BCC Minutes 09/03/1987 W
, ~"I/..'~
I" r;',
". I:
r.'"
" ,...,-It,
" 'H."
, -~~,-
-
-
-
Naplcs, florldn, September 3, 1907
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board or Count'! Commi.ssioners in
County of Collier, and also acting as the Uoard of Zoning
88 the governing board(s) of such ê>ncciùl districts as
have been crea ted accord ing to law and hav i nq condur; Led bus i ness
herein, met on this date at 1:30 P.M. i, WORKSHOP SESSION in Building
"F" of the Government Center, ~ast Nan10s, FlorirlA, with thp
following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Max A. 1'3sse, Jr.
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Arnold Lee Glass
John A. Pistor
Uurt L. Saunders
Anne Goodn~ght:
('f
n~
ALSO PRESENT: Maureen Kenyon, Deputy Clerk; ~!eil Dorri11, County
Manager; Bruce Anderson, Assistant County Attorney; George Archibald,
,
//,~'
,~Public Works Administrator; David Pettrow, Community Development
Administrator; Ann McKim, Planning/Zoning Director; Jane ritzpatrick,
Growth Management Director; Çliff Crawford; Parks and RecreatIon
.'
Director; and Randy Young, Growth Management Consultant.
?f
.,~.
ìtf "
·"ú'.·
1" 'F?
J 1; ~¡; ¿', ,.. .
" --~ ',.' "
~. (
1 Jf;i'P!(
1" ¡~', '
'I
(,n
,
I
!
í
Jlr
.~.!'~.;,.
,;fit '.',
,JI.~r~'
¡ :1-
¡ r;\'
AGENDA
Growth Management Presentation - Capital Improvement Element.
Page 1
&OO~ 107 fAG[ 116
.-ì
. '
-.-",>.---^,,'
r
·',
,\.,- "
;,
1:, It, .
: ~'~f)~
i!-:' ,
¡¡::
1".
t~r' .
!,
;,( ,
IOO~ 107 P~r.( 117
¡:. M.',
.'
"
September 3, 1987
GROWTH MAN~GEMENT PRESENT~TION
Growth Management Director Fitzpatrick stated that the purpose of
this meeting is to review the Capital Improvement Element of the
Comprehensive Plan. She noted that on September 22, 1987, she will be
bringing a resolution to the Board asking for their approval in order
to submit the draft of this element to DC^ by September 30, 1987.
Consultant Young stated that he will summarize the goals, objec-
tives and policies of this element, adding that everything that is in
the element is there because the subject matter is required by sta-
tute. He indicated that the goal statement is to provide adequate
public facilities concurrent with new development in order to achieve
and mðintain or exceed adopted standards for levels of s8rvice, that
this criteria falls under the 9J5 Rule of the Florida Administrative
Code. He indicated that there ore three objectives and under those
objectives are a series of policies, adding that a goal is the long
rðnge general statement of where one wants to go and an objective is a
statement of how far toward the goal the County wants to g~, and the
lowest levels are the policies and they indicate how to get there. He
noted that three objectives were identified; the first is the kinds of
facilities, the standards for those facillties, and the needs for
those facilities; the second objective deals with the financial affor-
debility and the third objective deals with implementation. He noted
that under the first objective the County has to identify and define
the types of public facilities for which the County is responsible,
"
Page 2
,"r<,
_rt,
'! t
tl',',,-
tr:r:I.','; ,
. ........'
í .....
':,<1'
~,.
t'·~
"
-
-
-
--
---~^_.<^._._-
"
...~~>
.¡"."":.'
'J .
.. ...
';
, "t'ii,
;,
,~;¡i "
September 3, 1907
. (jf'eøtabliSh standards for levels of service for each such public faci-
¡_ r r~ ;1.
¡,t:,~/ lity, and determine what quantity of addj t ¡anal publ ic raci lities are
. . tk~"_'~
'.,;1'~_ needed in order to achieve and maintain the standards. He noted that
:;"~"F
~ under Objective #1, there are four policies, adding that P01icy #1 is
that the County shall establish standards for levels of service for
three categories of public facilities.
