April 20, 2004

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on April 20, 2004 at 5:31 p.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chair Nancy Higgs, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Ron Pritchard, Susan Carlson, and Jackie Colon, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

The Invocation was given by Pastor Ken Delgado, House of Prayer, Palm Bay, Florida.

Commissioner Ron Pritchard led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

REPORT, RE: UNITED WAY CAMPAIGN

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised Rob Rains, President of United Way, wants to make a presentation to the Board.

Rob Rains stated last month United Way had its annual meeting recognizing organizations that helped it reach its goal for the sixth time in seven years and raised over $1.5 million; one of those organizations could not attend the meeting; and he wanted to present something to the Board. He stated the Brevard County employees are the ninth largest contributor to United Way in the County; nearly 1,000 County employees contributed $113,000 to community agencies through United Way; and that is over 40% participation. He advised there were 115 leadership givers who contributed $162,000; the overall average gift was $120, which ranks very favorably; and it was a tremendous job by Brevard County employees; and United Way wants to present the Board with a plaque. He stated he wants to thank Cathy Schweinsberg and Gay Williams who were the employee campaign managers that lead the drive this year; and to say thank you to the Board and each and every County employee for their support.

Chair Higgs stated Mr. Jenkins should accept the plaque on behalf of the County employees. Mr. Rains stated he has two plaques, one for the employees, and one for Mr. Jenkins. He stated Mr. Jenkins does not serve on many community boards because the Board keeps him busy; but he has served for two terms on the United Way Board of Directors. He stated there are term limits at United Way; and after six years Mr. Jenkins has to step down. He thanked Assistant County Manager Don Lusk for replacing Mr. Jenkins on the United Way Board of Directors. Chair Higgs stated Mr. Jenkins’ service on the United Way has been beneficial to the County and community, and thanks him for it.

REPORT, RE: PALM BAY ANNEXATION

County Attorney Scott Knox advised that he is still checking on the Palm Bay Annexation situation; he has a conflicting story from the Clerk and the City Attorney about what happened; and he is trying to get to the bottom of it. He stated he will report to the Board at its next meeting with the information.

REPORT, RE: VIETNAM VETERANS MEMORIAL WALL REPLICA

Commissioner Pritchard stated it is a special week for veterans in Brevard County; the replica of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall was moved to Wickham Park; everyone should see the Wall; it is a moving experience; and he has friends whose names are on the Wall. He stated when he sees the Wall it brings back a lot of memories of them, and a sense of loss to the community for what the brave men and women went through. He stated they fought, died, and made the ultimate sacrifice. He stated the Wall will be at Wickham Park until next Sunday.

REPORT, RE: FEMA AWARD

Commissioner Carlson stated that Assistant County Manager Don Lusk received a memorandum advising that Ray Gann with the Emergency Management office received the FEMA award for 2003 for excellence in public service. She stated Mr. Gann worked on the Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program for the St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant preparedness efforts; and she wanted to recognize him and congratulate him.

REPORT, RE: SNIPE SIGNS

Commissioner Carlson stated another issue she wishes to speak on is snipe signs. She stated it is the political season. She stated some months back the Board adopted a policy that allowed sign inspectors to give citations to people placing snipe signs in the County right-of-way; and many citations have been issued, but have not come close to solving the problem. She stated this morning she noticed about 27 snipe signs on Wickham Road between Pineda Causeway and I-95; and that is a clean day; and requested a report on additional steps that might be made to take care of and remove the eyesores. She stated the commercial sector has requirements regarding signage, yet the snipe signs are all over the place and out of control.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to direct staff to prepare a report on additional steps that may be taken to help eliminate snipe signs. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: VOLUNTEERS IN MOTION

Commissioner Colon stated there is a wonderful couple, George and Mary Ann Pate, who has been incredible for Volunteers in Motion; and George is at the hospital with his wife Mary Ann at Holmes Regional Medical Center, and wants everyone to pray for Mary Ann who is in intensive care. She stated the power of prayer is powerful; and this couple has given so much to the community.

REPORT, RE: BREVARD ALZHEIMER’S FOUNDATION

Commissioner Colon stated Joe Steckler has requested the Board to continue calling the Legislative Delegation in support of the Alzheimer’s Foundation, and to request support of the $400,000 community budget item to help build a dementia center in Titusville. She stated Mr. Steckler has tried to contact each Commissioner; and she does not know where he finds the strength to do what he does.

REPORT, RE: ROBERT MEDINA JR.

Commissioner Colon stated Rob Medina, who is on her staff, has a son named Robert Medina, Jr. She advised that Bayside High School played Cocoa Beach High School in baseball; Robert Jr. added a homerun for Bayside High School; and the score was a Bayside victory of 8-0 over Cocoa Beach High School. She stated she wants to commend Robert Jr.

REPORT, RE: AMERICAN DIABETES ASSOCIATION HEALTH FAIR AND WALKATHON

Richard DeBlasio stated on behalf of the approximately 60,000 people in Brevard County affected with diabetes, the American Diabetes Association will be holding its first ever walk with your dog for diabetes. He stated it is a walkathon that will take place at Wickham Park pavilion on May 2, 2004; 8:00 a.m. is breakfast and registration; and the walk begins at 9:00 a.m. He stated a health fair and pet fair will also be held at the same time as the walkathon; and there will be people there with goods and services for pets and goods and services for people with or without diabetes. He stated there will be health screenings; Wuesthoff Hospital will help in that area; and if anyone wants to be involved please call 1-888-diabetes at extension 3001 or go to the web site at www.diabetes.org/walk. He stated he would like people to register ahead of time so they will know how many will be showing up that day. He stated everyone is invited to attend with or without a dog; it will be a 3.1 mile walk; and it will be fun. He stated the American Diabetes Association raises money for three things as follows: find a cure for diabetes, provide information for people with diabetes and people living with people who have diabetes, and advocacy for people with diabetes. He stated the organization petition federal and state legislatures to pass laws to help people with diabetes. He advised volunteers are needed the day of the walk; and requests the volunteers arrive at 7:00 a.m. on May 2, 2004.

REPORT, RE: LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR BREVARD WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
BOARD

Chair Higgs passed the gavel to Vice Chair Pritchard.

*Chair Higgs’ absence was noted at this time.

Lisa Rice stated she wished to ask for the Board’s support for a letter to the US Department of Labor for a faith-based grant. She stated for the past two years United Way has had a US Department of Labor grant to serve as a intermediary between the Workforce Board and the workforce system and faith-based and community-based organizations. She advised this year the grant is changing slightly in that it is looking for the Workforce Development Board to be the fiscal agent, and looking for a tie-in with businesses, which brings in what the Workforce Board does with businesses and employers. She stated she hopes the Board has had the opportunity to look at the letter; and if there are any questions she will be happy to answer.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to authorize the Chair to sign a letter in support of the Brevard Workforce Development Board grant proposal in response to faith-based and community-based organizations (FBCO) Initiative. Motion carried and ordered unanimously, with Commissioner Higgs being absent from the room.

*Chair Higgs’ presence was noted at this time.

