The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special session on January 5, 1995, at 5:05 p.m. in the Government Center Multi-purpose Room, Building C, 2725 St. Johns Street, Melbourne, Florida. Present were: Chairman Nancy Higgs, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Randy O'Brien, Mark Cook and Scott Ellis, County Administrator Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

INTRODUCTION

Chairman Higgs explained the procedures for the workshop; and recognized Ralph Brown and Mike Miller from St. Johns River Water Management District, and Harold Bistline, Attorney for the School Board.

DISCUSSION, RE: THE VIERA PROJECT

Introduction

Jack Glatting advised they have been involved in the master planning process for the last six or seven years; The Viera Company started this process in May, 1993; it submitted its Development Order to the Regional Planning Council in November, 1993; and about 14 months ago it started the review process. He noted it also has a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a rezoning process that is occurring simultaneously; those documents have been submitted and have gone through the reviews; it had the agencies review the application; they asked a lot of additional questions and information; and it was about a six-month period of time. He stated the agencies indicated they had enough information to proceed with the review of the project; Viera had Regional Planning Council action in August, 1994; it had the Local Planning Agency (LPA) hearing; and public hearings were held before the Board on October 19 and 20, 1994 in which the action did not occur at that time. Mr. Glatting stated Viera is present to do some additional review of the project; when it submits the Development of Regional Impact (DRI) application to the Regional Planning Council, it submits about 100 copies to the County and the Council; they go to different state and regional agencies who have reviewing responsibility over the DRI; and there have been a great number of technical people who have reviewed the project and made comments. He noted such comments have been combined into the recommendations of County staff; and the staff holds its own technical review and the review of many other state and regional agencies, all on relevant technical issues. He stated Viera is a very responsible developer; it has a track record; it has done a good job with its development which it is very proud of; it tries to resolve issues; and it takes a long-term perspective. He noted the project is going to be here for 30, 50 and 60 years in terms of the development process; it is a planned community; the Board has seen the master plan of the map; and the consensus has been that Viera has a good plan. Mr. Glatting stated the plan creates a balanced land use program; that is very important because the people who live in Viera can satisfy their daily needs within the Viera community and will not have to travel outside Viera to do that; Viera is not in the business of selling houses; and it is in the business of creating jobs. He stated Viera has to build a city to build a community at Viera; it has to create jobs; if it creates jobs, housing will sell; and creating jobs is

Viera's number one goal. He noted Viera is very much a part of Brevard County's growth; Viera is here to build jobs and a community; it believes it can do that successfully; and it will get its share of Brevard's growth. He stated the DRI and master plan community processes are a much superior process than piecemeal development; through the development order process, the County can place conditions upon the approval; there will be an onerous and will have the ability to burden the project that will break down the liability of the project and make Viera's development impossible to proceed; Viera believes very much in the DRI process; it gives it an opportunity to resolve issues up front; and the County can see the full force of the project. Mr. Glatting stated Brevard County has the opportunity to look long-term at development of a large piece of land; it gives it an advantage over looking at more development one at a time that is occurring over a longer period of time; the DRI process is costly; and Viera has about $1.5 million in this final DRI approval process at this point. He noted all of that development will have to be passed on to the land costs and ultimate owners and residents of Brevard County; Viera is very anxious to see this process come to conclusion; it also is aware of the need for the Board to have time to become familiar with the issues; and hopefully they can begin that and cover a great deal of the process this evening. He stated the agenda has been created by County staff; the purpose with working with the agenda is to create an open dialogue; Viera wants the Board to understand what it is proposing in the Viera development, and it wants to understand the Board's concerns; the actions and discussions of much of the dialogue tonight will be items and issues that are controlled in the Development Order; if the Board is comfortable with the conditions of approval, it will be comfortable with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning, especially the compatibility of the land use they talk about in the master plan; and Viera's objectives are not in conflict with the County's objectives. Mr. Glatting stated Brevard County needs to and desires to control growth, and to have the comfort that growth pays for itself; what Viera wants is that through the development approval process that it is treated fairly; it recognizes that the County has a need to, wants to, would like to, and Viera wants it to control growth; it is an important function of government; and Viera wants to give the County the comfort that it is offering it. He noted Viera can show the County that; it is doing that; and it believes the County wants to treat it fairly.

Commissioner O'Brien stated what frightens the public is the size of the development itself; one of the reasons the public is extremely upset by this is that this building sits here; the public perceives this whole thing as being something that was planned very quietly long before 1988; he is not trying to correct Mr. Glatting or anything else; he is just trying to lay the ground work on it from the conversation Mr. Glatting gave the Board that this started in 1993; but it started as an infant long before that. Mr. Glatting responded Viera has been working for eight years on the master plan for the Viera project and did the original DRI; this technically is a substantial deviation to the first DRI; Viera has to come back and accumulate all the impacts it had in the first DRI and the impacts of this DRI, and look at them together as opposed to just this additional piece of development; and you need to look at large scale development as a positive rather than a negative because there are so many things you can do when you are pre-planning large areas so you can define transportation corridors and set aside right-of-way to be adequate for the next 20, 30 or 50 years, forever in terms of development. Commissioner O'Brien stated he is under the impression that Viera West is going to take a long time before it is built out; he gets the opposite feeling when people say Viera West is going to over crowd the County and run it over; he does not see the development running that fast; and it may take about 20 or 30 years to get to say the city is essentially complete. Mr. Glatting stated the Duda family owns substantial additional acreage; the total land holding is 36,000 acres; some of that is undevelopable; it is in the floodplain and will not be developed; Viera is asking to add additional parcels as it moves to the west; and it expects that to be a long-term process. He noted what Viera has done and the important value of Brevard County is it pre-plans; it has put a lot of time looking at the total development; what is so unique and unusual from a planning point of view is that this is a self-contained community; it is a self-contained logical view of development; and there is not going to be traffic coming through this project. He stated Viera has a logical view of the land that it can develop; it can create a development plan and a master plan; that will insure that is going to be created; and it is unique for a large piece of land and to have those physical features surrounding it that do provide that buffer and isolation that allow it to be a complete community. Commissioner O'Brien stated there has been so much public outcry about the project; and inquired does Viera know why the public is up in arms about this particular development.

