August 10, 2004

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

The Invocation was given by Commissioner Pritchard, District 2.

Commissioner Susan Carlson led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the May 4, 2004 Regular Meeting and July 8, 2004 Special Meeting Minutes. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: SPECIAL EVENTS PERMITS

Commissioner Pritchard stated there is a problem with the special permitting process and the truthfulness of submittals; in his neighborhood there was an application for a permit and the applicant did not fill out several important sections; there was a history of previous complaints about music, etc., which should have triggered special attention by staff before approval; and the County Manager is investigating the situation. He noted he wants to bring it to the Board’s attention that some requests for special event permits have somewhat slipped through the cracks.

REPORT, RE: VIDEO ON SKYDIVING ADVENTURE

The Board viewed a video of Commissioner Pritchard’s skydiving adventure to celebrate his 60th birthday. Commissioner Pritchard advised his skydiving adventure was a hoot and quite a way to celebrate a birthday.

REPORT - SENATOR BILL NELSON, RE: LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

U. S. Senator Bill Nelson advised the Legislative Delegation is in its August 2004 recess, although it has been interrupted as a result of the 9/11 Commission Report; there were hearings last week; and the Armed Services Committee will be having hearings on implementation of the report. He noted it comes at an interesting time as the President this morning announced that

REPORT - SENATOR BILL NELSON, RE: LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

Congressman Porter Goss is his nominee for the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; and how all of this plays out in a reorganization of security for this country, both at home and abroad, is a topic that is of exceptional importance. He stated at the national level, the debate that will be heard is trying to get one hand to coordinate with the other hand, which was the problem on September 11, 2001; the FBI in Phoenix made a report about people learning to fly commercial airlines; and the FBI in Minneapolis had picked up Moussaoui, all in July 2001. He stated the President’s daily brief by the CIA in early August 2001 said Bin Laden was determined to attack inside the U.S.; yet all of those elements of the CIA, the FBI, the FBI field headquarters, and the headquarters in Washington never put it all together. He stated there is the unanimous report of five Republicans and five Democrats on the 9/11 Commission; and the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, Governor Cain and Congressman Hamilton, are pushing and saying they want the report implemented fast. He noted they are continuing to be very vocal because of the conclusions of their report that said the United States is not safe; two months ago was another example where one hand does not know what the other hand is doing; at President Reagan’s funeral, the Governor of Kentucky had been given clearance to land; general aviation cannot land at Washington National Airport; and the Governor was approved by the FAA, but it did not tell the military. Senator Nelson stated the Governor’s transponder went out on a state airplane; the military scrambled because they saw on the radar, without a transponder working, an inbound aircraft headed toward the U. S. Capitol Building; the military alerted the Capitol police; and the alert was not only for the Capitol Building, it was for all of the Capitol Offices. He noted it was a false alarm, but again it illustrated what is wrong; in many cases there is the intelligence, but it is not all put together; a big part of this is homeland security; and he has had visits by the Civ-Mil Committee and a special committee designated by the Board on the next round of base closures. He stated his conclusion is that PAFB, under normal circumstances and most assuredly if the uniform military is making decisions, is not threatened; but no one can assume that because there are going to be some civilians who are going to try to massage the process; there has been a history of them not listening to the uniform military; and PAFB stands on its own because there has to be a military headquarters from the place of which one is launching from a military standpoint, not NASA, to get into orbit. Senator Nelson noted there are only two places that the military is launching into orbit; one is a polar orbit from north to south from Vandenberg AFB on the California Coast, and the other one is here; and one has to get as far south as possible to launch from west to east over an unpopulated area because of less expenditure of energy to get into orbit. He stated that is why PAFB was put here in the first place, and NASA followed the military later on as it established KSC; the question would be would one close down PAFB if he or she was a reasonable uniform military officer and try to cram into Cape Canaveral Air Force Station; the answer is logically no, as there is not enough room out there and there would be major new military construction expenditures; and all of those facilities are already there at PAFB. He noted it cannot do away with the military command as there has to be the command for one of the most important parts of the defense structure, which is assured access to space for military, defense, and surveillance purposes; he has shared the information with various groups; he has talked to General Lord, who is the Commander of the Air Force Space Command; and he is going to meet him here on a subsequent visit to go over issues. He stated he met with General Cartwright who is the new Commander of the U. S. Strategic Command; they went over the issues and the critical position of Cape Canaveral Air Force Station; the military generals all understand this and agree with it; and he believes Brevard County is in good shape, but cannot take anything for granted.

Senator Nelson noted in the last round of base closures, which was in the late 1980’s, the United States Navy now regrets that Cecil Field in Jacksonville was closed; what is happening after-the-fact is that the military is coming back in there and doing things, although it is not a military base; a major new Army-contracted secret surveillance is going to use a platform of a regional jet and fill it with a lot of high value electronics for surveillance along the coast; and it is going to be built in Jacksonville at Cecil Field. He stated he will be going to the Port to do an additional briefing, touring part of the Port facilities, and going over the needs on Port security; Port Canaveral has requested $3 million in grants for upgrading security; the 9/11 Commission Report confirmed what many have been saying that although airline security has been addressed and about $5 billion a year is being spent, 90% of the $5 billion is going into such security; and the remaining 10% is going elsewhere, with precious little going into Port security. Senator Nelson stated there are 361 ports in the country; in Florida there are 14 deep water ports; it has the numbers one, two, and three cruise ports in the world-Port Canaveral, the Everglades, and Miami; when there are thousands of people put on a cruise ship, it is another potential target; and the ports are screaming for money. He stated representatives have tried to get additional port money, but have not been able to overcome the resistance of the White House Budget Office; on the recently passed Coast Guard Bill, they were fortunate that Senator Hallocks put in an additional $300 million; but it was only after the President had requested $46 million; and the National Port Council is saying for security it needs $7 billion over the next five years. He noted the President requested $46 million; last year, Congress appropriated $125 million; this year it has it up to $300 million; and Port Canaveral is requesting $3 million in grants. He stated it is a struggle; the 9/11 Commission Report said, “Strategies must be developed for neglected parts of the transportation security system. While commercial aviation remains a possible target, terrorists may turn their attention to other modes and opportunities to do harm are as great or greater in maritime or surface transportation.” He noted a special Congressional study was done by the General Accounting Office (GAO); and read part of the study, as follows: “A recent study by RAND reports that the maritime sector and specifically the container transport sector remain wide open to terrorist threat and the system is perceived to be poorly defended against misuse and terrorism due to its global and open nature. In 2002, the GAO conducted field investigations of several U. S. seaports and found that ports are inherently vulnerable to terrorist attack because of their size, easy accessibility by water and land, and the tremendous amount of cargo that is typically transferred through them.” He stated 60% of Florida’s commerce through its deep water ports comes in from the Caribbean in Central America; part of the effort to increase Florida’s port security is to get other nations’ ports to increase their security that are shipping to it; he went to the Dominican Republic last Friday to see the new president-elect; and he went to a new state-of-the-art stellar cargo container port. Senator Nelson noted in his briefings and tour one would think it was a secure port; there were lots of guards, fences, etc.; but he saw the intelligence that told him on such port things were not so rosy; and that particular port is shipping 25% of its container cargo to the United States. He stated the only saving grace is that Port Canaveral is not a big container cargo port like Jacksonville, Miami, and the Everglades; but it is one of the three largest cruise ports in the world; he is going to continue to help it as it tries to achieve the upgrading of its security; and he has visited most of the deep water ports in Florida and they need help. He noted the rest of the ports in the Caribbean and Central America need help as well; the Coast Guard is given an almost impossible task that, as a result of a new law that took effect July 1st, it is supposed to inspect every inbound ship either while it is on the high seas or once it gets into port; and it is impossible to do that with the manpower requirements for the Coast Guard. He stated homeland security is more than port security; the sheriff used to rely on the FBI to help it with the investigation of crime; after September 11, 2001, the FBI is basically going after terrorists in the counter terrorism work; and local law enforcement is left without a resource they had trying to make up the difference. Senator Nelson noted they are cash strapped; representatives try to get additional amendments; one of the amendments voted on regarding the Department of Homeland Security was an additional $6.8 billion over the White House’s request; it would have provided an additional $4.5 billion for the upcoming fiscal year for first responders, a key component in homeland security; and it would have also had the significant increases for port security and other things such as border security and transportation security, but the amendment did not pass because of the budgetary crunch and the budget office in the White House. He stated it is a significant challenge; one of the ways to continue to try to help the County and local law enforcement is to keep pressing on the COPS Program, which is the community-oriented policing services; and the local law enforcement block grants and homeland security grants, including port security grants, are also very helpful. He noted he did town hall meetings yesterday in Stuart, Fort Pierce, and Vero Beach; and thanked the Board, local law enforcement, firefighters, and EMS people. Senator Nelson stated Chairman Cain indicated in the Commission Report that a terrorist attack is coming; and it is important at the local and state levels that everyone cooperate together in the defense of our homeland.

Chair Higgs expressed appreciation to Senator Nelson for the status report.

Commissioner Colon stated when the County went to Washington to make sure BRAC was a priority to elected officials, it was able to get the feedback; Senator Nelson was fully aware of what was going on; and thanked Senator Nelson for his efforts. She noted the September 11, 2001 event was extremely personal to her as she worked on the 102nd floor of the World Trade Center and lost a great deal of people she loved; sometimes it makes her sad that people want to forget about what happened; and she is happy Senator Nelson is letting people know how much of a priority it is to him and is not into the whole partisan thing as he will work with those who are not Democrats to make sure the country is protected. She stated right now the country is not interested in the partisan fighting going on; and she is proud the County has a Senator who is willing to cross party lines to get accomplished what must be accomplished here as far as safety. Senator Nelson stated the only disappointment he has had in Washington is that the place is way too partisan and ideologically rigid; that makes it very difficult to govern a country that is as big, broad, and diverse as the United States; and it makes it difficult for political moderates, such as himself, who have to reach out and bring people together to build consensus.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Senator Nelson is from Brevard County; he has been an astronaut and has taken an active role in speaking out on NASA and KSC; and requested Senator Nelson share his thoughts about NASA.

Senator Nelson stated no one can lead the space program except the President or Vice President; when the President laid out some very desirable goals of venturing into exploration, the White House has got to support the budget; and it has not been willing to do that. He noted a senator cannot lead the space program; the Administrator of NASA cannot do it either; a bold and visionary space program has to come from the White House; there has to be the commitment, including resources, particularly at a time when one-half trillion dollars a year is bleeding and there is so much competition for the available dollars; otherwise, NASA is going to end up on the short end of the stick. He stated with regard to return to flight, NASA is doing very well; once it returns to flight it will be doing it as safe as possible; space flight is risky business; and it is worth the risk as it is part of our destiny to be explorers and adventurers. He noted what comes out of the space program in spin-offs are CAT scans, MRI’s, and kidney dialysis machines that profoundly affect daily lives; and it is essential to the future global preeminence of this country to continue the space program. Senator Nelson stated NASA will have the orbiter ready to go; he went through it two weeks ago; it is costing more than was originally expected; and NASA has come up with a plan where it is going to save the Hubble, which is a good thing. He noted he is very optimistic about the space program, but it is going to have to have a lot of push; everyone cannot let down one bit; his fear is the program, as articulated by the Administration, is to phase out the space shuttle in the year 2010 and not pick up with another American human-rated vehicle until 2014; and there would be five or six years with no American vehicle and relying on the Russian or European vehicles. He stated it is clearly not in the interest of the United States, NASA, or KSC; a six-year hiatus would mean layoffs on part of the workforce at KSC; all of the corporate accumulation of knowledge that is so valuable in making safe flights is going to be diminished; and that is the big fault line in the plan as articulated. Senator Nelson noted the space shuttle needs to keep flying until the Crew Exploration Vehicle is ready.

REPORT, RE: SAMPLE OF THE ARTS

Lennea Adams, Operations Director of Surfside Players, stated Surfside Players recently celebrated its 45th anniversary; due to the Board’s support, her organization has been able to implement a new strategic plan, which will last for five years; it has also expanded its youth programs; and instead of running academically they will be running all year long. She noted this summer the organization had a new program for teenagers from grades 8 to 11; and if anyone needs additional information, he or she can go to the website at surfsideplayers.com.

REPORT, RE: SPACE COAST ART FESTIVAL

Linda Dellenberger, Space Coast Art Festival, stated in 1963 there was a vision by local businesses and some local artists; they came up with a Cocoa Beach sidewalk art festival; and it was sponsored by the City of Cocoa Beach and held in October each year. She noted there were about 50 strolling musicians and artists walking through the streets; it had a lot of public enthusiasm; the Cocoa Beach Women’s Club intervened; and the City of Cocoa Beach became a sponsor. She stated in 1972, the organization became the Space Coast Art Festival; it is governed by a volunteer Board of Directors with representatives from City of Cocoa Beach, Cocoa Beach Women’s Club, local community businesses, and the community at large; and by having all this support, the Festival was well on its way in 1972 to becoming one of Florida’s most prestigious shows. She noted in 1996, the organization applied for and was granted non-profit status, 501C3; it established a year-round headquarters; it was provided with a grant and opened up a gallery, which is the Margaret Hines gallery located in downtown Cocoa Beach; and there are a lot of good elements about the Space Coast Art Festival. She stated during the year, the Festival has a contest for local artists; it also runs a student art contest; during the shows there are hands-on activities for children; and there are also professional vendors in attendance at the shows. Ms. Dellenberger stated one show starts on Thursday with a 5K Turkey Trot Road Race; on Friday the judges are honored and patrons get a sneak preview at the art work and visit the judges; and during the show there are about 235 artists. She noted the organization is currently preparing for its 41st show; and the volunteers, patrons, corporate sponsors, City of Cocoa Beach, and the County are very important to the organization.

REPORT, RE: GALA OF JAMAICA

Commissioner Colon stated this past weekend was the 42nd Independence Gala of Jamaica; Palm Bay Lodge No. 5 had its first gala; there were about 200 people in attendance at the event; and congratulated the Jamaican community for its independence day in August 1962.

REPORT, RE: CHILDREN IN SCHOOL

Commissioner Colon stated today is the first day of school in the County; and requested everyone to be careful driving on the roads.

REPORT, RE: TOWN MEETINGS

Commissioner Colon stated this Saturday she will be holding a town meeting in Melbourne at the Fee Library at 10:30 a.m.; the discussion will include hurricane preparedness; fire department officials will also be present to discuss issues; and next month a town meeting will be held in the beaches area. She noted she has been holding town meetings for almost nine years now.

RESOLUTION, RE: RECOGNIZING EFFORTS OF BREVARD COUNTY MULTIPLE
SCLEROSIS WALK

Commissioner Scarborough read aloud a resolution recognizing the Brevard County Multiple Sclerosis Walk.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt Resolution recognizing the Brevard County Multiple Sclerosis Walk as an outstanding example of the efforts by dedicated citizens to help others who are in need of their assistance, and extending its best wishes to all those who helped make the event so successful. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Kevin Kelly stated the County has gone from a few hundred to over 1,000 walkers and participants in the Multiple Sclerosis Walk in six years; it is all because of the great people of Brevard County; the next MS Walk will be the second or third week in March 2005; and it is a 5K pleasure walk. He noted it is a lot of fun and good times; there is food also; and Commissioner Pritchard has been at the Walk twice.

Commissioner Scarborough presented the Resolution to Kevin Kelly and a representative of the Orlando Chapter of the MS Society.

RESOLUTION, RE: CONGRATULATING EAGLE SCOUT MICHAEL D. RUTISHAUSER

Commissioner Pritchard read aloud a resolution congratulating Eagle Scout Michael D. Rutishauser for his accomplishments.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution recognizing Michael D. Rutishauser for attaining the rank of Eagle Scout, and offering its congratulations and best wishes for a successful future. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Michael Rutishauser expressed appreciation to the Board for the Resolution; stated his scouting experience has been good; his Troop is great and everyone has a lot of fun; and explained his Eagle Scout project, which was a movable volleyball net for his church.

Commissioner Pritchard presented the Resolution to Mr. Rutishauser.

Commissioner Pritchard advised David Morgan is not present today, but he will read aloud the resolution congratulating Mr. Morgan on his achievements.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution recognizing and congratulating David Morgan for his outstanding achievements in karate, volunteerism, and citizenship, and wishing him success with all future endeavors. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: RECOGNIZING THE EFFORTS OF WENDY KEIGHLEY FOR
ESTABLISHING FUND TO PROVIDE PET OXYGEN MASKS

Commissioner Pritchard read aloud a resolution recognizing the efforts of Wendy Keighley for establishing a fund to provide pet oxygen masks.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution recognizing and commending Wendy Keighley and generous pet contributors for their dedication and compassionate concern ensuring that family pets receive life-saving measures during house fires, and wishing them well as they expand their volunteer efforts. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Wendy Keighley expressed appreciation to the Board for the Resolution; and thanked Dr. George who let her take the program and run with it, the fire departments, that she called and asked if they would like to have oxygen masks on their fire trucks, and the outpouring of love from the public who purchases the masks, which are $70.00 for a set of three. She noted every emergency vehicle, Brevard County Fire Rescue, and all city fire departments have the masks onboard; and she is very grateful to the public for its support. Ms. Keighley demonstrated the pet oxygen mask on her dog, Mannheim.

Commissioner Pritchard presented the Resolution to Ms. Keighley.

RESOLUTION, RE: RECOGNIZING GIRL SCOUT KYLE BACCUS-HORSLEY

Commissioner Carlson read aloud a resolution recognizing Girl Scout Kyle Baccus-Horsley for her accomplishments.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution recognizing and congratulating Kyle Baccus-Horsley for achieving the 2004 Girl Scout Gold Award, wishing her success in all future endeavors, and recommending that all citizens acknowledge her accomplishments. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Kyle Baccus-Horsley stated she has had wonderful experiences with scouting, with the help of her Girl Scout Leader Sandy Hilliar; the Girl Scout Gold Award was hard to attain with all the prerequisites, planning, and implementation; and she had the support of her family, friends, and businesses, such as East Coast Lumber and Beachside Hardware. She noted she did stenciling around the walls of Daily Bread, and also made benches and curtains.

Chair Higgs recognized Ms. Baccus-Horsley’s mother, and grandmother Shirley Baccus, former Supervisor of Elections.

Commissioner Carlson presented the Resolution to Ms. Baccus-Horsley.

ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT AGENDA

Chair Higgs advised Items III.A.12. and III.C.3. will be pulled from the Consent Agenda as there are speakers who wish to comment on those items.

RIGHT-OF-WAY USE AGREEMENT WITH CROSS CREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,
RE: LANDSCAPING WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Right-of-way Use Agreement with Cross Creek Homeowners Association for installation and maintenance of landscaping improvements within the public rights-of-way of Laramie Circle, Knoll Ridge Drive, and a portion of Crane Creek Boulevard in the Suntree area of the County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Right-of-way Use Agreement with The Viera Company for installation and maintenance of landscaping and irrigation improvements within the public right-of-way of Lake Andrew Drive from Napola Drive to Judge Fran Jamieson Way. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. 91-05, INDIAN RIVER ISLES DREDGING MUNICIPAL SERVICE
BENEFIT UNIT

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant permission to advertise public hearing to be held on August 24, 2004 to amend Ordinance No. 91-05 for the maintenance dredging of canals and canal entrances in the Indian River Isles Municipal Service Benefit Unit. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH TOWN OF PALM SHORES, RE: LOCAL REGULATION
OF REGISTERED CONTRACTORS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Interlocal Agreement with Town of Palm Shores to establish a centralized and uniform system for the local regulation of registered contractors pursuant to Parts I and II, Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, for a period of three years. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: RELEASING CONTRACT WITH THE VIERA COMPANY FOR
IMPROVEMENTS IN SONOMA SOUTH, PHASE 4

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution releasing Contract dated January 13, 2004 with The Viera Company for improvements in Sonoma South, Phase 4. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

BINDING DEVELOPMENT PLAN AGREEMENT WITH EUGENE AND ELENOR PARETS,
TRUSTEES, RE: PROPERTY LOCATED ON BOTH SIDES OF U.S. 1, SOUTH
OF MICCO ROAD

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Binding Development Plan with Eugene and Elenor Parets, Trustees for property located on both sides of U.S. 1 south of Micco Road. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF PROPOSED ANNEXATION, LAND USE, AND ZONING
REQUEST #SSA 07-2004 BY CITY OF TITUSVILLE, RE: PROPERTY SOUTH
OF FOX LAKE ROAD AND WEST OF I-95

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to acknowledge receipt of proposed annexation, land use, and zoning request #SSA 07-2004 by City of Titusville for approximately 9.92 acres of property south of Fox Lake Road and west of I-95. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF ANNEXATIONS BY TOWN OF PALM SHORES, RE:
PROPERTY EAST OF U.S. 1, SOUTH OF CENTRAL BOULEVARD

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to acknowledge receipt of two annexation requests of approximately 1.17 acres of property east of U.S. 1, south of Central Boulevard. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF REVISED POLICY BCC-80, RE: TRAFFIC CONTROL REGULATIONS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve revised Policy BCC-80, Traffic Control Regulations. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO TRANSFER FUND TO PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT, RE:
PROPERTY FOR PORT ST. JOHN PARKWAY/GOLFVIEW AVENUE PROJECT

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant permission for the Transportation Engineering Department to transfer $129,608.67 to the Parks and Recreation Department to reimburse the cost of 16.7 acres of Fay Lake Park property needed for the Port St. John Parkway/Golfview Avenue Project.

AGREEMENT WITH WILLOWBROOK FARMS, CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 WITH POST,
BUCKLEY, SCHUH & JERNIGAN, INC., ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENTS FROM
JAMES SARTORI, AND WAIVER OF TITLE INSURANCE AND PHASE I
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, RE: IMPROVEMENTS IN DEER RUN

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Agreement to Transfer Easement with Willowbrook Farms; approve Change Order No. 3 with Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. in the amount of $281,710 for additional design and construction of drainage improvements in Deer Run Subdivision; accept Drainage and Ingress and Egress Easements from James Sartori; and waive title insurance and Phase I Environmental Assessment for improvements in Deer Run. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: AMENDING ANIMAL LICENSE TAG FEES

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution amending animal license tag fees effective October 1, 2004, as follows: dogs and cats less than one year old or more than one year old and altered (spay/neutered) – from $7.00 to $9.00, dogs and cats more than one year old and unaltered (not spay/neutered) – from $7.00 to $15.00, and replacement animal license tag – from $1.00 to $2.00. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZATION TO NEGOTIATE AND CONTRACT WITH COMMUNITY-BASED
CARE LEAD AGENCIES, AND AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF AGREEMENTS OR
AMENDMENTS, RE: RESIDENTIAL SERVICES AT COUNTRY ACRES CHILDREN’S
HOME

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize negotiation and Contract with Community Based Care of Brevard, Inc., Community Based Care Seminole, Inc., Family Services of Metro Orlando, and State of Florida Department of Children and Families for services provided at Country Acres Children’s Home; and authorize the Chair to execute negotiated Agreements or Amendments, which meet or exceed the current $58 rate, contingent upon the approval of the County Attorney and Risk Management. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT WITH DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, APPROVAL OF CASH
MATCH, AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF FUTURE AMENDMENTS, AND APPROVE
BUDGET, RE: 2004-05 COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY FEDERALLY-FUNDED
SUBGRANT

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Agreement with Department of Community Affairs in the amount of $179,315; approve cash match in the amount of $3,566 and the Budget for 2004-05 Community Action Agency Federally-Funded Subgrant; and authorize the Chair to execute any future amendments to the Contract, contingent upon the approval of the County Attorney and Risk Management. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF REVISED POLICY BCC-58, RE: NAMING OF COUNTY FACILITIES

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve revised Policy BCC-59, Naming of County Facilities, to incorporate requirements specific to Brevard County Parks and Recreation. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ACCEPTANCE, RE: PURCHASING CARD AND ROADWAYS AND LANDSCAPING
DEPARTMENT AUDIT REPORTS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to accept Internal Audit Reports for the Purchasing Card and Roadways and Landscaping Department. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF REVISED POLICY BCC-23, RE: TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve revisions to Policy BCC-23, Tangible Personal Property, to identify not-for-profit agencies eligible to receive donated surplus County property. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ISSUE, RE: ANNUAL SUPPLY BIDS, QUOTES, AND PROPOSALS FOR
FY 2004-05

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant permission to take the following actions regarding listed commodities and services for FY 2004-05: (1) solicit competitive bids and quotes and award to lowest, responsive, and most qualified supplier; (2) solicit competitive proposals, establish selection committees, with the selection committees’ recommendations for award to be forwarded to the Board for approval and authorization for the Chair to execute any resultant contracts; (3) exercise listed renewal options upon evaluation of suppliers’ performances and recommendations from user departments/offices; and (4) authorize the Chair to execute recommended contract renewals over $35,000 in annual value. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ISSUE, RE: OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS EXCEEDING $35,000 TO
APPROVED VENDORS OF RECORD FOR FY 2004-05

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve use of listed vendors of record; approve issuance of blanket purchase orders; authorize the Chair to execute contracts exceeding $35,000 to those vendors; and approve competitive action in the event of unforeseen changes to the approved vendors and/or the cooperative purchasing programs. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: COST OF ADMINISTRATION AND COLLECTION OF COUNTY
OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE FEES

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the projected cost as submitted by the Tax Collector of $230,630 for administration and collection of occupational license fees. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT, RE: PROPOSED FY 2004-05 BUDGET FOR HERITAGE ISLE
AT VIERA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to acknowledge receipt of the proposed budget for FY 2004-05 of the Heritage Isle at Viera Community Development Group. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO UTILIZE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT DELIVERY METHOD,
ADVERTISE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS, AND EXECUTE CONTRACT, RE:
HARRY T. MOORE AVENUE PAVING AND DRAINAGE PROJECT IN MIMS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant permission to utilize the Construction Management Delivery Method for the Harry T. Moore Paving and Drainage Project in Mims; grant permission to advertise Request for Proposals from qualified Construction Management firms; appoint a Selection Committee consisting of Sam Stanton, Jack Masson, and Charlie Burton to shortlist, rank, and select the most qualified firm; appoint a Negotiating Committee consisting of Sam Stanton, Michael McDonald, and Jack Masson to negotiate with the number one ranked firm, and if unsuccessful, with the next ranked firm(s) until a contract is successfully negotiated; and authorize the Chair to sign the contract with the selected firm for the service. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: AMENDING TAX ABATEMENT PROGRAM GUIDELINES

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution amending the guidelines for the Economic Development Tax Abatement Program, as recommended by the EDC of Florida’s Space Coast. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: APPROVING RMD AMERICAS, LLC AS A QUALIFIED TARGETED
INDUSTRY BUSINESS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution approving RMD Americas, LLC as an approved Qualified Targeted Industry Business and requesting the State waive the QTI local match requirement in lieu of the County’s tax exemption local match. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, AND EXECUTION OF
FUTURE AMENDMENTS, RE: EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS OF RADIOLOGICAL
SUPPORT PLAN FOR ST. LUCIE POWER PLANT FOR FY 2004-05 AND FY 2005-06

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Agreement with Florida Power & Light Company for Emergency Preparedness of the County Radiological Support Plan for the St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant for FY 2004-05 and FY 2005-06; and authorize execution by the County Manager or his designee of all future administrative submissions to the Agreement. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL, AND APPOINT SELECTION
AND NEGOTIATING COMMITTEES, RE: REPLACEMENT COMPUTER AIDED
DISPATCH SYSTEM

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to grant permission to develop and issue an RFP for replacement Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) System; appoint Selection and Negotiating Committees consisting of the following members or their designees: Fire Chief, Fire Rescue Operations Chief, Fire Rescue Finance Manager, County Information Systems Director, and Fire Rescue Dispatch Manager; and direct the final vendor selection and contract be returned to the Board for approval. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: 2004 FIRE GRANT APPLICATION

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve 2004 Fire Grant Application for provision of capital, operating equipment, and supplies to further improve the Firefighter Wellness and Safety Program. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE, AND AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE GRANT
DOCUMENTS, RE: VOLUNTEER FIRE ASSISTANCE FEDERAL GRANT

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to accept the Volunteer Fire Assistance Federal Grant (cost sharing program) in the amount of $16,583 for purchase of Wildland Personal Equipment Protective Gear; and authorize the County Manager or his designee to execute associated grant documents and the Certificate of Expenditure. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT WITH MEDTRONIC PHYSIO-CONTROL, RE: MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR
SERVICES FOR LIFE PAK CARDIAC DEFIBRILLATORS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Technical Service Support Agreement with Medtronic Physio-Control Corporation for maintenance and repair of Medtronic Life Pak Cardiac Defibrillators. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT WITH SPACE COAST EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, P.A. (JOHN
McPHERSON, M.D., P.A., PRESIDENT), AND AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF
RENEWAL OPTIONS, RE: MEDICAL DIRECTOR SERVICES

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Agreement with Space Coast Emergency Medical Services, P.A., (John R. McPherson, M.D., P.A., President) for medical director services for Brevard County; and authorize the County Manager or his designee to execute renewal options as outlined in the Agreement. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: CONGRATULATING FRANCES B. GULLIKSON ON CELEBRATING
HER 100TH BIRTHDAY

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution congratulating Frances B. Gullikson on her 100th birthday, and extending best wishes for good health and happiness. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: CONGRATULATING JIM KING, RETIRED TEACHER FROM
ASTRONAUT HIGH SCHOOL

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution congratulating Jim King for many years of outstanding commitment to the students of Brevard County, and extending best wishes for an enjoyable retirement. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZE APPLICATION AND ACCEPT EDWARD C. BYRNE GRANT, RE:
REPLACEMENT OF BREATH TESTING INSTRUMENTS IN 18TH JUDICIAL GRANT

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize application for and acceptance of an Edward C. Byrne Grant for $61,350 with matching funding of $20,450 from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement for purchase of 13 replacement Intoxilyzer machines and 11 printers to be distributed among the law enforcement agencies of Brevard and Seminole Counties, with the Sheriff’s Office acting as coordinator for this initiative. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPOINTMENT, RE: BREVARD COUNTY COMMISSION ON STATUS OF WOMEN

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to appoint Evelyn Morrison to serve on the Brevard County Commission on Status of Women, replacing Maria Apolinaris, with term of appointment expiring December 31, 2004. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: BILLS AND BUDGET CHANGES

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the Bills and Budget Changes. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REAPPOINTMENTS, RE: RECYCLING CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Bette Danse stated she moved from Canaveral Groves to North Merritt Island in December 2003; she had represented District 1 and was also the Chair of the Recycling Citizens Advisory Committee; she was informed that she was not on the Committee and was replaced; and requested the Board reinstate her as a citizen at-large or something. She noted she spoke with Mr. Rodriguez about it; she and the Committee did extensive research and wonderful changes were made last year; and thanked the Board for its support.

