Rollcall

Commissioner District 1 Katie Delaney , Commissioner District 2

Tom Goodson, Commissioner District 3 Kim Adkinson,

Commissioner District 4 Rob Feltner, and Commissioner District 5

Thad Altman

Present:

Zoning Statement

The Board of County Commissioners acts as a Quasi Judicial body when it hears requests for

rezoning and Conditional Use Permits. Applicants must provide competent substantial evidence

establishing facts, or expert witness opinion testimony showing that the request meets the

Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan criteria. Opponents must also testify as to facts, or

provide expert testimony; whether they like, or dislike, a request is not competent evidence.

The Board must then decide whether the evidence demonstrates consistency and compatibility

with the Comprehensive Plan and the existing rules in the Zoning Ordinance, property adjacent

to the property to be rezoned, and the actual development of the surrounding area. The Board

cannot consider speculation, non expert opinion testimony, or poll the audience by asking those

in favor or opposed to stand up or raise their hands. If a Commissioner has had

communications regarding a rezoning or Conditional Use Permit request before the Board,

Commissioner must disclose the subject of the communication and the identity of the person,

group, or entity, with whom the communication took place before the Board takes action on the

request. Likewise, if a Commissioner has made a site visit, inspection, or investigation, the

Commissioner must disclose that fact before the Board takes action on the request. Each

applicant is allowed a total of 15 minutes to present their request unless the time is extended by

a majority vote of the Board. The applicant may reserve any portion of the 15 minutes for

rebuttal. Other speakers are allowed five minutes to speak. Speakers may not pass their time

to someone else in order to give that person more time to speak.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Commissioner Feltner led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

F.1. Final Plat Approval, Re: Brevard Medical City P.U.D.

Chairman Feltner asked if there was any discussion, and if there is a motion to approve the

Consent Agenda.

The Board, in accordance with Section 62-2841(i), granted final plat approval; and authorized

the Chair to sign the final plat for Brevard Medical City, P.U.D., Developer: Chateau Madeline,

LLC, subject to minor engineering changes, as applicable, and developer responsible for

obtaining all other necessary jurisdictional permits.

Result: APPROVED

Mover: Katie Delaney

Seconder: Kim Adkinson

Ayes: Delaney, Goodson, Adkinson, Feltner, and Altman

H.1.

Cameron and Courtney Parker request a Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment

(24S.18), to change the Future Land Use Designation from RES 1:2.5 to RES 1. (24SS00018) (Tax

Account 2401173) (District 1)

Chairman Feltner called for a public hearing on a request by Cameron and Courtney Parker for

a Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (24S.18) to change the Future Land Use

(FLU) designation from RES 1:2.5 to RES 1, located in District 1.

Trina Gilliam, Planning and Development Senior Planner, stated that items H.1. and H.2. are

companion applications; she will read them into the record together, but they would need a

separate approval; Cameron and Courtney Parker request a Small Scale Comprehensive Plan

amendment under 24S.18, to change the FLU designation from RES 1:2.5 acres to RES 1

under application number 24SS00018; it is located in District 1; Cameron and Courtney Parker

request a change of zoning classification from GU to RR-1 under zoning application 24Z00068,

located in District 1.

Commissioner Delaney stated she would like to welcome Cameron Parker to the

neighborhood, he and she are neighbors; and she would like to move to approve the Item.

Chairman Feltner stated there would need to be separate motions for H.1. and H.2., and to just

do a motion for H.1.

Commissioner Delaney stated she would like to make a motion to approve H.1., and she asked

if she would have to say the whole Item because it is not in front of her.

Chairman Feltner replied no, that is okay.

There being no further comments or objections, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 25-03,

amending Article III, Chapter 62, of the Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, entitled, “The

1988 Comprehensive Plan,” setting forth the third Small Scale Plan amendment of 2025,

(24S.18) to the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan; amending Section 62-501

entitled, “Contents of the Plan;” specifically amending Section 62-501, Part XVI(E), the Future

Land Use Appendix, and provisions which require amendment to maintain internal consistency

with these amendments; providing legal status; providing a severability clause; and providing

an effective date.

Result: ADOPTED

Mover: Katie Delaney

Seconder: Kim Adkinson

Ayes: Delaney, Goodson, Adkinson, Feltner, and Altman

H.2.

