MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

January 12, 2006

 

 

 

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard, Florida, met in special session on January 12, 2006, at 1:00 p.m. in the Government Center Florida Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chair Helen Voltz, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Ron Pritchard, Susan Carlson, and Jackie Colon, County Manager Peggy Busacca, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

 

 

 

Commissioner Colon stated there are many events happening throughout the County celebrating Martin Luther King, Jr. She advised there are breakfasts in Palm Bay, marches in Melbourne, and other events throughout the County; and encouraged everyone to participate.

 

 

Victoria Weber, Attorney with Hopping, Green, and Sams, representing The Viera Company, advised The Viera Company is asking the Florida Legislature, subject to the authorization letter from the Board, to allow for the filing of legislation that would create a Chapter 189 Special Taxing District. She stated there were issues raised with the legislation; those issues were addressed; and that is why they are before the Board today. She stated the Bill does not do anything regarding development approvals; and The Viera Company cannot turn the first shovel of dirt until it goes through the normal comprehensive planning, DRI, zoning, and all of the local development approvals. She stated she wants to put to bed the notion that the Board acceptance of the legislation grants The Viera Company the authority to begin developing; public workshops will be held on the DRI process; and everyone will have an opportunity to talk about that.

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board does not give approval today, what will be the alternative for The Viera Company; with Ms. Weber responding if the Board did not give its approval for some reason, the alternative for The Viera Company would be to go back to a Chapter 190 Community Development District or more likely multiple Chapter 190 Community Development Districts because of the size of the land; that is what is driving The Viera Company to have a Chapter 189 District; and if there are multiple Community Development Districts it presents more intergovernmental coordination issues for the Board. Commissioner Carlson inquired how does the Community Development District evolve. Ms. Weber responded depending on the size of the Community Development District, it is either brought before the general purpose local government, which would be Brevard County to workout the creation of the Community Development District; and if it is a larger size Community Development District, it goes to the Florida State Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, the

 

 

 

 

Governor and Cabinet for creation. Commissioner Carlson inquired what is the timing of
that; with Ms. Weber responding there are other attorneys in her office who are more expert in that area.

 

President of The Viera Company Steve Johnson stated it would not go through the Legislature but would go through a public hearing process. Commissioner Carlson inquired how is that devised. Mr. Johnson responded in Viera East the transition process began after six years and by the eighth year the residents have control of the District, even with a small District; in Districts over 5,000 acres they would elect residents to the board; and in the 12^th year the board would lose control of the District. Ms. Weber advised in a District that would be 5,000 acres plus, the developer will have absolute control of all of the seats on the District board until at least the 10^th year and possibly longer depending on how the general election cycle falls and how the seats are staggered. Commissioner Carlson inquired if that occurs after the DRI process, the planning and development, community forums, and all of that; with Ms. Weber responding yes.

 

Commissioner Colon stated with Chapter 189 a District goes through the process like The Viera Company is doing now; and inquired what is the difference between Chapter 189 and Chapter 190. Ms. Weber responded in either case regardless of whether a Community Development District is done or Chapter 189, the Board is the driver of the planning process. She stated it is the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan that decides what the District can do; and it is Brevard County’s Development Order and Agreement that decide what the District can do. Commissioner Colon inquired what would be the rush between the Chapter 189 and Chapter 190, and what are the pluses and minuses of the two. Mr. Johnson responded the Legislature only meets once a year; the District is created by the Legislature; and it will allow The Viera Company to get the financing team started and time to look at some of the different funding options. Ms. Weber advised the Bill filing deadline is in two weeks to do anything for the 2006 Legislative Session; if it would get approved by the Legislature, it would be July or so before it became effective; and then the landowner elections would have to be held. She advised no dirt can turn inside the District until the Board says so.

 

