MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

February 3, 2009

 

 

 

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on February 3, 2009 at 9:02 a.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida.  Present were:  Chairman Chuck Nelson, Commissioners Robin Fisher, Trudie Infantini, Mary Bolin, and Andy Anderson, Interim County Manager Stockton Whitten, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

 

 

The Invocation was given by Pastor Jeff Hoy, Faith Fellowship Church, Melbourne.

 

Commissioner Anderson led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve the September 4, 2008 Special Meeting Minutes and October 28, 2008 Regular Meeting Minutes.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated she would like Cheryl Howard with American Heart Association to come to the podium, along with Michelle Coleman Regional Director of American Heart Association.

 

Commissioner Bolin read aloud a Resolution proclaiming Friday, February 6, 2009, as Wear Red Day.

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to adopt Resolution proclaiming Friday, February 6, 2009, as Wear Red Day in Brevard County.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.   

 

Cheryl Howard, representing the American Heart Association and Wuesthoff Heart Center as a volunteer, stated she is a survivor of heart disease; and the American Heart Association greatly appreciates the County’s Proclamation of Heart Month and Wear Red Day in support of Go Red for Women as it is much needed in the community.  She stated as the Proclamation said, cardiovascular disease is the number one killer of women and all Americans; however, cardiovascular disease can also be prevented; and fortunately the American Heart Association has programs such as Go Red for Women to help empower people to take proactive steps to lead to stronger, longer lives.  She advised people can make a difference simply by what he or she wears; choosing to wear red on National Wear Red Day this Friday, February 6^th will help heighten awareness among women about this National number one health threat; in the short time of the meeting today about one women to 60 will lose their lives to heart disease; that could affect someone a person loves and holds dear to them; and it is time to take action.  Ms. Howard stated she hopes the Board will join her this Friday, February 6^th in wearing red, a red dress, red pin, scarf, tie, paint nails, or wear a hair clip to help raise awareness in spreading the message about Go Red; she hopes the Board will also join her in adopting a healthier lifestyle as this is National Heart Month; she is passionate about loving her heart as she is living proof that it can happen to anyone at any age; she hopes that Go Red for Women will empower people to fight heart disease in women; and she thanked the Board for supporting Heart Month and Wear Red Day.

Interim County Manager Stockton Whitten stated staff has submitted to the Board a letter to its Congressional Delegation asking for its support of a stimulus package, and in particular asking for support of a listing of projects totaling $350 million from Brevard County; Mel Scott can give the Board more details on what the package or the criteria is going to look like; but right now this is a preliminary listing.  He advised he will distribute a revised listing because there was some duplicates on the listing that the Board received last week; but requested the Board’s support of some letter, either the letter that is before it, or some revision to the letter for support of the package and some listing of projects from Brevard County.

 

Assistant County Manager Mel Scott stated one wrinkle that he wants to make the Board aware of is next Thursday at the MPO meeting it will be receiving much greater detail as it relates to the stimulus package in its current form related to transportation projects; staff found really good news as it relates to that in that maintenance projects will be qualified, which means resurfacing; there is a great need in this County for resurfacing dollars; those are certainly all shovel ready; and that was good news for staff.  He explained additionally staff believes in its current iteration that the transportation dollars will be channeled to local MPO’s for its proportionate out; that is a structure staff is comfortable with and it has been well established here; and he wanted to make the Board aware of that as well.

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if the list has already been submitted or is it still being modified; stated the reason he is asking is that he had a meeting this morning with Judge Harris, and there was some conversation about the possibility at some point in time building a courtroom at the Jail; he sees it is on the list; but he is not sure of the dollar amount to actually do that; and he wondered if that dollar figure can be increased or if it has already been submitted.  Mr. Scott stated with the letter it is staff’s intention to have those kinds of details continue to come before the Board; the Board just needs to understand the themes that are presented in the list more so than anything; this list will remain a living document; as staff gets the details about how those monies are going to come down, that is when it will behoove staff to start to flush out the details as it relates to a specific list that would move towards construction; and this list is very much open for discussion and amenable to things like that. 

 

Mr. Whitten stated in that regard the letter can be revised to say the County will submit a listing of projects as opposed to attaching this particular listing if that is the desire of the Board.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated he thought staff was going to send a letter with this as the County’s possible wish list; and he is just saying if staff is doing that, is it possible to change those numbers.  Mr. Whitten stated staff can do that.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated the stimulus package was presented to the Board by the former County Manager; the Board has not had any input as to what goes into the list; she understands that some of the things have to be shovel ready; however, she would like to have a little bit of input because when the County is going to be spending $300 million it should have some discussion as to what projects are available to the County; and she would like to have an opportunity to get with staff to see which projects are shovel ready and maybe reprioritize some of them. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated to kind of translate what Mel said, the County is submitting projects in a process that does not exist; the Board has not been told how to do this, and there has been no direction other than to get a list; he does not think that any list submitted is wrong or right; and it is going to be an evolving process.  He advised his greatest fear is that by not submitting the package in a timely fashion, the State may at some point decide that whatever has been submitted to date is the list; while he appreciates that the Board needs to go through that process, he would also be hesitant not to send a list forward at this point in time; the Board can continue to modify; and the Commissioners can meet with staff and make some recommendations on priority.  He stated he would be afraid to send a letter just saying there is a list but it will not be sent until it is finished; this thing is moving so rapidly; the Governor is concerned with the whole process and not being timely; and it would be in the best interest of the County to forward this as a list at this point in time and continue to work it at this level.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she is not saying not to forward the list currently, she is just saying the Commission should be a part of it because the taxpayers will hold the Board accountable where the money is spent; and if she is going to be held accountable, she would like to have input into it rather than to have it just offered.

 

Commissioner Bolin inquired since the Board does not really know what the process is going to be like, will it be the decision of the people who review the stimulus which ones they want to fund even if Brevard County has a priority one on something.  Mr. Scott advised the feeling he has now is that they are still in the earmarking process where they are trying to get their arms around the big numbers that are going to be coming down to these local governments; that is why the list is still very much a work in progress as it relates to specifics; but it is also critical that Brevard County is sending a message regarding the potential scope that they should expect Brevard County would have shovel ready for this kind of economic stimulus.

 

Mr. Whitten distributed an email correspondence from Eddie Pauley, who is the Board’s Lobbyist in Washington, D.C.; he talked a little bit about the list; Mel is correct, it is a work in progress; there are no earmarks according to Eddie; but he suggests that the letter is a good idea and to continue to work with State and Federal Agencies because he believes that the formulas that are already in place may be those that are going to be used to divvy up the dollars. 

Commissioner Infantini stated she attended a meeting on Monday with the Florida Department of Transportation in Orlando; the funding for the stimulus package will go through existing organizations that already provide services; and from those organizations the Board will be able to prioritize.  She stated it is important as a County that the Board determines which projects are important within those sub-categories rather than just willy nilly going out there and throwing out a bunch of projects; and the Board should rank the projects it thinks are important.

 

Commissioner Anderson inquired if there is a separate process that will be coming to the Metropolitan Planning Organization; with Mr. Scott responding no, the list will go to them.  Mr. Scott stated the County has ranking processes and formulas in place and what staff would intend to do is take the big list and work that through that kind of process, which has established methodologies; every year before the Board goes through its MSTU package there is a ranking process; each Commissioner decides what makes sense for his or her district; and staff holds those things for the upcoming year.  He stated that is one small example of a process in place for a type of transportation improvement process that the County would funnel dollars through; of all of the capital projects, departments that oversee capital projects, have similar formulas and processes in place that ultimately drill down to that kind of priority list; and he sees this as a statement that Brevard County has this dollar amount.  He stated once that happens, staff would drill down using the processes and methodologies for each of those disciplines to actually allocate these dollars to those projects.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated when Commissioner Bolin and he went to Washington, D.C. one of the things that Obama’s space transition team said is that the President was looking for was something that was timely, targeted, and otherwise something that was ready to go that would stimulate the economy right away; at the end of the day that is what is going to get approved on this list; and the Board will have the opportunity to come back address them and decide what its priorities are.  He advised he would like to submit the list and come back as a Board at a later date and figure out what project is most important; but reiterated at the end of the day whatever projects the Board chooses to move forward with has got to be timely, targeted, and stimulate the economy right away.

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to authorize the Chairman to sign a letter to Senator Bill Nelson, Senator Mel Martinez, Representative Suzanne Kosmas, and Representative Bill Posey, requesting support of a list of projects ready for immediate implementation to be included in a comprehensive economic stimulus package that would aid the Country and County in boosting the economy, creating jobs, improving infrastructure, and protecting the environment.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Deputy County Attorney Eden Bentley advised the County Attorney’s Office has one item to discuss under Reports, and Shannon Wilson is here to address it.

 

Deputy County Attorney Shannon Wilson stated she is asking for permission to file appropriate cause of action, which may include breach of contract, foreclosure, as well as specific performance; it relates to a Code Enforcement lien that was brought against the property at 450 Canaveral Groves Boulevard, Cocoa; and the County Attorney is asking to bring cause of action regarding past owners John Shinkle, Miriam Parissien, and Frederick and Sherry Rippon.  She advised this arose when there were liens brought against the property owners with respect to sanitary conditions and liter on the property; the owners failed to correct the violation; Mr. Shinkle and Ms. Parissien then sold the property to the Rippons; it was sold with an escrow agreement; and the escrow agreement provided that if the buyers failed to remedy the Code violation within a specified period, the escrow agent would release the funds to Brevard County for the payoff of the Code Enforcement lien.  She explained that has never been done; she is coming before the Board today to ask for the authority to file that cause of action; and unfortunately the Statute of Limitations runs out this weekend. 

 

Commissioner Infantini inquired why is this item coming before the Board a couple of days before the Statute of Limitations runs out; stated the Board needs a little more time to review this information; and this is the first she is being hit with this and she would like to review the documentation rather than make a snap judgment.  Ms. Wilson advised she is not sure she can answer that question; the County Attorney’s Office is just finding out about this particular cause of action; and the reason it was not brought forward before, she cannot answer today.  Commissioner Infantini advised there is another meeting on Thursday; and inquired if the Board can have the information so it can be discussed Thursday.

 

Commissioner Anderson stated he would feel more comfortable if he had that information and the determination can be made on Thursday.

 

Assistant County Attorney Kristen Dorsey stated Code Enforcement gave her the case about a year and one-half ago; she has been trying to work with the property owner and the attorney on this; only one portion of what the County Attorney’s Office is requesting to file on is running against the Statute of Limitations; and the other two actions the County Attorney’s Office still has time to file.  She advised she has been trying to work it out; it still may be worked out as there are negotiations right now; but the County Attorney’s Office is asking for permission just in case. 

 

Commissioner Infantini inquired if she could bring it back on Thursday so the Board will be better informed on a decision like this; with Ms. Dorsey responding affirmatively, and stating if the Board decides not to act it will still have time to file the Breach of Contract action and the foreclosure action; and hopefully it can be worked out by tomorrow.

 

Chairman Nelson stated what the Board is doing is simply protecting the public’s interest in this issue that has been ongoing for some time; he does not want to get buried in the middle of all of the detail of that; this is a Code violation that goes back; the Board cannot rehear the whole case circumstances; and if it is just protecting the County’s interest and allows the Board to continue to have those discussions he does not know why the Board would not want to pursue that at this point.  He stated the Board always has the ability to in fact resolve it based on other information; but at this point in time he does not have a problem moving forward with protecting the public’s interest in this because a significant amount of staff time has been expended between Code and the Attorney’s Office.  Ms. Dorsey stated the current property owner has had the property for the past four years and the violations still remain on the property; he has had a long time to work through this; and even if the action has to be filed, maybe it will compel him to bring the property into compliance.

