March 13, 2001

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special workshop session on March 13, 2001, at 9:00 a.m. in the Government Center Florida Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairman Susan Carlson, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Randy O'Brien, Nancy Higgs, and Jackie Colon, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

REPORT, RE: TOWN MEETING

Commissioner Colon advised her town meeting in Palm Bay was successful and the Palm Bay residents are pleased with the Board.

RESOLUTION, RE: PROCLAIMING EVERYBODY IS IRISH DAY

Commissioner O'Brien introduced Mark Pence, a local famous radio announcer, and Bill Barr, from the Ancient Order of Hibernians, who explained the Irish kilt and tartan. Commissioner O'Brien read a resolution proclaiming March 17, 2001 as Everybody is Irish Day in Brevard County in honor of St. Patrick.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to adopt Resolution proclaiming March 17, 2001 as Everybody is Irish Day in Brevard County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O'Brien presented the Resolution to Mark Pence and Bill Barr, who expressed appreciation to the Board for the Resolution.

Chairman Carlson thanked Commissioner O'Brien for the celebration in the lobby with the real Irish spirit.

DISCUSSION, RE: SCRUB HABITAT

Chairman Carlson advised staff was assigned a myriad of things to do at the last Habitat Workshop; all the Commissioners should have read through the book staff provided; and expressed appreciation to Mr. Peffer and the Natural Resources Management staff for their hard work and for providing a lot of good information. She stated the Board needs to focus on the issue of critical habitat; and if it is okay with the rest of the Commissioners, the Board should start with critical habitat, Attachment 4b, which provides five options.

Commissioner Scarborough suggested the items be taken in sequence to see if there are any comments before going to critical habitat.

Commissioner Higgs stated she does not mind starting on critical habitat, but intends to go back to some of the other things.

Chairman Carlson advised she wants to frame the discussion so the Board does not lose touch with what it is here to attain, which is some understanding of critical habitat. Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not want to skip over something; with Chairman Carlson responding it is not skipping over anything; and recommended staff give an overview of the options and how they are discussed throughout the document. Commissioner Higgs suggested starting from where the Board is willing to go; and she is ready to establish an ordinance to conserve and manage critical habitat, identify the habitats, and develop protective measures.

Commissioner O'Brien stated before going forward with an ordinance, the Board needs to look at the overlays of how many acres of land in Brevard County are covered by the wetland ordinance, other ordinances, and a proposed critical habitat ordinance, because before long there will be no private property left for development in the County. He stated the Board should not move forward with an ordinance until it knows what effect it may have in the future.

Chairman Carlson instructed staff to give the Board a brief overview of the options.

Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer advised staff compiled all the information requested at the November workshop; it looked at other counties in the State to determine what they were doing and to see if there were models they could use; they gathered some of the information and provided it in table format; and Attachment 4b in the notebook should be focused on. He stated staff provided the Board with a number of options available to local governments and Brevard County in particular, and focused on various tools they might use to provide some protection to critical habitat. Mr. Peffer advised in November they were focused on a single species and the habitat supporting that species, which is the scrub jay; and they were able to document and show the Board how that particular species has declined significantly, to almost 50%, in the last five to seven years, because habitat changes occurred through development or alteration. He stated as they reviewed options available to local government, they identified two basic categories; and one is land acquisition, which is what the EEL's Program does. He stated one of the most significant acquisitions has to do with scrub habitat where they defined boundaries, established relationships with various agencies to acquire those, and were able to obtain not only matching dollars, but full funding through the State for some projects. Mr. Peffer advised the regulation side could consider what is being done with wetlands, which is a fairly well understood concept now, since it has been in the regulations for decades; they identified wetlands, recognized their public value and that there was a quality of life issue relating not only to the presence of wetlands, but impacts to that quality of life if wetlands are destroyed; and they could take that philosophical concept and apply it to other habitats. He stated most of the focus was on scrub habitat because it is the most imperiled; it is down to about 15% of what was in the County before the European occupation; and it is a resource that needs to be protected, which moves the County into the area of how to do that. He stated Attachment 4b lays out a series of options, the predicted results, some of the obstacles, and the fiscal impacts; but staff did not try to be detailed because they are looking for direction from the Board on how far it is willing to go. Mr. Peffer advised the first option is the status quo regarding scrub habitat and scrub jays; currently the County has the Environmentally Endangered Lands (EEL's) Program, which is a conservation and acquisition program; and the County has a notification program, where if they receive applications for development in scrub, they notify the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and that alerts the landowner, developer and regulatory agency that there is potential activity which could impact scrub jays. He noted that is the status quo as it exists today and which has been in existence for several years; and there has been a significant decline in the population of scrub jays in that period of time, so it is not working particularly well. He stated Option 2 is to continue those two activities but add a more aggressive management of County property to ensure they are doing everything they can with the property under the County's control; and that would have an impact, but it would not be a significant impact on scrub jay populations. He advised Option 3 adds to the prior options incentives for developers and homeowners to conserve and manage their properties to maintain the natural environment; the incentives provision is reflected in Attachment 4c; and some of the methods the Board could consider, as opposed to strict regulation, are providing incentives for maintaining property in its natural state and enhancing property through active management to get the best use out of it. He advised Option 4 adds regulations that govern how critical habitat in unincorporated areas will be utilized; and the acquisition portion for critical habitat conservation would be more aggressive use of less than fee acquisition methods, such as conservation easements, without having to buy it and pay for it through other tools and techniques. He stated the Land Development Regulations (LDR's) refer to local ordinances; in certain areas they would apply different development regulations similar to wetlands; in wetlands they limit the density, but prefer people avoid impacts to wetlands entirely; however, if they cannot avoid them, they minimize or mitigate the impacts in some fashion. Mr. Peffer advised avoidance, minimization, and mitigation is a classic strategy in environmental techniques to save and conserve habitat; and the LDR would take that approach and incorporate various tools the Board approved to develop a regulatory scheme. He stated Option 5 gets into significant growth management techniques and issues; Item (g) in italics refers to establishing urban growth boundaries; they used it in the Planning Department over a number of years and had a series of areas referred to as urbanizing, urban fringe, and rural; and that same type of hierarchy could be incorporated in the growth management plan to focus future development in the areas that have infrastructure like the infill strategy. He noted it is intended to be an alternative to what they see now, where virgin land is turned over and other properties are under-utilized or ignored. He stated Item (h) provides incentives to existing development to convert impacted spaces to biologically productive habitat; within existing developments there may be habitat areas that have not been managed or made as useful as they could be to support wildlife populations; and the County would provide incentives, tools, techniques, or direct help through management of those properties to assist in getting some of the private property into more viable productive habitats. He stated in Attachment 4c, staff tried to outline the various techniques to include in a habitat protection strategy; and they will give the Board more information of what those are and look to the Board for direction whether to pursue them or not. He noted the Board can use it for the basis of discussion on what pieces it may consider in a habitat protection strategy.

Commissioner Higgs advised the Board has been over those before; and inquired if it wants to go over them again; with Commissioner Scarborough responding the advantage is to educate the people who are home watching the meeting, so he does not mind seeing what Mr. Toland has put together.

Endangered Species Coordinator Brian Toland advised Attachment 4c is an array of options that goes through the progression of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation; first is proactive strategies to encourage compatible land uses in designated critical habitats; and those are classified in the category of avoidance, which include incentives, tax abatement, preferential tax assessment, and conservation easements, which are less than fee simple title rights to the County. He stated that type of easement insures that existing conservation concerns would remain even if the property is sold. He stated zoning changes would also be implemented to avoid sensitive or critical habitat in a development scenario; some of those strategies include a binding development plan, environmental areas classification, and County Code changes; and there are options in the free application or site plan phase that attempt to orchestrate avoidance or minimization of impacts to sensitive or critical habitat areas and focus development on lands that are more compatible for development. Mr. Peffer advised if a rezoning application came in for an area designated as critical habitat or significant ecological area, staff may ask the developer to bring a binding development plan showing how he plans to protect the critical resources in that area. He stated if they know ahead of time it is not going to be a cookie-cutter approach, there may be some effort to respond to the resources in a binding development plan.

Chairman Carlson inquired if there is potential for using the proposed open space ordinance as a vehicle to define critical habitat; and could people use that as a prerequisite if they have critical habitat on their property and obtain the density incentive. Mr. Peffer noted they are tools that would work together and can be done to accomplish those purposes. Chairman Carlson advised the open space ordinance is voluntary; with Mr. Peffer responding typically conservation of habitat in a natural state qualifies as open space; but not all open space is habitat in its natural state. Mr. Toland advised the implementation of all the strategies are predicated on having an accurate resource cover map that would delineate all the areas of ecological concern or critical habitat. Mr. Toland stated another option to minimize or avoid impacts is a use reservation that permits the landowner to continue utilizing or living on the land while the County is conserving it; and the last resort option is condemnation.

Chairman Carlson inquired if use reservation is development rights; with Mr. Peffer responding no, if a person had 100 acres and sold that 100 acres to the County, the County would allow him to continue living on the property even though the County will own it and maintain it in its natural state. Chairman Carlson inquired if the incentive is a tax reduction because it is in conservation; with Mr. Peffer responding the title in use reservation is a transfer which is different than tax abatements where no title exchange is involved. Mr. Toland stated it may be viable on large properties such as ranches and agricultural lands where title could be purchased for a segment of the land that is sensitive habitat and other parts of the land can be used for agriculture and ranching.

Commissioner Higgs inquired how would use reservation differ from a conservation easement; with Mr. Toland responding the conservation easement is less than fee title; with use reservation the County acquires title to the land then allows the previous owner to utilize or live on some portion of it. Commissioner Higgs stated in either case the County is giving money for permanent use or a defined period of use; with Chairman Carlson responding conservation easements do not necessarily go along with money, and can be part of the mitigation; the County could buy them or the landowner could give them as open space for his development that could save him money later; so there are different ways of going about it.

