December 11, 2001

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on December 11, 2001, at 9:00 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 Father Jeffrey Kittredge, Gloria Dei Episcopal Church, Cocoa, Florida.

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

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the Minutes of October 16, 2001 Regular Meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: PARTICIPATION IN WRIT OF MANDAMUS WITH BUILDERS
ASSOCIATION IN TALLAHASSEE

County Attorney Scott Knox advised the Board authorized his office to file an amicus brief in the Orange County School case involving the overcrowding issue; they submitted the brief; the Fifth District Court of Appeals did not allow the County to submit its amicus brief, but allowed several others to submit their amicus briefs; and it also rejected a couple of other amicus briefs. He stated the rule says if all parties consent, anybody can file an amicus brief; so the Builders Association in Tallahassee has decided it would like to file a writ of mandamus against the Fifth District Court to get it to follow the Supreme Court's rules and allow them to file amicus briefs, and wants to know if the Board wants to participate in that.

Chairman Scarborough stated the Board's position has not changed; and it still wants to file a brief.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize the County Attorney to participate in the writ of mandamus with Builders Association in Tallahassee against the Fifth District Court of Appeals to get it to follow the Supreme Court rules and allow filing of amicus briefs in Orange County's school overcrowding case.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired what is the brief for; with Mr. Knox responding they will file a brief in support of Orange County's position to effect that the Board can follow its Comprehensive Plan policies that say it cannot permit development if there is overcrowding in schools, which is one of the issues they have wrestled with. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the Building Contractors Association agrees; with Mr. Knox responding no, they are on the other side of the issue, but they think they ought to be able to file their amicus briefs also. Commissioner Scarborough stated they all agree, regardless of the differences, that they have similar interests in having this disposed of with all thoughts before the court.

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

REPORT, RE: REMEMBERING SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

Commissioner Colon advised today is three months since September 11, 2001, and the country is holding strong; they say time heals, but things are still fresh right now; and requested the Board remember the men and women who are fighting for our freedom. She stated no one sees the twin towers on TV any more; it is the holidays and there are a lot of young boys and girls who do not have their parents with them; some of them were lost in the tragedy; and requested they be kept in everyone's prayers. She stated she hopes everyone has learned from the September 11 tragedy and that it has changed things to be more of a positive influence.

Commissioner Carlson advised she appreciates the words regarding the September 11th event; a lot of our freedoms are taken for granted; and under her reports is a representation of what freedoms we have and that is to congratulate the Rockledge Raiders for their title win of the State Football Championship. She stated they did a spectacular job; it was a stunning victory; and her congratulations to them.

REPORT, RE: HAPPY HANUKKAH

Commissioner Colon expressed wishes for a Happy Hanukkah to those people who will be starting soon or have started celebrating Hanukkah.

REPORT, RE: LETTERS OF APPRECIATION FOR MAX BREWER BRIDGE FUNDING

Chairman Scarborough advised the Conference Committee of the House and Senate moved forward with $3 million for the Max Brewer Bridge; it did not happen because of what the Board did, but the efforts of many people throughout the State; and requested permission to write letters to those people thanking them for their efforts.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize the Chairman to send letters to appropriate persons who helped to secure $3 million from the federal government for the Max Brewer Bridge project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: LETTERS OF SUPPORT FOR TRAIL

Chairman Scarborough stated Barbara Meyers has put in a lot of effort working with Volusia, Seminole and Lake Counties on a trail that has been designated either No. 1 or No. 2 for funding in the country, which is significant; Ms. Meyers is here if the Board has any questions, or she can brief Commissioners separately and give them more information; but he needs authorization to write letters of support to move the project forward.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to authorize the Chairman to send letters to appropriate persons and agencies for funding the trail Barbara Meyers has worked on with Volusia, Seminole, and Lake Counties. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORTS, RE: RECOGNIZING OUTSTANDING YOUNG PEOPLE

Commissioner O'Brien also congratulated the Rockledge Raiders for the State title they brought back to Brevard County. He stated there are many high schools in Florida; Brevard County students and athletes have won many titles over the years in football, baseball, and other academic and athletic activities; and it exemplifies the young people who live here, study well, and play their best every year. He stated all the young people are not bad; and most of them are people the Board should be bragging about.

Commissioner Higgs advised the Palm Bay Pirates were the champions last year and were within two points of being in the finals this year; they did a great job and should be recognized for their efforts although they did not capture the title two years in a row. She stated the Board should be proud of their efforts. Commissioner Colon stated she did not want to brag about Palm Bay, but she appreciates Commissioner Higgs bringing it up.

Commissioner O'Brien stated Cocoa Beach was also in contention for first place in wrestling this year, and Titusville became champions three years ago.

REPORT, RE: FREE ADMISSION TO SEA WORLD AND BUSCH GARDENS

Commissioner Colon advised Sea World and Busch Gardens offered free admission to law enforcement and emergency services personnel and their families from now until December 31, 2001.

RESOLUTION, RE: COMMENDING KAREN R. NELSON

Commissioner Higgs read aloud a resolution commending Karen R. Nelson, Assistant Department Director for Library Services, for more than 26 years of meritorious service; and wishing her good health and happiness in pursuit of her retirement in Tennessee.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution commending Karen R. Nelson for her dedication and hard work with the Library Services Department, and wishing her good health and happiness during her retirement. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 01-416.)

Commissioner Higgs presented the Resolution to Ms. Nelson; stated Brevard County has an outstanding library system and is sixth in the State for per capita circulation. County Manager Tom Jenkins advised Ms. Nelson brought computers to the library system; and indicated the training lab would be named after Ms. Nelson.

RESOLUTION, RE: RENAMING C. AVENUE AS STACIA STRIFE WAY

Commissioner Colon read aloud a resolution renaming C Avenue as Stacia Strife Way, in West Melbourne, in memory of Stacia Strife, a former employee of Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse, who died tragically on January 26, 2001.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt Resolution renaming C Avenue as Stacia Strife Way, in memory of Stacia Strife and so all residents will know of and remember her generosity and strength of spirit. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 01-417.)

Commissioner Colon presented the resolution to representatives of Lowe's Home Improvement Store, who thanked the Board for the recognition.

FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, RE: OSPREY VILLAS EAST REPLAT

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to grant final plat approval for Osprey Villas East Replat, subject to minor changes if necessary, receipt of all documents required for recording, and developer responsible for obtaining all necessary jurisdictional permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, RE: KINGS PARK, UNIT 5

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to grant final plat approval for Kings Park, Unit 5, subject to minor changes if necessary, receipt of all documents required for recording, and developer responsible for obtaining necessary jurisdictional permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FINAL ENGINEERING APPROVAL, RE: DRAINAGE BASIN WB-V

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to grant final engineering approval for Drainage Basin WB-V, subject to minor engineering changes as applicable, and developer responsible for obtaining necessary jurisdictional permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: RELEASING CONTRACT FOR VIERA, TRACT E-2, PHASE 2,
BENNINGTON SUBDIVISION

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt Resolution releasing Contract with The Viera Company dated August 14, 2001, for improvements in Viera, Tract E-2, Phase 2, Bennington Subdivision. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 01-418.)

ACKNOWLEDGMENT, RE: ANNEXATION BY CITY OF TITUSVILLE

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to acknowledge receipt of Ordinance #39-2001 from City of Titusville, annexing approximately 9.25 acres along Riveredge Drive consistent with Chapter 171, Florida Statutes. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE, RE: ORDINANCE CREATING MELISSA COURT
WATERLINE EXTENSION MSBU

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to grant permission to advertise a public hearing to consider an ordinance creating Melissa Court Waterline Municipal Service Benefit Unit (MSBU). Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT WITH CROSSWINDS YOUTH SERVICES, INC., RE: TRANSITIONAL
YOUTH SHELTER

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Agreement with Crosswinds Youth Services, Inc. to utilize grant funds for activities resulting in the acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of a transitional youth shelter for citizens of Brevard County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Agreement.)

AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH CROSSWINDS YOUTH SERVICES, INC., RE:
TRANSITIONAL YOUTH SHELTER

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Amendment to Agreement with Crosswinds Youth Services, Inc. for the acquisition, construction, or
rehabilitation of a transitional youth shelter, providing for release of 10% retainage held in escrow, as the Agreement required the project to be 100% completed with a certificate of occupancy issued for release of the final payment. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Amendment.)

AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH COMMUNITY HOUSING INITIATIVE, INC. AND
ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED CITIZENS OF BREVARD COUNTY, INC., RE:
GROUP HOMES FOR ARC

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Amendment to Agreement with Community Housing Initiative and Association for Retarded Citizens of Brevard County, to acquire, construct, or rehabilitate two six-bedroom group homes and increase the budget from $293,606 to $300,506 for installation of a sprinkler system in each home and construction of a concrete slab. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page
for Amendment.)

AGREEMENT WITH SPACE COAST MARINE INSTITUTE, INC., RE: TRANSITIONAL
YOUTH SHELTER

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Agreement with Space Coast Marine Institute, Inc. to utilize SHIP funds for the acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of a transitional youth shelter for Brevard County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Agreement.)

AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, RE: LOW-
INCOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Agreement with Florida Department of Community Affairs for FY 2002 low-income Home Energy Assistance Program funds of $272,390; authorize budget amendment of $136,195 for expenses from March 2002 to September 2002, with the difference budgeted in FY 2002-03 for expenses from October 2002 to March 2003; and authorize the Chairman to execute any follow-up amendments or additions, upon approval by Risk Management and the County Attorney. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Agreement and Budget Change Request.)

INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH OSCEOLA COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM,
RE: RECIPROCAL BORROWING

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Interlocal Agreement with Osceola County Library System for reciprocal borrowing, to permit residents of Brevard County to visit Osceola County libraries and check out materials. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Agreement.)

INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH VOLUSIA COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM,
RE: RECIPROCAL BORROWING

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Interlocal Agreement with Volusia County Library System for reciprocal borrowing to permit residents of Brevard County to visit Volusia County libraries and check out materials. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Agreement.)

AGREEMENT WITH TITUSVILLE POLICE ATHLETIC LEAGUE, INC., RE: GIBSON
GYM REFERENDUM PROJECT

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Agreement with Titusville Police Athletic League, Inc. providing $250,000 from the North Brevard Recreation Special District referendum for repairs to Gibson Gym. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Agreement.)

AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO AGREEMENT WITH BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL
IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND, RE: MARITIME HAMMOCK INITIATIVE PROJECT

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Amendment No. 5 to Management Lease Agreement with the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund adding the Washburn Cove (Hutterli-Valle) property to the original Lease for Maritime Hammock Initiative Project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Amendment No. 5.)

APPROVAL OF GRANT APPLICATION TO EPA, RE: TEACHER TRAINING WORKSHOPS
AT ENCHANTED FOREST SANCTUARY

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize EEL Program staff to submit a grant application to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for matching funds for development of teacher training workshops at the Enchanted Forest Sanctuary, and authorize Parks and Recreation Director to execute any necessary grant agreements. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT WITH ALLIANCE DELIVERY SERVICES
CORPORATION, RE: COUNTYWIDE POSTAL AND COURIER SERVICE

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to execute Amendment to Lease Agreement with Alliance Delivery Services Corporation, renewing the Agreement through January 2, 2003 for Countywide postal and courier service; and authorize funding from the Contingency Fund for additional services. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Amendment.)

APPROVAL, RE: PLACING HEALTH CARE STOP LOSS COVERAGE WITH
ING/RELIASTAR

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize placing health care stop loss coverage with ING/Reliastar, with a specific deductible of $200,000. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

EXTEND TERMS OF MEMBERS, RE: ONSITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE BOARD

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to extend the terms of current members on the Onsite Sewage Disposal Variance Board who are the Natural Resources Management Director or designee, Building Official or designee, County Health Department Director or designee, representative of the building and construction industry Terry Lawson, representatives of homeowners Mary Tees and Howard Wolf, until the Board considers amendments to Chapter 46 to expand the Board for representation from the septic industry or a professional engineer for a total of seven members. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPOINTMENTS/REAPPOINTMENTS, RE: CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARDS

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to appoint and/or reappoint Laura Ward to the Affordable Housing Council, with term expiring July 20, 2003; Bob Gabriel and Sandy Sevigny to the Art in Public Places Advisory Committee, with terms expiring December 31, 2002; Pam Acevedo to the Beach Erosion Control Advisory Committee with term expiring December 31, 2002; Francis Reilly, Leonard Missavage, and Carol Waters to the Brevard Commission on Aging, with terms expiring December 31, 2002; Jim Messer and Ed Fleis to the Building and Construction Advisory Committee, with terms expiring December 31, 2002; Mary Tees and Robert Klaus to the Citizen Budget Review Committee, with terms expiring December 31, 2002; Liz Lakovich, Dr. Ronald Bobay, Sid LaDow, and Kim Roberts to the Country Acres Advisory Board, with terms expiring December 31, 2002; Gertrude Montgomery to the Community Action Agency Advisory Committee, with term expiring December 31, 2002; Clara Smith and Tony Boyles to the Community Based Organization Funding Advisory Board, with terms expiring December 31, 2002; Phyllis McCullers to the Community Development Block Grant Advisory Board, with term expiring December 31, 2002; William Van Engelenburgh to the Economic Development Commission of the Space Coast, with term expiring December 31, 2004, and Ed Struttmann to the Economic Development Commission of the Space Coast, with term expiring December 31, 2002; M. Rene Davis and Liz Alward to the Employee Benefits Advisory Committee, with terms expiring December 31, 2002; Kim Zarillo, Diane Stees, Bill Koehne, and Rebecca James to the Environmentally Endangered Lands Procedure Committee, with terms expiring December 31, 2002; Brooks Humphrys and Cameron Donaldson to the Extension Advisory Council, with terms expiring December 31, 2002; George Mikitarian to the Health Facilities Authority, with term expiring December 11, 2005; Roz Foster, Ed Bradford, Eleanor Downes, and Susan Sheppard to the Historical Commission, with terms expiring December 31, 2002; Martha Russo to the Library Board, with term expiring December 31, 2002; Mike Cunningham and Sandra Clinger to the Marine Advisory Council, with terms expiring December 31, 2002; Roger Probst and Marilyn Washburn to the Medical Services Review Committee, with terms expiring December 31, 2002; Howard Wolf, Richard Wallace, and Robert Preikschat to the Metropolitan Planning Organization Citizens Advisory Committee, with terms expiring December 31, 2002; Jackie Maddison, Lorella Whitten, and Tom Kreuzinger to the Mims/Scottsmoor Public Library Advisory Board, with terms expiring December 31, 2002; Ken Carlson and Gigi Henkel to the North Brevard Commission on Parks and Recreation, with terms expiring December 31, 2003; Howard Wolf to the Onsite Sewage Disposal Variance Board, with term expiring December 31, 2002; Janet LaMont to the Palm Bay Regional Park Advisory Committee, with term expiring December 31, 2002; Johnny A. Diggs replacing Sheila Hutchinson, Oscar Gamboa replacing Saul Barton, Jack Houts, and Dorothy Ricker to the Personnel Council, with terms expiring December 31, 2002; Matt Sokoloski, Ed Coburn, Dan Faden, Kathryn Kowalski, and Suzanne Valencia to the Planning and Zoning Board, with terms expiring December 31, 2002; Alice Crowell-Lance, Pamela Ferraro, and Maureen Rupe to the Port St. John Public Library Advisory Board, with terms expiring December 31, 2002; Ginny Mack and Frank Duncan to the Public Golf Advisory Board, with terms expiring December 31, 2002; Brian Hurley, Sarah Love, and Robin Tibbitts to the Recreation and Parks South Service Sector Area Advisory Board, with terms expiring December 31, 2002; Eugene Gwinn, Scott McCullers, Bruce McMann, Flo Canham, Phyllis McCullers, Jeanne Osborne, and Ken Black to the South Mainland Community Center Advisory Board, with terms expiring December 31, 2002; Laurie Chase, Mike Cunningham, Joan Lewis, Joyce Bent, Marie Bergamini, and Yvonne Atha to the South Mainland Library Advisory Board, with terms expiring December 31, 2002; Susan Cossey to the Spaceport Commerce Park Authority, with term expiring December 31, 2002; Bettye Murray and Catherine Stanton to the Brevard County Commission on the Status of Women, with terms expiring December 31, 2002; Del Yonts, Jim Ray, John Finney, Janis Walters, and Raymond Cook to the Valkaria Airport Advisory Board, with terms expiring December 31, 2002; Melvin Mueller to the Veterans Memorial Park Advisory Board, with term expiring December 31, 2002; Elizabeth George, Marian Hughes, Barbara Schwam, and Hal Rose to the West Melbourne Public Library Board, with terms expiring December 31, 2002; Malcolm Mansfield, Sondra Ball, Howard Wolf, and Marie Bergamini to the Zoning Board of Adjustment, with terms expiring December 31, 2002; and Frank Kinney to TiCo Airport Authority replacing Rick Abramson, with term expiring July 31, 2004. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: BILLS AND BUDGET CHANGES

