January 13, 2005

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special session on January 13, 2005, at 9:00 a.m. in the Government Center Florida Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairman Ron Pritchard, D.P.A., Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Helen Voltz, Susan Carlson, and Jackie Colon, Interim County Manager Peggy Busacca, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

REPORT, RE: ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED AT THE END OF THE AGENDA

Interim County Manager Peggy Busacca stated the Board has before it Items IV.A and IV.B; these are two items that were tabled from the January 11, 2005 meeting for additional information; the information is just now being provided to the Board; and it will be considered under other business at the end of the Agenda this afternoon.

RESOLUTION, RE: CIVIL RIGHTS UNITY DAY

Commissioner Colon stated she would like to pass a resolution for Civil Rights Unity Day; and the Resolution will be presented at a later date at the King Center.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution proclaiming January 14, 2005 as Civil Rights Unity Day. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Pritchard inquired if Commissioner Colon wanted to read the Resolution. Commissioner Colon responded yes; and read aloud the Resolution.

REPORT, RE: PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC MARINAS

Chairman Pritchard stated the Board may be aware of the issue of the privatization of public marinas, and the detriment that it is causing to obtain public access to waterways. He stated it will create multiple problems. He stated when marinas are privatized, many of the boats are there because they are too large to have at home or for convenience; the ones that have a trailer will now be looking for other places; and it may bring them into residential neighborhoods. He stated it is putting people out of work, putting people who have boats in a difficult situation, and it is creating the type of atmosphere that is not conducive to the public use of the water rights. He advised he is going to prepare a resolution for consideration by the Board supporting the non-privatization of public marinas. He stated Whitley Bay is the prime example being used as a poster child. He stated the City of Cocoa voted unanimously to oppose the privatization; the same group that has bought that marina has bought other public marinas and is privatizing them; and the Board needs to take a position on that. Chairman Pritchard stated he will prepare a resolution and bring it back January 25, 2005. He stated he is also seeking Board approval so he can attend the Governor’s cabinet meeting on February 16, 2005; he will fly up that day and back that night; he has friends with private planes so it can be arranged; and he can present the resolution in person to the Governor’s cabinet.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board has a legal ability to stop a private entity from taking away the public rights regarding marinas. County Attorney Scott Knox responded he would have to look at that question more carefully. He stated his reaction is probably not. Chairman Pritchard stated the issue is the private use of sovereign lands. Commissioner Carlson stated she would like background information on what it means and what it allows. Commissioner Scarborough stated he wants the County Attorney to put it in memorandum form because he would have the same questions. He stated there is a sovereign lands issue; the Cabinet sits as the Internal Improvement Fund, the Trustee for the sovereign lands; and there may be a hook there when the Chairman goes to Tallahassee. Commissioner Colon stated it is not if it is legal or not, but it will show the support from County Government that it is not the direction the Board wants to go. She stated there may be nothing the Board can do about it, but at least it sends a message. Chairman Pritchard advised the message is being felt Statewide. He stated the problem is land is becoming too valuable, especially waterfront property; and allowing some of the land to be privatized is a detriment to the public.

Commissioner Voltz inquired if a motion is necessary; with Chairman Pritchard responding it can wait until January 25, 2005. Chairman Pritchard stated he would like to parallel the City of Cocoa’s letter; Representative Bob Allen has initiated a response regarding the privatization of Whitley Bay Marina; and the Board will be paralleling efforts that are already underway.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Dolores Kane advised she has a few questions about the Environmentally Endangered Lands Contract. She inquired if Brevard County participates in the purchase, and the State of Florida purchases it and has it titled in its name, can the State sell the property without Brevard County’s permission. Chairman Pritchard responded yes, but it would take a majority of the Legislature in order to be done; and he doubts if it will ever happen. Commissioner Voltz stated it has happened. Ms. Kane stated Brevard County can put money into it, and it is possible the State of Florida can turn around and sell it to a private developer. Chairman Pritchard inquired where did the State sell EEL’s property; with Commissioner Voltz responding there was an article in the newspaper. Commissioner Voltz stated it was near the Panhandle of Florida on the west coast somewhere; and the State did sell it for development. Chairman Pritchard stated he was not aware it had ever happened.

Ms. Kane stated she was reading in the paper that the Nature Conservancy did not want to be open to the public; and inquired if the Contract with them says that they may be audited at any time. Chairman Pritchard responded he does not see why not. Ms. Kane stated the Nature Conservancy does not like scrutiny.

Mike Moehle, State President of Citizens for Constitutional Property Rights, stated there has been a misunderstanding about the attitude that property rights advocates have regarding the EEL’s Program. He stated they are completely opposed to it, although many believe the government already owns too much land in Brevard County; and he has heard estimates that anywhere from 45% to 60% of the land in the County is owned by government. He advised in keeping with the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, if government is to own the land, it needs to pay for it instead of taking it. He stated the EEL’s Program is not keeping with that philosophy. He stated property rights advocates are not necessarily opposed to the EEL’s Program. He stated the Nature Conservancy has garnered matching funds from the State, when in truth what has been happening is the County has been providing the State with matching funds for the State to buy property. He noted most of the property he has seen that has been acquired with County matching funds to the State is under lock and key, and the public is not allowed access to it; and he does not think that is what the people of Brevard County want the Board to do with their money. He stated he questioned the wisdom of the acquisition of many small lots in old subdivisions; and all of that is staff intensive and costs a lot of money to negotiate. He advised there has been some conjecture that if the County takes title, the County will be able to build public facilities on the property, and it will not be preserved. He stated that objection can be overcome with the recording of conservation easement over the land. He stated if the County acquires full title to the property, it allows the County to get something in return for recording the conservation easement on the land. He stated he remembers in 2003 the School Board wanted to build a school on a site near the intersection of Pineda Causeway and Wickham Road; there was a family of scrub jays living on the site; the mitigation was going to be something like $9,000,000; so there is not a school there where one is needed. He stated the County did not receive any credit for the millions of dollars worth of scrub property it had acquired to that point because it did not have the title to that property; but if the County were to have the title to the property, it could record a conservation easement over it as mitigation for things like that. He stated there are many municipalities in the County that have similar problems; it can sell them conservation easement over property it requires; and there would be more money in the program to buy more property. He stated the County would still retain title to the property, control access, and allow public access to the property.

Ed Booth, Malabar Town Manager, stated the Town of Malabar wants to assist the EEL’s Program in obtaining small blocks of land so it can square its land to develop corridors between the lands it currently has, rezone that land into environmental lands, and change the Town’s Comprehensive Plan. He stated what they are asking for in return is to put a moratorium on purchasing large blocks of land, over ten acres, to put more of the funds into the Jordan Scrub to bring it up to a condition similar to the Malabar Scrub, and to not oppose the Town getting a five-acre parcel of land the State owns so it can put a senior center and shelter on that particular land. Mr. Booth advised FEMA seems willing to support the idea of building a shelter within the Town of Malabar because of the last hurricanes.

Chairman Pritchard stated the card did not specify which item Mr. Booth wanted to speak on, so he brought him up under public comments; and he will call him back up to speak under the Town of Malabar issue.

DISCUSSION, RE: ENVIRONMENTALLY ENDANGERED LANDS PROGRAM

EEL Program Overview

Parks and Recreation Director Chuck Nelson stated a referendum was passed in 2004 to continue the EEL’s Program, and staff is looking for direction. He stated to his right is Mark Bush, Member of the Selection and Management Committee, who will be making a presentation with the overview of the program and where it has gone to date; and to Mr. Bush’s right is Mike Knight, who is the Interim EEL’s Manager. He stated they are actively involved in seeking applicants for the EEL’s Manager position.

Mark Bush stated Mr. Moehle’s concerns are very well taken; he hopes to address most of those during the talk; and he raised important things about public access, and mega-multi parcels. He advised it is only a willing-seller program, and they never condemn lands and do not seek that. He stated the EEL’s Mission Statement is to protect and preserve biological diversity through responsible stewardship of Brevard County’s Natural Resources; and the Vision Statement goes on to talk about how EEL’s seeks to acquire and protect lands with a goal of protecting biodiversity in the County, providing passive recreation education opportunities, which goes back to access, and supporting active volunteerism within the community. He advised Brevard County was one of the first counties to put forward a referendum bond to support acquisition of conserved lands; and since its lead, other counties and municipalities have followed. He noted it has been a successful program, and is viewed as one of the leaders, and other counties come to Brevard County for advice on how to do this. He stated the structure is very much a part of EEL’s success; the Board of County Commissioners approves anything they do; and all they are doing is offering advice to the Board. He stated on one side there is the Selection and Management Committee, which takes a look at the lands and considers which lands to acquire from a scientific point of view, and how to manage them. He stated on the other side of the equation is the Procedures Committee; and he will let Rocky Randels speak on that. He stated staff gets caught in the middle; there is a good flow of communication between those entities; and the public has access to all of them. He stated there are very strict criteria about which lands to purchase; it is something that can be revisited; but it is laid out in the package the Board has. He stated the first thing they will consider is what is the quality of the land, how does it fit into the overall conservation goals within the County, are there endangered species within that land, and does it have a value for education for public access. Mr. Bush advised they have to look at whether they can manage the land; a pocket handkerchief-size piece of land going to be suitable for management; and there will not be successful long-term conservation if all of the lands are too small. He stated they look at the flow of the landscape to see if they can get into an area, and whether they should have prescribed burns; and larger tracts of land need to be looked at. He stated they have to look at the history of the land and if there are hazardous materials there; then they look at feasibility; it is the number one item; and they look to see if there is a willing seller. He stated they can only offer appraised value. He stated that is how they get their lands; many people have a better offer; and many people prefer to use EEL’s instead because they want to conserve the land.

