October 14, 1999
Oct 14 1999
The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in Special/Workshop Session on October 14, 1999, at 10:08 a.m. in the Government Center Florida Room, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairman Truman Scarborough, Commissioners Randy O'Brien, Nancy Higgs, Sue Carlson, and Helen Voltz, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley.
The Invocation was given by Commissioner Helen Voltz, District 5.
Commissioner Randy O'Brien led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.
ANNOUNCEMENT, RE: TELEVISED WORKSHOPS
Chairman Scarborough advised this is the first time a workshop held in the Florida Room will be videotaped; now the public has an opportunity to be a part of it; and it will add to the quality of information disseminated in the County.
REPORT, RE: VIDEOTAPING OF CHILDREN'S WORKSHOP
Commissioner Voltz advised she mentioned the videotaping of the Children's Workshop; however, the people in Tallahassee prefer it not be done. She inquired if there is anything that needs to be addressed for issues that may come up at the Workshop.
REPORT, RE: GOVERNMENT CHANNEL
Chairman Scarborough advised for the people who are watching and are part of a government entity, such as a city, the Port, NASA, etc., there is now a channel available to disseminate information to the public. He stated the information does not need to be in workshop format, and can be a program that goes forth into the field and puts together information to let the people know what is available in Brevard County. He noted he hopes people will become better able to utilize all the resources available and know what is going on.
PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS, AND APPOINT SELECTION COMMITTEE, RE: HEALTH AND WELLNESS CENTERS
Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize the Office of Human Resources to advertise request for proposals for implementation, operation, and management of two health and wellness clinics in Brevard County for access by employees, retirees and their dependents; and appoint Frank Abbate, Stockton Whitten, and Don Lusk to the Selection Committee, to review proposals, conduct interviews, and prepare a recommendation for the Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.
LEASE AGREEMENT WITH MICCO VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT, RE: RESCUE VEHICLE
Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to execute Lease Agreement with Micco Volunteer Fire Department for lease of a heavy rescue vehicle purchased by the volunteers. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Lease Agreement.)
REPORT FROM CONSULTANT TINDALE-OLIVER & ASSOCIATES, INC., RE: IMPACT FEE ISSUES
Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca advised the County originally adopted impact fees in 1989; and since that time the impact fees have remained the same except for changes the Board made to abate commercial and industrial impact fees. She stated the Ordinance requires that the impact fee program be reviewed on a regular basis, so the Board authorized review to move forward; and this morning the consultants, Tindale-Oliver & Associates, will give the Board the background information and request policy decisions to move forward on review of the update of impact fees.
Consultant Steve Tindale advised a handout and list of items for discussion were given to the Board; and he will give an overview of the historical perspective, update of fee components, potential fee increases, current exemptions, flexibility to meet goals, and rate of growth. He stated this is Phase I of a potential two-phase process; it is to give the Board the basic information and get input in terms of what it would like to have done and how it would like to proceed; then it moves into the detailed analysis of the programs. He stated he will go over the historical perspective, update of the impact fee program, methodology to determine if it is reasonable and accurate and if it still reflects the methods used today, and the potential changes. He stated the County has a current exemption for all non-residential uses which they were asked to address; and they were also asked to provide flexibility to moderate the impact of the program if it imposes on other goals in the community. Mr. Tindale explained the slides of graphs showing Florida and Brevard County from 1940 and 1950 to 1990, the rate of growth being experienced, which was tremendous in the 1950's, out-distanced the State average, and would have been substantial in terms of gross revenues. He stated currently the growth is 3 to 4% a year; and the impact fee revenue could be substantial in relation to the total budget; but it would never be what it could have been in the 1950's. He advised the County has impact fees for Transportation, Emergency Services and Correctional Facilities; it was updated in 1989; and they were asked to consider other impact fee areas, specifically schools, libraries, and parks and recreation, and determine what type of fees would be charged, what kind of revenues would be generated, and the methodology. He stated the impact fee is the net difference between revenue and cost to provide a public facility; it is not a charge to the developer for his impact, but a charge of the differential between the tax base and actual cost; and the County is not allowed to charge new development twice, which would be to charge the cost and collect revenue in the future for the same facility. He noted they would have to be given credit.
Transportation Impact Fee
Mr. Tindale advised Brevard County used a methodology in 1989 that was state-of-the-art, and still is today; it is very sound in terms of calculations for each impact fee; and the first one is transportation. He explained a graph depicting right-of-way costs, construction costs, and total cost from 1989 to present; and noted right-of-way costs were 20% of construction costs ten years ago, but today it is equal to construction costs. He stated a penny gas tax is what the County uses in its impact fee and for capital; over the last fifty years, because of fuel efficiency, for every penny generated per mile in 1950, the County would have to charge 2.5 cents today to get the same revenue; so fuel efficiency has had an effect on gas tax in terms of its ability to generate revenue; and explained a graph showing the capital revenue source which has been dramatically impacted by fuel efficiency.
Commissioner O'Brien requested an explanation of the 20 cents; with Mr. Tindale responding one mile of travel for one year generates 20 cents in revenue and not 50 cents, which is 2-1/2 times less than what it used to be. Mr. Tindale advised to build one lane of road for one mile costs about $1.6 million; 12,000 cars can travel on that road for one mile; a single-family home will put 42 miles on that road; so out of the 12,000 cars, one home consumes 42 miles; taken in relation to the $1.6 million, it comes out to about $6,000; so that one home immediately starts consuming $6,000 worth of roadway. He stated that is how impact fees work; it is not credit, it is gross cost; and the impact fee for transportation has to give gas tax credit. He noted the gas tax will be the only thing shown in the credit equation. Mr. Tindale stated the current impact fee for a single-family home is $850; the range could be anywhere from $1,500 to $3,000; they took three counties that updated their fees last year and compared those with their numbers; basically the range is a low of $1,500 in Indian River County to a high of $2,200 in Martin County; so the cost, credits, and things in those counties are matching what they are saying. He stated on the revenue side, the County was up to almost $1.8 million; it made adjustments in terms of who it would charge in 1995, and has been averaging $1.2 million after the adjustment was made; they think the County could generate $6 million a year; and with a 20-year plan, $20 million versus $120 million makes a difference in terms of overall impact.
Fire Rescue and Emergency Medical Services
Mr. Tindale advised they mixed Fire Rescue and Emergency Medical Services together because the major percentage of fire calls are emergency services; the response time is a
minimum of 7 minutes; the County is achieving below that in terms of actual response time; and that response time, in terms of level of service, equates to equipment and buildings such as fire stations, fire trucks, and ambulances. He stated the demand side is responding to people; EMS is countywide so the population is 474,000; and fire rescue is unincorporated, so the people that are serviced by that facility are 184,000.
Commissioner Voltz inquired where the 7-minute response time came from; with Mr. Tindale responding that is the minimum average required by the Ordinance, but the County is averaging less than that.
Mr. Tindale advised the average home in Brevard County is 2.4 people per home; and they suggest looking at demand by people per home. He stated a small home would average 1.3 people, middle size 2.7 people, and large home 3.5 people; so the Board can differentiate the demand by the size of a home and the fee would vary by that demand.
Commissioner O'Brien stated it insinuates that the larger home will generate a higher impact; a family with more children than 1.3 people needs more income to feed more children than to pay higher impact fees for a larger home to house the children; and inquired if the thinking is backwards and the smaller house should have the larger fee. Mr. Tindale advised the large home has more children, people, and higher probability; impact fees are blind and are not a tax; and if the Board wants to take a tax and moderate it, they can talk about that in the flexibility to moderate issue. He stated impact fees have to be blind to anything other than impact and benefit; but they can discuss flexibility to take different programs and target things to reduce some of the issues later. Commissioner O'Brien stated the impact fee can be considered punitive; it punishes people who want to buy a larger home; and that kind of fee is a tax based on the size of the home.
Mr. Tindale stated they went through the process of eight hours a day the average person at the house is not home; they changed that to a number of people per home who may demand EMS and fire service; and the next step is to take the current facilities and population, and determine the cost to provide the service per person. He stated for fire rescue services in the unincorporated area only, the average is about $90 for each individual, and $26 worth of capital invested per person for EMS; and explained the slide showing how they calculated their figures for EMS and fire rescue services. He stated the County has $91 in capital invested for each home, $80 for the smaller home and $200 for the larger home; that is the methodology used for cost per unit of development; the cost has been adjusted in a minor way; the credits have been looked at; and the current fee is about $57, but that number can be anywhere between $100 and $175 in terms of an average. He explained the slide on revenues, noting the trend is a little over $100,000 a year; stated it dropped below that after the exemption; and the number can be anywhere from $200,000 a year to $350,000 a year if the Board adjusts the fees. Mr. Tindale advised the County does not have a current fee for EMS; their number is between $30 and $50 for a single-family home; and the fees generated would be from $100,000 to $150,000 in terms of annual revenue for EMS. He stated the numbers on the slide are from Collier, Orange and Martin Counties which have done recent updates; theirs are a combination of fire and EMS; they think the number is between $150 and $225; theirs range from $100 to $400 for a single-family home; so the numbers they estimated in Brevard County matched the counties that recently did updates.
