July 17, 2001

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in Special Workshop Session on July 17, 2001, at 9:05 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, Nancy Higgs, and Jackie Colon, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox. Absent was: Commissioner O'Brien who was recovering from surgery.

ANNOUNCEMENT

Chairman Carlson advised Commissioner O'Brien is recovering from surgery but will be back next week for the budget workshop.

REPORT, RE: REDUCTION IN FUNDS FOR SOUTH REACH PROJECT

Beach Renourishment Coordinator Virginia Barker advised although Congressman Weldon was successful in getting $8.5 million in the House Appropriations Bill for the South Reach, the Senate Subcommittee cut it down to $200,000 last Thursday night; the Senate's draft bill went for debate last night before the full Senate; and she does not know if they finished that debate and closed it out or not. She stated they had a frantic flurry yesterday to try and get letters to the Senators, which Commissioner Carlson signed on behalf of the Board; and Commissioner Higgs also sent letters, representing the citizens of Brevard County, requesting the funding be put back into the Senate's budget. She stated the handout is a newsletter from Congressman Weldon that explains what is happening and where the County is in terms of funding; it is a big disappointment; there are two options; one is to restore funding when the bill comes to the Senate floor, which started last night, but she does not know whether that will be successful or not. She stated if they fail at that level, the last opportunity is the House and Senate final negotiations at the Conference bill, which usually takes place in the second or third week in September. Ms. Barker stated the backside of the newsletter is a schematic to explain how the process works and where they are; there was $200,000 in the President's budget; the House upped that to $8.5 million, but the Senate took it back down to $200,000; so the last chance to get major dollars is the Conference bill, which will take a lot of phone calls and arm twisting. She stated to construct the entire South Reach will cost $12 million, so even $8.5 million is low; it is an uphill battle; and she wanted to make sure the Board knew the status and the battle they have in front of them. She stated there is also copies of the letters from Commissioner Carlson to Senators Nelson and Graham; and the best idea she could come up with is to launch a major grassroots letter writing campaign to the Brevard Senators and to all the Senators on the Conference Committee to get them to understand why beach renourishment is important not only to Brevard's beaches, but to America's beaches. She stated she is looking for direction from the Board on where to go with this and what it wants to do. Ms. Barker advised the Port offered their representative in D.C. to set up one or two meetings for Brevard County; and anyone who wants to could fly up there and meet with appropriate Senators and staff to try and get the funding reinstated. Commissioner Higgs advised she wrote letters and called Senators Nelson and Graham and got calls back; both Senators are supportive and will work to get that money back in the budget; and the Board needs to send a Commissioner and someone to lobby with them face-to-face.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve travel for Commissioners and appropriate staff to Washington, D. C. to lobby for the beach renourishment funding for the South Reach. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Carlson requested Ms. Barker put together a letter campaign or whatever she thinks is appropriate to get support of the funding. Ms. Barker advised she has no funding; all the money sits in TDC and is allocated for construction or monitoring; so she has a zero budget to launch any campaign. Commissioner Higgs suggested Mr. Jenkins and Ms. Barker get together and map out what funding would be needed and bring it back to the Board at the next meeting. Ms. Barker noted she has numbers from Florida TODAY on various options.

Commissioner Colon inquired about the status of Satellite Beach and the worm rock issue. Ms. Barker advised the County is continuing with a study to map and assess all the rock resources along that area; they expect to be done with that in three months or so; and once they have that map product, they will use it to develop a new proposal for shore protection along that seven- mile stretch of beach. She stated they will take that proposal to the federal and State permitting agencies to get their responses and work with them to develop a proposal that would be acceptable. Ms. Barker advised the County may be required to do an environmental impact statement, depending on the results of those studies; and they will ask the Corps of Engineers to begin a general reevaluation report, which is a feasibility-type study that launches the Corps into its construction process.

AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, RE: FAIRGLEN
DRAINAGE PROJECT

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised Ron Jones, Drainage and Surface Water Improvements Director, has an item to bring to the Board.

Drainage and Surface Water Improvements Director Ron Jones advised the Department of Transportation agreed to fund a project that was a part of an overall Master Plan near Fairglen Elementary School; and there is a ditch system that runs along Indian Trail Road that has been problematic due to steep side slopes, bus traffic, and parent drop off traffic. He stated the County was to bill FDOT for compensation to Road and Bridge forces constructing the project; however, at a late moment, FDOT determined it would like to have a contractual service agreement; and requested the Board authorize the Chairman to execute the Agreement that will initiate construction shortly thereafter, subject to review and approval by the County Attorney.

Mr. Jenkins advised FDOT will be paying the County approximately $150,000 for the project; and in order to do the project before the start of school, staff had to bring it to the Board before the Agreement is finalized.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize the Chairman to execute an Agreement with Florida Department of Transportation to fund a ditch project near Fairglen Elementary School at approximately $150,000, subject to review and approval by the County Attorney. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION,RE: SCHOOL CAPACITY WORKSHOP

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised the Board asked staff to reschedule the School Capacity Workshop to another day so the Commissioners could attend the Florida Space Summit; and they have tentatively confirmed with everyone's calendar that Wednesday, July 25, 2001, at 10:00 a.m. is available. He stated depending on how the Board does on Thursday, it is possible the third budget workshop could be canceled; and he could hold the item until after the budget workshop on Thursday.

Commissioner Higgs advised people were contacted from out of County who have expertise regarding some of the school issues; they are trying to have those people available to talk to the Board from Thousand Friends of Florida; they are scheduled to come from Tallahassee; and she would like to set a time and date and not leave the workshop hanging. Mr. Jenkins stated July 25, 2001 is the date everybody agreed to.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve scheduling a workshop on school capacity for July 25, 2001 in the Florida Room, instead of July 30, 2001, so Commissioners can attend the Florida Space Summit. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if it is scheduled at 10:00 a.m.; with Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca responding yes, Mr. Curry with the School Board could not be present until 10:00 a.m. on July 25, 2001.

GRANT APPLICATIONS, RE: SAFE HARBORS PLAN AND HABITAT CONSERVATION
PLAN

Commissioner Higgs advised over the past month she had discussions with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services regarding funding opportunities; there is one coming up that has to be completed by July 23, 2001; and it seems fairly easy to put together, but it could provide potential funding for land management, particularly in scrub areas regarding the Safe Harbor Program. She stated the second one staff should go after is to begin planning for a mitigation bank or limited habitat conservation plan around some of the County projects; the Countywide Habitat Conservation Plan did not pass; but staff could look at simple areas around existing projects for conservation. She stated the Pineda Causeway Extension is going to impact occupied scrub territory; the County is going to have to do a Habitat Conservation Plan; and if staff went to Fish and Wildlife Service and got funding for the Plan, that would offset some costs. She requested the Board allow staff to submit proposals to the Fish and Wildlife Service for funding on those two areas; and noted Mr. Minneboo is interested and willing to work on it.

Chairman Carlson recommended the Board get an overview of the grant by email. Commissioner Higgs stated it will come from the Fish and Wildlife Service Office in Jacksonville, and is a straight forward proposal without a major impact to resources. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the motion is to have staff work on it and bring it back; with Commissioner Higgs responding they have to get it in by July 23, 2001, so there is not time to bring it back; however, if the Board does not want to accept the funding, it would have the ability to reject the grant. Commissioner Scarborough stated sometimes funding has commitments, and the Board needs to review it; but if there is the ability to reject, he can approve it.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize staff to apply for federal grants from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to develop and implement a Safe Harbors Plan for Valkaria area and a Central Brevard County Habitat Conservation Plan. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FOR FY 2000-01

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised staff needs formal action to adopt the Capital Improvements Plan for the current fiscal year; and they have separated the unfunded capital needs for discussion.

Commissioner Scarborough stated it can be put back on the table if necessary, so he will move approval of the Plan.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for FY 2000-01 as part of the Five-Year CIP. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: UNFUNDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised the Memorandum he sent out, dated July 9, 2001, lists the unfunded capital needs and categorizes them into transportation, which totals $342 million; drainage projects, which total $111 million; building and facilities, which include animal shelters, EOC Phase 2, Children's Advocate Center, Country Acres upgrade, Medical Examiner's security, two additional libraries, and a number of other projects, totaling $87 million; equipment and vehicles replacement, which totals $29,647,000; hardware and software for various computer systems, which equates to $3.8 million; library media, which is $800,000; road and bridge beautification, water resources, reclaimed water resources, which total $13.8 million; for a total cumulative unfunded capital needs of $591,374,417. He stated in addition, staff provided a summation of the various funding sources that are potentially available, such as Constitutional Gas Tax, Local Option Gas Tax, Road and Bridge MSTU's, General Fund millage, impact fees, and sales tax, and other assessments. He stated the conclusion they reached in providing the analysis of all available revenues and how they are currently utilized is that the sales tax is the most expedient comprehensive way of addressing capital needs; and the reason for that is one funding source versus seven or eight different funding mechanisms, which if combined, will not be sufficient to fund the capital needs over the next five to ten years. He stated the only real practical solution to begin to try and fund some of the capital needs is the local option sales tax. Mr. Jenkins advised the Board is required by State law to share a little less than 50% of those proceeds with the municipalities unless it negotiates a different distribution formula with the cities. He stated his sense is the cities also have long lists of unfunded capital needs; and the likelihood of them being willing to reduce their portion of the sales tax is not likely. He stated the School Board also has the ability to seek approval for a half-cent sales tax for school construction; so that is another factor in the equation that needs to be considered as the Board deliberates the issues. He stated he has not received any formal indication from the School Board as to what its intent is; the Board's recent discussions on school concurrency confirms the importance and significance of having school facilities available in the community where they are needed as a critical component of a quality community; and that is an issue that must be dealt with in the coming weeks in terms of what options are available to the Board. He noted if the Board has questions or issues, staff is here to respond.

Commissioner Scarborough advised he has strong feels about what will make the sales tax pass and what would not; and it is not the Board putting a list together, because that is going to fail. He stated the Parks and Recreation Referendum passed because the Board relinquished control and went to the grassroots level; and there were dozens of meetings at all different levels, with the Little League, soccer league, and Parks and Recreation Board. He stated it was from there that the ideas came; they were well-based and community-driven; and it has to come from the community. He stated Brevard County is not going to close its doors if it does not have a sales tax, but if the people want more, they have a right to ask for more; and the Board needs to open that door appropriately and allow intelligent discussions. Commissioner Scarborough stated there are certain things that need to be done to get that started; Commissioner Higgs had some concerns about the sales tax; and inquired what she thinks the Board needs before it goes to community discussion.

Commissioner Higgs advised the projects on the list have to be those that people can analyze and say their lives will be better if those are passed; so the Board has to ensure the essential list is going to really make a difference in the quality of life in the community. She stated the community, in multiple ways, has to have discussions about each project and a multi-faceted and multi-media address of the issues individually and collectively; the projects have to be those that the public believes will make their lives better; the public has to be convinced that other financial resources have been gained and the sales tax is the way to go; so the Board needs additional financial analysis and project and fiscal analyses at multi-levels.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not want the public to think if they did not vote for the sales tax, the Board would come back and vote a gas tax increase; the people do not want more gas tax; however, the sales tax has some interest from people he talked to; and perhaps those people want to see a better Brevard because they are involved in the community. He stated other concepts are if people are happy with Brevard as it is, and if they want to continue with business as usual. Commissioner Higgs stated business as it is today is not going to be the same in 15 years; people need to clearly understand where the County will be in 10 or 15 years; and there has to be an enormous effort of letting the public scrutinize projects and options available. Commissioner Scarborough stated the projects, beyond roads, should be defined by the community; and the municipalities that are beneficiaries of the sales tax should be defining projects with their user groups. Commissioner Higgs stated it could be a short-term sales tax for a few projects, depending on how the discussion in the community falls; it could be Countywide projects on a short-term basis that everybody can use; and the cities would enter into an agreement for those projects. Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not want to define projects and prefers to have the people tell the Board what they want.

Chairman Carlson requested Mr. Jenkins advise of the Osceola County issue. County Manager Tom Jenkins advised the counties that achieved success with the sales tax and were able to acquire that funding source for their capital needs used a community initiative; the majority of counties in Florida have the sales tax; it has not been the boards promoting it or saying this is what the county needs to do; and it has been the community looking at the inventory of needs and concluding which projects should be considered as part of the sales tax referendum. He stated the Board's role is to go out and speak for it and put it on the ballot; it is the community that comes forward with things they believe should go forward; so if the Board is interested in proceeding, staff could look for a community initiative and a way to get it into the community and receive its feedback as to its priorities and needs. He noted staff would do nothing more than give them a list of needs.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board is in the position of providing some guidance and analysis on what it sees as the needs; it should not abrogate its responsibility to say those are the priorities it sees for the community; and it should listen to the community which may or may not agree with what is on the list. She noted sometimes people do not grasp the specifics of projects until they are on a list.

