February 24, 2005

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special session on February 24, 2005 at 9:05 a.m. in the Government Center Florida Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairman Ron Pritchard, D.P.A., Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Helen Voltz via telecon, Susan Carlson, and Jackie Colon, Interim County Manager Peggy Busacca, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

REPORT, RE: JOINT MEETING WITH CITY OF COCOA

Interim County Manager Peggy Busacca stated she received notice from the City of Cocoa that it would like to hold the March 3, 2005 joint meeting, which begins at 3:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers; the Board has a 5:30 p.m. zoning meeting that evening; it would be more convenient for the Board to meet at the Government Center; and inquired what is the Board’s preference.

Chairman Pritchard responded he would rather have the meeting here as it avoids travel time and gives the Board more time to meet; and he would like to indulge the City, but since the Board has a zoning meeting at 5:30 p.m. perhaps the City can indulge the Board.

REPORT, RE: AMENDING EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ORDINANCE

Interim County Manager Peggy Busacca stated she provided the Board with an email regarding the imposition of fees for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) ambulance service; County Attorney Scott Knox has opined that the fee structure implementing the statutory EMS ambulance service is solid; however, the County has been notified by the Tax Collector that he is uncomfortable continuing to collect the fee as he has been doing it; and Attorney Knox recommended the Board consider amending the EMS Ordinance to authorize a secondary collection method, which may include an interlocal agreement with the Tax Collector to send out a separate bill or some other billing procedure, and amend the EMS Ordinance to authorize the uniform collection of non-ad valorem assessment procedure to the extent authorized by law. She noted the Board could also amend the Ordinance to state the levy of the service availability fee on improved property was authorized by law and Article 10, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution and that it constitutes an assessment lien on the improved real property; and it could consider seeking authority to file a friendly suit against the Tax Collector or a declaratory judgment in order to resolve the issue.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated the Tax Collector, after collecting the non-ad valorem assessments for many years, has suddenly gotten a case of, “I’m not sure that that’s the right way to do it”; it is his belief there is law supporting the fact it is an assessment; it is something that is going to have to be ironed out if and when the lawsuits start flying on this issue; and the suggested changes to the Ordinance probably would help in the sense that it would allow the Board, if it has to, to move to a different method of collection, which is authorized under the same law that authorized the collection of non-ad valorem assessments. Mr. Knox noted it says the Board can enter into an interlocal agreement with the Tax Collector to have him send out a bill for the same purpose of collecting the assessment; and caution is a better way to go on this so the Board has a backup position if either the Tax Collector does not want to go through with this or it does not get some sort of judicial determination that he is able to go through with this.

Chairman Pritchard stated in looking at the four options, option 1 would require sending out a separate bill, so there would be a cost of doing that; option 2 is amending the Ordinance; and option 3 is amending the Ordinance and adds a little more enforcement than option 2. Attorney Knox stated a combination of options 2 and 3 is probably the best way to go right now; and he would go through the amendment process for options 2 and 3.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Option 2, to amend the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Ordinance to authorize the uniform collection of non-ad valorem assessment procedure to the extent authorized by law; and Option 3, to amend the Ordinance to state the levy of the service availability fee on improved property was authorized by law and Article 10, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution and that it constitutes an assessment lien on the improved real property.

Commissioner Voltz stated she is unhappy about the issue; the Board was told by staff that they were definitely on top of this, it was legal, and there were no problems; now the Tax Collector is saying there could be a problem; it seems like the County is trying to cover itself; and reiterated she is not happy about it.

Attorney Knox stated the issue that came up before this particular issue was whether the fee is a valid fee; he is still of the opinion that the County has a solid case on that issue; this is a new issue that has come up; and the Tax Collector has now gotten cold feet and does not want to collect the fee because he is afraid he is going to be in the middle of a controversy between the city and the County. He noted he has raised the specter that this is not a non-ad valorem assessment as opposed to a fee; the County still has the right to collect the fee, but the Tax Collector does not think he can collect it as a non-ad valorem assessment; it could probably make him do that if it has to; but rather than do that he would prefer to amend the Ordinance to allow an alternative method if it is determined by a court that the County cannot do it because it is not an assessment, but instead is a fee. He stated the Board knows it is a fee and has the authority to charge a fee; there is no doubt in his mind about that; there is a lot of case law that supports this being an assessment for the purposes of collecting as a non-ad valorem assessment; but the Tax Collector, all of a sudden after 10 years of collecting it this way, decided he did not want to do it anymore. He noted it has nothing to do with retreating from the County’s previous position, and it is a new issue.

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

REPORT, RE: SEARCH FIRM FOR COUNTY MANAGER

Commissioner Voltz inquired what is the status on the search firm for the County Manager.

Human Resources Director Frank Abbate stated the County has sent out the request for information from the vendors; toward the end of this week is the deadline; the County has received some responses; and Purchasing Department will compile all the submittals. He noted staff will send such submittals to the Board and schedule the item on the agenda for it to decide which of the firms to interview.

REPORT, RE: GRANT SEAFOOD FESTIVAL

Commissioner Voltz stated the Grant Seafood Festival will be this weekend; and requested everyone attend the festival and enjoy the seafood.

DISCUSSION, RE: JAIL EXPANSION PROJECT SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS,
SERIES 2005

Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten stated last week the Board asked staff to come back with a financing plan for the jail expansion plan that was submitted to it by the Sheriff; the item outlines the financing plan for the County; the request today is to finance through a bond sale up to $13.3 million and all the associated actions with it; and the proposal, in terms of financing or paying off the debt over a 20-year period, is to combine the cash the County has on hand, correctional impact fees, and revenues it will have on hand once a couple of commercial paper loans are paid off. He noted there are five commercial paper loans that are going to be paid off within the next two to three years; the cash on hand from the correctional impact fee revenue will allow the County to make the first two payments; it will then convert over to some portion of correctional impact fee and General Fund dollars to pay out the remaining schedule; and it is a combination of the correctional impact fee and General Fund revenues that will be used to pay off the bond deal.

Commissioner Colon inquired how much of the General Fund is the County looking at. Mr. Whitten stated Page 2 of the Agenda Report shows five commercial paper loans the County is currently paying on now; in FY 2006-07, approximately $1 million of that will be paid off; it will have an obligation that is reduced by $1 million in that fiscal year; and the debt schedules are attached in the Financial Advisor’s report. He noted the debt will be approximately a little less than $1 million a year for a level debt service and in the later years approximately a little over $1 million a year; the County has the capacity to use the $1 million that will be freed up in 2006-07 and whatever it gets in the correctional impact fees.

Commissioner Carlson stated one of the items is roof repairs; she reviewed the Condition Assessment Report on the jail that PBS&J did; and inquired has the Board acted on it since the roof was considered to be the big problem causing all the mold, etc.

Mr. Whitten responded during budget development for this year the Board acted because it knew the roof was an issue; it authorized commercial paper to make those repairs; there is a FEMA Hurricane Project Report on the jail; and there is a possibility the County can get some FEMA dollars to make some portion of those repairs. Commissioner Carlson stated there are other recommendations in the report; and inquired how is the County or Sheriff addressing those.

Mr. Whitten responded it is the Board’s responsibility to make the repairs; to the extent the County has those budgeted through commercial paper, it is going to make those repairs; it does not have all $8 million; and staff will ask for supplemental funding in the budget process to make those repairs. He noted in terms of commercial paper, the County is at the cap for commercial paper capacity; it has done a number of things with commercial paper this year; and the jail repairs will have to be done as the County goes along.

Commissioner Carlson inquired is there a timeline the County needs to be addressing on some of the condition problems of the existing jail before it deals with expansion, tents, etc. or is it going to be looking at additional requirements and budgetary issues.

County Attorney Scott Knox responded based on the way the case has progressed, as long as the County is making progress toward getting the issues dealt with on the existing jail, it is not going to face a strict timeline; if it becomes apparent to the judge that the County is not moving forward on it, then it will get a timeline in writing to comply with; and the better approach is to keep moving ahead.

Chairman Pritchard inquired did Mr. Whitten attend the meeting yesterday afternoon with the Sheriff; with Mr. Whitten responding yes. Chairman Pritchard inquired can Mr. Whitten tell the Board the results of the meeting. Mr. Whitten responded the Board directed staff to come back in 30 days with some definitive cost estimates; it was an attempt to sit down with appropriate staff to obtain such estimates; they are moving forward with the architectural and engineering services; and the Board will have a concrete number for the different components of the Sheriff’s plan in 30 days. He noted the meeting was the first in a series of meetings to cost out the project. Chairman Pritchard inquired was the popup structure at the Sheriff’s Work Farm discussed; with Mr. Whitten responding no. Mr. Whitten stated in the report he addressed construction of a 100-bed instant structure; and the request is for the projects, regardless of where they are going to go. Chairman Pritchard stated he spoke with Sheriff Parker yesterday; he is re-addressing whether the structure will be at the Work Farm or the Sharpes facility; and they are looking at transportation and infrastructure costs, and addressing the neighborhood concerns. Mr. Whitten stated Sheriff Parker has a meeting with the homeowners association tomorrow at 2:30 p.m.

Commissioner Carlson stated she appreciates the Sheriff taking the effort to deal with the community’s concerns. Commissioner Voltz stated Mr. Whitten’s presentation was good and she is glad staff came up with the options, which are great.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct the Financial Advisor, Bond Counsel, and staff to proceed with the issuance of up to $13.3 million in Sales Tax Revenue Bonds; authorize the Financial Advisor, Bond Counsel, and Disclosure Counsel to prepare the bond authorization resolution, POS, and related bond documents for the Jail Expansion Project Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2005, including approval of selecting Bond Insurers, Registrar, and Paying Agents. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Whitten requested the motion include utilizing a 20-year wrapped debt service structure to finance the cost of the project as presented in the February 18, 2005 memorandum from The PFM Group. He advised David Moore can explain the difference between the level financing and wrapped financing.

David Moore, representing Public Financial Management, stated in the agenda item is a memorandum from the Company, which includes the existing debt the County has for sales tax bonds; when one sells tax exempt bonds they are sold in principal amounts for each year; the existing debt gets paid off and the payments every year drop significantly within the next six or seven years; and if the County does a level debt service structure, which would be the typical structure, it issues the bonds and the payments are $990,000 per year for the whole 20 years. He noted with the wrapped debt service structure, the Company looks at the County’s existing debt; if its existing payments drop off a little bit, it does not pay principal for the first couple of years; it has a big opening for payments later; and it smoothes out the debt service. He stated the Company does not recommend the County do that and stick all the principal out 20 or 30 years from now; but since its existing bonds are paid off so quickly, it can alleviate some of the budget pressures in the first couple of years without fundamentally changing its total debt service over time; and it gives the County more breathing room in the first three or four years and the entire deal paid off in 20 years.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired what interest rate would the County pay; with Mr. Moore responding the 20-year financing would be just over 4%. Mr. Moore stated rates are beginning to trickle up when Mr. Greenspan talks, which he did last week; the market gets scared and sold off last week; if the Board moves forward in the next 60 days or so, it should be able to get interest rates that are very close to the 4%; and if rates increase another ¼%, it is still very low when looking at historical interest rates.

Commissioner Carlson inquired why does it take 60 days or more. Mr. Moore responded one has to go through a process where all the people authorized to draft documents put them all together; his Company shows the documents to the bond insurers and rating agencies in New York; it gets their approval; and they look at the County’s fiscal health as a whole. He stated the whole process takes about 30 or 45 days; the documents come back to the Board for final approval; and it takes a week or two after that to get investors lined up and another week or two after that to close and get the money in the bank. He noted it is a month for the Company to do all of the document work and most of a month to get from the Board’s approval to actually having cash in the bank; normally the Company says 90 days; and 60 days is pretty quick.

Commissioner Carlson amended the motion to include utilizing a 20-year wrapped debt service structure to finance the cost of the project as presented in the February 18, 2005 memorandum from The PFM Group; and Commissioner Scarborough accepted the amendment.

Chairman Pritchard called for a vote on the motion as amended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Theresa Robinson, representing Whispering Pines Lakeview Catalina Village Homeowners Association, stated the Association was informed by the newspaper a couple of weeks ago that the proposal for a jail tent at the Sheriff’s Work Farm was taking place; it finds the proposal undesirable as it was not contacted, even though maybe there is no legal responsibility to it; ethically and morally, since homeowners live in that area, they should have had some input in the area; and there are bus stops with a lot of children, churches, businesses, daycare, community center, and recreation complex in the area. She noted it is unacceptable to place the tent at the Work Farm; and requested the Board reconsider the proposal and see if there is some other area where inmates can be housed rather than in residents’ backyards. She stated petitions have been signed by the residents who are concerned about the issue; and provided the petitions to the Board, but not the Clerk.

Commissioner Colon inquired has anyone from the Sheriff’s Office given a presentation to the residents; with Ms. Robinson responding no. Ms. Robinson stated the residents tried before the election to get Sheriff Parker to speak with them, but he did not find the time; the Commander of the West Precinct has met with the residents; however, there was no mention of the proposal. She noted the Vice-President of the Homeowners Association, Mrs. Evelyn Davis, contacted Chairman Pritchard’s office, but he was too busy to speak to her about the issue. Chairman Pritchard stated he spoke to Ms. Davis, but was not able to attend the Association’s meeting Monday night because of Tuesday’s Board meeting; he spent Monday afternoon and Monday night reviewing the agenda; and he explained that to Ms. Davis. Ms. Robinson stated she knows someone personally who works at the Sheriff’s Office; and she asked the person if she was at liberty to talk about the issue, and she said no.

Douglas Brothers stated he does not want an extra 100 inmates at the Work Farm because there are problems at the Farm now; a prisoner was loose last year, came through his yard, took off his clothes except for his underwear, and walked to Ellison Road over to the projects; and more inmates in the area will create additional problems.

Juanita Brown stated she is a 35-year homeowner in Catalina Village; she worked hard to keep her property up; today she is concerned about the value and how much the proposal will devalue her property; and she may not even get $50,000 out of her home if the tent is placed at the Work Farm. She noted all the residents in the area are concerned about the devaluation of their properties; and safety is also a concern.

Bertha Holmes stated she is a homeowner in the area and has lived there for 33 years; the residents do not want the prisoners housed at the Work Farm; she tries to keep her doors locked at all times; and sometimes if the prisoners get loose, they walk the streets and shake the residents’ doors to see if they can get inside. She requested the Board consider putting the tent somewhere else.

John Britt stated he is one of the many homeowners in Catalina Village and the Whispering Pines area; out of the residents present today he is the closest resident to the Work Farm; when such Farm came about the question in his mind was what would it do to his property value; and he did not realize there would be farm animals, including hogs. He noted the pistol range is there now; there are a lot of senior citizens in the area; and to bring the tent and prisoners at the Farm is another kick to the residents. He stated he has lived in his house since 1966; he has done a lot of improvements to his property; the community is like one big family; and requested the Board consider what the residents are dealing with.

Geraldine Boatwright stated she is the block captain at Lakeview; she is concerned about the senior citizens; they enjoy walking the trails; and it would be detrimental to the residents to have the prisoner tent. She noted the residents are not against the tent, but the location; there are home daycare centers in the area and Head Start; the residents would appreciate the Board’s consideration in locating the tent in another location; and criminals have left the Farm and gone to Lakeview; and she has seen the prisoners running from the Work Farm to the store.

