The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in workshop session on April 11, 1995, at 2:05 p.m. in the Government Center Multi-purpose Room, 3rd Floor of Building C, 2725 St. Johns Street, Melbourne, Florida. Present were: Chairman Nancy Higgs, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Mark Cook, and Scott Ellis, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox. Absent was: *Commissioner Randy O'Brien. DISCUSSION, RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised the first item is the Land Use/Urban Infill/Sprawl on which staff would like to have Board direction; Items C and D are Commissioners' interests to look at what will happen or is scheduled to happen; the Board may want to expand on those items; and Ms. Busacca is here with her staff to make presentations and answer questions.

Planning and Zoning Director Peggy Busacca advised Brevard County is about to go into a very significant period in planning; the Comprehensive Plan has been in placed for seven years; and over the next two years the majority of their workload will be related to the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), and then the update of the Comprehensive Plan. She stated they need policy direction so that the Plan will be based on the vision of the Board. She stated in 1988, the Planning staff took the existing Plan and made very minor changes to it, but spent a substantial amount of time bringing it to citizen resource groups and the Local Planning Agency; and what they ended up with probably reflected the goals of the Board at that time. She stated it would have been easier on staff had they been told where they were going first instead of doing the best they could and assuming they understood where they were going, then having their vision reviewed and changed. Ms. Busacca stated they would like the community and the Board to have a common goal; and they need guidance from the Board to tell them where it wants to go. She stated they have not planned in a long-range sense for many years in Brevard County; what staff does today is short-range planning and special projects; so they are anxious about getting into long-range planning, and come to the Board today looking for policy direction. She stated Mel Scott will make the first presentation.

*Commissioner O'Brien's presence was noted at this time.

Planner II Mel Scott advised they have three big work products they have to produce; and when they receive guidance and policy direction from the Board, they will channel the policy directions into the EAR. He stated they are mandated by the state to evaluate each and every goal, objective and policy of the Comprehensive Plan; they will analyze and evaluate all of them and make recommendations and amendments; the state says each amendment must be adopted into the Comp Plan within one year of the adoption of the EAR, and they will not be allowed to submit any other amendments to the Comp Plan until that happens; and understanding the rules of the game, they want to amend the Comp Plan at a bare minimum because they will be required to adopt amendments suggested in the EAR. He noted that is an important strategy to keep in mind because they do not want to bog down other amendments which constituents constantly suggest. Mr. Scott advised it is expected to be time consuming and challenging; and some of the things the Board will have to look at are success and failures, actual results, planning issues raised in the Report, land use projections, and updates of all the data in the Comp Plan to be transmitted to DCA by November, 1996. He stated DCA will review it and return it to the County; the Board will adopt it in February, 1997; and it will have one year to adopt all the amendments. Mr. Scott advised the County is mandated by the state to rewrite its Intergovernmental Coordination Element because the Florida Legislature heard that the suggestions for government to coordinate were not working as well as they thought; many were drafted by staff and did not say a lot; and they were not happy with the results. He stated they gave the County minimum criteria that must be put into a new Intergovernmental Coordination Element; they have to list significant resources and facilities in the County and define what significant impacts occur to those resources and facilities; and they have to look at and define developments in the County that can impact resources and facilities in the cities, and in the cities that can impact the County. He advised they have to articulate mitigation criteria to address conflicts that occur between cities and the County's identified resources and facilities, set up a process to disseminate information in an orderly fashion, and replace the DRI system and adopt a process to handle DRI development in the Land Development Regulations.

Chairman Higgs inquired why the County has to remove the DRI process; with Mr. Scott responding the state said the DRI process will be phased out in Brevard County, but those procedures can be incorporated into the LDR's. Ms. Busacca advised it was said for the entire state and not just Brevard County; they are expected to have higher levels of intergovernmental coordination; and the state saw the DRI process as not being as sensitive as it needs to be, so it was a detriment. She noted it is something the state worked out to give more control to local governments. Chairman Higgs inquired if it will still go to the Regional Planning Council; with Ms. Busacca responding that is an option. Mr. Scott stated DCA does not want to step out of the process; and if it does not like something the County does with a development which was a DRI, it reserves the right to step in.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Regional Planning Council is being taken out of the process; with Ms. Busacca responding the roll of the Regional Planning Council is changing; and the state wants to see it less as a regulatory agency and more as a planning assistance agency.

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised intergovernmental coordination is helpful, but it may be creating another overtaxing of staff to review all municipal comprehensive plans and compare them to the County's Plan.

Commissioner Cook inquired at what level is the County complying with the state requirements. He stated there are certain minimum standards the County can adhere to that other counties find adequate; and at what level does the Board want to comply, what level should it comply, and how much money should it spend to comply are his questions. Commissioner Ellis responded as little as possible. Commissioner Cook stated he tends to agree, and it can go overboard in the process.