Commissioner Colon inquired what will happen if the Board does not give Chapter 189 its blessing; with Ms. Weber responding there are two current provisions in Chapter 190 less attractive to the Board and to The Viera Company. Ms. Weber advised the one to The Viera Company is the transition mechanism in Chapter 190, which requires that everything turn over after the 12^th year regardless of how many people there are, how far along the infrastructure is, how much of the assessments the developer is still paying versus the residents. She stated what would make it more attractive to the Board is if the alternative is to do multiple Community Development Districts it would have to coordinate its general purposes activities with multiple limited purpose Community Development Districts, and it is more fractured. Mr. Johnson stated the Board knows where The Viera Company has its conservation lands around the perimeter of the property; it wraps around the entire 13,000 acres; and it would take multiple agencies or Districts to try to maintain that property.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired why should the Board do something that will be detrimental to the County, and what are the advantages. Ms. Weber inquired if he is thinking of something specifically that is detrimental to the County; with Commissioner Pritchard responding if The Viera Company is going to generate its own District, what effect will it have on the general populous. Ms. Weber advised one of the biggest benefits of Independent Special Districts and is that the State Comprehensive Plan and Chapter 163 in the Local Comp Plan Act recognize that Special Districts can provide a mechanism for growth to pay for itself; the biggest beef about growth is that growth is not paying its own way; and a Special District creates a financing mechanism whereby the landowners can assess themselves to pay for the impacts, issue bonds to build the roads and sewer lines, and keep those costs on the people who are going to live in that District.

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the impact fee structure that the County has will become part of the fee structure; with Ms. Weber responding County Attorney Scott Knox has recommended language that has been included in the revised Bill to make it clear the District will not levy impact fees. Commissioner Pritchard inquired what effect will it have on the people who buy property within the District, and will they pay twice. Ms. Weber responded the District cannot charge the people a special assessment for the same impact that the County is charging an impact fee for. She stated if there is an impact fee being charged by the County to fund a particular segment of road because a certain group may have created that impact, the District cannot charge them a special assessment for the exact same road. She stated with a special assessment it has to show some benefit has been created to the property that arises from putting an assessment on that particular property. Commissioner Pritchard advised the County’s impact fee structure has several components such as transportation, education, fire, etc.; and inquired if a single-family home charge is $6,500 for impact fees but the Special District would not be able to use any portion of that for its own infrastructure, and if a fire station is needed to be built before and the amount of money was not available what would happen; with Ms. Weber responding speaking specifically to the fire station, it has been made perfectly clear in the proposed Bill that there are certain things such as water, sewer, and fire that if the local purpose government wishes to provide those services, the District cannot. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the County is charging an impact fee, what type of tax would the District impose on the people who pay for the rest of it; with Ms. Weber responding as long as the landowners are in control of the District board no taxes will be charged. Ms. Weber stated local governments have general taxing power; Special Districts only have taxing powers that are spelled out in the Legislation itself; and the only taxes that could be levied under the Legislation would be property taxes only if every member of the board is elected by the residents of the District, and if those electors go to a referendum and approve those taxes. Commissioner Pritchard inquired how long would it take before the people or landowners will have a majority of the board. Ms. Weber responded the first seat goes at five years, the second seat at ten years, but then they use the formula for turnover, which is three of the five seats. Ms. Weber advised a formula was used that says when 75% of the electors are in the District; and the formula used was to take the census population figures for the year that is closest in time to that; then look at

 

 

 

 

 

the number of units the board has approved ten years out; multiply those together; and multiply whatever the percentage of population is registered voters. She advised that would be the trigger number that would turn over the third seat; it is a formula that will depend somewhat on how many units the Board approves; and quickly development occurs, units are sold, and people move in.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated the language on page 20 says, "No ad valorem taxes or general obligation bonds until all members of the board are qualified electors who are elected by qualified electors of the District." He stated the words qualified electors were used, but in the second paragraph there is a difference between qualified electors and resident electors; and inquired if there is a distinction between the two. Ms. Weber responded the whole board has to be elected by the residents before taxing. Commissioner Scarborough suggested that between the word qualified and elector the word resident be added in paragraph (3)(a)1., the last line. He advised those Taxing Districts historically have been the Airport Authority; it used to be something created by the Legislature for public purposes; and the monies were collected that way. He stated he has a problem in District 1 called Fawn Lake; there is a developer who has never relinquished control; and there are a number of problems. He stated the residents are not capable of addressing problems with the developer; and they are not capable of taking control from the developer to increase the assessments to handle the problems. He stated with his experience with condominiums, there is a difference between the philosophy of the developer and the people who move in. He stated 75% of the timeframe here are not acceptable to him; the board needs to get closer to a greater control by the people who are out there living in the community; and once a person puts a lifetime investment in a home, he or she should not have to wait until 75% is there. He noted the people need to take control to increase assessments and solve problems because if the Special District is not doing what it needs to do, the people come to the County with the problems.

