January 27, 2005

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special session on January 27, 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 Assistant County Attorney Shannon Wilson.

AUTHORIZE, RE: STRATEGIC PLANNING WORKSHOP

Interim County Manager Peggy Busacca requested the Board authorize the Strategic Planning Workshop be conducted as part of the February 17, 2005 Budget Workshop.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize scheduling the Strategic Planning Workshop as part of the February 17, 2005 Budget Workshop. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Voltz inquired when was it originally scheduled; with Ms. Busacca responding it was originally scheduled for this afternoon; but they moved the Landscaping Workshop to this afternoon.

REPORT, RE: EMS ADVISORY BOARD MEETING

Commissioner Voltz stated she wanted to mention last night’s meeting of the EMS Advisory Board, which was cancelled; there was an issue as to who could vote and how many could vote; and she wants the City of Palm Bay and others to know that the Board had nothing to do with canceling the meeting. She stated she does not want anybody to think there was an issue that the Board was trying to do something underhanded.

Commissioner Carlson stated there are five appointees, one from each District; Commissioner Colon brought up the issue of whether the appointee had to live in the District; and evidently her appointee could not make it to the meeting. She stated her appointee lives in her District; but he had an emergency last night and could not attend; she found out at the last minute; and asked Chief Farmer if there was a way to postpone the meeting, knowing that all five appointees were needed because of the sensitivity of the issue. She stated Chief Farmer approached the Palm Bay City Manager to see if he would be willing; he was not; so Chief Farmer approached the board and allowed it to meet, but and the EMS Advisory Board decided to postpone the meeting for one week so that all appointees could be there. She stated it is her understanding that Commissioner Colon’s appointee did not qualify to vote last night; and inquired if that is true. Commissioner Colon responded no; they got the memo, which said either way; and inquired if everyone did not get the memo. Commissioner Carlson advised she did not see the
memo. Commissioner Colon stated she was trying to bring out the fact that a lot of the advisory boards are not clear; it is almost like they can do whatever they like; and government cannot work like that. She stated that board was an issue because of the controversy.

Commissioner Carlson stated that was the other reason she thought it was important that all members be there because of the sensitivity of it; and she tried to cancel the meeting ahead of time so people would not have to make the trek to the meeting; but that obviously was not what was wanted.

Commissioner Colon stated there was an issue in regard to the time factor; and there is something going on as far as the date. Commissioner Carlson stated she looked at the dates and it appeared there was plenty of time to postpone the meeting for a week. Commissioner Colon inquired what is going on in regard to the date and why was it crucial that they meet as soon as possible and get some feedback.

Interim County Manager Peggy Busacca stated the City of Palm Bay has advised that it would like to provide ambulance service at the beginning of the fiscal year; so staff felt that a decision by the Board was needed in February or early March to meet that deadline. She stated they have advised the City that staff will provide the turnaround as quickly as possible to get it to the Board, so she is hoping the one week delay will not change the date by which this can be provided to the Board.

Commissioner Colon stated she is glad Commissioner Carlson made it clear.

Commissioner Carlson stated it is a sensitive issue; she did not read the memo Commissioner Colon was talking about, but she was concerned. She stated her appointee is a doctor; he is now at Holmes Regional Medical Center but was at Wuesthoff when she appointed him; knowing the issue was coming up, she wanted to make sure he would be there, but found out he was not; and she wanted to make sure every District was represented because it is important.

Commissioner Colon stated with all advisory boards she was under the impression that the appointee should be someone from the District; then she was told no, that is not necessary, and they should just be a citizen of the County; and requested staff clarify.

Commissioner Carlson stated it is either Statute driven or driven by the Board; and however the Board wants to do it, it should be consistent.

Chairman Pritchard stated he thinks the Commissioners should be able to appoint from wherever since they represent the County. Commissioner Voltz agreed. Chairman Pritchard stated it was the same argument he had for the TICO Airport Authority and being restricted to only a certain area. Commissioner Carlson stated that was the State. Chairman Pritchard stated if he had someone who was the greatest person but lived in Palm Bay, he should be able to appoint him or her. Commissioner Carlson stated sometimes they cannot get good qualified people from the District in the field that is wanted so they need to look outside the
District for interested people; and she does not have any problem with that. Chairman Pritchard requested staff research, which committees have to have appointments from within specific areas and which can be at large. Ms. Busacca stated staff can do that.

Chairman Pritchard stated he was approached late yesterday afternoon by Interim County Manager Peggy Busacca about the one appointee not being able to appear and whether the meeting should be cancelled; and he said no, they should not cancel the meeting because one person could not attend. He inquired what happens if they or someone else cannot attend next time; and stated the business of the Commission goes on if one Commissioner cannot be present. He stated the Board cannot do this; otherwise there will always be a reason to not have a meeting; and he was here with John Mazziotti, the Mayor of Palm Bay who was talking to Andy Anderson about last night’s meeting, and had he known it was going to be cancelled, he could have told them. He stated his direction was not to cancel the meeting; and apologized to everyone who was present. He reiterated the meeting should not have been cancelled; it should have been held; one cannot run a show based on whether or not one person is going to show up; and while he understands the importance of all members being present, if someone cannot make it, the show goes on.

Commissioner Carlson stated she requested the meeting be postponed; but it was a decision of the Advisory Board to cancel; and the decision was based on fairness.

Chairman Pritchard stated he can imagine what would happen if the Board, the P&Z Board, or any other board did that; the board last night should have taken into consideration the importance of the issue; and because of that, it should have had the meeting. Commissioner Voltz stated she agrees.

REPORT, RE: LETTERS CONCERNING PRIVATIZATION OF MARINAS

Commissioner Voltz inquired if Chairman Pritchard is going to the Governor’s Cabinet meeting next Wednesday; with Chairman Pritchard responding February 16. Commissioner Voltz stated anyone who has a boat or likes boating needs to send emails or letters to the Governor and Cabinet regarding the privatization of Whitley Marina as well as other marinas. She stated it is going to be important because people will be riding up and down the waters and not be able to stop for gas at the private facilities; and that is going to be a major problem.

RESOLUTION, RE: EXPRESSING SYMPATHY TO THE FAMILY OF SANDRA GLENN

Chairman Pritchard stated Sandra Glenn, who was a great person, passed away last Sunday; and read aloud a resolution expressing sympathy to the family of Sandra Glenn of the East Coast Regional Planning Council.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Resolution expressing sympathy to the family of Sandra Glenn. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The Board observed a moment of silence.

PRESENTATION, RE: JAIL

Chairman Pritchard stated there was an article in the newspaper this morning concern Sheriff Parker’s proposal; and on behalf of the Public Safety Coordinating Committee and the Board of County Commissioners, he would like to say they appreciate all that the Sheriff did to provide information, receive input, and send it to the Board and Committee in a form that could be understood.

Commander Greg Futch stated it has been a pleasure to work with Mr. Carter.

Steve Carter, Carter Goble Associates, Inc., stated he will be making a PowerPoint presentation; and expressed appreciation to the Public Safety Coordinating Council that worked with them diligently as they started the journey last spring to try to define the needs of the County and look at ways of managing the jail population through intervention of other programs. He stated to arrive at the recommendation they have made took a lot of input from a lot of people, many of whom are present; and advised representatives of Circles of Care were invaluable in their contributions. He thanked the Public Safety Coordinating Council for its efforts; and stated he has not seen the morning paper so he is a babe in the woods as it relates to whatever was in it. He stated he only got the facts late yesterday regarding an alternative way to get to the same conclusion; and he has not vetted that carefully. He stated they were trying to find a pathway to produce the best results for a correctional system in the County to meet the needs of the types of inmates that are incarcerated; and a wide variety of inmate types are incarcerated. He stated the disturbing fact about the jail population, which is not unlike other populations, is that the County is incarcerating an increasingly higher percentage of individuals with mental illness; because of the way the country has gone as it relates to mental illness, jails have wound up being the recipients of those who have great difficulties existing in normal daily life; and the jail has become more of a treatment facility in that regard than it has an incarceration facility. He stated they need to look at how to resolve that; and what they are trying to present is a balanced plan, that asks the justice system to do more to reduce the length of stay. He stated the court has been very involved; and the State Attorney’s office, Public Defender’s office, and the Clerk’s office have all had significant input into trying to find ways to reduce the average length of stay. He congratulated the County on having one of the best programs in terms of intervention on the pre-trial side of any of the counties that he has worked in over the past 30 years; and stated they are asking the County to do more, but that is going to take resources. He stated it will take money to go forward; and he is sure the County can do it with less money than what they are saying; but the point he wants to make is that it has got to be a joint effort of the criminal justice system continuing to work. He stated he hopes the Public Safety Coordinating Council does not disband after the study is over because the work is just beginning. Mr. Carter stated to make it happen, the Public Safety Coordinating Council and others need to be brought to the table regularly; the Council saw the presentation last week; but one slide has been added concerning incarceration rates. He stated what he will cover this morning is what they have learned about the jail population, how that relates to projecting what the County’s future might be, how the system works, how the correctional facility operates at the present time, what some of the population management approaches are that might be applied, what is reasonable jail space in terms of the County’s needs, and how the County can get to where it ought to go. He stated Brevard County is growing at approximately 2% in terms of annual growth increase; the at-risk population represents about 20% of the total population; and at-risk is defined as between 18 and 35 because usually by 35, most career criminals have begun to change their patterns a bit. He stated that is not to say that there is not an older population in the jail at the present time, especially on the mental health side; but that is the group they focused on.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the propensity to commit crime decreases after age 35, or is it the nature of the crime that changes; with Mr. Carter responding both. Mr. Carter stated usually by age 35, people who are stealing cars, committing petty crimes, and wind up in prison are beginning the taper off; there may be a change in severity of crime; they may go into drug dealing and things like that; and he is not saying crime is eliminated. Commissioner Scarborough stated when the Board looks at the 2% increase in population, it needs to go beyond that to the 2% within the particular age categories and the types of crime. Mr. Carter stated that is right; the Board needs to look at the 4% of the population where most of the crimes are committed; and growth is projected to go from approximately a half million to approximately 650,000. He stated the Stated has projected a slower growth rate at 1.3% per year as opposed to the 2% the County has been on; and they typically use the State projections. He stated total reported index crimes have reduced by almost 10%; violent crimes have been up approximately 6%; the population has grown at approximately 7.5%; but overall the crime rate per 1,000 population has been dropping in the County, which is good. He stated the public asks why, if the crime rate is dropping, the jail population is going up; it is because of some of the things he mentioned in his introduction; and it is because the fewer people who are admitted to the jail are staying for a longer period of time, so they occupy a bed for a longer period of time. He stated even though crime in the streets may be going down, the jail continues to grow; and that is one of the difficulties facing most jurisdictions these days. He displayed a slide showing the number of arrests; stated while the crime rate has been down, arrests have gone up; and that is not unusual with the higher technology that law enforcement has available to it now. He stated even with fewer reported crimes, law enforcement is making more arrests; and that pattern, which is a good pattern, is going to continue. He stated all across the board crimes, in terms of arrests, have gone up; and the arrest rate per 1,000 residents is up slightly over the last six years, even though reported crime is down. He displayed a slide showing the incarceration rate; stated in the meeting last week, he was asked to focus on how the County stacks up against other counties in Florida; and incarceration rate is the number of people who are in the correctional facility per 1,000 in population. He stated Brevard County in 2003, which is the last year for which there is complete data, had 2.7 persons per 1,000 in population incarcerated; of the total people in the County in 2003, approximately 2.7 persons per 1,000 were in jail on an average day in 2003; and the averages are listed for Lee, Palm Beach, Polk, Volusia, and Orange Counties at 3.3 persons, so Brevard County is significantly lower than some of the other counties. Mr. Carter advised the State average is 3.3 individuals per 1,000; and that shows that in Brevard County things are in place that keep the
jail population down when compared to other counties. He stated they work in counties where the incarceration rate is over 4%; the national incarceration rate is approximately 7 per 1,000, so the County, compared to its peer group, is doing better than most in terms of not using the jail as a way of dealing with crime rather than dealing with it through the criminal justice system.

Commissioner Colon inquired about the bottom number; with Mr. Carter responding that is the total population of the counties. He stated Brevard County is at 576,000; the closest to it would be Polk and Volusia Counties; Volusia County is at a 3.1 incarceration rate; Polk County is at 4.8; and there are virtually the same number of people in each county, but there is a much higher rate of incarceration, especially in Polk County. He stated there are a lot of factors that contribute to that, including the attitude of law enforcement, the attitude of the judiciary, and the perception of the public about crime; and all of those things factor into why more people would come into jail and why they might stay longer.

State Attorney Norm Wolfinger inquired if that includes the factor of the size of the jail; with Mr. Carter responding it could be that the jail is much larger, and it is difficult for the system to leave a bed space unfilled.

Commissioner Carlson stated Orange County shows a minus 14%; and inquired is it a population change or incarceration increase or decrease. Mr. Carter responded the percent of change is the change in the incarceration rate; Volusia County had not much change at all, staying virtually flat for the past ten years; and Orange County has taken an aggressive approach to intervention, implementing certain things from the court side and a series of programs in the jail, such as a drug treatment program and mental health program. He stated there was a period of time for about ten years when the number of people incarcerated in Orange County did not change; the County had a very aggressive Director of Corrections at that time who implemented a lot of programs; and the jail did not grow. He stated after that Director left, the jail population started growing back up; the system wants to move to fill a vacuum; and now they have begun to build. Commissioner Carlson stated there were programs to avoid incarceration; the individuals just did not go through the system and then go to a mental health facility; so the incarceration rate changed because they intervened. Mr. Carter advised there were more people under community control; and they were not incarcerated.

Mr. Carter presented a slide showing a snapshot of August of 2004 in terms of the number of people in the system; and stated the total population was 1,103; pre-trial was 1,051; a very small percentage of the population is actually sentenced; and those awaiting transfer to the Department of Corrections was approximately 10%, and 6% went to other jurisdictions awaiting State hospitals. He stated approximately 70 people on that particular day in August were awaiting transfer, so in total there were 1,379 people in the jail on that day; 220 of them were female; and felons represented 64% of the population. He stated it is not a misdemeanant jail; the press said if they just got rid of the misdemeanors there would not be a problem; he said he did not know the answer but would try to find out; but nearly 65% of the County’s jail population are felons and misdemeanants. Mr. Carter stated sometimes there is a misconception that misdemeanor means a minor offense; but some of the misdemeanants in the jail have histories of much more serious offenses. He stated some of the misdemeanants are in because of failure to appear; they were given opportunities to do something different such as probation or pre-trial intervention programs; but they failed to participate, so they are brought back into jail, often on a bench warrant, which means the jail cannot do much about releasing them until the court can intervene on that. He stated they should not go directly to a 20% misdemeanor population and say they can reduce the jail population by 20% by just getting rid of misdemeanants; because it is more than just being a classification of misdemeanor.

Commissioner Carlson stated the chart said felons were 64%; and inquired if that is of the total inmate population; with Mr. Carter responding that is total. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Mr. Carter broke it out at all; with Mr. Carter responding into pre-trial and sentenced. Commissioner Carlson stated there are other categories listed; and she was wondering if there was a percentage of those that are on pre-trial that are actually pre-trial potential felons; with Mr. Carter responding they have that, but the greatest percentage of those that are in under sentence would be for misdemeanors such as a DUI charge or things like that. He stated some felons can serve their time in County facilities; but by far, the largest percentage of felons are sent to State facilities. Commissioner Carlson stated she knows there have been communications about how long the pre-trial inmates stay in the jail and whether or not they are felony or misdemeanor type charges. Chief Administrative Judge Kerry Evander stated there are five main categories of misdemeanants in the jail awaiting trial; and one is failure to appear. He stated that is when persons were originally arrested, but not required to go to jail; they may have been given a summons to go to court or were arrested and released; but then they did not appear in court and were picked up again. He stated the law would then require a cash or surety bond be set, which is reasonable given that someone is charged with a crime and did not show up in court. He stated the second category is domestic violence; for most of the people who are in jail awaiting charge under domestic violence, it is not the first one; more often than not, an individual is released for a first offense; but he or she is not released if it is a second offense; and usually a cash or surety bond is required. He stated the third category is DUI’s; and a lot of first time DUI’s are released; but the second time, the chance is they have to post a cash or surety bond. He stated the fourth category is violations of probation where they are arrested on misdemeanors, go in front of a judge who does not impose jail time, but imposes other conditions, but they do not comply so they get picked up on violation of probation. He stated the other category was mentioned by Mr. Carter; and that would be a person with a bad record of felonies who happens to be arrested on a misdemeanor. He stated the number of people who are arrested on a small misdemeanor and do not bond out is very small, probably in single digits on any day; and most more likely fall into the categories he mentioned.

Mr. Carter stated the matrix gives an indication of how important it is to control the two major factors that influence average daily population; the bottom of the matrix shows the annual admissions in Brevard County going back to 1994; in 1994 the County admitted 17,300 inmates total; and it is now up to approximately 21,500, which is a reflection of population growth and the attitudes of the community reflected in the responses by law enforcement. Mr. Carter stated that is a natural progression; and the number of people brought into the jail will grow often as the population grows and as the community asks for safe streets. He stated the vertical axis shows the average length of stay, which goes from 12 days to 24 days; in 1994 when there were 17,500 people admitted into the jail, the average stay was 15.5 days; and it includes everyone from people booked and released within six to eight hours to people who are booked in and stay for extensive periods of time, so it is a mathematically calculated average. He stated in 2003, there were an average of just under 1,400 people in jail, a total of 21,500 were admitted to the jail; and they stayed an average of 23.2 days. He stated going back to 2000, the County admitted 19,000; they stayed 20.6 days; so the average daily population was approximately 1,100. He stated while the admissions went up, that is not what drove the increase; the average length of stay is what is driving your population; admissions have an impact, but it is how long they stay in the system that is resulting in an increase.

Commissioner Voltz inquired what is the purpose of the increased length of stay; and is there something the Board can do about it. Mr. Carter stated a big part of the study was devoted to what could be done about trying to control the growth; they looked at data starting in 1994 when the length of stay was 15.5 days; in 2001 there was actually a drop in the average length of stay nationally; during that period of time people were enjoying a lot of benefits from a better economy; and there were not as many people in jail, so the average length of stay dropped. He stated since then, it has been a steady climb; that is the most disturbing part about the situation; and if the County does not curb that, no matter what kind of housing units it builds, it will not be able to build enough. He stated most of the study was dedicated toward looking at how to deal with that; they use a number of different forecasting methods, mathematical methods, and common sense methods to arrive at what the future population might be; and the County asked them to look out 20 years to 2025; and displayed a chart showing the five different methods. He stated averaging all the models, they came out to approximately 2,600 as the projected average daily population in 2025; they are at approximately 1,400 today; and that is the baseline. He stated they developed the baseline and worked with it to see how they could manage that number; once they have the baseline projection for 2025 of 2,600, they have to add factors as that is just the average; and they have to add a peaking factor. He stated there will be days when there will be more people in the facility because of lots of things that occur; so any jail has to have some excess to deal with that. He stated there is also the classification factor; there is never the exact mix of females, juveniles charged as adults, mental health, and other offenders that have to be separated from each other; so every jail builds in a factor to deal with that. He stated included in that factor is that on any given day, there can be a lock-out, a water closet that needs to be repaired, or an entire housing unit down for repairs; that has to be built into the number of bed space requirements or there will be people sleeping on the floor; at one time, it was said there should be 15% planned on top of the projected population as being the number of beds needed for those kinds of factors such as classification, peaking, maintenance, and repair; and they have added approximately 11% to come up with approximately 2,900 bed spaces required. He stated the average daily population adding those factors would be the bed space estimate to approximately 2,900. Commissioner Voltz inquired if that is daily; with Mr. Carter responding that would be the average daily bed space requirement in 20 years. Mr. Carter stated they next looked at the system and some of the factors that the system is involved with that can have an impact on the average daily population and the bed space needs; they have grown since 1994 from 11 to 14 judges of the Circuit Court; the filings for judge and dispositions per judge have remained fairly constant; as they got new judges the workload was such that the judges still maintained the same disposition rate, which is good; and that has been a consistent disposition rate going on from the Circuit Court. He stated the County Court, which is the high volume court, has increased only from seven to eight over the last ten years; the filings per judge have gone up significantly, approximately 20% during that time; and the dispositions per judge has gone up 7.3%, so there is a continued response of the court to the cases that are brought to the court, to burn off the case load and not have a backlog at the end of every year. He stated there has been some increase in the number of court offices; there is the potential for the County to get additional full-time judicial positions; and that will also contribute to the reduction of the average length of stay. He stated the State did not fund any judicial positions last year; there is hope the State will this year; potentially 108 positions will be funded; and the County may be the recipient of some of that. He stated in 2004, of the 1,400 average daily population, 200 of that number had mental health problems as the main reason they were in the jail; they had committed crimes such as vagrancy, shoplifting, or any number of petty offenses; but that number has grown since 2000 from 10% of the population to 15% of the population, which is a disturbing number. He stated the County already has in place a lot of programs relating to mental health; Circles of Care provides significant programs in and out of the jail; but that percentage of the population is growing. He stated one of the pieces of data that is in the report is the shocking information that over 80% of the people in the jail are on some sort of psychotropic drugs.