Mason Blake, representing The Viera Company, stated there have been many times when he wishes this building was five miles out in the ocean because Viera would have been fine without it; what has happened has happened; the public has had a hard time separating the Government Center from Viera; and they cannot separate the issues. He noted the County is approving this large increment of development, but it is not going to happen over night; it is a 20-year plan that all fits together and works so there is not urban sprawl; and the County does not have all the things it does not want.

FLOODPLAIN, SOVEREIGN LANDS, DRAINAGE

Hassan Kamal, B.S.E. Consultants, stated over the past several years, there has been a lot of discussion with the Board, County staff and within the public regarding the Viera project and the St. Johns River floodplain; unfortunately, over that length of time there has also been a lot of confusion and quite a few mis-statements about this very same issue; however, at this point, Viera is glad to be able to sit here and tell the Board, without any doubt and fully supported by documentation from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), that the Viera DRI, with the exception of a very small portion of the project, is well above the St. Johns River 100-year floodplain. He noted FEMA is the agency in charge of delineating and quantifying floodplains; it does that all over the country; the original questions about this project focus on whether or not the Viera project was within the floodplain and also whether FEMA had studied the St. Johns River in enough detail to actually quantify the floodplain in this area; and to address these items, Viera worked very closely with County staff and FEMA to try to put those issues to bed. Mr. Kamal stated through that process, FEMA has confirmed an April 22, 1994 correspondence to Brevard County that the St. Johns River was studied in detail by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; the results of that study are actually depicted upon the National Flood Insurance Rate Maps which are the maps the County uses to establish flood rates and flood zones; from another piece of correspondence from FEMA to Brevard County, it said that all but a small portion of the Viera DRI is well above the 100-year based flood elevation of the St. Johns River and outside the floodplain of the St. Johns; and within that same correspondence, FEMA goes on to say that the majority of the Viera project is anywhere between three to seven feet above the based flood elevation of the St. Johns River. Mr. Kamal stated the small portion of the project in the floodplain that is referenced in that correspondence consists of about 115 acres which is less than 2% of the total project area; that is located in the very northwest corner of the project; this area will eventually be utilized as part of the stormwater management system; and Viera has had some very preliminary discussions with County staff about possibly using that as a regional facility to address some regional-like drainage issues. He noted based upon that documentation provided by FEMA, as well as the County staff's own review of that information, Viera is able to sit here and say, without any doubt and without any room for any reasonable argument, that the Viera DRI property, with the exception of the 115 acres he referenced, is well above and outside the St. Johns River 100-year floodplain, and also according to those same maps which FEMA has verified is correct, is actually outside the 500-year floodplain. Mr. Kamal stated there have been a lot of questions, accusations and claims that have been made that the property proposed for development within the DRI and especially areas in the northwest corner of the project, are state sovereign lands or lands that are owned by the state because they are below the ordinary high water line of the river; Viera is glad to be able to sit here and tell the Board that these claims are inaccurate; Viera received correspondence from Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) dated November 4, 1994; DEP is the agency which is in charge of delineating sovereign lands; and that correspondence verifies the entire limits of the Viera DRI are landward of the ordinary high water line of the St. Johns River. He quoted a portion of the letter as follows: "It is evident that all the area delineated as limits to the DRI is landward of the ordinary high water line of the St. Johns River." He stated just as with the floodplain issue, Viera can say without doubt and based on the documentation it received from DEP, and without any room for any reasonable argument, there are no state-owned sovereign lands within the limits of the proposed Viera DRI.

Mr. Blake stated Viera discovered yesterday that the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund for the State of Florida entered into a stipulation with A. Duda and Sons as to the location of the ordinary high water line; that stipulation was incorporated in an order; and although Viera has not fully completed its research, he can tell the Board with some certainty that as a result of that, the issue of the ordinary high water line is res adjudicata. Chairman Higgs inquired what does that mean; with Mr. Blake responding it means the thing is decided, you cannot do it over again, and a court has already adjudicated it. Mr. Blake noted the location of that ordinary high water line is outside the boundaries of Viera's property and inside land purchased from it by the Water Management District; the ordinary high water line is legal and unchangeable out here, except perhaps some changes could occur by accretion or reliction which is just the natural changing without any exterior influence of the bank of the river; so although he cannot tell the Board tonight that is an absolute certainty, it is a new development which puts the controversy completely aside; and Viera will be furnishing the County Attorney with information on that, as well as Secretary Wetherell.

Chairman Higgs stated perhaps even a bigger question than whose pond it is or where does the line go is the whole issue of how to protect the St. Johns River in the long run. Mr. Blake responded Viera can agree in the future to do that; the development at the point it is now does not cause the need to start that study; when it moves west he will agree and can do it in the Development Order perhaps; but you are talking about science that costs between $500,000 and $1 million; he is not generating the need for that expenditure by this increment of development; and he should not have to pay for it now. Chairman Higgs stated perhaps that is not something that totally The Viera Company bears the cost of; there is a responsibility to resolve the issue of protecting the St. Johns River; that is the real issue; it is not totally Viera's problem; but the County and Viera can, through this process, establish a means by which they can develop the plan; and she does not know how to protect the St. Johns River today. Mr. Blake stated Viera is more than willing to enter into dialogue on that, but he separates it from the issuance of this Development Order; maybe in the Development Order it can agree to enter into a process; Viera started on this two years ago; and it has to stop sometime. He noted he has expressed to the Board his history with the St. Johns River and Viera's commitment to the River; he does not have a problem with that; Viera does not hide from that; it is part of its plans; and it has thought about a lot of things and what it does when it gets out there. He noted you have to have the science to make sure you do it right; and what it does not want to do is do it wrong. Chairman Higgs stated she does not want to do it wrong either; she certainly does not have the solution, but she feels she has the responsibility at this juncture in the history of Brevard County with this decision to begin that process; the County has a responsibility to begin the process of insuring that the River is healthy for many years to come; she hears Mr. Blake saying he is willing to do that; and she does not disagree with him that the County does not have the science tonight. Mr. Blake noted Viera will work with County staff to take a look at some language and see if it can make it work. Mr. Glatting stated the solution to the St. Johns River is not just the Viera project or just Brevard County, it is a much broader issue. Chairman Higgs responded she understands; she is not putting the onus totally on The Viera Company; and she recognizes that as a public resource.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Duda Company has received many awards from DEP for the work it has done, especially in North Florida on its farms and the water quality it generated; The Viera Company follows suit with that too; and what needs to be done is to try and set up some of the format that in the future as development progresses, the St. Johns River water quality program should be looked at more seriously, as the laws are going to get tougher and change across the years. Chairman Higgs stated the laws will change; and to proceed from here, she needs assurance of where the County can go with preserving the St. Johns.