Cameron and Courtney Parker request a change of zoning classification from GU to RR-1.

(24Z00068) (Tax Account 2401173) (District 1)

Chairman Feltner called for a public hearing on a request by Cameron and Courtney Parker for

a change of zoning classification from GU to RR-1.

Commissioner Delaney stated she would like to move to approve the requested change of

zoning classification from GU to RR-1.

There being no further comments or objections, the Board approved the request for a change

in zoning classification from GU to RR-1 (24Z00068), as requested by Cameron and Courtney

Parker.

Result: APPROVED

Mover: Katie Delaney

Seconder: Kim Adkinson

Ayes: Delaney, Goodson, Adkinson, Feltner, and Altman

H.3.

Robert and Michelle Matthias (Thomas Brandon) request a change in zoning classification from

EU and AU to all EU (24Z00067) (Tax Account 2511107) (District 2)

Chairman Feltner called for a public hearing on a request by Robert and Michelle Matthias,

represented by Thomas Brandon, for a change in zoning classification from EU and AU to all

EU.

Trina Gilliam, Planning and Development Senior Planner, stated H.3. is Robert and Michelle

Matthias, represented by Thomas Brandon requesting a change in zoning classification from

EU and AU to all EU under application 24Z00067, and it is located in District 2.

Commissioner Goodson stated he would like to make a motion for approval.

There being no further comments or objections, the Board approved the request for a change

of zoning classification from EU and AU to all EU (24Z00067), as requested by Robert and

Michelle Matthias.

Result: APPROVED

Mover: Tom Goodson

Seconder: Kim Adkinson

Ayes: Delaney, Goodson, Adkinson, Feltner, and Altman

H.4.

Invest Bright, LLC. (Paulo Jimenez) requests a change in zoning classification from RU-1-7 to

RU-1-13. (24Z00061) (Tax Account 2800361 & 3033552) (District 5)

Chairman Feltner called for a public hearing on a request by Invest Bright, LLC., represented

by Paulo Jimenez, for a change in zoning classification from RU-1-7 to RU-1-13.

Trina Gilliam, Planning and Development Senior Planner, stated H.4. is Invest Bright, LLC.,

represented by Paulo Jimenez, requesting a change in zoning classification from RU-1-7 to

RU-1-13 under application 24Z00061, and it is located in District 5.

Commissioner Altman stated he would like to make a motion for approval.

There being no further comments or objections, the Board approved the request for a change

of zoning classification from RU-1-7 to RU-1-13 (24Z00067), as requested by Invest Bright,

LLC.

Result: APPROVED

Mover: Thad Altman

Seconder: Katie Delaney

Ayes: Delaney, Goodson, Adkinson, Feltner, and Altman

H.5.

Lisa and Christopher Manion request a change in zoning classification from GU to AU.

(24Z00053) (Tax Accounts 2000768) (District 1)

Chairman Feltner called for a public hearing on a request by Lisa and Christopher Manion, for a

change in zoning classification from GU to AU.

Trina Gilliam, Planning and Development Senior Planner, stated H.5. is Lisa and Christopher

Manion, request in change in zoning classification from GU to AU under application 24Z00053,

located in District 1.

Commissioner Delaney stated she would like to approve the request to change the zoning from

GU to AU.

There being no further comments or objections, the Board approved the request for a change

of zoning classification from GU to AU (24Z00053), as requested by Lisa and Christopher

Manion.

Result: APPROVED

Mover: Katie Delaney

Seconder: Kim Adkinson

Ayes: Delaney, Goodson, Adkinson, Feltner, and Altman

H.6.

Frank Mastroianni (Jason Searl) requests a change in zoning classification from BU-1 and

RU-2-10(6) to RA-2-6. (24Z00069) (Tax Account 2600118) (District 2)

Chairman Feltner called for a public hearing on a request by Frank Mastroianni, represented by

Jason Searl, for a change in zoning classification from BU-1 and RU-2-10(6) to RA-2-6.

Trina Gilliam, Planning and Development Senior Planner, stated H.6. is Frank Mastroianni,

represented by Jason Searl, requesting a change in zoning classification from BU-1 and

RU-2-10(6) to RA-2-6 under application 24Z00069, and it is located in District 2.