Mr. Young noted that the three categories under Policy #1 are:
Category "A" which indicates that public facilities are County
government facilities which appear in other elements of the
Comprehensive Plan, including arterial and collector roads, surface
'~;water management systems, water systems, sewer systems, solid waste
~' -
1 disposal facilities, and parks and recreation facilities. He stated
~ that the standards for levels of service of Category "A" public faci-
'í;;;, lities shall apply to Development Orders issued by the County and to
~ç the County's annual budget, and to the appropriate indivi.dual element
"fr/"I&<'
')1;.;' of this Comprehensive Plan.
.:~~..::f
~~'.
t~h
r,~_~~';;>
~t"t-.¡",', .
~-·n '
.~:<:~
1~"1'
....,
;J~i
.·~ré
"}I-~~.
,;):~-.; -
I,
~.~; '\
~'~'.~~';';"
... ;.,'.J
,--,\
'~: ;:.,
(t,t'
1. ~__ ,..';: '
.'i::.~
Category "B" is public facilities which are facilities (or the
County's library, jail, emergency medical service, other government
buildings, and dependent fire districts, adding that the standards for
levels of service of Categor~ "B" public facilities shall apply to the
County's annual budget, but not apply to Dcvelopment Orders issued by
the County.
Category "C" is public facilities that arc facilities operated by
Federal, State, and municipal governments,
indepcndcnt districts, and
Page 3
ðOO~ 107 PM,t 118
h.;
. .~",
",.t' ~i
t¡jJ:' .
\..r~
'~i\
;'J ~(
Hi 'DO ( 107 rAr,r 119
",(,p~\;,
. .",
~ ;'~'t
-'.. ~
, .
September 3, 1987
private organizations, and the standards for levels of service for
Category "C" public facilities shall be advisory only, and shall not
,j-
apply to the Development Ordcrs issued by the County or the County's
annual budget.
Mr. Young noted that Category "A" facilities are required to be in
the plan, Category "B" facilities are not required but should be
included by reference and applied differently than Category "A"
facilities. He stated that Category "A" facilities should control
Development Orders as well as the budget and Category "B" facilities
will only control the budget but not Development Orders.
Commissioner Pistor indicated that EMS is in Category "B" and
should not be overlooked.
Mr. Young stated that the ones that are in Category "An are the
only ones that are required by Statute and those items that are in
Category "B" can be moved into Category "A". He noted that Category
"B" has to be included in the budget and there is a stand1rd of ser-
vice for them, adding that the cost has been included in the overall
revenue analysis but a Dp.velopment Order would not be conditioned on
those because it is not required in the Statute.
Commissioner Glass ques"ivned if parks are in Category "A" and a
developer wants to build in r~orth Naples, but there are inadequate
parks in East Naples, does this mean that the developer in North
Naples could not build because there is a deficiency in some other
&rea of the County? Mr. Young replied affirmatively, adding that this
~¡ Page 4
~.;,
fl·
~~:.
I;;:
~t:'.
ì~~'
,;~
'"'-
-
-
-
_..
'''.;:
:~.".
-'7~~ ~
"I 'I~ ,
-t¡,'. '
~;~l~~::
"
September 3, 1987
· ð ft does not have districts established in it ,¡'ct. Mr. Young
..t ra
. ~~
~~_: stated thðt the CAC and the CCPC have indicated an intcrest in
'''...;~¡' ~:
estðblishing districts and Staff has also been talking about this,
adding that they will probably come back with districts and then if a
developer wðnted to build in a district that has a deficiency, he
would not be able to, but if he wanted to build in a district that did
not hðve ð deficiency, he would not be held up because another
district had ~ 1eficiency.
Mr. Young stated that Category ncn facilities are those for which
County government has no responsibility and the reason that thev
in the document is because the State legislature said that when
'comprehensive plans are done at the local level; the private sector,
and Federal governments have to be
looked at and taken into consideration when develoeJing the Capital
Improvement Element, but no Development Orders or the budget will be
conditioned on those facilities because the County government has no
, .
control over those facilities. He noted that the County IS simply
complying with the requirements.
