HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/22/1990A G E N D A
SPECIAL MEETING
BETWEEN FELLSMERE CITY COUNCIL
AND
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MONDAY, JANUARY 22, 1990
7:30 P.M. - CITY HALL
FELLSMERE, FLORIDA
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman
Richard N. Bird, Vice Chairman
Margaret C. Bowman
Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
-Gary C. Wheeler
FELLSMERE CITY COUNCIL
Frank Hurst, Mayor
Alvin R. Thomas, Vice Mayor
Joseph P. Brooks, Sr.
Lewis E. Green II
George Mraz
Lu Cosner
7:30 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
Nicholas Tsamoutales, City Attorney
Bonnie Cramer, Deputy City Clerk
2. Status Report on Indian River County
Traffic Impact Fee Program within
the City of Fellsmere
ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE AT THIS
MEETING WILL NEED TO,ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS
MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WILL
BE BASED.
/
JAN 2 2 1994) BOOK f'�1 L Lti.
L,
SPECIAL MEETING IN FELLSMERE
Monday, January 22, 1990 -
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, met in Special Joint Session with the Fellsmere City
Council, at City Hall, Fellsmere, Florida, on Monday, January 22,
1990, at 7:30 o'clock P.M.
Present from the County Commission were Carolyn K. Eggert,
Chairman; Richard N. Bird, Vice Chairman; Margaret C.' Bowman; Don
C. Scurlock, Jr.; and Gary C. Wheeler. Also present were James
E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, Attorney
to the Board of County Commissioners; Joseph Baird, OMB Director;
and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
Present from the Fellsmere City Council were Frank Hurst,
Mayor; Alvin R. Thomas, Vice Mayor; Joseph P. Brooks, Sr.; Lewis
E. Green II; George Mraz, and Lu Cosner.. Also present were
Nicholas Tsamoutales, City Attorney; and Bonnie Cramer, Deputy
Clerk.
Mayor Hurst called the meeting to order. After leading the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, the Mayor gave a brief prayer.
Mayor Hurst introduced those in attendance from Indian River
County, and announced that the purpose of the meeting tonight is
to discuss the transportation impact fees between Indian River
County and the City of Fellsmere.
Public Works Director Jim Davis presented the following
Status Report dated 1/16/90:
JAN 2; 2 1990
BOOK i8 FAUL t
Boa 78 970,
j- ,
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator '• =
FROM: James W. Davis P.E
., -�-•t::�'�
Public Works Directo
SUBJECT: Status Report on Indian River County Traffic
Impact Fee Program within the City of Fellsmere
DATE: January 16, 1990
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Indian River County Board of County Commissioners
enacted the Indian River County Fair Share Roadway Improve-
ment Ordinance No. 86-14 (effective date Feb. 28, 1986) on
January 22, 1986, after numerous workshops and public
hearings, the -dates of which were properly advertised in the
local media. The Board's direction to staff during the
impact fee program development was to meet individually with
the staff and governing bodies of all cities or towns within
the County, as well as the Transportation Planning Committee
and local interest groups, to receive thorough public input.
In regards to the City of Fellsmere, the County staff met
with the following persons/city council representatives on
.the dates noted:
Meeting Dates Meeting Attended By Purpose
June 19, 1985 Transportation Pla9ing Committee Program Development
(All Cities Invited)
August 21, 1985 -City of Fellsmere Staff Program Development
Mike Brown, Consultant for IRC Receive. City Input
met with Mayor and Council
October 30, 1985 Board of County Commissioners Public Input
Public Workshop
November 20, 1985 County Staff Answer Council
Fellsmere City Council Questions on
Impact Fees
November 27, 1985 Transportation Planning Committee Program Development
January 8, 1986 Board of County Commissioner Take Public Comment
Public Hearing
January^22, 1986 Board of County Commissioner Adopted Ordinance
Public Hearing
After the program was implemented in h 1987
-- - -=-s'.�=` •• March, , the City of
_- °-Fellsmere collected impact fees until June, 1987, at which time
'the City ceased collecting the fee. This action
prompted staff
communicat6 with the City Council by informing the .City that
the County staff is available to discuss the
= �-•r;;..+• • • program and the
consequences of the City opting out. At that time, the Public
-- Works director met with Mayor Turner and the City Council to
• answer any questions they may have.