 

Ms. Dorsey stated the only action required today is for specific performance to ask the escrow agent to release the funds from escrow.

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to grant permission to the Code Enforcement Department, through the County Attorney’s Office, to bring a breach of contract action, action for specific performance and a foreclosure action, against a property owner for the purpose of recovering $24,453 in Code Enforcement liens.  Motion carried and ordered.  Commissioners Infantini and Anderson voted nay.   

Commissioner Anderson stated David Isnardi from his staff went with Ernie Brown and they inspected some drainage issues; there is a project running from Crane Creek and eventually going into the Indian River; he met with Watershed Programs Manager Virginia Barker, Robin Sprat the Engineer, and Greg Jones the Construction Manager, and got a real good overview of what is going on.  He stated it is an ongoing issue; it is connected with what occurred with Lamplighter; his staff got a good overview; and those guys are doing good work out there.    

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to grant final engineering and preliminary plat approvals for Houston Lane Estates Subdivision, subject to minor engineering changes as applicable.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to accept a Drainage Easement and a Sewerline Easement from Brevard Alzheimer’s Foundation, Inc.; and authorize the Chairman to execute a Water Line Easement and adopt Resolution in favor of City of Titusville.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to accept Sidewalk Easement from S & S Enterprises, Inc., located in Section 2, Township 25 South, Range 36 East, in District 2.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to grant permission to advertise for a public hearing to be held on March 10, 2009, to accept improvements and adopt the final assessment roll for the Morningside Drive Road Paving Municipal Services Benefit Unit; and authorize advertisement for the Uniform Method of Collection per Chapter 197, Florida Statutes.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve the Interlocal Agreement with the City of Melbourne for Intersection Improvement Studies to be performed at Wickham Road and Post Road, Wickham Road and Eau Gallie Boulevard, and Wickham Road to Aurora Road; and authorize the Chairman to execute the Interlocal Agreement and any needed Budget Change Requests necessary for this action. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to accept a Sidewalk Easement from Samahab LLC, located in Section 26, Township 27 South, Range 36 East, in District 5.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve the amended recommendation of the Community Action Board (CAB) to include the Brevard Achievement Center as a funded Community Based Organization; reduce previous agency allocations to fund this agency; and authorize the Chairman and/or Interim County Manager to execute the Agreement.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute an Agreement with Brevard County Legal Aid, Inc. in the amount of $256,500 retroactive to October 1, 2008 for legal services for indigent residents of Brevard County.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

                                             

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to grant permission to advertise for an administrative amendment to Summation Research, Inc.’s Economic Development Ad Valorem Tax Abatement Ordinance under the County’s Tax Abatement Program.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to appoint and/or reappoint Ayn Samuelson to the EELS Program Recreation and Education Advisory Committee, with term expiring December 31, 2009; Ayn Samuelson to the Metropolitan Planning Organization Citizens Advisory Committee, with term expiring December 31, 2009; Warren Price to the Suntree-Viera Parks Committee, with term expiring December 31, 2009; and Linda Wiggins Gaffney to the Suntree/Viera Public Library Advisory Board, with term expiring December 31, 2009.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve Bills and Budget Changes, as submitted.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to acknowledge the Brevard County Housing Finance Authority Financial Report for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008 and 2007.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Janis Walters stated her first observation on this item is that neither approval of a major event or establishment of County Policy should be done under Consent as there should be discussion and public participation.  She stated regarding Airfest 2009, she would point out that both prior Airfest’s were inadequately planned and executed with respect to liability insurance coverage, FAA waivers and notices, permitting, traffic control, and event safety procedures; the liability insurance certificate for last year’s event and the EAA standard application form show that the aerobatic performances and parachute jumps are specifically not covered; only the ground events were covered; the event violated the terms of its insurance policy; and inquired what if anything had happened.  She noted last year’s FAA waiver was only good for nautical miles around the Airport and from 1:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.; the low-fly activities began at around 7:30 a.m. and extended out six miles to her personal knowledge and possibly further; for the first Airfest a inquiry disclosed that there were not waivers at all; the Airfest auto traffic for two years has caused a nuisance and a hazard on the public roads; no measures were taken for its management by trained, qualified persons; and untrained volunteers were trying to direct the cars.  She stated the situation was chaotic and dangerous for vehicular traffic and foot traffic; ATV’s were transporting persons to and from the Airport entrance along the public right-of-way in violation of traffic laws; discussion at the Grant-Valkaria Town Council Meeting of January 14^th and the Special Town Workshop Meeting of October 29^th also disclosed air traffic control problems, crowd and separation issues on the airfield, and fuel and safety violations during Airfest 2008; the Board’s Agenda materials do not include any indication of who the event sponsor is, what activities are scheduled, or what preparations have been made to improve the event over prior years; and the Board should carefully consider the County’s exposure before making a decision.  She stated she is concerned that staff has misrepresented the position of the Town of Grant-Valkaria with respect to both the event itself and the traffic and parking issues in the Agenda Report; she assumed the Board received the clarified email written by the Mayor that she forwarded; and noted that there is no supporting documentation of staff’s statement in the Agenda Report.  She advised regarding County Policy and future Airport events, authority for Airfest approval should remain with the Board; staff states in prior year’s it relied on the Code of Ordinances for the authority to approve Airfests; Code Section 1881(3), now repealed stated, “No person shall conduct any commercial activity on the Airport without written permission from the County;” County is defined in 1836 as Brevard County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida; and to her that is the Board, not a mere employee Property Manager.  She stated also an Airfest is not a commercial activity; it is a major event involving several commercial activities plus exhibits, demonstrations, and aerial performances; Code Section 1838 still in effect states, “No person shall have a vested right to use Valkaria Airport or any portion thereof except to such extent as the County may grant herein or any permit granted by the Board or County Manager or designee; as long ago as 1995, the Board made it clear that major events such as the Dumbo Drop incident, which involved several hours of low flying over the Valkaria area needed to come to the Board for approval; Mr. Jenkins at the time stated that a policy was being prepared to address such issues; and the magnitude of the event should determine where the authority should lie.  She inquired where the Policy is that lays this out; stated she has been trying for some time to get documentation of delegation of authority from the Board to staff to approve such major events but has received nothing; and this leads her to believe that staff in fact lacked the proper authority and should not have approved the first two Airfests without first coming to the Board.  She advised staff has already issued a County Letter of Authorization for the 2009 Airfest to the Town of Grant-Valkaria and is now asking for the Board’s approval after the fact; staff is also asking that future authority be delegated to them claiming an Airfest is in the same category as a parade, march, or public assembly, it is not; and parades, marches, and public assemblies remain on the ground and on the public streets or inside the bounds of other public property such as a park.  She noted Airfest activities pose a nuisance and a hazard to life and property far beyond the Airport; the two previous Airfests have had serious problems with road traffic, air traffic, crowd safety issues, violation of the FAA waiver last year, no FAA waiver the previous year, and violation of the terms of the liability insurance by having parachute jumps and aerobatics; a County Property Manager should not have authority to approve events with serious risks and impacts that extend beyond the boundaries under his or her control; and that should be reserved a higher authority, the Board, with the opportunity of public scrutiny, with property consideration given to all affected parties and with adequate documentation of the scheduled activities and participants, provisions for insurance, waivers, traffic control, and so forth conspicuously missing in the Agenda materials today.  She explained that both previous Airfests have failed in these elements because the decision was not referred to the property authority, the Board; and the people elected the Board to look out for their health, safety, and welfare and not the Property Managers.

 

Curt Lorenc stated the Board is being asked today to approve the upcoming Airfest without any documentation; the Board is also being asked to delegate the authority to the Airport Manager to approve future Airfests; an Airfest is inherently dangerous; it is noisy and disrupts the community; and when there are 4,000 people attending, and a plane goes down into the crowd or there is an accident, there is a catastrophic problem.  He advised that last year’s Airfest had many safety concerns and issues; it was one of the most dangerous Airfests that he has ever witnessed; there were many complaints; one of the things that really concerned him is there was aerobatics over the community and houses and there was no insurance; aerobatics is the highest risk type of activity in an Airfest; and if that plane has some sort of a failure and goes down into the houses there is a catastrophic effect.  He explained one of the things he is concerned about today is the deception by staff and the Airport Manager; and inquired why the Board is being asked to approve an Airfest when he has already written a letter approving it several months ago.  He inquired where all the documentations are; stated the Board is being asked to approve something and it has no idea what it is approving; inquired where is the safety plan, the assessment by Risk Manager, insurance, traffic plan, approval by police and fire, FAA waivers, notice to airman filed with the FAA, who are the vendors, who will perform, and will there be enough toilets for the crowd; and stated these are many issues the Board should be considering.  He stated one of the other issues the Board may want to consider is the people putting this event on is not Brevard County it is a flight club; they have no assets; and inquired if there is damage to the Airport property should they be made to file a bond to protect the County.  He stated when there are the lives of 4,000 people attending an Airfest, the Board really needs to give this careful consideration.  He distributed a handout regarding the ACLU and delegation of authority.  He advised the handout appears on the ACLU’s website; this is when the Airport Manager was asking for delegation of authority to issue trespayss warnings; they had a problem with that and wrote the County a letter with a position; and once again the Board is being asked to delegate authority on an Airfest, which is a similar situation.  He noted ran right he thinks an Airfest is fine, but the County had two very dangerous Airfests; the County is going to have another one; this year they want to add drinking to the mix as they want to sell alcohol out there; and this needs more discussion and should not be approved today.

 

Joe Cross stated most of the previous statements are jaded and fraudulent; he was recently staffed by the Airport Authority down there and Steve Borowski as the Manager of this air show in recognition of their growth from 2,000 to 4,000 people at their air shows.  He stated the main thing he wants to address is the safety issue; he was a volunteer down there last year so he is aware physically and mentally of what was in progress and what was accomplished; in the FAA world what is called an aerobatic box is 1,000 feet across the runway; it is 5,000 feet long; and in this case goes to 6,000 feet.  He stated his background is air show productions; in an aerobatic display there are certain conditions at that altitude that the airplane flies in that is called an aerobatic as opposed to just a sharp turn or formation flying; formation flying can happen anywhere over any air space; and there was no one in the second year that he was involved and there will be no one this year performing an aerobatic function outside that air box.  He stated those gentleman are trained professionals; they know what they are doing; and they respect their lives as well as the life and safety of those they are flying for.  He explained the Grant-Valkaria documents themselves say the Board has 10 days and in one case five days to submit all of the documents, FAA waivers, liability insurance vendors, tax id’s, etc.; it is all in the process and the Town Manager is aware of that; and they are all well within the reality of those regulations imposed by the governing body of Grant-Valkaria.  He stated as far as traffic control, it is not as bad a some traffic situations; it has been rectified, new parking, overflow parking, there is traffic control individuals assigned to that; it is a whole different picture and show format; and there will be lights on the road, safety vests, and everything in place.  He advised the FAA is on the sight; and FAA has a representative there who controls, so if there are any issues he can shut down the show until the issue is corrected.  He stated the fuel has now been moved out of the main area, it has moved into an isolated area; there will be people in that area during fueling process; there are no aerobatics going on while people are in the air; and it is all segregated and isolated.  He stated a person is 99.9 percent safer in an aviation situation than driving from this meeting.  He stated as far as the Airport management, he does shows in Ocean City, Maryland, Atlanta, Georgia, TICO, Houston, Texas, and this one is 5,000 population; the airport manager is the one who approves this as it is his job; he knows the aviation industry; and therefore, that is why he is there accordingly. 

 

Leroy Rotgers advised he did not wish to speak.

