February 12, 2008 Special
Feb 12 2008
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF
February 12, 2008
The Board of County Commissioners of
REPORT, RE: POSTPONEMENT OF REVENUE WORKSHOP
County Manager Peggy Busacca requested that the Board postpone the February 14, 2008 Revenue Workshop; stated staff is still getting that information together; and a date will be provided to the Board for approval at its February 19, 2008 meeting.
Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to grant permission to postpone the Revenue Workshop scheduled for February 14, 2008; and to direct staff to bring back a new date for approval at the February 19, 2008 Board meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.
REPORT, RE: EAST CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL RAIL TRAIL
Chairman Scarborough distributed a packet of information to the Board. He stated on December 31, 2007 the State purchased a trail system, which was an abandoned railroad; it ran from Northern Brevard to Volusia County; as a part of that acquisition he was in DeBary on Friday; there were representatives from five counties, Volusia, Putnam, Flagler, St. Johns, and Brevard; and proceeding with the trail was talked about. He advised Brevard County does not have any monies allocated for the trail; the State of Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) is allocating monies to do the engineering; to build the trail there is a desire to go to Congressman John Mica; he provided information on Congressman Mica in the packet; Congressman Mica has almost all of the trail except for the southern portion, which Congressman Tom Feeney picks up; and Congressman Mica also happens to be the ranking Republican member on the Transportation Committee. He noted there was a representative from Congressman Mica’s office who requested the counties get requests in by Friday for Federal funding; advised Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator Barbara Meyer will be putting that together; and inquired if the Board would support his putting a funding request together for the building of the Trail to Congressman Mica.
Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to grant permission to submit a funding request to Florida Congressman John Mica for the building of the East Central Florida Regional Rail Trail running from
Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to grant permission for staff to work with Volusia, Putnam, Flagler, and
Chairman Scarborough stated he would like to send a letter to Volusia County Councilwoman Pat Northy for her assistance regarding the East Central Florida Regional Rail Trail.
Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to authorize Chairman Scarborough to send a letter of appreciation to Volusia County Councilwoman Pat Northy for her assistance with the East Central Florida Rail Trail. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Letter.)
Chairman Scarborough thanked Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator Barbara Meyer for all of her assistance; and suggested the Board giving Ms. Meyer a round of applause.
REPORT, RE: HOMELESS SITUATION
Commissioner Nelson stated there is a homeless situation on Lake Drive in Cocoa; his office is working on the enforcement issues associated with the homeless; the Housing and Human Resources and Veteran’s Services are involved in this as well; and it is not just enforcement but to find places for homeless people to live. He stated the problem must be addressed; there is a homeless village that is being worked on; and he is not only looking at the enforcement side but also the human side.
Commissioner Voltz stated when she rode with one of the Sheriff’s deputies she toured the homeless camp over there and it was incredible and eye opening to see a different side of Brevard County; there are people living in tents and sleeping under newspapers; and something does have to be done about it. Commissioner Nelson stated one of the ironies is that one of the camps has a “no trespassing” sign on it; and he thought that was kind of interesting.
Commissioner Colon stated for years her office has actually counted the homeless; they go through all of the different camps throughout Brevard County; one of the misconceptions throughout the County is people believe it is older men; and the homeless are women and children also. She stated a lot of the children who attend school are homeless; a coalition was formed by Jinger Knox and has been going on for a long time; and some people are putting his or her heads in the sand.
Chairman Scarborough stated the homeless issue is something that may need to be discussed at a workshop; the homeless have to deal with health issues, mental illness, and multiple issues; some people actually enjoy that lifestyle; but how does the County deal with this and make it work.
REPORT, RE: VALKARIA AIRFEST
Commissioner Voltz stated she wants to remind everyone of Valkaria Airfest on Saturday; it will be a huge event; so get there early and stay late.
REPORT, RE: BLACK HISTORY MONTH
Commissioner Colon stated this month is Black History Month; there have been events going on throughout the entire County; there are two guest speakers under her report this month; she is very excited because they are two young men in high school; and they are articulate and educated. She stated it is a misconception when people think that the young African American community is out there getting in trouble; it is the media with the whole hype; but the truth is they are getting a wonderful education, they go to church, they are active in the community, and she would like for the community to see that first-hand. She stated she is a Republican, but there is a black man running for President; and it is wonderful to see this country is not looking at skin color but at the qualifications of the man.
PUBLIC COMMENT, RE: SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
Marlene Adams inquired how the workshop will be conducted; she requested people be able to speak on each issue; she understands the workshops are not usually conducted that way; but due to the nature and amount of information discussed it would be nice to speak on each issue.
Chairman Scarborough stated he does not think there would a problem with doing it that way; since there are speaker cards on each item he will call people up; and inquired if Ms. Adams has cards in on those items. Ms. Adams responded affirmatively; and inquired if Item III.A, Authorization to Award Contract for Consultant Services to Review/Revise the Fire Service Special Assessment can be moved to the end because the other two issues are related or for the Board to not act on any of those issues until all three of those issues are heard. Chairman Scarborough stated he does not know why we could not hear Item III.A at the end.
Jack Kunasek stated he is President of the Board of Directors of Cedar Lakes; it is a resident-owned community located off of State Road 520; there are 129 spaces in the park; and it includes 70 who are co-op owners, 51 who are renters of the park who rent the property from the co-op but own the home, and there are seven empty lots. He stated in 2006 when the item of Special Assessment, which was in his opinion thoughtless; the Board of Directors met with Chief Deputy Property Appraiser Lance Larsen; and the Board of Directors asked him many questions related to the fire tax. He noted they asked Mr. Larsen how long is the Special Assessment for, and his answer
was he did not know. He was asked how the figure was arrived at, and he did not know; Mr. Larsen said he would investigate all of the questions and get back with the Board of
Directors; and here it is a year or so later and Mr. Larsen has never replied. He stated he called the fire department to talk to the person who put the program together; and the
phone was busy or when he did contact someone that person did not get back to him. Mr. Kunasek stated in 2007 there were 70 co-op owners who were charged $212 per home owner; the empty lots were charged $60; and the 51 renters were charges zero. He advised the 2008 tax bill arrived and the 70 co-op owners were charged $212; the seven empty lots were still charged $60; and the 51 renters were charged $212. He stated through his research he understands there is $21 million in what he calls excess and deficiency funds; he is not sure if it is true or not; but he suggested the Board investigate and make it public if it is true. He stated no two areas in
Chairman Scarborough inquired if the County is in the process of having some audits prepared; with County Manager Peggy Busacca responding yes. Chairman Scarborough inquired if Ms. Busacca would touch on that. Ms. Busacca advised the Board directed the Internal Auditor to look at a financial review of the Fire Rescue Department; it is being worked on; the audit is not ready at this time; but it should be complete in the next couple of months. Ms. Busacca stated she will try to get the Board a firmer date those audits will be completed. Commissioner Voltz advised it has been a couple of months already. Ms. Busacca stated the Board just approved the work plan in late December or early January.
Marlene Adams distributed a package to the Board. She stated the item is to ratify an ordinance that was heard on February 7, 2006; and it was passed. She inquired what is the reason the law requirements advertisements for public hearings; she stated when laws are created or an ordinance is amended the law requires a public hearing be advertised so that the people are part of the process and are able to attend and be heard; when something is not advertised a person does not know what the Board is doing; it is taking that right away from the people who have to come and speak before the Board; and not advertising makes it impossible to exercise that right. She inquired how can the Board go back and retroactively have a hearing on something done in the past. She stated the people do not have a time machine, so people cannot go back and be heard and give input on a decision the Board made two years ago. She noted everyone would love to go back and change things for example, if she was late this morning and was speeding; there are consequences for breaking the law so she could have gotten caught and gotten a ticket; and as much as she would love to turn the clock back and do things differently she cannot. She stated anything created without advertising a public hearing so people can give input on a subject is invalid; and anything created based on those amendments is null and void. She advised County
Attorney Scott Knox was asked if the amended Ordinance 2006-09 was not advertised if it was invalid, and he said yes. She advised she distributed the Agenda item from that meeting; it was dated wrong; it was heard on February 7, 2007; the attachments to that show that ordinance was passed; there was no discussion whatsoever; and the Codes were changed without public comment.
Chairman Scarborough inquired if the Board has ever ratified something previously done in this manner; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding the Board is not ratifying anything; and stated the Board would be scheduling a new public hearing on the item. Mr. Knox advised the ordinance is completely not necessary for what the County is doing regarding fire assessments; and his recommendation will be to withdraw the item as it is invalid, does not exist, and is not necessary. Chairman Scarborough inquired if the Board should not take any action today; with Mr. Knox responding he would prefer to withdraw the item because it is not needed. Mr. Knox stated there are four different ways to set up MSBU’s; staff chose the one under Chapter 197; and the ordinance is a home rule ordinance. Chairman Scarborough inquired if the Board needs to take any action on this item; with Mr. Knox responding the Board does not need to take any action. Chairman Scarborough stated if there is no action being taken on the item it should not be discussed further. Commissioner Voltz stated she wants more clarification on this item. Mr. Knox advised he sent out a memo to the Board; the memo describes four different ways in which a special assessment for assessments can be levied or imposed; one of the four ways is under Chapter 170, one is under Chapter 197, one is under Chapter 125, and the last one is by Home Rule Ordinance; this particular Ordinance No. 06-09 was an amendment to the Home Rule Ordinance; and that Home Rule Ordinance was not used to establish the fire assessment. He advised the fire assessment is established under Chapter 197; the only reason the Ordinance was being amended was to eliminate the language that reflected the appearance that the MSBU Ordinance could only be used for acquisition or construction of projects but not the maintenance of projects; as a consequence the Home Rule Ordinance could not be used to do maintenance projects; and it was one of the issues that was pending at that point in time. He advised that in 2006 there was a project that was coming before the Board that dealt with maintenance and it did not appear to be covered by that Ordinance; it was covered by the Ordinance but it was confusing because of the language; and that was the main purpose for having that Ordinance. He stated the fire assessment was thrown in to give alternatives to the Board to allow the use of that Ordinance for fire assessments; but that Ordinance has never been used for fire assessments. Chairman Scarborough stated it is becoming less relevant if the Board is not going to take any action.
Ms. Adams stated the Brevard County Charter has an amendment in it that requires a vote of the people for non-ad valorem special assessments; non-ad valorem special assessments are assessments levied against properties that receive a benefit to that property; for MSBU’s there is Ordinance No. 97-07, which contains the Codes, 98-36, 37, 38, and was amended on February 7, 2006; those Codes contain the procedure for creating MSBU’s; and historically was always road paving, capital improvements, and things of that nature. She stated the Codes were amended to allow the Board with
authority to utilize Municipal Service Benefit Units for fire services; it does not say just to change the definition of project; this amendment gave the Board the authority to create the fire assessment as before any MSBU’s required that petition of two thirds of the people under Ordinance No. 97-07 or it required a vote of the people; either way the people had some say in the process; and being assessed without some approval is taking that away from the people by the amended Ordinance. Chairman Scarborough stated Item III.B talks about advertising notice of public hearing; and the Agenda does say ratification of Ordinance.
Mary Baugh stated she agrees with the two people who spoke before her that some investigation needs to be done at least for what is happening; she is a homeowner; she has contacted many differences offices; and the fire department stated it is charging the extra assessments by square footage. She advised six years ago she moved from a home into an 800 square foot condominium; she is the only person living there; instead of being charged $212 as a homeowner she is charged $341 as a condominium owner; and she inquired where the difference can be in a smaller area than a regular home and why is there a difference in the amounts.
Fire Rescue Chief Bill Farmer stated the response to the issue of the condominiums is the reason for the consultant; that is one of the problems with the assessment; and that is why staff is seeking the consultant to help level that playing field. Commissioner Voltz stated Chief Farmer mentioned in the past why he did the assessment that way; and regardless of what the Board is going to do there was reasoning behind the assessment. Chief Farmer advised in the overall assessment issue the way it was approached how the assessment was done was by looking at what it costs for the County to put out a fire; whether it was a 500-square foot fire or 2,000-square foot fire the resources sent to that fire was the same; initially there was not breakage from zero to infinity as it is in some assessments; staff was able to look at the operation and decide at a certain point automatic second alarms are done, meaning double the amount of equipment is being taken to the call; and because there was a slight increase to the benefit those larger homes a division was made there. He stated it was purely done to recognize that out of common sense a 3,000-square foot home must receive more benefit than a 600-square foot home; initially after factoring the daily costs for operating the engine, personnel costs, replacement costs, etc. for the overhead services provided to a particular area, the number was astronomical; staff saw that in another assessment that once the number was established and it was higher, the Office of Management and Budget made a decision that in the interest to the public that rate would be reduced; and so staff did the same thing. He stated a while ago other changes were made to the assessments with exemptions, low income, etc. that were taken from suggestions under public comment during Board meetings. County Manager Peggy Busacca inquired if Chief Farmer could talk about the difference between condominiums and detached single family homes; Chief Farmer responded with a single family home there is one stove, oven, dryer, washing machine, and one family living there; with a multi-family home with ten units, there are ten dryers, stoves, family members smoking in bed, etc.; even if it is a small fire contained to one unit because of the construction, enough crews need to be
dispatched in case it does not stay at that point of origin; there have to be more crews in case of evacuation; and it calls for more resources, there is more opportunity, more benefit, and a higher cost.
CITIZEN REQUEST, RE: NON-AD VALOREM SPECIAL ASSESSMENT –
MARLENE ADAMS
Marlene Adams stated she wants to speak about fire assessment and MSBU’s versus non-ad valorem special assessments; she has learned a lot about this issue; Municipal Service Benefit Unit’s have always historically been done for improvements for people; it is a mechanism people have had to get a road paved, street light, or get drainage problems solved; and a person can do it by submitting an application, which requires a petition. She stated two-thirds of those parties involved affected or who will be assessed have to approve that; that was provided in Code No. 98-36, 98-37, 98-38 and in Ordinance No. 97-07; it is the same Codes amended two years ago that created an Ordinance that is invalid; and the Ordinance does not exist as there was no hearing, or no advertisement for the hearing. She advised it goes back to what it used to be and that one handout distributed to the Board discussed Municipal Service Benefit Units; it is off the Road and Bridge Department’s website; there are laws to go by and it is spelled out clearly on the website; and it requires a petition and approval. She stated if the County does not create a MSBU and it wants to only assess the people a non-ad valorem special assessment for whatever reason, it does not have to create a MSBU as nothing in the law says the County has to do that; the Charter has Clause 5.4.1, that says, “Excluding Municipal Service Benefit Units in order to have a non-ad valorem special assessment the County has to get a vote of the people at an election.” She advised this was voted in by the people in 1998; it has been in the Charter ever since; the intent of that provision was to have some say so in how people are being assessed; and it is just like the petition for MSBU’s. She stated the fire assessment is a MSBU; Ordinance No. 06-045 was approved on August 8, 2006 specifically says and it was advertised as such, “The creation of a Municipal Service Benefit Unit.” She stated Mr. Knox said that Chapter 197 gave the Board the power to create it without going by the Charter or Code; but the
says a vote of the people has to be taken before the County can assess a special assessment; and the Board did not give the people the opportunity. Ms. Adams stated anytime an ordinance is created that changes the way MSBU’s are done would be doing so to circumvent that Charter as and MSBU can be created for any special assessment and the people would never be afforded the opportunity to vote; and that is inconsistent with the law. She stated Mr. Knox has also stated today and last week that the Codes amended had nothing to do with the fire assessment; in an email he said, “This Amendment was enacted as Ordinance No. 06-09 as a revision to the general MSBU Ordinance and had nothing to do with the fire revenue flip. It was brought to the Board by Public Works in connection with an MSBU involving maintenance.” She stated the cover sheet on the Agenda Item held February 7, 2006 says it did have everything to do with the fire assessment; and by looking at the next page a series of emails reading from bottom to top says “Per the County Manager’s request and your recommended changes, please review the amended ordinance for the February 21, 2006 Board meeting.” She advised it was from Tammy Thomas from Road and Bridge Department to Scott Knox. She advised that Mr. Knox has stated in the past that Road and Bridge brought the Ordinance forward, but it said per the
County Attorney Scott Knox stated the simple answer is State Law authorizes the Board to adopt special assessments by MSBU’s; it does not need an ordinance to do that; the Board chose to use Chapter 197 to impose this particular special assessment, which is authorized specifically by Chapter 125, which says particularly the Board can adopt an MSBU for fire protection services if it chooses to do that; and that is what the Board chose to do. He advised the Board did not choose to use its Home Rule Ordinance; he agrees with Ms. Adams that had the Board chosen to use the Home Rule Ordinance it would have had to go out for referendum; but the Board did not do that. He stated as he indicated before, the ordinance makes no difference whatsoever to the fire assessment; and he recommends the Board forgetting about the ordinance at this point as it is irrelevant.
Chairman Scarborough inquired if the Board created an ordinance and passed a resolution, but it is irrelevant as the Board is not looking to the ordinance; with Mr. Knox responding affirmatively. Chairman Scarborough advised the Board is looking to the Florida Statutes for authority to do the special assessment. Mr. Knox noted that is what the Board did previously and it is what is recited in the ordinances and resolution creating the fire assessment; as far as the referendum requirement, the Charter voted upon by the people of Brevard County explicitly says a referendum is not necessary for an MSBU; and that is what the Charter says, it is what the people voted on, and it is what was approved. Chairman Scarborough requested that Mr. Knox track exactly what Florida Statute he is looking at and bring back a memorandum to the Board so it can see what its legal basis is.
Commissioner Voltz inquired what the issue is that Ms. Adams brought up about the ordinance not being advertised; with Mr. Knox responding he does not know why that ordinance was not advertised; and stated it was sponsored by Road and Bridge Director Billy Osborne; it came out of the Public Works Department; the original reason for having it was to add the maintenance MSBU to the ordinance; the fire assessment was added as an afterthought; and that is why the emails were going back and forth. Commissioner Voltz stated the
Commissioner Nelson inquired if since the ordinance done in 2006 was not advertised and there appears to be a question of sequence of time, does it mean it is null and void; with Mr. Knox responding that ordinance is not in effect. Commissioner Nelson inquired if the Ordinance does not exist because of those deficiencies; with Mr. Knox responding that is right. Commissioner Nelson stated Ms. Adams brought up the point about non-ad valorem special assessments; there was an ordinance prior to the Charter amendment that occurred in 1998 specific to MSBU’s; it spelled out what those uses could be; it was less than what State law allowed; but those uses were located in the County ordinances. He stated if a person looked at the Code of Ordinances to find out what is a MSBU that there is a list of things that can be done under MSBU’s; he would have felt comfortable that the definition of a MSBU was correct; and if he voted on the amendment to the County Charter he would feel that if the County was going to do anything else other than what is in the ordinance it must go to a vote. He stated the Board went to State law, used that, and did not go to vote on it; while it may be legal it raises a question of what is the intent of the voter; and that is where he is uncomfortable. Commissioner Voltz advised the Board had the information as the decision was being made. Commissioner Nelson stated he does not have the level of information that the Board had at that time; but it is clear that the citizens wanted to vote on any other type of non ad-valorem assessments other than MSBU’s and there was an MSBU ordinance that the Board could have relied on to know what it could or could not do. Mr. Knox advised the problem with that analysis is that the ordinance itself does not require a referendum nor does it require a vote of any kind; and the Board had a policy that at that time three quarters approval to have an improvement project.
Commissioner Bolin inquired what the ordinance number is so she can write it down; with Ms. Busacca responding it is in the Board’s package of information that Mr. Knox provided; stated it is Ordinance No. 06-045; it is shown as exhibit one; and it is the first exhibit after the memorandum. Ms. Busacca advised it is the 12th page after the beginning.
Lillian Banks stated she wants to congratulate Marlene Adams for the super job that she is doing; she has learned more today, and she has lived in Brevard County for 30 years, than she knew before; the County should be offering her a job as a consultant or trouble shooter; and she could keep the County out of a lot of problems.
Maureen Rupe stated she was a member of the 1997-1998 Charter Review Commission; there was a controversial and contentious agenda; there were 42 proposals, which were evaluated and voted upon; and the proposal on no new ad-valorem special assessments was the only one that all 15 members of the Commission voted yes for placement on the ballot. She advised at that time MSBU’s included construction and acquisition of improvements to drainage, roads, water, sewer, all reuse, canal dredging, and maintenance of other capital improvements; there were all benefits to limited areas within the County, not the County as a whole; she does not think any member for the diverse group thought that an ordinance in 2006 redefining projects and clarifying Board authority to establish MSBU’s would render a Charter amendment
useless; she knew that a city ordinance took precedence; but County ordinances do not take precedence over the Charter. Ms. Rupe stated the County Charter Review process is uniquely belonging to the people of Brevard; the Board cannot stop the placement of an amendment forwarded by the Charter Review Commission to be placed on the ballot; and the Board’s job is then to ensure compliance with the Charter. She stated obviously a loophole has been found, which by using a State law to create ordinances which allows almost anything to be under an MSBU, although legal, it is most definitely wrong. She stated County government should not in any way try to circumvent any area of the County Charter; the Board has created an ordinance which basically permits it to tax the people of the County without it ever being on the ballot; this was not the intent of the 1997-1998 Charter Review Commission; and there are other avenues the County could use for implementing special assessments besides MSBU’s. She advised next year another Charter Review will begin; and she is sure there will be proposals before the Charter Review Commission that will ensure the County government meets with the intents of the Charter Review Commission.
AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD CONTRACT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES TO
REVIEW/REVISE THE FIRE SERVICE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
Charlotte Carle stated the fire assessment is a tax not an assessment; she does not care what the County calls it; she sent the check into the Tax Collector and it was returned; and the check was for less than $341. She stated to her way of looking at it, it is a tax; it is a tax without representation; the purpose of her being here is that she understands the Board wants to hire a consult; she spoke to Fire Rescue Representative Cindy Polan and she indicated she was responsible in large part for the assessment and how it was worked out; and Ms. Polan told her that multi-units cost more to put the fire out. She stated her multi-family units are approximately 900 square feet that sit in triplexes; a triplex of less than 3,000 square feet is taxed over $1,000 at $341 per unit; a 3,000 square foot house is taxed only $212; and she suggested taking the $212 and divide by three and that would be a fair assessment for her individual unit. She inquired if a consultant is hired, who she understands is paid by the taxpayers, will he see what she is talking about and how unfair and unjust the entire $341 per unit assessment is. She stated it is not only inequitable, it is discriminatory against condominiums, people who buy smaller units because that is what he or she can afford; and then the County taxes those people out of existence. She stated there is a homeless problem in Brevard County and that is where the Board will find some of those people; people who have mortgages are in trouble today; there have already been a couple of people lose units because of foreclosure; and people cannot afford the higher assessment. She requested that the Board get a consultant and have it in the requirements that he or she speak to the people who are affected by the assessment.
