Discussion of Concurrency at Agenda Review Yields a Breakthrough

 

Click this video, above, to hear the Board's discussion this morning on Concurrency

At this morning's agenda review of the Board of County Commissioners, I requested a discussion about our land development code.

Specifically--I wanted a discussion of Concurrency, Transportation Mobility Fees, and/or Impact Fees.

We are the only large county in Florida without BOTH a half cent LOST tax AND some form of Impact fee to mitigate the impact of growth on existing infrastructure and public facilities.

Over the last ten years, we have seen growth that has been unbridled and it has created issues with traffic, stormwater, and school capacity at some schools.

Concurrency, had it been in place, could have helped ameliorate some of the issues with this growth.

Concurrency was always a state requirment for countys and school boards until 2011 when it was removed as a state requirement by then Governor Rick Scott to assist the state's recovery from the Great Recession.  When it was removed as a state requirement, the Escambia BCC inserted concurrency into the County Land Development code in 2011.  Two years later, in 2013, the BCC removed it from the LDC, in order to stimulate our area's economy that was still suffering impacts from the recession.

That's how we got where we now are, in 2024.

I brought concurrency to the board and traffic mobility fees three times since my last election, once in 2021 and twice in 2022.  I did not have three votes to support these measures at that time.

I brought it again today and have now gained solid support from my counterparts to have staff do some research on the issue and bring back recommendations for implementation.  

I was heartened to get the support--because we need to bring this back and more importantly--the people want it and the county needs it.  I'm glad we are making some forward progress on this.  More to come in the months ahead.

Development Fees---or Sales Tax Surcharge? Or Both?

 I will be discussing bringing back concurrency to the BCC's Land Development Code at our next committee of the whole meeting.  There have now been several articles in the news about this, including this one from the PNJ today which discusses the new state law limiting impact fee year over year percentage increases, as well as Santa Rosa's challenges to implementing Impact Fees there.  The last couple of paragraphs capture some of my thoughts on these fees and how I envision them working here in Escambia County.

I do not support impact fees--I support concurrency as an alternative to them.  

Concurrency is smarter, more targeted, and I believe an overall better solution.

Now, developers and homebuilders do not like any form of impact fees, nor do they like concurrency.

One of the arguments against ANY additional concurrency or impact fees being levied on Escambia County builders that I have heard a lot is that "Escambia county already has the one-cent sales surtax" that can be used for infrastructure.  So why make the builders pay more?  Is the rhetorical follow-on question.

So, I looked statewide at how other counties handle this---especially the counties that also collect the discretionary sales tax like we do.   And a couple of interesting facts stand out.  

#1---99% of Florida Counties already collect some form of discretionary sales tax like our 1 penny LOST....99%!! or 66 of 67 counties. (Citrus County is the lone county in Florida that does not collect local option sales taxes on purchases----yet ironically they DO collect impact fees on developments...)

#2---of the counties that already collect a local option sales tax----a full 57% ALSO collect Impact fees to help pay for the costs of growth and infrastructure the growth demands.

So the argument that we already have LOST and therefore we don't need any other funds to offset infrastructure challenges of growth simply does not hold water.  That argument is not persuasive.  See the breakdown, below.

Concurrency?

 

As I stated in a recent meeting, and as I prominently featured in my NEXT4Escambia plan as I ran for re-election last year, I will be bringing the topic of concurrency forward at an upcoming meeting for discussion among my peers on the Board of County Commissioners.

As a local school board member here for 10 years , I supported the concept of concurrency and voted for it on several occasions until it was watered down to a point that it was ineffective and meaningless--at which point I voted against it on principle.

I have no idea, whatsoever, where my counterparts on the BCC stand on this isssue--so at the first meeting where this is brought the topic will be brief, factual, historical and then I'll attempt to ascertain from my peers what their appetite is for moving forward with having staff bring recommendations.

This initial discussion will likely occur at the first meeting in May.

Jim Little from the PNJ called me about this topic about a week ago, and we had a really good conversation.  His article derived from that discussion is online today and will more than likely make it to the printed paper in the next few days.  It is a good article and captures the essence of our discussion.

I agree with those in the homebuilding community who believe that we can do more with the LOST funds we already have (for which they lobbied and assisted in campaigning for when the referendum(s) were put before the voters)--and it is for that reason and others that I generally oppose impact fees across the board for the county in favor of intelligent, well thought-through concurrency. (Although I will support impact fees and an enhanced MSBU/and or a TIFF on our soon to be developed OLF-8 property---as it now appears it will be largely retail and residential which will reduce our opportunity for and the size of a Triumph Gulf Coast jobs grant).

So we shall see where the concurrency discussion goes in May.  It may be something that sparks interest or it may just fizzle......

Is This OLF-8 Master Plan Actually an Opportunity to Get Growth's Impacts on Infrastructure Right?

I don't support it, But if we must accept thousands of additional residential units on OLF-8 in Beulah--I believe we should charge Impact Fees on OLF-8 specifically and exclusively---to offset the burdens on infrastructure and schools such high-density, high-intensity, urban-style residential will create.

As we stumble toward the end of the excruciating, apparently non-impartial, Rube-Goldbergesqe "effort" to finish the OLF-8 Master Plan----a question comes to mind that is worth asking.  Is this relentless, unending, concerted and orchestrated push for massive, additional residential development in Beulah on OLF-8 specifically---is this actually an opportunity to get growth's impacts on Infrastructure right as it pertains to what we allow on OLF-8?

