner O'Brien; and that is why the first step is to get a report back from Mr. Knox on the legal side of vacations and who owns the potential to accept the vacated properties. She stated Suntree PUD is laid out in such a way that there are a lot of developments attached to both of those roads; and she is not sure exactly how to address that.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he is Chairman of the Water Board, and one action they took up is to go back and get all the studies that were done since 1961, and review each one so they could advise the St. Johns River Water Management District of the water needs for the future of Brevard County. He stated they found out all projections made in every study was absolutely inaccurate; supposedly Titusville would have run out of water 15 years ago, but that never happened; and the wells in Osceola County were to run dry in 1984, but that never happened. He stated projections are nice if they are for what will happen tomorrow, but not for what will happen 25 years from now; and that is his biggest concern about vacating those rights-of-way. He stated a good example is the Pineda Causeway extension was originally to be a straight road; however, little chunks were given away, and the whole highway had to be moved because there was nothing left to build on. Commissioner Carlson stated unfortunately sometimes it costs a lot of money to the taxpayers when the Board makes decisions without information.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board needs to be extremely careful in considering vacating of rights-of-way; she understands what the community wants to do in protecting its area, and she supports its overall goal of preserving its neighborhood and managing growth in that area; however, she cannot imagine a scenario, which she would support, to vacate the rights-of-way. She stated she will look at a report if it includes the utilities and legal issues; but she is very reluctant to vacate rights-of-way with potential use in the future because the overall cost and impacts are unknown at this time. She stated she will read the report, but cannot imagine that is something the Board should do.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised he can do research on the legal issues, but will need help from the County Manager’s office to evaluate utilities and impacts.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he cannot support it this; asking staff to do a report spins the wheels and brings people back from Suntree to hear a report for the Board to discuss it one more time; and he would prefer to deny the request today than to move for a report tomorrow. Commissioner Carlson stated there is nothing to deny; the motion is only asking for a report; and once the Board gets the report back, it will have all the information and can make a more intelligent decision. She stated if the SMHA does not qualify to get the vacated properties, it dies there and there is no reason for it to go through the legal process for vacating; and that is all she is asking for. She stated she knows Commissioner O'Brien’s perception of getting the wheels turning; but it is a fair question from the community that the Board should at least have a report on from Mr. Knox. Commissioner Higgs inquired how much time and effort will it take to do the report; with County Manager Tom Jenkins responding it will not be that extensive. Commissioner Higgs stated she will support the report, but agree with Commissioner O'Brien this is not likely to happen. She stated the Board had reports before on things that were not likely to be approved; so she will support the report but is reluctant about the vacating.

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

The meeting recessed at 10:29 a.m., and reconvened at 10:45 a.m.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING RIVER ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
AND UNNAMED RIGHT-OF-WAY IN BURCHFIET’S SUBDIVISION - ATTORNEY
PHILLIP F. NOHRR

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating River Road right-of-way and an unnamed right-of-way in Burchfiet’s Subdivision, as petitioned by Attorney Phillip F. Nohrr.

Attorney Phillip Nohrr advised on the 1891 plat of land around Honeymoon Lake and south of there, there were two roadways that were not dedicated for public use, but were noted on the plat; one runs along the Indian River with no specific width; and the other is a dogleg with no specific dimensions that ultimately connects to what is now South Tropical Trail. He stated in 1976 or 1978, the Board issued the plat for Hacienda Del Sol, which is immediately to the south of his client’s property; in doing that plat, it vacated the road rights-of-way shown on the 1891 plat; and he is here to talk about the road that is shown by the Indian River, then the dogleg.

Chairman Scarborough inquired if there is any controversy; with Mr. Nohrr responding there is an issue. Chairman Scarborough recommended Mr. Nohrr get to the controversy; with Mr. Nohrr responding staff brought to his attention that the easterly portion of the dogleg road dumps into the Banana River; the Board has a policy about vacating access to water; and in discussing that with staff this morning, they decided to withdraw the request to vacate the portion of the dogleg east of South Tropical Trail and come back at a later date if it is of material use to his client. He noted he believes staff supports the rest of the vacating; he is unaware of any opposition to the request; and the two roads go nowhere and come from nowhere.

Commissioner Higgs requested a drawing of the proposal before the Board; with Road and Bridge Director Billy Osborne responding it is in the Agenda package. Commissioner Higgs stated he amended one of the vacatings; with Mr. Osborne responding he will revise the legal description to reflect that portion west of South Tropical Trail. Commissioner Higgs requested a picture to see what Mr. Nohrr is talking about. She stated Policy BCC-77 approved on May 18, 1993, acknowledges the importance of maintaining public access to waterfront property; therefore the Board would not consider vacating public access to waterfront property unless such action is clearly in the best interest of Brevard County. Commissioner Higgs and Mr. Nohrr reviewed the map of the area. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the request is not to vacate on the Banana River side, but to vacate on the Indian River; with Mr. Nohrr responding that road goes nowhere and comes from nowhere; on the 1891 plat it meandered all the way down through Hacienda Del Sol; and when the Board approved that subdivision, there was nothing to the south or north. He stated it is just a road designation on a plat that connects to nothing and is not capable of connecting to anything; so it is sitting there by itself; and the only possible users of that property are the owners of the balance of it to the east. Commissioner Higgs inquired if staff has a legal description of what Mr. Nohrr is describing.

Chairman Scarborough stated he does not like to draw maps and try to make sure the record reflects it correctly; and inquired if the Board can postpone the item until it is corrected. Mr. Nohrr stated yes, as to the dogleg, but there is a contract on the Indian River parcel. Chairman Scarborough recommended it be brought back later in the meeting when it is clearly defined.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, to deny the request to vacate the road on the Indian River because it is contrary to the Board’s Policy.

Commissioner Carlson stated she thought Mr. Nohrr withdrew that portion of the vacating; with Mr. Nohrr responding no, only the portion on the Banana River. Commissioner Higgs stated the right-of-way on the Indian River is the same as it is in the package. Chairman Scarborough stated things are getting terribly muddled in the public record; and requested a motion to table or have Mr. Nohrr come back later in the meeting after he works with staff to clarify the issues and return with a clarified posture. Mr. Nohrr stated he will do that.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he will include in the motion on the west side of South Tropical Trail to maintain the right-of-way 20 feet from the present right-of-way; with Mr. Nohrr responding he understands that. Commissioner Higgs stated she will support Commissioner O'Brien preserving that right-of-way as well as the one on the Indian River. She noted if staff can clarify that, she may be supportive, but not any portion on the river.

The Board postponed the public hearing to vacate River Road right-of-way and an unnamed right-of-way in Burchfiet’s Subdivision until later in the meeting.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING DIKES ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
IN SECTIONS 2 AND 3, TOWNSHIP 28S., RANGE 36E. - MAURICE BOUDREAU

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating Dikes Road right-of-way in Sections 2 and 3, Township 28S., Range 36E., as petitioned by Maurice Boudreau.

Road and Bridge Director Billy Osborne requested the public hearing be continued to July 9, 2002.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to continue the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating Dikes Road right-of-way in Sections 2 and 3, Township 28S., Range 36E., as petitioned by Maurice Boudreau until July 9, 2002. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS AND ADOPTING
FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR LAKEMONT ROAD WATERLINE MSBU

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider a resolution accepting improvements and adopting the final assessment roll for Lakemont Road Waterline Municipal Service Benefit Unit (MSBU).

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt a Resolution accepting improvements in the Lakemont Road Waterline Municipal Service Benefit Unit; adopting the final assessment roll; establishing the procedure for the collection of assessments; establishing an interest rate; and establishing an effective date. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING WATER RATES FOR NORTH
BREVARD WATER SYSTEM

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider a resolution establishing water rates for North Brevard Water System.

Elaine Graham advised she wished whoever gave her the list of members of the North Brevard Water Rate Structure Advisory Committee had put “proposed” water rate structure advisory committee; this is a proposal; and inquired if she could ask questions without losing her time to make her statement. Chairman Scarborough advised Ms. Graham the Board has time limits and the dialogue consumes the time, so Ms. Graham has to elect how she wants to make her comments. Ms. Graham stated the premise or directive given to the advisory committee for the proposed water rate assumed it was going to accept a water rate increase; that is her problem; and inquired what directive was given to the advisory group, does the Board have to accept the proposed rate increase, or is it here to discuss the pros and cons if there should be a water rate increase. She asked Chairman Scarborough what was the directive; with Chairman Scarborough responding he will let Mr. Martens address that; however, Mr. Martens came to the Board with a report; the Board found it had been for some years operating at a loss; therefore, rather than just arbitrarily making decisions at staff level, there was a committee formed of people who live in the service area and who are directly affected. Ms. Graham inquired what will the Board do about her time; with Chairman Scarborough inquiring if Ms. Graham wants to ask a series of questions. Ms. Graham stated she wants to ask questions to Chairman Scarborough directly because this is not Mr. Martens’ job, and his office appointed the advisory committee. She stated she believes the proposed water rate increase is tied to the Statewide water resources issue; it is not a simple matter; the committee had a huge responsibility; she has a problem with the committee and if they had a directive to work only on a water rate increase; and that is the wrong premise. She stated it is not a balanced committee; there are non-environmental or conservation people represented; and it is important to know what directive it was given or whether it was told it must approve a water rate increase. Ms. Graham stated she hopes the Board will vote no on the water rate increase because the committee is heavily business interests, and environmental and conservation interests were not represented; and until a new committee is formed with a balanced composition, she requests the Board vote no on the proposed rate. She stated Mr. Martens alluded to the necessity of the water rate increase because of the 800-home golf project that is not on line; and he did that at a public presentation. She stated if her retirement dollars go to help finance that environmentally-damaging project, the Walkabout in Mims; and if in any way the water rate increase is related to that project, which Mr. Martens alluded to as a reason for the increase and used it as a methodology to substantiate the water rate increase, then she requests the Board vote no on the proposed rate increase. She stated according to the St. Johns River Water Management District, Mims Water Authority has absolutely no water restrictions on usage; and because Mims Water Authority does not treat water in a more responsible way, a no vote is necessary on the proposed water rate increase. She stated if a yes vote on the proposed increase in any way aids the Walkabout project, the Indian River lagoon will suffer; the 800 homes and golf course will add huge sources of pesticides and chemicals from stormwater runoff, which will run into the lagoon; and the lagoon is a closed estuary that cannot clean itself. She stated additionally, new boats, maybe as many as 400, will be added to the closed estuary, scraping the backs of manatees and killing the dolphins. She stated the proposed water rate increase is not a simple issue; it is tied to the environmental quality of Brevard County; and she is very serious about that and the way the committee was formed.

Chairman Scarborough advised Ms. Graham they tried to get representatives from different users and homeowners groups, and had a series of meetings; notices of the meetings were mailed out; and after the rates had gone through review, comments were taken from the committee. He requested Mr. Martens trace the activities of the committee. Ms. Graham stated if there are any environmental and conservation people represented, she would like to hear that because she does not believe it is true. Water Resources Director Richard Martens advised to address some of Ms. Graham’s concerns, the need for an increase was clear through their record-keeping and accounting; and they provided Ms. Graham with details of their balance sheets that showed revenues and expenditures. Ms. Graham stated she never received those sheets he said he would send her. Mr. Martens stated there is a need for the increase; the process started on how to go about raising the rate, because the way the rate increase is structured could affect people differently; so the Board approved appointment of a committee of users to study the issue and make recommendations. He stated the committee members were appointed based on an analysis of the distribution of the users of the system and their service areas; and it is primarily a residential area serving about 2,500 customers, 2,400 of which are residential. He stated they convened the committee, held several meetings, discussed numerous options and different rate structures, and the committee came up with a recommended structure it felt was not only the fairest to the community but also contained strong water conservation parameters. Mr. Martens advised the rate structure before the Board is what is commonly called a conservation rate structure with four different tiers based on water usage; the more water a customer uses, the higher the bill; and lawn irrigation is widely recognized as one of the highest water uses and the use most susceptible to control through other mechanisms. He stated at the end of the process, when the committee made its recommendation, letters were mailed to every customer on the water system inviting them to a public meeting within the community in the evening; about 15 or 16 people showed up to discuss water issues and review information on expenses and revenues that were available; and he expected to see Ms. Graham at that meeting, but he does not believe she was there. He stated in addition, staff met with the Sherwood Homeowners Association, which represents about 40% of the customers; there were 85 to 90 people in attendance; and they discussed the same issues. Mr. Martens stated he differs with Ms. Graham in that the committee was very much interested in conservation and felt that through a conservation-oriented rate structure they could have a part in conserving water resources. He stated Ms. Graham talked about the proposed 800-home subdivision and its relationship to the increase; he explained at each of several meetings, including separately to Ms. Graham that one of the reasons he delayed bringing the rate increase forward was the subdivision; and had it gone forward in a timely manner, the impact of the rate increase could have been offset by the increased customer base. He stated in no way is the rate increase required by or related to the need to provide water service to the new community; and the expenses they bear today are directly related to the services they provide today in relation to the income they derive from the current rate structure. He stated Ms. Graham made a comment about the Indian River lagoon; the entire area, particularly the subdivision she referenced, is in the St. Johns River drainage basin; and it would drain to the St. Johns River, not to the Indian River lagoon. He stated they have water restrictions in the Mims Water System as in every area of the Water Management District; there is a 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. prohibition against irrigating with any source of water except reclaimed water; they do not go out and ticket people or knock on their doors and ask them to quit watering; the Mims community is aware of it; and they do not see a significant amount of daytime watering. He stated the Mims community is under the same voluntary water use restrictions that all of the County is under based on a Board Resolution last year, with the exception of those customers who use water sold by the Cities of Cocoa and Titusville; and there are certain mandatory restrictions based on the inland Orange County water supply issues that are going on right now. Mr. Martens stated he feels comfortable about the process they went through; they solicited input from a cross-section of the users from all geographic areas within the service area; they were all residential customers, except one man who has a business; but as far as he can tell, they viewed their deliberations based on residential customers. He stated the committee was very concerned not only about the need for the increase, but how it would be put in place and the impact it would have on various aspects and customer groups within the service area; and its final recommendation was for a rate structure commonly called a conservation rate structure. He stated normally when that type of rate structure is implemented, they will see an almost immediate reduction in water use of about 5%; Titusville had that experience; and other Central Florida communities have gone to a conservation rate structure and have seen that type of reduction. Mr. Martens advised the rate increase before the Board is a phased increase; it would be phased in over four years; at the end of the four-year period, it would bring the rates for the North Brevard system in line with rates of other communities in Brevard County in 2003; and there is an exhibit in the Agenda package about currently approved future water rates. He stated a significant item included in the resolution is to allow staff to refund water and sewer deposits Countywide to good customers; this is a practice that is used by all major utilities; the City of Cocoa has begun using it; and it is one of the most common requests he gets from customers as he talks to them on various issues day in and day out. Mr. Martens stated the obvious question that has been asked is how will that impact the lost revenues; every year they have a certain amount of lost revenues that they write off because they are unable to collect them; and their experience has been that good customers who pay their bills on time, which is the vast majority of the customers, do not walk away from their debts when they move. He noted those customers who are not prompt in their payments and would walk away from their debts would not meet the criteria for a good customer; and the Cities of Cocoa and Cape Canaveral, in this regard, have seen minimal increase in their uncollected revenue because of it; so it is a positive issue that he wanted to bring to the Board’s attention.

Commissioner Colon requested Mr. Martens touch on polluting the waters, which seemed to be important to Ms. Graham; with Mr. Martens responding the Walkabout community, which has been in the planning stages for about ten years, will have to meet all the current surface water runoff and land development regulations, including retention ponds capturing certain amount of rainfall on impervious surfaces; and it is a very large site with hundreds of acres of wetlands and wooded wetlands that will remain in their natural state.

Chairman Scarborough stated when Mr. Martens first visited him, he felt a rate increase was justified because they were not bringing in the revenue to support the service; it is an enterprise fund and supposed to be self-sustaining; and it has been subsidized over a number of years. He stated he suggested Mr. Martens get a committee; the thought of the committee was not to have an agenda; Ms. Graham asked was the thought that a rate increase was needed and the committee should determine the rate increase; and looking at Exhibit 4, he could not be more pleased with something that reflects his desires. He stated for the low consumers, where most of the people are, the rates are below the average rate in the County; but the conspicuous consumers, those who are over using, are going to be impacted by the new rate. He stated it is a conservation concept that has been promulgated by the residents; notices were sent to every person on the system; and there were several meetings where the public was notified of the content of the meeting. Chairman Scarborough stated prior to the meetings, the committee went through an analysis and presented its findings; and it would be extremely inappropriate, after notice to the entire community, and having them go out on two occasions, to come back and revisit it. He stated if the Board is to do anything, it would be his suggestion to table it and re-notice the whole thing to allow the public to fully participate as they once were given the opportunity to do; however, he does not think anything but an approval is appropriate at this time.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution amending Resolution No. 2000-033, Schedule of rates, fees and charges for water, sewer, and reclaimed water, including systems located in the South Beaches, Merritt Island, North Brevard, Port St. John, and the South Central Mainland Service areas; amending water rates for the North Brevard Water System; and establishing an effective date.

Commissioner Carlson stated she appreciates Ms. Graham’s passion in regards to the lagoon; the County spends millions of dollars to preserve the lagoon and all its attributes, but it cannot ignore the St. Johns River; the development will drain into the St. Johns River where the County gets its primary water source; and the focus should be on both of those water bodies to make sure they are not ignored. She stated the Board has spent a lot of money on stormwater retention; most developments have to have retention to treat the water before it goes in either direction; so Ms. Graham can feel more comforted knowing that is the action of the Board and it has supported it and put a lot of money into it.

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

Chairman Scarborough stated Commissioner Higgs is proposing to recommend a water authority with perhaps a broader jurisdiction than merely how to implement rate increases; and if Ms. Graham is still here at that time, she may find that very interesting.

DISCUSSION, RE: MARINA PARK

Chairman Scarborough advised Marina Park has been an item of discussion in meetings of the North Brevard Parks and Recreation Board and City Council of Titusville for many months; Mr. Nelson has put a memo together; and requested he review the factual basis before getting into public comments.

Parks and Recreation Director Charles Nelson advised he prepared a report for the Board as requested; and highlights of that are the Marina Park and use of a portion of that park by a business interest for expansion of a boat manufacturing business. He stated Marina Park is a City of Titusville park, given to the City in the 1960’s by the State for public and recreational purposes; a proposal was presented to the City for use of the park; and it evolved into the current request for five acres of the park. He stated the map indicates it is part of the waterfront parcel; the tract being requested is not specifically on the water, but is part of the parcel; and it would allow Jeff Gray, owner of Vectorworks, to expand his business. Mr. Nelson advised they have presented to the City Council a variety of discussions relating to the impact in terms of new jobs, new interests, etc.; the North Brevard Parks and Recreation Board was unable to come to a recommendation; it has been one of the most contentious issues that Board has ever faced; and in the end it was a four/four vote. He stated the City Council voted to advise the Board it would like to withdraw five acres of that property from the Agreement; staff is in the process of implementing the referendum passed in 2000; the improvements include Little League baseball fields, waterfront improvements, restrooms, pavilion, and parking associated with that plan; and it would use all 20 acres with more open space and more waterfront usage than the plan that would be constructed minus the five acres. Mr. Nelson stated if five acres is withdrawn from the park, it will become more compressed; and they would be able to build the improvements but it would not have the same feel it would have otherwise. He stated there was a question raised about the Interlocal Agreement with the City and if the City could withdraw five acres from the park; he asked County Attorney Scott Knox to look into that; and he may have an update on that request. He stated the Agreement allows the City to withdraw parks from the Agreement; but the question is if it allows a portion of a park to be withdrawn; and that is an issue Mr. Knox can address. He stated at this point the City is proceeding with the process of requesting an exchange of property with the State; there are representatives from the City here who may be able to explain that further and what its intentions are; and there are citizens to speak about the issue from their perspectives.

Chairman Scarborough inquired if the City would like to make a presentation first.

Roy Crawford, Executive Director of Community Development for the City of Titusville, advised he was recently hired; County staff has given an accurate representation of what the City is doing; it had a request; staff met with Mr. Gray and agreed to get a different version of what he would like to do; and Mr. Gray would like to expand his operations to create jobs for City residents and increase the tax based of the City. He stated the City Council said it would like to work with Mr. Gray and instructed staff to do that; their goal is to preserve the waterfront for enjoyment of everyone, as well as continue the park proposal covered under the referendum; and the City’s major goal is in doing that. Mr. Crawford advised some Council members heard the City was holding up improvements to the park because of the five-acre switch; the City Attorney advised the Council it could do what it has done; the City is willing to work with the County on a reasonable solution; and Mr. Gray has been asked to look at several alternatives, which may come forward soon. He stated Mr. Gray was asked but has not submitted plans to the City as yet. Chairman Scarborough stated the City sent a letter to the County saying it wants to withdraw five acres, but Mr. Crawford talked about a switch; and inquired if that has been defined; with Mr. Crawford responding it has not been defined. Chairman Scarborough inquired if Mr. Crawford has maps to help the Commissioners understand the situation; with Mr. Crawford responding there should be maps in the Agenda packet. Commissioner Higgs inquired if it is defined beyond that; with Mr. Crawford responding no.

Bill Horner of Titusville gave a background of himself, his education, and his residency; and stated he objects to Marina Park being sacrificed for economic development. He stated the Board has often repeated it desires feedback from citizens prior to making decisions; he is trying to comply with that guidance by suggesting some of the ritual that should apply before this sacrifice is carried out; and his suggestions have been passed on to the Board in the last two weeks in a number of letters he sent to the Commissioners. He stated in November 2000, the Board placed before the citizens of North Brevard a referendum on Marina Park; they voted to tax themselves for that park; and there was nothing in that referendum providing for carving out of five acres for the expansion of a boat-building operation. Mr. Horner stated from June through September 2000, there was contact between the boat-works and the City of Titusville regarding the expansion; and he wonders why Vectorworks does not use the land it already owns. He stated in the first plan Vectorworks presented to the City and North Brevard Parks and Recreation Commission had an assembly manufacturing building located on the three acres they own, known as the Sandpoint Inn Restaurant property; it is a tract immediately north of the current Marina Park; and inquired why do they want five acres of Marina Park when they have three acres already available to them. He stated in April 2002, the Brevard Parks and Recreation Commission presented the County staff’s concept for an open spacious park.

Chairman Scarborough advised Mr. Horner’s time has expired; and inquired is there a motion to extend. Mr. Horner stated it would only take a minute to finish. Chairman Scarborough stated he did not hear a motion to extend the time.

