MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

May 22, 1995

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special session on May 22, 1995, at 7:46 p.m. in the Government Center Board 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 Assistant County Attorney Lisa Troner.

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider the Site Plan/Subdivision Ordinance. She stated six or seven issues were brought up at the last hearing; and suggested beginning with discussion of those issues.

Commissioner Cook stated he is concerned about the 125% on the escrow, which is a separate ordinance. He stated he would like to get additional information from the Property Appraiser because this could affect some of the things he does. He stated Orange County retains the 125%; and he has concerns. Chairman Higgs inquired if Commissioner Cook wishes to continue the hearing on that; and inquired is that a separate ordinance. Code Compliance Director John Sternagel responded it is, but it is a portion of the existing ordinance; and if it is continued, the entire ordinance would be continued. Commissioner Cook suggested continuing that portion.

Mr. Sternagel stated he spoke with Mr. Ridenour of the Property Appraiser's Office and left a call for Mr. Bobby Brown if the Property Appraiser had any concerns; Mr. Ridenour advised Mr. Ford would write a letter should he have any concerns; and he has not received a letter. He noted he also spoke with the Tax Collector who is well aware of the public hearings and meetings held to date. Commissioner Cook stated the Property Appraiser may have some concerns, and he would like to continue this public hearing. Chairman Higgs inquired if Commissioner Cook wants to continue it to the June 6, 1995 meeting in order to get a response; with Commissioner Cook indicating it is acceptable. Assistant County Attorney Lisa Troner advised the Board will cover every other section, but the entire ordinance adoption will still be continued to decide that one area. Commissioner Cook stated that is the only area he is talking about; but he would like additional information and official responses from the Property Appraiser and Tax Collector. Mr. Sternagel stated he will be glad to do that.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to continue the public hearing to consider the section of the Ordinance relating to retaining the 125% escrow. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Higgs stated Issue 1 is signs in the County right-of-way; and staff provided several options.

Commissioner O'Brien stated this is the issue where developments or PUD's want to put their signs in the right-of-way or plant a tree or something; and there was some argument about this last time. PUBLIC HEARING, RE: SITE PLAN/SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE (CONTINUED)

Commissioner Ellis stated you put the sign when you have a split entrance with a parkway type of median, so you have two split roads and in the center you have your sign. Commissioner O'Brien stated he felt certain developments should be able to do that; but it is on a public right-of-way so there is a problem. Commissioner Ellis stated that has become dedicated with the plat as far as public right-of-way on the road.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he has no problem with a subdivision or a developer on behalf of the subdivision putting a sign for identification because that can be attractive and in the best interest of the public; but he has concerns about opening it up to some strange signs. He stated he would like to go in this direction; and option 3 may be the best because it can evolve. Commissioner Cook concurred. Commissioner Scarborough stated some of the more attractive subdivisions in the State have some type of interest marking that is nicely landscaped and privately maintained; and that is not a deterrent to quality development.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Option 3 on Issue 1.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if the Subdivision Ordinance would defer to another policy; with Mr. Sternagel responding that is correct.

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

Chairman Higgs stated Issue 2 deals with underground utilities.

Commissioner O'Brien expressed preference for Option 1. Commissioner Cook concurred; and stated that is only proper and not an undue burden. Chairman Higgs stated if a $300 cost is amortized over thirty years, that is only ten dollars a year; and it makes a difference in the way it looks. Commissioner Cook stated it is also safer.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Option 1 under Issue 2.

Commissioner Ellis stated he does not support that; it is five hundred dollars here and a thousand there; and the next thing you know, you cannot afford to buy a home. He stated on one hand the County will throw away money on affordable housing programs, but on the other hand, it will drive up the costs of housing with more regulations. He stated that is what the Board is doing; these things all add up; every time there is a millage increase the newspaper points out it equals a cup of coffee per day; but they all add up. He stated the proposal would be two to four hundred; and when it is added onto everything else, there will be people who cannot get into their home. He stated it will not affect high end homes; but it is the low end homes that will get hit.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: SITE PLAN/SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE (CONTINUED)

Commissioner Cook stated he does not disagree; but this is a safety matter; and it increases the investment value of the home, so the property owner will recoup the additional expense.

Commissioner Ellis stated that would be a market factor like a tile roof or a two-car garage. Commissioner Cook stated it should be; but it is a public utility. Commissioner Ellis stated he has a pole in his back yard, and never had a problem. Commissioner Cook stated he agrees. Commissioner Ellis reiterated it is people at the low end who will be affected; these things pile up; and the next thing you know, someone cannot afford to buy. Commissioner Cook concurred; but stated as the County grows, the amount of overhead utilities is getting incredible; and it becomes a burden.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners Scarborough, O'Brien, Higgs and Cook voted aye; Commissioner Ellis voted nay.

Chairman Higgs stated Issue 3 is subdivision and site plan construction permits; and the first issue is the construction period, with the second the site plan period.

