April 12, 2001

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special session on April 12, 2001, at 12:30 p.m. in the Government Center Florida Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairman Susan Carlson, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Randy O'Brien, Nancy Higgs and Jackie Colon, and County Manager Tom Jenkins. Absent was: *County Attorney Scott Knox.

DISCUSSION, RE: REDISTRICTING SERVICES

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca stated during the April 5, 2001 zoning meeting, the Board directed staff to provide additional options, and discuss the redistricting effort and use of a consultant; Mel Scott provided the information in a memorandum dated April 9, 2001; the idea of a consultant was compared to the use of in-house expertise; and it was noted that many of the surrounding counties have used a combination of in-house expertise, including Supervisor of Elections, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), and Planning Departments. She stated consultant estimates ranged from $98,000 to $400,000 in Jacksonville/Duval; yesterday she spoke with a consultant and asked how much it would estimate such a consultant would charge for Brevard County; the estimate was approximately $100,000; and the consultant described that there were two areas of expertise needed, one was the actual physical manipulation of the numbers, and the second was bringing to consensus the groups that have to agree upon the final redistricting. She noted the consultant's suggestion was that a consultant would be useful in the consensus building because they would be considered a neutral party rather than someone who had ties to the community; the consultant's recommendation was that it would be the more time consuming and expensive part of the entire operation; the consultant suggested that although it was possible to break the two-the technical and the consensus building, the technical was probably the less time consuming and the smaller percentage of the cost; and if a consultant was going to be used to do consensus building, there would be the largest percentage of the cost already included. Ms. Busacca stated staff was directed to provide a Request for Proposal (RFP); staff is seeking direction as to whether it should continue with the RFP activities, and if so, would the Board like to see the scope of services for the RFP; and the scope of services for Jacksonville/Duval was attached to the memorandum from Mr. Scott.

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated the consultant staff spoken to was the Florida Association of Counties' (FAC) affiliated consultant; the proposal the consultant submitted for the City of Jacksonville/Duval was $100,000; the proposals were as high as $400,000 in Jacksonville; and the consultant was at the low end and was not selected.

Chairman Carlson inquired what was the discount that FAC was supposed to be providing. Mr. Jenkins responded when considering the consultant was doing it at $100,000, the consultant

DISCUSSION, RE: REDISTRICTING SERVICES

Jacksonville/Duval selected was $250,000, and they received some proposals as high as $400,000, that would be the discount.

Commissioner Higgs stated the County could go out to RFP asking proposers to outline what they could do and break the costs into separate entities; the critical part is getting proposals technically done that people can discuss; she is more concerned about the technical competence of the work product that people are going to look at than having somebody who is going to bring everybody together; and staff can work with the committees to help bring that agreement. She noted the way to do that is to understand the County is not going to pay $100,000; it wants components and the proposers to tell it what the price can be; it can give people the ability in the RFP to choose segments of the task; and they can give the County their price for those.

Commissioner Colon stated she would not support paying $100,000 for someone to be a consensus builder; the committee will probably be meeting for approximately five months; everything needs to be completed by December 31, 2001; and she was told the County had software to help it concerning the technical part. She noted she does not want it to be County staff; the municipalities always bring in people from the outside at an excellent price to be the mediator or consensus builder; the key is not to put staff in the middle as it puts them in an awkward position; there are large corporations in the community, which have people capable of doing this; and perhaps someone could be brought in at $30,000 or $40,000.

Commissioner O'Brien stated money is important in the cost of redistricting; last year was a terrible year in the election process facing Florida where a lot of voters used the word "disenfranchisement"; the task before the Board is an important one; and the citizens of Brevard County will want to feel comfortable that the approach taken to draw new lines is proper and not tainted or tarnished. He noted Supervisor of Elections Fred Galey may have some advice for the Board; it could hand the whole process to him, including funding the project; and the Board could make appointments to the redistricting committee. He stated it could be worked out in a timely manner; the people of Brevard County would not be offended by what was accomplished; and it would be out of the Board's and staff's hands, and into the Supervisor of Elections' hands, who should be doing the job.

Supervisor of Elections Fred Galey stated he was told the County was going to be using a consultant; he has been trying to have a position funded on staff for two years to be capable of running the equipment; and his Office is ready to do it, if the Board desires. He noted outside consultants are capable of the job; he has made telephone calls to get prices and estimates for assistance or the total job; the prices are going to vary from $90,000 to $400,000, depending on what the Board wants them to do; and the easy part is the consensus building, as long as the common sense approach is taken. He stated a lot of special interests want a lot of special things, but he is used to being in the middle; whatever the Board decides to do will get done; his Office has software it has been working with and trying to get trained on; and the Property Appraiser's Office is going to help with the GIS. Mr. Galey noted the County has an outstanding GIS staff; the Board can be proud of them; his Office is looking forward to working with the staff and wants to develop the capability to draw its precincts; and depending on what the State gives the County for the legislative districts and its districts, the County will be able to fit its to that and will have to fit the cities in with everything also. He stated it is not an easy job; the County is not going to be able to please everybody; to have it reasonable to work with, and control the number of precincts and the ballot styles, which runs up the costs, is important; and when the School Board did its redrawing, it caused the County to create 12 new precincts, which increased costs quite a bit. He noted everything needs to be reviewed, including balancing the figures; the job is going to be time consuming; and it will require technical expertise, which he does not have right now, but can get and will be able to do it one way or the other.

Commissioner Scarborough stated one thing that concerns him is when a consultant comes forward and he does not know what credentials they have for $400,000; if there has been redistricting in Florida, it has been a number of years ago; he wonders where these people are coming from; and he would like to make sure Mr. Galey is a part of the loop, as he knows where people want to vote and how they like to vote. He noted the Commissioners previously were directly involved and dealing with staff; now they are going to appoint a committee; such committee is removed from the Commissioners; and the County may not want to buy this Cadillac as it could cause trouble for the Property Appraiser and Supervisor of Elections, and overwhelm the citizens who are trying to do their job independent of the Commission. Commissioner Scarborough stated the more money the County pays a consultant, the more they try to justify it with the bells and whistles; he likes the idea of breaking it down and buying what the County needs, as opposed to paying somebody who is going to get in some people's way.

Mr. Jenkins stated Property Appraiser Jim Ford indicated his staff was not going to be directly involved in the redistricting for the same reasons discussed earlier; his staff operates the GIS data base and will make it assessable and assist in that regard; but he does not want direct involvement in any redistricting.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize staff to advertise Request for Proposals (RFP) for redistricting services, allowing proposers to break down various functions and costs; and bring the proposals back to the Board.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Supervisor of Elections' Office is the correct one to perform this task; he would prefer to see Mr. Galey do it, with the Board's assistance in funding to hire a consultant to work closely with him; Mr. Galey has the experience and knowledge, and knows the precinct lines; and that is his job. He noted for County staff to develop the RFP and the Board to review and approve it to select a consultant may be viewed as being inappropriate; Mr. Galey can be totally independent from the County and accomplish the same task using his expertise and knowledge; and he would rather see an independent manner of drawing the new lines by the Supervisor of Elections' Office.

Chairman Carlson inquired is Commissioner O'Brien suggesting that Mr. Galey get an RFP. Commissioner O'Brien responded he is suggesting turning the entire project over to Mr. Galey, let him develop the RFP, and report back to the Board on April 24, 2001 on a dateline when he intends to have the RFP out, when he is going to get it back, and composition of the selection committee. He stated the committee would review it and come back to the Board to make a decision by December 31, 2001.

*County Attorney Scott Knox's presence was noted at this time.

Commissioner Colon stated she agrees Mr. Galey should be part of the process, but she would not want his Office to be in charge of it; the County is going to be criticized whichever decision it makes; and she would feel awkward putting Mr. Galey in that position. She noted an outside person would be ideal; she wants to see the different components; and there may be some things the County does not want the consultant to do that GIS could do.

Commissioner Colon seconded the motion.

Commissioner O'Brien stated it would not be Mr. Galey running a one-man show; whatever results are attained must go through a committee the Board appoints and be adopted by the Board; the objective he is trying to reach is to turn over the project to the Supervisor of Elections and let the process go through him, the committee, and the Board; and it is an independent methodology. He noted if the County goes out for the RFP, it is holding the bag.

Chairman Carlson stated everyone agrees it needs to be a collaborative effort; the County wants to save money by having Mr. Galey's input; he knows where everything is laid out and the interest of the community; and the partisan issue is one that needs to be considered. She noted she does not have a problem going out to RFP, looking at the components, analyzing them, and using the consultant as an analyst versus someone who does the grunt work; the County has people who can do the grunt work; and the consultant can review it and say how it should be.

