Brevard County Board of County Commissioners

Tuesday, November 12, 2024 9:00 AM Brevard County Board of County Commissioners 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way Viera, FL 32940 Commission Chambers Minutes Regular November 12, 2024 A. CALL TO ORDER 9:00 AM Commissioner District 1 Rita Pritchett, Commissioner District 2 Tom Goodson, Commissioner District 3 John Tobia, and Commissioner District 4 Rob Feltner Present: Commissioner District 5 Jason SteeleAbsent: C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Rob Feltner, District 4 Commissioner Feltner led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. F.1. Save Our Indian River Lagoon Contingency Fund Request for three septic to sewer conversion projects: Sykes Creek Zone M, Sykes Creek Zone N and Sykes Creek Zone T (District 2) The Board authorized funding increases; and authorized the County Manager to execute associated Budget Change Requests for the Sykes Creek Zones M, N, and T Septic to Sewer Projects from the Save Our Indian River Lagoon Contingency Fund. Result: APPROVED Mover: Tom Goodson Seconder: Rob Feltner F.2. Adopt Resolution and Release Performance Bond: Reeling Park North and Seville at Addison Village, Phase 6 - District 4 Developer: The Viera Company The Board adopted Resolution No. 24-122, releasing the Contract and Surety Performance Bond dated February 20, 2024, for Reeling Park North and Seville at Addison Village, Phase 6, Developer: The Viera Company. Result: ADOPTED Mover: Tom Goodson Seconder: Rob Feltner F.3. Adopt Resolution and Release Performance Bond: Farallon Fields at Viera, Phase 1 - District 4 Developer: The Viera Company The Board adopted Resolution No. 24-123, releasing the Contract and Surety Performance Bond dated February 20, 2024, for Farallon Fields at Viera, Phase 1, Developer: The Viera Company. Result: ADOPTED Mover: Tom Goodson Seconder: Rob Feltner F.4. Approval, Re: Declaration of Restrictive Covenants for the West Cocoa Stormwater - Flood Protection and Infrastructure Upgrades - Grant 22FRP97 - District 1. The Board approved and authorized the Chair to execute the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants. Result: APPROVED Mover: Tom Goodson Seconder: Rob Feltner Page 1 of 37 November 12, 2024 F.5. Adopt Resolution and Release Performance Bond: Aripeka at Viera, Phase 2 - District 4 Developer: SFM Development of Brevard, LLC The Board adopted Resolution No. 24-124, releasing the Contract and Surety Performance Bond dated April 19, 2022, for Aripeka at Viera, Phase 2, Developer: SFM Development of Brevard, LLC. Result: ADOPTED Mover: Tom Goodson Seconder: Rob Feltner F.6. Solid Waste Management Department’s Capital Improvement Program and Financing Plan The Board approved and executed Task Order No. 24-02; authorized staff to research the most cost-efficient bond financing method to fund the Solid Waste Management Department’s Capital Improvement Program, including a third-party engineering study that is required for the publicly issued bonds; and authorized the County Manager to approve all appropriate Budget Change Requests for a third-party engineering study. Result: APPROVED Mover: Tom Goodson Seconder: Rob Feltner F.7. Request permission to execute Certification of Financial Responsibility for Local Government required by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) for a New Deep Injection Well Permit Application (District 3) The Board authorized the County Manager to sign on behalf of Brevard County, the Certificate of Financial Responsibility for Local Government associated with the permitting for a second deep injection well at the South Beaches Wastewater Treatment Facility. Result: APPROVED Mover: Tom Goodson Seconder: Rob Feltner F.8. Request Permission to Proceed with FY 25 budgeted Utility Services Department Operations and Maintenance Projects The Board granted Purchasing Services, on behalf of the Utility Services Department, approval to perform any of the following actions to procure the below mentioned operations and maintenance projects: solicit a competitive Invitation to Bid for the lowest, most responsive, and responsible bidder for the projects outlined in the Summary Explanation and Background; exercise renewal options upon evaluating supplier performance and recommendations from Utility Services staff with the approval of Purchasing Services, establishing that continuance of the contract is favorable prior to renewal of the agreement; and authorized the County Manager to execute all contracts, contract renewals, contract amendments, and any necessary contract extensions that exceed $200,000 in total aggregate value, upon review and approval by the County Attorney’s Office, Risk Management, and Purchasing Services. Result: APPROVED Mover: Tom Goodson Seconder: Rob Feltner F.9. Board Approval: Agreement between Brevard County and the Federal Page 2 of 37 November 12, 2024 Government/Patrick Space Force Base (PSFB) for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Transport Services The Board approved and executed the Agreement between the County and Federal Government/PSFB for EMS Transport Services for Government beneficiaries and the general population of PSFB. Result: APPROVED Mover: Tom Goodson Seconder: Rob Feltner F.10. Approval: The Board’s approval to purchase one additional Class A Fire Engine/Pumper Truck. The Board approved the purchase of a Fouts Brothers Class A Fire Engine/Pumper Truck for $700,000; and authorized the County Manager to execute any documents necessary for this purchase. Result: APPROVED Mover: Tom Goodson Seconder: Rob Feltner F.11. Acknowledge receipt of the FY 2024-2025 Parrish Medical Center Revenue and Expense Budget and Millage Resolution The Board acknowledged receipt of the FY 2024-2025 Revenue and Expense Budget and Millage Resolution for the Parrish Medical Center. Result: APPROVED Mover: Tom Goodson Seconder: Rob Feltner F.12. FY 2025 Meeting Schedule for Community Development Districts The Board acknowledged receipt of the FY 2025 Meeting Schedule for the following Community Development Districts: Baytree, Chaparral of Palm Bay, Heritage Isle, Mayfair, Montecito, PBR, Tranquility, Viera East, Viera Stewardship, and Willow Creek. Result: APPROVED Mover: Tom Goodson Seconder: Rob Feltner F.13. Conveyance of Property Acquired by Escheatment Tax Deed to the City of Titusville The Board adopted and executed Resolution No. 24-125, authorizing the conveyance of property acquired by Escheatment Tax Deed that is located within the boundaries of the incorporated City of Titusville, Florida, pursuant to Section 197.592(3), Florida Statutes; and authorized the Vice-Chair to execute a County Deed to convey the property acquired by Escheatment Tax Deed to the City of Titusville, Florida, pursuant to Section 197.592(3), Florida Statutes, upon review and approval by the County Attorney’s Office. Result: ADOPTED Mover: Tom Goodson Seconder: Rob Feltner F.14. Group Health Insurance Stop Loss (Excess Insurance) placement CY2025 Page 3 of 37 November 12, 2024 The Board approved Option 2 for the renewal of Stop Loss Insurance with Symetra Financial for the self-insured group health insurance program; and authorized the Human Resources Director to execute all documents necessary to bind this coverage effective January 1, 2025. Result: APPROVED Mover: Tom Goodson Seconder: Rob Feltner F.15. Appointment(s) / Reappointment(s) The Board appointed/reappointed Jennifer Clements to