Loading...
BCC Minutes 09/27/2002 W (Checkbook Concurrancy)September 27, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CHECKBOOK CONCURRANCY WORKSHOP Naples, Florida, September 27, 2002 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the, Collier County Board of County Commissioners Checkbook Concurrency Workshop in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00AM in WORKSHOP SESSION in Building "F of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Commissioner James Coletta Commissioner James Carter Commissioner Donna Fiala Commissioner Tom Henning Commissioner Fred Coyle ALSO PRESENT: Leo Ochs - Deputy County Manager Norman Feder - Transportation Director Nancy Linnan - Attorney Don Scott - Transportation Planning Joe Schmitt- Community Development & Environment Administrator Stan Litsinger- Transportation Planning Department COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CHECKBOOK CONCURRENCY WORKSHOP September 27, 2002 AGENDA 9:00 - 9:15 am 9:15 - 9:35 am 9:35 - 9:55 am 9:55 - 10:25 am WHAT WE SAID WE WANT TO DO - GMP TRANSMITTAL HOW DO WE GET THERE?- IMPLEMENTATION a) LDC - Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (3.15) and additional GMP modifications b) Traffic Concurrency Procedures Manual DCA OBJECTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPLIANCE - ORC Report and LOS Calculation Techniques Stan Litsinger Norman Feder Don Scott Nancy Linnan 10:25 - 10:35 am BREAK 10:35 - 12:00 pm PUBLIC COMMENTS 12:00- 1:00 pm WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? - REVIEW OF OPTIONS a) Stay the Course b) Phase-In with reassessment of vested and DRI project impacts 1. Transmit Interim and October 1,2003 Checkbook 2. Transmit only Interim c) Modify timeframe (capacity improvement) used to determine concurrency 1. 1 year vs. under construction 2. 3 year, 2 year, 1 year phasing d) Maintain current process Norman Feder 1:00 - 2:00 pm CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC COMMENTS (as needed) September 27, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The Workshop was called to order by Commissioner Coletta at 9:07 AM. The Pledge of Alliance was recited. Leo Ochs - Deputy County Manager reviewed the agenda for the morning and introduced Stan Litsinger. Stan Litsinger - He briefly went over the reasons for the Workshop. The Commissioners have several handouts concerning the day's agenda. They include Capitol Improvement element and the Transportation Element which include the proposed changes that were transmitted on June 25th, 2002 to the Dept. of Community Affairs for review. Staff has worked on the language to modify and bring it up to date based on the ORC response. He mentioned they are on a tight schedule. They have proposed to have a parallel process to adopt the Land Development Code 3.15 and implement the Amendments. They are scheduled to be adopted by the Board by November 12th. It is a change from an annual Concurrency determination on Transportation to a checkbook "real time" system which will become effective upon the Land Development Code adoption within one year. The key tenants of these amendments are no longer to rely on the first three years of the construction schedule and Capitol Improvement element but to go to a more stringent, under construction, schedule. He gave a redefining definition of the final local development order from building permit to include a final sub-division plat, a final SDP, or building permit, which moves the threshold foreword with concurrency determination beyond a building permit. Also proposing a financially feasible schedule of capital improvements based on the direction to staff in the months since the adoption of the annual inventory report. Also a very large increase in road impacts, proposal for revenue bonds and the augmentation of the funding plan with ad valorem taxes. He then introduced Mr. Norm Feder. Norm Feder - He gave a Power Point review and some refinements in the Capitol Improvements and the Transportation Elements that they want to recommend to the Commissioners. He notes that the objective is to ensure that the adopted level of service (LOS) on any roadway segment is not exceeded by new development. For roadway segment over 75% of their service capacity the concurrency management system will address further impacts to the LOS on the segment until additional capacity is provided. Rather than wait until they have a deficiency, they are going to try and work with their facilities as the capacity nears consumption and try to make sure they won't end up in a situation where they have to control on a nature of a de minimis growth or moratorium. He read from the handout given everyone on the Current AUIR vs. Real Time "Checkbook" Concurrency. He discussed the changes that they are recommending and the items that have not changed previous. 1) No change in the Budget Priorities 2) Significant Impact-stays with the 1%-3%-5% under the Checkbook heading. But he did refer to a Traffic Impact Area map on the visual. He described the different percentage impacts and gave examples. He noted this is a change. 