Ray Haskell of Titusville, stated he is a father and assistant coach of a Little Leaguer, and grew up on the California Coast where he watched it being ripped away by development; and as he drives down A1A, he sees the same thing happening. He stated Vectorworks and the City made the proposal and said it will bring 50 high-paying jobs to Titusville; the Board has heard rosy comments made that do not pan out; the land was donated to the veterans for public recreational use; the people voted on it; and it is not the City’s to give away. He stated the plot plan for improvements will squeeze the Little League fields together and surround them with water retention areas; and it would not look anything like it is being proposed. He stated he does not see how the City can unilaterally change what the voters approved without some revote by the public; there is a State law that mandates exchange of land at one to one; he does not see how the City is getting around that law; and the only City Council member who voted against it is Chris Broom. Mr. Haskell advised a number of years ago an action was brought to the City Council to build condos on the site; it was turned down by 85% to 15% vote; and across Garden Street on the south side they are now proposing another condo that will run to the river and take away more space. He stated the City was surreptitious in keeping this issue quiet; they barely heard about it until the last minute; the Parks and Recreation Board voted 4 to 4; but the most vocal critic of the proposal was mysteriously in Europe, or it would have been a 5 to 4 vote against it. He stated the Little League never polled its managers or boards and never told the parents about the proposal; last Saturday he talked to about 60 parents, all of whom did not know this was going on; and not one wanted it to happen. He stated they have worked hard; they have a new league coming up and a lot of good parents; and he would like to see the improvements go on and not be squeezed together. Mr. Haskell advised the issue before the City Council did not come up until well after midnight when everybody had gone to bed; he gets up at 5:30 a.m. to go to work, so it is hard to get out against these things; Vectorworks wanted to give the City the old Sandpoint Restaurant; and the folks who inspected it were the same folks who built it, so he would expect nothing less than a clean bill of health for the building. He stated it is State land, they should have contacted Representative Randy Ball, but they did not; Representative Ball knows now because he called him; if the Board is going to allow this to happen, they want to ensure the land is not given away; and they could lease it or borrow it. Mr. Haskell stated if they get the land and Administration puts out a luxury tax, boat building will stop like it did before and the business will recoil; they would then have five acres to build a condo; and he does not want to see that happen, as the citizens of Titusville will lose. He stated they could use the three acres they own; they could add multi-stories to their existing building to store the boats; and they are large boats, but not so large that they cannot be picked up and stored above. He noted the City engineering staff would help Vectorspace do that; and presented copies to the Board, but not the Clerk, of his comments. He stated he hopes the Board will vote it down and help the business grow, but not on public property.

James Rutland of Titusville stated he is opposed to losing any portion of Marina Park and wishes the Board the wisdom of Solomon to come to the truth of this matter, because from the beginning to now he could not decipher it. He stated Commissioner O'Brien made a comment several meetings ago about sweat equity; and requested the Board remember that.

Thelma Roper of Titusville encouraged the Board to look at this issue carefully; stated it is a park for recreation, children, and family activities; it is the fiber of the community and not another business; and they do not want to give up their recreational land to give it to a business. She stated she has no problem with business coming in, but not on the parks; there are other solutions to the problem that were mentioned before; Mr. Gray raised one that involved getting Florida East Coast Railway to put a crossing over the railroad tracks so he could use the property on the other side of the tracks; and that could have worked, but Florida East Coast Railway said it wanted the City to give up one of its crossings inside the city limits. Ms. Roper stated there is a crossing that is not used much; it could have been easily traded for the proposed crossing without a lot of inconvenience to the citizens; and that is only one solution out of a number that were presented. She stated giving five acres is the only solution the City Council has been considering; the City should not be allowed to let that happen; it should be forced to seriously consider and actively work towards all other options first, which it has not done; and that should be a requirement before it is allowed to give away the park. She inquired why is the City afraid to put it on the ballot to know how the people feel about the park; and noted it is because the City knows if it puts the park on the ballot, the people will tell it no.

Walter Pine of Titusville stated he hopes the Board will put this issue to rest; it needs to be voted on one way or another; he opposed it as do most citizens he spoke to; and the only people who support it are those who will gain financially. He stated there are a number of problems; one is a vote on the referendum for 22 acres; the Board supported that and should continue to support the 22 acres; and he is not against business, but there are other options that have not been properly considered. He stated the City represents that it has considered the options; the paper recently stated the City has not contacted the State or filed application to change the deed; the preparatory work would normally be done prior to asking the Board to approve it or at least some investigation would have been done; and there are a number problems with some of the decisions that were made. He stated they will file an affidavit with the Commission on Ethics regarding the last vote by the City of Titusville; and in conversation with the Commission on Ethics, there is some information it needs before it can determine if there has been a violation of ethics in the decisions. He stated there is a question of the inspection of the building being done by the original contractor who has a vested interest in showing that the building will stand the test of time; there are a number of things that have not been quite right; but the overall thing is the public came out and said no; however, the City continues to invest time and money into the project, and the County has as well. Mr. Pine stated there comes a time when a decision needs to be made; it is past that time; years have been put into this project; the basic research and application to change the deed should have been done, but have not; and chances are it will be defeated once the City requests it. He inquired if they are not going to be able to do it by another avenue, why should they be able to do it by this avenue; stated the point is there is some funny business going on; he does not know if it is people failing to do their job or what, or whether they want to argue about it or not; but all that matters is that the people came before the City and County and said they want the quality of the park to remain the same, and it will not happen if five acres is taken away. He stated the Little League discussed it with the City; one overreaching condition is the experience for the children must be the same; and it is not going to be if the ballparks are crammed close together. He stated if that property is taken out, it is not going to be the same park, and will not be consistent with the referendum; and requested the Board put the issue to rest and vote no so that no more time and money are spent on it. Mr. Pine stated it is teaching the children that they can trade a park for industry; it can trade environmentally-sensitive lands for industry; today it is five acres, and tomorrow or next week it will be more; and eventually there will be nothing left of the park. He stated seven generations of his family live in Titusville; they were there when the property was filled, when the volunteer work was done, and in World War II when it was not there; it is part of their heritage; and they do not want to see it turned into an industrial park. He stated he does not want to see children in a ball field next to an industrial park; he sees no reason why it has to be done that way; the amount of taxes to be gained from turning it into industry is insignificant compared to what will be lost to the children and future of the community; and again requested the Board put it to rest and vote no.

Nelly Strickland of Titusville stated the whole issue stinks from beginning to end; it was a year before they found out it was going on; and inquired if that was so they could cook stuff up before it got public. She stated there is a lot of insistence in having that particular piece, but it can be done other ways; in the first place Mr. Gray should not have built there; Oak Hill would have been far better for many reasons; there are fewer taxes and a lot of boat manufacturers there; and they are set up for it and would be glad to see him. She stated she would love to see him go; she admired the Board in the past for protecting property and raising a bond issue to buy and protect lands; and it is public land designated for recreation and other public use, and they are trying to dicker it away. She stated it makes no sense at all; the Board is above that kind of attitude; in the 1970’s they defeated a similar thing by a lot of public protest; and the City Council knows her because she has been here a long time. Ms. Strickland requested the Board solve the problem and say no, and look with an eye to the future; and inquired if Mr. Gray needs to be that big now, how much bigger will he have to be in ten years if he succeeds. She expressed doubt that he would succeed because he has a big debt and everything is committed to that debt; so the City will not be compensated financially. She stated it is her personal opinion that he will go out of business and sell the property to a developer and the people will have what they do not want there. She stated it was donated to the public as a place for their families and children to play; and if they do not execute one item that accompanied the North Brevard Parks and Recreation referendum, as far as she is concerned, it invalidates the whole referendum. She stated she will work hard to defeat the whole referendum if that is what it will take. She requested the Board keep the land, use good judgment, and vote no.

J. J. Parrish III of Titusville stated he lives in the old downtown area, down the street from the proposed transaction; his family has been in Titusville since 1907; and he has spent most of his life in Titusville. He stated he is working with Jeff Gray to help this project come about because he believes it is good public policy; his family has property interest in the area; he watched the downtown community try to redevelop downtown without enough people to make it work; so the increased jobs in the area will not degenerate the quality of life. He stated it was a T-craft plant built by Rodney Thompson; he watched it fall in and around itself as he drives by there every day; what Mr. Gray has done is take it out of the rust bucket and restore the buildings; and he has a very successful business going on there. He noted it is truly a success story, and one that he is excited about happening in the community. Mr. Parrish advised the kind of products he is building are 130-foot mega-yachts and offshore racers; Vectorworks wants room to grow; the only problem is it is landlocked; and he has been talking to Mr. Gray for almost two years about the possibility of doing something about the growth. He stated Mr. Gray is a creative thinker and tried to think of every possible way to solve his problem, grow his business, and have a healthy respect for the public park next to him; and that is at the forefront of his mind as he tries to work through the issues and explore every viable option and research the facts. He stated the reason there is no application is because the project continues to change to refine the ideas and find a win/win situation that will work; and urged the Board to hold a position until it has something solid to vote on. He stated there is no application filed; the City and Mr. Gray are continuing to work and refine it to find the best that can be provided; and urged the Board to listen and sort out the facts from the smoke screen. He stated it is difficult, when it hears a lot of emotional pleas, but he knows the Board will consider the substantial facts behind the arguments. He stated the quality of life is more than parks on the water; it is a big part of it; and Titusville is blessed with a number of parks on the water, a great beach, and inland parks, as well as a wildlife refuge across the river; so there is plenty of access for different lifestyles. Mr. Parrish stated he did not hear any of the speakers mention facts; it does not have to be innuendoes; there is always a trade-off with issues; and there is no way to totally get a win for the quality of life. He noted it would be wonderful but that is not reality; this is a difficult trade- off; Mr. Gray has thought hard outside the box; and encouraged the Board to give him the opportunity to continue to grow his business so Titusville can have one more successful business winner.

Joan Wheeler of Titusville stated she read in the newspaper that the State’s 2002-03 budget has $360 million to issue bonds for land purchases in Florida Forever and Save Our Rivers Programs; but the City seems to have its priorities backwards.

Jim Egan, Executive Director of Marine Resources Council (MRC), stated the MRC has been very involved in acquisition of lands for public places and riverfront property in particular because it has such tremendous value to the community, not just as a recreational resource, but also for the opportunity to do the right thing in terms of the shoreline and increasing the habitat in the lagoon. He stated five acres of riverfront property is incredibly expensive land; they are at their wits end trying to find new parcels they can purchase; and to see a major loss of five acres on the Indian River is a tremendous setback. He stated the State regulations require the exchange benefit the public and the land be of equal value and involve an acre for an acre or better; so he does not see how this project is going to fly; however, he has seen a lot of things that should not have flown but sometimes did for people who were not concerned about it. Mr. Egan stated what makes this case troubling from the County’s perspective is that the citizens voted to invest in this parcel; the County should be applauded for the tremendous investment it makes to its parks; the City of Titusville benefits from that at every opportunity; but at the same time, it brings into question if the County is investing taxpayers’ dollars into a park that could be turned into an industrial park. He inquired if they are taking five acres today, who is to say they are not going to take five more acres tomorrow, and is this the place the County should be investing money. He stated the County is playing a major role in terms of making the parks valuable for the community and citizens of Titusville; the citizens voted to enhance the park; there was no specific referendum on whether they wanted to give a portion of it away; and nobody would vote to invest tax dollars to improve something and give part of it away. He stated it does not make logical sense; the County should look into this carefully and make every attempt not to appear to acquiesce to the idea of giving away public lands without an acre-for-acre exchange as the State requires.

Bea Polk of Titusville requested the Board give them an answer so they can take it to the State; and stated the State would like to know what the Board is concerned with when she talks; so if she can get the Board today to vote one way or another, then they will know where they stand. She stated the Board is responsible because it advertised the park for a referendum; the people are paying taxes already; she has nothing against business; but Mr. Gray knew when the referendum was going on that he needed more land. She inquired why did the City not tell the taxpayers the truth, and why did it lie for a year when it was so enthused about giving the land to Mr. Gray. She stated she heard the business people come up and say it is going to be great; some of those people already went bankrupt, so they know this project could go bankrupt; so if the City gives away the land, the new owner can sell it to anyone they want to if they go bankrupt. Ms. Polk stated the City has not found out if the old restaurant building is worth what it is trading for; and there is nothing in writing on the value. She stated one of the men on the Parks and Recreation Board who voted for it resigned at the next meeting because he was very ill; but he was for it and stayed on to vote to give away the property. She stated another member had a conflict and worked for them; then all of a sudden he did not work for them, but went back part-time; so there are two people who are not serving the public’s interest. She stated she likes some of the boards the Board appoints, but sometimes they do not support the interest of the people; and inquired what is the Board going to do since the committee it appointed deadlocked on the vote to give away the park property. She stated it falls back on the five Commissioners; today the public would like the Board to keep the park and land; and that is why they are here at the meeting. Ms. Polk stated the Board has to make a decision; it should not think about the additional jobs because there are no guarantees; and it should think about what giving away the land will do for the community and the children. She stated she has great-grandchildren and wants them to be able to use the park; five acres is how it starts; and later on, if he is successful, he would not be able to move and would want another five acres. She requested the Board take the money the people are paying and put it to work where they were told it would go; and today it should make a decision for the taxpayers.

Elaine Graham of Titusville stated there is a connection between this project and her concern about the water rate increase and how that affects water resources; it is an Indian River lagoon issue; and inquired if the Board is going to vote for a boat-building business with thousands of chemicals approximate to the lagoon. She inquired where are all her people when she is trying to guard the most valuable resource, the Indian River lagoon; and requested the Board vote for the good people who came here to guard their most valuable economic resource. She inquired if Titusville values the Indian River lagoon.

Jeff Gray, owner and CEO of Vectorworks, stated an old saying is that two reasonable people equally informed rarely disagree; unfortunately, what he faces and what he has faced for the last year and half is massive misinformation, which muddied the waters enough to make it a difficult decision for everybody. He stated if everybody understood the facts and were reasonable, it would be easy to agree; but a mass of people coming up misinforming the Board makes it impossible to come to a decision. He stated a gentleman said something about stacking boats; this week he is launching a 136-foot 150-ton yacht that is 40 feet tall; and he would like to have that gentleman show him how to stack that yacht in a 40-foot building. He stated that kind of misinformation and ignorance is what led them down this path; it is terribly frustrating for him; and the business about a conspiracy and things going on behind the back is nonsense. Mr. Gray stated the facts are they presented a proposal and in that proposal they asked for any suggestions, said they are open to any of them, and asked they tell him what they want, and he will work it into the proposal. He stated all he needs is room to expand; and rather than work with him, a faction of people went out and fought it and said they would fight it to the death no matter what it is. He stated he gave a proposal he thought was excellent for the community, his business and Little League; the Little League came out and supported it, contrary to what the Board heard today; the Little League Board voted on it and said it wanted to see Vectorworks expand and could fit the park on that facility; and the requirements of the referendum for four fields, concession stands, pavilion, and playground can all be done on the 17.5 acres. Mr. Gray advised he has been working with the City to not take the five acres, but to keep his facilities within his property and only share parking and retention, which will leave the park essentially the same as they voted on by the referendum; and if the Board were to ask 20 people who voted for the referendum what it said about Marina Park, not one would understand the nuances of those requirements and would be unable to list them for the Board right now. He stated he also had to fight a woman screaming behind him every time he tried to speak publicly; and asked the Board to understand his frustration as a business owner listening to the massive misinformation each time he gets into a public forum and having to debate it each time. He stated what they are proposing right now and working with the City on is very dynamic and changing all the time, so it is difficult to vote on something that the Board does not know the facts of yet; what he is looking at right now has no impact on the park because the retention has to be there and there is going to be parking; and they just want to share the areas. He stated their parking will be primarily during the day, and the park’s parking would primarily be in the evening; it would work out great; and the synergy would work out well. Mr. Gray advised he is an advocate of Little League and sponsors one of the Little League teams; he grew up at W. W. James Field where his father was the caretaker; they lived in Titusville since 1965 and have been involved in Little League since he was a child; and he played high school baseball and college baseball, so he is about as involved in baseball as anyone can get. He stated to listen to the people, one would think he does not want the park, particularly a waterfront park; that is another piece of misinformation; they never asked for waterfront property, not under any circumstances have they suggested that Vectorworks needed property on the water; and they asked for five acres of inland property. He stated Mr. Egan talked about more shoreline; they did not ask for shoreline, they asked for five acres inland of the shore; and at one point they proposed swapping more shoreline so the City and County would have additional waterfront property. He stated at this point they do not need to do either; the County can use the park as planned; they can keep their buildings on their land; and they can share parking and retention; and that is all they need. He requested the Board forget the misinformation and listen to the facts.

Wes Hoaglund of Titusville, advised he has been coordinating the redevelopment program for the City for almost 14 years; in 1991, they did a waterfront master plan, in 1992 they did a space walk of fame plan, and in 1996 they did a redevelopment plan update; they had dozens of public meetings with hundreds of citizens; and all those plans show commercial development of one form or another on that park property, with the exception of the water’s edge. He stated when he first came to the City, the facility was the abandoned Thompson Trawler site; they looked desperately for years to find someone who would occupy it and fix it up; it was an embarrassment at that time; and now it is something the community can be proud of. Mr. Hoaglund stated the City and Brevard County need high-end good paying jobs; Vectorworks provides those; other communities would love to steal the business away from the City with the associated jobs; and the City wants to keep it here. He stated the shoreline is not an issue; people can still fish and enjoy the waterfront from the shoreline, but if they were on Marina Road, they could do neither; somewhere between those two points is not shoreline or riverfront, and becomes upland property; and that is what Mr. Gray is asking for to expand his business. He stated he went through the City’s entire Comprehensive Plan; it is what the community voted for; and the public that appeared before the Board today does not represent the majority of citizens of Titusville who have come out through the planning processes.

Chairman Scarborough advised Mr. Nelson had legal questions that were not addressed at the time; and requested the County Attorney respond to those and advise the Board of its legal posture.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised the Board has an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Titusville, which has certain provisions that allow the County to use the property for park purposes; the Agreement provides for the City to pull park projects out of the list of parks attached to the Agreement, one of which is Marina Park; but it does not say anything about removing portions of a park, just speaks to parks themselves. He stated there are also provisions in the Agreement that the County not do anything inconsistent with development plans that the City was contemplating at the time the Agreement was entered into; and he does not know if this project falls in those development plans or not. He noted based upon what Mr. Hoaglund said, it may be the case. He stated there are some issues about whether or not this can be done legally and if it can be done with the County’s agreement. Chairman Scarborough stated the City did not ask for an agreement; all he saw was a letter from the City Manager to the County Manager advising the five acres had been withdrawn from the park; and inquired if that requires any action on the part of the Board; with Mr. Knox responding if the County acquiesces in the arrangement that the City has tried to unilaterally suggest in that letter, there is an issue whether or not it would waive any rights it might have to object to it; and if the County says nothing about it and lets it go forward, he is not sure it would have a standing to complain about it; and that would be his legal take on the issue. Chairman Scarborough requested Mr. Knox touch on the equitable estoppel issue; with Mr. Knox responding Titusville approved the Marina Park as part of a Resolution involving the referendum that went out to the people; everything went forward without Titusville’s objection at the time and with its support; so there is an issue whether or not that somehow estops the City from trying to change things now. He noted that is another issue that could be addressed in the future.

Chairman Scarborough advised the referendum including purchase of property by Pinewood Elementary School, but the property was not under contract; the price was exorbitant, so the purchase had to be abandoned; and now the issue with Titusville becomes more difficult because not only did the Board have a prior understanding, it may use equitable estoppel understanding the City proceeded forward and did certain things. He stated a lot of people are addressing the City’s capacity to do that since it does not own the property without any strings attached; the State has strings attached; that goes beyond the County’s; but if the Board wants to pursue the issue and get involved in it, it needs to know the Parks and Recreation Board has jurisdiction for the parks in North Brevard because the ad valorem tax, which is an MSTU, applies to the City and County and the Board has half of the appointments and the City has half. He stated ironically the votes of the Recreation Board were not the County one way and the City the other way; it was drawn by philosophical lines; but the issue was not resolved. Chairman Scarborough stated he does not know whether they can do anything if they have been told by the City that five acres have been withdrawn; and they wonder what role they can play if the City told them they cannot look at it. Mr. Nelson stated they are questioning where they go from here. Chairman Scarborough stated all they were supposed to do was discuss what goes on the referendum; they created subcommittees, and the subcommittees worked with A&E firms and did the actual planning of the parks; so they have orchestrated something that brought County and City forces together. He stated they tried to listen to this issue; it has not been fruitful for them; the final blow was when the City withdrew or notified Mr. Jenkins it was withdrawing five acres; and that is how he sees the situation. He noted previously he felt it was very much before the Parks and Recreation Board and the Board probably jumped the gun to get involved; but at this time, the Board could ask Mr. Knox to look at the legal questions and the posture of the Board with the City once it was notified by the City Manager that the five acres were removed. He inquired what is the pleasure of the Board; with Commissioner Higgs inquiring what is the Chairman’s pleasure. Chairman Scarborough stated it would be appropriate for the County Attorney to prepare a letter and send it to the City Attorney raising those questions.

Commissioner Higgs stated it would also be the proper thing, since the County was notified by the City Manager that it was going to remove the acreage, to advise the City Manager the Board objects and would like to work with the Council to do something different if the Board does not think it is in the best interest of the public. She stated in the meantime Mr. Knox can research the legal issues, but advise the City it was nice to let the County know its position. Chairman Scarborough stated the Mayor did not write to him asking for his opinion; the City Manager wrote to the County Manager and said five acres is no longer there; and the Board can respond that it wants to talk to the City Council, but it has not been invited to the table by anybody. Commissioner Higgs stated she understands that, and does not mind Mr. Knox researching what the Board’s position might be and be able to advise on that; but the City did let the County know what its position is so Mr. Knox can send a letter to the City Attorney and at the same time send a letter to the City Manager advising that the Board heard comments on this and does not feel it is in the best interest of the public, if that is where the Board is on this issue.

Commissioner Colon stated she supports Commissioner Higgs’ statement, but it is personally uncomfortable for her to step in and deal with issues within municipalities, especially coming from a municipality after five years of experience there. She stated no one likes to be told what to do; unfortunately it does involve the County because there is an Agreement and there was a referendum approved; and that is why the Board cannot step away from this issue. She inquired if it is true they are talking about just parking and retention being a part of the bigger picture; and will those things have to take place when the County constructs improvements to the park. She stated it does not make sense to give up any part of the park when they could use something that the County would be doing anyway through contract; and inquired if that was discussed. Mr. Nelson stated early on there was discussion about joint use of parking and stormwater retention, then it went through a new series of changes; and after the City Council voted a few weeks ago, it appears that has resurfaced. He stated the Board heard Mr. Gray mention today that he would be receptive to that; it sounds more positive in nature than what they have seen, but staff does not know exactly what that will mean; however, it would improve discussions. He stated staff has not seen a proposal at this point, but it is more positive than carving out five acres. Commissioner Colon inquired why would anyone have to give up anything when they are talking about something that has to be done already in regards to parking and retention; and it is something she would want the Board to be updated on. She stated it is uncomfortable telling a municipality what to do, but it is something the Board has to vote on; and she is glad it will do that this afternoon because something was brought to the Board by citizens of Titusville months ago that something was going to happen at the park. She stated the Board was being sensitive by letting the Parks and Recreation Board give it direction; it was also trying to be respectful of the City and not step in unless it had to; so she will support a motion of Commissioner Higgs’ statements.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to authorize the County Attorney to send a letter to the City Attorney and City Manager of Titusville, advising that the Board heard comments on the issue and politely expressing the Board’s objections to removal of five acres from Marina Park.