Commissioner Goodson stated it was kind of a joint question for Jason Searl and Billy Prasad,

Planning and Development Interim Director; he is reading and understanding the Item the best

that he thinks he can; and he asked if Mr. Searl is asking for six units per acre on 14 acres.

Mr. Searl replied it is.

Commissioner Goodson repeated Mr. Searl is asking for six units on 14 acres, correct.

Mr. Searl responded it is a density cap, correct; he is with Grey Robinson, here on behalf of the

property purchaser from the property owner Mr. Mastroianni; but yes, correct, the rezoning

would allow for a density of up to six dwelling units per acre.

Commissioner Goodson asked if that would be 84, 14 times 6, correct.

Mr. Searl replied 88.

Commissioner Goodson asked Mr. Prasad if the zoning would go into effect, would it

complement or be the same as the one north or south.

Mr. Prasad replied that is correct, the one to the south is caped at six units per acre.

Commissioner Goodson asked if the property owner ever wanted to change it, would they have

to come back to Planning and Zoning (P & Z) and ask for a change.

Mr. Prasad responded yes, if the owner wanted to change the zoning.

Commissioner Goodson stated if the owner gets this zoning he or she would have to come

back.

Mr. Prasad replied yes.

Michael Gates stated he appreciates having the chance to speak to the Commissioners; he has

spoken with consultants about this item and will present that information to the Board; he is the

Director of Visions 20, which owns 6.44 acres of land that is planned and permitted now; in

regards to that, they know for a fact that there is another way to change the zoning without this

happening under the owner’s propositions; he purchased this property back in 1973; at that

time Mr. Lancaster was the property presented to the Board now; he came to Brevard County

in 1967, and at that time he entered the real estate business in 1973. He noted that is the

aspect of him buying that property at that time; in 1978 he received the highest designation for

commercial real estate called a Certified Commercial Investment Member (CCIM); his number

was 849, and when he received that number, he was building as a developer, so developing in

Brevard County he knows a lot about; the rezoning request for Tax Account 2600118 owned by

Frank Mastroianni, and pending the application, the property owner by Vision 20 is 330-feet

from the subject zoning; the subject zoning has been zoned BU-1 General Commercial,

RU-2-10 Multifamily cap at six since 1996; and the rezoning application requests a change in

the zoning designation from BU-1 on the acres to RU-2-10, capped at six on the remaining

11.92 acres. He advised the applicant claims in the application he wishes to correct the

inconsistencies currently with the existing Future Land Use (FLU) designation and carrying

forward the intent of six units per acre per density; however, the applicant has presented and

the refusal limited to the entire site to six units on the site; the applicant merely needs to

change BU-1 to RA-2-6, limits the density to six units per acre; to achieve that, the applicant

claims he wants to allegedly build townhomes on six units to the acre for a total 88 units;

RU-2-10 allows single family attachment homes and also allows attached single-family if a

smaller component is commercial per Section 21-06; the inconsistent in the FLU of the entire

14.8 acres should be changed to RES 1; and the problem with the developers statement is he

fails to mention FLU Policy 2.1, that residential development is permissible in the commercial

land and use designations of density up to one category higher than the closest residentially

designated area on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), which is on the same side of the street

where there are 2.88 acres that can still have 30 units per acre without a commercial use. He

added RES 15 it allows 25 percent density bonus if the developer again attempts a Planned

Unit Development (P.U.D), which would not be limited by the density cap of C to that acre; if the

developer intends to build 157 single-family attached residential town homes on 14.3 of land

east of Highway 1; those extra 88 units are inconsistent and incompatible with the surrounding

area, surrounding with the Comprehensive Plan and development in the coastal area; the

property to the north and the south are high value single-family residents, more specific the

subject’s property is located next five single-family homes to the north, valued from $500,000 to

$1,000,200; and the South Laguna Condominiums are valued at anywhere from $500,000 to

$800,090. He stated he would like to underscore the misleading nature of the developers

rezoning request, the request is removed, the current zoning of BU-1 and RU-10, specifically

with the removal of density cap of six per acre but leaving FLU designation is clearly calculated

to the intent to spread the density of 157 townhouses over the entire 14.8.

Chairman Feltner stated Mr. Gates had said some things that maybe the applicant could

answer.

Commissioner Goodson asked Mr. Prasad if he heard everything Mr. Gates had talked about

and if there is any confusion from the 88 units that Mr. Prasad had mentioned to the 157 units

that Mr. Gates mentioned.

