The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in workshop session on August 28, 1995, at 2:00 p.m. in the Government Center Multi-purpose Room, Building C, 2725 St. Johns Street, Melbourne, Florida. Present were: Chairman Nancy Higgs, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Randy O'Brien, Mark Cook, and Scott Ellis, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

DISCUSSION, RE: SCRUB CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Chairman Higgs advised members of the Steering Committee present are Steve Tatoul who represents the property owners who do not have scrub on their lands, Tim McWilliams who represents the business community, and Michael O'Connell who served as facilitator.

Presentation

Chairman Higgs advised the Plan is in draft form and is a new way of taking care of the responsibilities that landowners have under the Endangered Species Act (ESA); it provides a mitigation plan and is totally voluntary for property owners who would like to participate; and there are no new tax dollars from Brevard County for this process. She stated the Committee had an opportunity to share it with people in informational meetings at several locations and to allow people to provide comments; and it is the intention of the Steering Committee to again look at the Plan before having a final draft for the Board to consider. Chairman Higgs advised one issue that came up at the meetings is the notice to property owners; the Committee feels once it has a draft Plan that the Board has looked at again after this workshop, it will be ready to send out notices and have meetings throughout the County with property owners; but until the Board has a chance to look at the Plan, it would be premature to schedule meetings and send out notices. She stated the Committee has no desire not to send out notices, but it wants to have something fairly concrete for people to look at. She advised Hillary Swain and Reid Bowman are present from Scientific Advisory Committee; Ms. Swain did part of the biological work; and Hank Fishkind who did the economic work is here to make a presentation. She inquired if the Board desires to take public comment at this workshop.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to take public comment at the workshop on the Scrub Conservation and Development Plan. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Scrub Sanctuaries, Oversight, and Management

Michael O'Connell advised he works for the Nature Conservancy and was asked three years ago by Brevard County to volunteer his time as facilitator for this Plan process; on February 28, 1995, there was a considerable amount of discussion on the biology of the Plan; and he will go over that and the oversight and management. He stated the Steering Committee established a goal to develop an efficient and less expensive development permitting process for scrub habitat, to protect the scrub eco-system, and to spread the cost over the broadest base possible; and by unanimous consent, this Plan that is in draft form does that. He stated in 1991, the Fish and Wildlife Service notified Brevard County of its liability under the Endangered Species Act, the third party incidental violations such as issuing development clearing permits; landowners have always been liable under Section 9 of the ESA for clearing without a permit; and after a series of discussions on how to deal with that, the Board appointed a citizens ad hoc committee of five individuals representing landowners, developers, and conservationists. He stated they looked at several alternatives such as mitigation and small area habitat conservation plan for the highest growth areas of the County, and after a year of discussions and reviewing alternatives, recommended to the Board a process to develop a Countywide habitat conservation plan for all scrub habitat, not just a single species, and listed 21 species that would be included under the Plan. Mr. O'Connell advised the process was authorized by the Board in 1992; since then, the Steering Committee has been working about every two weeks to develop the draft Plan; the entire process has been funded by a federal grant of $100,000 a year for the past three years; and that has paid for the biological and economic studies, and hiring of a staff person to draft the Plan document. He noted the Steering Committee, Scientific Advisory Group, and he are all volunteers in the process.

Mr. O'Connell advised the sanctuary system under the SCDP that is proposed results from several things; there was a biological analysis done by a consultant to get an idea where scrub habitat was and where scrub jays and other species occupy, the condition of that habitat, and the surrounding land uses; that result showed the scrub habitat in Brevard County is highly fragmented and reduced by more than two-thirds over what it was historically, based on soil surveys and historical area photos; so the scrub sanctuary system as proposed, if there is full participation in the plan, would protect about 9,000 acres by purchase from willing sellers; and that is about 62% of the remaining habitat or 19% of how much scrub occurred in Brevard County at one time. Mr. O'Connell advised the permit will include not only scrub jays, but nine other animals and 12 plant species, either currently protected or candidates for protection by federal or state law; most prominent of the other species is the gopher tortoise which is present in a lot of different Brevard County habitats; and two populations of scrub jays that are adjacent to federal properties on Merritt Island Wildlife Refuge and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station were not proposed for protection under the plan because of the scientific determination that they were contiguous with those federal properties which have jays on them. He stated there were four sub-populations of scrub jays that were considered for protection because of their geographic isolation, from North Cocoa to the Volusia County line, from south Cocoa to North Melbourne, from Melbourne south to the Indian River County line, and on the South Beaches. He advised the Scientific Advisory Group working with data collected by the biological consultant, came up with four alternative options for designing the system of scrub sanctuaries with enough biological flexibility so the Steering Committee did not get locked into one option and would be able to choose what the configuration would be; and after a lot of discussion about the options, it was decided that the mechanism under the plan, which was voluntary participation by landowners, was important as well. He stated the Steering Committee did not want to make a decision on one of the options based solely on biological criteria; the four options are distinguished by emphasizing different biological goals; one emphasizes current quality of habitat; another emphasizes connectiveness of that habitat; and another emphasizes the ability to restore the habitat; however, those are all biological elements; and the Steering Committee decided it would be worthwhile to allow participation as well as market factors and economic conditions to help determine those so ultimately there will be participation. Mr. O'Connell advised the Scrub Conservation Development Plan also provides for restoration and fire management of the scrub; fire has been suppressed in Brevard County in scrub for at least 40 years; and that has led to deterioration in quality for many of the scrub species that are important. He stated restoration was determined by the scientist as a way to increase flexibility; if they can take a parcel of land and restore it, more scrub jays and other scrub species will be there, then that will offset losses of occupied habitat elsewhere; so the plan provides for that and a mechanism for generating funding as well, which Dr. Fishkind will discuss. He stated the plan is not a static plan; the goal of the Steering Committee was to set up a mitigation process that would be an alternative for landowners who currently only have one choice which is to go to the Fish and Wildlife Service and get individual permits under the Endangered Species Act and bear the entire cost; and this plan is a mitigation process that would allow all those who participate to be covered by the Countywide permit, but does not force anyone into that choice. Mr. O'Connell advised oversight of the plan will occur; the permit will be held by Brevard County and cities will have the opportunity to join in that and provide the benefit of a blanket permit in their jurisdictions with an interlocal agreement; the County will hold the permit on behalf of landowners and developers who choose to impact scrub; and the permit will be overseen by a volunteer committee of citizens that will have about the same composition as the original Steering Committee and will be voting members. He noted in addition, there will be six other members of the Steering Committee representing federal agencies that manage scrub, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, County Attorney's Office, and other experts. Mr. O'Connell advised there will also be a technical review panel of scientists, legal minds, and economists that will help oversee and review the implementation of the plan; and land acquisition management under the plan will be contracted privately. He stated one of the goals was to minimize additional County staff necessary to implement the plan; and the plan proposes only two additional staff, both paid from the proceeds generated under the plan. He stated they would be County staff coordinating land management, contracts, and land acquisition that will be contracted out; so under the plan, the County and participating cities will review proposed development projects within their jurisdictions and determine what choice the landowner has made, whether to opt for an individual permit under Fish and Wildlife Service or join the plan. He stated the plan is about 600 pages; there is a lot of detail in it; there is an executive summary produced by the Steering Committee and staff which boils it down into 12 pages; and those things will provide important information for the Board as well. He introduced Hank Fishkind who was hired by a federal grant as the economic consultant; and noted he will give a presentation about the elements of the funding plan.