Commissioner Carlson stated she met with Ms. Danse yesterday; she brought a couple of things to her attention, including that the League of Cities is not being represented; there were two of three League of Cities’ appointees there who ended up quitting; and if the Board could revise the Resolution to have an at-large member, perhaps Ms. Danse could assist as she has from the very beginning.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution amending Resolution establishing the Recycling Citizens Advisory Committee to include an at-large position.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the Board should not take from the League of Cities. Commissioner Carlson noted it is not participating.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the League of Cities should be notified that it is not participating and given the opportunity to either staff the position or give up a position before the Board takes from it.

Chair Higgs inquired is the motion to take from the League of Cities. Commissioner Carlson responded if the Board does not do that, then there will be 10 members, which is an even number and no tie-breaking; she does not have a problem either way; but perhaps Mr. Rodriguez could enlighten the Board about the participation of the League. She noted she does not have any problem going to the League, but because the County has not, as far as timeliness goes, it could ask Mr. Rodriguez to talk to the League to see if it wants to give up a position, or the Board could add another one. Commissioner Pritchard stated Ms. Danse could be appointed by the League of Cities.

Commissioner Scarborough stated rather than going to the League, the Board could have 10 members because the Committee is a recommending body for citizen input.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution amending Resolution establishing the Recycling Citizens Advisory Committee to include a 10th-member as an at-large position. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Pritchard voted nay.

Commissioner Carlson inquired can the Board appoint Ms. Danse now or does the item have to come back; with Chair Higgs responding the Board can do it now. Chair Higgs stated the Board would need to insert into the Resolution how an at-large person would be appointed by the Board. Commissioner Carlson noted the Resolution can be brought back with a recommendation for the appointee. Chair Higgs inquired does the Resolution have to be brought back or can the Board amend it with action today.

County Attorney Scott Knox responded the Resolution does not have to be brought back.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to appoint Bette Danse to fill the at-large position on the Recycling Citizens Advisory Committee.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he does not support the motion as Ms. Danse moved from one district to another, and the Board is creating another position to accommodate her; he has a problem with changing the composition of the Committee; and inquired what if the Board did that with every board that came up. He noted he is not saying Ms. Danse has not contributed to the Committee, but she does not live in District 1 anymore and he already has an appointment in District 2. Commissioner Carlson stated it is an at-large position. Commissioner Pritchard noted the position is being created because Ms. Danse moved; it is not the way the Board should operate by creating positions because somebody moves around the County; and if the League of Cities would like to appoint Ms. Danse, that would be fine.

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

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to reappoint Mike Shaffer, Patty Goffinet, Amy Tidd, Bonnie DeCaro, George Geletko, Craig Yoder, Brian Blenis, and Pam Shoemaker to the Recycling Citizens Advisory Committee, with terms expiring February 28, 2005. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AWARD OF BID #B-5-04-85, RE: EXTERIOR PAINTING OF CENTRAL REFERENCE
LIBRARY

Bud Yorkin, representing VIP Painting & Concrete Restoration, Inc., stated his bid for painting of the Central Reference Library was rejected after his Company was informed it was the low bidder; such bid was rejected because of an obvious error, which the Company’s secretary typed in Benjamin Moore Paint when the County’s bid documents called for Sherwin Williams’ products to be used; and Benjamin Moore Paint products are an approved equal, so it is not a major item. He noted because his Company did not attach the paint specifications for the products, the bid was rejected for not including those documents; the County’s paperwork says the documents should be included if a company deviates from the Sherwin Williams specifications; there was an error because the secretary was doing three or four bid proposals that day; and they all happened to be for Benjamin Moore Paint. He stated the secretary unknowingly typed in Benjamin Moore Paint in the County’s bid; if she had not done that, it would have remained Sherwin Williams; and everything would have been fine. He noted in the documents, the County allows for obvious error; his Company’s bid was about $8,000 or $9,000 lower than the second bid; there was no intent to mislead anyone; and it was a mistake. He stated the County’s documents also include the word “may”, which gives the Board the right to allow for a change; it does not say one will be rejected from a bid, but may be; there is no definite enhancement to his Company by using either product; there is nothing to gain by using Benjamin Moore over Sherwin Williams; and it was a clerical error. Mr. Yorkin stated the citizens would wind up paying thousands of dollars more to do the same job his Company was going to do if the County approves the next highest bidder; there is no difference in the workmanship; if the County wants his Company to use Sherman Williams products it would, as there is no problem; and there is no advantage to using one product over another. He noted his Company receives no special consideration by using either product; it did not put any of the other bidders at a disadvantage; it is not asking for anything special; and it would not request a payment until the job was completely finished and satisfactory to the County. He stated the Company is a big one and works all over the State of Florida; it is asking for what is allowable in the County’s documents; it bid the job at the right price; and requested the Board allow the Company to proceed as the low bidder and do the job.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the County said companies could come in with something other than Sherwin Williams; when he goes to the paint store there are all kinds of grades of paints; and inquired within the specifications, did the County delineate different grades of paints or the brand.

Central Services Director Steve Stultz stated the specifications provided in the bidding documents were for specific Sherwin Williams products. Commissioner Scarborough inquired was it the top grade; with Mr. Stultz responding he is not sure. Mr. Stultz stated the specifications were provided from Facilities Department as establishing its standards in past performance.

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated it was a higher grade and not the entry level grade; the issue at hand is that the County required a certain brand and certain type of paint; and a company has the ability to offer an alternative, but it has to demonstrate that it meets the same standards.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired was there anything in the response that indicated the product was of the same durability and quality; with Mr. Stultz responding no. Mr. Stultz stated the only thing provided by the low bidder was an indication it was providing a Benjamin Moore product; it also indicated it was supplying material, safety data sheets, and specifications for the product; however, they were not included.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he does not believe either Benjamin Moore or Sherwin Williams have a manufacturing plant in Brevard County. Mr. Stultz noted that is correct; there are several distributors located within the County; and there is only one paint manufacturer within the County. Commissioner Pritchard inquired why Richards Paint was not used. Mr. Stultz responded Richards Paint may have been in attendance at a pre-bid meeting; the actual bid was for the contractor to perform the services; the County established the quality and characteristics of the product to be used; and knowing there are several different manufacturers that have those types of characteristics, the County used Sherwin Williams as a standard. Mr. Jenkins stated a painter could have bid with the Richards product as long as he or she attached the specifications. Commissioner Pritchard stated he has used all three brands, which are standards in the industry; he has had excellent results with all three; Richards Paint is a local company; and the County should try to keep the dollars here by using such products. He noted he is sure the vendors could bid a Richards product; it does not matter to them where they purchase; and the people doing the work are looking to put on whatever type of paint the County is directing be used. Mr. Jenkins stated Richards Paint could have been specified as equally as Sherwin Williams or Benjamin Moore; and it could have been the standard.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired has Mr. Yorkin’s company used a variety of paint brands; with Mr. Yorkin responding yes. Commissioner Pritchard inquired does a Richards product meet the specifications that were outlined with Sherwin Williams. Mr. Yorkin responded every paint manufacturer makes several grades of paint; in the County’s specifications it indicates if the specs are not proper and not supplied, it automatically means the highest grade of manufactured product from either company; his Company would use the highest grade of Benjamin Moore as it would have from Richards Paint; and his Company always uses the top grade of paint. Commissioner Pritchard inquired is the top grade of Richards Paint comparable to the grade of Sherwin Williams that was requested. Mr. Yorkin responded he does not have the specs from Richards Paint; but it has been around a long time; it makes 100% acrylic high solids paint; and it is as good a product as any other paints. He stated his Company had the best warranty of seven years; and nobody else did that. Commissioner Pritchard inquired would Mr. Yorkin foresee a difference in the Company’s bid price if it went to a Richards product that met the Sherwin Williams standard; with Mr. Yorkin responding no.

Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten stated the bid is a Sherwin Williams product or equal; the crux of the matter is that there was no documentation submitted specifying that the paint listed on Mr. Yorkin’s price sheet was equal; and the Company needed to list the materials and the paint. Commissioner Pritchard stated the County has a local manufacturer that spends its money in Brevard County; Richards Paint should have been used as the standard; Mr. Yorkin’s Company bid $39,000 and change; the next bid is $48,000 and change; and it is a $9,201 difference or 23% increase if the County excludes Mr. Yorkin’s bid. He noted the County is foolish to do that; clerical error notwithstanding, if the vendor at that price can provide a Richards product that would be the comparable standard to what was requested in the bid, then that is where the County needs to go; and for future painting standards, it should use a local manufacturer such as Richards Paint as the standard.

Chair Higgs stated the County should not have a brand standard, but it should have a standard of paint. Commissioner Pritchard noted that would be fine, but staff used a brand standard; and if it is going to do that, it needs to use somebody in the County. Chair Higgs stated in this case the bidder did not meet the specifications of the bid; if the Board diverts from what the standards were in the bid, it needs to reject all bids and go back out to bid; and it could go with whatever standard it wants. Commissioner Pritchard stated the Board needs to reject the bids and come back using Richards Paint as a standard to plant a seed that it is in the County; he has nothing against Sherwin Williams or Benjamin Moore as they are fine products; but they are not manufactured here; and the County needs to start enhancing what it has here. He noted Richards Paint is an excellent product and he has used it.

Mr. Jenkins inquired did the specifications state if someone did not submit a paint type or specifications for the paint, that he or she automatically go with the top grade; with Mr. Stultz responding no. Mr. Stultz stated the bid specifications indicated any alternate product bid would require the submittal of technical documentation and such documentation could not be accepted after the bid opening. He stated there is, within various different manufactured products, different grades and types of paint. Mr. Jenkins stated whatever the Board chooses to do is fine, but when somebody submits a bid and does not specify the quality of the product he or she is using, it gives the premise to lowball the bid and put an inferior product up; and that is why the County requires someone to document what he or she is going to use so it knows what it is getting for its money.

Commissioner Scarborough requested if Mr. Yorkin has something in the documentation that shows he is compelled to use the highest grade to provide it to Mr. Stultz. Mr. Stultz stated one of the general conditions of the template bidding documents relates to silence of specifications; and it says, “The apparent silence of the specifications and adding supplemental specifications as to any details or the omission from same of any detailed description concerning any point shall be regarded as meaning that only the best commercial practices are to prevail and only materials of the first quality be provided.

All interpretations of this specification shall be made upon the basis of this statement.” Mr. Stultz stated it also indicates that should the County fail to specifically specify quality standards that it is expecting the best quality.

Assistant County Attorney Terri Jones stated Mr. Stultz is correct; this bid has specific specifications; and those are the specifications that need to be met.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, to reject bids for Bid #B-5-04-85, Exterior Painting of Central Reference Library, and re-bid using Richards Paint as a standard. Motion died for lack of a second.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to accept the recommendation of the Protest Committee to reject bid received from VIP Painting & Concrete Restoration, Inc. as non-responsive, and award Bid #B-5-04-85, Exterior Painting of Central Reference Library, to East Coast Painting of Brevard at $48,885.

Commissioner Pritchard stated that means a $9,201 cost to the taxpayers; it is not right; the least the Board can do to represent the people who are paying it to be here is to tell them it is not going to accept a 23% difference in price; and he is opposed to the motion.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he understands what Commissioner Pritchard is saying; there is always the potential with the bids that people can, through ambiguity, come in with the capacity to take the contract; and inquired would there have been an ability to move within the different grades, and would the County have gotten the same type of product. He stated the bidding process is such that it has an obligation to keep the process intact or it will not get responsible bidders to respond responsibly; and that is a risk as well. He noted the County has many contracts; this bid is just one; the County has given it full review; and how it preserves the process is not only good management practice, but required by Florida Statutes.

Commissioner Carlson stated using folks in the County is a smart move and she agrees with Commissioner Pritchard on that part; and inquired has the County done an analysis of the types of paints it uses and the quality, and is it why it chose the Sherwin Williams product versus what is existing in the County. Mr. Whitten responded the Sherwin Williams product was based on how it has performed for the County over the years; an analysis was done and that is why Sherwin Williams or an equivalent was chosen; and the second bidder is a Brevard company. Commissioner Pritchard stated preserving a process that is wasteful and not working is wrong; the process needs to be changed; he has used all three of the products; and the house he built here he used Richards Paint. He noted he has had the house for over seven years and has never given it a second coat; Richards Paint works well; he has used Sherwin Williams and knows it works well; and the same for Benjamin Moore, which for years was the Cadillac of the industry. He stated he is not sure where they all fall together now; it is not a question of the product, but a question of the process; it is wrong; and if the County is going to accept a process that is not working and it is going to cost the taxpayers over $9,000, then the process needs to be changed. Chair Higgs stated the process worked; the people were given specifications and told to bid; in this case the bidder did not; she cannot comment on the quality of paint as she is not an expert; but the process said if someone is not using that product then he or she needs to submit the specifications, but Mr. Yorkin’s Company did not do that. She noted she is going to support the motion. Commissioner Pritchard stated Mr. Yorkin indicated the product he would provide is the same as the product requested; to accept an omission on a bid form and write it off as that is okay and the County does not mind throwing $9,000 out the door is not right; and that is his point. Chair Higgs stated the people who evaluated the bids asked in the bid process for bidders to provide the information that substantiated their bids; Mr. Yorkin’s Company did not do that; and that is the problem. Commissioner Pritchard inquired could staff write back to the bidder and ask what standard he or she is going to use.

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

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct staff to address the policy for accepting bids, and include local manufacturers’ or equivalent products in specifications if the products meet the needs. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Scarborough stated ambiguity leads to an open discussion; the County will have all kinds of ambiguities because people will use it to the County’s disadvantage; the whole bidding process will bog down because everyone will bid with an ambiguity that allows them to discuss the issues; and the Board will spend an enormous amount of time on the issues, may be rejecting the bids and going back out to bid on multiple occasions. He noted the County may lose a great deal of money, time, and benefits in getting the best bid; and that is what the process was envisioned by the Florida Legislature when it came down to the County, which it has to substantially comply with.

The meeting recessed at 10:35 a.m. and reconvened at 10:45 a.m.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING RIGHT-OF-WAY (OLD DIXIE
HIGHWAY) - GEN DEVELOPMENT, INC.

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating right-of-way (Old Dixie Highway), as petitioned by Gen Development, Inc.

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca requested the Board continue the public hearing to September 14, 2004.

There being no further comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to continue public hearing to consider a resolution vacating right-of-way (Old Dixie Highway), as petitioned by Gen Development, Inc. to the September 14, 2004 meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING MAINTENANCE AND UTILITY
EASEMENT (MAUNA LOA COURT) IN CATALINA ISLE ESTATES, UNIT 5 -
GARY R. THOMPSON

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating maintenance and utility easement (Mauna Loa Court) in Catalina Isle Estates, Unit 5, as petitioned by Gary R. Thompson.

There being no comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution vacating maintenance and utility easement (Mauna Loa Court) in Catalina Isle Estates, Unit 5, as petitioned by Gary R. Thompson. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING DRAINAGE EASEMENT IN POINSETT
GARDENS, SECOND ADDITION - WILLIE AND DORIS SWIMTON

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a resolution and fee waiver for vacating drainage easement in Poinsett Gardens, Second Addition, as petitioned by Willie and Doris Swimton.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired how much is the waiver the applicants are asking for; with Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca responding $640.00. Ms. Busacca stated staff has advised there is a hard cost for the advertising of $123.00.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution vacating drainage easement in Poinsett Gardens, Second Addition, as petitioned by Willie and Doris Swimton. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the information does not meet what he would consider to be a standard for acceptance, so he would move to deny the fee waiver. Chair Higgs noted there is no need to make a motion regarding the fee waiver request.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION VACATING RIGHTS-OF-WAY IN JUNE PARK
SUBDIVISION - ROBERT BRUCE AND WILLIAM LEMLEY

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating rights-of-way in June Park Subdivision, as petitioned by Robert Bruce and William Lemley.

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca stated the issue has been resolved; the Dorchester Avenue request has been withdrawn; so staff has no objections.

Chair Higgs inquired is the vacation only on Maple Street; with Ms. Busacca responding it is on Indiana and Caton Avenues, and Maple Street, and there are no objections. Chair Higgs stated there was some discussion about the rest of the road, and inquired is it Dorchester Avenue; with Ms. Busacca responding yes.

There being no further comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution vacating rights-of-way in June Park Subdivision, as petitioned by Robert Bruce and William Lemley, and exclude Dorchester Avenue. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL
MASTERS TO HEAR VESTED RIGHTS CLAIMS

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance authorizing appointment of special masters to hear vested rights claims.

County Attorney Scott Knox requested the public hearing be continued to August 24, 2004.

There being no further comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to continue public hearing to consider ordinance authorizing the appointment of a special master to hear vested rights claims to the August 24, 2004 meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE REPLACING THE TERM SPECIAL MASTER WITH
SPECIAL MAGISTRATE IN CODE OF ORDINANCES

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance replacing the term Special Master with Special Magistrate in the Code of Ordinances.

There being no comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida, to amend the title “Special Master” to “Special Magistrate”, amending Chapter 18, Article II, Division 3, specifically amending Section 18-84, enforcement and penalty; amending Chapter 22, Article II, Division 3, Section 22-51, Penalty; amending Chapter 22, Article VI, Division 4, Section 22-556; definitions to amend the title of Special Master; specifically amending Section 22-559, Enforcement Procedures; specifically amending Section 22-560, Hearings, Special Master; specifically amending Section 22-562, Appellate Review; amending Chapter 22, Article IX, specifically amending Section 22-807, Penalty; amending Chapter 62, Article IX, specifically amending Section 62-3302(a), Enforcement; specifically amending Section 62-3305, Removal of Illegal or Abandoned Signs; amending Chapter 62, Article XIII, Division 2, Section 62-4332, Violations, Penalty; amending Chapter 62, Article XV, Division 2, Section 62-4964, Suspension and Revocation Proceedings; amending Chapter 62, Article XVI, Division 2, Section 62-6140, Suspension and Revocation Proceedings; amending Chapter 74, Article IV, specifically amending Section 74-78, Legislative Findings and Intent; specifically amending Section 74-79, specifically the title of Special Master; specifically amending Section 74-80, Creation of Nuisance Abatement Special Master; specifically amending Section 74-81, Legal Counsel and Case Presentation; specifically amending Section 74-82, Enforcement Procedure; specifically amending Section 74-83, Declaration of Public Nuisance by Nuisance Abatement Special Master; specifically amending Section 74-84, Administrative Fines, Liens; specifically amending Section 74-85, Costs; specifically amending Section 74-86, Appeals; amending Chapter 94, Article VI, specifically amending Section 94-308, Definitions to Amend the Title of Special Master; specifically amending Section 94-315, Enforcement, Abatement of Visual Nuisance; amending Chapter 114, Article II, specifically amending Section 114-29, Notice to Remove and Appeal Process; specifically amending Section 114-30, Remedy of Condition; amending Chapter 210, Section 210(d), Antenna and Tower Lighting; providing for conflicting provisions; providing for severability; providing for effective date; and providing for inclusion in Code. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE RESCINDING TAX ABATEMENTS FOR SELECT
COMPANIES

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance rescinding tax abatements for select companies.

There being no comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Ordinance repealing Ordinances granting certain ad valorem tax exemptions for failure to continue to meet the criteria for such exemptions; repealing Ordinance 97-20 relating to the economic development ad valorem exemption granted Cramaro Tarpaulin Systems, Inc., 265 Barnes Boulevard, Rockledge, Florida; repealing Ordinance 02-12 relating to the economic development ad valorem exemption granted to Magnetic Automation, 3160 Murrell Road, Rockledge, Florida; repealing Ordinance 02-59 relating to the economic development ad valorem exemption granted to America Aerospace, Inc., 355 Golden Knights Boulevard, Titusville, Florida; and providing an effective date. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR OUTDOOR MUSIC ACCESSORY
TO OUTDOOR RESTAURANT SEATING (FIRST HEARING)

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance providing for outdoor music accessory to outdoor restaurant seating (first hearing).

Planner Ryan Rusnak stated this is the first of two public hearings; in February 2004, the Board recommended staff meet with an outdoor music committee; it has done so on two occasions; and the proposed ordinance is a result of the Committee meetings. He noted the ordinance would allow music to end at 11:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and midnight on Friday and Saturday; it essentially allows the decibel level to increase to 60 dba; normally it would end at 10:00 p.m. for a receiving zone; but it has been pushed to 11:00 p.m.; and normally at 10:00 p.m. on the weekends it would be midnight. He stated the Outdoor Music Committee defines “accessory” as being not subject to a cover charge, but it can be advertised.

Helen Moore stated there has been a great deal of contention about outdoor music; it is caused by residents in the immediate area who object to being disturbed; there has been a lot of loose talk also that residents want to stifle freedom of expression and want to stop outdoor music; she cannot speak for anyone except herself; and she does not want to stop music and likes music, but she does not like it in her bedroom when she is trying to sleep. She noted it was suggested that she move; she has lived in her home for more than 30 years; she does not believe she is going to move; and requested the Board to consider freedom of listening, and the freedom of the residents to enjoy their property in peace and quiet.

Patricia Crawford stated she does not live in the area, but her sister does; on many occasions she has visited her sister and the music is extremely loud, even with the windows shut and television on; nobody realizes how bad the music is; and she supports the residents who are opposed to the loud music.

Doris McMahon stated she does not have any problem with loud music as long as it is not in her yard; she lives in a residential area and has been there for 21 years; Mr. Watzke moved in about two years ago with his loud music; and he plays it into the night. She noted the residents are disturbed about it; they can feel the vibration under their feet; it has been brutal; and the police have been by and heard the music. She stated there have been over 60 complaints; the district attorney has criminal charges against Mr. Watzke; she attended the Committee’s meetings and the tests it made were not enough to solve the problem; and she does not see how it is possible to have outside music in the neighborhood without disturbing the residents. She noted they need protection of some kind; there should be restrictions; and people should not be allowed to play their loud music in certain places.

Helen Collura stated there is loud music being played in the area where she lives; it is very annoying; the residents are forced to hear it; and they cannot just shut off the music. She noted the residents call the law, but nothing is done; the renter of the property made the remark that he would have a certain motorcycle group take care of the residents if they did not like to listen to the music; she provided a tape of the loud music being played at the last meeting; and such music was taped from her yard. She noted it is a shame that certain public officials would take sides in this matter for media exposure; she goes to bed early and cannot sleep with the music playing; her floor vibrates from the drums being played; and the music keeps her up at night.

She requested the Board listen to the tape and see what the residents have to put up with; and stated the music is bad.

Robert Rish stated he appeared before the Board about six months ago, along with 17 other concerned citizens, in support of outdoor music; they requested it be legal and permitted for restaurant accessory music independent of special events; the Board agreed that further consideration was called for and created a citizens advisory committee to suggest solutions to the issue; and he served on the Committee with other concerned County residents. He noted the Committee met and managed to agree to one extent or another on a series of observable, measurable standards that would manage the impact of outdoor music on the community; Mr. Rusnak will present those suggestions to the Board in the form of a proposed ordinance; in his last conversation with Mr. Rusnak, they agreed the draft needed an amendment to address a time gap in the defined standards; and he did not hear in Mr. Rusnak’s brief summary a few minutes ago some other distinctions that were made in the suggestions by the Committee. He stated he is confident Mr. Rusnak and the Board will deal with the issue in a matter consistent with the rest of the Committee’s efforts; there remains another issue with the potential to undo all the work County staff and the Committee have done; he refers to the loud and raucous provision in County Code; and the provision is completely subjective and allows any officer at any time under any circumstance to arrest a venue manager by declaring the music being played a disturbance. Mr. Rish stated the first time he heard about this provision, supposedly a band playing at the Pineda Inn was told to turn off, not turn down, their equipment or they would be arrested for loud and raucous behavior; and this summer alone, managers at the Redfish Inn were arrested six times in six weeks, sometimes led away in handcuffs when the music was below existing noise performance standards, in one instance, reportedly 45 decibels. He stated the arrests continued despite appeals to individual Commissioners for help, suggesting that present controls are inadequate; the entire intent of the Committee was to provide definable, measurable standards of conduct that music hosts and bands could choose to monitor and abide by; and leaving the same performances subject to another completely subjective standard leaves the door wide open for arbitrary enforcement, which cost both the citizens and County money, teaches disrespect for the law, and leaves the County open to subsequent lawsuits for discriminatory behavior. He noted it is reasonable and fair, and good government to tell a venue host that if he or she abides by all the other measurable standards and ordinances as defined in existing noise control provisions and the proposed outdoor music ordinance, then he or she will not be vulnerable to the loud and raucous provision; County Code already provides specific exemptions and exceptions to that provision; and requested the Board provide appropriate protection to hosts and bands who are otherwise obeying the law; otherwise, time spent on this issue will be wasted and the work shared will be incomplete and unfinished.

Charles Watzke, Redfish Inn, stated he is the subject of the loud and raucous noise; Ms. Collura never filed an official complaint with the police department until her son, which is a Brevard County deputy, got drunk and obnoxious and came into his establishment creating a disturbance; but he never charged Mr. Collura with anything. He noted the Sheriff’s Office is targeting him because Mr. Collura got in trouble from an internal investigation; he stated under oath that he did not want Mr. Collura to lose his job or be in trouble; he was a gentleman and respectful to Mr. Collura; but he is being personally harassed. He stated loud and raucous noise should be abolished or excluded from the outdoor music; the County is regulating the decibel readings; his establishment is performing under the decibel readings at this time of 65 decibels; and the ambient traffic noise around his establishment is running as high as 103 decibels at peak levels. He inquired why would one complain about 65 or 55 decibels of music when traffic is louder; stated Code Enforcement sent personnel to his establishment and they came up with a reading of inconclusive due to ambient traffic noise being louder than the music; the information was submitted before the special master; and he has been arrested, and it is unjust and unfair. He noted a single mother with two children was arrested, taken to jail, lost her bail money, and she spent the night in jail; her paperwork was also lost; it was not fair; and certain employees of the County have had private meetings trying to put him out of business. Mr. Watzke stated it is conspiracy and he should have been invited to the meetings so he could speak his part; at least Ms. Moore calls him to tell him his music is too loud for her and asks him to do something about it; and he does so. He noted he tries to make Ms. Moore happy and hopes he does at times; loud and raucous noise is conflicting with the Noise Ordinance; and inquired how can the County have one ordinance conflict with another ordinance. He stated there should be some kind of regulation or exclusion of loud and raucous; he has never been arrested a day in his life; he is handicapped, has MS, and herniated disks; and he is trying to survive. He noted the business has had music for 14 years; no one was arrested prior to him purchasing the business; he spent his life savings to purchase the Inn; and he is operating it on a similar basis that it was operated prior to him purchasing it. He stated there should be some kind of grandfather clause, investors’ rights, or something; he did not come in and make the Inn what it is now; it was what it is and he purchased it; and it is not fair that an off-duty police officer, one bad apple, can cause him to be arrested. He noted now he has a rap sheet of a common criminal; and reiterated it is not fair. He stated 65 decibels is on the County’s books; the proposed hours for music is trying to work out something with the surrounding residents; he applauds the Board for that; but his arrest was totally absurd. He noted one Commissioner took a personal interest to go to his establishment; he sat in Mr. Collura’s driveway and could not identify the name of the song that was playing; and that is how low the music was.