Mr. Prasad replied he believes there may be, 157 is the development potential today if it was

developed under the Live Local Act with the current zoning; and the proposed request actually

brings the development potential to 88.

Commissioner Goodson asked Mr. Gates if he agreed with that.

Mr. Gates replied he does not agree; the developer has not presented to the first rejection of

P & Z and the Commission, now at this P & Z it was eight to four, and the two key things to that

is the developer would not agree to have a site plan…

Commissioner Goodson asked why the developer would do a site plan that would show 88

units until the developer gets the zoning; it is not like he or she is going to go out tomorrow and

start building because the developer will have to submit a site plan; and he asked staff if that is

correct.

Mr. Prasad responded yes.

Commissioner Goodson stated the developer went from 157 to 88 units, the developer could

not get 157 units so he or she came back with a better proposal that would please the whole

neighborhood; and he asked Mr. Gates if he was happy with the 88 units rather than the 157

units.

Mr. Gates replied if the developer would tell the residents what is going to be built, how it is

going to be built, and what it is going to be used…

Commissioner Goodson asked Mr. Prasad would that not come after the zoning passes and

the developing site plans, and then P & Z board would have the opportunity to kick it back and

change it.

Mr. Prasad responded correct, it would have to be in conformance with the Code.

Commissioner Goodson stated he does not understand why Mr. Gates is complaining, maybe

he is missing the point.

Mr. Gates replied in all his years of developing he does not know who the buyer is…

Commissioner Goodson asked if that was important.

Mr. Gates responded if the applicant gets the approval for the zoning he will have the right to

sell the property, and he has the right to change anything he wants to change.

Commissioner Goodson asked if his intent is six units per acre.

Mr. Searl replied affirmatively; he stated the rezoning is purely to develop residential on a

commercial portion of the property and to do so in a uniform fashion.

Commissioner Goodson asked if his intent is to develop it, not to sell it.

Mr. Searl replied correct, the intent is to develop single-family attached which provides a

transition between the multifamily to the south of the property and the single-family to the north.

Commissioner Goodson asked if he had an opinion of what those would cost.

Mr. Searl responded he does not, it would only be speculation.

Commissioner Goodson stated he would like to make a motion for approval.

There being no further comments or objections, the Board approved the request for a change

of zoning classification from BU-1 and RU-2-10(6) to RA-2-6 (24Z00069), as requested by

Frank Mastroianni.

Result: APPROVED

Mover: Tom Goodson

Seconder: Kim Adkinson

Ayes: Delaney, Goodson, Adkinson, Feltner, and Altman

H.7.

The Mohan Family Trust Dated January 25th, 2023, requests a change of zoning classification

from RU-1-11 to BU-1-A. (24Z00063) (Tax Account 2426731) (District 2)

Chairman Feltner called for a public hearing on a request by The Mohan Family, requesting a

change of zoning classification from RU-1-11 to BU-1-A.

Trina Gilliam, Planning and Development Senior Planner, stated the Mohan Family Trust, dated

January 25, 2023, requests a change in zoning classification from RU-1-11 to BU-1-A under

application 24Z00063, and it is located in District 2.

Chairman Feltner asked if the applicant was there and if there were any questions for the

applicant.

Commissioner Goodson asked as far as commercial retail what she plans on doing with the

property.

Ms. Mohan responded, a spa.

Commissioner Goodson asked if that was the first decision she had or the last decision

because she has talked about a lot of things from his understanding from Merritt Island

Redevelopment Agency (MIRA).

Ms. Mohan replied it has always been a spa.

Commissioner Goodson asked how MIRA felt about her plans for a spa.

Ms. Mohan stated the last time she heard from the last hearing MIRA disagreed because of

traffic.

Commissioner Goodson stated he did not understand that.

Ms. Mohan responded she did not understand that either.

Commissioner Goodson asked Mr. Prasad if she would have to submit an overview plan to

MIRA.

Mr. Prasad stated as part of the site planning process MIRA would review the site plan.

Commissioner Goodson asked if she understood that.

Ms. Mohan responded no, she does not.

Commissioner Goodson stated MIRA will be involved in her site plan approval.

Ms. Mohan replied no problem.

Commissioner Goodson asked if that was okay.

Ms. Mohan replied yes.