Commissioner Voltz noted she works for Circles of Care; and inquired how many beds have increased for the mental health population in the last 20 years; with Dr. Barry Hensel of Circles of Care responding zero. Commissioner Voltz stated there has been no increase in beds whatsoever; the State should be doing something about that; the County may be able to help out a little; but Circles of Care desperately needs more bed space.

Mr. Carter stated the jail does a remarkable job with the resources it has, both in cleanliness and operation; but when one sees people with that level of mental health problem held in the way they have to be held in the bubbles, one realizes that society has not done very well with that population; and they are raising that red flag that 15% is a number that can keep going up. He stated it has gone up; jails are being asked to become social service organizations; and that is not what the original intent was. He stated it is a disturbing statistic, especially with the percentage that is in the jail on psychotropic drugs; and in part that is related to the level of crowding that exists in the jail. He stated he cannot say that for sure; but when there is a jail that was designed for 383 inmates and there are now 1,000 in there, it should not surprise anyone that there is a little stress that goes on, in the staff as well as the population. He stated the original jail opened in 1987; it was designed to hold 383 people; but on the day it opened, there was almost twice that number of inmates. He stated it was designed as a single cell facility; even though it was more expensive at the time, it has allowed double occupancy and still have a safe facility; and the County now puts three in many cells, especially in Pods C and D. He stated the operational capacity was established early on at 766; on the day they took the snapshot there were 1,066 in there; so there were a good number of people who were sleeping on the dayroom floor in the main facility. Mr. Carter displayed a layout of the facility in terms of how it exists now; stated there are four basic pods; each of them has six housing units with various classifications as shown on the chart; and there are everything from female pods to juvenile pods. He stated there are bed spaces for 16 male juveniles; but on the particular day they took the snapshot, there was only one; and it is the same thing on the females with 14 bed spaces but only one there. He stated the question is whether they should be there at all; that would be 30 more beds if there was an alternative use for that particular housing pod; but they are not juvenile offenders under the juvenile court, but juveniles charged as adults; so they are held in adult facilities, and must be sight and sound separated and have continuing education. He stated the State Department of Children and Families requires them to continue to provide education to the children in the facility, which takes up a fair amount of valuable bed space. He stated the forensic population is in Pod B; 64 would be the operating capacity; the design capacity was more like 32; and there are 85 in there now. He displayed views of the facility showing the medical cell areas and the courtroom facility; stated they need to have better and more space to carry out the initial appearance functions that happen at the jail; that would save having to transport inmates and save money; but that is a very crowded space and needs to be addressed. He displayed slides showing typical male housing units, a three-person cell, and the housing unit control pod; and stated the housing unit control room is a large space, and described the difficulties of one person running it. He stated the next picture is a unit where glazing and doors have been added to the area under the balcony; that is the area where they deal with a lot of the mental health population; that is their out-of-cell possibility; they are locked out of the cell and put in the bubble; and the officer in the housing unit can observe them. He stated there is video visitation, which is a good move; Florida has led the nation in that; and it has reduced significantly the number of staff required to do those kinds of things. He stated the Board did the right thing in the 1980’s when it provided recreation yards right off the housing units so it is not necessary to move inmates to a recreation field; and that reduces staff requirements. He stated the kitchen has lived its useful life in terms of its size; it was not designed for 1,500 inmates; so it has done well, but is wearing out. He stated that is going to need to be addressed, not only in terms of the equipment, but also in regard to the size to meet the population. He stated right after the jail opened in 1987, a 283-bed annex was built; there have been as many as 325 inmates in there; but for the most part, that is maintained very close to the original capacity because it is a dormitory facility. He stated the inmates are out in the dormitory space; and displayed a slide showing the configuration. He stated dormitories have a role in correctional environments; but he does not believe it is possible to have 100% of the correctional environment in dormitories and maintain a safe population for staff as well as inmates. He stated the recommendation is to continue to use a high percentage of dormitories for the future development plan. He displayed additional photos of the dormitory spaces. He stated many of the inmates in the dormitories participate in work programs; they are either trustees in the jail or out working on inmate crews; so during large parts of week days, it will not have 76 people in it, although it will on the weekends. He stated a study was done for the Department of General Services by Schenkel Shultz Architects; and the findings were similar to theirs. He stated the building structure is in very good condition; overall the County has maintained the facility well; and one can see it by going into it because even with the level of crowding, the facility is very clean and presents well in terms of environment. Mr. Carter stated the booking area does not have enough space; there is an inadequate holding area; the computer linkage between the courts and the jail could be improved; and the dining, kitchen, and loading dock areas do not have enough space to meet the population levels that are now being served. He stated the medical areas are lacking in a lot of things; crowding is a major factor; and there are some violations with basic life safety, security, and ADA requirements in the facility. He stated their estimate was as much as $8 million to bring the facility into compliance with life safety, ADA, and all the others as well as dealing with some of the issues like the inadequate medical area, booking area, kitchen area, and things like that. He stated the Schenkel Shultz study was being done at the same time they were doing their study; and he is presenting that as information that was provided by another group. He stated having given the bad news that the jail population is growing, the County will not be going out of this business any time in the foreseeable future, and the existing facility is in need of attention, he would like to say that they have been working with the Public Safety Coordinating Council; they have met many times over the last six months to work through these things; and some of the meetings were very frank about who does what and why are they not doing things. He stated they came out with a plan of how to control and manage the growth; it will not change the fact that there will be growth; but it does offer the opportunity to manage the growth. He stated the first strategy is to expand existing alternatives to incarceration and fully utilize the misdemeanant community corrections and other programs; and what is presented are the aggressive expansion and the moderate expansion scenarios. He stated the Board will see, if it looked back historically, that its programs have been growing more like an aggressive expansion; it has increased every year the number of people who are on pre-trial diversion, pre-trial release, community supervision, and probation; and the question is whether the Board has creamed the crop, in effect and has it gotten those who most and best qualify. He stated what they are dealing with now is a population that is going to be there because they are the most difficult to manage; and they presented several different forecasts based on those. He stated one is an aggressive expansion and one is more moderate; there is not a big difference; and the difference between 4% for sentence program increases per year and 3% increase in the number of people in those programs is not a big decrease. He stated they also did a status quo scenario; the population that was presented earlier was 2,900 beds; and if the Board does not do anything more than what it is doing now, which is a lot, it will be looking at 2,900 beds. He stated they began with those kinds of scenarios and what it would take to achieve each scenario; on the sentencing program in terms of County probation, going back to FY 1999, there were 483 equivalent per day on County probation, growing to 565; but in community service programs it doubled from 84 to 178, so there are 734 people that potentially could have been in jail. He stated he is not saying they would have been in jail; but the Board had programs in place so those people could be dealt with outside the jail environment. He commented on pre-trial programs; advised pre-trial supervision is the only one that has gone down slightly; and that is related to staffing needs; but on the pre-trial side, the County has increased from 180 to 260. He stated many jurisdictions do not deal much with the pre-trial side; they wait and see how the criminal justice system responds; so there are not a lot of intervention programs; but the County has increased by 44% over the last seven years in the pre-trial diversion program. He stated the growth rate on the sentencing side, the programs of probation and community services, has been 6% a year; and the growth rate on the pre-trial side has been 9% a year; and that is how they came up with the aggressive, moderate, and do-nothing scenarios. Mr. Carter stated after a lot of discussion the Public Service Coordinating Council agreed that for planning purposes, it would go with the moderate scenario; it did not want to project more than it could accomplish doing the aggressive scenario; but it did want to do more than now. He stated the moderate scenario says that from the sentencing side, the County is going to grow the number of people participating in the program from 734 now by 3% a year, so by 2025 there would be 223 more than the 734 that are participating now in the sentencing programs that are available, which means some additional programs. He stated the same thing on the pre-trial; it would take it from 259 and increase is by 178 more by doing more pre-trial intervention type programs; so the total impact and potential jail bed savings would be approximately 400. He stated the County’s current per day cost at $39 a day is one of the lowest around; he was in Johnson County, Kansas yesterday, which spends $102 a day per inmate; and in Kansas City, it is $68 a day. He stated some jurisdictions would say at $39 a day, jail may be the best option; but he suggests it is not. He stated the 402 people that are projected to be pulled out of the system and not require bed space by 2005 will result in avoidance of $5.7 million. He noted it is not money saved, but money the Board avoided spending; and it will have to spend some money out of the $6 million to get the 402 people out of the jails. He stated those people are not in jail under this type of program; and they are starting from a base of 1,000 now that potentially could be in jail, but are not because of the programs that the County has in place. He stated the first strategy dealt with intervention; but the second strategy is much more complicated, dealing with the side the County does not control, which is how to reduce the length of stay; and that involves the criminal justice system, the State Attorney, the judiciary, the Public Defender, the Clerk of Courts, and all the components of the system. He stated the criminal justice system has to come together to help reduce the length of stay; the first recommendation is to establish a permanent position of jail population management coordinator; and the County has already moved toward doing that. He stated that person and eventually that office would be charged with starting every day with who has come into the system, why they are in, how long they have been in, and can they be moved out. He stated moving them out does not necessarily mean getting them on the street; it just means moving them to the next stage; and the next stage may be a transfer to the State or to the State mental hospital. He stated every day that person or office will be looking at that; there are a lot of reports that are generated and there is a lot of data; but it is important for the data to come together as decision-making information and not just reports for the sake of reports. He stated that position can help; the person needs to have direct access to the bench, the State Attorney’s office, the Public Defender’s office, and the Clerk’s office to know why things are happening, such as why a person has been in jail for 60 days on a probation violation and whether something can be done about it; and it is just a matter of asking questions, not pointing fingers. He stated it is asking questions, implementing, and monitoring an aggressive program to the time to trial; things are being done now and programs are underway; and the Judge can speak much more to that. He stated if the County gets additional judgeship positions that will help that side of it in implementing and monitoring a probation violator tracking program; there are a lot of people in the jail on revocation of probation; failure to appears have to be held in the jail; but by tracking them, it will be possible to keep up with how long they are in, whether they can schedule the hearings, and review and organize a bond setting, and payment policies. He stated the Board may want to implement what other counties are doing, which is a delayed payment program; there are a number of people in the jail on $1,000 or $5,000 or less bond; but they cannot get out; and there are things that can be done. Mr. Carter stated the County may want to participate in a program; the Clerk suggests a program that would be a delayed payment program, where people could do time payments; and they could coordinate a program that emphasizes early plea bargaining and first appearance pleas. He stated that is underway; there have been healthy discussions through the process; and this is a program that is going to produce results. He stated the County is approximately 38% able to accomplish that now, but the target has been set at 50%.

Commissioner Colon stated as an elected official, relatives of inmates call her; and one of the things that has been brought up in the last six months is that people who have money do not sit in jail; and those who do not have money, do stay in jail. She stated in the last six months she has come across four scenarios like that; she does not even want to look at the issue of someone who is violent because they should stay in jail as a safety factor; and it is possible to do the analysis within the jail to figure out who those are. She stated one case involved domestic violence; during the hurricanes, one gentleman was out of control; and he has been sitting in jail for three and a half months, while another individual who was in the jail for the identical crime, but had money was only in the jail for one week. She stated that is just one example; she is sure there are many; and the Board has to get aggressive, although she does not know whose jurisdiction this would be under. She noted she does not have sympathy for the individual she is talking about; but he has lost his job because of being in jail while the other gentleman who had money and was able to get out still has his job and will be getting counseling and all the good stuff; and the one who did not have the money to get out has lost his job, and now his ex-wife does not get child support. She stated she is just giving an example of the whole domino effect; child support is affected because the gentleman lost his job; and that is why she wanted to put real people with the scenarios that are being given. She stated she hopes today’s meeting gives that kind of direction where the Board sees its priorities, and folks can come together to figure out what has to be done to stop that end of it.

Assistant County Attorney Shannon Wilson stated that is one of the things the jail management coordinator would begin to look at and prioritize; many times it is not possible to compare the charge; it is necessary to look at the history as well and what is going on with the individuals; and the jail management coordinator would be in the ideal position to do that.

Mr. Carter stated there is a face behind every one of the statistics; it is a human life that ripples throughout family and extended family; and Commissioner Colon brings up a good point. He stated they hope the jail population management coordinator position can go to that face and find out what happened and why it happened; they can call the Judge, the State Attorney, the Public Defender, or whomever needs to be called to find out; and it is managing human lives. He stated that needs to happen; there are probably good reasons why the person is not out; but it is worth looking into; and that is how to get at reducing the length of stay in the jail.

Mr. Wolfinger stated just looking at the numbers, it is tough because they are just numbers; and it is necessary to have people looking every day to see who exactly is there. He stated they have pushed for years for a domestic violence court so when people come in one judge would be making the decisions and would know that this person has to be in the jail, but this person does not; and it would require a concentrated evaluation day by day of all the cases instead of just counting numbers. He advised the person Commissioner Colon referred to may be in jail because he is going to get jail time anyway.

Commissioner Carlson inquired what would be the crime for a $5,000 bond. Mr. Wolfinger stated the bond schedule is low; it is just a presumption so that people can get out early; and then at the initial appearance, the court can ask for more if they have not bonded out. He advised $5,000 is not a high bond. Commissioner Carlson inquired if it correlates with the level
of the crime; with Mr. Wolfinger responding it does. Judge Evander stated the bond schedule has two parts; one is if the person is a County resident and the other is an out-of-County resident; the presumption is that someone from out-of-County or out-of-State will be less likely to appear in court; and it is based on crimes, with burglary being one amount and murder another amount. He stated the bond schedule applies until they get in front of a judge; they get in front of a judge within 24 hours; and when the judge makes the bond decision, he considers a variety of factors such as record of the individual and the offense. He stated burglary is a classic example; if someone is sneaking around a house at midnight looking to steal something, that is burglary; but if someone’s neighbor comes out on the porch and calls his wife a bad name, and that person goes onto his porch with the intent to hit him, it is also burglary; and inquired if the two bonds should be the same. He stated most people would say no; the crime is the same; but in reading the police report, one would see which is more serious. He stated in domestic violence, one person may be arrested for pushing their spouse while another one may have given the spouse a black eye, bloody nose, and knocked out a few teeth; and certainly the judge would consider that when bond is set. He stated the judge also looks at the prior record; if someone is out on bond at the time and is arrested again, he tends to go a lot higher than the bond schedule on that; so there are a variety of factors to consider. He stated they consider how long they have been in the community and the nature of their wealth; if someone has money, they are more likely to get out than if they do not; some people sent comments to the Public Service Council about whether judges should use bonds more; but if they do that, there will actually be even more disparity between keeping the poor in jail until trial and allowing people with money to be out until trial. He stated the bond decisions at first appearance are made in approximately three minutes; he has done thousands of bond decisions; and he would like to say he has never released someone who when released committed a crime, but he is sure he did. He stated he would like to say he never kept someone in jail who was later found not guilty of the crime; but when one makes 1,000 decisions, he is not always going to be right on every one. He stated his view on bond decisions is they should not be driven by the jail population; individuals who should be released should not be kept in jail just because there is a vacant bed; and no one should be released just because the jail is crowded if they are a threat to the community. He stated they can do other things in the court system after the bond hearing, but he is reluctant to change how they do bonds just because of the jail situation. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Judge Evander agrees that the coordinator position is someone that could help the system; with Judge Evander responding yes. Judge Evander stated the classic example is a person who failed to appear for court; under the normal circumstance, they may not get back in front of a judge for 30 to 40 days and may be unable to meet the bond; but in reality if the judge was aware the person was in jail even with failure to appear, they would just do three to four days; and the jail coordinator could bring that person to the judge’s attention and get them out quicker than the normal course of events. Judge Evander stated particularly on misdemeanors that can be a lot of help.

Chairman Pritchard inquired with a $1,000 bond, how much does the person have to pay cash upfront; with Judge Evander responding if they get a bondsman, it is 10%, but they have to put up collateral for the rest. Chairman Pritchard stated it is probably the collateral that they have a problem with. Criminal Justice Services Director Shaunna Heffernan stated they brought a jail oversight coordinator on board in December; and introduced Marea Staples. Chairman Pritchard inquired if Ms. Staples has the ability to handle the position efficiently and effectively; and does she have the background to be able to stay on top of this; with Ms. Heffernan responding affirmatively. Chairman Pritchard stated he is just assessing the qualifications so everyone knows there is someone in the position who can do the job. Ms. Heffernan advised Ms. Staples was a probation officer for nine years; she has been in front of the judiciary and had to handle many probation cases; and she is quite familiar with reading criminal histories and knows what to look for. Chairman Pritchard stated after the presentation, the Board would like to have a brief overview of what Ms. Staples has seen since she has been in the position.

Mr. Carter stated he is very pleased with that as not often are their studies implemented before they are finished. He stated what they did was look at a snapshot of a single day; they were asked by the Coordinating Council who is in the jail and for how long; and this is a step toward the jail population coordinator being able to say who is there for 120 days or longer. He stated from 121 to 365+ days there is one misdemeanor; he is sure that is an unusual situation; it is not typical to find misdemeanants in jail for six months or more; but it does happen. He stated on the felony side, 46 and 79 inmates are shown from 120 days to 365+ days; they are in for that length of time because they may have a very complicated case involving a lot of witnesses, or they may be for drug-related cases; there are reasons for being in that long; but they broke it into categories. He stated 88% of the inmates are in jail for 60 days or less; the jail is not a long-term facility; it is not a prison facility; and of the people in the jail on August 23, 2004, 20% were misdemeanants, 74% were felons, and 2% were probation violators. He stated breaking it down to categories helps go after who is staying in jail long and why they are staying there long; and the next thing they looked at was bonding amounts. He stated 44% of the population was in on $1,000 or less; 71% was in on $5,000 or less; and Judge Evander and State Attorney Wolfinger have already pointed out some things about the bonds. He stated they are not recommending changing the bond schedule; it would not be their prerogative to do that; but looking at the bond amounts, especially in the $1,000 or less category, that amounts to 480 people; and if there was a time payment program, those who are bondable might be able to get out. He inquired could they get 200 of the 480 out; and responded he does not know, but the County will know the answer to that fairly soon. He stated arranging the data in a way so the County can manage the population is the way it is heading; and they looked at those kinds of things as part of the study to direct the County toward some sort of coordinating manager position. He stated he has gone through all the things that he thinks the County could do; under the moderate strategy that reduces the average length of stay by 5% potentially, over the next 20 years the average daily population would be reduced by 131; and the County can do better than this, but for planning purposes, with the Coordinating Council’s direction, they based it on the moderate approach and they are going to add it to the other programs that the County is going to do on the intervention side. He stated 2,612 average daily population was the projection; under strategy one, reduction in average daily population through intervention programs, and strategy two, reduction in average length of stay, the average daily population drops from 2,612 to 2,100; and adding the peaking and classifications of beds results in approximately 2,300 beds, so overall through the programs, the average daily population is reduced by almost 600. He stated if the Board can do that, the bed space needs would be 2,300 as opposed to 2,900. He displayed a chart; and stated if the Board continues to do what it is doing now, even though it is doing many things very well now in its intervention programs, the blue line shows where it would be; the red line shows where the County has been over the last ten years; and the step pyramid is the proposed development program, how many beds need to be added over the next 20 years to reach the 2,300 figure. He stated it is a phased development program; the Board does not have to do it all at once; it can do part and see how well the programs are working; and if the intervention is beginning to happen, the County may do better than the projections. He stated he thinks the Board can do better than what is projected; but the chart takes the moderate growth scenario and shows how many beds will be needed to meet that. He stated he does not think the Board can manage itself out of the crisis that it has. He stated there are 600 more people in the existing jail than what it should have; and the County needs to do something. He stated the County may be able to operate it at 1,000 population; and if it can get back to the 10-10 combination of the annex and jail, it will have accomplished a lot; but right now it is at 1,500 or 300 over the safe operating capacity so those 300 need to be dealt with plus that growth that is going to happen just because the population is growing. He displayed an aerial view of the jail site; pointed out the existing detention facility, the annex, and the Sheriff support buildings. He stated since the County owns the land, future development could occur on the property; and the good news is the County is not going to be in a situation where it has to go to the community and say it is going to build a jail in a neighborhood because it already has the site. He stated the County has more than enough land to meet its long-term detention requirements on the site. He stated the County asked them to look at how to match the bed space requirements with a building program; and explained how they arrived at the figures using block/space analysis, including typical square footage per inmate, medical area, wall thickness, corridors, and mechanical rooms. He stated they applied historically accepted numbers against the number of inmates to come up with how much would be needed for food service, medical services, etc. He stated this is looking at the 2025 requirements; and to get to a total of 2,371 beds to meet projected needs over the next 20 years would take up a fair amount of the site. He stated it is not intended to be an architectural plan; but it is taking the square footages and breaking them into the clusters of the kinds of housing units or bed spaces that are needed. He stated cluster one is the existing detention center; they hope by 2025 it is the maximum-security high-risk facility as a single-cell facility; and the County will need at least 400 single cells in the system. He stated cluster two will be where services and programs from the existing jail will be relocated; they will keep the existing annex; and they will add 96 medical watch beds, which will be close to the new medical area they are suggesting. He stated cluster three will be approximately 900 general population beds; and cluster four will be a stand-alone female area, which could have its own programs and services for the full range of women incarcerated there. Mr. Carter stated cluster five will be a new mental health cluster; and cluster six will be a work release cluster that will be at the top of the site with a separate entrance, as would be the mental health side of it. He stated that would give a potential use of the land; but it has not been studied in detail. He stated phase one includes 128 new mental health beds, 128 general population beds, 128 general female beds, 96 medical watch beds, 8 mental health cells, 48 mental health dormitory beds, and 32 maximum security cells for women, for a total of 568 bed spaces between now and 2010. He stated that is a little over 100,000 square feet by applying basic standards; but it could be more or less than that.