Chairman Scarborough stated that is a good idea that if a consultant is brought in that there is a public forum where the consultant could hear comments from the public; those issues need to be addressed; and the inconsistencies that the Board hears he needs to hear directly.
Chief Bill Farmer advised when he met with the consultant to discuss the proposed contract he asked the consultant if he would join him at a night meeting at this very location that would be publicly advertised; he has kept copies of all of the contact information from the people who have made those complaints; he is going to send those people a letter asking them to attend; and the proposed consultant is in the back of the room today to hear those issues with his own ears.
Marlene Adams inquired if the Board has the authority to create a non-ad valorem special assessment or MSBU without approval of the people; and further inquired if the Board can bypass the Codes or Charter and use State law and create that non-ad valorem special assessment. She stated hiring a consultant before knowing if the Board has the approval of the people does not make sense. She stated she can stand here and go into all of the inequities of the fire assessment; Chief Farmer knows all of the objections she has presented; one of the big ones is mobile homes; in a mobile home park zero to 25 units is assessed $481 for the entire park; and a mobile home on an owned lot is $212. She inquired if apartments are the same as a mobile home park; with Chief Farmer responding the issue is the same; and stated those are the two primary inequities in the residential home, the apartment versus condominium, and the owned manufactured home lot and home versus the commercial application of a mobile home park. Ms. Adams stated case law after case law says that a two-prong legal test must be passed before an assessment can be valid; one being it has to provide a benefit to property; no doubt fire protection services does benefit people’s property; how much of that benefit is the question; based on response statistic of 2005 and 2006 in Brevard County, the fire engine responses constitute 2% to structure fires out of all of the responses; and the rest assist, follow the ambulances, and various things that benefit people and not property. She stated the assessment has to benefit property; whatever the Board is assessing the people has to reflect that actual benefit; and having fire protection services is suppose to benefit people by lowering insurance rates, but it is increasing people’s property value. She inquired can people ignore the local Codes and Charter and do what State law allows and create an MSBU for a fire assessment or create a non-ad valorem assessment without approval of the people.
Chairman Scarborough advised that question was raised and the Board directed County Attorney Scott Knox to come back with a memorandum regarding the issue; and inquired if Mr. Knox has any idea when that would be coming back to the Board. Mr. Knox stated that is explained in the memorandum he distributed to the Board; the answer to the question is yes the Board can do it; the Charter says it excludes MSBU’s; the County does not need a referendum, it can follow State law, and it does not say it has to be done by Home Rule Ordinance; and the Board follows the powers given to it by the government of the State of Florida. Commissioner Voltz stated she thinks what Ms. Adams is talking about is the spirit of the law. Mr. Knox stated Ms. Adams is asking if it is legal and it is legal; and spirit of the law is a different issue.
Ms. Adams stated she wants to read something from the Florida Constitution. “Charter Government: Counties operating under county charters shall have all powers of local self-government, not inconsistent with general law or with special law approved by vote of the electors. The governing body of a county operating under a charter may enact county ordinances not inconsistent with general law.” She stated so the Board cannot enact an ordinance that is going to be in conflict with the Charter, which is what it tried to do in 2006 by changing the definition of MSBU’s and relieving the requirement for a petition of two-thirds of the people affected. She advised the intent of the County Charter, that amendment that the citizens voted in, was to give the people a vote for special assessments, MSBU’s or not; and the MSBU exclusion was only put in there to prevent the person who wants a road paved to have to wait for an election to get it done.
Chairperson Scarborough stated Ms. Adams raised a lot of interesting questions; and he does not know how the Board wants to do it but he would encourage the
Jack Kunasek stated he worked with budgets for years and when he put a budget together he went to the tax office and sat down to try to come up with a compromise; the answer he received from the tax office was they do not know how such a thing was arrived at; he is taking the word of the people he spoke with; and everybody is just trying to dance around the issue. He stated the issue is the tax is way out of line; in 2007 his co-op people, 70 of which are $212; empty lots with nothing on them but grass are paying $60; he did not know grass would catch fire; and the 51 renters were not charged at all. He advised this year the same empty lots pay $60, and now the renters are paying a year later. He inquired how can renters not be charged and then the following year hit those people for $212.
Buddy Spakes stated what he hears from the people is that they disapprove of the job the Board is doing; the Board is not listening to the people; the County has a Charter with the intent to protect the citizens; and for the Board to try to get around that Charter is a disgrace to the office that he or she holds. He suggested the Board listen to the people or quit trying to take more money from them; there is a homeless problem in the County already; it is time to stop; and it is time to be a government for the people.
Commissioner Colon stated one of the questions people in her office has been asked is to give a history of how the Board got where it is; it is important for the County Attorney to explain; inquired how did the fire department see themselves in this situation because
people are not mind readers; and stated even going back to the history of the City of
Mr. Knox stated in 1988 the County decided it was going to try to collect Emergency Medical Services (EMS) funding through the use of a special assessment; that was the method that was used up until 2006 by Brevard County; it came into question in 2001 when a lawsuit evolved down south of Brevard County in North Lauderdale; and the Appellate Court decided a special assessment was not an appropriate way to levy for EMS services because EMS services only serve people it does not serve property or increase the value of a person’s property. He stated in 2002 right after that decision came down, the Florida Legislature passed a law, which sought to validate special assessments for EMS; that law was in effect and still is in effect as of today; but in 2005 the City of Palm Bay took up the cause of EMS special assessments in Brevard County and said that the County did not have the authority to impose EMS assessments based upon a Supreme Court decision that upheld the District Court decision from North Lauderdale, which came out after the Legislature had supposedly corrected the problem. He noted the Supreme Court case did not address what the Legislature did because it came out a month after the Legislative enactment took place, so it actually did not have the chance to consider that at all; the County and City of Palm Bay fought over the same issue that was fought in North Lauderdale and the issue of the Legislation was brought up and the court in this particular jurisdiction in the Circuit Court decided that the County was in the same boat that North Lauderdale was in down south and it validated the EMS assessment. He stated that issue is still pending as it has not been appealed yet; right now the EMS assessment is no longer valid, which means the County now has to find a way to fund EMS; funding can be levied for fire services through a special assessment as special assessments for fire services impacting the value of property; if a person does not have fire services his or her insurance rates would be through the roof; and people probably could not even get insurance without the services. He stated the Board chose to flip the EMS service out of assessments and flip fire service into assessments, which is why there is an assessment; the net result of that was a person is now taxed for EMS services as part of his or her annual ad valorem tax; a special assessment for fire services was used to pay for what used to be charged in the way of taxes for fire service; and it was kind of an exchange of special assessments for taxes. He advised the tax
rate for the fire service was diminished to compensate for the fire assessments and the
County Manager Peggy Busacca inquired if Mr. Knox can explain why the County had to do a revenue flip and the money for fire could not be moved into the General Fund; with Mr. Knox responding there are limitations the County has to consider when it is doing any kind of a budget; stated right now there are more tax caps than there were back then; at that time there was a cap of 10% on the amount of revenues the County could generate in any given year because of a special act that applies only in Brevard County; and the taxes are limited to allow the County to increase revenues by 10% in any given year. He stated that has subsequently been modified somewhat by the general law when the Legislature passed a series of changes in 2006, which limit the revenue increase even less than 10%.
Fire Chief Bill Farmer stated when he was told about the lawsuit from City of Palm Bay he got with the County Attorney’s Office, asked them what would occur if the County lost the lawsuit, and Mr. Knox said the funding for EMS would become invalid. He stated he asked how long before he would know; Mr. Knox was unable to give a definitive dateline; he said it might happen during the Summer, which would have been in the middle of the budget process; and literally in July or August when the Board was approving the budget it may have found out it may not have funding for EMS or fire, bumping up against the 10% cap, and the County would have been in trouble. He advised he had seven or eight months to put together the assessment; he got with the Tax Collector’s Office, Property Appraiser’s Office, in fact the Tax Collector’s Office was the first to put him on the road of an assessment; he is not sure where the communication is coming from that the Tax Collector or Property Appraiser was not aware of the assessment; he contacted a couple of communities through the Tax Collector’s Office; and that office gave him that information, that is what was put in place, and that is how the fire assessment came about.
Commissioner Colon stated at a previous meeting Clerk of Courts Scott Ellis made it clear to the Board that he wanted to make sure that people were being notified; and the citizen’s need a heads up on exactly what the amount is going to be. She requested that Chief Farmer explain what happened at one of the Board meetings regarding this.
Chief Farmer stated originally Fire Rescue Department staff put the ordinance in place prior to the rate resolution as the actual rate with the numbers could not be passed until the ordinance was in place; the Clerk’s Office sent one of its attorneys to a meeting and was concerned that he had not properly advertised as it was believed that the rate resolution was being passed; Assistant County Attorneys Christine Lepore and Morris Richardson and the Clerk of Courts agreed on the record that advertisement for that portion of the ordinance was done appropriately and it was not an issue; and there
has been quite a bit of discussion on the item as far as advertising. Commissioner
Colon stated that in particular was important as the citizens need to know the discussion that took place; so today was not the first time that it was brought to the Board’s attention regarding making sure that the public had an opportunity to speak and for the ordinance to be advertised properly. She stated when Mr. Ellis brings items to the Board’s attention it sometimes gets bent out of shape, but ultimately he ends up giving it
good advice regarding to it being careful. She advised these discussions have been going on for a long time publicly, in the Sunshine, and on television; and in the Florida TODAY a lot of articles regarding this issue are there; and requested that Assistant County Attorney Morris Richardson elaborate regarding that discussion as the Board wants to make sure that everything that was done by the book.
Assistant County Attorney Morris Richardson stated the ordinance being discussed at length earlier today where there were some advertising issues was not the fire assessment ordinance; the fire assessment ordinance was advertised; all affected property owners were given notice by mail; and he knows it was advertised as there were hundred’s of people turned out at various hearings, which the ordinance and rate resolution were ultimately adopted on the fire assessment. He stated notice was given in accordance with Florida Statutes Chapter 197; and it was better notice than most issues as people actually receive letters in the mail informing them of the issues, rates, methodology, as well as newspaper advertisements.
Charlotte Carle stated it is nice to have a hearing and have the consultant speak to the public; he also has to look at the properties that are involved; and suggested the fire department could cut a lot of costs by reducing redundant services. She stated when someone calls and says her husband is having a heart attack, the fire department does not have to send an ambulance and a fire truck, which Fire Rescue does every single time. She stated she understands sending more than one ambulance to the scene of an accident; but the redundant services need to be reduced. She stated she did receive notice but it was short notice; it was tabled until the following week; and the Board voted for it even though every person spoke against it.
Commissioner Nelson stated he respectfully disagrees regarding the fire truck rolling; his father who is a large man had a stroke; three people could not have gotten him onto the gurney to get him away from the scene; it took five people to get him onto the gurney; those firemen will be sitting at the fire station doing nothing; and it is a better use of his or her time to go assist in that effort. He stated it is a level of service the citizens have come to expect and appreciate; it should not be about the service as it is a good service; it should be about how the County is going to pay for it; and he does not want the conversation to in any way to reflect the County does not have high-quality service as those people do a good job.
Chief Farmer stated the lion’s cost of the EMS for First Responder, and that is what the program is called when the engine goes, is the personnel costs and capital costs; it is paid for out of the MSTU; when 2.2035 was reduced down to .0614 it was to pay for that paramedic to be on that rescue providing EMS aid; a fire engine is not responding every single time with a rescue; if a person has a broken finger an engine will not be sent; but if a person calls and says her husband may be having a heart attack an engine will be dispatched. He advised there is someone controlling the airway, someone doing CPR, someone pushing medication, and someone monitoring the patient, that is two people in the back doing all of those things and someone to drive is needed. He stated everyone who calls 9-1-1 do not really know what is happening to them; a person may say he or she is having a stomach problem when in fact they are getting ready to have a major aneurism that is going to kill them in 20 or 30 minutes; triage is done at the dispatch center; and there are operational guidelines to follow.
Chairman Scarborough stated he wants to discuss the concept of the contract for the consultant. Commissioner Bolin stated the County has an excellent fire service; and the Board needs to keep the quality of its fire service there. She advised the information she has been receiving is the equity of the service is not quite there; by hiring the consultant that problem can be addressed; in reading the contract the Board would have with the consultant it will be bringing up the development of the 10-year fire service financial plan; and that would be good in the capital improvements program. She stated by hiring a consultant the Board will be able to solve a lot of problems; and if the consultant will work with the Board closely in meeting the needs of the people today, it can be achieved.
Commissioner Colon requested that the consultant join the Board at the table. She stated one of the things that the Board has discussed in great detail is that it does not like the inequity that it sees and wants to make sure that it is something that is fair; she wanted to get an idea what the County will be getting with its tax dollars; and wants the consultant to give the Board some examples of what other communities have gone through.
Michael Burton, President of Burton & Associates, Inc., stated he has already began the process of getting the feedback from the public and from the Board; it started with staff during the negotiations; and what he is hearing today does not surprise him as staff had already discussed some of those issues with him. He stated when he goes through the consulting work it is a decision support process where he helps the Board and the citizens understand what the choices are and consequences of those choices are. He advised when looking at the fire service, a lot of the traditional ways it has been done are not as necessarily as fair and equitable as other ways to look at it; when simply looking at costs, the first thing that has to happen is to isolate all of the EMS costs as the County does not want to have any EMS costs in its fire assessment; there is a marginal cost of responding to a call for service; but the lion’s share of the cost in a fire service function is what he calls watch standing. He stated the County would get the benefit of the fire
service because he or she is there, ready, able, and equipped to respond; whether there is a response or not a person’s insurance rates are better; and there is protection from loss of property because the fire department is ready, willing, and able to respond to the public. He stated Burton & Associates, Inc. would first determine how much of the costs in the operation are to make calls for service; it is relatively small by looking at the marginal costs; the firemen have to be there anyway so the calls for service relieve the wear and tear on the vehicle; so those calls would be isolated that go to non-real property. He stated is 5% to 10% of the total calls are for calls for service and only 5% are on real property, then the rest of the cost would have to be recovered outside of the assessment. He stated by looking at the remaining costs that are basically watch standing, a finding of benefit has to be found; traditionally a lot of those have been equal per residential unit and looking at the actual cost to respond, which is a little bit of a problem in terms of the benefit as the criteria need to be benefit. He advised properties receive benefits in a couple of ways; first they receive benefit just from the administration of the program so some costs can be allocated equally per parcel as the billings have to be done and people get benefit of that; if there are areas where response is different than other areas of the County a potentially lower benefit will be assigned to people for the allocation of cost of parcels; but a big part of that watch standing cost is a function of the value of the buildings that are being protected from loss. He stated within the residential class and non-residential class there can be a scaled assessment that would be a function of some costs that are assigned on a per parcel basis and a small amount that are assigned on a cost for service basis; but a relatively large amount of the costs would be assigned on a benefit based upon protection from loss. He stated a person either has insurance because he or she has a fire response that can protect them from loss; but if you do not have insurance a person gets protected from that loss themselves. He stated if a person has two parcels that are similar, the buildings are the same size, but the value of the building, not the value of the property, the value on one parcel is $200,000 and the value of the building on another parcel is one-half a million dollars, they are the same size, and inquired who gets more benefit from fire protection, from protection from loss; there should be recognition of that differentiation; and he will bring the Board those options. He advised it can be looked at on a square foot basis; there is a theory that there is benefit that the larger the structure the more benefit a person gets from the protection from fire loss; he will look at these scenarios; he demonstrated to staff during negotiations with an interactive model to show the variations of the various ways of skinning the cat in terms of costs and how it affects the different types of parcels; and he can go back to compare what a person’s assessment is now but what it was before the Board adopted the assessments it has when going back to ground zero so to speak to say how different is this for a home of a certain size or value versus another home of a certain size or value. He stated his firm looks at all of the properties; they will take the Brevard County Property Appraiser’s data to evaluate all types of properties in the County; they will get with the fire people and understand how the resources are being deployed; and to see what kind of benefit is being derived by all of those different properties. He advised he did a study in Putnam County, which is a rural county, and mobile homes are an important issue as to what benefit does a mobile home
really receive from fire protection service; and he will be looking closely at that with the fire folks to determine the proper benefit, multipliers, or factors that should be applied to all of the different property classes to get it as fair and equitable and his company can for the County.
Commissioner Colon inquired how the Board gets to a point of the same amount that the citizens were paying before this all took place and before the lawsuit; with Chief Farmer responding when he first met with Ms. Busacca and they were talking about consultants they were both concerned that the County would get a consultant that would tell the Board basically the same thing staff told it previously and that there is nothing better; and stated the Board would have wasted $50,000 to hear the same story. Chief Farmer advised when Assistant County Attorney Morris Richardson and he were listening to this vendor he was the first vendor who started to talk about things like adjusting for geography response; that excited him; he was the first vendor to talk about building value; and he began to see there was a product available that would be more fair and equitable looking a little bit more like an ad valorem as opposed to the reverse Robinhood that the flat assessment did. He noted additionally when he spoke with Mr. Burton about eventually relating it back to the MSTU and what happened when it was the MSTU, which is what you heard him speak of; he only mentioned that to Mr. Burton once in brevity as he knew he could talk about that again later; but Mr. Burton recalled it and is factoring it into the program. He stated it should give Commissioner Colon exactly the information she is speaking about, which is what did the County pay and if it is more the why of it.
Commissioner Colon inquired what would the average amount have been for a particular home before all of this took place; with Chief Farmer responding $240. Commissioner Colon inquired how do people get back to that particular place of $240 when it was an ad valorem tax; stated after this took place some people pay less and some of them end up paying way more than he or she is accustomed to; and further inquired what happens if everyone goes back to paying what he or she was paying in the past with the same exact formula; and inquired what is the difference in what she calls, for the lack of a better word, subsidizing.
Mr. Burton advised the issue the Board is dealing with is the issue of funding the fire rescue service; he is going to get with staff and go through the entire Fire Rescue Department’s operating and maintenance budget and operating budget; his company has an interactive model where it looks at escalation factors on different costs components and it projects revenue based upon alternative decisions the Board may make on how to recover that revenue; but what it does is determine the revenue requirement each year. He advised some of those revenue requirements the Board will not be able to recover through the assessment; the EMS will be allocated out; the portion for cost for services that are not for real property will be allocated out; and the Board will see in every year of the plan the amount it will have to fund from some other
source. He advised it will be clearly evident to the Board in the 10-year financial plan; it is really a 5-year plan with another 5 years to kind of see what it looks like; no one knows what it is going to happen 10 years out; but he tries to look that long to give clients a better look. He stated the fees were covered under the ad valorem taxes before it went to the assessment; what he and Chief Farmer agreed to do is go through the Property Record Cards; it will be easy to go through and say under this revenue requirement today if doing it as an ad valorem tax here is what each parcels bill will be; and it will show under scenario A or B what a persons bill will be. He stated the classic way it has been done historically is take the higher value properties and reduce everyone to an equal number, and the lower valued properties are the ones that had homestead exemption and were paying less in taxes. He stated he believes he can come up with scenarios for the Board that instead of taking a plan that did not charge the low valued properties much and charged the high valued properties a lot; instead of going that way it will be something in the middle; there is some discretion with regard to some of those allocations; and what he is trying to do is assigning the benefits so the County does not put so much burden on those who maybe are not receiving as much benefit as the ones who are.
Commissioner Colon stated the number she is referring to is what will come out of the General Fund; and the Board would not be having this discussion if it was not for the fact for the loss of revenue to the County immediately when this switched. Chief Farmer stated he believes he knows what Commissioner Colon is saying; he has written notes and would like to meet with her after the meeting; he thinks he understands what it is; and he would like her to look at it to see if that is what she wants or not. Commissioner Colon stated the Board needs to be as transparent as possible; the dollars going into the fire department will no longer be there; and that is what it comes down to. She stated the Board needs to look at that point at all the numbers and ramifications; and inquired if the Board is expecting to get the same dollars as before one of those changes where does that put the fire department. She stated it needs to be part of the discussion during budget time. Mr. Burton stated it will come out because what he will identify in the 10-year plan is the starting year that revenue was received from the fire assessments, what was the cost to operate the fire department, and the Delta had to be funded somewhere else, including Fire Rescue and anything else. He stated when going through the allocations it may be determined that some of those costs in the assessment now should not be; that number may be a little bit lower; and the County may have a little bit more it needs to fund from some other source. He stated the only other thing that would cause the Board to fund more out of the General Fund would be exemptions and exclusions; the School Board and similar type schools are statutorily exempt so they will not be charged; but the Board may chose or not to exclude some other properties, such as churches or religious institutions; and if the Board chooses to exclude those it would have to fund the cost that they would have otherwise been paid from some other source. He advised the Board will have a complete picture of the financial dynamics of the Fire Rescue Department, the assessments, and the alternative of doing it the way it did it before, which was with ad valorem taxes and the way the assessments are today.
Commissioner Colon inquired regarding deadlines what happens now; and further inquired if the Board has a problem if it does not take certain action by certain dates.
Chief Farmer responded it is the case; that is why he needs the action today of whether the Board chooses to go with the consultant; the timeline is mid April; and that deadline should be met so the Board has enough time to take action prior to the June break and the budget process. Commissioner Colon inquired how many meetings before that actual vote; stated it is complex and will take more than just one meeting to be able to comprehend; and the action taken years ago was uncomfortable due to deadlines. Chief Farmer responded there are two to three meetings with the Board; and there are a bunch of meetings with staff. Mr. Burton advised early on there will be a meeting to get public input to understand the issues the public feels are important; then the analysis will begin; there will be a couple of interactive work sessions with County staff; then there is a workshop with the Board and the public to come back with the preliminary look at it; and after that there will be a presentation to the Board. Commissioner Colon inquired when exactly the deadline is; with Chief Farmer responding the actual deadline absolute file is scheduled for May 6, 2008. Commissioner Colon advised she wants to make sure there are two to three workshops such as this to be set as she does not think it will be fixed in one particular meeting. She stated even if the meeting goes well in March and everyone feels the questions have been answered, there should be another workshop in the month of April as a backup so there would be at least two meetings before the decision in May. Assistant County Attorney Morris Richardson advised that meeting has been included in the consultant’s contract so that additional meeting is provided for; and that will be when the report is presented under the current scope.
Commissioner Voltz stated the largest mobile home community in the State is located in
Chairman Scarborough stated the room across the hall is filled with people as well as there is another issue to be discussed today. He inquired after coming back from the break after finishing this discussion does the Board want to go immediately into the other section of the workshop; and further inquired if the Board would like to break for lunch. He stated if anyone who is here who is going to be speaking he or she may want to get something to eat as the Board may like to move ahead with the next issue.
The meeting recessed at 10:55 a.m., and reconvened at 11:09 a.m.