Commissioner Higgs advised the figures the County uses for gas tax and other things have a closer number in population than the numbers used by Mr. Tindale; and requested he look at those numbers because they are not consistent with what the County is using. She noted maybe his numbers are right, but they are not consistent with others she has seen.
Correction Facilities
Mr. Tindale advised the cost to construct a bed from 1989 to the current day increased 19% which is less than half a percent inflation per year compounded, so the costs are not dramatically different than they were in 1989. He stated the actual standards for number of beds per population changed from 1.9 to 2.3; that is about a 20% increase in beds per population; and the graph shows interesting information about that. He stated they took the jail population and divided it by the County's population; in 1996 the County added beds and consumed them; in 1997 it did the same thing; it is obvious there is a latent demand and the population per 1,000 is equal to the beds per 1,000; so the driving force of the program is the number of beds per 1,000. He stated ten years ago they looked at crime rates to estimate future demand; now the sentencing guidelines seem to be the driving force; crime rates can level off, but sentencing guidelines can change dramatically; and the number of beds needed can be affected dramatically. He stated at 1.9 the County was about six-tenths of a bed per 1,000 behind the State's average; throughout the State there has been a major thrust to build those beds; the State as a whole moved to 3.5; and now the County is about 1.2 beds per 1,000 behind the State average. He stated statewide the sentencing guidelines and amount of time people are staying in prison have changed substantially; the County follows that trend, but not at the same level of other communities throughout the State; the fee they came up with for correctional facilities looks at potential credits and standards that the County may adopt or achieve from $50 to over $100; other communities have $50 to $125; the range is $70 to $140; so they are within the range as the calculations are matching other communities that have done updates. Mr. Tindale advised the revenue is over $150,000 a year; it dropped to about $100,000 after the commercial exemption; if put back to $150, the high side would move to almost $400,000 per year which then becomes a substantial program in terms of supplementing things the Board has to do in the near future for its correctional facilities.
Total Revenues
Mr. Tindale advised the County is averaging $1.6 million in total revenues; it dropped below $5 million; those numbers they presented can range from $3.75 million up to $7 million per year from its impact fee program in terms of gross revenues; and if the County looks at a 20-year planning program, those types of revenues would be significant in planning out public facilities. He stated the table shows the low fee, high fee, where the money comes from, residential versus commercial, annual basis, and gives a quick view of unit fees and annual revenues generated by residential sources, and the total program estimate on an annual basis.
Other Impact Fee Programs
Mr. Tindale advised they were asked to look at schools, libraries, and parks and recreation; all three are residential based; counties are not charging schools, libraries and parks to commercial people; there are 15 counties in the State that have it; legislation passed that provided if a study was done and the County wanted to implement it, it could not do it until July 1st of the next year; and State law sets the date it can move its school program forward. He advised Hillsborough County charges for land only and has a fee by district; they have one district at $63; Dade County has the largest range going all the way up to $4,300 for a single-family home; and he is sure Dade County tiers its fees by size of home because of the direct relationship of people per home and demand on the school system. He noted that is the range of fees out there today in terms of school impact fees.
Mr. Tindale advised they are working with Collier County doing the first library impact fee for people using the internet and getting periodicals, and commercial people using it; at this time the adopted fees are residential based; library impact fees have been adopted by fewer counties than any other impact fee; and the fee ranges from $54 in Seminole County to $290 in Martin County for a single-family home. He noted that is the magnitude of the type of fees that are out there for library systems.
Mr. Tindale advised parks and recreation is the second favorite fee in the State in terms of people interested in supporting parks programs through impact fees; it is residential based at this time; but there is discussion about corporate people calling and reserving ballparks for a week for corporate tournaments, and a feeling that maybe someone needs to look at charging other than residential components for parks and recreation. He stated the fee ranges from $168 in Hillsborough County to $1,300 in Orange County; $400 or $500 impact fees for parks and recreation is not unheard of; parks and recreation and transportation are two of the most capital intensive land based versus maintenance and operating intensive systems; and in terms of total budgets, those two costs are higher percentages than other types of programs. He stated they took permitting information to show a range of each program area, what the annual fee would be, and what the annual revenues would be on the low and high sides; and projected revenue for the three programs is from $2 million to over $5 million a year.
Administrative Manual
Mr. Tindale advised other items they were asked to talk about include the administrative manual to help manage the program and give the County guidance, and establish procedures where it will consistently manage the program from year-to-year, person-to-person, and developer-to- developer. He stated another benefit of the administrative manual is people will know what to expect; the development community likes those manuals because there are no surprises; and they look at those manuals and know what will happen each time they come in and pull a permit.
Exemptions and Strategies
Mr. Tindale advised there have been creative strategies developed over the years on how to move from where it is to where it wants to be; and two are having a discount across-the-board, and phasing over time. He stated Martin County moved from a fee of 50% to 100% in six years; so it has phased its fee over time.
Mr. Tindale advised they were asked to look at the current exemptions; they have done hundreds of impact fee ordinances all over the State and in other states; the industrial and manufacturing exemptions are not a problem because they are focused exemptions; and case law clearly supports it. He stated for commercial in general a substantial percentage of the actual fees are being exempted; the feelings are questionable in terms of legal defensibility; and there is nothing in any court case he can come up with to defend it. Commissioner Voltz advised there were impact fees on commercial; and inquired if it would be a potential problem to place it on them again; with Mr. Tindale responding the big problem is someone saying the County is not charging commercial. Mr. Tindale advised ten years ago there was an equal protection issue and they could not create a special class; the courts have ruled the County can treat people differently with impact fees if the exemption does not affect a substantial percentage of revenues or what the County can accomplish. He stated the County can do what it wants with creating special classes, but it has to be careful to be focused and limited in terms of impacting the overall program.
Chairman Scarborough inquired if the Board can target affordable housing; with Mr. Tindale responding yes, and he will talk about that later to show the different program areas. Chairman Scarborough inquired if the Board has the ability to create individual goals if it does not impact the overall program; with Mr. Tindale responding that is correct. Commissioner Voltz inquired if the Board can say it will not charge impact fees for a house under $100,000; with Mr. Tindale responding if the County is only pulling in 50 to 100 permits a year, and it will cost $10,000 of the $3 million, and has no impact on the program, the answer is yes. Commissioner Higgs stated it cannot be done on the cost of the house, and has to be done on the impacts. Mr. Tindale advised the numbers they provided are impacts; they did not say charge smaller homes less because they are valued less; that is against the law; but they think smaller homes have less impacts. He stated tiering will assist affordable housing. Chairman Scarborough stated looking at the size of the house, even if it is a cheaper house rather than an expensive small condominium, would harm that person who needs a large house because he has a large family.
Mr. Tindale advised he reviewed the methodology, updates, change in cost, current exemptions, and the last part is a real concern if the Board starts adjusting impact fees because it has specific goals in the community that impact fees will adversely affect. He stated they were asked to look at flexibility to adjust and target fees, affordable housing, redevelopment of infill areas, and economic development. Commissioner O'Brien inquired what is infill; with Mr. Tindale responding in urbanized areas infill is where they have a pocket of land developed all the way around it and are not able to get it developed, but it has water and sewer available; so to get someone to develop it, because it would be productive, the Board would try to infill that area. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board has an industrial park like that; with Mr. Tindale responding that could be a combination of infill and economic development. He stated infill is geographic based; economic development, in many cases, is land based; infill and redevelopment are usually geographic based with some overlap of types of land uses in the area; and he will discuss general strategies and how to attach those strategies to those four areas. Mr. Tindale stated they do not think tiering of residential fees should be done because it is correct, but because it also accomplishes some potential for affordable housing, especially on the very small homes in terms of adjusting those fees; and to move to a more precise measurement and tier residential fees is one strategy.
