April 29, 2004

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special/workshop session on April 29, 2004, at 9:05 a.m. in the Government Center Florida Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chair Nancy Higgs, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Ron Pritchard, Susan Carlson, and Jackie Colon, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

REPORT, RE: HARRY T. AND HARRIETTE V. MOORE COMMEMORATIVE STAMP

Commissioner Scarborough advised the Board passed a Resolution supporting a Harry T. and Harriette V. Moore commemorative stamp; and requested a letter and copy of the Resolution be sent to the Congressional Delegation.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize the Chair to send a letter to the Congressional Delegation advising that the Board adopted Resolution No. 04-079 on April 27, 2004, supporting Harry T. and Harriette V. Moore commemorative stamp in recognition of the efforts and sacrifices they made toward justice and equal rights for all Americans. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: LETTER ON I-95

Commissioner Colon inquired when will the letter regarding I-95 be ready; with Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca responding she spoke to Bob Kamm yesterday, he is working on it, and she will talk with him again today and let her know.

REPORT, RE: PUBLIC COMMENTS

Commissioner Colon inquired if it is possible to get the public comments before going into major discussion on the school impact fees.

Chair Higgs stated she does not see an agenda item for public comments; but if Commissioner Colon wants to make a motion to hear the public comments first, the Board could do that.

Commissioner Carlson stated Item III is input from municipalities. Commissioner Colon stated there are citizens here who may wish to be heard. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the citizens will be talking about things that will be coming up on the Agenda later; with Commissioner Colon responding they want to give their input on impact fees. Commissioner Scarborough stated perhaps they could follow the municipalities. Commissioner Carlson stated that would be fine, otherwise questions may come up and they may want to come back up.

Chair Higgs advised she has cards from people wishing to speak to Items III, IV, and VI, and others with general comments and no specified areas; and inquired how does the Board want to handle it. Commissioner Colon stated to hear from the public after the municipalities was suggested. Chair Higgs inquired how does the Board want to deal with the card from someone who wants to speak to Items III, IV, and VI.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if there is anyone from the public who wants to make comments and is leaving or would make the same comments after the presentations. Commissioner Colon stated they just want to be heard. Commissioner Pritchard stated everyone is going to be heard. Commissioner Carlson stated they could be lumped together. Commissioner Scarborough stated a Commissioner can always recognize someone who has relevant comments. Chair Higgs stated the Board will hear the presentation by the consultant, input from municipalities, then comments from the public. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the public comments are going to be specific; with Commissioner Colon stated they are all going to be talking about impact fees. Commissioner Carlson stated whether it is impact fees on schools or other impact fees, just get them all out there; and as the Board goes through its discussion, if a Commissioner has a question based on a comment from someone, he or she can always have the person come back up.

PRESENTATION BY TINDALE-OLIVER, RE: RESPONSES TO INQUIRIES FROM
FEBRUARY 19, 2004 WORKSHOP ON SCHOOL IMPACT FEES

Bob Wallace with Tindale-Oliver advised they provided specific responses to some of the questions that were raised at the February 19, 2004 Workshop; they are self-explanatory; and he will be glad to go through them quickly if that is the pleasure of the Board. Chair Higgs responded please. Mr. Wallace advised Item #1 is that the Board asked them to look at Osceola County’s impact fee and at the variables used there and why that impact fee was significantly higher than the fee being proposed for Brevard County; and in summary, Osceola County has no credit for any revenues being used for expansion according to its technical report; so that caused its fee to be significantly higher. He stated the school building facility costs in Osceola County are probably $3,000 to $4,000 per student higher than in Brevard County. He stated he commented at the first meeting that Brevard County is building classrooms a little less expensive than the State average cost; and in Osceola County, that is not the case. He stated that combined with having no credit and that its student generation rates per household are higher than Brevard County’s rates, cause Osceola County’s fee to be about $9,700; and if it is not now, it probably will be under legal challenge for the credit issue, which drives the difference. He stated Brevard County’s rate is based on what it costs to build a school and how much money the School Board uses for capital facility expansion from other revenue sources like the two mills and the State revenue sources; and the credit has the effect of reducing the impact fee based on the equivalent amount of value per unit of development.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the number of students per detached unit changes as Brevard County becomes an older community with more retirees and that number dropped, would that implicitly mean Brevard County would change its impact fee because that would be a part of the calculation; with Mr. Wallace responding yes. Mr. Wallace advised the numbers are based on the 2000 Census data; and as new data becomes available or the next time the Board updates the impact fee, if there is more accurate or better information available that shows a downward trend, they should make adjustments.

Mr. Wallace advised the homebuilders filed a lawsuit in Lee County challenging the school impact fee; and one of the more essential provisions of that lawsuit deals with the credit for the two mills and how the credit was calculated in that study. He stated property taxes and millage rates are going up annually at a fairly high level; and Lee County's methodology did not adequately address increases in property taxes. He stated if the property tax revenues from the two mills are increasing, then they have more money to build schools; and that was not appropriately addressed in the Lee County report. Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott requested Mr. Wallace clarify the comparison between Lee and Brevard Counties regarding property values going up; and stated it is okay to focus on Lee County, but not to make the comparison with Brevard County. Mr. Wallace stated he is talking about the millage rate and the amount of revenue generated from the two mills, and as property values increase, the amount of revenue generated from the two mills increases.

Chair Higgs stated the two mills remain constant, but the amount of revenue generated goes up; with Mr. Wallace responding that is correct; and the central issue and focus of the lawsuit is that the impact fee calculations did not address the increase in revenues from the two mills over time. He stated they have addressed that in their study for Brevard County by looking at the historical increases in overall valuation, which over the last five or six years have averaged about 6% annually; so they made adjustments to the credit calculations to account for the fact that there are more revenues being generated by those two mills than what was actually being estimated in some of the budgets for the School Board. He stated they have been conservative in their approach and addressed the central issue of the Lee County lawsuit in their methodology; and they are very comfortable that they can defend how they handled the credit calculation and addressed that central issue in the Lee County lawsuit if it were to be questioned in Brevard County. He noted that is the basic response to Item #2. Mr. Wallace advised Item #3 concerns the question that was brought up about Orange County’s developer voluntary contribution of $1,500 per residential unit; and they called Orange County and confirmed that it had initiated the voluntary contribution. He stated Orange County reassessed it when the sales tax referendum passed in 2002, but felt it still needed to keep the voluntary contribution in place; and the County made it a variable contribution, and developed a formula for calculating that contribution as a condition of the issuance of the building permit and a development agreement. Mr. Wallace stated that allows the developer to enter into an agreement with the School Board for the voluntary contribution in exchange for authorization to the particular jurisdiction to release the building permit; the program has been in existence for three years and had voluntary contributions committed for about $35 million; however, they have only collected about $400,000 or $500,000 to date. He stated the other issue they found out from Orange County is its current impact fee for schools is about $2,800; it is currently being reviewed; and the preliminary numbers are that it may be about two times higher than what it is today. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the $2,800 was at 100%; with Mr. Wallace responding he does not remember. Commissioner Carlson stated she was wondering why, when the $1,500 came in, they determined that was not enough and had an option of going to 100% without having to go back and review everything; with Mr. Wallace responding Orange County chose not to do that and chose to have an additional study done to document what its real costs are. He stated they were also told that if the fee goes up and is adopted at 100%, the County will allow persons paying the fee who also have development agreements to get credit for the development agreement against the new fee; so if the new fee is adopted, those who have already made development contribution agreements would get credit against the new fee level. He noted it is a little complicated how they did that in Orange County; and they are addressing that issue through a study right now that would likely cause the fee to increase significantly and may or may not eliminate the voluntary contribution that is in place. Mr. Wallace advised Item #4 deals with the comment that was received about Polk County’s affordable housing process and how it handled exemptions for affordable housing; the comment indicated that there was an across-the-board exemption at a specific dollar value for all residential developments; and that is not the case in Orange County’s impact fee program for affordable housing. He stated there are specific requirements that the applicant must meet in terms of very low-income persons as defined by the federal guidelines; and if those guidelines are satisfied by the applicant, then the County Manager can issue an affordable housing exemption for that particular project. He stated another interesting aspect of that Ordinance is that the applicant must remain at the very low-income level for seven years in order for the exemption to remain intact; and if during that seven years the applicant becomes not categorized in the very low-income category, then the full impact fee for the schools becomes due. He stated how they enforce that he does not know, but that is the specific language they received from the Ordinance in terms of the exemption. He noted he does not understand how they could enforce that or how they would go back and deal with it, but it is a provision in their Ordinance.

Chair Higgs stated she read that Ordinance and there were a number of exemptions in it; and inquired if Mr. Wallace has any idea how they track that and what kind of mechanism it would take to track those issues. She noted they are tracking elderly issues and a number of things that are in the Ordinance. Mr. Wallace stated the elderly issues are a little bit easier in terms of deed-restricted communities on the plats when they are recorded and being able to track and follow up through Code Enforcement to verify that they are still adult living communities. He stated that is a standard practice; however, the provision of seven years with very low-income seems to be extremely difficult to review, enforce, and get data on unless there is some kind of agreement that is signed at the time of exemption that requires the applicant to annually provide information; and if they do that, it becomes a nightmare to administer and track from a staff perspective. He stated he would not recommend the Board look at a policy like that; he is not saying he would not agree to affordable housing exemption of some kind; but the administration of that program needs to be more straightforward and simplistic.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if Mr. Wallace knows if Polk County did the math in terms of what the transfer of burden would be on the other existing homeowners that did not fit into that category or any of the other categories the Ordinance addresses; with Mr. Wallace responding when they talked to the person who administers the program, they got the impression there were very few of those exemptions being granted, probably less than 50 on an annual basis; and if that is the case, the burden would be minimal on the other residential uses. He stated the Board may recall three or four years ago when they did the legal memorandum on exemptions, if the exemption class was extremely narrow in scope and constituted a very small percentage of the revenues collected, then it would not jeopardize the equal protection issues in the ordinance. He stated from the sound of what they told them, they are in that category that the amount of exemptions in the program is very small compared to the total revenues collected.

