The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special session on August 19, 1999, at 10:00 a.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairman Truman Scarborough, Commissioners Randy O'Brien, Nancy Higgs, Sue Carlson and Helen Voltz, Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

The Invocation was given by Commissioner Helen Voltz, District 5.

Commissioner Sue Carlson led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

NOMINATIONS, RE: AMERICAN HERITAGE RIVER

Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer stated the County will be considering nominations to the American Heritage River Advisory Committee on Tuesday; and if the Board members will get their nominations to his office, he will make sure all Commissioners have them in time.

DISCUSSION, RE: COUNTYWIDE ORDINANCE ON TITLE LOANS

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to direct staff to request the cities provide input and recommendations concerning a Countywide ordinance on title loans and what should be included in the ordinance. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND PLANNING ON S.R. 46

Chairman Scarborough provided a map to the Board showing the property relative to an RV park off of S.R. 46; stated he is meeting this afternoon with the developer and things may be coming together concerning buffering from the neighbors; however, he has received telephone calls from some people asking about what will happen with S.R. 46 and the traffic. He advised the project is to the south of S.R. 46 and is 117 acres; there is an existing RV park and a road further south that the developer will be asking to vacate; the binding development plan does not include a site plan; but what is lacking is the traffic analysis on S.R. 46, so the County should ask the developer to do a traffic analysis. Chairman Scarborough recommended the developer do traffic engineering and planning on S.R. 46 for the project.

DISCUSSION, RE: TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND PLANNING ON S.R. 46

Commissioner Higgs stated it seems reasonable for the developer to do that, but she is concerned about taking some action. Commissioner Voltz inquired can the Board put in the binding development plan that the developer has to abide by whatever comes out of the study.

Chairman Scarborough stated he has a problem with this project, and will see how it goes this afternoon after meeting with the developer.

DISCUSSION, RE: MANATEE PROTECTION PLAN

Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer stated written recommendations regarding the Manatee Protection Plan have been submitted by Save The Manatee Club, Citizens for Florida Waterways (CFW), Florida Institute of Technology (F.I.T.), and the Cities of Titusville and Cocoa; and the State of Florida is represented by David Arnold. He stated there has been a change in the location of the Bureau of Protected Species where the manatee plan will now be residing; such change has gone from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) to the new Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC), and Mr. Arnold is now representing that agency.

Chairman Scarborough requested representatives of the various agencies introduce themselves, which included Ron Pritchard, CFW; Daniel Devorcki, CFW; Virginia Barker, Office of Natural Resources Management (ONRM); Conrad White, ONRM; Sandra Clinger, Save the Manatee Club (SMC); David Arnold, FFWCC; Christy Fisher, City of Palm Bay; Jerry Sansom, City of Cocoa; Wes Hoaglund, City of Titusville; and Bill McCord, City of Melbourne.

David Arnold, representing Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, stated the FFWCC is now responsible for all wildlife management activities in the State of Florida, in addition to wildlife research issues; in the role that the Bureau of Protected Species Management (BPSM) occupied previously, there essentially have been no changes; the Bureau is still responsible for implementing speed zone regulations as it relates to manatee protection; and it is also responsible for working with local governments to develop cooperative manatee protection plans. He noted the Bureau also comments on regulatory permits; he has been advised by Dr. Egbert, Executive Director of the Bureau, that there is no change proposed at this time for its role; and if they are able to come up with a document that is appropriate, he will sign off on the plan as it pertains to activities within the purview of the Wildlife Conservation Commission. Mr. Arnold stated the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) is not represented today; such Department has the final say in whether or not marina facilities receive permits from the State of Florida in a regulatory environment; the St. Johns River Water Management District has the final say in whether or not permits are issued for other kinds of facilities; the Bureau, as well as Save the Manatee Club and Citizens for Florida Waterways, are all in the same seat as they only provide comments; and the various amounts of weight their comments carry are somewhat different.

