The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in workshop session on February 28, 1995, at 10:05 a.m. in the Government Center Multipurpose Room, 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.

BREVARD SCRUB CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Chairman Higgs addressed the proper procedures for the Board, staff, and public regarding the Brevard Scrub Conservation and Development Plan (SCDP) workshop. She advised the purpose of the Workshop is to discuss where the County is with the SCDP to be sure everyone understands what the accomplishments are intended to be, and to answer any questions.

INTRODUCTION OF PARTICIPANTS

Staff Coordinator Tami Townsend reviewed the agenda; stated it will allow 45 minutes to present the key components of the SCDP; and there will be a session for questions and answers. The introduction of participants included the following: Dr. Reed Bowman, SCDP Scientific Advisory Group, Dr. Hilary Swain, Biological Consultant, Dr. Hank Fishkind; and Bob Cochran, Jr., Kim Zarillo, Steve Tatoul, Tim McWilliams, Bill Hall, and Mike O'Connell of the SCDP Citizen Steering Committee.

HISTORY OF BREVARD'S SCRUB ISSUE AND THE SCDP

Natural Resources Management Director Lisa Barr gave a brief overview of how the County got here today, including a history of the planning processes it has gone through. She explained Brevard County received a letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the summer of 1991 which put the Board on notice that if it issued any kind of development orders which resulted in the taking of scrub jays or scrub habitat, it would be responsible under the Endangered Species Act for a taking of endangered species. She noted staff asked Board direction on how to proceed with this issue; the biggest Board concern was how to deal with single family lot owners and the endangered species issues that were centered out of Jacksonville; and it has a lot of concern about how the single family lot owners were going to be able to deal with that from technical and financial standpoints. Ms. Barr advised the Board directed staff to meet with Fish and Wildlife Service to see if there was some way it could receive delegation of sorts that would bring the permitting back to a local level to try and accommodate the single family lot owners. She noted at that time, Brevard County had already begun to map some of the scrub jays and scrub jay habitat to meet its Comprehensive Plan requirements to produce a management plan for scrub jays and other critical species. She stated the mapping was taken to Fish and Wildlife Service; staff began to negotiate a Compliance Plan with the Service; it came back with such Plan; and the elements of the Plan were to do onsite set-asides on a lot by lot basis. Ms. Barr advised when staff took that back to the Board, it was universally hated; the development community did not like the idea of another onsite set-aside on property; they felt they already had enough restrictions on single family lots with septic tank issues, setbacks, and utility setbacks; and an additional 10% was becoming cumbersome on single family lots. She noted the environmental community did not like it as well because they thought the County was setting up a hedge row and it was not producing anything that was biologically significant for the scrub jays; so at that time, the Board set up an Ad Hoc Advisory Committee to look at alternatives that the Board could address as far as dealing with the scrub issue; the Committee met and took the Board objective of trying to accommodate single family lot owners at a local level; and then they added their own objective which was to try and spread out the costs of any compliance with the Endangered Species Act over as broad a base as possible, with the rationale that if there is a public benefit to scrub jay conservation, there should be some public participation outside of just the development in the process. Ms. Barr advised as they took those two objectives they evaluated several alternatives; the first alternative was for the County to fight and prepare a legal case against Fish and Wildlife Service; after evaluating that, they thought that was not the way they wanted to go; they were looking at existing case law in Hawaii which did uphold the local governments responsibility as far as the person identifying the Endangered Species Act; they also felt that there was some uncertainty during the time period while there was any kind of litigation going on, essentially everybody still had to go to Fish and Wildlife Service and get their permits; so it really was not addressing the Board's goal at the time. She noted they felt the delay in the process would not be beneficial in that if the County went through a long legal battle and did not prevail, then it was just that much further behind in the time and the uncertainty; they also did not think the Committee's goal as far as spreading the cost over as broad a base as possible was being served by that either; and if the County did prevail, the development community would still be the sole financial responsible party for compliance with the Endangered Species Act. Ms. Barr stated then the Committee looked at mitigation banking, and thought maybe