Commissioner Scarborough stated a lot of the solution in the discussion is somehow going to have to discuss how the water is handled between the project and the river, where the developer has control of the property because there is a lot of opportunity for managing the waters, which he understands is not within the County's jurisdiction unless it is driven by the project. He noted if it is driven by the project then the County can look at the type of activities; but under current agricultural law, they can basically have cart blanche and do a lot of things they normally do not do in other development. Mr. Blake responded Viera does not have cart blanche. Commissioner Scarborough stated some of the question is how do we handle the overall river issue without looking at all of these facets being related about the whole lands, not just the project. Mr. Blake noted at the stage Viera is now, it is such a distance from the river it is not an issue; in the next increment of development, it will need to deal with that issue and can commit to do that; but he does not have the science and will not until they see 20 years from now what the market is, what is actually going to be developed there, if the laws permit any development there, and what is needed. Chairman Higgs stated the impacts are considerable; and all she wants to do is on this stretch of the river through this process, to identify that there is a commitment from Viera and Brevard County to move forward to do some significant activities and outline that through the process. Mr. Blake stated he does not have a problem with that concept; Viera's long-term interest is in that river; Viera has won a number of environmental awards; and it earned an award two weeks ago which was the Enviro-agricultural award for the state. Chairman Higgs stated people are concerned about this project from the environmental standpoint; there is concern about the St. Johns River and taking care of the issue of where the County is going to be with protecting the St. Johns in the long run; it is a significant step it can make to assure people that the resource is going to be protected for the long-term; and one of the messages that came through to her from public comment is there is a concern that the County is going to damage the river. She noted it is a significant issue; and the County needs to find a way to resolve it. Mr. Blake stated it is a concept he does not have a problem with; where he has the problem is spending $500,000 to $1 million at a stage where it is premature and it may be just wasting it because in this process, it piles up enough cash and burns it, from his perspective; he does not mind spending the money; it is a significant issue to him; and he just wants to make it money well spent. Chairman Higgs stated the County would not want to invest in that and have it be wasted. Mr. Blake stated the St. Johns River Water Management District needs to be a party to that. Commissioner O'Brien stated The Viera Company has already offered to put in a Class II drainage system when all that is required is a Class I; and it has gone the extra step better than required. Mr. Blake stated it has gone the extra step in almost every single way; and it has a water system that is absolutely magnificent and designed to protect that river.

Mr. Kamal stated the project consists of about 5,800 acres located west of I-95 and east of the Florida Power & Light transmission mains; most of the land has previously been cleared in the past 50 years or so and has been utilized for agricultural purposes such as stock and cattle production; the project is currently drained by a system of drainage ditches and canals which carry the water in general east to west direction; and as development within the project progresses, the existing agricultural system by phase will be replaced by the proposed stormwater management system which will consist of a series of lakes, pipes and discharge structures, and also incorporates some of the preserved wetlands and created wetlands which Viera will build as part of its mitigation efforts. He noted as a whole, the project would dedicate 2.75 square miles of land approximately; the lakes and open space which would be used for water management is almost three square miles of land; it is a huge commitment on the part of the company to make sure the water that leaves this property is of high quality and does not cause any adverse downstream impacts; and this is percentage-wise significantly more than most projects commit to this use. Mr. Kamal stated the lakes he referenced will be part of the initial construction; the fill material from these lakes will be used to fill and grade the development parcels; the stormwater will drain from the developed parcels into the stormwater lakes; the lakes will be connected by a series of pipes and control structures; and as one lake fills up, stormwater will cascade through the pipes and the control structures down to the next lake or series of lakes. He noted this cascading pattern continues across the project in an east to west pattern, mimicking the natural drainage patterns that currently exist; the western end of the project at the Florida Power & Light transmission mains, the last series of lakes, will discharge into one of the existing agricultural canals; and these canals will convey water into the west with eventual discharge into the river which is approximately five miles west of the project. He stated Mr. Blake pointed out the relationship of the project area versus the river; that is one of the things that has been hard for the general public to grasp; there has been an understanding and a false impression that the project was directly abutting the river; but as the aerial photograph shows, Viera is quite a long way from the river. Mr. Kamal noted the system he just described has several primary purposes, including water quality treatment, the limitation of discharge to downstream areas, and providing adequate drainage for the development parcels within the DRI; from a water quality standpoint, the lakes will detain the stormwater so any pollutants and solids will settle out and be filtered prior to discharge offsite; and because the system is so large and the flows cascade from one lake to the next, there is higher level of treatment provided versus a standard system which you see in a smaller development which may only have one lake and then discharge offsite into a ditch which then flows directly into a main water body. He stated from a water quantity standpoint, the lakes, pipes and control structures will be sized to insure the amount of water leaving the site after the project is built out does not exceed the amount of water leaving the site right now in undeveloped conditions so there is no adverse downstream flooding impacts; these concepts, he has just discussed, have been incorporated into a master drainage plan; that plan has been submitted to Brevard County and the St. Johns River Water Management District; such District has approved that plan at the governing board hearing in October, 1994; and the District is the agency in charge of evaluating these kinds of projects, and determining and making sure they do not have an adverse impact on natural resources and especially on the St. Johns River. Mr. Kamal stated based on that approval, it is fair to say that the District is confident that this project as proposed will not adversely impact the St. Johns River; in addition to the conceptual permit Viera receives, there are a series of special conditions within the Development Order and St. Johns permit which are aimed in insuring that the project does not adversely impact adjoining areas or downstream waters; and there is a catch-all condition that states if a system is found to adversely impact water quality or quantity downstream of the project site, The Viera Company will be required to complete any corrective actions and/or mitigate any identified degradation resulting from the projects. He noted there are safeguards built into the system; the Water Management District feels very comfortable with the project; as development progresses within Viera, it has to submit detailed construction plans to Brevard County and the District; and at that stage, they will have an additional opportunity to review those plans and make sure they are in conformance with the original design concept and provide additional assurance that this project does not adversely impact any of the downstream resources.