DISCUSSION, RE: MANATEE PROTECTION PLAN

Mr. Arnold stated when other counties adopted their local plans, they have put some parts into their Code, and other parts were not put into the local Code; when the Bureau evaluates a particular project, it looks at the document which has good information included and helps it in making its decision; but it does not bind the Bureau, and it cannot use it in a court proceeding.

Commissioner Voltz inquired is Mr. Arnold saying the County's document cannot be legally binding anywhere, and if the Bureau does not accept it, then it does not matter to DEP. Mr. Arnold responded it matters to Brevard County; the Bureau considers local government input in its decision-making process; and if the County feels strongly a facility should be approved or denied, it tries to consider that as much as possible. Commissioner Voltz noted Mr. Arnold previously stated that if the Bureau based its decisions on what the Board has, and somebody takes the Bureau or County to court, Brevard County's document is not legally binding for the Bureau; with Mr. Arnold responding that is correct.

Commissioner Higgs stated there is a representative from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service present, and requested he be invited to sit in front with the other agencies.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated this is not a binding document at this point in time; if the County decides to pursue a regulatory document, it would have to adopt it as part of the Comprehensive Plan or part of an ordinance; and if it goes through the Comprehensive Plan review process, DEP will have an opportunity to review it when it goes to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA).

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Manatee Protection Plan for Brevard County will be instituted, maintained, and enforced by Brevard County; the financial costs of enforcement will also be borne by the County; and it is only a guideline for the Game and Fish and Commission. He stated it is his understanding that such Commission must perform a financial impact study on any speed zones Brevard County may want to install.

Mr. Arnold advised there are two ways speed zones can be implemented; Brevard County can implement a speed zone for manatee protection or boating safety as a County ordinance; the role of the Commission in that action is to agree or not agree with the zone the County may adopt locally for manatee protection; and if it does not concur with the zone adopted, there are specific actions to be taken in accordance with Florida Statutes. He stated if the Bureau promulgates a Florida Administrative Code Rule for manatee protection, the law specifies that a statement of estimated regulatory costs must be prepared.

Commissioner Voltz stated 13 counties have been requested to do a manatee protection plan, but it is not mandatory; and inquired if Brevard County does such a plan, and the Bureau says it

DISCUSSION, RE: MANATEE PROTECTION PLAN

does not like it, what happens then. Mr. Arnold responded if the Bureau and Brevard County cannot come to agreement on each part of the document, what both agencies decide to do with the document is up to them; and there is no requirement that the document be accepted by the state agencies or that Brevard County has to do any more work than it is willing to do.

Chairman Scarborough stated the cities have raised the issue of their right to comment on the plan and to have full review of it. Attorney Knox stated this is not a regulatory document and is contractual between Brevard County and DEP; and there is nothing in the Contract that says the cities have to review it. Chairman Scarborough stated it is unusual for the County to send documents for the cities' review; and inquired why it was done originally. Mr. Peffer responded in the early part of the planning process, one of the objectives of the plan was to provide opportunity for all the cities to participate and provide comment; there was no requirement to do so; and it has always been a cooperative planning process between the County and the State. Chairman Scarborough inquired if Brevard County does a manatee protection plan, to what extent do the cities have an opportunity to review it; with Mr. Peffer responding it is up to the Board.

Mr. Peffer stated on Page 1, Purpose, Line 4, it states, "Brevard was one of the counties identified and mandated to develop the plan"; the County has established that was not the case, and it was a cooperative effort; and recommended "mandated" be stricken.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to revise language on Page 1, Purpose, Line 4, to read "Brevard County was one of the counties identified, but not mandated, to develop comprehensive management plans". Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Devorcki suggested including language on Page 1, Goal, that the targeted growth rate for manatees is 1?% a year; and stated basing a goal on mortalities is flawed because the higher the population of manatees, the more deaths there will be.

Ms. Clinger stated assessing a population growth rate is a very difficult proposition; the manatee recovery team and manatee population working group are working on the populations around the State; and there are only two populations in Crystal River and Blue Springs that have a definitive population assessment where they can say for sure that the population is growing. She stated at the present time, there is no clear way of assessing the population growth rate; and the manatee recovery team has not assigned a rate of growth it feels is sufficient for recovery of the manatee.

