The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special session on May 9, 1995, at 5:03 p.m. in the Government Center Board 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 Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

REPORT, RE: MEETING WITH NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Central Florida Naturists requested to attend the meeting in Washington, D.C. with the National Park Service on May 15, 1995; and they stand ready to have a number of officers at the meeting as well as representatives of naturist organizations. He stated when he originally requested the meeting through Senator Graham's Office, he specified elected officials; he understands the City of Titusville will discuss this evening whether it wishes to send someone; but at this juncture, he does not think having more people at the table will lead to a solution. He stated the Central Florida Naturists have met previously with the National Park Service; if the meeting is opened to this group, it will have to be opened to others; and inquired at what point will the County have an opportunity to ask legal and logistics questions which need clarification. He stated unless he hears to the contrary, it is his intention to write back to the Central Florida Naturists advising the meeting is limited to elected officials, and the organization has had the opportunity for input, and will continue to input the process.

Commissioner Ellis stated the problem is if the meeting is opened to the Central Florida Naturists, it will be necessary to open to everyone; and it will end up as a debate instead of the discussion with the National Park Service, and the County will leave with nothing. He stated the goal is to get a solution or some kind of cooperation from the National Park Service.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he will convey that the Board decided the meeting should be limited to just legal and logistics issues.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if the City of Titusville has been able to resolve what happens if they have two Council members there. Chairman Higgs inquired why two Council members from Titusville are attending. Commissioner Scarborough stated when he originally wrote, he specified elected officials; Titusville always had the capacity to attend, as did any other City Council; and that is different than an open forum. Commissioner Cook suggested it could be a separate meeting because Titusville could cloud the issue; Titusville has the right to have its own meeting; but the meeting that has been set was for Commissioner Scarborough to relay the feelings of the Board and get input from the National Park Service. Commissioner Scarborough stated if that is the consensus of the Board, he will convey that to the City. Commissioner Ellis inquired who will be at the meeting, and will it just be Commissioner Scarborough and the County Attorney. Commissioner Scarborough stated he had asked members of the Florida Congressional Delegation to attend; he has not talked to Congressman Micah; but he has spoken with Congressman McCollum and Congressman Weldon. Commissioner Ellis inquired if their representatives will be there just to see what happens. Commissioner Scarborough stated the National Park Service is not under the County; it is under Congress; the Congressional Delegation should know the substance of the meeting; and there may be distinction in having Congressional Offices represented as opposed to municipalities. Commissioner Ellis inquired what about the State; with Commissioner Scarborough responding he invited Representative Randy Ball, who will attend, and Senator Charles Bronson, who will not be able to attend. Commissioner Ellis noted the State has no more jurisdiction than the cities. Commissioner Scarborough stated conceivably there could be state law instead of County law. Chairman Higgs noted there is no state law because the Legislature did not pass one. Commissioner Scarborough stated he has not tried to limit elected officials from going. Commissioner Ellis stated he was given a letter which Representative Ball sent the National Park Service requesting they not do anything until the Board dealt with the Ordinance; and he did not get that letter through his office, which concerned him. He stated the County has been trying for two years to work with the National Park Service; and now someone from the State has sent a letter asking the National Park Service to wait and not do anything. Commissioner Scarborough stated he appreciates the problem; the more people at the meeting with different agendas, the harder it is for the County Attorney to get a clear understanding how this would work; but he has a problem refusing elected officials the right to attend. Chairman Higgs stated she can see the concerns of the other side of the issue because if it is Commissioner Scarborough, Mayor Mariani, and Representative Ball at the meeting, none of the three represent a position which the naturists find acceptable. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Commissioners are elected to represent the people; the naturists are a tiny group; and if they want to elect somebody, they can elect a representative. Commissioner Cook stated the naturists have their own opportunity to make their own meeting. Commissioner Ellis indicated that is all right as long as the Mayor is there to represent the position of the City. Chairman Higgs stated Commissioner Scarborough is representing the position of the Board. Commissioner Cook stated he has no problem with the Mayor going to Washington, D.C., but it should be a separate meeting. Commissioner Scarborough stated Councilman Ilene Davis voted against Mayor Mariani, and the Council may choose to send her. Chairman Higgs stated the Board has the ordinance right now; Commissioner Scarborough has been designated by the Board to represent it; and he has set up the meeting. She stated the most likely ability to come out of the meeting with something useful will be to have it as Commissioner Scarborough designed it, but it is unlikely there will be a dialogue that will resolve the issue in a big public meeting. Commissioner Cook stated the purpose is not for Commissioner Scarborough to go to Washington to work out a solution, but to see if the National Park Service is willing to cooperate based on the ordinance. Commissioner Ellis stated the other elected officials should be there to listen; but the County has the ordinance; and representatives from the cities or State are not needed. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is going to inform the naturist that the Board has decided the meeting needs to be limited; but unless he hears a motion otherwise, he will not say no to elected officials. He stated he had a request from the Central Florida Naturists for a transcript. Commissioner Ellis stated that is not unreasonable. Commissioner Scarborough stated he will record the meeting and have the Clerk transcribe it. Commissioner Cook agreed.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to approve recording the meeting on May 15, 1995 with the National Park Service; and direct the Clerk to the Board to provide a transcript of the meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: HONORING ALL MOTHERS ON MOTHER'S DAY

Commissioner O'Brien read aloud a Resolution honoring all mothers on Mother's Day on May 14, 1995, and recognizing Chairman Higgs as a representative of all mothers in the County. The Board unanimously approved the Resolution.