Commissioner O'Brien stated if DRI's are not required in the future, how does that affect DRI's of the past; with Mr. Scott responding they stay on the books as approved with no change. Mr. Jenkins advised the County will have a similar process, but it will not be a state process. Ms. Busacca stated without an extensive Intergovernmental Coordinating Element, the state will probably maintain the DRI process; the thought was if Brevard County can put the municipal planning intergovernmental coordinating in place, then the County should have more local control, and the state and region would back out of the process; and that is what they hope will increase intergovernmental coordination. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Element did not require coordination, but rather encouraged cooperation between local governments; and inquired if the County is rezoning property, does it have to cooperate with the cities; with Chairman Higgs responding they have not coordinated the Palm Bay area. Commissioner O'Brien stated local governments need to state their positions; and inquired if the Element now requires coordination. Mr. Jenkins inquired if the cities take one position and the Board another, who will make them cooperate. Mr. Scott stated the state realizes it cannot force two governments to agree; it wants the County to improve intergovernmental coordination and come up with a better process; and if the Board says it disapproves, the state will kick out what it has done and go into dispute resolution; and to be forced to do preliminary talking is better than butting heads at the end. He stated the state recognizes it cannot force people to agree; and if they sign interlocal agreements agreeing to disagree, it will back off. He noted they want things to happen before going to court. Commissioner O'Brien stated if the Board has a formal document agreeing to disagree, and if it does not agree, it will be a waste of time and effort.

Chairman Higgs inquired if part of the direction with the cities and County include how they interact with public safety, emergency planning, etc., or only land use; with Mr. Peetz responding the Planning Coordinating Committee covers 15 issues, and EMS was talked about. He stated as cities develop their own comprehensive plans, if Melbourne wants level of service B on Wickham Road and the County wants E, they can agree to disagree on that. He stated if they do not agree to disagree, then it would be a dispute resolution process.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he has a five-page resolution when a half-page memo would do; and disagreed with multi-paged documents compared to a simple letter. Commissioner Cook stated his concern is the tendency to over comply in the past, and when philosophies change, rules should change also. Commissioner Scarborough indicated the state should not tell the County what to do.

Mr. Scott stated another project that has to be adopted by September 1, 1997, is the redevelopment plan which is an attempt to return to normalcy after hurricanes; and the state says the County has to draft this, but it did not say exactly what it has to be.

Chairman Higgs inquired what would be the impact of the realignment on the federal level of the disaster relief; with Ms. Busacca responding it is too new to assess, but the next person they want to involve is the insurance commissioner because he or she is a big player. Chairman Higgs inquired if someone is following the development on the national level as the policies of the federal government change; with Ms. Busacca responding they have a FEMA Coordinator following that.

Commissioner O'Brien advised the Board needs to know what some of the successes and failures are to know what it has done right or wrong. Ms. Busacca stated the Comprehensive Plan is required to be a fiscally possible document; and whatever the County says it is going to do, it has to have the money to do it. Commissioner O'Brien inquired how would the Board balance out the financial side if there are projects on the books and no funding mechanism.

Chairman Higgs stated there is no long-term fiscal plan that tells the Board what will be required; and suggested direction to staff to provide a ten-year plan of all capital improvements so the Board can look at a ten-year picture and know what will be required in terms of roads, libraries, emergency services, etc. She stated the Board needs to make a conscious decision to plan to do those things or not, then decide on the option to raise taxes or lower its expectations; however, it does not have that picture and needs to have it. Commissioner O'Brien stated no one has told him they have plans for specific roads in two years; government water in Malabar in 1997, or jail expansion, etc.; the system is out of whack; and the Board has no idea where it is going. Chairman Higgs suggested a ten-year picture with each item it is going to have in those ten years laid out, recognizing the limitations of potential funding. Commissioner O'Brien stated he would like to have the roads, buildings, jail, etc. and what each will cost per year. Mr. Jenkins advised the current standard is a five-year plan; with Chairman Higgs responding the plan does not work and is not feasible. Mr. Jenkins advised the Board needs to adopt service level standards and apply them firmly; it does no good to have a ten-year plan if it does not stick to the service levels for libraries, parks, roads, etc.; and if no other considerations are used other than service level standards the Board approves, it will have systematic planned growth.

Commissioner Ellis stated library expansions bear no relationship to the population of Brevard County. Commissioner O'Brien stated the road needs are not a balanced look at the County because the driving force is political. Commissioner Scarborough stated Fay Boulevard is the only major road in District 1; it was planned before he took office; the County is working in South Brevard on the same vote of that Board; and the 1986 Road Plan is not finished. Chairman Higgs stated there is no plan beyond 1988 for roads; with Mr. Jenkins responding that will be updated in the near future. Commissioner Ellis stated in terms of funding, the Board cannot start until the year 2001 because of the bond which tied up all the money until then. Chairman Higgs stated the Board could extend the gas tax today or implement the nine cent gas tax, not that it wants to do that, but there are options. Commissioners Ellis and O'Brien objected to spending money before having it. Commissioner Ellis stated the Board needs to look at issues such as how much money does the Board have to have for capital needs, and are parks more important than roads. Commissioner Cook advised level of service is a key issue whether it is parks, roads, libraries, etc.