Commissioner O'Brien expressed preference for Option 1; there is a longer construction period; it does take in the potential for project phasing; it is three years with the possibility of a six-month extension by staff, with unlimited extension which can be granted by the Board; and that is good. Chairman Higgs inquired if the Board likes the unlimited period. Commissioner Cook stated that would be granted by the Board. Commissioner O'Brien noted the Board can set the period, for example, if the economy goes down. Chairman Higgs suggested "with an extension to be granted by the Board"; and stated she does not like the term "unlimited." Commissioner Cook stated that is fine.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Option 1 under Issue 3, Subdivision Background, amended to say, "with an extension to be granted by the Board."

Commissioner Ellis suggested adding the word "further" in place of unlimited. Commissioner Cook stated that is fine as it is the same intent.

Commissioner O'Brien and Commissioner Cook accepted the wording, "with a further extension to be granted by the Board."

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

Commissioner O'Brien stated the site plan background issue is next.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: SITE PLAN/SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE (CONTINUED)

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Option 1 under Issue 3, Site Plan Background, amended to include the wording, "with further extensions to be granted by the Board." Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Higgs stated Issue 4 is site plan parking requirements; and she does not know why a threshold has to be set on the parking lot if there are the other requirements. Commissioner Scarborough stated the problem is people do not want to put more parking because it is costly; and if someone needs parking, he does not see why the County should fight. He noted generally people do not spend money unless there is an economic reason to spend money.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Option 2 under Issue 4. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Higgs stated Issue 5 is the requirement of site plan review for sheds.

Commissioner O'Brien stated this applies to commercial sheds.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Option 3 under Issue 5. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Higgs noted sheds would still be required to have a permit, but not a site plan.

Chairman Higgs stated Issue 6 relates to pavement width for marginal access and local streets. She inquired when there is a ten-foot travel lane on a curb and gutter, why could there not be a ten-foot travel lane where there is a swale. Land Development Engineer Mahmoud Najda responded with a swale there is an additional one-foot of pavement to protect the shoulder and pavement; so, you automatically have an additional one-foot there. He stated on swale roads, it seems like there is more room to travel; but with curb and gutter, it is contained within the curb and gutter which seems tight. He stated normally people do not utilize curb and gutter for travel; but on a swale system, there will be wheels off the edge of the striping. Chairman Higgs stated there really only is a ten-foot travel lane, but there is an additional foot on the swale.

Commissioner Cook inquired if Mr. Najda is saying the eleven-foot is important to have with the swale. Mr. Najda stated the current Ordinance is eleven feet for a swale system. Commissioner Cook inquired if that is decreased to ten and ten, what impact would that have; with Mr. Najda responding the traveling distance, as mentioned in the item, is too narrow for big vehicles such as garbage trucks, buses, etc; and it is not safe for bicycles or driving on the edge of the pavement. Mr. Najda emphasized it is for safety reasons.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to approve Option 1 under Issue 6. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners O'Brien, Higgs, Cook, and Ellis voted aye; Commissioner Scarborough voted nay.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: SITE PLAN/SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE (CONTINUED)

Commissioner Scarborough stated he would have preferred Option 2.

Chairman Higgs stated Issue 7 deals with the five-foot width requirement for pedways. She stated she feels the County could go to four-foot pedways which would still be functional. She inquired if that can be done and still meet the ADA requirements. Mr. Sternagel responded with the ADA requirements, if there are environmental concerns, insufficient right-of-way, or utility conflicts, you can go to four feet. Chairman Higgs stated there are always environmental concerns. Mr. Sternagel stated for the preservation of vegetation, the County could go to four feet comfortably.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, to approve four-foot pedways.

Chairman Higgs inquired if that is Option 4; with Mr. Sternagel responding it would be an additional option; Growth Management is currently working on a sidewalk policy; that will be coming to the Board; and at that time, that ordinance would supersede the four-foot requirement.

Commissioner O'Brien seconded the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the Board is staying with Option 1 under Issue 7 in addition to the four-foot pedway. Chairman Higgs advised it may be clarified.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Option 1 under Issue 7. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners Scarborough, O'Brien, Higgs, and Cook voted aye; Commissioner Ellis voted nay.

Commissioner Cook stated Option 1 is the current requirement. Commissioner Ellis stated he does not agree with that. Commissioner Cook inquired what would Commissioner Ellis propose; with Commissioner Ellis responding no sidewalk requirement.

Chairman Higgs inquired if an overall motion is needed on the ordinance; with Mr. Sternagel responding yes. Assistant County Attorney Lisa Troner disagreed; and advised the Board is not adopting until the continuation occurs. Chairman Higgs inquired if a motion is needed to continue the whole thing; with Ms. Troner responding yes, but the Board can limit the discussion at the continuation just to the escrow of tax issue.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to continue the public hearing to consider the Site Plan/Subdivision Ordinance to June 6, 1995 with discussion to be limited to the issue of escrow of tax. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Amy Elliott, representing the City of Melbourne, stated the City supports economic development, but not the changes being proposed in the ordinance to make these exemptions. She stated the criteria to meet the exemptions is minimal; and there has been no evidence to show that the exemptions would promote economic development. She stated a second concern is that the integrity of the impact fee structure would be compromised by making this arbitrary change; and if the Board does vote to adopt the proposed ordinance, the City of Melbourne will consider opting out of the program.

