HomeMy Public PortalAboutPRR 16-2193From: Chris O'Hare [mailto:chrisoharegulfstream@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 6:57 AM
To: Bill Thrasher <bthrasher@gulf-stream.org>; Rita Taylor <RTaylor@gulf-stream.org>
Subject: Public Record Request - Schoettle-Gumm memo
Dear Custodian of Records,
I request to inspect certain public records for the purpose of informing myself of the historic and
current workings of the Town of Gulf Stream and its associated entities, vendors, consultants,
advisers, contractors and agents.
The records I wish to inspect may be material to current, anticipated or presently unforeseen
legal action. The production of any and all responsive records is therefore urgent and must be
acted upon in compliance with Florida Statutes and established case law as soon as possible.
Before making this public record request, I first searched online and in the public records portion
of your agency's website hoping I could locate the public records I seek without having to
trouble you for it. Unfortunately I cannot find the records I request to inspect. Therefore I am
writing you now and requesting you make every effort as required by law to produce these public
records without delay.
If you are not the custodian of the public records described herein please determine who that
person is and notify me immediately in order that I may make this request to the appropriate
person without delay. In all cases please reference Florida Statutes and appropriate case law
when responding to this record request.
Please read this entire request carefully and respond accordingly.
This email is a singular request for public records. Please respond to this public record request in
a singular manner and do not combine this public record request with any other public record
requests when responding to this request.
Do NOT produce any records other than records responsive to this request.
Please identify by name the person or persons responding to this request.
If the records I seek are in the custody of an entity under contract with your agency please
contact that entity, inform them of their obligations under Florida Statute 119 and produce any
responsive records in their custody.
I request to inspect the memorandum from Ms. Schoettle-Gumm distributed to the Town
Commission and dated June 28th 2011 regarding the underground project and proposed
special assessments with all attachments and adendum as referenced on page 4 of the
minutes of the June 30, 2011 Public Hearing.
I make this request pursuant to Article 1, Section 24 of the Florida Constitution and Chapter 119
of the Florida Statutes
If you contend that any of the records I am seeking, or any portion thereof, are exempt from
inspection or disclosure please cite the specific exemption as required by § 119.07(1)(e) of the
Florida Statutes and state in writing and with particularity the basis for your conclusions as
required by §I 19.07(1)(f) of the Florida Statutes. Produce for my inspection all responsive
records and ONLY redact that portion of the record that you consider exempt. To be clear, if
you consider an entire record to be exempt, produce that record in its entirety with all
portions redacted that you consider exempt. I specifically ask you to do this in order that I may
inspect fully redacted records for the purpose of challenging a particular redaction or establishing
a reference for a future request of a record that is only temporarily exempt, as in the case of
a public record that was prepared by an agency attorney exclusively for litigation and is only
exempt from disclosure until the conclusion of the litigation.
Please take note of §I19.07(1)(c) Florida Statues and your affirmative obligation to (1)
promptly acknowledge receipt of this public records request and (2) make a good faith effort
which "includes making reasonable efforts to determine from other officers or employees within
the agency whether such a record exists and, if so, the location at which the record can be
accessed." I am, therefore, requesting that you notify every individual and entity in possession of
records that may be responsive to this public records request, including individuals and entities
under contract with your agency, to preserve and produce all responsive records on
an immediate basis.
If the public records being sought are maintained by your agency, or contactors for your agency,
in an electronic format please produce the records in the original electronic format in which they
were created or received. See § 119.01(2)(f), Florida Statutes.
Please provide only those records for inspection that do not require extensive use of information
technologies or extensive staff time or both in excess of 15 minutes. Take note
of § 119.07(4)(a)3.(d) Florida Statues and if you anticipate that any records exist, the production
for inspection of which will require extensive use of information technologies or extensive staff
time or both in excess of 15 minutes, then please provide those records that can be produced
within the first 15 minutes and advise me of the cost you anticipate to be incurred by your
agency for the remaining records prior to incurring this cost. Please do not incur any costs on my
behalf without first obtaining my written authorization to proceed. If you produce only a portion
of all existing responsive records, please tell me that your response includes only a portion of all
existing records responsive to this request.
If you anticipate the need to incur any costs that I would be statutorily required to pay in order to
inspect these public records which would exceed $1.00 please notify me in advance of your
incurring that cost with a written estimate of the total cost. Please be sure to itemize any
estimates so as to indicate the total number of pages and/or records, as well as to distinguish the
cost of labor and materials. Again, please do not incur any costs on my behalf without first
obtaining my written authorization to proceed.
The phrase Town of Gulf Stream when used herein refers to the Town in its entirety including all
employees, appointees, officials, assignees, counsel and consultants including Town Manager,
Town Clerk, Town Police Chief, Town Commissioners, Town Mayor, Town Departments, Town
Police Officers, Town Employees, Town Engineer, the law firm (Jones Foster Johnston &
Stubbs P.A.) that claims to be the Town Attorney including all attorney, partner and employee
members of that firm; the Town Counsel of Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkus including all
attorney, partner and employee members of that firm, the Town Counsel of Richman Greer, P.A.
including all attorney, partner and employee members of that firm and any other entity
associated with the Town and subject to public records law.
The term public records as used herein has the same meaning and scope as the definition of
Public records adopted by the Florida Legislature as Statutes Chapter 119.
A record that does not exist because of its disposition requires the creation of a disposition
record. In all instances where you determine a record does not exist please determine if the
record once existed and in its stead provide the disposition record for my inspection.
