Loading...
BCC Minutes 03/11/1992 S~'~:" Naples, Florida, March 11, 1992 >"!' 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 5:05 P.M. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the fo/lowing members present: CHAIRMAN: Michael J. Volpe VICE-CHAIRMAN: Richard S. Shanahan Butt L. Saunders Max A. Hasse, Jr. Patrtcta A. Goodnlght ,.... ALSO PRESENT: E/lie Hoffman, Annette Guevtn and Debby Farris, Clerks; Neil Dorrtll, County Manager; Jennifer Pike, Assistant &to the County Manager; Ken Cuyler, County Attorney; Dennis Cronin, Assistant County Attorney; George Arch/bald, Transportation Services Administrator; Leo Ochs, Administrative Services Administrator; Tom Kuck, Transportation Pro3ect Manager; Jeff Perry, MPC Coordinator; Stan T~itsinger, Growth Management Director; Sue Filson, Administrative Assistant to the Board; and Deputy Byron Tomlinson, Sheriff's Office. 000 =: O1 Page March 11, 1992 PUBLIC HEARING TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE SUPERSEDING ORDINANCE 85-55 AS AMENDED ESTABLISHING ROAD IMPACT FEES - SECOND PUBLIC HEARING TO BE ~LD MARCH 25, 1992 AT 5:05 P.M. Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on March 3, 1992, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider adoption of a Transpor- tation Services System Impact Fee Ordinance (establishment or change of a re~ulation affecting the use of land) Chairman Volpe announced that this is the first public hearing with regard to road impact fees, and noted that a second hearing will be conducted on March 25, 1992, at 5:05 P.M. at which time final 'action will be taken. County Manager Dorrl/1 explained that the Growth Management Plan was adopted in 1989 and as part of the adoption and ensuing con- currency requirements with respect to roads, the Commission chose one of two revenue sources to balance the road construction program. He reported that in November, 1990, the Commission scheduled the 6th cent sales tax local referendum, however that failed. He indicated as a result, the firm of Tlndale-Oliver was retained to explore the process by which the County-wide special assessment could be adopted. He reported that it was determined that the annual cost to certify and perform the annual administration, and computer generated billing was cost prohibited and as a result the consultant was d~rected to pursue an assessment of road impact fees and other revenues, i.e. future local option gasoline taxes. Mr. Dorrlll advised that the focus of this evening's meeting is to the presentation with respect to the extent of which impact fees .~,may be increased under the current impact fee ordinance which has been An effect since 1985. County Manager Dorrlll stated that the current revised five year concurrency capital improvement program for roads that could be ]aodtfied or reduced is $126.7 mi/lion, however, current existing reve- nue on hand is $60 million. He indicated that one option to be Page 2 March 11, 1992 ecussed proposes a 180~ increase in the existing road impact fee would produce approximately $36.8 million or a combined county revenue of $97 mil/ion but this would result in a $29 mil/ion shor- tage. Mr. Dorrill related if tbs Commission chooses something less than ]the minimum impact fee proposed and is looking to make up the $29 million difference, non-ad valorem revenues could be exhausted and Mr. Dorrlll advised that the "do nothlng" alternative is a poor option, bad government, delays the inevitable and increases the costs as the resul~ of a certain decision that would not result An favor of the County. He remarked that the Commission needs ~o determine which of the various road impact fee scenarios are acceptable and ~ ac~owledge that with a reduced construction program what the proposed ~mpact fees will be and the difference of the money that will need to be raised from other sources to fund the balance of the existing def/- ~ ' clenches. In response to Commissioner Hasse, Growth Management Director ~:Lttstnger explained that the County is not requlred to fund any sta~e road Amprovemen~s, however, the County As required not to degrade } further the Level of Service. He Indicated that most of the monies tn the Oapital Improvement Element for state roads will eventually be reimbursed. He noted that these amount to an advancement of monies {)~ pending reimbursement by the State. Transportation Services Administrator Archibald stated that the the purpose of this public hearing is to consider a new impact fee ordinance. He reported that one area of critical concern is the fee schedule as set forth An the ordinance. He presented an exhibit ~"..,,~.. outlining the project listings representing the $161 million divided up ~ong county projects and state projects. (Copy not provided to "~' the Clerk's Office). Mr. Archibald explained that within the State's Five Year Program, · ~ there is 860 mlllton In needs and the majority of same is funded. He Page 3 March 11, 1992 ~' indicated that more and more funds are being received from the state level which in turn will reduce the shortfall. Mr. Archibald related that the Tindale-Oliver report outlines a number of areas where there may be savings, most importantly, to reduce the road needs based upon a reduced level of growth resulting in a reduction from $161 million to $127 mi/lion. Mr. Archibald called attention to the computation of impact fees mild noted that those fees are based primarily on traffic that is ~'generated from new development He indicated that the number of new trips are projected and the number of lane miles occupied by those new ,! trips as residential, commercial and industrial development occurs. He referred to his handout which addresses the methodology and uti/i- zation of those factors. In response to Commissioner Shanahan, Mr. Archibald stated that ,5'. the ?0~ is what the system is today. He remarked that Level of Service (LOS) "D" has been chosen and roads may fall below that level ih.