Commissioner Scarborough stated with the Parks and Recreation Referendum, people talked about current problems, such as bleachers and lights, but the Referendum was to buy enough for 20 years and the potential to grow, not for the current problems; and that is when the community had a vision and got excited. He stated if the Board says these are the things it wants, there will be no excitement in the community. Chairman Carlson stated to get the ground swell, the community should determine what the improvements should be; and the Board should not pinpoint certain projects, which would cause any referendum to fail.

Commissioner Scarborough stated soccer parents care about soccer fields; Little League wants baseball fields; and the County is compartmentalized, so he does not know how it would get to Countywide issues. He stated the Board was successful with EEL's, Beach and Riverfront, and Parks and Recreation, so there are some issues that are cohesive enough to draw the whole community together; and some of those passed with comfortable margins. Commissioner Higgs stated if the Board can bring a level of interest to the public, that is the only way it will get support; and it has to communicate vast amounts of information so people will understand what projects would make them better off. Commissioner Scarborough stated what is said in a survey and what is said when taxing yourself is different; therefore, the Board needs to gauge the community and provide answers to their questions. Chairman Carlson stated the Board also needs to be sensitive to how the economy is going; timing is everything; so it needs to take that into consideration.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board also needs to know what it is going to cost the average person; one cent may be okay, but how will it affect them, where is it going, and how will the project make their lives better should be conveyed to the public. She stated the Board needs to convince people that it is doing right with the money it has by balancing resources and programs and watching the dollars; and it has to do its job well so people feel confident the money will be spent wisely and efficiently. Commissioner Scarborough stated money is not the issue, but revitalizing the community for the cost of a Whopper may be the issue; and most people see value in things more than the cost. He stated Melbourne was not interested in the sales tax; there is going to be discussion of what each municipality will do; and if Titusville throws something together that people do not think is needed or will benefit special interest, that could harm the referendum. He stated the Board is a partner with the cities, not only in dividing the money, but in incorporating the communities' comments. Mr. Jenkins advised a number of cities were extremely supportive. Commissioner Higgs stated the Brevard Tomorrow Group has a steering committee, so the Board has a mechanism to start informing and asking questions; and that is an appropriate way to begin to have discussions with communities on what they want to be. She stated staff has to be very aggressive in providing information and analyses that assist people who are not part of the process of government.

Commissioner Colon stated nobody is excited about raising taxes, but she would allow her constituents to say what they would like and have the option to vote for or against it; so she would support putting something on the ballot. She stated what she would be outspoken about is how the Board is going to do it; getting municipalities and the School Board involved is important; and the issue could backfire if the Board does not do it as a team effort. She noted maybe the municipalities are doing their own thing and bringing things to their voters. Commissioner Scarborough stated the municipalities have the same shortfalls the County has; they will get money directly and can spend it as they want to; and if they do not know what they will spend it on, it will throw cold water on the whole thing.

Commissioner Colon advised Palm Bay is going to mandatory hookups; the School Board has overcrowding and said it wants to be a part of the issue; and the Florida League of Cities meeting is an opportunity to speak to the municipalities. She stated the municipalities are under the impression the County has a huge budget, but that is not so; project analysis is critical for something like the sales tax to pass; and if people can see the improvements, like Malabar Road and Minton Road projects, the Board will be able to build trust with the community. She stated the beach communities are critical of the Board about how it is responding to their needs for law enforcement; that is a concern for Sheriff Williams; and if the County is going to put something on the ballot, it needs to be careful of the percentages it puts toward the projects. She stated it needs to work as a team and every agency prioritize its needs, because if the citizen gets overwhelmed, he will vote no.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the municipalities will get about half of the money; they do not have to tell anyone what they are going to spend it on and they do not put it on the ballot; and if people ask a city what it is going to do with its share of the sales tax and get a reply that it has no plans, they will not vote for it because people do not like to tax themselves without knowing what they are getting. Commissioner Higgs stated Jacksonville had a countywide initiative and an agreement; with Commissioner Scarborough responding it will never happen in Brevard County. Commissioner Higgs stated she is not ready to assume that if it is structured correctly and approached from the standpoint of major County services, such as transportation and other things, the Board may find it has a referendum that would have support. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Commissioner Higgs is implying not having a direct distribution to the cities; with Commissioner Higgs responding she is saying not to rule that out and ask the people what they want. Commissioner Scarborough stated that would not be the people's decision; and the Board would need enough cities to represent the majority of the incorporated population. Commissioner Colon stated Palm Bay would support it and would love for someone else to put the increase forward so the City does not have to. She stated the cities have a priority of things they cannot fund, so it would be easy to ask them what they can tie into the sales tax. She stated this is more difficult than the Parks and Recreation Referendum, which was passionate because it dealt with children; and inquired how does someone get people excited about infrastructure.

Commissioner Higgs stated it may be easier to explain the referendum to people if it is looked at in broader terms such as transportation; there is a list of projects that encompass the incorporated and unincorporated areas; open space is another issue; and the Board could conceptualize it more than looking at what the cities will get and what is on their lists. Commissioner Scarborough stated some cities will want their money and will not buy off on it. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board said it is going to the public, so it should ask the public what it wants.

Chairman Carlson advised the County needs to go forward and look at how it will do it; and instructed Mr. Jenkins to bring back ideas of how to go about it.

Mr. Jenkins advised he would like to talk to the City Managers and discuss the issue with them; get a better sense from the School Superintendent as to what the intentions of the School Board are; and investigate Brevard Tomorrow. He stated in addition to the steering committee, there is a leadership group that is much larger and more diversified; and there may be other community entities that may have an interest in the subject. He stated he would like to do exploratory inquiries and see what comes back in terms of potential mechanisms. Mr. Jenkins advised the successful referendums had grassroots support and the projects were clearly articulated; the law enforcement MSTU referendum may have failed because there was no clear understanding of how the money would be used to improve their lives; but the Fire Rescue, EEL's, Parks and Recreation, and Beach and Riverfront Referendums were successful because the projects were clearly articulated and there was grassroots support. He stated if the Board proceeds with the sales tax referendum, it has to have those factors; and if the Board is inclined to do that, he would like to go out and see what he can identify and come back to the Board.

Commissioner Colon advised a key player would be Florida TODAY; at lunch time they have all their reporters who can ask questions; and staff can bring information to the reporters who also deal with all municipalities. She stated if the projects have blessings from the media, it would be a critical partner. Commissioner Scarborough stated when the Superintendent was moving forward with his referendum, he had tremendous coverage from Florida TODAY; however, the referendum failed; the Board, staff, and the cities cannot make it happen; and it is the people who want to see something better in their community who can make it happen. Mr. Jenkins noted the Board cannot ignore the government; they are legally part of the process; and they must be included. Chairman Carlson stated it is crucial to get factual information to the media that is displayed in a factual format; and staff has to make sure they get all the numbers right and not have credibility gaps in the facts because a lot of people read the newspapers. Mr. Jenkins stated the media is a critical component at a given point, but in the beginning stages, staff needs to see what community interest they can generate and what responses they get.

Commissioner Higgs stated it will take the majority of the Board and not a super majority to put it on the ballot; she wants to see the process go forward, see the questions asked, and get the feedback to determine what the public's interests are; and that will be her criteria in voting whether or not to put it on the ballot. She noted it should be broad-based, fair, clearly defined, and what will make Brevard County a better place. Commissioner Scarborough stated he would hope the Board has not only the majority but everyone voting for it; and if it is not to that point, he is not going to vote for it. Commissioner Higgs stated the five Commissioners have to feel comfortable about what it is asking; and she will continue to scrutinize things and listen carefully. Commissioner Scarborough stated sometimes there are multiple perspectives on things that need to be brought into consideration to have a good program.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to authorize the County Manager to talk to City Managers, School Board Superintendent, Brevard Tomorrow, and other leadership groups about the sales tax referendum, to get their intentions and input, and do exploratory inquiries to see what comes back to the Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

*Commissioner Colon's absence was noted at this time to serve on the Canvassing Board.

Commissioner Higgs requested a financial analysis that would compare generating revenue from different streams, cap-it figure for 20 years, etc., so the Board would have that to look at.

DISCUSSION, RE: QUALITY GROWTH/BEST PRACTICES

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised the next item is Quality Growth/Best Practices; the Board had preliminary discussions on those issues and directed staff to go forward and do some things; and in addition to that, staff has urban growth boundaries, floodplain development, land clearing practices, and preservation of vegetation items.

Chairman Carlson advised since Commissioner Colon wants to discuss Deer Run, the floodplain issue should be discussed as the last item.

Mr. Jenkins advised the reason those two items are together is based on the premise if the Board is going to look at capital needs for the future, it also needs to insure it is doing everything it can to protect the quality of life in Brevard County. He noted Peggy Busacca and Mel Scott will make the presentation.

Planning and Zoning

Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott advised on January 11, 2001, the Board reviewed a report which identified 11 nationally accepted principals that embodied best practices and quality growth; at that time he identified activities the County was currently undertaking, which served further those 11 identified principals; and he has updated the activities that have taken place regarding each of those principals and will give the Board updates on additional measures the Board directed staff to pursue. He stated one of the cornerstones of quality growth/best practices is to encourage growth in regions that have existing and planned infrastructure; and under the Growth Management Act, Brevard County strives to accomplish that through mechanisms such as concurrency. He stated concurrency fundamentally states the County should encourage development to occur where there is adequate services in place; the County has a residential density map; and other communities outside of Florida have chosen to use the map as a common tool to start where the urban boundary will be. Mr. Scott advised the Capital Improvements Plan identifies infrastructure improvements in five-year increments; staff also uses the MPO as a forum, which has representation from the Board and where elected officials gather to identify infrastructure improvements for transportation that are needed; and staff coordinates the planning and funding of those improvements. He stated urban growth boundaries is another technique that is used. He stated another common principal is pay as you grow to pay for infrastructure demands created by new development; concurrency is one of those techniques that is in place; impact fees is to recoup up front some of the costs incurred to connect new development to services; and the Board recently reinstated impact fees for commercial property that was previously exempt, and will be reviewing residential impact fees. Mr. Scott advised another principal is to encourage community collaboration in visioning and development decisions; plans are doomed to failure if they are done in a vacuum; it is critical to reach out to the community and find out what they want to be and to give them that ownership when doing planning activities. He stated Brevard County has many outreach programs and mechanisms in place; Brevard Tomorrow is the newest of those participating community efforts to create a preferred future; they are doing it not just in a public way, but with private participation, which is critical to its success; and they are participating in the My Region effort quarterbacked by the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Planning Council has contacted staff to keep them up to speed on what is happening with the Council; with Mr. Scott responding a kick-off meeting occurred three months ago; the consultant is now on board; but he has not heard from them as to the first round of information the consultant has provided. Commissioner Scarborough stated the last time he talked to Sandra, they were having problems with the Chamber Contract; and inquired if Commissioner Higgs was aware of that; with Commissioner Higgs responding no. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is the first time all the counties signed the same Agreement; the Planning Council is dealing with the Chamber that has all its people as supporters; and it would be good to keep the Board abreast of what is going on in writing, so it can see what is happening at different levels.

Chairman Carlson advised Brevard Tomorrow and My Region need to know what the other is doing because of the effort that is occurring right now.

Mr. Scott advised another principal in place is community collaboration in visioning and development decisions; the Board each month, whether through rezoning or Agenda items have many citizen-based review committees that offer their recommendations and input on those decisions; they range anywhere from the Planning and Zoning Board, LPA, Commission on Aging, Parks and Recreation Boards, etc.; and that is a critical component of the process. He stated Vision 2005 developed Brevard County's vision of tomorrow; the Citizens Academy is a recent development, which staff is seeking to institutionalize in County government; it is a process where citizens can receive crash courses on many things and services provided locally by the County; and staff is working out a diploma for those graduating students. He noted the first Citizens Academy class will start in about a month; and it will consist of eight learning sessions, each addressing a different component of local government.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if it is still available to citizens who want to attend; with Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca responding yes. Commissioner Higgs inquired how does someone get involved; with Mr. Scott responding they can call his office and get the information. Ms. Busacca advised it is also on the County's Website.

