The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in workshop session on January 11, 1995, at 1:10 p.m. in the Government Center Multipurpose Room, Building C, 2725 St. Johns Street, Melbourne, Florida. Present were: Chairman Nancy Higgs, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Randy O'Brien, Mark Cook and Scott Ellis, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

INTRODUCTION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Solid Waste Management Director Richard Rabon stated the County has been looking for a solution to part of its disposal problem; and it has been looking to procure a facility to handle the waste that is being generated in the South County Service Area. He introduced members of the Project Team that has been helping the County in this effort, including Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Omar Smith, Sam Levin, David Deans, Rick Patterson of Public Financial Management, Inc., and David Dee of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A. He noted he would like to summarize how the County got to where it is and why it is here today; and explain what the existing system might look like and where the County may go from here in this effort. Mr. Rabon stated since 1985, the County embarked on a formal approach to look for another site to handle the waste coming out of the South County Service Area; and that approach was formalized in a document that staff presented to the Board in 1985 called a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the years 1985 through 1990. He noted a major part of that program was to locate a site to serve the South County Service Area in Brevard County; the County took a number of steps at that time; and these steps culminated in 1991 with the purchase of approximately 3,000 acres on U.S. 192 adjacent to the Osceola/Brevard County line. He stated the County embarked on what was a traditional approach for development of that site; it retained consultants to do the permitting and design of the facility; and it was then going to bid construction of that facility and operate it as it has traditionally been done in Brevard County.

Mr. Rabon stated in 1993, a concern was expressed by the Board that the County may bog down in its permitting efforts due to opposition from the neighboring landowner; and those efforts may create such a problem that the County could not accomplish its goal in providing the facility for the South County Service Area. He noted staff was asked to work with Osceola County to see if some amiable solution could be worked out at perhaps some site in Osceola County; staff began that process; Brevard and Osceola Counties' staff have met on many occasions since then at all levels; and by early 1994, Brevard County was bogged down again in that effort. He stated staff brought an action back to the Board that has resulted in the retention of Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc.; and that action was to look at alternatives to working with Osceola County and following an analysis of those options, choose one and issue a Request for Qualifications/Request for Proposals that would result in a private firm giving the County a full service solution to the problem which was a privately sited, design, build, operate solution to the problem. He noted the Board still recognizes the importance and advantages of looking at a joint project with its neighboring counties; and it asked staff to talk to the surrounding counties again to see if something could be done. Mr. Rabon showed the Board and audience a map of what the County's plan has been; and stated Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. will show where the County is going. He noted the County's plan has always been to take its waste to the Central Disposal Facility in Cocoa from the north and south ends of the County; it has had transfer stations in the north and south ends; and it has had a small landfill in Melbourne where it has left construction and demolition debris. Mr. Rabon stated this management of waste has been to carry all of the waste from the north and central part of the County, both construction and demolition debris, and residential and commercial garbage to Cocoa; commercial and residential garbage comes from Melbourne to the transfer station in Cocoa; and the construction and demolition debris is left here. He noted that basically has been the plan; staff has tried to improve the County's Comprehensive Plan and the Solid Waste Department's CIP to provide a minimum 25-year capacity in the solid waste system; as Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. will show, this Central Disposal Facility being the only one the County has, has been filling up for years; and to get to that capacity, the County would have to site a landfill or some other facility some place else.

SPECIFIC NEEDS OF THE SOUTH COUNTY SERVICE AREA

Omar Smith, Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. stated in determining the specific needs of the County, his Firm has addressed in all of the options for the north, central and south service areas, the management needs which include collection, transfer, processing and disposal; with each one of those needs, there are different types of waste categories which include residential and commercial garbage (Class I), yard waste, construction and demolition debris, waste tires, recyclables, and household hazardous waste; and Class III waste includes yard waste, construction and demolition debris and waste tires. He noted in these particular areas, the County is expected to receive and manage almost 657,000 tons of waste material; in the north, the County is planned to have about 49,000 tons transferred from the Titusville Transfer Station to the Central Disposal Facility in the central part; the Central Disposal Facility would receive this material, process it through a shredder facility, and landfill it. Mr. Smith stated 282,000 tons of material is generated within the Central Service Area and directly hauled to the Central Disposal Facility; 158,000 tons of garbage from the South Service Area is going to be transferred from the Melbourne Transfer Station up to the Central Disposal Facility; approximately 35,000 tons of the material, mainly made up of yard waste and other wood wastes that is shredded and mulched, is actually hauled out of the County to a wood burning plant in Polk County; and that is just from the Central area. He noted in the South Service Area, there is another 35,000 tons that is planned to be directly hauled; that is 70,000 tons of material on an annual basis that is shredded or mulched and hauled to this wood burning plant; so that is 70,000 less tons of material going into the landfills. He advised there is 158,000 tons going to the Central Disposal Facility; 133,000 tons are going into the Sarno Road Landfill; and that is mainly the Class III Landfill that takes construction and demolition, and shredded waste tires.