Chairman Higgs advised five Commissioners want to look at those things and want to know what the ten-year picture is and what to pick from the columns; and inquired what will it take for staff to give the Board that as part of this year's budget; with Mr. Jenkins responding they need to take the five-year plan to years six through ten. Chairman Higgs stated the five year plan does not have emergency services; with Mr. Jenkins responding they have a CIP which includes everything.

Mr. Swanke advised it depends on the ability of individual departments to identify long-term needs. He stated they can do it for transportation, but he is not sure if other departments have that ability. He stated they have to generate the kind of population projections and land use projections, etc. to do a good job identifying certain needs, then prepare the financial resources; and staff can do something in the near term and tie it in with the updating of the Comp Plan.

Commissioner Ellis stated the Board can move money out of operating into capital if it determines it has capital deficiencies. Chairman Higgs stated the Board can do that, but it has to get it in a frame work it can deal with.

Engineering Director Susan Hann advised they need to define either the project side or the supply of money side for the Transportation Program because they can give the Board a project list to consume whatever amount of money it gives them; and there is an infinite number of road projects and transportation projects they can do to provide whatever level of service the Board desires. Mr. Jenkins stated the Board needs to tell staff what level of service it wants before staff can give it recommendations on a CIP.

Commissioner Ellis stated the County is building over-designed roads; with Ms. Hann responding that is true, so the Board needs to define the quality of what it wants as well. She stated it is difficult for staff to develop a ten-year plan or any year CIP until it can define what the Board wants, what level of service standard it has, or if it wants to define the available amount of money, then staff can tell the Board what projects it can do for that amount of money; but one side of the equation needs to be very well defined in order to give the Board a meaningful document. Chairman Higgs stated staff has to define the questions for the Board; it is willing to answer the questions; but it needs staff's help to give them options. Mr. Jenkins advised that is forthcoming for transportation. Ms. Hann advised the transportation workshop is scheduled for April 25, 1995, and staff has that level of detail prepared for the Board. She stated the transportation capital improvements planning and programming may be a good prototype to see how the process works for a ten-year plan and see what the issues and problems are because that is an area where they have the best defined data and can most easily develop a realistic document for the Board; but it will help staff to define some of the issues and questions that the Board needs to answer for them in order to give the Board a realistic document.

Commissioner O'Brien stated his biggest fear is that a lot of projects created are not driven by the government or the Board but by private individuals; and whatever the Board can do to put a halt to that needs to occur. He stated many changes to the Comp Plan were not driven by the government although the government was the applicant; so the Board is allowing itself to be manipulated, and he does not like that. Commissioner Ellis stated the Comp Plan is not perfect and that is why there are a lot of changes. Mr. Jenkins advised the Comp Plan reflects the Board sitting at that time; and this Board may have an entirely different perspective on some of the issues the Board had in 1988.

Commissioner Ellis suggested a computer search of the Comp Plan on all the "shalls", and the Board evaluate whether it wants to be locked into whatever those statements may be.

Commissioner Scarborough stated no one wants to stop in traffic; he hates it and would prefer to pay for level of service C or better; he likes libraries and will pay for that; the Board needs to make sure it is in tune with the community; and it should go to referenda on major projects with major expenditures. Commissioner Cook agreed and commented if the people do not feel it is necessary, they will not vote for it. Commissioner O'Brien also agreed. Chairman Higgs stated that is why the CIP is so important; and until the Board knows what is going to be out there and what it will cost, it cannot justify it. Commissioner Cook stated he does not want to raise taxes for the CIP, but he does not have a problem looking at the future.

Commissioner O'Brien stated referenda remove the political game of satisfying constituents and should be on one election rather than having citizens return several times to vote on one or two issues at a time. Chairman Higgs stated that is the wrong way to do it, the jail this time and the roads next time; and they should have the whole picture. Commissioner Ellis stated that would be the best way to get them all beaten which is fine with him. Commissioner O'Brien stated the public is not that stupid; they are the same people who allowed the purchase of endangered lands; and the County is applauded for that and the purchase of beach accesses. Commissioner Cook stated they are not stupid, but putting a wish list on the ballot will go down and it should go down because the Board cannot expect the public that is trying to live their lives and pay their mortgages to understand 20 issues on one ballot.

Discussion ensued on referenda, voters, wish list, taxes, and sales tax.

Chairman Higgs stated the Board needs to know what it will need in the next five years such as a courthouse, jail, ten roads, and two libraries, and how it will pay for it out of the budget, grants, sales tax, or whatever; and it needs to know what will be demanded, then make decisions on what level of service is acceptable and how it is going to pay for it drawing from all resources.

Mr. Jenkins stated he is not sure the Board can make accurate estimates on how it will pay for something eight years from now; there are so many variables and decision-making authorities that have control; if the Board wants to assume it will raise taxes or reduce operating budget to pay for things, it can do that; but three years in terms of paying for that are a stretch, four and five years are guesses, and the farther it goes out, the more guesses it will have. He stated compound that with the reality that the majority of this Board directed the change, and philosophies can change in eight years, make it more of a guess.