4---Y-: On September 13, 1988, the Board of County Commissioners approved
a revised Traffic Impact Fee schedule to reflect current road
construction costs.
2
Page two
January 16, 1990
Despite the numerous meetings and past communications, the City
of Fellsmere City Council, has continued to opt out of the
County's Traffic Impact Fee Program. To discuss this issue,..the
County Administrator, County -Attorney, and County Public. Works
Director met in the County Administrator's Conference Room -with
the Mayor in October 4, 1989. The Mayor expressed a concern
that the County's program does not set aside a portion of the
impact fee revenue for capacity expansion of City' collector
streets• and has no projects in Fellsmere. The County staff
explained that the 20 -Year Road Improvement Program does include
funding of CR507 through Fellsmere, and that capacity expansion
projects are included based upon their technical merit, and that
the City has not transmitted the City Traffic Study which the
City recently has accepted. The next step of the established
process is for the City staff to recommend to the County
Transportation Planning Committee that those projects that have
technical merit and are included in the study be added to the
County 20 -Year Road Improvement Program. The County -staff was of
the opinion that an established procedure exists for projects
with merit to be included. The County staff did stress the
opinion that the Traffic Impact Fee Program was developed on a
County -wide consistent basis, and that that revenue source is
necessary to fund future roadway needs in the Fellsmere area.
At the conclusion of the meeting, the Mayor invited the County
staff to a City Workshop to explain the program to the new City
Council. On Oct. 31, 1989, the County Administrator and Public
Works Director attended the City of Fellsmere City Council
Workshop to again explain the program and request the Council to
reinstate collection of the fee. In December, the Council voted
to not rejoin the program.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The County staff is of the opinion that the Traffic Impact Fee
Program is a vital revenue source to provide for the orderly
expansion of the arterial and collector road system in Indian
River County, which is demanded by new growth in the County.
Since transportation is not confined to political boundaries, the
program should be consistently implemented.. The City of
Fellsmere's participation is very important.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the County Commission reaffirm the County's
position that a County -wide; -Traffic Impact Fee Program be imple-
mented and that roadway capacity improvements be selected based
upon their technical merit through the Transportation Planning
Committee.
v rt
- 3 '�
BOOK FO 8 FADE 9.81
Director Davis wished to concentrate on 5 major points:
1) Definition of Traffic Impact Fee -- a fee used by local
government and charged to new development only. It is used to
generate revenues for funding of capital projects necessitated by
the new development that occurs in the community.
2) Use of Traffic Impact Fees -- There are 3 tests that have to
be met in order to use traffic impact fees for a particular
project:
A) New development must demand the new capital project.
For instance, if a new development comes in that adds
enough traffic to necessitate the widening of CR -512,
the impact fees can be used for that improvement. The
fees cannot be used for maintenance or resurfacing an
existing street.
B) There needs to be a connection between the new
development and the capital facility that is being built
with the money. That new development must demand that
the road be widened.
C) The benefit must accrue to the new development. In
other words, that road widening project must benefit the
new development, whether it is a single-family house or
a commercial development.
3) Alternatives to Impact Fees --
A) Increase gas taxes, but, unfortunately, the County
doesn't have total control over gas taxes. Basically,
the State dictates how much we can charge. At present
the County has the ability to levy 7 cents a gallon, but
is charging only 6 cents a gallon, so that alternative
is almost exhausted.
4
M
M
B) Increase property taxes to widen roads, but that is a
very unpopular alternative at this time. Civic groups
want new growth to pay for itself.
C) Establish toll roads, but that is a very laborious
process in Florida, and -the alternative is not there in
a practical sense.
D) Assessments on property. If we were to widen CR -512,'
the County could define a benefited area on each side of.
the road and could assess the cost of widening the road
to everybody in the area. However, that really isn't
fair to the residents who have been here for years and
years who paid for the existing road.