Mr. Wallace advised the next item is the question about the Lake Nona Elementary School and how that agreement was put together; basically it is a fairly complicated agreement with the developer, Orlando Regional Healthcare Systems, the City of Orlando, and the School Board, that basically has the developer building a comprehensive multi-use facility and then, because the School Board was not ready to occupy or build it, they leased it back to the School Board for a couple of years; and that agreement also had specific provisions for the purchase of the particular school by the School Board, City of Orlando, and Orlando Regional Medical Healthcare Systems. He noted by all the comments and discussions with the parties, it is a very successful facility and provides a centralized function for schools, recreation, parks, the YMCA, and a wellness center for the Healthcare System. He stated the only drawback that the School Board representatives commented on was the provision in the agreement that prohibits portable classrooms on the site and in essence gives preferential treatment to the students living in the Lake Nona area if that school becomes overcrowded. He stated the School Board basically said if it was to do it again, it would attempt to remain in control of both of those issues; but other than that, it is a very successful and very nice facility; and he has used it himself.

Commissioner Colon stated the reason she wanted the Board to look at Lake Nona is because it should not be sticking to the same things that it is doing now; it is a perfect example that where there is a will there is a way; and it should not take no for an answer. She stated the Board would not be reinventing the wheel; and it should see what the folks have done and talk to the School Board, City, and anyone who is part of such a wonderful program. She stated the school is very impressive; the young people are getting top education; and it is incredible with state-of-the-art computers and everything that is there. She stated Brevard County must look at that approach of partnerships so it can leverage its dollars; anyone who has not seen it should go there; it is extremely impressive; and that is really the way of the future. She noted since there are no dollars, there should be partnerships.

Mr. Wallace advised the next two issues, year-round and charter schools and the half-cent sales tax, have already been addressed or discussed at a previous workshop, so they did not address those issues because they were to be addressed by representatives of the School Board. He stated that gets to Item #9, which is the question of whether or not exceptional student education support and facilities were included in the impact fee study; and the answer is that they were included in the study; and they used the calculations for exceptional students in the cost calculations. Mr. Wallace stated the last item the Board asked them to look at was a comparison of what other school impact fees were in specific seven counties; they are presented along with the dates of the last update; Orange County’s fee was established in October 1998 and is $2,828; and that fee is being reviewed and updated at this time and is not shown in the table as is the Indian River County fee that they are working on as well.

Chair Higgs inquired if they projected a number for Indian River County; with Mr. Wallace responding no, they are not that far along with the study. Commissioner Carlson inquired what is the average impact fee for Orange County since it is has the $1,500 voluntary contribution and is it $2,828; with Mr. Wallace responding Orange County is assessing at least $1,500 and the average would be in the $4,300 range. He stated they are also using a new methodology to deal with land cost as well as construction costs; that cost of $1,500 could be higher per unit; but the overall average is still close to $4,300. Commissioner Scarborough stated the report skipped Lake County and included Polk County; and inquired if there is a school impact fee in Lake County; with Mr. Wallace responding yes, but he thought the specific six or seven were the counties the Board chose. Commissioner Scarborough stated they use Lake County because it is part of the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council and the Board gets data on Lake County all the time. Mr. Wallace stated he has Lake County’s fee, which is $4,142.

Commissioner Carlson inquired, in terms of the 100%, are all the fees at 100% and have any of them used the methodology Brevard County used in terms of other impact fees where it has used 27% and 1% a year thereafter; with Mr. Wallace responding he knows Polk County’s 100% fee is $3,800; and it is at $1,607 right now; he is not sure about Orange County, but knows that fee is not at 100% because it is going back and re-looking at that right now; and the costs are considerably higher than that. He stated Seminole County’s report is 13 years old; it might have been close to 100% then, but it has other mechanisms for financing so it ha not looked at updating the schools impact fee for a long time. He stated Osceola County is at 100%; and Volusia County has gone to a new fee, but he is not sure whether it is 100% or not. He noted it was approved in April 2004, and they did not do that study. Commissioner Carlson inquired what other avenues does Seminole County have instead of impact fees; with Mr. Wallace responding it has a local option sales tax and renewed it twice; some of that money has gone to schools, but he is not sure exactly what percentage it is; and it has the two mills and other sources as well.

Commissioner Colon stated she heard on the news that one of the counties went up to $7,000; and inquired which one is it and did anyone else see that news item; with Mr. Wallace responding the only one he knows of is Osceola; effective May 1, it is at $9,700; and it is the highest in the State for school impact fee. Commissioner Colon stated they said it was $7,000 and it was one of the neighboring counties, but she is not sure which one. She stated it was not Indian River County. Mr. Wallace inquired if it was multiple impact fee categories or specifically for schools; with Commissioner Colon responding she is not sure. Mr. Wallace stated they will check it out, but the report is the most current information they could provide at this time.

Chair Higgs inquired if that concludes the responses to inquiries made at the Workshop; with Mr. Wallace responding there is another item that is part of Item #5 that relates to the scope of services the Board asked him to provide for other impact fee program areas and updates. He stated they were asked to provide proposals to update several other impact fees, the Parks and Recreation impact fee, develop a Law Enforcement and Government Buildings impact fee, and look at the feasibility of implementing an impact fee for Mosquito Control as well as develop an ordinance package for that. He noted he provided a proposal for the Board’s review and consideration to do all those fees. He stated they can be done as part of initial studies and then at the Board’s discretion, if it wants to implement any of them, they could implement the program areas. He stated the total cost for all those fees, including ordinances, meetings, workshops, etc. is about $130,000; and that includes outside legal firm that they use to draft the ordinances. He stated if the County Attorney or staff was to draft the ordinances, it would reduce the cost by almost $20,000. Chair Higgs requested Mr. Wallace briefly describe the four areas the Board is looking at.

Mr. Wallace advised back in 1999, they did a Parks and Recreation impact fee study, but at that time there was some other funding sources being look at and the Board decided not to move forward with the Parks and Recreation impact fee; and the proposal is to update the technical analysis and review the current funding sources for Parks and rework that study. He stated the Board does not have a Law Enforcement impact fee at the present time, nor a Government Buildings impact fee; a Law Enforcement impact fee would cover the Sheriff’s operations, administration building, and vehicles used in that service to the public. He stated the Government Building impact fee would support future population growth relative to buildings, equipment and vehicles supporting the government functions and can include Animal Control services. He stated there was a comment about looking at an impact fee for Mosquito Control; there is some enabling legislation that needs to be reviewed on that; and there also needs to be a legal review from the perspective of developing the rationale. He stated a dual rationale Nexus test of need and benefit for Mosquito Control and how they would do that would be needed because he is not aware anyone has done Mosquito Control impact fees; so there is a feasibility approach to that study. He stated if the feasibility comes back and says it is feasible and the Board wants to move forward with it, they would finish the technical analysis for Mosquito Control. He noted those are the four areas of impact fees they would look at under the scope; at the Board’s pleasure, they can look at one or all of them or any combination of them or none; but the Board has the scope that defines the technical analysis and approach that they would use to do all four of those studies.

Commissioner Colon inquired if they would strictly be on new construction; with Mr. Wallace responding yes, it is impact fees on new development for consumption of capacity that it creates on public infrastructure, consumption of government buildings square footages that the Board has to provide to support the public, the number of vehicles, and to provide facilities and support for the provision of law enforcement services. He stated the number of acres and parks and equipment that go into parks to support the acre per 1,000 population is documented in the Comprehensive Plan standard that new development would consume when their permits are issued and actual construction is built.

Commissioner Pritchard stated when talking about impact, it is talking about what an individual may do to impact the system; if a family moves into a home, the entire family is going to impact Mosquito Control, Transportation, Recreation, etc.; and inquired if the family is retired and does not have children, where is the impact to the school system. Mr. Wallace stated there is no impact in that case; and they talked about having adequate provisions in the ordinance to exempt specific deed-restricted adult living communities and also have a provision that allows for an independent impact fee calculation to be formed. Mr. Wallace stated if an applicant in a particular development felt the fee was too high or inappropriate, he or she could submit an application for independent analysis and have that reviewed by staff to determine whether the impact fee is appropriate, should be reduced, or should be eliminated. He stated there are always provisions to deal with independent impact fee analysis; that is one of the requirements of a technically-defensible ordinance; and in the specific case Commissioner Pritchard mentioned about schools, there is a provision in the ordinance that exempts senior adult living communities that have been documented on the plat or recorded that way in the Official Records of the County.