Commissioner O'Brien presented the Resolution to Chairman Higgs on behalf of Matthew and Alan Higgs who were present to honor their mother.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE ON SITE PLANS/SUBDIVISIONS

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider the Site Plan/Subdivision Ordinance.

Tim McWilliams, 492 East Eau Gallie Boulevard, Indialantic, President of the Home Builders and Contractors Association, advised of meetings with staff to review the ordinance; and stated it is a good reflection on the County to have staff willing to work with the community. He stated the Association does not support a lot of regulation; however, the ordinance is a good balance. He stated there were a few issues of disagreement; and the first issue is permit time. He stated staff is proposing thirty-six months with a six-month extension for hardship; and the Association would like to see five years because the State permits are five-year permits, and it is easier if all permits are on the same time frame. He stated the second issue is the width of the road; the current ordinance is confusing; within the text of the ordinance, it calls for a ten-foot wide road; within the exhibit, it calls for a twelve-foot wide road; and they have been doing ten-foot wide roads for years. He noted he is only talking about half of the roadway; so, you would double all the numbers and add curbs to that. He stated the reason to go from a ten-foot road to an eleven-foot road is for fire access; but he has not seen any cases where a fire truck could not get down a street because of the missing foot. He stated the Fire Department looks for a twenty-foot road; and that is what they are currently giving them. He stated on one side it increases the cost of home ownership; and on the other side it increases the cost to the County by 10%. He stated what they have is okay. He stated another issue is easements; the ordinance requires easements everywhere; and they can get waivers from the County. He stated easements should only be required where needed; and it causes problems for homeowners who have nothing in their backyard, and there is no need for the easement, to have to go to the County to get the easement vacated. He stated another issue is subdivision signage; it makes sense to have a site sign in the middle of the street in a private ownership island, owned and maintained by the homeowners association; and in addition, other structures such as covered bus areas make sense. He stated he has been told it is a question of liability; and inquired what is the liability difference between a sign and a tree. He stated the last issue is underground utilities; it is required on all subdivisions; that is an economic decision; he likes to see as much underground as possible; but there are people who cannot afford that. He stated that burden should not be added to the people; it is an affordable housing issue; and most developers put in underground because the market drives it.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he tends to agree about the easements; and inquired if there is a method to plan the easements in advance to prevent a set of easements on all four sides of someone's property. He stated everyone knows why it is done; he agrees with Mr. McWilliams to an extent; but his concern is if the easement is not there, and it is necessary to put a sewer line between two houses, it cannot be done to service the community.

Mr. McWilliams stated he has no problem if staff advises there is potential future expansion and the easements should be there; but the easements should be where they are required; so, if there is a stormwater pipe or power lines, etc., the easement should be there. He stated if there is land behind a subdivision, there needs to be easements to the land behind it; but if there is no potential because everything is developed, there is no need for that easement, and no reason to put it there. He stated they have no issue with putting easements as they are needed; but there is a problem with requiring blanket easements everywhere. He stated he understands the waiver process; but the burden should be on staff to say where the easements are needed versus the burden on the developer to prove easements are not needed.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired how does the easement affect the value of the home or the ability to build on the property. Mr. McWilliams stated it can affect it if it crosses where someone wants to put in a pool or fence or shed; and there are issues that have to be dealt with that are not needed.

