The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special session on January 12, 1995, at 5:06 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 County Attorney Scott Knox.

CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE, RE: CAPE CANAVERAL HEIGHTS

Chairman Higgs stated the Commissioners received a fax this afternoon from Dean Sprague regarding the Canaveral Heights Contract; she was asked to sign the Contract; the Board authorized her to sign the Contract if staff agreed with it; but there were some unique features in the Contract, so she was uncomfortable signing it. She stated the Board can discuss it now or it can be placed on the agenda for the next meeting.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he did not receive the fax, and will need time to read it.

Chairman Higgs requested Mr. Sprague summarize the consequences of putting this on the next agenda.

Assistant County Administrator for Community Development Dean Sprague stated staff had discussion with the land holder of the property; the next meeting would be January 24, 1995; staff is not opposed to the Addendum; but what is being offered is not a typical kind of structure. He requested Ms. Hann provide more detail. Engineering Director Susan Hann stated the Board previously received a copy of Addendum B; since that time, there have been negotiations with the property owner which resulted in a few substantial changes. She stated one related to the property owner's engineer having the authority to approve the location of all driveways and median openings in accordance with FDOT standards; staff does not have a problem with that; but it will be necessary to make sure any third parties having property along the roadway are also protected. She stated staff sees this as an appropriate thing with respect to the FDOT standards; but there is a potential for some future conflict with some of the third party property owners; and there are very few of those along the corridor. She stated there is also a clause in the Contract which requires Brevard County to attempt to purchase retention in mitigation areas from a third party along the corridor; and staff did have concerns about that clause. She stated there was a clause that indicates that any donated retention areas would be located north of the first tier of lots abutting the road; and while staff does not have a problem with that from an engineering point of view, as you move further away from the road, you do incur additional construction expense. She stated if the County can acquire the ponds at a reasonable cost or if they are donated, that would be a savings as well. She stated there are some things in the contract that are unusual; but it is a good deal as far as providing right-of-way for the roadway and the retention ponds.

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated staff reported that this was the best deal the County was going to be able to negotiate with this property owner; and if the County is interested in having this access road right-of-way donated, it will have to go with these terms or reject the offer.

Mr. Sprague stated this particular structure is significantly cheaper should the County have to go after conventional acquisition or through condemnation.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to affirm authorization for the Chairman to execute Contract for Sale and Purchase with Cape Canaveral Heights, which was approved by the Board on December 13, 1994.

Chairman Higgs stated the options are to agenda it, sign it or throw it back; there are plenty of options; and the motion is to agree with the contract.

Commissioner Ellis stated the reason the driveway cut issue has come up is because of the median issue; and they probably want to make sure they get median cuts. Ms. Hann advised that is correct. Commissioner Ellis stated he does not have any problem with that because he understands why it is important. Commissioner O'Brien noted Courtenay Parkway had the same problem with median cuts.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there was a previous comment that delaying to the next meeting would be a deal killer. Mr. Sprague noted that may be so; this has reached a threshold in terms of negotiation on this property; but Mr. Knox may want to respond further as he as been dealing direction with the land owners.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated they started out with a simple right-of-way donation which they agreed to; then the scope expanded to include retention areas, where they will be located, who is going to pay for what, and what the purchase price is going to be on for property that cannot be purchased from third-party owners. He stated the owner has probably reached a point where he is going to say sign it the way it is or not worry about it any more because he has bigger fish to fry. He stated he has been led to believe that by not only the property owner, but by Mr. Nelson who is representing the property owner; and staff is satisfied with the deal as it is. He stated this is probably the best the County is going to do with this particular owner. He noted donation of the right-of-way is contingent in the sense that if DOT does not buy the intersection or file a condemnation action for the interchange by the year 2003, it will revert back to the property owner.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Chairman does not sign tonight and waits until the next meeting, it is not an indication the Board wants a different deal; but certain Commissioners have not been briefed; and the question is whether the Commissioners need to be briefed before voting.

Mr. Knox stated it is up to the Board if it wants to do that; but he wanted to point out the risks involved. He stated Mr. Nelson has advised this is the deal the owner is happy with; he has changed several times to accommodate the County; and he is not going to want to change again. He stated the owner wants to get this over with; he thinks it should have been done before now; and he does not know whether that is just hot air or whether it is real.

Commissioner Ellis inquired what about the other property adjacent to the landfill. Mr. Knox stated that is part and parcel of the whole deal; the County is dealing with Mr. Miller to try and acquire the 150 acres and the other 30 acres that he does not yet own; but that is something Mr. Rabon needs to get to.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he gets the message; this is take the offer or drop dead; and that is why it is before the Board tonight rather than on a regular agenda.

Chairman Higgs stated the reason she brought it to the Board was because she would not sign it; the contract that came for signature was different than what the Board said; and she is not going to sign something as Chairman of the Board that she does not feel the Board authorized. She stated she is not going to sign it unless the Board tells her to do that. Chairman Ellis inquired what are the major differences other than right-of-way cuts. Chairman Higgs responded the discussion was that staff would work the issue and become comfortable with it; and when she did not get that total comfort, she did not feel she could sign. She stated she is not concerned about the contract; but will not sign something as Chairman without Board approval. Commissioner Ellis stated he understands Commissioner Higgs's point; but thought she might have seen something in the contract that worried her. Chairman Higgs stated no, but there may be other things that worry others but do not worry her; and her concern is that she is not going to act on the Board's behalf if she does not clearly feel she has direction to do so. She noted she has sent other things back. Mr. Knox stated the deal was for the landfill property; that is how this started; and all the right-of-way business was included as an add-on. He stated the Board is ahead of the game no matter what it gets out of the right-of-way; and the fact that the owner dedicated or intends to dedicate it to the County as part of this package, put the County far ahead of the game no matter what.

Commissioner Ellis stated there is a commitment on the interchange. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is ready to vote.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Contract for Sale and Purchase.)

Chairman Higgs inquired if this has to be placed on the agenda for public notice to clarify the Board's intent; with Mr. Knox advising no, the authorization was to sign if staff is happy with it; and staff is happy with it.

DISCUSSION, RE: CANAVERAL PORT AUTHORITY

County Attorney Scott Knox stated Commissioner O'Brien is going to schedule an item on the Canaveral Port Authority; and he would like guidance from the Board as to whether it wishes him to prepare a legal analysis or options on that.

Commissioner O'Brien stated it is important to get a copy of the original charter and some of the reasoning why the people of this County put that together and taxed themselves to create Port Canaveral as well as anything else that would be important for the Board to know.

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated he asked Mr. Knox to explain to the Board the legal significance of the issue of being a subdivision of the State or of the County; and he also heard a rumor through a third party that the Port Authority might be interested in discussing TICO or the industrial park with the Board.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Port Authority has admitted it is only a body politic which means it has no direct jurisdiction over anything; and he is willing to make a deal that if the Port backs down, and the County cuts some deals in the middle, the County will back down and let the Property Appraiser fight his own fight. He stated if Mr. Ford wins, he wins; if he loses, he loses; but as far as he is concerned the Port Authority is trying to get out of the situation and take advantage of the County; and he will not take that.

Mr. Jenkins stated the reason he asked Mr. Knox to bring it up was to determine if the Board wished to try and reopen those discussions with the Port Authority or just put it on hold.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the problem with that is if the Port goes forward to Tallahassee to become a state agency, it will take the County's property with it; he is not sure he wants to do that; and there are assets going to the Port which make the Port wealthier on the back of the taxpayer. Commissioner Ellis noted some assets do not make you wealthy. Commissioner O'Brien stated they should go forward with that. Commissioner Ellis the County should go talk to the Port Authority.

Commissioner Cook stated he has no problem talking to the Port Authority; this is going to be an item on the agenda; and there are some good points with regard to the years of taxation that the Port has gotten from the people that need discussion. He stated if Mr. Knox can bring back some options, he has no objection to staff talking about other issues as well.

Commissioner O'Brien suggested giving Savannahs Golf Course.

Chairman Higgs inquired if Mr. Jenkins needs other direction; with Mr. Jenkins responding no.

DISCUSSION, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE

Chairman Higgs stated the Board will not be hearing the amendment of the Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance; and requested Ms. Busacca explain why the Board is not hearing that.

Planning and Zoning Director Peggy Busacca stated staff inadvertently advertised the ordinance incorrectly; it can be heard on January 26 and again on February 8, 1995 which is scheduled to be an LDR hearing on bingo; and this would be a change of two weeks in the schedule. She stated if the Board would like to make any direction as to the title which should be advertised, this gives the Board some opportunity to discuss and give direction to the staff.

Chairman Higgs inquired if anyone wishes to speak to the issue.

Paul Goetsch, 2763 College View Drive, Melbourne, stated he called about this issue; he desires more information; but he does not wish to speak.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he would like to see broader advertising. He advised something was published in the Florida TODAY a while back which showed that in Brevard County, single-family is at the bottom of the list, but industry is second to the top; certain ones are consistently at the top such as Hillsborough County; and inquired since Brevard County is at the bottom half on everything but industry, is the County trying to tell people it no longer wants to be known as a community that is attracting high paying, high tech jobs. He stated the County hired consultants to give it information; but the trip generation should be consistent throughout. He stated when someone has a job and there is an impact fee on his home and the place he works, there is a redundancy; and inquired if that is unfair impact. He stated the City of Titusville, on Tuesday, abolished all impact fees in all areas effective February 1, 1995; he is not in favor of that; but the Board may want to reach beyond the limited wording in the current Ordinance to tell people the County wants manufacturing and high tech jobs.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he agrees with Commissioner Scarborough; and he is glad Commissioner Scarborough found this information. He stated he was looking for something like this to bring himself, but could not find it; and this proves that the County is saying move to Brevard County and build a house, but there are no jobs. He stated he is not 100% against all impact fees; and he wants to make that stand clear; but when the impact fee on industrial is that high, it should be reversed so single family homes are number one and industrial is at the bottom. He stated by having low impact fees on single family homes, the County encourages growth; that is the County's biggest problem; and this is like the pedal to the metal on growth with the brake on for having jobs for people moving here. He stated the County ends up with a cross section of a population that is either unemployed or retired which is not good for the future of the County. He stated young people cannot find jobs; the old people are retired and have their income; and the demand upon services gets higher and higher, especially for social services because of these two factors. He noted the Board will be discussing impact fees at a workshop soon; and he wants the Board to know where he stands on this issue. He advised he would rather see single family homes number one and put the brakes on new construction; and the home builders will scream and shout, but the EDC and everyone will say it is the smartest thing to do. He stated older homes are losing value; the biggest investment anyone ever made was to buy a house; a used house is worth 5% less than it was a year ago; people lost 13% of the value of their investment; and if you take the mortgage paid last year and add the 5% loss, it is $13,000 on a $100,000 house that was thrown away. He stated something must be done about that to help stabilize the value of the houses that are already built; and if the County keeps building new houses, but does not have any jobs, that is never going to happen.