Mr. Smith stated for the year 2000 in the South County Service Area, 178,000 tons of residential garbage and commercial waste will be transferred from Melbourne to whatever one of the options; 153,000 tons of other Class III materials; and 35,000 tons would continue to go to the wood burning plant. He noted in determining specific needs of the facilities, the Melbourne Transfer Station has a design capacity of 400 tons per day; it is operating from 135 to 220% over design capacity; the equipment is based on 1960's technology; and it is in poor shape and needs replacement. He stated the site access is poor; and operations have been costly and inefficient. He noted the rolling stock or the transfer vehicles are operating inefficiently and the service life remaining on that is very small. He stated a recommendation if the County decides to take the Class I material and take it out of the County, basically it would need to replace the transfer station. Mr. Smith stated regarding the Sarno Road Landfill, the County was successful last year in getting a new permit for that facility; it extended the life; the County was able to get a vertical expansion on that; and in the next couple of months, the County will be doing some construction improvements for stormwater control and some closure of the Landfill. He noted his Company expects the permitted landfill life is eight years or until FY 2002; the 35,000 tons of wood waste is continued to be hauled out to the Polk County facility; and there is no space for expansion. He stated the Company's recommendation is that the Board needs to make a policy decision on future management of Class III waste. He stated on the Central Disposal Facility, permitted life at expected fill rates is 14 years or until FY 2008; if the County had a new disposal facility by FY 2000, it would extend the permitted life by 10 years or until FY 2018; and the recommendation is to provide disposal capacity elsewhere to extend the permitted capacity of the Central Disposal Facility.

REGIONAL INVESTIGATION AND POTENTIAL PARTNERS

Richard Rabon stated he made visits to all the surrounding counties as well as some of the cities and some of the districts; the difficulty in working a regional project is everyone's needs are somewhat different; some of them have more capacity than others; their timing becomes a critical issue; and it appears that the County's needs are more acute than anybody's, with the possible exception of Osceola County. He noted Indian River County is in a fairly similar situation as Brevard County; however, that County is not developing as rapidly as Brevard County. He explained Osceola and Orange Counties' landfill situations; stated a regional partnership and facility is good; that has been Brevard County's objective if it could accomplish that; staff has made attempts at it; and hopes the workshop with Osceola County next week will push Brevard closer in that direction.

PROCUREMENT OPTIONS FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY SERVICE AREA

David Deans, Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc., reviewed the procurement options for the South County Service Area as follows: Option No. 1, defer action; Option No. 2, develop the current site; Option No. 3, develop an alternate South County facility; Option No. 4, joint disposal facility partnership with Osceola County; Option No. 5A, haul out-of-county to a future Osceola County landfill; and Option No. 5B, haul out-of-county to a private disposal facility. He noted Option No. 1 includes operating the system as is and no plans for facility expansion; facilities impacts for the South County Service Area would be the Sarno Road Class III Landfill reaching capacity in FY 2002, a new Melbourne transfer station will be required by FY 2000, Class III waste is directed to the Central Disposal Facility in FY 2003, and Class I waste continues to be disposed of at the Central Disposal Facility.

Mr. Deans stated the facilities impacts to the Central County Service Area would be that the Central Disposal Facility reaches capacity in FY 2008; and by FY 2009, a new landfill facility will be required. He stated advantages to Option No. 1 include deferring capital improvement costs; the County defers the need to increase rates; there is deferment of permitting issues; and the County may be able to sell the existing South County site. He noted disadvantages include that the existing Class I permitted landfill capacity for the entire County will be exhausted in 15 years; by FY 2002, the County will need to begin searching for a new landfill facility; there will be non-compliance with Comprehensive Plan and Concurrency rules of Brevard County; there would be increased transfer haul costs in capital, and operation and maintenance; and there is a need for replacement of the Melbourne Transfer Station. He stated further disadvantages are the need to replace transfer vehicles; there would be no disposal capacity for Class III materials in the South County Service Area beyond the year 2002; there is significant reduction in the life of the Central Disposal Facility; siting and permitting issues become more complex over time; there is increased likelihood of solid waste management crisis in the near future; and an increased likelihood of sharp rate increases in the future.