Chairman Higgs suggested a decent five-year plan and everything covered and built by that plan. Mr. Jenkins stated the Board needs to review the existing plan; except for transportation, they have most things in the plan funded; the jail is listed and the revenue source is the one cent infrastructure sales tax or cutting operating expenses; so the Board has two choices and it needs to spend time looking at what it has. Chairman Higgs stated maybe that is what the Board needs to do, but it went through that last year on how to pay for the courthouse. She stated this is a major expenditure; if the Board has to expand the courthouse in ten years it should know it and how it is going to pay for it; and if putting $100,000 each year from operating expenses into savings to make a down payment on that expansion, etc.; and that is what it needs to do.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board needs the financial discipline to "pay as you go" and tell the public it cannot do something right now because it does not have the money up front. He stated all the Commissioners share the concern of how deep in debt the County will get before it is broke.

Commissioner Cook recommended five-year planning and taking some major projects to the people and let them vote on those. Commissioner Ellis suggested an alternative be determined where it is going to make cuts if it fails and the Board has to do the project. Commissioner Scarborough suggested a priorities list rather than something binding; and stated if it is driven by the community, the Board has the feeling it can accomplish things rather than being aggressive. Chairman Higgs stated in order to do that the Board needs a plan and needs to know how it will do it. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board will need to know where the problems are from staff and community input. Chairman Higgs stated she totally supports going to the community on what they want; and if it is going to cost to do it right, the Board needs to know what the people want it to do. Commissioner O'Brien stated he likes that because it reduces special interests driving this government. Commissioner Cook stated a referendum gets input from special interest groups but it also allows all the people to speak. Commissioner Ellis stated it should not go to referendum unless it cannot cut elsewhere. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Charter was people telling government it wants input; and the Board should try to get as much insight from the people through referendum elections.

Chairman Higgs advised she hears that the Board wants to (1) find a mechanism to go with some concept of understanding the vision of the community and wants to hear more on that; and (2) it wants to know every capital cost it has to balance in five years and what it will cost to maintain those it is building, and look at those in terms of funding.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he wants to know what debts the County has now and what that debt load will be five years from now, and what revenues are available to reduce taxes or maintain the level of service the Board demands. Chairman Higgs stated to get to that point the Board needs to go beyond five years and discipline itself; and if it wants to set aside reserve or capital building funds of a certain amount each year, it will take at least ten years. Commissioner Cook stated the Board could do five years, but ten years is pie in the sky. Mr. Jenkins advised staff can come up with a list of potential needs, but where the payment for those needs will come from is a variable; Solid Waste and Wastewater are now paying as they go; Water/Wastewater was headed that way until it put 75% down in the South Beaches for reuse and blew that plan; but it will take $18,000,000 to get rid of deep well and go with reuse.

Chairman Higgs advised (3) is the referendum issue, but she does not know what else the Board can get in reference to that. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board should put a referendum on the one cent sales tax on the same day as the School Board's referendum; with Chairman Higgs responding it cannot do it in the time frame.

Optional Elements

Ms. Busacca advised staff received a request from Brevard Cultural Alliance to consider a cultural element; and another optional element is the community facilities and services element.

Planner I Todd Corwin advised the optional elements that could be added to the Plan are Cultural Element as requested by the Brevard Cultural Alliance and the Community Facilities and Services Element. He stated they are familiar with the Parks and Recreation, Future Land Use, Capital Improvements, and Housing Elements; and the requirements for those are in Florida Statutes Chapter 163, with minimum requirements in Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. He stated one optional element is the Historic Preservation Element; it has been significant in promoting programs that protect resources of Historic Brevard; and the ordinance is currently undergoing its final draft revision and history survey. Mr. Corwin advised the Cultural Element will focus on issues like arts and cultural programs and facilities, including arts and cultural programs to put urban infill in and areas in cultural activities to bolster development; and it will encourage arts and cultural disciplines, improve the quality of arts and cultural programs in the County, and enhance the support of participation in such activities. He noted the BCA has drafted possible goals and objectives; and if the Board desires he can pass them out. Commissioner Cook stated he wants a list of them. Mr. Jenkins inquired if it would be optional or mandatory if an element is adopted; with Ms. Busacca responding optional. Mr. Corwin advised optional elements are very short and do not have a lot of direction. Chairman Higgs inquired if Mr. Corwin wants direction whether or not to include that element; with Mr. Corwin responding yes.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to deny including a cultural element in the Comprehensive Plan.

Commissioner Ellis stated the Comp Plan has too much in it as it is without adding any more. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Comp Plan embraces every possible concept and they are inconsistent and do not work, then they will need exceptions. Commissioner Cook stated it is beyond the scope; the Board should get essential and worthwhile things and not over compliance; and those should be pursued on a separate track.

Mr. Jenkins advised the Historic Preservation Element will require one to one and a half employees; with Commissioner Cook responding the Board needs to look at that as it is an optional element.