In looking at all the alternatives, Indian River County, as
well as many other counties in Florida, feels that the impact fee
is the most equitable way to pay for road widening.
Felismere Impact Fee Projects
One of the projects that has been in the County's 20 -year
plan since about 1985 is the capacity expansion of CR -507, which
basically goes through the heart of the Felismere community.
That project would involve the widening of a 3-1/2 mile stretch
of road. As the community develops, the first project that we
foresee is improvements to CR -507, particularly at the
intersection of CR -512. CR -507 and CR -512 probably are the roads
that would be stressed the soonest and would require either
left-hand turn lanes or lane widening as well as signalization.
So we have projects in the County's 20 -year plan to address the
future road network in the Felismere area. That plan was
developed by the County staff working with the Transportation
Planning Committee (TPC), which was established in the 1980s to
address road issues in the county. Councilman Brooks is
Fellsmere's representative on that committee and he has
faithfully attended the meetings. The TPC listens to*the issues
5
ROOK rlr� Fr1�C
WX41 'J _ + BOOK .78 f'A.Ijc e)
that deal with transportation and after considering those issues,
pass their recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners.
In the case of the CR -507 project and many other projects, the
Board has been very receptive to the indications from the TPC as
to what projects could be implemented with the traffic impact fee
funds.
Fee Schedule For New Land Development Activity ►'
V
'A
z
Type of Land-
District
Fee Schedule For New Land Development Activity
District
District
District
District
a
b
District
District
°
Development Activity
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
A
e
Type of Land
District
District
District
District
District
District
District
District
District
Development Activity
I
II
/II
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
$ 255.00
g
Residential•
369.00
345.00
283.00
255.00
385.00
308.00
149.00
219.00
282.00
Concrete plant
(per acre)
Sing1wfamily
(per unit)
$1,450.00
$1,355.00 $1,113.00 $1,000.00
$1,513.00 $1,211.00
$ 587.00
$ 860.00 $1,110.00
431.00
632.00
Multi -family
(per unit)
835.00
780.00
640.00
576.00
' 871.00
697.00
338.00
495.00
639.00
81.00
105.00
Mobile homes
(per unit)
781.00
730.00
599.00
539.00
S1b.00
0625
0
C7
Up to 10,000 gsf
(per 1,000 gst)
Hotel (per bedroom)
1,276.00
1,19200
979.00
880.00
1,331.00
1,
1,248.00
516.00
605.00
766.00
886.00
976 00
1.143.00
m
1,743.00
Motel (per bedroom)
1,494.00
1.396.00
1,146.00
1,031.00
1,659.00
1,033.00
1,333.00
50,001 to 100,000 gsf
(per 1,000 gsf)
z
z
w
Nursing homeC7
422.00
395.00
324.00
291.00
441.00
353.00
171.00
250.00
323.00
tz
1,733.00
(per bed)
2.356.00
1,886.00
914.00
1,339.00
1,728.00
200,001 and over
(per 1,000 gsf)
2,566.00
2,398.00
1,969.00
1,770.00
2,677.E
2,143.00
1,038.00
1,521.00
,1,964.00
Gas stations
(per fuel pump)
2,447.00
2,287.00
1,877.00
1,688.00
2,553.00
Ofl`loe and Finoae -
990.00
1,451.00
1,873.00
Used car sales
(per acre)
5,010.00
4,682.00
3,844.00
3,456.00
5,227.00
4,183.00
Medical office
(per I.= gz0
2,786.00
2,576.00
2,115.00
1,901.00
2,876.00
2,301.00
1,115.00
1,634.00
2.109.00
Banidfinancial office
(per 11000 gsf)
6,310.00
5,896.00
4,841.00
4,35200
6,583.00
5,268.00
2,653.00