the Board of Adjustments, with said term to expire on December 31, 2026; and Marisa Kahn to the Community Action Board, with said term to expire on November 12, 2026. Result: APPROVED Mover: Tom Goodson Seconder: Rob Feltner F.16. Acknowledge Receipt of the Economic Development Commission of Florida’s Space Coast Bi-Annual Report The Board acknowledged receipt of the Economic Development Commission of Florida’s Space Coast’s Bi-Annual Financial Report for their expenditures from October 1, 2023, through September 30, 2024. Result: APPROVED Mover: Tom Goodson Seconder: Rob Feltner F.17. Acknowledge Receipt of the County’s Municipal Community Redevelopment Agencies FY 2024/2025 Adopted Budgets The Board acknowledged receipt of the County’s Municipal Community Redevelopment Agencies FY 2024/2025 adopted budgets. Result: APPROVED Mover: Tom Goodson Seconder: Rob Feltner F.18. Permission to temporarily use Clerk of Courts & Comptroller’s signature plate. The Board recognized that Rachel M. Sadoff, Clerk of Courts and Comptroller, is an authorized signature on the Brevard County’s Truist Bank Accounts; and approved granting permission for the Finance Department to temporarily use Rachel M. Sadoff, Clerk of Courts and Comptroller’s, signature plate for the signing of Payroll or Accounts Payable checks, effective November 19, 2024, until a new signature plate can be obtained, which will include the new Chair’s signature. Result: APPROVED Mover: Tom Goodson Seconder: Rob Feltner F.19. Bill Folder The Board acknowledged receipt of the Bill Folder. Result: APPROVED Mover: Tom Goodson Page 4 of 37 November 12, 2024 Seconder: Rob Feltner F.20. Acceptance and Approval of Internal Audit Reports The Board acknowledged and approved the Internal Auditors’ Reports. Result: APPROVED Mover: Tom Goodson Seconder: Rob Feltner F.21. Legislative Intent and Permission to Advertise an Ordinance Establishing Brevard County as a Bill of Rights Sanctuary County The Board directed the County Attorney’s Office to prepare an ordinance establishing Brevard County as a Bill of Rights Sanctuary County; and approved scheduling and advertising the ordinance for consideration at a public hearing. Result: APPROVED Mover: Tom Goodson Seconder: Rob Feltner G. PUBLIC COMMENTS (Individuals may not speak under both the first and second public comment sections.) Christina Fleming stated Woods, Hurley, Rutherford, Cowen, Cole, Frasier, Hill, Pierce, Glasser, Martinez, Rad, Korman, Nelson, Vieth, Daly, Braga, Baumgardner, Bodine, McElroy, Litzenburg, Zart, Underwood, Murphy, Georgia, Miliken, Surely, Derival, Moore, Espinosa, Sasser, Alexander, Bruner, Minnow, Luisi, Riviera, Smith, Henninger, Fuentes, Cruz, Toro, Poland, Sheppard, MdBride, Chadwick, McGowee, Vote, Bole, Marpel, Hudson, Hat, Smith, Douglas, Graber, Christaldi, (unclear), Higgins, Marsh, Deleon, Powers, Keeler, Cunningham, Allenson, Gandy, Rada, Torrez, Rezendez, Bell, Ricky, Jones, (unclear), Boyer, Garcia, Bozinias, Rack, Frosh, Murray, Braga, Scott, Gillette, Sinclair, Hendricks, Sensone, Nieves, Carnival, Love, Joseph, Alkalaid, Wood, Uzel, Wash, (unclear), Sander, Tripari, Helen, dispatcher Carol, Assistant Chief Conner, dispatcher Coates, dispatcher Kelly, logistics Rose, fire inspector Osbourne, logistics manager Longstreet, dispatch Valdez, Logistics (unclear), Assistant Chief Distephano, Admin Cindy Pollen, and IT Ceravello; these are 92 field personnel and 104 total Fire Rescue personnel that have left; historically, Departments under the Board of County Commissioners anticipate a 10 to 12 percent employee attrition annually; this year they have lost approximately 20 percent of its field workforce; and this is not sustainable. She mentioned there is also six people that have been mandatory today that are being forced to work that did not want to work; there is also a restructuring upstairs and everyone knows with new titles comes new pay; and she asked where is that money coming from. H.1. Review of an after-the-fact Public Interest Determination (PID) request for an unpermitted “Widening Project within Pelican Creek,” 1865 1935 South Banana River Drive, Merritt Island. District 2. Vice Chair Pritchett called for a public hearing for review of an after-the-fact Public Interest Determination (PID) request for an unpermitted Widening Project within Pelican Creek, at 1865 – 1935 South Banana River Drive, Merritt Island. Darcie McGee, Assistant Director of Natural Resources Management, stated this is a request for after-the-fact unpermitted dredging of Pelican Creek; staff determined that the proposed activity is not consistent with Comprehensive Plans related to wetlands, surface waters, and the Manatee Protection Plan; staff requests that the Board consider the applicant’s submittal and the staff report and determine whether the activity meets the definitions of best public interest; Page 5 of 37 November 12, 2024 and she can answer any questions the Board may have. Commissioner Goodson stated this is a project down south, Pelican Creek, where the owner did some damage to wetlands and dredged without a permit, therefore the County could be on the hook for between $500,000 and $700,000 for mitigation and putting back mangroves and all of that; with all of that being said, right now is a finding to see if the Board wants to progress this further; and he inquired if that is correct. Ms. McGee advised it is whether the proposed activity and completed activity meets the definition of Best Public Interest. Commissioner Goodson stated that is all this is. Kim Rezanka stated she is in attendance on behalf of the applicants Aaron Reninger and Roger Xavier; she has met with staff recently and she is requesting a continuance until December 3; the staff report came out relatively late; she had one meeting with staff late on Friday, but she would like to have more opportunity to meet with them; she spoke with Mr. John Denninghoff, Assistant County Manager; December 3, 2024, would be before the proposed Code Enforcement; there are a number of people who may want to speak; and it is also a complicated issue and if they start now and continue it to December 3, they would have to start all over again. She advised she has a presentation if the Board denies the continuance; she thinks the applicant was going to try to work with the County to find a mutual, agreeable solution so the County is not on the hook for the $700,000, which she feels is not likely because if restoration is made it has to start with her clients; and with that she would ask the Board to continue to December 3, 2024. Commissioner Goodson asked staff to comment on whether it would be in agreement with that or not. Ms. McGee noted staff feels it is on pretty solid ground with the Policy interpretations with the assistance of the County Attorney’s Office; however, if the Board would like to decide for a continuance to work with the applicants, staff can certainly do that. John Denninghoff, Assistant County Manager, stated staff’s position is pretty solid, they believe; they did meet last week; technically this is their request for a PID and staff has responded to their request; now he thinks the applicant would like to respond to staff’s response and its prepared report; he does not anticipate that staff’s position is going to change, but they are willing to listen; and he thinks, and what they attempted to do last week, but with pretty short notice, this would not delay the Code Enforcement