Commissioner Cook stated the City has that right.

Commissioner Ellis inquired what would be a non-arbitrary change; with Ms. Elliott responding something based on facts, trips generated or surveys. Ms. Elliott noted the City has not seen any data to support the conclusions. Commissioner Ellis stated the number of trips is also arbitrary based on the roads the trips are being put on; and inquired if he put a building on the north end of Babcock Street, what is his impact to an area that is dead right now, as opposed to putting it on U.S. 192 which is full of cars. He stated the previous study also has arbitrary figures also; and there is more to factor than just the number of trips involved. Ms. Elliott stated she cannot argue what the basis is; however, from what she has seen, there has not been any basis except for the belief that economic development will be stimulated as a result of the proposed change. Commissioner Ellis stated the basis for the current impact fees is a belief that a trip on any road is equivalent to a trip on any other road which is just as arbitrary.

Commissioner Cook stated he does not think it is arbitrary; and it is based on sound information.

Commissioner Scarborough requested Lynda Weatherman respond. He stated there was a shopping center that went into Port St. John; and rather than creating trips, it actually reduced travel on the roads around Port St. John. Commissioner Cook noted they paid a huge impact fee for actually decreasing the trips. Commissioner Scarborough stated someone will sue the County because actually they reduced the impact on the roads so they should get money from the impact fees for taking cars off the road. Commissioner Cook stated that is true. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board tries to justify everything; this is totally unjustifiable; consultants make a lot of money playing games; and the Board is sucker enough to pay them.

Lynda Weatherman, Executive Director of the Brevard Economic Development Commission, stated in the last six months, they have had a prospect activity rate of over 100%; in the last six months, nine companies have located in the County; some of them are small start-up companies; and the kind of companies that are growing in this area are small to medium sized. She stated a survey of all manufacturers was done in February; the big companies that want to relocate are looking for major incentives; and what is going to get the economy going is companies that are small and medium sized, dealing with proprietary know-how niche market; and when a $30,000 impact fee is thrown in their way, it will stop jobs. She stated it is profit and loss driven; the County is going through tough times; the County cannot take a business as usual approach; and this is one way the Board is doing that. She stated she hopes the City will take the same mode and try it, and if the sky does not fall down, we can continue with it. She stated $30,000 to a bigger company might not be a big deal; but she does not know how many companies, expansions and jobs are being lost because they cannot afford to make the investment.

Chairman Higgs inquired if Ms. Weatherman has any data that shows that what she is saying is true. Ms. Weatherman stated she was dealing with a prospect who was looking at the area; she had to show a $300,000 savings between Brevard County and a location in Virginia; and the County is not on the list anymore. She stated the impact fee was a savings on it; the ad valorem would have been a savings; and it is a profit and loss driven thing. She stated she cannot say she had a company that did not relocate because she probably would not know about it if it did not come to her; there might be numerous expanding companies in the area that made the decision; and the sad thing is she does not know how many jobs are being lost.

Commissioner Cook stated he related the story of the man who owned a restaurant and wanted to expand, but when he found what he would have to pay in impact fees, he could not afford to expand his restaurant. He stated the restaurant was successful; in a way, the County was punishing him because of the impact fees; if he could have expanded the restaurant, he could have hired more people, created more jobs, and could have let his business flourish; but because of impact fees, he was prohibited from doing that. He noted Commissioner O'Brien has personal experience.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he could not afford to expand because of the impact fees.

Commissioner Ellis stated in Indialantic there was a case where the individual could handle the fees, but could not handle the paperwork; so, the person just remodeled inside and did not change the footprint of the building. He stated impact fees are not just new businesses relocating in Brevard County; but many times an existing business expanding on its existing site gets hammered by the impact fees and the associated paperwork.

Commissioner Cook stated it is like trying to push the pedal and the brakes at the same time.

Chairman Higgs inquired if there is any supporting data; with Ms. Weatherman responding no. Chairman Higgs stated all she has been given are anecdotes, which may be valid, but that is it. Ms. Weatherman stated she cannot provide other data because there are not that many counties that have looked into this venture. Commissioner Ellis noted there is no valid data the other way either. Commissioner Cook stated Commissioner Scarborough made a good point in that people play with the numbers and the consultants get rich. Commissioner Ellis stated if you count cars, it does not matter if you put them on a street that is dead or a street that is full. Chairman Higgs stated she spoke to someone at F.I.T. who has been involved in development and business; and he said it depends on the situation with the individual business. She stated there are sweetheart deals that you will get if you go to Arizona, North Carolina, or South Carolina; but the average business person looking at relocation looks at quality of life, the labor market, the work ethic and skills of the people, airports, etc. She stated impact fees may figure in; but the other factors are higher concerns.