Commissioner Scarborough stated a lot of times when the County does RFP, in the Competitive Negotiation Act it does not ask for numbers; Commissioner Higgs' intent is to have the task segregated into separate functions; the County needs to spell out which ones; and it would like to know what the numbers are associated with it. Commissioner Higgs inquired if it is possible to buy a service as opposed to a consultant. Commissioner Scarborough stated the motion on the floor would allow the Board to analyze the services it may want to acquire; and inquired if it could have that with attached numbers to it or does it violate the Competitive Negotiation Act. County Attorney Scott Knox stated he is not sure such Act covers this kind of service. Commissioner Scarborough noted the Board could ask for the numbers which is great; and it would help to see who it wants to do what. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board could ask Mr. Galey's Office to serve as part of the staff that will be assisting the committee. Commissioner O'Brien stated Mr. Galey should be the lead person on this project; the route the Board is traveling down now is keeping it involved in the process; but the professional is Mr. Galey; and he is the Supervisor of Elections because of his knowledge and ability to understand districting, precincts, and voting habits. He noted Mr. Galey has the ability to get a consultant that he knows has the knowledge to accomplish a task, but the County does not; and he cannot support the motion. Commissioner Higgs stated that is wrong and misrepresents what some of the people in County divisions do in terms of mapping, census, and other functions; the Board is not asking Mr. Galey not to be involved; the bottom line is that the Board has to come to an agreement with the citizens-based committee on what the districts are; and the Board will be involved at the end.

Gertrude Montgomery stated she is interested in the redistricting; she hopes when the Board selects the committee that it will get people who have experience with such redistricting; she worked with Clarissa Hall and Attorney Pearl Smith for redistricting of the Legislature for Brevard County; the State Reapportionment Committee went around the State to get input from different people in the community; and she hopes the 15-member redistricting committee will do that. She noted the result was a national award for doing the redistricting; the State Reapportionment Committee indicated it was the best presentation in the entire State; the consultant is fine, but it should not be the total decision; and she hopes the County will have public meetings for other people to provide input. Ms. Montgomery stated if the County has members on the committee familiar with redistricting, it will not have to pay $100,000 or $400,000 for a consultant; when the committee brings its decision, it should not be private; and requested the Board conduct hearings before it makes a decision, and not wait until December 31, 2001.

Clarence Rowe, President of Central Brevard Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), stated he was not aware of today's meeting; and expressed concern with the Charter and how loosely it is written, including not having a date for selecting the three members of the community; and there is no information in reference to the terms of appointments. He further expressed concern with the selection process in which one of the Commissioners selected a County employee and two representatives from City of Rockledge, both of whom are planning and zoning staff; and stated it is stacking the deck.

He noted the lowest unemployed area in Brevard County is the City of Cocoa; he has been before the Board on numerous occasions in reference to low income and unemployment; if the County is going to allege that it has some degree of sensitivity about these issues, they should be reflected in the decisions; and the perception he is having is it does not reflect that. Mr. Rowe stated he would appreciate it if consideration would be given to disallow all of the Commissioners' selection process, and there be some means of notifying the public who may wish to serve on the committee, rather than a handful of people who possibly have inside information. He stated he was hoping his Commissioner would have considered appointing him to the committee, but it did not happen; the Commissioner did not have the courtesy to make him aware that he was not selected so that he could contact the rest of the Commissioners and ask them; and he did that this week, but the other Commissioners had already made their selections. He noted there is something wrong with the way the process is being done; it needs to be tweaked and out to the public; he has a serious problem with it; and he asked Mr. Jenkins to request Attorney Knox bring forth information in relation to it. Mr. Rowe stated Mr. Jenkins indicated to him he had information pertaining to Jacksonville; he totally disagrees with it as Jacksonville is 10 or 12 times the size of Brevard County; and inquired why not do something in Brevard County with a price range that is more realistic than it would be in Jacksonville or Miami. He requested the Board start over again to give the public an opportunity to participate.

Julius Montgomery stated there was a suggestion that Mr. Galey be made a part of the decision-making; if Mr. Galey makes decisions on the redistricting like he made this past election, which split all the black precincts, he does not need to be close to it; he does not think it was done accidentally; people were running all over the city trying to find where to vote; and it is not right. He noted Mr. Galey should not exercise his biases; and he does not want this to be like the last election. Chairman Carlson stated Mr. Montgomery is referring to when the School Board redistricted; with Mr. Montgomery responding the School Board and Mr. Galey are both guilty, and he does not want to see it anymore.

Commissioner Colon inquired if the committee will be starting late in the summer; with Mr. Jenkins responding it will be sooner than that.

Chairman Carlson called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner O'Brien voted nay.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct that the Redistricting Committee meetings be televised and held in the Commission Chambers; and public notices of the meetings be put on the Brevard County and Supervisor of Elections websites. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board had the issue of how the redistricting was going to be done on the Commission agenda a couple of weeks ago when it first started discussing how it was going to go about it; it was a public notice and public meeting; and the appointments to the committee will be at a public meeting next week. Commissioner Colon stated some individuals were under the impression that the workshop was on redistricting, which was not the case; the Board found out that Mr. Jenkins would be discussing redistricting under his report; and that is how it came about. Chairman Carlson stated the meeting was advertised as an open space ordinance workshop; with Mr. Jenkins responding the advertisement included any other business that may come before the Board. Mr. Jenkins stated the intent was this was a new development; and rather than delay it for a period of time, staff thought the Board would consider the issue a priority matter, which should be brought forward, knowing it would be on Tuesday's agenda. Commissioner Higgs noted the Board had already discussed going forward in getting RFP's at a public meeting; and today it simply clarified how it is going to go about it.

Commissioner Higgs stated at the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) meeting earlier in the day, the Board received a report showing public meetings from Public Works Department in regard to road projects; it was the first time most of the Board members had seen the list of public meetings that are going to be held; there are eight meetings scheduled and a number of other road projects on the preliminary list; and there needs to be clarification on how the County is going about this, what the meetings mean, and what the process is. She requested staff get clarification for the Board to help it in explaining to the public what the meetings mean; and stated all the projects initially identified are going to have difficulty being funded based on the costs the County is now seeing in regard to asphalt and other things, and the wants of the Board. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board has not set the priorities, but some projects are moving forward and others are not moving forward; and it could be difficult to explain to people if staff does not provide the information to the Board.

PERMISSION TO SEND LETTERS, RE: SUPPORTING FUNDING FOR MAX BREWER
BRIDGE

Chairman Carlson stated she has a letter dated March 26, 2001, from State Representative Randy Ball requesting letters of support for federal funding on Max Brewer Bridge; and she thought the Board had discussion about the issue previously.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize the Chairman to send letters in support of federal funding on Max Brewer Bridge to President Bush and decision-makers in Washington, D.C., as requested by State Representative Randy Ball. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Chairman should feel authorized at any point to speak or write a letter on the Board's behalf on an issue it has already endorsed.

DISCUSSION, RE: PROJECT IMPACT

Chairman Carlson stated she provided packets from Project Impact; since Brevard County has been identified as a Project Impact community, it has been able to draw down funds to hire a Project Impact Coordinator; such Coordinator is Mary Bolin; and she is going to be working with the private sector to figure out a strategy of approach in terms of local mitigation processes. She noted she will bring reports back as they develop; and Ms. Bolin is housed at the Emergency Operations Center (EOC).

DISCUSSION, RE: AMERICAN HERITAGE RIVERS INITIATIVE

Chairman Carlson requested authorization to write a letter to President Bush to reinforce the interest in the American Heritage Rivers Initiative; she received a fax from Pat Northey, who is a Commissioner in Volusia County; the letter is from James L. Witt and states that the support that was derived from the American Heritage Rivers through the Clinton years is uncertain at best; and if counties want to continue with their support of the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, they need to send a letter with the detail.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize the Chairman to write a letter to President Bush to reinforce the County's interest in the American Heritage Rivers Initiative.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he has not seen the letter; and the Chairman of the American Heritage system is in Jacksonville, and has not notified Brevard County that there is a problem. Chairman Carlson stated he sits on the same steering committee that she does, along with Ms. Northey; they have sent their letters of support; they are looking for all communities to send letters of support; Mr. Witt indicated this is a problem currently in Washington that the whole Initiative may be canceled; and there are programs already in place regarding this with federal dollars potentially associated. Commissioner O'Brien requested Chairman Carlson provide him with a copy of the letter.

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

DISCUSSION, RE: BEACH MITIGATION FUNDING

Commissioner O'Brien stated there is a problem with the beach funding; President Bush is trying to reduce the amount of mitigation the County should be receiving; it would be in the County's interest to save all the funding for the South Beaches, and create a resolution that would state the Board's position; and a letter could be sent to Governor Jeb Bush requesting his support to President Bush. He noted the problem with the beaches is not made by God and hurricanes, but created by a federal channel that was cut in Port Canaveral; and if the mitigation factor is reduced, it could be financially devastating.

DISCUSSION, RE: BEACH MITIGATION FUNDING

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize staff to prepare a resolution for the April 17, 2001 meeting advising of the Board's position concerning President Bush's proposal to reduce the amount of beach mitigation funding for Brevard County; and approve sending a letter to Governor Jeb Bush requesting his support to President Bush. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: OPEN SPACE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE

Senior Planner Allen Woolwich stated on March 20, 2001, the Board directed staff to schedule a workshop session to further discuss the Open Space Subdivision Ordinance amendments to the County Land Development Regulations; the recently approved Open Space Subdivision Ordinance provides density and clustering incentives to increase the amount of provided open space and amenities; the Ordinance also introduces the further application of linked open space, bicycle and pedestrian systems, neighborhood/village design, alternative roadway and right-of-way standards, and the clustering of development to preserve sensitive habitats and agricultural lands; and the proposed ordinance does not replace the current County Subdivision Ordinance or Land Development Regulations, and is an optional and voluntary ordinance for use by applicants interested in this development review process and incentives. He stated staff prepared a list of exhibits, which will be reviewed by staff; and the packet includes an open space ordinance discussion topic list of management and ownership of open space, amount and use of open space, and use of flag lots and cul-de-sacs.

