Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/8/1986 (2)Wednesday, January 8, 1986 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Special Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, January 8, 1986, at 5:15 o'clock P.M. Present were Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Patrick B. Lyons, Vice -Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Margaret C. Bowman; and William C. Wodtke, Jr. Also present were Michael J. Wright, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order and announced that it is the first of two public hearings in regard to the imposition of a fair share roadway improvements fee on new land development activity. The hour of 5:15 o'clock P.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a in the lished in said newspaper in the issues of Court, was pub- Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tiserrent; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of A.D. A w ii w (Clerk of the Circuit (_'ourt, Indian River Cou. lorida) (SEAL) BOOK( ', FAU1,E ,d r Boa 63 PAGE 209 NOTICE OF '-.46ADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ORDINANCE asr.�-��.:��_�. A The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County proposes to adopt a Fair Share Roadway Improvements Ordinance to be applied to all land within the area shown in the map in this advertisement. , A public hearing on the proposed ordinance will be held on Wednesday, January 8, 1986, at 5:15 p.m., in the County Commission Chambers in the County Administration Building located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. The purpose of this public hearing is to consider the adoption of a County Ordinance establishing a Fair Share Roadway Improvements fee for all new land development activity generating traffic including development in -the unincorporated part of the County and development within municipalties..The ordinance is entitled: AN ORDINANCE TO BE KNOWN AS THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FAIR SHARE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ORDINANCE; PROVIDING FOR SHORT TITLE, AUTHORITY AND APPLICABILITY, PROVIDING FOR INTENT AND PURPOSE; PROVIDING RULES OF CONSTRUCTION; PROVIDING FOR DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING FOR THE IMPOSITION OF -A FAIR SHARE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS FEE. ON ALL NEW LAND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY GENERATING TRAFFIC; PROVIDING FOR TIME OF PAYMENT, PROVIDING FOR INTERPRETATION OF THE FEE SCHEDULE, PROVIDING FOR CREDITS; PROVIDING FOR REVIEW OF THE ORDINANCE AND FEE SCHEDULE; PROVIDING FOR USE OF FUNDS COLLECTED AND TRUST FUNDS; PROVIDING FOR EXEMPTIONS; PROVIDING FOR LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION AND SEPARABILITY, PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES; PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.' The Ordinance establishes a fair share roadway improvements fee for various land use activities based on which districtof the County the use is located in. The fee schedule .is established as follows: FEE SCHEDULE FOR NEW LAND DEVELOPMENT A iV • CT B'fY Type of Land District ._• District District District. District District District District District Development Activity I II III • • IV V VI VII Vlll IX Residentiah Single family (per unit) $1095 `1444 $ 793 $ 526 $ 704 $ 330 $ .148 $ 435 $ 161 Multi -family 3 stories + _ (per unit) 540 712 391 260 347 162 73 214 83 Mobile homes 760 1003 550 366 489 229- 103 302 112 Hotel/motel (per bedroom) 1552 2046 815 541 723 339 1.52 447 166 All other residential 1095 1444 793 526 704 330 148 435 161 Office and Financial Medical Office (per 1000 sq.ft.) 2281. 3008 1.651 1097 '1466 687 309 905 336 Other Office ,- (per 1000 sq. ft.) 937 1235 678 '' 450 602 282 127 372. 138 Industrial: Warehouse (per 1000 sq. ft.) 312 :. ;. ,412. 226 150 201 94 42 '` 124 46 General Industrial (per 1000 sq. ft.) 346 456 25.0 166 222 104 .. ; 47' 137 51 Retail: Under 50,000 sq. ft. 2031 2679: 1470 ` 977 1305: `• 611275 806 299 (per 1000 sq. ft.) .. 50,000-99.999 sq. h• 2090 2757 ', 1513 1005 1343 629' 283 830 - 308 (per 1000 sq. ft.) J. 100,000.249,999 sq ft 2399 • 3156 .: 1733— • 11$1 - • 1538 `. 720 324 950 353 (per 1000sqft. 250,000 andover ,.. Z47a - " 3260 . ' 1790. 1189 1588 744 ` 335. 981 364 (per 1000 sq, ft.1 } . y . Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may bemade at this meeting will need'to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings, is made, which includes the testimony ;and evidience upon which the appeal is based. Indian River 'CouMy •, Board of County Com* aliasi' ners -s-Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman 2 The Chairman informed those present that the Board would hear the staff presentation first and then have discussion from the public. Public Works Director Davis briefly reviewed staff's actions since the October 30th workshop. He reported that the County Administrator, consultants and staff have met with the five municipalities in the county and also met with the Board of Realtors and a number of concerned groups and have made some revisions as a result. Due to the input from the cities and the DOT's five year Plan, which earmarks about 3/4 million dollars for a feasibility study on replacing the Merrill Barber Bridge with a four -lane non-movable structure, they now have focused in on the Merrill Barber Bridge as that facility that would provide additional bridge capacity in the 20 year plan. Also, they have redefined some of the districts, District 5 now being only on the mainland side, and the barrier island being separated into two districts - District #1 north of the Merrill Barber Bridge and District #2 to the south. A new fee table has been developed, and there have been a number of minor revisions which Director Davis did not feel require review. Commissioner Bird wished to know how we justify charging almost the same in the South Beach District as the North Beach District if the assumption is that most of the traffic in the South Beach area will use the 17th Street Bridge. Director Davis explained that in looking at providing service between the barrier island and the mainland, they are looking at the island, the mainland and the bridges as a whole. The study done by Barton Aschmann isolated the Merrill Barber Bridge and distributed the cost to all the districts in the county based on the deficiency we will have on that bridge in the next twenty years. Since the 17th Street Bridge is now under capacity, as the island gets more developed, some of the load on the 17th Street Bridge will be dispersed to the Merrill Barber o Bridge when it is improved. r:3 JAN 8 1986 BOOK 63. FAGc 21® - r AN 1996 Boos 63 PAGE 211 Commissioner Bird asked if he was saying all of the 9 districts will pay a share for replacing the Merrill Barber Bridge, and Director Davis confirmed each district would pay a proportionate share, not only for the bridge, but for the approach to it. The further away the district, the lower the percentage they would be charged. Commissioner Bird inquired about the percentages to be paid by the North Barrier Island District and the South Barrier Island District, and Administrator Wright advised it would be 31% and - 29% respectively. Commissioner Bird asked if there are any other major expenditures, such as the bridge, that have been apportioned throughout the districts, and he was advised just the access to the bridge, which would include a portion of the Twin Pairs project. Director Davis explained that the DOT had a problem justifying funding the off system link of the Twin Pairs project, and the cost we are including as a county contribution (about $400,000) is just for that off system link which will tie the Boulevard to U.S.1 and serve as an approach to both bridges. Commissioner Bird continued to discuss the breakdown of costs within the districts, noting that medical offices appear to be paying 21 times as much as other offices, and he assumed there is some hard data to justify that. Michael Brown of Barton Aschmann, Consultants, advised that all these numbers are based on trip generation types. They set traffic counters out all over the county, and while the trip generation figures for that particular category are higher than the state average, those are the numbers their study came up with. Commissioner Wodtke asked if Medical Office refers simply to a regular doctor's office or a medical clinic, and Mr. Brown advised they were referring to a doctor's office as such; 4 however, it is not based on a single office but on so much per thousand square feet. The Administrator requested that the consultant explain the provision people have to "opt out" of this chart. Mr. Brown informed the Board that since the categories are very general, they have set up a provision in the ordinance which allows an individual to come in and state that his development does not fall into these categories and that it has a different trip generation rate. He then has the option of either using the statewide average for trip generations or having someone go out and do an independent study for him and petition to have his fee reduced accordingly. Chairman Scurlock felt if a significant amount of the appeal process took place and many reductions were granted, the cumula- tive effect would be that some portion of the capital improvement program would turn out to be underfunded and would have to be picked up by someone else. Commissioner Wodtke inquired how these fees will be col- lected - will the cities collect them or will we collect them and turn them over to the cities to utilize? Chairman Scurlock advised that it depends on the situation. For example, the City of Vero Beach building permits are issued out of the County offices so we are in control of that while other municipalities do this separately and will collect the fees and convey them over. Commissioner Wodtke noted that in all cases, however, the impact fees will be money the Board of County Commissioners will