2 September 27, 2002 Commissioner Coletta asked if the checkbook concurrency is built on if the road capacity is 20,000 and if 15,000 were being used, there's a 5,000 balance left. Norm Feder said that is the basic concept. Commissioner Carter asked if on the objections a number of Florida Statutes rules of administrative cases were sited and he is wondering if this presentation has addressed all of them or specific ones? Mr. Feder stated they are working towards that objective. Commissioner Henning asked about proposed projects and referred to the area map. Don Scott - Transportation Planner - answered a question by Commissioner Coyle earlier on traffic on specific roads. They are: Goodlette Frank from Vanderbilt Beach to Pine Ridge on a 1% would be about 18 trips, Goodlette Frank from Pine Ridge to Golden Gate Parkway would be 37 trips, Pine Ridge from Goodlette to Airport would be 43 trips, and Pine Ridge from Airport to 175 would be 47 trips. If3 or 5% is used it would be 3 and 5 times those numbers. Airport north of Pine Ridge would be 49 trips; Airport south of Pine Ridge would be 55 trips. He does not have Livingston Road information. Peak hours were discussed multiplying by 10 to get an average daily number. It was stated that two months out of the year there will be a lot of congestion. These figures will be discussed later in the presentation. Commissioner Coletta was concerned about the plan being diluted to a point of no meaning with going 10 months out of the year rather than 12. 3) Time Fame for Concurrency Determination - according to the handout they are proposing" first come first serve" at time of final Plan or Preliminary Subdivision Plat. One change is a monthly update. Not a change to the transmittal but a change to what is being discussed now. 4) Reliance on Road Improvements - He referred to the handout. 5) Peak Hour Calculation - looking at a 10 month out of the year February and March being peak season. Does create a small change. The concept of having unusual occurrences makes a difference. A 5% change in what is allowed on traffic by going the 10 month instead of the 12 month. 6) Response to Deficient Segments - The AUIR and the Checkbook issues were covered according to the handout. Mr. Feder referred to page 6 of the handout. (Backlogged Roadway Segments) 7) Road Segment Trigger Traffic Volumes - The AUIR and Checkbook concepts were gone over and referred to page 7. (Constrained Roadway Segments) The annual Growth Rate was discussed. The "Year of Construction" chart was used in the handbook and referred to. Mr. Feder stated this is avoiding going into a moratorium situation. On the average system wise they are at an 11% growth rate. Commissioner Fiala asked what would improve turn lanes and synchronized timing of lights do to the capacity figures and level of service. Mr. Feder talked abut the timing of signals, it can create a problem elsewhere, turn lane at the individual area, the nature of the condition at that particular area, how much the turn lane and how long it will give you assist. The County is working with the State, part of the FDOT for a computerized system in 2 phases. Airport to the West in Phase 1 is a bit behind - hopefully end of the year. Phase 11 Airport east will be implementing in about a year. The capacity would not significantly change if we had synchronized lights right now. September 27, 2002 8) When Impact Fees are Paid/Used - placed in Escrow was discussed along with other ways of payment according to the handout. 9) Planning for Future Impacts - Big change as read in the Land Development Code. Modifications made and recommending a 6 month period at which time everyone that feels they have a vested status for a development that has not built out as of yet, is asked to reaffirm that viewed status. In that reaffirmation they would work with them on what their planned build out schedule is and the nature of the transportation impact. Don Scott - Transportation Planning Dept. - He referred to the Collier County Traffic Concurrency Procedures Manuel. This lays out the procedures they are willing to follow but also from the development community standpoint of what capacity is available and what they will need to follow to meet the requirements of the system. There will be a database and on the Intemet updated on a daily basis. In the manual he mentioned they talk about some of the exemptions, such as single family homes, remodeling project and small things that do not add trips to the system. As applications are received the manual describes what trips are needed are added to the roadway. They will require certain information to be put into the system such as location of the project, what roadways are affected by it, trip generation, trip distribution and assignment, and what impacted segments are affected by the development. The 1-3- and 5% would cover the study area they are looking at to be added back into the system. The manual also covers the Capacity Analysis. Nancy Linnan - Outside Growth Management Council - Attorney She explained that she sees a lot of other concurrency systems around the state and can tell the Board what they do. One thing she wants to try to explain is what the Department of Community Affairs objection was. A letter from the DCA was found in their packet and available to the public. She noted their objective was the homework was not done to show how they can justify the data and analysis. Chapter 9J-5, F1 Administrative Codes - which is the rule that implements the Growth Management Act, and that rule requires be the County to have a financially feasible Management Act and also a financially Capitol improvement plan to achieve and maintain the adopted level of service. Doesn't mean the County has to fund all deficiencies. Can chose to have a developer fund it, or not fund it, phase the development, slow down