Laura Ward stated this is the first public hearing; she does not know about the Committee that was formed; but she wishes she could have been on it; and she hopes people were on it that live near these kinds of establishments to have had some input. She noted she lives in a neighborhood that has a restaurant with outdoor seating; nobody would deny people the pleasure of being outside while they are eating in Florida; but this seems to be an expansion to allow music as part of the outdoor dining; and from her experience over the last 10 years with six different owners of the restaurant, it has been a constant battle to try to have some peace and quiet in the neighborhood until the current owner took it. She stated the idea of having ambient music with the dining has a very idealistic side to it; that is fine depending on the location, such as Carrabba’s on S.R. 520 and Courtenay Parkway; it is a high intensity commercial location; and there is no way residences would be disturbed by that. She noted there are hundreds of restaurants in different locations that are in close proximity to residential uses; if the Board allows the music, it should be kept to specific locations that do not have impact on residences; it needs to consider how difficult the situation is; and music is more of a frill than a necessity to operate a restaurant business. She stated she does not see the issue as a requirement or necessity for a restaurant to do good business; if the musicians feel they need this, then there is nothing that precludes them from performing inside the building; over the years the only way there has been any peace in her neighborhood is because there was a restriction that kept the activity inside the building; and the other issue is enforcement. Ms. Ward noted the ordinance would be almost impossible to enforce; she has had experience with it; usually the disturbance occurs at night; and Code Enforcement does not work at that time, so residents have to call the Sheriff’s Office for enforcement. She stated a deputy may tell someone to turn their music down; when he or she drives away, the music goes back up; it occurred in her neighborhood for years; and the deputies do not have the measuring devices with them. She noted it is always the Sheriff’s Office that gets stuck with trying to enforce the ordinance; she served on the Code Enforcement Board a long time ago; residents would come in begging such Board for some way to solve the problem; and citations could not be given because of the difficulty in establishing the disturbance. She stated she does not see the ordinance solving any of those problems; it is a can of worms that is being opened up to create more difficulties for everybody; the residents of Riveredge Drive hope the Board does not adopt the ordinance; but if it does, it should find some way to make sure the music is only allowed in special districts.

Thelma Roper stated she supports outdoor music; she lives in the city limits of Titusville; there is a little pub close by that serves food and occasionally requests special permits from the City to have outdoor music; and she realizes there is a difference between the City and County. She noted she lives near the corner of Highway 50 and another major artery in the town; when the pub has outdoor music activities, she has a greater problem with the cars that are going by on the road playing their boom boxes than the outdoor music; and she lives away from the roadway. She stated if the County is going to talk about outdoor music and Codes, then it needs to start doing something about the cars that are running around with the absolute latest and greatest technology in music that pull up next to people and give them a headache from it being so loud; she understands there are a lot of complaints; she has looked into what has been going on; and there is a lot more going on behind the scenes of the complaints the Board has heard today than it is aware of. Ms. Roper noted the issue of Redfish Inn should not be the basis of the Board’s decision on the ordinance; the ordinance should or should not stand on its own; the issue between Redfish Inn and its neighbors is a separate issue and not here with the ordinance that affects everyone else and their rights; and a reasonable ordinance allowing outdoor music should be adopted.

Walter Pine stated the issue is important and is a balancing of rights; both properties involved in this have rights; one of the primary issues the Board needs to consider is preexistence; and residents in the area first moved in with a certain expectation. He noted the issue is the noise; the person who moves in has a right to expect a certain comfort in his or her home, and that the County ordinances would be set up to maintain that expectation; however, if the business is there first and someone moves next door to it, it is not the person’s right to make the business conform to the newly entered property owners; and the business is the one that has that right of expectation and has the right to continue the practice. He stated if the Board makes a decision that takes somebody’s business or property by regulation, regardless of the basis of the decision, if the rights are well established in law, it has created a liability for the County; it needs to review the ordinance thoroughly and the issue of who was there first; the idea of what the community desires is important; and it is important that the ordinance is written in such a fashion that it is not so construed that it destroys people’s rights. He noted the ordinance must be applicable to all situations and in a general fashion; the language needs to be explored more thoroughly; it would not matter if it is the Redfish Inn, Titusville Airport, or a manufacturer in Melbourne; and the ordinance has to be equally applicable to all people and equally resolve the conflict of rights. Mr. Pine stated there are some loopholes and things that need to be carefully reviewed; the ordinance should not be tailored for the Redfish Inn situation, but for the government of citizens; there are some appropriate changes in language that need to be discussed; and he would appreciate the issue being brought back and discussed at length, not just in regard to the Redfish Inn, but all applications. He noted there are lots of people that have had problems with noise; and it is appropriate they all have the opportunity to comment and have some input on the language that is being used.

Commissioner Pritchard requested Mr. Pine submit his comments to the Board or Mr. Rusnak. Mr. Pine commented he will be glad to.

Commissioner Scarborough stated it is his understanding the County is liberalizing and not putting in any new requirements; previously someone would come in for special permits; the ordinance is basically allowing a methodology where people can operate outdoor music; and the comment has been made that the County is tailoring something to restrict people’s rights to outdoor music that they have currently. He inquired is that true or not.

Assistant County Attorney Terri Jones responded currently in BU-1 and BU-2 classifications no outdoor music is allowed without a special events permit. Commissioner Scarborough stated this would basically recognize that if someone has a restaurant, he or she could have outdoor music without getting a special permit on each occasion. Ms. Jones noted that is correct. Commissioner Scarborough inquired is the special permit being eliminated by the ordinance; with Ms. Jones responding no. Commissioner Scarborough stated someone could still come in for a special permit in other cases. Ms. Jones advised special events permits exempts an event from the Noise Ordinance. Commissioner Scarborough noted it is still going to be available for people. Ms. Jones commented that is correct. Commissioner Carlson inquired how does the County differentiate between the special event permit and the ordinance when talking about an establishment such as Pineda Inn. Ms. Jones responded she is on the enforcement end of this; Ed Washburn’s Department issues such permits; such an establishment is exempt from the Noise Ordinance because it meets certain criteria and can hold concerts; and what is being discussed here is an accessory use of outdoor guitarists or whatever, and not a promoted event. Commissioner Carlson stated as an accessory use, where the restaurant has an event, there is usually a walkway that is attached to the facility; but Pineda Inn has to go out for special event permitting; and it does it frequently. She inquired will the ordinance help or will it make any difference from the Code Enforcement side. Mr. Rusnak responded the establishment would need to obtain a permit from the County for the special event; music accessory to outdoor seating would not be required to obtain any permits; and depending on the nature of the business, the County has to find out if the music is truly accessory to an outdoor seating establishment. Commissioner Carlson stated Pineda Inn has outdoor seating. Mr. Rusnak noted if it would be accessory to the outdoor seating, then it would be a permitted use with conditions, meaning no special permits would be obtained through the County, such as a special events permit would be; however, the establishment would be subject to the noise regulations in the ordinance.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the item came about because of the smoking issue that took patrons out of the establishments or those that wanted to sit outside to have a cigarette with their meal and listen to acoustic background entertainment, such as a keyboard player or guitar player, with only enough amplification for the people that were within the range of a patio; it was the impetus that started this; and inquired would the decibel rating cover the parameters he discussed. Mr. Rusnak responded yes; currently they are inline with the County’s current noise regulations; they are measured from the receiving zone; but the time limit is extended. Commissioner Pritchard noted one of the reasons is because restaurants inherently stop serving at 10:00 p.m. and a patron who arrives at 9:45 p.m. may not leave until 10:45 p.m. Mr. Rusnak stated that is the logic that was applied. Commissioner Pritchard stated sitting outside in Florida and having a meal is one of the nice things about being in Florida; neighbors bombarded with excess noise is not one of the nice things about being in Florida; the intent of the ordinance is to provide an outdoor eating establishment the ability to have their patrons sit outside and listen to music that would be of a level they could hear without affecting the neighbors, and enjoy their meal and cigarette; and the Committee came up with recommendations. He noted there are differences written on the agenda report from 55 to 60 decibels, going to 11:00 p.m., and the definition of accessory; and inquired was there any other item that differed between the draft ordinance and the Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Rusnak responded the original draft had music ceasing at 10:00 p.m., which was consistent with the current noise standard; the current noise standard says that at the receiving zone for residential at 10:00 p.m., the decibel drops down to 55; the Committee recognized that perhaps outdoor music Sunday through Thursday and the decibel level, which currently is permitted to be 60 and would cease at 10:00 p.m., could be pushed up to 11:00 p.m.; and Friday and Saturday the time would be pushed up to midnight. He noted from a commercial receiving zone, the same hours apply except it is 5 dB(A) higher; the Committee also recognized that accessory be defined; and it would not be subject to a cover charge, but permitted to advertise there was outdoor music. Commissioner Pritchard stated Mr. Rish was on the Committee and raised the point about something not being covered in the major differences. Mr. Rusnak advised Mr. Rish pointed out that the ordinance as proposed did not have a measurement for a commercial receiving zone Sunday through Thursday; and to be consistent with the other language, staff would propose that be 65 dB(A) and end at 11:00 p.m. Commissioner Pritchard stated this ordinance and the noise ordinance are separate and distinct; this is a good move; and he supports the recommendations of the Committee.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board has heard today the fact that a complaint would probably come in after hours and require certain technical equipment; and inquired has Mr. Rusnak talked to the Sheriff’s Office about its willingness to get into testing with dB(A) and its ability to respond to those types of calls. Mr. Rusnak responded no, but with Board direction he could do so. Commissioner Scarborough requested staff talk to the Sheriff’s Office.

Chair Higgs stated the Board will be holding a second public hearing on the item, so it can get the information prior to the next hearing. She inquired when will the second hearing be held; with Mr. Rusnak responding in October 2004. Chair Higgs stated she is concerned on the hour that is extended to 11:00 p.m. and any elevation of the dB(A) level; the County has a responsibility to the abutting neighbors; when it first started talking about the issue, she thought it was talking about low impact tape kinds of music that would not impact a neighborhood; and she is not interested in supporting an ordinance that is going to expand the inconvenience and peace and quiet of a residential neighborhood. She noted she is not going to vote against moving the ordinance to a second public hearing, but she is very concerned that the County is going to impact residential neighborhoods; and the County should not do that.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he cannot support the ordinance in its current manner; there is going to be profound problems in enforcement using the dB(A); law enforcement going to an establishment when a complaint has been called in may lead to more confusion and more conflict; and he appreciates the Committee’s good efforts, but he has some concerns. He noted the bottom line is it is not how the ordinance reads, but how it works; it is not a Redfish Inn issue, it is a County issue; it is going to be applied everywhere; and as soon as it becomes the rule, many people will start utilizing it and the problem will become multiple throughout the County. Chair Higgs reiterated she thought there would be taped background music to sitting outside and eating; now the County is into amplified music and 11:00 p.m. every night; she is very concerned; and she would love to find a way to have low impact music, but she is fearful where the County is going. She noted she has seen problems happen with restaurants and establishments next to neighborhoods; and it is unreasonable to think people in a residential neighborhood ought to endure that. Commissioner Scarborough stated it does not prohibit the music inside, but it is the outside issue; it is something that has its own nature and it its own animal; it is basically allowing it to occur without having any review; and it is throwing it on the Sheriff’s Office to make some hard enforcement calls. He noted the Board needs to know where it is headed. Chair Higgs stated her concern is finding a way to enforce people being good neighbors as opposed to expanding the use; she does not mind people having music; but the County has had a problem with being able to enforce a reasonable standard in residential neighborhoods.

Commissioner Pritchard stated taped music is amplified; a guitar that could be heard and vocals would be at the same level as taped music; it is music that would be provided that someone could hear; and he is not talking about blasting out in this situation, but music to accompany a dinner so people can have a conversation, not be screaming at the person that is across the table. He noted the whole idea is to create an atmosphere where one can enjoy being outdoors; the County talks about the arts and then says it cannot have this; but this is one of the things he thinks is part of the arts; and he enjoys sitting outside, eating a hamburger, and listening to someone play a guitar. He stated he is not talking about somebody who is wailing away, but someone who is playing a song and he can still converse with his dinner partners and not have to be yelling at them; and it does not matter to him if the music is taped, although he would much prefer to have the live musician there. He noted he is not talking about a band, but generally an individual or twosome, and music at a level so that the people sitting there can hear it and something that does not affect the neighborhoods; and he understands Chair Higgs’ concern, but it is his intent to have something that does not affect the neighborhood. He stated the County has a Noise Ordinance; measurements are important, but the County does not have those in place at this time; someone goes out and says something is too loud and take action; so there needs to be a standard and decibel level. Commissioner Pritchard stated when one is in a neighborhood and the ambient noise from U.S. 1 exceeds the noise that is coming from the band, and people complain about the band, there is something wrong; he has been there, heard it, and can testify to it; the ordinance as it is, is good for the moment; and the Board will see what happens when it comes back for the second reading.

Commissioner Carlson stated existing locations within residential communities have had issues; the ordinance can create a way to enforce special events; it would delete the special event process and provide more policing of it; and with special event permitting, one can end up with loud and raucous noise for one event. She noted there is no control there; this provides a little bit of control as a change in the Code in some cases; the big issue she sees is the inability to police it and the accuracy of the policing, unless noise meters are placed in all deputies vehicles; and it is going to cost a lot of time and money to do that. She stated it is very difficult; she does not have a problem leaving the ordinance the way it is; she will still listen to it in the next hearing; but there are some unintended consequences. She noted she will be looking into some of the issues she has in District 4 when it comes to special permits to see how it is going to affect them.

There being no further comments heard, motion was made by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve forwarding ordinance providing for outdoor music accessory to outdoor restaurant seating to a second public hearing on October 7, 2004. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Scarborough and Colon voted nay.

The meeting recessed at 11:40 a.m. and reconvened at 1:00 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE CREATING EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT
FEE PROGRAM

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance creating the educational facilities impact fee program.

Planner Steve Swanke stated he has given the Board revised language for Section 62-922, which is the intent and purpose section; in subparagraph b, staff has stricken the words, “Regulate the use and development of lands so as to . . . “; and the Section will now read, “The purpose of this division is to insure that new residential development bears a proportionate share of the cost of the capital expenditures necessary to provide elementary and secondary school facilities necessitated by that new residential growth in the County”. He stated in Section 62-926, imposition of educational facilities impact fee, there is revised language for subparagraphs b and c. He noted the draft ordinance staff provided required that if there was no interlocal agreement with a city in effect, the County would be requiring the city to obtain a notice of assessment and record it in the Public Records; when the impact fee was paid, staff would have to record a satisfaction of lien, so the closing could go forth; it was considered to be additional work that could be avoided by simply requiring that the school impact fee be paid prior to a municipality issuing a building permit; and staff has revised the two sections to accomplish that. He stated Section 62-933 is exemptions, credits, and initiatives; in subparagraph (a)(6), there was a typographical error in the third line from the bottom; and it should say 18 years of age instead of 55 years of age. Mr. Swanke noted in subsection c, incentives for affordable housing, staff has been advised by the attorney working with Tindale Oliver & Associates, that funding the forgivable loan that was the incentive for affordable housing construction was a problem funding it out of the impact fee trust funds; staff has changed the language to indicate the County would fund it from an alternate source; funding of the incentives would be subject to the availability of budgeted funds on a first come, first served basis; and those are the three sections of the ordinance staff is requesting the Board consider for changes based on the language submitted. He stated he has also provided information about how the surrounding counties deal with exemptions for 55 years of age and older households and affordable housing; Indian River County currently does not have a school impact fee in place; it has a study under development; and in regard to exemptions for 55 years of age and older households, he found no exemptions in Orange, Osceola, and Seminole Counties’ Codes. He noted he found an exemption in Volusia County; with regard to exemptions for affordable housing, Orange County provides some exemptions, as does Osceola and Seminole Counties; and Volusia County does not.

George Theriault stated impact fees for schools should be in place; there should be no exceptions for anybody over 65 years of age or not; the Wheel Ranch is paying approximately $9,000 a year in taxes; and when the property is developed the land will come off of the tax roll for about five years and go back on. He noted during those five years there will be a shortage of money, which will be about $50,000; there are many pieces of property throughout the County that are undeveloped right now; they are off of the tax rolls, which is hurting the school situation; it is hurting the County all over as it does not have the money from those properties in order to support the needs; and it needs to work on that, along with the impact fees.

Franck Kaiser, representing Homebuilders and Contractors Association of Brevard, stated one interesting statistic that came out in July 2004 in the Florida TODAY is that the student population has been growing at an annual rate of about 1¼%; the operating revenue has grown about 5.2% annually over the last five years; it is beyond his understanding with that much spread and increase in revenues and not that much increase in students why there is a funding problem; and perhaps there is a problem in priorities. He noted there is not a need for an impact fee at this time if the resources were used better; the School Board could seriously consider a multi-track year round school system; there would be plenty of facilities; and there is fear that the School Board wanted five years based on the population curve and there are going to be excess facilities sitting vacant if building keeps occurring at the current rate. He stated there are also alternative sources his organization has suggested in the past, such as a broad-based funding source which would address all the needs, which an impact fee does not; a sales tax is one example, which everybody pays and everybody benefits from; the projected demand of number of students of 5,000 in the next few years is the gross number of students projected; and it includes existing residents that are producing these children and not just new people moving into the area. Mr. Kaiser noted those people are not necessarily buying new homes, but having children and putting them in the school system; it has no impact on new homes; the percentage of projected demand that would be home-schooled or private-schooled has not been addressed; and he did not see an adjustment in there for that percentage. He stated he believes the requirement in the study is overstated as to the amount of the fee and the amount of students that are going to be impacting the system; the maximum fee suggested is too high; if a fee is approved, he would request it not be $4,445; and impact fees are not bondable and the monies can only be collected that come in based on the growth of new homes which, if a school impact fee is passed, will slow down. He noted it is not a solution to the problem; it is a problem and it needs to be addressed; a broad-based funding source needs to be found; and perhaps the County needs to work more closely with the School Board for better allocation of resources. He stated school impact fees around the State of Florida are not addressing the needs of any of the counties that are collecting them at any level; it is a responsibility of everyone as all benefit from good quality schools; the County has benefited from having some of the best schools in the State for attracting businesses here and high paying jobs; so it is true that everyone benefits from it and just a new homebuyer should not be the only one paying for it. Mr. Kaiser stated University of Florida did a study in the last couple of years, which indicates seven out of ten of the new homes being built are for existing residents; the Tindale Oliver study indicates one out of three new homes built have children impacting the school system; but those children are already here; just because they are living in a new home does not mean it is an increased demand on the school system; and there are a few other things that need to be taken into consideration.

Brian Collier stated he is opposed to the proposed impact fee, which will make housing more unaffordable than it is under existing government fees and regulations; despite the proposed exemption and discount for lower income families, it seeks to redistribute wealth; lower income families will be the ones hardest hit by such a fee; this may be news to certain individuals, but lower income families usually buy used homes, not new homes or they rent; and the proposed fee will increase the demand and decrease the supply of used homes, driving prices up to compensate proportionately. He noted people renting will be paying the fee in the form of higher rent; meanwhile, the County has made no attempt to lower its expenses with an estimated net cost per student of $12,700; this should be enough to hire a personal tutor for every two to three students; and there seems to be no shortage of money to construct a $5 million law academy at Palm Bay High School complete with a mock courtroom. He stated there is not a shortage of money in the $130 million Parks and Recreation Department that now plans to construct a $3 million boat ramp; hopefully in the future, all schools will be privately run and much more efficient; but until that time, he hopes the Board will cut costs and not take any more money from the people of Brevard County.

Attorney Harold Bistline, representing the School Board, stated the School Board has voted to urge the County Commission to implement the ordinance at the highest amount provided for in the study; the funds are sorely needed to provide for growth in the County; the School Board, which is a very frugal system, spends its money wisely and has to have capital dollars to fund new construction for new residents; and Ed Curry and Dan Theodore are here to answer any technical questions the Board may have.

Commissioner Colon stated the numbers in Florida TODAY are quite alarming; there has been discussion of almost 6,000 children coming in the next five years; and inquired if the numbers are accurate.

Ed Curry, representing the School Board, responded the numbers are accurate based on current information he is receiving from projections and Department of Education.

Bruce Wechsler stated the County is going forward on the impact fee, which is a tax; it is going under the basic premise that a well-educated population is a good thing; the second part of the premise is that a government school system is the way to get there; and he has a problem with the second part of that. He noted to accept the premise that everybody benefits from the well-educated government schooled population makes no sense to have any exemptions; the idea that an age 55+ community or anything else has an exemption is not logical if the whole premise is that society benefits as a whole with an educated population; and if the consensus is that everyone should pay for it, then so be it. He stated it is not right to be exempting the group that lives in the age 55+ when the vast majority of people moving into the County do not have children in the school system either; and the Board needs to stick to an even playing field. He stated the second premise is that the schools need the money; he disputes that; in looking at the increase in the assessed valuation over the last year so that all houses that are resold in the community are going on the tax rolls at the higher rate, it is a tremendous number; and adding to that the new construction at much higher rates there is a boom. He stated the Board knows from its budget discussions there is plenty of money coming into the County; and the same holds true for the school system. Mr. Wechsler stated the State has increased the amount of money coming into the school system; he has a problem with the school system crying for money and that it does not have the money to build new schools; but it goes ahead with the project at Palm Bay High School; and there needs to be priorities. He inquired if the priority is the small class size amendment, and the School Board cannot meet it, then why should it be spending money building that kind of a facility at Palm Bay High School. He stated another thing to consider is where the County is in the growth phase; the real estate bubble is about to burst; and the country is at the highest debt to equity ratio in home ownership than it has ever been in. He noted over 50% of the new mortgages issued over the last couple of years are adjustable rate mortgages; if the predictions are true, Alan Greenspan raised interest rates today; the interest rate is trending upward; and the country is at a dangerous position as far as valuation goes. He stated that bubble is going to have to burst; it is a logical business cycle; the County has gotten way ahead of itself; and it has to think about that as far as its projections for the future as to what money is going to be coming in from impact fees, and how much the impact fees will have an affect in bursting the bubble sooner and making housing less affordable. He noted there needs to be accountability; he does not buy for one minute that the School Board does not have the money if it uses the resources available, including the existing schools, and it budgets and plan for construction of new schools more efficiently. He stated the impact fee can only go toward addressing growth; it cannot go to making up for past mistakes; therefore, there is going to be a switch of moving the money from here to there; and the School Board is going to claim again that it does not have the money for maintenance, etc. Mr. Wechsler urged the County Commission to not approve an impact fee, even if it is only $1.00; stated an impact fee is not needed; one of the things he finds disconcerting is that the School Board has not said that the money will go to the Palm Bay Charter School for its prorated share; and it indicated it would reserve its decision on it. He noted as a resident of Palm Bay, he will absolutely find it impossible to support anything like this when again, the City of Palm Bay is being held hostage by the School Board.

Cole Goatley, Bayside Lakes Development Corporation, stated the ordinance is not written to raise money for schools; it is written to limit land development and growth in the County; impact fees are a onetime shot; and there is no basic ongoing income that will come from them. He noted the use of funds bothers him; except for the direct use of impact fees by the School Board, the provision appears to limit use of impact fees to municipally-operated charter schools; charter schools can be constructed by other entities, a developer, educational benefit district, and community development district; but the only one mentioned in the ordinance is the DRI; and it needs a change. He stated Section 62-931 provides the County retain 2½% of the collected funds as compensation for administrative expense; his calculations indicate that the impact fees raised would be in the neighborhood of $30 million on the present rate of construction; that would provide $750,000 to administer the program; and he would like to have the contract, which would be very profitable. He noted it should be adjusted; the ordinance has an age 55 or older exclusion; he has a real problem with such an exclusion because the older generation has an obligation to promote education of children in order to develop a responsible citizenship; and it is an obligation to society that is in the best interest of the nation. Mr. Goatley stated the matter deserves no other consideration; he does not think multifamily dwellings should be at a lower rate; families with children live in apartments, condominiums, and townhouses; and they can be expensive. He noted an informal survey was done about seven or eight months ago of impact fees in the State; his Corporation also checked with builders; the consensus at that time was that impact fees in the range of $2,000 could be absorbed without diminishing the market; and over that it begins to cause a problem as to affordable housing. He stated his greatest concern is how the funds are used and distributed; there are districts designated, but he would like to see a rational analysis to support the location, size, and configuration of the districts if that is available; he has not seen a map and does not know how it was done; but it would be helpful to see that. He noted the Corporation is not opposed to impact fees; they have a place and can serve; but he presents it with mixed feelings about the matter; and requested the Board reconsider some of the matters. Mr. Goatley stated the amounts proposed are high; and the exemptions are greater than they should be.

Aaron Hayson stated he is opposed to the proposed impact fee; he recently moved to the County in search of more affordable housing and friendlier tax laws; the impact fee legislation attempts to undermine both; and he came here from New Jersey, a place where property taxes and other fees have made it all but impossible for a person his age to afford a house. He noted a two-bedroom condo there was over $300,000 when he left; Chairman Alan Greenspan is set to raise short-term interest rates today in about one hour; higher interest rates will mean higher mortgage rates; and higher mortgage rates will equal less affordable housing, which means less growth and less tax revenue in the County. He stated if mortgages are already set to rise then the County does not need an impact fee to raise the price of a new home even higher; the word “mortgage” comes from the French word “mort”, which means death; and requested the County keep the mortgage “mort” or death less painful than the house prices that already exist, and vote no on the impact fee and no on higher house prices.

John McKinley stated he moved here with his parents in 1956 and was raised in Eau Gallie; he went to the old Creel School; he attended school at the Airport Naval Training Center, which used to be what the Airport was for; and there were double sessions when Johnson Junior High School and Eau Gallie High School were opened. He noted his parents have paid taxes since 1956 and now he pays taxes; he has raised three children who attended schools here; two of his children are property owners and paying taxes; and in the next two years he and his wife are going to downsize and build a small home. He inquired how is he liable to pay $4,500 to Brevard County to do that after three generations of paying taxes.

Dolores Kane stated the price of housing is getting out of hand; she is also going to downsize; and inquired why should she have to pay $4,500 to do that. She noted she cannot see the need for any more taxes; the School Board is supposed to get $20 million and spent $5 million for a law library at Palm Bay High School; it built a medical facility in Titusville and a financial facility in Melbourne; and inquired is the School Board really hurting for money. She noted it is picking on a minority of new homebuyers who cannot defend themselves; it is discriminatory; the County is asking to buy more land; and it seems like schools would have priority. She stated the Indians are the only ones who deserve a free break; everyone immigrated to this area; she never had to pay an impact fee; and she has lived in Florida since 1954. She noted the problem has existed and is not anything new; it can be solved, but not by picking on a few people and raising the price of housing; and everyone deserves to help the children, not just the minority who comes here. Ms. Kane advised of her opposition to the impact fees.

Maureen Rupe stated she supports impact fees for schools; it is a justifiable fee; people moving into a community should not put a burden on existing residents; and Mr. Kaiser wants a broad-based tax, so everyone pays an impact fee and subsidizes the newcomer and building industry; but she objects to that.

Walter Pine stated he supports impact fees, but does not support the way impact fees are currently being used; the issue the County is dealing with here is one of accountability; it has a duty or responsibility to taxpayers that the fees are going to be used not only for the purposes of what it is intended, but that all the monies that have gone before it have been properly used; and the idea of justifying additional money means that one has done the best he or she can with what he or she has, and need more; but it is obvious this is not the case. He noted monies are being spent for extravagant purposes, purposes that, while they are beneficial to the children, do not provide basic education; they do not meet the Constitutional requirements; they are not being used according to the priorities that are set by law; and now the County is asking the people to give more money. He stated taxpayers have been very clear, no more taxes; the Board does not seem to understand that; that means no more money until the County uses the money it has already appropriately, quit wasting it, and properly account for it. Mr. Pine noted it is not unreasonable; every businessman in the world does that and government should as well; and before the County tells the taxpayers it needs more money, the Board needs to make sure every reasonable amount of money has been spent appropriately and prioritized for the education of students; and funds should not be spent on extravagant things and then tell the taxpayers more money is needed for the basics. He stated he was born and raised here; he is ninth generation; his children cannot afford a house in the County due to fees and taxes imposed upon them; and it is not right. He noted his family worked to build Brevard County long before most people’s families were here; the average income of children moving into the workforce is not sufficient to buy a home; he thought the Board’s job was in part to protect the community; and that includes those who have been here for generations, and not take it away and give it to somebody else. Mr. Pine stated if there is an average income that is too low to buy a house because of the taxes, then there is a problem; there should be no more taxes until the County spends what it has appropriately; and it includes the School Board, Sheriff, Clerk of Courts, Property Appraiser, and the Board.

