Same thing, to make sure that seniors can stay as independent as possible and make sure that they're connected to all the resources we have here in Brevard. If you're looking for a great place to call home, please call Hibiscus Court. Our phone number is 321-951-1050. And if you need some resources on just about anything, give helping seniors of Brevard a call. So we're all here in it for the seniors.
If you wish to speak to any item on the agenda or during the public comment portion of the meeting, please fill out a speaker card. Each person addressing the board shall have three minutes to complete his or her comments on each agenda item for which he or she has filled out a card. The chair has the discretion to determine or alter the time limits on any agenda item. The Board of County Commissioners requests that speakers appearing under the public comments section of the agenda limit their comments or presentations to matters relating to county business that are within the board's control, authority, and jurisdiction.
Okay, I'd like to recognize David Young from St. Paul's Lutheran Church to lead us in the invocation. Good morning.
Let us pray. Almighty God, we gather today grateful for this community we call home and for the opportunity to serve its people. Grant to this commission wisdom in deliberation, clarity in purpose, and courage to do what is just and right. May their decisions be guided by fairness, stewardship, and concern for the well-being of all who live in Brevard County. Give us unity where we can find it, respect where we differ, and a shared commitment to the common good. May we leave this place having served our neighbors faithfully. Amen. Amen.
Thank you so much. Please stand for the pledge.
Fidget to the Lord of the United States of America,
one nation, under God, indivisible justice.
Okay, well, it is, I wanted to call the meeting to order, and first and foremost, it's a great honor to serve with our new county commission, appointed from District 1, Rita Pritchett. Thank you, sir. Thank you so much.
Thank you. Good afternoon.
Yes. I don't know if I've ever been so happy to see a new commissioner come on board. We really, really needed to have you here, and District 1 needed representation, and I'm very pleased with the governor's selection. So, okay, we'd like to go to the agenda. First on the agenda, we have no minutes, but resolution awards and presentations from District 1, resolution about mangroves.
If I could get Dr. Wilson to come on up. Thank you. I'll read the resolution, and then you can say a few words. Okay. A resolution on behalf of the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners, recognizing, thank you, July 26, 2026, as mangrove day. Whereas mangroves are a keystone species and an iconic feature of Florida's coastal ecosystem, and whereas mangroves provide critical habitat for native Florida wildlife, including at least 220 species of fish, 181 species of birds, 24 species of reptiles and amphibians, and 18 mammal species. Whereas throughout Florida, 75% of sport and commercial fish species rely on mangroves. Both recreational and commercial fishing industries represent a massive economic benefit to the state's economy and the Indian River Lagoon. Recreational sport fishing was valued at more than $9.2 billion, and commercial fishing recorded an estimate of $197 million in landings in 2020. And whereas mangroves provide more than $500 billion in coastal protection services by acting as natural barriers during extreme weather events, safeguarding private and public lands. And whereas root systems of mangroves can trap sediments, pollutants, absorb excess nutrients, and filter heavy metals and wastewater before they make their way into the Indian River Lagoon. And whereas Florida's mangrove population has declined to a fraction of its historic level because of deforestation, development pressures, and severe weather impacts. And whereas many residents of Florida and the Indian River Lagoon region may not understand the ecosystem and the economic value that mangroves provide to their community. And whereas communicating the importance of mangroves and their valuable contribution to Florida's way of life can encourage public awareness of an iconic species. And whereas Floridians have the opportunity to contribute to the restoration of mangrove ecosystems by donating propagules to mangrove nurseries and undertaking safe and legal mangrove trimming practices and even installing mangroves along their shorelines, thus further compounding the ecosystem services and economic benefits of the state of Florida. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, recognizes July 26, 2026 as Mangrove Day in Brevard County and encourages all citizens to do their part in understanding, protecting, and restoring these important species and habitats. Done, ordered, and adopted in regular session this 21st day of July, 2026.
Thank you. Good morning. I'm Laura Wilson. I'm the Executive Director of Marine Resources Council. We're a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting and restoring the Indian River Lagoon. Our work in the lagoon primarily focuses on water quality monitoring and reporting, stormwater education and advocacy, and restoring mangrove ecosystems. And I'm very excited to be here today to accept the proclamation for Mangrove Day. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you, the Brevard County Commission, and the people of Brevard for your commitment to this mangrove proclamation and everything it represents. Mangrove ecosystems are essential to the health and resilience of our coastlines and waterways. In Florida, mangroves provide an estimated $7.6 billion per year in ecosystem services by mitigating storm damage, supporting recreational and commercial fishing, boosting real estate values, and providing clean water. Following Hurricane Ian in 2022 alone, mangroves were credited with saving $4.1 billion in damages and cutting storm surges by 30%. They sequester three to five times more carbon from the atmosphere than the Amazon rainforest, while also capturing excess nitrogen, phosphorus, and heavy metals. As we just heard, a healthy fishing economy relies heavily on mangroves, with these ecosystems supporting fish density more than 35 times higher than seagrass meadows. However, mangroves have been greatly diminished across the state of Florida, and it's estimated that up to 84% of the population has been removed since the 1950s. So promoting responsible stewardship for mangroves is a good investment for the future of Florida's cities and counties that rely on these critical ecosystems and shoreline resilience. So thank you again for your proclamation. For anyone interested in protecting Florida mangrove ecosystems, we encourage you to stay informed and get involved. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection website has a wealth of wonderful information on the care and trimming regulations for mangroves. If your property borders the lagoon, you don't need a permit to plant on your property. And if you're a realtor, talk to your client buying property along our coastlines. And of course, Marine Resources Council has mature trees available at our Palm Bay and Sebastian mangrove nurseries with an experienced restoration team to help. If you have any questions or would like to get involved, please reach out or visit us at the Ted Moorhead Lagoon House in Palm Bay. We have a very active volunteer program, and that includes working with our mangroves, and we love visitors. Thank you again for your time and commitment to this cause.
Jim, do we have a framed—we do. I think we need a motion.
We need two things. One is I need a motion to recognize that Commissioner Goodson's on the phone. I'll do it real quick. Okay, so I'd like to make a motion to allow Commissioner Goodson to participate by phone.
I'll second.
Second. All in favor, say yay. Yay. Yay. Okay. Cousin absent. Now our motion on the resolution.
I would like to make a motion to proclaim July 2026 as the mangrove. I already put it all away.
And I'll second.
Thank you, Rob.
And Dr. Wilson, we appreciate your partnership on the river. MRC has been a great partner to us. So thank you very much.
Do we vote on the motion?
Did we vote on the motion? Sort of.
Good enough.
All those in favor—did we vote on the motion? No. Okay, let's vote on the motion for the declaration of mangrove day. All in favor, say yay. Yay. Yay. Yay. Okay. Carried you nationally. All right. Thank you. Okay.
That's two-shamined one. Yeah.
Okay. Our next resolution is a resolution acknowledging Chief Mark Lowe Day in Brevard County. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
You're welcome to come up if you like while I'll read the resolution and then you'll be recognized to speak. Well, I think we'll probably vote on it first. I have a resolution recognizing July 21st as Chief Mark F. Lowe Day in Brevard County. Whereas July 21st will be observed as Chief Mark F. Lowe Day in Brevard County as recognition for his years of service to the law enforcement community of Brevard County and Eastern Florida State College as an adjunct instructor. And whereas Chief Mark F. Lowe served Brevard County in the cities of Melbourne and Satellite Beach as a police officer, after retiring from Satellite Beach at the rank of commander with over 20 years of service, he served the city of Republic, Missouri as the chief of police for an additional 10 years before returning to Brevard County and training at Eastern Florida State College as an adjunct instructor and firearms expert trainer. Whereas Chief Mark F. Lowe's experience, leadership, guidance, and training techniques have affected the lives and the direction of police officers, sheriff deputies, and federal agents across the state of Florida and our country, imprinting his dedication and sense of duty by training the future of law enforcement, now therefore be it resolved that the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners does hereby recognize July 21st, 2026 as Chief Mark F. Lowe Day in Brevard County, Florida, and urges all citizens to recognize the honor and service rendered to law enforcement officers and the citizens of Brevard County, Florida. Done, ordered, and adopted in a regular session this 21st day of July of 2026. And with that, I'll make a motion to approve.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Second. Motion and second for approval on the resolutions. All in favor say yay. Yay. Yay. Yay. Carries unanimously. Thank you. You're welcome to... Good morning. My name is
Matt Jankowski. I work for Eastern Florida State College. I'm also a retired law enforcement officer. It's my pleasure to have Jenny Lowe with me today. He's Mark's spouse. And the fact that the county commissioners have recognized him means a lot to the law enforcement community. Mark Lowe, as relatively referred to as Chief of Police for everybody who knew him, was one of the best trainers I've ever known. He went out of his way to help everyone. And over the last 10 years, there has not been an academy class up until this last one that he did not have some kind of influence in training those people. So every officer, deputy that you see right now serving in Brevard County who's had contact with Mark Lowe in one way or another, his legacy will live on through this generation. Thank you again for recognizing him into service. All right, sir. We have a frame of
resolution for you too. Okay. Okay. I'd like to read the next resolution honoring former County Commissioner Suzanne Elizabeth Sue Schmidt-Kirwin. Whereas Suzanne Elizabeth Sue Schmidt-Kirwin dedicated her life to serving the citizens of Brevard County with integrity, vision, and unwavering commitment, leaving an indelible mark on the community she loved. And whereas after moving to Brevard County in 1956, she graduated from Auburn High School in Orange Memorial Hospital School of Nursing before beginning her professional career at Kennedy Space Center during the Mercury program. And whereas Sue Schmidt made history as the first woman elected to the Rockledge City Council and later became only the second woman elected to the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners, representing District 4 for all three consecutive terms from 1982 through 1994, including serving as chairman of the board in 1985, 1988, and 1991. And whereas throughout her distinguished public service, Commissioner Schmidt championed responsible growth management, infrastructure improvements, environmental stewardship, water quality protection, and throughout the planning and thoughtful planning that helped shape the future of Brevard County. And whereas affectionately known as Zoo Zoo, she was a driving force behind the creation of the Brevard County Zoo and played a significant role in the development of Vier Space Coast Stadium, environmental land conservation initiatives, and numerous community projects that continue to benefit residents and visitors alike. And whereas throughout her years of public service and beyond, Commissioner Schmidt-Kirwin developed lasting and meaningful relationships with Brevard County employees, treating each with kindness, respect, and appreciation. Whereas following her elected service, Commissioner Schmidt continued to serve Brevard County through appointments to the Charter Review Committee and the Redistricting Committee, demonstrating her lifelong dedication to effective local government. And whereas Sue Schmidt believed that service to others was one of life's greatest responsibilities, a value she instilled in her family, and exemplified throughout her remarkable career in public service. And whereas Elizabeth, whereas Suzanne Elizabeth Sue Schmidt-Kirwin passed away on June 4th, 2026, at the age of 86, leaving behind a legacy of leadership, compassion, vision, and public service that will continue to inspire our generations of Brevard County residents. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Board of Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, does hereby honor and celebrate the life and extraordinary legacy, and expresses the sincere gratitude for her decades of dedicated public service and her lasting contributions to the citizens of Brevard County. Donor order adopted this regular day, the 21st day of July, 2026. A motion would be in order. I'll make the motion, sir. I'll second. Motion and second. I'll in favor say yay. Yay. Yay. Yay.