Cape Canaveral Mayor Rocky Randels stated he brings greetings and thanks to the Board for its decision this past Tuesday to advertise for a real estate agent to help handle the purchases with the EEL’s monies. He stated it was a wise decision; and the City of Cape Canaveral supports the EEL’s Program even though it will probably never get any of the benefits of it due to its small size and being on the beach. He stated the Procedures Committee consists of volunteers; they are only an advisory committee; and it serves at the Board’s pleasure. He stated there are ten appointees; the EEL’s Procedure Committee was Richard Gramling, Priscilla Griffith, Margaret Hames, Hank Hurley, Diana Stees, Jonnie Swann, Kim Zarillo, and himself; and their task was to produce a book. He stated they were given only three objectives as volunteers. He stated one was to provide a document relating to the current policies of land acquisition of the real property management; the second task was to ensure that acquisition procedures and real property management activities would be carried out uniformly throughout the County; and the third task was to make the acquisition and real property management easily understood and readily available to the public. He stated he would like to point out that the Board has the final responsibility for the financing and interpretation of the EEL’s Program; and the Board makes all of the decisions relative to funding. He stated it was adopted by the Board on July 24, 1990; since that time it had two minor changes; in 1997, it was revised with a few words “County Adopted Recommendation Resolution 97-72”; and in 1997, the Board adopted Resolution 97-101. He stated the guide was done by volunteers that the Board selected.

Chairman Pritchard inquired who are the current members of the Procedure Committee. Mr. Randels responded he does not know; the Committee only meets once a year; and there have been new appointments made to the Committee.

Mr. Bush stated since he has been on the Selection Committee there has been very little turnover. He advised there are members of the Selection Committee in the audience who he would like to acknowledge, as follows: Ron Hight, David Breininger, Paul Schmalzer, and Kim Zarillo. He stated the missing members of the band of six are Charles Hinkle and Randy Parkinson. He stated the Board is comprised of scientists; most are Ph.D. scientists; and all have a lot of experience dealing with conservation-related matters. He advised it is one of the strengths of the program. He stated 21,000 acres have been acquired over the last ten years to be protected within the EEL’s network; and that is representing an expenditure from Brevard County of $29,000,000, and $33,000,000 from State, federal, and donations. Mr. Bush stated they are trying to preserve 20 habitat types within the County; and within those there are 64 threatened or endangered species that are federally or State listed. He stated the original purchase plan for land has to be modified by development; in the early days they saw it to be three bands of land across the south, central, and the middle of the County; but development has been so fast in the middle of the County that it has not played out. He stated they have proposed lands, but if they will buy them is another matter. He advised EEL’s can only offer the appraised value, and if the seller wants more than the appraised value, they will go to a developer. He stated they are trying to provide connectivity as much as possible from the beach across to the St. Johns River. He advised the pink area shows lands that have been identified as being of exceptionally high habitat quality and value; and those are the lands they would like to try to purchase. He stated lands marked in green are ones that have been successfully acquired within the past ten years; and there are large tracts of land and some small scattered points. He stated it is important to try to connect those dots as much as possible. He stated once the land is acquired, the work just begins as it has to be managed. He stated they try to target lands that need the minimum amount of management; there have to be prescribed burns; most of landscapes need to be burned every three to ten years; Brazilian pepper trees need to be removed; and that means they have to do labor-intensive exotic control. He stated habitat restoration may mean they have to replumb some areas to get natural drainage back; and they may have to plant trees to restore the land. He advised they need public access. He stated there are four management regions; each management region has a land manager; they have an assistant land manager; and then a staff with some center. He stated each of the land managers is responsible for what takes place in his or her area; and they have been very active in the past five years. He stated there have been 1,500 acres of prescribed fire and habitat restoration programs at various times ranging from tree planting to boardwalks. He noted one of the problems is the land they are buying may have been used as an informal dump; the trash must be removed from the site; and it is labor-intensive to collect and haul the trash off the land. He stated public access is the key issue; they want to have public access to the lands; but they have to be careful with how much access there is on which lands. He stated some of the lands are very sensitive, very small holdings, and those are not going to be good for having a lot of public access; but others like the Enchanted Forest are ideal for having an education center with a lot of access based around that center. He stated a good management decision needs to made regarding access for those lands. He stated the good news is the management comes first; the access comes second because it has to be safe, and they are getting to that stage now with lands bought three or four years ago. He stated there will be more access to lands EEL’s already owns; EEL’s has publicized which lands have those kinds of access; the brochures are available; and hopefully there will be more visitors taking advantage of those beautiful lands. He stated the access varies; at some sites it will be a very simple sand trail; at other sites it may be a boardwalk; and they are very aware all citizens need access to those sights. He stated there are three management and education centers in various stages of completion. He stated he hopes everyone has had a very aware all citizens need access to those sights. He stated there are three management and education centers in various stages of completion. He stated he hopes everyone has had a chance to visit the Enchanted Forest Sanctuary; and it is a spectacular educational facility and management center where all the goods can be stored to manage that region, plus have great displays and opportunities for education for school children and visitors. He stated in the central region an old house on Pine Island is being restored; and in the South Beach region there is going to be new construction on the old site of Chuck’s Steakhouse. He stated The Enchanted Forest has attracted about 20,000 visitors a year, so it is a very successful site. He advised these are school groups, youth groups, and individuals arriving; many of them go on guided tours provided by volunteers; there are interactive exhibits and programs set up for education; and it will be a great teaching tool for local educators. He noted volunteers are a very important part of the program; there are many volunteers who are dedicated to helping in the County; they clear trash, plant trees, help with exotic removal, and have saved EEL’s about $400,000 that would otherwise have to be spent on contractual services; and one can see what has been achieved. He stated there have been 20-plus miles of boundary fencing, 75 tons of trash removed, and the list goes on. He stated it shows how much the people of Brevard County care for the habitat.

Walter Pine stated the reason he is speaking about the summary is he thinks the underlying premises are incorrect or false. He stated it is clear that some that is being done is good. He stated there is a question that was raised approximately two days ago, that there have been decisions in court saying that some of the science is invalid in the case of other states and other areas, for instance Klamath Falls. He stated they had an issue with the salmon; it had been decided the salmon was never endangered; and it was not a problem whatsoever. He stated there are questions and challenges to the panther program and the underlying science. He stated one of the issues dealt with whether the science is valid enough before governmental action; and there is a lot of discussion about science but he does not see the science. He stated it is good for science to produce reports and studies to have validity; any new area of research begins with that type of science; and it builds upon previous work. He stated it is not good for the government to take action upon science in its infancy. He stated fire management has been debated for 20 years; it recently went through a paradigm shift; and it has now been admitted that the whole continent was fire managed for 10,000 years by the Native Americans. He stated as far as there being a pristine environment to restore, it does not exist and has not for 10,000 years. He stated the idea of restoration to a pre-habitat condition cannot occur. He stated fire management is a good thing, especially in areas of low nutrient quality; when fire goes through there is a emergent vegetation, which has a higher nutrient value; and it is a good thing if properly done. He stated a person must look at the underlying science to determine whether or not it substantiates government policies and if it reaches the validity necessary for the Board’s actions. He stated whether or not the sample sets are large enough, if the populations have been well-defined, all the questions have to be asked and answered before public policy is set. He stated as of yet most of this is still in its infancy and still under study and subject to change. He noted one of the interesting issues, and he believes in preserving necessary properties and species as most people do, is the removal of invasive species. Mr. Pine stated no one can disagree that those are displacing, damaging, harming, and injuring the current environment; and it is one of the areas that can be done without question. He stated regarding purchasing property for wildlife corridors and such, it is clear that some species do not need those wildlife corridors; in the northeast there are no wildlife corridors; and there are so many deer that people have more accidents involving deer than automobile accidents. He stated in California there is a scrub jay that once it reached a certain population density of humans, it flourished. He advised there is a question whether the Florida panther is even a Florida panther; there is genetic research that proves the genetics for the panther are the same throughout the North American Continent and Central American Continent; and there are a number of questions that are yet to be answered. He requested when the Board reviews the information, it ask the underlying questions and determine whether or not there is sufficient validity. He stated the research must be tested. He stated fire management was mentioned; and one of the prime movers behind fire management and the fuss that resulted in the changes was a gentleman who lives in the Everglades who is not a scientist. He stated the Board should look at this and the access issue. He advised the Board is required, when it spends money, to give equal access.

Indian River Lagoon Blueways Project

Parks and Recreation Director Chuck Nelson stated staff has tried to structure the discussion so they can hit some of the key points that have surfaced over the past few months and attempt to get some Board direction. He advised currently the Brevard Coastal Scrub Ecosystem Project, which is kind of a consolidation of the properties that the County had been pursuing under other titles has been the focus of the program; the question then arises with additional dollars how does the Board want to continue; inquired does it want to add other features to it; and advised connectivity, trails, and introduction of additional programs have been discussed. He stated the SMC and the County did not get involved in the Indian River Lagoon Blueways Project because the resources were already committed and it would have been another program the County could not fund; but now it has potential to fund it. He stated currently outstanding, in terms of the ecoscrub, are about 9,100 parcels and 54,000 acres that are listed within that. He stated one of the difficulties staff has is while they are going for the best of the best, and as they acquire of the properties they fall off and they move to the next one, and so there needs to be more on the list than can be acquired because as they fall off they need to have more to choose from. He stated there is an ongoing process review; they do not want to buy the edges if the core of the property has been purchased and is going to be developed; and that process is always ongoing.

Commissioner Voltz inquired if the 54,000 acres are just in the Blueways Project. Mr. Nelson responded that is in the Brevard Coastal Scrub Program. He stated the question to the Board is one of direction; the predominant habitat is the scrub habitat; and it is good for a variety of reasons. Mr. Nelson stated the lands serve for water recharge; and there are other benefits that go beyond that. He stated minus the scrub jay, it is a habitat type that should continue in terms of the benefit to Brevard County’s environment. He stated he would like to call upon the experts as well as staff for any questions related to the current program as well as future programs.