Chairman Scarborough stated he had a couple of people indicate that he or she needs to leave; and if those people would touch base with Sally Lewis in the back of the room he will try to accommodate them. He stated the Board is contemplating having sandwiches brought to it so the meeting will keep moving. He advised complements of Commissioner Bolin there are chips and cookies on the table.
Commissioner Voltz stated she likes the fact the consultant will be going with the value of the home; and it will make a tremendous difference. She inquired if the consultant has done this before if it has ever been challenged; with Mr. Burton responding in the City of Coconut Creek in Broward County his company did an assessment that is a weighted average of the building value and the square footage; stated it has not been challenged; they did an assessment for Lauderdale by the Sea where they did just the value of the building; it was not implemented as Lauderdale by the Sea had a very high assessment; and they chose to cut the assessment in at least half and go back to funding some of it out of the ad valorem taxes so they did not change the way they were doing it. Mr. Burton advised he showed staff the model used there that is working and he has the allocation criteria working through a model like that; but the only one he knows of that has been implemented that uses that building value was Coconut Creek.
Chairman Scarborough stated Ms. Adams talked with him at the break and said there are still legal questions that need to be answered; he told her those legal questions need to be answered; but beyond the legal questions and how the Board actually goes about it legally within the context of the Florida Statutes it needs to understand the manner in which it will be imposed. He stated he does not think the discussions are anything but both equally important; the Board wants to make sure it complies with the law; and it wants to make sure if it does comply with the law that it is done in a manner which is fair. The Board was discussing hiring a consultant, having the consultant have a community meeting where the County would advertise and have it fully known when that was going to incur; major announcements can be done on Space Coast Government Television, newspaper ads, and that people know about the meeting; to then have a workshop before it comes back before the Board for final approval; to receive comments on the report; and to have the report available before that workshop.
Commissioner Nelson stated the Board is right back where it was in 2006 because in effect it has a system that needs to be addressed; it is a little different in that the flip has already occurred; but basically there is an equity question in how to address that. He advised he is troubled by the vote question; and inquired does this type of transition require that. He stated he is not convinced that the Charter does not require this; he does not think it ever envisioned the circumstance; typically the people are saying do the citizens want to provide a new level of service or a new service and therefore, put it on the ballet; and if it passes it is provided and if it does not pass the County does not provide it. He stated here there is a service that is already in place and the worst thing
that could happen is that somehow the Board structure it in a way that it does not have
that service; the fire department cannot go away; inquired how does the Board give choices where voters have a choice when one of the choices is the citizens do not fund the service; and that is the dilemma he is struggling with. Commissioner Nelson noted as far as the consultant goes, he supported it from the beginning as the Board has given it one try and it needs to have someone who has done this multiple times in other places. He stated he wants to know what the structure is going to be; and inquired if the Board is talking about hiring a consultant and then taking a yes or no vote.
Chairman Scarborough stated it is impossible to walk away from the legal issue; it has been raised many times; the Board has requested the
Commissioner Nelson inquired if the Board’s preference is ad valorem would it hire the consultant; with Commissioner Voltz responding the Board does not have a choice as the County cannot fund that. Commissioner Nelson stated it goes back to the legal question; and inquired what are the ramifications of that. Commissioner Voltz advised it is the Cap that is hurting the County. Commissioner Nelson stated there is an existing Cap in the MSTU; a vote could be to extend the Cap to fund fire services; it is not a two-year if it is under ten mill MSTU Cap; the Board can extend the fire MSTU up to whatever it is; and it does not extend the ten mills so it goes on in perpetuity. County Attorney Scott Knox stated he thinks the Board should let him look at that as State law passed in 2006 puts Caps on every type of fund that can be imposed, including MSTU’s. Commissioner Nelson stated the discussion yesterday was that as long as it did not exceed the ten mill Cap. Mr. Knox stated he is getting the Cap the Legislature imposed confused with the millage at ten mills, which there is a Statute that allows exceeding the ten mill Cap, it is imposed in the Constitution, if it is done by voter referendum and it is a period of two years that has been authorized to do it.
have to put the whole budget together and then bring it forward. Commissioner Nelson inquired if the ad valorem is an option; with Ms. Busacca responding it is her understanding that under the 10% Cap is not an option. Mr. Knox stated there is also general law that puts caps on different portions of the budget, including MSTU’s; that is something the Board will have to look at a little bit differently; and it kind of depends on how much the County wants to raise. He stated if Commissioner Nelson is talking about funding the whole budget it may not be doable. Ms. Busacca stated staff originally considered that ultimately the assessment would go away over a period of three or four years; and when the Legislature came with the Cap that said the County had to reduce the revenue by 9% staff was even further behind in the ability to put any additional ad valorem funding. Commissioner Nelson stated the Legislature said the County could exceed or actually go by super majority vote or vote of the people
Commissioner Colon inquired if Chief Farmer has the dollars of how much revenue was collected before the Board had taken action from the community. Chief Farmer stated in other words at 2.2035 rate how much did the fire service receive. Commissioner Colon stated before; and inquired when it became effective. Chief Farmer responded in October 2006 is when it went from the MSTU to the assessment. Commissioner
Chairman Scarborough stated his concern is the whole thing with taxes is there are all these moving parts; he does not know what the Legislature is going to do but there can be other surprises; and it may be September before an answer can be given to Commissioner Nelson’s questions. He stated maybe the Board will be able to shift some over to a different methodology; but he has a feeling that it is going to be problematic to go completely.
Mr. Knox stated he may be able to answer Commissioner Nelson’s question if the Board will allow him to make it part of his memorandum requested earlier; and it is more complicated than just a yes or no answer.
Chairman Scarborough stated this item has many questions and the Board does not want to blob them all in a bowl of tapioca pudding when it all becomes tasteless; they are distinct individual things that need to be answered; Commissioner Nelson’s question is different than the others; the question that Ms. Adams continues to raise as to what extent the Charter requires the voter being involved; the question of how to structure it fairly; and inquired if those can be looked at as individual questions, answer them one at a time, and take them in a complete dialect. He advised when the Board comes back to the workshop it will hear about the legality question again; he is prepared to go ahead and get Mr. Burton started having his discussion with the community, having the input; and the more the Board knows the better off it will be able to serve.
Commissioner Colon stated one of the things the Board said at the beginning of last year is that any time that the Board had a question when it came to legality of something that it was not just going to rely on the County Attorney’s word but to also get help from the Attorney General; and inquired if that is appropriate for this particular situation to be able to share with the Attorney General what the dilemma is regarding the legalities and so forth to just get an opinion. Mr. Knox inquired which issue; with Commissioner Colon responding the question regarding if the Board is allowed to do it or not or if the Board is going against its own Charter. Mr. Knox advised the Attorney General will not answer that question as it is a local question. Commissioner Colon inquired if the only way this can be answered is in a court of law; with Mr. Knox responding affirmatively. Chairman Scarborough inquired if Mr. Knox could ask for a Declaratory Judgment; with Mr. Knox responding he cannot do that unless there is a party that can be sued.
Commissioner Nelson inquired when the Board can expect to see the laying out of those issues or questions; with Mr. Knox responding the legality issue can be done pretty quickly; and the budget issue will not take very long either. Commissioner Voltz inquired if it can be done in a week; with Mr. Knox responding at not even that probably. Commissioner Nelson advised he wants to make the final decision next Tuesday with that information in hand so all that information will be available; and he would feel more comfortable to have all of that information at hand so that when people start calling and yelling at him he will know how to answer them. Ms. Busacca inquired if that means that the dates on the Agenda will start to slip; with Chief Farmer responding it already has; and stated it has been two months since staff met with the consultant and negotiated the contract. Ms. Busacca advised the dates the Board heard today will all slip and it may not be the beginning of May it could be the end of May or even later than that before it comes back before the Board.
Commissioner Bolin stated she would like to go forward and hire the consultant. Commissioner Voltz stated she thinks on Tuesday when the information is provided to the Board if there are any issues those can be addressed then; but it will not change the fact that the Board needs to hire someone and needs to get them on Board.
Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to accept the Selection Committee’s recommendation to award a contract to the best-ranked firm of Burton & Associates, Inc. to perform a review and evaluation of existing fire assessment methodology; and to authorize the County Manager to execute the final contract as negotiated by the selected firm and the Negotiation Committee appointed by the Board. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioner Nelson voted nay. (See page
for Contract.)
PUBLIC COMMENT, RE: LAND ACQUISITION POLICY
Kim Zarillo, Member of the Environmentally Endangered Lands Procedures Committee and Environmentally Endangered Lands Selection Committee, stated the Committees’ welcome the workshop today; the Committees’ have followed the procedure and doing what they are supposed to do; and if there is something that needs to be done differently that comes from the workshop today, they welcome that as well. She advised as it stands today, until whatever issues that need to be addressed are addressed, properties are being lost; properties that the owners have withdrawn or that have fallen by the wayside because of timing issues or whatever; and that is also a problem faced in the land acquisition process and public entity. She stated it is not only the Environmentally Endangered Lands (EEL) Program but in the Road and Bridge Department that people have the advantage of knowing what needs to be looked for and for what value; together with the timing issue it puts the County at a disadvantage in the acquisition process that is not in the private sector where these things are unknown; and the County has more negotiating power and can get faster turnaround time if it needs to. She stated the EEL process at a minimum can be five months; and by the time the appraisal process begins and then going through negotiations, a lot can happen in the market place. She advised both Committees’ want these properties; some of the properties have been looked at for more than ten years; and those are some things for the Board to think about. She noted they are not trying to hide anything out of the bounds of what is within the Committees’ realm; it is just that they live in a fish bowl so to speak; and they have to deal with the consequences of that. She stated it may actually cost more money; the Committees’ do not like that as it limits the land that can be acquired; the Board needs to keep those things in mind as it goes along; and if there is anything in the process that can be improved the Committees’ are open to that.
Commissioner Voltz stated the last time it came before the Board, Environmentally Endangered Lands Manager Mike Knight mentioned if the County purchased these two large parcels that there basically is not money left to buy any more land; and it would not
matter about the timing, negotiations, or anything else as there is not going to be any more money left. Ms. Zarillo stated unless the State has another future program; there is a possibility of that happening; and then there would be reimbursements and so forth.
Hank Saunders, representing Sykes Creek property owners Boyd and DiChristopher, stated the properties came into his office in 2005 and he marketed them; the Boyd property is owned by a whole group of people; there are some elderly people in the group; and there are some professional people in the group. He stated The Nature Conservancy came to them as it had been trying to buy the property for some time as the property is in the middle of the reserve; they got involved, had numerous meetings, negotiated back and forth, and finally got a contract; and everyone was on board. He advised that the property was appraised in May 2006; it came out to somewhere around $10,000 per acre; the owners of the property agreed to pay for the survey, which cost approximately $30,000 to help the process move along; everything seemed to be moving along smoothly until the April meeting; and the Board pulled it at that time and wanted the owners to take less money. He stated at that time a private individual wanted to purchase the property to develop it, so the option fell as it was not negotiated; and the individual brought a nice check and began the process to develop the property. He noted as time went on people in the group wanted to see the property preserved more than to be developed; the individual requested more time; the people wanted to go back to The Nature Conservancy as they really wanted to see the property sold; so they gave the man his check back. He advised they negotiated with The Nature Conservancy again; they negotiated an agreement; and now the March deadline is coming up. He stated it is in the Board’s hands; at the last meeting there was a question about the values and what is going on; he did some research of commercial properties between 20 and 300 acres; and there were 128 sales. He stated a person bought 20 acres of property in 2004 for $600,000; in 2007 they sold the property for $1.1 million; this did not have anything to do with government; and these are just commercial sales that are out there. He stated another one is where a person bought 20 acres for $1.1 million in 2005; and then sold it for $2.6 million. He advised the point he is making is that the residential market has a slump, but commercial large tracts of land are selling; after the meeting another appraisal will be done; and the appraisal will use all kinds of different comparable properties.
Chairman Scarborough stated the Board is trying to get a broader picture of the whole process; he requested that Mr. Saunders take a seat and come back up later; the Board is interested in every individual; but it is trying to get the process overview to begin with. Mr. Saunders stated he is trying to give the Board a background of this particular property. Chairman Scarborough thanked Mr. Saunders for attending today. He advised if anyone needed to leave he or she was welcome to come forward; but it is at a convenience to him or her but a detriment to everyone else in the room.
The meeting recessed at 11:38 a.m. and reconvened at 11.43 a.m.
Chairman Scarborough stated he knows some people will need to leave; the Board is going to take the cards first; it will not exclude anyone from anything that comes up from the discussion; and Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff will try to write questions down as people speak.
Mike Sarro stated his interest is in the appraisal process; the discussion is about the process not individual appraisers; when the County needs a service and is using capital that is publicly funded it is normal to go out for a Request for Proposal to be placed in a major newspaper or circulation; qualifying references is requested from the individuals who respond; and more often than not it would be expected to advertise a budget for the service. He stated to bring in an appraisal company without advertising for the service defeats the purpose of getting the best bang for the buck, or buying as much land as possible. He stated it is critical to get as many respondents as possible for the appraisal process; and it makes good sense and gets the County the most amount of usage for the amount of funds it has. He noted there is not question as to how much money the County is going to put into this process; but when it has people referred to it that were referred from the seller to him it is insane that it is even going to get an opinion of value that is going to be honest and straight forward undisputed by any source, including the lender.
Rocky Randels stated he wants to speak on the EEL land acquisition process; and he currently serves on the Environmentally Endangered Lands Procedures Committee. He advised the manual was prepared in 1990; the manual was given to the Board for its approval; there are indeed guidelines in place; and the manual is being followed. He stated the group does not go out and purchase land willy nilly; and there is a specific vision. He stated this page says “The Environmental Endangered Lands Program acquires, protects, and maintains environmentally endangered lands guided by scientific principles for conservation and the best available practice for resource stewardship and eco-system management. The EEL Program protects the rich biological diversity of
Committee will go through step-by-step to come up with a report of anything where procedures are not being kept. He advised the Committee is doing the job as it is specified in the procedures manual.
Commissioner Colon stated today the workshop is for what happens after the Committee; the Board is not questioning the Selection and Management Committee; it is fully aware of what the members do and the wealth of knowledge and expertise; but once the Committee is finished the Board gets the ball. She stated she wants to set the record straight before anyone insinuates that the Board is questioning what happens before it comes to the Board.
Paul Schmalzer stated he has been a member of the Selection and Management Committee for the Environmentally Endangered Lands Program since its inception; and he wants to briefly review some of the program’s history as it relates to land acquisition. He advised the EEL Program was established by referendum in September 1990; before that referendum, the original Procedures Committee had developed the first Land Acquisition Manual to guide how land acquisition was to be carried out in the Program; the Board adopted the manual in July 1990; in August 1990 the first Selection Committee was appointed; and a key feature is that members of the Selection Committee, later named the Selection and Management Committee, are scientists who evaluate properties for acquisition based on his or her natural resource values. He stated the primary goal of the EEL Program, as established by the 1990 referendum and extended by the 2004 referendum, is to protect the biological diversity of Brevard County now and into the future; value for species, natural communities, and landscape connection all factor into ability to support and maintain biological diversity; the Selection and Management Committee initially developed criteria for evaluating properties for acquisition; it examined what communities, species, and landscapes occurred within Brevard County and to what extent they were then protected in Federal and State conservation areas; and the analysis, which is included as an appendix in the current Land Acquisition Manual, guided the development of the strategy for conserving communities and species not well protected on other conservation lands. He noted the strategy was expressed in the major proposals to the CARL, now Florida Forever, Program that focused on maritime hammocks in the southern barrier island, scrub along the Atlantic Coastal Ridge, and wetlands along the Indian River Lagoon; as new information has become available and as development has changed Brevard County, these strategic initiatives have been modified; the pace of development in some areas precluded acquisition for conservation; and new information now shows that others are of greater importance. He stated before the 2004 referendum, the SMC and EEL Program staff spent considerable time evaluating what had been accomplished and what should be the remaining properties; this analysis indicated that there were important areas remaining in the Brevard Coastal Scrub Ecosystem Project and the Indian River Lagoon Blueways Project, and it reemphasized the northern end of the County as an important landscape for conservation; the CARL and Florida Forever projects and boundary amendments, Florida Community Trust application, and other proposed partnerships have all come to the Board for review and approval; partnership funding
doubled the resources for acquisition for the 1990 referendum; the strategic vision is important but properties are acquired from willing sellers, usually one at a time; and the real estate market is dynamic. He advised when the property prices were accelerating, few owners were interested in negotiating with the EEL Program; the current hiatus in the property market has made available some very significant environmental properties; some of these properties that have been targeted for conservation acquisition for many years and only now have willing sellers; it is a long and involved process to get a contact with a willing seller on a property that is significant for conservation; and there is no certainty that there will be a future opportunity. He stated the properties that are recommended to the Board for acquisition by the Committee have been considered carefully and reviewed for the value for species, natural communities, and landscape connection. He stated three separate votes are held as follows: first majority, second majority, and a final vote to approve general terms of the contract. He advised many properties that are brought to the EEL Program for consideration do not meet program criteria; certain properties have some environmental values but are small, fragmented, or isolated and therefore have low priority; on other properties, negotiations are not successful; and the ones that reach the Board are those properties available from willing sellers that best advance the objective of the EEL Program of protecting the biological diversity of Brevard County now and in the future.
Lillian Banks stated she is the odd ball present today; because of the housing situation and Amendment 1, the Board is surely going to be looking for money; and inquired if it knows where it may get the money. She advised there are always more taxes, impact fees, or raising existing fees; she gets the impression the Board feels it has already cut the budget to the bone; but the Board should look at a few of its sacred cows, such as Environmentally Endangered Lands and Parks and Recreation. She stated EEL has been in the news a lot recently for various reasons; the first EEL Program passed by a small percentage of eligible voters; the second passed by a larger percentage; she looks at the Program as if the people gave the Board a credit card to preserve some land because it considered them intelligent, sensible, practical, and she was sure the Board would use discretion in the purchases; and the majority of the people who voted for it, especially the second time, thought it was a way to stop growth. She noted some people, the nimbies as they are called, could care less about green space; some of them were told it was one way he or she could stop growth; the EEL refrain is what the people voted for; it is treated as if it ties the Board’s hands; and it is a copout and the Board certainly could stop some of the purchasing of more property now and use the money received to pay off the bonds. She stated if at a future date things look up the County can buy land again; there is a certain circulating report that lists all of the conserved properties in
notice and found that the Sheriff gets $123; she has lived in Brevard Count for 30 years and her tax will be different than some peoples; she pays Parks and Recreation $108; she pays EEL $46; and any way the Board looks at that the Parks and Recreation and EEL add up to $154, compared to the Sheriff’s $123. She inquired which service costs more. She stated since this is an area considered to be highly attractive to terrorists she will gladly give up some green space to finance the Sheriff so he will not want for a thing; tanks, cars, personnel, airplanes, boats, you name it, he can have it; he has done an outstanding job with the County’s money; and she cannot say the same about the County. She inquired if the amount of land was 70% would the Board still have to buy more land; and further inquired to all the people out in T.V. land where does he or she think the taxes are going if the County keeps on taking land off of the tax roll.
Dawn Hooley stated she is highly invested in
Carol Hamilton stated she is a strong supporter of the EEL Program; and she distributed copies of when people wrote in to the Board when voting on the EEL Program in 2004. She advised one of the copies is entitled, “Preserving Land Saves, Doesn’t Cause Taxes.” She stated the reason she wants to read this to the Board is because she believes that what was going on in 2004 applies to today. She advised it was not written by her, it was written by a gentleman from
anyone who doesn’t agree with them as a tree/manatee/scrub jay hugger, to inventing financial relationships that don’t exist. Despite their claims, growth does not pay for itself it makes taxes go up due to increased need for services. Developers can’t dispute this so they shift the blame by repeating the mantra that government doesn’t manage its funds properly. Developers claim it should be taken no more seriously than anything said by a used car salesman. There is management costs associated with publicly held land, but no park ever made a school go over capacity.” She again stated it was written by a gentleman in
Leesa Souto stated she is representing herself as a resident of the City of
advised according to those opposed to land and public ownership, unimproved or natural lands are not considered capital until they are built; natural lands in themselves are
priceless capital; and suggested that sustainability of the community, quality of life, and perhaps the species on this planet requires that people revisit the economic equation in putting the cost of improving land, which is usually a public cost, into it. She stated the equation does not include natural land as a cost at all; natural land provides incredible economic worth; natural resources do have a value besides the value to individuals who exploit land for profit; and everyone knows that there are public costs and benefits to improving lands. She stated a cost is that property taxes will not and will never fund the cost of infrastructure needs to meet new public needs; this has been shown over and over again and researched throughout the State and the Country; this is a public cost that is being waived by keeping natural land in public ownership; and there is a benefit to keeping natural land. She advised sustaining diverse ecological systems have both immediate and long-term net positive outcomes besides profit. She stated the buffers of natural and unnatural disasters that are provided by natural lands have been researched in Indonesia where tidal waves wiped out communities where the natural buffers were removed; preserved communities where the natural buffers were in place, as well as in Katrina, where a lot of the destruction was caused by the removal of wetlands and mangroves; this is where environmental and social justice comes together; and people need water, air, and places for kids to play. She stated people need to have those moments of peace when he or she is in traffic that is bumper-to-bumper and they can look over and say, “thank God I live in a beautiful place.” She advised places in Florida are facing saltwater intrusion because they cap the entire surface area and rain cannot filter down; people are spraying saltwater on the lawns and killing the entire landscapes; people cannot afford to drink the water so he or she buys bottled water; and that is a social justice issue. She stated she works with stormwater engineers; stormwater engineering needs natural buffer areas to not only clean the stormwater but to filter it into the ground; and the natural areas provide an opportunity for vegetation to naturally clean the air and water. She expressed her desire to see the process move forward to continue to purchase lands, to be accountable to the public, and not to deny the wealth of the County by using this as a venue to say, “no, we can only improve our quality of life by allowing these lands to go unprotected.” She stated publicly-owned lands protect the quality of life, long-term sustainability for the people of
Mary Hillberg stated the residents of
zoning and land use considerations may be included in the process to some degree; scientific aspects that are the core of the Program should remain its priority; and the citizens are asking that the Board approve the EEL Program and leave it as it is.
Commissioner Colon stated the reason why she had said what she did when the Mayor brought it up, and then Ms. Hillberg brought it up, is she had a friend who received an email regarding what the workshop was about; the Board is not questioning the scientific evidence of how the properties are purchased; when her friend called her to tell her about the email it was basically based on lies; and that is not what the Board was discussing. She apologized to anyone who is present today under that pretense; the workshop is mainly to talk about what happens once the land is purchased, like the appraisals; this does not only pertain to the EEL Program but to parks, roads, and how the County does business regarding land acquisition in general; so that is what the workshop is about and she wants to make sure it is perfectly clear because not once did she hear that from the Board regarding this particular workshop.