what they would do is set up a mitigation bank which should help the permitting process and alleviate the burden on single family lot owners; and it also provides an opportunity to bring in some public dollars to meet the Committee's goal of spreading the costs. She noted when they went through that process, staff talked with Fish and Wildlife Service; some of the debated issues were that all the single family lot owners would still have to go to Fish and Wildlife Service to get their permits; the only way such Service can delegate its authority is through the habitat conservation planning process; so they felt that still did not meet the Board's goal of trying to accommodate the small lot owners; and also that there was a requirement that if there was taking of an endangered species, not only the habitat, that they would have to go through an incidental take permit which would have had to been processed at that time at a Washington level. She stated the Committee acknowledged that the mitigation banking would perhaps streamline the process, but it did not meet all of their goals as a Committee. Ms. Barr advised the Committee looked at the habitat conservation planning process which was something very new to everyone; staff spent a lot of time speaking with people in California where the habitat conservation plans were initiated; some have been finalized and staff did some analysis of that; and the Committee's decision was to recommend to the Board to go back and start working on a habitat conservation plan. She stated it brought back the delegation for the single family lot; it would provide an opportunity to spread the costs out over as broad a base a possible; it gave the development community certainty back in the process in that the permit was a 30-year permit and they would have the issue resolved for 30 years; it also provided biological certainty in that as the County went through this planning process, it could be assured that the scrub jay would survive over time; and it also provided one added benefit which was that all other species associated with scrub habitat could also be dealt with in the planning document so that any future listing of species that were in that habitat would also be accommodated by the Habitat Conservation Plan. Ms. Barr advised that recommendation was taken back to the Board and it agreed to begin the HCP process; it sent the Committee back with the task of setting up the HCP Steering Committee and how the process would work; and also to look at whether there was anything the County should be doing in the interim while the planning process was going on. She stated the Committee evaluated two issues; one was how does it preserve the large areas of scrub during the interim so that when they come to the final HCP that it has something to work; and how does it accommodate development that is already going on during the planning process. She noted as they begin to evaluate whether there should be additional restrictions on development within core areas, significant habitat areas for scrub jays, they came back to two problems with that; one was the fairness issue; there was also a legal issue; and they declined to do anything on that area. Ms. Barr stated the Committee asked staff to look at where development is occurring in Brevard County in scrub, and see if there is anything it can do to accommodate the development interests; two areas in Brevard County were pulling the building permits in scrub; that was the Viera East DRI area and Port St. John; Viera East has basically dealt with its scrub issue through the DRI process; so staff exclusively focused on the Port St. John area. She noted it did a lot by lot survey; then it sat down with some of the experts in the area of scrub jays in residential communities to try and come up with almost a corridor that ran through Port St. John to connect the scrub jays to the habitat to the north of TiCo Airport and habitat to the south in Canaveral Groves area; and when it got to the end of that planning process, the Committee had two more concerns about that. She stated one was the price; it was a very costly corridor to try and construct on a quarter acre by quarter acre lot basis; it was about $6 million; then the added uncertainty is how well do scrub jays really survive in residential areas; there is not a lot of certainty that that corridor would have worked over a 100-year planning process; so the Committee based upon those two evaluations decided not to do anything as far as the Port St. John area and to wait until the full HCP could be evaluated and make sure they were spending the money in the most appropriate way so they could assure the long-term survival of the scrub jay. Ms. Barr advised they went back to the Board and said they did not feel there was anything that was really effective in the interim and they recommended proceeding as quickly as they could through the habitat conservation planning process; they also established a six-member Steering Committee representing broad interest groups; and they also established a process by which these people would be seated. She noted essentially they were not Board appointees, but appointed by their own interest groups; and the County facilitated that effort.