Mr. Toland advised other options under minimization of impacts to ecologically-sensitive areas are the urban growth boundary, transfer of development rights, and open space subdivision ordinance; and all those are ways to attempt to transfer impacts so that the land that is developed is not critical or ecologically sensitive. He noted it is a tradeoff for conserving more important areas.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he read somewhere that each pair of scrub jay needs 50 acres of land; with Mr. Toland responding the average territory size for scrub jays is 25 acres. Commissioner O'Brien stated the typical size of a development is probably 100 acres; the County requires wetlands be set aside and not built on; and if the developer has critical habitat on high ground and wetlands on low ground, the development cannot take place. Mr. Toland stated critical habitat is not an additive to wetlands; they consider wetlands to be critical habitat; so when they do a resource map to map critical habitats it will include wetlands. Commissioner O'Brien stated the ordinance would add high lands or scrub lands; and the developer will end up giving 25 acres of 100 acres because 10 acres would be useless. Mr. Toland advised a number of other counties as well as the Regional Planning Councils of the Treasure Coast and South Florida require 25% of developable uplands to be preserved especially in larger developments like DRI's; and rarely does scrub encompass more than that. He noted it seems to be confined to relatively long narrow strips along the scrub ridges in Brevard County. Commissioner O'Brien inquired what happened to all the polygons that were drawn five years ago; with Mr. Toland responding staff still has them. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if they are long narrow strips; with Mr. Toland responding 95% of the polygons are along the Atlantic Coastal Ridge and on the Ten-Mile Ridge.

Chairman Carlson advised it is important to keep focused on habitat versus the bird because critical habitat will potentially protect more than the bird. Commissioner O'Brien stated if the Board is going to talk about protecting the bird, it will require a minimum of 25 acres; a developer cannot give the County 25 acres of developable land that is not wet; and the County will get in a trap that says if they develop in that part of the County, they cannot build in wetlands, they cannot build along the ridge on 25% of their property because it is critical habitat, and although it is less than 25 acres, the County does not care; and that is wrong. Chairman Carlson stated the Board does not have to create a trap for a landowner; what it can do is make sure it has a program that provides incentives or other ways for individuals who are caught in a trap of wetlands and uplands and cannot build; it is a commitment to say what the County can do for them; and it may have to buy the property or do something else. She stated that is the only trap she sees, but she would not define it as that; if the Board does it right, it can attack it from the perspective it is trying to save critical habitat; and if the County provides the right incentives and education, those individuals will understand there are other areas they can build.

Commissioner O'Brien stated Brevard County has purchased over 15,000 acres of critical habitat already; and the loss over the last five years has been only 368 acres. He identified the County's purchases, including properties in the South Beaches, Kabboord property, Pine Island, Enchanted Forest, Turkey Creek Sanctuary, Buck Lake, Micco Scrub, etc. for a total of 14,684 acres. Mr. Toland stated some are County and others are State or St. Johns River Water Management District collaborations and partnerships.

Commissioner Colon advised the community voted for the EEL's Program, so she will support what the County is doing with that money, but she would not support doing anything with the money it was not told to do. She stated there is no argument because the citizens voted for it; but when they do not want it, the Board has no right to use the money. She stated they are going to hold the Board accountable for what it is doing with the money they voted on; and if the County is not showing what it has done, then it will have some explaining to do. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board has no explaining to do because it has a list of the properties purchased under the EEL's program. Commissioner Colon stated the article speaks for itself.

Chairman Carlson advised staff has gone out and identified critical habitat based on the EEL's referendum which targeted critical habitat of all sorts, not just scrub; what they have not done is fill in the gaps; and the gaps are residential communities developed willy-nilly without any sort of critical habitat identification. She stated the EEL's program has been wonderful and has a great record which would be great to continue; and Florida TODAY tried to promote the success of the existing programs and continuance of that success. She stated 60% of the people voted for it 11 years ago; but the County has to fill in the gaps; and the gaps are what the Board is talking about now, of how to address critical habitat from a residential, commercial, and industrial perspective, which it has not done. She stated the County thought the EEL's program would be the end all to the problems, but it is not. Commissioner O'Brien suggested getting a map that shows the gaps and what critical habitats are in those gaps, and the Board consider only those gaps and not the whole County.

Commissioner Colon stated the Wickham Road corridor, between Viera and Aurora Road still contains enough restorable habitat; Grissom Parkway corridor, between SR 528 and Columbia Boulevard, is another area; and those are the gaps the Board should be targeting and focusing on. Mr. Toland advised staff is in the process of mapping out those areas to identify and provide the exact parcels and acreage to fill in the gaps.

Chairman Carlson inquired how far is staff from drafting a critical habitat ordinance; and if they took scrub habitat, how far are they in having that mapped out throughout the County; with Mr. Toland responding it is a very dynamic resource, based on man-induced and natural disturbances like wild fires; so they have to update that resource periodically; and right now the most recent data they have is from 1993, which is not good enough. He stated they are re-mapping scrub on the mainland, and should be able to have it done this year; and that will be a timely and current coverage that would help to create a critical habitat ordinance. Chairman Carlson advised when the EEL's referendum passed, there was a lot of research done on critical habitats because the seven different critical habitats were defined throughout the process of getting that referendum passed and trying to educate the public; and inquired, besides scrub habitat, what other habitats are of a real critical nature that the Board has not successfully purchased. Mr. Toland advised critical habitat is defined as a habitat that supports populations of listed animal and plant species; and the habitats that support the most or greatest diversity of those species are scrub, zerick, dry and high, sand pine, oak scrub, scrubby pine, flatwoods, and wetlands, and freshwater and coastal salt marshes, which support 75% of the listed species in Brevard County. He noted the dry and the wet are the most critically imperiled habitats; but there are other natural communities like the temperate maritime hammocks, tropical hardwood hammocks, and dry prairie, most of which have been converted into pasture. He stated EEL's and the acquisition efforts have been impressive; but comparing the total acquisition acreage with half a million acres on the mainland, it is very small; and the habitat protected east of I-95 outside the St. Johns River flood plain is miniscule when considering that all the land in between those acquired islands are developable. He stated if the Board does not try to fill in the gaps and provide linkages to maintain the functions and values of those islands, and they are developed, it would render some of them as isolated outdoor museums.

Commissioner Higgs stated there is not a meeting that goes by where the Board does not deal with a development or rezoning that people do not say they assumed it would stay that way and be open and natural, or somebody said it would be conserved; so the average citizen supports open spaces overwhelmingly. She stated they would not come and sit at a meeting on a habitat ordinance, but when it comes to their backyards and affects them directly, that is when the development pressure is put on; and that is when it is too late. She stated this is about maintaining a quality of life for people by preserving their open space and what they come to Brevard County for. Commissioner O'Brien stated it is not their open space; if they want it, then they should buy the property and it will be their open space; but if a person buys a lot and the lot behind it is not developed yet, and somebody told that person it would not be developed and that is why the person bought the lot, somebody lied to that person; and that person should have done his or her homework to find out if the lot behind his/her lot was developable.

Chairman Carlson advised there is an obvious conservation ethic in the community; they expect open space; and when it gets destroyed, there is an outcry. She stated even though they will go to the store that is built on the property, they will complain fervently; so there is a conservation ethic in the community, and the people support open space.

Commissioner Higgs stated Commissioner O'Brien is right and Chairman Carlson is right; people do not have the right to expect other people not to develop their property if the County is not going to acquire it through some mechanism discussed, such as a critical habitat preservation ordinance, or through acquisition and management; people cannot expect that to happen; but citizens in general want to see open space preserved; so the Board's task today is to move forward and decide how it is going to do that.

Chairman Carlson advised a lot of time was spent looking at other communities that have done it; the County should not be in a position where it does not have much open space left and have to grope for every piece it can get; and the opportunity is there to do something effective. Commissioner O'Brien stated there are also 13 municipalities in the County; and inquired how many of them have done an ordinance to preserve land; with Chairman Carlson responding Melbourne's zoning process requires some environmental assessments be done, which the County has never done. Commissioner O'Brien inquired about Titusville; with Commissioner Scarborough responding the Bank has a large area in the middle of the City that is in a pristine state; and there is ongoing discussions with St. Johns River Water Management District to retain water because the City uses shallow aquifers and needs to ensure water does not get to the lower areas near the lagoon and be lost. Chairman Carlson stated the issue is leading by example; Brevard County has the acreage of all the cities put together, but it has been lax with its regulations; and the Board is trying to improve those standards. She stated going to critical habitat is a fundamental shift into conservation; conservation is good for business, quality of life, etc.; Pinellas County adopted conservation ethics, which proved it was good for business; they made birding one of their biggest things; they had 4.5 million tourists, and is a smaller county than Brevard County; however, they are built out. She stated Brevard County is evolving to things like the birding festival in Titusville, etc.; and those things can create tremendous results for the community. Commissioner O'Brien stated Melbourne, Titusville, Suntree, Viera, Rockledge, and Cocoa have not jumped on the cart; and city councils are not rushing to conserve all the properties in their city limits.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board acts for the cities in some capacities, such as libraries, mosquito control, and the EEL's program; so to some extent the Board is the fiduciary for the cities to carry out those functions. He stated the Enchanted Forest is in Titusville; so to say they are not involved is not true; the money to preserve properties comes from the cities and the County; it is a partnership; so it is inappropriate to criticize the cities. Commissioner O'Brien stated he is not criticizing the cities and just asked the question if they passed scrub jay plans in the cities.

Chairman Carlson stated it is an issue of forward thinking for the County at-large which includes all the municipalities; they are watching the Board to see what it does and may consider doing the same things; and that is where partnerships begin to grow. She stated if the Board does not establish some sort of behavior to do what it wants to do, the cities will not come on board and will do their own thing. Commissioner O'Brien stated that may be arrogance indicating people in the cities are not as smart as the County; with Chairman Carlson responding she is not saying that at all, but someone has to look at the big picture; and since the Board is the County government, it should look at the big picture. Commissioner O'Brien stated if municipalities are truly concerned about those topics, they should have done something about it a long time ago and not have to wait for the County.

Commissioner Colon stated coming from a municipal background, she wished the cities did more; after all the years of meeting with the League of Cities and other municipalities, and speaking to County officials, one thing that is echoed about Brevard County is that it is unique; the Board has the opportunity not to become Dade County or Orange County; and those counties may wish to be in the position of this Board to make those decisions to protect the community. She stated she would like the balance of not going out and buying everything, but concentrating on critical habitat and focusing on those; and even if it wanted to buy everything, it cannot because the funds are not there. She stated to talk like that is almost lying to the public because the Board does not have the funds to do it.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board can spend all day debating the fundamental issues of whether to preserve or not; but it needs to make a decision what it is willing to do. She stated that will require financial commitment; she respects the opinion of Commissioner O'Brien, but disagrees wholeheartedly with him; and the Board knows the issues, and needs to decide if it wants to do something and to what extent it is going to do it. She stated one item talks about urban cores, urban boundaries, etc.; the Board has urban areas and less than urban areas; and those are the preservation areas the Board needs to focus on. She suggested the Board hear the rest of staff's presentation, then decide if it is going to do anything. Commissioner O'Brien stated Commissioner Higgs mentioned urban areas; and page 24 of the Scrub Plan says, "Scrub jay densities sometimes increases in lightly developed suburban areas." Commissioner Higgs stated they increase because they lose their habitat and pile up in one area. Mr. Toland stated studies have shown that scrub jay population densities and reproductive success can temporarily increase in response to build out of 33%, but once build out gets over 50%, they start to decline. He stated part of the reason they increase in some initial build out states is because of opportunities for supplemental feeding from residents, which assists in their reproductive success; and with natural buffers between scrub jay territories, they can become artificially densely packed. He noted a few homes and few clearings tend to provide visual buffers between their territories, but once it goes beyond sparse build out, it is down hill all the way for scrub jays; and there has been long-term studies that document that.