Mr. Devorcki stated his data comes from the Secretary's Annual Report on Manatees which shows the manatee population is increasing at 1?% to 4?% a year; and it includes the entire population.

DISCUSSION, RE: MANATEE PROTECTION PLAN

Commissioner Voltz stated she does not see anything wrong with having a goal to have an increase in the population of the manatees. Commissioner Carlson stated another issue is the number of mortalities inflicted by watercraft; and if watercraft-related deaths could be reduced, then it is making some progress in the educational and enforcement process. Commissioner Voltz stated to reduce manatee deaths by a certain percentage could be a goal, but not just by boats, because they die by other means. Chairman Scarborough stated to have a goal of increasing the manatee population is positive. Ms. Clinger stated the County could have goals to look at reducing the average yearly mortality in Brevard County; it could try to get to some level that is lower than what it has today as a measure of success; and there is a variety of criteria that could be used. Commissioner O'Brien stated if Brevard County is going to have a meaningful goal, it should also have a meaningful number. Commissioner Carlson stated she agrees that there needs to be a statement that says the County will sustain the population, increase it, or improve it.

Mr. Arnold stated what Brevard County is able to do is only a small piece of the whole picture; it can do certain things, but it is not able to set a numerical goal when the federal entity responsible has not set the federal goal for the entire State population; once that is done, Brevard County could come back in subsequent years and amend its planning document to reflect established goals. He noted based on what the County has available right now, he does not believe it can do much with putting a number in the document. Commissioner Carlson stated this is an evolving document. Commissioner Voltz noted it is a changing document; the waters in Brevard County can only handle so many manatees for the amount of seagrass it has; and the acres of seagrass versus the amount of manatees, how much they eat, and how fast they reproduce need to be taken into account for what number of manatees is appropriate for Brevard County. She stated it is Fish and Wildlife Commission, DEP or another agency's job to get those numbers because it is State waters. Commissioner Higgs stated when the scientists and the recovery team have a handle on the Statewide number, the County can get a number for the plan; and in the meantime, a goal of the plan is to protect the manatees and their habitat, reduce mortality, increase population numbers, and decrease boater accidents and fatalities.

Mr. Pritchard stated there are other causes of manatee mortality other than watercraft; in 1998, watercraft mortality was third behind perinatal and undetermined; and if Brevard County is going to have goals, it needs to address more than just the watercraft aspect of mortality and focus on what it can do about perinatal, cold stress, and other natural causes.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired what fishery research has been taking place in Brevard County.

DISCUSSION, RE: MANATEE PROTECTION PLAN

Bob Day, representing DEP, stated DEP is doing fishery research throughout the Indian River Lagoon; the Fish and Wildlife Service is doing work on the Space Center; and there is a multi-party study that will be underway involving NASA, St. Johns River Water Management District, DEP, various universities and agencies looking at marshes on Merritt Island, which will also involve fishery studies.

The meeting recessed at 11:30 a.m. and reconvened at 11:50 a.m.

Ms. Clinger stated the SMC recommends a priority ranking for future protection and restoration projects for the Lagoon be included on Page 7.

Commissioner Voltz stated the Board sets its financial priorities at budget time, and to set a list of priorities now would be in error.

Scott Ellis stated the ranking is from another organization and the National Estuary Plan (NEP); such Plan is not under the control of the Board; and in the Manatee Protection Plan (MPP), the County could use the NEP as a guide, but have no "shalls" within the MPP to tie it to the NEP.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to include language on Page 7 that the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) be recognized as a planning tool. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Voltz voted nay.

Discussion ensued concerning boat facility sitings, performance based zoning, conditional use permits for marinas, 1:100 policy, site-by-site review basis, allowable densities, 2:100 policy, marina expansion, scientific studies, jurisdiction of waters, involvement of municipalities, mortalities, planning elements, existing zoned upland areas, Indian River and Duval Counties' Manatee Protection Plans, land development regulations, shoreline designation, siting criteria, overlaying data collected onto existing zoning, and application of the data in a planning process.