case, although he is not sure where it would stand with the process with Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and the Corp of Engineers, as far as the County’s situation, he has not considered what their situation with FDEP would be. Commissioner Tobia asked staff to speak to the $700,000 that Ms. Rezanka mentioned. Mr. Denninghoff stated he can explain how that has arisen; originally staff had anticipated, based on FDEP’s proposed Consent Order to the County, that it could be conceivably on the hook for as much as $700,000, but it is really $500,000; one of the challenges is that part of the Consent Order expects the County to provide plantings for trees that the applicant tore out; the County had trimmed them aggressively but elsewhere when that has been done they have grown back; however, they do not grow back when they are torn out by their roots, which is what has happened. He continued by saying staff does not know how it can replant without Page 6 of 37 November 12, 2024 restoration; that places the County in a serious state of limbo regarding what it is that the County will wind up doing; staff is negotiating with FDEP regarding this; as far as what the County would be requested to do, staff certainly has opinions of who should plant the trees; the one who tore them out should replant the trees; that is really not a matter of the PID at this point, but it will be with FDEP and the Special Magistrate in the Code Enforcement case; and the cost of planting and the cost of mitigation are where those expense come from. Commissioner Tobia advised he got the timeline for the Code compliance, it is December, and this would not technically impact that; but he asked Mr. Denninghoff to speak to the Consent Order, provide a timeline with that if the County has to have a plan to FDEP by a certain date, and what impact it would have if pushing this until December or a later date. Mr. Denninghoff stated staff if working with FDEP negotiating and going back and forth; staff has had a couple meetings with them but they are unsure how that is going to work out; they have taken the position, which if it was his choice, staff would absolutely reject and go to an administrative hearing regarding this, if they persist in the position that they have; on the one hand, he does not have a specific timeline; and it will be a case where if they reach a point that they do not want to talk to staff about it any longer and staff thinks they are at an impasse, is will probably go to an administrative hearing. Ms. Rezanka stated the irony is that when she met with FDEP last year they were giving them time to go through this PID process and if the County granted the PID process they would permit what could be done, possibly have to restore some, and that would have stayed everything for the County as well; she and her clients are also negotiating with FDEP and the Army Corp; they are totally in agreement with the Army Corp; basically what FDEP wants is going to include Mr. Reninger, Mr. Xavier, and the County; they have done individual Consent Orders waiting on the others to do something, which makes no sense; she is trying to talk to FDEP to get a joint Consent Order because they have her client's obligations in the County’s Consent Order and the County’s obligations in her client’s Consent Order; and it makes no sense. She continued by saying they are working with both FDEP and the Army Corp, but the irony is if they had gotten the PID, the County would not be on the hook for anything; and that seems to be missing in this whole analysis. Commissioner Goodson asked if Ms. Rezanka was waiting on that then why did she do the dredging and tear up the mangroves. Ms. Rezanka noted she has done nothing. Commissioner Goodson corrected his statement by saying her client. Ms. Rezanka continued by saying that is a Code Enforcement issue; she cannot speak to that, Mr. Reninger and Mr. Xavier would have to speak to that; they are now trying to do something that has been done hundreds of times in this County with a PID after-the fact; people often go in and impact wetlands or build in the surface water protection or the shoreline protection buffer and come to the Board and request a PID; most of the time there is not even a discussion; and they had met with the County last July and thought they were going down that path, and were shocked when they received that report. She added it is something they are trying to work through, and that is why she got a meeting two days after receiving the report. She mentioned her consultants were involved and need to be involved. Commissioner Goodson inquired from what Ms. Rezanka has said, is there any truth to that or is everybody confused. Page 7 of 37 November 12, 2024 Ms. McGee stated the Wetlands Protection Code and Comprehensive Plan have certain allowances for the Board to make PIDs for wetlands; that involves, if it is a commercial development in a commercial area on a corridor where they have to go out and assess the functionality of it and then the Comprehensive Plan allows an applicant to ask the Board for that PID for commercial development; for residential development there is a density restriction in there, but there is allowance according to the year it was platted, the size of the property; but the PID is for commercial properties and wetlands; surface water protection also has a PID Section for impacts in the surface water protection buffer, however, wetlands is only related to commercial development in certain circumstances. Commissioner Goodson asked, if he understands Ms. McGee to say, is that staff’s position, if she has it as a contingency, its not going to change tomorrow, next week, or when they come back. Ms. McGee replied not to her knowledge; she advised the County has overlapping Policies that are prohibiting the activity which would be the wetlands protection, also the surface water protection, and the Manatee protection; there are different layers on there for the denial of the request; best Public Interest is supposed to be a public project so that would be if Public Works had to do something for flood control and the Army Corp and the State approved it; and that would be a best Public Interest project. Mr. Denninghoff advised the Board he does not anticipate that staff’s position is going to change; they are pretty firm on understanding what the facts are; they know what happened; they know mostly of when it happened; they are also aware of the fact that the Code Officer appeared, based on a complaint on a Wednesday before Thanksgiving, and informed the applicants, the property owners, that they needed to discontinue that because they were doing so without a permit, and they proceeded to continue with the digging before the Code Officer even left the site; therefore, staff does not anticipate that they will hear anything that is going to make them change their minds, but they have not heard any more than what they have placed in their application. He went on to say staff provided information that it believes rebuts almost everything that was in that application; he would be curious to know what it is that they think is different and that staff would want to reconsider in some way; and he does not want to say that staff is infallible, they could change their minds. Commissioner Goodson stated he would make a motion to continue with this today and let Ms. Rezanka present her case. Vice Chair Pritchett asked for clarification if Commissioner