Margaret Broussard stated she is glad she followed the speakers as they have made some of her points and she does not have to make them again; she advised of her appreciation of Ms. Souto’s economic points; and she can mark out everything she was going to say about that. She stated it is always wiser to stay in the acquisition negotiation process as opportunities arise and opportunities are lost; if the Board suspends the Program, those things happen and it will have no way to react to them; it is unwise to tie the hands of the EEL negotiators by suspending the Program; and she is wearing a shirt that tells everyone that Friends of the Scrub supports the EEL Program because of the strategic preservation of natural areas, particularly upland habitats where the scrub animals live that depend on the scrub plants that depends on the scrub soils. She stated Ms. Souto has mentioned the economic values of some of those things; there are always going to be negatives; there are always going to be a minority who keep opposing the EEL Program; but she hopes the Board will keep in mind that the majority of people do support the strategic preservation of natural areas. She stated the Board needs to keep the future in mind; once the sensitive areas are lost they are lost forever; extinctions are forever and those cannot be gotten back; and suggested the Board not suspend the EEL Program and tie the hands of the negotiators.
Maureen Rupe stated Ross Hinkle had to leave but he wanted her to bring up a couple of points; the Board can take his comments from her time; and he is more important than she is. She stated Mr. Hinkle wanted to say that the EEL Program has a consistent history of acquisition that has been based on willing sellers, fair market value, and conservation values of land; the decisions on lands to be purchased has been consistently left to the Selection and Management Committee; the EEL Program has provided good value in purchases that have been matched by the State; $30 million during the first referendum; but due to the lack of funding it is now required to invest more EEL monies, which has been consistently supported by the Selection and Management Committee. She advised Mr. Hinkle further wanted to state that long delays can greatly impact the acquisition of some of the most important conservation areas in the County; and that the EEL Program is supported by a large majority of the
citizens. She stated her comments are that the EEL Program is uniquely different from any other program in
that meets distinctive needs of the environment and are irreplaceable. She advised the EEL Program acquisition manual has a provision for purchases of appraisal lands; a super majority vote by the Board is required; the manual does recognize land that may be worth more than an appraisal; and the Board has approved two properties in the past year above appraisal. She inquired if the Board considered the purchase worth the money, was there a huge public support, or both. She stated nevertheless a decision was made totally for the public’s benefit, which is not considered in an appraisal, and it should be. She stated if a person was a collector of art, and a particular piece he or she pursued for 17 years, like the AG Ventures and the Scottsmoor Properties, became available it would alter the determination on that piece of art’s value. She advised there is not anyone that does not want the best possible price that can be obtained, but at some point in time they must decide if the public could, that property is worth that additional value, or should the public good be set aside to obtain cheapest price available; and inquired if will it always be the cheapest land in quantity and quality or should the County go for the quality of the product at a higher price. She suggested the Board look at the whole value of the Program.
Mike Sarro stated Commissioner Colon was correct that this is not a matter of validation of the EEL Program; and the EEL Program is definitely something that the County should have. He stated the mission component, in his opinion as a commercial broker of real estate, is that the Board get involved after the property’s been put on to contract; and at that point there is an accountability issue of how did it go from approved PUD in Scottsmoor to being presented to you guys for consideration and dropping $24 million. He stated the Board has one or two meetings maybe to make a decision; the Board is briefed by staff who it depends on; and he does not think he has to review any blogs or press stuff that has been going on in the past couple of weeks since the last Board meeting about the property and today’s workshop. He advised the reality is if the Board makes it known to the public in general that it is in a buying mood and has funds available to spend on conservation land it will be inundated with property in the County from all points known; the Board will not have its staff coming to it with two tracts that happen to be in the same PUD that happen to be in Scottsmoor and owned by people it already does business with; and that is the reality of what the Board is doing. He stated the Board can engage the public; and it will have people like himself bring it property to consider. He stated the public does not work that way; if a developer was looking at that property the last thing he or she would do is come out with an offer or have it appraised before he or she found out what the seller wanted; no one did that; and when the appraisers did the drive-by inspection they had three members of the sellers, one County person, a member of the EEL Program, and a member of The Nature Conservancy. He advised there has been comments made that are on tape from the previous meeting where a buyers representative acting in a capacity of a sellers representative telling the Board if it does not buy it may have to look at other opportunities in other counties. He stated that is not what that meeting was for; it was
not to put the Board under pressure to pull the trigger; there is a shadow of doubt that the Board is squandering funds that are earmarked for conservation; and the Board needs to take a breath and step back. He stated the other issue is about appraisals; when appraisals are done the Board needs appraisers that have a background in
finance contingency deals not people; there is no finance in contingency when they do an appraisal; everyone keeps knocking the developer; and if that land was a developer’s he or she would be holding on to it or would be moving ahead with it. He advised that there is no demand for that property; the County is it; it puts the Board in a huge position to negotiate; but again that is going back to procedure. He stated procedures should be that the Board invites the public, anybody that has got land that they are paying taxes on, and present the property to the Board for consideration; if the Board has criteria such as size, what the wetlands are, are they pristine wetlands, what is the accountability of endangered species, flora, or exotic plants; and if the Board discloses that in the invitation and it knows the property does not fit the criteria it will make the job easier. He stated he read all three appraisals and the contract; in the disclosures there is no consideration for endangered species, flora, and exotic plant life; there has not been a scrub jay seen; there is one gopher tortoise hole that was found; that is nearly 1,000 acres; and it does not fit the criteria. He inquired what happens when the Board is presented with property for consideration; stated what happens during that window is what needs to be reviewed; if the Board brings the public in it will get a stack of stuff to review from property owners and brokers like himself; he is not looking for business but just telling the board it is what is going to happen; and it will get sawed through to see if it meets the criteria. He advised this thing is fast-tracked and it happens but not this five, six month dilemma that the County is going through now; it is like being in an intensive ward unit at the hospital waiting for this thing to happen; the sellers want to sell and the County has the funds; and the County just needs to put it out there on the street and it will be shocked with the response it will get.
Commissioner Colon inquired if Mr. Sarro did not hear when it was explained how the EEL Program works regarding the fact that the Board has to strictly stay away from that process; the Board has no say in that matter; that is why there is a Selection Committee; and the Board’s hands are tied. She advised that is exactly what the process is and the Board has to respect that; and inquired if Mr. Sarro would elaborate more regarding the banks.
Mr. Sarro stated when a property is going to be financed, what is normal is it is considered for purchase, and put on contract subject to several things; one of those things is financing; financing is determined based on an appraisal the bank is going to ask for; and the bank will know what the cost is to have the property appraised. He stated the bank will say it needs maybe $22 million; maybe someone wants to build a small subdivision with 1,100 homes with some common area and retail; the bank will hire an appraiser from a pool of certified appraisers; and if it comes back close to the contract value the bank will move ahead. He stated typically on raw land it is 60% to 75% in today’s market; the value is determined independently on what the seller or buyer thinks; and that is where the County can begin its process. He advised that is the key component of what happens when it is just land that someone else owns and
it is brought to the Board by staff for consideration. He inquired how it gets there; and stated that is what the Board needs to look at. He stated staff has the burden of finding a property, or EEL is looking at it, they have to go find it; they are the ones that should
be advertising in general for submissions for property to be submitted for consideration; and no one knows this is going on and all of a sudden there is a meeting on if the property should be bought or not.
Commissioner Nelson stated this has been going on since 1990 so he does not think it is a case of nobody knowing what is going on. Mr. Sarro advised it has been going on since 1990 but up until recently the Board has not had the conflict and it has not had proponents disputing common logic. Commissioner Nelson stated this is a very strict process; what Mr. Sarro has described is not what goes on; but there has been so much misinformation that Mr. Sarro has thrown out that he does not know if he could correct it all. He advised Mr. Sarro heard from the scientists who spoke earlier; and staff does not go out and do this. He inquired does it qualify for the Program; stated that is the first question that gets answered; if it does not qualify for the Program it does not even get considered; it does go through a lengthy process; and he does not want people to believe that what Mr. Sarro described is what is going on as it is not even close. Mr. Sarro stated he is doing it based on summaries of appraisals that were offered for the Board’s consideration as the justified price. Commissioner Nelson stated Mr. Sarro is suggesting that the Board is taking the seller’s appraiser; and the Board is not doing that, and has never done that. Mr. Sarro stated the three appraisals he read were addressed to the people that were suggesting the purchase. Commissioner Nelson advised he was misinformed; and suggested Mr. Sarro sit down. Commissioner Nelson stated it is a disservice for anyone to suggest that the Board is not following State law; County policy is more stringent; he does not want people to think that what he or she just heard is actually what the process is; and it is not even close to that. Chairman Scarborough stated the Board will have an opportunity to talk about the process; and hopefully people will stay tuned.
Suzanne Valencia stated EEL money cannot be used for other things; one person mentioned land may become available later that could be picked up at a better price; maybe it is not even land that is good for that; so that idea should be forgotten. She stated the previous speaker said it should be advertised that the County wants to buy land; inquired what would that do to the price; and stated people think the prices are bad now. She inquired after the Board finds out what the appraisal process is all about where it will go from there; further inquired if it will move forward then when it sees this appraisal process has been going forward just as it should; and stated she believes that it does. She inquired how much the repeat appraisals cost the Program. She stated it has been brought up that the land is being purchased above the appraisal price; inquired why the Thousand Islands were purchased at 358% above the appraisal price; and stated the Board voted for that and it cannot tell her that it is concerned about the price because she does not believe it. She stated The Nature Conservancy deserves a lot of credit; The Nature Conservancy is a very credible guy’s agent for the citizens; it negotiates the best it can; and Scottsmoor was negotiated lower than the appraisal price. She stated a lot of these items are like smoking mirrors; inquired where does it go
from here; stated the Board will find out the appraisal process is proceeding as it is suppose to; the appraisals come from a State certified list of appraisers; and this business of questioning who is this guy and who is that guy is a lot of nonsense.
Robert Day, with the Indian River Lagoon Program, stated that Kim Zarillo, Rocky Randels, Paul Schmalzer, and others have made most of his points; the EEL Program is a worthy program that certainly has a process in place that has operated for sometime and has worked quite well; echoing Ms. Zarillo’s comments, that it is certainly worth a look at this today to discuss these issues to work through them to discover whatever issues there may be to implement corrective measures, whatever those may be, and to proceed on; there are so many valuable properties as the Board heard earlier on today; and these need to be acquired. He stated there is a benefit to the Indian River Lagoon; there is a benefit to
Don George stated he did not come to the meeting today to speak but after discussing it with Paul Schmalzer he decided to speak. He advised he works for the Air Force at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station; the Air Force is part of the big three of Scrub Jay Habitat on the planet; they do a lot of work for Scrub Habitat Restoration; being a federal agency they fall under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act; and they are under a lot more scrutiny than the rest of the world. He stated it does impact the Air Force’s mission on Cape Canaveral; there is a big problem with encroachment like Patrick Air Force Base and the houses south of there that were built on Tortoise Island and now those homeowners complain about noise from aircraft. He stated Banana River Naval Air Station was here since 1942; people move in and it causes problems for DOD to do its mission; as a result the DOD has come up with a program called Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative; and installations can put in for money to acquire lands adjacent to those installations to prevent encroachment. He stated Cape Canaveral Air Force Station does not have a lot of land adjacent to it since it is on the Banana River and Atlantic Ocean; encroachment comes in a number of different forms; and one of those is encroachment on the mission as a result of trying to preserve Scrub Jay habitat on the Installation. He advised the Installation is only 15,800 acres; over 9,000 of those acres are considered to be Scrub Jay habitat or potential of; and a person can see quickly how that might encroach on the Air Force’s ability to do the mission. He stated he submitted a proposal last year; he did not bring copies of that as he did not know he would be speaking; but it may help the Board in the future for $2.5 million for 5 years to acquire land. He advised this proposal went up through the food chain; 45th Space Wing is directly accountable to Air Force Space Command; it liked the project from a natural resources perspective; the mission support aspect is strong enough to justify Rippy Funds; regardless if it is approved by Rippy, it will pursue dollars internal to Air Force Space Command and Air Force matching funds; and they have asked him to go out and find matching fund so the Air Force can participate in land acquisition. He stated it would fit in well with the EEL Program. He stated with a point of contact The Nature Conservancy may or may not buy land immediately adjacent to or in
in this; the taxpayers are not alone in it; there is a movement afoot with DOD and within the 45th Space Wing, and the Air Force in
Commissioner Nelson inquired if that would be to allow additional development of the Air Force Station or in other words is that the mitigation offset to additional development; with Mr. George responding there is a program within U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service called Endangered Species Recovery Credit; and stated it is published in the Federal Registry. Commissioner Nelson inquired if the Air Force wants to develop another pad and is it going to take Scrub habitat then it would have to offset that by mitigating and acquiring land elsewhere that preserves Scrub habitat; and stated he cannot imagine the Air Force being just nice guys and wanting to go out and buy Scrub. Mr. George advised the Air Force is nice guys and it does want to do that. Commissioner Nelson inquired if the Air Force is going out and buying Scrub. Mr. George responded the Air Force has the biological opinion with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and it compensates for lands that it develops on the Air Force Station by restoring habitat that currently is not occupied by Scrub Jays and has been overgrown; stated fire suppression on the Cape is a big deal with all of the fuel storage areas; it does prescribed burns; but it does not have to do that. He stated he grew up in
Chairman Scarborough stated he has one more speaker card; the Board apologizes as it has sandwiches; rather than a person having to wait, the Board is eating while it watches the movie.
David Sinton stated he came today because he has been watching the ongoing issues with the EEL purchases for two months on Space Coast Government Television; and a few minutes ago a speaker stood up and said that there were not any Scrub Jays in the northern properties. He stated he had the privilege two weeks ago at the Space Coast Birding Festival of attending a seminar and then a field trip with the folks who are managing the Scrub Jays on the Air Force base; they showed a very interesting analysis of Brevard County; and it shows that property in Northern Brevard having the highest potential for Scrub Jays. He stated by looking at the entire piece of property, the analysis and presentation that was done at Space Coast Birding Festival shows red and solid red in the property that the County did not purchase a couple of weeks ago, he was surprised that the issue did not even seem to come up during the Board’s previous discussions; those are valuable properties; and it should be looked at for the long-term potential for Scrub Jay. He stated he has been a student of land value for almost 40 years now since he was a research assistant at the Harvard Graduate School of Design studying the value of land and modeling the value of land; he has been hearing people say his or her property has been going down in value over the last two years; but that is nothing to do with the 100 acres of land. He advised at the moment there are probably close to 5,000 properties on the market in
only a few properties left and he is not sure exactly how many there are; he tried to find out a couple of days ago and there are probably less than 1,000 parcels left in Brevard County that have more than 1,000 acres of land in them; it is a very limited market; and it is a market where people who own that land can hold on to it. Mr. Sinton noted they are not people who are trying to sell a quarter-acre property with a house on it; there are a lot of people saying the appraisal process is flawed because the big parcels of land that EEL wants to buy are not going down in value at a time when his or her homes are going down in value; and that is a flawed argument. He stated that is different markets for small house lots and large pieces of properties. He stated the Board realized as it went through second appraisals that there were marginal changes; and there were not real significant drops like the 15% to 20% drop that a person has seen in the value of a quarter-acre parcel. He stated if the Board wants to buy those properties it is going to have to pay those values; he knows people who cannot sell his or her homes; but that is not the same real estate market.
Chairman Scarborough stated the Board is taking a five-minute break; and when it gets back it will get into the presentation discussion; he encouraged the Board to interrupt when something comes up that he or she is interested in as sometimes it is easy to address it during the presentation.
The meeting recessed at 12:45 p.m. and reconvened at 12:55 p.m.
LAND ACQUISITION POLICY, RE: APPRAISAL PROCESS
Commissioner Colon stated one gentleman said that only homes or residential properties went down and that commercial has not; she begs to differ; and that is why there is a workshop today. She stated the last transaction helped the Board a little; it has been trying to have this workshop for a long time; and not just for the EEL Program but regarding how does the County do its appraisals and acquire land. She stated one of the appraisals did not go down a penny; the other appraiser came back with a lower appraisal; things need to be put into perspective; folks at home are confused; and a person can imagine how it is for the Board to have two appraisals off by that much. She stated $2 million is nothing to sneeze at; this is not only about the EEL Program; she wants to know how Parks and Recreation and Road and Bridge does its acquisition of land; the community wants to know exactly how did the County get here; and the last speaker kind of put things into perspective by saying things are really the same, but they really are not.
Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff stated in preparing for the workshop today staff thought that it would be appropriate to talk about appraisals first as that is probably where a lot of the attention has been focused for some time; following that staff will focus on the actual process that it goes through for land acquisition; and that process uses appraisals as a tool or as part of a function of acquiring the property. He advised a question came up during Public Comment regarding how the County secures appraisals; for the Land Acquisition Program in Transportation Engineering
Department, the way that it does that is that it advertises publicly after having Board authorization to do so; it solicits interested appraisers who are qualified to respond to it and submit his or her qualifications for review; and staff selects from those for continuing appraisal services. Mr. Denninghoff advised that is spelled out by State Statute and is required for staff to do that; otherwise it would have to advertise for each individual parcel and that would be extremely costly to do that; and staff selects a pool of appraisers who form those appraisal services for it. He stated he recognizes that some appraisers have more experience or less experience in different types of appraisals and often times he will guide those appraisers for a project or acquisition towards a particular appraiser over another; staff never tells the appraisers what the value of the property is; and it is his or her function to perform. He advised Appraiser Bob Sutte was present early to make a presentation but he had to leave; Appraiser Paul Roper is present from the firm of Clayton, Roper, and Marshall; he is one of the County’s continuing appraisers; he is also on the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) list for appraiser’s to provide appraisal services; Mr. Roper has done some EEL acquisition appraisals in additional to what Transportation Engineering Department has asked him to do; and he is going to discuss the appraisal process. He stated after Mr. Roper has finished his presentation staff will go into its Power Point presentation.
Appraiser Paul Roper of Clayton, Roper, and Marshall stated he has been an appraiser in the community throughout Central Florida for almost 35 years; typically an appraiser is a dedicated individual for that one particular type of real estate service; he also does real estate brokerage and occasionally will do some leasing; but for the most part the group of people he is familiar with is on the approved list from DEP for FDOT. He advised those on the list available for the Board to select from are dedicated to the industry and have multiple years of experience; most of the appraisers have written articles on specific valuation techniques, such as Intermuse properties, the value of the different types of easements, and division distribution of rights; and he makes it a point to educate others. He noted he taught at
been utilized in conjunction with assignments that are typically done in the Brevard County area, whether it is done for eminent domain purposes, road widening projects, acquisition for a water retention pond, or for the EEL Program; the appraisers are heavily governed so he or she have rules and requirements to abide by; so appraisers are different from others as not everybody will think the same thing. He advised there are
certain circumstances where one appraiser specializes in the valuation of residential
properties or condominiums; he or she would all like to think the they are the best in any area of the industry; that is not necessarily true; he or she could specialize in the Environmentally Endangered Lands or eminent domain as he or she gets so much of that type of work that they become accustomed to it and find a niche; and maybe he or she may not have a real good handle in the single-family residential department. He stated all of the appraisers on the County’s list have a MAI designation; they are also governed by the Appraiser Institute, which has its own governing requirements, rules and regulations, and continuing education processes; in order to achieve that level of designation it requires anywhere between five to ten years of service underneath a professional appraiser; in addition to the course requirements it is also necessary for that trainee to go through the sequence of the course requirements and demonstration of appraisal reports as well as experience requirements; so the County is not just choosing someone who might be familiar with the real estate appraisal industry, but is dealing with someone who has devoted a large segment of his or her professional career in education alone as well as the requirements for obtaining the designations in continuing education and governments by multiple agencies.
Commissioner Colon inquired at what level does someone step in and say an appraiser has not been doing his or her job; and further inquired what criteria is used to determine if an appraisal is done correctly. Mr. Roper responded appraisers are governed by peers, much like doctors or attorneys, and the general public. He stated if the Board believes an appraisal report has been submitted to the County that is inaccurate for reasons that would imply negligence or something like that, then all it has to do is drop a line to the Real Estate Appraisal Board or the Department of Businesses and Professionals, just like any other industry; that person is then notified that there has been a complaint lodged against them; and he or she will have to defend that. He advised the Real Estate Appraisal Board will have another appraiser review the circumstances and in writing submit his or her findings as to whether or not the complaint had merit; and it will just go on from there. He stated the general public is entitled to file a complaint on a real estate appraiser if he or she believes there is an issue or someone has either by biases or are not complying with the uniform standards of professional appraisal practice.
