Loading...
BCC Minutes 01/06/1993 S Naples, Florida, January 6, 1993 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as :~=~. have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. tn SPECIAL SESSION tn Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the "fo/lowing members present: CHAIRMAN: Burr L. Saunders ALSO PRESENT: VICE-CHAIRMAN: Timothy J. Constantine John C. Norris Michael J. Volpe Bettye J. Matthews Annette Guevtn, Deputy Clerk; Nell Dorrill, Manager; Ken Cu¥1er, County Attorney; MarJorie Student, ::ii'il/:Asslstant County Attorney; George Archibald, Transportation Services · =.: Administrator: Frank Brutt, Community Development Services :Administrator; Bob Blanchard, Growth Management Director; John MadaJewskl, Project Review Services Manager; Tom Conrecode, Capital Projects Management Director; Mike McNees Budget Director: Stan , ' Lttstnger, Growth Management Section Chief; V/ad Ryztw, Transportation Engineer Project Manager: Ed Kant, Transportation Senior Engineer: Tom ./".:.~'Kuck, Tr~eportatto, Capital Pro~ects Manager; and Jeff Perry, ~¢.i~.::Tr~sportatlon Planner and .PO Coordlnator. Page January 6, 1993 : ~ :' <"cONSIDEI~ATION OF A STI~~ S~~ A~ ~ T~ D~~ OF C~~ ~AI~ ~OVIDIN~ FOR A JOI~ ~CO~ED FIN~ 0~ TO ~ ~S~TION CO~ISSION ON C~L~GES TO ~ CONSIS~ OF ~ ~EQUA~ ~LIC FACILITIES O~IN~CE NO. 90-24 MI~ ~ G~O~ ~A~ ~ O~IN~CE NO. 89-05, A~INIS~TION CO~ISSION C~E NO. ACR-92-O01 - ~TE~ATI~ ~2 ACCEDED AS CONCEPT FOR S~L~; ST~ TO ~ ~ ~ ~FO FOE FIN~ BO~ ~PROV~ Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on December 28, 1092, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with 'the Clerk, public hearing was opened. Commissioner Saunders thanked the Citizens Political Committee, as :;.:::) well as all others who have spent a considerable amount of time i.~i~'.~.asststtng Collier County tn making better decisions for the taxpayers. h, iHe said this meeting will hopefully bring about a settlement Involving "~i }~ transportation needs for Collier County. He reported the Board has ' been presented with two alternatives, ~nd there seems to be consensus "i.~...wlthtn the community that the Board adopt Alternative #2, which will · ,.essentially require that Collier County comply with Rule 9J-§. He ~i!~i! i'3noted there are complexities in Implementing that alternative, such as how the County will actually build roads to keep the levels of service ~, as contained in the existing Comprehensive Plan. He mentioned there :':.}'is a potential that the shortfall tn transportation needs may be ~.;:!,,.funded with existing revenues, without raising ad valorem taxes for transportation, by being more diligent and careful on how funds are ~i!: ':" spent, and some pro~ects must be deferred. Stan Lttslnger, Growth Management Section Chief, presented two ~osstble stipulated settlement agreements that will result in a i'i'' resolution of Administration Contsston Case No. ACR-9~-001. ~s ~.' -recalled the Growth ~anagement Plan was adopted on January 10, 1989, and tn March of 1089, the County was found in non-compliance with the iJStatutes and Rule 93-5 as it existed at that time. As a result of a ?~tmber of months of negotiation with the Department of Community '!Affairs (DCA), he said, two critical issues were resolved related to 03 Page 2 ...~, . January 6, ~993 the timing and methodology of a program known as Zoning Reevaluation. Be reported another issue was the definition and methodolo~ of imp/e- mentation of the concurrency requirements in Collier County. He remarked negotiations with DCA resulted in a settlement agreement adopted in September, 1989, that Collier County would make certain amendments to the Growth Management Plan in order to bring it into compliance. He said those amendments were then adopted in May, 1990, and were found tn compliance under the existing rules at the time. He 'recalled in March of 1990, the Board adopted the Adequate Public !i/Facilities Ordinance (APFO), which was almost Immediately fo/lowed by four separate cases being filed with the Department of Administrative Hearings in Tallahassee, challenging various aspects both of the Growth Management Plan and the APFO. He said a consolidated hearing was !