MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

January 22, 2008

 

 

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on January 22, 2008, at 9:06 a.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida.  Present were:  Chairman Truman Scarborough, Commissioners Chuck Nelson, Helen Voltz, Mary Bolin, and Jackie Colon, County Manager Peggy Busacca, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

 

 

The Invocation was given by Pastor Jorge Acevedo, Lake Crest Community Baptist Church, Melbourne, Florida.

 

 

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

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve the minutes of the November 1, 2007 Zoning Meeting.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Voltz read aloud a resolution proclaiming February 1, 2008 as the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association “Wear Red Day for Women.” 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to adopt Resolution proclaiming February 1, 2008 as the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association “Wear Red Day for Women” and urging all citizens to show their support for women and the fight against heart disease by commemorating February 1, 2008 by the wearing of the color red.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Stephanie Bacon, Director of Public Relations with Wuesthoff Health System, stated they are shocked by the statistics; and they are doing something locally about it, which is of key importance.  She stated right now they have over 5,300 women in Brevard County signed up and getting constant messages about how to take care of their heart; and encouraged everyone to go to the website, www.goredforwomen.org, and sign up so they can get the message out. 

 

Commissioner Voltz presented the Resolution to Ms. Bacon.  

 

 

 PRESENTATION BY DAVID K. ROACH, RE:  FLORIDA INLAND NAVIGATION DISTRICT

 

David Roach, Executive Director of the Florida Inland Navigation District (FIND), stated he would like to give the Board a brief status report on projects that the Florida Inland Navigation District has ongoing in Brevard County; and advised there is a handout.  He stated at the end of his presentation, he would like to bring up FIND Commissioner Jerry Sansom to share a few words.  He stated he is pleased to report that the millage rate is only 34% of the maximum; and the administrative overhead is at 1.2% of their budget.  He stated that means they are spending over 98% of tax dollars that come from the 12 counties, including Brevard County, back into those counties to build capital projects that are mutual constituents can physically enjoy.  He stated the number one mission at FIND is to maintain the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway for its 400 miles along the east coast of Florida including the 70 miles in Brevard County; and there is a plan to do that, which was created in 1989, and which FIND is still implementing today.  He stated it requires 4 million cubic yards of dredging just to keep the Brevard County section open; and there are eight sites to manage that material and recycle it, just like they are doing at the Mims site, where Brevard County Road and Bridge is using that material to maintain the roads in North Brevard.  He stated a couple of dredging projects are coming up in 2010 by the Sebastian Inlet after they de-muck the Sebastian River, along with the St. Johns River Water Management District; some of the muck has gotten into the intercoastal waterway channel; and they want to get that out of the channel for navigation and environmental improvements.  He stated they will be dredging by Kennedy Space Center in 2010 as well; they are constructing a facility at the Space Center now; and that facility will manage dredge material from that area of the waterway and take the material to restore wetlands throughout Kennedy Space Center, which have been impacted in the past from the construction of the facility.  He stated the Board is familiar with the Waterways Assistance Program; since 1986 they have funded 91 projects along with cities in Brevard County; that has been $6.3 million of FIND money going into almost $16 million worth of capital improvement projects along the waterways of Brevard County in a cooperative way; and a spreadsheet has been provided.  He stated the first number shown is the date of the project; the dates range from 2006 to 2007; the projects are currently underway; and they have also returned $4.5 million to do projects with State and regional governments.  He stated a list of Brevard County projects includes the spoil island projects, Sebastian River muck removal, Crane Creek muck removal, and all environmental dredging projects.  He stated FIND is spending a lot of money on the waterway; it takes a $16 million a year annual investment to maintain the 400 miles of intercoastal waterway channel; and inquired if that is a good investment.  He advised in Brevard County, the waterway generates $754 million a year in economic output and almost 7,500 jobs; it increases the property values along the waterway; it increases the value of the property in Brevard County by up to $1.5 billion, which is then value that governments such as the County can levy taxes against to get dollars; and there are approximately 35,000 registered votes in Brevard County.  He stated the last three items on the report related to some of the smaller projects that FIND does, which are equally important because they deal with cleaning up the waterway.  He stated they do an annual litter removal project with Keep Brevard Beautiful; they have started a small scale derelict vessel removal program to try to get money into County staff’s hands as quickly as possible to deal with some of the vessels that are still out there; and encouraged the Board and staff to look towards that program to deal with some of those vessels.  He stated they also work on the spoil islands that were created years ago when the easiest way to dredge the channel was just to put the dredge material there; and now those islands are recreational and environmental resources to be enhanced; so FIND looks forward to working with the County and others to enhance some of the spoil islands for everyone’s benefit.

 

FIND Commissioner Jerry Sansom stated FIND started a program this year to come before the County Commissioners once a year to provide an update on what FIND is doing and to remind the County that FIND is looking forward to being partners with the County on projects.  He stated there are two and one-half pages of projects that have been done with Brevard County over the years; and a map was included in the handout showing the projects up and down the waterway in the County.  He stated they are entering into their grant cycle for this year; and the County has a couple of projects coming up.  He stated between the County’s activities and those of FIND, they improve the quality of life of the people in the areas they represent; and they are just trying to make things a little bit better so everyone can enjoy themselves a little more.  He stated FIND appreciates working with the County; and if there is anything the District can do, the County should let them know. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Voltz read aloud a resolution proclaiming January 22, 2008 as a Day in Honor of Reverend Carol Glanton. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to adopt Resolution proclaiming January 22, 2008 as a Day in Honor of Reverend Carol Glanton.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Reverend Carol Glanton expressed appreciation to the Board for the Resolution; and stated she gets strength from God for everything she does.  She stated she will keep praying for the leaders of America to be directed by God.

 

Commissioner Colon thanked Reverend Glanton, on behalf of South Brevard.  She stated Reverend Glanton has been in the trenches for many years; she met her in the early 1990’s; and she is a strong woman who took on drug dealers in the Melbourne area.  She stated Reverend Glanton put marches together to empower the community and make sure the drug dealers did not take over the community; and she worked very closely with law enforcement, community leaders, and elected officials.  She stated the people are grateful for Reverend Glanton’s courage and for empowering the community; she gave courage to the rest of the community; and she is a role model in South Brevard.

 

Commissioner Voltz presented the Resolution to Reverend Glanton. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated he is going to recognize two staff members who were involved with the Christmas parades, Chena Lessey and Vicki Bennett.  He stated every year they are involved in putting together the holiday parades for Merritt Island and Cocoa/Rockledge; it is quite an undertaking; and when everybody else wants to be on vacation, they are out doing all the hard work to put together the parades.  He stated the Cocoa-Rockledge parade has been
done for the past 30 years; the past season had 70 entries; he and Commissioner Bolin were two of those entries; and described the parade route.  Commissioner Nelson stated the City Councils from Cocoa and Rockledge are present for the parade as well as homeowners associations, churches, and schools; and it is a huge event.  He stated the Merritt Island parade is very similar; there were 60 entries this year; and described the parade route.  He stated this year they were able to give awards to the best entries in each of the categories; and the Merritt Island Homeowners donated the awards.  He stated Ms. Lessey and Ms. Bennett did a great job; and the Board appreciates everything they do.  He stated they are not the only ones working on the parades, but they are the leaders in the process; and he appreciates their work.   

 

Commissioner Bolin stated this was her first time in the Cocoa-Rockledge parade and it was wonderful; usually before a parade, she likes to walk and see all the floats, because when she is in a parade, she does not get to see them; but the line of floats was so long that she was called to get back to her float because the parade was starting.  She stated everyone did a great job on the parades.

 

Commissioner Nelson presented certificates to Ms. Bennett and Ms. Lessey.

 

Commissioner Bolin stated she would like to recognize the efforts of a young man from the Brevard Achievement Center who worked in her District Office as an intern for several months; and requested Justin Brasch and his family come forward.  She stated Justin has been a pleasure to have in the office; he attended high school in the mornings and then came to her office in the afternoons; and he was always very professional and punctual.  She stated he was eager to dive into any task he was given; he has a positive attitude; and he always demonstrated a caring approach to meeting the needs of the tasks.  She stated he is bright, talented, and will go far in his future endeavors; and thanked him for playing a major role in her office.  She stated they will miss Justin; and her staff thanks him.

 

Justin stated it is an honor to be working in an office; this was his first time working in an office; and it was fun for someone 19 years old to be able to work for someone who is an important part of the community.  He stated he was excited that he had the opportunity; and expressed appreciation to the Brevard Achievement Center for giving him the opportunity to work in the Commission office.  He thanked the District 4 staff for accepting him; and introduced staff from Brevard Achievement Center. 

 

Justin Brasch’s mother advised her son enjoyed the experience of working for Commissioner Bolin; it gave him a chance to see government involvement; and he met some wonderful people.  She stated she is proud of him; and his father was unable to be present today because of work obligations, but he is also proud of Justin.

 

Commissioner Bolin presented a certificate to Mr. Brasch.      

 

 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated EDC Director Lynda Weatherman has been working with the Space Initiatives for some time; and she will give the Board an update.  He stated he will be
going to Washington, D.C. tomorrow and will return on Thursday; and they will be there for two full days.

 

EDC Executive Director Lynda Weatherman stated she will provide an update on the Walker Wexler Contract that the Board entered into; she will talk briefly about the trip to Washington, D.C.; and finally she will talk about a letter she would like the Board to support.  She stated the Board entered into an Agreement with Wexler Walker in October 2008; its focus is on strategic advisory services; and the goal is to keep the County out in front of the issues and on track with respect to County initiatives as they interrelate to national space policy.  She stated there are a lot of things that can be done locally; but when there is someone in Washington, D.C. watching out for the County’s interests and identifying strategic initiatives, it helps make the County’s whole space policy initiative much more sophisticated and on a higher level.  She stated the aim is to keep one consistent voice.  She stated the current areas of focus are closer alignment of NASA/Air Force next generation rain technology with the FAA, which is important when they talk about the role of commercial space; the NASA budget; and the total exploration program funding, which also is critical if NASA does not get the full funding that it requested, because not only would it increase the gap, but it would also diminish any chance the County has to bring more work here and would possibly impact the number of launches.  She commented on international space station utilization planning evolution, creation of a stronger world for KSC, and ground support equipment and facilities; and stated at the end of October, it was announced that the lunar lander module will be assembled in Brevard County, which is great news.  She commented on the CEV assembly being at the beginning, the lunar being at the end, and need to continue to focus on the plan of action, evolving legislation regarding enhanced use of leasing for NASA, shuttle retirement remediation opportunities, and meeting with Bob Walker and his staff in Washington, D.C.  She stated Chairman Scarborough appointed each Commissioner to take a certain topic to be focused on; and he appointed Commissioner Nelson to focus on space, which is has taken on with true vigor.  She stated there have been several briefings already with the space policy advisors to prep them before they go to Washington, D.C.; and they will be leaving again tomorrow.  She stated they will be meeting with NASA Deputy Administrator Shana Dale who is second in command to Mike Griffin, Michael Vehr who is the Legislative Director for Senator Mel Martinez, and Chris Schenk who is with the NASA Administrative Office for Strategic Initiatives.  She stated this is a critical meeting regarding where the County wants to place its strategies as they relate to the initiatives, NASA headquarters, and concern at a  local level about the number of jobs and the impact; and they want it known that the County is aware and focused on it.  She stated they will meet with Lee Arnold who is with Congressman Feeney; and he is very informed, knowledgeable, and on top of things regarding space issues.  She stated they will also be meeting with Congressman Weldon’s staff; Senator Nelson always has a person on board who is focused on space issues and recently appointed someone; she has not had a chance to meet the new person; but they will be meeting with him.  She stated it is the perfect timing to tell him the County’s concerns and issues; and the meeting was just confirmed yesterday.  She stated they also have a meeting with the Under Secretary Bud Albright regarding the Department of Energy and other broad issues that focus not only on NASA but on federal opportunities; and things do not happen overnight, but they start by meeting with people and asking what the local community can do to identify new initiatives.  She stated the final item is a letter from the Board supporting  a letter that was sent on December 20, 2007 by the EDC as part of the Space Advisory Committee and was signed by Senators Mel Martinez and Bill Nelson, and Congressmen  Tom Feeney and Dave Weldon.  Ms. Weatherman stated it would be the complementary level at the local level; and they want to show a strong collation between local representatives and Congressional and Senate representatives in support and encouraging NASA. 

 

Chairman Scarborough inquired if there are any questions about the letter.  Ms. Weatherman inquired if the Board would like for her to read it; with Chairman Scarborough responding no.  Chairman Scarborough stated there may be other issues that the Board wants to touch on; one problem is the Commissioners cannot talk to each other except in a meeting; and having Ms. Weatherman present opens doors.  He stated he has not touched base with Commissioner Nelson concerning his visit because of Sunshine Laws; and he would like to get into the issue a little.  He stated some Commissioners have been very active in some of the things put on recently for two presidential candidates; and if there is a problem with the letter, Ms. Weatherman can let the Board know. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to authorize sending a letter, on behalf of the Board, supporting the EDC’s letter of December 20, 2007 that was signed by Senators Mel Martinez and Bill Nelson, and Congressmen Tom Feeney and Dave Weldon, and which requested support of the space initiative.  The Board reached consensus to authorize sending the letter.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to adopt Resolution supporting the Space Industry.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Chairman Scarborough suggested the Board touch on the initiatives with presidential candidates.  Ms. Weatherman stated at the workshop last week, the Board addressed the need; the big focus is the understanding that space is important in the County; they are three generations back on space; and while they understand it is important, they are facing timing.  She stated there are also competing interests with the presidential candidates, such as the economy and everything like that, so they cannot assume this issue that is so strong to the County will be strong in the hearts of the candidates.  She stated the goal is to bring the space initiative and the recognition of the gap to the attention of the presidential candidates, and to focus in on the concern that in just two years, within the next presidential cycle, the U.S. will lose manned access to space.  She stated they have to focus on the role that space plays in regards to impact of jobs, technology, and science; it is the string in the pearls of all of those things; the country wants to be strong in technology and a leader in innovation; and space plays a key role in that.  She commented on inviting presidential candidates to come to the County and visits last week by candidates Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney; and stated the goal is to bring the issue to their attention, have them recognize it, and then invite senior staff come down so they can work on the details regarding where they stand.  She stated the time could not be better; now is when the candidates want the local input; and it will have more impact now than at any other time.  She stated they are working with the presidential candidates; she is not at liberty to make a commitment, but there is a lot of interest; and the first visit impacted the other candidates because some who had declined are now coming back and responding.  She reiterated the goal is to bring this to their attention; number two is to have them recognize space as an issue, understanding it is reflecting all the things they want to address as Americans; and finally they want to use the appropriate timing because of the election.  Ms. Weatherman advised the gap will be right at the next presidential election; and all the candidates need to recognize that.    

 

Commissioner Colon thanked the EDC for taking the initiative; stated she knows they have been working hard since the beginning of the year; a lot of folks are wondering why just the Republicans have visited; but the Democrats are not campaigning in Florida because of the delegation issue.  She stated Ms. Weatherman’s office has tried contacting every candidate, even the Democrats or tried to have someone as a spokesperson come down; one thing that was talked about at the workshop is that it is not over; this is just the beginning; and once the Democrat and Republican candidates are decided, they will be able to invite them back a couple of times to make sure they understand this is not just a Brevard County issue, but is an issue of national security.  She stated it is very serious; both candidates who came to the County were eager to learn; this is something they know just a little about; but it has picked up the momentum.  She reiterated this is just the beginning; they want to make sure after Super Tuesday that Brevard County markets itself; there will not be anybody else knocking on the door; and it will be up to the Board of County Commissioners, the Delegation, the Governor, Senators Martinez, and Senator Nelson to be the key players.  She expressed appreciation to Ms. Weatherman and the EDC; and stated it has not been easy; it is very challenging to get all the candidates to come; and the events were very well attended. 

 

Ms. Weatherman advised it is not over; there have been two candidates who visited; and she is convinced there will be one more before the next primary.  She stated they will continue doing this throughout the election even when they are down to one, two, or three candidates; and they will continue this focus.  She stated they brought together a team of experts, from astronauts to space tourism companies, and from prime contractors to commercial operators that will be in the future of commercial space opportunity; and they are bringing attention not just to the gap, which is the County’s concern, but to the role that space plays in all the initiatives.  She stated it is a team of 20 people; they have talking points that they sometimes have to adjust; they have conference calls before and after the events; each candidate has different questions that they have been able to respond to; and the goal is to bring the issue to their attention, make sure they recognize the issue, and follow up with their senior staff to get into the minutia of where they stand, where the funding is, and where they stand on NASA budget. 

 

Commissioner Bolin thanked Ms. Weatherman; stated the events were very successful; she was able to be at both events; and the team that spoke was extremely successful.  She stated the candidates listened; and she thinks they understood.  Ms. Weatherman stated the team spoke; they are the experts; and they understand the different walks, so they are lucky to have them to give guidance. 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated he has two thoughts; one is that it is going to be more than funding; a gap can also occur because of technological problems as they move from one technology to another; they have been working the shuttle for a long time, but there are still delays with the shuttle because of technological concerns; and what is underlying all the concerns is a profound policy change.  He stated as long as Mike Griffin is the NASA Administrator, the Board understands the policy it will have; and Mr. Griffin has said he will stay on if the current policy stays intact.  Chairman Scarborough stated a good way to ascertain whether a candidate has major policy change issues is to ask if he or she would continue the policy with Mr. Griffin as the head, so it links the two.  He stated Bob Walker is extremely astute on the political movements.  He stated each center that has been successful has emerged as a catalyst for technological advancement as opposed to being a specific function in the NASA pecking order; and commented on the significance of the meeting with the Department of Energy, Bill Parsons, Stennis Space Center, and possibilities that energy will become a key issue.  He stated energy relates to the environment and to the geopolitical instability of the world; and if there is a place to go it is to the Department of Energy.  He stated as Ms. Weatherman said, it is not going to happen overnight; but there are serious thoughts; and expressed appreciation to Bill Parsons for his support for expanding the definition of a center. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated he appreciates everything that Ms. Weatherman has been able to do and to organize because it is taking what has been learned over 20 years and trying to do something in a short period of time.  He commented on the energy issue, moving into other more diverse uses of the Space Center, moving to a more comprehensive approach, and surviving the next go-round. 

 

Chairman Scarborough wished Ms. Weatherman and Commissioner Nelson good luck on their trip; and stated he hopes to hear a report when they get back. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated she is sure the other Commissioners received an email from Legislative Coordinator Leigh Holt about House Bill 399, which is the issue with the Clerk and the auditing. 

 

County Attorney Scott Knox stated the bill is a response to a case out of Collier County, in which the judge held that the Clerk’s auditing authority is limited to pre-auditing, meaning that the Clerk can check the legality of the expenditures the County makes before the expenditure is made but his authority is limited to that without the consent of the Board of County Commissioners.  He stated the other auditing functions that Clerks can get involved in at the discretion of the County Commission are as the court said, the post audit, which is the annual audit that is conducted every year and the internal audit, which would be checking for compliance with contracts and how offices are being run.  He stated the court said those two functions can be conducted by the Clerk at the Board’s discretion or it can have outside auditors do it; and what the legislation is designed to do it to take away that part of the court’s ruling and make it clear that the Clerk would be mandated to fulfill those functions and the Board would have no discretion about who to hire as auditors any longer. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated she wanted to see if the Board wanted to include that as part of the Legislative Package because the Florida Association of Counties is going to be on top of that bill. 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated he is willing to talk about it but is not prepared to do so at this time; and he would like to get more information.  He noted the Clerk of Courts is in the audience; and he may have some thoughts he wants to share.  He stated he would like the issue to come back for further discussion later. 

 

Clerk of Courts Scott Ellis stated this is the issue with Dwight Brock in Collier County; a couple of departments had cigar box funds that were not handled through County Finance; the Clerk’s office said that money should go through County Finance; and that was the court case.  He stated it got into a contest between the two sides in court and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees were spent; and in Collier County, the General Fund pays for the internal audit function, which is not the case in Brevard County. 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated when this is put together it can be put on the next Agenda.  Commissioner Voltz requested Mr. Knox give the Board the ramifications; with Mr. Ellis advising currently it is a Collier County case and has not gone further.  Chairman Scarborough requested Mr. Knox provide the Board with a memorandum on the issue and it will be brought up at the next meeting.  Mr. Ellis requested the Board let him know if it chooses to schedule it; with Chairman Scarborough advising it will be scheduled at the next meeting. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated she is sure the Board remembers the issue with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation and Dr. Barker and whether he performed services that he should not have performed; there was a letter from the Department telling him to cease and desist; and the issue has been resolved.  She read aloud a letter from the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, as follows:  “This investigation is predicated upon an allegation the subject may have engaged in the practice of land surveying without a license in violation of a previously issued notice and ordered to cease and desist.  The subject and his organization entered a contract to perform a master plan update for the Valkaria Airport in Brevard County.  In the prior case the licensed surveyor and mapper who reviewed the matter on behalf of the Department concluded that the subject had engaged in unlicensed surveying and mapping, and the notice to cease and desist was issued.  Review of additional information in the prior case by the original department consultant as well as several licensed surveyors and mappers obtained by the subject has resulted in all of the licensees agreeing that the subject did not engage in unlicensed surveying and mapping.”  She stated that was the outcome; and it is finally resolved. 

 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated with the Bright House issue she is not sure the people of Barefoot Bay will get this information, but there is a whole string of streetlights that are out down there.  She stated it is extremely dark; and advised as of January 17, 2008, FP&L said it would take approximately eight days to resolve the issue. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated the Amer-I-Can graduates will be able to apply for scholarships from FIT, Brevard Community College, and UCF; and there are 12 scholarships available to those who graduated from the program.  She expressed appreciation to FIT, BCC, and UCF for their participation.

 

 

 

Commissioner Colon thanked those who organized events for celebration of Dr. Martin Luther King Day; and commented on various activities.  She advised of a young man who was a speaker at one of the breakfasts for Dr. Martin Luther King Day; and stated next month he will be speaking to the Board for Black History Month. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Colon stated there was a groundbreaking for the Cricket Club building; and thanked County staff.  She stated it was an incredible event; the main focus was to thank the employees; that was key; and each of them received a certificate.  She stated the ones that get all the glory and thanks are the elected officials; but the ones who deserve it are the employees because they are the ones making it happen.  She expressed appreciation to Judge Majeed and Wayne Savage, who were critical in their support of the referendum to make it happen. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Colon stated she knows that other cities are able to link their meetings live through the computer so people can at least hear the meeting; her office is not able to see the Government Channel as of last week; and they are trying to think outside the box.  She stated the City of Palm Bay does it so people can access the meeting through the Internet; and requested staff look into it.  She stated the reason they are unable to get access at her office is because of the wiring and so forth; but this would be something the citizens would appreciate, and the other municipalities are doing it at the moment. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Colon requested County Manager Peggy Busacca and Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff put together a letter of concern on behalf of the Board to the Department of Transportation in regard to funding and not being able to do the widening of I-95.  She stated that is of great concern because in South Brevard the traffic is tremendous; the Board needs something in writing to let DOT know the Board has great concerns; and she would like to be able to have them present. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Colon stated Michael Fitzgerald sent a letter to her office concerning rip currents; and she asked Chief Farmer to be present today because there was a task force and a study that already took place. 