I hereby reserve all rights granted to me under the Florida Constitution and Florida Statutes.
All responses to this public records request should be made in writing to the following email
address:
chrisoharegulfstream@gmail.com
Page 1 of 1
Rita Taylor
From: Susan Schoettle-Gumm [spgumm@mailmt.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 9:54 PM
To: Bill Thrasher; Rita Taylor
Cc: 'Randolph, John C.'; mark.raymond@mraymondlaw.com
Subject: Gulf Stream Undergrounding - Memo to the Commission
Attachments: Commission Memo 6-28 w Attachments.pdf
Bill and Rita - Attached please find a memo regarding the proposed undergrounding assessments for
distribution to the Town Commission. We had previously discussed providing the Commission with
more background information about assessments, examples of applying other methodologies, and
reasons why other approaches have not been recommended. I apologize for the delay in submitting this,
but I had overestimated my technical capabilities with the attachments. I felt it was important to provide
graphic examples of various properties and estimated assessments, so I had to take some extra time.
Please feel free to give me a call if you have any questions or problems with the document. I'll see you
around 2:30 on Thursday aftemoon for the meeting requestd by Marcie. Thanks, Susan
Susan Schoettle-Gumm, PLLC
Attorney & Counselor -at -Law
Office 941-377-4948 Cell 941-320-3054 Email spgumm@mailmt.com
18099 Deer Prairie Drive, Sarasota, FL 32420
This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the addressee. It may contain information which is legally
privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
disclosure, copying, distribution, use, or any action or reliance on this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone (941-377.4948) or by return e-mail and delete the message,
along with any attachments.
fii�.9i�n1 1
ul u t : U1 lu
TO: Mayor Wil6o-un F. Koch
Vice MayorJoan K. Orthwein
Commissioner Fred B. Devitt III
Commissioner Chris D. Wheeler
Commissioner Muriel J. Anderson
FROM: Susan Schoettle-Gunun, Special Counsel to the Town of Gulf Stream
RE: Town of Gulf Strewn Undergrounding Project and Proposed Special Assessments
DATE: June 28, 2011
cc: William Thrasher, Town Manager
John Randolph, Town Attorney
Rita Taylor, Town Clerk
Mark Raymond, Special Counsel
BACKGROUND
The Commission of the Town of Gulf Stream is currently considering the final adoption and
imposition of non -ad valorem special assessments to provide a funding source for a capital
improvements project to place overhead utilities underground within a defined area of the Town. The
Town has been officially considering this project for well over a year and, it is my understanding from
discussions with Town staff and residents, discussing such a project for even longer. In particular, die
significant damage and negative impacts on the community resulting from tropical storms and hurricanes
in 2005 led residents of the communityand the Commission to move forward with consideration of a
major utility undergrounding project for the Town.
In March, 2010, a feasibility study for an Overhead Utility Undergrounding Project (die
"Project") was presented to the Town Commission by Brannon & Gillespie, LLC, which gave a general
description of the project, identified die project area, and provided a preliminary estimate of probable
costs for an undergrounding project As mentioned in die Brannon & Gillespie March, 2010 Report,
some other communities in Florida that have undertaken similar projects have used ad valorem taxes to
fund the project while others are using non -ad valorem special assessments. Because a portion of the
Town located west of the Intracoastal Waterway, generally referred to in discussions as Place Au Soleil,
has previously undergrounded die overhead utilities serving that area and is physically removed from the
Project Area, Ilse Commission determined that special assessments imposed on properties benefitting
from the proposed Project was the more appropriate funding mechanism in these circumstances. The
Town Commission then determined to move forward with die development of a methodology to
calculate non -ad valorem special assessments and to poll property owners within the Town that would be
assessed about moving forward with the Project. A firm experienced with the development of non -ad
valorem assessments for utility undergrounding projects, Willdan Financial Services, was engaged to
provide technical services on the assessment methodology. Preliminary assessment estimates were
developed for inclusion in ballots used for the straw poll so property owners would have an idea of their
share of die project costs when voting for or against die Project. The result of tie straw poll, which was
mailed to all property owners with property that would be subject to the assessments (not just registered
electors), was a majority of votes in favor of proceeding with the project and funding the project with non -
ad valorem special assessments. In addition to die consultants mentioned above, special legal counsel
assisting die Town with die Project include myself, prodding assistance relating to die adoption and
imposition of special assessments, and Mark Ratnnond, providing assistance relating to obtaining
financing for die Project
During die course of multiple Town Commission meetings and discussions on die Project, a
number of questions have been raised by property owners about the Project and die proposed special
assessments. Some of die issues raised are legal, sonic are technical, and some arc policy related. My
intent in providing this memorandum to the Commission is to briefly identify sonic of the issues raised
and to provide additional information and analysis for consideration by the Commission regarding die
Project and the proposed assessments. The consultant team has previously responded to many of die
questions and issues discussed herein, and this memorandum will summarize sonic of those responses.
I have reviewed correspondence submitted to die Town and its consultants as well as notes from
meetings, hearings and comersations with'I'mm property owners and their representatives to identify as
many issues and concerns as possible. However, I do not claim that this memorandum contains each
and every issue raised, and there may be some matters that have been inadvertently omitted. Also, die
estimates and calculations presented are provided only for general comparison purposes and are not
intended to reflect the assessments that might actually be calculated. The entire consultant team,
consisting of myself as special counsel on the special assessments, Danny Brannon as Project Manager
and Engineer, Habib Isaac and Lee Even: as technical consultants, and Mark Raymond, special counsel
for project financing, will be available for questions at the public hearing on june 30, 2011.