Commissioner O'Brien stated there may be a secondary solution if the property is required or wanted for parking only; and they could grant an easement to the company but retain ownership and have a shared easement for public access and parking for their employees.

Chairman Scarborough stated he heard what everybody is saying, but the action of the City in removing it from the planning process has basically taken the Parks and Recreation Board out of the planning of even the parking configuration and how it should operate. He stated the County can talk all it wants to, but there is a moment when the State is going to become involved because there are handles the State has on the property; and the State may or may not like this thing. He stated it would be helpful if the Board knew precisely what was being proposed and could examine it within those contexts; if it had been that simple, it would not be hearing it today; and part of it Mr. Nelson alluded to comes and goes as dreams in the night.

Mr. Knox inquired if the Board wants him to raise the issue that was brought up about easements and cross parking as part of the letter to the City Attorney. Chairman Scarborough recommended Mr. Knox circulate a copy of his letter, not for the purpose of approval, but to make sure he incorporates what the Board discussed and that the Board understands the concepts being conveyed, as it will be Mr. Knox’s letter and not the Board’s.

Commissioner Carlson stated she has no problem getting a report from Mr. Knox, but has a problem objecting to the City because it is premature to do that without knowing all the facts. She stated as Mr. Gray commented, there are some issues that might work to the County’s benefit; and by objecting too early, it could create some issues with the City that it does not need to create. She stated if the Board takes the motions, she would appreciate if they could be separated.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board could object to removal of five acres from the park; and at some point the City may come back and say it does not have to be removed from use by the park and other accommodations could be made. She stated she would separate the motion, but objects to the removal of the five acres from the park and wants that to be clear; it may not be the Board’s objection, but it is her objection.

Chairman Scarborough stated it may be inconsistent to remove it from the park and then say it will be used and developed for park purposes and park retention; and if it is going to be part of the park and they are going to have usage, the Board should have a use agreement for an easement and not get into more complex issues. He stated what he is hearing from the County Attorney is that the Board needs to do something because it received a letter from the City Manager to the County Manager; and the Board needs to respond to remain in the dialogue to address alternatives it wants. Commissioner Carlson stated she does not have a problem if Mr. Knox said the Board needs to continue the conversation in order to object; she does not want to close the door to the obvious possibilities out there; so one motion is okay. Chairman Scarborough stated raising the issue indicates the Board is not acquiescing to the concept. Mr. Knox noted it would give some legal posture. Commissioner Higgs stated perhaps it should also go to the City Council and the Mayor. Chairman Scarborough commented Mr. Knox can copy all of them, copy the world, and publish it in the newspaper.

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

Chairman Scarborough advised he received two more cards from the public; and inquired if the Board wishes to re-open public comments. No affirmative response was heard.

The meeting recessed at 12:26 p.m., and reconvened at 2:00 p.m.

REQUEST TO FILE PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING, RE: CITY OF COCOA’S
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR BREVARD CROSSINGS

Chairman Scarborough instructed County Attorney Scott Knox to advise the Board of the status regarding a petition for administrative hearing on the City of Cocoa’s Comprehensive Plan amendments to accommodate Brevard Crossings.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised at a prior meeting, the Board asked him to do a report on options it had on the Brevard Crossings plan amendments passed by the City of Cocoa; and he prepared a memorandum on that describing its only option at this point as being to appeal the decision made by the City, which has to be done by May 28, 2002. He noted that is why Mr. Sphar sought to have it put on the Agenda today.

Doug Sphar, representing the Sierra Club Turtle Coast Group, advised the amendment to the City of Cocoa’s Comprehensive Plan was adopted March 12, 2002; and it is a massive rewrite of the Comprehensive Plan, which weakens protection for wetlands, listed species, the 100-year floodplain, and stormwater management. He stated the changes apply to all future development within the City; and who knows what seeds for future problems are being sown with the extensive change to Plan language. He stated there is a possibility of costly impacts to the public infrastructure of the County; if Cocoa pulls this off, other municipalities would be tempted to try the same gamut; and this late in the process, none of the proposed changes in objectives and policies went through the comprehensive multi-agency review that the original transmittal version received. He stated Cocoa will say Department of Community Affairs will find the amendment to be in compliance, but what does that mean these days; a newspaper article said historically Department of Community Affairs rejected about 15% of plan amendments; under the current Director, rejection rate has dropped to 2.3%; and Charles Patterson, Thousand Friends of Florida Executive Director, said the Department of Community Affairs has shifted emphasis from strict compliance to a more differential attitude. Mr. Sphar stated the kind of review of the transmittal version plan sent a very comprehensive list of inconsistencies to the Department of Community Affairs; the Department of Community Affairs gave a lot of weight to the County’s comments because they are reflected in the hard hitting ORC report that was issued by Department of Community Affairs; and the City of Cocoa is now presented with a dilemma of how to deal with the 35 significant inconsistencies that were identified in the ORC. He stated the result was the massive rewrite of the Comprehensive Plan adopted on March 12, 2002; the irony of the situation is in trying to do the right thing, the County made things worst; and the County conscientiously commented on the transmittal version, but those comments were a strong factor in the creation of the more far-reaching negative impacts reflected in the adopted Plan. He stated the County played a key role in getting the ship off course; the right thing for the County to do now is stay on board and help steer the ship back on course; and the right thing to do is not walk away from something the County helped to create. Mr. Sphar stated the right thing for the County to do is administratively challenge the Department of Community Affairs’ finding of compliance under Chapter 120 of the Florida Statutes. He noted it is not a pleasant thing to do, but it is the right thing to do.

Janice Scott, Mayor of the City of Cocoa Beach, advised she has a letter the City Commission asked her to bring to the Board; and if it does not mind, she would like to read the letter. She read the letter as follows: “Dear County Commissioners. On behalf of the Cocoa Beach City Commission, we would like to inform you that when the City of Cocoa recently asked the City of Cocoa Beach to pass a resolution in support of the proposed Brevard Crossings mall, a $250 million, 1.1 million square-foot mall, we declined. There are many very good reasons to oppose this sprawl into the wetlands west of Merritt Island Wildlife Refuge--a plan to destroy 100 acres of wetlands with a $2 million mitigation in Orange County. How can this be viewed as improvement? Florida is still experiencing a severe drought. Our City has been asked to conserve water by our supplier, the City of Cocoa, which is pumped from the Orlando aquifer. Water demand for this project will be considerable. It is difficult for us to sell the conservation message when our conservation efforts will be sucked up by a 1.1 million square-foot mall. Water is not an unlimited resource. Man can survive for many days without food, but it is water that sustains life. Not even one-celled creatures can survive without water. The 1995 long-term wetlands improvements on NASA property for example has added 250 water control structures to the original 100 water control gates to manage the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge. It requires well-paid scientists and biologists to monitor water levels continuously. A recent article in the National Geographic indicated that wildlife is seriously stressed by our reckless behavior, and man is being successful in shortening the period of extinction of some species to a mere four years. The attached National Geographic map clearly illustrates the importance of the migratory flyway through Brevard County on Florida’s East Coast; and these wetlands are part of that flyway. They provide habitat for shorebirds and migratory birds that fly 7,000 to 14,000 miles, and we feel very fortunate to live within the most important flyway for migratory birds in the United States. Pelican Island just south of us, our first federal preserve in the nation that exists in Indian River County, has been negatively impacted by development there and so many of those birds now refuge in Cocoa Beach’s Thousand Islands. Florida treasures its wildlife, and vistas of shorebirds appear on many tourist ads, which indicate there is great economic interest in our wetlands and preserves. Many of your constituents live here in this County because of this natural environment. The habitat these undeveloped wetlands provide is priceless, and we don’t want it sold for $2 million. The Department of Community Affairs recently discussed the need for Comprehensive Plan policies to address the water issue. We hope you will ask for their assistance in defeating this project. All of us Floridians, particularly we elected officials of Florida, have an obligation to preserve our State’s assets for posterity. The City of Cocoa Beach asks you to intervene in any way possible to preserve our State’s irreplaceable natural resources, our wetlands, and do what you can to stop this project. Thank you for considering this matter.” Mayor Scott stated the letter is not against Cocoa; Cocoa Beach has a very good relationship with Cocoa; however, when the City asked them to conserve water so they can build a project of this magnitude, she has a problem selling that conservation message. She stated they are in a long-term drought situation; Cocoa Beach collects the most tourist dollars of any city in the County; and nobody has considered what the impact of being on water conservation is going to be on the hotels having to tell guests they may not be able to take a shower. She stated she hopes the Board will give that its thought because water should be an interlocal government concurrency issue and nobody asked the City of Cocoa Beach for its input.

James Egan, Executive Director of Marine Resources Council, stated situations like this are going to be repeating themselves a lot as they continue to have annexing of areas of the County that it has in its Comprehensive Plan and going into cities’ plans; and they are going to see the continuing struggle. He stated it used to be they could count on Department of Community Affairs matching up cities and counties’ comprehensive plans; there were always some reasonable boundaries that could be expected; and Department of Community Affairs being the watchdog has been good at growling but slow to bite anyone; so the Board will see more and more of this activity happening where a city wants to take a parcel of land and go in a different direction. He stated the cities will have to have their Comprehensive Plans give them greater flexibility; part of the problem with that is that a city can be influenced by a single development much more readily than the County; the County has a bigger area to worry about; and sadly some of the proposed changes and weakening of Comprehensive Plans the Board can expect to see will not leave it in a position in which it can safely plan for the future of those areas. Mr. Egan stated that area is annexed and completely changed in terms of its use; the wetland protection will completely change; other protections that are available in an area will change; so it is a serious issue of concern. He stated it is difficult to come up with recommendations because of the limited window; and seeking legal expertise about what the options and alternatives of those things happening are will not give the County Attorney a lot of time to research it because the Board has to dispute the Department of Community Affairs issue in the next week. He stated it will not give the County Attorney an opportunity to do a tremendous research, unless he has already done it, to give the Board any sort of impact, but he would be interested in hearing his perspective because in the old days he does not think the County would be faced with this kind of situation. He stated the Board would safely be assured that no matter what happened, once the plan came back from Department of Community Affairs it would pretty much look like the plans that are in the County or any neighboring cities. He stated the fact they are on new ground where cities can go their own way and not necessarily be consistent with some of the things that were true of an area prior to the changes, that is a whole new ball game for the County.

Les Merritt of Cocoa stated he lives in Brevard County just outside the city limits of Cocoa and owns property in other parts of the County; his neighbors in the City of Cocoa have spoken and want the mall; and he does not want his tax money going to Brevard County to be used to fight the project. He stated he would rather the taxes he sends to the County go to other projects. He stated Brevard Crossing project is good for Cocoa and the area; from his understanding the project has been planned for three to four years with numerous meetings; and he has been to some of them. Mr. Merritt stated the questions about environmental concerns, traffic, employment, quality of life, etc. have all been addressed over those three to four years; so he believes the project is good for the area and good for the County. He stated he supports the project and hopes the Board does not spend tax money appealing it.

Bob Brewster of Cocoa stated he lives in the area of the proposed mall and does not oppose it; and he and most of his neighbors welcome it. He stated he writes articles for Brevard Insider and his main coverage is the Brevard County School District; sometimes it takes him two or three years to gather information for one article; and one that comes to mind is the correlation between Cocoa High School’s graduation rate and juvenile crime in the Cocoa area. He stated the total number of crime incidents recorded by the Brevard County Sheriff’s Office and the Cocoa Police Department shows Cocoa has the highest rate; students who do not graduate make up those statistics; the fastest growing rate today is teenage girls; and computing Cocoa High’s graduation rate by comparing the number of students entering 9th grade to the number that graduate is just over 50%, contrary to what the School District talks about because it computes the rate a different way. Mr. Brewster stated school administrators blame the figures on the fact that 77% of the students in Cocoa schools qualify for the free lunch program; parents do not pay enough attention to their children’s education and children do not go to school ready to learn; and most of all Cocoa students have a high transient rate. He stated there are those who are trapped in Cocoa and make up the population of two or three generations of welfare recipients; and many single parents trying to support a family on what they make have to work two jobs and cannot devote the required time with their children. He stated when he came to Brevard County, he shopped at Byrd Plaza and Sears in Rockledge because they were the only shopping centers in the area without driving to Orlando; when the Board allowed contractors to build Merritt Square Mall, Cocoa lost hundreds of jobs and restaurants failed and closed their doors; and that carried over to the local business community. Mr. Brewster stated Cocoa is trying to recover, but recovery is slow; the beautification projects are admirable but they do not provide good breakfasts for school children to start the day ready to receive their education; the Superintendent of Schools wants Brevard County to rank first in the State; and when he averages Brevard’s schools leaving Cocoa out, it is already there in most categories. He stated now some people want to hold this recovery back by not supporting the one project that will provide jobs needed to reverse the social economic status of the area; and over time it will help Cocoa schools to be up to the quality that the Commissioners’ other constituents already enjoy.

Franck Kaiser, representing Homebuilders Association of Brevard, advised he was at the meeting when the project was addressed earlier and is here today to reiterate that this is going to create a great number of jobs that are needed in Brevard County. He stated the construction community feels it is a positive project and does not feel it would be a good expenditure of taxpayers’ money to appeal the project that has gone through all the hoops and processes that the government has set forth, and passed all those tests. He stated they feel it is self evident that it is a good project for Brevard County in the long run; whether it was Merritt Square Mall or any other project or the causeways that were built long ago, they had to fill in the river or roads; and for SR 528 to Orlando, they filled in wetlands. He stated people were probably opposed to those projects at the time, but everyone has benefited from those projects. Mr. Kaiser stated it is good for the entire community, and they want to reiterate their support for Brevard Crossings Mall and oppose any appeal of the project.

Edward Slaney, representing Partnership for a Sustainable Future, stated the proposed amendments to the City of Cocoa’s Comprehensive Plan significantly weaken protection for wetlands, the 100-year floodplain, and listed species as well as regulations for stormwater management; County staff has determined there are impacts to the regional wetland system as well as other protected areas; and staff should determine what the impacts are for increased need of publicly-funded infrastructure. He requested the Board accept what it can accept and oppose what it has to oppose.

Bill Parsons advised he is a native Floridian and supports the Brevard Crossings project; he has been around a long time and watched a lot of developments; and one reason he is for the project is because of what they are standing in right now. He stated this area was farmland and Wickham Road was two-laned; it is something they are proud of at this point; and the Board should give Cocoa the same opportunity to have an area they would be proud of. He stated he recently purchased the Days Inn in Cocoa with other associates; they spent a lot of money renovating it for two reasons--(1) Cocoa Expo, which generates 58,000 room nights a year for Central Brevard, and (2) because of Brevard Crossings development. Mr. Parsons stated with this type of development, Cocoa Expo will have the opportunity to market Central Brevard even more and bring in more people by giving them more things to do. He stated he represents two hotels in Cocoa Beach; guests come to Cocoa Beach and do not spend their money because they take day trips to the Florida Mall to purchase goods and services; so the County is losing a great opportunity to see an area develop and more tax revenues raised in this area. He stated he hopes the Board will oppose any type of litigation to defeat this worthwhile project.

Laurilee Thompson of Mims, representing the Indian River Audubon Society, stated they join the Sierra Club Turtle Coast Group, League of Women Voters of the Space Coast, and Partnership for a Sustainable Future in a petition for an administrative hearing regarding changes to Cocoa’s Comprehensive Plan. She stated the Audubon Society believes the numerous amendments to the Comprehensive Plan will greatly weaken protection for wetlands, the floodplain, and federal and State listed species, and does not want provisions weakened for the area. She stated the Society supports responsible growth and is concerned that by rewriting the Comprehensive Plan, the City of Cocoa does not represent good planning practices or sustainable growth management. Ms. Thompson stated the Society urges the Board to follow the direction of local citizen-based organizations and file a petition for an administrative hearing.

John Ide of Cape Canaveral stated he is here to read a letter from David Laney, 5990 Bronco Avenue, Cocoa, who apologizes for not being present due to prior obligations that prevented his attendance; and read the letter as follows: “Let me begin by saying I wholeheartedly concur with and support the statements and observations made before this Commission during this and previous public hearings concerning the adverse environmental and ecological impacts, which would accrue from allowing the development of Brevard Crossings. While I believe there is sufficient basis to rigorously object to this development on these issues alone, I feel an even larger and potentially more far-reaching issue is at hand. This issue transcends even the significant environmental and ecological consequences inherent to the development of Brevard Crossings. In 1985, the Florida State Legislature passed the Growth Management Act, Section 163.3161, Florida Statutes. This Act required every county and municipality in Florida to develop and follow a comprehensive plan when approving developments. Among the goals and policies established by the Florida State Comprehensive Plan, Florida Statutes 187.101(10), titled Natural Systems and Recreational Lands, it states in part as the first goal, ‘Florida shall protect and acquire unique natural habitats and ecological systems such as wetlands.’ The stated policies of the Florida Comprehensive Plan include, ‘to conserve forest, wetlands, fish and marine life, and wildlife to maintain their environmental, economic, aesthetic, and recreational values, and to prohibit the destruction of endangered species and protect their habitats.’ The intent for application of the goals and policies of the Florida State Comprehensive Plan as described by Florida Statutes 187.101, stating, ‘the goals and policies contained in the State Comprehensive Plan shall be reasonably applied where they are economically and environmentally feasible, not contrary to the public interest.’ As I’m, sure you noticed, the State does not say ‘should’ protect wetlands, rather it specifically says ‘shall’ protect wetlands; and these guidelines are to be reasonably applied where they are environmentally and economically feasible, not contrary to the public interest. To this point the City of Cocoa has not demonstrated a compelling reason for not complying with these goals and policies as set forth by the State. In the aggregate there has been no objectively determined, compelling, defendable, long-term economic benefit to the impacted region proven to accrue from Brevard Crossings development. Additionally, there has been no objectively determined, compelling, defendable present or long-term unmet public interest or social need identified within the impacted region demonstrated to be satisfied by the Brevard Crossings development. Therefore, there has been no case made to assert the necessity of noncompliance with the stated intent of the policies and goals established by the Florida State Comprehensive Plan. The fact that the City of Cocoa has a statutory obligation to consider the spirit and intent of the goals and policies of the Florida State Comprehensive Plan, but also to consider the consistency of their plan with those of the surrounding or impacted communities when proposing amendments to their Comprehensive Plan is beyond dispute. Florida Statutes 163.3177(4)(a) states, ‘coordination of the local comprehensive plan with the comprehensive plans of adjacent municipalities, the county, adjacent counties, or the region with adopted rules pertaining to designated areas of critical State concern and with the State Comprehensive Plan shall be a major objective of the local comprehensive planning process. To that end, in the preparation of a comprehensive plan or element thereof, or in a comprehensive plan or element as adopted, the governing body shall include a specific policy statement indicating the relationship of the proposed development of the area to the comprehensive plans of adjacent municipalities, the county, adjacent counties, or the region, and to the State Comprehensive Plan, as the case may require and as such adopted plans in preparation may exist.’ In retrospect, it appears to me that not only has the City of Cocoa not complied with the above-stated major objectives of the local comprehensive planning process, that being the coordination of the local comprehensive plan with the comprehensive plans of adjacent municipalities, the county, adjacent counties, or the region, and with the State Comprehensive Plan; they have instead intentionally attempted to circumvent the entire coordination process.”

Chairman Scarborough inquired if there is a motion to extend the time for Mr. Ide.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to extend the time for John Ide. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Ide continued reading the letter as follows: “Reviewing the sequence of events over the last two years, one might surmise the annexation of the properties designated for Brevard Crossings development was in fact intended to take the issue out of the County’s purview rather than comply with the coordinated approach to growth management and planning and approach intended by the State Legislature to assure consistency across the State in the conservation of Florida’s increasingly endangered environment. The City of Cocoa appears to be nullifying the process, including Brevard County’s efforts to comply with the statutory requirements. If this approach to the comprehensive planning and growth management is allowed to proceed unchallenged, if noncompliance with Florida Statutes is allowed by the State entities mandated with their enforcement, the precedent established not just for Brevard County but the State may be disastrous.”

Commissioner Carlson inquired what are Mr. Laney’s credentials; with Mr. Ide responding he is just a County citizen.

Greg Kalmbach of Melbourne Village, Chair of the Florida Chapter of the Sierra Club, stated he is here to inform the Board that the Florida Chapter of the Sierra Club, at its last executive committee meeting, approved the Cocoa Comprehensive Plan as an issue of importance to the State level of the Sierra Club and authorized it as an issue for the Turtle Coast Group, which is the local group in Brevard County, as an issue for it to pursue. He stated the Comprehensive Plan amendment involves issues that are important on the agenda of the National Sierra Club, including wetlands protection, protection of listed species, and sprawl; and the Sierra Club views the Cocoa Comprehensive Plan amendment as a problem also because it is a model that could be used by other municipalities to allow commercial development on wetlands. He stated they recommend the County file an administrative challenge to Department of Community Affairs’ finding of compliance.

Elaine Graham of Titusville stated this all relates to water; the question is will research indicate that Brevard Crossings will draw business away from Merritt Island; she heard different things; and they said no, it would just cause Merritt Island to update its services, but she wonders what research really indicates because in Titusville they have tons of vacant buildings and there is nothing going on where Penney’s and Dillard’s are. She stated Sandpoint is vacant; and she does not know the answer to that. She stated the folks who support the project said Merritt Island and Brevard Crossings will not compete, but she is not convinced of that, so that is a question to the Board. Ms. Graham inquired what would be the water consumption required for the project; does the Board see a major conflict between water restrictions in Cocoa and the support of the project; and what will be the stormwater runoff issue regarding the mall and the Indian River Lagoon. She stated she cannot support a Comprehensive Plan amendment that might weaken wetland Ordinances in any other community; and that is her major contribution.

Howard Wolf of Melbourne Beach gave a summary of an episode with Mel Brooks and Carl Reiner regarding the Sahara Desert; stated in the 1980’s polling in the previous decade attested to the public’s constant concerns with life in Florida; they all reflected the desire that Florida would continue to provide its unique and most desirable quality of life for them and their children; and 15 years later the recent polls reflect the same. He stated in the 1980’s Florida had to confront the result of rapacious growth uninhibited with any concerns of long-range land use planning; he spoke to Mr. Pelham, the first director of Department of Community Affairs and John DeGrove, an academic leader in land use planning at that time; the forecast of Florida’s future was grim with continued degradation of the quality of life; and in response, an enlightened State administration pursued a growth management strategy to change that future and set as its goal the preservation of the quality of life promised by the bounty of this unique State. Mr. Wolf advised the two driving thrusts of the strategy were the protection of Florida’s natural resources and equitable bearing of the costs imposed by new developments; and a series of laws and rules were enacted to establish the mechanism to implement those policies. He stated Brevard County bought into that vision and became the first jurisdiction in the State to establish its Comprehensive Growth Management Plan and codify it; and immediately, those plans and the sustainable Florida they represent came under attack most aggressively by those who believed the marketplace is the rightful arbiter of land use, thus allowing short-term profit to determine the quality of life for all. He asked the Board to look at the empty stores and some entire malls abandoned or near so in Brevard County; and inquired how much taxes do they contribute, and what do they do to advance the vision. He stated this project and an abundant others are failures by the Department of Community Affairs to fulfill its obligation to preserve and protect Florida by comprehensive coherent land use planning in accordance with State laws and rules; the Board agreed this project needed to be challenged in the first place; and now finessed by annexation, it must contend with a failed Department of Community Affairs. He requested the Board continue the appeal process through the Chapter 120 hearing; and stated the persistent public vision of a sustainable Florida must stay alive in this greater Brevard community.