Ms. Weatherman stated it is a hybrid of all those; and it depends on the nature of the company. She stated if she was dealing in iron ore, she is not going to be able to do something that has a lot of transportation costs; and she will need to stick to where the natural resources are. She stated if she was dealing with a software technology, she could be anywhere in the world, and quality of life would play an important factor. She stated quality of life is important; and that is something she markets; PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE ON EMERGENCY SERVICES IMPACT FEE

but if the business cannot make it feasible, it will not come to the County. She stated the County is lucky it has a hybrid.

Commissioner Cook stated North Carolina now is second only to California in producing movies; this is the most unlikely place to have a huge movie industry; and it is because they made it very attractive for people to come there and produce movies. He stated if North Carolina can become the second largest movie producer in the United States, that is an incredible success story because even Florida has not caught up. Discussion ensued on what movies have been made in North Carolina.

Commissioner Ellis stated the impact fees for a day care center are $3,700 per 1,000 square feet; and that is pretty substantial. He stated for a restaurant, it is $3,700; golf courses are $900 per acre; and inquired if that is for the greens and everything; with Planner II Steve Swanke responding yes. Commissioner Ellis stated if an owner extends his greens or fairways, his impact fee is higher because there will be more acreage; and he would like to see something that says that $900 an acre on a golf course is not arbitrary because whether he is par 72 or par 67 and the amount of acreage on the course depends on how many people leave and go onto the road from the golf course. He stated many of the impact fees are just as arbitrary and the way they were set by the consultants was just as arbitrary. Commissioner Cook stated he agrees some are hard to justify.

Chairman Higgs read aloud a Resolution adopted by the Town of Melbourne relating to impact fees, opposing any change to the existing Correctional Facilities and Transportation Impact Fee Programs which will reduce revenue collected from such impact fees unless valid reasons can be shown. Commissioner Ellis noted the Town can opt out.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt an Ordinance relating to Impact Fees, amending Chapter 62, Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida; specifically amending Article V, Division 2; entitled "Emergency Services Facilities" known as the Brevard County Emergency Services Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance; amending Section 62-725, Definitions, to define basic employment, manufacturing, and various land use categories; amending Section 62-729, Computation, to re-categorize listed land use types; amending Section 62-735, Exemptions and Credits, to establish additional types of development that qualify for exemptions; creating Section 62-737, Appeals, to provide for an appeals process; providing for severability; and providing an effective date.

Chairman Higgs inquired if that is taking the definition of commercial and facilities that are provided under there for commercial businesses such as brokerages, life insurance, etc. to be included as exemptions; with Commissioner O'Brien responding yes. Chairman Higgs inquired how could a medical center have 50% of the people from outside the County; and stated it is highly unlikely that a medical center would qualify under that. She stated the Board should amend the Impact Fee Ordinance so that it is based on a rational means; the manufacturing use should be brought into a reasonable level; and the commercial section should not be amended to include the additional businesses. She advised under the commercial impact fee for emergency services, the County PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE ON EMERGENCY SERVICES IMPACT FEE

collected $38,000; it collected $773,888 under commercial transportation, and $22,000 under commercial correctional facilities impact fees; and until the County knows how it is going to provide the services and provide the facilities that are needed under those programs, it is not wise to expand beyond the industrial area. She stated she does not believe the Board should raise property taxes to support the facilities that are going to be needed; there has to be a revenue stream; and the impact fee is fair when applied reasonably. She stated if the Board is going to do a program of benefitting industrial or commercial, the Board should look to something like the Marion County program which offers rebates; that program requires that people must demonstrate that they are continuing to provide a benefit to the economy and people are continuing to be employed; the County's program gives a one-time bang, then you can go out of business, and it does not do anything beyond that in monitoring; and that is unfair to existing businesses. She stated seven out of ten start-up businesses fail in the State of Florida within three years; but the Board is going to pass an impact fee formula that allows those people who may only stay in business three years to avoid sharing the responsibility of paying for their impacts to the infrastructure. She stated she cannot support the ordinance.

Commissioner Cook stated at least the Board is allowing the opportunity to go into business; and he thinks more revenue will be generated as the economy revs up by taking the foot off the brake, and it will more than compensate for what is being lost.

Commissioner Ellis stated he will support the motion, but it does not go far enough. He stated all the commercial and industrial properties should be exempted; they make up approximately one-third of the impact fees; but there is a tremendous amount of ad valorem generated from industrial and commercial properties, and they do not demand as many services as residential. He stated a perfect example is comparing Melbourne which has a large commercial base to Palm Bay which does not; in Melbourne the millage is less and the services are greater; so, businesses do pay quite a bit after they go on the tax roles. He stated the impact fee just penalizes businesses twice.