Mr. Woolwich stated the first exhibit shows a conventional residential development that can be designed and approved under the County's current conventional subdivision regulations; the exhibit shows RR-1 zoning, which is one unit per acre, a 100-acre parcel, and 60-foot right-of-way for the roadway system, which equate to 10 acres; the stormwater management system that is required for this subdivision is approximately 15 acres; and the site has three acres of wetlands that have been retained in the conventional subdivision. He noted the total residential development area of the lots is 74 acres; the minimum lot size is one acre; the minimum lot frontage for design in this zone is 125 feet; and using the conventional regulations in RR-1 zone would give a lot yield, minus the roadway right-of-way and drainage requirements, of 72 one-acre lots. He stated the second exhibit shows the Open Space Subdivision Ordinance and an application to the same site; there is RR-1 zoning; under the Open Space Subdivision Regulations, one can have a minimum lot size of one-half acre; the right-of-way width and pavement amounts can be reduced; and a cluster type situation can be configured. Mr. Woolwich stated a 40-foot right-of-way in this scenario is five acres; the stormwater requirement is close to the other design at 15 acres, which is a conservative figure; the subdivision has a 35% requirement for open space; and there are 35 acres out of the 100 acres that are in open space. He noted the residential development area is 45 acres; the lot sizes are mostly one-half acre, but can range from one-half acre to three-quarter acre; the minimum lot frontage is reduced to 60 feet, which is allowed under the Open Space Ordinance; and the yield is 79 lots.

He stated the lots are narrower and longer, but a majority of the lots face open space and/or have views over stormwater retention facilities; there are linkages for interconnected and open space, which can be used as wildlife corridors or bicycle/pedestrian or trail systems. He noted the two exhibits he showed have minimal amounts of wetlands; the third exhibit is the conventional subdivision methodology for a site that has 50 acres of wetlands and 50 acres of uplands, and how the County applies the formula conventionally and eventually with the Open Space Subdivision Ordinance; the conventional subdivision has a project size of 100 acres, with RR-1 zoning; there are 60-foot rights-of-way, which equal to approximately 7.2 acres; and the stormwater requirement is 7.5 acres. Mr. Woolwich stated this scenario is 0% of open space for the 50 acres of wetlands that exist on the 100 acres; the wetlands retained are 50 acres; the residential development area on half of the site that is not wetlands is 41 acres; and the lot size is one acre minimum. He noted lot frontages are 125 feet; it would yield 41 lots, which equates to .4 dwelling units per acre; there are large lots and large rights-of-way; and the wetlands are protected. He stated with the conventional subdivision design with an onsite density transfer, the County's Comprehensive Plan allows for a density transfer to the uplands portion of the site so that the density that was applied to this wetland area can be realized in the uplands; it is an incentive to protect the wetlands, while providing significant development rights on the remaining 50 acres; there is a project size of 100 acres, with one dwelling unit per acre; and since it is RR-1 zoning, the applicant can apply to the Board for a zoning change with a binding development plan to realize the extra density. Mr. Woolwich noted the one-acre lots are approximately cut in half; the stormwater requirement is 7.5 acres; the required open space is zero acres; the wetlands retainer is 50 acres; and the residential development area is 41 acres, which gives approximately 75 lots. He stated the project density is .8 dwelling units per acre; to receive this, the applicant has to receive a zoning change and would have to come to the Board for that scenario. He noted the next exhibit shows a project size of 100 acres utilizing the Open Space Subdivision Ordinance; the zoning classification is one dwelling unit per acre; the right-of-way is reduced to 40 feet instead of 60 feet on conventional; the stormwater is 7.5 acres; and the primary open space identifies the wetlands as primary open space, which is 50 acres preserved. He stated the secondary open space is upland habitats in upland areas that are preserved as open space; in the two conventional subdivision designs it is not required under the current regulations; it is a requirement with the Open Space Subdivision Ordinance; and using the calculation, someone would receive 17.5 acres as open space. Mr. Woolwich noted adding the two together gives a total open space of 67.5 acres, which includes 50 acres of wetlands; a residential development area for the actual house lots is 27.5 acres, with lot sizes of one-half acre and lot frontages reduced to 60 feet; and it gives an approximate project density of .5 dwelling units per acre and a yield of 49 lots, in comparison to the yield of 75 lots or 41 lots using the conventional methodology. He stated an individual would be able to come in with the subdivision regulations under normal platting procedures and would not have to come to the Board for a zoning change to receive the onsite density transfer to make the lots valid and able to be constructed; it is a simpler process to use the open space subdivision design, much like someone would be able to use the conventional without having to go the extra process; extra units are obtained using this methodology, but one is only able to get up to 25% extra density; and with the open space requirement, the only extra lots that were able to be required were approximately eight lots. Mr. Woolwich stated in the last meeting, there were questions and recommendations made about using the Randall Arendt method in its pure form; staff has done a design showing that methodology; the project size is 100 acres of RR-1 zoning, with one dwelling unit per acre; and the right-of-way is 40 feet, which is approximately five acres of roadway and right-of-way area. He noted the stormwater is 7 ½ acres; the primary open space, which is preserved, is 50 acres; the secondary open space is greater than what one would get with the Subdivision Regulation, which is 25 acres; and there is more open space with that methodology. He stated the total open space is 75 acres; using the method for residential development area is 20 acres; however, it creates lots sizes that are less than one-half acre; the County's Open Space Subdivision Ordinance has a minimum lot size of one-half acre; and using the Arendt model with the extra open space has created a situation where there are lots smaller than one-half acre. He noted lot frontages are 60 feet; the project density is about the same of .4 dwelling units per acre; it yields 40 lots instead of 49 lots; and the extra lots are part of the incentives for using the Open Space Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Woolwich stated in the Conventional Subdivision Ordinance, it would yield 41 lots; in applying the Arendt model, it would result in having lots smaller than one-half acre potentially in rural areas or one-acre areas which would be 40 lots; and one would break even with the lot development potential, but there is more open space. He noted a concern about going below the one-half acre minimum revolves around a couple of things; one is compatibility with surrounding subdivisions that may be developed and at a large scale; the buffering and design of the subdivision is supposed to take care of some of the compatibility issues, but those can arise; and the other concern is onsite septic requirements. He stated in some areas, a one-half acre lot size is probably the minimum with a well that would be acceptable to the permitting requirements or the health issue.

Mr. Woolwich stated the Open Space Ordinance discussion topics include the management and ownership of open space; under the County's current Ordinance, the dedication of open space is in a format where it has to come to the County or a land trust or conservancy when the plat is accepted; the item was discussed by the Board; and the Ordinance was altered to take homeowners associations out as one of the management options.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he has run into some problems where the homeowners association was not formed and deed restrictions were not recorded; deeds went out and now there is a problem with the retention area; and there have been others. He noted he does not have a problem with the homeowners association doing it as long as at the time of plat approval, the County has evidence that the deed restrictions have been recorded; it is a simple thing to do; and it can include the homeowners association incorporation. He stated if someone was to build a condominium under the State Laws of Florida, there is a lot of documentation that has to be done and presented; when the County does plats, it is not structured in the same methodology; and the condominium association is a mandatory association that has to exist. He stated what the County ends up doing is losing what it is trying to capture or having to take it without any benefit and having all the homeowners come in; with those two things added, he does not have a problem going with the homeowners association and having those at prerequisites.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve using the homeowners associations for management and ownership of open space, subject to the County having evidence that the deed restrictions have been recorded at the time of plat approval and include the homeowners associations incorporation.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there was recent discussion with the School Board; the School Board was upset about the County using its property due to liability issues; as long as the School Board had ownership, it could be subject to a lawsuit; and the ownership going to the County is more than just an issue of who controls it. He noted there needs to be a dual methodology for the lineal park fee simple to the County and the homeowners association.

Chairman Carlson stated she had a meeting with Property Appraiser Jim Ford and Chief Deputy Property Appraiser Lance Larson concerning model ordinances on conservation easements and landbanks created in the management plan. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is not talking about conservation easements, but using the homeowners association as a viable tool.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve using the homeowners associations for management and ownership of open space, subject to the County having evidence that the deed restrictions have been recorded at the time of plat approval, and include the homeowners associations incorporation; and approve including a dual methodology for the lineal park fee simple to the County and the homeowners associations, and using such associations as a viable tool. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Carlson stated she has a copy of the model conservation easement and model conservation management plan that the Property Appraiser's Office gave her office; and provided copies to the Board. She advised the model conservation easement called "Tall Timbers" was used in Tallahassee.

Chief Deputy Property Appraiser Lance Larson provided information to the Board dealing with open space, conservation, and valuation issues, as well as interim fee and partial year assessment. Chairman Carlson requested Mr. Larson explain the use of the conservation easement and management plan.

Mr. Larson stated Tall Timbers is a pine plantation in Tallahassee in Leon County that is using this model agreement with the Leon County government and is being appraised as a conservation easement, with a scientific study for a tree farm through the University of Florida; the document was prepared by Mr. Osley of Tallahassee, who has been involved in conservation easements for a number of years and has made presentations to the Property Appraiser's Association about valuation issues related to conservation easements; and the document covers both the legal and appraisal standards for use of such easements.