Mr. Toland advised he has aerial photos of the areas Commissioner Colon brought up regarding filling in the gaps, linkages, and corridors; and the Wickham Road corridor photos show how much of it was natural ten years ago and how much of it is cookie-cutter development that looks like Fort Lauderdale today. He advised minimization refers to conservation leases and cooperative agreements that will come in handy in looking at other public landowners or private entities that can control or conserve critical habitat for the benefit of the listed species, such as airports, golf courses, FEC Railroad, FIND, etc. He stated there is a suite of reactive strategies that could be implemented to respond to actual adverse impacts to critical habitats; mitigation is typically how staff is going to couch that; it could occur on or off site; and some of the strategies would include onsite habitat management plans that would allow the critical habitats to be preserved on site and endowment funds that would ensure the long-term management of those habitats. He stated onsite restoration is the mitigation banking philosophy of taking habitat that might be somewhat degraded and managing it to create ecological lift as compensation for impacts to habitat elsewhere on site. He stated another suite of mitigation options are environmental impact mitigation fees, mitigation banking, and habitat conservation plans for adverse impacts conflicting with federally-listed species; and those are all the strategies staff has been considering and discussing since November.

Chairman Carlson advised the Pinellas County group, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, set up a plan to create the conservation ethic that it is good for business; and she does not have a problem with a critical habitat ordinance, but how it is to be used as a planning tool to get from 2001 to 2025 in terms of conservation, and how the County will get the dollars to do what it needs to do have not been established. She inquired what is the Board committing to do financially, and what is it going to take to do that. She stated Pinellas County, with the help of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, put together a plan to look at its financial capabilities and organizational layout; and inquired how does something like that affect the strategies whether they are proactive or reactive.

Mr. Peffer stated it could be added as a component of the overall strategy, as they are not mutually exclusive, but could be done independently. He stated if the Board wished, staff could look at using a foundation-type approach, which could stand alone; but it would work better in terms of an overall program. He stated Brevard County has one piece in place already, which is the EEL's program; that program does a lot of what the Foundation does in Pinellas County; but it started a different way and does it differently. Mr. Peffer stated the primary benefit of a foundation approach is that it provides a fairly understandable way in bringing in additional private dollars; those dollars are matched by public dollars; and that is the seed money that makes it all work. He stated if that is the approach the Board wishes to take, staff would need to identify where the seed money will come from. He noted the Board asked staff to look at potential funding available; Commissioner Higgs sent additional thoughts that cover some funding sources which could be considered for critical habitat; and staff did not look at an either or situation, but is looking for what components the Board would like to include. Chairman Carlson stated she wants a conservation strategy she can look at and say this is the strategy the County is using and if there is some entity that can help the County put that strategy together, then the Board should address that in the critical habitat ordinance, as well as the EEL's program. She stated the County is doing strategic planning for other sectors in the community, so it can include the environment. Mr. Toland stated the strategy is in place and has been in place for quite some time, and that is the Comprehensive Plan; the Elements and Objectives are the County's strategic plan for conservation; and a lot of those policies have not been implemented or are just starting to be implemented. Chairman Carlson stated she is aware of the Comprehensive Plan and the things in it, which have been postponed over and over again because of lack of funding; and if the Board wants to bring in the community, business sector, etc., it should do it in an organized fashion and address it differently.

Commissioner Higgs stated there is some value for Pinellas County and what they did there; they brought in the money; but there are more environmental groups in Brevard County who are interested in being a part of the long-term conservation solution than any place else; and what she is looking for is a deal to put them all together. She stated the Board has the Comprehensive Plan and that is the law and guiding document; but if it is looking for a group or to form a council, looking at existing groups makes sense. Mr. Toland stated the Pinellas County plan is just a part of their puzzle; they have a large organization that deals with all sorts of environmental issues; and the Foundation is just a part of the solution and not the end all.

Chairman Carlson stated the Foundation is not just for critical habitat, but also for research, education, etc; the Board has talked about invasive plants and a lot of different environmentally-oriented things; and it is time that they be grouped together and all the environmental groups get together to come up with a strategic plan. She stated they come forward from different angles on different environmental issues; they are not all working off the same page; and it is obvious they are not working on a strategic plan for the community, which they need to do. Commissioner Higgs suggested a blue ribbon panel.

Commissioner Colon advised her concern is balance; the only reason she would support focusing on critical habitat is because there is an issue of property rights; and the Board should not go randomly throughout the County to protect areas it feels are important because it would be like invading, and she does not want that criticism from the community. She stated focusing on critical habitats makes more sense; and she hopes the Board will be productive today with some direction of what it is going to do and how it is going to do it.

Commissioner Higgs stated there are three things the Board can do today; it can deal with management of its own lands and other public lands; it can decide how it wants to proceed, what resources it would use if it wants to acquire additional lands, and some long-term and short-term strategies for that; and it can decide if it wants to proceed on an ordinance that would increase protective standards in certain habitats that will be identified. She stated it should start with the scrub habitat and go to the others if it wants to; and to come out of this meeting with having done something, that is the way to go.

Commissioner Scarborough stated it would be prudent to move item-by-item, and hear from the speakers, as there are a lot of philosophical things that can be discussed. Commissioner O'Brien stated it is not only philosophical; earlier this year the Board talked about increasing impact fees, the one-cent sales tax, and the gas tax; the citizens pay an EEL's tax to purchase environmental lands; now the Board is discussing creating a critical habitat ordinance; and inquired when will it stop adding another $1,000 or $1,500 to the cost of building a house. He recommended allowing people to build homes without paying government all kinds of money.

Commissioner Scarborough stated philosophically the Board can go with species specific critical habitats or expand it; if it allows build out of Brevard County, everyone's quality of life will deteriorate; and inquired how will those people be compensated under the property rights issue for not having the ability to build when the Board knows they cannot build out 100%. He stated it goes to urban boundaries, the cost of infrastructure, capacity to recharge well fields, and multiple issues that can be analyzed in so many different fashions; and there are overlaps on a lot of conversations from water problems to people wanting more open space. He stated they may not all be critical habitat issues; and the only way to bring them together is to take little bits at a time. He stated philosophically the Board could take a week taking each element and discussing it in detail, but that is not going to help the Board; all the Commissioners have been briefed, and the Board has talked about it for years; so it should let the speakers provide their input then the Board can discuss management and what it should be doing, how each element comes together, and the underlying philosophical arguments; but there is overlap of all thought processes of the pros and cons. Commissioner O'Brien stated taking it a little bit at a time may be the problem; government keeps taking a little at a time, then a little bit more; and eventually it becomes a problem for the citizens. Commissioner Scarborough stated that is where he differs with Commissioner O'Brien, because if everybody used their individual rights to do their individual thing, everyone will end up with nothing but a wasteland; and they look to the Board to be the conduit to deal with people who have potential development rights to treat them fairly under the law so they are not harmed by the process. He stated there is capacity to proceed along the current course; but if it does not act as a community through the government that allows for fairness and protection of property rights and development rights, it is going to end up with destruction of everyone's lifestyle, rights, and everything else. He stated it will have a disaster; so this is the form that has to take place.

Commissioner O'Brien advised of his experience with two acres he purchased off Newfound Harbor Drive, indicating a representative from Department of Environmental Protection was arbitrary and subjective in a statement regarding building of his dock. He stated it is government taking his property without a scientific basis; but somebody wrote a rule saying the first five feet back shall be wetland whether it is wetland or not, and nobody can use it. He stated now the Board is saying it is critical habitat, and the County is going to take it; then it goes to another area and says it is wetlands, and they cannot build in it; and inquired how much property is the County going to take from people with one acre of land; and why does it not just buy the land. Chairman Carlson stated that is one of the options. Commissioner O'Brien stated taxes may have to double to do that; with Commissioner Higgs responding that is not true. Commissioner O'Brien stated saving scrub jays could top $120 million; that price tag went down to $30 million; however, in the middle of the story, the price tag could be $300 million, which means nobody knows what the price tag is. Chairman Carlson stated the Board is not discussing scrub jays; with Commissioner O'Brien responding they are part of the critical habitat. Commissioner Higgs stated Commissioner O'Brien is taking a 1995 article from a consultant who spoke to a group and acted like that is fact; and that is not true, not factual, and totally irresponsible. Commissioner O'Brien stated then Florida TODAY should apologize to the public. Commissioner Colon stated she was impressed with the newspaper clippings Commissioner O'Brien had; she was told that represented years of work, so she thought he had done his homework for it; but it seems like those articles keep coming up. Commissioner O'Brien stated that is the information the County has been given; the information changes; if it is a moving target, then the information is not valid; and inquired if what he was told in 1995 is not valid now. Commissioner Higgs stated every article Commissioner O'Brien reads in the newspaper is not true; and the headlines do not always reflect what is in the article.

Commissioner Scarborough stated as Florida builds out, the cost of providing service, building infrastructure, government, etc. increases; so it can either acquire the development rights and not have the building and keep the taxes down, or it can let things go on and guarantee the taxes will go up if development is not controlled now. Commissioner Higgs noted growth does not pay for itself and it costs more. Chairman Carlson stated urban sprawl costs more.

