HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06-18-2009
1 St. Lucie County
2 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency
rd
3 Commission Chambers, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
4 June 18, 2009 Regular Meeting
5 6:00 P.M.
6
7
A compact disc recording of this meeting, in its entirety, has been placed in the file along with these minutes as part
8
of the record. In the event of a conflict between the written minutes and the compact disc, the compact disc shall
9
control.
10
11
I. Call to Order
12
Chairman Mundt called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m.
13
14
A. Pledge of Allegiance
15
16
Roll Call
B.
17
18 Craig Mundt ..................................... Chairman
19 Barry Schrader ................................. Vice Chair
20 Susan Caron ..................................... Commission Member
21 Brad Culverhouse...arrived 6:18 p.m. Commission Member
22 Pamela Hammer ............................... Commission Member
23 Edward Lounds ................................ Commission Member
24 Stephanie Morgan ............................ Commission Member
25 Britt Reynolds .................................. Commission Member
26 Kathryn Hensley .............................. Ex-Officio
27
Members Absent
28
29 John O’Neill .................................... Commission Member
30
31
Staff Present
32
33 Mark Satterlee .................................. Director, Growth Management
34 Robin Meyer .................................... Assistant Director, Growth Management
35 Heather Young ................................. Assistant County Attorney
36 Michael Brillhart .............................. Capital Improvements Manager, Growth
37 Management,
38 Dawn Milone ................................... Recording Secretary
39
40
Others Present
41
42 Dr. James C. Nicholas, PhD ............. Consultant for St. Lucie County
43 Johnathan Ferguson.......................... Attorney
44 Dr. Kirk Sorenson ............................ Government Solutions
45 Nancy Offutt .................................... Treasure Coast Builders Association,
46 Government Affairs Chairperson
47
1
Michael B rillhart,
Announcements
C.
1
2 None.
3
Disclosures
D.
4
5 None.
6
7
II. Minutes
8
Review the minutes from the April 16, 2009 regular meeting, for
9
approval.
10
11
Mrs. Hammer motioned to approve the minutes with corrections.
12
13
These corrections have been made.
14
15
Ms. Caron Seconded.
16
17
The motion carried unanimously.
18
19
III. Public Hearings
20
21
A. St. Lucie County Attorney’s Office; Status Report on the Proposed
22
Impact Fee Methodology update
23
Petition of St. Lucie County to use the Technical Memorandum on
24
the Methods Used to Calculate Consumption Based Road, Public
25
Building, and Parks & Recreation Impact Fees, dated June 11, 2009.
26
27
Michael Brillhart, Capital Improvements Manager, Growth Management explained to the
28
Commission that this item is an update (status report) to the County’s Impact Fee
29
Program. He stated all of St Lucie County’s existing impact fees are consumption
30
based. The existing Road, Park and Public Building fees were developed in 2000 and
31
have been annually adjusted by the Consumers Price Index. Two attempts were made
32
to present Improvement Based impact fees, in 2007 and in 2008. Both efforts failed to
33
receive support. Impact Fees provide a major revenue source for Capital Improvements.
34
35
Mr. Brillhart stated the Board of County Commissioners gave staff direction to continue
36
the Impact Fee Update using the Consumption Based Methodology.
37
38
Dr. Nicholas stated the County has been exploring different methodological approaches
39
to the Impact Fees for a number of reasons. One of the main reasons was to work out
40
some compromises with the City of Port. St. Lucie. The City wanted to see more
41
specifics in the Impact Fee Program. That is why the move was toward the
42
improvement driven system.
43
44
Dr. Nicholas stated he received direction to use the consumption or needs
45
2
based system which St. Lucie County has been using since 1985 in order to minimize
1
the potential for annual updates to the impact fee program based upon the changes
2
to the County’s Capital Improvement Program.
3
4
Dr. Nicholas presented a power point .He stated the action on the 2008 improvement
5
based impact fees was deferred by the Planning & Zoning Commission, with direction
6
to develop a consumption based impact fee for its consideration. Updates began in
7
January, 2009, resulting in the consumption or needs driven system only relating to
8
roads, parks and public buildings. School, Fire, library and law enforcement fees are not
9
being changed, though they are added into his presentation because that is what
10
someone pays.
11
12
Dr. Nicholas stated he was presenting the whole picture, reiterating, at the same time
13
the only changes are to roads, parks and public buildings( public building fees are going
14
down). The existing fees we are dealing with now (consumption based) were
15
adopted in 2000. They have changed since then because every October we update
16
with the Consumer Price Index (CPI), but the basic methodology the data, and
17
calculation date back to 2000. Nine years later a number of things have changes and
18
that is what is being reflected in the update.
19
20
Dr. Nicholas stated, normally counties do not allow that amount of time to lapse. There
21
were problems in St. Lucie County, litigation etcetera, that caused delay and now we
22
are in an economic recession that further complicates all of these matters. He wanted
23
the Commission to keep in mind that what they are dealing with( implemented) today is
24
nine years old.
25
26
Dr. Nicholas presentation was very detailed with a great number of grafts and tables.