the development, can make a contribution to a fund or any other different ways to achieve this. You have to know where you are starting from. What's vested, what's legally vested and what has a right to put traffic on the road? If they plugged into the system today what is on the roads and what's likely to be on the roads with the data they have and what's going to happen? Will there be 5 deficient segments or 80% deficient segments? Whatever that number is what are they going to do about it? Doesn't mean they have to fix it all with their money, the County may chose to spend money on specific roads and the balance of the roads that are deficient, if an impact on them, maybe just not build for the moment unless they are willing to make a contribution, add a turn lane, or make these fixes etc. The County has the data - they know what the figures are. Mr. Feder is talking about refining the data. They need to come up with some reasonable assumptions and show the Dept. what it will do to the system and what they intend to do about it. What is the plan and if there are any impacts at the 1 year level, today, at the 5 year level, and then the 25 year level? Then what does that do to other policies in the plan? What does that do to the goals and policies on 4 September 27, 2002 affordable housing? Is there a plan in place? Do the analysis based on that impact. And this is what they're doing to resolve the different issues. That is one of the things the DCA says is missing. The other thing missing is flexibility in the Transmittal System. You did not take advantage of choosing some of the flexibilities. Not relying on their ability to use the 3 or 5 year delay, if not using they assume there will be more impact on the roadways then there is today. They realize they have moratoriums. As an agency they have doubts. They need to have data and analysis of how they are going to allow development to continue, given the growth rate, and keep, achieve and maintain the existing level of service. They are suggesting looking at a more comprehensive approach. She summarized what other areas have done is use the threshold of significance. She discussed the level of service - which doesn't have to be left there forever, just so there is a plan. She talked about the Statutory Requirements. She used other cities as examples. The last thing she discussed was "how traffic is counted". Most don't put it in their comprehensive plan, or land development regulations because they don't always let DCA know what they are doing, and sometimes all the vested trips roll back to zero. Not talked about, but everyone knows that is going on. She mentioned what the 9J5 Rule consists of. She talked about peak hours, peak season. Legally the 10 months can be used. The bottom line is DCA agrees what they have is not very good and can do something better. Whatever system used with whatever flexibility is used, they have got to show what the impact of that system is, on a map, not just existing trips, but with reasonable assumptions about what is already approved and the impact of it. Next - what is the plan, what are the problems and what will they be. How does that impact other goals that are in the comprehensive plan that are real important? Commissioner Coyle asked if DCA thinks the County is maintaining the adopted level of service standards now under the current system. Nancy replied "no". He talked about the growth rate and concerned that DCA is lumping them in with other cities and counties and reaching wrong conclusions. He stated that if they tell DCA how unique their situation is and back it up that they could have a reason for putting into a unique management system. DCA just wants the County to go through all the steps that are needed and required. The homework needs to be done within compliance. All the Land Use studies need to be put in the package also. Mr. Feder stated they do have a lot more to do, but the DCA's response did not take into account of what Nancy discussed today or what was previously discussed. There will be an adverse effect on affordable housing because of the road situations and it will increase the cost internally. This can also be put in the package. The objectives are to build roads that will accommodate new growth with impact or other fees related, and come up with a workable plan in order for them to maintain their goals. Another map was shown on the visualizer with the current plan. The 80% number was discussed and noted that if it was applied today it would not be correct. Three segments would be under di minimus control of regulation. Two segments - one being Immokalee Road from US41 to 175 is scheduled to be let for construction next year. The second one Vanderbilt Beach Road also scheduled for next year. Need to add the additional growth based on what already been approved. DCA wants this taken a step further and saying certain people have legal rights to be September 27, 2002 on the road - they haven't built yet, maybe pulled permits but not built yet. That number has to be added into the equation and make some reasonable assumptions. Norm talked about the vested status. The worse possible scenario that could happen would be that every possible unit that could be built was built by 5:00 tomorrow and 90% of the system was shut down. He says they need to come back to the Board on this and be realistic. Commissioner Coletta questioned why they are moving so fast to lower the bar if they aren't going to be making