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

Mr. Corwin stated it may be possible for the community facilities and services and cultural issues to be a planning tool instead of an element; with Commissioner Cook responding that is time staff can spend doing something else, and those should live or die on their own. Mr. Corwin stated the second optional element is community facilities and service element; it would address issues such as allocation, delivery and maintenance of facilities such as libraries, law enforcement, correctional facilities, fire rescue services, schools, health care facilities, and potential facilities; and there are level of service standards already established for libraries, schools, correctional facilities, emergency management services, and fire protection within the Capital Improvements Element; however, those are not mandatory and are used as guidelines.

Mr. Jenkins inquired if the Board wants to place a mandatory requirement on itself to do certain things so that if its concurrency gets to a certain level it must build. He stated right now they are guidelines the Board uses as standards and do not mandate if it is not in compliance.

Ms. Busacca stated the five-year planning horizon for libraries, fire, police, etc. could be included in something like this element and not be mandatory, but a series of evaluations.

The Board discussed levels of service, mandatory requirements, concurrency, the DRI process, and moratorium.

Commissioner Cook inquired why the element was proposed; with Mr. Jenkins responding it was available and staff thought the Board may want to consider it. Commissioner Cook stated there is no reason to tie the hands of the Board. Commissioner O'Brien stated there are certain elements that are mandatory, but if the Board does not do it to itself, why would it do it to Viera; with Mr. Jenkins responding it could do it to itself, but not put it in the Comp Plan. He stated the Board could have a policy that libraries will not be built unless they meet a certain criteria.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to deny including a Community Facilities and Services Element in the Comprehensive Plan. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Higgs stated she would like to discuss ways of evaluating levels of service on facilities and roads, but she agrees not to put it in the Comp Plan. She inquired if the Board would like to have discussion on how it would establish acceptable levels of service on its facilities and services as a policy for the Board to adopt and how it would evaluate those; and if staff should come back with how it could do that; with Commissioner Scarborough responding no, he wants it to be consumer driven as to which roads are bad, which libraries they want, etc. and what they want to pay for it. He stated his job is to make Brevard County the best; and it is positive to go to the people and let them tell the Board what they want. Commissioner Cook stated he agrees that too much is driven by government of what level of service it should be rather than what the people want. Chairman Higgs stated then it needs the vision process of what is acceptable.

The meeting recessed at 3:35 p.m. and reconvened at 3:50 p.m.

Streamlining the Comprehensive Plan

Commissioner Ellis stated he is all for streamlining the Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Higgs stated she is not against streamlining and does not want to make anything more difficult.

Planner II Todd Peetz advised the Future Land Use Map is one of the most important tools to help manage and encourage development; it also manages growth to densities and intensities; and the Land Use Map is the engine that pulls the land development regulation train and implements zoning. He stated in 1988, they looked at existing land uses and development trends, locational considerations, and major known environmental factors; it was an 18-month process with the Citizen Resource Groups, Local Planning Agency, and Board of County Commissioners; density maps were formulated based on sewer and water availability; and they were allowed 30 units per acre where sewer and water were available or in close proximity to cities providing urban services. He stated higher densities were also allowed near major transportation corridors; and they used population projections and public participation while generating the Land Use Map. Mr. Peetz advised since 1988, they have amended the Plan twice a year, had several small scale Plan amendments and small area Plan amendments for Port St. John, Canaveral Groves, North Merritt Island, and South Beaches. He stated in addition to the Comprehensive Plan, DCA wants the County to look at two land use concepts--urban sprawl and urban infill; and they want the County to discourage urban sprawl and encourage urban infill. He stated the three types of urban sprawl identified by DCA are (1) strip commercial or urban development where major corridors have one shopping center after another; (2) leap frog development, where there is an urbanized area then large vacant land and another developed area demanding urban services; and (3) large sprawling low density residential subdivisions like Canaveral Groves pre-zoning and pre-Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Peetz advised DCA wants the County to encourage urban infill because they feel the appropriate utilization of services is by taking undeveloped lands between developed areas and developing those first before going to the boundaries of urbanized areas. He noted another urban infill example is large tracts of vacant land which are logical extensions of urbanized areas like north of Melbourne and south of Rockledge. He stated it is a guide for land use and also service provision; the Comprehensive Plan not only provides for location, but the timing of development; if development takes place too quickly, services cannot keep up at the same level; and if development occurs in certain locations, the County may not be able to provide good service. Mr. Peetz advised staff has two questions for the Board: (1) Should the Comprehensive Plan react to the market forces, basically services following growth, or (2) should the Comprehensive Plan guide the market forces with growth following service provisions. He stated that is the direction staff is looking at, with a visioning process as part of the land use make up.

Commissioner Ellis advised historically services always followed growth; people move to an area and generate demand for services; then there is a tax base to pay for the services. He inquired if the County attempts to provide services first, what will happen if people do not come there. Ms. Busacca stated the intent is to recognize that the County has planned capacity in certain treatment plants so that is the area they know there is sewer capacity; they could put roads in the area and tell the School Board they intend that growth go there; and the School Board would plan schools in the area, and the County would be able to provide general services. Commissioner Ellis inquired why would the County put roads in; with Ms. Busacca responding she did not mean the County would do that; the County can focus where it is going to expend its resources rather than take the resources and go from one end of the County to the other; and staff wants the Board to tell it how it feels about that issue. She stated the County can take its limited resources and leave them in certain areas or spread them out to the length of the County.