Chair Higgs stated adult-living communities can be documented, but for a home purchased by a senior with no children would be more difficult to track. Mr. Wallace stated there may be a senior that moves into a home now, but if the home is sold and is occupied with a family of four with two children in the school system, it would be difficult to track that. Chair Higgs inquired how would they handle that; with Mr. Wallace responding they would not normally handle that unless the person comes in and demonstrates that through a technical calculation and is willing to attach to the condition of interest sale of the home something that would protect the County if the home is sold to a family that has children. He stated they would basically collect an impact fee at the time the home is sold; but there has to be a provision provided in the recording of the sale and purchase of that home if it was purchased by a senior citizen. He stated that would have to be dealt with individually.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the cost per student station was in the $8,000 range; with Mr. Wallace responding in Brevard County he believes it is around $15,000 per student station. Commissioner Pritchard inquired how is the proposed impact fee of $4,450 for a single-family home, and how would it pay the $15,000 cost; with Mr. Wallace responding the single-family home on the average has about .35 student; it goes back to spreading the charge across some homes that have no students and homes that have two or three students; so each home is paying for .35 times that $15,000 to equal the $4,400. He stated that is also a net cost; it is the total cost minus the credits gives the net cost times the student generation rate; so part of the issue of dealing with the single-family home is also covered by the fact the student generation rate they are charging is an average for the County. Mr. Wallace stated the courts have upheld in St. Johns County, a similar test relative to schools and held that they needed to have the provision of an exemption for senior developments in terms of the ordinance and have them not pay the impact fee, but the rest of the fees from a countywide perspective was determined to be legally acceptable. He stated there are a number of ways to protect that issue from the perspective of the average of student generation rate; if the Board wants to look at a more detailed individual case-by-case example, it could do that; but then it is getting into a lot more administrative issues and work from a perspective of tracking that through time. Commissioner Pritchard stated if the impact is the child that becomes school age and a family is living here and later has a child, they have not paid an impact fee; they have paid a tax every year of which over 50% goes towards schools; but that is basically just to have the school system in place and it does not pay for the $15,000 student station. Mr. Wallace stated not all of it, but that is basically correct. Commissioner Pritchard inquired what part is not correct; with Mr. Wallace responding the total cost is actually higher and there is a credit for the amount of money that they pay in taxes that is sued for capital school expansions; so they are paying some of it through their taxes and getting a credit for that by reducing the school impact fee. Commissioner Pritchard stated but it is still $15,000 per student station cost. He stated the reason he is getting to that is the general fairness of an impact fee is that it should be on people who impact a system or service; if they have no children, then there is no impact; and if they have a child now and have an impact, the property tax they paid has covered the cost of operation. He inquired where would be the fairness in not charging someone who lives here who has a child and impacts the school system an impact fee. Mr. Wallace advised the courts have ruled that it is reasonable to use an average countywide student generation rate; and that is an acceptable methodology that is used across the State in calculating that and it is determined to be reasonable. He stated there are provisions in the ordinance to challenge it through an independent calculation, and provisions that exclude adult senior deed-restricted communities as well; so the courts have held, from a school impact fee perspective, that it is an acceptable methodology and practice. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if a family come from out of the County or out of State and moved into an existing home, they would not pay an impact fee; with Mr. Wallace responding that is correct. Commissioner Pritchard stated the methodology proposed also has $2,794 impact for condominium, townhouse, and other attached housing, and $2,667 for manufactured home; he understands that is because there are less children that would reside in a condo or manufactured home than in a single-family home; and inquired if that is correct; with Mr. Wallace responding that is correct, the student generation rates for those two land uses are less than for a single-family residential land use. Commissioner Pritchard stated so the Board could end up with a variety of categories, single-family, multifamily, condominium, manufactured home, no student age 55 community, and the fee could be all over the board and allegedly the fee is based on an impact to the system by having a child that may or may not be living in one of those residences. Mr. Wallace stated the fee is based on a set of average student generation rates by three or four land uses that they recommended for the Board’s use in the fee schedule; and the provisions of exemptions would be covered as a separate provision in the ordinance for senior adult living developments.

Commissioner Colon stated Brevard County is showing close to 800 students coming in per year; and inquired if Mr. Wallace uses those numbers or just base it on what there is now and data from the Census. Commissioner Pritchard stated he would like to clarify the statement; 800 to 1,000 students are not coming into the County every year; they are entering the school system every year; x amount are from people who live here and have children; so it is not 800 to 1,000 who have moved in from some place else. Commissioner Colon stated the number of children in Brevard County is probably more than 800 and closer to 1,500 if they are really going to look at those kinds of numbers; 800 are coming into the school system; and there are more who are not coming to the school system. She stated they were not produced overnight and obviously are coming in; and the School Board is able to show those numbers that 800 new students are coming into Brevard County per year. She stated those numbers were not made up; and inquired if Mr. Wallace is using that data or not; with Mr. Wallace responding they are using data provided by the School Board that shows about 6,200 new student stations over a five-year period need to be constructed to meet the demand in Brevard County, so the 800 may be a little bit on the low side. He stated the numbers they are using in the plan from the School Board is about 6,200 new student stations in a five-year period are needed to keep the utilization rates of the schools at an acceptable level. Commissioner Colon inquired what other communities have Law Enforcement impact fees; with Mr. Wallace responding he does not have the specific communities; there are probably 15 to 20 that have it in the State and about 10 that have government building impact fees; and many more have parks and recreation impact fees. Commissioner Colon stated she speaks for herself and not the Board, but the County recently had a parks and recreation referendum, so that fee should not be considered.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the .35 student number that is put into the formula to calculate the impact fee and come up with a rational nexus that involves spreading the burden is not 100% of any given household, and is that a correct statement; with Mr. Wallace responding yes. Commissioner Carlson described a long-term perspective of the school impact fee, and expressed concern about distributing the cost of the impact throughout the community without exemptions. Mr. Wallace stated every time they do impact fee studies they use the census because it is the most complete set of information about the profile of people; it is a snapshot in time that tells them exactly what was described as occurring to the population over time; and that is why it is a representative picture of the .35 student per household, as some of those households have no children and some have four children. He stated that changes over time, but it is the best picture that they have of a profile of student generation. Commissioner Carlson inquired if that is the fairest way to distribute the impact; with Mr. Wallace responding yes, and it has been upheld from a technical perspective.

Mr. Wallace advised he wants to clarify something for Commissioner Pritchard; the total impact cost per student is $15,800; the credit is $3,100; so the nexus cost per student is $12,701. He stated he wanted to make sure those numbers were on there because he thinks he mentioned it was $15,000 and that included the credit; that does not include the credit; and he wanted to make sure the Board knew the net cost per student station is about $12,700 and that includes the credit.

INPUT FROM MUNICIPALITIES, RE: IMPACT FEES

Mayor Bob Willmarth of West Melbourne advised the City Council adopted a Resolution on April 20, 2004 supporting the concept of a school impact fee, and read the Resolution. He stated when people build houses, they are building nests; they will last perhaps 100 years and have several families living in them; and some of the costs of operating the schools are going to be captured by the ad valorem portion of the property tax. He stated West Melbourne has a historical aversion to taxes of any type; its citizens have recognized the significance and need for taxing certain issues; and they supported the imposition of the $36 per unit stormwater utility fee, and voted in favor of the South District Recreation fee the County proposed because they could identify there was a benefit. He stated the City’s citizens advisory board has considered this issue and said yes it is appropriate to tax citizens to pay for the benefits they receive. Mayor Willmarth stated Dr. Freedman, one of his favorite economists has a favorite tenet, which is, “there ain’t no free lunch”; the cities would love to have the scope and character of Lake Nona; however, he does not think it will happen in their vicinity because it is too large a tract and the scale of development far exceeds what they are seeing. He stated they are happy with what they have; they are making beautiful homes; the costs are rising steadily which increases the amount of dollars available under the two mill capital construction tax that the School Board has control over; but it is obvious, judging by the number of students in existing schools that it is not generating enough. He stated had they imposed an impact fee ten years ago, they would have had 1.5 schools generated by West Melbourne development in that time; and if they wait longer, they will miss out on even more; so his conclusion is to urge the Board to adopt the recommendation. He stated he supports the imposition of the school impact fee.

Assistant City Manager David Henderson, City of Rockledge, advised the City has not taken an official stand on the issue yet, but he thinks the Board will find that the City is in favor of the impact fees. He stated one question they have is how will it be implemented pursuant to existing needs that the community has already identified through the sales tax issues. He stated there are a lot of existing schools that have deficiencies that need to be corrected; and they would like to see some measure that would provide for those improvements as well as new schools. He stated he would like some input perhaps that impact fees can be charged to new or homestead purchasers who make the impact as opposed to a resident who upgrades his home but lives in Brevard County. Mr. Henderson stated the Parks and Recreation impact fee concerns him; there are five recreation districts each funded by the Board with different kinds of fee structures; and he is concerned that the fee might need to be spread among the districts where one would not get a significant amount of money while others that do not have much growth would get very little if any.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the point Mr. Henderson brought up is where he has been trying to go with all he has said for most of the day; it is always fairness to him; and Mr. Henderson mentioned a family living here with children and if they move into a new house they are going to pay an impact fee. He stated the assumption is people will move into the house they are vacating and may or may not have children; therefore the impact fee has been paid and that is why those folks do not need to pay the fee because the ones leading the charge have paid impact fees on every home they move into. Mr. Henderson stated that is true, it is unfair; he has no problem with impact fees; Rockledge has used them for years for its sewer plant; and every time a new home is built it creates an impact to the sewer system. He stated with a school impact fee, considering the size of it, people change residences two or three times in a 15-year period trying to upgrade and have to pay significant amounts of impact fees; and their children by that time may be out of the school system and no longer are an impact.

Chair Higgs inquired how does that differ from the sewer impact fee because every new house built creates a sewer impact; with Mr. Henderson responding every time a home is built they do not necessarily use up the capacity of the school system; so he appreciates the Board using the .35 student station figure, which is a fair number. He stated they all have an obligation to provide education; he does not think it is unreasonable to have an individual pay impact fees multiple times when they already homestead; the County can create that fee revenue by the closing; and they have to pay the fee if they are not homesteaded.

Commissioner Carlson inquired how can Mr. Henderson qualify that comment if impact fees for schools were not in place and families moved in and did not get charged an impact fee and decided to upgrade and build new homes. Mr. Henderson stated it is a personal opinion that people create impact if they are new residents or non-homesteaded residents of Brevard County; if he is already here, he has already create the impact; and there is no additional impact by his being in the County.

Mayor John Buckley, City of Melbourne, advised on April 6 Commissioner Colon brought the City Managers and Mayors together to discuss whether or not they endorse the impact fees; on Tuesday night of this week, the City Council passed Resolution No. 1877; and he will give the Board a copy when he is done. He stated he would like the Board to consider one thing; they recommend it do the impact fee based on the study that was conducted and using the same numbers. He stated he would also like the Board to consider an exemption for Habitat for Humanity because the impact fee would exceed nearly 10% of the cost of the house.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired why should Habitat for Humanity be exempt; with Mayor Buckley responding because it is a group of volunteers working together and donating time to build houses, and the impact fee would be an imposition. He stated those houses are being built by churches and other fraternal organizations. Commissioner Pritchard stated the impact would be there if they have a child in the house; with Mayor Buckley responding that could be, but he thinks that is one area that should be exempt. Commissioner Pritchard inquired how many other areas are there, as the Board could be splitting many hairs over this issue; with Mayor Buckley responding he is only asking for one, as the work they do deserve it. Commissioner Pritchard inquired would Habitat also be exempt from any other impact fees; with Mayor Buckley responding no. Commissioner Pritchard inquired then why should it be exempt from the school impact fee if they have children; with Mayor Buckley responding he personally believes it is an item that should be done for Habitat for Humanity.