Mr. Kamal stated Viera has spoken several times about the benefits of planning on such a large scale; this is especially true when it comes to the design and implementation of a stormwater management system; the opportunity and ability to plan and design at this scale is an engineer's or public works director's dream; this project allows the County a comprehensive understanding and a blueprint of how the drainage system will work for a very large piece of property; and that is an opportunity that is rarely had and is a great benefit to the County with thorough evaluation of how the entire drainage system works and it works together, how the different systems interact, and the impacts of various facilities upon a regional-wide drainage system. He noted if you do not have something like this, the other option is a series of small developments with small stormwater systems draining to a series of ditches with no real good understanding of how those systems work together and what their impacts are; unfortunately, the scenario is what you see too often in a lot of unplanned communities; and while at face value these systems may appear adequate, they do not go nearly as far as the Viera system. Mr. Kamal stated when you have a series of unrelated non-master plan developments, you use the ability to determine what impacts each parcel would have on preceding development because there is no blueprint for that growth and no planned allowance for accommodating the drainage from the parcels as they continue to develop; since there is no master plan, you are going to lose the ability to efficiently and effectively meet the drainage needs for those development parcels; all too often, this results in inadequate and undersized facilities, causing flooding, water quality problems, costly property damage, and expensive retrofitting at taxpayers expense; and these are the kind of problems which can and would be avoided by careful master planning the engineering at the DRI level. He stated the tropical storm the County had several months back provided some proof that what Viera is doing as far as the stormwater management system works; the papers were full of pictures of areas throughout the County that had serious flooding problems; fortunately those pictures did not show any property in Viera because Viera did not flood; it did not have flooding in its streets, it did not have flooding in its homes; and the system worked well because Viera had the ability to look at it on a very large scale. Mr. Kamal stated there have been a lot of concerns raised regarding the deterioration of water bodies throughout Brevard County; the real reason for that is that some of these water bodies have been bordered by older communities which do not have water quality treatment systems; Viera actually is proposing exactly what the County wants to see which is communities are planned, engineered and built with proper stormwater treatment facilities up front so you do not have to go back and try to fix problems; and these facilities will be built with the full understanding of all the surrounding issues and land uses, allowing the system to meet all of the water quality treatment that is set up by the County now instead of by the state. He noted they will be built at no taxpayer expense; because of Viera's ability to plan and design these facilities at such a large scale, the stormwater system will function better than smaller systems which protect the resources better; and they will provide better flood protection and water quality than a series of small unrelated systems which have not been master planned.

The meeting recessed at 6:10 p.m.

The meeting reconvened at 6:30 p.m.

ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Mr. Glatting stated Bill Cox has been the principal investigator on this project and has done a tremendous amount of work; there are only 34 acres of wetlands impacted out of 5,800 acres which could not be avoided because of road construction; the site has been primarily agricultural; this is a large scale piece of land that can be developed; and it has very high development capabilities. He noted Viera has worked with all the environmental agencies in this case; it has identified every imaginable environmental creature on the site; it does not have problems that it encountered on the east side; and there is no scrub habitat on the site. He stated there are not that many gopher turtles on the site; and Viera has established wildlife management plans for the two eagles nests that are on the site which have been approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired how does Viera intend to mitigate the wetlands. Mr. Cox responded when you look at the mitigation ratio for the wetlands that are going to be impacted, instead of being on the 1:1 which the agency is requiring, it is going to be up to 4 or 5:1; Viera is also restoring about 133 acres of wetlands which is by improving the inundation and hydro period for those wetlands; and there are going to be some wetlands preserved and created. He stated the County is going to end up with a much better situation than is existing on the site at this time; most of the wetlands on the west side are herbaceous-type wetlands instead of forested; herbaceous wetlands are easily mitigated for; in a matter of a month, you can have the water levels back at their proper levels; proper growth vegetation, wildlife utilization, flood retention, and all the functions of a wetland can be taken care of in a matter of weeks; so it is a fairly easy thing to do. Commissioner O'Brien inquired about a time schedule for mitigation. Mr. Cox responded this is taken care of with the St. Johns River Water Management District as well as the Corps of Engineers; if Viera impacts the District's type of wetlands, it is under a permit and has to restore or create those wetlands; it has to monitor them; and this can be anywhere from three to five years if the wetlands are herbaceous. He noted if it is forested, it could be a number of years beyond that; the rules and regulations are there; and Viera will meet those regulations. Mr. Glatting stated Viera has tried to locate all of its mitigation areas; he believes there are four areas it can get to depending on how development goes; and all of the wetlands Viera is preserving and creating are part of a larger open space drainage and pathway system.

Mr. Kamal stated Viera is actually constructing the mitigation areas ahead of the impacts; as it is developing the stormwater system in that area, it is going to do the mitigation; it is not going to wait until something is impacted at the southwest corner of the project; one of the conditions Viera has with the Water Management District is that each project goes in for review; it has to provide the District with a schedule of wetland impacts, mitigation created and restoration completed; that all runs hand in hand; and based on that, Viera expects to be well ahead of the game. Mr. Cox stated Viera has to also monitor these wetlands; usually it has to do it twice a year, once in the fall for quantitative and once in the spring for qualitative; and sometime he would like to take the Board members to Viera East and show them some of the wetlands it has done over there. He noted they are full of fish life, they are utilized by birds, and there is stormwater; they are acting like wetlands are supposed to act; and they are not drained and being overgrazed. Mr. Glatting stated Viera has a proven track record that it has done things and has been successful, certainly in Viera East. Mr. Cox stated Kevin Irwin's firm has worked with a lot of companies across the State of Florida; The Viera Company is one of the most concerned clients it has ever had about the environment; on the monitoring reports, there are pictures that are associated with those reports; these reports are 50 and 60 pages long; and they cover plant life, hydrology, wildlife, fish, etc. He noted Viera has been very responsible about taking care of the environment.