RESOLUTION, RE: PROCLAIMING BREVARD COUNTY VOLUNTEER APPRECIATION
WEEK

Chair Higgs read aloud a resolution proclaiming Brevard County Volunteer Appreciation Week.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution proclaiming April 18 through 24, 2004 as Brevard County Volunteer Appreciation Week. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Volunteer Coordinator Paulette Davidson stated it is an exciting time for her; she gets overwhelmed when she sees all the participation; and people will see many of the volunteers on Space Coast Government Television. She stated she appreciates the opportunity to join the Board and celebrate Brevard County Volunteer Appreciation Day to thank, recognize, and express gratitude to individuals and groups that participate in County Government Volunteer Programs; and today throughout the Nation, Volunteer Week is being observed with the theme Volunteers Inspire by Example. She advised throughout the year volunteers have the opportunity to unselfishly give of themselves by tutoring children and adults to read, taking care of the endangered land sites, responding to emergencies, organizing books, assisting the elderly, caring for animals, educating the citizens about plants, teaching and coaching the youth, recovering fishing lines from the waterways, assisting in County offices, and serving on County advisory boards. She requested volunteer Ken Oyer come forward with a check to be presented to the County. She advised the check is for 655,000 hours, which is equivalent to over $10,000,000 that the volunteers have contributed of time and talent. She stated on behalf of the volunteer management team she wants to acknowledge all of the volunteers in the audience; and requested that the volunteers stand. She stated following the presentation of the Resolution, there will a reception in Building A for the volunteers.

Chair Higgs presented the Resolution to Ms. Davidson.

RESOLUTION, RE: COMMENDING DEANNA FOWLER

Commissioner Carlson stated the Board is recognizing Deanna Fowler for the Prudential Spirit of Community Honoree by the State of Florida; and it is quite a prestigious award. She read aloud the resolution commending Deanna Fowler.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution commending Deanna Fowler for being named one of the State of Florida’s top honorees in The Prudential Spirit of Community Awards Program. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Deanna Fowler stated five years ago she started the Deanna Fowler’s US Special Foundation in which she baked, decorated, and delivered birthday cakes to abandoned, neglected, and abused children in The Havens and My Refuge. She advised it came to her when she was looking through a Family Circle Magazine and there was an article about a lady who baked cakes for elderly people in nursing homes; she was adopted at ten; she had been in The Haven when she was younger; and she thought it would be a good idea since those children did not get to have a birthday or feel special. She stated she baked birthday cakes; it is fun and inspiring; and it makes people humble. She stated she wanted to recognize her friend, Kristin Snavely, who has helped her for five years; and also thank her dad and mother.

AMENDMENT TO OPTION AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND OF FLORIDA, RE:
WGML INVESTMENTS, LTD. AND PRN REAL ESTATE & INVESTMENT, LTD.
PROPERTY

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Amendment to Option Agreement for Sale and Purchase with Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of Florida to transfer 131.74? acres of property to the State for $1,080,000. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AMENDMENT TO GRANT AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, RE: BREVARD COUNTY SHORE
PROTECTION PROJECT

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Amendment No. 5 to Grant Agreement with Florida Department of Environmental Protection for the Brevard County Shore Protection Project to shift $32,500 from construction to design and permitting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVE SOLE SOURCE AWARD AND EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH UNIVERSITY
OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, RE: TURTLE MONITORING

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Sole Source Award and execute Agreement with University of Central Florida for conducting a third year of marine turtle nesting surveys for the Shore Protection Project. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: RENAMING SOUTH BREVARD SENIOR CENTER AS THE BREVARD
COUNTY SENIOR CENTER AT MELBOURNE

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the renaming of South Brevard Senior Center as the Brevard County Senior Center at Melbourne. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL OF REVISED POLICY BCC-31, RE: SUNSET REVIEW OF PROGRAMS,
SERVICES, ORDINANCES, POLICIES, AND ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve revised Policy BCC-31, Sunset Review of Programs, Services, Ordinances, Policies, and Administrative Orders. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPOINTMENTS/REAPPOINTMENTS, RE: CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARDS

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to appoint/reappoint Donald Messenger to Mims/Scottsmoor Public Library Advisory Board with term expiring December 31, 2004. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: BILLS AND BUDGET CHANGES

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Bills as presented. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

BOARD DIRECTION, RE: SITE SELECTION FOR SOUTH COUNTY BOAT RAMP

Phillip Nohrr, representing MWI Corporation, owner of the Couch Pump property on the South Mainland stated the owner wants to keep the property to develop it; it is part of the corporate existence in developing and manufacturing of pumps; and ultimately it will be doing some development. He stated Brevard County is looking for a boat launch facility; and he would urge the County to look elsewhere and let his client continue to enjoy the benefits of the property. He stated he will be happy to answer any questions or concerns the Board may have.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he was under the impression the owner was willing to sell four acres for a couple of million dollars. Mr. Nohrr stated that is not true; his client wants to develop the property; and they use part of it in the business today. Parks and Recreation Director Chuck Nelson stated early on there was a discussion with the owners before Mr. Nohrr got involved, and that was the point as which there was an interest in selling. He stated he thinks that has changed; and there are two different points in the conversation.

Mike Cunningham stated he is concerned about the issue; and he feels the County has gone as far as it can with the Couch Pump property, which began in November 2000. He stated it was supposed to be $3.2 million allocated for the acquisition and development of the south County boat ramps; appraisals were obtained; and appraisals included property on the west side of US 1, which worries him even more from a liability standpoint. He stated the negotiations as in the Agenda item state that negotiations for acquisition have been unsuccessful. He stated the Parks and Recreation Department does not believe it possible to reach agreement on the purchase of the Couch Pump property, and he agrees. He stated it has been ran into the ground as far as that particular site is concerned; and the County should move on. He stated there is a five-acre site less than a half mile south of the property that Brevard County already owns; and it could be developed into a south County boat ramp facility. He advised he is speaking of the Fisherman’s Landing area and the north side of that facility, which is virtually unused. Mr. Cunningham stated there is infrastructure on that property; there is a picnic pavilion with tables; and there is onsite restrooms and the Grant Historical House. He stated there are no restrictions on the use of that property; it is free and clear; and Brevard County owns it. He stated he made the motion that it was not wise to go there at one of the meetings when a proposed site on Main Street in Micco was mentioned. He stated the County needs boat ramps; but if the County owns property that is available, another site does not need to be found. He stated the County already has a site, and owns it.

Parks and Recreation Director Chuck Nelson stated there was a previous committee that did not think a boat ramp was a good idea at that location; the original Fisherman’s Landing Committee specifically talked about the possibility; and decided it was not a good use of that property, but the development plan went forward. He advised it does have a pavilion and restroom; he does not believe all of it is contained in the area that would be usable for boat launching; and it would be a challenge to do that, but it can be done as a last resort. He stated he talked with the Boat Ramp Committee about other sites it wants to look at, and have gotten down to the point where they are looking at either vacant but constructed properties. He stated the committee’s work is not done yet; and waiting a period of time to go through some continued review of sites would be appropriate.