Pastor Melvin Chatman stated at the current facility in Sharpes there is enough property to put the tent; the reason the Sheriff wants it in West Cocoa is so that he will not have to worry about having meals for the prisoners; he will be able to get more of a workday out of them by not having to transport them back and forth; and he doubts the information the Board is getting is correct. He noted the Sheriff says he uses 70 to 100 people at the Work Farm; it cannot be so because the prisoners are transported on one school bus and a van; he only sees 35 or 40 people at the Farm a day; and the County has spent money and invested in a recreation center, which the young people use in the evening. He stated senior citizens come in at noon for meals; all of these things the County has already put money in and it is going to be destroyed with the proposed facility; one woman was told the prisoners are only going to be those offenders who have driving violations and minor violations; and if that is the case, he has a suggestion to save the County money, which is to release them back into the community. He noted the Work Farm is one block off of I-95; and inquired if the Board has considered the scenery there, does it want people when they are leaving Brevard County to remember the prison system on I-95, and is it the image it wants of the County. He stated there are motels, hotels, and restaurants in the area; and inquired if the Commissioners were traveling north on I-95 and saw a prison work camp, would they take that exit and lodge their families at the new Holiday Inn there and eat at the new Burger King. Pastor Chatman noted right now there is only an outcry from the Catalina community; when persons begin to realize where the tent is there is going to be a greater outcry; it is within a 10-mile radius of Maplewood Trailer Park and within a five-mile radius of Forest Lakes and Tucker Road; and one individual recently purchased 40 acres to start a development. He requested the Board’s consideration; stated if there is enough property at the Sharpes facility, the tent should go there; the Sheriff would have all the prison population under one roof and housed in one area; and there would be no need for additional fencing, guards, or transportation.

Curbie Wynn stated he lives in Catalina on Woods Circle; the Homeowners Association has had a great working relationship with the Board and they have accomplished a lot, including a recreation center, sidewalks, and development of fields; the Association wants the relationship to continue; however, it is not satisfied with the proposed project. He noted the Association would like the project moved to another location; and inquired if the project was going in a Commissioner’s neighborhood, would he or she vote for it.

Chairman Pritchard stated Sheriff Parker will be meeting with the neighborhood tomorrow afternoon at 2:30 p.m.; he plans on attending the meeting also; he does not believe anyone was aware of the walkaway problem; and it is a significant issue. He noted he understands that some of the problem was that it was civilian personnel that were acting as guards and not uniformed guards; and the Sheriff proposed fencing, guards, and other security measures that would eliminate that. He stated he is also looking at infrastructure costs; and it might be far in excess of what the transportation costs would be of bringing low-risk prisoners to the Work Farm and having them perform the work that is necessary. He stated the Farm has been there a long time; it is an eye-catching attraction when one drives I-95 and sees the buffalo and whatever else there; the Farm is not going anywhere; and the question is whether the County wants to house prisoners there 24 hours a day. He noted tomorrow’s meeting with the Sheriff will enlighten everyone as to what the proposals may be; if the proposal is to have the popup structure at the Sharpes facility, then everyone is good to go; the authority lies here; and the Board was not aware of the walkaways, and wants to insure things like that do not happen. He noted even if the facility is located in Sharpes someone could be transported to the Work Farm, walk to the store, and sneak back; and he appreciates the residents coming to the meeting today.

Commissioner Colon stated the Sheriff is not present today as he had to attend a funeral; Sheriff Parker is extremely receptive to the community; tomorrow the residents will be able to see that; and the Sheriff has been to her District and addressed various issues. She noted she feels comfortable that tomorrow’s meeting will be a productive one; the County needs to continue with the financing for the jail expansion because no matter what, it has to build it somewhere; the residents are right that she would not want to live next door to prisoners housed in tents; and the Board has a lot of thinking to do. She stated it is getting criticized for not doing anything; it is trying to hurry up and get things done, and is not looking at the bigger picture; she apologizes to the residents; and the Board assumed the community knew about the issue and that all the discussions were taking place. She noted the Board would not want to do anything to hurt the community; the residents are correct that there are some things that have gone out there that have been brought from the County in the past; and she will not allow it to happen on her watch.

APPOINTMENT, RE: INTERIM VICE CHAIRMAN

Chairman Pritchard stated since Commissioner Voltz is participating in today’s meeting via telecon, he would like to appoint Commissioner Carlson as Vice Chairman in the event he has to leave for whatever reason.

DISCUSSION, RE: EMPLOYEE/RETIREE HEALTH CARE

Jack Callinan, member of the Citizens Budget Review Committee, stated the Committee started out being concerned about the potential of interest rates increasing; it looked at the Strategic Plan and suggested a revision to it, which was passed by the Board; the Committee hoped everybody in the County would start looking at cost savings; and the Committee was wrong as interest rates have not increased that quickly. He noted Mr. Greenspan started about six months ago saying he was concerned interest rates were going to start increasing unless the federal government started cutting costs; he indicated when the rates were going to increase they would do so very rapidly; if the Board makes cost-cutting changes when it is in control and when times are good, it can make them with a scalpel and be analytical and systematic about what it does; and if it waits until the pressure gets on it, it will have to do so with a meat cleaver, and the approach ends up cutting 5% across-the-board, which is a difficult situation to put County employees in. He stated the area the Committee is addressing is the amount of money being spent on retirees; it is concerned that it asked for the five-year plan, primarily to make sure it could get a good handle on what was going to happen in the future; in August 2004, the Committee wrote a memo to the Board indicating the cost of health insurance was going to increase to over $70 million based on five-year projections; and it would be over $9 million for retirees. Mr. Callinan noted some Board members felt County retirees were impoverished and could not afford to pay; some of the material addresses the issues; the kind of numbers in the future are going to be severe and pose a problem; and the Board is going to have to make a decision on whether to give money to retirees or start letting people go. He stated the $9 million is 150 people the County may have to let go; if interest rates increase, it is a question of how high they increase; Brevard County has been successful on construction; and it is going to have a direct impact. He noted a third area of concern by the Committee was having an independent group of employees; it did not work out exactly as he thought; the group made a wonderful recommendation to cut costs; and he was impressed with what was done; however, the group is still an employee group and their frame of reference is not the same as the Committee. He stated the group represents under 1% of the population; the Committee’s view is probably closer to 98% or 99% of the population; if the Board put the issue to referendum, he doubts it would see any money going to retirees, mainly because none of the people in Brevard County working for a living have a benefit plan that is as good as the County’s plan, and they are not being subsidized in any way, shape, or form; and the County is asking people to pay for something that they are not getting themselves. Mr. Callinan stated the Committee tried to put together a program it felt would be fair and reasonable to everybody involved; it is looking for someplace the County can save money; and it believes the cost savings involved are in excess of $3 million, which means taking the approach the Committee looked at is worth looking into.

Human Resources Director Frank Abbate stated the Board had an extensive workshop on group health insurance several months ago where staff gave it a lot of background information. He introduced John Robinson and Jan Bush, the County’s Employee Benefits Consultants, and Insurance Director Jerry Visco; stated the Board scheduled today’s workshop to provide staff policy direction relating to future group health insurance program operations; and reviewed the information package provided to the Board. He noted the areas under the policy consideration are the decision-making process the County has in place, what it has utilized, where it is, and where the Board would like to see the County go; partnerships with other jurisdictions will be discussed; the competitive model and multi-plan options will also be discussed; and the fourth area is employee funding targets for the future. He stated a final area will be cost-shifting parameters, which is in the future as costs continue to increase and the Board finds it is not in a position to pay for those increases, how does it shift the costs to plan members; staff will go over a variety of options; the medical trend during 2003-2004 nationwide was approximately 11%; and during August 2004, staff projected the County’s per employee per month medical cost would rise at 6%. Mr. Abbate stated upon completion of that fiscal year, staff did an analysis; the increase for the past year was 3%; the County did significantly better for a one-year period than the national trend and what was projected; and it is not necessarily a good indicator of future increases. He noted during the last 12 years the County’s per employee per member average increase has been approximately 6%; the increase this year at 3% was attributable to a variety of factors; there was some shifting; and the County was able to reduce its pharmacy costs fairly significantly through renegotiation of pharmacy rates with its current provider, Walgreens Health Initiative, after the County took some initiatives with the Florida Health Care Coalition and looked at a transparency model it was able to bring to the table. He stated based on a significant number of employees participating the County leveraged very favorable rates; it helped impact where it is today; the Board recently approved a health and wellness initiative; and the County will be looking at improving health and wellness among participants in the plan utilizing the services of Robinson and Bush, and looking at parts of a model from Polk County schools, which is a premier program in the country. Mr. Abbate stated Brevard County will be using the John Hopkins adjusted case mix, which is going to give it a good handle of how each of the three plans it has is doing, adjusting for the type of population in each plan; it is not unfairly hurting one plan and its current costs because it has more severely ill individuals; staff obtained the Board’s permission to go out this year on four different aspects of the program and the mental health component; and they are going to go back out on the pharmacy component as there may be additional savings for next year, including the vision and dental programs as well. He noted the County is trying to think out of the box to address the area of retirees; it has good communication with the Legislative Delegation; he and Mr. Visco have followed up with Representative Needelman; and he indicated he is going to pursue it on the County’s behalf. He stated staff is going to see what can be done to get a Statewide retiree plan for all jurisdictions, including the State; those are initiatives the County has underway; during 2003-2004, the County’s plan revenues exceeded plan expenses by $1,200,000; and the money was added to its plan reserves, and it has $6.6 million there. Mr. Abbate advised the County has done its State filing under Chapter 112.08, which is an actuarial filing; the State has approved it even though the County is supposed to have $7.1 in the reserves; it is pretty close; for the first four months of 2004-2005, the County is $234,000 above revenues in excess of expenses; and it is hoping to make up the $500,000. He noted there could be one catastrophic claim; every one of them costs the County a minimum of $250,000; it could be $1 million, but the County gets reimbursed in reinsurance; and any plan the County’s size is going to have those types of claims occur, but it is doing fairly well in that particular area. He stated the employees survey was conducted in August 2004 at the Board’s request; his Office obtained responses from approximately 750 employees; in addressing the issue of why they accepted employment with the County, health insurance benefits was the number one issue with a score of 4.36, job security was number two at 4.33, and FRS retirement benefits was number three at 4.20; the County also asked the question why employees remain employed by the County; and the number one benefit was health insurance benefits with a score of 4.48. He noted having an attractive employee benefits program is consistent with that particular issue of attracting and retaining employees; staff surveyed 11 other public sector jurisdictions in 2004; Brevard’s employer funding was the third highest, with an 88%/12% for member cost share; and it was on a premium basis. He stated on total cost, including out-of-pocket expenses, the County is still the third highest, with the employer paying 79% of the cost and employees, dependents, and retirees paying 21% of the cost; in 2005, those numbers have changed slightly; the County has gone from an 88/12 split to an 86/14 split; and in terms of overall costs, including out-of-pocket expenses, it drops from 79% to 77% for the employer portion. Mr. Abbate stated the current year plan is $34.54 million from the premium side; the employer premium is about $29.82 million; members are paying about $4.72 million in premiums; and staff did projections, not as a proposal for the Board’s consideration, but as a benchmark for it to have some idea. He noted projections five years out in group health insurance are very volatile and staff does not know; they thought the County was going to be at 11% last year; eight months into it they were predicting 5%; and it ended up at 3%. He stated it may have gone to 15%; it can happen on a year-to-year basis; there was an article on Medicare in the newspaper; the County and a lot of people have been projecting 11% and 12% and that it is going to stay that way for several years; but the projection from Medicare is the next 10 years being at 6% a year. He stated he does not know if it is going to be 6%, 10%, or 12%; the assumptions the Board is going to hear from him are based on the 12% model; in 2010, the plan would go from $34 million to over $60 million; and if the County kept the current split, the Board’s portion would increase from $29.8 million to $52.5 million, and the member premiums would increase from $4.7 million to $8.3 million. Mr. Abbate stated staff was asked by the Citizens Budget Review Committee to do additional options, looking at growth among the population of employees participating in the plan; staff used 3.3%; it increased from $60.87 million to $71.6 million; and that is assuming 12% increase in premiums and 3.35% increase in membership annually. He noted staff has given the Board information showing what would happen if there was a different split rather than the 86%/14% split; instead of $61.58 million, the employer would pay $48.3 million; it would result in employees, retirees, and dependents going from $10.2 million to $23.25 million; and all of that information is provided as background for the Board.

Chairman Pritchard inquired are there any plans that have a fixed percent saying that the employer will pay 85% and the employee will pay 15%, and as costs increase it is still the 85/15 split. Mr. Abbate responded there are strategies that use that type of approach; employers have strategies that they keep in place; strategies need to be revised depending on funding availability, other expenses, and other costs; and they can change over time, but there are jurisdictions that have strategies in place with certain fixed expectations. Chairman Pritchard inquired if the costs change dramatically and other funding opportunities become available, does the employer look toward reducing the employees contribution in going from 15% to 13% to 12% because of a one-year opportunity where additional revenues became available. Mr. Abbate responded it would be shortsighted for an employer to do that on a short-term basis; employee/dependent/retiree premium contribution strategies vary significantly between comparable jurisdictions; the Board’s contribution strategy is employee/dependent/retiree-friendly compared to a majority of the public sector jurisdictions surveyed; there was discussion last year during adoption of the budget; and the Board expressed various concerns about how much increases were an impact on employees, their dependents, families, and retirees. He noted it is a balancing, and staff is looking for direction from the Board in terms of where it wants to go in the future; the decision-making process the County has utilized is one where the County Manager submits the tentative budget and in it is an amount that is allocated for insurance increases in the group health insurance arena; the Employee Benefits Insurance Advisory Committee takes that information and makes recommendations; and the County Manager forwards the Committee’s recommendations and his or her own recommendations to the Board. He stated the Citizens Budget Review Committee provides input to the Board as well; the Board will adopt the program or premium structure or request additional information; and that is how the budget process works. Mr. Abbate stated the Board has the opportunity to retain that in terms of options; it has the ability to retain the current process; the Board may want to modify or eliminate those two Committees’ roles in the process; and it may want to add an annual December workshop to review program direction and employer funding targets. He noted once the fiscal year ends at the end of September, staff can give the Board good information in terms of where the County was, how it did the past year, and an idea where it needs to go for the following year so that before it begins developing the budget, it has an idea where it thinks it is in a position for a funding level for the insurance program; and it may be something the Board might want to consider. He stated there may be other modifications the Board would like to implement in the decision-making process; he would like it to address these things; the makeup of the Employee Benefits Insurance Advisory Committee includes a member from the County Manager’s Office, the Budget Director, Human Resources, a representative from each Charter Officer, the Port Authority, a representative from each Commissioner, an employee representative, and a representative from the firefighters; and the Board may want to retain the current membership, reduce the membership, or expand it. Mr. Abbate stated he represents 100% of the population; he is an employee, but also a citizen; he takes his job seriously in terms of having fiduciary responsibility and being very careful with taxpayers’ money; and that is the case for many of the members on the Committee as well. He noted an option the Board may want to consider is whether or not it wants to expand the Committee; a member of the Citizens Budget Review Committee and/or a retiree representative could participate; and he would like to get dialogue from the Board on the decision-making process and membership of the Employee Benefits Insurance Advisory Committee.

Commissioner Carlson stated the Insurance Advisory Committee has worked for a long time; each Commissioner has an appointed person on the Committee; and inquired would it be a better model to have the appointed person be someone who already exists on the Citizens Budget Review Committee. She noted it seems there is a duplication of effort; the County is trying to expand the Budget Review Committee’s duties in terms of the Sterling Award, etc.; she would like to focus such Committee on one area and make sure the County has the kind of folks it needs on the Insurance Advisory Committee; and requested feedback on how the Committee has been working and the efficiency of it so the County knows it is trying to get the job done the best way it can.

Mr. Abbate stated the Insurance Advisory Committee has acted in the past and continues to act in a very fiscally responsible way to meet the objectives the Board has established over time; when staff gets some clear direction from the Board in terms of policy issues today, he does not believe it will be disappointed in terms of the feedback the Committee is going to offer and recommendations it will make in the future; and today’s workshop provides a good opportunity to do that.