Cares unanimously. Do we have, yes, we'd like to invite representatives of the family here. Hi, Commission. I'm Susan Schmidt. I am the daughter of Suzanne, Sue Schmidt-Kirwin. Thank you for letting her serve this commission. The county, she would like to say, if she was here, thank you to all the county the residents of the county staff, the residents of the county, and on behalf of the family, we thank y'all very much for letting her serve this community.
I just want to say what a great honor it was to serve with Sue. That's one of the highlights of my career, and it was a wonderful human being and a wonderful public service. A lot of those initiatives that I talked about that she was involved with passed with a 3-2 vote, and so she was very critical in making a lot of the things that we enjoy so much here in Brevard County a reality.
Yes. Thank you.
I'd say quick, I had a wonderful relationship with your mother. She would come to see me often, and she would call a lot, and she watched all of the commission meetings. I used to tell her, I'd say, Sue, there's got to be better things to do than to watch commission meetings. And, you know, and I could tease her a little bit, and she would tease me back, and I would say to her sometimes, I said, we had a little trouble the other night. She says, I know, I saw. And so she was highly informed on the issues and the goings-on in the county and offered me quite a lot of advice the last few years I've been a commissioner. So I admired and appreciated your mother very much.
Thank you.
I didn't get to know her very well. But one thing that she said to me was, be strong. I appreciated her. Thank you.
I think we all want to be a part of this picture. So let's walk down. We'll take a picture. Thank you. That's okay. Thank you for being here today. Okay, we will move to the agenda. We'll start with our consent agenda. The entire consent agenda will be passed in one motion under Section F, unless any commissioner has any items they would like to remove. And we'll discuss separately. Is there any items that the commissioner would like? Jim? Mr. Chair, thank you.
Staff, we'd like to remove item F1 completely from the agenda. We have a few more work to do on it. It wasn't within the 24 hours to remove it from the agenda, so we ask you to remove it now.
Okay, let the record reflect that we will not be voting on item F1. That is removed.
Mr. Chair, we have two comments from the public.
Okay, we have two comments from the public. Mr. Richard Heffelfinger, item F2.
Good morning. Rick Heffelfinger, District 1, 2000 Juniper Drive. I pulled F2 and F5, so I guess I'm going to cover both of them at the same time. Yes, we'll recognize you for F5 next. All right, well, F2 I pulled only for to try to, because the chair has been so generous with getting information. MPEC fees is coming up later, I think, under an item. I see here that this is a library MPEC fee, and it says that they're going to disperse the money that they've held in an account. And I was wondering, is that standard operation that there's a fund that holds back collected impact fees? And then my other kind of follow-up question is, in general, kind of for financing, how you guys do it. Is that, those balances, are they part of carry forward for an organization when they go to fact finding? And also, where can you find out where they reported on a financial report? Because I'm going to have some questions about how impact fees get collected and stored. I guess stored is a good word. And I was just wondering if anybody could provide that or we could talk about that under the next item. I just, I saw an impact fee item, and I said, hey, that's kind of germane to our assessment.
So what we can do is have staff prepared answers to those two questions. And when we hear the impact fee issue later on the agenda, we can answer them then. Okay, yes, I appreciate that.
I don't like to bushwhack you guys, but I think as a public forum, it's a nice way to kind of get your way in if there's any comments that you have, too. All right, well, good.
We will do that. And F5 approval, advertising the bids, 12-inch reuse, main relocation along the Bula.
Okay, yeah, F5 is, again, I don't, I feel like I'm picking on the utility services department. But water is a pretty big issue lately with all of our having to meet those new water requirements. And this one, again, is a $300,000 request. And it seems like this was another kind of mistake. I hate to say mistake, oversight, but there's 575 linear feet of pipe that looks like it got put in the wrong place. And I'm not quite sure how that happens. Or I guess what I'd like to ask is do we have a form of corrective action so that this kind of stuff – I mean, I realize boo-boos happen, right? But it's kind of a weird thing because it got put on somebody's utility easement, and it sounds like it's the Port St. John Water District. And I think we already put the pipe in the ground and we buried it. There was a picture associated with this item that doesn't really identify where it was. But it's now like, okay, so we put it on somebody's – and they're not going to let us just leave it there and write a little exemption or say, hey, boo-boo, let's not put it on the charts and show where it is so we don't dig on it. But I just wonder why – somebody's going to ask us to pay $300,000 to move a pipe, and it's a reuse water pipe. So I just question – and it says that it was diverted because there was an undetected conservation easement, which is why it's – if it was undetected, that means they put it in the ground and didn't think there was a problem. And then it says there was also an unknown utility conflict identified during construction, and I would think there would be some kind of a paperwork system where you said, hey, listen, got a project, ran into a problem, let's figure out what the solution is and go forward. I don't know what the undetected was. I guess maybe it's not relevant.
Let's get the staff – we talked about this in the briefing, and there's a pretty logical answer, although I wouldn't beat up on us. I'd beat up on the water management district after you hear some of the –
Well, they kind of forced your hand to say you've got to spend money to move a pipe. I just didn't know what that relationship was.
Well, and when you look at where the pipe's located, you're like, really? Yeah. Well, the picture shows it to me. It looks like it's in a writer, but let's have staff. Do you want to do that now or – Yeah, let's do it now. Okay.
Just dispose because it's worth the discussion. So, Commissioner, there's a lot of accuracy of what was said. It was a reuse main. The benefit of it was looping the system for the benefit of that area. When we were going through the project, and again, as the photo shows, from edge of road to sidewalk, it was a mowed area. It's probably better mowed than my front lawn. So, when we – when our construction staff and the contractor were going through the project, there needed to be a slight deviation because of an obstruction of a utility. The field decision was made at the time to deviate. We – upon doing an as-built-in closeout, it became to our attention that there was a conservation easement. This is a conservation easement that was established back in the 80s in the – literally the first phase of the Vieira development. And we tried for two years to work on trying to get an abandonment of that easement because it is a mowed and it doesn't meet the current criteria of what St. John's would view as a conservation easement. But it was their prerogative that they chose not to. So, in order to rectify this from an agency perspective, we have to – we have identified an alternate route, and that's what this agenda item is about.
Commissioner Pritchard has the image right here on her computer. I'm looking at it. It's a road right away. It's street side of the sidewalk. It's manicured ground. You would think that if they're making this move for a conservation easement, it's not being used for that. So, you know, I tell you, if it's okay, as staff moves ahead, we can approve this today. But I will personally commit to make a call to the Water Management District for a last-minute plea as chairman of the commission to say, like, don't make us spend $300,000 worth of taxpayers' money. It's worth an effort, but we'll do. And if it doesn't work, then we'll have to move it.
Yeah, and there's – Commissioner, we're totally fine from a department side. If we can get board approval, however, if you all can persuade the Water Management District in that, for whatever reason, we have the votes to proceed.
Sounds good. Would they be willing to reimburse if you had to – or share that cost? We can ask. Okay. That's all I was asking. Okay. And I do pay an assessment to St. John's, so maybe I should go down there and find out what they're doing. You should.
Is it Blacker? Hey, thank you very much, Chairman, for the answers. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I think those are all the cards. I think a motion would be in order for the consent agenda. I make a motion to approve.
Second.
So, motion and second. The consent agenda, with the exception of F1, which has been removed. All in favor, say yay. Yay. Yay. Yay. Carries unanimously. Okay. Okay. We have next item, F2, Library Impact Fee Advisory Committee. No, we just – Oh, that was part of the consent agenda. Oh, that was part of the consent. Yes. Okay. Thank you for keeping me straight here. G, public comment.
We do not have any cards.
No cards in the first public comment. We have two sections of public comment now and then in the meeting. So, first item is H1, public hearings. We have cards. We'll have the staff explain this item.
Good morning, Commissioner. H1 is an appeal of the Brevard County Zoning Officials, April 22, 2026, interpretation regarding the applicability of Brevard County Policy, BCC 100, the Live Local Act, and the Brevard County Zoning Code to the property owned by Merit Bitco, tax account 241-2106, District 2.
Okay. Our first card is the representative of the applicant, Kim Ruzanka.