 

Ms. Weber stated there has been great success with Community Development Districts throughout the State of Florida; her firm works for about 100 different Districts around the State that are functioning quite well; and the people are getting the level of amenities and services that they want. She advised there is a good delineation between what the general purpose government is providing; and there is another level of amenities that the developer does not want to lay all of the costs onto the rest of the community. Commissioner Scarborough stated if a condominium has an assessment to fix something up, the people may not be in favor of making things happen; people want to have control over their destiny; and they want to create a quality community; so it should come into play sooner. He noted it is actually a marketing tool.

 

General Counsel for The Viera Company Jay Decatur stated a District is a government; it does not function like a condominium board; and it is a limited purpose government. He stated the limited purpose government does not have the power to impose an assessment to do something good in the community; and if it wanted to impose an ad volorem tax or general obligation bond, not only would all of the members of the board of supervisors be

 

 

 

 

 

 

resident elected, but there would have to be a referendum. He noted it is similar to a community development district where the board is extremely limited in the way it can assess people; it adopts a public hearing and improvement plan; the improvement plan identifies infrastructure that is needed in the community; and if that is adopted by the board of supervisors then what is looked at is a special assessment bond issue to pay for that particular assessment. He stated they are not talking about a general purpose government like Brevard County, it is a special purpose government whose scope of powers are extremely limited to the specific powers set forth in Florida Law and in the Bill. Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not see a disadvantage to the community controlling a government-type function as quickly as possible knowing it is in the best interest of the entity.

 

Mr. Decatur stated he is not talking about double taxing and double impact fees; if that was the case, the marketplace would react quickly and they would not be able to sell anything; and The Viera Company is only talking about providing things that Brevard County cannot or is unable or unwilling to provide. He stated the development has 14,000 acres; there will be over 5,000 acres of environmentally-connected land; and those lands will have to be managed forever in perpetuity. He stated Brevard County, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and The Corp of Engineers will have input to the management plan; and it will be up to the Community-wide District to manage. He stated that is why there is an advantage to having only one entity with jurisdiction over such a wide environmental area; and it is close to half of the expansion area. He stated if there were multiple Community Development Districts, he does not think it would work.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated he has yet to hear why the residents could not have control of the District board at 60%. Mr. Decatur advised assuming The Viera Company does get approval from the Board and a development order for the new lands is received, there will be a development order and a master plan of development; and that will take 20 years or longer to fully implement. He stated there will be a master plan that will be implemented; the people who buy will see the plan and make a decision at that time; and there is a certain trust the landowners have that the plan they bought into will be put in place over 20 years. He stated The Viera Company is bound by law to adhere to that plan; and transition could occur sooner if there were a higher density product. He advised everyone who buys one unit or a home will be a landowner and will get one vote. He noted sometimes democracy is unpredictable; and what may seem like a good idea at the time may not in the long run be the right thing to do. He stated there is an element of disservice to the community if The Viera Company gets development approval, it will be an extremely complex piece of machinery to implement; and for The Viera Company to say in eight or ten years it is off the District board and it is the Board of County Commissioners problem may not be wise.

 

Mr. Johnson stated looking at the Community Development District Legislation it was pondered quite a bit when 190 was written; anything over 5,000 acres the developer gets control for 12 years; and the Legislature saw the wisdom of the developer needing to control that board for a longer period of time than just the bear majority of the residents living in the District.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ms. Weber noted the courts have recognized that when there are situations where there are special assessments being imposed on the landowner; the developer is disproportionately affected by the activities of the District; the District functions are narrowly structured to get the infrastructure in the ground; and under those circumstances it is appropriate to have one acre, one vote. She stated it is when the developer moves out of the picture, and is not being disproportionately affected, at that point the courts say it is not appropriate. He advised even a 2,800-acre Community Development District on the eastside, The Viera Company controlled that District board for eight years. Commissioner Scarborough stated as it moves from the CDD into a creature that historically has been a governmental entity, the Board is empowering them to become a government, and everyone will look after their own best interest. He noted it is an unusual situation; and it is not as commonly used as the CDD’s. Ms. Weber advised it is not as common as a CDD but the powers are the same; she can provide a antiquated version of the Bill that shows the provision comes from Chapter 190; and there are multiple accountability measures that apply to a Chapter 189 District.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated he is familiar with homeowners associations; many times the members are brought in by the people who live there; and he is concerned that if the board is majority developer controlled, the people who live there do not have a viable objection because they do not have power on the board to effect change. He stated the homeowners association he is familiar with has been able to do that because it had the power on the board by the vote of who was put on the board. He stated the threshold should be lessened to 60% or whatever. He stated people who live in an area like to have a say in what is going on and like to change leadership when it is necessary.