Commissioner Ellis stated the only thing is if the Board is going to think along those lines, it will do away with the affordable housing theory. He noted his theory of government is that one hand of government drives up the price of houses and the other hand gives you tax money to subsidize your buying a home; so when the Board goes into impact fees on single family homes, then it needs to look at all aspects of that. Commissioner O'Brien agreed.

Commissioner Cook stated he concurs with much of what has been said, although he would not support any increase in the impact fee on single family homes. He stated if the Board wants to lower the rest of the impact fees to make single family number one, it could do that; but he does not know if that is possible. He inquired if Commissioner Scarborough wants to include all of the industrial land use types.

Commissioner Scarborough stated when he talked to staff, there were questions about whether if the Board does manufacturing, whether it would want to exclude tourism or other types of commercial activity; that is something the Board needs to discuss; and before the Board readvertises the same ordinance, the Board will have a workshop. He suggested deferring a decision until the workshop, so the Board can decide where it wants to go with it. Commissioner O'Brien agreed. Commissioner Ellis stated he has no problem with that.

Chairman Higgs stated there are people sitting out there ready to go and almost completed; Mr. Goetsch's company which is in Malabar is within a few weeks of a CO; and they are going to have to sit which means dollars.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the Board can defer them at the same time to wait for the workshop to take action, and hold it in abeyance. Commissioner Scarborough inquired can it be made retroactive. County Attorney Scott Knox responded the Board could authorize a rebate of whatever money has been paid; and that is probably the easiest way to do it. He advised if the Board is going to change the Ordinance to lower the impact fee for residential, it can be made retroactive.

Chairman Higgs stated Mr. Goetsch's company cannot be issued a CO until the impact fees are paid; so the company would have to pay the impact fees at the current rate; in fairness to the company, it needs to know what the Board is going to do; and the company has to pay one way or the other. Commissioner Ellis stated he would give the company back all its money.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there was some concern; and he would like to abolish impact fees where job creation is a factor. Commissioner O'Brien stated he joins Commissioner Scarborough in that. Commissioner Scarborough stated he has met enough people coming to this County who are engineer-type persons; they have immense numbers of problems moving from this location to that location; the County is saying it wants these people, but that they are negatively impacting the County, and so, must pay a fee. He noted staff suggested using interest that is accruing to pay the impact fees; it could be lowered to the lowest level; but if the County abolishes it entirely, there may be problems. He stated he wants to tell the community at large that the County is giving positive signals that Brevard is a place to move jobs to. Commissioner O'Brien concurred. Chairman Higgs stated she understands and agrees the County wants jobs; but the Board needs to talk further about what jobs it wants to encourage. She stated if you look at the difference in the information, there is a difference between a convenience store in Seminole County and one in Brevard County; and inquired if that is the job the County wishes to encourage because it is a lower paid job.

Commissioner Scarborough stated those are good questions that the Board has to get into; that is why it is not appropriate to readvertise tonight; and the Board needs to have the workshop to really understand the issue.

Chairman Higgs stated she agrees the County wants to encourage manufacturing; on other things she agrees with Commissioner O'Brien; and she wants to look at the whole issue. She stated she has some real concerns about going very far on this road before a position is verbalized that growth is going to have to be paid for somehow; and this is one mechanism that has been used. She stated were are not paying for growth now; we are in a deep hole; and the Board needs to know how it is going to pay for it.

Commissioner Cook stated he would like to see that looked at with the caveat he does not want to see the burden shifted to single family homes in some attempt to make up for what it may do in other areas. He stated he concurs the Board must look at cutting significantly some of the impact fees with regard to job creation.

Commissioner O'Brien stated if the County does not impact some place, and impact properly, that only leaves one other avenue and that is raising taxes which he does not think any Commissioner really wants to do. He stated property taxes for the single family homeowner will have to be raised to make a difference in the loss of revenues of reduced impact fees.

Commissioner Ellis stated businesses generate a lot of ad valorem revenue and have a small need for the services. Commissioner Cook agreed; and stated more jobs pay more taxes. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if, on the other hand, the Board wants more convenience stores. Commissioner Cook noted if that is the only job you can get, it is better than not working or being on the street. Commissioner O'Brien stated the County keeps creating more $5 an hour jobs; all it is doing is creating more jobs for the government; and where it hits worst is social services. He stated the people need welfare, dental care, medical care and everything else; and as long as the County keeps making it good for the poor to be poor, it is going to have more and more taxes to be collected to help them out with their own lives. Commissioner Ellis stated if they do not start working at the $5 an hour job, they are never going to work their way up the ladder; and he has worked for a lot of jobs that pay less. Commissioner O'Brien stated that was when Commissioner Ellis was 17 or 18; but these people are not 17 or 18, they are 30, 35, 40, 45, 50 and some are older than that. Commissioner Ellis stated without those jobs, some people would have no jobs. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the Board wants to create more of that kind of job, noting it is a personal choice. Commissioner Ellis stated the market creates jobs; and government can destroy jobs, but it cannot create them. Commissioner O'Brien stated the County can make an atmosphere that makes better jobs than the ones the Board is talking about. Commissioner Ellis stated he looks at is as creating an atmosphere that destroys less.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised since the Board is going to consider this at a workshop and discuss all those issues, one of the things he will be looking at from a legal standpoint is whether the Board can dispense with a particular type of impact fee such as industrial impact fee.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the question is whether it is more important to have an affordable housing workshop two weeks from now or more important to talk about impact fees and try to kick start the economy of the County. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the desire is to switch those workshops. Commissioner O'Brien stated he would rather go ahead with the impact fee issue. Chairman Higgs stated she does not think the Board will have the data by then.

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated tonight's ordinance contains two actions; one is to separate manufacturing from industrial; and the second is to set an impact fee rate. He stated the Board could still proceed with establishing the manufacturing land use category and not necessarily deal with the impact fee issue. He noted the Board's previous discussion and intent was to separate industry which has a tendency to be more heavy industry versus manufacturing, which is more the type of job that is desirable from an environmental standpoint; and the other point is planned to be on the agenda at the economic workshop, but the discussion will be about more appealing jobs, such as manufacturing, administrative process centers such as banks or credit cards, research parks, corporate headquarters or tourism. He stated some of those things are extremely desirable from an economic standpoint versus a proliferation of small retail businesses that pop up everywhere; and the focus is going to be on the more value added type jobs.

Commissioner Cook stated the Board needs to be careful with that because a lot of the small retail businesses are mom and pop businesses; and those need to be encouraged too. He stated the County does not need to get so restrictive that if someone saves money and wants to start a gift shop, they will not have the opportunity to do that and be successful because they are so overburdened with regulations, fees and taxes; and that is what is occurring. He stated this could be moved forward; and inquired if it cuts the current rate in half.

Chairman Higgs stated the Board cannot do that because it was not advertised properly. Commissioner Cook stated the Board can address it after it has been readvertised. Mr. Jenkins stated the Board could authorize staff to readvertise the manufacturing land use category part of the ordinance. Commissioner Cook stated this would not preclude the Board from addressing the whole issue. Commissioner O'Brien noted the title was wrong.

Growth Management Director Gary Ridenour stated staff is in the process of negotiations with an impact fee consultant who was selected based on the scope of services approved by the Board; the approved scope of services would allow entertainment of these type of issues; but before any kind of agreement is consummated with the consultant, he would recommend the selected consultant participate in the workshop discussion. He stated impact fees are not arbitrarily set, but are based on major impacts of different types of land uses; so, just the arbitrary removal of impact fees for certain land uses may be difficult as it has to be based on some legal premise. He stated he would like to have the consultant present, if possible, when the Board has that discussion.

Chairman Higgs inquired how much does the County collect per year in impact fees; with Planner II Steve Swanke responding the County collected $4.25 million in transportation impact fees in 1994, approximately $150,000 for emergency services, and approximately $175,000 for correctional or approximately $4.5 million total.

Mr. Jenkins stated the point Mr. Ridenour was making was that it may be difficult to eliminate the impact fee, but he does not know of anything that precludes the Board from lowering it. Mr. Ridenour stated within the scope of the services that has been handed to the consultant, the Board has asked him to look at exactly what the board is speaking to; and he would like to have the consultant here along with the legal staff which will be supporting him, so this is done in the right way. He stated there are credits that can be given to compensate; for example, if you have a value added job, that employee pays impact fees for his home; the businesses which support the service businesses which support the employee also pay impact fees; and there may be ways the County can generate credits for these manufacturing categories.

Commissioner Scarborough stated this is what is rubbing him the wrong way; the consultants are the biggest problem the Board is going to get in trouble with; this consultant gave the County the second highest impact fee for industry and the second lowest for convenience stores; but a trip is a trip. He stated the consultant is going to walk away from the Board with $117,000; the consultant is going to delay the process an immense amount of time; and he is not voting for a consultant because he knows the Board will walk away with a product that is not good for the County. He stated the County has a piece of trash it has been living with since 1989; it is a disgrace; industry is money in your pocket; the County has never entered, nor will it, the McDonnell Douglas plant; yet it pays an immense amount of tax. He stated single family homes draw on services; multi-family draws even more; the County loses money; but industry is gravy in the regular ad valorem tax. He stated the County is giving negative signals; convenience stores have robberies; but the County is saying come on and build convenience stores; this is garbage; and you pay a lot for garbage.

Commissioner Ellis stated he agrees completely; he did not want to go to the consultants because according to Commissioner Scarborough's handout, it is not just Brevard County that jumps all over the board, but all the other counties as well; and if the consultants were dong their job, all of the counties would fall in line. Commissioner Scarborough noted Hillsborough County is consistently the highest.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the County has impact fees, is there a legal requirement involved. Chairman Higgs stated the County has to have something. Commissioner O'Brien stated it all goes up in the air legally; the County ends up with what it has until this is resolved; it goes on forever; and the consultant keeps the County covered.

Commissioner Ellis inquired what is the legal basis for what we have; and stated from a business or science background, he does not understand how the consultants work. Commissioner O'Brien noted they work by the hour for $200. Commissioner Cook concurred they are very expensive. Commissioner Ellis stated there is a difference between how they charge and how they work; and he would just as soon skip the consultants. Commissioner Higgs stated she does not think the Board can do that because it has to have some basis. Commissioner Cook inquired what did Titusville do; with Commissioner Scarborough responding the Council met and abolished.