Commissioner Voltz stated cluster five is male mental health beds; and inquired are there no female mental health beds. Mr. Carter responded the female mental health beds are in the female cluster. Commissioner Voltz stated the females are all together but the males are
separated; and inquired if there is a reason for that. Mr. Carter responded he has been advised it is better treating the full range of women’s needs in a women’s facility rather than trying to treat women within a male dominated facility; and what they are suggesting the Board consider is treating it as a women’s facility within the correctional environment, and within that include the mental health, medical watch, and full range of female needs. Commissioner Voltz inquired about numbers between male and female mentally ill; with Mr. Carter responding he does not have the figures, but believes it is three to one, male to female.

Chairman Pritchard inquired if the female mental health inmates would be separated from the general female population; with Mr. Carter responding absolutely, it would be a separate housing area. Mr. Carter reiterated it is not intended to be an architectural plan; but it is trying to take actual sizes and place them on the site to show how much area it takes up. He stated there are many different ways of doing it.

Mr. Carter stated the other things in phase one that need to be done are a new intake and release area; everyone who has worked there in the past has stressed the need for that area to grow larger; and a new medical area and new administrative courts televising area are needed. He recommended adding two courtrooms, even though two may not be needed right now; stated they would be for initial appearance and video conferencing; and they would not be courtrooms in the sense of what is at the Justice Center, but they would be larger, more capable, and more technologically advanced than what is at the jail right now. He stated the total building area would be approximately 155,000 square feet, just applying some block numbers against the number of inmates that would be there in 2010; the recommended development program would increase the current levels of supervision under the County misdemeanor probation alternative services programs and pre-trial programs, establish the position that the Board has already established, implement the jail expansion plan by 2010, maintain the capacity of the existing jail and annex at approximately 1,100, and add 568 beds; and if the Board can do that, it is going to be just about where they projected it to be. He stated the average daily population by 2025 would require adding almost 1,200 beds and reducing the existing jail back to its original design of single cells; the County will never be out of the single cell business; but by 2025 less than 20% of the jail population will be in single cells. He stated they looked at the cost implications on the extended pre-trial intervention and diversion program, including one additional program manager, three additional criminal justice officers, and four additional staff associated with the pre-trial intervention capability; and strategy two includes the jail population management coordinator and some support staff. Mr. Carter stated at some point in time the position will require more than one person; they are building into the budget for between now and 2010, two people in the jail population management position; and that is all County funds. He stated if the County gets additional judges, there will be additional staff required for the courts, State Attorney’s office, Public Defender’s office, and Clerk of Courts; but that is State controlled. He stated the Governor’s new budget for additional positions for judges does not include salaries for additional staff for the State Attorney’s or Public Defender’s offices; but it will not work without the additional resources for the support staff. He stated people do not understand what the big deal is about getting another judge; but there is other staff that needs to follow; and that is approximately one million dollars for one judicial position. He stated the County share should be about 25% and the State share would be 75%; but the additional correctional officers to meet the 568 beds falls back on the County, with a cost of approximately $4 million, so the total implication would be approximately $5.3 million, of which the State share would be approximately 20% and the County’s 80%. He stated in terms of the capital cost, they proposed a conventional building approach; there are alternative ways of doing it; and he got information from the new Sheriff, who has been thinking about this for a long time. He stated what he has put in front of the Board is the conventional building, which would be long-term; and it is not inexpensive. He displayed a chart showing the square footages and estimates of cost per square foot; and stated it can be done for less. He stated looking around, one will find that states have built everything from interim housing of various types of prefabricated units, all the way to the final and formal construction; and there is a wide range out there. He stated the study says 155,000 square feet for Phase 1 construction at a cost of approximately $28 million in today’s dollars; but some other things have to be added to it including a perimeter fence, paving of roads, and preparing the site; and $4 million is added for possible mitigation. He stated construction contingency is approximately $2.5 million; the cost of cement is going up; and there is an inflation factor added of approximately $1.5 million. He stated the typical fees for planning, management, and furnishing will add more to it; and that is why there is a total of $43 million, with $28 million for construction cost and the rest for things that are going to be necessary. He stated whatever the Board decides to do, it will still have to do some of the associated items. He summarized the recommendations are to implement the jail population coordination office, which the Board has already done, improve conditions of confinement by reducing the current level of crowding through construction of 568 new beds by 2010, provide specialized housing and programs for the forensic population by at least 185 new bed spaces, and appoint a facilities expansion coordinator to manage the programming, design, construction, and transitioning of new beds.

The meeting recessed at 10:40 a.m. and reconvened at 10:55 a.m.

Chairman Pritchard stated there has been a request to allow Sheriff Jack Parker to make his presentation and then for Judge Evander to also make comments; they both need to leave by 11:45 a.m.; and then the Board can go back to discussion of the Carter Goble study.

Sheriff Jack Parker stated he has nothing but the utmost respect and admiration for Mr. Carter and his firm; and if the County had an extra $140 to $150 million around, that is where the Board would need to go; but the reality is that the County has some issues when it comes to funding projects like this. He stated phase 1 of the study shows a $44 million outlay for capital projects and things that need to be done to meet the needs at the jail; and although the plan is wonderful and ideal, the problem is getting the money to fund it. He stated he does not see the County coming up with that kind of funding other than going to a referendum; and one thing that concerns him as Sheriff is that there have been four consecutive failed jail referendums, all similar in scope and size to the one presented by Mr. Carter. He stated he is concerned about getting ready for a referendum and having another failed outcome, which would put the jail further behind the eight ball and put correctional officers and inmates’ lives in danger while they come up with a more reasonable solution from a financial perspective. He stated he has outlined a few alternatives for the Board to consider; and one of the things he has put forth in the summary is a plan that would provide 668 beds, 100 more than was presented in the study and also infrastructure improvements for a cost of less than one-fourth of what has been presented, or approximately $10 million. He stated the first thing he would like to do would be to expand the current Sheriff’s work farm to include the construction of a 100-bed instant structure, a sprung-type tent facility, to house minimum security offenders. He stated this would give 100 beds, and provide a resource to have people at the farm to do things in the community such as beautification and cleaning. He stated today the County retrieves people from the jail, gets them to the work farm at about 9:00 or 9:15 a.m.; and then it has to take them back at approximately 3:00 p.m. so the County only gets about four or five hours of work out of them each day. He stated it is expensive to do the transport; and it does not yield a good product; but the proposal would have 100 people onsite working on the farm; of that number 30 to 40 could be sent out in the community on work details; and that would keep 50 or 60 on the farm at all times working and doing projects to benefit the community. He stated it would also provide the bed space that is so desperately needed. He stated the second recommendation deals with the issue of inmates with mental illness and how to serve those inmates in the jail; the County could be doing a better job; it takes inmates with mental illness and puts them into a typical traditional correctional environment; and they are not doing well, nor can they be expected to do well. He stated they then are put into the bubble structures; and if one wants to take someone with behavioral issues and make them worse, he would suggest putting them into bubbles. He stated they are treated like animals; and after a little bit of time, they start to act that way; so they need to rethink how to treat those with mental illness. He stated they are going to need more bed space; the Board already approved in concept the 256-bed block and mortar facility that was going to be adjacent to the main jail; and he would like to strengthen that facility slightly, connect it to the jail so it is more secure, and enlarge it to a 280-bed facility, designed to meet the needs of inmates who have mental illness and also the needs of inmates who have severe medical problems. He stated that will better serve that portion of the inmate population and give an additional 180 beds; it is a little more expensive construction; but he would not be comfortable putting those types of inmates in a sprung tent structure. He stated those inmates could greatly benefit by creating a special housing unit that is designed to fit their needs. He stated the third recommendation is to construct a new kitchen; infrastructure at the jail is critical; it was built to house 384 inmates; it came with a kitchen and laundry for that size; and they have outgrown the current kitchen space. He stated it is expensive to take the maximum security jail and build it out; square footage could be $400 to $500 a square foot; so in lieu of doing that, it would be more prudent to build an off-site or adjacent kitchen facility that is separate from the main jail. Sheriff Parker stated the facility would be expandable so it could serve the needs of the whole correctional complex; even when there are 2,500 or 3,000 inmates down the road, they can continue to expand the kitchen; and it would feed all the inmates within the correctional facility. He stated by moving the kitchen outside, it will vacate space on the inside that is actually too small for the kitchen but is ample to improve the existing booking facilities, which has been pointed out in the Carter Goble report as being critical. He stated there is a very small booking area; last year 21,000 people were admitted to the jail and 21,000 were released; so there were 42,000 inmates going through a room approximately a quarter of the size of the Florida Room; it is a tremendous amount of foot traffic; and it is a dangerous situation. He stated the Board has heard about bad releases; it is amazing that the correctional staff does not fall into that more often; there are people coming and leaving, exchanging identities; and it is a chaotic situation. He stated they try to control it the best they can; it is common sense to split those facilities; and most progressive state-of-the-art jail facilities have an intake area where people who are being arrested come in and a separate release area where inmates who are being released, whether to prison or the street, are brought, so the populations are separated. He stated the vacated kitchen will allow them to do that; they will be able to modify the area to be one of the booking processing areas; and they will be able to build some holding cells, split those, and give the correctional officers the room they need to control the chaos and have a more efficient operation. He advised the fourth recommendation is for renovation of the vacated kitchen area. He stated recommendation five is the creation of a sprung tent structure for a 228-bed dormitory; it would be erected at the main jail site; and it would be used for male offenders. He stated as they start to branch out and do some different things, they will need to upgrade the perimeter fencing at the jail; most of the State prisons in Florida hold people in for life sentences or double and triple life sentences; in that prison environment, the structures are relatively typical; and the reason they get away with that kind of standard is to have a tremendously strong perimeter fence, in many cases a double fence with razor ribbon, sensors, and sometimes human security. He stated that allows the structures within those perimeters to be built to a lesser standard and be more cost effective; so perimeter fencing is an important concept in the future, no matter which plan the County goes with, to strengthen the integrity of the correctional facility. He stated they would like to expand the existing medical unit; the study brings out that in the long-term, the County needs 32 medical beds; and he does not disagree with that; but it is an expensive venture at almost $3 million. He stated what they would like to see in Phase 1 in the next five years is the completion of a portion of that; in Phase 1 in the next five years, they would like to add 16 additional medical cells; and it is relatively expensive because they have to build out from the main jail, breaking through the exterior walls. He stated people who are extremely ill or who are very infectious with active staph infections, tuberculosis, or things of that nature can be brought to these negative pressure cells so that the air they breath will not be reintroduced into an adjoining cell; there is some expense to building those cells; and currently the jail has five cells for 1,400 inmates, which is not adequate. He stated they would like to add 16 cells within the next five years to bring that up to a 21-person occupancy; and in successive years, they will double that. He summarized the plan they are recommending the Board consider is less than a quarter of the price of the one that is in Mr. Carter’s report; it creates 100 additional beds to 668 beds, which will bring the population to 1,700 beds that are needed by the year 2010; it segregates inmates with mental illness and provides them with a more appropriate environment; and it allows them to segregate inmates who have serious medical issues. Sheriff Parker stated it is awkward for Commander Futch to introduce someone on a walker or crutches into the general custody housing; and there is the potential for problems. He stated the plan expands the booking area; it separates intake and releasing processes; it provides for a new and expanded kitchen and expanded medical unit; and it is a bare bones proposal, but will meet the County’s needs. He stated it will be safe to proceed in this direction; sprung tents are not a panacea; they cannot continue to add thousands of beds because they are limited in their ability to be utilized; they cannot be used for low maximum and high maximum inmates even if they are behind a strong perimeter fence; so there is a limit on how far they can go with the tents. He stated part two of the consultant’s plan is $100 million of additional spending for 600 to 700 beds that are needed and the infrastructure that goes with it; as they get closer to it, they will try to find other ways to mitigate those expenses; but the sprung tent structures most likely will not fall into the phase two plan because eventually the County will have to build additional high medium and maximum security space. He stated one of the good things about the County jail is that it is a maximum security jail; it affords the County the luxury of having close to 600 maximum security people in the jail; there was a suggestion that the main jail go back to single cells, and in an ideal situation, that would be wonderful if there was the money to do it; however, the reality is he does not see that day ever occurring. He stated the County will have to maintain the jail as a double celled facility, possibly single-cells for one pod for the extremely bad; but they will keep the maximum security doubled up in the other three pods and staff it as it has been staffed. He stated they should be able to do that without issues or problems; he yields to Mr. Carter’s report as being the ideal professional report if the County had those kinds of resources; it is something the Board will want to give strong consideration; but he does not believe the County has those resources; and he wanted to give the Board an opportunity to do something at far less expense that would still get the job done.

Chairman Pritchard stated it is $9.88 million in construction minus the $2.85 that the County has already set aside for the dormitory, so that would be $7.03 million in new construction dollars that would be needed; with Sheriff Parker responding if that other money is there. Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten advised the item the Board authorized last year for the dormitory was $1.6 million with $400,000 from impact fee revenues; so that was a total of $2 million for that project. Chairman Pritchard stated there is $2 million set aside out of the $2.8 that is forecast to be needed, so that takes it to approximately $8 million that would be needed in new construction money and approximately $4.3 million for operational costs. Sheriff Parker stated because they are looking at the same number of beds, the staffing studies were pretty critically staffed; he does not see any fat in the staffing numbers provided to him by Commander Futch; they are correctional officers in the housing units watching inmates or correctional technicians working the control rooms; and there are no movement officers, relief personnel, or booking. He stated they could be criticized for that because generally when a comprehensive staffing analysis is done and new facilities are being built, there is all of that included, which would be approximately another $2 million; but Commander Futch believes that with the current staff, that amount could be mitigated by putting the core correctional personnel in the facilities and supplementing their needs with the existing staff. Chairman Pritchard inquired can any of this be phased in; with Sheriff Parker responding yes, and that is what he tried to do. Sheriff Parker stated he gave dates of the phase-in because he knows this is tough to swallow; even though it is less than a fourth of the price, it is still expensive; and they came up with a recommended completion date of the sprung tent structure at the farm of October 1, 2005. He stated they would have to hire the people slightly before that date; it has an annual operating cost of $450,000 and a construction cost of $600,000; and that would be the first step to get some relief and get the project out and in the works. He stated the second thing is the creation of the cellblocks for people with mental illness and medical conditions, which is an extreme need for the jail; and it has a completion date of March 1, 2006, which is also very aggressive.

He stated construction would need to start now to meet that timeframe; the actual cost to operate it would not come until March of the next fiscal year; and they would have to plan that in the budget stages for what they would present to the Board as far as how they would get that initiated. He stated the construction cost would be the money that they have to come up with now; so those are the two things that have to be done immediately to give some relief to the overcrowding situation and make things safer for those with mental illness. Chairman Pritchard stated they would need approximately $3.5 million for construction costs; and inquired how much for operational costs. Sheriff Parker responded they would need $450,000 for the next fiscal year for the tent project; and they would probably need $1 million next fiscal year or possibly a pinch more than that for the March 1 opening date of the special pod. He stated the reason he says a pinch more is because Commander Futch would hire the people slightly before the opening date to get them through the field training program; and that takes a couple of months, so they would have to have them as active employees when they bring them in. Chairman Pritchard inquired if over the course of next year’s budget preparation, the Sheriff might be able to find some of these dollars within his budget. Sheriff Parker responded that is one of the things they will strive to do; they are in the process now of doing everything possible to reduce unnecessary expenses; they have pulled back at least 30 administrative cars and are reducing the number or pagers and cell phones wherever they find any waste whatsoever; and what is nice is there are 1,000 deputies and correctional officers to find this because they want to make sure every penny is going to direct service. He stated they hope to have some cost recovery there; and he would like nothing better than to give the Board some good news to help mitigate their budget request.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Whitten mentioned using commercial paper; many times it is expeditious to proceed and see what the recurring cost is if they borrow over ten or fifteen years if the County is doing some things of a major nature; the mental health issue is pressing and very much a concern; moving into the new kitchen, which would allow the booking facility, seems to be very relevant to having a smooth operation; and he would like to have Mr. Whitten run some numbers to see if they could be a little more aggressive, because in the long run, if it is taken as a whole, it may make more sense than fragmenting it.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to direct staff to provide a report on the numbers involved with getting all capital funding for the jail project upfront.

Chairman Pritchard inquired if Commissioner Scarborough is suggesting the Board implement the Sheriff’s plan and then look at Phase 2 from the Carter Goble plan; with Commissioner Scarborough responding no. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board does not even have to relate the plans; but if it looked at some of this stuff that could be implemented as a methodology without going to referendum and was able to see what type of borrowing it could do to get the money upfront, then it could put the pieces together. He stated there are two components, how much money can the Board collect by not over-borrowing but having the money upfront, and the other is how to put the different plans together; but he would like to see this proceed as expeditiously as possible. He stated there may be components that are not inconsistent between the Carter Goble plan and the Sheriff’s plan; but the Board needs to know what money it can borrow outside of a referendum; and that is what his request is.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if Commissioner Scarborough is including in what ways the Board can borrow it; with Commissioner Scarborough responding he thinks so. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board talks about commercial paper sometimes; it can borrow from Enterprise Funds; but there are certain thresholds to go out and do long-term; and the Board needs to get that information from staff. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board wants a cash flow analysis; and then as it gets into the budget discussion, it will know what type of commitments it is making.

Chairman Pritchard stated he does not have a problem with that; he always likes to know where the Board is going and how it is going to get there; but he does not intend to go to the voters and ask them for money for this. Commissioner Scarborough stated this is not going to the voters. Commissioner Voltz stated the good thing is Sheriff Parker does not want to go to the voters either. Chairman Pritchard stated he thinks most of it can be done in-house by evaluating programs and assessing whether they need to be continued; and if they end up with “x” amount after going through the budget process, then the Board can borrow the money with interest rates as low as they are; but reiterated he is not going to go to the taxpayers for more money to do this. Chairman Pritchard stated he does not think the Board has to do that; and it should not send the message that there is a potential for increasing the taxpayers’ contribution.

Commissioner Colon stated she seconded the motion because originally the discussion in regard to mental health was not happening; it has taken more of a priority, which is key to this so it is not the Band-Aid they talked about before; and that is why she agrees with Commissioner Scarborough that they need to hurry and take care of this because it will cost more money in the future, and it has to happen. She stated this is the time to go forward.

