HomeMy WebLinkAboutInformal Minutes 04-28-2009BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
INFORMAL WORKSHOP
Date: Apri128, 2009 Convened: 1:35 p.m.
Adjourned: 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners Present: Chairperson, Paula A. Lewis, Charles Grande, Doug Coward,
Chris Craft, Chris Dzadovsky
Others Present: Faye Outlaw, County Administrator, Lee Ann Lowery, Asst. County
Administrator, Dan McIntyre, County Attorney, Millie Delgado-Feliciano, Deputy Clerk
The Board was advised items 3 and 5 will be moved up for discussion.
# 3 Discussion on Impact Fee Study
The County Attorney addressed this item and gave an update on the roads and parks
impact fees. Procedurally they are still at the Planning and Zoning level and this
discussion has been continued until the June Planning and Zoning meeting.
There are two methodologies: Consumption base -standard methodology
Improvement driven methodology
Staff recommends staying with the standard base methodology or consumption as it is
known.
The State may make what the Board is attempting to do mute.
Dr. Nicholas, Impact Fee Consultant addressed the Board and advised them of the 3 items
before the Legislature:
1.. Shifting of burden of proof to proponderance of evidence - He believes this may
bring a lot of ligitation forward however this has not passed as yet.
2. A 2 year freeze on amounts -impact fees may not be increased for 2 years
3. A 3 year moritorium on collection of all impact fees (this has passed the Senate
Community Affairs Committee) there is no companion bill in the House.
At this point none of these items have passed, and they will more than likely have a
Special Session .
The County has been using the comsumption standard basis impact fee method as most
counties do.
Dr. Nicholas provided information as to how the cost was determined per capita or per
unit basis. He advised the Board usually the improvement base method would result in a
higher number. He recommended stating with the consumption basis method since it is
relatively stable and easily calculated. Improvement figures have a tendency to jump all
over the place.
Com. Coward stated he supports the consumption based methodology.
Dr. Nicholas stated it had been rumored that impact fees were stiffling growth. He
believes if you wish to stop growth you need to stop building roads. There is no evidence
of stiffled growth due to impact fees.
Com.Coward questioned if they could defer impact fees for commerical and industrial .
Dr. Nicholas stated the State of Florida does not have an enabling act and they are always
looking for rationale basis for what counties do. The question what is the basis for what
you are doing?
Com. Coward questioned if there was a CPI adjustment factored in.
Dr. Nicholas stated yes there was. He advised the Board that Nassau, Desoto and
Hendry County have a complete moritorium on impact fees. Glades County has almost a
complete moritorium. Indian River County and Martin County has only road impact fees
and Sarasota County has reduced their impact fees by 25%. Charlotte County has gone
back to the rollback prior to impact fee level about 50%. There is one challenge
presently by a citizen in Valoushia County which is an administration action by a citizen
for failure to adhere to the Comp Plan.
Com. Craft questioned if any other counties had increased their impact fees.
Dr. Nicholas stated Martin County adopted a new increase in impact fees but for one year
suspended them except for roads. Palm Beach County has left them where they are.
Collier County has the highest impact fees now at $32,000 per single home.
Com. Craft expressed concerns with the raising of impact fees and the fact it may cause a
moritorium to be issued.
Item # 5 Update: Joint Planning & Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement between St.
Lucie County and Ft. Pierce
The County Attorney advised the Board they received an updated draft of the agreement
recently. The matrix he passed out was not part of this updated draft agreement.
He believes the Board may want to schedule a special worksession just on this item. The
only difficulty may be the time frame they have set. There are many issues that need to
be discussed.
Com. Craft stated he would like to have the specifics in front of him at the time of
dicussion and concurrs with scheduling a work shop.
The County Administrator requested the Board consider asking the City to continue this
item that is on their May 4, 2009 agenda so that the Board may have time to review the
updated version of the agreement.
Com. Coward he was disappointed to see it widdled down to the park when he was
looking at to be more of a "global solution" not just focused on the park.
Com. Coward stated he did not recall the majority of Board agreeing to the statement "if
the property is inside the utility service area it could be annexed without contiguity". He
does not agree with this language and is sure the balance of the Board did not either.
They had discussed considering this in certain areas but this was not a majority position.
The County Attorney stated the intention was to limit the retail service area within the
map as a form of discussion. They have not sent it to the city and will not be sending it to
them until the Board weighs in. They are hoping to get back to the city to advise thern
the Board will be scheduling a special work shop and ask them to defer until after that
meeting.
A workshop will be scheduled and all will be informed.
# 2 Update Economic Stimulus
The County Administrator addressed two specific items she wished to discuss:
1. Jail medical wing
2. Look at grant opportunities
2
Com. Craft advised the Board the Public Safety Coordinating Council requested the
funds be kept for the medical wing.
Com. Coward stated in March they had talked about the design work being done in order
to get some grant/ federal stimulus dollars.
Chief Wilson stated they had donesome of the design work by the Sheriff's office.
The County Administrator stated her understanding was that if the county was to accept
the design work then the County would have the Sheriff in charge of the project. If the
county was going to do it then they would have to go through the RFQ for design again.
Chief Wilson advised the Board their numbers are considerably less than the $3.2. They
are looking at 2.1 or 2.2 million.
The County Attorney stated the County should be the one who hires the architect and the
contractor since it is a county building.
Com. Grande questioned if doing the project design/build will the figures be within the
$2.1 or $2.2 million.
The County Attorney gave the process for design/build. He stated they needed first to
retain a design criteria professional, develop the design package and then go forth with
the RFP.
The Grants Manager stated he looked at the stimulus funds program providing funds for
correctional facilities and it showed funds were being provided for the Indian tribes only.
