Columbia County BOARD of COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

Transcription

1 Columbia County BOARD of COUNTY COMMISSIONERS The Board of County Commissioner met in a scheduled workshop on September 13, 2007 in the School Board Administration Building at 2:00 p.m. Commissioners in Attendance: Others in Attendance: Ronald Williams District 1 Dale Williams, County Manager Dewey Weaver District 2 P. DeWitt Cason, Clerk of Circuit Courts George Skinner District 3 Sandy Markham, Deputy Clerk Stephen Bailey District 4 Lisa Roberts, Asst. County Manager Elizabeth Porter District 5 Christie Carrie, Special Legal Counsel The purpose of the workshop is to give the commissioners an opportunity to ask questions, and to consider possible revisions and exemptions relating to the impact fee ordinances. The Board will also attempt to reach a consensus as to what will be presented to the public as a total ordinance package at the public hearing on September 20, Attorney Christie Carrie of Nabors, Giblin & Associates reviewed with the Board the draft Comprehensive Impact Fee Ordinance and the draft Educational Facility Impact Fee Ordinance. She explained the drafts provide for the standard, basic exemption provisions as is outlined in Florida Statutes. Standard Exemptions Homes being expanded and homes that are being rebuilt after disaster shall be exempt from paying the fees. There are no fees assessed for constructing government buildings. Optional Exemption - Affordable Housing Commissioners Williams, Bailey and Skinner were not inclined to approve any exemptions other than those required by Florida Statutes. Commissioner Weaver said that he may be interested in exemptions, but only on a case-by-case basis. Attorney Carrie said it would be problematic to grant exemptions on a case-by-case basis and that there should be minimum standards that would apply across the Board equally to everyone. This will assist in preventing equal protection challenges. Since this is the County s first experience with impact fees she suggested the Board implement the bare standards. Should it become necessary, exemptions can be explored further and implemented at a later date. Optional Exemption Economic Development Commissioner Weaver said that impact fees must be paid (by someone) when a building is built; Exempting industry from impact fees would only put the burden of paying an industry s impact fee onto the backs of the taxpayers. He said that with the budget cuts facing the county next year, it could be very difficult for the county and its residents to take on the burden of paying fees for an industry. Commissioner Williams would like to see some type of exemption for industry. He said the flip side of Commissioner Weaver s scenario is that waiving impact fees for industry may create higher paying jobs, and those making good money will build houses and eventually pay taxes.

2 County Manager Williams asked if there was anything that would preclude the county from paying impact fees for an industry as part of an incentive package, and if the ordinance could be drafted with the appropriate language to allow this. Attorney Carrie responded the county may not do anything that is not expressly authorized in the ordinance. The ordinance does provide that the county may negotiate with a new developer, which could become an employer, regarding contributions made as far as road improvements and items being credited against their applicable impact fees. However to pay impact fees on an industry s behalf, it must be authorized in the ordinance to ensure it is applied equally. The County Manager asked if the ordinance could be drafted to say the county may pay an industry s impact fees if it is in the County s best interest. Attorney Carrie responded an option would be to have the criteria for the general program apply to typical employers. She pointed out the language does include a statement that if a business is coming into the County that is definitely going to far exceed the written criteria that the county can decrease the amount of waiver they receive. In essence, the impact fee could be entirely waived. Attorney Feagle noted there is a state statute that addresses economic incentives for new businesses or expansion of existing businesses. Mr. Feagle said that perhaps he and Attorney Carrie could explore the possibility of tying this to the ordinance, and stating that this will not preclude the county from paying the impact fee as part of that statute. She said that another option to consider is placing a cap on the maximum dollar amount granted per year to ensure the County does not spend more than it is benefiting. Attorney Carrie will make an effort to have this language in the ordinance by next week. Optional Exemption Annual Indexing The impact fee study has been performed within the last eighteen months. The costs provided were based on the year The costs taken into consideration in creating the proposed impact fees are already lower than what they would be if the study were done today, because of the increase in construction cost, land value increases, etc. The ordinance requires the studies and ordinance be updated every three years. During those intervening years costs will continue to escalate making it entirely possible that the county may not have sufficient funds needed to build a facility. In order to keep up with the cost, annual indexing of the fees were suggested. Each year, fees would increase by some index and would be set by the passing of a resolution. It was suggested the Construction Cost Index from the Engineering Records Report be used to calculate this increase. Commissioner Weaver is in favor of adjusting the percentage every three years. Commissioners Bailey, Williams, and Skinner are in favor of an annual increase based on the Construction Cost Index. Optional Exemption Deferred Payment This is an option for large commercial developments whose impact fees are going to exceed a threshold of a certain dollar amount pre-determined by the County. In this case, the developer would have the option of applying to the county to get an approval to pay the impact fee, plus interest, over a five year period. The Board discussed that tracking payments, applying, attempting to collect payments, etc. would create an administrative burden on staff. Commissioner Williams, Bailey, Skinner opposed the option. Impact fees can be included in the financing.