Good morning. Good morning. Chairman, members of the County Commission, special welcome to Commissioner Pritchett. Welcome back. My name is Kim Ruzanka. I'm here on behalf of Merit Bitco, SPV, LLC. If I were in court, I would be saying may it please the court because that is what we hear. This is an appeal. You are looking at what's in front of you. This isn't really, in my opinion, a public hearing. It's a public meeting. I've asserted that argument with the county attorney, and we're still working through it. This is somewhat of a new process. It hasn't been done very often in Brevard County. This appeal is seeking a policy decision from this board. This requires you, not your staff, to interpret your land development regulations and apply the county code to the Live Local Act, Section 125.010557. Commissioner Altman, I know you were in the legislature when this was adopted. I know you know the legislative intent very well. However, the bill's sponsor called Live Local Act a transformational, market-driven consolidation of policies that provides attainable housing options for Floridians. Florida is tackling the complex issue from all angles by incentivizing private sector investment with historic state funding and common-sense reduction in regulations. Merit Bitco submitted the Live Local proposal to the Planning Department on April 7, 2022. The zoning manager opined that the 11.24-acre property did not meet the requirements. In this appeal of the staff interpretation, you are evaluating the planning manager's executive decision. You are making an executive decision, a policy decision here today. This is not a rezoning for a specific piece of property. We've already gone through that. This is analysis of how the county will apply the Live Local Act. Again, it's a county-wide policy issue. You are not to consider infrastructure, roads, flooding, or even the comprehensive plan administrative policies. This is not an appeal of the denial of the rezoning. Florida Constitutional Article 5, Section 21 indicates that staff is not entitled to deference. It is no surprise that the staff report for this item supports the planning manager's opinion, but should staff be grading its own paper? Why is there no legal analysis or any review of the definitions from your code or from the Florida Statutes or from the Live Local Act? You must look at the actual uses, the allowable uses in the AU zoning, and not merely the zoning classification. The focus of the Live Local is the uses allowed, not the zoning classification. Every parcel of land in Brevard County has zoning classification designation, and that designation defines what uses are allowed. Florida Statute 479.011 defines allowable uses as the intended uses identified in the land development regulations authorized within a zoning category without requirement to obtain a variance or waiver. The term includes conditional uses. The plain language of the Live Local Act does not address in any way the name of a zoning classification. The Act requires an inquiry into the specific allowable uses. As shown in your code, page 3 of the packet, Commissioner Goodson, can you see this? Thank you. The use of all land shall continue to be controlled and restricted by the provisions of the zoning classification designated for such land on the zoning maps. Again, this refers to uses, not zoning classifications. The planning manager's opinion focused solely on the property's conditional use permit and discounted the uses allowed in this AU zoning category. But the CUP is dispositive of this appeal. The Merritt-Bidco property qualifies under the Live Local Act for administrative approval of the multifamily residential because the property is currently zoned for a commercial use. That commercial use is a hospital and a medical clinic. The CUP already exists. It was not approved by waiver or variance. The CUP was approved by zoning action in 1983, and the action approved additional uses subject to specific restrictions and conditions, a subcategory of permitted uses as defined in Section 62-1102. The CUP was not included in the appeal. It was included by reference. It's a 100-page document, but there is page 1. It's in your packet. Page 4, 5, and 6, and 7 also included in your packet shows the conditional use, what it was intended to do. Further, the zoning official admitted at P&Z that a hospital could be built on the property without further zoning approval. Moreover, the county attorney's office, in an email dated December 3, 2025, acknowledged that a 1983 CUP, such as this one, was only subject to revocation. This CUP has never been revoked. In fact, the Board of County Commissioners in 2003 refused to remove the conditional use on this property for a clinic and hospital use. That's at page 10 through 14. Again, this is referenced in the appeal and incorporated by reference from the county records. The wishful phrases in the staff report of abandoned and nonconforming do not change the fact that a hospital or medical clinic can be built on this property today. The abandoned and nonconforming terms are unsupported conclusions that contradict the clear intent of the Live Local Act to allow affordable housing in areas zoned for commercial use. The other ground cited in the appeal is that this is an area zoned for commercial and mixed use in the AU zoning. If you're unconvinced that this is a, the CUP allows the hospital or commercial uses, no matter what the intent of the AU zoning classification, even the staff report admits, several individual uses within the AU zoning classification may be characterized as commercial in nature, including fish camps, landscaping, businesses, resort dwellings, veterinary hospitals, and farmer's market. The staff report attempts to paint the AU zoning classification as having a particular character, but the Live Local Act does not reference character of a zoning classification. The Live Local Act does not care about character or the intent of a zoning classification. Its only criteria is that the property is an area zoned for commercial, industrial, or mixed use. The state legislature does not care what your zoning regulations say. The Live Local Act was adopted because of local government's reluctance to approve new multifamily developments when local representatives are confronted with substantial neighborhood opposition. Staff's continued assertions regarding AU zoning classification's intent and how staff has always interpreted LA as not including, the Live Local Act as not including commercial uses associated with ag uses as commercial uses is irrelevant. Their assertions are irrelevant. because the state legislature did define commercial uses and mixed uses in 2025. The staff report completely fails to look at those definitions. In fact, the statement, zoning classifications are defined by their overall purpose and character rather than by existence of individual uses within the classification, doesn't make sense when you look at the definitions in the Live Local Act. The staff report indicates the House Bill 1839, the 2026 Live Local Amendment, that excludes farm and farm operations from the definition of commercial use, commercial use supports its statements. But this proposal and appeal were filed before that amendment and may not even apply in this situation. But if it does apply, it does not exclude dude ranches, plant nurseries, private golf courses, fish camps, landscaping businesses, or numerous other conditional uses, which by Florida statute conditional uses are allowable uses. Staff attempts to disregard these commercial uses by stating these uses are associated with commercial uses or do not represent the principal purpose of the AU zoning classification. Again, you have to look at what it is zoned for. The use is allowed in the zoning classification, not the character or intent of an ordinance. There's no factual support for these statements. Again, Live Local does not care about the principal purpose of zoning classification. We recognize that the Live Local Act is still evolving and not fully litigated. Oh, do you want to? Again, page 15 shows the definition of commercial uses, which is in your appeal packet, which is in the Live Local statute. Page 15, commercial uses means activities associated with sale, rental, or distribution of products or services. Terms includes, but not limited to, retail sales, wholesale sales, rentals of equipment, goods, or products, offices, restaurants, public lodging, food vendors, sports arenas, theaters, and for-profit business activities. The highlighted items are which have been discussed in your AU zoning classification, 621334. Again, numerous, I believe I state eight, in the appeal. Page 19 of the packet is plant nurseries. Plant nursery means a full-service retail sales and talks about uses. So a plant nursery is definitely a commercial use allowed in AU zoning. Again, Live Local is still evolving, but the phrase zoned for is crystal clear. The county is stuck with the current AU zoning classification and its commercial uses as written. The solution is to amend the AU zoning code to take out commercial uses, not to contort the plain language of the AU zoning classification and the Live Local Act definitions. The Florida legislature passed the Live Local Act to address the state's housing crisis, to deliver much-needed affordable housing to communities in a timely manner. It was also enacted to cut through self-interest and bureaucratic obstacles. On behalf of Merit Bidco SPV LLC, we respectfully request that you reject and reverse the April 22nd, 2026 zoning official's interpretation on one or both of the grounds cited in the appeal. Thank you for your time. And I'll reserve my two minutes and a half.
The applicant, we've given 15 minutes. I'd like to set aside 15 minutes for staff comments if they need that. And then we'll have speakers, three minutes per speaker. Billy. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First, I just do agree with Mr. Zanka on one procedural point, and that is that this application should be limited to the legal issues, our interpretation of our zoning code and applying it to state statute. That's really all that's relevant to this hearing. So I would break what I heard Mr. Zanka say into two distinct arguments. One is that the AU zoning class itself is what qualifies this property under the Live Local Act. And then the second argument I heard is the CUP that applies to this particular property is what qualifies the property for the Live Local Act. So I'll take them one at a time, if you don't mind. First, on the first argument, I would point to what the Live Local Act actually says. And so I'll read it verbatim from 125.01055. And the first line on 7A1 is, a county must authorize multifamily and mixed-use residential as allowable uses in any area zoned for commercial, industrial, or mixed-use, and in portions of any flexible zone area, such as planned unit development permitted for commercial, industrial, or mixed-use on property owned by a county, municipality, or school district, and on property that has more than three acres in size and owned by a religious institution. And then it goes on from there. So as Ms. Rezenka pointed out, the key is whether AU property makes this zoned for commercial use. So, and I've copied, attached to the agenda is parts of the Brevard County Zoning Code. And in that, you'll see AU is not within a commercial or industrial classification. In fact, it's in a single-family residential zoning classification. Specifically, it's one of the least dense zoning classifications we have in the residential. It has a minimum lot size of two and a half acres. So when you think about what the legislature was probably trying to do with the Live Local Act, whether we agree with it or disagree with it, the fact, I think it's pretty clear what they were trying to do. They were saying if something is zoned for commercial, those kind of intense commercial uses, it must make sense for multifamily or affordable housing to go in there. So when you take that intent and apply it to our zoning code and look at what we have for AU zoning, is that really zoned for commercial use? And the staff contends that it is not. That it is clearly meant to be a single-family residential character with some agricultural-type uses. And then, you know, Ms. Rezenka pointed out that there was some language amended, but it didn't come into effect recently until July, that made clear that farm and farm-related use were not commercial. But that was Oostaff's interpretation. I think that was the predominant interpretation by most people that looked at the Live Local Act. What the legislature did was just clarify it and left no doubt about that. You know, when you look at the agricultural land across the state, I don't think that that was the intent of the legislature, to convert that to a commercial classification. And they just made clear that that was the case. So then I'll move on to the argument about the CUP. A conditional use permit, it's not zoned for that use. It's not a use by right. The board has to specifically look at the specific characteristics of that property and determine that it is appropriate to do on that property. So I would not say that that is zoned for that use. But in this case, it doesn't really matter because it was taken out of the AU code. When you look at AU, you will not find clinics and hospitals under conditional use. It's been removed. It was removed after the CUP was granted. And our code very clearly indicates that what that means is that it's a non-conforming use. A non-conforming use is not part of its zoning. That's exactly what that means. You're non-conforming to the zoning code. So if it's not conforming to the zoning code, that can't possibly be what makes this zoned for commercial use. And so I think that's the most, the kind of fundamental part of the argument. I'm happy to take any questions about any other part.
Do we have any questions? No questions? I have a question. If I agree with your interpretation of legislative intent, of course I was there so I have a unique perspective and I can tell you in no way, shape, or form was there an intent to allow multifamily or affordable housing in our ag classifications. I can only imagine what would happen if agriculture is so important to the state, not only for food production, but preservation of, for recharge and water quality and green space is critical. What would happen if indeed there was a ruling that AU would qualify for multifamily zoning? There's another negative impact that I worry about. If you have a piece of property that has general use or maybe even single family use and you want to go into agricultural production and get an agricultural zoning, if it was known then that you could do multifamily, it could have an incredible negative impact on our ability to zone areas to become agriculturally productive. So I worry about it having a very, very coning effect on our ability to allow landowners to get ag zoning because of the impact of that intensive use.
And I agree, Mr. Chair. I think when you look at our zoning and classifications today, our applications for rezoning, part of our staff comments include when there's a rezoning to commercial or industrial, the live local component, what you're approving could lead to that. If we had to include that on every AU zone property that we see all the time in our zoning agendas, that would add an entirely different element when you're talking about a single family residential classification with a minimum lot size of two and a half acres. So now we're thinking about 30 units per acre is what the live local would apply in Brevard County. It's a drastic difference and it's something the board would have to consider.
Okay. All right. Seeing no other questions, I'd like to go to our cards. Leon Kindred, our first card.
