The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special session on April 25, 1995, at 10:35 a.m. in the Government Center Multipurpose 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.

OVERVIEW AND INTRODUCTIONS

Housing and Community Development Supervisor Nancy Slater explained information provided to the Board from staff; stated one booklet is titled Success Stories produced by the State to show which programs have been successful with the SHIP funds; and the Housing Resource Book includes what activities the County is doing currently. She noted staff will be adding some community development activities which are not currently included; and in the back of the Book is how the funding has been set up with the County's plans to the State and federal government for its projects. Ms. Slater gave a slide presentation to the Board and audience; stated staff discussed what goals it wanted to attain for today's meeting; and such goals include: (1) To define what is and is not affordable housing; (2) To provide a history of County housing activities; (3) To describe the importance of partnerships; and (4) To receive policy direction from the Board. She noted the vision statement is to stimulate and sustain a more rigorous housing delivery system in Brevard County by providing financial and institutional support to housing customers and the housing industry, that will deliver safe and sanitary affordable housing to all Brevard County citizens, and maximize each family's opportunity for home ownership; and such statement is what staff wants to obtain with its goals and objectives. She advised the first goal is to provide an economic stimulus to Brevard County by utilizing State and federal funds to encourage the renovation, development, and sale of housing affordable to low and very low income households; the second goal is to develop an affordable housing trust fund with federal, state, and local resources which will become self-sustaining through prudent investment of resources in activities which meet the housing needs of low and very low income households. Replenishment of the trust fund will enable Brevard County to continue to provide affordable housing opportunities despite variances in federal and state funding levels; and the third goal is to facilitate affordable housing production, neighborhood revitalization, and local partnerships which provide services to low and very low income households and assist in stabilization of these households.

WHAT IS AND IS NOT AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Special Projects Coordinator III Elizabeth Swanke stated the question becomes what is affordable housing; in the 1950's and 1960's, the direction of the federal government was to public housing and the creation of projects for very low income families to live in; the needs of the families were not necessarily met through public housing; new directions were seen by HUD in the 1970's with the institution of the CDBG Program which allowed the localities to put direction into programs that were necessary for their particular communities; in the 1990's HUD and the State have put funding into the HOME and SHIP Programs; and these funds allow the locality to determine what their affordable housing needs are. She noted in February, 1994, in its incentive plan, the Board defined what affordable housing was in Brevard County; affordable housing is a dwelling unit to be considered affordable both when a household spends no more than 30% of its total gross income on housing costs and the dwelling unit complies with requirements of the Standard Housing Code, 1991 Edition as published by the Southern Building Code Congress International or as amended from time to time; housing costs include contract rent and utilities for rental units, and payment of principle, interest, taxes and insurance for owner-occupied units; and under the State program, the County is not allowed to assist persons into housing with payments that exceed 30% of their gross income. Ms. Swanke stated what income levels Brevard County is looking at depends on what programs it is looking at; under the SHIP and HUD Programs, staff looks at two different income categories--very low income or low income, depending on which program you are talking about, which is 50% of median income; low income is 80% of median income; and under other programs, including many of the social service programs and the Weatherization Program, they look at 125% of the poverty level. She stated the median income figures are those that are based strictly on Brevard County updated from the 1990 census information; and the poverty level data is something that is across the continental United States. Ms. Swanke noted in Brevard County those numbers change where they fall in median income, depending on the size of the family; the County can choose to serve portions of these families or all of these families; some localities are only serving persons under 50% of median income; and some of the programs Brevard County has are strictly based there. She reviewed a State produced chart on housing affordability by income category; advised they are two-year old State median income numbers which are slightly lower than what Brevard County's median income levels are; and they are typical maximum affordable mortgage loans based on the salaries and percentage of median income. She stated this is assuming they have no other debts; and once somebody has medical bills to pay off, car loans or educational debt, it reduces their money available for their housing. She noted included in the package is a sheet which talks about who the typical first time homebuyer households are; staff gave a listing of some of the categories of occupations, clerical workers, utility workers, nurses assistants, travel agents, and laborers; the County services many single parent households; and also a large proportion of elderly and disabled population.

Ms. Slater stated when looking at trying to provide affordable housing and programs, the County wants to look at it philosophically as far as building with that community; and it looks at trying to do some stabilization in neighborhoods and/or stabilization of families. She showed locations of where some cost burden households live in the County. She advised the CHAS is a document that is required by the federal government to show a plan of direction of how you are going to use funds; it is looking at all the needs in the community; once those needs are addressed, you look at all the kinds of federal funding and/or state funding that may be available to address those needs and gaining community input which says to government how is it going to do that; and its plan on doing that and anticipation. She noted in the end each year, staff updates it and says how it met that plan; it is a required document to be able to receive federal dollars; there is information on all the shelters available in the community, where cost burden persons live, all kinds of data on who is low income and elderly, etc.; and it has been produced out of her office. Ms. Slater stated next year it is going to be a consolidated plan which is going to encompass other activities besides housing, such as economic development and neighborhood revitalization types of things. She reviewed a map of the Scottsmoor and downtown Titusville areas, Cocoa, Pineda, and Eau Gallie, the cost burdened renters, and owners; stated what cost burdened means is if a household is paying more than 30% of their income for their rents and utilities, or principal, interest, taxes and insurance on a home ownership/mortgage situation; it could also mean that the unit they are living in is unsafe and unsanitary; it could also mean that it is an overcrowded unit and too many people are living in a small unit; and these maps are produced from the census data provided in 1990. Ms. Slater stated included in the information is a point in time rental survey; and it is single family housing rents in different locations.