Chairman Pritchard advised he read the curriculum vitae’s of the members of the scientific community, and they were very extensive. He stated the members of the committee are very impressive; and any committee would be well-served by having that group on it. He stated he has Exhibit A that was handed out to the Board a while back, Brevard Coastal Scrub Eco System Project; it starts with South Lake Complex; and there are about 15 items listed. He inquired if it is in any way prioritized. South Lake Complex, Fox Lake Complex, Titusville Well Field Area, and Tico Expansion, or is it just a list of areas under consideration. Mike Knight responded those areas are not listed in any particular order; the only priority list currently is what was on the slide earlier; and there are circled areas showing where there are areas that need to be reconnected. Chairman Pritchard stated one of his concerns, which is based upon an article in the Tampa Tribune, is the State’s land buying program, Florida Forever, being squeezed by the State’s sizzling real estate prices. He stated Brevard County will pay more for less acreage; prices are going up dramatically; and what was $20,000 an acre is now $60,000 an acre. He stated he does not think the County will be able to squeeze people with the idea of quick cash by trying to lowball them; the County will need to pay people the most that can be paid under an appraisal because the land values are increasing so dramatically; and when seeking a willing seller, a willing price must be paid. He stated he has a particular interest in the Thousand Islands in Cocoa Beach; he was able to get in touch with the attorney who represents the Reynolds family, which is the majority property owner; and a meeting has been set for the end of the month or beginning of February. He stated the important thing is the County is back to the table; there was a time when it was not; much of it had to do with a bit of a heavy handedness given to the family; and that family could buy Cocoa Beach if it wanted to. He stated the acquisition could run as high as $5,000,000; but he is basing that on what previous property sold for north of the Minuteman Causeway ten years ago. He stated that is an item that is crucial to the purchase for the EEL’s Program for a variety of reasons; and he would like to see that be one of the items acceptable for purchase.

Commissioner Carlson stated the County has a scientific advisory board that could look at those, the Thousand Islands as well as all of the other things the County has on the list of potential purchases, and it can make a decision whether it is viable. She inquired was the history of the appraised value set by the Board way back when such that it cannot go over appraised value. She stated the reason she asked is because of the difficulty of the central plan, the scrub area in the central area, and the County had difficulty in purchasing some of the pieces; there is a lot of conservation area that Viera Development had to preserve for its DRI; and that provides a huge wildlife corridor connectivity in the central region, but the County has been stopped by various developers will not accept a good price. Mr. Nelson responded it is a twofold issue; and because of the partnership with the State, their rules are very rigid, and do not allow going above the appraised values. He advised the County has the flexibility, if it wants, to acquire the property without reimbursement and go above the appraisal; its policies do allow that under certain circumstances; and it requires super majority vote of the Board to be able to do that.

Chairman Pritchard inquired why could not the Board go above the appraised value and take that off the amount it would be asking from the State; and stated if it were appraised at $1,000,000 and the seller wanted $1,200,000, it could accept the $200,000 as the County’s. Mr. Nelson stated it would be a good question to ask Keith Fountain because he has more history in terms of that relationship with the State.

Keith Fountain, with The Nature Conservancy, stated unless the Board has some kind of statutory or rule prohibition, it could do that; and in fact has been done recently in Escambia County. He stated the State did some transactions where it paid 100% of the appraised price, and the County threw in 20% over and beyond that. Mr. Nelson inquired if the State only pays up to appraised value; with Mr. Fountain responding the State can pay more than appraised value. Mr. Nelson stated either Lee or Collier County had a situation where the State paid only 80% of the value; and it raised issues. He stated the State has a certain amount of money to spend Statewide, and its concern was if it took down one major acquisition, it would consume four years worth of dollars available; and it would go to one county. He stated real estate is a very dynamic market; but with the market the way it is the County needs to look at other alternatives.

Commissioner Colon stated she was under the impression that the EEL’s Committee and the Board are supposed to be two separate identities; and the political side is completely taken away from it. She stated about three years ago there was a subdivision from Rockledge coming before the Board; the Board denied the rezoning of the subdivision; and at the same meeting the Board wanted to see if the EEL’s group was interested. She stated ethically to her she was uncomfortable; and inquired how does the Board deny something and at the same meeting discuss the fact that possibly the County can purchase it through EEL’s. She inquired where is the line drawn on how much input the Board has. She stated because there is a referendum she thought it was cut and dry what the Board’s position was supposed to be. She stated the Board needs to be clear today.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated the EEL’s Program is set up by Resolution, which is Board policy on how it decided to purchase those lands. He stated policy can be changed anytime the Board wants; but right now the policy is to go through the advisory committee and let it make recommendations to the Board. He stated the issue raised regarding rezoning and what impact a potential purchase might have if rezoning is denied goes more towards a legal issue; if the Board decides to turn down a rezoning because it may have a potential for being purchased, and it is referred to the EEL’s Committee, someone may challenge that, saying the Board is being arbitrary and capricious and is not basing its decision on substantial, competent evidence; and the person will probably prevail if that is the basis for the Board’s decision.

Mr. Nelson advised the history process was a reaction to a failed process under Beach and Riverfront; in the first few years they had a good list; but towards the end of the program, flexibility kicked in and there were questions about some of the acquisitions. He stated the selection committee was County staff; he was fortunate to only have to deal with it for a year;
and it was an awkward position to know a Commissioner was proposing an acquisition that did not meet the criteria. He stated the pressure of being County staff and voting against a Commissioner was a terrible place to be; and as a result the committee that was set up was one to take the politics out of it. He noted right or wrong, that is how it happened; and some of that flexibility was passed on to a citizen body instead of County staff.

Commissioner Voltz stated the County only has $60,000,000 to purchase lands; and the Board needs to know what lands to purchase. She stated what the Board needs to do is look at those lands that are truly environmentally endangered and get a list of things the County can afford; the list needs to be prioritized; and the County needs to purchase as much land as it can. She stated it will show the public what the Board’s priorities are as far as land pieces. She advised there is a large area in Valkaria where the State is purchasing those individual lots; the County does not have anything to do with that; but the rest of the large pieces the County can potentially purchase; and the Board needs to go after them in full force while the land is at the price it is at now. She stated someone will offer to sell the County property and when it gets the appraised value someone else can pay more than that. She stated if the Board wants to buy a certain piece of land, it needs to be able to negotiate; and she guesses whoever the Board hires as the firm to do that for it needs to have the flexibility. She noted a priority list is very important at this point.

Commissioner Carlson stated the scrub projects and the central, north, and south plans were considered to be priorities; and inquired if the Selection Committee updated its plan. She stated Mr. Bush said the Committee is doing its best to conserve east to west but not north and south anymore; the County was limited at first trying to conserve the wildlife corridors north and south because of the amount of development and sprawl it has; and inquired if the Selection Committee has updated the plans, does the Committee feel scrub should take precedence over the Blueways Project. She advised the Board needs to know those kinds of things before it can set priorities. She stated it needs to be kept in the scientific communities ballpark as they are the ones that have the knowledge and understanding of the viability. She stated the Board needs the Committee’s advice on which has the greatest likelihood of survival, can it buy it if it is over the appraisal, how much can it go over, is it that important to buy over the appraised value, and does it go somewhere else and leave the connectivity in the trash because it cannot be done. She stated those are some of the priorities the Board is talking about.

Mr. Nelson stated the County had a program that was winding down with limited dollars; and while a person could have expended a lot of time and energy, there were no additional resources that would fix that. He stated with the passage of the referendum, they will be excited about doing it.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Selection Committee reviewed a plan, or plans to review how it would administer that $60,000,000 in terms of east, west, north, and south. Mr. Nelson advised the Committee wanted to hear the Board’s comments so it would know what the mission would be. He stated everyone is getting a picture of where the Board wants to go. He stated now they can move forward to look at it based on activity and new possible resources that need to be addressed because of additional dollars, prioritize, and come back with a plan. Commissioner Carlson advised she wanted a more aggressive approach to alternatives of fee simple because in the case of the central piece the County could have possibly gone to transfer of development rights or purchase of a part of it and still allow development to occur. She stated she does not know how aggressively the Board has done that; it seems it has done more fee simple and purchasing of the properties; and it has not been creative as far as piecing them together and leveraging every dollar.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he has been concerned where the County is going because as it moves through the clustering to preserve, it ran into incompatibility issues. He advised he is finding that in his district. He stated there is an enhanced value in having a piece of property on a golf course or next to a wooded area; and it adds some value. He stated Natural Resources Management Director Ernie Brown told him that in Virginia they had a methodology for the purchase of development rights; if the County has larger parcels of property and it can work it out in advance of even the zoning, there are vast areas the County has purchased the development rights from and easements; and it can push the money far, be very creative, and embrace the whole concept of bringing the issue of compatibility back into line with the idea of preserving as it develops. He inquired what would the County look like if everything developed out entirely. He stated some people voted for the referendum not because they were necessarily environmentalists but because they were concerned about a total build-out of total development rights; and he likes the idea. Commissioner Carlson stated the other piece is the County does have established in the Comprehensive Plan the greenways and trails; and she would like to see the connectivity in the overlay of the greenways and corridors that make up that plan be overlaid in consideration of the Selection Committee when they are doing it. She stated it means as a Selection Committee is seated, it has advisory input from Parks and Recreation and Transportation Planning, which have oversight of parks and trails and things like that. She stated it is science but in that science the Board can be reasonable about how it connects things; and it can try to find ways to connect existing parks, bring people to the endangered parks being developed, get them on their bikes, and connect the whole community. She advised the biggest piece of it is connection because as the County is running into high prices and difficulty in purchasing land, it needs to make sure the development community knows if it connects things together it can only improve its position overall for its development and return on that development; and it will create a much more accessible land purchasing program.

