Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTVC Workshop Minutes 07-17-2006BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA TVC WORKSHOP/INFRASTRUCTURE Date: July 17, 2006 Convened: 2:00 p.m. Adjourned: 4:25 p.m. Commissioners Present: Doug Coward, Chairman, Paula A. Lewis, Chris Craft, Frannie Hutchinson, Joseph Smith Others Present: Doug Anderson, County Administrator, Ray Wazny, Asst. County Administrator, Faye Outlaw, Asst. County Administrator, Dan McIntyre, County Attorney, Michael Brillhart, Special Projects Director, Robert Nix, Growth Management Director, Millie Delgado-Feliciano, Deputy Clerk Opening remarks were made by Michael Brillhart. He stated the majority of the material was put together as part of the Comprehensive Plan. He will be presenting a power point. Mr. Brillhart commented on the housing and where it is going. He read a paragraph from page 3. He stated what is noticeable is that housing is in big demand in St. Lucie county and that many northern retires from Broward County and Dade County are also moving to St. Lucie County due to the housing prices and this has moved the land prices to record levels. Also there are people moving to St. Lucie County and traveling to work south. Based on this issue, he presented a fiscal viability report and present options for funding. He stated within this report it provides data and analysis out of the capital improvement report provided for the amendment. Costs associated within the presentation would be provided by the development community and this was made part of the TVC. He stated when you look at the build out in the 2030, you have a number of road projects water and sewer, parks, public safety facilities, they have come up with a large cost figure. When you look at an individual specific project for concurrency the cost associated are not necessarily and directly related to the overall costs found within the comprehensive plan amendment. Estimated housing units in the year 2030 would be 37,500 units. The Regional Planning Council and consultants provided a 25 year housing absorbtion rate with S year increments and years 6-10 and 11-15 you are looking at the highest years of having residential units. The 6-15 year time would be the most advantageous time to build the units. Mr. Brillhart reviewed the year 2030 street network. The majority of these facilities are based on the 2030 need. The I-95 interchange is based on the 2050 analysis. Anew road and a portion of the new flyover from Koblegard West to the road in blue, the cost associated with these facilities are to be developer funded. If you look at all the roads within the TVC element you are looking at 102.Olmillion. The Public Works Director addressed the Indrio Road portion from Emerson to King being placed into the Dept. of Transportation Work Program for design funding. The County is working on the intersection of Kings Highway and Indrio Road and are trying to expand the intersection. They will try to four lane it in each direction. The section of Indrio to King shows a minimum of 21anes and the state is prepared to go forward with the design but they need to know if the County wants to go two lanes or four lanes. Ms. Marcella Cambor, Regional Planning Council stated the question is whether the funding from the DOT can be used for the intersection or the construction of the parallel routes. It is her understanding that the engineers and teams preference to keep it as a 2 lane road as well as the MPO 2030 plan has also been adopted as a 2 lane road. Com. Coward questioned if they would behaving bike paths and sidewalks as indicated in our code. Mr. Brillhart stated it would as our code indicates with the bike paths and sidewalks, etc. Mr. Brillhart continued his power point presentation indicting the various roads and the new roadways identified within the TVC. It was determined there would be a need for 6 K-8 schools in North County at a cost of $35 million each approximately. There was a need identified for 2 High Schools and these aze at a higher cost due to parking facilities @ $60 million each. Mr. Marty Sanders, Growth Management Director for School Board stated they would look for a regional stadium in North County due to it being more economical Mr. Brillhart stated as far as Sheriff, EMS and Fire Station they are looking at an identified need of 4 new stations for Fire and EMS at $1.8 million each and the Sheriff was identified as a possible sub station around $3 million in cost based on 2005 year costs. Combining Sheriff, EMS and Fire it would be about $10.2 million based on 2005 year costs. There has been one site identified for future Fire Ems. Major Monahan, Sheriff's Dept. stated they would need a building the size of the one they have today to service the North end of the County. They were not aware of the TVC and the DRI's at the time the costs were discussed and they believe the amount indicated would not be enough to support the azea up to the 2030 build out yeaz. Com. Cowazd stated the figures would be updated. Mr. Buddy Emerson Fire Dept. stated the costs today aze 2.2 to 2.9 million and this is substantially