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve bills and budget changes. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for List of Bills and Budget Change Request.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ADMINISTRATIVE REZONING TO REMOVE CUP FOR
COMMERCIAL BORROW PIT IN AU ZONING CLASSIFICATION

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider administrative rezoning as follows:

Item 1. (Z0111401) Brevard County Board of County Commissioners, on its own motion authorized administrative rezoning of 20 acres located on the north side of Pluckebaum Road, east of Range Road, owned by Floyd and Patricia Ellsworth, to remove the CUP for a commercial borrow pit in AU zoning classification, recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board at its November 5, 2001 meeting.

Commissioner Carlson stated she does not have a problem with removing the CUP; and Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca advised there are no issues with the rezoning.

There being no further comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to administratively rezone 20 acres owned by Floyd and Patricia Ellsworth on the north side of Pluckebaum Road and east of Range Road, to remove the conditional use permit for a commercial borrow pit. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Zoning Resolution.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE TRANSMITTING 2001-B COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT TO DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance transmitting the 2001-B Comprehensive Plan amendment to Department of Community Affairs.

Attorney Leonard Spielvogel, representing Flagler Development, presented documents to the Board and the Clerk, and requested transmittal of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment to Department of Community Affairs. He stated at his last appearance before the Board on November 20, 2001, his client was asking for single and multifamily development; the Board was concerned about several items and turned down the request; and those concerns included density and compatibility with Holiday Springs at Suntree, which is a residential subdivision to the west and south of the property. He explained Exhibit A, a concept plan of the property; and stated the Board was also concerned about scrub jays and whether there was enough industrial property because the property is currently zoned IU, and it is his client's desire to take it to residential. He stated there is an eagle on the property; there was concern about the eagle, wetlands, transportation, concurrency, and most of all school capacity; his client has responded to and satisfied all those concerns; and it is his responsibility to give the

Board the information and assurance to satisfy those items. Mr. Spielvogel advised the project is 90.18 acres; they are stipulating to all single-family residences, eliminating multifamily units, and imposing a cap of 200 units on the 90 acres; and the concept plan shows 174 units, but they do not know if there will be that many or less after engineering; however, the capacity will not exceed 200 units, which measures out to 2.22 units per acre and equal to or less than the adjacent subdivision of Holiday Springs at Suntree. He stated they would have a 30-foot buffer between the property and Holiday Springs at Suntree, which matches what that Subdivision has; so there will be a 60-foot buffer between the projects. He noted that is what will happen, however, the projects are compatible and identical enough not to warrant a buffer, but it will be there. He stated Exhibit 2 is a letter from the U.S. Department of Interior dated November 7, 2001; their consultants submitted a bald eagle management plan to that Department; and the relevant language from the letter is, "The service and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission have reviewed the plan and it meets the spirit and intent of the bald eagle management guidelines." He illustrated the location of the eagle's nest and the circle showing the 750-foot setback; and stated they are prepared to do it; and the management plan has been approved by the federal government. Mr. Spielvogel advised the next item in the packet is a letter from the U.S. Department of Interior concerning the scrub jay; and the pertinent language is in the second paragraph, which says, "We concur with the scrub jay territorial limits on the subject site defined in your report. Further we believe that the scrub habitat as indicated by hatching on the attached map is avoided, there will be no take of Florida scrub jays." He stated the exhibit to the letter shows the cross hatching in the southwest corner of the property; that is the area the Department of Interior said needs to be conserved; and it will be preserved because they are imposing a conservation easement over that property as part of their overall conservation easements on the property. He stated there are wetlands on the property; they are imposing conservation easements on 43 and a half acres; so there will be no destruction of wetlands on the property. He stated there will be another six and a half acres set aside for the eagle management; so out of the project, that will be set aside on a perpetual basis for preservation, except he must qualify to the eagle management, that should the eagle decide to take flight and not come back, after a period of five years, the management plan is dissolved. Mr. Spielvogel stated as to traffic concurrency, under the present zoning, the daily trips are 4,070; with the change, that will be reduced to 1,910 trips per day; so they will not degrade the level of service on Viera Boulevard. He stated they will comply with County regulations concerning the aquifer recharge areas; and the post development will not exceed pre-development aquifer recharge. He advised Exhibit 4 is a memo from Ann Birch, Manager of the EEL's Program, concerning possible funding of 1,400 acres in the Rockledge area for acquisition; he included that in the packet to let the Board know they are aware of that; they are prepared to meet with Ms. Birch or representatives of the County and State, should there be an interest in acquiring all or any part of the property; that is not the issue before the Board today; and the issue is transmittal. He stated that is a marketing issue; the property is not under contract; they will meet with anybody who is interested in purchasing the property; and his client is only interested in bringing the property to a state where it can be sold to a developer because they are not developers. Mr. Spielvogel advised the only real issue is school capacity; the Board has been wrestling with assuring a quality of life, which means good schools for students; however, there is a dilemma because it is dealing with the School Board which is under certain constraints by State laws and regulations. He stated he does not know how that dilemma can be reconciled, but as far as his client is concerned, it is not an issue. He stated they submit to the Board that they will require any purchaser of the property, as part of a stipulation or binding development agreement, will be 55 years of age or older in compliance with the U.S. Fair Housing Act and Florida Fair Housing Act. He stated there are examples in the immediate area of projects that have been very successful in that effort; and this project will not exacerbate the situation of school overcrowding. He noted he rushed through the presentation, but said what he had to say and will respond to any questions; and requested an opportunity to respond to any comments made by others.

Commissioner Higgs inquired, if the 55 and over regulation is adopted, what will it take to change that in a development; with Mr. Spielvogel responding in his experience, once a home is sold under that limitation, it is almost impossible to change it because the Board of County Commissioners has to agree and they would need consent from everyone who bought in the project. He stated it is not easy to get everyone to agree; and those who buy with the understanding they are moving into an age-restricted project, know that is what they were looking for and will not agree to change it. Mr. Spielvogel stated if the school problem resolves itself before any building takes place, and if a builder comes along, assuming the County does not buy the property, that builder would have the opportunity to come to the Board and say the school problem has been solved, and he would like to remove the restriction; but that would be between the Board and that person.

Chairman Scarborough advised there is a lot of interest in the property being acquired and preserved; and inquired what is the status on that; with EEL's Coordinator Ann Birch responding the status as of last week is that Brevard County is ranked in the money through the Florida Communities Trust Project; and that has not been made official by the Board of Trustees, but they were told by State staff they will have State funds to assist in acquisition of the entire project area. Ms. Birch stated they have been in communication with the owners, Flagler Development, who requested they hold off on appraisals until they are more sure of what is happening; but they have said they would be happy to work with the County if that is what the County wants to do; and that is where it stands now. Chairman Scarborough inquired what is the next step with the State; with Ms. Birch responding to get final approval of the list and dollars associated with the list of properties they can fund through the Florida Communities Trust; and staff expects to have that in early January, 2002. Chairman Scarborough inquired what does it mean to be on the list; with Ms. Birch responding it means Brevard County will receive $6.6 million of State matching funds to acquire properties within the project area they submitted; and this property is within that project area. Chairman Scarborough inquired if the entire list will be funded; with Ms. Birch responding no, there are 154 projects on the list; and the State will fund up to $132 million-worth of projects. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Brevard County is in the funded projects; with Ms. Birch responding yes, the Brevard County project is ranked 45 of 154.

Chairman Scarborough inquired, if the County submits the amendment and it proceeds to a point of having the capacity to move forward, will it come back in six months and not be finalized; with Planner Todd Corwin responding that is correct. Mr. Corwin stated if the Board decides to transmit the amendment today, the Department of Community Affairs has 60 days to review it, and the County has 60 days from when it receives the Objections, Recommendations, and Comments report to adopt the amendment. Chairman Scarborough inquired if the Board could reverse itself at that junction; with Mr. Corwin responding yes. Chairman Scarborough stated submittal does not bind the Board to subsequent action.

Commissioner Carlson inquired, if the list will be coming out in early January, it is essential to have all the appraisals in by then; with Ms. Birch responding no, the list means the County has made the dollars; the State has committed the dollars to the project; and the appraisals can be done at any time. Ms. Birch stated the State will reimburse the County if it bought property ahead of time or subsequent to the approval; so it just means the State is guaranteeing the matching funds.

Commissioner Higgs inquired, in terms of the Comprehensive Plan and allocation of different land uses, has the State made any comments on prior submittals regarding reduction of industrial land uses. She stated the County has at times had over allocations of certain land uses; and inquired if the State made any comments regarding the percentage allocation of industrial lands; with Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott responding the County has never received such a comment from Department of Community Affairs. Commissioner Higgs inquired if staff has assessed the percentage of industrial lands versus other land uses.

Commissioner Carlson stated, from a planning perspective, her question is if this would be the highest and best use of the land. She stated that is what the applicant wants to do, but from a planning perspective overall in the County, is it the best possible change in land use that the County can have in terms of transitioning.

Commissioner Higgs stated her question is does the County have any kind of outside data on whether it should have more or less industrial land uses. She stated it would be difficult to site new industrial uses; at times the State said the County over-allocated certain land uses; and inquired where is the County in terms of long-term planning with industrial land uses. Mr. Scott stated he does not recall the percentage of allocation for industrial land uses, but he has a memo based upon the Brevard County Property Appraiser's database, which shows that of approximately 11,000 acres of industrially zoned lands in the unincorporated area, almost 3,000 is still vacant; and it is important for the Board to keep in mind some of the industrial lands south of Titusville, which are right now penned for annexation. He stated sometimes the numbers of the Property Appraiser's database are slightly inflated because there may be a portion of a large parcel that has some development on it, which still has extra capacity to handle additional development, yet it will show up in the database as being completely developed. Commissioner Higgs stated 3,000 does not seem like a lot; with Mr. Scott responding it does not seem like a lot. Chairman Scarborough inquired if it includes industrial lands in the cities; with Mr. Scott responding no, only in the unincorporated area. Commissioner Higgs stated it is the only Comprehensive Plan the Board has control of.

Chairman Scarborough stated he is looking at the dynamics; and sometimes it is difficult to get a handle on the big picture. Mr. Scott stated it has been their experience from the Department of Community Affairs that it tends to be more concerned about over-allocation for residential because of the sprawl potential as opposed to over-allocation of commercial or industrial land uses. Commissioner Higgs stated she thought the State came in pretty extensively regarding additional allocations of commercial, but the County has not faced the same question about industrial; with Mr. Scott responding that is correct.

Joanne Fletcher, resident of Holiday Springs at Suntree Homeowners Association, advised the community is deed restricted, is immediately adjoining the property in question, and has over 500 residents; she has lived there seven years and enjoys the wildlife and natural environment; she and her husband are walkers and have noticed the effects of development in the surrounding area; and they have seen bobcats, tortoises, scrub jays, bald eagles, ospreys and many other wildlife species and do not want to see them leave the area. She requested the Board help them keep the area that Flagler owns as it is by voting to deny the request to transmit the 2001B Comprehensive Plan amendment to Department of Community Affairs regarding a change in the Future Land Use Map on 90 acres from light industrial to residential.

Jane Peltz, Secretary of Holiday Springs at Suntree Homeowners Association, stated she wants to speak about the concerns of approximately 1,000 homeowners and registered voters regarding the proposal made by Flagler Development. She stated the Board has the packet Todd Corwin put out including her letter of October 12, which she submitted as public comment to Mr. Corwin; and now she wants to speak publicly for their group about the concerns. She stated Flagler Development has returned with a much improved proposal for development of the land, but they want to ascertain, if the proposed development plan is binding on the perspective developers or is just a pretty picture that would eventually be modified to suit the developer's needs. She inquired, while they provided the map as a conception of their engineering group, will they have any control over it once the land is sold. Ms. Peltz advised the map shows one major road leading into the area, the eagle's nest, and the 750 feet designated for protection of the eagle's nest, but the road is within the 750 feet and the heavy equipment during the building process will disturb the eagles. She stated there are also tentative lots drawn in the area; they were told should the eagles move, the developer will build on those lots; and inquired if it is a form of wishful thinking on their part. She stated they have already platted land to the west for Mercedes, which is a very short distance from the eagle's nest; and explained the location on the map. She stated the road will be 80 feet wide and will narrow as it goes down, but all the heavy equipment will go through there because there is only one entrance. Ms. Peltz stated the land has been designated by the State as part of the Brevard Coastal Eco-system Florida Forever Project because it is home to eagles, scrub jays, gopher tortoises, indigo snakes, sandhill cranes, woodstorks, and countless other creatures; the Florida Communities Trust recently indicated it has grade the application for funds for preservation of the area; and the money should be forthcoming for that purpose. She encouraged Flagler Development to allow the land to be appraised before it is rezoned with the idea that they could contribute to environmental preservation and still be paid for it. She stated the school situation is a primary consideration that would be remedied by making the development a 55-plus development; of all the schools in Brevard County, Rockledge High is most crowded; and the School Board has not provided for a high school at this time in that area. Ms. Peltz stated the homeowners of Holiday Springs at Suntree do not want an industrial park in their backyard; however, when preservation efforts are about to come to fruition, it seems ludicrous to allow a developer to bull doze the pristine woodland for building more homes. She stated the Board is planning to conserve more of the green spaces before they are all gone; and in light of the above information, the homeowners recommend the Board not amend the Comprehensive Plan as proposed by Flagler Development.