 

Ms. Weber stated a homeowners association is an entirely different animal; because of some of the accountability measures listed, the board members are subject to Sunshine Law, Public Records Law, and Ethics Laws; and there are all kinds of accountability measures that make it different than a homeowners association. She advised market forces will dictate. Mr. Decatur stated the District board will be subject to a development order; it will not have discretion to say whether or not a park should be built; and the park would have to meet the requirements of the development order. He stated Brevard County would decide how many parks should be in that area; and it will be up to the Special District to fulfill that requirement. He stated the Special District board’s sole function is to build community infrastructure and to provide community services that are not being provided by Brevard County that is largely dictated by a development order. He advised the Legislature has looked at the Bill and has recognized the need for a master community developer to remain in control of this type of board in order to implement its community plan; the assessment methodology will assess all lands benefited; most of the lands benefited will be owned by The Viera Company and/or A. Duda and Sons; and they will be the primary payer of assessments. Mr. Decatur advised the landowner does not get any breaks; and the landowner will pay his or her share of the assessment based upon the amount of benefit the land will enjoy from that asset.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Colon stated the County will continue to get its impact fees; and inquired what specific taxes would be going to the Special District that will no longer come to the County. Ms. Weber responded the District cannot levy any taxes whatsoever until the District turns over to complete resident control and if there is a referendum approving it, ad valorem taxes can be levied. She stated it in no way impairs the County’s ability to levy ad valorem taxes; it is not counted against its millage; and it is an independent district not a dependent district. Ms. Weber advised The Viera Company will get dollars through the landowners within the District paying special assessments, based on the formula of how much benefit goes to a particular piece of property based upon the improvement that is being made. She stated that public improvement has to benefit the land within the District, and those landowners can be charged special assessments; and that is where the District gets its money to take the revenue stream, bond it, take the money from the bonds, and build the roads, parks, and whatever infrastructure goes within the District. Ms. Weber stated the major difference between a Community Development District and Stewardship District is the transition period; a developer who has a large parcel of land is to have a longer transition period under a Chapter 189 District or do multiple Community Development Districts; and it is not a foreign entity.

 

County Manager Peggy Busacca stated when she purchased her lot in the subdivision, the roads were already in, and the cost of that road was included within her lot. She advised if she would go to Viera today as a Community Development District, there would be a portion of the value of the lot, and then she would pay an assessment each year, which would have also paid for the road in front of my lot. Mr. Decatur advised the internal subdivision roads would not be financed by a Community Development District or a Special District; in Viera East if a person lives in Osprey, the road in front of a person’s home was built by the developer and when the house was purchased it included the road; but Murrell Road was constructed by the Community Development District. Ms. Busacca stated the assessment she pays each year is the funding mechanism that repays the funding mechanism that the CDD used. She noted what The Viera Company is talking about is a funding mechanism to do the large infrastructure that Brevard County does not do; when the developer goes through the DRI process, the Board will have the opportunity to look at the recommendations of staff; and it will say that the roads must be developed before the development can proceed at a specific time. She advised it will include the roads, parks, conservation easements, when a fire station must be put in, and it will all be based on when the population arrives. She stated a mechanism will be needed to finance those large infrastructures; that is what the Community District will do; and each person who purchases property from the Community Development District in Viera are told about the annual assessment. Mr. Decatur advised it will be on the contract right above the signature. Ms. Busacca inquired how does it happen when it increases; with Mr. Decatur responding it can be
done yearly. Mr. Decatur stated it is done at an annual budget meeting by the vote of the governing board. Mr. Johnson stated the budget meeting is a public hearing; the Sunshine Law applies; and the budget is based on whatever it takes to maintain the infrastructure. Ms. Busacca stated at some point the District will pay off the funding mechanism bonds or whatever is used for that, and the assessment should go down to only provide for the maintenance of

 

 

 

 

 

 

those facilities. She stated when Murrell Road is turned over to Brevard County, the maintenance portion becomes the County’s; and it is the construction portion that will be included in the District’s assessment until that is paid off. Mr. Decatur stated Viera East CDD received an impact fee credit for the additional two lanes. Ms. Busacca advised the CDD only needed two lanes for the impact of its development; the additional two lanes were created by off-site impacts; and that was subject to impact fee credits.