Chairman Higgs stated she has operated a small business in Brevard County since 1980; she paid the taxes; she paid every fee that she has been required to; and she has benefitted tremendously by being in business in the County. She stated the Board is unfairly penalizing existing businesses by what it is doing, and not being responsible in saying how are these people going to be tracked over the years. She stated the Board is not doing anything to determine that these people get the benefit; and if the County used something like the Marion County proposal, the businesses would be tracked and given a rebate based on them continuing to perform and be in business. She stated that is fair and responsible; and that is what the Board should do.

Commissioner Ellis inquired how is the County unfairly penalizing existing businesses; with Chairman Higgs responding because they are going to have to pick up the share. She stated they are going to have to pay for those people not paying their share of the impact. Commissioner Ellis inquired what about the businesses that were here before there were impact fees; and stated the County has unfairly penalized all the people since enactment of the Impact Fee Ordinance. Chairman Higgs stated there is a point at which people began to pay; but people who have been in business a while

have been paying their fees and property taxes over the years; and they will pay for the rest of people to go into business.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Commissioner Ellis said this would only affect 30%; in looking at Emergency Services, industrial is .41 and when you bring in commercial and warehouse, that is 15.55; and all of that would not qualify because it also has to meet criteria 7 on page 4. Commissioner Ellis stated he is saying if you exempt all commercial and industrial. Commissioner Scarborough stated that would be approximately 16%. Commissioner Ellis stated they are based on an average; and he is looking at 1993-94. Commissioner Scarborough stated his problem is that all commercial under the ordinance is not going to be granted; and it may be 10% reduction at the highest; so, he does not want to go on the record that the total impact is being reduced by 30%. Commissioner Ellis stated he is saying if the Board eliminated all impact fees for commercial and industrial, then it would lose approximately 30%; and based on this, there are nine impact fee districts, and it would be approximately $50,000 per impact fee district or the cost of a stoplight. Commissioner Cook stated he concurs; the Board could go further; but there are not three votes to do that.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners Scarborough, O'Brien, Cook, and Ellis vote aye; Commissioner Higgs voted nay. (Reconsidered later in the meeting.)

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider the Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Program Ordinance.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to adopt an Ordinance relating to impact fees, amending Chapter 62, Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida; specifically amending Article V, Division 3; entitled "Correctional Facilities" known as the Brevard County Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance; amending Section 62-765, Definitions, to define basic employment, manufacturing, and various land use categories; amending Section 72-769, Computation, to re-categorize listed land use types; amending Section 62-775, Exemptions and Credits, to establish additional types of development that qualify for exemptions; creating Section 62-777, Appeals, to provide for an appeals process; providing for severability; and providing an effective date.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if someone comes over, eats at a restaurant in the County and then drives back to Orlando, has the food been exported under the definitions. He stated he hopes the restaurant would be able to obtain the credit because it is bringing people into the County. Commissioner Cook stated he hopes that is the interpretation; and if not, that should be made clear. Commissioner Scarborough requested an interpretation. Commissioner Cook stated the restaurant is generating people from out of town to come to the County to eat, and it should qualify for the same PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE ON CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE

exemption. County Manager Tom Jenkins stated if a restaurant could demonstrate that 50% or more of its business was from out-of-town tourism, then it would be eligible. Commissioner Ellis stated that is every restaurant on I-95. Commissioner Cook stated they should get the exemption; and that is the intent of the ordinance. Chairman Higgs inquired if all the restaurants are going to be impacted; and will this exempt everything. Commissioner Cook noted it is not everything, but everything that can be documented. Commissioner Scarborough stated in Titusville, everyone goes to Orlando to shop, eat, etc.; Titusville is just a big suburb of Orlando; nothing is spent in Titusville; and inquired if it reverses it on Orlando or Daytona Beach, what is wrong with that. Mr. Jenkins stated the difficulty would be proving that in advance; and an existing business that was expanding would have something to base it on. Commissioner Cook stated it should apply to existing businesses; they should have that opportunity; and if they can document it, they should get the exemption. Planner II Steve Swanke stated if it is an existing business and it can document that half of its revenues are derived from servicing tourists, the exemption would be granted. Chairman Higgs inquired if the net gain of basic employment jobs is considered to be full-time jobs or can she count ten part-time jobs. Mr. Swanke noted that was not specified; but the Board can indicate its intent. Mr. Jenkins stated the alternatives would be to call it full-time equivalents, which could be twenty part-timers. Commissioner O'Brien requested it be specifically stated that it is the direction of the Board that it be full-time employees. Chairman Higgs indicated she would favor full-time or full-time equivalents; and inquired if that should be inserted into the ordinance.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he would like to insert FTE's. Commissioner Cook inquired if the restaurant provision could also be inserted. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board does not have to do anything in terms of the restaurants. Commissioner Cook inquired if the restaurants are covered. Assistant County Attorney Lisa Troner inquired if that could be included in the basic employment definition; and stated all the ordinance talks about is services that are exported to consumers outside of Brevard County, which includes tourism.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to amend the ordinance to include full-time or full-time equivalents; and specify that services exported to consumers outside of the County, which includes tourism, apply to restaurants.