have the responsibility to spend and to make the traffic improvements. This was confirmed, and it was noted that the funds will be escrowed in specific accounts for specific districts. Commissioner Wodtke then inquired how the various projects In the different districts will be handled, i.e., R/W acquisition, what is to be done to the road, etc. I BOOK 63 Fact 2�� JAN 1986 BOOK 63 PAGE 213 Director Davis advised that there is a detailed scope of work for each project in their report. For some of the secondary roads, it includes right-of-way (R/W) access and the construction of a 2 or 3 lane roadway, including drainage, etc., and this varies depending on the project. He noted that they have actually gone in and estimated R/W costs and tried to come up with a realistic construction cost for each district. For instance, it is much more expensive to acquire R/W on the Barrier Island and construct a road in an urban part of the island than in the western reaches of the county, and it -is the cost per lane mile that is important in the calculation of the impact fees. Chairman Scurlock emphasized that this whole process is not static-; it is dynamic and will continue to be readdressed as additional items are added to the capital improvement list. Commissioner Wodtke noted that 12th Street, for example, lies between District 8 and District 9, and he wished to know which district it is considered to be in, and how the costs of improving it will be handled? Mr. Brown advised that there are many projects that fall on the boundary lines and can be funded by both districts, and Director Davis clarified that each district would fund 50% of the total project costs, including acquisition of R/W on both sides of the road. Commissioner Wodtke believed we said every dollar we collect in a district must be spent in that district, but Craig Richardson of Barton Aschmann pointed out that there is a provision in the ordinance that states that if a district is bounded by a major arterial, the monies from either district can be used for the capital improvements on that road. Commissioner Wodtke brought up the situation on 12th St. just a few weeks ago where an additional 50' R/W was requested from Sugar Mill Estates. He understood that particular R/W was not included in the impact fees and wished to know if it is now included. Director Davis explained that the R/W issue is a major issue they have been struggling with. He clarified that the R/W included is the R/W necessary to build all projects on the 20 year program that has been identified. Exhibit B includes all the projects in that 20 year plan, and if the project is not shown there, then the money would not be used to fund that R/W acquisition. Director Davis noted that impact fees are not going to be a total remedy to all of our R/W problems. He commented that they met with Lee County yesterday, and they are struggling with this same issue. Administrator Wright confirmed that impact fees will fund only about 20-250 of our needs for the next 20 years. We will have to solve the R/W issue through some other methodology, and we do not yet have an answer for the off system acquisitions. Chairman Scurlock agreed this is a real problem because it seems inequitable to require donation of R/W because someone is ready to build, and the person next door ends up getting paid for it because he is not ready to build. He almost felt we should pay for all our R/W. Commissioner Wodtke wished to know why widening of 12th Street in the 43rd Avenue area is not included in the 20 year plan. Director Davis noted that it is hard to see on the map, but basically on 12th St. there are major intersection improvements scheduled at 27th Ave. and at 43rd Ave., and there is a secondary project between Kings Highway and 90th Avenue. He explained that the computer model has projected future trips based on past growth; that 12th St. corridor in the past has not grown to all that great a degree and, therefore, it is not showing major widening of 12th Street in that area around 43rd Ave. and Old Sugar Mill Subdivision. Chairman Scurlock pointed out that if activity increased in that area, it could be added to the program, and he believed it 7 JAN 8 1986Boa 63 m".;L 214 FFF-- ,SAN, Boor, 63 Fnn_ 215 will occur in certain road situations that the activity does not track the historical records. Commissioner Wodtke asked it, for instance, a development were to occur west of Kings Highway on 12th Street, and 50' additional R/W was requested from those individuals, would they receive credit toward their impact fee? Director Davis confirmed that they would get a portion depending on the value of the R/W; there is language in the ordinance that spells out how they get that credit. --- Commissioner Bird asked if they don't get full credit for the appraised value of the R/W donation, and Director Davis explained they would only if it is on our capital improvement program. Commissioner Wodtke noted that apparently then if they are east of Kings Highway on 12th St., they