Code Compliance Director John Sternagel stated staff has addressed the concern of the Homebuilders Association; and within the ordinance is what Mr. McWilliams is speaking of. He stated staff has the ability to review the plan; if they say easements are needed in the area, the easements will be placed there; but if easements are not necessary, they have the ability to say they do not need to show them in the area.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if there was a policy driving this before that has now been changed. Mr. Sternagel advised in the past they were required on all side lot lines; in this case, there may be instances where staff reviews the plans; and they have the ability to say they will never need access in the area. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if that solves the problem; with Mr. McWilliams responding affirmatively. Commissioner O'Brien stated Mr. McWilliams mentioned bus stops or bus stands; and requested he describe what he means. Mr. McWilliams stated the issue is whether they can put improvements within public rights-of-way; if there is an entrance to a subdivision, and a median is put in the subdivision, typically signage would be put there; a little house could be put there which could be used as a bus stand; and the issue is not the bus stand but the ability to build some limited structures within that area. He noted the area is owned and maintained by the homeowners association typically; but it happens to be within the outside boundary which is completely enclosed by a right-of-way. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if there could be a way to allow a bus stop to be built on the island; and who would be responsible to tear it down if the easement was needed in the future. Mr. McWilliams stated it would be at the risk of the homeowners association if there is a sign, landscaping, etc. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if a homeowners association says it will accept that risk, can staff waive the rule to allow the bus stop, with the condition that if it has to be dug up to fix a power line, etc., it is at the expense of the homeowners association not the County. Mr. Sternagel stated at the Board's direction, staff could incorporate that policy into the ordinance; current policy is that all islands between the right-of-way lines are County-maintained, if they are within the County right-of-way; but private right-of-way could be maintained by a homeowners association. He noted he has discussed this with County legal staff, and they indicated there are some liability concerns associated with private development within right-of-way; and Traffic Engineering is addressing the right-of-way issue, and plans to come to the Board with a report on what is appropriate in County rights-of-way.

Commissioner Cook stated he would have a problem because even if the homeowners association accepted responsibility, if there was an accident after the County waived it, the County would be the big target. Mr. McWilliams noted if there was a tree there, the County would also be liable; and it comes down to what is reasonable. He inquired if there is a four-by-four post holding a sign up and an eighteen-inch tree, which will stop a car more. He stated he agrees with the liability, but there has to be an answer because no one wants to outlaw trees. Commissioner O'Brien noted some associations put a flag up. Commissioner Cook inquired how big a burden is this. Mr. McWilliams estimated 50% of the subdivisions like to have their signs in the middle; and it is a tremendous controversy. Commissioner Cook stated currently they are not allowed at all. Mr. McWilliams stated currently there are a lot which were even done illegally or were pre-existing; but there are a tremendous number.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he would like to work something out to allow them to do that, but specifically for a sign, a flag pole, or specific delineated things. Commissioner Ellis inquired what is the problem with putting up a subdivision sign; and stated it adds to aesthetics and helps people find their way around. Commissioner O'Brien stated the discussion is about liability; but if there is a tree, it is the same liability. Commissioner Ellis stated that was his argument about the basketball hoops because hitting a basketball hoop in a driveway is no different than hitting an oak tree or anything else. Mr. McWilliams inquired if the County has ever been sued for this; and could the homeowners association be required to have some liability insurance.

Chairman Higgs stated this will go to a second public hearing; and directed staff and the County Attorney's Office to provide more information on this issue.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he would like to see that because it makes the community look better. Commissioner O'Brien inquired about underground utilities. Mr. McWilliams stated the current code requires underground utilities in every subdivision with lots over one-half acre; that is an economic decision; and in certain subdivisions, it is an affordable housing issue, and should not be required across the board. He noted most subdivisions put in underground electric; but it should not be something that is mandated. Commissioner Cook inquired what if there were four subdivisions with underground, one in the middle with overhead, and four more underground all in the same community. Mr. McWilliams stated typically that person will not be able to sell his lots, so it does not happen, because no one is going to risk a couple of million dollars and not sell his subdivision because there are lines. Commissioner O'Brien stated they are buried to provide an ability for the community to regenerate after a big hurricane; and there are some unscrupulous builders who put a pole in the ground, run a line, and say you're ready to go. Mr. McWilliams noted that is an FP&L issue. Commissioner Ellis noted unscrupulous people could get you underground or overhead. Chairman Higgs stated she would be interested in information regarding safety issues and hurricane issues as far as underground and above ground utilities. Mr. Sternagel stated he will be glad to bring that information back to the next meeting. Mr. McWilliams noted wind blows, but people also dig.

