JOINT MEETING AGENDA

JOINT MEETING AGENDA CITY OF STUART MARTIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MARTIN COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT Tuesday, January 24, 2016 9:00 A.M. John F. Armstrong Wing, Blake Library 2351 SE Monterey Road, Stuart 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance Tina McSoley, Chair, Martin County School Board 2. Introductions and Opening Comments Eula Clarke, Mayor, City of Stuart Doug Smith, Chairman, Martin County BOCC Tina McSoley, Chair, Martin County School Board 3. Public Comments 4. Interlocal Agreement Required Items County Capital Improvement Program o George Dzama, Capital Projects Manager, Martin County BOCC County and City Large-scale Development Projects o Samantha Lovelady, Principal Planner, Martin County BOCC 5. Discussion on Impact Fees Samantha Lovelady, Principal Planner, Martin County BOCC Nicki VanVonno, Growth Management Department Director, Martin County BOCC 6. Controlled Open Enrollment-Choice Presentation Ginger Featherstone, Deputy Superintendent, MCSD Garret Grabowski, Director of Facilities, MCSD Kimberly Everman, Capital Projects Planning Specialist, MCSD 7. Martin County School District Legislative Priorities Tina McSoley, Chair, MCSD 8. Open to the Board(s) 9. Adjournment

January 24, 2017

Pinecrest Lakes Ph. 1 Heritage Ridge Estates Northwood Neighborhood Heritage Ridge Completed Nov. 2016 Completed Dec. 2016 Completed Jan. 2017 Northwood Neighborhood

St. Lucie Shores/ Palm City Gardens North River Shores Palm City Farms Southwood Neighborhood Jensen Park Estates Jensen Park Estates Pipe Replacement Pictured in Background

Golden Gate Neighborhood Fisherman s Cove Hobe Heights / East Ridge Estates Vista Salerno Pinecrest Lakes - Ph. 2 Poinciana Gardens Ph. 2 Golden Gate Neighborhood Aerial Pictured in Background

Salerno Sewer Enhancement A1A Service Road Banner Lake Improvements Lares Flood Control Const. Started Aug. 2016 Const. Started Nov. 2016 Const. to Start Jan. 2017 Const. to Start March 2017 Salerno Sewer Project A1A Service Road Project

CR 714 CR 609 Bridge Road (SR-76 to Pratt) Goldenrod/Westmoreland Farm Road Seabranch Blvd. Mapp Road Ocean Breeze - Water Quality & Roadway Improvements Completed Sept. 2016 Start November 2016 Start January 2017 Start March 2017 Start May 2017 Start April 2017 Start April 2017 CR714-CR609 Before & After

Boatramp Ave Bridge Britt Road Bridge Warner Creek Culvert Cove Rd. Box Culvert Dixie Hwy Box Culvert Murphy Road Bridge Complete Jan. 2017 Start March 2017 Start November 2016 Design Start Dec. 2016 Design Start Dec. 2016 Programmed for FY20 Boatramp Ave Bridge Before & After

Baker Road Improvements Dixie Hwy CR707 Sidewalk Kindred St. / Johnson Ave. Improvements Port Salerno Sidewalks (Safe Route to Schools) Completed July 2016 Completed Oct. 2016 FY17 Construction FY17 Design Phase & FY19 Construction Dixie Hwy CR 707 Sidewalk Pictured in Background

Growth and Development Trends January 2017 Martin County Growth Management Department Nicki van Vonno, AICP Director Samantha Lovelady, AICP Principal Planner City of Stuart Development Department Terry O Neil Development Director Martin County Growth Management Department 2401 SE Monterey Road Stuart, FL 34996 772-288-5495 www.martin.fl.us 1

Growth and Development Trend Report For the Martin County School Board The Interlocal Agreement for School Facility Planning was approved by the City of Stuart, the School Board of Martin County, and the Martin County Board of County Commissioners at a joint meeting on November 17, 2003, and updated on March 11, 2008. It requires that the County and City provide the School Board with an annual report on growth and development trends within their jurisdiction. The report is to include: 1. the type, number, and location of residential units which have received zoning or site plan approval; 2. information regarding future land use map amendments which may have an impact on school facilities; 3. building permits issued for the preceding year and their location; 4. information regarding the conversion or redevelopment of housing or other structures into residential units which are likely to generate new students; 5. information regarding the conversion of residential units or properties into nonresidential uses; 6. the identification of any development orders issued which contain a requirement for the provision of a school site as a condition of development approval; 7. the identification of any lapsed development orders issued which permitted residential units; and 8. population projections apportioned geographically per CSA as described in Section 6.4.1 of the Agreement. Section I of this report provides the information required in Section 2.4.3 of the Interlocal Agreement. Section II provides additional information. City of Stuart information has been added where appropriate. Electronic data files are provided separately to the School Board Capital Projects Planning Specialist. Except where noted, data in this report is produced by the Martin County Growth Management Department and the City of Stuart Planning Division. Inquiries should be directed to the Martin County Growth Management Department.