Commissioner Voltz inquired if the fees can be based on the cost of the homes; with Mr. Tindale responding case law and people who write opinions on this say it has to be based on impact; there has to be a direct relationship to the impact fees; a tax is based on regressive or not regressive and can be spent where the Board wants to spend it, but on impact fees, the actual impact has to be there. He stated if there are goals to moderate that impact, it has to be done through a different program; but the actual measurement needs to be related to the impact; and what they are saying is smaller homes have smaller impacts in terms of consumption of facilities or demand for them.
Chairman Scarborough advised Mr. Tindale said the Board could exempt industrial, but commercial would impact the entire program; and some industrial uses could impact the County very heavily by requiring heavier roadbeds, new roads entirely, etc. He stated the Board's policy is to allow as many people as possible to become homeowners as soon as possible because they acquire equity; acquiring equity increases net worth; with net worth comes dignity; and they become more constructive members of society, so society benefits from that to the same extent as industrial development bringing in higher paying jobs. He inquired what is the difference in taking affordable housing and industrial development and saying they are good for the community because there will be more productive people with more dignity; with Mr. Tindale responding they are not saying the Board cannot do affordable housing; and it can exempt affordable housing and industrial development and there is no difference from an exemption position, especially if they are focused. He stated the question to him was if they can do a calculation that changes the impact fee based on value of a home; and that is different. He stated the Board can put programs together to address focused goals like affordable housing and industrial development.
Discussion ensued on scenarios of wealthy people coming to Brevard County and purchasing small homes, affordable housing, exemptions for industrial development except those that cause pollution, targeting groups that do not cause an overall impact, size and value of homes, basing impact fees on impacts to services and facilities, smaller homes generating less demand for services than larger homes, significant impact of affordable homes due to number of children, using averages, and using classifications.
Mr. Tindale advised if the Board wants to move away from tiering, it has a right to take an average for the whole class, keep it there, and target the smaller homes through affordable housing; it has the right to take the three averages; and if the Board wants to take the older personnel who move into smaller homes and charge them the average of everyone else, it does not have to tier. He stated they think tiering is more accurate; the fee does not have to be perfect and can be kept as an average of 2.4 people per home, then focus on affordable housing; but the Board needs to tell him what it is trying to accomplish. Chairman Scarborough stated Mr. Tindale said the Board cannot look at value, but it can look at size and tiering, and can take select categories, so they have done a good job answering the questions.
Mr. Tindale advised if the Board adopts pure exemptions, there is a test that needs to be followed in terms of options; there is an option called reimbursement from unrestricted funds; in some communities they have affordable housing exemption, then take their SHIP funds and move them to pay for the exemption; and that is the best mode, taking a program set up to help that class and transferring the funds to replace the exemptions, which is the perfect situation to attain the goal and not have risks. He noted that is being done in Collier County. Commissioner O'Brien inquired what are SHIP funds used for; with Ms. Busacca responding to help people get into houses. Steve Swanke advised some are used for down payments, rehabilitation of homes, and to improve energy efficiency. Mr. Tindale explained how the SHIP Program works; and stated there is the ability to reimburse funds and use funds for certain program areas and not affect the impact fee program at all. Chairman Scarborough stated it will affect some other program. Commissioner O'Brien stated if SHIP funds are used to pay impact fees for affordable housing, first time homebuyers impact fees will be paid from the same funds used to purchase the house. He stated the present program is to try and recover the loan for the first time homebuyer and recycle it through to get more SHIP funds next year and do the same thing; and it is used to repair houses that are in terrible condition to make them livable. Mr. Tindale stated Collier County uses the tiering, charges less for smaller homes, so the transfer of funds is less; Hillsborough County uses MSTU funds; there are all types of combinations; and what he is trying to highlight is a list of things available to the Board to set some policies. He noted there is a forgivable loan which says they do not have to pay as long as they meet certain goals; and explained that option using number of employees, average income, etc.
Discussion continued on affordable housing scenarios, not allowing people to profit from a program, definition of affordable housing, and price of homes.
Mr. Tindale advised the rebate over time is a credibility concept; Marion County requires industrial developers to pay the impact fee, and when they get the number of employees they said they would, the income level is at an average agreed to, and the tax comes in at a certain level over a certain period of time, the impact fee is reimbursed; and in that way, they do not get an exemption unless they perform and meet the goals. He stated a loan is to help spread the cost over time; and it is not uncommon, and is frequently done with water and sewer connections.
Mr. Tindale stated de minimus growth is a new concept that relates to the case law; it gets into infill areas; advised of his experience in 1985 with a redevelopment area where they could not get anyone to build; and noted the County can exempt such areas. He stated it is useful to cut and splice a community so the impact does not affect individual geographic goals and things being done in terms of redevelopment or infill, to get people to build where public services are available. He noted Hillsborough County calls it a no impact zone, but he calls it a de minimus which is basically an exemption geographically to obtain some of the goals. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if it worked; with Mr. Tindale responding the one he did in 1985 is getting ready to put in a 24-screen theater, entertainment center, and hotel; and things are booming to where they have to pull the exemption. He recommended the Board have guidelines setting a starting point and when they reach a certain threshold and start achieving growth the exemption disappears. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the infill area that was not charged impact fees had a positive effect on commercial growth; with Mr. Tindale responding it was not only impact fees, as they did stormwater, parking, and it was a huge public investment in a very focused area.
Mr. Tindale summarized the impact fee program areas, affordable housing, combined infill and redevelopment areas, economic development, strategies, exemptions, tiering of residential development, de minimus growth; and inquired what are the Board's program goals. He noted they have given the Board flexibility to respond to any one of the goals as it adjusts its impact fees. He stated the risks are low for each strategy according to recent court cases, and the only one that would be high risk is an exemption that is too broad. He advised if the County does things as they suggested, every strategy is straight forward; the complexity is in crafting it and explaining it from a legal standpoint; and the more hooks that are put in, the more checklists and files the Board would have to have. He suggested the Board pick a strategy it wants to move forward with and give them a general feel of the range of things; and they would provide additional flexibility in terms of managing the program. Mr. Tindale advised in the past most impact fees were spent on new fire trucks, new roads, and other capital investments; there has been a clear trend in defining increased capacity and giving more flexibility; and an example is to replace a fire truck with a new fire truck that has ten times more capacity than the old one. He stated they can come up with creative ways to give staff the ability to take the impact fees and use them productively with increased capacity and life cycle in terms of service delivery; sometimes there is a feeling if they do not buy a new unit without staffing it, they cannot use impact fees; and the answer is there are creditable ways with high-tech information to increase capacity without blowing out the operating budget.
Benefit Districts
Mr. Tindale advised the County has many benefit districts that accumulate money but cannot build a project; there are ten benefit districts for transportation that get one-tenth of the impact fee monies and cannot build a road; and they can craft and reduce the number of benefit districts substantially. He noted Indian River County went from nine to three districts, giving more flexibility in terms of putting programs together and making impact fees useful. Mr. Tindale advised the Emergency Medical Services impact fee program should be countywide, and the Correctional Facilities impact fee program is countywide.
Summary
Mr. Tindale advised they looked at the County's methodology, at where it is, where it has been, and where it may go; and they looked at the exemption program and community goals, and provided a litany of strategies. He stated they drafted a listing that the Board can use as a worksheet and give them guidance; some things were questions asked of them, and others were questions they thought the Board wanted to move forward with; so they crafted those so the Board could almost set policy and tell them what to do or not do. He noted that is the purpose of the three pages in the front of the document.
The meeting recessed at 11:20 a.m., and reconvened at 11:40 a.m.
PERMISSION TO TRAVEL, RE: SILICON VALLEY
Chairman Scarborough advised EDC Director Lynda Weatherman will be going to San Jose, California to Silicon Valley next week; the Board discussed a Commissioner going on some of those trips to meet with Commissioners in the area; and if a Commissioner is interested in traveling to San Jose, he or she should advise the County Manager so arrangements can be made.
Commissioner Voltz stated the Board talked about Silicon Valley and clean industry; and if the Board wants clean industry in Brevard County, this is an opportunity to look at the high-tech industry and how they addressed any pollution problems.
Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize travel for a Commissioner to San Jose, California to visit companies in Silicon Valley and possibly meet with Commissioners of the area. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.
Chairman Scarborough stated whoever goes out there must be back on Tuesday for the performance based zoning issue.
Chairman Scarborough advised the Board will go down the first two pages item-by-item, and discuss the issues.