any major impacts. Norm said they have not lowered the bar from what was transmitted to Tallahassee. It is implementation of what they sent to Tallahassee. Commissioner Coyle addressed the issue of projecting the backlog of development. He felt that was an impossible task. Some things have been out there for 15-20 years. He felt they are overloading the system dramatically under the current system. He doesn't think there is anything in the report that could be interrupted as lowering the bar. Again the map was referred to with the di minimus and backlog conditions of particular areas. Break was taken at 11:43 AM Reconvened at 11:00 AM SPEAKERS: A! Zichella - CBIA (Collier Building Industry Assn.) WCI Communities- He has a complete presentation prepared, maps and graphics and 8 speakers. They will propose some plans and had a 10 page handout that will be referred to throughout the presentation. They believe that if the plan was enacted tomorrow, 80% of the road system would be turning red on the map. They will be giving some alternatives and recommendations, not just complaining - to participate and offer solutions and compromises. They would like to ask for credit for the first 3 years of the 5 year funded plan. They are paying their impact fees in advance. Paying for roads that they assume will be in the schedule in the first three years, he feels would be unfair not to give them credit. He feels since they are paying, they expect government to hold up their end. He quoted from the ORC report, second item under "What Is Concurrency Mgt System (LOS)". One of the tools they will be asking to be considered will be developer agreements - fair share contributions. He then introduced the next speaker. Hank Fishkind - Fishkind & Assoc. Economics - He gave a power point presentation. He states that the "checkbook" is "real time" but no funding has been added. There is some uncertainty with the system, without further changes they may be compromising some of the other plans. This amendment won't pass. It does not have a detailed analysis of impacts and don't know how many trips are going to be vested. Economists make estimates, and that's what he did. He discussed building permits and persons getting them in soon. The funding isn't there to deal with the new standards. To maintain additional roadways they need to be funded. That is what DCA is talking about. A slide show was presented. MSBU's (Municipal Service Benefit Units) can be used. Government assistance is needed in management. Can build a road first, bond it and use impact fees as credit. A more financially efficient way is needed. Need to think about a better way to acquire road right-of-ways. He will share more ideas with the Board at a later date. 6 September 27, 2002 Rob Palmer - RPA Group - Tallahassee - He discussed two issues - 1) what is DCA saying in their ORC Report and 2) What is "real time" concurrency. He stated Changes need to occur and is not quite sure where they want it to be, what they thought it was going to be, and not sure where it is heading. He covered and discussed that DCA is again saying they do not have enough information, data and analysis. The ORC report is saying they have seen the idea, not the plan. What is the effect of the idea? No background data & analysis has been developed. He feels staff did a good job in preparing the information in the time frame, but more information was needed. More and better data is needed and available. The implementation has failed. Building the facilities that are funded has not been done. System needs to be accurate - it is not at this time. Walter Crawford - CBI - Incoming President - He discussed the inconsistencies with Rule 9J5 FL Code and also Chapter 163 of FL Statutes. He stated they do not agree with Nancy's comments or Norms comments that the current proposal can be amended. Need to start over and gather the actual data in Collier County and put together a new plan that includes the 3 year funding. He covered Item #3 - Time Frame - quarterly would be more manageable, not just for developers and builders but also for Collier County. Ross McIntosh - He covered a couple deficiencies of the Amendment and the likely undesirable consequences of adoption. They are all mentioned by DCA in their ORC Report. With building permits in limited supply the value of homes being built will increase. Rationing certificates and building permits will have a harmful effect on the supply of affordable housing than any of the impact fee increases. The amendment as drafted will result in an acceleration of urban sprawl. He stated that the map Mr. Feder has, is misleading and useless. It doesn't include vesting. He wants to make sure they ensure that the data is completely collected, mapping is complete, and a judgment is based on real information and not partial information. Tom Conrecode - He spoke on the 80%. He presented a map. He stated that because of the lack of data and analysis everything is disputable. Until something can be agreed to by everyone, it can't be implemented. Traffic analysis is not an exact science, there's accuracy and precision. They have to set a 1-3 or 5% level of precision threshold. He feels that they are facing these problems today due to a lack of leadership by Commissioners and Staff that preceded the present persons. Since Mr. Feder joined the staff, recovery has begun. He recognizes considerable work to be done yet and directs staffto work with the business and industry groups to