 

Linn Walters stated he does not believe that every request for an activity in one of the parks comes before the Board; he would hate to think that was taking up all its valuable time; he believes the County Manager ought to be able to sign off on a permit; and Mr. Borowski’s boss is that mere County Manager.  He noted he does not understand why this is a problem; it is the County delegating its authority to its staff; and he wished the Board luck.

 

Chairman Nelson stated he did want to answer one question that Curt had raised and that was why is the Board here; as he was looking at questions related to this, he felt there was a need for clarification and he had suggested to staff that it was appropriate to resolve that issue by getting Board direction; and that is why the item is before the Board. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she attended the Airfest last year; she was there for about five hours; she did not encounter any traffic problems; there were a lot of cars; it seemed well directed, there was a huge parking lot, people were shuttled back and forth by bus, people waited for his or her turn to get back and forth to the parking lot, and it was a lot of fun; and she thought it was a very well ran venue.  She stated the Board was discussing the Birding Festival and how people travel from all over; she knows people travel from all over because that was her first day out trying to gather signatures to get on the ballot; she spent hours getting signatures; and most people she asked was from England, Indian River County, or Orlando.  She advised people came from all over the world to attend this; and if the County is trying to promote tourism, she would suggest to the Board that now is not the time to start banishing airfests as people travel all over to go to these.

 

Commissioner Anderson stated this is a great stimulus for economic development that is needed throughout the County; the FAA is onsite; he has full confidence that it is monitoring any aircraft situations out there; and the County has a very competent Airport Manager.  He advised he will support the item.

 

Commissioner Bolin stated the comments from Commissioner Infantini and Commissioner Anderson echo exactly her thoughts; the event is wonderful as she has been attending for many years; and she thoroughly enjoyed it.

 

Chairman Nelson stated his comment is not about the Airfest itself and whether or not it should be approved, it is about the process; Parks and Recreation has a rigid and structured approval process, which protects the County; and he is not sure the Board has implemented a lot of that.  He inquired if there are policies and procedures along those lines; with Assistant County Attorney Morris Richardson responding actually the first year this happened it was before the Town had incorporated, actually the Town had incorporated but the County was still doing the permitting, and the County ran the special events permitting, so it was a very stringent process; 14 departments had to sign off on it, everyone from insurance to fire and everyone else; the next year the Town of Grant-Valkaria handled all that; and frankly a lot of the concerns raised by the first few folks are issues that are addressed in that permitting process; and now Grant-Valkaria has the permitting authority and goes through that same checklist, which it derived from the County.  He stated as far as the insurance requirements and all that, it is covered, it has been covered, and there is proof of insurance on file; and all those steps in place either previously through the County’s permitting or now through the Town’s.  Chairman Nelson stated there is a technical piece of that where the County deals with Towns, and he will use Wickham Park as an example; when there is an event at Wickham Park, a person still has to go through the City of Melbourne’s process; internal to that, for the protection of the County, there are processes; the Board has to be comfortable that it is going to be on County property; and that is one level and the second level is the adjacent town.  He advised it would be helpful to make sure that is in place; it is in the Parks Ordinance but he does not think it is in the Airport Ordinance; and that would be his only concern to make sure all of the safety issues raised are being addressed and that the County has a structure in place.  He stated worst case scenario, something bad happens, that is the first thing they want to look at in the litigation is what was the approval process and did the County do everything it was supposed to do.  He does not know if it is structured or written down; inquired if it is specific to the Airport; is there a specific event process for an Airfest; and stated it is in the best protection for the County to have that. 

 

Mr. Scott stated it is staff’s intention to move that forward; that is why another benefit of the Agenda Item is that staff is looking at it, recognizing what is in place, and the Agenda Item directs staff to take it that one step further.  Chairman Nelson stated his only suggestion would be to double check the points that were raised that those have been addressed.

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if the County is listed as additional insured on the insurance policy; with Mr. Richardson responding the County was the first year; stated he does not have the information in front of him for the second year; but the County will be this year.  Commissioner Fisher stated the County needs to have the FAA and all of those people on there to make sure there is proper liability coverage in case something does go bad; and from a legal standpoint the County is listed as additional insured so it would be protected from any type of lawsuits.  Mr. Richardson stated absolutely, that is going to be a requirement.

 

Motion by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Infantini, to approve the Valkaria Airfest 2009 to occur at the Valkaria Airport on February 21, 2009 (rain date 02-22-09) from 8:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.; and direct staff to clarify the Valkaria Airport Rules and Regulations to allow the County Manager or designee to approve future Airfests.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

EEL Manager Mike Knight stated in reference in the funds in particular, it is important to note that there is $200,000 that is budgeted under the EEL Program was budgeted prior to the application for the grant funds because staff was not sure it was going to get that funding from the State; subsequent to that a successful grant was awarded from the Bureau of Invasive Plant Management for $200,000 to cover the costs; and staff was just noting the additional $200,000 that was previously in the budget for this purpose.  He advised he does expect some cost overruns associated with the additional planting that is being required by the City; and in addition, in order to get the plan through the process, the City requested that the County mobilize equipment to the Islands on two separate occasions, which does increase the cost of the project to an estimated $30,000 to $50,000.    

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she has some concerns because in the Agenda Item she is seeing the total cost of $200,000 in one spot and then the EEL’s budgeted $200,000, yet when she looked in the body of the report it shows the costs are closer to $491,000; and then if she looks into another spot of the report it looked like it was a little bit less; and inquired if it is one-half a million dollars and what is the ongoing maintenance.  She advised when this Agenda item was originally approved the Board agreed to spend $4.4 million on property that was valued at less than $1 million; the Agenda package that was presented at the time that the Thousand Islands was presented, there was no cost provided for the maintenance and removal of the exotic trees; inquired if there is going to be enough money in the EEL budget because so much land has been purchased; and stated she frankly does not see where the County is going to get all of the money.  She stated she remembers a meeting she attended in September 2007 where one of the people from the Selection and Management Committee asked Mr. Knight if there is enough staff for maintenance, and he said there was not the funding and staff.

Mr. Knight stated the question at that meeting was will the EEL Program ever have staffing to complete all of the management, and his answer to that was no, that ultimately there will never be enough staff to do all of the work needed; but staff does the work it can with the resources it has.  He stated primarily throughout the history of the program the cost associated with exotic removal is historically covered by the Bureau of Invasive Plant Management; historically there has not been a lot of funding dedicated from the EEL budget directly to cover those costs because the State has covered those costs; the reference to the cost associated at the time of acquisition, it is impossible for staff to predetermine the exact cost of management on a property before it is purchased; and the primary reason for that is because there is only a limited amount of time prior to the County owning the property that an owner will allow staff to go out and assess the cost associated with that type of work.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated a lot of the children and families that came here in support of this project has stated that they loved going to Thousand Islands, camping, and canoeing around there, but she does not know if they are all aware that the Board is going to be eradicating all of the trees all in one fatal swoop; so many of the trees that are there are pines and peppers; and inquired if the people are aware that a good deal of the landscape will be taken down and that buffer will no longer be there.  Mr. Knight responded staff has had over a year of public meetings through the City of Cocoa Beach through its Land Management Committee; stated there has been a tremendous amount of support and concern associated with the removal of the trees; but keeping those trees on the Islands would be a contradiction to the operations of the EEL Program because the objective is maintain biological diversity.

 

Robert Day stated he is a member of the Land Management Committee and has worked with Mr. Knight and the EEL folks to develop the plan; the citizens are well aware that some of the trees will be removed; the patches of Australian Pines are located on the Islands, there are patches of them, they are not throughout; and it was designed with EEL as a phase program over several years to remove this and address the concerns of the citizens about removing the trees.  He stated there are some folks who live immediately adjacent to these properties that have petitioned them to remove the trees immediately; and that has been accounted for in the phased agreement that the Board has in front of it today.  He advised the City of Cocoa Beach and its residents have been looking to preserve the Islands for many years; they are fortunate in the mid 1980’s to have worked with the County to acquire the North Thousand Islands; this is the last piece of the South Thousand Islands that is in private hands; and he urged the Board to move forward with this item.

 

Commissioner Anderson stated in the Agenda packet it says no impact to General Revenue funds; inquired if the Bureau of Invasive Plant Management is going to take care of the exotics; and further inquired was there matching money from the EEL Program.  Mr. Knight advised he does not believe it requires matching funds; it is not even a reimbursement; the Bureau will fund the work; and the County just defines the project and the Bureau sends a contractor down and pays for it directly.  Commissioner Anderson inquired if the work being done will correct all the exotic invasive plants in that area; with Mr. Knight responding yes, but there will be follow-up treatments that will be required, as Commissioner Infantini pointed out there are additional costs associated with management in the future; the County will bear that cost internally; but the County is fortunate it gets free herbicide for the follow-up treatment from the Bureau of Invasive Plant Management.  Commissioner Anderson inquired if the follow-up treatment comes out of the EEL money or does it come out General Revenue; with Mr. Knight responding EEL money.

 

Chairman Nelson stated Commissioner Infantini made the comment about the appraisals, there were actually two sets of appraisals; as she recalls, it was a very difficult acquisition and the reason was that there was a potential for litigation because the City of Cocoa Beach had changed the Land Use Designation from a high intensity land use to a lower one; there were actually appraisals that exceeded the purchase price; the Board at that time weighed all of those factors; and it is easy to look at the one on the low side but there were also appraisals that were much higher than what the County ended up paying.  He thanked Mr. Knight and staff for going through a process with the City of Cocoa Beach; it was a lengthy and difficult process to get there; everyone has memories of Australian Pines, but the reality is they are not very good for the environment; and that is why they are considered invasive and why they are to be removed.  He noted the Endangered Lands Program and the Selection Management Committee actually has bitten its tongue and allowed this to be in a phased process so that the trees do not all disappear at the same time; it would have been cheaper and easier to do it otherwise; staff has listened to the citizens of Cocoa Beach and to the City Council and have been willing to do that; and it is a remarkable process to get where it ended up.

 

Chairman Nelson passed the gavel to Commissioner Bolin.

 

Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to approve the Thousand Island Conservation Area Management Plan under the Environmentally Endangered Lands Program.  Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Infantini and Anderson voted nay.

 

Commissioner Bolin passed the gavel back to Chairman Nelson.

 

 

Chairman Nelson inquired if his fellow Commissioners are opposed to maintaining the County’s properties; with Commissioner Anderson responding the Thousand Islands were not feasible to ever be built on; stated a developer would have spent more than he or she could ever recoup; and it is old history and he does not want to argue about it.  Chairman Nelson stated there was a Commissioner sitting here before him who voted to approve that purchase as well.  Commissioner Anderson stated he is not in support of the Program; he has been very vocal about that because he thinks a lot of people got rich from taxpayer money in the past; and the expenditures on that he will continue to scrutinize them.  He stated taxpayer money is taxpayer money; and he does not care if it is Bureau of Invasive Plant Management or the County General fund, it is still taxing.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated her objection was that Commissioners are supposed to follow their own policies; one of the policies states that it has to be disclosed on the Agenda Item has much the Board is going to be paying to maintain or purchasing a property; while the purchase price is always disclosed, the maintenance ongoing costs is frequently not disclosed; and if the Board is not going to know the total costs it should not be making the purchase.  She advised that is a process that needs to be changed so that if someone wants the County to buy his or her land, and these land owners she knows were dying for the County to buy their land, they would have given a little more time to inspect the land and find out the cost as the original estimate to clear off some of that was about $75,000.  Chairman Nelson stated it also includes free planting and other work so he does not think that it was apples to apples.