Steve Vickery, resident of Holiday Springs at Suntree, requested the Board make the property as readily available as possible to the EEL's committee. He stated it is a fine organization; they would appreciate the opportunity to have a nature conservatory in the area, not just for their needs, but for the needs of the entire community and generations to come; and it would be a tremendous benefit and well appreciated. He stated there is only so much land, and they do not make any more; and the Board has this window of opportunity to preserve the land.

Mary Sphar of Cocoa, advised on May 22, 2001, the Board denied a Comprehensive Plan amendment for the property for residential use at a higher density than is being proposed today; and while the new Comprehensive Plan amendment is preferable to the one presented in May, the new request is still not in the public's interest. She stated some issues brought up then still apply, and some new developments have occurred; the issues raised previously that need to be weighted by the Board relate to the environmental sensitivity of the property; a large percentage of the property is classified as a type II aquifer recharge area; and the property is home to several listed species, including the bald eagle, Florida scrub jay, and gopher tortoise. She stated besides the issues noted in May, since that time the parcel has been included as part of the Florida Communities Trust (FCT) application submitted by the County; the FCT application includes the remaining available property in the Central Brevard Wildlife Corridor, extending from the Cruickshank Scrub Sanctuary through this property; and as Ms. Birch stated, State funding will be available for the acquisition. She stated FCT will get two cycles of funding for a total of $132 million for this year's projects; and with that in mind, transmitting a Future Land Use Map amendment for the property would be unwise and would send a message to Tallahassee that Brevard County is not really serious about its desire to preserve the land and is instead proposing to change the land use to a type more attractive to developers. Ms. Sphar advised, with regard to 55 and over development, the Brevard Tomorrow report concluded that Brevard County is getting older and poorer; articles in the newspapers have indicated that some younger people do not wish to spend the rest of their lives in Brevard County; it appears the job base has not kept pace with the population growth; and inquired if the Board wants Brevard County to continue to get older and poorer, if not, it needs to preserve the potential industrial base and improve the County's economic condition by providing an attractive place for younger working families to live. She noted another senior citizen community would not further that purpose. She stated it would not be in the public interest to transmit the Comprehensive Plan amendment; the property should be preserved if possible; that is unlikely to happen if the Future Land Use designation is changed then the zoning changed to residential, because chances are residential development will occur before the acquisition process can be completed. She requested the Board not transmit the Comprehensive Plan amendment to Department of Community Affairs.

Chairman Scarborough inquired would submittal of the Comprehensive Plan amendment in any way send the wrong signals and adversely affect the FCT application; with Ms. Birch responding she has not encountered this situation before. Chairman Scarborough requested Ms. Birch inquire with the State to find out because that is of interest to him.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised he does not know what signal it may or may not send to the State, but if the Board sends the amendment to Department of Community Affairs, it will likely affect the appraisal based upon his experience with appraisers. Chairman Scarborough stated he understands the appraisal issue, but that is less relevant than the funding for acquisition of the property.

Amy Mosher, resident of Rockledge, advised she thought the parcel was preserved by the DRI, but realized it was not, and wants to get it set aside and conserved. She shared with the Board an aerial photo taken on July 28, 2001 showing the entire Central Mainland Wildlife Corridor; and stated a lot of the parcels are part of the Florida Communities Trust grant application. She identified the Cruickshank acquisition, Plantation Point, and other sites down to Flagler Development's property located in the corridor. She stated it is deceptive in that the area is actually platted on a wetland; they would have a big problem developing that; and the areas set aside for conservation are not contiguous. She mentioned a person who will be doing a subdivision design workshop on December 13; and stated the property would be the ideal site for an open space subdivision design. She stated it is very delicate and sensitive; there is growth that did not develop overnight; and to her the property is developed to its highest and best use as it is right now. She stated she visited the property last week and walked it from Clayton's across the railroad tracks; there were deer tracks all over, but she did not see a deer; but the scrub oaks are losing their acorns and the deer are in there searching for acorns. She stated she followed one game trail and came to the back side of the eagle's nest; as she turned around, the eagle was flying in and saw her and flew back out; so it is an occupied nest. Ms. Mosher stated Viera tends to be a perfect example of how sprawl hurts and costs everyone; sprawl is a real issue in Viera and is now creating problems for the schools; she went to Rockledge High School and to think it is 407 students over capacity is an alarming thought. She stated Viera needs to build a high school because Rockledge cannot continue to field the burdens from a sprawling new town; and Kennedy Middle School is also affected by the growth in Viera. She stated the industrial study, which Commissioner Higgs brought up was supposed to be done, but she does not think it is completed yet because Rockledge has not submitted the information the County requested. She stated if the Board transmits the amendment and it is approved as residential, it will be worth more money than industrial, so if it is kept as industrial, the County may have a better chance of getting it for less money. She stated the development would look like Magnolia Springs, which is a new development in the area; it is depressing to follow Holiday Springs road down through the area; it is terrible; and it is a sensitive piece of property that could be cleared and zero lot lines put in there, or anything could happen. She stated they are saying two units per acre, but they are actually asking for four units per acre, so it is just a conceptual site plan; and she does not know if it is binding, but wants to ask the Board to deny the request and give them a chance to try and acquire the property.

Attorney Spielvogel advised it is his client's property, and except for the fact that the folks are sincere in expressing their concerns, he would think this was Alice in Wonderland. He stated they met with the homeowners at least twice or three times; and it does not matter what they say, people came prepared to say something and will say it regardless of what they heard from here. He stated several times what they are presenting they will stipulate to; he has been practicing before the Board for a long time and did not understand that the Comprehensive Plan procedure was derived in order to keep his client's property hostage; but he heard people say do not transmit because that may make the property more valuable. He stated this is part of the process his client is entitled to pursue; and it would be ironic if it ended up as an industrial park because the people next door, when he spoke to them the first time, greeted him enthusiastically because he was getting rid of the industrial zoning. Mr. Spielvogel stated there was a question about having enough industrial land; the Board's Evaluation and Appraisal Report adopted in April, 1997, page 29, states, "In 1988, the County designated approximately 9,225 acres of industrial use on its Future Land Use Map series. This amount represented approximately 3.6 times the projected amount of developed industrial acreage necessary to meet the needs of the 1995 population. Because of this abundance of industrial land use originally mapped, the County approved only 301 additional acres of industrial use in the time period 1988 through 1995." Mr. Spielvogel stated that is the most recent EAR report, so he could not bring the Board something more current except the letter from Ann Rambert dated November 27, 2001, which Mr. Scott referenced and which states, "Joanne Adams and I found 10,981 acres zoned for industrial use in the unincorporated area. The vacant industrial acreage is 2,770 acres." He stated there is an abundance of industrial land, but more importantly, when the Board approved putting in Viera Boulevard, it cut off the industrial area; and when the Board allowed residential subdivisions to go in to the south and west of his client's property, it changed the complexion of the area. He stated there are a lot of people from Holiday Springs at Suntree who are not here today; for someone to say he or she represents a thousand or so residents is misleading; he is used to having a mob scene; and he has not experienced it today. Mr. Spielvogel stated there is concern about the road system; they have a letter from the U.S. Department of Interior, which has the hardest people most stringent and concerned about environmental preservation and scrub jays, etc.; and to discount that and say they need more area is not true. He noted the road is along the perimeter of the 750 feet; the road that services Holiday Springs at Suntree is within the 750-foot range; and it has a lot more traffic. He stated eagles like ospreys can accommodate; the letter from Department of Interior has a whole list of things they have to do, i.e., when they can work, what limitations are during hatching season, etc.; and that was given to the Board before. He stated the Board told his client about its concerns; his client responded to those concerns; and requested the Board treat his client fairly.

Commissioner Carlson inquired about the status of the small area plan for the area; with Mr. Scott responding it is in draft form and being reviewed by planners with the City of Rockledge. He stated Rockledge is undergoing a redevelopment plan for the City; there is a U.S. 1 corridor they are focusing on; and staff wants to ensure their recommendations for the U.S. 1 corridor are seamless with what Rockledge has envisioned for its portion of U.S. 1 to the north of this area. He noted staff expects to have the plan to the Board by the first of the year. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the plan included the subject property; with Mr. Scott responding yes.

Chairman Scarborough inquired if staff envisions industrial in the area as part of the small area plan; with Mr. Scott responding staff's discussions have been to present the Board with a transition opportunity; Holiday Springs is to the south and is residential; heavy and light industrial uses abut the Subdivision; so there is a strong planning argument for transitioning and buffering existing residential with a planned industrial park, which is industrial with a campus setting. He stated the industrial land uses will still preserve wetlands, but the acreage requirements is much greater, the setbacks are larger, and the activities occur inside. He reiterated PIP could transition to the remaining heavy and light industrial land uses to the north.

Commissioner Carlson advised the applicant has a right to go through the process; she met with the applicant last week; but in light of the fact that the Board has information from the State that it might potentially leverage a lot of money to purchase the property, and the fact that the County has a small scale plan coming back in January, 2002, it seems premature to forward this amendment to Department of Community Affairs. She stated the Board needs to be aware of the fact that in 1990, the community voted in the preservation of endangered lands; the highest and best use of this property in her opinion is what the community wanted from the beginning when it said to purchase those lands that are endangered; the State has looked on this particular area and said it qualifies; and that speaks volumes. She stated the Board needs to look at how it leverages taxpayers dollars to the best it can; it should not promote sprawl; and in this case, if it promotes residential, that is what it will be doing, promoting sprawl. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board needs to provide the opportunity to staff to come back with a small area plan to look at transitional opportunities and get the highest and best use of the property if it cannot be purchased by the State; and in that case, she will move to deny.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to deny adoption of an ordinance amending Article III, Chapter 62, of the Code of Ordinances of Brevard County; entitled "the Comprehensive Plan," setting forth Plan Amendment 2001B; amending Section 62-501, entitled Contents of the Plan; specifically amending Section 62-501, Part XI, entitled the Future Land Use Element; specifically amending Section 62-501, Part XVI(E), entitled the Future Land Use Appendix, and provisions which require amendment to maintain internal consistency with these amendments; providing legal status; providing a severability clause; and providing an effective date.

Commissioner Higgs advised the Board has not resolved the school issue; the Comprehensive Plan is very clear regarding additional land use changes, which increase the overcrowding in schools; and it has a staff report that the schools are overcrowded in the area. She stated in holding to that policy, the Board has to carefully look at side consequences, which limiting sale to people 55 and older may be a side consequence it did not anticipate, because school overcrowding is a significant issue. She stated the location of the property in proximity to other industrial areas and next to the railroad track makes it attractive for industrial uses; and the Board should not change it to residential without seriously looking at its allocation of industrial land uses and its long-term plans for economic development in the County. Commissioner Higgs stated the request would add 1,910 trips per day to Viera Boulevard; and while that does not take it over capacity today, there are significant trips yet to be added to that road, so it does not need to be adding more trips. She stated there are links to industrial lands to the north; there is a corridor of industrial lands in terms of land use; and the industrial uses or PIP that might be identified in the small area plan currently underway gives her comfort that the Board should not approve the change at this time.

Chairman Scarborough stated industrial has been used throughout the discussion in a very broad sense; and inquired what type of industrial uses can be put on the property; with Mr. Scott responding currently the property is IU which is light industry that could bring raw materials to the site, doing preliminary manufacturing, refinement, and activities that could occur outside. Chairman Scarborough suggested Mr. Scott identify uses in PIP up to IU-1; with Mr. Scott responding the PIP is intended to bring to a community a campus-type setting of industrial use; it would be like a Motorola Company using 25 acres and having a gateway entrance with manufacturing being done inside a structure; light industrial could bring lumber to the site and prepare the lumber for distribution to lumber yards; it could also be a lumber yard; and heavy industrial use include smelting operations with high temperatures, refining, etc.

Commissioner Carlson advised further north is Doliner Scrap Metal Recycling; and inquired what is that zoning; with Mr. Scott responding IU-1, which is heavy industrial use.

Chairman Scarborough inquired if Ms. Birch has additional information for the Board; with Ms. Birch responding she talked with a staff person at FCT and was not able to speak to their general counsel; they said their major concern would be if a property owner were to apply for an amendment after the FCT application in order to get the property value increased; and that is not the case in this scenario. She stated it sounds like this request has been in progress for quite some time prior to the County even considering an FCT application. Ms. Birch advised the State's major concern is it has set aside a block of dollars for the project; and if it were to increase the appraised value, that would be part of the consideration; in this case she does not think it would be a problem; but FCT, which is part of Department of Community Affairs, would have to make the ultimate decision. Chairman Scarborough inquired if it could adversely affect the application; with Ms. Birch responding she does not believe so, in talking to the staff person, but she cannot give the Board any guarantees.

Commissioner Higgs stated the State would look at someone who submitted something to increase the price of the property after the County submitted the FCT application; but what is appropriate to consider today is the land use and not other issues. She stated the request is about land use; there are environmental regulations that would affect the property, whether developed as industrial, residential, or commercial; and those will be in place regardless of what happens. She stated the real issue today is whether or not the Board should make the land use change; and seconding the motion was based on the school overcrowding issue, existing industrial, and what the County should be doing in terms of long-term planning, provision of land for businesses, and traffic; and that is where the Board needs to focus, not on other issues.

Chairman Scarborough stated he would vote for the submittal if it was not for two facts--(1) the small area plan, which he feels is always best to see the whole picture before deciding on a portion of the property; and (2) because of Mr. Spielvogel's commitment that he is willing to proceed with the purchase. He stated there is no reason for the Board or the State to do a lot if a purchase is forthcoming; it appears they will receive full compensation under whatever formula that is fair to the applicant; however, if those things were not present, he would support submittal. Chairman Scarborough stated he has concerns with putting a truss plant next to residential or next to an eagle's nest; he does not think industrial use is a good option; but the Board is working in the right direction, so he will support the motion.

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

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE
EASEMENT IN STUART TERRACE - ANDREW AND ELLEN PAVLAKOS

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating a public utility and drainage easement in Stuart Terrace, as petitioned by Andrew and Ellen Pavlakos.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to continue the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating a public utility and drainage easement in Stuart Terrace, as petitioned by Andrew and Ellen Pavlakos to January 8, 2002. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

SITE PLAN APPEAL, RE: MIKE LANIADO

Commissioner Colon advised the speakers are Laraine Scoma, Doug Baker, Linda Conway, James Fox, Judy Bova, and Brian Conway, but she wants to give the Board a brief overview. She stated Laraine Scoma contacted her office; the project has been going on for a while, but the residents feel they have not had the opportunity to express their concerns to the Board; and they want an opportunity to voice their opposition to some of the things that are going on.

Laraine Scoma, resident of Flora Beach Estates, advised they understand the property is zoned for business; that is not the nature of the appeal; they have a responsibly developed BU-1 property several blocks away at A1A and Paradise Boulevard; but it is an arterial road with a traffic light and not a local road with no outlet, which is their case. She stated they have photographs, and presented those to the Board, but not the Clerk.

Chairman Scarborough advised two Commissioners are absent, so he will call a recess and allow Ms. Scoma to start again.

The meeting recessed at 10:18 a.m., and reconvened at 10:30 a.m.

Commissioner Colon recommended Bruce Moia give a summary of where the issue is.

Land Development Director Bruce Moia advised in November, 1999, the site plan was reviewed and approved by the Land Development Department; it went through two subsequent amendments in October, 2001 and November, 2001, what staff thought were minor amendments; and the sign permit application was approved in September, 2001. He stated the members of the Homeowners Association submitted a letter of appeal on three items, the buffer wall, two freestanding signs, and ingress/egress onto Harris Boulevard.