Commissioner Colon inquired how often, if ever, has that been done; with Mr. Roper responding it is done on a daily basis. Mr. Roper stated he has reviewed a number of appraisal reports over the years on behalf of the Florida Real Estate Board. He stated the odds are one in many hundreds of thousands that the Board would have someone speak to it with the qualifications of Dennis Basile, who was the original Chairman for the Real Estate Appraisal Board in the State of Florida, lives near Merritt Island, and worked for Bob Houha for many years; Mr. Basile actually testified the last time this issue was
heard; and it was a real benefit to the County to have Mr. Basile come up and say something. Mr. Roper stated the minimum requirements to be an appraiser for the County includes the FDOT; the FDOT and supplemental guidelines, which are very stringent and have to be as all of the appraisals have to be in accord with certain standards and are all governed by State law. He stated it is a legal requirement for Brevard County to hire a real estate appraiser in an eminent domain action, as well as for the EEL Program or any multiple number of appraisal requests; it is up to the appraiser to insure that his or her client, in this case Brevard County, is well taken care of and all of the work that is done on behalf of the County is done in accordance with State Statutes; the EEL appraiser’s are governed not only by standards of the industry but also DEP; he or she does not just handle environmental sensitive lands; and DEP is found in many different property classification types ranging from submerged lands, lake bottoms, and Indian River submerged lands. He advised there is the Miami Intermodal Project, where multiple, different transportation types of vehicles are brought in; the DEP is careful as it has what is known as a contract list and it has a complete list of people who would be certified and available to do work for DEP; Brevard County EEL Program adheres to that list; those appraisers are from throughout the State; but mostly the appraisers are from across the Central Florida Belt, as far north as Flagler County, and as far south as St. Lucie County as there is other market areas that are differentiated because of economic conditions throughout the State. He advised the types of lands involved in the EEL Program are usually very large acreage tracts; there are a multiple number of buyers for those large acreage tracts but they are regional if not Statewide; and there are a relatively few number of buys within a given region that would be capable of coming up with the many millions of dollars that are required in order to buy those types of properties and hold on to them for any length of time, much less hold them and then hire engineers and go through the development process over a series of years. He stated the types of lands that the EEL Program is seeking are sought after by regional buyers; people from Tampa, Orlando, Daytona Beach, Ormond Beach, and there is so much investment interest brought in today by the British or people from other countries where there is a slight difference in the value of the dollar; even the Canadian dollar is on par with the United States dollar at this point in time; and there is a tremendous amount of energy to purchase lands of this caliber throughout the State of Florida as the confidence level in the future value of the dollar and the stability and the understanding that real estate in the State of Florida has constantly increased or escalated over a period of time. He noted there have been slight dips in the economy; some may affect a land parcel of that size; but for the most part, 18 months from now no one will ever recognize there was a blip as land is increasing in scarcity because each subsequent development leaves less available land. He stated anytime there is an increase in a scarce commodity, such as land, there will be a general increase in price structure; there is a close knit formula that is very scientific to approach those values; there has to be certain criteria understood in order to approach these final value estimates much like a checklist and getting back to the uniform standards of professional appraisal practices; there will be deviations as it is not a mechanized process and it is not a calculated final value estimate; and it is an opinion of value. He advised the reason a value will go down on a certain property classification is because that appraiser
thinks that is the way the perspective purchasers and sellers are viewing it; in the big picture he or she may not be right on the money; it could be that they developed a range of value to begin with and there has not been any evidence of downward activity; and he or she would still be within the range of unit values. He stated there may not have been an adjustment for depreciated market conditions at this point in time; when an appraisal is done it is done for that moment of time; someone brought up the fact that there were multiple appraisals done and many thousands of dollars spent for those multiple appraisals; but in the past two or three years there has been such an escalating market that it was extremely hard to follow. He stated there would have to be a stable market before having a stable number of real estate appraisers; they are sought after because of changing market conditions that are perceived by a client, Brevard County, the EEL Program, or by those who buy eminent domain services; when the market stabilizes, a small community in Georgia would not have multiple appraisals like the EEL Program in Brevard County; it is not near as volatile as far as market conditions; but if the Board wants a reasonable and accurate value, it will only get that one time as it will deviate the very next day. He stated it may or may not deviate in two weeks, a month, or a year from that point, but if it is perceived by a client that market conditions have affected a value, whether it has or has not another appraisal report will be ordered; in addition to ordering another appraisal report, there are certain laws that require an eminent domain action reports be brought current prior to the Order of Taking; and otherwise the appraisal is subject to dismissal by the judge as it is not current; there are some requirements for the necessity for updating appraisal reports. He advised there are some requirements for the necessity for updating appraisal reports; not all values are a fact; and the values are an opinion. He noted the Board wants to be able to employ those appraisers whose opinion it respects; the way to do that is to go through the process just like it has done to select those who are pre-qualified; and others have paid many hundreds of dollars to find these qualified people. He stated regarding the appraisal process itself, the due diligence employed by the appraiser would be legal considerations, including zoning and land uses, jurisdictional wetlands, all of the protected species such as Scrub Jay, Gopher Tortoise, Bald Eagles, Sand Skinks, and environmental conditions such as contamination and or/landfills; all of that criteria goes into the physical inspection and legal criteria; and all of these appraisals are conducted based upon the definition of market value; it used to be known as the most probable price but it can also be understood to be the highest price that the property is obtainable; that property is likely to bring in an open market between a willing buyer and willing seller, each acting prudently and in his or her own best interest; neither party is acting under any undue stimuli; and that is the definition of market value and that is what he is seeking to achieve. He advised he is not concerned about motivations beyond that definition of market value; he is fully cognizant that there are people who would love to have the property emotionally; there are people who were very reluctant to sell property because of his or her emotions; those people have become extremely attached to the real estate; and economics are not always a consideration between the buyers and sellers but it most certainly is for the appraiser. He stated the appraiser’s responsibility is to look beyond the buyer’s expectations and the seller’s expectations; the appraiser wants to look at what the market would be doing and if it fits that criteria; appraisers have a responsibility to find a final value estimate as of a specified date in accordance
with that definition of market value; they go through the highest and best use process, make a determination as to what is legally permissible, what is physically possible, what is economically feasible, and the most probable use of the land; that may or may not coincide with what the EEL Program has in mind or may not correspond with the
County’s intended use; but none the less appraisers go through the same criteria in accordance with uniform standards of professional practice, and make the understanding of highest and best use, which establishes a predicate for value. Mr. Roper advised once that the predicate value is established, the appraiser will then recognize the types of sales activities that it needs to look at in the general market as it is now known that those have to be substitutes for the property being appraised. He stated an appraiser will look at a sale that would be similar in terms of its physical characteristics, legal characteristics, economic characteristics, and most likely use characteristics; if it meets those four criteria and is a relatively current sale, similar in terms of size and perhaps would not acquire adjustments; and the appraiser will bring that into the analysis. He advised it is the responsibility of the appraiser to also ascertain whether or not the property has ever been listed on the market, what it is listed for, who listed it, how was it marketed, and whether or not there were any offers; the appraiser looks at the history of every property he or she appraises; he or she knows when the property last sold, what it sold for, what were the circumstances, if it was an arms-length transaction; and an appraiser will know what changes have been made to the property subsequent to its initial sale before rendering the final value estimate on the updated appraisal. He stated an appraiser would need to know where competitive properties are available and how much they are available for as he or she wants to know what the ceiling is on the particular property classification; all of the analysis goes into the thought process; there is going to be differences between the sales and the property being appraised; and he or she will adjust for those differences such as a land use plan. He advised one is vested with something that the other does not have; there may be the availability of public water or sewer; the appraiser will try to make adjustments in order to equate those sales to the property being appraised; and then to include that with a solid, confident final unit of value range. He stated once an appraiser gets to that final unit value range, he or she seeks out a point of value estimate; the point of value estimate is going to come from that individual appraiser; but the unit value range property will be developed by any multiple numbers of appraisers. He noted the point value eventually comes from that individual; depending on his or her background, education, expectations of future benefits, what he or she believes employment will do, what he or she thinks that will happen here with the Space Program, and all of the things that a person reads in the newspaper every day that makes everyone individuals; and that is the point he or she will put a point value estimate on the property.
Commissioner Colon advised she was sitting next door eating her salad so she did not want Mr. Roper to think she did not catch the beginning of what he said. She stated her comfort level is not any better. She stated Mr. Roper talked about the differences regarding the moment in time; she is not present just to discuss the EEL Program; she is interested in land acquisition in the Parks and Recreation and Road and Bridge Departments also; and she is present as an elected official trying to understand exactly
how land acquisition works in the County. She stated 18 months ago when an appraiser came before the Board and gave it a particular figure, that was exactly what the market
was; it was a high number; and it is very scary when discussing criteria, deviation, and the opinion of value. Commissioner Colon noted when those numbers come back it is not the fault of a particular director; and it puts the directors in an awkward position. She commented on the close to $2 million difference in the one appraisal. She stated she does not think there is much accountability in the end; she was not convinced that there is any kind of accountability; and the Board had to tell the community that the appraisal is off by $2 million. She stated in the past few years the County has had a market that no one would have ever expected; inquired what a stable market is; and no one knows if it is going to continue to drop. She stated there was property on
Mr. Roper stated the County is his client and he has reported to the Board; there are a number of reasons why there are differences in an appraiser’s opinion; he is not sure where the $2 million is in relationship to the total property value; and it may be significant or it may not be significant. He noted the Board has a system in place where if there is a large disagreement that person is the Board’s review appraiser, which is embedded into the EEL Program process; that appraiser then should be capable of making the determination whether something got left out or something was not considered between one appraiser and the other thus initiating the mechanical systems of the appraisal process to start tightening to get to that developed range that he talked about earlier; there is a large sophisticated system in place through that review process if it is done correctly; and he thinks it has been done correctly. He advised that process can be supplemented slightly if the Board chooses to do so in order to eliminate any types of confusion that it might have on those values in the future; he was hoping that the appraisal process and the supplemental review would tighten these understandings or values enough so that there would not be a great disparity in the appraisals as any omissions or anything that someone did not quite readily understand in the process should have been closed by the reviewer. He stated people are entitled to an opinion; if there is a wide gap in a situation like that then someone is adamant one way or the other and there is nothing wrong with that as there is no answer to the real value of property;
an appraisal is just that, an opinion; and it is not a fact so the Board’s skepticism with regard to the appraisal is property directly related to the uncertainty about the economy and in the real estate industry in particular.
Commissioner Colon stated at this particular time when the Board was pushing EEL to hurry up and buy as it only had X amount of dollars and the Board wanted to get its money’s worth; the pressure was then put on the EEL Program; and inquired how was
the Board supposed to know the economy was going to be going nuts the way it did. She inquired who gives the Board advice on the fact that the market is not stable and the County is still in danger of making the wrong decision as far as the acquisition. She stated that is where it becomes difficult, not only for EEL but for other departments as well; that is what the Board is trying to figure out when it is safe; the Board is not the expert and does not have the background and years of education that Mr. Roper has; but it is quite scary on this end.
Mr. Roper stated the Board did an excellent job because it found out through reading the newspaper and by personal observations that there was uncertainty in the market; and that the County has a huge purchase coming up by EEL. He stated the Board ordered appraisal updates at that point in time; it has done its due diligence an employed people who are responsible for making those determinations; those determinations are going to vary but none the less the system was in place and it is not broken; and it is an excellent system. He noted his opinion is for the Board to go through something like a ten-point program for the review so that there is better communication between the Board and the Clerk’s Office so that some of these confrontations and to eliminate uncertainties prior to getting it before the general public.
Commissioner Colon stated Mr. Roper also agreed that perception is everything; when there are two appraisers whose paperwork practically seemed like there was plagiarism involved; and at that point tried to tell the community that everything is fine. She inquired how can the Board sit there as elected officials and still feel that confidence based on something of that magnitude; stated the Board felt comfortable with the price because it was low and it felt it was definitely watching out for taxpayers dollars; and inquired when there are two appraiser’s practically looking like there is plagiarism who does the Board report that to. She advised someone needs to be held accountable for that as the Board is having to make decisions on millions and millions of dollars; she does not blame the citizens for not trusting the Board because look what has come to the surface; when talking about the emotional part of this there are folks who would prefer the Board to stay quiet and not to rock the boat; if the Commissioners keep his or her mouth shut he or she is part of the problem; and the five Board members are in a very awkward position as there are some Board members who are extremel champions of the environment and would want to make sure that those dollars are being spent correctly. She advised the Board is not responsible for these appraisers; and inquired how Mr. Roper would answer her regarding that particular scenario when the Board is so uncomfortable with these two appraisers.
Mr. Roper responded the Board should have been uncomfortable; it was brought up by the Clerk’s Office that there was a degree of plagiarism that had taken place; and it has not been ignored beyond the client relationship, meaning the appraisal and the County. He advised that has already been addressed but there was not necessarily a direct violation of Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice; the Board does have
cooperation amongst appraiser’s; the Board just does not have dropped plagiarism from another’s report, not the documents; this is wrong; and while he is not in charge of the real Estate Appraisal Board he can say it is being reviewed in some form or fashion right
now in a matter of progress. He stated that item was brought up by the Clerk’s Office; it was embarrassing for the industry that it actually occurred; the Board sought another independent review; and at that point in time is where the actual governing of the two appraisal’s had taken place and the differences were understood. He stated that would have happened before the final submission of those appraisals; there never would have between an issue brought before the Clerk’s Office or the Board; the Board catches that stuff at the review point and it already has that system in place; and that was an error, it was brought up by the Clerk’s Office, and it was addressed. He advised he has some additional supplemental guidelines that he would probably have the reviewer do, which he does not necessarily need to go through today, but there are some things that people can do that would avoid future conflicts over values and misunderstandings of how the appraisal process is done; and he would be happy to talk to the Board right now if it wants him to.
County Manager Peggy Busacca inquired would it be more helpful once the Board understands what the process is for EEL’s so it can see at what point in the process its recommendations would come into play or would that matter; with Mr. Roper suggesting that the Board listen to the process that the EEL Program has first as he is talking about adding some duties and responsibilities to another individual, the County’s review appraiser who is already on board, and has been hired for this purpose. Ms. Busacca stated she wants to see if this can be put into context to help the Board; and the presentation should go back to staff before the Board hears Mr. Roper’s recommendations.
LAND ACQUISITION POLICY, RE: TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
ACQUISITION PROCESS
Transportation Engineering Director John Denninghoff stated that did come up during the public comment about meeting with the property owners; inquired if the standards for appraisal work indicate that an appraiser is either required to meet with the property owner or at least attempt to meet with the property owner to ascertain whatever information regarding the property that can be answered. Mr. Roper responded appraisers will make phone calls and write certified letters to owners, especially in eminent domain actions or any of the requirements that the County has for acquisitions; stated it is necessary to meet with the property owners as the appraiser wants the input; he or she needs to know whether the owner has had it for sale, how long, who it was marketed with, what were the circumstances, what did the owner do to the property,
what the owner thinks about land planning, what does he or she think about zoning, where is water, and where is sewer; and an appraiser will learn so much information. He advised it can be used as a tool to begin the Board’s analysis and process.
Mr. Denninghoff stated staff has actually been criticized and complaints have been issued from property owners if the appraiser fails to contact the property owner in a timely manner; the appraiser is supposed to contact the property owner; and it is one of the parts of the process for appraisal work. Commissioner Nelson stated the indication
was that it was wrong or illegal. Mr. Denninghoff advised it is actually preferred; the property owner does not have to meet with the appraiser; he or she may chose to or not to; it is a free country; so the property owner does not have to meet with the appraiser, but it is preferred. He advised he is going to begin with the land acquisition process;
some comments were already made that he was going to make; he is going to overview the process; as far as the home purchase he did want to talk a little bit about that so the Board can see a little bit of the stark differences that exist between what staff has experienced when it comes to land acquisition as opposed to what is done in the public sector when acquiring property; and it is very, very different. He stated in addition to that staff will go into what it does for the public sector, including the use of eminent domain and the difference between that and voluntary acquisition activities; and when he finishes, Environmentally Endangered Lands Manager Mike Knight will go over the EEL Program aspect of it. He stated in a private home purchase he wants the Board to understand how quickly it moves and who is involved in the process. He stated in the process of acquiring a home there are two things to start with that are very important; two independent individuals are siding that one wants to sell a piece of property; and it is listed to a real estate agent; it can be put up for sale by owner but usually goes through the real estate agent; and independent of that, a buyer who is interested in that parcel, or may be interested in that, has decided he or she wants to consider a piece of property. He advised a very willing seller will put his or her property on the market and will say how much they want to sell it for; the buyer is aware of that when he starts out and considers it; he or she is looking at the entire market; they are looking at all of the houses that are kind of similar to what they want to purchase and they finally select a home; once a home is selected a person puts in an offer on that property; and it must be done in writing. He stated if the price is less than what the seller has listed the property for, the seller has an opportunity to counter offer or just say no; the seller is able to reject or accept and offer; and it is based upon a person’s own private opinion regarding what the value of the property is and it is done very quickly. He noted sometimes overnight a person will go from nobody inquiring to having a signed contract at a dollar value that the owner and buyer have decided is appropriate; that is the negotiation process; the only person that really kind of knows what is going on is the real estate agent who is under obligation not to disclose a lot of this information; and the buyer and seller do not really know what is going on with each other. He stated an appraisal is not even required in a private transaction unless there is a mortgage; then it is the mortgage company or bank that is going to require an appraisal; it is between the buyer and seller as to the value of the property; and the private process does not involve the public in any way. He stated if the purchase is closed and the transaction is disclosed and recorded in the public
records, then the public knows what the transaction was about at that point in time. Mr. Denninghoff stated it is very different than what the Board will see here; he has put right-of-way purchases up here; and it could be anything from a library, fire house, courthouse, and/or road right-of-way for a road project that he gets involved with quite a bit. He advised first there is a public process that is under taken where a project gets selected; it is advertised on television, newspaper advertisements, and everyone understands what is going on; anyone who is interested in the project is able to be aware of what is going on; the design of the project then gets underway; and it is open to the public records. He advised this is a process that the Board has to approve in both cases; staff does not go out and select a project and just go do it; the Board has to approve the project; the Board has to approve the budgeting for the project; the revenue stream, if it does not already exist, has to come into existence through the Board as it conducts business in the public square so to speak; and then it is advertised again. He stated the actual appraisal process and negotiations are not a public function; it is actually exempted from public records and government in the Sunshine-type information for a brief period of time; it will eventually come back to the Board; and it will come out to the public for review. He stated it is kind of private; if the Board decides to, if negotiations are not successful, it can exercise eminent domain then go to court; and that decision is made in public again by the Board. He stated even if it goes to court a judge determines what the value of the property is when going through eminent domain; ultimately it comes back to the Board; and the Board is very involved in the process. He advised when looking at the outline or flow chart of the EEL process the big thing is where it says BCC approval at the bottom; it does not mean it is not being reviewed and approved; it is a private process and not disclosed to the public; and the market is between willing buyer and willing seller. He stated the project approval or selection process could be through the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), a member of the public, or a member of staff who identifies a project that needs to be undertaken; Board approval is required; if it is a large project the consultant has to be selected and approved by the Board; and then that consultant is going to begin looking at project alternatives. He noted when it comes to the use of eminent domain it is an important step and is a requirement so staff has to look at alternatives. He stated following that staff has a preliminary engineering process that starts; it typically may identify right-of-way or properties that would be required for the project; and if the Board is comfortable with what it is trying to acquire it could enter into early voluntary acquisition. He emphasized the word voluntary; at this stage it is too early to begin the eminent domain process for a lot of reasons including legal, property rights protection, and financial as well; the design process would continue on; when it gets down to 90% or greater completed the Board can go on to the point of eminent domain if it was the Board’s decision or go to voluntary acquisition; and the owner is the one who really makes the determination as to which of those occurs. He noted the owner does not have to sell the County the property unless it goes through the eminent domain process; it does not have to close at that point; the real question is what is the value; not until after all of the right-of-ways acquired does the County go to construction if it is a construction project; and the entire acquisition process has to be completed before the Board would do that. He stated that is a very important feature; and the County does not trespass on people’s
property. He advised he wants to go over the voluntary acquisition process. Mr. Denninghoff stated the first thing to do is contact the owner to let he or she know that the County is interested in the piece of property; if the owner seems to be receptive to it, the appraisal process would begin; the Board is involved in that and provides authorization and funding for it; and an offer would be made to the owners assuming that everything is determined all right with the appraisal. He stated the offer is then made; the property owner may decline as it is a voluntary process; if the owner accepts the offer it would go eventually to the Board for approval; and once it is approved it will go forward to closing. He stated if the Board decides against it and say no then staff could go back to negotiations or it may just drop the project at that point as it is voluntary; if negotiations go on and the owner does not accept the initial offer staff may negotiate and go through quite protracted process; and eventually staff will get to a point where it may say this is it. He advised either an agreement will be reached or it will not; if the owner accepts at that point it would come back to the Board; if the owner does not accept the offer the Board can go to eminent domain; but he stressed the Board needs to know at the beginning of the process if it is going to go there as it makes a difference on some of the details on what it has to do. He stated the Statutes drive or control the framework associated with the entire process, including the appraisals; if the contract is over a certain dollar value and independent appraisal is required; if it is below that the Board could use a property appraiser assessed value; and if it is a donation the Board does not have to have an appraisal. He stated if the dollar figure for the contract goes over $500,000 then two appraisals are required, which automatically sort of throws the Board into this problem if it has differing opinions of value. He noted in the EEL process there is a way to kind of break that process; and he will let Mr. Knight talk about that. He advised he has a similar sort of process; it is a review appraisal and the gap can be closed with a simple review; and sometimes an additional appraisal is necessary but typically not. He advised if the property, again if the dollar figure for the contract is over $500,000 two appraisals have to be performed; if the contract amount is over the average of those two appraisals then the contract requires a super majority on the part of the Board in order to authorize the Chairman to execute the contract; it does not matter if it is one penny more than the average if it is just above average; in Brevard County’s case with the five-member Board it would require four commissioners to vote in favor of the contract; and staff provides review of the appraisal. He stated Holly Pardi is the Land Acquisition Supervisor; she goes through those quite a bit and sometimes annoys the appraisers; there are always good comments; and that is one of staff’s sort of checks and balances. He reiterated with large purchases the County has to have two appraisers; staff reviews it; if there is a big discrepancy after staff resolves any items that it had then a review appraiser is called in to perform a review of it; and staff typically likes for the appraisers to indicate to it which one is more reliable or if a value in between seems to be more reliable. He stated Board policy requires that at least one of the appraisals has to be an appraiser that was selected by the County, not by the seller, and staff follows that. He noted sometimes if it is a large tract, the owner wants to have his or her own independent appraisal; staff will allow them to do that to see what the results are; and sometimes they are surprising. He stated as far as Board policy is concerned, it comes to the Board if it is over $750,000; it then has to go to the Land Acquisition
Review Committee; the Committee is made up of Assistant County Manager Mel Scott, who basically chairs the Committee, Planning and Zoning Director Robin Sobrino, Permitting and Enforcement Director Ed Lyon, and an Assistant County Attorney; the purpose is essentially to review the appraisals and review the contract to see if there is anything that just does not smell right; and to try to find anything that does not seem to be appropriate or correct before staff brings it to the Board.
Commissioner Voltz inquired if Mr. Denninghoff gets an outside review appraisal or if it is just done in the office; with Mr. Denninghoff responding the Review Committee reviews internally; and stated if there are two appraisals and they are far apart, approximately 30% apart, an outside independent appraiser is hired to do that.
Mr. Denninghoff stated there were questions earlier regarding the cost of the appraisal work; appraisals typically run between $3,000 and $6,000 on a parcel; a large complex appraisal can go more than that; and review appraisals are a little bit less than that.
Commissioner Nelson inquired if the Land Acquisition Committee issues a report and does it make any recommendations; with Mr. Denninghoff responding no.
Mr. Denninghoff stated the appraisal is not open; it is exempt by State Statute; it is exempt from the public records access until approximately two weeks typically and sometimes it can be thirty days prior to the item being seen by the Board; and at that point it becomes public. He advised he prefers to have a meeting with the Land Acquisition Committee prior to that two week period of time because if they find something then he does not want to already be in a public involvement at that point. He stated the reason that is exempt from public records is because all of the process except for the negotiation aspect is open to the public; it becomes very apparent to any seller what is going on and what is desired on the part of the public; and it becomes an un-level playing field.