Commissioner O'Brien requested clarification of the 20 cents generated from one cent gas tax per car per year; with Mr. Tindale responding one car traveling one mile for one year will generate 20 cents; it is a relative value and not an absolute value; and today it generates 2.5 times less revenue for every mile it travels than it did 30 years ago. Commissioner O'Brien stated a car that travels for a year generates more than 20 cents; with Mr. Tindale responding a car that gets 20 miles to a gallon of gas has to go 20 miles to generate one penny in gas tax revenue. He stated fuel efficiency has gone from 8 to 20, and there are more cars on the road, but the gas tax revenue has reduced because of fuel efficiency, and that is why there are congested roads that are not generating more revenue to build another road. He noted gas tax is not as efficient as it used to be in terms of a revenue generator. Commissioner O'Brien stated the chart does not give total revenues generated each year; with Mr. Tindale responding his guess is one million dollars a year for the unincorporated area and two million dollars countywide. Commissioner O'Brien stated page 9 states one home consumes $5,920 of roadway; and inquired if it is a one time cost or annual cost including maintenance; with Mr. Tindale responding if the County spent $1.6 million to build the road and 42 cars travel that road every day, it costs $6,000 to support them; and that is gross cost. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if gas tax pays for it; with Mr. Tindale responding the gas tax would reduce it by 10 to 30% according to the number of pennies the County has because they would have to be given gas tax credit. Mr. Tindale stated when gas tax credit is plugged in, the impact fee does not get reduced substantially because gas tax is not as effective any more and costs are going up; and the credit mechanism has been reduced by fuel efficiency, so there would be a shortfall. He inquired, if the Board is going to maintain its level of service, would it require the developer to pay for the tax shortfall in one lump sum, change the taxes, adopt poorer service standards, or a combination of things. He stated it is a calculation that shows the Board its revenue source efficiency has gone down, cost of right-of-way has gone up, and if it wants to meet its current standards, it would have to choose a payment method. Commissioner O'Brien stated gross transportation impact fee cost shows four cars per household. Mr. Tindale stated the other way he has done it in the past is to look at revenue and determine what could one home support; if the current growth is about a .02%, then the revenue source can pay for it; but the County is growing at 3 to 4%; so it is a combination of the raw calculation and growth factor that creates a shortfall. He stated if Brevard County had a million people, 5% growth is a lot, but if it had 100 people 5% growth would be five homes; and there are extreme efficiencies in the change of cost and source of revenue being used. Commissioner O'Brien advised regarding de minimus growth, Mr. Tindale made a statement that in the no impact fee zone, development finally blossomed; with Mr. Tindale responding it was a lot more than that, because they built a school, Sheriff's Office, provided new lighting, sidewalks, parking, etc., and made huge investments over 20 years; and they put in enough lighting that reduced risks, so entertainment people came in. He noted they hit the right market at the right time; and it was as much by luck as by public investment. He stated without de minimus, the right market may have had a hard time coming in, but it was much more than de minimus. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if it was in Hillsborough County; with Mr. Tindale responding Ybor City was one of the areas.
Commissioner O'Brien stated the rate for the correctional facility is per 1,000 residents; and in 1990 it was 2.5 beds per 1,000 residents; and eight years later they are saying 3.5 beds per 1,000 residents. Mr. Tindale responded he is not sure 2.5 beds was the standard, but it was the actual experience; and 3.5 beds is the current rate for all counties in Florida and not the standard. Commissioner O'Brien stated the State and County rate have more criminals per 1,000 residents, almost 30% in eight years; with Mr. Tindale responding the Board has to be careful with reference to criminals, number of crimes, and population; there was a feeling ten years ago that there was a connection; and now the difference in sentencing guidelines may be requiring more beds but less crime per person because they are held longer. Commissioner O'Brien stated the newspaper article this morning had the crime rate for Brevard County as down 5%; there are more beds and more people staying behind bars; and the crime rate is down. Mr. Tindale advised sometimes there are events involving two or three crimes; and he is comfortable that on the statewide basis there is a disconnection between beds and crime rate in terms of a major emphasis on sentencing guidelines.
Chairman Scarborough inquired how would the Board define affordable housing; with Ms. Swanke responding the definition of affordable housing is generally geared towards the capacity of the family and the percentage of their household income; however, for grant programs and SHIP program there are limits set by the federal government in terms of sales price that is allowable under those programs. She stated under the federal HOME Program, the maximum sales price for housing in Brevard County which is considered affordable is $93,600; under the State SHIP Program and County Housing Finance Authority's regulations the sales price for new construction considered affordable is $110,000; and under the Board's policies they established $90,000 as the maximum sales price for their programs. She stated in Brevard County there is no single family detached housing construction going on that will cost less than $70,000; so the market is between the $70,000 to $90,000 range for new construction. Chairman Scarborough inquired what is considered average income; and stated a percentage below the average income and number of members of the family living in the home could be qualifying factors. He recommended following the worksheet to give the consultants direction; and inquired if the Board wants the consultants to continue looking at the transportation, EMS and correctional facilities elements.
Commissioner Higgs stated the Board talked about the difference between a fire impact fee for the unincorporated area and countywide emergency services impact fee. Mr. Tindale inquired if part of the instruction will be to separate unincorporated fire and emergency medical services and come up with two separate fees; with Mr. Jenkins responding EMS would have to be by interlocal agreement with the cities. Commissioner Higgs stated the cities would have to agree to be part of the impact fee program. Mr. Jenkins stated if the Board levies EMS impact fee in the unincorporated area only, new homes in the cities would not pay the fee, so it would be taxing people in the County for those services. Mr. Tindale stated the correctional facilities is countywide; and EMS should be the same type of approach with agreements. Commissioner Higgs stated the cities would have to agree to collect impact fees on their new houses. Mr. Tindale stated any fees that will move into the cities must have interlocal agreements.
Chairman Scarborough stated with that understanding, the first three items will be a part of the impact fee program. He inquired if the Board wants to confirm this update; with Commissioner Voltz responding she does not want to support it now and wants to talk to people about it. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board is not agreeing to impose any fees now, it is only directing the consultants to bring the numbers back in those categories so it can decide whether it will or will not levy impact fees. Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to confirm that the update of the impact fee program will include existing impact fee programs for Transportation, Emergency Services, and Correctional Facilities. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.
Chairman Scarborough advised the next item is to confirm that the update will address the impact fee methodology and equation. Mr. Tindale stated they want to ensure they do not do an analysis reducing benefit districts if that is not the general feeling of the Board. Chairman Scarborough inquired what is the consultant asking for; with Mr. Tindale responding if the Board wants them to do the tiering in terms of size of residential homes or do an average. Chairman Scarborough inquired if the Board wants to look at the average calculations on everything; and stated two Commissioners want to look at tiering, and two do not. Commissioner Higgs stated she is not objecting to looking at tiering, but does not know if that is the way she wants to go. Commissioner Voltz stated the Board needs the information before it makes a decision. Commissioner O'Brien stated the fundamental question is if Commissioners are prepared to increase impact fees for commercial, industrial, residential, and anyone; and if not, it should stop now. Chairman Scarborough stated tiering and affordable housing issues will lead to reduction in impact fees and not an increase. Commissioner Carlson stated she is interested in a fair system of impact fees and would like to see how it is distributed across residential, commercial, and industrial.
Commissioner O'Brien stated he is against fees for industrial; the results of no impact fees for commercial and industrial are highly visible on Wickham Road and SR 520; impact fees are an important factor for any commercial entity making a decision to relocate; and advised of his decision not to build in Cape Canaveral because of impact fees. He stated it stymies commercial and industrial growth. Commissioner Higgs advised that is only one issue in the study; equity, appropriateness of fees, and the systematic way they are assessed and collected are all part of the study; and commercial and industrial are only one part of the whole. Commissioner Carlson stated what is happening on Wickham Road is substantial, but there are grocery stores which do not pay their fair share for the amount of traffic they produce; and it is not fair for the residents to deal with the congestion on that road.
Chairman Scarborough stated on page 2, the second to the last item deals with continuation of exemption for commercial and industrial; and the Board will get there if it goes step-by-step. He stated the question is, "To promote economic development, the current impact fee program allows exemptions for all industrial, manufacturing, commercial land uses. Should impact fee exemptions continue to be allowed, be restricted to only certain land uses, or be eliminated?" He inquired if exemption for industrial land uses should be continued, restricted, or eliminated. Commissioner O'Brien stated if an impact fee stops a store from coming in, the County will not get more property taxes and will not get the impact fee; if the impact fee is eliminated, someone may build there so the County would get property taxes; and inquired which would the Board rather have. Commissioner Carlson stated they could get a commercial establishment that reduces traffic impact and still get the tax base, so that is another side of the argument. Commissioner Voltz stated the Board needs to address the needs and not just filling up space; with Commissioner O'Brien responding the Board does not control that; demand controls that. Chairman Scarborough stated it is not fair to make a decision today because there should be a public hearing; but this is for the purpose of having the consultant come back with information. Mr. Tindale inquired if the Board wants them to evaluate the ranges of revenue loss impacts; with Chairman Scarborough and Commissioner Higgs responding affirmatively. Chairman Scarborough inquired if there could be industries that are not levied impact fees to send a positive signal.