Commissioner Cook stated the County's whole direction should be on home ownership and away from rental.

COUNTY CURRENT ACTIVITIES

Ms. Slater advised the current activities that the County is involved with include down payment and closing costs, housing counseling, weatherization and repairs, housing rehabilitation, demolition and reconstruction, land acquisition, rental rehabilitation, new construction rental, technical assistance, and emergency shelters.

OTHER BOARD APPROVED HOUSING ACTIVITIES

Ms. Slater noted other Board approved housing activities are gap financing and purchase rehab-resell.

OTHER ELIGIBLE HOUSING ACTIVITIES

Ms. Slater stated other eligible housing activities include payment of impact fees and utility hookup, rent to own, permanent financing, conversion to housing, tenant rental assistance, and multi-income projects (120%).

DEMAND FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Ms. Slater stated as far as the first time home buying program, staff has assisted 109 households into purchasing since October, 1993; that is $390,500 in down payment and closing; it is approximately $5.5 million worth of mortgages; the average assistance is $3,600; and the average house price is $56,000. She noted by the end of this week, the County will have closed on seven to nine more; and the bond funds make a lot of this feasible.

REPAIRS

Ms. Swanke stated other programs the County has serve the very low income and near poverty level owner/occupied households; the Weatherization Program is a small program the County has from the State; it serves approximately 32 households a year; these persons average $10,000 a year in annual income; and they are typically one or two-person households, elderly and/or handicapped persons. She noted the funding is minimal; the repairs are geared toward energy conservation and efficiency in the household; they average approximately $1,650 per unit; and there is $150 per unit in project delivery costs that are staff costs to the office. She stated to meet some of the requirements of the SHIP Program, the County has an Emergency Repair Program that serves up to 50% of median income; these persons are also the weatherization clients so the County can do more for the very low end of the income level; they receive about $4,500 in repairs for the household; and it costs staff about $250 also for project staff time. She noted these are secured by mortgages on their property and their deferred loans that they also do not have to pay as long as they continue to reside in the household for a period of time.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)

CDBG Supervisor Denise Carter addressed the CDBG funds and Emergency Shelter Grant funds; stated from the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy, the areas that will be addressed are Priority 1 - Housing Rehabilitation, Priority 4 - New Construction, and Priority 6 - Homeless Assistance. She noted in order to achieve the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy goals, the CDBG funds and Emergency Shelter Grant funds were spent in the following ways: Using two fiscal years, 93-94 and 94-95, demolition and clearance of vacant structures, CDBG funds have been allocated at $30,000 93-94 and $30,000 in 94-95; Transitional Housing Shelter funds were allocated for 94-95 to the Salvation Army; that particular project's Contract is for two years; and the project should be completed in January, 1996. Ms. Carter advised Genesis House which is for pregnant women was funded in 93-94 at $42,876; and that project is completed. She noted under full scale housing rehabilitation where only very low income people are served, last year $540,355 was spent; this year $578,395 is allocation; and at this point, the County has completed 13 full scale rehabilitation projects. She stated under health and safety rehabilitation, $75,000 was allocated in 93-94; all of it was spent; in 94-95 the County has completed seven homes; it has allocated $100,000 to health and safety rehabilitation; and that is where it spends $5,000 or less on a home for Code compliance issues. She advised under replacement housing, the County has allocated monies; those monies will probably be allocated to capital improvement projects because the County recently combined funds and the Board approved the combination of HOME funds; it will use CDBG funds to tear down a home; and it will use HOME funds to reconstruct it and use CDBG funds to temporarily relocate the homeowner during the construction period.

POLICY DIRECTION FROM THE BOARD

Commissioner Cook stated the private market should handle rental availability; and the County's emphasis as a government should be on home ownership. Commissioner Ellis noted it is the things that the County does that drive up the costs of housing. Chairman Higgs stated there are two issues; there is building of new rental units where the County has invested several hundred thousand dollars to be matched with others; there is the issue of rehabilitation of existing rental units in the community; and the County has put money into that. Commissioner O'Brien noted he has a problem with rehabilitation of rentals in particular; a landlord collects rent for years; he does not put one dime back into; and then he comes to the government asking for financial assistance to fix his apartments. Chairman Higgs stated in regard to the rehab of units, Commissioner Cook is not interested in the rehab of apartments; he is interested in building apartments and first time buyer; and inquired what about the rehabilitation of single family homes. Commissioner Cook responded he does not have a problem with that; and it is legitimate. Commissioner Ellis noted perhaps the County can look at taking some apartment complexes to see if they can be converted to condominiums. Commissioner Cook stated when he was on the Housing Authority he tried to get it to look at that, but it would not do it. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the County is going to subsidize, it does not need to subsidize the developer, but the individual. Commissioner Cook noted he does not have a problem assisting an individual. Ms. Slater noted it would be cash to the tenant; with Commissioner Cook responding that way the County is not making the developer rich and it is assisting someone who needs help directly. Chairman Higgs stated that is approved under the County's program; with Ms. Slater responding it is approved under the HOME Program and HUD funds can be used for that.