Chair Higgs advised the County is four years down the road; there is no other really big site; and inquired how much longer would the committee need if the Board chooses that option; with Mr. Nelson responding no more than six months. Chair Higgs stated she has heard repeatedly from people that they want a boat ramp; and patience is getting thin, so the Board needs to face a decision sometime soon.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired how many boat slips, boat ramps, or parking could be put in at Fisherman’s Landing; with Mr. Nelson responding approximately two ramps because the limit is 50 parking spaces by the Manatee Protection Plan. He stated he is not sure there could be 50 parking spaces in there; and it will take some engineering because by the time the retention is done and all the other things associated with it, there may not be enough space for 50. He stated there could be 30, but he does not know if 50 would be possible. Commissioner Pritchard inquired limited by the Manatee Protection Plan does it mean per site; with Mr. Nelson responding the Manatee Protection Plan gave a lesser restriction in terms of some of the conditions in light of the fact there was a need for boat launching. He stated there are reduced restrictions for a single site that could contain up to 50 parking spaces. He stated if 50 were built and the County wanted to do another one, it would be per the terms and conditions of the Manatee Protection Plan, which would require much more land than they have. Commissioner Pritchard inquired what is the water depth at Fisherman’s Landing; with Mr. Nelson responding it drops off very well; it probably goes from the shoreline to five feet within 50 feet; and it is relatively close to the Intracoastal Waterway. He stated it is a detriment because it is almost too close in terms of boats being able to go 25 mph and the wake issues associated with that. Commissioner Pritchard inquired, considering Couch Pump is not interested in selling, what other o ptions does the Board have; with Mr. Nelson responding the Board has the power of eminent domain condemnation for the site. Mr. Nelson stated the Board could determine it is of a greater public interest to construct a boat ramp at that location; one of his concerns had been the fact Couch Pump was in the permitting process at that time; and it was uncomfortable to bring that issue to the Board at the same time they were trying to get permits. He stated if they do not get permits for the intended use, at that point it may be more appropriate to consider that. Commissioner Pritchard inquired what is the intended use; with Mr. Nelson responding boating with a combination of high dry storage and some in water slips. Mr. Nohrr advised that use will change somewhat in light of the Manatee Protection Plan; the owner is looking ultimately at some form of a residential-related marina development; and that is the current thinking. Commissioner Pritchard stated there are approximately seven acres of property at Couch Pump; and inquired if the County is looking at four of the acres; with Mr. Nelson responding in the final design with retention, the County would need the entire site. Mr. Nelson stated part of the acreage spoken of and the point Mr. Cunningham brought forward is there was some land on the west side of US 1; and the only reason it was appraised as part of it was if the owners at that time wanted to divest themselves of all of the holdings at that site, then it might cause the deal to work better. He stated it is not that the County needed it and would not necessarily propose it for that use, but it might have caused the deal to actually come together. He advised the actual acreage on the riverside is five acres. Commissioner Pritchard inquired how many boat ramps and parking spaces can be put on the Couch Pump property; with Mr. Nelson responding more than 50, but is limited to 50 currently; and the criteria of the Manatee Protection Plan, without the amount allowed the County, would not allow the full 50 parking spaces to be done. He stated the State recognized the need for boating; the State said 50 on a site with reduced restrictions; if the County did not have the reduced restriction, there could not be 50 by the criteria. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if 50 could be built at that location, and five years from now the County finds it needs more boat ramps, could the County utilize Fisherman’s Landing; with Mr. Nelson responding that would be something the County would like to have as a fallback position. Mr. Nelson stated if the County goes to Fisherman’s Landing first it may never get the other spaces. Commissioner Pritchard inquired how many other vacant but constructed properties of five acres or more are there on the river; with Mr. Nelson responding there is only one other he can recall. He stated there is a site with a building on it; it is approximately that size; and there is property adjacent to it with about five acres but with possible wetlands issues. Chair Higgs inquired if the owner of that property had indicated a willingness to sell; with Mr. Nelson responding no. Commissioner Pritchard stated the appraisals obtained in 2002 were in the $900,000 range; and apparently the owners of Couch Pump at that time were asking in excess of $2,500,000. Commissioner Pritchard advised that was when the owners of Couch Pump were considering selling the property; and inquired since they are not considering selling, if the County were to go eminent domain, what would it cost; with Mr. Nelson responding based on the courts determination of business damages it could begin to approach $3,000,000. Commissioner Pritchard stated the money in the referendum of $3,200,000 was for acquisition and development; and inquired if the County spends $3,200,000
on acquisition what would it have for development; with Mr. Nelson responding the County would have to look to interest earnings for the bonds or additional sources within the referendum and/or grants. Mr. Nelson stated the one positive element of any of the waterfront developments for boat launching is that the Florida Inland Navigation District is there as an opportunity for development monies. He stated it would be about $1,000,000 development cost for 50 boat spaces and the associated improvements.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired what are the Chair’s feelings about doing the condemnation; with Chair Higgs responding she is concerned the Board would move forward in the condemnation and not know what the price is. Chair Higgs stated if the Board considers the condemnation, it needs to be a slow take; it is a precedent-setting decision; and she does not believe the Board has set in place a condemnation for a park. She stated she is upset the County has not been able to get a site; and other than vacant land Mr. Nelson referred to, there is no property. She stated the Board is faced with a dilemma of providing a boat ramp; it needs to hold a hearing with the folks around Fisherman’s Landing to hear their comments; so there is no easy solution here. Commissioner Scarborough stated sometimes condemnation is the only way to work with limited properties.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the property owner has initiated environmental permitting and/or rezoning, what rezoning is being requested; with Mr. Nohrr responding at present there is not a rezoning application. Mr. Nohrr stated the owner had a rezoning application as part of the marina permitting; the Manatee Protection Plan in the definition of boat slip includes dry and wet; the County has limited the number of boat slips to four slips per 100 feet; but the County is exempt from that on the 50 slips it wants to get. He stated knowing what waterfront property costs and being limited to four slips per 100 spaces, economically is not feasible; enough revenue cannot be generated from four boat slips to equal the costs of 100 feet of waterfront; ironically all of the other permitting factors are coming into play; but the Manatee Protection Plan in that one instance is causing his client great concern as to how he can get around it. He stated because of that, when they get ready to go forward on development they may come forward with a rezoning that would be more residential in nature with a residential marina. Commissioner Carlson inquired how would it work if the County does a slow take and the owner is in the process of rezoning, does it open the County up for some legal argument; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding with a slow take the date of evaluation is the date of trial; and if the County files the case next week and the trial is within the year, whatever the value is at that time is what it will pay if it chooses to do so. Mr. Knox stated the advantage of a slow take is if the County gets a verdict and does not like it, it does not have to buy the property; but it will have to pay the costs. He stated with a quick take the date of valuation is established at the time the property is taken; and that is advance of the trail. He stated whatever the value is, if it is condemned, and there is a hearing in front of a judge three months from now, and it is a quick take and the judge awarded the property to the County, the value would be set at that time. Commissioner Carlson stated is that based on appraised value; with Mr. Knox responding yes.

Commissioner Colon advised she will not support an eminent domain for the park; it is something she is not comfortable with; and she would not want to use taxpayers money to be in the middle of litigation just to acquire that property. She stated it is difficult because people of Brevard County want a boat ramp; but she wants to use taxpayers money wisely. She stated even though the folks want a boat ramp, it is clear there are no areas where the County is able to acquire property. She stated it is best to start from the beginning; one of the choices is to direct the Department and Project Committee to continue the search; she understands there are no sites; but she is willing to go back to the area by Fisherman’s Landing. Commissioner Colon inquired if Castaway Point in the City of Palm Bay has been looked at; with Mr. Nelson responding it is almost in manatee central in terms of Turkey Creek. Mr. Nelson stated the boating traffic tends to want to go out of the Inlet and go south; and placing it that far north may be the last alternative.