Chairman Scarborough advised the second question is to confirm the update will address the impact fee methodology and impact fee equation, including, demand for services, cost to provide services, credit for other revenues used to fund the services besides impact fees, and the number of benefit districts; inquired if there is any reason the Board would not need that information; and stated it is fundamental information.
Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to confirm that the update will address the impact fee methodology and equation, including demand for services, cost to provide services, credit for other revenues used to fund services, and number of benefit units.
Commissioner O'Brien advised the County has ten transportation benefit districts; and inquired if the Board wants to cut it back to five; with Chairman Scarborough responding that is the last question on page 2, and before doing that, he would like to have a motion for the study to continue, restrict, or eliminate impact fees exemption for industrial, manufacturing, and commercial.
Chairman Scarborough called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.
Chairman Scarborough advised the next question is, "Are there specific geographic areas where impact fees should be specifically reduced or eliminated in order to promote redevelopment and/or urban infill?" Commissioner O'Brien questioned the benefit districts; with Chairman Scarborough responding the Board said okay to that issue. Chairman Scarborough stated the next question is what other impact fee programs, if any, does the Board want to include in the impact fee update--emergency medical services, parks and recreation, libraries, and schools. He inquired if the Board wants emergency medical services studied.
Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to include emergency medical services with interlocal agreements in the impact fee update. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.
Chairman Scarborough stated the next item is parks and recreation; and inquired if the Board wants that looked into.
Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to include parks and recreation countywide with interlocal agreements in the impact fee update.
Commissioner Carlson advised all the parks are used by people in the County and cities so it should be countywide. Commissioner Higgs stated they have to calculate what cities are spending as well as the County.
Chairman Scarborough called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.
Chairman Scarborough advised the next item is libraries.
Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to include libraries in the impact fee update. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Voltz voted nay.
Chairman Scarborough inquired about including schools; with Commissioner Higgs responding the Board should know the number for people to comment on, but she is unsure whether the Board would do that although schools have an impact on the quality of the community.
Chairman Scarborough passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Higgs.
Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to direct the County Manager to contact the School Superintendent to determine if the School Board wants the County to consider schools in the impact fee program; and if affirmative, to go forward. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.
Commissioner O'Brien recommended the School Board be asked to share in the cost of the study; and Commissioner Voltz stated she will support including schools with the stipulation the School Board is aware of it.
Vice Chairman Higgs passed the gavel to Chairman Scarborough.
Chairman Scarborough advised the next question is, "Do you want to include the development of an administrative procedures manual?" Commissioner Voltz inquired what does it do; and Commissioner Higgs inquired what will it cost. Mr. Tindale advised it gives the person managing the program guidelines to compare land use codes to current code used in the permitting process, and guidelines to manage the program, etc.; and many communities found it useful. He noted procedures adopted by the Board have to return for modifications. Chairman Scarborough stated he does not want a manual until the Board knows what its program will be.
Mr. Tindale stated the manual could relate to the existing program; with Commissioner Higgs responding the Board should defer it.
Chairman Scarborough inquired if the Board wants to consider strategies for implementing any updated fee schedules.
Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to include strategies to implement any updated fee schedules across-the-board reduction by impact fee program area for all land uses included in the impact fee schedule, and phase implementation of fee increases over a specified time frame. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.
Chairman Scarborough advised the next item is, "One method of addressing affordable housing is to implement a tiered residential impact fee schedule. Should the residential impact fees be tiered so that smaller homes or homes with less bedrooms and/or occupants pay a lower impact fee than larger homes with more bedrooms and/or occupants?" Commissioner O'Brien stated it should be the same for all residential uses. Commissioner Carlson stated the first page talked about demand that was the tiered perspective, so she is confused as to how that applies. Mr. Tindale stated this is reconfirming that the Board wants numbers calculated showing that it can use an average or the numbers that will come out if it uses the tiering process. He stated it is a more accurate method of assessing independent affordable housing; and the Board needs to at least look at the numbers and decide whether they have negative impacts, and not just adopt them because they are more accurate in terms of actual application of an impact fee. He stated it is a more accurate way of reflecting impact. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board can justify the accuracy by doing the tiered version.
Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to address affordable housing by implementing a tiered residential impact fee schedule so that smaller homes or homes with less bedrooms and/or occupants pay a lower impact fee than larger homes with more bedrooms and/or occupants. Motion did not carry; Commissioners Carlson and Voltz voted aye; and Commissioners O'Brien, Higgs and Scarborough voted nay.
Commissioner Voltz stated the Board agreed to look at the tiered process in the first part; with Chairman Scarborough responding it agreed to look at demand which is separate from tiered. Mr. Tindale advised the variation in demand causes the variation in the fee. Mr. Tindale inquired if the Board wants to update the average demand and not go into any more details; with Commissioner Voltz responding it is unfair to charge the same price for a small home and a big home; and the fee should be based on impact. Chairman Scarborough stated there can be a reverse affect with affordable housing. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board can take an average value, average demand, and address affordable housing in another way. Commissioner O'Brien stated affordable housing may not be what the Board may perceive it to be; it may be good housing in a substantial neighborhood; and they get tax breaks which is not right. He stated affordable housing in his opinion is an 800-square foot cinder block house; but it goes up to a $110,000 house. Commissioner Carlson suggested looking at exemptions for a qualified person associated with County programs and other qualifications. Chairman Scarborough commented it could include size of family and other criteria.
Commissioner Higgs stated the Board can look at a variety of strategies for economic development, affordable housing, and redevelopment infill areas; the study would bring back information for the Board to make a determine if it wants to employ any level of those strategies in any of those areas; and it is reasonable to look at those numbers. Commissioner Voltz stated affordable housing is not low-cost housing; and there is a big difference. Chairman Scarborough stated staff who understands particular programs need to be available to the consultants.
Chairman Scarborough inquired if there are specific geographical areas where impact fees should be significantly reduced or eliminated in order to promote redevelopment or urban infill. Commissioner Voltz stated the Board needs to look at that. Mr. Tindale stated if the County has specific target areas that are defined, it would be okay, but if not, they would have to do an analysis to find them. Commissioner Voltz stated CDBG has target areas. Chairman Scarborough stated if the Board wants to go to target areas, the consultant needs to look at that to see what it will do to the entire program. Mr. Tindale stated if there are no permits in target areas and the Board wants to reduce or exempt those areas, it can qualify the areas as having a minimum impact on the program and go ahead with it. Mr. Jenkins stated staff can identify those areas, but they have to be related to the impact fee program and adjusted. Commissioner Higgs stated low income areas would be covered under another program, so she does not know if the Board wants to look at it.
Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to include looking at specific geographic areas where impact fees should be significantly reduced or eliminated to promote redevelopment and/or urban infill. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.
Chairman Scarborough inquired if the Board wants to review the Chart on page 3; with Mr. Tindale responding the Board has answered those by giving them other guidance in terms of strategies. Chairman Scarborough inquired if any Commissioner wants to give instructions to the consultant for the next level of study. Commissioner Carlson inquired how long will the next level take; with Mr. Tindale responding it should be back in January or February, 2000.
The meeting recessed at 12:35 p.m., and reconvened at 12:54 p.m.
DISCUSSION, RE: ROAD PROJECTS
Chairman Scarborough advised this item was postponed until today due to the long meeting; Commissioner Voltz talked about moving big ticket projects from one fund to another to get federal monies; and Mr. Minneboo said the acquisition costs would go up and there are other requirements to get federal monies. He inquired if there was other information the Board requested; with Transportation Planning Director Bob Kamm responding he did not have enough time to prepare anything, but he thought the Board wanted to discuss some of the projects and get a sense of priorities.