 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she only brought this before the Board because once again the costs of what it will take to maintain the property is not on the Agenda Report; this gentleman is going to give the County $1,500 to forever manage his mitigation land; and inquired if it is only going to cost the County $1,500 forever or is the County actually getting enough money from this person to be managing it.  Mr. Knight responded there is a management fee associated with the property; currently the standard is $500 per acre, it is a one-time management fee; that is just a product of the norm that the EEL Program utilizes along with if something is donated to St. Johns it is the same fee; he would share the same concerns that there are costs associated with these properties; however, these properties that are wetland properties in what is called the mega parcel or the lotted areas in the south require very little management over time because they are in part of an intact landscape that has very few exotic species; and largely over time the maintenance that will occur will be associated with prescribed burning, which is a very minimal cost to the County.

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to adopt Resolution and accept Conservation Easement in favor of SJRWMD on County Lands received as mitigation donation.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Bruce Moquin stated he realizes the item is on the Consent Agenda, but not being well versed in Government procedure he was concerned that there may be some 11^th hour motion; and if that is not the case, he has nothing to offer and would like the item to move on. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated his understanding that the Board is acknowledging the entry of the final judgment; and the County will not appeal and Mr. Moquin can leave here and work on his building permit.

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to acknowledge the entry of Final Judgment regarding Moquin et al v. Brevard County.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Curt Lorenc stated he has comments regarding previous Airfests; and it has nothing to do with the Agenda Item this morning.  He stated what he wants to make the Board aware of is that in 1995 there was a filming of a Disney movie called Dumbo Drop; that filming was conducted at Valkaria Airport; they had a huge aircraft, a C-123 military aircraft; there was no notice to the public; and that aircraft for an hour or more flew at treetop levels back and forth across the community causing absolute havoc.  He advised people with cattle had cattle breaking through fences, people that had horses and barns were spooked, there were children afraid to go outside due to the noise, and there was a large public outcry; many people came before the Board and what the Commissioners at that time said all large events out of Valkaria Airport would come before the Board; and Mr. Jenkins was tasked to develop a policy for that.  He stated there have been two very dangerous Airfests; the first one the FAA was not even notified, it was not out there; there was no notice to the public; there was a Russian military jet that performed at the first Airfest, and that same Russian military jet performed at TICO and crashed and burned; that fellow is no longer here; and that jet could have easily crashed and burned into a house at Valkaria.  He distributed an ordinance to the Board.  He noted the ordinance is highlighted; what is part of the ordinance is that no person shall conduct any commercial activity at the Airport without written permission from the County; the County is defined as a political subdivision of the State of Florida, that is the Board of County Commissioners; and last year’s Airfest should have come before the Board but it did not; it was clearly a commercial event, there was the sale of food, sale of airplane rides, admission was charged, exhibitors sold their wares, and it was clearly a commercial activity.  He stated it appears there is a violation of the County ordinance; what is asking today is there going to be a fair and impartial application of the County ordinance; is the Board going after people who have not been able to cut his or her lawn or did not pick up trash; there is a clear violation of the ordinance; and he would like to hear back from the Board if this is something it is willing to pursue.

 

Janis Walters stated she was encouraged earlier this morning to hear some Commissioners asking for more information from staff and presented in a timely manner in order for the Board to make better decisions; she hopes this is something the Board will continue to do; and she hopes at some point it will consider tabling matters until the information is gotten.  She stated she thinks the Board’s job is to make decisions for staff to carry out and not to ratify whatever staff puts in front of it at the last minutes with no documentation. 

Assistant County Manager Mel Scott stated special events are not considered commercial activities as defined in the Zoning Code and the Board’s Code of Ordinances; that is what makes them a special event; and the Code provision identified by Mr. Lorenc is incorrect.  He stated he wants to reiterate the Board direction that staff has received and that is that staff is going to be emulating the Parks and Recreation process so the ducks are absolutely in a row when these events occur; that will occur administratively; Indiafest and Vietnam Wall have tens of thousands of people attending special events that do not have Board involvement; the Board conveyed that authority and responsibility to staff; and staff has a check list, it has a job to do, and staff makes sure the job is done properly.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to execute Amendment to Settlement Agreement regarding the leasehold interest of the Billboard Lessee, to extend said Agreement, which was entered into in conjunction with the Pineda Causeway Extension and Realignment Project, for 12 months.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated he wanted to say something but he did not get the opportunity.  He inquired if someone was present from Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if this is a contract extension; with Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. representative Sergio Anchia responding yes.  Commissioner Fisher inquired what is the current scenario; with Mr. Anchia responding the situation is with the economic downturn they are dealing with this recessionary period like most businesses are; stated the overall objective is to bring digital technology for two sign sights to the County; and they need more time.  Mr. Anchia stated what it is, is a settlement in lieu of condemnation; they worked with the County in order to help expedite the Pineda Causeway Extension through the Public Works and the County Attorney’s Office; unfortunately, things took a dip in the direction nobody wanted; and they are trying to save jobs.  He stated they just need a little more time in order to execute the portions of the settlement agreement that will not cost the County anything.

 

Chairman Nelson stated in a nutshell they have two signs that were in the way of the construction.  Mr. Anchia advised one sign.  Chairman Nelson stated he is looking to relocate that or the County will pay for that; but their preference is to relocate; and the County has an ordinance that says it does not permit billboards in the unincorporated areas.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated he did not have a problem with replacing the signs; he is okay with extending the contract; he is just not comfortable with the County spending $70,000 to do it; and when Clear Channel finds a sight that is suitable then to do that.

 

Mr. Anchia advised there is a significantly larger amount of money in escrow; the Settlement Agreement was one-half a million dollars; they would like more time; and their intent is to replace this sight with two digital boards.   

Commissioner Fisher inquired if the County can spend the $500,000 or does it have to wait until Clear Channel finds a sight; and stated he would like to have the money released to the County as it might help the budget.  Chairman Nelson stated the County is paying not receiving.  Commissioner Fisher advised the money is tied up.  Mr. Anchia stated that is where the extension comes in to allow the time to work the other elements of the deal at which point they would gladly not take compensation; it was a settlement in lieu of condemnation; and the condemnation procedure would have taken a significant amount of time.  Commissioner Fisher stated the Board wants to allow him to put another billboard up, but the sight has to be found.  Mr. Anchia stated he would like to find a way around the obstacles in the Ordinance for them to either be able to build the two sights or come up with another option on existing billboards.  Commissioner Fisher stated he is probably a little different than some of the other Commissioners as he is okay with billboards; they have a place in certain locations and spots; and what he would like to do is get the County in the direction where the Board agrees to allow them to do a billboard but also to have access to funds.

 

Public Works Director John Denninghoff stated those funds are transportation bond proceeds so they would go back into the Capital Transportation Budget and would work towards one of those transportation projects; and they would not be available for General Fund use.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated he would like the funds released back into the transportation thing so the Board may be able to put that towards a project to help stimulate the economy; and that does not hold him up from the Board granting him a billboard sight at some point in time.  Chairman Nelson stated if he cannot find a location the Board owes him $500,000. 

 

Mr. Denninghoff stated the Agreement the County had with Clear Channel provided that the County would pay them a lump sum payment of $500,000, which is now being held in escrow, to allow for a subsequent option that could be exercised that would allow them to place two new billboards; there was a number of details associated with that, that would require Board action dealing with the ordinances and other matters; the specific sights were not spelled out at that time; it was left to them to be able to develop those sights, bring those sights to the Board for consideration, and all of the details associated with that; but the idea was should they be able to receive all the approvals necessary to install the two new signs, then the Board would be able to keep $430,00 out of the $500,000 and they would keep $70,000.  He advised if they cannot get the two signs in, then they would take the $500,000 plus the interest; as he understands the agreement, he does not believe there is an option in there where they would move forward, give the County the $430,000, and hope they can get the two sign locations at some time in the future.

 

Commissioner Bolin stated she wants to clarify; the Board talked about that clause being two new sights; Mr. Anchia talked about upgrading; and inquired if the Board is in an option negotiation where it is not two brand new sights but taking two sights and upgrading them.  Mr. Anchia advised it is not part of the written agreement, but they are more than open to discussing that possibility.  Mr. Denninghoff stated that is an item that has not been discussed, but staff could renegotiate the contract.

 

Assistant County Manager Heidi Denis stated this is an item that was brought back from last week’s Agenda; staff has pulled together some more details regarding what it does receive from this organization; particularly she would like to point out that the County received, through their assistance, $20 million after the 2004 hurricanes; and also they are working on a project to bring forth $3 million in State funds this year and comparable funds next year as well.

 

Commissioner Anderson inquired if some of the $20 million is FEMA money; with Ms. Denis responding yes.  Commissioner Anderson stated the County would have worked on it without that organization regardless. 

 

Natural Resources Management Director Ernie Brown stated without question the Beachwatch Program, which is an advocacy component of Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association (FSBPA) is a lobbying effort so that issue cannot be danced around; the reality of it is, in Brevard County in particular but Florida in general, beaches are a huge economic engine that staff relies upon heavily; that is why the Tourism Development Commission is deeply invested in this process; and to have someone that is dedicated and informed as it relates to all aspects of beaches, whether it be Federal, local, or State, is of great value to the County, not only in the past but in particular right now when things are very challenging.  He advised the TDC has carried this as a priority in the past; the County has supported it as it relates to the Beach Management Programs, but staff does have people who are familiar with processing FEMA projects and processing the money as it comes in and out; and the element that Debbie Flack is involved in as it relates to securing those and Legislative actions is where the benefit comes in.

 

Chairman Nelson inquired if the fund of this is the Tourist Development Tax and not property taxes; with Mr. Brown responding yes, that is correct. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated this is a lobbying fee and the County is already paying John Thrasher through the Southern Strategy Group $5,000 a month to lobby; this organization works with Mr. Thrasher; inquired if he is not able to lobby on his own; and further inquired if he is not, why is the County spending $60,000 for a Lobbyist in Tallahassee in addition to another $5,000 for one specific thing because she saw some of the other items that are called annual dues, which are really lobbying.  Mr. Brown advised that is a policy question that is beyond his purview; Debbie Flack for this particular Program is a specialist in beaches and has been very successful in ensuring that the economic engine locally has been able to continue; and staff has seen direct benefits from her efforts. 

 

Chairman Nelson inquired how much money has the County gotten from the State and Federal Government in the last number of years for Brevard County beaches; with Mr. Brown responding the $20 million that is in there is just from 2004; stated in excess of $100 million has been invested into the beaches; there is a direct return on the investment; and in some cases a 10 to one return on investment as it relates to tourism engine associated with that.  Chairman Nelson stated so the County is using the bed tax to pay it and getting hundreds of millions of dollars in return; he does not think it is a fair criticism of John Thrasher; he is not a beach guy; he does a good job at what he does; but there are specialty areas out there and county governments provide a lot of services. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she was not criticizing Mr. Thrasher, she was just saying the County already has a spokesperson up there for its benefit to the tune of $60,000 a year.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated one of the things he asks himself is if the County is getting a return for $5,000; there are a lot of people bidding for dollars on these types of projects; it is relationships; and inquired if the County has the right people in the right relationships who are able to ask these Legislators or the Federal Government to bring money back to Brevard, especially with all of the disasters.  He stated yes, the County has someone working with FEMA but if there is a relationship developed because of this association, it is worth the $5,000.  He stated relationships help get things done faster sometimes.

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve a $5,000 annual membership fee to the Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association (FSBPA).  Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Infantini and Anderson voted nay. 

Permitting and Enforcement Director Ed Lyons stated the Agenda item is to consider pulling a performance bond for the Waters Mark Subdivision; the bond will expire on February 5^th; and action either to extend or to pull the funds and to have the County act as the project manager is needed at this time.

