MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

November 8, 2007

 

 

 

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special session on November 8, 2007 at 2:05 p.m. in the Government Center Florida Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida.  Present were: Chairperson Jackie Colon, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Chuck Nelson, Helen Voltz, and Mary Bolin, County Manager Peggy Busacca, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

 

 

 

 

Ken Griffin stated he has been on the TICO Airport Authority for two years; he did not know at the  time about the $.5 million  for the terminal,  which he found  out the Airport  should not have paid for; but that has all been squared away; and now the TICO Airport Authority is on the straight and narrow and things are being accounted for differently.  He stated he sees an easy road ahead for the TICO Airport Authority; the tenants are happier; progress is being made to build some hangars; and Mr. Powell is doing a great job.

 

David Hosely stated having spent many years in aviation he sees a lot of opportunity at TICO; the nation is facing a perfect storm economically; and the County is facing some challenges with foreclosures and the space program.  He stated aviation has a number of opportunities; everyone has to come together; and he has seen there is a spirit of cooperation. 

 

Ken Rivard stated he is happy with the direction of the TICO Airport Authority since there has been new staff; if it were not for the tenants, TICO would not exist; his concern has been with the tenants and the commercial tenants; and balancing the two is important.

 

Veronica Clifford stated she is happy with the direction; and she is glad to have Mr. Powell as Executive Director.  She stated the three airports are unique in different ways; there is different opportunities for each one; it is not something that can be done overnight; and it is a long-term process the TICO Airport Authority is working towards. 

 

Chairperson Colon advised it is important to have the lines of communication open; one of the key things is respect; and respect is earned, not given.  She stated she would encourage the Board and the TICO Airport Authority to meet once a year so the Board can find out how the Airport Authority needs help. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated although he has only been on the Board for a year, he has been very pleased with the relationship with TICO Airport Authority; the District 2 Airport Authority members have kept him informed of what is going on at the Airport; and he is encouraged by what he has seen so far.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated one of the major concerns the County has is that the EDC is indicating the County will have a $5 billion hit with the loss of 5,000 jobs at the Space Center; the Board should not ignore the significance of the TICO Airport Authority with the retirement of the Space Shuttle; and he believes Washington D.C. understands the significance of the relationship between aviation, aerospace, and the capacity to have operations other than space that will support the cost of base operation.

 

Commissioner Bolin stated she agrees with Commissioner Scarborough; the Board’s relationship with the TICO Airport Authority is just beginning; she has had nothing but good things told to her in the last year; and she would like to commend Jerry Sansom for the good work he is doing.  She advised she is looking forward to working closely with the TICO Airport Authority in the coming year. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated Mr. Powell has done a great job; and she is happy to see that everyone is working together.

 

County Manager Peggy Busacca stated it has been a pleasure to work with Mr. Powell; Brevard County is ready to assist  in any way it can; and as issues arise, the Airport  Authority should not hesitate to call her office.  Chairperson Colon advised the Airport Authority can call Ms. Busacca any time to get information; and stated the City of Titusville is also a key player. 

 

Mark Ryan, Manager, City of Titusville, stated it would be a good idea to hold an annual meeting between the City of Titusville and the Board of County Commissioners to discuss things; the City has more property that is not at the Airport; and there are economic development opportunities that the City may want to partner with the County on and vice versa.

 

 

 

Amy Tidd stated she would like to comment on the Melbourne Scrub Management Plan; management plans EEL property have always been approved by the scientists that oversee the program; and for the first time in Brevard County history, a management plan was not approved by the scientist, but was brought to the Board, was approved, and sent to Tallahassee.  She advised that plan was not deemed to meet the standards of the State; and therefore, the plan was sent back to Brevard County.  She stated she understands the plan is being revised; she wants to make sure both the scientists and the Board have a chance to look at the plan before it gets sent back to the State; and she would like to request the plan be placed on an Agenda.  She stated there are several properties on the Agenda for Tuesday to be purchased; the priority is to make sure the lands are managed correctly for the next 200 to 300 years; and if the management plans can be overridden for other issues, then the lands are not truly endangered lands.

 

 

 

Amy Tidd stated the issue was brought to the scientists who said the land swap would not meet the conservation value the land was acquired for; in order for land to be swapped in the EEL Program it has to increase the conservation value; and she would like for the Board to listen to the scientists who have given their time to manage the lands. 

 

 

 

Maureen Rupe stated she agrees with the scientists and not the County Commission on the paved trail; she went to Tallahassee to speak before the ARC, which agreed there should be more analysis on the trail and where it should be located; and she was surprised to find out the plan was being revised and due to be sent back to the State on November 13, 2007.  She noted she was upset to find out the revised plan would not be coming back to the County Commission; and she would like to see the plan come before the REAC, SMC, the Board, and the public. 