Mr. Knox advised if the only issue the Board is looking at is eliminating an impact fee for one particular category of land use, then he can probably advise whether or not the Board can do that; but if it is looking at reestablishing impact fees by raising them, the Board will need some kind of study to support whatever it does because that is what the law says. He stated lowering the fees, the Board already has a study and transportation analysis on which the impact fees are based; and the Board can lower the fees without much of a problem. Mr. Jenkins advised the Board can lower or abolish the fees based on what it has in terms of a study; but if it wants to raise them, there will have to be another study to justify it. Commissioner Ellis noted that is why they wanted to do the study.

Commissioner O'Brien stated his position is fluid; he is willing to talk about it and change his mind; impact fees can be raised and lowered; and the Board missed the boat in that there is no impact fee for education. He stated impact fees for jails are important; and if the Board does not do those two areas, it is amiss. Chairman Higgs agreed. Commissioner Cook stated the Board has contracted with the consultant; and inquired how much will the Board pay the consultant to do the rate study. Mr. Ridenour responded it is presently in negotiations; the current Code requires the County to revisit the impact fee rate schedule every two years; and that is why it is into this study. He stated it is over $100,000; but that has to come back to the Board; and he is going to try and set it up so it is compartmentalized to allow the Board to be able to cut the scope of things. Commissioner Ellis inquired what Code makes it come back every two years; with Mr. Ridenour responding the Impact Fee Ordinance which was adopted by the Board. Commissioner Ellis noted it could be amended; with Mr. Ridenour advising that is correct.

Chairman Higgs stated if Commissioner Scarborough says this is garbage, then the Board has to believe that the basis on which the current fees are established is garbage; the Commissioners cannot proceed forward to reestablish fees based on what was garbage; so, a rational basis is needed. Commissioner Ellis stated the Board is not using this to base fees. Chairman Higgs stated the Board has to base its impact fees on something rational. Commissioner Cook stated the Board has done that. Chairman Higgs stated Commissioner Scarborough said it is garbage; and everybody agrees it is garbage.

Commissioner Scarborough stated when the Board voted on this, the consultants advised they were not comfortable with it, and requested the Board establish a threshold substantially lower than that so as to not be challenged in court; the consultants were unsure that what they gave the Board was worth anything at all; and what the Board did is reduced it. He stated in other words if you have less than garbage, maybe you have something other than garbage; and that is what the Board was told.

Commissioner O'Brien stated there are two thousand people working in the County government; and inquired if out of the employees, can five be found to do the study.

Commissioner Cook inquired if the Ordinance requires a consultant study and is that specified; Mr. Ridenour responded staff could probably put together a group to do it; but he would have to confer with Mr. Knox as there are a lot of legal dimensions to this. Commissioner Cook stated the Board has a lot of flexibility in lowering impact fees. Commissioner O'Brien stated if the Board adds education, it has added one and taken a bunch off. Commissioner Cook stated that is a separate issue. Commissioner O'Brien stated unless the Board puts education on there, it has done a disservice to the whole County. Commissioner Ellis stated after going through the new auditorium at Eau Gallie High School today, he does not think he could support that. Commissioner O'Brien stated because the Board of Education would not raise taxes for ten years and wanted to keep office, that has put the onus back on the people. Commissioner Cook advised the School Board raised taxes each of those ten years; with Commissioner O'Brien noting obviously not high enough. Commissioner Cook agreed it was not if the School Board was going to build $2 million to $3 million auditoriums all over the County. Commissioner Ellis stated they also moved capital money into operating.

Chairman Higgs inquired if staff needs direction from the Board on the way this should be advertised; and inquired if staff can come back to the Board at the January 24, 1995 meeting for a discussion of impact fees and where the Board may go if it does not have a consultant. She stated the Board needs that information and wants to discuss it.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the title itself is misleading; it is about transportation; and actually it is about industrial and manufacturing land uses.

Chairman Higgs stated the Board wants something advertised that allows it to look at manufacturing and industrial categories.

Commissioner Ellis advised the Board can make it broad and then work its way down, but cannot make it narrow and work its way out.

Mr. Ridenour stated the Code requires that any change in the impact fees has to be done as a result of a study; and what has been done is a very narrow study, only addressing manufacturing.

Commissioner Cook stated the Board can amend the Ordinance if that is what it has to do; that is an option; he agrees with Commissioner Ellis that the Board should not tie its hands; and if the Board is going to readvertise, it should look at the broad spectrum.

Mr. Jenkins inquired if the Board desires to agenda this for the next meeting for discussion or does it wish to advertise something. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board wants to broadly advertise; with Commissioner Cook agreeing. Commissioner O'Brien stated this is a whole meeting; and if the Board gets involved with impact fees, that is all it will talk about all night.

Chairman Higgs stated the Board cannot talk about it further until it gets some data that tells clearly where the Board has to take this.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the study has to be done by an outside consultant; with Mr. Ridenour responding no. Mr. Ridenour noted the Ordinance the Board has before it tonight was done by staff. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board wants to do it internally.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct staff to advertise an ordinance regarding transportation impact fees as broadly as possible.

Mr. Jenkins requested clarification; and inquired if the Board is discussing two issues, one, advertising an ordinance about impact fees, and two, the manufacturing land use category independent of impact fees.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the intent is to discuss impact fees in a broad sense and specifically discuss the industrial manufacturing category.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he would like to include all industrial. Commissioner Ellis stated it includes all categories. Commissioner Cook stated that is part of the motion. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if he is correct that he also wants to separate manufacturing from industry.

Mr. Jenkins stated that is what was proposed, to separate manufacturing as a land use category; forgetting impact fees for a moment, there would be an industrial land use category and a manufacturing land use category; and that is one issue. He stated the next issue is advertising a broad based ordinance on the current impact fee ordinance and the revisions to it; and the County Attorney would have to advise what might be advertised. Mr. Knox stated there are a couple of things to be concerned about; and there are four Impact Fee Ordinances, transportation, corrections, water and sewer, and one other. Mr. Jenkins advised water and sewer are not under this. Mr. Knox stated they are all impact fees; if the Board is going to talk about impact fees, it should talk about impact fees; and if it is going to talk about one impact fee, it should talk about one impact fee. He stated the other point is there are Interlocal Agreements with the cities which levy impact fees in the County's behalf; and there are some timing requirements that will have to be observed under the Interlocal Agreements such as a 45-day notice.

Commissioner Ellis inquired would that not apply to what the Board is doing tonight; with Mr. Knox responding he does not know that the County has not given notice to the cities on this tonight. Planner II Steve Swanke stated the cities have been give a great deal of notice on the amendment that was to have been considered tonight; but there were obviously not given notice on what has been discussed. Commissioner Cook inquired if the cities were given 45-days notice; with Mr. Swanke responding it was more like 75 days; and staff began notifying the cities in October, 1994. Mr. Jenkins stated in order for the Board to advertise an amendment to an ordinance, staff must know in some sense what is being amended, unless the Board is talking about abolishing.

Chairman Higgs suggested advertising the industrial, manufacturing breakout and that fee, and then agenda a workshop on impact fees to go to all the issues. She stated she agrees if the Board is going to talk about impact fees, she wants to talk about education and deal with that issue. She suggested holding a workshop on the impact fees issues to get all the ramifications, but going on with this one, because it has concrete impacts on people.

Mr. Ridenour stated staff could provide the Board with the scope of services which was adopted to solicit consultants; and that could be used as a base to begin discussions. Commissioner Ellis stated it took all summer just to get to this.

Commissioner Cook stated there is a sense of the Board that it wants to lower some of the fees; and inquired how difficult is it to bring in something broad; with Mr. Jenkins responding not at all, if that is what the Board directs. Mr. Jenkins stated if it is the intent to amend to lower fees, that can be done.

Commissioner Ellis inquired is that the motion; with Commissioner Cook responding affirmatively. Chairman Higgs advised there was an original motion on the floor to advertise impact fees, manufacturing and the fee for manufacturing; and the Board needs to deal with that. She inquired if that motion included all impact fees; with Commissioner Cook responding the motion was to include as broad a base as possible. Chairman Higgs stated that is all impact fees. Commissioner Cook stated Mr. Jenkins was asking what is the direction the Board is heading; and he thinks the direction is toward lowering impact fees.

Chairman Higgs stated she is not sure she is ready to do that until the Board finds another way to deal with the impacts of growth, and is ready to step to the table and do that. She stated it is all well and good to hate impact fees; but there are also millions of dollars worth of needs that the County is not dealing with; and it is irresponsible to abolish a revenue stream unless you are ready to say there is another way to do it.

Commissioner Cook advised the Board is just advertising it; that is something the Board will need to discuss at that time; but he does not see what the problem is in advertising it and bringing it back. Chairman Higgs stated if the Board advertises the full ordinance change and is not in a position to take that action, that is not the way the Board should do business; and the Board knows it wants to change the manufacturing and the industrial as well as the fee. Commissioner O'Brien stated he agrees with that. Chairman Higgs recommended proceeding forward. Commissioner O'Brien stated if the Board does not do that, the public will be coming to the meeting for no impact fees; the Board will go along with them, and trip over its own feet in doing it; and this has to be approached intelligently. Commissioner Cook stated if the Board advertises it, it will have plenty of time to consider it.

Mr. Knox stated because of the time constraints the Board is under as far as notifying local governments and municipalities, it will be a couple of months before staff can get back to the Board with an ordinance of any kind addressing impact fees; the workshop will be held before then; if a broad amendment to the Impact Fee Ordinance providing for lowering of impact fees is advertised, the Board could decide at the workshop what it specifically wants to do, and draft amendments that conform; and then it would come back to the Board whenever it is advertised again.

Commissioner Cook stated the notification to the municipalities could begin prior to the workshop. Mr. Knox advised it could, except staff would not know exactly what to give them at that point. Commissioner Cook stated at least they could be notified that the Board is looking at it.

Chairman Higgs inquired how does that differ from the motion that was made originally; with Commissioner Cook responding it does not differ; that was the motion.

Planning and Zoning Director Peggy Busacca stated her understanding is if the ordinance is significantly broader than what was already brought to the Local Planning Agency, it will have to go back to the LPA; and the earliest that can be done because of advertising requirements is February; so the Board needs to provide direction.

Commissioner Ellis inquired why it has to go to the LPA to lower fees; with Ms. Busacca responding what the LPA looked at was the lowering of manufacturing fees. Commissioner Scarborough inquired why does it have to go the LPA: with Ms. Busacca responding Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, requires it. Mr. Knox advised Chapter 163 requires the Local Planning Agency to look at all land development regulations; and this falls under that category. He stated there is no way this is going to get to the LPA before it has to go through the municipalities and everything; so probably it will come back in March. Commissioner Ellis stated if the Board advertises to gut the whole thing, it can pick and choose. Chairman Higgs stated it will be sent back to the LPA.