Tim Jelus, 4455 Country Road, Melbourne, thanked staff for reaching out into the community to get feedback; and stated he and Mr. McWilliams have worked extensively on the proposed subdivision ordinance. He stated on page 11 of the ordinance, the time frame is given as 36 months; and on a multi-phase project, three years is not enough time. He advised of the time it takes to go through the permitting process, construction process, and building out of Phase 1, which provides the capital to build Phase 2; and requested the local permits be consistent with the State permits which are generally five years. He stated it is a reasonable request; they have gone through the regulation process enough that things should not be that dynamic in five years; and the rules should be relatively static. He stated on page 19, the underground utility issue is addressed; FP&L prefers overhead because it is easier to get to and repair; many communities in Port St. John and in Palm Bay have overhead power where it is not a problem; overhead power goes up and down all the arterial roads; and most of the residential communities are offset the major arterials by 200 to 300 feet which has commercial frontage. He stated to go underground for 200 to 300 feet is a cost burden to get power into the subdivision; it is an expensive proposition to go underground, but generally the market dictates going underground; but there are some nice communities, such as Windover Farms which has $300,000 homes, which have overhead power. He stated it is a market driven condition, and should not be mandated by the County. He stated the homeowners association owns the tracts; and recommended a minimum width of medians which allow the signage, such as a twelve-foot wide median that would allow entrance signage, landscaping or a gazebo. He stated street lights are just as liable as anything else; and generally when the common areas are warranty deeded over to the homeowners association, it is encompassed by a liability insurance policy; so the County should not hold any liability in that regard. He stated they negotiated with staff to increase the road specifications; and they would like to see the ten-foot lane.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if there has been discussion of the reason for the ten-foot width; and stated the twelve-foot width is for future use for bicycle paths and other access. Mr. Jelus stated they are constructing a five-foot pedway in addition to the roadway; and generally pedestrian traffic is not intermingled with the vehicular traffic. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if Mr. Jelus wants a ten-foot width per lane; with Mr. Jelus responding yes, twenty feet total. Mr. Jelus stated the text of the ordinance currently says ten, but the exhibits show twelve; and staff has recommended there be an eleven-foot pavement lane; but he would prefer to keep the ten-foot as it is now. Mr. Sternagel stated he is not aware of approving any recent subdivisions with ten-foot lane widths; in the past some were approved with ten-foot lane widths; but the current ordinance has eleven-foot lane widths which is what the County is recommending. He stated in some instances the lane width was twelve feet; under this ordinance there is a twelve-foot lane width for collector roads; and it has been reduced to eleven feet for local type roads. Commissioner O'Brien inquired is there any basis for the eleven-foot width. Land Development Engineer Mahmoud Najda stated the eleven feet will provide a safe traveling lane for certain speed limits; the Ordinance currently indicates a total width of traveling lanes to be twenty feet; but it is for certain types of streets, not all streets. He stated this Ordinance has been in effect since 1978; it considers alleys and small roads allowing for twenty-foot pavement; and the eleven feet was generated after conversations with the Fire Department as a compromise to reduce the twelve feet. He stated the Fire Department would like to see safe access for its emergency vehicles; and eleven feet is a safe width. Commissioner O'Brien inquired about the hurricane status for underground utilities; and stated the underground utilities look good but there will probably be information showing they allow faster re-connection after a storm.

Mr. Jelus stated the main transmission mains are all overhead. Commissioner O'Brien stated if everyone went overhead, and a storm came through, not only would the mains be gone, but the wires would be gone with it. Mr. Jelus reiterated it is overhead already up and down the main arterials and on I-95 going into and out of Orlando. He stated it is easier to fix an overhead line than an underground line. Commissioner O'Brien stated it is not easier to restring all over a County that is 79 miles long.

Commissioner Ellis stated the Board just had a workshop on affordable housing, and this is driving up the cost of homes, and it is not homes at the top of the market, but at the lower end. He stated if the Board is going to talk about affordable housing, it needs to do something at the County level, and consider that things that are nice aesthetically will be included as a market factor for expensive homes anyway.

Commissioner Cook stated he will be happy to consider this, but the aesthetics of a neighborhood go beyond just that neighborhood; and that is his concern. He stated people live in a total community, not insulated within one neighborhood; and his concern is there would be two subdivisions side by side, one has it, and one does not, and the one that does not will drive down the property values of the other subdivision.

Mr. Jelus stated it is basically market driven; two classic examples are Port St. John and Palm Bay; those are established, decent communities; and 99% of it is overhead, although a lot of the new stuff coming in is going underground. He noted he is not opposed to underground utilities; nine out of ten of the developments will be that way; but it should not be mandatory on a site that may not need it. He stated there are two affordable housing subdivisions that are going in, and they are going overhead; and with this ordinance in place, they would have to go underground with the cost passed on to the consumer.

Chairman Higgs stated she would be interested in knowing whether it is less or more expensive long-term to go underground.

Commissioner Cook noted by the same solution, their investment would be worth more. Mr. Jelus stated he does not disagree, but he does not want it to be a mandatory requirement on every project.

Chairman Higgs stated one of the issues that concerned her was the width of pedways at five feet; and requested information on a narrower pedway. Mr. Sternagel stated he would be happy to do that and bring back a report.

Commissioner Cook stated sheds below 150 square feet are exempted from the site plan review, but are still required to get a building permit; and inquired why a permit is required; with Mr. Sternagel responding when the permit is applied for, staff reviews for the setback issue, to assure that the lot coverage is not exceeded, that there are not too many sheds on the property, and that the total square footage of accessory buildings has not exceeded the zoning regulations. Mr. Sternagel stated it goes through the one-stop process; what staff proposes is to eliminate the site plan review which is costly and time-consuming; and the applicant will simply go to the Building Division for a permit. Commissioner Cook expressed concern about requiring permits for everything.