1. Legal Requirements for Special Assessments under Florida Law
Under Florida's constitutional grant of broad home rule authority to local governments and die
Town of Gulf Stream adopted Charter, die Toun has the authority to "exercise any power for municipal
purposes except as othemise provided by law." Section 1.01, Charter of die Town of Gulf Stream,
Florida Florida statutory and case law clearly support die authority of the Town to provide municipal
services and improvements and to levy special assessments to fund such services and improvenhcno
when the required special benefit to property, is provided and the costs are reasonably and fairly allocated
o. gaga.
among die specially benefitted properties. ScDesiderio Comomtion v. City of Bovnton Bcach
39 So.3d 487 (Fla. App., 2010) (citing for example City of Fort Mvers v. State. 95 Fla. 701, 117 So. 97
(1928); Klemm v. Davenuort. 100 Fla. 627, 129 So. 904 (1930); City of Boca Raton V. State, 595 So.2d
25 (Fla., 1992); Sarasota County v. Sarasota Church of Christ, Inc,, 667 So.2d 180 (Fla, 1995); Collier
County v. State 733 So.2d 1012 (Fla. 1999); City of Winter Springs v. State. 776 So.2d 255 (Fla. 2001)).
A "valid special assessment must satisfy a two -prong test. (1) the property burdened by die assessment
must derive a special benefit from the service provided by the assessment; and (2) the assessment for die
services must be property apportioned among the properties receiving die benefit.... JTJhc standard (of
review) is the same for both prongs; that is, the legislative determination as to the existence of special
benefits and as to the apportionment of the costs of those benefits should be upheld unless the
determination is arbitrary." Oily of Winter Springs v. State. 776 So.2d at 255 (citing Lake Counn, v.
Water Oak Management Cortex695 So.2d 667 (Fla. 1977) and quoting Sarasota County. 667 So.2d at
184). The Florida Supreme Court has held that "if reasonable persons may differ as to whether die land
assessed was benefitted by the local improvements, the findings of the city officials must be sustained."
The apportionment of costs among the benefitted properties must be fair and reasonable. City of Roca
Baton 595 So.2d at 30 and 29. Florida courts have long recognized that "InJo system of appraising
benefits or assessing costs has yet been devised that is not open to some criticism." City of Fort M
117 So. at 104. "ITlhough a court may recognize valid alternative methods of apportionment, so long as
die legislative determination by die City is not arbitrary, a court should not substitute its judgment for that
of the local legislative body." City of Winter Springs, 775 So.2d at 260. Thus, the question before die
Commission regarding die proposed special assessments and methodology is whether the detailed
approach developed by die Town's experts provides a fair and reasonable allocation of the Project costs
among die parcels that are speci:dly benefitted by the Project, not whether it is die only method that
could be used.
Many of the comments and criticisms about the proposed special assessments reflect a bias
towards a property valuation view of benefit that is typical in communities unfamiliar widr the special
benefit to property measurement that is used in special assessments. Property owners that are
accustomed to the distribution of governmental costs only on the basis of taxable value of property may
naturally view other approaches to distributing costs as "unfair" - particularly when those ovrners'
properties are on die lower spectrum of community property values. However, Florida law does not
require evidence of an increase in property values for a valid special assessment. In fact, use of property
value as a measure in the calculation of special benefit in a special assessment exposes die methodology
to a claim that the assessment is an invalid tax. Special assessments may be imposed and collected on
properties that are exempt from payment of ad valorem taxes, either as a religious institution such as a
Church or as a parcel with a taxable value below applicable excmpdons, as long as die property receives
die required special benefit, regardless of ad valorem tax status or value See, Sarasota County v
Sarasota Church of Christ. Inc., 667 So.2d 180 (Fla. 1995). Although not subject to ad valorem taxation,
Tovvn ovvmed properties have been included in die assessment roll, and die Town will pay its assessments
from other legally available funds.
Regarding die Project and proposed special assessments being considered by die Town
Commission, die Commission has heard testimony from its expert consultants supporting the special
benefits of die Project as vvefl as die apportionment methodology used to allocate die Project costs
among die specially benefitted parcels (assessment methodology discussed further below). For example,
a May 3, 2011 memorandum from Danny Brannon, P.E., of Brannon ik Gillespie to the Mayor and
Commission, as well as Mr. Brannon's testimony at the hearing on May 13, 2011, provides evidence
regarding the improved safety and reliability resulting from undergrounding of overhead electrical
utilities. At die same hearing, testimony from Chris Smith, a resident ofJupiter Island, provided a first-
hand account of improved safety, reliability and aesthetics in his community from a similar project
Habib Isaac and Lee Evett of Willdan Financial have made several presentations of the assessment
methodology. Residents of the Town of Gulf Stream have testified about the need for improved
reliability and safety, particularly in relation to reduced restoration times that could be achieved in die
aftermath of damaging storms and hurricanes. The Project will directly serve all properties that will be
assessed. Some critics have stated that Project is being proposed only to improve aesthetics and %hill
provide benefit to the entire community, and, therefore should be funded through ad valorem taxes.
Clearly a capital improvements project that provides direct utility services to the assessed parcels provides
special benefit to those parcels. Even if the Project may provide some benefit to die community, that
would not invalidate the special benefits supporting die assessments. Ste., City of Winter S rin s v.