Zada Albury advised at the last workshop she made sure the Board knew she was not a member of any group or organization; and neither she or any member of her family are builders, landowners, architects, developers, or consultants; in other words, she has no interest in this subject except to stop the rising property taxes. She requested the Board stop allowing land to be removed from the tax rolls unnecessarily; and stated it is time to use common sense about how much land and taxes are going to be devoted to non-human uses. She stated at the last workshop the emphasis changed from scrub jay habitat to scrub habitat because there was not much interest in saving birds as opposed to caring for people; and since the discussion in November, the Board has been urged to set aside another 20,000 acres under the EEL's program. She stated the people voted for the EEL's program, but the majority who voted for it did it because it gave them a warm fuzzy feeling that they were protecting the animals; and they did not stop to consider what effect it would have on their pocketbooks. Ms. Albury advised 35 acres of prime oceanfront property have been purchased by a wealthy tax free foundation; if it was sold to a developer, tax money would be coming into the County instead of going out in the form of maintenance of that land; and the City of Rockledge was badgered into setting aside 30 acres from its park for gopher tortoises. She stated those are examples she found in the last three months, but is sure there are others; and every bit of land that is taken off the tax rolls means that taxes will have to go up on the remainder, which is about 50% of the County acreage. She stated the Board is encouraging new industries to locate here, new people are moving here, many of them live in upscale communities and want nice restaurants, boutiques, and entertainment facilities; and the tourists who are encouraged to come here want shopping and motels. She stated people who work in those establishments must have affordable places to live near their work; if property taxes keep rising, they will not be able to afford to buy a home; and if they rent, the rental payments will go up because the landlord has to pay more property taxes. She inquired if property values and appraisals will increase so much that older residents on fixed incomes will no longer be able to afford to stay in their homes. Ms. Albury stated the Board has to quit caving in to environmentalists; judging from letters and columns in the newspaper recently, and people she talked to, she is not the only one fed up with manatees, scrub jays, gopher turtles, and the like; and inquired what about the needs of the people. She stated one of these days the taxpayer is going to stop paying extortion taxes; and inquired where will the money come from to support legitimate needs of the County and the residents.

Lillian Banks advised she just heard about this workshop today; and inquired when was it advertised; with Chairman Carlson responding two weeks ago. Ms. Banks stated when the Board has a workshop on a subject like this, there are all kinds of people in Brevard County, such as Citizens for Property Rights, which she is a member of but is not speaking for them, realtors, builders, contractors, and environmental groups that should be invited, and a time set aside when everybody can attend. She stated the EEL's program failed in the General Election, and was put on the ballot in September then passed by 60% of the 21% of registered voters who voted in that election, and not 60% of the people in Brevard County; and there is a lot of dissatisfaction and misunderstanding about what it was all about. She stated the reason taxes are not raised is because people look at their tax bills and see the school system, fire, police, and EEL's, and say enough is enough. She described her lot and bald cypress trees she planted in her front yard, which cause people to say she is living in a wetland. Ms. Banks stated there is so much false stuff put out about the scrub jay, like it cannot cross water, etc.; Mr. Audubon said the scrub jay was native to South Florida only because it needed the warmer climate; yet somehow it got up here; and she does not know how it did without crossing water. She stated there are a lot of habitats now; down south the parks are going back to weeds because they do not have the money to take care of them; she read or was told that Brevard County should have 1,000 acres in parks; and it has over 5,000 acres now. She stated the people approved $72 million to buy more lands; she saw another scrub jay thing for $80 million; and inquired when will it stop. She stated beautiful trees were cut down to have scrub habitat; there is a lot of land by the Cape; the coastline is normally where people build; and there is a lot of Central Florida left, so the County could go out there and buy that land. She stated with the Manatee Club the Board supports, they are closing down the waterways or trying hard to; she knows a couple of people who moved out of Brevard County because of the no-skiing zone, senior citizens who moved out because taxes are too high, and boaters who sold their boats and moved to North Carolina. Ms. Banks stated there is a limit to what the people of Brevard County will put up with; there is also the Constitution and private property rights; if the Board is going to take the lands that people bought 20 years ago and declare them undevelopable, then it has to pay for them; and when it pays for them, it is taking money out of her pocket. She inquired if the Commissioners are willing to move out of their houses and set aside their lands for scrub habitat, and move to little houses close together where they can shake hands with their neighbors out of their bedroom windows, to have a green area in the center and a cubicle to build a slum area. She stated if they move into one of those cubicles to let their land be used for scrub habitat, then she will join them.

Mr. Peffer advised there is one point that deserves being made because it comes up time and time again; and that is the impact of the land acquisition program on taxes. He stated if the EEL's program were to acquire $50 million in property, which is what it was authorized at but is not close to doing that, it is about one-third of one percent of the County's $15 billion tax base. He stated if the County had to reassess everybody's property to make up for that loss in tax base, it would be one-third of one percent increase; and that does not account for the fact that if the land was developed, taxes would have to go up to support the development.

Commissioner Scarborough advised former Commissioner Carol Senne brought to the Board the property values that increased when density restrictions were put on properties in the South Beaches; and the County obtained more tax revenue after that. He stated they do not tax Central Park, but the properties around the Park are more expensive so there is more tax revenue; and it is a net benefit to the average taxpayer by approaching things intelligently rather than letting everything occur that can occur then trying to figure out what they did wrong.

Chairman Carlson advised it is a double-edged sword to live in a county as nice as Brevard County with a nice quality of life and cost of living; there will be a lot of growth by the year 2050; growth does not pay for itself; so if the Board can slow growth and allow it to occur while protecting the natural assets and preserving the quality of life, the cost of living may go up because people will want to live in a neighborhood that protects that quality of life. She stated it is going up one way or another, to support development or preserve the natural assets; and whether the Board has control over it or not will define the quality of life in Brevard County.

The meeting recessed at 10:35 a.m., and reconvened at 10:42 a.m.

Commissioner Higgs recommended starting with the issue of management. She stated she has three things she would like the Board to consider.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct the County Manager to fully implement the policy directive the Board gave some time ago about managing existing County lands for natural resources.

Chairman Carlson inquired if the motion is to put it in the ordinance; with Commissioner Higgs responding no, it is to manage the County lands. Commissioner Higgs stated the Policy the Board adopted in November, 1999, said, "When not inconsistent with the intended use, County-owned land should be managed to preserve the natural resources of the site. This should be done to the maximum extent feasible, taking into consideration primary uses, feature uses, neighborhood compatibility, and cost." Chairman Carlson advised Attachment 4.b under (2) says, "Manage all other County-owned lands, non-conservation lands per County Commission Policy on natural areas"; and inquired if that is the same. Commissioner Higgs stated it is. Chairman Carlson inquired if the Board has now taken Option 2; with Commissioner Higgs responding not necessarily, as there are other things. Commissioner Scarborough stated this is to follow the County rules and do what is right with the lands under County control.

Chairman Carlson advised Attachment 8.b. shows the managed lands by County Departments; most replied no to the question, "Do you go by this policy?"; and inquired how can that be remedied.

Commissioner Higgs advised she will include that in her motion; and Commissioner Scarborough requested they determine the cost effectiveness also. Chairman Carlson stated if they all went through the Natural Resources Office to identify the issues that need to be complied with, that would make a difference. Commissioner Higgs advised the motion is to follow the policy; and if they are not implementing the policy, she assumes a report will come back to the Board from the County Manager.

Chairman Carlson inquired what direction would be given to remedy that, and would there be recommendations from staff, if the policy is not being complied with, on how the Board can make sure Departments comply. Commissioner Higgs stated the County Manager is to comply with the Board's policy; and if they are not complying, they need to explain why they cannot or do not have the resources to do it, and what resources they need. Chairman Carlson inquired who will do the oversight of individual Departments; with Commissioner Scarborough responding the County Manager manages everything under the Board's direction; and the Board passes policies and says to the County Manager carry them out. Commissioner Higgs stated Mr. Jenkins needs to get whatever reporting mechanism he needs to have; and if he needs Natural Resources to do a checklist or whatever, he needs to implement that policy.

Commissioner Scarborough stated that normally happens without a motion. Chairman Carlson stated because the policy is not being followed, the Board has to direct it again; but it needs to make sure there is oversight that the policy is being followed. Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Jenkins may need to come back to the Board and say there is a problem following the policy in certain areas. Chairman Carlson requested Commissioner Higgs explain the motion; with Commissioner Higgs responding Mr. Jenkins is to do his job and a six-month report of where they are and to determine how to implement that policy just like he does with other policies. Mr. Peffer advised Natural Resources can assist agencies in components of the management plan; with Commissioner Higgs responding that would be up to Mr. Jenkins. Commissioner O'Brien inquired what is the motion other than to tell Mr. Jenkins to do his job; with Chairman Carlson responding the motion is the policy the Board adopted a while ago did not get followed so it is re-instituting it and saying all Departments need to follow the policy; that is what the Board is doing; and it is up to staff to come back in six months with an update to say they are following the policy, and if not, why not, and how can they change things.

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

Commissioner Higgs advised her second recommendation under the issue of management would be to direct Natural Resources, through the County Manager, to develop a memorandum of understanding with other public bodies to plan and manage critical habitat; and those would have to come back to the Board eventually. She stated there are different agencies and public bodies that have critical habitat or significant environmental areas that, with proper planning and assistance, they could manage those; and the County could work with them.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, to direct the Office of Natural Resources Management, through the County Manager, to develop a memorandum of understanding with other public bodies to plan and manage critical habitat, and to return the memorandum of understanding to the Board.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he does not mind making deals with other agencies or governments, but does mind picking up the entire tab; if they are going to be partners with the County, they need to meet the Board half way, and if they cannot do that, then they are not partners. Commissioner Higgs stated it would depend on what kind partnership they have. Commissioner O'Brien stated he does not mind doing that, but resents paying 80% of the deal if they do not pay their share; and that happens all the time because the Board tries to be the leader. Commissioner Scarborough stated the motion is to get agreements that will come back to the Board, then it can see if it is a winner or loser in the agreements. Commissioner Higgs stated if there are costs involved, the Board will review them; and at this time the motion is just to direct staff to go ahead. Commissioner O'Brien inquired what is the agreement to do; with Commissioner Higgs responding to plan and protect significant environmental areas. Commissioner O'Brien stated the St. Johns River Water Management District, Department of Environmental Protection and the County already do that; with Commissioner Scarborough responding the Board does not want duplicity and wants the people working together.

Mr. Peffer advised Mr. Toland worked with Mr. Shimkus at Valkaria Airport to assist in developing a management plan for the Airport; and they can extend that assistance to other agencies if that is the concept being proposed.

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

Commissioner Higgs stated the third recommendation is to direct Natural Resources staff to seek a permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to move taken species from lands where they have issued permits and move them to appropriate habitats that are under the ownership of the County. She stated when a developer gets an incidental take permit, that basically writes off the species on the property; the developer would have to mitigate; but there may be instances where Fish and Wildlife Service would give the County a permit to relocate the birds scientifically to a County land that is currently managed.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, to direct Natural Resources staff to seek a permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to move taken species from lands where they have issued permits to appropriate habitats under the ownership of the County.

