Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutInformal Minutes 09-24-2007BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA INFORMAL MONTHLY MEETING Date: September 24, 2007 Convened: 1:30 p.m. Adjourned: 4:20 p.m. Commissioners Present: Chairman, Chris Craft, Joseph Smith, Paula A. Lewis, Doug Coward, Charles Grande Others Present: Doug Anderson, County Administrator, Faye Outlaw, Asst. County Administrator, Lee Ann Lowery, Asst. County Administrator, Dan McIntyre, County Attorney, Vanessa Bissey, Environmental Resources Director, Michael Brillhart, Special Projects and Strategy Director, Mark Satterlee, Growth Management Director, Don West, Public Works Director, Peter Jones, Planning Manager, Millie Delgado-Feliciano, Deputy Clerk IMPACT FEE SETTLEMENT The County Attorney gave the history of the issue. He stated Port St Lucie had enacted its own fees in 2005 and decided not to collect the county fees and prohibited the county from collecting the Port St. Lucie fees. The County changed their fee structure and are collecting these fees through a lien procedure. Litigation is still proceeding. The City is proposed entering into an Interlocal Agreement with the county to collect the fees at the same fee schedule as prior. Under this proposal it requires the county to refund any impact fees in excess of fee percentage schedule. The County has been collecting 100% of the fees for roads and parks etc., and had been collecting these amounts since Apri12006. The City would amend the impact fees ordinance and would withdraw as an intervener and the county's validation would proceed. There is a list of projects however the City has not approved them at this time. The City is proposing the impact fees collected by the county be spent only in the zones where they were collected. In the past, road impact fees could be used for neighboring zone projects. The County Attorney stated he had concerns about what the city is proposing. He advised the Board of the advantages in the settlement. The negative is the refund issue. Under the city's proposal the county would have to refund approximately $5 or 6 million dollars and he would prefer not to do that. His main concern is the money may not go back to those who paid it, i.e. the homebuyer or the builder and in most cases it should go to the homebuyer. He stated there was also no guarantee the city will renew the interlocal after 5 years. Another negative is not being able to spend impact fees on neighboring roads/zones. The County Administrator advised the Board they have collected $11.4 million in impact fees and if they were to refund, the amounts would be $4.5 million for roads, $237,000 buildings i.e. correctional; other buildings $100,000; parks $113,000. He stated they now have a system in place and would like to continue to collect the county's own fees. The County Attorney advised the Board the negative aspect of the suit should the city be successful. The chances are the county could lose the litigation and not collect anything in the city. He stated that Dr. Nicholas believes legally the county does not have to refund any money to the city. ~~r `~ i Com. Coward recommended identifying zones outside the city area and the developers will pay for the entire impact, both city and county even if they are on the boarder of a city for roadways impacted. Com. Craft expressed his concern with what he felt may make the developers want to annex into the city to avoid the additional fee. Com. Coward requested discussion on Walton Road and the current problems with the road. The county will be doing the curb and gutter as designed. The Public Works Director stated he could not say this would be fully funded with state funds. There is a shortfall in funds according to the agreement with the DOT. The shortfall would be with the street lights and the landscaping. Com. Coward commented on the flooding problems on Walton Road that have become a public hazard from the drainage standpoint. As a partner in the settlement agreement he would like the Board to consider to committing to upgrading the entire stretch of the project to the new standard and take a portion of the refund category for these shortfalls and if there is an additional shortfall possibly utilizing some of the $13 million that is not allocated and presently being collected. He believes the county has an obligation to do this road. Com. Grande concurred with using the refund money. The Public Works Director recommended asking the city for an agreement to help us provide drainage to the extent they would modify their existing ponds and felt this would be a great help to the county. Com. Craft stated they needed to see that some of the money from the CRA the county is paying is going towards projects. Com. Coward stated they could make it so that they require part of the CRA become a partner of the project. Com. Smith commented on the balance of Avenue D being completed and the CRA monies. In the past the county has been very helpful to the City of Ft. Pierce and he believes in sharing the dollars, however having partners helps the county manage the money more closely. Com. Coward stated he does support the missing link at Avenue D. Ft. Pierce does not pay for roads in the CRA and they do not apply the standard to Ft. Pierce and does not see why they should apply it to the City of Port St. Lucie. The Public Works Director stated the shortfall should be around $4 to $4.5 million total. Com. Grande stated he would like to stay with the philosophy of the adjoining zones idea because that is countywide. Com. Coward stated he felt we had an obligation since the county has decided to hold on to this county road within the city limits. The County Administrator stated they needed to hold on to the road for gas tax purposes and need to hang onto as many county roads as possible due to the formula. The County Attorney stated what he is understanding on the issue of refunds is the county is not in favor of it but are willing to conceptually commit spending money on county road projects within the city such as Midway and Walton Roads. Also on the issue of collecting in the zone, the county does not agree, but would like to continue the concept of at least the adjacent zones 3 and 4. Also to have further discussions on the concept of zone of influence or what ever it may be titled, where developments outside the city boundaries would pay their fair share on the impact of the city roads. 2 rte. ..