Attorney John Evans, representing Brevard Crossings, requested the Board look at the legal basis for what it might do today. He stated when the Board rezones a piece of property in Brevard County, generally a private property owner comes to him and says he does not like that and wants to sue the County; he pulls out the books and discusses with them the issue of fairly debatable because if the rezoning is fairly debatable, it is almost impossible to overturn the County; and that is the standard before the Department of Community Affairs. He stated if Department of Community Affairs’ decision in approving the plan amendments is found to be fairly debatable, just like the County’s zoning standards, then the courts will uphold what the Department of Community Affairs has done. He stated there are many cases challenging Department of Community Affairs’ decisions; the vast majority was from the other side; the landowners did not like what Department of Community Affairs did and felt it was a taking; and as long as the court held that there was a fairly debatable movement on the part of Department of Community Affairs, the appeals were denied. He suggested, before the Board spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on a Department of Community Affairs challenge, it discuss with its attorney the probability of success. Mr. Evans stated he realizes the County did not get exactly what it wanted, but its input to the project has been tremendous; the project was dramatically changed due to the County’s input; so its comments have made some changes to the plan and made a better project. He requested the Board recognize that it is a City of Cocoa issue and let the City do what it feels is appropriate rather than the County suing the City. He noted it is a bad posture to have the County sue the City for what is a popular project within the City of Cocoa; and requested the Board allow Cocoa to do what it believes is correct.

Priscilla Griffith of Melbourne Village, Co-President of the League of Women Voters of the Space Coast, stated she is here to speak on two of the many issues associated with the proposed Brevard Crossings project--growth management and wetlands. She stated the Growth Management Act, passed by the Florida Legislature, was an exercise in foresight and restraint; the idea was to provide a framework for local communities to plan wisely for the onslaught of growth already occurring in Florida; the Legislature believed that local communities could best determine what their needs were and what future growth plans should be; and the process put in place made the long-range comprehensive plan the law which would govern future development. She stated criteria were established as to when and how changes could be made in the plan; the actions of the City of Cocoa have turned the process on its head; and inquired what is the point of having a plan if it can be changed in response to the sirens of a developer. She stated the approval of changes designed to fit a particular developer’s needs is a mockery of planning for the future and of trying to develop in a way that both conserves and serves the long-range interest of the community and its neighbors. Ms. Griffith stated one example of resources not conserved is wetlands; this is a large site full of many wetland resources; the use of mitigation in a neighboring county is legal and handy for the City and developer; but it adversely affects the future prospects of that area and is not in the long-range interest of Cocoa or Brevard County. She stated the League applauds the Board for its concern for observing its Comprehensive Plan and requests that it continue to be concerned about its plan and the County as a whole as it considers this issue today.

Attorney Miranda Fitzgerald of Orlando, representing Brevard Crossings, LLC, advised she is the counsel retained to be primarily involved with the development of regional impact and comprehensive plan processes; she has been working on this project from the inception; and she wants to make some comments in response to the things that have been said in writings to the County and what has been said today. She stated it seems like a number of people who spoke are taking issue with Department of Community Affairs’ review, saying it fell down on the job, or did not do its review appropriately, or it was inappropriate for the City of Cocoa and the developer to work together to come up with a response to the objections and recommendations that Department of Community Affairs presented and what the County presented earlier; but what the Board has not heard is that the process is built into the Florida Statutes. She stated when a comment document is received from Department of Community Affairs, it is the applicant’s responsibility to respond to that; the objections report came out very early in the process, before they went through very much of the DRI review and before they had the data and analysis developed that came through the DRI review process. She stated as that data and analysis were developed through nearly two years of review, more and more data was compiled and submitted; so they were able to respond point-by-point to issues that were raised by Department of Community Affairs and the County. Ms. Fitzgerald advised local governments are directed to amend their comprehensive plans in accordance with those comments or at least come up with some kind of response, and they did that; their response was convincing to Department of Community Affairs; and there is evidence that supports the action the City. She stated there were comments about once there is a comprehensive plan it should not change at the request of a developer; the Board can specifically amend its Comprehensive Plan to deal with development issues; it is not a static document; it is a document that is intended to change; and the City of Cocoa and the developer of the project feel that the changes that have been made are for the best. She stated they have taken very ambiguous provisions in some of the sections of the Comprehensive Plan and made them stronger; they restricted a lot of the impacts to areas that are designated regional activity centers; and added a whole host of criteria they have to meet to even be designated a regional activity center, not to mention the mitigation that is also authorized by Florida Statutes. Ms. Fitzgerald advised the project has been approved by the Department of Environmental Protection; permits have been issued; they have done everything they needed to do to have a project that would be good, not only for the City of Cocoa, but for the County as a whole; and the standard of review is fairly debatable, as mentioned by Mr. Evans, but it is not Department of Community Affairs’ action that is reviewed. She stated the issue is whether, when the City of Cocoa adopted its changes, there was any evidence in the record that supported the City’s decision; so if this is appealed, that is going to be the standard. She stated their review is that there is ample evidence in the record to support what the City did; and ultimately it was the right decision and will be good for everyone in Brevard County.

Commissioner Colon stated questions regarding wetlands have come up time and time again; and requested Ms. Fitzgerald elaborate on that; with Ms. Fitzgerald responding everything they have done in the project relates directly to what is authorized by Florida Statutes; they have not done anything intentionally or unintentionally that is not supported by law; and one thing they have to do when they impact wetlands is to mitigate for those wetlands if they have any type of significance in the eyes of the agency. Ms. Fitzgerald stated the wetlands have significance, but the agencies have reviewed them and the impacts, and made the determination that there is an offsetting benefit by the mitigation that is created. She stated they are creating, by her recollection about 30 to 1 mitigation ratio; they have well offset the impacts; and there is also a concern that the wetlands are not being mitigated in Brevard County; but the fact is they were not able to mitigate wetlands in Brevard County because they had wetlands in two basins and in order to do like type and like kind mitigation to offset the impacts they had to find a place to mitigate the wetlands that had two basins. She stated the only place that had that circumstance was in the Tosahatchee Preserve; there is a Florida Statute that says they do not have to mitigate in the same watershed or same county as long as they are offsetting the impacts; and their environmental consultant is here today if the Board wants more details. She stated they have satisfied the agency that reviews it and have complied with requirements for mitigation on this project, and have more than offset the impacts.

Mayor Judy Parrish, City of Cocoa, advised the project has been reviewed by all the State agencies and has fulfilled their requirements; the St. Johns River Water Management District, Department of Environmental Protection, and all the agencies and experts charged with the task have made the decision and okayed the project; and the process has strengthened the City’s long-range wetland policies regarding its Comprehensive Plan. She stated they feel the County is overstepping its jurisdiction; the development needs to be allowed to move forward; it is a basic home rule issue where the City has a right to plan for its future growth; and it is between the City and State agencies and not the County. Mayor Parrish advised if any individual feels there is an issue, that should be the venue in which they could address it; any suit the County files will be frivolous and capricious; it would be a waste of taxpayers’ dollars; and suing a municipality is not good for business. She stated the only losers will be the taxpayers and the winners will be the attorneys. She stated she heard that several environmental groups may appeal the project, but the County should stay out of it and save its money for things more appropriate for the County. She advised there is a State process in place that has been followed; and the County needs to back off on this issue.

Ken Koch, Community Development Director for the City of Cocoa, presented a handout to the commissioners, but not to the Clerk; and stated he would like to address some of the comments regarding water conservation. He stated he does not believe any of the cities have recently adopted building moratoriums; and when it comes to concurrency, the DRI that was reviewed for Brevard Crossings did address all the traffic impacts and ensures that concurrency measures are evaluated. He stated that was the case with this project; so they feel concurrency and mitigating for impacts, whether traffic or delivery of services, have been addressed adequately. He stated he will outline some of the major changes of the current Comprehensive Plan policies and adopted Plan policies that resulted in response to Department of Community Affairs’ comments. Mr. Koch stated previously the activity center designation was vague and had no references regarding wetlands protection and mitigation; the adopted Comprehensive Plan narrowed the focus such that those activities of wetlands mitigation can only occur in a regional activity center, which replaces the activity center designation; so for a project that is a regional activity center, which has to be a DRI, they have substantially narrowed the focus of where those impacts could occur; consequently, the statements made that the Comprehensive Plan amendment opened up wholesale destruction of wetlands is not true. He stated Policy BCC 154 previously spoke about commercial and industrial land uses shall be directed to sites where there are sufficient uplands for the intended use; now it has been changed so that it is directed to approved regional activity centers or to sites that have sufficient uplands. He stated it clarified the focus that the wetlands or commercial/industrial land uses outside of regional activity centers would still be protected; so it is not opening the door. Mr. Koch stated there has been a lot of discussion about mitigation activities; previously they were permitted only when they were intended, designated, or designed to restore wetland areas to their natural conditions and they were not contrary to Policies 154 and 155; and under the adopted Comprehensive Plan, the City would do an evaluation and designate many wetlands as conservation areas, and mitigation would be allowed for wetlands that are not designated as conservation only after the St. Johns River Water Management District and all the agencies have granted their approval. He stated it would allow the City to designate the higher quality wetlands as conservation areas and only allow the poor quality wetlands, which were an issue in the Brevard Crossings, to be mitigated. He stated there was quite an analysis and discussion about the quality of those wetlands; they were circumvented by power lines and natural drainage functions; they were isolated wetlands and not part of a larger regional system; and they were not included on any Regional Planning Council mapping system, so it was appropriate to allow for mitigation. Mr. Koch stated other discussion revolved around the floodplain; the previous Comprehensive Plan discouraged development in the floodplain and compensating storage was only allowed in locations where there was an absence of adverse consequences; and under the adopted Comprehensive Plan, development in the floodplain is discouraged as it was before, but is only permitted in regional activity centers, and where there is an absence of adverse consequences, and there cannot be adverse impact on surrounding properties and drainage facilities. He stated the project underwent review by the St. Johns River Water Management District, so those adverse impacts were addressed during the permitting process. He advised in the old Comprehensive Plan there is no specific reference to standards, requirements, or viable populations for wildlife; protection was only given to habitats that might otherwise be nonviable; and under the adopted Comprehensive Plan, where significant impacts might occur, the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission would intervene and approve a wildlife management plan and to the greatest extent possible eliminate the adverse effects.

Chairman Scarborough advised Mr. Koch’s time has expired; and inquired if there is a motion to extend his time.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to extend the time for Ken Koch to complete his presentation. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Koch advised the adopted Plan strengthens that provision by making it clear there will be a plan. He stated the new Comprehensive Plan adopted policies require the City to have an advisory group that would prepare a conservation master plan; they did not have some conservation areas identified on their Future Land Use Map; and they are going to do an assessment of the environmental quality of wetlands, map them, and designate them as conservation on their Future Land Use Map. He stated that is a requirement of Department of Community Affairs; they have to have that task completed by April 2003; and it would make it clear that the City would only support mitigation activities that are approved by the federal, State, or regional permitting agencies; however, the development must still be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Koch advised all the policies they adopted ensure that the focus of the amendments is narrowed because it is the only DRI the City of Cocoa has approved; and it would probably be a while before it has another major activities center. He stated the approach they should use is to work with the County staff to develop planning agreements; they have been invited to a meeting on May 29, 2002 and plan to attend; both the County and City were given $50,000 by the DRI; and it is the developer who provided the funds for a corridor study along SR 524. He stated they are going to be studying and identifying the wetlands and the City is willing to work with the County cooperatively to develop joint planning and help the City in identification of the wetlands that need protection and are viable and of high quality.

Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Koch commented that the environmental resource advisory group was stipulated by the Department of Community Affairs; with Mr. Koch responding that is something they developed in response to the ORC report and something Department of Community Affairs is very interested in. Mr. Koch stated when they first met with Department of Community Affairs, they indicated one of their concerns was allowing for mitigation when the only mapping for the systems was in their Future Land Use Element; and there was no assessment of the quality of the wetlands; so that was a suggestion.

John Titkanich, Economic Development Manager for the City of Cocoa, requested the Board not waste taxpayers’ money in what the City believes is a frivolous lawsuit and one to establish standing and to successfully defend or argue that this issue is not fairly debatable. He stated in this important development process, the developers know all the rules up front; the development company went through the DRI process and did not circumvent anything that was alluded to earlier; they went to East Central Florida Regional Planning Council and received a nearly unanimous vote; and thanked Chairman Scarborough for voting for the project. He stated they met with Florida Department of Transportation and Department of Community Affairs, did everything asked of them, and have been trying to balance the development need as well as the public interest. Mr. Titkanich stated the project is extremely important to the City of Cocoa from an economic development standpoint, not counting the economic spin-off potential; and they are talking about 2,500 permanent jobs, 1,900 construction jobs, $1.1 million of taxable revenues to the School Board, nearly $1 million of taxable revenues to Brevard County, and nearly $800,000 in revenues to the City of Cocoa. He stated he is new to the community but has seen that Cocoa is struggling; it has the momentum and is moving along; it has a lot of development activity occurring; and he would invite each of the Commissioners to come downtown with him and walk around to see what is happening. He stated to stall this project would stall the progress of the City; it used to be the commercial hub of Brevard County a long time ago when it was first developed in the 1800’s; and requested the Board help the City regain and get a piece of the pie so it is not left behind. He requested the Board help the City compete, make it fair, and not waste taxpayers’ dollars appealing the project.

Jerry Sansom with the City of Cocoa, advised many people have been involved in the Brevard Tomorrow Program; through that program they are trying to get people to look at where the County needs to go, what it wants to do, and to work together; some of the fractionalization has caused lots of problems in the County over the years; and the Board has spent time on this program and put out flyers; and they are starting to begin an effort to inform the public as to those things that everybody needs to get together on and work to better Brevard County. He stated he would like to highlight a couple of the issues; one is the governance unification; Goal #2 says, “Continue to increase communication and cooperation between and among the County and municipal governments; (2) eliminate duplication and multiplicity of governmental organizations and services; and (3) remove perceived and real political fragmentation within and at the County level.” He stated another issue is #3, land use and growth; “(1) educate and reach consensus about growth and conservation issues; reach a consensus between conservation and personal property rights; develop a coordinated and seamless system for the County’s Comprehensive Plans; add economic development to the comprehensive planning process; and coordinate and streamline permitting process and development regulations and policies.” Mr. Sansom stated it is not good business for the County to sue or enter into lawsuits against its municipalities; the County government represents not only the unincorporated areas, but also the incorporated areas; and it is important that they not divide and separate and make the system worse. He stated if they have any hope of making Brevard Tomorrow’s plan successful, they cannot add ammunition to those that would say it is simply an effort by the Board to try and take over everything everywhere and be an all-encompassing government. He noted he does not believe that is the case; he knows that is not why the Board is doing this; and it wants to do it to help better life in the community. He stated he has been a Floridian all his life and it would be nice if there were only 2.5 million people in Florida, but that is not how it is; there are over 16 million people here, and they have to deal with that; and hopefully they can deal with it together. He stated he heard there are people who plan to file an administrative challenge; the Board should let them do their thing; but the Board does not need to be involved in that process.

Amy Mosher of Rockledge advised this weekend she went to a growth management workshop at Rollins College in Orlando; there were people who attended from all over the State and it was good to see citizens concerned about growth management actively wanting to take part in the future of the State; and they are really concerned about the furious growth in Florida and how it is greatly impacting the communities and natural resources. She stated people are also unhappy with the Department of Community Affairs because it is doing little to help citizens maintain strong comprehensive plans; and the Department of Community Affairs has changed quite a bit since Governor Jeb Bush entered office, so that has not helped the citizens maintain those comprehensive plans. She stated comprehensive plans set forth minimum criteria; citizen participation is a very important part of the comprehensive planning process; in Cocoa’s Comprehensive Plan, it has taken out many of the “shalls”, which are mandatory, and in the place of them inserted “may” and “will”, which takes out the teeth of the Comprehensive Plan, and citizens can do nothing to enforce policies with language like that. She stated only policies with verbs like “shall” can be forced; everything else is just there; and as a resident of Rockledge and neighbor of Cocoa, she is concerned about Cocoa’s Comprehensive Plan and the direction towards growth at all cost they seem to be taking. Ms. Mosher stated the County also is a neighbor of Cocoa and the Board should also be concerned about this project; annexation is a one way street; there is a lot of land in the County that Cocoa could still annex; and if it has a Comprehensive Plan that is not protecting the natural resources and promoting smart growth, then that equals sprawl to her. She stated she is concerned that Cocoa’s attempts to weaken policies in its Comprehensive Plan, which aim to promote responsible growth and development, limit urban sprawl, and protect an array of natural resources will leave very little teeth for citizens to enforce; and because of those facts, she urges the Board to seek a 120 administrative hearing and let an impartial judge consider and decide the issues.

Marshall Gilmore of Merritt Island advised he advocates the County challenging the mall and proceeding on behalf of the taxpayers; the arguments today that it would be a waste of taxpayers’ money actually would be the other way around; and it would be losing taxpayers’ money if it does not challenge the project. He stated the City Manager of Cocoa said there are no moratoriums on building due to water; he lived in a suburb of Portland, Oregon and in their community the water master looked at the data on water and discovered there was not enough water and put a moratorium on all building; his house value did not go up for two years; and everybody in the community lost money. He stated in the Orlando Sentinel and Florida TODAY, it says they thought they had enough water for 2020; but now they backed off to 2005; it looks like the scenario he had in Portland; and Brevard County may be looking at water shortages and moratoriums down the road. Mr. Gilmore stated the mall is due to come online in 2004; it is a taxpayer issue to the region and people in all of the County; it will create construction jobs, but they are short-term; and jobs at the mall will be minimum wage jobs, so people will be drawing a lot more on public resources and would have to work two jobs to make a reasonable living. He stated the money will go out of the County to people who own the companies; there are no Burdines, Sears, or Penney’s headquarters in Brevard County; so what the County will be left with are the roads, regional costs, and draw down on the water. He stated testimony of the attorney, lobbyist, and Mayor of Cocoa have been that it would be a waste of taxpayers’ money, and that it would be fractionalization and improper business for the County to sue the City; but that is a bit shocking given the fact the Board has one city taking an action that is going to impact the entire County. Mr. Gilmore stated he lives on Merritt Island and has a condo on Cocoa Beach; and inquired if he will have enough water for those properties and are they going to depreciate in value or stay the same. He stated the traffic is going to impact the whole County; it is described as a regional mall, so the City is causing the fractionalization by taking action that impacts the entire County. He stated the Board should challenge the issue of water, impacts on the County, and sprawl; nobody considered the impacts of energy use, air pollution, and drives to and from the mall bringing cars into the County; so it is a wise use of taxpayers’ money to challenge it and look at water resources over the long run.

Susan Maurer of Cocoa stated she supports the development of Brevard Crossings; and invited the Board to go out there at night especially on weekends and see pickup trucks, all terrain vehicles, dirt bikes, and other off road vehicles in the wetlands and people racing, drinking, driving, and shooting skeet on the property. She stated she called the Sheriff’s Office a few weeks ago regarding an individual out there drinking in a pickup truck; her call was because she did not want him driving after drinking; and that is the quality of the wetlands under consideration. She stated there is a compelling long-term benefit in building the mall, hotel, and theater complex on those lands; competition spurs the economy in a free market society; and the mall ideally located near I-95 and SR 528 would draw additional much-needed dollars into Cocoa and the County. She stated they who live in the area are in favor of the mall, the opportunities and jobs it will bring, and anticipated positive growth and development in Cocoa; and she rejects the notion of the Board spending her hard-earned dollars in a frivolous lawsuit.

Lillian Banks of Merritt Island stated the Board is at it again; a couple of months ago it was helping the Town of Malabar decide its destiny and now it wants to get involved with the City of Cocoa and Brevard Crossings Shopping Center. She stated Attorney Knox has figured out a way according to the newspaper that will allow the Board to meddle in something it does not have a right to; the Board should not say it is doing it for the good of the people and the quality of life because she might gag; and inquired why is Department of Community Affairs doing the right thing when it approves the Board’s excessive oppressive Comprehensive Plan, but when it approves Cocoa’s plan to build a shopping center it deserves to be sued along with Cocoa. She inquired if they suddenly became unintelligent; and can each Commissioner raise his/her right hand and say the desire to stop the shopping center has nothing to do with Duda’s plans to building a shopping center in Viera. Ms. Banks stated during the past couple of years the Board has been a very-sue happy Board; this has cost some constituents a lot of money in addition to the cost to the taxpayers; and she is getting tired of having to spend her money on lawsuits. She inquired what has happened to private enterprise; and stated there are terrorist possibilities at the Port, NASA, and Patrick Air Force Base plus Disney World 60 miles west of the County; and the Board should be spending its time and energy and saving money to take care of something like that. She stated instead of Fish and Wildlife Service sending four boats to Brevard County to ticket people who exceed the 5 mph speed limit, they should be patrolling the waterways; and there are a lot of them. She stated Florida has already been involved in the terrorist business that went on in New York and other places; and it has wide open borders, so it should spend time working on that. She stated maybe the shopping center will bring in extra tax dollars that may be needed in the future because there is more danger worrying about the waters being contaminated than losing water and not having enough water.

Commissioner Colon stated there is a big difference sending a letter of concern to Department of Community Affairs and actually taking a municipality to court and spending that kind of money. She stated 15 years ago there were not a lot of those issues, but the more the County grows, the more it seems it is getting into issues with municipalities; and today alone it has been dealing with four municipalities. She stated two weeks ago it dealt with another municipality; and the more the County grows the more it needs to realize that it has to come to the table and discuss issues that are happening. She stated it is heartbreaking for her to see the Board move in a direction that is not positive; she has an issue with the mitigation going to Orange County; that was upsetting because it should be in Brevard County; but that is not Cocoa’s fault; and Cocoa was trying to work closely with that. She stated she understands where the environmental community is coming from and their concerns; but the environmental community should be encouraged to take the next step for an administrative hearing if that is what it wants to do. Commissioner Carlson stated that is not the step for the Board to take; it seems to be getting into more and more issues with municipalities; and that is not the way she wants to go. She stated the Board needs to sit down and figure out what it is going to do about that.