Chairman Carlson stated the document includes management plans and land banking as well; the open space ordinance may potentially, either fee simple or easement-wise, transfer ownership to the County; it is important for staff to look at the model conservation easement and the plan to incorporate and bring it back as an agenda item on conservation easements and the use of them, including how to create a land bank; and inquired if it can be brought back for discussion at the same meeting as the open space ordinance.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct staff to review the model conservation easement and management plan to incorporate and bring back an agenda item on conservation easements and use of same, including how to create a potential land bank, at the same meeting as the open space ordinance. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

*County Attorney Scott Knox's absence was noted at this time and Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley was present.

Mr. Larson stated there are a number of issues related to differentials between easement ownership versus a fee simple ownership that have come up, including in Florida law as to the taxability of conversation easements, even though they are in the government's name, when they do not serve a public purpose and are restricted; and there is documentation included on that issue.

Commissioner Higgs inquired is there a minimum size of some of the conversation easements as they are being applied; with Mr. Larson responding negatively. Mr. Larson advised the only restriction in the current Statutes for this particular type of conservation easement is that it must be for a period of 10 years in order to receive any sort of preferential tax treatment; and if it is for less than 10 years, it is assessed as if it were a fee simple ownership. Commissioner Higgs inquired if someone has wetlands on their property of one-half acre and wants to preserve it, is it an application of what Mr. Larson is talking about; with Mr. Larson responding it could be. Mr. Larson advised it would have to be under the same Statute for Chapter 704.06 and follow the requirements of Chapter 193.501.

Chairman Carlson inquired how would one create the receptacle for the easements if the County chose to take this on; with Mr. Larson responding it would have to be by County Ordinance.

Mr. Larson stated the County Attorney can review Chapter 193.501; and there is a methodology laid out for the County to put this in place.

Chairman Carlson stated she appreciates Mr. Larson putting together the documentation. Commissioner Higgs inquired is Mr. Larson aware of counties using these in a broad sense instead of regulatory items to preserve onsite. Mr. Larson responded Leon County has been pushing to use conservation easements for a number of years because of the plantation nature of its lands and the fact they are built over a lot of hard pan; there is not good percolation in the soil; Leon County is trying to preserve as much open space as possible for water runoff; and Jackson County has a few properties that have taken advantage of it. He stated the federal government, through the Farmers Home Administration, has used it in Bradford and Putnam Counties on agricultural properties.

County Manager Tom Jenkins inquired is the life of the easement a minimum of 10 years; with Mr. Larson responding affirmatively. Commissioner Higgs noted it can be perpetual; with Mr. Larson responding yes. Mr. Larson advised they are typically perpetual, but it has to be at least 10 years to get the tax incentive; there is a bill in the front of the Legislature relating to creation of a rural and family lands protection act, which deals with a number of purchase or protection options; and the most recent information was as of yesterday afternoon, which is included in the documentation provided to the Board.

*Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley's absence was noted at this time and County Attorney Scott Knox's presence was noted.

Commissioner Colon inquired does the County have an agreement or has it considered having a partnership with cattlemen on lands purchased through the Environmentally Endangered Lands (EELS). She noted she does not know if it is something that goes against what the County is trying to accomplish in regard to preserving critical habitat; there are cattlemen who feel they are running out of space; and they want to know if the County would consider them leasing some of this land. Chairman Carlson stated Brevard County has managed to get a lot of environmentally-sensitive land, so she does not know if those would be subject to that; as the Board talks about urban boundaries and wants to provide the agricultural community with incentives, it can do the development rights issue and ask individuals to preserve it for 10 years and keep it out of the hands of development where there is still the green open space; and on the EELS purchases, she does not know if there is any like that. Commissioner Scarborough stated he has someone in his District who has a lot of agricultural land; the question was asked whether EELS could purchase a conservation easement and allow the agricultural pursuit to continue; and there is no methodology for purchasing a conservation easement off the land, allowing it to stay as agricultural.

Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott advised the Soil and Water Conservation District has started working with St. Johns River Water Management District on properties purchased that had been historically cattle lands; it discovered that in the short term, the best management practice that one could apply to those properties was to keep the cattle on the property as the immediate removal of the cattle from those lands would set up a situation that was conducive to the Brazilian pepper and invasives taking over the property; and there are circumstances where cattlemen are able to lease back or purchase grazing rights or grazing agreements. Chairman Carlson stated the St. Johns River Water Management District has done it with property it has purchased from A. Duda and Sons. Commissioner Higgs stated the bill before the Legislature does exactly what is being discussed; but she wonders if the County could do it under the EELS provision as the actual referendum item speaks to the issue of preservation, education, and maintenance; and she does not know if it says that the acquisition has to be fee simple, which may be a complex legal question. Commissioner Scarborough stated he would like to get an answer to it as the County has the potential of preserving in agriculture for much less money than buying fee simple. Chairman Carlson noted the wording in the referendum states environmentally endangered lands. Commissioner Higgs stated the County would not want to get pasture, but it does not mean there are not significant environmental lands as part of an agricultural holding. Chairman Carlson stated the Board could get information on it.

Mr. Larson stated most of the agricultural properties in Brevard County have some sort of environmentally endangered lands attached to them that are currently being grazed; and during dry periods, it almost becomes the bread basket for cattle as it is their last place of food refuge.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board talks about urban boundaries and the cost of urban sprawl; it is agricultural land that generally moves to development first; the County can save itself a tremendous amount of money controlling it, if it is able to purchase the development rights and allow it to be continued in its historical agricultural use; and if there is a hole that needs to be filled, he would like to plug it because for a few dollars, the County can make some sense for a lot of people. Commissioner Higgs stated she is not sure the County can do the agricultural issues if they are not environmentally endangered lands under its Program; but the bill is outlined in the packet; and it may be a program the County wants to begin to aggressively look at on how it can give incentives to agricultural lands.

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca stated staff has been directed to provide that information to the Board in May, 2001; it can encompass some of these ideas; the EELS Program has been utilized for public access; and cattle and many agricultural purposes and public access are not necessarily able to co-exist. Commissioner Higgs stated the County does not have enough money in the EELS Program to buy all the pure environmentally endangered lands; but the issue of agricultural lands has been hotly debated in a number of counties and they have moved in that direction; Palm Beach County's referendum of $400 million went forward this election; and it is aggressively buying rights in the agricultural areas. She noted it is a topic that is getting a lot of interest Statewide currently in the Legislature and from aggressive bond referendum issues.

Commissioner Higgs stated the question is if there are environmentally endangered lands as part of an agricultural holding, would the County be able to acquire some of the rights to keep it in the environmentally endangered lands under its current EELS Program. Commissioner Scarborough stated the purchase of conservation easements may be tremendously inexpensive in the cost it is going to be to the community to face continual urban sprawl; it may be small as the person is comfortable farming; and it sells decades of future building out there that the County does not have to worry about. Chairman Carlson noted there are lots of things that can be done in terms of compensating the farmer to keep their land; and it is a subsidy to him and preserving the open space for "x" number of years. Commissioner Colon stated if the County is able to do something where everyone benefits, it is tremendous; it is what the community is concerned about with all the development going on; little by little it is taking away its integrity; and people who have moved from Miami and Fort Lauderdale have said such cities used to look like Brevard County at one time. Commissioner Higgs stated people have to eat; if Florida continues to put all of its agricultural lands into development, the cost of living will continue to increase; the State has some of the most active agriculture, particularly cattle, in the whole country; but it cannot stay if the incentives are so great for it to develop. Commissioner Scarborough stated there has been discussion concerning the capacity of Florida to be a sponge for water; when there is building, it requires draining and diking; the topography is changed; and it is leading to many effects. He noted there are a lot of benefits in keeping agricultural properties as far as the quality of life and cost to the taxpayers.

Mr. Larson stated concerning Chapter 704.06 on conservation easements and the Tall Timber Management Plan, one of the issues that came up in Leon County is that there are infill areas, which are beginning to become pressured heavily for potential development; Brevard County may wish to preserve such areas; and it may be an ideal vehicle for that, which would allow them to be used under a management plan for agricultural property to keep the exotics out, as well as keep them from being developed, and keep development in a more concise condensed area.

Commissioner O'Brien stated last year individuals were complaining that government already owns 54% of Brevard County; if the County starts buying farm land, the taxpayers will have to pay for maintenance of those lands; money can be used to maintain EELS property; and inquired would the conservation easements be deeded to EELS. Chairman Carlson stated the Board is going to get that answered. Commissioner Scarborough noted the properties would continue to be used as agricultural properties; they would continue to pay the same amount of taxes they have historically paid; the County would buy an easement; and there would be compensation and the County would know it would not have the economic impact of putting water, roads, and other infrastructure costs as the property would not develop. Commissioner O'Brien stated the EELS money is a finite amount of money; with Chairman Carlson responding all the money left in EELS is already dedicated, and the County does not have that kind of flexibility. Chairman Carlson stated the follow-on to EELS is Forever Florida, which is the next which is the next generation of Preservation 2000; that particular Program has been massaged to define percentages of the dollars that can be matching dollars for the County; they can be used for different ways; and there is more flexibility in the equation. She noted to get additional dollars is what needs to be reviewed; that is when the conversation went to sales tax; the Board has not decided to do that; and it is an important issue to think about. Chairman Carlson stated Attorney Knox will provide the information to the Board, hopefully in time for the discussion.