1te 776 So.2d at 260 (citing Charlotte County v. Fiske. 350 So.2d 578 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) (special
benefit is not lost merely because other properties incidentally benefit)). Given the previous evidence
and testimony before die Commission regarding die Project and the special assessments, there is
sufficient competent and substantial evidence in the record to support approval of the proposed
assessment roll by the Commission. Additional evidence and testimony supporting the special
assessment methodology is will be provided during the June 30, 2011 public hearing,
2. Ad Valorem Taxes vs. Special Assessments
Some critics of the proposed special assessments and the Project have stated that the Town
should use ad valorem taxes as the funding mechanism for the Project, not special assessments. These
critics argue that the Project wvill primarily benefit the entire community and that the whole community
should pay for it Use of ad valorem revenue would have avoided the process of creating and adopting
special assessments and spread the Project costs in a more familiar manner - property value. The
Commission considered funding the project With ad valorem revenues; however, ad valorem taxes must
be uniformly imposed throughout the Town. An area within the Town, Place Au Soleil, comprised of
about 110 homes located west of and physically separated from the proposed project area by the
Intracoastal Waterway, already has underground utilities. The Project will not serve properties in this
area west of the Intracoastal Waterway, and the Commission believes that it would be unfair to require
these properties to pay for a project that will not serve or benefit them. The Town does not have the
legal authority to levy ad valorem taxes within only a portion of the Town or to levy a different millage
in areas of the Town. Because the Town is legally unable to exclude the Place Au Solcil area from ad
valorem taxes, the Commission determined that a non -ad valorem assessment approach, placing the
Project costs on properties that will be served by the Project, was the most appropriate finding
mechanism.
3. Timing of the Undergrounding Project
One opinion that opponents of the Project and the special assessments have expressed is that die
Town should not be moving forward with die Project at this time given current economic difficulties.
The Commission has proceeded cautiously in its deliberations on die Project Tire Commission elected
to canvass the opinion of its community regarding die Project through a straw poll. Not only was die
Town not required to perform this poll, but the Commission elected to poll not just resident electors but
all affected property owners. With a positive vote in favor of die Project and funding it with special
assessments, the Commission has moved forward with die assessment adoption process. Two additional
factors related to moving forward wvith die Undergrounding Project (die "Project") at tris time arc the
availability of an FPL Governmental Adjustment Factor ("GAF Credits") and con pvaatiyely reduced
construction costs due to current economic conditions. The GAF Credit was estimated to reduce die
Town's costs of the FPL portion of the project by over $877,000 in die March, 2010. Sucli credits,
calculated as 25% of otlicnvisc required contributions in aid of construction ("CIAC") charged to die
Towyn by FPL, provide a significant reduction of die total costs otherwise billed to the Town by FPL.
GAF credits are available only related to under -grounding projects by a local governmental body and for
projects that meet certain criteria, which die Town's Project fulfills. The GAF Credits require periodic
approval by die Florida Public Service Commission, and the future existence of such credits is not
assured. In the past few years, Florida has experienced a reduction in ninny costs of construction. The
Town should benefit from diese lowered costs if it moves forward with alae Project at this time. By
financing the Project costs and spreading the payment of assessments over a period of 10 to 20 years, the
Town will lessen the impact on individual property owners of paying the annual assessments. For
property owners that %want to avoid additional financing costs, the Town will allow prepayment of the
total assessment due on a parcel on or before November 1, 2011, prior to the Towyn obtaining financing.
If die Commission elects to move forward with the Project at this time, not only will the Toum benefit
from die GAF Credit and louvered construction costs, but the area's economy should benefit from a
significant construction project at a time when additional jobs in the construction industry are needed.
Mother timing issue that has surfaced is the recent annexation of certain properties into the
Town of Gulf Stre.•un. During de long period of consideration of the Undergrounding Project, an area
widen unincorporated Palm Beach County approached die Torn about annexation. The annexation
proceeded pursuant to Florida Statutes and required dual referenda within the Toun and die proposed
annexed area. Information provided during discussions on the proposed annexation included references
to the Town's consideration of a utility undergrounding project and die imposition of special assessments
for that project. The annexation votes, which were cast and tabulated subsequent to die Utility
Undergrounding straw poll, resulted in approval of die annexation. After approval of de annexation, de
Town's Project Managcr and Technical Consultants incorporated die annexed area into the
Undergrounding Project, assessment methodology, and assessment roll. The Toun had proceeded with
consideration and development of die Undergounding Project in advance of and during die annexation
process. The hvo events seem to have become linked in the minds of sonic property owners within die
annexed arca; however, die Town's decisions regarding die Undergrounding Project were not contingent
upon die results of the annexation vote. The newly annexed arca will be served by and benefit from die
Undergrounding Project and has been included on de proposed assessment roll.
4. Special Assessment Methodology
The assessment methodology being considered by die Toon has been developed by Willdan
Financial, a consultant with substantial experience in special assessments generally as well as assessments
for utility undergrounding projects. As an outside consultant, Willdan's purpose is to provide the Tone
with its professional opinion of a fair and reasonable method of apportioning die Project costs among die
various benefitting parcels. Willdan has identified three special benefits from die undcrgrounding of
overhead utilities: improved safety, improved reliability and improved aesthetics. The assessment
methodology report submitted by Willdan Financial to die Toun provides more information about each
of these benefits. In addition, evidence and testimony regarding special benefits from undergrounding of
overhead utilities has previously been presented to die Town by Willdan, Brannon & Gillespie, and a
resident ofJupiter Island, as well as residents of the Town.