Mr. Sternagel stated another key component of the review would be the safety review to see how the structure is anchored to a concrete pad to show it meets the current building code. Commissioner Cook stated a lot of staff time is being taken to issue a permit to someone to build a small structure to put his or her lawnmower in; it seems like the cost associated with the permit is not worth the trouble; and probably the vast majority of the people never go in for a permit anyway. Commissioner Ellis stated he would like more information at the second public hearing on the five-year permitting issue, ten-foot travel lanes, side lot easements, right-of-way signage, underground utility issues, why there is a high parking limit, sidewalks in rural subdivisions, and why a building permit is needed for a shed.

Commissioner O'Brien stated sidewalks in rural subdivisions are required because the County does not want to stick itself without sidewalks; when areas get built out, it would come back to the County to pay for them or they would not have them; and inquired where do we build good communities and where do we build junk. Commissioner Ellis inquired how many people can afford the larger lot and all the rules that government puts down; and stated it does not affect the person who is building the $150,000 to $200,000 home, but it goes right to the throat of the person who is just getting into his first home. Commissioner O'Brien stated people in affordable housing areas need sidewalks the most because there are smaller lots, and children need places to play. Commissioner Ellis stated he grew up in a subdivision in Eau Gallie with smaller lots, and he still lives there; and he never had sidewalks; but he rode his bicycle down the street. He stated his family just made it into that house with the bare minimum to buy a house; and if they had to get into a home with underground utilities and sidewalks and all the other things, they would still have been in an apartment. He stated if you move into a subdivision, you look for sidewalks, but that should be a market factor. He stated the County does not retrofit subdivisions with sidewalks; and it mainly retrofits on collector and arterial roads. Chairman Higgs stated sidewalks in all residential areas are important for safety, and she will support including those. Commissioner Cook stated he supports sidewalks; but if it is a truly rural area such as Scottsmoor, he can see that the sidewalks would be useless. He stated people go to those areas to have the environment of living in a very rural area; not having sidewalks is a part of the ambience of being out there; so there may be some instances where they are truly not necessary; but by and large, they serve a purpose.

Chairman Higgs stated what the Board anticipates is staff providing a memorandum dealing with the issues prior to the next hearing.

Mr. Sternagel requested the motion include allowing staff to make some minor amendments and clarifications.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to continue the public hearing to consider an ordinance regarding site plans/subdivisions to May 22, 1995; and authorize staff to make minor amendments and clarifications to the ordinance. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Sternagel inquired if the motion also includes the pre-payment of taxes issue which was a part of the Site Plan/Subdivision Ordinance where the LPA and BCAC requested that requirement be dropped. He stated to appeal that requirement and amend the Ordinance, it was necessary to create the pre-payment of taxes ordinance which repeals the requirement of 125% of the previous year taxes be paid before recording a plat. Chairman Higgs stated she assumes that is sent forth to the second public hearing; and inquired if there is any objection. No response was heard.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE ON EMERGENCY SERVICES IMPACT FEE PROGRAM, CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE PROGRAM, AND TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE PROGRAM

Amy Elliott, 900 E. Strawbridge Avenue, Melbourne, representing the City of Melbourne, stated the City opposes the proposed ordinances to have a blanket exemption from the impact fees, particularly the correctional facilities and transportation impact fees. She stated the City, at its April 25, 1995 meeting, reviewed the proposed ordinances, but did not adopt a Resolution opposing the ordinances. She stated last night the Space Coast League of Cities adopted a Resolution opposing the proposed ordinance, and a copy of that has been distributed to the Commissioners as well as a letter from Mr. Hill from the City of Melbourne. She stated the basic concern is the need for economic development in the County; the City is not opposed to economic development, and is not opposed to examining certain developments on a case by case basis; but there is concern about the blanket exemption. She stated some of the criteria seems too low; the City is not convinced that businesses are not locating in Brevard County primarily because of the impact fees; and there is concern that there may not be significant attraction just by exempting these businesses from impact fees. She stated another concern is the opt out provision in the current Interlocal Agreement which allows for 45 days notice prior to implementation of the change adopted by the County Commission; and requested the Board provide the City with sufficient notice so the City can review whatever action has been taken to determine the impact on the City, and decide how to proceed.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if it is possible for the ordinance to only apply to the unincorporated areas. Assistant County Attorney Lisa Troner advised the ordinances would apply Countywide in the unincorporated areas and the incorporated areas unless the municipalities have an independent system adopted on their own. She stated the County will enact the ordinance to apply Countywide; there are Interlocal Agreements with the City that provide for it to be implemented Countywide; and there have also been issues related to equal protection that invalidate the County's ordinance when a majority of the cities have not been collecting or assessing impact fees. Commissioner Ellis stated he does not understand; and inquired if the ordinance cannot strictly apply to the unincorporated area and let the cities do whatever they want to do. Ms. Troner advised the cities may opt out and provide their own system for the collection of impact fees, but should they opt out and not provide, then the County would have legal recourse, and at some point perhaps a requirement, to sue or require the cities to assess the impact fee or it may invalidate the County's impact fee. She stated it is supposed to be a fair and equal proportionate assessment on new growth on the infrastructure facilities, and the facilities, especially County facilities, are servicing impacts from the developments in the cities. Commissioner Ellis stated he is looking at the transportation impact fee in particular. Ms. Troner stated this would apply. Commissioner Ellis stated he understands emergency services and corrections are all done at the County level; but the way the transportation impact fees come out, Melbourne's impact fee gets spent in Melbourne.

