Loading...
BCC Minutes 04/16/1992 S Naples, Florida, April 16, 1992 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also act]ng 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 Patrtcia A. Goodnight Max A. Hasse, Jr. Burr L. Saunders ALSO PRESENT: Edward Kant, Transportation Services; Jeff Perry, Growth Planning; George Archibald, Transportation Services Administrator; Dennis Cron/n, Assistant County Attorney; Neil Dorrill, County Manager; Jennifer Pike, Assistant to the County Manager; Ken Cuyler, County Attorney; Stan L~tsinger, Director, Growth Management; Sue Filson, Administrative Assistant to the Board; and Deputy Jim Waller, Sheriff's Office; Kathy Meyers, Ellie Hoffman, and Debby Fart,s, Deputy Clerks. Page April 76, 1992 Tmpe#l 0RDIIEANCE 92-22, SUPERSEDING ORDINANCE 85-55 AS AMENDKD, RK THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ROAD IMPACT FEES - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES Legal notice having been published tn the Naples Daily News on March 6, 1992, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider the adoption of an ordi- nance, superseding Ordinance 85-55 as amended, regarding the establishment of road impact fees. Transportation Services Administrator Archibald discussed that this public hearing is in fo/low-up to numerous public hearings, workshops and special meetings. He reported that the Collier County Planning Commission voted to recommend to the Board to deny an Increase In road Impact fees, and Instead to consider alternative funding, i.e. sales tax and gas tax. He contended that the recommen- dations of the Planning Commission are practical In nature, and those revenue options are currently available to the County. Mr. Archibald noted the following provisions within the proposed Ordinance: impro- vement credits, site specific analysis of Individual projects, affor- dable housing, fee scheduling, district boundaries which are mapped and renumbered, and the Impact Study as well as the Bibliography are attached and included. In response to Commissioner Hasse, Mr. Archibald confirmed that the legal requirement ts that all the funds collected are to be used only for future capacity improvements. He referred to a handout, which included a Summary of Link Improvements and Exhibits (Copy not provided to the Clerk to the Board). Steve Tlndale with Tindale, Oliver and Associates, commented that his office ts working all over the State of Florida, as well as in other states compiling studies similtar to Collier County's. Mr. Ttndale commented that Collier County has consumed a lot of capacity on the roads over the last ten years, but the roads are not Page 2 April 16, 1992 built to capacity in comparison to the volume of traffic that has been added over the last ten years, however the system is operating reaso- nably well. George Ntckerson, Attorney, explained that the difference between Schedule One and Schedule Two ts the Service Management Factor - everything else is the same and the Service Management Factor has never been litigated, to his knowledge. He noted that Mr. Tindale has been Involved in some cases where it has been a factor in an analysis of other Issues, but as far as whether that specific issue has ever been to court, not to the best of his knowledge. With respect to whether the Board can lawfully impose or use that kind of factor, he believed the answer to be yes and the reason is that the County is allowed to charge growth for its share of the cost of facilities, and that would Include the costs required to maintain the system tn its current system-wide level of performance. Richard McAlltster with Florida Food & Fuel Retailers, stated he is concerned about the commercial impact fees. John Cremer with the Taxpayers Action Group, referred to a letter with an exhibit on the reverse side (Copy not provided to the Clerk to the Board). He asserted that TAG is in favor of this Impact fee. George Keller with Collier County Civic Federation, expressed that he is conservative but impact fees must be charged in order to get rid of the deficiency that currently exists. Jane Varner, a member of TAG, expressed that future residents should pay for the expansion of the road system. Dyrel Delaney, residing at 3250 10th Street North, expressed that he ts opposed to this impact fee and suggested that this be delayed for six months, until October, before it is implemented. ~ape #2 Stuart Wallace, residing at 1609 Murex Lane, said that the people who have already contracted or started to build their homes should be grandfathered in. L¥1e Richardson, residing at 360 lOth Avenue