Mr. Woolwich stated the next item is the amount and use of open space; some of the issues raised in the last public hearing are in the outline; he spoke briefly about some of them in the presentation relating to what happens when one increases the minimum amount of open space; and there was discussion concerning the creation of smaller lot sizes when the minimum open space requirement is raised. He noted there are the issues of neighborhood compatibility and rural character; the minimum onsite septic requirements are related to the minimum lot size of one-half acre; there are also potable water, sewer service, sprawl potential, and stormwater facility location in open space areas; and regarding the septic situation, one of the concerns in utilizing the pure Arendt model would be creating small clusters of development that might require extension of sewer lines in rural areas. He stated since it is a voluntary ordinance, a sewer line connection out to the subdivision may not necessarily be bad; but if the line is designed and passes other properties that may not utilize the Open Space Subdivision Ordinance, and use the conventional methodology, the County may be forced with a situation where it may be increasing the potential for sprawl development along that corridor, thinking it was going to preserve the open space area by allowing a cluster development to occur in a rural area; it may create a situation where the conventional can infill between the rural area and the existing development fringe; and it is one thing the County wanted to control with the minimum lot sizes and one of the concerns of not utilizing the pure Arendt method.

Mr. Jenkins stated these are the factors the County used in developing the framework in the existing Ordinance.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the land may be considered for active agriculture or forestry purposes; he would like a definition; it is one thing if there is pristine hammock and another thing if there are pine trees that are going to be harvested behind someone's house in two years; and there is a different world in having oaks there forever and pine trees harvested, coming back up in a few years to be harvested with silviculture. Mr. Woolwich stated it is something staff can review; it is addressed in the Management Plan; when a developer uses the open space subdivision methodology and brings the plat into the process to be reviewed by staff, part of the minimum requirements is that a management plan be submitted; and at that time, how the open space will be managed, what will be thinned and what will not be, and how it will take place has to be described in the management plan. He noted if it is an active agricultural area or silviculture forestry area, how such area will be managed in relation to the residential development node will be spelled out and reviewed.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired would it be advantageous to require that a purchaser have foreknowledge of the management plan, if there is a desire to actively use herbicides and insecticides, as opposed to a place that is going to be pristine. Mr. Woolwich noted it is not going to be a pristine wildlife habitat; there may be some of those in agricultural areas; people should know if they are going to come into a cluster subdivision that is next to an agricultural area that agricultural practices are going to be going on to a certain degree; and it should affect their decision whether or not to live there. He stated some people like it and find it attractive; it is part of one of the markets here; it may not be for everyone; but sometimes if someone is not aware of it, there may be some conflicts; and the County wants to avoid that.

Mr. Jenkins inquired would another option be to eliminate the agricultural and tree farming, except as part of the land management; with Mr. Scott responding negatively. Mr. Scott stated it was an issue that Kim Zarillo brought to staff's attention to help tighten up the language; the County was concerned about silviculture and people thinking they are going to be living near and enjoying a nice stand of trees and then they are harvested; staff added softer language to let the applicant know the County is going to be discussing it and individuals are not going to have an absolute right to harvest the trees; and it would be part of the Conservation Plan, so those trees would be preserved. Mr. Jenkins inquired why does it have to be in there; with Mr. Scott responding it is playing into the whole desire the County has to preserve agriculture uses. Mr. Scott stated it would be going into an existing farm saying they would like to use an open space subdivision and continue to use some farm lands, and cluster some development on a portion of it; and it would be a lifestyle choice they would be marketing, whether or not it is living next to a grove, cattle ranch, or a silviculture operation.

Commissioner Scarborough noted living next to an orange grove is one thing, but next to a place where one is going to clear pine trees is a different world; he does not know if he is ready to go to the pure silviculture; and he has a problem with someone clearing out the trees in the conservation area. Mr. Scott stated staff could come back to the Board to discuss minimum buffers so that parts of the silviculture operation would be off limits. Commissioner Higgs stated she shares the same concern; and when the County takes the changes to the public hearing, it should tighten up on that.

Mr. Woolwich explained an Open Space Subdivision Ordinance example of residential density incentive; stated staff looked at a 58-acre parcel with a residential density of one unit per acre on the zoning map; the 58 acres times one acre yields about 2,500,000 square feet; and there are 18 acres of wetlands. He noted when calculating the yield, one of the items to look at is stormwater management; there will be a range of stormwater management requirements on a residential subdivision in this type of zoning of 12 to 15% on the site; in this calculation, staff used 12%; and the yield at 6.9 acres for stormwater. He stated there is a requirement of 35% open space, which yields 20.3 acres of open space; 58 acres for the roadway and right-of-way system equals 5.8 acres of roadway; and added together are the stormwater, open space, and roadway requirements, which gives a total of 24 acres. He noted subtracting the total amount for open space, stormwater, and roads from 58 acres leaves development area of approximately 1,500,000 square feet; the residential density calculation would yield 58 lots; on the 58-acre site, the total 25% density bonus cannot be reached due to the open space minimum requirements and minimum lot sizes of one-half acre; and it would yield 68 lots of approximately one-half acre each.

Commissioner Higgs stated she is not as uncomfortable with that as she is with the provision for the waiver that exists under the more intense zoning; with that provision for the waiver, one can get down to as little as 10% open space; and that is where she gets real uncomfortable.

Mr. Scott stated page 3, number 5, of the Ordinance recognizes there may be smaller zoning categories and infill scenarios where there may be a small lot size of RU-1-7 or RU-1-9 and they are not able to grab the incentives for providing the open space as the property itself is so small; and in certain circumstances, the property might be positioned in the middle of two properties already purchased or in the middle of two properties that through the greenways and trails, if a corridor could be through the property, there would be a tremendous public benefit realized. He noted not being able to realize the 35% open space in the ordinance, but possibly being able to offer something the County would be desirous of, there is an opportunity for a waiver to occur; the 10% is up for debate; staff could modify that number to a place where the Board feels more comfortable; and the waiver provision conceptually would be something that the Board may find in its best interest to have in place. Commissioner Higgs stated if there was 10% on a 20-acre parcel, it is saving two acres which is marginal in terms of value and creating a different feeling in the neighborhood; when staff brings the item back for public hearing, the 10% waiver possibility needs to be tightened up and under certain conditions to be considered; and perhaps the County could go to 20% where a waiver could occur.

Ms. Busacca stated 20% of a small site could end up with four acres; and inquired is Commissioner Higgs concerned about a percentage or not to be lower than a minimum size. Commissioner Higgs stated she had not thought about a minimum size; she focused on the percentage; and there does need to be at least a minimum to have the impact on the open space so that the waiver could be given. Ms. Busacca noted the County could look at a second way, which is the percentage may not go below 10%, but it still may have to be a certain minimum size. Commissioner Higgs noted the 10% should not result in a density bonus as it is not good enough. Chairman Carlson stated it may help to get examples as it is hard to visualize what it may or may not provide.

Mr. Woolwich stated in the calculation of secondary open space, when there is a parcel that has a significant amount of wetlands or any type of wetlands, in factoring the amount of development area and secondary open space, some of the wetlands can count as a credit toward the secondary open space; by allowing it in this formula, it allows for the extra lots under the Open Space Subdivision Ordinance to be created and utilized as an incentive; there is a formula incorporated in the density incentive model; and staff would like to add language that formally puts the formula into the Ordinance itself so there is no misunderstanding on how it is calculated.

Mr. Woolwich stated the last item is the use of flag lots and cul-de-sacs; staff has been working with the Zoning and Land Development staffs; as it designed the subdivision exhibits for the Board, it saw that there was some potential for more flexibility to allow tighter clusters around the cul-de-sacs if lot frontages could be adjusted slightly and allow for creative use of flag lots to facilitate better design elements; and requested permission to bring some examples of how it could be done with some minimum standards.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct staff to provide examples to the Board concerning use of flag lots and cul-de-sacs and potential for more flexibility to allow tighter clusters around the cul-de-sacs if lot frontages can be adjusted and allow for creative use of flag lots to facilitate better design elements. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O'Brien requested clarification on the motion. Commissioner Higgs stated staff is asking that in the Open Space Ordinance there be some flexibility in regard to the size of the frontage on a cul-de-sac, and there be flexibility in regard to how the flag lot is used.

Chairman Carlson inquired did staff review all the Comprehensive Plan policies in terms of recreation and open space when it developed the Open Space Ordinance. Mr. Scott responded staff did not specifically go through the Comprehensive Plan and do an exhaustive review of the policies when it was doing the Ordinance, but it clearly understood that the Ordinance was something that would be furthering the intent of the Comprehensive Plan; and there are policies throughout the Recreation and Open Space, and Conservation Elements which speak to open space and creative design to achieve more open space being delivered. Chairman Carlson stated Policy 1.13 states, "Site development plans shall be reviewed to ensure that development will not jeopardize vital ecological linkages between natural systems, and that the integrity of the open space system will be maintained and where development would jeopardize or cause irreversible damage to linkages between surrounding natural systems, development shall be subject to the criteria in the Conservation and Future Land Use Elements"; and she is curious if the County does this in its regular site development process. Ms. Busacca stated staff reviews subdivisions against the criteria in the Conservation Element when there is a wetland, floodplain, aquifer recharge area, and those things which are addressed by the County's Land Development Regulations; it does not review these for open space connections as the County does not have Land Development Regulations in place that do that; it has never designated an open space system; and as the greenways and trails system becomes established, the open space will be established. She noted at that time staff will move forward to get Land Development Regulations that would implement Policy 1.13.