 

 

 

Maureen Rupe advised she would like to see more negotiation on the proposed land swap between the Environmentally Endangered Lands Group and the Titusville-Cocoa Airport Authority. 

 

 

Mary Sphar stated she hopes the Board will see its role as ensuring the EEL Program functions the way it is meant to function as described in the Land Acquisition Manual in the Sanctuary Management Manual.  She stated a land exchange needs to be approved by the SMC; she was at the SMC meeting on July 31, 2007 in which the proposed land exchange was recommended for denial by the SMC; and if there is a new proposal that might have a net conservation benefit, then that proposal also needs to go to the SMC prior to consideration by the Board of County Commissioners.  Ms. Sphar read a portion of the Land Acquisition Manual which states changes shall be considered by the Selection and Management Committee.  She stated she hopes the Board sees to it that the proper procedure is followed. 

 

 

 

Mary Sphar stated the Malabar Scrub Management Plan was sent to Tallahassee and returned to the County because of deficiencies; and it was a controversial plan because the SMC had one idea of where the trail should be located and County staff had another idea.  She stated she would like to plead with the Board to take this opportunity to see if there can be a compromise on the trail location; and it is better when everyone works together to achieve the conservation goals of the EEL Program.  She gave the Board copies of the minutes of the REAC meeting she attended on October 12, 2007, at the Florida Acquisition and Restoration Council in Tallahassee.  She advised the motion at that meeting was to defer the Malabar plan until it is ready to come back with the following changes: more details on facility citing with the map and impacts of all the facilities, targets for restoration, more analysis of the paved trail and where it should go, and a detailed design of the trail.  She stated it is a contentious issue, but it is an opportunity to work together to solve problems. 

 

Commissioner Colon thanked Ms. Sphar and Ms. Rupe for keeping the Board on its toes; but she does not recall it being brought to the Board’s attention that it was not following protocol with the SMC.  Ms. Sphar noted the Malabar plan went before the SMC; but the motion of the SMC was that the Malabar plan should be recommended for approval by the Board with the caveat that the biking trail be sited on the concrete road known as Malabar Woods Boulevard.  She stated due to factors other than environmental concerns it was recommended to the Board that the trail be located on the eastern fire break; and she was the one who pulled that item from the Consent Agenda on April 24, 2007.  She stated another reason for making an attempt to solve the problem is that there have been a number of comments by the scientists who do not believe it is the way the process should work.  Commissioner Colon stated either the Board followed protocol or it did not; the Board may not have agreed with what the recommendation was, but it sounds like protocol was followed.  Ms. Sphar advised she should have stated that precedent was not followed in the fact that staff recommended something other than what the scientists recommended; and that is what the Board was considering.  She noted the Board did not consider in its documents what the scientists recommended and that has caused a lot of problems; the EEL Program is science-based; and decisions are made for scientific reasons and not because of politics. 

 

 

Ken Rivard inquired if the public understands why the TICO Airport Authority wants to buy the property; with Commissioner Colon responding no, but right now the Board needs to discuss the Malabar Scrub Management Plan.

 

Mike Knight, EEL Program Manager, stated everyone is in agreement to have the trail placed on the existing pavement; the problem is, as staff understands, that the southern end of the pavement is Malabar Road, and there is no right-of-way to take the trail along Malabar Road to get  to  the  Marie  Street  Trailhead;  and  that  was the  fundamental problem  with the trail.  He advised the State of Florida had committed funds to purchase the trailhead and another trail connector at Turkey Creek with the intention of making that alignment; and it would not necessarily have to be the same alignment; but it would have to be one or the other.  He stated the problem was everyone thought the trail could go down Marie Street, but there is not enough right-of-way there or at Malabar Road; and the only option seemed to be to come down the trail.  He advised staff’s perspective was that if there is not another option, then a possible solution is to go down the inside along the existing fire line and then hopefully work in the future towards removing some of the footprint of the Boulevard that is there to offset the impact. 

