Loading...
BCC Minutes 06/17/1980 W Naples, Florida, June 17, 19BO LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting 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 2:00 P.M. in Workshop Session in Building "F" of the Courthouse Complex with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Clifford Wenzel VICE-CHAIRMAN: Thomas Arch~r . John A. Pi stor C.R. "Russ" Wimer David C. Brown ALSO PRESENT: William J. Reagan, Clerk; ~arold L.Hall, Chief Deputy Clerk/Fiscal Officer; Darlene Davidson, Deputy Clerk; C. William Nonnan, County Manager; Donald Pickworth, County Attorney; Thomas Hafner, Public Safety Administrator; Gene Willett, Administrative Assistant to tIle County Manager; Terry Virta, Community Development Administrator; Danny Crew, Planning Director; Anne Hora, Personnel Director; Clifford Barksdale, Public Works Administrator/County Engineer; Mary Morgan, Administrative Aide to the Board; John Walker, Assistant County Manager; Raymond Barnett, Deputy Chief, Sheriff's Department; Lamar Gable, Chairman of the Collier County School Board; and James Siesky, Attorney for the School Board. &bO~ 053 fAGE 7.30 June 17, 1980 &OOK 053 PAGE 731 DISCUSSION RE ~~NDATORY DEDICATION ORDINANCE I~r. Lamar Gable, Chairman of Collier County School Board, presented the proposed Mandatory Dedication Ordinance. He was accompanied by members Mrs. Gerri Kalvin and ~'rs. Jane Paulus, and School Board Attorney James Siesky. He said that the proposed draft of the Mandatory Dedication Ordinance has been debated many times over the last few months. He coveled some of the discussions that the School Board has carried on regarding the develop- ment of this Ordinance, and some of the numerous alternate proposals that were considered. r~r. Gable 3aid that the proposed Ordinance is a result of the problems encountered regarding an impact fee, when the School Board was required to sIgn off on a rezone petition that was to come before the BCC; that the School Board was then being placed in a negotiating position with the CAPe acting as a mediator between the development sponsor and the School 8GJ rd. Continuing, Mr. Gable said that the School Board has developed an Ordinance that the members think is fair, equitable, and reasonable. He said that they think the rules are applied fairly to all development sponsors an~ that the formula is reasonable. Also, the Scheol Board has worked with some developers; talked with the Board of Realtors; and have incorporated both of these entities' suggestions within the proposed Ordinance. Mr. Gable said that the Ordinance allows for three methods of payments, thus, allowing flexibility and not requiring the developer to have to come up with a dollar figure right away. He covered some of the things that were considered regarding the final determination of what the content of the Ordin~nce was to be, including the possibility of setting fees on issuance of Certificates of Occupancy to the Impact Fee in general. He said the main driving factor was to come up with a workable Ordinance, so that rezone petitions can be signed off by the School Board, as they come before them. He said that the School Board members feel it is impor- tant to receive something tangible when a development is going in that will have an impact on the Schools in Collier County, in order to insure quality schools for the children of the County. June 17, 1980 Mr. Gable said that the School Board recognizes that developments generate cilildren, even if it is not immediate and, as a result, the School Board has tried to work out an Ordinance that will be effective for the communities of Collier County. Technical questions will be answered by Mr. Siesky, said Mr. Gable, adding that the School Board has voted unanimously in favor of the rroposed Ordinance that he has submitted for BCC consideration. He said that the School Board sincerely hopes that the BCC will act favorably on it. Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Gable if the Board of Realtors approved the drafted Ordinance? Mr. Gable said that they have met, and have decided not to oppose it. He concurred with Commissioner Wimer that they did not endorse the Ordinance; they voted not to oppose it. Commissioner Brown said that he has always opposed the concept of this Ordinance. Mr. Gable noted that while he could understand the philosophic discussions, and, since he is in the development field also, he can understand Commissioner Brown's feelings; however, he feels that this Ordinance is a compromise between the ad valorem funding methods and the impact fee discussions that have been held over the years. The members of the Board of Realtor said Mr. Gable, and he thinks that the m been pro-education, ers of the School Board feel e School Board in conflict , . this is an improvement over what has put with the CAPC and the BCC in the past. Commissioner Brown asked that the record reflect that since the Soard of Realtors has taken the stand not to oppose the proposed Ordinance, he will do likewise; and will vote for it. Commissioner Pistor asked if the proposed Ordinance will affect only the unincorporated areas of Collier County? Mr. Gable said that the Ordinance will be presented to the City of Naples and to Everglades City for their action, also. He said that the semantics may differ somewhat to reflect each entity, but, the overall substance of the Ordinance will remain the same. Commissioner Pistor asked what effect this Ordinance will have on developments that have been approved prior to the adoption of the subject Orcl;niln~p. HI' <;ilirl th"t 1\5 he sees it, there cotllrf hI' c;om.. 10 t.o 1;l ,....~ ........^ &OOK 053 PAGE 733 June 17, 1980 -.. thousand dwell ing units that will be built in such developments. Mr. Gable said that ultimately, there will probably be more than those numbers of units built in approved subdivisions and developments. He said that some developers have already donated lands or have made arrangements for contributions of properties; however some developments, subdivisions, and mobile home subdivisions will be exempt, if they have becn rczoncd and approved prior to the adoption of the Ordinance. There was a brief discussion regarding the state legislation that will be necessary in order to implement a program whereby all dwelling units will ~ave to pay an impact fee or fees can be put on C.O.'s, as well as the inadequacies of the formulas for State and Federal monies for school operations as related to Collier County. Discussion covering high rises, density, and what may be done other than adopt such an Ordinance to raise the necessary funds for the operations and construction of schools also took place. Mr. Gable explained that the formulas within the proposed Ordinance wen~ developed baSed on County-wide