Chairman Pritchard stated his representative is Sharon Luba; Ms. Luba keeps him advised as to what is going on; the Insurance Advisory Committee is a good one; and a lot of the members look at the various benefits the County has as a condition of employment, and the survey has shown that. He noted it is important to have this type of input in the process; it is important to expand the membership; he likes having the Citizens Budget Review Committee participating in various activities; and there are five members on the Committee. He stated having one person at least attend different functions and report back to the Committee gives a broader perspective; the people who are appointed have financial backgrounds and other backgrounds that contribute; a retiree representative would be an excellent move; and many plans have retiree representation because sometimes people do not know what it is like until they walk a mile in their shoes. He noted under a former life from which he is retired he was quite surprised to find his health insurance increase from $500 per month to $1,000 per month; he had no participation in it and all of a sudden it doubled; $1,000 a month is a significant increase; and having retiree representation on committees that directly affect retirees is most important. Chairman Pritchard stated he likes the idea of retaining the current membership of the Insurance Advisory Committee and expanding the membership to include a representative from the Citizens Budget Review Committee and a retiree.

Commissioners Colon and Voltz advised they agree with Chairman Pritchard. Commissioner Colon stated everyone claims they have this great and wonderful idea and do not realize that issues have already been discussed at the meetings; the pros and cons have already been addressed; and it is an excellent idea to have someone from the Budget Review Committee. She noted everyone is going to eventually be the retiree; and it is also a voice that needs to be there too so there is a nice balance.

Commissioner Carlson stated the basic idea would be that the Insurance Advisory Committee would report back to the Board through Mr. Abbate; and the input from the Budget Review Committee and a retiree would go through Mr. Abbate. Mr. Abbate stated the Board could add two additional members to the Insurance Advisory Committee. Commissioner Carlson stated instead of having Mr. Abbate talk about everything and Mr. Callinan coming up with his ideas, they would be blended together; with Chairman Pritchard responding that is correct. Mr. Abbate stated the union has a representative, they are one vote, and they participate; they go back to the union membership to explain what is going on and come back with feedback; and Mr. Callinan or whoever from the Citizens Budget Review Committee would participate and report back to the Committee. Chairman Pritchard stated that is what he would foresee; right now that is not the process; and there needs to be a blending of the process so that the two additional representatives would be part of the Insurance Advisory Committee.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve expanding the Employee Benefits Insurance Advisory Committee membership to add a Citizens Budget Review Committee representative and a retiree representative. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct staff to schedule a workshop in December 2005 to review program direction and employer funding targets. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Abbate stated the County has a partnership with the School Board; currently it is involved in joint RFP processes, which give an enhanced purchasing power; the County is independent self-insured in group health insurance plans; and it has separate premium structures and separate group experience. He inquired would the Board like to retain the current partnership arrangement, dissolve it, or expand the partnership with other self-insured local municipalities, such as Brevard Community College (BCC); stated the County has tried those efforts in the past; in 1999 it invited them all to participate; but they chose not to for a variety of reasons. He noted the only one who has a similar interest to the County is BCC, but it chose not to participate; it had multiple meetings with the College and School Board; and the County tried to get them on board, but they said no. He stated there are other municipalities that might join with the County; however, they do not have the same interest; the City of Titusville is not going to be as interested in what the County’s Contracts are with the south end doctors, the structure, and how different vendors, such as Aetna and Cigna, will structure their costs; and they are going to be different for municipalities, which have a localized interest compared to the County, which has a broader interest in all the hospital systems. Mr. Abbate noted staff will be happy to look into the partnerships; there is give and take; partnerships are like a marriage; and there are compromises. He stated if the County continues the partnership with the School Board perhaps there will be things the Board would like to see the County do; when it is trying to do things in partnership with another jurisdiction it may not be able to go to the same length or decide it is time to dissolve; it has worked very effectively for the County; and it is part of what it is doing with the Health and Wellness Initiatives. He noted the County is able to do what it is going to do for the costs staff has brought forth to the Board because of the partnership with the School Board; perhaps the County can entice some other jurisdictions to join it as well; and requested Board direction.

Chairman Pritchard stated if the County can form a partnership that provides an equal or better benefit at less cost, it would behoove it to do that; and inquired were the reasons others did not wish to join because of specific localized interests. Chairman Pritchard noted he would imagine Titusville would have employees that live outside the City boundary of Titusville, maybe in the Rockledge area or further south; and they might be more inclined to visit a physician at that end of the County anyway.

Mr. Abbate stated the smaller the jurisdiction the less likely they can assume the risk of self-insurance; he is not sure about the City of Titusville, but with several of the jurisdictions that is an issue; there may be a variety of issues; and staff will be happy to explore it as part of the Strategic Plan and how the County moves forward. He noted staff can go to various jurisdictions and invite them to join in a partnership with the County and School Board.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the partnerships say yes, what would be the benefit to the County, a reduction in costs or not. Mr. Abbate responded perhaps in an administrative side of the costs the County might be able to see that; it may be able to partner with other jurisdictions, like it has done with the School Board on the Health and Wellness Initiative and the City of Titusville in health fitness centers; and the County may be able to expand that option and make it more attractive for employees to participate when it has other jurisdictions sharing the costs.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve pursuing other partnerships where it is mutually advantageous. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Abbate stated the next policy issue is the competitive model and multiple plans; the County’s current model has Health First as a local provider and national insurance carrier options, both Aetna with a limited hospital network, and Cigna with the broader network; the reason the County has Cigna and the broader network, which is a higher cost option, is because of past policy issues of having a very broad network available to people with all the hospitals participating; employees pay additional monies to participate in that particular plan; but it is not the full cost and the Board could go in that direction. He noted advantages of the competitive model include multiple lower costs and restricted network options; there is access to all the hospitals in a single plan; when multiple options are provided there is flexibility in choice; and there is leveraged pricing because of the County’s partnership with the School Board. He stated the County also spreads the risk in plan security; Aetna united in 1998; the County went to a single provider; it controlled all the business; and in the middle of the plan it decided it was going to eliminate a hospital system because it was more cost effective; and the County was left out in the cold. He noted one can get lower costs in the short-term by going to a single provider; he does not believe the County would have it for long-term; when there are multiple providers in the mix, they have to compete against each other; and when the County can get to the John Hopkins model and totally price out the difference in the plan costs based on membership, severity of illness of plan members, and demographics of gender and age, it will be able to tell the Board to the dollar what the plan differentials should be. Mr. Abbate stated the Board policy decision is does it make people who go beyond the basic plan pay the difference for the enhanced plans right through the most expensive plan; it is something staff envisioned in 1999 as the County moved forward when it did its own partnership plans; it has not gotten to that final point and did not have a tool that would enable it; and it could have done it and has done it from an age/gender perspective; but it does not address the issue of severity of the plan. He noted there were discussions if everyone was moved from the more expensive plan into the lower cost plan, would there be a difference in savings between the higher cost plan and the lower cost plan; the answer is not necessarily, because the cost of the more expensive plan is a combination of the increased costs paid per unit, plus the severity of the illness within the group; it may not be the same; and when those people move to the lower group, the overall cost of such group moves up as well. He stated it is a delicate balancing act he anticipates; he is looking forward to this year being able to start taking information and mining it in such a way that staff will be able to come back to the Board and say this is the true cost differential from plan to plan; and he would like to get input from the Board in terms of the competitive model as opposed to a single plan model, and where it would like to see the County try to go in the future, at least in the next year or so.

Chairman Pritchard stated the capitalist in him says competition is best. Commissioner Carlson noted to bring down the overall cost there has to be diversity; if one keeps with one plan, it is going to increase; there is no control over it; but if there are multiple plan options, there is going to be some form of control.

Mr. Abbate stated he takes that input to be retain the current model and plan structure, and try to work with that; and it is the initiative staff will take.

Mr. Abbate stated under employer funding targets, the current employer funding strategy includes an average percent increase over the last five years of 9.5% per year for the County; Chairman Pritchard had asked if some employers have it based on a set structure of premiums paid by employer compared to the members; the numbers for the County are 86%/14%; and the structure goes anywhere from 88% or 90%/10%, which is very rare, to 60%/40%, which is much more being borne by the members. He noted the County’s current structure is 86%/14%; the premium out-of-pocket structure is 77%/23%; and the Board may want to consider whether it wants to establish a long-term funding strategy and does it want staff to try to keep things at 86%/14% or split it in some other format, like 80%/20% over the next five years. He noted another option is to have a benchmark, such as 6% per year; staff has provided such option and what it does in terms of changing from $8 million to $10 million to $23 million in employee/retiree contribution; the County could do something in that area; and since the Board will be having a healthcare workshop every December, he does not know if it wants to establish a five-year target at this point because there are so many variables. He stated if the Board wants to do that, then staff will be happy to move in that light; 6% per year looks catastrophic from an employer/employee/dependent/retiree perspective; the numbers are atrocious; and the County is trying to do the best it can to try to look at what it can do to minimize costs. Mr. Abbate noted they are very difficult costs; and he anticipates a lot more talk about this over the next couple of years in terms of the country having to do something to address health insurance.

Chairman Pritchard stated being an employer and an employee he can easily look at one side or the other; an employee has a reasonable expectation to pay something toward his or her own care, whether it is retirement or health care; there is also an expectation that it cannot be prohibitive; and one of the benefits the County has is that people work for Brevard County because of the health care programs it has. Chairman Pritchard noted the Board needs to address some of that as to how much should it pay if people come in the last five years of their work record, seek a job with the County just for that, and it ends up paying a significant amount of health care benefit for someone who has only worked for the County a few years; and expressed concern with the out-of-pocket expense. He stated $25.00 for some people is a lot of money to pay as a deductible to go to the doctor; there is the drug plan on top of it; medications cost “x” amount of money; and it gets to the point where some people stop going to the doctor. He noted they wait until it becomes almost catastrophic and then when they go, the cost to the employer and the plan has increased enormously; there needs to be a good equitable balance between what the employee can afford to pay to insure that his or her health care is maintained and the employer’s cost not becoming catastrophic to where everybody’s cost takes the next level up; and it is somewhat like raising the minimum wage. Chairman Pritchard stated it is not like anybody gains at some point; and it is a concern the Board needs to have.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he understands there are dynamics in this; the one thing he has always cautioned the Board about is it never wants to tell an employee it is going to give him or her a 3% increase, and the person ends up taking home less in his paycheck; it never wants to have a net reduction in the paychecks to employees because it is passing much of the costs; and he would like to see as a Board policy that it try to structure things that it never gets to a net loss to the employee’s paycheck.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct staff to provide data to the Board for consideration at a December 2005 workshop on the wage increase and insurance increase numbers.

Commissioner Carlson stated it could be applied to this budget cycle. Commissioner Scarborough noted it could, but there needs to be a consideration of both factors as the Board acts; and that is how the employee is going to look at it.

Chairman Pritchard stated he can understand what Commissioner Scarborough is saying; another issue the Board needs to look at is federal income tax; he has received raises and because he went into another bracket, he lost money because of the federal income tax bracket, not because of health care; and what Commissioner Scarborough wants to focus on is if the Board is going to increase someone’s salary by a net $15.00 per year and then hit him or her with a $20.00 increase in health care, the individual has lost $5.00. Commissioner Scarborough noted that is correct; income tax brackets, marital status, and a lot of other things can come into play; and the Board needs to look outside of the income tax issue and see whether it is breaching that particular point. He stated it is at the lower wages; 3% on somebody who is earning $70,000 is well going to cover the additional costs; but it can affect the salaries of the lower wage employees; and they may be the ones who say they cannot afford it and drop their health insurance entirely because it is no longer feasible. He requested the data be another item that comes before the Board; and that is all the motion is. Chairman Pritchard stated if it is going to be data that comes before the Board so it can make a better decision, then he would support that, but not something that binds the Board. Commissioner Scarborough noted he did not say that.

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

Mr. Abbate stated the next item is cost-sharing alternatives; when it is determined that the employer cannot fund to the level that the plan needs, costs have to get shifted to the members; he has listened diligently to the Board’s input about being careful not to overdo cost increases and out-of-pocket expenses; and there will be other areas where the County has to look at where that happens. He noted it could happen in terms of what he mentioned earlier, determining what plan is more expensive, and letting people buy up to those plans; it could be in terms of premium increases where employees, dependents, retirees, or retirees’ dependents pay more of their share of the burden in ratio; the Citizens Budget Review Committee has been working diligently in that particular area; and it has a proposal that it wants to bring to the Board’s attention.

Mr. Callinan stated he has a couple of documents for the Board, including maintaining the proper perspective and member and employer contribution comparisons; the County had a concern with the level of income that the retirees were getting; he has statistics out of the newspaper; and he and Messrs. Abbate and Visco agree that the numbers are correct and County employees are now earning more than the median income. He noted when they retire, their income is going to be somewhat higher than the median income because of the benefit package; their retirement package is good compared to what most people are getting today; it is not an impoverished group anymore, but a group that is doing reasonably well; and the Board should be happy about that. He noted the Board has established policies, which have made employees and retirees able to live a little bit better than possibly they had in the past; any decisions it makes have to be done from that perspective; the second document is member and employer contributions; and he agrees with Mr. Abbate that five-year projections are tough to live with. He stated he used the numbers Mr. Abbate had; under the member side of 32%, it is $13 million the County would be asking employees to pay; the County is not going to ask its working employees to pay six times as much as they are today; and under retirees it is $9.5 million, which is four times higher than it is today. He noted it is another problem that has to be addressed; the County cannot keep pushing it to the side and not dealing with the issue as it is a major one; non-County employees make up 99%; and there is no subsidy to those people. He stated many of those people are retirees at the poverty level who are contributing to other retirees who make a lot more money than they do; he questions the concept the County is dealing with; he looked at the issue from the point of view of an employer since he was an employer for many years; and he wanted to review the costs. Mr. Callinan stated the County does not want duplication of effort; he is not sure what was done before and what was not; many times things are done before, but sometimes somebody does them differently and has a way that works and somebody else does not; and an example is the Apple and Microsoft operating systems. He read a letter from the Citizens Budget Review Committee to Attorney Knox, as follows: “The recommendation by the Citizens Budget Review Committee deals only with the method utilized to develop the County’s retiree contribution; the computation was split in two parts, qualification and contribution, to enable the Board to vote on the contribution amount annually as it does today, for the following reason: The approach would leave the Board its current flexibility and in the event of a financial crisis the necessary cuts could be made. All existing procedures would remain unchanged.” He stated the opinion, in large part, was based on the following premise: “The Citizens Budget Review Committee suggests the County permanently establish eligibility, then permanently establish the percentage of contribution the Board will pay each eligible retiree”; in looking at what the Committee wrote, it never mentioned anything being permanent or not permanent; the statement is incorrect; and nowhere in its recommendation did it state the functions are permanent. He noted the contribution amount is anything but permanent; that is all of the Committee’s conversations and everything it has dealt with from the beginning; he was not sure how the Board was going to react and did not want to use legal resources and money until he was sure what the Board’s reaction was going to be; and a quick look tells him it is worth doing and worth $3 million. Mr. Callinan stated the issue needs to be addressed; and inquired why is the County giving people who have worked less than 10 years a contribution of any kind. He noted it is something the Board can address now; it is a loophole in the way it is operating; he has no idea what the savings would be; and if it is something it is interested in, then the consultant can provide hard numbers to see what it is going to represent to the County.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired how long does a person have to work before they are entitled; with Mr. Abbate responding six years under the Florida Retirement System (FRS). Mr. Abbate stated six years means when one retires the County must provide the same or similar retirement benefit under Florida Statute; and how it is cost allocated is a separate issue. Commissioner Scarborough stated a 30-year County employee is going to receive a higher retirement than the six-year employee due to the way the retirement system works; if the six-year employee gets the same amount of benefits as the 30-year employee, someone may wonder why it is working differently for the two segments; and requested Mr. Abbate address the issue. Mr. Abbate stated there are other jurisdictions that do it based on years of service; if it is something the Board wants to consider, it is a policy issue; he has two observations he has made in his presentation to the Board previously; one issue is whether it is an employment-type issue or social-type issue when basing the benefit level on family income; and the second issue is he provided the Board input that said be cautious if it establishes a program today or some day in the future that says what one gets in retirement is based on years of service. He noted the word “permanent”, in his legal training in an employment environment, does not matter if the County says “permanent” or not; if it gives employees a certain expectation in writing that says upon retirement he or she gets “x” percentage or “x” dollars for every year, it very well may create a legal entitlement; he does not believe it can be disputed; and it is something the County would create that today it has total flexibility. He stated today there is no such entitlement; the Board has asked him if it has an obligation to retirees and what level it pays them; he has consistently for the last several years told it no, as there is nothing in writing, etc.; and every year in the budget process the Board makes that decision. Mr. Abbate noted it happens they all get the same amount; if the Board changes that and creates a specific expectation, it might have an issue in the future; it is like the FRS tomorrow saying he may be a 25-year employee, but his retirement at 1.6% a year is going to decrease to 1.4% because it cannot afford it; and it is a lawsuit he wants to take because he is going to win it.