[ for two years to LOS "E", however this is not a very good system per- formance, but a road system is preferred that would allow circulation without delays. Mr. Steve Tindale of Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc., recalled 3. that the Growth Management Plan states that no individual road will .4 operate and exceed an exception standard of Level of Service "D", which is ~.0. He indicated that if all roads were operating at "D", .3 the next year, the entire system would have to be replaced. He noted that from a systems performance standard, an average of better than "D" needs to be maintained or the system would need to be replaced ever~ year. He reported in 1980, the average road was operating at of capacity. He explained that the overall system needs to be Looked at as to how it is performing over five and ten year incre- ~.311. merits. He related that the existing road system today is at 73~. In answer to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Tindale pointed out that $126 million was presented in January, however, some of the roads have been deleted and others have been added resulting in the modified CIE. '"' Page 4 March 11, I992 He stated that growth rates are actual rates for each road specifi- cally and the growth rates were reduced on the links. Mr. Tindale discussed the issue of why things from this point for- ward are different from what they were five or ten years ago In terms of dealing with transportation. He indicated that 40% of the capacity of the system was used in 1980 and there was the capability of absorbing a lot of growth without having to deal with a substantial amount of construction. Mr. Tindale detailed revenue projections, using present day costs '~ and bringing revenues back to present worth. He related that $127 million will be needed during the five or six year window. He noted ~hat agreement must be reached with regard to impact fees or other sources of revenue~ to meet the needs in the five year program. Mr. Ttndale reported that if the County does not move forward, it will be facing a collapsing mode in terms of available capacity and ~ would be moving toward a moratorium. As requested by Commissioner Volpe, Transportation Services ~Administrator Archibald clarified the pro3ects that have been deleted from the $160 million program as follows: #12 - a portion of ~ Goodlette Frank Road; #18 - Illth Avenue; #21 - a portion of Immokalee Road; #33 - a portion of Radio Road; #43, #44 and #45 - U.S. 41 and Vanderbilt Beach Road. He noted that these deletions reduce the ~rogram to $127 million. In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Archibald stated that there ~1 approximately $4 million in existing deficiencies. s, Dl~t~, Clerk Ouevin replaced Deputy Clerk Hoffman at this ti~e '' Commissioner Saunders asked for an explanation of how the three dsmand variables are combined ~nto the formula? Mr. Tindale referred to Table 5-1. He explained a sing/e-family home generates an average of 9.6 trips per day. He said that figure i:'i is multiplied by the assessable trip length of 4.7 miles. He tndt- :~'j.. cared in this case the local trip length has been reduced, because there is no charge for travel on the Interstate or on a subdivision 000 ,, 06 Page ~ March 11, 1992 road. In response to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Ttndale stated the trip .~.rate utilized is from the National Standard Institute of ii: Transportation Engineers combined with studies they or other people have done. Commissioner Saunders inquired what data was used to determine the ~.;' ~osts per lane mi/e? Mr. Tindale answered they looked at every link of roadway being ?~" proposed for improvement, taking the length of a road, its current capacity and the capacity of the roadway after construction. He said the capacity added was divided by the construction cost to come up w~th the cost to add one vehicle mile of capacity. Comm~ssioner Saunders questioned how this cost compares to other communities? Mr. Tindale responded he has seen a range from $600°000 to ~' Commiss~oner Saunders asked what the unit construction cost for an average lane mile has been in Collier County for the past two or three years? Transportation Services Administrator Archibald referred to the Radio Road project as an example. He said a total of $2.5-million was expended to add three miles of road, which breaks down to slightly more than $800,000 per lane mlle. ~t~ R~ceseed: 6:40 P.M. - Reconvened: 6:50 P.M. ~t The following people spoke against the proposed ordinance, stating the doubling or tripling of impact fees is excessive and unduly bur- dening those trying to address affordable housing; it will create serious hardship for the local builder; support for a one cent sales tax and/or gas tax with specific designation for infrastructure as the preferred revenue source~ there is no legal basis for structuring an · impact fee ordinance by averaging~ statistics should not be al/owed to cover present and past errors in allowing development to outpace sup- Page 6 March 11, 1992 i':.porttng roads; the proposed impact fee increase cannot be used to eli- .