Funding Mechanisms

Dr. Hank Fishkind, Fishkind & Associates, presented handouts on the economics to the Board; stated the ESA requires some kind of mitigation; the program is an optional method for landowners to meet those permitting requirements; and the financing plan offers a unique opportunity to do so at a much lower price than they would otherwise be able to obtain if they attempted to mitigate on their own. He stated the bottom lines are: is the program going to save money, is it going to save time, and is it going to be a burden to the County; and noted it can save owners a lot of money if they wish to participate; if they do not think so, they do not have to participate; and it offers a substantial time saving in that the permit will be obtained from and held by the County on behalf of all landowners who desire to participate in the program. Dr. Fishkind advised the program he developed is not a burden to the County; the main element is 100% voluntary participation; that was a unique challenge for him because he was used to mandatory connection fees to water and sewer systems; so they worked hard to create a program that would work and still be voluntary in its basic conception. He stated it is not only voluntary in terms of the purchase of land, but there is no eminent domain; owners would voluntarily nominate their properties; and it is completely voluntary on the assessment side. He stated no one will be assessed unless they choose to be assessed, see an economic benefit by participating in the program as a landowner, and accept the assessment. He stated from an economic perspective it allows a lot of leverage and the economy of the community to gain a lot of benefit from utilizing this option as opposed to individual options because of the matching opportunities that are available, particularly from the State; and in essence, every dollar that is raised locally through the program may be matched by a dollar provided by the State. Dr. Fishkind advised the best way to administer the program would be some type of voluntary MSBU; that can be done under Chapter 125, Florida Statutes; there are some requirements in the County for non-voluntary MSBU's, but this would be a voluntary MSBU; and if people want to participate, they would ask to participate and nominate themselves and their properties. Dr. Fishkind advised the basic outline of the funding plan is about $90,000,000; about $50,000,000 may be available from the CARL Program, which is slightly better than a two-to-one match; EELS is interested in committing approximately $15,000,000 to purchase scrub; and they discussed with EELS being able to count a part of their program as a part of the Scrub Conservation Program. He noted if they can do that, those dollars will do double duty and create an opportunity for further match with the State; and that would leave a residual of about $25,000,000 to be raised from the private sector that wants to participate. He explained a chart indicating how the program would work; and stated they first need to secure CARL and EELS funding so they know what levels they have for the matches, then they would allow landowners the opportunity to voluntarily nominate their properties for purchase by the program. He noted they would send out a list; it was done in Palm Beach County for its public lands program, and a lot of landowners nominated their properties; the Plan will use similar mechanism that was successful there; and the parcels so nominated will be ranked by the biological part of the program in order to get the highest biologically valued lands at the lowest possible prices, and work within the confines of the various habitat conservation designs. Dr. Fishkind advised, on the assessment side, those landowners who wish to participate in the program could nominate their land voluntarily to be part of the MSBU and accept an assessment on their property; they will then tell the program in which of the ten-year programs they would like to participate; they do not have to accept an assessment right away; it takes time to purchase that amount of land; and the idea is to allow landowners as much flexibility as possible by using the State and local funds first to purchase the lands, and private money second. He stated a landowner who signs up can say in year six he would like to develop his property and make use of this mechanism; he would not be assessed until year six; and that would be the year in which he would also become concurrent with his requirements for mitigation under this program. He noted it is not just for scrub jays; it is gopher tortoises and whatever else needs to be protected in that environment; so there may be additional benefits to landowners to choose this program. Dr. Fishkind advised the financing summary gives an idea of what costs a potential landowner who may want to volunteer his property may be looking at; they are looking at $25,000,000 as the prospective size of a bond issue or series of bond issues, based upon the level of voluntary participation; landowners would be looking at approximately $576 per acre per year to participate in the program; and the total capital charge would be $5,319 if that person wanted to pay it all at once, or finance for 20 years with a municipal bond-type structure. Dr. Fishkind advised there is a requirement under the ESA to protect a large amount of acreage in the County; so it is not just the scrub jay conservation program impact, it is the impact of the ESA on the tax base of the County, assuming $100,000 is taken off the tax rolls. He stated in Brevard County approximately 47% of the tax revenue is raised from individual homeowners on the tax rolls; and there are approximately 127,000 individual parcels with an average tax value of a little over $50,000 each, taking into account homestead and other exemptions. He stated at the current millage rate of 4.397 mills, $28,800,000 is raised from residential properties in the County; if in the year 2000, $100,000,000 is taken off the tax rolls, the effect on individual homeowners to raise 28.8 million dollars would be an increase from 4.397 to 4.421 mills to not affect the budget of the County; and that would amount to $1.20 per year. He emphasized the impact is not from the program, but from the ESA; and the program is one way for property owners to voluntarily participate if they so choose.

Commissioner Ellis inquired what would be pledged for the bond issue; with Dr. Fishkind responding the bond issue can be pledged against the special assessment for individual property owners who are willing to assume the assessment. Commissioner Ellis stated they cannot issue a bond on golf course revenues; and if they cannot issue a bond against the special assessment, how would they do it; with Dr. Fishkind responding a golf course has nothing to do with this program because those revenues vary from year to year; under the program, a bond issue would be sized based on how many people choose to participate; and if no one participates, there would be no bond issue. Dr. Fishkind stated if 4,700 acres choose to participate, a bond issue of about $25,000,000 would be roughly $5,000 per acre. Commissioner Ellis inquired if it is the assumption that everyone will participate on day 1; with Dr. Fishkind responding day 1 through 10 years; and they have a choice when they want to participate under the program he designed. Commissioner Ellis inquired how can that be taken to the bank; with Dr. Fishkind responding they could not, but if 2,300 acres decided to participate, it would support a $12,500,000 bond issue, and the other landowners who decided not to participate would have to go to the Fish and Wildlife Service. Commissioner Ellis inquired why would they issue a bond for 2,300 acres; with Dr. Fishkind responding on behalf of those landowners who wish to participate under the program. Commissioner Ellis stated because someone says he will develop in year eight does not mean he will do it; with Dr. Fishkind responding if he accepts the special assessment, no matter what happens, when he decides to develop, on that date, the assessment starts; there are legal liens put on the property unlike the golf course revenue; and that is why it is bondable. Commissioner Ellis inquired if he agreed to develop in year seven, would the lien be placed on the property that year; with Dr. Fishkind responding the lien would be placed on the property in year one, but no levy would be collected until year seven. Commissioner Ellis inquired if that would occur whether he developed or not; with Dr. Fishkind responding yes. Commissioner Ellis expressed concern about the shortfall; with Dr. Fishkind responding that would be impossible, because the bond size would depend on the participation. Commissioner Ellis stated not if they impose the liens; with Dr. Fishkind responding they would not impose the liens; people would impose liens on their own properties; the Board wanted a voluntary program; so nobody would have a lien placed on his or her property unless he or she decides to have it that way. Commissioner Ellis stated it would force everyone to develop in ten years; with Dr. Fishkind responding they are not forcing anyone to do anything; they are giving people the option to participate; if they do not wish to develop within ten years or participate at all, this would not be the mechanism for them to use. Commissioner Ellis inquired if someone would be faced with the prospect of not being able to develop his property if he does not go with the lien; with Dr. Fishkind responding no, he could go to Fish and Wildlife Service as an individual. Dr. Fishkind stated there may be people who think they can cut a better deal with the Fish and Wildlife Service or do not want to develop in ten years; so this is not a program for them to participate in. Commissioner Ellis inquired what would be left to mitigate with after ten years if nine of the thirteen is taken out; with Dr. Fishkind responding it would depend on how many people would participate; he does not know if they would be able to find nine; but Fish and Wildlife is saying somewhere around nine is going to be protected under the Program or its permitting process. Commissioner Ellis stated normally when a person refinances or sells the home, he would have to satisfy the lien; with Dr. Fishkind responding if he wants to clear the title, he can satisfy the lien; his firm has financed millions of dollars of assessments all around the State; and most transfer with the land, as would a lien of any other governmental entity. Bill Hall inquired if the term lien is correct or should it be assessment; with Dr. Fishkind responding it is a legal lien that creates the assessment.

Commissioner Cook inquired what would happen if ESA changes and the requirements are different, but someone has already committed to the program; with Dr. Fishkind responding if they have committed to doing it, they accepted the lien, are in, and could pay off the lien at any time; but if they think it will change, this is not the program for them. Commissioner Cook advised the concern he heard is the fear if they do not participate in the program, the permitting through Fish and Wildlife Service could be more difficult; with Dr. Fishkind responding that is not an economist's question.

Tim McWilliams advised from his experience in the development community, it never gets easier to get a permit; what this program does is lock a person in; if the permit gets hard, that person does not have to deal with it; and it gives him the certainty. He stated there is risk no matter what they do; if they volunteer, will Congress change the law; and will they make it easier or harder in five years.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if once the bond is issued, they are in; with Chairman Higgs responding yes, the commitment is made by the property owners and on the County side, so they have certainty they can cover the bond once the decision is made. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the ESA is modified or eliminated, would they be able to withdraw, but once the bond is issued, it makes no difference what happens in Washington because they would be locked in. Mr. O'Connell advised one of the primary goals of the Steering Committee is long-term certainty; they wanted something they could count on in the plan; and whether it gets easier or tougher, from the sign up forward, the landowner would not have to worry about it any more; so the certainty works both ways. Dr. Fishkind inquired if Commissioner Ellis feels the law is going to change; with Commissioner Ellis responding things are changing all the time, and he is concerned about committing to a bond issue.