Chairman Pritchard inquired what if the Board approached the issue in somewhat of a combination and created a second tier; stated a lot of governments do that; they may have benefits that current employees get, but the new people get something different; and it is done with longevity and other things. He noted if the Board created a second tier for insurance purposes, it could have it broken out into two parts; and inquired if someone is not vested in the FRS with less than six years employment, he or she would get no retirement so why should the County pay health care when the person retires. Ms. Busacca stated that is the current system. Mr. Abbate stated the individual would not be entitled to retirement now and the only thing he or she is entitled to is Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) for a certain period of time. Chairman Pritchard stated the second tier could be another benefit for new employees; such benefit could be based on years of service; and inquired how would something like that work. Mr. Abbate responded staff has been sensitive to that; the comments that it may create an entitlement were not meant as a criticism of the proposal that was submitted; his memo to the Board after the August 2004 workshop included three alternatives; and it received that information because subsequent to when he wrote the memo, it dawned on him that if the Board implements it and it is a cost savings, a future Board may say it is hand-strapped and it may have saved the County in the past, but today it cannot move away from it. He noted if the Board decides to do what Chairman Pritchard is suggesting, that is fine; staff developed a proposal based on input it received; it was discussed in the Employee Benefits Insurance Advisory Committee about basing it on years of service if the Board wants to go down that path and if there is a savings; and the Committee did it solely based on an employment perspective of years of service with the County. Mr. Abbate stated the County could break it down by tiers; the Committee did it in brackets; it used the current premiums as a target; and if someone has 30 years of service, today’s premiums would be paid, and anything less than that the premiums would be paid based on the percentage and years of service. He noted staff has developed the proposal as an option; it did not submit it to the Board for consideration; the Committee did it as an exercise internally; and he can share the information with the Board. He stated it is one way to structure it; the Board can do it some other way or do it on income base and family income; he did it from an employment perspective and used it to benchmark the County’s current premium structure that a 30-year employee would enjoy; and anything less than that he or she would pay more depending on his or her years of service.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired is Mr. Abbate talking about the insurance after an employee retires; with Mr. Abbate responding yes. Commissioner Scarborough stated while one is an employee he or she gets the full benefit; there is some perception that the person who works for a system longer is entitled to more than the person who works for a lesser period of time; a person who works for six years is getting the same level of insurance benefit as somebody who has worked for the County for 35 years; and that is one of the questions that has been raised. Commissioner Carlson stated it is an incentive to keep people and provide for longevity for County employees; and hopefully the incentive of having more coverage and more dollars going toward health insurance out of the Board’s pocketbook is an incentive to keep employees longer.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if the benefits are a factor in the retention as well as the hiring, that methodology works well for that purpose; one may think he or she has worked six years with the County and is vested; he or she can get a job with a private contractor because the construction industry is real active; however, the individual is going to walk away with a diminished amount of health care. He inquired does the County structure programs that are beneficial for people that stay with it and does it reward people for it. Mr. Abbate responded this is one alternative; he is happy to bring it back to the Citizens Budget Review Committee and Employee Benefits Advisory Committee if the Board desires; the Committees can review something like this for the future; and there is a good template of information for discussion purposes if it is where the Board wants to go. Commissioner Carlson inquired are there other communities that work that way; stated staff did some analysis on counties, cities, etc.; and inquired who does it in a tiered fashion. Mr. Abbate responded the City of Orlando and Polk County. Commissioner Carlson inquired does Mr. Abbate have knowledge of any legal problems with the issue; with Mr. Abbate responding no. He noted the only legal issue was the disclosure issue; the County may create something that it cannot back away from in the future at least for those that are in the system now; as Chairman Pritchard indicated, the Board could set a system that this worked great for the County for seven years, but starting with any new employee hired this is the new system that will be set for the future; there is no problem with that; the problem is taking it away from those that have been given a benefit and worked towards it; and it could be an issue. He stated there are three options with the proposal; the Board could make it effective for everyone today; he believes it would be problematic for those that are currently retired; the second option could be this is the program that is in place from this point forward; and Attorney Knox could address the issue of some people complaining about it. He noted if the Board did it for anybody that is new and came on board, it is going to affect him or her as soon as he or she gets here; and he does not believe there would be any problems with the third option.

Commissioner Colon inquired about the family income issue; stated she is trying to figure out if the County would be discriminating; and inquired what if the employee has been working with the County for 30 years and is a single person. She noted the person has worked as much as another 30-year employee who has a family of six and a husband who makes wonderful money. Mr. Abbate responded the proposal is an employment one based on years of service period and does not look at family income; the family income issue is a different proposal; the Citizens Budget Review Committee is going to address it as an option; and it is a cost-cutting option.

Mr. Callinan inquired which option was the cost cutting option; with Mr. Abbate responding to base it on family income. Mr. Callinan stated he never recommended anything to do with family income; the only area was for somebody who is not earning a lot of money and was below the poverty level or 20% higher than the poverty level to be able to receive the full amount; that was the only recommendation that had anything to do with family income; and it was to give someone a little tick because he or she did not have enough income to be able to survive. He noted what the Committee is recommending is very cut and dry; it is 3% a year; it picked 10 years because he thought that was the retirement plan, but it is six years; and if someone does not work up to whatever the level is, then an employee does not get a nickel of contribution.

Mr. Abbate stated he misunderstood because he read something that said the County does not pay for the highest paid income eligible retirees; he believes it meant zero; and if it meant something else, then Mr. Callinan needs to clarify it. Mr. Callinan noted he does not know and will have to look at it; the Committee’s intent was clear and it was only looking to give people a break; and if someone was at the poverty level or somewhere near it, he or she would get the full contribution of 100%. Mr. Callinan inquired if he works for the County for two years and decides he is going to retire, is he able to buy in and get health insurance; with Mr. Abbate responding no. Mr. Abbate stated he would be entitled to COBRA, but must retire under the FRS. Mr. Callinan inquired does he have to work with the County six years before getting the health insurance when he retires; with Mr. Abbate responding yes. Mr. Callinan stated that is fine, and he has less concern than he had before.

Mr. Callinan stated the Committee split its recommendation into two parts, eligibility from the contribution; the eligibility was earning 3.3% a year and the contribution was separate; anybody who works less than the full maximum 100%, which is 30 years, is going to receive less of a contribution; and that is where the savings comes from. He noted the contribution portion is every year voted on and the procedure remains the same as it did in the past; if the Board decides it is going to pay 67%, then that is the maximum that is going to be received; the average cost to the Board is going to be around 33%; and if it decides it is going to pay 80%, then the average is going to be 40%. He inquired by splitting it and voting on it every year, does it keep things intact and does the County avoid all the problems Mr. Abbate is concerned about; stated it was his intent to try and avoid such problems; and whether it does or not, he does not know.

Chairman Pritchard stated anyone who is currently employed is expecting a retirement; the County should not go there in terms of changing whatever they are entitled to based on current employment; and the County could have a new plan for new employees and base the percent of health care contribution that the employee would receive on the FRS for 3% per year of service, which is current. Mr. Abbate stated the benefit employees get is 1.6% and 3% if the individual is a firefighter per year of service. Chairman Pritchard stated he was figuring 3% because he was a firefighter; the general employee receives less percent from the FRS; and inquired is the premium for a retiree about $500 per month. Mr. Abbate responded it is about $750 per month. Chairman Pritchard inquired what is a retiree’s premium for monthly health care. Mr. Abbate responded a retiree currently under age 65 with HMO is $211 per month; with a dependent it is $306; under the PPO option it is $263 per month; and with a dependent it is $396. He stated if the individual is over age 65 it is lower due to Medicare; and it is $119 per month for the retiree, $214 for dependent, $159 under the PPO option, and $294 with a dependent. Chairman Pritchard inquired what is the number for employee and dependent under age 65 for the PPO option.

Jan Bush responded staff blended it to come up with a composite rate for all of the plans; under age 65 the average is $229 for single coverage and $377.42 for family coverage. Chairman Pritchard inquired what is the number if the County adds the employer contribution to it. Ms. Bush responded the composite total premium for under age 65 is $382.87 and $960.50 with family coverage; the County pays 56% of it on average and the retiree pays 44% of the $960.50. Chairman Pritchard stated he will round the number to $1,000 for family, which is $12,000 per year; the employee pays 44% of it; if an employee works for the County for 30 years and accrues a 3% benefit, that would be 90%; and he or she would be paying higher than what they are currently paying now as the person would be receiving less. He noted the individual would not be getting 100% of the split and would not be paying the $400. Mr. Abbate stated he or she would be paying less, which is 10% as opposed to 44%. Chairman Pritchard stated he was looking at it the other way, that the individual would be paying more because he or she did not work 100% of the computation; and the employee who worked 30 years and received 3% per year entitled him or her to 90%.

Commissioner Scarborough stated staff is looking at 90% of the total and Chairman Pritchard is looking at what is currently paid; and there is the difference. Mr. Abbate stated staff can look at the model for the Board. Chairman Pritchard noted staff needs to look at what they consider to be adequate length of employment, such as 25 or 30 years; if 30 years is the optimal age for retirement, that is a long time; people are living longer and need to enjoy themselves; and if someone wants to work more that is fine, but otherwise get out. He stated at the end of 30 years if the County wants to factor a percent per year to equal 100%, then it would be the new tier system, whether it is 3.33% per year or less years of service to achieve 100%. Mr. Abbate stated staff will develop that as a model and maybe the other option as well; and the Board will have a couple of options to review.

Mr. Callinan stated the Citizens Budget Review Committee proposed 3.3% a year and 30 years would be 100%; the 100% was relative to what the Board was going to contribute on annual basis; and reiterated and explained the Committee’s recommendation.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is driving the cost of living; thank goodness Brevard County is a cheaper place to live; there have been periods of inflation and non-inflation; and recently it has not been in an inflationary mode; however, with the increase in interest rates there could be an inflationary period. He noted the dynamic is the dollar is only worth talking about at one particular point; when moving to the next point the percentage becomes relevant only as it is viewed against the CPI; if the CPI moves 10% and he gets a 3% raise, he has gotten a 7% loss theoretically; and there are a lot of fixed costs as he does not buy a new house or car every day, but there are certain things that are impacting the employee. He expressed concern about dealing with insurance in isolation; stated it is a dynamic situation and the County could end up with things that do not make sense; the Board is trying to deal rationally with the problem, putting parameters around it, and understanding in the real world it has to have a relationship with its employees because it loses employees to better paying jobs in Orlando and Kennedy Space Center; and the County has existing planner positions it is struggling to fill because it does not have enough money on the table. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is not a matter of turnover; if someone has a business and has held salaries to 3%, but has nobody there to do the job, then no income is being brought in; there is no profit and the boss is then fired; and he does not want to get fired.

Chairman Pritchard noted if the premium for health care is $100 a month and the employer pays $60 and the retiree pays $40, that is based on the retiree having worked for the County for 30 years; if someone works less than 30 years, the employer now pays $58 and the retiree pays $42; it is still $100, but the retiree’s cost is increased because the percent of benefit he or she accrued is less; and that is what he meant before. Chairman Pritchard stated if someone works less, the employer’s contribution decreases and the retiree’s contribution increases; it is the same as social security; and that was his point behind years of service and percent of benefits.

Mr. Abbate stated the model he was mentioning was exactly what Chairman Pritchard stated; and staff can try to develop it and use it on one-year increments.

Commissioner Carlson inquired is it similar to what FRS does; with Mr. Abbate responding it has nothing to do with FRS. Mr. Abbate stated he understands the Board’s direction; and staff will put a couple of models together, get the Insurance Committee to look at them for the future, and bring such models back to the Board. Chairman Pritchard stated he wants it clearly understood this is a new plan he is talking about; he does not like fooling with the folks who are here except to do better; and he does not want to do worse. He noted one of the things he dislikes enormously about the private sector is people come to work on Friday and are told to not bother to come back on Monday; it is not the way to do business; and people should not be treated that way.

Mr. Callinan stated he agrees and had very low turnover; his employees came to work for him and never left; one of the reasons was because he did some things that were different; and if somebody got sick and had long-term insurance, etc., he paid his employee the regular salary and he or she gave him the money from the insurance, so nobody ever lost a nickel when they got sick no matter how long it was. He noted he understands what the Board is saying; and he has looked at the way industry has gotten in the last 10 or 15 years, and it scares him.

Chairman Pritchard stated he does not like it when people have worked someplace for 25 years and one day they do not have a job or benefits; these are people who have put their lives into something and then one day there is nothing; and they are supposed to start over, but when they are 50-plus years old there are not too many job opportunities. He noted the Board has an affinity for the workplace and he is glad to hear that.

Mr. Abbate stated the type of model the Board has been discussing when implemented meets another one of its policy objectives in terms of retention of employees; it entices people to want to stay with the organization longer because the more years of service one has, the more it will impact what the retirement is going to be; and group health insurance on a national basis is going to be much more important to people as time goes by due to increased costs. He explained the 2005 member contribution analysis; stated the pie chart depicts currently where people are paying the premium; Chairman Pritchard indicated being careful with the $4.3 million, which is out-of-pocket expenses, and not making it so large a part of the pie that it is going to be prohibitive for people getting care; and he has heard what the Board has said relative to the employee or dependent portions and not making them so big that it is going to overtake what an employee receives in terms of a salary increase. He noted on the retiree portion of the pie he also heard what the Board said in terms of making those sections relate to years of service; and that is the direction staff will move forward on. Mr. Abbate explained the employer FY 2005-06 funding target options; stated the rate staff looked at was still staying at 12%, which is consistent with what they said last year; he is hopeful it will be less; and Medicare believes the rate will decrease. He noted he went to the Healthcare Conference yesterday; everyone there discussed 11%; the County was at 11% in 2000 in terms of employer funding, 12% in 2002, 5.75% in 2003, and 7.8% in 2004; and it is at 7.8% now, but the County is in the mode where it can change the amount depending on the Board’s input. He noted he has funding options to the degree the Board wants to provide direction in that area; if the Board wants staff to look at 6% in terms of employer funding, he has the numbers that show the impact; it also shows where the employee/employer split would be at that rate; and currently the County is at the 86/14 rate. He stated if the rate is changed to 6%, it is going to change to 82%/18%; there are four options on the 6%, 8%, 10%, and 12%; if the Board does not give any additional direction at this point, what has been tentatively discussed is that the County would leave it at the same rate as last year; as it progresses further this year the employees, dependents, and retirees have to make up the rest of the money; and if it stays at 12%, then the County would have to either shift costs or increase premiums to make it up. Mr. Abbate stated the Board would see the same kind of increases it saw this year as it would be the same relative amount that would be made up; this year the County went with 12% and the Board funded at 7.8%; and employees made up the additional 4.2%.