Jack Schluckebier, City Manager of Melbourne, thanked the Board for undertaking the review and analysis of studying the impact fees; and advised the Mayor indicated that City Council unanimously endorses it and will pass a resolution this week. He stated Brevard County is the only county in the various counties looked at that does not at this time have a school impact fee; and it is also in an exclusive class because it is the only county that does not support its schools from a portion of the sales tax. He stated that fact is not going to change, but the absence of that money, when one looks at surrounding counties, is notable; and it is a significant amount of money that the sales tax of surrounding counties pay to support their school infrastructure. Mr. Schluckebier stated he does not know if the Board tasked its consultant with looking at that, but in Orange County, the sales tax contributes almost $10 million a month for new schools; and in comparison with surrounding counties, Volusia has a half cent for 15 years, Orange has a half cent for 13 years, Polk has a half cent that just began this year, and Seminole has a quarter cent for ten years. He stated surrounding counties are paying part of their sales taxes in the tens of millions of dollars per year to schools; that revenue is not available in Brevard County; so when comparing the amount of impact fees, it is an unfair comparison with other counties that have those other sources.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he came out against the sales tax because it was inappropriate and had too many extraneous things; he kept saying if it was for education, transportation, and incarceration, it would pass because that is what people would support; and inquired what would Mr. Schluckebier think of a one-cent sales tax for ten years to support only those three items with a caveat that the percent of General Fund and capital improvement money that currently goes into those areas would remain the same. He stated he does not want to see a big switch like they see with the lottery, license tax, and everything else; if 20% of the money goes into incarceration, then that 20% should be maintained in the future ten years; and he wants to make sure the one cent sales tax for ten years would be used appropriately for what the Board said it would be used for and not to offset other programs. Mr. Schluckebier stated other counties have done it and some have reenacted the sales tax because they used it for the reasons it was sold to the public for; and that is so important. He stated the Board can vote now, but someone may or may not do something in the future; that is one piece of it; and the other piece is the clientele that would work to get the sales tax information out. He stated everyone here might have known about the needs; but November showed that was not the case. He stated it would be ludicrous to go with a sales tax proposal until all other possibilities for loading infrastructure on new development have been examined. He noted an important piece heard in November was without impact fees why should the general public pay for it. Commissioner Pritchard stated another way of raising money is the local option gas tax; he is not advocating it, but the ninth cent comes to the County; it is a way of distributing costs throughout the community and having tourists help pay for those things; and in combination with a modest impact fee, it would be more along the line of fairness. Mr. Schluckebier stated someone with no children that buys a house, and someone moving across town that has children and are already here should have to pay because the impact of growth is not a nose-counting exercise; the law does not allow a nose-counting exercise, so that idea has to be dismissed; and they have to use what the law provides as reasonable and appropriate. Commissioner Pritchard stated most people are not opposed to something if someone else pays for it. Mr. Schluckebier inquired what is an appropriate mix of taxes and impact fees.

Commissioner Carlson stated credit can be put against the impact fee if the sales tax comes through; and it can be re-addressed or lessened. She stated Mr. Schluckebier made a good point comparing Brevard County with other counties because it does not have the assets because people said they are not going to take the burden and wants the impact where it is occurring, which is in growth.

Commissioner Pritchard stated Dr. Hank Fishkind did a report from Sarasota County yesterday; its break-even point on construction is about $300,000; and he said in Brevard County it is about $190,000. He stated one of his slides says existing development does not pay for itself; the current infrastructure is not paying for what the needs are, let along what the impact of new development does; so the Board is shortchanging the County and is asking somebody else who moves in to pay the freight on things it is not currently paying for. Chair Higgs responded no, impact fees are not for deficiencies and would be against the law to do that; and maybe Mr. Wallace could explain that. Commissioner Pritchard stated he knows that, but what he is saying is that the Board is currently not funding within its own entities the infrastructure problems that it has; it is not paying for it; so things are not getting done yet it expects the new guy to pay a full shot on something and pay for whatever his impact is while it is not doing its share. He inquired how is the Board going to upgrade the current facilities without a method to generate more revenue or some sort of cost saving program that will enhance what it should be doing instead of what it is doing. Commissioner Carlson stated it is hard to make up for the last ten years or so that it had not applied impact fees, so it is paying for that now; that is why there is discrepancies and lack of equity; but they have to start somewhere, and that is why everybody is trying to say.

Mayor Gene Newberry, Indian Harbour Beach, advised the City Council unanimously adopted a Resolution supporting adoption of a countywide school impact fee on April 13.

Commissioner Carlson stated Indian Harbour Beach is not a big place; and inquired if it is built out or expects new households; with Mayor Newberry responding they have one multifamily preliminary design; some of the older areas are probably going to turn around; and they have seen a lot of rebuilding in the same footprints.

Commissioner Colon stated some things she learned in the Summit is that cities and the County need better communication; as she mentioned before, she meets with the city managers of the cities in District 5, Melbourne, West Melbourne, Indian Harbour Beach, and Palm Bay; and they recently they recently did a follow-up of the mission and Summit to communicate. She stated they had the School Board member from her District and mayors and city managers; and she put that challenge to her fellow Commissioners to get feedback from the cities in their Districts.

The meeting recessed at 10:19 a.m., and reconvened at 10:35 a.m.

Commissioner Scarborough advised Bob Willmarth is not only the Mayor of West Melbourne but is in the real estate business and talked about the differential in value of neighborhoods that feed into better and lesser schools; and requested he share his experience with the Board.

Mayor Willmarth advised it was two years ago when he was preparing the price differentials of neighborhoods; and the conclusion he came to is that people wanted to be in the district that had attractive schools and paid the $20,000 differential to live in what is perceived as being the better District. He stated he has not done it in the last several years, but that was the conclusion he came to.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he has seen the same situation in Titusville area where realtors say it affects the value of all homes not just those that have school-age children.

Mayor Willmarth stated the impact fee is not an out-of-pocket cost because when a person sells the house, he or she gets it back with interest because the value of the house has gone up; so the person who moves multiple times pays the fee, but also recovers it each time he or she moves. Commissioner Pritchard stated he does not quite follow that line. Mayor Willmarth stated the person gets it back with interest. Commissioner Pritchard stated it becomes part of the mortgage so it is a wash.

PUBLIC COMMENTS, RE: IMPACT FEES

Thomas Morris of Palm Bay inquired if school overcrowding is directly impacted by new homes, how does a widow or retirees without children impact the schools, and why are people with three children moving here from New York and buying existing homes not paying any impact fee, only those who buy new houses. He stated that is penalizing new construction. He stated he has moved three or four times in Brevard County, and has five children; and inquired why does he have to pay the fee three or four times. He stated he does not see the fairness in that when the person who buys his house does not pay it. He stated his house should go up in value; that is the purpose of buying a house; and there is no stereotype homebuyer. He stated only one-third of people buying new homes have children; and inquired why are the other two-thirds being penalized for it. He inquired what is the Board going to do when new home sales drop and existing homes skyrocket in price, and the impact fee does not cover the cost of building new schools. He stated there is no way the impact fee can do it alone; impact fees are to be paid by people who impact the area and schools; and anything that is sold impacts the area whether it is a person moving here or an existing resident moving into a different area. Mr. Morris stated there has to be a better way to support the schools; he has five children and is concerned about the school system; and there should be another way to get recurring revenue that is not tied to the sale of new homes. He stated if new home sales slow down, the County would get less money for schools unless the Board looks at it again and raises it. He inquired why not use a tax millage; and stated if that is constant and there are more homes being built, that would mean more money. He inquired why not have a half-cent sales tax, and why not have year-round schooling that has worked in other areas. He stated there is no proven record that just impact fees helped any area with schools; taxes have helped and year-round schools have helped; and he feels the Board is penalizing the construction industry. He inquired why it is not penalizing the doctors who deliver the babies as the children are impacting the schools; the more children living in the area, the more will go to school; and it is up to the people to make sure schools are done properly and well. He stated it is not the job of people who buy new homes to make sure the schools are done well because only one-third of them have children.

Heather Calligan of Titusville, representing Seasons in the Sun, advised she has property in North Brevard and has been working with the Planning and Zoning Office to rezone her property; she has been working within the limits of the Future Growth Management Plan and previously received approval for 167 sites for what they classified as RVP destination; and she went to change it to 167 residential sites but was told it would be an increase, therefore the school impact has to be addressed. She stated the zoning map shows the allowable density of four and ten units per acre in the area where her property is located; she is requesting 167 sites, which is 2.11 units per acre; and she understands, after contacting the School Board, that schools in the area have been impacted for over five years. Ms. Calligan stated other than turning the area into a 55 and over senior community, she would like to know what her options are; she is very frustrated over it; it is a rural area; and she would like to get clear direction on options and information of how she can address the school impact matter and be able to do what she intended to do with her property. She inquired until a plan is put place and is effective, is there any option for her other than turning it into a community for elderly people.

Chair Higgs inquired if Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott can address the issue; with Mr. Scott responding he would need to research the property. Chair Higgs advised Ms. Calligan to meet with Mr. Scott, and if necessary, to bring it back to the Board.

Glenda Busick of Melbourne, presented documents to the Board, but not the Clerk; and stated she supports countywide school impact fees with no exemptions except what the consultant recommended. She stated if there was a school impact fee on new construction in 2002, there would have been $26 million for schools; there were 4,900 single-family housing permits and 1,600 multifamily permits in 2002; and Palm Bay has either been first or second in construction permits for many years. She stated she has been involved in trying to analyze how the 15 cities work with the County; and her conclusion is typically they do not. She stated today it is great to see West Melbourne, Melbourne, and Indian Harbour Beach come and support the school impact fee; they do not know where Titusville stands on it; and on April 22 Palm Bay voted not to support the adoption of a school impact fee. Ms. Busick stated Pat Woodard, Donna Brooks, and Andy Anderson voted not to support it, and Mayor Mazzarotti and Vice Mayor Green voted to support it. She stated the City of Palm Bay wants to annex 3,600 acres so it can get all the land and do not have to repair the roads or take care of the drainage, but it will get the property taxes and new construction dollars; they are telling the Board they do not support school impact fees; that is horrific and unbelievable; and that means developers and builders who rape and pillage are going to run to Palm Bay and build even more because they will not have to pay a school impact fee. She inquired if there is a way, since Brevard County is a charter county, if the Board can amend the Charter to say the cities have to accept the school impact fee. She stated she is upset that they have not heard from Titusville; the citizens are all in this together; someone mentioned a nest; and as she sees it, some of those developers spoiled their nest and are coming here to spoil our nest. Ms. Busick stated Brevard County does not have adequate roads, jail, courthouses, firemen, policemen, and sheriff’s cars, etc.; it has to start somewhere and cannot go back and get the ten years of impact fees that it should have had and a bunch of services that are impacted by new growth; so she agrees with the Board on the impact fees. She stated she has been attending the Charter Commission meetings and the cities are not coming to the table to work with the County, but they write letters to the Charter Commission; and a letter from the Brevard County Public Managers Association President A. J. Hudson said there is no need for them to ask for amendments to the Charter to say if they annex land they get the roads and drainage. She stated the Board heard that dialogue between the County and cities is working well; that is a laugh; Palm Bay did not come to the Board about the annexation; it had to read it in the newspaper; and there is no JPA in Titusville on infrastructure problems; and the cities are trying to intimidate the Charter Commission. She stated Mr. Gougelman wrote a letter to the Commission saying it cannot put amendments in the Charter that affect the cities; the people need somebody to stand up for the taxpayers of Brevard County against developers and builders and to put impact fees in place for infrastructure.