take advantage of the workload and expertise that has been applied to this effort. Ron Talone - David Plummer & Assoc., A Transportation Consulting Firm He states that the checkbook concurrency system today is based on a link by link approach. It has serious limitation by not recognizing the impact of through traffic on traffic congestion. He used Collier Blvd. south of I75 saying that it is very congested. Only a small portion is contributed to that immediate area. He mentioned several other roads that are major problems. He encourages the county to investigate system approaches to concurrency with particular emphasis on measuring concurrency on a corridor or sub area bases. September 27, 2002 Reed Jarvi - Professional Engineer - One issue he discusses is using the first 3 years of the Capitol Improvement program to the under construction or 1 year. The Comprehensive Plan states deficiencies must be eliminated. The County needs to use the Capitol Improvement Plan in the same method as using the Concurrency system, so if there is a deficiency, it can also be addressed. He talked about the Long Range Financially Feasible Program - page 37 of the Transportation Element. He covered the figures stated in the report. The "needs program" has to be looked at. Revised Capacity Standards - don't have the data yet. Public Notice & Participation - he didn't feel there has been enough public notice given, or public participation in the process other than the Building Industry and a few others. Need a broad based public participation program. For a public program they need to do a traffic data analysis, which will take 3-6 months. Need to look at a financially feasible plan. Look at affordable housing and how it is affected, by moving building outwards. Need to look at urban sprawl and it's affects on natural resources. This could all take approx 6-9 months. In relation to the 80% - he stated he has evaluated 18 projects over the last 3 months and out of those 18 projects are all affected someway by the proposed system. 100% have been affected. Ron Weaver - Attorney - Mr. Weaver distributed a letter to everyone. He quoted several different court cases. He talked about the issues covered in CBI's Handout and the Objections and CBIA's Points. He read the Objection about the Ability to achieve and maintain adopted level of service standards. He referred to several other issues in the handout. Break was taken at 12:15 PM Reconvened at 1:25 PM Al Zichella - He summarizes the presentation and feels they have had some very productive comments with staff, would like to see this slowed down, gather the data send analysis, work with staff to work out the problems, and come up with a solution that will work. He hoped the ideas and comments were taken as intended, which was constructively and look forward in helping collect the data and analysis. Tom High - Resident of city of Naples - He agreed with most of the arguments that have been given today. He filed an objection with the DCA to the adoption to the checkbook concurrency plan that was proposed. They failed to provide adequate time for public input, encouraged urban sprawl through the restricted developments. He mentioned several other reasons. He continues to hope they reject the plan and come back with something more palatable. Nancy talked about getting an extension of 60 days which is in the Statutes. It could be 70- 80-or 90 - but someone could challenge it. Or they don't have to do anything and leave the language the way it is. Could tell the staff they have 60 days to come up with more data and analysis. Legally they will need the analysis before adopting. They can do something in-between, different things that can be done to make the system better, without the data September 27, 2002 and analysis. Then plug into the 6-9 months to come up with the data. But give the staff some clue or standards today. Commissioner Henning asked when she felt this would come back for adoption if they choose to do this. Nancy stated November 19th. The dates were discussed for LDC and Planning Commission meetings etc... Some things can be done now without the data. If they chose to do pieces of the plan, 1-3-5% maybe - could go ahead and use that as a threshold now. She discussed the different things that they could do. Commissioner Coyle stated he has heard arguments today why they shouldn't have this system. He believes there should be a concurrency management system is because the current system doesn't work. They are experiencing the rapid growth in Collier County; the influx of tourists makes it depend upon a 3 year work plan and is ridiculous. The growth rate over those three years means they would be 45-50% behind. They wouldn't collect the funding that quickly. Some of his specific concerns are the impact threshold needs to be taken into consideration of the impact it will have over the developments. Small thresholds will encourage small developments. This is not in the best interest of the County in his opinion. He gave a history of what has been done in the past - no amenities etc, but at this time there are many. People will try to get in under the wire, get their final plats in, and then might not develop for some time and then be faced with the sunsetting problem. He spoke about the Matrix process, getting CO's, and focusing on the needs to develop the data. Need to clearly explain to DCA and understand the impact of the Rural Fringe and Eastern lands study will have on the overall