Mr. Deans stated Option No. 2, development of the current site, includes sending out a Request for Qualifications/Request for Proposals and a private company to permit, develop, and operate the current site. He advised facilities impacts to the South County Service Area would include the Sarno Road Class III Landfill reaches capacity in FY 2002; the Melbourne Transfer Station will be closed by FY 2000; Class III waste is directed to the South County site by FY 2003; yard waste continues to be processed at the Sarno Road Landfill; and Class I waste is disposed of at the South County site by FY 2000. He noted facilities impacts for Central County Service Area include that the Central Disposal Facility reaches capacity in FY 2018; and by FY 2018, additional property will be required or an alternate solid waste management facility procured. Mr. Deans stated advantages for Option No. 2 include use of existing County owned property; elimination of the Melbourne Transfer Station; the current site does not require rezoning; the site serves as a location for other solid waste management operations; and if the private company is unable to permit the site, the County may not have incurred any cost. He stated further advantages include the County maintains control of the disposal facility; it controls the disposal rate structure; the County reduces the daily involvement of arduous permitting, design and construction process; Class III waste may be diverted to this facility; the current site provides capacity for solid waste disposal needs of the entire County beyond the 25-year planning period; and a private contractor may accept waste from other sources.

Mr. Deans stated disadvantages for Option No. 2 include permit applications may be vigorously opposed by the previous owner and others in Brevard County; the County must closely monitor the facility; it is not directly in control of permitting issues, but is responsible for permit compliance; its ability to obtain or provide for new services or respond to changing conditions may be limited; and there is potential for public opposition if waste is imported.

Discussion ensued between the Board and Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. regarding Option No. 2, development of the current site, Deseret Ranch and the Deseret site, transfer stations, landfills, alternative siting, permitting, environmental advocacy groups, and recycling and composting.

David Deans stated Option No. 3 is the alternate South County site; it includes sending out a Request for Qualifications/Request for Proposals; and there would be a private company to site, permit, develop and operate an alternate South County site.

Commissioner Ellis inquired since the South County site would have been available three or four years ago, why was the Deseret site chosen instead of the South County site. Mr. Rabon responded the engineers the County had reviewing this before looked at 12 or 15 sites; they did not say that the site the County purchased is the only permittable site in Brevard County; it was the top ranked out of four sites that were permittable just because of the locational factors of it, the remoteness of it, and the fact that there was a major highway going to it; and some of the other sites were at great distance. Mr. Rabon stated when siting studies are being conducted, the degree of permitting opposition received is hard to predict; and those kind of issues were ill-defined at the time.

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated the policy makers at that time were less concerned about a confrontation with the property owner.

Commissioner Cook inquired did the County know at the time that it would have opposition from Deseret; with Mr. Rabon responding yes, but it was also assumed that any site was going to have opposition.

Mr. Rabon advised the areas in the South County are smaller; the reason the County ended up with such a large site is because it was looking to be able to do the mitigation of the wildlife and the wetlands on site without having to go outside to purchase additional properties, and still have plenty of capacity beyond the 25-year period.

Commissioner Ellis expressed concern of whether a thorough decision was made then; with Chairman Higgs responding she cannot go back and re-make that and she can only sit here with today what her options look like and what it is she could go to and make a decision based on that. Commissioner Ellis stated the Board needs to know what was used to pick that site out there the first time; with Chairman Higgs responding it needs to get the book that was written back then that goes through all the sites and the analysis of such sites.

Mr. Jenkins stated in terms of this Option, when the current Board began to look at alternative sites versus the 3,000 acres the County currently owns, Mr. Rabon and he discussed this issue; Mr. Rabon believed there may be an alternative site either in or out of Brevard County that it could go to the Request for Proposal with a private sector firm; Mr. Rabon's perception was there may have been firms waiting that would be happy to try and secure other sites in or immediately outside of Brevard County; and the other bridge the Board is going to have to cross with the Osceola proposal moving it to the Deer Park site, is that it is his impression that the Deseret organization is committed to a particular technology with a particular company; and if that is true, then one of the decisions the Board will have to make is whether or not it wishes to use mass burn technology with a particular company.