Chairman Pritchard stated Bud Crisafulli brought out that the agricultural community would be very interested in that type of program where they could set aside a development right; they could still maintain the property; but the cost of farmland is going to the point where the land is worth more than the product. He noted the Board needs to look at that from the community perspective of what is important; it is important for the County to have the open expanse of agricultural lands; and if that is aesthetically pleasing and enhancing the habitat, it needs to be creative as to how it is doing that without taking it off the tax roll. He noted the creativity that is involved with that is most important. Commissioner Carlson stated that is why transfer of development rights is a good idea. Chairman Pritchard stated anytime the Board can do something like that, still keeping property on the tax roll, it is good to go.

Commissioner Voltz inquired if the County can purchase development rights with the EEL’s Program monies. County Attorney Scott Knox responded the net affect is to preserve the land, and it might be able to do that, but he would have to research it. Chairman Pritchard advised if the Board did that there probably would not be a State matching fund, but it would probably purchase for much less and still have the same net effect. Commissioner Carlson stated by looking at the language under Ballot Language in the book, which is the 1990 and the 2004 language, there are a couple of different words in there besides the acquisition, improvement, and maintenance of EEL’s lands and water areas for the protection of habitat, public open space, and water resources; and she is sure within those guidelines there is a way to manipulate it for the betterment of the EEL’s Program and the public at large.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he thought the question was raised if the acquisition of a conservation easement would be a legitimate expenditure of the funds; and that is one of the reasons he voted for the current format because he sees it as one avenue of moving dollars further. Mr. Knox stated he will look into it further; and he believes Commissioner Scarborough may be right.

Interim County Manager Peggy Bucassa stated she is somewhat familiar with some of the transfer of development rights and transfer of purchase rights programs as they occur nationally; it takes some time to put those programs into place; and in states where transfer of development rights works effectively there usually is a full-time staff that does nothing but broker that system. She stated her thought is whether the Board might consider taking a portion of funds and saying those go to immediate acquisition and a portion of funds to be used in a program that would take a longer term to set up. She stated purchase price is going up very quickly.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he knows people always sell easements; and the concept of selling an easement is totally different than a development right. He stated all of a sudden the amount of compensation for developing here is different from there; and it is a very complex problem. He stated the purchase is extremely simple. He stated if a person had the back area conserved and had lots surrounding that he or she would get an enhanced value to those lots because they do not back up to someone’s back door. He stated by the same token a person has money flowing in from the sale of that; and he or she does the math, decides it works, and does it. He stated he has never talked to a person, except for a planner, who has understood the transfer. Ms. Busacca stated transfers of development rights are very difficult; and purchase of development rights or the purchase of a conservation easement is different. She stated there is a group that is seeking direction; and the Board could clearly say the innovative is more important than the strict purchase. Commissioner Scarborough stated Natural Resources Management Ernie Brown told him in Virginia they do have it, and it is working.

Mr. Fountain stated the Bond Referendum requires the protection of conservation values of the property, water resource value, and that type of thing. He stated in its purest sense the transfer of just development rights does not necessarily do that; all of the residential units can be purchased; and the person can still come in clear, mine the property and do those other things. He stated a conservation easement typically buys all or some of the development rights, but then also adds that layer of protection for the conservation values of the property. He advised if mining is not an appropriate activity, it would prohibit that and if silviculture is compatible with the conservation values of the property it would be allowed.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if the County buys a conservation easement, it is buying it to preserve it as a conservation area; so it may pay different amounts for different things based upon what the committee is seeing the needs to be. He stated he believes that is something that can work as opposed to the transfer. Mr. Fountain advised what the County pays is related to what rights it acquires. He stated the conservation easement is done by a number of entities, such as the State and Water Management Districts around the State; and in many cases agricultural practices are compatible with the conservation values of the property. He stated the conservation easement can be purchased; it would be less money than buying the fee simple value; the property stays on the tax rolls; the agricultural entities and land owners are excellent stewards of the property; and the property remains privately managed, and is in a fashion very compatible to the conservation values of the property.

Chairman Pritchard inquired if there is a rule of thumb as to what the price difference might be. Mr. Fountain responded it varies; it can be down at 30% of fee value; it can go up to 90%; but it depends on what rights are being acquired and the highest and best use of the property. Chairman Pritchard inquired if there would be a reduction of tax the person would pay for property under a conservation easement; with Mr. Fountain responding it varies from county to county; and the Property Appraiser has the jurisdiction of deciding that. Mr. Fountain stated in theory the answer is yes; if a person took a piece of property that had a highest and best use of residential development of some type. and he or she came in and did a conservation easement, in theory it would lower the value of that property. Commissioner Carlson advised the County can still provide tax incentives; even though the Property Appraiser says it is worth this and a person has to pay this it can provide tax incentive if it has a large tract of agricultural land and wants it to stay out of development. She stated the transfer of development rights are best applied to agricultural pieces and that sort of thing that a person knows cannot be mined; and inquired when there is a transfer of development rights, does a person purchase specific rights. Mr. Fountain responded he does not know that much about transfer of development rights, he has never messed with them, but they are always discussed; the Conservancy looks at them occasionally in some areas; and he has heard planners say a lot of negative things about them. He stated typically in transfer of development rights it would be areas that have low density; and a program needs to be set up where people can sell those rights to people in other areas.

Mr. Bush stated the EEL’s Program is very interested in conservation easements, but there is no public access with them; and if public access is a big issue then when the County gets a conservation easement on a piece of land, the original land owner still holds all the rights to their use of the land and the public does not have access to visit that land necessarily. Commissioner Carlson inquired if a conservation easement can be done with the purchase of development rights so access can be gotten. Mr. Bush responded that is way beyond his expertise. He stated he wanted to raise that as an issue.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if he owned a big chunk of land and bought a conservation easement on the holder, and Commissioner Carlson wanted a trail to go through the middle, he could goes and acquire independently of a trail through for the purpose of access. He stated a person can look at two different easements there, and acquiring of the access easement would be substantially less than going through a subdivision because it may enhance the value of the properties if a person can access a trail that goes for miles.

Chairman Pritchard stated it is a workshop and he will be more lenient, so when something is relevant to the conversation, everyone should feel free to speak up. Mr. Fountain advised a person can get public access with conservation easements; it is very difficult; the State agencies try to get it when it does conservation easements over property; but negotiating public access can be difficult.

Randy Parkinson, Vice Chairman of the EEL’s Selection and Management Committee, stated he has served for 15 years with the program. He advised it is the most significant he has done in his over 25 years of public service; and it is a great program. He stated they are at a new stage in how to evaluate acquisition and prioritization of conservation lands that are available now; they have been very successful for the past 15 years; he recognizes the County is rapidly evolving and that the way it does business has to change in response to that; and he is very receptive to the comments, opinions, and suggestions that the Board has before it. Mr. Parkinson stated they initially set up a specific manual that guides the Committee on how it looks at and identifies a prioritized land, but the rules have changed given the rapidly evolved landscape; and with the strong voter support on the last referendum the residents of Brevard County are strongly supportive of preservation of conservation lands to assist in maintaining their quality of life. He advised the program will evaluate or reconsider how the Committee can best go about completing the mandate with the remaining funds. He stated he has said personally to others that this is the last time the referendum would go to the voters to request additional monies to complete the program; and within five or so years there will not be much left from which to pick. He stated it is a critical time to reevaluate strategy and aggressively pursue, by whatever means, completing acquisition so focus can be given to getting the properties managed and giving the public access to them. He noted he heard some great ideas here; the Committee and EEL’s staff will take it into serious consideration; and they will do whatever is necessary to use the monies to the best of their ability to acquire those lands that meet the goals and objectives of the program. He stated he wanted to introduce himself and participate during the workshop Chairman Pritchard stated the referendum said Brevard County will not become like Broward County; and inquired if the County does purchase of development rights or transfer of development rights, would the Selection Committee be able to come up with a cost or set aside “X” amount for development rights or transfer of development rights, and “X” amount of outright purchase; with Mr. Parkinson responding he would have to take that back to the Committee. Mr. Parkinson advised he is a geologist who has become very educated over the past 15 years on the process of conservation land acquisition and management; the idea would be to take the suggestions of the Board back to Committee; and those issues they were not able to answer, they would go out and find the right answer and then decide if allocating monies into boxes that are used in different ways is the best way to do it. Chairman Pritchard inquired how long would it take to do that. Mr. Parkinson responded it would go on the Agenda; staff would be directed with specific requests; and staff would acquire the information and then respond to the Committee at the next meeting. He stated great advance could be made in one month, which is the cycle of their meetings.

Commissioner Carlson stated it will be the last time the County goes to the public to ask for money for environmentally endangered lands because there will not be much to purchase 20 years from now; and inquired if he sees the thrust of the program to be in the first five years in that the County needs to make sure it has staff to go out and do some of the creative things that have been discussed. She inquired if the Board is going to look at property values going up in the next five years in amounts the County cannot touch, should it make sure the program focuses on the first five years to ramp up the manpower and make sure it can do as much as possible. Mr. Parkinson responded the way the process works is the Committee identifies properties that meet the requirements as defined by their acquisition manual, such as ecosystem type, degree of degradation, how much would have to be invested in order to restore, and so forth. He stated boundaries of properties are identified that fit the criteria, and then the Conservancy in the past would pursue a move towards acquisition; there may be a large parcel with many owners and the Conservancy would negotiate for the purchase of those; but the cost of the property is not a consideration used in the identification of the lands of interest. He advised they start off with what fits the goals and the mission of the program; and then in the case of the last few years, the Conservancy goes out and determines what the costs are. He stated they are constricted by what they are able to pay for the lands; there is an assessment of the cost; but the Committee is never informed about the cost; they just do the job of selecting those properties that meet the mandate of ecosystem function, manageability, distribution throughout the County so all residents have access, and what other programs exist. He noted the cost equation does not enter until the end when they attempt to purchase.