Chairman Pritchard requested Mr. Abbate explain his comment regarding the 12% and 7.8%. Mr. Abbate responded 12% is the medical trend, so the plan costs increased by 12%; the employer funding of it was a 7.8% increase; the employees made up the rest of that 12%, which was 4.2%; and it raised their rates by the amounts the County raised it this year, but the total was 4.8% out of the 12% increase. Chairman Pritchard inquired what were the dollar amounts. Mr. Abbate responded last year the Board’s increase was about $1.8 million. Chairman Pritchard inquired what was the average employee monthly premium; with Mr. Abbate responding with no dependents the cost went from $5.00 to $20.00. Mr. Abbate noted the average increase was about $15.00 to $20.00 a month for employees; and the average retiree increase was anywhere from $144 to $287 a year.

Interim County Manager Peggy Busacca stated Mr. Abbate mentioned in the beginning of his presentation that the County’s plan reserves were a little bit lower than they should be; and there was discussion about having a multiyear plan to get the insurance reserves back up to where they should be.

Chairman Pritchard stated he would like to see a matrix of sorts and spreadsheet that would show if the Board were to look at the 12% forecast increase and what the options would be for employee contribution, including what the dollars would be; and he would rather the Board talk more in dollars than percents. Ms. Busacca inquired does Chairman Pritchard mean dollars per month to the individual; with Chairman Pritchard responding yes. Mr. Abbate stated it is the same increase the County had last year; he can put the information together for the Board; it may say it does not want to see employee costs increase from $20 to $35 and would like to shift more toward dependents or retirees; and it is the Board’s decision. He noted he was looking at it from the employer’s perspective; he was not tying it to how the rest of it would be done this year as the County has to look at what the numbers are as it moves forward; and inquired is the way the County did it last year the same methodology the Board would like to see this year. Chairman Pritchard stated using last year’s methodology gives the Board a standard from which it can take options; he does not like to see a significant increase on retirees; when a person retires he or she retires at less income; and if the County hits the retiree with higher costs, then the person ends up with less net income. Mr. Abbate stated there are only two other options, and they are either all employees share or dependent rates increase. Chairman Pritchard stated the other option is the retiree rate can increase, but it should not increase as dramatically as it did last year; there needs to be maybe two other options; one option is the method that was used last year and it can be used as the threshold; and the other option would be with a retiree increase, but maybe half of what it was last year. He noted there may be another option Mr. Abbate feels would be reasonable; and if the retiree monthly premium increased $100, then there would be a $50 increase somewhere else into the system. Mr. Abbate stated he will put the options together for the Board. Chairman Pritchard noted another option may be an increase in revenue from something the Board is not aware of; he mentioned earlier the concept of minute clinics and Mr. Visco mentioned doc-in-a box; it is having smaller neighborhood clinics that people can go to and pay less out-of-pocket; and overall the cost of treatment is less. He stated someone would not be spending eight hours sitting in the emergency room because he or she has something that could be handled more on the local level; and maybe there are opportunities like that. Mr. Abbate stated with the Health and Wellness Initiative hopefully the County will see cost savings; and they are all opportunities staff will continue to review.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he has difficulty getting into insurance without knowing what the wage package is going to be; he would like to defer his comments until then; some things are taxable and some things are not; and there can be a blended package, etc. so someone is not bringing home less in their paycheck. He inquired is there going to be a presentation soon on the wage package for next year. Ms. Busacca responded staff can do that; for the first budget workshop Human Resources Office is going to do its budget package; staff can show the Board what the assumption is, which is doing the same this year as last year because there has been no other direction to staff; and they will show the Board what it would look like comparing the wages to the insurance to give it some basis for discussion. Commissioner Scarborough stated after the County integrated in the insurance package it made some adjustments.

Chairman Pritchard stated using the standard of last year as a benchmark for this year gives the Board a place to go; one of the points brought up at the last budget workshop was the departments were going to be looking at their operations, deciding what they should be doing versus what they are doing, and perhaps eliminating or increasing some areas; he does not want to make it sound like the Board is just here to make numerous cuts that may not be beneficial to the public; and it needs to look at the workforce it has. He noted if the County has 2,200 employee positions listed and actually has 1,900 employees, then maybe it can get by without having the 300 positions and carrying them as a line item on the books year after year; the Board could review a variety of issues, such as improving services, salaries, benefits, making other considerations, reducing taxes, etc. to come up with a package that shows the County operating as a responsible employer and responsible use of public taxpayer dollars; and it all comes together when talking about premiums, benefits, revenues, and expenditures.

Mr. Callinan stated Mr. Abbate is going to come up with a variety of approaches; cautioned the Board that if it is done the way it has been in the past, then it is going to suffer all of the same legal problems that Mr. Abbate was concerned with and is going to lose flexibility; and inquired will splitting the eligibility from the contribution portion leave the Board in the same position of flexibility that it wants to retain. He noted the Citizens Budget Review Committee requests Attorney Knox review the opinion; if the opinion allows flexibility, then the County can proceed with whatever option the Board chooses that Mr. Abbate comes up with, but if the opinion does not allow flexibility, then the Board is going to put itself in a difficult position.

Commissioner Colon inquired how often does the Employee Benefits Insurance Advisory Committee meet; with Mr. Abbate responding as necessary. Mr. Abbate stated staff will put the proposals together; they are starting the Request for Proposal (RFP) process for the four different areas; and the Committee will be meeting soon. Commissioner Colon noted a representative from the Citizens Budget Review Committee will be in attendance at those meetings.

Ms. Busacca inquired does Mr. Abbate have a proposal for how to appoint a retiree or does staff need to bring it back to the Board. Mr. Abbate responded staff can put something together.

Commissioner Scarborough stated it may be good to do an inquiry with the retirees to find out who is interested. Chairman Pritchard inquired is there a retirees’ association; with Mr. Abbate responding not that he is aware of. Mr. Abbate stated he has a listing as his Office provides newsletters, etc. to the retirees; and staff will come up with options for the Board.

The meeting recessed at 11:45 a.m. and reconvened at 1:00 p.m.

DISCUSSION, RE: ENVIRONMENTALLY ENDANGERED LANDS (EELS)

Murray Hann provided information to the Board and the Clerk; stated he has lived in the Town of Malabar for a number of years; he is a local trail advocate and interested in environmentally endangered properties and trails within the cities; and EELS has performed a tremendous job at putting excellent lands into public preservation in the County. He noted it is time to evolve the program in a number of ways, primarily in increasing public use of the properties; it is time to form a recreational advisory committee for the EELS Program; it is in the Sanctuary Management Plan that there will be a recreational advisory board; and these boards have been very useful for St. Johns River Water Management District. He stated he sits as the bicycling representative on the Bicycling/Pedestrian Trail Advisory Committee; while the EELS folks have done a tremendous job in acquiring property; it is time to emphasize more of the recreational aspects of the properties; and requested the Board form a specific and ongoing relationship between EELS staff and the Bicycling/Pedestrian Trail Advisory Committee. He noted the Committee represents the whole County and includes citizens from all over; they are well versed in a number of professions; they are users of the trail systems; and they are knowledgeable about all public lands and not just Environmentally Endangered Lands properties. Mr. Hann requested the Board consider assigning an EELS staff person directly to the Committee; stated when the Committee is talking about trying to link up different trail areas or public properties and there is EELS property in-between, somebody will be there to discuss whether or not it is appropriate as a potential linkage; the number one goal would be to utilize environmentally endangered lands as destinations for Brevard County showcase projects and increase the public good without increasing costs; and as a citizen of Malabar, EELS has been a tremendous benefit to the Town. He noted the purchase of properties within the Town has benefited the whole County; there is about 12% or 13% of area within the Town that is owned by EELS; the County will hear this number as high as 25% or 30%, but it is not true; and the Town has over 100 acres of environmentally preserved lands that it procured, which often gets counted in. He stated properties to the south of the border often get counted in and so does Turkey Creek, which is in the City of Palm Bay; Malabar’s Comprehensive Plan calls for 30% environmental lands within the Town boundaries; the number is more like 12% or 13%; and the Town supports EELS and supported the referendum at the same level as the rest of the County. He noted on trail days the Town has about 50 volunteers show up; the citizens support EELS overwhelmingly; they are trying to evolve the opinion of the Town’s Council; and it is important that EELS continue to forge a better relationship with the Town and communicate with it and user groups. Mr. Hann stated the user groups are loosely organized, but when a trail has to close for some reason the information needs to be communicated to trail users; some of these bonds need to be forged with local equestrian, mountain biking, and running groups; EELS staff is willing to do that; and part of the difficulty is that some of these groups are fairly loosely organized. He noted attached to the information are a couple of maps of the County area; there is a lot of property owned by a number of different managers; the trails cross many different boundaries; and it is very important that consistent trail management philosophies be adopted so that one property does not allow bikes or horses but the next one does. He stated people need to be able to cross between the boundaries without having different rules apply as the trails have existed for 20 or 30 years; they have been stable and everything has been in a good situation; and requested the Board establish consistent trail use philosophies.

Commissioner Colon stated there has been discussion in the past of making sure the lands were being used by the citizens; and inquired would it be premature to put formation of a committee on the agenda. Chairman Pritchard responded no; and stated it is one of the tools that was supposed to be implemented.

Parks and Recreation Director Chuck Nelson stated one of the last items in the package is that the Selection and Management Committee has been discussing and proposing some revisions to the Committee; the original Committee included a financial analyst position and different types of positions; now it consists more of a recreational citizen group; and it is part of the package and would be appointed by the Board with those interest groups. He noted the Citizen Advisory committee becomes a subset of the Selection and Management Committee; it is consistent with what is done in other park programs where there are specific committees that review certain things and bring back a report to the overall group; it is critical because the County is talking about recreation uses that have to be balanced against the environmental concerns of any particular site; and besides offering those kinds of activities it gives them a chance to make sure the County is not destroying the very reason it acquired the property. He stated the Committee would bring the recommendation to the Board; there could be conflicting recommendations; there may be a user group recommendation and a Selection and Management Committee recommendation; and the Board would need to review and deal with the recommendations.

Commissioner Colon stated the recreation advisory committee could be under the EELS folks, which is fine; she wants to make sure nothing is filtered through; it would go to the committees for their review and feedback; and the Board would see the end result. Mr. Nelson stated he cannot speak for other departments, but within Parks and Recreation Department where it has recommendations by a specific committee, it goes through one of the area advisory boards; if there are any differences in the recommendations, the agenda item to the Board will indicate what the differences were and the votes associated with it; and the Board will receive the information from both perspectives.

Mr. Nelson introduced the Selection and Management Committee members, including Mark Bush, Paul Schmalzer, and Randy Parkinson; stated unable to attend today are Ross Hinkle, Ron Hight, Kim Zarillo, and Dave Breininger; staff listed some of the items the Board had asked them to review from the original workshop; and they have made significant progress. He noted staff meets with the Town of Malabar on a monthly basis; they review progress in terms of any acquisitions that may be pending, as well as any of the operational issues; they met with Town Manager Ed Booth on February 14, 2005; and they have made a lot of progress in that regard and identified within the item in the package some of the things discussed and committed to. He stated one of the things the Town would like staff to do is work with it on one of its ownerships that is adjacent to one of the EELS Program ownerships to accomplish greater access, not only to its site but also to the County’s Malabar Scrub site; the Town’s parcel is known as the Cameron Preserve; it was acquired through Florida Communities Trust; and discussions have started on how the County could partner in terms of managing those sites. He noted the Town would benefit from the County’s management and the County would benefit from the access; staff has identified properties within the Town limits that had been previously identified, particularly those that are necessary to round off properties for management purposes; the Town indicated it would be willing to discuss those and the connectivity between sites, which it is amenable to; and the Council expressed concern about the acquisitions, and staff will present any of those acquisitions that the Board approved to the Town for its comments. Mr. Nelson stated the Selection and Management Committee could make a recommendation of a critical site; the Town may object to it; staff would discuss it with the Town and try to convince it that it is a worthwhile acquisition; and ultimately the decision rests with the Board, understanding the Town has a position it will take. He noted the Town was receptive to that; there would be a line of communication on any of these acquisitions so there are no surprises and the Town would have a significant opportunity to comment, agree, or disagree; and the Board would have the final decision. He stated staff continues to work with the Town on development of access to Jordan Scrub; they are getting closer to working out all the concerns related to that; the program itself is somewhat a victim of illegal access, which has impacted the County in terms of management; and it is somewhat of a problem with the Town that there is illegal activity going on. He noted staff and the Town agree it is not acceptable to have ATV’s running around the sites; they are cooperating with the Town to try and address the concerns and issues; the Town is also looking to build a senior center in the future that would also serve as a hurricane shelter; and staff is looking at possible sites the County has that may have disturbed property where something along those lines might be workable. Mr. Nelson stated staff has made significant progress in terms of trying to work with the Town of Malabar and get everyone on the same page, understanding in the acquisition process the Town is willing to consider some acquisitions and others would have to be discussed based on their perception. He noted Mr. Booth also indicated the Town is in the process of revising its Comprehensive Plan; there were some concerns early on that the County was in violation of the Comprehensive Plan; the circumstance was not necessarily a violation as it was not considered as part of the Plan; and Mr. Booth indicated the Town is going to be rewriting its Comprehensive Plan and will rectify the situation as it proceeds.

Chairman Pritchard stated he would like to make sure when the County is in the acquisition mode that it is not stepping on someone else’s toes; the Town apparently has taken the position that a significant portion of its Town has gone to EELS ownership with another good chunk the County is also looking at; he keeps hearing both sides; and one side says they have spoken and the other side says they did not participate. He noted it is most important that everybody works together; and if an acquisition is being made, that it is agreeable.

Mr. Nelson stated in terms of any acquisition, staff will take those to the Town Council so it has an opportunity to comment and see if it falls into the rounding off of a boundary for management purposes, if it is in a connectivity category, or if it is significant in terms of its habitat; nothing will come to the Board that the Council has not spoken on in terms of what its view is. He stated what could happen is the County could bring an acquisition forward that from a habitat perspective is important, but the Council may object to it; and the Board could decide where to go from there.

Commissioner Colon stated she is glad to see the cooperation between the County and Town of Malabar; the County needs to be sensitive to the fact that a community is always trying to look at ways to fund its roads; infrastructure is so much and some communities are bedroom communities; and it is extremely difficult for them to get on their feet. She noted she is encouraged that the communication is better; and the issues are real.

Mr. Nelson stated the relationship has gotten better; it has fostered additional discussions on the park side; some of his technical staff associated with athletic fields is assisting the Town with its park area in terms of how to maintain it and improve the grass, etc.; and the community will benefit as well.

EELS Interim Manager Mike Knight stated there are maps and close-up views of each Commission District included in the package; in some cases it may not show the entire District, but will show everything that is either proposed or acquired that is EELS related; the intent of the maps was to try and capture a lot of information for the Board to review; and there is also a close-up view of the entire County. He depicted the areas that are not within approved project areas; stated the areas are not part of a State project; such areas have been identified by the Selection and Management Committee as additional lands that are very important, but have not been amended into a State project; and if the County wants to purchase those properties, it either has to do so with County bond funds or go to the State for an amendment to the project area to utilize State funding to assist with those purchases. Mr. Knight noted staff looked at everything the Committee proposed around the County; the yellow borders represent those of highest ecological priority; on the close-up maps of the Districts, the areas with blue borders represent current acquisition activity; and it was staff’s best ability to try and capture willing seller data within the County currently. He stated such areas represent where it has acquisition work going on, including making offers, responding to counteroffers, doing appraisals, etc. that The Nature Conservancy has been working on, on the County’s behalf; to fully assess the willing seller data throughout the County would require staff to look at, just in the yellow areas, over 7,000 different parcels, which is thousands of landowners; the acquisition contractor solicits the willing sellers through the mail and follows up with phone calls; and it is an ongoing process. Mr. Knight noted the yellow boundaries would move about depending on where the willing seller interest is; part of the direction was to look at whether there were any other additional lands; there are areas outlined in pink called “SMC new proposed”; and one location is the Thousand Islands, which the Committee will be looking at shortly. He stated once there is further data on it then staff will see how the priority lays out in relationship to the map, including willing seller information; another location is in Melbourne north of the Town of Malabar in District 3 that was a site staff looked at because it had open space; and they still need to have dialogue with the City of Melbourne.