Mr. Pritchard stated the numbers in the plan of 5% and the boat to shoreline ratios are arbitrary; the CFW have spoken with marine biologists who have said the same thing; they never came off the 5% and never went to a point that would be more reasonable; and the CFW's position is numbers such as this are not appropriate, and marina and boat ramp siting should be a zoning and a land management issue.

DISCUSSION, RE: MANATEE PROTECTION PLAN

Commissioner O'Brien concurred it is a zoning issue; stated the entire section does not belong in the plan; and the County does not want to deprive anybody of their property rights. Commissioner Voltz stated she agrees with Commissioner O'Brien's comments.

Christy Fisher, representing the City of Palm Bay, stated in Zone A, where the City of Palm Bay is included with Turkey Creek, she does not understand how one size fits all. She inquired if it only has 2% manatee death mortality in that area, but over 400 mortalities in the Banana River intercoastal area, how can the same standards be applied to the City as they are to development along those portions of the Banana River.

Chairman Scarborough stated the Banana River is a State issue; Brevard County is supposed to cooperate and put a plan together; and inquired can it tell a municipality where it can and cannot put a marina. Attorney Knox responded the Florida Legislature has incorporated a provision in the Comprehensive Planning Legislation which encourages cities and counties both to adopt marina siting plans; the cities and counties both have jurisdiction over it; and the same legislation also encourages and requires intergovernmental cooperation and coordination. He noted right now it is a courtesy issue and policy decision of the Board to discuss the issues with the cities; and another mechanism concerning the legal interface between the cities and the County is having an amendment to the Charter.

Commissioner Voltz inquired would it be easier for the County to change criteria in a CUP or criteria in the manatee plan; with Mr. Peffer responding it would be easier to change criteria in the plan.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board did not accept or approve the 1997 Manatee Protection Plan; the cities were involved in the 1996 process; the reason everyone is present today is because the Board decided it wanted to make changes; and the cities must be involved again so they have an opportunity to be part of the process. He noted the Plan is three years old; a lot of things have changed; the cities should be a part of it; if the Board is going to discuss marina siting, it should convene a new committee to review how the cities will look at marina siting within their jurisdictions; and if they want to make it a separate element for every city, they can do that.

Commissioner Carlson stated instead of opening it up to another committee proceeding, the Board could send a letter to each municipality impacted and ask them what is there comfort level; if they wish to open it up, the Board can do so; however, there has been good input, the County is at a good position now, and it needs to make some decisions.

DISCUSSION, RE: MANATEE PROTECTION PLAN

The meeting recessed at 12:50 p.m. and reconvened at 1:41 p.m.

Chairman Scarborough stated he talked to the representatives of the Cities of Titusville, Cocoa, and Palm Bay; he asked them how they felt about being totally excluded or keeping the boat facility siting as a whole in the plan; Mr. Hoaglund communicated to him it is best to have a totally integrated County plan; and some of the cities' desire to move forward with siting incorporated in the plan, and work with the County to make sure the language is acceptable as opposed to deleting it or excluding the cities from it.

Mr. Hoaglund stated if there is a marina siting section in the plan that recognizes where the County feels expansion of marinas is appropriate, and it is part of the siting the City of Titusville suggested in Zone D, it is acceptable to the City; it allows the City to recognize where in the County marina expansion is appropriate; it is a decision that needs to be made on a County basis and not a municipality basis; and the City would like to be part of a Countywide plan that recognizes there are urban locations appropriate for expansion. Commissioner Voltz inquired if Mr. Hoaglund feels the issue with zones is all right and is a good concept. Mr. Hoaglund responded the City is suggesting in Zone D to recognize if it is in a municipality, zoned correctly and has other criteria which make it an appropriate site for expanded slips, that is where the County wants the new slips to be created.