Chairman Higgs advised individuals are only locked in to the extent the liens on the properties are locked in; if nobody volunteers to be part of the program, then they lock in nothing and move forward to help people through the process of the ESA; that is the commitment the County made; and they have to pay the bond based on the individuals who made the commitment the same way the County would with any other MSBU process. Commissioner Ellis stated if the program is done on a cash basis instead of bond, no one would be locked in; with Dr. Fishkind responding anyone can do it on the cash basis; it would be roughly $5,300 and they would have purchased into the mitigation bank and be as much locked in as they would with a 20-year lien; the 20-year lien was to make it easier because under an MSBU the money can be borrowed much cheaper and at better terms than can be done by a private landowner; and the private landowner can mortgage his property for $5,300, but he would be better off to take the assessment for the lower interest rate and better return. Chairman Higgs stated the lower interest rate makes the process less costly for people who own scrub property.

County Attorney Scott Knox inquired if they considered the effect of the plan on property rights legislation or whether it will affect the economics. He stated the theory behind the plan is to designate an area of desirable scrub habitat to purchase and preserve; they will finance that by voluntary participation elsewhere in the County where they have potential scrub habitat; they want to make sure they can develop so they buy into the preserve area; once the area is designated, there is a ready-made plan; under the property rights legislation, it may devalue all that property or completely take it; and if they do not have the money to take the entire property to try and preserve it, they may have a problem. Dr. Fishkind advised the program has nothing to do with whether or not those acres are subject to mitigation under the ESA; predicate of the concern is that somehow the program differs from the impacts on the property owners from the ESA; and that is not the case. Mr. Knox stated that is not his predicate; his predicate is the property rights legislation has shifted the burden from the federal to State and local governments; it is no longer an issue of the federal government taking the property; and once the County designates the area it becomes the County's problem and not the federal government's problem. Dr. Fishkind advised the federal government has already designated areas and said if they are in those areas, they have to come through the process in order to evaluate the property for scrub and mitigate.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if those areas have been designated as critical habitat; with Mr. O'Connell responding it is immaterial whether they are critical habitat or not; legally the definition of critical habitat is it only applies to federal actions or federal lands and does not matter to private lands; basically scrub habitat is regulated; so if they have scrub habitat, they have to approach Fish and Wildlife Service to determine whether they have a mitigation requirement. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the plan presented is the plan they have to approve; with Chairman Higgs responding they do not have to approve this plan. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the Board can modify the plan; with Mr. O'Connell responding if it meets the requirements for issuance of a permit, the legal Section 10 requirements. He stated one of the goals of the Steering Committee was to make the plan meet the minimum requirements of Fish and Wildlife Service for issuing a Section 10 permit; and if it is modified below those requirements, they could send it to them, but they cannot approve it. Commissioner Ellis stated for years he has been asking what the requirements are and never got the answer; with Mr. O'Connell responding the Wildlife Service has developed some guidelines for issuing Section 10 permits, and those are not public; they are very thick and available through the Department of Interior in Washington; they contain things such as all the take contemplated under a permit application must be minimized and mitigated; and the alternative actions, besides the one proposed, have to be considered and documented extensively. Commissioner Ellis stated there are no minimum requirements with the probability of survival; with Mr. O'Connell responding that is correct; there are no minimum requirements for the probability of survival; the permitting standards are not specific to species; and they are 10-A permitting requirements of the ESA. He stated adequate funding has to be insured for the life of the plan; if there are a certain number of acres of habitat, or individuals of a species, an attempt has to be made to minimize that take; in cases where it cannot be minimized, it has to be adequately mitigated; and those are the standards on which they judge an application. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the mitigation factor is two to one or four to one; with Mr. O'Connell responding it depends on the habitat and varies quite a bit, which speaks to the issue of certainty. He stated the Steering Committee wanted to make sure it was the same for everybody, so it chose to approach it differently; rather than say here is the mitigation ratio right now and do a plan that mimics that ratio, but do it in what the scientists deem is a better configuration, they decided not to do that and to look at the sub-populations of scrub jays separately and insure that each sub-population will have a high probability of survival; and that ended up proposing for acquisition less habitat than the two-to-one mitigation ratio of Fish and Wildlife Service by about 500 acres. Commissioner Ellis stated if he took the exact 9,023 acres, he would expect to see the calculation lead to that number if he has an implied decision; with Mr. O'Connell responding he would defer that statement to the scientist conservation biologist because it is not an engineering issue; but there was a calculation based on the inventory of scrub habitat and acreage that ended up with the number. He inquired if Dr. Bowman wanted to answer that.

Dr. Reid Bowman advised there is no formula or precise number; if parcels of land are identified at a set amount of 10,000 acres, when the parcels are totaled, it will not come out to exactly l0,000 acres; it does not mean there was a formula for it, but it does mean there was a series of scientific criteria; and their final acreage was calculated by adding up all the parcels they felt were important to be in the reserve. Commissioner Ellis stated it is a summation; with Dr. Bowman responding it is a summation and gives an approximate figure. Commissioner Ellis stated it makes sense to do it as summation by overlaying maps against parcels and sum up the parcels.

Mr. O'Connell advised the total number of acres is not only those in the plan, but also those outside of the plan who go to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; they may be required to provide 2-to-1, 4-to-1,or set aside a certain portion of their property and have no offsite mitigation; and that again speaks to the uncertainty the Committee was trying to address. He stated the total used as the base line was the best data they had to go on which was the assumption U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would require roughly 2-to-1 mitigation; and they have case studies of individual permits in Brevard County.

Discussion ensued on the burden of compliance, diminishment of scrub jay populations, sub-populations, impact on scrub habitat, what is required on federal property, restoration of habitats, minimum population size, maintaining viability, PILT, what is an adequate number of birds, geographic isolation, fragmented and poor quality habitats, and landscape matrix. Commissioner Ellis inquired if two sub-populations are below adequate, would it be necessary to have over 100 pairs of birds in the other two sub-populations; with Dr. Reid Bowman responding they dealt with each sub-population independently because they are geographically isolated from a scrub jay perspective; they tried to achieve the highest probability of those populations persisting; and of the four sub-populations, two were greater than 100 pairs; however, of 100 breeding pairs of jays, there is about an 85% probability the population will go extinct over 100 years. Commissioner Ellis stated it says 20 pairs have 80% probability over 400 years and 95% for 100 years; with Dr. Bowman responding those original models assumed optimal habitat, completely contiguous landscape, and no effect of epidemics; they now realize all those things are important in understanding how the populations function over time, and are being put into new models; and he sent the Board graphs of what the new models demonstrate. He stated if there is an epidemic once every 20 years, it drops the probability of 100 pairs to 80%; and that assumes optimal habitat conditions and contiguous lands. He stated nowhere in Brevard County is there a landscape that has 40 contiguous acres for families of jays; they are dealing with a fragmented landscape; the habitat quality is very poor; they are surrounded by landscapes which are not conducive to scrub jay survival; and those are from studies being done in suburban areas where they looked at the effect of residential housing developments on jays. He noted those models suggest a higher number of jays are needed to meet survival; their determination of 85% probability over 100 years is subjective determination; but it was their duty to say what the probability is they will try and achieve to meet what they feel U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service permit requirements will be. He noted 85% probability is good, but not reliable; however, it is the same whether the plan succeeds or fails. Commissioner Ellis stated there are two areas low in probability and two that are overkill. Dr. Bowman advised maintenance of sub-populations is critical to the plan, so even though they are below 100 pairs, they have to be maintained. He stated in some instances, there is not land available to bring them up to that and meet spatial and population requirements; so they allowed them to decline by 2/3rds of the original population size. He stated the others they tried to maintain as close to 100 pairs as they could; whatever numbers they ended up with, they had to meet the spatial requirements; if they had only 100 breeding pairs, they would not need to meet the spatial requirements; but if they had more than the minimum number of pairs, they had to meet the spatial requirements. Commissioner Ellis inquired if there is an obligation in an area where they cannot meet the probability of survival; with Dr. Hillary Swain responding there is a spatial obligation and the plan will be reviewed under long-term viability also. Dr. Bowman advised U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will question what is the contribution of the plan to the survival of the species as a whole beyond the boundaries of Brevard County, and in evaluating that, does it alter the current geographical extent of that species. He stated losing any one of the sub-populations would alter the geographical extent and impact jay populations beyond Brevard County. He noted any gap created from Palm Beach County to Volusia County could have an impact on the entire Atlantic Coastal population. Commissioner Ellis stated there are sizable gaps now; with Dr. Bowman responding new gaps will significantly alter the jays.