Good morning, commissioners. My name is Leon Kindred. As you heard, I am a resident of Merritt Island, specifically Sykes Cove, which is immediately adjacent to the area we're discussing. I was here at that last long board meeting in my red shirt. Here we are again. Heard the comments today. I'm here to ask that you as the board protect the integrity of our local land use laws and reject this appeal. The developer's entire argument rests on a claim that a conditional use permit from 1983 somehow transforms this agricultural land into a commercial zone under the Live Local Act. But as has been stated, I believe a permit is not a zoning classification. The underlying zoning on this property is strictly agricultural, has been for decades. The Live Local Act is very clear. It only applies to land explicitly zoned for commercial, industrial, and mixed use. Furthermore, state law requires that commercial use be allowed by right without needing special waivers. Under our county code, conditional uses are never allowed by right. They require strict administrative oversight and can be denied based on community impact. Please don't let a developer twist an old, unexercised medical permit into a blank check to bypass our zoning maps. Please uphold the zoning manager's correct interpretation and deny this appeal. Thank you. Thank you.
Our next speaker, Robert Wise.
Good morning. I want to make a few comments which are irrelevant, but I'd like you to think about them anyway. I'm representing not only myself, but the East Maryland Community Association, AMICA. We discussed this project last March and were renouncingly against it. I realize this is West Merritt Island instead of East Merritt Island, but all of our members have to drive on Courtney from time to time, and they were all against it. I'd like to remind you that when this project was first reviewed by the Merritt Island Redevelopment Association, they were strongly against it, disapproved it. The Planning and Zoning Board considered it twice, had a split decision, but there was a solid half of us against it. I voted against it both times. Of course, the commission itself rejected the proposal back in April. I can't speak to the legal issues, but I hope that you will find an interpretation that prevents this project from going forward. Thank you.
Thank you, Brandon Shunin. And then our next speaker, Diana Shomer.
Hi. Yeah, my name is Brandon Shannon. Sorry for the poor handwriting. I'm at 5425 Lovett Drive on Merritt Island. I was here at the last meeting. I spoke in front of you last time as well, and I'm here again to reiterate my urge for you to deny this proposal for this project and here today to deny the appeal for this project. The developer's argument rests entirely on a dangerous legal fiction. They claim that because an existing business operates on this property under the CUP, the entire 11-acre tract should suddenly be treated as commercial use, triggering the Live Local Act bypass. Zoning law is explicit, however. A conditional use permit changes how land can be used. It doesn't change how the land is inherently zoned. The underlying zoning of this property remains AU no matter how many times a developer tries to rephrase it. A CUP does not magically erase AU zoning or strip this commission of its local authority. Because the property is fundamentally residential agricultural, it is exempt from the Live Local Act's commercial bypass provisions. This commission already listened to the community and voted unanimously on May 7th to protect our neighborhood from high-density overdevelopment. Developers now trying to use a loophole that does not exist to circumnavigate your vote, bypass public scrutiny, and override our infrastructure constraints. A CUP is a restriction, not a backdoor invitation for a massive high-density complex project as presented today. I ask you to stand by your previous unanimous decision, uphold the integrity of the Brevard County zoning laws, and deny this appeal. Thank you.
Hi, Anna. Then our next speaker will be Pamela Steele.
My name is Diana Schomer. I live at 675 Andrick Street on Merritt Island. I use Pioneer Road frequently. I, too, hope that you will uphold the commission's last vote of no for this development. It's, we don't have the infrastructure. We don't have the roads. There's already been an approval for 500 units up by the Kennedy Space Center. There's already 300 units going in on Fortenberry. There's a limit. It's an island to what we can take. I would think that the infrastructure should precede any more of these developments. The fact is that in the Live Local Act, sorry about that, the developer doesn't have to pay impact fees. They don't have to pay for sewer connections and water connections. So who is that all going to fall on? Because they don't have to pay for it. It's going to be saddled on to the taxpayers. You've already saddled us with 800 units. We don't need any more units, and we all can see that our taxes are going to go up for sewage improvements to handle all of this. And it's going to have to go up for roads because the traffic is at its limit now. I just, and also I want to say that in the Live Local Act, it said that you don't have to rezone AU land. You don't have to, you're not compelled to do it like you are for some other zonings. So please honor that. Please honor that, and don't backtrack on it. I beg you. I really beg you. Thank you for your time.
Thank you. Pamela Steele, and our next speaker will be Sarah Hodge after Pamela Steele.
Good morning. I am a red shirt. I just forgot to wear my red shirt this morning. So I actually had a red dress. I'm sitting here going, wow, it's really messed up. But anyways, I'm Pam Steele. I live in Sykes Cove, which is my access is on Pioneer Road. I did speak at the previous meeting when you denied the zoning. Speaking here isn't easy for many of us, but the precedence that this case sets is too dangerous for any of us to stay silent. If this room isn't filled to the brim like it was last time, it's only because our residents are at work today and unable to attend. But that does not mean that they're not listening online and still very concerned with the outcome of this meeting. Make no mistake that they are watching and listening closely to this and hoping that you'll do the right thing today for the residents. I believe you denied this rezoning request based on public safety and health, and I don't believe that the legislature ever intended to ignore public safety and health concerns in a local community with this Live Local Act. If you approve this appeal today, you're effectively telling every developer in Florida that our local zoning maps do not matter. The developer admits this specific 11-acre tract has sat completely vacant over 40 years. Allowing them to exhume a dormant, long-abandoned administrative permit from 1983 to force state-mandated high-density housing onto agricultural land is terrifying. If this argument succeeds, it creates a playbook. Any developer will be able to buy cheap agricultural or rural land anywhere in Brevard County, find an old administrative permit in the archives, and strip you, our elected officials who speak for the people, of your power to say no. We elect you to protect our communities, our environment, and our quality of life. I think that we've done a good job already at bringing the matters of flooding and traffic issues to your concern, and this will significantly affect our quality of life and our environment around us. Nothing has changed in that matter, and we just hope today that you will hold the line, stand by your staff's decision, and reject this appeal. Thank you.
Sarah Hodge and Tom Reedy will be our next speaker after Sarah.
I'm not a good speaker, but Sarah Hodge, and I want to thank you for denying this in our last meeting. I want to thank you so much for your information because it is so correct, and we appreciate it as the people that you care about and you want you to help. And you know this is not a good program. This is not a good thing for this community. I ask you to deny it, and I support every speaker so far that wants it denied, and anyone else that will speak today because they're much better speakers than I. Thank you so much.
Thank you. Tom Reedy and our next speaker after Tom Reedy will be Valerie Reedy.
Hi. Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Tom Reedy. I'm here to express my strong objection to the proposed Rangewater Merit-Bitco apartment project. I'm Pioneer and Courtney. We all know we've talked about the roads. We've talked about the infrastructure. I'm not going to sit here. I had my whole speech, but everybody has already hit on it. All we are is asking you is to please stand by your original decision and protect our community from this project that obviously doesn't fit and does not serve the residents and does not improve our area. We just urge you to reject this appeal. Thank you.
Thank you. Valerie Reedy. And this is our last card.
Okay. Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Valerie, and I live in the Villa de Palmas area. I'm here because the decision before you today does not just affect one neighborhood. It affects every community in Brevard County. We are here because Merit-Bitco, the entity associated with Rangewater Real Estate, is attempting to use the Live Local Act to bypass county's previous denial of their rezoning for requests for a 222-unit high-density luxury apartment complex at Pioneer Road and North Courtney Park. Our community followed the process, we showed up, we provided evidence, and the rezoning was denied. Now the developer is trying to overturn that decision by using a loophole that was never intended for this purpose. Their argument is simple but deeply flawed. They claim that because a medical office operates on an agricultural residential land under a conditional use permit, the entire property should be treated as commercial. But a permit is not zoning. A conditional use permit allows one specific use. It does not change the underlying zoning category. If this commission accepts the idea that a cup can magically transform AU land into commercial land, then you're not just approving one project, you're rewriting zoning interpretation for the entire county. That means any property with a special permit could suddenly be treated as commercial land under the Live Local Act. And that would allow high-density apartment complexes to be built anywhere with no public input and no community review. The Live Local Act's purpose is to support workforce housing on property that is already zoned commercial. It was never intended to treat conditional uses as commercial zoning or to bypass the public's role in local land use decisions. Its intent is to add housing where it fits, not to redefine zoning categories. Commissioners, this is more than one development. It's about protecting the integrity of the zoning in Brevard County. It is ensuring that conditional use permits remain what they were intended to be, limited exceptions, not zoning changes. And it is about preserving the public's right to participate in decisions that shape our communities. We ask you to uphold the original zoning denial and reject this attempt to bypass local zoning through a loophole. Doing so protects not just Merritt Island, but every neighborhood in Brevard County. Thank you for your time.
Okay, thank you. I'd like to recognize the applicant. I think they would like to respond or close for both.
Thank you again, Chairman. Kim Rizanka from Merritt Vidco, SPV LLC. I don't know what the intent of the AU zoning code was when it was adopted. I do know it contains commercial uses. I do recognize the unintended consequences of the policy decision you could make today. But, again, the reality is your zoning code allows conditional uses. There is a conditional use on this property. In fact, the conditional use has already been used on this 14 acres, which I think is why this was never revoked. As I stated in 62-1-2-5-3, the adoption of zoning classification, the use of land, is controlled by the zoning classification. The zoning classification does not have an intent, per se. It has uses that are allowed. The Live Local Act says it must authorize multifamily in an area zoned for commercial or mixed use. Because the AU allows agriculture and commercial uses, it essentially is a mixed use. But it definitely does allow commercial uses. And I understand the unintended consequences, and I don't think the legislature actually thought this would ever happen either. Many zoning codes don't even have an agricultural zoning classification. They have a use table. So the problem is your AU zoning classification, not the Live Local Act. This is clearly zoned for commercial. This is not a rezoning request. The Live Local Act doesn't require a rezoning request. It is simply to allow multifamily affordable housing in areas without requiring a rezoning. Whether it's in an ag zoning classification or a general use classification, which I haven't looked at your general use. It may have the same problems. I don't know. But the problem is with your zoning code. And the solution is to change your zoning code. So with that, we believe that this clearly meets the definition of commercial uses in the Live Local Act. It also meets the definitions of mixed use. And this is a conditional use permit that has never been revoked, that was declined to be removed by the Board of County Commissioners at one point. And that your zoning manager has said a hospital could be built on this vacant spot today. So with that, we ask you reverse the appeal. Thank you.
I just have a quick question, and then we go back to staff. When you said that the CUP and the site has been used, what was that used for?
It's used for medical office buildings.
Okay. Yeah.
It's on the four acres, not that this project is for. But it was all a 15-acre CUP, and part of the CUP has been exercised.