 

Commissioner Colon expressed her condolences to the Meeks family; and stated her prayers and love goes out to this family.  Fire Rescue Chief William Farmer stated Delaney Meeks was a two-year old girl who had a congenital heart defect; they attempted three open-heart surgeries to repair the defect, but were unable to do so; and advised of the child coding, being brought back, and coding again.  He stated the only thing that was going to save Delaney was a heart transplant; they had to say no three times because the heart was not right for her; and Delaney did pass away.  He stated the Meeks have two other children, and the family is going to take some time off to be a family.  He stated there will be services on Thursday; and he will make sure the information is forwarded to the Commissioners.  Commissioner Colon stated any employee of the County is family; and requested Chief Farmer let the family know that her prayers are with them.

 

Mike Fitzgerald stated he has been dealing with rip current warning signs for about ten years in Brevard County; the Board and past Boards as well as the Public Safety and Parks and Recreation Departments have seen to it that rip current warning signs are at every public access on the beaches; and Brevard County led the State in doing that.  He stated last year there were ten deaths due to rip current drownings on the beaches, which made him start looking at the current signs, of which there are two versions; and he decided after looking at them that he could possibly make a better sign.  He stated he stole the best from both signs; he realized the sign had to be done in English and Spanish because the Hispanic population is large and growing; and given the economic restraints on the County, he put in a proposal to Ron Jon’s Surf Shop to print 240 signs at a cost of $19,000, which it is seriously considering.  He stated what he would like to ask the Board for is a letter of support for that effort; he would like to use the signs to replace the current signs on the beach; and he would like to use the current signs on every hotel, motel, and multi-level dwelling on the beaches.  He stated there has been a lot of talk about more lifeguards, which he is totally in support of, but the reality of the situation is that taking all of the County’s parks and public access ways and putting them together would only cover a five-mile area; and there are 70 miles of beaches.  He stated there has to be some way to disseminate to the public how to safeguard and teach them about rip currents; and that is one of the reasons he is present today, to ask the Board to consider that.  He stated having more lifeguards and getting information on where the lifeguards would be is great; but people tend to swim where the live or where they visit; and there are a lot of beaches to be covered.  He stated the only way to get it across 70 miles is to see that each access way to the beach is covered; people ask why the hotels and motels have not put up signs yet; but the hotels and motels in the County on the beach are into selling paradise.  He advised putting a rip current warning sign leading to the beach is not paradise; and therefore, the hotels have not done it.  He stated a year and a half ago, under the auspices of the Board, he met with the TDC along with Commissioner Ron Pritchard; and they asked the hotels and motels to put up these signs; but only one hotel asked them to put up a sign.  He stated he was wondering how the County would have the authority to do that and it finally hit him that the hotels and motels do not own the dune line, nor are they in charge of the beaches; if a guest from a hotel or motel happened to drown, a call would be made to a government agency to either do a body recovery or a rescue; and that is a considerable expense.  He stated the Board could find it in its authority either as a permitting authority or through a County Ordinance to make the hotels, motels, and other big buildings on the beaches put up the rip current warning signs.  Mr. Fitzgerald stated the other reason he came before the Board today is to ask the Board to ask the State Delegation to put up legislation about rip current warning signs; in 2003 Representatives Howard Futch and Mitch Needelman put up legislation which would have required all public access ways to have a rip current warning sign; there was a major battle between Representative Futch and the Academy of Trial Attorneys over liability; and because of that the legislation never went through.  He stated as the Board knows Representative Futch passed away; in 2005 the Supreme Court enacted a case whereby the liability issue is no longer there; and if the same legislation was put before the Legislature today, it would pass without a problem because the liability issue is gone.  He requested the Board ask the State Delegation to once again bring up legislation on establishing a rip current program warning sign.  He stated the third request is to start putting together some public service announcements to run on the television; when he watches the news, he notices that the newscasters know what conditions cause rip currents, but they forget to tell the people how to get out of a rip current; people should not fight the current, but should swim even with the shore until the current weakens and the make their way back to shore; and not giving that advice is a major oversight.  He stated it is like telling someone to watch out for tornadoes or hurricanes but not telling them how to protect themselves; and that is what is happening with rip currents. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated when a Commissioner brings up something under Reports, it is brought back as an Agenda item so the Board can take action; there is a lot of information and feedback that needs to take place; and she recommends doing that; but it was important for the Board to hear from Mr. Fitzgerald what the issue is going to be about so that other folks can share some of their feedback.  She stated at that point, it will allow the Board to make a more intelligent decision on some of the things it can do; and one of the things that Mr. Fitzgerald asked for was a letter of support for the private sector which might be willing to give the dollars to put up the signs so there would be no cost to the Board.  She stated a lot of tourists on the beaches come to Brevard County from South America; they come to visit Disney and the other theme parks; and that is where the lack of communication comes in because most of the folks who live in the County are bilingual and are able to understand perfectly.  She stated her greatest concern is for those people who are visiting Florida as tourists; that is where there is a gap; and she would recommend the board not take any action, but put the item on the Agenda and ask Chief Farmer to provide some feedback in regard to the study.

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired if what Mr. Fitzgerald gave to the Commissioners is the concept of what would be on the rip current sign; with Mr. Fitzgerald responding yes.  Commissioner Voltz inquired how big would the signs be; with Mr. Fitzgerald responding 30 inches by 36 inches.  Commissioner Voltz stated Mr. Fitzgerald also suggested that the Board adopt an Ordinance to make hotels and private entities put the signs on the beach; with Mr. Fitzgerald affirming that is correct.  Commissioner Voltz stated when it comes back, the Board can look at those; and requested Mr. Knox look into the issue.  She stated Mr. Fitzgerald also suggested running something on the television.  Mr. Fitzgerald stated the suggestion is to run a public service announcement; the County has one of the greatest beach ambassadors in Kelly Slater; if the Public Safety Department contacted him, he is pretty sure he would be willing to do the announcements; and that is the kind of publicity the County has to get out about this issue because the best way to protect people from rip currents is through education.  Commissioner
Voltz stated all hotels have closed circuit television where they run all the different things they do; and that may be an avenue to put something about rip currents.  She stated she does not know how the Board would do that; but a lot of people who come to Florida for vacation look at those things because there is a lot of advertising for different things in the community. 

 

Commissioner Nelson inquired when the Board will get the report on the past season; with Chief Farmer responding the study and report are due in mid to late February.  Commissioner Nelson inquired if there is any reason it cannot be done more quickly; and noted the Board first started talking about it four months ago.  He inquired if there is any reason it cannot be done sooner rather than later; with Chief Farmer responding it is just a matter of staff time and putting the report together.  Commissioner Nelson stated he heard Mr. Fitzgerald talk about ten rip current related deaths; but he knows that at least one of them was not rip current related, but a medical condition contributed to it; and he would like to be able to assess what the information is.  He stated they attended a meeting with some of the hoteliers who do not have any guests involved in any of the deaths; and the Board needs to have the full package of information to be able to sort through and analyze.  He stated education is important; but if the Board is going to get everyone’s participation, it needs to be careful how it crafts this because he does not know that it is fair for the hotels to take the blame for this when they have had no injuries associated with rip currents; and the sooner the Board can get this together, the better it will be prepared for that discussion. 

 

Chairman Scarborough inquired if there is a motion for the letter.  Commissioner Colon inquired if the Board wants to wait to get the information; with Chairman Scarborough responding it is up to Commissioner Colon.  Mr. Fitzgerald advised the proposal with Ron Jons is under consideration right now.  Commissioner Colon stated it is basically asking Ron Jons for the funding; with Mr. Fitzgerald responding that is correct. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to authorize Chief Bill Farmer and Michael Fitzgerald to prepare a letter for the Chairman’s signature to Ron Jon’s Surf Shop in support of the request to provide funding for the rip current signs.         

 

 

Chairman Scarborough inquired if the Board wants to see the letter before it is signed; with the Board reaching consensus to approve sending the letter.   

 

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

 

 

Commissioner Colon stated all other actions would be under an Agenda item; and inquired how much time would it be before the item is on the Agenda.  Chief Farmer inquired what would the Agenda item be; with Commissioner Colon responding the study and the feedback.  Commissioner Colon stated the study would be able to indicate what some of the solutions are that they are recommending to the Board; and at that point it would be good instead of having two items to have it all at the same time with some of the suggestions they have and with the study.  She inquired if it would come back at the end of February; with Chief Farmer responding there is a Board meeting on March 4, 2008.  Commissioner Colon inquired if Chief Farmer will be prepared by then; with Chief Farmer responding absolutely.  Chief Farmer advised the meeting prior to that is on February 19, 2008 and they might be ready by then.  Chairman Colon stated it will be on the Agenda on March 4, 2008.  Mr. Fitzgerald stated he will dovetail everything he can with Public Safety.   

 

 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated cards have been submitted to discuss Item III.A.18, Joint Participation Agreement Expansion with Florida Department of Transportation, Re:  Fuel Farm Relocation and Consolidation Project, and it is his intention to pull Item III.B.3, Approval, Re:  Purchase of Hybrid Vehicles for EEL Program.  Commissioner Voltz stated she would like to pull Item III.B.4, Resolution, Re:  Revisions to Sanctuary Management Manual of the EEL Program.  Commissioner Nelson requested Item III.A.10, Resolution, Re:  Installation of “No Parking on Streets Between Midnight and 7:00 a.m.” in Indigo Crossing Subdivision be pulled for discussion.    

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to grant final engineering and preliminary plat approvals for Silver Horseshoe Ranch Subdivision, subject to minor engineering changes as applicable and developer responsible for obtaining all necessary jurisdictional permits.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to grant final engineering approval for Stadium Parkway Four Lane Widening Improvement, Phase 2, with the developer responsible for obtaining all necessary jurisdictional permits.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to grant final engineering and preliminary plat approvals for Meadow Lake Estates Subdivision, subject to minor engineering changes as applicable, and developer responsible for obtaining all necessary jurisdictional permits.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.   

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to adopt Resolution releasing Contract with Meridian of Brevard LLC, dated May 16, 2007, for Meridian Condominium (formerly Winslow Beach Condominium).  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to execute Contract to guarantee the performance for infrastructure improvements for Lake Andrew Drive Extension, Phase 1, with developer responsible for obtaining all necessary jurisdictional permits.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to grant final engineering and preliminary plat approvals for Anglers Subdivision, subject to minor engineering changes as applicable and developer responsible for obtaining all necessary jurisdictional permits.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to grant legislative intent to amend the Contractors’ Licensing Code of Brevard County, Chapter 22, Article VI, Divisions 1 through 4, Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to execute Binding Development Plan with Air Resources International for property located on the north side of Highway 520, west of Friday Road.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.    

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to execute Binding Development Plan with Daniel J. Wilder for property located on the southwest corner of West New Haven Avenue and City Acres Road.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to grant permission to extend Continuing Appraisal Services Contracts for three months; and authorize the Chairman to execute the extensions.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to execute Contract for Sale and Purchase and Addendum with South Developers, LLC, contingent upon approval of a Developer’s Agreement by the City of West Melbourne, for property needed for the future widening of Hollywood Boulevard in West Melbourne.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve the Stipulated Final Judgment including all damages, costs, and fees in the amount of $237,000 for value, costs, and fees for Defendant, F.S. Stores, Inc., Parcels 102 and 702.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to adopt Resolution and execute Agreement with Florida Department of Transportation for the design of two trailheads in Kings Park in Merritt Island and partial funding for one trailhead at the Chain of Lakes Park in Titusville.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to grant permission to advertise for a Consultant to complete the North Mainland Traffic Study; appoint a Consultant Selection Committee consisting of Assistant County Manager Mel Scott, Interim Traffic Engineering Director Gil Ramirez, MPO Director Bob Kamm, Titusville City Manager Mark Ryan, and Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff or their designees; appoint a Negotiation Committee consisting of Assistant County Manager Mel Scott, County Attorney Scott Knox, Titusville City Manager Mark Ryan, and Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff or their designees; and authorize the Chairman to execute the Professional Services Agreement.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to execute Task Order No. 3 with Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., for tasks related to the design of a treatment capacity expansion of the North Brevard Water Treatment Plant in Mims; and approve the associated budget changes needed to pay for the work.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve selection of PRMG as financial consultant for the Utility Services Department; execute Master Agreement and Task Order No.  PRMG-01 with PRMG for the services; and approve associated budget transfers needed to pay for the tasks.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve Hurricane Housing Recovery (HHRP) Program funds in the amount of $200,000 to Beneficial Communities, HOME funds in the amount of $250,000 to CFL Housing Corporation, and State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) funds in the amount of $100,000 to W.P.R. Properties & Management; and authorize the Chairman to execute subsequent contracts and amendments, contingent upon the approval of Risk Management and the County Attorney.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) funds in the amount of $160,000 to RealtyAmerica.Org.Inc.; and authorize the Chairman to execute subsequent contracts and amendments, contingent upon the approval of Risk Management and the County Attorney.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to execute the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWC) Florida Boating Improvement Program (FBIP) Standard Grant Amendment No. 2 to Agreement for a time extension for the South County Boat Launch Project.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to execute Professional Services Agreement Amendment No. 17 with Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. for additional professional services required for permitting, construction, irrigation, and wetland enhancement plantings and monitoring for Max K. Rodes Park.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve the recommendation of the Spaceport Commerce Park Authority to extend the time for First Coast Industrial Electronics, Inc. to commence construction by 18 months and the County’s repurchase option period by 24 months on an 8.187-acre parcel in Spaceport Commerce Park with First Coast Industrial Electronics, Inc.; approve repurchase immediately if First Coast Industrial Electronics, Inc. does not execute an agreement to extend within ten days of Board approval; and execute Agreement with First Coast Industrial Electronics, Inc.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to authorize the expenditure of up to $350,000 to be paid to the University of Central Florida for software development services; and authorize the Chairman to execute the Contract for the services, upon approval by the County Attorney’s Office.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve Grant Application to the State 9-1-1 Board in the amount of $217,270.08 for funding toward establishment of a next generation Internet Protocol based network to provide connectivity to the eleven (11) Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) in Brevard County.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

APPROVAL OF GRANT APPLICATION, RE:  911 TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT
     AND MAPPING SYSTEM                                                                                                                                                           

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve Grant Application to the State 9-1-1 Board in the amount of $1,627,164 for funding toward the replacement of the 9-1-1 telecommunications equipment and electronic mapping system at the eleven (11) Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) in Brevard County.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve the changes to the Board Meeting Schedule as follows:  change March 13, 2008 Crime Workshop to March 20, 2008; change July 22, 2008 Regular Meeting to July 29, 2008; and designate subjects for February 14, 2008 Workshop as Revenue, May 8, 2008 Workshop as Government Efficiency, April 24, 2008 Workshop as Property Appraisals, and July 17, 2008 Workshop, July 24, 2008 Workshop, and August 14, 2008 Workshop as Budget.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.      

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve Revised Precinct Legal Descriptions for changes to existing precincts due to annexations by the Cities of Melbourne, Palm Bay, Rockledge, Titusville, and West Melbourne.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to accept the Brevard County Annual Investment Performance Report for the year ended September 30, 2007.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to appoint/reappoint Peggy Nolan to the Art in Public Places Advisory Committee with term to expire on December 31, 2008; Cindy Flachmeier to the Brevard County Commission on the Status of Women with term to expire December 31, 2008; Janie Holman to the Brevard County Commission on the Status of Women with term to expire on December 31, 2011; Mike Myjak to the Building and Construction Advisory Committee with term to expire on December 31, 2008; Fannye Faye Johnson to the Community Action Board with term to expire on December 31, 2008; Grayling “Shawn” Harris to the Community Development Block Grant Advisory Board with term to expire on December 31, 2008; Ivan Rolle to the Community Development Block Grant Advisory Board with term to expired on December 31, 2011; William Keyser to the Contractor’s Licensing Board with term to expire on December 31, 2008; Liz Lackovich to the Country
Acres Advisory Board with term to expire on December 31, 2008; Barbara Borman to the Emergency Medical Services Review Committee with term to expire on December 31, 2008; Kathleen England to the Employee Benefits Advisory Committee with term to expire on December 31, 2008; Diane Stees to the Environmentally Endangered Lands Procedure Committee with term to expire on December 31, 2008; Kim Zarillo to the Environmentally Endangered Lands Procedures Committee with term to expire on December 31, 2008; Mark Fowler to the Extension Advisory Committee with term to expire on December 31, 2008; Mary Beth Hinshaw to the Extension Advisory Committee with term to expire on December 31, 2008; Roy Roberts, III to the Extension Advisory Council with term to expire on December 31, 2008; Benjamin Brotemarkle to the Historical Commission with term to expire on December 31, 2008; Roz Foster to the Historical Commission with term to expire on December 31, 2008; J. B. “Barry” Forbes to the Housing Finance Authority with term of appointment to expire on June 6, 2012; Dr. Brent Dalrymple to the Investment Committee with term to expire on December 31, 2008; Pat Freeman to the Library Board with term to expire on December 31, 2008; Ben Charvet to the Mims/Scottsmoor Public Library Advisory Board with term to expire on December 31, 2008; Susan Ellison to the Mims/Scottsmoor Public Library Advisory Board with term to expire on December 31, 2008; Donald Messenger to the Mims/Scottsmoor Public Library Advisory Board with term to expire on December 31, 2008; Gail Ratliff to the North Brevard Library District Board with term to expire on December 31, 2009; Gigi Henkel to the North Brevard Recreation and Parks Commission with term to expire with term to expire on December 31, 2009; Ben Clark to the Parks and Recreation South Service Sector Advisory Board with term to expire on December 31, 2008; Johnny Albert Diggs to the Personnel Council with term to expire on December 31, 2008; Sheila Hutcheson to the Personnel Council with term to expire on December 31, 2008; Bill Cannon to the Planning and Zoning Board with term to expire on December 31, 2008; Leonard Hearndon to the Planning and Zoning Board with term to expire on December 31, 2008; Robert Ludwiczak to the Planning and Zoning Board with term to expire on December 31, 2008; Laurilee Thompson to the Planning and Zoning Board with term to expire on December 31, 2008; Laura Ward to the Planning and Zoning Board with term to expire on December 31, 2008; Pamela Ferraro to the Port St. John Public Library Advisory Board with term to expire on December 31, 2008; Roger Boatman to the Spaceport Commerce Park Authority with term to expire on December 31, 2008; Veronica Clifford to the Spaceport Commerce Park Authority with term to expire on December 31, 2008; Lily Renzetti to the Spaceport Commerce Park Authority with term to expire on December 31, 2008; Kate Breitfeller to the Suntree/Viera Public Library Advisory Board with term to expire on December 31, 2008; Walt Johnson to the Tourist Development Council with term to expire on December 31, 2012; Laurilee Thompson to the Tourist Development Council with term to expire on October 7, 2011; Don Darby to the Valkaria Airport Advisory Board with term to expire on December 31, 2008; Ken Baker to the Wickham Park Advisory Committee with term to expire on December 31, 2008; George Bovell to the Zoning Board of Adjustment with term to expire on December 31, 2008; and Sondra Ball to the Zoning Board of Adjustment with term to expire on December 31, 2008.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve the Bills and Budget Changes, as submitted.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Janis Walters stated she has issues with the item as presented in the Agenda Report; under Florida law, not even hangar tenants, may purchase fuel at Valkaria Airport seven days a week unless a County employee or attendant is on duty and able to supervise whenever fuel is being sold; and referred the Board to Chapter 526.141, paragraphs 1 through 4, Florida Statutes.  She stated there is therefore no point is relocating the fuel facility in order to allow after-hours access for unattended fuel sales as it is a violation of Florida law to do so; and as after-hours airport security cannot be the issue in the fuel tank relocation, applying for post 9-11 security grant money, which requires no matching funds, may not be appropriate for this project.  She stated the requested action on the Agenda Report makes vague reference to enhanced federal security requirements; and inquired if there is documentation of the requirements, are they really requirements or just recommendations, and do any of them apply to this situation under these circumstances.  She stated Valkaria Airport has no passenger or air freight transportation service; there are no high risk security targets on the airport; and Valkaria is an uncontrolled airport, in that anyone determined to do damage for whatever reason can arrive freely from the air.  She stated she does not believe this is a security issue.  She stated FDOT has grants for safety-related projects, usually 80% with a 20% local match, so this project might be done for $27,000 of airport money; however, it also may not really be a safety issue either.  She stated the County already replaced the fuel tank and credit card reader in 2002 at a total cost of approximately $50,000 with 80% FDOT safety upgrade grant funding; the present location of the fuel tank was not an issue at that time; and that was a post 9-11 project.  She inquired if FDOT is really willing to pay 100% or even 80% of the cost to do the same work over again in a different place; and is segregating airport fueling activity from aircraft fueling activity really a significant safety enhancement for the airport.  She stated there is no reason to believe an airport fuel customer poses any greater risk than an aircraft fuel customer does; from a practical standpoint, a pickup truck towing an airboat on a trailer is no more likely to cause an accident in the fueling or tie-down area than an aircraft; and it is probably safe as there is no spinning propeller, no blowing debris, and the truck has a horn to sound if another vehicle poses a problem.  She stated in addition the airboater’s truck and trailer are inherently more stable and controllable than an aircraft; and airboat fueling traffic does not go onto the active airport taxiways as implied in the Agenda Report.  She stated from the access road, they go directly into and through the tie-down area, which is the equivalent of an aircraft parking lot, to where the fuel pump is and then straight out the other gate and back onto the airport access road; it is just like every other convenience store gas pump arrangement that is used every day without incident; and there is no congestion as suggested in the Master Plan.  She advised both ends of the tie-down area are open; and aircraft entering or departing the tie-downs can go east or west to get in and out of their tie-down spots, if an aircraft or airboat is at the fuel pump and blocking their path.  She advised FDOT has 50/50 grant programs for revenue enhancement; however, it is doubtful that the ability to have an airboat and airplane fueling at the same time is going to increase revenue very much, if at all; relocating the fuel tank would make room for three more tie-down spaces; the spaces rent for $1 a day; and three more would net $1,080 a year.  She inquired if that is worth a $133,000 expenditure, no matter where the money comes from; and since revenue enhancement grants are only funded at 50% by FDOT, is $1,080 a year worth a County investment of $67,000.  She requested the Board think over these things and get an informed opinion from FDOT before authorizing the extension of the post 9-11 security enhancement grant to relocate the airport fueling facility. 