Ms. Troner stated a clarification can be added in the language of the ordinance. Commissioner Cook stated he wants to be sure restaurants are eligible.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the amendment will apply to all three ordinances; with Commissioner Scarborough responding it applies to the Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Program Ordinance; and the Board should reconsider the previous Ordinance.

Commissioner Ellis inquired why the Board does not exempt fees on businesses expanding in place. He stated if he has a 2,000-square foot veterinary clinic and adds 1,000 feet, he should not have to pay the impact fees. Commissioner Cook stated he is not averse to that because it allows people who live and work here to expand without being punished. He stated people work their whole lives to build up a business and it seems punitive if the County says if you are going to expand, it will cost PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE ON CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE

you. Commissioner Ellis reiterated what killed one expansion was the paperwork because one individual had to reconfigure the site plan; and described examples. He stated he does not understand why there is an impact fee on existing businesses expanding on their present location; and if the worry is about abuse, there could be a limit up to double the square footage or some other limit. Commissioner Scarborough remarked on the problems involved in determining whether a restaurant patron is from elsewhere; and stated it may get to the point that no one will apply because they cannot provide proof. He inquired how much more fiscal impact would there be if the Board struck number seven. Mr. Swanke advised at that point, it might be assumed that all commercial businesses would be exempt; and over the last three years an average of 22% to 23% has come from commercial development.

Chairman Higgs inquired if impact fees are not being charged on commercial structures, what would justify charging it on residential structures, if it is challenged. She inquired if the County can defend if it exempts all commercial structures; with Ms. Troner responding providing the rationale is sustained by the court as promoting economic development, that is a valid purpose, and this is the means to accomplish it.

Commissioner Cook stated in this category, it is just as justifiable as what is being done now; but he would like to see people who are expanding up to double their size.

Commissioner Scarborough withdrew his motion.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to adopt an Ordinance relating to impact fees, amending Chapter 62, Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida; specifically amending Article V, Division 3; entitled "Correctional Facilities" known as the Brevard County Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance; amending Section 62-765, Definitions, to define basic employment, manufacturing, and various land use categories; amending Section 72-769, Computation, to re-categorize listed land use types; amending Section 62-775, Exemptions and Credits, to establish additional types of development that qualify for exemptions; creating Section 62-777, Appeals, to provide for an appeals process; providing for severability; and providing an effective date, with amendment to strike the requirements of number 7 on page 4, to allow all commercial to be in the same position as manufacturing with any expansion impact free.

Commissioner Scarborough stated it is getting so complex; and the Board has to make it work. He stated the Board may be overreaching. Chairman Higgs stated the Board is grossly overreaching; the manufacturing is fair; but what the Board is doing now is not sound. She inquired if number 7 is being stricken in its entirety; with Commissioner Scarborough stated in place thereof, it needs to say "all commercial uses." Chairman Higgs clarified the language of number 7 would be stricken, and it would say "all commercial uses." She inquired where is the County going to generate the $700,000 which it collected for impact fees. Commissioner Scarborough stated he hopes as more new construction is created, it would add more to the tax roles; total tax revenue from McDonnell Douglas was over $2 million; as the base is built up, it is not necessarily increasing the total number of people because the people are represented in the housing sector; and this is almost like a double PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE ON CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE

hit. He stated as the other tax base increases, it requires the least amount of service and generates the most amount of ad valorem tax; and therefore, the County should become richer. Chairman Higgs stated Commissioner Scarborough is a lawyer; under a corporation's legal status, there is an individual who has a unique legal status; but now the Board is saying the unique individual which is called a corporation is not going to be required to pay the same as individuals. Commissioner Scarborough stated it could be an individual that builds a manufacturing plant or a restaurant. Chairman Higgs stated they create a separate legal entity which has legal standing in a very real sense. Commissioner Scarborough stated he does it because he wants to limit liability if someone slips on the floor; but it is one individual or a group of individuals who are putting their money on the line; and what the Board is doing is increasing the ad valorem tax base which will make the County richer, and it will look less on impact fees and more to ad valorem taxes. Chairman Higgs stated she does not think supply side economics works.