Commissioner Scarborough stated when industry is cut out, you look at the land use; there are things under general light industry like assemblers of data processing equipment; they are not manufacturing; that is often a different industry; and this is cutting out a very narrow band. He stated there are going to be people coming in bringing jobs; and the County is going to say no. He stated to think the County is solving a problem with the current Ordinance is a mistake; and he supports Commissioner Cook's motion.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the Board will have what it needs to do that; with Commissioner Scarborough responding he knows it will. He stated the community will come in and tell the Board; the community is knowledgeable; the Board does not need experts; and it has people in the field who are trying to bring in industry today who can advise the Board why they are not getting it here. He stated there are people who did come to work. Commissioner O'Brien stated they are now out of work, cannot find a job, and know why.

Chairman Higgs stated there is a motion and second to advertise all impact fees and all considerations of the Impact Fee Ordinance; and the Board says it does not have to go the LPA. Commissioner Scarborough advised it does have to go to the LPA. Commissioner Ellis stated the County Attorney advised it has to go to the LPA.

Mr. Knox stated the point is the Board just advertised broad amendment to the Impact Fee Ordinance that will provide for lowering of the impact fee; this will take the normal steps; and by the time it gets to the Board, the Commissioners will have figured out specifically what they desire to do. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if under the Charter, this still has to go to the LPA. Chairman Higgs advised the state law still applies; and the County still has to comply with Chapter 163, F.S. Mr. Knox responded you cannot do anything inconsistent with general law. Commissioner Cook stated he thought the Charter was home rule, and the County would no longer have to listen to the State. Mr. Knox responded it is home rule, but limited home rule.

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

Chairman Higgs inquired if there is a date when this will be done. Ms. Busacca stated there are dates scheduled in March for LDR's; they already contain the Site Plan and Subdivision Ordinance; and they promise to be lengthy. Chairman Higgs stated she is not opposed to looking at impact fees and changing them; she is opposed to going off with less information than she needs and without a good look at it; and that is why she voted against the motion. She inquired what should the Board tell Mr. Goetsch who wants a CO since the Board is saying it is not going to do this until March.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he will go on the record that he is going to vote for retroactive; and he hopes Mr. Goetsch will not have an impact fee.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if the Board needs a vote to make it retroactive. Mr. Knox advised as part of the motion for the advertisement, the Board should authorize staff to not only lower it but make it retroactive. Commissioner Ellis inquired if it would be retroactive to January 1, 1995. Mr. Knox advised the Board can pick whatever date it wishes.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to authorize the lowering of the impact fee to be retroactive to January 1, 1995.

Mr. Jenkins stated under that motion it would be advisable to put all of the impact fees in some kind of a trust and hold them until the Board votes because the Board would not want to be spending something it may not have. Commissioner Ellis inquired if it would be like an escrow account; with Mr. Jenkins responding affirmatively. Chairman Higgs stated all impact fees will be escrowed from January 1, 1995, and will not be expended until March, 1995; and inquired what that does to the County fiscally. Mr. Jenkins stated those are current impact fees; the only thing he can think of would be the roads area; and he does not know what the impact would be. Engineering Director Susan Hann stated there are impact fees programmed into the road program; so there could be an effect on some of the roadways. Mr. Jenkins stated those fees collected from January 1 until March would be held; and anything collected before January 1 could still be used. Ms. Hann stated the County could use those funds; it is not that the County is going to run out of money for any particular program; but there is a certain amount of impact fees programmed for the roads. Commissioner Cook stated it would not create a crisis. Mr. Jenkins stated staff would have to report to the Board when it has its public hearing what is currently projected in road impact fees, how they were going to be spent, and whether or not gas tax could be an alternative to the road impact fees.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if when the Board talks about advertising in the broadest sense, it is talking about including all categories including single family as well. Mr. Knox responded as he understands it, the Board is talking about impact fees for all categories. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is not in favor; he is more concerned about job creating issues as opposed to abolishing impact fees across the board; that is not what he wants; it is okay to advertise it; but that is not where he wants to go.

Chairman Higgs inquired if Commissioner Scarborough wants to reconsider the advertisement; and advised she will support that. Commissioner O'Brien stated he will support it also. Chairman Higgs stated she is very concerned.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to reconsider the motion to authorize advertisement of an ordinance regarding transportation impact fees. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners Scarborough, O'Brien, Higgs, and Cook voted aye; Commissioner Ellis voted nay.

Commissioner Cook stated he does not see what the difference is; he is not inclined to eliminate the fees in all categories; but he does not know what the problem is with advertising them.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the problem is that is going to bring forth some major questions; some numbers will have to be run on how that is going to impact the road programs if the impact fees are eliminated; and it is going to drive the gas tax issue. He stated the next issue that will come on board will be how to fund the gas tax because it will be necessary to bring in funds in some other manner. Commissioner Cook inquired if that can be settled when the Board votes on this. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board talks about abolishing all impact fees like Titusville did, staff is going to have to analyze the financial impact it will have on the community's capacity to meet the road projects; and inquired if the Board talks about it specifically for industrial classifications to bring in light industry, what is the difference between that and manufacturing. Commissioner Cook stated the Board was talking about lowering impact fees in certain areas; and since the Board has not delineated which areas it wants to lower fees in, why not advertise them all. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is afraid of the magnitude. Commissioner O'Brien stated this is going to drive itself; and that is a real problem. Commissioner Scarborough stated what the Board had was the industrial classifications; industrial may be the safest place; it frightened him that something was cut out called manufacturing that would not include assembly; and that is all he was asking for. He stated he was not suggesting just throwing it out; Titusville went too far; and the City is going to have problems. Commissioner Cook stated maybe this is something that the Board should not even be advertising; maybe the Board needs to discuss this in a workshop, and then decide what it wants to do; this is an important issue; and it is insane to go back and forth continually. He stated either the Board is going to do something or it is not; and suggested discussing it at the workshop. Commissioner O'Brien agreed; and stated the Commissioners will have to fight it out to see where they are going to end up; and right now they have not done that. He stated the Commissioners have five different opinions; they have to come to one opinion; and that will not happen unless they sit down at a workshop. Commissioner Scarborough stated that is fine; and originally all he asked for this evening was not to readvertise the Ordinance and workshop a broader subject.

Chairman Higgs inquired if a motion can be made that is reflective of what could be advertised that deals with those issues. Commissioner Scarborough stated he would be willing to make a motion reflective of those issues. Commissioner Ellis stated the reason the Board has to advertise something is because of the delay time to the cities and the LPA; and the Board could flip flop the workshops. Commissioner O'Brien stated that is what he wants to do.

Mr. Jenkins advised there is another possibility; the Board has its first Tuesday evening meeting scheduled for February for public input; and this would be a rousing topic. Commissioners O'Brien and Scarborough indicated that is acceptable. Commissioner Ellis stated the Board can hear the scrub jays at 5:00 and the impact fees later. Chairman Higgs stated what will happen is the Board will sit for three hours listening and will never get a chance to discuss with each other. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board needs a workshop; and this is not a public hearing issue until the Commissioners get their minds together. Commissioner Cook indicated he prefers to flip flop the workshops. Chairman Higgs inquired what would it be exchanged with; with Commissioner Ellis responding the Affordable Housing workshop. Mr. Ridenour stated that would be fine. Chairman Higgs inquired when was the Affordable Housing workshop scheduled; with Mr. Ridenour responding February 1, 1995. Chairman Higgs inquired if staff can be ready; with Mr. Ridenour responding staff will do its best. Mr. Ridenour recommended staff meet with the legal staff; and stated there are some essential elements of how the impact fee rate is established that the Board needs to understand. Chairman Higgs stated the Board can hold a workshop on February 1, 1995.

Ms. Busacca advised she did not hear a motion to repeal the advertisement.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct staff to not advertise an ordinance regarding transportation impact fees; and authorize holding a workshop on February 1, 1995 at 1:00 p.m. to discuss impact fees.

Chairman Higgs stated if the Board does this, it will leave a group of people sitting in ambiguity about what to do.

Mr. Ridenour advised there is a workshop scheduled for 2:00 p.m. on February 1, 1995 to discuss affordable housing. Chairman Higgs advised that was changed to 1:00 p.m. Assistant County Attorney Lisa Troner stated the Viera DRI is at 5:00; and the workshop was moved to 1:00. Chairman Higgs inquired if the Board desires to proceed and not take any new ordinance until after the workshop; with Commissioner Scarborough responding affirmatively. Chairman Higgs stated if the Board deals with this part, at least it will know what that will be; and then the Board can do the whole gamut, if that is what it wants to do.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he still does not understand how the City of Titusville can walk in one night and abolish fees, with no consultants. Commissioner Ellis stated the people decided that was what they were going to do. Mr. Knox advised that is easy; if the Board wants to get rid of impact fees altogether, the only thing that would stop it would be the bond covenants; and he does not think they would stop the Board. Chairman Higgs noted there are not three Commissioners saying they are willing to walk totally away. Commissioner Scarborough stated he understands that it can be discussed at the workshop; but in answer to Chairman Higgs' question of what happens to the people who are adversely affected, he will make a motion, and the County Attorney can advised if it is out of order. Chairman Higgs inquired what was the motion; with Commissioner Scarborough responding he has a motion not to workshop it. Chairman Higgs stated the motion is just to workshop which rescinds the previous motion to advertise it. Commissioner Cook stated that is not necessarily the case; and Commissioner Scarborough will make another motion after this. Commissioner Scarborough advised the next motion will be going further than that.

Commissioner Cook seconded Commissioner Scarborough's motion to direct staff to not advertise an ordinance regarding transportation impact fees; and authorize holding a workshop on February 1, 1995 at 1:00 p.m. to discuss impact fees. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to eliminate all impact fees as of this date until after the Board decides on the issue on any industrial manufacturing classifications.

Chairman Higgs inquired if this is to eliminate the fees. Commissioner Scarborough stated the County will not collect any impact fees until this is heard by the Board. Mr. Knox inquired if this is just for transportation, or is it for all impact fees. Commissioner Scarborough inquired how far can he go; with Mr. Knox responding the Board can go as far as it wants; but the proper way to do it would be to enact an ordinance that puts a moratorium on collections, on whatever basis the Board wants to do it. Mr. Knox stated right now the Board has an Ordinance which says it collects impact fees; and so the Board has to get rid of the Ordinance. Commissioner Ellis suggested putting the fees in escrow. Commissioner Cook inquired how far does the Board want to go. Commissioner Scarborough stated the County has to pay them; what he is trying to do is eliminate them until the Board makes a decision to put them back in. Chairman Higgs inquired if taking out a whole category as opposed to eliminating all impact fees would create a question. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board can discuss that subsequently. Chairman Higgs stated if the Board takes out one category, it skews the whole works. Commissioner Scarborough reiterated the Board will discuss that at the workshop. Commissioner Ellis noted Mr. Knox advised the Board has the authority to lower the fee; and it is just lowering it to zero. Chairman Higgs stated she has to see it in relationship to the others. Commissioner O'Brien stated that is way to costly; and the Board cannot do this at this time because the programs are already in place based on the projected income.