Bob Wille, Vice President of Joyal Construction, stated he is a third generation homebuilder in Brevard County; his family has been longtime taxpayers and beneficiaries of the growth that has taken place in the County; and it is a wonderful community. He noted he is a past elected official of 11 years; he understands the needs; however, the premise that new construction impact fees are a way to capture funding for new residents who move into the community is flawed. He stated 65% of the closings his Company had through June 30, 2004 were people that have lived in the County for 10 years or more; they are not the people the general public believes impact fees are targeting; there is a general presumption that impact fees somehow target the new family of six that are moving in and putting children into schools, cars on the roads, etc.; but if they buy the already existing home, whether it be in Palm Bay, Port St. John, Melbourne, or whatever, they have escaped that impact fee. He stated the individual who has lived here his or her entire life paid into the system; if he or she decides to downsize or build his or her dream home, they are the ones who are going to get tagged with a $4,500 impact fee; the target has been missed; and he cannot support impact fees for that reason. Mr. Wille noted he is not against broad-based means to address revenue, but impact fees are not the way to do it; he received information from the National Association of Counties regarding incomes lagging dramatically behind housing costs, specifically in certain metropolitan areas; Melbourne is addressed; and teachers, fire department officers, etc. are unable to have the salaries to pay for housing in this metropolitan area, which is all of Brevard County. He stated he senses there are three votes to pass the impact fee; if that is the direction he has several questions when the Board gets into its discussion; and inquired what is the current County Policy regarding rezonings. He noted the County has a Policy, but he has not had it articulated clear enough concerning school overcrowding; and inquired if the Board implements an impact fee for schools, will the Policy change or go away with regard to rezonings in areas where somebody has defined what school is overcrowded. He stated he does not know how it is done and if it comes from the School Board or someplace else; he suggested staff put up a map of the County; and if all the high schools are overcrowded and they cover the broadest geographic areas of all schools, in essence, the County is saying it is overcrowded in its entirety.

Commissioner Colon inquired what is the price range for houses that his Company builds; with Mr. Wille responding for this year so far $154,000 was the lowest and $469,000 was the highest.

Lee Feldman thanked County staff for working with the City of Palm Bay on making proposed modifications to the Impact Fee Ordinance as it pertains to municipal charter schools; and stated if the Board moves forward with the impact fee, the City would urge it to include the language regarding municipal charters.

Melissa Hoagland, Citizens for Responsible Growth, urged the Board to enact the ordinance; stated such ordinance supports smart growth; the measure allows infrastructure to keep pace with growth in the County, which will maintain the quality of life that several people this afternoon have spoken about; and the ordinance minimizes the negative impact on existing residents of the need for construction of new schools. She noted smart growth measures do not stop growth; growth is clearly continuing in the County even in the presence of the limitations it has on new building construction now; last year there was close to $1 billion in new home starts; and clearly that is not negatively impacting growth. She stated growth is continuing in surrounding counties that have impact fees; some of those fees are as high as $9,000 to $11,000; the ordinance is a good one; and there are criteria in it for low and very low-income housing exemptions, which the Board has voiced as a concern. She noted there are criteria that include municipal participation, which makes the ordinance Countywide; it voids municipalities annexing land and shifting the burden for new schools to unincorporated Brevard residents; and it divides the County into benefit districts that correspond to the district superintendents, which speaks to people’s concerns to keep the money in the area where the fees were collected. Ms. Hoagland stated Mr. Kaiser raised the issue of private and home school students; the projections that are used right now by the public schools are based on the number of students in public schools; they do not take those into consideration; and if the County wants to start taking those into consideration, it needs to look at how many students are currently privately or home schooled. She noted the County would be in far worse shape now than the public school projections would show if it included those numbers in the totals; there has been some influx of students from private schools back to public schools along the north Wickham corridor with the opening of Quest; and broad-based support already exists. She stated the ordinance supports the expenses of educational services for existing homes; the ordinance is looking solely at construction of new educational facilities that are required for new students coming in; and the impact fee is not a tax.

Kevin Sullivan stated he does not feel the ordinance is fundamentally fair; the person who is building a new home is the one who is footing the bill; a lot of those people already live in Brevard County; and inquired with the rising assessment of new homes, will the monies be enough to cover the costs of new construction for the schools. He noted on April 28, 2004, Florida TODAY indicated there would be a 7.2% increase or $417.8 million to operate schools; and inquired will there be a lawsuit against this without the accountability. He read information he received yesterday, as follows: “It was only a matter of time. Two homebuilders associations have filed a lawsuit against Osceola County, located in Central Florida, over a recent hike in school impact fees that increased the cost of a new single-family home from $2,828 to $9,708. We are not alleging that impact fees are illegal, but we will prove that the local government has exaggerated the impact of new development, exaggerated the cost of new student stations, and underestimated other sources of revenue for school construction, says Linda Shelley, an attorney for the Florida Homebuilders Association, which paired up with the Homebuilders Association of Metropolitan Orlando in the lawsuit.” Mr. Sullivan stated the added taxes of an impact fee affect the local workers; if it is not affordable, people will not contract to build new homes, so it will affect the local economy; there is a better alternative; and if the County needs money for schools, it could pass a gas tax so there is a shared burden on everybody and not just a few, including the people who travel here from up north and other places.

Suzanne Valencia stated she supports the school impact fee; somebody made a statement about someone moving into an existing house, but this does not apply to existing homes; those who live here are already paying taxes; and growth does not pay for itself. She noted people have to help pay for other infrastructure like emergency services, transportation, etc.; it is an intolerable situation; her grandson is going to Satellite Beach High School starting today; and there are 20 portables there. She stated portables solve a seat problem, but do not solve the problem of where all the extra 550 students are going to eat, play games, and use libraries; the County is not keeping up with it and needs to do something; and other counties are imposing an impact fee and not finding a negative impact.

Chair Higgs requested the consultant speak to the methodology and how the courts have handled existing residents who move and build new homes.

Bob Wallace, Tindale-Oliver and Associates, stated the student generation rate used in the impact fee study for the County was based on the 2000 census data and utilized only public school households; basically, this is an impact fee that is for the public school system; it is not charging for anything else other than the public school system; and the costs developed in the impact fee calculation are based on information from the adopted five-year plan of the School Board, which is also approved by the Florida Department of Education. He noted the costs used in the program were from about one and a half years ago and were not indexed up to today’s cost; his Company chose to keep the costs rather conservative in terms of the cost per student; it used exactly what the information was in the five-year plan at the time the plan was developed by the School Board; so the cost side of the student generation is on the low side compared to what could have been charged had the Company chosen to index the fee. He stated there have been some comments about other sources of revenue; the Company allowed a credit for the two mills that are provided to the School Board; about 35% of the two mills is used for expansion of the school system; and the other 65% is used for renovation of existing facilities. Mr. Wallace noted the Company also indexed the property values, which have been increasing fairly dramatically in the County; it allows for the increased valuations in the impact fee calculations so that the additional revenues generated from property taxes would be considered in the credit side, which insures the County does not overcharge from other sources of revenue used to fund impact fees; and the Company feels comfortable about it. He stated between the credit side, the cost side being conservative, and the student generation rate for public schools, the rate basically is public school divided by the total households for each of the categories and creates a relatively conservative student generation rate as well; and there are differences in the census data between single-family, mobile home, and multifamily attached, which is why his Company broke out the fees into those categories.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the newspaper is reporting much larger impact fees in other counties and he is being asked why the County is only considering this fee at a much lower rate; Mr. Wallace explained it in a workshop; and requested he touch on the issue. He inquired why is there a differentiation between the County and other counties.

Mr. Wallace responded there are obviously different costs of facilities in other counties and different ways other counties fund their programs; none of the two mills in Osceola County’s study goes to capital expansion; all of the two mills goes to existing renovations; so there is a $3,000 or $4,000 swing in the credit side because Osceola County does not fund its new classrooms with the two mills; it is looking solely to impact fees to fund the classrooms; and his Company took a conservative approach in terms of not adding ancillary facilities. Commissioner Scarborough noted the County is spending more of its existing revenues for new schools than Osceola County is. Mr. Wallace stated that is correct; in looking at the cost side, his Company chose a relatively conservative approach, including looking at the cost of classrooms, maintenance, and vehicles to support bus transportation; it chose at this time not to include administration building costs and other ancillary buildings that support the School Board; some of the other impact fees add those costs in there; and they could make a difference of maybe $500 to $1,000 in the fee. He noted some of the other impact fees use a higher cost basis than what the County is using; its building cost per student is lower in Brevard County than what he has seen in some of the other communities; the schools that have been built have been built more efficiently in terms of a cost per student than some of the other communities where he has seen $2,000, $3,000, or $4,000 swings in the cost of facility construction compared to what the County is building them for. Commissioner Scarborough stated the School Board is being complimented that it is wise stewards of the taxpayers money and spending it at lower cost. Mr. Wallace noted when combining the fact that the costs are on the lower side with the fact that the County is providing some of the tax base to build expanded facilities, it is a $5,000 or $6,000 swing; if the County did not have existing revenue sources being used for expansion and the School Board was not building the classrooms at the costs it is and they were $2,000 or $3,000 higher, the County would be looking at a $7,000 to $10,000 impact fee; so that is the explanation of why the costs are on the lower side; and his Company has a conservative defendable impact fee with a sound methodology that would stand the test of any court system.

Chair Higgs stated Mr. Wallace has testified in court to impact fee issues; and inquired has he been asked the question about why an impact fee would be assessed against an existing resident who built a new home; and if so, how did he respond in that case. Mr. Wallace responded the impact fee is not assessed against a new home; his Company looked at the student generation rates for the public school system and the needs of it to build additional classrooms based on the adopted five-year work plan; when looking at the costs associated with the existing need, the need is for new growth; and if someone moves from one house to another house it does not mean there is not a demand in the school system, but ideally the demand is already accounted for in the numbers. He noted it is like the concept of why should an existing homeowner that is downsizing have to pay; the answer is at some point in the lifecycle of a home, the existing owner may not be there; when the home is sold there are no restrictions on it to say there would not be children in it; and it is based on the average generation rate of the 2000 census to look at that. He stated that is why it may seem unfair on the surface to someone who is downsizing, but there are no restrictions on the use of the home; the home could be used and have children in the future when it is sold; just like a home that pays an impact fee now and is sold in the future, it may not have children in the home; and it is based on the average generation rate on a Countywide basis.

Commissioner Pritchard stated if someone downsizes and moves into a home, he or she pays an impact fee; he or she does not have children in the new home; the same person buys an existing home and does not have children; but he or she is continuing to pay taxes. He noted another family moves in with children and have impacted the school system, but has not paid anything; the home price will continue to increase regardless whether it is new or existing; the question is who is impacting the school system; and it is the people who have children. He stated if a system is set up that starts discriminating between people, income levels, housing standards, and new/used, it is a flawed system; and to say the impact fee would be $10,000 implies it would really be a $30,000 student station since the one-third method is used. Mr. Wallace stated the County needs to look at this as an average student generation rate; his Company has calculated it based on the census data at about .35 student for a single-family home; that is on the average; and there may be areas in the County that have higher generation rates and lower generation rates. He noted whether the home is with children or without children, the 2000 census looks at the demographic characteristics of the County and determines that on the average for a single-family home it is about .35 student per household; and that is what is driving the demand side of the impact fee equation.

Commissioner Carlson inquired is there a way to analyze the effect of laying out exemptions, which appear to be logical when looking at the formula being used; with Mr. Wallace responding his Company could look at the effect of exemptions over time and decide whether or not they were creating an equal protection issue on the impact fee ordinance. Mr. Wallace noted the total number of exemptions would have to be reviewed for over age 55 versus the total number of homes being built; if that percentage became over a couple percent of the total fees collected, then it would need to be reviewed more closely; he does not believe that is the case; and the County will probably be okay if it wants to keep the exemption as written in the ordinance. He stated if the Board chose not to provide the age 55 and over exemption, it might be in a position to be challenged on it based on some of the case law; it would be the Board’s prerogative to adopt the ordinance without such exemption; it is more conservative having the exemption in there based on the recent court cases; and the County is not looking at millions of dollars in impact fees per year that would fall into that category, but he could be wrong.

County Attorney Scott Knox recommended the Board leave the age 55 and over exemption in the ordinance; and stated if it does not include the language it is going to be challenged. Chair Higgs inquired have other counties been challenged that have not put in such exemption. Attorney Knox responded the one county that did not include the exemption was challenged and lost; and its impact fee ordinance was thrown out because the exemption was not included. Chair Higgs inquired is the whole ordinance in question or just that particular provision; with Attorney Knox responding it would probably affect the whole ordinance. Commissioner Carlson stated it is based on the courts; other residents who move in are not exempt; it is a higher cost than what is being discussed; and exempting it reduces the impact fee. Mr. Wallace stated one could probably make that argument, although that number is so small in comparison to the total number of permits issued; the County would be bordering on a diminimus situation that would not have significant impact on the ordinance or its integrity; but he agrees with Attorney Knox that the most conservative approach would be for the Board to position itself with the language included. He noted Volusia County has added such language in its ordinance; it is relatively new and the County is going to see other ordinances with the language included; his Company is doing work for Indian River County; he suspects the language will be in its ordinance as well; but it is up to the Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Ordinance amending Chapter 62, “Land Development Regulations”, Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida; amending Article V “Impact Fees”; establishing an educational facilities impact fee for public elementary and secondary educational facilities, including middle schools; creating Division 7 “Educational Facilities” to include new Sections 62-921 through 62-935; providing for a short title; statutory authority; applicability; intent and purpose; findings; rules of construction; definitions; imposition, computation, and payment of the educational facilities impact fee; establishing impact fee districts and trust funds; providing for use of funds and refunds of fees paid; establishing exemptions, credits, and incentives; providing for review; establishing penalties and additional remedies; providing for legal status; providing for severability; providing for area embraced; providing for conflicting provisions; providing an effective date, as amended; and approve budget changes as necessary to implement the Ordinance.

Chair Higgs inquired does the motion include the information on the charter school language; with Commissioner Scarborough responding yes. Planner Steve Swanke inquired does the motion include the language handed out for the three sections; with Chair Higgs responding yes.

Commissioner Colon stated the Board is being responsible by looking at an impact fee as the numbers show it; for it to be in denial is crazy; the School Board is expecting 6,000 more students; and she sees the impact and the portables. She noted she does not agree with a $4,500 impact fee, but supports an impact fee; Melbourne, Titusville, and Palm Bay are in the top housing market; the numbers from last year increased to $125,000; and it was a 25% increase. She stated the market is growing fast; impact fees have not discouraged people in Orlando; the City is still growing even with huge impact fees; and it is responsible for the Board to take a stand. She noted she is always concerned for the average working person who is a single parent struggling and trying to make ends meet; Florida TODAY newspaper shows impact fees in Broward County of $1,600, Collier County of $1,700, Hernando County of $2,000, Lee County of $2,200, Seminole County of $1,300, and Miami of $2,400; she was looking at having an impact fee of between $1,800 to $2,000; and it hurts her to try to support something like that, but something must be done. She stated people are coming to Brevard County; the schools are full and the principals are going crazy; the County cannot keep up with what is happening in the community; and for those folks who come from somewhere else, the prices here look so attractive as home prices are low, but minimum wage and some incomes do not cover it. She noted it is not an easy decision by the Board; she supports an impact fee as it is responsible, but the County should not let the School Board off the hook either; it has not looked at year-round schools; she has not received an answer from anyone as to why the County should not have it; it has been done in the past; and she does not understand why it is not done aggressively. Commissioner Colon stated she is not a School Board member and has no right to criticize, but she does not understand why the School Board does not do that approach on top of the impact fees; in regard to charter schools, there are communities that cannot keep up with the growth; they cannot wait for the School Board; and people are moving to Brevard County and not just going from one house to another. She noted the kinds of homes being built are going from $200,000 to $700,000; her heart does not go out to those folks; they are blessed, have wonderful incomes, work hard for their money, and deserve to have beautiful homes; but her heart goes out to the working person who is trying to make ends meet. She stated that is where her concern is; a reasonable impact fee would be between $1,800 and $2,000; the Board has a responsibility to establish such a fee; and she cannot support the $4,500.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he agrees the Board has a responsibility; it is to make sure that money is spent properly; it has already undertaken an assumption that the money is being spent properly; and he does not agree with it. He noted he does not believe the money has been spent properly; there are ways it can be spent properly; the newspaper had an article talking about school reform and innovation, year-round education, and cries for more schools to keep up with booming population; alternatives to the nine-month calendar established generations ago for agrarian purposes have not gained more footing; and inquired how many children have to help parents in the harvest these days. He stated the County is locked into a nine-month school year; it needs a multi-track school year and to make sure it is spending money properly; it is not spending money properly; it is burdening people who want to purchase a new house and allow others that have children to move in; and 60% to 70% of new homes are empty nesters. He noted 60% to 70% of growth comes from within, not from new people moving in; if one is living in an existing house, he or she is not paying anything; one woman told him she moved into an existing home with eight children and did not pay a dime; and she came from Palm Bay. He stated if she had bought a new house she would have paid an impact fee; and inquired where is the fairness and why would the County orchestrate levels of payment. He noted if individuals live in condos, manufactured homes, or single-family residences they would pay differing amounts; if they buy existing homes they pay nothing; there is the analogy that someone has lived here 30 years and paid taxes; and the County has been coasting on the shirttails of new residents who have been picking up the slack. Commissioner Pritchard stated there is 3% for Save Our Homes and there are a lot of valuations curtailing how much people will pay; it is so that people do not get taxed out of their homes; if one sells his or her house, he or she will pick up 50% over what it is taxed at; and if he or she buys another house and does not have Save Our Homes the first year, he or she is going to get hit with a sizeable increase. He noted if a person has a vacant lot and pays $500 to $600 a year on it, when he or she builds a house on it, the impact fee can be $2,500 or $3,000; the impact continues; if there is going to be any fairness, then it needs to come from two positions; and he wants to be assured that the School Board is spending its money wisely and it looked at year-round education and multi-tracking. He stated he also wants the School Board to tell him why it will not work; it works in Las Vegas; Clark County has a lot of schools and does it; and he has been on double sessions and has done a lot of things. He noted these are the creative and innovative things that should be done; one cannot simply say it is broken and money is needed to fix it; the County needs to say it is not working and how can it make it work; and it should look at money as the last resort. He stated if the County wants to consider something, it could have a real estate transaction fee; it could be 1% of the purchase price on everything residential; and inquired what kind of fee would it generate, why should an existing home be exempt, and why should someone who downsizes, has lived in the County for 30 years, and buys a new home have to pay and the person with eight children from Palm Bay can move in and pay nothing. Commissioner Pritchard stated the County is not doing for the children, but the bureaucrats; it does not need to save the bureaucrats; and it needs to work on saving the children; and looking at the way it can do it takes responsible sense instead of the emotion out of the issue. He noted if the School Board needs the buildings, it needs to show him that; it does not need to nickel and dime him to death because it cannot afford five dollars in the classroom for students’ supplies; if parents buy their children supplies, they have to be shared with the rest of the class; and the system is flawed. He stated he does not want to hear anymore how the County is number one or two in the State when Florida is last in the nation; he wants to hear how it is doing nationally; being first in the State that is last in the nation is like having the cleanest lifeboat on the Titanic; and it does not give him the warm fuzzies. He noted he wants to see a partnership with the School Board in moving school buses around on Merritt Island, which is an issue coming up later; he hopes Mr. Curry will be present for the discussion; the money should be distributed to all the charter schools; and a school is a school and education is education, so if the County is supposed to be in the business of educating children then wherever they are they should be paid and educated. Commissioner Pritchard stated the amount the Board is looking at is regressive; the lesser the income the higher the percent is of that income; it is a grossly unfair method to help pay for things that most people think is fine as long as they do not have to pay it; and that is what the County is doing. He noted if it does not do a one percent real estate transaction fee, it is saying it is okay as long as somebody else pays it; if it has a responsibility as a community then that responsibility is to pay the freight; Section 69-931, Use of Funds, says the County shall collect 2½% of the funds collected; according to Mr. Goatley’s calculations it is $750,000, which is a good revenue stream; and he thought the money was suppose to go to the children. He stated the idea of providing a loan for folks that are in the lower income, they have impacts on the school system; and inquired why is the County subsidizing that. He noted it is probably because the fee is too high; if the fee was lower, the County would not be worried about subsidizing and it would be more broad-based; it does not make any sense to him to enact a fee and then start looking for loopholes as to who does not have to pay; and he does not like the idea, it is wrong, and the methodology that has been used is flawed. He stated the comments the Board generally hears are more emotional than factual; and he is not going to support the motion.

Commissioner Colon stated she would be more than happy for the Homeowners Association in Palm Bay to tell the Board some of the issues it is facing; there are some subdivisions paying from $6,000 to $8,000 a year in taxes; she would like to be able to give that information to those who feel the south part of the County is not paying their fair share; and the fairness is the part that always becomes an issue. She noted she is talking about an average three-bedroom home; the subdivisions are beautiful with a lot of trees and lakes; but the residents should not be paying $6,000 to $8,000 in taxes as they are not any different than Viera or Merritt Island; and it is an issue with a different office and not the County.

Commissioner Pritchard stated most people do not realize but 60% of their taxes are for schools; if they are paying $6,000 then $3,600 of that is going toward maintaining the schools; the County has a public responsibility to maintain them; but the question he has is the fairness of the impact fee.

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

There being no further comments heard, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Interlocal Agreement with the School Board for funding of new or expanded public educational facilities with educational facilities impact fees; and authorize the Chair to execute interlocal agreements with each municipality. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Pritchard voted nay.

The meeting recessed at 2:28 p.m. and reconvened at 2:35 p.m.

DISCUSSION, RE: CONSIDERATION OF ENDANGERED LANDS REFERENDUM FOR
NOVEMBER 2, 2004

Carmine Ferraro requested the Board support placing this important tax on the ballot so the people can vote on it in November 2004; stated it is a no-brainer decision; the tax is already in effect and is not a new tax; and it is something that has already been used and is a responsible tax. He noted the County can help achieve its goal of endangered land protection; the tax is applied both fairly and equitably; it is applied to all Brevard County landowners and not just a select class; and the tax impact is minimal and the gain is tremendous. He stated over a period of 20 years, there is in excess of $60 million that would be used for acquisition of the lands; the average homeowner is only going to pay about $17.00 a year; there are a lot of people who would support it if it is worded such on the ballot that they would understand it; and the decision for the Board’s consideration is fiscally sound and morally responsible. He noted it is an important thing; a lot of Brevard County landowners will support taxes or fees for growth, acquisition of environmentally-endangered lands, and such if they understand that it is fiscally sound and morally responsible; in the end it is a decision of the people; and requested the Board allow the people in November 2004 to make the decision that they would like to either continue this or would like to see it sunset.

Commissioner Colon inquired is there anybody present from The Nature Conservancy; stated there have been several things mentioned in regard to the group.

Mr. Ferraro stated he is here as a homeowner but is also a developer; he supports the item as a real estate developer; and he spoke at one of the LPA meetings several months ago and asked both sides that were pro and against the SEAS ordinance if they would pay a small tax each year out of their earned income to support environmental lands.

Bruce Wechsler stated he has to speak out against another tax; the Beach and Riverfront Acquisition Program has been in effect since 1985; it was scheduled for 20 years, is expiring, and should expire; and the EELS Program is due to expire in 2011. He noted the County has now surpassed 50% of the land area in Brevard County is off the tax rolls; if it were to ask the supporters of putting the issue on the ballot how much is enough, they would say never enough, let’s take it all off the tax rolls; they cannot have a point of stopping; and 50% off the tax rolls and adding that burden onto the rest of the taxpayers is absolutely immoral. He stated the County has enough land preserved and has to stop continually taking this land away from the people; the basic premise of the United States of America is property; property rights are the most important thing; and having government control that much land is a dangerous precedent and it is happening all over the country. He noted it is doing the exact opposite of what people who claim to be environmentalists want; the most polluted lands in the country are owned by government; the most mismanaged lands in the country are owned by government; and the last thing the people need to do is give more land to put under government control. Mr. Wechsler stated government has no basis of ownership and no pride in it; there will not be the same protection that the private market can offer; it is a fact and happens across the country; and the people have told the Board in their votes over and over again that they do not want to be taxed more. He noted the same thing holds true for these specific programs; the Board can put the issue on the ballot, but it will be defeated; the people have had enough; and all they have to do is let people know how much land is already out of private hands and into government hands that they then have to pay maintenance on and get to pay the taxes that should have been paid on it, and the people will vote it down. He requested the Board save people time and money and do not bother putting the issue on the ballot as it will be defeated.

Maureen Rupe, Natural Resources Chair for League of Women Voters of the Space Coast, stated the League supports the Countywide program for acquisition of environmentally significant lands; it encourages further preservation with a referendum for additional funding to protect the remaining endangered natural areas; she is also president of the Partnership for a Sustainable Future; and the Partnership supports a referendum. She noted in 40 years in Florida, developed land increased by over 500%; coastal areas, flatwoods, and scrub decreased by over 50%; Brevard’s growth rate is nearly three times the national average; and there is an immediate need to plan for the future. She stated the EELS Program has been extremely successful; it has protected the environment, enriched communities, and enhanced the economy; and the Partnership thanks the EELS Committee members and Selection Committee members for the excellent choices made and the wise expenditure of taxpayers money. She requested the Board give the voters the chance to decide.

Dolores Kane stated she voted for the Beach and Riverfront referendum because she thought the property was going to go to the wealthy and the public needed access to the beach and riverfront; but enough is enough for government purchasing more land. She inquired if the referendum passes, will the County work in conjunction with the State like it did much of the other EELS Program where it matched the County’s money, and would the State actually have ownership of the land and not Brevard County. She stated the taxpayers would pay for the property, but the County would not own it and cannot control it; that is not a good idea; private property is a great basis for freedom; and the County should not go the way of the Soviet Union and have the land in control of government and bureaucracy. She inquired how is the property endangered and is it endangered by people; stated the land is still going to be there; and inquired how is the property going to be used and what is the moral behind this responsibility. She noted the County has a good park situation and needs public access; it should encourage builders to have a little open space; they should be compensated for it; and this issue is a no go thing.

Walter Pine stated so much of the land is already preserved; the groups argue they have done so much, spent the money so well, and have over 50% of the land; but when they want more money there is always so little saved and they have so much more to do. He noted he believes in resource stewardship; the major philosophical difference is that each person will do the right thing given the proper knowledge and information; the people who support EELS feel they have to impose that on everybody else; and the American citizen is capable of learning and making the right decisions. He stated given the proper knowledge, citizens will preserve the lands as they need to; government control of lands has caused more extinctions than it has prevented; one of the only known animals to have developed and grown up in the Everglades was the blue tree snail; and it was driven extinct by government management. He noted there may be isolated populations that are currently hidden by government land managers, but they cannot be found; the County is talking about taking more land; if it keeps going, the ultimate end is if it spends more every year that all land will be in the hands of government; and it is socialism and communism, and not American. Mr. Pine stated there has to be a limit; he believes in preserving natural resources, using them, and being a steward over them; that is not what the County is doing here; and it is buying it and taking it away. He noted some of it over time will no longer be accessible; much of the Everglades is no longer accessible to the citizens; more of it is going to be taken away shortly; and he is involved with it. He stated government is going to take the roads out and close the Everglades; it will not be available for citizens to look at it because it is too damaging for human beings to be there, but nobody can give the science to prove it; and he has asked. He noted he has spoken to the Office of the Commanding General of the Corps of Engineers, but he cannot provide the science; now there is a debate as to whether the science ever existed; and inquired how is the County going to purchase the land. He stated discussion about The Nature Conservancy came up; there are all kinds of realtors in the area that are capable of negotiating the purchases; but the EELS Program only does it through The Nature Conservancy, which then spends its money to support the political agenda that it knows better than the citizens of the United States; and The Nature Conservancy has been under investigation by the IRS and other agencies for abusing that right. Mr. Pine noted in regard to this particular EELS Program, every realtor has the right to negotiate; the County should set it up on a rotational basis; if EELS stays, all of the income should not go to a particular NGO; and every realtor has the right to participate and benefit from this Program. He stated it would be interesting to see what happens if all that money that is now being filtered and pumped into the NGO’s was put back in the hands of the citizens; he opposes the item, not because of what it is doing, but how it is doing it; he believes in saving the resources; and he has found nobody that honestly in their heart believes in destroying the resources. He noted there are those that are so greedy that sometimes they result in destruction of resources; but for the most part, people do the right thing; they do not need to be forced to do it; and it is not the American way to use force, be it financial or otherwise. He stated if the County needs to preserve the land, it can ask the people to do so and they will; and it does not need to do it through the EELS Program.