THE SCDP PLANNING PROCESS

Facilitator Mike O'Connell, The Nature Conservancy, advised the first thing that happened was that a six-member Steering Committee was seated; one of the many reasons why habitat conservation plans have been used throughout the country as a way to deal with environmental conflicts is they are a different way of doing business than people are used to; it is not litigation; it is really consensus building; and Brevard County started with that premise. He noted the first thing that was done was that the Steering Committee was identified as six broad interest groups, including land owners that owned scrub, environmental community, land owners without scrub, the business community, the County government, and the affected cities; and one of the keys is that these people are not appointed; they have been selected by their own interest groups in a series of public meetings. He advised the process itself has been paid for by a federal grant; initially that grant was obtained through the efforts of former Congressman Jim Bacchus; and it was $100,000 for the first year. Mr. O'Connell stated the grant has been renewed for two consecutive years; they are expecting $100,000 this year; and that would make a total of $300,000. He stated all of the environmental surveys, the biological surveys and analysis, the land owner notification, the economic consultants, and everything has been paid for by the federal government; the County has provided meeting space and support; as far as service on the Committee, all of the Committee members are serving voluntarily; The Nature Conservancy serves voluntarily; and all of the Scientific Advisory Group members are serving as well on a volunteer basis. He noted one of the keys to consensus building effort is that when the result is reached, it is satisfactory to all of the interest groups that are represented on the Committee; they have tried to hold true to that; one of the first things the Committee did after the representatives were selected was to sit down and decide how they were going to function; and they decided that all of the decisions of this Committee were going to be made by unanimous consent. He stated that is a very critical piece to this entire process; every single interest that is represented essentially has veto over any decision that is made in the planning process; what that will tell you about decisions that come out of the process is that it has been agreed to by all representatives acting on behalf of their interest groups; and the Committee has worked as a team.

SCIENTIFIC RESULTS

Dr. Reed Bowman, Archbold Biological Station, advised they wanted to use the most current science to develop and reserve designs for the HCP; by using the most current science, they produce the most predictable results of the SCDP that is going to most likely be successful; the most critical concept in conservation biology in terms of this process is understanding the relationship between organisms and the land uses; and in order to accomplish this, they need to know a variety of things, including the biology of the organism they are dealing with which, in this case, is the Florida scrub jay, the attributes of the habitat and the landscape, and how the habitat and the landscape has been altered from historical condition or how the natural ecological process has been altered over time. He stated that is the theoretical approach, but they have to take this theory and bring it down into some practical processes in which they can come up with a reserve design; in order to do that, they had to carefully elucidate what are the goals of the SCDP; in this case, they are essentially the same as the criteria by which U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would evaluate the HCP; that is what will the HCP do for jays in Brevard County and will it ensure that populations of jays in Brevard County have a high probability of persisting for a long period of time; and another criteria is what will the HCP do for the species as a whole. He noted they have to go beyond the confines of Brevard County and think about how does this planning process affect the species viability all around. Dr. Bowman advised the first issue that needed to be considered was a question of scale; before they could think about jays in Brevard County, they had to think about the importance of Brevard County in the scale of the species; and that is across the entire State. He stated when looking at jay populations throughout the State, there are only six populations of more than 100 breeding pairs; four of those populations occur in Brevard County; and the County is critical to the long-term persistence of jays throughout the State. He advised the second level is what about jays in Brevard County; before they can address designing a refuge, they needed to know four critical parameters that would enable them to make these decisions, including how many breeding pairs of jays are there in Brevard County and where do they occur, how much scrub is left in Brevard County and where does it occur, what is the condition of that scrub, and what was the land use in between all these patches of scrub. Dr. Bowman stated scrub jays have been studied at Archbold Biological Station for 20+ years; there is a lot of good information about their biology; that is on the Lake Wales Ridge and it is a habitat that is in relatively good condition; so they also brought in biology studies that are on-going in suburban areas, at Kennedy Space Center and some of the federal properties on Merritt Island, and other studies from areas that are more similar or having the same kind of impact as the jays in Brevard County. He noted bringing those things together, they ended up with eight biological criteria, including how close are patches to one another, what is the land use in between, how much edge does a patch of scrub have and what is that edge on, pasture or suburban areas, and are there other target species, other endangered or threatened species, or other candidate species in those patches. He stated they had a higher level of criteria that needed to be satisfied; these are population criteria; the size of the population is critical to its long-term persistence; so all those populations in Brevard that were over 100 breeding pairs of jays needed to be maintained at that level; and if populations fall below 100, they decline rapidly over time. Dr. Bowman noted there are two populations that are already below 100; they chose the same kind of ratio as mitigation ratios that those populations should not decline any more than 2/3rds of their current population; that and these special criteria were how they evaluated the success of the design; they took the eight different criteria and evaluated every single patch of scrub in Brevard County, asking of that patch how close is it and what are all these different criteria; and by assigning relative weights to these criteria, they could then come up with some idea of the relative importance of each one of these individual patches of scrub. He stated they came to the clear recognition that some patches were absolutely critical; they were important for every level of these eight criteria; and these patches are included in all four of the different options that they ultimately presented to the Steering Committee. He advised such options of reserves each met the requirements for spacial landscape criteria as well as population criteria; and they feel very strongly that any one of these four designs will meet their original goals in that they will provide long-term persistence of jays in Brevard, as well as throughout the species range.