Public Works Director Henry Minneboo advised one of the big problems on the federal side is the competition with the entire Fifth District; and federal highway guidelines are different than Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) State standards. He stated the time frames on those projects involve significant delays versus the County doing it; and that is one of the purposes of the LAP program, to get the job done quicker. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the LAP Program applies to any project or is there a size or cost limitation; with Mr. Kamm responding there is no size limitation; however, LAP is restricted such that the County would not be permitted to acquire right-of-way. He stated DOT retains the ability to secure right-of-way because of the federal requirements; DOT wants to make sure all federal requirements are being met in the right-of-way acquisition process; but in terms of design and construction, the County can undertake that within its capabilities for a number of projects. John Denninghoff advised another factor the Board needs to consider is the project would have to be added to the DOT Five-Year Work Program; and once it is on the program, then it is LAP eligible. He stated if there is no right-of-way required with a project, then the County can do it locally; and it would be reimbursed at 87.5% because there is a 12.5% match situation. Mr. Minneboo gave an example of Minton Road, from Emerson to Palm Bay Road, which is a $500,000 project requiring the County's participation at 12.5%.
Commissioner Higgs inquired if the entire length of Minton Road, from Malabar Road to U.S. 192 would be difficult to use as a match; and if so, why; with Mr. Kamm responding in order to use federal funds on a project, the project must be in the FDOT Work Program; it must be approved by the MPO in its priorities; and before the Federal Highway Administration releases the funds, there must be a project development environment (PD&E) study done. He stated how that study is done must meet federal standards; and the PD&E for Minton Road was done as a County project and does not meet those requirements. Mr. Kamm advised they did a preliminary engineering study but did not go to the extreme of doing it to federal standards; so his concern is whether the County bring in federal money on a project that did not begin following all federal guidelines. He stated the right-of-way was not acquired with federal guidelines; they did not do the PD&E study; so he is not saying it cannot happen, but it is not going to be easy as starting afresh with a new road project and taking it the whole way through, meeting all federal guidelines. Commissioner Higgs inquired what roadways are likely to qualify, assuming the MPO agrees with the Board; with Mr. Kamm responding Wickham Road in the Sarno Road area may qualify; Post Road could qualify; but they have already purchased land for Minton Road and put in two lanes already, so they would have to go back and do a PD&E study to qualify it for federal funds. He stated to some degree they would have to start over and do some of the work the County has already done over again to qualify the roadway for the additional two lanes. Commissioner Higgs inquired how would Wickham Road be different from Minton Road; with Mr. Kamm responding Wickham Road has been the way it is for many years; and staff would start with a PD&E study that would begin with the roadway as it is with no real commitment already made in terms of right-of-way acquisition and lanes already added. Mr. Denninghoff advised the Minton Road project was originally contemplated with the idea of expanding to six lanes; a lot of the design work that was associated with it, i.e. retention areas, etc. were designed and permitted for six lanes; so the County is already in the six-lane format with that project. Mr. Minneboo advised an example is Palm Bay Road; the County originally built it, but now it is going through the PD&E study and ultimately it will be a federally-funded project.
Mr. Kamm advised projects that are well suited for federal funds are ones where the County has the luxury of time because it takes longer to go through the federal process; so the Board should look at projects that do not have a critical situation that needs to be addressed. He stated there are some situations where there are very restricted and constrained areas; and going to a full 22-foot median with eight-foot sidewalks on both sides, which are required with federal funds, would create a significant impact. Mr. Kamm advised any projects with support and interest of the cities, since it is going through the MPO process and cities are members of the MPO, are good to consider. He stated some projects on the list are potential candidates for federal funds, and others are not good candidates and may need a little more research on how to qualify them.
Mr. Minneboo advised bridge requirements under federal guidelines are significantly different, and many of the projects have some form of grade separation on them. Mr. Kamm advised federal highway funds are cut up into a lot of different small pots; they are categorized; and each category of funds has its own set of rules. He stated one category of funds that has been in place since 1991 is allocated to the MPO; the MPO has the jurisdiction and control over the programming of those funds; and they are called XU funds. He stated the Brevard MPO receives about $6 million a year in XU funds that are allocated and not in competition with other areas; it is up to the MPO to direct how those funds are programmed; and those are the federal funds that are most useful. He stated a 15-year program times $6 million is potentially $90 million in federal funds that may be available for those projects the Board is considering; and there are other uses for those XU funds, but the County would not be competing with Orlando or Volusia County for that pool of funds. He noted since it would not be dealing with State highways, there will be a 12.5% match required to use those funds.
Commissioner Voltz advised she would like to move John Rodes Boulevard, but there is a tremendous amount of right-of-way to be bought, drainage to be done, and a lot of things that are going to fall in those categories; it is $18 million, and she does not want to spend everybody's money on one road; but she does not want it to take ten years to get done because it needed to be done ten years ago; and inquired what would staff suggest. Mr. Minneboo advised if the County could provide significant improvements to the intersection of Eau Gallie Boulevard and Rodes, and at the intersection of Ellis and Rodes, they may be able to accomplish a tremendous amount as far as capacity; because everybody is trying to scrape that small portion of money that is available, staff has tried to do what it can to minimize some of the fiscal impact; and that would give some time and an opportunity to put that project on the federal docket. Commissioner Voltz stated as people get off I-95 and Eau Gallie Boulevard, the traffic backs up on I-95 in the mornings; she does not know who closed off a lane, but it is a traffic nightmare; she understands it is because of the Exxon Station that needed a turn lane there; but they should have gone to another lane south of Eau Gallie Boulevard rather than eliminating one whole lane. Mr. Minneboo commented unfortunately that was done by DOT. Commissioner Voltz inquired if the Board has an option to say it prefers to add a lane to the south side of the road; with Mr. Kamm responding he was asked to investigate the Eau Gallie Boulevard eastbound direction right off the ramp; there was a service station and other commercial property developed on the north side; as part of the development review, the City of Melbourne approved the plans that showed a through-lane there; but when it was taken to DOT, the DOT Traffic Operations people got with the developer's engineers and came up with the idea of closing down the lane. He stated Traffic Operations of DOT District 5 in Deland authorized the closure of that lane thinking they had concurrence of Melbourne; Melbourne and County staff have contacted DOT Traffic Operations about that; but DOT is sticking with the arrangement that is there.
Commissioner Higgs advised Hollywood Boulevard has some major drainage situations; if the same approach was taken in the short term for intersection improvements at Hollywood and Henry, Hollywood and Eber, and Hollywood and Fell, and maybe some pedestrian access for school children, would that give capacity improvements within the $17 million that road is going to cost; with Mr. Minneboo responding they have looked at some of those alternatives; and that would be beneficial especially if they did some adjustments and brought it to the federal side. He stated $1 million for an intersection is a lot of money, but it is a tremendous amount of work that has to be undertaken at those locations, especially when the geometry changes and causes drainage impacts. He stated staff estimated about $1 million per intersection for turn lanes, drainage, and signalization upgrades, etc. Commissioner Higgs indicated the County may be able to partner with West Melbourne on some of those to get a good leverage of dollars.
Mr. Kamm advised Pineda Extension is another one that falls into the category of a two-tiered kind of approach; Pineda is a roadway that the County does not need to do right now, so it has time; but it needs to secure the right-of-way so it has an alignment available at a future date. Commissioner O'Brien stated he thought the County had the right-of-way for Pineda Extension; with Commissioner Carlson responding only what Viera provided; the reason she wants the right-of-way dollars up front is because a developer is going to invest money in the ground within the next six months; and she does not want to lose that money. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the plan is all the way to Orange County or to I-4; with Commissioner Carlson responding she is interested in getting it to I-95. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board may want to look at what Orlando did with SR 417, a toll road that is paying for itself. Chairman Scarborough advised tolls cannot be put on existing roads, only new roads, but that may be an option to look at for Pineda Extension. Commissioner Carlson advised the project was on the books for 10 to 12 years before it got chopped; unfortunately that got rid of some of the right-of-way potential; but they have talked to individuals and may get the right-of-way for that alignment. She stated the Board is faced with problems on Wickham Road and may be forced to do it for development purposes; it has to decide how it is going to take traffic off Wickham Road; it is also serving the beachside for evacuation purposes; and because of the number of hurricanes, the Board may want to look at that aspect. She stated it is an important project that should not be overlooked again.
Commissioner O'Brien recommended staff contact Malcolm Kirschenbaum to determine if his committee could help the County with projects such as Pineda Causeway all the way to I-4. He stated Mr. Kirschenbaum is chairman now and has asked repeatedly what the County needs and how can he help; but the County has not gone to him for assistance. Commissioner Carlson stated she has talked to Mr. Kirschenbaum and Nancy Houston about some of the issues regarding I-95 and Pineda Extension. Commissioner O'Brien recommended Mr. Denninghoff talk to Mr. Kirschenbaum and return with a report on the projects they discuss.