 

Curt Lorenc stated the item before the Board on the Consent Agenda is to use FAA money, which is 9-11 security money; that money is only supposed to be used for security issues; and relocating the fuel tank is not a security issue.  He stated it is a convenience issue because airboaters come after hours to buy fuel.  He noted the 9-11 security money has already been misused at the airport; initially the thought was to use the money to put a fence around the airport property; clearly a fence is a security issue and an appropriate use of the money; on July 11, 2006 the Airport Manager came before the Board on the fencing issue and was asked whether he was going to do any other work like clearing the infield or maintenance of the glide slopes; at that time he advised there would be nothing done on the infield property; but he did clear the infield.  He stated the Airport Manager had no permission from the Board to clear the infield; he specifically told the Board he would not do it; but he used 9-11 security money to manager for scrub jays and do routine maintenance on the property, which is clearly not the intended of the federal money.  He stated when some concerned environmentalists and a County Commissioner went to look at what was done, the FBI was called, which was highly inappropriate.  He advised there is a concern about the airport budget and finances; it has been the direction of the Chairman of the Board that the important issues at the airport need to be brought before the Valkaria Airport Advisory Board for discussion and analysis of the issue so recommendations can be made to the Board of County Commissioners; but this is not being done.  He stated the Advisory Board only met twice during the year; when it does meet, the important issues are not being heard; and the issue of the airport finances was tabled.  He stated this is not an appropriate use for the 9-11 money; it is a convenience issue for the airboaters to buy fuel after hours; and it violates State law that clearly says that on self-service fuel there needs to be an attendant to monitor in case something happens so that power can be turned off.  He requested the Board deny the request.    

 

Maureen Rupe stated she cannot speak to the legal aspects because she only just read this, but from what she gathers, there is going to be fuel now outside the fencing and not inside the security where they have to go through, and that they will be using fuel at all times of the night and day, even when there is nobody at the airport.  She inquired how when seven environmentalists and one former County Commissioner went outside the fence to look at scrub jay habitat, the FBI and the Joint Terrorist Task Force were called, and the group was told that it was all airport property and they had not right to look at that.  She stated the group was outside the fencing; and it does not make any sense to put fuel for anybody to use, day or night, right next to airport facilities. 

 

Assistant County Manager Mel Scott stated the Valkaria Airport Advisory Board (VAAB) was pretty much the exclusive forum from which the Master Plan was exhaustively debated; and it was brought to the Board for ultimate approval.  He stated the item before the Board is in the Master Plan Update; he just got the handout about a law that may supersede access; but absent that provision, even if it were followed and there was access to the fuel 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, the fact remains that the theory behind the Agenda item is that currently there is non-aviation public going through the security gate on what is characterized as an active ramp and taxiway area; and the most basic goal would be not allowing that to happen.  He stated  they would be fencing in the tanks and allowing access to occur per the State or federal regulation; and it would just change the way to fuel at the Valkaria Airport.  He noted it is FDOT money, FDOT has look at it, and it has passed muster; and if this is something the Board would like to move forward with, they are prepared to do that; but if it would like to deliberate further, they are also prepared to do that.

 

Commissioner Voltz stated she spent some time at the airport on Saturday going over where the tanks are going to be and how they are going to be set up; Mr. Scott is right that if somebody comes in, they have to come along the taxiway along the airport; and that is a safety issue and a problem.  She stated the Board needs to move forward; it is in the Master Plan; it was debated and approved at the Valkaria Airport Advisory Board; and the Board needs to move forward. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve the expansion of existing FDOT Joint Participation Agreement ANH22, related to Operational and Maintenance costs that comply with Enhanced Federal Security Requirements, with no local matching funds required. 

 

 

Chairman Scarborough inquired about the need for an attendant.  County Attorney Scott Knox responded it may or may not say that; he is not sure if it would apply to the airport or not; and he will have to look at the issue.  Chairman Scarborough stated he is not prepared to vote on it until he understands; there is a cost to it; and if the benefit is negated by having to have an attendant there, he does not want to spend capital funds to something that will not work. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated people who bring this stuff up have continuously brought up stuff to divert things that are happening at the airport; and many of them have been unfounded; but yet, the Board continues to listen to people who have continuously given the Board erroneous information.  She stated sooner or later the Board needs to take the bulls by the horns and get the job done at the airport instead of continuously giving certain persons credibility because there is no credibility there. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated the Master Plan is changing slightly in terms of the issue that was worked through Mosquito Control; and inquired do they need to amend the Master Plan to accommodate the action the Board would be taking.  He inquired to what level are they able to deviate from the Master Plan before it triggers some level of updating or change.  Mr. Scott stated the item was identified in the Master Plan; they did not have a series of maps that were part of the Master Plan that would have depicted many of the items that are capital construction items; therefore there is not a map that has a configuration of the airport as it is or a map in the Master Plan that illustrates this change.  He stated as is the case with the Comprehensive Plan, they anticipate as CIP activities are undertaken that the map would follow the change, if approved by the Board.  Commissioner Nelson stated he thinks the map is in the Plan; that was the point of contention with Mosquito Control, that it went down the fence line and actually took part of their land; and that raised a question when the public hearing was held.  He stated Mr. Borowski worked with Mosquito Control and addressed it; there was a map in the plan that is now different from what was approved; and his question is at what point it triggers an amendment.  He stated the second part is that any citizen has a right to raise a question; in this case, he is not comfortable not knowing the answer; because it is an airport, it may not have to
comply; but he would like to know that before the Board takes a vote on it.  Commissioner Nelson stated he would like to make his vote based on what he knows to be true versus the insinuation that it may be inaccurate, so he would like see Mr. Knox come back with a response. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to table to the next meeting consideration of Joint Participation Agreement expansion with FDOT for fuel farm relocation and consolidation project.

 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated she would like to give Mr. Borowski the opportunity to give input on this issue because the Board has not heard from him.  She stated the Board needs to recognize that a few citizens continuously give erroneous information. 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated he has a procedural problem in that there has been a motion to table; and there should be no discussion after a motion to table. 

 

Chairman Scarborough called for a vote on the motion to table.  Motion did not carry; Commissioner Scarborough and Nelson voted aye; Commissioners Voltz, Bolin, and Voltz voted nay. 

 

 

Valkaria Airport Manager Steve Borowski stated currently there are non-aviation individuals coming onto the airport; they drive on the taxiway and the ramp area right next to the existing aircraft; and that is an extreme security issue.  He stated they do not want somebody who is not licensed and does not know their way around the airport to be next to the aircraft; and that is what FDOT has said is a major concern.  He stated FDOT is concerned about security; they have used $301,000 of the grant for fencing, gates, and things like that; and FDOT wants to insure that the airport accomplishes keeping the aviators and trained people on one side of the fence and non-aviators on the other side of the fence.  He stated that is the major issue; the way the airport is laid out, the location of the fuel tank is due to an existing slab from many years ago; and it is actually in the wrong place, too close to the aircraft.  He stated if there was an accident there, which could happen, it would go right down the line, lighting up one aircraft after the next, so those are security issues that have to be thought about. 

 

Chairman Scarborough inquired if Mr. Borowski got a copy of the Statute that was handed out; and provided a copy to Mr. Borowski.  Mr. Scott advised this is really a legal issue; the title is Self-Service Gasoline Stations; and he would defer to the County Attorney as to the applicability of the Statute to airports.  County Attorney Scott Knox stated he cannot give an off the cuff opinion without looking at it.  Chairman Scarborough stated that was the reason for the motion to table.  Mr. Borowski stated he does not know anything about it; but there are numerous airports out there.  Chairman Scarborough stated the issue would be whether it is viable if they have to have an attendant and how would it work under that scenario because it is necessary to comply with State law; and advised he would like to get an answer to that and bring it back at the end of the meeting.  The Board reached consensus to bring the issue back at the end of the meeting. 

 

 

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearings to consider a resolution vacating portion of Hammock Road right-of-way as petitioned by Honeycutt and Associates and resolution vacating a portion of Hammock Trail right-of-way as petitioned by Honeycutt and Associates.    

 

Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff stated Items VI.A. and VI.B. are similar in several ways; the names of the road are similar and the consultants involved are the same; and there may have been some confusion.  He stated staff received an objection to the item misidentified as VI.A. but is actually Item VI.B.; and at this point he is unaware of any objections to Item VI.A., the vacating of a portion of Hammock Road right-of-way.

 

Gary Parker inquired what are the stipulations for the mailing of the letter of notice; with Mr. Denninghoff responding all the properties within 500 feet of the vacating area received notice.  Mr. Parker stated he is sure there is an Ordinance or some reason why it was only sent to people at 500 feet, but when 187 houses are built, those vehicles are going to travel much farther than 500 feet; there are a lot of school children on Turpentine Road; and that road, Guil Road and Ford Road are going to have a lot more traffic on them, so there should have been a lot more people receiving notice.  He stated he and a lot of his neighbors attended a meeting at the Mims Library; the information they were given is different than what is in the letter; there were suppose to be three entrance and exits from the development; but now it is down to one.  He stated the exit to Carpenter Road is not going to happen because they are not paving the road, so no one will use the Carpenter Road exit; the exit through the Fun in the Sun Resort will not be used because they can put in speed bumps, traffic signs, and golf carts; and all of the traffic from the entire development is going to come out onto Turpentine Road.  He stated the petitioner tried to tell the Board that they were going to save the County money by paving the road; the County thinks it is going to get rid of a road grader and operator’s salary; but that is not going to happen because they are not going to pave all of Hammock Trail.  He stated the road grader is going to have to be there anyway; the operator is going to have to driver over the paved area of the road to grade other parts of the road; and the only savings will be the 20 or 30 minutes that the operator will use driving over Hammock Trail, which is going to be offset by the hundreds of thousands of dollars that are going to be spent reconstructing Turpentine Road because all of the traffic will probably destroy it.  He stated the original rezoning application talked about a ditch that was going to be filled and realigned; Hammock Trail was going to come out 100 yards from where it is now; and the whole thing has changed from when they met at the library.  He stated it has gone downhill and gotten worse for all the residents. 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated he is going to ask the Board to continue both items to the next meeting; he does not think it appropriate to take the Board’s time to get into engineering questions; and that would be best done in his office where they can sift through this and then bring it back to the Board. 

 

Dennis Basile stated he is the managing member of Main Street Acres, which owns 40 acres to the north of the property in question on Hammock Road; and he supports the proposed road vacation. 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated Rodney Honeycutt is the engineer for both projects; and he understands where they are going with it, so he would like to have a motion to continue both public hearings. 

 

Rodney Honeycutt stated he does not think there is any objection to the Hammock Road vacating, so he would prefer to move forward with that.  Mr. Denninghoff advised that is Item VI.A.

 

Mr. Parker stated his objection is to Hammock Trail only. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to adopt Resolution vacating a portion of Hammock Road, as petitioned by Rodney Honeycutt.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated Item VI.B. came forward with a recommendation to continue the public hearing.  Mr. Denninghoff stated there was an objection.

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, to continue the public hearing to consider Resolution vacating portion of Hammock trail Right-of-way as petitioned by Rodney Honeycutt to February 5, 2008. 

 

 

Commissioner Nelson inquired if the process addresses the issue that the Board heard, which a development plan that had three accesses, but now is down to potentially one; and has staff looked at that issue; with Mr. Denninghoff responding yes.  Chairman Scarborough stated he hopes to answer those questions.  Commissioner Nelson requested he receive that information when the item comes back. 

 

Commissioner Nelson seconded the motion.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider a resolution vacating right-of-way in Florida Lane in Waterway Manor, Unit No. 1 as petitioned by Betty Hinds and Charles Waterhouse.  

 

Commissioner Nelson inquired if the homeowners association was contacted; with Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff responding the homeowners association has submitted a letter and does not object.

 

There being no further comments or objections, motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt Resolution vacating right-of-way in Florida Lane in Waterway Manor, Unit No. 1, as petitioned by Betty Hinds and Charles Waterhouse.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Ordinance 84-05 which created the Charter of Barefoot Bay Recreation District.

 

There being no comments or objections, motion was made by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to adopt an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 84-05 which created the Charter of the Barefoot Bay Recreation District; specifically amending Article V, Section 2 to reduce the number of members of the Board of Trustees from nine (9) to five (5) by attrition over the next two elections beginning in November 2008; specifically amending Article V, Section 3 to revise the manner of election of Board of Trustees members as follows:  beginning with the election held in November 2008, qualified candidates may run for the Board of Trustees with the candidates receiving the highest number of votes in descending order filling all vacant seats; providing for severability; and providing an effective date.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider an appeal of administrative decision for Surface Water Protection Code as petitioned by Keith Grosse.

 

Natural Resources Management Director Ernie Brown stated what is before the Board today is an appeal of an administrative decision regarding a building permit for a bulkhead in the Lake Poinsett area at 819 Mallard Road; the current Code requires the bulkheads on residential canals be built in place, replacing the actual footprint of the previous bulkhead; but there is an exception in the Code that allows for a bulkhead to be built in front of the existing bulkhead, but the current Code requires it to be protecting an existing residential structure.  He stated in this particular case there is no residential structure on the property; there are some unique circumstances around this; the property is undeveloped, but on either side there are residential structures; and the applicant has requested the Board’s consideration as it relates to those structures.  He stated in particular the properties to the north and south are part of the same bulkhead system; and they are all in a state of significant decay or deterioration.  He stated Mr. Grosse’s bulkhead is virtually nonexistent now; so the question before the Board is whether or not the Board would like to consider changing the existing Code to address Mr. Grosse’s needs as they relate to building in front of the bulkhead. 

 

Keith Grosse stated he is the owner of the property at 819 Mallard Road; and advised his contractor could not be present today as he is in surgery.  He stated he is not looking for four feet, but for 12 inches; and commented on Code Section 62-3666.  He stated he was worried about the residents to the north and south of him; he contacted the neighbors to the north and south at 817 and 821 Mallard Road; and they had no objections to his going out 12 inches.  He stated what happened years ago was that the bulkhead got damaged and started going seaward; it was cut on both sides, so it fell flat; and the contractor and engineer believe the bottom part that was in the canal and was underwater is still there and the rest went out in a vertical position.  He stated he wants to pull out the remaining concrete and just go 12 inches in front of the existing bulkhead; and submitted pictures to the Board. 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated the staff recommendation gave three options: (1) uphold the administrative determination to deny the permit; (2) grant the appeal which would require Code change; or (3) allow waterward extensions of not more than 12 inches, which would require a Code change.  He stated it would appear the discussion will not end today, but will just begin today because the Board will not solve the problem today.  He stated he would like to get an idea if Mr. Grosse understands where staff is in terms of the Code and the Board would proceed.  Mr. Brown stated the situation before the Board is that any action beyond denial would require a Code change; the appeal does not necessarily have standing under the Code because there is no provision for the Board to provide a waiver; and it would require a Code change to allow Mr. Grosse to build 12 inches in front of the current bulkhead, as it relates to having a residential structure on site.  He stated this portion of the Code was designed and put into play for the expressed purposes of insuring the navigability of these canals; as they have seen in other circumstances where people have illegally built in front of their existing bulkheads, there has been a diminishing of the canal; and that is the question that the Board would have to struggle with, whether it would want to entertain the concept of changing the Code to allow for this waterward expansion when there is no structure to be protected.  He stated if the Board gives direction to do that, he will return with legislative intent to do so; and what the Board will be entertaining is change of Code to allow waterward extensions without the need to protect an existing structure. 

 

Chairman Scarborough inquired if Mr. Grosse has any questions; with Mr. Grosse responding no.  Chairman Scarborough inquired how many inches does Mr. Grosse need to move forward; with Mr. Grosse responding 12 inches.  Mr. Grosse stated the neighbor to the north is probably at least four feet past where he wants to go so it should not infringe; and his concern was the neighbors.  Chairman Scarborough stated the problem is when the Board creates an ordinance, it is for everybody; and there may be other areas that are more problematic in keeping waterways open. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated Mr. Brown said they were asking for four feet.  Mr. Brown stated the pictures show some white stakes that are the approximate location of the property line; and because the bulkhead itself has fallen forward, there is land there now where there was no land when the bulkhead was in an upright position.  He stated the way the application was written was to build forward of the collapsed seawall; land has been created as a result of the collapsed seawall; and Mr. Grosse has clarified with staff that he will revise his application to say it will be 12 inches in front of the existing vertical location of the original bulkhead.  Commissioner Voltz stated it would be the same as if someone hardened the beach; occasionally when someone hardens the beach, the people around them have their beaches erode; and inquired if this would be the same concept; with Mr. Brown responding it is very similar.  Mr. Brown advised this is a unique location because looking to the bulkhead on the north, the picture shows a dock with a bulkhead that has fallen forward, and on the top it says “bulkhead north of subject property exhibiting loss of structural integrity”; this is the condition of the northern bulkhead; and it has lost all integrity and serves no purpose for the property.  He stated by all structural accounts, he would not rely on it for anything other than putting undue pressure on the pilings; all of the bulkheads need to be replaced; and described the system where one person builds in front of it and then the next person builds in front of it.  He advised if Mr. Grosse’s neighbor made the request, it would be granted for the 12 inches in front because there is a structure on the property; and ideally Mr. Grosse would be able to build it in the same location and continue on out, although it would be more cost prohibitive for him. 

 

Chairman Scarborough suggested with legislative intent, staff could come back with models for the two things so the Board could have a little more discussion; the Board wants to look at it and see the legislative intent; and moving forward beyond this discussion and getting legislative intent back seems to be the more practical way of dealing with it at this moment.  He stated the Board needs to know the dynamics elsewhere with other canals. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to direct staff to return to the Board with alternative legislative intent and models to allow replacement of bulkheads waterward of original bulkhead foundations where there are no residences.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

Mr. Grosse inquired if he can add his pictures to the package; with Chairman Scarborough responding he may.  Chairman Scarborough stated the Board will be talking about Mr. Grosse’s issue but it will be in the context of the larger world of all the canals in the County.  He recommended Mr. Grosse work with Mr. Brown as he puts the legislative intent together.     

 

 

The meeting recessed at 11:03 a.m. and reconvened at 11:15 a.m.

 

 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated in order to facilitate his trip to Washington, D.C. tomorrow, Commissioner Bolin has agreed to adjust her schedule to fill in on the Canvassing Board; the voting is underway for January 29, 2008 as well as testing of equipment for the upcoming elections; and thanked Commissioner Bolin for filling in for him.  He stated it is an interesting process; and he knows Commissioner Bolin will do the right thing.    

 

Chairman Scarborough stated he has some cards that are for the AG Ventures, LLC and Honeybrook Development Corporation item; he has some cards for the Scottsmoor Partners, LLC item; and he a number of cards for both items.  He inquired if there are any persons present who are interested in only one of the items; with one person indicating interest only in the Scottsmoor Partners, LLC item.  Chairman Scarborough advised the Board will hear both items together; they are linked in the manner in which they are zoned; and it is not possible to make one work without having control over both of them.     

 

Environmentally Endangered Lands Coordinator Mike Knight stated the Board asked staff to have the appraisals updated; and staff compiled a table giving a summary of the first and second round of appraisals for both properties.  He stated the important numbers are going to be the second appraisals; they did seek new comparable sales that were available; and that brought the appraisal values down on the Scottsmoor parcel, but not below the negotiated price, so they are still a half million dollars under the negotiated price.  Mr. Knight stated on the AG Ventures parcel, the price is negotiated at about $640,000 over the appraisal because the values did drop below the negotiated price.  He stated in a nutshell, that is where the values stand; and he would like to give an opportunity to Keith Fountain to speak about where they are with the contracts. 

 

Keith Fountain with The Nature Conservancy stated he will summarize where the County stands today; based on the Board’s instructions at the last meeting, the two appraisals for each of the two properties has been updated; the contract for Scottsmoor Partners has a purchase price of $15 million; and the two appraisals are at $15.5 million and $17.9 million.  He stated if the Board applies the rules that are in the EEL Land Acquisition Manual, the maximum appraised value is $17.9 million; and therefore the contract on that property stands at a $2.9 million discount to the appraised value.  He stated the AG Ventures properties were reappraised; and the appraisals came in at  $7.1 million and $8.954 million.  He noted one of the appraisals changed, and the other did not; and if the rules are applied those appraisals are 26% divergent so that has to be resolved.  He stated a way to do that is to take 120% of the low appraisals; that leaves an appraised value for that property of $8.52 million, which is $640,000 below the contract purchase price of $9.16 million; however, the contract adjusts for that and provides that if the Board takes the 120% of the low appraisal, then the purchase price adjusts downward to the appraised value of the property or the $8.52 million.  He stated the sellers, AG Ventures, then have ten days after written notice of the change to agree to go forward with the transaction or to terminate the contract; if they terminate the contract, then both contracts are terminated because they are linked; but if AG Ventures accepts the price, then both transactions would go forward and close without any action by the Board today.  He stated the Board would buy both properties, one at appraised value and the other at a $2.9 million discount.    

 

Suzanne Valencia stated she is in favor of going forward with the contracts; and Mr. Fountain explained very well how the prices have come together and how the contract works.  She stated she did not know that the sellers have ten days to say whether they like it or not, and if they do not, that the whole deal falls apart; and advised the properties are too crucial to the EEL Program to let anything happen to them.  She stated she has heard from people that there are no scrub jays on the properties; scrub jays have particular requirements of open sandy areas and low shrubs; and if a land is not managed for scrub jays, then they will move elsewhere or go out of existence; however, the property in question has vast potential for scrub jay habitat.  She reiterated she is in favor of going forward with the contract today with no more delays. 

 

Paul Schmalzer submitted paperwork; stated he has served on the Selection and Management Committee for the EEL Program since the beginning in 1990; and he has worked as a plant ecologist in the County for 25 years.  He stated on November 20, 2007 he presented information on AG Ventures and Scottsmoor Partners properties; and at that meeting the Board approved the option contracts with the stipulation that additional information come back regarding the updates of the original appraisals.  He stated he wants to remind the Board of the ecological significance of the properties; they are large intact landscapes of high quality natural communities that support important populations of threatened and endangered plant and animal species; they form a connected landscape enhancing their environmental values; and the properties include over 1,500 acres of high quality natural communities such as scrub, flatwoods, hammocks, hardwood swamps, marshes, and cypress.  Mr. Schmalzer stated the primary goal of the EEL Program, as established by the 1990 referendum and extended by the 2004 referendum, is to protect biological diversity of the County now and into the future; value for species from natural communities and for landscape connection all factor into the ability to support and maintain biological diversity; and the sites being presented for acquisition today meet all criteria, are a high priority, and have unanimous support of the Selection and Management Committee.  He stated following the Hunters Brook acquisition, which was approved by the Board in November 2007 and purchased in December 2007, the properties before the Board today are the most important environmental properties that will come to it.  He noted in recognition of the importance of the properties as habitat for the Florida scrub jay, The Nature Conservancy has offered a grant of $3 million from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida Scrub Jay Conservation Program fund toward the acquisition of these two properties, with the funds split between the two properties.  He stated the grant increases the acquisition funds available to the EEL Program by $3 million, and is specific to these two properties; and there is potential that the grant will be lost if properties do not move forward.  He stated the updated appraisals show some change in value, but not a precipitous drop; the Scottsmoor Partners property remains $500,000 below the lowest of the new appraisals and AG Ventures is $600,000 above the appraised value; but the $1.5 million Nature Conservancy grant will reduce each price to Brevard County.  He stated the properties are part of a planned unit development; they must be purchased together; and they are both under contract with willing sellers.  He stated the contracts were all under appraisal when they were first negotiated; and given the high ecological value of the two properties and the fact that they must be acquired together, he would urge the Board to proceed with the contacts today.  He stated the Nature Conservancy grant of $3 million contributes to the acquisitions remaining fiscally responsible. 