 

Chairperson Colon stated the SMC gives the Board advice and that is all that it is; and ultimately the Board of County Commissioners has to balance out all of the different scenarios.  County Attorney Scott Knox advised the SMC makes recommendations based on scientific criteria that has been established; those recommendations are brought to the Board; and the Board has the final decision on whether to buy or not.  Chairperson Colon inquired if the Board is violating anything in regards to what was on the referendum by taking the recommendation, but then taking a different route; with Attorney Knox responding it is the Board’s discretion on whether or not to approve the plan.  Mr. Knight stated it is staff’s understanding that there is now the intention to bring the plan back to the Board; and if the Board wants staff to go back through the SMC process, it will do that; but staff’s only concern was to make sure it was not going to impact the funding mechanism the City of Palm Bay and Transportation Engineering had lined up to pay for the trail.  He stated regarding land acquisitions, the Land Acquisition Manual calls specifically for a formal vote of approval from the SMC before an acquisition contract can be brought to the Board; and staff cannot bring one to the Board for consideration.  He stated if the SMC has identified lands that should be protected in the County, the Board of County Commissioners cannot come in and say something has to be included in its list; the SMC would have to support that with an affirmative vote; and that is how the language was designed. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated there are certain times when the Board needs to listen to its advisory boards so that it is fully informed; but it is the Commission’s decision; and the two roles need to be understood. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated something the SMC does not have to look at, but that the Board has to look at is the political issues that are out there; the Board has purchased a lot of land in the Town of Malabar; and this project was one of those things the Board, with working with the Town of Malabar, and the Town were satisfied with where the Board placed the trail.

 

Mr. Knight advised the normal course of action is for the plan to come back to the Board.  Chairperson Colon inquired if the plan is coming directly back to the Board, or is it going to the advisory boards again; with Mr. Knight responding normally it would go to the two advisory boards  before  it came  to  the  County  Commission.   Mr.  Knight  noted  the  SMC has already reviewed the plan at the last meeting, but it did not have an opportunity to do a formal motion on it; the changes were very minor to the plan; and the changes were unrelated to the trail. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated the Board has gotten State reimbursement on the plan, which is why the State is involved; even though the Board has the ability to say the trail could go one place, it has, by State dollars, bought some overview of that and approval from the State; and now the Board does not have the ability to say the trail is going to go in a certain location.  He stated when the plan gets sent forward everyone needs to be in agreement.   County Manager Peggy Busacca  stated when the Board  makes a comprehensive plan amendment and sends it to the State for review and rejection recommendation comes back to the Board, if a change is required to the amendment then the Board needs to re-approve that amendment; and sometimes it is only that staff needs to provide additional information so that the reviewer is comfortable.  She stated her perception is if a plan has changed, the Board needs to see it because it approved the first plan; however, if all the Board is doing is providing supporting information to document what the Board has already approved, then the common course of action is not to return it to the Board because the plan is what has been approved by the Board; and if that is not what the Board wants to do, it needs to let staff know. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated when the plan comes back before the Board he would like for the scientists to put in writing what the differences are and how they came to that decision with the trail; and he thinks that was missing the first time.  Mr. Knight stated he agrees; and it is best to find a solution that everyone can live with.  Commissioner Nelson stated the Land Acquisition Manual does not address these circumstances; the manual needs to address how the Board will deal with a plan when it gets kicked back from the State; and the process needs to be addressed and formalized in the manual. 

 

Chairperson Colon stated if the plan is being sent back to the advisory board that does not agree with the Board of County Commissioners, then she wants the Board to have an opportunity to see what that final product is.  Commissioner Voltz stated she does not want to see the Board taken out of the process and have no input with anything that has happened.  Ms. Busacca advised the only thing that went to the State was what the Board approved.

 

Commissioner Bolin inquired if the Board has a timeframe in which it has to meet; with Mr. Knight responding it is his understanding that Barbara Meyer, Bicycle Pedestrian Coordinator, weighed in on that and it did not seem to be a big problem to have a delay. 

 

Representative Ralph Poppell stated he would like to echo what has already been said about the TICO Airport Authority and the TICO Airport Manager; and he thinks the Airport Authority is headed in the right direction.  He stated Tallahassee has not done the Board a lot of favors; he does not fully agree with everything that has been done; and he thinks legislation did not go far enough in the tax structure to affect the people who truly need it; but hopefully it will be decided by the voters on January 29, 2008.  He stated the only problem he has with referendums or constitutional amendments is that many times people are voting on things they do not understand; and that is why the Board of County Commissioners is so important, because it is looking out for the people who do not have the background of thoroughly studying the issues.  He stated it has been a pleasure to work with the citizens of Brevard County; he encourages the Board to stay in touch with him; and he will do whatever he can to help the Board serve the people of Brevard County.  He stated one of the things legislation looks for when people are talking about habitat is preserving a certain  quality or quantity of habitat; and he has seen times when a small piece of swamp has been purchased and it is a better piece of property for the habitat that was being preserved. 