Ms. Elliott stated the County does not have to worry about the City of Melbourne not collecting an impact fee; the City is worried about the County not collecting an impact fee; and the City believes the impact fee should be applied consistently throughout the County. She stated there has not been a problem with applying the fee in Melbourne; and the City is concerned about exempting certain businesses on a blanket exemption, such as all manufacturing categories, without examining the economic benefit the County is going to generate as a result of the exemption.

Commissioner Cook stated the Board has an opinion from the County Attorney that can be done justifiably based on economic concerns; but the City can opt out or institute its own impact fee; so, he does not see what the problem is. He stated if the County wants to stimulate industry, stimulate jobs in the community, and have a positive economic effect, and thinks this is one of the areas that might help, and the City disagrees, then the City has the opportunity to institute its own impact fee. Ms. Elliott agreed; and stated the City of Melbourne was in the process of adopting its own road, police and fire impact fees a number of years ago, but decided to participate with the County program rather than having a separate program because it was felt there should be a consistent fee throughout the County. She stated the City could adopt its own program, but that just carves up the County. She stated the County is saying there will be an economic impact; but the City has not seen anything; and she is not aware of any businesses that have said they were not looking in Brevard County only because there are impact fees. Commissioner Ellis stated the City has the option of continuing. Commissioner Cook stated Lynda Weatherman indicated that from the EDC's point of view, this should have a positive impact as far as stimulating economic activity.

Chairman Higgs stated the original proposal that came from the Economic Summit was to bring the manufacturing/industrial area in line with the trip generation rate; and inquired if the League of Cities and the City of Melbourne now oppose any changes to the current status. Ms. Elliott responded the City of Melbourne previously endorsed the proposed ordinance to reduce the fee for the manufacturing category; there is no conflict with that; but the conflict now is in terms of this ordinance's wording with the categorical exemption for all manufacturing and certain commercial activities depending on if they meet some minimum economic benefits test. She stated she does not know if the Space Coast League of Cities or the City of Melbourne is opposed to looking at comparisons to have rates comparable to adjacent counties; the City of Melbourne endorsed the previous version of the ordinance; and what upset the City was to find the whole issue of impact fees altogether was being addressed.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the City of Rockledge sent a letter advising at the City Council meeting of May 3, 1995, the Rockledge City Council unanimously endorsed the amendments proposed to the County's Impact Fee Ordinances, and that this action was taken after review by the City's Business and Industrial Development Advisory Committee serving as the economic development arm of the City of Rockledge. He stated the Melbourne-Palm Bay Area Chamber of Commerce supports the decision of the County Commission to eliminate general industry transportation impact fees; so there is a consensus the Board is doing the right thing for the community. He noted especially in Districts 1 and 2, jobs are needed; but there is a track record that says if you have impact fees in the way, that is not the only bait you are going to have, but every chip helps to build something.

Paul Goetsch, 2763 College View Drive, Melbourne, Plant Manager for Data Management, thanked the Board for the action taken regarding impact fees. He stated an incentive is to attract new employment to the County, but a more important consideration is preserving existing enterprise and enabling them to expand. He stated the previous Impact Fee Ordinance was unfair to Brevard's own companies such as Data Management; the company originated fifteen years ago as a one-man engineering firm and now has over seventy employees; and only two of the employees have relocated to the County to work for Data Management. He stated Data Management's product is electronic publishing and information services which combines computer technology with various forms of hard copy production including high speed laser printing, offset printing, automated document assembly, and automated processes for large scale mailing of statements, financial notifications and invoicing; approximately 90% of the $4 million in annual sales are from clients outside the County; more than 85% of the sales are from outside Florida; and the vast majority of the revenues remain in the County. He stated a company could relocate from Atlanta, bringing in three hundred employees, and moving into an existing building, and pay no impact fee. He stated when Data Management committed to the construction of its new facility, it knew it could undergo deep financial hardships until it was over the hump; and having to pay $60,000 in impact fees could have broken the company's financial back. He stated it would have been difficult to add ten new employees and undertake the new building at the same time; if the company were smaller, building a new facility and adding ten employees at the same time would be almost impossible; and Data Management appreciates the relief the Board has provided regarding impact fees, which is helping enable the company's survival.