Walter Pine stated historically impact fees have always been for nonrecurring infrastructure costs; infrastructure passed by vote of local residents are paid for by taxes little bit by little bit; and that is what proper management is about. He stated improper management and the use of impact fees for the community is because they need more money since they did not properly manage in the first place; and saying other counties did it without providing an explanation of what they need it for and why the current taxes do not cover it is completely misdirection. He stated historically impact fees were used to make up the difference in infrastructure costs when people moved into a community and not when children grow up or a family moves from one house to another. He stated the Board is supposed to be managing the community; it does not mean when it gets the taxes it is supposed to be paying for future infrastructure cost; and inquired if the Board is telling him the School Board did not properly manage its money and plan for future costs and did not properly justify the taxes, and where is that information. He stated impact fees are intended to bring people who come into the community up to the same level of investment into infrastructure as though they were here for many years; poor planning is not a reason for additional taxes; and that includes impact fees. He stated the excessive use by other counties for justification is deplorable; and requested the Board tell them and show them why the current taxes are not sufficient and show them the numbers. Mr. Pine stated the Board is talking about giving impact fees to the School Board that would probably be investigated for misappropriation of federal funds; and inquired where does the Board’s responsibility lay and does it have the responsibility to insure money is spent appropriately. He stated if the Board is going to impose an impact fee, it should attach a proviso that 100% financial and internal control audit by an independent auditor be required; if they find no significant waste, okay; and if they find significant waste, they should clean up their backyard before they starting taking the money. He stated the impact fees the Board is considering cover a wide range, including Mosquito Control; and inquired where are the numbers that show the needs of Mosquito Control. He stated he sees no real justification for any of the fees except that they say they have more of this and more of that; and that is anecdotal. He stated government spending should cover current infrastructure, maintenance, and future growth from the current population of the community; if they need additional taxes to do that, then they should justify it to the community; and if the community says no, then they should tighten their belt and not try and twist it around and make it an impact fee. He stated misappropriation must be solved first; waste must be solved first; and before they approve any tax, the Board needs to make sure it is spending the money it currently gets in a most efficient and useful manner possible. He stated the School Board is not doing that; so as far as the school impact fee goes, they do not know a reasonable justification for that until the School Board cleans up its back yard. He stated if the Board ne3eds that, it can find it in the records.

Bruce Wechsler of Palm Bay, representing the Libertarian Party of Brevard, advised he has to clarify some things about why the City Council of Palm Bay said no to the school impact fee. He stated with the growth in Palm Bay, it has been funding the school system for a long time; even today new schools are being built in Viera; there is a much lower percentage of school-age children in Palm Bay; and it is growing faster because low level priced homes are being built that will have a greater negative economic impact than any where else in the County. He noted that is the reason the City Council voted against this and does not feel it ever got a fair deal in regard to schools. He stated someone said Milton Freedman said there is no free lunch; he is a Libertarian who believes that users should pay for what they use and the free market is the way to take care of it. He stated 55-plus communities do not have impact on schools; they are going on the concept that schools are good for society therefore it is our responsibility to pay no matter what age; so to take an exemption is illogical. He stated if the Board is going to do something like this, everybody should pay. Mr. Wechsler stated when Palm Bay annexes areas it should pay for the roads, whether developers are doing it or they are paying for the sewer and water; that is the reason Palm Bay takes the burden off the County; so the Board should get it straight how that will work. He stated on July 23, 2003, the Board proposed a sales tax; it is not going to happen again; they are looking at it as a tax because the Board has not done what they asked it to do when it proposed the sales tax; and that is to show the people what it is doing with the money now. He stated the same thing holds true for the School Board; if one looks at the figures given and the cost of building in the areas that have imposed the impact fee, for some reason the cost per station goes up; and as Mr. Pine said, if one gives government money, it will waste it; so the idea of adding the impact fee will only raise the cost of everything that the School Board has done and the School Board has yet to justify its numbers. He stated contrary to the number of new students a year, the five-year period from 1997 through 2001 was 437 students; that does not justified the numbers, as the average increase in student population is .78%; and the sale of homes from $128,000 to $151,000 pays the two mills, so there is a lot of money coming in from that for schools if the School Board is managing it correctly. He stated if the Board will show them how it is using the money, give them the information, then they might look at something, a limited specific tax perhaps, to address a specific problem.

Dale Young of Melbourne stated the thought is shared by a lot of people in the County that people who come here from out-of-state get a free ride; that could not be farther from the truth; the School Board right now is getting $15 million a year; and everybody who comes here will pay for the $32 million a year for nice schools. He stated Ms. Busick mentioned impact fee income from the year 2002 would have been in excess of $25 million; it was said they get 800 new students per year; and that times five is $4 million times $15,000 is $60 million; so a couple of numbers have been jockeyed around a little bit. He stated Osceola County is up there with Dade, Orange, and Hillsborough Counties in debt load; if Brevard County works on it, it can catch up; and some areas that it heard from today are built out and will not feel the impact. Mr. Young stated he does not see a connection between the impact fee and quality of schools; it has not happened to date; and he does not think it will happen in the future. He stated impact fees cannot be bonded; and if the Board works on it, it will find a way just as it has done for other things. He stated maybe funding shuffling before years are over; and inquired when was the last time Brevard County built a road.

Joseph DeLancey of Titusville stated 32 years ago the Titusville City Council transferred $100,000 each year out of the utility account to the general fund account; the reason was to get re-elected each year by telling the public it kept the taxes down; and they could raise the utility rates for chemicals, insurance, etc. He stated that got him motivated to finding out what is going on here. He stated when he first came to Titusville, they took the trash to Park Avenue and Country Club Drive, which was the County dump; subsequently a developer bought the landfill and paid $5,000 an acre he heard; and he ended up selling it at $45,000 per quarter acre lot, which is $180,000 an acre, and invested $30,000 into it. He stated they paid $10 to hook into the water and sewer system and in exchange they got about $1,000 of water and sewer service for that $10. Mr. DeLancey stated in 1972 he was elected to the City Council; and the first thing that hit him was the four motels on I-95 and SR 50; in those motels 660 rooms were getting $2.5 million plus; he raised such a stink about it that the Council and people came back and said they would give the City $28,000. He stated he voted against his own proposal because what the Council did was to say if they run the line to their property they do not have to pay their water bill for the next ten years; that is on the public record; and that is exactly what the Council did. He stated he got involved and he, the City Attorney and the accountant wrote the first ordinance in the State on impact fees; he took the equity concept; the property the Board is sitting on owns all the infrastructure; it is it6s equitable investment; and if he bought a house today and moved out tomorrow and a family with 12 children moved in, the equity of the house stays with the house. He stated that is the same equity that he wants the Board to consider; that is what he is looking at today for it to do; and an equitable investment is a capital expenditure and increases the value of property. He stated on this subject, what he said about values he has been through it for 30 years; he tried to get Dr. Williams to adopt one for the School Board; he said it was a good idea, but had no way to collect it and had to go to the Board of County Commissioners; and they did not like the Board of County Commissioners. He stated 15 years later he talked to Pat Manning at a meeting and asked why she does not get involve with the impact fee for schools; her words were there are three people on the School Board that control it and they would not do anything she would want to do. He stated he would like to discuss the issues of impact fees and all the ramifications with each Commissioner.

Fran Wales of Palm Bay advised she was an elected official and worked hard to get a new high school in Palm Bay; it has been a long route; she went through high school in Florida and has two children who went through the school system; and she has lived here over 30 years and her husband has been a builder for over 30 years. She stated she is for reasonable and fair impact fees; and if the Board is going to do it, it needs to do it right. She stated Brevard County needs the half cent sales tax for a fixed number of years and after the years are up, it needs to be reviewed; and if the Board is going to do an impact fee, it should be with no exemptions for adult communities and no lesser rates for manufactured homes. Ms. Wales stated everyone benefits from a good educational system; all the homes are worth more in an area where it is known to have a good educational system; they have a better quality of life and better quality of service in those communities; so it is something they all benefit from. She stated to say one group will not have to pay and another group will pay less is why they are in a mess now; they have used the argument that they cannot charge seniors because their children are grown; but they forget to be told it is cheaper to educate children so they can get a job rather than supporting them and their children because they were not given a good education. She stated the Board needs to step up to the plate and do it right; and at the same time, the School Board needs to provide the community with better accountability of how it is spending the taxpayers money. Ms. Wales stated she remembers doing school inspections to see how clean they were; they walked into the restrooms and saw a whole bank of sinks ripped off the wall; that is no excuse; and there is accountability lacking some times in the school system when it comes to how they are spending the money. She stated when designers came to show the different designs for Palm Bay High School, she sat through all the presentations; what shocked her was no School Board member was there; and that is a sad commentary. She stated it is a sad commentary today that the Board is discussing an issue that is so important to the people and there is no School Board member here, which surprises her; and it is discouraging to see that. She stated they need to hear what the community has to say; and encouraged the Board to proceed with the impact fee in a fair and reasonable manner. She stated they need the half cent sales tax; other communities have stepped up to the plate and fund their educational systems; Brevard County needs to do it; and if it is presented to the community properly with no other items, just the half cent for the schools, they will support it because they will all benefit and reap the rewards.