South, favored the road impact fee. Page 3 April 16, 1992 *** D~puty Clerk Hoff~an replaced Deputy Clerk N,~yers at this time Mr. Whit Ward, representing Collier Building Industry Association, advised that he Is not tn favor of Impact fees paying for state roads. He suggested before these fees are collected, a determination needs to be made as to how the money will be given back to the payer when it comes back to Collier County. He recommended if impact fees are going to be Increased, that they be imposed at a time certain tn the future. With regard to commercial building, he indicated that two impact fees should be charged: shell impact fee should be charged prior to C.O.; and the tenant finish impact fee should be charged at time of C.O. since this ts the only time the end use of that building is known. In response to Commissioner Hasse, Mr. Ward reported that the average time between listing and closing on a home In Collier County Is approximately 150 days. Mr. Jack Bart of Bart, Dunlop & Associates, Inc., expressed con- currence with Ttndale-Ollver's basic approach of lane miles of capa- city consumed and the basic concept of growth paying for growth. He Indicated that he has a difference of opinion with respect to Impact fee rates and what the impact fees may be used for. He pointed out he feels there are high numbers with regard to convenience stores, fast food restaurants, schools, and recreational facilities in mixed-use developments and they need to be reviewed and adjusted do~rnwards. He expressed a difference tn opinion relating to the average cost to replace each lane mile of capacity that ts consumed by a given type of land use. He Indicated that he feels the cost per lane mile replace- ment is $693,000 and this figure Includes right-of-way and construc- tion related costs. He suggested that thought be given to impact fees arid a combination of other sources of income. He remarked that it ts unreasonable to think that the entire shortfall should be made up by impact fees. Mr. Bart explained that a comparison was made, using the Building Industry's economic projections of impact fees collected over a five Page 4 April 15, 1992 year period at the present impact fee rates. He noted that between $27-29 million would be raised during that time period. He indicated that he estimates that over the next five years, Alternate 1 fee sche- dule would raise between $36-$39 million. He noted that the single- family rate could be increased from $819 to $1,020 and would be a fair adjustment rather than the proposed $1,379. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Bart stated that he recom- mends that the sales tax issue be revisited. In addition, he indi- cated that he believes that gasoline taxes are the fairest source of revenue for capital improvements of roads and maintenance. Mr. Tom Pelham, representing the Economic Development Council, advised that he ts not arguing against any increase in impact fees, however, he urged that any increase in impact fees be consistent with Florida's law and tn full legal comp]fance with the Growth Management requirements. He reported that the Tindale-Oltver methodology is novel and untested and violates Florida's Growth Management principles and is inconsistent with Collier County's Comprehensive Plan. He reported that any plan amendment adopted by Collier County to support the Tindale-Oltver methodology would be subject to administrative challenge for non-compliance. He indicated that the impact fee ordi- nance would be subject to administrative challenge on the grounds that it ts not consistent with the adopted Comp Plan. He suggested that the Commission consider Alternate #1 which adheres to policies. Dr. Hank Ftshkind remarked that the Tlndale-Oliver methodolcgy suggests that the roadway cost improvements can be estimated and put In the Comprehensive Plan under the Capital Improvement Element, subtract available revenues which are mainly gas taxes, and then attempt to finance the remainder through impact fees by utilizing a novel approach of capacity management. He explained that this approach is illegal. He noted that unless the real backlog is deter- mined, the correct impact fee cannot be calculated. He indicated that the backlog must be funded with something other than impact fees. He referred to a chart depicting the backlog and calculated the credits Page 5 April 1~, 1992 different/y, arriving at an impact fee for single-family ho,:es at $2,123. He noted that the bottom line is similar, however, the metho- dology is very different. Mr. Bill Barton called attention to the Tindale-Oliver