The Project Arca hvidhin die Town of Gulf Stream includes a variety of land uses, parcel sizes,
densities and physical conditions such as proximity to overhead lines and poles and areas with existing
undergrounded neighborhood utilities. In order to fairly apportion costs among die benefitted parcels,
Willdan reviewed parcel data obtained from die Palm Beach County Property Appraiser, performed a
site survey of the properties within the Project Arca, and incorporated data site survey data provided by
Brannon & Gillespie. The information gathered was used to evaluate de relative benefit to all parcels
that will receive special benefit from the Project. This included some parcels that arc outside of the
Town's jurisdiction and beyond to authority of die Toun to impose special assessments. By identifying
and quantifying the special benefit to these non-assessable parcels, Willdan ensured that those costs were
not transferred to other assessed parcels. The special benefit identified for non-assessable parcels will
have to be addressed through other lawfully available funds of die Toun but may not be paid by
assessments on other parcels within de Town.
Criticism has been directed at die recommended benefit methodology developed by Willdan
Financial. The medhodologp has been accused of being de same methodology used by Willdan in other
jurisdictions, of being different from the methodology Willdan has used in other jurisdictions, of being
too simplistic and not addressing die variety of land uses in the Tmin, of being too complicated because
it incorporates multiple benefit analyses, and of being arbitrary because the methodology uses different
characteristics to measure de three identified special benefits. The methodology developed by Willdan
for die Toun reflects the many different land uses and parcel characteristics in die Project Area,
establishes a reasonable method of identifying die relative special benefit to die different parcels, and
fairly allocates the Project costs among die parcels based on that relative special benefit The Willdan
methodology uses a number of different site characteristics in evaluating the special benefit to each
parcel. One common method of establishing relative benefit in assessment calculations is the use of an
"equivalent unit" - in this case termed an "equivalent benefit unit" or "EBU". The use of this technique
in assessment calculations, as ivell as judicial recognition that aesthetics are a special benefit to property,
%- s approved by die Florida Supreme Court in City of Winter Springs v. State. 776 So.2d 255 (Fla.
2001). Safety, Reliability and Aesthetic special benefits relate predominately to the physical
characteristics of die property (is,., land parcel size and presence of poles/overhead lines; type and
amount of development), while die quantification of Aesthetic benefits also incorporates a density factor
(persons per household or pplhh) to refine die benefit analysis between single family, multi -family and
condominium development. The combined application of the factors shown below in the Utility
Undergrounding Methodology Report and Assessment Roll provides sufficient evidence of die relative
special benefit to die variety of parcels in die Project Area. The following table presents factors used by
Willdan in determining die EBU assignment to each assessed parcel.
FACTORS USED IN WI LDAN SPECIAL BENEFIT ANALYSIS
FACTORS
BASE ASSESSMENT
COMMENTS
CONSIDERED IN
BENEFIT COMPONENTS
ASSIGNING EBUs
SAFETY
RELIABILITY
AESTHETICS
Type of
YES
YES
YES
♦ Types of development used include SF, SF
Development
w/guest unit, MF, condo, and nonresidential
Land Parcel Size
YES
NO
YES
♦ Property size incorporated by using 1 acre as
base EBU reference size for Safety and Aesthetics;
Resulting EBUs by parcel reflect relative size
differences
Number of Dwelling
YES
YES
YES
♦ Dwelling units accounted for in all benefit
Units
categories
Guest Quarters on
NO
YES
NO
♦ Increased EBUs for single family based on
SF Prop.
presence of guest quarters as measure of
increased benefit of reliability
Persons per
NO
NO
YES
♦ Census data on pphh used to weight EBUs by
Household (pphh)
type of development (i.e., ratio of pphh for single
family to condo =1.0 : 0.72); Resulted in reduced
condo EBUs
♦ 2000 Census data is most recent available
information for Town; 2010 Census data for pphh
not available
Overhead
YES
YES
YES
♦ Removal of overhead linestpoles adjacent to
WireslPoles
parcel is reasonable measure of relative special
Adjacent to or on
benefit of safety, reliability and aesthetics
Parcel
Utilities Requiring
NO
YES
NO
♦N[mberofutility services requiring
Undergrounding
undergrounding used to measure relative benefit
from increased reliability
Development
YES
YES
YES
♦ Development potential under current zoning &
Zoning Potential
for
for vacant
for vacant prop.
development regulations used to calculate EBUs
vacant
prop.
for undeveloped land; development potential is not
prop.
applicable where there are existing structures or
current construction
During the course of public conmient on die \Villdan assessment methodology, other factors and
calculation approaches have been suggested. The following table presents sonic of the suggested factors
dint were not the primary basis used in the Willdan medrodology and provides sonic comments and
reasons for not using dhcse factors.