Mr. Scott advised another principal of quality growth/best practices is to promote improvements in local development patterns through comprehensive land use planning, creative and flexible zoning ordinances, mixed land uses, and other innovative approaches. He stated the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan is a document which sets the stage for specialized ordinances to occur; there is no shortage of Ordinances in the local development Codes, which encourage flexibility and creative design; there are the Open Space Ordinance, Planning and Development Regulations, Planned Unit Development, etc.; and those are mechanisms the development community is able to utilize that are incentive based and encourage innovative land use decisions to be made. He noted staff also uses overlay districts to do the same thing. Mr. Scott advised No. 5 is encourage the incorporation of regional disaster mitigation and prevention into long-term sustainable development; every year during hurricane season, staff is reminded of the need to view development patterns in that way; and investment up front is much wiser than recovery after an event. He stated the Brevard County Emergency Management Plan establishes the framework for an effective system of response and recovery; Project Impact is an existing program, which is now being undertaken; and Brevard County has been named by the federal government as a pilot community for Project Impact. He stated Project Impact is charged with insuring Brevard County is working towards developing disaster resistant communities; through that effort, staff identifies structures that are at risk for natural disasters and prioritize their improvements; and that is a critical project they are undertaking in Brevard County. He advised grants are continuously sought for disaster planning and pre-disaster readiness; they received $2.8 million to provide electrical power back-up for several shelters; and they received the grant through the collaborative efforts of the Board, School Board, and Brevard Community College Board of Directors. Chairman Carlson inquired how is the Citizens Emergency Response Teams (CERT) included; with Mr. Scott responding that is something else the County is doing to further that principal, and could be included. Mr. Scott advised Principal No. 6 is to provide a variety of transportation choices to increase transportation safety, reduce traffic congestion, and improve air quality; the SCAT Program is in place and supports Park 'N Ride and Vanpool Programs; and there are a Transportation Disadvantaged Program, Children's Helmet Program, and many other techniques that they try to apply to make traffic flow more efficiently. He stated it is a challenging principal to address as Brevard County offers a suburban lifestyle, and so many of the classic urban mass transit options are difficult to achieve. He stated there should be critical masses to effectively deliver transit-oriented development, which is typically seen in a Winter Park setting or a setting that is more dense; it strives to have places where people can live and work and congregations of people who can ride the bus or train and travel to other destinations; and it is difficult in Brevard County, but it is still something staff keeps an eye on to try and deliver those mass transit opportunities when they become available and practical. Mr. Scott advised Principal No. 7 is to encourage greenways and trails to provide bicycle/pedestrian transportation routes and natural resource connections between communities. He stated the Brevard County Greenways and Trails Master Plan was adopted a few months ago by the MPO; the document illustrates and defines the development and improvement of new and existing greenways, linear parks, and trails throughout the County; and it is a tremendous quality of life document. He stated when offering the community to someone who is interested, not only where they are going to work and the school system, but what they will be doing on weekends, it is attractive to them to think they can get on a trail with their bikes and children and visit the Zoo, go to the beach, stop and get something to eat, etc.; and it highlights one of the things staff effectively advertises and showcases nationally. Mr. Scott advised Principal No. 8 is to provide housing and services that meet the needs of Brevard County's youth and elderly; and the Commission on Aging has created task force groups that will be looking at education, employment, housing, health care, long-term care, legal issues, safety issues, recreation and leisure, and transportation issues that the County should be looking at as the population continues to age in place. He noted the Commission on Aging will present a final report to the Board addressing the needs and interests of seniors in the Fall of this year. He stated Parks and Recreation sponsors programs for youth during non-school hours, as well as for seniors; and the Juvenile Justice Comprehensive Planning model is being used to identify contributing factors of juvenile crime.

The meeting recessed at 10:25 a.m., and reconvened at 10:50 a.m.

*Commissioner Colon's presence was noted at this time.

Chairman Carlson advised Rockledge City Manager Jim McKnight put in a card to speak; however, he cannot stay until the end of the meeting; so she will let him speak now.

Barnes Boulevard

Rockledge City Manager Jim McKnight advised the last time the Board left Barnes Boulevard as an unfunded project; the Board should have received a letter that went out May 31, 2001 memorializing his comments on Barnes Boulevard; since that time, Reynolds Smith & Hills has completed another study relative to location of a Washington Mutual Bank on Barnes Boulevard; and based on their numbers, the existing projects that are coming up may cause the City Council to make a decision about a moratorium, probably when they do the next traffic counts, which will be after the first of the year. He noted that is an issue the City will be facing shortly.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the level of service on Barnes Boulevard is established by the County as "F"; with Mr. McKnight responding he believes it is "E", but the bank will take it where the total would be less than acceptable level of service E, which is 17,300 trips; so it will drop below "E". Commissioner Higgs inquired if the City Council approved the bank and that project will drop the County road below level of service "E"; with Mr. McKnight responding it would have about 20 trips left, but no further projects could be done without dropping below that. He stated the City wanted to make the Board aware of that; Council is still firm in its position that it needs to be a priority project; they know funding is an issue and heard discussions on the sales tax today; and he cannot speak for the Council, but will say they will cooperate to the highest level they can based on the Council's direction. Mr. McKnight stated there may be some cooperative effort that can be done and maybe doing it a little different than in the past where they just get the money; Barnes Boulevard is important to the City and should be important to the County because it connects to I-95; and with Viera Boulevard not being done, it has got to be a priority project. He advised it is becoming a safety issue; he gets calls, emails, etc. when something happens on Barnes Boulevard; the City has a problem and stands ready to help address it; and it has been a project that has been put off several times and can no longer be put off.

Mr. Scott advised Principal No. 10 is to strengthen partnerships with other organizations working toward similar goals; some of the County's efforts would further that principal; it is desirous for the County to continue to attract high-tech growth; and to that end, staff works in concert with Lockheed Martin, Astrotech Aerospace, and the Economic Development Council, as well as Spaceport Florida Authority and SERPL to attract high-tech growth in the County. He stated staff supports the Strategic Cultural Plan overseen by the Brevard Cultural Alliance; and the various Joint Planning Agreements with cities and service providers, and previously mentioned Brevard Tomorrow, My Region, and Project Impact, are all designed to further this principal. He advised Principal No. 11 is to work to establish indicators and benchmarks to measure progress toward the achievement of quality growth and best practices; for the last couple of years staff has been compiling a number of benchmarks and continues to refine the benchmarks through a collaborative effort, which would be receiving input from the citizenry and those interested that are currently working in many aspects of the community.

Mr. Scott advised in January, 2001, the Board looked at a list of additional measures, which would further those principals; and he provided not only those additional measures but things that have occurred since the first of the year. He stated #1 is infrastructure with regard to urban growth boundary; #2 is pay as you grow; full cost accounting was a principal they identified early on in the report; and measures the Board has taken recently to further that principal are reinstating commercial impact fees, looking at the impact fee rate at full cost, and reanalyzing the residential impact fee. He noted those actions will further the principal of pay as you grow. He stated the stormwater utility fee has not increased since its inception in 1990; retrofit needs and many projects designed to improve water quality have been identified, but the funding source is not adequate to fund those; and charging the fee at cost is another measure that will foster that principal. Mr. Scott advised #3 is community collaboration in visioning and development; some things staff has done in the last couple of months are to continue working out joint planning agreements with municipalities; there are a few in the books now; and they continue to work with the remaining cities. He stated they are currently working with the School Board and discussing the issue at the workshop next week regarding future school siting and working in concert with their efforts to provide schools for children. He stated the County's side is the permitting and location of future development; and it is a communication that needs to exist. Mr. Scott stated #4 is local development patterns; land development regulations further some innovative design and flexibility that the private sector seeks to have; staff has in place the requiring of clustering of residential units and mandatory open space; and they continue to bring more ordinances on line and refine existing Ordinances that encourage developers to provide open space through their ability to cluster development and have smaller lot sizes that feel larger because they back up to open spaces. He noted staff received a couple of applications for development under the recently-adopted Open Space Ordinance. Mr. Scott advised #5 is disaster mitigation, which is requiring sheltering for specified residential developments. He stated as part of the Comprehensive Plan update, a policy was adopted requiring new or expanding mobile or manufactured housing developments to have on site evacuation shelter for residents; and staff will be bringing to the Board an ordinance that would require sheltering be sufficient on site to house 50% of the occupants of those developments. He noted that would take the pressure off some identified sheltering backlog, which utilizes public buildings. Mr. Scott stated #6 is transportation choices; staff talked about increasing densities and mixed use developments that encourage mass transit; some of the recent Ordinances adopted allow developers to utilize smaller lot sizes to cluster developments that may result in an attractive location for a bus stop; and staff is working on a site plan for a commercial promenade very close to the Government Center that will feature first-floor shopping and second-story living opportunities, which will further this principal. Mr. Scott advised #7 is youth and the elderly; staff is reviewing zoning requirements for group homes, assisted living, and independent living facilities; as the population ages, staff continues to look at the Zoning Code as a way to encourage independent living facilities to be constructed throughout the County following specific criteria; and they are looking forward to the Commission on Aging's final report that will be presented to the Board in the Fall of this year.

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised he faxed the Commissioners an article from the National Association of Counties literature; it is a commentary discussing the aging population and the need for additional transportation because as people get older they are not going to be able to drive; so there will be a need for additional public transportation. He stated creation of town centers where people can walk to and from the grocery store or drug store for their basic needs is another concept; there is a national organization that is promoting those concepts; and it is tied to what the Board has been discussing in terms of senior needs and something it might want to insert in its concept. He stated leaving people in their homes, offering transportation or having their services and facilities close so they can get to them is a neighborhood concept that could be considered.

Mr. Scott advised #8 is development decisions; the Board has been frustrated as it has been confronted with requests for the community to change; private sector applications come before the Board seeking to obtain conditional use permits, which are a form of rezoning that tend to be the most intense uses that are considered in a given zoning classification; and the Board has been frustrated by the courts in turning down a CUP that it deemed inappropriate for the community only to have that decision overturned in the circuit court. He stated in response to that, staff has started looking at the CUP's that are in certain zoning classifications and bringing them to the Board to make those uses permitted with conditions; and the theory is to identify up front what needs to be or should be in place in a particular community and certain uses to be introduced into that community. He stated staff is working on an ordinance that would say this is a permitted use with these predetermined conditions; and they will continue to see that with the CUP that was removed for additional building height. Mr. Scott advised #9 is indicators and benchmarks; it talks about continuing to work at refining indicators and benchmarks; and it is a process that should never be static, but should always be fluid. He noted the benchmarks identified and used for the last few years have currently been sent to the community at large; and staff is receiving their input to find out which additional benchmarks or existing benchmarks should be chanted to measure the economy, health, environment, transportation, education, and social well-being of the County. He noted it is an ongoing effort; and staff continues to keep the Board updated on those efforts. He stated that concludes the report that identifies the things staff is doing currently to further best practices.

Urban Growth Boundaries

Mr. Scott advised a few months ago the Board wanted a report which would crystallize the use of urban growth boundaries; he researched the use of urban growth boundaries nationally; and it is his observation that urban growth boundaries are used as a growth management tool and technique in communities that do not have the Growth Management Act as they do in Florida. He stated the communities he made an index analysis of are Portland, Oregon adopted in 1973, Boulder, Colorado, Contra Costa County, California (San Francisco area), and the Maryland models; those urban growth boundary techniques were started from 1973 in Oregon, which Brevard County borrowed from heavily in 1985, to most recently in the early 1990's in Contra Costa County. He stated an urban growth boundary delineates future urban areas from future rural areas; and in the models he looked at, it has been used as a technique where, through some kind of joint ordinance between the counties and cities, the urban growth boundary would demarcate the future annexation areas of the cities. He stated the Oregon model has 241 cities which have urban growth boundaries; within the greater Portland area they have metro, which is the regionally-elected body that manages the greater Portland urban growth boundary; and through literature and interviews with planning staffs in those communities, he was able to pick up classic pros and cons that revolve around the use of urban growth boundaries. Mr. Scott stated some of the pros were that it is a tool which allows for demarcation areas on a map; those would be the areas where they would funnel urban money to that would provide urban services; and the rural areas are the areas where services would not be delivered at such a high rate. He stated as the Growth Management Act and Comprehensive Plan work, the benefit is an established document that has the force of law, which is amended in a public forum; and that is clearly a pro behind the urban growth boundary concept. He stated some cons associated with urban growth boundaries are housing costs; studies of the Portland, Oregon, and San Francisco, California models show that the property values spike tremendously inside those urban growth boundaries and just outside those boundaries because that is the closest they can get to the urban setting and urban amenities yet have the rural lifestyle through larger lots. He stated other cons associated with urban growth boundaries have been that they were not effective enough, they did not go far enough, the maximum densities were not achieved at the high rate they hoped to achieve, and the consumption of the rural landscape did not slow down fast enough. He noted a criticism has been that those boundaries are amended too easily; so there is a fairly wide range of pros and cons. He stated in looking at the models, it was interesting to look at the tools Brevard County has in place that parallel those models; Brevard County has a residential density map; and at that time, Portland and Boulder did not have those maps in place, but they do now. Mr. Scott stated conceptually if the Board were to look at the residential density map and inquire if Brevard County has an urban growth boundary, the first thing it has to do is find what urban density is and what rural density is; just outside of I-95 corridor to the western County line is rural densities of one unit per five acres; those densities that are on the map represent the maximum possible; and in the 10 and 25-year floodplains, even though they are in rural areas, it shows one unit per five acres. He stated if the 10-year floodplain is overlaid in the document, it states one unit per ten acres; so one could argue it is a boundary of sorts, but whether or not it is an urban boundary is to be determined by the user. Mr. Scott stated the brown areas are one unit per 2.5 acres; and if the property is not in the brown area but in the 25-year floodplain, the same density applies to the property of one unit per 2.5 acres. He noted the red area is shown primarily in the northernmost and southernmost parts of the County, and is one unit per acre; and whether it is an urban growth boundary is up to the user to decide. He stated in his investigations nationally the urban growth boundaries used in Oregon, Colorado, California, and Maryland tend to have steep drop-offs in densities outside of the boundaries; in Colorado, it is one unit per 35 acres; in Portland it is one unit per 10 acres; and in San Francisco is one unit per 40 acres.