27
28
The Commission and Dr. Nicholas discussed the state being responsible for all state
29
roads (including federal roads) which is not occurring now because the state does not
30
have the money, passing the burden to local governments primarily to counties because
31
the county is responsible for the arterial and collector road system. Dr. Nicholas stated
32
that the purpose of negotiating with a developer, is to ensure that new development
33
pays for its impacts to public roads and are required to make improvements to state
34
roads.
35
36
Mr. Lounds questioned “are we shooting ourselves in the foot by not having a higher
37
road impact fee”. Dr. Nicholas answered “frankly I think you are under financing your
38
road system which in turn is going to destroy your economy”. He cited the report put out
39
by Florida Chamber of Commerce, the results being our refusal to invest in
40
transportation and schools are the greatest threat to the future economic growth and
41
development in the State of Florida.
42
43
Dr. Nicholas acknowledged we should concentrate on efficient transportation systems.
44
45
Mrs. Hammer asked if costs used for the projects are current.
46
3
Mr. Brillhart answered; “staff did use the latest (current) costs data, unfortunately typical
1
roadway costs do go up. It is like almost trying to hit a moving target”.
2
3
Chairman Mundt questioned replacement cost of buildings (low balling the
4
estimates).
5
6
Dr. Nicholas stated he could not bring higher numbers to the Commission because he is
7
bound to use the most current and localized data. To the extent that the numbers are
8
understated his hands are tied.
9
10
Chairman Mundt opened the public hearing.
11
12
Johnathan Ferguson, Attorney and resident of St. Lucie County feels there is more real
13
time data the County can use rather than the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). He used
14
an intersection improvement on Kings Highway and Orange Avenue in the CIP as an
15
example stating a year and one half (1 ½ ) ago the improvement cost was estimated to
16
be six (6) plus million dollars. Today that cost will be approximately eleven (11) million
17
dollars. In his opinion the CIP is a planning tool, in a broad macro sense, it is not to be
18
used in a micro sense.
19
20
Real life cost or estimates would come from county staff, independent engineers and
21
from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) which publishes an annual list of
22
estimated average road costs using 2008 FDOT numbers not 2005-2006 which Mr.
23
Ferguson states Dr. Nicholas is using. He also disagreed with Dr. Nicholas analysis on
24
lane mile capacity, percentage of new trips, public buildings, parks and river parks.
25
26
The Commission discussed Mr. Ferguson’s comments.
27
28
The Commission asked staff to explain the level of road services (categories) A, B, C,
29
D, E and F.
30
31
Mr. Brillhart explained, our adopted level of service is E for county facilities, state arterial
32
peak hour direction D, Strategic Intramodal System (SIS) facilities C. There are different
33
levels of service for concurrency purposes.
34
35
Mr. Ferguson answered: level of service is defined by the number of trips a road can
36
handle.
37
38
Mrs. Hammer stated the way level of services was explained to her was in dollars. If
39
the county established a level of service of C the county could not afford to maintain that
40
standard in the county.
41
42
Dr. Krik Sorenson, Government Solutions on behalf of Treasure Coast Builders
43
Association explained that most counties have reduced their fees due to the economy.
44
45
4
His recommendation was to reduce the proposed (impact fee) rate by fifty percent
1
(50%). Dr. Sorenson discussed in length his draft of the impact fees with the
2
Commission. He stated “state roads are not being funded by impact fees, if they are
3
being funded by anything it is typically gas taxes or some kind of FDOT funding”. He
4
believes a reduction of fifteen to twenty percent (15-20%) should be made in Dr.
5
Nicholas’s report regarding travel on state roads.
6
7
Dr. Sorenson’s concerns were much the same as Mr. Ferguson’s concerns.
8
9
Mr. Lounds questioned the fifty percent (50%) reduction that Dr. Sorenson proposed.
10
11
Dr. Sorenson responded that other counties have reduced their fees for a period of time
12
and periodically revisited the economic situation of the county.
13
14
Nancy Offutt, Treasure Coast Builders Association (TCBA), Government Affairs
15
Chairperson applauded Mr. Ferguson and Dr. Sorenson for the information they shared
16
with the Commission.
17
18
Ms. Offutt stated the TCBA is not trying to put more houses on an already glutted
19
market. Her concerns were in the area of commercial industrial projects, which are
20
facing the larger impact fees.
21
22
Ms. Offutt is in favor of a moratorium or a suspension on impact fees for a certain period
23
of time.
24
25
Chairman Mundt closed the public hearing.
26
27
Mr. Lounds asked Ms. Young if the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) has the
28
legal opportunity to defer impact fees on certain segments for example commercial and
29
industrial and continue to have impact fees on roof tops.
30
31
Ms. Young’s opinion was that the “BOCC would have to have a rational basis for doing
32
so and that it may be difficult to say that there is no impact from commercial industrial
33
but a single family home has an impact”.
34
35
Ms. Caron asked if the Impact Fee Mitigation Program could come into play if it was an
36
economic stimulus to better our county.
37
38
Ms. Young replied the impact fee in that case would eventually be paid.