George Theriault stated the part that Mr. Cunningham was speaking of was north of the Grant Historical House; it is about 100 feet of property right on the river; they are all joined together; there are no pavilions or anything else; and the Intercoastal Waterway is about 100 yards out from there.

Mr. Nelson stated the property north of the Grant Historical House has been looked at; the Grant Historical House is kind of in the middle of the property; so there are improvements on the south and vacant land to the north; and the water depths are problematic. He stated he and Natural Resources Director Conrad White said between sea grasses and water depths there were concerns as to whether a permit could be gotten, because there may be dredging associated with it. He stated it can be readdressed, but it was a problem area in terms of water depths. Chair Higgs stated in the middle of the park is the Grant Historical House; and people have strong feelings regarding this property. She stated next to it is the historical train station; it has not been developed but is there; and there are people with vested concerns about that parcel. Mr. Nelson stated as an alternative Option 2 and Option 3 can be combined; and staff can wait and look at Fisherman’s Landing, run it through the committee process, and let public comment be given at that time. He stated they can continue to look at other sites at the same time as going through the public process and see if within a 90-day period a recommendation can be given on Fisherman’s Landing; and staff can then identify or be able to determine that there are no other sites available. He advised if the Board can give staff 90 days, staff can bring an option back to the Board.

Commissioner Colon inquired what happens when someone has come before the Board and said they are planning their own business as a marina; and in the future the owners may end up before the Board. She stated she feels uncomfortable; it means the County is willing to possibly look at this area as a marina for the County; but what happens when the owner comes before the Board for a rezoning application. Scott Knox inquired if Commissioner Colon is asking in the context of an eminent domain proceeding or the context of whether the Board can act on it; with Commissioner Colon responding staff is looking at the site as favorable for a County boat ramp. Mr. Knox stated the zoning cases come before the Board in a quasi-judicial capacity; the
applicants must prove they meet the requirements of the Comp Plan; if they present evidence, they are presumed to have met the burden; and it is up to the Board to show why it would not be in the public interest to grant the rezoning. He stated it is treated objectively; and if the Board agrees or not, will not concern someone who looks at it at a higher level like a court. He advised the court will look at the evidence to see if it supports the decision or not, and if it does it will get overturned. Chair Higgs inquired if the zoning application is currently in; with Mr. Nohrr responding no.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he agrees with Commissioner Colon because he always advocates for access to the waterway; to be faced with a property rights issue public access to the waterway issue is a dilemma for him. He inquired if with quick take the value at time of obtaining the property is based on appraisal; with Mr. Knox responding this is correct. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the value at the hearing is based on what the judge sets the value at based on appraisal evidence; with Mr. Knox responding he will go to court and present appraisal testimony supporting what the County thinks is a good-faith estimate of value. Mr. Knox advised if the judge finds the appraisal has been done in good faith, the money goes into the court registry, and the money is available for the property owner at that point. He stated the real issue of compensation is not decided until it goes to a jury trial later, and the jury decides what it is worth. He advised if the jury comes back at a higher figure than what is in the court registry, the difference must be paid to the property owner; but if the value comes back less, the property owner must pay that back to the County. Commissioner Pritchard stated prior to hiring Mr. Nohrr, the owner was in discussion regarding selling five acres for $3,000,000. Mr. Nelson advised the County’s appraisal was off by a factor of three is how it was described.

Commissioner Pritchard stated if the family thought it was $3,000,000 worth of value at one point and it is still in that range a few years from now, then they have gotten what they felt was the value. He stated the value would have been in the 2002 era, which by then would have been four years before the jury made its determination; so there is no way of telling which way it would go. He stated looking at public access to the waterway, but a fair compensation to the property owner, he is concerned the jury could go either way; it could go way under what the family feels the property is worth and hurt the family; or it could go over and the taxpayers would end up paying the excess money. He stated he does not know if it is a win/win situation without knowing how the cards are going to lie. He stated if it plays the way it does for him when he plays blackjack, he might as well give them $20 and walk out because he never wins. Mr. Knox stated that is pretty much what a person does when they go to trial is roll the dice and see what happens. Commissioner Pritchard advised the problem with rolling the dice here is that there might be too many losers. He stated he likes what Mr. Nelson said by giving staff 90 days.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to direct staff to exhaust all efforts to find a South County boat ramp site; await the outcome of the environmental permitting and/or rezoning process to make a decision on the Couch Pump property; and direct the Parks and Recreation Department and the Project Committee to continue to search for other sites, and report the findings to the Board in 90 days. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Nelson inquired if the motion includes holding the public meetings to talk about Fisherman’s Landing; with Chair Higgs responding if the Board wants to consider that, there needs to be discussion with all those people.

DISCUSSION, RE: ORGANIZATINAL EFFICIENCY REVIEW OPTIONS

Chair Higgs advised there are a number of cards for Item VI.F.1; and inquired if the Board wants to take VI.F.1 before VI.D.1.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to take Item VI.F.1 regarding revocation of CUP for Resurrection Ranch before Item VI.D.1. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CITIZEN REQUEST – JINGER KNOX, RE: REVOCATION OF CUP FOR
RESURRECTION RANCH

Chair Higgs advised there are 14 cards regarding the Resurrection Ranch issue; there are a number of people who wish to speak on both sides of the issue; but she does not know what the issues are the Board has to consider.

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca stated staff is not ready to discuss all the issues regarding Resurrection Ranch; they have been reviewing the activities occurring at Resurrection Ranch in comparison to the Code and are still trying to sort out how the Code should be interpreted as they understand exactly what the activities are. She stated Code Enforcement has been out to inspect the area; staff is not prepared to answer all of the questions that may arise, but is prepared to provide a report to the Board of their understanding of the Code as it relates to the issue, and alternatives the Board may wish to consider.

Chair Higgs inquired if the Board wants to take testimony; with Commissioner Carlson responding it was brought to her attention by Jinger Knox who submitted the item; Ms. Knox lives in the neighborhood near Resurrection Ranch; and she has concerns regarding some of the residents of the facility. She stated she has met with Ms. Knox and some of the board members of Resurrection Ranch; the chief concern is there is a CUP on the property; and if the CUP is for an assisted living facility, they should have oversight by the State. She stated conversation ensued trying to figure out what the Code said and how it is interpreted; and Ms. Busacca advised that staff does not have a clear understanding of how to interpret that and how it may affect Resurrection Ranch and the way it does business. Commissioner Carlson stated speaking to Resurrection Ranch, they did not realize they needed a license; and they had Health Department certificates that said they could operate based on health and safety issues. She stated there was a connection with the Department of Corrections that was a major concern to Ms. Knox because folks were let out of prison and could go to the Ranch. She stated Ms. Knox was concerned that the folks that were released had criminal records that are not conducive to an environment where there are children and families. She stated Ms. Knox brought it forward thinking the Board could get rid of the CUP; but it needs more information to come to the correct decision.

Chair Higgs advised the Board needs to have the analysis by both sides; and any action in removal of a CUP would have to be at a zoning meeting. Mr. Knox stated it requires notice of public hearing and it must be a full-blown hearing.

Commissioner Colon inquired if it would be fair to have one representative from each side speak, but not fair for the citizens if the Board is not able to make a decision; with Chair Higgs responding Jinger Knox can speak and have one representative from the other side speak. She advised the people who are present to support Resurrection Ranch that the Board will let Ms. Knox speak and then it will go from there.