Chairman Scarborough stated in some of the acquisitions for the Chain of Lakes he had extensive conversations with Ms. Pardi to ask if an appraiser made an error; in one place the land was designated developable and the appraiser incorrectly thought a road was County maintained; it was verified through Road and Bridge Department; the appraiser was advised; and inquired if the type of checks are incorrect assumptions or
just a gut feeling. Mr. Denninghoff responded staff looks for errors and fact. Chairman Scarborough stated basically staff comes up with a factual issue and it can find out from other people that something is incorrect, go back to the appraiser, and tell them they made an error. Commissioner Nelson stated he has been there regarding the gut feeling like a person does not think he or she could get those number of units or something like that; on the flip side the Committee does not report and does not know what to do; and that is a real no mans land. Mr. Denninghoff stated it is difficult but he is
not sure how to solve that; protecting the confidentiality of the negotiation process is important; sometimes staff discloses information to the sellers because it believes it is going to enhance the ability to realize a completion of a transaction as a willing seller and as a willing buyer; but that is not always and that flexibility needs to be maintained. He stated if the Board wants to go back to an eminent domain sort of action it wants to be able to have control of that information; the Board needs to understand what is going on; it is highly technical and complicated; and some of it he does not understand and he has done it dozens of times. He stated it does become public when it comes before the Board. He advised there have been occasions when the Board has said no and staff has gone back and negotiated with the property owner and got a little better price from
them; there have also been occasions where staff has lost transactions as a result of a delay associated with it when the market was going crazy; no matter what is done, if there is an escalating market the appraisals cannot be changed fast as the market thinks that it is going up; and inquired when it is going down what is the Board going to do. He stated usually it is not known that the market has stopped going down until after it stopped and there is enough of a record of transactions that are out there to demonstrate that it has stopped going down; in fact, at that point it perhaps has started going back up; it is a very difficult circumstance and he hesitates to sort of complain about it; that is the way that the Statutes are set up; and that is the way the policy has been established. He noted the way policy has been established by the Board has functioned pretty well since the Sarno Landfill situation existed. He stated staff does not negotiate with an owner who is an owner under contract; staff negotiates with the owner of record specifically; the Board has the authority to waive that requirement; the requirement has been waived on occasion; but at that point staff knows who it is dealing with.
Chairman Scarborough stated that is a Sarno issue. Mr. Denninghoff stated it was the Sarno scenario; that scenario does exist; a person has a contract and he or she has rights to that property as long as the contract is still a valid contract; but the Board needs to understand the circumstances when it is involved with that. Commissioner Nelson stated disclosing the circumstances are the key to it. Mr. Denninghoff agreed. Commissioner Nelson stated there are times a road is being built, someone just bought the property, and now a right-of-way is needed. Mr. Denninghoff stated that is one of the things that slows staff down; the property records are looked at to see who the owner is so staff can talk to them; then staff finds out it has already been sold, not really sold but under contract to someone else; suddenly staff is dealing with an owner and another owner; and it is easy to sort of muck it up if a person is not careful.
Commissioner Colon stated to be clear this is a voluntary acquisition; and by Statute two appraisals are needed. Mr. Denninghoff advised if the contract is for $500,000 or more two appraisals are needed. Commissioner Colon inquired not the difference but if the contract amount is over $500,000; with Mr. Denninghoff reiterating if the contract is for $500,000 or more by Statute two appraisals is required. Commissioner Colon inquired does staff get those appraisals from a list that FDOT and the County goes by; with Mr. Denninghoff responding the appraisers that are used for Transportation Engineering
Department are selected basically every four years; it is an annual renewable contract for four years; staff goes through the selection process that is outlined by Statute; it is advertised; and then packages are submitted stating their qualifications. Mr. Denninghoff stated the Board authorizes staff to do this; those applications are reviewed; typically staff selects anywhere from five to seven appraisers; and those appraisers are for continuing appraisal services that would include review as well as appraisals. Commissioner Colon inquired if it is for four years; with Mr. Denninghoff responding yes; and stated staff is in the process of going through the selection process right now. Commissioner Colon inquired if staff picks two out of those seven; with Mr. Denninghoff responding that is correct. Mr. Denninghoff advised that is what is done in Transportation and Engineering; EEL has a little bit different process; but it is very similar.
Commissioner Colon inquired then when there is a discrepancy at that point by those two appraisers of an amount of over $700,000 does staff go out for review; with Mr. Denninghoff responding if it is more than a 30% discrepancy between those two values it goes out for review. Commissioner Colon inquired of those seven again or is it independent from those seven that are on the list; with Mr. Denninghoff responding currently the process would be one of the other of the seven so staff had two that did it, and then out of the five others would select one to do the appraisal; and stated what is being looked at now is to actually go through a selection process where staff has a group that does only the appraisals and another group that does only reviews.
County Manager Peggy Busacca inquired if the 30% is Board policy; with Mr. Denninghoff responding yes. Ms. Busacca inquired if the Board can choose to make that greater or less; with Mr. Denninghoff responding yes. Commissioner Colon inquired at what point does the Land Acquisition Committee come in; with Mr. Denninghoff responding when the contract is for $750,000 or more. Commissioner Colon inquired above $750,000; with Mr. Denninghoff responding the total contract. Mr. Denninghoff stated if the parcel is going to cost $750,000 or higher the Committee is provided with the information to look at and then they meet; the Committee asks questions and staff tries to answer them; and if staff is still comfortable they will bring it before the Board. Commissioner Colon inquired still with two appraisals being done on the property; with Mr. Denninghoff responding at $750,000 staff would have at least two appraisals and it may have a review appraisal as well. Commissioner Colon inquired may or do; with Mr. Denninghoff responding staff may. Mr. Denninghoff stated if the two appraisals that were performed are close to one another then staff would not go to review appraisals because they were close enough to agreement with one another to where there is
nothing really to resolve necessarily; there are circumstances where staff would do a review appraisal, which is sometimes required for particularly associated with funding; and then staff would have perhaps a review appraisal regardless of the dollar figure.
Commissioner Colon stated there is a process for over $500, which are two appraisers; if there is over a 30% difference in appraisals, a review appraisal will be done; and if there is a piece of property that is over $750,000 there will be two appraisers plus the
Land Acquisition Committee sees it. Mr. Denninghoff stated that is correct. Commissioner Colon inquired if there is still a discrepancy there is still an opportunity for there to be a third in regards to view; that third comes in based on the recommendation of the Land Acquisition Committee; and further inquired who determines that. Mr. Denninghoff responded the way it has worked for him as a Director of Transportation Engineering he takes the Review Committee’s recommendations very seriously; he works with the appraisers and tries to get any questions answered; sometimes they are individual and sometimes they are adamant about the opinion as to the value and will not budge; ordinarily staff does not lean on them to change their opinion; and staff tries to explain any facts that it thinks they may have overlooked or have misidentified to see if that changes their opinion regarding the value. Commissioner Colon stated these are the minimum; and inquired what the maximum is. She stated the things get a little more stringent once the amount goes higher; inquired at what point is there something that is going to be above $10 million; does that take a totally different scenario or is it the same
process; and further inquired could it be 10, 20 or 30. Mr. Denninghoff responded he is not aware of anything on the upper end above the $750,000; he thought of some things that staff might do that could be added to the policy regarding higher purchase contracts associated with providing appraisers with more information than they might have otherwise to help them refine their opinion of value; things such as soil borings or biological assessments looking for wetlands or endangered species or things like that might speak to the value of the property as it exists; those costs can easily be $100,000 to do all of that stuff if there is even a medium size property; so there is a serious consideration to doing that.
Commissioner Colon inquired how many staff averages; stated after the citizens voted for Parks and Recreation there was more land acquisition and all of these projects that came into play; and further inquired on an average how busy is that department. Mr. Denninghoff responded it was pretty busy; in the last three years 91 parcels have been acquired; that is easements and fee acquisitions that does not include any of the donations that staff managed; and there is a substantial number of those in terms of easements and things like that and he does not even know what those are. Commissioner Colon inquired if the 91 parcels were from every department; with Mr. Denninghoff responding that is all departments other than EEL. Commissioner
Commissioner Colon stated about a year and a half ago, and Mr. Knight may be able to help her with this, there was a meeting in her office regarding the check and balance and how uncomfortable she was with the fact that there was so much pressure put on a director particularly regarding land acquisition; she questioned why they all cannot be put under land acquisition in the Transportation Engineering Department; not just necessarily with EEL’s; but just putting that kind of pressure on that. She stated with the
Sarno Landfill, one of the things the Board wanted to do was to make sure there was that check and balance; to make sure that it was not the perception of who knew who, and who was buddies with who; the Board wanted to make sure that it was as transparent as possible so that no one had any of that; and some departments felt that they did not fall into that category. She advised some directors and departments felt that they should be able to buy their own land and have their own dealings; but that changed after the Sarno Landfill. She stated it gave the Board time to kind of take a breather step back and look at how it can be sure that the perception is there that the citizens trust the process; that was a long time ago that the Board discussed the process; and now the Board is discussing it again to make sure there is check and balances. She noted not that anyone has done anything wrong, but to see how the Board can improve. She inquired why it cannot be under land acquisition; what are the pros and cons; and stated it is kind of a continuation of what was discussed in her office close to a year and a half ago. She stated she brought it to the attention of the Board; this was all before the controversy with EEL’s; she thinks it was a different Board; but it did not go anywhere. She inquired why EEL’s is not under land acquisition instead of putting that much under a director because right now Mr. Knight has to kind of wear all kinds of hats and have everybody yell at him; and stated she is curious to hear how the EEL Program does its process.
Mr. Denninghoff stated he would like to go on to the eminent domain process. He stated this is a decision that is made by the Board by Statute; only local governments can condemn properties based on the authority of the elected body; and staff cannot do that. He advised that is the difference of how the State handles things; FDOT does it administratively, unlike what staff does; and staff has to come to the Board. He stated if staff is going to use eminent domain, they notify the property owner that it is possible that the property would be subject to eminent domain action; it goes before the Board; if it is approved it is in the form of a resolution of necessity; that is an important legal step that is undertaken; it all follows through a very rigidly defined eminent domain process that is established by the Florida Statutes; and it is easy to make mistakes. He stated that is why we have the
again tries to negotiate; but if the County is unwilling to condemn the property then ultimately the property owner can say no and they have their rights. He stated the system for eminent domain is established in the State of Florida very aggressively to protect the property rights of the private property owners; the entire process that he was talking about is very rigid; there is a lot of notification to the owner; there is a lot of opportunity to the owner to protect his or her rights; and he is not complaining about that
as it is just the way it is. He stated ultimately the County has its property and it can perform its project. He stated he did not put appraisal on there but eminent domain does require an appraisal; Mr. Roper mentioned that to the Board earlier; the Board may have to update its appraisal; some judges consider an appraisal to be stale if its more than 30 days old; so the County would update its appraisal.
Commissioner Colon inquired if Mr. Denninghoff said the judges want 30 days; with Mr. Denninghoff responding if the appraisal is more than 30 days old it can be considered stale; stated it does not mean every 30 days staff is updating its appraisals; what it means is there is a point in time in that process that staff updates; and it aims for the court date to update that appraisal. He advised staff may have the appraisal updated in advance of that if it believes that it is going to help in the mediation process so a settlement will be reached. He stated the whole acquisition process is established by State Statute; the Board policy can sort of ration up some of those requirements; and the ultimate bottom line is for local government to acquire land that is regulated by the State in the form of Statutes. He noted appraisals are required by Statute; it is an open market with a willing seller and willing buyer; it is based on what is termed today as an arms-length transaction; unfortunately public purchases are not really in his opinion open market or willing seller transactions in most cases; the fact is we are there; and the people see this coming because all this public process was gone through. He noted staff has a target on it and it is very difficult to overcome that disadvantage so the seller has an advantage; it is not a level playing field; if the County was able to operate outside of the Sunshine then it could protect that; but the fact is that with an open government like Brevard County, the Board does not have that option so that is one of the prices it pays for an open government not complaining about just saying that is just the way it is. He stated eminent domain is not always an option; it should be avoided when possible; he was asked to provide this as a summary of transportation; these are just transportation projects the Transportation Engineering Department has managed over the course of about the last three years; and it is the ninety one number that he mentioned earlier. He stated two below the appraised value, 58 at the appraised value, 31 above the appraisal, for a total of 91 of them; and that does not include the donations as there is a lot of donations in that that are not included in the 91.
Ms. Busacca stated part of the rationale when talking about acquisitions above the appraised value is the fact that should the Board decide to go to eminent domain there is a cost to that process. Mr. Denninghoff advised that is correct. Ms. Busacca inquired if that is part of the decision making process as far as the value of that property; with Mr. Denninghoff responding certainly. Ms. Busacca inquired if there were not an eminent domain option then that discussion would be different; with Mr. Denninghoff responding
that is correct; stated eminent domain is a means to compel the seller to give up title to the property; it is not a means to compel them to do it for a lower price or for free; he or she gets paid but do not get necessarily what they want; and maybe they get paid more than they thought they were going to get. He advised the process goes through a very tedious process to arrive at a final value; in the State of
Commissioner Nelson inquired if Mr. Denninghoff has any indication as to how many of those acquisitions above appraised value have occurred over the last year; with Mr. Denninghoff responding he did not research it for the last year. Commissioner Nelson advised he was curious if there was any trend or pattern. Mr. Denninghoff stated it would be easy to find that information. Commissioner Nelson stated there could have been 75% in the last year because of the kind of circumstances talked about earlier. Mr. Denninghoff commented that is correct; stated in a rapidly escalating market, which there has been for quite a while, there is nothing to compel an owner to be corruptive; the challenge is finding out when the decline is going to stop; and the Board can get itself hurt rather badly by guessing on that.
Commissioner Colon inquired what the largest amount is that Land Acquisition has acquired and how long has it been under the Transportation Engineering Department; with Mr. Denninghoff responding he does not recall when he had Land Acquisition placed under his area of responsibility; but thinks it may be five or six years ago. He advised he does not recall the largest amount but does recall a transaction of one and three quarter million dollars; there may have been one larger than that; some of the transactions are difficult; and the negotiations are not easy. He stated expertise and knowledge of the procedure is critical; and the Board is fortunate to have staff that has been around for a while.
Chairman Scarborough stated some of the transactions he did not think were going to happen, but did due to the people on John’s staff; and the County has some excellent people that makes things happen. Mr. Denninghoff stated the Land Acquisition staff is comprised of three acquisition agents, one who is the supervisor and secretary. Commissioner Colon inquired as far as land acquisition if it includes Parks and Recreation; with Mr. Denninghoff responding Parks and Recreation Department was doing some referendum acquisitions for a while; stated he does not believe that is going on now; and he believes all is in the Land Acquisition section with the exception of the EEL Program. Parks and Recreation Department Representative Marsha Cantrell advised she is working on two small ones that she is finishing up. Commissioner Colon stated to go to
Mr. Denninghoff stated at one point in time Land Acquisition was down to a secretary; it had lost all of its acquisition agents and were having a great deal of trouble acquiring the properties that were needed by different departments; any good department director wants the project to move forward; and that was part of what was going on there. He stated he knows there was some frustration about the appraisals; he is frustrated with the appraisals; he wishes they would come in with some magical point where everybody thought they were just right; and the crux of the matter is that it is never going to happen. Appraisals are a tool to the system in the determination of land value; State Statutes require them; and it would be foolhardy not to use them. He advised staff and he are
going to include The Nature Conservancy in this attempt to negotiate best prices under the circumstances; he talked about the open market conditions; it is important to understand that situation and the public disclosure; the final decision as to the value of the land rests by Statute with the Board; and the one exception is when it goes through eminent domain and that rests with the court. He stated that was his landslide and he is turning it over to Mr. Knight.
LAND ACQUISITION POLICY, RE: EEL’S PROGRAM ACQUISITION
PROCESS
Environmentally Endangered Lands Manager Mike Knight stated he is going to move through the process and try to point out the differences between what is done in the EEL Program and what is done in the Transportation Engineering Department, try to answer a few questions that have come up along the way, including why is EEL’s not under Transportation Engineering, and share a little bit of history on that. He stated first, for anyone who may not be familiar with the Program who may be sitting at home watching, he wanted to briefly show three slides to reference why everyone is here today. He advised the Program is a voter-approved referendum that was put in place first in 1990 for a 20-year referendum, and then voted in again for an additional referendum in 2004. Commissioner Bolin inquired if the second one is also for 20 years; with Mr. Knight responding that is correct; and stated the first bond was $55 million, the second 2004 referendum was for $60 million for the acquisition and management of lands. He advised there are three primary directives that staff operates under that were part of the ballot language; the first is being the protection of the biological diversity for future generations here in Brevard County; the second being to provide passive recreation opportunities that do not conflict with the preservation of biological goals; and the third providing environmental opportunities to the citizens and visitors of Brevard County. He noted the Board historically, as far as environmental education is concerned, has put in place a Master Site Plan that was done some 10 or more years ago to develop for management and environmental centers around the County; one of those has been completed, which is the Enchanted Forest; two are currently in development, which is the Barrier Island Center down in Melbourne Beach and Sam’s House in North Merritt Island; the fourth one still has to come back to the Board for approval to move forward; and as staff finishes up with the Barrier Island and Sam’s House, staff will be looking at whether or not the Board would like it to pursue that fourth and last center. He
suggested the Board look at the flow chart behind him that summarizes the process. He
stated there is a lot more detail in that as the Board has seen from Mr. Denninghoff’s presentation, but it is important to point out that from the time the Program receives a willing seller application, EEL’s is a willing seller program only, staff does not utilize eminent domain in the process and it was very clear when that was put into place. He stated from the time staff receives a willing seller application until the time it is able to bring a contract to the Board for consideration that is a 150-day process at best; that is a five-month timeframe in order to get through that because of all of the checks and balances and steps that staff must go through as part of that process; the first process
really started years ago when the first referendum was put into place in 1990, which was an analysis of the entire landscape of the County that was conducted by the Selection and Management Committee; and those folks did a habitat availability analysis they primarily use on site visits and aerial photography to determine what types of habitat are available throughout the County where those habitats provide the best connectivity, through that process. He stated the Florida Forever Projects are developed, which then come to the County for approval; and all projects that are in a Florida Forever boundary are approved by the Board before they are sent up for approval by the Acquisition and Restoration Council under DEP.
Commissioner Nelson inquired if a project could be multiple lands and not an individual acquisition, is it a habitat landscape over a broader area; and stated he wants to make sure that people do not think that the County specifically targeted specific properties, although there are properties within that the County would like to have. Mr. Knight responded that is correct; stated there are groupings of properties that span the entire length of the County; there could be one particular project; there are two projects primarily the Brevard Coastal Scrub Eco System and then the component of the Indian River Lagoon Program, which staff calls the North Indian River Lagoon Program that primarily deals with shoreline properties from Titusville to the Volusia County line; but it does encompass a large number of tracts within each project. He stated what is developed at that time is what is called the proposed landscape map, which is the list of proposed properties that is identified on a map and prioritized by the Committee generally on an annual basis; the process of the acquisition starts with a willing seller application; it must be submitted to the Program and be considered under the process; the Selection and Management Committee does an initial review of that; and generally in most cases, unless it has been a site that has been reviewed in the past, the Committee does a site visit to inspect that property to decide if it formally meets the criteria required by the Program and the selection criteria is defined in the book that was distributed to the Board. He advised towards the back of the handout there is the EEL Land Acquisition Manual and in Chapter 3 the Board has the criteria which are established for the land selection process; he wanted to take the opportunity to say the Program draws a lot of criticism for swinging at every pitch anytime an opportunity is presented; and that is surely not the case. He noted there are many more acquisitions that are turned down than that makes it through the process and that has always been the case. He stated the Selection and Management Committee does what is called a first majority vote; they authorize appraisals; years ago the Board through the manual provided the authority for
the Selection and Management Committee to authorize that process; but normally that process is the domain of the Board. Mr. Knight stated once that first majority vote is done, then staff moves forward with the appraisals; as John pointed out, any property that is over $500,000 by Statute and Board Policy it requires two appraisals; what makes the Program a little more stringent is that the DEP appraisal procedures are mirrored; that requires a third party appraisal review for every property that is looked at over $250,000 in value; so EEL’s does that additional step. He advised the appraisers are selected from a DEP list of certified appraisers; the bidding process is used; and the folks that are on John’s continuing contract list can be utilized as long as they are DEP certified. He stated the other important thing too is that EEL procedures really do not allow it currently to update an appraisal if it is less than six months old; when the market was going up quickly, EEL had changed its rules so it could update appraisals if they were older than six months; then it was criticized for trying to chase asking prices during the increasing market; so language was added that was approved by the Board that said EEL’s could update appraisals if older than six months as long as sufficient evidence was available that comparable sales or the market was changing. He advised as staff looked at updating appraisals sooner than six month, it would have to adjust the current policy that it deals with and would have to recognize that when the market changes then it will be potentially criticized again for chasing asking prices; there is a fine line there; it is difficult to decide how to handle that depending on what the market is doing; and the only way to do that is to try to make that choice based on where the market is going. He stated the appraisal reviews in addition to the required third party technical review is required and anything over a quarter of a million dollars. He stated EEL Program staff also looks at appraisals; The Nature Conservancy looks at appraisals; in some cases where the Land Acquisition Review Committee as using appraisals as well; so there are a large number of people that are inspecting those appraisals. He stated staff sees things time-to-time where it disagrees with what the appraiser is seeing; there have been situations where staff had appraisers who have considered property to be waterfront and have disagreed and asked those prices to be reduced because it would not consider a depression marsh waterfront; so staff does have those types of debates. He stated staff does raise those types of questions as part of the analysis; and the appraisals are confidential until the option agreement is executed with the owner and The Nature Conservancy. He stated he wants to speak about approved appraised value because there has been some confusion as to if staff is going with the average of the two appraisals or with the higher of the two appraisals; the EEL Program policies, because it mirrors DEP procedures, require staff to if it has two appraisals that are not more than 20% apart then staff goes with the higher of the two; but staff will still run into problems in that situation if the negotiated price exceeds that average of the two. He stated although staff has not exceeded its rule for what the appraised value is it has exceeded the Board rule by Statute of approving anything over the average of the two; and that is where it can get kind of complicated. He stated if there are two appraisals over a half a million dollars and they differ by more than 20% then staff can either get a third appraisal or it can have the reviewer try to address those diversities.
Chairman Scarborough inquired if those rules come from DEP; with Mr. Knight responding yes. Chairman Scarborough inquired if EEL’s does that because sometimes it deals with DEP in its purchases; with Mr. Knight responding that is correct. Chairman Scarborough suggested Mr. Knight touch on that as there may be people who want to know why the County uses DEP. Mr. Knight commented that EEL’s uses DEP rules because when it is seeking reimbursement from the State because the acquisitions are within a Florida Forever Project boundary; and staff needs to make sure that it follows DEP procedures of how it is establishing value. Chairman Scarborough inquired if that is one of the reasons why EEL rules may differ slightly from what Traffic Engineering Department is using because EEL has this relationship with the State for funding; with Mr. Knight responding yes.