Okay. Thank you. Morris?
Would you like to hear from me on that, Mr. Chair? Yeah, I think so. I just want to, with regard to the CUP, I would tell the Board, you know, I don't think you have to give much consideration to the 1983 conditional use permit, because the language of the statute is quite clear in this regard. It says a county must authorize multifamily and mixed-use residential as allowable uses in any area zoned for commercial and industrial or mixed use. You heard from your zoning official, Mr. Prasad, that the property is not zoned for that CUP use. It was in 1983. It no longer is. It would no longer be possible for someone to come in and obtain that CUP. The fact that the CUP is there, that it hasn't been revoked by the Board, doesn't change the fact that the property as currently zoned, which is what you're compelled to look at by the statute, does not allow for that particular use. So I think you can consider the arguments about commercial uses and whether any of those are commercial uses. I think given the language of the statute, the uses that are identified in the code as conditional uses, the Right to Farm Act and the incorporation of Right to Farm Act definitions in the Live Local Act by the legislature in this last session, I think staff's argument is well received that those so-called commercial uses are actually agricultural in nature. I also think that, you know, we know that there is no such thing as a use variance. There is no such thing as a use waiver. So I believe that the legislature's use of waiver and variance in the statute probably refers to things like conditional use permits and special exceptions. So I believe what that statute is attempting to say, even though inartfully, is that if you are allowed under a zoning classification to make a commercial use of a property without resort to a conditional use permit, without resort to a special exception. In other words, if you don't have to come and ask permission, you have to allow multifamily. Now, that hasn't been decided by the courts. It would be much nicer if the statute used the language conditional use permit or special exception instead of variance or waiver. But in this context, variance or waiver makes no sense because, again, at law, there is no use variance. There is no use waiver.
May I respond? Sure. Okay. Mr. Richardson makes an interesting argument but is completely contradicted by the state statutes. As I read to you, Florida Statutes 479.01-125 defines allowable uses. They are the intended uses identified in the land development regulations authorized within a zoning category without the requirement to obtain a variance or waiver. And actually, Miami code does allow use waivers or use variances, so that's not something that the legislature would not know. The term conditional uses and those allowed by special exceptions, if such, are present, they do. The term allows conditional uses. Allowable uses includes conditional uses and those allowed by special exceptions, but does not include accessory, ancillary, incidental, or allowable uses. Your zoning code has as standard permitted uses, standalone uses, plant nurseries and private golf courses. Your AU zoning code has uses, the property that is AU is zoned for plant nurseries and private golf courses. So, it's the zoning code issue. Regarding the CUP, it still exists. I think there's an argument that it has, it could still be valid. But, again, that's probably something the courts are going to have to decide on all aspects. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you. A question I have for council, do we need to take an action? There's no action.
Action is required, action is compelled, and the board needs to decide whether to uphold the zoning official's determination or whether to reverse the zoning official's determination and agree with Merritt Vidko's position that this, that the local applies on this agriculturally zoned property. Okay. All right, bring it to the board.
Mr. Chair. Yes. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to affirm the zoning official's April 22nd, 2026 determination.
Okay. Did everybody hear that okay? No. Commissioner Goodson, repeat that. You broke up a little bit. Okay. I'd like to make a motion.
Affirm the zoning official's April 22nd, 2026 determination.
Okay. There's a motion. Is there a second?
There's a second, sir.
Second by Commissioner Pritchard. Okay. Any discussion, debate? All those in favor, say yay. Yay. Yay. Passes unanimously. Okay. Thank you. Yes, I think what we'll do is take a five-minute break while they're clearing out. We'll be back at 1020.
Mr. Chairman, very good.
I would like to, under suggestion, and it's a good suggestion, is to move H5 to the end. That's a big item on the agenda. And probably don't want to have a lot of people having to wait around, but that's the adoption of proposed FY2627 Avalon Millage. So we'll hear that last. So, one card. Next item is H2.
Introduce it.
Richard Heffelfinger, and I'd like to have staff introduce it.
Go ahead. So, Commissioner, this is the public hearing for the ordinance to sunset the Barefoot Bay Water Seward District at the end of 2029. Okay. Richard.
Rick Heffelfinger, District 1, 2000 Juniper Drive. My only question to this is there were some comments about or some concerns about this water district previously on another agenda item. I pulled up the agreement, and I realize this doesn't happen until 2029, right? We're going to, they're going to pay off their bonds. I think I understand that right. And then the county's going to take over that because that water treatment plant is basically finished, hasn't been, will not meet the new requirements for water. I think I got that right. My concern was in the ordinance, it makes some language. It says that Brevard County shall honor those contractual obligations and commitments to the Barefoot Water and Seward District that exist at the time of its dissolution. So, there's this period between now when we say, hey, we're going to dissolve this thing and 2029. It says also that shall transfer the title of all property owned at the time. So, is that time in 2029 or is that now? And it says, well, also the county shall assume all indebtedness. So, we assumed that, I think the plan was, they're going to be out of debt with the bonds by 2029, and then we'll take it over because the place is probably not real good. But what happens between now and then? Do they have the authority to go into indebtedness between now and then? I guess what happens is, my question is, we've told them we're going to take this thing away. They currently are collecting fees, right? People are paying for water and sewer. And some people came forward and said they don't like their rates. Now, I can't really say anything about that other than who sets their rates? I assume those rates are high enough that they're paying for the current running of that facility. Between now and then, 26 to 29, what happens if there's a major, I don't know what the state of that facility is, other than implied that it's not real good because it's 50 years old, it doesn't meet the current requirements. If it has a major malfunction between now and then, who pays for that, and would that potentially put that special district in a bad spot that we would assume? What I don't want to happen is, we've made the, maybe this will be a good one, right? So, are we going to inherit a flaming bag of poo if something bad happens? Do we know what the, are we planning for what could potentially happen between now and then so that we know what we're getting? I just, I just, it concerns me that this language says, hey, we're going to assume their indebtedness. It'd be nice to know what we anticipate that to be. Could there be things that happen? In other words, could we, could we just delay this? We're making a statement right now, we're going to accept this, and there's a lot of time between now and then. Why don't we just dissolve them and take the responsibility at the time that they run out of, out of that, that bond? That, that's my only question. That's my only concern. So, I don't know if anybody can answer those questions. Do we know what that facility potentially could do to us in the, in the period between now and then?
Okay. Do you have an answer, Eddie, quickly, or do you want to wait till we, go ahead? May I hear it? Yeah. I think it's a legal question.
I'd be, I'd be happy to, Mr. Chair. From the first sentence in the staff report, the Barefoot Baywater and Sewer Utility District is a dependent special district governed by the Board of County Commissioners with the Brevard County Utility Services Department responsible for district service operations. So, it's this board that's going to decide what the district does in the next several years. This board sets the rates. There's an item later on your agenda where you are going to consider, actually, I guess the rates come back next, next meeting, but you are going to be addressing the rates in the district very soon. So, that is, that is all well within the purview of the Board of County Commissioners. So, you shouldn't be surprised by anything that the district does in the remaining time.
Okay. Okay. Well, I appreciate that answer because I was just concerned. It sounds like the special district was just something set up to allow them to take bonds. Is that, no? Yes. So, if there's not a problem, you guys don't think there is, I don't, I no longer think there is. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you. Sydney James.
Commissioners, please take a pause and do not move this agenda item forward at this time. In 1999, county commissioners here voted to buy the Barefoot Bay facility and to keep it a special district. One commissioner at the time noted that Barefoot Bay customers were paying more but used roughly half the amount of water of the average utility customer in unincorporated Brevard County, and he said this is unfair. The unfairness has not only continued, it has increased immensely. In 2022, Barefoot Bay rates increased 10%. This was followed by 13% increases for the next three years. As I said two weeks ago, Barefoot Bay customers are the only residents in unincorporated Brevard County who shoulder the burden of maintaining their own wastewater treatment plant. All the other plants share the cost burden among all the other customers. This is unfair. This is unjust. And it's unaffordable to many Barefoot Bay customers. Commissioner Atkinson asked about dissolving the Barefoot Bay special district and incorporating us into the countywide system now rather than wait until December 31, 2029. The county attorney essentially said it's impossible because the $4 million still owed for the purchase of the system must be paid for by the users of the system. This was the end of the discussion, but it should not have been the end. Our rates increased by 49% over four years and will remain high even after the rollback of our 2026 increases. What was the 49% increase for? Not for paying off the bonds. Our rates were already on schedule to pay off the bonds at the end of 2029. Those increases were for coming into compliance with Florida statutes, repair and maintenance of the facility, and funding to construct the new facility. You all agreed that the new facility will not be a special district. Finally, Barefoot Bay customers will no longer be treated as the black sheep of the county. We are full citizens of Brevard County. Please stop treating us as second-class citizens now rather than waiting three and a half more years. It is never the wrong time to do the right thing. You have several options to right this wrong. One would be to dissolve the district now and have us continue paying off those bonds. The resulting increase to countywide customers would be negligible, but the savings to Barefoot Bay customers would be profound. There are other options. Please take time to research and consider other options so you can fix this now and not wait three and a half more years.
Thank you. John, Requa? Requa?
You were correct the first time. Requa. You get that right. Okay. You must have a little French.
A little. Very little.
In the meeting July 7th, your legal counsel kept referring to Barefoot Bay as a special district. However, I noticed on my property tax that after paying my amenities for the year, I see Brevard County taxes I paid to the tune of over $2,100, even with Homestead, that I pay for St. John River Water Management District. Imagine that. All we pay for water, we pay water or other places, along with school tax, all the other taxes that are included in that, roads, repair, and stuff like that. Just the water and sewer plant. How convenient that is that John Tobias, in 2022, as far as we're all concerned at Barefoot Bay, threw us under the bus. Okay? He agreed for increases on Barefoot Bay water and sewer plant in addition to the money on the bond. And that was to make improvements that were already promised. I don't know if those improvements have ever been made. Commissioners and the trustees back in 1999 made some very bad decisions that has brought all this to where it is today. We are pleading with you. Correct it. That's all we want. In addition to this, since I was here last time, I got a call from your department telling me that they watched me here on video and they were going to get the answers to the four questions I sent you by certified mail. They said you didn't get it. It did arrive at your mail room because I got a receipt around midnight. I haven't gotten a response to that. I believe if I had a response to those four questions, that it would show where there's been a waste in funds for the improvements of the water and sewer facility at Barefoot Bay. And to answer this man's question over here, we are a deed-restricted community. We have a board of trustees. Barefoot Bay does not own the water and sewer facility. This man here can tell you that. It's been taken over by Brevard County and they intend to replace it by 2029, I think, with a new facility, which we do not know what that's going to cost us, what our rates are going to be. I personally find that suspicious. You're not going to put in a multi-million dollar plan and not have any idea what you're going to charge the consumer. I asked that gentleman that question two years ago. He said he didn't know. I know there's an answer to that question. I would really love to know what that is. We would love to know. So we're pleading with you. We're hurting. Myself, I can afford to pay the water bill. I just got a $163 water bill for one month. I can afford to pay it, but there's many that can't. And like I said before, with the water, the problem with homeowners insurance on modular homes and taxes, you're going to turn Barefoot Bay into a trailer park. It's going to fall. That water plant not only supplies Barefoot Bay, it's Crystal Lake, Sebastian, I mean Crystal Bay, Sebastian Lakes, and Snug Harbor. It's more than just our community that that water plant funds. So I plead with you to do the right thing. I really do. You know what we want. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Those are all our cards. I'm bringing it back to the board. Did staff have anything they wanted to add or respond to before we have discussion? No, sir. Okay.