Chairman Pritchard inquired if any of the Commissioners have seen this type of structure; and advised it exists at the Radisson at the Port, where it is used in addition to the convention center. He stated it is quite a structure. Commissioner Colon stated three counties were able to do well with such structures during the hurricanes, which was key, because the Board does not want to invest all this money for it to be destroyed.

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

Commissioner Voltz inquired if Sheriff Parker has gone to other Florida counties to look at the facilities; with Sheriff Parker responding he has not. Sheriff Parker stated he had discussions with correctional personnel and Sheriffs from the facilities that are happy with them; and his major concern was the same as Commissioner Colon’s. He stated he would like nothing better than green canvas military tents at the Jail; but the reality is it might look good for five months, and then it might look like it was a silly approach; so to be able to put something out there that can withstand winds of 130 miles per hour and have a long life as compared to regular construction, is a good move.

Chairman Pritchard stated looking at the picture of Riker’s Island and seeing the way the facility is laid out, he sees nothing wrong with that. He stated he can see the need for having a hardened structure for those that are incorrigible; but something like this is the way to go; it is clearly an economic benefit; and it serves the purpose for which it was intended so it is a good move. He recommended the Commissioners check out the structure at the Radisson, which went through the hurricanes unscathed.

Commissioner Carlson stated she echoes support of Sheriff Parker’s plan; it was well thought out; and the Board needs to give the Sheriff an opportunity to be accountable for the jail. She stated he is trying to do the best he can with that; and inquired about the integration of what was agreed upon during the last budget cycle with Commander Futch and the personnel. She stated obviously the operation dollars will hit them the hardest; they might be able to find mechanisms for bonding or commercial paper for the infrastructure needs; but the operations will be an ongoing expense. Commander Futch stated he took the 107 that the County had already funded for new positions and tried to integrate that with the minimum number of staff that would be needed to make the operation work; essentially the 107 new positions will afford them the relief factors with additional units as well as supervision; and they will use supervision and staffing in the main jail with the addition of the 107, to provide relief and supervision of the other units. Commissioner Carlson stated Commander Futch also talked about additional programming for the inmates; and inquired how has he been doing with that. Commander Futch stated that is contingent on two factors; and the first is relieving some of the units of the overcrowding. He stated because of the design of the facility, he cannot run programs anywhere in there but the housing units; there were no classrooms constructed or factored into the design to allow for inmate programming; so they are having to run the programs in the cells. He stated in order to do that he has to have more people to provide supervision for the instructors as well as get some of the people off the floor of the dayrooms to provide enough space to conduct the programs, so it is contingent upon continuing to get the additional people and being able to move the excess inmates out of the main facility and into the new units. Commissioner Carlson stated Sheriff Parker is promoting working with what has been given as far as personnel; with Commander Futch indicating he is aware of that.

Sheriff Parker stated he has a copy of the core staffing that is needed for these positions; they do not take that lightly; they understand that requires new dollars; and hopefully, they can mitigate that through the budget process. He stated when they did the actual staffing study and came up with 107, it was not because the jail is overcrowded; the positions are critical positions needed to run the specific jail operation; and as they build additional jail space, they are going to have to be completely funded and staffed. He stated he and Commander Futch have talked about that; they do not necessarily think the 107 personnel is in lieu of pulling inmates out of that particular jail; but there are probably going to be some areas where they can pull from, which is why Commander Futch stepped up and said they could do all. Sheriff Parker stated that number would go from $4 million to $6 million; he said they could do relief, transportation, booking, and all those things associated with the additional beds where there is existing staff; and while it is nice to see $4 million instead of $6 million, there is a lot of work that went into that commitment from Commander Futch. He stated that does not mean that is where it ends; they could take some of the officers that are listed and take one from the jail and make that happen; but he does not want to put them in the same situation they were in, having suicides; and he wants to make sure they are progressing and not given something that is not going to work.

Commissioner Carlson stated she was looking at it as a phased approach; the intent was to do that and make sure the jail was safe; and that was a big concern at the time to make sure they integrated it properly based on what the Board agreed to with those positions.

Commissioner Colon stated one of the things that they had an issue with in the past was that priorities seemed to change year after year; then during budget time, there were requests from the Department to increase the numbers; and obviously the Board has been more than supportive in regard to the dollars it has given to the Sheriff’s Department, and it shows also by the manpower that has been hired. She stated she wanted to find out what kind of commitment the Board is going to get from Sheriff Parker; obviously this is a priority to him and to the Board; and inquired if there is anything that is going to be happening during budget time. She stated that will mean that dollars would have to be shifted elsewhere; that becomes very complicated for the Board; the Board needs to support Sheriff Parker’s priorities; and right now those priorities should be the jail. She stated Sheriff Parker can see that there is support; but she wanted to get some feedback in terms of what the Board is going to be seeing. Sheriff Parker responded he will be glad to sum that up; there are several priorities, but the top priority is the jail situation; and it has to be dealt with head-on. He stated it is something that no sheriff likes to deal with because there are many exciting things that they could be doing with the money other than housing criminals; but it is something that has to happen; and they are going to hit it head-on in partnership with the Board. He stated there was some debate as to whether the Sheriff was the Chief Correctional Officer because an ordinance was never passed; he embraces that; and he wants the Board to make him the Chief Correctional Officer. He stated he wants to accept full responsibility for the operation of the jail; he wants to work hand-in-hand with the Board to make sure that they not only correct the problem in the short-term in phase 1, but that it be an ongoing thing. He stated corrections is a situation that cannot just be fixed for the moment; they have to be looking at 2010 and 2015 and 2020 as Mr. Carter indicated; and they have to do that to stay ahead of it. He stated if they fail, not only will there be a jail that is in chaos, but there will be a community in chaos; he met with a lot of the Chiefs of Police last night; they are having to re-arrest the same people over and over again for burglaries and things of that nature; and those people should probably have been in jail, but are not there because it is overcrowded. He stated there are all kinds of management to get people out of jail; that is good from the standpoint that it helps manage the jail population; but it is bad from the standpoint that it puts criminals in the community who probably would not be there if there was ample jail space. He stated that takes a Sheriff and a Board working together to make it happen; they should not be ridiculous and build 5,000 jail beds to put everybody in jail; but they should come up with a common sense approach that will serve the community in a utilitarian way with no frills, and get the job done.

Judge Evander stated when he met with Mr. Carter last spring, the jail population was 1,448; with the cooperation of the jail administration, Public Defender, and State Attorney’s office, they set up a resolution program and some things in misdemeanor; and they got the jail population down in the 1,200’s at times. He stated the number he saw for yesterday was 1,325 inmates;
and the way they are doing this is to put inmates on a faster track than non-inmates going through the criminal system. He stated the advantage to the County is it gets inmates out of jail quicker; but the disadvantage is all the other cases go a little slower. He stated they are hopeful the Legislature will fund two new judges; but even with that, the County will need more beds; and anything beyond that, the judges would have to take action, which would negatively affect the safety of the community. He stated they have no interest in doing that; and he does not think they have any interest in reducing bonds or changing sentencings because of the jail population. He stated it is a good idea to continue to have two tracks, with inmates going through the system quicker to try to alleviate the jail population.

Commissioner Colon stated one of the things that was attractive was that the inmates would have to be the ones who would pay for monitoring if they wanted to be out of jail; and inquired if there is any feedback on that. Judge Evander responded there are some inmates that releasing them with electronic monitoring would be appropriate; the problem is the cost factor; and either the County would have to make the decision to pay for that for people who could not afford it or the responsibility would be left to the defendant to pay for it, and the vast majority could not afford to pay for it. Assistant County Attorney Shannon Wilson stated there was a Jail Oversight Committee meeting yesterday; Judge Holcomb is the judge assigned to that committee; and it is made up of the State Attorney, Public Defender, Clerk of Courts, and many members who impact the jail population. She stated Judge Holcomb asked her to raise that issue with the Board; he indicated there are a number of people that he would not be comfortable releasing right now; but if there was some mechanism to successfully monitor them, he would be very interested in that. She stated Judge Holcomb thinks that there is a segment of the population in the jail that could be released on that; and he asked her to look into the issue further. She stated several members of the Committee gave her names of people to contact; she made a few calls yesterday; and one of the things that became apparent is that there are several counties that have pilot programs, such as Pinellas County, but there are certain things a county has to have in place to have such a program. She stated mapping is something that is necessary; they discouraged going from a radio controlled system as it is unreliable; and she still has a lot of research to do; but she will be coming back to the Board with a report on the issue. She stated her understanding is the counties that are using such a system are funding a pilot program, and they are not based on offenders paying the cost alone. She stated Judge Holcomb did not give any numbers of those he thought might be eligible for the program; but he did indicate that if the Board had an interest in exploring this further, he would come up with some numbers. She stated she is not sure how much Judge Holcomb has talked with the other members of the judiciary about this; but that was his perspective. She stated she would like to get some feedback, look at those numbers, and turn them over to the Sheriff.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct staff to provide feedback on active and passive monitoring and inmates paying the costs of the monitoring programs.

State Attorney Norm Wolfinger stated Seminole County has an impact program; they can do active or passive monitoring; and in some of the programs, part of it is to help implement the mapping segment of the program. He stated mapping is something that law enforcement in Brevard County really needs; and he would encourage the Sheriff to be the leader in that forefront. He stated perhaps with the impact program or another similar program, they could achieve the mapping. He stated in the act of mapping, they would be able to see where the person is live; and they have had arrests in Seminole County for burglaries, etc. where even on the passive system, they have been able to see where they person was and match it with a crime that evening, so it is a tremendous system. He stated it is a preventive program because it helps prevent crime from occurring, so he would strongly encourage going that route. Ms. Wilson stated she spoke with the individual in Seminole County who is heading that up; and she is the one who made the comments about mapping. She advised of a murder on the west coast of Florida where they were able to save investigative time by being able to tell where certain people were who were not in the area of the crime; and that allowed the investigators to concentrate on other people. She stated as Mr. Wolfinger said it is a crime prevention tool as well as a release tool.

Commissioner Carlson inquired about the cost of mapping; with Ms. Wilson responding she has not gotten that far into it; but her understanding is the prior Sheriff may have hired someone. Ms. Wilson stated she has not had a chance to talk to Sheriff Parker or anyone else about this; but the purpose of hiring the person may have been to begin the process, so she still has a lot of footwork to do in putting something together for the Board. Commissioner Voltz inquired how long will it be; with Ms. Wilson responding a couple of weeks. Chairman Pritchard inquired if the program was $10 to $12 per inmate per day; with Ms. Wilson responding she does not think that is quite the same. She advised there is currently a program that costs the offender $10 a day; it is a self-pay thing; they have to pay a week in advance; and it is called Brevard County House Arrest. Judge Evander stated the passive monitoring was $10 to $12; and the more aggressive was in the twenties.

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

Mr. Wolfinger stated everyone had done a tremendous job; it is not a one-stop solution; it takes the courts, the County, the Sheriff, and everybody working together; and he is surprised they have made it this long with the jail they have without more tragedies than they had. He stated the most important thing is to move as fast as they can. Chairman Pritchard stated he agrees.

Commissioner Colon stated she does not want people to think the Board has forgotten this part; and requested Mr. Carter go over the strategies that need to be done. Chairman Pritchard stated he would like to talk about the meshing of the Sheriff’s proposal with Mr. Carter’s proposal and identifying what can be done and the costs.

Mr. Carter stated he has not had a chance to talk to the Sheriff about this since he just got the information yesterday; but he is in complete agreement with most of the proposals. He cautioned several years ago the Legislature asked them to look at alternative housing approaches; the one that is in front of the Board is one of the ones they evaluated for the Legislative Audit Council; and it is an instant solution, but not a long-term solution. He stated they did Riker’s Island master plan; and recommended looking at those facilities now. He stated he worked for Lee County Sheriff’s Department, which has the sprung structures; they are quite
happy with them; they have been there five years now; they did the staffing study; and recommended looking at the utility costs. He advised they are non-insulated facilities; there is a lot of volume of space; and the Board should look at the annual utility costs. He stated it is a step in the right direction to put 100 out to the work farm; and his question is whether that is 100 coming out of the annex or out of the existing jail. He stated those are the kinds of things that the Board needs to look at; the plan is $150 million, not $100 million; and Option 3, pages B-14 and B-15 are the 20-year plan. He stated the Sheriff was right; it is not the environment for mental health offenders; but it is the environment that is appropriate for work release. He urged the Board, as it moves toward solutions, to do it in the context of a master plan for the site. He stated moving back to the recommendations, as they relate to the strategy, there were several strategies presented; and the first one was to increase the current levels of supervision on the County misdemeanor probation, alternative community services, and pre-trial programs. He stated that will take some additional staff; but the importance is intervention on the front end. He stated there is a back-end and front-end solution; the County is trying to work both of them; and this is a front-end solution to get more who are not a risk to the community out into the community through the supervision of these types of programs. He stated strategy two has already been done; that is the new jail population management coordinator; and they will be getting together with the coordinator to look at some specifics. He stated the third one, the Board already heard the proposal for 2010; it is making steps in the right direction; but the County needs to do it in the context of a long-range strategy, knowing it will need to add approximately 1,700 beds potentially over the next 20 years. He stated they need to make sure that the first 688 beds that Sheriff Parker has outlined do not get in the way of what the Board is going to need to be doing long-term. He stated the County will need to cost the strategies; for the first strategy, expanding the front-end diversion programs will require additional staff; the Board heard the capital request and the request for additional correctional officers; but there are some other staff requirements that go with that between now and 2010. He stated some additional criminal justice officers are going to be needed to supervise those; the County cannot put someone out on intensive supervision and not have the supervision; and the case loads they are carrying right now are pretty extensive. He stated strategy two has already been implemented in part; but he thinks at least one other person will be needed in the jail population management position. He stated a part of strategy two was the reduction side of it; and he does not know how to tell the Board to deal with that. He stated unless some of this happens, there will be a need to move back up to the scenario that says the County will continue to do what it is doing now; and it is doing well now; but the population is going to go up unless the County can get additional support staff for the court side; and then it is going to be very difficult to significantly reduce the length of stay. Mr. Carter stated their estimate, based on the general site concept and staffing, came close to what it sounds like the Sheriff’s Department has done; but the big ticket item is the correctional officers. He stated he can get more into the specifics of how many people they are talking about in terms of the numbers of inmates that would be diverted from the program; but he will try to answer any questions.

Commissioner Colon recommended getting the numbers to the Legislative Delegation; stated there is nothing wrong with letting them see their share because they are the ones that have to give the dollars; and the numbers should also go to the Legislative Coordinator, Theda Roberts, so they can all be on the same page.

Mr. Wolfinger stated he just came from the Prosecutors’ meeting in Tallahassee; one thing they are trying to do with the Legislature, if they are going to fund judges, as the Governor has indicated, they should also fund Public Defenders and State Attorneys to go with them; so far that is not being done in the Governor’s budget; but it is what they are pushing for. He stated it helps some to get a judge; but staff is needed; and there is not one person in the County jail or sentenced to prison who did not go through his office.

Commissioner Colon suggested the Chairman write a letter outlining what Mr. Wolfinger said; and stated it is a package deal; and they are only getting part of the package. Commissioner Scarborough suggested adding it to the legislative package. Commissioner Carlson stated it would be nice to get an analysis of how much it would cost; and if they got the judges, they would need an analysis of the additional cost that is not being given. Chairman Pritchard stated they do not have bricks and mortar; and they would have to renovate the third and fourth floor. He stated Commissioner Colon brings up a good point; and there is no such thing as a free lunch. He stated it is good to get a judge; but it could be $1 million for staffing and $500,000 for the courtrooms, so there are a lot of associated costs that people tend to forget.

Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Carter said the Public Safety Coordinating Committee requested the moderate approach; and inquired if they looked at the aggressive and moderate strategies from a perspective of in certain areas they would want to go more aggressive and others more moderate to see where there would be the best cost benefit. She inquired if it was evaluated that way; with Mr. Carter responding they did not break it out that finely; but it is a very good point. He stated the County can move aggressively on the front-end strategy because it can control that; and it may actually be able to meet what has been proposed as the aggressive strategy on the front end. He stated the other, as the Board has heard, is dependent on what the State does; and it may not do as well on that side. He stated they were looking across 20 years and trying to put costs against something; the Board will see that it will ebb and flow over time; and they hope the averages are right. He stated the data is there; now the Board has the ability with the Jail Population Coordinator position, and the existing Criminal Justice Services to take this apart and put it back together based on the direction of the Board; but he believes the Board will hit on strategy one, the aggressive pieces.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Commissioner Colon was suggesting moving forward; they were talking about the State funding judges; but people are needed to process; Mr. Wolfinger needs staff; and that should be added to the legislative packet as part of it. He requested Mr. Wolfinger provide information so the Board will have something to send off; stated the legislative packet has itemized things that are critical; and if the Board is moving forward aggressively to get the judges, it should want to make them as functional as possible. Mr. Wolfinger stated he already has the numbers. Commissioner Scarborough stated Commissioner Carlson suggested getting a report, and if Commissioner Colon is making a motion, he will second it, with the information that Commissioner Carlson requested.

Commissioner Colon stated that was not part of the discussion the Board had last week; and requested the Chairman send a letter to the delegation with the data.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct staff to prepare a letter for the Chairman‘s signature to the Legislative Delegation requesting any appointment of judges be accompanied by funding for appropriate support staff in the State’s Attorney’s and Public Defender’s offices and provide a report on the status of appointments. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Scarborough stated they are left with a dilemma; the Board has worked closely with the Sheriff over the years, and he has come forward with some interesting proposals; and Mr. Carter has indicated some things. He stated he would like to see the mental health unit move forward rapidly; things that the Sheriff recommended fall within the purview of the Carter Goble report; and requested the Sheriff and Mr. Carter meet. He inquired if the County borrowed $10 million and amortized over 20 years, how much would it pay annually. Mr. Carter cautioned that his numbers and the Sheriff’s numbers are not an apple-to-apple comparison; and they have added inflation factors, design costs, engineering costs, equipment costs, and all of that. Commissioner Scarborough stated what they do today is always cheaper than doing it 20 years later. Mr. Whitten stated these are commercial paper scenarios at 3.5%; assuming the County has the commercial paper capacity for a $10 million loan, over ten years it would be a payment of $1 million; over 15 years, it would be $666,000; and for 20 years, it would be $500,000. Ms. Busacca advised based on the impact fees being collected, the County gets approximately $600,000 a year. Commissioner Scarborough stated it indicates that without any dramatic impact on the budget, what they are talking about could be done; and he hopes the Board can come back rapidly and make some decisions. Ms. Busacca inquired what is the deadline based on the court; with Ms. Wilson responding there is a hearing coming up on the weekend of March 14, 2005. Ms. Wilson stated the magistrate indicated in discussions that he hoped the County would have a plan in place to present to the plaintiff, so they would have an opportunity for input; that is only two months away; and that is not a lot of time to put things in place. She stated she is not suggesting that the Board has to have designs in place, purchase orders cut, and contracts in place; but the court would like to see a plan, and how the County is going to enact it, proceed, and finance it, and that there is a real commitment. Chairman Pritchard stated phase 1 of the Sheriff’s plan, which is an instant structure at the farm and then a hard structure for mental health, that is doable, including the operational costs; and inquired if that would be enough to satisfy the magistrate. He noted that is 380 beds. Commissioner Carlson stated that is not using the $10 million scenario; it is smaller. Chairman Pritchard stated if the Board said phase 1 was where it is pushing right now with 380 beds, he wants to know if that is acceptable or should it go for phase 2, which is another instant structure. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board is getting approximately $600,000 a year on impact fees. Ms. Busacca advised that is correct, but they can only be used for new growth, not existing deficiencies. Commissioner Scarborough stated that is a cash flow; Mr. Whitten has said if they went 20 years on $10 million, it would be $500,000; and he is not willing to cut off the discussion and say this is as far as he wants to go. He stated the sooner the Board does things, it is an overall movement to the final plan; and by doing it in today’s dollars, the better off they will be.
Chairman Pritchard stated he does not disagree. Commissioner Scarborough stated in three years the Board is going to say life is much easier because they took this action. Chairman Pritchard stated he wants a five-year plan; he wants the majority of this done in five years; and that is his goal. He stated two of the items in phases 1 and 2 are instant structures, one is 288 beds and one is 100 beds; the hard structure is 280 beds; and that equals 660 beds in the two phases. He stated between structure and operation, the Board is looking at $10 million; and he thinks that will satisfy the court. He stated he is trying to provide direction so Ms. Wilson can say we can live with this, we think the magistrate will agree to it, the plaintiffs will agree to it, and at least there is something underway.