Commissioner Scarborough stated what is viewed is a gradual movement historically; and inquired, since Florida has gone with the Comprehensive Plan, are there counties that have gone with urban boundaries; with Mr. Scott responding Palm Beach County has a tiered system, but he is not sure how that works. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if it drops drastically; with Mr. Scott responding yes. Commissioner Scarborough stated it would be wiser to look at growth management in the Comprehensive Plan as a tool and see what counties are doing in Florida to define it as opposed to going to San Francisco.

Commissioner Higgs inquired in the counties that have gone to urban growth boundaries, what happens with annexations. She stated the County had agricultural lands annexed into the cities; that density was less than the urban density; but the annexation changed it to urban density; and inquired how is that handled. Mr. Scott stated they have regional cooperation that is mandated; the county enters into agreement with the city and together define that urban boundary; and for a change to occur, it requires joint ratification. Ms. Busacca stated many of the high densities are in active agricultural lands; in Indian River County, it is active orange groves, and in Volusia County it is active timber land; and because those areas are actively utilized, they are being kept in agriculture rather than being subject to annexation.

Commissioner Higgs advised the San Francisco area adopted a 65/35 mix of urban and rural by voter referendum; and inquired if the County Charter could adopt a type of urban boundary or binding regulatory provision of what is rural and what is urban in Brevard County; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding his reaction would be probably, but he would have to do some research on it. Commissioner Higgs stated the County lacks some permanency in today's environment.

Commissioner Scarborough advised when he was on Titusville City Council, the Council was criticized because densities were higher in the County and people could de-annex their properties and get higher densities. He stated historically there has been an assumption that urbanization occurs in cities, but that is beginning to shift rapidly because a lot of the cities are totally built out; cities do not make a lot of money with residential development and are interested in commercial and industrial development; therefore, urban sprawl in most areas is not created by cities. He stated Palm Bay did not create it nor does it have the capacity to remove it; it is something that occurred during the GDC days; and the County is probably the most dynamic force as to whether Brevard County has urban sprawl or not. Commissioner Higgs stated the County is not without some impediments in making a permanency to the rural areas; and inquired if small area plans were done in all areas of the County since the original Future Land Use Maps were adopted; with Ms. Busacca responding no. Mr. Scott advised it was originally envisioned that when the Comprehensive Plan was originally adopted staff would be able to complete small area plans in the entire County in a relatively short amount of time; however, the first couple of studies took years. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board needs to go back and look at densities and assure that the County is not the cause of urban sprawl.

Commissioner Scarborough stated cities provide water, which allows development in the unincorporated area; that gets to be part of the problem, but not all of it; the Board can still set the density levels; and if they cannot develop, they are not going to use the water even though the City could make money off of it.

Commissioner Higgs stated the permanency that might be established by a Charter amendment, which deals with urbanization and non-urban growth, would bind this Board and future boards; and her question was not directed at the cities, but at future boards, because at this time anything can change by majority vote of the Board.

Chairman Carlson inquired if Palm Beach County deals with floodplains in its system of urban growth boundaries; with Mr. Scott responding absolutely. He stated it is a minimum requirement under the Florida system that counties address floodplains and assign on maps decreasing densities as floodplain occurrences increase. Chairman Carlson inquired if Palm Beach has anything that says they cannot build in a floodplain, and do they have various types of floodplains; with Mr. Scott responding he would expect the ten-year floodplain is in place; they have to have density assigned to the floodplains by policy; but whether or not they mapped them, he is not sure.

Commissioner Scarborough advised the Board is dealing with floodplain issues; it is actively moving in that direction but is not locked in the way the Board may want it; and inquired if that will be discussed as part of the density in a holistic sense. He stated when talking about reduction in density, staff should not go out and draw a line; and there needs to be a study. Mr. Scott stated the map was a recognized broad brush approach; staff has to assign a density to every square inch of the County, and is going to do that; but they are also going to have policies in place, which may act to supersede those densities or further restrict those densities. Mr. Scott stated as they evolve in GIS mapping capabilities, and can map the ten-year floodplain with some type of certainty, since the Comprehensive Plan already says one unit to ten acres, the residential density map should reflect one unit per ten acres in those areas. Commissioner Scarborough stated if everything is built out to maximum density, Brevard County would be a county that no one could live in; and inquired if that is the potential, what lands should be developed on and what lands should not. He stated he has a problem with drawing a line and saying it is the urban boundary; it is the Central Park concept; and New York is more livable because there is Central Park. Commissioner Scarborough stated when talking about trails, one thing he found so much response on is that it will preserve a green area in the middle of a community; it is more than drawing a nice circle and saying this is urban and that is rural; and it is looking at the floodplains, environmental impacts, and going back to what Commissioner Higgs was saying about multiple layered studies. He stated at the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council meeting they talked about bears; they had multiple layers and were able to ascertain what things would have negative impacts; Brevard County has some of those issues south of Barnes Boulevard where to do one thing will negatively impact another; so he would not want to draw a loop and say this is the urban boundary. He suggested getting the person who did the study for the Planning Council to make a presentation to the Board; it was helpful to him to say one can develop; and it is more than just rules, it is throwing in all the tools.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Wakiva Study took an area in Lake County and began to put all the factors together; perhaps what Brevard County has to do is start with various areas that seem to be outside key urban areas and put together data and say here are the resources and here are the infrastructure; and all those factors would determine the number of units per acre. She stated they need to put all those layers together. Commissioner Scarborough stated where they do not build should have some logic to it and to develop the tools for the logic; and it may not be a straight line, it may be all over. Commissioner Higgs stated nothing the Board would do would be a straight line, but it has to decide that it wants to take certain areas of the map and begin to apply the tools and see if that is how it wants to progress. He stated the Board has to say okay, lets look at some area and begin to study and put multiple layers on that area if it does not want to paint a broad approach.

Ms. Busacca advised there is more to urban growth planning than just densities; if the same amount of people are coming to Brevard County every year, higher densities mean they use up less land and lower densities mean they consume greater amounts of land; and in addition to the amount of land they will use, the Board has to consider the services they will need. She stated putting people into large lots consumes more roads that the County has to maintain; it has to send more school buses out for students; it will have more miles of utility lines; so if the Board wants to talk about how to deal with the long-range urban form of Brevard County, it needs to look at infrastructure requirements and their funding as well as densities. She noted the Board has talked about having people pay more of the true cost of development.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board has to look at all those things; and inquired if it should start that by picking apart the infrastructure or start it by area; with Ms. Busacca responding if she was prioritizing, she would look at areas that are more likely to develop in the near term. She stated the area west of the St. Johns River is unlikely to develop in the near term for a variety of reasons, so she would not worry about that area; the areas that are already platted would have a different set of issues, and the Board may want to look at them differently; and it could focus on areas that are unplatted and are more likely to develop in the near term. Ms. Busacca stated the concepts would be the same Countywide; they could overlay floodplains, wetlands, and aquifer recharge areas so the Board can see those areas where there are a great deal of impacts and those that have minimal impacts; and it is the areas with minimal impacts where the Board may want to make public policy to encourage development of a different type than those areas that have a great number of impacts.

Commissioner Scarborough stated at the Regional Planning Council meeting they were shown maps; and what impressed him was that they put things together and the developer was capable of moving forward with his project. He stated just to take and apply the rules would be a mistake; looking at each project and requiring the viability of the system to operate is essential; what it did was cut migration of the bears to an area to the south; and looking at that one criterion and making the changes did not upset the other criteria, so the development continued with those alterations. He stated that is beyond urban growth boundary, but it went to zero growth and kept the viable bear population, which may have increased density in other areas; and it is the capacity to say everything comes together as a whole and works, which is attractive to him. He stated if the Board decides it does not want building in the ten-year floodplain, it needs to up the criteria there; and he does not have a problem doing some things for the whole County where the Board feels it is critical.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board wants staff to overlay the key factors first then the Board can make decisions, or does the Board want to do it by areas. She stated what she heard was to look at resources and analyze those first. Ms. Busacca advised Commissioner Scarborough's approach of doing both things at the same time will work; and the next item the Board will discuss is floodplains; and the Board will have an opportunity to discuss the big picture that impacts a great amount of Brevard County. Ms. Busacca advised there are certain areas of the County where development pressures are great; those areas are where the Board would want to look at for small area plan studies; and staff could identify the floodplains, aquifer recharge areas, etc. with relative ease.

Chairman Carlson inquired how much area did the Wakiva study encompass, and did it specifically target preservation of the river basin or the area; with Commissioner Scarborough responding they were trying to preserve everything, and it just happened that the bear was the one being sacrificed; the development met all the criteria; and they found by altering a part of it they were able to meet all the criteria. He stated moving from rules to tools makes the project fit the philosophy that does not impact negatively. Commissioner Higgs stated Wakiva was a study area designated by State law, so it had special funding and protection that the County areas do not have. Commissioner Scarborough stated what is frustrating is to have a project meet all the criteria, but you know something is wrong; and he wants to make sure the rights occur. Commissioner Higgs suggested asking staff to come back with multiple overlays of two or three areas in the County with multiple concerns so the Board can begin to look at more specifics as it applies urban boundaries. Commissioner Scarborough suggested a workshop and inviting the consultant who made the presentation at the Regional Planning Council meeting to give a presentation to the Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to request the consultant who did the Wakiva presentation of issues at the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council meeting to make a presentation to the Board, and to direct staff to apply a multi-layer approach of features in a couple of places in the County so the Board can get a grasp of how all of it will work together. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Carlson recommended staff consider key species like the Wakiva Study so it can be integrated.

Floodplain Development Practices

County Manager Tom Jenkins inquired if the Board is interested in seeing the video of the Deer Run area. Chairman Carlson stated the Board will see a feature presentation of Deer Run where there are major flooding problems; and noted they are currently building in the 25-year floodplain. Public Works Director Henry Minneboo advised it is primarily in the 100-year floodplain, but some areas are in the 25-year floodplain.

Mr. Minneboo explained the video showing the portion to the west, the Sartori property that is heavily farmed with a tremendous pumping station depicting the magnitude of water on Mr. Sartori's property, a portion of Deer Run Subdivision, which is about 1,100 acres, the cornfields, and the houses surrounded by water of about 16 inches in the last week and a half. He stated one positive thing is that no house or street has been lost to water yet; the pasture lands are infiltrated, but the 17 miles of roads in Deer Run are not under water; and described the main outfall called the Sotille Canal, formerly known as San Sebastian Canal. He stated all the water goes to the east and ultimately intersects and discharges into the Indian River.

Commissioner Higgs inquired how far is the Sotille Canal from the St. Johns River; with Mr. Minneboo responding approximately a half mile. Mr. Minneboo continued to explain the video depicting the homes in the west portion of Deer Run totally surrounded by water, and two outfall pipes where the water is almost even with the top of the pipes. He stated all of the water from Deer Run runs north into the Sotille Canal; the water on the north side runs south into the Sotille Canal; and it is a combination of farming and residential interests that totally affect the canal. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the farming interest is pumping water into the canal, which raises the elevation of the water causing the outfalls not to work; with Mr. Minneboo responding that is correct. He stated the County has two booms out there right now; they are breaking up the hyacinth blockage; and they will probably get to I-95 in the next day or two. He stated the water is already out of the banks; there is no way to gain access to the ditch that exists; and continued identifying the areas on the video, noting Dotty Lane and I-95. He thanked Scott Linkenhoker and Sharon Luba for their assistance.

Commissioner Higgs inquired what is the fall between Deer Run and the canal, and does it go into the C-54 canal; with Mr. Minneboo responding no, it meanders and swings out. Drainage and Surface Water Improvements Director Ron Jones advised the elevations of the property at Deer Run range from 19 feet on up; and the lagoon elevations average 0.5 to 1.5 feet. Commissioner Higgs inquired if there is a 19-foot fall, and what would happen if the water went west to the St. Johns River; with Mr. Jones responding the discharge to the St. Johns River currently has an elevation in the range of 17 feet. Commissioner Higgs inquired if that is why they went east as opposed to west because they would get a better fall and the water would move faster; with Mr. Jones responding that is correct. Mr. Jones advised the property in Deer Run is within the 100-year floodplain, but there is a good portion that is below the 25-year floodplain; and in permitting construction of the roads and homes, the road elevations were permitted high enough that they do not become inundated with water. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the roads and houses are above the 100-year floodplain; with Mr. Jones responding the roads are probably within ten inches of the 100-year flood elevation. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the pasture is in the 25-year floodplain; with Mr. Jones responding yes.