Chairman Higgs advised the CHAS was prepared by staff in conjunction with the community representatives; it identifies the needs of the community and housing; it recommends particular types of programs; and requested staff summarize what the top recommendations are. Ms. Slater responded such recommendations include the full scale repair of single family owner-occupied housing, the first time home buying assistance, rental unit rehabilitation, and new construction. She stated staff's interest of a direction includes infill construction and purchase rehabs to sell, construction financing, and special needs housing rental; the reason the County needs to look at other ways of using the funds is because it will have approximately $1 million coming this summer; and if it gives it out at $3,600 a piece, it will never get there and never serve as many people as she believes it could serve. She noted reconstruction is an issue and the County can see how that betters communities; and funds can continue going in that direction. Chairman Higgs stated the purchase and rehabilitation, and resale of single family homes in existing neighborhoods is something the Board is comfortable with; and she is comfortable with that. Commissioner Cook noted he would rather go that direction than financing new homes. Chairman Higgs stated she believes Habitat is one of the best ways the County can participate. Assistant County Manager for Community Services Joan Madden responded the County's involvement with Habitat is only to assist in the purchase of property; and Habitat does not accept any construction dollars from government. Ms. Slater stated the County wants to try to look at the new construction to be able to get benefit on the economic development side and how it can do that with these funds that it can gain through the community on that side; and that is one area it can do that with. Commissioner Ellis noted the County needs to rebuild its old neighborhoods before it builds new ones.

Ms. Carter stated the Clearlake Subdivision is one area you can see being turned around due to the land acquisition that has gone on between CDBG and Habitat; and with the new housing, there are some improvements being made in such Subdivision. She noted there is still a lot of vacant land there; and that neighborhood could be turned around in that you could not only make a mixture of Habitat, but also do some single family development. Chairman Higgs stated that is the kind of thing she would support. Commissioner Cook stated rehab should be the first priority, then the other construction can be looked at.

Ms. Carter stated with the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy there were seven priorities that the Board approved; by August 16, 1995, the County and the cities in the HOME consortium have to get a consolidated plan to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, wherein the Board will then approve additional directions dealing with housing, economic development, and human service issues; and if the County is not following the plan, then all of its monies from the federal government can be in jeopardy. She noted if the County has priorities that are already approved, it may need to look at the directions it is identifying, how it is addressing those needs, and then what the Board is going to approve in August, 1995 because it will have a draft available on a consolidated plan; but if it does not follow that plan, no monies will be coming down from the federal government. Commissioner Ellis stated the Board may have to re-evaluate its plan; with Commissioner Cook responding he is happy to do that. Ms. Carter stated staff has been visiting different neighborhoods and asking them what the needs are in their areas; they have been providing that information; and staff will work with the consultant to put the plan together. Commissioner Cook stated if the Board needs to reassess the priorities, then it should do that.

Discussion ensued on rehabilitation, possibility of subsidies for home loans and dealing with individuals instead of groups, and home ownership.

Commissioner Ellis noted the County cannot be afraid to send money back to Washington if it cannot spend it wisely. Ms. Slater inquired does the Board want to put more subsidy into units to assist lower income persons and is it looking towards that; with Commissioner Ellis responding he does not mind doing it as long as the County leaves a lien on the property. Commissioner Cook noted it is important that the County does not substitute programs that are already there and it should be additions.

Chairman Higgs stated she does not want to send the money; she wants the money to be used for doing programs and things now; there are people in need; those programs need to go forward; the County needs to take care of those people who have the needs; and there is no reason for the Board and staff to send money back.

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated he emphasized to staff that it is important for it to hear what the Board's priorities are and then go back and address how to respond to them; and it will not be spending the money in areas where the Board does not want it spent.

Commissioner Ellis noted just in salaries in housing, the County spends $350,000 a year; and there is a lot of money going into salaries and staff people. Mr. Jenkins stated staff can go back and structure itself on that since it has some Board direction.

Housing and Human Services Director Bernice Jackson advised the Board voted to give staff the authority to move monies together for joint ventures of projects; prior to that, the monies were totally separate for projects that were being done by CDBG and housing; that is coming together; and it is going to come together more under Mr. Jenkins' restructuring.

Assistant County Manager for Community Services Joan Madden stated a lot of the CDBG money gets expended in community infrastructure; and staff will continue with that.

REDUCTION OF UNIT PRICE CAP, RE: FUNDS DISBURSED IN FIRST TIME HOMEBUYER GRANT PROGRAM

Commissioner Ellis stated he wants to cap the home prices that the County is subsidizing when people buy a home.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded for discussion by Commissioner Cook, to reduce the unit price cap for funds disbursed in the First Time Homebuyer Grant Program to $60,000.

Ms. Slater stated generally, the average price is approximately $55,000; about 25% of the houses currently purchased today are over $60,000; she is concerned if the County makes a cap, it starts capping where people can live and purchase new construction; maybe $90,000 is too high; and she is concerned that $60,000 is low.

Commissioner Scarborough noted there are people that are not being subsidizing looking at people with more that are being subsidized. Commissioner Cook inquired is there another figure that would be better; with Ms. Slater responding about $75,000.

Chairman Higgs stated she would be comfortable around $70,000; the average has been $56,000; she would be concerned as the County looks to first time buyers, in the range of $40,000 that it is going to have such a narrow market that it is not going to have enough people to assist; while it wants to help people, who will qualify for a mortgage; and it will limit the number of people it can serve so severely, that it is going to be unable to help. Commissioner Ellis noted he believes $60,000 is too high.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to reduce the unit price cap for funds disbursed in the First Time Homebuyer Grant Program to $65,000.