higher than the 2005 figures and this does not include equipment. Mr. Brillhart sated they would update the costs. Ms. Mazcella Cambor stated when TVC was planned it was planned at a maximum potential. Not everyone will be building a Town and Village and this will bring down the number of units and this will also bring down the number of facilities needed. Com. Coward stated he wanted to make sure they use the numbers in the proper context. They aze planning for the worst case scenario but are not expecting this to happen the numbers are substantially less. Mr. Brillhart stated they were required to do it at a maximum build out for planning purposes. Mr. Brillhart addressed the drainage needs and the fact it would be provided by the developers. The development would be responsible for on site and the other off site costs would be handled through mitigation on a case by case basis. The Capital Improvement needs, portable water and sanitary sewer, they were looking at a five yeaz housing absorbtion rate. Staff is recommending a workshop be scheduled to discuss the utility issue. Mr. Brillhart provided a summary of the capital improvements estimated cost of $466.67 million not taking into account the change in the Sheriff, Fire and EMS costs and real development numbers. Based on revenue generated on 2005 millage rate, ad-valorem revenue would be $2.053 billion at 37500 units maximum build out over 34 years. Impact Fees would generate $237million. These aze rough estimations gross revenue $2.3 billion, capital costs 466 million. It is a 1.8 difference minus what the operational costs would be new development would pay these costs. Mr. Brillhart discussed traditional financing methods. 2 1`~.^ .~.~ .~~ The first being development agreements, the second impact fees and third being ad- valorem taxes and homeowners association fees. Alternatively assessment districts can also be established. They would like to look at what they call an umbrella district which is a primary mechanism to collaborate with individual developers. This would need to be in form of a special act approved by the legislature. Com. Coward commented on the CRA/CDD and how this could generate revenue in a rapid fashion. He does not want to discount the CRA but if they take that approach he is concerned about the downside. Mr. Lewis stated they were not popular this year in the legislature. CRA do not typically go with new development and it would probably take a statutory amendment to make it a viable mechanism. Com. Coward stated he did not wish to eliminate this idea since it also talks about bad planning and trying to avoid it as one of the criteria. Mr. Brillhart commented on land management options, mainly toward countryside and open space. The Environmental Resources Director provided the allowed uses in the countryside and what would be required in maintaining and the management of the land properly. She also addressed the agricultural use in the areas and the habitat preservation requirements. Staff requested the Board authorize working towards a St. Lucie Land Trust and the formation of an Agricultural Development Board. Mr. Pete Spikes addressed the Agricultural Development Board idea and stated it is in its infancy and he cannot say he has full support of the agricultural community in the area. The open space created by the TVC and the agricultural area there are 3 fundamental kinds of Ag lands that can occur: 1. re-use land that is not on a golf course, 2. ag land within a large development that has had its rights transferred into a city or town or village 3. an owner with less than 500 acres transferring rights into a town or village, the profit part is very critical part of these three items. He spoke with a few growers and they did not have a problem as long as it was run by the producers themselves. Com. Hutchinson stated she was reluctant to form an Ag Board together because there are other authorities being formed at this point i.e. Research and Education Authority, and one at the state legislation level, possibly four at this point. She would be hesitant at this point until the smoke clears. Com. Craft recommended a sub committee and they would have the Research Park Authority to tap into. Com. Hutchinson stated they may get a lot of confusion. Com. Coward stated he believes they were looking for a conceptual approval to explore the possibility and he is in favor of this conceptual approval and for Mr. Spike continue his dialogue with the agricultural community. Com. Smith stated since Mr. Spike is already speaking to the members is he looking for approval to continue dialogue Mr. Spike stated he believed the Environmental Resources Director was looking for support as a viable direction to look into not to do. Com. Smith stated he would provide consent to continue the dialogue, however he does concur with Com. Hutchinson in their being too many boards and no one will know who to talk to and would like before forming a board they find out if the Research Board can act at the agent . 