Commissioner Scarborough stated people get upset with water in the ditch even if their homes are not flooded and the roads are still passable; there is an idea that the event should not happen; and he has a problem with building in the 25-year floodplain, but more so in the ten-year floodplain, because sooner or later someone is going to call the County and ask why it allowed building in those floodplains. Mr. Minneboo advised when there is a storm event, it is not uncommon to receive 200 to 300 calls; and staff has to respond to each call.

Ms. Busacca advised the homes are built above the floodplain elevation, but that is not required under the Code. She stated the Board asked staff about giving additional requirement in velocity zones; and that is called freeboard.

John Denninghoff advised the Code currently does not require a home to be built any amount above the 100-year flood elevation; that would be referred to as freeboard; in this case, Deer Run is in the 100-year floodplain; and the development plan required the houses to be built substantially above the existing ground so that is why they did not flood. He stated the roads were similarly required to be built at a much higher elevation so they would not flood; but there is still no actual freeboard built into the system at Deer Run or any other location in the County by the Code. He noted developers sometimes have them built in because it is more economical for them not to truck away the fill.

Chairman Carlson stated it is confusing when staff says it is all in the 100-year floodplain, then say a big portion is in the 25-year or below; and inquired which is it; with Ms. Busacca responding the 25-year floodplain lies within the 100-year floodplain, which means it is all in the 100-year floodplain, but a portion of that is lower. Chairman Carlson inquired if portions are in the 100-year floodplain and surrounded by a 25-year floodplain, and was the development built with the idea that it had a lot of 25-year floodplain around it; with Mr. Jones responding the minimum standards associated with subdivision development have changed over the years, but even when Deer Run was developed, the idea was if there is going to be flooding, make sure emergency vehicles can get back and forth and the finished floor foundations are protected. He stated even though willing buyers should have known about it coming into the purchase, after the properties change hands a couple of times, people have an expectation of a higher level of service than what the original design was; and in terms of flood protection, no homes, finished floor elevations, or roads have gone under water in Deer Run. Mr. Jones stated today's standards require that the house pad be built at or above the 100-year flood elevation; that is per the Agreement with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); and the County has an Ordinance which requires the road elevation to be built no lower than ten inches below the 100-year flood elevation.

Commissioner Higgs inquired when the houses were built, was the elevation of the raw ground at the 25-year flood elevation, but they built a high enough house pad to meet the 100-year flood elevation; with Mr. Denninghoff responding that is precisely what happened. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the County allows that; with Ms. Busacca responding yes, and the County does not require anything higher than the 100-year flood elevation. Ms. Busacca stated the Board has an opportunity to require a higher elevation, but it would mean changes to the Ordinance. Mr. Denninghoff advised the NFIP Regulations allow for a house to be above the 100-year flood elevation without necessarily requiring the surrounding property to be above the 100-year flood elevation; and the idea is to protect the improvements to the property as opposed to protecting the property itself.

Commissioner Scarborough stated people do not like everything around them flooded; it is not their anticipation that periodically they are going to be flooded if they are in the 25-year floodplain and build above the 100-year flood elevation; and they call the Commissioners and ask why it was allowed. He inquired if the only issue is keeping improvements dry, or is that where the Board wants to allow building. Mr. Denninghoff advised that is a fundamental question; and right now the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations are set up to have a Deer Run scenario any place that is developed in marginal flood-prone areas. He stated to protect the floodplain, water must be allowed in it or it will increase the flood elevation of surrounding property and damage other people's property. Ms. Busacca advised compensatory storage is required in the 25-year floodplain, but at the time Deer Run was constructed, it was not.

Chairman Carlson advised the agricultural interest is creating part of the problem in Deer Run; and inquired if staff takes into consideration how agricultural lands will impact the capacity of the canal. She inquired if staff is studying no development in the 25-year floodplain that is not platted and making some considerations for platted property; with Mr. Denninghoff responding they are trying to. Chairman Carlson stated flooding is more an annual event, but because of all outside influences, it happens consistently in Deer Run. Commissioner Higgs noted if there is a lot of rain in the 25-year floodplain, the soils are not going to allow the water to leave as quickly.

Mr. Jones advised using Deer Run as an example, the watershed that contributes to the Sotille Canal is about 3,800 acres; Deer Run is approximately 900 plus of that acreage; so the actual Deer Run Subdivision is only a quarter of the contributing drainage. He stated many of the residents are fairly new to Brevard County, so one has to have empathy for them because their barns are under water, and most of them did not go out there and build their house and never experienced a flood event. He stated the type of development activities the County currently allows will result in unhappy people, so there are only two alternatives--(1) prevent it from occurring, which may be problematic from a legal perspective, and (2) educate buyers. He noted in order to get that education, it almost has to be some type of document that is recorded and becomes a part of the chain of title. Mr. Jones advised across the State there have been several different attempts by different entities to change the legislation and require that be revealed; and under the current scenarios, the County is going to have situations where people will build in subdivisions that will have those occurrences, and they will come to the Board asking the County to resolve the problems.

Commissioner Colon presented and explained pictures of Deer Run; stated as the days go on, the situation gets worse because the water level gets even higher and closer to their homes; one would think if it stops raining, they would not have to deal with it; but all the water goes to the corner, and a few days later the situation gets worse. She stated a lot of the residents are not from the area; the Board has to figure out what it is going to do; the pictures show how the people have to bring their horses close to their homes; and one picture is of a $300,000 to $400,00 home being built out there for folks from New York. She stated she would like to see something recorded that would not allow realtors and developers to sell or develop property and show them during the dry season so no one knows the issues that are going on there. Commissioner Colon stated there are young families with children out there as well as seniors; they have put their life savings into their homes; and a picture shows a gentleman who had to go to his barn in a canoe to rescue his dog. She stated a moratorium has been considered; the frustration is that the more that is being developed, the worse it will get for those residents; and tempers are pretty high. She stated with septic tanks under water they are not able to flush their bathrooms and are not able to use the water; and whether it is a quarter of a million dollar house or a trailer, that is no condition for any human being to be in. She thanked staff for their hard work; noted they have contacted the St. Johns River Water Management District and is working around the clock; and requested everyone be sympathetic to what is going on there and do everything they can to help. She requested staff explain what it has been trying to do with the St. Johns River Water Management District and emergency pumping to get the water out of Deer Run. She stated if that is not done, the water will stay there because it has no where to go; if there is a hurricane it will get even worse; and staff should explain what they are doing behind the scenes to provide some type of relief because it is not draining fast enough for the people who live there.

Mr. Minneboo advised staff is attempting to get in touch with Jim Sartori, the landowner to the west, who is flying in from Kentucky; hopefully they will meet tonight and have discussions; and if Mr. Sartori is agreeable, then staff will attempt to pump the water to the west. He stated they can be in position as soon as possible if they get some indication he will allow it; and the St. Johns River Water Management District indicated it would permit it. He stated part of the process to get the most effectiveness is to block the Sotille Canal and extract the water, which would benefit Deer Run.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if staff needs to hire additional help and equipment to clear the Sotille Canal; with Mr. Minneboo responding no, they have the equipment and manpower. Commissioner Scarborough stated he has seen people dike an area, and rather than use the natural flow to augment the flow using pumps so it would not backflow, create a higher head over the dike to have additional flow. He inquired if that would assist with the problem; with Mr. Minneboo responding staff wants to go west first if Mr. Sartori will allow it because it is the fastest and cleanest; but the second thing may be to take that approach. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Mr. Minneboo needs action from the Board for emergency expenditure of funds for additional equipment and manpower; with Mr. Minneboo responding no, they are in good shape.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised someone asked him whether or not the County would need a temporary easement or indemnification agreement with the private landowners who may have a way to get the water across their property.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize the Chairman to execute temporary easements or hold harmless agreements with property owners if necessary. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Colon stated there may be some health hazard issues; and recommended Mosquito Control go out there and spray frequently. She stated on Tuesday the Board will have a meeting so it can discuss what it is going to do to have it recorded in the proper files, consider a moratorium, and look at the bigger picture; the people are not here because this is a floodplain issue; they will be able to speak on Tuesday; and she did not want them to feel they were not included. She noted there is a meeting tonight to tell the residents what is going on; hundreds of homes are going up and it is upsetting to see those homes being built as she is driving down the road to try and help the people in Deer Run. Commissioner Colon advised a gentleman did not want his home shown on television; and she wants to apologize to the gentleman if the pictures showed his home. She thanked staff for everything they are doing, and the citizens for hanging in there.

Chairman Carlson inquired if there is a perspective on the homes that potentially may be damaged by the flooding, are they all new homes in Deer Run or are there some that are older homes outside of Deer Run; with Mr. Minneboo responding all the homes in Deer Run are affected except the eastern portion near Babcock Street and a few homes on the north side of the Sotille Canal on the agricultural side. Chairman Carlson inquired how far is the area from the Indian River Lagoon; with Mr. Minneboo responding approximately seven miles. Chairman Carlson inquired if there is a potential that drainage going into the lagoon could be a bigger health issue. Commissioner Scarborough stated he had an experience where people opened their septic tanks so they could flush their facilities. Commissioner Higgs stated she had similar issues in older subdivisions; the standards are less than appropriate; and the Board is trying to come up with a solution. She inquired if staff is working on a long-term solution of redirecting the water to go west where there is a half mile to the St. Johns River; with Mr. Minneboo responding they are all working in that direction and dealing with St. Johns River Water Management District in hopes of achieving that. Mr. Jones stated they need to work with property owners who surround the area where the County does not have clear easements or rights-of-way for drainage in order to provide a long-term solution. He stated when there is a situation in a floodplain, there is no 100% solution; there will always be that event that comes along; but what staff can do is work to improve the level of service for how big an event or how long the water is going to be there, and provide improvements from that perspective.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if there is normal treatment in the Subdivision, and was it built with that kind of treatment; with Mr. Jones responding yes, there is a set of weir structures; the Subdivision was built in multiple stages; and it has different criteria based on which area is being built.

Mr. Jenkins advised staff recognizes there is a need to expand the treatment because the volume of water exceeds the current capacity. He stated a main topic of today's workshop is discussion of floodplain issues; he is not confident that putting something on a deed is going to solve the issue; resale of a home may or may not catch it, or they may not understand the significance unless they were experts in drainage; he is not sure that will be a solution in the long term; and the Board may have to look for other solutions to the flooding problems. He noted recording something on a deed is not going to fix the problem or stop it from occurring in the future, so the County has to look for something else.

Chairman Carlson inquired how does the flood insurance process work, and is there education and disclosure requirements; with Mr. Denninghoff responding there are two mechanisms that a homeowner has to discover or find out if the property is flood prone; one is ordinarily when they purchase property they obtain a survey; and Florida Statutes require that the surveyor put on the survey what the flood zone is for the property; however, as Mr. Jenkins noted, understanding what flood zone Z or AE is may be a problem. He stated the second mechanism is a mortgage company under federal regulations is required to impose a requirement for flood insurance if the property is in a flood hazard area; so a homeowner may find out he needs flood insurance and why it is required. Mr. Jenkins stated it does not give a person a clue that his yard can flood; and there are a lot of people in Brevard County with flood insurance who do not expect to experience a flood. He stated there are some really low-lying areas; and there needs to be an alternative.

Commissioner Higgs stated if people can fix their way out of a 25-year floodplain by dumping fill on their property, would the Ordinance with a small change allow the Board to fix that problem. She inquired if the Ordinance had certain standards for building in the 25-year floodplain, and the definition, in relationship to being able to build, means the initial grade of the lot as opposed to what a person can fill it to, be a solution. Mr. Jenkins advised they do the house pad but not the rest of the property; and if they raised the entire property to that level, it would flood the neighbor's property. Commissioner Higgs stated if the standards for the 25-year floodplain involve not what they can fill their way out of but what was the status of the property initially, that would seem to help fix part of the problem; with Ms. Busacca responding staff requires compensatory storage in the 25-year floodplain or below; so if they fill and remove flood capacity somewhere on their property they must provide an equal amount of flood capacity. Commissioner Scarborough stated it means digging a pond and piling up the dirt for a pad, but what happens is the pond overflows. Ms. Busacca stated it is still going to flood in the 25-year floodplain given certain events. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the standards for building in the 25-year floodplain should say they cannot build because that is the only way to solve it if compensatory storage and filling does not do it, or they could build on pilings. Ms. Busacca commented in Deer Run the homes are dry but the yards are not. Commissioner Higgs noted building on pilings will give a clue and may be a deterrent to people wanting to build in a flood-prone area; and the only other solution is not to allow building in the floodplain.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board cannot build Brevard County out to the maximum density, otherwise, it has an unlivable county; and inquired where should they allow people to build, and why should the Board put things where people are unhappy. He stated some of the tools need to be defined. He stated urban boundaries and floodplains are easy to start with; and inquired what other areas are going to be the new Deer Runs, and is the County capable of having it occur right now because it is not saying no. Commissioner Higgs stated if the Board says no residential homes in the 25-year floodplain, then it will be buying all the lands in the 25-year floodplain.