figures and statistics. He said that although thi~ Ordinance does not cover all of the avenues, it is the most effcctive method that the S~hool has been able to come up with. C~mmissioner Brown asked Mr. Siesky how this Ordinance will affect people iri. trailers who move in and out of trailer pa~ks with their mobile hon~~? Mr. Siesky said that the Ordinance will be effective regarding any new mobile home subdivision. He said that the fee will be paid at the time of the subdividing, and not through the transient mobile home owner. He said that there is just one fee, paid up front, and that it would be payable at the time of a master plan approval; at the time of final plat approval; or at the issuance of the first C.O. Mr. Siesky said that a person who has a five acre plot of land and receives a permit to put a n~bile home on it will not be affected by this Ordinance; it only applies to subdivisions. .. June 17, 19BO COrmlissioner Archer asked r~r. Siesky. if he were representing a developer and was requested to contest this Ordinance, what chances does he feel that developer would have in Court? Mr. Siesky replied that he feels that the developer would have a 30-40% chance. lie told Commissioner Archer he considers it a defensible Ordinance, because the concept has been Court approved. lie said that there has been a thorouyh cd~t!-l"w study dune as a matter of research in the development of the Ordinance. Commissioner Wimer said that he wishes the entire matter did not have to be considered and that State Funding would cover all the funds needed for the School system~ however, since this is not the case, then, he feels this Ordinance is workable. He said that developers have always claimed that there are no standards to go by regarding the dedication of lands and that he commends the School Board for developing what appears to be a standard that everyone can live by. Mr. William t~cGrath, representing the CAPC spoke in 'reg~rds to an alternative method of dedication. He urged the BCC to consider the enactment of an dlLerlldLive that would requit'e all new construction to pay an impact fee at the time of the issuance of buil~ihg permits and that these fees would have to be paid prior to the County issuing any C.O. 's. He said that he thinks this is fairer and urged the BCC to proceed along this course. He pointed out some inadequate areas within the Ordinance, including the fact that he feels it is very unlikely that, if a physical plot of land is donated by a developer, it will be of a size and in a location suitable for the School Board. Continuing, Mr. McGrath said that, as he ~ees it, the proposed Ordinance is really an assessing of fees on rezoning of new developments. He said that, according to his calculations, there are in excess of 130,000 dwell ing units that can be built in Collier County without any rezoning and these units will not be required to dedicate anything to the School Board. Chairman Wenzel said that he endorses such a plan as described by Mr. McGrath, and asked ~'r. Siesky if this had not been discussed in the past only to find that the Legislature would not take it up? ~MV n~~ ~m 7~ . &OOK 053 PAGE .735 June 17, 1980 ~1t.. Siesky said that if Chairman Wenzel is referring to the "Document Surcharge Bill", it was submitted but it never got out of Committee at the legislative level. He said the Legislature gave it no play, because of their dt:sire to enact the "Two Mill Bill". He said that the School Board would be happy to consider any legislatio~ similar to what Mr. McGrath di~cu~~cd, for submittal tu the Legislature. Chairman Wenzel said that, although the BCC could continue to push such legislation, if the Legislature keeps it in Committee, then it is a wasted effort. Chai~man Wenzel said that perhaps the BCC could try to submit the CAPC proposal, and Mr. McGrath encouraged him to do so. Com- missioner Pistor said that perhaps the thing to do would be to have the CAPC-recommended plan submitted before the State Association of County Commissioners and the League of Cities with Commissioner Archer adding that he would be happy to take it to the "Ways and Means COl11l1ittee". Mr. ~1cGrath said that he does not oppose the Ordinance, his feelings being that it ought to be passed and "anything is better than nothing". Commissioner Archcr askcd for un explanation of the ratlolldle between the assessment relatlve to the area location, as described within the pro~losed Ordinance. 1,lr. Siesky said that first, it is determined how many acres a developer should donate for school purposes, based on the expec~ant numbers of children in that pcrticular development; the next step being a determination as to whether or not a fee would be required instead of land. If so, he said, then the fee is based upon the cost of thc acreage within that particular subdivision. The reason for this, he said, is because, if schools are to be built on lands that must be purchased, the schools must be placed close to the relevant subdivisions. and, therefore, the measure of the fee is the actual cost of land within the actual subdivision. He said that the figure is arrived at by figuring the cost of a one-unit subdivision, same having to donate .00398 acres of land; if the lots in the subdivision are selling at $15,000, then the fee would be $60 per dwelling unit, multiplied by the number of units in that subdivision. Mr. Siesky said that these fees vary with the actual cost of land within each subdivision. June 17, 1980 There was a discussion regarding what the fees collected will be used for; what the lands will be used for; and alternative methods of financing operations, as well as new school construction, within Collier County. Mr. Paul Frank, resident of Naples, spoke in opposition to the Ordinance and suggested the County begin taxing all incoming people, and set up a program whereby services that are required, due to growth, can be paid for by that growth. He objected to the propose~ Ordinance because in his opinion, it is only going to be 50% effective citing his preference for going through the Legislature for a 100% effective measure. Commissioner Archer brought up the idea that it may be better to have a referendum and have a bond issue for the construction and operations of schools. Mr. Gable said that the proposed Ordinance is not designed to address itself to the entire cost of the operation of schools, it only -, addresses one facet. He said that there are other measures being used '1 to acquire funds for the school system, such as the 2 Mill Legislation, UUIIJ i~~ue~, and the like. The members of the School Board were thanked for their presentation and Chairman Wenzel adjourned the workShOp session at 2:40 P.M. to recon- vene in Regular Session to take action on the above discussion.