That said, Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to hold a public hearing to adopt the ordinance to sunset the Barefoot Bay water sewer district.
Okay. There's a motion to adopt an ordinance. This would not be the final decision. This is only to set the public hearing. Okay. Is there a second? I'll second. Second by Commissioner Feltner. Any discussion? All those in favor, say yay. Yay. Yay. Okay. Carrie's unanimously. What is the date of that ordinance? Do we have a date?
Yes, sir. I believe in the ordinance is December 31st of 2029. The actual public hearing?
This is the public hearing, sir. The public hearing on the rate ordinance, on the rate resolution?
In the motion.
Or on this ordinance.
I'm sorry. Repeat that motion again. I just.
So my motion is to adopt the ordinance to sunset Barefoot Bay.
Okay. This is actual. Water. Yeah. Okay. I want to make that clear. Adopting the ordinance to sunset. And then I'll second that. I'll second that. Maybe we should vote again. All right. Let's vote again. Okay. Okay. You heard the motion. The second. All in favor, say yay. Yay. Yay. Yay. Okay. Carrie's unanimously. Okay. All right. That's age five. That's age two. That's right. I'm sorry. We moved age five to the end of the meeting. Okay. Age three. Final public hearing. Adoption of fiscal year annual action plan for our county home investment partnership program.
Hi. Good morning, commission. This is the final public hearing for the FY 2627 annual action plan for Brevard County home and CDBG programs. We are estimated to receive $1.3 million in CDBG funding and $1 million in home funds. Brevard County will receive about $447,000 of the $1 million, and the member cities will receive the remaining $623,000. As the HUD consortium, Brevard County as the lead agency is required to submit an annual action plan for how home and CDBG dollars will be spent. Public input was sought through a 30-day public comment period with advertisements in Florida Today, Ebony News, on our website, and in social media. We request approval of the 2627 annual action plan for the chair to sign and require certifications, assurances, and applications for federal assistance for CDBG and home to HUD, and for the county manager to sign program grant agreements and authorize housing staff to complete the proposed actions and projects.
Okay. Do we have any cards? I don't think we do. Motion to approve. There's a motion to approve. Is there a second? All in favor say yes. Yes. Yes. It carries unanimously. Okay. Item H-4.
Good morning, Board. This is a petition to vacate a portion of two public utility easements located in Barefoot Bay, District 3. The property owner, Mr. Schmidt, is the petitioner requesting to vacate two public utility easements to allow for the construction of a garage and a breezeway. There's been no objections received.
Okay. Any cards? No cards. We're having none. What's the pleasure of the Board?
I'd like to make a motion to approve.
I'll second. Motion to approve and a second. All those in favor say yay. Yay. Yay. Okay. It carries unanimously. Thank you. Okay. We're going to move H-5 to the end of the meeting. That takes us to Unfinished Business I-1.
Good morning, Mr. Chair and Commissioners. This is a resolution authorizing a loan in principal amount not to exceed $17 million from the Florida Local Government Finance Commission pursuant to its commercial paper program to finance capital projects and land purchases under the county's environmentally endangered lands. This is a request for the county commission to approve resolution authorizing the borrowing of an amount not to exceed $17 million in principal, authorize the chairman to sign and execute the resolution and the various documents, and authorize the county manager to implement the budget amendments that are necessary to implement this request.
Thank you very much, Lou Kontnick, 3208 Birdsong Court. And I want to thank you all for what you've done here just today. And also over the years that you have balanced between growth, which we all know is necessary, and we know we're fortunate to be getting that in measure, and also the environment. And you've done that certainly with eels in the past, and you've done that with the lagoon. We're looking at it again for the lagoon. And on this item, I-1, it seems like this is something, yes, please go ahead with it. We have that money. We did the vote. You're changing the approach that you're realizing the money for expenditure. I fully support it, and I thank you once again for the balance that you do. Thank you. Thank you.
Next card, Vince Lamb.
Good morning. I'm Vince Lamb, South Merritt Island. First, welcome back, Commissioner Pritchett. Nice to see you here. In 2022, I served as chair of the Political Action Committee advocating for the passage of the referendum that continues the EEL program and also authorized up to $50 million in funds for conservation land purchases. This referendum passed with more than 70% of the voters choosing to tax themselves to continue the program and to place more land in conservation. Two years later, this board authorized $3 million in funds for conservation land purchases. The conservation fund organization was engaged to assist the program in finding and acquiring lands. Properties have been acquired using these funds, including 100-acre hollows. Currently, 12 properties submitted by landowners have been determined to meet the requirements of the program by the selection and management committee. The total value of these properties is $80 million. So, you'll have some choices to make in the future. Each of these properties must be approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Often, the EEL program can find matching funds from other sources, including the Water Management District. More than a year ago, this board authorized $17 million in conservation land funding with a specification that it was to be provided by bonds. County staff evaluated and developed concerns about the use of bonds and determined that commercial loans were a better choice. So, this issue is back to the board with just that small change. I certainly encourage you to pass it and let us – I'm excited that the EEL program, conservation land program, is up and running and vibrant right now. And these funds are needed to keep that going.
Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate that. I know this is implementation of public vote for EELs. It also is implementation of our action that we took last year through the budget process. The only difference is – and staff can probably do a better job than I explaining why – the use of commercial paper rather than bonds. Maybe they could explain some of that.
Currently, the commercial paper program right now is an all-in 3.26 percent, where if we got a bond, it would be about 4.25. So, this is a better, more economical means to get the money for the EELs program.
Fantastic. Okay. We'll bring it to the board. Any discussion or action?
I'd like to make –
Go ahead. Go ahead.
I'd like to make a motion to approve.
Motion. All second. Motion by Atkinson, second by Feltner. Any debate? All those in favor say yay. Yay. Yay. Yay. Carries unanimously. Thank you. Okay. Now, let's go to J1. Board Direction Impact Fee Study.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. On February 25th, 2025, the board directed staff to begin the process of conducting an impact fee study pursuant to the Florida Impact Fee Act. Through a competitive procurement process, Binesh was selected for consulting services in drafting the study. They have completed this study, and a representative from Binesh, Niel Goonkamp, is here to answer any technical questions regarding that. While the county conducted a study on impact fee rates in 2014, the board at that time chose to retain the current impact fee schedule adopted on October 30th, 2001. As such, the county's current rates were established more than 25 years ago. The Florida Impact Fee Act has been amended often over the years. Some particularly relevant changes have occurred in each of the past two sessions. In 2025, a provision was added to state, quote, a local government may not increase an impact fee rate beyond the phasing limitations under this paragraph if the local government has not increased the impact fee within the past five years, end quote. Those limitations effectively prevent the county from increasing impact fees more than 50%, which itself must be phased in over four years. Subsequent to that, in the 2026 legislative session, the act was amended further to add additional methodology and technical requirements to the impact fee study, among other amendments. These amendments were effective July 1st, and the supplement to the study attached to this item addresses those requirements. Given that, staff believes the study meets all requirements to justify amending impact fee rates, districts, and related regulations. The study indicates that nearly all impact fee rates are justified at far more than the 50% cap, but because we are statutory limited to that increase, staff is proposing increases to that cap. The couple of exceptions that would not be to that 50% limit are solid waste facilities and fees applying to what are considered industrial uses in the context of impact fees. Due to required changes in methodology and calculations, residential solid waste fees would see a decrease. On the flip side of that, because industrial uses have been exempt from impact fees since at least the mid-1990s, they have effectively not been adopted throughout the period of the study the current fees are based on. Therefore, the board has the authority to establish those at those rates shown to be justifiable by the study. These would include things like warehouses, mini warehouses, and manufacturing. To be clear, what staff is seeking today regarding fees is only preliminary direction in drafting ordinances. No fees will be increased until the board holds a public hearing after due notice on the ordinance amendment. If the board ultimately does adopt new impact fee rates, those would only apply to new development, not existing structures. In addition to fees, staff is seeking to amend our impact fee districts to allow maximum flexibility. The study supports the concept that our residents and visitors are highly mobile, and having five transportation districts, for example, unnecessarily hinders our ability to direct funds where they are most needed and benefit the public the most. It also limits the ability of developers to partner with the county in funding large transportation projects in exchange for impact fee credits that can be used throughout the district. In summary, staff is requesting the board take the following actions today. One, adopt the attached impact fee study. Two, provide direction to staff to draft amendments to the impact fee rate schedules at the maximum impact fee rate justified through the study, or as capped by Florida statute, whichever is lower, and amend impact fee districts to provide maximum flexibility. Three, issue legislative intent and permission to advertise amendments to Chapter 94, Article 4, Division 3 impact fees, and Chapter 62, Article 5 impact fees of the Brevard County Code of Ordinances. And then four, any other direction of the board. And I do want to just take a moment to address Mr. Huffinger's question earlier today on how the financial process works. Each are segregated by impact fee type. So library facilities, for example, are kept separate from transportation facilities, and they're held in an account and tracked over time. And, yes, some are carried forward, particularly transportation projects, because, you know, they're very expensive. So we wait until there's enough funding for a certain project, and once the advisory board recommends this project, we bring it to the board for disbursement on those projects. But until that time, until the board approves a particular allocation, they're held in their accounts.
Okay. That's a good explanation.
Yes, County Administrator. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I just want to add on to Billy. If you look at the adopted budget and the proposed budget, each of the impact fees have their own section underneath the plan and development. It shows you what's in it, what's the revenue.