Chairman Higgs stated people do not always choose one certain lifestyle; there are small families and big families; people need to have a range of choices; the Board needs to give staff some leeway; and it is going from $90,000 to perhaps $70,000. She stated the County is serving the people that the program is designed to serve; and if it truly wants to serve the individual, then it needs to say there is a flexibility out there that it should preserve. She noted she agrees with lowering the cap; and requested Commissioner Scarborough go to $70,000 this year and $65,000 next year.

Chairman Higgs inquired how many people are currently in the pool that are actively pursing their first homebuyers program that the County is going to punch out right here; with Ms. Slater responding there are nine closing this week, but she does know what the price ranges are. Chairman Higgs inquired are any of those going to be excluded; with Mr. Slater responding there is a good chance. Commissioner Ellis noted if that is the concern, it can be for applications starting tomorrow. Commissioner Cook stated it would not affect anyone who has already applied and has an application on file; and anybody beginning the process tomorrow, this will kick in.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion to reduce the unit price cap for funds disbursed in the First Time Homebuyer Grant Program to $65,000 for applications submitted as of April 26, 1995. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Ellis voted nay.

Ms. Madden expressed appreciation to the Board for its discussion and direction to staff.

Chairman Higgs inquired when the revised Comprehensive Housing Plan is completed, will it come back to the Board for its review. Ms. Madden responded yes as it will need to be adopted by the Board; and the time frame for it is August, 1995.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 12:30 p.m.

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special session on April 25, 1995, at 2:05 p.m. in the Government Center Multipurpose 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.

INTRODUCTION AND OPENING REMARKS

Growth Management Director Sue Hann gave a brief introduction and slide presentation on transportation issues, including road congestion, amenities, landscaping, sidewalks, curbways, bicycle and pedestrian issues, bridges, traffic signalization and signing projects, drainage and utility issues, and other various projects and programs.

TRANSPORTATION WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES

Assistant County Manager for Community Development Dean Sprague advised objectives for the workshop include: (1) Transportation levels of services to provide general direction to staff regarding the appropriate quality and quantity of service for components of the transportation system, including consideration of preservation, alternative modes and major capacity projects; (2) Priorities for transportation projects and programs to provide general direction to staff regarding emphasis areas for transportation, including such areas as major capacity projects, public transportation, facility preservation (bridges, resurfacing, and striping) and enhancement (landscaping and street lighting); and (3) Desirable funding mechanisms to provide general direction to staff regarding appropriate funding mechanisms given desirable levels of service and established priorities for transportation programs, including discussion of pay-as-you-go versus financing transportation improvements and discussion of level of ad valorem contribution.

CURRENT STATUS OF MAJOR ROAD PROJECTS

Ms. Hann advised the current status of major road projects in Brevard County include: (1) Dairy Road South Widening Project - U.S. 192 to Palm Bay Road. A petition for eminent domain was filed on March 15, 1995 for condemnation of the remaining right-of-way needed for the widening project; the County is using a slow take procedure; and approximately 40 parcels remain to be acquired; (2) Fortenberry Road - South Courtenay Parkway to Sykes Creek Parkway. The County is currently designing the intersection of Fortenberry Road and Plumosa Avenue, and no widening project is scheduled; (3) Malabar Road - I-95 to Holiday Park Boulevard. Redesign to remove the medians is underway, and right-of-way acquisition is continuing for a few remaining parcels, pending redesign; (4) Malabar Road - Holiday Park Boulevard to Malabar Road. Right-of-way acquisition is commencing, and County staff is obtaining title searches and appraisals; (5) Minton Road - U.S. 192 to Emerson Drive. Design, right-of-way acquisition and construction are complete on this project; (6) North Courtenay Parkway - Kennedy Space Center Gate to Grant Street. Construction is substantially complete on this project; some acquisition is still pending; (7) South Courtenay Parkway - Magnolia Avenue to Cone Road. The County is currently redesigning the intersection of South Courtenay Parkway and Cone Road, and no widening project is scheduled; (8) Wickham Road - Pineda Causeway to I-95. Construction is 70% complete; and (9) Minton Road - Emerson Drive to Malabar Road. Design and right-of-way acquisition are complete; construction bids awarded on April 18, 1995; and construction expected to commence approximately May 16, 1995.

Ms. Hann reviewed the status of the County's road program, the cash balance by month for FY 1995 to 2001, budgeted revenue for the balance of the program for FY 1995 through 2001 which includes local option gas tax, constitutional gas tax, impact fees, and interest and miscellaneous, for total revenue of $85.5 million, and budget expenditures from the Transportation Program for FY 1995 through 2001 which includes debt service (principal), debt service (interest), capacity projects, and other transportation projects, for total expenditures of $87.9 million. She advised other budgeted transportation expenditures for FY 1995 through FY 2001 include support, SCAT, bicycle/pedestrian, resurfacing, signals and striping, and other, for total expenditures of $22 million; and impact fee allocations for FY 1988 through FY 1994 include major road projects, city projects, and other County projects, for total allocations of $22.1 million. She noted impact fees have made a significant contribution to the Transportation Program.