3,?40.00
4,828.00
Bank financial
i
(w/driveive-n)
(per
Other
9,670.00
9,036.00
7,418.00
6,669.00
10,088.00
8,074.00
3,912.00
5,732.00
7.399.00
office
up to 10,000 gef
(per 1,000 900
1,968.00
1,839.00
1,609.00
1,367.00
2,053.00
1,643.00
796.00
1,168.00
1,506.00
Other office
b
over 10,000 gsf
(per 1,0, 0 gsf)
1,316.00
1,229.00
1,009.00
907.00
1,373.00
1,099.00
532.00
780.00
1,007.00
�
Fee Schedule For New Land Development Activity ►'
V
'A
z
Type of Land-
District
District
District
District
District
District
District
District
District
°
Development Activity
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
Vlll
IX
0
Industrial•
Warehouse
(per 1,000 gsf)
$ 334.00
$ 312.00
$ 256.00
$ 230.00
$ 348.00
$ 278.00
$135.00
$198.00
$ 255.00
General industrial
(per 11000 gsfl
369.00
345.00
283.00
255.00
385.00
308.00
149.00
219.00
282.00
Concrete plant
(per acre)
1,066.00
996.00
818.00
735.00
1,112.00
890.00
431.00
632.00
816.00
Sand mining
(per acre)
137.00
128.00
105.00
94.00
143.00
114.00
65.00
81.00
105.00
so__..-<
� Retail• •.
Up to 10,000 gsf
(per 1,000 gst)
3,061.00
2,860.00
2,348.00
2,111.00
3,193.E
2,556.00
1,238.00
1,814.00
2.342.00
10,001 to 50,000 gsf
(per 1,000 gsf)
1,743.00
1,628.00
1,337.00
1,202.00
1,818.00
1,455.00
705.00
1,033.00
1,333.00
50,001 to 100,000 gsf
(per 1,000 gsf)
2,023.00
1,891.00
1,552.00
1,395.00
2,111.00
1,689.00
819.00
1,199.00
1546.00
100,001 to 200,000 gsf
(per 1,000 980
2,258.00
2,110.00
1,733.00
1,558.00
2.356.00
1,886.00
914.00
1,339.00
1,728.00
200,001 and over
(per 1,000 gsf)
2,566.00
2,398.00
1,969.00
1,770.00
2,677.E
2,143.00
1,038.00
1,521.00
,1,964.00
Gas stations
(per fuel pump)
2,447.00
2,287.00
1,877.00
1,688.00
2,553.00
2,043.00
990.00
1,451.00
1,873.00
Used car sales
(per acre)
5,010.00
4,682.00
3,844.00
3,456.00
5,227.00
4,183.00
2,027.00
2,970.00
3,834.00
6
8
W
r
g
W
M M
Fee Schedule For New Land Development Activity
Type of Land
Development Activity
District
I
District
District
District
District
District
District
District
District
II
111
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
Retail (coned)
Restaurant
(per 1,000 gan
$ 3,697.00
$ 3,454.00
$ 2,836.00
$ 2,550.00
$ 3,856.00
$ 3,086.00
$1,496.00
S 2;191.00
$2,829.00
Fast food restaurant
$1,?70.00
(Pm' 1.000 gal)
Church (per 1,000 getl
70200
599.00
656.00
560.00
539.00
460.00
(per 11000 gsfl
Convenience store
5,226.00
4,883.00
4,009.00
3,604.00
5,452.00
4,363.00
2,114.00
3,098.00
3,999.00
(per 1,000 990
7,286.00
6,809.00
5,590.00
5,026.00
7,602.00
6,084.00
2,948.00
4,319.00
5,575.00
Recreationak
General recreational
(per parking space)
Golf course
294.00
275.00
226.00
203.00
307.00
246.00
119.00
174.00
225.00
(per Parking space)
Racquet club
626.00
585,00
481.00
432.00
653.00
523.00
253.00
371.00
479.00
,
(per 1.000 PF)
County park
11509.00
1,410.00
1,158.00
1,041.00
1,574.00
1,260.00
610.00
894.00
1,155.00
(per parking space)
199.00
186.00
153.00
137.00
208.00
166.00
81.00
118.00
153.00
Governmental
Post office
(per 1,000 gsfl
Library
2,880.00
2,691.00
2,209.00
1,986.00
3,004.00
2,405.00
1,165.00
1,707.00
2,204.00
(Per 1,000 g9t)
Office building
3,630.00
3,392.00
2,785.00
2,504.00
3,787.00
3,031.00
1,469.00
2,152.00
2,778.00
(Pei' 1.000 gsf)
Jail (per bed)
5,558.00
5,194.00
4,264.00
3,834.00
5,799.00
4,641.00
2,249.00
3,295.00
4,253.00
98.00
91.00
75.00
67.00
102.00
81.00
39.00
58.00
75.00
Fee Schedule For New Land Development Activity