Section I 1. The type, number, and location of residential units that received zoning or site plan approval in 2016: (SF Single Family, TH Townhouse, MF Multifamily, Apts. Apartments) Unincorporated County, Calendar Year 2015 Project Location Type Units Berry Avenue Minor Final 3424 SW Berry Ave SF 25 Coral Sky Rezoning South side of Cove Road SF * Total 25 *(no associated units yet) City of Stuart, Calendar Year 2016 Project Location Type Units Osprey Preserve Corner of Jensen Beach Blvd and Green River Pkwy SF 43 New Urban Community Triangle Apartments Corner of SW Dixie and SW Joan Jefferson Way MF 48 Pineapple Place 600 E Ocean Blvd MF 5 409 & 411 Osceola Street Mixed Use 409 & 411 Osceola St MF 3 Total 99 2. Information regarding future land use map amendments which may have an impact on school facilities Martin County approved 4 Future Land Use amendments in the 2015-2016 cycle that resulted in a potential increase of 188 residential units. CPA 16-01 Palm Bluff 24 units CPA 16-02 Kanner 5601 115 units CPA 16-04 Sunshine Carnations 45 units CPA 16-07 Legg LUA 4 The City of Stuart did not approve any Future Land Use amendments in the 2014-2015 cycle that resulted in an increase of residential units. 3. Building permits issued for the preceding calendar year Martin County issued 283 single family permits, 10 duplex permits, 86 multi-family, and no mobile home permits. The City of Stuart issued 17 single family permits.

Unincorporated Units Associated with Permits Issued, by Year Type 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Single-family 1,027 718 243 163 100 162 183 268 414 324 304 283 Duplex 18 12 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 10 Multi-family 305 201 86 48 14 32 19 21 0 8 11 86 Mobile home 18 4 6 0 1 2 2 2 4 2 5 0 Total 1,368 935 335 213 115 196 204 291 418 336 304 379 Unincorporated County Number of units with Certificates of Occupancy by Year Type 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Single-family 947 1004 579 228 123 147 177 236 305 342 305 256 Duplex 106 14 8 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 14 Multi-family 162 226 178 71 13 61 6 30 3 0 96 107 Mobile home 30 16 5 0 0 1 0 8 4 2 1 0 Total 1,245 1,260 770 301 138 210 183 274 312 344 404 377 4. Information regarding the conversion or redevelopment of housing or other structures into residential units which are likely to generate new students. None. 5. Information regarding the conversion of residential units or properties to nonresidential units; None. 6. The identification of any development orders issued which contain a requirement for the provision of a school site as a condition of development approval. None. 7. The identification of any lapsed development orders issued which permitted residential units. None.

Section II Estimated and Projected Population 1. Municipalities Municipalities City/County 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Jupiter Island 817 810 810 810 810 810 810 810 Ocean Breeze Park 355 95 1,030 1,030 1,030 1,030 1,030 1,030 Sewall s Point 1,996 2,000 2,115 2,125 2,135 2,137 2,139 2,141 Stuart 15,593 16,110 17,037 17,778 18,401 18,959 19,442 19,850 Unincorporated 127,557 131,047 137,708 143,857 149,024 153,664 157,679 161,069 Total County 146,318 150,062 158,700 165,600 171,400 176,600 181,100 184,900 Source: University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research adjusted locally. 2. Unincorporated Martin County Planning Areas Comprehensive Plan Planning Areas 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 N. River Shores 4,848 5,127 5,792 6,325 6,772 7,173 7,520 7,813 North County 17,237 17,674 18,718 19,553 20,254 20,883 21,427 21,886 Hutchinson Island 2,691 2,770 2,959 3,110 3,237 3,351 3,449 3,533 Stuart Urban 17,920 18,470 19,476 20,280 20,956 21,562 22,086 22,529 Palm City 23,120 24,150 26,612 28,578 30,230 31,712 32,994 34,077 Port Salerno/76 Corridor 22,248 22,495 23,084 23,555 23,951 24,306 24,613 24,872 Mid County 9,994 10,303 11,042 11,632 12,128 12,573 12,958 13,283 South County 37,952 38,716 40,542 42,001 43,227 44,327 45,278 46,080 Indiantown/West County 10,308 10,357 10,473 10,567 10,645 10,714 10,775 10,827 Total County 146,318 150,062 158,700 165,600 171,400 176,600 181,100 184,900 Source: University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research adjusted locally. The Stuart Urban planning area is for Martin County statistical planning and not based on Stuart City limits.

MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable Board of County DATE: December 14, 2016 Commissioners VIA: Roger Baltz Assistant County Administrator FROM: Nicki van Vonno, AICP Growth Management Director SUBJECT: City of Stuart Evaluation of County Impact Fees The City of Stuart collects Martin County impact fees for projects within the City. Some of the County impact fees are discounted at rates that are found within the County/City interlocal agreement from April 18, 2000. On October 20, 2016, the County received a letter from the City of Stuart that contained a consultant evaluation of the County s impact fee methodology. The evaluation concluded that the County s impact fees: Do not meet requirements of State Statutes Are not based on the most recent and localized data Overstates the need for public facilities within the City of Stuart Are not proportionate because they subsidize large housing units and are derived using outdated countywide demographic data. The City s consultant has recommended that the City place the County s impact fee revenue in an escrow account and not transfer these funds to the County until the County updates is impact fee analysis and renegotiates the interlocal agreement. The County currently has a consultant contracted to review the County s public building impact fees. Staff requested that the consultant review the City s evaluation of the County impact fees. That review is attached. The County s consultant concluded that the County s fees meet all applicable legal requirements and the City has no legal basis for the City to withhold the fees it collects. County staff would also like to note that the City s website shows the County s full fee schedule, without discounts. Staff has no evidence that the City is discounting the County s fees as per the interlocal agreement. Page 1 of 2 gmd2017m132.docx

The Board of County Commissioners may wish to discuss this issue at the public hearing for the Public Building impact fee on January 10, 2017. RB:NvV:sh Attachments: Duncan Associates: Martin County Impact Fee Evaluation for the City of Stuart, December 11, 2016 TischlerBise: Martin County Impact Fee Evaluation Prepared for the City of Stuart, Florida, October 3, 2016 Interlocal Agreement between Martin County and City of Stuart for the Collection of Impact Fees, April 18, 2008 cc: Taryn Kryzda, County Administrator Sarah Woods, Interim County Attorney Krista Storey, Senior Assistant County Attorney Paul Nicoletti, City Manager Page 2 of 2 gmd2017m132.docx

December 11, 2016 Samantha Lovelady, AICP Principal Planner Martin County Growth Management Department Martin County Board of County Commissioners sent via email to slove@martin.fl.us RE: Martin County Impact Fee Evaluation Prepared for the City of Stuart At the County s request, we have prepared this response to the above-captioned analysis of Martin County s impact fee system prepared by TischlerBise on October 3, 2016. The critique by TischlerBise focuses on the fees that were based on a 2012 study by Walter H. Keller, Inc., which we were not involved in. We recently prepared an update to the County s library fees and developed new impact fees for open space, both of which were adopted by the County earlier this year. We are also currently in the process of updating the County s public building impact fees. The issues raised in the critique are discussed below in the order in which they are presented in the report. Fees not Based on Most Recent and Localized Data The TischlerBise report states that a fatal flaw in the County s current impact fees is that they are not based on the most recent and localized data, as required by the Florida Impact Fee Act. The most reasonable interpretation of this phrase from the statute is that an impact fee study should use the most recent and localized data available when the study is prepared. While acknowledging that the Act does not specify how much time may elapse between updates, the report notes that some state acts require fees to be updated every five years, and frequent updates are the best practice. All the County s fees were updated in 2012, or within the last five years (although the updated school fees were not adopted). In support of its claim that the County s fees are fatally flawed, TischlerBise offers several erroneous statements: (1) the school fees have not been updated since 2004 (the adopted fees are based on a 2007 study, and a 2012 study was prepared in 2012, although not adopted); (2) the road fees are not based on the most recent ITE trip generation manual (they were based on the 8 th edition, which was the most recent available when the study was prepared); and (3) the public building, fire and law enforcement fees are based on trip generation rates from 2004 (trip generation rates were not used in the calculations for these fees). A more valid criticism is that the adopted school fees are based on student generation rates developed in 1995. However, this is only because the 2012 study, which included a complete update of the student generation rates and calculated higher fees, was not adopted. The remaining criticism is that the fees other than schools are based, to some extent, on person-perunit occupancies by housing type and number of bedrooms derived from the 2000 census. This continued reliance on 2000 census data reflects the fact that the Census Bureau discontinued 17409 Rush Pea Circle Austin TX 78738 512 423 0480 clancy@duncanassociates.com Page 1