~nate current deficiencies or remove the obligation to raise revenue "through general sources to eliminate those deficiencies; when the Growth Management Plan was submitted for approval to DCA, It lden- tilted $55-60 million in deficient County local roads, which are now being represented as $3.6 million; the Comprehensive Plan was approved because of data submitted to support ralstng the necessary revenues through either a local option sales tax or a County-wAde improvement assessment district; a separate analysis of existing deficiencies is needed which must be calculated separately; and the systems approach being utilized is not permitted under Growth Management Plan laws for concurrency: Marie Easley, President, Naples Area Board of Realtors Sewell Corkran Tom Pelham, Attorney, Collier County Economic Development Council Bill Barton, Chairman, Collier County Economic Development Council Whirr Ward, Collier County Building Industry Association Stuart Kaye Louis Erickson, Dtr. and Atty. for Golden Gate Contractors Assoc. The following people spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance, stating without an increase In impact fees, taxes will have to be increased and a moratorium on new construction may be necessary; impact fees should have been increased years ago because growth has not paid for growth up to the present time; and raising impact fees ts essential if development is to continue: John Cre~aer George Keller, President, Collier County Civic Federation Richard Barr, with Bart Dunlop & Associates, Inc., stated his firm been retained by the Collier County Building Industry Association to look at the issues. He said he is not present to advocate increasing or not Increasing the road impact fee. He indicated his ~urpose ts to assemble and analyze related facts and put them into ~.erspective tn order to assist the Board. He pointed out the consump- !{%~..f. tion theory basis for impact fees as proposed, assumes a cost per lane ~Ale of approximately $900,000 while his analysis and research shows that figure to be around $700,000. He said it is their belief that 08' Page 7 Hatch Il, 1992 · the total program cost of $161-mtlllon has been overestimated, and the actual cost should be approximately $100,000. He explained of the 46 projects in the work program, 13 are State projects fOr which the ~County will be reimbursed $51-mtllion. He said seven of the County ; "projects listed, totalling $24-miilion, are not expected to become deficient until after 1996, and 10 other County projects are either completed, under construction or have been funded. He advised this &CCOLLnts for another $22-mlllion. He added 11 of the remaining listed projects are those which are deficient and account for $37-mtllion of "i the total cost summary. He said that leaves five of the listed County projects which will be needed to correct deficiencies by 1996, which :~ account for $2?-million of the $161-million. He concluded it is a ; matter of policy, legality and cost feasibility of how much of this · program is financed by impact fees. He offered the availability of his staff to participate in any future discussions. In response to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Bart replied that the funds to be reimbursed from the State need to be entered into the calculation. ~,, ~e Dep~W Clerk Farrts replaced Deputy Clerk Guevtn at this ti~e ** The following people spoke tn opposition to the proposed Ordinance citing reasons which Include: Impact fees will stifle new growth and, if no growth, no new dollars will be collected; it is possible that we may not need the money as much as needing to figure out new ways to spend what revenues we do have; the legal argument presented by Mr. Pelham is entirely consist with case /aw set down by the Florida Supreme Court; and the need to arrive at an impact fee that is fair and accountable now so there is no legal challenge later: Gary Hayes, on behalf of American Subcontractors Association of Collier County and Collier County Plumbing Contractors Association Linda Lawson, representing Collier Building Industry Association Tape #3 ~$$ ltecees: 8:20 P.M. - Rsconvensd: 8:30 P.M. s~e Referring to a handout called "The Link Improvement 1990-1996", Page 8 March 11, 1992 {copy not provided for the record), Transportation Services A~mtntstrator Archibald proceeded to briefly summarize its contents. ;. In response to Commissioner Volpe's inquiry of the cost of the existing deficiencies, Transportation Services Administrator Archibald stated the total pro3ect cost, added up on the exhibit heretnabove referred to, Including all the projects that are deficient to any per- centsge, totals approximately $32,000,000. In response to Commissioner Volpe's Inquiry regarding the revenue shortfall, Steve Tindale referred to Table 6-10 and proceeded to briefly explain the difference In the revenue shortfall from $60,000,000 down to $30,000,000. Additionally, the following persons spoke tn opposition to the