Commissioner Cook advised the draft plan says "legal factors precluded using Space Center property;" and inquired what legal factors; with Mr. O'Connell responding it refers to Sections 10 and 7, and Section 7 applies to federal lands. Chairman Higgs stated federal lands must comply under a different Section of the Act. Tim McWilliams advised federal property does not want to be included; and if they want to get a permit, they would get it under Section 7. Commissioner Cook stated he does not understand why they are not considered under the plan; with Mr. McWilliams responding they are considered biologically, but not legally. Commissioner Cook stated he does not see a clear-cut legal reason why they are precluded from being considered; with Mr. McWilliams responding they already have their permits. Chairman Higgs advised it is a voluntary mitigation plan, and it would not make sense for federal properties that already comply with other provisions of the Act to opt to be a part of the plan. Mr. Knox stated the federal government would not let the County consider its properties. Commissioner Cook inquired is there anything that indicates that; with Mr. Knox responding sections of the ESA which apply to federal reserve and private property. Commissioner Cook stated they have to comply with a different section but he does not see where it makes them exclusive; with Dr. Swain responding they already have their permits. Dr. Bowman advised they are considered biologically which is more important since those populations are there; and all the scrub on Merritt Island is left out because they are being preserved on federal property.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if there are habitats that are larger than the population of scrub jays that are on them; and if a scrub jay requires 100 acres each, are there 2,000 acres with four pairs; with Dr. Bowman responding there are habitats that are not saturated with jays. Dr. Swain advised there is scrub habitat that is under-utilized because of poor quality, but with restoration, it could support more jays. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if there are good habitats under-populated; with Dr. Swain responding no, the high-quality scrub is 100% occupied. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if they took butterfly nets to catch scrub jays on poor quality land and put them in specific areas such as KSC would they survive; with Dr. Swain responding good quality habitat is occupied and defended by existing jays; there is no room for more jays; it is packed and saturated; but if the County restores an area immediately adjacent to a good site, there would be opportunity for the birds to move into the restored habitat. Dr. Bowman advised there was only one experiment that transported jays to another area; they transported four families from poor quality to the best quality; and within four years, only the males existed. He stated there were no females so they could not reproduce; and they were essentially dead. He stated the chances for survival are poor if only four families of jays are added to an isolated area; it is easier to restore habitats and let jays move themselves; and they will do that. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if there were three families barely surviving because of poor scrub, could they catch them and take them to Volusia County where there is scrub; with Mr. O'Connell responding most of the areas Commissioner O'Brien is describing are proposed for development, and they would not consider those; the scrub jays would be on their own; development would occur, and the habitat would be wiped out; and if the birds could move to restored habitats, that would be fine; but they would not make an effort to catch them and move them because the fundamental flexibility in the plan is to create opportunities for scrub jays in habitats that are under-utilized to move there from habitats that are developed. He stated they are allowing some habitat to be developed that currently is occupied by jays, and offsetting that with restoration of habitats that are unoccupied. Dr. Swain advised if there is better quality restored scrub within normal dispersement, about a maximum of five miles, scrub jays will move from poor quality scrub to better quality restored scrub; Brevard County is lucky in that most jays are within dispersal distances; there is connectivity between the scrub parcels; and if they restore habitats, there will be possibilities for adjacent jays to move into the restored habitats, and they would not have to trap and move them. She noted there are other places in the State that may have to consider doing that; but Brevard County is not in that situation because it has enough connectivity for jays to go from poor quality to restored habitats. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if a habitat is developed, will the jays move; with Dr. Swain responding if there is available restored habitat, but if there is no newly available restored habitat, there is no place for them to go.

Commissioner Ellis stated there is restored habitat in Kennedy Space Center (KSC); with Dr. Swain responding if KSC restores habitat, it is immediately occupied by jays from poor quality habitat on KSC; and the KSC jays are looking for good quality restored habitat, the same as the rest of the jays. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the habitats on KSC and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station are restored, could they accommodate more jays; with Dr. Swain responding the cheapest mechanism is to restore adjacent habitat birds can move into; they are extremely good at moving into good quality habitat in the neighborhood; and that is the best option they have.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired why is U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pressuring the County to have better scrub habitat and paying Merritt Island Wildlife Refuge to create better habitat; with Dr. Swain responding they put a considerable effort into full habitat restoration; NASA funds a lot of the work on the Refuge; there is close correlation between those two on restoration activities; and if the federal government removes any scrub property as part of the Space Operations, it does restoration. She noted they have an extensive program for that; they are restoring severely overgrown scrub habitat and looking at restoring very disturbed habitat, not only overgrown, and putting scrub communities in those. Commissioner O'Brien advised the Titusville City Manager stated that according to his figures for necessary habitat 750 acres are required to support and adequately protect the population of scrub jays; and using the County's figures, Mr. Hoaglund concluded it would need 2,500 acres. He inquired if that is true or false; with Dr. Bowman responding those figures are based on old modeling. Chairman Higgs advised Mr. Hoaglund is not the City Manager of Titusville; he is an associate planner; and the information was to Sam Ackley who is the City Manager.

Mr. O'Connell advised the conversation is getting much broader than what the Steering Committee originally tried to address, which was the responsibility or liability of individual landowners under the ESA in the attempt to create a more efficient and less expensive permitting process that would have a better biological result. He stated the assumption was made that irrespective of the County's legal liability, the individual landowners would still have that; in a sense it is a service to the landowners; they are going to have that requirement anyway; and the County would be providing a service by collecting them all into a single permit. He stated the discussion of viability is important, but it is broader than the plan is and what the Steering Committee was trying to address.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he understands that; the Committee has been focused and did a marvelous job; but the broader picture is if statements made to him in print and conversation are true. He stated another statement made in Straight Talk was between Cape Canaveral Air Force Station and Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge there is at least 20,500 or 27.8 times the minimum acreage needed for preservation of the species; he does not know if that is true or not; and inquired if it will preserve the species. Dr. Swain stated Commissioner O'Brien would not read the National Enquire to get his news, and Straight Talk has a lot of misinformation. Commissioner Ellis stated the number of acreage of scrub on KSC and the Air Force Station is correct. Commissioner O'Brien stated he received a letter from a realtor, Theodora Brown of Cocoa Beach, saying she is upset with the possibility of a scrub jay plan; the scrub plan is to preserve 9,400 acres of prime land in Brevard County, and excludes KSC and other government lands already under some type of conservation management; she perceives 15 million dollars will come from the EELS Program; and inquired if the citizens' intent was to combine EELS with other programs not voted for. He stated he discussed it with Margaret Hames and was told the EELS Program was also part of the scrub jay preservation program.

Chairman Higgs advised the EELS Program designated scrub as lands it wanted to buy; it has proceeded on that course of action and has set aside funds to buy in that area; and what the plan does is give credit to Brevard County landowners for that. She stated it does not take the money, use the money, or steal the money in any way other than to say Brevard County taxpayers taxed themselves, and the EELS Committee is going to buy scrub, and put that in the positive column, so they would get credit collectively for the purchases, but will not take the land.

Commissioner Cook advised the same comment was made to him; he voted for EELS and thought the money was primarily to buy wetlands when he voted for it; he understands other decisions were made; and the question has come up that if it was to buy scrub lands, should it have been more specific on the referendum. He stated he understands the EELS Committee considers scrub environmentally-endangered lands.

Dr. Swain advised the original flyer for "Preservation Brevard" has a very large picture of the Florida scrub jay and scrub habitat and a bull dozer clearing scrub; that is what every voter in Brevard County received; and it was very clear in the promotional information that was one of the key foci of the EELS Program.

Commissioner Cook stated not every voter reads mail they get from governments. Chairman Higgs stated it was not from government; part of the EELS Referendum issues was that the committee of experts would choose what would be considered environmentally-endangered lands under its criteria; and they were the ones who picked that kind of land to buy.

Commissioner O'Brien advised he brought those up because citizens have put them in writing, and he wants to determine if they are right or wrong. He stated another comment made was, "If 80% of the scrub jays and other critters are located on land either already owned by government under some conservation management plan, then what is the real reason to spend 90 million dollars under this ruse of saving them." He inquired if 80% of the scrub jays are on land owned by government or under some conservation management plan; with Dr. Swain responding there are essentially five populations described in the County; there are the ones on federal properties, three on the mainland, and one in the South Beaches; while there is connection from a biological point of view, they are not contiguous; and four of the five sub-populations are on non-federal land. She stated there is one large population on federal lands; however, Fish and Wildlife Service will be evaluating what the viability of each of the four populations on non-federal lands is regardless of what is happening on federal properties. Commissioner O'Brien advised another statement was, "Who will administer the 7.5 million dollars charged annually for maintenance; will the $800 per acre or $200 per acre lay there and do nothing; and if the land is being used for public benefit, why should the property owners be required to pay the cost of the scrub conservation development plan?" He advised the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights states, "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation"; and that sentence got to him because Mr. Knox brought up the new property rights laws that are coming out of Washington and Tallahassee, and the plan may be in legal jeopardy. Mr. Knox stated he said someone should consider that possibility.