Mark Leslie stated the effort is not aimed at any individual at the Resurrection Ranch; they are not trying to shut it down and ruin the lives of people who are in distress; but he is requesting the facility be brought to standards, which it is zoned for. He stated it is zoned as an Adult Congregate Living Facility; under the zoning category, there are specific guidelines; no association can be with the jail or correctional system; so the Department of Corrections contract is a violation. He stated that is agreed upon in summary by the staff. He stated judges from the County sentence people to the Resurrection Ranch as a condition of release; that in his mind represents an association with the correctional system; and staff needs to evaluate the problem. He stated he wants them to follow the rules under which they are placed; they should meet the requirements of the ACLF designation, which is 250 square feet per assigned resident for bed space, and 75 square feet for kitchen or bathroom space. He stated the Code has been overlooked for years; and he requested the Code be applied to the facility. He advised he has lived in the neighborhood for 12 years; there have been many faces come through that neighborhood over those years; and he has a 15-year old daughter who walks past the Resurrection Ranch every day. He advised every day he has taken her to and from school for fear of that one individual who is not being watched. He stated the Resurrection Ranch Director David Miller has done an outstanding job running the facility; and it has turned around since Mr. Miller has been Director. He stated the facility has been run unrestricted by the County; the only time any monitoring happens is when the residents call Code Enforcement or the Sheriff’s Department; but Zoning does not look into the activity once it has happened. He stated it is a bigger problem than what meets the eye; and there are a lot of legal hairs to split, which it will take more time to resolve. He inquired where the dollars are going for the DOC contract; stated Brevard County has given Resurrection Ranch dollars in the past; and he wants to know where those dollars are going. He inquired if any of the dollars are going to purchase properties in the neighborhood outside of the CUP zoned area. He stated they are trying to take over the neighborhood; there is more traffic through the neighborhood; Resurrection Ranch purchased the first house with 13 lots; and there are several individuals living in the house. He noted the staff needs to look into the facility; there is a lease agreement; but it is a group home; and it needs to be in compliance with the residential zoning. He stated if Resurrection Ranch does not follow the rules, the CUP should be revoked.

Jason Hedman with the Law Firm of Hedman and Wooten, stated he has been retained to represent the Resurrection Ranch. He stated for many years Resurrection Ranch has tried to help people; and they are not pretty or nice people sometimes. He stated what has been done, starting with Pastor Arlene Colter, is to manifest the love and compassion of Jesus Christ to love the unlovable and the hard people; and he is happy to hear the residents are not trying to shut down Resurrection Ranch. He advised Friday afternoon he received a call saying the matter was scheduled before the Board to revoke the CUP; being a lawyer, the only thing he knows to do is look at the law; and distributed to the Board copies of particular Code sections. He stated he tries to be careful what he tells people; and what he has seen in the papers filed in this matter are a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding. He stated he appreciates the fact the residents want careful study; and Section 62-1103(3) of the Zoning Code defines an adult congregate living facility (ACLF). He stated the petition that was filed before the Board says Resurrection Ranch is contracting with DOC; and the petitions Ms. Knox filed says they have no license with the State, yet have a relationship with the Department of Corrections, which is expressively forbidden in the Zoning Code. He stated everyone he talked to says where is the law and where is it forbidden; the closest he can come is what he put in front of the Board; and the language Brevard County will hang its hat on says “Such facilities may provide lodging, food, one or more personal services for unrelated adults and shall not be regulated, operated, or associated with any jail, prison, or correctional facility or system.” He stated that has been translated to mean a person cannot have a contract with DOC, but he does not see the word contract or DOC. Mr. Hedman stated the original CUP was initiated in 1986 that allowed the ACOF as well as RSSF, which is a residential treatment facility of some sort. He stated he understands the fears of the neighborhood; and they have the same concerns. He stated many people post at the jail they are going to Resurrection Ranch; they never make it there; they are not approved; and they are not authorized to come on the property. He stated it is a false concern. He stated the Resurrection Ranch is not regulated, operated, or associated with any jail, prison, or correctional facility; but it does not say anywhere they cannot take money from the State. He stated the war on drugs is being fought every day. He stated federal dollars are being passed on to faith-based initiatives trying to give residential treatment without costing the taxpayers an arm and a leg; and it is a system where Resurrection Ranch, in an effort to get funding, has a contract with DOC. He stated the people are coming out of prison and will go somewhere; the license can be revoked and the Ranch can be shut down; but that does not make those individuals disappear because they are going somewhere. He stated now it is a treatment facility that tries to help those people. He advised there are many people present at the meeting that will be happy to give personal testimony of lives that have been changed; and the sons and daughters of this community have been turned into law abiding citizens. He stated the second item he distributed to the Board is from Black’s Law Dictionary; the word “associate” signifies confederacy or union for a particular purpose, joined together as in partners; he submits to the Board that by the plain language of its Code, there is nothing that stops Resurrection Ranch from having a contract with DOC. He stated it is a matter of taking dollars out of someone else’s pocket and benefiting Brevard County citizens. He stated they have information over the past three years and cataloged all the calls for the Sheriff; and about 43% of those are the Sheriff saying they have someone that needs help. He stated he spent two days to prepare for the meeting; he knows the staff will request they do more work; and Resurrection Ranch is a functioning place. He stated no efforts should be pursued to revoke the CUP; if the Zoning Department wishes to issue Code violations, they will be faced; but the whole CUP issue is based on misinformation at best.

Commissioner Scarborough advised he was looking at one section that Mr. Hedman highlighted and it says, “and it shall not be regulated or operated by or associated with any jail, prison, or correctional facility or system.” He inquired if Mr. Hedman would say that it is regulated by or associated with a correctional system; with Mr. Hedman responding the word independent contractor would be applicable here. Mr. Hedman stated basically Resurrection Ranch has a contract where folks are released into the community; and if a person gets treatment for drug and alcohol problems that is what the Resurrection Ranch gets paid for. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the contract would not include being regulated by nor associated with; with Mr. Hedman responding what that intends is to have a correctional facility that puts out rules and regulations, controls and operates the entity. Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Hedman and County Attorney Scott Knox should touch on that topic more when it comes back before the Board. He stated he is not disagreeing with Mr. Hedman, but not is completely comfortable.

Commissioner Carlson stated since the item needs further research, a motion can be made to do that; and she is prepared to do that. Chair Higgs advised the Board has heard from both sides; and inquired if there is anyone who feels compelled to speak. She stated the Board understands the situation. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board should move on with the item and get the information needed; the Resurrection Ranch people wants to put it to rest; and if there is a violation of any sort, it can be put to rest.

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca stated for people who would like to get a copy of the staff report; she will put a pad in the back of the Board Room for those people to put their names; and staff will notify them when the item is on the Agenda. Chair Higgs advised staff will do a report, it will be brought back to the Board for discussion, and the people will have an opportunity to speak at that point.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to direct staff to return to the Board on May 18, 2004 with a report relating to Resurrection Ranch that would answer some of the legal questions and other issues that were brought up and clarify residential social service facility (RSSF) to determine if it is defined in the Code. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chair Higgs stated if anyone who submitted a card feels compelled to speak knowing what the status is, she wants to recognize them.