Chairman Carlson inquired who would do that; with Commissioner Higgs responding staff would do it in conjunction with Fish and Wildlife Service.

Commissioner O'Brien stated as he recalls, moving a gopher tortoise cost $3,000; with Commissioner Higgs responding that may be the mitigation cost. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if it was the cost to trap the turtle, keep it isolated until it had its shots and examined for diseases, then moved.

Commissioner Scarborough seconded the motion.

Chairman Carlson advised if the County assumes that responsibility to move species, it would have to provide resources; and inquired if there is a recommendation on a funding source or endowment fund. Commissioner Higgs stated there should not be a large cost involved; the County has monitoring and banding programs and know where a lot of the birds are; and she does not know what the cost would be, but they could seek private sources to assist with that if the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service allows the County to do it.

Natural Resources Supervisor Conrad White advised an example is the birds on the Cochran property; it would take about four hours to trap those birds and a few more hours to move them; and that is the amount of staff time.

Chairman Carlson inquired, when there is an incidental take that writes off the bird or animal, could staff go in and take them to property the County has that has been preserved. Mr. Toland stated he discussed the concept with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; in the right situation, it may issue a permit to do that; and if staff has the permit and biological justification, they have the technical expertise to do that at a minimal cost. Commissioner Colon inquired what is minimal cost. Mr. Peffer stated this would be the first effort, and they will learn about what the conditions are, how much it would cost, etc. if they are allowed to do it. Commissioner Higgs stated it is worth a try; and Chairman Carlson noted it is a good idea.

Commissioner O'Brien stated if the federal government wants to save species of special concern or a tortoise, indigo snake, or snowy white heron, it should say people cannot build on the property; it would be a taking; and instead of doing that, it gives a permit and the bird is dispossessed of its property. He inquired if the federal or state entity wants to preserve the bird, why is it not out catching it. Chairman Carlson advised it helps to preserve property rights to some extent; and as long as there is property to relocate the species, it is doing a much bigger justice to the effort of conservation than to allow them to disappear. Commissioner O'Brien stated he pays taxes to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and to catch the bird and save it will cost him again; with Chairman Carlson responding it may save a lot of different things in the long run. Commissioner O'Brien inquired why is the federal government not out there catching the birds; with Chairman Carlson responding nobody knows, and that is why the County is trying to do something. Commissioner O'Brien inquired why the County does not ask them to come and catch the birds and save the species they are concerned about; with Chairman Carlson responding they do not have the manpower to do it. Commissioner Higgs stated that is not the issue; this makes good sense in management of the species; the County has land it manages; it is not an exorbitant cost; and the County should do it. Chairman Carlson stated the County can take the species off the land they are allowing to be developed and move them, which could take about six hours. Mr. Toland stated it is not that cut and dry; for the last 15 years he has trapped and banded over 750 scrub jays; and the quickest he was able to trap a bird was five minutes, but the longest could take two weeks working a few hours a day to trap the more wary ones. He stated it is not a real time consuming investment if the expertise is there, but it is not something that is guaranteed; they do not just pick up the birds and move them from one point to the next; it has to be done to maximize the probability of success based on behavioral patterns of the birds; then there is a 60 to 65% chance they can be relocated successfully. He stated if the birds are designated as being legally dead by the federal government, then they are perfect candidates for experimental relocation.

Mr. Peffer advised there has to be a suitable place to take them; it is not a simple matter to just take them to a scrub habitat; scrub jays occupy suitable scrub habitats; so staff is looking at restored areas that are now suitable but do not have the birds. He stated the location has to meet certain criteria; that has to be worked out with the agencies if they allow the County to do it; there are certain areas that might qualify through the restoration efforts which increased carrying capacity; and it might make sense to take the legally dead birds to those areas.

Commissioner Colon stated it would be less expensive to go into an area, get the birds, and take them to an area. Mr. Peffer stated that does not work. Commissioner Colon stated if that was the case, the County would not be spending all that money.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if a bird caught in Micco could be released at Kennedy Space Center; with Mr. Toland responding that should not be a problem because it would be moving a bird to an area where there is carrying capacity; it would probably not be allowed to persist there because they are extremely territorial; so staff needs to find areas that have been restored and the habitat improved so there is the possibility to accelerate natural colonization of the area by scrub jays. Mr. Toland stated scrub jays do not tend to disperse very far; most of their dispersal from one habitat to another is less than two miles; and the County could re-colonize areas such as Buck Lake, and others farther out, by getting scrub jays into a habitat where they do not already exist. Commissioner O'Brien stated Kennedy Space Center has lost over half of the scrub jay population over a short period of time; and inquired if that was caused by disease; with Mr. Toland responding the reason they lost half the population on the federal properties is that the habitat suitability has gone down; that habitat can only support what is there now; if they were to increase by managing it so that more jays could occupy that area at a higher density, maybe the County could bring jays in; but there is enough jays on federal properties that can re-colonize those areas on their own. Mr. Peffer advised it makes sense in areas where there is suitable habitat, but do not have birds to move into that habitat; the situation does exist in the South Beaches; the habitat is suitable due to restoration, but there are birds in that area that will repopulate it; so moving birds to that area makes sense.

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

Commissioner O'Brien stated the County purchased more than 15,000 acres of which 7,000 are scrub habitat; with Mr. Toland responding 1,620 acres are habitat according to the 1990 cover map. Commissioner O'Brien inquired how many acres are suitable habitat; with Mr. Toland responding they are not sure. Mr. Peffer stated it says varying degrees of suitability; they are trying to restore some of the degraded scrub to more suitable habitat; so it is one of the answers that will change over time. He stated restoration efforts are going on in a number of places; and they are trying to improve suitability through the management plan. Commissioner O'Brien stated EEL's money was spent to buy 1,500 acres as scrub habitat; and if they are not totally suitable, the County should expend EEL's money to make them suitable.

EEL's Coordinator Ann Birch advised they are spending money now to make them suitable; they have implemented pine thinning activities, cutting scrub activities, and putting out a bid next week to implement 650 acres of scrub cutting at an estimated cost of $250,000. She stated it is an expensive endeavor, but it gets scrub habitat managed very quickly, more so than with fires. She stated prescribed burns is another element when the weather cooperates that they will implement to manage scrub lands.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired how many acres were burned in the last twelve months; with Ms. Birch responding she does not think they were able to burn more than 50 acres at Malabar Scrub.

Commissioner Colon inquired what percentage of visitors or public are able to use the land that has been purchased; with Ms. Birch responding all the lands that the EEL's program acquired are open for public access at varying degrees; they categorized the sanctuaries; and the level of public access would vary according to the category of the site. Ms. Birch stated every sanctuary and every piece of land they buy is open to the public at some degree; generally with hiking trails, bike trails, signage, kiosks, and information so a person can go to the site and explore for himself; so all the lands are open to the public, but it is a matter of what type of activity is going to be there.

Chairman Carlson inquired about the time frame from purchase to bringing the properties on line where people can get access to them, and signs erected saying they can come on the site, or advertised or in a brochure; with Ms. Birch responding it takes about a year because they have to write a management plan and go through the State process of approving the plan if it is a State-purchased property to assess what types of activities would be good there, then staff goes out and marks trails, erects signage, etc. She noted that is what the land managers and volunteer program do. Chairman Carlson inquired how many parcels are open to the public at this point; with Ms. Birch responding anybody can get on all the properties right now; as far as knowing what they are doing once they get there depends on trail signs; staff is working constantly to get more opened; but she would say about a dozen properties are open right now.

Chairman Carlson advised the environmental centers are in the process of being developed at four sanctuaries. Ms. Birch stated they are category 1 sites where the public will visit the sites and get the story of what is happening in Brevard County; and Category 2 and 3 sites are lesser public access sites with parking lots, trails, and signage. Chairman Carlson stated people can be educated at the four sites, but the County does not anticipate putting that kind of money into a learning center on the other parcels that are purchased. Mr. Peffer advised those sanctuaries are located in the North, Central, South, and South Beaches areas so all the population can enjoy one or the other. Ms. Birch advised they are located in areas that highlight the diversities of the natural communities that are representative of Brevard County.

Commissioner O'Brien advised three years ago they were told hiking trails in the Cruickshank Sanctuary would delineate parts of the land from specific kinds of animals, and trails could not be built because the scrub jays or gopher tortoise would not cross them; with Chairman Carlson responding that is not true, but there were issues about biking through it and the sand was not conducive for biking.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board wants to move forward in protecting habitat through some protective measures such as an ordinance.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, to direct staff to develop a significant environmental areas protection ordinance on the same basis as the wetlands ordinance where people are allowed to build with certain restrictions in terms of preservation of the habitat.

Commissioner O'Brien stated before the Board goes forward with an ordinance, it needs to know where the critical habitats are and what effect it will have on the people; and if it is going to make a law, it needs to know why it is making the law.

Chairman Carlson advised she agrees the Board needs to move forward with something and phase it in; it could start with scrub habitats; and staff could provide a plan on what should be done next and financially how would they attack it because there will be some financial impact.

Commissioner Higgs stated if the Board moves forward with a habitat protection ordinance, it should look at scrub first, get a draft, then decide what kinds of items will be in the ordinance.

Commissioner O'Brien stated if a person owns five acres and can only build on one acre, the County has taken 80% of the property away from that owner based on this concept. He stated there are overlay maps for scrub jays, indigo snakes, and for every kind of animal; and the list becomes endless. Chairman Carlson advised there are 26 species that inhabit critical scrub habitat that will be protected; and along with that, she would like to see items in 3, 4 and 5 addressed in the ordinance regarding incentives to developers and homeowners. Commissioner Higgs stated all those incentives would be considered and need to be put in a framework; but first the Board must decide if it is willing to move forward with an ordinance in terms of protection. She stated incentives are a different level of protection; but the Board needs to decide where it wants to go first.