Jerry Sansom, representing the City of Cocoa, stated the City's position is the same as the City of Titusville; if the County is going to have a marina siting element in the plan, it is important to recognize those urban areas where marina expansion should be encouraged, recognizing those are already existing disturbed areas; and urged the Board to adopt the urban zone concept. He noted the current Zone D, which includes everything other than the critical zones, such as the Barge Canal and Port Canaveral, is still too large of a single zone to do the job; and that is why the City suggested breaking out the existing urban marinas as a zone with specific criteria.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the boat facility siting issues need to be sent back to all the cities to resolve the language for urban zoning and other zones. Commissioner Higgs stated at no point in the discussions of the plans, until now, have the cities stepped forward and said they do not like what was in the plan to start with; and various changes will probably go back to the cities.

Chairman Scarborough inquired where does the County stand with comments back from the cities.

Virginia Baker, representing Office of Natural Resources Management, responded in the Board's packet there is a letter from the City of Cocoa Beach that responds to the Cities of Cocoa and Titusville's write up saying they fully endorse their suggestions; and the County also has the City of Palm Bay's response.

DISCUSSION, RE: MANATEE PROTECTION PLAN

Kenny Boyd, representing CFW, requested the Board leave the marina siting out of the manatee protection plan entirely; and stated the State should be doing marina siting as it is the agency that has authority to issue permits and has the expertise.

Chairman Scarborough stated if the County does not have marina capacity in the Lagoon where the intercoastal is, there are going to be boats anchored there; and the Board has dealt with what is dumped into the river. Commissioner Carlson stated Brevard County has more local control if it keeps it in the plan than if it takes it out of the plan; and that is also what the cities are saying. Mr. Boyd stated the State does not have any authority legislatively to limit marina siting, but it can review permits. Mr. Arnold stated it is a fundamental, philosophical question of whether Brevard County wants to be involved in the process, even though it does not have ultimate jurisdiction over the State permit. Commissioner Carlson stated the municipalities need to have a say in the marinas in their areas which are mostly personal marinas. Mr. Boyd stated it may be beneficial for the County to make copies of its land use maps, highlight the areas that are zoned for commercial marinas, and forward them to the DEP to show how few there are. Commissioner Carlson stated the plan should show what marinas Brevard County has and what is the expected need. Commissioner O'Brien stated Merritt Island has 14 marinas, Cape Canaveral has four, Cocoa Beach has seven, and Cocoa has three; urban zoning is a good idea; but directly across from the City of Cocoa is a marina on Merritt Island on S.R. 520; and the County needs to make special zoning for that as well. Chairman Scarborough stated he concurs it is more than just a couple of cities that need to be brought into the process of urban marinas.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to send the boat facility siting criteria to all the cities, request they form a committee among the city managers, and come back with suggestions on how to resolve the problems.

Commissioner Voltz requested the motion include that individual marina owners be involved in the process. Chairman Scarborough requested the motion include that the product from the Cities of Titusville and Cocoa be incorporated in the mail out for comment also. Commissioner O'Brien accepted the amendment to the motion.

Commissioner Voltz stated whatever the Board decides today it needs to send back to the cities; it does not have what criteria it would be addressing; and some decisions need to be made first. Chairman Scarborough inquired if Commissioner O'Brien wants to remove his motion; with Commissioner Carlson responding the Board needs to make comments on boat facility siting and then make another motion.

Commissioner O'Brien withdrew his motion, and Commissioner Voltz withdrew her second to the motion.

DISCUSSION, RE: MANATEE PROTECTION PLAN

Mr. Devorcki stated it is apparent from the cities' submittal that they do not like the powerboat to shoreline ratios inserted for the other zones; the cities' Zone D does not use powerboat to shoreline ratios; there is no basis for a powerboat to shoreline ratio except to limit the public's access to the waterways; and a 1:100 ratio or a 5:100 ratio insures that no new marinas will be built. He noted with an increasing number of boats in Brevard County registered every year, it is irresponsible to arbitrarily limit the number of boats that can be stored at marinas, which includes dry storage; the CFW does not understand how dry storage at a marina can affect manatees; and it is not in favor of putting marinas everywhere as there are places where it makes no sense to put a marina. Mr. Devorcki stated the CFW supports the cities' concept of using a zoning based land use and other criteria, including sewage pump out, deep water channels, and locations in slow speed zones; but suggests deleting the arbitrarily imposed powerboat to shoreline ratios.