Mr. Young stated the following:
POlioy '2 is the quantity of public facilities that are needed to
ellminate existing deficiencies and to meet th~ nceds of future growth
and shall be determined for each public facility by using a formula.
He noted that if the number of people that necds somcthing is
multiplied times the amount of something that they need, the total
:;þ:-( "
¡\i'" :
_1.'1
't'l"'" -
1i\f!'"
" 0\..
:'. r':
'~~"
<.,
~.
:~:
, ,
"
"J
Page 5
ðOO~ 107 r~st 120
.
I I I I
1 , ¡ I -..' ; .
: II I I
I . I
. . .
-
~
I,
it
~.'.
-,.,,,,,, _.,..~..._...__.
t.U\¡1. 10'1 r~ ,~ 121
September 3, 1987
facilities is obtaincd and if the current inven'.ory is subtracted from
that, the difference is húw much has to be built. He noted that this
formula can be used for the current population and future population
and covers all the County needs. He noted that there are three excep-
tions to the use of the formula; the high hazard coastal area which
will have its own coastal management plan, the replacement of obsolete
or worn out facilities; and levels of service in excess of the stan-
dards subject to certain conditions.
POlicy '3 deals with priorities as to when and for what the money
will be spent.
Policy '4 is the policy to establish the standards for levels of
service. He noted that there were changes that were recommended by
the CCPC indicating that they recommended a significant change dealing
with the roads.
Mr. Young indicated that when the Advisory Committee and the
Planning Commission first started their deliberations, ~~ey felt that
the level of service for the roads should be Level of Service "C",
adding that the basic exception that was allowed was that when the
road became Level of Service "D", two years would be allowed to fixed
that road, but then it had to come back up to Level of Service "C""
He indicated that during discussions, there were a group of roads that
had not been planned for and would cost an extra $10 million to fund,
therefore, it was decided that the eight roads on the list be allowed
to operate at Level of Service "0", once they hit that level. He indi-
Page 6
-
..
-
. . ",' .',
. ..:~
. .
,.. .~
Y~I
~ ",
, '
, 4ilò';
r-,if',' .,;
í1J'.';~'f
, " OJ
~: ~ ~ ,'''/..-
':.v: ..,~.
) ..... .~.
,....
I"
. ~
"
;
',!<, '
'(
.....>
~ if'';:;
~ '~.;
(
,''1.'
~.r~'
f: {
'~.'~,
~~.~'
I,""
',""" .
, """
!~' ,~',
.i",.,,'
',..', I·
.... t·..:.t:"
. ¡g;"i'.
~~,to::
i'.;
~tri'''1- ".'
~,.
. ,
'ó,'".,';",...,'.
¡( :4.
"': k¡;:~'
.. ,J:'..'-
~,..._"-",, ~,
"t,,' .
'œ,\
September 3, 1987
that since that time, the CCPC has decided that the $10 million
be found to keep these roads at a Level of Service "clt.
In answer to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Young indicatcd that the
levels of service for roads are based on traffic counts that are taken
four times a year during peak hcurs and then once a year, the
Tr2lnsportation Department determines an annua 1 average. He noted that
this methodology is used by traffic engineers, transportation planners
and is the required methodology in the 9J5 Rule.
j"
ii'·;
:t:L "
:1;i~~
~~(. .
>;
::t:'
'~'~'" ,
.~';..,
:.~
Mr. Young indicated that a decision Vlill have to be made with
regards to these roads by September 22, 1987, and will have to be
included in the financial statements if it is determined that the
roads should be at a Level of Service "C". He noted that another
change recommended by the CCPC is the level of service standards for
'water and sewer systems, adding that this bases the data on per capita
and the earlier work had been done based on per EDU. lie noted that
the only other change is under Standard 85, County government
buildings, which should state 2.58 square feet per capita instead of
2.57, noting that this is simply a typographical error.