Laraine Scoma reiterated her previous statements; and stated she has letters of support from those who are not here; and presented them to the Board, but not the Clerk. She stated the Laniado strip mall is too big for the lot, as shown in the original site plan faxed to the Board on Friday; the size was misrepresented and approved by the Land Development staff; it is .96 acre with a 9,900 square-foot building; and Engineer Albert Price added five feet to the depth of the lot giving what appeared to be just enough room for the building. She stated by the time the nonexistent five feet were discovered, the pad was poured and the walls were up; and Land Development has tried to work it out ever since, but the building is a square peg in a round hole. She stated five feet does not seem like much, but the approved amended plan done October 31, 2001, was within the limits because they made the setback 25 feet instead of the original 30 feet. She stated taking the five feet and multiplying the width of the lot, gives 1,356 square feet; it was all calculated into water retention and landscape buffer originally; the green area is reduced by that amount; but the amended site plan still shows the same percentage of green space. Ms. Scoma stated the land is too small for the building, causing great problems for the Flora Beach residents; in August she called the County Engineer to look at the site development as the grade level seemed unusually high; and he checked it out and said they met the minimum requirement, but agreed that it was quite elevated. She stated he noted the developer had not installed the mandatory silt screen around the project to protect the drainage from the soil running off, and notified him to erect the screen; and that was done the next day. She noted that was just the beginning of many oversights on the part of the builder Jim Messer. She stated they are in the appeal process, which they attempted to initiate November 6, 2001; at the suggestion of Commissioner Colon's office, after her many complaints concerning the project at the entrance to their neighborhood on A1A, she went to Land Development and requested to file an appeal of the site plan; Michelle Schultz led her to Mr. Moia, then they were joined by Jim Statlick and Bobby somebody; and they looked over the site plan, she stated her objections, but she was not given a form to fill out as she was told she would be; and instead, Mr. Moia handed her his card and told her to write him a letter with a list of the issues. Ms. Scoma stated the work on the project advanced as she continued her efforts to get the appeal underway by faxing Mr. Moia the appeal; and the entire parking lot was poured on November 12, the day the County Offices were closed for Veterans Day. She stated the homeowners were asked to join the staff from Land Development and Planning and Zoning prior to filing the appeal; Mel Scott, Cindy Fox of Planning and Zoning, Michelle Schultz, Pat Simms, Bruce Moia of Land Development, Dick Thompson of Traffic Engineering, and Conrad White of Natural Resources Management attended the meeting as did she and Mr. and Mrs. Conway. She stated the meeting was for staff to explain their interpretations of the Codes and determine whether or not they had an actual appeal according to the County Ordinances; it was determined that they did, so they wrote out another appeal letter and handed it to Land Development before leaving. She stated the work on the project continued; and it was 34 days after she initially complained about the site to Commissioner Colon, at which time the construction went on from 30% to 70% completion. Ms. Scoma advised the sidewalk was moved and as it was being poured, she was on the site objecting to them proceeding as it was being changed to two feet from the original property line lending the additional square footage of green space to the development. She stated the inspector called Mr. Moia; Mr. Traft and the inspection supervisor showed up and the pour proceeded; and by then the site was approximately 90% completed. She stated Section 62-302 states, "An appeal shall stay all proceedings in furtherance of the action unless the officer from whom the appeal is taken certifies to the Board of County Commissioners, after the notice of appeal had been filed with him, that by reason of facts stated in the certificate, a stay would in his opinion cause eminent peril to life or property"; and that was not the case.

Chairman Scarborough advised the speaker's time has expired.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to extend the time for Ms. Scoma to complete her presentation. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Ms. Scoma stated the Code Sections state, "The Board's decision shall not be contrary to the public interest"; and conflicting provision Section 11 states, "In case of a direct conflict between any provision of this Ordinance, any other federal, State, County law, rule, or regulation, the more restrictive shall apply." She requested the Board rule against the decision to allow the additional driveway to exist on Harris Boulevard, as it is the cul-de-sac's only exit from the neighborhood. She stated it will create treacherous conditions at the intersection with A1A for both incoming and outgoing traffic and where Harris joins Lee; and requested the driveway be removed. She noted Deputy Sheriff Roberts told her that her argument is a good one, and that the driveway should have never been allowed on Harris, considering the layout of the neighborhood. She explained the driveway location and the neighborhood on a map; stated it is only approximately 30 feet from A1A; there are only 50 homes in the subdivision; there are 46 parking spaces for the mall; there is going to be a Papa Johns on the very end which expects to do 300 deliveries a day; and that gives the Board an idea of the impact on their quiet neighborhood where children play frequently.

Attorney Doug Baker, representing Mike Laniado, advised Mr. Laniado is a resident of South Carolina, is the developer and owner of the property, and Mr. Messer is the contractor. He stated Mr. Moia mentioned that the original permit and site plan were approved on November 18, 1999; the subsequent amendments, referenced October 31, 2001 and November 5, 2001, were not amendments relating to the three appeals that were filed by the petitioners today; and the sign permit was approved September 7, 2001. He stated the first appeal filed in writing by the appellants was on November 19, 2001, which is more than two years after the original site plan; and by the petitioners own admission, the project is 90% to 95% complete as it is right now. Mr. Baker stated they filed a revised appeal on November 25, 2001; they appealed under two provisions, the first being Section 62-301, which provides for a 30-day period from the time the administrative decision is rendered; and the sign permit was issued September 7, 2001, and the appeal filed November 19, 2001; therefore he does not believe it is up to the Board to consider this appeal based on the County Ordinances. He stated Section 62-3207 provides for an appellate process through an administrative hearing, as is being held today; however, it does not provide a 30-day time limit; but requested the Board consider, since the project was approved November 19, 1999, that two years later the appeals were filed in writing. He stated he will defer to the County Attorney regarding equitable estoppel as to this issue; there is a case, which he will submit, that basically says there are vested rights in zoning for the entire project without showing the cost incurred in planning and beginning construction that could be exclusively attributed; so he believes, to address their concerns regarding the buffer wall, sign, and access, those issues were already approved per the site plan. Mr. Baker stated the site plan has been laid out and designed based on the permissive use by the County; it would be inequitable for the Board to reverse the staff's opinion now on this matter to address some things mentioned by Ms. Scoma; she suggested the structure is too big for the lot; but that is not one of their complaints today. He stated she may not be happy with the development, but that is not one of the issues raised in the appeal. He stated as to the green areas, there were revisions made in the amendments, which were approved by the Permitting Department, to compensate for the green areas; and Ms. Scoma's statements regarding Deputy Roberts and Papa Johns are hearsay statements; and if they were to testify, then it might be an issue. He noted unless the Papa Johns' manager is here to say how many trips they will generate, no one really knows; so they have not proven that staff was erroneous in its decision such that there is a burden to overturn the presumption of staff's correctness on this matter. Mr. Baker stated he does not believe the issues were timely raised considering the project is 90% to 95% complete and the site plan was approved over two years ago; and requested the Board deny the relief being sought by the appellants.

Commissioner Colon inquired if the driveway to Harris Boulevard has been completed and opened; with Mr. Baker responding per discussion with Mr. Messer who is the contractor, it is his understanding the curb cuts have been put in to allow the access onto Harris Boulevard; and there was no work on Harris Boulevard other than to allow the access onto the site.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the compressor west of the building is still there; with Mr. Baker responding he does not know.

Linda Conway, resident of Flora Beach Estates, inquired if they could show pictures and refer to the Code sections as they go through the presentation; with Chairman Scarborough responding yes. Ms. Conway stated the amended site plan removed non-existing five feet; staff made decisions, which they are now appealing; and most of the residents feel the staff should not have accepted the amended site plan on October 31, 2001, which removed the five feet of depth, which Mr. Price claimed was there, because it was clear then that the development did not fit the lot. She stated one of Flora Beach's residents put up a shed with a permit, but when staff found the shed did not meet the setback requirement, the person was compelled to take it down and make it right; and they feel staff should have told Mr. Laniado on October 31, 2001 to take it down and make it right. She noted they are not going to ask for that because they are trying to be reasonable and to make reasonable requests to the Board to mitigate the damages caused by the administrative decisions. Ms. Conway advised the second appeal is the permitting of two signs on one frontage; it was not allowed by the County because the only way to appeal a sign decision is under Section 62-301; and that allows only 30 days from the day of the decision. She stated the sign permit was signed on September 7, 2001, but they did not know about it; however, they expressed concerns about the signs as soon as they were aware of what was going on. She stated the Laniado strip mall has two free-standing signs on A1A, which is designated in the Comprehensive Plan as a scenic highway; and Photo #3 shows the signs near the intersection with Harris Boulevard and one 150 feet to the south, both at right angles to A1A so they can be read by drivers on that roadway. She stated the developer secured a permit for the signs by finding a loophole in the Code because he has a corner lot; Section 62-3316 allows him free-standing signs on each frontage; it must intend the sign face the frontage for which it is given; but it does not spell that out clearly enough because Mr. Laniado has taken his two signs and has them both facing A1A. She encouraged the Board to fix the apparent loophole in the Code.

James Fox, resident of Florida Beach Estates, advised the first appeal concerns the lack of a buffer wall to separate the new commercial development from the adjacent residential neighborhood; the Code is very clear in Section 62-3104, and states, "Commercial developments that are adjacent to residentially-zoned property shall be required to add a minimum six-foot high masonry wall. In lieu of or in conjunction with the required wall, landscaped buffering may be allowed, located in a dedicated landscape buffer easement with a minimum of ten feet with no encroachment of site improvements, including retention ponds." He stated the site plan approved November 19, 1999, clearly intended the landscaped buffer at the rear of the building where it abuts the residential neighborhood, which had a 13-foot dedicated easement, but that included the five feet mentioned earlier that never existed; the October 31, 2001 revised site plan showed only eight feet; and they measured it at less than seven feet; so now the County staff and developer are calling the building's back wall the buffer; and that cannot be because the Code distinctly says to add a wall. Mr. Fox advised there are commercial air conditioning units and exhaust fans on the residential side of the wall; there are four at the present time for one unit, and more to come; and referenced Photo #1. He stated the intent of a buffer wall is to protect residents from the noise and air of devices such as those; consequently the building's rear wall cannot possibly satisfy that intent. He noted landscaping is being planted on the residential side of the retention pond; but it does not meet the ten-foot dedicated easement requirement; Engineer Moia, in his submission to the Board ignored the word "add" in Section 62-3204 and referred to the Code section on vegetative buffering, which does not mention the ten-foot easement requirement. He stated the Code section Mr. Moia cited is from the Zoning Code and does not specify residential and commercial buffers; however, that same Section 62-1103 does state that, "The provisions of this Article shall be held to be the minimum requirements. In the event of conflicting provisions, the more restrictive provisions of this Article or any other regulations adopted by the County shall apply." Mr. Fox stated the Code section supplied by Mr. Moia states that development is required to have the buffer wall; if this development is given a CO as it stands, it will set a precedent for not requiring Code-specified buffer walls be erected; but there is no place to put it without moving the building forward about seven feet because the space behind the building is occupied by large air conditioning units, an exposed grease trap, and berm walls of the retention pond. He stated instead of the wall, they are asking the Board to mitigate the problem by requiring that all air conditioning units and exhaust fans for the development be relocated to the roof. He stated County staff told him that is where they would be located. Mr. Fox requested the landscape planting at the back be rigorously inspected for height and density to make sure that children cannot get through it and fall into the retention pond, and to hide the exposed grease trap. He stated the Code will support the Board's decision to require the changes they requested; Section 62-3202(e) states, "The proposed design of the property shall be in conformity with and compatible to the character of the surrounding property, and shall ensure safety and adequate light, air, and convenience for those persons utilizing such property." He stated the same Section permits the Board to act on the other part of the appeal in which they appealed the administrative staff's decision, which allowed the building's rear wall to be plain block. He stated the front and sides of the building are stucco as are the homes in Flora Beach Estates; but the rear wall, which dominates the eastern view of Flora Beach residents, is plain block, as noted in Photo #2. He requested the Board require the rear wall to be stuccoed as required by the Code in conformity with and compatible to the character of the surrounding property. He stated the Comprehensive Plan supports the Board's action on both of those appeals; Future Land Use Section 4.8(c) states, "Setbacks and landscaping and other appropriate buffers shall be established to mitigate the visual impacts of strip commercial developments"; and Section 4.4 states, "commercial development's intrusion of these land uses to the surrounding residential communities shall be limited."

Judy Bova, resident of Flora Beach Estates, advised on December 9, 2001, the Orlando Sentinel had an article which she will read in part, as follows: "It was a gamble Thomas Thompson never thought he would lose when outraged residents sued to halt his luxury apartment complex, which would have towered over their spacious backyards. Thompson built it anyway. Judges in two court cases said apartments in the South Florida community of Jensen Beach violated local growth rules that require new development to fit in with older neighborhoods. What's extraordinary experts say is the punishment. The courts have ordered the $3.3 million apartment complex to be torn down. Developers were always considered to have advantage once local governments approved their projects. It is tough for residents to go through the time and expense of challenging cases. It is rare for them to take a case all the way through the court system and win. For the first time a court and appellate court have said you cannot do that. 'It is a monumental decision for the citizens of Florida in standing up to government,' said Nat Reed, who was the founder of 100 Friends of Florida, a group that advocates managing growth." Ms. Bova stated they want the Board to be aware that things are happening all around Florida.