Okay, good. All right, we have one card. Rick Heffelfinger. Richard Heffelfinger.
Rick works.
It's an approved nickname.
Rick Heffelfinger, District 1, 2000 Juniper Drive. I brought this forward because I'm disappointed, for one thing, that we had a study. We paid a lot of money for a study. The study was not delivered early enough to take action before the state interceded with their regulation. I believe that's true. The study showed that we are seriously, seriously behind on funding some major, major products or services. The impact fee, I think the study showed some, one of them was like over 400%. It needed to be increased. And these are long-term planning things, I believe. They were all looked at five to ten years. I know transportation looked at a five percent deficit, a five-year deficit, and then an overall ten-year for planning purposes. And there's a list of roads. It's wonderful insight into how we assess what we need to do based on these impacts. I assume they're all impacts from new development. So we had the opportunity. It would have been brutal, though. I realize there's a balance between, you know, you impact fee too much and nobody's going to want to build here. It's going to be too expensive. It would, as the chairman identified, it potentially would raise the cost of a house because they're going to pass that on to the home buyer. Understand that. There's a balance there. But also you can't just say, hey, you know, don't pay any impact fees. The residents here will just pay it out of our pocket. So somewhere there's got to be a balance. I feel really bad and unfortunate that we didn't take action earlier to try to get a little bit more than 50 percent because that 50 percent does not put a very, very big dent in it. And it's well documented in the – I believe that – I have not read the complete impact study. I'm sure it has a lot of wonderful information and insight, and I'll get to that. But the important thing was the impact fee demonstrated needs study. And I pulled a quote out of that that says it all. It says, with reduced impact fee levels, estimated revenues are not sufficient to fund projects needed for any of the service areas. Under this option, the existing population – that's me – will subsidize new growth or the level of service will degrade. So we already know what's going to happen. What is the plan since we didn't take any real action? I mean, this thing decremented like 4 percent where it could have taken out as much as 38 percent of that projected cost. So we didn't put a big dent in it. We put a little dent in it because, you know, we're limited by the law. I think you're asking for the maximum amount that the state will allow us to do. And it's a four-year progression, right? And so we're going to get some of it back. But it's a very small – what are we going to do to get the rest back? Or what does – as a citizen or a resident here, what should I anticipate? Because I think this is going to kill me. The millages, which we're going to talk about later too, but what is the plan? How much is – I asked about impact fees. What's in the transportation impact fee right now? How much money do we have? I mean, I don't know. So it's just – I'm a little disappointed and I'm a lot concerned. And I think everybody in Brevard County should be. Thank you.
Okay. I think that's the only card that we have. I think maybe there's something to be corrected. Billy, did we miss some date or is there something that – some date out there that somehow impedes the county?
Commissioner, I'm happy to clarify. It was in the legislative session of 2025. So July 1st of 2025 is when the key language took effect. So we never had the opportunity to raise it more than we're raising today, at least in the last couple of years. And I'll quote what was added in in 2025. A local government may not increase an impact fee beyond the phase and limitations under this paragraph if the local government has not increased the impact fee within the past five years. So the other operative language that was added this year, we don't even get to that because we hadn't increased the fees in the last five years. We never could go beyond the 50 percent anyway.
Okay. Thank you for bringing that up, Commissioner, and so we have that clarification. Okay. Commissioner Atkinson.
So I'm fairly positive about approving this because I would like to see what the numbers look like. And since that's all this is doing, we're not setting the numbers right now, I would like to see what it looks like. And I know that we all say that we're just going to end up having to pay the costs ourselves, but maybe we don't need to. So maybe we could have builders not pass all of it along. We'll see. But for me, I would like to see what the numbers are.
Okay.
I'm trying to light, yeah.
Okay. Okay. Yes.
I don't have any problem right now with adopting it. I need a little more time to dig into the numbers. I've had a real busy weekend with the budget. And there might be some other things we can talk about as far as getting some more revenues in. So I'd like to have all these things on our topic one evening. So that we'd have a discussion because I was looking through maybe doing a local option gas tax. It might be a little bit easier for the constituents and pay for that. So I want to get all the numbers from the county. I was looking at the public service tax, but I think that would be really hard on residents because the electric bills are seeming to get quite high right now. So there's just some things that I want to dig into. If you guys would give me a little time on that before you set any kind of direction to the staff about how to implement that, that would be my request today.
Okay. I think that's a reasonable request. We will not be setting them today.
That's correct, Mr. Chair. So there is a minimum of a 90-day notice period. So this would just be having us do the legislative intent to draft the ordinances. We would draft them, and there would, again, be 90 days notice required before it came back to the board.
All right. Good. Okay.
Any other discussion? Can I just ask for clarity? Is there a point that we have to have final adoption so we have a time frame that comes back later this fall, but it has to be before the end of the year? Is it something like that?
So, Commissioner, you would have to adopt the study but not necessarily act on the rate. So you'd be adopting the study today, but that doesn't require you to act on that study. Once you've adopted the study, I believe you have four years to act on it, somewhere in that period. So there's some time. Okay. All right. Thank you.
Okay. Excellent. All right. What's the desire of the board?
Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve.
It's a motion to approve. Is there a second? I'll second. A motion, a second, and a approve. I'd like to just say a few things. You know, I have historically been against the concept of raising impact fees. I'm going to vote in favor of this and wanted to say why. One, something is fundamentally different today than a few months ago. And that's the Amendment 3, I believe it's 3, that's going to have a significant impact on local government's ability to provide needed improvements, infrastructure. And I think we need to keep every option open that we possibly can. And also, there's been a lot of effort on behalf of, in my district, significant developments and developers trying to get around the level of service impacts that our staff is doing a really good job of trying to enforce and maintain as much as possible our county roads. And thirdly, just the incredible feedback from my constituents. I think by far the single greatest input complaint that I receive is the level of congestion and the amount of development that we, I don't think they're anti-development, but that level of congestion on our roadways and how we're going to address that. So, that has had a big impact on me. Okay, is there any other debate? All in favor say yay. Yay. Nay. Yay. Yay. It's a yay. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Okay. Item J2.
Good morning, Dan Board. This is a contract for sale and purchase, an addendum for fee simple parcel and utility easements from Wheeler Farms Incorporated for the wastewater treatment and water treatment facilities relocation project southwest of Dottie Drive on the north side of Miko Road in Palm Bay District 3. The approach for the new treatment facilities is to have a dedicated access drive from Miko Road to the facility, and this would help bring that project to fruition.
Okay. We have one card. Richard Heffelfinger.
Rick Heffelfinger, District 1, 2000 Juniper Drive. I bring this one forward because, again, I think water is important. You're asking for a dedicated drive, and it says the reason that you can't use the current drive is that it's a dirt road and it's subject to flooding. And I think I can use this. Can I use this? This is right from the Hubie Jammer. So there is the map, and I think I understand this correctly. Here's the plant right here, right? Boy, I've got to figure out how to point. That's the plant, and this white line right here is the dirt road that comes in currently for the plant access. And I don't know what you bring in, maybe water that needs to be processed, you pump it into the plant. Don't know. I'm just trying to figure the logistics of why we need another road. So we've got a dirt road. It's subject to flooding. I don't know what the geography here is, but I doubt that this parcel of land that you're trying to cut a road through or get an easement for is any lower or higher than that road that's over there that you already have a utility easement for. What I do know is if you – and you've got to pay – I don't remember what the cost of this was. It's $900,000, $700,000, so you're going to get an easement here, and you're going to buy some of the property. You get a utility here, and then I guess you're going to put a road here, if I understand right. So that road is going to come in to support the new plant. This parcel right here was bought for $5 million. I assume that's part of the new plant. This parcel over here is already owned by the county. That would be part of the plant. So this plant is going to be a big footprint here. This parcel right here that you already bought used to be a trucking depot or storage facility, and you can see a beautiful road that comes in with a big turnaround right here, a couple of buildings. It has an entryway that looks like it could be rated to do all kinds of transportation, and it was supporting a trucking plant. It seems like it's gone kind of dilapidated, but I don't understand why you need to cut a road through here if you already have this road, because you're just going to get the property now. You're still going to have to pay that, and ooh, there's a big problem. You've got a bridge, a canal. So I assume I don't have any estimates. I don't know if you've done any. A cost study of, you know, do we use this and prove this road? Do we buy this, put a road in, put in a bridge, or can't we just use this road coming in on this? Now, I guess I don't have completely all the information. I'm just asking crazy questions. When I see what you're trying to do here, I question why, why you're trying to do that. I assume that this property, this property, and the existing facility property are all going to be utilized for ponds and whatnot that you do with water, right, water processing. So you have a road that comes in right now. Why do we need to buy property and build a bridge? I don't know what that would cost. I imagine expensive. You're going to have to cross that canal, and is this truly less vulnerable than this dirt road that you already have? It's part of the parcel. You just have to pave it, and you come in. Of course, I would imagine that these people don't like you driving their trucks past, but it's happened to exist. So that was just my question. If you could clarify any of that, since this is a hearing, we could talk about that. I just appreciate clarification. That's all.
Okay. Thank you. So maybe we'll have a clarification on that.
Sure. Commissioner, just to go through a few items, the cul-de-sac road that's referenced that you can gain access from the north, and it's a cul-de-sac. That was from a previous planned development. Quite honestly, to get access through, you have to go through Grant Valkyria, and Grant Valkyria right now is not allowing access into that. They don't want the neighborhood traffic. To keep in mind, the ultimate is going to be, and I forget the numbers, Commissioner. We're going to have a 10-million-gallon-per-day wastewater plant and a 10-million-gallon-per-day ultimate water plant. So the amount of deliveries in trucks, we're looking at 50-foot trucks, they can't make that turning radius on Dottie Drive. It's a dirt road. It's a recreational road. I think it might be posted at 25, but I'm going to tell you I drive 20 because of just the geometrics of it. Once you get into facilities of such, in addition, the billing office that's currently located in Barefoot Bay is also going to be moved to this site. So the amount of traffic, not just day-to-day car traffic, but also the truck traffic. And also keep in mind that we also have to have an ingress-egress construction. So when this is getting constructed, there's going to be severely heavy equipment. So having an access that can be used, dedicated for that, it just provides a better logistic overall for the project.
Okay. That was a good explanation. Any other questions? Is there a motion?
Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve the requested action.