3 Com. Lewis stated as far as the formation she would like to hold off. She has no objection to discuss and research this issue further and continue dialogue. It was the consensus of the Board to direct staff to continue dialogue, and not form a board at this time at this tome due to the lack of information. Mr. Brillhart stated in summary they had wished to provide 4 particular points of view. 1. With the fiscal neutrality and the associated costs with the TVC the revenue stream, the taxes and the funds coming in they realize it must be developer funded initiative. 2. Under phased absorbtion, when looking at things as being built out, there are certain time frames 1-5 year when you get certain developments that must be met 3. Under funding options, there are traditional and additional financing methods 4. Independent Special District - to assist in the implementation of the projects. Staff was seeking direction on Indrio Road between Emerson and Kings. Com. Coward stated he felt they did not have all the information to make a good policy decision today. They need clarity and the answers to if the funds can be used towards alternative corridor uses or if it can be used for intersection improvements. Ms. Neda Charma, FDOT Design Project Manager Indrio Road, Emerson to King. She advised the $900,000 allocated for design of Indrio Road is for the four laning as per the PD&E study, the funds cannot be transferred. Com. Hutchinson stated the county could take over the road as an option. Com. Coward stated based on the comments it seems they need to have more conversation with District 4. He believes they need more information and revisit the issue Com. Hutchinson commented on the land use and asked staff to bring back the land use map to review the designate zoning in the area. Ms. Charma stated they had entered into a new fiscal year and any delays to the project would affect the production and it is a matter of urgency to decide what direction they are intending to pursue. Com. Coward asked if Com. Craft would be willing to meet with the DOT. Com. Craft agreed and asked he be accompanied by staff. Staff was seeking direction on considering implementing a special district as a financing option. The Board directed staff to bring back this option as a mechanism AND as a draft of a special act for review. Transportation funding proposal by developers: Mr. Brillhart stated this proposal has not been reviewed by staff. Mr. Scott Morton, Coastal Communities, addressed the Board representing various developers. He stated the TVC stakeholders are prepared to move forward under the Board's guidelines. He stated combined they have 7,300 dwelling units, '/z million sq. ft. office and retail mixed, K- 8 school sites, Sheriff and Fire sub-station, 3 (unintelligible word) 3-5 acres, hotel and golf course. Com. Coward stated there are those who are following the TVC guidelines and the others are not. 4 ~~ Mr. Morton stated this was correct, there are those following the TVC guidelines and those under the by rights act. Mr. Morton continued his slide presentation The approximate cost for these off site transportation improvements is $21 million and 1.5 million would be going to the county for the intersection and signalization for Indrio Road and Emerson and 3.4 million for Indrio Road and Kings Highway Intersection. The on site improvements the developer stakeholder share is another 27.6 million (preliminary estimates), they would like to put into place amulti-party agreement signed by the stakeholders and the county with the appropriate sureties and time frames for completion of the development of roadways transportation improvements. The stakeholders would propose to undertake and pay for off site transportation improvements the 1-5. Mr. Morton stated they would contribute 3.4 million (28%) towards Indrio Kings Hwy Intersection and the 1.5 million improvements at Indrio and Emerson and dedicate right of way and undertake and pay for portions TVC road network located on each individual developers property construct on site transportation facilities i.e. bike paths etc. They ask the county to authorize 100% fair share of the traffic impact fees to each developer, undertake and use the stakeholders money for the Indrio Emerson intersection and undertake and pay for the remaining Indrio and Kings Highway intersection, undertake and pay for the 4 laving of Indrio Road to east of Johnson Road. Seek additional funding, assist in obtaining right of way and assist them as to how the County owns the right of ways. Mr. Morton addressed water and sewer and stated he knew there was a lot of discussion to be had with the utility authority and concluded his presentation. The Board members commended the developer representative and staff for working together on this issue. Com. Coward stated he felt it would be premature to consider the conceptual agreement. Mr. Brillhart stated they would were only looking at it at the conceptual level and felt they needed time to review it at a detailed level of concurrency. Mr. Morton stated he would be bringing something back to the Board at a later date to formalize after he compiles all the traffic numbers, percentages etc . The meeting was adjourned. 5