Commissioner Carlson stated it is probably a question for Keith Fountain. She stated she understands they have to do a scientific review and identify. Mr. Parkinson stated there have been numerous occasions when there is a prime piece of real estate that they are unable to pay the price because by the time they get the appraisal, value has either gone up or someone else is willing to pay more; and that has been a problem, which is driven by State policy if they are seeking State matches. He stated one of the missions over the past 15 years has been to get a match and try to get as much supporting monies as possible; and they have been very successful. Commissioner Carlson advised Mr. Parkinson made a comment, and she is not sure if it contradicts what Mr. Fountain said earlier, if they purchase and want to get leverage dollars from the State, if it is more than the appraised value, the County can absorb the greater than portion but will still qualify for State-matching dollars, and inquired if that was true. Mr. Fountain responded he has seen instances when the State does not want to take forward projects that may be over 100% or at 100% even though a local entity may be taking up more of the costs. Commissioner Carlson stated that would be the call if the County had policy that it would buy it outright if it was that important of a connective piece.

Commissioner Voltz stated the Board should not always look at if the State is going to reimburse the County; and if it is a piece of property it needs to buy, it should be able to buy it. She stated if it is a piece of property the County needs, it needs to buy it and negotiate the price for its advantage.

The meeting recessed at 10:35 a.m., and reconvened at 10:45 a.m.

Walter Pine stated there have been some good comments; the issue of politics involved in those decisions is something he has been strong on; and there should be a separation of powers. He advised as long as staff is involved in writing the rules, ordinances, and regulations, it is impossible to pull politics out of those decisions, because the very people implementing the policies have direct influence over the policies. He stated a Ph.D. only gives an indication of education and to some degree knowledge. He stated it is important that there be some kind of standard to show whether or not these things can be accomplished. He advised there are lands being preserved for just one animal in the area that has never been seen. He stated he would like to see confidence ratings applied to the science so it can be used to set which lands really need to be preserved. He advised confidence ratings basically tell how likely the information report is to be correct; it should be above 90%; and they can then work down the confidence ratings as a matter of priority. He stated the other thing that needs to be added to the priority list is the removal of invasive species. He stated one thing that is not listed at all is the encouragement of private ownership and conservation; without doubt, the privately conserved land is a better quality and better producing land; and programs need to be established that encourage private management and private conservation. He stated transfer of development rights does not work; it is selling the right to develop to the government; and the government sells everything it ever gets. He advised what can be done is some sort of incentive for people to put a codicil on the title or deed such that the nature and the character would be preserved; it is a property right; it cannot be changed by government policy; and it is in the title and deed. He stated another way is donors; there are people who will donate for those purposes; and he does not hear an incentive for donations. He stated the issue of willing seller has been discussed. He stated willing seller should be in phase one; and it needs to be determined if the property being targeted is something someone wants to sell. He stated other issues such as plant collections on property that will be developed; there are a number of plants and animals that can be easily moved from one area to another; and they can be properly transferred to the conservation areas. He stated the Florida orchids are very rare; and they can be taken from properties from one place to another. He advised the County needs to make sure what it does will work, and that comes from a confidence rating. He stated it comes from some idea or measurement of whether the science this is being based on will accomplish the goal. He stated 90% is reasonable; and they can start with 90% and if all are filled at 90%, it can go down.

Chairman Pritchard requested Matt Sexton to join the others at the table; stated he does not want anyone to think he is playing favorites with The Nature Conservancy; and Matt represents Conservation Fund.

Matt Sexton stated he did not think the Chairman was playing favorites; Keith Fountain is giving great advice and input; and he is happy to sit where he is.

Randy Parkinson stated the selection of parcels for consideration is not based on any one parameter, whether it be a bird or snail; and the process of identifying properties is broad-based and includes many factors that are defined in detail in the acquisition strategy manual. Mr. Parkinson stated the decision process is multi-faceted, only one of which is consideration of the species, plant or animal, and the degree of endangerment. He stated the property acquired should have many functions it could provide the residents; and they want to be sure after the acquisition is complete those are functional in perpetuity.

Chairman Pritchard stated he wanted to make sure he is following the Agenda; II.B.1 is Indian River Lagoon Blueways; and inquired if that item is complete. Commissioner Carlson responded she would like to ask the Selection Committee to help the Board with prioritization. She stated from the scrub perspective the Committee has chosen land it would like to pursue; but as far as the Blueways Project, there may additional background and advisement from the Selection Committee; and she would like it to add that to the Committee’s list.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to requeste the EEL’s Management and Selection Committee prioritize the Indian River Lagoon Blueways Projects.

Chairman Pritchard stated he wanted to add that the Committee give the Board what it thinks is most critical. He stated squaring off boundaries is important to him. He advised there is an area in Titusville with an Indian burial mound on it; he would like to see it connected to the nearby park; and he would like the Committee to take that into consideration. He stated he is more interested in getting larger parcels than he is smaller parcels with no connectivity. Commissioner Carlson stated unless the smaller ones make up the larger one and it needs to be pieced together. Chairman Pritchard stated that is fine, but to have a few acres here and a few acres there does not work. Commissioner Scarborough stated what Chairman Pritchard is asking for is prioritization from the scientific perspective, and to take into consideration the Board’s comments.

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

Commissioner Voltz inquired if there are a lot of pieces that people are not willing to sell why would the Board put it on as the third item of the list of things to do and why would the County not go out beforehand to find out. Commissioner Carlson responded if the County does that, it may defeat the recent conversation about actually paying for it themselves. She stated if a person is not willing to sell unless he or she is paid more and it will make a big difference in the plan, then it would be okay.

Mr. Fountain stated he is not sure what the Board is referring to, but this is his impression how the system has worked and it has worked well. He stated properties come before the Committee one of two ways; the Committee identifies it through aerial photography and it appears to be environmentally sensitive; or it comes in the door by the landowner. Mr. Fountain advised in that case they know it is a willing seller; in the other case an area has generally been identified; and the next step would be if a person in that case is a willing seller. He stated the State has to know, otherwise they would not put the name on the Florida Forever List.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board asked the Committee to rank the projects; it may rank some as critical; but one piece of property may have connectivity, and the person will not sell because he can sell it for much more. He stated it is not a tremendous chunk of money but will be significant in connectivity; and inquired if the Board would be willing to pay a multiple of it because of the impacts. He stated appraisal is irrelevant. He advised there will be others where a person is willing to have the property purchased at appraised value; but the Committee may not think it would be a good purchase. He stated what the Board is asking is for the Committee to make a list of key projects; and it will be good to get the information back.

Commissioner Colon inquired if the Board is going to give a certain timeline of when it expects to get the information back from the Committee because time is of the essence; stated understands it is pushing when the folks are volunteering; but it is important that the process go ahead.

Chairman Pritchard inquired when does the Committee meet next; with Mr. Fountain responding the next meeting will be scheduled for February. Chairman Pritchard inquired why not January; with Mr. Fountain responding it can be done. Chairman Pritchard stated the Committee can meet in January and have another meeting in February to iron out whatever the January meeting did not resolve; and then everyone can meet in February. Mr. Parkinson advised the Committee can accelerate the meeting to address the issues discussed today and provide a timeline when it can deliver responses.

Chairman Pritchard inquired what the calendar looks like for the end of February to have another workshop; with Interim County Manger Peggy Busacca responding there is a workshop scheduled for February 24, 2005 for healthcare at 9:00. Chairman Pritchard stated the Board can do the healthcare issue and follow up with EEL’s.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to schedule a workshop for 1:00 p.m. on February 24, 2005 for further EEL’s discussion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Nelson stated it would be helpful because the selection and prioritization process is one of the things discussed; but there have also been other points and items discussed that he would like to bring back in the form of a synopsis of what has been discussed today. He stated he wanted to create a list and distribute it to the Board before the workshop to ensure all of the items discussed today were responded to by the Selection Committee. Chairman Pritchard inquired if a report can come back by January 20, 2005. Mr. Nelson responded he can do that. Chairman Pritchard stated that way it can be provided to the Committee.

State Funding

Commissioner Voltz stated the Board should question if it should go with State funding on everything. Commissioner Carlson stated there should be one clarification because Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) will provide the County with 100% funding if it is on the A List and there is some confusion; and inquired how the Florida Forever Program works and where the money is divided. She stated there has been a question about the Florida Communities Trust; the County has not put in any projects in the past two years; and there is an individual in the County who represents Brevard County on that board. She stated the Board is very interested in making sure it can get as much in that grant process as possible; and in that case the County has 100% of the title not the State.

Keith Fountain stated Florida Forever provides $300 million annually; and it is a legislatively- created program. He advised $105 million goes to DEP to be administered through the Florida Forever Program. He stated Commissioner Carlson has referenced the Florida Communities Trust Program (FCT); it receives about $70 million; and it a different program as it is a grant-like program. He stated it is application driven; and local governments and non-profits can seek the grants from the State. He stated typically State funds do not acquire but matching funds give higher points and title would be vested in Brevard County. He stated with the Florida Forever Program it would be $105 million annually; the list is currently divided into A and B projects; A projects are eligible for 100% State funding; and B projects require a match. He noted within the A projects they are just listed alphabetically and not prioritized; and it is almost a first-come-first-serve type atmosphere. He advised there will be a workshop in Tallahassee next week followed by a re-ranking of projects on January 25, 2005; and most likely the A list will be cut back in size. He stated it seems like every project over the past two to three years has made its way to the A list, so there is a move afoot to reduce the size of that list. He stated the remaining funds go to programs like the St. Johns River Water Management District, Greenways and Trails, and other different agencies.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if there are percentages of what goes to the other small programs like Greenways and Trails. Mr. Fountain responded the St. Johns River Water Management District may split $105 million or maybe even more. He stated when a person gets into DEP, Greenways and Trails, and Fish and Wildlife Commission, the percentages are about 2% of $300 million. Commissioner Carlson stated that is substantial.