Ms. Hann outlined the levels of service, and how staff evaluates what the deficiencies are and determines what new transportation projects the County may want to do in the future; and stated the adopted levels of service in the Comprehensive Plan are "D" for minimum rural level of service and "E" for minimum urban level of service. She summarized the estimated cost of future road projects in Brevard County at approximately $200 million through the year 2020, which include Babcock Street from Grant Road to Malabar Road, Grant Road Extension from the east terminus to U.S. 1, Micco Road from Fleming Grant Road to U.S. 1, Palm Bay Bypass I from Malabar Road to U.S. 192, Palm Bay Bypass II and Connectors from I-95 to Malabar Road, Palm Bay Bypass III from U.S. 192 to Eau Gallie Boulevard, Minton Road from Malabar Road to U.S. 192, Hollywood Boulevard from Palm Bay Road to U.S. 192, Eber Road from Minton Road to Dairy Road, Florida Avenue from Minton Road to Dairy Road, Wickham Road from U.S. 192 to Aurora Road, John Rodes Boulevard from U.S. 192 to Sheridan Road, John Rodes Boulevard from Eau Gallie Boulevard to Aurora Road, Apollo Boulevard from Sarno Road to Eau Gallie Boulevard, Pineda Extension from U.S. 1 to I-95, Viera DRI, Grissom Road from Industry Road to Canaveral Groves Boulevard, Port St. John West Connector from Pine Street to Kings Highway, Port St. John East Connector from I-95 Interchange to Grissom Road, Kings Highway Extension from Port St. John West Connector to U.S. 1, and Fay Boulevard from East of the I-95 bridge to Tulsa Boulevard.

TRANSIT SYSTEM

Transit Services Director Don Lusk gave a brief overview of the Space Coast Area Transit System; stated public transportation is moving more people with less cars; SCAT provides general public-type services, including fixed routes, vanpools, and commuter assistance; and it provides special services, including paratransit, vanpools, and non-profit. He advised the benefits of public transit are mobility, mobility during crisis, reduced energy consumption, less traffic congestion, and rational development. Mr. Lusk stated in the transit world, there are two different markets to cover; and those are the transit dependent market and the transit choice market. He advised the transit dependent persons are those persons with no personal transportation, no access to transportation, are unable to drive; and the transit dependent market is the human service face. He noted in terms of the transit choice market, those individuals do not have to rely on transit, but choose it for reasons of convenience, cost/comfort, speed, traffic congestion, and environmental; and the transit choice market is the alternative face. He stated community involvement is required and encouraged; and over the last two years, SCAT has conducted five public information meetings, provided two public hearings, arranged four focus groups, attended over 15 shows, fairs, and other community events, and presented at 30 community organization and homeowners groups.

Mr. Lusk advised there are two different types of grants and budget within the SCAT fund; the capital grant is $2,064,744, with 9% from state, 10% from local, and 81% from federal; and the operating grant is $3,573,894 with 37% from state, 18% from local, 30% from federal, and 15% from other. He stated the local and other funds come from fares at 6.9%, General Fund at 10.4%, Local Option Gas Tax at 26.7%, advertising at 0.6%, cash forward at 12.8%, special trips at 9.9%, agency transportation at 26.2%, summer transportation (parks and recreation) at 4.0%, and other revenue at 2.5%. He stated the Local Option Gas Tax and general operating funds multiplier is 1:6 which means for every one dollar the County puts in from local dollars, it gets six additional dollars back from Federal and State; the Local Option Gas Tax capital funds multiplier is 1:9; and that is how SCAT leverages local funds. Mr. Lusk explained the Programs Chart for capital, operating, transportation disadvantaged, and special trips, including the amount of Local Option Gas Tax, and the total amount of Federal and State funds leveraged. He advised out of 778,982 total trips SCAT did last year, approximately 18% was fixed route services, 27% was demand response services, 35% was vanpool services, and 20% was purchased transportation. He stated paratransit is different types of service, such as transportation disadvantaged, Medicaid, contracted service, and ADA (sponsored). He stated trips are divided in categories for transportation disadvantaged service as follows: (1) Medical Trips; (2) Food Shopping; (3) Work Trips; and (4) Other Trips.

Mr. Lusk outlined the fixed route service; advised it began operation on October 1, 1991; staff redesigned the south routes which went into effect in December, 1993; ridership is growing; the annual growth rate is 8%; and in looking over the last six months, the increase in fixed ridership average is 27%. He stated advantages of fixed route versus paratransit include lower cost to add additional passengers, more mobility options, and flexibility in boarding locations. He explained the ridership increase in 1994 and the route level information, including the 1994 and 1995 trips per hour; and stated all of the fixed routes have grown in terms of their usefulness in per hour service. He noted the uniqueness of SCAT buses, and provided an example showing different stages of one bus during the day, from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Mr. Lusk advised currently, SCAT has nine standard size heavy-duty (35-40 foot) buses used for fixed and contract routes, 19 medium-size heavy-duty (30 foot) buses used for fixed and contract routes, and 14 small medium-duty (under 30 feet) buses used for paratransit service; and according to a peak load survey, the following usage is required: Two standard-size heavy-duty (40') buses (four in the summer); 10 medium-size heavy-duty (30') buses; seven small medium-duty (under 30') buses; and four spares (spares must be able to handle any route). He stated current buses in the procurement schedule include three 30-foot buses and 11 Vista-type buses; based on the peak load study, only the 11 Vista-type are needed; and the study does not take transportation disadvantaged service into account. Mr. Lusk advised future items the Board will be dealing with are grants, contracts, planning, and special projects including transportation disadvantaged eligibility, Medicaid contract expiration, service enhancement, vehicle procurement, and the south terminal relocation.