Chairman Higgs advised under the ESA the people who own scrub land will have to take care of their obligation; if the Board chooses to go with the plan, it will give them additional help in taking care of that obligation; so although it cannot erase the obligation, the County, through a collective mitigation plan and effort, can help them. She stated the taxpayers who have purchased or made commitments under the EELS Referendum will be contributing also; statewide monies will be contributing if they are able to get CARL funds; so although individual property owners will still contribute, the larger population who will benefit also will be contributing. She stated if the plan does not pass, it will leave the landowners to fend for themselves; there could possibly be a change in the Act; but it would leave them on their own and leave the science of preserving the birds and other species on scrub lands on their own also.

Commissioner Ellis stated if the plan does not pass, the burden will fall on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; with Chairman Higgs responding it will still fall on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and on the development and environmental sides there has been dissatisfaction with the process of the ESA. She stated the plan tries to help those people who are obligated under the ESA to come up with a more economical and efficient way of doing it, and share that burden with people who care what happens to the species that are inhabiting scrub; it does not eradicate the ESA; and it does not do anything other than come up with a more cost effective and efficient plan that spreads the cost and benefits of the plan. Commissioner O'Brien advised earlier someone said there was one family on federal land and four families off federal lands; with Dr. Swain responding she said there was one sub-population on federal lands and four off federal lands. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the effort is to save all scrub properties; with Dr. Swain responding no. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if there is a percentage of properties they are trying to save. He stated he heard 10,000 acres; now it is to preserve 9,400 acres; and inquired how many acres is 20% of all the lands, good and bad, versus what they want to preserve.

Dr. Bowman advised the Science Advisory Group was not interested in saving any set amount of land; it was tasked with maintaining the viable populations of jays in existing distributions; the plan does that and has a certain amount of land required to do that; that was their job; if they were able to maintain viable populations with less lands, they would; but this is what was required based on a whole series of criteria established in the beginning as well as spatial requirements and population requirements. Commissioner O'Brien advised KSC and Merritt Island Wildlife Refuge are making a good effort to revitalize poor scrub lands; and inquired if they can correct or fix poor quality land, could the amount of lands they are looking to buy be reduced by moving viable populations to the lands KSC restores and reduce the 90 million dollars to 60 million dollars. Dr. Bowman responded no, because U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is going to evaluate the plan partially on how much it assists in preserving the species as a whole; they cannot lose any sub-populations on the mainland without the species as a whole suffering some negative impact; the jays on federal properties are isolated from the mainland jays; they cannot fly back and forth across the Indian River Lagoon; so they need to deal with them independently on the mainland. Commissioner O'Brien inquired how do they get to Cape Canaveral Air Force Station from Merritt Island; with Dr. Swain responding in theory there is some possibility of getting from the Cape Coastal scrub around Haulover Canal.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if there is no access from Merritt Island to North Brevard; with Dr. Swain responding there is no indication of access between the complex on the barrier island because the very large Turnbull Hammock is a barrier to any movement out there.

Micah Savell, 1370 Sarno Road, Suite A, Melbourne, advised the $1.20 figure if proportionately distributed to all taxpayers gives him a lot of trouble; it may be better if taxpayers that do not own scrub pay $1.20 and have the benefit of 90 million dollars pay a higher share of the burden because it is not fair for a scrub owner to pay $5,300 per acre plus $200 a year. He inquired if the maintenance fee of $200 a year is locked in over the duration of the 30 years or can it be modified. He stated he attended the public meetings held by the Steering Committee and at each one he found additional information that was relevant; there are 13,714 acres of scrub; the plan is talking about scrub outside government lands; the plan is to govern and control 9,400 acres; and inquired what happens to the other 4,300 acres, and if it has scrub, can the owners do what they want, or do they have to go to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Chairman Higgs advised Mr. Savell his time is up.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to authorize an additional two minutes for Mr. Savell to complete his presentation. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Savell inquired if they do not participate, what will happen to the land. He stated property owners in core areas are given a voluntary opportunity to join the program; if the plan is adopted, they cannot use their land, but can be willing sellers and sell to the plan; he was told the alternate property owners next to the 4,700 acres of core area that have two acres or less would not be affected; and inquired if they are released, can they immediately use their land or do they have to go through a lottery system and what is the eventual time frame they would have to use it. He stated in comparing the executive summary with the 200-page document, he found a lot of things that were not consistent; it was said the plan is good and locked in for 30 years; the document said U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can come back and change, alter, or amend it, or the oversight committee can make changes; and inquired what are those guidelines.

Chairman Higgs advised Mr. Savell his time has run out.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to give Mr. Savell an additional five minutes. Chairman Higgs advised the Board it should be prepared to grant ten minutes to all the other speakers to treat them the same as Mr. Savell. She called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Savell explained the various maps, location of birds, different quadrants, etc. He stated he heard rhetoric that they do not fly over water and distances over two miles; 53 families are in one section and 39 in another; and if that is the case, then some of the lands do not have long-term potential for survival. He stated information can be made to tell the story they are selling; there has been a lot of information, scientific and biological; but he did not obtain any documentation to critique it and see if it is biological. He stated one report says 400 to 500 families are on KSC and another says 500 to 800 families, and 374 families in Brevard County excluding government lands; and in one case they talk about pairs of birds and in others they talk about families; there are three birds to each family; and that plays out differently in the long-term overall scope. He stated the most important point they talked about over three years is notifying property owners; they were told 5,100 parcels are affected; at the meeting in Melbourne he inquired about it and the County said it would cost about $50 for the list of properties; he got the list which cost $572.15, and there are 26,338 parcels of property affected in the County. Mr. Savell stated in the beginning this was supposed to be a Countywide plan not an isolated plan that covered a few areas; he is a developer affected by the plan and does not want to shoot himself in the foot; the guy who will suffer will be the eventual homeowner; and requested the Board look hard at this plan and notify all the people with adequate information on the pros and cons of the plan. He stated the executive summary needs to go and also a critique that offers the criticisms and hidden things, such as liens on their properties. Commissioner O'Brien stated it is a Countywide plan and the summary points out that it is. Mr. Savell stated he thought it was Countywide, but when he asked Mr. O'Connell about lands somewhere else, he said they can still go to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and inquired if that is or is not the case, and if they have scrub, does it matter if they have birds or not. Commissioner O'Brien stated Mr. Savell's questions are about implementation. Mr. Savell inquired if it benefits all the lands in Brevard County or just those targeted.

Mr. O'Connell advised landowners not in the reserve have to go to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; the plan is designed so that folks who participate and mitigate through the plan will carry an agreement to one-stop permitting and will not see U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service again; those are the folks outside the reserves; and inside the reserves, the plan has targeted funds that will be used to purchase those lands from willing sellers. He stated if a person participates in the plan he does not have to see U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Mr. Savell stated his question is not if they participate in the plan, his question is if they had 13,714 acres of scrub and the plan is to save 9,400 acres, what happens to the other 4,314 acres; with Mr. O'Connell responding those who participate will take advantage of one-stop permitting under the plan and those who do not participate have a choice of pursuing permits through U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. He stated if they do not want to sell their properties as reserve, they have a choice of going to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as well. He stated there are four pieces of habitat that are larger than two acres; all of that will be released because it is fragmented in Palm Bay; there are 53 families of scrub jays in Palm Bay; but the Steering Committee determined it is not even material to try and administer those.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if he owned a quarter-acre lot in Palm Bay, would he have to pay the fee; with Mr. O'Connell responding no, and the reason is it is not material and is more expensive to administer than the revenue would generate. He stated there is only one place in Brevard County where parcels are less than two acres but the habitat patch is much larger than two acres and considered practical for acquisition; and that is in Valkaria. Commissioner Ellis inquired if parcels under two acres will be released without a fee; with Mr. O'Connell responding yes.

Discussion ensued on fragmented parcels and parcels in different ownerships.