Commissioner Goodson stated he would like to move for approval.

There being no further comments or objections, the Board approved the request for a change

of zoning classification from RU-1-11 to BU-1-A (24Z00063), as requested by The Mohan

Family Trust.

Result: APPROVED

Mover: Tom Goodson

Seconder: Kim Adkinson

Ayes: Delaney, Goodson, Adkinson, Feltner, and Altman

H.8.

Villas at River Palms, LLC (Edward Fleis) requests a change in zoning classification from BU-2 to

RU-1-7. (23Z00067) (Tax Account 2438912, 2438913, 2438914, 2438915, 2438917 and

2438918) (District 2)

Chairman Feltner called for a public hearing on a request by Villas at River Palms, LLC.,

represented by Edward Fleis, for a change in zoning classification from BU-2 to RU-1-7.

Trina Gilliam, Planning and Development Senior Planner, stated H.8. is Villas at River Palms

LLC, represented by Edward Fleis, requests a change in zoning classification from BU-2 to

RU-1-7 under application 23Z00067, and it is located in District 2.

Chairman Feltner asked if the applicant was there and if Commissioner Goodson has any

questions.

Commissioner Goodson stated he does have questions.

Edward Fleis stated he lives at 1275 South Patrick Drive, Satellite Beach.

Commissioner Goodson asked if his purpose is to put in something that is commercial.

Mr. Fleis stated currently it is on commercial.

Commissioner Goodson asked if he wants to change it to RU-1-7.

Mr. Fleis responded correct.

Commissioner Goodson asked what does he intend to do with the property after that.

Mr. Fleis stated the plan is to do kind of an upscale residential; right now it is platted with 11

lots, 11 parcels; under the current zoning, it can be residential; but it takes 60-feet wide by a

minimum of a 100 feet.

Commissioner Goodson expressed his thanks to the applicant; and stated he moves for

approval.

There being no comments or objections, the Board approved the request for a change of

zoning classification from BU-2 to RU-1-7 (23Z00067), as requested by Villas at River Palms,

LLC.

Commissioner Delaney stated the Board was very agreeable.

Commissioner Altman commented that he agreed.

Chairman Feltner stated there is no unfinished business or new business, and no cards on the

K portion of the Public Comments.

Result: APPROVED

Mover: Tom Goodson

Seconder: Thad Altman

Ayes: Delaney, Goodson, Adkinson, Feltner, and Altman

L.3. Katie Delaney, Commissioner District 1, Re: Board Report

Commissioner Delaney stated she participated in a meeting with some health care leaders from

the County and she wants to give a little update about what she heard, a lot of it is about the

planning and what to do about Orlando Health Hospital; the Department of Health is concerned

about maternity and where the moms would go to deliver the babies; Parrish, the closure is

going to cause a lot of issues for Orlando Health being the only public hospital, there is not

enough finances to be fully-staffed; right now there is only 109 of the beds staffed; and if

Orlando Health is expected to take on more, additional finances are going to be needed. She

went on to say Health First is operating at high capacity 90 percent in Viera, 70 percent at Cape

Canaveral, 85 percent at Holmes, and 95 percent in Palm Bay; Health First is working on

expanding the capacity by renovating Tower A that will expand 26 to 32 beds as the letter

states that was sent to the Board, Health First is trying to partner with Parrish to expand some

of the services; Melbourne Hospital, which is Orlando Health, is going to expand their stroke

program but not the OB and are going to be transferring 50 to 55 jobs from Rockledge to

Melbourne; Med Fast Urgent Care mentioned that one of the issues is Brevard cannot get

reimbursed for transport; and Coastal is ready to step in with the transportation needs having

26 trucks and are hiring staff. She mentioned one of the things that can be worked on is the

Board coming together and getting to a good place with expanding the healthcare in North

Brevard, Health First is adding a helicopter for transport but she is concerned because they

cannot transport in the rain or if the weather is bad; the County needs to get to a better place

with the Fire Department; and with the letter that was received by the Magistrate, she does not

know if the Board is interested in having another executive session to see if the Commissioners

can communicate about where the County is with the fire negotiations.

Chairman Feltner asked if all the Commissioners had seen the information that Commissioner

Delaney is referring to; and he asked Morris Richardson, County Attorney, if that is something

that is appropriate at this stage.