 

Mike Sarro advised he is a commercial real estate broker; and his only issue with the transaction is with the value determination by staff, which the Board relies on heavily.  He stated he is questioning why there was not a basic approach to this, which would be bringing in a commercial bank certified appraiser at the beginning.  He stated the County buys a lot of property; and it is typical to contact an appraiser who does that.  He stated if the County was a development group, it would not buy property unless a lender advised what it was worth; the Board has gone through half a dozen appraisers trying to hit a magic number; and he thinks the Board is overpaying heavily.  He commented on a Florida TODAY article; and recommended the Board renegotiate.  He stated in terms of having to buy both properties together and things like that, if the Board told one seller or the other that it could not buy them together but would buy one, he does not think the owner would turn the County down.  He recommended the Board look at the terms and conditions, and analyze the appraisals; and stated the question is whether they can sell it to a bank and would a bank lend money to buy the ground.  He stated that is the approach, not justifying what the contract already says; and part of his practice specializes in liquidating properties that are undervalued where there is more debt than what they are worth today.  He stated it would be unusual if the property was worth anywhere near what was originally put on the contract; when it was put under contract, there was a on overheated market; but the Board is spending a lot of cash and risking a $3 million federal grant; and it still has to cough up $20 million to make the deal.  He stated if the Board has an opportunity to table this decision and revisit the contract, he would urge the Board to do it; if there are people lining up, then the County will have missed this one; but there are tons of ground undeveloped in Brevard County; and it seems that the County is running to make a deal when there is no pressure on.  Mr. Sarro stated the Board is responsible; the constituents are asking where this money is going; and requested the Commissioners dig deep, do a gut check, and decide if they want to move ahead and take another look.  He stated he recommends taking another look and does not think he is alone on this. 

 

Chairman Scarborough inquired how the Board would go about getting different appraisers; with Mr. Sarro responding it can call any major lender, tell them the County is looking at a $20 million land acquisition, and ask who the lender would recommend.  Mr. Sarro stated lenders usually have a pool of appraisers; the Board’s appraisers might be on the list; and it could come back that the numbers are right.  He stated it sounds it is not a regular thing for staff to try to value $20 million pieces of property; it is like when he buys his wife a Valentine’s present once a year; he is not good at it; so it is something the Board has to look at.  He stated lenders will guide and direct the Board on this acquisition; if the Board cannot borrow what it is paying for the property, it is not what it is worth; and commented the amount a property sells for at a auction being the true value.  He stated this is a big deal for the County; it is a lot of money; but it looks like this is on an express train even though nobody is standing behind the County to take its place if it turns it down.  He commented on having to buy both properties together; stated it is a good deal for the sellers if the County can get the right price; but the Board is overpaying.  He stated nothing about the deal is good regardless of the properties’ environmental potential.

 

Commissioner Voltz stated the Agenda Report says it is requested the Board consider allowing the existing option agreement to lapse, allowing The Nature Conservancy to renegotiate with the sellers based on the updated appraisals; and that is what the Board is looking at doing, not going forward with the purchase and letting it be renegotiated. 

 

Mr. Sarro recommended the Board allow it to lapse until it has a third opinion; and commented on not letting it lapse, running into problems, and not having a Phase 1 environmental on the property. 

 

Commissioner Voltz requested an explanation of why it is necessary to do the two purchases together because of the PUD.  Chairman Scarborough stated it may be good to have the Planning and Zoning Director present to respond. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated staff does not establish any values on the properties; and all values have been established by appraisers.  Mr. Sarro stated he understands that, but they still need to get the information.  Commissioner Nelson stated he would be hesitant to call a bank to ask value at this point because the banks are the parties who created the foreclosure problems with sub-prime lending and appraisals that were dummied to support those.  Mr. Sarro stated what created the problem was the sub-prime market, not the national lenders; and they do not engage in commercial land acquisitions.  Commissioner Nelson stated the process that is followed is one where they use selected appraisers who have been certified and qualified by the State; and at least there is a process in place to deal with the MAI appraisers to qualify them to
get the best they can, so the dilemma is the Board has done all the things it is supposed to and now there is disagreement over it.  Mr. Sarro stated it is his opinion that the Board has taken one of several approaches to valuing the land, but that is has not done all t hat it could do, and that is what he is taking exception to.  Commissioner Nelson stated he takes exception to that because all the Board has done is select the appraisers; so Mr. Sarro may have an issue with the appraisers and how they did the appraisals; but as far as the Board and staff, they are responding to information received from the people that were selected through that process. 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated the Board will be hearing from the appraisers; and suggested Mr. Sarro stay to hear them. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated he did not want the implication that somehow County staff was manipulating the information because it is an independent group of people in the real estate world who are doing this, not staff or the Board. 

 

Mr. Sarro stated it is just one approach; and commented about one of the appraisers being fine by the organization that controls appraisers.  He stated the first round recruiting appraisers did not go well; he is just looking for the value to be substantiated; and there is another venue the Board can approach, which is bank certified appraisers. 

 

Chairman Scarborough requested Mr. Fountain comment on the qualification of appraisers.  Mr. Fountain stated he cannot go through all the technical qualifications, but he can say the County’s pool of appraisers is selected from a list that is approved by the Department of Environmental Protection.  Chairman Scarborough inquired why is DEP involved; with Mr. Fountain responding until the Florida Forever Program ran low on money, Brevard County was partnering with the State on all of the conservation land transactions; at the end of the day 50% of the purchase prices was County funds and 50% was State funds; and the County was utilizing appraisers that were on the State’s list.  Mr. Fountain advised the State has a lengthy list; they are all MAI appraisers who go through strict scrutiny in order to be put on the list by DEP; and the appraisers that are present today who are doing work for the County do similar work for other County programs, for the Water Management Districts, and for other agencies around the State.  He stated they prepare the appraisals and adhere to the standards with the other agencies, just as they do in the Brevard County report; he is concerned about misinformation to the public; and advised neither staff nor The Nature Conservancy is involved in the valuation of these properties.  He stated t he rules mandate for properties of this size that two appraisers be selected by bid process from the list of appraisers; they are not hand picked but are selected by bid from the list; they produce reports, which are then reviewed by a third appraiser from the list for compliance with standards; and then those appraisals are the basis for negotiation.  He stated the prices were not negotiated during the hot real estate market; the price on the AG Ventures property was negotiated in Fall 2006, which was after the hot market; and the price for the Scottsmoor property was negotiated in the middle of 2007, when some people were already anticipating a cooling effect on the market, which is why there was a $5 million discount in the price.  He stated both transactions’ negotiations were very active; and they started much lower than the final purchase price.

 

Chairman Scarborough requested Ms. Sobrino comment on planned unit developments.  Planning and Zoning Director Robin Sobrino advised a planned unit development is a concept which is presented to the Board to review as a zoning action for a development plan that is set forth in the planned unit development (PUD); and there are certain standards in a PUD in terms of open space and other types of density allowances.  She noted there is some flexibility within the boundaries of the PUD that a regular zoned property may not enjoy; the difficulty in this particular case is that there are two pieces of property that are separated by the Interstate; however, they were married together under the planned unit development concept.  She stated as a result, if the Board wishes to deal with one portion of the property, or since they are now owned by two different owners, if one of the owners wishes to do something to alter the approved development plan for that piece of the PUD, they would be subject to going back through the zoning process in that each side of the PUD relies very much upon some attribute of the other property.  She stated for example, on the easterly side there may be higher densities than are allowed by the Comprehensive Plan because those densities are offset by additional open space provided on the west side; and the property has to be viewed within its full context, and one portion cannot be split out from the other without creating some inconsistency with the zoning regulations. 

 

Commissioner Bolin inquired about the method of negotiation, how is the negotiation price established, and in the past has the Board ever come forward with what it feels would be a fair price.  Mr. Fountain stated the way negotiations proceed is that once the appraisals are received and reviewed, The Nature Conservancy, in consultation with the EEL staff, prepares a negotiation strategy; and among the parameters of the strategy are an initial offer and then a maximum offer.  He noted a maximum offer is not always appraised value; in the Scottsmoor Partners acquisition it was not; the starting points and ending points are selected based on the nature of the marketplace at the time and other sales; and it is a judgment call by The Nature Conservancy and staff. 

 

Gary Johnson stated he is encouraged that the Board is considering eliminating a major unnecessary expense from the unreasonably inflated Brevard County budget; and he is encouraged that the Board is beginning to prioritize spending rather than irresponsibly threatening to cut essential public services.  He stated there may be hope that the Board may be finally beginning to understand fiscal responsibility and act accordingly.  He stated today they are present to discuss an EEL’s purchase; and more importantly they are talking about beginning to alleviate spending problems.  He advised Brevard County’s ad valorem tax revenues increased 100% over the past six years, which is obscene; it demonstrates a lack of fiscal responsibility; the County is not at war or under attack by terrorists; and inquired what kind of distorted thinking attempts to justify these kinds of expenditure increases.  He stated the Board continues to spend out of control as if it were normal with no regard to taxpayers’ ability to pay or the hardships it presents; in the same time period, family income has increased only 37%; this ridiculous situation is not sustainable; and spending must come down.  He stated he is tired of being raped by the out of control spending; the exorbitant increases in property value assessments do not increase his income or his ability to pay; 30% of his income goes for property taxes; and it is ridiculous.  He inquired what kind of distorted thinking attempts to justify this.  He stated reading some of the history of the EEL’s transactions, it is apparent that a few people are profiting handsomely at the taxpayers’ expense; and it makes one wonder who else is profiting.  Mr. Johnson stated the Clerk of Courts is paid to provide audits and recommendations; and inquired why his information and advice are ignored.  He  stated the Board cannot continue to increase recurring debt and operational expenses when property values and County budgets must come down; it is a no brainer; and the Board must assume some fiscal responsibility and vote to delete the completely unjustified purchases from the budget.  He stated the County does not need and cannot afford the Parks and Recreation empire that the Board is attempting to build.

 

Maureen Rupe stated the purchase is not a budget item; it is a self-imposed tax by the people of Brevard County to buy these lands; and there are no environmentalists or taxpayers who do not want the best price and the best environmentally sensitive lands that the County can possibly obtain for its acquisition dollars.  She stated there is enthusiasm for these lands because the environmental community has been waiting at least ten years for them to become available; the offered lands are significant for the ecosystem in both size and location; twice within the past year the Board has set precedent to allow payment of more than appraised price; and that has been due to the number of people demonstrating support of the acquisition.  She advised the Commission Chambers have been full with people supporting acquisition; and the citizens of the County stated their support for the EEL Program by voting twice for a self-imposed tax for acquisition.  She stated the last vote passed by 70%; she does not know any Commissioner who won with a 70% vote; and that is a mandate.  She stated the two properties go together; if the Board took the under-appraisal of the Scottsmoor Landings property and applied it to the whole purchase, there would not be a lot left over, taking it as a whole.  She stated she supports The Nature Conservancy’s recommendations; and the Board cannot afford to lose the lands as there are no more in the County like them. 

 

Dave Breininger stated he is a member of the EEL Selection and Management Committee, and served as a scientist on various wildlife conservation committees in the County and as a volunteer for about 15 years.  He stated the EEL Program is not regulatory, but based on willing sellers; and he challenges the rationale, the cost, the time, the ability, and fairness to develop and implement a policy that relies on appraisers to quantify species value, and then devalue the property value if an endangered species is present, especially when their populations fluctuate.  He stated if he was king for a day, he would increase the property value.  He advised he has published dozens of scientific journals on Florida scrub jays and their habitat; there are scrub jays in the vicinity of the properties; he has no doubt about the potential to recover scrub jay populations on the properties; and the EEL Program now has several examples of restoring habitat and populations in areas that were formerly unoccupied.  He stated these properties are among the last in the County; they are dominated by scrub and pine flatwoods, which are recognized as one of North America’s most endangered ecosystems; most Brevard County ecosystems have become badly degraded by human activities and wildlife populations are declining rapidly on lands that are not actively managed for wildlife; and requested the Board reduce the delays because it is becoming harder to restore and recover populations.

 

Grace Graziano stated as a resident of the County, she supports the EEL Program; and she is one of the over 70% who backed the renewal of the program.  She commented on today’s editorial about saving the land and the parcels being selected by scientists to help create biological corridors of all wildlife; and urged the Board to keep the deal on the table. 

 

Cheryl Palmer stated as a fellow elected official, she realizes that the Board takes every situation and issue that comes before it, and looks at it carefully to make sure it is going down the right road for the constituents; sometimes the Board is on the right road and does things that in the future it will be proud of; but sometimes someone points out that it is on the wrong road.  She stated the Board can either say it has come so far, spent so much money, and so many well intention people have advised it that it cannot possibly turn back or it can turn around and find the right path.  She stated a few years ago there was the Sarno land purchase that became infamous; nobody came to the Board and said look at the appraisals or pointed out that the Board was on the wrong path until after the fact; and a lot of people were hurt personally and politically by the outfall from that situation.  She stated she was one of the people who came along as an armchair quarterback to say it was terrible; but now she is present before the fact.  She stated she does not have all the facts and figures, but believes that Scott Ellis does; and the Board should listen to Mr. Ellis.  She stated Mr. Ellis is one of the people who talked a lot about the Sarno deal; and a lot of the same principles are involved in this sale.  She stated it is like déjà vu in terms of inflated appraisals, same people involved, and the Board saying the purchase price is below the legal appraisals; and it is exactly what happened; yet, the County paid an exorbitant price.  She stated 70% of the voters voted for the EEL Program; 70% of the people say there is too much building, the County is losing all of its green space, and it needs to preserve some of the natural environment and species; and those people would also request the Board not squander the money, but get as much as it can out of the EEL’s dollars.  She stated when the offer comes from a judgment call on the part of The Nature Conservancy, there is a problem; and encouraged the Board to not look back and regret its decision.  She stated the Board has come a long way down this road; it has all this paperwork and appraisals; and much has been done; but the market has drastically changed.  She stated everyone in the County will be looking at how the Board handles this fiscally; and they will make a judgment call as to how the Board is going to handle all the other fiscal questions.  She stated she knows the Commissioners are conscientious and good people who care deeply about the community; she knows Clerk of Courts Scott Ellis is present and has all kinds of information; and requested the Board listen, put this off, get rid of the appraisals, and start from square one. 

 

Chris Gardner stated his group is part owner of the Scottsmoor Partners parcel; they were the original assembler of the land; and if anyone has history of the land, it would be his group.  He stated he is not going to reiterate what Mr. Fountain or some of the environmental people said; but he is present to provide any feedback that is required.  He stated he has seen things in the newspaper that may or may not be true; some of the numbers are not true; and he was hoping to set some of the record straight.  He stated he is in support of the purchase; and he can respond to any questions the Board has. 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated if there is something Mr. Gardner wants to set straight, this is his opportunity.

 

Mr. Gardner stated it is important to understand that it is not one site; he is not speaking for AG Ventures, although he knows the AG Ventures people well; but this was an assemblage of land that occurred in 2003 and 2004.  He stated the original parcel was the eastern portion of the McIntosh Highlands parcel; the second assemblage was known as the Roberts parcel, which provided them with access to County Road 5A; and commented on inaccurate information that has been in the newspaper relative to the figures.  Mr. Gardner stated they recognize the PUD constraints, but they also see the PUD strengths; they have worked closely with the Genonis and the AG Venture people; they have known about the PUD since they acquired the property; and in fact, the PUD is what provides its value. 

 

Chairman Scarborough inquired if this started with McIntosh Highlands; with Mr. Gardner responding that is correct.  Chairman Scarborough inquired if Mr. Gardner came in before the two current property owners that the Board is dealing with; with Mr. Gardner responding his group is one of the property owners for the Scottsmoor Partners property.  Chairman Scarborough inquired if that is east or west of I-95; with Mr. Gardner responding it is east of I-95; they were the original procurers of the site; and their joint venture partners are present as well. 

 

Dorothy Russell stated she is a private citizen and taxpayer; she owns a lot of non-homesteaded property; and she pays a lot of taxes.  She stated she cannot get excited about the scrub jay, but Clerk of Courts Scott Ellis advised they are looking forward to the probability that in a few years there will be a moratorium on well water; and this is mostly due to continued development of land, so she became interested in development of land as a self preservation thing.  She stated it looks like this is a key piece of property for the protection of the facilities the County has; and she agrees the Board should negotiate the price as best it can so she does not have to pay any more taxes than she has to.  She stated the Board should go through with the deal because Duda has a big new development going; and the Board needs to curtail development and protect the environment, scrub jays or no scrub jays. 

 

Dennis Basile stated he has no dog hunting in this situation; but when a previous speaker started talking about bank appraisers, he had to stand up.  He stated he is a former MAI appraiser and was Chairman of the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board; he helped write the rules and laws for the State for appraising; he testified before Congress; and he served for 12 years on the County’s Value Adjustment Board, so he knows appraising well.  He stated if the Board has any questions concerning qualifications of appraisers, he is the guy to ask; and the two appraisers who appraised the property were good competitors of his when he was an appraiser.  He stated he is also a certified commercial investment member and a fulltime commercial broker in Brevard County; and he owns lots of property in the Mims/Scottsmoor area so he knows some values up there.  He stated bankers make decisions based on other things besides what the Board is making its decisions based on today; when the previous speaker said bank certified appraiser, he thinks he was really talking about an appraiser certified by the State of Florida to appraise commercial property, which is a State Certified General Appraiser; and the requirement is the barest minimum for an appraiser, at 180 hours and two years of experience.  He stated two years of experience equates to approximately 30 appraisal reports; and it is inadequate to be talking about bank appraisers.  He stated the two appraisers the Board is talking about who have done the appraisals, as well as the other people on the appraisal list have hundreds of years of experience; he knows Paul Roper personally; and he was a great competitor.  He noted he has not looked at the appraisals, but what the previous speaker said about bank appraisers does not fly.  He stated if the Board has any questions about appraisal qualifications, he would be happy to talk about those. 

 

Chairman Scarborough inquired if Mr. Basile was sitting on the Board would he get another appraisal or rely on what the Board has.  Mr. Basile responded the fact that the Board has two appraisals that are so far apart says something about appraising being an opinion, and an art, not a science; and the Board has to look at the people who are doing the appraisals.  He stated there are reasons for differentials in opinions; they come from 30-something years of experience, what the appraisers have seen, and what they are expecting the growth to be; the Board already has a review by a third appraiser; he is not sure what the outcome of that was; and commented on the third appraisal adding a layer of complexity to the issue.  He stated if one hires three appraisers, everybody tends to still average them; that is what is going to happen; and the best thing the Board could hope for is that it falls right in the middle.  He commented on bank appraisers, what they would typically do with a contract price, looking at the analysis, and not helping the situation.  Mr. Basile noted if the Evans boys are part of the deal, he also knows them.  Chairman Scarborough stated when the stock market drops, everyone knows rapidly and they understand that it is currently trading; but in the real estate market, sometimes it freezes and then drops; and there may be no sales, but the next sale that comes in over a prolonged period of time may be substantially lower.  Mr. Basile advised that is true; he has a parcel in the Scottsmoor area that he sold for $30,000 an acre for vacant raw land; he is going to a foreclosure on it next week; and he will take $20,000 an acre for it if anyone wants to bid; but there are no sales providing to him what the value is.  He stated the only think he can look at are the other listings of people trying to sell property; and if those listings are what the past sales were, that gives a trend of what is going on.  Chairman Scarborough stated therein lies another problem in that appraisals look at actual sales; and inquired if appraisers do not look at listings.  Mr. Basile responded they could look at listings; he is not sure what the County’s rules say; but the uniform standards of professional appraisal practice do require an appraiser to look at sales, listings, and anything else that is going on that is indicative of the value.  He stated sometimes that will have an effect on appraisers; sometimes the listings are what are called “hip pocket” listings; Farmer Joe may sell his property for x number of dollars and everybody in farming knows he will sell it for that much, but the appraisers might not pick it up; and these size parcels are not going to be in multiple listing typically.  Chairman Scarborough stated big parcels do not move that way; with Mr. Basile responding that is it exactly; big parcels that have environmental issues on them are not out there all of the time also; and the environmental reasons are the reason the County is looking to acquire the property, so it is a tough equation.  Chairman Scarborough requested Mr. Basile stick around because there may be more questions.  He stated one thing that was brought up at one of the prior meetings is that the large parcels may be moving separately; Mr. Ellis made the point that they are tracking the condos and single-family homes and know where they are going; he knows what the price of a home in Port St. John was three years ago and what it is today; however, when they get the large tracts, it was argued that perhaps they have not dropped.  He inquired if there is any reason to look at them as being different markets; and commented on the stock market being different.  Mr. Basile stated there are two things going on; with a certain size parcel, typically one is not dealing with only local buyers; if someone wants to be in Port St. John, he or she will look there; but for acquisition of a 500-acre parcel in the $6 million to $7 million range, a person would use comparable sales from surrounding areas and possibly Statewide.  Chairman Scarborough stated they may be looking at properties in Ft. Myers; with Mr. Basile responding a lot of the prices that they have seen driven up in the commercial side are by people coming from the South Florida area; they came up to buy houses but also bought parcels of land because they though they were cheap; but the comparables they were using were in Miami not in Brevard County, so it is not a perfect market like the stock market.  Mr. Basile advised the stock market is reported on a second-to-second basis; the dips and changes are reflected instantaneously; and that does not happen especially when dealing with large parcels. 

 

Chairman Scarborough inquired if anyone knows what the stock market did this morning after the Federal Reserve reduced the lending rate; with Mr. Basile responding he does not know. 

 

Jim Durocher stated he would like to keep this deal on the table and eventually get the property; the sales price will not affect the taxes; and commented on the EEL Program money.  He stated every cent the Board saves in purchasing the property will allow the County to get more property; and that is the key.  He urged the Board to get the best price possible so there will be funds left over that can be used to get more property.  He stated property has two other values that the Board is not talking about with the appraisal process; and those are the ecological value and environmental value.  He stated environmental is like groundwater that someone mentioned for well water and things like that; an ecological value is species diversity and having connected properties from the Space Center to the St. Johns river area; and those are things that are worth a lot but do not show up on an appraisal. 

 

Clerk of Courts Scott Ellis stated it is his understanding that the requested action is to allow the contract to lapse and start over; and inquired if one possible action today may be to make the purchase.  Chairman Scarborough stated the Board will make that call.  Mr. Ellis stated normally the Board’s expected action is what it is going to do or not do; the item says to allow it to lapse and start over; and there are two different things he has to say if it is going to take that action versus trying to make the purchase today.  He stated his staff worked through the weekend to review the appraisals; the reports were not given out because every time he has given out the reports on the day before the meeting, he has gotten in trouble and been accused of sandbagging people; and conveniently this meeting followed a holiday. 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated the Board heard from The Nature Conservancy that it has the capacity to come in and work within the appraisals; and inquired if the Scottsmoor Partners item is the one where they have ten days.  Mr. Fountain advised it is the AG Ventures item where the price would adjust downward.  Chairman Scarborough stated if AG Ventures does not adjust down, the whole thing is kaput; that is an option that has been presented; and there have been some speakers in favor of going that route.  He stated this is very important to the community; it is a $25 million purchase; and the EEL Program says it is the most important purchase. 