Harry Fuller, 424 Dorset Drive, Cocoa Beach, representing Space Coast Builders Association, presented a flyer to the Board of their attitude towards the plan; and stated if the plan is passed into law, it has to be done by ordinance; if it is not passed into law, he would not have to comply with it; and if the Board passes it into law, it takes the responsibility away from the federal government and puts it on the County. He stated as a property owner, if he wants to get rid of his property, he can ask for a clearing permit; and if they say he cannot have one, he will say fine, pay up; and that is where the Board will be stuck with the plan. He stated it is taking on a tremendous burden; people will not join and ask for clearing permits then say buy it; and it is taking the responsibility of compensating people for their property. Mr. Fuller stated the plan is supposed to be spread evenly over everyone; it starts out by saying mitigation is not the way to do it; the plan is claimed to be cheaper but he does not know if it is; and he would not join the plan if he was a property owner, which he is not so he is not fighting for a personal gain. He advised the plan comes out with join or suffer; there is pending legislation in the federal government on the ESA; and it should let the federal requirements settle down and make sure there is no further federal legislation coming out that will affect this issue because it is trapping people into joining now or forget it. He stated if the federal government eliminates the requirements, they may have a new ESA; so the Board should wait and see what happens with the federal government. He stated it is a great plan but it has a lot of traps. He noted Dr. Fishkind gave the Board the tax burden using 4 mills; he uses 20 mills because that is what his tax bill is including all agencies; the Board has to find taxes for 90 million dollars if the plan becomes law; and it would give up half a billion dollars in property values that it could tax if that same property were developed into residential housing areas. He stated land ratio and structure is 5-to-1 ratio, so 100 million dollars in land is 500 million dollars of taxable developed property; so it is not just giving up 90 million dollars, but 500 million dollars worth of taxes which is a good chunk. Mr. Fuller stated the Board may say it does not have it now and that is true; but it will in the future if Florida continues to grow; and he does not think growth will stop. He stated it will cause loss of wages for people in the construction industry of about 200 million dollars; so it will be giving up 200 million dollars worth of income that affects people. He stated there are things happening in the Legislature and federal government; the House passed something that is probably so complex no one will figure it out; and by the time they do all the studies, who knows, they may have something better. Mr. Fuller advised he is guessing it will be reduced from what it is today because there is a massive rush against the ESA; people all over the country are revolting against taking of property for environmental purposes or whatever; the White House said it would not worry about anything less than five acres, but U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is interpreting that for endangered and threatened species; so he does not know how that is coming out. He stated if he has five acres or less, he would not join the plan because he would not have an obligation; financial institutions like to be first with liens; the liens for water in Port St. John are being paid off because they cannot get financing on their properties; so this is not a situation where a lien is not a problem, because it becomes a problem unless it can be worked out to leave the financial institution in the first position.

Norma Savell, 3500 S. Courtenay Parkway, Merritt Island, President of Citizens for Constitutional Property Rights, advised Commissioner O'Brien asked about relocating scrub jays; she thinks it is a fantasy that scrub jays cannot cross the rivers; they are Florida birds and grew up around water for generations; so they fly across the water. She stated her fantasy is taking the birds across the water on a boat, letting them vacation on the beach or mainland, and ending up back on the other side, and the jays beating her back because the boat could only go five miles per hour. She stated she is sorry that they had such a problem having people on their side give their opinions because some people have spent a lot of time studying this; and it is not fair that they have been interrupted and the other side got to come up and give their speeches uninterrupted and take as much time as they wanted. She stated TODAY Newspaper said one of the two concerns for Americans is their fear that they will not have enough money and another is loss of jobs; so this is not a good time to embark on a project like this plan. She stated from the beginning of the scrub plan she felt the deck was stacked against the people; the former Board allowed an agent of the Nature Conservancy to facilitate the Committee, but this Board allowed him to stay on in this position; and there is a conflict of interest as his goals are opposite to that of property owners. She stated the Nature Conservancy is a real estate environmental organization whose success has been in selling marked up real estate to a built-in buyer, the government; it looks like a conflict of interest; many of them do not feel they have been represented on the Committee; it seems the environmental groups always know when to show up for those plans and what plans are in the works; but the average citizen is not aware of them, and the meetings have been poorly attended because they are totally unaware of what is happening. Ms. Savell advised poll questions of if you care about birds and trees will be answered yes by everyone; but if asked if Brevard County should take on a 90-million-dollar project so each jay can spread its wings over 25 acres, the answer would be different; people are bigger than birds; and the dream of many home buyers would be to have one acre of land for their home. She stated information has come out of the Committee that 80% of the scrub jays reside on government lands, but common sense says 80% is enough to save a species, so why spend 90 million dollars to save 20%. She stated she does not believe the scrub plan is about jays; it is socialism and any excuse is a good excuse; and if the plan is approved, the next will begin with another species. She stated most Americans love nature and should be able to care for it on their own; a horse can be lead to water easier than pushed there by force; and rather than the 90 million dollars for birds, she would like to use the tax money to defend their property rights to the Supreme Court against threatening agencies, especially with changes nearby in the future. She requested the Board reject the plan or bring it up for referendum and let the people do it; the plan represents bureaucracy, over regulation, and wasted tax dollars of the past; three of the Commissioners sit here today in testament to that fact; they are here because the taxpayers wanted change; and this decision will tell the voters how they did in the last election.

Albert Notary, 690 Timuquana Drive, Merritt Island, advised page 3 of the executive summary says, scrub jays live in families of two to eight individuals and need 23 acres; the Board plans to purchase 9,000 acres at a cost of 90 million dollars; assuming it gets 100% occupancy rate, that is eight in a family, that means it will have 3,000 birds; and to raise the money, it plans to steal 25 million dollars by the plan called a volunteer plan from property owners who have scrub on their land and have yet to be notified of the Board's intentions so they can have a say in this. He stated the Board plans to steal 15 million dollars of taxpayers money that were voted on for EELS, not to save the scrub jays; he heard comments that the EELS Committee decided to include scrub land, but he also heard EELS wants to use money for maintenance; so he does not know who is going to get the 15 million dollars. He stated the Board said the State will give 50 million dollars; he doubts that the Board has the check in hand today, and it did not tell the people all the things that have to happen before the state gives the money. He stated it is doing all this to provide a private home for 3,000 birds that are threatened, not endangered, at a cost of $30,000 a bird; and more than 3,000 families have to work three years to make $30,000. Mr. Notary advised page 3 also says the large remaining scrub habitat on the mainland is highly fragmented and in need of immediate restoration; and if the Board is really interested in saving scrub jays, it would be prudent to find some fine scrub land somewhere else in Florida or the United States. He stated the summary says much about scrub land on KSC and the Air Force Station which is as much Brevard County as Titusville, Cocoa, and other cities; but most of it needs restoration and a small percentage has been restored; and it says birds will not fly across the river, but in fact they are the same type of birds the Board wants to save. He stated in the draft on page 33 there are 140,000 acres on KSC, 12,000 acres of scrub and another 9,900 acres of scrub on the Air Force Station; that is a total of 21,900 acres of scrub land; and if it was fully occupied as mainland scrub, there would be over 7,000 birds, more than twice the amount on the mainland. Mr. Notary advised page 7 says a maintenance fee of $200 an acre is required; it does not say how much it will cost to immediately restore the mainland scrub; so he assumes the $200 fee covers the cost; that means it will cost $4,380,000 to manage 21,900 acres at KSC less what KSC is spending today; and 65 million dollars, which is 90 million dollars less the 25 million dollars the Board was planning to steal from unsuspecting property owners, invested at 5.5% would give $375 million a year to pay for maintenance and take care of the birds at KSC. He stated with that approach the Board would have over 7,000 threatened not endangered scrub jays, $65 million in the bank, would not steal $25 million from a few property owners, and if U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is not satisfied with the plan, there are judges who would consider it a very generous plan. He stated this plan is one that satisfies the likes and dislikes of very few people at the expense of property owners and taxpayers; it is a manipulation of land and funds and must be put up to the voters of Brevard County to see what they want to do; and asked to read a letter from Wes Hoaglund. Chairman Higgs advised each Commissioner has read it. He presented the Board with a cartoon.