Commissioner Higgs stated she does not want to get into a big argument with cities either; however, in this case, the Board has to take exception with its stance. She stated few years back the County objected to some of the cities that were major water suppliers and charged residents outside of their boundaries in excess of 30% for water; the Board challenged that and brought it back down with the help of the State to 10%; so sometimes the Board needs to disagree and go to another way of resolving issues. She stated the County sat down with the City of Cocoa and outlined its objections; and the City chose not to take into consideration some of the changes the County objected to. She stated she does not agree that objecting to destruction of hundred plus acres of wetlands is frivolous; wetlands are an important part of the ecosystem; they are bad places to develop; and over the long haul it could cause problems.

Commissioner Higgs stated the policy that has been accepted to be put into place, which takes out the language and was a long-standing policy of the City and is in the County’s Comprehensive Plan, says, “Commercial/industrial land development activities shall be prohibited in wetlands, unless. . .”; in 1996, the County made an attempt to change it and interveners took the County through the Department of Community Affairs process; and it came out with a much better policy. She stated “commercial/industrial land development activities shall be prohibited in wetlands” is an important statement; it talks not just about permitting, but about planning; and all the other policies and agencies seem to be dealing with the issues of permitting and mitigating. She stated under most any circumstance those kinds of permits are eventually accepted; what is unique in the local jurisdiction is land use planning; and in those particular amendments it is her feeling the City is significantly weakening the protection of wetlands by taking out the planning process and leaving it all to permitting. She stated Department of Community Affairs a few years back made it clear to Brevard County that it had a role in planning; that is an important role in the protection of wetlands; and she does not like the idea of being in a controversial position with the city and would rather be a partner. She stated over the ten years she has been on the Board, there were only a couple of instances where the Board and cities had a controversy; but it would be better for the County and cities to work together and try to resolve the issues. She stated it will go to mediation before going to court to resolve the issues with the mall; it is better to go to mediation and come up with a good policy that protects wetlands and does a better job of planning for the future; it was what Department of Community Affairs forced the County to do; and it came out with something better. She stated the Board should work with the City of Cocoa to try and resolve those issues and protect the wetlands.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he agrees with Commissioner Higgs and is still resentful that the mitigation for the wetlands is going to be in Orange County and not Brevard County, so the County will lose 100 plus acres of wetlands and somebody else gains from that. He stated the answer to who will pay to four lane SR 524 from I-85 to Publix and Winn-Dixie has not been provided; who is going to pay to fix Cox Road to absorb the traffic is unknown; SR 524 is in the County, but it will be severely impacted by the traffic from the mall, which means the taxpayers Countywide will end up paying to four lane it; and the State will be part of it, but it will be the County’s gas taxes used to improve the road because the developer has not come to the table. Commissioner O'Brien stated the City said it would pave so much of it at the intersection of Grissom Parkway and SR 524, but that is nowhere near where the mall is going to be; and as they go through the DRI process, the Board may find part of the answer, but right now the people are going to pay for the impact and they are not all residents of Cocoa. He stated it is an environmental and traffic problem; the on-ramp at I-95 is too short going north; and that has to be expanded and lengthened as was the entranceway onto SR 528 to SR 3 for traffic to gain speed. He stated the off ramps and decel lanes have to be extended to accommodate for that amount of traffic to and from the mall; all those things have to be planned ahead; and a lot of it has not been answered to this day.

Chairman Scarborough inquired of Mr. Koch what are the contributions from the developer and City of Cocoa to the transportation improvements; with Mr. Koch responding they hammered out a transportation mitigation agreement with Florida Department of Transportation; and SR 524, from I-95 to SR 528, including the segment of Industry Road, will be four-laned. Mr. Koch stated the City is contributing $4 million and the remaining $4 million in improvements not only to SR 524 but to Cox Road as well which is a three-lane urban section, will be paid for by the developer; so all of the road impacts have been mitigated. He stated the mall project is going to be built in phases, so the actual mall cannot occur until I-95 is six-laned; and the Department of Transportation has signed off on the mitigation agreement. Commissioner Higgs requested Mr. Koch clarify the phasing; and stated most people do not understand that other things will be developed before the mall. Mr. Koch stated there are two phases prior to the mall phase; 200,000 square feet and 400,000 square feet of development are part of the 1.1 million square feet of regional mall space; and there is approximately 600,000 square feet of outparcel development. He stated that will be developed first up to 400,000 square feet; once that threshold is reached, then the design and improvements on SR 524, Cox Road, and those things begin to occur. Commissioner Higgs inquired if 400,000 square feet can be developed before the mall; with Mr. Koch responding no, there are two phases; there is a 200,000 square-foot phase, then some of the improvements begin, and the off-ramps and some of those requirements also begin. He stated the segment of SR 524, from I-95 to Cox Road, starts at 200,000 square feet; and 400,000 square feet is the primary threshold when they move into the actual impacts of the mall. Commissioner Higgs inquired if all the auxiliary development and the mall could never happen; with Mr. Koch responding there is enough capacity on SR 524 for up to 400,000 square feet. Commissioner Higgs inquired if all that could happen and conceivably the mall could not happen until I-95 is six-laned; with Mr. Koch responding and until SR 524 is four-laned. Commissioner Higgs inquired how much are the City and developer contributing to I-95 improvements; with Mr. Koch responding the City and developer are both contributing $4 million to SR 524 and no dollars have been allocated to I-95 which is in the five-year work program.

Commissioner Carlson stated she agrees with Commissioner Colon for the simple reason that the State and Regional processes have let the County down; the City of Cocoa’s determination and ability, based on the given processes, allowed it to do what it has done; the Board can hold that against the City because it does not like the fact that it is building in the wetlands; and she is not against the mall but does not like the idea they want to take mitigation of 100 acres of wetlands to Orange County. She stated the process that Jerry Sansom brought up, which is Brevard Tomorrow, is basically trying to continue the communication between cities and the County because the County is not doing very well in terms of communication right now; had it been doing its homework years ago, it would not be in this position right now; so shame on the County in that regard. Commissioner Carlson stated if the Board decides to go with the 120 hearing and partner with the environmental groups, it should consider the mitigation; and maybe something else could be done that would be more amenable to both parties. She stated she does not think the Board should be suing the City of Cocoa or any city; it is potentially going to cost the County either way it is looked at; so it is a hard decision.

Chairman Scarborough stated in this process there are things that will let one down; he wishes it was different, but it went to Tosahatchee; Tosahatchee is already acquired and is not an acquisition of new lands; but he was disappointed in the St. Johns River Water Management District. Commissioner O'Brien stated what bothers him is that the St. Johns River Water Management District is going to issue a permit and have the mitigation take place on State property and the real beneficiary is the St. Johns River Water Management District while Brevard County is the loser. Chairman Scarborough stated if there was additional land acquisition the Board would have to take a different look at it because the quality of the rivers is created from both sides. He stated when they went to the Planning Council meeting they were advised that it was a non-issue because it had already been decided by the St. Johns River Water Management District; at that meeting Commissioner Higgs brought up some of the phasing issues, but they never got into the phasing; and inquired if it gets to a point and there is not the other things, what are the impacts and are there issues the Board should address. He stated he wants to be extremely careful that whatever the Board defines and does would not appear that it is against the City or the project, but clearly defining something that is tangible and understandable; and there is a consensus in the larger community that is where the Board should be. Chairman Scarborough inquired what would the Board challenge if it goes to the wetland issue and Comprehensive Plan amendment, and what is the probability of prevailing.

Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer advised when the Board asked staff to visit with St. Johns River Water Management District on the mitigation issue, they presented the Board’s concerns and spoke to the impacts to the wetlands; fundamentally the St. Johns River Water Management District Board did wrestle with the decision; it was a difficult decision for them to come to; but when they finally struggled with it, they elected to go on the side of the developer’s request because the developer successfully met the requirements of the agency. He stated he provided that to the Board as perhaps looking at a crystal ball of what they may be instore for on any appeal.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he heard the funding being given to the St. Johns River Water Management District is going to be used to buy trucks and other equipment for the District; and inquired if that is correct; with Mr. Peffer responding he does not know about that; but the funds that were dedicated were for improvements in the Tosachatchee Preserve. He stated staff had some issues because they felt it was already State property and the State had the obligation to improve that property; however, the developer’s funds made that more feasible. Commissioner O'Brien stated Brevard County citizens pay taxes to the St. Johns River Water Management District; and the mitigation taking place in Orange County means the tax dollars and mitigation funds will go to Orange County. Chairman Scarborough stated that is not the issue for a 120 hearing; and Commissioner Higgs said there is a difference between permitting and planning.

Commissioner Higgs stated although the Board may not like what St. Johns River Water Management District did, those are permitting issues, and the concern is the planning issue. She stated staff was involved when the County had a hearing in regard to removing no commercial/industrial development in wetlands; and Department of Community Affairs made it very clear that the County had a planning responsibility. She inquired if staff can distinguish briefly the difference that was drawn through that administrative hearing process between permitting and planning and the responsibility of the County.

Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott advised the Department of Community Affairs’ position at that time was that if the County had a Comprehensive Plan which deferred to a permitting agency such as the St. Johns River Water Management District and had a policy set up such that if mitigation was granted by the St. Johns River Water Management District, that would satisfy the criteria of the Comprehensive Plan, that was not going to be acceptable to Department of Community Affairs. He stated Department of Community Affairs felt the planning perspective that was to be embraced in local comprehensive plans would serve a distinct function from what St. Johns River Water Management District is trying to accomplish in making sure that systems are preserved and net loss is not occurring for wetland systems in a greater than local scenario, but that local governments also have some responsibility to have some planning tools in place, which in certain instances, may actually go above and beyond the tests that a water management district or permitting agent might have in place.

Commissioner Higgs stated when the County went through the phase of being challenged regarding its Comprehensive Plan, ambiguity was a question that did not fly; and throughout several places of the proposed amendments there was language such as, “when economically feasible and in no case where there is no practical opportunity.” She stated that kind of language has weakened the plan and the City needs to come up with measurable criteria; and having been through the process on the other side, she feels those kinds of insertions are weakening the protections.

Chairman Scarborough stated if there are elements in the Comprehensive Plan removing this project from consideration entirely, making the assumption there was no Brevard Crossing, but looking at it as a Comprehensive Plan independent of Brevard Crossing, and looking at it as so onerous that to allow it to exist as a model for others within the County would be the wrong direction for the County to go, then he could support proceeding with a challenge. He stated there may be higher values that cannot be sacrificed; and at this moment he cannot say whether the County has reached that level because it has gone through a lot of things. He stated it has won, it lost, and it compromised; and there will be airport problems with it if it begins to grow and become more pervasive. Commissioner Higgs stated she does not think the Board can ask staff to say that. Chairman Scarborough stated there is a point where one has to remove oneself beyond the issue of for or against the project to a point whether or not it has a plan; and the County has a problem with it because it does not want it duplicated elsewhere.

Commissioner Carlson stated she agrees wholeheartedly with Chairman Scarborough; that is the point she tried to make, which was not very clear; Brevard Tomorrow, which the Board endorsed, has a conservation ethic; and in order to communicate that conservation ethic with other communities throughout the County, the Board would have to leave those doors open for communication; and that is why she would support the environmental groups going out there and opposing what they think is wrong about the whole thing. She stated they can make the same arguments the Board can make, but for the Board to get into the business of the city is not the best foot forward to pursue that conservation ethic that it needs to be pursuing. She stated in the long run that global perspective, which is what they are attempting to do with the whole visioning process from Brevard Tomorrow, is to try and get the County to talk more and understand what is truly important in the community, and to go forward from that point. She stated closing this door sharply, which is what it will end up doing by going into the lawsuit, will affect the conservation ethic; and the Board can make the entire community go along that road of conservation as one entity with a lot less bumps if it can start working together now. She stated there were a lot of mistakes made in the past; when she saw that they were watering down the Department of Community Affairs and the processes and staff was getting cut at the State level, she thought that was what growth management reform is all about; they tried and failed; and it has not come back in front of the Legislature to do anything about growth management reform. She stated the County does not have any more local control than it had before; it tried to get local control of a DRI that is duplicating one that is existing in the County already, which is obviously competition; there is nothing wrong with competition; but inquired where is the planning. She inquired if the Board is shooting itself in the foot by closing the door to communicating with the City yet another time. Commissioner Higgs stated it opens the door that is closed now.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he agrees with Commissioner Carlson that the County cannot be bid daddy; it has to respect the autonomy of the cities; and it needs to be a good cousin and not big daddy. He stated if the city wants to say it is their Comprehensive Plan and how they want to have elasticity for their residents within the confines of the City, that is up to them; if the County wants to be more restrictive, that is up to the Board; but inside the City it is looking at conservation ethics. He stated if the Board wants to be consistent, it may have to take some of its conservation element and put in words like “should” and “may”; then it will agree with the City rather than the City agreeing with the County. He stated just because the County has tougher regulations does not mean it is better; and it is arrogant for the Board to have that thought. Commissioner O'Brien stated the City built some elasticity into its plan, elements, and laws that will allow it to at least work with the problem rather than say they cannot do it; and if it goes that route, he hopes it is consistent in the future of any developments that come along. He noted they should not make a change in how they do business just for the mall; it has to be consistent; and he prefers “should” and “may,” which would allow the Board to look at the laws it made and say there are times it has to shift a little bit to accommodate personal property rights.

Commissioner Carlson stated what she is stressing is that the County has worked very hard to have high standards; and wetland preservation has high standards; not all cities agree with those high standards; and it is up to the Board to truly communicate and relay to those folks who do not necessarily understand why the County has high standards and why it can be economically better for a community to have high standards because of the type of developments it can attract that are positive to the environment and economy. She stated it does not mean the Board should send a message that it wants to weaken things; but it can try to come to a compromise and not weaken the standards in the process.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the County has stringent regulations and it may think that because of stringent regulations it is better off; and the question is whether it really is or has it overrated itself to a point where it is not better off, but is worst off because it does not have elasticity to give fair treatment to anyone who comes along.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, to enter an appeal of the Comprehensive Plan amendments of the City of Cocoa. Motion died for lack of a second.

The meeting recessed at 3:48 p.m., and reconvened at 4:00 p.m.

DISCUSSION, RE: ROLE FOR COMMUNITY-BASED CARE INVITATION TO NEGOTIATE
RELEASED BY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

Rob Raines, President of United Way, advised the State is going to give $18 million to Brevard County to provide a wide array of child protective services; however, Brevard County or private entities in Brevard County cannot take children out of homes; and that will still be a State’s call. He stated a State worker will investigate the abuse and make that call, but everything else relating to the placement of the children, where to go for emergency care, foster care, therapeutic services, etc. are part of the $18 million; and the Board has a decision to make of what role the County would like to play in that process. He stated the County could say let somebody else worry about it, let the two existing organizations, Devereux and Children’s Home Society that have been positioning themselves and working hard over the last few years, form a separate corporation; and the County would not be involved at all. He stated another choice is the County could be lead entity and fiscal agent for the program; it will assume some risk, but they are the community’s children; the State’s system does not work; and they think Brevard County can do it better. He noted that is the simple breakdown; there is a lot of complicated stuff in the middle; United Way funds agencies that provide parts of those services; and they are interested in being supportive of the process. Mr. Raines stated there has been a crisis in this arena for a number of years with having difficulty getting qualified foster parents, shortage of foster parents, lack of training dollars, etc. He stated it is not asking the County to fund anything; the $18 million is there; in addition, there will be a pool of dollars if the costs exceed the $18 million; and he would like to see the County take an active roll in terms of recommendations. He suggested the Board consider the different options, pick the one it is most comfortable with, and take it up a notch above that; and stated having the County actively involved, watching the dollars, and participating as a partner in this important process, is an appropriate role for the County. Mr. Raines stated there is a similar program, but not on that scale, called Healthy Families; United Way was not really involved in this type of activity; but it was asked by community groups to be the lead entity and fiscal agent for the program; and they knew they had the same kinds of issues that they would be funding but would not do the direct services. He stated they contracted for direct services to a community-based organization, but stayed in charge of the fiscal aspect and local monitoring although there was still State monitoring. He stated United Way would have to wait for the State to submit reimbursements; they are not known for doing that in a timely manner; but United Way was fiscally sound and thought it could do that. He stated the grant was about $1.2 million; they agreed to be the lead entity and fiscal agent and accept some of the risks; and it worked well. He stated they formed a Healthy Families Executive Council to be a break between United Way Board of Directors because those would be the folks who are experts and would provide the oversight to the program; and they would use the United Way fiscal capacity to provide the oversight for that.

Chairman Scarborough advised Mr. Raines’ time has expired; and inquired if there is a motion to extend the time.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to extend the time for Rob Raines to complete his presentation. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Raines advised he would like for the Board to consider being lead agency and fiscal agent; and it would be possible for the Board to appoint a separate body as a quasi-governmental entity that would work with the existing groups. He stated the County has the ability to draw down Title IV administrative funds; the only way that can happen is if the County is the fiscal agent; there is a sovereign immunity issue that the County brings, which nobody else does; so it makes sense. He stated Orange County looked at it seriously; it was going to do it and not do it and do it; and he does not know where it is at now. He stated every community has to look at it differently, but this is the chance to be on the ground floor, set it up, and have control over it; and if the State is not giving enough money, the County is in a better position to fuss about it than a small community-based organization. He stated if the State does not give the dollars, the County can say it is not going to do it; there is an out for the County; but it is their children and they want to be a partner in designing the system and maximize participation. He stated that is what the County brings to the table that nobody else can; and whatever the Board decides, he hopes it will be an active partner in community-based care for Brevard County.

Irene Burnett urged the Board to take an active role in community-based care; and stated her original plan was to ask the Board to take as high a role as it could, be a full partner with Devereux and Children’s Home Society, and use some of its human services dollars to match federal dollars; but she cannot do that because the Department of Children and Families (DCF) has not defined what that would mean to the County. She stated she does not know if it would be detrimental to the County or the programs it would use funds from to match federal funds; so she wants to ask the Board to participate to the highest extent possible. Ms. Burnett stated the County participates in Together in Partnership, Commission on Aging, Commission on Mental Health, and various human service programs, including planning for the homeless; and in every case where it stepped to the table, the public has benefited. She stated the Board has done a wonderful job and should be congratulated; and it is absolutely essential for the children for the County to be a part of the community-based care.

Commissioner Carlson stated Ms. Burnett is involved in Children’s Services Council (CSC); both Palm Beach and Hillsborough Counties have children services taxing authorities; that is a capability of the council; and inquired if that has been addressed; with Ms. Burnett responding she is no longer a part of the CSC; they did go to referendum shortly after being created; and unfortunately it was too soon and they were not successful. She noted she understands there is still a strong interest of CSC going to referendum; and she hopes it will take an active part in all the things being talked about today.

Chairman Scarborough inquired if the Board takes a more active roll as opposed to Options 5 and 6, would there be additional federal dollars; with Assistant County Manager Don Lusk responding staff had a great deal of difficulty getting the information it needs; Ms. Williams was able to talk to the right people; and they did the right number of estimations; so the figure is an estimate based on the little information staff has received. He stated they are talking about IV.E. dollars; those are federal dollars that can come in if the County participates; they are currently receiving similar dollars for Country Acres because the County is involved with that; but depending on decisions DCF makes, it could be up to about $637,000 a year that would come into the system if the County participated either as lead agency, fiscal partner, non-fiscal partner, or involved in administration of the program. He advised if the Board does Option 6 or 7, it would not be able to bring those dollars in. Chairman Scarborough inquired about Option 5; with Mr. Lusk responding he believes it could still get the funds that way.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the IV.E. funds require a match; with Mr. Lusk responding yes. Commissioner Higgs inquired what would be the match; with Housing and Human Services Director Gay Williams responding the match would determine the amount of dollars the County would get. Commissioner Higgs inquired if it would be three to one; with Ms. Williams responding staff is uncertain about that. Commissioner Higgs inquired if there are other dollars the County can draw down that are not included; with Mr. Lusk responding Option 4 is 40 and 10F dollars; the 10F dollars is actually putting County money up; and for every dollar the County puts in, the State will give it two dollars; however, it is only one time and only for start up. Mr. Lusk stated they are uncertain because the information is not there; they have a minimum of $825,000 to do that; and they are also uncertain if that could be existing kinds of things that the County is doing that it can wash through or whether it actually has to be new dollars.

Chairman Scarborough stated when he was briefed, staff skipped over Option 4 with the $825,000; that decision does not have to be made today; however, the other decision has to be made today. Mr. Lusk advised there are three decisions the Board has to make today; does it want to have involvement or not, and if not, that would be Option 7; if it wants to be involved, the next decision is a partnership or lead agency; and that would be Options 1, 2 or 5. He stated if the Board does not want to be the lead agency or partnership, the third thing is what other role would it like to play, would it want to serve on the leadership council or be an administrative or fiscal service agent to the lead agency; and Option 4 is something it can decide later. He stated all the things in 3, 4, and 6 can be delayed; the critical decision today is does the Board want to be in or out; and if it wants to participate, does it want to be the lead agency or one level of the partnership.

Chairman Scarborough inquired if the Board wants to participate in the community-based care or not.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to participate in the community-based care program. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Scarborough inquired if the Board wants to be the lead agency or fiscal partner in the program; with Commissioner O'Brien responding to be a partner the Board does not have to be an equal partner; it does not have to own 33.3% and can be a partner at 1%; and 1% of $18 million is $180,000 that would come to the County for administration and being part of the partnership.

Commissioner Carlson requested an explanation of what it would mean to be the fiscal partner; with Mr. Lusk responding staff has not had a lot of time to play it through; the first concept under fiscal partner is coming in as a full partner where it would be responsible for 33% of the performance bond and 33% of the up-front dollars of $3 million the County would be asked to lay on the table; and it is true that the Board can go less than 33%, but he is not sure if the County was a 2% partner whether it would receive 2% of the funds, but it would certainly go to the partnership. He noted the State looks at the partnership as what the County would actually bring to the table; and it is not as simple as described.

Commissioner O'Brien stated by being a partner, the County would also be eligible for Title IV.E. funding; that is $637,000, which is nothing to brag about with $18 million in the pot; and inquired what kind of financial investment would the County have to make as a 1% partner. Mr. Lusk advised if the Board says 2%, it would be 2% of the performance bond and 2% of the up-front operating capital. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the County puts that up, would it also garner 2% from the State to pay for staff who will oversee part of the operation; with Mr. Lusk responding staff would have to further explore whether it can get the cost of administering the program out of it and meet with the group and State at the table. Mr. Lusk stated once they get past the first phase, then DCF will start talking to the County again and staff would be able to get questions answered. Commissioner O'Brien stated he would think the entities involved would take a percentage as their overhead costs to operate the program; that would hold true for the County at one or two percent; and 1% of $1 million is $10,000 to offset the County’s costs because it is going to participate and have people involved in the process.