Commissioner Scarborough withdrew the motion.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize payment of current impact fees on all industrial impacts from interest earned on impact fees collected.

Mr. Knox advised the Board cannot undo this once it is done; and once the County pays the impact fee and someone gets a building permit, the County cannot come back later. Commissioner Scarborough stated the County cannot come back against that individual, but it can be changed later to say the County is going to cease paying it for people; with Commissioner Cook agreeing. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board can legally do this; it does not have to have an ordinance; and it is a budget issue. He stated the County is accruing interest on impact fees previously collected. Chairman Higgs stated those have already been disbursed or programmed to be expended. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board has the legal authority to use it; when he was briefed, he was told the County was planning to use those monies for such things as affordable housing; so, the possibility of transferring interest earned has already been legally explored. He stated the Board can take the interest earned and pay the impact fees for those persons coming into to pay impact fees on industrial development.

Mr. Jenkins stated if anyone was told by staff that he was going to recommend taking the transportation impact fees and using them for affordable housing, he would not make that recommendation to the Board. Mr. Ridenour noted staff did not recommend that; but it came out of case law. Mr. Jenkins stated he wants the Board to understand what it is doing; Company A paid impact fees to open its factory because the law said it had to; the County has earned interest on the impact fees of Company A; and now it is going to give Company B the benefit of that interest earned from Company A's payment.

Commissioner Cook stated the original motion made by Commissioner Scarborough was to eliminate the impact fees on industrial; and inquired if the Board is prohibited from doing that. Mr. Knox responded an impact fee ordinance is no different than any other ordinance; if the Board does not want to enforce it, it could direct staff not to enforce; and it would be in limbo on the enforcement aspect of it. Commissioner Cook stated the Board could then make a decision at a later date; and that may be a better way to go rather than paying. He suggested going with Commissioner Scarborough's original motion. Chairman Higgs inquired what was the original motion; with Mr. Jenkins responding to eliminate. Mr. Jenkins inquired has the Board historically had the ability to waive its own ordinance on a temporary basis; with Mr. Knox responding it is not a matter of waiving it, but not enforcing it.

Chairman Higgs stated the Board will take a break; the County Attorney can sort through this legally; and the Board will then figure this out.

The meeting recessed at 6:19 p.m. and reconvened at 6:32 p.m.

Mr. Knox stated the most prudent way to approach the subject and still accomplish what the Board wants to accomplish is to follow the scenario where the Board still collects the impact fee, but puts it in escrow subject to a rebate after the Board makes a decision what it wishes to do. He stated there are many complicating factors; he is concerned that without looking at all the issues, something will be missed that will get the Board in trouble if it stops collecting it altogether; and this gives an opportunity for giving the money back after the Board decides where it would be a problem.

Chairman Higgs inquired could it be retroactive; with Mr. Knox responding yes.

Mr. Jenkins stated the one underlying issue that was raised by staff was eliminating just industrial without eliminating them all at one time; and the Board cannot pick one out of the bunch.

Commissioner Ellis stated the Board can pick one to lower it; with Mr. Knox responding the Board could pick it out to lower it; but he does not think it could pick one out and say it would stop collecting industrial but still collect commercial, etc. Mr. Jenkins inquired could it be lowered to one dollar; with Mr. Knox responding yes, but recommended analyzing the financial and bond consequences and things like that. Commissioner Ellis stated he does not know of any bonds against the impact fee revenue. Mr. Knox stated the Board is talking about transportation; and Commissioner Ellis is probably right. Mr. Jenkins stated there are none for transportation, corrections or public safety; and the Board is not talking about sewer impact fees which is a different animal.

Commissioner Cook stated the Board cannot eliminate them; but it has an option of putting them in escrow or lowering by some percentage. Mr. Knox stated the Board is talking about making a differentiation between industrial and others; he thinks the Board can do that; but that is the issue he has been researching and has not gotten an answer yet. He advised the safe way to do it is to collect them; and if the Board decides, it can give them back to everybody.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the Board could give back a percentage; with Mr. Knox responding if the Board lowered it, it could give back a percentage.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the consensus is to lower or eliminate impact fees; but prudence would say to set them aside until the issue is resolved, and then rebate back to January 1, 1995. He stated that is prudent because the Board does not know where it is going to end up with this; the Board knows how it feels about eliminating some and balancing out in certain areas perhaps; but until that time prudence says bank the fees until the decision is made.

Commissioner Cook stated he does not necessarily object to escrowing the fees; but sometimes the Board is so prudent, it is paralyzed, and government never accomplishes anything because it is always studying and working on things. He stated he can live with escrow; but sometimes it seems to take forever to do anything or nothing ever gets done.

Chairman Higgs stated she would hate to see the Board do something out of the need to do something when two or three weeks down the road, it would not make a major impact, and the Board could be sure what it is doing will not get it into trouble. She stated she wants to be sure the Board is not getting itself into more trouble. She stated she has no allegiance to impact fees; but she has a tremendous allegiance to the County being able to pay for growth, infrastructure and the needs of the community; and she does not necessarily care how the County pays for it in terms of overall cost; but the County has a responsibility to pay for it. She stated if the Board is going to dump out $5 million, then she has a tremendous sense that the Board has to know how it is going to pay for those things. She stated when someone said she wanted to raise impact fees, that was totally untrue; but she does want to have a way to pay for what is being put on the books and developed.

Commissioner Ellis stated the $5 million includes single family residential and everything else. Chairman Higgs stated the $5 million is the amount of money being raised from impact fees; and the Board is going to eliminate impact fees. Commissioner Ellis advised that is eliminating all impact fees. Chairman Higgs stated what the Board was opening up was all of them; and if it is going to do that or any combination thereof, then it has to insure it is able to pay for the infrastructure that is going to be demanded. She stated it is not that she loves impact fees; she does not care about impact fees; but she cares that the County is able to pay, and that it does not push it down the road for somebody else to pay it. She stated that is as big a debt as anything else; and she knows the Board is concerned about debt. She stated she wants the County to be financially responsible and for the quality of life to not deteriorate to such a level that people do not want to live in the County and industries do not want to come here; and quality of life is the drawing card, not an impact fee. Commissioner Ellis stated he wants the Board to prioritize where it is going to spend money because the more money you get, the less likely you are to prioritize. Commissioner Higgs stated she will go down that road to determine how the Board prioritizes; but she does not want anyone to say she wants to raise impact fees because that is not where she is at all. She stated she wants to know that the County can pay before eliminating $5 million.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not want to withdraw the motion to abate impact fees on industrial classifications until further action of the Board. He stated the County will stop collecting the fees; sometimes the only way to do it is to beat it over the head; and he is ready tonight because he is tired of it. He stated the County is at a critical point; aerospace and defense are dying; the same type of employee who is in aerospace and defense is capable of transitioning into high tech which is growing rapidly; and those are the companies that are out there dealing with the same things the people are doing at the Space Center. He stated the County has to bring in industry to give people jobs, or they leave; and then Brevard County will be come a bedroom community to retirees. He noted there is nothing wrong with retirees; they saved the County after the Apollo Program fell down; but it fundamentally changes the nature of the community. He stated sometimes things are just right; and to say the County is going to study it and wait is wrong. He stated the Board should do what is right and see what happens.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to abate all impact fees on industrial properties.

Chairman Higgs stated that was the motion Commissioner Scarborough made previously; and she will assume that is the only motion on the floor.

Mr. Knox stated if the Board takes this action, there is a good risk that it will be taken to task by anyone who had to pay a transportation impact fee, noting he assumes this is strictly transportation; with Chairman Higgs responding no. Mr. Knox inquired if the Board is also talking about emergency services and corrections. He advised it is a risk that a builder will want to build a single family home, and now that the Board has eliminated the fee for industrial, the builder will insist that be done for him, and that the Board will not be able to collect any impact fees. He stated if the Board wanted to waive it in all categories, it could do that; everyone would be getting equal treatment; but if the Board just picks out one classification, then everyone is going to jump on the bandwagon.

Commissioner Cook stated the Board always runs that risk; there would have to be a lawsuit and go through the whole process; and he concurs with what Commissioner Scarborough said. He stated in Norway, they switched from driving on the left hand side of the road to the right side of the road overnight because they decided either you are going to do it or you are not; and either the Board is going to do this or it is not; and he will support the motion.

Mr. Jenkins inquired in terms of defending this action, could the Board use the justification that the economic issue and concerns Commissioner Scarborough described were the basis for singling out industry versus single family, retail, etc. Mr. Knox responded yes, there are any number of ways that somebody could go after this action tonight, which is apparently going to pass; there are a number of ways it can be attacked; but there are also ways it can be defended; and that is one of the ways the County would defend it. He noted he is not saying someone is going to kill the County in court tomorrow; but the Board needs to realize there is a risk that could happen.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he supports the motion; and it is time for the Board to have guts and do something.

Chairman Higgs stated this is the most irresponsible thing she has watched the Board do in the two years she has been on the Board; she is all for action and doing things; but this is a not a responsible manner in which to do it.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion to abate all impact fees for industrial land classifications. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners Scarborough, O'Brien, Cook, and Ellis voted aye; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

Chairman Higgs inquired if there is a motion for any kind of advertising. Commissioner Ellis stated the Board passed a motion that it be advertised. Commissioner Scarborough stated it transitioned over to the precise language for the advertising would evolve form the workshop on February 1; so, right now the fees are abated; and the Board will come back and fine tune it with the advertisement on February 1, 1995. He stated the Board will have an opportunity to address all the issues first on how it should be structured; staff will have a chance to put it together; and he wants the people of the community and staff to know, the time for talking is over, noting the Board has spent a year on it.

Commissioner Ellis stated during the workshop, the Board will establish the language to be advertised.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to rescind the motion to authorize advertisement of the ordinance, with the understanding there will be new language for an advertisement after the workshop on February 1, 1995. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending the vested rights provisions of the Brevard County Code of Ordinance.