Brian Conway, resident of Flora Beach Estates, advised the third appeal is a decision to grant the development ingress/egress on Harris Boulevard as well as A1A; according to Traffic Engineer Dick Thompson, that was done because the development's driveway on A1A is very narrow, 24 feet instead of the 42 feet allowed for trucks to use; and the developer chose a small driveway on A1A so he could get the 46 parking spaces he is required to have for his nine-unit strip mall. He stated because trucks would not be able to enter, load, unload, and exit in the crowded parking lot with a narrow entrance, Mr. Thompson approved a second ingress/egress driveway on an arterial or collector street; however, the problems and actual violations with the driveway are many. He stated Harris Boulevard is classified as a local street, not an arterial or collector street; it has a very short median providing the only entrance and exit for the 50-house circular subdivision of Flora Beach Estates; and photo #4 shows the short median-divided boulevard. He stated the driveway enters the one-way eastbound or exit side of the divided boulevard; traffic using Laniado's driveway for exit can use Harris Boulevard to get onto A1A; the exit is not that much of a problem; but traffic wanting to use the driveway for egress must use the west- bound lane of Harris Boulevard and either make a U-turn at the end of it or drive through the subdivision to go in there. He stated photo #5 shows a bus trying to make a U-turn and cannot get around; and as drivers of cars perform the U-turn, they would have minimal view of traffic coming from within the subdivision; consequently, it is a traffic hazard. Mr. Conway stated Flora Beach school children use Harris Boulevard four times a day to get from their homes to the school bus stop at the north corner of Harris Boulevard and A1A; they will be endangered by u-turning traffic if they attempt to cross Harris Boulevard to get to the school bus stop; and it is especially a problem as the anchor tenant of the strip mall in the unit closest to Harris is a major takeout pizza operation, which would generate a lot of traffic. He stated the pizza store is going to be open until 1:00 a.m.; lights from delivery and other cars using it and doing U-turns to enter the driveway will blaze over the homes in Flora Beach; and those homes in the immediate area will be lit up until 1:00 a.m. Mr. Conway advised the driveway does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan, which states in Traffic Circulation 113, "access points for lots or parcels located at corners shall be located the greatest distance from the corner commensurate with property donations and in no case shall the access point be less than 40 feet from the right-of-way of the intersecting roadway." He stated the driveway for the Laniado Plaza enters Harris Boulevard less than 37 feet from the actual pavement of A1A and only 22 feet from the right-of-way; so it does not meet the Comprehensive Plan. He stated according to the engineer with Public Works Traffic Engineering, the maximum slope on a sidewalk side-to-side, is 0.2 feet per foot and the reconstructed sidewalk created by pouring the driveway onto Harris is .133 feet per foot, or over six times the permissible slope; and that is because of the high elevation given the strip mall. He stated wheelchair-bound residents in the subdivision can no longer use their sidewalk to get onto Harris Boulevard; Mr. Jewell who has that situation is here today and lives on the side of the street that has to use that sidewalk; and if rainstorms come, there is going to be a flood. He stated all those problems cause them to appeal the granting of the ingress/egress driveway from the Laniado strip mall; the Board has the Code and Comprehensive Plan on its side; Code Section 62-3202(3)(a) on site plans states, "the ingress and egress to the property and proposed structures both pedestrian and vehicular shall be so controlled as to provide safe traffic control and flow within the property and between the adjoining property existing public rights-of-way." Mr. Conway stated the Comprehensive Plan says, "minimize points of conflict along the local roadways from driveway connections and other access points"; and Policy 2.3 in the Comprehensive Plan lists neighborhood preservation as a factor to be considered. He stated trucks running through the subdivision is not neighborhood preservation. He noted he has about one more minute, and requested the Board allow him to finish his presentation.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve one more minute for Mr. Conway. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Conway advised they have another very serious request to make to the Board; as shown earlier, Mr. Laniado used misrepresentation on the site plan, which he successfully presented County staff for approval in 1999; he added five feet and was creative with the rules to get two free-standing signs on A1A; and there are many violations of the site plan and County Codes now present on the project site. He stated Mr. Laniado seems to have little respect for County rules or staff; and requested the Board require that no C.O. be given the development until Code Enforcement rigorously determines that Mr. Laniado completely fulfilled all Code and site plan requirements. He stated some of the violations are: (1) the approved site plan notes no site lighting poles except wall-mounted downward fixtures; photo #6 shows he has pole lights on top of the signs, which are not even on the sign permit drawing; and the wall-mounted lights are not down-facing fixtures. He stated the site plan specifies match existing grades within two feet of the property line; that happened on the south or Melbourne side of the development; but on the north side, Mr. Laniado has moved the sidewalk to help him get 16 to 24 inches of County land and reaches the existing grade only at the end of the County land. He stated in the back of the property it reaches grade at the neighbor's property line; so Mr. Laniado has not fulfilled that requirement as shown in photo #7. Mr. Conway advised the sidewalk Mr. Laniado installed on the north side to replace the one he took out for the driveway hugely fails the County requirements for slope and is in part less than the County minimum of 48 inches; the free-standing sign near the corner does not meet the setback requirements; the sidewalk is on the site plan as a point of reference for the sign; Mr. Laniado moved the sidewalk and all the survey pins have also been removed; and requested the Board require a survey be done by the County so the free-standing sign setback can be accurately checked, because if a survey is done by Mr. Laniado, he suspects it will meet the requirements. He requested the Board declare the sign illegal and require it be taken down if the survey shows the sign does not meet setback requirements, pursuant to Code Section 32-3301. He stated when they asked Engineer Price about the misrepresentations on the site plan, he ended the conversation with, "they let us do it, it's up now, and you can't do anything." He requested the Board prove them wrong, act on their appeals, and insist that all Codes and requirements are strictly met before the development is given a certificate of occupancy (C.O.)

Chairman Scarborough inquired, when there is a rule that says they have 30 days to appeal, and there is no ability to know that the 30-day clock is ticking, has the Board denied due process; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding that argument can be made, but the other argument would be if the Board waived the 30-day notification period, it is denying the other side due process. Chairman Scarborough stated the applicant knows when it has occurred and when the 30 days begin; but the person on the other side does not know and cannot have due process if there is no knowledge. Mr. Knox stated the question is who knew what when and was there activity on the site at the time the permit was issued. Chairman Scarborough stated it is fine if they have actual notice by activity on the site, but to have it based upon something that is happening internally is frightening; and indicated the Board may need to change that and bring this item back for consideration.

Commissioner Carlson inquired how long has the property been zoned commercial; with Mr. Moia responding since 1964. Commissioner Carlson inquired if there is appropriate notification to property owners in the vicinity through the site plan process; with Mr. Moia responding there is no notice at all. Commissioner Carlson stated if someone wanted to appeal, they would not get the opportunity unless they knew something internally that it was going to happen; and inquired how does the process work and why does the County have a site plan appeal if the citizens do not know anything about it; with Mr. Moia responding it is his belief the appeals section in the site plan Code is written basically for the applicant; if the applicant agrees a decision made by the staff limits his ability to develop, he can make an appeal; but it does not seem to lend towards other persons aggrieved by the staff's decision.

Commissioner Higgs stated last week the Board discussed standard appeal procedures; she asked to send it back to staff to deal with this issue because there was no way for people to appeal; so there is a gap in terms of how to handle the appeal by parties other than the applicant. Chairman Scarborough stated another way to interpret it is to say the 30 days only applies to the applicant because to apply it otherwise violates constitutional protection to due process. Commissioner Carlson stated then it puts the applicant in a position where he gets to 98% completion and someone says he/she does not like it and is going to appeal it; and there probably will be some legal ramifications. Chairman Scarborough stated currently it denies anybody but the applicant an appeal. Commissioner Higgs stated there must be some way to balance the two, but it is not balanced yet; maybe notification to people in the area would grant that due process, but at this point staff does not do that; so there are issues the Board needs to review. She stated the applicant has a right to appeal on almost all the issues that were brought up; but the Board needs to determine if it agrees with staff's interpretation or has a different interpretation.

Chairman Scarborough stated any Ordinance cannot be in conflict with the Constitution of the United States; so, however the Board interprets it, it cannot deny people due process. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Chairman wants a motion that would say the Board believes it has a right to review the issues; with Chairman Scarborough responding no, the Board is mandated by the U.S. Constitution to allow people a right to due process; and inquired if that is okay with the County Attorney; with Mr. Knox responding the Board could say it to the extent that it is applicable. Mr. Knox stated he is not sure that people residing in an area have an absolute constitutional right to appeal people's permits. Chairman Scarborough inquired if Mr. Knox is saying they do not have a right to appeal. He stated if they have a right to appeal, they have to have notice to exercise that right; and if they do not have a right to appeal, then they should be told they do not have a right. Mr. Knox stated what the Board would be doing is waiving its 30-day requirement; so the motion needs to be just to waive the requirement. Chairman Scarborough stated there is a flaw in the way it is being interpreted.

Commissioner Higgs stated Section 62-301 clearly states, "any person aggrieved by the decision or interpretation of an administrative officer rendered under this Chapter has a right to appeal to the Board of County Commissioners. Appeals to the Board of County Commissioners may be taken by any person aggrieved by the decision." She stated that includes any person or persons.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to waive the 30-day time limit, so the Board may consider the appeals.

Chairman Scarborough stated he would prefer to say it is not applicable because it does not afford them due process. Mr. Knox stated another way to handle it is to say the 30 days does not run until they find out about it. Chairman Scarborough stated he likes that the best; and recommended the Board make that determination so it can proceed with the appeals. He stated it begins when they have actual notice; they cannot exercise their appeal if they do not know they supposed to do it; so Mr. Knox said when they actually knew about it is the day the clock on the 30 days starts.

Commissioner Higgs withdrew the motion.

Commissioner Carlson inquired what is the best wording for the motion; with Mr. Knox responding the motion would be to say the 30-day appeal period in Section 62-301 begins at the time that the affected parties find out about the action to be appealed. Commissioner Higgs inquired if there is any other way; with Mr. Knox responding short of revising the Ordinance, which staff will work on, that is what the Board will need to do.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to determine the 30-day appeal period in Section 62-301 begins at the time the affected parties find out about the action to be appealed. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Scarborough stated if the interpretation is the rear wall of a building is an opaque buffer, then it basically eliminates every opaque buffer. Commissioner Higgs stated she could interpret it that way except for the fact there is a grease trap and air conditioning units to the west of the wall. She stated she agrees it negates the six-foot wall, and she has difficulty with that, but in addition to that, there are air conditioning units and the grease trap in the western portion of the property. Mr. Moia stated the grease trap was the only thing shown on the site plan, and the air conditioning pads were not reflected. Chairman Scarborough stated many times at zoning meetings the Board has described opaque buffers; never in his wildest imagination did he consider that to be the building itself; and he cannot accept that interpretation.

Chairman Scarborough passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Colon.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to provide that for the purpose of interpretation of the Code, the rear wall of a building is not a buffer. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Vice Chairman Colon returned the gavel to Chairman Scarborough.

Commissioner Higgs stated the signs are in a separate Ordinance; but it was not the intention to have two signs face each other even though the property has a side street; and inquired if the Board has to deal with that differently; with Mr. Knox responding it is a separate appeal. Commissioner Higgs stated Harris Boulevard is a public street, so perhaps there is some right to have the driveway; but egress only would eliminate cars coming in with lights going on the houses. She inquired if the Board can address egress only on Harris Boulevard driveway; with Mr. Moia responding that would have to be reconfigured. Chairman Scarborough inquired if the Board wants to make a motion on the driveway.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to stipulate that the driveway on Harris Boulevard be egress only. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O'Brien stated townhomes are going to be built on the north side of Harris Boulevard; and inquired what would happen if the townhomes want access to Harris Boulevard and are going the wrong direction, and if the townhomes have egress/ingress only onto A1A and not to Harris Boulevard, why does the project have access to Harris Boulevard. Chairman Scarborough stated Harris Boulevard is a residential street; there is no capacity to connect with an entrance driveway; and that needs to be re-addressed to eliminate that type of access, because whatever is conceived is going to create problems. Commissioner O'Brien stated it solves one problem making it exit only; and inquired how will it solve the new problem with the townhomes. Chairman Scarborough stated maybe by then there will be an ordinance that would preclude something that is short and defined as residential capacity from being used for commercial purposes. Mr. Moia advised the townhomes have a binding development plan that prohibits access on Harris Boulevard.

Commissioner Higgs stated the back portion of the building is block as opposed to stucco; and the Code requires only the frontage to be something other than block. Mr. Moia stated it does not require that to meet the intent of the character of the area; they would need to install a wall; and staff would require the wall to be stucco. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the building is required to have a finish on the frontage only or nothing on it; with Mr. Moia responding he is not aware of any Code that requires any finish on the building. Commissioner Higgs requested a memo from staff regarding finishes the County allows in BU-1. She stated that was discussed in the performance standards, but not in-depth; so she would like to have more information on it.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to direct staff to provide a memorandum on the issues of aesthetics of commercial buildings. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Scarborough stated it is a shame for people to put money up front and not in the back next to people's homes; with Commissioner O'Brien responding in most cases they put plants along the wall to hide the wall.

Commissioner Carlson stated there are performance standards issues of noise, light, and air quality; Papa Johns Pizza shop will smell and lighting, and signage may not meet standards; and inquired how Mr. Moia works with Planning and Zoning on those standards, how staff knows what is going to be built, do they wait until it gets to be a Code Enforcement issue, or can it be proactive. Mr. Moia stated since adoption of the performance standards, it is required, through the review process, that the conditions be placed on the plan and become an operational enforcement process; this project was approved before adoption of performance standards, so he is not sure how it affects noise and odor; but lighting does not appear to comply with the site plan and is becoming a permit compliance issue. He stated staff will point out the things to be corrected prior to issuing a certificate of occupancy. Commissioner Carlson inquired if staff knew about the lighting issues the people brought out; with Mr. Moia responding yes, and he believes they are not in compliance with the plan. Commissioner Carlson stated she would be interested in finding out what is going on with the noise, lighting, and air quality issues.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if site plans were brought to the Board for final approval in the past; with Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca responding staff has never done that and it has always been administratively approved. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board reviews preliminaries; with Ms. Busacca responding only for subdivisions; and since she has been with the County there was a site plan on a project in the South Beaches brought to the Board because it was part of a BDP required at zoning. Commissioner Higgs stated if site plan approvals were part of the agenda, that would be the public notice of staff's interpretation of things and provide that notice to adjacent property owners for appeals. Chairman Scarborough stated only if the person knew it was on the agenda. Commissioner Carlson stated all site plans in the City of Melbourne go through the planning and zoning board; with Mr. Moia noting only those that trip the threshold of size; and those under three acres were not heard by City Council. Commissioner Carlson stated it was not the City Council, but the planning and zoning board; and after becoming a Commissioner she questioned why the Board did not look at site plans.

Chairman Scarborough stated the whole issue has to come back to the Board; there are ways to have advanced notice; perhaps the applicant could do it by certified mail and file copies of the return receipts with an affidavit with the County; there are a lot of things the Board can talk about; but that is a different discussion.

Commissioner Higgs stated the signs are a different section of the Code; there is a 30-day period; and if the Board is saying notice was given when the signs went up, that would be consistent with its interpretation. Mr. Knox stated it would be, but again it is waiving the 30-day provision even though the Board framed it differently. Commissioner Higgs stated that would be consistent with what the Board did earlier; with Mr. Knox responding yes, that would be the position the Board would have to take. Chairman Scarborough stated he cannot apply a time limit against someone who does not have notice, so he is taking Commissioner Higgs' interpretation. Commissioner Colon stated she wants feedback from the Commissioners regarding the two signs in the front. Chairman Scarborough suggested a motion that the signs are inconsistent with the Code.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to determine that the signs are inconsistent with the Brevard County Code. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O'Brien stated his concern is interpreting the Code after the fact; the Signage Ordinance was interpreted by staff; the man applied for a permit and went through the legal process, and abided by the Code; and if the Board turns around now and says that is not good enough, then he has to spend more money to take a sign down or turn it around or whatever it will take to come into Code compliance. He stated his concern is maybe the Board's intent is different than what was interpreted by staff and told to the applicant. Commissioner Carlson stated that is why there is an appeal process.

Commissioner Higgs stated there is a difference in interpretation of the way the Board sees the Code and the way staff is viewing it; and until the Board knows how it was being interpreted, it has no way to clarify it. She stated in this case, those interpretations were not consistent with the way the Board envisioned them; and presented with the appeals, it has to make a decision and move forward. She stated they need to look more closely at some of the interpretations to ensure they are all on the same page with staff; but there are the appeals; the Board acted on them in a manner it thinks is consistent with its intent; and she agrees with that.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he understands, but meanwhile, the Board is encumbering upon this person or company an extraordinary cost; signs cost about $10,000 each; if it is interpreted one way, he can have two signs because he has a corner lot; and then staff can have him turn one sign to face Harris Boulevard rather than facing both on A1A. He inquired if that is what the Board wants to accomplish or does it want the owner to take one of the two signs down. He stated that person, who got a legal interpretation and went forward on that, will incur costs that the Board is creating; he is not sure that is fair; and inquired if the County should be paying for the mistakes that were made, or does it tell the owner it is the County's mistake, but he has to pay. Chairman Scarborough stated whether the County pays for the mistake is a separate issue, but for the Board to allow those to stand is almost saying it does not care; he is not going to take that position; and he would prefer to pay for the mistakes than let those decisions stand. Commissioner O'Brien recommended the Code be corrected so this problem is not repeated.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board okays the appeal and says the sign goes down, can the owner come back for vested rights, or is this issue outside of that procedure; with Mr. Knox responding they can come back with vested rights or a takings claim and ask to be paid.