Type of Land
Development Activity
District
1
District
II
District
District
District
District
District
District
District
sh
Ill
IV
V
VI
VII
Vlll
jx
Miscellaneous
Day child care center
(per 1.000 gaff
$ 2,313.00 $ 2,161.00 $1,774.00
$
1,595.00 $ 2,413.00 $1,931.00
$ 936.00 $1,371.00
Hospital
$1,?70.00
(Pm' 1.000 gal)
Church (per 1,000 getl
70200
599.00
656.00
560.00
539.00
460.00
484.00
733.00
586.00
284.00
416.00
537.00
413.00
625.00
500.00
242.00
355.00
459.00
Director Davis emphasized that all the money collected in
District 7 will be spent on road improvements in District 7. The
impact fees vary depending on the land use. A single-family home
is $587, whereas a commercial facility is charged a higher impact
fee. Different kinds of land uses have a different fee schedule
because certain kinds of development either generate or attract
more traffic than others. A formula was established by various
numbers of economists, engineers, and attorneys, to predicate
these impact fees, and Director Davis recalled that he had gone
over that formula very thoroughly back in October when he met
with the City Council.
Commissioner Scurlock asked how much money is in the
Felismere impact fee escrow account at the present time, and
7
0
46
z,
O
O
C
74
L�UUK 78
Director Davis advised that there is approximately $59,000 in the
District 7 account that has been collected since the inception of
the impact fee program back in March, 1985. Although District 7
is one of the largest districts, it has the lowest amount of fees
collected, since other areas in the county have populated much
faster than this area. Approximately $50,000 of that $59,000 has
been generated from the unincorporated areas, which include areas
such as Vero Lakes Estates, which has 9,000 platted lots and is
developing a little quicker than the Fellsmere area.
Councilman Mraz asked how much it would cost to widen the
3-1/2 mile stretch from CR -507 to CR -512, and Director Davis
advised that $1.7 million has been set aside in the program for
the widening and improving of rural areas, such as Fellsmere.
Councilman Mraz didn't quite understand where the $1.7
million is coming from, and Director Davis explained that
basically that amount is set aside from the impact fee program
and the gas tax revenues, but only $59,000 has been collected so
far.
Councilman Mraz realized that the $59,000 is a far cry from
the $1.7 million and that it will take some time to collect the
kind of revenue that will be needed to do the continuation of
Babcock Street. With regard to the intersection of CR -507 and
CR -512, he.has not seen any traffic problems as far as
bottlenecks, etc. He felt there might be a potential problem at
the intersection of CR -512 and Willow Street, but he wasn't quite
sure that the extension of CR -507 to CR -512 is necessary.
Director Davis explained that the 20 -year plan is reviewed
every two years to see where the growth is occurring, and through
'the TPC, the plan is revised as needed. The County monitors
CR -50 -7 -and CR -512, and if priorities change, recommendations are
taken to the Board of County Commissioners and the plan is
changed.
0
r
Commissioner Scurlock explained very briefly the concurrency
requirements for new development that are in the new
Comprehensive Land Use Plan with regard to infrastructure, which
is roads, stormwater drainage, water and sewer.
