Loading...
DSAC Minutes 07/03/2002 RDevelopment Service Advisory Committee Conference Room E CDS Building 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 MINUTES July 3, 2002 ATTENDANCE Members: Chairman Dino Lingo Robert Duane Bryan Milk Blair Foley Thomas Masters Charles Abbott Marco Espinar Peter Van Arsdale Dalas Disney Staff: Norman Feeder - Transportation Administrator Joe Schmitt - Community Development & Environmental Services Administrator Phillip Tindall - Impact Fee Coordinator Patrick White - Assistant County Attorney Jim DeLony - Public Utilities Administrator Don Scott - Transportation Planning Others: Thomas Sharer, Jeff Stevens, David Ellis, Ed Reilly, Denny Baker II. III. Chairmen Dino Lingo called meeting to order at 3:30 P.M. Mr. Schmitt introduced Margaret Wertzel, the new Planning Services Director. The committee welcomed her. APPROVAL OF AGENDA - JUNE 5, 2002 MEETING Marco Espinar moved to approve the agenda, and Blair Foley seconded. Mr. Foley noted a few revisions: he was excluded from the attendance list, under item 12 on page 5 "County Coordinator" should be "County Impact Fee Coordinator", Mr. Feeder's name was noted as "Norman Peter", and he suggested the pages be numbered in the future. Passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Foley moved to approve the minutes, Bryan Milk seconded. Dalas Disney noted that on page 2, part C, "write-away" should be changed to "right-of- way". Passed unanimously. STAFF ANOUNCEMENTS A. Transportation Division Update Norman Feeder handed out a couple impact fee reports to the committee for review. He discussed the schedule for updating impact fees. They have reviewed the formula for calculating impact fees and they determined that it was appropriate,, so it has been retained. He noted that the gas tax was extended out to 2030. The fuel efficiency and the interstate diversion trips have been adjusted. Mr. Feeder noted that back in 1992, the interstate trips was set at 4%, but in 2000 it was changed to 13%. Mr. Feeder stated that they were not asking for any action on this, they just wanted to get input because they want it to be as correct as it could be. This issue will go to the board on July BOth and they were the first group to take a look at this. The impact fees have increased by about 300%. Tom Schafer Mr. Schafer stated that his job was to come up with costs that were actual costs the county was experiencing. There were seven areas of cost that were evaluated; design related costs, fight-of-way costs, utility costs (relocations), construction and CEI costs, mitigation costs, and landscaping. He summarized the Evaluation and Update of Unit Costs for Impact Assessment report. Mr. Schafer explained table 1 which included the design costs and the actual costs per additional lane mile for several projects. Mr. Lingo asked if these were included in the cost of impact fees for new permits. Mr. Feeder answered that it was previously done by DOT unit costs, but this analysis used localized costs. Mr. Lingo questioned if it was segmented in a district or an area. Mr. Feeder answered that the fees would be the same countywide and collected by the district. Mr. Lingo questioned if 2 new lots were assessed at new fees even if the current road was not scheduled for renovations. Mr. Feeder noted that once they build on the lots, then there would be an impact to that immediate road and the rest of the system, which requires the impact fees to be paid. Mr. Schafer discussed the methodology developed by the County to estimate right-of-way costs per mile. The conclusion based on current costs was that the estimate for right-of-ways was around $4 million per mile. He described the methodology in Table 2. Mr. Feeder noted they would update these every 2 years. He added that due to the cost of land and less availability for right- of-ways, this cost would increase. Mr. Lingo asked how these costs compared with other areas in the state. Mr. Feeder answered that it was not much different, but it may be a little higher since they were one of the first to be updating. Mr. Schafer described Table 3 on utility costs. He noted that these numbers did not include improvements or upgrades, only relocations. In Table 4, they selected projects that were recently completed or currently under construction to estimate the construction and CEI costs. They have removed the utility costs so that they only get construction costs. They used the same methodology to determine the cost per mile and the cost per additional lane mile. The average of these was $1.4 million per mile. They have compared to the Department of Transportation and they match up well. Table 5 displays the cost for providing mitigation. The average of these was just under $37,000 per additional mile. Mr. Feeder noted that the mitigation costs would probably increase in the future, as well. Mr. Lingo noted that the impact fees were based on new construction and he asked about the other county residents who also drive on these roads paid by the new impact fees. Mr. Feeder stated that all residents of the county paid the gas tax and they paid impact fees when they had originally constructed homes. Mr. Schmitt stated