Goodson wants to allow it to be brought back at a future date or continue with it today. Commissioner Goodson advised he wants to hear it today. Vice Chair Pritchett noted the Board will hear the speakers. Ms. Rezanka stated she does want to bring to the Board’s attention one issue; this is going to be an evidentiary hearing; the Board has heard from Mr. Denninghoff; she was hoping she would not have to go into that process and that this could be resolved by December 3, 2024; the consultants have not had the opportunity to talk with them; she disagrees and for one the question was never answered if her client had a PID would that resolve the issues, staff just went to the Code; and she disagrees with staffs interpretation of the Code. She noted at the end of this hearing she is going to ask for seven days to bring rebuttal according to the Board’s Page 8 of 37 November 12, 2024 Policy, therefore, this is going to be tabled and it would have to be by Board Policy to let them come back with rebuttal evidence after seven days, which would put them back into the new Commission; and she would ask the rest of the Board to consider tabling this so it can be done properly. Vice Chair Pritchett stated she is not that good with County legal and she asked Morris Richardson, County Attorney, is that is correct. Attorney Richardson stated he is looking for it; and he asked Ms. Rezanka where she is looking. Ms. Rezanka replied it is Board Policy 97: it is on page six, under four, Quasi-Judicial Hearings, “in addition to or in lieu of cross examination, the applicant may request an additional seven days beyond the date of hearing to submit evidence and rebuttal of testimony presented by the persons presenting evidence and opposition at the applicants, and tabling of the item to allow consideration of the submissions; she will be doing that at the end of this hearing… Attorney Richardson advised she may request it but it is not required that the Board will allow that; furthermore, the PID hearing really is a legislative finding of the Board so it is different than the quasi-judicial proceedings; while the applicant can request that, she is correct there, but the Board is not required to grant it. Ms. Rezanka noted this is an evidentiary hearing which puts it into quasi-judicial, in her opinion. She inquired if there is not motion to continue. She mentioned the other issue she was concerned about is there are only four Commissioners present and she was not able to meet with all the Commissioners before this Item; and that was another reason she wanted to continue this, however, she is prepared to go forward if that is the will of the Board. Commissioner Tobia asked Attorney Richardson to advise how long this allows the applicant and if it is over the 15 minutes. Attorney Richardson stated this one is admittedly a bizarre one because the proceeding is somewhat quasi-judicial in nature, but ultimately, it is a legislative determination the Board is going to make whether it is a public interest or not; it is not a quasi-judicial determination as to the public interest finding; although one may make findings of fact in support of that so that part is evidentiary, however, his recommendation would be to allow the applicant up to the 15 minutes, allow her to reserve some time for cross examination and rebuttal if she so desires. Ms. Rezanka stated her name and that she is in attendance on behalf of Aaron Reninger and Roger Xavier for the public interest determination to allow for the opportunity for her clients to apply for a permit to the St. John’s Army Corp of Engineers to fix the alleged dredging and impacts to the Mangroves; her and her clients met with the County back in July 26; and there was a full house of County staff with Mr. Denninghoff and Natural Resources being present. She went on to say after the County explained its position, discussion revolved around this PID and they really thought they were moving down the path; it took time for the consultants Lisa Toland and Clayton Bennett to work through the process so they can get the PID to the County; and staff has been working on it for year. She mentioned the Board has previously done many PIDs for commercial industrial and for restaurants based on an economic issue, not really a public interest determination; she did not think this would become as contentious as it has become; she met with staff last week and she was hoping to move forward, but it appears there is no interest in trying to resolve this problem through Army Corp and FDEP, through the staff, they just want this fixed; she believes there are reasons to allow this to be done to allow a Page 9 of 37 November 12, 2024 permit to go forward with Army Corp and FDEP to make this a more navigable canal; impacts to wetlands, the shoreline, or the surface water are allowed for the navigation issues; and there are times, and Mr. Reninger will tell the Board, that he has navigated in this canal. She continued by saying under 62-3694, permitted uses are recreation; there is a prohibition, but it also says functional wetland has been in fact impacted, and it is not feasible or desirable to repair or maintain, then there is a mitigation process; at this point she does not know how this could be repaired; the County does not allow for re-vetment, or stabilization, so the back filling of this is going to be very difficult, which is why we wanted to go forward and try to work with the County to resolve this; and again, she thought the County was going to be in support of this PID throughout this process, and it was surprising when they received the report last Wednesday. She stated there are some discrepancies within the staff report; they say there is routine maintenance, but they cut the mangroves down to the roots; they piled up debris along her clients property and along the County property for 420 feet; this was not routine maintenance and they did indeed dredge, they removed muck, but it is still dredging; and regarding where this was done, this is a man-made canal and the pictures are before the Board. She added this was a man-made canal and man-made wetlands, they are not pristine wetlands and it is not a perfect habitat; this is not leverage to obtain permits; this is a requirement; they have to get the County’s PID otherwise they will not meet the protection plan and will not be able to move forward; and the dredging is for water flow for the public and for boat use. She mentioned the historical use includes applicant use of the canal with boats; the County admits it was manmade and that it is two to three feet deep, certainly deep enough for boats; the County’s financial risk, if the applicant is permitting these wetlands, the financial risk to the County is nominal; the applicants will move forward with all the permitting, all the work, and the Consent Order will go away into the sunset because the Consent Orders now do anticipate that things would be repaired or permitted; and other PIDs the Board has approved has been Boniface Hires, Wickham Corners, Tractor Supply, Marker 99, and these were either things that were very large wetlands for economics or to fix something that had been done in the past. She stated the packet she provided the Board, the PID, this was a man-made canal; one can see that in 1969 part of this was dredged; in 1991 St. John’s issued a permit for this exact work that is being requested that would be permitted; phase one of this was completed; on