Commissioner Colon inquired if it would be inappropriate to take a vote on the direction the Board is going, even though a lot more is coming back. Chairman Pritchard inquired if it would be for phases 1 and 2; with Commissioner Colon responding yes, and the $10 million. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board is looking at Sheriff Parker’s plan. Commissioner Colon responded yes. Commissioner Scarborough stated at this time he does not want to limit it to that because there is some value in having a new in and out facility; and the more he can do, the more he would like to do. He stated he is willing to do that open-ended so the Board can get the numbers and analysis back and go forward. Chairman Pritchard suggested doing that. Commissioner Colon suggested approving going after the $10 million fully; and then see what that will do. Chairman Pritchard suggested seeing how much of the $10 million the Board can come up with in-house; and stated they may need the $10 million plus what they can do in-house; but they need to have more data come in. He stated this will be under Shaunna Heffernan’s jurisdiction. Commissioner Colon inquired if they should make the motion; with Chairman Pritchard inquiring what is the purpose of the motion. Commissioner Colon responded it is to leave the workshop with that commitment; and if they take action, it will have more teeth than just kicking the ideas around. Commissioner Scarborough inquired how soon would Mr. Carter and Sheriff Parker be able to come back within a $10 million number with a summary of a long-range plan and operations; with Mr. Carter responding in 30 days, they could do it. Chairman Pritchard stated he would like to see Mr. Carter’s plan merged with the Sheriff’s plan, with total costs, what can be contributed with in-house funds, and what they need to go to with short-term commercial paper. Chairman Pritchard stated he does not consider the structures to be short-term; and the jail was built in 1987. Mr. Carter advised that is very different construction. Chairman Pritchard stated it was built in 1987 for a certain capacity, which the County exceeded immediately; so they are in the process of change; and the sprung structures are good for 20 years plus. He stated it is a very responsible approach to incarcerating the appropriate prisoners in the appropriate facility. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board needs to look at the cash flow analysis and the utility potential costs; it needs to look at other areas that have these facilities in place; and they may hold up for 20 years, but over time they may degrade in their ability to stay cool. Chairman Pritchard stated he wants to know the full operation costs; but this is $25 a square foot compared to $250 a square foot; and he is sure $225 per square foot over x number of years would be higher than the cost of air conditioning. Mr. Carter stated the Sheriff is not proposing the sprung tent structures as the forever solution; but he is saying it gets the County started with phase 1 immediately. Chairman Pritchard stated it may get the County started, but it is not like a blue tarp with a six-month life expectancy; and it is going to be around for quite a while.

Dr. Barry Hensel, Circles of Care, stated representing the mental health side, which is 10 to 15% of the jail population, they are doing pretty well with limited resources. He stated a couple of years ago the Board created a Commission on Mental Health and Community Solutions to look at the jail; and it has kept mental health issues in the larger problem of the jail on the front burner. He stated the Carter Goble study had attention to the mental health folks in the first phase; the Sheriff’s proposal has something for the mental health prisoners targeted for March 2006; and he feels they are on the right track. Commissioner Voltz encouraged Circles of Care to stay involved. Dr. Hensel advised operationally since Commander Futch has been at the jail, there have been some significant enhancements to the mental health services in the jail; and they are to be complimented for what they have done.

Commissioner Colon inquired would it be possible to get the data and have a vote at the end of February. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board could have a workshop to take action at the end of February. Ms. Busacca advised the Board has meetings on February 17 and 24, 2005; and they will find a time at the end of February that fits in the Commissioners’ schedules to have a workshop.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve scheduling a workshop at the end of February to discuss the issue of the jail.

Ms. Wilson stated Mr. Segal is present, who represents the plaintiff; and she would like to see some decision at least a month in advance of the court date, to allow enough time to digest it. Ms. Busacca stated there is an existing workshop on February 17, 2005; and the question is whether Mr. Carter can get the information together by that time. Mr. Carter stated if he can get together with the Sheriff’s people during the week of February 7, it will not take long to put the two plans together. Chairman Pritchard stated Ms. Heffernan will be involved with that; with Ms. Heffernan responding Mr. Carter’s contractual obligation with the County ended in December. Chairman Pritchard stated he does not ask for something for nothing.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to amend the previous motion to include direction to staff to negotiate with Carter Goble for fair compensation for additional work.

Ms. Busacca inquired if Mr. Carter is available on February 17, 2005; with Mr. Carter responding yes, if it can be held in the morning.

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

Marea Staples, Jail Oversight Coordinator for Criminal Justice Services, stated she was a probation officer for Brevard County for ten years; and she was cross-trained in pre-trial release at the Jail. She stated she has been involved in the criminal justice system in various ways since 1977; and since becoming Jail Oversight Coordinator, she has met individually with the members of the Jail Oversight Committee, including Judge Holcomb, who is the Chair of the Committee, and representatives from the State Attorney’s office, Public Defender’s office, Clerk’s office, Sheriff’s office, the mental health and medical units at the Jail, the County Judge, the County Attorney’s office, and the Department of Corrections. She stated she met with Commander Futch as well as Director Ray Dills of the Sheriff’s Information System Department, who provided her with specific reports that she needed to analyze the situation; and she has already established a good working relationship with the State Attorney’s office, the Public Defender, the forensics and medical sections of the jail, and Jail Administration. She stated she is working with Judge Holcomb and utilizing bail criteria and the Administrative Order regarding the Jail Population Oversight Committee to create an efficient plan to reduce the overcrowding of the jail that balances the inmate population and the safety of the citizens of the County and the corrections officers. She stated the pre-trial release program at the jail is an integral part of the system; they need more space as well as centrally-located space to interview defendants when they are booked into the jail; and Sheriff Parker is looking into reallocating space for this need. She stated the relationship between Jail Administration, the courts, the judiciary, and the medical and mental health sections of the jail is paramount; these components must work together in order to appreciate the diversities and to reduce the overcrowding at the jail; she has spoken to each group; and she has been met with great enthusiasm and commitment. She stated together, they will get the job done. She stated there are between 65 and 85 defendants that go to initial appearance court each day; and she coordinates the pre-trial release form, the 923 police report, the NCIC criminal history, and the docket. She stated there are four to five pieces of information to coordinate on each defendant; and she reviews the paperwork on each defendant, reducing those eligible for release by the severity of the charge they are currently arrested on, reading the police report, looking at their criminal history, and assessing who may be committing more crimes if they are released. She stated she also assesses the level of violence; and if pre-trial release has not been able to interview the defendants, she then needs to interview each one to determine their relationship in the community, how long they have lived in the County, what their ties are, and their employment situation. She stated those defendants eligible for consideration for release are then submitted to Judge Holcomb, who is the oversight judge, to schedule a bond hearing for possible release; and she has no doubt that with the commitment of all parties involved, jail oversight will do its part to reduce the overcrowding at the Brevard County Detention Center.

Chairman Pritchard inquired if Ms. Staples has found that the possibility for quicker release exists and has she been able to effect any quicker releases; with Ms. Staples responding yes, and she is working with pre-trial release to do that. Ms. Staples stated pre-trial release is understaffed; part of the logistics of the problem is that pre-trial release has its own offices now; they used to have space in the booking area so when defendants were brought in, they had access to them and could interview them; but that does not happen now, which delays by hours, if not days, getting to the individual defendants. She stated Sheriff Parker is aware of that; and that is one of the main things he is interested in reallocating space for because the quicker they can interview defendants, the quicker they can make an assessment and release them. Chairman Pritchard stated holding someone for day two or three adds to the cost; and defendants could lose their jobs as Commissioner Colon said, so it trickles out into the
community. He stated the Board has given clear direction as to where it intends to go; the Board intends to see this happen; and it is incumbent on staff to insure that this moves forward expeditiously. He stated the plan is not going to sit on the shelf, but is going to be implemented.

PUBLIC COMMENT, RE: JAIL

Walter Pine, representing the Center for Civil Rights Advocacy, stated he is disappointed that decisions have been made before public comment was taken. He stated this is very important; four years ago, he received complaints about the jail; in particular, the veterans were being denied medication and proper medical care; and he attempted to get evidence and voluntary entry into the jail to collect evidence and force correction of this. He stated when that was impossible to do, he got arrested and went to jail himself; he was put into an open area for a medical interview; the area was open to view by anybody who walked into the area; and he was then put in a jail that had feces and blood on the wall, where he remained until he went before a judge and was released. He stated he reported immediately to the jail administration, which took immediate action to correct that; and part of the problem was there was not funding for the proper cleaning of the cells every time someone left out of the jail. He stated there were a number of problems that administration was fully aware of, and was doing everything it could to correct; but the primary prohibition was funding. He stated the Board needs to create a priority here; there are a lot of things being done in the County that do not necessarily enhance the health and safety of the community; but the jail does. He stated there is an issue that is in court; since it is in court, something is being done about it; but obviously it is not enough. He stated he is now dealing with a client who has a mental deficit due to a brain injury; he is a minor who was put in jail because of an assault; and he is at what is called tantrum stage, which is 12 to 15 years old with poor impulse control. He stated the first time he was put in jail, his family tried to get involved; they tried to get custody; they tried to get assistance; and they tried to get him mentally evaluated; but they were ignored. He stated even though he is a minor, he was allowed to plea bargain without legal counsel; he then violated again and was put in jail for chasing someone with a broom; and during that incarceration he was physically assaulted, bones were broken, and he was raped. He stated this is why the diversion programs are so important; by all appearances, this man is an adult; but when his family attempted to prove to the courts and the jails, because of the legal system, they were unable to do so. He stated they had medical statements and all the information; they had everything that was necessary; and he was referred to Circles of Care, which is referred to by most families of persons with disabilities as “Circles of Don’t Care.” Mr. Pine stated an issue that was completely ignored was the medications he was on; it says clearly on the bottle that if taken off the medication, it will cause brain damage; the first time he was taken off the medication, it may be that there was an oversight; but clearly the second time it was not an oversight. He stated the gentleman now may not be able to live by himself because of the damage that was caused by what happened at the jail; they are now seeking legal counsel; and a simple problem, which could have been easily solved, will probably result in a major liability to the County. He stated the issue with the jail is extremely important; and if it means other things remain undone, they should remain undone. He stated the issue he finds disheartening is that they have heard a lot about the budget, the bonds, and so forth, but they have not heard so much about violent versus non-violent. He stated nobody supports a violent criminal who is a threat to society being released; but in the case of non-violent, there should be a way to get him or her out of the jail as quickly as possibly. He stated the Board has problems with budget; there are people who can put up 100-foot by 60-foot metal buildings for a total installation cost of $47,000; and if private citizens can do this, so can the government. He stated the Board needs to broaden its view and look at this more seriously.

Commissioner Colon stated the Board would be remiss if it did not ask Ms. Schildroth to provide a little bit of feedback; a lot of things have changed since she came before the Board; and Ms. Schildroth has been tremendous for the community because she has been able to be a voice for those who cannot speak for themselves.

Freda Schildroth stated the Sheriff, the Commander, Circles of Care, and all the factions are very positive; and she is pleased by what she heard today and feels good that it will happen. She stated it is very distressing to hear Mr. Pine; she was not aware of this situation; and she hopes that can be looked into and those kinds of things can be prevented with the new buildings. She stated with the overcrowding, there is a real problem because nobody knows what goes on behind those walls unless someone tells someone, so that is extremely distressing to everyone. She stated she is pleased; and thanked everyone.

Commissioner Colon stated she feels everybody has been brought to the table; but the Department of Corrections, which is the State, needs to be at the table. She stated if Sanford is far for the District Director to come from, there could be someone locally that the Board could deal with on a regular basis; she understands it is a long trip; but someone needs to be present because the Department of Corrections is the one that puts inmates in the jail. She stated she personally called the Department of Corrections and was told they did not know about the meeting and would send someone locally, so someone from Cocoa has been kind enough to come to the meeting. She stated she would like for staff to see that there is someone locally that they will be able to keep constant communications with because what the Board does affects the Department of Corrections; and anything done at the State level is going to affect the overcrowding. She stated it is a whole circle; and she would appreciate staff making sure there is good communication.

Chairman Pritchard thanked Mr. Carter; stated the Board looks forward to having him come back; and thanked the Public Safety Coordinating Council and those who attended the meetings. He stated he thinks the Board has resolved a significant issue; and he knows they are moving forward to put the plan into action.

The meeting recessed at 12:22 p.m. and reconvened at 1:22 p.m.

*Assistant County Attorney Shannon Wilson’s absence and Assistant County Attorney Christine Lepore’s presence were noted at this time.

AUTHORIZE TEMPORARY LOAN FROM INSURANCE RESERVES, WAIVE FORMAL
BIDDING REQUIREMENTS, AND APPROVE REQUIRED BUDGET ACTIONS, RE:
REPAIR OF DUNE CROSSOVERS AND BOARDWALKS

Interim County Manager Peggy Busacca stated staff has asked for authorization for a temporary loan from Insurance Reserves in order to repair 30 dune crossovers and their associated boardwalks; and Mr. Nelson is here to describe it.

Parks and Recreation Director Charles Nelson stated as the Board is aware, they lost a significant number of boardwalks and crossovers during the recent hurricanes; they are in a race now to get them re-established before turtle season, which starts March 1; and they are asking for a 30-day extension during which time they would also have to provide oversight of the work being done on the beach during turtle nesting season. He stated beyond that point, they will not be able to start again until October; they tried working through the FEMA process; but it has been sluggish; and they need to move forward. He stated they will be putting the posts in the beach first so they can then come back and do the deck work; they will not finish in that time; but they will have enough work into the ground to be able to finish them by the swimming season.

Commissioner Carlson stated there are three items listed on the Agenda Report: (1) authorize a temporary loan from Property & Casualty Insurance Reserves, (2) waive formal bidding requirements and award of each of the projects based on three written quotes, and (3) approve budget actions.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize a temporary loan of $980,000 from Property and Casualty Insurance Reserves to South Area Parks Operations to be reimbursed by FEMA; waive formal bidding requirements and authorize award of the projects based on three written quotes; and approve all required budget actions. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ANNOUNCEMENT

Commissioner Colon stated she would like to welcome a new constituent to District 5, Lance Stern; he weighed 8 pounds, 13 ounces; and congratulated his parents Danielle and Gary Stern. She advised Danielle Stern is the head of the Space Coast Government Television Channel.

PUBLIC COMMENT, RE: TREE PROTECTION AND CANOPY PRESERVATION

Bobbie Bockman stated last week she mentioned that she hoped that staff would consider working with some professionals in site planning and landscaping in the community; she brought with her a list of some people who have volunteered to work with staff in any reworking of Code or new Code; and submitted the list to the Chairman.

Chairman Pritchard stated this is a workshop; and he believes in being more lenient with the formality of these types of meetings. He encouraged the Commissioners, when they have a question, to ask it, as there has never been a problem with too many people talking at one time.

Ms. Bockman stated she appreciates the Board’s interest in this issue and in looking to make some of the Ordinances and Codes more workable and livable. She stated if staff would request input on some of the issues, there may be a smoother approval procedure.

DISCUSSION, RE: LAND CLEARING, TREE PROTECTION, AND LANDSCAPING

Chairman Pritchard stated this segues into what he and Mr. Brown were talking about before the meeting convened; and requested Mr. Brown talk about the workshop he attended and whether or not this can work to the County’s advantage.

Natural Resources Management Director Ernie Brown stated he and other staff members attended a workshop dealing specifically with tree ordinances and designing them to work with the community and the development community with beneficial attributes; and it spoke to flexibility in many areas. He stated one of the messages was to work with the community in the front including the stakeholders, civil engineers dealing with development, developers, builders, the Native Plant Society, the Sierra Club, and all the interest groups from different perspectives; they would come together to help mold the draft ordinances so that they are implementable and achieve the goals of the community; and when they come back to the Board, they will have already worked with the constituents and they will be on board with what is being proposed. He stated it is sometimes a little longer process; but it makes a better product; and if the Board is so inclined, once they conclude the comments and discussion today, the Board may direct the staff to develop that kind of balanced stakeholder work group to help add, amend, and revise the Ordinance, and come back with a draft ordinance for the Board’s review.

Chairman Pritchard stated that makes sense. Commissioner Scarborough requested information from the workshop conference. Mr. Brown stated there were three very prominent speakers, one of which was Dr. Ed Gilman who is an Extension Horticulturist; and he brought forward some very good technologically and scientifically sound approaches to tree management and ordinances. Mr. Brown stated he had a lot of good information; there is a lot going on right now that the County can take advantage of and make it a very open process; and they can come together to come up with some good consensus that meets the needs of the community and the needs of the tree protection ordinances.

PUBLIC COMMENT, RE: LAND CLEARING, TREE PROTECTION, AND LANDSCAPING

Tuck Ferrell stated he has quite a few cattle ranches in the County; and he is also a retired commercial appraiser, so he has seen both sides of this issue. He stated on the ranch, they never thought there would be a problem with having to get clearing permits to maintain the pasture; some of the things are scary that they have to deal with because they plant pasture and have to keep it clean; and they were used to selling and moving palm trees around. He stated they do not usually destroy the palm trees in the pasture; they let them grow to a certain height and sell them; they do not want them in the pasture, but they do not always destroy trees because they are a good thing and other people can use the trees in other locations. He stated they try to relocate or sell the trees rather than mow them over; and he does not know what the County is trying to accomplish; but it can be difficult for the farmers and ranchers at times. He stated it depends on how things are construed; the aerial photos and maps are not always correct; and he had cases where he was trying to get exemptions, the experts used the aerial photos for interpretation, and they were wrong. He stated they cannot always go by an aerial photo; there were instances of Brazilian peppers and Australian pines, which should be destroyed because they are alien plants; and good management by farmers to get rid of those plants should be encouraged because they will take over. He stated melaleucas have taken over some areas like Palm Beach County; he has a ranch down there; it is horrible what has happened because the melaleucas have been let go; and he hopes it does not happen in Brevard County. He stated they are having to do huge things to the environment; the melaleuca has ruined much of the environment in Palm Beach County; and Brevard County has some of that, but it is not as drastic. He recommended thinking about the way some things are done; stated he had interpretations by staff of palmettos; they used photo interpretations for much of this; and they said he had wetlands and ponds, but they were just palmettos. He inquired how far will the Board go with some of the landscape ordinances; stated cabbage palms can be moved; and he does not think some of the things should be used in the criteria. He stated it is difficult for some people to try to build on some of the properties; if it is commercial development, it should be treated differently from residential development; and it is very difficult to deal with trees. He recommended the Board look at some of those things.