Edward Fleis, 1090 A1A, Satellite Beach, stated he is a consulting engineering, and worked extensively on land development projects in the County, most extensively on the South Beaches. He congratulated staff and those who worked on the ordinance providing for amending vested site plans and amended subdivisions; and stated there was a downzoning in the South Beaches that took it to one unit per acre. He stated ten or fifteen years ago, there were a large number of large projects proposed on the South Beaches; at that time the densities allowed were 30 units per acre or 20 units per acre; and it was downsized to six units per acre, then four units per acre, and now it is one unit per acre. He stated the question is what can be done with some of those site plans that have been vested by an action that has been taken, such as a recorded plat or approved site plan; there has been no provision in the past to make a change once there is a vested site plan or subdivision unless it comes into conformance with the present density guidelines; and if he has a project that has a hotel site on it for 167 units, he either has to build out that hotel, or if he makes a change, develop the property at one unit per acre.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if there is no flexibility to go lower; and does it have to be either 167 units or one. Mr. Fleis stated he is not sure; there have been discussions with staff on that issue; and you have to stay within the footprint of what was approved. Commissioner Ellis stated that would be awkward. Mr. Fleis stated the whole point is maybe they do not want to build a hotel, but do not want to lose what rights may have been gained on that particular piece of property; and that is what has happened. He stated a lot of these site plans were developed when high density seemed to be the name of the game; and it gave a high value to the land. He stated many of the lands are actually appraised because they had a total value of 240 units or whatever; they may have been appraised at $7,000 or $10,000 a unit; and that gave the value for the land. He stated in the case of the hotel, the owner does not want to build a hotel; residential land use would be one unit per acre; and if he did that, there would be a tremendous loss of value through the land. He stated in another situation there is a town house project which has been platted, and is on the public records at ten units per acre; the product itself calls for, in many cases, 22.5-foot wide lots; and this presently is not the market. He stated in the past there were 18-foot wide town homes on 22.5-foot wide lots; now they are building 27-foot wide town homes; but to do this now, they will have to totally replat, vacate part of the plat, and go to one unit per acre. He stated they would have to combine three lots to get two units; and would either end up with something 30 to 32 feet wide or have to build to 22.5 feet wide which is not the market now. He stated in another case there is a subdivision which has been vested, not by platting, but by meeting certain deadlines; there is a certain layout calling for approximately 125 lots; but the layout is not that good. He stated there is not a good alignment for the road; some of the lots, although they meet the minimum requirement, are small; and there is a desire to improve the quality of the subdivision; but it can only be modified at this time if it is due to engineering changes. He stated there are also problems with the location of the sewage treatment plant which is close to an existing residential development; but they have been told that it has to stay vested in its present form with very minor changes. He stated staff has taken a look at some of these issues to allow the ability to amend these site plans; and in doing that, it has set up criteria that has been given a lot of thought and allows for a review. He stated for the hotel, one of the criteria is to reduce the density by at least 30% or impact by at least 30% or a reduction to the impacts to protect the natural resources or provide for further compatibility to surrounding land uses. He requested the Board adopt this ordinance; and stated it allows for provisions that will result in a higher quality development and allow a person who owns land to come closer to conformity with present density guidelines, yet provide some flexibility to allow the individual to develop in accordance with today's market. He requested favorable consideration of the ordinance.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if there is some appeal clause included. He stated the way the pre-existing use is done, there is an appeal clause whereby if you cannot handle it administratively, you can appeal to the Board, and then you are on your own. Ms. Busacca responded the vested rights determination is made by the Board; and this decision is completely a Board decision. Commissioner Ellis inquired if all the vested rights decisions come to the Board; with Ms. Busacca responding yes, there is a recommendation by the Local Planning agency as there is currently; and what the ordinance does is provide criteria which the Board does not currently have in ordinance form. She stated the portion that Mr. Fleis was discussing which deals with flexibility on vested site plans is currently not in existence anywhere; so, that is additional flexibility. Commissioner Ellis inquired if you did not meet the criteria, could you still appeal to the Board. He stated he is thinking about the Craig Road situation. Commissioner Higgs stated that would not even have to be brought to the Board. Ms. Busacca advised the Craig Road situation would not have to be brought to the Board right now. Assistant County Attorney Lisa Troner stated they have added that vested rights provided for existing single family residences, utilized as permanent residences prior to 1988, are handled in the ordinance, and are presumed vested. Ms. Troner stated if they are used as single family residences, as permanent residences, and were established prior to 1988, they have been considered vested under the Ordinance. Commissioner Ellis inquired why the 1988 date; with Ms. Troner responding September 9, 1988 was when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted; so, they could be consistent with zoning; but if anything was built after September, 1988, it is presumed they had knowledge of the Comprehensive Plan. She stated prior to 1988, zoning violations or failures to get building permits are waived because they are being utilized as single family and permanent residents; and that is the Craig Road and Friday Road situation. Ms. Busacca inquired if there were any more the Board already heard; with Commissioner Ellis responding there was the lady from Mims with the bar. Ms. Troner advised Sadie James was not a single family structure, but it was an existing structure prior to September, 1988. Commissioner Ellis stated he is concerned about having some kind of appeal process available because the Board has seen some unusual items in the last couple of years. Ms. Busacca stated right now anyone can apply; when it comes to the Board, there is no criteria by which to decide; and it is her understanding that the Board wants to make sure that people can still continue to apply regardless of whether that right has been considered here. Commissioner Ellis stated what would happen is when it comes before the Board, staff would be able to advise whether it meets the criteria or not, and the reasons. Ms. Busacca inquired if the proposed ordinance provides that anyone who wants to can apply for a vested rights determination; and stated what staff would do then is review the request against the ordinance and advise whether it meets the criteria established; then the Board would still have the ability to review against the criteria. Ms. Troner advised that is right, as well as the LPA. Ms. Busacca inquired if that gives the Board the ability to find on the specific case, that even though it does not meet the criteria, there may be other rationale that will allow the Board to approve this. Mr. Knox responded the criteria are broad; and the Board may have a different interpretation of the criteria than staff, and find a way to grant it when staff would have denied it. Mr. Ridenour stated using the further compatibility with the community, the Board's idea of compatibility may be different from that of staff; and the Board could make that determination.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if there is a reason why these have to come back before the Board; and stated if the Board adopted an ordinance which is tight, staff could make the determination. Commissioner Ellis stated he does not have a problem with that.

Commissioner O'Brien stated other than going to some kind of appeal process, the Board keeps allowing that door to stay open to come to the Board; but there is a Charter that says not to do that. Commissioner Ellis stated it is a good idea to allow staff to administratively grant the vested rights, if they meet the criteria; and it is only if you do not meet the criteria or staff has a question, that it comes to the Board. He inquired if that is legal. Commissioner O'Brien stated it sends a message. Ms. Busacca stated currently there is an Ordinance which establishes this appeal process; staff could bring that to the Board for modification so the appeal would come to either the Local Planning Agency directly or with staff recommendation, or whatever the Board desires; but this has been established by Ordinance. Commissioner O'Brien stated what he is trying to get is to let staff handle it; if it comes before the Board, it means there are severe problems; maybe the person has been told no, and will not take no for an answer; it would be unusual; but right now, having all of them come to the Board is insane. Commissioner Ellis stated that is a great idea; and the Board should pass those decisions down to staff.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he agrees with the comments; the thing that is scaring him is the Board gets more people who know they are non-conforming; the Board has done a lot of land use changes, and has not completed the administrative rezoning cycle; and there are some people that do not know what vested rights are. He stated Sadie James was mentioned; under the law, she probably did not have the absolute definition; but there are other possibilities of spot zoning in the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, which is horrible. He stated this is going to ruin the Comprehensive Planning process; and inquired if a fundamental injustice will be done to good human beings. He stated the vested rights determination is essential; if everything falls apart, it can still come to the Board; otherwise the Board might be making Comprehensive Plan changes that are stupid just out of being decent human beings who want to sleep at night.

Commissioner Cook stated he has no objection; if everything falls apart, there is still the option of coming to the Board; and the Board can look at it as long as there is the appeal.

Chairman Higgs stated there is one provision she would want to add on page 6D such that the phrase would say "and shall be deemed in the public interest or shall be found in the public interest." She stated this is just dealing with someone amending their site plan not in conformance with the current Comprehensive Plan; and she would like that phrase that it shall be deemed in the public interest added to that. Commissioner Ellis inquired how is that defined; with Chairman Higgs responding the Board would have the obligation of finding whether it is in the public interest.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he wanted to see if the Board should be directing staff to add wording; he is not trying to add another layer of government; and he is trying to get a process that is in place, and gives staff the authority to make some decisions without having to go to the Board. He stated that is all he is trying to do here; and the Board should be directing staff to do that. Commissioner Ellis stated that is the way it should be; and a lot of this should be done administratively.

Commissioner Scarborough requested Chairman Higgs define her amendment further. Chairman Higgs stated the criteria in C says 30% reduction in the impacts on public services as a reason that a site plan can be amended, or reduce the impacts to the natural resources or provide for further compatibility; and those are okay. She stated she wants to be sure that all of those are deemed in the public interest; but she does not know how it should be defined. Commissioner Scarborough stated the problem is someone will argue that putting a massive shopping center next to his home is in his interest because he will not have to go as far to shop; but whether he and his neighbors think that is in the public interest may be a debate. He stated his problem is he has seen some crazy ideas sold as being in the public interest. He stated there are people in the South Beaches that think the more stores down there, the better it is since you will not have to travel as far to go shopping; but that may not be what the neighbors think; and there are a number of people who will bring in consultants to prove their position beyond a doubt. Chairman Higgs stated there is criteria. Commissioner Scarborough stated "in the public interest" is a scary term. Chairman Higgs inquired if that is any more scared than defining "compatibility with the surrounding land use." She stated that is mushy; and inquired what does it mean when it says "reduction in impact to natural resources" or "requested shall be further compatible." Commissioner Scarborough suggested striking that. Chairman Higgs stated the language in gray is what some people think is important; and she would like to strike the gray language under C because she is most comfortable with things she can define. Commissioner Scarborough agreed. Commissioner Higgs stated the language in gray was inserted by the LPA; it says the requested amendment shall provide for further compatibility with surrounding land uses and the character of the area; and that can mean all kinds of things to all kinds of people. She stated she is most happy with the language that was there to start with; and she does not need to say this. Commissioner Ellis stated it is one gray area. Chairman Higgs advised there are two gray areas; and the Board can take this one out and then remove the other. Commissioner Ellis stated either way it is going to end up at the Board. Chairman Higgs stated the whole thing ends up at the Board; with Commissioner Ellis advising not necessarily. Chairman Higgs stated the amendment to the site plan would end up at the Board; with Ms. Busacca advising as it is written now, everything would come to the Board including the amended site plan and the vested right determination. Chairman Higgs stated if you are talking about taking a site plan and allowing it to be amended not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan when the site plan has to come to the Board to start with, that is dangerous. She stated the site plan has to come to the Board; it was approved by the Board to start with; and if you want to amend it, then the public has a right to participate in the process. Commissioner Ellis stated you may end up with something you do not want; you may end up killing the amended site plan, and be back where you were on the original site plan. Chairman Higgs stated you want the public to participate and know the process; and if the Board is going to allow staff to completely amend the site plan, not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, when the original site plan came to the Board, she does not like that, and it is dangerous.