~!,~. arranged for al/ four cases, and Collier County was sustained on all '?~i. issues except one. He explained the County failed to include in the "i.i!,APFO, the last portion of Policy 1.5.3.E. Commissioner Saunders called attention to the Hearing Officer's Final Order, page 67, paragraph 24, which he stated sums up the fic violation referred to by Mr. Litsinger. Mr. Litsinger continued, advising as a result of the Final Order being issued and recommended to the Administration Commission, the Board will need to formulate a response in the form of a Stipulated Agreement with the petitioners and lnterveners, and a recommended order to the Administrative Commission which will rule on this case on January 26th. He related during the past several months, Staff has worked with DCA and the Petitioner on possible remedies to this problem. He said those negotiations have resulted in two alternative ~.~i.approaches to resolution of this matter. He communicated Alternative ! #! involves remedial amendments to the APFO only, with no am~ndments to ex~st~ng concurrency ~olicies. He ~nd~cated that alterna~ive will ' require imposition of additional monitoring and regulatory programs · .within the County's concurrency management system, and wtll also · "require all Development Orders which are subject to a Certificate of Page 3 Adequate Public Facilities, to be conditional tn that they may be sub- ~:-:;-Ject to temporary suspension or revocation should the County not be able to provide facilities on the necessary schedule. He reported Alternative #2 Involves a complete amendment of all applicable por- ~?:...ttons of the Growth Management Plan, to reflect virtually word for word, the Rule 93-5.0055 concurrency program, which has become known as the concurrency rule of the Growth Management Act. He noted Rule 9J-§.0055 did not exist when the Growth Management Plan was ';, ..... adopted. Commissioner Volpe inquired if providing the facilities means they ,~;.must be under contract or under construction? Mr. nitsinger reported Rule 9J-$.005§0 as opposed to the County's :. policies currently in place, requires that the facility be under :',.i' ~c°nstructt°n no later than the end of the third year of the adopted ~:,?;] five-year schedule of capital improvements. He said the County has i~l~ been operating under a five-year window, which will be reduced to "' ~" three years under Alternative #2. He communicated with regard to fiscal Impacts, Alternative #1 has no direct impact other than the commitments already made in the adopted Growth Management Plan, which ,',:will require an almost immediate resolution to the roads deficit. He said under Alternative #2, the same situation exists, and Staff will i!i:be able to Implement the changes internally, given a reasonable amount of time to formulate the necessary amendments to the Plan, go through the processes of adopting drafts and meeting with DCA to insure a i.finding of compliance. Commissioner Saunders commented the Citizens Political Committee .!'?iWlll Join tn the Settlement Agreement assuming Alternative #2 is acceptable to the Board of County Commissioners, however, they are requesting certain changes. He relayed they are asking that the necessary ~rowth Management Plan amendment be transmitted to DCA on or before May 1, 1993, and tha~ the APFO be amended no later than October x, ~993. He asked if those ttmeframes are reasonable to Staff and can be met by the County, to which Mr. Litsinger replied in the affir- Page 4 ,' ~.'.. January 6, 1993 ? ~at lye. :.~:~..-. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Litslnger indicated the key ~;..~. element to remember in either alternative is that a road funding defi- cit has been Identified In an approximate amount of $50-mtllton over five-year period. He said with either alternative, there will ultima- 7 .' rely be an unfunded amount that must be addressed by some method, without imposing restrictions on development orders. Commissioner Volpe asked if the unfunded commitment has been iden- tified? Mr. Lttstnger answered in the affirmative, stating in the most recently adopted Capital Improvement Element (CIE) tn May, 1992, as well as the submittal of October, 1992, which contained the same com- mitment, the Board adopted a policy