Jinger Knox stated she is uncomfortable with the timeframe. She stated her family feels threatened; she understands the Resurrection Ranch says there is misinformation about people staying at the Ranch; there has been occurrences since she brought it to Brevard County’s attention; and her family feels threatened by this. She stated there is quite a bit of information already provided, so she does not believe it should be put off until May. Commissioner Colon stated the best staff can do is the end of May; staff would not be prepared to have the information by the first week of May; but she understands where Ms. Knox is coming from. She stated she told anyone who called her office there would be no way a decision would be made on the item; the issue is quite complex; and the Board needs to get to the bottom of it. Ms. Knox stated even though the Resurrection Ranch is contending it is doing great things for society, her family is at risk. Chair Higgs stated if there are Code violations, those will be moving forward. Ms. Knox inquired if Resurrection Ranch is a treatment facility and that is not allowed under the ACLF zoning they have; and can Code Enforcement move forward without coming back to the Board in May; with Ms. Busacca responding the action of Code Enforcement would have to be abated by the Board; and staff does not do that. Chair Higgs advised Code Enforcement would be going forward if there are violations.

Richard Brace stated it has been a long time since he was in the Board Room; and he knows Commissioner Pritchard because he is his representative and is quite active in the area. He stated Truman Scarborough has been on the Board forever. He stated he is a retired Army Chief Warrant Officer; and he has lived in Brevard County for 31 years. He stated on his second tour in Vietnam, he was involved in establishing the drug treatment center at the army airfield on the east coast on Central Vietnam; and the drug abuse over there was horrible. He stated after his tour ended, he became involved in doing the same thing in Massachusetts; the goal was to return troubled soldiers to active and honorable duty; and to a great extent they were successful. He stated after he retired he came to Brevard County. He advised his youngest daughter became addicted and ended up in prison; while in prison she could not attend her mother’s funeral; and when she came out she went to Resurrection Ranch in 1994. He stated Resurrection Ranch was a lifeboat in a troubled sea; his daughter met her husband; and now she and her husband are rowing that boat. He stated the Resurrection Ranch visit the sick, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, administer to people in prison, and provide a lifeboat. He stated people will come out of prison; if they are not allowed to go to places like Resurrection Ranch they will go into the streets; and they will not get the help they need. He stated he wants the Board to consider that in its wisdom and knowledge and its capability of checking out everything that is.

Chair Higgs advised the list is in the back of the room; and suggested people sign it so they can be contacted when the item comes back before the Board.

DISCUSSION, RE: ORGANIZATIONAL EFFICIENCY REVIEW OPTIONS

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised several months ago the Board requested staff put together some options to do an efficiency review study; staff has come up with four specific options; but the Board can have additional options. He stated the first one was an item he adapted from an analytical measurement tool that the Federal Office of Management and Budget uses, and it is called a program assessment tool. He advised it contains a number of measurement questions that could be applied to each County program and service as part of the budget process, the sunset review, or incorporated into one of the other options, which is the Sterling Award Process. He stated there would be no direct cost impact to Brevard County if that option is used; and it would be incorporated as part of the normal administrative review process. He stated the results of the program assessment tool would be provided to the Board so it would have the benefit of reviewing the various assessments. He stated the second option the Board had discussed was the Florida Sterling Award Project; in this case the Board indicated an interest in doing a pilot project; and he was proposing to do maybe four departments with the initial Sterling Pilot Project. He stated the Sterling Project is a well-recognized internal assessment initiative; and it is structured, requires training, project manager, and support staff. He stated the concept staff put together was that it would hire a consultant to serve as the project manager, and identify internal staff to assist that project manager in implementing the Sterling Process. He stated the cost of a nine-month pilot project is estimated for the first year; the in-house cost would be $55,000; additional expense would be $60,000 for the first half of the project; and the second half of the project for the next fiscal year would be $39,000 for in-house, and $40,000 additional costs for a total of $100,000. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the County Manager said $55,000, $60,000, $39,000, and $40,000 and then $100,000; with Mr. Jenkins responding the $100,000 would be the $60,000 and $40,000; it is two fiscal years, but over the nine-month period the additional costs would be $100,000 and the internal costs, using existing manpower, would be approximately $95,000. Mr. Jenkins stated the next option the Board discussed was the issue of doing a pilot project for one department where it has an efficiency consultant to come in and do a review of a County department. He advised the RFP was for a Countywide efficiency review; and the costs for that review was between $25,000 and $750,000 from various management consulting firms. He stated there is not an estimate for a pilot project; he thinks it would be fair to estimate the cost at approximately $50,000; but that is not a very firm number. He stated that would be using an outside independent management consulting firm to come in and do a test project with one department for the Board to assess if it was satisfied with the results. Mr. Jenkins stated the fourth proposal was one the Board had requested from the County Financial Advisor, Public Financial Management. He stated the proposal had six different sections to it; in reviewing it he offered comments on four of the six sections of the proposal, which the departments were already doing to some degree; but there were two other items the Board may want to consider. He stated one of the items is the savings costs containment analysis by PFM, and the cost for that would range between $75,000 to $150,000, depending upon the scope of the project. He stated they were also proposing a financial policy review, but the Board has an indepth financial policy that has been in place for some time; and they proposed reviewing that at a cost of $40,000. He stated currently there is $190,000 in the General Fund Contingency Account.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired what is the cost of the four attachments, the revenue and expenditure trends, and multiyear strategic financial planning on the Public Financial Management proposal; with Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten responding they only did a cost on the two that Mr. Jenkins referenced. Commissioner Pritchard inquired regarding the draft RFP, was there a range from $25,000 to $750,000; with Mr. Jenkins responding that is what the results were. Mr. Jenkins advised he does not think the $25,000 version would give the Board what it is looking for; he believes it will cost several hundred thousand dollars; but if the Board decided to do one department it would be less than that. Commissioner Pritchard stated the Minutes of the Citizens Budget Review Committee (CBRC) says, “Mr. Whitten stated the efficiency review options have not been scheduled for a Board meeting to date and the committee would be informed when it is scheduled.” Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the Budget Review Committee was informed of the meeting tonight; with Mr. Whitten responding yes Mr. Callinan is present from the CBRC. Commissioner Pritchard stated he spoke with Mr. Callinan and thought he had informed him of the meeting.