One of the reasons I ran for this job in 2016 was because I saw the rampant, uncontrolled residential growth in Beulah that was permitted that swamped our schools and overwhelmed our infrastructure.  It was allowed to continue unfettered by the county because the state got rid of concurrency in 2011, and the County did likewise in 2013--stripping the concurrency provisions from the Land Development Code (LDC) in that year.  And then, the residential development floodgates opened in Beulah and we are seeing the resultant condition:  Schools overcrowded and traffic and stormwater infrastructure overwhelmed.

This is why I have funded the $300,000.00 effort to master-plan the greater Beulah area--a process that is moving forward.  It is also why I spent 13 months with a 9-member committee the county impaneled at my request to get community feedback about the best way to master plan this greater Beulah area--precincts 43, 68, and 5 (and subsequently the new precinct 114 in Beulah as well).  This "Greater-Beulah" contract has been awarded--and the work will commence soon.  More to come on that later.

And this is why--if we are now going to "approve" thousands and thousands of new residential units forced on us, constructed on OLF-8 at the behest of the "opinion" of DPZ and their influencers within the NFCU coalition--we ought to implement impact fees on any such residential construction contemplated on OLF-8 if we are legally allowed to do so.  We should do it because our infrastructure cannot take it without upgrades and the only Beulah elementary school is hundreds of students over capacity already.

To summarize: we don't have the infrastructure to support 60 DU/AC and the concomitant 1000's of housing units this would produce on OLF-8--so I am arguing against allowing this at all. 

Commercial development and jobs projects would build slowly, over years and decades--allowing for the infrastructure to build to match. If residential is permitted however--the private sector would swoop in and build apartments, townhomes, and condos faster than you could say "abracadabra" and we would be further gridlocked within 8-10 months. Residential builders are aggressive, determined, relentless and FAST. (They are not FDOT project managers struggling for years to finish two-lane blacktop projects…)

So----- If I must accept any residential on the field (which we do not need), I will argue for impact fees for this one geographic area, OLF-8, if legal to do so--in order that this massive residential influx if allowed will have to pay for the impacts to the school board and also for the road widening on Frank Reeder Road that simply cannot support this MASSIVE residential infusion of building.

How it Happened, Part III: How Beulah Exploded

Several factors led to the exponential growth of the northwest portion of District 1 over the last decade.....

The exponential growth out in the Northwest portion of District 1 and Beulah has had several causes.

I discussed them in parts one and two of this series.

This area is the home for a growing contingent of employees at what has become one of our county's largest employers, Navy Federal Credit Union.

Navy Federal Credit Union has been an absolute grand-slam home run victory in our community from just about every metric from which one utilizes to measure the success of an economic development project.  Once completely built-out over the next three years--this company will support $500 Million yearly in annual payroll, and will have made an economic impact in our area of $5 Billion dollars.

This has been a huge success story for Escambia County, Pensacola, and our region.

But it has put a lot of stress on the community of Beulah.

With Beulah's relatively close proximity to the interstate, and with an abundant supply of land that sellers were willing to part with-this area became a magnet for the home builders.

In 2011, coming out of one of our nation's worst recessions, the legislators in Tallahassee passed the Growth Management Act of 2011 which essentially ended the state requirement for local government concurrency;  at that time, as a member of the Board of Education in Escambia County--we had negotiated Interlocal Agreements with Escambia County, Pensacola, and the city of Century. I voted against the Interlocal in 2008 because I felt it was too lenient on the builders 

But Tallahassee legislators wanted to take down some of the regulatory hurdles of government in order to stimulate growth in the then-sluggish housing sector to help Florida's economy.

Concurrency was a method for orderly growth that mandated that builders and developers plans had to be reviewed by the county, city, and school district to insure the contemplated developments were in areas that had the infrastructure necessary to accommodate such development.  Not exactly like an impact fee--this method induced building where infrastructure was already sufficient and mandated certain requirements be met before building could be completed in areas where the infrastructure was not sufficient.

Like impact fees--builders did not like the burdensome and often costly concurrency requirements.  It served to limit growth where builders wanted to build to maximize profit.

After the state did away with the requirement for concurrency in 2011, the Escambia county commissioners at that time moved concurrency over to the county's Land Development Code (LDC) and kept it in force locally--albeit for only a short period of time.  A few years later, in 2013, after several new commissioners joined the board, and after the county and the nation moved out of the recession and as our economy improved rapidly locally--a new comprehensive plan was adopted by the commission. The direction was given to "do away with concurrency in the land development code, so as not to have any local standards to be applied to builders more burdensome than what was required by the state" according to a staff member with whom I spoke that was at the county at the time.

So now, with no impact fees locally and with no concurrency requirements to meet--the pendulum had swung strongly in the favor of the home builders and the developers starting in 2014---subdivisions were planned and platted, and we have what we have seen now out in the Northwest portion of District 1.

By the time I took my seat on the Escambia BCC at the end of 2016, the Beulah area was inundated with planned subdivisions, condominiums and townhomes in the planning pipeline--because there were minimal requirements to meet in order to get these sorts of developments approved.  No impact fees, no traffic or school concurrency requirements, and a land development code that savy builders knew very well how to navigate successfully.

And this is where we are in 2019.  This, combined with what I discussed in part I and II, is how it happened.

In my next entry on this subject, I will discuss ideas for fixing this issue going forward--now that we know what the problems are....