3 Fee Amounts The Board was satisfied with the proposed fee amounts for fire, EMS, roads, and corrections impact fees. There was then discussion as to what fee should be implemented for the School Board. A copy of the School Board s resolution was provided to the Board laying out their proposed fee schedule. The School Board s suggestion was that the fee be established at a beginning rate of $1,500 for a single family home. Then with an incremental increase of $500 per year for the next five years. The fee would be $3,500 in the fifth year. Commissioners Weaver and Williams were not initially in favor of the $500 increments. There commissioners discussed: Whether or not the initial amount, and the yearly increase request is excessive If the increases should be done by index or cost of living increases Setting the same yearly (percentage) increase for the school as for the county Establishing an average increase between the school and the county The housing market is in a slump, high increases may hinder the local market The annual index occurs in years the study is not being updated Members of the school system, Mike Null, Charles Maxwell and Mike Millikan offered the following information to be considered: The School District s technical report provided a maximum impact fee rate of $6,439. It is based on the per station student cost for constructing schools A School Board decision was made to recommend approximately half of that amount ($3,500) Another decision was made to begin with a rate similar to the County s proposed rate ($1,500) With a yearly incremental increase of $500 per year, the School System will not have reached (in five years) the maximum amount allowable today Twenty-nine school districts in Florida have implemented impact fees. Those fees range from $1,300 to $11,000 for single family dwellings. The requested $1,500 rate is tied with Baker County for the second lowest rate in the state of Florida. Baker County implemented the $1,500 rate 3 years ago. The average impact fee in Florida for single family dwelling units is now over $4,000 The School System intentionally set the amount lower with hopes of slowly phasing in the shock of the fee to the residents and to the housing market. The growth in the county is putting a major financial burden on the school system Another factor considered by the school was that in another year the school system and the county will both be addressing concurrency as it relates to concurrency for school facilities. Attorney Carrie added that statistically, studies have proven that impact fees do not hamper growth. On the contrary, impact fee actually assist the local economy.

4 Citizen Stewart Lilker was in favor of setting the school s impact fee rate at $3,500 to begin with. To emphasize how the growth impacts the county he used free lunches as an example. Over half (63%) of the students in Columbia County are receiving free or reduced lunches. He stressed growth pays for growth and the cost of growth should not be placed on the back of the county. The educational process will be hindered if sufficient impact fees are not established. Mr. Lilker said he could not imagine why a person who is able to pay $500,000 for a home would have a problem paying $3,500. Commissioner Weaver pointed out that the majority of homes being built are much lower than $500,000 and that many mobile homes are being sold for $10,000-$15,000. He said that the lower income residents also have to pay the established fees. Mr. Lilker responded that perhaps then, figuring the impact fees on square footage would be more appropriate. There was eventually a consensus that the fee should be set at $1,500 and give incremental increases of $500 per year until reaching a fee of $3,500. County Manager Williams said that from a staff prospective, it will be better to begin collections in January 2008, with the first review being in June Then the newly adopted amount would begin being collected in October This would put the School Board nine months behind on their collection schedule and would put them behind in reaching their goal of $3,500. The School System did not have a problem with the delay. The commissioners were in agreement that this would be acceptable. Attorney Feagle mention the ordinance indicates collection of the fees at the issuance of permits and it is his understanding the Commission prefers collection when the Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Attorney Carrie replied the ordinance can be changed to reflect collection at the time the Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Travel Trailers/RVs with temporary permits will not pay impact fees. The impact fee adjustments will be folded into the normal budget process. Interlocal agreements will be negotiated with the City of Lake City and the Columbia County School Board regarding impact fees. No fees will be collected in the City for fire or roads. Attorney Carrie asked if there was a consensus to change the ordinance to read the fees will be collected at the time the Certificate of Occupancy is issued. The Board indicated agreement through the nodding of heads. Citizen Stew Lilker asked Attorney Carrie how many counties in Florida collect their fees when the Certificate of Occupancy is issued, opposed to collecting them when the permit is pulled. She responded that the majority of collection is at the time the permit is issued, but there is valid arguments for both. Many governments elect certificate of occupancy, because at that time they can be certain the structure is actually built. Permits being pulled and not being built becomes an administrative issue, because a refund would be required. The majority believe you shouldn t condition issuance of the certificate of occupancy on anything other than compliance with the codes. Mr. Lilker suggested the Board collect fees when permits are issued and stated he heard no rational reasons for the county to fund impact fees until the Certificate of Occupancy is issued and lose money on the interest. The County Manager said he believes the original reason the County began considering collection at the time the Certificate of Occupancy is issued is because if paid when a permit is issued, the fees would likely be paid by the contractor or developers. Another argument could be that the home owner

5 is creating the impact and they should be the person(s) to pay the fees. He invited Mr. Lilker to attend the meeting on September 20 th to voice his opinions. Mr. Mike Null said from the schools prospective, the actual impact is upon occupancy. For that reason, the school is in favor of collecting fees when the certificate of occupancy is issued. The workshop adjourned at 3:30 p.m. ATTEST: P. DeWitt Cason Clerk of Circuit Court Board of County Commissioners