Commissioner Voltz inquired if Mr. Ferrell has anything specific that he is talking about with the ordinance. Mr. Ferrell responded moving cabbage palms, how the County deals with agricultural people, how the County deals with the permitting process, and what the County is going to require. He stated it needs to be put in the paper; and inquired if the County is going to
make every ranch owner who wants to clear or maintain a pasture go in for a tree removal permit. He stated it may be just light bushhogging; he does not know how things are defined; but it is very scary. Mr. Ferrell stated it is hard to understand how far this goes; he does not think people realize the thresholds; and they have tremendous problems with it. He stated the canopy situation is very difficult to work with on some properties; and another one that is difficult is the Wetlands Ordinance. Commissioner Voltz stated she was talking specifically about the agricultural activity that Mr. Ferrell mentioned. Mr. Ferrell stated they should be allowed to sell trees; most farmers are in the tree business, selling palm trees as a course of business; and that could be eliminated. He stated they sell a lot of cabbage palms, as does Viera.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if that is prohibited currently. Commissioner Carlson stated there is an agricultural exemption. Commissioner Scarborough stated if everybody does it, it is not prohibited. Mr. Brown stated Mr. Ferrell brought up a key point, which is clarity of the ordinance, what exactly is an agricultural exemption, and what does that afford the agricultural community. He stated that is something the County needs to work on with the group and the agricultural community to make sure it is clear what the exemptions provide so that people trying to make a living can get that answer quickly. Interim County Manager Peggy Busacca advised last week the Board discussed the fact that whatever it was thinking about doing would only impact newly created agricultural lands, not existing agricultural lands. Commissioner Scarborough stated if he had a piece of property that he was not using as agricultural, but was just open fallow land, he could not sell cabbage palms out of there; but he does not have any problem with Mr. Ferrell as long as his property is agricultural. Mr. Ferrell stated all of their properties are cattle ranches; with Commissioner Scarborough advising then he does not have a problem. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if someone without an agricultural exemption can harvest cabbage palms; with Amanda Elmore, Environmental Permitting Supervisor, responding that would be part of a silvicultural operation, and they would come in for an agricultural exemption and go to USDA and get their best management practices. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if they would have to go through that process in order to harvest cabbage palms; with Ms. Elmore responding that is correct, but it would not be prohibited. Ms. Elmore advised the other part is it would have to be permitted by zoning; and there is a zoning review so it is not just Natural Resources that is reviewing. Chairman Pritchard inquired if that is an expensive process to go through; with Ms. Elmore responding it is $78 for a Natural Resources review and $37.50 for the Planning and Zoning review. Chairman Pritchard stated Mr. Moehle said that when they sell a tree, if the person has his own equipment to dig it out, they sell the cabbage palms for $10; and inquired what kind of a business can someone have when it is $80 for a permit, but they sell the product for $10. Ms. Busacca advised the permit is good for the property, not for each tree. Chairman Pritchard stated he understands that; but if it is a smaller operation and they have to go through this because they have a dozen cabbage palms they want to get rid of, they are not going to make any money. Commissioner Scarborough stated it would not even benefit a person to mobilize their equipment to come and get a $10 cabbage palm; and they have to be doing it in bulk. Chairman Pritchard stated if someone wants to buy trees and bring their equipment, they are going to do 100 trees; with Commissioner Scarborough agreeing. Mr. Ferrell advised relocating trees could be a way to save them. Chairman Pritchard stated one of the things that came out last time was about a ten-inch diameter tree; somebody inquired if they come out of the ground at ten inches; and advised some do. He recommended people look at some of the cabbage palms and sabal palms; stated they may be two feet tall, but they have a ten-inch trunk; they are coming out of the ground at ten inches; and it never occurred to him that what he was looking at was a new tree with a ten-inch trunk. Commissioner Scarborough stated the cabbage palm grows wild; it is sold at minimal prices; and it is moved around and planted everywhere. Chairman Pritchard noted it is also edible. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if there is anything special in how they deal with cabbage palm; with Loren Rapport, Landscape Operations, responding small cabbage palms do not transplant; they usually have to have seven or eight feet of clear trunk before they can be moved from one point to another; and that is a proven fact.

Richard LeAndro submitted pictures to the Board, but not the Clerk; and stated the pictures are an example of the high trees presently hanging over power lines in one small area on North Carpenter Road. He stated probably 80% of all power outages are due to fallen trees over power lines; he worked for 42 years for Florida Power & Light Company; and he went on a lot of calls where he had to do tree trimming to restore people’s power. He stated a lot of properties are owned by absentee owners; they do not care what misery they cause the people who live here permanently; he has underground service; but he have as many, or more, outages than people with overhead services. He stated going underground is very expensive; it is very hard to maintain; the outages are far longer; and his power goes off quite frequently when trees fall across the lines. He stated Palm Beach County is looking at an ordinance similar to Brevard County’s; and read aloud a letter he put in the Palm Beach Post as follows: “Before Florida Power & Light is allowed to raise rates for their customers, they first should be required to bill those customers whose trees cause the power outages. It has been estimated that up to 80% of all power outages are caused by fallen trees. Because of inconsiderate homeowners and builders that plant high-growing trees close to power lines, many other owners are inconvenienced with loss of power. Just remember all the pictures of trees falling on homes and cars. If homeowners want to surround their homes with high-growing trees, that’s their problem. I just don’t want their trees to become my problem. Our neighborhood has underground service and we have more power outages than the norm because all underground cable gets their source from overhead wires. Florida Power & Light does not plant trees, but everyone looks upon Florida Power & Light during a storm restoration to bring in all the crews that we’re all complaining about to cut all the trees that have fallen across power lines. What a fallen tree does to a power line, for those who don’t know it, it’s not the poles fault. The pole is designed and built to hold the wires up. The reason there’s such tension on the lines is that in the storm the wires don’t slap together. Each line carries 7,620 volts. One tree on a power line that has tremendous tension to keep the lines taut can do a domino effect, as we’ve seen in the papers, all the way down the line a half a mile long. The County needs to rethink their present tree Ordinance and prohibit any planting of high-growing trees within 25 foot of power lines. Planting of pine trees and oak trees should be prohibited. There are many lower-growing trees that are environmentally friendly, cause less allergies, and are attractive to birds and butterflies. The County Ordinance had to be enforced and those homeowners that have these trees near power lines should be given six months to remove the trees, and I feel sure Florida Power & Light would help share the cost because of the tremendous burden on them.”

Chairman Pritchard stated the issues of tree protection and canopy are intertwined; and inquired if the Board wants to hear speakers on both issues; with the Board reaching consensus to hear all speakers at once.

Charles Moehle stated the agriculture community was in attendance at the workshops and meetings; and requested the Board not leave out the agriculture community in the task force. He stated he mentioned palm trees last time; and he thinks palm trees are a special consideration all by themselves.

*Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley’s presence and Assistant County Attorney Christine Lepore’s absence were noted at this time.

Mr. Moehle stated they have different roles in agriculture, clearing, and landscaping; in agriculture they are both a product and a nuisance weed; and they are treated that way. He stated someone mentioned having zoning to have an agriculture exemption; but that should not be tied to zoning because there are agriculture exemptions in various zoning classifications; and the agriculture exemption is established by the Property Appraiser. He stated palm trees are both a product and a nuisance weed; Mr. Rapport was correct; but in the business there is a differentiation between palms under 12 feet and those that are approximately 12 feet because those under 12 feet do not transplant well and are not generally used by landscape planners. He stated all the palms seen in landscaping are the taller trees; palms come out of the ground with trunks anywhere from six to ten inches; and right then, they are a nuisance which is how they should be treated in the clearing ordinance. He stated in the landscape ordinance they are a nuisance weed but also a good product to use; the cabbage palm is the State tree; and there are tons of them. He stated they do not fall down in the storms; they look good with good understory; they make good landscaping; and they have a role in the canopy cover with parking lots. He stated the County can encourage more of them; they look better; they are not a problem; and they do not have to be. He stated the only thing that goes away from the trunk is a palm frond; it does not create big limbs that overhang; it is a good tree; but it has to be treated differently. He stated the gentleman who was talking about Florida Power & Light thought no one should be allowed to plant the trees near power lines; but the ordinances are so burdensome that in many instances, one has to plant them there. He stated the ordinances make no sense, particularly when they go back and forth with what it required in relation to practicality. He stated it is great that Mr. Brown wants to do the task force; and he can cut his time short, because the task force is the place to do it and get it right. He stated all the Ordinances should be trashed and started over; but if the Board cannot do that, it should have an overhaul because there are so many conflicts. He stated the County Attorney was tasked with going through to get those complications; maybe Mr. Brown is capable of handling it; but in the past the Natural Resources Management Department was not capable of handling it. He stated it is a good job for the attorney because it really comes down to a legal issue when it comes to conflicts; it needs to be fixed; and the sooner the better because none of the Ordinances at this time are practical or make sense.

Commissioner Carlson stated the people who were before the Board a week ago said that the County should go back to the point system; and requested Mr. Moehle share the deficiencies of the point system. Mr. Moehle advised the point system does not work because it looks at plants as they are planted and not as they mature; and the problem with the point system is that it is necessary to plant too many plants to get what looks good in five to ten years. Commissioner Carlson stated she wanted to make sure the Board remembers that was an issue; the model did not work; and the model needs to be tweaked, so obviously getting some professional assistance might be of help. Mr. Moehle stated he suggested the Board start fresh with looking at it and maybe not use the point system, but use something else; the point system is complicated no matter how it is used and may not work; and it depends on the trees. He stated the promotion of the fast-growing trees that will have canopy in five years is a mistake because they are the brittle species that come down and cause problems; and the whole thing does not make sense. He reiterated the point system does not make sense; but the Board may be able to make it make sense.

Rich Kern stated he has been working with designing projects using the current tree canopy Ordinance for a couple of years; and most ordinances make sense; but this is not one of them. He stated the 25% tree canopy preservation Ordinance as it is currently being interpreted and enforced does not work well with land development projects; the way they have been instructed by staff to interpret the rule is they are suppose to preserve every single tree onsite in place without transplanting them until they have achieved 25% of the gross site area in tree canopy; and this is extremely difficult to comply with. He stated they have a project being built in South Brevard, Pelican Lakes; it is an 86-lot subdivision; and they had to do a betterment plan to get the project through. He stated it was an old abandoned dead orange grove; quite a few palm trees had grown up, so now they are having to transplant approximately 3,000 palm trees; and on top of that they had to do the 5% bonus for the betterment plan, so they are having to import approximately 1,000 four-inch oak trees. He stated they do not know where they can find that many four-inch oaks. He stated they have a small project on Merritt Island, a medical center; and they are saving every single tree on the site; however, one tree was damaged by a storm and killed; and staff was contemplating having them do a betterment plan on that site but it was finally approved. He advised he has a small commercial site on US 192 that is less than an acre; and his development staff is saying they will probably never get a plan approved because of landscaping on it. He stated he has a large site, which was an old grove, in the north part of the County; looking at it from the air, the whole site is covered by the grove; however, the flaw with the tree canopy Ordinance is that it does not count spaces between the trees, but only the actual canopy of the tree. He stated if there is an orange grove, and one does not count the spaces between the trees, even though the whole site is covered with the grove, there is only 25% canopy with the grove; and with a site like that, it would not be possible to put a single house on the whole site without doing a betterment plan first. He stated the goal of preserving the trees is good; but the 25% canopy rule, and the way it is being interpreted and used is a bad way of doing it. He recommended the Board come up with a better system than just a straight percentage of gross site area for the tree canopy; and stated the Board needs a system that will look at the whole site and make it work. He stated going through all the calculations, it would be necessary to put some many trees in there, that they would not even fit on the site. He requested the Board work with the professionals and the community to try to accomplish this.

Barbara Morehead stated for the first time in a decade she sees the Board listening; it has been a long time since common sense has even been thought about by the Commission; and she appreciates it. She stated in May of 2000, staff presented to the Commission a concern about heat islands, which was a new term for parking lots; one of the recommended methods of mitigating heat islands was to expand the existing Code to not only require tree preservation but to increase replacement size and to include residential as well; and about a year later, the Board meet in special session to discuss land clearing, tree canopy, tree size, quality of growth, and quality of life. She stated now, in 2005, after public hearings all over the County, the Board is still having meetings and nothing is solved. She stated participants in the public hearings overwhelmingly spoke against the proposals because they also raise cattle and trees and are in the agricultural business; and it is important that staff hear the agricultural comments. She stated tree removal permits are only about three issues, money from the permits, more micro-management of people’s lives and property, and jobs for those who enforce; and tree canopy, as proposed by staff, is seriously flawed with no consideration given to the future growth of the major trees. She stated the health, best growth methodology, and impact of the mature trees, such as oaks, maples, and bald cypress, affect structures and infrastructure. She stated in Florida, a live oak can gain up to two inches per year and attain a 30-foot spread in approximately seven years, if fertilized and watered properly; and this is based on her experience and observation. She stated best management practices require proper spacing of major trees to achieve good growth and health, and prevent overcrowding; this week she spoke with a number of growers and large landscape firms around the State; and the consensus was that one oak per average homesite would avoid placement too near the residence, sidewalks, or utilities and would allow grass to grow. She stated driving around various developments this weekend, she and her husband noticed many homes in developments on average lots that were just swamped; there would be an oak on the side of the driveway and another on the other side; and the house was covered. She stated it was beautiful, but there was not a blade of grass, no plants, and in some cases the sidewalks were beginning to uproot; and many people have told her about the foundations of their houses getting uprooted. She stated they are faced with that themselves; they have giant oaks; and their back porch is getting uprooted. She stated the State Forestry offices recommend a range of 40 to 50-feet spacing for major trees to allow for uncrowded healthy growth; and they are not just talking about tree canopy but about spacing. She stated people come into the nursery bemoaning that they have to put 100 trees on a little property; they know they are going to die; the landscaper will not guarantee it; and it is poor business. She stated the tree caliper that is being required for a lot of projects means that the trees will not be found in the County; businesses are losing money because people are going out of the County to buy the trees; and commented on the American Forest as a data source. She stated the group started out with good intentions and deeds; but it progressed into just another environmental tax exempt outfit that thrives on grants and government contracts, like hogs feeding at the taxpayers’ trough; and even more interesting is that the group has its own large retail tree nursery in Florida called Historic Trees, that specializes in the large canopy trees that staff has been recommending. She stated the sales representative she spoke with recommended six large size trees for a one-acre homesite at a reduced cost of $1,500 plus tax and shipping. She stated on May 31, following a Board discussion on additional tree size requirements, Commissioner Scarborough commented, “it is not all scientific”; and he was right. She requested the Board scrap this albatross and get back to common sense.

Carmine Ferraro stated he briefly looked at the notes; and he is excited to see number 15 on page 7. He stated he emailed each Commissioner last week after the last workshop; he has always been impressed about the County taking a proactive approach; the County has led in a lot of areas, such as strategic planning and looking at the big picture as opposed to the little picture. He stated there were a lot of comments at the previous workshop about many parts interacting with one another; and he hopes the Board can look at all of that as a whole because there are agencies in conflict and Ordinances in conflict. He stated he was encouraged to hear the Board is looking at some type of committee or citizens group to provide input from the development community; something that was not mentioned was the local growers and wholesalers who do not have the types of trees required; and since there are requirements to plant certain types of trees, it is frustrating. He stated he is encouraged by the way the workshop is going; and he will concentrate briefly on number 15 about offsite mitigation. He stated he would love to see this develop into something that would never be challenged again in the next ten or fifteen years; it is workable, fair, and equitable for everybody; and he would encourage the Board to consider some type of a requirement in terms of a list of what would qualify for offsite mitigation and what the steps would be in calculating offsite mitigation. He noted the scrub jay offsite mitigation process is cut and dry; it is simple; there is science involved in it; and it is fair and equitable. He inquired if there is a five-acre site and 80% of the trees are old, dying, and rotting, should that person mitigate in the same respect as someone with a thriving canopy of trees; and stated there needs to be that equity. He stated it says the Merritt Island Redevelopment District was getting some type of consideration; then it said to allow any development project to mitigate for canopy requirements offsite; and inquired if that is for any project in the County. Chairman Pritchard stated he will address that when Mr. Ferraro is done. Mr. Ferraro stated another question is about offsite canopy mitigation being considered a betterment plan if it serves canopy preservation goals by purchasing land or conservation elements for vegetative communities similar to those being removed, and the offsite mitigation area is located within the general vicinity; inquired if it is not available within the general vicinity, could there be some identified preservation areas that could be found for someone to be able to mitigate into that bank and does staff have clear steps on how to get there. He offered himself as a volunteer to serve on any citizens group to provide advice from the development community.

Commissioner Voltz stated she does not think the County needs to require so many trees for a project that someone has to go offsite to plant them; and that is ridiculous.

Chairman Pritchard stated one thing everyone learned in the hurricane was that there is a lot of canopy because it was all over the streets for weeks. He stated the intent was a bit of a paraphrase on page 8 about the Board wishing to consider reducing the canopy from 25% for industrial within the Merritt Island Redevelopment area; and they thought that any redevelopment area should be given an incentive to go there before going elsewhere. He stated it was mentioned by Con Bennett at the meeting on Tuesday that the future of development is redevelopment; and he believes that is correct. He stated they are going to be careful about what they are doing in areas that have not been touched yet; so the intent was to do this within the MIRA area but also to expand it into any other area. He stated this was a product of a committee he put together; it is all open for interpretation; and it can be expanded Countywide. He stated it can be stricken; but these were points the group thought were important and made sense.

Brad Smith stated he is a registered landscape architect and certified planner; when he was working on the planning and design of the Chain of Lakes project, he had to write a letter to staff advising the cabbage palms and citrus trees from the old grove were impediments to pedestrians and needed to be removed; something is wrong with that picture; and the system is obviously broken. He stated the next point is the concept of mitigation; and there is a good potential for using that for a funding source for the EELs program. He stated in stormwater mitigation, there are situations where there is a non-productive ecosystem and there is mitigation offsite as part of the development strategy; the offsite area is one of high ecological value; and those development dollars are put toward something that makes good ecological sense. He stated the same can hold true for mitigation of not just canopy but other situations when there are the proverbial twenty pounds of potatoes in a ten-pound sack; and it does not make sense to mitigate offsite if some of those dollars can be taken to buy critical habitat that has been identified in the County. He stated that may be a great funding source to accomplish multiple objectives; and it should be pursued because it makes a lot of sense. He stated it is important to do early site analysis to look at the condition of the trees; pine trees are not worth designing around because they are going to die; and that is most of the canopy in the County. He stated transplanting works, and not just for cabbage palms; and he has been involved in projects where they have moved 36-inch oak trees and they never missed a lick. He stated there are a lot of other site considerations the Board heard last week, including topography, site planning, safety, grading, drainage and stormwater management, utilities, and a lot of things that seem good on paper but do not always work in the field; when they get out in the field, they sometimes have to make a judgment call; and no matter how much time they spend and how many experts they consult, they are never going to get an infallible recipe that works in every condition and makes sense. He stated they cannot cover every unforeseen situation; sooner or later someone needs to make a decision; and staff needs some discretion and someone needs to accept responsibility and be accountable. He stated there is also a need to rely on professional judgment; registered design professionals have their charge with health, safety, and welfare issues; those are some of the situations the Board needs to recognize; and as a player, he has to give the decision makers information to make good decisions. He read aloud from Chapter 41 of the Florida Statutes concerning landscape architecture; stated they work all the time with civil engineers; both disciplines are needed; and inquired in talking about a landscape betterment plan, which of the professions is better qualified. He stated he is not trying to take anything away from his engineering colleagues, but in this particular area it is a landscape architecture, not an engineering issue. He stated engineers deal with site planning and design; and both are needed, but not in that specific area. He stated the bottom line is the County has to rely on professional judgment to get a recipe that works, but there has to be flexibility in the field.

Commissioner Colon inquired if the Board ever looked at what Mr. Smith was talking about regarding the EELs program and mitigation. Commissioner Carlson stated there has been discussion about mitigation banks and things like that when talking about EELs; the Board had a list recently about what it talked about at the workshop; and it was looking at all different avenues of funding sources and things like that. She stated she was shown what Cocoa Beach did and the language in the City’s Ordinance; there is an arbor permit and in lieu of tree replacement onsite, the applicant may be required to contribute cash to an arbor fund in an amount equal to the value of the replacement trees including planting; and it goes on to say the value of the replacement trees shall be determined by resolution of the City Commission. She stated that may take it a little far; but the idea is there. She stated she does not know if there would be enough money that could be accumulated in a mitigation bank for something like that; and she would leave that to the Selection Committee to see what it would come back with in terms of its discussions based on what the Board requested of it. Commissioner Colon inquired where would an idea like this be more appropriate; and should it be handed over to the EELs Committee to give feedback or is it something the Board should give direction to staff to work with. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board should ask the Selection Committee what it thinks about it. Natural Resources Management Director Ernie Brown stated a lot of the discussions that came up at the conference indicated arbor fund programs were effective in funding urban forestation programs and landscape maintenance programs; Mr. Rapport’s office deals with the landscaping maintenance of the roadways; Cocoa uses an urban forestation program; and a lot of the national ones have an urban forestation program that would fill in the gaps that are blighting the community. He stated they have discussed the Wickham Road look aesthetically; and in areas where there may not be a quick solution or an accountable individual to resolve it, those funds have been used in other parts of the country to address the blighted areas. Commissioner Voltz inquired if the County could take money like that and give it as grants to cities to use for betterment of landscaped areas. Mr. Brown responded it is wide open; and if that is the direction the Board chooses to go for mitigation, it is open for development. Commissioner Carlson stated the County occupies half the acreage and represents half the population; a lot of cities have their own arbor programs; but they should be integrated if the Board does something like that. She stated it is a great idea; it could be used to buffer EELs properties potentially; but with EELs property, it is looking at taking habitat and mitigating habitat onsite. She stated they can develop and utilize that sort of scenario, preserving x number of acres or putting in a mitigation bank to preserve x number of acres as a balance; and it is more than just taking a tree out and deciding what to do with it or having money in lieu of putting a tree on a piece of property.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the more he thought about going into the EELs program, the more he thought there was a real danger there; he asked his staff to look at why landscaping is required; Ms. Morehead mentioned the heat islands; and some of the reasons for landscaping are to increase property values, buffer sound, produce oxygen, reduce carbon dioxide, provide a cooling effect and windbreak, and prevent soil erosion. He stated they found that people drive differently and behave differently when there are trees; and commented on transferring trees far removed into an environmental community. He stated a lot of things would not come into play to benefit the actual community if they move it to the EELs program; and although he values
Mr. Smith’s opinion, he is concerned about making this a part of EELs as opposed to meeting some of the fundamental reasons in the community that would benefit from that particular activity. Commissioner Scarborough stated he likes what Mr. Rapport has shown him that the City of Cocoa is doing; he likes that concept; and he likes and supports what Mr. Brown is talking about. Commissioner Carlson stated that is more of a beautification program.