~.. .r Com. Coward asked the Board to consider committing to the same urban design standards they have for the entire corridor. He also recommended the city and the CRA be a partner in dealing with the storm water issue. The County Administrator stated as long as the city provides the ponds. Com. Craft stated the city of Ft. Pierce is talking about initiating impact fees and the agreement with the city of Port St. Lucie may be initiated with the city of Ft. Pierce. The County Administrator recommended a longer term on the agreement possibly 10 years. The County Attorney stated he does not believe the city would agree to a 10 year agreement since they have already not kept the five year agreement in existence. The County Attorney stated he and the County Administrator would draft a proposal and walk it around to each Board member for their review before sending it to the city. Com. Coward recommended the Chairman send a letter to the Mayor indicating the Board's summary of the discussion. RURAL LAND STEWARDSHIP The Assistant County Administrator addressed the Board on this issue and alluded to the memo distributed September 6, 2007. They have had continued discussion with the development team relative to staff hours and the dollars associated with it and hope to work out an agreement to avoid any legal action from either side. Staff felt there could be a legal challenge from the developers if an agreement is not worked out. They have not finalized the process of calculating the hours and costs they will try to work out a methodology from this point forward and not retroactively. Com. Coward questioned how staff anticipated collecting the fees. The Asst. County Administrator advised the Board they were looking to start with a not to exceed amount and then calculate hours and costs after that amount is met. Com. Coward stated he felt they needed to have an amount and have it paid up front so that they can hire the appropriate staff on board to deal with the issue. The Assistant County Administrator stated they are anticipating hiring consultants as opposed to staff. Com. Coward stated he would like to have the money to hire the necessary staff and having one person dedicated to the project as a project manager and also have enough for the consultant on as needed basis. This is not a development this is town with 30,000 people. He believes they need to raise the bar. The County Administrator stated they would rely on the consultants now and as they phase them down, they will phase staff up. Com. Coward stated they needed to determine the need of staff now. The Asst. County administrator stated they are presently trying to fill 3 positions at this time, however, if the Board is directing staff to move forward then they need know there is a time element involved and will not proceed with that plan for six months. 3 ~~ ~~ ~~ Com. Coward stated we are identifying legitimate and serious issues that need to be discussed and if the development team wishes to be a partner, then they need to understand there are minimum standards that need to be in place in order to proceed and he does not have a problem putting the breaks on this issue until they are worked out. Com. Smith concurs with Com. Coward and should move forward in that direction. Com. Craft stated he has a problem and concerns with this project moving forward due to the site plan and he has expressed them to the team. He is having reservations and has expressed them. Com. Coward stated he would like to know what exit strategy exists. If this project was before the Board at this point, he believes the Board would not vote to move it forward. He does not believe they have majority support any longer. The County Attorney stated he has not developed an exit strategy at this point. Com. Coward stated it was time to go back and re-look at the overall project and the implications it has on the entire community. Com. Lewis stated she too has some concerns at this point with this project. Things are changing now and she has gathered information and now too has concerns. Her concern is that they would treat this project differently. She is aware they have specific funding arrangements for the TVC and maybe they can be applied here. Com. Grande stated short of passing a resolution to stop this in the process that was put on the table to start with they have been lead to believe there are certain points identifiable and they need to be identified so that everyone knows what they are. Com. Craft stated he wished the Board and staff to know that his support was diminishing. SMART GROWTH COMMITTEE REQUEST The Assistant County Administrator addressed the memo from the Planning Manager with regard to the Smart Growth Committee update. Com. Coward stated Smart Growth should be involved with the EAR process. The Smart Growth Chairperson addressed the Board and advised them how involved this committee is and would like to continue to be. They are requesting to be placed in direct contact with the group Calvin, Giordano. Mr. Patrick Fegerello, Calvin, Giordano stated they do not have a problem with the committee being in contact with their company. He stated the critical factor would only be the time factor. The Board discussed the schedule of the EAR scoping meetings and made some adjustments. The Assistant County Administrator stated she would contact the Environmental department and schedule the meetings accordingly. WHITE CITY CHARRETTE The Assistant County Administrator stated they sent out letters and received responses stating they were interested in having the Charrette but not interested in participating financially. At this point she believes they do not have a majority support. Com. Coward addressed the discussion he had with the landowner. He would like this issue brought to the land acquisition committee and ask them if this is a wise purchase. 4 ~~ ~~ ..~~ Com. Craft stated if it is going to be preserved anyway, he is not sure he would want to spend public dollars for it. Staff was directed to bring back more information on this issue. UTILITY TASK FORCE Com. Craft addressed the possible consolidation of utilities. He stated there seems to be a lot of resistance now and have lost support from the members of the utility authority and the City of Ft. Pierce. The Utility Authority is now willing to work with the county on joint projects and will continue discussions on the possibility of building a plant on Selvitz Road as a joint venture and take down the S. Hutchinson Island Plant . GEO PLASMA LAND LEASE Com. Coward addressed the emissions from the proposed plant and stated they cannot come out with proof of low emissions as previously discussed. Com. Craft stated Geo Plasma is now having trouble obtaining their financing due to the restrictions being placed on the project. Com. Coward stated they were not placing restrictions, only attempting to keep them to their word to meet standards. Com. Grande stated they gave a presentation on what standards they could meet. Com. Craft stated he believes they were not being realistic. Com. Grande stated he did not believe the county should be in a position of being a regulatory agency. Com. Coward stated he felt the county should be enforcing the levels they guaranteed. Com. Craft stated he was confident they would beat emissions levels. Com. Coward recommended crafting enforcement language in the documents. INFORMAL MEETING CALENDAR The Board discussed having informal meetings on other days than a Friday and recommended having them on Tuesdays after the day meetings in the afternoon. It was the consensus of the Board to schedule the informal meetings for the following dates: October 23, 2007 at 1:30p.m.; November 27, 2007 at 1:30 p.m.; and December 11, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. The meeting was adjourned.