Mayor Hurst agreed with Commissioner Scurlock that the key
word here is concurrency, and Commissioner Scurlock pointed out
that there is a moratorium on new development in west Martin
County because they do not have the infrastructure. Fellsmere is
far from that, however, because they are not nearing capacity on
their roads. Commissioner Scurlock emphasized that the County
has adopted a uniform approach in the collection of impact fees
throughout the county, and the County does not waive the impact
fee even for itself. The County has paid road, water and sewer
impact fees for the new Jail and the new libraries.
Councilman Brooks referred to the following letter written
by Assistant County Attorney William Collins to former Mayor
Turner:
�
AN rf 00K. ��.Gt
FF,-
+moi
8 F,tin 98 r,
QpTR BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Telephone: (305) 567-8000
Suncom:224-1425
April 18, 1988
Mayor Marion Turner
P.O. Box 38
Fellsmere, FL 32958
Re: Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance
Dear Mayor Turner:
CHARLES P. MUNAL.
CawidAfanq
WILLIAM G. COLLINS 11
AnL Cower Allwmr
SHARON PHILLIPS BRENNAN
AnL Goudr AUO nwr
You indicated to me in our phone conversation of last
Friday that the Town of Fellsmere had resolved some months
ago not to collect traffic impact fees for the County under
the County's °Fair Share Roadway Improvements Ordinance.°
This ordinance.assesses an impact fee on all new development
within the County in order to establish a fund for needed
capital improvements to the Collector Roadway System which
the County Ps -responsible for providing. The Collector
Roadway System Includes roads that connect Fellsmere with
the rest of -the County as well as main transportation
corridors through Fellsmere which are the responsibiJity.of
the County as°.part of -the County road system.
This ordinance is ibpllcabie to development within the
town of Fellsmere as long as it does not conflict with a
municipal ordinance. (See Florida Constitution, Article
Vill, Section 1(f)). 1 take this to mean that Fellsmere
should pass an ordinance opting out of the County's Fair
Share Roadway Improvements Ordinance, if it does not wish to.
-"= collect impact fees. I understand from our conversation
s=:�.... that the Town perceives street paving to be the real need in
Fellsmere, and County impact fees don't address that need.
You also expressed concern for a negative effect. on low
income housing projects, in the Town.
The purpose of this letter .,is to alert you to the
effect of the Town of Fellsmere opting out of the- County
wide ordinance. I understand that there may be some feeling
that impact fees collected by the City should be spent on
City projects. You may be aware that court cases allow
Impact fees to be spent only on new Capital Improvement
Projects such as new roadways and expanded capacity_for old
roadways that are required by the new growth which is being
assessed the impact fee. Impact fee funds,can not be used
_ for maintenance and operation purposes which are funded
through ad valorem revenues. If Fellsmere Intends to setup
Its own impact fee system, it should be aware of this
limitation on the expenditure of those funds. Unless street
paving could be tied to needed capacity expansion on unpaved
roads related to new development, it is unlikely that
"traffic impact fees collected by the Town could be spent to
pave dirt roads. The Town should also be aware that the
funds the County collects in the Feilsmere.area are budgeted
for expenditure within six (6) years on the collector road
system in the Fellsmere area, including collector roads
which transect the town. The effect of opting out of the
county wide ordinance would be to reduce the funds available
..to provide needed improvements to the capacity of county
collector roads in the Fellsmere area.
The County would offer to make ourselves available to
discuss with you and any Town officials the Impact Fee
situation as it relates to Fellsmere.
Yours truly,
Ll C61-1
William G. Collins 11
Assistant County Attorney
10
Councilman Brooks understood that the second paragraph in
Attorney Collins' letter means that if Fellsmere doesn't go along
and refuses to pass the impact fee program, they cannot expect
any improvements to CR -507. He asked if that is correct.
Director Davis confirmed -that to be correct, and explained
that Attorney Collins wrote this letter when Fellsmere stopped
collecting the impact fees without adopting a resolution or
enacting an ordinance. The County's Fair Share Roadway
Improvements Ordinance was written to be inclusive of all the
municipalities unless the municipality opted out by the adoption
of an ordinance.
Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that the County is
collecting for more than just the incorporated area of District
7. In fact, most of the money is coming from the unincorporated
portion, so it is not really fair to say that no improvement will
take place on CR -507 because it may be needed for the
unincorporated area of the district. That is the dilemma here
to see that everybody pays their fair share.
Attorney Tsamoutales asked if anyone has calculated the
amount of fees that would have been collected since Fellsmere
stopped collecting the fees, and Director Davis explained that
$9,000 had been collected from the incorporated area over the
12-16 month, and if the fees had been collected at that steady
pace, you can figure about $7,500 a year.
Councilman Brooks asked for further explanation on how
CR -507 could be widened since it goes through an already
developed area, and Director Davis advised that in looking at how
we can spend the impact fees, we have to look at roads that
benefit most of the area. Roads like CR -507 and CR -512 benefit
the whole area because most of the residents in that district
travel from Willow Street onto CR -512. So we designate only
collector roads and arterial roads for impact fee use because
most of the new development use those roads in one way or
another.
BOOK.
k `2 J99U
_AO
.JI
Commissioner Bird hoped
that we would not -get too
hung
up on
f
improvements to CR -507, because that priority could change if
significant development occurs elsewhere. For now, however, that
is where the TPC has determined where the need is. We are
talking about $1.7 million in improvements with only $59,000 in
the fund now, so we have plenty of time to study how the area is
developing before enough money is going to be in the bank to make
any improvements. He encouraged the Council to begin collecting
the impact fees now and work very closely with the TPC to make
sure that Fellsmere's priorities are set the way they feel they
should be. Commissioner Bird emphasized that the impact fees are
working in the rest of the county, and he believed they would
work in Fellsmere as well, but we need the cooperation of the
City of Fellsmere to collect its fair share of the impact fee.
A gentleman from the audience asked what the impact fee
would be on a mobile home, and Administrator Chandler advised
that it would be $316.
Councilwoman Lu Cosner hoped that there would be some way
that the County would not expect Fellsmere to go back and collect
the fees for the past two years.
Commissioner Scurlock felt, as one Commissioner, that he
would support the County just totalling those fees at $9,000 and
just start the program back up and not worry about what wasn't
collected. He believed we should just get this thing back on the
road, and start building up the funds.
Commissioner Bird felt believed it would be virtually
impossible to go back now and try to collect them retroactively.
'He agreed that we should start over from scratch and be
consi-stent in the future.
Councilman Mraz stated that based on the discussion tonight,
he felt satisfied that the roads seem to be sufficient at this
time to handle the present population. However, he pointed out
that the same thing could occur here that occurred in St. Cloud,
12
M M
and on those grounds, he felt it would be a good idea to go ahead
and adopt, or look into, going to an impact fee system.
Commissioner Wheeler asked the County Attorney what position
that would put the County in with regard to the other districts
by not retroactively collecting from the people who pulled --
building permits during the last two years.
Attorney Vitunac explained that the County could always
collect the money, or try to collect it, directly from the people.
who pulled those building permits, but the County would not be
taking any action against the City of Fellsmere. There is a
legal issue at stake here, which he discussed with City Attorney
Tsamoutales, but he believed that we could consider this a
settlement of disputable legal issue, and then in return for
giving up what is past, we would start on the program the way it
should have been from the beginning. He didn't feel it would be
a precedent that would hurt us with the other districts.
Councilman Brooks understood that if the Council votes to
start collecting the impact fees again, it would take effect as
of the date it was voted in and there would be no back payment.
Attorney Vitunac confirmed that would be correct, if the
County Commission agreed. The County Commission has the option
of going after the individual home owners who have pulled
building permits during the last couple of years.
Commissioner Wheeler understood that we would settle with
the City, but we would still have the option of collecting from
the home owners.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that he would not support that
option.
l
13 BOOK N� "IE.
L- 0�a W� (--JI i ITAII
''SAN � 1 19` 0
C�R'
f,r,
i� ®V .U�i
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, that the Board agree that if
the City of Fellsmere opts back into the road impact
fee program, the County would forego any rights to the
monies that were not collected over the past 11-2
years, and that the Fellsmere City Council would begin
collecting the fees and convey them to the County as
stated in the ordinance.