 

Rockledge City Manager Jim McKnight stated he does not think anyone has ever been clear about the Stewardship District; and part of Viera East is in the City of Rockledge. He advised there has always been an understanding, or maybe a misunderstanding, that the bonds were being used to actually put the roads in that were to serve the single-family homes; and inquired if any of the bond proceeds were used for that. Mr. Decatur responded none of the bonds were used for internal subdivision streets in Viera East, but in Baytree they were; they did not build Baytree; but it can be done with a different type of bond. Mr. McKnight stated Baytree did not have any impact fee credits on the transportation side. He stated on the house side of it, Baytree did not have to pay the transportation impact fees; he is on the Advisory Committee; and the Committee sees the paybacks they do on a periodic basis to The Viera Company. He inquired what exactly do the bonds pay for in a Community Development District currently; with Mr. Decatur responding in Viera East it was basically the arterial roads, sections of Viera Boulevard, and part of the water management system. Mr. Decatur stated in Viera East they did water and sewer but then it got paid by connection fees; it was just a specific Viera connection fee; and that was paid to the District. He advised there is different ways to repay those bonds, not just all paid by the residents. He stated in the recreational system Viera East Golf Course is owned by the CDD and a portion of that was paid for by a connection fee; there was a $750 fee on every single-family residence; and that was paid when the developer sold the lot to the builder.

 

Melbourne City Manager Jack Schluckebier stated the City of Melbourne has not taken any official action regarding the request for the proposal; he is here at the request of Commissioner Colon; and the actual act and proposal he is reading for the first time today. He inquired if Valkaria and Grant came before the Board and requested a Stewardship District what would it think. He stated the owner of the land is requesting the authority; and inquired aside from the issue before the Board, what type of government would it have there. He advised the way it is progressing he is wondering what the rush is for something that is not through its DRI process. He stated no one from the City of Melbourne is objecting to it; but the way it is being done causes some people to take a careful look at it. He stated the District is a local government and a political subdivision and it is limited to a special purpose as expressed in the act; and on page 17, paragraph 4, says, "the jurisdiction of the District is the exercise of general and special powers." He stated the only limitation he can see in the proposal is that it does cede to the County the land use and zoning authority; he has not seen any limitations on anything about future services, programs, or provisions of services; and it does give to the District the entire control for all of those programs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ms. Weber stated out of fairness to Mr. Schluckebier, he has the old version; the powers that are in the Bill today are less than a Community Development District; and that is because language has been added that the Board requested. She stated the powers come out of Chapter 190, the Community Development District powers, but they are further limited because the Board asked the developer to limit them. She advised the District cannot provide potable water services unless the general purposes local government does not want to or will not do it; sewer cannot be provided unless the general purpose local government will not do it; and fire, mosquito control, and waste management services cannot be provided unless the County does not want to. She noted the District has no law enforcement powers and it says so in the Bill. She stated the District can provide public roads but not private roads that just benefit the developer; it has to meet or exceed the County's standards; and the County’s development order will tell the District exactly what the standards are. She stated buses, trolleys, and transit shelters can be provided if it is included in the development order; but cable television cannot be provided by the District. She stated a retail provider of cable services can provide it to the residents of the District, but the District cannot do it. She stated environmental remediation, conservation, wilderness, and wildlife areas, and parks and recreation facilities can be on the property; but the District cannot finance or own a golf course. She advised school buildings and structures could be provided but only if it is handed over to the School District and only when authorized by the District School Board.

 

Mr. Decatur stated the general powers are specifically delineated on page 29 of the Bill. He stated everyone talks about there not being a local government in Viera; Brevard County is the local government; and the people are very happy with Brevard County providing the basic governmental services and general services.

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired who creates the development order; with Ms. Weber responding the County. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the County creates the development order alone. Ms. Weber responded in consultation with the Water Management District, the affected other local governments, Regional Planning Council, Department of Transportation, Department of Community Affairs, and the landowner. Commissioner Pritchard advised it is not just one single entity that creates the development order. He stated it should not matter whether the District board is primarily residential control or developer controlled if the same development order has to be followed. Mr. Decatur stated the developer needs the ability to follow through and implement the master plan; and a project of this scope will take a long time. He stated the developer will not have the development order for a year; and the first residents will not move into to the District for two to three years.

 

Mr. Decatur advised the people who pay assessments only pay to the extent they are benefited; depending on the assessment methodology, it is unlikely there will be as much benefit up north as down south; so the assessment methodology would sort of equalize those assessments. He stated the District board has limited duties in the community; it will provide infrastructure that will implement the master plan of development; and it should be within the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners to decide. He stated it is a District Board that has very limited powers

 

 

 

 

 

and is basically building things and turning them over to Brevard County; the things that it builds are things that have been determined to have a public purpose based on the prudent planning development and plan of the District; and its role is one of implementing a plan.