Lillian Banks stated she has to admire the perseverance and the County never says die; it seems to love the word “tax”; there are six years left on the EELS Program that was voted on in 1990; and she understands $60 million worth of property has been purchased and secured for the County. She inquired are all those lands conservation lands, does the County have the deeds to the lands, and how much of the present EEL land is opened for public use. She noted those lands were touted to be places to ride horses, walk, and ride bicycles; it was suggested something needed to be done because older people would not be able to ride their bicycles because of the Florida sand or something; nobody wants to do anything about it because they do not want anybody riding their bicycles; and they were supposed to be able to take families out there, enjoy the wildlife, and maybe have a picnic. She stated most of the lands are closed to the public; she realizes the river/beach acquisition millage of .2085 mill expires this year; the Board cannot just say thank you to Brevardians; and the citizens deserve an accounting that will tell them the amount received and what it was spent for. Ms. Banks noted now it appears the Board wants to continue collecting the .2085 mill for the next 20 years and use the monies to purchase environmentally endangered lands; and if this reaches the ballot and is accidentally voted in by an uninformed electorate, there will be EELS Program #2. She stated during the years, she has had more than one person come to her and ask about the EELS Program; and people told her they thought the County was buying $55 million worth of land, so they did not understand and are totally confused. She inquired will the referendum automatically eliminate the need for the crucial habitat ordinance; stated the County will be buying the land instead of taking it, so it will not need the ordinance; and inquired when is it enough. She noted the Board has discussed increasing various permit fees, communications and franchise fees; inquired is it good stewardship; stated the people need some new financial conservative Commissioners or they need to have a way to control the present spend and tax ones; and if the Board hears the comment today that 60% of Brevard County voted for the first EELS Program, it is not the case. She noted 21% of the registered voters voted for it in September 1990 after it failed quite miserably in 1989; it does not say that the people love the EELS Program; hopefully, they will be educated enough when they come out in November 2004; and supporters of the referendum snicker while non-supporters talk because they are not educated as to what is going on. Ms. Banks stated $60 million has been spent in land for Brevard County; and inquired how did it happen, what was bought, where is it, and whose name is it in. She noted the people bought the land; nobody needs to tell her she is only going to pay $17.00 because she is already paying $27.00; it may be a drop in the bucket to the Board, but it all mounts up; and she does not have the most expensive house in the County.

Dean Pettit stated he supports the EELS referendum; according to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida received 42 million visitors in 1996; 21 million of those visit with the intention of viewing native wildlife in its native habitat; and they had a $3.4 billion economic impact on the State, with $1.5 billion from birdwatchers alone. He noted in addition, more than one out of every five State residents are wildlife viewers and spend an average of $696 annually on wildlife viewing; eco-cultural tourism is the fastest rising segment of the tourism industry; the American public is becoming more educated, has more leisure time, and has greater wealth to spend; and they avoid pre-packaged destinations and resorts in favor of destinations that they can learn from, destinations that have a sense of place, and teach them about the world around them. He stated buying land for conservation financially helps the County because development does not always pay for itself; a study done in Virginia found that cost to service 1,000 new development units exceeded the tax contribution by as much as $2.3 million; another study found that New Jersey communities would save $1.3 billion in infrastructure costs over 20 years by avoiding unplanned development; and in Massachusetts, an additional housing unit was found to cost $265 a year more than it contributed in taxes. Mr. Pettit noted open space adds value to the local housing market; in 1967, Boulder, Colorado became the first City in the United States to impose a $1.5 million tax to buy 40,000 acres in a greenbelt around the City; as a result, total property values in the area increased by $5.4 million after the greenbelt was built, generating $1.5 million a year in property taxes; and the City paid it off in three years. He stated it was a one-time purchase for the City; over 35 years it is still reaping the benefits; Oakland, California with a three-mile greenbelt around Lake Merritt was found to add $41 million to surrounding property values; and Golden State Park in San Francisco generates up to $10 million annually in increased tax revenue. He noted open space brings in jobs; the nation is no longer tied to major industrial centers; Portland, Oregon established an urban growth boundary that restricted development at the City’s fringe; and critics warned the economy would be stifled and development would suffer, but they were proven wrong because jobs in the area have increased by 57% due to the quality of life that employers are able to offer their employees. He stated companies like Hewlett Packard, Intel, and Hyundai moved in; and the spokesman for Intel said it best, “Companies that can locate anywhere they want will go where they can attract good people in good places.” He requested moving forward with the referendum; stated he supports a tremendously successful program; and EELS has done a great job drawing down funds from other agencies and has been able to protect a greater number of acres by using matching funds from the State. Mr. Pettit noted these bonds are a good value because they help the County take advantage of money that would go elsewhere; an oversight committee of local citizens, who are scientists, direct all land purchases, insuring the County is targeting the most endangered lands and using tax money wisely; and this is an environmental protection program where property rights are not an issue and EELS deals only with willing sellers. He stated several months ago he had the opportunity to take his 2 ½-year old grandson to the Enchanted Forest; he had never been in the woods before; they saw gopher tortoises and heard the winds and birds; and for the first time his grandson was hearing and seeing a whole new world.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired what other critters did Mr. Pettit see at the Enchanted Forest; with Mr. Pettit responding a lot of different butterflies and birds. Commissioner Pritchard stated people always talk about the areas the County has, what it has done for all the critters, and how many there are; but when he goes, he is lucky to see a turtle and maybe a fish; if people want to visit wildlife they can come to his backyard; and he has everything, including bobcat, otters, and peacocks. He inquired who pays the tax in the Cities Mr. Pettit referred to; with Mr. Pettit responding a sales tax was generated. Commissioner Pritchard noted the people pay the tax; when property is taken from the tax roll, the higher the bill becomes for the rest of the people who live there; and somebody has to pay the freight. Mr. Pettit stated not necessarily. Commissioner Pritchard inquired who told Mr. Pettit that; with Mr. Pettit responding there are statistics all over. Commissioner Pritchard noted he has statistics too that will tell the opposite; he can guarantee that the taxes are going to increase; the people who live in the area that Mr. Pettit mentioned paid the $10 million in taxes; and people need to realize that property cannot be taken off the tax roll without having a cost that is going to trickle down to themselves. He stated President Reagan had his version of trickle down economics and the County has its version. Mr. Pettit stated he is willing to pay taxes if his home is of a higher value because he is paying higher taxes on greater personal wealth; and what he does not like is paying taxes for patio homes strewn across the countryside that cannot support themselves. Commissioner Pritchard stated maybe the people who live in patio homes would prefer to live in them; and perhaps they do not enjoy Mr. Pettit’s ideology.

Thelma Roper stated the EELS Program is based on something being endangered, particularly something to do with the environment; much of the endangered species issues are being looked at in more stringent ways now; a lot of the science that made the determinations of being endangered are being looked at a second time because of the advancement of technology and science; and new things can now be determined. She noted many determinations are being found of what people used to think was endangered is no longer endangered because it is genetically the same as something somewhere else that is not endangered; the Florida panther is a good example; if it was genetically different from the Texas cougar, which is a nuisance cat, people would not be able to import them into Florida to repopulate the Florida panther; and this is one of the programs that U.S. Fish and Wildlife and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission have worked on. She stated this is an example of the kind of science that has been used to determine things endangered and makes the great need for the environmentally endangered lands. She stated The Nature Conservancy has been brought up already; the World Wildlife Fund has promoted human extinction on its website; one way to get rid of the people is to take away their land; and a scientist from Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission promoted that idea. Ms. Roper stated she has been reading and doing a lot of research; one of the first things she read that peaked her interest was the Local Friends of the Scrub News when Mr. Wolf wrote his article and was speaking about how people really do not own their property; it is an attitude that is becoming very pervasive; and government owning the land in the United States is becoming a model. She noted everyone hears the snickering in the audience when someone mentions socialism and communism, but there is a verbal report out of Nicaragua that the Nicaraguan Communist Party is using the United States government and its policies on government-owned land to train the Communist Party in Nicaragua on how to become the ruling party in Nicaragua.

She stated the United States is an example for a communist party; she hears all the stuff about the ESA; and she sees pictures and articles, and hears stories of people admitting they feed the animals, which is illegal.

Barbara Morehead stated some people in the audience are rude and it is too bad the Chair is allowing it. She requested the Board not support the referendum; stated the 1990 EELS referendum was for 20 years to bond $55 million; there are six years remaining; and EELS claims it has only bonded $28 million. She noted that means there is another $27 million out there; the 1990 referendum is a contract that the voters made with the Board; it needs to live up to it; and the people do not need an additional tax. She stated it is entirely premature and unnecessary, and burdens some people to have any extra dollars put on their tax bill; if the tax is going to sunset then the Board needs to put it to use where it is needed; roads, jails, and transportation are needed; and there are things that need to be accomplished before there is another tax to purchase land that is not necessary. She noted there have been comments made about The Nature Conservancy’s part in the EELS Program; it is under investigation by the IRS; the Washington Post broke the story; and it is under investigation by U.S. Senate Committee. She inquired why is the County doing business with the Conservancy; stated she does not understand it; suggested the Board put the item out to bid for other people to work with; and noted the County does not need to be supporting The Nature Conservancy. She noted the issue needs to be taken care of; if the Board puts the referendum on the ballot, the County needs a complete in-house audit investigation of how each contract and every option has been taken care of between EELS and the Conservancy prior to the item on the ballot; the citizens deserve that; it is the Board’s job to have accountability; and the people demand it.

Jim Egan, Executive Director of Marine Resources Council, stated the Council strongly supports giving voters the choice of continuing their support of environmentally-sensitive land acquisition; as Brevard County develops at an unprecedented rate, the community suffers from reduction in groundwater recharge due to the impervious surface of homes, roadways, and parking lots; the impervious surface intercepts the rainwater; and it is no longer able to become valuable groundwater and ends up becoming runoff, which impacts the waterways, particularly the lagoon. He noted typical urbanization results in a 50% increase in stormwater runoff and a 50% reduction in vital groundwater; this is particularly important in North Brevard where the groundwater is used for drinking water; the groundwater resources are so limited that because of salt water encroachment and that it is being utilized at such a great degree, individuals are looking at taking lagoon water and going through a very expensive process of desalinization, which will cost homeowners a tremendous amount of money for their water supply in the future. He stated if there is a tool available to purchase some of the lands that are environmentally-sensitive, they also make the valuable recharge areas; the concern about 50% of the County already being owned by government is misleading; the calculation includes certain things like NASA, PAFB, underwater property under the Indian River Lagoon, every canal, and every river. Mr. Egan noted acquiring sensitive lands will further the Comprehensive Plan’s goal of protecting endangered species, ever-dwindling groundwater supplies, and vital habitat for the Indian River Lagoon, and avoiding additional stormwater impacts in critical recharge areas.

Amy Tidd stated in December 2003, the EELS Selection and Management Committee voted to ask the Board’s permission to put the referendum on the ballot; in March 2004, the Procedures Committee voted unanimously to request the Board do the same; a citizen group was formed called Preserve Brevard; and it supports the requests of the Committees. She noted Preserve Brevard would like to preserve some of the special places in the County; the County needs to save a few green spaces for the children; and the people of Brevard overwhelmingly support preserving lands for the children and the future. She stated recently a poll was done in the County; 500 people were surveyed; 54% said yes to the referendum question; after 15 minutes of explaining the particulars, and questions and answers, 64% said yes; so the majority of County citizens would like the opportunity to vote on the issue. Ms. Tidd stated the Program has been very successful; there are 14 sanctuaries open with walking trails, along with the Enchanted Forest that has accessibility for the disabled; the areas are beautiful; and if the lands are not bought within the next few years, they will not be there. She noted that is why the citizens are coming to the Board now; they could wait until 2011, but developers are clearing everywhere; and if the County wants to save something for the future and the children, it has to be now. She expressed appreciation to the Board for looking ahead for the future of Brevard County; and stated later on, when people ask it what has it done for the future, it can look back and see what a difference it has made.

Commissioner Colon stated the Committees and Preserve Brevard are asking a lot from the Board; it is premature to take any action today; there are things the Board needs to discuss and to make sure there is an audit and accountability, that the dollars have been spent wisely and review what percentage went to pay The Nature Conservancy. She noted there also needs to be a review if there is litigation with The Conservancy, and things that have happened; and inquired would Ms. Tidd support making sure all the I’s are dotted and the T’s are crossed. Ms. Tidd responded the County needs to make sure the money is spent wisely, but there is a time issue; and the citizens tried to get the item to the Board on July 20, 2004 because the issue has to be voted on and get to the Supervisor of Elections by August 31, 2004. Commissioner Colon inquired why would the citizens want to rush the Board; stated she has a pretty good record of not approving a tax increase; it is nothing new; and she does not have a problem if the citizens want to vote for something, but there is a lot of information that needs to be given to the people. She noted something like this, especially in a Presidential election, there is a lot of education that has to happen; Commissioners have to make sure they are knowledgeable of the dollars and how much money has been given to agencies to administer the Program; all of those things are critical and need to be discussed in the Sunshine; and she does not want to see a report, she wants to be able to give this information to her bosses so they feel comfortable on what they are going to vote for. She stated there is no way to rush this in two weeks and make sure the issue is on the ballot; it is not the way the Board should be doing business; it has not done business like that in the past; and it should not start doing that now. Commissioner Colon noted anyone who supports this should feel comfortable enough that he or she should not have an issue with these things being answered in the Sunshine; she is not against it; but the information needs to be forwarded to those individuals who want to make sure there is accountability. Ms. Tidd stated she agrees; when she met with Commissioner Colon three months ago, she wanted to make sure Commissioner Colon had several months of lead time to research and find out all of the information; and if the issue has to get on the ballot in a certain time, she would ask that all reasonable research be done. Commissioner Colon stated her name was mentioned at one of the Charter Review Committee meetings; she did not appreciate it when she was told that she was mentioned as supporting the issue; she does her homework whenever she is going to vote on something; and she is not accountable just to the folks in the Commission Room or District 5, but to everyone in Brevard County. She noted she was uncomfortable that her name was used in one of those meetings just because someone met with her; she has an open-door policy; everyone is welcome to meet with her; and it was premature for anyone to state that she supports something as she has to make sure the public is educated on what the County wants to put on the ballot. Ms. Tidd stated Commissioner Colon mentioned this is a tax increase; the citizens are asking for continuation of a millage people are paying; so people will not see an increase on their tax bill and will see the same amount as they saw last year; and if they do not vote it in, they will see $14.00 less.

Commissioner Pritchard stated Ms. Tidd came to his office about three months ago, which is when the issue should have come to the Board so it would have had an opportunity to provide information to the public; as it is now, it is at the last minute and needs to get on the ballot; he does not believe the people are going to vote for it; and they did not vote for the one-cent sales tax because they were given ample opportunity to find out what it was all about. He noted the emotion of this moment should not carry the ballot; that is why there are pregnant pigs in the Constitution; the County needs to provide information so the constituents know the value of what it is that they are voting for; and if it does not have time to do it, then it should not be on the ballot.

Kim Zarillo, representing EELS Selection and Management Committee, stated the EELS Program is overseen by two citizen Committees, one comprised of a mixture of individuals and the other scientists and land managers; they all serve at the pleasure of the Board and the citizens of Brevard County; she serves on both Committees; and the Committee often uses the Land Acquisition Manual, which has provided guidance to the Committee. She noted the Manual was approved by the Board and was produced initially by the Procedures Committee; the Manual provides guidance on how to operate, the criteria for land acquisition, and what to do with the land; the Committee takes its volunteer service very seriously; it often evaluates itself, the Program, and if it is meeting what the referendum intended, operating through the guidance of the Manual. She stated the Committee asked the question, beginning in early 2002, about meeting the goals of bio-diversity; the referendum is to set aside environmentally-endangered lands; it is defined in the Manual and is available to the public; and all the meetings are open to the public. She noted the Committee decided to review the Program to determine if it is meeting the referendum, and how it evaluates that; protecting bio-diversity is a pretty big ticket; Brevard County is very rich in bio-diversity; because it is long and linear, and there are temperature changes due to the coastal element and inland freshwater, it lends itself to having about half of the communities represented in the State of Florida; and there may be 26 natural communities in the State of Florida as defined by Florida Natural Area Inventory. Ms. Zarillo stated the criteria is very specific; however, it lends itself to flexibility; the Committee decided to look at the lands that have been purchased, the status of those lands, the management status of the lands, and educational and recreational availability; it formed a workshop that was conducted in October 2002; it was prior to the Board’s decision about the sales tax and to put it on the referendum; and the Committee invited representatives from three different universities and other land acquisition representatives from surrounding counties. She noted the purpose of it was to exchange information on land conservation acquisition goals among the entities and agencies that oversee species listings, as well as protection, discuss landscape, protection needs, and gaps in regional areas, and to identify steps to develop an optimal landscape strategy for the region. She stated when she talks about landscape, she is not talking about one’s yard, but a big picture, aerial view, or quad, and how they interact or connect with one another; in going through the workshop process there were modelers there looking at species, population dynamics, and connectivity; and they also looked at what lands are acquired, protected, and not protected.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to allow Ms. Zarillo an additional three minutes to continue her comments. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Ms. Zarillo stated out of the workshop and deliberations, the Committee felt it would be important to add additional properties mostly on the distal ends of the County that are part of large landscapes, with possibilities of connecting with other programs to complete the EELS Program. She stated one downfall of the initial referendum is that it does not provide for maintenance; although the Committee would like to continue to acquire lands, very little money is left for acquisition; and the lands also need to be managed and taken care of. She noted the referendum would ask the voters if they would like to continue to purchase additional properties beyond the projects already delineated or money is committed to; and to continue to be able to manage the property out of ad valorem taxes rather than at the end out of general funds.

Commissioner Pritchard stated there was an allegation earlier that $27 million was still available in the EEL Program for purchase. Ms. Zarillo stated Chuck Nelson can address it, but $32 million was bonded; and the County is not able to bond the additional money.

Parks and Recreation Director Chuck Nelson stated the millage that was established as part of the vote was never large enough to get the $55 million bonded; he is not sure how that occurred when the ballot was put together originally; the original beach and riverfront had been one-half mill; and it would have been able to do it, but one-quarter mill was only about half of that amount.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired why would the ballot language contain language that would not achieve what the language was saying. Mr. Nelson responded he was not here at that particular time, but by law it is his understanding that it is a requirement that the maximum be bonded as well as the millage; and how they came to those two numbers he does not know. Commissioner Pritchard stated the people who voted were voting for an alleged $55 million at a certain millage and it could not be attained. Chair Higgs noted it was based on property values and interest rates. Commissioner Carlson stated the issue was the property values did not increase at the time that would maximize that amount of money. Commissioner Pritchard stated if he goes to vote for $55 million that is going to be expended to purchase property, and he does not get $55 million, he wants to know who made the error. Commissioner Carlson stated at the time, statistically it was valid; but as time showed in the future as various elements occurred, whether it was an increase in property values or whatever, it did not come to fruition based on the statistical extrapolation that is used for determining that. Commissioner Pritchard noted the County has done nothing but grow; taxes have done nothing but increase; he knows what he paid in Broward County and here; and prices have increased dramatically and are going to increase more. He stated the Board is going to see to that as it has been doing a good job of it all day; if he is voting for $55 million for something he expects to have $55 million available; and now he is concerned how accurate the ballot language is as written in the draft, such as bonds that do not exceed $60 million. He noted that tells him there is $60 million; and even though it says bonds do not exceed, he does not expect to have $52 million or $48 million, he expects to have $60 million.

Mr. Nelson stated staff ran the numbers through the Clerk’s Office based on today’s taxable values in the County and at a conservative bonding rate.

Chair Higgs inquired how much land value has been acquired for the Program; with Mr. Nelson responding in terms of partnerships with the State, other programs, and grants the County has acquired over $60 million. Commissioner Pritchard inquired who owns the property; with Mr. Nelson responding it is a combination. Mr. Nelson stated in State programs it is owned by the State; and the issue of joint title has not been resolved. Commissioner Pritchard noted the State owns the vast majority of the property; with Mr. Nelson responding it holds title. Commissioner Carlson stated the previous referendum did not include maintenance; and inquired does Ms. Zarillo see the Selection Committee reviewing its policies as far as creating a land trust for maintenance and using some of the dollars for that. Ms. Zarillo responded she is not so sure about a trust, but a set aside of a portion of the revenue for maintenance yes; the Committee is very interested in that and has agreed that is what should be done; and both the Procedure, and Selection and Management Committees agreed on those items. Commissioner Carlson stated when the Committee had the workshop and reviewed how things were going with the purchases and achieving the goals of the referendum, it was in the process of purchasing north and south properties; throughout the history of the Program the County has had difficulty in purchasing central County properties due to the prices and increases in the costs of land, and not being able to go with the values and offer the kind of money that folks want because they could get more from development; and inquired does Ms. Zarillo see the role changing for the Selection Committee in reviewing purchase of conservation easements and doing the connectivity kinds of things that will hopefully create the pathways throughout the County for wildlife and habitat issues. Ms. Zarillo responded yes; the Committee looks at a number of things; often people come to it with land donations; and sometimes it is mitigation. She stated the Committee is also looking at conservation easements, trying to use that other than fee simple; any mechanisms to work with landowners are all viable possibilities; the County would probably have to have some management agreement with them; and they may be willing to have a conservation easement, but would want the County to manage it. She noted the Committee would think about it in the context of the easement and also providing funds for it and making a commitment.

Commissioner Colon stated she has a lot of respect for Ms. Zarillo; she is her appointee on the Planning and Zoning Board; she has not had an opportunity to talk to Ms. Zarillo about the issue, but would like to meet with her; and some of the things she has been trying to figure out are some of the discrepancies, such as The Nature Conservancy. She noted Ms. Zarillo talked about the science; she has documentation that says some of the charity scientists have complained that the organizations have drifted from their stated commitment to the best available science; one scientist complained in an Internal 2001 Conservancy Study that science is not understood or supported by senior managers and state directors, the entire focus is on land deals, and he is not convinced that The Conservancy is science-based as claimed; and she wants to focus on some of those things. She requested Ms. Zarillo meet with her to get her up to par on exactly what has happened; stated she needs to know if the comfort level is still there and if the Committee is aware of some of those things; she either supports something or does not; and she has never had a problem with the EELS Program, but she has some concerns. Ms. Zarillo stated she appreciates Commissioner Colon is going to vote the way she feels most comfortable, and she trusts her to do so; she has heard the rumors about The Nature Conservancy, although she does not know the details and leaves it to the Conservancy to explain; and requested the Board and citizens separate the contractual obligations of The Nature Conservancy and the selection of properties that are recommended for the Board’s approval for acquisition. She noted The Conservancy does not provide the science that goes into the land acquisition choices for recommending to the Board; it merely serves to do the due diligence and negotiations for the land acquisition, keeping the Committee out of that picture and removed from it so it can remain hopefully apolitical on a science-based level; it needs to be explained and is a tragedy what has happened at the corporate office; but the County needs to look at what The Conservancy is doing locally. She stated when the opportunity for contract renewal comes, the Board can look at it again.

Chair Higgs stated the Board has a Contract on the acquisition side with The Nature Conservancy; the Selection and Management Committee selects the properties and then turn them over for acquisition; and inquired when does the Contract expire. EELS Interim Manager Michael Knight responded staff will have to review it. Chair Higgs inquired did the County go out to bid; with Mr. Nelson responding yes. Mr. Nelson stated the renewal comes up at the end of this year. Chair Higgs stated it went out to bid; a number of bids were received; and The Conservancy was selected to be the County’s acquisition agent. Mr. Nelson stated the County had a choice of hiring staff for the Acquisition Program or contracting; it went out to bid; and The Conservancy was selected. Commissioner Pritchard stated The Nature Conservancy fee has been about $188,000 for the past couple of years; it is proposing $180,000; and inquired how many staff people could the County have hired and does it need one person or maybe two people to do it. Mr. Nelson responded it would take more people than that. Commissioner Pritchard stated the County is talking about due diligence; it seems for $180,000, the County could cut that in half and hire someone who could handle it; there are also brokerage fees that are thrown in on top of that; and the County is paying a lot of money to have a third party involved. Chair Higgs inquired does the $180,000 include all the contractual relationships; with Commissioner Pritchard responding he supposes so. Chair Higgs stated it is far beyond a simple broker’s job. Commissioner Pritchard noted the broker also has the commissions that are paid on top of it. Chair Higgs stated the Board would have to look at the Contracts to see those.

Bob Wille stated he speaks as an active outdoor enthusiast; he believes in the benefits of lands and their ability to be enjoyed by the public; he was a strong supporter and advocate for both the beach and riverfront acquisition and the 1990 referendum for the EELS Program; and his boss, Paul Joyal, represented the Task Force that was created by the Board at that time to address the issues that seem to continue. He noted something needs to be done because all the property is being developed and becoming condos, etc.; beach and riverfront acquisition and EELS are completely different; it is a smooth move to try to identify beach and riverfront acquisition, which was for people’s access; and it was the perception back then to gain access for parks and individuals. He stated EELS is different; the question was the issuance of bonds in a principle amount not exceeding $55 million to finance the cost of acquiring, protecting, and maintaining environmentally-endangered lands and making improvements as appropriate for passive recreation and environmental education; and that is what was voted on by 61% of the people. He stated many folks were very actively involved in this to make sure that it was not a pure acquisition program that was going to take property off of the tax rolls, be purely for the bugs and bunnies, that the people who were paying for the lands were not going to have access, and nor were those lands not going to be maintained; 14 years later he looks at the lands that have been acquired by EELS, how they have been maintained, and his accessibility to the properties; and they have fallen way short of what the public perceived they were voting for at that time. Mr. Wille noted he is not saying there is zero access or zero maintenance; but it is being done inappropriately to provide what the people voted for of up to $55 million worth; what he voted on and actively campaigned in favor of back then is not what the people have received; and Commissioner Carlson referenced the maintenance, which was part of it.

Chair Higgs stated maintenance is still part of it under the current millage rate; after it expires, the County will have millage issues; and the point was that rather than go to the General Fund, if the County did a new referendum, it would be a part of that. Mr. Nelson stated the County got into litigation related to the wording issue on the ballot and in particular, the maintenance issue; it took an act of the State Legislature to clarify it and allow the County to do maintenance as part of it; originally the County was stopped from doing that because the Clerk had contested the County’s ability to spend those dollars for that purpose; but that has been rectified.

Beverly Pinyerd stated she is Commissioner Colon’s appointee on the Planning and Zoning Board and is proud to serve; one time when discussing the SEAS ordinance, a lot of property rights people, developers, and builders said if the County wants to preserve the land then it should buy it; she agrees with them; and there was one radical man who pointed to the Constitution of the United States and told her it is his God given right to own property. She noted she told the man if he wants to bring God into this, God created every creature to live in its own very specific unique habitat; man would be living in tents; she believes the County has an obligation because it has animals that exist here that do not exist anywhere else; and it has an obligation to be good stewards to the manatees. She stated Brevard County has the largest sea turtle nesting spot in the world on its beaches; it is said the scrub jay is Florida’s only endemic bird, which means it is the only bird in Florida that is found nowhere else; scrub jays have such a unique habitat; and they do not migrate. Ms. Pinyerd stated scrub jays are not going to fly across the road and live somewhere else; they do not adapt; and the County also has gopher tortoises. She noted it was mentioned that 50% of Brevard’s land is government land; it includes PAFB and KSC; both of those could be closed at any time and sold to developers; and if nobody thinks it is going to happen, he or she needs to check in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina because what was an Air Force base is now an industrial park. She noted it also happened in Greenville, South Carolina; there are complaints about taking property off of the tax rolls; wildlife does not require roads, schools, libraries, police, and chlorinated water; and all those things cost money. She stated development cost money; she does not presume to know what the residents want; the Board needs to put the issue to a vote and let the voters decide; and the County has three months to educate the voters, which is plenty of time.

Keith Rigler stated he moved to the County in 1969; Sarno Road was just paved then; and inquired is it fair that people have built in this State and County and now want to stop other people. He noted for 35 years he has been going to Erna Nixon Park and FIT Gardens; he loves nature and has all kinds of animals in his backyard; he never sees anybody at the Park or FIT Gardens; and people can live with animals and vice versa. He inquired how many people who built houses here caged up all the critters and moved them before they built their house. He noted people do not need to be hypocrites and can learn to live with the environment.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize the County Attorney to prepare the resolution setting forth the referendum language for continuation of the environmentally endangered lands program.

Commissioner Scarborough stated in 1989 the Board put before the people an exhaustive sales tax referendum; it was similar to what it saw last Fall; there were multiple things on the jail, but it failed; and he does not know which failed worse, the one last Fall or the one in 1989. He noted at the time the comment was made that it set a record for failures in the State of Florida; when some people came to him and said lets put something on for environmental lands, nine months later he did not think they were real sharp people; he told them they were crazy; and they reminded him to go back to 1989 and 1990. He stated there is something in the heart of everybody; Jack Myers, who was Chair of the Polk County Commission, said he had the most conservative Republicans in his County, and the only thing they will vote taxes on themselves for is to purchase environmental lands; it is more than the environment, it is the clean air and clean water, and the peace and quiet; and Brevard County has people who want this to happen.

Chair Higgs stated she will second the motion.

Commissioner Carlson stated she will support the motion; in meeting with Attorney Knox he had some concerns from bond counsel in regard to the wording of the ballot language; and requested Attorney Knox share it with the Board.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated bond counsel suggested the words “Indian River Lagoon” be removed from the bond ballot language for the simple reason that it may be construed to be limiting any project the County might have to the Indian River Lagoon; he does not know if it is the Board’s intent; and if it is, that is fine but if not, then it needs to consider that. Commissioner Carlson noted the language uses the word “including”. Attorney Knox stated the issue bond counsel had was whether or not it would be misleading; and by including it in there is the only referenced geographic monument in the bond ballot language.