COMPREHENSIVE BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN PROGRAM

Bicycle Coordinator Barbara Meyer gave a slide presentation on the Comprehensive Bicycle/Pedestrian Program, including various projects in the County; and stated the success of such Program is basically done through a comprehensive program of engineering to promote a safer road system and improved bicycling and walking environment through physical improvements, education to train pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists to operate safely and legally in a cooperative manner, enforcement to improve the traffic behavior of bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists through police intervention, and encouragement to promote increased use of bicycling and walking as an alternate form of transportation. She noted County staff evaluated all the school areas and attempted to upgrade them; it has been very successful; it has been able to upgrade over 20 different schools to provide safe crossings, sidewalks, and bikeways; and it has been upgrading the school zones throughout Brevard County. Ms. Meyer advised bicycling and walking factors include safety, security, convenience, continuity, system coherence, and comfort and attractiveness. She noted some roads include paved shoulders; it is the minimal treatment for bicyclists and pedestrians, but it works well; through a transportation grant, County staff was able to go into the schools and educate bicyclists and pedestrians; and it does Bicycle Safety Rodeos. She stated four years ago, Brevard County was No. 7 in bicycle accidents; it is now No. 15 Statewide; and in 1994, the County had no bicycle fatalities.

Ms. Meyer explained that the bicycle/pedestrian accident analysis is to determine the causes of bicycle/pedestrian motor vehicle collisions and to develop safety counter measures in an effort to reduce the number of injuries and fatalities, monitor accident data to identify deficiencies and problem areas, identify safety counter measures that address the causes of the most frequent collision types, and identify locations with a high frequency of bicycle/pedestrian motor vehicle collisions. She outlined engineering objectives, including providing bicycle/pedestrian facilities in accordance with accepted standards of practice to the maximum extent feasible, providing bicycle/pedestrian facilities to bicycle and pedestrian traffic generators, providing adequate separation of bicyclists and pedestrians from vehicles on all public roadways, providing route continuity, providing adequate maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, accommodating the needs of special bicyclists and pedestrians such as children, the elderly and the physically impaired, incorporating recreational bicycle and pedestrian facilities in County and State park development programs, and providing school zone safety treatment. Ms. Meyer advised bicycle/pedestrian issues for on-street include wide curb lanes, striped bike lanes and paved shoulders; and off-road include sidewalks, bicycle paths and bicycle trails. Ms. Meyer advised the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee as well as the Building and Construction Advisory Committee is working to put together an ordinance that would allow flexibility and alternative measures for bicyclists and pedestrians.

BRIDGES

Projects Management Director Tom Lundeen showed a slide presentation on bridges in Brevard County, including Mathers, A. Max Brewer Causeway, South Tropical Trail, Valkaria Road Over Goat Creek, Gradick Road Over Goat Creek, Henderson Avenue Over Goat Creek, Wickham Road Over Crane Creek, North Banana River Drive Over Drainage Canal, and Fiske Boulevard Bridges. He advised such bridges are on the priority bridge reconstruction list through the year 2000; and explained various construction and maintenance problems with such bridges.

Commissioner Cook stated the County needs to start with those bridges that are used the most; and they will become less functional as time goes by. He inquired is there any possibility of matching funds or some sort of participation by the State and the County. Ms. Hann responded it is her understanding there is no State matching program of any nature; County staff can inquire about it; but she would not be optimistic; the State will not spend State funds on such County facilities; most of them, such as Mathers and Wickham Road Bridges are eligible for federal funds; and they are billed out on Statewide priority basis. Commissioner Cook requested staff check into it.

The workshop recessed at 3:30 p.m.

The workshop reconvened at 3:45 p.m.

FINANCIAL ISSUES

Ms. Hann outlined existing transportation revenue sources, including the Constitutional Gas Tax, which is enacted, levied and collected by the State; it is two cents per gallon of motor fuel; 80% is used by the County for major road projects; and 20% goes to Road and Bridge. She stated authorized uses include acquisition, construction and maintenance of roads, construction and installation of traffic signals, sidewalks, bicycle paths and landscaping as necessary for safe and efficient operation of roads; no more than $250,000 annually can be spent on County forces; and it is not shared with the cities. She advised the Local Option Gas Tax (Six Cents) is currently enacted by Brevard County and is in effect until 2001; the Board may extend the Local Option Gas Tax by three-fifths majority vote or it may be re-enacted by referendum; cities representing more than 50% of the County population may adopt uniform resolutions establishing a Countywide referendum; and it must be shared with the cities. She stated currently, the County receives approximately 48%; the current formula is based 50% on population and 50% of previous five-year transportation expenditures; the County's minimum share is 47.14%; it may be used for any transportation expenditures; it generates approximately $6.5 million; and the tax must be imposed before July 1 to be effective September 1 of the same year. She stated another existing transportation revenue source is transportation impact fees; and the FY 1996 budget and cash flow projections for the road program include the following impact fee allocations: Impact Fee District 2 - Fay Boulevard Reimbursement, $275,000; Impact Fee District 4 - Wickham Road, $250,000; Impact Fee District 5 - Apollo Boulevard Reimbursement, $225,000; Impact Fee District 6 - Dairy Road, $50,000; Impact Fee District 7 - Malabar Road, $100,000; and Impact Fee District 9 - Fortenberry Road, $250,000.