 

Jerry Sansom, TICO Airport Authority Chairman, stated the Airport Authority has been handling its own issues without coming to the Board; but there is a safety issue that has to be dealt with that the FAA is coming down on the Authority  pretty hard; and  the  Authority has had to reduce some amount of the runway utilization because of the issue.  He noted that is why the Authority felt it is important to brief the County Commissioners on the issue and see what can be done to resolve the issue, which is the single biggest thing that limits the potential of the Space Coast Executive Airport to grow and serve future needs.

 

Michael Powell, TICO Airport Manager, inquired if everyone has a colored diagram, which may help everyone follow along.  He stated the blue area on the diagram is an area of interest for the Airport Authority in that it precludes it from having to acquire the safety area that is needed for operations based on the design group of aircraft that use the facilities.  He stated the areas of blue are three parcels that are west of Runway 9, east of Grissom Parkway; those areas equate to approximately 19.45 acres; there is a 19.01 acre parcel west of Grissom Parkway; and there is also a parcel that is 13.49 acres.  He stated the reason the Airport Authority was looking at the 19.45 acres west of the runway is because that precludes the Authority from having the required safety area; and the Airport has already been required by the FAA to start displacing its threshold and shortening the runway.  He advised there is a project underway grading the area that is available, but the runway is ultimately going to have to be shortened because the Airport does not have control over that particular property; unfortunately, for the Airport to have the required safety area, it needs to be flat grass with no trees or obstructions of any size; and that would include the entire piece of property.  He stated the property west of Grissom Parkway is of great interest to the Airport Authority to control it from approach standards; and the 13.49 acres south of Perimeter Road would be acquired to further buffer the Airport from any type of activity; it is not as critical as the other two properties; and the 19.45 acre parcel is critical to airport operations.  He stated staff has worked out an option in which the Airport can use declared distances; if there is a temporary displaced threshold of 1,000 feet then the Airport will not have to have the permanent displacement that far because a lot of things were governed by looking at some regulations.  He stated not having the permanent displacement that far is good for two reasons: if the Airport is able to come to an amicable solution with EEL, it would be more expeditious and easier to return the runway threshold back to its current location so it can get full use of the full pavement; and the biggest obstacle is that he was able to keep from having to displace the PAPI’s (Precision Approach Path Indicators), which would have been an exorbitant cost that would have made the displacement permanent.  He advised the TICO Airport Authority is hopeful in that an amicable solution can be agreed upon between it and the EEL Program; but without obtaining the subject properties it would be impossible; and unfortunately it has to be flattened and grassed.  He advised the blue area on the diagram is what the Airport Authority is interested in; staff’s understanding of what EEL was looking for was upland areas that was a larger net benefit more conducive to the scrub jay habitat; and that is why the Airport Authority initially had proposed the magenta areas which is south of the 13.49 acres.  He noted by everything that the Airport Authority is governed by dealing with the FAA and FDOT, it was precluded from offering anything other than the acre-for-acre; and in looking at the ecological study, the Airport Authority understood the area in magenta was some of the best conducive scrub jay habitat.  He stated it is his understanding the area in blue on the diagram could be scrub jay habitat if it were managed, but it is currently not managed; and supposedly, the magenta area is better for scrub jay habitat. 

 

County Manager Peggy Busacca inquired if the fact that the FAA and FDOT precluded the Airport from offering anything other than acre-for-acre is based on the value of the land; with Mr. Powell responding it is normally how the FAA and FDOT operate.  Mr. Powell stated he is still working on some other options in which both sides can get what will ultimately be the best use of the properties.

 

Chairperson Colon stated when dealing with EEL property the Board has to follow certain protocol and there is also a list that has been prioritized which has taken years and years to develop by the Selection and Management Committee, and she intends to respect that list because the community was very careful of the sites that were being addressed.  She stated there is a list of areas that have been identified by the SMC; and inquired if there is a list of the top 10 or 15 areas that have a greater priority; with EEL Program Manager Mike Knight responding in the proposed map where lands have been identified, there are certain areas that are identified as highest priority because they provide the greatest connectivity and the highest quality habitat; the areas are broken up into groups and they are not numbered in that way; but the areas are categorized according to where they lay in the landscape structure.  Mr. Knight advised the subject area is within the list; it may not be on the highest priority list; but it is within the list; and what is being proposed as an exchange to EEL is within that list that has been identified by the SMC as something that should be acquired over time. 