Chair Higgs inquired does the language that is attached minus the concern in the bond language have to be brought back to the Board. Attorney Knox responded a resolution has to come back to the Board to call the special election. Commissioner Carlson stated when the language is brought back, she would like to see staff put together an update on the EELS Program for accountability purposes, and the verbiage and time that had lapsed during the acquisition process when the County could not maintain properties due to the challenge of the wording and language. She stated throughout the 14 years, the County has had various updates on EELS, its progress, and how it is trying to achieve its goals; and based on questions from the public, accountability issues, and things like that, hopefully staff can bring everything back to the Board with the resolution.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he would like to have a full audit on the EELS Program and know exactly how much land has been purchased and how much is being spent on maintenance; he drives by a lot of properties that say “Purchased for the public good” that are closed; it does not make any sense to him if the County is going to buy something if people cannot go to it; and the argument about it is never enough or it is a good start will always be there. He noted folks do not seem to realize that there comes a time when enough is enough; right now the County has 59% of its property off the tax roll; he has paperwork that shows a lot of blue which is water, a lot of darker blue which is federal, and a lot of yellow and other colors in between which are all either EELS, FIND, other public lands, or St. Johns River Water Management District, etc.; and it is a considerable amount of land. He stated if anybody has ever flown over Brevard County, they would be surprised by the amount of land there is, as well as the lakes; his point is it should be privately owned, not publicly owned; government has a bad habit of literally screwing up everything; and if it can find a way it will do it. Commissioner Pritchard noted in going back to Smokey the Bear and “only you can prevent forest fires,” thanks to Smokey there have been conflagrations; there was a comment about the Florida panther and bringing in other critters like that; government cannot seem to manage these programs; and government messes them up. He stated the lands are better if private ownership takes care of them; in the entire country, the population occupies less than 3% of the land; it is an amazing statistic; and there is more land than in Africa in terms of undeveloped land. He noted he made a list of the critters he has seen recently in his backyard; he has rabbits, peafowl, otters, hawks, raccoons, armadillos, snakes, lizards, butterflies, and all kinds of birds; in the lake he has gators, fish, and anhinga; and when he was at Turkey Creek Sanctuary he saw three turtles and a couple of fish. He stated if people want to visit something they can come to his backyard because he has it; government-controlled stuff does not seem to do it; he is opposed to the item; Beach and Riverfront is one issue and was for a specific reason, to provide access; and it was a good Program. He noted it is running out and should sunset; that is the end of it and is what the people voted for; EELS Program is another program and has six more years to run; and when it has run its course then the decision can be made. He stated it should not be co-mingled at this point, which is what the Board is trying to do; the money set aside, whether it is $12.00 or $17.00 per year, the total amount of about $60 million the County should spend on roads as they need to be repaired; the money should be spent on something that the infrastructure is crying for because the County does not seem to be able to do it in-house; and it has built the bureaucracy to the point where it cannot afford to do anything except maintain the bureaucracy. He noted he will not support the motion.

Commissioner Colon stated she did not expect the Board today to go forward with all of the questions that have been raised; there were things mentioned about The Nature Conservancy; she asked Attorney Knox to get information on The Conservancy; and she will provide copies to the Commissioners. She noted Attorney Knox has an article regarding The Conservancy; what she has read is mind-boggling; her reputation is everything to her; and there is so much controversy on how The Nature Conservancy has spent its money and the affiliations it has with certain folks. She stated the environmental community that supported The Conservancy in the past seems to be very disappointed with some of the actions the board of directors has taken, which does not coincide with the philosophy and what the citizens expect; and requested the representative of The Nature Conservancy provide feedback.

Keith Fountain, The Nature Conservancy, stated he would have to see what Commissioner Colon is looking at to be able to comment on what she is saying; he is fairly familiar with The Conservancy’s website and is not dodging any issues; but the question is pretty general so he does not know how to answer it.

Commissioner Colon stated the article was written by David Ottaway and Joseph Stevens of the Washington Post dated May 5, 2003; she has known Commissioner Scarborough long enough to know that some of the things in the article will upset him because he questions everything; and she does not have a problem with the Board putting something on the ballot, but she has a problem with the middleman, which is The Nature Conservancy, and the allegations in the article. Mr. Fountain stated he is familiar with the article; about a year and a half ago, the Washington Post did a series of articles on The Nature Conservancy; since that time, the Senate Finance Committee has held an investigation into tax-related issues, specifically charitable contributions involving land transactions of private parties, and land sales or purchases to non-profits or government agencies; and there was a newspaper article by the Washington Post criticizing Conservation Buyer Programs where The Conservancy sells land to private individuals encumbered by a conservation easement to get the property back on the tax rolls. He advised the Senate Finance Committee held an investigation; it was not an investigation of The Nature Conservancy, but an investigation into tax issues and the Tax Code of the United States; The Conservancy, other non-profits, attorneys, tax law specialists, and a wide range of parties testified; and that is the general story behind what Commissioner Colon is referring to. Commissioner Colon stated she has a very strong objection of the County not doing its research and finding out where The Nature Conservancy is today; knowing how compassionate Commissioners Higgs and Carlson are about the environment, she does not believe they would want the middleman affiliated with Brevard County; the information in the article contradicts what she believes the majority of the Board wants to accomplish; people talk about guilty by association; and the Board should not be taking a vote today and she objects. She stated, knowing her fellow Commissioners, they will ask for accountability in regard to having a middleman; if the citizens are going to give the County the money, the Board needs to make sure it really looks at this issue; she is dumbfounded; and the allegations in the article are bigger than what Mr. Fountain has claimed. She noted the environmental community and scientists have talked about the hypocrisy of the Board; she does not want to shoot the messenger as Mr. Fountain has not created this, but the folks who Mr. Fountain represents; she knows the Board wants to move forward and does not want to take more of its time; and requested it read the article and then make decisions on whether it wants The Nature Conservancy to be the middleman or Parks and Recreation Department. She stated there is absolutely no reason why the County should have to pay $100,000; such money could have gone to purchase EELS land; and it is appalling what she has read.

Mr. Fountain stated the issue before the Board today for a referendum is not related to the newspaper articles about The Nature Conservancy; The Conservancy is willing to answer any and all questions; it should not play out today, but when it comes up for contract renewal; and since the issue has surfaced today the Conservancy will provide the Board with information on it. He noted he is willing to answer any and all questions; there have been a number of things discussed today that he would like to answer right now, but today is not the forum; and he is here to do as the Board wishes and is available for any questions.

Chair Higgs inquired how long has the Contract been in place with the County; with Mr. Fountain responding it started in 1992 or 1993 and expires on December 7, 2004. Chair Higgs stated the County has had the Contract with The Conservancy and has collectively been accountable for it for a number of years now; and inquired has the County had an audit of the EELS Program by one of the audit agencies. Mr. Nelson responded the last audit was in 2000. Chair Higgs stated the audit was presented to the Board; she has no problem looking at all of the questions; she agrees the difference between whether the Board proceeds on a course for the voters to be asked is different from the Contract; and the County has been accountable for the Contract for a number of years. She requested staff provide the audit to the Board; stated the County did significant research a couple of years ago on land acquisition; staff needs to provide the information again to the Board; and if it wants to proceed to ask some of the questions when the information comes back, it can do so.

Commissioner Carlson stated she also wants to see the 14 sanctuaries that are open; the Master Greenways and Trails Plan was enacted in 1999; she wants to know how it has been incorporated in terms of connectivity with some of the EELS sites; and she agrees with Chair Higgs that the two subjects are totally different. She noted dealing with The Nature Conservancy on the issues Commissioner Colon has brought up is very important; and they need to be dealt with at the time any renewal issues come up.

Commissioner Scarborough stated while the Contract with The Nature Conservancy comes up in the December 2004 timeframe, the Board needs to be mindful that the people are going to ask the questions in the November 2004 timeframe before they vote; and he would like to move expeditiously with the information. Commissioner Carlson stated The Conservancy needs to come forward with its white paper or whatever on the issues with the Senate Financial Committee looking at things, if it has impacted the things that have occurred with real estate negotiations, etc., and if it has had any impact or anything to do with what has been done over the last 10 years of the Contract with the Board. Chair Higgs stated the County would need to bring the Contract forward as soon as possible because if it does not want to have a continuing contract or wants to go out to bid, it needs to not wait; if it does not want this acquisition agent, then it needs to have something else in place; and it does not wait until the Contract expires to consider it, as it does not make any sense at all.

Mr. Fountain stated the Senate Finance Committee investigation looked at transactions that can occur from the non-profit to a private party; in other words, it is the sale of property back to people where they pay for it, charitable contributions, and gifts; and these are things not associated with the County’s EELS Program. Chair Higgs stated the County’s biggest concern needs to be with the Contract The Nature Conservancy has with the County; it is the essence of what the County is responsible for, not what somebody does in Washington; and the County needs to look carefully at that, although those other issues are important.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he cannot separate what happens within The Conservancy and what goes on here; he has to look at the entire organization; if it is suspect, then it only makes him question further what goes on here; and he will be interested when the issues comes back. He noted it is not the appropriate time now; and he will have a few questions he will be asking. Commissioner Colon reiterated there are things that happened throughout the nation; The Nature Conservancy issue does tie in with the issue today; some of the nets the County has put in regarding land acquisition to protect the public are in place; and she wants to make sure Brevard County is not going to be affected and takes every measure possible to protect itself and not become a casualty on some of the things that have happened in other parts of the country. She noted this is not just about Washington; and the County needs to make sure it is ahead of the game and do everything possible to protect itself.

Chair Higgs called for a vote on the motion to authorize the County Attorney to prepare the resolution setting forth the referendum language for continuation of the environmentally endangered lands program; eliminate Indian River Lagoon, which could be construed to limit any other project; and return it to the Board at the next meeting. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Pritchard and Colon voted nay.

The meeting recessed at 4:18 p.m. and reconvened at 4:31 p.m.

BOARD DIRECTION, RE: T-HANGARS AT VALKARIA AIRPORT

Attorney Philip Nohrr stated he is present to discuss a proposal of his client, Dr. Joseph McClure, which he has been seeking to do for about two and a half years at Valkaria Airport; his client has been trying to lease some land to build hangars at the Airport; initially when the issue started in 2002, he was primarily interested in just acquiring enough land to put up a hangar to house his airplane; and as the process has progressed, and through letters back and forth with the FAA, a number of other issues have come up. He noted given the size of the waiting list to get hangars at Valkaria Airport, which is 58 folks now, there is an unmet need there far in excess of his client’s needs; he and his client have been talking to staff about the possibility of developing 20 T-hangars, as well as a hangar for his client, and space for the Airport Manager and his staff; and when the County is ready, it could buy the hangars back if it chose to do so. He stated as far as bonds or grant monies available to the County, it would take a considerable period of time before it is eligible to receive the funds; it was not his client’s initial approach to it; but if that is what it takes to get the hangars at the Airport, he is willing to step up to the plate and build such hangars. He stated there may be an issue as far as control; his client is happy to lease the hangars back to the County and let it lease them if it desires; or his client can build the hangars and give the County an option. Attorney Nohrr noted to the extent there are concerns by the County as to what activities would go on in the hangars, his client would be willing to enter into any type of covenants or agreement so that objectionable-type of activities would not occur; this will also help out the County as far as increasing the cash flow for the Valkaria Airport operation; he and his client want to be part of the solution at the Airport; they know that some of the folks in the area would prefer to see no further hangars or planes down there; and they understand that position. Mr. Nohrr stated he and his client are trying to find a way to house and hangar the airplanes; if it works, they are happy to do it or any derivative; if the County only wants to lease his client whatever land is needed for his own hangar, that would be fine too; and the location has been picked out, they have worked with staff, they know where the hangars would go and know what they would look like, and there are some tentative costs on building them. He noted he and his client are ready to go and have been ready for about two and a half years; in April 2003, the Board applied for some grant money from the State, but it was not successful; there are some issues about master plans and when the funds would be available; and he and his client hope they do not have to wait any longer. Attorney Nohrr stated County staff has said there is a need for additional hangars; his client would like to satisfy that need in any reasonable way that assists the County and gets him what he wants to get; and he believes he can bring something to Valkaria Airport that will increase the cash flow and will help out the airplane owners with housing their planes.

Kenneth Rivard stated he is a member of the Valkaria Airport Advisory Board, but speaking for himself; the Advisory Board is against leasing land to build hangars; the reason there are no hangars available at the Airport and no grant money available is because there is no master plan or Airport layout plan; the issue has been laying in the weeds for four or five years; and if a private person builds hangars, it is going to cost pilots and taxpayers more money as they would have to pay a land lease and rent the hangars. He noted the Melbourne Airport had a similar situation; Holland and Shelt Air pays $150,000 a year to the City of Melbourne and makes $1 million a year on the land rent; it all goes to Fort Lauderdale; and there is no lease duration talked about, whether it is 30 or 40 years. He stated there is no square footage or ground rent that he is aware of; hangars are available at Melbourne Airport; one can buy a hangar for $45,000 there; and he talked about the proposed issue to Mr. Shimkus, and it never came before the Valkaria Airport Advisory Board. He noted Resolution No. 98-148 which covers the Advisory Board, items 3 and 4 cover this type of situation; he does not believe it will take over three years to get grant money from Mr. Wikstrom in DeLand; if the County wants to do a master plan, generally the FAA will finance a master plan 90%; and DOT will come up with 5% and the County would pay the other 5%. Mr. Rivard stated master plans are about $100,000 each and take some time to do; an airport layout plan can be done faster; he has a letter dated January 6 to Mr. Shimkus from Mr. Wikstrom, which said the County is looking for T-hangar funding, but without an approved master plan, he is reluctant to let the County have money because it does not seem to want to develop Valkaria Airport. He stated he has been on the Advisory Board for about two years and the feeling he gets is that the County Commission does not want to have anything going on at Valkaria Airport at this time. He noted there are no landing lights; he flies in and out of Valkaria Airport; a $20,000 new trailer was recently purchased for Mr. Shimkus; the money was going to come out of County funds, but he brought up the point to Mr. Shimkus that an emergency request could be made to District 5 in DeLand to get 80/20 money for the building; and it was done and saved the County some money. He stated the money is available if the County has some kind of plan to move forward; he has another letter dated August 13, 2002 concerning FAA funding and Valkaria Airport being a public Airport for public use; he can agree with the gentleman who wants to build hangars; and people want hangars as they have airplanes. Mr. Rivard stated TiCo Airport Authority is having the same problem; Merritt Island is building a $4 million terminal and there is a hangar list for all three airports for 50 or 60 pilots, but no hangars are being built; Holland Shelt Air built 14 hangars at Space Coast Airport; and the hangar rent was almost $100.00 a month more than TiCo Airport Authority. He noted there is no way that a private person can compete with 50-50 grant money; the Sheriff’s Office is in the middle of this right now at Merritt Island; it has a big building there and talking about spending $450,000; and the Board came up with $225,000 of paper money to match a corporate hangar grant from DOT. He stated Valkaria Airport needs hangars, but without some concrete movement by the Board to go forward with something, the Airport is going to be stuck.

Dan Faden stated he is a member of the Valkaria Advisory Board; at the April 8, 2003 Board meeting it decided unanimously to authorize staff to request 80/20 grant from FDOT for T-hangars at Valkaria Airport; and if denied, ask for 50/50 and return to the Board with a report or an agreement. He noted there has been no return to the Board; this is the first time the issue has been brought back; the agenda items in front of the Board are not a response to that, but basically three options of leasing land or no action at all; and the Board made statements such as, “The first step in the process would be to go to the FDOT, see what financial arrangement could be made with either 80/20 or 50/50, and then bring it back to the Advisory Board for a chance to review it.” He stated in January 2004 it was known that the 80/20 money was not available, but nobody went for the 50/50; action was not taken that staff should have taken to bring the Airport Layout Plan in front of the Board, get it revised, and return it for 50/50 money; that is what FDOT said should be done; and Dr. McClure also came before the Board to lease land and it decided not to lease, but to move ahead for the County to build and take care of the hangars. Mr. Faden stated the minutes further state, “The County has operated the Airport capably the last few years, managing the fuel situation, the hangars, and management; the Airport is in good shape; and this would be another way to continue to have a well-run Airport.” He noted he concurs with that 100% and would like to see it happen; and the only thing in front of the Board today should be to go for the 50-50 money, revise the Airport Layout Plan, and move forward to see if the County can get the money and build the hangars. He stated the June 2004 Valkaria Airport Advisory Board meeting was canceled with a memo sent to it saying there were no agenda items; he does not understand how that could happen when there were many items a few months later; one of the items today should have been to do the 50/50, go forward with the Airport Layout Plan, and ask for the DOT money; and a statement was left off the bottom of the Agenda Report today, which was on the April 8, 2003 Agenda Report where staff commented, “One acre of lease will provide about $4,400 of revenue a year. If the Airport builds and leases hangars, an additional 20 hangars would be about $20,000 per year of usable revenue after paying debt service.” Mr. Faden noted this is the way the County needs to go; requested the Board move forward let the County do the hangars; stated nobody is saying the hangars are not needed; and there were problems in the past of leasing property at the Airport to private people, but the County corrected it and Valkaria Airport is well run at the moment. He read a statement from Mr. Shimkus, as follows: “The Board needs to direct staff to change the Airport Layout Plan to show the proposed T-hangar project and submit the revised Airport Layout Plan for approvals. When the revised Airport Plan is approved, then staff can send a request to the FDOT for its consideration of a 50-50 grant”; and it is the path the Board needs to go.

Chair Higgs inquired did the Board talk about this at a workshop or a Board meeting. Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca stated there was a Board direction; on April 27, 2004 a report from Mr. Shimkus was sent to the Board; at that time, staff had been working with Dr. McClure; and it understood, from the length of the waiting list, that if the Board were to move forward with 20 or 40 T-hangars, that Dr. McClure’s airplanes could not be accommodated. She noted even if staff had moved forward to bring the issue to the Board, the County would still have Dr. McClure’s issue today; staff is sensitive to previous citizen concerns, as well as Board direction about a reasonable number of hangars at the Airport; staff felt that moving forward with putting 20 hangars on the Airport before it dealt with Dr. McClure’s request would ultimately bring some concerns forward that the County was overbuilding on the Airport; so it is always an option to build the hangars with County money, but today there is also the option of a private individual funding the construction of the hangars and the County purchasing them at a later date, including a 50-50 match. Chair Higgs inquired did the Board talk about the 50-50; stated she remembers the discussion about getting 80-20 or 50-50; and inquired did it come back. Ms. Busacca responded no, only the report came back; and this is the first time the Board has discussed it.

Commissioner Pritchard stated it is his understanding that the 80-20 was denied because the FDOT Regional Secretary does not believe in 80% grants, but he would acquiesce to a 50-50. Valkaria Airport Manager Jim Shimkus responded that is correct. Commissioner Pritchard stated the issue did not come back but should have; Ms. Busacca mentioned about T-hangar overbuild; and inquired how many people are waiting for hangars. Mr. Shimkus responded there are 58 names; with Ms. Busacca responding she is talking about the fact that it has been staff’s direction to balance the concerns of the citizens who live in the area and the Airport users; staff has been working for some time on the issue; originally staff put together a capital improvements plan which suggested the 20 hangars; and at that time the Board said it was not interested in doing hangars. She noted the Board had directed staff once that hangars were not going to be considered; and if the Board at that time had moved forward, then the Airport Layout Plan would have been modified and the County would be on the waiting list to get money from FDOT. Commissioner Pritchard stated that was the Board’s direction in April 2004. Ms. Busacca noted that is correct, but staff knew at the time, and had been working with Dr. McClure for quite some time, that he was coming forward with his request; the sensitivity of the citizens is that some of them are concerned about having too many hangars at the Airport; had staff come forward and said the County was going to build the 20 hangars and then Dr. McClure’s request came forward, perhaps the Board would have asked staff why it did not know about another individual with a private request to build the hangars rather than using commercial paper from the County to do the same thing; and staff waited until it had all the information gathered from Dr. McClure. Commissioner Pritchard stated it has been shown that if the County wants to make money at the Airport, it needs to own the land and building; if it leases it out, the money goes to Holland and Shelt Air as mentioned; the County has the building and the land, and controls the lease; and inquired if Ms. Busacca has ever flown over Valkaria Airport. Ms. Busacca responded no. Commissioner Pritchard stated there is a whole lot of nothing there; and 20 hangars should have been pursued.

Curt Lorenc provided copies of the Agenda item that took place on April 8, 2003 to the Board; stated the pilots and residents are telling the Board they want the same thing; they want the County to build hangars at Valkaria Airport; and they are not interested in a private party building hangars there. He noted on April 8, 2003 the Board debated the pros and cons of an outside party building hangars versus the County; it also looked at the pros and cons of the financial aspects of it; the County would receive $20,000 for rent of the hangars per year; and if it leased the land to Dr. McClure, it would only receive $4,000. He stated the Board did the right fiscal thing and looked after the taxpayers; it made the decision to get the rent for $20,000 a year; the most important thing is to maintain control; and there was one individual selling gas at the FBO who caused quite a bit of problems. He noted the County Manager decided to take it over; the County has done a very good job; there has not been any complaints regarding the sale of fuel; and it is making money. He inquired where did the County fall down; stated essentially when staff brought the Agenda item to the Board to do FDOT funding, it needed to bring the Airport Layout Plan showing new hangars; that is all that needed to be done; and it needed to amend the Five-year Capital Improvements Plan and put hangars in it. Mr. Lorenc stated staff is responsible for the hangars not moving quite as quickly as they should be moving; it indicated there are 58 people on the waiting list; one in eight is a real person on the waiting list; and he does not care what staff has to say regarding that, but when there were 72 people on the waiting list, there was a 14-unit T-hangar, and it could not be filled. He noted his best guess is there are about eight or ten people out of 58 people; there was a unanimous vote by the Board to build hangars and authorize funding; and requested it reaffirm the vote and authorize the Airport Manager to amend the ALP drawing and amend the CIP.

Chair Higgs inquired if the Board amends the ALP and CIP to include the project and hangars, how long would it be to get on the list for 50-50 money. Mr. Shimkus responded Mr. Wikstrom, who is the FDOT District 5 representative for the Valkaria Airport, was in his office about two weeks ago and they discussed the issue; FDOT works on a five-year work program; the next five years are programmed out with the monies it has; so if the County was to go in today asking to be put in the work program, anywhere from $300,000 to $400,000 for FDOT’s portion of a 50% grant, the earliest Mr. Wikstrom estimates he might be able to reprogram money would be three years out. He stated Mr. Wikstrom could pretty much guarantee that the County would be in consideration at the five-year point with the next new year FDOT would be creating and budgeting its money for; he also cautioned that part of the problem with the money is FDOT is getting less money every year to allocate; so it becomes priorities. He noted the best guess is three to five years before the County would see any FDOT grant monies available.

Chair Higgs inquired is Mr. Nohrr suggesting there would be a way to proceed if the County was on a waiting list for the FDOT money, and Mr. Nohrr’s client would build and guarantee the County a sale at the time it got a 50-50 match. Attorney Nohrr responded yes; stated his client would, in essence, be a bank; the hangars would be built; as soon as the County is ready with the grant money, his client is happy to turn it over; and his client never wanted to be in this business to begin with. Chair Higgs inquired does the County have to enter into a land lease if it has somebody who is willing to finance for a few years, get the hangars built in an expeditious manner, and then it gets on the list for the 50-50 with FDOT.

County Attorney Scott Knox responded he does not know; and it can be structured so the Board can arrange to do that if it is what it wants to do.

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated the Board could lease Dr. McClure the land and whatever he would be paying the County in rent would go toward the acquisition when it received grant dollars. Attorney Knox stated there is a way to do it; and the only thing he would have to look at is the Deed from the federal government to make sure the County does not cross up on it. Chair Higgs stated the County would have to look at the Deed, the County maintaining control, and the revenue; the Board should amend the ALP and CIP, and see if there is a proposal very specific that gets the County the ownership of the hangars as soon as it gets the 50-50 match, without it giving up control; she thought the Board’s decision in 2003 was the right one that the County own the hangars; but if it is looking at that many years out, there may be a way for it to get revenue, not give up control, and move forward on the hangars. She noted if that kind of arrangement can be made and it looks like a good financial deal for the County, then the Board may wish to entertain that. Attorney Nohrr stated he believes it can be done; there are certain options; his client can build the hangars and give the County a master lease to give it absolute control; the hangars can only be built pursuant to a lease; and they are fairly well regulated. He noted Mr. Shimkus can give the Board an idea as to the per square-foot cost of the land; they are modest numbers; his client would build the facility and give the County an option to buy at any time; and his client would be in the business of leasing it out during that period of time. Chair Higgs stated she does not know that the Board necessarily wants that; in the past, it has indicated the desire for full control over the facilities at the Airport that would give it the maximum amount of revenue; but the County should not exclude a potential arrangement with a private financier until it can get FDOT funding. Attorney Nohrr stated his client would prefer to give the County maximum control, but he was given a laundry list wherever the Board feels more comfortable; and once there is some indication, he and his client can meet with staff to iron out the details so the Board would have a definite proposal and hopefully get the comfort level it would want, especially on the control issue and the dollar numbers; and it would be a much more concrete proposal than the things being discussed today. Chair Higgs stated the County may look at the ownership of the land remaining in the County’s name with some arrangement in the collection of rents or something like that so it maintains the control, but moves forward. Attorney Nohrr stated no matter what happens, ownership of the land will not be transferred under any circumstances; the only question is whether the County would lease it to his client, he would build the hangars and lease them out, or lease the property back to the County; but as he understands the Deed and FAA, there is no way FAA would allow the County to sell the land and put fee simple title in his client’s name, nor is he recommending that. Chair Higgs stated she is also interested in the long-term ownership of the hangars; as all the members of the Advisory Board have pointed out, the revenue for the Airport is much better if the County can do it that way; but in the short term, it might be able to work an arrangement if it were in the County’s interest. She requested the Board consider allowing staff to work with the applicant, take it to the Advisory Board for review, and bring the issue back to the Board to see if it wants to move forward.

Commissioner Pritchard stated Mr. Shimkus mentioned that the County would not be able to get an okay on the 50-50 match for three or five years; and inquired did it miss a deadline. Mr. Shimkus responded no; he cannot ask for the money until the Board approves asking for the money; at that point, he can make an entry into the five-year work program as a request; and then it is up to FDOT to program the request in the work program, but he has not been authorized to make the request. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the Board had moved forward in April 2003 and made a request in June 2003, would it still be three years out; with Mr. Shimkus responding that is correct. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the Board approves something like this, is it going to increase the hangar rent over what the County would charge if it did the package. Mr. Shimkus responded if private individuals build the hangars, they are going to charge rents that will recoup their financial investment; and he does not know what that number would be. Commissioner Pritchard noted one could assume the investment would be higher because they are not only paying for the hangar, they are paying a lease on the land. Mr. Jenkins stated they are not getting an FDOT grant either. Commissioner Pritchard stated it is a full shot on the hangar and the lease. Chair Higgs noted maybe not; if the County found that it was going to buy the hangars, then it could make an arrangement that is in its interest in regard to the land; if it is going to think about entering into an agreement where it has an option or obligation to buy the hangars when it gets the 50-50, then there might be a financial arrangement that would keep the rents at a suitable level and provide the County revenue. She stated it is a moving sort of thing, but it may be worth the Board’s review. Commissioner Pritchard stated he is not saying the Board should not look at it, but his concern is it would be hitting the pilots with a rent that would be much above what it would charge at Ti-Co Airport. Chair Higgs noted the pilots do not have to buy the hangars. Commissioner Pritchard stated the point is the County cannot put something at a position where people cannot afford; and that is the difference. Chair Higgs stated if the County is looking at an interim measure until it gets the 50-50 match, it may be suitable. Commissioner Pritchard noted Chair Higgs is saying something is better than nothing. Chair Higgs stated the County has to look at the specific financial arrangements and contract that may or may not be acceptable to it.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if there are limited funds and FDOT gets requests for new facilities, and a request comes in where there was a pre-arrangement and T-hangars were built, which request would get to the top of the list; the County needs to know the details; he is not convinced the County is going to have as much on its side after this scenario; and the FDOT may say the County has its T-hangars. Chair Higgs stated it is a realistic and good question; if the Board authorizes staff to talk to Attorney Nohrr and Dr. McClure about that possibility and moves ahead with the things it agreed to on April 8, 2003 to amend the CIP and ALP, and proceed with the application on the 50-50 match, then it is moving forward on two fronts; and the Board already said it would do that. She noted the Board could authorize staff to talk to the Advisory Board and bring the issue back to the Board after the September 2004 Advisory Board meeting; and the Board is only proceeding with what it agreed to. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is concerned with making an assumption on the 50-50 match from FDOT. Chair Higgs noted the Board wants to know how FDOT would handle existing hangars; and staff could provide the issues to the Advisory Board, amend the ALP, and apply for the 50-50 grant match for the hangars, which is what the Board decided to do one year ago.