Commissioner Cook advised he has a problem with not allowing the market to drive the engine similar to letting consumers drive what is done in the County.

Commissioner Ellis inquired realistically is it possible to provide city services to rural areas and is it cost feasible. He stated if people want to live in the boondocks that is fine, but when they call the Fire Department or Sheriff, there is a price they will pay; they will also have to drive farther for libraries and parks; and what is hurting the County right now is trying to provide city services to areas where they do not have the density.

Commissioner Scarborough advised the market is out there; there are property, under-used roads, water and sewer; and they will pay more for the property. He inquired if they did not impact infrastructure, why would the County say it is urban sprawl.

Commissioner Cook advised the market should drive the engine, this County is rifed with rent sinking; and once the Board designates growth for certain areas, it will make immense profit for certain landowners; and it is not fair to the market. He stated the County has made millionaires out of people at other people's expense; that has to stop; and this would only continue that type of thing.

Commissioner Ellis advised urban sprawl is not a bad thing because it is more expensive to improve services in dense areas like widening roads in Palm Bay.

Chairman Higgs stated the Board needs to make sure what developments are paying covers what their impacts are. She inquired if staff has a feel of what the Board wants on that issue; with Ms. Busacca responding that is what they wanted to know.

Planner II Mike Konefal advised staff will streamline the Comprehensive Plan to make it less bureaucratic, andconcentrate on immediate action the Board can take to make it user friendly, and what can be done by staff between now and prior to the EAR in 1997. He suggested removing duplications in policies and text and having one policy or map for one issue in one place of the Plan rather than five different places; and eliminating sections that are currently regulated by Ordinances such as concurrency policies that are in the Concurrency Ordinance and detailed regulations about planning, development, surface water, drainage, zoning, etc. that are in the Subdivision and Site Plan Ordinance and Zoning Code. He stated wherever there is an Ordinance that regulates things, the Ordinance should prevail; however, they may not be able to eliminate every single reference in the Comprehensive Plan because Florida Statutes have requirements, but they can reduce paragraphs to one or two lines. Mr. Konefal advised another action would be to right size the Future Land Use Map; there are many built up areas that developed as six to eight units per acre such as Suntree and Merritt Island which may have had 30 to 12 units per acre density; the Comprehensive Plan and reality are not the same; so staff can right size density maps to appropriate density levels. He stated on vacant lands they can have the Comprehensive Plan reflect the current zoning. He advised the last issue is to delete non-substantive policies or outdated policies; some policies in 1988 were time certain or action oriented; lot of the action has taken place; so they need to remove anything that has taken place since 1988. Mr. Konefal advised the Comprehensive Plan has a lot of policies that are non-substantive; those are better in ordinances or County policies; every issue does not have to be in the Comprehensive Plan; there are many policies that do not need to be in the Plan; and they will go through and eliminate the non-substantive policies. He stated they have to accomplish the EAR in the next two years; it will have no negative consequences with day-to-day business practices; and it will help to make the Comprehensive Plan a more user friendly document.

Commissioner Cook advised the Historic Preservation Element is optional; and inquired if it could be eliminated at any time; with Ms. Busacca responding that is her understanding. Commissioner Cook stated if it is going to cost one and a half employees to fund that Element and it is an option element, he cannot see spending tax dollars to do that. Commissioner Ellis stated if it is taken out of the Comprehensive Plan it will become a budget item each year and the Board can approve or not approve it. Commissioner Cook stated it can be addressed in other ways and not have to be part of the Plan, so it should be eliminated.

Mr. Jenkins inquired if staff can start removing duplication, implementing policies in ordinances, right sizing the Future Land Use Map, deleting non-substantive or outdated policies, and deleting the Historic Preservation Element now; with Ms. Busacca responding the Board will begin to see those amendments in the next amendment cycle.

Chairman Higgs inquired if staff is going to give the Board one part of the amendments so it can see what staff is doing and staff can get a sense whether the Board is comfortable or not; with Ms. Busacca responding staff will ask for permission to put them in the amendment cycle as they always do; and that would move forward if approved by the Board.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to direct staff to prepare an ordinance to eliminate the Historic Preservation Element from the Comprehensive Plan. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Ellis recommended a computer search of the Comprehensive Plan for all the "shalls" and "shoulds", and a list be provided to the Board to determine which ones it really wants to be mandatory in the Plan. Ms. Busacca advised they can provide that information, but she would like to caution the Board about starting a fight with DCA at this point. She stated it can make all their lives better without spending time at administrative hearings; and in the next two years they will be spending a lot of time discussing the finer points of the Plan with the Board and DCA while preparing the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). Commissioner Ellis inquired if it is better to go in one time with a long string of changes or piecemeal it and have to fight to get each item; with Ms. Busacca responding DCA is expecting the County to make substantial changes; they will be fully anticipating the County doing that; her discussions with the DCA representative has been about making the Plan more efficient; and that is something they are open to. She noted it takes an incredible amount of staff time and a lot of tax dollars to be tied up in 120 hearings.