Commissioner Pistor questioned what happens if the levels of ser-
vice are not met, to which Mr. Young stated that there are two con-
sequences, adding that the plan has to be adopt8d and comply with all
the requirements or the County can lose StaLe money, like State reve-
nue sharing, and any money that is available [or the purpose of
building public facility capacities. lIe noted that this could be gas
&ODK 107 p,\r,[ 122
Page 7
aoo(
107 r~'.! 123
Septemoer 3, 1987
,
;~;'tax money that is uscd for capital, money from DNR for water projects,
1~~~i";:~ or current half-cent sales tax, simply [or failure to have a plan that
~,. is approved. He noted that once the plan is put in place, then the
Th,,\ penalty is a moratorium, adding that if the levels of service are not
.·I~,tíl;,: mointalned. then Development Orders <anndt be issued. He stated'that
ift. " he has not been able to find a provision that states that the state
:~~., :
i"~¥ " ~oney is lost for failurc to maintain the level of service, adding
: : that the lose of State money is for the failure to develop a success-
~!I,J;, plan that is approved.
.':', ' Commissioner Pistor stated that he feels that this should be
cleared up because that is not his understanding of the matter. He
I,
noted that if the County still gets the moncy, then there is no reason
;,.0 develop anymore.
Assistant County Attorney Anderson stated that he would check into
:~he matter and provide an answer to the Commission.
Mr. Young indicated that the ~econd objective has five policies
1'\' :r
and deals with financial feasibility. He stated that a balanced
budget is required for the capital improvements. He note~ that Policy
.'1 under Objective #2 addreDses how conservative or extravagant the
fevenues estimates are and he is recommending a conservative fiscal
viewpoint. He reported that these estimates have to be revenues sour-
, ,~. ¡" '
,ces that are available under the current law, adding that if there is
<
~ revenue source thal is available that requires a referendum for
';~ 4 , approval,
,l,d ,
',:~~ >f'~,~;'Î ',~, ~._'
"1~~ ~¡. ~1'," '1
, <;t.!
I~)?' (.9~·', ¡
. ;'~:~~ ¡
,i
it cannot be relied upon if the rcferendum has taken place
"
Page 8
·-li:
ï
-
-
"-----
~._-
i
'..
:{
J"/
',~tt,·.
..J' ,."
.oJ"
" ;
'{,.'.
'):"¡;
~".
,J
J: .
}
.,
,¡'
;.\ .
. '
~f,
,,'
i.~a(
/. f~·.~
. J:,.'
" "ï;.',".'
" '
"
:' ~.
,1t'I'~
'..,;-
, i,': .f:
" ,h., ",!'
.: ,;(~, ,.:~
,;,··'f t
, ; ""f~(
nt'"
" ,
-
-
,
j
~
Page 9
S~ptember 3, 1987
was rejected. He indicated that Policy ~2 tries to address the
going to pay for facilities and which facilities
"
ihey will pay for, adding that the question or who pays is divided
,..~
~between the people that are here now and the people that will come
'.... '
,f r,here later. He noted that with regards to the question of what is
~t ",
\',
. being paid for, this policy states that existing population and growth
be asked to pay for both parts of the problem; the deficiency and
facilities required by growth. He noted that the CAC recommended
"
'that the language in the policy that states that future development
Jshall not pay for the portion of any facility that reduces or elimina-
tes existing deficiencies should be deleted from this policy.
t~, ,
h~,Commissioner Saunders stated that the elimination of this sentence
~, "
may give the County the ability to charge future development for defi-
·~~iencies as long as it is permitted by law, adding that this may give
"':
"
more flexibility. He stated that he agrees that if it is
charge a developer for past deficiencies, the Comprehensive
not going to change that, but if it is not illegal, this could
. giv8;the County that flexibility.
"..,,~ "
:',,'[11, Commissioner Glass stated that this is leading to charging fees to
other people that are not here yet, for deficiencies,
courts specifically prohibit that.