Commissioner Colon thanked the residents who did not give up, who were able to come before their elected officials and have a fair trial, which is what happened today; and she wants to say thank you to them because they really did their homework. She stated it was obvious by t heir quotes of the Comprehensive Plan and the facts brought forward, which are very critical for the Board to make those kinds of decisions; and again thanked the residents. She stated the attorney will have to speak to staff regarding vested rights issues.

Chairman Scarborough requested a motion requesting staff to come back with clarification that the wall of a building is not meant to be a buffer, and the definition of a collector road be brought before the Board for further discussions, perhaps in a memorandum form first.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to direct staff to return with a memorandum clarifying that the wall is not meant to be a buffer, and the definition of a collector road for further discussion by the Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: SUPPORT FOR OPERATION STAND DOWN 2002

Commissioner O'Brien advised the request is from the veterans for funding because of shortfall for Operation Stand Down, which provides services for homeless veterans. He stated the assistance includes medical and dental check-ups, food, x-rays, showers, new or donated clothing, legal advice, etc. He stated a lot of them are homeless or extremely poor, and they are brought to the center in Cocoa; sometimes there is a change for employment; but the Operation needs financial support from the Board, and requested $6,000.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve $6,000 from the Contingency Fund for Operation Stand Down 2002. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF REVISIONS, RE: EMPLOYEE SECURITY MANUAL ON TRESPASS
WARNING

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve revisions to the Library's Verbal Trespass Warning and the addition of a Trespass After Warning Appeal Process to the Employee Security Manual. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ACKNOWLEDGE ANNEXATION AND EXECUTE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH CITY
OF COCOA, RE: POST-ANNEXATION PERMITTING AND INSPECTION OF OLEANDER
POWER PLANT

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to acknowledge annexation of a 70-acre parcel by the City of Cocoa involving the Oleander Power Plant property, and execute Interlocal Agreement and Addendum with the City regarding power plant permitting and inspection. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Agreement.)

DISCUSSION, RE: ELIMINATION OF STATE FUNDING FOR DRUG COURT

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised the County received notification that as a result of the State's budget problems, it was necessary to eliminate funding to Brevard County for drug court; drug court is a part of the court system; Article V of the Florida Constitution says the State shall provide funding for court activities; so with the State taking this action, it places the County in a difficult position. He stated while the County has been supportive of drug court in the past, it is going to have to absorb about $70,000 to $80,000 that it incurred for the first three months of the current fiscal year, which staff thought they would be reimbursed for by the State; so they have to find that money to pay for that cost. He stated the other question that is before the Board is what about continuing the program for the future; if the County continues to fund it, it will have to find approximately $290,000 for the current fiscal year from some source; and what makes that doubly difficult is staff knows the medical contract for medical services at the jail is going up between $6,000 and $8,000 during the course of the year, having to pick up additional costs for attorneys for dependency cases, which the State also cut, and it does not know the impact of what it is going to receive from sales tax revenue from the State and the revenue sharing revenues. He stated there is a probability those funds will be lower than what staff has anticipated prior to September 11, 2001; so for all those factors, it presents a difficult challenge to the Board to try and find the way to fund drug court for the remainder of this year.

Freda Schildroth, President of NAMI Space Coast, Inc., stated she is here on behalf of 105 members of NAMI and all the vulnerable citizens of the County, to request the Board not allow the County to step backwards and lose what positive programs are in place to provide a safety net to save the lives of people it serves. She stated she is here to remind the Board of the terrible tragedy in July, 2001 regarding the death in the jail of Robert Marshall Ferris II, and more recently Shantelle Dugan who died from drug abuse and was tossed on the beach. She stated Mr. Ferris did not use illegal drugs or abuse alcohol; but many people with brain disorders use them to self medicate and make themselves feel better and calmer, or to escape from the horror and pain they feel because of their mental illnesses. Ms. Schildroth stated not all people who are addicted to illegal drugs have a mental illness; some of them are small children who do not understand the danger of illegal drugs; and many young people have no parental guidance or positive influences in their lives. She stated children have to be taught right from wrong; and it is a natural instinct to do something, especially when young people are lonely and need acceptance, or are surrounded by people doing bad things. She stated the Board cares about the welfare of the people in the County; and the decision it makes today regarding funding for drug court will impact every citizen in the County. She stated everyone is aware of the tremendous burden placed upon the court system and the jail; the burden will only get worse without the drug court; the courts are filled with dysfunctional families and ill people; the Board should not stick its head in the sand and think it will go away or make it a low priority; the lives of its people have to be considered; and it is truly a life or death situation for many. She stated jail is not a cure for drug addiction or mental illness; it simply does not work; treatment can work; there are many caring people in the County, including drug court staff, judges, probation officers, and mental health providers, and the jail forensic staff in particular; and they all do the best they can with the tools they have, so the Board should not take those tools away. Ms. Schildroth stated they need the drug court and additional staff in the forensics unit in the jail; it is so cruel and inhumane to lock a person in jail with no treatment when his first crime is to have a no-fault brain disorder; and as for drug addicts, Mr. Koenig has said it again and again that their brains have been hi-jacked. She stated the only way to stop the problem is with treatment; they are in crisis for beds for people with brain disorders; she was told last weekend nine of the 14 beds in one of the crisis centers were filled by people with dementia; and those people end up in jail also. She stated the money that was cut from the Sheriff's budget for renovation of the forensics unit needs to be put back and the renovation done as soon as possible; without this desperately needed renovation, there is a great danger that another death can occur; and requested the Board find the funding needed to continue the drug court and for additional forensic staffing at the jail. She stated the Board heard it cannot afford to do it; however, it cannot afford not to do it because the lives of its citizens depend upon it.

Harold Koenig advised Help Early Addicts Receive Treatment (HEART) supports continuing and expanding the drug court program and is outraged at the failure of the six Brevard County State Legislators to resist the actions of the Governor and his staff in shutting off the funding. He stated they will all be held accountable to the voters for failure to protect this basic life-saving treatment and diversion program. He stated drug court saves lives of young people, is cost effective, reduces major suicidal problems, leads to higher quality of life for Brevard residents, and helps reduce cash flow to terrorists derived from illicit drug trafficking. He stated there would be less foster children if families are kept intact rather than torn apart, less public health costs for Hepatitis C, HIV Aids, and STDS, increased educational performance as demand for evil substances decline, increased public safety from criminal acts, less accidents, reduced incarceration population allowing better control over hardened criminals, less judicial workload, more judicial time for balanced decisions benefiting the public interest, and massive financial windfall from less governmental workload and increased profitability in the local work places. He urged the Board to take aggressive and courageous action to overturn the dastardly deed of the current State Administration and Legislature; and keep Brevard County drug court running and expand it. Mr. Koenig advised the outstanding financial success of placing non-violent addicts into treatment programs rather than incarcerating them is well documented; in Brevard County, every non-violent addict placed in a diversion program rather than jail could realize a cost savings from $10,000 to $15,000 a year; but the Governor and his staff, overwhelmingly supported by Republican Legislators, are aggressively trying to keep the proposed drug treatment Constitutional Amendment off the November 2002 ballot. He stated the Florida Supreme Court held a hearing yesterday on that issue; the Governor called the proposed amendment a hoax; the Legislature will destroy the drug court system; and now the Governor and his supporters are trying to bankrupt the Brevard County drug court program. Mr. Koenig stated, to keep the drug court viable, even in the face of opposition by the six State Legislators and two Constitutional Officers in Brevard County, they suggest: (1) designate one Commissioner to have direct oversight of the Brevard County drug court undertaking and to report results monthly to the public; (2) direct the Brevard County Chief Judge to recruit a retired former judge as Brevard County drug court judge to work as a volunteer without monetary compensation; (3) appoint a volunteer public task force to work with the oversight Commissioner and drug court judge to set objective criteria and procedures that allow all eligible offenders a chance to evaluate entering the drug court program, precluding discrimination subjectivity and/or abuse of power; (4) direct the Public Safety Director to recruit a group of qualified retired counselors for the drug court operation to work as volunteers without monetary compensation; (5) require all drug court clients to make tuition payments to the program during and after completion as appropriate. .

Chairman Scarborough advised a motion is needed to extend Mr. Koenig's time.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to extend the time for Harold Koenig for one minute. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Koenig continued the suggestions as follows: (6) direct the diversion of required funds from forfeiture funds and other sources to pay for needed staff, office space, support services, drug testing, etc. in the Brevard County Jail budget; and (7) place the drug court project under the annual wish list for action by the Legislative Delegation. He thanked the Board for considering the suggestions; and stated HEART stands ready to assist the Board in any way it can.

Commissioner Colon thanked Mr. Koenig and Ms. Schildroth for their time and effort regarding drug court; stated the Board and the State have hard decisions to make; she wanted the Board to hear how it is going to affect the lives of people in the program; and her way of thinking is to pay now or pay later. She stated Mr. Koenig brought up very good suggestions that might not cost a lot of money and should be considered; and she appreciates that they realize the Board is dealing with a tight budget and are not saying just to do it, but providing suggestions that the Board can consider. Mr. Koenig stated it is a dirty trick to take a wonderful program and strip it of State funding and tell the County to pay for it if it wants it; and they disagree with that approach.

Jim Kelly, HEART member and supporter, stated he has a daughter who completed the drug court program and has been clean and sober for three years.

Chairman Scarborough advised he met with Representative Randy Ball yesterday; and he has a feeling if the Board backs away from the drug court, it will be awfully hard to get back into it. He stated there are a couple of things involved; should the Board put pressure on the State or is there more pressure on the State by continuing the program and saying the Board believes in it as opposed to backing away; and suggested Mr. Jenkins see how it can be continued and at the same time work to make it financially manageable, rather than saying no today. He stated it is going to be difficult budget-wise; there was a breakdown on the amounts of compensation for different people, operational expenses, Circles of Care, etc. in broad categories; but there may be other things that can be worked out to make it more manageable.

Commissioner O'Brien stated last week the Board discussed Medicare and Medicaid and the costs it may be stuck with; his comment was not to piecemeal and have a new item every week as staff finds out it is not funded by the State; and the Board has not created a priority list of the most important things, so he fears items will come back time and time again unless the Board looks at a list and decide what it can and cannot afford and stop putting itself deeper into a hole. He inquired if the forfeiture fund can be used for drug court; and if so, it may be one source of funding. He suggested asking the courts to prioritize whether drug court is more important to them versus two or three other court programs; and request they come back with alternative funding methods. He noted they may have to cut out one or more of the programs or find programs they can trim to keep drug court operational; and the Board needs to have other concepts come forward. He inquired if the drug court is stopped, will the County lose a judge.

Chairman Scarborough stated it would be nice to sit down and figure it out; what is not done on one side basically is picked up by somebody else; there is no magic to it; and the Board needs to get into the dirty details. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board has to get into the details to save the program if it feels it is one of its priorities; if the judge is still there, the program can continue on its own momentum; and he could use the same secretary or share a secretary until funds are received from the state. He stated there are only ten drug courts in the entire state; and Brevard County is one of the pilot programs. Shaunna Heffernan advised there are 33 operating adult felony drug courts in the State. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the State dropped payment on all those courts; with Public Safety Director Jack Parker responding most of those drug courts are in their infancy and funded by grants at this time; and there are only five that are being funded by the counties. Mr. Jenkins stated Brevard and Pinellas Counties lost their direct appropriations; and they were the only two that were getting direct appropriations.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired what area of the court system would they eliminate to prioritize the drug court; and stated the Board needs answers brought back from the courts.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, to request answers come back to the Board on January 8, 2002 on how drug court can be funded, what other courts are going to do, and if the judge remains on the payroll why drug court cannot continue without other funding.

Chairman Scarborough stated there are other costs involved; there is Circles of Care; and the Board wants to back off and see what is required. He stated Article V works in the County's favor if it does not abandon the drug court. Mr. Parker noted it is not a mandated program at this time.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if there was any intention of the State for the County to take over the entire cost some time in the future; with Mr. Parker responding it is a State service; Brevard County was asked to facilitate it because of its ability to lobby the State for grants and because it would be successful; and depending on who the Board talks to, it is staff's perception that it is a State's service that would eventually be paid for by the State. He stated the State did show that commitment and originally approved $360,000 of recurring State funding, which has since been rescinded; and that is what was supposed to happen.

Chairman Scarborough stated there is Article V that some day will come back when funds are available; and if the Board does not abandon drug court, it will have a better opportunity to be there in the funding cycle. Commissioner Carlson stated she agrees that the Board should not abandon drug court and should look at other options, but in order to prioritize, the Board should have cost-benefit analyses. She stated the Board cannot create a priority list unless it has some sort of benefit defined; and suggested the County Manager do that for everything that comes through. She stated the Board will see a lot of the items come in piecemeal; and it needs to have a cost-benefit analysis saying what it is doing for Brevard County. Chairman Scarborough inquired if drug court is dropped, how badly is it going to cost; with Commissioner Carlson responding it is not the funding but what it is providing for the community.

Commissioner Higgs inquired how much is being generated through the tuition or other payments of people in the program; with staff responding approximately $10,000. Commissioner Higgs inquired how do they make the payments; with Mr. Parker responding they are charged $300 per case for 12 months of service; and to make that easy to pay, they allow payments in $25 a month increments. Commissioner Higgs inquired if other counties are charging similar amounts; with Mr. Parker responding yes. Mr. Parker stated since it is felony cases, a lot of times they have subsequent payments for probation to the State at $45 to $50 a month, and have frequent drug testing at $10 a test; so it gets to be relatively expensive.

Commissioner Colon stated very good points have been brought up today; one of the critical things is even though the State has taken away some of the funding, the County still has a serious problem, as does the nation; and the Board needs to protect its community. She stated law enforcement people will say most of the people in jail are there because of drugs, which lead to domestic violence, child abuse, DUI, and other crimes; and that is why drug court is very important. She stated the Board has to figure out how to fund it even though the State says there is no funding, because it is still a problem in Brevard County; the drug court recommends treatment for those folks whether they like it or not; and it has saved a lot of lives. She stated those folks who go through drug court are not in jail; it has a domino effect; if more people are put in jail, the County will have to build a bigger jail sooner; and her point is pay now or pay later because there is a problem here. She noted she is happy the Board wants to go back to the table and look into the situation further.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he agrees there is a problem, but programs like this are brought forward with people saying it will save a lot of money because people are not in jail and not on the streets dealing drugs; however, he has yet to find that savings. He stated the budget for the jail has not been reduced; the number of law enforcement officers has not been reduced; the County received two more judges this year; and every time someone comes to the Board and says it is a great program and it is going to save a million dollars a year, he tries to find that million dollars, but it was not saved. He stated the program may be very good, but the expense of the program should be prioritized.