won't receive credit towards the impact fee, and Administrator Wright agreed that is the problem we have been struggling with for several weeks. We have to find some equity, but he did not think we can find it tonight. Lee County is experiencing the same problem. The Administrator felt it must be kept in mind that this is only part of an overall funding mechanism. Commissioner Bird brought up 53rd Street which runs east and west and divides districts 7 and 8. He wished to know how we explain to someone who builds a single family home on the south side that their impact fee is $450 while on the north side of the same street, the fee is $150, or 1/3 as much. Mr. Richardson stated that the impact fee ordinance they have developed for the county is very clear on this. The first impact ordinances developed used a countywide fee schedule, but experience showed that this resulted in people in the more remote areas of the county paying a lot higher fee than their impact actually was. The proposed ordinance tries to mitigate that problem and recognize those differences by creating districts with varying fees. However, in districting you also create some 8 averages and you have to draw the line somewhere. Mr. Richardson felt they have contoured the boundaries in such a way that they are legitimate. For example, the individual who lives on the north of 53rd St. most probably will use it every time he goes to town while the person on the south side of 53rd St. will travel for the most part within District 8 and the road cost there is greater. Commissioner Bird agreed a line has to be drawn, but felt the characteristics of Districts 7 and 8 actually are very similar and did not know how to justify the triple difference in the fee. Mr. Brown referenced the population projections the county provided which he felt were fairly reasonable, and stressed that the key element is SR 60, which is the major east -west corridor linking out to 1-95 as well as into downtown Vero and also across the bridge to the island. More growth will occur in that area, and therefore, more improvements will be required in District 8 than District 7. Commissioner Bird argued that although it will cost more money to put the roads in District 8, he felt you will have more development there to share the burden because the area will in -fill faster than District 7. Mr..Brown agreed but pointed out that real estate costs will be higher there because it will develop faster. Commissioner Bird realized impact ordinances have not been implemented for a long period of time, but asked if Barton Aschmann has seen any shift in commercial, industrial or even residential development patterns in areas where they have set impact fees. Mr. Brown stated that they do not have experience in terms of districting, which is a fairly new concept, but when you have a countywide impact fee right next to a county that doesn't have an impact fee, such as Broward County which has a substantial impact fee and is next to Dade County, which has none, they have 9 JAN 8 1986 Bou 63 Fa,E 216 JAN X9 6 Boa 63 ��,-L217 not seen any cooling oft effect in Broward County. To the contrary, it is one of the fastest growing counties in the state. Chairman Scurlock felt it is logical to assume that development will take place where you have the infrastructure. Water, sewer, transportation, and land costs are all inter- related, and he felt it will all balance because where you have this, land values will rise. Director Davis wished the Board to be aware that during the workshops, the City of Vero Beach had some comments re the fact that we have a 15% reduction in the fee table to encourage the use of the fee table, and there were some who felt we should not have such a reduction and that the fee should be 100%. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Robert Gaskill came before the Board representing Vista Properties and stated he would like to file the first appeal since he had a problem with the multi -family shown on the table. He noted that previously the chart showed multi family and single family, and now it shows multi family 3 story and over. Under the new criteria anything two stories and under would fall under single family assessments. Mr. Gaskill pointed out that if you had a project with two and three story buildings with identical units, the person in the 3 story building would be paying half what the person in an identical unit in a 2 story building would be paying. He felt we should have multiple family as such and single family as such and not differentiate by height. Mr. Brown explained the reason for the difference is that all the units they surveyed in the county that were over three stories high were primarily retirement situations and generally their trip generation is about half. Mr. Gaskill pointed out that Vista Properties has put in well over 2,000 two story retirement units in this county. Mr. Brown believed if it is a retirement community, that it is definitely open to apply for a modification of the fee. 10 