Charles Goodrich, 1809 Pine Street, Melbourne Beach, advised after looking at the whole document, additional questions have come up; his primary concern is justice and fairness; one of the largest population of birds is the 53 families in Fellsmere; however, none of those property owners will be required to contribute to the plan because they would be released. He stated it is not fair to take money from one class of taxpayers for something that will benefit everyone; so the Board needs to consider that before it adopts the plan. He inquired where they would go to get a permit from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. He stated a contract is an agreement between two parties who know everything that is going to happen and agree to do something; and inquired if everybody who is going to be asked to opt into the plan will see the full text of the permit application that is going to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which is only fair. Mr. Goodrich advised it would be most fair for the County to apply for the permit before a time period is allocated to landowners to opt in or out of the plan, because if U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service grants the permit, the landowners would have security of what to expect under the plan and that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service accepted it and knows what it wants to do and when it can do it. He suggested the Board do it that way to make it fair and provide the most information for everyone who potentially would participate. He stated a phrase that came up in reading the full text of the plan is "unforeseen circumstances"; part of the plan permitting measures is to monitor the funding available to undertake mitigation of damage to habitat and incidental taking of species; and they need procedures to deal with those unforeseen circumstances. He noted he presumes it will be part of the permit application and the terms and conditions of the contract landowners are going to be asked to enter into; so the Board needs to make sure those other measures and assurances the County is being asked to give U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are not one-sided things. He stated if he takes a permit, he wants to make sure he has reasonable expectation that he can build the thing he wants to build over a long period of time; if things change and if different species are added to the list or taken off the list or become endangered or threatened, those may be the areas of unforeseen circumstances; and those questions should be cleared up before asking people to commit with their dollars ad infinitum so they know exactly what they are getting before they opt into the situation.

H. L. Clark, 3700 N. Riverside Drive, Indialantic, advised the Board is trapped between U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and what will happen with the new compensation law of the State of Florida; he was told 2 to 8 birds occupy 23 acres; that is one bird per 4 acres; and divided into the number of acres proposed, it would support 2,250 birds; and that divided into $90 million is $40,000 per bird. He stated there are a lot of human needs that need to be addressed; so the Board needs to ask if it is necessary and affordable and not if it is desirable because most people would say it is desirable to save the species. He stated CARL money is still taxpayers' money; and inquired is the Board being a good steward of that money by spending it this way; and is it necessary and cost effective. He inquired what could cost that much for maintenance if it is to be a preserve and nothing done to it; the brochure said fire should come through about every 12 years; that would be $2,400 just to burn the land; and that is exorbitant. Mr. Clark inquired what would happen to land people sell if it ceases to be used for wildlife preservation; and is there a reverter in the deed to go back to the original seller. Commissioner Ellis stated the County would take title. Chairman Higgs stated all the questions will be answered together. Mr. Clark inquired if owners of small parcels that are not in the plan can say they want to sell; and is there an obligation to buy their land even though they are not in the plan. He inquired what is required to restore the habitat on Kennedy Space Center because it would not be a big deal to set fire to it. He stated they are told the population is isolated from everything else since the dunes came and went; and inquired if there are any characteristics that developed in the KSC birds that would qualify them as subspecies since there has not been any interaction between that population and the mainland. Mr. Clark stated they came up with a scare tactic of do this or pay U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; the tax and spend mentality seems to permeate everything; the Board has a chance to do something realistic and fiscally responsible; and if it does not do that, it has to ask itself if not the Board who, and if not now, when.

Commissioner O'Brien advised there have been a lot of different questions; disinformation has been given on both sides of this issue; and in order to answer the questions, they should be written down because the Board cannot possibly answer all of them today. He suggested people who have questions write them down and give them to Commissioners to compile and get answers from the scientists and Dr. Fishkind; and the groups that do not agree can counter, and eventually they have to agree what the answer is. He stated he is not a scientist or CPA and does not know the answers, but can find the answers; and he would disseminate them to the Committee, property rights people, and Space Coast Builders. Chairman Higgs stated some questions can be answered quickly and may preclude other questions if the Board wants to do that; with Commissioner Scarborough responding he would prefer to let the people talk.

Deanna Reiter, Indian Harbour Beach, stated her concerns are the property rights legislation and how that would affect the plan, and what would happen if the Endangered Species Act (ESA) changes; and notification of people is a special problem. She stated she bought a lot in Indian Harbour Beach and was told she could not build on it because of the scrub jay; that was devastating; so she hopes people will be notified; and if someone brought up other options, it would be explained to them properly. She stated it was a gray area for them when they looked at it; and as soon as answers came in, it was easier to deal with; so some time and thought needs to be spent on the notification.

Margaret Broussard, 3660 North Riverside Drive, Indialantic, advised her lot is one-third scrub and two-thirds pine flatwoods and hammock; they took out only the footprint of the house and half of the driveway; and they do not plan to build on the scrub, but plan to put in a conservation easement to assure whoever has it after them will not build on it either, and it will continue to provide a habitat for birds, mammals, and reptiles that share the land with people. She stated that is one thing people can do; and it will reduce the value of their property, but it also reduces property taxes. Ms. Broussard stated the concern for property rights was a primary motivation for development of the plan; it was not just the environmentalists who wanted to have it although they had hopes for some kind of plan to solve the problem; it was the County and cities and people represented here; and that is the kind of good government and planning that is needed in a lot of areas. She stated it was time consuming, but it was done by volunteers very inexpensively; and getting together people who have an interest in it and a facilitator who knows how to make things happen between people with opposing views is the way to get something good out of controversy. She commended the Steering Committee and Scientific Advisory Committee who spent a lot of volunteer hours putting the science and plan together; and stated it is a way to avoid violence, litigation, and open aggression. She stated there is concern with certainty versus uncertainty regarding the ESA and possible revisions; and if the Board accepts the plan after all the questions are answered to the people's satisfaction, then it would have certainty in Brevard County. She noted there will continue to be people on both sides of conservation and development; that is the case in the entire United States; but if it has a plan by consensus, it is more likely to satisfy the citizens and get more approval than disapproval. Ms. Broussard advised any plan put together from different viewpoints will have compromises; she is concerned with the barrier islands that may not have scrub jays in the future, and would prefer to save every bit of scrub to increase the chances of survival; there are parcels less than two acres that would be helpful for those birds to have when going from a larger parcel to another; she would like to see those saved; but if they have to go, she can live with it; and that is compromise. She stated she is concerned about the survival of the eastern indigo snake which eats rattle snakes; the males range over larger areas of scrub than the scrub jays; and she would hate to think it will disappear. She stated she hates to see any more green space go away and receives a lot of calls from people all over the County regarding scrub jays and development; and told a story about a scrub jay nest built against a house in Satellite Beach and planting of scrub oaks on Church property in an effort to save the scrub jay family which is the last one in Satellite Beach. Ms. Broussard stated she hopes the Commissioners are beginning to understand the plan and learned what it is intended to do and not do. She stated the strongest point is the voluntary aspect which addresses fairness; and the Board has a chance to do something fiscally responsible with this plan. Commissioner O'Brien stated Ms. Broussard said there will be certainty in Brevard County if the plan is adopted; and requested his question of will there be certainty over 30 years be added to the list of questions.

Lori Wille, 809 Riverside Drive, Melbourne Beach, inquired who will have the option of voluntary participation once the plan is enacted; where are the facts coming from; where are the critical habitats; are the scrub jays all sub-species that are totally endangered; and if the habitat is not good at KSC, why do the jays reside there. She stated she got so many different numbers and no one has given her accurate figures; there are a lot of summations and figures from the 1991 and current reports; and there is a lot of different information floating around that is confusing. She questioned the statement on the migration of birds traveling over water; and stated in the 1800's there were no scrub jays in Brevard County, so the only way they could have gotten here is by boat or car; and the Board needs to get the facts and not just summations. Ms. Wille stated the figure she got was 5,100 people or parcels, another list had 26,000 people or parcels; and inquired what other numbers are off by that amount. She stated the list will become the bible for people who work for the County when someone comes in for a permit; she has seen the properties and the list is not accurate; and inquired who will go through the 26,332 parcels in order to correct it and make sure it is correctly done. She stated this week Straight Talk will be the only newspaper with the actual properties affected; some people who compared it with the National Enquirer showed the mentality of the Steering Committee when the comment was made; and the Commissioner was publicly belittled so an apology is necessary.

Dolores Kane, 5425 S. Tropical Trail, Merritt Island, advised the best stewards of land are private owners; in the beginning 10% of land was to be for scrub and they would not have to buy all the property; and she is not sure if that is viable or not, but it would be a better idea to let owners maintain scrub if it is necessary. She questioned whether 23 acres together is necessary; and if it is not a 23-acre tract, is there a reason to keep it. She told a story about a scrub jay on the golf course that took food out of their hands, and indicated they love people. She inquired if the birds are not in a habitat and have not been able to move, will they be moved to a new habitat.