Linda Lynch of Melbourne, President of Suntree Estates and a board member of Citizens for Responsible Growth, advised she is here as a resident of Brevard County and was involved in the recent school redistricting and watched the communities turn against each other and children being displaced by children from new developments, so she is in full support of a school impact fee. She stated schools and growth need to be coordinated; impact fees will not solve the problem; and Commissioners and School Board members should work together.

BOARD DISCUSSION, RE: IMPACT FEES

Chair Higgs advised that concludes the public speakers; the discussion will come back to the Board; and inquired what further action does the Board want to take in regard to the school impact fee.

Commissioner Scarborough stated this is going to be a very dynamic discussion; in moving forward the Board needs to advertise and structure it in a broad sense with a degree of flexibility to move as it further defines the issues from the public comments; and inquired how would Mr. Knox suggest the Board do that. County Attorney Scott Knox inquired if there is a specific issue Commissioner Scarborough is concerned about, such as if it can be countywide; with Commissioner Scarborough responding there is the issue of how to handle 55 and over communities, affordable housing, etc.; the Board understands the ability to own a home is one of the most important things this country offers; but by the same token, it recognizes the need for quality education. He stated mixing and blending may end up with different combinations and thoughts that have not been expressed. Mr. Knox stated the simple way to do it is to go forward with an ordinance that has a title broad enough to allow the Board the flexibility to change things as it goes along. He stated the kinds of things Commissioner Scarborough mentioned would be advertised under the heading of exemptions; the Board would not have to specify what they are; but it could include the term in the title so it knows there are exemptions. He stated perhaps alternative language could be incorporated; and by doing that, there will be something for the community to comment on.

Chair Higgs inquired if Commissioner Scarborough is looking at alternatives in regard to countywide or district, exemptions, and including affordable housing and over 55 communities; with Commissioner Scarborough responding those exemptions have been discussed and merit further discussion. Mr. Knox advised as to the countywide issue, the Board indicated before that cities cannot opt out of a countywide ordinance; but the fact is that the courts have held that it must impose this fee countywide otherwise it is not a valid ordinance, so there is no issue about it being countywide. Chair Higgs stated she understands that, but what she was talking about is that there are impact fee districts regarding transportation; and the question is whether or not the Board wants a countywide impact fee district. Commissioner Scarborough stated he was just limiting it to the school impact fee issue because that is separate in its philosophy. Chair Higgs stated the first step is to discuss whether or not to move forward with the school impact fee. Commissioner Scarborough stated he would like to move it forward with the highest degree of flexibility to encourage dialogue in the community as to the component parts that are being discussed.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to direct the County Attorney to prepare an ordinance establishing a school impact fee at the maximum level, with the highest degree of flexibility to encourage dialogue in the community as to its components, and incorporate alternative language regarding 55 and over communities, affordable housing, equity issues, etc. and advertise it for a public hearing with the title broad enough to consider amendments.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if it is to prepare the ordinance and bring it back or advertise it; with Commissioner Scarborough responding advertise it and incorporate alternative language and as they get to the different components to actually encourage comments because a lot of times they get to a person who says well that is what the Board is talking about; they have run into some problems with that; so it should engage in a dialogue. Commissioner Carlson stated she does not know if it would be better to provide a vanilla ordinance with options on the side that could be incorporated; and inquired if Mr. Knox has a comment on that. She stated if it gets into the vanilla version of the maximum amount, not opt out, no exemptions, and other parts, as far as advertisement, it could say those are possible issues that the public can comment on. Commissioner Scarborough stated he wants the ordinance to incorporate alternatives, whether the Board has to look at three separate ordinances, because specific language in the ordinance has some means of extracting better comments and ideas. Mr. Knox inquired who does the Board want to do the ordinance, County staff, the consultant, or his office; with Commissioner Scarborough responding before doing that, he wants to know if it is acceptable with the Board. Commissioner Carlson stated she has a question for the consultant; and inquired if they can sculpt an ordinance with that kind of flexibility Commissioner Scarborough is talking about. Mr. Scott stated the Board should first discuss if it would like to hire Tindale-Oliver to perform that duty or have it done in-house, as they were hired only to bring the concept of fees to the Board. Chair Higgs inquired if staff has developed this type of ordinance; with Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca responding the attorney will be doing it ultimately.

Chair Higgs inquired if staff is able to do it in-house; with Mr. Knox responding they can do it in-house, but the question is does the Board want them to do it or want the consultant to do it.

Commissioner Scarborough amended the motion to include to be done in-house with the assistance of the consultant.

Ms. Busacca stated the Board does not have a contract to do that; with Commissioner Scarborough responding that is why it is best to take the motion separately, but if the Board wants to incorporate it with an amendment to the Contract to assist the County Attorney because they have certain expertise, that would be fine.

Commissioner Colon stated she talked about what are some of the things the School Board is going to do and seasonal schools; they did not know what she meant by seasonal schools; it is different from year-round schools; and it seems to be working in other communities. She stated impact fees are needed for the Board to do its share; but it should consider the effect it will have on the communities in the unincorporated area. She stated she was told they cannot exempt municipalities; and she was disappointed when she had phone calls from elected officials who were willing for the Board to raise the fee to $8,000, but were not willing to do their share. She stated when she votes for a certain development, she needs to do her share because she has caused that impact to the school capacity; it is commendable that some of the cities did come and say they would support it; the Board is willing to do its part; but if the impact fee is too high, it concerns her even though she supports the school impact fee. Commissioner Colon stated she does not think the Commissioners’ philosophies are going to be clear on how much the fee should be; she supports the school impact fee 100% and will not waiver her vote in regards to how she feels about something; but $4,445 is too high in her view, and she will not support that amount. She stated the community is beautiful because of affordability; folks who are coming to Brevard County should pay their fair share; but it should be a fair amount. She advised her family came here and had the opportunity to be part of the County; and the Board should allow other folks to have something affordable. She stated if the Board feels $4,500 is the right price, she will not debate it, but she will not support that amount even though she feels a school impact fee must be put in place. She stated the Board should not try to make up for the years of not having an impact fee for schools even though the numbers prove that is not what it is doing; but that number is alarming for a community where 800 students are coming into the school system per year. She stated other communities have sales tax and impact fees that support schools; Brevard County has none of that; and one of the things that has been talked about is how it is illegal to go into a nose-counting exercise. She stated she wants everyone to know where she stands in regards to this issue; and as of this workshop, nothing is going to change from that. She stated the school impact fee is needed, but she cannot support the amount; and she wants to be on record stating that.

Commissioner Scarborough stated this is a workshop and people are making comments, but the actual legal requirement is a public hearing on the ordinance and a vote on an ordinance in the format recommended. He stated the Board cannot go too far in defining what it is going to do at this step of the procedure because it would be doing something that is inappropriate and would be advertising a public hearing without saying it will listen and care about what people say. He stated he heard what Commissioner Colon said and appreciates her view, but procedurally the Board has to proceed with an open mind; and he wants to let the public know that is where the Board is.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he did not come to the meeting today with the intent of making any type of vote, but came to gather information, bring it back so the Board can discuss it based on additional questions it is going to have; and some of the points that have been brought up deal with the fairness issue. He stated Ms. Wales brought up the point that not only does Brevard County not have an impact fee, but it does not have a sales tax component that would help pay for the deficiencies caused by not having the additional fees over those years. He stated tax is not a popular thing; to hear that from him is a surprise; but the point is how is the Board going to pay for those things. He stated someone else brought up the point of how is the money being spent; he would like to know that and has not gotten any good answers about it; the School Board told him it does not have enough money to do things; but he did not get a good feel about how well the School Board is spending the money it does have. Commissioner Pritchard stated he has been talking about multi-tracking year-round education; some of the reports he received on that speak favorably; and they said enrollment in existing schools can be increased by one-third or alternatively, the current class size can be reduced. He stated a Minnesota study says, “moreover, money which would have been otherwise spent on construction of new schools may be utilized to pay additional salaries to teachers who elect to extend their contracts on the multi-track year-round schedule. Due to the frequency of breaks on the year-round calendar, teachers exhibit improved morale and motivation and less burn out and street. The biggest resistance to year-round schools comes from fear of change.” He stated another report he has says, “The major problem with such a significant change is parent and student dissatisfaction.” He stated that is like the tail wagging the dog; but the question is how can they provide the best at a reasonable amount of money. He stated he heard from teachers that they would like to be paid more; and he does not disagree with that; he did a comparison of teachers’ salaries compared to County employees, number of days worked, number of days off, etc. and found if a teacher was on a 12-month contract with time off similar to a County employee, that teacher would make from $7,000 to $11,000 a year more; so it is a way to increase their salaries without them having to seek part-time summer employment. Commissioner Pritchard stated a multi-tracking system will get more for the buck; the teachers will benefit; and he does not buy into the argument of how can they provide maintenance on the schools because it can be done the way any business does it, after hours and on weekends. He noted they do not close down the Holiday Inn to perform maintenance on it; five sinks torn off the wall in the restroom is ridiculous; years ago the Mayor of New York City was trying to say graffiti on the subway walls was an art form; and when Mayor Juliani came in office, he cleaned it up and threw the people who were doing it in jail. He stated the Board should not just accept something as standard; if it does not have a good standard, it makes another one; so what it is look at is a combination of things, i.e., where is growth coming from, is it from within, is it from without, etc. He stated Mel Scott’s analogy shows a net result, but what it does not factor in is births; there were 4,800 births in 2002, 4,700 in 2001, 5,000 in 2000; one cannot look at that analysis and say every one of those births died because they did not; they impacted the schools; and looking at an analogy on the number of impacts to schools on the birth part, there is a significant impact. Commissioner Pritchard stated some studies he read said 60% of the school impact comes from within; in Broward County, an article said they found that 70% of all home purchasers do not have children; so if 70% of new home purchasers do not have children, and 60% of the growth comes from within, the Board is looking to have someone else pay for the deficiencies; and inquired where is the fairness. He inquired if it is going to be implementing a half-cent or one-cent sales tax specifically designed for infrastructure problems that the Board created as well as a modest impact fee for the newcomers. He noted those are some of the questions he would like answers to at the next meeting.