 

Mr. Ellis stated every purchase seems to be the most important purchase; and his office has been taking a beating over reviewing the appraisals.  He stated he would like to roll the clock back to November 2006 when AG Ventures was first supposed to come before the Board; the appraisals the Board has updated today are simply an update of those appraisals from the summer of 2006; when that item hit the Agenda, he requested, at a minimum, to get a time certain, but they did not get a time certain.  He stated they went to work on it; a number of big issues were identified in the appraisals; that appraisal was completely erroneous; it left out
information about the PUD and the fact that if the County bought the AG Ventures property, it would be on the hook for the Scottsmoor Partners property.  Mr. Ellis stated if the Board is looking at true market value, that is a big ding on the value, and it was not in the appraisal; but item was removed from the Agenda the day before the meeting and it came back around.  He stated he agrees with Mr. Basile that appraising is an art, not a math equation; if he and Commissioner Nelson were two math professors the same problem, they would reach the same answer; but it is totally different with appraisers.  He stated they have been told there were no comparable sales for the last two years; and if there are no comparable sales for two years, then nobody is waiting to buy this property either.  He stated the one comparable sale, which he has not been able to track, is that Lennar Corporation has liquidated property in Brevard County at 40 cents on the dollar book value; he knows one large parcel off Malabar Road that was a subdivision that never got off the ground; but he cannot get that data yet, probably because there are corporate transactions between Morgan Stanley and Lennar.  He stated it is very clear that property is being moved out at a discount and is not appreciating; and he is talking about large pieces of property, not just small pieces, which they all know have gone downhill.  He stated they heard about the environmental sensitivity of the property; but the County just signed a cattle lease on the property on the east side.  He inquired how environmentally endangered a property can be if there are cows on it; and stated clearly it is not.  He stated it is a big piece of property; it would be a nice acquisition for the County; but there is nobody standing in line to buy it.  He stated the Board needs to pay for the property what it is worth; he has heard a lot of people speak fundamentally about the emotional value of the property; but the Board’s job is to reach a market value of what it will pay for the property.  He stated it is very common on highly desirable pieces of property to pay 15% or 20% above the market value, such as for right-of-way acquisitions, because those are parcels the County has to have; but it is very rare to pay these kinds of numbers well above what the property is worth.  He stated he still has a problem with the appraisals; they did the report and finished them yesterday; but they could not get them to anybody because yesterday was a holiday.  He stated they did not want to send them today because then they would again be accused of sandbagging the County Commissioners with a last minute report; but they have a very short time to turn these around once they get the information, so if the Board desires, he can go through them again.  He stated they did find comparables in North Brevard that had sold and were not used; and it is an important issue.  He advised when AG Ventures first hit in November 2006, it had a comparable property, which was the Scottsmoor Partners; it was then stated that AG Ventures was superior to the Scottsmoor Partners piece of property; but if the appraisals now are correct, the Scottsmoor Partners property is far more valuable than the AG Ventures property.  He stated he would agree from a development point of view that the Scottsmoor Partners property is more developable; but inquired how the appraisals can flip-flop depending on what comes before the Board.  He stated if in November 2006, AG Ventures is superior, why in January 2008 is the Scottsmoor Partners property now superior with the same appraisers.  He stated he does not understand that if this is a science and not an art; if it is an art, that is fine; but there are a lot of unusual artists who are working on these programs because they are getting a lot of conflicting information as to what prices are in the market.  He stated one appraiser says the market has dropped 25% in the last two years; the other one does not know if it has dropped at all; and that is on the same piece of property.  He stated when they start off with widely varying assumptions, there is a problem; it was critical to have the EEL’s workshop, but it was scrapped; the appraisal workshop keeps being put off; and by the time they have an EEL’s or appraisal workshop, it will not matter because there will not be any money in the fund.  Mr. Ellis stated the proposed purchase is $25 million; it represents pretty much all that is left in the EEL fund; there is probably $5 million to $6 million left, or a few more million if the County gets the Scrub Jay Grant; but that is it.  He stated there was an opportunity to have workshops before the purchases came through; it is a 20-year revenue stream; and he does not understand why they had to ram through $50 million in three different meetings in three weeks in November to make this happen.  He stated this is the last major purchase; and it is like a freight train coming through.  He stated every time the Board meets, it is now or never; the Board is told if it does not buy now, it is going to be gone; but yet, there is not a single comparable sale on these appraisals for two years in Brevard County; and inquired where are all the buyers lined up to buy this property.  He stated it is very frustrating; his staff does the reports; and then they get hammered for turning them in late; but they cannot turn them in any sooner with the amount of time they have to work on them.  He stated the proper way to address them is in a workshop environment; the issue today was supposed to be letting the contract lapse and not making the purchase; and reiterated it is frustrating.

 

Chairman Scarborough inquired if Mr. Ellis said he had a comparison in the Scottsmoor area; with Mr. Ellis responding no, they are trying to find the Lennar properties.  Mr. Ellis advised AG Ventures should be used as a comparable to Scottsmoor Partners property; and described the Swallowtail property that went for $7 million for 1,400 acres, and is located north and west of County Road 5A.  He stated Commissioner Scarborough is probably familiar with the property as it is where people ride their four-wheelers; it is a big area; and he is frustrated with how there are no comparables for two years, so everything is based on adjustments, and whether the appraiser thinks the markets are going up or down.  Chairman Scarborough stated that is the nature of the market; and the question for the appraisers is whether one can make assumptions when the market is frozen and what assumptions are rational.  Mr. Ellis stated he does not think one can assume that it is frozen because it is going up in value.  Chairman Scarborough stated he does not know where it is going.  Mr. Ellis noted everything else has gone down; Lennar is liquidating; and commented on Mercedes Homes liquidating lots that were purchased for $100,000 in Port St. Lucie for $20,000 a piece.  He stated the only place in the County that one can sell land for 2005 prices is to the Board because nobody else is paying these prices. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated he saw an article because the question came up about the 40 cents on the dollar; and he does not know that Mr. Ellis is going to track that down because what Lennar has done is take on a partner and take some cash for that.  Mr. Ellis stated he is trying to find the title; and there has to be a title change somewhere.  Commissioner Nelson advised there was an article in the Orlando Sentinel.  Mr. Ellis stated that clearly does not indicate a market that is going up.  Commissioner Nelson stated his frustration is the Board has done all the right things but is still getting its teeth kicked in; and inquired how they establish the value.  He stated they can argue all day long about appraisals and whether they believe them or not; and the question is how they are ever going to get to what the value is.  Mr. Ellis commented on shopping for a house in today’s market; and stated he would negotiate first before doing an appraisal.  He stated he does not understand why the Board does the appraisal first and then hands it off.  Commissioner Nelson stated that is the State law; and he wishes the Board could do it the other way like a private sector type negotiation but it cannot.  Mr. Ellis inquired why; with Commissioner Nelson stated the Program rules say that.  Mr. Ellis stated it is necessary to appraise to buy; but inquired if the Board has to appraise to negotiate.  Mr. Nelson stated the Board’s own rules say it will get the appraisals first; those rules were created by a previous County Commission that felt it was important to have that information first; but Mr. Ellis is right that the Board can do some negotiation in advance of that and then get appraisals.  Mr. Ellis inquired if the Board has to share the appraisals with the sellers; with Commissioner Nelson responding not until the end, but it is a negotiating tool.  Mr. Ellis stated if the County develops a reputation for not being a hard negotiator, this is where it ends up.  Commissioner Nelson stated the question is how they establish the value.  Mr. Ellis stated if he went to anybody who bought a house in 2005 and offered them the 2005 price, they would be very happy to take it; he does not know anybody in the County today who would not take the 2005 price for the property other than people who do not want to sell at all; there is a rapidly declining market; and this has been the same argument for almost two years.  He stated there is a declining market, but the appraisals do not reflect it because they do not have any comparables; they reflect a market that went up and there are adjustments every month; but there are only adjustments up and no adjustments down until today; and they still do not have comparables.  Commissioner Nelson stated for three years the County chased the appraisals going up; land was accelerating and the County could not catch up and buy land; and now they are going in the other direction.  He stated it is like there will be one week a year from now when it will be just right; the problem is government cannot move that fast; so it is either chasing it up or following it down; and he does not know how they can ever find the exact moment when it all comes together. 

 

Mr. Ellis stated he understands they are never going to be precise; one is never precise if they make a deal for a house or a used car; but the County is not even close.  He stated there is a rapidly declining market; and the assumption the County is making is that with the prices that were paid in 2004 and 2005, the owners got some kind of killer deal when they bought the property because the Board is paying them far more than what they paid back in a heated market.  He stated everyone knows that the market is in a dramatic decline, just as it went through a dramatic acceleration which had not been seen in Florida since 1926; prices went up vertically; now unfortunately, they are on the down side; and the prices are going to come down just as sharply.  He stated he does not understand why the Board has been in such a rush to buy and why it has not paced itself out on the purchases; just because there is a bond issue, the Board does not have to spend that money immediately; and it has time.  He stated he has asked for EEL’s to give a priority list; but every piece of property is the highest priority.  He stated if the Program has $60 million to spend, it cannot say that $600 million is the highest priority; and the priority list has to match the money available.  He stated no one has answered why the Board has to rush through all these deals; if there are no comparable sales for two years, clearly no one is buying large parcels of property; either no one is buying or the appraisers are not finding the sales; and inquired why does the Board keep rushing these instead of taking time and making sure.  He stated when the Board buys this, it will not buy a lot more for the next 20 years in the EEL Program; and people need to understand that too.  He stated between this deal and Hunters Brooke, it is $50 million, which was pretty much the whole EEL bond and the 20-year revenue stream; and he does not understand why the Board does not do a little more thought on what it is paying and what it is buying.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated in 2000, if he had told someone that property values were going to go down, nobody would have believed him, so when Mr. Ellis talks about the Board pacing itself, there is always a risk in a land acquisition program that property values are going to gradually go up; what they saw was not gradual but an explosion; but the point is that very rarely does land back up.  Commissioner Nelson stated historically land has gone up at a more gradual rate; the logic was always to buy now because two or five years from now, one would have to pay more; and if there was cash on hand or if they had borrowed as they do in the EEL Program, then they would want to purchase the lands now because that would be the best window in time.  He stated there is no road map for what they have seen since 2001; they are trying to adjust to it; but he would not criticize for trying to buy the property.  He stated there may be some issues about the timing of coming to the Board; but as a practice, purchasing now as opposed to later is a better idea given a normal market.

 

Mr. Ellis stated given the normal market, that is correct; but when he was on the Board in the early 1990’s, it made a number of large acquisitions from the RTC that were liquidated properties that the County bought for phenomenal prices; and he remembers joking with former Commissioner Nancy Higgs that he would like to buy property in Malabar at $5,000 an acre for his house.  He stated there was a lot of liquidation in the early 1990’s coming off the Savings and Loan situation; so there are times when there is an overheated market and then it comes back on the down side; and the biggest concern is not to buy at the peak of the market.  He stated in a declining market, the Board does not want to continue to pay yesterday’s prices; and that is where the Board is at.  He stated it is not buying in a stable market; it is in a steadily declining market; and it is probably starting to decline more sharply due to the amount of foreclosures and the recession as people begin to lose their jobs.  He stated in a typical real estate market, prior to the last five or six years, Commissioner Nelson would be right; he sold a house in January 2000; and if he had known, he would have waited five years to triple his money.  He stated he has lived in Brevard County almost all his life; he has never seen a real estate market do this; and unfortunately what they are seeing is straight up, then straight down. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated there was a workshop scheduled in January, but it was canceled; with County Manager Peggy Busacca responding it was rescheduled. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated if the rules the EEL Program currently has do not reflect what is happening currently, then the Board may need to change the rules.  She stated she cannot speak to the significance of the property and whether it is good for scrub jays; but she has a fiduciary responsibility to the citizens of the community to spend money wisely.  She stated the request is to allow the option agreement to lapse; and she would support that because it is the best thing to do now.  She stated nobody is doing anything in the market, so if the Board does not buy this right now, the property is not going to sell tomorrow; it is probably not going to sell next year; and the Board will have a better opportunity to purchase it at a much better price in the future.  She stated the Board should look at the appraisals, how they are done, what options the Board has, what its rules are, and whether they are good in this market or not; and until the Board has the appraisal workshop, she is not comfortable moving forward to purchase the property. 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated the next speaker is one of the appraisers; and Mr. Miller’s appraisal went from $20 million to $15.5 million. 

 

James Miller stated when he did the original appraisal, they were all aware that the market was in decline in some sectors, particularly in residential and condo sectors; they knew in the case of environmental or residential tracts, which is what the property is, that there was a decline in the market; however, they did not have good support for where the decline was or how extensive it was.  He stated at the time they did the original appraisal, as the Clerk pointed out, sales were not be best in the world; but they used what they had at the time; and based on those sales, they were at the low end of the market.  He stated when they were asked to update those appraisals there were new sales that indicated that the market had moved down; it gave them support for that; and again, they were at the low end of those sales. 

 

Chairman Scarborough inquired what Mr. Miller means by low end of the sales.  Mr. Miller responded he means the low end of the range of the sales; when he did the update, he used some of the prior sales, but also the new sales which showed the market moving lower; and as an appraiser, he can only deal with the facts in the marketplace.  He stated when he is hired to do an appraisal, he is not hired to tell what he would pay for the property or where he thinks the market is; and on every occasion he has gone to the low end of the range to support what he thinks is a realistic value.  He stated Mr. Basile talked a little about the fact that as the market goes down, there is a freeze in the market; and it is significant to point out that the market for large residential tracts is a lot different from individual condominiums or residences.  He stated there are people who are very substantial who moved into the marketplace; there was a lot of money moved out the stock market several years ago because of what Alan Greenspan said; and there was a lot of heavy investment into the real estate marketplace.  He stated that was heavy duty money, and it does not move that quickly to take a big loss; so it takes time for those investors to make a decision whether they want to move out of the market or hold on; and the question is what is the profit potential, particularly in large residential tracts, which is what the properties are.  He stated the properties were PUD tracts; there is potential down the road for some substantial profit; and a decision has to be made whether to bail out on the projects.  He stated as this was going on he did a lot of investigation into the tract; one of the things that was repeatedly pointed out by various individuals was that the tracts originally sold for values much below what they are appraised at today; and much has been made of that.  He stated the original sales do not reflect the position of those properties in today’s marketplace; they reflect an investor looking at a property that was in a PUD, but not being taken to its development potential; and so the buyers picked up the properties and did a lot of work and research looking at how they could develop the properties and bring them to a point where they were ready for development.  He stated today the properties are substantially different from what they were before; when he came to the last Board meeting, he had appraised the Scottsmoor Partners property, but was not aware of the AG Ventures property; the audit put them in a position of being responsible for the valuation of not only the property he appraised but also the one he had not appraised; and when he did the update, he made sure he did not fall into that trap again.  He advised the two properties are substantially different; the AG Ventures property is not only on the west side of I-95, but there is a portion that is on the east side directly adjacent to the Scottsmoor Partners property; during the investigation there was always the issue of whether the properties could be split under the PUD; and what he found was that the developers of the Scottsmoor Partners property were fully prepared to develop the property and had gone to a lot of trouble to prepare a modification to the PUD.  He stated the modification to the PUD took out the open space that otherwise would have been on the west side of the property in the AG Ventures piece; it took the water and sewer plant that would have been on the west side of I-95 on the AG Ventures piece and moved it to the east of I-95, fully within the Scottsmoor Partners tract.  Mr. Miller advised the Planning and Zoning officials had not seen the modification to the PUD, but in discussions with staff, they indicated that would be a logical pathway for the properties to be split and for the PUD to be modified such that everything required under the PUD for Scottsmoor Partners property would be totally within the Scottsmoor property east of I-95.  He stated he mentioned earlier that he would not fall into the trap again of not knowing what went on with AG Ventures; the appraisers on AG Ventures logically concluded that the highest and best use of that property was not to be developed within the PUD, but to go back to the original zoning, which would give a higher density; and what would happen under the modified PUD, is that the AG Ventures piece would be released from the PUD.  He reiterated he is not speaking for Planning and Zoning; he did not do the appraisal; and Paul Roper and the other appraiser could provide some input on that.  He stated the highest and best use of the tract would be to go back to zoning which would provide a higher density; those are all the things they looked at; and if carried to completion, not withstanding change in value, the Scottsmoor Partners property should have been reduced in value slightly because everything that was west of I-95 would have been accommodated within Scottsmoor East, and likewise the AG Ventures piece should have stayed the same or been at a higher value because now it has been released from having to be part of the PUD at its extension and is relieved of the water and sewer plant and the open space requirement.  He stated he is not saying that AG Ventures should have gone up or down; he did not appraise it; but there are issues. 

 

Chairman Scarborough inquired if Mr. Miller is saying one of the factors he would consider in reducing the value is whether the PUD could be split, with the Scottsmoor Partners assuming more of the infrastructure and taking on a readjustment of density, and that is where the reduction occurred as opposed to some type of market comparative; with Mr. Miller responding he is just giving the facts of what was going on.  Mr. Miller stated he considered all of that as well as the movement in the market; there is no question there was movement in the market; that is now something they are able to justify; and it is fully reflected in the modified value.  Chairman Scarborough inquired how much has the market moved percentage-wise; with Mr. Miller responding for him to say the market has moved 10% or 25% is not realistic.  Chairman Scarborough inquired if anybody has any idea; stated he can get all kinds of data for every housing market in the country by going online; but there is no capacity to understand how the larger tracts of developable property have moved at all within the southeast.  Mr. Miller stated they would have to go back and look at the types of tracts; they do a lot of work around the State; they do a lot of conservation easement work; and he works for Water Management Districts in North and Northwest Florida, so he knows where the market moves on certain types of tracts; but a lot of those are more remote tracts.  He stated the Board is dealing with South Volusia and North Brevard Counties; these are residential development tracts with environmental attributes; but there are ways to development them, and down the road there would be huge profit in these tracts.  Chairman Scarborough stated he fully understands having an access to I-95 is enormously valuable in comparison to many tracts that are for sale; but he was wondering if the 25% reduction came from a formula; with Mr. Miller responding no.  Mr. Miller stated he has to look at the sales that are most comparable; he knows most of the appraisers who are doing this work; he does more review work than appraisal work; and he used to work for the St. Johns River Water Management District running the Real Estate Department and doing this type of work.  Mr. Miller advised there are probably only 10 or 12 people in the State who are experts in this type of work; and most of the appraisers on the Board’s list are pretty qualified to do it.  He stated in the last go-round it was him and one other appraiser; there is a real credibility problem with the appraisers and the Board; and in that case the Board hired Paul Roper to do the review and relied on his opinion to give the Board some assurance that it was moving in the right place.  He stated what may be lacking in the process is the Board having someone like Mr. Roper or another appraiser that the Board trusts look at the valuations and advised the Board this is something it should move forward with.  He stated Dennis Basile, although he is not in the appraisal business any more, is well versed in these types of things; and as part of the Board’s workshop, it needs to begin to look at a methodology by which it will have some faith in someone looking over the process, because clearly that is lacking right now. 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated George Goodman’s appraisal for the AG Ventures property shows a reduction from $9.2 million to $7.1 million, approximately 20%. 

 

George Goodman stated he would like to first take issue with Mr. Ellis’ comments about appraisals and the fact that there were not any sales for two years; in his updated appraisal all of his sales were 2007 sales, although they were not in Brevard County, so he did find other sales.  He stated Brevard County does not operate in a vacuum when it comes to large tracts of land; somebody wanting to buy Commissioner Scarborough’s house would probably be local; but somebody wanting to buy 500 or 1,000 acres could be from anywhere; so they are not just competing in Brevard County, but with properties of that size in Osceola, Volusia, Polk, and Lake Counties that have very similar characteristics.  He stated the sales he used were representative of the changed market; in his opinion, the value has gone down slightly; but he is not of the opinion, as Mr. Ellis is, that values are plummeting.  He stated in the last couple of weeks, working on another appraisal assignment, he has come up with some other sales that do not indicate any further reduction, but seem to indicate a leveling off in most areas that are similar to this.  He stated Mr. Ellis was talking about the Lennar transaction; the Board would never find an appraiser that would use that sale in an appraisal report because it is not a reflection of market value, but is a business decision; it is a liquidation; Lennar had to lay off many thousands of employees nationwide and in Florida; the company has cash problems; it has to sell the property; and that is not part of market value.  Chairman Scarborough inquired how Mr. Goodman calculated the 20%.  Mr. Goodman responded he did not calculate it; he just used more current sales; he had one sale that closed in 2007, but was a contract from early 2006; and he talked to several developers, brokers, etc. in Brevard County just to get their thoughts.  He advised he looked at the Brevard County housing market; and he came up with an analysis, but it is not a specific analysis.  He advised a great way to prove a time adjustment is to find a sale of property and then a resale of that property; then one would have a perfect time adjustment; but there are not any of those.  He stated he looked in other areas such as in Volusia County and tracked some sales of similar properties to see over the course of the last three or four years what the trend was; and they showed a tremendous upward surge in value and then a drop.  He stated it looked like from those sales that from the end of 2005 until the end of 2007, they were reflecting a 25% decrease in value; it is not possible to throw out a specific number for every case; but that number had a correlation with the information he was getting from the local people in Brevard County.  Mr. Goodman stated a lot of the information that he had was from investors who had contracts on which the buyers reneged; and when they had to put the properties back on the market, they were reflecting anywhere from a 10% to 30% or 35% discount over the previous contract.  Mr. Goodman stated Mr. Basile is correct; this is not a science; it is an art; he just tries to get data from as many sources as he can and put it together to form an opinion; and it is an opinion of value based on the data he is able to assemble.  He stated in the update, they also learned of the redevelopment plan that Mr. Miller talked about on the Scottsmoor Partners property; they also talked to Planning and Zoning staff; and that helped them formulate their opinion.  Chairman Scarborough inquired if appraisers ever project market trends or are they looking historically to actual sales.  Mr. Goodman responded that depends on the type of property; if they are talking about an office building or apartment complex where the actual value is estimated based upon income stream, they have to estimate where that income stream is going; but land is difficult.  He stated they have to project the trend as best they can; but they are pretty much stuck with the data they have. 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated in looking at Mr. Roper’s values, they were not changed.     