 

Commissioner Colon inquired who would have eminent domain powers; with Ms. Weber responding the County would still have its eminent domain powers, but the Community Development District could have it with the County’s permission. Mr. Johnson stated in this instance the Special District would have eminent domain powers for public infrastructure within the CDD; but to exercise those powers outside of the CDD, it would need the consent of Brevard County. He stated that is language out of 190.

 

Commissioner Pritchard advised County Finance Director Steve Burdett is present; he would like to get financial input when the Board is looking at something like this; and he thought he might have some comments regarding the Bill.

 

County Finance Director Steve Burdett stated at the last meeting he specifically addressed the concern he had over the building of golf courses; and he notices it is excluded. He advised his main concern on that was tax exempt bonds are being issued to build the golf courses, and not all golf courses in the community has the privilege of doing that. He stated the same general rule would hold true if the developer wanted to go out and build a community somewhere and would have to create a CDD in order to finance the tax exemption, which does have a financial benefit to the CDD District. He noted if other developers go out and put their own infrastructure out there they would have to go to banks and pay whatever rates they get for their financing through the banks. He stated he is not arguing the legislative purpose for creating the CDD’s, but there seems to be some inequities.

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired what would the inequity be other than to a developer who did not have the same opportunity; and if it is used as a marketing tool to encourage people to buy into the community, and they are paying the bond through assessment, where is the damage. Mr. Burdett responded he does not know if there is any direct damage and does not know when developers sell the property is it differentiated how the infrastructure was financed on the property as far as the cost of the infrastructure and making that property sellable. Mr. Johnson advised above the contract line in bold print it states that a person is a member in a Community Development District or a Chapter 189 District. Ms. Weber stated at the end of the day it is not the developer who is left paying for all of the improvements, it is the people who buy the houses; if tax exempt bonds can be used in order to make it less expensive to put in the things that are necessary to build the houses, it would make it more affordable; and it is not an inequity issue, it is a good thing. She noted any developer could use a Community Development District; and it is not like Viera is doing something that another developer could not equally access. Mr. Burdett stated he just wanted to bring up the point, and does not argue for or against it.

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if it is damaging to the County to have that type of tax-free bonding; with Mr. Burdett responding if it is true the County as general government approves

 

 

 

 

 

the District, there is an indirect authorization that general government allowed the District to occur, and also allowed tax exempt financing to be done. Mr. Burdett inquired if the property that is assessed as agricultural would be assessed as residential. Ms. Weber responded it is a benefit assessment. Mr. Johnson stated it depends on what is built on the agricultural property.

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if Clerk of Courts Scott Ellis had any concerns about the discussion today; with Clerk of Courts Scott Ellis responding Mr. Burdett’s concerns are more financial. Mr. Ellis stated the concerns at the last meeting had to do with the Stewardship District bankruptcy; if there is a bankruptcy, the bond holder is left holding the bag and not the homeowners; and his greatest fear is if a person bought a house in the area and three years later it goes broke, the person could receive a lien in the mail. He stated all of it should be entered into the public record at some point so if there are problems in the future, people will know he or she will not be hit on that. He advised it has been addressed by what The Viera Company has done on the issues of bonds and the debt. He advised Mr. Burdett had concerns regarding taxation issues, benefit units, and if the large pieces of property left in agriculture, will the residents carry all of the costs of the benefit unit.

 

Commissioner Colon stated her concern is the impact growth in Viera has had to Wickham Road and Barnes Boulevard; the Board should have that discussion; the cities that get the impacts are Rockledge and Melbourne; and she would like to see the regional impact. She advised the Board holds municipalities under tremendous scrutiny and it gets upset with the kind of growth the cities are allowing. Ms. Busacca requested the Board discuss the Viera Stewardship District today, and then discuss the transportation and other impact issues at the next workshop.

 

Commissioner Carlson stated the Special District has an umbrella authority to development of regional impact if and when it happens; she has concerns but only when the Board gets to the DRI piece; and that is when it will have to see if the community can withstand another Viera regional impact plan. She advised her biggest concern is the indirect impact of the current DRI, but it does not have anything to do with what is being discussed today. She stated if the Board has had its questions answered, she does not have a problem making a motion to go forward and give The Viera Company the opportunity to bring it in front of the Legislature; and it is the Legislature that will ultimately give the nod for such a thing.