Commissioner Carlson stated the District 4 map has a yellow outline, which is a Selection Committee priority for 2005; it is a commercial endeavor that is off of Viera Boulevard; it has been owned by the Joint Venture Group; and inquired why is it outlined.

Mr. Knight responded it is a product of some of the maps; staff has not been able to fully assess all the development changes that have been going on with some of the sites; and they are trying to rectify those situations. Commissioner Carlson inquired is it the same with the other piece, which is across from the Cruikshank property. Mr. Knight responded he is not 100% sure of the status of it; but it was staff’s understanding the property was still available. Commissioner Carlson stated she is not sure it is; it was her complaint before about the County being so set on its appraised values; not going back and looking at those it has missed out on a lot; and the bright red areas are removed from the proposed 2005, which are a major connector. She noted EELS is still proposing the pink area; the large rectangular pieces in the middle are all conservation areas from Viera; she does not know what part of this is truly negotiable; and requested staff provide an update on it because she cannot see from the map if there is anything that is worthy of now purchasing because the red areas were the connectors. She stated if the County had any connection to the Cruikshank property, it would be in the yellow outline and rectangular piece; there are 400 acres of conservation easement from Viera, which is a given; and it should be identified differently.

Mr. Nelson stated the Program prior to the referendum was winding down; staff was focusing on few parcels; some of the parcels were already on the list of desirable acquisitions; however, the reality was there was not enough money to have acquired them all, so they have somewhat dropped off; but with the referendum passing now, the County is gearing back up. He noted the information Commissioner Carlson is asking for needs to occur on a large number of the parcels because there are additional dollars; staff needs to see if the parcels are still available or have been developed; there are a lot of red areas on Commissioner Carlson’s map where those were originally targeted sites, which have now been developed and are no longer going to be on the list; and he expects it will increase as staff gets more detailed information and begins to contact owners. Mr. Nelson stated part of the process is also to look at the County in a Countywide fashion and get direction from the Board; staff is going to admit to not having everything because the County is at a disadvantage as it has not had anyone on board; The Nature Conservancy is finishing what it has done; and the new groups coming in will be assigned some of this type of work.

Commissioner Carlson stated she understands all of that; she wants to have the maps as accurate as possible; EEL proposed is not an accurate assessment of conservation that is already in conservation; and the County is not going to look at buying it or getting an easement over it so it does not make a lot of sense. She agrees if there are pieces available at the top of the map, it would be a high priority to connect the conservation area that exists with the Cruikshank piece; and if there is only one piece of property in District 4 that the County can connect, it would make a huge difference in the corridor.

Commissioner Voltz inquired what is the percentage of Malabar Scrub and where is the property that is highlighted in red, which is described as “New Proposed 2005” in Melbourne. Mr. Knight responded the actual percentage of Malabar Scrub is approximately 13% for the Town of Melbourne, which is in both State and County ownership; and the majority of the property is in State ownership except for one piece that has not transferred over to the State yet, but is going through the process.

Mark Bush stated the property is on Pirate Lane; it goes north from Pirate Lane to University Boulevard; currently it has cattle on the property; and scrub jays are also there.

Commissioner Colon stated one of the things discussed was trying to get the folks from EELS to help her out with the properties in District 5 because of the window of opportunity being slim; a perfect example is the map before her; there was a meeting with the City of Palm Bay, landowner, etc. on a particular piece of property; and there were discussions on trying to connect EELS properties with St. Johns River Water Management District. She noted a lot of information was discussed at the meeting; some of the areas that have been identified are north of the property in question; as the County waits, the prices of properties increase; and it is more studies. She inquired at what point does the County move forward and say the studies have been done; stated the dollars are limited; she is worried about waiting; the County is losing an opportunity; and it may not be able to acquire those properties.

Mr. Nelson stated the County will receive proposals from the firms on February 28, 2005; ten packages have been picked up; one package has been turned in; and it is not unusual for someone to come in at the last minute. He noted the acquisition process kicks off at the point the new firm or firms come on board; in the interim staff needs to get from the Board the kind of information that will help them understand which parcels; there is a large mosaic and each Commissioner has individual thoughts related to how it impacts his or her District; and if there is a specific site, which is a connectivity issue between the State property and the County’s ownership of property and a high priority, the SMC would review the issue and make sure from a program perspective that it meets the criteria. Mr. Nelson stated he believes it does from previous review; it could be given a priority; staff is looking for priorities from the Board based on the discussion; and the SMC will meet again and begin to give the Board a better map of what it heard the Board say for final approval.

Commissioner Colon stated her concern is having champagne taste with a Coca-Cola pocket, which is what it comes down to; the Board needs to come together and does not want to get greedy over which District was able to get the most and take advantage; it needs direction from staff; and she is afraid of getting to a point where she becomes territorial.

Chairman Pritchard stated he does not feel territorial; the County has a park in the vicinity of the pink area in the left corner of his map; there is also an Indian burial mound in the vicinity; and inquired is the pink area encompassing the burial mound area.

Mr. Knight responded Chairman Pritchard is referring to the Hersch property, which is further south.

Mr. Bush stated the property is prioritized, but it is not the pink area on the map.

Commissioner Scarborough stated County Attorney Scott Knox was in his office and they were looking at what the Miami Corporation wants to do with the vacating of some properties; the Corporation owns about three times as much land in the State of Florida as the Disney Corporation; it owns about 6% of the whole acreage of Volusia County and a large swath into Brevard County; and the Miami Corporation wants to vacate the roads and the County would not be paying any money.

Attorney Knox stated the Corporation was going to abandon the rights-of-way that are platted by virtue of old time plats that were filed way back when to create a pristine area that has been untouched into a conservation mitigation bank.

Commissioner Scarborough stated it is not because the Corporation is nice, but because it can sell the property for $15,000 to $20,000 an acre through that methodology; it is not going to consume any of the County’s money; it is a large tract of land; and he told the Miami Corporation that the County may be shifting to different methodologies. He noted the County is getting close to acquisition of the trail up there; rather than having a narrow strip it would be advantageous to acquire something where there is wildlife; some of the environment has been destroyed because of the logging operation; and it could probably reforest or have the connectivity. He stated there is a trail the County could connect to that runs all the way from Maine to the end of Florida; this is one area it can make tremendous strides if it works with the Miami Corporation; and there is some dialogue taking place.

Chairman Pritchard inquired does any of it include the area where the burial mound is; with Commissioner Scarborough responding no. Chairman Pritchard stated ever since he heard of it and the ability to connect it with the park the County currently has to the south of it he has been most interested in acquiring the site.

Mr. Bush stated it is the L-shaped parcel; and the Committee prioritized the site. Chairman Pritchard stated the environmental issue is there, but the historical perspective is there also; and inquired about the status of the Thousand Islands property after the meeting in Cocoa Beach with the owners of the property. He noted the Committee was in the process of selecting appraisers and defining the parameters of the appraisal.

Randy Parkinson stated there were two tasks at hand; one was to receive an application and the second was to establish a site visit; March 3, 2005 is the site visit; and he is not sure where the application stands at this point.

Mr. Knight stated the application is almost complete and will be submitted through the Land Management Committee with Cocoa Beach on behalf of the landowner.

Chairman Pritchard inquired who is going to be deciding on the appraisers and methodology they are going to use. Mr. Knight responded staff is working on it right now; the issue with the appraisals is according to the County procurement procedures it would have to be bid out; and staff is trying to understand how to go about getting it set up. Chairman Pritchard stated the County was going to have two appraisers and make sure they were agreed upon by the property owners.

Mr. Nelson stated staff was also checking to see if those two appraisers were on the list of State appraisers. Chairman Pritchard stated if need be the County can always go to a third appraiser; it has two almost willing sellers sitting at the table; he realizes the County has rules it has to follow; but when dealing with prospective land holders and sellers like this, it has to deal with them on a basis that is going to encourage them to be willing sellers. Mr. Nelson stated had the appraisers been on the State list then the County could have used the list to select them; it would have expedited the process; the problem is that they are not on the list; and it causes staff to have to go through a Request for Proposal from them for that, and it is the process staff is going through. He noted the downside to it, particularly in terms of the City of Cocoa Beach, is that if they are not on the list of State appraisers, then it takes them out of the running for any of the Florida Communities Trust dollars; it would be all local dollars at that point; that is the dilemma staff has run into; and since the appraisers are not on the State list staff has to get a pricing from them, have discussions in terms of making sure they understand the appraisal process from the County’s perspective, and have them provide the appraisals. Chairman Pritchard stated he can understand the importance of being on the State list in terms of getting a reimbursement back for the money the County is going to spend; but if it is going to be a sticky wicket that is going to cause the County to not be able to purchase this property, then he is interested in eliminating that wicket and finding appraisers that are agreeable to the sellers so the County can purchase the property; and purchase of the property is much more important than whether or not the County can get half the money back from the State at some future time. Mr. Nelson stated the use of the State appraisers was only to expedite the process; now the County has to go through a formal selection process; it is not as lengthy as a full-blown formal process, but staff still has to get pricing from the appraisers. Chairman Pritchard stated the item has come back to the table; the County has been pushing to see that it has willing sellers sitting on the other side of the table; it is time to move forward as quickly as possible to insure the willing sellers still want to participate; and he does not want anyone to feel as if they are being slighted, manipulated, or undermined as part of the process. Chairman Pritchard noted he made it clear when the Reynolds and Chapman folks were sitting there; the County is most interested in making the purchase; and it needs to be most interested in seeing that it moves expeditiously.

Commissioner Voltz stated the RFP should be back soon for a land manager; and she has received calls from local real estate folks who wanted to know if they could bid on it and if they had to have certain criteria in order to bid. Mr. Nelson stated there is expertise required for the process that is built into the RFP in terms of land acquisition of this sort, but no one is precluded from picking up a package and submitting a proposal; it would have greater detail about what those requirements are; large tracts of vacant land, environmentally sensitive land, and those kinds of things are included; and most realtors have had some level of experience in it. He noted the County cannot stop anyone from submitting a proposal and would not want to; the person would need to pick up a package; and the closing date is February 28, 2005. Commissioner Voltz stated some of the individuals said buying land is buying land, and it should not be any big deal; and inquired does the County specify which lands to buy, do the folks need to try to acquire certain property, do they need to know which lands they are, and is it part of it. Mr. Nelson responded the list of lands is generated by the Selection and Management Committee and approved by the Board; it is provided to the realtors; they would be able to proceed with making the contacts; and the County is asking for those kinds of services where the individuals make the contacts and develop acquisition information. He stated it is well within a professional realtor’s expertise and whether he or she wants to commit that much time to it because it is time consuming and different than just buying a house or selling one.

Commissioner Carlson stated staff is looking at it from a perspective of an experienced realtor that has had those kinds of relationships with land management, land planning, etc. Mr. Nelson stated there is also a magnitude because of the urgency the County is going to need to acquire as much as it can and as quickly as it can; part of the criteria is also how much is available in terms of resources to accomplish that; and a single person office is not going to probably do as well as a multiple person office.

Commissioner Colon stated she agrees; this is very specific; the individual has to have the expertise and an excellent working relationship with Tallahassee; and there is a lot involved. She noted not just anybody can get in the picture; and as elected officials, it is the Board’s responsibility to make sure this is accomplished in the right hands. Mr. Nelson stated through the interview process the information is achieved by asking questions and having individuals present their credentials; and staff is able to determine which people have those levels of experience. Commissioner Colon stated there was some property in the Valkaria area that was under discussion with property owners; such lands are crucial; she would want to be able to have parcels listed one through ten; and it does not mean it is written in stone as far as a priority. She noted it would give the Board an idea of what the Committee has studied and identified; it would be somewhere for the Board to start and pinpoint; the firm that is coming in will help the County with the acquisitions, but it would not be identifying the properties; and a map does not say much to her.

Mr. Parkinson stated the Committee has heard on a number of occasions the desire to rank properties one through ten; it resisted that and instead tried to put the properties into groups of highest, higher, and high priority; there is a pool of five or six properties that are highest priority; and if they are ranked and the new firm is directed to proceed on acquiring those in that order, it is not as simple as that and things might progress at different paces. He noted there may be a highest priority, but yet priority three the seller is willing and the process of acquisition moves more quickly; the Committee wants to avoid, by ranking, stalling negotiations within the top because of the fact that things will proceed at different rates; and reiterated it would rather group the properties into highest, higher, etc. and allow the land acquisition firm to go after the group and proceed to acquisition at whatever rate it moves forward. He stated the Committee is moving more aggressively on those properties of highest priority.

Commissioner Colon inquired would there be about 30 sites at one time; stated she agrees the Committee does not want to go one by one as it is a waste of time; and inquired what is a good number that the firm can get its hands on and hit the ground running. Mr. Nelson responded previously it was driven by the available dollars; the County had slightly more land on the list or group than it had dollars available, understanding some of those would not happen because they may not be able to reach agreement on price; the Committee identified what it considered to be the highest priorities and the highest group; and it has worked towards those things, and the dollar value drove how many were on the list. He stated the County is talking about $60 million between the two referendums; a list could be created that has a value of $70 million to $80 million; the firm can begin to work on all of those, understanding some purchases will not happen; and others may get added as others drop off. He noted historically it is not on a parcel basis as much as it is on a dollar basis.

Mr. Parkinson stated one of the most enlightening aspects of a meeting the Committee holds is when the Conservancy reports on the status of its acquisitions; the Committee has in front of it a sheet the Conservancy provides that may have 50 or 60 properties in various stages of negotiation or reimbursement that are going on; it gives a very thorough report; but there is a lot going on. He noted such properties are in different stages of priority; some were just a test in the water and others were aggressively being pursued; it is monumental when one realizes how much is going on at any one time; the Committee recognizes the urgency with which the County is trying to acquire the properties; it met several times to try and address the issues on the Thousand Islands; and it is very sensitive to it. He stated the Committee can have an appropriate package and make an assessment in one day; it is waiting for the results of the referendum, which was overwhelmingly in support; the new acquisition team needs to be brought on board with The Nature Conservancy helping the Committee in the meantime; and the Committee is poised and ready, doing what it can right now, and is very sensitive and working very hard for all the reasons the Board has outlined.

Mr. Knight stated almost all properties on the maps outlined in pink, with exception of the two bright pink locations outside of project areas, have reached a point of review with the Committee and have received the first majority vote, which authorizes the contractor to move forward with acquisition in due diligence; the efforts change depending on where and how quickly something is moving along through the spreadsheet; that is one of the issues with the Thousand Islands; and once the review, which is scheduled for March 3, 2005, and review by the Committee at its meeting on March 24, 2005, it is when the property moves forward with appraisals.

Commissioner Colon stated she does not want to muddy the waters; the Committee knows which areas the properties are located in and those with the highest priority to the lowest; the Board has to respect that; and she is uncomfortable asking the Committee to identify certain areas in her District when it is not a priority on its level. She noted she does not want to tell the Committee where it should go because it already knows where it needs to go. Mr. Parkinson stated the Committee is not asking for direction on parcel specific recommendations; there are certain things the Board has asked the Committee to put together for its information; that is the kind of clarification the Committee is looking for, including the level of detail and how to prioritize; and when parcels have come up it has reviewed them, made recommendations, brought them forward, and the Board has approved or not approved them. He noted the Committee is seeking clarification on how best to answer the questions the Board has about the program, how it works, etc.; the Committee has worked to cover all of the different eco-types of properties and try to evenly cover the County to the best of its ability; the more fundamental now is what is available; if there are no pink areas highlighted in a District, then it probably has more to do with the fact that there is nothing viable for the Committee to go after; and if a Commissioner wanted more property in his or her area, it may not be possible. He stated the Committee tries to update the maps, make the inventory, and do the best it can with what is out there; and the issue is what is really out there for the Committee to pick from.