Commissioner Higgs stated the amount of money coming into the County to provide the service would be about 94% of what the State is getting to deliver it now; so the idea that there might be excess money for covering the County’s cost is probably not a realistic expectation. She stated the realistic expectation is the County will bring resources to the table staff-wise and financially; and if the Board wants its children who are in protective services to be protected, it is going to take more than what is there today. She stated the Board may be the delivery entity for some direct service, but any idea that it is going to cover much of its cost is not realistic.

Commissioner O'Brien stated there is probably a methodology to do that, but if the County gets involved and also has to participate financially, it has to start looking at what other proposals it has that it will not fund. He stated the Sheriff came and wants millions of dollars, 20 new deputies, a new boat, etc.; the Board has to start saying no to that before it says yes to this program, and no to other things it has to fund, or ask the people how much they want to raise taxes again. He stated the Board cannot keep spending money and expect not to raise taxes; and there are avenues to recoup the cost of the staff person who would attend to this task.

Commissioner Carlson inquired what is the County’s liability it if decides on Option 2 or 6, etc. County Attorney Scott Knox advised basically its options are least liability with Options 6 and 7 and the rest are more involved where the Board would have operational responsibility and liability. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board participates at 1 or 2% as a fiscal partner would it only have 1 or 2% of the liability or would it have equal liability; with Mr. Knox responding it would have comparative liability; and in Florida, a jury decides how much that would be.

Commissioner Colon stated she likes Option 5, which is the non-fiscal voting partner, because it would only get a benefit once. Mr. Lusk stated Option 4 is the one that has one-time startup funds; Option 5 is an ongoing relationship; and the way it works is they would give the Board voting rights at the table as part of the partnership, but it does not have to put up any of the performance bond and maybe can still get Title IV.E. dollars. Commissioner Colon stated it sends a strong message that the Board wants to be a voting partner, which is critical based on the briefings she had with the groups; and during budget time the Board would be able to have a better idea what kind of partner it wants to be fiscally.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Option 5, to be a non-fiscal voting partner with the Community-based Care of Brevard, Inc.

Chairman Scarborough stated he prefers Option 2; there are some places the Board has to be because of its responsibilities; whether or not it wants to be there with its financial resources, it has a moral obligation in the community; and with Option 2, it is fully engaged. Commissioner Carlson stated it is premature to go with Option 2 based on the fact that they do not know what DCF is going to do. Chairman Scarborough stated in life no one knows what is going to happen; but there are people at risk in the community and the Board cannot walk away from that and say it has limited liability. He stated the liability is there; and inquired how would the Board handle that problem and be fully involved. He stated it does not have to be the lead agency to be fully involved because it can bring three sources in the nonprofit sector; but that is where he would feel more comfortable. Commissioner Colon stated if the County is a fiscal partner, can it still be a voting partner; with Chairman Scarborough responding yes, it would be even more so because it would bring money to the table.

Commissioner Higgs stated she agrees with the Chairman regarding Option 2; there are children at risk in the community who are in the care of the State; there may be fiscal cost, but the cost of not insuring they are properly cared for far exceeds any investment the County may make; so if it is talking dollars, it is a key investment because those children are the Board’s responsibility. She stated she called around the country to figure out where they were doing this service well; it was not easy finding that information; but there are places in the country where counties are totally responsible via the state, but she cannot tell the Board that any are absolutely working well. She stated in the State of Alabama, they faced a federal lawsuit; the mandate from the court was that the State turn it over and the counties do it under the supervision of the state; and that was the model coming out of the federal court decision. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board has to be at the table to make it work; it will not be something it does not have to invest dollars in along with the community partners; it has to be a major fund-raising effort by the Children’s Home Society and Devereux Foundation and the partnership to make it work because there are not sufficient dollars going into the effort at the State level and the costs to children are huge. She stated the Board would want to lose a child in the system; it should not go into this thinking it is going to make money because that is not realistic; and it will take an investment, but it is the kind of investment the Board ought to make.

Commissioner Colon withdrew the motion.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Option 2, to be a fiscal partner in the Community-Based Care of Brevard, Inc.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he cannot support the motion because the Board does not know what the cost is going to be; the argument is if it gets into it, then it can invest money in the program, and the possibility of litigation against the County if something goes wrong could be millions of dollars; and if it stays with Option 5 the liability remains the same. He stated the Board is not obligating itself to spend two or three or more million dollars because it has no idea what the cost is going to be; it is going to go in as a fiscal partner not knowing what the cost would be; in good business one would never do that; and it could be very expensive. He stated at the same time the County is doing that it is not saying who will not be funded that two or three million dollars; and inquired if there is a cap. He stated if there is no cap, the cost could go anywhere. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board has to define fiscal partnership in relationship with the other partners; that is the next step if it decides it wants to be a partner; and it needs to have staff hash out with Community-based Care Brevard, Inc. how they would work it out within the scope of what the County is able to do. Commissioner O'Brien stated as more information becomes available, the Board can change its mind and be a partner; today it should go with Option 5; and when DCF answers more questions, it can adjust the situation; however, to stick its neck out now without having any idea what it is going to cost is not good business. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board does not have to agree to the cost. Commissioner O'Brien stated once the Board agrees to it, it is stuck with the cost and there is no backing out.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if that is the case, and how much negotiating power would the Board have if it chose to be a fiscal partner; with Mr. Lusk responding if the Board chose to be a fiscal partner, it would have good negotiation ability; it would be an equal partner with the two not-for-profit organizations that are doing the community-based care; and it can negotiate better with DCF, which is difficult to negotiate with. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board chose Option 2, is there flexibility to contribute what it can afford at the time or choose a different route; with Mr. Lusk responding if the Board chose Option 2 today, in his opinion, it would be responsible for one-third of the performance bond and one-third of the up-front operational costs; beyond that it would sit equally at the table with the Community-Based Care, Inc. and go into Phase 2 to negotiate where the County is with Department of Community Affairs; so Phase 2 is where it can do the negotiating. He stated staff can come back at that point and apprise the Board of where it is; it can start with Option 5 and move to Option 2; but he would have to ask Glen Castle if he feels the Board can start with Option 2 and move back to Option 5 if things do not go well.

Glen Castle, representing Community-based Care of Brevard, Inc., advised it is a partnership between Children’s Home Society of Florida and Devereux Foundation; they want the County involved and engaged; he is excited about the level of interest and commitment it has already shown; and they are open to the flexibility of exploring the intensity. He stated what they do not want to do, given the deadlines around submission of the bid, is hamper Phase 2 if the Board’s investigation causes it to back off; but the answer to the question is yes, they are flexible with the Board moving between Options 2 and 5 pending further investigation; and it is willing to put Option 5 on the table because they want the County to be there and be on the board and a partner. He stated the County’s level of financial commitment can evolve over time; and if it is willing to sit at the table with them, they are not going to say it approved Option 2 and needs to give them a check tomorrow because that is not how it would work.

Chairman Scarborough stated the Board would be happier proceeding with a motion on Option 2 and Option 5; that would allow it to go on record that it would like to participate and there is a commitment to move to Option 2 unless there is a fundamental surprise with sticker shock; and inquired if that is a fair motion or will it be problematic in the next step. Mr. Castle stated that is a fair motion; and what they would have to do is work out the language and put it in the bid demonstrating the County’s current commitment. Mr. Castle stated they understand the need to fully explore the financial impact and risk, both of which are big commitments for the Board to make. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the motion includes Option 5 as well; with Chairman Scarborough stating Mr. Castle is giving the County the flexibility to drop back to Option 5. Commissioner O'Brien stated the motion should include Option 5 and allow the Board to do either/or. Chairman Scarborough stated he wants to be at Option 2 unless it is fiscally impossible to be there; he does not want to say 2 or 5 because he has come to the decision and wants to be at 2; but if Commissioner O'Brien wants to amend the motion, that is fine; however, the Board has been given flexibility if additional information comes in. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board is committing to being a fiscal partner and is saying it does not know the price tag. Chairman Scarborough stated if it is a surprise, the Board can back down.

Commissioner Carlson stated the Board has the flexibility to back off if it is a huge ticket; she assumes Children’s Home Society and Devereux are working towards a form of funding on their behalf and that they would pursue CSC potential, which has happened in West Palm Beach and Hillsborough Counties, to see if those waters may be treaded through one more time in a more educational manner; and if the Board can establish that commitment through the electorate, that is where she stands.

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

Mr. Lusk requested direction on Option 4, the X.F. option, and if the Board wants any additional research; with Commissioner Colon responding not tonight. Chairman Scarborough stated the Board does not have to make a decision today.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to direct staff to continue to explore what the match is and how the Board can go about getting it. Motion carried and ordered unanimously; with Commissioner O'Brien being absent from the room.

Chairman Scarborough announced continuation of the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating River Road right-of-way and an unnamed right-of-way in Burchfiet’s Subdivision as petitioned by Attorney Phillip Nohrr; and inquired if Commissioners had any comments.

Commissioner Higgs advised she opposes vacating any property along the Indian River, which appears to be what they define as vacating #2 shown as blue on the map; she also opposes vacating the remaining right-of-way, which is on the Banana River, as well as the 20 feet; but she would support the right-of-way shown as red on the map and identified as vacating #1.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board has vacated other areas along the Indian River in the area; with Road and Bridge Director Billy Osborne responding there has been one other vacating in the Subdivision when they developed Hacienda Del Sol. Commissioner Carlson stated that was a long time ago.

Attorney Nohrr advised there are two separate ownerships and applications involved; the diagram shows it includes East Estate Road and the easterly 20 feet on the west side; and if the dogleg is okay, they are fine with it. He suggested the Board take action on that first then he will talk about the River Road.

Chairman Scarborough stated earlier in the meeting Mr. Nohrr said he would not request one of the vacatings, and the remaining right-of-way is going to the Banana River. He stated the Board does not have a problem with #1, but needs to discuss #2, which is in dispute.

Mr. Nohrr advised they are dealing with an 1891 plat, which depicts two roads; one is the dogleg and the other is River Road; the roads are not dedicated to the public and have no dimensions; so they are just some idea of where they might be located on the plat, although River Road hugs the Indian River, which seemed to be the intent of the designer of the plat. He stated there is no record that he could find of acceptance of the plat by the County; it is just something that was filed in 1891, but no one knows what the procedures were back then. He stated the owner of all the property, which is part of the plat, sold a couple of the lots along the Indian River; at the time it was sold, no one knew the plat existed and there were no exceptions made for River Road; however, about a year after the lots were sold, the plat popped up and they realized they had a problem; hence they are here today. Mr. Nohrr advised in 1978, the County vacated and replatted Hacienda Del Sol; in doing so, it vacated River Road to the south; and the result of that is the road does not exist to the south. He explained an aerial of the area, depicting River Road, the section line, and houses with docks; and noted there is no access to River Road to the south. He stated coming from the north end of Honeymoon Lake, there is no way of getting to the parcel of land; on the east side is Honeymoon Lake; on the west side is the Indian River; to the south is Hacienda Del Sol; and there is no way of getting to the road to the south and from the north, so what they are faced with is a policy.

Chairman Scarborough advised Mr. Nohrr’s time has expired; and inquired if there is a motion to extend the time.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to extend the time for Mr. Nohrr to complete his presentation. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Nohrr stated there is a policy that is well intended, which says not to vacate access to public water bodies unless it is clearly in the best interest of the public; in 1978, although the policy did not exist, the County went through a process and said it is not going to use River Road as it relates to Hacienda Del Sol and the permitting that was done to the south; so it cut off that road. He stated there is no public policy that he can think of that says granting the request would do any violence to the public because it is not going to deny the public access to something that it has no access to. He stated what is going to happen, if it is denied, is the property values would go down, so the tax dollars would be affected since waterfront property is the most expensive part of the lots; and there are probably going to be lawsuits between the buyer and seller. He stated no one gains by not vacating the road; and they are in no way denying anyone in the future any access to the property because all they have is an undefined width of property that runs along the shoreline. Mr. Nohrr stated it is a road that goes nowhere; no one has access to it; there is nobody from the public who will be hurt or disadvantaged in any way, shape, or form, by the vacating of the road; and it would allow the property owners to get the bargain they thought they had. He stated he does not think it would be a precedent as far as the County’s Comprehensive Plan goes; it is not their intent to run roughshod over the Comprehensive Plan and its policies; it is an accident that happened and nobody can get access to the property no matter what happens with this; and requested the Board’s favorable action to vacate River Road and the dogleg road.

Commissioner Higgs advised it is not a Comprehensive Plan Policy; it is BCC Policy No. 77 which says, “The Board of County Commissioners acknowledges the importance of maintaining access to waterfront property and therefore will not consider vacating public access to waterfront properties unless such access is clearly in the best interest of Brevard County.” She stated under directives, it charges the Engineering Department with processing those petitions; (c) says, “If the petitioner desires to pursue the vacating request, the Public Works Department will process the request and make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners regarding whether such action is in the best interest of Brevard County”; and (d) says, “the Board of County Commissioners will review the vacating request at a public hearing to determine if the request is in the best interest of Brevard County. If the Board of County Commissioners determines that the request is not in the best interest of Brevard County, the Board will so advise the petitioners and the request will be denied.” She stated if the Board determines the request is in the best interest of the public, the public hearing to consider the vacating request will be scheduled. Commissioner Higgs stated the Policy establishes a two-step process; they have not followed that process in this regard; and the Board needs to first follow that process, but on the Indian River side with this vacating, there is a public interest in preserving a right-of-way because the County has the opportunity to protect the lagoon in that area and could conceivably keep natural the border of the Indian River. She stated just north of the proposed vacating #2 there appears to be a lot that does not have access; and inquired where does that person get access; with Mr. Nohrr responding there is a private easement at the end of the cul-de-sac to Stuart to give access to the grove. Commissioner Higgs inquired if all the lots have private easements; with Mr. Nohrr responding two lots have a private easement; Attorney Spielvogel owns the lot immediately north; and he has made arrangements to have that easement extended so he has access. He stated the property to the north can be developed through a private easement that runs closer to Honeymoon Lake. Commissioner Higgs inquired about the other lots further north; with Mr. Nohrr responding they have no access; and he does not know how they would get there. He identified on a map where the plat ends; and stated he did not investigate what might be available to them coming from the north, but there is nothing coming from the south other than the private easement. Commissioner Higgs inquired if someone who does not have a private easement would have to sue the property owners to the south to get access; with Mr. Nohrr responding they could, and they could get access through extension of the private easement. He stated that is not an issue he looked at; but whatever access they would get would come off the private easement and would have nothing to do with River Road, which stops where the 1891 plat ends. He noted there is no River Road going north. Commissioner Higgs stated if the Board leaves that access, then those people who do not have access would have access at that point, so they do not have to go after all the additional property owners to get access. Mr. Nohrr stated they would not have any access because they cannot get to the River Road; it cannot provide anyone with access to property along Honeymoon Lake unless they come by boat across the Indian River; and the only access to any of the properties must come by private easements.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the first three lots are probably developable; the remaining lots north of the yellow line are sandy swamp and totally wet; Honeymoon Lake is a swamp and has a nice name but has reeds and is a mud puddle; and he would not want to build anything there. Commissioner Higgs stated there is a similar scenario in the south part of the County concerning access to what seems to be a parallel of undevelopability; owners are suing the County, St. Johns River Water Management District, and private property owner for access; and if this request is approved, it would vacate a portion of what could be a public access. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the access to the property is through Stuart Drive; with Mr. Nohrr responding yes. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the purpose of the vacating is to give the lots created access to the water; with Mr. Nohrr responding that is correct. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board was supposed to go through two steps based on the Policy and it is at the public hearing now, what was the other step; with Commissioner Higgs responding a step was missed; the Public Works Department is to process and make a recommendation whether the action is in the best interest of the public; so the Board has to go back a step and have staff return with a recommendation so the Board can review it again to make that determination. Commissioner Higgs stated this can be the hearing to determine if it is in the public interest, but the Board does not have staff’s recommendation. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board needs staff’s recommendation, why did staff skip that step.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to direct staff to investigate the vacating of River Road right-of-way and an unnamed right-of-way in Burchfiet’s Subdivision as petitioned by Attorney Phillip F. Nohrr and return with a recommendation. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt Resolution vacating the dogleg right-of-way in Burchfiet’s Subdivision as petition by Attorney Phillip F. Nohrr and described as Vacation #1. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO MERGER AND CHANGE OF
CONTROL OF AT&T BROADBAND NON-EXCLUSIVE CABLE TELEVISION
FRANCHISE TO AT&T COMCAST CORPORATION

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider a resolution consenting to the merger and change of control of AT&T Broadband Non-exclusive cable television franchise to AT&T Comcast Corporation.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt Resolution consenting to the merger and change of control of AT&T Broadband non-exclusive cable television franchise to AT&T Comcast Corporation. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING COMMISSION SALARIES
FOR 2003 AND 2004

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance establishing Commission salaries for 2003 and 2004.

Human Resources Director Frank Abbate advised in Section 2.6 of the County Charter, which was amended November 7, 2000, there is a provision that indicates on each even-numbered year the Board has to review Commission salaries and adopt an ordinance that would set those salaries effective for January 1 of the following year. He stated the time period for that review is between January 1 and October 1 of the even-numbered year; and this is year 2002, which is the first opportunity under that new Charter provision to conduct the review. He stated there are some parameters in the Charter that apply; the first parameter is that the increase can be no greater than the average percentage increase of the salaries of County employees for the fiscal year just concluded, which is 5.5%, or the percentage change of the Consumer Price Index from the previous fiscal year, which was 2.65%; and it has to be no greater than the lower of those two numbers, so the cap is 2.65%. Mr. Abbate advised they advertised an ordinance that provides for the Board’s consideration of a 2.65% salary increase effective January 1, 2003, which would be $59,853; and the Board salary has remained the same at $58,308 since January 1, 1997.

Commissioner Carlson advised she brought the issue up a long time ago based on the fact that it did not sound like a good idea to have the Board set its own salary; and there was a lot of stir in the community saying it would mean the Commissioners would have a huge salary increase if the Board allowed the State to set its salaries like all other counties in the State do. She stated the Charter says the Board will set the salaries; that was voted on November 7, 2000; the Board is carrying out that initiative because the voters said that is what they want the Board to do; so the Board needs to go with the 2.65% increase unless anyone else has a question.

Chairman Scarborough stated for some reason this subject seems to draw an enormous amount of negative comments; and for that small amount of money, it would be best to again waive any salary increase and stay with the current rate. He stated there are serious issues the Board has to deal with; so it would be the most prudent thing to do.

Commissioner Carlson stated after all the argument the Board had, it put it out as a Charter amendment to ask the folks, and they agreed; but she agrees 2.65% is nothing. Chairman Scarborough stated the Board does not have to take the increase; in comparison to the discussion that would go on and the amount of it, it would be best to waive the increase. Commissioner Carlson stated she agrees with that. Commissioner O'Brien stated the ordinance sets the salaries; with Chairman Scarborough responding the ordinance says the Board has to take the lower of the two percentages, if anything, but it does not say it has to take the increase. Mr. Abbate stated the parameters of the Charter provide that the Board cannot lower the Commissioners’ salaries during the term of office, which means the lowest salary it can approve would be the current salary of $58,308; but it does not have to approve the increase of up to 2.65% and can take anything between those numbers.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to waive salary increase for Commissioners, keep it at the current rate, and adopt an Ordinance reviewing and fixing County Commission salaries; requiring periodic review and approval of Commission salaries in the manner required by the Brevard County Charter; providing for severability; providing for repeal; and providing for an effective date. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 106, GOLF CART USE
ON PUBLIC ROADS

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 106, Golf Cart Use on Public Roads.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt an Ordinance amending Brevard County Code of Ordinances Chapter 106, Article III, Golf Carts, Section 106.73, Operations; specifically to allow the use of golf carts for additional purposes and designating roads/streets which may be used by golf carts; and to establish legal operating age as set forth under the current State Statute; providing for area encompassed; penalty and enforcement; conflicting provisions; severability; codification; and effective date. Motion carried and ordered unanimously

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18, REGULATING
VALKARIA AIRPORT

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 18, regulating Valkaria Airport.

Dick Skovgaard, Director of Flight Safety Academy in Vero Beach, advised the Academy is the country’s leading aviation training organization; 70,000 pilots, aircraft mechanics, and other aviation personnel are trained by Flight Safety Academy every year; and at the Vero Beach facility, they conduct abinitio training, which is the beginning or basic pilot training. He stated they normally have 300 to 500 pilots in training; and 85% are U.S. citizens and the other 15% are normally airline employees from other countries. He stated they try very hard to be good neighbors, emphasize safety, follow established FAA flying rules and regulations; and since neither the Airport Manager nor Flight Safety has received a single complaint about their operations at Valkaria Airport over the past six months, they believe their continued efforts are effective. Mr. Skovgaard stated considering they have over 1,500 operations per month at Valkaria Airport, they believe that the lack of complaints is indicative of how seriously they take their responsibilities. He stated the Board received, through the Airport Manager, a letter from the FAA in December 2000 stating the current Ordinance restrictions on transitional landings pose a significant safety hazard. He stated since there are no parallel taxiways at Valkaria Airport, airplanes have to land, turn around on the runway, and taxi back on that active runway against landing and departing traffic; and that could be compared to driving the wrong way on a one-way street. He stated federal funds are available to construct parallel taxiways at Valkaria Airport; the County has to request the funds; and that would eliminate the safety hazard that currently exists. Mr. Skovgaard advised the Board received another letter from the FAA a few weeks ago, which stated that the limitation on touch-and-go landings is in violation of its Agreement and the 1958 Deed with the federal government. He stated since the Board has been warned by the FAA that the Ordinance restricting touch-and-go operations is creating a safety hazard and is in violation of the Agreement with the federal government, a major liability issue would undoubtedly ensue if there is an aircraft accident. He stated more importantly, pilot safety is being jeopardized every day this restriction is in effect; and ignoring the FAA warning, violating the federal Agreement on use of the Airport, and jeopardizing pilot safety all seem very irresponsible, particularly in light of the fact that neither the Airport Manager nor Flight Safety are receiving complaints about airplane operations. He encouraged the Board to listen to its legal advisor and Airport Manager who can point out the safety hazard and the liability this ordinance imposes on the County.

Commissioner Colon stated Mr. Skovgaard brought up responsibility; the Board is more sensitive to this issue because of what happened on September 11; and it is trying to do everything possible to protect the community. She inquired if Flight Safety has taken all precautions to make sure it is not training people who will come back and hurt the community. She stated flight training needs to be scrutinized fully; and inquired, in regard to folks from the Middle East, if there is information that is given to the federal government about those folks who are applying to get licenses. Mr. Skovgaard stated the Flight Safety Academy received considerable attention immediately following the events of September 11; on CNN and other media, it was singled out as having trained some of the hijackers; on September 12 a dozen FBI agents came to the Academy and did a very thorough investigation; and it was found that not a single terrorist had trained at the Academy. He stated the FBI was impressed with the way they look at the students prior to bringing them in, the way they work with the Immigration Service, and the background checks they do as far as financial ability. He stated most of their foreign students are employed by an airline; in the case of Saudi Arabian Airlines, most of them were flight engineers, individuals who had been flying with the Airline about 20 years; they were being trained as pilots because they were doing away with the flight engineer position; and they had their families here and were devoted family men. Mr. Skovgaard stated none of the terrorists were trained at the Academy; since September 11, the INS is getting considerable attention on the background checks it is doing to allow people to come into the country; and they work closely with the INS. Commissioner Colon stated Mr. Skovgaard mentioned background checks on financial ability, and used the word “most”; the other percent is the percent she would be worried about; and the fact they have the financial ability is not a thing she would be impressed about. She stated she is not impressed with the INS based on the information she received and read; and inquired if Mr. Skovgaard is going to protect the credibility of his company. She noted what he has mentioned is not reassuring to people who lost a lot of people at the World Trade Center, so she does not feel any safer because of anything he has mentioned regarding background checks.