Commissioner Voltz inquired what does the Board need to do today; with Commissioner Carlson responding Messrs. Minneboo, Kamm and Denninghoff know where the County should be and what projects to put under DOT, etc.; as well as what should be done with the remaining funds from the bond; so the Board could go District-by-District and find out where to put the priority items. Commissioner O'Brien recommended starting with District 1.
Chairman Scarborough advised three-quarters of a million dollars of non-discretionary funds have been provided for the Fairglen overpass; the County did acquire limited access for the west connector from the new interchange at Port St. John; and on the east side, one developer controls a lot of the property, so it is coming together, and they are contributing money for landscaping and working with the County on the project. He stated on the other side there are a lot of little things; and the idea is to loop around and back into Fay Boulevard and have a road that comes in where the school is located. Chairman Scarborough stated Fay Boulevard four-laning is estimated at $4 million; Ms. Tees and Ms. Rupe suggested using that money in a better way; and the reason is the four lanes would be taken to I-95 overpass and stop, so it would create a bottleneck and not accomplish much. He stated that money could be used to loop by the schools and back around and have another overpass at Ranch Road; so that item should be deleted and the money used for something else. He stated four-foot paved shoulders would be prudent as a part of the whole thought process; and the State picked up the cost of the overpass to provide safety for children. He stated Sisson Road is an alternate project; it was originally scheduled for four-laning, but that has been dropped; and the improvements will prevent people from running off the road into very soft sandy soil, so it is a prudent project. He stated moving Barna Avenue from four-laning to an alternate is similar to Sisson Road, and will improve safety; so shoulder improvements are all that are needed for Sisson and Barna. He stated Blounts Ridge is an expensive project; there is an isolated community on the west side of I-95; it will cost twice as much as what will be done in Port St. John although Port St. John is much more populated; and he wishes there was another way to help those people get out in case of certain events that may occur. Commissioner Voltz inquired if it is a dirt road; with Chairman Scarborough responding it has to be paved to make it qualify for gas tax, but the County cannot do dirt road paving; it could have an improved dirt road for substantially less cost, but it could not use the funds to accomplish the purpose. He stated 5A is just before leaving Brevard County to the north; there was a Stuckey's in the area; and the project would let them loop up there. Mr. Minneboo stated there was some right-of-way acquisition cost in that price as well. Chairman Scarborough stated it is an inexpensive project; it is a dirt road for the southerly third; and the remainder may be a dirt path through the woods. Commissioner Higgs inquired about the traffic count; with Chairman Scarborough responding it is not traffic count oriented; there are people and flooding up there; there was a fire in the area; and there is potential to have people trapped. He stated they wrote to DOT to get permission to break through its rest area, but he is not sure anything came of that; and it would be a cheaper route to improve the exit through the rest area to be used in an emergency. He stated Blounts Ridge is needed; there must be a cheaper and easier way to do it; and the Board cannot walk away from the problem.
Chairman Scarborough advised he has been writing letters for funding A. Max Brewer Bridge project and is hopeful the County will get the money. He stated if things work out, and money is freed up, staff could look at transferring those into the other loop back around by the high school to the north and have that whole community looped around. Commissioner Voltz inquired what money; with Chairman Scarborough responding the $2.4 million for Max Brewer Bridge. He stated the bridge project has to be done; but if they are successful in getting State/federal funds, he would like to see a circular system for the Port St. John community that has a full gamut of schools rather than have restrictions. He stated if they go to the Space Center, they could loop to Grissom Parkway rather than I-95 and have traffic flowing in multiple ways; and it could eliminate the need to four-lane other roads like Grissom which has been deferred and was a big ticket item. He stated the intersection improvements are reasonable.
Chairman Scarborough summarized his projects deleting Fay Boulevard, from Grissom to I-95 at $4 million; allocating $164,000 to pave shoulders for children's safety on Sisson and Barna; if Brewer Bridge funds are freed up, use the funds to loop to the north over Ranch Road in Port St. John; finding a way to solve the problems with Blounts Ridge Road; and three other items remain unchanged, reducing costs by $14 million.
Commissioner O'Brien advised Dixon Boulevard is a County road in very poor condition; and recommended it be rehabilitated and given to the City of Cocoa. Mr. Minneboo advised Dixon Boulevard is an old road under the State's Secondary Road System; it was four-laned with wide lanes; they made a bi-directional turn lane in the center; but it is very tight. He stated it is only 50 feet of asphalt and for the most part does not meet minimum design standards; and part of the $6 million deals with drainage work as well as beautification. He stated the City said it would like to participate and maybe provide retention areas and any other hydraulic needs to get some of the water taken care of during construction of the project. Mr. Kamm advised the City wants to fix the drainage problem, and the County has to fix the road to channel water properly; so the City and County have to work together. He stated the expenditure of County funds for the roadway will leverage additional funds from the City and get a comprehensive solution to the drainage problem in the area. Commissioner O'Brien stated it is a good partnership, a good project, and should be done as soon as possible. He stated Gerard Boulevard Bridge is already on the non-discretionary project list; South Tropical Trail Bridge is made of wood; and inquired if staff could pipe and pave over it; with Mr. Minneboo responding they will use some innovative approaches.
Commissioner O'Brien advised South Tropical Trail is extremely important; there has been a lot of growth on South Merritt Island south of Jefferson Junior High School; and the edges of the roads need to be expanded. He inquired if staff talked to anyone about the future expansion of SR 528, and if the County could get DOT to come and discuss six-laning the Beeline. Mr. Kamm advised the MPO in August, 1999, added SR 528 to its project priorities requesting that DOT undertake the PD&E study and put it into the Work Program to look at what to do with SR 528 long term, from the Port west to at least I-95 and perhaps even into Orange County; it may require a joint effort with the Orlando MPO to get its concurrence; and they are cognizant of the congestion on SR 528 and are beginning steps to address the problem.
Commissioner O'Brien stated SR 520 from Merritt Island to Cocoa Beach needs to be raised; the erosion that took place did a lot of damage to it; and he is concerned about evacuation needs. Mr. Minneboo advised a significant project should start next month at the Port; it is a $16 to $17 million job in conjunction with boat traffic; and there are going to be some grade separations and significant widening undertaken on George King and Nesbit Drive. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if it is from a special fund; with Mr. Minneboo responding the Port, DOT, and everybody is financing it.
Commissioner Carlson advised Mathers Bridge is in the non-discretionary portion because of the importance to fix that bridge; they cannot get fire trucks across the bridge because of the weight issue; so it is an important project. She stated Pineda Causeway is her biggest priority; the Board discussed establishing right-of-way; but she would like to get the road in there because it has waited too long, is needed for evacuation, and there are issues regarding traffic in that area. She stated Croton Road is already funded; and inquired if it is in the wrong column; with Mr. Minneboo responding no, there are three projects of significance that need to be addressed because they are already under design; and Croton Road, from Johnson Junior High to Lake Washington is one of them. He stated the other is Minton Road, from Emerson to Palm Bay Road; that alternative route is shown for $500,000; and Wickham Road, from U.S. 192 to Nasa Boulevard is under design. He stated Wickham Road is 30% designed; Croton Road is about 95% designed; and the Minton Road contribution from the County will be 12.5%. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Croton Road will require 12.5%; with Mr. Minneboo responding no, it is entirely funded by the County. He stated it has been approved by the Board to do the design, so Commissioner Carlson may want to try and get some action on that.
Commissioner Carlson stated she will go with the alternative for Barnes Boulevard and put the three-lane version on the back burner for now. She stated Fiske Boulevard which is $4.6 million should be put on the back burner because she is more interested in Pineda and Croton since dollars have already be invested in Croton Road, and the Board needs to go forward with the Pineda Extension and Mathers Bridge.