methodology relating to the 30% surplus. He cited that a significant amount of that surplus has been previously funded by federal and state funds, and donations by developers. He referred to Ttndale-Oliver's Exhibit 3, page 1 of ! as to who should pay and concluded that to suggest that there is no advantage to the residents when the road is improved, is not true. He indicated that there will be significant measurable advantages. He remarked that he feels that Tindale-Oliver's methodo- logy is flawed and there will be a challenge to same. Mr. Barton remarked that State Roads should be taking care of themselves and should not be funded locally. He suggested if mora- toriums occur due to the failure to fund state roads, it may not be a bad thing to happen since the burden would be on Tallahassee. In answer to Commissioner Shanahan, Mr. Barton indicated that a one cent sales tax may pass if it was structured properly and had una- nimous support from the elected officials. Mr. Robert Gebhardt called attention to the Affordable Housing Rent Schedule as set forth in Appendix "O". He stated that this appendix is designed to decrease the development of affordable housing in the county. He noted that the new ordinance eliminates impact fee exemptions, as an incentive to develop affordable housing. He pointed out that Objective 1.5 of the Housing Element of the Growth Management Plan states that "by 1994, the total number of affordable housing units, as determined by the cost of housing to income shall be increased to meet the housing needs of all existing and anticipated populations of the County." He remarked that of the 4,000 affordable housing rental units needed by the County in 1994, less than 200 units have been developed. He noted that the proposed ordinance, with the affordable housing standards set forth in Appendix "C", is completely Page 6 April 16, 1992 inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan and will undoubtedly be challenged upon enactment. Mr. Gebhardt suggested that based on the County's obligation to reformulate its impact fee ordinances, rental amounts set forth in Schedule "C" should be as follows: I bedroom, $397; 2 bedroom, $500; 3 bedroom, $570; and 4 bedroom, $666. sss Reseed: 8:30 P.M. - Rsconvened: 8:45 P.M. at which ti~e Deputy Clerk Farrts replaced Deputy Clerk Hoff~an s,s In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Barton, President Elect of the EDC (Economic Development Council), concluded the appropriate manner of funding is through an Impact Fee Ordinance that follows tested true methods. The following persons spoke to the issue of road Impact fees: Bettte Gulacslk, representing League of Women Voters of Collier County Ken Hunt, on behalf of CCPC (Collier County Planning Commission) Bob Pearson Ted Bally Stuart Kaye Linde Lawson, representing Collier Building Industry Association Ken Retley, President Olde Florida Homes, Inc. Pat Pllcher Stuart Miller Douglas L. McGtlvra In response to Mr. Kaye, Transportation Services Administrator Archibald stated the exhibits provided clearly show that the current 'deficiencies in levels of service do not come anywhere close to $42,000,000. He concluded that Impact fees can be used on the entire list of proposed projects with the exception of four-to-slx pro3ects. He explained the difference between current deficiencies and future deficiencies, and pointed out that exhibit 5 outlines those projects which are currently deficient. C~ieeloner Shanahan moved, seconded by Commissioner Hesse and carried nn~nimousl¥, to close the public hearing. · $~ Recess: 9:45 P.M. - Reconvened: 9:55 P.M. ~'" Transportation Services Administrator Archibald concluded that existing development is paying its fair share, probably much greater than its fair share, and in the next 5-10 years will pay approximately Page 7 April 16, 1992 40~ of the cost of all new roads. Pursuant to Commissioner Volpe's request, Transportation Services Administrator Archibald explained the significance of exhibit 8. Steve Tindale fielded questions regarding issues such as com- putation of the gas tax, ad valorem, application of the gas tax uti- lizing methodology proposed by his firm, and Table 6-10 (identified by various dates). Stan Litsinger, Growth Management Director, answered questions posed by Commissioner Saunders regarding growth rate, both past and projected. A brief discussion ensued regarding the assumptions factored into anticipated growth tn trip lengths. Commissioner Saunders questioned whether there ts any correlation between growth and residential bulldtng permit activity, to which