Bill Hall, Town Manager of the Town of Malabar, stated Ms. Elliott did a good job of presenting the statistics and details; and the impact fees mean a lot to Malabar because of its size, its lack of infrastructure, and its lack of roads to service the industries. He stated Malabar counts a lot on the impact fees; the Town has a one mill ad valorem tax; and even if an industry was exempt from the impact fees and thought it would support the Town after it was there, it would not amount to enough to support the industry. He stated if the County wanted to change the impact fees in the unincorporated areas but still collect for the towns, Malabar would like the opportunity to have it collected. He stated the County Attorney advises that is not possible; the Town is aware it can opt out and have its own program; but that is a financial burden; and it worked out well with the County having an Interlocal Agreement.

Mark Ryan, City Manager of the City of West Melbourne, stated the City's concerns centers around the impact on the residential homeowner who now will be singled out for the impact fee while the commercial/industrial development down the road will be exempt. He stated the prospective homeowner is very concerned about affordable housing; and the Council is concerned about the inequity between residential and commercial developments. He requested the Board review the situation; stated the Equity Study Commission came up with good concepts about bringing the impact fees in line with what other communities are doing in Central Florida, rather than exempting.

Chairman Higgs stated the Space Coast League of Cities Resolution says, "Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Space Coast League of Cities opposes any change to the current Correctional Facilities and Transportation Impact Fee Programs that would reduce revenues collected from such impact fees."

Commissioner O'Brien stated in the City of Cape Canaveral, he went from eight employees in 1984 to thirty-eight employees in 1992; he wanted to go to sixty-eight employees, 95% of which were Cape Canaveral residents; but he needed a larger facility. He advised the impact fees to build a 30,000 square-foot facility were close to $38,000; and he went back to his present facilities, which meant he did not hire more people because of impact fees. He advised of actions taken as a result of his inability to expand; and stated the fees were punitive. He stated this is a case where impact fees did stop growth; and he is a victim.

Commissioner Ellis stated the other side of the issue is that once businesses are in place, they normally pay a higher ad valorem taxation, but require less services; so, even if there was no impact fee on commercial, over the long term more money is generated from the commercial properties than the residential properties. He stated when companies get to the ad valorem annual taxation, they pay more than their fair share because what they pay and what they receive in services is far greater than what the average resident pays and receives. He noted businesses do not ask for increased recreational services or other things that drive up cost.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he passes $5.1 million through the local banks; and rather than going to Miami or Atlanta, he wanted to keep all that money in Cape Canaveral; but he could not do it.

Commissioner Ellis stated the impact fees for a restaurant with drive-through are $6,000 per thousand square feet; that is $10,000 to $12,000 for a restaurant; and a bank is $8,000 per one thousand square feet. He noted the large impact fees are not knocking out the big businesses; they are knocking out a lot of the smaller businesses; and the jobs that are being lost are not those paying $50,000 a year, but the ones that are making $5 and $6 an hour. He stated it is another attack on the bottom rung of the ladder, knocking people out of the job market; and the Board needs to go further on the impact fees.

Commissioner Cook stated he would like the Board to address some of the commercial aspects. He agreed the impact fees are punitive; they are helping to reduce the economic activity in the County; and the people getting hurt by this are the $5 to $6 an hour people because those jobs never get created. He stated the ordinance is an attempt to get off the back of some people; he knows a restaurant owner in Cocoa who wanted to expand his business; but it would have cost $30,000; so, the owner did not expand the restaurant or hire more employees; and this is a case of government punishing someone for being successful. He stated the Board is moving on the right track; and he would like to see the Board look at going further on the commercial end.

Commissioner Ellis suggested staff come back at the second public hearing to look at the impact of going further with the ordinance. Commissioner O'Brien stated he prefers to keep it to the current ordinance; and the Board will discuss the separate issue.

Commissioner Cook stated on page 2 it mentions manufacturing products not for direct sale to the domestic customer; in boat manufacturing occasionally someone who is manufacturing has a showroom on the front of the property; and his concern is they would not be exempted as the ordinance is written now. Planner II Steve Swanke stated it is possible that portion of the facility that was deemed to be manufacturing would be exempt and the portion considered to be retail would be assessed with impact fees. Commissioner Cook stated his concern is that they not lose their exemption because they may have a showroom which sells directly to the public. Commissioner O'Brien suggested finding wording to delineate that. Commissioner Cook requested staff review that and provide additional language.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to continue the public hearing to consider ordinances on emergency services impact fees, correctional facilities impact fees and transportation impact fees.