Commissioner O'Brien stated maybe the original site plan should not come to the Board. Chairman Higgs stated the original zoning comes to the Board. Commissioner O'Brien stated the site plan should not; and the only thing that board should do is apply the final. Chairman Higgs stated if you take the issue of a large site with a hotel, the public was participating in the zoning of that issue; and that is a significant issue.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if the public would not be happy with a 30% reduction. Chairman Higgs stated they would love it; that language is okay; but she does not think the public would be happy if the Board went into the back room and negotiated a deal that allowed a different size hotel. Commissioner Ellis stated the 30% reduction is pretty clear. Chairman Higgs stated she does not think the public would support that at all, not coming to the public body that approved it to start with; the 30% is fine; but the public wants to participate in the process. Commissioner Ellis stated unless the public is going to come and raise hell about more density, which he is sure is not going to happen, then the public should be happy to have the reduction. Chairman Higgs inquired what if she changes it from a 30-unit hotel to a nude bar. Commissioner Ellis noted that has different zoning. Chairman Higgs stated the principle is there; it is a public process; and she has real concerns that it would be taken out of the public realm. Commissioner Ellis stated there is strong language for reduction. Chairman Higgs inquired if this is all going to occur outside of the public process when the public has participated in the Comprehensive Plan and been through all the public hearings, and now will be closed out of the loop. Commissioner Ellis state the site is already approved; so, it is more beneficial because there is going to be a reduction of density. Chairman Higgs stated today the Board is saying it is; but she does not know about tomorrow. Commissioner Ellis stated if it is not a reduction, you cannot get it. Chairman Higgs stated it says 30% of one or more public services; and she does not know what that means. Mr. Ridenour stated the Board cannot get to where it wants to be tonight with respect to staff making the decision on the criteria; that is in another part of the Code; and it will be necessary to do another Code amendment. He stated this is addressing the criteria only; and whatever the Board does tonight, everything still has to come back to the Board. Commissioner Ellis stated what the Board has to do is move the ordinance tonight, and then set an agenda item in the future to come back and do this administratively. Mr. Ridenour stated that is correct.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he supports Chairman Higgs. He stated he had a subdivision in Port St. John which reduced the density, but changed the layout; and there were great problems. He stated everyone assumed it was going to be favorably received; what could happen is that someone could come in saying they are reducing the density; they are meeting one criteria, but other things are occurring which will upset people. He stated the Board does not want to have a blind criteria and staff compelled to accept this; there may be some attributes of the change that are more dangerous; and he is in agreement with Commissioner Higgs.

Commissioner Ellis stated either way we have to have a two-step process.

Chairman Higgs passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Ellis.

Mr. Knox stated there is some language in this amendment which deals with the County Commission reviewing applications for site plan amendments; the Board needs to change it in this ordinance as well as amending the other provision it is discussing; and Ms. Troner has some suggestions. Ms. Troner stated on page 6, paragraph 2, it says the amendment for the site development plan or subdivision plat shall be considered by; and then the Board needs to identify what individual it wants to consider, and make the application on the amendment. Mr. Jenkins inquired if the Board would like to change this section and have the other section in conflict or would it want to change both at the same time. Mr. Knox stated if the Board is going to act on this amendment tonight, it needs to make it compatible with the other change it has to make; and whatever the Board decides to do, it will be the planning staff or whoever the Board designates. Mr. Jenkins stated in the interim there will be conflicting provisions in an ordinance; the other is the application for the determination of vested rights or takings; this applies to the amendment to the site plan; and in addition, this has a notice provision, if the Board wants to address notice or it will be necessary to cancel the part that says in public hearing after adequate public notice. Mr. Knox stated that is not the case because they are two different applications. Ms. Busacca advised on page 5, under paragraph 1, it references the Board of County Commissioners.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to continue the public hearing to move the ordinance amending the Vested Rights Ordinance forward, minus the gray language inserted under C on page 6.

Commissioner Ellis stated he would rather send the gray language to the second public hearing just to find out what it means from the LPA; and inquired what was the point of inserting the language because it is vague. Ms. Busacca stated the LPA listened to Mr. Fleis' presentation; Mr. Fleis suggested that his specific instance would not meet the criteria, but that it should be considered; and the LPA recommended the additional language.

Mr. Fleis stated in the three items he presented, he does not think there is any question that if you go from a site plan for a hotel to another use, it has to come before the public body, the LPA and the Board for review because there would be major changes in it; but in the second instance with the town house project and the increase in the size of the lots, that would come back before the Board as part of the final plat process; and the question is should it go before the LPA and Board just to change the size of the lots. He stated the criteria without the gray language is saying a 30% reduction in density; there is no question about the hotel but in the second one the question is whether that is a good criteria when all you are trying to do is improve the quality of the project. He inquired in the third situation he gave the Board with the 125-lot subdivision which is not laid out very well, does that have to come before the LPA and the Board or is it a staff review to see if the change is a better use of the land. He noted it is not a 30% reduction in density; and there was effort to try to find language for an appeal process with the objective of having a better quality product to meet today's market.

Chairman Higgs stated the one Mr. Fleis does not think is included would be the internal moving of the parts of the platted subdivision with no decrease in density or impacts on public services, but no increase either. Mr. Fleis stated that is correct.

Commissioner Ellis stated it is just redrawing the site plan.

Chairman Higgs stated that may be a reasonable thing to do; the gray language goes farther than that; and inquired if staff can come to the next meeting with language that would allow that the engineering and a better design could be included. Ms. Busacca responded yes, staff will work on that language. Chairman Higgs stated it is appropriate that those changes be made; and she could support that kind of language; but she cannot support the gray language.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if the Board can still add that language even if it deletes the gray language tonight; with Ms. Busacca responding yes.

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

Vice Chairman Ellis passed the gavel to Chairman Higgs.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF PRIVATE HELIPORTS

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance relating to the regulation of private heliports.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to continue the public hearing to consider an ordinance relating to the regulation of private heliports to January 26, 1995.

Chairman Higgs stated she has concerns; on page 1, section 1, it says private heliports may be permitted as a conditional use as an accessory to a single family home in residential zoning classifications; and inquired if you cannot have a heliport unless you also have a house. Commissioner Ellis inquired if Chairman Higgs wants to add language. Chairman Higgs responded she wants to add that so that in a residential zoning classification you are not going to put a heliport without a house.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board does not need to change the language tonight; it can just move it on; he had some thoughts about it as well; and inquired if Chairman Higgs wishes to get into discussion on them tonight. Chairman Higgs responded no, but she does not want anyone to be mad when she brings up these things at the next hearing. Commissioner Scarborough stated he was planning to bring up things himself; and inquired if Chairman Higgs wishes him to make comments tonight.

Chairman Higgs stated no fueling facilities ought to be permitted; and there has to be some way of saying there will be no adverse impact with this conditional use permit.

Commissioner Scarborough stated at the next meeting he would like to discuss time of landing; and he thinks it is getting pretty late at night for landings. Commissioner Cook noted he also has a problem with that. Commissioner O'Brien stated it should comply with the Noise Ordinance.

Commissioner Cook stated he is concerned about the number of trips which are allowed, which is five; and he is concerned about the public notice aspect as well as the permitted use with conditions. Commissioner O'Brien stated it says five, so a chopper can land to pick somebody up, take them to Orlando, bring them back for lunch or the afternoon, bring them back to Orlando, bring them back home, and leave; and that way the chopper does not stay there at night. Commissioner Cook stated that is getting like an airport in a residential zoning classification. Chairman Higgs stated she agrees. Commissioner O'Brien noted if you have enough money to buy a helicopter, it will not be in the middle of Diana Shores.

Chairman Higgs inquired if Commissioner Cook wants to permit it without a public hearing; with Commissioner Cook responding no, if the Board considers having it done as a permitted use with conditions, he wants to make sure there is public notice. Chairman Higgs stated this would provide for a public hearing and public notice. Commissioner Cook stated there was some discussion about allowing it to be an administrative type of approval. Chairman Higgs stated this is establishing a conditional use permit which would require a public hearing. Commissioner Cook stated there was discussion about making it administrative; and he will be happy to address that, if the Board wishes to send this forward. Chairman Higgs stated she does not think the Board could consider that. Commissioner Cook stated it would have to be amended. Chairman Higgs stated this happened in District 3; the people were outraged that they had no public hearing from the County; and that is why this was put on. Commissioner Cook stated there ought to be a public hearing, which this ordinance would provide for. Chairman Higgs stated if Commissioner Cook wanted there not to be a public hearing, the advertising would have to be changed; and the Board can discuss what it wants to advertise. Commissioner Cook stated there were some discussions about having it done administratively instead of coming back to the Board; but public notice is the area about which he has concern.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to continue the public hearing to consider an ordinance relating to the regulation of private heliports to January 26, 1995. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SIGN ORDINANCE RELATING TO DOUBLE FACE SIGNS

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending the Sign Ordinance relating to double face signs.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to continue the public hearing to consider the Sign Ordinance relating to double face signs to January 26, 1995.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated there was an issue about making the Board an appellate body on denials by staff of vested rights determinations; and if the Board is going to do that, then the ordinance language needs to be changed. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board was directing staff to do that. Mr. Knox advised there was no motion to that effect.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to direct staff to revise the ordinance language to provide for the Board to act as an appellate body for denials by staff of vested rights determinations.

Commissioner O'Brien stated there is already a motion on the floor.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired what is the issue concerning the distance between the poles on the signs. Planner II Romeo Lavarias stated on July 19, 1994 the Board directed staff to study about having the separation requirement of double backed signs increased from 36 to 48 inches; this was brought up by POA Outdoor Advertising which ran into a situation when it applied for building permits; in accordance with OSHA standards, the one pole which would hold up the double back sign had to be at least 48 inches to be able to withstand wind velocity; the County's rules only permitted the distance between the signs to be 36 inches; and staff came to the Board to request permission to change the definition of double back signs from a separation of 36 inches to 48 inches. He stated this was brought before the LPA, the Land Use Citizen Resource Group and the Building and Construction Advisory Committee; and the final results are what is before the Board.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the stanchions that the sign are put on are 48-inch diameter steel; with Mr. Lavarias responding that is correct. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if staff wants the same distance of 48 inches apart so they can attach them to the pole so they fit; with Mr. Lavarias responding that is correct. Commissioner O'Brien inquired what happens with other kinds of signs. Mr. Lavarias inquired what other kinds of signs; with Commissioner O'Brien responding this is only one specific kind of sign. Mr. Lavarias stated double back signs are normally found on highways; and it is a type of outdoor advertising. Commissioner O'Brien stated he has one on Cape Canaveral.