Mr. Young indicated that another change that existing development
some or all facilities that reduce or eliminate existing
etc., adding that the word "some" was not originally in
&OOK 107 PAGt 124
or .
n:,
if.
o? °
J.~ "
..~.. ~.~ ~..,~:~~~
.'Y.;~1 .f
1" ,~;\~h
, t. !If 71· 'r:-
. . ',;, .':-- ,.:
:" ,. .~7j~l
.. . '?' ~-'
\
I
l
&OD( 107 r.l(.~ 125
September 3, 1987
this policy. He notcd thaI the C^C rolt that there was a n~ed to make
both parties pay fo~ both portions.
Commissioner Saunders stated that it ~/ou]d be a fair statement to
say that incorporated into this document by reference would be the
existing Florida Law, addlng that If Florida Law permits future
development to pay for past deficiencies In some form, then saying it
or not saying it in this document IS not goinq to prevent that from
being the case. He noted that if it is eliminated from the document,
this may restrict the County. He noted that the overriding statement
is whether it is prohibited by law.
Mr. Young stated that the policy also speaks to what kinds of
revenues comes from existing and future development, adding that
future development is payments in the form of voluntary cont:ibutions,
impact fees, dedications of land, provision of public facilities, and
future payments of USEr fees ar.d taxes. He noted that existing deve-
lopment payments are only user fees and taxes because existing deve-
lopment does not pay impact fees or make dedications of land or
voluntary contributions, nor does it generally provide a public faci-
lity. He noted that grants, entitlements or public facilities can be
used to offset the fees, charges, and impact fees.
Commissioner Glass stated thaL this is basically contract zoning,
to which Mr. Young sLated that this was not the intent. He noted that
th8 intent of this in the case of a [ire district, for example, is
that a developer might cho0sc to contribute money to be used to buy
Page 10
,
,
,
\
~
L
-
-
-
Septr:omber 3, 1.987
apparatus. He noted that if it was not rm the 1 ¡st, ¡twas feLt
maybe the cash could not be accepted. 11':- notr:ocJ th;¡t i r it is
zoning
Assistant County Attorney ^n~erson staled that he feels that the
Growth Management Act is going to further blur what d'stinction that
might still exist between contract zoning which IS clearly illegal and
the zoning not being able to occur because thcre arc not public faci-
lities, adding that it is going to be harder [or the courts and the
attorneys to draw that distinction as a result of this ast.
Commissioner Saunders questioned wherc special assessments would
fit into this, to which Mr. Young stated that the Janguage could be
perfected to include special assessments to both categories; future
and existing.
Mr. Young stated that policies #3 and #4 deaLs with th::> subject of
debt and they have established the circumstances under which debt
would be used to pay for public facilities as opposed to a pay-as-you-
go method. He indicated that Policy #3 deaJs with the enterprise
facilities; water, sewer and solid waste and Policy #4 deals with all
the other facilities that comes out of the generaL fund under special
revenue funds. He noted that the recommended language for Policy #3
is that debt can be continued to be used, and Po 1 icy #4 is rill ing a
void for non-enterprise funds, noting that it says for roads,
drainage, parks, libraries, EMS, jails, other governmental buildings,
rage 11
~OD~ 107 P.\G[ 120
lOO( Jl()~ r~~['JL~~
September 3, 1987
and dependcnt firc districts will bc financed as pay-as-you-go unless
the one exception appl ies, which is that thosc types of facilities
could be built with borrowing if the borrowing is the only financing
technique available that would avoid a moratorium.
Commissioner Saunders stated that he has problems with this
restriction, adding that he is not sure if a referendum approved bond
issue that would be providing t:1ese types of facilities would be pro-
hibitive through this type of language. lie stated that the priorities
of these projects are listed and at the time that the need arises, the
language that says that there would be no financing through a bond
issue through debt is too restrictive.
Mr. Young stated that the CAC felt that the preference was to pay-
as-you-go.
C.ommissioner Glass stated that he has no problem with that if it
is feasible, but that is up to the Board of County Commissioners, and
the decision should not be restricted by this typto of language.
Mr. Young stated that the five-year plan is feasible on a cash
basis because there are no bonds, other than utility revenue bonds, in
the financial feasibility package. He notcd that during the five
years, if the cash is not in hand, the~ this question would have to be
faced about borrowing this money.