Commissioner Ellis stated the point is that the County has to do something.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the County would be making a mistake at this particular time if it would make any overall assumptions; Osceola has new Commissioners and Brevard County has new Commissioners; Brevard County needs to approach this without any baggage; and the less baggage it walks into this meeting with Osceola County, the better. He noted Deseret should be able to come to the table and look at whatever Osceola and Brevard Counties come up with; to take that waste-to-energy is a given in any doubt, would be a total mistake because it needs to be discussed and re-examined; if it is done that way, there will more likely be positive results from the dialogue; and that is the way he would like to approach it.

Commissioner Cook stated if Osceola is locked into a particular technology, that is going to factor into the County's decision. Chairman Higgs stated the Board needs to go in with few assumptions; she would consider the technology an important part of that partnership; and that the Board would participate in that decision and not advocate that it is all right for Osceola to make whatever decision it wants.

Mr. Jenkins stated he was told by Deseret that it does not want the facility on the 3,000 acres; it has an alternative which is the Deer Park utility site, but if the County went somewhere completely off of Deseret's property, it would not care either; it would not be upset if the County went away from its property entirely; and that is why the third option is another option to review.

Chairman Higgs noted all of the options need to be compared.

David Deans stated the facilities impacts in the South County Service Area for Option No. 3 includes the Sarno Road Class III Landfill reaching capacity in FY 2002; the Melbourne Transfer Station may be closed by FY 2000; Class III waste is directed to the alternate South County site by FY 2003; yard waste continues to be processed at the Sarno Road Landfill; and Class I waste is disposed of at the alternate South County site by FY 2000. He stated facilities impacts for the Central County Service Area include the Central Disposal Facility reaching capacity in FY 2018; and by FY 2018, additional property will be required or an alternate solid waste management facility procured. He advised advantages for Option No. 3 would be that the County may eliminate the Melbourne Transfer Station and associated transfer haul costs; it controls disposal rates; it maintains control of the disposal facility; the site serves as a location for other solid waste management operations; and the County may be able to sell the existing South County site. Mr. Deans stated disadvantages would be selecting, siting, purchasing, rezoning, and amending the Comprehensive Plan may be controversial, potentially extending the time of implementation; the County must closely monitor facility design, construction, and operations to protect its interest; and collection cost may increase due to direct haul to landfill. He noted other disadvantages include limited areas available; the potential facility may have less landfill life than the current South County site; the County is not directly in control of permitting issues, but is responsible for permit compliance; and its ability to obtain or provide for new services or respond to changing conditions may be limited.

The meeting recessed at 2:35 p.m.

The meeting reconvened at 2:55 p.m.

Mr. Deans advised Option No. 4 is the joint facility partnership with Osceola County; this includes Brevard County setting up a partnership with Osceola County in the ownership of a regional facility; Request for Qualifications/Request for Proposals would be sent out; and a private company would permit, develop, and operate an eastern Osceola County site. He noted facilities impacts for the South County Service Area are the Sarno Road Class III Landfill reaching capacity in FY 2002; a new Melbourne Transfer Station and transfer vehicles being required by FY 2000; yard waste continuing to be processed at the Sarno Road Landfill; construction and demolition, and waste tires being managed by a new disposal facility in South Brevard County, starting in FY 2003; and Class I waste is disposed of at the joint facility site by FY 2002. He stated in the Central County Service Area, facilities impacts would be the Central Disposal Facility reaching capacity in FY 2017; and by the year FY 2017, additional property adjacent will be required or an alternate solid waste management facility procured. Mr. Deans noted advantages for Option No. 4 is that the County may benefit from economics of scale in a regional facility; there is avoidance of controversial siting issues in Brevard County if the Board can negotiate through this regional facility a win-win situation with all the players; there is public (authority), joint venture control of the rate structure; there are shared risks and environmental liability; Brevard County may be able to sell the existing South County site; and there are reduced environmental impacts within Brevard County. He stated disadvantages include the need for replacement of the Melbourne Transfer Station; the need for a new landfill site in Osceola County; the lack of waste commitment from Osceola County to the facility; higher transfer haul costs in comparison to using the South Brevard County site; and Brevard County has less control of disposal facility and disposal rates. He noted stated additional disadvantages are that the County may need to pay a host fee in addition to other costs; it may need to procure/provide local Class III disposal capacity upon closure of Sarno Road Landfill; and there is possible public opposition to a new landfill site accepting Brevard County waste.