John Jerard, P. O. Box 541113, Merritt Island, advised according to newspaper articles and other environmental information, the jays were introduced in the southwest corner of Florida; they seemed to have migrated all the way to Jacksonville; so they can find their own habitat. He stated birds fly from Canada to Mexico for safe havens; that is 4,000 miles; and questioned why the scrub jays cannot do the same. He told a story of his dad's pigeons that flew 800 miles to come back home, indicating birds can find their way around. He stated there must be cheaper ways to save the jays; maybe food feeders would work because they like to steal food; they stole food from people at the Cape and liked to be around people; and inquired why do they need their own habitat, and when did they become an endangered species. Mr. Jerard advised there were problems with deer in the Everglades and with alligators over-populating; California scientists interfered with the California lion and that resulted in fatal attacks, etc.; and stated it is over-correction that is the problem with this plan. He stated when there are too many animals in the same area, they get diseases; last year they had to kill 900 deer because they were over-populating; and people are interfering where they should not interfere. He stated they want to shut down Volusia County beaches because of the turtles; all those people will be out of business; they jumped on fishing and could not get 7 million dollars to buy the nets; and inquired if the plan is another over-correction. He noted two California Senators put human beings on the endangered species list because it costs $9,700 for impact fees for insects, prairie rats, etc. and concurrency fees, etc. or about $20,000 before they get started which puts 355,000 people out of the housing market; and it is heading that way in Brevard County with all the charges against people. He inquired if they are going to get matching funds and spend those funds on more properties; and will it lower the tax base and increase taxes for property owners.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the scrub jays were in Brevard County before 1800; with Dr. Swain responding yes. Commissioner O'Brien inquired when did they become a special distinct species and can they migrate beyond the East Coast of Florida.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board concentrates on preserving the scrub habitat, is it de-emphasizing other habitats such as hammocks and what is the negative impact on other habitats by concentrating on the scrub habitat.

Commissioner Ellis stated the questions should be answered before mailing notices; and inquired what will be mailed; with Chairman Higgs responding the Steering Committee is ready to advise people, but understood the Board wanted to know what it was going to mail, so it wanted something definitive to mail before it did it. Commissioner Ellis stated the draft plan should be mailed, or a card advising a habitat conservation draft plan has been proposed; copies are available in the libraries; as a scrub owner you will fall under a certain category; pay $5,300 and $200 a month or be released; and give each parcel owner details of how they will be affected under the plan. Chairman Higgs stated it would be unfair to do that on a post card. Commissioner Ellis stated two notices need to be mailed, one for the draft plan and one for the final plan. Chairman Higgs advised they will notify prior to the plan being adopted and also notify people once the plan is in place as to the options.

Mr. O'Connell advised the Steering Committee worked up a letter in January describing the plan and overall intent; there was a question whether the permit would be issued, then the participation period opened; and that is exactly how it would happen. He stated the plan contains a provision that will send the actual participation question out after the permit is issued by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and the letter will notify people there is a plan. Commissioner Ellis stated the letter does not tell the people they are the owners of scrub; with Mr. O'Connell responding it does in the first paragraph.

Commissioner Cook advised if the Board decides to send the notices, it should be put on the Agenda and come back with suggested wording to go out in the notice; it is important what is communicated; and he is not sure it can be done on a post card.

Commissioner Ellis stated the notices mailed should be based on the different classifications of scrub telling them their property is in the core or not in the core, what they have to pay, and if they were released or they can drop out, etc.; so one notice will not work. Chairman Higgs inquired if those can be identified from the list; with Tami Townsend responding the mail list they have currently has 26,000 people which is more than will be affected by the plan; that mail list is consistent; every person is targeted by either having scrub habitat or scrub occupancy on their property; and it includes everyone affected by those two parameters. Chairman Higgs inquired if they can distinguish from the list exactly where the parcels are; with Ms. Townsend responding there are probably legal descriptions attached.

Chairman Higgs inquired, if a notice is sent out now, will the comments first come to the Steering Committee to review and revise the draft plan based on those comments; or if the Board sends it out, is it saying it has the final draft and is ready to deal with the questions and comments. She indicated the Board may want the Steering Committee to get the comments and see what the objections are and if there are ways to resolve those and answer the questions.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board does not want to send a letter that is inflammatory; the truth has to be addressed in the letter that for some property owners it could be expensive; and they should be made aware of it and come forward with comments.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the Board wants to write the notice; with Commissioner Scarborough recommending it be put on the Agenda for the Board to work up. Chairman Higgs inquired if the Board will send the notice and include dates for the public hearings; with Commissioner Cook responding yes, it can be done now or have staff come back. Ms. Townsend advised there is a time line and night meetings required.

Commissioner Cook stated he wants to know why the original opinion of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was not challenged by the Ad Hoc Committee, who will administer the maintenance costs, can U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service come back next year and demand an entirely different habitat plan for other species if this plan is adopted, and how was the maintenance cost per bird split out.

Chairman Higgs inquired if there were any more comments; with Mr. O'Connell responding the Committee developed the plan and did not say anything.

Dr. Hillary Swain advised it is a good plan; she worked hard on it for two years or more; most of the questions have answers; but it may need some tweaking.

Tim McWilliams inquired what is the alternative to the plan if it is not good and the Board does not want to go with it, and what else will it do. He stated it would tell 26,000 people they have to go to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and spend four times as much to get permits than they would under the plan.

Chairman Higgs inquired what is the alternative; with Commissioner Ellis responding a plan without fees. Chairman Higgs stated if that is done, somebody has to pay. Commissioner Cook stated he talked to developers, and taking $20,000 per acre as an average for permitting from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is not realistic; it is according to size and complexity; and he was told the $20,000 is an inflated figure, as some developers could get through for much less per acre. Mr. McWilliams stated from personal experience the $20,000 is pretty close; and inquired what is the alternative and what is the Board going to tell citizens who own scrub habitat they can do when they come and say U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wants them to buy four acres for every acre they want to develop. He stated this plan gives him and others an opportunity to take advantage of public funding; and inquired if the Board is going to tell people it does not want them to take advantage of public funds and wants them to go out there on their own. He stated all the plan does is make an avenue for citizens to participate in public funding. Commissioner Cook advised there is a whole other group of opinions; a lot of people have a lot of questions about the plan; and he wants to know why it was not challenged by the County at the time U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said the County had to do it.

Chairman Higgs stated if there is another plan, it would be fair for those on the Steering Committee who spent considerable time working on this plan to hear it and have the opportunity to react to it and work on it; with Commissioner Ellis responding everybody can offer their different versions of the plan. Chairman Higgs inquired why have six people who built a knowledge base not been given the opportunity to look at another plan. She stated they presented the best plan they came up with based on the best information relating to economics, biology, etc.; they built some knowledge and experience; and they should be given the courtesy to review a plan someone else developed, which is not an unreasonable request. Commissioner Ellis stated he wants to see a plan without fees.

Commissioner Cook advised the Board owes the Committee a decision on this plan; it can vote it up or down, whatever it decides as it goes through the process; and after that, it can address whether it wants another plan or what it wants to do. Chairman Higgs stated the Board owes them the best plan it can come up with; it has people who developed a knowledge base; and inquired why not use them, and tell them if it has a better plan. Commissioner Ellis stated the Committee is still advisory, and changes to the plan can be made by the Board; with Chairman Higgs responding absolutely. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board can vote to take no action. Chairman Higgs stated the Board indicated it would suggest a different plan; and she is suggesting that plan be brought to the Committee to look at the better plan and come up with the best plan it can. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the Board wants to look at alternative plans now; with Commissioner Cook responding no.

Chairman Higgs suggested an alternative plan get the same critique this plan has. She stated every time the Committee met, every bit of information was critiqued publicly by everyone who was there; so if there is another plan out, let it receive the same level of scrutiny that this plan received.

Commissioner Cook stated the Board can decide when it comes back whether or not it wants to send out the notices or how it wants to do it, whether it wants to proceed from there or go in a different direction, or what the purpose is at that point. He stated that is another opportunity to look at it; and the wording of the notice is of concern. Chairman Higgs inquired if the Board wants the Committee to draft a letter for its review and the Board notify the people that the plan is under consideration; with Commissioner Ellis responding they need to be told what the effect will be on them. Chairman Higgs inquired if Ms. Townsend should do the letter; with Commissioner Ellis responding yes, and it should come back to the Board.

DISCUSSION, RE: EXECUTIVE SESSION

Chairman Higgs advised an executive session was scheduled at 4:00 p.m., and the Board did not do that; and inquired what it needs to do now; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding it could do it now if it wants to. Commissioner Cook inquired if the Board could delay the zoning meeting or go into that meeting then recess; with Mr. Knox responding if there will be discussion at the executive session, it would be best to open the zoning meeting then recess for the executive session.

Chairman Higgs advised the Board will start the zoning meeting then recess for executive session.

Upon motion and vote, the workshop adjourned at 5:10 p.m.

ATTEST:

SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK

(S E A L)

NANCY N. HIGGS, CHAIRMAN

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA