March 3, 2005

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special session on March 3, 2005, at 3:05 p.m. in the Government Center Florida Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairman Ron Pritchard, D.P.A., Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Susan Carlson, and Jackie Colon, Interim County Manager Peggy Busacca, and County Attorney Scott Knox. Absent was: Commissioner Helen Voltz.

INTRODUCTION

Chairman Pritchard stated this is a conflict resolution workshop; there is an issue dealing with annexation; and the County and City are concerned, so this is one of the steps they need to take to hopefully resolve the issues.

Mayor Michael Blake, and Councilmen Jake Williams, Charlie Love, James McCarthy of the City of Cocoa introduced themselves. Planner Steve Swanke and Interim Planning and Zoning Director Robin Sobrino introduced themselves. Interim County Manager Peggy Busacca, Commissioner Sue Carlson, Chairman Ron Pritchard, Commissioner Truman Scarborough, Commissioner Jackie Colon, and County Attorney Scott Knox introduced themselves. Cocoa City Attorney Anthony Garganese, Community Development Director John Titkanich, and City Manager Ric Holt introduced themselves.

Chairman Pritchard stated Commissioner Voltz is on her way from Washington; her flight was supposed to leave at 2:30 p.m.; she will be unable to attend this meeting; and she may be late for the zoning meeting.

PRESENTATION, RE: LEGAL ISSUES

Chairman Pritchard inquired if the Board should begin with Mr. Knox and legal issues for discussion. Mr. Knox stated they can do that briefly and then shift over to Ms. Busacca who can present the planning issues. Mr. Knox stated a list of issues that need to be discussed today has been distributed; and the first are the four legal issues that have been identified in the complaint the County filed in a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, so they are probably no surprise because the Council had them for several months. He stated the first issue is that this is an involuntary annexation; in order to involuntarily annex property, the property, or at least some portion of it, has to be developed for urban purposes; and none of this property is developed for that purpose. He stated the second issue is the County does not believe the property is reasonably compact, particularly on the south side of SR 528 because there is no way to get there from the City of Cocoa; and it may be contiguous, but it is isolated from the City limits. He stated the third issue is not allowing the people who came to speak at the meeting to have a say; those who were forced to wait outside did not get a chance to speak or participate in the hearing; and that caused the record to be incomplete, which prejudices any attempt to bring any kind of an action on the annexation case. Mr. Knox stated the last important issue was Mr. Dark’s property, which was involuntarily annexed; Mr. Dark owns another piece of property to the south of that, which he bought as one piece; and it is the County’s belief that the annexation has divided the property, which violates the Statute.

PRESENTATION, RE: PLANNING ISSUES

Planner Steve Swanke stated one of the primary issues from a planning standpoint that has many people upset is the density that the City proposes to allow to be developed on the property; the County has a Future Land Use Map designation on the property of one unit per acre, and also a small portion that is close to Grissom Parkway is Neighborhood Commercial; and these land use designations were put in place in the early 1990’s, based on a small area study that was conducted in the Canaveral Groves area. He stated the study included a great deal of public participation; people feel they participated in the process to determine what is a reasonable use of the property; and now the City has annexed the property and not given due consideration to the people’s concerns. He stated the concerns can be summarized by a number of things; and they feel that properties that are developed at one unit per acre or one unit per two and one-half acres are primarily rural in character and not compatible with the suburban densities the City plans to put on the site, which are four units per acre. He stated the two largest tracts of the property, which are north and south of the intersection of SR 528 and I-95, will contain the largest number of residential dwellings, but have no direct access to any of the major roadways; they will be forced to access existing local roads or to construct some type of road on the site; it is not apparent that on the north side of the property they will be able to construct a residential collector road within the property boundaries that now exist as there are canals and other restrictions such as wetlands; and being a very narrow passageway, it will be very challenging, and may preclude it altogether. He stated there are safety concerns about the increase in traffic that will occur on the local roads; Friday, James, and Cox Roads are all roads that have been built to a rural standard; they have ditches, narrow pavement, no streetlights, and children wait on the shoulder of the road to catch the school bus; and while they may be adequate for the low-density development that exists there currently, the increases in density and resulting increased traffic cause concerns for safety. He stated Brevard County is concerned that the use of the local roads by heavy construction trucks will accelerate the deterioration of the roadways and require the County to incur additional maintenance costs, which is primarily funded through the Road and Bridge MSTU; and once the City annexes the property, that property no longer pays the MSTU ad valorem taxes, so the County will be forced to tax its residents who have not created the problem in order to deal with the problems created by the developer. He stated there is also a need to make safety improvements, primarily on Friday and James Roads; and the cost of those improvements should be borne by the developer and not by County residents. He stated there is some concern that as the City takes over the responsibilities of providing emergency responses for law enforcement and fire protection that the length of travel and the desire to respond as quickly as possibly will result in speeding emergency vehicles over the rural roads and that creates a risk for area residents; and the fact that the City has increased the density means that it has also increased the potential for emergency responses that will have to be responded to, and that is a safety concern that should be considered when considering the density for this site. Mr. Swanke stated the residents have also expressed concern about the effect on property values; that is difficult to quantify; but it has been brought to their attention, and they hope the City will consider it as well. He stated during the Comprehensive Plan amendment process when the City established the new land use category and applied it to this property, the County brought it to the City’s attention that the staff report did not include what the County considers sufficient justification for the density; they know the City has declined in population over the last decade and have no objection to it trying to increase its population; but there are a number of opportunities for annexing other properties, many of which the City has taken advantage of, and it could apply a lower density to this property and still expand its population. He stated the fact that the City decided to put it at four to ten times the density of the surrounding area is a concern and it warrants an extra measure of documentation about the City’s needs. He stated the County is aware there has been a rezoning application, but because the Comprehensive Plan Amendments the City adopted in December 2004 have not gone into effect yet because of the County’s challenge, Mr. Knox has advised that the City’s Planning and Zoning Board and the Council, if it considers it, will have to base their consistency determinations on the County’s Comprehensive Plan until the amendments take effect; and the proposed PUD zoning there would exceed the one unit per acre that the County allowed on the site, and therefore would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation that is in effect on the property at this time. He stated the County and the residents are concerned about moving ahead with the rezoning prior to the resolution of the annexation and the Comprehensive Plan issue.

DISCUSSION, RE: COCOA ANNEXATION

Chairman Pritchard stated he would like to acknowledge that Councilwoman Jewel Collins has joined the group; and thanked her for attending.

Councilman Charlie Love stated he may be laboring under a misunderstanding, but he assumed the purpose of this meeting was to resolve the legal right of Cocoa to annex the property and not a discussion on density. He inquired if the meeting is to resolve the legal rights of the City to annex the property; with Chairman Pritchard responding it is to resolve the objections the County has. Mr. Knox stated technically Councilman Love is right; and if that is all the group is going to be talking about, then it may be a very short meeting; but if the group wants to talk about the other issues of concern, it may be a worthy discussion.

Commissioner Colon stated coming from a city council and being a deputy mayor for five years, she is able to see the other side; they understand that Cocoa has a difficult time and is trying to overcome some things; and they are definitely sympathetic to that. She stated this meeting is giving them an opportunity to have a meeting of the minds and for the County to explain its position to the City; and hopefully the City will be sympathetic. She stated this evening the Board has a zoning meeting; during zoning meetings, the Board tries to make sure it does not interrupt the integrity of a community but protects the community; and if something like what they are discussing now came before the Board, she would not support it because it is not compatible. Commissioner Colon stated she wanted to make sure the Council knew that the Board would not do this to its own residents because of the incompatibility. She stated she hopes it does not become controversial, that there is respect, and they be allowed to put everything on the table; and she would really like the Council to see where the Board is coming from. Commissioner Colon stated they are not trying to tell the City what to do; they are just trying to get the Council to understand the County’s concerns; and the citizens have said it is not an issue of whether the City is annexing it, but that the problem is density. She stated they are hearing that echo not just in Central Brevard, but also in South Brevard; and the concern is density. She stated people have saved their pennies to be able to buy their dream home; their dream was a house on a one-acre lot; and they do not want to have someone next door to them, so a development disrupts the integrity of the neighborhood. She stated it is extremely difficult; that is what they are trying to protect even in the unincorporated areas of the County; and it is important to discuss all the issues, not just the legal part of it because this is the only opportunity that they are going to have to come together.

Councilman Love stated the City has a contractual agreement with the developer; with Attorney Garganese responding that is correct. Councilman Love stated they could be in breach of contract.

Mr. Titkanich stated he would like to discuss some of the issues from the City’s perspective because he is not sure if it is fully being put out there; and Attorney Garganese can address the legal issues. He stated in terms of the urban purposes, it is the City’s contention that the Statute says it either has to be all or part of the area to be annexed not to be developed for urban purposes or the area lies between the municipal boundary and an area developed for urban purposes; and on the other side of I-95 is residential development near the County landfill. He stated I-95 and SR 528 are clearly urban infrastructure, so they certainly see it differently in that respect. He stated he knows there is a difference of opinion about the issue of compact and contiguous. He stated the hearing was not cut off; the Council extended the hearing three times the normal amount; and there were officers posted at the door for the purpose of monitoring capacity. He stated anybody who wanted to speak only had to tell the officer, fill out a card, and then they could address the Council; and some of the people who claimed they did not speak actually did speak, so it is not accurate that they precluded individuals from speaking. He stated the Foy Dark property is actually two separately deeded pieces of property; the County Attorney is right that they cannot annex only part of a piece of property without the property owners’ permission; but this was a separately deeded property. He stated he agrees with Mr. Swanke that the development of a roadway connecting the property on the north is challenging, but that does not mean it is not technically feasible because there are ways they can do that; and the onus is on the developer. He stated they are talking about taking that strip and working with the property owners to build the road through there; the City is not going to be building that road; the developer will be working with the property owners to do that so while it may be challenging, it is possible. He stated Friday and Cox Roads are rural urban transition roadways by the County’s classification; they are operating at 25% capacity; and he understands there is a difference between engineering and planning, but that is what they have to go on. He stated with regard to deterioration of the roadway, there have already been concessions that the roadway is not in the best of condition; and he does not think anyone disputes that because there are potholes and it is very bumpy. Mr. Titkanich stated the City agrees any safety improvements that would be required as a result of the impact of the proposed development would be the responsibility of the developer; the developer would pay transportation impact fees to the County; and the County would review the project. He stated in the mediation meeting, they talked about that; he knows there are some concerns about Friday and James Roads and the way that intersection goes; and the developer said he would be willing to work on coming up with a solution to that. He stated in regard to emergency response times, the City of Cocoa’s law enforcement is in a better position to provide a more rapid response because of its proximity, its smaller geographic area, and its number of officers in the area at any given time. He stated in terms of fire safety, their closest fire station is further than the County’s Station 29; but both the current Council and the County Commission have plans to build a fire station in the SR 524/Cox Road area related to the Brevard Crossings Mall; and a one-acre site is being dedicated to do that. He advised the development is not happening overnight; according to the development agreement, they have five years to put the sewer lines in; the developer has five years to complete the first subdivisions; and then the developer has another five years to complete the remainder of the project, so it is timed. He stated in terms of property values, they relied on some data they received such as that from the Real Estate Institute, which did a study on the impacts on residential property values of nearby residential development; and all indicators suggest that it increases. He stated he would specifically like to point to Trails End Subdivision; he respects the Board saying this would not happen if it came before the County Commission; however, a previous County Commission approved the Trails End Subdivision, which is located on the other side of James Road at the same density about which they are speaking today; and it has none of the amenities that would be required in terms of open space, etc. He stated they did it based on the Brevard County Property Appraiser; they looked at the radius of Cocoa Woods and Trails End and looked at the effect of the values on the property; and they substantially went up so it does not have a deteriorating effect. He stated when one localizes the research, it shows similar areas of one, five and even some ten-acre parcels next to four units per acre development; and it has not deteriorated values, but instead they have gone up. He stated in terms of the maximum development capacity versus what they projected, their Planning Manager at the time, Nelson Lyle, projected utilizing the Brevard County Code and Land Development Regulations; and this Board might not permit the maximum developable capacity under all those justifications, but they did an apples to apples comparison. He noted the response the County forwarded to DCA suggested the City was going to go to seven units an acre; the City has always maintained that was not the case; so all of the opposition to the City’s application to amend its Comprehensive Plan and all of the projections and analysis that said the area could not support it was based on seven units to the acre. He commented on the net density, preserving wetlands, the open space requirement, and the commitment to build larger lots on the periphery to mitigate and provide buffering. He stated this is seen all across Florida where they are compatible; driving to the Government Center on one side of the street there are four to five thousand square-foot homes right up against each other; and across the way are horse farms with houses back there. He stated that is where the City is in a quandary; and inquired how come it works in Trails End or in the backyard of the Government Center, but will not work in the area in question. He stated that is the frustration they have; and members of the Council may wish to add to that.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Councilman Love mentioned discussing the annexation; the Commissioners have seen the map; and pointed out the Cocoa City limit, the property, and SR 528. He stated one does not cross SR 528 because it is a State highway; and looking at the map, some things jump out. He stated they look at some annexations, walk away, and say it makes sense or talk about density; but this is a little bit unusual as a configuration.

Chairman Pritchard inquired what is the value of the homes that would be constructed; with Mr. Titkanich responding they have a performance based development agreement where the minimum value would be $170,000 on the northern portion and $180,000 on the southern portion. Chairman Pritchard inquired if those are averages; with Mr. Titkanich responding no, they are minimum values. Chairman Pritchard stated the price on the north could go from $170,000 to $225,000 or $250,000 and from $180,000 in the same range.

Mr. Knox pointed out the City limit and the annexed property.

Commissioner Scarborough stated all the colored areas on the map are the County while the City is shown in white; it is always good to look at it; and he has seen many annexation configurations; but this looks different.

Mr. Titkanich stated he will explain why it was done in that fashion; from an administration standpoint, if the City had done a voluntary annexation piece-by-piece, it would have been able to do this; and there is a sixth of a mile of co-terminus boundary going from the parcel on Osage Street. He pointed out parcel 11 on the map, the Foy Dark property, and the area of contiguity. He stated unfortunately Trails End is not on the map; and pointed out James Road, Westminster, properties that have consented to annexation, and the only non-consenting property. He stated they are currently working with that property owner to obtain consent; and they could have annexed each property as a voluntary annexation. He again pointed out the area where the parcels are contiguous.

Chairman Pritchard requested Mr. Titkanich show the Trails End Subdivision; with Mr. Titkanich responding it is off the map. Chairman Pritchard stated the reason he is asking is that the concern they have is the neighborhood that is adjacent to the annexed area; and that is substantially distant from Trails End. Mr. Titkanich stated his point was if it is working well with Trails End, he does not know why it would not work on the property in question. He stated looking at the defined subdivision, one sees the lot sizes; and stated it works well in Trails End, but they are told it will not work in the area in question, which is where they are kind of confused. Commissioner Colon stated there is no confusion on the part of the Board; and inquired if they want to hear from the elected officials. Chairman Pritchard stated he has several cards if the Board would like to hear from the speakers, and then it can address some of the concerns as it continues discussing this.

Councilwoman Jewel Collins stated Mr. Titkanich has brought out everything they have as far as the property is concerned; when it was proposed to the Council, there was a mindset of wanting to grow; but as the Board realizes, the City cannot grow east or south; and it felt if it was ever going to be able to grow, it was now. Councilwoman Collins stated she was pleased to know there were developers coming into the City, wanting to help it grow because that was not the case a few years ago; and as was stated, they lost 2,000 residents and their population was down and the City was in deficits and needed a tax base. She stated they knew how the citizens felt because they came before the Council; there were feelings and concerns; but there were properties that the City needed to annex; and there was only one area where they had not gotten consent, so if it could grow, it felt it should. She stated some stated they needed to have space to ride their horses and other things they wanted to do; the City’s concern was it was not their property; and the City could not say it did not want to develop the property just to satisfy people wanting to ride their horses. She stated Commissioner Colon showed the Board’s side; and she wants to show the Council’s side. She stated this is a good opportunity for the City to grow; and at this meeting, if they can come to some type of agreement to resolve the issue, she would be very happy. She stated the City needs the growth; and it needs the Board’s help to grow.

Commissioner Colon stated Councilwoman Collins said the developer came to the City of Cocoa to help it; but the developer did not go to the City, but came to the areas that are unincorporated. She stated they would not be here if the City had land to develop; the City is dealing with the issues; and she understands that it needs a tax base; but they would not be having this discussion if it was not for the density issue. She stated the legal minds in regard to whether it is contiguous or not are going to go ahead and debate; if the City was going to have a beautiful subdivision and allow it to grow with the same density of the area, she does not think there would be as much of an issue; and that is where the dilemma is and where the compromise should be.

Councilwoman Collins stated she was under the impression they were not going to discuss the density and that the discussion was going to be about the annexation, which is why she did not bring in the density.

Chairman Pritchard stated what brought this to the floor was the neighborhood; the surrounding neighborhood is RR-1 on the south side and GU and AU on the north; GU is one unit for five acres, AU is one unit for two and one-half acres, and RR-1 is one unit for one acre; so when they talk about a subdivision of four units to the acre, it causes the people who live adjacent to the neighborhood great concern because they see a much higher density than what they have in their neighborhood. He stated they are concerned about traffic and all the other issues that come with that; the League of Cities, the County, and the School Board are forming a committee to look at where the County is going, and how many people it will have living in it; and he finds the cities are annexing property and increasing density at four times the rate of what the County plan would call for. He stated the newspapers seem to think the County is the only one increasing density, but it is not the County; and he is wondering why. He stated he understands the cities need to grow; all of the cities that have opportunities for growth are going to grow; but inquired why they cannot grow on larger lots with more expensive homes. He stated the homes will be $170,000 to $225,000; the consultant from Fishkind and Associates advised that if the property is valued at less than $190,000, it takes from the tax base rather than adding to it; and it would seem there would be a market at one unit per acre for homes in the $350,000 to $450,000 range. Chairman Pritchard stated there are other areas where there are smaller lots and higher density that would be appropriate for this type of growth; he is not saying the City should not do that; but when there are large parcels and surrounding densities are one unit per acre at the smallest, then he questions why the City is going to four units per acre and not less density and higher valuations.

Councilwoman Collins stated she understands that part; Chairman Pritchard said that the cities and newspaper were thinking the County Commissioners were increasing density, but when she looks at Viera, that is her feeling too. She inquired if it can be allowed at Viera, why can it not be allowed in other places; and stated there are $250,000 homes in the area where a person could not get a lawnmower between them; she does not know the density; but it was allowed, and if some can be allowed, she does not see why others cannot.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he was a critic of Viera; but it was a Development of Regional Impact (DRI); and it even got into the necessity of evaluating impacts on I-95, and the analysis that accrued was paid by the developer. He stated this is a different event; there are roads that have been developed to a certain degree of density for the County that are now going to be impacted by development that is the City’s; the impact is going to be accruing to the City and not the County; yet the County is going to have roads that are impacted. He stated the MSTU monies are not going to be there; and rather than having a Viera environment, there will be the reverse. He stated there is impact even with traditional historic methodologies; not accruing funds from impact fees or MSTU’s means that not only will individuals be impacted, but there will be a deterioration in the overall quality of the infrastructure through this type of annexation; and that is why the idea of being compact is a part of the methodology, in that they should be able to have an ability to service the area being impacted. He stated it is not just the roads, but police, fire, and what have you; the County has developed a philosophy that it would like to have those areas that are enclaves within cities to be annexed by the cities so they could be better served by the cities; and if they go back to the annexation issue, that does tie the methodologies of cost sharing and the reason why maps make some sense too.

Chairman Pritchard stated one of the points that was made was about the development that is taking place by the stadium off I-95; but those houses on the eastern end are selling for $1.2 million.

Commissioner Colon stated the Board wants the City of Cocoa to do well; it wants it to have those half-million dollar homes; the City of Palm Bay used to be known as pothole until Bayside Lakes came in and now there are beautiful homes and it is a beautiful subdivision that is very well planned; and the Board wants that for the City too. She stated she wants Cocoa to shine the same way; and reiterated Palm Bay used to be known as pothole until a beautiful subdivision with good planning came in.

Councilman Jake Williams stated his big issue is the need for some mid-price homes in Cocoa; they do not have those homes in Cocoa; and they have lost a lot of residents because they do not have $175,000 to $215,000 homes. He stated the residents are leaving and going to surrounding communities; the City wants to keep them in its community; it wants to give them an opportunity as the situations change; and that is what it is looking at. He stated $300,000 to $400,000 homes are all well and good; but they do not have a need for them right now; and they need the mid-price homes for those individuals whose situations have changed and are looking for a $175,000 to $225,000 range home. He stated that was one of the things he was looking at; and it is important if the City is going to keep its citizens in Cocoa rather than moving out from the City to the surrounding communities.

Chairman Pritchard inquired what about the property that is being developed on SR 524 west of I-95 and the acreage the City is annexing that borders on Rockledge; and would those neighborhoods be more accommodating. Mayor Mike Blake inquired if Chairman Pritchard means SR 520; with Chairman Pritchard responding between SR 524 and SR 520. Mr. Titkanich inquired if it is the Pluckebaum property, which is 34 acres. Chairman Pritchard stated he is talking about the area the City is looking at that buffers Rockledge and the other area that is between SR 524 and SR 520, where they are building smaller more affordable homes. Mr. Titkanich stated the one subdivision was actually permitted in the County and they are building a second phase; they have submitted plans and are doing their onsite infrastructure at this point; and he understands Dr. Fishkind’s numbers, but they also did a cost of community services and a break-even analysis; and for their community it comes out to just under $160,000. He stated they have looked at that as well; there are homes north of SR 524; they have submitted plans there; and that is where it comes back to the whole issue of developing for urban purposes and how 2.63 and 3.45 units an acre is not compatible, because even intermixed with those one acre lots, there are third-acre lots, and further down there are a couple of different roadways where there are some smaller lots.

Commissioner Carlson stated she would like to go back to the legal issue; and requested Mr. Knox expound on the first issue, the involuntary annexation being invalid since the land is vacant and part or all of the land having to be developed for urban purposes. She stated Commissioner Colon brought up urban versus rural; the intrusion of an urbanized area, which might be higher density than what the surrounding area is, would be considered an intrusion of urban into a rural setting; and inquired how is the law set up. Mr. Knox stated there is a fundamental disagreement about what the law says; the way he reads the law, there is a provision that says if they are going to annex involuntarily, that portion of the property that is annexed has to be developed for urban purposes; and the paragraph following that introductory sentence says if one has a property up in one area developed for urban purposes, and the city is down in another area, they can annex all the vacant property in between to get to that area that is developed for urban purposes, in order to bring it into the City; but that is not what has happened in this case. He stated there is vacant property all the way out; and the other side reads the same Statute to say it does not have to be and it can annex vacant property. Commissioner Carlson inquired what is the definition of urban; with Mr. Knox responding it is statutorily set forth; he does not have it in front of him; but it includes development basically. Commissioner Carlson inquired if it is just any kind of development; with Mr. Knox responding yes, commercial. Commissioner Carlson inquired what would Mr. Knox classify the surrounding area, urban or rural; with Mr. Knox responding the surrounding area is probably rural from the County’s point of view; but that is not the point, and the point is the area that is being annexed is vacant. Commissioner Carlson stated the other question she had was in terms of service provision; and inquired if the Cocoa Police Department would be looking at a service agreement with the County to provide coverage in this area since it is set apart from the normal City limits. City Manager Ric Holt responded not the police department, but on a short-term basis, the fire department would, until they get it established at the mall site. He stated the mall site, if it starts within the two to three-year period has a ten-year buildout; and they probably would have the fire station in place before total buildout. Interim County Manager Peggy Busacca inquired if the City has any plans if the mall site never develops as expected; with Mr. Holt responding yes, it does. Mr. Holt stated because of the annexation, it would probably still be looking at that site in the future, probably between four and five years down the road, to expand that way, either through relocation of current stations or addition of a fourth station. He stated that is in the City’s five-year plan; and coupled with that would be a fire station/police substation so it would be a dual thing.

Attorney Anthony Garganese stated he can address Commissioner Carlson’s point on the urban purposes; the City’s contention is that this annexation completely complies with the urban purposes test for an involuntary annexation; the Statute contemplates areas that at the time of annexation are not yet developed for urban purposes; and in this situation, there is a pocket of undeveloped land surrounded by residential subdivisions at a major intersection of SR 528 and I-95. He stated he contends that is the busiest intersection in the County, so it certainly meets the urban purposes. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is totally irrelevant because they do not access it at all and never will; so it just as well could be in Lebanon. Mr. Garganese stated it still impacts the property; with Commissioner Scarborough advising in the sense that it divides it and is totally inaccessible, so as a practical matter, it is an impediment and not a means of transportation. Commissioner Carlson stated that was one of the concerns she had in talking about the definition of urban versus rural; and just because SR 528 bisects the property does not necessarily mean that it is urbanizing. Ms. Busacca stated if there is a road that has no access to the property but runs through it and is even at a different grade, and the City is saying it impacts the property, it should think how much the impact is of the existing large lots for at-grade roads where substantial numbers come down through their local streets; if it wants to say that is a standard, then it has really brought urbanization into this very rural area; and that is an excellent example of the significant impacts the neighborhood feels. Mr. Titkanich stated he understands what Ms. Busacca is saying, but respectfully disagrees because west of I-95, there are homes developed, but there is also the County landfill; and while for all intents and purposes the County may not want to call it urban and may want to call it rural, its own roadways classifications are rural urban transition. He stated the property is developed; just this pocket is not developed; and when he says it impacts the property, that is probably one of the reasons why they will not be able to get the same price points that they are seeing in Viera with the $1.2 million homes. He stated they are stuck with two major limited access highways bordering the property; and from an economic standpoint, they have to deal with the market’s response to that impact, which is why the density is probably appropriate. He stated he has never known four units to the acre to be high-density development. Ms. Busacca stated it is in comparison with the existing densities; and some of the lands they are talking about border I-95. Mr. Titkanich stated not on two sides; and that is a significant difference. Ms. Busacca noted that the other side of Stadium Parkway, across from some of the large homes, is actually industrial area.

Chairman Pritchard stated there is one home that sits back from James and Friday Roads; it is a magnificent estate; it must be five or six acres; and it is probably a million dollar home. A member of the audience advised it is nine acres. Chairman Pritchard stated he watched them mow the lawn there, and they were mowing for four hours.

Jennifer Therrien thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak about this item that really concerns their rural neighborhood greatly; and stated she would like to speak to Mr. Titkanich’s comments about the evening of August 24. She stated they canvassed their neighborhood and were able to have many of their neighbors join them; there were probably 500 people outside the City Council chambers that night; and instead of being greeted with the opportunity to speak, they were greeted with police locking the door, and it was an intimidating evening; but they all tried to work together to have their voices heard. She stated even though there were 300 people who filled out cards, just a little over 100 were able to speak; she was the third one to turn in a card that evening and was nearly the last to speak when they cut off the evening speaking; and it was ten minutes to ten o’clock when she was able to speak even though she had gotten there at approximately six o’clock that evening. She stated the City is looking to the County to pick up the cost of fire support; now the City is saying it is going to add more services; and she questions that because the City was just trying to get the County to cover that. She stated if she heard correctly, the City said it was going to be five years by the time the sewer was going to be fully implemented; and she wonders what they are going to do in the meantime. She stated another topic was Trails End; it is so far away that it is off the map; she guesses it is a mile to a mile and a half away; and she does not think that it is compatible. She stated the density they are talking about is going to be disruptive to the neighborhood; and that brings up the next topic, the loss of property value. She stated often when there are lower income homes, they turn into rental locations; and that is what they are seeing in Fern Meadows right now. She stated she does not know if any of the Commissioners have driven out there, but if they do, there are often a lot of rental properties, not that there is anything wrong with rentals and there is a need for that kind of thing; but frequently when people rent, they do not have the same investment in the community or focus on their home care; and they are concerned about what could happen after five or ten years of rentals going on in the area and the possible crime it might bring to the neighborhood. She stated it was said the main interest was providing affordable housing for the residents; she was surprised about that because right now they are talking about development going on Cox Road; they were talking about townhouses; the Tenderfoot Ranch has been sold so condos can go in; and there are single-family homes. She stated she recently read in an article that there were 1,200 units alone in and around the mail that will be coming; a lot of that could be affordable housing; and she understands there is a new subdivision going in on Adamson Road that would provide affordable housing. She stated they are not against the property being developed; they just ask that it be developed in a compatible manner with the neighborhood so they can still enjoy their rural lifestyle. Ms. Therrien stated she understands that Cocoa has an interest in developing and expanding its City; Councilwoman Collins said it was not their concern whether the people have the ability to ride their horses or enjoy the neighborhood; but people do enjoy riding their horses on Friday Road; and when that amount of traffic comes in, it will be quadrupling the traffic on that road, which will take away the privilege of enjoying the area. She stated she moved from the City of Palm Bay so she could enjoy the rural lifestyle that was offered in this area; and in one fell swoop the City is talking about taking away that opportunity. She requested they carefully consider the densities they are talking about and the devastation it is going to cause for the neighborhood.

Mark Oler stated Ms. Therrien pretty much covered a lot of the points; and thanked everyone for open communication. He stated it is important that this remain open and move forward; they are not against growth; but growth for growth’s sake does not cure deficits. He stated when someone runs a business, as he does, he or she has to run it in a smart fashion; and from the way this development is going, it is not being run in a smart fashion. He stated he is asking for not just legal sense but common sense; they are talking about properties; but this is a human business they are in and they need to address the human issues involved as quality of life because they pay dearly for that. He stated it may sound more emotional than factual, but he is very involved in the community he lives in; the area looks like it also may be developing an enclave; he is no expert; and that may be an issue as well. He stated many people in the neighborhood are already looking for property outside of Cocoa; and he is concerned about people leaving Cocoa. He stated he is already considering the possibility that he may need to leave Cocoa to preserve his lifestyle; and that goes against the grain.

Barbara Buzzo stated she signed a speaker card at the first meeting in August; somebody scratched out her name and put someone else’s name on it; and she was never allowed to speak. She stated she was there when the police officers escorted the developers out; and to say they were just there to control the crowd and usher people in because of the capacity is a crock. She stated as far as Foy Dark’s property, it is two parcels, a northern and a southern parcel; to get to the northern parcel, one has to go through the southern parcel; she is a licensed Florida realtor; and the reason the property has not sold is because it was involuntarily annexed. She stated when someone wants to build a house, the best place is in the middle, which is the dividing line between City and County; it is one parcel fenced as one entirety; and to get to the City property, one has to go through the County property. She stated there was negotiation for two years; but once the City annexed it, the developers backed out of negotiation. She stated she has not seen potholes on Friday or Cox Roads; the County maintains the ditches and roads; the City should be so careful about its own; and inquired about the five-way stop that is created at James, Cox, and Friday Roads with the fire lane extension and the other that goes by the nine-acre parcel. She inquired how do they provide free traffic flow for a five-way stop; and stated the safety of the children is an issue because that is a bus stop at the corner. She stated Trails End is almost four miles down the road; there are two access points, Cox Road and Westminster, which was not mentioned; and the City is annexing property all over the place. She stated it has developments going, half of which are not even being discussed; Tenderfoot Ranch that was supported by rural customers has now been sold for a development of ten or twelve houses per acre, zero lot line; and she hopes the Council is happy about the job it is doing. Ms. Buzzo stated as a licensed realtor, she agrees the City does not have homes for its residents; and suggested the Council should look at Code Enforcement within the City because they cannot get FHA or VA to approve the houses because the Electrical Code is not followed or there are roofing issues. She stated people have grants from the City of Cocoa to buy a home for $73,000; but it has to comply with all the other things. She stated the fact that the City of Cocoa did not manage its finances is not their problem; the City can provide homes all day long; and inquired about employment. Ms. Buzzo stated as far as Wal-mart, the Rockledge Wal-mart closed and those employees moved to the new store; Publix closed in Byrd Plaza; and inquired where is the City putting people to work where they can provide for their families and afford $180,000 homes. She stated she has no problem with there being a development; but it should be compatible with the rest of the uses; and if people do not like it, that is not her problem. She stated the City needing money is not their problem; the County is their concern; and the City is not looking out for them. She stated they do need housing, but not in the middle of an established neighborhood where the lowest priced home is $250,000; if they want to put $400,000 homes on an acre, she can sell them all day long; it will increase the tax base; but there is no reason to put lower priced homes. She stated it is not a medium priced home anymore; but maybe the Council has not looked at a MLS book lately; and she gets fixer uppers for $140,000. She inquired where are the people going to come from; stated the City of Cocoa residents with the jobs the City is providing will not be able to even afford the $180,000 home; and not everybody works at the Space Center or at Boeing. She stated she is tired of the City needing things; they spent the money on the riverfront; and that is not the people’s fault. She stated it is time for the City to take care of its own; she takes care of her checkbook and has to balance because she cannot go and grab from someone else because she did not provide; that is something the City has to look at; and maybe they should have voted for the oversight committee.

John Van Sickle thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak. He stated he is coming from a totally different direction; he lives in the country; and he had to go to the Internet to find out what a forced annexation is. He stated this is going on all over the nation; it is happening where a city is here and trying to sneak down a riverbank or whatever else to say it is congruous; right before Christmas he had an opportunity to talk; and thanked Mayor Blake for that opportunity. He recommended they take a minute, watch the tapes, and listen to the gentlemen who work for the developer; and they will find out stuff about forced annexations. He stated developers come into areas and hold out something like a mall; they say there are other malls around so they want the municipality to annex a bunch of property and get as many people per acre as they can; there is nothing about property values and it has nothing to do with devaluation of current things; and they just want to get people in there because if they can get enough people packed into a small enough area, then they can sell their mall space. He stated he came down in 1978 with his family; just a few years after that, he started hearing about the Comprehensive Use Policy; and it is craziness. He stated they are going to tell people where they have to have industrial parks; they are going to tell people where they can have rural areas; and it is craziness because people cannot be told where to put homes. He stated the County was forced to do that; it set aside industrial parks and high-density areas; and inquired what happened to that. He stated now all of a sudden, the County is being told people do not want to deal with the County and will go to the City and change zoning to meet their needs; and the Comprehensive Use Policy goes out the window. Mr. Van Sickle commented on slander; and advised he will not say things like there are a bunch of potholes, trash is not picked up, and the ditches are never cleaned because that would be slanderous. He stated rural urban transition is what is being provided; they call it RUT for short; and pointed out his property on the map. He stated he owns five acres; the neighbor to the north of him owns five acres; the neighbor to the south owns five acres; and he does not know what the person across the street owns, but the guy behind him owns 15 acres. Mr. Van Sickle stated government is going to come down the street and put a few more houses than he has on his property; it is going to be kind of interesting; and the congruity issue is not going to fly. He stated he does not see that little sliver happening; he has been on the Internet; and he saw where they excluded properties, which is where everybody around someone has been annexed, but when that individual applies for annexation, his property cannot get annexed. He stated there is all kinds of stuff on the Internet; there is stuff coming from cities in Arizona; he does not believe them either; and these are just some things to chew on. He stated either the fireman or the policeman who showed up did not make half the guarantees about protection that are being made today; and he appreciated his frankness because he was speaking from the heart. He stated it was an excellent meeting; he applauds them for that meeting; and there was a lot of truth in that meeting.

Ken Allen stated he lives in Indialantic, and has lived in the County for 45 years; and he owns the property shown in pink on the map.

Chairman Pritchard inquired if Mr. Allen is the owner of the north pink area; with Mr. Allen responding yes, but he previously owned the south pink area and was at the mediation last week; as opposed to people talking about 7,000 units being built on that property, which is what DCA did the traffic counts on, the developers agreed to 2.63 units on the south piece and 3.4 on the north piece, with the total to be 3.02. Mr. Allen stated as to the value of those homes, on the north side, there are approximately 24 acres of lake; and he is sure there will be homes on that substantially higher than the $250,000 number that has been talked about. He stated having been Mayor of Melbourne and having two degrees in municipal administration and finance, he has been very involved in what it costs to run municipalities; and he has done a tax/revenue impact that he would like to pass out. He submitted paperwork to the Chairman, but not the Clerk. He inquired what is collected off the property shown in pink for the MSTU; with Mr. Swanke responding he does not know offhand; undeveloped property does not pay a great deal right now; but it does not have any impact either. Mr. Allen stated he paid $7,800 in taxes on both sections of the property last year; and he thinks that is a crime. He stated he did an analysis of what would happen when 1,550 homes are built on that property with an average value of $150,000; as opposed to collecting $7,800, $5,236,000 would be collected; and it would be split up as follows: $1.4 million to the County’s General Fund, $1.9 million to the School Board, $1.1 million to the City of Cocoa, and $815,000 a year to the City of Cocoa for water and sewer fees. He stated he did some extension as to what kind of borrowing capacity that would give to the County, School Board, and City; and it is shown in the right-hand column. He stated the impact fee would be $4,450; with Mr. Swanke advising that would be the school impact fee. Mr. Allen stated that would give to the school system a one-time fee of $6,800,000. He stated he did not do any calculations as to what would happen to revenue produced for the FP&L franchise tax nor did he do calculations as to other fees and licenses that would fall to the City, but they would be substantial. Mr. Allen stated the gentleman who purchased the lower part from him met with the City and agreed to pay, in addition to impact fees, $300 a unit directly to the fire department for development of the fire station.

Chairman Pritchard inquired if Mr. Allen said he was the former mayor of Melbourne; with Mr. Allen responding he was. Chairman Pritchard inquired how many acres is the north portion; with Mr. Allen responding 246 acres. Chairman Pritchard inquired what is it assessed at; with Mr. Allen responding he does not know. Chairman Pritchard inquired if Mr. Allen paid $7,800 in taxes; with Mr. Allen responding for both pieces, and it was treated from a taxing standpoint as agricultural even though the zoning today is RU-1. Chairman Pritchard stated he is sure Mr. Allen is selling the property for a lot more than it is appraised for; with Mr. Allen responding he is not selling it for more than it is appraised for. Chairman Pritchard stated he was talking about the amount from the Tax Collector; with Mr. Allen responding sure, but that is not abnormal in the State of Florida. Mr. Allen stated as a former public official, he thinks that is wrong; the gentleman he bought the property from has been holding it since 1960; and if it the taxes were $7,800 last year, who knows how little that owner paid over all the years the property was in a holding action. Chairman Pritchard stated the property could be appraised at $250 an acre for tax purposes, and when it is sold, it is $50,000 or $100,000 an acre. Mr. Allen advised it is a lot more than it is appraised for. Chairman Pritchard stated there is a huge disparity; with Mr. Allen responding he does not deny that at all; and it is something the County and cities need to take a look at. Chairman Pritchard stated that is what he is hoping the committee that is being formed is going to do; but there are so many issues that need to be addressed, that he is not sure the joint committee is going to get around to addressing everything.

Attorney Thomas Cloud, representing Mr. Allen, stated there are times he has felt like a resident of Brevard County, even though he currently lives in Orlando and was born and raised in Lakeland, because he represented Palm Bay for five years against General Development and was in the County every week. He encouraged the Board to reconsider the mediation offer that was presented; stated if they want to find a property similar to this, they can go to the other end of the Beeline in Orange County where it intersects I-4; and there they would find a convention center, hotels, and a lot of things. He stated that is because the intersection of two limited access roads is urban; and no judge is every going to believe it is rural no matter what the County says or how it tries to paint it. He stated they probably would not be here today if sprawl type development that exists out there now had not been allowed; the area has been a central utility service area since 1957 by special act of the Legislature; and the Board acknowledged the validity of the service area for the City of Cocoa in a recent Ordinance. He stated in mediation, the owners of the property and the City agreed to 3.5 units to the acre on the north and 2.6 units to the acre to the south; the property is at the intersection of I-95 and SR 528; and that is approximately 1,500 units, not 7,000. He stated in terms of the argument about urban, Mr. Knox was fair in saying that there is some debate on that; in order to take Mr. Knox’s interpretation, it is necessary to ignore the first sentence of subsection 3, which clearly states that land can be vacant in an involuntary annexation; but after today, that will be irrelevant because his client has signed a contract to purchase Foy Dark’s property and both pieces will be voluntarily annexed. He stated the County’s only argument is going to go away after today; there are a dozen cases in Florida and other states that indicate this is more than enough contiguity to meet the reasonable compactness test; and cited the case of Martin County v. Stuart from 1999, which is similar. Mr. Cloud stated the due process argument is going to go away; there is a 2004 federal court decision that has already blessed the very same process for
the City of Cocoa, so that argument will not go anywhere; and the argument about Foy Dark’s parcels is going away. He stated the Plan amendment that the Board challenged has added another lawsuit, which has all sorts of exposures; he wonders if anyone explained that the petition the County filed on a case where the City has been found in compliance by DCA will create problems for it; and it is not going to solve problems. Mr. Cloud advised the County agreed to this service area; and the attack makes it impossible to serve the area feasibly. He stated they addressed road safety in the mediation, and offered road improvements, some of which were rejected. He stated he is going to dwell for a moment on Viera versus the area in question because it is an interesting comparison; he was in the County in the 1980’s when this was first proposed, and it was a cow pasture; it had Wickham Road and I-95; and there was an expenditure of considerable public funds to build a courthouse in a cow pasture. He stated of course there are upscale houses now 15 or 16 years later with all the public and private investment that has come here; and he would be surprised if that had not happened. He stated it is not inappropriate for Cocoa to want to be able to develop at some reasonable density for the property since it has been in their service area for almost half a century; and the density they offered in mediation is the minimum that the City can financially break even on for its utilities and that they find financially feasible to do a project for. He stated the objections the Board heard today have obviously been emotional; people live there; they use it as their own private park; and he can understand why someone would want it to stay their own private park. He stated he is also hearing just a hair of an exclusionary argument, that they are not sure this is going to be compatible housing and the police issues; and encouraged the Board to reconsider the mediation proposal that was made.

Chairman Pritchard stated the Viera complex was a DRI; the intersections of Wickham Road and I-95 and Fiske Boulevard and I-95 are actually intersections with access and egress while at SR 528 and I-95, there is none; it is literally a wall there so there is no access; and that is a big difference. He stated he does not think the people are objecting to annexation and development; they have said that; but they are objecting to the amount of density that is being proposed. He stated looking at the total acreage, the lake is part of it; and inquired what is the acreage on the south side; with Mr. Allen responding it is 267 acres on the south and 246 on the north, and there are two lakes on the north, one that is 16 acres and another that is eight acres, totaling 24 acres. Chairman Pritchard inquired when they were figuring the density at 3.4 units per acre on the 246-acre tract, was the 24-acre lake included; with Mr. Allen responding affirmatively. Chairman Pritchard stated the 246 acres includes the 24 acres of lake; they are figuring 3.4 units per acre, but subtracting 24 acres brings it down to 222 acres; so it is 222 buildable land, less the infrastructure; and inquired how big are the lots going to be. Mr. Titkanich stated he can speak more about the south parcel; they are applying for a PUD zoning, and as part of it there are going to be some open space requirements; so they will be building some parks; and the lots on the periphery are 100 feet by 130 feet. Chairman Pritchard stated those are the large lots; and inquired what size will the smaller lots be and is there multifamily use in there; with Mr. Titkanich responding there is no multifamily and the smallest size will be 50 feet up to probably 75 feet wide. Chairman Pritchard inquired what is the setback in Cocoa; with Mr. Titkanich responding eight feet for the side yards. Chairman Pritchard stated there would be 16 feet between houses; air conditioning units will occupy five feet on each side; and there will not be room to get a commercial lawn mower through there. He stated he understands a lot of people like smaller properties; they get to a point where they do not want a lot of room; but he rented for a while and his neighbor’s sprinkler washed the side of his car; and he does not want to live like that. He stated there is going to be closeness regardless of the space around it; they are still talking a lot of units; density is important; and he is amazed nobody recognizes what the density is going to do to the County. Chairman Pritchard stated Mr. Titkanich came from Ft. Lauderdale so he knows what it is like; and he knows this is his job; but with the density here and there, suddenly there are going to be four million people in the County. He stated if that is what they want, he is moving; it is taking the County to the next step; he has been there and seen it happen; Brevard County is like Broward County was in the 1970’s; and if they do not start addressing the density, there are going to be serious density problems. Mr. Titkanich stated he respects that; but he thinks the density east of I-95 should be significantly different than the density west of I-95; and although they may be smaller lots than what some people would like, that is what the market is selling. He stated in all fairness to the developer, they have to deliver a product that responds to the market. Chairman Pritchard stated he can understands that; but he bets they could look at market sales that would say quite a bit different.