Janis Walters stated according to Nicole at FDOT, buyout of a privately-built facility is complicated and very messy; FDOT does not recommend it; and it receives the lowest priority. She noted if the County can make a reasonable and logical case that additional hangars would increase Airport security, it would move the project up in priority; security-related projects receive the highest priority in FDOT funding; acquisition of existing assets receive the lowest; and Nicole was very down on going ahead with private construction and then having the County acquire it, and was not sure it could be done. She stated with FDOT funding decreasing every year, it is going to be a high risk; even if the Board has a favorable lease for a private-constructed hangar, it will still have to recoup 100% of the construction costs plus whatever the builder wants out of it; the problem with filling the hangars that are available now is price; and the County is not going to be able to fill the hangars any better than the other people who have overpriced hangars. She noted the County has to find the price point; it is not the County’s responsibility to saturate the market with cheap hangars, but it is equally unwise to build more hangars that are too expensive, which results in 58 people wanting the cheap hangars rather than paying what is demanded at Sebastian, Merritt Island, or wherever hangars are now standing empty. She stated the waiting lists yield only one in every seven or eight names; Mr. Shimkus can probably give the Board his experience in filling the last few vacancies; and he was not here when the two hangar buildings were opened, but maybe he saw the lists and saw how many people actually moved in. Ms. Walters stated the U.S. government deeded the Airport into the ownership of the County; responsibility of the Airport ownership cannot be conveyed without the necessary authority to operate it in the best interest of the County; she does not believe the County can or should be forced to accommodate a private citizen with deep pockets just because he is in a hurry and demanding preferential treatment; and the County needs to look out for the best interest of everybody concerned, continue to pursue the 50-50 grant, and make whatever reasonable case it can to move up in the priority, but not get involved in private construction because the outcome is highly uncertain.

Chair Higgs passed the gavel to Vice Chair Pritchard.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to direct staff to amend the Airport Layout Plan and Capital Improvements Plan for Valkaria Airport to include 20 hangars, and pursue 50-50 funding with FDOT.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired is this what the Board did previously. Commissioner Higgs responded yes, but it did not amend the ALP or the CIP; if the Board does those simultaneously then they can move forward. Commissioner Scarborough stated back then the motion was to proceed with the 80-20 match, and if it did not work, staff could try for 50-50 match; so this is just reiterating the previous action. Commissioner Higgs noted that is correct.

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

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board should ask FDOT about an acquisition of an existing facility and have staff work with Attorney Nohrr and Dr. McClure to see what proposal might go to the Advisory Board; see if there is a way to move forward in a faster manner than waiting on the list; take it to the Advisory Board to see what kind of arrangements could be made; and bring all the information back to the Board. Commissioner Scarborough inquired what if FDOT says the County’s chances are very remote and less than 10%, would the Board want to proceed and spend the time or would it want to say this is probably not the best option because it is going to lock in a certain amount of hangars at higher rents that may in the long run not be what it wants; and is it a decision it should make before it has discussions with Attorney Nohrr, his client, and the Advisory Board. He stated it may be best to bring the report back. Commissioner Higgs inquired can staff find out fairly quickly what FDOT’s position would be on existing hangars; with Mr. Shimkus responding he can write the letter this week, but it depends on how fast it responds. Commissioner Higgs noted staff will find out the information and bring it to the Board as soon as possible; and it will make a decision at a future meeting.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize Mr. Shimkus to write a letter to FDOT regarding grant match for existing hangars; and report back to the Board as soon as possible so it can make a decision at a future meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Vice Chair Pritchard stated he is not opposed to having something happen more quickly, but it is a question of what the cost is going to be to the pilot tenant; and he would like to see that part come back. Commissioner Higgs stated Commissioner Scarborough wants to find out the information from FDOT before the Board moves into further discussion with the specifics. Vice Chair Pritchard stated he does not mind finding out information from FDOT, but Ms. Walters already brought it up that FDOT does not consider existing hangars to be much of a priority; so the answer is going to come back the same. He stated in the meantime, the County should find out what the cost of this may be so there is an understanding where it is going at its next meeting, instead of saying FDOT said it is not a high priority, but maybe the County can do something else working with Dr. McClure; and it needs to be done simultaneously. Commissioner Higgs stated that was what she first suggested; Commissioner Scarborough has a good point; while Ms. Walters may have received some information from FDOT, sometimes other people have other perspectives; so she would want to get it in writing; the County needs to get the information before it has any further expenditure of funds; and it makes sense. Commissioner Scarborough stated the request is all fine and good if it works, but is dependent
on FDOT; he heard a lot of comments about not wanting to move forward with a dual structure of rents in the County and the dangers of doing it; and he does not know, as he is not a pilot, and would like to know a lot more about it. Commissioner Carlson stated staff needs to check where the County might be if it looks at the 50-50 grant; and once the County sees percentage-wise where it might be able to be over a three-year period, it may be able to address the issue with the private sector and look into co-ownership of something so it can leverage every dollar if it really is a need in the community. Vice Chair Pritchard stated that is his point; if the County is looking at a 50-50 match and it is three years away, the demand is now. Commissioner Carlson noted the County needs to qualify it. Vice Chair Pritchard stated in summary, the County will do the DOT, the ALP, and the CIP ASAP. Commissioner Higgs stated it will all come back to the Board in an avalanche of letters.

Vice Chair Pritchard passed the gavel to Chair Higgs.

Chair Higgs stated staff will bring the information back to the Board for it to discuss; and Attorney Nohrr and Dr. McClure will know one way or the other where it is going.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE REDUCING REAR SETBACKS FOR SCREENED
PORCHES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS, CLARIFYING PERIMETER
SETBACK IN RESIDENTIAL ATTACHED ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS, AND ADDING
PERIMETER SETBACK IN MULTIFAMILY ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance reducing rear setbacks for screened porches in residential zoning classifications, clarifying perimeter setback in residential attached zoning classifications, and adding perimeter setback in multifamily zoning classifications.

Chair Higgs stated she does not support the item as proposed; and she liked what the Board asked for, which was simply the RA and RU change. She stated it is a much more elaborate and has many moving parts; page 5, Section 10, is the essence of what was requested; and all of the things about buffers and the no vote by the LPA 7:4 on the proposed ordinance was because it was so much and hard to understand.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired can the Board adopt the ordinance with the one change or is there a problem.

Planner Ryan Rusnak stated the County could keep the reduced rear setbacks in the RA and RU zoning classifications. Commissioner Scarborough inquired does it meet the advertising requirements; with Mr. Rusnak responding yes, staff advertised all of the different sections. Mr. Rusnak inquired would the Board like to keep the perimeter setback language in the RU-2 zoning classification; stated staff found in its research there was no perimeter buffer setback in the RU-2 zoning classification; however, there was one located in the residential-attached, which is a less intense zoning classification; so staff was looking to clarify it. Chair Higgs stated the porch issue can be taken care of and bring the setback issues back to the Board separately; so all the Board is talking about is the porch setback.

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated that is Section 10 and is the only change. Chair Higgs noted it is item (d), since the Board is not dealing with the perimeter setback. Mr. Rusnak stated that is correct.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt Ordinance amending Chapter 62, Land Development Regulations, Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida; amending Section 62-1343, Single-Family Attached Residential (RA-2-4, RA-2-6, RA-2-8, RA-2-10) to reduce the rear lot line setback for screened porches; providing for conflicting provisions; providing for severability; providing for area encompassed; providing an effective date; and providing for inclusion in the Brevard County Code of Ordinances, as amended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct staff to draft legislative intent regarding various setbacks, break them down for better understanding, and bring them back to the Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING BAREFOOT BAY WATER AND
SEWER DISTRICT BOUNDARY

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Barefoot Bay Water and Sewer District boundary.

There being no comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt Ordinance of the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners amending Section 98-181 of the Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida, to modify the boundary of the Barefoot Bay Water and Sewer District to include all territory served by Burkim Enterprises, Inc. including the water and sewer utility system serving the Snug Harbor community, located with Township 30S., Range 38E., Sections 10 and 11, Brevard County, Florida; providing ratification; providing for an effective date. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 30, CABLE
COMMUNICATIONS TAX RATE

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 30, Cable Communications Tax Rate.

Chair Higgs advised the item will be heard on August 24, 2004, and inquired if a motion is needed; with County Manager Tom Jenkins responding no.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RECONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 04-115, VIERA
DRI DEVELOPMENT ORDER

Chair Higgs called for the public hearing to reconsider Resolution No. 04-115, Viera DRI Development Order.

Chair Higgs advised the item will be heard on August 24, 2004, and inquired if a motion is needed; with Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca responding yes.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to continue public hearing to reconsider Resolution No. 04-115, Viera DRI Development Order, to the August 24, 2004 meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION AND LETTER, RE: INITIATING CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCEEDINGS
WITH TOWN OF MALABAR FOR MSTU LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES

Janis Walters stated she found out about the item and what the Town of Malabar was doing during a meeting to discuss the annexation of Valkaria; imagine what kind of burden it would put on the County; maybe the Town was trying to impress the citizens with how it was able to get services without spending any money; but she was rather disappointed. She noted saving money is one thing; demanding and taking services that someone else has to pay for is something else; police protection is not something that should be done on the cheap; and inquired what kind of service can the citizens expect from deputies on the street who know they are underpaid and understaffed because the Town is not paying its fair share. She stated for those who do pay to be under served because the Town is not paying is wrong; if the Town’s citizens want County police protection they should pay just as much for it as do the rest of the County citizens; if there is some peculiarity in the State law that permits this situation as the Town claims, then that needs to be fixed; in any case, the rest of the citizens carrying Malabar’s load is unacceptable; and she hopes the Board takes whatever action is necessary to rectify the situation and get what it needs from the Town for the services the County provides.

Curt Lorenc stated if the Town is receiving Sheriff services the County residents should not be paying for it; the Town residents should be paying their fair share; there is a new Council in Malabar and it seems to be development-oriented; and it does not want to pay its fair share of things but has tremendous expansion plans. He noted according to some of the members of the City Council, they want to annex from Valkaria to Sebastian; the first step is Valkaria; the Town needs to pay its own share; and if it forces the issue and is not cooperative in mediation, the County Attorney may want to look at going after the Town for back years where it did not pay its fair share.

Commissioner Colon stated she is always uncomfortable with municipalities and counties going after each other, especially with legal issues; it is the taxpayers who end up paying; it is not a good way of doing business; and this is going to be a way of keeping it away from the courts and trying to have more of a discussion with the Town, which is how it should be at all times. She noted there is a better way of being able to do this; she is also uncomfortable that she did not get a confirmation whether the folks in Malabar have been notified about the meeting to have discussion; but the County is moving in the right direction to make sure it does not end up in the courts; and it gives an opportunity to discuss the conflict. She stated she would like it to be common practice that when the County is going to be discussing something concerning a municipality, to make sure those folks are present, even if they do not think there is a need; the County does not need to talk about a municipality without representatives being present; and both sides need to be heard. Commissioner Colon stated time was of the essence with the City of Titusville issue; that is the only reason the Board headed in that direction; the City appeared before the Board and it found out the City had complied; so there was no reason to go further. She noted good communication is important; and the County should have the courtesy to notify the municipalities.

Chair Higgs stated the Board needs to proceed with trying to resolve this; it is a conflict resolution proceeding; and requested the Board move forward.

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated the Board needs to designate representatives. County Attorney Scott Knox advised he recommended his Office and the County Manager’s Office initially.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution and approve Letter to the Town of Malabar initiating conflict resolution proceedings with the Town for MSTU law enforcement services, and designate the County Attorney and County Manager as the County’s representatives. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION AND LETTER, RE: INITIATING CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCEEDINGS
WITH CITY OF PALM BAY CHALLENGING ANNEXATION ORDINANCE

Chair Higgs stated the Board needs to do the same thing on this item as it did on the previous item.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt Resolution and approve Letter to the City of Palm Bay challenging Annexation Ordinance No. 2004-11, and designate the County Attorney and County Manager as the County’s representatives. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL TO DESIGNATE FUNDING SOURCE, RE: EMISSIONS FROM ELECTRIC
POWER GENERATING STATIONS IN BREVARD COUNTY STUDY

Commissioner Scarborough complimented County Attorney Scott Knox on his extraordinary legal work on the issue; and stated it shows what a quality Attorney the County has.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize $50,100 from the Contingency Fund for Emissions from Electric Power Generating Stations in Brevard County Study conducted by Environmental Health Engineers, Inc., with the balance of $110,000 included in the budget for FY 2005. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

SPEED HUMP REQUEST, RE: BANYAN STREET

Commissioner Scarborough stated he had briefings with Dick Thompson; he is not going to move forward on the item; the only question was if the County did the study at the right time; and Mr. Thompson said it did, so he will move for denial.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to deny the request for speed humps on Banyan Street. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

SPEED HUMP REQUEST, RE: BRIDGE ROAD (WEST)

Commissioner Scarborough stated the item has a great deal of interest to the community; and he will move in favor of the speed hump request.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the request for speed humps on Bridge Road (West), between Cardiff Avenue and Carrick Road in Port St. John. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

SPEED HUMP REQUEST, RE: ADDIE AVENUE

Commissioner Scarborough stated the item deals with a school issue and meeting the criteria; there was one person opposed to it; but the rest of the residents are in favor; and the item merits approval.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the request for speed humps on Addie Avenue, from Corsica Boulevard to Banyan Street in Port St. John. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ACCEPTANCE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM GEORGE HEITMAN, RE: HAMMOCK ROAD

Commissioner Scarborough stated he has heard of no problems with the item.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to accept Right-of-way Deeds from George Heitman transferring right-of-way to Brevard County for Hammock Road. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION AND COUNTY DEED, RE: CONVEYING RIGHT-OF-WAY TO FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR S.R. 3 IMPROVEMENTS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution and execute County Deed conveying right-of-way to Florida Department of Transportation for S.R. 3 improvements between Merritt Avenue and Barony Drive. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

STAFF REPORT, RE: WILLOW CREEK/GRISSOM PARKWAY ISSUES

Chair Higgs stated there is a desire to table the item to the August 24, 2004 meeting.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table staff report on Willow Creek/Grissom Parkway issues to the August 24, 2004 meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PROPERTY DISPOSITION OPTIONS, RE: FORTENBERRY WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PLANT SITE

Steve Scott stated he is speaking on behalf of over 240 families associated with North Merritt Island Little League; the item mentions the disposition and utilization of a portion of the former Fortenberry Road Wastewater Treatment Plant; the Agenda Report states that the Board has two options; and read the options as follows: “The Board may choose to declare the property surplus and direct the Utility Services Department to proceed with its sale to the highest bidder. Parks and Recreation will not be able to improve parking at MILA Elementary School as included in the 2000 referendum. The Board may choose to direct the Utility Services and Parks and Recreations Departments to undertake the process of relocating buses from MILA Elementary School only. There is insufficient space at the Fortenberry site to relocate buses from Edgewood Junior/Senior High School.” He stated Parks and Recreation Department will not be able to improve parking at MILA Elementary School if the buses are not moved; the Parks and Recreation Department has already informed North Merritt Island Little League it will complete the project without the parking lot, the one and only parking lot that will service the facility; the Little League project has been under construction for over one year; and so far it has one new field, two fields to be constructed, a new batting cage to be constructed, and a new concession stand building still to be completed; and demolition and tear down of the existing facilities are under way. He noted parking has and will continue to be a problem until the bus issue is resolved; this is August 2004; the County is discussing issues today that were incorporated in the original referendum and were re-addressed in the Spring of 2002; and $90,000 of funding was included in the 2000 Merritt Island Parks and Recreation Referendum to acquire a site for the relocation of 22 school buses. Mr. Scott stated in the Spring of 2002, the Parks and Recreation Department contacted the Utility Services Department to determine the possibilities of using the Fortenberry Road site; Parks and Recreation Department prepared a design that would accommodate the buses and presented it to the School Board for its review; and it indicated the location and design would be workable and it would be willing to participate in the relocation. He noted the Little League relies on registration fees and sponsor money to operate; when a field is out of operation, the League loses revenues by not having Fall ball, instructional clinics, and not being able to host various County and/or All Star tournaments that generate significant revenues for the League and any league; granted the facility improvements will be huge; but the leagues cannot afford never-ending delays for interdepartmental turf battles. He stated the children lose and the leagues cannot afford to have increased costs and their revenue stream cut or reduced indefinitely; he has been a North Merritt Island Little League Board member for two years; he has heard the School Board, Parks and Recreation Department, the District 2 Commissioner’s Office, and the MILA Elementary School principal all blamed for the bus issue that was identified in the original referendum; dollars were set aside to take care of the problem; and all of the parties that can complete this project as promised with a parking lot, and are accountable to the taxpayers and voters of North Merritt Island are in the room. Mr. Scott stated he would like to think that after two plus years of discussion, the people in the room can agree on a site for 22 buses that would allow the referendum project to be completed; the Agenda Report mentions buses, land reutilization, selling property, cost benefit analysis, etc.; 22 buses, tax revenues, and reutilization of a piece of land at a former wastewater treatment plant is not what this is all about; it is about something that was mentioned about three or four times, it is about 240 children and their parents that are associated with the League; and it is about finishing what was promised to the children, and their parents who voted for the referendum. He noted it is about accountability, which is one of the County’s values on the wall; it is about restoring faith in the taxpayers when the County fails to complete something it promised; and inquired who is accountable, when is the County accountable to the voters of Merritt Island, and when will they receive the completed park.

Mark Geiger submitted a conceptual drawing of the site and parking dated March 2002; stated his involvement with youth sports issues goes back to 1998 when he became involved with a group of individuals known as the Merritt Island Youth Sports Association or MIYSA; the group represented interests from football, soccer, softball, and baseball to try to obtain funds to make improvements to parks and sports facilities; and through the guidance of many people, it had its wish list placed on the ballot as a referendum in 2000. He noted many long days and nights were spent asking voters to open up their wallets for another fee; but he felt a tax was good for the quality of life and children; after the voters chose to pay the tax, he became involved with the Merritt Island Parks and Recreation Citizens Referendum Committee to help with providing input on the elements of baseball and softball projects; and one element of the MILA Elementary site was to relocate the school buses to another site on Merritt Island. He stated through Committee meetings, two sites were considered, the Fortenberry site and the maintenance facility at Cone Road; after some research by County officials, it was felt the Fortenberry site was the most feasible; now the people have been told they may lose the site so the County may make money by selling it; and urged the Board not to sell the property and put it to use as a bus parking lot, as suggested, and finish what it promised at the MILA Elementary site. Mr. Geiger noted being a coach and parent of players at North Merritt Island Little League, one of the biggest issues with the existing bus parking is prior to a game, there are players coming in with their parents; there are also late bus arrivals from field trips and things like that; it gets pretty congested; and that is another reason why the buses need to be relocated as there is a safety factor involved. He stated there have been multiple discussions with the Referendum Committees; and requested the Board approve use of the facility for the buses.

Parks and Recreation Director Chuck Nelson stated the County started the direction as the speakers indicated after the referendum passed; it was proceeding along that line with the previous Commissioner’s awareness and approval; staff was looking at the site and there was indication there might be a better use for it; and it began a process to see if there were other sites that may have been missed. He noted it tried to identify locations where the buses could be placed to allow the County to sell the site; staff has been stymied in terms of not being able to find the location; and that is where it is today.

Commissioner Carlson stated option 2 indicates there is insufficient space at the Fortenberry site to relocate the buses from Edgewood Junior/Senior High School; and inquired is the total number of buses on the MILA site 22 and is the County talking about relocating all of them. Mr. Nelson responded the Fortenberry site would take all of the MILA buses; there was some discussion of trying to consolidate all of the buses on Merritt Island; there are two compounds where buses are located; and the other compound is behind Albertsons on a piece of property across from the Junior High School. Commissioner Carlson stated the buses that are on the MILA site are the only buses the County needs to relocate; with Mr. Nelson responding yes.

Commissioner Pritchard noted he has been working on the issue for over one year trying to have it resolved; the referendum occurred in 2000; this is 2004 and the County still has not come to a conclusion; but it has become an 11th-hour emotional issue; and the Little League has been put in the middle of this and it is not fair. He stated it should not have happened; the County has had four years to resolve this and it has not been resolved; the issue of the Fortenberry property is it is a valuable parcel that is located on Fortenberry and Plumosa; and it should be a commercial property as there are the Credit Union, dentist office, a new car facility, and the old wastewater treatment plant. He noted there is an old ramshackle metal building there that needs to come down; the property should be on the tax roll; staff has looked at the Cone Road facilities; and on the end of the Road, Parks and Recreation occupies the old vehicle inspection station and Road and Bridge has a few acres next door. He stated he took pictures last night of the bus parking at Edgewood Junior/Senior High School, the Road and Bridge grounds on Cone Road, and the Parks and Recreation facility; he has several situations here; Edgewood Junior/Senior High School parks school buses behind Albertsons on BU-1 property, but buses cannot be parked on BU-1 and it has to be BU-2; so there is a zoning problem. Commissioner Pritchard stated when the Board met with the School Board, it said it needed a joint venture and asked the School Board what it needed; he was told the School Board needs a facility that has wash, fueling, and maintenance; the way things are being done now is half-hazard; and trucks are being fueled in a way that is not appropriate, there is a makeshift wash, and there is no maintenance facility. He reiterated the County needs a joint venture with the School Board to get the type of facility it needs; it cannot keep the buses at Albertsons as the zoning is not right; moving to Fortenberry takes a valuable piece of what could be commercial property off the tax roll; putting it down at the Cone Road facility is an option he likes; and there is room for it. He stated Mr. Nelson and Billy Osborne are not fond of the idea; in looking at the pictures, there is a tremendous amount of property available; he cannot help but think if the County reconfigures the property so it can facilitate the three entities on it, there is a solution to the situation; if the County is willing to look at it, in the meantime, he would be willing to support using the Fortenberry property as a six-month temporary solution for the buses that are currently at MILA; and then the Board needs to deal with the whole thing. Commissioner Pritchard stated it requires the Board to say it is going to happen, not that the issue can be brought back in six months and decide whether or not that is what it really meant; he does not want to go through this again; he has been trying to deal with it for over one year; and it is time to bring it to closure. He noted the people who voted for the referendum in 2000 were expecting something long before this; there has been a lot of foot-dragging; and the Board needs to move forward.

Commissioner Carlson stated she agrees if Commissioner Pritchard can sort it out; and inquired is there money in the referendum to potentially do a co-venture with the School Board. Commissioner Pritchard responded there is $90,000. Commissioner Carlson inquired is $90,000 going to do anything. Commissioner Pritchard responded the School Board says it needs a site, facility, etc.; the Parks and Recreation site has a building; school buses would be on one side and Parks and Recreation would be on the other side; and it is a matter of laying out the land so it would work. He noted the piles of debris that Mr. Osborne has as part of his operation can be relocated; there is another pile there that has six-foot weeds growing out of it, so it has been quite a while since it has been used; the analogy he keeps using is he will guarantee if a private venture had that piece of property it would be laid out in a manner that would be most efficient; and that is what the County needs to do, utilize the property. Commissioner Carlson inquired is the inspection station usable. Mr. Nelson responded his Department uses it to store supplies; there is not any vacant space in the building; and staff would have to replace it.

County Manager Tom Jenkins inquired if the County is to use the Fortenberry site temporarily, would it have to spend money to make it usable; and stated right now it is a grass field. Mr. Nelson responded staff would have to make improvements because the buses would be parking on the grass; and the County may not want to do that. Commissioner Pritchard stated what is at Edgewood Junior/Senior High School is nothing other than gravel or shell. Mr. Nelson stated the County would need to have the site stabilized.

Chair Higgs inquired what would be the cost. Roadways and Landscaping Director Billy Osborne responded when staff was talking about the Cone Road facility stabilization, it would also have to do retention areas; and what started out as a minimal amount of money to stabilize it of $15,000 or $20,000 got into a bigger ticket item with retention areas. Mr. Nelson stated where the buses are parked at MILA is not one acre and a half, but the drivers park their cars along the roadway coming in; and it may be one acre. Chair Higgs inquired how many acres does the County have at the Cone Road site; with Mr. Nelson responding Parks and Recreation Department has 1.6 acres; Roadways and Landscaping has 5.4 acres; and the Sign Shop sits on 1.4 acres. Commissioner Pritchard stated there has been talk about moving the Sign Shop, which is located in the southeast corner, to the Mainland in the event of a hurricane or whatever; it is a very well utilized site; the layout is very good; and the relocation could cost a few million dollars. Mr. Osborne noted it is about $2 million. Commissioner Pritchard stated it is the School Board’s buses; it needs a site and needs to come to the table; it has a site at MILA and Edgewood Junior/Senior High School where the zoning is not right; and it also does not have a maintenance or fueling facility, and has a makeshift bus wash. He reiterated the School Board needs to come to the table and be part of the discussion as to how much it is going to throw into the pot so the County can help build a facility that would equal what the School Board has on the Mainland. Chair Higgs inquired is it the School Board’s bus parking that the County wants to use; and the County is imposing. Commissioner Pritchard stated the County is offering the School Board a joint venture that will improve what it has because its bus parking does not have what he mentioned. Chair Higgs noted the School Board has what it needs. Commissioner Pritchard stated it does not have it at Edgewood Junior/Senior High School. Chair Higgs noted it has it at MILA. Commissioner Carlson inquired does the School Board own property at Edgewood Junior/Senior High School; with Commissioner Pritchard responding no, it is leased from Albertsons and the zoning is BU-1. Commissioner Pritchard stated the School Board is paying something for the lease.

Chair Higgs stated she does not see the wisdom in getting rid of the site; and the County needs to move the buses to the old utilities site and get the park underway. Commissioner Pritchard stated they can do it on a temporary basis; and the Board has been blowing through money today. Chair Higgs noted it has not. Commissioner Pritchard stated the Board let $9,000 go this morning. Chair Higgs noted the Board does not need to start blowing some smoke. Commissioner Pritchard stated it is not blowing any smoke; what he wants to do is put some property on the tax roll; and what Chair Higgs wants to do is keep it off the tax roll. Chair Higgs stated she wants to accommodate the citizens of Merritt Island who got promised something. Commissioner Pritchard stated he is willing to do that; the citizens got a promise four years ago; this is not going to be an 11th-hour Band-Aid approach because the County has been dragging its feet on doing something; he has been trying to do it and has not been successful because he has had a lot of foot-dragging; and the County has a piece of commercial property that could be commercial and developed. He noted it does not need buses parked at the intersection; the School Board has a problem; it has a problem with Edgewood Junior/Senior High School because of the zoning; and it has a problem because it does not have the maintenance or fueling facilities it needs. He stated when Chair Higgs says the County is creating the problem by moving the buses, this was part of the referendum. Chair Higgs stated she is not interested in unloading a site to some commercial person who is going to make a killing on it and then having the children not accommodated. Commissioner Pritchard inquired who said the children are not going to be accommodated; stated he has said continuously that the County can move the buses to the Fortenberry site on a temporary basis while it works out a joint venture with the School Board so it can do something that is appropriate; that is the way the Board needs to go; it can give the temporary relief that is needed; but in the meantime, there are 27 buses at Edgewood Junior/Senior High School and 22 buses at MILA Elementary that need to go someplace. Chair Higgs stated the County would be wasting $15,000 or $20,000 doing retention. Commissioner Pritchard noted so what, the Board blew $9,000 this morning. Chair Higgs stated $9,000 is less than $15,000 the last time she calculated.

Commissioner Colon stated Commissioner Pritchard is trying to do his best to protect all parties involved; it is a complex issue; and requested feedback from Mr. Geiger.

Mr. Geiger stated the League would accept a temporary relocation of the buses to Fortenberry until the County gets a site; it will satisfy the requirements of the referendum and finally increase safety; the intersection of Merritt Avenue and Courtenay Parkway is a very tight turn; and there is more accessibility at the Fortenberry site, even as a temporary site. He noted the County could look at putting the cost for the temporary improvements at the Fortenberry site onto the purchase price of the property when it sells it; it is a prime piece of real estate; every piece of property on Merritt Island is a prime piece of real estate; and inquired does a car lot, credit union, and a dentist office want to have a bunch of buses there. Commissioner Colon inquired does Mr. Geiger agree with what Commissioner Pritchard is trying to accomplish. Mr. Geiger responded the League’s goal is to have the buses off the site at MILA Elementary School so Parks and Recreation Department can finish the referendum project, with parking lot improvements, realignment of the ball fields, batting cages, etc. Commissioner Scarborough inquired does Commissioner Pritchard’s suggestion work for the League; with Mr. Geiger responding yes.