Chair Higgs stated the migration data says 1.5% natural increase is the difference between the number of births and the number of deaths; and that is what she thought she read in terms of migration. Commissioner Pritchard stated the total births from 1995 to 2000 were 28,646; the deaths were 28,190; that gives a net growth of 456; and one cannot take that and compare it to the County influx of 31,238 during that same period, subtract 456 and say that is what the net increase is because the 28,646 is the impact not a net growth. He stated 28,646 births did not die; so they cannot subtract the deaths from the births unless they are trying to show a net growth; and a majority of the 28,646 births impacted the school system. Chair Higgs stated they subtracted the number of people who died and that was their net figure; with Commissioner Pritchard stated they were talking about migration and not impact, which is a big difference.

Chair Higgs inquired if there is further discussion on the motion to direct staff to develop an ordinance, use the consultant to assist in that, the County Attorney draft it with flexibility, and advertise the public hearing.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if it would be advertised at the maximum amount or is that door going to be left open; with Commissioner Scarborough responding it should be advertised at the maximum amount to let people know where a negative issue can go, otherwise it may have to go back and be re-advertised. Commissioner Carlson stated she does not have a problem, but if the Board goes with the vanilla thing and no opportunities for exemptions, it would be the worst case scenario, but there should be some options. Commissioner Scarborough stated he heard both sides of the issue; but if the Board designates 55 and over communities and affordable housing for exemptions, there are some arguments about the equity issue. Chair Higgs stated there are a variety of ways to address the affordable housing issue and 55 and over communities, but they may not need to be included in the ordinance as exemptions. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board is very concerned about extracting community involvement in the discussion; and inquired how would it do that if it is not put in the ordinance.

Chair Higgs advised there is a motion to direct staff to develop the ordinance, advertise the public hearing, indicate the highest amount recommended, and have discussion on other issues as well. County Attorney Scott Knox recommended not advertising any specific amount. Commissioner Scarborough stated it would be better to leave the issue up for discussion; and he thinks that is what Commissioner Colon wanted. Commissioner Colon stated she just wants to make sure because she has seen things drag and it is always sad because it brings in more. She stated if someone is going to vote against it, that person should not waste everybody’s time; she is the type of person that puts it on the table; everyone knows where she stands; and she is not about to try and convince anybody else. She stated she believes school impact fees should be in place; but the fairness issue comes with how much it will be; and she wants to get an idea if the Commissioners feel that $4,500 is something they are comfortable with; and that is something that has to be discussed. She stated by May the Board should know whether there is going to be or not going to be an impact fee for schools. Ms. Busacca advised it has to go to the Local Planning Agency so it would not come back to the Board until July.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he is taking all the information in and processing it; he is not opposed to it or in favor of it; it is a question of how much is it going to be and who is going to pay it; and that is why he supports the motion. He stated he has to look at existing development, what the County has and has not done to maintain its infrastructure and how it can do something about that. He stated he would like to have Mr. Wilson, Chairman of the School Board or Dr. DiPatri at the next Board meeting so the Board can bound some of the comments off them regarding multi-tracking, year-round and seasonal schools, and other costs; Mr. Ed Curry is here; and he received a comment from one of the School Board members about the need for an office and staff.

Chair Higgs advised there is a motion on the floor regarding school impact fees only; and inquired if there are any further discussions on that. Commissioner Colon stated she wants the community to realize that it is not the developer who is paying it; it is the individual who builds or buys the new house; and she wants to make that clear.

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

Chair Higgs inquired if there is a motion regarding the other impact fees; and does the Board wish to engage Tindale-Oliver in further studies at this time.

Commissioner Carlson stated law enforcement and government buildings might be considered at this time to be researched; and based on the analysis before the sales tax issue came up, they were the areas where the largest deficits were in terms of the budget.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired why government buildings as an impact fee; with Mr. Wallace responding the community consumers government buildings in terms of the Board having to provide facilities for building inspectors, development review staff, public works staff to maintain roads, and even central services functions that support all the other functions. He stated the public is consuming square footage of the government buildings; as new growth comes in, those functions have to be accommodated; and they can either be accommodated by building new facilities out of some other revenue source, or they could be at least partially accommodated through an impact fee that would assess new development based on the square footage of buildings it consumes. He noted that is the premise behind a government building impact fee. Commissioner Pritchard inquired how is it distributed to a municipality if the County enacts an impact fee for government buildings; with Mr. Wallace responding the building inventory for the government building impact fee would only be on Countywide services that the Board provides to the County citizens, such as health services, judicial services, and other major functions; and it would not include municipal buildings of the cities. Chair Higgs advised it would include the courts, animal control services, and any Countywide services that are provided and consumes square footage of government buildings with exception of the jail, which has its own impact fee.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired what effect does annexation have on County expansion of government buildings; with Mr. Jenkins responding it would not matter, as those are services the Board provides. Mr. Wallace stated the basis for the demand is the Countywide population not individual cities, since the Board is looking at Countywide services. Commissioner Pritchard inquired would Countywide services diminish if municipalities keep annexing properties; with Mr. Wallace responding no, because the County provides mosquito control, animal control, judicial services, etc. on a Countywide basis; and they are not restricted to municipalities. Chair Higgs advised the County also provides housing and human services on a Countywide basis. Commissioner Pritchard stated as the area shrinks in size, there could be fewer building permits, plan reviews, inspections, planning and zoning, and fewer people to do those things, which would free up space in the Government Center; with Mr. Wallace responding that would be part of the study. Mr. Wallace stated they would look at what the square footage per person needs are today versus 15 years from now; and if the County is able to shift people around and not have to build additional buildings in the future, then that would affect the magnitude of the impact fee as it is developed. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the government buildings impact fee would be in a separate account and not touched; with Mr. Wallace responding the revenues derived from impact fees are set in separate accounts and can only be used specifically for capital facility expansions; and that would be a requirement of the ordinance. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if it would be an interest-bearing account; with Mr. Wallace responding yes.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there are some services that are strictly County functions and others that are Countywide; and inquired if the study would segregate those because it would be in appropriate not to do that. He stated for instance, there is only one court system and no city courts; mosquito control and libraries are handled separately; and it gets to be an issue of within and without as well. He stated cities have city halls where they put their building department, etc.; and inquired how would they go to different cities and extract that portion that should be theirs, and do they get to opt out if they do not want to collect the impact fee; with Mr. Wallace responding that is if the Board decides to offer to calculate fees for municipal buildings as well; and what it needs to do is keep it to Countywide services and allocate portions of the buildings accordingly. He stated if the Government Center is used for only unincorporated services, then it would need to allocate those. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is a complex formula because there are the Supervisor of Elections and others in the building; and he would like to have more information before going forward with that impact fee. He noted maybe some other counties handled it a little bit better.

Chair Higgs stated Mr. Wallace could provide information on what it could be used for and how it would be used; it is not existing facilities but future facilities; so it is not about paying for the Government Center, but for future buildings. She requested further clarification on the government buildings impact fee for further clarification. She stated she would be interested in the law enforcement issue; and requested a motion on that.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the general revenue funds are allocated for the unincorporated area; law enforcement supports the jail, court services, etc; there are local police departments, judicial services, and animal control; so it is a complex issue, but he does not mind proceeding. Commissioner Carlson stated the study would bring that out; and Tindale-Oliver has brought all the information out with other impact fee studies, so the Board can either do it or not do it. She stated it will give the Board a more comprehensive perspective instead of piecemealing it. Mr. Wallace stated they have to look at those specific issues as part of the study in order to deal with developing the appropriate fee. Commissioner Scarborough gave a scenario of Titusville saying it is a great idea and wanting to hook into an impact fee for law enforcement and becomes an integral part, and a different approach is taken with different numbers; and inquired if the two component parts ultimately have to match, and would the match be different in Palm Bay from Titusville; with Mr. Wallace responding the law enforcement impact fee will be an unincorporated fee; and even though the Board could develop it, if it had specific cities that wanted to opt in, his recommendation would be to keep it separate. Mr. Wallace stated if Titusville wants to have a law enforcement impact fee, it needs to develop it based on its facilities, as this item is an unincorporated Countywide law enforcement impact fee approach. Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not mind going with it then.

Chair Higgs stated law enforcement is very important; she understands the complexities of government buildings, but is clear on law enforcement and the boundaries of that; and she would feel comfortable moving forward to expend monies to get that study done. She stated there is some ambiguity on mosquito control and where or not the Board can even do that; but it could have further discussion on that issue.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there is only so much the Board can bite off and chew; and he is afraid if it has all those things before it, it would move back rather than forward. He suggested doing just law enforcement if it gets through the school impact fee.

Commissioner Carlson stated those are some of the biggest issues, the jail, law enforcement in general, getting new vehicles on the road, and the school impact; and she would make a motion to at least study law enforcement.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize Tindale-Oliver to do a study on a law enforcement impact fee.

Commissioner Carlson advised the cost quoted by Tindale-Oliver is $20,658; and inquired if there is a way to reduce the cost by working with County staff; with Mr. Wallace responding possibly, but they basically assume the County would provide certain data elements to them to support the study. Mr. Wallace indicated if the meetings on all the fees could be held at one time it would save money on meetings.

Chair Higgs recommended doing law enforcement alone; and inquired how it would be paid for; with Mr. Jenkins responding General Fund contingency. Chair Higgs inquired if that is the only source. Mr. Jenkins inquired if it is appropriate to use transportation and other impact fees administration accounts; with Commissioner Carlson responding she does not think so. Ms. Busacca advised Mr. Wallace said if an impact fee is adopted, the cost of the study could be reimbursed from that impact fee. Commissioner Carlson stated for now the Board needs to know where it is going to get the money then it can address it as a later issue; and she would assume it would be from the General Fund contingency.

Commissioner Colon stated she thinks the Board is pushing it and she is not going to support any of it; and she wants to make sure she is on the record on that because there are no surprises with her.

Chair Higgs inquired what is the balance of the General Fund contingency; with Mr. Jenkins responding between $100,000 and $200,000. Chair Higgs inquired if staff could bring it back as an agenda item so the Board can clearly identify the source. Commissioner Carlson stated by the time they do the study, who knows when it will come back, which obviously is not going to be before July. Mr. Wallace stated they put a six-month timeframe on there. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board would address the cost at that point; with Mr. Jenkins responding it has to pay for it now.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there is sort of a calendar; the Board gets into a crunch with budget things as it comes back in the summer; in the fall it tries to pick up what it lost; then it goes to Christmas break; and it seems like it is only breathing again in February. He stated the Board can do workshops and get into things; it has a good spring; it had a lot of workshops and a lot of good things; but when it comes back in July, it is not going to have time to throw extra workshops in on new items; so it may not matter when the Board gets the study back. He stated if it gets it in July, it would have more information; and inquired if Mr. Wallace has a firm figure or some other thoughts; with Mr. Wallace responding they would provide the Board with an updated scope of service.