page three of what she provided, the County does say that they removed 400 plus or minus feet of vegetation; they mulched 10 feet along the east and west bank, however, they left the mulch and the dredging material along the property of her clients; one can see the canal maintenance, photos, and dates; this was prepared by Mr. Reninger; one can see that they cut to the roots, so this was a project that was started by the County and was not done to standards that the average person would have been required to do; perhaps they did not take the roots, but they took them down to the roots; and the next picture is a before and after of the County mulching. She noted one can see what was taken down to the ground; the single photo is what had been removed by the County; exhibit A that is in the Board packet shows the restoration area that is being requested by FDEP; the yellow area is the portion that the County has to do; exhibit B is more of the area north of old causeway that the County has to do; and the second exhibit A is what Mr. Reninger and Mr. Xavier are being requested to do; this is what FDEP wants her clients to do, not the County, and that is why she does not believe the $700,000 is accurate; the next is a flow chart prepared by Ms. Toland and it explains why they are there, that they have to get a PID to comply with the Manatee Protection Plan; and even it they were to get that PID today, they have to go forward to the Army Corp and FDEP, and then come back and receive permits from the County. She reiterated this would all forestall the Consent Order; she commented the last picture is a picture of Mr. Reninger and his daughter in a Kayak in the canal; a canal is a man-made waterway; that is what this is; passive recreation is appropriate for man-made waterways; Public Interest includes passive recreation; and this is all from the County Code and Comprehensive Plan. She stated the discrepancy she has is the 62-3694 interpretation that this canal dredging is a residential land use; it is not, it is a canal; Page 10 of 37 November 12, 2024 therefore, the saying that one cannot impact wetlands for residential use is correct, but this is for canal use, for flow, drainage, and recreation; shoreline protection buffers allow for recreation; surface water protection buffers allow for passive recreation; best public interest is a net benefit to the public; staff has said there is really no benefit for the flow, but if one builds a deeper hole it is going to hold more water, so there is a flow benefit; and Mr. Bennett can explain that a little bit better. She noted the staff report did not say there was no benefit, they said it is a nominal benefit and it is the beginning of a plan that the County had started, and this would assist with. She continued by saying regarding objective five of the Wetlands Comprehensive Plan, there is a concern that it is not feasible to repair and maintain this wetland based upon the need to re-vet and fill; she is talking about 45 feet of fill that may be necessary; with turbidity and all those other issues with filling, it is going to be very difficult to do; new navigation channels connected to the Indian River are possible when it is in the best public interest; maintenance of ditches that have been then used for boat traffic, is also another reason for best public interests; she has provided at least one picture that has been used for navigation; and the intent is to permit what has been done, or as much as the Army Corp, FDEP, and the County will allow, but her client cannot do that without a PID. She commented that is why they are there. Lisa Toland stated she is Toland Environmental Consulting; she just wants to summarize and probably more succinctly, what some of the points are that Ms. Rezanka had made previously; to take a step back that this is a man-made, upland dredged canal that over time has recruited with mangroves; upland of those mangroves it is recruited with some shoreline wetlands; the County came in and basically took those mangroves, which are arguably the most valuable part of the shoreline water interface; mangroves are the only plant in Florida that is protected by its own special act; and when the County came in, it basically took arguably the best part and mowed it down to the ground completely in violation of the Mangrove Protection Act. She went on to say if she was doing this as a private consultant it would be a four-year project and they would never be allowed to go down to less than six feet; to sit and say this is all this environmental value, while they basically just take it out, and then what is behind that is worth driving these people into massive amounts of money to try and restore the Lagoon just does not make sense; her position is that the County’s interpretation to Code just does not make sense on several levels; when someone is trying to apply a residential standard and saying that basically the canal is an accessory use to the property, it is not it is a separate use; that concept is reflected in the staff report as well, which states in the prohibition section of the Code, if there are wetland impacts that are related to access for surface water, to go to surface water Ordinance and deal with it in that Ordinance; and for wetland ordinances that deals with wetlands, and surface water ordinances deal with surface waters. She continued by saying when going to the surface water ordinance, that is why they are in attendance, it allows for access with the PID; they need the PID because when one is within surface waters it triggers manatee issues; manatee issues are the first time where the County starts the regulatory process; typically when one goes in it gets an ERP from the State, a 404 permit from the Feds, bring all permits back to the County, and then receive the County final development orders; here because of manatee issues, the State government and the Federal government cannot issue permits in violation of the Endangered Species Act, so there has to be PID to be consistent with the Manatee Protection Plan to apply for the Federal and State permits; and when the County denied the PID, it denied any kind of going back in for the permit. Vice Chair Pritchett asked if the Board wants to hear from the other gentleman. Attorney Richardson stated if the Board wants to consider that the first several minutes of the presentation were used to request the continuance that was denied, the Board can certainly do that in its discretion to make sure it hears the case fully. Page 11 of 37 November 12, 2024 Vice Chair Pritchett stated she would not mind hearing the gentleman for three minutes. Clayton Bennett stated he is a professional engineer registered in the State of Florida; he is with Bennett Engineering; he is there to speak about the flood aspects of these improvements; the County has recognized there is flooding in this area; in 2021, it hired a consultant to do an analysis in that area; they came up with some different options; they phased it where they had phase one being a north area, phase two, a south area, and they also looked at dredging the canal and not dredging the canal; he understands that staff had some questions about that; and he just received the staff report on Wednesday, looked at it on Thursday, immediately requested of staff, the input data that they used for their analysis, and to date it has not been provided to him so that he could provide additional comment on it. He noted what he