Commissioner Nelson inquired if EEL always uses the more stringent rule or in other words, just as Mr. Knight is explaining that the State’s rule is the 20% if it exceeds the average then EEL’s has to use it, which is the more stringent, which is the average of the two; with Mr. Knight responding that is correct. Commissioner Nelson inquired in no case is EEL’s less stringent, it is always more stringent; with Mr. Knight responding yes and in addition he believes the State’s rule is they do not require a review appraisal until after a half a million dollars, and EEL requires after a quarter of a million dollars.
Commissioner Bolin inquired if since EEL’s uses the DEP rules have there been any problems with them as far as any purchases made; and have they been in full agreement with everything EEL’s has done so far; with Mr. Knight responding yes. Mr. Knight stated if a third appraisal is ordered this is where it gets a little tricky; the value becomes the higher of the two closest appraisals; if the appraisal differs by more than 20%, the approved value becomes 20% over the lowest of the two closest appraisals; and there are very stringent rules that EEL follows and how those are applied is being addressed. He stated he wants to address Commissioner Colon’s earlier question of why the EEL Program has been separated from or not placed under Transportation Engineering Department; one of the primary reasons again comes back to dealing with Florida Forever Program; EEL utilizes The Nature Conservancy in its process because they have expertise dealing with Florida Forever in a variety of different counties around the State; and that is probably nearly 30 counties around the State that have similar programs. Commissioner Colon requested Mr. Knight hold on for a second; stated Mr. Knight does not have to go through all that as she already knows it; inquired if EEL’s is required to go through all that because it is mandated to; and stated she is talking about afterwards, kind of like having another set of eyes after EEL’s is all done. She stated not through that process; she knows what EEL’s has to do so he does not have to explain unless he wants to for the people who are watching; and reiterated she is referring to more like having another set of eyes.
Chairman
used to match other monies to the tune of $33 million; with Mr. Knight responding that is correct. Chairman Scarborough inquired if that is how much Brevard County has received; how much were the original Bond issue purchases; where did the $33 million come in; and further inquired percentage-wise how much was Brevard County and how much was the State. Mr. Knight inquired if Chairman Scarborough is speaking of percentage of acres or dollar amount; with Chairman Scarborough responding dollar amount. Mr. Knight commented the funds amount to, in the initial referendum, approximately $32 million matched by the State with another $32 million. Chairman Scarborough inquired if basically the County only paid half because the State was kicking in the other half; with Mr. Knight responding that is correct. Chairman Scarborough advised that is why it is significant to use DEP rules; and if EEL’s had not
used DEP rules it would have walked away from 30 plus million dollars; and inquired if he said that right. Mr. Knight responded he did; and stated EEL’s paid for about half of what was required.
Commissioner Nelson inquired if by continuing to follow it does the County continue to structure itself so it could be eligible for reimbursement if the State re-ups the Program; and stated there has been some discussion about some additional bonding for that Program. Mr. Knight responded that is correct; stated the referendum was $60 million; the County could be potentially looking at $120 million in purchase if it can get that 50% back on that $60 million from the State. Commissioner Nelson inquired if although they do not have money now, as they revisit the Program do they put money back into the Program; with Mr. Knight responding right. Mr. Knight advised currently EEL has potentially about $2 million to $4 million that it is hopeful it will get back within this current Program of Florida Forever; any further reimbursements will likely have to occur if there is a successor Program of Florida Forever; and the negotiation process starts, again this is normally the domain of the Board but in the case of the EEL Program authority was given to the Selection and Management Committee to authorize negotiations with owners through the process of a second majority vote that requires a super majority vote of the Selection and Management Committee. He stated the next step is The Nature Conservancy develops, after the appraisals have been reviewed, a negotiation strategy that is approved by the EEL Program; the negotiations, like the appraisals, are confidential until an agreement is executed with the owners; and all option agreements are reviewed by the
these things in the process for so long; so staff does its best to try to make those timeframes as long as it can; one of the problems ran into is once the contract is negotiated, if it goes through delays and working through the political process to get an acquisition approved, is time begins to run out; and that is why the Board has seen acquisitions come before it which appear to be coming in at the last minutes but has been negotiated quite some time ago. He noted the other thing that is important to understand is that all of The Nature Conservancy option agreements contain a clause that protects the County from paying over the appraised value; this came up recently with the Ag Ventures property where staff had a negotiated price that was slightly below the appraisal; the new appraisals came in and one dropped down significantly lower and
one of them stayed the same; and the one appraisal dropped below the negotiated price because of the averaging of the two and doing the 20% rule and stuff, the County ends up with something where its negotiated price is over the appraisal. He stated that clause requires the owner to drop their price down to the appraised value or he or she will have ten days to walk away from that; and that is a product of each of the contracts with The Nature Conservancy. He stated the contract is reviewed by The Nature Conservancy’s Legal Department, by EEL Program staff, and the County Attorney’s Office; EEL’s has the same rules to follow with the $750,000 rule; anything over that threshold requires review by the Land Acquisition Review Committee; the final step is with the Selection and Management Committee prior to coming to the Board to review the general terms of the contract and the value to insure that it meets that goal of the Program; and it should move forward and be recommended to the Board for approval. He stated with his last slide he wanted to show, as John did, the history since 2006 to present showing the acquisitions; the top section shows those that have been approved by the Board to move forward toward closing; the other below are still in process; the four acquisitions on the bottom represent the Boyd and DiChristopher parcels and the Ag Ventures and Scottsmoor parcels; and the two over appraised value purchase represents the Crawford and Reynolds purchase under the Thousand Islands.
Chairman Scarborough advised he has scheduled appointments and wants to excuse himself from the meeting; and requested that Commissioner Bolin Chair the rest of the meeting.
*Chairman Scarborough’s absence was noted at this time.
Commissioner Voltz stated there has been a lot of stuff gone over today and staff knows what the issues have been in the past; and inquired what some of the issues are that the Board could or should change to smooth out the process. Mr. Knight responded the thing that stands out the most is appraisals that are old or stale; the best thing that can be done is to ask staff to make sure that the Board has the most up-to-date appraisals possible; historically staff has been restricted because of concerns and criticisms like chasing asking prices when all it was doing was to find out the most accurate snapshot at the time; and one of the things that makes the process difficult is that initial process. He advised once there is a willing seller application to the time that it is ready to come to the Board is going to take five months; if the Board has a threshold of do not bring it an
appraisal that is more than six months old, that is going to be real hard; and appraisals are going to have to be done twice essentially because by the time the five-month process is completed and ready to come before the Board, the timeframe has been used up. He advised as a general rule the County should strive to have appraisals that are certainly less than a year old.
Commissioner Voltz inquired what about the timing; stated she knows there was an issue of when it gets to the Clerk’s Office, and not having enough time to review it and those kinds of things; and further inquired how can the process be made better. Mr. Knight responded one of the things EEL’s is trying to do now is just simply get
information to the Clerk’s Office as early as possible; the problem his staff runs into is the confidentiality issue; the Selection and Management Committee, with exception of the Chairman of the Committee, is not covered under the confidentiality rule; they are not privy to that information regarding negotiations and appraisal information until it has been disclosed and the contract has been executed; and to release that information to anyone within the County would be violating that current rule that staff has to live under as far as confidentiality. Commissioner Voltz inquired if in order to have the Clerk look at the it in time and come back with any sort of comments it may be the day of the Board meeting that it comes forward; could the Board not move forward and take those comments into consideration since it is not the final decision because everything has to come back to the Board; and is that a way that the Board could possibly handle things. Mr. Knight responded there is certainly a variety of ways to handle that and that would be one of them; and if the Board wanted staff to disclose the information to the Clerk’s Office, the soonest it would be able to do that would be at the point that the contract is executed. Commissioner Voltz inquired how far in advance before it comes to the Board is that; with Mr. Knight responding it is generally 60 to 120 days, depending on how that is negotiated; staff tries to negotiate those out as long as it can knowing that the process generally takes quite some time; and staff tries to be very open with the owners since this is a political process and it does take a long time. Commissioner Voltz inquired if it is not going to be a problem with confidentiality at that point; with Mr. Knight responding not at that point; stated the only issues would be the review going on by the Clerk’s Office at the same time the Acquisition Review Committee is trying to look at things; and if the Board is going down that route, he is not sure the best way of handling that.
Acquisition Review Committee for three quarters of a million or higher; the Board could have the Clerk involved for lesser value properties; and he is not sure how that would be handled. Ms. Busacca advised Mr. Roper also seemed to have some suggestions about getting people involved earlier; and he may also be able to help with that.
Commissioner Colon stated she definitely wanted to hear about those ten points; and inquired at what point it goes to the Land Acquisition Committee in the particular scenario that the County just went through; and did the Committee see it. Mr. Knight responded as soon as the contract has been executed staff will immediately start
scheduling that; and once it has been executed two meetings have to be scheduled, one with the Selection and Management Committee and one with the Acquisition Review Committee. Commissioner Colon stated at that point there would be plenty of time for any feedback from the Clerk’s Office because everybody is looking at it at the same time; she thinks before it comes before the Board there has to be some kind of process because what good does it do if the Board is going to see it all again; stated three and zero controversial again in front of the Board; the Board may have to come up with some kind of process that staff will meet again with the Clerk to be able to kind of share his findings and everyone share ideas; and at that point is that how the Board would do it because what good does it do. She stated the Board is hearing it again all of the controversy that goes on of the discrepancy in regards to what the appraisals are; and inquired who would set the policy. Ms. Busacca responded eventually the Board is going to have a process; if the timeframe gets much longer people will not want to participate; it is already going to take five months before it gets to the Board; and then it takes two months after that before it can close. Commissioner Colon stated the process does not stop; what she is saying is to meet again and the Board decides at that point what it wants; she would not want anything to stop; but then for the Land Acquisition folks to be able to meet again with the Clerk of Courts getting his feedback based on the information that he received. She stated it is the Land Acquisition folks that are going to be meeting and what she is saying is at that point those folks are able to get feedback, not at the last minute; and staff will get it in plenty of time before the Board sees it is what she is saying.
Ms. Busacca stated as soon as the contract is signed two meetings are scheduled, and the Land Acquisition Committee is one of them; if Mr. Knight handed the Clerk information when the contract was signed and he had the Land Acquisition Committee, maybe two or three weeks later, it would give a very short timeframe for the Clerk to review that before it gets to the Land Acquisition Committee; and inquired after the Land Acquisition Committee sees it approximately how long does it usually take before it gets to the Board. Mr. Knight responded at that point in time staff tries to get it on the Board Agenda as soon as it can because once the contract has been executed the clock is ticking on the timeframe to exercise the option. Ms. Busacca inquired if he is talking about two to three weeks; with Mr. Knight responding yes it is pretty short. Commissioner Colon stated she is saying that the Clerk is part of the Land Acquisition Committee; he would not be separate; and everyone will be hearing it at the same time with Scott sitting right there. Ms. Busacca stated that is right and then there would be
two to three weeks before the Board meets to work out any of those issues; there is the five-month process before it becomes public; and then a two-month process after it becomes public. She stated she does not know if the Board wants to consider the fact that maybe there is a way to shorten up the five months before it becomes public; as it stands now, the Selection and Management Committee sees this three times; maybe the Board does not need two majority opinions from the Selection and Management Committee; maybe they only need one before because the Selection and Management Committee already sees it three times; and maybe they only need to see it twice. She advised seven or eight months is a very long time for someone who wants to sell
property; if the Board wants to continue to have this process move forward, something is going to have to give so it does not become a nine or ten-month process; and she does not know how much shorter staff can make it after the contract.
Commissioner Bolin inquired if the Selection and Management Committee feels that they need to have all of those meetings and then it is time for them to get some input to the Board; with Mr. Knight responding he thinks there would be support from the Committee to reduce; stated at that point it may be opening a door; and the Board always opens the door to criticism when it removes a check and balance. He stated one way to address this is to having rather than a first majority vote followed at a separate meeting 30 days later by a second majority vote to do what is called an emergency process in the Land Acquisition Manual where the Committee could take those two votes simultaneously at the same meeting, first and second vote, as long as they had majority on one and a super majority on the other. He stated that would be one way to shorten the number of days that have to be gone through; there are still 30 to 45 days for the appraisals; and sometimes another 30 to 45 days for reviews. He stated when the market was moving that was a real problem for staff because everyone is very busy and there were some appraisers that took 90 days to do the appraisals; so those issues have to be forced in.
Ms. Busacca stated she would hate to think that everything became an emergency; if the Board says to do two votes staff ought not to say it is going to call everything an emergency as then nothing becomes an emergency; and she thinks there would be a lot of criticism that would circumvent the spirit of the emergency rule.
Commissioner Voltz inquired if it is not policy of the Board for there to be two votes; with Mr. Knight responding that is correct. Commissioner Voltz stated the Board could change the policy. Mr. Knight stated it could. Commissioner Voltz stated she does not know why it is in there to begin with. Mr. Knight stated it was just an extra check and balance to ensure that the land is being selected under a criteria and that the Scientific Committee agrees on the purchase. Commissioner Voltz inquired if the Committee sees it twice; stated the Committee has a vote on it; if it has a majority vote then it comes back for the second vote; if the Board cuts that out, it still comes back again; and at that time they could decide if they will agree or not. She further inquired if the Committee has a second chance to look at it. Mr. Knight responded there is a first majority vote, which tells staff to appraise the property based on a willing seller application; the next vote 30 days later is a second majority vote to authorize negotiations, keeping in mind
that they do not review appraisal so there is really not a need for them to base the second majority vote on an outcome of an appraisal as that is just not the way the process works; so the Board could have them take the first and second majority votes at the same time and then one final review by the Committee prior to bringing it to the Board.
Ms. Busacca inquired what would be the point of a second majority vote at the same time; with Mr. Knight responding there can just be one vote that authorizes appraisal and negotiations so there would not really need to be two votes.
Commissioner Colon stated she is always into never assuming; there is a gentleman here who sits on the Selection Committee; she knows he cannot speak for everyone; but if he would be so kind to come up here for a second. She stated the Board would not dare make any decisions without asking folks from the Selection Committee to give it some feedback of the pros and cons of doing that; and inquired if Mr. Schmalzer has a problem with that. She stated the Board is trying to make the process a little bit shorter so it does not have discouraged sellers and also try to have an opportunity to give the other folks feedback; and inquired what Mr. Schmalzer thinks of what he is hearing.
Paul Schmalzer stated as a matter of procedure to change the Land Acquisition Manual, this would require the Procedures Committee and the Selection and Management Committee to meet and vote on those changes; it would require that both committees that are involved with the oversight of the EEL Program to meet and approve those changes; and that is the way the Land Acquisition Manual is structured and how amendments to it can be made. He noted he cannot speak for the entire Committee; he thinks it would certainly consider this carefully and think it probably could be worked out; the original intent was that the Board approve appraisals on the first majority vote; the appraisals took 30 to 45 days; and when they were completed, although the information was not released to the Committee, then at that time the Committee would have another meeting and take the second majority vote, which would approve going to negotiations. He stated there is time built in there for that by the appraisal process that will still be there whether there is one or two votes; and in the case where the Committee could not be assembled on a short time basis the Board might be able to move it forward a little faster but will still have the appraisal time requirements.
Mr. Knight stated the other possibility in looking at this is considering since the Selection and Management Committee establishes Florida Forever Project boundaries and approves those boundaries prior to submitting those to the Board for approval; and the Board could consider having the Selection and Management Committee approve its entire project areas and if with everything that has been included in the project then essentially the Board gains its authorization to move forward with appraisals and negotiations with owners as a result of that project being in place and being approved by both the Committee and the Board.
Commissioner Colon stated the main point would be to really try to figure out how the Board can all figure this out so that the process is much shorter without compromising the entire project; she thinks that is really the intent; the criticism will come if it comes from the Board; but if the Board can put it back on the Committee and says this is what the dilemma is. She advised the Board is basically putting this back on the Committee asking what kind of ideas it does have that can be shared with the Board for it to take some action, which is to change the Manual; only change just that specific situation; and everyone really wants the same thing.
Mr. Schmalzer stated everyone would like to shorten the process; changes can be worked out; there is a process when the Committee goes with a Florida Forever Project
that when it is approved by the Committee that some of that is at the first majority vote that it is considered to be taken with that approval of that; and he believes that is the case in the Land Acquisition Manual that when it has approved Florida Forever Project that some of that has been done. He noted the complication might come in where there is a parcel that reasonably had a high value because of its context and/or there has been a lot of development around it and it is not isolated or fragmented so that would be the only sort of caution.
Mr. Knight stated a lot of times staff brings those back to the Committee when it feels that there may have been some changes that need to be reconsidered, whether it is fragmentation recent development in the neighborhood to ensure that it is the intent of the Committee to move forward with those.
Keith Fountain with The Nature Conservancy stated as he looks at the process it seems to him, and he would like Mr. Roper’s input on this, it seems like there is two basic functions that the Selection and Management Committee is serving; they are approving a piece of property for inclusion into a project for consideration by the Program; so they just include it within a project boundary; and the second function is to essentially tell the EEL Program to go after that project by approving appraisals and negotiation. He stated as he looks at that process it does not make any sense to vote to go do appraisals if it is not going to be negotiated right away; so there would not be a vote to do appraisals and then a vote to negotiate; he suggested having first majority vote that puts the property in a project; to have a second majority vote that authorizes the Program to pursue acquisition, appraisal, negotiation, and whatever steps it takes; and to provide whatever limitations for the ability for those two votes to be held simultaneously at the same meeting. He noted if the Board thinks about the situation the Committee’s in right now with limited funding and a number of important properties on the table; if they get a piece of property and a willing seller application that needs to be in a project but it is mid-tier in terms of quality or location or connectivity, they are going to want to add it to the Project but they are not going to want to spend money on it right now to go try to buy it; but if a Scottsmoor or a Hunters Brooke come in the room for the first time with a willing seller application they are going to want to jump on it as it is a top-tier property. He advised that is his suggestion to help in setting this up.
Ms. Busacca stated the only other comment she would have is Mike’s comment about the criticism that could be had from making the process shorter; what the Board is trying to do is instead allow additional review once it becomes public; it is not really cutting review time but is trying to make more public review in front of the Board, to address the Clerk’s and Land Acquisition Committee’s concerns; so she thinks the Board wants to do just the opposite to the idea of cutting the review.
Commissioner Colon stated this is very simple as the Board is not making the decision; the Board is putting it on the Selection Committee; she is a little bit smarter than to try to do it on this end; and at least that would be her suggestion to her fellow Commissioners.
She requested that the Clerk speak to the Board. She stated one of the things that the Board was trying to figure out is at what point it can bring it to the Clerk for feedback with enough time; and inquired if Mr. Ellis has any recommendations.
Clerk of Court Scott Ellis stated he believes Mr. Knight once said that once the contract is signed the appraisals become public, so at that point the Clerk could review the appraisals; Commissioner Nelson brought up the point, which he fully agrees with, that if the Board is going to do a Land Acquisition Committee it even has to fall under the Sunshine and they need to issue a report; he does not know why the Committee would meet if they cannot issue a report; and that is a big problem the way that is set up. He advised it is good to have it overseen but if they cannot issue a report he is not sure what the value is the Board gains from the Committee meeting; if the Land Acquisition Committee is put together, even if the Board makes it a formal committee, Sunshine, or whatever it takes, they can come back to the Board with a report that would essentially be similar to what the Clerk’s Office report is; and that might let Mr. Knight know does he proceed forward on this to the Board or maybe it needs to be pulled back and to look at a different acquisition; currently it seems like they were just coming through and once you are put on a path that path is started; and it is going to the Board no matter what, versus what would give the Board a stopping point somewhere along that path to say it wants to step back and think about this one with a regular report from the Land Acquisition Committee.
Commissioner
when it goes to negotiate with the sellers. He advised if the County goes to sellers and negotiates and it is the only piece of property it wants, they know that they have got the Board; if the Board goes to seller and has a short list of ten major parcels that it would like to have it can bypass one for another; the County does not seem to do many negotiations like that by looking at multiple parcels; there are multiple large parcels; and the County should take a look at that kind of a strategy. He noted the County needs to be able to walk away from a deal and it has not been able to do that on a walk away based on price; and there is a finite amount of money that is going to be spent on the Program and there needs to be a point where the County can look at certain parcels and say it knows it is going to have to walk away from that and look at other projects elsewhere.
Commissioner Colon inquired at that point what would the dollar amount be or would it just particularly be of concern; stated she does not think, based on her understanding, the concerns have not been with the other acquisitions that the County has made; and those have been pretty much on target. Mr. Ellis responded when the County begins to get major parcels it is critical to do some real negotiations. Commissioner Colon inquired how many days before the Board sees that particular stuff in regards to the contract; with Mr. Knight responding he is not sure he understands the question. Mr. Ellis advised from the signed contracts to being on the Agenda. Commissioner Colon stated that is right. Mr. Knight commented from the time the contract is signed until the time it goes on the Agenda it is probably a month maximum; a lot depends on scheduling with the Board; staff has no control over that so it tries to get on the Agenda as early as possible; and generally staff sees that process taking about 30 days when dealing with the Land Acquisition Review Committee arranging a meeting for the Selection and Management Committee and getting it to the Board.
Commissioner Colon stated now the County is trying to expedite the process but with a lot of oversight; some of the discussion that has taken place today is that the Board is probably going to be asking the Selection Committee to review its process; inquired if once the contract is signed at what point is the Board able to engage the Clerk of Courts to be involved; and at that particular point if the Board is able to expedite it with the first section if it takes another week or two it would not be too bad.
Mr. Ellis advised that part two is the very critical portion because that is where the Board is coming down to the price it is going to pay; it is more important to spend the time on part two; part one may take longer but those guys are deciding fundamentally which parcels to purchase; and part two is when the Board is coming down to a price and it has an appraisal. He stated on part one EEL’s is deciding which ones that are most environmentally sensitive that should be purchased; part two is when staff is trying to find a market value it is willing to pay for; this goes back to the Land Acquisition Committee doing a formal report with a formal layout; and if there is an appraisal that says a person is zoned for certain things, certain utilities, certain transportation, a quick hop over to Zoning, Transportation Engineering, and Utilities to validate all of those
assumptions. Commissioner Colon stated what needs to happen is after the contract is signed then the Board needs to make sure that the Clerk gets it immediately; and at that point he can give feedback if there are any concerns.