Commissioner Colon stated that is why any other option is better than what the County has because there are some properties that have no value to them; and commented on blighted areas. She stated the community would love to see what the regulations have done in a positive manner versus not being able to see it; and just the fact that the Board is looking at different options is very positive.

Commissioner Voltz stated she does not support mitigation; she does not think the County should cause someone to plant so many trees that they cannot fit them on their property and they have to pay to put them somewhere else; and it is a ridiculous concept. She stated if the Board is going to go that way, she would support putting it in a fund and doling it out to those people or cities to landscape along the roads.

Dolores Kane stated what she is going to talk about may have already been corrected; there was a time when one had to purchase a permit to develop property; and inquired if that still has to be done. She stated that is ridiculous; and inquired why does she have to get a permit to have a survey. She stated they talk about buildable area; one can only put vegetation and trees in the plantable area; they make exceptions for septic tanks, drainfields, sidewalks, driveways, and structures; and there should also be an exception under power lines. She stated there should be a restriction that any tree planted under power lines should be a medium to low-sized tree. She stated she had a piece of property that is 15 feet wide by 900 feet long; it is probably the only one in the County; the oak trees were falling down during the hurricanes; and she had to pay to get rid of them. She stated one should be able to cut down trees that are in the way of the power lines; she loves oak trees; but she does not like being without power. She stated she should not have to have a permit to remove trees from around the power lines.

Chairman Pritchard inquired why is a permit needed for a survey; with Mr. Brown responding it goes back to defining parameters of what is occurring. Mr. Brown advised the surveying permit basically says what one can do to survey the property, and puts boundaries so there is no misunderstanding about what is being authorized, meaning they cannot go in and clear 15 acres to do a survey. Chairman Pritchard inquired how much is the permit fee; with Ms. Elmore responding $78. Ms. Kane noted it is only if the trees exceed a certain width. Ms. Elmore advised that is correct; it is only if greater than five feet for soil testing and eight feet for a survey; and it also insures that they cannot use machinery in wetland areas, for instance; so all the other environmental concerns are reviewed under a survey permit. Chairman Pritchard stated the other point Ms. Kane made was about trees under power lines. Mr. Brown stated staff has developed a tree report as a result of the hurricanes; and that will be coming to the Board shortly. He stated the current Ordinances do not expressly encourage, promote, or require planting under power lines; but it does not enforce or prohibit it from happening. He advised Sherry Williams was the primary author of the tree report; it shows very clearly that the County should be requiring compliance with the FP&L guidelines; there is very clear criteria as to what can be planted and how far apart; and it is pivotal to address and resolve those issues in the long term.

Mr. Rapport stated a lot of times he looks at landscape plans done in Jacksonville for projects in Brevard County that do not reflect where the overhead power lines are and will have oaks or other large trees; and that means it has to be taken on an individual basis each time a site plan comes in.

Sherry Williams of Natural Resources Management stated she will provide some clarifications; and Ms. Elmore will address the utilities because there is a provision in the Ordinance that discourages planting within utility rights-of-way. Ms. Williams stated what Mr. Rapport brought out was a good point; during site planning and subdivision plan review, the Environmental Permitting and Natural Resources Management Departments need full copies of the plans because a lot of times there will be a landscape buffer, but they do not get the utility plan with it, and a landscape buffer may be planned where a sewer or water line is going in the utility easement.

Ms. Elmore stated Section 62-4334(q) addresses location of plant materials; and it says, “vegetation utilized to satisfy the landscape requirements shall be located on the site in such a manner as to not interfere with drainage systems or utility services or create an unsafe visual clearance.” She stated when they review site plans, they look for that; and as Ms. Williams described, sometimes they have to look at another page as the power lines may not be noted on the landscape plans. She stated they do not approve plans where there would be a conflict with power lines and trees; however, often after the CO is issued, vegetation is added, and the owners in their zeal to create instant landscape will plant trees too close together or too close to the road; and unfortunately, there is no review of what is done after the CO.

Chairman Pritchard inquired if they cannot plant under the power line and they are required by the Code to plant x amount of canopy, is that forcing an offsite mitigation; with Ms. Elmore responding usually they can be creative and find other places that vegetation can be placed or it can be pulled back just a bit so it is not directly under the power line. She stated they could use medium species trees rather than large species trees; they do not require people to plant live oaks, although that is a common misconception; and what is required in the type C roadway buffer is to plant medium or large species trees, one every 25 feet. She stated they could be little gem magnolias, which stay relatively small; they could be East Palatka hollies, which stay small and have a thinner canopy; and if they are pulled back, there should not be a conflict. She stated it is just a matter of being creative and seeing what makes sense.

Commissioner Colon stated the County’s innocence was taken away during the hurricanes; she personally dealt with that when a beautiful oak tree landed in her home. She stated everyone knew how much she loved the oak tree; everyone thought she had to be devastated; but at that particular time, her home was more of a priority. She stated she is encouraged by the
discussions the Board is having; the Board cannot continue to put its head in the sand and continue with the Ordinances the way they are; and it is a new day. She stated the oak tree is not the same beautiful tree she used to look at; it is ugly now to her after what she faced; and she is sure her insurance company is not happy either after the damage that was done to her home.

Rick Renfro stated last week there was a lot of talk about people wanting to apply for an agricultural exemption with the intention of clearing their property and about how not to allow them to circumvent the policies in place. He stated one reason they might feel the desire to circumvent the policies is because they might feel that County officials are trying to circumvent their ability to use their property as they think is appropriate. He stated he is defining the term tree protection as the general Ordinances that are being discussed; and if the goal of such Ordinances is to protect trees, then the owners should be allowed to come up with a strategy to achieve the goals as an end result if they want to develop their property, and also have a landscape plan and strategy to preserve the trees rather than trying to box them into the current flawed Ordinance. He stated the way the owners can do that is by using a number of tools such as preserving trees onsite, relocating trees on the site, replacing trees, or as a last option, mitigating them. He stated he would refer to people like Rob Lee, Rick Kerns, and Brad Smith who have experience in specific ways to do that; and requested they be allowed the flexibility that is currently not there. He stated a matrix was distributed last week; there were comments from Chairman Pritchard today; and those go a ways toward adding some flexibility and doing some of the things that make it possible for people to protect trees and develop property, if that is what they want to do. He stated it needs more; and he would defer the specific options to the professionals who know how to do that and know what is going on in the field. He stated currently 25% needs to be maintained; but if a site does not have 25%, then the policy is they have to maintain and protect every tree on the site; and that does not seems like it goes in the spirit of trying to protect trees. He suggested if there is less than 25%, it could be specified as “up to 25%”; and if there is only 10% coverage, then they would have to maintain the 10%; but they should not have to add trees. He stated in a larger picture, he does not think one specific policy should be used as a tool to wage a larger battle; a tree protection ordinance should not be used to stunt or restrict growth by adding costs and red tape; and if the goal is to preserve trees, there should be a policy that allows landowners to do that and also develop their property rather than trying to focus on one specific Ordinance with language that does not allow any flexibility.

Chairman Pritchard inquired when the Board talks about canopy and 25%, if there was one tree on the property, does it mean a person could take out the one tree and put in 25% of what the canopy was. Ms. Elmore responded the language was actually 25% canopy cover of the area of the site, if present; for instance, if there were four trees, that does not mean they would preserve one out of four; and it means the person would probably have to preserve all four trees depending on their canopy size and on the size of the property. She stated when there is only 11% canopy, the Ordinance, as it is written, would require preserving all 11%; and without the betterment plan, there is no flexibility. Chairman Pritchard stated if the 11% was in the middle of the lot, that would be an unbuildable lot; with Ms. Elmore responding that is correct. She stated she needs to correct one point; one does not have to add to achieve the 25%; it is 25%, if present; and the County does not require adding plantings. Chairman Pritchard inquired if someone has four trees, one in the middle of the lot and three elsewhere; and the one in the middle prohibits development, can it be relocated, or if relocated does it now have to come to another standard. Ms. Elmore stated those are the types of things staff looks at under the betterment plan. Chairman Pritchard inquired when that happens, are they looking at 150%; with Ms. Elmore responding possibly. Ms. Elmore stated that is the case if it is being removed; however, if it is being relocated onsite, then there is no replacement because they are relocating that diameter at breast height onsite. Chairman Pritchard stated if it was four-inches diameter at breast height and they decided to move the tree, they would be okay; and if they decided to replace it with another four-inch, they should still be okay. Ms. Elmore stated a four-inch tree
would fall under the threshold for replacement under the betterment plan; and it is for ten-inch and larger. Chairman Pritchard stated then they would have to plant three trees because of the one that would be moved; with Ms. Elmore responding possibly.

Hugh Evans Jr. stated there are several items that are critical to the process; the first is defining the definition of canopy; and they talked about things that may be excluded and may not be excluded. He stated citrus trees would not make any sense as a canopy tree as they have a limited life of 30 years; people have addressed pine trees in the process; and because of the fill requirements, drainage requirements, and other things associated with development, it is almost impossible, once one gets under the limb structure of a pine tree, to save it. He stated if they change the water around a pine tree, it is going to die; he developed several subdivisions; and in Greystone, they saved a wide path down the back of all the lots of 50 feet hoping to preserve the pine trees; but all they did was preserve the opportunity for some tree experts to come in three years later and cut down all the pine trees that had died. He stated the Board needs to look carefully at what it is trying to preserve; and the focus should be on the hardwood trees that have longer lifespans and are more important to the overall aesthetics of the community. He stated there are several areas in the Zoning Code that will be difficult if the Board proceeds with the 25%; one of those is in industrially zoned areas; most industrial buildings take up a larger percentage of the site, some in the neighborhood of 45% to 50% plus parking; and for instance, preservation on the County’s property in Titusville is going to be difficult to maintain without having to buy additional property for the industrial users. He stated another area where there seems to be great conflict is commercial properties; the County does not allow mitigation of wetlands, which makes no sense because it is preserving wetlands in areas that may not be the best to preserve; and now it is going to preserve tree canopy. He stated there could be a commercial property with 25% wetlands and 25% tree canopy; and it would be even further unbuildable in the areas where they are trying to encourage development. He stated where they have infrastructure, water, sewer, and roads, those areas should be developed; the Board may want to consider if a person is fortunate enough to have 25% wetlands, to allow him to count that percentage against his tree canopy preservation because at least he is preserving something on the site under the County’s Ordinance; and that is an area that needs to be looked at as the Board continues the process. He stated in working with the City of Melbourne in developing several office parks, they were allowed some flexibility in building setbacks to be able to save oak trees; they have been allowed to move the setbacks and adjust driveway dimensions, parking islands, and those sorts of things to preserve larger trees; and it is important to build that into the process if the Board is really trying to preserve trees. Mr. Evans recommended allowing some flexibility in adjusting the setbacks and design because there is a conflict between the fire department and tree preservation; there is a proposal to allow a 30% reduction in parking on commercial property, but it will not work; looking at all the commercial development, they are building beyond what the Code requires because their tenants require a 1-to-200 parking ratio and the County only requires a 1-to-300 parking ratio or something in that area; and giving them that reduction is meaningless because they need parking for the tenant, so he does not think that is an area where it will help in the overall preservation. He recommended focusing on the preservation of specimen type trees and hardwood trees rather than some of the less valuable trees.

Kris Hebert, representing BSE Consultants, stated she has a few points with the Codes today; looking back prior to the preservation, they were getting a lot more land clearing without much incentive to keep the trees; the County was giving more tree points, but was not allowing a lot of creativity; and then they came to the preservation part of the Landscape Ordinance, which required them to change their way of thinking. She stated they had to go onto a site, look upfront, and think how to design the site for preservation; and it makes things more difficult, but not always impossible, although staff knows of a few problems. She stated she has seen some of the problems with the new preservation and design provisions; a lot of times when designing the sites, 40% of the property is taken up between the infrastructure, stormwater, and tree preservation; it is a good portion of the site depending on what the use is; and it may or may not work. She inquired if there are a lot of suggestions as far as how to come up with creative ways to work around these issues. She stated one of the issues she has run into is having the 180-inch requirement and 25% of the site; there was a site where they had the 25% and 2,000 inches, but it really was not 25%; some of it was open space and grassed areas, so it was not really canopy coverage; and the Board may want to look at one or the other or some combination of the two. She stated groves have been discussed today; orange trees are not afforded much protection; generally they do not have understory associated with them; and when one comes into a site, they are protecting 25% to meet the requirements. She stated if someone wants to remove them and provides a betterment plan, he is required to have 30% canopy; just removing them and providing a tree coverage and native understory would be a betterment without encumbering someone with the additional percentages; and that is just in some of the grove areas. She stated generally every grove has ditches; filling in some of the ditches may change the hydrology; and trees may not survive long-term, which is what the Board is looking for in these sites. She stated when they go to betterment plans, the County is asking for 30% instead of 25% coverage within so many years; most people are looking for fast-growing canopy-producing trees at that point; and inquired if the Board is encouraging biodiversity or buying the one species of trees that will grow and meet the requirement. She stated there needs to be more flexibility as far as what the Board is really asking for; mitigation has been thrown out a lot; they mitigate for wetlands all the time; and sometimes they work better off-site rather than on-site; but when they start looking at the options, they need to start looking at boundaries and types of areas being mitigated for, such as giving a pine forest for a cabbage palm hammock. She stated there are different assessment methodologies; the Board should come up with some sort of assessment that gives percentages for the type of canopy being preserved or the type of mitigation for what the Board wants it to look like long-term, or whether it is close to or isolated from EELs lands; and there are a lot of issues associated with it. Ms. Hebert stated a lot of times people think mitigation is great because they do not have to deal with it; the Board can do a mitigation bank; and that is a good incentive, which some people would like. She stated a lot of times it is necessary to look at all the issues; a lot of the canopy will conflict with stormwater or with the wetland issue; they are running into an era where there are multi-levels; and everybody needs to talk about all the issues and make sure they all meet and work together. She stated the Board has incredible staff as long as it allows it some latitude; interpretation is a bad word nowadays; and it may be that the Board should let staff work through it, interpret it, and then come back to the Board with a good plan that meets the criteria. She stated in that way it will be the Board’s decision, and not staff’s decision; and they will be upheld together. She stated if the Board is going to have any type of committees, she will offer her services to serve on them.

Chairman Pritchard stated what is most interesting is that there seems to be a meeting of the minds; years ago when someone bought a house, landscaping meant three crotons and a hibiscus; and now it means two oaks and something else, and people are planting them five feet apart; but they are getting better.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he would like to look at what staff heard the other day; he is not putting aside what Chairman Pritchard has done because he appreciates it and the comments; but he would like to see what staff has, and whether the Board, based upon that, wants to create a committee. He stated he does not know if he is going to be prepared to look at that unless he sees what staff has in conjunction with Chairman Pritchard. Chairman Pritchard stated what he has falls in line with what he did at the last meeting. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board went over that a little. Chairman Pritchard stated the Board did not get to the third part. Commissioner Scarborough stated he sees things coming together; but expressed a desire to see Mr. Brown’s report and have a briefing. He stated ever since he has been on the Board, there has been this discussion; there are three different postures; one is very much environmentally inclined; and the Board had Sylvester Rose, who was a horticulture agent at the Agriculture Center, address it. He stated they had the development concern; and there has never been the concept of the totality of what makes sense and for what purposes; but he hopes that sooner or later that will come together and make sense regardless of what perspective looks at it. He stated he has specific concerns after listening to the discussion for a number of years; but maybe the seminar staff went to will help him with what is being done; and suggested taking a break. Chairman Pritchard stated the reason he wants to go through this is because he would like to have the Board say it makes sense and have that as part of the committee’s discussion. Commissioner Colon advised the Board may say it makes no sense; with Chairman Pritchard conceding the Board could say that.

Bob Wille stated one of the items in the package that was worked on with the committee is very important; and that is number 14, the exception of public projects such as roadway projects, utility corridors, and stormwater retrofit projects. Mr. Wille stated this is not a private issue; and it is a public need and benefit that the community has from those sorts of projects, those that are most expensive and difficult to accomplish in the very tight fiscal situation that the County finds itself in. He stated right-of-way issues for road projects are approaching, if not exceeding, 50% of the entire project cost for environmental stormwater needs and so forth; and to add an additional burden such as the tree canopy ordinance, the public would find excessive, and it would preclude the County’s ability to meet the obvious public needs and benefits. He encouraged the Board to exempt those sorts of projects as it goes through the process; and stated it is very important. He stated he works for a builder-developer; when they do projects, they go to great extent to save all the existing canopy trees on the lots as well as when they put in the roadways; and the Board needs to be aware of the difficulties they run up against in their attempts to do that. He stated they have the need to clear the right-of-way for the roads and so forth; but then they have utility corridors; and the Board has been hearing a lot of discussion about trees and getting into power lines. He stated just about all new projects have underground utilities; that is not the issue anymore; and that is typically done on private property under easements, not in the road rights-of-way. He stated typically FP&L wants a 25-foot clearance beyond the right-of-way; that is what they have to do if they want to get power to their projects; and there may be a specimen oak tree right out there. He stated he is telling the Board what they are up against; it is very difficult to try to save trees because now there is a road right-of-way as well as a 25-foot clearance easement that the utilities want so they can send their crews out there and run their trenchers straight down without any obstructions, roots, or anything else; so those are great difficulties, and he wants the Board to be aware of them. He stated there are efforts to save trees, but it is difficult; and they also have to hope that Mother Nature has not put the trees some place where there is no sidewalk, driveway, swimming pool, house, or anything else. He stated lots are getting smaller and smaller; and the Code says that what is left needs to have all these trees and shrubs. He stated when he moved to Florida in the 1960’s, Merritt Island was stripped clear; houses were being thrown up left and right; and there was not a tree there. He stated if he went to the same community today, he would find mature trees as well as the same homes he grew up in; and planting trees was a family project, which they took pride in. He stated in his 25-plus years in Florida, he has learned that stuff grows fast in Florida.

The meeting recessed at 2:55 p.m. and reconvened at 3:11 p.m.

*Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley’s absence and Assistant County Attorney Christine Lepore’s presence were noted at this time.

DISCUSSION, RE: LAND CLEARING, TREE PROTECTION, AND LANDSCAPING
(CONTINUED)

Chairman Pritchard stated he would like to go to the report that he presented to the Board at the last workshop, and have the Board go over the items to see if they are something they would like to pass on to the committee they are talking about forming with Mr. Brown of Natural Resources. Chairman Pritchard stated on page 6, in the first paragraph, he would like the line that is highlighted; and the next one is the addition of “infill.” He stated there are already amenities in an infill project; and the definition given a little further down is “vacant, disturbed site surrounded on two or more sides by an urbanized or developed area.” He stated paragraph four at the bottom is reducing the rate to 100% from 150%; and the Board talked about that earlier.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board may not even be dealing with this particular ordinance when it is all over; he knows Chairman Pritchard has dealt with it; but if the Board has a new thing come back, it may have to talk about it. He stated he does not mind listening, but needs to be briefed on the new approach; and this may not be the approach the Board ends up with.

Chairman Pritchard stated the only thing he is suggesting is, if the Board does not have a problem with the recommendations, they will provide a little guidance to Mr. Brown; if Mr. Brown and his group decide that the new approach has nothing to do with this, that is fine; but if they decide they will be bantering back and forth, it would be nice for the Board to provide a little direction as to how it feels.

Commissioner Carlson stated anytime it deals with a number, it would be nice to hear from the group; and she does not know where the numbers like 150% came from. She stated she does not know if it is a subjective number; and she would rather leave it. She stated she has a feeling it will go to a more reasonable rate, no matter what it is, based on what she has been hearing from the folks who had the workshop.