Mr. Gaskill stated that rather than go through a study and the whole appeal process, he would like to have this specified in the ordinance. Administrator Wright asked if Mr. Gaskill was saying put retirement units in as a special category, and Chairman Scurlock felt he was saying that the actual use is what is important and that doesn't relate to whether it is a two or three story building. Mr. Gaskill clarified that he was mainly concentrating on differentiating between single family and multiple family and differentiating by use rather than height. The Board continued to discuss this situation at length, and Administrator Wright noted that we have another hearing on this ordinance scheduled in two weeks; staff will be looking at this closely and possibly do some adjusting. Barclay Henderson, Executive Vice -President, Associated General Contractors of America, West Palm Beach, was very interested in hearing some of the comments made by Commissioner Bird and wished to acquaint the Board with the discussion he had with attorneys who handled the case for Palm Beach County. He understood what the Dunedin Case presented was water and sewer as individual entities not interconnecting whatsoever, and those fees were different rate structures. It is their contention, to alleviate the problem Commissioner Bird has, that the Palm Beach County case speaks to roads, and they consider roads different than water and sewer plants because they consider the road network interconnecting. They, therefore, think and believe very strongly that the fee arrangements for all the various categories should be the same throughout the county. In regard to holding one year reviews of the impacts fees, Mr. Henderson submitted possibly a three year review would be more in keeping with the growth of the county. He also felt the Board might wish to consider increasing the number of categories in the plan; there is nothing for a convenience store, for instance. Mr. Henderson 11 1986 Boors 63 "A"218 JA 1986BOOK 63 inn 219 felt the County is on the right track but that more discussion and input from the community is required. Commissioner Bowman asked if convenience stores wouldn't come under the retail category. Director Davis advised that staff has been working on imple- mentation policies and has tables from Lee County. This would be a part of implementation policies. Commissioner Bird believed there is no doubt at all that a convenience store generates far more trips than any doctor's office, but Mr. -Brown stated it would .depend on the size of the facility, and the problem is how many categories can you list. Discussion resumed re the varying fee vs, single fee issue, and Mr. Richardson, who was involved in the Palm Beach litiga- tion, emphasized that he was very comfortable with the idea of the varying fee districts. He felt it was made clear in the Dunedin decision, which is the landmark case in Florida, that you can have varying rates. He further noted that the issue of the distinctions between water and sewer and transportation as they apply to the legal principles that were to be applied in the design of the road impact fees were addressed both by the circuit and appellate courts and the courts determined that there is no distinction as far as the application of legal standards are concerned. Peter Robinson, developer of Laurel Homes, and also representing Treasure Coast Builders Association, reported that the Building Association had a meeting today and reviewed these fees. Mr. Robinson believed we can all find problems with these fees, but agreed we all know it is a fact of life that we are going to get impact fees. He felt it is very important that this county sets up some sort of committee to keep working on these things and keep improving them and believed what is needed is an infrastructure committee that is concerned with nothing else. As far as the different districts are concerned, he noted that in Orange County, they tried to throw all the districts together, 12 and it was terrible. In fact, at one time Orange County wanted to charge convenience stores an $110,000 impact flee. Chairman Scurlock believed we have used workshop meetings very well, and it would be his thought process that the interested groups would be very formally involved not only in the one year evaluation but the 5 year capital improvement program also. He certainly felt it would be to the interests of the Commission to have some kind of committee, have a liaison with the various groups, and go back to workshop. Mr. Robinson felt there is a need to spend more time with the multi family area. He went on to address his personal problem with his development on 12th St. He noted that as soon as they came in with Laurel Court, they were told 12th Street had to be widened and they had to give up two lots that were worth $35,000; however, when he asked if he got credit for this against the impact fees, he was told he would not because it isn't shown on the map. Mr. Robinson felt being required to donate land