Dr. Hilary Swain, Florida Institute of Technology (FIT), advised as a biologist, she is interested in the process that Brevard County has adopted and the protection of this species, endangered species and endangered communities; she was asked to do four things originally, including how much scrub is left in the County, is the scrub in good condition, and how many scrub jays does Brevard County have. She noted based on the 1993 surveys, they found just over 13,700 acres of scrub in the County; historically, that would have been in a very long contiguous strip running north and south; and it is now cut up into many small fragments as a result of agricultural development, roads, railroads, and human development in the County. She noted it is now down to nearly 900 patches of scrub left in the County; as a result of fire suppression in the County over the past 40 to 50 years, only 6% of the scrub left in the non-federal properties in the County is in good shape, so most of it has been fire suppressed for a very long time; and this has very important implications for scrub jays because they do not do well in scrub that has been fire suppressed for a long time. Dr. Swain stated just over 370 families of jays in the County were located and documented in the non-federal properties; they are essentially in four relatively discrete populations; and there was a group in the areas north of Cocoa, a group between Cocoa and Melbourne, another group from Melbourne south to the Indian River County line, and the final population of scrub jays was on the barrier island. She advised the number of jays in Brevard County has declined considerably from what it historically had; her estimate is it is down to just over 20% of its original numbers of jays in the County; so it is dealing with very reduced numbers of what it would have had prior to major development in this area. Dr. Swain defined the series of criteria that were applied to the scrub patches, and the series of options and different reserve designs. She stated the four options all protect approximately 2/3rds of the original scrub that was surveyed in the County; and looking at the analysis of how many jays they would protect, they have met the goals of protecting the most viable population they could expect to have in the County, including meeting the Statewide guidelines and the criteria of the Endangered Species Act.

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Dr. Hank Fishkind, Fishkind and Associates, briefly reviewed the economic implications of the scrub habitat plan and compared it to the no-plan option, which is the economic issue that is ultimately going to be before the Board. He advised the plan option provides three main economic benefits; the first, the County has articulated it brings control back to it; without it, control is out of its hands and in the hands of the Fish and Wildlife Service and others; the second is efficiency; by having this plan, there is a tremendous amount of economic efficiency and it is extremely significant; and perhaps more significant than any of those is the certainty among the Board of two large public companies that develop, including Viera. He reviewed the numbers involved, the comparison of future scenarios with the SCDP and without the SCDP, financial costs and the financing plan.

SUMMARY

Mr. O'Connell provided a summary of key elements of the SCDP, as follows: History of Scrub Issue: (1) County liable under Endangered Species Act; (2) Initial compliance plan not endorsed by the Board; (3) Task Force examined potential responses to regulation; (4) Citizen's Ad-hoc Committee recommended Countywide HCP; and (5) Board unanimously authorized HCP process as the preferred alternative to resolve the scrub conservation/development issue. The Planning Process: (1) All affected interests represented on the Citizen Steering Committee; (2) Process paid for by $300,000/three-year federal grant; (3) Committee, SAG, and facilitator all volunteer; (4) Interest groups selected their own representatives to serve on the Committee; (5) All planning decisions by unanimous consent; and (6) Public input minimized. Scientific Results: (1) Approximately 30% of Brevard's original scrub habitat remains; (2) 55-60% of existing scrub proposed for protection/acquisition; (3) Four alternative biological plans identified--the Committee will choose one; (4) Implementing the SCDP ensures survival of scrub and Florida scrub jays; (5) Including 17 other species requires no additional land and avoids future conflicts; (6) Habitat parcels of less than two areas are released from the reserve designs; (7) Approximately 11,000 landowners in scrub, 65% will be released under the SCDP; and (8) Two populations of scrub jays not protected because of connection to federal properties. Economic Analysis: (1) Scrub landowners will be either compensated or released from federal regulation; (2) Private sector costs reduced through efficiency and sharing; (3) Other benefits of SCDP include streamlined permitting, equitable costs and benefits, certainty for landowners, conservationists, business and government, aquifer recharge, water quality and flood control, wildfire control, and open space and recreation; (4) 15% of scrub habitat already in public ownership; (5) Initial bank of released lands based on existing public land; and (6) SCDP participation is voluntary and landowners may pursue individual federal permits.

QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

Commissioner Ellis related there is a prosecution history under the Endangered Species Act; with Chairman Higgs responding such Act is not the issue in terms of prosecution, and the issue is whether the County is going to deal with the reality of life today which is a law, and come up with an efficient way of doing it. Commissioner Ellis noted he would like to know the prosecution history of the Endangered Species Act against local government; and requested information from staff.

Chairman Higgs inquired has anyone been prosecuted under the Endangered Species Act; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding the only two cases he is aware of were in Oregon and Hawaii. Commissioner Ellis inquired did the federal government prosecute there; with Attorney Knox responding the one case succeeded and the other one did not. Commissioner Ellis inquired is the Oregon case going to the Supreme Court; with Attorney Knox responding yes. Chairman Higgs inquired have individuals been prosecuted under the Endangered Species Act; with Ms. Barr responding affirmatively. Discussion ensued on prosecution and liability issues, scrub acreage, critical habitat designation, the range of scrub jays, land banking, mitigation, credits, populations of scrub jays, federal and non-federal properties, and the Endangered Species Act.

Chairman Higgs stated the Steering Committee is not at a final point with its recommendations or its plan; it is in the second to the third draft of economics; it has not finalized a reserve design; but it felt, given the level of discussion going on in the community, it was important to discuss; and that the Board receive information. She noted the Committee does not have a reserve design or a final economic plan; she wants to be sure the Board understands that the Committee is not assuming at this point a final HCP plan has been developed; and it is still in the process.

Commissioner Cook inquired what is the estimated cost to do the program; with Dr. Fishkind responding their estimate in present value terms is a total bottom line of about $120 million. Dr. Fishkind advised that is not the cost to the County or its taxpayers; and it is the cost to the affected parties. Chairman Higgs inquired what is the cost to Brevard County of not doing a plan; with Dr. Fishkind responding the best they can determine without dealing with the issue of certainty, it is approximately $200 million. Chairman Higgs inquired who pays that; with Dr. Fishkind responding ultimately it is paid by residents who come into the County and buy property, and existing residents who buy new properties.

Discussion ensued on loss of jobs and industry, utility, ad valorem and sales taxes, impact fees or special assessments, MSBU's on scrub properties, and financing bond issues.

Commissioner Cook noted an important element in his consideration of the plan is who pays for it. Kim Zarillo inquired who does Commissioner Cook think should pay for it; with Commissioner Ellis responding the federal government. Commissioner Cook stated he is willing to look at the options; there may be some concern if the local taxpayers in general take a hit; and it is a consideration which the Board needs to review.

The workshop recessed at 11:45 a.m.

The workshop reconvened at 11:55 p.m.

Margaret Broussard, 3660 North Riverside, Indialantic, representing the Scrub Land Trust and the Friends of the Scrub, advised as Friends of the Scrub, they try to do as much as they can on public education; her personal involvement has been mostly in schools; she has also talked to garden clubs and other groups like that; and there is a need for public education and accurate information regarding what scrub is and what its value is. She requested before the Board makes a decision, that it makes some kind of effort for real public education, maybe with this kind of information as presented today, with and without the plan; and she believes when the public understands, they are going to support it.

Bob Brown, 225 E. Myles Drive, Melbourne, President of the Scrub Land Trust and member of the Board of Directors and past president of the Indian River Audubon Society, advised from the environmental point of view and from the environmental organization, many of them are very proud of the fact that Brevard County has taken on such a task as to define the scrub habitat and scrub jay problems, and the related issue of preserving these lands in the County; they are thankful to the Steering Committee; and they are appreciative of the work that has been done. He requested the Board support the plan in whatever form the Steering Committee decides.