 

Chairperson Colon stated in regards to highest priority, it always comes back to dollars; it is a sensitive discussion with the environmental community; and that is where the Board needs to see where it is deviating because it is not the first time there have been folks asking the County.  She stated the Board has been getting a lot of requests from people asking it to deviate; and it would behoove the Board to have a meeting with those folks in the future because she would like to be able to identify them for the community to be able to know where the areas are in a public meeting to make sure the Board is transparent.  Mr. Knight stated the EEL Program does not see the land as a location where it would have to spend significant dollars.  Chairperson Colon inquired if the SMC considered the land in July 2007; with Mr. Knight responding affirmatively.  Mr. Knight stated the EEL staff made a recommendation to put a lot more under conservation easement because staff saw that as a way to get more acres protected than what would be given up.   He stated biggest point of contention will be on the 13.49 acres south of Perimeter Road; and the SMC feels strongly that it is a very important scrub piece and it would hate to see it lost.

 

Commissioner Nelson inquired if the blue areas represent all of the endangered land holdings in that area; with Mr. Knight responding affirmatively.  Commissioner Nelson inquired when the land was acquired; with Veronica Clifford responding approximately 1998.  Commissioner Nelson stated it seems strange that it perfectly fits the criteria for the Airport.  Mr. Knight stated all of the area north of Port St. John was on the proposed list; and at the time it was the only thing that was able to be negotiated.  Jerry Sansom stated it is a shame the Airport Authority in years past did not recognize the property and pick it up before it was made available to EEL; but the bottom line is EEL has it now and the Airport has to work with it to make it happen. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated property along Grissom Parkway that is that close to the Airport may have a greater industrial value; and that may need to be explored as well.  Commissioner Bolin inquired exactly where the subject property is located; with Ms. Busacca responding it is between Armstrong Drive and Sheppard Drive. Veronica Clifford stated the 19.11 acre property probably was County property before it was acquired by EEL.

 

Jerry Sansom stated he has a copy of the Land Acquisition Manual; and page 4-30 states, “Lands under County control can be exchanged for land having greater ability to satisfy the objective Land Acquisition Program.  This can involve land in private ownership or land under the administration of another government agency.  Inherent in the exchange concept is the requirement to get dollar-for-dollar value.   Exchanges are  attractive in that they do not increase land holdings and do not require funds for purchase; and exchanges should be carefully considered by the EEL Program.”  He advised he also has page 10 of 11 of the SMC meeting minutes of July 31, 2007; net conservation benefits is mentioned nine times; and inquired what exactly is net conservation benefit.  He stated the subject property is on the end of a runway next to an Airport; condos cannot be built on that property; and the property is needed for a safety area for the Airport.  He stated the primary property needed is the 19.49 acres; the second property would be the 19.11 acres; and the third property would be 13.49 acres.  He stated there are two government agencies involved; and inquired why the 19.49 acres cannot be swapped out for a similar 19.49 acres.  He stated in order for the 19.49 acres to be scrub habitat it only has to be chopped down with little branches growing up; scrub jays like short bushes; and bushes will probably grow in the 19.49 acres but it will not harm any aircraft that has to use it.   Mr. Powell stated for that to be under compliance it would have to be flat, cleared, and graded. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated she understands the Airport Authority can deal with the 13.49 acres south of Perimeter Road; and she assumes the eastern part of the properties in the pink area of the diagram are wetlands.  Mr. Powell advised the Board has a separate map that shows where the marsh area is located; some of the marsh area intrudes into the magenta area, but that is why staff attempted to draw the line straight down to cut off as much of that as possible; and the tear-drop area is the most conducive to scrub jays.  Commissioner Voltz stated it could also be moved into the south to clip off as much of the wetlands as possible so there is just the high and dry scrub; and she does not know how all of that would work; but she agrees because there has to be somewhere where there is 38.6 acres that can be high and dry land so there can be an equal swap.  Mr. Powell stated the Airport Authority would be happy to move the lines around, but his understanding is that on the south end is marsh pine; and it is his understanding that is not conducive.  Mr. Knight stated he is not familiar with that particular location, but he believes there are significant uplands on that location that might be pine flat woods; but there is still a potential for scrub jay use in those areas bordering the scrub.  Commissioner Voltz stated the 38.6 acres can be carved out to do an exchange and leave out as many wetlands as possible.  Mr. Sansom stated if there was suitable land in the 28.41 acres, the Airport Authority can work with EEL in modifying those boundaries so that the appropriate scrub jay habitat can be captured.  Commissioner Voltz inquired if there would have to be an appraisal; with Mr. Knight responding he would assume an appraisal would have to be done. 