 

Paul Roper stated in February or March of 2006, he was at $12,500 on the AG Ventures property on the west side of I-95 and $17,000 an acre for 129 acres on the east side of I-95; and the basic price structure is among those which are the lowest in the County.  He stated it was his interpretation and estimate that given the relative scarcity of this particular type of property, the proximity to the interchange, and the advancement of growth and anticipated growth in the Brevard County area, without specific quantification, that he should remain the same on those unit values.  He stated he examined a number of sales all of which occurred in 2007, which were more recent than anything he looked at in the past; he had to pull some from Volusia County; and he did a qualitative analysis.  He stated some were far superior and some were far inferior; there was one that was an assemblage tract west of the property and west of I-95, which was purchased by the Miami Corporation; it was most recent; however, it was a landlocked parcel with no anticipated prospects for independent use.  He stated he does not believe this particular segment of the market deserved a downward adjustment, given that he had done a qualitative analysis to indicate a unit value range and not a point value estimate, and given that the unit value range for the type of analysis he did had fallen within the range of the unit prices that were developed even as late as March 2006; and there could not be a time adjustment downward for that reason.  He stated he recognized the market conditions and the various types of properties that are affected; and he does not believe that this particular property classification would be adversely affected.  He stated the land value might be $500 an acre less, or perhaps not; and all he knows is that there is an increased scarcity of this type of commodity.  He stated they have vested rights on both sides of the Interstate; they are at an interchange location, which is another scarce commodity; over the past several years, he had an opportunity to work for FDOT in conjunction with a number of those tracts, some of which were sizable, all along the I-95 corridor in Brevard County.  He stated the unit values in Melbourne on the west side of I-95 generally range from between $50,000 an acre to as high s $130,000 an acre for like kind properties; and around the Scottsmoor area, $17,000 an acre for property that has four and a half acres of commercial designated land across from Stuckey’s would be a reasonable price.  He stated an appraiser does take advantage of his experience and training; trends in the real estate industry have gone up continuously since he has been involved in this business; and while he has seen some regression and some hiccups in certain segments of the market such as condominiums and residential housing, in the long run he anticipates that this property value will increase as it always has since he has been in the business for 34 years. 

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired if Mr. Goodman did not look at the second parcel; with Mr. Goodman responding he did not look at the Scottsmoor Partners property and concentrated on the AG Ventures property.  Commissioner Voltz inquired if Mr. Goodman was requested to do the second parcel; with staff responding no. 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated as far as the appraisals, everyone was reputable and did a good job; they did what the Board asked them to do; and she has no problem with the appraisals; but she has a problem with the asking price.  She stated she would like to go back and negotiate a better price because the appraisals have gone down; and as stated before, any money the EEL Program can squeak out of this sale can be used for land purchases in the future.  She recommended letting the agreements lapse and renegotiate. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated the Board did things like someone would do with a home; if she was looking to sell her house, she would get an appraisal; and normally the appraiser would try to bring the appraisal up to the asking price.  She stated a couple of months after she purchased her home, she refinanced it with a different lender to get a lower rate and the appraisal came in lower than what she had original purchased the house for; and when the Board puts a purchase price out and then gets an appraisal, it is on the minds of the appraisers.  She commented on appraisals and purchasing prices.  Mr. Goodman stated they were not aware of the sale price when they did the appraisals so they had no idea what had been negotiated; and in fact, the County had not negotiated anything until after they did the appraisals.

 

Commissioner Bolin stated the land is valuable for the County to purchase; and she would like to pursue securing the land as she does not want it to be set aside and not pursued. 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated John Denninghoff is the Transportation Engineering Director; that Department does a tremendous amount of acquisition for the County; and at the last meeting the Board recognized Holly Pardi who does some fantastic negotiations.  He stated he is hearing that the Board recognizes the Selection and Management Committee’s comment that this is an extremely significant and important piece of property; the County would like to acquire it; but by the same token, there is a dynamic market.  He stated he cannot think of any more questions to ask the appraisers; and inquired at this moment is there some strategy the Board could take to negotiate a better price.  Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff advised he does not know that he can think of a better strategy; the difficulty that the Board has is that one person’s opinion, and in this case one of the Commissioner’s opinion is that the values are on a downward slide, and delaying the transaction would be to the Board’s advantage and it would have a better negotiating position at that point.  He stated it is clear that the owners of the property understand that as they have been in business for a long time.  He stated on the other hand, if the Board believes that is not the case or if by delaying the Board will jeopardize its ability to acquire something that is important to it, it will have to go ahead and take the property.  He advised it is a matter of opinion and judgment; and he has no advice to offer the Board along those lines. 

 

Chairman Scarborough advised the Board needs to take a break to resolve a technical issue. 

 

 

The meeting recessed at 1:06 p.m. and reconvened at 1:16 p.m.

 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated there are some questions about where to go with the negotiations that might afford the Board more opportunities; and the Board will recess for lunch.

 

 

The meeting recessed at 1:16 p.m. and reconvened at 2:23 p.m.

 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated during the break there were some very serious discussions; and Mr. Fountain will report. 

 

Mr. Fountain stated when the Board was speaking earlier this morning, it was considering two options; one was to vote the Agenda item, which was an election to let the contracts lapse and renegotiate; and the other option was the scenario that he described at the outset of the meeting, which was to a certain degree that the contract is already renegotiated and has reduced the AG Ventures price down to the appraised value, so that one contract is $2.9 million discount and the other one is an appraised value deal.  He stated he thought there was a third option on the table, in that the Scottsmoor Partners had earlier this week signed an amendment to the option, which would extend the option expiration date to give the board time to come back and reconsider at a later meeting on February 5 or February 19, 2008.  He advised the option expires February 4, 2008 as it is currently drafted; however, as the AG Ventures owners are not present and have not signed such an amendment, that option is not available.  He stated everyone has heard the testimony of the appraisers; no one knows the exact value of the property; and the only thing that really determines that is a contract between a willing seller and a willing buyer.  He stated the program works off a process that obtains appraisals to be the basis of negotiations and ultimately the price; and nobody can predict with any certainty what the real estate market is going to do over the next six months or the next six years.  He stated there seem to be two philosophies that are played out here; one is a business as usual philosophy, which is the way the EEL Program has operated successfully and without significant criticism for 17 years, in that it has a very structured, rigid, lengthy process in place for due diligence; and they get appraisals, review them, establish parameters for negotiation, and then negotiate the best deal they can.  He stated historically once that is done and a contract is signed, it is a done deal; typically the Board approves it; and the only thing it relies on is a completion of the due diligence, the surveys, the environmental site assessments and that type of thing.  He stated given the uniqueness of the real estate market, a second philosophy has evolved; if the Board gets to closing and thinks the market is going to play out where there may be a better deal, it cuts it loose and tries to renegotiate; and the Board has taken an extraordinary step of trying to hybridize those two philosophies.  He stated the Board is going somewhere it has never gone before with the two contracts it is considering today, in that it got the first set of appraisals that came to the Board; the Board approved it; and then it did just like the private sector does.  He stated during the due diligence process the Board considered whether the value of the property had decreased; and it had the appraisals updated.  Mr. Fountain stated the Board has never done that before; but in this case it took a revised look at the values; and because of that, the Board is adjusting the price downward on one of the contracts, which has never happened before.  He stated if the Board had not gotten the second set of appraisals, the AG Ventures price would not be coming down; and the people need to understand that the Board has already taken extra steps to account for the concerns of some of the people. 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated he was hoping that at lunch with some of the discussion, there might have been something that would have indicated that there is an atmosphere where the Board could go back and renegotiate; AG Ventures has not agreed to continue its prior posture; and the question for the Board is whether to move forward.  He stated if the Board moves forward, AG Ventures is not bound because the Board is going to be reducing the price; AG Ventures can still walk away from the transaction; AG Ventures has opted not to extend the option so there would be more time; AG Ventures is not interested in any renegotiation; and there is still the question whether AG Ventures will take the reduced price that is under the contract as the owners still have an option to walk.  He stated Commissioner Voltz is right; the Board is the fiduciary for the people’s money; but on the other hand, 70% of the people have said they want to purchase environmental property.  He stated it is not that the Board is saying it has an option to not purchase; the Board was told by the people to purchase; and the question becomes whether the Board is purchasing the right property.  He stated during the Beach and Riverfront acquisition there was a question of whether the Commissioners were getting too involved in selection the properties; so a group of scientists and PhD’s were appointed to make the selections; and the Selection and Management Committee has said this is the parcel that is very important.  He stated he hears there is a unique ability along the eastern seaboard to have an environmental movement from the seacoast to the lagoon through properties to the St. Johns River; and that is something that is unique in the State.  He stated a lot of people say that is a strange place to go; it is strange in a sense because nobody has gone there yet; however, there is an I-95 exit; and they all know what an I-95 exit does for values in land development because they are hard and expensive to get.  He stated with that in mind, the Board moved into getting the appraisals; he listened to the appraisals today; and not to criticize, but he did not come away with a great desire to invest in real estate because of what he was told.  He stated he is still confused; there are apparently different markets; this market is more of a regional statewide market; and it has a tendency to move to a different drummer.  He stated it does not move as rapidly; he cannot tell whether he is informed about trends; where he is today is that if the Board goes ahead and moves on the purchase, it appears that it is going to push the contract knowing that if AG Ventures does not want to reduce the price, it can walk away from it; and if AG Ventures walks away, the deal will die.  He stated the Board has gone back and done the appraisals; he talked about prices at lunch and it does not seem to be moving closer to resolution; and what the Board will do is find the dialogue will become frozen for a period of time.  He stated he is inclined to challenge AG Ventures with the reduced price under the contract and see if they walk rather than Board walking today; and that is where he would feel comfortable. 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated what Commissioner Scarborough is saying is to not let it lapse, but keep it at the new price.  Chairman Scarborough stated in other words the Board would let the contract provisions push the sellers; the sellers can still walk; but the sellers apparently are not willing to keep the windows open for the County.  Chairman Scarborough stated that would be a minimal thing to extend the options; and he has a feeling there will not be a short lapse in conversation, but it will be an extended lapse before this comes back for discussion.  He stated the EEL Program has public monies and a duty to spend them for environmental properties; and these properties have been described as very unique.  He stated they may not have a contract period; AG Ventures may decide not to take the reduced price; but it would be AG Ventures that would walk from the reduced price rather than the Board saying it wants to negotiate further.  Commissioner Bolin stated she concurs and understands Chairman Scarborough’s thinking.

 

Commissioner Colon inquired if the Board did not go into contract, let is lapse, and started from scratch, would it be a wise decision to make sure the Board used completely independent appraisers who were not part of the appraisals before.  Mr. Ellis responded that would be a good option; but that would be up to the Board.  He stated he is trying to understand what the motion would be; and inquired if the Board is making a counteroffer.  He stated he needs to know clearly what the Board is doing and what it is voting on because this is a very gray area.  He stated the Board is not letting it lapse, but is talking about making a counteroffer.  Chairman Scarborough requested Mr. Fountain explain the action.  Mr. Fountain stated the contract provides that prior to closing the county will determine the final appraised value; if the final appraised value falls below the purchase price, which is what is happening with AG Ventures, then the contract provides that automatically that purchase price is reduced down to the final appraised value, which in this case is 120% of the low appraisal; and the seller then has ten days to either do nothing, at which point the option becomes binding on them to perform, or within ten days the seller can provide written notice to the County that it is terminating the contract, and everybody walks away.  Mr. Ellis inquired what if AG Ventures accepts; with Mr. Fountain responding if they accept it, then the County buys the property presumably for $8.52 million.  Mr. Ellis stated his point is if they accept it, then what the Board is doing is making a counteroffer, and if they accept the counteroffer, the Board just bought the property.  Mr. Fountain noted there is no requirement for them to accept; with Mr. Ellis advising he understands that.  Mr. Fountain stated the only action for them to take under the contract is to terminate; they cannot elect to accept; but if they do not terminate, then by the terms of the option, they have accepted the new price.  Mr. Ellis stated Mr. Fountain can call a no a yes or a yes a no, but the fact is AG Ventures has an opportunity to take the deal of walk; with Mr. Fountain conceding that is true.  Mr. Ellis stated AG Ventures can take it or walk; if they take the deal, the vote of the Board today is buying the property; and it is essentially buying it at $23 million instead of $25 million because it is a package deal.  Chairman Scarborough stated that is right.  Commissioner Colon inquired if, based on the second appraisal, is it a fair price for the taxpayers; with Mr. Ellis stated his personal feeling is the County is still paying too much; and he thought the issue before the Board was to let it lapse and start over, but now the Board is going to make a purchase. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated what they are saying is that AG Ventures is agreeing at the second appraisal price, which is $8.954 million.  Mr. Fountain stated it is 120% of $7.1 million or $8.52 million.  Mr. Ellis stated in that case, the whole deal goes; with Commissioner Colon agreeing it would be a done deal with the Board having no choice.  Mr. Ellis stated it will be over.  Commissioner Bolin stated AG Ventures would have accepted at that price.  Mr. Ellis stated it needs to be very clear when the Board makes a motion exactly what it is doing because there are a lot of factors that come into play, such as whether it comes back to the Board or not.  Mr. Ellis stated what he heard so far is that it would not come back to the Board; and the Board would make the offer, the seller would accept it, the deal would be over, and it would just have to be signed. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated with Thousand Islands the Board was four-to-one; she was very uncomfortable using the same appraisers; and independent should mean truly independent.  She stated a perfect example was when the Board had the testimonials from the different appraisers; as a taxpayer sitting at home, she would wonder how that would work because from one meeting to the next, the Board is dealing with a difference of close to $2 million; and that was just by turning around and say no.  She stated the Board was very uncomfortable with her wanting to challenge anyone in front of the Board claiming that the market was the same; but there is no way that today’s market is the same as that in the Fall of 2006, even if it was not at its highest point.  She stated it is not that she knows the market better than anybody, but it is just common sense; and recommended negotiating the same way they would if they were making a personal deal at home.  She stated if she was to buy a lot that was $50,000 last year but now was being sold for $30,000, it would be whatever it was appraised at. 

 

Mr. Ellis stated the big part is that he does not see the urgency on all these properties and why there is always an urgency to sign the contract rather than step back and look at what the Board is doing.  He stated if the Board makes this purchase there is no point in having an appraisal or EEL workshop because this is the end of the money; and the Board can look at appraisal workshops all it wants, but the horse will be long gone out of the barn. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated she finds it amusing that some Commissioners wanted to make sure the County got a better deal on the Waste Management contract when it was just talking about a couple of dollars a month, but they are not willing to say they want to get a better deal for $25 million.  She stated the Board needs to go back and get a better deal for the taxpayers because this is too much money at one time; and it should renegotiate with both and get a better deal. 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated if the other Commissioners want to renegotiate, then the Board should let the options lapse; but part of the conversation during lunch was trying to get a feeling for where the Board was going to go.  He stated it is hard to get a reading; even extending options was very difficult; and the Board has to make a decision whether to go one way or the other, but he has no crystal ball. 

 

Commissioner Voltz advised her earlier intent was to make a motion, and Commissioner Bolin indicated she would second it.

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to allow the existing Option Agreements for the AG Ventures, LLC and Honeybrook Development Corporation property and the Scottsmoor Partners property to lapse and renegotiate with the sellers based on the updated appraisal information.    

 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated the last action the Board took was to have the appraisals updated; and the Board voted to exercise the option, so what the Board expected was the appraisals would come back for review and the board would make a decision.  He stated the appraisals have come back; one purchase price is still below all the appraisals that have been done on it; and the other will be adjusted downward, so the Board has accomplished what it voted to do previously.  He inquired what the number is; and stated the Board is going to get additional appraisers to do the same thing, and it will be right back where it is today.  He inquired how many times does the Board need to go through this.  Commissioner Voltz stated she does not think the Board needs to get an appraisal; and it needs to get a better price.  Commissioner Nelson stated the process calls for an appraisal under any circumstances.  Commissioner Voltz stated the Board has appraisals; and she thinks it can get a better price.  She stated just like Commissioner Nelson fought for $3 for Waste Management and that is how she feels.  Commissioner Nelson stated the difference is garbage was going to be collected either way; but the County could end up not owning this property, so there is a world of difference between the two.  Commissioner Voltz stated she does not think the properties are going to sell tomorrow; and the difference is one was $3 and this is $25 million.  Commissioner Nelson stated if the Board had let him negotiate with Waste Management, he could have gotten the automated carts at the same price as they got the other; with Commissioner Voltz responding she does not think so.  Commissioner Voltz inquired why Commissioner Nelson did not do that; with Commissioner Nelson responding he got it down from three years to ten months.  Commissioner Nelson stated at the end of the day if the Board does not move ahead with this purchase, it will risk losing it; and some of the Commissioners will not be on the Board when that happens, but for the rest, it is important.  He stated he is going to continue to support the action the Board took previously; and requested if the Board chooses to renegotiate that it tell staff what the number is. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated at the last meeting Commissioner Nelson was very disappointed that she wanted a new appraisal; but she is glad she did because the numbers are in the millions.  She stated if the Board truly cares about the taxpayers, then it did its job.  She stated right now the Board is actually talking about negotiating; and that was not the case before.  She stated the Board was so concentrated on the fact that it wanted the land, and that is the part that is so uncomfortable in government.  She stated if folks think the County wants a piece of property, they are able to ask the board to pay whatever the seller wants; and that is what the Board does not want to do.  She stated the Board wants to be in the driver’s seat for a change; the different in price is tremendous; and she is glad the Board did that; but that is not how the support was at the last meeting.  She stated if the Commissioners will look at the tape, it was a four-to-one vote; she wanted it to be completely independent; but the rest of the Board questioned the need to go through all of that.  She stated the Board owes it to the citizens because the more money that stays in the pocket of EEL’s, the more the Program will be able to purchase; and that is what it comes down to.  She stated even the folks at home who are supporting the EEL Program want to make sure that the Board is in the driver’s seat; and when the Board lets others be in the driver’s seat, that is the part that is uncomfortable.  She stated the people who voted expect the Board to get the best deal; and that is the part that is always fluid.  She stated right now it is showing that it went down; and the best thing to do is let it lapse and start from scratch.    

 

Chairman Scarborough stated Mr. Roper gave them something that says that the County was getting a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Scrub Jay Conservation Grant; and that would be lost if it is not used for these properties.  He inquired if that is true; with Mr. Fountain responding perhaps.  Mr. Fountain advised The Nature Conservancy has an MOU with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and there is an obligation to spend that money; and they are currently looking in three other counties to pursue other options for the funds.  He stated if the funds have not been spent; and they successfully renegotiate the transactions, then The Nature Conservancy would gladly come back and spend the money in Brevard County. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated what Commissioner Colon is recalling is his caution that the appraisals would have to go down significantly to drop below the purchase price; in one case it did not do it, but came down $2 million; and his caution was where the Board wants to go at that point when it now has an appraisal that supports the acquisition price.  He stated if the Board did not believe that the purchase price was the right price to begin with then the board should not have gone back for additional appraisals; that was the point when the Board should have gone in a different direction; but it did not do that.  He stated the Board said if the appraisals came back and supported the acquisition then it would be in a position to make the contract work, but clearly that is where the Board is and it is not where some Board members want to go. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated if the Board got one price at one appraisal, then it could get a different price at a different appraisal; and that is where she is coming from. 

 

Chairman Scarborough suggested if the Board decides to let it lapse, it would be good to come back; and inquired if it would get new appraisals or does it have a number it likes.  He suggested the Board vote on the motion. 

 

County Attorney Scott Knox requested a ten-minute break.  Chairman Scarborough inquired if Mr. Knox is going to talk about whether the Board needs as super-majority or not; with Mr. Knox advising he has deeper concerns. 

 

 

The meeting recessed at 2:50 p.m. and reconvened at 3:02 p.m.

 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated this is getting more complex; and requested Mr. Knox explain where the Board is and where it is going.

 

Mr. Knox stated the real issue is the AG Ventures contract; at the average of the two appraisals, the purchase price has to be $8,027,000 or less in order for the Board to exercise it by majority vote; at the last meeting the Board agreed to accept the assignment of option but did not exercise the option.  Mr. Knox noted it specifically says in the minutes that the Board wanted to get additional information on the appraisals and purchase price before the option was exercised; so in order to exercise the option and enter into a contract in accordance with the terms of the existing agreement, the Board is going to need four votes because the purchase price, as determined under that agreement, is $8.52 million, which is more than the average of the two
appraisals.  Mr. Knox advised in order to go above the average of the two appraisals the Board needs an extraordinary vote, which is four votes.

 

Chairman Scarborough stated the motion on the table is to let it lapse; but what he hears Mr. Knox saying is without any motion the Board has taken no action to exercise the option.  Mr. Knox advised that is correct.  Chairman Scarborough stated taking no action to exercise the option basically accomplishes what Commissioner Voltz wants.  Mr. Knox stated that would be correct, but if the Board is going to do that he would prefer to have a vote.  Chairman Scarborough stated in other words Commissioner Voltz can win with no votes, but for Commissioner Nelson to win, he needs four votes.  Chairman Scarborough stated what Mr. Knox is saying is that it is okay for the Board to go ahead and vote for the record but it would have been the natural occurrence unless there were four votes to exercise the options

 

Mr. Knox stated the reason it may not have been a natural occurrence is because staff typically exercises the option on the Board’s behalf; but in this one instance, the Board reserved the right to have it come back before it to authorize the exercise of the option.  He advised the Board wanted to see the appraisal information; and that is why it is important for the Board to vote to make it clear to staff what it is not supposed to do. 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated Commissioner Voltz’s motion is to let this lapse; but the truth of the matter is it would lapse automatically because it would have required additional action today with an extraordinary vote of four to one to make it happen.  Mr. Knox stated that summarizes it. 

      

Chairman Scarborough called for a vote on the motion.  Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Bolin, Voltz, and Colon voted aye; Commissioners Scarborough and Nelson voted nay. 

 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated that affirms the Board’s existing position; with Mr. Knox advising it is not to exercise the option.  Chairman Scarborough stated he is going to challenge the Board because everyone will ask where it is going next; there have been two discussions; one discussion is to get new appraisals and see where they come in; the other is to throw out a price and see what happens; and inquired if the Board wants to discuss the two options.