Chairman Higgs stated in the Development Order on Condition No. 11 it talks about unavoidable losses of viable wetlands will be mitigated through restoration or creation of wetlands within the same water shed; unavoidable losses is her concern; and inquired is there significance to unavoidable or avoidable losses not mitigated within the watershed. She noted she wants to know if there is a difference between unavoidable and avoidable in terms of where they are mitigated. Mr. Glatting responded Viera is required to mitigate for all wetland impacts it has. Chairman Higgs inquired if the term "unavoidable" were dropped, it really would have no impact and it is just a term; with Mr. Cox responding that is correct. Chairman Higgs stated the Development Order talks about native vegetation will be utilized to the maximum extent practicable; and inquired is there any way to clarify what maximum extent practicable is and what that means. She inquired who defines maximum extent practicable. Mr. Blake responded it is defined by Viera as it presents plans to the County and as the County has a chance to object; and Viera tries to utilize a great deal of xeriscaping. Chairman Higgs noted she would like to see some clarification of that language in the Development Order. Chairman Higgs stated No. 9 of the Development Order talks about saving natural communities to the greatest extent practical; and inquired can the County get clarification on that and what does that really mean. She noted No. 12 talks about the buffers and bikepaths going through buffers; it says there is 12 feet maximum for bikepaths in the buffers and eight feet of impervious surface; and if you have a 50-foot wide buffer with 12 feet in the middle taken out, you have really destroyed 40% of the buffer. She stated she is concerned about the bikepath and wetland, and the buffer and wetland; there is a 12-foot swap that is being cut through the buffers; and inquired if there is any way as Viera deals with that issue to minimize the impacts of the bikepaths and preserving there. Mr. Cox advised the buffer around a lot of the wetlands is pasture; and Viera is going to be working with County staff to put in some native vegetation along that bikepath. Chairman Higgs stated the final issue she had related to dedicating some of this conservation area; it includes easements to Brevard County, state, regional and federal agencies, including the CDD; and inquired if that means the CDD now can get an easement into the conservation area. Mr. Blake responded the reason Viera does that is because you need a perpetual funding mechanism because all of these conservation areas come with a perpetual price tag; it is not a small one to do it right, which is what Viera does; conservation area is within a CDD; and the CDD has an easement to go in there and perform the maintenance. Chairman Higgs noted it does not give the CDD the right to build a road through the conservation areas; with Mr. Blake responding no one has the right to build a road in the conservation area. Chairman Higgs stated she would like to have staff insure and look at that language to be sure that the easement does not allow that kind of activity in the conservation; and those were the concerns she had in that area.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired would Mr. Blake feel it is inappropriate in the DRI to have a demand that says you shall create a mitigation before you impact and does that put an undue burden on Viera. Mr. Blake responded Viera might do it concurrent with impact; and it can work on language with staff, but he will need some flexibility. Commissioner Scarborough inquired when will the County see actual construction. Mr. Kamal responded Viera has to go through this process before it can apply for the construction permit. Commissioner Scarborough inquired what time frame will the County see an actual permit. Mr. Kamal responded it will be done on a phase basis as Viera goes into a specific area and does detailed planning and engineering for that particular area; then it goes through both Brevard County and the Water Management District, and Viera may develop 500 acres at one time or do engineering for 500 acres at one time; at that point, it will generate detailed construction plans and turn them into both the County and the District; and after going through that process which can take anywhere from 90 to 120 days, there will be detailed construction permits that allow Viera to start turning dirt. He stated that will address that particular area; but it will also cover impact to the entire project. Commissioner O'Brien inquired does The Viera Company plan to build single-family housing first or commercial areas first. Mr. Blake responded Viera's job is to create jobs; that means it has to create commercial areas; one of the first things Viera is going to be looking at is its interstate office park; and if and when it gets development approval, it will begin moving very aggressively in that area. He stated in the meantime, Viera probably will also commence some residential construction on the west side; there are a couple of churches that are busily raising money to build facilities, including Freedom Christian Center and Temple Israel; but on the commercial side, what Viera is going to be focusing on is its interstate office park which is Viera's real contribution to the economy of Brevard County over the next 20 years; and it will be able to have the kind of interstate regional office park that Brevard County currently does not offer.

Chairman Higgs inquired what is the status of the VA Hospital. Perry Reader, Executive Vice President of The Viera Company, responded he was in Washington a few weeks before Christmas and met with the Secretary; he was invited to participate in the session where they selected the design for the hospital; it was outstanding; it was probably one of the most enlightening sessions he has ever attended where they talked about things such as cost effectiveness of the delivery system, the length of travel of services, and is it more important to spend more money on the initial cost versus the life cost of operating the facility; and he almost felt like it was in the private sector. He advised the consultant who is doing the space planning for the Courthouse is also doing the programming and cost analysis for the new VA Hospital; this hospital will have about 200 beds for psychological care patients which is the greatest need that they have in Florida; it will be modeled after the West Palm Hospital; and it will probably be over 200 feet tall and may be the second tallest building in the County. Mr. Reader stated it will be built at about $170 million; they finished the schematic design phase; the next phase is design/development which they actually put a skin on the building and select building materials; and that will be presented in March for final approval. He noted it is going into the President's budget for first days of funding this year; it was also encouraging to see that this meeting was attended by the people from the White House who actually were saying about how much they are going to spend; and they were inputting as to selection of certain critical issues such as the delivery systems, height of floor to floor, and things like that. He stated the process was overwhelming how quickly they are moving on it; in the next few months, you will see a trailer being set up as they move their field headquarters into the site that Viera has used called "Viera Commons"; they are going to run this project simultaneous with the retrofit of the Naval Training Center, for their nursing home and their clinic in Orlando; and there is going to be a funding issue come before Congress. Mr. Reader stated they do not know where that is going to lie, but initial indications are that the County looks like it is in good shape; he is sure it will be a fight again, but it is certainly going to be a lot different than fighting as to whether it is in Brevard or Orlando.

Chairman Higgs inquired are the odds better than 50-50 that they are going to actually build it; with Mr. Reader responding it is much better than 50-50. Mr. Reader stated if things are on schedule the way they look right now, by September, 1995, they will be doing site work. Chairman Higgs inquired once they start that, could they turn around and move it back to Bill McCollum's district. Mr. Reader responded in politics, anything could always happen; there is a significant aspect to this hospital and the psychological; this will be the regional location in the southeast for the primary care for patients who need psychiatric care and those types of services; it will still have over 200 beds for medical and surgical needs; it will have an outpatient clinic; and it will have a lot of the other components. He stated this hospital is an integral part of the overall system of care; and the annual payroll is estimated to be $80 million and 1,800 jobs.