Mr. Lttstnger acknowledged there is and explained that residential building permits tn the previous 12 month period were off by nearly 40~. Commissioner Saunders pointed out that a reduction from the pro- ]ected 6~ growth rate to 4~ will drastically change the amount of shortfall in terms of transportation needs for the 90's. Commissioner Hasse Indicated he disagrees with the service manage- ment factor employed tn the Tindale-Oliver methodology. Commissioner Shanahan also expressed concern with the service management factor, adding he has been persuaded it is not consistent with the growth management plan, and is a violation of the growth management laws. He stated the traditional impact fee methodology, tested and proven, is the only way to proceed at this point in time, and indicated a preference for utilizing Alternative 1. He expressed a desire to continue pursuing the 1¢ sales tax opportunity and legislature for the Incremental gas tax increase. He requested further debate in areas such as implementation date, whether the resi- dential will be paid at CO or at building permit, how the Impact fee ! Page 8 April 16, 1992 is to be applied to commercial, etc. Commissioner Goodnlght expressed hope that the Board of County Commissioners can successfully convince the citizens of Collier County that the sales tax is the easier way out as she does not consider the impact fee to be an easy way out. Com~isstoner Volpe concluded that pursuit of the gas tax option at a local level tn lieu of the sales tax. is a possibility. Commissioner Saunders expressed support for the Ttndale-Ollver approach stating he ts convinced the safer and more reasonable approach ts to pursue Alternative 1. He read an excerpt from a letter forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners by Mr. Sewell Corkran dated March 11, 1992 (paragraph 11). He reiterated the need to adopt an impact fee increase along the lines of Alternative 1, with the effective date of same into the future. Commissioner Volpe stated he will not support the CIE element unless there ts an existing revenue source to balance the CIE element of the Growth Management Plan. He affirmed his support for funding the transportation network by an increase, at a local level, of available gas tax revenues. In response to remarks by Commissioner Goodntght regarding sales tax, Commissioner Volpe expressed his view that the sales tax ts regressive. Commissioner Shana moved to set the fee schedule at $1,379.00, Alternate 1, effective 120 days from now; to establish that the'resi- dential tm~mct fee should be charged at CO; that couerctal may perhap~ take a two-pronged approach, the shell approach, where the impact fees shall be applied at permit, and finish out, where the remainder shall be paid at CO; that trip generation and length be revtew~S on the comrctal aspects of the Impact fee. Following comments by Commissioner Shanahan regarding convenience stores and the ensuing discussion, Mr. Ttndale advised against adopting all exception but Instead deleting some of the categories and perhaps placing the convenience stores Into general retail. Page 9 April 16, 1992 A brief discussion ensued regarding schedule 1 and the suggestion to move the convenience stores to the general retail category, resulting in Commissioner Shanahan deleting this reference from the County Attorney Cuyler advised that, from the legal perspective, the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance requires the payment of Impact fees early in the process. He explained it is possible to get a waiver of same to pay later In the process, however. ~issio~er Sh.~",.a. ha~ a~ended the motion to reflect that the reet- ~ttml i~pact fee must be paid ~~t to the id~t~ County Attorney Cuyler pointed out that, due to the various sche- dules before the Board of County Commissioners today, staff and the consultant will change the study and the Ordinance to conform with today's motion and the adopted Schedule 1. C~tsstoner Vol~ stated the motion ts to: adopt Alte~ttve fron the Title-Oliver Study, which does not Include the ~~t factor methodolo~, w~th the Ord~n~ce to ~co~ effective ~20 ~ fr~ to~y, ~d deleting al~ reference to the t~-pronged · ~ch to ~ng the co~rc~a~ ~pact fee. ~t~t~r Sanders seconded tho notion. ~ Nll call, the ~tton carried l/l, th~re~ ad~ttn~ Ordlmce 92-22 ~ ~ter~ into Ordtmce ~ok 52. ~sel~r H~.e Nay ~~i~r ~lght Aye ~~l~ Vol~ Aye Page 10 April 16, 1992 There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair - Time: 11:00 P.M. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL · as pr.e~,ent.d, or as corrected Page 11