FACTORS SUGGESTED BY
COMMENTS
OTHERS FOR USE IN COST
ALLOCATION
Structure/Unit Sq. Footage
♦ Structure size is seldom used in assessments unless incorporated in impervious
surface talc, for stormwater assessments or in fire Flow calculations for fire
assessments as measurements of potential demand equated to benefit
♦ Using unit size for condos would omit sq. footage of common areas, common area
sq, footage data is often not reliable particularly in older structures
♦ Structure or unit size doe not appear to have a strong relationship to safety,
reliability or aesthetics from utility undergrounding
♦ Use of pphh data by Willdan is a mare reasonable & appropriate basis for
comparing relative benefit among types of dwelling units, i.e., single family, condo
Land Parcel Front Footage
♦ Front footage is rarely used in modem assessments and generally only when
development characteristics are very homogeneous or within a neighborhood
♦ Results in unfair distribution of costs between large frontage comer lots, flag or
pie -shaped lots in comparison to special benefits
♦ Use of parcel size by Willdan in EBU assignments for safety & aesthetics is a
reasonable way to recognize relative benefit based on comparative parcel size
Number of Bedrooms
♦ Reliable data not generally available; remodeling may change bedroom counts
♦ Not applicable to nonresidential parcels and vacant parcels
♦ Use of pphh data by Willdan a more reasonable & appropriate basis for comparing
relative benefit among es of dwelling units, i.e., single family, condo
Per Property/Per ParceVParcel Size
♦ Per property is loo simplistic to appropriately compare relative special benefit
given the variety of land uses, parcel sizes & characteristics in Project Area
♦ Parcel size as the sole allocation basis results in unfair distribution of costs
relative to special benefits of utility undergrounding
♦ Individual condominiums are legally separate tax parcels and §718.120, F.S.,
requires ad valorem taxes & special assessments be assessed on individual
condominium parcels, not on the condominium properly as a whole
♦ Willdan incorporated parcel size in EBU assignments forsafety & aesthetics
Taxable Value
♦ Would raise implication of imposing an unauthorized & invalid lax
♦ Similar properties with & without homestead and Save Our Homes would pay
different amounts; although benefits are relatively the same
♦ Taxable value is influenced by factors not relevant to benefit of utility
undergrounding ro ect short -sales foreclosures
Electrical Demand
♦ Could potentially be used in determination of electrical reliability benefits but not
relevant to benefits of safety or aesthetics; more relevant to monthly bills
♦ Not applicable b other utilities being undergreunded such as phone or cable
+Typically, there are no records as to residential customer peak loads, only KWH
consumption. Almost all residential customers are only billed by the kilowatt hours
they consume with no record as to how it is distributed during a monthly billing
period.
♦ Engineering assumptions used in desigring systems typically incorporate many of
the factors used by Willdan such as pphh data, development characteristics and
density
Many alternative approaches to the Willdan assessment methodology have been suggested.
Some of these suggested alternatives were actually already incorporated into the recommended
methodology. For example, it was suggested that the costs be allocated based on the size of the land
parcel. As stated in die above table, using parcel size alone is too simplistic to appropriately measure
relative special benefit from the Project; however, Willdan uses land size as part of die evaluation of
safety and aesthetic benefits. It has been suggested that under Chapter 170, Florida Statutes, that die
Town is required to use the front footage method mentioned in Section 170.02, F.S. or that such
method would be summarily be blessed by a court if challenged. Clearly, Chapter 170 does not limit the
Town to a front footage nnethodology, and Section 170.02 specifically authorizes proration of costs "by
such other method as die governing body of die municipality may prescribe." In addition, Section
170.21, F.S., states that Chapter 170 is a supplemental, additional, and alternative method of procedure
and that die chapter shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purpose. The Town has relied upon its
home rule powers as well as Chapter 170 in relation to adoption of the special assessments for die
Project Should the assessments adopted and imposed for die Project be challenged, a court would
apply die requirements of special benefit and reasonable apportionment regardless of the methodology,
including front footage as mentioned in Section 170.02, F.S.
Two assessment calculation approaches repeatedly advocated by critics of die proposed special
assessments are: p;trcel front -footage and parcel land arca Neidher of dncse calculadon bases prohides a
reasonable or fair allocation of costs for this Project Use of die front footage method for this Project in
die context of die Town of Gulf Stream would, in my opinion, raise significant unfairness issues. The
front footage method was Idstorically used for local improvements such as sidew-alks and local sewer
collection lines and is best suited to application in small, homogeneous neighborhoods. Even then, there
are situations where front -footage does not appropriately measure relative special benefit The Project
Area in the Town of Gulf Strcam is neither small nor homogeneous. The Attachments to this
mennohandunu provide examples of assessment estimates using Front -footage and parcel land area for
comparison to the recommended Willdan Base Assessment In all of die example calculations, die
Willdan Base Assessment has been used for comparison purposes as it does not include on-site costs
and would be most comparable to die other estimated assessments. There are numerous examples in
the Town of similarly developed properties, in particular single family residences, where one parcel has
an extensive front -footage because it is on a corner lot, and die parcel next to it has only a moderate
front -footage. See Attachment A - Comparison of Estimated Assessments for Parcels on Polo Drive,
Banyan Way & Old School Road. Given die similarities among these five parcels - all developed with
one single family dwelling unit with similar safety, reliability and aesthetic benefits from the Project - the
extreme differences in the assessments calculated using front -footage would be difficult to justify.
Calculations using die parcel land area arc also shown on Attachment A for each parcel. Again, die
variation in the estimated assessments based solely on parcel size does not adequately establish die
relative special benefit to each parcel. There is at least one example of a "flag -lot" widh one parcel
fronting on North Ocean and another parcel to the cast of it with only driveway access to North Ocean.
S&C Attachment B - Comparison of Estimated Assessments for 2423 N. Ocean and 2525 N. Ocean.