Commissioner SaunGers stated that funding these facilities is
feasible over a five year period if bonding is climinated, only if the
one cent sales tax is approvcd, or if ad valorem taxes are raised 50%.
Page 12
-
-
-
,..;!.t'
~ ,11'
f "
'4"-'
t
t
,
"." '
,"
;... .
. ;-..
S('ptember 3, 1987
noted that h~ does not [0el that raising ad val0rcm taxcs 50~ is
feasible, but paying for it over a period nf I iln,-' m.l'l bc feasible. Ifc'
noted that funding the program without dcbL I~ fcasible, but with a
large ta~ increase, he does not [eel that it is feasible.
Mr. Young indicated that the revenue sources, which is Policy #5,
were deleted because there was no agreement as to which ones were the
best end this is not an obligation in this plan. lie noted that Policy
16 stetes that the C~unty will not build a facility or accept one from
someone else if the County is unable to pay for the operating cost.
He stated that the intent was to define the faciLIty as the complete
facility, adding that the donation of a parcel for a park is no dif-
ferent than a right-of-way for a road. He noted that it is a step
toward the completion of the facility, but by ltself, the p~rcel would
not be declined simply because it is not known .,hen the park would be
'opened and operated. He stated that it is not intended to be a burden
on the developer.
Commissioner Saunders stated that the County has faciJities that
need to be provided and the revenue source has to be dealt wl':h as
well as the levels of service, but at the same time, one of the objec-
tives would be to provide as much flexibility to the County as
,
}~~~
):'~i
.J.,',;...".'.} possible. He noted tho t if it is no t 109' II y coqu ¡ 'cd, the Coun t y
~ should not be restricted. He stated that the issue goes beyond debt
't~
./ and acceptance of public facility, adding that the Iloard of County
,~;' Commissioners needs to decide if they should develop a document that
;-~~::
'I.',.f
"~. .."
"
&OOK i07 r~',l128
Page 13
-'''.,....-.-
BOOK 107 r~(,¡ 129
September 3, 1987
gives the County the facilities that are needed and the levels of ser-
vice as well as having as much flexibility as possible in order to
provid~ those facilities.
Commissioner Pistor stated that the Board is not going to accept a
facility that cannot be operated or maintained, noting that this is
logical.
Commissioner Saunders stated that the language says that if the
County is unable to pay for th~ operating and maintaining of the faci-
lity they cannot accept it, adding that this creates a problem because
someone could donate something to the County and possibly maintain and
operate it for the County for a year until the County has the
available funds to take care of it. He stated that he would like to
see the County provide the services that are neeù2d, but not have. the
document so restrictive that the County gets into a position where
they cannot accept facilities from developers because the funds are
not available to operate or maintain the facility at the time of dona-
tion.
Commissioner Pis tor stated that the language could be changed to
read that if the Coun~y is not able to p~y for or provide other means
for the operating and maintaining of a facility, then it would not be
accepted.
Commissioner Saunders stated that this would take care of that
particular section, but he feels that a general pOlicy statement by
the Board of County Commissioncrs is needed for the document as a
Page 14
-
-
-
.'
:.."
~)('pl_cmbor 3, 1907
Commissionp~ Glass stated that thero arc' i] lnt, of rr::-str ictions and
County should not have that type or rostrictians placed upon them,
adding that the County should be able to mako decisions as necessary
and es needed.
Mr. Young stated that the CAe and tho CCPC did not try to make
this restrictive more than what is requircd by thc plan, adding that
if there ere concerns, it may be simply the content of the pol icy. He
noted that this is the opportunity to make changes.
**.*. Recess: 3:00 P.M. - Reconvened: 3:05 P.M. *****
Mr. Young referred to Policy #3 of Objective #2 again, which deals
"with the revenue sources, noting that there were concerns regarding
,t. speciel assessments and in addition to adding that, it
,'r!.
1{' ·to him thet the following language could be Inserted:
.!
::Œ'¡
··'f,
was suggested
"but are not
limi ted to".