Jack Callinan stated the hardest thing for him coming before the Board is how to address it; and inquired if saying ladies and gentlemen is adequate or would it like him to be more flowery; with Chair Higgs responding Truman, Ron, Nancy, Sue, and Jackie is fine, or go in alphabetical order. Mr. Callinan stated he has one disappointment today; he is used to coming to the meeting seeing one of the ladies in vibrant colors; but the colors are so muted today and he is disappointed.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the committee had a chance to review the options presented to the Board, Internal Program Assessment Tool, Sterling Award Process, Pilot Project using a Consultant, and Public Financial Management’s Proposal; with Mr. Callinan responding they did review and discuss the options. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if Mr. Callinan has a recommendation. Mr. Callinan advised the committee recommended that it be done by an outside consultant, but was in disagreement as to who it should be. He stated he can give the Board the basic feeling the committee had. He stated Bob Klaus felt that there was not going to be a lot of cost savings, but that the Sterling Process was a good process, and he had been through something similar elsewhere. He stated he felt the Board is looking for a road map, and that is all it is looking for. He stated it is almost like a strategic plan for cost savings, and he did not feel the Sterling Process would do that. Mr. Callinan stated something not mentioned was the conversations the committee went into pertaining to the Sterling Process and what the return on investment was. He stated Mr. Klaus mentioned it was a three-year return on investment; but he suggested that anytime he has seen three-year return on investment it has turned out to be five years; so he would use five years if it was his business. He stated he did not feel the Board was looking for a five-year program; he is not against the Sterling plan; but it should be in addition to a road map because it will help change the mindset of the organization. Commissioner Pritchard stated Mr. Callinan wanted to bring attention to one of the proposals that stated, “If the consultant comes in and writes up everything himself, it would cost $150 per hour.” He stated Mr. Callinan stated, “If the materials were provided to the consultant, it would save a large sum of money.” Mr. Callinan stated he took a laundry list of items to one of the consultants, and he thinks he was a $200,000 consultant as he recalls; the consultant provided a laundry list of things he wanted to put together; and if the Board went through the list, did the list itself and provide the person with that information, he does not have to look it up. He noted it does not matter if the consultant uses one of his $25 assistants or a $100 consultant, the Board will pay $150 an hour; so if the Board does that in the RFP and provides the consultant with a package, he should be able to lower the costs of getting the work done. Commissioner Pritchard stated the Sterling proposal seems to be the only one that has a consultant who will train the County staff to perform the evaluation on an annual basis. Mr. Callinan stated its intent is to train the organization to do the cost-savings process itself. He stated as a traditional example, he looked at the dates of processing requests for money; and there was a request for a substantial amount of money to upgrade the system. He stated if a person was in business and someone came in with a request for money, a person would almost always say no; but if a person can save the amount of money required, the savings can be used to do the job. He stated that is the kind of mindset he is speaking about changing and how things should change. He noted he does not see that anywhere within the organization. He stated what has to be done is make people understand that money is not free, and for a person to be able to spend it he or she will have to find some place to save it. He stated he does not know the Sterling process so he cannot speak for it, but that is what its intent is; however, it will not give the Board a professional road map. He stated the Board needs to know up front, just like with the Strategic Plan, the places a person can save money, and go through the laundry list and pick the ones that will give the best return on investment.

Commissioner Carlson inquired in order to get the road map, and get it sooner than a couple of years, what would a person pay an outsider to come in to do; with Mr. Callinan responding if the consultant gets the material it requested as a package, it will give him all of the information he will need to look at a department and assess it. Mr. Callinan advised he can give them one area to look at now, or just make it a separate item. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Mr. Callinan is talking about a single department; with Mr. Callinan responding to pick only one department. Mr. Callinan stated the Board just wants to know what it will get out of it. He stated if the Board does it,and Bob Kraus is correct, and it is running very efficiently and all is going great, then it is wasting its money; but if the Board does it and the consultant can come in and give it substantial savings that will give it a decent return on investment, it will want to continue the process. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Public Financial Management’s Proposal is more of what Mr. Callinan is talking about; with Mr. Jenkins responding their savings and cost containment option was somewhere between $75,000 to $150,000. Mr. Jenkins inquired how many departments does that cover; with Mr. Whitten responding it is Countywide. Mr. Callinan stated that would be something to take a look at. He stated any organization that he has ever seen can take 1% and drop it without blinking an eye; a person can take 5% with a lot of effort and cut 5% and put the pressure on the organization; but when a person takes 10% it gets rough. He stated he has seen companies say an organization must cut 10% because it is in trouble financially; and the blood bath that took place was terrible because it threw the baby out with the bath water. He stated if the Board is systematic about it, go in and evaluate what is going on and come up with a road map, it will be calling the shots. He advised all the consultants do is tell the Board where it can save, how much it can save, and what kind of labor it will take; that is all it is really after; and if it can get that and come up with a dozen places that will be beneficial for it, then go after those dozen places. He stated he is looking for someone to give the Board a plan it can implement; and the Public Financial Management proposal seems to be the kind of plan he is addressing.

Commissioner Colon stated she agreed with Mr. Callinan; and even likes the idea of Option 4 using one department to get a good feel of how the County is doing. She stated it may come back to show that Brevard County is efficient; and if there is a problem, the Board needs to know. Mr. Callinan advised Brevard County has the same dynamics as anyone else. He stated there is the existing organization that wants to preserve the status quo and keep things the way they are, and will have an inclination to go in a certain direction. He stated there is nothing negative about that. He noted people do not like change; and it is just a fact of life. He stated the Board needs to look at what is being recommended with that kind of bias in mind; and there is change that could take place. He stated the purchase order process is one of the most cumbersome manual system processes he has ever seen; but there are reasons for it. He stated it was clear Brevard County wants to preserve the status quo and handled the manual procedures exactly as it had for the last 10 or 15 years; and he is not sure the system being installed will permit the County to make the changes necessary to straighten out the process and make it more efficient. He stated it is not negative; when a new system is developed and installed the first cut will be 75%; and after that a person looks at the refinements made on the system. He stated it appears the first cut was done and nothing else has happened since then as far as streamlining of purchase order system; it is something that should have been done; and someone should have been looking at trying to address how to approach it and how to streamline it, but he has not seen any effort to do that.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Budget Review Committee discussed if the County is looking for efficiencies and what it might end up finding in order to get to the efficiency level and how much money may have to be spent to do it. She stated it is not just about cutting things, but making sure the standard is met and it does not cost the County more money down the road. Mr. Callinan stated it is a problem of his; and he always makes assumptions, since he did his job for so many years, that the quality is never going to suffer. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board needs to make sure it has the quality first; and in some cases it does not. She stated the standard needs to be brought up, work for that, and save the money to get to that point. Mr. Callinan advised that is why the Board wants the road map, because it will tell it which ones are the most advantageous to go after; and it can take all the measurements and it can debate them just like anything else.

County Manager Tom Jenkins inquired if the purchase orders are online now; with Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten responding they are. Mr. Whitten advised when SAP was implemented, it was not only going against the Y2K deadline, but was replacing an old system. He stated what was implemented was right out of the box. He stated the re-engineering of the processes has not been undergone; but the majority of the financial and information system is online through SAP, including Purchasing. Mr. Jenkins inquired if a purchase is made today, do the departments go on the computer; with Mr. Whitten responding a person can requisition online and issue purchase orders online.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he likes Mr. Callinan’s comment that it not only needs to be streamlined and cheaper, but better. He inquired if Commissioner Pritchard was back at his old job, what combination would not only lead to cost cutting but quality as a result; with Commissioner Pritchard responding Mr. Callinan has a good point that a person tends to think that the quality will not suffer if the product is improved. Commissioner Pritchard stated Commissioner Carlson brought up a good point that in some of the products the County has not hit the standard it would like to achieve. He stated it is a mix of both; he likes the idea of having someone come in from the outside who can do an evaluation and train staff to do an evaluation; but he likes to have the hands-on guidance so it knows exactly where it is going. He stated he is concerned going overboard and going at the entire County; and a pilot program identifying three departments, having those looked at, following the process, and seeing where achievements it seeks can be made, will be the wisest way to go. Mr. Jenkins stated based on what Commissioner Pritchard is saying, it could be either the Public Financial Management savings and cost containment initiative, or it could be the Sterling Process.