Ms. Troner advised the Board needs to indicate which way it will define commercial. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if commercial is defined on page 2. Mr. Swanke stated there is a definition of commercial on page 2; in his May 16, 1995 memorandum, an alternative definition was included which included references to the standard industrial classification manual, and would be a more broad definition, more inclusive of non-residential uses. He stated it would include everything but the industrial facilities and churches; and that is shown on page 4 of the memorandum under alternative definitions. He stated there is language on page 3 regarding commercial exemptions; two alternatives are given; one would use the alternative definition and require the same type of qualifiers as was written in the original amendment; and the second would exempt it across the board.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired in explaining this to people, which definition would they be more likely to understand. He requested Ms. Weatherman review the options and comment. Mr. Swanke stated they are basically the same definition but the alternative includes the specific references to the SIC Manual. Ms. Weatherman recommended the alternative which references the SIC Manual. Commissioner Ellis inquired why Ms. Weatherman picked that one. Ms. Weatherman advised the one Mr. Swanke suggested is the one which refers to the SIC Code; there is comfort in being able to make reference to a manual; and explained her rationale. Mr. Swanke stated the alternative definition would include schools, retirement homes, adult congregate living facilities, nursing homes, and all the things that might be classified as institutions rather than commercial under the first proposed definition; and the alternative definition is the more expansive definition.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the alternative definition would include something like accountants, and would it be everything; with Mr. Swanke responding yes, everything except churches and what is defined as industrial facilities.

Commissioner Cook inquired if Ms. Weatherman has a problem with that; with Ms. Weatherman responding no. She stated at least they can look and see a definition of commercial; and inquired if that is all divisions except for institutional ones. Commissioner Scarborough inquired what is meant by institutional; with Ms. Weatherman responding she was thinking public institutions. Mr. Swanke stated it would not include Division A which is the agriculture, forestry and fishing.

Chairman Higgs inquired why are they not exempt as they produce things that go outside the County. Commissioner Ellis stated he agrees. Chairman Higgs inquired what else is not included; with Mr. Swanke responding there is a public administration division under Division J; and most of those facilities would already be exempt under the existing provisions of the ordinance. Chairman Higgs inquired about Division K, non-classified establishments. Ms. Weatherman stated in new technology, they are so esoteric, they have to put them in special classification; and inquired if that is on the list; with Mr. Swanke responding no. Chairman Higgs stated the Board needs to add Divisions A and K. Commissioners Cook and Scarborough agreed. Mr. Swanke inquired if Division A should be added to the industrial definition or commercial definition. Chairman Higgs stated it is not industrial; with Commissioner Cook advising he thought it was commercial. Mr. Swanke stated it will be added to commercial. Commissioner Scarborough stated his concern is he does not want to end up with someone coming back with a legitimate use and asking why it was not included. Chairman Higgs stated Division K would take it in.

Mr. Swanke inquired if a church might be classified under Division K. Commissioner Cook stated if the Board wants to exempt churches, it can do that. Commissioner Ellis stated that is fine. Commissioner Scarborough noted churches produce so little anyhow. Mr. Swanke inquired if Division K might inadvertently exempt residential. Commissioner Cook stated there is no intent to do that. Mr. Swanke stated it is not a business enterprise. Commissioner Cook stated what the Board wants to address is business and commercial at this point.

Ms. Troner advised she cannot answer the question without seeing Division K; but if the Board wants to add K as a business enterprise, it would not include a church. Commissioner Cook inquired if the Board wants to include churches; with Commissioner Scarborough advising he sees nothing wrong with including churches. Commissioner Cook stated churches should be added; and that is part of his second. Chairman Higgs stated the motion includes A, K, and churches under the alternate definition on page 4.

Commissioner Ellis inquired how long would it take a city to opt out; with Ms. Troner responding the Interlocal Agreement gives them a period of time. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the Board would want to make the effective date ninety days from now to give the cities an opportunity to opt out if they desire. Ms. Troner stated at a minimum, the County has to allow 45 days from the conclusion of this period; but the Board may make it longer. Commissioner Ellis suggested allowing plenty of time. Chairman Higgs read "this agreement may be terminated upon ninety days written notice given by either party to the other party with regard to any collections by the County prior to the effective date of termination of this agreement . . . ." She stated they need ninety days written notice. Commissioner Cook stated he thought Ms. Troner said 45 days. Ms. Troner stated there is another provision that if the Board changes substantially from the draft which the cities received, the cities will be given at least 45 days prior to the effective date. Commissioner Ellis stated this is something that is long term to benefit the County; and suggested an effective date of September 1, 1995. Ms. Troner stated that is fine as long as it is a minimum of 45 days. Commissioner Ellis stated the cities will have plenty of time to opt out. Chairman Higgs stated the cities have to give 60 days notice prior to consideration of or any effort to enact their own impact fee ordinance or modify, reconsider, or review any existing impact fees; and the County shall not amend the ordinance without affording the PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE ON CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE

municipalities at least 45 days. Discussion ensued on the date. Commissioner Scarborough suggested going to September 1, 1995; and that will be incorporated in his motion. Commissioner Cook accepted September 1, 1995 as part of his second.

Mr. Swanke inquired if it is the Board's intent to adopt the alternative definition for industrial which references the SIC Manual which specifies which industries would be considered industrial. Commissioner Ellis stated he wants the broadest definition. Mr. Swanke stated the new definition is the broader definition.

Chairman Higgs clarified the motion is to accept the alternate definitions on page 4, adding A and K, including both commercial and industrial and churches, and with an effective date of September 1, 1995. Mr. Swanke stated there are existing definitions in the ordinance such as that for manufacturing which may no longer be necessary, and may be redundant.