specifically wanted to speak on was this portion from old Causeway Road south to the tidal waters; the Hansen Report that the County had accepted in 2021, showed that if the County only did the phase two improvements or phase one and two, there would actually be a net impact, that impact being an increase in stage on the downstream side of old Causeway Road; flood issues are resolved by increasing flow; the County came in and this analysis said if it put in three 36-inch culverts it will reduce the flood stages upstream; but by reducing the flood stream elevations upstream, there has to be increase in flow, so now there is more flow through this channel from Old Causeway Road south to Tidal Waters; and if that canal is left the same dimensions, same roughness, and coefficient, one increases the flow, by inspection; and if there are any questions he would be happy to answer those. Vice Chair Pritchett asked about the photos in the Board’s packet at November 23, 2022; and she inquired whose property is being dredged in that photo. Ms. McGee noted staff believes that is Mr. Xavier’s property, the one to the south. Vice Chair Pritchett asked if the areas being dredged is property that is actually owned. Ms. McGee advised it is actually part of their property that was delineated wetlands; and one can see as he or she looks to the north, coming down on the paper, it appears they were working from north to south. Scott Hall stated he lives just north of Mr. Reninger; he spends a lot of time up and down the road playing and enjoying himself; the canal floods on his street; from his street down to Mr. Reninger’s it has not been maintained; during this last hurricane he got in his kayak and paddled down to where there is a culvert in between; it really is of Public Interest and somebody needs to clean that up and get the water flowing properly because it is flooding the properties up further; he believes, he had nothing to tell the Board it will absolutely help or not, but he paddled his canoe down and it is jammed up; there are trees across it and it is back flowing; and somebody should look at this in a bigger light than just that Mr. Reninger has made a problem, because he is kind of fixing the problem that nobody else is addressing. Mark Lueders thanked the Board and everyone in attendance for this proceeding; he stated he is proud to be in a country that allows people to speak to these issues that affect people publicly, especially on a day after Veteran’s Day; and it makes him happy that he spent the time underwater in the Mediterranean while his son was born. He went on to say first of all, he is a neighbor of Mr. Reninger and Mr. Xavier; he is very familiar with the area and what has happened with the County’s dredging action; he agrees with the pictures that show when the maintenance dredge, or whatever people want to call it, that went through; if the mangroves are taken down to the roots, he would say it went even further than that because after that was Page 12 of 37 November 12, 2024 done, whatever was displaced within the canal, was then deposited on top of it; if they are working on coming up with a resolution, he thinks they should work from the basis of fact; and the fact is, all of that was removed in the beginning by the County’s action within that canal. He noted he has read through the staff report and he finds there are a lot of things that are ambiguous in that report itself; he knows for a fact, being a land owner in the area, at least on the survey he has, that portion of the canal is classified as being semi-navigable; as he understands it was cut way back in the 40s and was maintained to ensure that water was draining sufficiently during times of flooding; it also provides a damper for surface waters to protect the Lagoon; if there was an increase to the basin, that provides a larger capacity to absorb the surface waters that come down, whether it is pesticides or whatever to protect the Lagoon; and that makes sense to him. He continued by saying the County already recognizes it is a semi-navigable canal. Zakary Coffey stated he has been down this canal prior to it being dredged, the mangroves cut down, and thereafter, in both kayaks, canoes, power boats, jet skis, and all the rest of it; it does have a Public Interest in recreational use; he takes his daughter fishing down there, along with friends; he has seen more wildlife, increase in manatees, dolphins, turtles, and birds partaking in that area since the dredging; therefore, he sees it as a positive. He mentioned he has been up and down that road for the past five or six years, taking part in the recreational activity that can happen on that canal; he has seen how the water is affected through the rains and now with it being wider and deeper, he has seen less water come up into the roads, and into the neighboring properties and residential lands there; he has seen the flow increase for those areas; he has enjoyed it, his friends have enjoyed it; he thinks it does have good Public Interest; and being that it is a navigable canal that is joined to another canal, he thinks that is something that should be allowed and permitted; and he does not see an issue with it being that way that it is. He added the mangroves that were cut were not coming back, they were cut all the way down to the roots and the deposits of the muck put on top of them thereafter, nothing is growing there after that. He noted the County removing the mangroves the way it did, it is not really taking preservation to mind when doing that. Mark Siljestrom stated he lives on Monterey Avenue which is probably six blocks to the north of Mr. Reninger’s property where he supposedly dredged; at the end of his street he can show the Board what it looked like this morning; he has lived there 13 years; that is the end of his street right now; it was never that bad that it would flood all the time; it always flooded a few times per year; and now the signs say no wake through there, and water is on the Road. He mentioned those signs are there all the time now; it might dry up a little bit but the water comes back; after they dredged north of there to almost 520, there is supposed to be some springs up there in the main lake and that is what creates the water flow out of there, in his mind; and since they dredged the whole part north of his street, there has been water there because they could not dredge at the end of his street. He noted they started to dredge it but the thing could not do it; they said they would come back and use something else, but they never did so it is full of trees, muck, and whatever; it smells sometimes, not all the time; the road is just wet all the time, so he does not know if the County has to come in and fix the road or whatever; he thinks if they would dredge that out it would create a flow to allow that water to go past his street; he thinks it is backing up at the end of his street and coming out into the road like the picture he just showed the Board; he thinks it would be awesome if they did dredge, all the streets to the north look nice; there are not many mangroves and it is all cleaned up; it looks like it should look, not a messy canal that was dug haphazardly and just left there; and he sees it as a good thing if they would do that. Joel Chambers stated his family lives on the canal and he is there to speak in support of the PID; there are really three factors to him that drive that Public Interest; the first