Commissioner Pritchard advised he relies on Mr. Callinan and the Citizen Budget Review Committee’s expertise. He stated the Sterling Process and Public Financial Management proposal are similar; and he likes the Internal Program Assessment Tool. He inquired which option would Mr. Callinan suggest; with Mr. Callinan responding he would encourage the Board to do the Sterling Process, but also the Public Financial Management proposal. Mr. Callinan stated Sterling will help the Board, but it is a long pull situation. He stated to get the quick answers the County will need an outside agency to give it the assessment.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired how will the Public Financial Management proposal do what Mr. Callinan has suggested; with Mr. Jenkins responding that will bring in the financial management consultant who would look at several departments and come up with recommendations on ways the Board can generate savings and cost containment. Mr. Jenkins advised staff can take the results of that and see if some of those processes can be applied to other departments. He stated the Sterling Award is training the organization to do it over the long haul.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if one can help the other; with Mr. Jenkins responding that point was made. Mr. Jenkins stated if the County can afford them it can do both. Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Jenkins talked about PFM doing it Countywide; and inquired if it could be brought down to something smaller. Mr. Jenkins advised it will be significantly less, but he cannot tell the Board exactly what it would be. He stated he can talk to them and try to get a number; do the PFM this year; and try to do the Sterling Award Process next fiscal year. Commissioner Carlson stated Chair Higgs had an issue with PFM and was interested in bringing it back from the fiscal perspective; and inquired how Mr. Jenkins feels about doing something like the road map scenario or something that can be done in the short-term with Sterling used in the long-term to educate the employees. Chair Higgs stated the concept starting with one or two pilots is good; the County has had success with PFM regarding its financial management; and all the financial aspects of the County need to be brought together. Mr. Jenkins stated he can explore the aspect of staff doing some of the data collection to keep the costs down if they can tell him what they want. Chair Higgs stated why not go get a refinement from PFM regarding the proposal and get it back to the Board as quickly as possible. Commissioner Scarborough stated he wants to include if there is a possibility of integrating some Sterling thought process in there. He stated he met with PFM, and it seems to be a colder more methodical concept; but both options have their pluses.

Chair Higgs advised the Board is interested in the short-term pilot project with the Public Financial Management proposal and perhaps long-term incorporating the Sterling Process. She requested the County Manager bring it back to the Board. Mr. Jenkins advised he will go back and fine-tune the PFM proposal, but would like to begin laying the groundwork for the Sterling Award Process, which the Board will take a look at again next fiscal year. Commissioner Carlson inquired if there needs to be a motion for the use of both Options 2 and 4; and whatever refinement is necessary in Option 4. Mr. Jenkins advised they will be phased with cost impact. Commissioner Scarborough stated what will be good is if Mr. Jenkins can bring the people together on both Option 2 and Option 4 rather than doing one and going to the next, and see if PFM would anticipate an integration of starting the Sterling Award Process immediately, maybe not full-fledged, but rather than doing one, stopping, and shifting to a different one, the whole concept will be integrated.

Mr. Callinan stated if the County gets savings out of the programs and tackle them, it could use that money to go into the Sterling Award Process and make that an incentive for the people to want to make those areas quicker and cheaper so they can get the other training the Board wants to give them. He stated if an area is found and the County can save $50,000 in that area, let that money be used for the Sterling Award Process after the costs come out of it.

Chair Higgs requested the Board get that information back; and a motion is not necessary as a consensus is there.

CITIZEN REQUEST – LARRY MONARI, RE: AMENDING SECTION 62-102, PROHIBITING
OWNER TO PARTIALLY CLEAR EXISTING NON-MAINTAINED COUNTY RIGHTS-
OF-WAY TO GAIN ACCESS TO PROPERTY

Larry Monari stated his request involves Brevard County Code Section 62-102, which has to do with land development and roads. He stated the Section requires an owner of a land-bound parcel, which is bordered by an existing non-maintained County right-of-way, to clear the right-of-way in accordance with Section 62-102 in order to gain access to the land. He stated it is a costly and complex process given a land owner who is only seeking to make an initial limited use of the land within the limited bounds of the zoning. He advised an amendment to the Code could permit a landowner graduated incremental way to clear a County right-of-way in order to gain initial limited access to make limited use of the land. He stated under Item 1 of the amendment, the County could issue permits for the limited clearing of rights-of-way, and inspect and regulate the clearing; item 2, the disposal of cleared material from rights-of-ways for limited clearings of rights-of-ways would be done at the landowners expense; and item 3, landowners would be permitted annually to maintain the clearing into the future until a permit for a higher degree of clearing is issued by Brevard County. He stated a permit for a higher degree of clearing would supercede a lesser one. Mr. Monari advised the following examples are given for an AU property in order to illustrate the graduated incremental degrees of right-of-way clearing that would be required for each limited land use. He stated land uses are listed in order of their complexity; the most complex land use he has is to build a house, and at the bottom under the description of increments and graduated right-of-way clearing requirements is an adherence to the existing Section 62-102; and that is to totally clear, grade, and gravel, etc. 25 feet wide. He stated looking at the lowest land use, i.e. the exploration, if he chose to explore his land, it would require as complex a road. He stated Item 9 would require, according to the amendment, clearing a simple footpath about four feet wide. He stated if he elected to use the land, for example, a nature trail initially, he could clear a simple footpath six feet wide. He stated if he decided to picnic on the land, which is a little more complex, then he would clear a dirt footpath eight feet wide, and so forth and so on, until the complexity of the road works its way up to what Section 62-102 is today. He stated the whole reason for him getting involved in this is he owns two parcels of land in Brevard County are landlocked. He stated as he investigated the process to develop those parcels, he realized if he wants to take a machete and go on to the existing County right-of-way, which borders the eastern side of the two parcels, he would be trespassing and breaking the law. Mr. Monari stated the law says, “In order to gain access and use of the land he has to build the road.” He advised he would have to clear, gravel, and grade it, which costs at a minimum $20 a foot. He stated since in his particular case he has to go 550 feet, if he were granted the permit to do that; and he would have to lay out in excess of $10,000 to gain access to his land even to do a simple exploration or to picnic on it. He stated he is making the proposal of the amendment of Section 62-102 to allow more flexible
terms and conditions to use a person’s land within the zoning conditions that are attached to each individual parcel. He stated what he is looking for is to put it before the Board, have it study the situation, and see if it is a valid request.

Chair Higgs stated staff could look into alternatives and implications of it as the first step to see what would result if it is done, what problems it might create, and what assurances need to be built in.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to direct staff to look into alternatives and implications of amending Section 62-102, prohibiting owners to partially clear existing non-maintained County rights-of-way to gain access to and use their properties; determine what would result and what problems it might create, and what assurances need to be built in; and return to the Board with a report. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Larry Monari advised he wanted to comment on the previous discussion regarding organizational efficiency review options. He stated he teaches graduate courses at Patrick Air Force Base to program managers for FIT; and he finds there is no more of an abomination than to adopt new software that ultimately does not work. He advised Kennedy Space Center has that problem. He stated it is a warning that changing from one package to another carries with it a lot of risks. He stated it is his opinion when a consulting firm is hired the firm should not be paid 100% of what it bid up front, or even when it finishes, but to first conduct the pilot program to see if the recommendations really work, and then pay off the firm the balance. He stated it also goes to the software people, because many times software people make claims about the usefulness of software and sell people a bill of goods. He stated a company adopts software and as a result everyone suffers; and it costs a lot of time and money. He stated whoever provides the software to make the system work better should not get paid up front either; and they should get paid after they demonstrate the software works. He stated if the advice was followed at Kennedy Space Center, it would not have some of the problems it has today.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 7:43 p.m.

ATTEST: _________________________________
NANCY HIGGS, CHAIR
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

______________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

( S E A L )