Attorney Richardson stated the County is still in the negotiation stage right now even though

the County is at an impasse and had a hearing; briefings are due to be submitted by the parties

by April 11, with the magistrate to issue a recommendation within 30 days following that; the

Board can always have a meeting to give direction; the Board can negotiate at any point in time

up until such time the magistrate issues a recommendation; if one of the parties rejects all or

part of it, at which point everything stops because then the Board will be acting as a neutral

decider of the ultimate issue between the parties; and the Board will have no communication

with either the management team or the Union.

Chairman Feltner asked when is the magistrate’s final recommendation due.

Attorney Richardson replied briefs are due April 11; the magistrate is supposed to issue the

recommendation within 30 days, so no later than May 11; but it could be sooner.

Chairman Feltner asked what was sent so far from the magistrate was what his early thoughts

on things, not the final…

Attorney Richardson responded that appeared to be an effort to get the attorneys together to

come to some sort of resolution and give some suggestions as far as almost acting as a

mediator.

Chairman Feltner asked what is the pleasure of the Board on this.

Commissioner Altman stated the choice that the Board has is to try and go back in an

executive session in private and try to resolve the matter, which really has implications on

assessment fees, property tax rates, a budget, and those would have to be discussed in

private; first, hearing a recommendation from the special magistrate, nobody knows what is

going to happen; either the Board agrees or becomes the judge and that takes place in public;

he believes the Board will have to have some tough discussions on property taxes and

assessment fees; he remembers from the last executive session, there was some discomfort

talking about those topics in private; the Board is not going to be able to commit to a fee or a

tax in private; he does mind going into session again and trying to come up with something; but

his understanding is there is going to be some serious policy decisions that the Board is going

to have to make to fix the problems either by serious cuts or serious revenue increase

implications; and he thinks that will be hard to do in private, and maybe the best place to do it

will be right out in public.

Commissioner Delaney stated she is all for that.

Commissioner Altman asked if he is wrong about that, what are the downsides of the Board

coming to the public to discuss the issues.

Attorney Richardson asked what exactly he is asking about doing in public.

Commissioner Altman replied if the County goes to impasse, which the County is in and the

special magistrate gives a recommendation…

Attorney Richardson responded yes.

Commissioner Altman stated the Board either accepts that, which may include having to raise

taxes, so that would have to be done in public or it is arbitrated as a policy body, quasi-judicial;

he is not oppose to an executive session; and he asked Frank Abbate, County Manager, if the

Board would have to agree on either budget cuts or tax increases or not accepting the offer;

and what are the Board’s choices.

Attorney Richardson responded the Board would have to consider those things but obviously

would have to go through the statutory budget approval process; there are certain decisions the

Board cannot make until the Commissioners have reached the notice hearings, so anything

decided prior to that; if an agreement is approved, the Board, in good faith, would have to try

and fund it; but there is a pretty high likelihood that the Board would be looking at a one-year

agreement with new negotiations starting up right after that.

Commissioner Altman stated maybe the Board could come up with some sort of compromise in

public; he is worried that the Commissioners will get criticized; and he is a believer in doing

things out in public and transparent.

Attorney Richardson stated the Board will be required to if the magistrate recommendation

comes out and one or both sides reject it, any or all of it, then it will come to the Board and it

will have to be a hearing in public.

Commissioner Altman asked when the magistrate makes a decision will he factor in people’s

property taxes or what they are paying; and he stated the magistrate does not have the

authority to raise taxes or raise fees.

Attorney Richardson responded no, the magistrate does not have that authority; and he is

supposed to strongly consider the ability to pay; and so that should be considered.

Commissioner Altman asked what does that mean ability to pay; and does that mean ability to

raise the tax or ability to pay within the tax…

Attorney Richardson replied that looks at County budgetary constraints, what the budgets have

historically been, and limitations on budget; he knows in Brevard County specifically the

magistrate has looked into the charter cap and its existence; but he is not sure how the

magistrate will apply those constraints.

Commissioner Delaney stated the first point he makes is without prejudging this matter, one

might argue that under the circumstances it would be hard to make the case for an inability to

pay, so he literally says this in his letter; her concern to waiting, which she is all for doing this in

public, she wanted to do a workshop where the Board talked about the future of the Fire

Department; but it has this new crisis now with this hospital closing; the Fire Department is

vulnerable and fragile right now; and she feels like if the Board can take something off of

everyone’s plates and get to a place with the Fire Department where there are some clear

future that helps to be able to focus on and help the fire leadership be able to focus on the

problem at hand, which is how to handle a hospital shutting down on April 7, if there is no

extension.