Matt Sexton stated on the Florida Communities Trust Program (FCT) there are instances where they will pay up to the match, but where the local government has opted to pay more than the appraised value to make a deal happen. He stated the grant cycle for Florida Communities Trust Program is annual and the next application date is May. Commissioner Carlson inquired if FCT can reimburse for properties already purchased or can they use that for points against the grant. Mr. Sexton responded there are points for pre-acquisitions, and that can actually be set up to happen after the actual project is listed; but there are additional points for pre-acquisition.

Parks and Recreation Director Chuck Nelson advised one other element of Florida Communities Trust is it tends to be a little more competitive because all cities and counties are involved in that where typically it is counties associated with Florida Forever, because counties have more dollars and most small cities do not have programs like that. He stated it also allows for development of upfront projects; the dollars do not go quite as far; and it is a lot more competitive. Commissioner Carlson stated she met with the Brevard County Representative Sue Schmitt who sits on that board; she is a previous County Commissioner, who has not seen anything come from the County in the past two years; and she has another two years on her term and would like to see that. Chairman Pritchard advised the Board has an opportunity with Ms. Schmitt on that board to leverage a lot of money; and it needs to put together a package to present to that committee so it can take advantage of the funding that is available.

Randy Parkinson stated one of the reasons there has not been a submitted in the past two years is because it may not have any properties that meet the criteria that would assure a competitive submittal. He stated the Committee looks at the gamut of possible State and federal programs to see if any interests or potential acquisitions would fit and be competitive; so the reason that nothing may have come through on that program is not because it has not been looked at but because there was not a parcel that fit the qualifications and would be competitive. Chairman Pritchard stated with a former County Commissioner that sitting on the Board, there should be a parcel that can be submitted.

Shared Title

Chairman Pritchard stated he is opposed to shared title; he thinks the County should have 100% title to everything purchased; and he objects to money going into the purchase of something and it becomes a State-owned property. He stated there is litigation in Palm Beach County regarding shared title. Matt Sexton stated Palm Beach County has been pushing hard regarding shared title; and at the last Florida Forever workshop there was discussion about rather than doing a shared title maybe the State would own a conservation easement and the County might own title or vice-versa, but that is still being worked through. He stated he will be happy to update the Board on that as the Committee works with Palm Beach County. Chairman Pritchard inquired if the Committee may have something close to finalized by the end of February; with Mr. Sexton responding there is a good possibility of that, and he will talk with Palm Beach County and get back to the Board. Chairman Pritchard stated he has a problem with his money going out and he does not own the property.

Commissioner Carlson stated the ultimate would be joint title; then neither party would be bullying the other one; statutorily the County is protected since it is owned by the State; and there are a lot of things that would need to be opened up in terms of Statutes to actually go in and sell that property out from under the County since it is County money that purchased it
and part of the State’s money, which is also County money as well. She stated if Brevard County can carry the flag and work towards doing that more aggressively, it may be something the Board wants to look at; and the Board can wait until Mr. Sexton brings something back regarding the status of that suit. She advised Florida Association of Counties pushes it but not very hard; there are many counties that have programs like Brevard County does; and it should be pushed as joint title is the obvious way to go. She noted it is better than State ownership completely.

Mr. Sexton stated there is a group called Florida Local Environmental Resource Agencies, which is basically a group of counties and local governments that have these types of programs; it meets annually and discusses those types of issues; and it may be something to be brought up at the workshop.

Commissioner Colon stated earlier one of the Commissioners mentioned where the State actually sold to a development; and that is where her concerns are. She stated it is taxpayers’ money; they bought it for a particular reason; and now it is sold. She stated joint ownership means the County and State are accountable to each other; and she is more comfortable with that. She stated in 15 or 20 years people will be desperate in the State of Florida, and there will be undermining going on; and the Board needs to make sure Florida protects itself from that kind of greed now.

Mr. Sexton stated the Committee has a lot of work in terms of how it ensures protection of the lands it is buying today, whether they are owned by the State or a local government; and looking at conservation easements and third party holding easements. He stated it has looked at the protections afforded by the actual bond issue; and the bottom line that is strongest protection is the check and balance where there are multiple government agencies and maybe even a third party involved in owning the property.

Connectivity and Trails

Dolores Kane stated she is working with Smart Growth; and everyone needs to work together. She advised on the connectivity situation the County needs to worry about transportation if there is a road going through there, which will take priority; and she does not want another Broward County. She stated the most important thing with growth is being able to move people and have roads and not gridlock; and there should be a quality of life for the people. She stated Joe Wickham made allowances on each township line where there would be 100-foot road access so there would be connectivity; and he was a man of vision. She inquired with the EEL’s Program would it be a good idea to have someone with the Housing Committee and roads on that committee to try to work it all together. She stated some people come to EEL’s and asking them to buy their land, and having a conservation area behind a person’s property in a development, it is a nice thing; but not everyone will be along where the EEL’s property is. She inquired if that is something the EEL’s Committee would consider. Ms. Kane stated a developer who is building a development knows it would be nice to have a conservation area right next to the development; and it would enhance quality of life to have open space right next to the housing.

Commissioner Carlson stated as far as public access and trail activity, she would like to get Barbara Meyer to be included in the process. She stated whether it is official business of the Selection Committee scientific aspect of it, but looking at the community aspect of it, and how to get there from here. She stated she would like for Ms. Meyer to give the Board an overview of the Greenways and Trails Project and how it may connect with a new version of the program.

Barbara Meyer stated she is excited about what she is hearing; in 1998 the Brevard Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) asked staff to compile a greenways and trails opportunity map and plan to serve as a guide Countywide for the cities and towns as well as the County; that map has been produced; and there are several projects being worked on. She stated there is no dedicated funding source for a trails program; so the trails program has been working on day-to-day activities through land development, transportation opportunities, and grant opportunities through MPO, which has made a priority of enhancement funds; so funds are beginning to come in for trails. She advised she is working with DEP to acquire the abandoned railroad corridor in the Titusville/Mims area, which is moving along. She stated they are working towards looking at a connective system of trails; she has worked with the cities; Titusville is having a groundbreaking today on its Well Field Trail, which was funds through the FCT; so there are some independent and larger trail projects going on. She stated the Bicycle Pedestrian Trails Advisory Committee to the MPO would like to work with the EEL’s Program in determining a process where trails are appropriate, and where possibly there are some parcels that would connect a community, park, school, shopping, or work areas so people would be afforded some alternative ways of getting around other than a car. She stated she would be happy to work with the EEL’s Committee as well as the user groups. She advised there are some user groups out there such as Trail Partners, which has wonderful ideas and a good volunteer base and would want to help in developing and maintaining the trails; and she realizes it is adding another layer of infrastructure into the whole system. She stated trails do require planning and maintenance; and everyone needs to work together to make it happen.

Chairman Pritchard inquired if it would be appropriate for Ms. Meyer to attend the meeting; with Commissioner Carlson responding yes. Commissioner Carlson stated Parks and Recreation folks and Transportation and Planning should be brought into the group so they can listen as it will help them learn about the resource the County is trying to protect, some innovative ways of connecting those resources together, and how it can draw down additional dollars through grants or wherever.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there was a conversation regarding the trails initially; there were people who were studying the bobcats; there can be inbreeding and that causes them to die off; there end up being areas in a county that are protected; and they are large enough to live in but not enough to move in. He stated by expanding the definition of the trails to be wildlife corridors the animals are able to move between the massive areas. He stated there have been photographs taken and the animals do use the trails. He advised a person can go on the trail during the daytime and he or she will not see the animals, but at night the animals know they can use the trail to move from one area to another; and it can help with preservation of species. He stated there is a lot of evidence that there are some real benefits in expanding the trails to wildlife; and the definition should be environmental wildlife trail in addition to pedestrian trails. He stated it is an issue that needs to be explored and staff bring the information back to the Board when it meets on February 24, 2005; and it is something it has not talked about in a long time.

Ms. Meyer stated there is good precedent out there; other states have been successful in incorporating the two; and there are some excellent materials available.

Commissioner Colon advised one of the things she spoke with Ms. Meyer about regarding District 3, is there is a great concern all over the area from Valkaria all the way to Micco and Barefoot Bay; and there needs to be regional planning. She stated she would like for the Committee to hear about that to see if there are some potential areas that can be looked at, and put forward any recommendations that might come in. She stated she met with Commissioner Higgs after the election to see if she would give some feedback because there are some areas that have not been looked at; and she asked Ms. Meyer to help out with that. She stated it is a huge area; the people who live in that area were eager to be part of that discussion; the people who own the land need to be the main players in these type of discussions; and the residents are very receptive to the ideas. Ms. Meyer advised there has been preliminary planning; that area worked with them on the South Brevard Trail, which is connecting up the conservation parks and neighborhoods, and is a planning trail; so there is some sort of a planning corridor to accommodate not only the people but wildlife as well. Commissioner Voltz inquired if Ms. Meyer would meet with her in her office to discuss this; with Ms. Meyer responding yes.

Commissioner Carlson inquired where is the planning area. Commissioner Colon responded from Barefoot Bay north. She stated the time to do something about it is now; and six months from now will be too late.

Commissioner Carlson inquired where is the County in its search for an EEL’s Director; with Mr. Nelson responded the position closes at the end of the month, and they will begin the interview process after that. He stated he asked Ross Hinkle to sit in on the interview panel and expects it will be 45 to 60 days before someone will be on board. Commissioner Carlson inquired if that can be accelerated. Mr. Nelson responded the posting does not close until the end of January; they are professional people and it may take a few weeks to get them scheduled; and then there will be whatever notice they end up negotiating. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the status can be brought back before the Board on February 25, 2005. Mr. Nelson responded potentially they will know who the person will be at that point; and it would be in the time frame of when he or she can report to work.