Another example of the unreasonableness of using front -footage or parcel land are is shown in
Attachment C - Comparison of Estimated Assessments for 555 Banyan Way & Vacant Lot on Banyan
Way. The example in Attachment C also shows how die Willdan methodology addresses vacant parcels
in a way that maintains the fairness of the assessments. Vacant land is assumed to develop under current
development regulations, so the vacant lot on Banyan Way is handled the same as a similar developed
single family parcel. Under front -footage, the parcel at 555 Banyan Way would pay less than the vacant
lot because, although a large lot in area, it has short street frontage. In comparison, the vacant lot is a
comer lot with extensive street frontage although somewhat smaller in area than 555 Banyan Way. The
Willdan methodology views die special benefits to each parcel as equivalent. The application of a front-
footage or parcel size methodology also yields unfair results when applied to condominiums in
comparison to each other and in comparison to single family parcels. 5= Attachment D - Comparison
of Estimated Assessments for Condominiums and Single Family Parcels on N. Ocean and N. County
Road. There are also a number of non-residential parcels in the Project Area whose special benefit is
unlikely to be appropriately measured in a front -footage or property size approach. A number of
additional examples of estimated assessments are shorts in Attachment E - Comparison of Estimated
Assessments. The example parcels shotm in Attachment E are arranged in descending order from
higher Willdan Base Assessment to lower Base Assessment. The disparate and unreasonable results
from applying a front -footage or land size methodology are clear when viewed in comparison to the
recommended Base Assessments. The example parcels were chosen randomly to illustrate a range of
properties, physical characteristics and assessment allocations and are not intended to comprehensively
portray the entire Project Area.
In every example shown on Attachments A, B, C, D and E, the recommended NVilldan benefit
assessment methodology yields a more fair and reasonable allocation of costs in relation to die special
benefits of safety, reliability and aesthetics that will be provided by the Project. Habib Isaac, Lee Evert
and I will he available to provide additional information and answer questions on the materials presented
in this memorandum as well as the Town of Gulf Stream Utility Undergrounding Assessment
Methodology Report and Assessment Roll attached to Resolution No. 011-11 at the June 30, 2011
public hearing.
61812011 Print Page
3500 Polo Drive - 1 sfdu
produced by: papagis
ATTACHMENT A
COMPARISON OF ESTIMATED
ASSESSMENTS FOR PARCELS ON
OLD SCHOOL ROAD, POLO DRIVE
& BANYAN WAY
EXAMPLE OF APPLICATION OF
FRONT -FOOTAGE, LAND AREA AND
WILLDAN BENEFIT CALCULATION
#1 — 530 OLD SCHOOL ROAD
I sfdu
Front -footage $21,586
Land Are $ 8,703
Willdan $ 9,735
#2 — 3580 POLO DRIVE
I sfdu
Front -footage $73,337
Land Area $17,877
Willdan $ 9,735
#3 — 3550 POLO DRIVE
1 sfdu
Front -footage $34,723
Land Area $10,585
Willdan $ 9,735
#4 — 3500 POLO DRIVE
1 sfdu
Front -footage $75,035
Land Area $17,642
Willdan $ 9,735
#5- 535 BANYAN WAY
1 sfdu
Front -footage $21,694
Land Area $ 8,703
Willdan $ 9,735
SOURCE: PALM BEACH COUNTY
PROPERTY APPRAISER OFFICE WEBSITE
2423 N. Ocean Blvd. & 2525 N. Ocean Blvd. - each I sfdu
luted by: papagis
ATTACHMENT B
COMPARISON OF
ESTIMATED ASSESSMENTS FOR
2423 N. OCEAN & 2525 N. OCEAN
EXAMPLE OF APPLICATION OF
FRONT -FOOTAGE, LAND AREA AND
WILLDAN BENEFIT CALCULATION
2525 N. OCEAN BLVD.
1 sfdu
Front -footage $33,570
Land Area $ 6,233
Willdan $ 8,675
2423 N. OCEAN BLVD. _
1 sfdu
Front -footage $ 2,311
and Area $22,346
Willdan $ 7,613
SOURCE: PALM BEACH COUNTY PROPERTY
APPRAISER OFFICE WEBSITE
61812011 Print Paqe
ATTACHMENT C
COMPARISON OF
ESTIMATED ASSESSMENTS FOR
555 BANYAN WAY & VACANT
LOT ON BANYAN WAY
EXAMPLE OF APPLICATION OF
FRONT -FOOTAGE, LAND AREA AND
W LLDAN BENEFIT CALCULATION
#1 - 555 BANYAN WAY
1 sfdu
Front -footage $12,685
Land Area $15,054
Willdan $ 9,735
V2 - VACANT LOT BANYAN WAY
Zoned I sfdu
Front -footage $54,610
Land Area $ 8,939
Willdan $ 9,735
)URCE: PALM BEACH COUNTY
tOPERTY APPRAISER WEBSITE
P.W. `/30 /to 11
ATTACHMENT D
COMPARISON OF
ESTIMATED ASSESSMENTS
FOR CONDOMEWUMS &
SINGLE-FAMILY PARCELS ON
N. OCEAN AND N. COUNTY ROAD
#1 —VISTA VILLAS
4 condominium parcels
Front -footage $ 8,718
Land Area $ 1,411
Willdan $ 7,831
#2 — GULF STREAM VILLAS
4 condominium parcels
Front -footage $10,105
Land Area $ 1,999
Willdan $ 7,831
#3 — GULF STREAM VILLAS S.