Under discussion, Commissioner Wheeler stated that he would
like to support the part of the Motion that is for Fellsmere, but
was reluctant to support the part of the Motion that precludes
the County from collecting from individuals.
Commissioner Scurlock felt it would be very difficult to go
to those young families and try to collect $547, but Commissioner
Wheeler interjected that we really don't know who should have
paid these impact fees these past few years.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was
voted on and carried unanimously.
Councilman Brooks wanted to clarify a situation before the
Council votes to go along with this impact fee collection. He
explained that the City has a municipal block grant for the
Carter Hall Subdivision to clear some sub -standard homes and
possibly bring in mobile homes in their place. He asked if it
would be required in such a situation to impose an impact fee for
Pt -hat mobile home.
Attorney Vitunac advised that an impact fee would not have
to be charged if the mobile home replaced an existing home, and
Director Davis explained that is not the purpose of the program.
If you tore those homes down and built a public shopping center,
then you have generated new impact. If you tear down a single -
14
family unit and put up a single-family unit, then there is no
increase to the traffic system.
Councilman Green was trying to figure out how $1.7 million
could be collected in 6 years, and Director Davis explained that
it really couldn't be collected in 6 years unless Fellsmere
experiences a tremendous growth spurt. If that growth didn't
happen, we might do just a piece of the $1.7 million project.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that Councilman Green's point
raises the question that if there isn't an ability by the
Commission to extend the period beyond 6 years, how are you ever
going to generate $1.7 million to do one of the larger projects.
Director Davis advised that you would break the big project
into smaller sections.
Councilman Mraz felt that what Commissioner Green was
suggesting is that if the accumulated funds do not reach $1.7
million, you would do as much as you could do and then possibly
float a bond.
Councilman Brooks noted that these funds are constantly
changing as you collect more fees, and he didn't understand how
you can cap it at 6 years. He asked when the 6 years begin.
Director Davis explained if you came in today and paid your
impact fee, the County would have 6 years to spend the money you
paid. If in 6 years we did not spend the money you paid, you
would have the right to come back and ask for it back. However,
you would have to come in and ask for it, and the County has to
show you that we have spent the money, but we have a very
sophisticated tracking system.
A gentleman from the audience asked if the City of Fellsmere
returning to the County's impact fee program would prohibit the
City from having its.own impact fee.
Attorney Vitunac advised that it would not, but the problem
is that even if the City adopts its own impact fee, it cannot use
that money to pave dirt roads.
15
m 3® BOCK l ® F,1E ti
F.
J aco F.1u m=,
Councilman Green understood that it could be used on the
roads in the City that are designated as collector roads in the
Comprehensive Plan, and Director Davis emphasized that they must
be designated as collector roadwork and approved through the
Transportation Planning Committee and the Board of County
Commissioners in order to be put on the program.
Commissioner Bird noted that one question that may come up
when the City starts collecting these fees is when someone moves
out of their house and builds a new house on the lot next door,
and the City wants to collect $547 from them. It is very likely
that they will say that they haven't added anything and that they
just moved next door. The theory is, however, that they have
created a new housing unit that someone is going to move into.
Mayor Hurst agreed that it certainly would be an additional
unit because he doubted that the property owner would leave the
original house vacant.
Councilman Thomas felt that while this impact fee may be
creating a hardship on young families and people who are less
fortunate in this area, but the fact is that we cannot
discriminate. If one pays, everyone pays. He felt that his
questions had been pretty well answered.
There being no further questions, Mayor Hurst announced that
the Chairman would entertain a Motion that the City of Fellsmere
re-enter the impact fee program.
ON MOTION by Councilman Brooks, SECONDED by
Councilwoman Cosner, the Council unanimously
agreed that the City of Felismere would re-enter
into the impact fee program.
16
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Council adjourned the meeting at 8:30
o'clock P.M.
ATTEST:
M
Clerk
ha1rman
JAN 2 2 1990 17
'JG 7 E
L --