Commissioner Scarborough stated page 4 of the ordinance talks about all manufacturing uses; and inquired if it will be all industrial uses, and will that definition be used for industrial. Mr. Swanke stated that was a concern from the previous meeting; the way this was written, it would only exempt the manufacturing uses as defined by the ordinance; there is language on page 2 that adopted the new definition and exempted all industrial except warehousing and marinas; and the Board may want to reconsider changing that to all industrial uses if the other commercial land uses are being exempted. He stated that definition could be used, striking everything after Division E. Chairman Higgs stated it is necessary to get marinas in this if the Board is going to do everybody. Commissioner Scarborough stated marinas serve people coming down the Intra-coastal Waterway. Commissioner Cook stated they should be included. Mr. Swanke stated staff will draft appropriate language for that. He inquired if the Board wishes to strike the definition for manufacturing; and recommended doing so. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the new definition for industrial would be inserted. Mr. Swanke stated the new industrial language would be inserted under number 6 in place of "all manufacturing uses"; and that would say "all industrial uses as described in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1987 Edition, under Division B, Mining, Division C, Construction; Division D, Manufacturing; and Division E, Transportation, Communications, Electric, Gas and Sanitary Services. He stated under number 7 there would be the definition shown on page 3, under alternative 2, which says, "all commercial uses as described in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1987 Edition under Division F, Wholesale Trade; Division G, Retail Trade; Division H, Finance, Insurance and Real Estate; Division I, Services; Division A, Agriculture; and Division K, Non-classifiable Establishments." Commissioner Cook inquired if under number 6, marinas will be included; with Mr. Swanke responding it will include marinas and warehouses.

Chairman Scarborough stated he would like the motion to amend to include the previous language. Commissioner Cook stated he will accept that as part of this second. Commissioner Cook inquired if showrooms, etc. would be included under commercial as exempt; with Mr. Swanke responding yes.

Ms. Troner suggested the amendment include such other amendments to make it consistent.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion to adopt the Ordinance amending the Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Program as described. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners Scarborough, O'Brien, Cook, and Ellis voted aye; Commissioner Higgs voted nay. (See page for Ordinance No. 95-23.)

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to reconsider the Ordinance on Emergency Services Impact Fee. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to adopt an Ordinance relating to Impact Fees, amending Chapter 62, Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida; specifically amending Article V, Division 2; entitled "Emergency Services Facilities" known as the Brevard County Emergency Services Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance; amending Section 62-725, Definitions, to define basic employment, manufacturing, and various land use categories; amending Section 62-729, Computation, to re-categorize listed land use types; amending Section 62-735, Exemptions and Credits, to establish additional types of development that qualify for exemptions; creating Section 62-737, Appeals, to provide for an appeals process; providing for severability; and providing an effective date, with the same amendments as the Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Program Ordinance. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners Scarborough, O'Brien, Cook, and Ellis voted aye; Commissioner Higgs voted nay. (See page for Ordinance No. 95-22.)

Chairman Higgs inquired on page 6 there is a credit program; and inquired if that is currently how it is done; with Mr. Swanke responding yes. She stated in line 4 it says, "shall be credited against the Transportation Impact Fee assessed against the land development activity." She stated in the case of people building roads, she thought the Board had to act on that for the credits to be in place. Mr. Swanke stated staff has always brought agreements relating to an impact fee credit to the Board for approval. Commissioner Cook stated that needs to be clarified because it appears to be automatic. Mr. Swanke stated the language was originally included in the ordinance because there is statutory language in Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, which requires a credit be given for Developments of Regional Impact for required improvements which are not site related; and this language parallels the statutory requirement. Chairman Higgs stated she would prefer to say it may be credited against the Transportation Impact Fee assessed against the land development activity if approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Cook concurred.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to adopt an Ordinance relating to Impact Fees, amending Chapter 62, Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida; specifically amending Article V, Division 4; entitled "Transportation" known as the Brevard County PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE ON TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE

Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance; amending Section 62-805, Definitions, to define basic employment, manufacturing, and various land use categories; amending Section 62-815, Exemptions and Credits, to establish additional types of development that qualify for exemptions; amending Section 62-818, Fee Schedule, to re-categorize listed land use types; creating Section 62-819, Appeals, to provide for an appeals process; providing for severability; and providing an effective date, with the same amendments as the Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Program Ordinance. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners Scarborough, O'Brien, Cook, and Ellis voted aye; Commissioner Higgs voted nay. (See page for Ordinance No. 95-24.)

Mr. Jenkins advised the Ordinances do not go into effect until September 1, 1995; and staff will continue to apply the prior Board direction in the interim.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the County holds all impact fees; with Mr. Jenkins responding affirmatively.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.

__________________________________________

NANCY N. HIGGS, CHAIRMAN

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

ATTEST:

___________________________

SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK

( S E A L )