Harry Fuller, 424 Dorset Drive, Cocoa Beach, representing Space Coast Builders Association, advised he has given the Board a copy of a letter; such letter has six organizations on it in the County that have come together by invitation which says they are not sure they need an Endangered Species Act; and if they do, they need to do something differently than what it is doing now. He noted there is a big drive on to reduce the Act where taking is not a problem; there was one court case that was won which said that was never intended to be a part of the Endangered Species Act to allow taking of property without compensation; the County is looking at a lot of money to put the citizens of Brevard County under; and if it looks at the big picture and knows what is going on, it would be a real travesty for the County to obligate the people in the County for over $300 million when a year from now, the government requirement goes away. He noted there should be a waiting period if Brevard County is going to do anything with this plan; and if the federal government and State does not supply the money and the County has to go out, he does not see the savings.

Priscilla Griffith, 6414 South Drive, Melbourne Village, League of Women Voters of the Space Coast, advised they have backed the HCP process from the very beginning; they continue to think that prudence dictates that you continue with the process because the County does not know what is going to happen to the Endangered Species Act; and time is of the essence. She noted the League also looks forward to the final report; it will look at those recommendations of the Steering Committee very carefully; and it is quite willing to help with any public education effort that the County or the Steering Committee wishes to put forth.

Margaret Hames, 667 Acacia Avenue, Melbourne Village, advised as a member of the Ad Hoc Committee she agrees with the Committee in its recommendation that this process go forward; and she hopes the Board will continue the process of exercising its responsibility for natural resources within Brevard County; and just because the feds may fade away, the County still has a responsibility here. She urged the Board to continue the process; and make it a good comprehensive plan for the County.

William Kerr, 325 Fifth Avenue, Suite 208, Indialantic, requested the Board continue on the path it is going right now; stated since he is a consulting ecologist, it looks like it is going to cost his clients about $19,000 an acre to preserve 2/3rds of the scrub habitat and develop the third that is left; and that is based on existing costs that he is being charged today. He noted the County has been working on this for three years; it has a sick patient with a bad prognosis; and it needs to continue down this path to help.

Letitia Langord, 407 3rd Avenue, Melbourne Beach, expressed appreciation to the Board for its vision in endorsing the planning process; and thanked the Steering Committee for accomplishing it. She noted as far as dollar concerns are involved from a positive side, she would urge the Board to remember that eco-tourism is the fastest growing portion of the economy today; and the scrub with the scrub jay probably represents one of the most classic and enduring examples of an opportunity for people to have an experience which is quite unique. She noted she would rather have her taxes used for something positive which is land acquisition or a worthwhile project, than to have them used in fines and attorneys fees in a litigation process. Ms. Lagord stated this planning process represents a model which showcases Brevard County, not just at the State, but at the National level; and she does not believe the Endangered Species Act is going to go away. She noted life is more than dollars; the relationship between people and the scrub jay provides an absolutely perfect model of what that relationship can be; and this whole process is uniquely important.

Glen Outlaw, 1230 N. Harbor City Boulevard, Melbourne, advised he has a copy of the four chapters of the proposed ten chapters of the Plan and highlighted a few of them; throughout the entire draft there are overstatements and statements that should not be in here; and there is no documentation on certain issues.

Travis MacClendon, 3385 Kent Drive, Melbourne, Indian River Audubon Society representative to the environmental chair to this group, stated they support the goals of the SCDP; and it is great.

Norma Savell, 3500 S. Courtenay, Merritt Island, stated a solution to this whole thing is if lawsuits are threatened by Fish and Wildlife Service or whoever, then the tax dollars need to be used to fight them all the way to the Supreme Court; and it would be dollars well spent.

Diane Stees, 21 Bougainvillea Drive, Cocoa Beach, President of Indian River Audubon Society of Brevard County, expressed appreciation to the Board for working through this very difficult issue; and advised the Society supports the SCDP and looks forward to the outcome.