Commissioner Higgs stated it should not be characterized as keeping the public from the water; it is putting boats where they are least likely to cause damage to manatees; one of the criteria has always been the siting of where marinas go; and whether there are boats coming in from a dry storage area or coming from slips, they are going to be impacting manatees in the area.

Commissioner Voltz stated what has been neglected is the CFW's plan; it was not mentioned as being part of a viable option, but she thinks it is; and if the Board wants to include both plans with what the Board wants to send out, now is the time to do it. Commissioner Higgs noted the CFW's recommendation is to have no siting. Chairman Scarborough stated everyone's comments concerning boat facility siting should be sent out to review the full picture. Mr. Devorcki stated the CFW's original submission was not to delete the entire boat facility siting criteria until it had support from the Board; and the packet submitted contains CFW's realistic recommendations. Mr. Pritchard stated the CFW recommends that zoning and other land use considerations be utilized.

Mr. Ellis stated the cities are requesting an exemption from the manatee habitat feature rules; and if the rules are unfair and the cities want to be exempted, then everyone should be exempted. He advised the CFW struck the manatee habitat feature from its submittal to the plan because the numbers will apply to virtually every location along the river.

Ms. Clinger stated the ad hoc committee felt it should remain consistent with the State's threshold of significance concerning watercraft related mortality; that is what stayed in the plan; and the SMC supports it.

DISCUSSION, RE: MANATEE PROTECTION PLAN

Discussion proceeded concerning seagrasses, aquatic preserve standards, manatee behavior, manatee abundance features, manatee mortality, new aerial survey data, densities of manatees, Zone D, speed zones, marina facilities, shoreline ratios, and scientific data.

Commissioner Higgs stated criteria in the urban locations refer to existing publicly used marinas; they are expansion of existing marinas and not locating new ones; it is appropriate to review additional criteria; and the definition and recommendations from the cities refer to urban locations with existing public marinas. Commissioner O'Brien stated the County's information deals with non-existing and existing, including boat ramps.

Mr. Arnold stated he likes the concept in the County's document of using a combination of features; it may add information about what is going on with land use as another assistance; and encouraged the Board to use the features as it continues in the process and review proposals of SMC and County staff as further refinements. He stated as they have indicated, there should be disincentives to locating high-density marinas in locations where there are a lot of manatees and incentives to locate marinas in areas where there are not many manatees; and that approach may get Brevard County where it wants to be. Mr. Arnold stated the County needs to direct growth and water storage away from areas important to manatees, and toward areas less important for manatees; and Brevard County can get there with the pieces it has on the table.

The meeting recessed at 2:53 p.m. and reconvened at 3:09 p.m.

Commissioner Voltz inquired what is the City of Titusville's criteria for a new marina; with Mr. Hoaglund responding it did not add any criteria for a new marina, and it tried to identify those sites appropriate for expansion, including developing the new Zone D as a way to determine appropriate sites for expansion. Mr. Hoaglund stated there are not a lot of sites appropriate for new marinas anywhere in Brevard County.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to amend the siting section of the 1997 Manatee Protection Plan, to substitute the table sent by Fish and Wildlife Commission and habitat features table 2 sent by FDEP; and include the Cities of Titusville and Cocoa's new Zones D and E in the siting plan.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he cannot support the motion; it is fundamentally flawed and not the way to go about it; and the County could make it as a zoning issue instead. He noted there are other marinas besides in the Cities of Titusville and Cocoa, such as Merritt Island; and Merritt Island does not have a city manager to say Merritt Island has approximately five marinas that should be zoned urban on the Banana and Indian Rivers and would like to be exempted.