that the argument was that developers pay for development. He added that there were past projects that weren't done that they were still paying for and the impact fees were to pay for the costs to meet the demands placed upon the county for each additional unit constructed. Mr. Lingo stated that that DSAC would not see this issue again. Mr. Feeder said he would come to them individually to get input, but Mr. Lingo didn't think he would have enough time to look at it thoroughly. Mr. Schmitt noted that there would be about a $50,000 price increase for new homes and he was concerned about the impact on the industry. Mr. Lingo stated that they would certainly slow growth by continuing to raise impact fees, but he felt that there needed to be a balance. Mr. Lingo also felt that they were not giving industry or the community a chance to look at what the effects are going to be. Mr. Foley stated that they were currently paying for past years where they weren't proactive in getting the roads built and he felt there was no other 3 direction for the county to go. Mr. Feeder commented that the costs were the costs for him to deliver a lane mile roadway from this point forward. Mr. Foley asked what if they would have built these roads five years ago. Mr. Feeder responded his costs would have been cheaper because the cost of delivery was cheaper. Mr. Lingo didn't feel they should penalize new homebuyers for past mistakes. Mr. Schmitt stated that was not the purpose of impact fees. Mr. Lingo stated that if they had built the roads when they had collected the impact fees, then the cost today would not be as high. Mr. Schmitt stated it was a political decision to attach to new homebuyers or to spread across the county as a taxing option. Mr. Feeder felt that the board would consider other options. Mr. Schmitt stated they have a schedule to go to the public with this issue to get input from real estate, CBIA, the public, and industry. Mr. Abbott felt that they didn't care what DSAC had to say and he believed there should be a 60-90 day implementation of this. He thought that talking to the board on September 30th would sound better. Mr. Feeder stated he was asked by the board to present the updated figures at the July 30th meeting. Mr. Disney questioned when was the anticipated implementation date. Mr. Feeder stated it was up to the board, but he would recommend July 30th. Mr. Disney felt this was very unreasonable. Mr. Feeder noted that they have 4 weeks to review before it goes to the board. Mr. Masters suggested that they continue with the presentation before they have a long discussion. Mr. Feeder stated that the cost per additional lane mile to provide capacity improvements was $3.8 million. Mr. Duane asked what was the previous cost per lane mile. Phillip Tindall answered that it was calculated at $1.8 million. Mr. Duane asked if they had underestimated the cost or had the cost to provide increased. Mr. Feeder stated that there were a number of reasons, either lack of current data or the assumption of available right-of-ways. Jeff Stevens - URS Southern Cooperation Mr. Stevens stated that they reviewed the methodology used to calculate the updates and compared these to other jurisdictions, and they found it to be sound and similar to other areas around Florida. There were some components that needed to be updated. There were no changes being recommended for lane capacity, present worth factor, number of workdays, percent new trips, size of facility or assessable trip length. They have incorporated language that reflected the information previously given in the meeting on construction costs for the implementation costs, which was $3.8 million per additional lane mile. The biggest change in the fuel tax was that the state sales tax went from 7.7 cents per gallon to 9.6 cents per gallon. This shifts the gas tax credit to 24.1 cents in the impact fee formula. For fuel efficiency, the existing impact fees allow for 16 miles per gallon, but 4 this has been adjusted to 19.6 miles per gallon. The current interstate mileage reduction is 13%, but it was determined this should be changed to 3%, which would result in a 10% increase in the net proposed impact fees. The trip generation rates for hotels, resort hotels, motels, and movie theatres have all been updated. Mr. Lingo asked based on the new fees, how long would the cost per lane mile be as they had calculated. Mr. Feeder responded that it had nothing to do with a length of time, rather it was demanded by new growth. Mr. Lingo asked how many single-family units does that get spread over. Mr. Feeder noted that it was for every new single-family development based on the demand they generated. Mr. Van Arsdale asked how these projections for the lane miles related to the costs and impact fees related to revenues. Mr. Feeder stated that they did this and it was inherent in the calculation and there was a direct relationship. Mr. Van Arsdale questioned if they were now paying for a deficient system. Mr. Feeder noted that they were using gas taxes, past impact fees and ad valorem to pay for the roads, and they are continuing to catch up. Mr. Masters asked where the 13% figure came from. Mr. Feeder stated that they have asked but it was not clear. Mr. Lingo stated that the fees would not be as high if the past consultants had done their jobs. Mr. Feeder said that within two years, right-of-way costs will probably go up, as well as mitigation costs. Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney, was having trouble with the discussion that the impact fees were higher because they weren't raised in the past. Mr. Feeder agreed. Mr. Disney questioned if growth stopped today, then how would they pay for the deficiency. Mr. Feeder stated they would lose the impact fees, but there would be no new demand, so he would be able to catch up. Mr. Disney asked why would they need to pay impact fees for an ancillary building that doesn't generate any more trips. Mr. Tindall didn't feel they had the latitude in the ordinance to determine if these were exempt. Mr. Foley asked that the schedule of meetings be made available to them. Mr. Feeder said he would and they passed out a schedule. He stated they would like to have the comments in by July 19th. David Ellis - CBIA Mr. Ellis asked if there was a credit since they were using the ad valorem for new roads. Mr. Feeder responded that they were only using ad valorem for the old growth and as soon as they caught up with it, then they would no longer use ad valorem. Mr. Stevens noted a typo on page 12 for convenience store. It should be $14,468. IV. VI. VII. B. Public Utilities Division Update None at this time. OLD BUSINESS None at this time. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS A. Land Development Regulation (Bob Duane) None at this time. B. Construction Code (Dino Lingo) None at this time. C. Utility Code (Tom Masters) There was a utility handout. D. Ad Hoc Committee on Fees None at this time. NEW BUSINESS A. National Fire Codes Mr. Lingo questioned the ordinance on Fire Codes. Mr. Reilly noted that it was new, not amended. Mr. Lingo stated that this was not changing language from the ordinance, and Mr. Reilly agreed. Mr. Lingo asked if this issue could be moved to next Wednesday, July 10th at 3 p.m. Mr. Reilly agreed. Be Introduction of Jim DeLony, Public Utilities Administrator Mr. Schmitt introduced Jim DeLony, the new Public Utilities Administrator. Mr. DeLony stated that they were on track with the projects and demands. The committee welcomed him. Overview of Fund 113 FY-03 Budget Denny Baker gave an overview of the budget. Mr. Baker stated the bottom line was to balance expenses with revenues for FY03. They are looking at a total increase in revenues of 30%. The major reason for the increase in fees was the expanded services. Mr. Schmitt added that he would give an overview of expanded services at the next meeting. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS David Ellis stated that he was offended how DSAC's opinion was treated by the BCC. Mr. Ellis noted how this increase affected six families who can no longer qualify to live in Collier County. He felt that if this goes up by the projected amount, than hundreds of families would be affected. He stated that they were the only group asked to look at this and it seemed more like a drive-by than an actual consideration of their thoughts. 6 VIII. Mr. Abbott felt that they blow them off all the time. He felt the 30-day implementation was tacky and a proper review of the fees was mandatory for good government. Mr. Duane felt the board needed to see the other side of this issue. Mr. Schmitt stated that he needed to discuss the costs and effects in the staff report. He added that he was not happy with the 30-day implementation and it would not happen again. He noted that they were trying to get this information to the public. Mr. Abbott felt that the commission races had some effect on this. Mr. Schmitt stated that this had nothing to do with those. He noted that the board does listen to DSAC even though the actions don't always seem so. Mr. Lingo stated that Mr. Feeder does a good job, but he doesn't tell the board how it would affect the public. Mr. Schmitt realized that and he felt that CBIA should present this information. Mr. Espinar noted the need to attract talent and the complaint over the cost of living. Mr. Schmitt felt this would bust 20% of the people who are just on the edge of qualifying to buy new homes. Mr. Duane made a motion for the board to consider this issue at the September l0th meeting at the earliest and encourage them to work with CBIA to address the impacts on the community, Mr. Masters seconded. Passed unanimously. Mr. Foley noted the problems this would cause with affordable housing. Mr. Baker stated that they help over 350 families a year to buy houses by paying for the impact fees and probably about a third of them would no longer qualify. Mr. Van Arsdale felt that the reason was because the people with the most votes already own their homes and they don't care. Mr. Schmitt agreed and added that they did not want their taxes to be raised. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:25 p.m. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE D1NO LiNGO, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF MANPOWER SERVICES, iNC., BY AMBER M. FREDERIKSEN, RPR.