 

Veronica Clifford stated she was thinking about the County portion; she would think the industrial park is on the EEL list of properties; being familiar with that area, there are a lot of scrub jays in that territory; and inquired if it is on the EEL list; with Mr. Knight responding he does not believe it is on the list; one of the reasons it is not on the list is because at the time the landscape was being reviewed and it was deemed to be more fragmented; and EEL is aware there are scrub jays on the property; but he is not sure of the status of the territories.  Ms. Clifford inquired if there are scrub jays on the property that is shaded in blue; with Mr. Knight responding affirmatively.   Ms. Clifford  stated she agrees with the Board that the County portion should be looked at; she is aware there are scrub jays there now; and there are also sand hill cranes, gopher tortoises, and indigo snakes.  

 

Commissioner Nelson inquired if there are any State dollars associated with the acquisition of those properties; with Mr. Knight responding no.  Commissioner Nelson inquired if the money was all County dollars to begin with; with Mr. Knight responding affirmatively.  Commissioner Nelson  inquired if the  SMC discussed  selling  the property  and buying  scrub land somewhere else; with Mr. Knight responding no.  Mr. Knight advised two years ago there was a request to exchange this property with some property at South Lake, but it was denied because it was a scrub for pure wetland.  Commissioner Nelson stated the acquisition was intended to be one of the first acquisitions of a larger acquisition that was going to go south; and it has not happened and probably will not happen because it has now been purchased and targeted for development.  Mr. Knight stated the understanding at the time was that the height of the scrub would not be in conflict with the Airport; but he understands it is a different scenario now that any vegetation would be a problem for the Airport.  Commissioner Nelson inquired if there would be any interest on the part of the SMC to look at a different site; and stated there are always going to be management issues at the Airport because of burning and other things.  He stated when the airport clears the land it is going to have to mitigate and it is going to have to have land set aside for mitigation purposes; and he does not know how the Airport is going to do that.  He stated there is a bigger issue in that if the exchange is done it is still not going to work because of the mitigation issue the Airport is going to be up against.  He stated the question is if the SMC wants to manage a 35 to 40 acre site, or would it rather have the dollars and buy a site somewhere else contiguous with other sites that are already owned and have a larger site.

 

Ken Rivard stated there was discussion with the Airport Authority about if it was going to step on anyone’s toes or make someone unhappy; the Airport Authority decided to go ahead with it; it is a very pressing issue with the TICO Airport Authority; and the Airport Authority thought it was a big enough issue to bring to the Board. 

 

Ken Griffin stated when the EEL Program approves a deal, it has to bring it to the Board for approval; and at that point the Board can approve it or deny it.  He stated the first thing the Airport Authority has to do is make a deal with the EEL Program that is satisfactory; with the Thousand Islands Property, the EEL Program brought it to the Board; and the Board chose not to approve it.  He stated the proper way to deal with the issue is to go back and have the EEL Program approve the land swap; according to FDOT, the Airport Authority has to trade acre-for-acre; and he would suggest that Mr. Powell go to the EEL Program and work out a deal. 

 

Kim Zarillo, Selection and Management Committee, advised the project that came before the SMC was one proposal; what Commissioner Nelson brought forward is very important for the Airport to consider; FDOT also mitigates on its projects; and the projects FDOT has to mitigate are greater than an acre-for-acre situation.  She stated the SMC is open to a land swap; as Commissioner Nelson said, the subject property was part of an original project from 1998, where there was a much larger landscape that was undeveloped and populated with scrub jays; and the goal was to acquire the larger pieces that are in a landscape context and a better habitat for the animals that are being looked out for.  She stated the public perception, from the SMC’s point of view, is that if something is swapped the SMC recommended that the County use County money to buy, that the SMC is doing what is in the best interest for the County.  She advised the reason that particular proposal was rejected was that it was a one-case scenario; she has  heard  good ideas  today; and  the  13  acres  can  be compatible with the Airport.  She stated she believes there is an opportunity to bring the issue back to the SMC; she does not want anyone to think the SMC rejected the proposal because it does not want to do a land swap; and the goal is to make sure the SMC is doing what is in the best interest of the EEL Program when it gives a recommendation to the Board.  She stated the reason the net conservation benefit was mentioned so many times was because after the site visit, it is not acre-for-acre, but there is not the equivalent amount of scrub habitat; and the SMC is interested in another  area for a  land swap  because  of a similar situation.  She stated she  does not think the SMC and the Airport Authority are at odds; and each of the other SMC members bring a level of expertise to the table. 