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS (FUNDING AND VESTING)

Mr. Glatting stated to understand transportation in the Viera project, he wants to talk about internalization; Viera internalizes a lot of its travels which stays within this project; it has done a very thorough technical analysis that is a very conservative analysis; and it first did a run of the County's 2020 road plan. He stated all of the County's roads would be needed without the Viera project; he wants to convince the Board that the Viera development raised adequate funding to pay for all of the road impacts it has; and he also wants to convince the Board that it has absolute control of what occurs in the future on the Brevard County project and the Viera project in terms of the Board's ability to control that through the modeling monitoring process and through the Development Order. Mr. Glatting stated The Viera Company tried to create a balanced and total community in Viera; it tried to create the situation where travel stays within Viera; it hopes in the future that many of the people that are at the Government Complex will be going home to a home at Viera and will not have to travel that far and impact the County's road system; there is a great deal of internalization of travel in Viera; and it is not like Viera is doing a single-family subdivision where everyone leaves said subdivision for every use they have. He requested Mr. Lassiter explain the analysis that was done.

Sans Lassiter advised The Viera Company went through the DRI process which required it to look at the entire impacts to the County; it used the Brevard Area Transportation Study Model; the analysis covered each of the phases; and the Company had to look into increasing development in the background to account for projects that were approved since the original data was prepared. He stated Viera had to make its data additive to that and then analyze all the regionally significant roads, including those roads identified by the County, DOT and the Regional Planning Council; it did that for each of the development phases, both on a daily and a peak hour basis; and the analysis was all done on a peak hour basis which is the worse case. He stated they used the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Report which the Planning Council typically insists be used; a study is done all over the Nation, including Florida, that shows on the average what development generates; those rates are used; and what they find using the Brevard specific trip generation rates that are available through the Brevard Area Transportation Study Model is that the rates are much higher of ITE. Mr. Lassiter stated the Planning Council does that for conservative analysis reasons; its entire process is set up to do it in a very conservative manner; Viera has had to design some aspects in the project to make it expandable to handle future travel conditions; it is hoping that transit becomes a bigger issue in terms of being a viable solution to traffic; and if it has regional uses locally, that creates the opportunity for transit to be of a greater value. He noted they did not take any credit, any reduction in offsite traffic, or traffic internally for transit uses, even though they are required to do several things on a transit provision basis; the idea is to have these lower the peak hour trips; and the proposed mix of land uses will capture a higher percentage of traffic than projected. Mr. Lassiter stated they are required to use in the DRI analysis process planning level roadway capacities which are much lower than actual capacities; that builds in a further element of safety from the standpoint of projecting things into the future; you can get 20 to 30%, and even higher capacities using the design level analysis which is what is used in the concurrency analysis process; and Viera has very extensive travel demand management requirements contained in the Development Order ranging from pedestrian and bicycle uses to provision of transit shelters, and also encouraging employment centers to have right share programs and coordinate very closely with SCAT, bus service and bus service extensions, and shuttle service to the Melbourne Airport. He noted when these things are added together, he feels very comfortable in looking at the plans and knowing it will work; Viera has over-stated the impacts; the bad news is that the County shows a lot of high demand for road improvements; those still need to be addressed; but the Board needs to realize that what Viera has shown here is a condition that is much worse case than will occur.

Mr. Blake stated The Viera Company has to come up with projections that will absolutely never occur because the analysis is so conservative on every single point that it will never be as bad as it is shown; and instead of doing something and projecting out realistically, it has to deal with ghosts in the closet that are not going to happen because of the methodology it is forced to go through that really does not do anybody any good.

Chairman Higgs requested staff comment on whether it thinks these are such conservative estimates of what the impacts on traffic are going to be.

Engineering Director Sue Hann responded trying to estimate transportation demand 20 years in the future for a project of this magnitude and coupling that with the estimate of what is going to happen in the remainder of the County over a 20-year period is impossible to do; so what The Viera Company has done has made its best estimate using the best available technology in the model and using the best available projections as to what the land use components are going to be at that one single point in time; and she would agree with the concepts that it has talked about that this is a relatively conservative analysis. She noted there are many variables that enter into this; it is impossible to say whether in the final analysis that it is conservative or it may be liberal, depending on what happens to Kennedy Space Center and the Brevard economy over a long period of time; Viera is using the best available data and making a reasonable analysis of what is going to happen; and it would be inappropriate to say that without a doubt I-95 will need to be widened or Wickham Road will need an improvement. Ms. Hann stated that is something that remains to be seen based upon the development pattern that happens both within the Viera development and external to the Viera development; and there are a lot of outside influences on the transportation system as well. Chairman Higgs stated so staff is not ready to say this is such a conservative estimate that the County should throw it out as being totally unrealistic, but it is the best data it has at this point; with Ms. Hann responding yes.

Mr. Glatting reviewed a map for the Board showing roads outside Viera as needed road improvements in the 2020 plan. He stated they are all shows as needed road improvements if Viera never happens; all of those roads would need to be improved; Viera has shown those improvements in the first phase, second phase, and third phase from 1995 to 2000, 2000 to 2005 and 2005 to 2015 in terms of the timing those roads are needed; and Viera has taken each of those roads and shown the cost estimates. He noted Viera believes it has demonstrated it is paying its share of its road improvement needs and will generate enough funds to pay for its road construction needs.