Chairman Carlson stated Policy 4.2 states, "The County may acquire lands, funds, or both to gain additional neighborhood or community parks necessary to support new residential development"; it goes on to talk about criteria and uses the word "may"; then it starts using the word "shall", including "Donations and monies deposited pursuant to the requirements of this subsection shall be expended for the sole purpose of providing, maintaining, and managing"; and inquired how is staff interpreting it. Ms. Busacca advised the Policy was put into the Comprehensive Plan to permit the Board to set up either parks and recreation impact fees or a payment in lieu of; neither of those programs have ever been established by the Board; that is why the Policy says "may acquire lands, funds or both"; and it was the intent of the Policy that should the Board do that, these criteria would be included within either of those programs. Chairman Carlson inquired how could the County best pursue that if it wanted to acknowledge what it is in the Comprehensive Plan; and requested staff provide a report on what the County would have to do to put this into place. Commissioner Higgs noted it could be parks impact fees; with Ms. Busacca responding it would be one option. Commissioner O'Brien requested staff give the Board direction on what steps it needs to take to follow the Plan.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he thought he made a motion that the Office of Natural Resources Management (ONRM) was going to be an integral part; but the information reads, "The approved map and open plan will be filed with the ONRM"; it appears it is actually approved before it is filed; he would like language included, "with the approval of ONRM"; and ONRM needs to be fully included. Chairman Carlson stated the ONRM should be conferred with in most things. Commissioner Scarborough stated Page 8, Item 3.C., states, "Failure to adequately maintain the undivided open space in reasonable order and condition constitutes a violation of this ordinance"; he understands when somebody violates an ordinance it is a violation and the County will send notice; and inquired what does the County do when there is a violation. He requested the County Attorney look into it and provide a suggestion to the Board. Chairman Carlson stated the County has talked about different processes to take on management of properties, whether it is fee simple or whatever; and inquired is it more prudent to make it a requirement that the open space come to the County, and that way it has control and can landbank it. Commissioner Scarborough stated the County is going to run into problems, particularly if it goes into the agricultural element; everything was going fast and he was concerned about experiences he has had in his District where it has not worked; but there may be a mandatory homeowners association and recorded deed restrictions; and inquired how the County may have standing in dealing with deed restrictions as not all deed restrictions get the County involved. Commissioner Higgs stated the County does not want to be the responsible party for managing all the land; there are some subdivisions which will feel parochial about their open space and will want to manage it; it is an option, but not a requirement; and inclusion of the homeowners is a good idea.

The meeting recessed at 2:30 p.m. and reconvened at 2:40 p.m.

Doug Sphar stated the development industry is like Newton's first law of motion, that is they tend to develop the same way unless acted upon by an outside force; developers and institutions that finance them ask the question, "why should we finance to build an open space subdivision when we have a sure money-maker with a classic cookie cutter project"; the top motivator for developers and their investors are return on investment and how soon they receive that return; and the County has not presented any comprehensive business cases that demonstrate the potential for greater return on the investment and the ability to get that return sooner. He noted nationwide there is evidence that homebuyers will pay a premium to live in a open space subdivision; he has friends in Suntree who paid a $1,000 premium for a townhouse that backs up to a preserved wetland; the Open Space Subdivision offers compact infrastructure, fewer square feet of pavement, fewer linear feet of utilities; etc.; and the County should offer incentives in the form of special zoning treatment and streamlined project permitting. He noted this brings the developers and investors the quicker return on their investment; perhaps tax incentives should be considered; most of the factors with economics could be illustrated in a few business cases; and the next step is to provide the motivation for developing an open space subdivision.

Mary Sphar stated the Open Space Subdivision Ordinance and the Critical Habitat Ordinance have been in the works for a number of years; on January 11, 1994, the Board directed staff to prepare a report to the Board on what steps would be required to complete Policy 10.2 of the Comprehensive Plan; this Policy states, "The County shall develop an ordinance which requires the critical habitat review be conducted at the pre-application stage of all projects requiring site plan or subdivision approval"; and it needs to be referenced in the Open Space Ordinance. She noted the County needs to consider now how the Open Space Subdivision Ordinance and the Critical Habitat Ordinance might be meshed in the future; for that reason, the Board should consider requesting written input from the ONRM on the version of the Open Space Subdivision Ordinance that will likely go before two public hearings in the near future; ONRM input could be especially helpful considering the Department's role in the Ordinance's development in the past; the Board should consider soliciting comments from the staff working on septic tank issues; and the County does not want the ordinance indirectly encouraging urban sprawl by requiring lots in rural areas to have sewer service because of lot size. Ms. Sphar provided information to the Board showing the upland open space without stormwater detention plotted against the percent of wetlands onsite; stated the County Ordinance is going to need modification as it was not interpreted as written; and provided an example of an open space subdivision ordinance and the different versions on a 96-acre parcel on the south side of Barnes Boulevard across from Cruickshank Sanctuary. She noted the information shows how different versions of the ordinance would compare on what is preserved, in particular, the upland open space without the detention; and that is where the scrub lies, the aquifer recharge is, and includes areas for trails and greenways. She stated when working around seven wetlands to buffer as they are on the parcel, it will leave some of the upland open space; even less is going to be preserved as scrub habitat; and the Board may want to think seriously on how much open space it needs to preserve. Ms. Sphar provided recommended changes to the Board.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Ms. Sphar agrees or disagrees with staff's philosophy concerning the larger lots and the sewer lines. Ms. Sphar responded she does not want the sewer lines extended to areas where it would encourage sprawl by extending them; the ordinance is tailored for the transition between the urban development and agricultural lands; and the County needs to be careful about extending infrastructure into those particular areas.

Commissioner Higgs requested staff get the comments from ONRM prior to the ordinance coming back. She inquired what is the status on the critical habitat ordinance.

Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer stated at the workshop on March 13, 2001, the Board requested staff return with an ordinance in 60 to 90 days; and it is going to try to adhere to that timetable. Commissioner Higgs inquired will it be at the end of May, 2001; with Mr. Peffer responding staff will try to get something to the Board in that time frame. Commissioner Higgs stated it would be good if the Board could see something at that time; additional work could occur in June, 2001; and the first reading could be in July, 2001. Chairman Carlson inquired if Mr. Peffer has reviewed the open space ordinance; with Mr. Peffer responding affirmatively. Chairman Carlson inquired has he provided input to it and the potential of how it might dovetail with the critical habitat study; with Mr. Peffer responding affirmatively. Mr. Peffer stated staff has worked with Planning and Zoning staff; he does not expect that it would be possible for the County to acquire all the critical habitat; therefore, it needs to allow some of it to be incorporated within developments; and without this ordinance, the County does not have a good way to try to set the habitat aside. He noted this is the first tool he has seen that the County is embracing which could provide that opportunity; and the two documents work very well together. Chairman Carlson inquired does Mr. Peffer see, as the process evolves to create the open space system that the Comprehensive Plan refers to, that the County should be moving toward it so that when it is looking at the possibility of someone applying the open space ordinance that the open space preserved on the property might fit with the open space plan. Mr. Peffer responded when staff tried to look at dealing with a particular type of open space, including scrub habitat, it ran into significant issues with regard to how does the County control that which is owned by private property; it still has that issue; it is not feasible for staff to bring to the Board a plan which involves specifically what can happen on the property and put together an open space plan in that sense without having certain tools in place, which it does not have; and staff is doing mapping now on habitats in Brevard County which will be a very useful tool in trying to tie all of these other things together, not just critical habitat but other natural areas of Brevard County, which can integrate into the greenways and trails. He advised all those pieces are being worked on now and are coming together. Chairman Carlson stated the County is heading down a path right now; and inquired is it going to evolve into something that it could go back to the Comprehensive Plan and say this is what it is trying to do which is create an open space plan so that when it is preserving and requesting individuals to preserve open space, it fits within a plan of some sort. Mr. Peffer stated to his knowledge, staff is not working toward developing that plan; but it is building a data base which, should the Board desire for staff to try to work with the various agencies and work in that direction, will put the County in a better situation to do that; and right now, he does not know of anybody who is putting together an open space plan.

Chairman Carlson inquired are the tools that need to be in place the tools the County is working under or does staff see some that are missing. Mr. Peffer responded the first step is nearing completion and will probably be completed within one year, which is the habitat mapping; it is the fundamental core layer and data base to work with; the County has the other tools it can pull from the Geographic Information System (GIS), such as where the infrastructure exists and where the existing development is, and work with the natural features and habitat mapping to produce an ideal; and whether it could ever be implemented is a long way from staff's current understanding. Chairman Carlson noted staff is getting close as it is going to have the mapping done within the year.