Mr. Denninghoff advised an option would be to require the entire lot be raised above the 25-year flood elevation and compensatory storage; and if they are required to have a tremendous amount of compensatory storage, there could be an economics that forces them out of the 25-year floodplain. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board would be in the same place because of the Bert Harris Act, if its regulatory changes put a person in a position which economically renders his property unusable.

Chairman Carlson stated there is a common sense setting where the Board does not want to build in a floodplain, therefore it restricts it; if it is not already platted, the Board needs to say they cannot build there and buy the development rights or the property; and if they have it platted, they have a right to develop, but they can be told they can only do it with pilings to protect their interests.

Commissioner Colon stated the average home builder is not knowledgeable of the regulations; if the Board is able to do things and implement things to protect them, it is doing the right thing; and those people said if there had been things that would have raised the flag, there is no way they would have invested their life savings in those homes. She stated the Board must do something; it cannot allow it to go on throughout the County; and it would be a step in the right direction. Chairman Carlson commented it is only a matter of time before it happens in another area. Mr. Jenkins stated if that is the issue, one unit per 20 acres would send a message to a buyer that there is something out there. Commissioner Colon stated they are from New York and New Jersey and only know it is cheap land.

Commissioner Higgs stated if the Board went to one unit per 20 acres on pilings in the 100-year floodplain, people may get the picture, and it would not take away use of the property, so that may be a compromise position. Commissioner Scarborough commented one unit per 20 acres may cause less of a problem or no problem.

Chairman Carlson inquired if the Board wants to discuss the map that depicts the 25-year floodplain. Ms. Busacca explained the map; stated there used to be a disclaimer on the map; the accuracy of it is questionable because it was based on existing data; the map depicts 42,000 parcels in the 25-year floodplain; and it does not include the City of Palm Bay, which has 15,000 to 20,000 parcels in the city. Chairman Carlson inquired if the parcels are developed or undeveloped; with Ms. Busacca responding 37,000 of the 42,000 are residential parcels; and there are currently 7,500 actual houses within the 25-year floodplain for an estimated population of 15,800 people. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the white area is the 100-year floodplain; with Ms. Busacca responding it could be, but she does not have anything depicted other than the 25-year floodplain. Ms. Busacca advised Mr. Wentworth with GIS, who put the map together, said there was an area that should also be included in the floodplain, but the map changed it; however, it does not fundamentally change the numbers because it is largely agricultural. She noted the 25-year floodplain is a substantial area of the County.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board changed the density and allowed some development under limited criteria, it would not be taking away all the property rights or devaluing the property totally. Ms. Busacca suggested the Board look differently at the unplatted areas than areas with existing lots. She stated staff has not required compensatory storage for existing lots that were platted prior to 1988; and that may be an issue the Board may want to address in its discussions. Commissioner Higgs stated those are the ones in jeopardy the soonest because they are in place and ready to go.

Commissioner Colon advised one of the biggest issues in the City of Palm Bay regarding flooding is that homes are being allowed to be built so high that they are flooding their neighbors; and it is a terrible effect. She stated the City was always questioned about why it allowed that to happen. Commissioner Scarborough stated he had a similar problem in Port St. John.

Ms. Busacca advised staff can go through the options identified to regulate development, if the Board desires. She stated one option identified is structural design; the Board discussed the idea of construction on pilings; and in addition to that idea, additional freeboard or height requirement above the 100-year flood elevation would protect structures in the floodplain. She stated Brevard County participates in the community rating service, and having additional freeboard requirements in the Code could increase the amount of points it would get in its rating and provide a substantial savings for flood insurance. Mr. Denninghoff advised the County could obtain an additional 300 points,0 which is about 75% of what it would need to trip the threshold and result in additional discounted insurance premiums. He stated currently in the unincorporated area, the people have enjoyed about a $500,000 a year discount; they pay that much less in flood insurance than they would if it were not for the current rating; and that would go up about 50% if the County trips that threshold. He stated if the County maximizes the amount of freeboard benefit towards the scoring system, it would be 75% of the way to tripping the threshold; but there are other things it would have to do to trip the threshold. Mr. Jones stated currently everyone in Brevard County receives 10% reduction on their flood insurance costs; and this would probably kick up to 15%.

Ms. Busacca stated there is an additional reason to consider freeboard; and staff was asked to discuss that for velocity zones as part of the ordinance the Board will be considering on July 24, 2001. She stated another thing staff talked about was minimum lot size; there currently is a minimum lot size for development within the floodplains; however, that minimum lot size has not been extended to areas platted prior to 1988. She stated should the Board wish to do that, it would require aggregation of some minimum lot sizes; it may not be feasible in all cases to aggregate lots; and it could bring the County subject to claim under the Harris Act. Ms. Busacca advised a third option is compensatory storage; staff is not currently requiring compensatory storage for any properties that were created prior to 1988 because the requirement came in 1988; and they have not made it retroactive as is true of many requirements of the Comprehensive Plan.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Comprehensive Plan requires that staff not apply the compensatory storage requirement for those lots platted before 1988; with Ms. Busacca responding there is no specific exemption, but staff said the Ordinance adopting the Comprehensive Plan in 1988 would be utilized as the vesting period. Ms. Busacca advised the provisions of the Ordinance states if it had been approved in a site plan or subdivision or the subdivision had been submitted with fees paid, it would not be required to undergo review of the new Comprehensive Plan policies; and that is what staff has utilized, although it is not a specific exemption. She noted that is something the Board may want to consider. She stated in some cases compensatory storage may not be possible on smaller lots; and the Board may want to consider it can only be done for lots of one acre and above, although that may not be the appropriate number. She stated the Board may wish to eliminate public funding of infrastructure that supports development within floodplain areas, which could be done by policy of the Board. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board should not accept roads if someone wants to build in a floodplain. Ms. Busacca commented that could be one policy the Board could establish. Commissioner Scarborough stated they have to be on a County road to get a building permit; with Commissioner Higgs responding they have to have access to a public road, but their access can be through a private road.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he has not seen private roads that run extensive distances. He stated Baytree is an upscale development with private roads because they do not want everybody coming in there; and the other is a person trying to get into less developable property through other methodologies.

Mr. Jones stated other things that might come into the public purpose discussion may be whether or not a funding mechanism, such as an MSBU, should be used to open up the areas to additional development. He stated currently, under the Unpaved Road Ordinance, staff requires that they build a dirt road, but after 51% is developed, it would trip an automatic MSBU that comes in and paves the road; and in those instances, one mechanism, without denying the ability to develop, might be that is not an option, and that they have to put in the infrastructures at the time they wish to develop the property. Commissioner Higgs stated it is already a public right-of-way in that case; with Mr. Jones responding a public right-of-way does not necessarily convey to the Board the responsibility of accepting maintenance. Commissioner Higgs noted roads in a floodplain are more likely to require a higher level of maintenance than those that are in high and dry areas.

Mr. Jenkins advised if the Board allows development on a right-of-way that is not maintained, it will get into the issues of providing police, fire, and emergency medical services; and if they cannot get in there, the County may get sued. Commissioner Higgs stated the road would be at the standard like any private road in a private subdivision, but the County would not maintain the road if it is built in a floodplain. Mr. Jenkins advised years ago the County had an arrangement where people signed an agreement that said the County would not assume responsibility for the road; and that was full of problems and did not work. He stated the second owner of the house did not sign the no maintenance agreement; and inquired what would happen if that person needed an ambulance and said he pays taxes for the service. Ms. Busacca noted there may be bonding possibilities for the additional cost of maintenance in the floodplains. Commissioner Higgs stated the deal is not to allow building in the floodplains. Ms. Busacca stated it may be cost effective to purchase the lands in the floodplain in some instances rather than provide or maintain infrastructure and services to those areas.

Chairman Carlson inquired if the Board wanted to go over anything else. Mr. Jenkins inquired if the Board wants to give staff direction. Chairman Carlson stated the moratorium is an item, but she is not sure that is one of the considerations.

Commissioner Higgs stated FEMA is buying property around the country in flood-prone areas to reduce costs; and inquired if it is possible to get grants from FEMA to buy some of the property that is in the floodplains. Emergency Management Director Bob Lay responded it is possible; however, it is not FEMA but local government that is buying it through a grant system with FEMA. He stated most of the properties are those that had repetitive losses; and in the County there were only about 11 or so parcels. Commissioner Higgs inquired if it has to show repetitive losses to get the grant; with Mr. Lay responding that is the priority FEMA established; however, there have been some where the insurance payments exceeded the property value over the years. Mr. Jenkins noted FEMA is looking for areas where rivers flood every five years or so.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board waits for someone to build in the floodplain then buy developed property, it will pay more; and inquired why should it allow building to occur and damages to occur and payments to go up and not buy it when it is cheaper and precludes the payment of development. He stated the Board does not need to look at insurance claims but at water levels; and inquired if it can buy before insurance pays. Mr. Lay noted that is probably part of what has been happening; and St. Johns River Water Management District has bought property because of that issue. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board could tell FEMA it wants to buy all the lands in the ten-year floodplain; with Mr. Lay responding he does not think FEMA has the money to do that; and the money that is available is being used to look at repetitive losses and attempting to buy those. Commissioner Higgs suggested Mr. Lay check with FEMA to be sure it is not in the business of helping with the ten-year floodplain so the Board will know it has exhausted that effort. Mr. Jenkins advised the Board could talk to the Senators and Congressmen to see if there is legislation that might be feasible to do what Commissioner Scarborough is saying, and that is to buy when it is inexpensive as opposed to buying when it is developed and more expensive.

Chairman Carlson inquired if Project Impact is opening up any doors for the County; with Mr. Lay responding he would have to look at that; normally that is made available following certain events; and the last time it was available was when there was flooding on the southwest side of Florida. He stated he will look at it and get specific answers on purchasing of property. Chairman Carlson advised everything discussed points towards the direction of creating a floodplain protection program using a lot of the existing tools, but not one in particular; and she does not know what the Board is interested in doing, but it needs to give staff some direction as to the next step. She stated staff has done a lot of research; she does not know what the cost of putting together such a program will be, but the Board needs to protect the residents from scenarios that have happened at Deer Run. She stated there were similar issues in West Canaveral Groves, Port St. John, and other places; so the Board needs to look at it seriously. She stated if it requires pilings and reduced compensatory storage, the cost would be about even; but the issue not discussed is the structure and design of septic tanks and requiring them to be raised instead of underground. She noted there are problems that might be prone to affect underground septic systems in the 25-year floodplain. Ms. Busacca advised Brevard County has the ability to adopt more stringent standards than the State for septic tanks, so it can do that if the Board wants to.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if someone builds in a floodplain, there is potential for the septic tank to become inoperable; and inquired if the County could require they be on a sewer system, and not allow septic tanks in the 25-year floodplain. Mr. Jenkins inquired if the septic tank is built high enough, will it still not work; with Mr. Jones responding elevated mound drain field systems will work if they are up high enough.

Mr. Jones advised there are different types of floodplains; there are riverine floodplains where flooding will actually occur, and isolated floodplains, which are usually a small wetland on high and dry property designated per FEMA maps as a floodplain; so it would be necessary to address the issues with riverine floodplains first, and secondarily the isolated floodplains. He stated review of the FEMA maps for Brevard County in terms of the isolated floodplain, shows more of the area than what is currently on the map that was illustrated.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the low-lying areas on Merritt Island are defined as estuarine floodplains or isolated floodplains; with Mr. Jones responding on North Merritt Island the areas shown on the FEMA maps as floodplains are estuarine; and the area in the center of North Merritt Island is the area that has the most dramatic flooding associated with rainfall events as opposed to storm events; but it is not designated at all at this time. He stated staff has been working and utilizing different technologies to identify the floodplain elevation and set the finished floor elevation.

Ms. Busacca advised in the original Comprehensive Plan there were density limits for estuarine floodplains; those have since been removed; so although those areas are within floodplain areas and are going to flood, there are no density restrictions. She stated the Board may want to consider reinstating those restrictions which had been in place since 1988. Commissioner Scarborough requested Ms. Busacca provide copies to the Commissioners.

Chairman Carlson inquired what is the Board's interest in moving forward with the flood protection issue; with Commissioner Scarborough responding Commissioner Higgs asked Mr. Lay to come back with information about purchasing floodplains; and the Board asked practical questions about septic systems, high pilings, does it want to allow building in floodplains, and not accepting infrastructures. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board wants to look at changing the building standards; with Commissioner Scarborough responding that should be done with health and safety being the driving force. Ms. Busacca inquired if the Board wants staff to put together a package for its review. Mr. Jenkins inquired if the Board wants staff to take the issues, reformat them, and bring them back on the Agenda except those items that are going to be discussed at the workshop; with Commissioner Scarborough responding yes. Commissioner Higgs stated it should be under the framework of changes to the Ordinance so the Board can see it in that context. Chairman Carlson advised if the Board is going to institute a program for flood protection, the changes could be encapsulated in one thing like a flood protection plan.