Chairman Scarborough stated the holidays are approaching, staff needs time to set up meetings; it would be appropriate to meet with Representative Randy Ball, the Chief Judge, Commissioner Colon, Circles of Care, and anybody from County staff who need to discuss the program in general and look at more detailed issues that Commissioners O'Brien and Carlson are requesting be analyzed; and Mr. Jenkins could bring that report back to the Board. He recommended the drug court continue through February, 2002 before considering implementing changes. Mr. Jenkins stated there is a cost associated with that. Chairman Scarborough stated he understands that, but backing out will be more costly than keeping the status quo.

Commissioner O'Brien stated if forfeiture funds could be used to pay for the program, then any more today to continue this program beyond December 31, 2001 will have to include funds for January and February, 2002 from the forfeiture fund. Commissioner Carlson stated they will just come back and say they need more money because the Board used the forfeiture funds for the drug court; so the Board will eat it no matter what. Commissioner O'Brien stated not necessarily, because the Board can say no when they want something else. Chairman Scarborough requested a motion to continue the current status of the drug court through February, 2002.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to authorize funding the continuation of drug court through February, 2002. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: TRIP TO NORTHEAST FLORIDA STATE HOSPITAL

Chairman Scarborough stated they are making a trip tomorrow; and requested Ms. Schildroth described the purpose of the trip.

Freda Schildroth advised they are going to Northeast Florida State Hospital with the new Commission on Mental Health and Community Solutions; and it will be a long but interesting day. Chairman Scarborough stated the concern is the impact it will have on the operations as State facilities close down; and to get a group from the community to visit the mental hospital in Macclenny will give an insight as to some of the problems, which is not due to the September 11 tragedy. He stated it has been an ongoing problem; and thanked Ms. Schildroth for putting the trip together.

RESOLUTION, RE: CREATING ROCKLEDGE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

Chairman Scarborough advised he requested Greg Lugar to find some information for him; and inquired if Mr. Lugar did that.

Economic and Financial Programs Director Greg Lugar advised Chairman Scarborough's question was about the legal requirements for setting redevelopment district boundaries. Chairman Scarborough stated this district follows three road corridors and is not rectangular; and inquired if that is a methodology. Mr. Lugar stated Assistant County Attorney Kim Brautigam researched that issue and found no reference to requirements or limitations on redevelopment district boundaries. Mr. Lugar stated he originally thought the areas had to be contiguous; however, that language was not found. Chairman Scarborough inquired if there is no problem with the district stretched all over the place following roads; with Mr. Lugar responding no.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if there are redevelopment districts where the incremental increase in tax revenues are only from the city's revenues as opposed to the County's as well; with Mr. Lugar responding they researched that question also, which was asked by Mr. Jenkins, and Ms. Brautigam found an attorney's opinion for another county which basically is no, all the taxable agencies of that district would have to submit their incremental taxes to the trust fund. He noted he does not have a copy of the opinion with him, but that is his understanding. County Attorney Scott Knox advised what Mr. Lugar said is true.

Commissioner Carlson advised the City of Rockledge has tried to balance future revenues with the County by preserving the area off Murrell Road; she understands the issues in relation to how the district has been structured, but appreciates the balance they tried to lay, so she has no issue with it. She stated she supports redevelopment and thinks it costs less in the long run to the community than sprawl; and in the future the Board may find itself doing more redevelopment.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt Resolution relating to the delegation of powers to create and maintain a community development agency; making findings; authorizing the creation of the Rockledge Community Redevelopment Agency; delegating certain powers; providing for the repeal of certain inconsistent Resolutions; providing a severability clause; and providing an effective date. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 01-419.)

APPOINTMENTS, RE: NORTH BREVARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT BOARD

Bea Polk inquired if the other applicant was approved after the due date; with Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten responding the applications were due in the County Manager's Office at noon on December 4, 2001. Ms. Polk inquired how many came in before that date; with Mr. Whitten responding three applications were received from Dr. Johnson, Mrs. Rupe, and Mrs. Fitzgerald. Ms. Polk inquired if there was another application; with Commissioner Higgs responding no. Ms. Polk stated she has nothing against Dr. Johnson, but for the past four years he has never taken part at the meetings except to vote with a certain group; and that was the deciding vote that caused a lot of problems. She stated when he does talk at meetings, he gives the public the feeling it is wrong to disagree with something. She stated they need people on the board who will read their packages, take part in the discussions, are concerned, and stands up for things that should be done. She requested the Board appoint Maureen Rupe, who is a dedicated person; stated although she does not know Mrs. Fitzgerald, she heard she was a good worker and will participate; and requested the Board appoint Mrs. Fitzgerald also.

Chairman Scarborough stated previously the Board voted for one then the next one in sequence, so Commissioners will fill out their ballots; and while the votes are being totaled, the Board will go on to the next item. He stated the County representative will be voted on first. He advised the person at the top of the list is #1 and is the favorite; #2 is the second choice; and #3 is the third choice.

Commissioners filled out their ballots and gave them to Mr. Whitten.

DISCUSSION, RE: ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL FROM BELL HELICOPTER
FOR PROPOSAL #P-2-02-07, HELICOPTER FOR MOSQUITO CONTROL

Commissioner Higgs stated the question is whether or not the Board should accept the proposal from Bell Helicopter for consideration.

Gary Mock, representing Bell Helicopter, advised they understand their proposal was late and why, it was not through their fault; however, they also understand the County's right to decline acceptance of the proposal and respect that right; and if that is what the Board does, they will not protest it. He stated Brevard County Mosquito Control went through an extensive process to find an aircraft that would suit their needs; in that process, they eliminated all aircraft except two, Bell's and Eurocopter's; and with that in mind, they feel it is in the best interest of the citizens and the County to consider both proposals. He stated the proposal was late by virtue of an act of God; they delivered it to FedEx in time and FedEx was weathered in at Memphis; and when they found out about it just prior to the closing time, they tracked the package down and found it was still in Memphis and was not able to be delivered. Mr. Mock advised the package was delivered the next day, but the County staff told them they could not accept it; and they found out it was going to be on the Agenda today for consideration. He stated the chain of custody is imperative; when the County received their original proposal, they returned it unopened the same day it was received; it was packaged in a County packaging and sent back to Bell; and they intercepted that package when it got to the plant so Security would not open it; and they have it in a third packaging. He stated Central Services Director Steve Stultz got it this morning; so the chain of custody is still intact for the original proposal. He stated the reason that is imperative is he was at the original opening of Eurocopters proposal and saw what their bid was; it would be unfair of them to go back and put another proposal together and send it to the County; so they maintained the integrity of the original proposal which the County now has if it elects to look at it. He stated they feel it is in the best interest of everybody concerned that the County look at both aircraft that would suit the needs of Brevard County Mosquito Control.

Kevin Cabaniss, General Counsel for American Eurocopter Corporation, expressed opposition to Bell's untimely proposal being considered in response to the proposal invitation for helicopter for the Mosquito Control Department. He stated as stated by Mr. Mock, Bell's proposal was not received in the County's Purchasing Services Office by the deadline specified in the Invitation, which was 3:00 p.m. on November 29, 2001. He advised the first paragraph of the Invitation General Conditions states, "Any proposals received in Purchasing after the specified date and time will not be accepted"; that clear and unequivocal provision makes no allowance for acceptance of any late proposals; and the exclusion of such proposals is mandatory. He stated the special conditions of the Proposal Invitation reiterate that requirement of timely submission; the second paragraph states in bold print, "To be considered, a proposal must be accepted in Purchasing Services prior to the proposal closing date and time"; and like the provision in the General Conditions, the provision makes timely submission of a proposal a mandatory requirement for its consideration and provides no basis for any exception. Mr. Cabaniss advised even if the General or Special Conditions of the Invitation allowed for consideration of late proposals under exceptional circumstances, no justification exists here; delay and delivery by courier service is not an act of God; it is a foreseeable event; and this was not the only time during the one week period from November 29 to December 5, 2001, that Bell delivered a bid via courier service after the specified deadline. He stated American Eurocopter's bid was delivered by FedEx as well a day early to their local representative who hand delivered it to Purchasing Services Office; the first paragraph of the Invitation General Conditions states, "Delivery of a proposal prior to the specified opening date and time is solely and strictly the responsibility of the proposer"; Bell had a representative present in Purchasing Services prior to the deadline as he stated who could have timely submitted Bell's proposal had Bell made appropriate arrangements; but more importantly, to allow consideration of Bell's proposal under the existing circumstances would negate the integrity of the County's bid process. Mr. Cabaniss stated as said by Bell's representative, he was present when Purchasing Services opened American Eurocopter's proposal; Bell's representative reviewed the proposal and made written notes regarding its contents; Bell's proposal was subsequently received and returned; and to consider it would place American Eurocopter potentially at a competitive disadvantage because Bell would be allowed to submit a proposal after having been provided with its competitor's proposal. He stated he heard what Mr. Mock said about the chain of custody; prior to entering this position, he was a litigator for 11 years; and he would want more proof than just the representation of Bell's representative today to make sure there have been no changes in that proposal. He stated no just means exists to remedy the inequity, which would result from consideration of Bell's proposal under the circumstances; allowing the late proposal to be considered could significantly create uncertainty as to the enforcement of the County's rules for such processes and the possibility of the Board having to address a substantial number of disputes to the detriment of its other responsibilities; therefore, Eurocopter urges the Board to abide by and enforce the simple, straightforward, and fair rules, which the County established for the proposal process and not consider Bell's proposal.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired where is Eurocopter's helicopters manufactured; with Mr. Cabaniss responding the aircraft is manufactured in France and completed in Grand Prairie, Texas. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if it was France that would not let the United States planes fly over its airspace when it was trying to bomb Libya; with Mr. Cabaniss responding he is not prepared to answer that question.

Mark McAfee, representing American Eurocopter, declined to speak, noting Mr. Cabaniss covered all the issues.

County Attorney Scott Knox inquired what the specifications say about waiving irregularities; with Mr. Stultz responding the Eurocopter representative's presentation is correct; the proposal Invitation indicates in more than one section that proposals must be received by the indicated date and time. County Manager Tom Jenkins inquired if it gives the Board the authority to waive those provisions; with Mr. Stultz responding there is a standard general condition in all the solicitations that indicates the County has the right to waive any minor irregularities, but does not address opening times specifically. Chairman Scarborough inquired if this is a minor irregularity; with Mr. Knox responding if the Board believes the Bell representative's statements about the chain of custody, he does not see where there is any prejudice to the other side, so it would not be considered a major irregularity.

Mr. Jenkins advised this is a million-dollar plus purchase; the dilemma is if Bell's bid is thrown out, the County would end up with a single-source for a million-dollar plus acquisition, which would be a concern. He stated the alternative is to reject all bids and re-advertise; but it would only be fair to let both sides see each other's proposals if the Board does that.

Chairman Scarborough inquired what is preferable, waiving the minor irregularity or reject all bids and going back out again; with Mr. Knox responding if the Board rejects both bids and goes back out, it would not have an issue whether or not it was properly filed. Mr. Jenkins stated since one side has seen the other bid, it would be appropriate for both companies to see the other's proposal; and that would be the fair thing to do.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if there is a procedure the Board needs to follow; with Mr. Stultz responding the Board's Procurement Policy requires the Board to approve rejection of all bids and re-solicitation. Mr. Jenkins noted the basis for rejection is the Board only received one bid. Chairman Scarborough recommended it be conditioned upon Bell making its proposal available to the County for public information. Mr. Stultz advised the County has maintained the proposal, but has not opened it. Mr. Knox stated given that scenario, the Board may want to ask Eurocopter if it would have a problem opening the other bid, because the Board has the option to reject the bid and go back out; and it may be a disadvantage to the helicopter business to do that. Commissioner O'Brien stated since Bell's bid was rejected, it has no obligation to open and disclose its bid. Commissioner Higgs stated the County has possession of it so it belongs to the County.

Chairman Scarborough invited both companies to comment on the consideration of opening Bell's bid, making it part of the public record, rejecting the single-source bid because it does not allow the County to make comparisons, and rebidding.

Mr. Mock stated if the Board is going to reject Eurocopter's bid and put it back out, there is no way he would feel slighted by allowing Eurocopter to see Bell's bid because he saw its bid; and that way they would all be on the same playing field.

Mr. Cabaniss stated he can not tell the Board exactly what would happen under that scenario, but can tell it they did discuss the possibility of the Board deciding to start over and rebid; the position was they would seriously consider whether or not they would make a bid the next time; so the Board may end up with only one bid again. Mr. Stultz clarified this is a request for proposals and not a bid, and other criteria is involved.

Commissioner Higgs suggested tabling the item and asking staff to bring it back at the same time they bring back the Board's consideration of the rejection and going back out to bid so that everything is on the table at the same time.

Commissioner O'Brien stated his concern about buying a product that cost more than a million dollars from a country other than the United States during these hard economic times; and stated it behooves the interest of the Board to seek a product that is American made to support the workers of America and not the workers of France. Commissioner Higgs stated that is not the question today. Commissioner O'Brien stated it will come back to the Board and he is concerned about that issue. Commissioner Higgs stated if that is a criteria in the bid proposal, the Board could talk about it, but she does not think it is.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table consideration to accept Bell Helicopter's late proposal for Proposal #P-2-02-07, Helicopter for Mosquito Control; and direct staff to bring back proposed action to consider rejecting the sole source proposal and re-issuing request for proposals. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Scarborough requested staff give the results on how each Commissioner voted.

Mr. Whitten advised in ranked order, #1 is Maureen Rupe, #2 is Billie Fitzgerald, and #3 Dr. Johnson; and the votes were as follows:

Dr. Johnson Maureen Rupe Billie Fitzgerald

District 1 3 1 2
District 2 1 2 3
District 3 3 1 2
District 4 3 1 2
District 5 3 1 2

Chairman Scarborough declared Maureen Rupe as the County's appointee to the North Brevard Hospital District Board, replacing Dr. William Johnson with term expiring December 31, 2005; and requested staff to provide the next ballot, which Commissioners filled out for the second appointment.

AGREEMENT WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF FLORIDA'S SPACE
COAST, RE: MARKETING, RETENTION, AND RECRUITMENT AGENCY

Chairman Scarborough advised he met with Bud Gardner, the new Chairman of the Economic Development Council; Commissioner O'Brien made comments about the need to get into further discussions under these economic times; Mr. Gardner understood the need to do that; and inquired if Mr. Jenkins would like to provide additional information.

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised there are two issues, continue or extend the current Contract on a month-to-month basis if the agreement as written is not approved, or direct staff to try and negotiate with the Economic Development Council some other issues the Board may want to see incorporated in the agreement. He stated the Board discussed in the past how it wants Economic Development Council to focus on improving infrastructure for computers and fiber optics, getting venture capital, bringing research institutions to Brevard County, facilitating higher education and having a skilled labor pool; a lot of those things are being done by the Economic Development Council as part of its normal tasks; but they are not spelled out in the agreement; and inquired if the Board wants to get those inserted for the current fiscal year.

Commissioner Higgs stated she has no problem further explaining and clarifying what the Board wants to do; and suggested continuing the agreement for 60 days to allow the Chairman and County Manager to meet with Economic Development Council's Chairman and Executive Director to work that out so it can go forward in 60 days.