Clarence Rowe stated his concern is in reference to critical habitat; the Board has held numerous meetings pertaining to the scrub jay; there are federal funds to acquire habitat for the scrub jay; and he gets upset when developers come into the community, tear down things, and bury the gopher tortoises as they can pay for it. He noted Sea Ray was one of those companies that arbitrarily paid approximately $12,000 to run over gopher tortoises or bury them alive; he hopes the County can get to a greater degree of sensitivity in reference to its heritage; and hopefully staff can get together along with the different rules and regulations, and funds that are available to acquire these habitats, including the scrub jays, gopher tortoises, and any other alleged endangered species. He stated his other subject matter deals with the zero lot line; the Viera development on I-95 has houses very close together; if one house caught on fire, the other houses would probably go with them; and the Board needs to reconsider the zero lot line.

Chairman Carlson inquired does the County have zero lot lines; with Mr. Scott responding it has provisions that allow for it. Mr. Jenkins noted there are tradeoffs for those. Mr. Scott stated the point has been raised several times about the need for staff to review the ordinance with several other County agencies; staff has spent dozens of hours with ONRM in reviewing it; it also held internal workshops; and Land Development was integral in paring the ordinance down so that it would not duplicate many provisions that are in other sections of the Code. He noted staff was conscientious in that regard and in environmental health.

Commissioner O'Brien stated Page 2, A. 3. of the Ordinance includes, . . . "may be encouraged by the County Commission who are authorized to offer a density bonus for this express purpose. A residential density bonus, for providing private open space or publicly accessible open space may be up to 25% above the maximum density allowed in any residential zoning districts . . ."; he is concerned that in so doing, the County has overridden the public desire not to have that kind of density in an area where the infrastructure could not support that kind of density; he understands giving a developer a reason to have open space; and up to 25% is quite an expansion of the desire of the public that sat down years ago and created the Comprehensive Plan. He noted the concept was not there then that is here now; and inquired what is the County doing by giving this kind of incentive. He stated he is not saying to take it out or change it; and he is hoping the Commissioners will think about it individually.

Chairman Carlson inquired when the County is talking about increasing potentially the density by 25%, does it mesh with the Future Land Use maps; with Mr. Scott responding affirmatively. Mr. Scott stated the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) allows for up to 25% density bonuses to be enjoyed if certain innovative and creative designs are used; for many years, the Planned Unit Development (PUD) was the only avenue available to a developer to gain the extra density; and the open space concept is completely consistent with the intent of the FLUE to give certain density bonuses in those instances where, through the use of creative design, additional amenities, the mixed use, and those desirable land use patterns, if one is using them, they get the bonus.

Commissioner O'Brien stated one of his concerns begins with the 25% bonus; he has heartburn with it as it is substantial in his opinion; and other concerns are the minimum of 35% set aside land, which would include wetlands up to 50%, and that half of the open space can be wetland. Mr. Scott stated up to half of the 35% open space can be wetland. Commissioner O'Brien stated people do not normally enter wetlands, traverse them, and cattle cannot graze on them as far as he knows. Ms. Busacca stated wetlands can be used in open space; Via Tuscany Apartment Complex on Wickham Road has a large wetland in the middle of the property; it built around it and put a boardwalk into the middle of the wetland; and it does little to disrupt the wetland and is used as a nice amenity by the people who live there. Commissioner O'Brien inquired would the wetlands have been preserved anyhow under the County's present Ordinance. Ms. Busacca responded Via Tuscany Apartment Complex is multi-family that was constructed under the County's present Ordinance. Commissioner O'Brien stated language was deleted on Page 3, which stated, "At least the minimum 1% of the space shall be reserved as active space"; he would think the County would strongly encourage use of the property for active recreational area; and he would like the language put back in or add the language," . . . however, an active recreational area of 1.5% of the required open space shall be strongly encouraged." He noted he is not saying a golf course; and the 1%, to a minimum of 15,000 square feet, being strongly encouraged makes a place for a playground or community area where people can gather together to have a picnic or barbecue.

Chairman Carlson stated with some of the open space as recreational space, if a community owns the open space that they have set aside, they could put a playground on a piece of upland that is considered open space. Mr. Scott noted it has been changed to a passive open space subdivision ordinance; and the Board moved it in that direction a few meetings ago.

Ms. Busacca stated Policy 4.2 of the Recreation Element talks about neighborhood and parks as part of new residential development; staff has been asked to put together an implementation plan to explain it; and it may be the direction the Board wants to go.

Chairman Carlson stated the question is if there is a development and it includes a playground, it would not be used as a credit toward any open space. Mr. Scott stated that is correct; a developer could provide active recreation once they have already satisfied the passive open space requirements of the ordinance; and the ordinance would not stand in the way of a developer providing that amenity, but it would have to be above and beyond the ordinance.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, to include language, "however, an active recreational area of a minimum of 15,000 square feet of the required open space shall be strongly encouraged" on Page 3.

Commissioner Scarborough stated rather than have precise language, staff could come back to the Board as it is talking about different types of activities; as the activity gets more intense there could be percentages; and staff can review it and give the Board suggestions. He noted building a golf course has a tremendous impact on the community as it uses a lot of water, herbicides, and fertilizers; the County says it is open space, but it is not the same thing as leaving things in a natural state; and the County needs to be careful where it goes with this. He noted the Board had an extensive discussion of whether it wants to go to silviculture and what type of agriculture; this is part of the same discussion; if it does not adversely affect the quality of the environment staying natural, the County is probably right; but there are a lot of little things in between, and staff can provide the information to the Board. He inquired if there needs to be a motion to get the report; with Chairman Carlson responding staff can provide a report and appropriate language to the Board. Commissioner O'Brien reiterated his desire to insert appropriate language on Page 3. Commissioner Colon stated she agrees with Commissioner O'Brien; if the County is able to encourage more subdivisions to have recreational areas, it provides more of a family atmosphere; and it is positive. Chairman Carlson stated it would help to define passive and active recreation.

Commissioner O'Brien stated Page 3, B. 4. states, "Stormwater facilities may be included as part of the minimum required open space. No more than 30% of the open space shall be used for stormwater management facilities." He noted 50% of the open space can be used for wetlands which, by law, they have to mitigate 10:1, 5:1, or whatever; in stormwater management they have to have a development property, which is 30% more; and they are up to 80% of the open space, which would have had to be accomplished anyhow.

Mr. Woolwich provided an example to the Board showing a 100-acre site, wetlands, development area, stormwater in the development area, and stormwater in the secondary open space, which is the upland open space. He stated the stormwater requirement could be 10 acres; seven acres of that stormwater could be split out of the situation; and no more than 30% of the required stormwater could go into the secondary open space. Commissioner O'Brien stated the language reads, "No more than 30% of the open space shall be used for stormwater management facilities." Mr. Woolwich stated it is one of the amendments staff talked about earlier that needs to be clarified in the sentence; and it needs to make sure it says secondary open space and not general open space. Commissioner O'Brien inquired is staff saying that only 30% of the required stormwater retention can be placed in secondary open space; with Mr. Woolwich responding affirmatively. Mr. Woolwich noted the remaining stormwater that cannot go in secondary open space has to go into a development area; and it might affect the lot yield. Commissioner O'Brien stated it would also be an incentive to create cluster design as 30% of a stormwater land use for stormwater storage can now be shifted into the open space set aside. Mr. Woolwich noted it would be in the secondary open space only; it was part of the balancing act staff had to do to provide minimum incentives to get the clustering and design concepts; and right now a lot of the open space in conventional subdivisions is either preserved wetlands or stormwater retention facilities. Commissioner O'Brien noted that one sentence is misleading; and requested staff correct it. He stated Page 4, 1. B. states, "Safe and convenient pedestrian access to the open space from lots not adjoining the open space shall be provided (except in the case of farmland or other resource areas vulnerable to trampling damage or human disturbance)"; if access is not provided that approaches the open space, and the use of the land changes from farmland to woods, people who should have had access 20 years ago still have no access; and nothing has changed, except that the open space land is no longer used for farmland or other resource areas. He noted if those two categories go away, the designer of the development has already utilized his space to make every parcel he can without leaving any kind of access, street, sidewalk, greenway, walkway or anything else for the people on the other side of the street.

Mr. Jenkins inquired is Commissioner O'Brien indicating the County should have the access regardless; with Commissioner O'Brien responding affirmatively. Ms. Busacca inquired would it be possible with a management plan in place that the farmlands would then convert to something else; with Mr. Scott responding that is the intent. Mr. Woolwich stated the management plan could change over time; the management plan can come back in and be re-evaluated; and one is not precluded from the design in a residential cluster from designing the layout so that eventually there can be the interconnectedness. Mr. Jenkins noted Commissioner O'Brien is saying to reserve the access. Commissioner O'Brien stated the reserved access has to be there; and it can be deeded back to the homeowners association or something.

Commissioner O'Brien stated Page 5, D. 3. states, "If development must be located on open fields or pastures because of greater restraints in all other parts of the site, dwellings should be sited on the least prime agricultural soils, or in locations at the far edge of a field, as seen from existing public roads"; noted it would be nice if developers said they want to build the development amongst the trees and give shade to the residents; the County should encourage developers not to go in with bulldozers and flatten everything out; but it is saying put the dwellings on the edge of the woods, field, or on the edge someplace else where they bake in the sun and die in the heat. He stated the County's other Ordinances say trees are needed for shade to decrease air conditioning cost and conserve; and this is the antithesis to the County's previous concerns about shade.