and then still being required to pay impact fees is something that will have to be dealt with. He pointed out that the wording in the ordinance indicates it is not the purpose of the ordinance to collect any funds, land or public facilities from new land development activity in excess of the actual amount necessary to offset the demand on the county's major network system. He felt when the county has people on the major road network system and wants them to give all that R/W but refuses to give excess credit, they are going to be faced with a situation where the person will only give whatever equals his impact fee and then make the county pay.for the rest of it. He did not know how the county will deal with this problem. Attorney Vitunac pointed out that if the development has a site related roadway need, the developer will have to donate it without credit and still pay an impact fee. He explained that a site related need is some need on the roadway system specifically related to the development itself - access, signalization, etc. _.. 13 JAN 8 1986 63 J A N 1986 BOOK 63 FAGc 291 Mr. Robinson clarified that what he is talking about is giving up road R/W not being used right now, but that is needed for the future. Administrator Wright noted that the instance Mr. Robinson was referring to was an off system dedication. Chairman Scurlock expressed his opinion that possibly the County should pay for all right-of-way so that everyone gets treated fairly whether they are going to develop now or later, and then the only question is the methodology of paying for the R/W. Administrator Wright concurred that we are going to have to come up with a R/W acquisition methodology and we are probably dealing with one of three things - special assessments, a gas tax or ad valorem taxes. He did feel the special assessment would be the best, and felt we will have to face this very shortly. Mr. Robinson believed the gas tax is a possibility the County hasn't used yet. Discussion ensued about the fact that we only went to 2t while most other counties went to 44 and now the state says you can go to 6¢. Commissioner Lyons left the meeting at 6:15 o'clock P.M Commissioner Wodtke felt we need to look at the practicality of some of the primary and secondary roads actually being four laned. For instance, he did not know the economic practicality of us saying that 16th, 12th and 4th Sts. are going to be four lane highways into U.S.I, and if so, he would like to have an idea of what the cost might be. Also if all this is going west to east, do we want to channel some of it somewhere else? Administrator Wright noted that one other option is density reduction, and Chairman Scurlock commented that in major cities, buildings are pulled down for highway expansion. The Administrator agreed that we need to look at the Thoroughfare Plan continuously as the county grows. Director Davis pointed out that we are not indicating that 16th St. or 8th St. or 1st St. SW will be four laned. At this 14 time those will be three lane roads similar to 16th St. 12th Street is a primary collector, and they will be greater than 3 lanes. Our traffic model is based on a 20 year horizon and based on that we do not know what will be four laned. Vero Beach City Manager John Little complimented the Board on "biting the bullet." He believed the consultants have done a good job and felt the questions the City staff had have been addressed. He stated that, from the City staff level, they are content at the reaction from the County staff and have concluded that the City does not need an interlocal agreement. Mr. Little felt the County should put this ordinance in place as quickly as possibly and not study it to death, but deal with the imperfec- tions as experience grows. He advised that he will inform City Council that the county staff has dealt with the City's sugges- tions, and then when the Board has approved this ordinance and it is final, the City will again scrutinize it at the staff level, and he will go to the City Council and recommend that they not opt out. George Gross, speaking as a private citizen, expressed concern with the use of the districts' funds for the b.ridge. He noted that the language proposed states that the nine trust accounts "may" be used out of the districts, but he wanted to know why the percentages by district are not spelled out. He thought we had to specify where the funds are -being used, and he felt the percentages should be noted for everyone. Mr. Richardson explained that the reason the language "may" was used is because at this point in time the bridge facility is planned, but it is not a certainty. There is a requirement in the ordinance that the monies must be expended within 7 years. If 7 years from now a bridge facility has not been initiated, the Commission could decide to refund the monies. In terms of setting down the specific percentages by district, that could be done. He did not have strong feelings about that. 15 Bou 63 pn 222 JAN 8 1986 Boos 63 Face2?3 Administrator Wright