Commissioner Scarborough advised the concept of critical habitat has a tendency to evolve from species to an open space ordinance, lineal parks, stormwater retention, potable water, and a lot of discussion that is going on; and there are voids in the discussions. He stated the Board talked about potable water, polluting the lagoon, but never about the water under the ground; and he was going to bring something today that dealt with different densities of water. He suggested a multi-discipline approach, because it would be wrong to talk about a critical habitat and protected species and not open space which provides lineal parks that provide quarters for species. He stated there is a need to tie all of those things together in some overall sense of where the Board is going; otherwise it will have one thing to handle one concern and another thing to handle another concern. He stated today the Board is talking with Natural Resources; Tuesday it will be talking to Planning and Zoning about the open space ordinance; and there are different types of open space. He reiterated the 45-hole golf course development in Lake County; and noted if the golf course is not developed, it would be a recharge area where people could walk in the wilderness and it would not consume water. He stated everything the Board does with open space needs to consider how environmentally significant it is because every open area does not necessarily help the environment. He stated a golf course is not positive when it consumes so much ground water that it creates a desert in Lake County. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board is dealing with multiple issues that are coming to the surface all at once; and rather than do an open space here and critical habitat there, it needs to create a matrix where they overlap and have a holistic approach. Chairman Carlson stated that is what she said in the beginning that the Board needs a strategic plan for conservation.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board can move forward to craft a habitat protection ordinance to protect scrub, surface water, aquifer recharge, and linkages; but it needs to move forward today to draft it so the Board can see if that is where it wants to go.

Chairman Carlson stated the Board is talking about implementation of the Comprehensive Plan; it has a Comprehensive Plan and has not implemented it; and that is the issue. She stated the Comprehensive Plan is categorically set out in Elements; none of the Elements have been woven together in any sort of implementation plan; and it has been around for years but never enveloped into the environmental conversation or implementation plan with dollars associated with it and how it would be implemented. She stated if staff could do that it would help a great deal because they could preserve things in a holistic way. Commissioner Higgs stated she understands the big picture, but the Board needs to start with bits because it is not going to chew it all at once; so it needs to make it piece by piece and move forward. Chairman Carlson stated she agrees the Board has to move forward, but there are steps in that plan. Commissioner Scarborough stated at the Planning Council meeting there was a presentation by Jennifer, who is working with Lake County and University of South Florida; she is coming over to visit some people in his office; and the County does not have to reinvent the wheel if it has good thoughts coming together. He stated if it is valuable the County may want to acquire parts of the land; and if it is marginal it may not; so there has to be something that is able to run a spectrum across the whole gamut and put them all together. Chairman Carlson inquired how would the motion be crafted; with Commissioner Scarborough responding get staff to put some thoughts and ideas together. Commissioner Higgs stated the motion is to draft an ordinance to protect critical habitat with the concept of scrub being the first. Chairman Carlson inquired if it is just for critical habitat or is it to encompass other environmental concerns; with Commissioner Scarborough responding it should be integrated somehow. Commissioner Higgs inquired what should be integrated; with Commissioner Scarborough responding the multiplicity of different issues. Commissioner Higgs inquired if that is without an ordinance; with Commissioner Scarborough responding no, with an ordinance that provides connectivity of the issues, the viability, recharge issues, and anything that points in a matrix to charge the Board to get more actively involved. Mr. White suggested focusing on environmental areas versus just critical habitats, which could encompass ground water effects, runoff, etc.

Chairman Carlson advised she is interested in making sure there is a plan and the Board is not creating an ordinance to protect critical habitat then another ordinance to do something else. She stated they should all work together; and it should not be done in a piecemeal fashion but with a planned approach. Mr. White stated there are some national examples they could use as a template; and suggested letting staff investigate those and bring them back to the Board.

Commissioner Colon expressed concern about the price tag to accomplish the effort; stated she understands the concept, but wants to know how expensive it is going to be; and she will support drafting an ordinance; however, once it gets to the price tag, that is where the Board has to make some decisions.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to make a substitute motion directing staff to look at national examples, and report back to the Board on that and the cost.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board knows how many acres were purchased by the EEL's program and for the scrub jays; the net loss is 369 acres, yet the Board created 650 acres; so it is getting ahead of the game. He stated the Board is making laws to restrict land use; it is putting title restrictions on people's land; and it is purely prospective. He stated the Board needs to consider how many acres have been lost and how many were made suitable for habitat that were not suitable before now; 300 plus acres were burned at Kennedy Space Center; the St. Johns River Water Management District is doing burns also; and Brevard County did not do burns last year, but they expect to burn 900 acres this year to restore suitable habitats. He stated the agencies are not talking to each other or creating a plan together; and the Board needs to get progressive and get habitats restored because that is what the properties were purchased for.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board started talking about species then about an area where species live; it should take the broadest possible perspective and all the issues of quality development; there is a point where only so much can be built in Brevard County; and inquired how does the Board allow building without locking out the last guy because there is no capacity on the roads, etc. He stated his motion is to have Mr. White come back with information; there is substantial commitment elsewhere in the State to do exploration of those thoughts; the open space ordinance coming up Tuesday has similar thoughts; so rather than taking definitive discussion today, let staff come back with information on what other places are doing. Chairman Carlson stated the Board knows what other places are doing in the State because staff provided that information to the Board, so there is nothing new. Commissioner Scarborough stated there is an opportunity to find out what is going on elsewhere in the United States; he is just asking for more information, which may be good for the Board; and that is his motion if he can get a second.

Chairman Carlson called for a second to the substitute motion, and heard no second.

Chairman Carlson stated she does not mind sending staff off to look, but the Board should go forward with a critical habitat ordinance and work on what it can instead of postponing and looking for more information; the Board needs to make a decision; and right now it has as much information as it needs and can move forward on the critical habitat situation if nothing else. She stated if staff wants to get more information, that is fine; but the Board needs to do the ordinance also. Mr. White stated he can bring back copies of what is available nationally. Chairman Carlson stated the American Bird Conservancy thing has how Pinellas County makes bird conservation happen; she talked to Dr. Peter Stangel with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation; and he would be a good person to talk to if there is anything like that anywhere else. Commissioner Higgs stated there are all kinds of people they can talk to. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is talking about more than just birds. Chairman Carlson stated the Foundation talks about more than birds.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board is making a mistake having one thing on Tuesday and another thing today, then another thing some other time; and in the end it will come back and say why did it do it that way. Chairman Carlson stated Attachment 5, Conservation Foundations, pinpoints Alachua, Palm Beach, Pinellas, and Sarasota Counties; they laid it out not just for critical habitat, but for species management, conservation, environmental education, outreach, research, habitat management, ecosystem management, and environmental monitoring which cross the gamut of things the Board is talking about such as water conservation and everything else. Commissioner Scarborough stated he talked to Mr. Stangel and knows where he is coming from; he supports bringing them in; but he does not see it as the final issue. He stated the Board discussed urban boundaries, the capacity of total build out, etc.; and it should not stop with critical habitat. He stated the Board should protect the quality of Brevard County and not just a species; and that is where he wants to go. Commissioner O'Brien stated he agrees with looking at the bigger picture rather than taking a piece at a time. Commissioner Higgs suggested getting the information Commissioner Scarborough is talking about, and at the same time putting together a structure the Board can look at to determine if it has support. Commissioner Scarborough reiterated his concern about doing numerous ordinances rather than a comprehensive ordinance that encompasses multiple issues.

Chairman Carlson advised staff mentioned they have the expertise to create a plan of attack; they have all the details they need; they know the County inside and out, and the critical habitats although a GIS has not been done yet; so the Board can direct staff to create a plan and come back with a price tag, then go from there. She stated the Board can do it that way or try the critical habitat ordinance, get a price tag for that, and that be a piece of the plan. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is not concerned about the price tag right now because before they can get a price, they need to know what they are buying. Chairman Carlson stated if Commissioner Scarborough is talking about a holistic plan, staff can create that; and a price cannot be determined without a template of a plan to apply it to.

Mr. Peffer advised Mr. White has already initiated a search to find other models; it is unlikely any other model is going to come back using anything that is not on the list staff provided to the Board; and they tried to describe what tools are available and how the County might put those tools to use. He stated other agencies may have done it, but they are not going to have anything that is brand new.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board is discussing two different things; it is talking about a plan that encompasses all the different things such as incentives, tax incentives, abatements, fee simple ownership, etc.; and the other thing is to develop additional protection regulations for particular kinds of habitats. She stated she is trying to get tools to protect critical habitat; the other things are part of an overall plan that Chairman Carlson wants; and she thought the Board could decide yes or no whether it wants an ordinance that says they can build in scrub habitat but be limited to certain things, similar to the wetlands concept.

Chairman Carlson stated they are two separate entities, but are combined; the Board can take action today to go ahead with the critical habitat ordinance; and the plan is what is being protected, how is it being protected, how efficient is the protection, and how much money will be committed to put in that protection. She stated that is the big picture plan and what is missing; and it can pass a motion for a piece of that plan, but it does not even know what the big plan is at this point because it is not in writing and will be something that is pieced together.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the problem is the Board meets today with the Natural Resources group; next time it meets with Planning and Zoning group; they have different philosophical approaches of what the Board needs to do; and one is the build out of the County and will it work if the Board lets it build out as it is. He stated it would be a disaster if everything builds out with every developer getting his property rights; and inquired does the Board want to have that disaster, no; is it part of the same discussion, yes; however, it never has the two groups talking to the Board at the same time. Chairman Carlson stated growth management and the environment work together; with Commissioner Scarborough responding yes and no; environment goes to the species and the capacity of the species to survive, and urban boundaries go to the capacity to have infrastructure and maintain a quality of life once it builds out, but they may overlap. Mr. Peffer stated the concept being discussed is a component of growth management; it deals with environmentally-sensitive areas, but it is not all of what this is about. He stated Chairman Carlson wants a big plan where all the pieces are put together; that is beyond the scope of his staff's expertise; but they can bring back how their piece would work. He stated the Board sees the different staffs who bring different perspectives; they look to the Board for guidance of how it wants staff to fill out their parts; and that is the best they can do. He stated they can come back and suggest things like which tools to use to protect critical habitat and use those same tools to structure open space, greenways, etc. with similar applications and strategies, whether it is designating a certain area, transferring development rights, etc.; they can be used in other objectives the Board may have, not just in critical habitats; and it may be a strategy that would work.

Chairman Carlson inquired if Natural Resources could put a meeting together with all Departments that have a piece of the environment, such as Water Resources, etc., and say here is how they need to all work together, get their input, and report back to the Board. She noted they may have a different angle on it. Mr. Peffer noted that does not happen in one meeting, it happens over years; and they have been doing that. He noted the Board may not think it is successful, but that is the way they work together. Chairman Carlson inquired why is there no compliance if they work together.

Commissioner Colon stated when Mel Scott comes before the Board, they talk about zoning issues, urban sprawl, and growth management, but he does not cost the County any money; however, Natural Resources will because once they do the numbers and say what they are going to protect, then they have to find out what kind of commitment the County is going to do financially; therefore, it is talking about increasing taxes. She inquired how can she support an ordinance that might have an expensive price tag; and stated it may be totally opposite of what she is afraid of, and maybe the price tag may not be that high, but she has concerns about supporting an ordinance.