Ms. Hann defined the potential transportation revenue sources, including the Ninth Cent Local Option Gas Tax; it is one-cent per gallon on motor fuels and special fuels; Special Fuels Tax is already levied and collected by the State, and distributed to counties; currently, levied Special Fuels Tax is already incorporated into the road program; and enacting the balance of the tax would generate approximately $2 million annually. She advised it can be enacted by fourth-fifths majority vote or referendum; and it must be imposed before July 1 of each year to be effective September 1 of each year. She stated another source of transportation revenue is a one to five cents that the Board may levy by Statute; this has been referred to as the Growth Management Tax; it must be used to meet the requirements of the capital improvements element of an adopted comprehensive plan; it may be enacted by a four-fifths majority vote or referendum; and it must be imposed before July 1 in order to be effective by September 1 of each year. Ms. Hann explained a chart of the Board's revenue stream options for transportation for FY 1995 through FY 2020, and FY 2001 through FY 2020; it shows the current transportation revenue sources and includes the Board not extending the Local Option Gas Tax; and if it chose to extend it, the green line would essentially continue at the current slope at the beginning of the graph. She stated the maximum line includes enacting five of the five cents, continuing the Local Option Gas Tax, the impact fees, enacting the ninth-cent, and not sharing it with the cities; and the County has a very wide range of revenue options for transportation.

Ms. Hann advised staff did a short analysis as to the General Fund support for Road and Bridge as well as the MSTU funds for Road and Bridge support; these funds could be replaced by the ninth cent gas tax or by the Local Option Gas Tax, but not the one to five cents and not Constitutional. She stated there are no major projects scheduled beyond 1998; there are not any funding sources identified, other than what is currently enacted; with the Transit and Bicycle/Pedestrian Programs, the Local Option Gas Tax is the dedicated local funding source for that; and it expires in the year 2001. She noted there are a number of maintenance issues, including level of service on maintenance, and it depends on how aggressive the Board wants to be with respect to striping roads, maintaining traffic signals, putting in street lights, what types and level of amenities it feels are appropriate for major highways, and whether it wants to include landscaping, noise barriers, and those types of amenities on transportation projects.

BOARD DISCUSSION ISSUES Commissioner Ellis stated one issue he would like to discuss is the possibility of having a citizens match when using MSTU money; if the County paves a road with MSTU dollars, perhaps the citizens could put in 25% and the County put in 75%. Chairman Higgs inquired does Commissioner Ellis want information on it; with Commissioner Ellis responding yes and the possibility of setting up something.

Chairman Higgs stated there are three substantial areas of direction that staff is looking for from the Board; and the first one is general direction to staff regarding appropriate quality and quantity of service for components of the transportation system, including consideration of preservation, alternative modes, and major capacity projects. She noted that is big issue for the Board to wrap its hands around; with Ms. Hann responding it is very broad and difficult to quantify these issues. Ms. Hann stated the type of guidance staff is looking for is if the Board is comfortable with the current levels of service the County has and the programs staff presented today; and inquired does the Board want a substantial increase in any programs or decrease in any of the transportation programs, or would it prefer staff to continue with the approximate status quo on the County's transportation system. She noted the capacity projects are being done in arrears; there is a congestion problem on Malabar Road that is very severe; and that is the current level of service. She stated if the Board wants staff to try and correct those problems before they become quite so severe, then staff would need to move in a different direction financially with the transportation program.

Commissioner Ellis noted the last time the Board had a transportation workshop, it had a breakdown of how the Local Option Gas Tax was being distributed; a large part was going to engineering and some other things; and inquired since the County is out of the road building business, has it freed up some of those monies. Ms. Hann responded the money the County was expending previously was support services for the road program; it has about the same level of support; with the County in the road building business, it was simply the contractor; so that money was paid to Road and Bridge as opposed to being paid to the contractor; that was not in the support section, but the capacity section; and staff accounted for it that way. She noted the graphic Commissioner Ellis is referring to is on Page 7 and shows the commitment for the other transportation expenditures through FY 2001, if the County continues the level of support it has for each of these programs.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired on the $6.2 million for the SCAT system, how much is Federal and State dollars. Ms. Hann responded the $6.2 million is all local dollars; Mr. Lusk gave the Board a leverage rate of 1:9 or 1:6 for capital and operating; so the $6.2 million would leverage the State and Federal dollars; and this is the local share.

Discussion ensued on impact fees, transportation levels of service, striping, signs, pavement markings, technical standards, Wickham and Minton Roads, and Malabar, Phase 2.

Commissioner Ellis inquired does the County have to build its roads to State standards; with Ms. Hann responding from a liability perspective it should; and she believes the County is supposed to build its collector and arterial roads to State standards. County Attorney Scott Knox advised from a liability standpoint, that is what the County is supposed to be doing.

Chairman Higgs stated she does not believe level of service E and below is an acceptable level of service to the vast majority of people in Brevard County. She noted levels of service D and E, rural and urban, are the acceptable levels of service adopted in the Comprehensive Plan; in her mind, those are the worst that the County should get to; and transportation should plan to those levels and keep any roads from getting beyond that. Commissioner Cook noted the residents he has talked to would like a moratorium on taxes. Commissioner Ellis stated a lot of things are politically driven; you cannot have everything; so priorities need to be set. He noted what he does not like about the Comprehensive Plan is that it is too specific on how the County is going to do its transportation on roads and sidewalks; and many times the rules in such Plan drive up the cost of the County's transportation improvements. He stated he does not support extending the gas tax because it does not start until the year 2001; he does not believe it is proper to spend that money now; he does not support the Local Option Gas Tax; he would support the ninth cent gas tax if the Board would cut the millage by $1 million and trade that off with the Road and Bridge money; and that would leave $1 million to the cities.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired about level of service E and if the County were to drop below such level. Ms. Hann responded as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) works through its long range plan, she will be able to come back to the Board with a more well defined list of potential County projects that it can choose from based on its priorities in the Districts; the Commissioners may have good familiarity with the local conditions and how bad things are; and in the analysis of the system, the road needs in South Brevard consumed most of the list. She advised there were very few projects in North Brevard; but in that area, there is a real opportunity to plan for the future in doing some alternative corridors; and it can prevent the deteriorating level of service problems that exists in South Brevard.

Commissioner Cook stated the Board is going to have to make some tough choices; if it can cut back and make its priorities, such as roads, it can do that and have the money to do it; but it needs to make the other choices in how it spends the money it collects; and that is what people are expecting of the Board, not just to raise taxes and spend more money. Commissioner Scarborough stated he would prefer to be sharing his wealth in a community sense, having level of service A and B than to be stuck in a traffic jam; the tax is well spent and is value returned to the taxpayer; and there are many taxpayers that believe that. Commissioner Cook stated maybe the Board wants to concentrate on roads and transportation; but that means it needs to cut in another area of County government; and it cannot keep going to the people and asking for more money. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board has been reducing the millage and has not increased it; with Chairman Higgs responding that is correct. Chairman Higgs stated she is not interested in doing that either; but she is also not interested in sitting back and allowing deterioration of the road network. Commissioner Ellis inquired would Chairman Higgs support cutting other areas of the budget then; with Chairman Higgs responding she would want to first look at what the options are before going to the taxpayer and asking for more money. She stated she is not sure where all of that money possibly could come from, but that is where the County needs to go to first; the Board needs to look at roads for the next 20 years; it needs to review the public safety issues; and it needs to figure out how it can pay for those necessary things.

Commissioner Ellis stated the Board is going to have to have self control for the next four or five years; if it wants continuous road improvements, it is going to have to cut elsewhere; and the only other option is to raise taxes. Chairman Higgs noted there is an option to go to the ninth cent or any of the one to five; but until the County knows what the dollar figure is on the needs and when those are going to come, it cannot do an adequate projection of what it needs to do; and it has to review the budget to decide what it can take out of there. She stated the Board needs to start by directing the staff on the kind of plan it wants, and staff giving it the financial options of what it can do.

Commissioner Scarborough stated publicly well-spent funds add to the wealth of the individual in a multiple sense. Commissioner Cook noted Brevard County will start scaring people away if the taxes are too high. Commissioner Ellis stated he has never seen any businesses attracted to high taxes. Chairman Higgs noted she has never seen one industry survey that said they are looking for places where there is a high crime rate, bad education, and polluted water. Commissioner Cook stated the Board can review the budget figures; instead of raising taxes, it needs to look at cutting government; and that is the bottom line. Chairman Higgs noted what the Board has to do is say what does it want it to be; nobody wants high crime and bad education; and businesses are not going to come here if the roads are crowded, the water is polluted, and there is no recreation. She stated she has never said raise taxes; the County needs to look at the quality of life it wants to have, and how it can pay for that; and the first thing she wants to do is look at the budget. She noted the Board can direct staff to give it a dollar figure to maintain an acceptable level of service according to the Comprehensive Plan; and come back with that cost. Commissioner Cook stated the County needs to look at pay as you go as much as it possibly and practically can; with Commissioner O'Brien concurring. Commissioner O'Brien stated the people voted for charter government; and it is about time the County address how it is going to affect these decisions.

Ms. Hann stated staff can provide the Board with a scenario with some basic assumptions; one is that there is no new transportation taxes; the County continue impact fees; the Local Option Gas Tax would be extended in the year 2001, but it would not be bonded; and it would be a pay as you go system. She noted the County would continue the same level of support it has for its other transportation programs, including SCAT and the Bicycle/Pedestrian Programs; and it will continue the general standard that it has for amenities now, including sidewalks and bikepaths, and some level of landscaping so it can make the road projects compatible with the community. She stated if the County makes those assumptions, it can move with the MPO long range plan and give the Board a list of projects that can be funded over the 20-year time period.

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised that will give the Board a starting point; and it will be a scenario it can review and see what that does.

DISCUSSION, RE: NUDITY ORDINANCE

Mr. Jenkins stated staff has heard speculation that there may be as many as 500 people to attend the public hearing on the nudity ordinance; and inquired would the Board entertain moving such hearing to a bigger facility to accommodate the people. He noted the facility that is available for the two public hearings is Brevard Community College (BCC) Gymnatorium in Titusville; and it will accommodate 700 or 800 people.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to approve holding public hearings to discuss the nudity ordinance at Brevard Community College Gymnatorium in Titusville, if possible. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Cook stated he believes the Board provided some direction to staff; with Chairman Higgs responding Ms. Hann told it what staff can provide. Commissioner Cook noted the Board looked at maintaining the level of service it has now; at this time, there is no inclination of the Board to raise the gas tax; and those are two things that have come out of this. Commissioner Ellis stated he could live with the ninth cent gas tax instead of property tax; and it is more appropriate to pay for the roads from the gas tax than from property taxes. Chairman Higgs stated the only thing she would want to see is a breakdown of the expenditures between city and County, and how that would work out when you use property taxes versus the gas tax; she does not have that information; so she is not ready to vote on that. Commissioner Cook noted there is no decision on the gas tax at this time; and he is against such tax.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.

NANCY N. HIGGS, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

ATTEST:
SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK
(S E A L)