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve forwarding the Viera Stewardship District Act Bill to the Legislature.

 

 

Chair Voltz stated she would rather see this than to chop it up into several Development Districts; there are a lot of issues that need to be addressed; but it will be addressed down-the-road. Commissioner Carlson stated she does not think, when the DRI was first approved, that anyone in the community realized the impact that would occur; there are still 10,000 units to

 

 

 

 

 

 

build in the original DRI; and there may be an additional 10,000 to 12,000 units where people will actually live. She stated in her time as a Commissioner she has not seen problems with the CDD that were not remedied by the developer.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated he understands it is a funding methodology, similar to the CDD, for the purpose of meeting basic requirements of the development order; there is nothing that restricts the assessments being levied just to meet the requirements of the development order; and there will be a split in what the community thinks and the developer’s best interest. He stated that development order has to be met by the development; what one would find occurring is assessments levied to enhance the product that is yet to be sold by the development control board; and it is to the developer’s advantage to put the best enhancements in the area, which would bring the biggest profit to the entity that controls the board. He stated he cannot support it as it stands at 75%.

 

Commissioner Colon advised she agrees with Commissioner Scarborough, and she feels there is room for negotiation. She inquired if it is such a wonderful product, why is the Board getting involved. She stated developers are supposed to pay for the infrastructure themselves; the people who the Board is trying to protect today are future consumers; and the assessment coming in the future will be tremendous.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated it is the dilemma he is facing; and he appreciates that Chair Voltz said to have it all under one governing authority, but he is concerned about the double taxation issue. He stated when people buy into a condominium understand there is a monthly maintenance. He noted it is a large development; there are times when two large neighborhoods are at odds; and his concern is that Phase I may be at odds when it comes to doing Phase III because the people may not feel the need to pay for that portion of it.

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the developer would accept an amendment that the Board strike the 75% and make it 60% instead; and he stated can support it with 60%. Commissioner Pirtchard inquired if it were 60% and the development order is still being followed would it give the people in Phase I the opportunity not participate in Phase III. Commissioner Scarborough advised at 60% the developer moves substantially through a development; there is a requirement on the developer to see the development plan completed; and he does not want to see short-changing things that should have been completed. He noted up to 60% the developer could do everything needed with the assessments; as the developer is getting up to
55% the assessments will need to be increased and get all of the primary development work done; but he does not want the developer to play with the existing people after they are living there to enhance the final product and get another $10,000 a unit. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the 60% is based upon any number; with Commissioner Scarborough responding once the development is 60%, it ceases to be a developer entity. Commissioner Scarborough stated there becomes a point where the developer has the majority to complete and it is before 75%; at that point the developer should have completed the major items; and he does not think they need the control for the last 25%.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Johnson stated legislatively Lakewood Ranch was approved at 75%; condominiums were approved at 90%; and it is usually 75% or 2/3 votes. Mr. Decatur stated it is going to be a large development and 60% or 2/3 will come quickly; and no matter how good the economy remains, the major infrastructure comes in on the latter half of the project.

 

Commissioner Scarborough requested the motion by amended to change "when the district is populated by 60 percent of the projected total qualified electors."

 

Commissioner Carlson and Chair Voltz accepted the amendment to the motion.

 

Chair Voltz called for a vote on the motion as amended. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Colon voted nay.

 

 

Commissioner Colon requested The Viera Company explain what things are already in the plans to alleviate the kind of impact that is happening now; stated there are some projects that are in the works; and the Company should let the Board know some of the obstacles the developer is experiencing so it can get a good understanding.

 

General Counsel for The Viera Company Jay Decatur stated the road network that is underway to build an overpass over Viera should take 18 to 24 months to construct; and it will be another access point to the west side of Viera. He stated the developer just got comments back on Stadium Parkway, from Fran Jamieson Way to Solerno; and the road will be widened to four lanes. Chair Voltz inquired how long will that take; with Mr. Decatur responding approximately one year. Chair Voltz inquired when will it begin; with Mr. Decatur responding in the next 60 days. Mr. Decatur stated he would like to have the section in front of the high school done before August; the next segment would be from Solerno to the Fiske Boulevard Interchange; and that would be later on in this calendar year before that begins. He stated they are designing Lake Andrew Drive, which stops at the County park; it would be a four-lane road; and that ties into Stadium Parkway north of where the Catholic church is beginning construction. He advised a six-lane section is being designed for Wickham Road; when I-95 gets six-lanes, the Wickham Interchange would be reconstructed to allow six-lanes on Wickham Road, with two left turn lanes on both ramps; and they are looking at a six-lane road from the roundabout to past Murrell Road.

 

Ms. Busacca inquired about the extension of Stadium Parkway next to Fran Jamieson Way. Mr. Decatur responded it could be opened if the Board wanted it; there is a valve that was ordered; and it is close for the opening of the southern section of Stadium Parkway. He advised Fran Jamieson will be extended over to Heritage Isles northern entrance and will be done later on in the summer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Johnson stated The Viera Company is contributing an additional $4,000,000, $2,500,000 directed towards the Pineda Interchange, and they are working on an agreement with DOT and the County to fund an additional $4,200,000 towards the Pineda Interchange to hopefully get that built when I-95 is widened.

 

Mr. McKnight stated the fly over coming from U. S. 1 to the Viera development will provide some relief for both north and south; now there is no choice but to go north or south; and his concern is the impact on Barnes Boulevard before most of the building occurrs in Rockledge. He advised most of the impact is coming from Viera; Viera has done internal roads at Murrell Road; but Viera received the impact fee credits for it. He stated the City of Rockledge has no impact fee credits coming from the District, yet there are impacts occurring on roadways. He stated the City of Rockledge has a County roadway that is badly in need of having four lanes; the steps are being taken towards it; but the steps are not fast enough. He advised there will be changes on Fiske Boulevard, and the impact, growth, and traffic in that area have been substantial but not near the problems on Barnes Boulevard. He stated the discussion is probably not on this level as the Stewardship District is a separate item.

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired when the Viera Boulevard fly over is completed and connects to Stadium Parkway how much have the studies shown a burden of relief to Barnes Boulevard, if any. Mr. Johnson responded it would help the impact on Barnes Boulevard. He stated when the hospital was approved, they agreed to $6,000,000 of transportation improvements; and there are not many developers offering such infrastructure improvements in the County. Mr. McKnight advised the City of Rockledge is getting impacts and not getting money coming its way.

 

Transportation Planning Director Bob Kamm stated he received a copy Monday of the revised transportation methodology; it is an inch thick; it is the rules on how the traffic will be studied; it will have to go through another round of revisions; and there has not been an agreement on how to study the traffic let alone produce the numbers. He stated the County, Regional Planning Council, DOT, City of Rockledge, and City of Melbourne have to agree to protocol so everyone knows what to do, how the model will be set-up, and how the numbers will be analyzed. He stated he does not know what the traffic impacts will be for the substantial deviation. He stated in the package there is a Table 1 authorized for the existing DRI; what The Viera Company has already approved to do is to build almost 19,000 dwelling units; there will be 10,000 to go under the existing DRI; so they have that many to go already in their existing DRI; and another million square feet of retail and 1.8 million square feet of office space is already approved. He stated the traffic analysis is going to look at all of this in aggregate, both what has been approved plus the new traffic that may occur, The Viera Company staff and consultants feel the external roadways will be the limiting factor; and in his view The Viera Company has to be prepared to downsize the request to back out some of the intensity of the development in order to fit within the capacity of the existing surrounding road network. He stated the capacity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

can either be expanded or the development scaled back; in some cases such as North Wickham Road, the Board made the decision a long time ago that it will remain four lanes; and perhaps some other connections can be put into place. He noted the Board may want to talk about the Viera Interchange that will address some of the concerns on Barnes Boulevard; and there needs to be discussion at a staff level of what is the proper size of the development, what are the impacts on the external roadway system, and how to pay for them. He stated he is not in a position to give specifics.

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired if there will be a restraint because there are only three ways in and out of the subdivision; with Mr. Kamm responding the highest intensity, the retail office, that attracts traffic outside the immediate DRI area is west of the interstate. Mr. Kamm stated there is a limited number of points where it could cross the interstate; Wickham Road, Fiske Boulevard, and Barnes Boulevard become the bottlenecks; and until more of such crossings are provided he does not know what can be done. Mr. Kamm stated The Viera Company is doing what it needs to do to internalize traffic; traffic is not forced out on the regional road network for shopping and some of the more routine things; and it is more of a village concept.

 

Commissioner Carlson stated The Viera Company has made the process a positive situation; in the next three years there will be many roadways under construction; and it will be difficult for a while.

 

 

 

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 3:15 p.m.

 

 

 

ATTEST: _________________________________

HELEN VOLTZ, CHAIR

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

___________________

SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

 

 

(S E A L)