Mr. Brown stated that is exactly where staff is going, should the Board decide to go that way; the recommendations are valuable because they provide a direction or preference of the Board; and it helps give boundaries and guidelines. He stated staff is going to request, if they go the route of a task force, to have some local professionals such as landscape architects and engineers, to pull on all of the available science to get the numbers to meet the needs of the community and interest groups that are coming into play; and it is his understanding the group would use the recommendations to set the guidelines to move forward, but that they are not written in stone.

Commissioner Scarborough stated one item is to replace protected trees; Mr. Evans looks at a broadleaf evergreen or hardwood tree as being protected and some others not; and inquired what is a protected tree of same species. He expressed concern about cumulative rates; and stated he is not happy with the change to 100%, and may have many more comments he needs to make. Chairman Pritchard stated he is not disagreeing. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is not going to be voting for an adoption of the recommendations because he does not think it is comprehensive of his thoughts; and he cannot give an indication to Mr. Brown that this expresses his views because it does not totally express his views.

Commissioner Voltz stated she does not think the Board will be voting on anything; but it would be good to have the discussion because these things are important. Chairman Pritchard stated the two items came up today.

Commissioner Scarborough stated one of the things that Commissioner Carlson said is that one can have a certain level of canopy on a lot; once one has that certain level of canopy, that is appropriate; and if the Board says within the guidelines, one can remove 50% and still have a full-canopied lot, then a person could remove 50% without any replacements. He stated back in 1988 and 1989 the discussion was that such wooded lots should have zero replacement even though there is a removal of trees because it is such a heavily wooded lot; in other words, it is already at saturation and it is marginal what else can be planted there. He stated the point is if he is going to say this is okay, then he is also saying that is all that is okay; and he does not know if it is, so that is his dilemma today.

Chairman Pritchard stated he understands that; all of the parts they are discussing need to be addressed; and the only thing he is saying, as he mentioned earlier, is that if there are four trees and one is taken out, it has to be replaced with three trees because of the ten-inch rule, so that is why he brought 150% down to 100%. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is saying maybe zero is needed in certain cases; with Chairman Pritchard responding in certain cases, zero is needed. Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not know how the Board could state that. Chairman Pritchard stated the part about zero when there is a heavily wooded lot and the canopy is being reduced, but there is still 25% when it is done does not apply to this paragraph; and what he is saying is the direction to say 150% is silly.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board is going to vote on this, he is going to excuse himself from the meeting because he does not want to vote against Chairman Pritchard’s ideas, but by the same token he does not want to indicate that he is happy with having his comments incorporated at this time; and he needs to get additional input on it.

Chairman Pritchard stated on page 7, the intent of the Board is to provide that public projects will be allowed to mitigate; that is coupled with 14, that those projects are exempted and do not need to be mitigated; and he does not think that taxpayers’ money should be used for certain things. He stated he does not think that taxpayers’ money should be used for schools that cannot be built on a lot because of scrub jays; if it is built the mitigation is $6 million, so the building ends up being built far away from where there was a desire to build the school because they cannot afford a $9 million purchase, $3 million plus $6 million to mitigate. He stated government projects should be exempt from this because it only bounces back on the taxpayers.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he is not trying to be argumentative; but the private sector can say there are rules but government does not have to comply while the private sector does; and that is fundamentally unfair. He stated if it is wrong for government, it is wrong for the private sector as well. Chairman Pritchard stated it is the taxpayer who pays. Commissioner Scarborough stated the government should not have rules that are for the betterment of the whole community and have government exempted from those rules. Chairman Pritchard stated government derives its money from the taxpayers; in this situation, the property where a school was going to be built ended up being purchased by a developer who could have cared less about the extra $6 million; the developer built a shopping center; but the government could not build the school because of the cost. He stated that is his point; and they can charge government all they want, but who pays for it. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is not a matter of the government having to pay; if it is a good rule, it should not be a rule that the government is exempted from just because there is a cost; there is cost to the private sector as well; and inquired is it fair for one side to be exempted but not the other. Chairman Pritchard stated when the private sector does it, its business plan allows for it; the private sector business plan is to derive a revenue from the product it is selling; but the government’s business plan is to charge the taxpayers.

Commissioner Voltz stated if there is a school that does not go some place because of this, then maybe some of those things need to be on an individual basis.

Commissioner Carlson stated that can be addressed; the Board needs to practice what it preaches; and it should not cost a lot when the Board is trying to create something for the public good. She stated that is where it gets mixed up with how the tax dollars are being used; and commented on trying to put in a road that would serve the public but it costing too much. Chairman Pritchard stated that is his point. Commissioner Carlson stated it becomes cost prohibitive. Chairman Pritchard stated he is not too sure that is a good rule; with Commissioner Scarborough advising then the Board should address the rule. Chairman Pritchard stated it is the rule if they are talking about scrub jay property; right now it is in litigation because the people are pushing it and trying to manage growth with a surrogate; they are saying it is not the bird anymore, but the habitat; so the 24 acres for two birds has sort of flown away and they are going to protect the habitat. He stated the private sector does not care how much it is going to cost because it will pay the money and build its shopping center; but it hurts government that is trying to keep taxes down; and if it cannot put a school where it should be and it ends up being moved 20 miles away and kids are bussed, that is the part he does not agree with. He stated number 10 is stricken involving heavy equipment; and the rest are additions. He stated number 12 is allowing the relocation of cabbage palms; and relocation of cabbage palms will not require development to also meet the betterment criteria that was listed. He stated number 13 is to exempt citrus grove trees from the canopy preservation requirements; 14 is to exempt public projects such as roadway projects, utility corridors, and stormwater retrofit projects; and 15 is to reduce the canopy threshold from 25 to 15% for industrial and commercial projects within MIRA and whatever else the Board might want to add, and allow these projects to meet minimum landscaping requirements onsite, and allow any development project to mitigate for canopy requirements offsite. He stated some of these were written based on what the material was prior to the discussions that the Board had, so a lot of it will change. He stated 16 is to exempt from preservation requirements development projects within established developed areas; and this is talking about infill. He stated number 17 is to exempt from preservation requirements an infill site of two acres or more.

Commissioner Voltz stated on number 13, does the Board want to include pine trees; with Chairman Pritchard responding he would think so. Commissioner Voltz stated she personally likes pine trees, but has lost a number of them. Chairman Pritchard stated it is something the committee can address; and he has a feeling this will be coming back, and he will wonder who wrote it.

Chairman Pritchard stated number 18 is most important; it gets back to where staff has to be responsible to the needs of the community; and it is to establish additional flexible tools and incentives. He stated staff can fill in the blanks; it can be for everywhere, for redevelopment, blighted or disturbed areas; but in particular it would be for blighted and disturbed areas because they want them to be redeveloped. He stated the County does not want to create barriers that say no; it wants to be able to go to an old building and do something with the site because it is sitting barren; and if it is not permitting or landscape or other types of incentives, then maybe the County should step in and provide some tax incentive that will encourage redevelopment of those areas before going out to plow down more green spaces.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board needs to be careful with its vocabulary; there has to be a blighted area to move to a redevelopment area; and Merritt Island is considered a redevelopment area but some people would say it looks like one of the most prosperous areas in the County. He stated they could go to another area where there is an abandoned mall, which is what Chairman Pritchard is addressing, where they would need that latitude, but it would not meet the classification of blighted; so he does understand what Chairman Pritchard is saying. He stated to go in and hit the abandoned areas, which are to some extent eyesores, would be an aggressive posture; however, part of the problem is that it is a sea of asphalt without any softening. He noted there are no oaks planted within the seas of asphalt; and if there was landscape to augment, it may be a part of the plan. He stated staff mentioned there are multiple problems; there is the wetland mitigation issue; there is the landscaping issue; and if the multiple issues are piled up, all of a sudden a site may become very problematic, not just because of the landscaping but because of the other things. He stated in certain sites, the County, in order to move forward with the landscaping, may have to be more generous in allowing the offsite wetland mitigation to have the site be a nice looking part of a corridor; and he does not think there is a silver bullet to this. He stated it is a matter of pragmatically asking questions, whether it makes sense and is going to work; and if the County does not do that, it is going to have good sites on major corridors that are going to be left undeveloped because of the problem, and will find urban sprawl because people will have to go to sites that meet the multiple requirements. He stated people will have to find a large enough tract to do it all, which will mean there will be traffic going to places it does not need to go; the County will have to spend more money on transportation; one problem creates another problem; and hopefully Mr. Brown has an answer to bring to the Board.

Chairman Pritchard stated a perfect example was the Pantry Pride site on Cocoa Beach, just north of SR 520; it was blighted, disturbed, and vacant for years; and then a thrift shop moved in, which did not enhance the neighborhood. He stated the majority of the facility was old and decrepit with no plantings; but Publix moved into it; and now it is a knockout. He stated that is what he is encouraging; MIRA will contribute up to $10,000 toward façade improvement; some businesses have undertaken that and have included landscaping; they are taking old storefronts and modernizing them; and the Board needs to encourage much more of that. He stated it is much better to redevelop than it is to push out and develop.

Commissioner Carlson stated in terms of redevelopment plans, they have landscaping committees that help systematically guide the redevelopment; and MIRA did that.

Chairman Pritchard stated generally they ask Mr. Rapport, who is on the committee; he looks at it very pragmatically, saying they do not need 8,000 new trees, but need this or that; and that is what is put in. He stated it is always aesthetic as well as economically possible; and that is what he wants to encourage. He suggested when Mr. Brown develops the group, that it look at that issue; stated the County needs to find ways to say yes to have a better Brevard; it should not be saying that it does not want any more development; and there should be no more surrogates. He stated the Board needs to be sure that what it is doing is being done responsibly so there can be the landscaping and all the nice things the Board wants, but not the restrictions that prohibit people from doing anything.

Commissioner Carlson stated Bob Wille had an interesting perspective when he was talking about underground utilities and things like that; he said they hope that Mother Nature did not put a big oak where their site plan was going to go; and she would say that they ought to look at the site first and see where the oak tree is planted before doing their site plan so they can preserve some of the stuff that is already there. She stated that does not always work in the commercial/industrial sector, but it certainly could work in subdivision design, which takes up the majority of space in the County that is undeveloped.

Chairman Pritchard stated in subdivision design that is absolutely true; however, it is the single-family lot that runs into a problem.

Commissioner Voltz stated there are problems even in a subdivision; there may be trees scattered throughout that are unsightly; and they really cannot build the character of the neighborhood they would like to build because of two or three trees that might be sitting there. She stated she does not think that is really what the Board wants; and it just wants nice looking neighborhoods.

Chairman Pritchard stated one of the neighborhoods that he lived in earlier, when it was built, had a road put in with a bit of a job because there was a dead tree with a heron’s nest in it; it became the focal point; and the person who built the house that was on that property built around the tree because it was the focal point; but one of the hurricanes knocked the focal point over. He stated it was neat to go by the old dead silver tree with the heron’s nest and see all the amenities that were done for it; but then the wind blew it over.

Commissioner Colon stated the Board approved approximately $100,000 for the City of Palm Bay, based on funds left over from Minton or Malabar Road; and she would appreciate staff advising of the status. She stated those dollars were specifically for beautifying Minton Road; there was a discrepancy over who would maintain it; medians are more expensive when there are trees there; but she would like staff to follow up and find out where those dollars are. She stated the dollars went there; she does not see any trees; and inquired where are they. Interim Assistant County Manager Ed Washburn stated it was Malabar Road. Commissioner Colon stated the money was supposed to be for Minton Road; there is nothing on Malabar Road; it is asphalt; so they were focusing on the medians on Minton Road, although the money may be left over from Malabar Road. She stated those dollars are probably sitting there; the City of Palm Bay probably has a plan for them; she has not had an opportunity to ask; and requested staff find out. Commissioner Voltz stated the City of Palm Bay did not want to take over the responsibility of irrigation. Commissioner Colon stated something was worked out there; but that is a different subject. Mr. Washburn advised he will find out. Commissioner Colon reiterated she does not see any trees; she drives up and down there; it has been sitting there for about a year; the City probably has a plan; and she would like to find out.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he has brought up from time to time the issue of Port Orange in the southern part of Volusia County; it has encouraged development by the way it has gone about creating a beautiful community; and the amazing thing is it is not a wealthy community, but is one of the more attractive. He suggested staff pull the Port Orange Ordinances and look at things that work and make the overall statement that one is in Brevard County. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board looked at that for the Sign Ordinance.

Commissioner Voltz stated the problem is Port Orange started off doing everything when it became a city; the Sign Ordinance was there and they had to come into compliance; and it was the same with landscaping. She stated she does not think it would be appropriate for an older community that is already established; and she does not know if it would work. Chairman Pritchard stated some of the south Florida communities that were older did that; they had a phase-in period; and they have changed the looks of their communities. Commissioner Scarborough requested staff look at what will work and what will not work; stated he would be interested because that is something that was brought up by people in North Brevard; and they want to know why Brevard cannot look more like Port Orange. Commissioner Voltz stated it is nice.

Commissioner Carlson stated one thing she wanted to reiterate concerns stormwater and parking lots; she wants to make sure it is on the record that the committee look at more user-friendly parking with trees and such; and if they are going to be taken away from utility easements, which they should be, they should be incorporated into the parking to try and reduce the heat issues. She suggested providing incentives to do that by reducing parking and working with stormwater credits to leave natural land the way it is because it is self-absorbing; and stated it seems that would be a huge incentive so that development does not have to come in and clear the landscape because there are always complaints about requirements for drainage. She stated in order to drain the property right, first they have to clear it off and see what they have; if they know what the habitat is and the drainage ability of that habitat, they should be able to preserve some of it without having to do anything to it; and it would look nice. She stated at some of the places along Wickham Road, they have preserved pine tree clusters and different things like that; there is nothing wrong with just leaving things there; and that is the beauty of Port Orange, that it left the natural habitat in place and built around it instead of clearing it all off and causing a panic in the community.

Chairman Pritchard inquired if Mr. Brown has an idea of a timeline for the group he is putting together, when it may come back to the Board, and what should be done in the interim. He inquired what guidelines are people going to have to follow for citrus and pine, for example. Mr. Brown responded he is not sure how the Board would normally respond in a process where it has agreed to an ordinance change, but still has to go through the process. Chairman Pritchard stated he would not want to abate anything. Commissioner Carlson stated she does not think the Board has any choice but to hope it gets some input and then develop as best it can. Chairman Pritchard stated he thinks the Board said it does not consider citrus as a canopy.

Commissioner Scarborough stated what is frightening to him is to say maybe this, maybe that; Mr. Evans said there are certain things that everybody would say looks good; there could be small varieties; and then they could get around to being species specific, requiring replacement of certain species. He stated there are certain plant materials that perform a number of
functions such as screening, fresh air, and aesthetics; and Commissioner Voltz made a point that they could be preserving trees that look awful. He stated they may come up with some methodology; he does not want to tell a person what type of tree to plant because that is wrong; but the Board could say certain trees have less significance. He inquired if the Board cares if there are some cabbage palms that could be moved around on the back of a truck; and is the pine tree the same thing as a mature oak tree. He stated they need to go in a complete sense and say this is the type of plant material; but he does not know if the Board can do that. He stated Mr. Evans made that comment; a certain type of plant may be a favorite plant material that cleans the air, provides more buffering, and makes a quieter impression, while something that is just there and dripping sap may not; and inquired is there a way within some of the ordinances to hit the more favored trees, if they are in good shape and healthy. He stated if the trees are dead, they are dead; and they do not want to preserve trees like Chairman Pritchard was saying he lived next to. He stated they could go to those plant materials to look at what would be good rather than species; and inquired if a person took out a tree and the County required it to be replaced with just one species, but they wanted another type, and the County insisted it be replaced with the same type that was removed, would Mr. Rapport find that odd. Mr. Rapport stated the group they are working together with now is looking at more flexibility in choice; that is going to be important in this modification; they have set goals for the landscape ordinances; but if they cannot meet them, they can go a little lower and satisfy them, but diversity is what they are looking at. Commissioner Scarborough stated if there was a collection of one variety of trees and there was some kind of blight, it could wipe them all out; and it would actually be preferable to encourage more diversity. Mr. Rapport stated diversity is what they are trying to encourage; and it would probably be some non-native trees with the native trees that are known to be proven winners in this area. Commissioner Scarborough stated in the ordinance it says replace with the same species. Mr. Brown advised the betterment plans allow some flexibility; and they did bring up the topic about the bonding, which may be the interim solution. He stated he was anticipating four to six months for this; he does not envision the wholesale shift from conservation/preservation of trees and landscaping to absolutely nothing; he does not anticipate, based on the discussions today, a 180-degree change; but they are talking about some improvements to make the ordinance a better product. He stated if they get close and the County has them bond, and then it sits for six to eight months or a year, in the bonding situation, they have not lost anything; they have not adversely impacted the community; but the County has allowed them to continue on with their project. He commented on the professionals on staff; and stated there is a lot of internal knowledge. Commissioner Scarborough inquired can the Board say that if someone is removing an oak, and wants to plant a magnolia, they can do so because it is within the same classification, or does it have to have everything super-reviewed. He stated a betterment plan talks about a lot of staff involvement; and he is wondering if the ordinance can be written more friendly so it is already a known factor. Chairman Pritchard stated that would provide leeway and discretion also. Mr. Washburn stated he thought they were talking about what to do in the interim, not to get to where Commissioner Scarborough is talking about. Commissioner Scarborough stated he understands; and they are just discussing the interim until the group comes back with the report.

Chairman Pritchard inquired what about taking the position now of exempting citrus grove trees from canopy preservation requirements. Ms. Elmore advised there are some property owners who want to preserve their citrus; they do not want to pay for new plantings so they are saying they have the canopy there; they are healthy trees; and even in subdivisions, staff has seen this. She stated the owners would like to continue to maintain the citrus trees and that would head off some of the cost of replacing the canopy; so staff sees it on both sides, with some folks who do not want the citrus, and others who want to preserve citrus trees. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board can say they can have it whatever way they want; and a lot of people want to have mature citrus trees when they buy a home. Chairman Pritchard commented they want it for the first year until the fruit hits the ground and they have 8,000 oranges they are trying to get rid of; but he knows what Commissioner Scarborough is saying. Commissioner Scarborough stated he has a feeling the Board can weight this down too heavily. Commissioner Carlson stated staff’s job is to reduce the weight; they are trying to streamline and make it more user friendly; and the Board needs to give staff a chance to do that and see what they come back with in terms of a product. She stated hopefully it is going to be flexible like what the Board is talking about.

Chairman Pritchard inquired when will staff be coming back; with Mr. Brown responding he originally envisioned a four to six-month ad hoc task force; they would go to the professional organizations and get their best people who are genuinely interested in coming up with team-based consensus solutions for this; and they would then go through a period of four to six months of collaboration to come out with a product that takes the current two Ordinances and folds them into one.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he would like to be assured there are going to be some people on the task force like representatives of the garden clubs; they are very knowledgeable about plants; many of them are master gardeners; and if the Board does not include them, they would be asking to be included subsequently. Mr. Brown stated he agrees; he had a very short list that needs to be expanded; and the object is to get the breadth of the stakeholder interest group. Ms. Williams stated Sally Scalera is present, and hopefully she will join the group. Chairman Pritchard stated they also need to get the agricultural interests. Mr. Brown stated they will include the Farm Bureau and the Soil and Water Conservation Districts as well to give some good representation.

APPOINTMENT, RE: MEDICAL SERVICES REVIEW COMMITTEE

Commissioner Colon stated there has been so much controversy regarding the EMS appointment; and she has a new appointment. She stated the group is supposed to meet next week; she has made a lot of phone calls behind the scenes apologizing for one appointee leaving and putting in a new one; and she wants to set the record straight. She stated this particular advisory board has been dormant for approximately four years; and all of a sudden it has become a major controversy. She stated there is no conspiracy; the committee hardly ever met; this is the first time it is going to be meeting; and the Ordinance was vague as to where the appointees were supposed to live; but Bill Pezzillo from District 5 has been kind enough to agree to serve. She stated she wants to appoint him so he can attend the next meeting; he is a homeowners association president and very active in the community; and he has agreed to serve on this advisory board. She stated she also made sure to let the person who will be stepping down know before she announced it.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to appoint Bill Pezzillo to the Medical Services Review Committee as the District 5 appointee, replacing Dr. Samuel Del Rio. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting was adjourned at 3:50 p.m.

_____________________________________
ATTEST: RONALD PRITCHARD, D.P.A., CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

____________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)