He believed they need a definite fundable project with matching funds.
Com. Craft stated he was having a problem justifying the use of the fiznds for the jail. He
believed utilitizing the funds for the Research Park to provide jobs would keep more
people out of jail.
Chief Wilson stated he respected Com. Craft's view however, there would be tremendous
savings for the county with regard to inmate medical bills if the medical wing was
expanded.
Com. Lewis recommended moving forward with the design criteria due to the costs
incurred when inmates are taken to the hospitals.
Major Tiaghe advised the Board they have on the average of 75 inmates coming to the
medical wing on a daily basis.
Com. Coward stated he concurred with Com. Craft's comments. He does not believe this
project is more important than economic development in the county. He requested the
Sheriff review his budget from last year and see if there are any funds at their disposal
that can be reallocated so that they can partner with the county on this issue. There are
too many high priority needs at this time and he does not want to expend all the funds on
law enforcement.
The County Attorney recommended starting the process by hiring the criteria
professional if the Board is moving forward with design build, and then try to deal with
the funding issue the next fiscal year.
The County Administrator addressed the Research Education Park and her meeting with
the new Director Mr. Ben DeVries. She stated the internal site identified for the first
tenant, he was looking at a change. She believed it would be important the Board and
TCERDA to look at the change in location for the first tenant.
Mr. DeVries addressed Phase 1 which is 162 acres. Currently none of this area is
permitted or has infrastructure. They need the backbone design, need to know what the
3
roads will look like and how many roads they will need to have. They aze proposing a
two step plan, first to do the backbone and then step forward at an 8 acre parcel and
propose the building of a facility with a minor site plan approval. They wish to bring the
timeline forwazd. They would like to do skematic design for road, utilities and drainage
at an estimate cost of $450,000.this covers phase 1 in its entirety.
Com. Craft commented on the money to be received from Jai Alai azound $40,000 and
asked staff to find out if this was bondable monies.
Mr. Devries stated they have $200,000 in the TCERDA budget for professional fees.
Com. Craft asked if the $300,000 from the landfill could also be utilized.
Com. Coward stated this was also to be used for the planting of trees.
The County Administrator stated she was not comfortable with these figures until she has
reviewed them and also had the opportunity to meet with staff.
Com. Coward asked what was the ball pazk cost of the design and construction mainly
the construction of the infrastructure (road and utility).
Mr. Devries stated the original cost was $25 million for roads and infrastructure on
phase 1. Quadrant of phase 1 would be $3 million.
Com. Cowazd summazized the cost as being $450,000 for design and $3 million for the
road and utilities bare minimum.
Mr. Devries stted the constraint is the sanitary sewer capacity, fire hydrants. They need
help to get the water connected.
Com. Cowazd stated these aze funds they do not have and have not been identified. The
3.2 million from the jail medical wing has not been reallocated.
Com. Dzadovsky stated he believed they needed to move forwazd and expand the job
corridor and this should be a priority.
The County Administrator summarized what was identified and discussed and what she
needed to review with staff and bring back information to the Boazd at the May 7
meeting.
a) 3.2 million jail medical wing
b) $180,000 TCERDA has in budget
c) $250,000 landfill for trees
d) $40,000 if bondable from Jai Alai
# 4. Western Lands Discussion:
The Growth Management Director addressed tlii:: issue and provided an outline for the
Boazd to review.
Com. Coward stated he would like to know if any new agricultural markets exist.
Com. Dzadovsky asked if they could get the number of ranchetts and the cost, tax income
and fiscal impact as opposed to agriculture. He would like to know what will give the
County more tax dollazs and review a study if there is one available.
The County Administrator stated she had brought the conceptual idea forwazd so that if
clear direction was given and input then she could move forwazd to whatever was the
next step in the process.
4
Com. Coward stated they also needed to consider operations costs such as school buses
going out into the countryside for a ranchette. It's not just the upfront capital, but the cost
of operations.
Com. Dzadovsky recommended taking the landowners into account, have input on the
consultant selection.
Com. Craft asked if staff could ask the stakeholders if their offer on financial assistance
for the study still stands.
Com. Coward stated the Board utilizes judgement to use best qualified people. He is not
comfortable with stakeholders assisting in the selection of the consultant.
Com. Dzadovsky stated it would be in the best interest to get this issue moving forward
to find a way to get to an issue of trust giving stakeholders equal weight.
Com. Lewis stated she was not sure the Board had any lack of trust. She is not sure how
they would open the process or how it could happen.
Com. Grande stated the history of St. Lucie County is any one who wishes to participate
was able to. It was always an open process and no one has ever been turned away. The
process of the TVC project is a prime example. He does not agree with having
stakeholders fund the study.
Com. Craft and Com. Dzadovsky stated they did not need to fund the study put can
contribute to the cost.
Com. Dzadovsky stated he does not want the Board to make the decision on the
consultant without stakeholder/landowner input.
Com. Coward stated he felt it was not fair to pull out one group and give them special
treatment. Development affects everyone in St. Lucie County due to the cost for
services. He believes they should open it to any interested party. He does not want any
perception that it was pre-designated.
The Board recommended staff accept public input and submit it to the Board as they
arrive.
The Growth Management Director stated he would place the power point on the web and
receive comments from there as well as written comments.
The Board requested names and addressed be on the responses.
The input is to come back before the Board at the May 26`t' informal meeting.
The Board requested inpact fee balance report from staff.
The Board was advised that in Zone B there was a balance of $146,000.
The Board directed staff to get a list from the Port St. Lucie City Manager regarding
their projects and which ones are design ready as well as the schools on list for sidewalks
so that they may utilize the funds from Zone B.
The meeting was adjourned.
5