collecting 1-in-6 sample data on housing characteristics as part of the decennial census, and now provides only annual 1% sample data (which may be aggregated into 5-year datasets). The sample sizes that are now available in more current data sets yield much more unreliable results than the 2000 census data. In this case, the most current data may be inferior to somewhat older data. Of course, the County cannot continue to rely on 2000 census data forever. The County should explore an alternative approach to developing residential fees by the size of the dwelling that either does not require data on persons per unit by housing types and number of bedrooms or that can accommodate the quality of data now available. But to suggest that the current reliance on somewhat older Census data constitutes a fatal flaw is hyperbole. Overlapping Infrastructure TischlerBise points out that both City and County provide parks, open space, fire and police facilities, and suggests that lower County fees should be assessed in Stuart to account for this, because City facilities reduce the impact of new development in Stuart on County facilities. This seems like a reasonable suggestion that should be considered. Residential Fees are not Proportionate TischlerBise argues that residential fees are not proportionate to impact because the largest size category is for units larger than 2,300 square feet. Certainly, as the consultants note, there are dwelling units that are considerably larger than 2,300 square feet. However, data from the American Housing Survey indicate that units larger than about 3,000 square feet do not tend to have more residents. How the choice of a 2,300-square-foot threshold would result in disproportionately high fees for smaller, more affordable units is not clear. Is the argument that only by having a 2,300-3,000-square-foot category would the County s fees be proportionate, or would even more categories be required? Perfectly proportionate fees are not possible nor legally required. Many jurisdictions in Florida assess impact fees based on a flat rate per unit by housing type, and this includes jurisdictions whose fees have been upheld by the courts as sufficiently proportionate. No Benefit from School Fees TischlerBise claims that new development in Stuart has not benefited from school impact fees because no new schools have been built within the city limits in recent years. This fact however, does not demonstrate that development in Stuart has not benefitted from County school impact fees. Capital improvements to a school system are not limited to new schools, and provide systemwide benefits. Construction of a new school can benefit students living in Stuart even if they do not attend it, through school assignment policies that avoid over-crowding in schools that Stuart students do attend. If TischlerBise is suggesting that new residential development in Stuart should not be charged school impact fees, that could run counter to the Florida Supreme Court decision in the St. Johns County case. Justification for Lower Road Fees in Stuart TischlerBise cites recent research indicating that mixed use development in higher-density urban settings with access to alternative modes of travel tends to be associated with reduced vehicular travel demand. It is not clear how applicable these findings are to new development in Stuart, or 17409 Rush Pea Circle Austin TX 78738 512 423 0480 clancy@duncanassociates.com Page 2

how much of a fee reduction, if any, might be warranted, but the County may want to have further discussions with the City on this topic. Conclusion TishlerBise starts the report with some very strong statements that the County s impact fees do not meet the requirements of Florida statutes or the rational nexus test, along with a recommendation that the City hold the County fees it collects in escrow until the County updates its fees and renegotiates its interlocal agreement. An examination of the evidence offered indicates that the County s fees meet all applicable legal requirements. This is not to say that they could not be improved, but any shortcomings hardly provide a legal basis for the City to withhold the fees it collects until the County creates an impact fee system more to its liking. On the other hand, the report does identify some issues that the County and City might fruitfully explore. County fees for facilities that the City also provides should probably be reduced, and this would be an obvious topic to address as part of updating the interlocal agreement. Reduction of County road fees within the City could also be explored. Sincerely, DUNCAN ASSOCIATES Clancy Mullen Principal 17409 Rush Pea Circle Austin TX 78738 512 423 0480 clancy@duncanassociates.com Page 3