Commissioner Higgs requested Commissioner Colon help her understand how it will cost the County lots of money; with Commissioner Colon responding the Wetlands Ordinance costs the County money. Commissioner Higgs stated that is only if the Board has to buy the property; but if it says to someone who owns five acres they can build in a wetland under certain conditions, that is not an exorbitant cost. Commissioner Colon stated if the County buys the land it will; with Commissioner Higgs responding that is a separate issue. Commissioner Colon stated the ordinance will take the County in that direction sooner or later; with Commissioner Higgs responding no it will not because the ordinance simply says it is a development. Commissioner Colon noted she got ahead of herself and now agrees with Commissioner Higgs. Commissioner Higgs stated all the Board is talking about today is putting restrictions on the way land is developed to protect significant environmental areas.

Commissioner Scarborough stated his concern is having little pieces of the puzzle; there are other things that are going to happen; and if the Board is willing to pass these in segments and sunset them and mandate staff come back and coordinate all the fragmented pieces in a whole to the greatest degree possible, he could support that. He stated if the Board passes an ordinance, it may go to other ordinances and not maximize an overall concept that all should be integrated as a whole. He stated Tuesday the Board may pass an open space ordinance; if it does, it should be with a sunset of 18 months; and when that time comes up, they will try and integrate all the things that make sense. He stated by then the Board should have information from Lake County, and Mr. White will have his information; and it would not defer the ordinance, but would have a commitment by the Board that it will bring all the development concepts together in a holistic sense. He stated he has seen these things deferred time and time again; the Board would have something partly taken care of then go off and handle some other thing; and he is not ready to do that.

Chairman Carlson inquired if Commissioner Scarborough is willing to go forward with the critical habitat ordinance and look at the open space ordinance on Tuesday, which are the only two that are coming up. Commissioner Scarborough stated there will be other things on ground water also. Chairman Carlson stated if they are going to be brought together, they will need to organize something to have all the departments present. Commissioner Scarborough stated perhaps the Board could have discussions in little pieces then see what it has bought off; in the Legislature and Congress there is housecleaning to fix bills the following year; so the Board can bring them all together and make sure they are in a logical sense and any inconsistencies are taken care of. He stated it is not buying land, but development of land; and the Board may want to give additional credit to a developer who has a critical habitat. Chairman Carlson stated that is where the open space ordinance comes in.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board keeps talking about the developer, and fails to mention the one-acre property owner; and the majority of landowners in Brevard County own one-acre parcels. Commissioner Scarborough stated that is not an issue with most of the ordinances. Commissioner Higgs indicated it is an issue.

Chairman Carlson inquired if the Board sees the open space and critical habitat ordinances staying unto themselves or connected. She stated if they are going to be combined, staff should take what has already evolved in the open space ordinance and bring the critical habitat into it so they do not have to invent two ordinances and combine them.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board wants to wait until Mr. White brings in an overall plan or pass the ordinance Tuesday on open space with a sunset provision and instruct staff to have workshops several months in advance of the sunset. He stated after all the ordinances are adopted, they may be fine to keep them separate; but there is something scary about creating a bunch of different ordinances to address different elements of land development. Commissioner Higgs agreed to an 18-month time frame to sunset the ordinances, and if they are ready sooner, to review them then. She stated the Board could set a target date of 18 months maximum to bring the different ordinances together into one workshop.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to direct staff to consolidate ordinances on open space, subdivisions, critical habitat, water resources, etc. after adoption by the Board, and to return to the Board in 18 months or less with recommendations.

Mr. Toland expressed concern about the 18 months, noting the areas identified as being sensitive and vulnerable to development may not be there in 18 months. Commissioner Scarborough stated the ordinances would be passed now and integrated within 18 months so there will not be a bunch of stand-alone inconsistent ordinances and different parts of staff administering them.

Chairman Carlson advised 18 months will put it into the year 2002; and inquired if the Board is going to consider financial issues; with Commissioner Scarborough responding this is land development only. Commissioner Higgs stated Chairman Carlson is getting bogged down in a big plan, and this is just one little part of it.

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

Commissioner Scarborough advised he is in favor of the sales tax for funding; other counties have the sales tax and bring in enormous amounts of money; staff ran some numbers; and Commissioner O'Brien came up with a brilliant idea to segregate it into separate pieces. He stated Mr. Knox gave the Board a memo on how it could structure the referendum; and that is the way to do it to meet multiple issues. He noted people want a grocery list so they can pick the items they want to vote for.

Chairman Carlson stated she does not have a problem with the sales tax, but has a problem with the grocery list because people may pick and choose what they want to pay for and the rest will be left up to the Board to fund; and it may require a tax increase.

Commissioner Scarborough stated when projects are combined, people get mad and vote against the whole thing. Chairman Carlson stated that still does not take the Board out of the position of having to pay for the items even though it gives the people an option to vote on them. Commissioner Scarborough stated there is a greater possibility of getting them passed separately than together, which may upset people, because if they are upset, they will vote no.

Commissioner Higgs stated she has a concern about the technicality of the grocery list and how that will work; and staff would have to come up with the numbers that equate to the first cent or half cent. She stated another concern is in any kind of referendum, the School Board needs to be a part of that list; if the community is to move forward, the schools are critical and have to be a priority; so a sales tax would be divided among municipalities, the School Board, and the County. She stated the Beach and Riverfront millage concept should not be discarded; it expires in 2004; and people feel more comfortable with reestablishing something that is expiring because they have paid it all along. She stated it would need to be put to the voters if the Board wants to do any extensions; it has been successful with land acquisitions in terms of ad valorem taxes; so it should not discard that possibility for the long term. Commissioner Higgs stated if the Board wants to discuss short-term funding for land acquisition, she is ready to do that; the Surface Water Protection Ordinance assessment has not changed in over ten years; and to protect water, that is a possible funding source. She stated eco-tourism is a significant resource; the Board will have a workshop with the Tourist Development Council in the near future; and land acquisition and management may be appropriate to be funded by TDC. She noted beach restoration is funded by the TDC; and that is a significant environmental purpose.

Commissioner Scarborough stated in talking to Commissioners around the area, what makes it work for them is the sales tax; it has to go to the voters, but Commissioner O'Brien had a great idea; he does not want to wait forever to put things together; so they need to seriously tell everybody they want to go to a sales tax. He stated if the Board goes back to the people on beach and riverfront, it may blur the picture; this has to be seen as an opportunity for Brevard County to move forward or regress; and it will regress rapidly with what is happening at the federal and state levels that will push costs down to local governments. He stated the sales tax cannot be compared with any other source of monies and can answer a tremendous number of issues; and it is critical to tie it to the future of Brevard County. Commissioner Higgs stated she does not disagree that in the next few years local government will continue to be pressed to provide services it never provided before; there is no question that it will happen; but how the Board chooses to pay for that is a big issue that has to be discussed whether it looks at ad valorem or sales tax. Commissioner Scarborough stated ad valorem taxes would not do it and could not come close to funding the needs. Commissioner Higgs stated the overall volatility of the sales tax is much more than ad valorem tax; as the Board looks at how local governments are going to fund themselves, it has to look at the big picture and not just what capital projects it is going to do in the next ten years, but how local government is going to operate over the next 50 years; so she is not sure the sales tax is the mechanism it should choose for the long-term. Commissioner Scarborough stated sales tax will free up general revenue that is committed to capital improvements and other purposes; the amount of revenue is much more than any other source; so there is nothing out there but the sales tax.

Chairman Carlson stated she agrees with both arguments, but if it provides a list of issues for the sales tax referendum, how would they determine how much it is going to cost. Mr. Jenkins advised it has to be done in increments of a half or full cent; and the structure of the language has to be a certain amount for a certain number of years. He noted Mr. Knox gave the Board language that provided some flexibility.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised the Board discussed this issue at the Legislative Delegation meeting where he provided a memo in response to some of the problems; if the Board is talking about that kind of approach, it has to break out each project and attach a penny or half penny to the project so voters can vote on what projects they feel are appropriate and know how much and what it is going to be spent on. He stated the problem is the legislation does not allow the Board to do that; and he proposed changes to that legislation that would allow the Board to do it. Chairman Carlson inquired if it can be done in a yes/no format; with Mr. Knox responding yes/no is a straw ballot format, and the Board can do that also.

Mr. Jenkins advised the number of years the tax will be levied would be unknown until the Board knows which projects were approved; the Board would have to calculate the number of years, depending on what the people voted for; so it would be somewhat open-ended asking if they would vote yes for a sales tax for the following projects. He stated after that the Board would have to figure out how much and how long. Commissioner Scarborough stated it gets complex, but it gives people in the community a say on what gets funded and what does not get funded.

Commissioner O'Brien stated someone mentioned what would the Board do about those that were not passed; he perceives the public telling them in a direct manner they do not want the project and do not want to pay for it; so the Board needs to say it hears them loud and clear. Chairman Carlson inquired how do the people get educated who want a high quality of life and less crime if they do not want to put law enforcement on the streets; with Commissioner O'Brien responding it is not the Board's job to override the public.

Mr. Jenkins advised the Board has a joint meeting coming up with the School Board; it may be possible the School Board has other plans and sales tax may not be in its formula; and the Board has to get 50% plus one of the population in the cities to agree to whatever it does, otherwise it is mandated to do it on a formula basis. He stated any referendum that has passed in the County passed because there were groups of people who went out and did public information programs to inform the voters; those that failed had no public information program; there has not been an advocacy group of any magnitude to go out and discuss the jail with the public to make them aware of the needs, so jail funding has failed consistently. He stated there are always a percentage of people who are against higher taxes who get out and get vocal about it; but the ones that passed had strong advocacy groups.

Chairman Carlson stated she is interested in a motion of when to pursue a referendum on sales tax and the issues to put into it. Mr. Jenkins stated the Board has a CIP workshop coming up; and that may be when it would like to discuss the sales tax issue. He stated he asked Mr.