Commissioner Cook inquired about the wetlands policy; with Mr. Jenkins responding it will be on the Agenda for the April 18, 1995 meeting. Commissioner Cook stated the Board may have to fight with DCA over the wetlands policy; with Ms. Busacca responding she has seen a tremendous change in the DCA in the last six months and expects that to continue; and that may be a reason to let them solidify their policies and not get caught with evolving policies like they did in 1988, because they can be more conservative; and the County has the dinosaur of a Comprehensive Plan to prove that.

Chairman Higgs advised if what the Board is talking about is going to the people with discussion of what they want, the Board should do that process prior to making changes to the Comprehensive Plan. She stated another thing it could do is review the time schedule and speed it up to get to those issues the Board wants to consider. Commissioner Ellis stated he does not understand why the Board would go to the people on a referendum for funding; with Chairman Higgs responding that is different from the vision process.

Commissioner Ellis recommended breaking out the "shalls" and "shoulds" and going down the whole list. Mr. Scott advised the Board needs to pick the right vehicle for different types of amendments they will be proposing; it has to remember if it shakes the foundation of the Comprehensive Plan dealing with issues that are mandatory according to Chapter 163 and insert those in the EAR, it may have to grapple with those issues and not allow constituents to give the County any other amendments because DCA said anything that is coined in the EAR must be adopted into the Plan before they will accept any other amendments. He stated they can do the things that are easy in the EAR, but if it is something that will chip away at requirements of Chapter 163, the Board may not want to put that in the EAR and lock out Comprehensive Plan amendments for everybody else. Commissioner Ellis stated it would take a year to make determinations on the "shalls" and "shoulds" in the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Cook stated the Board should look at that; and Ms. Busacca stated staff can do that. Commissioner O'Brien stated the problem with removing "shoulds" and "shalls" is the "woulds" will become subjective; with Commissioner Ellis responding not if they are not in the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner O'Brien stated "should" is subjective because the history of this County for the past 30 years has been the driving force of special interests; the Board can corrupt itself by using "should"; "shall" applies to everybody, and "should" applies to certain people; and that is why he has a problem with it. Commissioner Ellis stated "shall" eliminates the Board's ability to use common sense. Chairman Higgs stated Commissioner O'Brien said the common sense approach has been to assign it to a few who may have reasons to get it. Commissioner Ellis stated the way the wetlands policy was written, it could be interpreted to administratively redo every piece of commercial property and take them to residential; with Chairman Higgs responding but that has not occurred and the Plan has been in place since 1988. Commissioner Ellis stated it can happen like the motels in South Beaches; and if it is in the Plan it can be enforced. Chairman Higgs stated if it is in the Plan it should be enforced; it is the law; the Board should follow the law and apply it equally to everyone; and that is why she gets anxiety over "shoulds". Chairman Higgs stated only those things that are right should be in the Plan and enforced, and it is wrong to have a Plan that is ignored. Commissioner Scarborough stated if they are wrong and hurt people, they should be taken out of the Plan because the Plan is cumbersome and not enforced.

Mr. Konefal advised they will start with taking out duplication and concentrate on over-regulation during the second part; there are a lot of policies the Board may feel are not appropriate; and it could get the document to half or one-quarter of the current size by 1997.

Commissioner Ellis stated in 1988 the Board and staff did not understand the full ramifications of what was being put in the Plan; and once it had to live with it, they now see how it has come back to bite it many times.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the Board wants to start with the list of "shoulds" and "shalls"; with Mr. Jenkins responding staff will generate the list.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to look at provisions and understand how they can create a clean document so someone knows what the rules are and whether they can comply in half an hour, and that it be uniform. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Higgs advised a lot of policies can come out of the Plan, but in the process of making it workable, she does not want to destroy everything that is good in it; and if it is in the Plan, she wants the County to comply with it also.

DISCUSSION, RE: LEGAL ACTION AGAINST SUN SOUTH YOUTH HOME County Manager Tom Jenkins advised Chief Taggart has an issue to bring up seeking an injunction against a youth residential home.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to add Chief Taggart to the Agenda. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chief Taggart advised in January, Sun South Homes, which is a for-profit organization that takes court-appointed youths from ages 9 to 16, opened two homes in District 1 without prior knowledge of the Board, and do not meet many Code requirements; staff has been dealing with them, and they shut down one home on U.S. 1; but they are operating another on Canaveral Groves Boulevard. He stated the state mandates that those types of facilities must have sprinkler systems and fire alarm systems for the children; this home does not have those; he met with them in February in Commissioner Scarborough's office; and at that time they were in a turmoil whether to shut down the home and place the children elsewhere or try and work out intermediate steps with them. He stated he agreed to review the home and see if there was something they could do rather than put the children out; it is a nice home and not a bad place; but it does not meet state criteria and is not licensed through HRS which creates the whole problem.