Commissioner Nelson stated the process either needs to be formalized or done away with; and he believes it should be formalized. Mr. Ellis stated he aggress that formalizing it is better; there are items that come through that appraisal that the County should be going through almost like a checklist and verify it as one, two, three, and four; and it is not really done now. He stated there is no formal report made and nothing else that follows; that is where the County gets into the issues on the density; the County may look at surrounding properties and say if everything surrounding is going to be one to an acre it is hard to believe it will get multi-family zoned in this area; or it may have already been denied for that at one point. Commissioner Nelson stated he agrees
with Commissioner Colon in terms of the upfront piece being consolidated to some extent without jeopardizing the review process; there are multiple steps; some of those can actually occur together; and negotiations can begin before the appraisals were done. He stated a point is going to come where the processes will catch up with each other and now there is a decision point; the Selection and Management Committee can consolidate some of these things and be comfortable; the Board is fortunate that the Committee has been together for almost 15 years; and the Committee has some darned good information already upfront and a good understanding of the County. He noted then there will be time on the back end to look at the financial piece of it and make sure it makes sense; if the Committee were to look at the upfront piece it could come up with a shorter period of time on the front end and still cover anything needed to cover and to give the Board a little more time on the back end with the additional review.
Commissioner
Commissioner Voltz stated several times the Clerk has brought up the issue of land priorities and why the Board has not set priorities as far as the purchasing of the land; Mr. Knight has a different take on that; what needs to be clarified is what the process is; and she wants to hear first from the Clerk and then from Mr. Knight on how this should be handled.
Mr. Ellis stated his personal thoughts are if he does a list of priorities he would have a list of 20, 30, or 40 properties; he would rank those in order; he understands it may not be one through 40 but he may have a top ten, bottom ten, and middle twenty; and that becomes his negotiating tool. He stated if a person talks to someone doing commercial
real estate he or she are looking for parcels that fit their needs; it is rare that there is a single unique parcel that fits their needs; and that is how they look at commercial parcels. He advised if EEL’s would do the same thing that would give the County the negotiating power that if it goes to parcel number one and the price is too high it can go to parcel number two; parcel number eight may end up cutting its price and move up the list; EEL’s has a tendency to look at properties as one and follow it all the way through to look at two and then follow it all the way through versus actually going out there and looking at multiple parcels in the area; and everything tends to be the highest priority. He noted the error with everything being the highest priority is that if he has $60 million to spend he cannot have $500 million worth of highest priority because he ends up with a patchwork of what he ends up purchasing; the highest priorities has to somewhat match the money the county has available to spend; no different than going to the grocery store or department store as a person would have certain highest priorities he or
she wishes to buy when going to that store; and he or she would have to look at how much money they have so that effects what they can buy and what kind of decisions they make. He stated the Board will end up with, based on simply going with willing sellers, a sort of jigsaw across the County instead of focusing in certain areas.
Mr. Knight stated The Selection and Management Committee identifies all of the properties as a priority; what happens is on an annual basis they look at what is the highest priority out of that grouping of properties; that is identified on the acquisition map within a yellow border, which probably represents anywhere from 30% to 50% of the parcels that are identified for acquisition, identified as environmentally endangered; and that process is driven by willing sellers. He stated EEL’s can only go after those properties if they have a willing seller; and the history has shown that EEL’s has gone after these properties and never negotiated over the appraised value for a piece of property. He advised he understands that there certainly are concerns about what snapshot is being used in terms of appraisals and time, how close does it need to be, and how new do those appraisals need to be; the fact is it is driven by willing sellers; EEL’s takes those opportunities when they come available and by definition in the Manual those lands are all irreplaceable; those need to be pursued whenever there is an opportunity to do that; he agrees the County should not be paying over the appraised value for land; and they are not doing that.
Commissioner Voltz inquired if it is Board policy to do it the way Mr. Knight has mentioned; with Mr. Knight responding there are some concerns, as Mr. Ellis has mentioned, that there is a reference in the Manual regarding a spreadsheet that is to be used similar to what he has been discussing; that process has never been used because it is driven by willing sellers; it is not a practical process to be used; and it has never been used that way. Commissioner Voltz stated if it is in there and it does not need to be in there then it needs to be taken out so that there is no controversy. Mr. Knight advised EEL’s is trying to move forward on the changes to the land but for the last two years it has been in this process of review and criticism so it is trying to reach an end to that so it can decide what needs to be changed. Mr. Ellis stated in all defense his only issue would be by the time that has all changed all of the money will be spent.
Commissioner Nelson stated listening to what Scott and Mike are saying he thinks they are almost talking about the same thing; they are identifying on an annual basis, if it is 30% of the properties, they have created in effect that number one level that Scott is looking for; but the main thing is that the sellers need to know that there are other options as that is what creates the competition. He noted to some extent that goes on but maybe it needs to be articulated better and maybe there is a way that the Board can get that list before it with enough properties; people are going to know about those properties because they will be contacted; but at least there are other options. He stated the last thing he wants to see happen to the Program, and this is his biggest fear, that it becomes strictly price-based and the County will not end up with good stuff; cheaper land with poor habitat can be bought; that would be bad; the County has to keep its competition in the front end; but it needs to make sure that it is clearly visible that there is competition.
Mr. Fountain stated he would like to echo Commissioner Nelson’s last comments; he thinks the Clerk’s recommendations are very valid and it is somewhat what the Selection and Management Committee does now, which is to prioritize things high, medium, and low; but to start trying to rank them within that will not work. He stated this is not trying to find a place to live or to find an office in which to house a business; this is trying to put together a framework of connected conservation lands based on willing sellers only; anybody who has attended a Selection and Management Committee meeting during any one month knows the level of interaction that occurs at that meeting; and literally a person may have a piece of property fall off the table that was under consideration because something next to it got developed. He advised it is very interactive so he would caution against a strict number ranking, but tiering projects high, medium, and low is valid.
Mr. Knight stated there are very few parcels, other than those two parcels that EEL’s has been looking at in North Scottsmoor, with intact habitat under the consideration of the Selection and Management Committee on their proposed map that are of this size; the next closest thing is about 300 acres in Malabar that is under a single owner; and the rest are all small parcels fragmented throughout the County.
Commissioner Voltz stated Mr. Ellis began his comments by saying that those are his personal comments. Mr. Ellis commented that is how he would negotiate. Commissioner Voltz advised Mr. Ellis’ job is to insure that the Board follows policy and it is following what it says it is going to be doing. Mr. Ellis stated that is not what she asked him. Commissioner Voltz stated no, but she is just saying that; that is what the Clerk is supposed to do; his criticism of the process is the fact that obviously the Board is not following policy because it is not using the, whatever it is that he has in there, the list; so what the Board really has to do is make sure the way things are done is correct and that really prevents some of the issues that have been causing everyone to come together.
Mr. Ellis advised what the Board will find if it is not careful, and it is close to the end of this money, three or four years from now it will look back and say instead of buying these three parcels perhaps it should have bought these two over there because it really did not do a valid comparison amongst all of these different parcels that are available; to look at which ones are the most critical by looking at willing sellers as they come in; and it gets to be who gets to the front of the line first versus which ones does it really want to pursue.
Commissioner Voltz stated but at the same time two parcels are really the Board’s number one but it may never come into play; and they may never be purchased and it leaves the Board with a ton of money. Mr. Ellis advised everything is number one and that is the problem; every parcel is number one; the County bought property off
is a separate issue. He stated number one should imply that the Board has a ranking from one to 40; everything seems to be a priority; if he has $60 million number ones should there not be more than perhaps $100 million, not an infinite amount of money. He stated the County will not end up with what should have been its priorities when it is over; it is no different than shopping for anything else; the Board has to have a realistic priority window for the money it has available; when something comes up as number one it seems everything comes up as number one; and one of the issues the Clerk’s Office had was there is supposed to be a priority list. He stated although it never expected to be one to 100 inconsecutive there should be a better tiering of top quarter, bottom quarter, and middle 50% to choose from amongst those properties.
The Board recessed at 3:40 p.m. and reconvened at 3:50 p.m.
Commissioner Voltz stated along Mr. Ellis’ line of thinking, in her home if she has a number of projects that needs to be done, each with a different value of what she wants, and she is saving money; she reaches a certain point and says she really wanted to save this for that project but since she has the amount of money she is going to do another project first; she wants to get them all finished; but at some point she determines whether or not she wants to spend the money for this project or that project. Mr. Ellis responded affirmatively. Commissioner Voltz stated all of the projects are important to her; she wants to get them all done but does not have enough money; when she reaches that amount of money she may have wanted the first one but she is going to go ahead and get those curtains for her living room first.
Mr. Ellis advised he understands Commissioner Voltz’s point; the only difference on this is that it begins with a finite amount of money already; it would be the same if she had a list of ten projects for her home and a finite amount of money; and she may find that she can only do seven of ten projects. He advised if the Board has a bond issue it has a finite amount of money; from that finite amount of money it must pick the projects it is going to do; if the Board does Hunters Brooke in Scottsmoor it becomes $50 million of its $60 million; and that is the bigger picture decision the Board is making when it goes with these acquisitions.
Commissioner Voltz stated what Mike mentioned earlier is the fact that the County gets the money back from the State so the County may end up doubling its money. Mr. Ellis commented as Mike mentioned the P2000 is pretty well tapped out and another program is being looked at; his caution on that is that it was based on Doc Stamps and they have fallen off the end of the table the last couple of years based on real estate; the State itself is in its own financial crunch with Sales Tax; and he is not sure the County will see more money coming as matches from the State. Commissioner Voltz stated she agrees with Mr. Ellis. Mr. Ellis stated he would be leery if the County spends that money counting on matching money versus deciding this is really the most important project it wants to do; if the Board decides that is the most important project it wishes to do then his belief is it needs to negotiate those properly based on what the current real estate market is; that is where the Board has the ability to walk away; and it has the ability to walk away and to be able to negotiate. He advised if the Board cannot walk way it cannot negotiate; that is what hamstrings Mr. Denninghoff sometimes; if he is going to widen Dairy Road these are the parcels that he has to have to widen Dairy Road; in the EEL’s Program there is a lot more latitude for what the Board chooses to buy or not to buy; he thinks the Board should exercise that latitude more often so that it can get a better price from its sellers; and if they understand the Board really loves their parcel but it cannot get it for the price it needs it will walk away and buy two other parcels instead.
Mr. Knight stated the Selection and Management Committee does prioritize its properties; recently in September all the willing sellers that came available and staff started to realize that it was going to have some large tracts of land available; all of those were prioritized categories one through three to determine which were the most important to go after; those properties were based on intact habitat and size of the parcels; and there is nothing like the Ag and Scottsmoor parcels available anymore. He noted those are 5,700 and almost 900 acres respectively in those two parcels; the priorities really are pursuing where goals can be accomplished and the quickest, most effective, and best habitat available; and going after the large tracts has always been the priority for the Program. He stated the County does not want to buy small puzzle pieces to fit in unless it can get those larger tracts to make the habitat area work; and it happened recently where the Selection and Management Committee declined parcels that were on the acquisition list or priority list because they did not fit within the puzzle that is trying to be completed at this time.
Commissioner Nelson stated the one thing the Board kind of tapped danced around is the walk away piece because in its last discussion of acquisitions for Ag Ventures absolutely nothing was done right; the Board followed County policy to the tee but it came down to the questions of where is the market now; that is the ultimate decision and probably the most difficult of the process; the Board can make it a lot better but it will still be faced with that kind of decision making like walking away because the Board believes the market is going in the other direction and therefore it should not be paying those kinds of dollars for it. Mr. Ellis stated that would help when the Board goes to make that decision if it walked away from Parcel A and B but could still look at Parcel C, D, E, and F; and he does not see that the Board is given those options. Commissioner Nelson agreed with Mr. Ellis.
LAND ACQUISITION POLICY, RE: APPRAISAL PROCESS (CONTINUED)
Paul Roper stated Transportation Engineering Department and the EEL Program already employs a review appraiser under certain circumstances because most of these parcels certain for the EEL Program are seen to be in excess of $750,000; and there is need for other reviews even for some of the differences where there is obvious, huge disparities on some of the parcels that are not quite as valuable, maybe a quarter of a million dollars or even less. He suggested having a senior appraiser or someone who might be considered an administrative appraiser, not necessarily in the role of employee of Brevard County, but whom the Board might entrust with the position of looking after these appraisal reports that would be able to respond to the agency, department heads,
and/or the Board; and sort of like a liaison but someone that the Board can depend on to look at the appraisal process since that is the concern he has been hearing over the past several months. He advised he put together a few bullets that are certainly optional but some of the things that this particular person may do; it may be already embraced by the County’s review appraisers that it customarily uses; some of these items should be considered in the review process; in addition to doing an administrative or technical review perhaps they should understand that they have a little bit more responsibility; and the Board can ensure that just by putting that into the requirement for the review appraiser. He stated number one is that the County does have an administrative appraiser or senior appraiser; it could be an employee or not assigned to an appraisal project for either purposes of an appraisal, review appraisal; the Board would initially say that it wants to have him or her investigate the differences between these appraisals, especially property owners’ appraisals coming in an eminent domain in comparison to those appraisals that are done by selected appraisers for these road projects and so forth; and they are very valuable for that but quickly become inundated with work. He stated sooner or later a department head is going to say he or she needs something looked into and then another department head needs something looked into; he or she is overwhelmed with responsibilities and cannot really do an appraisal or adequate review; and the Board can get into that syndrome if it is not careful. He stated this person as an administrative appraiser would be responsible for recognizing the differences between these appraisal reports, reconciling those differences, and acting as a liaison between department heads and the Board to eliminate some of the confusion that normally accompanies an appraisal, especially in a fast moving market. He stated number two is that the administrative appraiser should be responsible for contacting any responsible parties to clarify or complete all the information needed to actually open a new project file for appraisal purposes, meaning that this administrative appraiser is onboard from the onset; when the appraisers are about to be selected, number three, the administrative appraiser generates a package of information in preparation and conjunction with the department heads for soliciting bids from fee appraisers; a complete bid package includes the RFP and the associated attachments; and this appraiser will make sure that there is adequate title work, deeds of sales, appraiser maps, location maps, boundary surveys, property card information from the public records, listing purchase contacts, plat maps, and other documentation related to the property, especially if there is conservation easements outstanding and other types of easements that would play a role in the analysis of the value. He noted number four is the administrative appraiser conducts a preliminary research to determine the basic
requirements or specifications for completing the appraisal services as requested; these things include, but are not limited to, what property rights are valued at; that is a big thing nowadays with the conservation easements out there and the easements that are being acquired for both conservation, drainage, and other things and what rights are actually being acquired; and they make a determination as to whether the mapping and title work is adequate in the appraisal for acquisition, disposition, or exchange. Mr. Roper inquired how many appraisers are necessary; stated this person can tell the Board that and whether or not there are any additional requirements for special expertise from an appraiser; he or she can determine which appraiser professional standards might apply in the report and what level of appraisal review and additional duties is actually required; and this can all be handled upfront and transmitted to the appraisers during the time that they are actually employed. He advised this information, which is garnered by this person called an administrative appraiser right now at the moment is going to ensure that these two appraisers are enlightened to the fact of what is available out there and what is some of the issues in the appraisal process upfront. He stated number five is to go ahead and possibly present that PFP and review the bid package; and number six is when the appraisal process itself begins because at this point in time the fee appraisers engaged for the assignment are responsible for conducting the workflow to ensure that they meet the uniform standards of professional appraisal practices. Mr. Roper stated the supplemental standards of the FDOT or the requirements that are required for the EEL Program under DEP ensure timely completion of the assignment; and at that point in time they understand what their obligations are and if they are any different than they would be under normal appraisal standards. He advised number seven is the administrative appraisal monitor’s progress during the development of the appraisal report; there is the review again; depending on the type of the project that administrative appraisal will participate with the sight inspection of the subject property and will inspect the comparable sales chosen by the fee appraiser; that is important because it will bring in the communication with the Clerk’s Office; and this person, as a liaison is eventually going to have to be able to testify on some of these properties, whether they be sales or the subject property, this person is indeed the liaison. He stated number eight is the administrative appraiser that assists the appraiser with all reasonable requests for assistance including conference calls and other communications with the property owner’s representative, the client, meaning the County, or entities or persons involved in that assignment; number nine is the administrative appraiser receives that report; it has not been turned in; and he suggested at this time a copy could go to the Clerk’s Office simultaneously. He stated this is an electronic age and everybody is delivering in a PDF or Word format; it need not be something that has to be run off a copy machine and hand delivered; it can come straight in the way the reviewer would get it from the appraiser; and at that time it can be distributed to all concerned parties. He stated perhaps this administrative appraiser will wait for both appraisals to come in before they actually start the review; that is typical of a reviewer; and then immediately upon the second appraisal to send both of them to the Clerk’s Office. He stated he is trying to have the Clerk’s Office in the loop before the end of the process; the appraiser does not need 30 to 45 days to do these things; they have to make sure that it is in the pipeline; they have at least 10 days on the tail end of work- in-progress before they actually make
their first inspection, finish up work-in-progress, and then concentrate solely on the product for almost 21 days; and then at that point it is time it is delivered. Mr. Roper stated the review process can be much shorter if the Board has someone that has the responsibility as the administrative appraiser for Brevard County; this person can focus on that and see to it that that has got top priority; that becomes a significant element of their work; and they treat it accordingly. The Board will not need 30 days to do a review especially from someone who has been involved from the onset; and only 15 days is needed to get this done. He stated continuing with number nine, the administrative appraiser performs whatever level of review that would be required; it
ensures the reasonableness of the report and the value conclusion; this will require checking all the comparable sales, verifying the math, and so forth; but the most important thing is he or she needs to meet with these appraisers if there is a discrepancy and understand why there is a discrepancy because although it is an art, it is scientifically-based substantially. He advised the unit value range for the selection of sale should be predetermined by the highest and best use; if the Board backs up from the value there is going to be a difference in there; there is a presumption by one appraiser, for example, if he or she believes that multi-family units would be probably on site at a certain density and the other appraiser at low density residential, it will never come to the client like that as it will not get by the review appraiser, whom he believes would be responsible for going to find out what could eventually be developed and approximately when and why. He stated this person would take on a little added responsibility, but the Board could also eliminate some of the divergence that these appraisers would come up with; highest and best uses where most of the divergence lies is in the value; and most appraisers will be within 5% of one another. He stated number 10 is the appraisal report may require editing and may need somebody to go back into the field whether it is the administrative appraiser or the Clerk’s office, or whoever has questions and is entitled to answers. He stated nobody is going to steer these appraisers; if there is a technicality that needs to be taken into consideration or if there is a factual error then that is when it is critical that it get adjusted before the final delivery; the administrative appraiser will schedule time with the fee appraiser and other necessary persons to discuss the requested changed, including those members of the Clerk’s Office that are responsible for these particular reports; and when the editing or concerns are cleared up then the report is recommended for acceptance and approval. He stated that is just another way to handle quality control; and the Board may have to add a person, maybe some additional duties, but not a new person if it deals with the right review appraiser.
Commissioner Colon thanked Mr. Roper for his feedback. She stated the dollars are going to be very tight so she does not think the Board is able to consider even another position, even though she thinks it is a wonderful suggestion; two things have been talked about today that will put the County right on track; the Board needs to give it back to the Selection Committee to make sure that it is comfortable with what has been discussed in regards to trying to shorten the process with Keith’s idea; those ideas that he had and be able to kind of elaborate and articulate what has been discussed here to be able to take action on that today to bring it back to the Selection Committee; and the
sooner they meet the faster the EEL Program can get back on track. Commissioner Colon advised that needs to be squared away in a hurry. She stated secondly is to put on the next Agenda in regards to figuring out what the Board is going to be doing with the Land Acquisition Committee and exactly what direction that the Board would like them to take; it would behoove the Board to have Mr. Denninghoff and Mr. Ellis both as a part of that Committee only for the EEL process; Mr. Denninghoff cannot do that with the Land Acquisition since he is the one who brings it to the Committee; but she would definitely like those eyes and ears that she was referring to, to at least be part of the Committee. She stated those are the two things she thinks would probably need to be put on the next Agenda for discussion, the Land Acquisition Committee and to get more feedback from everybody, and to ask the Selection Committee to try to figure out the process. Ms. Busacca advised the only thing she would add to that is it would have to go back to the Selection and the Procedure Committees. Commissioner Colon commented right, both committees that were mentioned. Ms. Busacca stated the February 19th meeting is absolutely packed and staff would not have time to put this together; and suggested it come back at the March 4th meeting. Commissioner Colon inquired what is being put together; stated all that is being discussed is instead of taking action today, and saying the Board wants John and Scott Ellis on Board, all she is saying is the Board would discuss it at a regular meeting. Ms. Busacca advised she is just letting the Board know that the 19th is packed; and staff can have everything ready on March 4th.
Commissioner Nelson stated he was thinking along the same lines; he was thinking that the
Mr. Knight stated he wanted to make sure it was clear that right now the EEL Program is holding off on renegotiating, looking at further acquisitions, and he just wanted to be sure that is what the Board would like staff to continue to do until the issues are resolved with the Committees.
Commissioner Colon stated she does not think the Board should stop Mr. Knight from doing what he is doing; she just knows that by the time the Board gets to the contract level hopefully it is able to have the Land Acquisition Committee put together and be able to have the Clerk to look at it; that is why she was saying that to have those two
Committees meet as soon as possible to give the Board direction that will kind of get the ball rolling faster; and the Board is not stopping Mike from negotiations and things he is doing.
Commissioner Voltz stated she just does not know if the Board addressed the issue that it came here for and that was the appraisal process; Mr. Roper has laid out something for the Board; certainly it cannot hire anyone as it cannot afford it; but somehow or another maybe it can look at all these things and see how it could internally take this information and use it to benefit everyone. Ms. Busacca advised she thinks they can.
Commissioner Nelson inquired what the Board is going to get back; and if it is going to be a report back on those recommendations. Ms. Busacca responded John advises her that Holly does some of these already; she also has some suggestions for the Board about incorporating a different scope of services for appraisers; staff might be able to put some of this into scope of services for review appraisers as Mr. Roper suggested; and she thinks staff can come back to the Board with suggestions.
Commissioner Voltz advised she hoped so as that is the main focus of this whole workshop with the appraisals. Commissioner
Mr. Knight stated he assumes staff is to hold off on further acquisitions and further negotiations. Vice Chairman Bolin advised that is not correct; and staff is to move forward.
Commissioner Nelson inquired what it means with AG Ventures and Scottsmoor; with Mr. Knight responding staff would resume negotiations with them. Commissioner Nelson inquired if staff will try again; with Mr. Knight responding yes. Commissioner Colon advised they should. Vice Chairman Bolin stated the understanding of the Board is for staff to continue forward. Commissioner Voltz stated the Malabar property too.
APPOINTMENTS/REAPPOINTMENTS, RE: CITIZENS ADVISORY BOARDS
Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to appoint Linda Wise to the Planning and Zoning Board, with term expiring December 31, 2008. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.
Upon motion and vote the meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
ATTEST:
_________________________________
TRUMAN
BOARD OF
___________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK
(S E A L)