Chairman Scarborough stated what Commissioner Higgs is suggesting does not preclude the Board from doing that; and comments from the cities would help develop the urbanized area of Merritt Island. Commissioner O'Brien stated his original motion included sending out the plan and suggestions coming back; they may come back with a whole new strategy; and he is not afraid of looking at a different way of doing things. Commissioner Voltz stated she cannot support the motion; if the cities want out of this because they do not like the criteria, that should speak to the County that there are different criteria to use and not just the 5% and the five criteria listed; more scientific data needs to be available; and the cities may have other things the County could incorporate in its plan. Chairman Scarborough stated the County is sending this out for comment, and if the cities have something better, changes can be made; and if the County does not have something, it ends up with nothing. He stated he is convinced this plan is going to help the development of marinas in Brevard County; and there are a lot of places where marinas are never going to develop. He stated the County is trying to protect beyond the developable marina areas; and if it does not have a plan, it is going to be worse off with marina siting.

Commissioner Voltz stated she would feel more comfortable if it was given back to the cities and they came back and said they do not like the criteria, but they are good criteria for the County. Commissioner Higgs stated the County will adopt a draft plan for 1999, which will go back for comment and return to the Board to make a decision. She noted the zoning criteria will be incorporated as part of the County's normal operating procedures.

Commissioner Carlson noted there needs to be a time frame on the motion; with Commissioner Higgs responding her motion will include 45 days.

Chairman Scarborough called for a vote on the motion, to amend the siting section of the 1997 Manatee Protection Plan, to substitute the table sent by Fish and Wildlife Commission and habitat features table 2 sent by FDEP; include the Cities of Titusville and Cocoa's new zones D and E in the siting plan; and comments come back from the cities within 45 days. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners O'Brien and Voltz voted nay.

Chairman Scarborough stated he does not want this to go forward as what the Board is going to do; it is the 1997 plan the Board is working on with inclusions from two cities; and it would like to have input on the process.

DISCUSSION, RE: MANATEE PROTECTION PLAN

Mr. Devorcki inquired if the Board voted to accept the SMC's recommendations; with Chairman Scarborough responding that was not a part of the motion. Chairman Scarborough stated the Board did not accept it, but sent it to the cities for comment. Commissioner Higgs stated her motion was an amendment to the plan. Chairman Scarborough stated that was not his intention, and he wanted to send it on for comments.

Chairman Scarborough passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Higgs.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to reconsider the prior action. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Vice Chairman Higgs passed the gavel to Chairman Scarborough.

Chairman Scarborough stated the County needs to tell the people the Board is in a discussion mode on the issues; if it says it has amended the plan, there is a degree of finality; and he does not like to change the plan until he hears comments from the cities.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to direct staff to send Section C in its entirety, including Boat Facility Siting, and recommendations by Citizens for Florida Waterways, Save the Manatee Club, and Cities of Titusville, Cocoa and Palm Bay, to the cities to examine Section C as is and see what changes, if any, they desire; ask the cities if there is another way to accomplish this and if there are other concepts and ideas they have to present, which may include deleting the entire Section; and the cities provide their comments within 45 days.

Commissioner Higgs stated sooner or later the Board is going to have to make some decisions; it is where it was last May in requesting the cities submit their comments; she cannot support the motion; and the Board needs to move on. She noted she would support an amendment saying this is what the Board is thinking about doing, the cities can respond back, and it will adopt a final plan. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board is deferring its decision-making power, prolonging the process, and not accomplishing anything.

Chairman Scarborough called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Higgs and Carlson voted nay.

DISCUSSION, RE: MANATEE PROTECTION PLAN

Commissioner Carlson stated the status report of May 10, 1999 from FDEP cites major items not resolved; and requested Mr. Arnold comment on it.

Mr. Arnold stated FDEP would not propose removal of a zone if it feels there is no scientific basis for it at this time; it would remove some of the zones it agreed to in negotiations with Commissioner O'Brien; and FDEP can go along with some of the things Brevard County asked for, but cannot agree to all of it. He stated if the County wants to add more recommendations to the document, it is welcome to do so; it can propose anything it wants to; and he can also suggest some language it can put into the document. Mr. Arnold stated if the County knows up front that the agency responsible for promulgating the rules does not feel it is something it can support, it is the County's call whether or not it wants to keep it in the plan; and if it is on notice that FDEP does not support it, FDEP is not going to send back the entire document and say it rejects the entire thing because Brevard County put something in there that the agency did not agree with; however, it will send back a letter saying it likes the document except for a certain page or paragraph. He noted FDEP will work with Brevard County to go forward on the things it agrees with; and things it does not agree with will be dealt with in the rule-making process.