 

Jerry Sansom inquired if it would be simpler on everyone if the Airport Authority just bought the land off of the end of the runway, with the SMC knowing what the Airport is going to do with it; and then the SMC can use that money as Commissioner Nelson said, to look at buying additional land that is going to make a more functional system.  He stated his background is in biology; he understands the larger pieces have more functionality; and isolated pieces in 50 years are not going to be significant to the scrub jay population survival as folks would like them to be.  He advised he also recognizes what Commissioner Nelson has said; and it seems the easiest thing for everybody is for the Airport Authority to come to terms on what a real value on the land is that the Airport Authority can buy it and then the SMC can purchase better land elsewhere. 

 

Kim Zarillo stated that is a good thought; but the SMC would have to be willing to have it for sale; it would be better to bring to the table a broader scope with some pieces of property; the main point Commissioner Nelson is making on the Airport Authority’s behalf is that even if it bought the land from the SMC, it would still have to get permits; and there are other concerns with the property besides scrub jays.  Mr. Sansom stated the reason he made his suggestion is because the Airport Authority has to deal with the FAA, which does not like it to buy land somewhere else; and the FAA likes to know the land it is buying has an aviation purpose. 

 

Chairperson Colon stated in the past she mentioned to Mr. Knight that one of her fears in the community in the future is when people are able to purchase EEL property; citizens in Brevard County are trusting that EEL property is not able to be purchased; and the Board discussed having a referendum or putting in its Charter that citizens can protect themselves. 

 

Mr. Sansom stated all of the EEL lands were not bought at one time and some of the lands may have had a different biological value at the time they were purchased; and he does not think the Board wants to put a wall around certain properties and label them.  Chairperson Colon stated she agrees with Mr. Sansom; but once the Board makes a decision it does not just affect the Airport Authority’s project; and that is where the difficulty is realized that it is not as simple as it looks.  Ms. Zarillo stated that has happened to some properties on the State level, but not in Brevard County; and in this case there may be some opportunities; but she cannot see the SMC saying something is surplus. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated there can be something that is smaller, but environmentally better; there was value, number of acres, and the appraised value, and then there was individual usage; and there may be something that is more valuable to the EEL Program that is not valuable to the Airport.  He advised FDOT is not going to allow another curb cut on S.R. 407; the property being proposed to exchange is on Grissom Parkway, close to the Airport, with curb cuts available,  and has  economic  commercial value; Mr. Rivard was correct in saying the two staffs have to get together; and everyone wants to make it work, but it has not happened yet.

 

Commissioner Voltz stated when she was previously on the Commission, there had been an article in the newspaper about other EEL land that was purchased in another County and the State sold the property for development; and she does not ever want to see that happen.  She stated she agrees with a land swap; and she wants the Airport to get what it needs; but she does not think the land should be sold under any circumstances. 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated in looking at the map and the blue areas at the end of the runway, she is getting the feeling that everyone is in agreement that they need to be swapped out for the safety of the Airport; and she thinks that has been established.  She stated she would like to task the SMC to go out and look at the land that is on the west side of Grissom Parkway to see if there is anything there that can be traded; she is leery about anything east of Grissom Parkway because the Board is still looking at mitigation that will have to be done; no one knows the future of the Airport; there could be a boom that cannot be seen right now; and if the land is tied up, then the Board is going to have to start from the beginning.  She stated she will never vote to sell EEL land; the Board buys EEL land for the best price it can at the time it is offered; and 20 years from now someone may think the Board should swap properties and get more money for the land. 

 

Chairperson Colon stated she is not willing to take any action today as this is the first time the issue has come before the Board. 

 

Kim Zarillo stated in response to Commissioner Bolin’s statement, the SMC is not allowed to go out and look at property unless someone approaches it who is a willing seller; and if the SMC was going to look at the property, it would have to get direction from the County.

 

David Hosley stated the Airport Authority has heard on at least two occasions the potential growth and what is happening with the Space Industry; there is a down turn to those things, but also an upside; and there are a number of opportunities.  He stated there is Manufacturing Association in the State, which has been established to create jobs; things are being worked on very hard to bring industry to the area; and TICO Airport is a key piece of the equation.  He stated as the Airport tries to grow economically, it is looking at a tremendous reduction possibly in the economy in Brevard County; the County needs to work hard at bringing in new jobs; and the Airport can contribute greatly to that. 

 

Veronica Clifford stated as she recalls, the EEL Program cannot do buyouts; and inquired if the Board has a policy in which it does not buyout a piece of property, pay for it, and then the citizens get nothing, but something else.  She stated she is hearing the Commissioners say they do not sell; but if the Airport Authority purchased property and the Board was given funds, could it not purchase other lands with that and inquired if it is even feasible with FAA and FDOT. 