He noted that the sentence ~lOuld road that "Future deve-
lopments, payments may take the form of, but are not limited, to the
following", and then the list would appear. lie noted that it would
also be inserted in the sentence regarding existinq develup~ents.
Mr. Young stated that Objective #3 has five policies that imple-
ments the projects, standards, and so fort:,. lie noted that Policy #l
seys that the County will build or arrange for others to provide par-
ticular facilities which are listed in the document. !Ie noted that
the other purpose of this policy is to say how the County may change
this list and it specifies three conditions that are permitted in law.
&OD~ 107 f~!;[ 130
Page 15
~..._'"
'00'; 107 p~r,~ 131
September 3, 1987
He noted that the County is required annua]]y to update the Capital
Improvement Element and this list cou]d b0 changed at this point. He
noted that the second way Lo changc the list is pursuant to Florida
Statutes by amending the comprehcnsive p!an twice a year over and
above the annual review changes, adding that in additiQn to the twice
a year amendments, certain specified sp0cia] a~cndments are allowed
such as emergencies, DRI's, and certain small scale development acti-
vities. He stated that the third way the Capita] Improvement Element
or the list of projects can be amended is that the County is allowed
to adopt by ordinance, minor changes, corrections, and updates. He
noted that the second policy addresses the reouirement that all
Category "A" facilities must be consistent with the appropriate indi-
vidual element of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the third
policy of this objective is a requirement that the County fund these
projects in its annual budget in order to provide an assuranc~ that
these projects will be done. He indicated that Policy #4 of Objective
#3 states that the County shall coordinate its land use planning and
;¡..
"
.,
decisions with its plans for public facility capital improvements. He ~
stated that Policy #5 indicates that the County shall determine, prior
to the issuance or building permits, whether or not there is suf-
ficient capacity of Category "A" public facilities to meet the stan-
dards for levels of serVice for existing population and the proposed
development. He indicated that it also states that no building permit
shall be issued after July 31, 1989, unless the levels of service for
Page 16
-
-
S0ptcmber 3, 1907
'the resulting development will achieve the stdndards in PoLicy 1.1\,
Category "A", prior to September 30, 1992, II<:' staLr.'d I.hat there are
12 months to cure the deficiencies after the due daLe of the plan
which is August 1,1988, and after thal dëlLe, no IJevclop'11ent Order can
be issued.
Commissioner Saunders questioned what the population standards are
based on and how often are the reports available, to \:hich r-1r. Young
stated that an accepted population methodology is required, adding
that the Statute offers one that is automatically accepted and there
could also be an alternative methodology proposed. lie noted that the
automatic one is the publication of the Rureau of Economic and
. ,;Business Research, University oE Florida Collegb ßusiness Administra-
tion, which comes out once a year. He noted thal the methodology has
reviewed and approved by the DCA. fie noted that a sub-committee
on population for the purpose of looking at the methods,
adding that all the figures to this point have been the University of
Florida numbers. He noted that they publish a low, mid and high range
estimate and the only automatic approved number is the mid-range,
adding that the Planning Deparlment staff has analyzed the County and
it has been found that the mid-range is inaccur?tc, but the high range
has been very accurate and, therefore, the high-range was used.
Growth Management Director Pitzpatrick staled that she wrote a
letter to DCA asking for their approval to use the high-range projec-
tions along with a packet of the analysis of why the County should be
Page l7
aDO ( 10'7 r~r.t 132
aoo~ 107 r~r,( 133
September 3, 1987
using the high-range projections.
Mr. Young statcd that Policy #5 is rather explicit as to when the
deadline starts and what it applies to, adding that he has restricted
this policy to the building permits.
Commissioncr Saunders statcd that aftcr the population statistics
are out, then there is a 12-month period during which the County can-
not make a determination as to what facilities are adequate because
the County would be assuming a population number that is already
fixed, but may not be accurate at that time.
Mr. Young stated that the University of Florida gives estimates
at five year intervals and the County estrapulates each of the year's
inbetween. He noted that the information is to be con&idered reliable
for l2 months, and then the County evaluates it for the next yeai's
forecast. He indicated that this is something thac the Building
Department will have to do.