Commissioner Voltz stated if the County puts in speed zones that the State does not like and there is not a consensus, then it goes no where. Mr. Arnold responded it is in Brevard County's plan as a recommendation; the State notices a rule development workshop; changes are presented that the State and Brevard County want to make on the MPP; and the Board could vote to make official comment on the proposed rule. He noted the State would complete its rule-making process and have a decision on the new speed zone the State wants to post in Brevard County; the Board could decide it does not like that and wants to go through the administrative process; and at the end of the process the speed zone rule changes and signs get posted. Commissioner Voltz stated regardless of what the Board does, if the State wants to make a rule change, it is going to do it. Mr. Arnold noted the State can propose it in the rule-making process. Commissioner Voltz inquired Brevard County can comment on it, but if the State does not like the comments, then what; with Mr. Arnold responding the County can take the State through the administrative law process, and after that hearing, to District Court.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board did not entertain any language that would make the verbiage on pages 12 and 13 consistent with its existing policy, the Comprehensive Plan, Land Development Regulations (LDR's) and Surface Water Protection Ordinance.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt language on pages 12 and 13 of the 1997 Plan that is consistent with the existing policies, LDR's and Surface Water Protection Ordinance.

DISCUSSION, RE: MANATEE PROTECTION PLAN

Commissioner O'Brien suggested the Board wait until it receives comments from the municipalities.

Chairman Scarborough stated since the County's law evolved after the 1997 Plan was adopted, it needs to make sure the document properly reflects where it is; and suggested the motion include language consistent with current law.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to include language on pages 12 and 13 that is consistent with current law.

Commissioner Voltz stated page 12, under dredging, from "unless it is in the public interest . . ." is not in the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Higgs stated what should be in the document is what is in the Comprehensive Plan.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to remove all language under "dredging" and modify existing Policy 3, Brevard County Comprehensive Plan, Conservation Element, Land Development Regulations, Division 3, Surface Water Protection Ordinance, Section 62-366 (5) to include the same language as in the MPP.

Commissioner Higgs stated she cannot support the motion. Chairman Scarborough stated he cannot support the motion as it is taking definitive action, and he does not want to do so when asking individuals for opinions. Commissioner Voltz suggested the Board leave the whole thing alone.

Chairman Scarborough called for a vote on the motion. Motion did not carry; Commissioners O'Brien and Voltz voted aye, Commissioners Scarborough, Higgs and Carlson voted nay.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to reference current law in the Manatee Protection Plan sections on pages 12 and 13.

Commissioner Higgs stated her intent is if there is language in the existing Plan that is different than the Comprehensive Plan, LDR's or Surface Water Protection Ordinance, then those changes would be made for consistency and would be the same.

Commissioner Voltz stated the Board should not be making amendments or changes if it is sending the document to the cities. Chairman Scarborough stated the County does not have

DISCUSSION, RE: MANATEE PROTECTION PLAN

the cities fully involved; it is critical for them to have that opportunity; Commissioner Higgs is correct in that the County needs to incorporate current law; but it can be done at the end when everything is brought together.

Chairman Scarborough stated staff needs to identify any language in the 1997 Plan that may be inconsistent with the current Comprehensive Plan, and coordinate with the Commission Offices on scheduling another Manatee Protection Plan workshop.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to direct that the cities provide their comments within 60 days. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, to have the next Manatee Protection Plan workshop upstairs. Motion died for lack of a second.

Commissioner Carlson requested staff consolidate the municipalities' input into one paper as it is difficult to review numerous pages.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m.

ATTEST:

TRUMAN SCARBOROUGH, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK
(S E A L)