Chairman Scarborough inquired if Flight Safety Academy does additional checks beyond relying on the INS; with Mr. Skovgaard responding most of their reliance on background checks is done primarily through the FBI because they do not have the resources to do background checks in other countries. Mr. Skovgaard stated they are working with the National Air Transportation Association on smart cards, which are cards that each student is issued that have a computer chip with the background information, including driver’s license information and whether there has been any problems with arrests, felonies, etc. He stated the FBI will have its input as far as its background checks; and those are additional steps that are being taken. He stated an academy like Flight Safety, where they come to train for seven months to a year or even longer, is entirely different than the type of training that was done just prior to the events of September 11; those people were coming in for a one or two-week course to get checked out in a particular kind of airplane; and in some cases they were flying large aircraft simulators with no interest in how to make take offs and landings. He stated there are additional steps being taken; and most of that is being worked through the Department of Justice and through the FAA.

Commissioner Colon stated another concern is that students have gone too close to areas where they should not be; and some of the excuses have been they do not understand the language, based on information she heard and read. She stated she does not know how accurate that is, but it is a serious concern because future attacks will not be done in the same manner; and those folks are flying over Brevard County, which is the Board’s jurisdiction. Mr. Skovgaard advised he understands the concerns; and gave an example of one of their students accused of flying within less than a mile of a nuclear power plant, and when he got NORAD to plot the exact track of that airplane, it never got closer than 21 miles of the plant. He stated there have been a lot of reports that turned out to be erroneous, which is unfortunate; and usually corrections are put on page 9 in small print in a newspaper.

Janis Walters of Valkaria advised the reason no complaints have been made to the Airport Manager is because there is no chance of prosecution; hence, this hearing is to revise the Ordinance. She stated recent letters from the FAA have stated what the previous gentleman said; however, the FAA is on record on both sides of the issue; a letter from Steven Brill, Manager of the FAA Atlanta Airports Division to Bob Varley dated June 12, 1997, says, “The County, in good faith, issued a note in the airport facility directory stating that no touch-and-go landings are permitted on Runway 9/27. Our Orlando District Office talked to the flight school and encouraged it to follow this directive. This should provide significant relief to the homeowners bothered by air traffic over their houses.” She stated a letter from Vernon Repinto, Orlando Airport Division FAA to Jim Soldini, dated March 4, 1998, specifically on the Valkaria Airport Ordinance, says, “The FAA discussed with the County that a restriction to use 9/27 only when the winds dictate or for emergency purposes only is acceptable. Landing and then taxi back to take off again is definitely acceptable and advisable.” Ms. Walters stated in transferring the responsibility for enforcing the Airport rules to Code Enforcement, they encountered the same problem as with the Sheriff’s Department; an officer must investigate the incident; under Code Section 1837A and 1884A in the proposed ordinance, it is up to the Airport Manager to investigate complaints and determine whether a violation has occurred; and since he is required to function as a Code Enforcement officer, he should be qualified to do so. She suggested the Airport Manager’s job description include Code Enforcement training, giving him the unquestioned capability as well as the responsibility to enforce the Airport rules; and as an incentive to perform that duty, any fines should go to the Airport as revenue. She stated she read the Deed many times and it does not preclude the Board from placing restrictions on the runways; and the County cannot be made responsible for operating the property as an airport without the authority to do so in the best interest of its citizens. Ms. Walters advised she found a few housekeeping things in the proposed ordinance; in Section 18-81, the word “enforced” is missing; it should say, “all violations of this Section should be enforced in accordance with Section 18-84”; otherwise it does not make sense.

Chairman Scarborough inquired if Ms. Walters is in favor of the ordinance; with Ms. Walters responding yes. Chairman Scarborough inquired if the intent of the Board is to support the changes. Commissioner Higgs inquired if Ms. Walters had anything else. Chairman Scarborough stated she has a lot of material to present. Ms. Walters stated she has one more opinion and the rest are housekeeping items. Chairman Scarborough inquired if Ms. Walters want to make technical changes to the ordinance; with Ms. Walters responding she also has some substantive changes. Chairman Scarborough suggested Ms. Walters go to the ordinance changes she would like to see. Ms. Walters suggested page 6, paragraph (11) be changed to not only law enforcement but also persons with concealed carry permits be allowed to be armed on Airport property. She stated in a time when aircraft of all sizes are being used by terrorists and at an airport where one plane has already been stolen, it may not be wise to assure persons with criminal intent that nobody at Valkaria Airport has a weapon; and one of the ways the concealed carry program is effective is that uncertainty. She stated if they have concealed carry permits, they have taken firearms training. Chairman Scarborough inquired if that is okay with the Board. Commissioner Carlson inquired for what purpose; with Ms. Walters responding for self defense. She stated an airplane was stolen in broad daylight; there is concern that Mosquito Control spray planes might be targets; at the Airport Advisory Board meetings, when the ordinance was being crafted, Bill Plute was adamantly opposed to any firearms on the Airport property; but a lot of pilots sometimes are there after dark and would like to be armed for self-defense while they are there working. Commissioner Carlson stated there is something in the law that says they cannot bring a concealed weapon into a government building; and inquired if that applies for the Airport property; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding it applies to the building, but he is not sure it applies to the premises and would have to look it up. Ms. Walters stated her understanding is on all federal properties they cannot carry firearms because it is a State permit, but the Airport is County land, so she does not know how that would work. Commissioner Higgs stated she does not mind looking at that at a later time, but she is not ready to vote on that without full information; and suggested staff look into that and give the Board a report on it. Ms. Walters stated Section 4, 18-82(1) has to do with fire extinguishers; it says, “Such fire extinguishers shall be fully charged at all times and inspected at least annually”; she assumes the fire marshall does the inspection; but suggested adding that the compliance should be verified by the Airport Manager. She stated the last time she asked Mr. Shimkus about it, there had never been in inspection of the fire extinguishers or whether or not they were properly inspected by a qualified person and fully charged; so the Airport Manager should conduct a verification at least once a year. Commissioner O'Brien stated the company that refurbishes fire extinguishers should give the person a receipt for doing it; and a copy of that could be put in the file; with Ms. Walters responding that is not how it is done, but that would be perfect. Chairman Scarborough inquired if that is something the Board wants to deal with today; with Commissioner Higgs responding that is fine. Airport Manager Jim Shimkus stated he is doing it now. Commissioner Colon suggested putting it in the ordinance to make sure it is done. Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca stated she is not sure the ordinance was advertised broadly enough to allow that change. Mr. Knox advised Assistant County Attorney Cliff Repperger told him those kinds of substantive changes would not be allowed under the advertisement. Commissioner O'Brien suggested Ms. Walters provide her written changes to the staff who will make changes and bring it back to the Board for a second reading; and at that time the changes the Board agrees with it can be inserted so the whole thing is approved at one time. Ms. Walters stated that is fine with her. Commissioner Higgs stated she would prefer to get what is advertised in place and move forward with that then look at the rest of the changes because the enforcement provisions need to be adopted as quickly as possible. Ms. Walters stated there is one thing involved in enforcement that has not been addressed by the update of the Ordinance; it is not clear who is going to be held responsible for violations, is it the aircraft owner, pilot, or student pilot; and in a flight instruction situation it would be murky as to who was actually flying the plane at the time a violation is observed. She stated any lease or rental of an aircraft or educational services provided on the operation of an aircraft is a contractual arrangement; and that makes the owner ultimately responsible for how the aircraft is used. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if they have records of who is flying a plane; with Ms. Walters responding the Board would be surprised how they will lie, as she has personal experience with that issue. Chairman Scarborough stated if there are no problems with the amendments, the Board could go ahead and bring the additional amendments back advertised correctly. Ms. Walters stated another housekeeping item is in Section 18-84(1) which states, “If the special master finds that a violation has occurred, he shall may impose the following penalties; and the Board needs to choose “shall” or “may”. Commissioner O'Brien stated he prefers “may” to provide some flexibility for gray areas; with Ms. Walters responding if there is no penalty, what is the point. Commissioner O'Brien stated there will be a penalty, but the amount would be up to the Airport Manager. Ms. Walters stated there should be a penalty, so it should be “shall”. Commissioners Higgs, Carlson, and Colon agreed with “shall”. Ms. Walters stated in Section 18-85, the first sentence, “transitional” is replaced with “touch-and-go” and “stop-and-go”, but that substitution was not made in the second sentence; and that change needs to be made.

Commissioner Higgs stated Section 18-84, page 11, subsection (a) says, “upon receipt of a sworn complaint”; that would require someone to get a notary, which is not a wise investment of time; and recommended a signed complaint alleging facts that establish probable cause of a violation of any provision instead of a sworn complaint. She stated another item relates to the Airport Manager being required to do one of three things; a and b are there, but c would be to issue a letter of no violation to the person who made the report of violation.

There being no further comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt an Ordinance of Brevard County, Florida, specifically amending Chapter 18, Article II, Divisions 1 through 3, Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida, specifically amending Section 18-36, Definitions, amending the definition of transitional landing; specifically amending Section 18-37, Airport Manager; appointment; responsibilities and duties, changing violation enforcement responsibilities and procedure; specifically amending Section 18-81, Use of County Airport-General Conditions, providing for consistent enforcement; specifically amending Section 18-82, Safety Procedures, providing for consistent enforcement; specifically amending Section 18-83, Aircraft Operations, providing for consistent enforcement; specifically amending Section 18-84, Penalty, changing title name to enforcement and penalty and creating new enforcement procedures; repealing Section 18-85, Enforcement; providing for severability; providing for conflicting provisions; providing for inclusion in the Code; providing for area encompassed; and providing for effective date, as amended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 62, ARTICLE X, DIVISION 2,
LANDSCAPING, AND DIVISION 3, LAND CLEARING

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 62, Article X, Division 2, Landscaping, and Division 3, Land Clearing.

Charles Moehle, President of Modern, Inc., representing himself, advised the item has been up for discussion before; the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board took care of concerns brought to it by him and others; the main concern is the onerous problem of bonding by individual homeowners who want to buy property and build a house and have to get a bond, as well as small businesses. He stated it is unclear how long the bond would be for; it insinuates it might be in perpetuity; and that is almost impossible to get for anybody; but the P&Z Board may have taken care of that. He stated two other items were brought up by the P&Z Board, which were increasing the distance from a structure to trees from ten feet to twenty-five feet; it was a fire safety issue for properties primarily in a rural setting; the problem with ordinances like this is people forget in a lot of cases there is a rural community out there; and they need to protect their houses when the fire station is not nearby or fire hydrants are not on every corner. He encouraged the Board to include those recommendations for large agricultural tracts, large lots, and any lot that has a problem of being on the fringe area of having protection from wildfires. Mr. Moehle suggested changing some wording in Section 3, paragraph X, page 3, to clarify what 2.5 contiguous acres are; stated it reads, “for lots greater than 2.5 acres, requirement to remove and control regrowth of nonnative, noxious, invasive plants applies to 2.5 contiguous acres at minimum, including the buildable area.”; and to clarify the intent, “at minimum” should be deleted and “to and” added to read “2.5 contiguous acres to and including the buildable area.” He stated the last sentence says, “requirements to remove nonnative, noxious, invasive plants at the time of development and control regrowth of such plants in the minimum area”; and suggested deleting “minimum” and adding “required” to make it clear and not leave it to interpretation of who is reading it. Mr. Moehle stated these are costly and burdensome requirements in the long run; they need to be carefully addressed; and one thing that was discussed is the County doing it and setting a good example. He inquired what is the County doing to comply with the ordinance since it is making everybody else do it.

Commissioner Higgs advised the Board established the policy that all areas not maintained for a particular purpose should be maintained in their native state. Mr. Moehle stated he understands that, but his question is what is happening actively. Natural Resources Management Director Conrad White advised exotics are being removed from road rights-of-way being improved, but not from all rights-of-way; and an administrative order mandating that and setting out the criteria for maintaining land in its natural state is in its draft form and near completion. County Manager Tom Jenkins advised Parks and Recreation is working on a number of projects as well and is doing it in rights-of-way; and staff is creating standards that will be given to all County Departments to implement to the extent feasible as part of the Board’s action. Mr. White advised the Water Resources Department is also developing a management plan for its properties; and Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer advised the Board approved that plan today. Commissioner Higgs stated if there is a development order, there would be no reason to not comply with the Ordinance if it is passed today; it says at the time of development it would do that; and it is going a step further than that and trying to maintain all areas even beyond development. Mr. Moehle stated he is not sure the ordinance includes County lands; it seems to address private lands only by saying certificates of occupancy for single family, subdivisions, multifamily, commercial, and industrial projects; and the County has other kinds of projects. Chairman Scarborough stated government lands could be added to the ordinance. Mr. Moehle stated the goal is good, but everybody needs to work on it; and the government needs to solve the problem first. Chairman Scarborough stated the County is being much more aggressive than what it is setting in the Ordinance, so it is exceeding those parameters.

Commissioner Higgs stated page 5, paragraph (b) goes from 1.5 inches to 2 inches; and inquired where that came from; with Mr. White responding that has been removed and it is still 1.5 inches. Virginia Barker stated a replacement page was given to the Commissioners.

Commissioner Colon stated the County received letters from some municipalities regarding the ordinance; she does not understand the part that says, “This ordinance shall take effect within the unincorporated area of Brevard County with the exception of 62-4334(x) and 62-4336 as it pertains to the removal or re-growth control of nonnative, noxious, invasive plants, which is required throughout the entire County. Enforcement of these specified sections of this ordinance within incorporated areas shall be pursued by the affected municipalities”; and inquired if the cities are on their own; with Mr. White responding yes, it would be up to the cities to enforce that section of the ordinance or opt out if they choose. Commissioner Colon inquired if they do not opt out, are they part of it; with Mr. White responding copies of the ordinance and a letter explaining what the County was doing were mailed to the municipalities on March 18, 2002, giving them the 60 days that is required for this type of ordinance; so far staff received responses from Rockledge, Cape Canaveral, Cocoa Beach, and Satellite Beach which incorporated the ordinance, Titusville requested the Board defer approving it, and Melbourne opted out. Commissioner Colon inquired if there is any way to get feedback from the cities, because sometimes when something is mailed, staff does not know whether the appropriate folks received it; if she saw all the municipalities, she would have a comfort level; but not all the cities responded and some may have similar ordinances, such as Melbourne that said it would not participate. Commissioner Higgs inquired if they are automatically out since they notified staff or is there language that needs to be included in the ordinance that Melbourne is not covered; with Mr. White responding if staff does not receive notice from a city, it decided to go along with the ordinance. Commissioner Higgs stated Melbourne specifically opted out; with Mr. White responding he had discussions with Palm Bay and they were going to discuss it two weeks ago, but he has not heard back from that city.

Chairman Scarborough inquired how does a city opt out, and is it just by sending a letter to the County or does the Board have to acknowledge the opting out; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding the ordinance takes effect Countywide unless the city has a conflicting ordinance or an ordinance that addresses the same topic; and there is no such thing as opting out. Commissioner Carlson inquired if that is said in the ordinance. Chairman Scarborough inquired if the Board has to put language in the ordinance addressing which cities are in or not; with Mr. Knox responding no. Chairman Scarborough stated if the Board passes the ordinance, it will become what the cities do rather than what the Board does; with Mr. Knox responding that is right. Commissioner Colon inquired if a city can do what it wants; with Chairman Scarborough responding if a city likes the ordinance, it can do nothing and have it without going through the process; with Mr. Knox responding that is correct. Mr. Jenkins inquired if Melbourne needs to be notified to pass an ordinance to opt out; with Mr. Knox responding it has an Ordinance, so it has effectively opted out. Commissioner Colon stated she wants to be sure the Board is not tying the hands of any municipality. Chairman Scarborough requested Mr. Knox provide the Board with a memo on the effect of the Board passing an ordinance countywide when they have the ability to have city ordinances.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Local Planning Agency recommendation on page 5, paragraph (d), line 2, says “building foundation and swimming pools” should be inserted; with Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer responding the ordinance was not very broad and included only the Board’s direction and legislative intent to deal with only nonnative plants, so the only changes to the ordinance were in that capacity. Mr. Peffer advised the other two changes discussed went beyond that because they deal with a defensible buffer around the property and the building foundation and pools; it may be something the Board wishes to address; but in this particular effort, they were only directed to address nonnative, noxious, invasive plants; and those were the only changes advertised.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt an Ordinance of Brevard County, Florida, amending Chapter 62, Article XIII, Divisions 2 and 3, Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida, relating to landscaping and land clearing, specifically amending Section 62-4331, Definitions and Rules of Construction; Section 62-4332, Violations, Penalty; Section 62-4334, General Landscaping Requirements; Section 62-4336, Maintenance, Inspections; Section 62-4361, Definitions; 62-4366, Protection of Trees and Vegetative Buffers; providing for the interpretation of conflicting provisions; providing for severability; providing for area encompassed and an effective date, as amended to include government lands.

Mr. Moehle inquired about the changes he suggested regarding the 2.5 contiguous acres and the last sentence on page 3 to clarify the intent. Mr. Peffer stated it makes it clearer.

Commissioner Higgs accepted the amendments recommended by Mr. Moehle as part of the motion; and Commissioner Scarborough accepted the amendments.

Chairman Scarborough called for a vote on the motion as amended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the Board wants to consider the recommendations of the LPA or do that separately and bring it back; with Mr. Peffer responding there are additional changes to the Landscape Ordinance that will come back to the Board, so staff will include those changes and let the Board reflect on those. Mr. Peffer stated staff would have to do the legislative intent. Commissioner Higgs stated Section 4, page 3, exempts single-family lots from demonstrating viability of their plants for the year, while all other forms of development must comply with the one year; and she would like to have that considered. Mr. Peffer stated they will include that in the next round of changes to the Ordinance.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF VESTED RIGHTS BY
REDMAN, UNDERWOOD, PALMERI TO REAFFIRM VALIDITY OF CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR THREE OF FIVE APPROVED RESIDENTIAL DOCKS

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider a request for determination of vested rights by James and Patsy Redman, James and Katherine Underwood, and John and Sylvia Palmeri regarding conditional use permits for three of five approved residential docks.

Van Catterton, Attorney for applicants, requested reaffirmation of the conditional use permits. Commissioner O'Brien advised a joinder is necessary.

There being no further comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to determine that James and Patsy Redman, James and Katherine Underwood, and John and Sylvia Palmeri have vested rights to the validity of conditional use permits for residential docks that will become effective when the County Attorney receives a joinder from A. Van Catterton, Jr., attorney for the applicants, which remedies the lack of proper authorization to rezone the property in the early 1990’s. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 5:50 p.m., and reconvened at 5:58 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF VESTED RIGHTS BY
PITTMAN, RE: REAFFIRM VALIDITY OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ONE
OF FIVE APPROVED RESIDENTIAL DOCKS

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider a request for determination of vested rights by Donald and Lorraine Pittman to reaffirm validity of a conditional use permit for one of five approved residential docks.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to determine that Donald and Lorraine Pittman have vested rights, and reaffirm the validity of a conditional use permit for one of five residential docks, effective when the County Attorney receives a joinder from the applicant to remedy the lack of proper authorization to rezone the property in the early 1990’s. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF VESTED RIGHTS BY
REIHL, RE: BUILDING PERMIT FOR PROPERTY WITHOUT ACCESS TO COUNTY-
MAINTAINED AND ACCEPTED ROAD

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider a request from Douglas Reihl for determination of vested rights for a building permit on property without access to a County-maintained and accepted road. He stated Mr. Reihl requested a fee waiver, but had to leave to pick up his daughter; he has been before the Board four times; and if there is no objection, the Board could approve it, but if there are questions, it could be tabled.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to continue the public hearing on the request from Douglas Reihl for a determination of vested rights to obtain a building permit on property without access to a County-maintained and accepted road until July 23, 2002. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF VESTED RIGHTS BY
DeTAMPLE FOR BUILDING PERMIT FOR FLAG LOT WITHOUT ADEQUATE UPLANDS

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider a request from Darrell and Diane DeTample for determination of vested rights for a building permit on a flag lot without adequate uplands.

Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott advised the request has been modified; the original request was that a flag lot be recognized, which would allow the approximately two-acre parcel to not only have the flag lot, but a frontage lot along Fleming Grant Road; the applicants informed him that their only desire is to have one parcel, the flag lot and the frontage lot recognized as one lot; and they would be willing to forego the flag lot. He stated staff would, if authorized, change the zoning map to reflect that.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to determine that Darrell and Diane DeTample have vested rights to obtain a building permit for construction of a single-family residence on a flag lot that does not contain adequate uplands, subject to combining the flag lot with the frontage lot as one parcel. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: RELEASING CONTRACT FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN SUNSET LAKES
SUBDIVISION, PHASE IX

Chairman Scarborough advised he has cards from Barbara Benn that say, “there are unresolved serious concerns that residents share. We need more time to adequately address our issues. Mr. Don McGee, one of the developers, has a financial partner in Deerfield Beach who we understand is the Homeowners Association and should be held accountable for correcting problems within the development. We implore the Board to postpone any release of his Contract obligations.” He stated the other card is from Audrey Floto, which says, “due to the length of time this meeting has taken, I’ve had to leave due to family obligations and I had a lot to say. Due to no fault of ours, our time has been changed several times. There are a lot of matters that need to be resolved.”

Barbara Benn stated there were 25 homes when they built their home; today there are about 400 homes; she is a District representative on the North Merritt Island Homeowners Association; and Sunset Lakes has yet to take on its own homeowners association because it is still in the hands of the developer. She stated they are perilously close to being handed the whole thing without a lot of what they consider potential if not serious problems resolved; and that is because of the developer Mr. Don McGee. She stated during the course of eight and a half years that they have lived there, a number of things have taken place; and they are delineated in the staff’s report.

Chairman Scarborough inquired if Mr. McGee or his representative is present at the meeting; and no response was heard. He inquired if Ms. Benn’s thought is that the Board should not take any action and needs further consideration; with Ms. Benn responding she is not an authority on this; she is here because she made herself available; she has an 82-year old mother sitting in the car; and she has been here with her for hours. Chairman Scarborough stated if the applicant is not here, the Board is not going to resolve anything this afternoon.