Mr. Scott stated he respects the Commissioner’s position on the sale of the property, but he does not want to wait for another study; there was agreement for temporary construction to complete one field; there is a three-field complex; and one field was completed last year. He noted the drainage, water retention, parking, dirt areas, and playground equipment have not been completed; the League has been through one year of inconvenience; it has a six-month lead time if everything goes right on a building; and the clock is ticking. He stated the League has opening day the first week of March 2005; and he will be glad to hand the Board the microphone on opening day if 22 buses are still sitting at the site to explain the situation to the 240 families. Commissioner Pritchard noted he intends to bring a pair of scissors for a ribbon cutting. Mr. Scott stated there is a retention pond growing in center field that the League dealt with for the last two week of All Stars; it encroached 10 or 15 feet into the field on the playing surface; there is a six-inch pond growing around the field; and about one-third of the outfield space from center field all the way around down the left field line has standing water.

Commissioner Colon stated Commissioner Pritchard and the League have the same concerns; and inquired what is the League’s solution. Mr. Scott responded it would like the buses moved and the County to finish the referendum project. Commissioner Colon inquired how does it accomplish that; with Mr. Scott responding the County was given $90,000 four years ago to do the job. Mr. Scott stated there has been discussion that the School Board has a problem; and inquired who owns the property with all three Little League fields on Merritt Island. Mr. Nelson responded the School Board. Mr. Scott stated the School Board does not have a problem; and the County needs to work with it. Commissioner Pritchard noted he agrees; he would like the School Board to have the same facility on Merritt Island as it has in Cocoa; it is his goal to see that it is done; and buses parked here and there is not working for the County or School Board. Mr. Scott stated the issue is not going to get better in six months. Commissioner Pritchard stated the six-month part is going to be negotiable; it is not like he is on a fast-track to sell property; the County has a lot of surplus property that needs to get sold; and it will use this particular site as long as it has to until it gets the issue resolved. He noted he has two issues--Edgewood and MILA; and he has to do something with the buses.

Commissioner Carlson stated she supports moving the buses to Fortenberry, so the County can move forward with the referendum and get the promise done; she is wary about selling any property the County owns until it does a full assessment of the properties to see if there is future use of it so it does not have to pay for property in five years that it already had in hand today; and she does not want to spend that kind of money.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize staff to work on a solution to move the buses from MILA Elementary to the Fortenberry Wastewater Treatment Plant site temporarily, including stabilization of the site, portable fuel tank, retention, and confirmation from the School Board agreeing to the temporary relocation of buses; to work on a permanent solution for the buses; and return to the Board with a report on a permanent solution.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the School Board is not present and plays a role; and he would like the issue to be in memorandum form on the Consent Agenda for the August 24, 2004 meeting. Chair Higgs noted it has taken four years already. Commissioner Scarborough stated everybody wants to get the issue resolved. Chair Higgs inquired is the School Board willing to move the buses to the Fortenberry site so the County can proceed; with Mr. Nelson responding yes. Mr. Jenkins stated the only thing the County is going to have to do for the School Board is guarantee it that the County is going to have a place for the buses and see if it is willing to move its buses when the County has a temporary site; and it can tell the School Board it wants to sit down with it in good faith and work on a joint venture solution. Commissioner Scarborough inquired since the issue has taken a long time, can the Board put some parameters on it so it can receive a report back on a permanent solution; with Mr. Jenkins responding yes. Mr. Nelson stated the School Board has an issue with fuel; it has an underground tank at the MILA site; to relocate the buses it would have to put an aboveground site; so besides stabilization, there would be the cost of a fuel tank. Chair Higgs inquired is the County going to pay it; with Mr. Nelson responding somebody is going to pay it. Commissioner Pritchard stated the aboveground tank that will be installed at Fortenberry could be moved to the Cone Road properties. Chair Higgs noted it is going to cost money. Commissioner Pritchard stated it has always cost money; the point is the issue needs to be taken care of; and if the County puts the properties on the tax roll, including the Edgewood site, it will be in better shape. Chair Higgs noted the County needs a permanent solution; and it is going to spend money to stabilize a temporary site, build retention, and move the fuel tank. Commissioner Pritchard stated if that is what it takes, that is what it takes. Commissioner Scarborough noted the Board needs additional information.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the Board is treating the issue like it is some kind of surprise; and inquired is it because of the word “temporary” or because this is what has to be done. He noted the County cannot just move the buses and needs to move them somewhere; the somewhere that has been picked is a Fortenberry/Plumosa site; something has to be done at that site so the buses and vehicles can be parked there; so the County is going to be spending money in order to take care of the issue. He stated the buses need to be moved so the County can do what was promised in the referendum. Commissioner Carlson noted Chair Higgs’ point is that once the resources are put into a piece of property, one is less likely to move off of the property. Commissioner Pritchard stated he is talking about shell and a fuel tank. Commissioner Carlson noted if resources are available, they are available; but if not, then one does not go anywhere. Commissioner Colon stated Mr. Nelson has been working with District 2 on the issue; and inquired where does it give him heartburn. Mr. Nelson responded he does not know where the County is going to put three acres of buses at Cone Road; that has been the hang up; the site is being used for his and Mr. Osborne’s operations; and the site would be reduced by almost 50% if the buses were located there. He noted he does not know how those operations will continue to function. Commissioner Pritchard stated Mr. Nelson is talking about sitting on the site, but he is talking about utilizing the site; there is a big difference; the analogy he has used has been the Home Depot and how well it utilizes its area; and if the County laid out the site, it would be able to orchestrate the property so it would be effectively used by the three entities. He noted there is a lot of vacant property there in terms of how it is being utilized; he will work on the issue; meanwhile, the buses will go to Fortenberry; and the County will get something done. He inquired when will the site be stabilized so the buses can be moved; with Mr. Jenkins responded the County needs to ask the School Board if it will move the buses, and if it says yes, staff can move forward right away. Commissioner Pritchard stated he was under the impression it was already agreed upon. Mr. Jenkins noted it was agreed on as a permanent location; and staff can tell the School Board the County wants to use the site as a temporary location while it works on a permanent solution. Commissioner Pritchard noted staff can tell the School Board the impact fee is temporary also. Commissioner Carlson stated it may give the School Board less heartburn if the County could make sure everything is there for the school year so the bus drivers do not have a problem. Commissioner Pritchard stated it is going to be at least one year that the buses will be at the Fortenberry site.

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

DISCUSSION, RE: COLLECTING IMPACT FEES WHEN BUILDING PERMITS ARE ISSUED

Commissioner Pritchard stated the County should collect the impact fees up front and not wait until somebody gets a certificate of occupancy; the fees can be set aside and hopefully get something constructed sooner; and if the County wants to hold the other impact fees that generally do not impact until the certificate of occupancy is issued, that is reasonable.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve collection of the Educational Impact Fee at permit time and collect other impact fees at issuance of a CO. Motion died for lack of a second.

The Board took no action to require payment of impact fees when building permits are issued.

THIRD RENEWAL TO AGREEMENT WITH ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT, RE: REHABILITATION OF IMPOUNDED SALT MARSHES
REIMBURSEMENT WITH SWIM FUNDS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to recess the meeting of the Board of County Commissioners and convene the meeting of the Governing Board of the Brevard County Mosquito Control District. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute the Third Renewal to the Agreement with St. Johns River Water Management District for the Indian River Lagoon Wetland Rehabilitation Project, to recover expenses incurred through reimbursement from SWIM funds. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adjourn the meeting of the Governing Board of the Brevard County Mosquito Control District and reconvene the meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE AND ADDENDA WITH T. A. VANI, RE:
BREVARD ZOO TRAIL REFERENDUM PROJECT

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to authorize execution of the Contract for Sale and Purchase and Addendum with T. A. Vani for 10.81 acres for the Brevard Zoo Trail Referendum Project at $7,000; waive appraisal; and authorize staff to obtain survey, environmental audit, title insurance, accept title exceptions where park improvements are not impacted, and proceed with closing, subject to Mr. Vani submitting appropriate documentation of ownership approved by the County Attorney. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION FOR MERRITT ISLAND JAYCEES TO USE EXISTING FACILITY, RE:
HALLOWEEN HAUNTED HOUSE

Commissioner Pritchard requested authorization for Merritt Island Jaycees to use the existing facility at Fortenberry and Plumosa for a Halloween haunted house for about three weeks. He noted it would include developing it, using it, and then tearing it down. Chair Higgs inquired is it safe; with Commissioner Pritchard responding yes.

Chair Higgs inquired is the building suitable for a haunted house and safe. Utility Services Director Richard Martens responded the building was occupied up until about 10 months ago when the tenants moved out; they turned off the power and water; the County was ready to demolish the building at that time; and nobody has been in the building since. He noted it is a steel frame building; and he does not think it is going to collapse. Chair Higgs stated she does not mind letting the Jaycees use the building, but staff needs to assess that the building is suitable. Commissioner Pritchard noted that is not a problem.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to authorize the Merritt Island Jaycees to utilize the facility at Fortenberry for three weeks, subject to it passing inspection by Risk Management and the County Attorney drawing up a use agreement. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: INITIATE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS TO ACQUIRE COUCH
PUMP SITE FOR SOUTH COUNTY BOAT LAUNCH FACILITY

Bruce Wechsler stated the intent is to possibly proceed with eminent domain condemnation of the Couch Pump facility on U.S. 1 in South County; the facility is probably the only property in the South County area along the river that is zoned industrial; this is an example of the law of unintended consequences with the difficulties and tightness in zoning; and by having that zoning classification, it makes the property extremely valuable. He noted had the County been looking at its Beach and Riverfront Program in the right way, it would have lands in the area that could be used for the recreational purpose of a boat ramp; instead it is looking at spending a lot of the County’s money to condemn a private property, which will probably result in a lawsuit where it is going to lose again; and the property is worth a lot more based on industrial use zoning. He urged the Board not to proceed with any sort of condemnation proceedings and try to talk with the owners to see if there are land swaps available or if anything can be worked out if it is such a desirable property for the boat ramp; and stated if not, with the pending burst of the real estate balloon he sees coming, the County can wait a little while as it will be cheaper. He stated moving forward with eminent domain proceedings is going to be a lose-lose situation for the County and taxpayers; and it needs to look at other options and something more creative in order to get boat ramps down there, which are needed.

Chair Higgs inquired has staff talked with the owner of the property.

Parks and Recreation Director Chuck Nelson stated staff has been in discussions with the owner for over a couple of years; the Florida TODAY newspaper indicated today the owner would be willing to talk again to the County; they were significantly far apart on the pricing; and even though the property is zoned industrial, the highest and best use was determined on each of the appraisals to be residential. He noted staff had appraisals that were under $1 million; and the owner was looking for a minimum of about $3 million.

Chair Higgs stated industrial use is the current zoning; the owner believes the highest and best use yielding the value he wants is residential; the owner used the property as an industrial site; and he does not have residential zoning yet, but thinks that is what the value is. She noted it is a very difficult decision to make to go ahead with the item; but she does not know anything else to do; and the County has worked long and hard on the issue.

Chair Higgs passed the gavel to Vice Chair Pritchard.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize the County Attorney to proceed with initiating eminent domain proceedings to acquire Couch Pump site for the South County boat launch facility.

Vice Chair Pritchard stated the owner currently has IU zoning; and the appraisals for residential come in at much higher valuations than IU zoning. Commissioner Higgs noted the County does not have appraisals for residential zoning. Mr. Nelson stated the highest and best use as determined by the appraiser was residential; and that was consistent with what the Ellers were looking at, which was a combination of high dry and residential. Vice Chair Pritchard inquired does staff have a dollar value on the appraisal for residential; with Mr. Nelson responding it was in the $1 million range. Mr. Nelson stated the IU zoning did not appraise at a higher value; otherwise, it would have been the highest and best use; and it would have been a different number. Vice Chair Pritchard noted the appraisals are $1 million; and the owner is asking for $3 million. Mr. Nelson stated the owner has never flatly said that, but indicated a factor of three greater than the appraisals. Vice Chair Pritchard inquired what is the owner basing it on; with Mr. Nelson responding he never articulated it. Commissioner Higgs noted it is what the owner wants. Vice Chair Pritchard inquired when the County goes for eminent domain, would it be looking at the $1 million appraisal.

County Attorney Scott Knox responded it would be looking at a good faith estimate of value initially, which goes to the judge; he decides whether it is good or not; it would probably be the $1 million appraisal the County is talking about; and if it goes quick take, it ends up going to trial on the issue, and the property owner is going to present an appraisal, which is going to be considerably more than the $1 million. He noted the County will probably use the $1 million or something that has been revised close to that, so the jury has to decide who is right and who is wrong; and in this case, there is an interesting twist because there is an industrial-zoned property and they are valuing its highest and best use as residential. He inquired what is the land use designation for the property; with Mr. Nelson responding it is on the books as industrial. Attorney Knox stated there is also an issue of whether the property can be valued as residential; there has to be proof that there is a substantial probability the property could be rezoned to residential; in order to do that, there has to be a land use plan change first; so there is an issue. Vice Chair Pritchard stated he does not want to take someone’s value from his property; if the County has an appraisal based on highest and best use of $1 million, but the owner thinks $3 million works only because he likes $3 million, then he does not agree with it; but on the other hand, he would not want to come in and try to take $1 million worth of property for $300,000; and it is not being reasonable or fair to the property owner. Attorney Knox stated the property owner is looking at the property as a high-rise condominium; and it may be pie in the sky if there is industrial land use.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired is the County better off going to a slow take; stated part of Commissioner Pritchard’s concern is that the price that would be paid would far outweigh the merits to the community getting the additional boat launching site as opposed to backing away; unless he hears something different, he would be comfortable with the motion including that the County would go to a slow take, with the fact it could back out of it if the numbers get up there; and prices are jumping all over the place around the County. He noted there is an enormous absorption and the bubble has not burst yet; what if the County moves through this issue and finds it does not want to dump that much money into it; and if it does a quick take, it is already there. Attorney Knox stated if the County goes quick take, the price is set as of the date it gets the property; if it goes slow take, the valuation date is the date of the trial, which may be two years down the road; so the Board needs to take that into account. He noted it is the Board’s call; and if Mr. Wechsler is right, the County might come out ahead on it, but who knows. Commissioner Higgs stated the County might not come out ahead; she does not think one generally loses eminent domain; the issue is does the County have a public need; it has been demonstrated clearly that there is a public need; and the question is how does the County go about it. Commissioner Scarborough noted the problem is how much does it end up paying; if it does the quick take it may be paying considerably more than it wants to; and if it did the slow take it has more time, but by the same token, it always has the ability to continue negotiations and see if the price does not come out the way the Board wants it. He stated with all the numbers bouncing around the County, it is safer with a slow take. Commissioner Higgs noted south County has to have a boat ramp. Commissioner Scarborough inquired does it have to have the boat ramp at any price; with Commissioner Higgs responding not at any price, but there are no other vacant parcels with the exception of one in an unsuitable location. Commissioner Higgs stated Commissioner Scarborough makes a good case for it; when she and Attorney Knox discussed the issue, he suggested the quick take was better; but she is not an expert and has no crystal ball. Attorney Knox stated there are a lot of considerations, one of which the owner does not have a permit at this point for anything other than a bait and fish shop; one values the property based on what the use is, as well as what the highest and best use is; if the land use is not changed to residential, the owner is stuck with industrial; and at this point, St. Johns River Water Management District is not going to let the owner do anything but the fish and bait shop. Commissioner Scarborough stated the County cannot hold its zoning and Comprehensive Plan land use maps as a means to depress their value. Attorney Knox noted the owner is stuck with what he has; and he is going to have to prove that the Board is going to vote to change the property to residential zoning. Commissioner Higgs stated it is a difficult decision. Commissioner Scarborough noted he will go ahead and vote; and the Board can come back and decide if it wants the slow take or quick take. Attorney Knox stated when the County gets further into the issue, if he thinks something is dramatically out of place in terms of the values, he can report back to the Board and tell it this is not a good idea to go quick take.

Commissioner Carlson stated the second paragraph on the Agenda Report indicates the County is looking at Fisherman’s Landing; and inquired has it been proven not to be a viable site and why is the paragraph included if there is a question outstanding. Commissioner Higgs stated the County is looking at a single parcel that is next to Fisherman’s Landing that would expand at the Landing; when looking at the demand in South County for boating facilities, the Couch Pump site and the 50 potential parking places there in the long term are not going to solve the issues; and if the County was able to secure both of them, it still will probably have long-term needs.

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

Attorney Knox stated he understands it to be a quick take, unless he finds something messed up. Vice Chair Pritchard stated that is correct.

Vice Chair Pritchard passed the gavel to Chair Higgs.

AWARD OF PROPOSAL #P-4-04-24, RE: TECHNICAL AND FUNCTIONAL UPGRADES
OF SAP FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Walter Pine stated the SAP is a program that was purchased in 1999, primarily for the purposes and in a knee-jerk reaction to try and fix the perceived 2000 bug; the program initially cost about $2 million; the County is talking about spending $1.7 million to keep it going; and when the program was purchased it was already one that had been available for several years. He noted it was designed for governmental use; it did not have proper checks and balances, and budgetary and financial controls for governmental use; it still does not; and the modules the County is looking at buying are supposed to, in part, fulfill the need. He stated they still have some very significant security, budget, and finance issues; and requested the County go back and look at some of the off-the-shelf items. He noted there have been new items come out as little as two months ago; it is without doubt significantly cheaper to design this in-house and maintain it in-house than it is to buy it off the shelf; the question is whether or not the County maintains the expertise; and governments that have attempted to do this have had no problem in maintaining the expertise. Mr. Pine stated the one fear is that those in the executive suite will not have the expertise to be able to hire somebody or pick somebody with the MIS expertise to properly handle this; there is a significant financial benefit, as well as a functional benefit, to designing and converting the County’s own business processes into the computer in-house; the off-the-shelf items require new licenses, which are $300,000 this year and will increase next year; as the modules are improved, new ones have to be purchased; so this is not a one-time deal. He noted this is going to happen over and over again; the County will have to purchase new modules every so many years; it would be wise before the County spends almost the purchase price for the product, to realize that about $500,000 is hardware to make it compatible, and see if there are things on the shelf. He stated one of the paradoxes that occurs in buying off-the-shelf items is when the County puts out a request for bid, the hungry companies respond; and the companies that have the good products, especially in the computer fields that have plenty of business and a fantastic product, are not necessarily hungry. Mr. Pine stated the County has to do the research to find the best product; the hungry person is going to come to the door; the persons who are fat and happy, and have a good product are not necessarily going to come to the door; and doing an RFP as was done with the SAP does not necessarily get the County the best program or the most functional or best buy for the dollar. He noted the Board knows he has been fighting for a better computer system; there are better ways; and it is very important if the County intends for the system to have a long lasting and good affect for government, that it begins a process of improvement, not continually patch what it has. He stated the County needs to give the leeway and ability to MIS to make innovative steps forward rather than sticking it with packages and patching what it has; it does not work to keep patching the holes; eventually the building will fall down; and email is a perfect example. He noted public records are being destroyed every day in the email system; it is a fact and not debatable; the County needs to give MIS the freedom and funds to begin a process of improvement that will result in all the records being properly maintained, proper business and financial controls for government, and access to records for the public; and requested the Board hold off on the item, take a much more holistic look at it, and allow the public to become more directly involved from the inception process forward. Mr. Pine stated there are some excellent minds in the area, especially with NASA being here; and the County would be amazed at what it can put together.

Thelma Roper stated SAP was the program she and Mr. Pine heard about when they visited the Commissioners’ offices; one of the main reasons they visited the offices is because the computer system does not provide for the open government as well as it could; with a properly integrated system, which this would not do, the public could access records and documents quickly; and they would be properly filed and there would not be multiple handling of documents as they come. She noted the documents would go in the computer system; records retention would be much easier; it would be beneficial in the long run in many ways; and expending almost another $2 million on this particular program when the County is not getting the things it needs to do records retention in an updated manner is not wise. She stated if the County is going to expend the funds, it should be looking not just at technical and functional upgrades, but improving the whole system and getting it to where it does something that is good for the public.

Commissioner Carlson noted the SAP system is not a turnkey system. Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten stated it is what he considers off-the-shelf; and anytime a system is not in-house it is off-the-shelf and modified. Commissioner Carlson stated a turnkey system is putting in the key, turning it, and the system goes; and it has a feature of customization. Mr. Whitten stated there is no system out there that the County is going to be able to do that on. Commissioner Carlson noted if the County tried to develop something like this in-house, it would be exorbitant in cost; one point Mr. Pine makes she agrees with, which is to retain the quality of employees who will continually be able to keep the system upgraded and going, etc.; it would be very difficult when they can go to the private sector and make twice as much money; and the County’s only option is to get an off-the-shelf system and have customization features, which is what it has in place. Mr. Whitten noted that is correct. Commissioner Carlson stated when the County is talking about special purpose ledgers, budget control, or project management, etc., it is going to be specifically laying it out so it is customized for its needs and any accountability purposes.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired for $1.5 million, is the County putting a Band-Aid on the system. Information Technology Director Gino Butto responded no; stated he thought the Board was going to be talking about selection of the particular vendor as part of the process; the County has gone through the budget process to get the funding and RFP process; and the item was designed to be awarded to a particular vendor and making sure everything was done properly. He noted he would be glad to go as far back and as far into the future as the Board would like; the system was bought in 1999 with the expectations that it would be with the County for a very long time; it implemented a version that was very safe at the time; and it was not the latest and greatest, but because of the Y2K deadline, staff wanted to make sure it implemented a version that was proven. He stated it shortened the time frame where the County would need to upgrade from the initial installation; the system is one of the best and one of the leading technology in financial systems around the world; and to say this is a stop-gap or short-term measure, he would like to see what that would be based on. Commissioner Pritchard stated he raised the question because of the comments made. Mr. Butto noted he understands.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to award Proposal #P-4-04-24, Technical and Functional Upgrades of SAP Financial Management System, to UST, Inc.; authorize the Chair to execute the Contract with UST, Inc. and SAP AG upon approval by the County Attorney; and authorize staff to acquire necessary computer equipment upgrades for the new software. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ALLOCATE MATCHING FUND AND INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, RE:
MUTUAL AID COMMUNICATIONS GRANT

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize allocating $160,848.75 from the Interlocal Traffic Ticket Surcharge Fund to support Brevard County’s participation in the Department of Justice COPS Grant Program purchase of infrastructure in support of RMACS, along with $75,000 contribution from the Sheriff’s Office to procure a total of $943,395 in goods and services; and authorize the Chair to execute the Interlocal Agreement with Orange County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CITIZEN REQUEST - LINDA McKINNEY, RE: CHANGE PORT ST. JOHN COMMUNITY
OVERLAY TO INCLUDE ONLY TRADITIONAL BORDERS OF PORT ST. JOHN

Linda McKinney stated the Board received her request and she hopes it reviewed the County Commission meeting minutes of April 2, 2002, which has pertinent information about what the citizens of the four communities of Delespine, Hardeeville, Frontenac, and Williams Point think of the idea of being in the municipal overlay; they do not like it, do not want to be part of it, and do not want to have anything to do with it; and they do not want their future decided by Port St. John or anybody in Port St. John, unless they have a say in it. She noted they had no say in the community overlay; they did not know they were in it; it was done sometime after July 1998; and it was in 2001 when some of the citizens started finding out about it. She stated they do not
want to be part of the influence and jurisdiction of the Port St. John Advisory Board; they do not want to have their own individual identities taken away; Williams Point is a family name, named after Pat Baers father; and it is something that is a heritage. She noted the family still owns a lot of land there and do not want to be part of Port St. John; if there is going to be a community of municipal overlay, it should be changed to include strictly and exclusively the traditional boundaries of Port St. John, Bridge Road, U.S. 1, Kings Highway, and Fay Lake Wilderness Park; other than that, the people do not want it; and they want out of it and want everything they can do to get out of it. Ms. McKinney stated the Board received several emails in favor of the position; she had other people here who had to leave; these people want out of it; and requested the Board do the right thing and take the people out of the possibilities instead of leaving them out there and letting this possibly happen to them.

Ann Coburn stated there was similar discussion two years ago when the Port St. John Special District Advisory Board asked for jurisdiction of planning and zoning matters as far south as Camp Road, an area which would include the number of small communities already mentioned; she has been informed the issue might be moot; but these are diverse communities, commercial areas, small residential lots in Port St. John, mobile homes, residences on a minimum of one acre, and at least a one-horse ranch in the affected area; and while diverse, they are all interested in what happens in the area from Bridge Road to Camp Road, an area that encompasses the I-95 exit, which is starting to be developed. She noted if the extended community overlay is left as it is at Camp Road, the residents could face future changes that adversely affect them and they will have a very small say in the matter; looking at the overall picture, no one community should have a primary say in what is done in that area as it affects all neighboring communities; granting the request could forestall future problems and squabbles; and requested the Board approve the request and change the community overlay of Port St. John to include the traditional borders of Port St. John with the southern boundary being Bridge Road or do away with the community overlay.

Maureen Rupe stated she does not believe Port St. John still has the municipal overlay; such overlay can only exist, according to the State, when there is a feasibility study looking into incorporation; the community overlay does not mean a thing; and if it is taken off, it would probably be better. She noted the concerned residents should talk to the Legislature because they still have a problem; if any area is looking at incorporation, they are allowed to extend boundaries into other unincorporated areas; so Port St. John in the future could look at the boundaries to Camp Road; and the State could approve it. She stated she has no objections to the community overlay; it did not have any power anyway; it would not stop anybody from annexing; and it did not do anything. She noted it was a “feel good” thing for Port St. John at a time when it was threatened.

Commissioner Scarborough stated when Peggy Busacca briefed him, she was talking about overlays and it is multiple things; the relevance of some things is diminished and the desire for public participation and discussion of what happens at the Port St. John exit off of I-95; and most people saw the news release of Parrish Medical Center putting in a $20 million plus facility. He noted it is going to make a statement; it is a very nice exit; the County can see some very interesting things there that are going to perhaps be one of the more attractive exits off of I-95; and it has been planned during a more informed period of planning. He requested Ms. Busacca report back to the Board with a statement of what actions it needs to take to remove things; stated it may want to write to the Legislature; and Ms. Busacca can work with Ms. McKinney, Maureen Rupe, and Ann Coburn on the issue and get their comments.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to acknowledge request from Linda McKinney to change the Port St. John community overlay to only include the
traditional borders of Port St. John; and direct Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca to work with Linda McKinney, Maureen Rupe, and Ann Coburn to remove those communities and return with what action the Board needs to take to accomplish it. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS, RE: FRIEDMAN V. BREVARD COUNTY

Chair Higgs stated this is the issue the Board dealt with during the executive session.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated the settlement needs to be approved at $90,000.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize settlement of all claims regarding Friedman v. Brevard County case in the amount of $90,000. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO OBTAIN ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION, RE: ST. JOHN’S RIVER
ALLIANCE

Commissioner Carlson requested the County Attorney ask the Attorney General for an opinion regarding whether or not the St. John’s River Alliance sits under the Sunshine Law; stated the Board appointed her to the Alliance and she sits as the Chair; there are 11 county commissioners serving on the Alliance; and the question needs to be confirmed, as the Alliance has received different opinions from different attorneys.

Commissioner Scarborough stated when there was an issue with the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, he asked for the Council and MyRegion to provide information on whether the Sunshine Law applied or not; they told him to go to the county attorneys; and he said it would not work as there would be different opinions and the Council is setting itself up for a disaster. Commissioner Carlson stated there are three attorneys with different opinions.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize the County Attorney to request an Attorney General’s Opinion as to whether or not the proceedings of the St. Johns River Alliance fall under the Sunshine Law. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC COMMENT - WALTER PINE, RE: REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTATION

Walter Pine requested Commissioner Carlson provide documentation on the phantom expense for the computer programs, which controlled the decision on the terribly expensive in-house generated program. Commissioner Carlson stated staff will have to look for it. Mr. Pine noted he asked County Finance for the documentation, but it does not exist. Commissioner Carlson stated perhaps the Board can ask for a report based on that question. Mr. Pine stated it should have been available before the Board’s decision to say the program was too expensive. Commissioner Carlson requested Information Technology Department staff provide a report back to the Board qualifying the comment. Mr. Pine stated a lot of comments have been made with no foundation in fact that the program that was purchased is too expensive to maintain or it is too expensive for the County to build its own program; until 1999, the County did it; so either it committed malfeasance before because the program was so terribly expensive, or perhaps it is not quite as expensive as it appears in the long run.

Chair Higgs stated maybe the environment changed.

Mr. Pine stated the environment has gotten less expensive in some ways; the libraries available for programming are much larger now; the expertise is much more defused; and children are programming now. He noted there are children 10 and 11 years old writing viruses; the knowledge is much more defused among society; if the County is not planning for the future, it is not planning; and that is the issue. He stated it has a computer system that is hodgepodge; it is incomplete and does not work with itself; it needs to be fixed; and the County has been patching as it goes. He noted it fixed cables and this and that; it needs a plan because this is the future of Brevard County; the computer system is the communication network that the County lives on; and if it is not building that and making sure it is there and as functional as it possibly can be, then some point in the future, it is going to have the same thing happen with the email, and it is going to crash. Mr. Pine stated when it crashes this time, the County is going to shut down because it is so dependent on email; that means the finance records may disappear; who knows what will happen; and the County has to have a process and a plan.

WARRANT LIST

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m.

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

(S E A L)