Growth Management Plan. The infrastructure deficit has to be viewed differently then they reviewed the management process. Commission Carter reminded everyone not to get disjointed because they have two things they are working on - deal with the big picture to make it work. Mr. Feder stated that they can proceed forward. He discussed the 80,000 vested units. Can come up with some analysis, and make some assumptions. Commissioner Fiala is concerned about keeping the PUD's and permitting up to date but not forcing them to build quickly so the roads aren't so impacted. Mr. Feder referred back to his handout on page 2. He walked everyone through moving forward with some of the changes and work with the 6 month cycle. The 1-3-and 5 percents were discussed between the Commissioners and Mr. Feder. Commissioner Coletta likes the 1-3-and 5%. Discussion continued on gathering more data, and considering an accumulative impact of all the developments. Commissioner Carter stated he felt 3 & 5 were good figures and Mr. Feder said they are very workable. 9 September 27, 2002 Commissioner Henning felt they are looking at a 3-3 and 5. He referred to the handout and felt these figures made sense. Discussion followed on the Policy Issues according to the "Objective" handout booklet. Each item was taken separately and discussed for staff's direction. Commissioner Henning has a concern about Policy and or Political Constraint. The problem being with land use, and a right to develop your property, but your neighbor doesn't want you to develop your property. He has a problem with this and feels someone needs to pay for the policy constraint. Everyone felt this is a good debate. It was noted there is one Policy Constraint road in the County and that is Vanderbilt Beach Road. They proceeded with the different numbers and discussion on the handout. Mr. Feder would like to get the Board's recommendation that they bring this all back to the Planning Commission, forward to the Board in modification to the Growth Management portions and the direction to start right away to make sure they have the data and analysis that is needed. Commission Coyle stated he wanted to provide an incentive for people that already have their PUD's or DUI's approved to reduce their density. If they can provide vesting for previously approved PUD or DUI provided they reduce the density by a percentage they might develop which would give them an incentive to reduce density in order to get the vesting. Commissioner Henning stated he would be opposed to that which he feels would encourage urban sprawls. He wants to have Smart Growth and not the urban sprawl. Mr. Feder asked if the Board wanted them to make these changes into the Growth Management Plan, The Land Development Code, also start pursuing the division of reassessment of vested projects and expansion of data- continue to explore some of the other alternatives, and move toward a Concurrency Management System for initial draft about July of next year with implementation of October of next year. Mr. Feder said they will still get DCA approval. Mr. Schmitt clarified that they will go forward with the elements that they can now amend their transportation element in the Growth Management Plan and the Capitol Improvements Program and the LDC Amendments to support it. Making it clear they will still be under the AUIR System the checkbook pieces of the process will be 6 or 10 months from now. Will not be a checkbook concurrency until they get the data to back up the other pieces of the puzzle so they can go back with Phase 11. They will still be under the AUIR system. Stan proposed one alternative of which would be to not adopt the amendments at this time except for updating the schedule of Capital Improvements with a financially feasible plan, demonstrate the projects to restore or maintain the LOS and go forward in Dec with a new AUIR - 2 weeks to develop the LDC - certain portions of the LDC with they way 10 September 27, 2002 concurrency is handled, certificates, vesting, Impact fee escrow, 60 day time frame, develop data and analysis to substantiate compliance and looking to implement checkbook concurrency by October 1st of 2003. That is one option. All being confused Norm informed the Board that he is recommending something different than what Stan recommended. Norm is saying that the provisions they just went through in this cycle as a modified resubmittal back to DCA with supporting data, they can in the Growth Management Plan and in this cycle that they are already in, modification to the LDC, they continue to work forward to get the data that is needed to support to refine and then to submit a new comprehensive planning cycle and Land Development Code cycle to implement fully the checkbook concurrency as soon as possible. Stan is recommending basically hold off and Norm is saying they need to move forward. He needs a way to get them out of planning moratorium segments which with what he wants to do, would give them that opportunity. This is also the County Manager's office recommendation. Joe mentioned the LDC amendments will be part of this cycle and coming to the Board on Dec. 11 th and January 8th. The first public hearing will be oct. 17th at the Planning Commission. Norm stated they are not pulling back but being aggressive. These needs have been talked about for sometime. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair - Time: 2:55 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL JAM~ 11