Bart Reiter, 173 Martesia Way, Indian Harbour Beach, stated he has seen too many instances recently of government taking away people's rights; and requested if the County approves this plan, that it would publish these maps exactly where the scrub habitat is located. He further requested that everyone who lives in those designated areas would be notified by certified mail that their property might end up being taken from them. He stated this is a very difficult issue, but he does not believe it is a very important issue; he represents the average Floridian; and what is very important is how do the people feel who are really affected by this. He noted he would much rather see $120 million spent on keeping criminals behind bars.

John Pescatello, 319 Clematis Street, West Palm Beach, The Nature Conservancy, advised there are important costs associated with this process and this problem; and these costs for the most part are going to be shared and visited upon by the taxpayers of Brevard County, unless the Board takes some concerted action to look elsewhere to share those costs with other taxpayers. He noted in an ideal world, those costs would be shared by all of the taxpayers of the United States, the federal government; that probably will not occur; but the next best thing is that there is a program in Florida called Preservation 2000; and there are some real opportunities to spread those costs among the State taxpayers. He stated the individuals in Brevard County will not be able to do that unless they are bound together in this plan; and the plan needs to be supported.

Charles Moehle, 65 Country Club Road, Cocoa Beach, stated the plan needs to be finished; the Committee is doing a good job; and it may not be acceptable, but a plan is needed.

Chairman Higgs stated as the Board's representative on the Steering Committee, she feels an obligation as they get to the major decisions, to get direction from her interest group; and inquired is the Board comfortable enough that it will proceed with working a plan which it will decide on, and that she as its representative will give it opportunities to provide input. Commissioner Cook noted he prefers that to be an agenda item for May 7, 1995, when there is a full Board present; it will give it time to simulate all of the information from today's workshop; and the Board can decide whether it proceeds or it can give further direction to Chairman Higgs if needed.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not believe the Board has a consensus; Commissioner Ellis has some concerns; and perhaps the best thing is to have additional workshops like the one today where the Board can work with the Committee periodically.

Chairman Higgs stated the Board can proceed in one of two ways; it can proceed to develop a plan; such plan would evolve from the Committee and come to the Board; or the Board can have very instructional points at which it advises her as the Board's representative, as to what it wants to see in the plan.

Commissioner Scarborough noted he does not think the Board is giving instruction as much as being a part of the dialogue and asking questions; and today it would like to be able to make sure the Committee is addressing the questions that come through.

Chairman Higgs advised the Committee is addressing questions as they come forward; with Commissioner Scarborough responding that seems to be the only concerns the Board has at this time. He noted the County needs to keep an open dialogue.

Chairman Higgs stated the Committee can proceed with developing the plan; with Commissioners Scarborough and Ellis responding yes. Commissioner Scarborough noted the issue that has come up continually is where is the money going to come from; and the Board has been told it is not able to talk about that today. He stated that is forthcoming; and it is going to be a major turning point.

Chairman Higgs advised what she hears the Board saying is that the Committee will continue to work; and inquired as it gets to very significant points, does the Board want her to bring that back to it. Commissioner Scarborough responded another workshop can be held with the Committee. Chairman Higgs stated that is fine; and she wants to proceed so the Board feels comfortable it is getting input in the process as she represents it as her interest group. She advised the Committee will proceed to develop the plan; and as it gets more things accomplished, it will come back to the Board in a similar type of setting. Commissioner Cook responded that is fine.

Commissioner Ellis stated the reserve and release issues are also very important. Chairman Higgs stated at the next workshop, the Board will meet with the Committee to discuss how the land will be released and the funding issues.

Mr. McWilliams stated the Steering Committee is looking at a public hearing process throughout this issue, but not necessarily with the Board being present; and the Committee can receive input before the final draft is issued to the Board for a decision. Chairman Higgs advised the Board will also have a public hearing on it.

Ms. Barr stated there will be a public education program put together by the Steering Committee and a notification program; and there will be an aggressive public education campaign as the HCP is finalized and after it is completed.

Chairman Higgs reiterated that the Steering Committee will proceed; and another workshop will be held in a couple of months.

The Board expressed appreciation to the Steering Committee and public for their participation.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 1:00 p.m.

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

ATTEST:
SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK
(S E A L)