 

Commissioner Colon stated she would like the Board to have the workshop it was discussing in regard to how appraisals are done; this is not just about the EEL Program; she has difficulty in regard to the fact that all the controversy that went on, the Board had set policy; but she is not comfortable that the Board is following it.  She stated the Board needs to have a clear understanding of how it can get to a place where they would all be comfortable with the appraisals that are coming in; and she wants it on record that this property is still of interest to her; but the workshop needs to take place.  She inquired when will the workshop take place; with Ms. Busacca responding April 24, 2008.  Commissioner Colon stated that is too far; and inquired what other dates are available.  She stated there could be a good honest discussion in regard to the issue; where she is uncomfortable is that people say to watch taxpayers’ dollars; but if it is a particular special interest or group, she is supposed to look the other way; and that is hypocrisy, which she does not like.  She stated the Board needs to be as transparent as possible; this is a piece of property that the community would love to acquire; but it would also want to make sure it is paying a fair price.  Commissioner Colon stated the Board had an appraisal that was 18 months old; that is unacceptable; and that is why they are in the middle of all of this.  She stated at the last meeting, she asked the Board to make sure that it would go outside; and she even asked the Clerk of Courts if there was anyone he would recommend.  Ms. Busacca advised she asked the Clerk for a recommendation.  Commissioner Colon stated once they have three appraisers who are different than the ones who did the appraisals this time, at that point everyone would be comfortable, even the sellers; but when there is an appraiser who did not move a penny and another who went down by $2 million, there is something wrong with that picture.  She commented on the process; and stated the Commissioners are trying to do the best they can.  She stated the Board and the community are interested in the property; but they want to be in the driver’s seat, especially when the property value has gone down.  She inquired what are the dates of the workshop; with Ms. Busacca responding the Board has a public hearing on solid waste on January 31, 2008, a workshop for revenue in the afternoon of February 14, 2008 after the MPO meeting, and a February 27, 2008 workshop with the Legislative Delegation at 1:00 p.m.  Commissioner Colon inquired if the February 14, 2008 workshop is mandatory; with Ms. Busacca responding it is one the Board requested to discuss revenues.  Commissioner Colon inquired if it is possible to do both; with Chairman Scarborough advising they work together.  Commissioner Colon suggested having the workshop on February 14 to discuss how the County does appraisals; and at that point the Board can discuss EEL’s and everything.  Ms. Busacca stated the appraisal workshop will be very long based on the conversations the Board had today; the MPO meeting is in the morning; so that will make a very long day for the Board.  Commissioner Colon stated right now the priority is to make sure the Board has the appraisal; after the workshop the Board can give direction; and if the Board is interested in those lands, it can pursue them.

 

Chairman Scarborough stated the biggest thing that is coming up is the budget; and the Board needs to get a handle on all of the revenue sources because it is not just what Tallahassee is doing as there are dropping revenues from many sources.  He stated if the Board does not understand that before it does the budget cuts, it is not going to understand the full dynamics of what is happening; and he would be afraid to not do the revenue workshop as revenue is critical to the County’s survival.  Ms. Busacca stated the next day would be February 27, 2008, which is a Wednesday; and the Legislative Delegation workshop is at 1:00 p.m.  Commissioner Bolin inquired if there would be time to combine those; with Ms. Busacca responding the Board could hold a meeting in the morning, but she does not have anyone’s schedule in front of her.  Chairman Scarborough requested Ms. Busacca check; and if that day is available, the Board can do it then. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated the Board is not really talking about appraisals; it is talking about land acquisition policies; and it needs to be a broader discussion than just appraisals. 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated Ms. Busacca will get back with the Board at the end of the meeting. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated from what she understands, the property is near I-95; someone spoke earlier of the importance of being near I-95 and the increased value because of its potential; and inquired if an interstate justification report has been done to determine whether an interchange is possible.  Chairman Scarborough advised there is an existing interchange at 5A; it is one of the few interchanges that is totally undeveloped along I-95, so it is a rare animal; and the Board will be talking about this further.  

 

Commissioner Bolin stated she has a conflict with the March 20, 2008 workshop on crime.  Chairman Scarborough stated as the Board works on schedules, that is another date it can look at for an alternative.  Commissioner Voltz stated she does not have March 20, 2008 on her schedule; with Ms. Busacca advising the Board just approved that today; and staff checked with all of the Commissioners’ offices about the date.  Ms. Busacca advised the March 13, 2008 meeting was deleted because that is the week of the EDC trip to Washington, D.C.  Chairman Scarborough requested Ms. Busacca look at that with the calendars as well when she comes back to the Board later today. 

 

 

Mike Cunningham stated Friday evening when he turned on his television to monitor the government channel to review a meeting which had occurred earlier in the week, he got no reception; however, there was a banner that went across the screen that said that he could now get the government channel on digital channel 199 by Bright House.  He stated that is strange because Bright House is not his cable carrier; Comcast is his carrier; however, he was instructed that he could get a box which would give him channel 199 in the digital mode.  He stated when he checked he found out that $17 a month is what Comcast would charge in addition to the cable fee, which means those who have the full package would see the $54 they were paying jump to $71.  He stated they made some further inquiries and found that in Barefoot Bay, Bright House will supply the boxes for $1; and that is an inequity.  He stated several years ago they asked Bright House to extend the service area south of Micco Road; but at that time they were told it was  not cost effective; and before the company would even consider it, it would need to run fiber optic lines across the river from Indian River County into Brevard County.  He stated those cables have been in place for over three years; the area from Micco road to the Indian River County line is only one and one-half miles; Bright House took in all of the area south to Micco Road; and inquired if this is another example of the cultural and quality of life alienation that the community suffers.  He stated he will not comment any more about the mail problem or the area code; but the last time Comcast did a channel switch, it took away the public television station from Orlando, which they have traditionally had for years, and lumped them in with WXEL in Miami, out of Barry University.  He stated if anyone cares to get the government channel, they will have to get the full package, and it will go from $54 to $71; and it is an inequity. 

 

George Theriault requested the next time the County negotiates with Comcast that it also negotiate with Bright House and put the whole south end of the County under Bright House; and he would also like to have his mail and his telephone exchange from Brevard County as now the furthest north he can call is to Brevard Avenue. 

 

Maureen Rupe stated there seems to be a breakdown in fundamental rights when Americans are forced to pay extra to access and participate in the government process; she watches both State and local government meetings as do a significant amount of folks; and some are unable to leave their homes or cannot afford to pay any more.  She stated people watch the government meetings to become more educated on current issues that directly affect taxes, insurance, planning and zoning of lands, and all aspects of quality of life; and she has even seen information about the roundabout on Wickham Road that people are concerned about as well as information about hurricanes.  She stated it is crucial that people are informed; and the change in the County government television access is denying that participation for some.  She stated years ago the only Brevard County government TV access was through the Brevard Community College station; in order to expand access to most of the County, the Board made the decision to make an agreement with Time Warner, which is now Bright House, to use cable; and that decision was for the public good, but residents not only needed a television but needed cable access unless there were within range of the BCC antenna.  She stated she is not sure if BCC still broadcasts.  She stated at one time she chose to switch to satellite antenna, but found she still needed basic cable to receive the government channel; so for the year that she was on satellite, she still had basic cable service, which was $21 per month, but is now close to $51 a month or $58 with smart-box.  She stated she knows the County was doing the right thing at the time, but the decision to go with the cable was denying access to government broadcasts for those residents with antenna or satellite reception.  She stated she only has one converter box although she has five televisions; and advised she would have to purchase other boxes if she wanted to look at a different program or watch the government channel.  She stated on February 17, 2009 all analog television stations will have to broadcast in digital; the original FCC target was for complete conversation in the year 2005; it has already been pushed out nearly five years to allow consumers and broadcasters time to catch up; but Bright House made a business decision to apply it now.  She stated the federal government is providing up to two $40 coupons to buy $40 to $70 converters for analog television sets; but one cannot receive the coupons if they are on cable; and cable is the only access to the government channel so the low income people have been forgotten or ignored.  She stated there must be some help for those on limited incomes; there should be some negotiations between the cable company and the County; and it is crucial at this time to maintain access to the government processes.  She stated she is also concerned about what is going to happen to all the televisions that people will be putting at the curb for pickup; and inquired will they be going to the landfill.  She stated that could be a dangerous situation with the metals. 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated she appreciates Ms. Rupe explaining that when there are two people in a home and two televisions, it is necessary to have two boxes.    

 

Paul Hanson, General Manager of Bright House Networks in Brevard County, stated he is a resident and works in the County; and he appreciates the opportunity to explain what is happening and why it is happening.  He stated the whole world is going digital; and they are reaching a point where video is going digital as well.  He stated in February 2009 all broadcasters have to give up their analog signal and convert to digital; and there are some good reasons why that is happening.  He stated digital is a much more efficient mechanism of transporting video; in the bandwidth space they could put one analog channel they can put 12 digital channels, so it is more efficient and high quality; and it is a natural progression of technology to move to digital.  He stated they are at a place in their business where customers are asking for more programming, specifically high definition programming; so in order to make room for that sort of programming, they are having to find ways to better utilize the limited bandwidth spectrum.  Mr. Hanson stated one of the ways they do that is by moving channels from analog to digital; by freeing up some space, they will be adding seven new channels on February 1, 2008; so the impact on customers by moving the channel to digital is that the signal continues to be on basic cable, meaning it is available to all of the customers as it is today, only in the digital format instead of the analog format.  He stated most of the customers have digital service so there is no problem in terms of finding the channel at a new location; a customer who has a television with a digital tuner will also be able to tune to this channel without a box; that leaves the group of customers who do not have a digital box or a digital television set; and that group will need to obtain a digital box to continue to receive the signal.  He stated in order to help with this transition, Bright House, which normally rents digital boxes at $6.95, will be subsidizing the price of the box down to $1.  He advised Bright House will be providing a box to each household that requests one for $1 so people are able to receive the government channel. 

 

Chairman Scarborough inquired if the box will be just for the one channel; with Mr. Hanson responding it would be the government channel and the School Board channel. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated Mr. Hanson said all people have to do is provide $1, but Bright House does not have anything to do with Comcast; it has no way to look at the numbers of people who have Comcast who are now going to be unable to get the government channel; and inquired how will the Board deal with that. 

 

Chairman Scarborough inquired if there is anyone from Comcast in the audience; and no response was heard.  Chairman Scarborough stated the Board needs to get someone from Comcast because there are some issues north of Titusville as well. 

 

Kimberly Prosser, SCGTV/Communications Director advised Bright House passes the signal through to Comcast; and it is her understanding from emails that she received from citizens this afternoon that the adjustments have been made and they are able to receive the channel now.

 

Chairman Scarborough stated the question goes beyond that to the cost.  Commissioner Voltz inquired if they have to pay $17 for the boxes.  Chairman Scarborough stated the Board should speak with someone from Comcast; but today it should deal with the issue before it.  He stated what they have is a box for $1 a month; and it will allow people to get the government channel and the School Board channel. 

 

Mr. Hanson stated Bright House has tried to communicate this change to its customers through various means; the response has been minimal; there were 16 requests for boxes as of yesterday; and they have had a few phone calls; but Bright House is prepared to respond to whatever situations or questions customers may have. 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated since it is basically a government service for people to see the meetings and the County spent a lot of time and money putting out information and ads, he asked whether the County could pick up the dollar cost for those persons who wanted to be informed; and that is one option to consider. 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated she and Mr. Hanson have had a discussion; she thinks it is unnecessary to charge the people $1; they are talking about 16 people and $12 a year; and it would be a good community service to waive that.  She stated Mr. Hanson has given his arguments about why he wants to charge $1; and they disagree.  She advised when someone goes down and picks up the box, there is no charge for someone installing it themselves, but if the person is unable to figure out how to do it, then there would be a charge of $23.95 to have Bright House install it.  Mr. Hanson advised Bright House is encouraging people to pick up a box at the office and there is no charge for that; if a customer wishes for Bright House to do that as a convenience, there would be a charge; however, if someone is unable to come to the office or is unable to figure it out, then Bright House will send a technician to the home at no charge, so what Commissioner Bolin was told is half right in the sense that if someone does not want to come to the office, there would be a charge; but Bright House is going to be sensitive to the customers.  He stated the Board is concerned about its constituents; he is concerned about his customers; and he does not want to create situations where customers would look elsewhere to get their video service, so Bright House is going to be very flexible and work with people.  Commissioner Bolin stated she wants to clarify that people who are going to pick up the boxes are not deprived people; she was there on Saturday and picked up a box; so it is a wide variety of constituents across the board who have a need for the box.  She encouraged Mr. Hanson to reconsider the financial burden even though it is only $12 a year in case there are people who have a problem with it.  Mr. Hanson stated he understands the concern; Bright House is subsidizing to the tune of $5.95 so it has made a big leap in terms of absorbing the costs; the boxes are very expensive at over $350 a piece; and they are putting a very expensive asset on which they are losing money; but they are willing to do it through this transition.  He stated asking a customer to contribute $1 a month toward the maintenance of the box is reasonable. 

 

Commissioner Nelson inquired to make this change, how many channels were picked up; with Mr. Hanson responding they are moving two and adding seven on February 1, 2008.  Commissioner Nelson stated Bright House is money ahead because it will be able to sell more advertising.  Mr. Hanson advised five of the channels are high definition channels; none will cost the consumer any more; and they will not be selling additional advertising.  He stated these are moving a digital format on existing channels so there is no additional revenue by adding the channels, but it provides better products for the consumers.  Commissioner Nelson stated it seems that Bright House is taking an awful beating for $16 a month; and inquired why it is doing that.  Mr. Hanson stated Bright House is taking a beating from the $6.95 down to $1; it negotiated to get it down to that point because this is an important issue; if it gave the boxes away for free, the concern is that many people who want a box who do not really need it; and then Bright House would have potentially millions of dollars in boxes deployed in places where they would be unnecessary.  He stated that is the risk for Bright House from a business standpoint that it wants someone to say they are willing to pay $1 and they need the box. 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated the box can only provide two additional channels, which would allow someone to access their government to know what is going on; to have to pay to know what is going on in government is repugnant to the way the system should work; and it is almost like collecting admissions to enter into the Commission Chamber.  He stated it is not right. 

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired what else does the box provide; and stated if she went and got a box at full price it would provide a lot more services.  Mr. Hanson stated the full price box would include all the digital channels, but Bright House is not requiring customers to buy the digital service.  Commissioner Voltz stated it is not the same kind of box as the regular customer would get if they wanted the increased services; with Mr. Hanson advising it is the exact same box, but it is programmed to just receive the two channels rather than all the digital channels, which would come with an additional charge.

 

Commissioner Bolin stated she inquired about that also; and the box she is installing at her home is only good for two channels unless she subscribes to a higher level of service. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated Bright House could have kept government in the upper tier and moved something else, WGN Chicago for instance; and inquired why it picked the government channels that are so basic to the community.  Mr. Hanson responded Bright House is obligated under contracts to carry channels in certain ways and in certain locations; over time what will happen is all channels will go digital; so as Bright House is contractually able, that is why it will move channels.  He stated WGN, for instance, cannot be moved to digital because of contract restrictions.  Commissioner Nelson inquired out of the basic tier how many are contractual; with Mr. Hanson responding they all are.  Commissioner Nelson stated he is a little lost; Bright House had two channels that were there that were not contractual, and now they are gone; and inquired if Bright House signed a new contract so somebody moved up; with Mr. Hanson responding no.  Mr. Hanson advised what allowed them to move the government channel was the change in the State law that occurred earlier this year; prior to the change, Bright House was not able to move that channel, so it was bound by the franchise agreement; but now the State law has changed.  Commissioner Nelson inquired what is zap2it; with Mr. Hanson responding it is a scrolling guide that tells people what is on each channel.  Mr. Hanson advised it is a guide for people who do not have a converter box; the converter box has a built-in guide; but zap2it is designed for people without a box.  Commissioner Nelson inquired if people already have basic service how important is that; with Mr. Hanson responding it is like an electronic TV guide.  Commissioner Nelson stated he does not see that rises to the same level as the government channels; it is a bad business decision; and if there is any place in the world that loves its government television it is Brevard County.  He commented on people watching the meeting in increments of a few minutes at a time for specific issues; and stated he is troubled when the citizens are being deprived of that, particularly for such a small amount of money.  He reiterated it is a bad business decision; Bright House’s website says, “At Bright House we care about our community” and “as a local company it’s our privilege to give back in any way we can, from education to safety, to helping those in need”; and if that is not a description of the two channels that were moved, he does not know what is.  Mr. Hanson stated he could spend a long time talking about all the things that Bright House does in the community, so the company is very concerned; and he hopes it has not been a bad business decision.  He stated the company thought long and hard about this; if it did not move channels and free up space, customers would leave Bright House for satellite to get more high definition programming; and so it is a business decision; and it carries risk, but not doing something also carries risk.  He stated Bright House feels it knows its customers; this change was done in the Tampa Division in December; there were requests from approximately 1.5% of the customers for boxes; and in Brevard County that would translate to approximately 300 people who would need a box. 

 

Chairman Scarborough advising of a ruling of the Federal District Court in Michigan that prohibited moving channels for public, educational, and government use from their current location or changing the format in which they are delivered to subscribers until further order of the court; and inquired if Mr. Hanson reviewed that; with Mr. Hanson responding he is familiar with it.  Chairman Scarborough provided a copy of the ruling to Mr. Hanson; and stated he would like not to get into the legal issue, but to look at the spirit in which the ruling came down.  He stated they live in a format called participatory democracy; people have to talk before the Board can vote; and it is sort of unique.  He stated normally someone is invited to appear before a committee in Tallahassee or Washington, D.C., but the Board is required to give notice of zoning changes, and to let people talk before the Board can vote.  He stated to not let people know what is going on provides an impediment to the very process in which we live; he is not satisfied with what has occurred; and while some other Commissioners may not agree, he would be more than willing to pay to make sure that everybody who wants to receive would receive the right to see the government and educational channels.  He stated that is what the country is about; he did not know all the complications of getting the box; and requested Mr. Hanson’s help.  He stated he would like to hear back from Mr. Hanson about working together and not prohibiting people from participating in their government.  Mr. Hanson stated that is not the intent.  Chairman Scarborough stated it may be the end result; that is the problem; and at least one Federal District Court is looking at the issue in that perspective, so he would appreciate Mr. Hanson letting the Board know what he can do to help. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated she wants to know what the Board is going to do with Comcast; with Chairman Scarborough advising the Board will invite them to come in.  Ms. Prosser advised it is her understanding that Comcast is not moving the government channel to digital, so therefore, there is no additional charge for their subscribers.  Chairman Scarborough stated that is contrary to what Mr. Cunningham told the Board; with Ms. Prosser advising that adjustment had not been made until today; the adjustment was made on Bright House’s end; and Comcast now has the signal and is sending it out.  Chairman Scarborough stated they will have no charge; with Commissioner Voltz advising they will get it free. 

 

Chairman Scarborough inquired if the Board may hear from Mr. Hanson by the next meeting.  Mr. Hanson stated earlier today there was a question about public service announcements about rip currents; and Bright House would be glad to help with that. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to grant permission for the Florida Department of Transportation to use the County’s logo.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten stated there are representatives in the audience from Florida Department of Transportation who wish to make a presentation on what is 511. 

 

Vicki Mixson, representing the Florida Department of Transportation, stated the Board was interested in a free consumer service for anyone to dial 5-1-1 to get special updates on the roadways, particularly on I-95 during the upcoming construction; 5-1-1 is the easy to remember travel information telephone number; and it is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  She stated one can get the number through voice activated and touchtone menus; it is for cell phones and landline use; a person can call from their home, business, or cell phone; and it will provide construction and lane closure updates, severe weather, evacuation, and Amber alerts.  she stated it works through a complex network of roadside sensors, FDOT cameras, weather stations, Florida Highway Patrol and other emergency responder incident reports, and the regional traffic management center.  She stated the I-95 corridor is monitored out of Orlando through the regional traffic management center at the Orlando Urban Office, which is collocated with FHP.  She stated in Central Florida there is an expanded system; it covers I-95, I-4, SR 528, and 12 other major roadways in the metropolitan Orlando, Brevard County, Volusia County area; there is access through one phone call to Orlando and the Orlando-Sanford International Airports, Port Canaveral, and the LYNX Transit Authority; and there is also a statewide network, which covers all the interstate highways as well as Florida’s turnpike.  She stated this is focused more on unusual conditions right now, such as construction, lane closures, major incidents, and severe weather.  She stated they also have a website, fl511.com, where people can get traffic information; they can use myflorida.511 which is personalized services; and also they can use the website to view traffic cameras.  She stated on fl511 people can register for personalized services so with one voice prompt people can get their route to work, home, etc.; they can view traffic cameras to check traffic conditions; and they can link to the transit and travel partners.  She stated they are developing a single 511 Statewide service that will encompass all of these areas; the improved 511 will be bilingual in Spanish and English; and it will include all regions in the State.  She stated by the year 2012, 511 will be available coast to coast nationwide.  She stated what they want from Brevard County is to establish a partnership between FDOT and the County to make drivers more aware of 511.  She stated they were hoping to convince the County to have a banner, paid for by FDOT, on a building to remind drivers to drive safely and call 511; they have banners in the Orlando, Ft. Meyers, and other areas; and they would like to see a banner in Brevard County close to I-95.  She stated they have bumper stickers that could be put on County fleet vehicles to provide an on the road reminder; there could be a video promo on SCGTV; and there could be training of County staff so everyone will be aware of what 511 is.  She stated there is a 511 traveling display that could go in County buildings to educate people. 

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired if the phone calls are free; with Ms. Mixson responding most cell phone carriers do charge minutes, but the call itself is free.  Commissioner Voltz inquired what kind of banner is Ms. Mixson talking about.  Ms. Mixson responded it would be a large banner that would go on the side of one of the government buildings to promote the 511 service; there is one on the Orange County Convention Center; and the banner could include any kind of safety message the Board is interested in.

 

Commissioner Colon stated last night it obviously was not accurate; it said there was no traffic problem on I-95; but at 7:45 p.m. traffic sat there for 45 minutes.  Ms. Mixson stated she had not heard that, but she will pull the report.  Commissioner Colon stated the program needs a little tweaking.  Ms. Mixson stated she will take that information back to the traffic management center; and as they go forward, the program will continue to get better. 

 

County Attorney Scott Knox advised he has similar testimony; he sat on the Beachline when he came back from vacation; he spent an hour calling 511 to find out what the problem was; and 511 kept telling him that the travel time was 25 minutes from 417 to I-95, so there were some problems. 

 

Ms. Mixson advised of the 511 feedback feature. 

 

 

 

County Attorney Scott Knox stated the Statute that Mr. Lorenc and Ms. Walters were talking about only applies to motor vehicles; motor vehicles are defined in the Statute as those that are operating on the roads; so unless airboats are operating on roads, the Board is good is go. 

 

Commissioner Nelson inquired if Mr. Knox looked to see if there are any sections within the Aviation section that speaks to that issue or lists restrictions.  Mr. Knox advised his office called some people who advised that virtually all airports do not have that arrangement.  Assistant County Manager Mel Scott advised staff also confirmed with FDOT that there are many airports that do this so if the County missed something by default that may be one issue; but staff did confirm that there are circumstances like this replicated throughout the State.  Commissioner Nelson inquired if that includes the fueling of airboats; with Valkaria Airport Director Steve Borowski responding the only thing they found out extra was that it is leaded fuel, so the apparatus only goes for leaded devices. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated this is another one of those things that has been brought forth that has no validity just to try to throw the Board off-base. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve the expansion of existing FDOT Joint Participation Agreement ANH22, related to Operational and Maintenance costs that comply with Enhanced Federal Security Requirements, with no local matching funds required.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.    

 

 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated the reason he pulled this is because he does not recall having seen any of these previously.  County Manager Peggy Busacca advised the Board has done this before.  Commissioner Nelson stated he has not seen them since he has been on the Board; but he assumes there are several throughout the County.  He stated his concern is the Board is allowing the Sheriff to enforce homeowner requirements; and there is no cost show for it.