to fund the road deficit in the five-year., period covered by the CIE with a revenue bond funded by non- ad valorem sources of revenue. Commissioner Saunders asked for an explanation of how the County . will potentially fund the shortfall with existing revenues? Mike McNees, Budget Director, reported historically, the County has had a pay-as-you-go capital fund that was one mill for a number of years. He said over the last few years it has been reduced, and the County is currently levying one-half mill for capital improvement pro- Jects. He said Staff will make a portion of those capital funds '..:available to replace either sales or gas taxes which will be p/edged ~,?~fJ 'for a bond issue. He satd the consequence will be defezral of certain projects for capital improvements for the term of the bond issue. Commissioner Saunders pointed out if approved at the State level, additional revenue may be available through increased sales taxes. Mr. McNees agreed, stating those possible revenues will enable the County to restore some of the projects that must be deferred. Commissioner Volpe inquired how the deficit in Parks and 'Recreation will be addressed if the Fund 301 funds are used as "' described by Mr. McNees? Mr. Lttstnger reported in the current CIE, an ad valorem require- Page 5 ' ~'.'~-'~.i January 6, 1993 merit of $4.8-millton has been identified in the five-year period. He i Sa~d the current budget contains more than one-half of that amount; the County is very close to eliminating the deficit in .~ - Parks facilities that is required to be funded by ad valorem taxes, ~?~ '~' and is very close to having a totally impact fee funded Parks program. County Manager Dorrtll expounded that either sales or gas taxes ..Will be pledged for bonds. He said sales taxes currently go toward lowering ad valorem taxes in the general fund and if no new taxes will · be raised, those ad valorem taxes must be replaced w/th other ad ~. valorem taxes, which will come from one of several capital improvement ~i~ .' funds. Commissioner Saunders emphasized that scenario will not require an ~ increase in taxes. !'?", County Manager Dorrill concurred, stating these funds are existing · revenues that will involve a transfer at the expense of projects such 'as median beautification of Pine Ridge Road, Marco Island parking renovations at Tlgertail Beach, Government Center upgrades to the air i-~.. conditioning and chilling system, and expansion of water and sewer .master plan facilities at the Government Center. He remarked the Board will then have to decide whether to raise ad valorem taxes, and ~: in what priority, for these types of pro~ects. He gave other examples !?of pro~ects in Parks, such as the Immokalee Middle School gymnas!um rehabilitation and Clam Pass Boardwalk renovations. Commissioner Norris questioned the amount of revenuu to be gained :~ ..by an additional penny in gas taxes? .' Mr. Lttstnger advised approximately $800,000 will accrue to the County through each cent of gas taxes. ' ' The following people spoke regarding th~s item: ii;~.;.'::·. . D~dley Goodlette Jim Loskill ~ Kevin Hale John Passidomo ).~2~?.:' Stanley Hole George Keller .?~Sewel Corkran Fred Tarrant :'In response to a question raised by Mr. Hale regarding other Elements addressed ~n Rule 9J-5, i.e., Water, Sewer and Pa'rks, Mr. 07 Page ~f~,.,~.:~. . January 6, 1993 /:? 'er stated the requirements for those facilities have less !lextbtltty than the three years allowed for roads. Also in answer to ~:. Mr. Hale, Mr. Lttstnger reported under Alternative #R0 the three year window will conmence within the next slx months, after adop[.lon of the 'ed amendments. :'~.