Okay. There's a motion. Second. Is there a second? I'll second. Second. Second, by Commissioner Feltner. Debate. All in favor signified by saying yay? Yay. Yay. Carries unanimously. Thank you so much. Okay. I think what that will do then is take us back to H5, which we move to be the last item. The last item actually would be public hearing that we're normally here at the end. The H5 adoption proposed FY2627 avlor millage rate. And I do think we have cards. We only have one card. Okay. Richard Heffelfinger. Yeah. Let's have staff give us an analysis first and then before he comes up. And then.
All right. Good morning, Commissioners. Item H5 requests that the board set the proposed fiscal year 2027 millages. The millages approved under this item will be the millages that appear on the trim notices mailed to taxpayers in August. And the list of millages to be levied by the county is attached to this addenda item. And these are the millages that were used for budget development. Florida statutes require that by August 4th, the taxing authority must inform the property appraiser of upcoming millage and meeting information for use on the trim notices. And that notice will serve as announcement for the first public hearing that will be held on September 8th, with the second and final public hearing being held on September 22nd. All operating millage rates have been established within the Brevard County charter cap limitations and the voter approved millages have been set within the restrictions of the voter approved maximums. Okay. All right.
Speaker Richard Heffelfinger.
Rick Heffelfinger, District 1, 2000 Juniper Drive. Hey, I'm great to see that these things are not busting the cap. I'm shocked because I went to budget hearings or budget workshops that I thought, oh my God, we're going to die this year. I don't know why that didn't happen because I do believe that you guys, along with the county manager, talked about what we needed to do this year to solve some of those, I thought they would have been budget workshop problems. And I saw nothing but problems. I didn't see anybody's specific budget asks. I saw problems. So let me see if I got this right. We're going to advertise this that we're not busting the cap. Yay! But that's not the end of it. You guys still have to have deliberations, talk about budget, and you could very easily on this dais decide that you're just going to, oh crap, we forgot about that. We're going to bust the cap on this. I understand that, right? I understand that can happen. It won't. You're saying no? Okay. That's good. I like that too. But the issue still exists. We identified with that impact study thing a huge deficit in where we're going to pay for stuff. Am I just like chicken littling going, ah, I heard, ah, from you about what it was going to take to overcome some of these projects? That six-story building comes to mind. The water. Now, I understand that. Maybe I'm messing that up because that's some kind of a fund that's different from, you know, we don't take real estate tax for that. But I heard, ah, a lot on infrastructure. And yet I see no bust in the cap. Now, am I upset? No. I like when you don't bust the cap. But I don't know where we're going to get the money from all that other, for all that other stuff. And Commissioner Pritchett said, hey, maybe we can consider a gas tax. I think we already talked about that. Is that the, you know, percent gas tax to try to help for transportation? That was shot down. We're not going to, we're not going to pursue that. I see if we wait too long, it only gets worse, right? You either take on a problem now and try to address it. We know what the problem is. The impact fee study did a wonderful job of documenting where we're behind. We're seriously behind. 3.5 billion in transportation over the next 10 years. I think I read that number correctly. Well, you better start doing something now. You only got 10 years. I don't know how we're going to do that. I would like to hear a plan. I hope that, you know, everybody considered what do we need to do with our millages. And this is accurate. And we're not going to bust the cap. We're not going to have major boo-ha-ha later in this budget period where we freak out. Everybody's good with this. We're not going to. So I'm good with it. I hope you're good with it. I don't know what's going to be 10 years from now or the next couple of years. It would, you know, you always try to take a little bite out at a time. You're not taking any bite out now. If we really had those emergencies, I would have expected a bite. And we would have a conversation about how to fund that. Is it magically the state going to step in and pay for all of our stuff? I don't know. I'm just trying to get insight into this. I was scared, and I'm still scared. Thanks. If you want to discuss that, it would be great.
Okay. I'd like to – we'll bring this back before the board. And I would like to make a motion just to put this in a posture so we can move forward and have a debate and discussion and a vote. I think it would be helpful. So I would like to move – I don't know if I need to pass the gavel to do that, Morris, or can I move from the chair? You may move from the chair. I will do that. I move to set the general fund millage rate at the supermajority rate of 3.0942 and have staff bring back a resolution setting forth the critical needs that were presented at the budget workshop in April. I would also ask that the staff bring back recommendations on allocating the additional $17 million with the focus being on public safety, infrastructure, and restoration of reductions that were necessary to balance the budget. I think this is a measured – it helps fund needed infrastructure improvements. It's a measured action because we still will remain the lowest millage rate in our region, and we still will be lower than the millage rate that we had back in 2023. But it would allow us to address some very, very simple, simple, important, critical issues. First and foremost, I'd like to point out that prior to August 4th, the board must set the millages that will be sent out on the trim notices. These millages can be lowered but cannot be increased without setting additional notices at a cost of approximately $180,000. So this takes a conservative approach. It's not our final millage rate. We still have the ability to lower them, but we can't raise them. So if we were to go with a lower rate, it would box us in. It would put us in a bad place without having the ability to hear from the public and to deliberate. So that's why I think this is important that we do to give us the flexibility. So to set millages above the current limitations, the board must adopt the resolution setting forth the funding of critical needs under the charter. A supermajority is required to adopt the resolution and millage rates above the charter limitations. Staff would bring back this resolution at the tentative budget hearing on September 8th. So that still, again, gives us time to evaluate. Here are some of the issues that I think are really critical to our county that would allow us to address them with this millage rate. The animal shelter replacement, incredibly important to our community. The Brevard County jail infrastructure. You know, if you look at what the sheriff is up against in maintaining that jail facility, there's a serious threat to our ability to protect public safety and house inmates in our jail. The Brevard County Government Center North and other facility repairs. I was in that facility a few months ago when sewage, raw sewage, was raining down on the heads of our property appraiser. So I can't begin to emphasize the dire straits that that facility is in. That's a $3 million replacement. Five-man animal shelter, $3.5 million in the jail, $3 million north of our facility, which that is our county seat, and it's an embarrassment here in the county seat of the county of our statute that we have such disrepair. It does provide road surfacing of $1.6 million. It does provide the tax collector's ability to implement the voter-approved millages from the school board. And it does restore $2.4 million of critical reserve levels. So that's an allocation around $16.8 million. I think that's a starting point. I hope I would support this as the final, but I just want to emphasize at least it gives us the ability to get with staff, to have a meaningful meeting dialogue, and to give the public the opportunity to give testimony on these important needs. And that's my motion.
Second for discussion?
There's a motion. I move second by Commissioner Pritchard for discussion.
May I, sir? May I am?
Yes.
I am really relieved you did that. I was trying to figure out how I was going to talk and to get to second on that. I spent the weekend on this. I still need a lot more time. But I'm looking at the statistics of where we were a few years ago. And with Amendment 3, and I really think that's going to pass. It just looks like something is a nonpolitical person or last period of time. It looks like a good thing. And I know it's going to be painful trying to figure out how to get more tax dollars for what we do. But in District 1 right now, and again, we're trying to get data together. But our stormwater issues and our drainage issues are huge right now. And I've got to figure out how we're going to get those things covered. The reserves are down to under 10% now. And the general fund, which has got my attention, is something we've got to fix pretty quickly. The budget right now, and going into next year after the Amendment 3 happens, we have a certain percentage we're allowed to raise it. And if we don't get this to a fairly decent level right now, which isn't a whole lot if you do the 3.094, that's what bases next year off of. The state of Florida mandate about six years ago had us increase everybody's income over six years. This is our last time doing this, but this has been a great obstacle to try to figure out how to get everybody with the salaries paid. And this is countywide. All the businesses are suffering, too. So everybody out there is having a lot of struggles. So we need to figure out how to keep our core services running. There's a couple things I will bring back with you guys if we can discuss them. Again, the local option gas tax, we could put that on a ballot with a three out of five vote. Or we could just, I think, vote it through with a super. But that would be something that even the tourists would help participate in. So I'm just looking for how much we have to have with those items and figure out how to get there with the least amount of paying to our constituents and what they can afford. But I think that's a good start, sir. I was hoping for that myself so I could get in to maybe dig and try to find some other ways to get some more funds in. So, yeah, I completely support that today.
Okay. We have a motion and a second. Is there any other discussion? All those in favor, say yay. Yay. Yay. Opposed? Passes 4-5 with Commissioner Felton and voting against. Okay.
Can we just get clarification? 4-1.
Did I say 4-1? Passes 4-1. Okay.
I'm sorry. Can we just get clarification that that motion also includes approving the other proposed millages at the rate that they're presented in the agenda? With the only change to the general fund?
Yes. That is a good point. That motion would include all the other millages that were presented to us. Do I need to be more specific or would that cover?
I think that would cover it.
Okay. Was that included in the second?
Yes, sir.
That was included in the second. Do we need to re-vote? Let's re-vote. All in favor, say. Well, can we clarify something?
Yes. You're asking staff to prepare to exceed the charter cap. That's where we're. Okay. I just want to be clear on that.
Okay. All right. Okay. All in favor, say yay. Yay. Opposed? No. Okay. Passes 4-1 with Commissioner Felton and voting against. Okay. That's the last scheduled item on our agenda. So the last item we do have is public, the final public hearing component of our agenda. We have no cards for public comments. No cards. So we will go to reports. First report would be the county manager. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to highlight we had two employees that retired last Friday. Lee Laurie from Parks and Recreation. She was a HR person at the time, 38 years. Barbara Burns from Transit Services had 20 some years. She was customer service representative. I know both of them personally, but those are two dedicated staff members came in every day, worked very hard. You never see them out front getting the applause, but they both exemplify what you want to see in county employees, and I know both departments will miss them.
We will miss them. I wish them well in their retirement. Okay. County attorney. I have no report, Mr. Chair. District 1. Just want to say. Which is welcome. Thank you, sir. I have a District 1 report.
Thank you. It's good to get to serve with you, and you're so professional. This is very delightful. And I'm looking forward to doing the best we can do here with what I can do in the next couple of months, and then I'm so out of here.
It was such a great honor to have you with us. Welcome. Commissioner Goodson?
No report, sir.
Commissioner Atkinson? No report. Commissioner Feltner? No report. Okay. I do have one item under my report. The February 24th meeting, the county commission appointed all the commissioner's chief of staff to serve as alternatives for the election canvassing board. At that time, Kristen Lordy was the chief of staff at District 1. Since Ms. Lordy is no longer employed with the county, I'm requesting that we remove Kristen Lordy as the alternative to the canvassing board and replace her with Marcia Newell, the current chief of staff in District 1. The supervisor of election needs us to approve this action in order for Ms. Newell to fill the role.
So moved.
Okay. There's a motion. There's a second. Second. All in favor say yay. Yay. Carries unanimously. Our agenda is complete. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you.