Chair Higgs stated she is ready to move forward on the law enforcement impact fee; the only thing she wants some clarification on is the balance and projection of the Contingency Fund; and suggested an agenda item to pay for the study. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is not a major issue that needs to have answers now. Commissioner Carlson stated it could take a year. Chair Higgs stated she wants to know what to anticipate spending out of Contingency; and Mr. Jenkins can bring that back.

Commissioner Carlson stated the motion on the floor is to go ahead and do the study; and Mr. Jenkins can bring an agenda item back that talks about how the Board will pay for it. chair Higgs stated she wants to make sure there is money set aside to pay for it. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the agenda item is to determine if the Board wants to do the study and where the money would come from; with Chair Higgs responding yes.

Commissioner Carlson stated that would be her motion.

Chair Higgs stated she supports moving forward on the law enforcement impact fee but wants to be sure where the Board is going in regards to money; so the motion would be to direct staff to develop that. Commissioner Carlson inquired if it is to put an agenda item in that would define doing the law enforcement impact fee and the cost of that and where it will come from; with Chair Higgs responding yes.

Commissioner Carlson amended the motion to direct staff to prepare an agenda item to define a law enforcement impact fee study, the cost of it, and where the funding would come from. Commissioner Scarborough seconded the motion as amended.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired what can the Board expect from the study; with Mr. Wallace responding they will give the Board a methodology that is technically sound and proven to be defensible and an impact fee schedule that goes along with the methodology that will tell the Board what the maximum amount of law enforcement impact fees are that it can charge. He stated the Board can establish by policy the level by which it wants to set those fees; and they will also include some revenue projections as they have done in the past for the other fees. He stated if the Board wants Mr. Knox to draft the ordinance and for them to help in that, they will be glad to assist in that endeavor as well. Commissioner Carlson requested examples of how other counties are applying it. Mr. Wallace stated they always include comparison of other fees and how the Board can use the monies. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the comparison they will develop and analysis they will use also include reduction of personnel in the Department through annexation of properties by municipalities and having less call for more operatives within the Sheriff’s Department; with Mr. Wallace responding it depends on what the Sheriff’s long-range plans and needs are. He stated they document where they are today in terms of officers per 1,000 population and document where they project to be in 15 years; and they look at those numbers and develop the standards based on where they are wit those numbers; so it depends on what the long-range plans are for the Sheriff’s Office.

Mr. Jenkins advised he heard that several Commissioners have an interest in looking at the law enforcement impact fee; and inquired if the Board wants to pay a little more to tell it what it can spend the money on before it goes the whole way. He stated it cannot be for replacement; if it has x number of deputies patrolling the unincorporated area, it cannot spend money from the impact fee on them; and it is only for new deputies and new buildings. Mr. Wallace stated it can be spent on new uniforms that are capitalized, vehicles, equipment, and maintenance of facilities.

Chair Higgs inquired if Mr. Jenkins is saying the gain from the law enforcement impact fee may not be a huge amount of money; with Mr. Jenkins responding he is not sure how much the Board will get or what it can use it for. Chair Higgs inquired if Mr. Wallace has an idea how much they run in other places; with Mr. Wallace inquiring how many single-family building permits are issued per year; with Mel Scott responding about 2,800 Countywide. Mr. Wallace stated his guess would be anywhere from $100,000 to $400,000 a year.

Commissioner Pritchard stated there are Countywide services performed by the Sheriff’s Department, forensics, dive team, helicopter, and maybe SWAT; those are functions performed that would be of benefit; and law enforcement is a Countywide service same as mosquito control. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Sheriff’s budget is about $70,000,000; with Commissioner Pritchard responding yes. Commissioner Scarborough stated the question is whether $200,000 would impact the budget; and he thinks that was Mr. Jenkins’ point. Commissioner Pritchard stated he does not see where the real impact is that would warrant having a study done; he is not begrudging the $220,000 to do the study, but questions what kind of results will the Board get from it. He stated if the trend is to have reduce County area and services through municipal annexations, it only has a few Countywide services performed by the Sheriff’s Department; and who knows whether the municipalities would even get into that. He stated Mr. Jenkins may have a good point; maybe for a couple thousand dollars Tindale-Oliver could do an analysis summary or something that would give the Board better indicators as to why it should spend more money.

Chair Higgs stated the motion is to bring the issue back; perhaps the Board can roll into that having staff give it an analysis of how it would be used; and it could make a final decision on that. Commissioner Carlson stated the question also is how can the Board use law enforcement impact fee dollars and can it use it on jails and things like that. Mr. Wallace stated it can use the money for any enhancements or expansions of communications systems to support police functions, any additional buildings as it relates to growth; but it cannot use it for replacement vehicles. Mr. Jenkins stated it is for growth and cannot be used to replace existing radio systems; with Mr. Wallace responding if the Board enhances the radio system for additional capacity and buys a new system at a million dollars to replace a $200,000 system, $800,000 can be used from impact fees. Mr. Jenkins inquired how can it be used; with Chair Higgs responding the motion is to bring back uses, funding, etc.

Chair Higgs called for a vote on the motion as amended. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Scarborough, Pritchard, Carlson, and Higgs voted aye; and Commissioner Colon voted nay.

Chair Higgs inquired about Mosquito Control and Government Buildings impact fees. Commissioner Scarborough stated Mosquito Control is a small budget; a helicopter is expensive; and inquired what kind of numbers would it look at for that service. He stated it is not going to be a big hit to homeowners; but what will it generate after it has had a massive discussion. Mr. Wallace stated that is the reason they recommended doing a feasibility study for Mosquito Control. He stated he does not have five Mosquito Control impact fees that he has done and can pull information from; so he does not know the answer to that. Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not want to spend $28,000 for a study and find out it is bringing in $15,000; but he is not saying that is going to occur. Mr. Knox suggested the Board pass on that impact fee as he is not sure it would find a rational nexus between growth and Mosquito Control. Chair Higgs stated the Board could get additional information regarding government buildings, parks and recreation, those that are listed by Tindale-Oliver in its report; and inquired if there is a motion to do that.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if at the end of the day the Board comes to a consensus to have something that is good and that is working, he does not mind going with it; but it has enough on its agenda and he does not want to waste the Board’s time on minimal issues when it has major issues to resolve. He stated if Animal Control is a number that makes sense, he would agree with it.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to request the County Manager work with his staff and come back and have them give their input whether or not there would be sufficient funds generated from impact fees to make it sensible for the Board to go further with the consultant.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not feel comfortable about that; and if the answer is no, the Board could pass on doing it.

Commissioner Carlson stated the Board should not have the assumption that it will use impact fees every year; it has to save the money before it can apply it; so even if the North Animal Care Center needs to be replaced, maybe it can be done with impact fees over a five or ten-year period; and the Board can save its debt service in that regard.

Chair Higgs inquired if the motion is to get a staff report that would include government buildings; with Commissioner Scarborough responding it includes the rest of them. Chair Higgs called for a second to the motion.

Commissioner Carlson seconded the motion. Chair Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Scarborough, Carlson, and Higgs voted aye; and Commissioners Pritchard and Colon voted nay.

Commissioner Colon stated she does not want a report.

Chair Higgs stated the school impact fee would require an agreement with the School Board; and inquired if that would be in place at the time the Board votes on the impact fee; with Mr. Wallace responding the Board should have that agreement in place at the time it approves the ordinance. He stated the agreement will answer many of the questions about how the funds would be spent, accountability of the funds, the capital improvement program being developed by the School Board to support the impact fee, expenditures, etc.; and they should be spelled out in the interlocal agreement as to what it wants from the School Board in exchange for the funds being transmitted to it from the impact fee. Chair Higgs inquired if that would be simultaneous with adoption of the ordinance; with Mr. Wallace responding at the same time or before the ordinance is adopted, the interlocal agreement should be in place. Chair Higgs inquired how have those been developed; does staff do it or the consultant; with Mr. Wallace responding he will give staff a sample of a couple of School Board interlocal agreements and maybe Mr. Knox can look at those and craft something specific for Brevard County. He stated as for the ordinance review, they can look at the draft that comes out and at the interlocal agreement as well. Chair Higgs inquired if the Board wants to direct staff to work on the interlocal agreement and bring it back at the next meeting that the Board discusses impact fees.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct staff to work on an interlocal agreement between the County and the School Board on the use of school impact fees that should be in place before or at the time the school impact fee is established, and bring the agreement back to the Board at the next meeting that it discusses impact fees. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Carlson stated it is not listed under the scope of services, but due to some of the serious transportation issues, she would like the Board to consider having staff bring back a report on the current impact fee, which is at 27 or 28% of the 100%. She stated the Board went through the study a couple of years ago; the reason is Wickham Road’s level of service is going to be maximized; she heard from Congressman Weldon’s office that there is a good chance of getting $8 million for the interchange at Pineda, but the Board will not have the money to build it and will not be able to build the road to Pineda because it has no dollars to do that. She stated she would like to see the Board readdress it; and if staff could analyze what it would mean if it brought it up to 50% and how much it is going to cost to relieve the burden where a potential moratorium might be on Wickham Road in terms of transportation needs, the cost of those needs, and the ability to achieve that over five or ten years if the transportation impact fee is increased. Chair Higgs inquired if Commissioner Carlson is requesting a staff report on those issues; with Commissioner Carlson responding a report to assess the transportation needs and what the Board can do about them and how impact fees might assist if they are increased.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct staff to provide a report to the Board on transportation needs, what the County can do about them, and how impact fees might assist if they are increased to 100%. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Scarborough stated as soon as the ordinance is in draft form it should be put on the web to let interested people start working with it. Chair Higgs stated it will also be time consuming to develop the agreement with the School Board so staff needs to get on that also.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 12:10 p.m.

ATTEST: _________________________________
NANCY HIGGS, CHAIR
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
___________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)