felt this should be included as Appendix "C", and this was agreed upon. Nancy Offutt next came before the Board representing the Chamber of Commerce and the Board of Realtors. She asked if a dollar amount to be applied for the bridge and the twin pairs project has been attached to every district, and it was explained that it will be a percentage rather than dollars. Mrs. Offutt wished to know if the level of service in an area deteriorates and there are not sufficient impact fees in --- that district for. -the improvements for the road, where the money for that comes from. Director Davis pointed out that basically the Comprehensive Plan would prohibit development from impacting a roadway adversely and degrading the level of service below a certain level; so, the developer would have certain options. He could communicate with other developers and fund the shortfall and that would be his premium for accelerating development in his area. Administrator Wright again emphasized that impact fees will only account for a fraction of our total road cost. We have done a good job of staying ahead of level of Service "D", but to meet our road needs, we will need the revenue we have now, the impact fees, and more gas tax monies. Mrs. Offutt asked if the redevelopment efforts that would take place in some of the urbanized areas were taken into consideration in the model. Director Davis noted that the 20 year horizon does not anticipate going into an an area in Vero Beach and tearing down single family homes. It has taken a look at historic growth trends in the area and projected new growth on a 20 year horizon. Mrs. Offutt asked if the new growth is based on the fact that it is already built out and, therefore,.you don't anticipate much new growth. 16 Administrator Wright noted that as we get into some redevelopment, the model will show that we may need to change fees some, and they will be changed accordingly. Mrs. Offutt inquired whether building permits will be issued based strictly on intensification of use or on the size of the commercial establishments in square footage because she would hate to see building permits held up or impact fees attached just for improving properties, but not necessarily intensifying the use. Mr. Richardson explained there actually has to be a change of the use and an addition of use which increases traffic on the road system. The fee assessed would be the difference between the existing use and the use as it intensified. Mrs. Offutt supported Peter Robinson's recommendation about the need for an advisory committee, and Chairman Scurlock noted that we already have the Transportation Planning Committee in place where we look at traffic situations and make recommenda- tions, and it has representation from the municipalities. He asked if Mrs. Offutt felt that would serve. Mrs. Offutt believed other counties have a specific infra- structure committee, and she would like to see the committee expanded. Commissioner Wodtke concurred that the committee might need to be a little different structure. Charles Davis, member of the Board of Directors of the Board of Realtors, agreed that there are a lot of imponderables and unknowns. One thing that did come out at their meetings was a concern for the adequacy of this fund, and apparently it is not totally adequate to do what is needed. He noted that the gas tax and special assessments have been mentioned as additional funding sources and wondered whether any thought has been given to bonding based on a limited ad valorem tax or whether any thought has been given to tolls on specific bottlenecks. Administrator Wright pointed out that it is necessary to 7 BOOK J p,AGE JAN 8 1986 , JAN 8 1986 Boa63 F,1^E 296-o5 �6-o have a referendum to bond ad valorem taxes, and Chairman Scurlock stated the emphasis is away from ad valorem taxes. Administrator Wright noted that we will need funds for bridge replacements, etc., and we can only use the impact money for new growth. We will need additional money just to keep up what we already have. Realtor Davis had a question about how long this money will sit there before it will be used. Commissioner Bird believed there is borrowing that can be done interfund because some of the kitties in some of the districts will be slow in growing. Director Davis advised that the state is urging the counties to adopt a 64 gas tax; he believed the state will offer incen- tives; and felt we must give this consideration. Chairman Scurlock determined that no one further wished to be heard, and, therefore, this meeting will be continued to January 22nd. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, Commissioner Lyons having left the meeting, the Board unanimously (4-0) continued the public hearing on the Fair Share Roadway Im- Provements Ordinance to 5:15 o'clock P.M. on January 22nd and instructed staff to make revi- sions in the proposed ordinance as discussed. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Meeting adjourned at 6:45 o'clock P.M. ATTEST: Clerk 18 Chairman 0