Commissioner Colon advised recording of the survey was also discussed. Chairman Carlson advised the Wakiva presentation and that stuff will be coming back at the workshop. Commissioner Colon stated she wants to take it one step further to a moratorium; and there are a few other things to talk about.

The meeting recessed at 12:45 p.m., and reconvened at 1:00 p.m.

Chairman Carlson inquired if there is a time frame when the issue will come back to the Board; with Mr. Jenkins responding it will be as fast as they can do it, but there is a lot to do, so they will need some time. Chairman Carlson advised the June 25, 2001 Memo from Peggy Busacca contained mapping of the ten and 25-year floodplains.

Ms. Busacca advised the issue is better floodplain information will make for better design of projects and better regulations; staff identified the map that digitized the quad map to show the 25-year floodplain; there are additional mechanisms they could utilize to get correct information on floodplains; and staff would recommend Option 3, which is Lidar mapping that would cost an estimated $300,000 to $500,000 for one-foot contours of the entire County. She stated Mr. Lay said the Lidar mapping is something he is requesting the Board put into the legislative package for the budget of the Department of Community Affairs for a grant; so that may be an option. She stated other alternatives are less expensive, but staff does not feel those options provide an accuracy that is sufficient for expending that kind of money; and after identifying those options, staff recommended the Lidar mapping. She noted she does not know whether or not it would get through the budget process as part of the legislative package.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if St. Johns River Water Management District is interested in participating with the County; with Ms. Busacca responding yes; and Mr. Jones feels the Surface Water Management budget could absorb some of the costs because it would be valuable to their efforts. Commissioner Higgs inquired how long would it take to do it; with Ms. Busacca responding the actual flying of the County would take a couple of weeks. Mr. Denninghoff advised there are several different ways of doing Lidar mapping; he does not know how long it will take to accomplish the entire task, but the flight portion is only a couple of weeks; however, there is preparatory time before that and a lot of data processing after the flying portion. He noted it would not be a month long, and would be substantially longer than that. Commissioner Higgs inquired if it could be done in segments, north, central, south; with Mr. Denninghoff responding it could be broken into segments, but there is an economy of scale of getting the plane up, recording the data, and processing the data when it is done all at once.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, to direct staff to put together as many partners to potentially fund the Lidar mapping process and get it back to the Board so it can analyze ways to move forward with flood protection.

Commissioner Carlson stated the Board needs a plan of attack because if it does not go through the Legislative Session next time, it will still need to do it. She stated she assumes it is the most accurate method of mapping floodplains; with Mr. Denninghoff responding there are more accurate methods, but the cost goes up geometrically. Chairman Carlson inquired how accurate is this method; with Mr. Denninghoff responding the method staff prefers to use is plus or minus half a foot; that is why the Board has one-foot contours; it actually meets the standards for surveying and mapping; so it is a very useful tool that will be beneficial over a broad spectrum of services and functions of the County. Chairman Carlson inquired if Mr. Denninghoff is saying Lidar mapping is half a foot in terms of accuracy; with Mr. Denninghoff responding yes, there are two techniques that are utilized; one is more accurate than the other; and the more costly one is the half foot. Chairman Carlson inquired if that is the one staff has; with Mr. Denninghoff responding yes.

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

Land Clearing Practices/Preservation of Vegetation

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca advised the Board asked staff to identify practices which related to land clearing; those are numerated in the document; and staff put together a list of options, which the Board may wish to consider, to amend the land clearing regulations. She stated those options include: (1) preservation of specimen trees, (2) preservation of canopy cover naturally occurring on site, (3) preservation of critical habitat on site, (4) preservation of a percentage of vegetation on site, and (5) preservation of a buffer on the perimeter of each subdivision. She noted the Office of Natural Resources Management is currently developing data to support a critical habitat ordinance, and the subdivision perimeter buffer ordinance was sent back to staff for additional work. Ms. Busacca advised the discussion of the floodplain leads to some of the issues that relate to why land clearing occurs the way it does in Brevard County; if a septic tank will be put in, additional land clearing is required; if sidewalks are required, additional land clearing is required; and the amount of compensatory storage or the way the stormwater retention system functions drives the clearing of those lands so they can do that type of engineering. She stated any land clearing regulations may have additional repercussions when it comes to other types of development standards.

Chairman Carlson inquired if a large subdivision wants to build a big lake for all the property to drain into and has to have the drainage engineering in place, how does the County control the clear cutting, and do they have to clear cut to get that kind of detail. She noted there is a problem in District 4 where clear cutting causes sand to impact adjoining properties; developers try to revegetate, but there is still a constant problem; and they are not preserving any vegetation on site. She inquired if it is a drainage problem; with Land Development Engineer Bruce Moia responding it is a drainage issue. Mr. Moia stated it is easier to clear cut property to put in improvements; in all his years of consulting or reviewing plans, the only development he saw where they did not clear cut a large tract of land to do a subdivision was Forest Creek in Melbourne; it was an oak hammock of about 40 acres; and the developer built a whole subdivision and did not clear cut at all. He noted they designed it to save almost every tree. Chairman Carlson inquired how did they work the drainage; with Mr. Moia responding they only removed trees where they had to. Chairman Carlson inquired if they have retention ponds on site; with Mr. Moia responding yes. Chairman Carlson stated so it is feasible to do it; with Mr. Moia responding it is painstaking, but it can be done. Ms. Busacca noted it is more expensive to do it that way. Chairman Carlson stated so it is not that it cannot be done; with Mr. Moia responding it is not that it cannot be done; if the property has valuable vegetation, it makes it more attractive to do; it is a developer-value issue; and if the developer thinks there is value in saving the vegetation, some developers will make that effort, but it is not a common practice. Chairman Carlson advised Spyglass Subdivision was heavily forested with mostly pine trees; the developer thought it was more cost effective to flatten all of it; and that is a real shame because it takes away from the aesthetics of the area.

Ms. Busacca suggested the Board identify which issues it felt to be critical so staff could tell it what amendments would be necessary; for instance, if the issue is windblown erosion and large areas being cleared at the same time, there could be an amendment to clear in phases; and if the issue is canopy cover, staff would have to talk about preservation of either a certain species of tree, certain size of tree, or certain percentage of canopy cover.

Commissioner Higgs advised preservation of a canopy in terms of its cooling mechanism and the benefit of trees seem to be an important and critical issue to the quality of life for people in the community; it is not just aesthetics; and inquired how can the Board allow construction so it can preserve and reestablish the tree canopy.

Mr. Jenkins advised the entire Suntree development was probably leveled and raised two or three feet then re-landscaped and built; it is basically economics; but if a significant portion of a proposed subdivision is raised, the areas that remain at the natural elevation would be dramatically lower; and the vegetation that is left there may not remain alive and could be flooded out. He stated the Open Space Ordinance encourages green space in subdivisions; one way to try and preserve some of the natural vegetation is by encouraging developers to retain certain central green areas; and different developers have commented that it is a matter of economics.

Mr. Moia advised a common development practice is to fill the entire site because there are high water tables and low lying lands; and that is the only way then can get the density to make the project economically feasible. He stated they can make the ponds smaller and deeper to get the infrastructure they need to accommodate the development; and not letting them clear cut and fill is an economic issue. He noted they may not be able to get the project to work economically if they cannot get the density.

Commissioner Higgs stated maybe the Board does not want it to work if it is adverse to the overall community. She stated the Board should not provide incentives to make it work; if it establishes something like a canopy or percentage of native vegetation coverage, people would choose those properties to develop that can meet the needs; and other marginal properties would not go as quickly.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there was a great war with this issue the last time the Board discussed it several years ago; he does not recall the word canopy being part of the discussion; and inquired if it is new or is it already in the regulations; with Ms. Busacca responding it is not currently in the regulations; and the issue of canopy came about when the Board asked for information. Commissioner Scarborough stated grass gets points so there can be a nice landscaped piece of property that lacks canopy; canopy to him is something that reaches up and covers; and he would be interested in seeing what other communities have done with the concept of canopy because there may be a totally new concept that would enhance the quality of life in Brevard County. He stated the parking lot at the Government Center has oak trees which someday will provide a nice canopy; but upon leaving the Center, there are cow pastures, so it may not be just what is there. He stated the point system is elaborate, but it does not address the idea that people should in some way create a canopy. Ms. Busacca advised staff provided the Board information on ways to make trees they plant more viable; several suggestions did relate to planting larger trees that would provide greater canopy and giving additional space especially in parking areas; but the Board has not taken forward action on those options. She noted she will be happy to provide that information to the Board again.

Commissioner Higgs suggested moving forward and bringing it back on the regular agenda to look at specific options to improve the canopy concept. Chairman Carlson advised that discussion took place, but nothing has come of it; so if staff can incorporate that, it would cover the commercial side and not just the residential side. Ms. Busacca stated an ordinance was developed; and staff can put it on the agenda for permission to advertise, which would give the opportunity to discuss the details.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct staff to put the canopy ordinance on a regular agenda for permission to advertise a public hearing. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Carlson inquired if the Board will be getting canopy options; with Ms. Busacca responding it will be in the landscaping issue and not necessarily addressed in land clearing practices. Commissioner Higgs recommended talking about ways to preserve canopy in the land clearing area as well. Chairman Carlson recommended discussions about the potential of large developments being cleared on a phased approach to reduce impacts to adjoining properties. Ms. Busacca stated there is a big difference between mandatory requirements and incentives; staff identified an incentive as an additional requirement for replacement of trees that were removed rather than mandatory preservation of trees with a certain size canopy; and inquired if the Board prefers to go with mandatory requirements or incentives; with Commissioner Higgs responding the Board should start with mandatory and work back. Chairman Carlson suggested looking at specimen size also so it does not take a hundred years to get a canopy.

Commissioner Scarborough stated some shopping centers have trees planted that are healthy and viable, and others barely grow; it is more than just the size of the tree, it is what is put in, soil amenities, watering, etc. that lead to the viability. Ms. Busacca stated the draft ordinance includes all those things. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if staff really knows all the elements that make for a healthy tree or non-healthy tree; with Ms. Busacca responding Loren Rapport, Reba Floyd, and several people helped staff with the ordinance. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is not all scientific, but there are things that can be done right. Mr. Jenkins noted they included those in the ordinance based on input from Mr. Rapport and Ms. Floyd. Chairman Carlson stated in some places they planted things so tightly that there is no way a big oak tree could live within four feet of several other trees; she has seen them lined up at 7-Eleven Stores where they did not distribute the trees; and it may be an oversight issue that needs to be looked at. Ms. Busacca stated staff will do that.

Chairman Carlson inquired if there is any more things to add in terms of conservation; with Ms. Busacca responding no, the Board asked for specific options; and the July 2, 2001 memo provides possible scenarios based on different types of developments. Mr. Jenkins stated the Board made a motion to include preservation of canopy as a mandatory item for land clearing. Chairman Carlson inquired if preservation of critical habitat on site is different than preservation of natural resources; with Ms. Busacca responding Natural Resources is working on that. Chairman Carlson inquired when will the critical habitat ordinance come back to the Board; with Conrad White responding it is being reviewed by the County Attorney, then by the Planning Office, so it would be about 30 days before it comes to the Board.

Chairman Carlson advised the Board did not take action on the Quality Growth item; and inquired if there is any action the Board wants to take; with Ms. Busacca responding the Board directed staff to bring someone from the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council to discuss the Wakiva River project at a workshop, and to provide multiple overlays.

Chairman Carlson inquired if staff analyzed the unfunded capital improvement projects as they pertain to best practices, and if some of those capital projects were done, would it forward some of the best practices. She stated there may be some capital improvement projects the Board may want to consider to forward the best practices. Mr. Jenkins stated they are inclusive.

DISCUSSION, RE: OTHER PROGRAMS BEST PRACTICES

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised staff was able to fund one or two of the best practices in the proposed preliminary budget, but not many of them are included simply for lack of funding. He stated each agency that had best practices submitted them at the Board's request; some are phased over five years; and they tried to make them outcome driven in a sense of how it will enhance delivery of service to the public.

Animal Control

Commissioner Higgs advised Animal Control's proposal is to add additional officers; she does not remember if they were added in the budget; and inquired if staff explored increasing fees to fund the additional officers. Mr. Jenkins advised that is one thing that is still pending; and he advised his staff if they can look at areas where fees could be increased, he would recommend those revenues be used to enhance services; and Animal Services is putting that together. Commissioner Higgs inquired if staff looked at the fines and is there any room to adjust those to get additional revenue; with Interim Animal Services and Enforcement Director Randy Jackson responding they have looked at tag revenues, not necessarily at fines, but that can be addressed easily. Commissioner Higgs requested a short analysis of how much is generated annually in fines to see if there is room for adjustments; stated it has been several years since they were increased; and they could use additional officers in the field. Dr. Joe Ward advised they have six or eight recommendations to increase fees; with Commissioner Higgs requesting those be sent to the Commissioners.