Malabar Scrub Project

Chairman Pritchard inquired if Town Manager of Malabar Ed Booth had anything further he would like to say about what has gone on or might go on with Malabar. Mr. Booth stated Malabar is 6,500 square acres; it is 11.5 square miles; and one half of that is wetlands that cannot be developed. He stated EEL’s own 11% of the property; 5% is owned by the City as environmentally sensitive property; and then 5% has been mitigated that EEL’s will take over. He stated that means 25% of the Town of Malabar cannot be used. He advised the Council he works with is the most environmentally sensitive council he has ever worked with; the zoning is 1.5 acres; and they want it to become a rural residential community. He stated when EEL’s overlays properties it wants to buy, in addition to what it has already, people are scared it would put Malabar out of business. He stated there is a limited amount of property that can be developed; and a town has to be able to develop. He advised the position paper he distributed to the Board is more the legal position than anything else; it was somewhat negative; but it is the legal side. He stated he would like to have a working relationship with the EEL’s Program. He stated the Town of Malabar would like to turn over the lands it owns to the EEL’s Program; it puts connectivity to all of the lands it owns; it would like to square off the lands and create corridors between the two large sections that are already owned; and it would like to zone it. He stated the Town of Malabar would like to resolve all of those problems without having to do the legal portion. He noted it frequently appears in the newspaper that he is EEL’s bashing, but he is married to an environmentalist. Commissioner Colon stated regarding what the press has to say, a person just has to brush that off; and the public knows the newspaper is not as accurate as it could be.

Mr. Nelson stated he would like to continue to sit down with Mr. Booth on behalf of Brevard County and point-by-point get those areas that are agreed upon and bring it back to the Board, focusing on what the final issue is. He advised if there are a piece of the property within the Town of Malabar town limits that the Selection Management Committee feels is absolutely critical, they will need to be able to explain it at the same time so the Board will have both sides.

Commissioner Voltz stated the piece of property that is between the red and the green in the bottom right hand corner on the map is the piece the County is trying to get donated; and inquired where that is in the process as it is almost 200 acres. She stated she understands it is mitigated property but the owner wants to donate it to the County. Mr. Nelson responded it is one of the interesting points to deal with in Malabar because private land owners, for development purposes, are buying land for federal and State requirements that they then want to give to the County. He stated even the County does not take them, it will probably still happen; and that is a different issue. He stated how it got there is because of requirements of development as opposed to the EEL’s Program going out and acquiring. He stated he spoke with Mr. Cochran and the details are being worked out; he has multiple mitigation requirements on the property; and staff is trying to resolve how it accepts those. He advised he has spoken with Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley; and it will be resolved as quickly as possible. Mr. Nelson stated he wishes it were as straightforward as the gentleman wants to donate property, but there are other issues impacting the situation.

Access and Facilities

Chairman Pritchard advised Walter Pine and Thelma Roper both have cards for Items II.C and II.D; the time is running out for this workshop; and inquired if they could combine the items. Mr. Pine stated he will try.

Walter Pine stated there are questions as to smaller pieces of property where there will be no access, and with larger pieces of property where there will be access. He stated it seems the County can take and give permanent access to larger pieces of property while it gives rotational access to smaller pieces of property. He advised there are studies that show that roads, trails, and things of that nature have a small net positive impact on some of the environmental concerns because they create emergent vegetation. He stated the other issue is the idea of compatibility of activity. He stated one never hears about hunting, fishing, or harvest-type management; those are management techniques that are well-developed throughout the nation; and there is room for them on some of those properties. He stated there are many activities that are outside what is considered compatible; and he would like to get documentation on what the Board considers compatible or incompatible. He stated those issues need to be looked at; and inquired what good is it to save those properties if a person never gets to touch, see, or interact with them; and advised it is a problem for him. He stated a person does not tell a child that he or she will give them something and then hide it in the closet. He stated they are adults, and it would not be actually saving it for the people but would be for some other purpose. He stated from what he has read he has little real documentation on how the compatibility issue is being resolved. He stated it seems there is social engineering here; they are dealing with no harvest; hunting, fishing, and farming are their history; and there does not seem to be room for that in this program. He advised he wanted to find out why those particular activities are not being integrated into the conservation program; and if the County is not conserving it to be used and have benefit from it, then it is social engineering. He stated he has heard a lot of words about connectivity; he knows of at least one private property where there was a request to purchase a piece of property currently vacant between it and a canal area, which would give a corridor for animals to move through; and the people cannot get a response from the EEL’s Program. He advised he was asked not to use names because the people do not want to lose the support they currently have. He stated connectivity only means connectivity for government lands, not the privately preserved lands or privately maintained lands, or at least it appears that way. Mr. Pine stated he will speak to the people and ask if they will speak to the Board directly; and he thinks they will. He stated it needs to be an issue that is taken up because when there are privately maintained lands and it takes a reasonable purchase to connect the privately maintained conservation lands to the overall program, then there should be a purchase. He inquired if the private lands are of great value and the people are doing well with it, why not let them manage it; and advised it does not cost the County anything and saves money in the long run. He stated the members of the committees have significant influence over the expenditures of tens of millions of dollars; and he would like to get copies of the committee members’ financial disclosures, disclosure of their partnerships and business relationships, employment histories, and curricula vitae. He stated since people are involved with a tremendous amount of money, the public should be able to determine that there is no conflict of interest. He stated the first job of a bureaucrat is to keep his or her job and to build government, and; and it becomes true of scientists when they become part of the bureaucracy. He stated the public needs to be able to determine that there are no conflicts of interest, and he believes there are. He advised he recently discovered a conflict of interest with one of the State employees; he will not use the name; but the individual who signs the annual report on one of the protected endangered species gets paid to participate on one of the Contract properties he signs the Contract for. He stated he is beginning to find out there is a real spiderweb of connections and both financial and professional benefits occur. He requested the Board look into the possible sale of the properties with deed and title restrictions to private conservators. He inquired if there is an organization that wants to maintain the property at no cost to the public, and will sign a contact, deed, and title that would maintain the property permanently, why should the County not do it. He stated completely eliminating sale of those properties should be qualified because some of the properties can be transferred back to private ownership and still maintain the very benefits the County is attempting to get and cost savings. He advised it will put more money back into the program for additional purchases and more money back on the tax rolls. He stated he believes workshops are not where the Board should be making decisions; the workshops are for discussion; and he thinks decisions and votes should occur at a properly noticed meeting so the people know the decisions are being made. He requested staff look into that and see if it is correct.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated it is a public and noticed meeting, and the Board can make decisions.

Thelma Roper stated her specific issue is on educational facilities; and some of the Board have heard her at the meetings on some of the things that have been held at the Enchanted Forest. She stated she looked into the brochure of the Enchanted Forest. She stated part of her problem is where is says interpretive; and she does not know whose interpretation. She stated there are children sitting around being taught about Pachimama; she thinks it is inappropriate at those facilities; and if the facilities are being built as educational centers, they should be educational centers of fact. She stated there is plenty of documentation around the State of Florida; when Mr. Pine was speaking about the Florida Panther possibly not being just a Florida panther, but a North American Panther, she watched some of the responses; but there is documented proof that what he said was true. Ms. Roper noted this is the kind of information that should be taught, information that there is documented proof on and not the religion of mother earth. She stated it is not a government program; and her biggest concern is the public’s tax dollar should not go to building a facility where they can promote illegal activities and untrue information. She stated she would like to see something built that this type of erroneous information is not present; and if there is teaching on the facilities, it should be facts. She stated there was an issue a few years ago about the heritage of the agricultural lands being bought for development and the State losing agricultural heritage, and there is a Right to Farm Act. She stated in the Florida Statutes the Right to Farm Act is Chapter 823.14, and then there is another section on the agricultural lands called Conservation Agreements and Protection from Development in Chapter 570 Florida Statutes. She stated those may be something to look at in consideration of the ideas discussed earlier about acquiring conservation easements on the agricultural lands.

Chairman Pritchard stated he believes the Board has been underfunding facilities; and it needs to look at what it has, the Enchanted Forest in particular, and perhaps set aside up to five million dollars to put into that facility so that it can stabilize and harden the trails. He advised now the majority of the trails there are a mulch product; and they are not American Disability Act (ADA) accessible. He stated there is a small boardwalk, and another boardwalk that leads out to a newly constructed pond, but they are all somewhat adjacent to the center itself; and a person is not able to get the full effect of the Enchanted Forest because a stroller cannot even be pushed down the trails. He stated the Enchanted Forest needs more of a welcoming center; right now it has a classroom facility with a hands-on area; and it is a good building, but it needs to have more of a welcoming center to it. He advised it needs staff; there needs to be more than volunteers; a facility cannot be ran as a hobby; and it must be run as a business. He stated a significant amount of money needs to be set aside for the Enchanted Forest, Archie Carr, the Sam’s Property, and other sanctuaries. He stated the Sam’s Property is part of the Pine Island Conservation Area; there needs to be enough money there to renovate the property; and it needs to be used for what it should be used for. He noted the County is spending money on land acquisition but it is not setting enough aside to properly manage, maintain, construct, and do all of the things that need to be done so that public access is welcome.