39
40
Mr. Lounds reiterated his thoughts regarding a deferred payment for industrial and
41
commercial businesses to come into this county. He stated the family creates the
42
impact.
43
44
Mr. Culverhouse stated the problem with a deferral fee would be collecting the fee. He
45
asked Ms. Young her opinion.
46
5
Ms. Young stated it does become a tracking issue, then a collection issue.
1
2
Mrs. Hammer asked if the county still had incentive programs to entice companies to
3
come into our community.
4
5
Mr. Brillhart answered yes.
6
7
Mrs. Hammer was concerned if the impact fees are reduced for new development it
8
would become a heavier burden on the families living here.
9
10
Mr. Lounds stated if we were top notch sales people selling the economic development
11
of St. Lucie County, we should not worry about impact fees. It’s the quality of this county
12
that counts. He asked Dr. Nicholas if there were any studies showing what economic
13
development and the Chambers can do to create an attraction to St. Lucie County.
14
15
Dr. Nicholas stated there are a number of studies but the results do not agree. He then
16
cited some antidotal information. The most rapidly growing county in commercial
17
development in Florida is Collier County and they have the highest impact fees.
18
Location is a critical decision to business. Businesses calculate the location that is going
19
to give them the best economic return; this does not mean it will be the cheapest place.
20
It is going to be the best place. He stated if you want St. Lucie County to develop
21
handsomely make it the best place. The capability of infrastructure is absolutely critical.
22
Focus on that. If St. Lucie County is worth the cost people will be here (regardless of the
23
impact fee). Without infrastructure the site is not a good site. He asked the Commission
24
to do some homework and to use a rational basis. What is that rational basis, and how
25
does a policy implement the objective you’re trying to achieve?
26
27
Mr. Lounds feels the Commission should pass on to the BOCC a shopping list of
28
considerations and recommend to them that the county needs to have the impact fees
29
and work with the BOCC in suggesting either deferment or help with the Economic
30
Development Council. Mr. Lounds stressed the point that the BOCC needs to sell this
31
county.
32
33
Ms. Hensley stated philosophically that she was tired of the county looking at things that
34
are the state’s issues and having them expected to be picked up by the county, hence
35
the roads that are the state’s issues. Making a statement to the public that this is not the
36
counties job. Instead of finding the funds to close their seven billion dollar hole, the state
37
is putting everything on the local and municipalities.
38
39
Ms. Caron stated she does not believe development has paid for itself in St. Lucie
40
County which has created a problem prior to this.
41
42
Ms. Morgan was concerned that there are still discrepancies in the calculations of Dr.
43
Nicholas’s report.
44
45
Ms. Young suggested that the Commission may want to have some direction with the
46
6
memo that the issues be reviewed prior to it going to the Board and certainly prior to
1
any finalization of the ordinance.
2
3
Vice Chair Schrader suggested that some of the methodology or calculation used needs
4
to be looked at and the averages need to be replaced with specifics. He asked Mrs.
5
Hammer to include this in her motion.
6
7
Mrs. Hammer motioned to recommend to the Board of County
8
Commissioners to approve the Technical Memorandum on the
9
Methods Used to Calculate Consumption Based Road, Public
10
Buildings, and Parks and Recreation Impact Fees Memorandum
11
dated June 11, 2009 with the issues that were raised of potential
12
conflict in the numbers be reviewed before it is forwarded to the
13
County Commissioners.
14
15
Vice Chair Schrader seconded.
16
17
Mr. Lounds asked Mrs. Hammer and Vice Chair Schrader to consider “adding into the
18
motion the comments from Mr. Ferguson regarding the categories of parks between a
19
beach park and an inland park for access in such have you in the calculations”.
20
21
Mrs. Hammer answered absolutely. Not sure if it should be divided into two or three
22
pieces. The Commission is leaving that decision to staff.
23
24
Mr. Lounds feels “Mr. Ferguson’s theory on calculations as to access in his example
25
between Pepper Park and Frederick Douglas are two great examples of parks that point
26
that out” asking Mrs. Hammer to make that part of her motion.
27
28
Mrs. Hammer agreed.
29
30
Ms. Caron would like the numbers to be updated before reviewing again.
31
32
Mr. Lounds suggested that “the segment that we talked about with Economic
33
Development to me should be part of your motion seconded by Mr. Schrader for
34
consideration of the Economic Development Departments of St. Lucie County to
35
enhance their sales or such have you. If you make that part of your motion does that
36
send the thought to the County Commission that they need to enhance and sell the
37
sizzle”?
38
39
Mrs. Hammers preference is not to muddy the motion but, if another needs to be made
40
after hers she will support the second motion.
41
42
The motion carried unanimously.
43
44
IV. Other Business
45
7
1. Planning and Zoning Commission – Status and review of proposed
1
amendments to Chapter 10 and 12, Land Development Code.
2
3
The Commission discussed and reviewed Chapter 10 and 12 of the Land
4
Development Code.
5
6
2. Mark Satterlee, Growth Management Director
7
8
Mr. Satterlee discussed with the Commission Senate Bill 360, and the proposed
9
public notice.
10
11
V. ADJOURNED
12
13
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
14
8