Commissioner Cook stated he has no problem with the ordinance; he understands at some point he would like to address billboards in general; but he would prefer to bring that up at a workshop.

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

Mr. Knox stated staff needs direction from the Board on having the Board hear appeals of staff denials of vested rights.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to direct staff to revise the ordinance language to provide for the Board to act as an appellate body for denials by staff of vested rights determinations. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO METAL BUILDINGS

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, to continue the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance relating to metal buildings, as recommended by the Building and Construction Advisory Committee. Motion died for lack of a second.

Commissioner Ellis stated metal buildings have advanced quite a bit; they are not tin shacks anymore; and the Ordinance requires you put a finish on a metal building that was not equivalent to the finish it came with. He stated you had to take the metal building and put stucco over it which does not last as long as the finish on the metal building.

Chairman Higgs stated the motion is to approve as suggested by the Building and Construction Advisory Committee; and inquired how that differs from what is before the Board. Ms. Busacca stated the Building and Construction Advisory Committee ordinance is what the Board has before it; and the LPA recommended deleting Section 1A, which deals with the use of metal buildings in BU-1-A zoning. She advised the LPA is recommending there be no metal buildings in BU-1-A, neighborhood commercial. Chairman Higgs stated the Building and Construction Advisory Committee is saying it is okay in BU-1-A as long as it has a four-sided facade.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he agrees with the LPA; BU-1-A is something that is allowed in residential Comprehensive Plan districts; so this is talking about running into a neighborhood environment with metal buildings; and even though it requires facades, there will be some people calling to ask how someone can put this in a residentially designated area. He stated the LPA was right; and he will act in that manner at the final public hearing.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he has a tendency to agree; one of his factories is in a metal building; it was built 27 years ago; it was zoned commercial on A1A in Cape Canaveral; and because of the salt water environment, metal buildings tend to look like junk very quickly. Commissioner Ellis stated PUBLIC HEARING,

that is 30-year old technology. Commissioner O'Brien stated he has looked at the new technology as well; he had some panels replaced across the years; and it looks just as bad now as the old building does. He stated it did not take long for it to catch up; and he agrees with Commissioner Scarborough. He stated a metal building is a metal building; and they look like junk. He noted Merritt island was built on a lot of junk; that was 20 years ago; and because they are going to be building more on Courtenay Parkway, it is going to get worse as it never gets better. Commissioner Ellis stated the way he understands it, in BU-1-A, you would have to put a facade on it. Commissioner O'Brien stated the facade can be there, and at least it will not look like junk. Commissioner Ellis stated you will have a metal frame with a facade in BU-1-A. Commissioner O'Brien stated a doctor's office could be built with a metal frame and still be developed to look nice; yet it is going to turn to junk, even though it will look like nice junk. Commissioner Ellis noted he has seen frame houses mildew. Commissioner O'Brien stated he can make every example in the world the other way around; but his experience with metal buildings, especially as occupant of one, is they are built to last five to ten years. He stated there are buildings in Port Canaveral that were built six years ago; they are going to be rust buckets in ten more years; technology has gotten very good; the amount of roof that can be supported for a free span now is fantastic; but the problem is they, like mobile homes, attract tornados. He stated you see them blowing down the road destroying single family homes; and the only building gone will be the tin house. Commissioner O'Brien stated he has some problem with this.

Commissioner Cook stated he has some concern about requiring a facade on all four sides in BU-1-A; but he does not object to it. He stated this gets to a point of deed restrictions; and he does not necessarily want to be that restrictive.

Commissioner Ellis stated he does not want to have it completely eliminated; and it should at least be available with the facade on four sides rather than completely eliminating the possibility.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he would agree with that; what this does is prod someone to not build a metal building in that area; some people will do so anyhow; but he does not think the Board wants to go down to where it would just have one straight facade on the front in BU-1-A. Commissioner Cook stated if it was between that and not having it there at all, he would consider it. Commissioner O'Brien stated the idea was to prod them into building a better building; you have the choice of building a good building or building a metal building and putting four facades on it; so it is arm twisting, but it keeps the neighborhoods looking nice.

Chairman Higgs stated the Building and Construction Advisory Committee recommends it would be four sides in BU-1-A; she has to look at that more; she is not sure; but she tends to agree with Commissioner Scarborough. Commissioner Cook noted keeping neighborhoods looking nice is a function of deed restrictions.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded Commissioner Cook, to to continue the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance relating to metal buildings, as recommended by the Building and Construction Advisory Committee. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: WORKSHOP WITH OSCEOLA COUNTY

County Manager Tom Jenkins inquired if the Board wishes to talk about the Osceola workshop; and advised Ms. Hann has prepared a fact sheet for the Board.

Engineering Director Susan Hann stated she provided a summary sheet on the U.S. 192 issues; the most important is that DOT will support the widening primarily for hurricane evacuation purposes; and that is the card the Board needs to play in dealing with state and federal legislators as well as when discussing it with Osceola County. She stated in the event Osceola County chose to adopt any Resolutions in support of the project, it needs to emphasize the hurricane evacuation aspects of the project. She noted this is based on a conversation Mr. Kamm had with Representative Futch's office; they believe this will be the selling point in discussing this as a demonstration project with the federal legislators; and she has indicated the suggested action for the Board and Osceola County, which is to request the state and federal legislators continue to support funding for the widening, communicate with the legislators and DOT Secretaries both at state and federal levels, emphasizing the hurricane evacuation aspect, and communicating with the Orlando area MPO to re-examine its priorities to make U.S. 192 a higher priority than S.R. 520, because currently S.R. 520 is the number one rural priority.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Osceola County Commission sits on the Orlando Area MPO; with Ms. Hann responding yes, but there are several other counties on the MPO as well as other cities. Ms. Hann stated Mr. Kamm is also preparing a more detailed summary that goes into these issues in more depth as well including the Resolutions previously adopted by the local governments in the area.

Commissioner Cook stated he has no problem supporting U.S. 192; but he would not necessarily want to do it at the expense of S.R. 520, which is also an important corridor.

Chairman Higgs stated if the Board asks for S.R. 192 and S.R. 520 simultaneously, it will get neither; and the decision of the MPO was to do S.R. 192, and then do S.R. 520.

Commissioner Scarborough noted that was a unanimous vote. He stated if you come up with both, you will get nothing; and the justification for S.R. 192 is much stronger than S.R. 520 because the Beeline is there. He stated the County will get them one at a time; if it comes in with both, it will get nothing; and that was a unanimous vote with North and Central Brevard voting with South Brevard. He stated as that was done, everyone fell in line. He noted before former Senator Bud Gardner got S.R. 50 done, a bus load of people from Titusville went up there to meet with the Legislative Delegation; and people were talking about people who had died such as Sky King, and the problems with businesses. He noted Sky King died coming to Brevard County to see a launch; he lived in Orlando; and he died because the road was so bad. He stated he knows Brevard County does not have clout in Tallahassee; but it needs to continue to let Tallahassee know this is important to the County; and he does not mind going to Tallahassee and beating the drums because it will put the thought in the back of their minds that they need to take care of S.R. 192. He noted going to Osceola County is a good step because it is important for them to support it.

Chairman Higgs stated the potential of someone like Disney supporting this would be major support; she is afraid to go for two roads simultaneously; but S.R. 520 is important.

Commissioner Cook stated he supports; he knows it is important; and the only question is whether the Board wants to go to the Orlando MPO on that, noting he is uncertain. Commissioner Ellis suggested the Board could request Osceola County do that. Chairman Higgs stated it would be an Osceola County action, not Brevard County. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the Commissioners should request the state and federal legislators continue to support funding of the widening; and inquired if that has been done besides through the Legislative Packet. Chairman Higgs stated the personal contact of each Commissioner with the Legislative Delegation, particularly the Representative in the individual areas, will be significant on top of the Legislative Packet; and it will take personal lobbying. Commissioner Cook noted he has talked with Representative Futch and advised of his support for S.R. 192.

Ms. Hann stated based on conversation with Representative Futch's office, staff will be providing a revised Resolution of support to the MPO and bring it back to the Board, to include the hurricane evacuation aspect; it is an important point; and the cities will be requested to update their Resolutions as well.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the Board should direct staff to communicate with the FDOT Secretary and the U.S. DOT Secretary; and should the Commissioners communicate with these people as well to start a blitz on this. He inquired what actions should the Board starting mounting to get this thing going. Ms. Hann responded last year Representative Futch did an excellent job of carrying the case to the state and federal levels; staff provided background data; and he had an excellent package for his presentation. She stated they also followed up and sent information directly; but they did not follow up at the staff level with personal contact; that would be appropriate at the Board level; and staff can provide whatever background data the Board would like in order to effectuate that contact.

Chairman Higgs stated she has met with Representative Futch, and will meet with him again because they have agreed to meet regularly; and she will see what he wants the Board to do and how he wants to handle it at the federal level. She stated he has made the contacts, and is comfortable; but with the Senators and Representatives, the Board may want to do that. She stated she will coordinate and get back with the Board.

Commissioner O'Brien stated if staff wants the Commissioners to send letters to DOT in Washington or Tallahassee, they will need names and addresses, and help with the wording; and they can write five letters and make a blitz.

Chairman Higgs stated it would be significant if each commissioner called the members of the Legislative Delegation.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to direct the County Attorney to prepare a joint resolution for the Board and the Osceola Commission to act on during the joint meeting.

Chairman Higgs stated she will meet with Orange County Chairman Linda Chapin next week, and will see if there is any support or other contacts. Commissioner Ellis noted U.S. 192 is not in Orlando. Commissioner Cook stated he does not have a problem focusing on this one issue, but not at the expense of S.R. 520 because that is important. Commissioner Scarborough stated when S.R. 192 is finished, S.R. 520 is going to be easier.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if Commissioner Ellis will give his word that if we get S.R. 192 this year, next year the focus will be on S.R. 520. Commissioner Ellis expressed doubt that it will happen next year. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if this goes through and the funding is approved, will the guns turn to S.R. 520; with Chairman Higgs responding yes.

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

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.

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

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