Mr. Deans advised Option No. 5A is to haul out of County to a future Osceola County Landfill; the Board would set up an interlocal agreement where Osceola County would agree to accept Brevard County's waste; Osceola owns the landfill; it sets the rate; and it lets Brevard County come in. He noted there would be the transport of Class I waste outside of Brevard County to a future landfill located in southern Osceola County. He noted facilities impacts in the South County Service Area are that the Sarno Road Class III Landfill reaches capacity in FY 2002; a new Melbourne Transfer Station and transfer vehicles will be required and placed into operations by FY 2000; yard waste continues to be processed for recycling at the Sarno Road Landfill; construction and demolition debris and waste tires to be managed by a new County-owned, privately operated disposal facility in South Brevard County starting in FY 2003; and Class I waste is transferred and disposed of at the new southern Osceola County facility by FY 2002. Mr. Deans stated advantages for Option No. 5A include reduced environmental impacts within Brevard County; the County may be able to sell the existing South County site to previous owners; it does not need to go through siting or permitting process; and it may benefit from economies of scale (lower disposal fee). He advised disadvantages are significant risks to Brevard County if Osceola County operations are not maintained at a satisfactory level; the County may be named as Potentially Responsible Party if environmental impairment occurs (liable for environmental contamination); lack of waste commitment from Osceola County; and the need for replacement of the Melbourne Transfer Station which may include siting, rezoning, amending the Comprehensive Plan, procurement of the site, permitting, design, and construction. He noted other disadvantages are potential long haul to South Osceola County may increase transportation costs relative to some other alternatives; lack of control (environmental, economic, etc.) inherent with ownership by others; possible public opposition to a new Osceola County landfill site accepting Brevard County waste, impeding implementation; Osceola County does not have a future site, which may include siting, rezoning, amending the Comprehensive Plan, procurement of site, permitting, design, and construction; the need to provide local Class III disposal capacity upon closure of Sarno Road Landfill; and the County must pay to transport recyclables, then pay to have them managed. Mr. Deans stated Option No. 5B is the haul out of county to a private disposal facility; and that is basically put a Request for Proposal out that says come take the waste and transport Class I waste outside of the County to a private facility. He noted the facilities impacts have been mentioned before and are repetitive; the advantages include may provide for rapid implementation; Brevard County may be able to sell the existing South County site to the previous owner; and it does not need to go through siting or permitting process in order to do this. He noted the disadvantages for Brevard County include less control over long-term rates; it may be named as Potentially Responsible Party if environmental impairment occurs (liable for environmental contamination); the need for replacement of the Melbourne Transfer Station; potential long haul will increase the transportation costs relative to other alternatives; lack of control for environmental, economics, etc. inherent with ownership by others; possibility of opposition from the host county; the need for a local Class III disposal; and the County must pay to transport its recyclables and then pay to manage them.

Sam Levin, Public Financial Management, Inc., stated the costs for the aforementioned options are estimates; there were capital costs and operating costs; the capital costs dealt with facilities; and the Melbourne Transfer Station construction and other related capital costs totals $8,000,000. He reviewed operating and transportation costs for Options 1 through 5B; reiterated these are very estimated costs; explained landfill development and related costs which affects In-county Options 1, 2 and 3 and Joint Facility Option No. 4, and does not affect Haul Out of County Options 5A and 5B; and addressed first phase land development costs for the County, Options 1 through 4.

Commissioner Ellis inquired what are the assumptions used for net present value.

Rick Patterson, Public Financial Management, Inc. responded his Company worked with Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. in preparing the model; it assumed that the operating and capital costs Post, Buckley prepared in 1995 numbers escalate annually at an assumed Consumer Price Index (CPI) of 3%; and his Company has used the same 3% discount factor for taking back the present value. Commissioner Ellis inquired there is operating/capital costs over how many years; with Mr. Patterson responding out through 2020.

Assistant County Manager for Environmental Services Group Steve Peffer inquired is it true that in the hauling options, the County will still have operations within it for its construction and demolition, yard waste, recyclables and others; and it is not completely out of the operations business when it is hauling its Class I waste. Mr. Deans responded the construction and demolition needs to be addressed; there are other management requirements that the County have recycling of its waste material, etc.; it could be if it set up a transfer station that it also set up waste processing facilities at the transfer station to handle those recycling requirements; and Post, Buckley has assumed continued use of the Sarno facility for mulching of yard waste for a period of time.

MANAGEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTES AND OTHER ISSUES

David Dee of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A., stated one of the questions that was raised by Mr. Rabon and others was the issue of construction and demolition disposal; for any of the options where the County is looking at a disposal site outside of Brevard County, it is going to need to provide an in-county disposal site for construction and demolition debris; it is a fundamental matter; the stuff is bulking; it is hard to transport; and if there is not a convenient economic disposal site, the material is going to wind up dumped illegally in the woods somewhere. He noted when talking about a construction and demolition disposal site, it can be provided either by a public facility or a private facility; but there are a couple of basic issues that are common to all of the facilities. He noted one question is the location of the facility and the impact on surrounding land uses; a second question is the environmental impacts associated with the facility; and the third question deals with economic impacts and flow control. Mr. Dee advised with regard to the locational problems that may arise in siting a construction and demolition site, right now the County has a Zoning Code that allows waste management disposal facilities in three different zoning categories: agricultural, agricultural residential, and heavy industrial. He stated those Zoning Code requirements are very minimal; as a result, the County could have a private or a public facility go in today with very few Zoning Code requirements imposed on it; and that is a lot of dissatisfied neighbors. He noted as a practical matter, if the Board deemed appropriate, its planning staff and the Solid Waste Management Department could address that issue immediately by getting together, looking at the Zoning Code, and trying to decide how they might beef up that Code to minimize potential problems with the location of these facilities. He stated for example, the County might require larger minimum lots, larger setbacks, buffering or some sort of aesthetic improvements to minimize the impacts on adjacent properties.

Mr. Dee noted with regard to the environmental impacts associated with construction and demolition disposal sites, the state and federal government currently have very few regulations that apply to them; Brevard County has no environmental standards that would apply to them; there is concern both at the state and federal level that these facilities may be under regulated; and for that reason, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is working with a task force to look at that very issue; it has had a number of meetings over the last eight months; and within the next 30 to 45 days, it will be appearing before one of the committees with the Florida Legislature to address the question of whether there should be new state statutory requirements for construction and demolition disposal sites. He stated it is anybody's guess as to whether anything will happen with the Legislature; but within 90 days or so, there should be an answer to that question. He advised the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was sued by the Sierra Club over the same issue; EPA has stipulated in a court settlement that it would propose new construction and demolition disposal regulations by May, 1995; and promulgate final regulations by May, 1996. Mr. Dee noted the question is what will those requirements be; they could be very minimal; again the question is in the current political climate, is it likely that new regulations are going to come out of either EPA or DEP, and the Legislature; and there will be an answer to both of those questions relatively soon. He stated the question for the Board to consider at this point is does Brevard County want to try and create additional regulatory requirements that should be applied to those facilities. He noted for example, would the County have a permitting program where it would require these facilities to have a trained operator inspecting the waste to make sure that improper materials were not deposited there; would it require these facilities to provide proof of financial capability so that they could not close up in the middle of the night, vacate the site, and leave the County holding the bag for cleanup; and would it require some other similar environmental safeguard like monitoring wells. He stated if the County decides it wants to pursue that option, it has to have staff that are available and trained to implement this program and to provide inspections and enforcement; so there are a number of issues under that approach. Mr. Dee stated the third consideration with regard to the provision of a construction and demolition site comes back to flow control; the County currently has a special assessment process; that gives it economic flow control over the Class I waste; it does not have anything like that for construction and demolition waste; and if the County were to open up a facility itself today, it has no means of forcing anybody to use that site. He noted in the past, it had State Statutes as well as its Special Act and local ordinances which said that it could direct people to its designated facility; the problem is that in May, 1995, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion; the consensus seems to be that flow control ordinances of the type that the County relied on in the past may not be enforceable any more; and there is a great deal of debate as to whether it could require anybody to take their waste to a construction and demolition disposal site that was owned and operated by the County. Mr. Dee stated the County staff has submitted a memorandum to the Board prior to this meeting discussing this whole issue; it has indicated that the Board might establish economic flow control, either through a special assessment for construction and demolition material or it might use an advanced disposal fee; and both of those approaches have their advantages and disadvantages. He noted that is the issues in a nutshell regarding construction and demolition materials.