Commissioner Cook inquired does the Board make the decision as far as stopping development if deficiencies occur; with Mr. Glatting responding yes, it has control of what Viera does. Chairman Higgs inquired are these numbers which Viera shows reality in staff's estimation. Ms. Hann responded the most important point that needs to be made about the revenue projections is the control of the allocation of funds, specifically with the federal and state funds; they are controlled entirely outside of the realm of the Board and to some degree, the only control is through the MPO; the Board has recommending authority and not programming authority; so it is an important political point that it needs to make sure it gets its fair share of Brevard County and not only that these funds be allocated to the improvement projects that support this development. She noted while the Viera development may be generating these funds in gas taxes, it is important that the Board recognize these monies are not going into a pot that is labeled Viera roads; they are going to the normal sources of revenue at the federal, state and local levels; and the County needs to make sure if it wants to do that type of allocation to support this development program that the MPO and the Board exercise authority in that regard. Commissioner Ellis inquired is that not true of every single development in Brevard County; with Ms. Hann responding yes. Commissioner Ellis stated it needs to be made clear that this is not really a special case; and the only thing special about this case is that it is one of the few times that someone sat down and tried to plan it beforehand instead of after the fact. Commissioner O'Brien stated the public was very concerned that the DRI itself would create a financial taxable buck out of their pocket to cover someone else getting wealthy off of development while the County is paying for it; and these figures point out to him that maybe the County makes out across 15 or 20 years. Chairman Higgs noted if that is true, then the County should have enough money to pay for its roads, and it is not there. Ms. Hann stated the problem over time with development is that it has not paid for itself with respect to transportation. She noted the type of development in Palm Bay has not paid for its transportation impact; one advantage of a planned community of this type is that it does more to pay for its impact on the transportation infrastructure than the typical development that is not planned in this fashion, including a 7-Eleven or typical single-family residential home; it pays for its impact fee which does not cover its overall transportation impact; The Viera Company will be paying impact fees the same as any other development; it is held to a higher standard than overall development, especially when talking about development in the municipalities; and the residential lots in the City of Palm Bay develop and pay the impact fee as determined by such City. Ms. Hann stated the County has no control over that type of development and over the impact of such development on County roads; the County has a distinct advantage with this type of planned community where it has looked at the impact to the best way it knows how, given the limitations of its data and analysis methodologies; so there is some advantage to this type of planned community with respect to transportation infrastructure. She noted the revenue projections are just that, they are projections; and similarly the costs are just that. Commissioner Ellis stated there is a tremendous advantage to having a master planned community because you have master plan roadway network; with Ms. Hann responding that is correct. Commissioner Ellis stated the key point is that these roads are being put in with an eye toward future expansion which means right-of-way is set aside which is one of the biggest expenses the County has had on its road building; and the road costs have been astronomical because the roads were not planned to be widened. Chairman Higgs stated if the County is going to go forward with Viera or any place else in development in the County, it needs to know how it is going to pay for that development; with Mr. Blake responding he believes the monitoring and modeling is the answer to that question. Chairman Higgs noted it is not if the County vests Viera for 26 years. Mr. Glatting stated all of this development is not going to occur tomorrow; Viera is starting to describe the monitoring and modeling program; it does an annual look at what the transportation needs are; and if the road improvement that is needed is not budgeted and is not in the construction program, then the County can stop development, not just in this part of Viera, but in the whole project. Chairman Higgs noted the County still has to build that road; and it can only stop Viera to the point that the County then resolves the problem. Commissioner Cook stated the County stops them with the Development Order.

Growth Management Director Gary Ridenour stated The Viera Company is going to be accountable to the County's concurrency program. Chairman Higgs inquired if Viera is stopped, does the County have to resolve that problem. County Attorney Scott Knox responded there is case law which says once you get to the point where you declare a moratorium on someone, it is incumbent upon the government to do something about correcting that within a reasonable period of time because it is the one stopping it. Commissioner Cook inquired is that even if Viera has agreed to it; with Attorney Knox responding if the County does not cover that in the Development Order then it has that problem.

Betsy Bowman, Law Firm of Hopping, Boyd, Green and Sams in Tallahassee, stated the Development Order clearly provides that if Viera has an unacceptable traffic impact as defined in the Development Order, which is more stringent than the County's Concurrency Ordinance currently provides, development stops if Viera cannot show that the problem will be resolved; the County does not have any obligation to resolve that for Viera under the Development Order; The Viera Company has agreed to be stopped period; and if Viera wants to move forward, it can propose to fix it or it can find some other means of addressing the issue by scaling back its development. She noted the Development Order does not obligate the County to fix the problem; and such order clearly states that Viera will stop until the necessary improvements are in place. Attorney Knox responded the Development Order as it reads right now does not contemplate the possibility if a condemnation expert firm were to take over and Viera is not the Company that is on board, and the project was sold to someone else; but language can be inserted which will contemplate that possibility and eliminate the problem. He noted what the County may read may not necessarily bind the developer at some point in the future, unless it provides specifically for a waiver of certain rights to make those kinds of claims. Mr. Blake stated the language can be worked out.

The meeting recessed at 8:20 p.m.

The meeting reconvened at 8:35 p.m. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS (FUNDING AND VESTING) (CONTINUED)

Growth Management Director Gary Ridenour stated the Development Order will vest Viera for 26 years; there is some language in there which basically is taken straight out of Chapter 380; if there is a change in conditions, you can revisit the project, but those conditions are substantial. He noted the vesting issue was primarily being driven by two things; No. 1 was a concern over the funding; No. 2 was over the comment made by DCA regarding when the County gets to its Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) process, if that process indicates the County needs to lower its densities for residential and lower its intensities for commercial/industrial; in that kind of a scenario with vesting, that could not be touched at any of those EAR points in time; so that was another issue driving the vesting issue; and staff is looking for some direction.

Mr. Glatting stated vesting is a standard procedure in all DRI's; all DRI's have a vesting clause in them; the reason why someone is given that right when they go through the DRI process is that they have gone through the process, they have analyzed the impacts of their project, and they have demonstrated how they are mitigating those impacts. He noted in Viera's particular case where it has created a Community Development District (CDD) and it is making substantial commitments in terms of land and facilities over the full life of the project, what it gets is the certainty that it is going to be able to proceed with development and recoup those investments it makes in creating the community; if Viera does not have certainty, it is very difficult to create the financing that is going to pay to make this project; and it is a very critical issue. Commissioner Ellis stated he does not have a problem with the vesting issue; he does not think vesting is unreasonable at all because of the amount of money spent up front on something like this; and if he were not vested, he would not spend that money. Mr. Glatting stated the reason why the state created the concept of vesting in DRI's is to give the capability of making commitments over long periods of time.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if someone is going to build a regional mall in Brevard County, it is going to be in Viera; he has no problem with the mall in Viera; but he does have a problem with the process evolving where it has to be the only new mall in Viera.

Mr. Glatting stated DCA currently is not in the business and Brevard County's Comprehensive Plan is not in the business of allocating commercial development; the County does not have that much commercial development in its Plan presently; what everyone is talking about is what may be in the plans and with the direction they see of plans going in the future where there is some control; when DCA looks at the Comprehensive Plan and the County's land development pattern, it is not going to be concerned about how many malls there are in terms of commercial development; it is going to be concerned about urban sprawl; and urban sprawl expresses itself in linear commercial development along the highway. Mr. Glatting noted regional malls are going to be approved as part of an activity center; they are going to be looked at totally different from DCA than strip commercial development; they are going to be looked at totally different from the amount of commercial development; DCA in his mind will never limit regional malls by the amount of commercial development in the area; and if there are four or five of them next to each other, DCA is going to express a concern, but it will never take the issue with major activity center-type development that a regional mall would connotate.