Commissioner Carlson stated by bringing in Transportation Planning and the trails issues and having access to DOT dollars and other things, the Board can leverage the dollars as it is trying to connect with trailheads and things like that and putting factual kiosks and making them welcome center types of places; and the County is heading down the right road in terms of leveraging the dollars. She stated the Board is asking the Selection Committee to come back and say if the County needs more facilities to provide a better purpose in terms of getting access for ADA folks and things like that. She stated a lot of that is in the last document the Board received; there was a big workshop years ago about ADA and how they would access; and it has been more a purist perspective on access because when one goes to that particular sanctuary, he or she can only get so far. Commissioner Carlson stated additional dollars can be leveraged through transportation initiatives and things like that; and they have their own set of ADA requirements. She stated the Board needs to find out exactly how much it needs to do and what the prerogative of the Selection Committee is as well.

Chairman Pritchard stated he keeps picking on The Enchanted Forest because he and his wife went there one Sunday afternoon, and they saw what was going on. He stated he felt it needed to have more money spent there so it would become similar to the Brevard Zoo. He stated when a person goes to the zoo it is a combination of a lot of money and a lot of volunteers; the Enchanted Forest has had some money and a lot of volunteers; and the money side of that needs to be boosted.

Commissioner Scarborough stated as a person goes to the different facilities there is a different part of the ecosystem. He advised what he would like to do is get a report back on the specific educational components of those parks; and that would be well worth bringing back. He stated a person by visiting all four facilities could have an understanding of the ecosystems within the County; and that may be a little bit beyond the Selection Committee’s perspective.

Chairman Pritchard stated he knows the different parks have been set up for different purposes, but he will go back to the Enchanted Forest again since he has his brochure. He advised there are flatwoods, hydric hammock, mesic hammock, wet prairie, scrub, and palm hammock. He stated on that are two hardened trails, one is 1/10 of a mile and one is 75 feet; and the other trails are not hardened; and it is not just handicapped, but the moms and dads with junior in the stroller. He stated there is no signage; he did not et the interpretive guide, because there was a volunteer that day; she did not know all of the things that he could have gotten from her being in that position; and he did not know what 411632 meant because he did not have the guide so there should be signage. Commissioner Scarborough advised he is not disagreeing with the Chairman. He stated there are four different parks, each with its own component part to address not only the length of a 72 mile County but the diversity of ecosystems; and if the Board goes there, he would like to look at the big picture. Chairman Pritchard stated that is one of the objections he had to the EEL’s Program, that only one was built, one is under construction, and two others are in the works. He advised all of this was promised to the taxpayers as four facilities and $55 million, but instead the public got one facility and $27.4 million. He stated when the Board promises the people something, it should deliver; and he intends to see that it happens. He stated if that means setting aside $10 million to insure the infrastructure meets an acceptable level of participation by the public, the Board would be wrong to not do that. He stated the Enchanted Forest as a flagship property should be given a close look as to what it needs, how much it would cost, and then the Board can set aside the money to see that it happens.

Commissioner Voltz inquired if the County has a relationship with the City of Palm Bay in the Turkey Creek Santuary. Mr. Nelson responded the relationship to date is the County has provided some of the land acquisition but Turkey Creek runs the program. Commissioner Voltz inquired if some of EEL’s money has gone down there; with Mr. Nelson responding for some expansion of the Turkey Creek Subdivision.

Chairman Pritchard suggested a discussion on the status of The Enchanted Forest and what needs to be done to enhance it. He stated maybe they could construct a visitor center similar to the North Merritt Island National Refuge, out front, not just a hands-on classroom but more of a visitors center. He suggested looking at the Archie Carr Refuge and what is going in there and the other two facilities that are not even on the drawing board yet. Commissioner Carlson stated originally there were plans for all of them, but the discussion was along the lines of wanting to preserve the dollars for acquisition because the cost of the properties are going up; and that was the consensus of people who were there at the time. Chairman Pritchard stated he thinks maybe the people have changed; and the Board needs to look at delivering what it promised at the same time it is looking at properties and other ways to leverage them through different types of conservation easements.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board may need to speak with a different group. He stated this group looks at it in an environmental sense; in making it an educational component there may be others who are interested; and Dr. Dipatri may have a staff director for environmental studies at the School Board. He stated there may be others that the Board may want to bring to the table, or at least invite to a workshop. He advised how one makes a decision on the acquisition of the property is much more scientific-oriented, and it may become more of an education component.

Mr. Nelson stated the manual calls for creation of a citizen advisory committee to address access issues; that process had started, although staff was looking at making some recommendations because the way it was originally envisioned included a banker specifically; and that was not necessarily what was needed. He stated the Selection and Management Committee has looked at it and is in the process of providing recommendations back to the Board on the makeup of the citizen committee that could do what was described; and it could probably be expanded to include someone from the School Board or the educational community.

Commissioner Colon stated her concern is to be careful of the wish list and make sure that it is realistic. She stated the Board’s priority needs to be the acquisition of lands; and that is what the EEL’s Committee is assigned. She stated the Board needs to be careful it does not send the wrong message. She stated the County can build nice things in a humble way; and it does not have to be millions of dollars, but something the public can see where the dollars are going. She stated the Board’s job is to market everything it already has and make it so it is more even ecotourism; and she does not think it takes enough advantage of it. She stated it should be a nice little welcome center. Chairman Pritchard advised there needs to be access to the property. He stated what was promised to the people was not only land acquisition but it was management and facilities; and the County has fallen short on the facilities and is not doing well on the management. He stated if land is just bought but nothing is done with it, it is not right.

Randy Parkinson stated in terms of the discussion of actual management facilities, the facilities are used to manage the property as well, but initially there was criticism in using too much money in building buildings and not acquiring land. He stated it is a difference in terms of how the Board views the importance of visitors centers. He advised initially when working with the Enchanted Forest there was a tremendous amount of criticism about using any money at all for buildings; and the Committee and staff are committed to quality facilities that provide education and the ability to manage those properties effectively. He stated the South Beach facility is well on its way; there are drawings and architectural renderings and so forth; and Pine Island is being pursued as well. He stated up until recently the suggestion was to do a good job with a minimal amount of investment; and he thinks this is an important emphasis the Board is making about the significance, importance, and commitment to those facilities. He stated regarding the access issue, if one looks at the intended uses for all of the different parcels throughout the County, a person will see there is hunting, fishing, biking, and so forth that they have tried to accommodate, based on what the properties could take, as well as traditional uses. He advised Pine Island has been a site of duck hunting for several years. He stated the whole idea behind the program is to provide the residents of Brevard County and beyond with access to landscapes that are unique to the County and really provide vitality of Brevard County in the areas of conservation. He stated the EEL’s Management and Selection Committee is trying to do that for the County, and if the Board feels the Committee should revisit how the visitors and management centers do that, then that is why they will do.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there is a limited amount of money; access means somebody goes there who basically knows where they are going and why they are going; and the educational component has to be somehow driven by some methodology. He stated there is a real advantage in knowing what a person is seeing and why it is unique. He advised there are things that are blended from the temperate in the tropics; and that type of message is a part of what the County has to be doing. He stated he does want welcome centers but not to look like a castle, but if the Board does not think about that and just thinks about the access, it will never work.

Mr. Parkinson advised built into the Management Program is a periodic reevaluation of the success of the program for a particular parcel or group of parcels; during the next reevaluation of the Enchanted Forest he will make sure that those are reconsidered including some assessment, the recommendations of the Board, and so forth. He stated there has been a limit to the success of education; during the evaluation, that will come out; and decisions will be made on how to improve upon them. He stated the Board’s interest and the interest of people who go there will be considered.

Chairman Pritchard stated he wants to make sure that of the four projects that were promised that there are dollar figures so that the Board can set that money aside; and then if there is any other facility that is planned as part of an acquisition, the money may be set aside.

Mr. Nelson stated a few years ago the four centers were planned; the Board asked staff to bring it back to it; and the Board directed staff to build the two centers for Enchanted Forest and Barrier Island and to downsize the other two centers and bring those back after the second center was completed. He stated there has been lengthy discussion over time about what the Board wanted staff to do. He stated one of the problems from a planning and pricing perspective is should all the trails be down as a hard surface, or is it acceptable to have a percentage of those as hard surface. He stated for instance there is a 24-hour race there, people running at night through the Enchanted Forest, and they do it because there are no hard trails. He stated it will be an interesting dynamic if all hard surfaces are done, and will change the use of it. He stated he remembers arguing with Margaret Hames regarding paving the road to get in there. He stated it has been a moving target; mostly staff has done what it was supposed to; and it is changing all of the time. He advised guidance is needed.

Chairman Pritchard stated he wants to know what the cost of the South Beach, Archie Carr Facility will be and if it will be adequate, what it will cost for the other two facilities, and what the cost will be to renovate the Enchanted Forest facilities; and that will let the Board know what it will cost to do it. Mr. Nelson stated the money is being held until such time of coming back to the Board for its direction; and he will provide those numbers to the Board. Chairman Pritchard inquired is there enough there with the cost of building materials; with Mr. Nelson responding it needs to be revised, but there is a sizable portion there, and the construction costs have gone up 30%. Mr. Nelson stated that will be brought back at the next workshop.

Commissioner Carlson stated this is a fairly aggressive land acquisition and trails program; staffing needs to be addressed on the County’s side; as a part of the February 25, 2005 workshop, staff needs to come back with a realistic staffing scenario to do the things it wants to do for the short-time and potentially the long-term; and the County will need to maintain all of those trails. She stated it may cause expansion of staffing efforts. Chairman Pritchard advised all of the staffing comes out of the EEL’s monies.

Commissioner Voltz stated she wants to bring up something that is necessary and it can be discussed at a later time, and that is the maintenance of the properties the County have. She stated with the complaints she is getting, the property is not being maintained. Commissioner Carlson inquired if that is in Malabar or other places. Commissioner Voltz responded she does not know exactly where. Mr. Nelson stated it would be helpful, as those complaints come in, to contact staff about it; there is dumping in many areas; and it is not that staff is not maintaining it but there is new trash being dumped all of the time.

Upon motion and vote, the Board adjourned at 12:15 p.m.

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

___________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

( S E A L )