Mr. Dee stated he will address risk management and in particular, the risks of being hit with dramatically increased costs in the future for solid waste disposal. He noted part of that risk management relates to the question of public versus private ownership; he wants to make it clear he does not care whether the County has a publicly-owned facility or a privately-owned facility; there are good examples of both public and private facilities in the state; there are excellent companies out there that can provide the service; and the County simply has to be aware of the risks that are involved when it enters into a public/private partnership or if it transfers all of the responsibilities over to a private enterprise. He stated the County's goal is to provide environmentally sound, cost effective solid waste management services; it wants to do that at the most cost effective manner possible; private companies share those same goals; they also are concerned with making a profit; sometimes the desire to make a profit may lead them to make a profit at the County's expense; and it needs to be aware of the risks as it goes into it. Mr. Dee stated if the County has a publicly-owned and a publicly-operated facility, it controls its activities, costs to the greatest extent possible, and the rates that are paid by members of the community; if the County has a publicly-owned, privately operated facility, it gives up some control and in turn, it exposes itself to some degree of risk. He noted it is not unmanageable; and it is something the County needs to be aware of. He noted the County can draft a good contract to minimize its risks; however, it cannot have a risk-free environment under any of the scenarios, whether it be publicly owned and operated or under a contract. He stated the biggest problem the County has right now is the unprecedented change and turmoil that is occurring in the area of solid waste management; he has been working in this area for 15 years; and in the last five years, particularly the last eight months, there have been many radical changes. He noted as a result of the change and the turmoil in this area, there is an excellent likelihood that under any contract the County enters into, some change will occur that nobody anticipated; and now it has to figure out how it is going to deal with it and who is going to pay for that change and that increase in cost. He stated if Brevard has a County-owned privately operated facility, it has this contract that allows it to determine what the right and remedies are for both of the parties; but it is not likely to immediately terminate the contract; it is not likely to be able to go out and specifically bid with the community at large to get the best possible price for the best possible solution to that problem; and it is most likely going to be negotiating with the vendor to try and come up with a mutually acceptable solution. Mr. Dee stated the risks the County incurs is greater when it deals with a completely privately-owned and operated facility; if it goes to a privately-owned and operated facility outside of Brevard County, it runs into a problem, it cannot solve the problem; it either has to accept the proposal that is put on the table by the private vendor or it has to terminate the contract, pull out, and hunt on the spot market for disposal capacity somewhere; and there is the risk that the County pays a premium for that disposal capacity.

Discussion ensued between the Board and David Dee regarding construction and demolition permitting sites, flow control issues, restrictions and regulations for operating facilities, interlocal agreements, and fundamental concerns on zoning and environmental permitting issues.

Mr. Dee stated Congress is going to be asked by various local government interests over the next year to support legislation granting flow control authority to local governments; it looked as though that legislation would pass at the end of the last session of Congress; it did not; and given the dramatic change in the political makeup of Congress at this point, it is anybody's guess as to what will happen. He noted Congress has the ability to pass legislation that affects interstate commerce; and it can address the issue of flow control through federal legislation. He noted regarding the timeliness of taking action and what the time table is, some of the options have shown there may be 10 or more years before another facility needs to be operational; the first option suggested the County might defer taking any action for some time; although that may be viable, it is not necessarily a prudent or a good decision; and it takes years to select a site, purchase it, get the permits for it, and get it built and operational. Mr. Dee stated the bottom line is the Board needs to consider the various issues that have been presented today, decide upon a course of action relatively soon, and move forward in a timely manner. He reminded the Board that Brevard County and all the counties in Florida are in the unenviable position of being statutorily obligated to provide solid waste management and disposal services for all the residents of their county; unfortunately, they no longer have the authority to do that effectively; if the County does not have flow control under the Supreme Court's decision, it cannot fund its facilities, it cannot direct where it goes; and it has communities, like the municipalities, saying they are going to take their waste somewhere else. He noted then the County has a large facility it is trying to pay for and it no longer has the waste and revenue stream coming in; and the County residents are faced with a much higher cost for the disposal of their waste.

Commissioner Ellis noted that could be another argument to have it done privately; with Chairman Higgs responding if the County could cut a deal that did not commit it to a certain amount of garbage.

Commissioner Cook stated the only leverage the County has is the assessment; whether that could be challenged if a city decided to opt out, who knows; and trying to get interlocal agreements with the cities is going to be a big task.

Dick Rabon stated the County knows flow control is unconstitutional; it does not know if the special assessment may be; there are some opinions about that; but if it is determined that the special assessment is also unconstitutional, then the Board needs to join up with other counties and have the Statute changed to remove counties' statutory responsibility to deal with it; otherwise, such counties are going to be put in such a untenable position that they cannot afford it.

Commissioner Cook inquired is there any way the County can pre-empt this and get a determination at some level, either through the courts or something.