Mr. Ridenour stated when the County goes through the EAR, it is going to have to provide some type of commercial standards for the community; that is going to be the decision of the Board; and whether or not DCA will buy off on that, he does not know. He noted the County has the right to try to set those standards; it can practically take any type of format or any kind of configuration it wants to set up its commercial to evolve in the County; and the issue will come down as to whether or not DCA will go along with it. He stated if DCA becomes very narrow, then the County is going to have a problem. Mr. Glatting stated DCA's only expression of concern will be on gross commercial development basis, if it has that concern.

Chairman Higgs stated she has a problem with basing planning and projections in computer models and the reality may be very different; she wants some mechanism that acts as substantial change to the conditions and that the County has an opportunity after perhaps a phase is completed, to re-look at it or if capital needs change drastically; and she does not feel comfortable with the 26 years vesting. Mr. Blake responded he believes there are many mechanisms in the Development Order to do that; Viera tries to be flexible; it tries to work out concerns in advance; it appreciates the opportunity to do it; and he has less flexibility here than he does almost anywhere else. Chairman Higgs stated the Board wants to know what the flexibility is and where it is; it wants to know is there are other alternatives; and then the Board and Viera can see if there is some place they can get so everyone feels good about it. Mr. Blake stated he will try to find that out.

COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FUNDING

Mr. Glatting stated The Viera Company has had lengthy discussions with the Fire Department and Emergency Services Department; they have talked about what their needs and desires are; Viera has agreed to provide two fire station sites within the Viera community; and this is representing a three-mile radius of service area to those fire stations. He noted Viera has also agreed to provide the land for those fire stations; it has agreed to pay for the design, construction and to fully equip those stations; and it requested to be able to receive partial reimbursement for the cost of construction of those fire stations through an impact fee credit program. He noted the police issue becomes very simple; Viera has had discussions with the Sheriff's Department; there is a timing agreement that is reflected in the Development Order; and that covers the needs that will provide adequate police protection. Mr. Glatting stated in working through the numbers with the School Board, there is a need to construct within the Viera Substantial Deviation three elementary schools, a junior high school and a high school; Viera has agreed to provide the sites for those facilities; they are all on the road system; they will have access to those schools where they need to be constructed; and utilities will be available to such schools, so there will not be any hidden construction costs to the schools to build that. He noted all of these schools are on the pedestrian circulation system; Viera met with the School Board; it has specific language in the Development Order; the School Board has agreed to that language; and the issue has been resolved.

Harold Bislynder, Attorney for the School Board, stated he met with The Viera Company; they negotiated language; there are two paragraphs in the County's proposed Development Order that specifically relates to schools; and the School Board unanimously approved and recommends the County Commission include the negotiated language in any Development Order it issues. He noted Paragraph 35 provides that The Viera Corporation is irrevocably committed to donate to the School Board these five school sites; there is no reverter clause; and there is a provision that in the event the School District determines that the school sites are not needed, then it can surplus the sites and they will revert to The Viera Corporation. He stated the important thing about that provision is that the sites are available irrevocably to the School District to be utilized when it has the resources to construct the schools and the population exists in the area; and the School Board is in agreement with this language. He noted Paragraph 37 of the proposed language provides that in the event, during the process of Viera's development, the School Board determines that adequate school sites are not available or will not be available in a timely fashion, then the project will stop, unless and until the School Board and the applicant agree to a mitigation agreement which will provide the necessary funds and mechanisms to construct the schools that are needed at that time for that development as it occurs. Attorney Bislynder stated the language further provides in any event the School Board cannot agree with Viera on how to do that, then there is a mediation process; this is language that the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council and The Viera Corporation agreed upon a long time ago; and the School Board voted unanimously on November 14, 1994 to request the County Commission include these two paragraphs in any Development Order it issues for the project.

Chairman Higgs stated so there is language that will insure that the funding is available and that educational facilities are concurrent with the demand; with Attorney Bislynder responding yes.

Mr. Ridenour stated the School Board does not issue development permits; it may get to a point where they cannot proceed because school facilities are not there; the School Board does not have the jurisdiction in terms of issuing the Development Order; and there needs to be some kind of language in there so that the School Board will communicate to the Board or staff that they have reached this point in time. He stated the County needs some type of communicative from them that they have reached that point where they should stop; and staff will work up some language to make it work.

FUNDING AND TAX REVENUES

Commissioner O'Brien stated one of the public concerns has been the use of greenbelt to protect Viera from taxes; staff has no direction as to when does greenbelt stop; and inquired at what critical point does the Board rezone a piece of that property. He stated he is fearful the County will take a hit on this; there needs to be some language that it is fair to both sides of the party and everyone involved; and the County should state as Viera phases out that it would lose a portion or a greenbelt exemption, so the taxes are now being created rather than greenbelt. Commissioner Ellis noted generally you will not lose your greenbelt until the cows leave the pasture, regardless of the zoning; that is the law; and that is the way it is applied throughout Brevard County.

Mr. Blake stated the only way to address that is for the County to include in the Development Order that Viera could no longer carry on any farming activities; he does not know whether it could do that legally, but he does not think it is fair; Viera has come in with a large piece of land because it was told to come back and get a look at what this new town was going to be like; The Viera Company spent a lot of money to do that; it is going to do everything it can to get its money back and perhaps make some money one day; and that is going to get that property on the tax rolls as soon as possible. He noted if the County will look at Viera East and what has happened over the past four or five years, Viera has rapidly built a substantial addition to Brevard County's tax base.

Commissioner Cook stated the case law is clear; the Property Appraiser raised some question on this in the past; it was even litigated; and if the Property Appraiser has any additional comments, the County would be happy to look at them. Mr. Blake stated he will meet with the County Attorney and discuss it with him. Mr. Ridenour stated staff has talked with Mr. Ford; and he is going to take the position of what his office will do given the circumstances. Attorney Knox stated under the Statute, the Property Appraiser is bound by what the rules are; he cannot change the rules; the County may be able to work something out that will bend the rules a little bit so he does not have to worry about it; and that is something that can be discussed. Commissioner Cook stated it is important to have Mr. Ford's comments.

Mr. Glatting summarized by saying Viera is good, treat us fairly.

SCHEDULING FINAL HEARINGS

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to schedule public hearings for March 9 and 14, 1995 to consider the Viera Development of Regional Impact. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.

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

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