Commissioner Carlson stated her problem is that the map for District 4 is not accurate; if she is going to make any assessments, she cannot do it from a good basis and needs to know what is available in the pink area; most of it is not because it is all under conservation anyway; and the other pieces that are highlighted in pink she questions whether they are accurate too. Mr. Parkinson stated the Committee has been working to put the map together; it seems like it is a simple task, but the base map was several years out of date; getting a new base map that shows where the construction has taken place, etc. was an issue the last time; and the Committee is working to get all of that up-to-date and make the maps accurate.

Mr. Bush stated the Committee does not take something off of the map until the bulldozers move in as there is always hope of acquiring those properties. Commissioner Carlson stated she is all for that, but the bulldozers have already been there and done that.

Chairman Pritchard stated he does not intend to be parochial about this; one of his hot items has been property in District 1; the Thousand Islands is also a hot item and is located in District 2, but if it was located in Districts 3, 4, or 5, he would not care as it is still a hot item for him; Commissioner Carlson brought up a point about appraised values and how the County needs to start addressing the appraisal methodology; and the cost of land is increasing astronomically. He noted what used to be a $50,000 lot is now $150,000 or higher; he has heard of ¼-acre lots selling for $100,000; he finds it to be incredible; and it is probably not going to decrease. He stated it may not continue at the rapid pace, but it is probably not going to decrease; the County needs to move forward as expeditiously as possible; it may have some money available at this point, but if it does not make the purchase, then it is not doing what it should be doing; and that falls into a couple of other ranges. Chairman Pritchard noted Commissioner Colon mentioned that a willing seller may say he or she is willing to sell and ask the County how much it wants to pay for the property; the analogy he used at a meeting was he has been wanting to buy a 1962 Corvette for years, but he is not driving one because every time he talks about it the person says it is for sale and asks him how much he wants to pay for it; he wants to buy the Thousand Islands, but if the price is out of sight, the County cannot purchase it; and that is why it is important to have the parameters set so the appraisers know how to assess the land so that the sellers and buyers are happy. Chairman Pritchard stated the County needs to start thinking about managing the properties it already has instead of just looking to continuously buy properties; it needs to look at putting money into what it has so it can have public access and the management it needs; he has used as an analogy the Enchanted Forest; and he can foresee spending $5 million there, including constructing another facility, hardening the trails, adding more infrastructure improvements, signage, etc. He noted if the County spends all of its money on land acquisition, then there is nothing left for management or people; it needs to provide access to the property so people will visit and utilize it, including staffing so the folks will have someone to relate to when they get there; the trail structure needs to allow handicapped access and strollers; and there is more to it than just buying more land, and it is managing what the County has. He stated he would like to see coming out of today’s workshop staff direction that they will come back to the Board with ideas on the Enchanted Forest, Archie Carr, etc., including a facility, signage, hours of operation, and encouraging public access and participation so the public does not feel as if the properties are closed to them; hours of operation need to be convenient; he does not want to run the properties like a club; and that is how some of them are being run. Chairman Pritchard stated the County has staff people operating the parks; Kiwanis Island has staff people assisting the public; the Enchanted Forest should have staff people working there during hours of operation; and the public needs to be given proper reception.

Commissioner Colon stated she wants to make sure the Board does not give busy work to staff; it needs to be capped at a certain percentage or dollar amount, otherwise there is a wish list that is going to get out of hand and not accomplish anything; and she agrees with Chairman Pritchard’s comments.

Chairman Pritchard stated he cannot go by a percentage because he does not know what might be involved; one of the things he thought was needed at the Enchanted Forest was a kiosk similar to what is at Merritt Island National Refuge; it is a well defined building, reception center, etc.; and the building at the Enchanted Forest is more a classroom and does not serve the same purpose. He noted he does not know how much an outbuilding like that would cost, but he will say $1 million; there are one or two staff people that are there now; the Sunday he was there there were none; and if someone was there, he did not see them. He stated one lady was a volunteer sitting at the desk; and inquired what would it cost to harden some of the trails so someone can push a stroller and visit the different ecosystems. He noted the signage was inadequate; there is a golf cart at the Enchanted Forest, but it requires a two-week reservation so the right person can be there; and inquired how many people are going to know two weeks in advance when they are going to go to the Enchanted Forest. He stated someone should be able to show up on a Tuesday and ride in the golf cart with somebody there to take him or her around if it is desired; it would be the cost of specific operation for the facility; some other facility might only require one hardened trail and maybe nothing else; and another one might require something else. Chairman Pritchard stated staff needs to look at what there is and decide what can be added to it, whether it is signage, etc.

Mr. Parkinson stated it is built into the management plan where there is a review that takes place with the concept being an initial management use strategy is developed; it is allowed to progress and proceed; the land manager has a cycle at which he or she looks at access and use, and then decides to review and update the management plan, perhaps to reflect some of the shortcomings that are recognized; and the County can expect all of the lands to be their management plans and uses to be revised and changes made as the public expresses interest in different things. He reiterated that built into the plan is a review process to handle ideas like Chairman Pritchard is suggesting.

Chairman Pritchard stated as one citizen who went to the Enchanted Forest one Sunday afternoon, he was amazed at the lack of infrastructure; he is not expecting to find Mickeyland there; that is not why someone goes there; but he would be expecting to find a trail that he could push a carriage on. He noted the first EELS Program promised four facilities; it was part of the plan; one was built, the other is partially constructed, and the other two are on the drawing board; and inquired where is the review as it has been 15 years.

Mr. Nelson responded staff is working off a plan the Board approved; his frustration is that staff is doing what it was told to do; and what Chairman Pritchard sees at the Enchanted Forest is what staff was asked to do. Chairman Pritchard stated if the County is talking about revising, reviewing, and improving, he has been making this suggestion now for several months and nothing has been done. Mr. Nelson noted staff suggested the Citizens Advisory Committee be the vehicle for that; the Enchanted Forest is unusual because it is already there; in a new setting the County would acquire a piece of land; and the Committee would look at it for the uses. He stated it would talk about trails, horseback riding, and all of those types of things; from that evolves the development plan, which is brought to the Board; staff would say this is how it is envisioned; and the Board would have the opportunity to say it is too much or too little. He noted that is the process; reiterated the Enchanted Forest was already there; the vision of a previous Board is what is there now; the vision of this Board is a little bit different; and staff was looking to use this as a test bed for the Committee to look at it based on the comments heard and to come back to the Board and say this is what the Committee sees. Mr. Nelson stated there is a 24-hour endurance race at the Enchanted Forest; people run through the Forest at night; he talked to one person who ran 74 miles in the race this year; and he asked the person if the County hardened the trails, how would it impact the use. He noted the individual told him the race would have to be held somewhere else; the dilemma staff is faced with is those kinds of users versus the Sunday afternoon type of use and trying to achieve a balance where both are happy; and it is always going to be a challenge for the Board to figure where the medium is.

Chairman Pritchard stated he does not have a problem with that and would harden the trails; and the individuals racing could go somewhere else.

Mr. Nelson stated he brought up the issue because that is what the reaction was. Chairman Pritchard stated it is the reaction of a small group of people that show up once a year to run the trails; he is talking about 365 days a year and maybe a couple of the trails; and inquired is the County going to let a group of people that show up once a year dictate what the composition of the trails should be.

Commissioner Carlson stated the perspective is the Committee needs to re-look at all the trails and areas; the Enchanted Forest was the first out of the box; through the evolutionary process the County put an asphalt road in where there was not an expectation for such a road; so there have been changes over time. She noted the Board has directed everything the Enchanted Forest has in place; all the parks need to be reassessed; the County needs to leave it to the citizens, user groups, and the specialized users who are going to use the parks; and it needs to figure out what the balance is and bring it back to the Committee to see if it is going to be a good use of the endangered property. She stated the whole reason for buying it was that it had endangered species, endangered habitat, etc.; that is why a lot of trails were left natural; cementing or putting asphalt on a couple of them may be perfect, work very well, and might accommodate the user group that runs long distance; and it will also accommodate what Chairman Pritchard wants to accommodate. She noted the County is looking for a happy medium, but not to sit here and debate whether or not it should do it; everyone knows it needs to be done, but it is a matter of finding the balance; staff is trying to help the Board do that; and the County needs to move on and get to the point where it has an opportunity to listen to the user groups and such groups have an opportunity to see what the County can do.

Chairman Pritchard stated from what he has seen of management of EELS properties it has been done to discourage public activities; a certain element of the public has been encouraged, including people who want to run once a year and others who may use the properties as a hobby; but the rest of the public is not encouraged to go there. Commissioner Carlson noted it is part of education; and it is another element of what the County is doing. Chairman Pritchard stated there are hardened trails at the Brevard Zoo and access everywhere. Commissioner Carlson stated it is a zoo and a replication of what exists in the wild supposedly; and it is not the same thing as the Enchanted Forest. Chairman Pritchard stated when he went to the Enchanted Forest he saw three birds, a couple of possums, and a herd of mosquitoes; he has more wildlife in his backyard and he has said that many times; when talking about all these endangered things that are there it is a woods and forest; and they are all over the place.

Commissioner Voltz stated she and Barbara Meyer took a two-mile hike through the Malabar area from Port Malabar Boulevard; it was amazing how as soon as they reached the EELS property the fences were up; there was absolutely no access; and accesses had been blocked off. She noted people were jumping the fences to get in the property; the property to the west and east was not fenced in; it did not appear as though it was being destroyed by four wheelers; and the land has been blocked off to public access.

Commissioner Carlson stated the Board went through all of that; it complained about access and everything else; now it is at a point where the Committee is going to tell the Board this is what it is going to do to improve all of that; and the Board needs to provide the opportunity to continue on in that discussion. Chairman Pritchard stated his point is that the bell has rung and he is ready to go put out the fire; he is not ready to have another meeting to discuss the previous meeting and set up for the next meeting to think about it and have a study; he is ready to do something about this; and the County has properties that have hours of operation that are not acceptable to the public, other properties are fenced off, some properties have nothing on them, and nothing is being done. He noted there is another component to this land acquisition, which is the management side of it; it is to create public access; one of the complaints a commissioner had in Orlando with the property set aside for conservation was the limited public access; and the County needs to provide public access. He stated he is not interested in pleasing the race group and is interested in pleasing the public as a whole.

Commissioner Colon stated Mr. Nelson was only giving an example of how difficult it is; the County cannot please everybody; and that is all Mr. Nelson was doing. Chairman Pritchard stated it is not difficult.

Mr. Parkinson stated the Committee has identified a way in which to provide public input; it is on the agenda as a citizens advisory council, so there has been response; the County needs to get to that item on the agenda, discuss it, and move on; and it will meet the needs that are being expressed.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Miami Corporation, through its own initiative, is going to vacate easements; the County can go into non-fee ownership, work with developers, and get more bang for its buck; and perhaps the County can ask if the Corporation would like to sell the conservation easement. He noted the County could buy a chunk of it; it would augment the value of the property; the County can work with the Corporation in the development cycle; and it is going to take more than just an environmental function, and the Planning Department may have to be creative in how the County coordinates its planning posture. He stated some incentives do not necessarily work; the County has discussed transfer of development rights and clustering; all of those have their downside negatives; but in buying a conservation easement and allowing a person to essentially see augmentation of property values that adjoin the conservation easement, there is a dual win. He noted he cannot say it is going to work in every place; it is a case-by-case basis; a unique type person is needed there who can talk both environmental and land planning; and maybe there needs to be some structural recomposition of County assignments.

Mr. Nelson stated staff had a meeting with that kind of discussion; it became very clear that there are a lot of different ways of accomplishing the type of preservation/conservation use of land, both agricultural all the way up through environmentally sensitive lands; everyone walked away with the sense that while these are good opportunities, the question was how to manage it; and the County needs someone who specializes in all of those tools. He noted the purchasing side is pretty straightforward, but land development is a different issue.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the cattle industry continues to be very viable here while citrus is suffering; the cattleman is quite happy keeping his cattle ranch instead of building houses on the property; the density is reduced and the land is preserved, maybe not in a completely pristine state; there is a pollution element from the feces of animals; and inquired is it better than some day not having the money and this becoming the next extension of Viera. He stated if the County is willing to compromise, it would take the cattlemen, agricultural interests, and County planners to the table; it needs to be flexible in who it brings to the table on these different concepts and bring those concepts the Board can endorse one at a time; there can be internal committees that work on it; and he is sure it is happening elsewhere in the country, if not in the State.

Mr. Nelson stated the group that got together was Natural Resources Management Director Ernie Brown, Planner Alan Woolwich, Joe Walter of the Agriculture and Extension Services Office; Mr. Walter indicated one of the downsides to property owners for agriculture where the County buys the conservation easement is that some of the owners have concerns for the family; and once a property owner passes on, the family members are limited on their property, continue to have to pay taxes, and cannot do anything with the property. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is a matter of whether a property owner is interested in doing it or not; if he builds something on a piece of property he normally does not knock it down the next day and build something else; and everything done in life is to some extent a commitment for the future. Mr. Nelson stated if the Board has no objection, Parks and Recreation staff, and Messrs. Brown, Woolwich, and Walter would meet and begin to bring those things to the Board, including the agricultural issues, purchasing of development rights, etc. Commissioner Scarborough stated they could be tied into conservation; different people may want to do different things; there may be an opportunity to tie into Ms. Meyer’s trails; and the County may want to not only acquire that, but also an access over with an ability to maintain. He noted each issue has to be viewed within its own context with a great deal of flexibility; the more flexibility and minds brought to the table, the more likely the County is going to be able to talk to the private sector; and if it has a single set of rules he does not believe it is going to work. Mr. Nelson stated if there is no objection by the Board, then staff will continue the process; one of the things that may also evolve is a recommendation of a more formal way of dealing with this long-term as staff receives more information about how it is handled elsewhere; other places have done this; and more information is needed in that regard.

Mr. Nelson stated the County is beginning to include Barbara Meyer, Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and Trails Programs into the selection process of lands and overlaying those on EELS properties; and the Board has maps that indicate where those trails are and how they could impact the County.

Mr. Knight stated he and Ms. Meyer have reviewed all of her trails and incorporated the sheet files into the GIS system to see where the trails lay in relationship to existing and proposed lands that the EELS Program is looking at; the map with areas highlighted in green and red with purple lines represents the proposed trails; there are areas in Rockledge and the south end of the County where the trails could exist within some portions of EELS sites along boundaries; and the Selection and Management Committee has looked at these as a conceptual idea and agree that this kind of thing is compatible with the uses as long as the County is addressing each one of those sites individually and how the impacts of those trails may affect the sites. He noted if there is a proposed trail along a boundary that has a significant amount of wetlands, then the County wants to look at the potential impacts of a hardened surface trail or multiple bridges over wetlands, and how that may impact both the management and species on the site.

Chairman Pritchard inquired does staff find when the County constructs a trail that the animals tend to use it. Mr. Knight responded staff tries to use existing trails as much as possible; all the trails in the Enchanted Forest were previously four-wheel drive off-road vehicle trails; the trails certainly are used; and as to hardened surface trails, he cannot answer that as the County does not have any of those at this point other than the small one at the Enchanted Forest, but he is sure some animals walk on it. Chairman Pritchard stated he was not talking about a hardened trail; and inquired if staff were to carve a path through the wooded area to get from A to B, would it find that the animals tend to use the path instead of wandering through the woods.

Mr. Bush responded research is being done on it; major predators use the trails; unfortunately, the parasites use the trails, such as brown-headed cow birds, and raccoons as well; and there is almost no bird nesting success adjacent to trails.