is flooding; the Page 13 of 37 November 12, 2024 Board has heard a lot about the flooding, and navigating Newfound Harbor Drive is a challenge as that road floods often; and since the dredging work has commenced, he has seen an improvement to the flooding on that road. He stated the second is the wildlife that has taken habitat in that area; there are manatees that now breed in that area; his family loves them and would be really sad to see that filled in and have the manatees have to move out; lastly, they have met a lot of community members who kayak up and down the canal; they have gotten a chance to meet them and bond with the community; and they have been able to see people enjoy this canal. He noted he hopes the community can work with the County, Mr. Reninger, and the State to improve the area and put it to good use. Grace Chambers stated as a resident who lives along Pelican Creek, since the work has been done, she has seen improvement with her particular property as well as with the street; the flooding has decreased, and mostly she enjoys the wildlife that is seen now; prior to any of the dredging work being done, that creek was very shallow and mucky where one would primarily see a lot of mosquitos; it was not very enjoyable to her backyard, but now since it has been widened they are seeing a lot of wildlife; there is one particular manatee that she has named Beatrice who lives in her backyard; it had a baby about one and one-half years ago which is wonderful to see; and more recently they have seen dolphins and baby dolphins. She noted as a resident along Pelican Creek she has really enjoyed seeing all of the wildlife and she would like to come to an agreement that helps sustain that environment for them and for it to continue right in her own back yard. Roger Xavier stated he made copies but there will not be enough for everyone; he sold his house in Brazil in order to build this house for vacation; he pays about $10,000-plus for taxes yearly, and he wants to enjoy his home; he cannot if the Board looks at the first picture in the packet he provided, it shows some of the work the County was doing; the second page it shows what his backyard was like for months; he called the County many times and tried to speak with people about his yard looking like this; he had family come from Brazil and they just could not enjoy the house; the third picture shows a bit more of how the backyard was; then the fourth page is when the hurricane went through and all the leftover from the County that messed up his entire backyard; and he had to clean it. He mentioned he has pictures of how the wildlife is enjoying the backyard; he has seen the report that the County puts in there, he is a repeated offender; he is not a repeated offender; to be truthful he is not even an offender, because he did not do anything other than clean up his property; when he was called by the County, he came in to speak with someone; and they had recommended that he get an attorney. He noted he went to the FDEP, there he was told the County did something without the permitting; at this point he got an attorney to try to resolve this; he has invested a lot of money between attorneys, engineers, and environmentalists; and he would like for this application to be considered because it has been a great loss for him, as he has put a lot of investment into this property and he would like to be able to enjoy it. Greg Loggins stated he is the developer of Harbor Point from back in 1989/1990; in speaking to the PID, he knows commercial is technically different than the PID here; however, he thinks the Board really needs to consider what is a Public Interest, whether it is technical or not, and to use some common sense; he owns the property next to it to the north; when they went in and developed Harbor Point they had the original permit to get it drained; the way they had that it was better for the property and better for the public; when they did that, the whole property was basically a garbage dump; people had been out there throwing vehicles, trash, and everything; he came in and cleaned up almost 20 acres that was getting basically $7,000 per year in taxes, and now it is probably getting about $500,000 or $600,000 per year in taxes; part of that was the Public Interest and widening that canal and the St. John’s; and everybody agreed that was better for it. He added unfortunately, there was one person who fought it and Page 14 of 37 November 12, 2024 the market turned to where he could not afford to do the dredging; but in that, part of it was that they needed another area for manatees to be able to come in, live, and thrive along with the dolphins and any other wildlife because currently there are two places for them to come in that are commercial; there is Marker 24 which is a great place and the marina that his father originally developed back in the 1970s; now, any time manatees come in they have to go into where boats are stored with paint and everything else in there; and Harbor Point was a safe haven for the manatee to be able to come in there and be able to be protected from boats and everything else. He noted there is one other small canal pass there that they can come in; all the way from State Road 520 all the way down, there is not a lot of safe places other than the river; all the agencies agreed and thought this was a better thing not only to dredge that but dredged his property that is north and not as open as what they could have done; the County came in about a year ago and pulled all the roots out of the mangroves and it exposed how nasty that part of the canal was; people had dumped all kinds of different things in there; and when it was pulled back the water was a weird color, almost golden; this was all dredged out and now the water is flowing a little bit better, but it could be a lot nicer; and it could also afford to be dredged a little bit more for retention area for the water. Commissioner Goodson asked Ms. Rezanka if he understood correctly that he thinks it was the day before Thanksgiving that a Code Enforcement Officer came out, spoke to her client, and said he may want to stop until this was all settled. Ms. Rezanka confirmed that is what is in the staff’s report, but she has not talked to Mr. Cook directly. Commissioner Goodson inquired who she is speaking of. Ms. Rezanka restated Mr. Cook, he was the Code Enforcement Officer. Commissioner Goodson asked staff if there was any truth to the statement he just asked Ms. Rezanka. Amanda Elmore, Deputy Director of Natural Resources Management, stated Mr. Cook was on site and he is in the audience if Commissioner Goodson would like to speak with him. Commissioner Goodson asked to please bring him up to the microphone. He asked Mr. Cook what he observed when he went out there that day; and inquired if it was the day before Thanksgiving. Mr. Cook advised staff had received a complaint about 3:00 p.m.; he went out to the site where there was dredging ensuing at the time; Mr. Reninger allowed him to go onto his property; he took photographs; there was no turbidity, so he asked Mr. Reninger to put up the turbidity; he asked if there were any permits to proceed; Mr. Reninger stated he had permits from FDEP, which he did not; and then he asked Mr. Reninger to cease and desist until he could find out what permits were available. He went on to say at that time he said that he would and that he would put up the turbidity; he believes Mr. Reninger