proposed Ordinance citing reasons which Include: The need to continue to expand the economic base of Collier County, continue to allow for well planned growth, and continue to develop, construct and market affordable housing so that the working middle class people of our society who provide the service on which the wealthy rely will not be forced to live elsewhere and commute to Naples for work; it is not fair to expect new construction to fund the entire burden or impact first time buyers with a fee which, for the majority of the working class men and women of our society, represents a tax which would forever bar them from home ownership; impact fees will stop construc- tion and become a negative drag on the cash flow needed in order to meet the requirements of the recent Growth Management Concurrency Legislation; the Secretary of Housing and his Commission, after Iden- tifying Impact fees as one of the main regulatory barriers to home ownership in this country, recommended "an ongoing action program of ~ regulatory barrier removal and reform at the state and local levels", which is in direct contradiction to what seems to be happening here; the County should create a fee structure which eliminates all fees for m residence under a minimum square footage and then create fees which will increase with the size and/or cost of the home to encourage the creation of affordable housing and place a greater burden on Page 9 March 11 1992 Infrastructure funding on the larger homes, which themselves create more demand for affordable housing by the service sector; with these impact fees which are approaching us, me and all of my employees will definitely be out-of-business; Collier County has developed over the past 24 years and has done so without impact fees; a road Impact fee 'should not be put on houses but on something that attributes to the roads such as gasoline tax, car, license plate, etc.; these fees are .~'. pricing people out of the market; people feel this is an inequitable tax; these fees are unfair and discriminatory by pigeonholing one · group of people to pay for something they did not cause; instituting these impact fees will put up an even bigger wall between the two socioeconomic groups tn Collier County; and a sales tax can be done i .i'..now as a county referendum and as gas taxes are received the County ~ can repeal the sales tax: Bill Ryan · George Wilson George Schmaeling, President and Owner of Florida Homes of Collier, Inc. Steven Vergo, Vice-President of MCR (Marco Cooling & Refrigeration) Jim Coletta, Owner of Golden Gate Rental Wayne D. Smith Dyrel Delaney Steve Benson, member of CBIA (Collier Building Industry Association and Golden Gate Contractor's Association Charles Salmon Linda Monk, President of Monk Custom Homes in Golden Gate and Secretary of Golden Gate Contractor's Association Gary Carlson · Referred to report titled "Not In My Backyard" and Development Fee Survey for the San Francisco Bay Region Charlotte Westman, representing the League of Women Voters of Collier County, stated her organization has long supported fair and equitable solutions of any problem and gave support to the impact fee subject in 1985. She revealed her organization wall be prepared on March 25th to support the Board of County Commissioners regarding this subject matter. · eOeDe~u~'y Clerk Hoffman replaced Deputy Clark Farrts at this time0'8 Messrs, Herb Savage and Ross Mclntosh spoke in opposition to the Page 10 March 11, 1992 proposed transportation ~mpact fees,, citing the following additional comments: ~ncrease gas taxes or utilize some other means to have the users pay; the 65 categories in the Tindale-Oliver study should be examined more closely: many persons Jobs are in Jeopardy and caution is urged; the School Board is getting a free ride by being exempt from paying impact fees; no one has taken the time to look at what actually gets built in Collier County and define same clearly; and, there should be a permit and certain level of impact fee for a shell struc- ture and the user should be assessed the impact fee at the time of -occupational license or buildout at the time the tenant takes ownership. Mr. Archibald advised that he has several major areas of which he i.will provide a written response to the Commission with regard to: existing revenues; lane mile costs; the issue of state roads and the ?'[~ "revenues being used; providing another exhibit on deficiencies; and looking at the land use categories. Commissioner Saunders suggested that staff contact representatives from a few of the local financial institutions with respect to the potential impact on banking institutions in terms of making loans or continuing with ongoing loans for projects that are already started. Commissioner Goodnight suggested that staff contact the VA, FHA, and FMHA to determine what the criteria is for borrowing. Commissioner Volpe advised that the second public hearing will be on March 25, 1992 at 5:05 P.M. ?... Commissioner Shanahan moved, seconded by Co~iseloner H~ee and carried unanimously, to close the public hearing. Page March 1~, 1992 There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair - Time: 10:00 P.M. BOARD OF COUNTY CO~ISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS .... .' CONTROL approved by the Board on · j,,:~,... ,,. -' :./',: aa preeente2"_'Y or as corrected Page 12