Mr. Jenkins advised when they created the Department of Juvenile Justice, this type of home fell through the cracks; and while they are somewhat sanctioned by the Juvenile Justice Department, they are not licensed.

Commissioner Ellis stated someone is giving them money or they would not be doing it.

Commissioner Scarborough stated HRS had an inspection and was concerned and alarmed and are looking to the Board to let the people in Tallahassee know that something has fallen through the cracks. He stated the youths are not voluntarily staying at that home; they are required to be there; and if they died because of a fire there could be potential liability. He stated the state has some responsibility to provide for the health and safety of those children; and the County has its own Codes that it has looked the other way with for two months now. He stated Chief Taggart called him today and said he was not getting a response from the operators and they are dragging it out.

Commissioner Cook inquired why has the Home not done it; with Chief Taggart responding the house does not meet zoning requirements for what they want to use it for, so they are applying for a CUP; and the application is on the May 1, 1995 Planning and Zoning Board's Agenda. Ms. Busacca advised it was withdrawn on Friday, and they are going to the Board of Adjustment to appeal Rick Enos' decision as to their classification. Commissioner Ellis inquired if it is similar to the Salvation Army issue in Melbourne; with Ms. Busacca responding it is somewhat similar in zoning in that they do not specifically address what it is and what zoning category it goes into. Mr. Jenkins advised the County could have closed them down, but it has looked the other way and Chief Taggart has been trying to work with them.

Chairman Higgs inquired what does staff want the Board to do; with Chief Taggart responding there are two major items--fire alarm system and sprinkler system; they are required by state statutes to have those; he wants the fire alarm system in place and working by April 15, 1995; and if they do not comply, he would like an injunction against Sun South Homes.

Commissioner Ellis inquired how long would it take to install the alarm system; with Chief Taggart responding they have the equipment and can do it in two days.

Chairman Higgs inquired if they were aware Chief Taggart was coming to the Board; with Chief Taggart responding Shannon Wilson has notified their counsel. Chairman Higgs inquired if they had an opportunity to address the Board; with Commissioner Scarborough responding their attorney was not present in February; the Chief felt the Board should take action; they had hoped it would resolve itself but it did not; and it becomes a question of liability on the part of the County because it is not enforcing the laws it is required to enforce.

Commissioner Cook recommended the item be put on the April 18, 1995 Agenda and Sun South Homes be notified that the consensus of the Board is if the alarm system is not in by then, there is a likelihood it may vote for an injunction. Commissioner Scarborough stated rather than bring it up, the Board could make a motion if it is not taken care of by April 18, the Board will instruct the County Attorney to file an injunction. Chairman Higgs stated the Board should indicate to them it would take that action on April 18, and direct the County Attorney to prepare the injunction, but she has a problem with something of this consequence not providing an opportunity for them to speak to the Board; and she is not sure they were noticed. She stated it seems to be the consensus that the Board takes it seriously and intends to act, so they need to comply.

Commissioner O'Brien stated they have been warned again and again and told in writing that by April 15 they must be on line or something will happen; if the Board waits until April 18 then have the County Attorney do something, he cannot get to court until the following week; and that would be another week gone by with nothing done for those children. Commissioner Cook advised if it is on the April 18 Agenda, the respondent has an opportunity to come before the Board; he is reluctant to take something in five minutes and say do it; they should have an opportunity to know it is coming to the Board; and in the meantime the County Attorney can prepare the injunction and the Board can take immediate action that day. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board wants to take action to prepare the injunction and ask for a court hearing date; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding it should do that at the regular meeting.

Chief Taggart advised on March 20, 1995, he talked to Attorney Wolfman, their counsel; he tried to negotiate an extension on the alarm system time and was told the date was non-negotiable; so they have been put on several notices that April 15 was not negotiable; but the Board can change that. Mr. Jenkins stated they need to deal with the fire alarm and sprinkler system.

Commissioner Scarborough stated they are taking tax money and putting young people in facilities that are violating state laws; there is something fundamentally wrong with that; and he cannot condone it. He stated the Board can give them more time and be kind, but there is a point where it becomes irresponsible to say okay. He stated they are taking tax dollars and mistreating people and the Board is going to be part of that problem. Commissioner Cook stated he concurs, but it seems a fundamental basis, as a governmental body, that it not take action without someone having the opportunity to speak to the Board. Commissioner Scarborough stated they have violated the law and had multiple notices; their hearing is not before this Board, it is before a judge; and that is where their due process lies. He stated if the Board thinks Chief Taggart is off base, then it can forget it; but otherwise, it has a moral responsibility to do something. Commissioner Cook stated he is not going to make a decision in four minutes when it was shoved down his nose and he does not know all about it; the Board needs to correct it, but it is fundamental fairness to allow them to speak, if it is going to take the power of the County and all the attorneys. He stated he would like to see it ready to go on April 18 if it is not accomplished before then. Chairman Higgs stated she is not hesitating to act, but she wants to be sure the Board offers the opportunity for someone to respond in this case.

Upon motion and vote, the workshop adjourned at 4:40 p.m.

NANCY N. HIGGS, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

ATTEST:
SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK
(Seal)