 

Brent Woodson stated he met with Chairman Nelson November 13^th to try to make arrangements to get enough extra money in the tri-party escrow account to complete the improvements on the subdivision; he was hoping to have the new engineering finished and the estimates in hand by early December so he could be present before the final hour; but unfortunately due to unfortunate circumstances with his engineer, the new engineering drawings will not be ready until middle January, at which time he moved forward to get a new contract; and at this time staff does have a copy of the new contract to complete the subdivision. He advised in a write up for the Agenda items it appears only 20 percent of the infrastructure is completed, and that may be a little bit misleading; they put about approximately $1.3 million into the infrastructure before they actually applied for the bond; in actuality the completion percentage is probably about 65 to 70 percent completed; and the 20 percent is more reflective of the amount of the bond that they have actually drawn off of.  He stated he has a contract with a new estimate; they are just short of the 125 percent to finish up, it would probably be about 60 to 90 days of work; inquired if the Board will approve the bond in place; stated there is enough money in the bond to complete the subdivision with some overage in place, but just not the 125 percent; and further inquired if in lieu of the extra approximately 18 percent that he is lacking on the overage, to accept his contract to finish the work.  He stated the contractor has agreed to move forward and finish the work; he does not get paid his last draw until the Certificate of Completion is in place; in essence with that in place, the only one at risk would be his contractor; and he is willing to accept that risk because he feels comfortable with his estimates to finish the project.  He stated to recap, he has about approximately 107 percent of the cost to finish his job is in place; please keep in mind that they already have about $1.3 million into the infrastructure improvements before they bonded, so the actual cost of the infrastructure was closer to $2 million, not just the $600,000 that the Board saw that was originally in the bond; part of the reason the work stopped, as the first page of the Tri-party Escrow Agreement points out, that bond is in place to make monthly payments to the owner, so monthly payments can be made to the contractor; and when the County asked if they could stop work until they re-engineered the site, the contractor did not move forward with the understanding that he could not get paid for his work if he did not move forward.  He stated he wants to be able to finish his project; he has tried to raise additional money; this project has been funded by private funds; and with the downturn of the economy, people want to see roads going down something they can see before they put more money into that project.  He noted if the Board will allow him to move forward and let his contractor go back to work, that this will be cleaned up quickly.

 

Mr. Lyons stated the Code requires a bond of 125 percent of all infrastructure that would be required to complete the subdivision; the bond is there to protect those citizens who may purchase a lot once it is platted; a developer has two options; one to build the entire subdivision prior to platting, put all their money up, and build it as it is one parcel; and the other is to bond the project and then plat.  He stated each District has some platted subdivisions that have no infrastructure in them; the bond that they have chosen is a tri-party escrow agreement, which does allow for the developer to ask for draws like was mentioned; it is not necessarily 100 percent on a monthly basis; they are allowed to request it monthly; but it is based on the activity and how much construction has taken place.  He advised staff signs off that certain things have been finished; then the bank is allowed to release money to the developer to spend however; in this particular case, based on conversations he had with both Mr. Woodson and the contractor, more often than not a developer will have his own pot of money to at least cover certain draws; and then the draws will go back into that pot of money.  He stated it appears, based on his conversations, they are using this bond to fund the contractor, which has caused some problems; staff never told them to stop any work; staff did ask them to provide information because the bond did not meet the minimum of 125 percent, and asked for information on the bond; and at no time did staff direct them to stop working.

 

Mr. Woodson stated the purpose of the bond, it states very clearly on the first page, is that the owner is allowed to make a monthly request so the contractor can get paid on a monthly basis; they were given written instructions from the County that they would no longer honor the tri-party escrow agreement in making those monthly draws until they had put additional money into the escrow account; and although the language may not be specifically to stop work, they told them they would not be able to pay the contractor, and he does not have a pot of gold off to the side or else he would have finished the project by now.

 

Chairman Nelson stated what Ed is saying is that money is not set aside to in effect pay down the project; the money is set aside to ensure that the project is able to be built; they are able to request a reduction based on completed work, not to make payments; and that is the difference.  He advised if this were just a straight forward bond that bond would be in place during the entire project, and at the end of the project he would have paid for that bond; so the County is not his banker as that is what it has actually ended up being almost in the circumstance; and there is a difference.

 

Mr. Woodson stated the first page of the tri-party Escrow Agreement states very clearly that the escrow agent is authorized to pay a monthly payment to the owner so he can pay the contractor, so he does not know any other way to take that; and otherwise they would have just taken the money and finished.

 

Rick Waelti stated he is the site contractor; he is very confident in their numbers; they have backed out some sidewalks and some driveways; and they are doing construction in the common areas.  He advised as far as the 125 percent, the only instrument he has in his arsenal is to finance the last draw until the CC is granted, and making sure that last draw is at least equal to or greater than the 25 percent.

 

Chairman Nelson stated his difficulty is that this project has caused concerns with the adjacent property owners; there has been blowing dirt, and commitments that were made by the owner to the adjacent neighbors that have not been complied with; and it has been an ongoing concern.  He stated he thought it was worked out back in November, and the Board is aware of the unfortunate circumstances with Jake; but he does not know that the Board was supposed to do that within a week after that meeting; and staff was going to receive information to be able to review.  He inquired is there enough money; stated there is a concern whether or not the remaining money is enough to do everything that  needs to be done; this expires February 5^th; so the Board either has to extend or come up with some other solution; and he is reluctant to continue to extend.

 

Commissioner Infantini inquired when would the project be completed if Mr. Woodson is granted an extension; and stated she assumes he will not ask for a draw until he gets the full and final payment.  Rick Waelti responded they would structure it so that the last draw exceeds the 25 percent to retain; stated they would not be looking to collect that until a CC is granted; and they are trying to do the same thing they are just rearranging the logistics of it as far as the security for the County.  Commissioner Infantini inquired when would the work be completed; with Mr. Waelti responding 60 days.  Commissioner Infantini inquired if there is a 60-day extension granted, would all of the work would be completed; with Mr. Waelti responding as far as he knows, yes.  Commissioner Infantini inquired if he had a chance to review the contract to see that all of that work can be completed within 60 days; with Mr. Waelti responding it would be an aggressive schedule; stated he does not know how many forces they would be able to put on the site to complete that; and he does have two pictures of the site if the Board is interested to get an idea of what it looks like.  Mr. Waelti stated all of the underground work is done; none of the asphalt as far as curb, sidewalks, and surface infrastructure has not been completed so that is the amount of work they would have to do.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated the County would take over ownership almost of the project as far as finishing it out; inquired if it is in a foreclosure-type of situation; and further inquired if that is the case, how does that put the County from a legal standpoint if it has bonds on property that may be going into foreclosure.  Mr. Lyons stated the County would be taking over more as product manager not as an owner, and the County Attorney’s Office can address that.

 

Deputy County Attorney Eden Bentley stated that is an ongoing contractual obligation into the Code.  Chairman Nelson stated so in effect the County would finish and stabilize the site so it is no longer a problem to the neighborhood.

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if he is trying to withdrawal funds from the 637 to start finishing the project or does he have funds available to do that; with Mr. Waelti responding they have a draw that was requested in November that he is still waiting on.  Commissioner Fisher stated there is $505,000 sitting in escrow; and inquired if Mr. Waelti is going to draw some of that down to start finishing the roads.  Mr. Waelti responded they had put in for a draw through the month of September and was denied.  Commissioner Fisher inquired how much was the draw amount; with Mr. Waelti responding approximately $45,000.  Commissioner Fisher inquired what it was for; with Mr. Waelti responding it was pertaining to the line item for road construction.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if there is a fund to start the road construction process without a draw against the $505,000; with Mr. Waelti responding he would need to get that current and then be on a 30-day draw schedule.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if he is the contractor was originally contracted to this; with Mr. Waelti responding he is the original site contractor.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if he started the site work; with Mr. Waelti responding yes.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if he is paid current; with Mr. Waelti responding no.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if that is why he needs the $45,000 to help him get current before he goes any further; with Mr. Waelti responding yes, before he can go another draw period.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated whenever the County has bonds it is trying to keep at least 125 percent of the cost to complete within that bond, and right now it is not at 125 percent of cost to complete; and if the Board were to give him the $45,000, the County would be further in the negative.  She advised she would not be inclined to go forward to disburse any money and have him move forward on the project at this point.  Mr. Waelti stated he believes it includes the $45,000; in other words, that with the scope of work to complete bring them to about even; and there is not the 25 percent security.

 

Mr. Lyon stated he could not have said it better; they need the 125 percent; staff noticed that the original engineers estimate did not include a wall in it; and in this particular case that wall is structural as it is actually supporting part of the roadway.  He advised most subdivision walls are decorative and not normally included on the estimate so he understands how it got left off; but in this particular case there is a very large structural component that was left off of the original estimate and when that was noticed, staff did see that there was not sufficient funds to complete the project as submitted; and that is why the last withdraw request was denied.  He stated not that the work was not done, but the bond was not sufficient.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she did do a lot of research and she contacted the County Attorney and Planning and Zoning to see what draws was already taken and what performance was already completed, and at this time she is already facing a project in her own district where the project did not get completed and there is a shortfall in the money; and she is not looking to get into it in someone else’s district at this point.

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if there is a homeowners association; with Mr. Lyon responding those have just been platted; stated some of the lots are no longer in the ownership of the developer; that is why the Code is there that when they do plat they are allowed to legally begin selling those lots and change ownership; and that is why the bond is required to protect those citizens.  Commissioner Fisher noted he has a subdivision in his district that the lot owner and developer did not finish, and the County is now in the process of having to go back and finish us the gate; but it would have been
nice to have some protection against that.  He stated it sounds like the bond is giving the County some protection.

 

Chairman Nelson stated the County has reached a point where it is the crossroads; and if the Board continues down this path they could exhaust the money and not finish the project.  Mr. Waelti stated it is not their intent.  Chairman Nelson stated there are a lot of factors that could impact that; particularly with the wall circumstance where it is structural and staff has a significant concern that the County could find itself almost in their position, which is the County does not have the money to finish it; they believe at this point in time that they can finish the project; but there may have to be some minor modifications because of those walls. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated that is the only concern he has that if staff decides to take this on can staff do it for the $505,000, are modifications going to be made and those homeowners will not get what he or she thought they were going to get; and then those people would blame staff for the fact that they did not get what they were supposed to get. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated the less money the County has to work with the less probable those issues can be resolved. 

 

Deputy County Attorney Bentley stated there is a contract and set of plans and if the County modifies them certainly there are buyers out there who bought and relied on something different; however, if it is minor engineering modifications that is a different story as the County can probably do those.  She stated bankruptcy can be complicated and she cannot give the Board a clear line of how bankruptcy would proceed; she would presume a bankruptcy trustee if they got hold of this property would want the improvements in there because they could sell the lots and recoup the money for any creditors.

 

Chairman Nelson inquired if the County were to move forward with the project, has Mr. Lyon checked to see how the Board would then select a contractor for completing the project; with Mr. Lyon responding he had a brief conversation with Steve Stultz and it is his understanding that obviously staff would have to follow the purchasing guidelines; stated the Board would have an option if so desired to consider using the current contractor; but it would have to go out to the bid process.

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if the Board would be willing to extend the contract if they were not releasing the funds; if the contractor is able to get additional funds to finish the project he would still have the opportunity to do that; and the Board could extend the contract for 60 to 90 days, but not with the understanding of releasing funds.  He stated that is the concern if the funds will be there to finish it if the contractor does not do it; and inquired if that is a possibility.  Mr. Lyon advised the Board could make that decision; currently it does not meet the letter of the law or the Code; the Code says 125 percent; but there are also provisions in that same Code that the Board can approve waivers or changes to that.