 

Commissioner Voltz stated the Board does it all the time.  Commissioner Nelson stated the Board may do it all the time, but he does not know that it is a great idea; and that is his concern.  He stated it is not a huge cost in terms of signage; but he does not know what the impact is to the Sheriff’s Office for enforcement.

 

County Attorney Scott Knox stated this originated in Suntree; the language was developed because of a court case where the judge decided there were not enough signs up to put people on notice that one could park on Suntree subdivision streets; so several signs went up with this language; and the Sheriff enforces on a complaint basis. 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated she did some investigation on this; there are many locations throughout the County in the unincorporated area such as Harbor Point and River Grove in Merritt Island and Grand Haven in Melbourne that have these signs.  She stated she contacted Lieutenant Mathias with the Sheriff’s Department concerning the number of complaints; and he advises there is no substantial additional work to enforce the signs, it is done on usual patrolling, and so it is not a burden on the Sheriff’s Office. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated the feedback from Law Enforcement is that it is easier for them to carry out their duties when things are in black and white; and they appreciate it. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to adopt Resolution for the installation of “No Parking on Streets Between Midnight and 7:00 a.m.” sign, to be posted at the entrance into The Indigo Crossing Subdivision, Section 32, Township 25, Range 36.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.    

 

 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated one of the issues raised is whether there are American alternatives.  Environmentally Endangered Lands Program Coordinator Mike Knight responded the only other vehicle he was aware of at the time the analysis was done was the Ford Escape hybrid, which is similar to a Trail Blazer; the primary concern in that vehicle was that cost was significant compared to the fuel efficiency; and staff did not feel it was justified.  He stated the extra cost for that vehicle and what is gained back in fuel efficiency did not make much sense; and in that case, staff would be better off going with a Chevrolet Trail Blazer.  Chairman Scarborough stated the other issue was whether the County is trading off gas price for the price of batteries; and commented on Mr. Knight being quoted in the press.  Mr. Knight stated when they first started looking at hybrid vehicles a couple of years ago there was a concern; at that time the Prius had not been on the market a long time; but it is staff’s understanding that there is not a real issue with the replacement of batteries as they are extended out over a period of five to seven years or more. 

 

Commissioner Nelson inquired about resale of the vehicles; and stated once it gets near the end of the life of the car, replacing the batteries becomes a factor that depreciates the value much quicker than a gasoline powered vehicle.  Mr. Knight stated he has not information on that. 

 

Central Services Director Steve Stultz advised staff contacted the Toyota dealership for some information; there is only four years history on this model; the estimated cost on batteries is $3,000; but they are estimating that the life of the batteries is up to 100,000 miles. 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated what Mr. Stultz is hearing from the Board is that if it is doing this to calculate cost, it wants to have that information.  He stated at some later date a Commissioner may be asking how it all adds up.  Mr. Stultz stated at some point in time it would probably be a good environmental thing to pursue those vehicles; but to get back to Chairman Scarborough’s earlier question, with the exception of the Ford Escape hybrid, he does not think there are any true hybrids out there right now.  He stated General Motors has some flex fuel vehicles, which are the ethanol gasoline vehicles; Chrysler is scheduled in 2009 to have a hybrid offering; and General Motors is coming back out with a vehicle. 

 

Commissioner Voltz advised Saturn has one.  Mr. Stultz agreed Saturn has an SUV vehicle; but right now the domestic manufacturers’ hybrid vehicles are a bit limited although they are all starting to come out with better offerings in the near future.  He stated one advantage of the Toyota vehicle is that it has been out for about four years so there is a little bit of operational history; but Fleet Services would consider this to be a pilot program to try to capture what the maintenance costs are before taking a big leap.  Chairman Scarborough stated if would be good to track it. 

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired if the Prius is a small SUV; with Mr. Knight responding it is more of a compact car.  Mr. Knight advised the reason it was compared to the Trail Blazer versus the Cobalt is because the Cobalt does not have a hatchback; staff would be using the vehicle for transport of educational displays; and it is much more difficult to put a display in a Cobalt, so if they were not buying a Prius, they would be buying a Trail Blazer because the Cobalt would not suit the need for which it was intended. 

 

Commissioner Nelson inquired if the vehicle is manufactured overseas; with Mr. Stultz responding he is not sure. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to approve the purchase of budgeted Toyota Prius hybrid vehicles to support the Environmentally Endangered Lands Program (EEL) operations; and authorize evaluation of overall potential cost savings through the use of hybrid vehicles setting an example of how government programs can contribute to energy conservation goals and vehicle emissions reduction.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.   

 

 

Suzanne Valencia stated the improved language for the Management Plan Manuals clarifies the process of moving the management plans forward, but does not change the intent implied in the manual.  She stated the Acquisition Manual clearly states the process for acquisition of the land, but the Management Manual has been a little bit more ambiguous.  She stated the Selection and Management Committee approves sanctuary management plans to insure that they follow the guiding principles of the EEL Program, which is to protect the rich biodiversity of Brevard County, guided by scientific principles for conservation; the scientists on the Selection and Management Committee have devoted hundreds, perhaps thousands of volunteer hours without pay to help select and manage the lands for the citizens of the County; and it is after the Management and Selection Committee approves a management plan that it comes to the Board for final approval.  Ms. Valencia stated the scientists have probably walked every foot of all these lands; they know the County inside and out like nobody else does; and they know what they are talking about.  She stated they know the value of the land; they know what flora and fauna are there; and with all due respect to the County Commissioners, they are not scientists.  She stated the Commissioners come and go; some will be here next year and some will not; but the scientists have worked for 17 years on this property; and they do it because they love the land and want to see the land preserved.  She stated they have no hidden agendas; and this does not take away the Board’s authority of a final vote.  She stated when acquisition or management plans come before the Board, it still has the right to say yay or nay, so this does not take away that privilege; and she is in favor of the language change.   

 

Maureen Rupe stated Mr. Hann says that the change in wording will mean that nothing ever reaches the Commissioners unless the Selection and Management Committee (SMC) has approved it, and that this means that the use of public land is not under the control of the Board and EEL staff, but is up to the appointed members of the SMC; but she disagrees with this statement.  She stated the Board has the ultimate authority; the Recreation Committee has been set up as an advisory committee to the SMC; there are minutes at every SMC meeting where the SMC gives its discussions and explains why it has made its decisions; and if at any time the Board wants the SMC to revisit a subject before it makes its decision, it has the right to do so.  She stated taking Mr. Hann’s example, it would be like taking a Board recommendation on a State-decided issue and having the SMC present its recommendations to the State without the County’s approval to do so, which would never happen due to protocol.  She stated the primary propose for the EEL Program is protection of environmentally endangered lands; and they must base on the evidence to insure that any expansion of any activity does not weigh too heavily on the protected land in question.  She noted the importance and criticality of the EEL program was shown by the selection and appointment of a highly skilled and trained committee to oversee the program; this is not just control of public lands, it is control of environmentally sensitive lands; and any activity has to be reviewed to insure the least impacts to the surrounding area.  She commented on Mr. Hann’s emails concerning the Malabar scrub issue; and noted Mr. Hann says the Malabar Town Council passed two resolutions, and he has gone back and researched the issue.  She stated Mr. Hann advises he can show that the EEL Program worked on a gentleman’s agreement, that Malabar agreed, and what was agreed on; but it sounds like it should have gone to a vote and there should have been an Interlocal agreement.  She inquired was there an agreement on this or was it just a gentleman’s agreement; and advised she does not understand that.  She stated Mr. Hann criticizes the SMC in the two emails; Mr. Hann says in April 2007 he pleaded with the Board not to reappoint any of the SMC members, but to provide other applicants such as civil engineers or recreation experts; and requested the board look at things that may be underlying some of these requests. 

 

Mary Sphar stated since April 2007 it has become apparent that some County staff believes that the intent of the Sanctuary Management Manual is not stated clearly enough; and staff feels the language should be tightened up so everyone can easily understand all the specifications.  She stated the proposed modifications spell out the original intent of the manual in no uncertain terms, especially the sentence that only those plans, plan amendments, and changes in management or land use that have been approved by the Selection and Management Committee (SMC) shall be brought before the Board of County Commissioners for approval.  Ms. Sphar stated the sentence is crucial to the proper functioning of the EEL Program because the SMC ensures that the legal requirements are followed and that management plans comply with the referendum directive and the program vision.  She stated the SMC also ensures that the management plan reflects the conservation purposes for which the land was acquired, and in doing so ensures that Chapter 259.032(11), F.S. is complied with.  She stated this particular Statute deals with lands that are funded in part with State money, and it states, “The Legislature intends for these lands to be managed and maintained for the purposes for which they were acquired and for the public to have access to and use of these lands where it is consistent with acquisition purposes and would not harm the resources the State is seeking to protect on the public’s behalf.”  She stated because the SMC ensures legal compliance, only those plans approved by the SMC should be brought to the Board.  She stated the language needs to be tightened as proposed to more clearly reflect the manual’s original intent and to ensure compliance with the legal requirements of the referendum and the Florida Statutes.  She requested the Board approve the modifications. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated the piece that should be of concern to the Board is the one that Mr. Hann wrote about; Mr. Hann is respected in the community and has no hidden agenda; and that is why she thinks it is important for the Board to listen to him.  She stated Mr. Hann advises the language on pages 15 and 16 says only those plans, plan amendments, and changes in management or land use that have been approved by the SMC should be brought before the Board for approval; and that means that nothing reaches the Board unless the SMC has already approved it.  She stated that means use of the public land is not under control of the Board or even EEL staff, but is up to the appointed members of the SMC only, which is unacceptable.  She stated Mr. Hann advises that the people of Brevard County elect Commissioners to represent them in the final control of public lands; the Board must maintain the final authority when it comes to management of public properties; the EEL Program has been highly successful in acquiring a variety of properties throughout the County; however, the management of the properties and the degree to which they are accessible to the public for passive recreation is a critical issue that must be addressed.  She stated Mr. Hann is a huge trails advocate and has strong opinions regarding the issue being discussed by the Board.  She stated the SMC has demonstrated that it has tremendous expertise in the selection of environmental properties, but very little focus on passive recreation and is not concerned with working with other departments within the County.  She stated Mr. Hann advises that passive recreation must be improved within EEL properties and such properties much be linked to provide better access for the citizens, and having all departments within the County working together at the direction of the Board makes for efficient government.  She stated if the item passes as it is written, it will be a tremendous setback for the effort to build a comprehensive greenways and trails system in the County; and it is important that the EEL Program provide a balanced approach to public use that is compatible with the conservation initiatives.  She stated the final authority to achieve the balanced approach must remain with the Board, which was elected to make the difficult decision; and that is where the concern is.  She stated one of the examples that has been used by several folks in South Brevard was the recommendation that came from the SMC was not a recommendation that the Board supported; therefore, the people feel that the language is trying to circumvent, and that if it had never been approved by the SMC, the Board would have never seen it, and that project would not have been approved by the Board.  She inquired if that is correct.  Environmentally Endangered Lands Coordinator Mike Knight advised they are required to bring management plans to the Board within a specified period of time once properties are acquired; and they would never be in a situation where they could never bring a plan to the Board because they would have to meet the timeframes.  Commissioner Colon stated with the process right now, the Board has the ultimate say; but in the proposed wording, it says if the SMC does not approve it, the Board would never see it.  Mr. Knight stated that is what Mr. Hann is saying but that is not what the language suggests.  Commissioner Colon inquired what does it say on pages 15 and 16, under item 1.  Mr. Knight advised he does not have Mr. Hann’s email. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated it says, “Prior to presenting a site management plan to the Board of County Commissioners, EEL’s staff will present the complete plan with amendments and appendices to the SMC for final review and authorization to proceed to the Board.  During the SMC review and discussion, the primary question to be answered is, does the site management plan meet the program objectives, and should the EEL’s SMC recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the plan.”  She stated it goes on to say, “only those plans, plan amendments, and changes in management of land use that have been approved by the SMC, shall be brought before the Board”; so the Board will not see everything, only those that the SMC thinks the Board should see.  Mr. Knight stated that is not the intention; with Commissioner Voltz responding that is what it says.  Mr. Knight stated the Board has to approve all management plans.  Commissioner Voltz stated there are some things that the SMC might not approve, and the Board would never see them; but the Board might want to approve something that the SMC would not approve.  Mr. Knight stated they are held to a one-year timeframe to get a management plan to the Board; and if things get caught in a cycle where there are debates over what types of passive recreation should occur on a site, then it is up to the SMC to resolve because of the timeframe to get the management plan in for approval.  Commissioner Voltz stated that is not the issue; the issue is that it says the only things the Board will see are those things that have been approved by the SMC, so if there is something that comes before the SMC that it does not want, the Board of County Commissioners will never see it.  Mr. Knight stated all recommendations that come to the committees have to be put within the management plan; they are not necessarily incorporated in the plan but all comments are put in whether they are incorporated or not.  He stated maybe he is having a hard time understanding; but there would not be a situation where the recommendation would come from Mr. Hann or someone else and the recommendation would not go into the data that was received in the addendum to the management plan.  Commissioner Voltz stated with the Malabar issue, the SMC did not support the trail location but the Board said yes; and now the Board would have never have seen it if the SMC did not support it.  Mr. Knight stated it would be in the management plan; and in all likelihood Mr. Hann would come forward to advise they did not like the direction the issue was heading.  He stated at that time the Board could provide direction to the advisory committee to find a solution; and that is where they are right now in that the onus is on the committee to find a solution that everyone can live with in terms of the trail.  Commissioner Voltz stated that is not how she is reading it. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated anyone can bring an item to the Board, so if there was an objection to one of the management plans, a citizen could bring it before the Board; and he does not know if the new language accomplishes what the SMC wanted to accomplish.  He stated he understands what Mr. Knight is saying; and commented on the process of recommendations from subcommittees going to the full committee, and then to the Board for approval.  Commissioner Nelson stated anybody who has a contrary opinion can express it before the Board; and the question is how to deal with differences between a subcommittee and a committee, which is a technical issue.  He stated he does not know that the language needs to say what it says; it actually does a disservice because, with the law of unintended consequences for the EEL Program will be seeing more end runs than it will people coming before the board for legitimate discussions; and it means that the SMC Committee members may or may not be present, and instead of controlling the timing of bring items to the Board, they may be reacting to that.  He stated it is setting up for more end runs; that is his concern; and he would prefer to see it in the process because anyone can come to the Board.  He stated he would rather see it as part of the process that is discussed; and ultimately the Board makes the decision.  He stated the wording lends itself to sounding like an absolute when it is not.     

 

County Manager Peggy Busacca commented on the process whereby with ordinances they go to the Local Planning Agency (LPA), and the Board sees staff recommendations and LPA recommendations, which may not be the same; and then the Board has the opportunity to decide which of the recommendations it wants.  She stated she is hearing that the Board wants to go through the process and see all the options and recommendations; it will review those; and no given body will be able to preclude the discussion coming to the Board.  She stated in the case of the LPA, the Statute gives it 60 days to table an item, and after that it comes off the table and the Board has the right to consider it.  She stated in this process, part of the problem has been that sometimes the items get so bogged down in discussion that it is much longer than 60 days before an item is brought forward to the Board; and suggested the Board may want to think about this and base it on a case that it is familiar with, which is what happens at the LPA.  She stated the Board could give a certain amount of time for any committee to review; and if it is not moving forward, then it could be brought to the Board regardless with options.  She stated she does not know how the Board feels about it; but it does seem to be relatively comfortable with the Local Planning Agency.

 

Commissioner Voltz stated maybe they can come back at the next meeting with different language; and she does not want the Board to give up its authority to be able to look at something.

 

Chairman Scarborough stated if anybody wants to come up before the Board, he is going to give them a great deal of latitude unless they are getting into some outrageous like personal attacks; there is an open forum; it is really problematic regardless of what kind of rules and how the Board deals with it; and he agrees with Commissioner Nelson.  He stated what he would like to do is have the body that is devoting its time and energy to get fully involved in the issue before it comes to the Board; people have tried to do end runs by coming before the Board before other groups that are much more informed give their input; and that is a disservice to the body that has given its time, and a disservice to the Board that has a very busy agenda.  He stated there may be something that folks in the audience and the County can put together.

 

Commissioner Colon stated she always has an issue when things are not spelled out in black and white; and when somebody interprets the intent, that is when they run into a problem.  She stated the second a Commissioner says that is the intent, it is the intent of that Commissioner, not necessarily the other Commissioners; and that is why things need to be spelled out in black and white.  Commissioner Colon stated she would like to make sure that the SMC has an opportunity to see something so it does not feel like it is not being heard; and then the Board will weigh that.  She stated that is what the Board is comfortable with; it does not want anyone to feel like they are not going to be asked for their opinion; the Board wants to hear the recommendations and weigh them; and that is what the Commissioners would be comfortable with.  She inquired if staff knows what the Board wants to see or are they still confused. 

 

Mr. Knight responded he is still confused.  He stated as an example, the normal course of operations is when they are looking at a property, a passive recreation analysis is done by staff; a recreation conceptual plan is developed; and it goes to the Recreation Advisory Committee (RAC), which is currently chaired by Mr. Hann.  He stated the RAC makes its recommendation based on passive recreation to the SMC; the SMC pulls together the final approval of the entire management plan, which includes the passive recreational component; and then it is recommended to the Board for review.  He stated throughout that process, there can be numerous requests, whether it is for a paved trail, ball field, or remote control airpark; the SMC task is to determine if it fits within the goals of the program to have those types of uses that may not be considered passive recreation; and where he is not clear is whether the Board wants staff to bring those concepts to it that are part of a passive recreation plan, try to narrow down what it is going to put in the plan, or bring the plan to the Board with recommendations from the SMC and the Board would decide how to proceed.

 

Ms. Busacca stated that is a whole different discussion; that is really about the definition of passive; it is not the process; and the question Mr. Knight is asking is how does he know passive recreation when he sees it.  Mr. Knight stated that was not his intention; his intention was what recreation should staff include or not include and at what level does the Board want SMC to review that and determine what recommendations to make. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated she wants the SMC to be part of the process to review it; there is no harm in bringing something back to the SMC to get their feedback; but where she has a problem is for the SMC to be deciding what the Board sees and does not see.  She stated today is the perfect example; if Mr. Hann had not sent a letter and did not have an opportunity to speak to the board, than all the Board would have heard was one side; and meanwhile, the Board would be thinking everything was fine.  She inquired why things cannot stay the way they are right now.  Mr. Knight advised that is certainly an option; if the Board leaves things the way it is right now, the way the process has always worked is that the Recreation Committee reviews the recreational plan; the SMC takes those recommendations and decides how to incorporated them to see if they meet the goals of the program; and a plan is developed.  He stated that plan is submitted to the Board; the Board decides whether it likes it or not; and within that plan is every recommendation that anyone has ever made, whether it was supported by the committees or not.  Commissioner Colon inquired what is wrong with that; the Board has a lot of respect for the SMC; but it would also like to have that balancing act.  She stated the citizens have mentioned clearly regarding passive recreation; they want to be able to utilize all the lands that are available to them; and that is where the SMC comes in, to decided what is passive and what is not.  She stated the Commissioners are not scientists; and there is nothing wrong with the process as it is now.  She inquired again whey are they trying to change something when there is no need for it; and advised the Board is comfortable with the process as it is now, which means both advisory boards are able to give their feedback.  Mr. Knight advised this is a staff caught in the middle issue; and staff was trying to clarify the position of the Program Manager.  He stated what happened with the Malabar trail issue is that a decision was made to override what the Committee thought was the best way to handle the trail; and the Program Manager has been criticized for bringing these things to the Board when it has not passed muster with the Committee.  He stated he is asking for clarification if it is the preference of the Board to have the Program Manager have the authority to bring it forward to the Board. 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated he thinks this is coming back; and he has a feeling it is going to be clearer the next time he sees it.

 

Commissioner Colon stated now they are getting to the truth; that is what this is about; and she does not want things to be sugarcoated.  She stated Mr. Knight did his job; she expects every Director to do his or her job; and Mr. Knight does not necessarily have to agree with the SMC.  She stated that is why it is so important to be balanced; the five Commissioners make the decisions; anyone is allowed to provide feedback; and that includes the different agencies and departments.  She stated the Board is comfortable with that; but the Commissioners are the elected officials, not staff, the SMC, or other advisory boards; and that is how it should be, not just with EEL’s, but with any department. 

 

Commissioner Nelson inquired when the trail issue came before the Board, were they specifically talking about the trail or the entire management plan; with Mr. Knight responding the entire management plan.  Commissioner Nelson inquired did that have an analysis of impacts of each recommendation; with Mr. Knight responding it did have all the information regarding the Committee’s review of the impacts; but the primary issue was that there was already pavement on the site.  Commissioner Nelson stated they went through an analysis and gave the Board a description of the problem or issue that the Board then dealt with.  Commissioner Nelson inquired if that is done on all the items or only because there was conflict.  Mr. Knight stated that is standard procedure, particularly if there is something that is controversial.  He stated they analyze it; and the goal is always to try to bring something to the Board that is supported by the Committee.  He stated they would rather not have something coming to the Board that does not have support of the committee because it makes their jobs harder.  Commissioner Nelson stated his perspective is what the Board should be receiving is the best shot at the management plan with all the different elements associated with it; and the Board can deal with it.  He stated from a staff perspective, he does not know that is an issue the Board wants to get involved in; staff participates in the process; it is the committee’s recommendation; and if staff has a contrary recommendation, it can be a separate comment on the agenda item. 

 

 

 

County Manager Peggy Busacca stated the Property Appraisal Workshop needs to be rescheduled; and staff has identified three options in February.  She stated on February 12, there is no other meeting on that day; on February 27, 2008, the Board could meet before the Legislative Delegation meeting; and on February 28, 2008, the Board could meet at 1:00 p.m. 

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired if Ms. Busacca coordinated with everyone’s schedules; with Ms. Busacca responding she did. 

 

The Board reached consensus to hold the Property Appraisal Workshop on February 12, 2008. 

 

Ms. Busacca advised the March 20, 2008 Crime Workshop can be rescheduled to April 24, 2008. 

 

Commissioner Nelson recommended calling it a Land Acquisition Policies Workshop because the Board needs to talk about the committee that was created after the Sarno purchase and further define its role. 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated the discussion that has gone on with the EEL’s purchase has been compared to the Sarno purchase; but it is completely different.  He stated Sarno was a Consent Agenda item with no discussion; but the EEL’s purchase has been talked about, there have been front page articles in the newspaper and many emails, and there have been reappraisals.  He stated he does not think there are many people who did not know the Board was talking about the EEL’s purchase today and had a full opportunity to contact the Commissioners; but with Sarno, that was not the case.  He stated people may not be happy with the purchase or with the appraisal, but it is not for lack of information. 

 

 

Upon motion and vote, the meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m.

 

 

                                                                        _____________________________________

                                                                       TRUMAN SCARBOROUGH, CHAIRMAN

                                                                        BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

ATTEST:                                                         BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

 

_____________________

SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

   

          (S E A L)