Ms. Benn stated she needs to interject a thought; they do not know if it is the best thing for this to be tabled or not; this is what they think are the facts; the performance bond, which means little to her, apparently expires the end of May; and what it does or does not do, she does not know. She stated it seems it is a good thing they are here today rather than May 7, 2002; it was actually tabled to the July 9, 2002 meeting; if the Board would look back, it would see that; she has the paperwork that says so; somehow or another it got on the agenda today; and maybe Mr. Washburn has information on that. She stated they found out about it at the last minute; her husband is out of town at the Governor’s Hurricane Conference all week; they asked many other residents to come forward; the time constraints, family obligations, working and whatever make it tough; but there are a lot of people who care, have concerns, have problems and cannot play this game back and forth with trying to beat the system and stay on top of all this. She stated it is not their job, but it is their problem, so they are looking for a resolution with assistance of the County. She stated they do not know whether they should stick with and request it be tabled until July 9, 2002; and without the bond, maybe someone better versed can tell them if this is a good thing or bad thing.

Chairman Scarborough instructed Mr. Washburn to advise the Board of the situation.

Permitting and Enforcement Director Ed Washburn advised the performance bond is for Phase IX; the residents live in Phase I; a lot of the problems deal with earlier phases; and Phase IX has been inspected and cleared for release of the performance bond, unless the County Attorney can tell him a way staff can hold that bond, because they did not find anything wrong with any improvements made in Phase IX. He stated staff has been working with the homeowners and talked to Mr. and Mrs. Benn the day after their previous meeting to explain to them that staff needed to get the report back to the Board prior to the bond expiring if the Board thought it could do something with respect to leverage based on Phase IX. Mr. Washburn advised staff contacted the eight people on the petition; their report indicates the concerns they were able to come up with; they believe there are concerns; but they also believe all those concerns are situations that have to deal with the homeowners association as it relates to the developer. He stated it is a private subdivision.

Chairman Scarborough inquired if the bond will not help the residents who live in Phase I; with Mr. Washburn responding no, unless the County Attorney can find a way. Chairman Scarborough inquired if there is a way the County can look to the bond to help the residents in Phase I; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding no, the bond is tied to improvements in Phase IX; and unless the improvements are not completed in that phase, there is no reason to call the bond.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the resolution says, “the Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, hereby accepts all improvements to the roads and streets, and accepts all drainage easements, utility easements, and other rights-of-way, easements located on the real property known as Sunset Lakes Subdivision, Phase IX is hereby released from any further liability or obligation contained in the Contract.” He stated it is a gated community; and inquired how can the Board release the developer. Mr. Washburn advised staff accepts improvements that are completed to County standards; it is a private subdivision; if it were public roads and not a gated community, there would be public roads, and the developer would have to post a two-year maintenance bond to ensure the improvements stand up; but that does not occur with a private subdivision; however, staff makes sure they are built to County standards then they are released to the homeowners association.

Valin Best stated what they are worried about as potential homeowners association members when and if they are granted that privilege, is that they will be handed something that will not meet standards or will be a liability. He stated they would like the Board not to sign off on Phase IX because they may have real problems with the financial setup with Sunset Lakes and many other factors they cannot get into; and they need time to review it and go to Tallahassee to find out, under the Condominium Association laws, what is applicable in their situation. He stated they have some problems with drainage, which the St. Johns River Water Management District tied into the groundwater and all the other things; so they have a multitude of problems and do not want the builder/developer to wash his hands of and hand them a bad situation. He stated economically that could be devastating to the homeowners; and at this time, they have not had time to evolve anything since they just got the report today.

Ms. Benn stated the report was faxed to her and she picked up another copy when she came here; and that was about 1:30 p.m. today. She inquired if anyone else was sent the report; with Mr. Washburn responding no, the purpose of the report was to respond to the issues that the homeowners raised, so he assumed they knew about the issues. Ms. Benn stated it would almost appear as if Mr. Washburn handled it well and covered everything, but they disagree with that and believe they are entitled to do so. She stated they are prepared to list whatever they need to and call to the Board’s attention a couple of the things that have been listed by Mr. Washburn. She stated if she can read them, it can work against him; and she hates to use his own words, but they are glaring issues. Mr. Washburn stated he does not mind that, but wants to make one point clear; the issue appears between the homeowners association and the developer; it is a private subdivision; the County Attorney may tell Ms. Benn what the County can do; but he does not know where the County can interject itself between those two entities. Ms. Benn inquired if she can step in and suggest something, and the Board can blow her out of the water if it so desires.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Agenda Report gave the folks plenty of time to organize themselves, but the Board can table it until the third week in July to give them more time. Ms. Benn inquired what does that do regarding the bond coverage; with Commissioner O'Brien responding if the Board takes no action today, the bond will expire anyway; and inquired what would be the result of that. Mr. Washburn stated the only result is the improvements in Phase IX will be accepted. Commissioner Carlson stated the residents are trying to hold off on releasing Phase IX. Ms. Benn stated the Board is really missing it; Phase IX is the final phase; once the Board releases that, Mr. McGee is gone and will turn it over to the residents; so forget Phase I, which they live in, and everything up to Phase VIII because that has already slipped by them. She stated this is the first time they are catching it; once Phase IX is released, he is out of there; and all the other problems that they did not have a chance to address over the years in Phases I through VIII are what she is speaking about. Chairman Scarborough stated it goes with it because of the connectivity. Ms. Benn stated he is trying to isolate it by saying one has nothing to do with the other when in fact they are all together.

Chairman Scarborough stated the bond is very specific as to Phase IX; and what is wrong with Phase IX is the issue. County Manager Tom Jenkins advised the residents will inherit the subdivision when the Board releases Phase IX; and if it does not release that phase, they are not going to inherit the whole subdivision. Ms. Benn thanked Mr. Jenkins. Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca advised Phase X is the last phase, not Phase IX. Ms. Benn stated right, but Mr. McGee does not have to stay through that phase; he is released through Phase IX unless the Board shows them otherwise; and Mr. MacAvese has purchased everything else. Ms. Benn stated she believes the percentage is met as a result of Phase IX, but she could be wrong. She stated this is happening for a reason; it is not like they are coming together and putting this forward looking to be released and then he also has this phase; that is it for him; and once this is done and he slips by with this, the residents are stuck with everything, including attorneys’ expenses and everything that goes along with it. She asked the Commissioners to put themselves in that position if they lived there.

Commissioner Carlson stated the homeowners association does not exist until Phase IX is released; and the residents are trying to leverage it before the developer can run away from the problems; with Ms. Benn responding exactly. Ms. Benn stated on page 3, second paragraph of Mr. Washburn’s report, it starts off with “it should be noted that although there is indeed some need of repair to the existing infrastructure, the County cannot mandate this. At the time of certificate of completion in June 1993, this phase of the subdivision met all the criteria set forth in the approved subdivision development plans. After acceptance of construction of the subdivision infrastructure, it becomes the responsibility of the homeowners and/or the homeowners association to maintain these improvements as stated in the plat declaration of covenants.” She stated Mr. Washburn stated Mr. McGee is the homeowners association, so he is the responsible party for maintaining the improvements that the County approves; and that is only one thing. Mr. Washburn stated his point is that the homeowners association has to take necessary steps to force the developer to do that, as it is a private subdivision. Commissioner Carlson stated but there is no homeowners association. Mr. Washburn stated the homeowners association does not get turned over until they go through the process set out in the Florida Statutes. Mr. Best stated they do not want the builder to be able to run away from this issue. Ms. Benn stated it is not that they do not understand how the transition takes place; they are not there yet; and they do not want to be there yet because they can see the dollar signs, headaches, times, meetings, etc. Commissioner Carlson requested Mr. Knox respond to the issues. Mr. Knox advised there is nothing the County can do to help the people with their problems; that is the bottom line because the County only has a performance bond for Phase IX, which governs the improvements in that phase. He stated the Ordinance says the developer has to build those improvements a certain way; and if he does not, then the County can foreclose on the bond. Commissioner Carlson inquired if there is anything the tentative homeowners association can do, can they not accept the subdivision, and what is the law that talks to the fact that after 75% is completed, it goes to the homeowners association; with Mr. Knox responding the residents will have to see a lawyer to look over the documents and figure out what it is they can do, if anything. He stated it is possible they have an action against the developer and homeowners association to make them do the repairs. Mr. Best stated that is why they have come to the Board because people with deep pockets like the developer can always use a ploy to get around the residents who cannot afford a lawyer.

Ms. Benn stated that is not even the issue; the County and St. Johns River Water Management District have a large hand in this development; developments with lakes especially are not approved; they do not go forward without certain stamps and are supposedly inspected, approved, properly done, and all the other words that go along with it; and it does not happen without the County and St. Johns River Water Management District. She stated the County and the St. Johns River Water Management District officials are all over those plans; for eight and a half years the developer has been to the County getting permits, making modifications, etc.; and the development has changed quite a bit. Ms. Benn stated one small example is when they built on the lake there was nothing else there; they picked the center of the lake and were happy to be there; they were there for four and a half years with very few neighbors; and now all of a sudden a developer comes in and decides they are in short supply of waterfront so they start selling off the lots. She stated they watched in horror as the developer pushed land to make the lots larger on the other side; they have it on film; they have it in photos; and she personally sat there in horror along with other neighbors. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Ms. Benn put in a complaint with the Contractors Licensing Board; with Ms. Benn responding she does not know if they did it through the Contractors Licensing Board. Commissioner Carlson stated that is the only means the County has. Ms. Benn stated she cannot say for sure that was the avenue taken, but she knows it was brought to the attention of the responsible parties who are the County officials. She stated they raised their voices; the County officials came out, looked, and she knows personally they said it looks okay to them visually. She stated the residents said they would have to do a survey to actually see if it is okay; so they did a survey across the lake from her lot encompassing something like the whole circumference of the lake, or half way across, or some crazy thing, which is in the file somewhere; and they took months to do that. Ms. Benn stated they had meetings in her home; they afforded as much as they could to help; people change or move and they had to start over; they got a sympathetic ear, but that person transferred; and that is what they went through. She stated when all this is said and done, the survey is provided to them and they did not see any change; and they could not believe the stupidity. She stated she had to use that word; they surveyed the other side of the lake; she has lived there four and a half years when there was no one on the other side of the lake; so the recent survey could not possibly have been compared with anything else than the original survey to make any adequate comparison. She stated they had to compare something current with something that existed; and inquired if anybody gets what she is saying. She stated they did not find any errors, but they did not do the map right.

Chairman Scarborough stated he received a card from George Kraft, but will go to the Commissioners whose lights are on. He stated when the County does something, it has to have some authority to do it. Ms. Benn stated she has a great paragraph right in the report that will help Chairman Scarborough out.

Commissioner Colon stated Ms. Benn needs to promise her not to interrupt while she is speaking because she has been doing that a lot and it may cause her to lose her train of thought. She stated one of the concerns as a County is to sign off on something saying it is okay then have constituents say it is not okay, and there are issues; and inquired how does the County sign off on something that obviously is not okay. She stated it makes no sense; it is easier to wash their hands and say they do not see the problem; but that does not seem to be the case; so there must be something the Board has to do. She stated they keep talking about the homeowners association that is not there yet, but will be in the future; she was not informed correctly because they had issues over the past; but what they want to say is to learn from their experiences. She stated she understands there are issues on Phase IX; page 3, item 3 says, “sinkholes on Sierra Street, which are growing larger by the day are indicative of underwater pipe and water problems”; and inquired if that is coming from the folks addressing this at Phase IX or from staff’s observation. Ms. Benn stated sinkholes on Sierra Drive would have to be in Phase I or one of the early phases because that was one of the first streets; it was called Sunrise back then; the County changed it to Sierra; they should not have given the name Sunrise because there is another Sunrise; and it caused 9-1-1 problems. She stated Mr. Washburn can fill the Board in on that totally. Ms. Benn stated Phase IX is so far removed; it is a little section that is probably the most recently completed, so they do not know anything about it; and she does not even recognize the name of the streets. Commissioner Colon inquired then why are they here; and stated Ms. Benn said never mind the past, they want to learn from their experiences; but she wants to understand what is wrong with Phase IX and why the Board should not be signing off on it; and that is what she wants to understand. She stated if the Board is going to discuss what happened in the past, there is nothing it can do about that; it frustrates her that the Board cannot do anything about the past, but she wants to know what is wrong with Phase IX that the Board can underline and start from there and not sign off on something that is not up to standards. Mr. Best stated it would be wise for all to have enough time and come back to the Board in a month or two with pertinent data. He stated they have not had the opportunity to peruse and evaluate it; they are beating a dead horse here; but at the same time, they need to make sure all bonds are maintained. He stated they are not privy to all the interactions between government and the developers, but they do not want as a future association, to be handed a huge liability; Commissioners represent the people, not just developers; and they can use all sorts of legal maneuvers to bypass their moral responsibilities, but there is a moral responsibility here to make sure 400 homeowners are not given a bag of worms. He stated that is all they really want; and he will do the legwork and will start immediately in pursuing federal regulations. He requested the item be tabled.

Commissioner Carlson stated she sympathizes with what they are talking about because she has several communities in her District that have gone through this, and they do not want to accept all of it if there are problems. She stated she understands the mechanism is to take the problems to the Contractors Licensing Board, get evaluated, and at some point, if there is enough of them, the license can be pulled and they can keep construction from happening. She stated they could get an injunction; and that would be one way she supposes; and inquired if that is true; with Mr. Knox responding not in this case. Commissioner Carlson inquired if there is anything to protect the homeowners association based on the scenario of all these things in front of the Board under staff’s report, to protect them as a whole from any liability that is involved; with Mr. Knox responding not unless the County is going to require everyone to build publicly dedicated roads in private subdivisions, in which case the County would take over responsibility for the roads and they would not have to worry about it. He stated if Phase I has potholes and it was released eight years ago, there is nothing the Board can do with the bond that affects Phase IX to go back and pick up the pothole.

Mr. Best stated Commissioner O'Brien remembers the conversation they had with a builder who was building a commercial B&G building; some research proved the plots and layout of the land were off 10 to 20 feet in certain spots; so all the conveyances that were used in the plotting by the County may be in error. He stated if that is the case, the County should pursue that to make sure the land in question is plotted correctly, including Phase IX; then they can tie Phase IX to that issue. Commissioner O'Brien stated not really, and that is why there is title insurance; it is a civil matter; they have a gated private community; every road and every holding pond is privately owned; and nothing is maintained by the County. Commissioner O'Brien stated they have to meet certain regulations to build; but it is still private property with private roads, holding ponds, sewers, and drainage; and once they cross the property line they are on private property. Mr. Best inquired what good is a bond if it is private and the County is ruling on it; with Commissioner O'Brien responding the bond is to assure the County that at least the roads are built to County standards. Mr. Best stated they do not have to be in a gated community; with Commissioner Higgs responding yes, they do. Mr. Best stated he was told earlier they do not. Commissioner Higgs stated she is not sure what the Board is doing here, and it should get focused and decide on the issue. Ms. Benn inquired if she could say something else. Commissioner Higgs stated she has the floor; the item on the Agenda needs to be disposed of on way or another; the County Attorney and Mr. Washburn said the Board cannot look to fix other phases through the bond for Phase IX; so the Board should reschedule the report item for July and go forward with this issue because there is nothing the Board can do to reach back and get the other problems resolved with the bond for Phase IX. She stated the residents can give the Board a report and it has staff’s report so it could have some order to the discussion because it has been all over the place tonight.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt Resolution releasing Contract dated September 11, 2001 with Deerfield Grove Partnership for improvements in Sunset Lakes, Phase IX. Motion died for lack of a second.

Chairman Scarborough stated the net effect of not adopting the resolution is basically nothing because the bond is going to expire anyway. He stated he would vote against the motion because there is no reason to do it at this time; there are a lot of improprieties; and he does not know if the Board has them where it can compel something, but he does not want to indicate approval of Phase IX without knowing more.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to reschedule Sunset Lakes discussion in July, 2002. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. Chairman Scarborough stated he has similar problems in Fawn Lake; it is horrendous and is a private development with private roads and County bonds; and he does not know how to make it work out. He stated there are some profound problems with private developers and the County signing off on bonds; and he does not know the answer to that. He stated he may be of the opinion the County should not allow things like that to occur; it is an association that is created immediately and is developer controlled until certain thresholds are met; so the association, which would be bringing the action, is in fact owned by the person they want to sue; so they are precluded from doing that until it is almost too late. He stated there are some bad problems with these types of developments. Ms. Benn inquired what will happen to it, and is it all tabled; with Chairman Scarborough responding the Board cannot do anything with the bond. Ms. Benn stated the bond expires, but he is not released from his contractual obligations at this point. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board agreed not to pass the resolution. Ms. Benn stated maybe they can all know a little bit more too because there is a lot in the paperwork; and there is a lot of good stuff in it if it is read over. Chairman Scarborough stated this is not the only case, and it has recurred again and again with this type of development. Ms. Benn thanked the Board for its indulgence.

APPLICATION FOR CUP FOR BORROW PIT, RE: SR 500/U.S. 192 WIDENING PROJECT

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca advised the issues have been resolved, so the application for the CUP can be withdrawn.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve withdrawal of the application for a CUP for a borrow pit in conjunction with widening of SR 500/U.S. 192. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPOINTMENTS, RE: LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES
EVALUATION COMMITTEE

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to appoint Maureen Rupe, Michael Moehle, Priscilla Griffith, Kim Zarillo, and Joe Mayer to the Land Development Regulations and Procedures Evaluation Committee, with terms expiring January 31, 2003. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: DRIVEWAY CULVERT THAT INTERSECTS HR LANE AND
COX ROAD

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca advised the issue has been resolved, so the item can be withdrawn.

The Board accepted withdrawal of upgrading driveway culvert that intersects HR Lane and Cox Road.

APPOINTMENTS, RE: AFFORDABLE HOUSING COUNCIL

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to appoint Clarence Rowe and Pat Ross to the Affordable Housing Council, with terms expiring December 31, 2003. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS, APPOINT SELECTION
AND NEGOTIATING COMMITTEES, AUTHORIZE NEGOTIATIONS, AND EXECUTE
CONTRACT, RE: GOLF CART ADVERTISING

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to grant permission to advertise request for proposals from vendors for Golf Cart Advertising; appointed Charles Nelson, Gary Puckett, Alex Romanoff, Gregory Sanders, and Rene Uzee or their designees to the Selection and Negotiating Committees; authorize the Committee to negotiate beginning with the top-ranked vendor until an agreement is reached; authorize the Chairman to execute the Agreement; and authorize staff to include in the Agreement any future Board-approved contract clauses. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZE LOAN, MORTGAGE DEED, AND SECURITY AGREEMENT WITH BREVARD
ALZHEIMER’S FOUNDATION, INC., RE: THE WEINBERG CENTER

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize the Brevard Alzheimer’s Foundation, Inc. to draw down up to $22,500 as needed from the General Fund Contingency for assistance with payment of County impact fees for the Weinberg Center, subject to the County receiving a mortgage deed and security agreement, and loan repaid commencing October 1, 2002 in monthly installments of $1,875 plus 4% annual interest; and authorize staff to make the necessary budget adjustments to accommodate the loan. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The Board of County Commissioners recessed and convened as the governing body of the Barefoot Bay Water and Sewer District.

TERMINATION OF LEASE BY TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT/ADVANCE NEWHOUSE,
INC. AND EXECUTION OF LEASE WITH BAREFOOT BAY WATER AND SEWER
DISTRICT, RE: RADIO TOWER SITE

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to terminate the Lease with Time Warner Entertainment/Advance Newhouse, Inc., and execute Lease with the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners for use of the property on which a radio communications tower is located. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

BILL OF SALE, LEASE TERMINATION, LEASE WITH BAREFOOT BAY WATER AND
SEWER DISTRICT, AND EASEMENT AGREEMENT WITH BAREFOOT BAY
RECREATION DISTRICT AND WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT, RE: ACQUISITION
OF TOWER FROM TIME WATER CABLE

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve acquisition of an antenna tower and attached building and assets located at 1148 Tequesta Drive in Barefoot Bay from Time Water Cable for $1.00, subject to existing leases; execute Bill of Sale with TWC and the Board of County Commissioners, Lease with Barefoot Bay Water and Sewer District for land that the tower occupies, and Easement Agreement with Barefoot Bay Recreation District; and authorize the County Manager or his designee to take any actions necessary to complete the transactions pertaining to the TWC tower. Motion carried and ordered unanimously

The Board reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS AND APPOINT SELECTION
COMMITTEE, RE: INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to grant permission to advertise request for proposals for independent auditors; and appoint the Audit Selection Committee and Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten to rank the proposals and submit the rankings to the Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO DRAFT ORDINANCE, RE: ESTABLISHING WATER AND SEWER
DISTRICT IN UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF BREVARD COUNTY

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to direct the County Attorney to draft an ordinance creating a water and sewer district in the unincorporated areas of Brevard County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: INSTALLATION OF NO PARKING ON STREETS BETWEEN
CERTAIN HOURS SIGNS IN SIX MILE CREEK SUBDIVISION

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt Resolution authorizing installation of “no parking on streets between 12:00 midnight and 7:00 a.m.” at the entrances into Six Mile Creek Subdivision in Viera. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION, RE: APPEAL FOR SECOND LOT ACCESS

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to overrule the administrative denial of a waiver of the five-acre minimum requirement for an easement within a flag stem lot as requested by Pamela Wilbourne; and authorize access by the private road known as Woods Lane to Lake Washington Road. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF APPLICATION, RE: BREVARD COUNTY TRAILHEAD PROGRAM
ENHANCEMENT

Commissioner O'Brien stated this is a request to authorize Transportation Planning to submit to the Brevard MPO an application for transportation enhancement funds to design and construct trailheads at three locations; and requested Kings Park be added to the list, as there is an area that has a trail and could be enhanced. Commissioner Carlson inquired if it is in the master plan; with Commissioner O'Brien responding he does not know. Barbara Meyer advised it is in the plan and can be added to the application or done by a separate application.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve the Brevard County Trailhead Program Enhancement Application with inclusion of Kings Park. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENTS, RE: SPACEPORT COMMERCE PARK AUTHORITY

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised the City of Titusville Councilman representative should be Conrad Eigenman, Jr. instead of Jeff Rainey, and the Economic Development Commission appointed Mike Renfro, a local developer to represent it.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to confirm appointments of Titusville Councilman Conrad Eigenman, Jr., Port Canaveral Authority representative Susan Cossey, Brevard County representative Peggy Busacca, at-large member Frank Kinney, Economic Development Commission representative Mike Renfro, Space Coast Development Commission representative Al Matroni, and TiCo Airport Authority representative Jay Schenck to the Spaceport Commerce Park Authority, with terms expiring December 31, 2002. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: PROCLAIMING NATIONAL SENIOR HEALTH AND FITNESS DAY

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution proclaiming May 29, 2002 as National Senior Health and Fitness Day and recognizing the Fountains of Melbourne for its commitment and dedication to the citizens of Brevard County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

WARRANT LISTS

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 6:41 p.m.

ATTEST: ___________________________________
TRUMAN SCARBOROUGH, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

___________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)