 

Michael Powell inquired if Ms. Clifford is speaking about the Airport Authority purchasing the EEL property right off the approach of the runway, then the EEL Program taking the money and purchasing land in the Industrial Park; or is she speaking about the Airport Authority buying land in the Industrial Park and the EEL Program going up there and acquiring the property. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated EEL identifies the piece of property that it wants anywhere; it buys it contingent upon a simultaneous closing; and it can buy property adjoining any other larger tract that it would like to enhance. 

 

Chairperson Colon stated the Board has to be very careful; she remembers this happening under the leadership of Commissioner Carlson; and this issue comes up time and time again.  She stated the Board needs to be extremely careful with the discussion that is going to happen today because the Board of County Commissioners is not supposed to be telling EEL what to look at by law. 

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated Ms. Clifford is suggesting if the EEL Program wants to finish out a piece of property and it is low on funds, but the property is at the top of the list, the Airport Authority can say it wants to do an exchange. 

 

Michael Powell stated it would be feasible; and it would create a few difficulties, just as Mr. Sansom mentioned, but staff is more than happy to go back.  He stated the FAA and FDOT understand the situation the Airport Authority is in and the Airport Authority understands what both sides need; and the FAA and FDOT definitely want to do everything they possibly can to help the Airport Authority.

 

Veronica Clifford stated there is the EEL issue and also an economic issue with the Airport because from the Airport standpoint at that particular Airport, even though there is three, at that particular Airport a lot of great things are going to happen and you are going to start to see it; and Mr. Powell has been working on it, so it will benefit the County economically.  She stated she is at the portion of property in the Commerce Park everyday; and people come to the property to look at birds on that property.  She stated she wonders if that might be better property; the EEL land could be utilized for the public as well; but on Grissom Parkway, the land may not be able to be utilized by the public to walk through and see the birds; and Grissom Parkway is getting more congested every day.  

 

Mr. Knight stated there has to be a willing seller; the EEL Program cannot do land condemnation or anything like that; and it has to know that whatever land it is looking at, somebody was willing to have the EEL Program look at it.

 

Ms. Clifford stated if the EEL Program could visit the property she would be happy to show it where the scrub jay nests are located; and she thinks it would be beneficial, but she does not want to overstep her bounds.  Chairperson Colon stated the Airport Authority is the willing seller, not the Board of County Commissioners; and she wants to make sure everyone is clear on that.  Ms. Clifford advised the property is County property.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated he would like to clarify that EEL has the ability to look at habitat types; but it does not contact the owner prior and come back to the Board without permission to have contacted them.  Mr. Knight stated the EEL Program cannot pursue an acquisition without having the owner’s permission.

 

Scott Knox stated the piece of property being discussed is owned by the County; the County becomes the willing seller; and if the Board wanted to direct someone to look at the property it can do that as the willing seller. 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated on the map, the green area south of Sheppard Drive is Airport land; the Airport Authority is the willing swapper; and inquired if that is not giving permission for the Selection and Management Committee to look at the land.

 

Jerry Sansom stated the Airport Authority is going to look at 350 acres and see if there is useful land there; and once land is acquired off of the runway, the Airport Authority may need to further encumber other land it owns for mitigation.  He stated if the Airport Authority uses too much of the swap with the County, it may have to buy mitigation land rather than swap land; and inquired if  it can  be agreed  upon  today to have  the EEL Program  evaluate  the land  west of  Grissom

Parkway, east of Challenger Highway; with Chairperson Colon responding no, the Board is not about to give EEL any direction; and the Airport Authority will have to ask the EEL Program.  

 

County Manager Peggy Busacca stated the property that is in the industrial park is already for sale; whoever owns that property is a willing seller; and the Board does not have to make a motion because that land is already for sale. 

 

Mr. Knight stated EEL can look at the landscape; the scrub jays that are banded on the property were more than likely banded by one of the committee members; and if the EEL Program pursues acquisition of it, it will have to have a willing seller application.  He inquired if the property is County-owned; with Ms. Busacca responding affirmatively.  Mr. Knight stated EEL property is also County-owned property, as the two are the same entity.  Commissioner Scarborough stated EEL Program money comes from a voter-approved special referendum and the Board is not going to blend the two. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve a workshop for 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 18, 2007, with the Brevard County Legislative Delegation in the Florida Room.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 4:25 p.m.

 

 

 

                                                                        ____________________________

                                                                        JACKIE COLON, CHAIRPERSON

                                                                        BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

ATTEST:                                                         BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

 

__________________

SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK 

 

 

        (S E A L)

                                                                  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.