Chairman Higgs stated she supported the original Ordinance which was to bring the impact fees from manufacturing and industrial in line with the trips being generated by the facility; the trip generation and transportation impact fee has been the way the County has been able to rationally support the ordinances in the collection of the fees; and the action that the Board took and is taking which would take away all impact fees on those properties that are described by the ordinance as being industrial or manufacturing makes it arbitrary and is not documented based on the basis of the transportation impact fee which is trip generation. She stated she has not seen documentation on the value for economic development, but would be happy to see it; and she has not seen documentation that follows up on those jobs that are being taken out of the marketplace, but she would be happy to see that as well. She stated the ordinance which is drafted is a one-time shot; someone comes in; the business is put in place; they could be there for one year, and be exempt; and there is no follow-up or five-year plan. She stated this is not a wise way to go about the exemption of the impact fee; and suggested if a business that comes in is going to be exempted, it should be given a five-year, twenty percent a year exemption rather than doing it at one time. He stated if someone comes in with fifteen or twenty-five jobs, the County will exempt them; but there is no way to follow-up on their being there more than one year. She stated the description of manufacturing facilities is broad if what the Board is trying to do is deal with manufacturing or industrial; this is unfair to existing businesses; and she will vote against the ordinances.

Commissioner Cook noted someone once said that business is the engine of society; and the County has been putting the brakes on with regard to the impact fees. He stated this is an excellent start; but he would like to see it go a little further in taking the brakes off of business. He stated it hurts people in the lowest economic rung the most because of job creation. He inquired if all industrial is being exempted in the ordinance; with Mr. Swanke responding it does not appear that the language would exempt all industrial; but it could be clarified by changing the definition to include industrial and manufacturing. Commissioner Cook stated that was the intent; and requested the Board consider that. Chairman Higgs read the definitions of "industrial" and "manufacturing"; stated if she blends liquors together, she is a manufacturing facility; and this is silly. Commissioner Cook stated his point is the Board should exempt industrial zoning, and not go through the silliness of trying to micromanage every single condition that could ever come about. Commissioner Ellis agreed there is no need to have all that in there; and suggested doing it in a straightforward manner. Commissioner Cook stated the intent was to exempt all industrial; and the Board should do that. Chairman Higgs inquired if Commissioner Cook said all industrial zoning; with Commissioner Ellis responding all industrial zoned property, and that takes care of all the definition problems. Chairman Higgs inquired what happens to a business that goes into a PIP zone; with Commissioner Ellis responding that is an industrial zone. Mr. Sternagel advised even in industrial zoning, commercial activity is permitted; and a retail sales building could be in industrial zoning. Commissioner Cook stated the point in the workshop was to exempt all industry; and requested staff come back with some language to look at it. Commissioner O'Brien stated that is what is being done; by having definitions, it prevents a retail store from going onto industrial zoned property; and it may not be totally exempt or be exempt at all. Commissioner Cook stated he agrees if someone is not operating in an industrial mode, but better language is needed to clarify. He stated public schools are exempt from impact fees, but not private schools; and if schools provide a public purpose, he does not know why private schools are not exempted like public schools. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if churches are exempted; with Commissioner Cook responding no. Commissioner Cook stated if it is an educational activity, no matter who runs it, that has a benefit as well as a public school; with Mr. Swanke advising staff will look into that and report at the next public hearing. Mr. Swanke stated at the workshop, staff asked the Board to provide direction regarding warehousing; and inquired if it is the Board's intent to follow the same direction in developing the language to bring to the Board at the next public hearing, or does the Board wish to discuss that. Commissioner O'Brien stated it has to be clearly defined whether it is mini-warehouses versus commercial warehousing. Mr. Swanke stated one of the things that has been changed is to classify mini-warehouses as a commercial business with a retail rather than an industrial type use; so there would be a general industry classification and a warehousing classification; and if it is the Board's intent, language could be brought back to exempt both or all general industry with attached warehousing or things of that nature.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to direct staff to bring back language to delineate the differences in warehousing.

Discussion ensued on what staff is to bring back; with Commissioner Scarborough advising a motion is not necessary. Commissioner Cook inquired if the Board wishes to look at the private schools versus the public schools issue. Commissioner Scarborough stated that may be beyond the advertisement. Ms. Troner advised unless the Board provided a separate land use category, only the land use classifications and exemptions according to the land use classifications have been advertised. Chairman Higgs inquired if anyone else is concerned that there is no provision for monitoring beyond the first year. Commissioner O'Brien stated in terms of reducing or eliminating the impact fees within the program itself, the Board is not concerned about how long they move in for because it is already controlled by the other side of the issue. Commissioner Cook expressed concern about enforcement costs. Commissioner O'Brien noted the emergency services impact fee only collected a small amount.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion to continue the public hearing to May 22, 1995 to consider ordinances on emergency services, correctional facilities, and transportation impact fees. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners Scarborough, O'Brien, Cook, and Ellis voted aye; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 6:26 p.m.

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

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