Commissioner Colon stated she did not hear Mr. Titkanich’s title; but it is very unusual to have government staff speak on behalf of the developer; she would think that they would be able to have the developer in front of them and be able to ask what he is planning; and this is quite strange, even though she comes from a municipality background. She stated she is speaking to the elected officials; she sees where they are coming from; the City needs the tax base; but it will be able to get that wonderful tax base with one unit per acre. She recommended the Council members go see how much houses are selling for; and stated the tax base would be incredible and the City would be able to achieve what it wants. She stated she would never try to stop Cocoa from getting that tax base because it needs it; the Council wants Cocoa to step to the next level like Palm Bay did; and it can do that at one unit per acre and have a beautiful development. She stated the Council holds the key; staff, with all due respect, is not the one who should be running the City; and it should be the Council running the City. She stated staff is staff; it is there to do its job; but the elected officials are elected to protect the community, and that is their job. She stated she would not try to hurt the community; one unit per acre will give a nice home and income for the City for infrastructure, police, and fire protection; and she wants the Council to really look at the numbers and the human side of it because they will definitely impact citizens. She stated they forget themselves once they become elected officials; and she is pleading with the Council because this is going to end up in court. She stated they should do the numbers and put themselves in the citizens’ shoes; she has been at this for ten years; and when they let County staff run the show is when they completely lose it. She stated she is speaking from the bottom of her heart; the Council is the boss, not staff; and it should demand the developer come back to the drawing board and give it something it can be proud of. She stated then the Council members can say they are part of that subdivision at one unit per acre with homes that are $300,000 and $400,000; and that tax base will come to the City. She stated she would not hurt the City; it is not about the fact that it is going to be the City; but it is about the density and how it is affecting the citizens.

Councilman Williams stated he can assure that the Council does its job and staff does its job; and he takes offense to what was said. He stated the City staff does a wonderful job in preparing the Council and getting research; and reiterated he takes offense to the comments. He stated they have considered the surrounding communities; they have broken it down a little; it has gone down to a little more than three units per acre on one side and a little more than two units per acre on the other side; and even if the Board does not see it that way, he does. Councilman Williams reiterated the Council and the staff do their jobs; they work together; and they are Team Cocoa.

Commissioner Colon stated all they are concentrating on is the dollar amount; she is saying the City is able to make money; she would not deprive the City from that; but yet it would be a win-win situation.

Councilwoman Collins stated as far as the staff is concerned, there is a City Manager and then there is staff; and inquired if the Commission does not have that. Commissioner Colon responded yes, but Councilwoman Collins can see who does the talking. Councilwoman Collins inquired if Commissioner Colon has an extra job; with Commissioner Colon responding she works full-time. Councilwoman Collins stated the Council members also have full-time jobs; there is no sense going back over what Councilman Williams has stated; but they have gotten into talking about density although she was under the impression they were not going to. She stated in terms of the people who were at the August 24 meeting, she and Councilman McCarthy were the only ones there that night because the other Council members are new; they did not plan for the influx of people who came that night; the room capacity is 96; and that was the reason they could not allow more people in the room and had to have the police. She stated she is a humanitarian person; she does not think anybody cares about humans any more than she does; and as far as lifestyle is concerned, she wishes she could have that type of lifestyle, but she has a job to do. She stated she was put there for the citizens of Cocoa to grow their City; that was her concern; and if someone is human, she is concerned about them. She stated because of the room capacity that is why they had to do it that way; and they were there until 2:00 a.m. with the 300 people who were allowed to speak. She stated the next time when they found the meeting was going to draw more people, they went to a bigger facility; but they would never have met there at the City Council Chambers if they had known there were going to be that many people.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he is concerned about having a gross number, of having an additional $5 million, for a number of reasons, even if it was just in the County; if there was a piece of open land that was not serviced, they may have to have the Sheriff go out periodically because of some strange event; however, as soon as there are people there, there are responsibilities to people. He stated it comes in two steps; the first step is to have more schools, roads, etc.; and that is one component part. He stated the other is to be able to carry the cost without having the existing residents have a diminution of the quality of their lives; and they hired Hank Fishkind because they wanted to know what the numbers meant. He stated he could have a restaurant and decide to expand it; he would have more people come in; but he could lose money. He stated stores close every day; they talk about running like a business, but stores close, not because they do not have customers, but because they are not able to make enough money from the sales. He stated the gross number is frightening because it sets forth a presumption that if they grow, growth pays for itself; and Mr. Fishkind advised that is not the case and they should be careful. He stated that is the first risk; the second risk is the County is supposed to get $1.4 million; but that does not recognize certain things. He stated Friday and James Roads are County roads servicing this development; and as it develops, the City would get impact fees and be able to take care of the roads. Commissioner Scarborough stated the City will remove most of the users from paying for the roads; and what they basically have is the disproportionate amount of cost being borne by the County. He stated it would be just as fair to send all the bills to St. Augustine to see if they will pay for it; and inquired why should the County pay for it. He inquired how would the County pay for it since it does not have the MSTU and should it take it from other places in the County, and move impact fees that should be someplace else. He stated the impact fee is supposed to take care of the cost of impacts. He inquired if this could be challenged in the courts; stated they are going in a dangerous direction with the whole configuration; and the County is putting itself at risk in going too far with this discussion.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to terminate the current conflict resolution discussion with the City of Cocoa and allow the issue to proceed through the courts. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Pritchard stated that is the Board’s position.

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

_____________________________________
RON PRITCHARD, D.P.A., CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ATTEST: BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

_____________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)