~:' Commissioner Saunders pointed out that Alternative #1 contains [i[lanfruage providing flexibility for circumstances beyond the County's control0 such as State permits and governmental approvals, and adds :',}~:..ttme to the window for that particular project. He noted that same ~-~'i:lan~uage is not in Alternative #2, and asked if the same delaying mechanism would apply for circumstances beyond the County's control? Mr. Litsinger advised as it ts currently written, Alternative #2 does not provide that flexibility. He added, however, he cannot fore- see a situation where the State would force a County into a moratorium due to circumstances beyond its control. Commissioner Matthews questioned if that language could be added? Stephanie Callahan with DCA, replied that she does not believe it !i ~ would be necessary to Include that language. She said Collier County '~'' has the ability to amend the Growth Management Plan to delay or remove ~;'.. that particular project from the CIE under those circumstances. Commissioner Saunders questioned if Alternative #2 ts approved and :: 'the Board asks for that language to be included, how long would it .-..take DCA to determine if it ts acceptable? Ms. Callahan stated she will discuss this issue with the Secretary immediately and report back to the County. She reiterated that she cannot foresee the State imposing a moratorium on Collier County because of problems gaining State approvals. Responding to a question raised by Mr. Corkran regarding page 4, ';paragraph 4 of Alternative #2, Bill Merrill, Legal Consultant to the ~!~? ~',? i' '~d :'Boar , said Collier County will be under any new rules and reTulatione "~:f~mposed by the State. However, he stated, that does not re, ire Collier County to chan~e the pro,ram. He said the County can always be more restrictive than the State, and will not have to co~ly with Page 7 ~ . January 6, 1993 new regulations until such time as a new amendment to the APFO or the ~:Growth Management Plan ts required. Commissioner Volpe asked if the 100,000 planned and approved but not developed dwelling units are still being considered In priori- tizing various road segments? Jeff Perry reported analyses of the growth on particular highways ~!/;i~ do include projections of future developments, but the actual level of service determination ts based on actual vehicular counts. .'Tape ~ The following people spoke regarding this item: James Kessler Wayne Daltry Bill Barton Commissioner Volpe ~oved, seconded by Comtestoner ~orrla and carried unanimously, to close the public hearing Commissioner Norris Inquired if Impact fees will cover all future road needs once the current shortfall ts addressed through a bond? Mr. McNees stated the Impact fee structure Is built around that 'assumption. County Manager Dorrlll added the Board will have to conduct a series of bi-annual reviews of the costs per lane mile, and if the Board Increasingly sees projects that require overpasses to be built on County roads, Impact fees will have to be raised as the cost of 'i.:.those projects Increases. .~!~i In response to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Merrill said his recom- mendation is that the Board approve in concept a settlement requiring compliance of the APFO and the Growth Management Plan with Rule 9J-~.00~§ of the Florida Administrative Code~ that remedial Plan amendments be adopted and transmitted to DCA on or before May 1, 1993; that the remedial APF0 amendments be adopted by October 1 1993; that the form and vehicle of settlement or compliance agreement in these cases be worked out legally and through Staff; and that the final agreement be brought back to the Board for a public hearing and final approval. Coa~lsstoner Volpe ~oved, seconded by Co~lsstoner Matthews, to Page 8 "~. ;' 3a.nua.-y 6, 1993 '.,~pz'o~l An concept a proposed settlement agreement that w111 r~lre ? ~.+. . . ~'.:'t~ O~ ~~nt Pl~ ~d ~ ~ bright Into co~ll~ce with ~1~ 9:-5.0055~ t~t the mn~nts to the Gr~h ~e~ent ~: g~t~ ~ tr~ttt~d to ~i no later t~ ~y 1, 1993; that the ~ts to tbs ~[0 ~ ~opted no later th~ Octo~r t~t t~ ~o~ to ~ u~ In isple~nttn~ this settle~nt ~ ~tte~d ,~? after llt~tlvs J2, ~t the ulti~te foa elll ~ deterstned ~ the ~W~s 1~1 it.ll ud ~ brought back to the ~d of Cowry ~'. C~tsst~rs for ftul a~ro~l. ',%% Co~tssloner Saundera asked If ~s. Callahan, ~r. lessler and ~r. are. tn agreeaent with the motion, to which all three responded ~in the affirmative. ~': :' ~ call for the ~estton, the ~tton cvrl~ '~. There betn~ no further business for the Good of the County, the ;!(~/-'[,,meettn9 was adjourned by Order of the Chair - Time: 11:05 A.~. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL BURT L. SAUNDERS, CHAIRMAN approved by the Board on · ' .;,~,,--,' ~_.r* or as correctled Page 9 :