Christine Schnitzer, representing Walk 500, stated she appreciates the work that has been done with the EELS Program; she understands that the planning, purchasing, and coordination of these efforts are enormous; the County has the potential to bring thousands of users in a sensitive way to its parks and recreation systems, and future trails and mapping of trails in the works; and there is a great need to get people moving and Walk 500 is willing to bring that to the County in an exciting way with the pilot project that is starting this Spring. She noted by the Fall, Walk 500 plans to be the national walking program that is recognized on perhaps an international level; Brevard has a chance to shine; she appreciates that Walk 500 can contribute to what the County is trying to solve here and come together; and her colleague, Ward Leathy, served on the 1985-1986 President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors. She stated there is a scenic byway now that came out of the work of such Commission; Walk 500 is very forward thinking and visionary in that way; walking is the answer to a lot of the problems that exist right now; and expressed appreciation for the coordination of efforts to get the map overlay. Ms. Schnitzer stated the AARP is very interested in doing this on a national level; Walk 500 is tasked to work with the Association now; the program will predominately deal with older adults in the County; and her organization has a strong social component to its program. She noted the walking ambassadors can be part of the volunteer base that they may find important to lean on; the benefits the members will receive include the movement, socialization, and finding purpose in their lives again by contributing back to the community; it is important to Walk 500; and research backs that as well. She stated she is interested in a citizens advisory council; she and Mr. Leathy would be interested in contributing if they can assist; they appreciate working with County staff, Judy Nation, and Barbara Meyer, who are aware of Walk 500’s works and projects that will be in the spotlight soon for the County.

Alex Chamberlain stated he is a 40-year resident of Titusville; he belongs to the Titusville Environmental Commission and the County’s MPO Bikeways and Trails Committee, but is not representing either of those groups; and complimented County staff, who he has worked with for a number of years on various projects. Mr. Chamberlain noted the staff is excellent, hard-working, and knowledgeable; it is doing a fine job; his concern is the County will never have enough money or land to do everything it wants to do; and it cannot afford many single use projects for that reason and it needs multi-purpose, multi-use, multi-agency projects. He stated he was the Chair of the Chain of Lakes project that Commissioner Scarborough got together; the City of Titusville, the County, Brevard Community College, the hospital, and St. Johns River Water Management District were also involved; everyone coordinated, cooperated, and compromised; there will be a much better project overall; and that sort of project in this kind of context is what the County is discussing today.

Chairman Pritchard stated he would like to provide staff direction and have them look at enhancing the EEL’s properties the County has so that it will provide more public access and more public awareness; and requested staff come back with an idea of what enhancing the Enchanted Forest means, the Sam’s property, Pine Island, other EEL’s properties, and eventual enhancement of Thousand Islands. He noted perhaps there needs to be a shelter so people canoeing or kayaking could get out of the weather should something spring up; and the County needs to get a handle on how much money it should set aside for the enhancements before it ends up spending it on land acquisition.

Commissioner Colon stated she has concerns on giving that direction without being more specific of where the Board feels comfortable in capping it; she does not want the wish list and crazy numbers coming back to the Board; the County needs to make sure there is maintenance of the properties; and it is a waste of taxpayers’ money if the properties are not kept up. She inquired what figure is the Board comfortable with.

Commissioner Carlson stated it is multifaceted; the County has a process that it has not yet put into place to let it work to see exactly what the citizens are thinking in terms of what they would like to see on the particular properties existing and those that are not acquired yet, such as Thousand Islands; it needs to let the process evolve a little bit so that it can say to the citizens advisory committee within the first three months after it is together, that the Board wants to see what Chairman Pritchard is suggesting; access is important and the County needs to identify it as a priority; and while the Selection Committee is looking at appraisals and properties, there are multi-tracks taking place. She noted the citizens advisory committee needs to be looking at existing properties and other property that will be coming on line hopefully in the near future; the County needs to look at what it has currently on the ground and what can be done to enhance, if anything, based on how the committee feels the user group is and what the need is; the Selection Committee is going to review it and other properties to purchase; and everybody is going to be moving toward what the Board wants, but it needs to let the process work. Commissioner Carlson stated the County has not gotten all the user groups; Ms. Schnitzer wants to be part of the user group; the County needs to find out who all those users are, let them get together, talk about it, and start moving in that direction; a land manager needs to be in place; and a lot of things need to fall into place to get the thing going, but the County is setting the stage right now to do all of that. She noted the Board could set some time limit to get input back once the citizens advisory committee has been established; it could say one of the first tasks it would like the committee to do is to review access to all existing parks and create a criteria for access for other parks or whatever; and it needs to give the committee the opportunity to provide input as a group to see if the County is going down the right path.

Chairman Pritchard stated he does not disagree; he is very concerned about Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance; the County needs to insure that it has public access to its facilities; it needs to encourage public access; and Commissioner Colon mentioned a cap. He noted maybe the Board should say at this point that it will set aside $10 million and see what happens; and that is out of $60 million plus. Commissioner Carlson stated she does not think the Board has anything to base a cap on now. Chairman Pritchard noted if the Board decides at this point that it has $100 million worth of property and it is going to work toward aggressively buying that, it is going to use $60 million and will not have any money; if it decides to set aside $10 million and say it is going to use it for infrastructure improvements, management, etc., it leaves $50 million, which it can double by getting reimbursements hopefully; at least it sets aside a certain amount; and staff may come back with $3.5 million worth of reasonable things the Board wants to do. He stated at least at this point the Board is saying there is a recognition that the County needs to do certain things to make sure the public has access and whatever else; it is going to set aside this amount of money; and that leaves “x” amount for the purchase of more land.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he is glad Chairman Pritchard is interested in the Enchanted Forest because it is a unique place and easily accessible; it was part of an overall purchase with four parks; the County needs to be aware that each park as its own unique story to tell; and while he would love to see things go into the Forest, if it would mean that the County would be precluded from maybe moving into another area with a different story for students in other areas of the County, he does not know if that is the way he should be; however, perhaps staff could come back with different proposals and let the citizens advisory committee review them. He noted he is interested in the young people and elderly who come to the Enchanted Forest, including the demographics of who are out there and the type of things that augment the experience; the experience is supposed to be more than just a walk in the park, including the educational element; there could be more information as to what is in the Enchanted Forest; and the Windover man was found, which is the only place in the history of mankind that soft brain matter was found at that age. He stated Kennedy Space Center is also here; Brevard County is a unique place; there are a lot of fascinating things that can be said; but he does not know enough at this moment to decide.

Chairman Pritchard stated he is not interested in taking anything away from anywhere; if the County is going to spend $4 million to buy property in South Brevard, then perhaps it can set aside $1 million or so for infrastructure; it can be made part of the component; and he is not saying that there are not some areas that the County will do nothing with now, but other areas it may want to build an infrastructure similar to the Enchanted Forest to provide classroom and hands-on. He noted things like that are great; the best learning experience one can have is when he or she is there; if there is nothing there, then what is there, other than the woods, which are great if a child was playing Davey Crockett; but that is not why the County buys the properties today; and it buys them so that people can be educated and see what it is all about.

Mr. Parkinson stated the Program, and Selection and Management Committee recognizes the importance of access and enjoyment; he is pleased to hear the Board is very supportive of it; there is a great pathway here to accelerate that through the citizens advisory committee; and the Selection and Management Committee is interested in long-term management and public use access. He noted this is a great indication of where the County is headed fast in the future.

Commissioner Voltz stated there was a $60 million bond referendum and the County did not bond out all $60 million; and inquired does the County have bond referendum money that could be potentially used for management. Mr. Nelson responded part of the millage for the referendum includes management; the bonded dollars are for capital improvements and acquisition; the management piece itself is out of the additional millage; and money is available for management from the millage and the County also has $60 million.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to establish the Recreation and Education Advisory Committee to evaluate proposed passive recreation activities and make recommendations based on compatibility of the use with the conservation and management goals of the sites. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Pritchard stated he wants to move on land acquisition, appraisals, setting parameters, and hiring of a land acquisition manager; this is not the time to be thinking of new processes the County needs to go through; the Selection and Management Committee has done an outstanding job of identifying properties; and the County fell into a low because it did not have the money it expected to get, but it has it now. He noted in association with acquisition, the County needs to set aside funds for the management of the property; he does not want to get to the point where it is land poor; staff can come back with some idea of the Enchanted Forest, Sam’s property, Pine Island, and some other areas, and what the County can do to enhance the facilities in terms of the item and cost so it has an idea of how much money it is talking about. He inquired when will it come back to the Board and is it something that can be done in 30 days or 60 days.

Mr. Nelson stated the resolution establishing the Recreation and Education Advisory Committee will come back to the Board for its consideration on March 8, 2005; such resolution lays out the membership, which will be two members from each District; the Board could adopt the resolution and make its appointments at such meeting; and it would accelerate the process. He noted once the membership is together it takes approximately two weeks for staff to get all the contacts and the meeting set up based on everyone’s schedules; he does not know how long it will take to review the sites as there are 20+ sites; seven or eight of the sites are already providing access of a fairly significant nature; and inquired how quickly does the Board want the information.

Chairman Pritchard stated he would like a price to build a facility similar to what is at the Merritt Island National Refuge Center, stabilizing two of the trails, putting signage at the Enchanted Forest, and having one or two staff people there; and he would like to know about having the golf cart available on a first-come first-served basis instead of having to make a two-week reservation.

Mr. Nelson inquired does Chairman Pritchard want those issues reviewed without the Recreation and Education Advisory Committee; with Chairman Pritchard responding staff can review the issues with Tammy Robinson. Mr. Nelson stated there is no problem and staff can do that; but the question is if the Board wants staff to use the Advisory Committee as part of the process. Chairman Pritchard stated all he is asking for at this point are those items he mentioned; and it does not take a committee to figure out what he just said.

Commissioner Colon inquired does it take a committee to find out whether the area is sensitive and maybe should not have pavement, and is the Advisory Committee supposed to provide recommendations based on compatibility. Chairman Pritchard stated there is no ADA compatibility at the Enchanted Forest; the signage does not exist; the new Advisory Committee can look at everything; and the items he mentioned for the Enchanted Forest can be identified and come back to give the Board an idea. He noted the Committee can come back and say it wants to put in a fishing pier; and he does not want this to become something that 18 months from now the Board is going to wonder what happened and be told the Committee has not met that often.

Mr. Nelson stated if there is anyone who has experience with committees, it is his Department; part of the process is there are public meetings where citizens come in from trail groups, etc. and give their thoughts on what is entailed; and it does not make it fast, but tends to make it thorough.

Chairman Pritchard stated he has seen where there have been 18 months of meetings, at the final meeting a new person shows up and comes out with a new comment, and there are six months more of meetings; meanwhile, nothing has been done for two years; and whatever it takes to stabilize a trail to push a carriage down is needed. He noted it might be a rubberized mulch or asphalt; and he does not know what it would take. Mr. Nelson stated staff will take the Board’s comments, price it out, and bring those back to the Board; and the Committee will begin to look at the other sites.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he is going to make some inquiry with people in the educational community regarding the Enchanted Forest; and since it is in his District he is going to get involved in asking questions. Chairman Pritchard stated he is not parochial on this; the County is the County; he is hot on the Thousand Islands not because of where it is located, but it is a pristine area and the County needs to move on it; and he is good to go concerning the Enchanted Forest. He noted he is very concerned about ADA requirements and other enhancements that tell people to come; EELS lands should not be a secret; people should know they are there; and the properties should not be a club or called the friends of or the family of for a certain parcel and they want to run it like it is their own little club. He stated it is public money and he wants the public to be part of it.

Commissioner Colon stated it is positive to have folks in the community who embrace it because sometimes the County does not have the dollars to do it as government; it helps the County; but it does not want it to get carried away and she agrees with Chairman Pritchard; and it is helpful for the County when these groups make it their own.

Chairman Pritchard stated he is not saying they should not be there; the groups should be part of it, but should not be running the show; he will base it on comments he heard regarding Thousand Islands, that the County should buy it, but not tell anybody because it is a secret; and it was people who run kayak tours and other types of things. He noted they do not want anyone else to know about it; it is perfectly okay for the County to spend millions of dollars on something, but do not tell anyone because it is a little secret; it is not right; and that is his point behind whatever it is that is part of it. He stated when the Brevard Zoo was built it had the Friends of the Zoo there that spent thousands of hours building it; that is great with a little hands-on ownership; he does not have a problem with it; and the goal should not be to keep things down to a point where it excludes public participation.

Commissioner Carlson inquired has Item E, Public Access, Education and Management, been covered sufficiently so that staff has enough direction; stated the Board only made one motion to create the Recreation and Education Advisory Committee; the information says the proposed makeup of the Committee will include citizens representing various recreational user interests, ADA, County staff; and she does not see where it says two appointees by each Commissioner.

Mr. Nelson stated staff has a draft resolution it prepared; it talks about interests in passive recreation, which includes hiking, equestrian, bicycles, wildlife observation, eco-tourism, environmental education, etc.; it gives a laundry list of the kinds of interests people may have; and the resolution will come back to the Board. He noted it also includes ex-officio members, which would be a member of the Selection and Management Committee, and representatives of the ADA, MPO, Tourist Development Commission, and Economic Development Council; it is a big group that could be involved; but the heart of the Committee is the 10 Board appointments.

Commissioner Colon requested an at-large member be included because there have been problems with other advisory boards and disputes whether the wording cannot be vague and needs to be cut and dry; and it has been discussed with Attorney Knox. Mr. Nelson stated staff will coordinate with Assistant County Attorney Christine Lepore.

Chairman Pritchard inquired when will the resolution come back to the Board; with Mr. Nelson responding March 8, 2005.

PERMISSION TO SEND LETTER TO FEDERAL LOBBYIST, RE: VIABILITY OF
KENNEDY SPACE CENTER

Commissioner Scarborough stated the County has a Contract with Eddy Pauley; and inquired does the Contract specifically include his lobbying for the viability of Kennedy Space Center and things like that.

Legislative Delegation Coordinator Theda Roberts responded she will have to get back to the Board on it.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize the Chairman to send a letter to federal lobbyist Eddy Pauley addressing the viability of Kennedy Space Center and evolving uncertainties.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he will work with Ms. Roberts on the letter and bring it back to the Board.

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

Chairman Pritchard stated the County has its new State lobbyist, John Thrasher; Eddy Pauley handles the federal issues; Mr. Pauley has been very responsive in providing information; and he is very pleased with what he has been doing. He noted he would like to have opportunities for Messrs. Thrasher and Pauley to have a meeting of the minds along with the Board; and inquired if staff can set up a workshop where both lobbyists and the Board can have a brainstorming session.

Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Thrasher said he was going to come back and visit with each Commissioner; and it would be great to have both lobbyists present.

Ms. Roberts stated Mr. Thrasher is planning on a meeting with the Board on March 18, 2005, which is a Friday. Chairman Pritchard requested Ms. Roberts contact Mr. Pauley to see if he is available on March 18, 2005.

Commissioner Carlson inquired has the meeting been coordinated with the Commission offices; with Ms. Roberts responding not yet. Commissioner Carlson stated March 18, 2005 is a tentative date.

APPROVAL, RE: 2005 FEDERAL REQUEST PACKAGE

Legislative Delegation Coordinator Theda Roberts requested the Board approve and rank the Federal Appropriations Requests.

Assistant County Manager Don Lusk stated the requests are listed in the order staff feels they should be ranked, with the Shore Protection Project ranked first and SCAT item being second.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the 2005 Federal Request Package, including supporting the calling for the 2-1-1 Act of 2005; and
rank the Shore Protection Project/Mid Reach GRR as Number 1 and funding to replace Space Coast Area Transit South Terminal as Number 2. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 2:58 p.m.

ATTEST: __________________________________
RON PRITCHARD, D.P.A., CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

______________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)