Chairman Scarborough recommended each Commissioner contact Mr. Jenkins and input their thoughts to him.

Commissioner Colon inquired if staff contacted the Economic Development Council ahead of time or is this the first time; with Mr. Jenkins responding they talked about the issues he described, but did not talk about continuing the Agreement. Chairman Scarborough stated he talked to Mr. Gardner about continuing the Agreement so the Board could define it, and he thought it was a good idea. He stated Mr. Gardner realizes the Board is dealing with a different economic world.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if Ms. Weatherman could comment; with Executive Director Lynda Weatherman responding she has a suggestion of how the issues could be addressed. She stated the Agenda Report has specific measurements and discussion points; and she would like to read it and come back in 60 days with sub-definitions. Chairman Scarborough cautioned Ms. Weatherman not to get ahead of what the Board's concerns are; and recommended letting the Board define what it wants to buy before she addresses how they would address that. He described a scenario about building a house and getting the specifications and design. He stated the Commissioners are five individuals who have different thoughts; and before defining anything, staff needs to find out where they are coming from. Ms. Weatherman stated she could share some things with the Board to give it an idea of the business climate issues that are in the Agenda Report. Chairman Scarborough stated that is where the Board is going; and if Ms. Weatherman gets into it now, she would get ahead of the Board, so she should let the Commissioners talk first and she will have the opportunity to do that later. Commissioner Higgs stated since she asked Ms. Weatherman to comment, she would like to hear her comments.

Ms. Weatherman advised she will read the third paragraph on the Agenda Report which should give the Board some focus of their understanding and some of the business climate issues, so when they do sit down to talk, they will have more of an understanding. She read the paragraph as follows: "Due to the shift in the current economic climate and the ramifications of the 9/11/01 incident, increased specific attention will be focused on strategic and business climate demands. These enhanced goals will take the form of investment seminars, increased targeted R&D money for local industries such as Enterprise Bonds, University Funding, and SBIR/STTR awards. A concentration will also be focused on regional partnerships with emphasis on economic development marketing and promotion, (Joint Venture Biotech mission with Mid- Florida Economic Development Council). Particular marketing endeavors will also be implemented with NASA as it relates to SERPL, and the development of the accompanying business park."

Chairman Scarborough stated that all sounds fine, but he wants to make sure the Board has an opportunity in its own way, through the County Manager, to express their thoughts; there is nothing wrong with what is being said here, but Ms. Weatherman needs to let the client speak first and have an opportunity to define what it wants to build.

Commissioner Carlson stated she served on the Economic Development Council for the last couple of years, and know the economic climate has changed considerably; and Commissioner Colon will be serving on the Economic Development Council this year. She stated the Brevard Tomorrow effort has been creating a lot of information; they are analyzing the business climate as well as other things; and they are taking the pulse of the community. She stated some of the findings in the strategic plan and implementation plan should be dovetailed into this discussion within the 60-day period; that information should be available by the end of the month; so she would like to see that included in the effort.

Commissioner Colon stated she spoke to Ms. Weatherman about the 9/11 incident, and it seems like Economic Development Council is on track with some of the things that were discussed; and once she gets feedback from all the Commissioners, it is going to be in line with some things she shared with her. She stated the pulse of the community has a totally different tone; and Economic Development Council is looking forward to some of the challenges that are about to happen.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to extend the Agreement with Economic Development Council of Florida's Space Coast for 60 days, and direct staff to bring it back with additional input the Commissioners may want in the objectives and measurements. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Scarborough stated Commissioner Higgs mentioned the Chairman and County Manager meeting with Economic Development Council; with Commissioner Higgs responding she suggested the Chairman and County Manager be requested to meet with the Economic Development Council Chairman and President to work out the issues. Chairman Scarborough stated he wants to ensure it becomes a Commission thought process and the Commissioners are fully involved with input to the County Manager and results come back to the Board to make sure all five Commissioners feel good about the situation.

(Note: This item was reconsidered later in the meeting.)

Mr. Whitten advised the votes for the second appointee are as follows:

Dr. Johnson Billie Fitzgerald

District 1 2 1
District 2 2 1
District 3 2 1
District 4 2 1
District 5 2 1

Chairman Scarborough declared Billie Fitzgerald as a member of the North Brevard Hospital District Board, subject to confirmation by the City of Titusville; and directed staff to notify the candidates, Hospital, and City of Titusville.

PERSONAL APPEARANCE - HUGH MARTIN, MALABAR PRODUCTS CORPORATION,
RE: CONSTRUCTION OF SCREEN ROOM IN 25-YEAR FLOODPLAIN

Hugh Martin, representing Malabar Products Corporation, presented documents to the Board, but not the Clerk; stated Malabar Products is a licensed aluminum contractor; and he is also the president of the Aluminum Association of Brevard County this year. He stated he represents Howard Simmons; Mr. Simmons contracted to build an addition to his house early this summer; he lives on the back of a canal on White Heron Lane; and the general contractor found setback problems with the type of construction Mr. Simmons wanted. He stated they went to the County and were told it may be possible to build a screened porch; and that is when Malabar Products entered the process. Mr. Martin advised they have the proper setbacks from the rear lot line and from the seawall; they went to Natural Resources Management and were told they needed a stormwater runoff plan drawn and stamped by a licensed engineer; and that is page 3 of the packet and part of the permit application turned into the County about two weeks ago. He stated after they turned in all the documents, they found out the property was in the 25-year floodplain; and that is the only thing that is holding them back from building the screened porch. He stated a screened porch is considered inhabitable space; it is not considered part of the house and is an accessory structure made of aluminum studs and roof with screen walls; and there is some Styrofoam insulation, but floods will not hurt it. Mr. Martin stated as part of the moratorium, the exemptions paragraph says, "or projects that deem to be subject to minimal risk from flood damage and in the public interest"; and this structure would be of minimal risk to any flood damage. He stated Mr. Simmons retired after 33 years as a County employee; they are long-time residents of Brevard County; and the room they turned in for a building permit may be exempt because of the minimal damage and risk from flood.

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca advised the Ordinance does say that if the Board finds there is minimal risk from flood damage, it can approve the exemption from the moratorium. Chairman Scarborough inquired if Ms. Busacca is suggesting it; with Ms. Busacca responding no, but in the event there is additional elevation required for new structures, the Board would have to grapple with whether it wants screened rooms to be a foot taller in elevation than the base floor of the existing structure; so she is not sure the required proposed changes would make a big difference in the case of the elevation of the structure.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board has okayed these things before in different variations; with Ms. Busacca responding not additions. Ms. Busacca stated the Board has allowed garage doors and uninhabited structures such as sheds, but has not allowed additions. She stated she believes staff would bring a proposal to the Board that additions be built at the same elevation as the finished floor because it would be difficult to have a screened room and have to step up a foot to get into it. Chairman Scarborough stated the Board can do it, but Ms. Busacca is not making a recommendation for or against it. Ms. Busacca stated it makes sense to her personally because she does not believe staff will recommend additions be elevated, especially screened rooms, above the finished floor elevation of the existing structure. Chairman Scarborough inquired if Ms. Busacca has a problem with the request; with Ms. Busacca responding no.

Permitting and Code Enforcement Director Billy Osborne advised staff has no record of an application for a permit and needs to see the plan and everything else; and Mr. Martin has to go through the application process. Mr. Martin stated the permit application was turned in a couple of weeks ago. Chairman Scarborough stated the issue is the floodplain and not the permit; and Mr. Martin will still have to meet all the other requirements to get the permit.

Chairman Scarborough passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Colon.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to grant exemption to Hugh Martin of Malabar Products Corporation, to construct a screened room in the 25-year floodplain for Howard Simmons, on the basis of minimal risk from flood damage. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Higgs advised the Agreement with Economic Development Council expired October 1, 2001; so the proper action would be to extend it 120 days from that date.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to reconsider the Economic Development Council Agreement. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to extend the Agreement with Economic Development Council of Florida's Space Coast to provide marketing, retention, and recruitment services for a period of 120 days from October 1, 2001. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Carlson recommended Economic Development Council be called and advised of the change.

PERSONAL APPEARANCE - ROLAND CARLSON, RE: COMPLETION OF RESIDENCE
IN 25-YEAR FLOODPLAIN

Roland Carlson advised he has a house that he purchased in September, 2001, that was moved to the property at 6677 Doug Williams; he was asked to come before the Board to get a permit to finish the house because the property is in the 25-year floodplain; and it was moved there before the moratorium. He stated the Board of County Commissioners on October 30, 2001, authorized staff to proceed with issuance of building permits in the 25-year floodplain for repairs to existing structures and interior renovations with no increase in square footage; there is not going to be any increase in square footage; it is just to tie the house down and redo the rotten wood; and it will take him quite a while to finish it.

Chairman Scarborough inquired if staff recommends approval; with Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca responding staff would like to see the house completed.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant exemption from the moratorium to Roland Carlson to complete renovations to an existing house in the 25-year floodplain. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, RE: CLARA WILLIAMS v. BREVARD COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant permission to advertise and schedule an executive session to discuss strategy related to Clara Williams v. Brevard County Board of County Commissioners litigation on December 18, 2001, at 5:00 p.m. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERSONAL APPEARANCE - ROBYN SELKOWITZ, RE: SIGN RESTRICTIONS
ALONG SR A1A

Robyn Selkowitz with Nature's Call, advised she has been in business on A1A in Avon By The Sea area for a year; due to recent events, there has been a lack of traffic through the area with the closure of that part of A1A; they had an event to bring business back in the area, the A1A All American Weekend; and the Board lifted the Sign Ordinance restrictions for that weekend so they could advertise special sales and new hours and events. She stated the Cities of Cape Canaveral and Cocoa Beach did emergency Ordinances lifting some of the restrictions temporarily until A1A is reopened; their area is in the County; and requested the Board's support. Ms. Selkowitz stated she was not aware the Sign Ordinance was just for that weekend; their landlord came in the following week with a letter saying any signs remaining outside would be fined $100 a day per sign; in her case they were small bifold signs announcing specials to bring in local sales; and the landlord asked them to pull in the signs. She stated her business is in the plaza where there is a Papa Vito's Pizza; they pulled in the signs, which have hurt some of their business; and requested the Board consider lifting some of the restrictions, not for big signs or banners, but enough so they can get the attention of the local residents during the temporary road closure. She stated the businesses have gone through a lot of financial losses and do not have money to do big ads in the Florida TODAY Newspaper.

Commissioner O'Brien advised the Board waived the sign ordinance for the special event; some merchandise were put outside the stores; smaller businesses along A1A have been decimated by the closing of A1A at Patrick Air Force Base; and the Cities of Cocoa Beach and Cape Canaveral have temporarily allowed businesses in their cities to put out small signs and banners, which the County prohibits. He stated people in Avon By The Sea, from Our Savior's Catholic Church south for about a half mile are at a distinct disadvantage with their competitors in the cities; and it is up to the Board to create a level playing field by waiver of the rules or new rules to help the small businesses in that area along A1A.

Commissioner Higgs stated the City of Cape Canaveral's Ordinance is for temporary on-premise signs and the City of Cocoa Beach is more elaborate in waiving several different permit regulations. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board needs to make it a level playing field because those in the same business have a difficulty competing with businesses in the cities that lifted the sign regulations.

Commissioner Colon inquired if Cocoa Beach put a date on its restrictions; with Commissioner O'Brien responding Cocoa Beach said it would rescind its action once A1A is reopened. Commissioner Higgs noted Cocoa Beach's date is February 6, 2002 at 11:59 p.m. Commissioner Colon stated if the Board does anything, it would only be to February 6, 2002; and inquired if Ms. Selkowitz called her office; with Ms. Selkowitz responding she called all the offices and faxed a letter on Friday to give the Board an idea of what she was going to ask for. Commissioner Colon inquired if Ms. Selkowitz thought the Board denied a similar request; with Ms. Selkowitz responding no, there was miscommunication.

Chairman Scarborough advised the Board could waive the Sign Ordinance restrictions or come back with an emergency ordinance. Commissioner O'Brien recommended an emergency ordinance copying Cape Canaveral's Ordinance. County Attorney Scott Knox noted they can do that next week. County Manager Tom Jenkins stated the Board could abate enforcement for small signs and banners while it considers the emergency ordinance.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to abate enforcement of the Sign Ordinance to allow small signs and banners in reasonable parameters for businesses in Avon By The Sea area along SR A1A.

Commissioner Higgs recommended the date be until January 31, 2002.

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

Chairman Scarborough inquired if the Board is abating enforcement and not doing an emergency ordinance, or will it remove the abatement when it passes an emergency ordinance. Mr. Knox stated the Board can do a regular ordinance since it did the abatement, but it would require ten days for advertising. Mr. Jenkins noted they do not have ten days to wait. Mr. Knox stated if the Board wants it on December 18, 2001, it will have to be an emergency ordinance. Chairman Scarborough stated there is an emergency because if the businesses lose the holiday season sales, they will lose a lot of money.

PUBLIC COMMENT - BEA POLK, RE: PROPERTY APPRAISER'S EXPENSES

Bea Polk stated she could save the County a lot of money in some of the budgets that could be used for the drug court; she did not find in the budget that they were going to hire a specialist; and the guy was referred by Lance Larsen.

Chairman Scarborough inquired if Ms. Polk is talking about the Property Appraiser; with Ms. Polk responding yes.

Ms. Polk stated she did not find in the budget the Property Appraiser turned in, but maybe she missed it, that they hired a Property Appraiser specialist quality control evaluator; he is the brother of Dana Blickley and was referred by Lance Larsen; he comes from another county which she does not mind, but the position was never advertised; and Brevard County right now is desperate for jobs. She inquired why they do not advertise so people in the County can get a chance. She stated it is County money; she does not know of any time the County Commission has not advertised positions; so that is another reason why those people should be put under the Charter so they could be controlled by local people.

Chairman Scarborough inquired if Ms. Polk is again talking about the Property Appraiser; with Ms. Polk responding the Property Appraiser, Jim Ford's office.

Ms. Polk stated she asked for a figure of how much they spent for attorneys last year and was given the figure of $192,815; and that is for part time. She stated when they hired the guy, they did not have the things filled out of what he should do; it is still in draft form; that was two or three days ago; but he is already being paid; so how would they know what they were hiring. She stated another thing that concerns her are the cars; she keeps saying more and more cars for the Property Appraiser's office; they have seven cars for administration and 23 other cars, but do not have that many people who do evaluations; so if the Board did its homework, the budgets could not get like they are getting. Ms. Polk stated the Property Appraiser will come back in the middle of the year and always gets an amended budget; and requested, when the amended budget comes out, she be given a copy of it so she can speak to it. She requested the Board put it on the ballot so the people can vote on it next year for constitutional officers to be put under the Charter so local people have more control.

Commissioner Carlson advised there was a recent question regarding auditing of constitutional officers; and requested Mr. Knox tell the Board what his memo said for Ms. Polk's benefit and others who are listening. County Attorney Scott Knox advised his memo basically says the Board can audit other County Departments, including the Property Appraiser and other Charter officers, but it has to use an external CPA firm to do that and not someone from in-house.
WARRANT LISTS

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 1:13 p.m.

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

___________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)