Commissioner Colon advised a lot of constituents in Deer Run are cringing because it is still raining and the flooding will get to a level where they will not be able to have their horses in the area; and inquired if there is any where in the south part of the County where people can take their large animals. Mr. Jackson advised they have Agreements with Duda and Deseret that in an emergency they can relocate animals to those locations; and he will be happy to call and make arrangements with them if someone is interested. Commissioner Colon stated there is a homeowners meeting tonight and she wanted to have some answers for the residents; it is raining harder and the water level is going to get even higher; and if there are residents and children who cannot stay in their homes any longer, she hopes the hotels will accommodate some of those people. She stated if staff can help her with that information, she would appreciate it. Mr. Jenkins advised Bob Lay can help with the humans, and Animal Services will take care of the animals.

Intelligent Evacuation Information System

Commissioner Higgs advised the Intelligent Evacuation Information System is $120,000 non-recurring and $12,000 operating over the next four years; and inquired if those kinds of needs can be funded out of the gas tax; with Mr. Jenkins responding he is not aware that gas tax could be used for that, but he will look into it. Commissioner Higgs stated it is a road-related expenditure that would advise people what is available during evacuations. Mr. Jenkins stated staff will check to see if it is gas tax eligible.

Office of Natural Resources Management

Chairman Carlson advised the only one she noticed that identified justification for best practices with the Comprehensive Plan was Natural Resources; there has been a lot of discussion on preservation of vegetation, etc.; and inquired if the Board is going to fund BP 25, Urban Forestry, that basically says by the year 2002 the County should develop an urban forestry program to implement the County's landscaping, native vegetation preservation, and tree protection policies, and include principals and practices regarding management of vegetation, public education, and inventory. She stated the Board requested Natural Resources to go forward with the critical habitat ordinance that has a cost associated with it; the cost in 2000-2001 is $185,000; and inquired how is that being worked. Mr. Jenkins advised the Management Section asked for four positions; budget staff has been trying to fund two additional positions, but the Urban Forestry item was not one of those two; and unfortunately, in order to put the budget in its current balanced condition, there are no new positions for the Management Section. He stated Debbie Coles proposed to raise fees in the Permitting Rreview Section to generate enough for another position; but at the present time, there are no additional positions in the preliminary budget for Natural Resources Management. Mr. Peffer advised they are unable to add positions because they do not have the resources. Chairman Carlson inquired if BP 24, which is by the year 2002 Policy 8.4 of the Comprehensive Plan would be laid out is not included in any budget; with Mr. Peffer responding that is correct.

Mr. Peffer advised when the Best Practices first came to the Board, it was requested that staff show the recurring and capital costs; they have done that with all the best practices; but they are unfunded. He stated they tried to show the scope of some of the issues that were identified in the Comprehensive Plan, which they thought would make the community better; but they cannot address those because they do not have the resources. He stated if they were to prioritize those and select some of them, that is what they think the costs would be to implement those practices.

Mr. Jenkins advised staff felt Natural Resources Management, at a minimum, needed two additional positions to make any in-roads on some of the Comprehensive Plan commitments; originally they talked about four positions, but there is no funding to do it; however, if the Board wishes to insert those positions, staff will do it.

Chairman Carlson stated given the discussions on quality growth, those positions should be included; and they should include anything they have in best practices when it applies to urban forestry or significant areas which are in BP 24 and BP 25. She stated the Board needs to take a stronger stance on some of those issues; they have been in the Comprehensive Plan for a long time; and the issues are coming to a head.

Mr. Peffer advised staff requested two positions to handle the workload they have right now; and that would be their first priority rather than best practices because they are struggling to keep up with what they have now. He stated in the 1990's, Brevard County grew over 20%, and Natural Resources shrunk from 35 to 20 positions; and handling the workload of an expanding County and the requests the Board made to address scrub jays, manatees, and critical habitats, have put a tremendous strain on very few people. He stated Conrad White's Section is one-third of Natural Resources; and he has borne most of the workload. He stated to maintain the status quo, what they feel are valuable programs to move forward cannot be done; and if they were to have their option as to how they would proceed, their highest priority would be to fill the shortage in staff before addressing additional projects, complete the projects they are working on, and have the flexibility to work some of the best practices in.

Commissioner Colon advised she asked Mr. Whitten and Mr. Rogero to go back to Departments and get their priorities; a list of 20 priorities does not help the Board know exactly what is needed; and requested that information be provided to the Board before it makes its final decisions. Mr. Whitten stated he hopes to provide that information this afternoon or tomorrow morning. Chairman Carlson inquired if the priority list is based on best practices; with Mr. Whitten responding the request was for prioritization of the unfunded changes. Mr. Jenkins noted some of them are best practices. Commissioner Colon stated it is difficult for the Board to know where the priorities are; some projects would take five years; but there are others that are needed immediately; and those are important for the Board to look at.

Chairman Carlson stated she does not see any advance in what the Board has been working on for the last few years; and now they are talking about needing more people to handle the current workload. Mr. Jenkins stated getting two people would allow them some staffing to begin to meet some of the existing commitments in the Comprehensive Plan that they are not currently able to get to. Mr. Peffer stated as those are completed, they would have the ability to address some of the other things they consider best practices. He stated by using the additional resources, they would address not only what they are doing now, but in the future would be able to pick up some of the other issues the Board prioritizes and selects to be addressed first. Mr. Jenkins stated some of the best practices are also the result of current obligations that exist in the Comprehensive Plan; and two additional people will be able to begin to address existing commitments then spin off into the best practices. Mr. Peffer noted every one of the best practices came from the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Scarborough inquired how much would it cost for two people; with Mr. Roger responding $148,568. Commissioner Colon stated other Departments have the same situation and are requesting positions; so the Board should do it all together. Commissioner Scarborough inquired how does Commissioner Colon envision this taking place; with Commissioner Colon responding she hopes on Thursday the Board can discuss it in more detail because there are other Departments with the same issue.

Housing and Human Services

Commissioner Higgs stated Housing and Human Services requested two staff people to keep up with the workload; and there is also a $6,000 request from Country Acres for their program to get professional certification. Mr. Jenkins stated the basic mandated State certification has been funded, but the International Certification for child workers was not funded. Commissioner Higgs inquired how many children are at Country Acres; with Housing and Human Services Director Gay Williams responding 22 presently. Commissioner Higgs stated those children are in the Board's care; $6,000 is not much; and she hopes it will be put in the budget.

Commissioner Colon requested Ms. Williams elaborate on the positions requested. Ms. Williams advised the two additional positions would extend the operating hours for Family and Children Services; a lot of families are in crisis; and the County adds an additional crisis by the people not being able to access the services at the times they are provided. She stated the services are provided from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; a lot of the people work; and if they come in at 8:00 a.m., there are 20 people waiting to access the services. She stated some people are immobile and need staff to go out and do home visits. Commissioner Colon stated they are working with the working poor who do not have the flexibility some other folks do to take off of work; and being able to have access after 5:00 p.m. is a logical thing to try and go forward with.

Traffic Engineering

Commissioner Higgs advised Traffic Engineering, in BP 39 recommended reevaluation of existing timing of traffic signals; they are asking to be able to do 45 signals per year; the County has 225 signals; and inquired if it would make the roads function better. Traffic Engineer Dick Thompson advised the normal principal is to do re-timing as growth in the County continues; some areas grow faster than others; there is no way to anticipate where growth is going to be; and this will give the Board an opportunity to look at the signals every so often and adjust the timing. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board should look closely at the expenditure if there is some way to do it because it could spend $135,000 and get a quarter of a mile of asphalt yet not see immediate impacts; and recommended staff determine if it is a gas tax funded expenditure. She requested the Board give some priority to look at that, which should be a good benefit for the cost. Commissioner Higgs requested Mr. Thompson describe the new lamps for the traffic signals and how they may save money in the long term; with Mr. Thompson responding a study was conducted in March that indicated, based on $94 per unit, in 2.4 years there would be a payback; at that time the LED lamps were guaranteed for three years; and since then, they increased the manufacturer's guarantee to five years. He stated the tests they have been running show it could go seven to ten years on the life of a unit, which would be a significant savings. He stated every time a vehicle is put out on the street to maintain a signal, there is a risk of an accident, even with the best of safety setups; and the less frequent they have to go out on the street, the better. He noted it is one thing to work on the side of a road, but another to work in the roadway. Mr. Thompson advised they would not have to replace the LED lamps every two years, which is another payback; and they are more durable and less receptive to damage by lightning strikes and vibrations. He stated it is one of the best things that have come along for the traffic signal business in a long time. Commissioner Higgs stated it seems like the County will get a payback there as well, so the Board should look at that.

Public Safety

Commissioner Higgs advised under Public Safety there is a request for an additional ambulance; and inquired if it is a replacement or an additional ambulance on top of what the County already has; with Public Safety Director Jack Parker responding the request is a result of the best practices exercise. Mr. Parker advised his staff developed a best practice of recommending to the Board that they add an additional ambulance each year for the next five years to keep up with the growth and concerns they have operationally. He stated there were five areas selected that could benefit by an additional ambulance; and those are Central Melbourne area, East Merritt Island/South Cocoa Beach area, Lake Washington area, Central Titusville area, and South Melbourne Beach area. Commissioner Higgs inquired if one ambulance is in the current budget; with Mr. Parker responding no, and in order to fund it another $2.67 increase to the EMS Countywide assessment would be required. Mr. Jenkins noted that would be on top of the increase that is already there for fire medics. Mr. Parker stated they are attempting to fund the fire medic incentive increase, which is of paramount importance; and that is going to require a $3.58 increase to the EMS rate.

Commissioner Colon inquired if the Board would have to fund the staff on top of that; with Mr. Parker responding the $2.67 increase would encompass all the costs of the additional ambulance, including the ambulance, staffing, and operations; there are some unknowns, such as the sites for the ambulances; but if they are sited in an existing fire rescue station, that would not incur additional costs. He stated if they are sited in a stand alone station, that may be another cost that is not considered with the $2.67 increase; but that increase includes the ambulance, fuel, operations, consumable medical supplies, and personnel. Commissioner Colon inquired if that would be three persons; with Mr. Parker responding it would be seven fire medics per ambulance for two shifts, seven days a week, 24 hours a day, and one floater who will fill in for people who are off. He noted it would be a two-person crew.

Chairman Carlson advised the five year plan is half a million then goes up close to a million and over a million dollars; and inquired if that is just for one ambulance; with Mr. Parker responding that is actually showing the recurring expenses from the previous year and adding it in each time, so it is an additional expense of about half a million dollars per year because it is an additional ambulance. He stated although staff may anticipate additional construction cost that are not included, there could be a decrease; the $2.67 represents a new rescue unit has to be purchased the first time, but once that is established the EMS rate could go down because they would be purchasing fewer and fewer rescue units. He stated the $2.67 would not have to be increased the second year because they already built in enough to encompass the purchase of one rescue unit and the next year they would be requesting a lesser increase depending on where it is sited. He stated one area of real concern is South Cocoa Beach/Snug Harbor area; staff is working with Satellite Beach and Cocoa Beach to help service that area; and Mr. Billias offered a place across the street from City Hall that the County could renovate and retrofit and run as an ambulance station with no lease cost, only utilities and renovations; however, it would take the Council's support. He noted those types of sitings on the beachside is valuable because it can save the County a lot of money; and he appreciates that.

Chairman Carlson requested Mr. Parker advise the Board about the lifeguards. Mr. Parker advised two lifeguard towers in close proximity of each other at Nance Park and the Boardwalk encompass that whole area and have a pretty good usage; the difficulty is the City maintains the parks; staff considered year-round lifeguard service with some of the towers in cooperation with the cities, which would cost half of the proposal; but there is no real interest from the cities to expand their service levels. He stated he talked to the Town Manager of Indialantic this morning who said they are satisfied with their current level of service, but if the Board wanted, he would take it to his Council and ask if it would share the cost of a single tower, which would be approximately $60,000 for the City and $60,000 for the County per year.

Mosquito Control

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board will be able to inquire of different staff as to expanded services; with Mr. Jenkins responding they will all be at the meeting. Commissioner Scarborough stated in tracking calls to his office, one place constituents want to see made better is Mosquito Control. He stated an ambulance is more important, but the calls are about mosquito control; so the Board may want to look at the capacity to keep equipment operating.

Chairman Carlson recommended the Board look at the best practices in the booklet and tell staff what it wants so they can decide how to stick those in the budget. Commissioner Higgs stated staff did a great job putting together the recommendations; and she wishes the Board could do all of them. Chairman Carlson thanked the staff who worked very hard on the budget. She stated it is going to be a difficult budget year, but hopefully the Board will make good decisions and the workload staff is dealing with will lessen with more persons on board.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 1:57 p.m.

ATTEST: ____________________________
SUSAN CARLSON, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
____________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)