 

Chairman Nelson stated the Board is looking for a good-faith effort that does not require the spending down of those additional dollars.  He stated Mr. Woodson’s last best chance is to be able to proceed with this project without having to do those draw downs immediately to get it back into compliance with the requirements; and inquired if he is able to do that.  Mr. Woodson advised right now he is not; he does have private investors who will put more money into the project but they want to see asphalt going down; as far as the funds he thinks in one way where the County is protected, if Rick moves forward and his numbers are off the Board will not approve the draw; and the Board is protected in that way that Rick has to perform by his new schedule off of the new plans with the re-engineered wall for him to even get paid.  He stated as a clarification on the lots that have left his ownership, one of the lots is one of the builders who will be building a model home there as soon as they get the roads in; the other two lots are in possession of an investor who has invested money into the project.  He stated if he were given another 90 days he could try to get that money; there is $513,000, there is actually $1,000 of interest accumulated over the last year; even paying Rick current the $45,000 brings the total to an overage of $36,000; and they are over 100 percent.  He stated not to be repetitive, but if the Board could accept his contract to make up the overage, 18 percent of that 25 percent would be good protection for the County because no one is exposed as if it does not like the draw it does not pay it.

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if Rick should have been paid the $45,000; with Mr. Woodson responding Rick submitted his draw with the agreement.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if that was supposed to be paid out of this escrow; with Mr. Woodson responding it was supposed to be paid out of this escrow; stated initially when he was permitted they had to get a waiver for a wall height on the south side of the property because they are sort of dug into a bowl; staff knew the wall was not included in that; but at that time they approved the tri-party agreement without the wall; and later staff wanted the money for that wall to be put in.  Mr. Woodson advised they met with Chairman Nelson to see what they could do to move forward and that is when the structural wall was redesigned.  He stated he has had some unhappy neighbors; part of his agreement, especially with the neighbor to the north, was contingent to him getting to a certain point and he would be able to go and help them out; but since he could not get there he has not been able to fulfill that obligation to them.  He advised it is nothing he has done out of malice, it is just the circumstances. 

 

Assistant County Manager Mel Scott advised that draw is not supposed to come from the escrow; the funds in the escrow account are deficient so the escrow account no longer becomes the place that a person draws down for work if it falls substandard to that 125 percent; and there is a deficient document.

 

Mr. Woodson stated it states very clearly on the actual agreement, he had to submit some drawings which were approved by the County, they are still within the 125 percent of what was approved by the County; after the agreement was signed by all of the parties, the County wanted to make an addition to the agreement that was approved; and that is when they became deficient when the County tried to make an addition after the fact.  He stated as far as that draw being approved, it states clearly within the agreement with what they were approved to do they were at 125 percent.

 

Chairman Nelson stated that road cannot be built if the wall is not built; the wall is the issue; what he is faced with is the County has to bring it back up to speed; and Mr. Woodson is asking the Board to ignore that fact and it cannot.  Mr. Woodson stated he is not asking the Board to ignore that; he is just asking for a little bit of time so they can get moving forward.  He advised there is money but not 125 percent in there; if they pay Rick his $45,000 they are out about 107 percent; and within 60 days he can be finished with this and all of the problems will go away. 

 

Deputy County Attorney Bentley inquired if Mr. Woodson had explored getting bonds for the differential; with Mr. Woodson responding he initially tried to do a bond rather than the initial thing, but because he is a brand new developer, was on a barrier island, and all of the hurricanes that hit several years ago, there was no insurer that would come within 100 miles of a barrier island project on the water.  He advised the County has done its job properly; but they are so close right now; there is more than 100 percent; there is already about $1.3 million into the project; and Rick can finish it up in 60 days.

 

Commissioner Infantini inquired if it is correct that they would be at about 107 percent if the County paid Rick the $45,000; with Mr. Lyon responding that is based on the information they just recently supplied to staff; stated staff has done a cursory review of that, which has raised some questions; and he cannot tell the Board it is 100 percent accurate because staff has not had the opportunity to fully review and get answers to some of the questions.  Commissioner Infantini inquired if Mr. Woodson can get with Ed between now and Thursday because the Board meets again Thursday; the Board can make a decision on this Thursday; if they are only going to be at 106 percent, at least the County is still in the positive; and that way this gentleman will be ready to finish the project.  Mr. Lyon stated staff already gave them questions on the bond they presented; they did not give staff answers to those; and he would have been able to answer those questions better today if he had something.

 

Chairman Nelson stated this expires on February 5^th; it is a tri-party agreement; and he is not sure this can be taken care of by Thursday.  He inquired if on Thursday does the Board have the ability to claim the bond; with Deputy County Attorney Bentley responding if there is any bump in the road there could be a problem.  Assistant County Manager Mel Scott advised that the meeting is going to be held after work hours.  Deputy County Attorney Bentley advised it needs to be close of business on Thursday.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated the Board could grant an extension without releasing the funds; the County would keep the $513,000 or whatever in escrow; that gives Mr. Woodson some time to either find other investors; and the County would still have the ability to come back and finish the project if the contractor does not deliver in 60 or 90 days or whatever the timeframe.  Commissioner Infantini stated she does not think they have the funding to go forward; he is probably extended as far as he can with the $45,000; and he does not pay off the $45,000 to show good faith to go forward towards something else.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if the Board has seen staff’s estimate of what it is going to cost to finish the project.  Mr. Lyon advised staff relies on the engineer of record who designed it, and then review those estimates; that is when staff raised some of the questions as some of the line items seemed to be a little low; but if they do have a contract, staff has always accepted a signed contract as opposed to an estimate any other time.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if the County had to go finish it what would the costs be; with Mr. Lyon responding based on what he has seen he thinks staff can do it for the amount listed; stated there is some minor engineering that would have to be changed and eliminate as much as the structural wall as possible; but construction wise, there may be some staff hours and engineering time that is not covered, but hard costs would be covered.

 

Mr. Woodson advised staff’s estimate was approximately $60,000 higher than his estimate, and they have moved the non-important things in the structural wall.

 

Chairman Nelson inquired if the Board adopts the resolution today, can it then come back and undo it based on them coming forward with additional information; and stated the Board is trying to protect its interest today.  Deputy County Attorney Bentley stated because it is an escrow agreement it can be amended; it would have to be tabled but that can be accomplished; and the Board would need to do the resolution so the Board can make the claim if there is a problem.  Chairman Nelson stated the Board is protecting its interest, its ability to finish the project; the numbers can still be worked out; and it can then be discussed again Thursday night.  He stated in effect he is saying the Board has not received information to date sufficient to cause it not to take this action, but Mr. Woodson has two days to work with staff so that there can be an agreement; but the deal breaker to Mr. Woodson is he is asking the Board to assume basically part of the responsibility of whether or not his investors are going to come forward; and the investors want to see things on the road, and therefore, Mr. Woodson is asking the Board to trust him.  He advised the County’s system does not allow for that kind of concept; the County is not investors or gamblers; and it is public trust that the Board has to deal with. 

 

Mr. Woodson stated he is not asking the Board to trust him on that because he cannot get anyone to step up to the plate until they know that he is moving forward and there is concrete going down; basically right now he is asking to just let Rick finish it; the County came back and it thinks they are high in points; the County’s bid files is going to be more expensive than what Rick can do it; and requested the Board let Rick move forward and if it does not like the process in accordance with the new cost estimate, it would not have to pay it.

 

Chairman Nelson suggested the Board approve the action, which protects its interest; and Mr. Woodson now needs to work with staff to try to resolve the issue so it can get back on track.  Mr. Woodson inquired what he is resolving; with Chairman Nelson responding he needs to convince them that this can be done within the numbers because the Board has turned a lot of things out in this meeting; and stated staff needs to go back an analyze it, get answers to all the questions they sent him, and come back with a report on Thursday that says they think they can work it would and will go a different director, but at lease we have protected the interest of the project.  Mr. Woodson inquired if in so doing does the Board understand that he is not coming up with $45,000 as he just does not have it; and he has dental work he needs done that he cannot afford to do.  Chairman Nelson stated what the Board is saying is that the County is going to finish the project; he has two days to convince the Board that he can complete it based on other analysis that he is going to work with Ed Lyon on.  Mr. Woodson inquired if that is based on 125 percent.  Chairman Nelson stated he thinks it is going to have to be.  Commissioner Infantini stated she thinks the Board should waive the 125 percent; if they can show that, even after the $45,000 draw, that he can come in at 106 percent; she has an engineer on staff, so if he would be kind enough to give her his estimates and projections, she will have him to check out those numbers; he has tomorrow to work it all out; and she will have him verify Mr. Woodson’s numbers as well so there will be two sources verifying his numbers and the accuracy therein.  She stated she would rather keep him in work and not be taking work away.  She stated she does not want it to go below 106 percent because she does not want the County to be at risk.

 

Chairman Nelson stated he is not going to support that as it is a dangerous precedent for every bond the County has out there.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated the Board needs to get the bank involved; it does not know what the other relationship is out there with the bank and how the bank feels about this project; ultimately the Board’s responsibility is to make sure that the lot holders do not get stuck with an unfinished product; and that is who is going to come to the Board upset of how it handled this situation.  He stated he hates to see Mr. Woodson out of work and his project die, but it is up to him; and inquired how long has this project been sitting like this.  Mr. Woodson advised since September when the last draw was made.  Commissioner Fisher stated there are funding issues; he needs to help get those funding issues and make the Board comfortable that he is going to be able to do that; he hates to see the $513,000 escrow is the only way this project is going to get funded; that tells him that maybe the contractor does not have a whole lot of confidence because he knows if he can get it done in 60 days he can be paid all of his profit; and he is a little uncomfortable whether this contractor is really comfortable about the whole deal. 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated since the Board is responsible for its citizens in Brevard County, and Mr. Woodson is asking it to trust him as well, she is nervous; she is leaning towards giving him the opportunity to in the next couple of days to come forward and do some more negotiations, talks, and figures; it might be the best avenue to go ahead with the resolution with the understanding that the Board is giving him a couple of days to work this out; and that way everyone is covered.