Chairman Scarborough inquired if the Pineda Extension was going to Disney as a toll road when it first came up; with Mr. Kamm responding when the project was first developed in 1988, it was conceived as an extension of a toll road; the tolls were still on Pineda at that time; and it was seen as an extension of that road to I-95. Mr. Kamm stated there was another study done independently to look at taking it further west, but that study was not completed; and the financial plug was pulled on that before they got very far. He stated Senator Deratany was involved in funding the study to look at taking it west; the MPO was involved in the section from I-95 to U.S. 1; and they were related, but were two different actions. Chairman Scarborough stated his concern is evacuation; U.S. 192 will help tourists staying in Kissimmee/St. Cloud area coming to the beaches; but if he was evacuating the South Brevard area, it would not be his evacuation route even if it was four-laned. He inquired if it is something the Board needs to look at; with Mr. Kamm responding it will involve cooperation of the counties to the west; there are some significant environmental issues about crossing the St. Johns River; but it has merit. Chairman Scarborough inquired how will people in South Brevard go west even after U.S. 192 is done; with Mr. Kamm responding U.S. 192 is going to be widened over the next few years, but it may not be adequate for evacuation at four lanes, so the Board needs to consider an additional route to the west. He noted Pineda Extension may be the prudent way to go. Chairman Scarborough described traffic problems on I-95 during the hurricanes; and Commissioner O'Brien described the traffic on SR 528. Mr. Kamm advised the Governor has commissioned a statewide evacuation study to look at choke points in the evacuation system and the ability to one way certain interstate highways and how to go about doing that as other states have done. He stated the study is scheduled to be completed by the end of the year, so Brevard County may have some guidance for next season on how to go about doing that.
Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the Board wants to pursue Pineda Extension beyond Brevard County; and noted it could probably get Osceola County to cooperate with the project. Commissioner Voltz stated it should be Orange County and not Osceola County. Commissioner O'Brien stated he would like to pursue it and maybe in 15 years they may break ground. Mr. Kamm requested permission to explore it with the MPO Director from Orlando which is a three-county MPO including Osceola County, and with senior DOT staff to get a feel of how to go about doing something regional like the Pineda Extension. Discussion ensued on the Pineda Extension to provide another east to west route.
Commissioner Voltz advised the first project in her District is John Rodes Boulevard, from U.S. 192 to Eau Gallie Boulevard; and she would like to move that into the matching FDOT funds, but do the alternate for intersection improvements. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the intersection improvements are for John Rodes and Eau Gallie; with Commissioner Voltz responding there are several places along John Rodes Boulevard, Eau Gallie, Ellis and U.S. 192. Commissioner Higgs inquired if it would cost about $1.5 million; with Mr. Minneboo responding it shows $6 million including drainage items. Commissioner Higgs inquired if that has to be done strictly from County funds; with Mr. Minneboo responding yes, but it will take ten to twelve years. Mr. Kamm stated it may reduce the cost for eventual four-laning because part of the piping will have already been done and retention areas acquired.
Commissioner Voltz stated Wickham Road from U.S. 192 to Nasa is already in process. Commissioner Higgs stated that is one that needs to be approved.
Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Wickham Road, from U.S. 192 to Nasa Boulevard at $2.55 million, and Minton Road items 47, 45B and 56. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.
Commissioner Voltz stated the next item is Wickham Road, from Nasa to Sarno; and recommended it be moved into matching FDOT funds at $14.5 million; and the beltway should be left where it is, as well as Ellis Road. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Ellis will move the $4.5 million into FDOT funds and work on the alternative. Commissioner Voltz stated the cost for Ellis Road will be different because part of it will be in the John Rodes and Ellis intersection improvements project. Mr. Minneboo indicated to four-lane Ellis may require right-of-way acquisition. Mr. Denninghoff stated to do any improvements on Ellis will require right-of-way acquisition, but the biggest problem is the drainage issue. Commissioner Voltz stated she would like to four-lane Ellis Road. Mr. Denninghoff stated the cost estimate only gets to the City of West Melbourne's limits which is about half the distance from John Rodes. Commissioner Voltz stated West Melbourne agreed to consider its part in this project. Mr. Denninghoff stated the City identified it as a priority and communicated that to staff, but he is not sure if they have funded the project. Commissioner Voltz inquired how far back on Ellis will Wickham Road intersection improvements go; with Mr. Denninghoff responding the impact of the Wickham Road five laning on Ellis Road is minimal; and it is not going to do a lot at that intersection in terms of the Ellis leg. He stated they are going to dramatically improve the overall intersection, but as far as the Ellis leg of the intersection, it is not going to have a big impact. Mr. Kamm stated with the realignment of Nasa to Ellis, there will have to be some work done on the Ellis approach; but how far up Ellis they do not know because it has not been designed yet.
Commissioner Voltz recommended moving Babcock Street to Fee to the FDOT funds because it is a very expensive project; there is time to do that; and Babcock Street is being studied. Commissioner Higgs inquired if moving the project over takes 12% of the cost and puts it under FDOT; with Commissioner Voltz responding yes. Mr. Denninghoff stated it is 12.5% of a different number than what is listed. Commissioner Voltz stated it would be the higher cost because it is federal funds. She stated the rest of the projects should be left as they are; it should come to about $44.5 million, and also allow for the 12.5% of whatever number staff estimates for the cost of Babcock Street project. Commissioner Voltz stated her recommendations should move over $18 million, $4 million, $7 million, and $6 million to DOT funds. Commissioner Carlson suggested sending it back to staff to recalculate the costs.
Commissioner Voltz stated Palm Bay Road, from I-95 to Minton is needed; and three laning of Riverside needs to be added, from 5th Avenue to Eau Gallie Boulevard. Commissioner Higgs stated it should not be characterized as three lanes. Mr. Kamm stated there is considerable right-of-way north of Indialantic at the very southern section. Assistant Public Works Director Ed Washburn advised there are long stretches of that road were there is no access, and some areas will not lend themselves to three-laning. He stated the majority will be intersection improvements, especially at U.S. 192 and Riverside and some other major intersections along the way.
Commissioner Higgs stated Palm Bay Road is her No. 1 priority; it is in the 12% category that was already approved; it will be almost $4 million by the time they go from Conlan all the way to I-95; but it is a priority and is in the works. She stated Micco Road is substandard and needs work all the way from U.S. 1 to Babcock; however, considering the funds available, they will have to look at a priority; and the section between Dotty Lane to U.S. 1 as an alternative with two lanes divided and sidewalks would be her priority. She stated the entire length of Babcock Street, from Malabar to the Indian River County line is in need of reconstruction, particularly on the south end; and Babcock Street, from Malabar to Valkaria could move into the federal funds category as a 12% match. She stated the next three listed are Hollywood Boulevard improvements; Dairy Road is almost completed; they do not know the impact of Dairy on Hollywood; and it would be wise to see what is going to happen in terms of traffic and look at intersection improvements there. She stated three intersection improvements on Hollywood, then see what the impact of four-laning Dairy Road is going to be on the traffic pattern.
Commissioner Higgs stated the next project is Micco Road, from Dotty to Babcock; it is in need of reconstruction; and she would like to see it done but is not sure it should be a priority item in terms of where the Board is going with the funds. She stated Commissioner Voltz mentioned Riverside Drive, U.S.192 improvements all the way to Eau Gallie Boulevard; and that is a corridor study and intersection improvements. She stated the next item is Minton Road, from U.S. 192 to Malabar; the South Brevard study pointed out the critical nature of Minton in the future; and funds should be set aside as match so that can be done, but Mr. Kamm pointed out federal fund option may not be there, so she is unsure what to do with that project. She stated Minton in the next ten years is going to require capacity and will need money; and to six-lane Minton from U.S. 192 to Malabar will cost at least $9 million. Commissioner Voltz stated traffic unloads at Emerson and Palm Bay Road; all that traffic does not continue south to Malabar Road; so six laning up to the intersection improvements at Emerson and Palm Bay and Minton may alleviate a great deal of problems. Commissioner Higgs stated it is a big project that needs a priority.
Commissioner Higgs stated Valkaria Bridge at Goat Creek is a safety item; and it was dealt with the other day with the bridges.
Mr. Minneboo advised the projects the Board approved prior to this meeting will probably require requests for RFP's soon to expedite those projects.
Commissioner O'Brien inquired if Mr. Minneboo thinks North Tropical Trail is bad; with Mr. Minneboo responding most of North Tropical Trail was done through proscriptive right-of-way and it is from edge to edge; there are a lot of right-of-way problems which is why over the last 30 years they did not do a whole lot there; and now the drainage problems have compounded significantly because of the amount of building that has been going on; so in general it does need improvements, but it would be very costly. Mr. Minneboo stated when there are a lot of houses along a significant road of improvement, they will not be greeted with open arms; so it makes it very difficult to improve a section of roadway with numerous residents living along or contiguous to it. Commissioner O'Brien stated if it hits Level F there should be a moratorium put on new construction. Mr. Minneboo stated when it gets to Level F, drivers will find an alternate route, but historically North Tropical Trail has been extremely well utilized in the mornings and afternoons, while the off-peak hours have been fairly decent.
Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 2:10 p.m.
ATTEST:
TRUMAN SCARBOROUGH, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK
(S E A L)