Chairman Higgs stated the Board is going to go to Osceola County next week; it needs to develop some sort of consensus today; and it needs to focus its discussion on where does it want to go first in its look at this whole issue. She inquired where does the Board want to go in its discussions of this issue, particularly next week, with Osceola County.

Commissioner Ellis stated his preference is a joint facility with Osceola County; he does not care whether it is jointly run by the counties or privately; he feels from a permitting point of view that the County has a lot of economies to be gained by having two counties combined on one permit working its way up through the Cabinet; plus one landfill twice as large would be cheaper than two separate landfills; and even if Brevard County had to bear the costs, such as 80-20 with Osceola County, it would still be better off. He noted Brevard would not expect Osceola to pay 50% unless it is going to generate 50% of what was coming into the landfill.

Chairman Higgs stated part of working with Osceola County would be an equitable way to determine costs, not figuring today a way, but that Brevard realizes it might have a larger waste than Osceola; and if Brevard has more, it pays the price.

Commissioner O'Brien stated in order for Brevard to approach Osceola, it has to come up with every bit of reason why it is good for Osceola County; and why this is wonderful for it. Commissioner Ellis noted it would depend on such County's long-term landfill needs; if it has a long-term need for a landfill, it can probably accomplish that cheaper by working with Brevard than by doing it independently. Commissioner Ellis stated if things are unfavorable to Osceola County, Brevard has a site to fall back on; if the Board makes the decision to go jointly with Osceola, once everything is under way, then the County needs to dispose of the site on U.S. 192.

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated Osceola has a need within the next several years to do a new facility somewhere; its preliminarily first choice is southeast Osceola; the reason is because it believes there is going to be less development in that section of Osceola than anywhere else; and it believes it is permittable down there. He noted that location works for them; it may or may not work for Brevard County; and Osceola has some economic fiscal incentives to do it with Brevard. He noted Osceola's County Manager has discussed the issue with such County Commission; it is extremely amenable to exploring the issue; it knows Brevard is coming to discuss it; and Osceola is very interested in the issue.

Chairman Higgs stated when the Board goes to Osceola County, it can discuss this option and explore it; she wants it made clear that the Board is not making decisions at this point; and it is simply saying that it is going to explore this, look at it, and see the conditions under which it could be done. She noted she does not want the public to think the Board has made a final decision which it has not. Commissioner Ellis noted it is not the Board's only option.

Chairman Higgs stated her feeling right now is the joint ownership/joint operation, authority would be where she would look to first; but she is not closed to other options; she feels most comfortable with that right now; but she will not rule out other things.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he prefers if Brevard is going to be in a partnership, to form an authority or an agency; and have a board of directors or an elected board.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he would concur with creating some joint ownership committee; he would not oppose a contract that is a good one; and he is willing to listen to whatever Osceola has.

Mr. Jenkins stated one of the options is that Osceola and Brevard jointly own the land; and the operation could be contracted out, either to Osceola or to a private company.

Chairman Higgs noted or Osceola County could own the real estate and Brevard could contract it out, all of those combinations. Commissioner Ellis noted he does not want to rule out having it done privately.

Commissioner Cook stated both options can be explored; if it is a private company, the County should have some control over the rate structure and those types of issues which are very important; and on the other hand, this is a legitimate governmental type of duty that is being performed. He noted the County needs to find out about flow control and where it is going to be with regard to what it can do; and if it can act on behalf of the County or not. He stated that is something that has to be resolved as soon as possible to know where Brevard needs to go next.

Chairman Higgs stated on the issue of technology, there seems to be some concern that a technology would be attached to the facility; and inquired is anyone ready to talk about other technologies.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board should keep its conversations first to the main issue; that is if Osceola County is willing to go forward and discuss the landfill further; and establish that as the first credential.

Chairman Higgs stated the Board agrees that it wants to pursue the joint partnership option and see if it can work; if Osceola wants to also pursue it, then the staffs of both Counties can negotiate; and those agreements can come back for consideration.

Commissioner Cook stated the Board needs to go to Osceola County open-minded that both Counties want to negotiate in good faith whatever is good for Brevard and Osceola; and if they can work it, that is great.

Chairman Higgs noted she is assuming that Mr. Owens will serve as the Chair of the meeting next week; and requested staff get an outline from Osceola County on the agenda process for such meeting. Upon motion and vote, the workshop adjourned at 4:50 p.m.

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

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