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to adopt Resolution authorizing staff to take action against the tri-party escrow agreement issued to guarantee the construction of the subdivision infrastructure improvements of Waters Mark Subdivision; and developer to work with staff to try to work out issues as quickly as possible.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Anna Brown stated she represents Brevard No-Kill Coalition and the community as evidenced by the book of signatures on the petition giving their support of a no more homeless pet community.  She stated most of the Board Members she has met recently; and thanked them for time, thoughts, and suggestions as it has been extremely helpful.  She stated there are major problems in the Brevard County Shelters, both North Animal Care Center (NAC) and South Animal Care Center (SAC); there were 9,632 animals killed in a year as was done in 2007, something is not working; most of the animals were healthy and treatable; and inquired why were they killed.  She stated a shelter is defined as something that affords protection, but people are not doing their job because instead they are taking their lives; it is no wonder the members of the community do not like to go there to adopt; people get their pets from shelters only 15 percent of the time; inquired why; and stated they are not happy places.  She stated it is depressing to look into the eyes of an animal knowing it may be dead the next day.  She stated when the No-Kill Coalition began last year, they toured SAC, NAC, and the Central Brevard Humane Society; the tour at SAC was announced and Dennis Pier lead them through; her first impressions were of the overwhelming odor, harried looking staff, cats and dogs with no beds, blankets, or toys, and an overall feeling of stress; when she called NAC to schedule a tour, they were denied; and she had a struggle to get an appointment but managed to get shelter manager Vickie to agree to let them take a tour.  She stated Vickie had to be the one to do it because she could not trust her staff to answer the questions; while talking with Vickie, they asked about taking the animals off-site for adoption to increase the adoption rates; she fought that idea as she said there were too many problems and it could not be done; they asked about the possibility about developing a marketing plan; and Vickie said they did not have time for fluff.  She stated her thoughts were that the animals were sitting on death row.  She stated after these two visits they toured the Central Brevard Humane Society, and the differences were amazing; it was warm and inviting; they saw potential adoptees outside walking dogs and having one-on-one interaction with them in enclosed areas; every animal had a bed or blanket and toys, the staff was plentiful, smiling and helpful, all incoming animals had an evaluation, and this is a happy place; and a person does not feel guilty about not being able to save them all.  She advised adoption has now become the pleasant experience it should be; it is all about love and adding a new family member; and it is mostly staffed by volunteers.  She stated her group has had several meetings with Craig Engleson and his staff in the past year; the purpose was to define the problems at the shelters and work out possible solutions; and that is why they are here today to offer solutions to the problems.  She stated they would like to implement some changes in the shelters; new programs and services that they have taken from proven models of success; these successful models all follow Nathan Winograd’s No-Kill Equation as detail in his book Redemption; their solutions come from this equation; and the programs and services they want to implement will over a period of time reduce both the shelter intake and the number of animals euthanized.  She noted in time, and she is talking long-term, five to ten years they will be able to reach a no-kill status; by this she means by reducing the euthanized rate at 10 percent; some animals will always have to be euthanized due to illness, injury, or inability to rehabilitate; and the number of animals euthanized will change significantly in a few years.  She inquired what will it cost and what to do with all of the animals; these are all open admission shelters and the animals have to be taken in; the best part of the plan is that it is not going to cost the County any money; and they can reallocate existing resources to accomplish what is needed.  She stated for example, they would start with a paid volunteer coordinator; a paid position could be converted because of the hours that the coordinator could bring in; volunteers are going to be the key to no-kill working; the shelters are understaffed and need help; many of the changes they want to implement are small in nature like photographing the animals as soon as they come in and get them up on the website; but when added up together spells major success.  She stated they will develop an aggressive marketing plan to increase adoptions; off-site adoptions will help increase the number of outgoing; and suggested to make it easy and take the animals to the people.  She advised expanding the foster and rescue group networks will ease the intake; low-cost, no-cost spayy neuter is essential; and when Teresa Clifton opens her new clinic, it will take some burden off; but they will deal more with that situation in Phase 2 of the plan, which has not been written yet.  She stated it is better to deal with jump starting Phase 1 for now.  She noted the shelters need to be run like a business because that is what they are; once the community is aware that Brevard County is embracing the no-kill concept, donations will increase and so will the number of people who want to become a part of it; and it can be done.  She stated they start initially by forming a working group because the other key to success is communication; what they are asking the Board today is a commitment to embracing the no-kill philosophy that allows them to implement the programs and services that would in time allow the County shelters to attain a no-kill status; and to be an example to others of a no more homeless pets community.

 

Debbie Rich, with the Brevard No-Kill Coalition, stated she wants to reiterate that for the public’s information on the website, the white paper presented to the Board is available, and it is under Article VII.E.1; contact information is brevardnokill.org; she thinks they can do this no-kill in the County; and other counties have done it. 

 

Gregg Eddie, East Coast Coordinator of Golden Retriever Rescue Mid-Florida, stated she is behind the No-Kill Coalition 100 percent; one of her biggest pet peeves is the lack of coordination with rescue groups; they are here to help eliminate the amount of dogs, cats, and pets that are being euthanized unnecessarily; they will not extend a hand; and it is like a fight to get the dog out of the shelter.  She stated shelter workers do not make money; they spend a lot of time raising funds to keep up with the vet bills; it is time to put the political and ego agendas aside and work with each for the welfare of the animals; and more volunteers are needed, which they can get if the working conditions and the effort is put together.

 

Moe Ledoux stated he supports the No-Kill Coalition.  He stated he first got started in the animal business about 10 years ago; because of the circumstances where he lives in Cape Canaveral, they had cats running all over creation; the first thing that came to mind to a lot of people is to shoot, poison them, or give them some chemical to kill them off; and he did not think that was the right thing to do because he likes animals.  He advised he contacted Animal Services and talked to Captain Bob Brown; he came through for them and the rest of the street where he lives; the setup what he would consider a resolution for the condominium association to accept certain pets instead of killing them because the positive in this particular case is no mice, no moles, and no rats; and people will finally understand the positive portion of not killing the animals.  He stated he has been doing this for a number of years now; he and his wife and some volunteers feed the cats every day; and they keep away all of the animals they do not want.

 

Susan Goodman stated she has been a volunteer at the South Animal Care Center since the County took it over in 2002; prior to that she was at that shelter when it was under the administration of Central Brevard Humane Society; she is also the Treasurer with Animal Guardians; and she has been involved with animal matters for a number of years.  She advised no-kill is a wonderful goal, it is important, it is something they can do if it is approached the right way, it will take time, but it is feasible; there are certain apparent misunderstandings, inaccurate information, and a lot of facts that out there that are not really being fully addressed; and there is a lot of facets to the issue that have to be addressed to make it work.  She stated regarding the shelter, things at the County shelters and things at the private shelters are very different because the County shelters are open admission; it must be wonderful to have the luxury of being full and not feeling that an animal is adoptable and being able to close the doors and say no they need to go elsewhere; elsewhere is the County shelters; and they take every animal at any time from any person for any reason.  She inquired where are these animals going to go when the no-kill shelters close their doors; so they have to work on the open admission shelters to increase their adoptions and decrease their intake so that they no longer have to take so many animals; and they have the same luxury at the no-kill shelters to say it is full but there are not all of these animals coming in.  She stated it is important to look at some of the programs addressed by previous speakers and to realize that some of these programs are already in place at the South Area Care Center; statistics will bear out their success; for example, at SAC there are 500 animals going out to foster over the last year as opposed to 16 at NAC; at SAC 26 percent of the animals were adopted, which is an outrageously low figure; but there was only 3 percent adopted at NAC.  She noted at SAC 42 percent of the animals were euthanized, which is a disgusting figure; but it is a whole lot better than 78 percent that were euthanized at NAC; inquired what is the difference; and stated there are programs in place.  She explained there essentially no volunteer program at the County shelters; there is a very large and very productive volunteer program at Central Brevard Humane Society, which is very successful; thousands of applications for volunteers have come into SAC over the last several years; but there is a small core that has virtually no direction; with a good volunteer program, perhaps with a paid volunteer coordinator, this power could be harnessed and these people could bring so much to that shelter; and they could help with so many of these programs and ideas that have been brought forth.  She stated SAC is not adverse to working with outside groups, but in a lot of ways they do not have the time, personnel, or coordination to do it; volunteers can help out with this; it is a really important thing to look at; it is important for these shelters to have more outreach, volunteers can do this; and there has for to long been too much of an emphasis on the enforcement side of Animal Services.  She noted enforcement is important, but it has been almost to the exclusion of the shelter side of things; there are very little public relations about the shelters; virtually the only press releases that go out about the shelters are the ones that she puts out through Animal Guardians; and a lot of people do not even know the shelter is there.  She stated there needs to be fundamental change in direction; privatization is not necessarily the answer; it may be counterproductive; it takes away the accountability the facility has; and when the taxpayers are funding part or all of the functions at that facility, they are entitled to Sunshine and accountability.  She stated there needs to be some fundamental changes to support and promote the shelters to bring out the best of them, take advantage of the programs that are already in place and expand them, to see them implemented in the North Shelter, and there is a whole lot of good that can be done without making radical changes.  She stated if the intake is decreased from animals to the shelter so many will not have to be euthanized.  She advised trap and kill has been practiced for 50 years, for example for feral cats; it does not work; and now there are more feral cats than ever.  She stated she briefly looked at the consultants report that was done a couple of weeks ago and she found some really disturbing things in there that pretty much belies some issues that this consultant did not understand about the shelters; he looked at the numbers and said the numbers do not mathematically add up; it is a basic knowledge that the shelter census is different from the beginning of one year to the beginning of the next year; he talked about getting rid of full-time vet services; and that veterinarian is the one thing that gives those animals whatever chance they have at the South Shelter.  She noted there is no organization, at least that she is aware of, that does free spay and neutering; Animal Guardians offers free spay and neutering to eligible pet guardians that cannot afford it; it is the only organization in the County that does so; and she wishes they could extend those services to the shelters and thousands of animals that need it, but it will not happen any time soon.  She stated Brevard County is a compassionate and progressive county; part of that is how it treats its animals; the shelters have potential of being model shelters; the desire and support of the taxpayers is there; more direction needs to come from the top that embraces the shelters, promotes the shelters, and support their efforts; and Brevard County can become a low-kill if not a no-kill community in time.    

 

Kathleen Harer, representative of No-Kill Coalition and President of Space Coast Feline Network, which is an organization in this County that has worked on trap, neuter, and return programs for feral cats for over 10 year, stated there are two major factors that have been addressed a little bit here, but she wanted to stress them; at this end adoptions are going to have to be increased; at the other end the births have to be stopped; and that means there needs to be more spay and neuter capability in the County.  She advised the biggest complaints she gets from people who call her because they cannot get their cats into one of their clinics, is that there is such a back log that it can take months to be able to schedule them, and then Animal Services will call them and tell them there is problem colony or a caregiver will call who says the enforcement people have shown up and they need some help; and those people they try to bump them to the top of the line.  She stated if they had the capability to do more spay and neuters, they would be able to be out there and doing more in the County to stop the number of animals coming into the shelters.  She noted they are really happy that the Humane Society is going to open its new spay/neuter facility, but it is still not going to be enough; last year finally they were able to get back into the South Animal Care Center to hold clinics for the feral cats; it is not costing an additional $1,100 a year to buy special insurance that they did not use to have to pay; she understands the County wanting to be protected, but at the same time protection should not be barriers; but now that $1,100 a year will continue to pay it, they are only using that clinic every other month on a Sunday.  She explained that Center is closed on Sundays; there is a lot of push from people to open up the South Animal Care Center and actually NAC on Sundays so there can be more adoptions; she is arguing for the opposite; she stated the County should keep the Center closed and get the animals out to events; there has to be a more positive effort to match the animals with potential adopters; and as Anna said earlier, a lot of people do not want to even go to the shelter because it is heartbreaking as a lot of those animals are going to be killed.  She stated North Area Care Center has very limited clinic facilities, and they have it like they did at the beginning of the program stage animals outside in tents; it was done outside the dog runs; it was a very poor location to hold clinics for feral cats; and there are very good facilities at the South Shelter so those should be used.  She noted there are a lot of people who blame the owners; there are people who are very irresponsible but a lot of people give up their pets because they do not have other options; if someone was on staff, a volunteer, who could help people with behavior issues and proactive actions to keep the animals in the home rather than have them turned in, it would be better for everyone; but it is so much easier to blame irresponsible pet owners than it is to realize that the reason there is the shelter is to protect those animals.  She stated people need to stop blaming the irresponsible pet owners and recognize they are killing an awful lot of animals and there is no reason for it.  She explained that Nathan Winograd who wrote the book Redemption has written a lot of articles; he talks about the three steps that are required to become no-kill; those are stop the killing, stop the killing, stop the killing; a commitment has to be made to do that; she knows it will take some time; but if a commitment is not made to stop doing business the way it has been done, which has not been positive, then the County will be in the same place next year and the year after.