Mr. Young noted that the CCPC went back to the language that he
originally recommended in Policy #5 so that the achievemen~ of the
level of service from a deficiency viewpoint must be accomplished
prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy after July 31,
1989, rather than after 1992. He noted that there is nothing in the
Statutes that would allow the County five years to cure the deficien-
cies. He noted that there are 12 months to do the regulations and
12 months to enforcc them and starting on the first day of the 13th
month, there will be no Development Orders unless there i~ current
Page 18
-
-
-
I
~~Q';'~¡.;'
i r;
-
:3cptcmb<?r 3, 1987
,.
,~~.~
~capacity. He noted that thc 12 months
1'."
; ,to be cured is 12 months from when the
in ~Ihif;h th<' ( r.'fi,ciencics havc
1'1,1n i:j :;1)bmitIJ~d 1,0 !JCA, which
is 11 months from now, which means that Lh(~r(' is '1ctual1y 23 months to
cure the deficiencies.
Mr. Young stated that the CCi'C disagreed ~Iith having a list of
roads that would be at Level of Scrvice "n", so they declded to spend
the extra $10 million and, therefore, the ncw fiqurc for arterial and
collector roads is $53,3~1,000, with thc deficit bcins $10,938,891.
He noted that the revenues under qovernment buildings has chñnged from
$1 million to $1,300,000 which reduces the debt for government
buildings as it was $13,O~O,OOO and now it is S]2,7~O,OOO.
Mr. Young indicated that the subtotal deficit is S70 860,000,
noting that if the upcoming referendum is successful, that will take
care of the immediate five year deficit, plus it will take care of the
.out year cost of specific road projects that were not needed until two
years after the five year plan. He noted that the bottom line, if the
ì referendum passes, is that no service levels would need to ~e changed
and no other revenue sources would be needed and the total wo~ld be
within $400,000 of balancing exaclly. lie noted that if the referendum
does not succeed, the service levels must be reduced or other alter-
native sources of revenues must be explored or ~ combination of the
two.
Mr. Young referred to a 10 year ovcrall plan of public facility
needs, costs and revenues through Septomber 30, 1997.
lie noted that
&OOK 10'7 r",;l131:
Page 19
aOOK 107 pvr 135
September 3, 1987
the 10 year cost wouJd be about double, adding that there is no change
in the level of service. H0 indicated that the revenue source is the
local government sales tax and it is only listcd for five years
because that is how it has becn put on thc ballot. He indicated that
the net 10 year deficit is 533 million, adding that since the five
year program would be ba]anccd if the sa]cs tax referendum is success-
ful, then the S33 million deficit would have to have an extension of
the surtax via a néW referendum, property taxes, impêct fees, reduc-
tion of scrvices or some combination.
Mr. Young stated that the last part of the Capital Improvement
Element deals with the implementation programs and the Statute
requires the programs that will be used to be listed to insure that
the Capital Improvement Element is implemented. He noted that seven
programs have been identified which are: 8uildin~ Permit Review;
Development Order Review; Impact Fees; Annual Budget; Semi-annual
Report; Annual Report; and 5-year Cvaluation.
Mr. Young 5tated th3t on September 22, 1987, he will be requesting
approval of a resolution t~at will adopt this document with all the
changes and the requirement analysis document and the capital improve-
ment project document. He noted that they will be approved for the
following uses: to send them to Tallahassce to receive a sign-off on
the contract that was uscd to do all the research; to use the stan-
dards of service in this doçument in the development of the other ele-
ments of the Comprehensive Plan; and to endorse the use of the capital
Page 20
-
-
-
~~pLcmber 3, 1907
in the budget documenL. lie indic¿ILcrJ Lhill l.hr:rC! ..,ill be a
draft resolution prepared and presented to U),:, I\o.lrd or Coun'.:y
Commissioners pr ior to the Septembet' 22. I 9fJ7, mr.:r.:L i nq.
* * *
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by
Order of the Chair - Time: 3:55 P.M.
&QQ~ 107 PAGl136
Page 21