Peffer if the critical habitat issue is something the Board may want to consider as part of the sales tax, and if he could do an unfunded program change that relates to the issue; and he will look into it to see if he can do that.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board goes forward with the sales tax, it should leave other sources of revenue in tact and let the sales tax be the main charge because if there are too many things on the ballot, the people are going to say no. He stated there is so much money in the sales tax that in the end it would be a stronger and better program. Commissioner Higgs stated she is not sure of that, and her concern is the acceptance level. Commissioner Scarborough stated if it is not accepted, at least the Board gave the people the opportunity to determine the future of their community. Commissioner Higgs stated the Beach and Riverfront program, which expires in 2004, may be more viable in terms of the topic being discussed today. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the sales tax passes before then, it would render that issue moot. Commissioner Higgs stated if people thought it was a more appropriate mechanism for funding, there is nothing to stop them from going to the ballot in 2002 to expand that based on the expiration in 2004. Commissioner Scarborough stated if it is on the ballot at the same time as the sales tax, it is liable to drag it down. Commissioner Higgs stated she does not disagree with that, but the philosophical discussion of ad valorem versus sales tax should not be lost; and if the thought is to wait for funding of some of the purchases until it goes to the voters in 2002, the Board would lose most of the opportunities to buy scrub habitat; so it should talk about short-term strategies as well as long-term. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the referendum on sales tax passes, the Board will have the capacity to bond and be actively involved in the first part of 2003; and it could pick up options which were done for Parks and Recreation projects so it can tell the people what will be purchased if the sales tax passes.

Chairman Carlson stated she agrees there is potential to bring back beach and riverfront; but one thing that was overlooked is with P2000 retiring and having Florida Forever; and there are a lot of things opening up for leveraging dollars. She inquired how much money is still available for purchases in the EEL's program; with Ann Birch responding about $5 million in hand and $5 million due back from the State in reimbursements. Mr. Jenkins stated that is impacted by the nature centers. Commissioner Higgs stated staff is looking at $5 million over the next few years to build the other nature centers, other than the Enchanted Forest; and the Board may want to consider delaying some of those and using that $5 million to acquire properties, but do pavilions, restrooms, kiosks, etc. in the short term. Chairman Carlson stated that is possible for short term, but the Board needs to capture what it can as far as revitalizing the EEL's program for the next ten years. She stated the EEL's funds do not have to be just for endangered lands, but other issues such as management, operating the program, etc. Ms. Birch stated the percentages for the Florida Forever Program have changed significantly. Chairman Carlson stated there will be more money available for greenways and trails that would not have to go on for a sales tax referendum. She stated if there were two referendums, one for sales tax and one for extension of the EEL's Program, they would not be injurious to each other because they are separate entities. Commissioner Scarborough stated he thinks they would be injurious. Commissioner Higgs stated expansion of EEL's could be considered a replacement of the beach and riverfront initiative.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the public depended on the beach and riverfront tax to be sunset; and for the Board to find another way to put a tax on them would be inappropriate. Commissioner Higgs stated it will expire and be done; and the Board would simply be offering an opportunity to expand the EEL's program for land acquisition to replace the 1984 beach and riverfront program.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board can defer the projects and get $5 million, but the other Commissioners will pay the price of having their centers deferred while he will have a completed center in District 1. He stated the Commissioners have to make that call, but it is an excellent question to put on the table.

Chairman Carlson inquired what would deferring the learning centers do time wise. She stated the idea of the EEL's Program was to educate the public; and if it is stopped now and done in phases, will it cost more; with Ms. Birch responding conceivably it would cost more because the Master Site Plan figures are based on today's dollars; and if it is deferred, the figures may go up. She stated if the Board defers the centers, it would not have the money later on because it will go into land acquisition. Chairman Carlson inquired if the Board goes with an extension of the EEL's program in 2004 and it does not pass, will the program stop and have no other source of revenue; with Mr. Jenkins responding there could be pavilions, restrooms, a site manager, and office, but not a full-fledged education center. Commissioner Higgs advised a covered pavilion, tables, restrooms, and office exist at Erna Nixon Hammock; there is the ability to do education programs and a number of other things in the open air pavilion; and that could be considered as a plan to further the public purpose of education and land acquisition preservation as opposed to large learning centers with significant investments in capital. Chairman Carlson advised Commissioner Higgs is suggesting maximizing every dollar to purchase those properties the County may end up losing if it does not act now versus allowing the centers to go forward and not having the resources to purchase those properties. She stated she can agree with that, but would rather see the EEL's program have bondable money to do what the Board intended to do ten years ago. Commissioner Higgs stated she does not think the Board can do that, but it would be appropriate to ask the Management Committee to analyze it and give the Board a letter with its thoughts, and get public input.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired what is the cost of the building in the Enchanted Forest; with Ms. Birch responding the cost is $1.6 million for all the infrastructure, not just the building. Commissioner O'Brien stated if they got 18 busloads of school children and 100 visitors from Germany and that is all, what would happen; with Ms. Birch responding they have more usage than that right now without the building. Commissioner O'Brien stated if the Board spent $1.6 million to build all the centers at once, it may find out they are financial flops.

*Commissioner Colon's absence was noted at this time for the remainder of the meeting.

Chairman Carlson inquired if there is a motion to consider.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to request input from the EEL's Management Committee on the issue of acquiring further lands and delaying construction of full learning centers except at the Enchanted Forest, and considering other facilities that would allow for education and greater public use of the sites to maximize the dollars for land acquisitions. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Higgs stated on the issue of water protection, the surface water assessment should be considered as the appropriate funding mechanism. She noted the Board has a policy that shifted surface water funds in favor of the quantity issue as opposed to the quality issue; and it should look at that in terms of protection. Commissioner Scarborough described problems with directing water, curbs and gutters, capturing runoff, and retaining more water upstream on sandy soil to lessen the problem down stream. He stated the less water put into the lagoon and more water kept upstream will more likely keep the shallow wells and aquifers viable, and the less it will cost down stream. He stated it may be less expensive to look at the system as a whole rather than go to the end and catch the water runoff. Commissioner O'Brien stated he would hate to overact, as the problem did not exist when there was not drought. Commissioner Higgs stated in times of flooding, it is more important to capture the water upstream.

Commissioner Scarborough stated handling the system in little components becomes easier and cheaper; and it is important to get the water along the lagoon, but there were a lot of opportunities that have been ignored because of the philosophy of having to be next to the lagoon to capture the water before it hits the lagoon. He noted as things change, the Board needs to look back upstream. Mr. Jenkins stated it does not work in every area. Commissioner Higgs stated if additional funding is needed to protect the surface water and ground water, the Board needs to look at the Surface Water Program. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board needs to get reports back from Ron Jones. Chairman Carlson inquired if the reports will include cost of doing business over the last ten years; with Commissioner Scarborough responding yes.

Chairman Carlson inquired if the Board wants to make a motion to direct staff to review the Surface Water Program as a funding source to protect ground water, etc.; with Commissioner Scarborough responding staff direction would be sufficient. Chairman Carlson directed staff to review the Surface Water Program as indicated.

Commissioner Higgs advised one of the methods for protection of critical habitat is the transfer of development rights (TDR's); that has never worked because the areas where the TDR's could go were never identified; but TDR's can work if staff can work on where those could go so the County can capture the land for preservation.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct the Planning staff to look at transfer of development rights in terms of areas throughout the County that could receive the transfers.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there is a concept of buying conservation easements; and perhaps the Board could acquire TDR's to keep the property in certain conditions rather than transferring development rights. He stated development rights will transfer to where they will maximize building; and if the Board could establish different values for TDR's in different places, it could negotiate and purchase those rather than end up with garbage houses in clusters. Commissioner Higgs stated instead of some form of regulation, the County could purchase from the developer 50% conservation rights so the property is developed in accordance with certain standards and the developer gets tax credit over time to preserve certain areas. She stated it would lower their cost and provide the ability to sell at a more competitive price; and the County would get what it wants, which is preservation. She stated all those things need to be developed as concepts.

Chairman Carlson advised part of the directive to the Planning staff should include review of the transfer of development rights concept. Commissioner Higgs suggested reviewing purchasing less than fee simple ownership or rights.

Commissioner O'Brien suggested environmental areas be identified in zoning classifications, such as RR-1/EA for environmentally-sensitive areas, RR-1/FZ for flood zones, and RR-1/CH for critical habitats, so that property owners will know before they pull permits the problems they will be facing, or at least look up the rules before they start building. Commissioner Higgs stated it is a way of designating those things on the zoning maps; with Commissioner O'Brien responding not only that, but when rezoning issues come to the Board, the information will be there in the classification; so if someone wants to rezone from RR-1 to BU-1, the Board may not want to change the zoning classification because of the CH, or EA, or FZ. Commissioner Higgs stated it is not like the EA in the zoning classification, which is one unit per ten acres, but is a way of informing people on the front end. Chairman Carlson indicated the City of Melbourne has done conservation areas and sent notices out. Commissioner O'Brien stated identifying environmental areas in the zoning classifications would be a good way to educate anybody.

Chairman Carlson advised part of the directive to the Planning staff would include review of zoning classifications to identify environmentally-sensitive areas by EA, FZ and CH.

Mr. Jenkins inquired if the Board would like to send ordinances it adopts, such as open space, critical habitat, subdivision regulations, etc., to each municipality and encourage them to review and consider them; with Chairman Carlson responding yes, any time the Board adopts an ordinance. Mr. Jenkins noted it is a good policy to establish.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to establish a policy to send copies of ordinances regarding open space, critical habitat, subdivisions, and other appropriate subjects to municipalities, and encourage them to review the ordinances and consider them. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the follow-up of what has been done will be at another workshop or a Commission meeting; with Commissioner Scarborough responding it would need a workshop. Chairman Carlson advised the Board needs to determine what pieces need to come back, and staff return with what the Board requested.

Mr. Peffer advised he understands that the Board wants staff to draft a critical habitat ordinance, put the pieces together, which were shown to the Board, and try to bring back what staff suggests as the best shot at that so the Board can use it at a future workshop to tell staff whether it is on the right or wrong track. He stated staff will try to show the Board how all the pieces fit together and how they can be used in other contexts.

Mr. Jenkins advised the Board wants staff to prepare a draft of the critical habitat ordinance now and to come back at a subsequent time to bring everything together, i.e., open space, water resources, etc. Chairman Carlson noted it may be less than 18 months; with Mr. Jenkins responding staff will do it as fast as they can.

Commissioner Higgs stated once the big initiatives are in place, some of the techniques that were part of the discussion on critical habitat methods should come back at the next workshop. Chairman Carlson stated a report from Mr. White on the other models and plans should also be part of the workshop. Mr. White noted it will be part of the critical habitat ordinance.

Chairman Carlson inquired when will the workshop be scheduled; with Commissioner Higgs responding in 60 to 90 days. Chairman Carlson instructed the County Manager to schedule the workshop.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 12:35 p.m.

ATTEST: _________________________________
SUSAN CARLSON, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

___________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)