Chairman Feltner stated he thinks he sees Commissioner Altman’s point that even in a closed

door meeting at this point, he means the elephant in the room is what is the Board talking about

in terms of fire assessment fee, the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) millage, and those

sorts of things ultimately, the Board will have to decide those things in the budget hearings this

summer, so that part of it, the behind the closed door meeting discussing taxes, he is

uncomfortable with that as well because there is a purpose to Sunshine and having those

meetings in the public; and he is not sure what the end result will be of a closed door meeting

on April 8 after the Commission meeting.

Commissioner Delaney advised she was proposing having one as early as the Board could.

Chairman Feltner stated that is something the Board will have to continue to think about

tonight.

Commissioner Delaney replied okay.

L.5. Kim Adkinson, Commissioner District 3, Re: Board Report

Commissioner Adkinson mentioned that earlier she thanked the Transportation Planning

Organization (TPO) Board for supporting the Letter that she wrote Florida Department of

Transportation (FDOT) regarding the South Beaches issue; she thanked the Board for the

support; she had a productive conversation with Secretary John Tyler and Representative Tyler

Sirois; and Secretary Tyler said he was willing to hear the Board’s concerns and willing to come

back down south and sit down with the residents.

L.6. Thad Altman, Commissioner District 5, Re: Board Report

Commissioner Altman mentioned he was unable to go because he had a meeting; but he did

get reports from people that went, and that Space Day in Tallahassee went really well; and the

members gave all the teams that were sent up there with Space Florida a very positive review.

Commissioner Goodson asked Commissioner Altman if he would come back to the Board and

tell how much money SpaceX and Blue Origin is asking out of the budget so it can be

compared to the cost of the sewer line on Merritt Island.

Commissioner Altman replied he would be more than happy to find out.

Commissioner Goodson stated it is going to show up in the budget if SpaceX and Blue Origin

are asking for a request of taxpayer’s money.

Chairman Feltner asked if he was talking about Space FLORIDA appropriation.

Commissioner Goodson replied yes, and that would imply to him if SpaceX and Blue Origin are

not paying a penny for that sewer line, it would inform him that something smells.

Commissioner Altman stated that SpaceX and Blue Origin are not asking for the shoreline for

free.

Commissioner Goodson asked where the money comes from.

Commissioner Altman responded the County is not allowed to give SpaceX and Blue Origin the

shoreline because under the bond and the enterprise system under public utilities he does not

believe the County can give it away.

Commissioner Goodson asked Frank Abbate, County Manager, if he could comment on that.

Mr. Abbate replied that is a complicated issue because those two facilities are not currently

within the jurisdiction of the utility, so there are different rules that apply; he does have the

answer to that off the top of his head; and he asked Morris Richardson, County Attorney, if he

could add to that.

Attorney Richardson responded he is not sure about the outstanding bond covenants with that

particular facility or what is out there, but generally speaking, if there is any indebtedness, one

of the bond covenants is that the Board cannot wave those connection fees.

Commissioner Altman stated those facilities have to be treated like everyone else.

Commissioner Goodson stated that is fine, if the money is coming from the taxpayers is what

he is asking.

Commissioner Altman stated SpaceX and Blue Origin are asking for other needs with the State

and he hopes they get it.

Commissioner Goodson commented the other needs are fine, but if those facilities are not

going to pay a penny on the sewer, which is $150 million; and it is coming from State

taxpayers, he would like for people to know that.

Commissioner Altman replied that he will see what he can find out.

Commissioner Goodson stated to make sure that is in public.

Commissioner Altman stated sometimes economic incentive dollar’s fall under a different cloak;

but he will find out the answers to those good questions.

Chairman Feltner stated the appropriations are in now.

Commissioner Altman stated SpaceX and Blue Origin are requesting for infrastructure support;

it is a very competitive environment; Texas is really throwing a lot on the table; and the County

does not want to lose launches, so he will see what is being done to preserve that.

Chairman Feltner stated he thinks Commerce, he means a lot of people at the table there; and