Mr. Woolwich stated the intent of the criteria is to deal with the County's rural areas; if there is an open field situation, the siting of the house lots need to be such that the view of the field when coming through the rural area is not obstructed by a row of houses; if development is allowed on the site, the view from a rural roadway perspective and character will be preserved if the houses are further back in the field; and some of the County's prime agricultural soils are in the field and pasture areas, which should be protected; so houses should not be placed in the middle of them.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the previous language on Page 6, D. 12. stated, "Provides active recreational areas in suitable locations that offer convenient access by residents and adequate screening for nearby house lots"; such language was deleted; and requested it be put back in. He stated Page 7, E. 2. states, "Proposed single family lots that directly abut an existing single family subdivision . . ."; the object is to have them mirror the type of structure that is across the lot line; and inquired what happens if at the lot line, behind it are homes that are 1,000 square feet or less, and they want to build structures that are two stories high and can be up to 1,800 square feet. He inquired suppose the subdivision is better than the structures they try to mirror, including the lot size, layout or whatever. Mr. Scott stated the lots coming in can always be bigger. Commissioner Higgs noted that is not what the language says. Commissioner O'Brien noted the flexibility needs to be in there; and if the lots are bigger and the structures are taller and better, then it is okay. Commissioner O'Brien stated Page 8, F.2.B. states, "The lease shall be subject to the review and approval by the County Manager, or designee. Any proposed transfer or assignment of the lease shall be reviewed and approved by the County Manager . . ."; he feels strongly that the open space should not become government property and should remain the property of the homeowners association; and since it is their property, any proposed transfer or assignment of the lease should go through the homeowners association. He inquired where does government stop intruding into the lives of everyone; stated the homeowners associations can take care of their own problems; he is concerned about these kinds of statements that drag the County back into situations when it should be getting itself out of them; and it is not the route Brevard County wants to go and it should still be private property.

Commissioner Scarborough stated it would be if the owners wanted to lease it; if they did not want to lease it, the lease would be reviewed in light of the management plan; the County has given them several options on the ownership possibilities; and the County does not want to be actively involved and plans to lease or contract with someone else to be in charge of the property. He noted it needs to make sure the lease reads similar to what the management plan is. Mr. Woolwich stated it would be consistent with the requirements of the management plan. Commissioner O'Brien requested Mr. Woolwich's language be included in F.2.B. on Page 8.

Commissioner O'Brien stated Page 8, F.2.C. states, "An owner may transfer open space to a private or nonprofit organization, whose purpose is to conserve open space, farmlands, and/or natural resources, provided . . ."; the owner of property in a situation like this would have to be the homeowners association as each person owns his or her house and property individually; the owner cannot transfer open space; and it has to be the association. Commissioner Higgs noted unless the owner divides the open space parcel, as some have, into separate ownerships. Commissioner O'Brien stated they cannot do that because under the Open Space Subdivision Ordinance, the County is saying the subdivision being built requires 35% open space; in dividing the subdivision in three parts, there would be three separate open spaces; and there could not be a subdivision of the open space and still be in compliance with the ordinance. Ms. Busacca stated it could be approved under the subdivision and shown on the plat that the transfer has gone to The Nature Conservancy or some other group.

Mr. Woolwich stated the ordinance requires that the open space that is so designated needs to remain undivided in perpetuity; if there is a situation where a homeowners association may work out a relationship with a land trust or a nature conservancy, that land needs to remain in open space undivided, but the management and/or maintenance responsibilities could be transferred to a conservancy or a land trust. Commissioner Higgs inquired could there be joint owners with undivided interest in the open space; with Mr. Woolwich responding it may be an option and is not precluded by the ordinance. Commissioner Higgs stated individual homeowners could own the property, but as undivided interest; and there would not have to be an association. Commissioner Scarborough noted it gets tough; and he would like to have an entity that the County knows is responsible.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated he read a recent Supreme Court case where what was just described in terms of undivided interest was handed down from generation to generation; and they will be trying to figure out who owns what for the next 500 years. Commissioner O'Brien requested Mr. Scott work with Attorney Knox on suggested language. Commissioner O'Brien stated Page 8, F.3.C. states, "Failure to adequately maintain the undivided open space in reasonable order and condition constitutes a violation of this ordinance. The County is hereby authorized to give notice to the owner or occupant of any violation, directing the owner to remedy the same"; and inquired who is the occupant as it is open space, and would there be one occupant or would it be the owners. He requested staff clear up the language.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if there is overgrowth on the property and the owner or homeowners association does not clean it up, who does Code Enforcement fine; with Mr. Jenkins responding it is something staff needs to work on. Mr. Woolwich stated it would be the owner as identified in the management plan who is responsible for those activities. Mr. Jenkins stated there need to be penalties or something; with Ms. Busacca responding Attorney Knox indicated he will provide the information. Commissioner O'Brien stated it needs to be clarified; the County may want to look at deed restrictions to address maintenance of the open space, public access, and greenways; nowhere in the ordinance could he find that it says one cannot build a structure on the open space; and inquired if the County wants to look at keeping the open space where a playground or picnic table could be put up, but not perhaps a big building for a gymnasium for someone to teach ice skating. Mr. Jenkins noted it is tied into the recreation language that staff will come back with.

Commissioner O'Brien stated concerning deed restrictions, every homeowner should have something that says when they buy a house, they should be aware that the restrictions include their responsibility to the homeowners association and the open space. He inquired if they lease property to somebody, should the County upfront say that there must be a reverter clause; and if the lease expires, is not renewed, or something goes wrong in the deal, how is the property reverted back to the homeowners association or does the association worry about it themselves. Ms. Busacca stated they are back to having something that is contrary to the management plan, which brings the County back to the enforcement. Mr. Woolwich advised there is a requirement for a reverter or retransfer mechanism in the lease agreement; and it is included on Page 8, C.2. Commissioner O'Brien stated concerning access and homeowners association responsibilities, the County needs something more to strengthen it; he is cautious due to the County's past experiences; a developer may not want to give up his profitability to save open space; and there are a few that would do that, but there are a lot more that probably would not. He noted he would like his comments addressed at the next reading.

Chairman Carlson requested staff look at the return on investment that Mr. Sphar brought up; stated staff has listed incentives; and inquired if staff has looked at other zoning codes and those kind of incentives. Mr. Scott stated staff can design something like that for in-house use; and it wants the ordinance to be advertised, promoted, and used. Chairman Carlson requested staff put something together for the Board to review at the next reading. Chairman Carlson stated there have been a lot of difficulties with compatibility in her District where lot lines are abutting lot lines, and different densities; unfortunately, what the County has seen through the rezoning effort is it can make sure the compatibility exists, but on existing, already zoned properties where the densities are already in place, there are problems because one cannot put any buffer in there; and inquired what has staff put into the open space ordinance that provides for buffering on all sides of the community. Ms. Busacca stated if the Board would like information about how to buffer entire subdivisions, staff can provide it. Chairman Carlson noted she wants to know how it applies to the open space ordinance and how it can be applied to all subdivision site plans.

Mr. Woolwich stated the ordinance requires perimeter buffering; and the development has to be interior to the site.

Chairman Carlson stated Commissioner O'Brien brought up the issue about land clearing and clear-cutting; the Board requested staff bring back a report on what other options the County has besides clear-cutting; and inquired when is the information coming back. Ms. Busacca responded the report will be submitted to the Board in 30 days. Chairman Carlson inquired based on the compatibility issue and the pre-construction conference, where does ONRM come into the process; her question was the waiver that can come in and land clearing when talking about scrub jays and their nesting periods; and ONRM can come in before the pre-construction conference and provide a waiver for land clearing so someone can move ahead in their project. Ms. Busacca responded ONRM is part of the pre-application conference before the land clearing permit is provided; they can only implement what staff has on the books; and she is not aware of any ordinance requirements that prohibit clearing of scrub during certain times. Chairman Carlson stated if it is known to be scrub habitat, the waiver is given, and somebody clears the trees so there is no nesting that is going to occur, it is being counteracted. Ms. Busacca stated if the Board would like to include that kind of regulation in the Land Development Regulations, staff can do that. Chairman Carlson requested staff provide a report to the Board on how it could do it.

Ms. Busacca inquired does the Board direction include permission to advertise the ordinance as discussed today. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is concerned about advertising without taking the issues back to the Board; perhaps it could be placed on the Board's agenda; there are a lot of ideas that he is uncertain where he wants to go; and he would like to discuss it as a group. Mr. Jenkins advised staff will bring a report back to the Board. Commissioner Scarborough stated what the County advertises is critical; and he does not know where he wants to go with the advertisement yet. Commissioner O'Brien stated perhaps staff could include proposed wording for the advertisement.

Mr. Jenkins stated staff will bring back some ideas, language, options, and explanations to the Board in approximately 30 days.

Chairman Carlson stated the Board has had a lot of workshops and a lot of things have transpired; a lot of directives and action items have been created; and requested staff provide each Commissioner with a list of the action items as they occur after each one of the workshops.

Commissioner O'Brien stated tomorrow is Good Friday and Sunday is Easter Sunday for the Christians; it is Passover for the Jewish community as well; and wished everyone Happy Easter.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 3:55 p.m.

ATTEST: __________________________________
SUSAN CARLSON, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
______________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)