The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCBC0416MinutesCITIZENS’ BUDGET COMMITTEE Meeting Date April 15, 2016 Conference Room 3 MEMBERS PRESENT: Dan Kurek Richard Pancoast William Donovan Patrick Campion Ed Lounds Craig Mundt Steven Weaver John Culverhouse Carl Hensley Ron Knaggs MEMBERS ABSENT: James Clasby Jay L. McBee Barry Mucklow Jerry Buechler Gwen Morris OTHERS PRESENT: Howard Tipton Mark Satterlee Asheley Hepburn Ben Balcer Jennifer Hill Ron Parrish Ed Matthews Don West Beth Ryder Laurie Waldie George Landry Leslie Olson Madeline Yaroma Bob Adolphe CALL TO ORDER Mr. Kurek called the meeting to order when a quorum was established, at 7:38 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT No member of the public spoke. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 19, 2016 MINUTES After a motion and a second, the minutes were unanimously approved. INFRASTRUCTURE SALES TAX PRESENTATION Mr. Kurek reported that he had attended a meeting with the City, Mr. Tipton, and others. Mr. Tipton presented the attached PowerPoint. This presentation will be given to the Cities and the Board of County Commission. He asked for feedback from the members. Citizens’ Budget Committee April 15, 2016 Page 2 Mr. Hensley started discussion on road projects. Mr. West provided information. Mr. Donahue asked about water issues. Mr. Lounds’ question about priorities of projects started more conversation on roads. To answer a question from Mr. Tipton, Ms. Waldie informed the group that there were 37,000 septic systems in St. Lucie County. Alternatives and solutions were discussed. The focus has gone from water quantity to quality. Mr. Weaver asked for clarification on dates. Options to increase revenue for projects and how it would be split between the County and the Cities were discussed. Mr. Lounds started discussion on taxes that benefit other agencies. Mr. Hensley asked about Port St. Lucie roads. Mr. Mundt asked about matching funds. Ms. Olson gave information from the Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) perspective. Mr. Knaggs expressed his opinion on homeowners paying for septic systems and increased taxes, which started a conversation on the subject. Mr. Hensley mentioned that a septic system would increase the value of a home. Mr. Lounds asked about new developments and impact fees. Mr. Knaggs asked if it would free up other money if the sales tax passed. Mr. Lounds steered the conversation back to gas tax. Mr. Mundt asked about jobs. Mr. Tipton asked for a consensus from the group. Mr. Lounds asked about the ½ cent verses full cent. The survey, flexibility, accountability, timing and education were discussed. Mr. Knaggs made a motion to urge Mr. Tipton to move forward in reviewing the tax with the County Commission. It was seconded. Mr. Kurek reviewed the wording and added that the presentation be made to the Cities. Mr. Culverhouse suggested educating the taxpayers on the amount of taxes that are used for services, such as road paving. The motion was unanimously approved. Mr. Lounds asked about sunset. It will be discussed with the Cities. Mr. Campion asked about repealing the tax. Mr. Knaggs asked if there was another meeting before June 7. Input from the County Commission and Cities will be reported at the May meeting. It was decided to discuss future plans then. Mr. Tipton asked Ms. Olson to give a summary of the presentation she made a few days earlier. She had good news about growth. Mr. Lounds asked about commercial Citizens’ Budget Committee April 15, 2016 Page 3 construction. Mr. Satterlee added information regarding the assistance from County staff. Mr. Kurek asked for an update on inmate medical. Mr. Landry gave a report and answered questions. Mr. Pancoast told about an article in the paper reporting Palm Beach County being built out. He expects things to come this way. He informed the group about people taking their horses on vacation. He suggested the County build a campground near areas with horse trails. Mr. Balcer reported on available areas and future plans were discussed. INFORMAL BOCC MEETING UPDATE The presentation they saw is what will be presented in the Informal BOCC meeting. OTHER ISSUES No other issues were mentioned. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Kurek adjourned the meeting at 8:57 a.m. Respectfully submitted by: Brenda Marlin The next CBC meeting will be held on Friday, May 20, 2016, at 7:30 a.m., in Conference Room 3, of the St. Lucie County Roger Poitras Administration Annex. 4/19/2016 1 Citizen’s Budget Committee Friday, April 15, 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers Scorecards National Infrastructure Challenges (2013) D+ over 16 sectors $3.6 trillion needed by 2020 Florida Infrastructure Challenges (2012) C‐over 11 sectors $36 billion needed in water/waste water upgrades by 2032 “According to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, overall government spending on US Public infrastructure has fallen to a 20‐year low of 1.7% of GDP” Testimony of Jay Dhru, Senior Managing Director, Standard & Poors Rating Service, before the US Senate Committee on Finance (2014) 2 4/19/2016 2 Florida TaxWatch 2016 Report: How Florida Compares Florida ranks 49th in per capita state revenue collections, lowest ranking since TaxWatch has been monitoring “Florida’s local governments (tax) rankings are generally much higher than the state government rankings due to the fact that Florida relies more heavily on local governments to fund public services than almost all other states.” 3 Why Are We Here Today? During the 2015/2016 budget cycle, the County’s Citizen Budget C o m m i t t e em a d ear e c o m m e n d a t i o nt ot h eB O C Ct oe x p l o r ea possible sales tax initiative to address the shortfall in infrastructure funding. The Board accepted this recommendation and directed staff to evaluate. And, we’re notalone…. Florida Counties & Cities around the state are looking at the sales tax option Broward County has placed a 1‐cent sales tax on the ballot Palm Beach has placed a 1‐cent sales tax on the ballot Marion Countyvoters havealready approved an increase Alachua, Manatee, Sarasota and Bay Counties are exploring the option 4 4/19/2016 3 Problem Statement The County has experienced a 22.4% decline in Ad Valorem revenue since FY 2007, attributable to the recession of 2008 Since 2008 the County has steadily reduced and in some cases eliminated planned capital investment as a resultof thedecline revenues St. Lucie County’s Population is anticipated to increase by 70,902 by 2025 There is a backlog of approximately $600 million of capital needs throughoutthe County 5 The Challenges Current revenues put County roads on 75‐year repaving schedule Many needed road and sidewalk projects have little prospectof completion in the 2040 LRTP timeframe Public Safety – Sheriff vehicle/equipment replacement, 911 infrastructure upgrades/800 MHz radio system Water quality in the rivers, canals, St. Lucie River and the Indian River Lagoon is at crisis level Neighborhood storm water and drainage retrofits are grossly underfunded 6 4/19/2016 4 Challenges, con’t 2040 LRTP cost feasible project list is very short…. 5 Projects consume 72% of projected funds 2021‐2040 Kings Highway Port St Lucie Boulevard Midway Road US 1 Retrofit Jenkins Road For water quality, focus on the basin we control C‐23, C‐24 Accelerate the Indian River Lagoon South project Improve St. Lucie River water quality 10‐mile creek Moore’s Creek 7 County Priority Roads/Infrastructure Projects 8 4/19/2016 5 Major Service Level Impacts 9 25 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Ro a d M i l e s ROAD AND BRIDGE 15 Year Resurfacing Schedule Proposed Miles to be Resurfaced Reconstruction of 20 miles of roads will cost over $7 Million per year due to deferred maintenance 75 Year Road Maintenance Cycle County Priority Water Quality/Stormwater Projects 10 4/19/2016 6 County‐wide Septic to Sewer Upgrade/Replacements High densities of on‐site septic tanks are adjacent to the St. Lucie River and Indian River Lagoon – an estimated 3,500 properties Data indicates that groundwater seepage and nutrient loading are factors producing stress in these in vital natural gems Estimated cost to convert 3,500 septic tanks to sewer is $40,000,000 ‐$50,000,000 11 County Priority Projects ERD MAP HERE 12 4/19/2016 7 Water Quality/Stormwater 13 Opportunities If we agree that the projects are needed and there is a funding gap Do we begin to address the needs today before 160,000 new residents move here by 2040? How do we bridge the gap? 14 4/19/2016 8 What Are Our Options? Cut services Shift resources Increase taxes Reduce reserves (further) New revenue source Do nothing 15 Florida Counties with Infrastructure Sales Tax County Amount Enacted Date Charlotte 0.01 1/1/2015 12/31/2020 Clay 0.01 2/1/2005 12/31/2019 Escambia 0.01 1/1/2018 12/31/2028 Glades 0.01 2/1/2007 12/31/2021 Highlands 0.01 1/1/2019 12/31/2033 Indian River 0.01 6/1/2004 12/31/2019 Lake 0.01 1/1/2018 12/31/2032 Leon 0.01 12/1/2020 12/31/2039 Monroe 0.01 1/1/2019 12/31/2033 Osceola 0.01 9/1/2005 8/31/2025 Pasco 0.01 1/1/2015 12/31/2024 16 4/19/2016 9 Florida Counties with Infrastructure Sales Tax, Cont. County Amount Enacted Date Pinellas 0.01 2/1/1990 12/31/2019 Putnam 0.01 1/1/2018 12/31/2032 Sarasota 0.01 9/1/200 12/31/2024 Seminole 0.01 1/1/2015 12/31/2024 Wakulla 0.01 1/1/2003 12/31/2017 Duval 0.005 1/1/1989 Until Repealed Duval 0.005 1/1/2001 12/31/2030 Hillsborough 0.005 12/1/1996 11/30/2026 Miami‐Dade 0.005 1/1/1989 Until Repealed 17 Local Government Infrastructure Surtax Referendum: Two Methods Enacted by a majority of County Commission and approved by voters via referendum. Municipalities representing a majority of the county’s population may initiate the surtax by adoption of resolutions calling for a countywide referendum and approved by the majority of thevoters by referendum. Length: Surtax Referendums enacted after July 1, 1993 do not have a limit on the length of levy Distribution: Two Methods Local agreement to determine thedistribution of the surtax Formula provided in Florida Statute 218.62 (based on the Local Government Half‐Cent Sales Tax formulas) 49.95%‐County 50.05%‐City 18 4/19/2016 10 Estimated Proceeds $15,576,076 (based on the Local Government Half‐Cent Sales Tax formulas) Bonds May pledge the proceeds of the tax for the bonds Counties and municipalities may join together for the issuance of bonds County Comparison 18 Counties in the State of Florida levy the Infrastructure Surtax Neighboring counties that levy the Infrastructure Surtax and effective date: Okeechobee (Oct 1. 1995) –1% Small Cities Surtax Indian River (Jun. 2004) Local Government Infrastructure Surtax 19 Easily bondable All proceeds stay here 20 4/19/2016 11 Local Government Infrastructure Surtax Survey indicates support for water quality, sidewalk and road projects Public safety is also supported Currently 6.5% sales tax 1 cent versus 0.5 cent –0 . 5 has support Estimated 80/20 split – residents v. tourists Leverages other funding sources 21 Local Government Infrastructure Surtax Authorized under F.S. 212.055(2) Applied to all taxable transactions but shall not apply on sales above $5,000 on an item of tangible personal property. Over 10 years would generate approximately: Port St. Lucie $ 75,518,062.37 Ft. Pierce $ 18,606,348.29 St. LucieVillage $ 260,493.45 St. Lucie County $ 94,207,240.19 22 4/19/2016 12 Local Government Infrastructure Surtax (Cont.) Over 20 years would generate approximately: Port St. Lucie $ 173,164,932.78 Ft. Pierce $ 42,664,853.28 St. LucieVillage $ 597,318.44 St. Lucie County $ 216,019,716.36 23 Next Steps County workshop on April 19th to gauge level of interest in moving surtax discussion to a public hearing. Public hearing would most likely be on June 7th for the item to be placed on November’s ballot. Build community awareness through education campaign. If voter approved, a citizen committee established to monitorexpendituresand project progress. 24 4/19/2016 13 In Summary We have hundreds of millions $$$$ of unmet infrastructure needs for water quality improvement, stormwater, road and publicsafety Existing funding doesn’t come close to bridging the gap – the option of addressing the needs with an infrastructure is agood start And one of the benefits is that it’s paid for by everyone, residents, visitors and businesses – not just property tax 25 26