did do that; as he was leaving the site the excavator continued; and he continued to dredge. Commissioner Goodson asked if Mr. Cook went back the Monday after Thanksgiving, to the site. Mr. Cook stated he went back, but he cannot say exactly what time it was, it was within very short order, to see if he continued; he spoke with neighbors who said a great bit of debris had Page 15 of 37 November 12, 2024 flown down into the adjacent canal; there is a subdivision at the end, that he has opened up; there was the original canal and he opened up an additional port that was a wetland that would filter a lot of this that they were complaining about; at that point that small area is only the width basically of the canal that exists; and that is where everything has moved down and gone across where the neighbors said there was a great bit of debris. Commissioner Goodson stated the most important question he would ask Ms. Rezanka is if she lived in Florida any time and knows anything about wetlands and water, and a Code Enforcement Officer comes out to her client and says he might want to desist until he makes sure there are permits, why did he not do that. Ms. Rezanka replied that is a question he would have to ask Mr. Reninger; she mentioned this is not Code Enforcement, this is trying to fix a problem and trying to be compliant; and they will have the Code Enforcement coming up, but this is trying to show a Public benefit to allow her client to permit. Commissioner Goodson commented no, they would not be here if he had stopped and got the permits; and he asked if Ms. Rezanka would agree to that. Ms. Rezanka responded affirmatively. Commissioner Goodson noted he is not trying to prove public awareness or something; if he knows anything about water and mangroves, and he has been in Florida anytime at all, people surely do not touch that without the proper permits, which are multiple permits; and he asked if Ms. Rezanka would agree with that. Ms. Rezanka stated that is what they are trying to do now. Commissioner Goodson commented after the fact he is trying to do that. Ms. Rezanka agreed, and stated Commissioner Goodson is in construction and he knows that happens often. Commissioner Goodson noted when people mess with those people and the fines that are given out today, it does not happen often. Ms. Rezanka replied she understands. Commissioner Goodson stated people put up turbidity barriers and they stay within their limits. Ms. Rezanka stated this is not a Code Enforcement, it is a request for a PID so that permits can be obtained; it may not have been the smartest thing to do; it appears that work was done by the County; some sort of mess was made; there was some water that came through and cleared it up; she is not there to judge her client she is there to try to ask for permission to move forward for permitting which would also cure the problems that FDEP has with Brevard County; this is to be compliant; as the Board knows with the Republican governments that have come in they want compliance, they do not want punitive actions; and her client is trying to have the ability to apply for all the permits, even coming all the way down to the State and County level. She mentioned if one looks at the application, there are two pages of justifications for this PID, improved water quality, flow, recreation, manatees, and dolphins, as the Board has heard from the public; she reiterated this is just to allow for the permitting to go forward to cure the problem; the staff report did not really even talk about the justifications, all they talked about Page 16 of 37 November 12, 2024 were their interpretations of the Code; if staff had wanted this to go forward, if the Board wants it to go forward, there are ways to interpret the Code that allows it; and that is what she wanted to talk about before going through this hearing; one can impact wetlands for navigation or for dredging; all of these things can be done under the Code or Comprehensive Plan, but it starts with the Manatee Protection Plan; if they do not have the PID they cannot get the permits moving forward; and with that, she would ask for the Board to approve the PID as requested, and as this Board has done many times in the past. Commissioner Goodson asked what is going to happen if the Board does not approve this. Ms. McGee advised if the request is not approved it will go to the Special Magistrate and then determined through the Special Magistrate what will happen, which the County would request restoration of the wetlands. Commissioner Goodson asked, depending on the ruling there, would the client then be able to come back, once he has satisfied all those problems and ask for what he is asking for now. Ms. McGee advised staff would be right back where they started except it would being doing it before the fact and not after the fact; she mentioned staff’s interpretation is that the requested activity is contrary to the Comprehensive Plan, the Manatee Protection Plan, et cetera; and everyone would be back in front of the Board with a restored shoreline asking for consideration. Commissioner Goodson advised he is not going to agree with what the applicant wants because he feels like he was given an opportunity to stop by a County official saying he wanted to make sure all the permits are in line, but he kept going; there was the same issue in North Brevard on Hog Valley filing wetlands; he does not know if Mr. Reninger understands, if does not seem to care, or if he decided to do it and beg for forgiveness after the fact; but he will not agree to postpone this or let it go any further. Commissioner Tobia stated staff had mentioned many times before that the PID is for commercial use and is not technically applicable for private use; is that something, as they moved forward, that could potentially be changed; or are there statutory guidelines that do not allow that determination. Ms. McGee mentioned certainly going forward upon Board direction, staff could look at Comprehensive changes for wetland Polices; it has been done before; twice the County has been in stipulated settlements over wetlands Policies; residential and commercial are treated differently, but they dredge their personal residential property so when looking at the uses that are allowed for wetlands it is for access, septic, and primary structure; one could if there was a mangrove shoreline, perhaps do an elevated pier or walkway to enjoy the shoreline; one could not place any structures of course in the ditch; it does allow that for use and access, but as it is written now, it is not; and even if that was allowed, there is the Manatee Protection Plan that talks about dredging being Public Interest and the surface water protection part of the Comprehensive Plan and it talks about new dredging. She added it also allows maintenance dredging too; when one talks about removing muck and trimming up mangroves, one is allowed to remove muck for maintenance, he or she is just not allowed to widen or deepen a channel; and one can trim mangroves in accordance with FDEP. Commissioner Tobia just for clarification, if there was that change, it would have to obviously go through a Comprehensive Plan change to be reviewed by the State and numerous agencies; and he asked if that is correct. Page 17 of 37 November 12, 2024 Ms. McGee responded affirmatively. She explained if the intent is to allow this type of activity, it would also have to address the Manatee Protection Plan and ot