 

Commissioner Infantini inquired if Ms. Harer goes to the shelter once every other month for the spay/neuter; with Ms. Harer responding they alternate between SPCA, which lets them use the facility for one month, and they use SAC the next month; stated they have a clinic coming up on the 15^th of this month; and she invited the Board to come down to see what they do.  Ms. Harer advised their volunteers do everything short of surgery.  Commissioner Infantini inquired if it is possible if the facility was opened to them for them to come more frequently than once every other month to SAC; with Ms. Harer responding one of the problems is the limited number of volunteers; and stated if they opened it up to other rescue groups that wanted to do this sort of thing that they could get their volunteers and it could be made much more effective.  Ms. Harer stated the veterinarian comes all the way from Apopka to do the clinics for them; they sometimes have more local help but not always; the veterinarian’s at Animal Medical Clinic in Melbourne once a quarter will do a mini-clinic for them on a Saturday after they close; they have a couple of other places that will take animals in during the week; and the SPCA has been terrific in this respect, and they are hoping for the same relationship with Central Brevard Humane once they get theirs opened.  

 

Anna Florez stated they have been called upon by the new President to embrace a new era of responsibility to show the spirit of service and be willing to find meaning in something greater than themselves; people have seen a display of community involvement and have begun to respect it; and no longer is it acceptable to take the status quo at face value or to condemn new ideas because they are different or challenging.  She advised people have walked the path of destruction of adoptable healthy animals for far too long; they are looking to their leaders to support change, a change that has been proven, a change that offers win-win solutions for animals and taxpayers alike; under today’s death-focused animal control system, 70 percent of cats and almost 100 percent of feral cats’ lives are ended at the hands of humans; in 2007 Harris Interactive asked Americans this question, if they saw a stray cat in their community and could only chose between two courses of action, leaving the cat where it is outside or having the cat caught and put down, which would he or she consider to be the most humane option for the cat; and 81 percent believed that leaving the cat outside to live out its life is more humane than having the cat caught and killed.  She explained in Brevard County the two taxpayer-supported County shelters, the North and South Animal Care Centers, have a 61 percent death rate; and animals under the care, custody, and control of these centers have a better chance of death than being adopted.  She inquired if there was a way to control the animal population at its source instead of treating the systems would the Board say yes; if there was a way to control the animal population while lowering the tax burden of the payers, would it say yes; if the number of adoptions were increased and the numbers of deaths, would it say yes; and further inquired if Brevard County could be an inspiration to other counties, the State of Florida, and the Nation, would the Board say yes.  She stated Hillsborough County was accustomed to three to seven percent increase of animal intake per year; once adopting the No-Kill for Space Program, it had a four percent drop in intake in 2006; in 2007 there was a decrease of intake of 7.2 percent; and it has accredited the low-cost spay/neuter program with the impressive results.  She stated Jacksonville adopted a No-Kill for Space Program in 2005; the very first year it saw an incredible decline in intake from 12,000 to 3,000 animals; there was an overall decline intake of 17 percent, and a 20 percent decline of death by injection; and its spay/neuter program has resulted in a seven percent decline of intake each year.  She advised in Gainesville there is a 44 percent decline in the death by injections since the No-Kill Program in 2005; many other communities and shelters across-the-Nation have adopted the no-kill philosophy with fantastic results; and these communities have told them what works and what does not, and have given valuable information on creating successful no-kill animal program that would benefit the taxpayers, animals, and the community as a whole.  She explained too much money has been spent on staff in kill shelters when volunteers are ready and willing to staff no-kill shelters; too much money has been spent to kill animals when that money could be used to prevent the birth of unwanted animals through low-cost spay and neuter programs; the community is behind them in making a change; and it is time to take action.  She stated that Mahatma Gandhi said, “Be the change you want to see in the world.”  She advised there is an era of change now; there are no more excuses; people need to work together and create a more progressive, humane place to live today; and requested the Board embrace a no-kill philosophy and commit to making Brevard a no more homeless animal county.

 

Cathy Juba, with Century Viera Pet Rescue, stated she has been volunteering with animals for about 10 years; she began in Connecticut where she was a volunteer with a no-kill group; it was a small group; and the reason it was small is because there was not many animals.  She stated when she moved to Brevard County she went to the shelter, left crying, and also had two cats; she then started volunteering with the rescue group because she knew emotionally she could not be at the shelter; and she works a full-time job, part-time job, and she volunteers.  She stated she does approximately 50 to 75 adoptions per year; and inquired if she can do that as one person what can the County do.  She stated when she is at Petco doing adoptions, people come to her and tell her they went to the shelter and left there crying; so they come to her and adopt from her; every day she receives multiple emails with pictures of animals at the County shelters knowing that they are going to die; and the pressure is on a small group of people to save those lives.  She stated they cannot do it all; they need the Board’s help; there needs to be leadership from the County to work with the rescue groups; there needs to be offsite adoptions; the public needs to be educated; and asked the Board to help make the shelters a better place, help save the lives, and please stop the killing.

 

Dennis Peer stated he has seen tremendous improvement in the County shelters; the Humane Society taking this over would be a step backwards; there are some figures that everyone talks about a foster program, which is nonexistent; there was over 1,162 cats going out to be foster adopted with medication; 433 went out to foster with medication; and all together it comes to 1,595 animals that went out with medication for foster adoption.  He stated he does not think the Humane Society can do that.  He advised he has assisted in rescues; he has taken animals to Orlando and they work well with rescues; 627 animals were taken out to rescue groups out of SAC; and he speaks of SAC as he is there on a daily basis when he can.  He noted his wife Mary has been there every day and helped build the foster program.  He stated euthanizing the animals is never acceptable if a person loves animals; 49 percent of the cats were euthanized at the shelter; it is disgusting but it is love; 29 percent of the dogs were euthanized at SAC; it is low but still unacceptable.  He stated he is present to support the no-kill group, but he thought it was going to be a joint effort with County working with the rescues and other groups; and he suggested forming a committee set up of citizens, rescue groups, and the Board of County Commissioners.  He stated the veterinarian has performed over 2,000 spay and neuters; no animal leaves that shelter without being spay or neutered; prior to that it was not being done; and they fought to get that done.  He stated as far as no toys in the kennels, he puts toys in there himself; he personally takes it to heart as he is there and does this work; there are always volunteers that are constantly trying to make things better for the shelter; there is education out there; staff is understaffed and work very hard; and there are two people who are committed in contacting rescue groups.  He advised there are countless rescues so he does not understand where that information came from.  He stated a course of action is the North Shelter; it seems like it is a forgotten place; no one wants to attack the real issue of that; and it should be closed and another shelter opened maybe in Viera; he thought that was part of the no-kill suggestion; and the County cannot close NAC and send it to SAC as they are overburdened as it is.  He stated he does not see how the Humane Society can accept and take all of those animals in and save their lives; if it has a miracle he would jump aboard; everyone needs to work together as far as the rescue and the County; and it should stay with the County.  He offered his service if a committee is formed or if a workshop is planned he will participate.

 

Commissioner Anderson stated the key to this is the volunteerism; whatever the Board has to do to increase the volunteer levels, regardless of what status the shelter has in the future, that is imperative; he has seen it work, not only in situations like this, the community policing activities to do volunteerism; they are experts at it; and the largest amount of volunteers the County has are in citizen observer programs.  He stated all of his animals that he currently has came from SAC; the issue he sees, and he heard it from other families, is that when going into any shelter the variety of dogs are limited; and he grew up in a rural area and there are dogs in there that are not breeds that are compatible with young children.  He explained the Board knows whatever it does it cannot cost more money; the County will be hurting so bad in the next couple of years; a solution needs to be found that is cost-free to the Board; but he does appreciate the enthusiasm and the passion for a good cause. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated since she has been on the Board she has gone to SAC almost twice a month and she has been to NAC; and it took an act of Congress to find it because there is absolutely no signage.  She stated it is time for a culture change; she saw a lot of animals with blankets and toys, she was allowed to open the cages and pet the animals, many people asked if they could help her, so she did see a lot of positive things; however, she does think there is a need for a lot more change; and inquired how many dollars are being spent currently for NAC and SAC, and could an RFP be put out for that same funding to see if another organization could control it.  She stated it is sad to know she cannot take the animals’ home with her.

 

Commissioner Bolin stated she agrees with Commissioner Infantini; she has been to the animal shelter; she has learned a lot today listening to everyone; there is a lot of information she was not aware of; but one of her concerns is that she would like to get a staff report to get more information.  She stated that would be a good basis for if the Board wants to go out for an RFP; the County wants to do better; when she went to adopt she was looking for a certain type of dog, she did go to the shelters, and they did not have one there; and one of the things hit her today is that some of the animals people like to go first to, the rescue team has probably been able to rescue them because they are a certain breed.  She stated the little guys left behind are some of the ugly ones, mixed breeds, or a certain type that are not suitable.  She requested that staff bring back more information so she can get a better grasp of this and see what the Board can do to assist.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated he had a surprise visit one day at the North Animal Shelter because he had heard so much about that facility; surprisingly it was not exactly how it was described to him, it was clean and nice; one of the things he noticed right away is that picking a pet is emotional; a person can pick out a dog but still have to have it spayed or neutered so he or she has to come back in a few weeks; and that is the way the shelter is set up.  He stated the whole ability to get the pet spayed and neutered, and there are some partnerships that can be created; and maybe animals can be moved through the shelters quicker.  He stated if Assistant County Manager Heidi Denis could get her group to pick up on two or three of these things now and start working on them; she needs to pick what that might be; it might be the volunteer base, the spay or neuter, or the education process; but she can pick two or more things the Board can work on that would help to move the County to a no-kill program.  He inquired how does the County increase volunteers, education, and partner with a vet; and stated maybe this organization is one to do that with and then the Board can move in that direction.

 

Chairman Nelson thanked Anna, Judy, and Debbie for meeting with him; it was a very good meeting; and they are very passionate about their cause.  He stated the Board all supports the concept of no-kill; that is really what the Board would like to get to because at that point of it has done well it has been successful; he does not think anyone wants to see animals put down particularly unnecessarily; there will always be behavioral issues or health issues; but the goal is not to see animals euthanized.  He stated he asked them point blank to give him one thing they would like to see the Board do, which was a volunteer coordinator; that is a necessary kind of position; the County does that in other parts of the organization, whether its in fire, parks, or endangered lands; getting volunteers and being able to count them is critical because volunteers make a good program better and it is necessary; and doing it well actually can reduce staffing issues and improve that.  He stated something that is readily within the capacity of the Board to do is to identify a staff person because if it is successful, the work that the person is no longer able to do in terms of just the daily routine will be supplemented by ten-fold if done well; and there is the ability to create a volunteer coordinator position within the organization for that purpose.  He explained the Board can have a workshop and hear a lot of the same testimony it just heard, but the reality is that it can just move in; and the working group concept, which is folks who are willing to say this is how they get there, it is a more productive way of going at it as it moves the process further.  He stated his interest is to see that the County has the best ran most cost efficient animals shelters it can have; he is not hung up on who does that; he would be willing to look at privatization with a non-profit to see if that is a better way of going at it; he was here long enough to remember the before; this was not always a pleasant experience; and the County is in the shelter business today because it did not work out as well as hoped before when it was with a non-profit.  He explained that is going to be a critical aspect of that; the Humane Society is a much different organization today than it was back then; so there are a lot of possibilities.  He stated he would like a staff report on what that process needs to be; it is something the working group could weigh in on; and there are a lot of pieces that can come together.

 

Chairman Nelson passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Bolin.

 

Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to establish as a goal for the Board to create a no kill concept for the animal shelters.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to direct Assistant County Manager Heidi Denis to provide the Board with a concept for an animal services working group and what its mission would be, including a volunteer coordinator as staff liaison as part of the process.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to direct staff to provide a report to the Board with the pros, cons, and history of the process necessary to proceed with the contracting of the animal shelters.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Vice Chairman Bolin returned the gavel to Chairman Nelson.

 

 

 

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 12:19 p.m.

 

 

 

ATTEST:                                                         _________________________________

                                                                        CHUCK NELSON, CHAIRMAN

                                                                        BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

                                                                        BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

___________________

SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK     

 

           (S E A L)