4 condominium parcels
Front -footage $ 9,998
Land Area $ 2,352
Willdan $ 7,831
#4 — SEA RIDGE
6 condominium parcels
Front -footage $ 6,167
Land Area $ 1,607
Willdan $ 7,596
#5 — 4240 N. COUNTY ROAD
1 sfdu
Front -footage $29,176
Land Area $10,350
Willdan $10,796
#6 — 4227 N. COUNTY ROAD
1 sfdu
Front -footage $12,255
Land Area $ 3,058
Willdan $10,796
SOURCE: PALM BEACH COUNTY
PROPERTY APPRAISER WEBSITE
ATTACHMENT E
COMPARISON OF ESTIMATED ASSESSMENTS
Assessments Estimated Using Parcel Front -footage and Parcel Land Area
Comparison to Recommended Willdan Benefit Methodology
TOTAL PROJECT COST $5,839,729 (not Inc. financing costs or annual administration/collection costs)
TOTAL FRONT FOOTAGE 27,170.88 (based on M. Nolan's estimated 5.146 miles of roadway in the Town)
TOTAL LAND SQUARE FOOTAGE 10,727,720 (sq. footage calculated using Property Appraiser data on GIS
acreage per assessed parcel, does not include streets)
ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT PER TAX PARCEL
(not Including property specific lateral costs)
Address/Development
Development Type1DUs
Front Footage
($2151f1)
Land Square Footage
($0.54/sq.ft.)
Recommended
Base Assessment
Willdan Report
1220 N. Ocean Blvd.
Single Family w/2 DU
$
75,465
$ 144.428
$
27,179
1410 N. Ocean Blvd.
Single Family w/2 DU
$
185.545
S 123,728
21,781
1314 N. Ocean
Single Family DU
$
105,350
$ 75,272
$
16,289
3288 Gulf Stream Rd.
Sin le Family wl2 DU
1 $
71,862
$ 15,313
S
11,857
3525 Palo Drive
Sin le Family DU
61,395
$ 10,797
10,796
3180 Polo Onve
Single Family wl2 DU
$
76,129
$ 17,171
$
10,796
3420 Gulf Stream Rd.
Single Family DU
$
21386
$ 8,539
$
10,796
4240 N. CountyRoad
Sin le FamilyDU
29,176
$ 10,350
10,796
4227 N. County Road
Single Family DU
S
12.255
$ 3,058
$
10,796
528 Palm Way
Single Family DU
$
21 590
$ 8,633
S
9.735
3500 Polo Drive
Single Famil DU
75,035
S 17,642
9,735
555 Banyan Way
Single Family DU
$
12,685
$ 15,054
5
9,735
Banyan Way - vacant lot
Sin le Family vacant
$
54,610
S 8.939
91735
535 Banyan Way
Single Family DU
S
21,694
S 8.7031
9,735
3550 Polo Drive
Single Family DU
S
34 723
5 10.5851
$
9,735
3580 Polo Drive
Single Family DU
73,337
S 17,8771
$
9,735
530 Old School Road
Single Family DU
S
21,586
$ 8.703
S
9,735
Bermuda Club
8 Condominium Parcels
$
16.730
$ 3,440
$
9,235
2525 N. Ocean Blvd.
Single Family DU
33,570
$ 6,233
8,675
Vista Villas
4 Condominium Parcels
S
8,718
S 1Ati
$
7,831
Gulf Stream Villas
4 Condominium Parcels
S
10,105
$ 1.999
$
7,831
Gulf Stream Villas S.
4 Condominium Parcels
9,998
$ 2,352
7,831
2423 N. Ocean Blvd.
Sin le Family OU
$
2,311
$ 22.346
5
7,613
Sea Ride
6 Condominium Parcels
S
6.167
$ 1,607
$
7,596
Golf View Club
7 Condominium Parcels
3,348
S 1.109
$
7.528
Bermuda House
8 Condominium Parcels
$
7,686
$ 1.264
$
6,887
Befamar House
19 Condominium Parcels
S
2.229
1,956
6.629
Gulf Stream Shores
53 Condominium Parcels
$
819
$ 541
$
6,509
1428 N. Ocean
Sin le Family DU
$
6.880
$ 9,409
$
6,459
Palo Ride
8 Condominium Parcels
S
9,111
3,029
6.418
Hillside House
11 Condominium Parcels
S
4,044
S 2.502
$
6,322
Villa Deste
15 Condominium Parcels
$
2,422$
1.756
5
6,253
Ballantrae Condo
39 Condominium Parcels
1,964
$ 706
$
6,228
Somerset
23 Condominium Parcels
$
2,449 1
$ 1 ,6161
$
6,188
Las Castles
10 Condominium Parcels
$
7,157
$ 4,7281
S
4.402
NOTES:
Estimated front -footage and land area assessment calculations presented above are for general comparison purposes
only and are not Intended to reflect analysis of the entire database. Calculation of assessments using the entire database
to cover the entire project cost is likely to yield different specific assessments.
Front footage estimates are based on line measurements performed on the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser
database and are therefore inexact and are provided only for comparison purposes.
The comparison to the Recommended Willdan Base Assessment excludes any on-site costs for laterals or meter
replacement; therefore, the total assessment shown for a parcel in the proposed assessment roll may exceed the base
assessment amount shown here.
TOWN OF GULF STREAM
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
Delivered via e-mail
May 26, 2016
Chris O'Hare [mail to: chrisoharegulfstream@gmail.com]
Re: GS #2193 (Schoettle-Gumm memo)
I request to inspect the memorandum from Ms. Schoettle-Gomm distributed to the Town
Commission and dated June 28th 2011 regarding the underground project and proposed special
assessments with all attachments and adendum as referenced on page 4 of the minutes of the June
30, 2011 Public Hearing.
Dear Chris O'Hare [mail to: chrisohareeulfstreamna.email.coml,
The Town of Gulf Stream has received your original record requests dated May 25, 2016. Your
original public records request can be found at the following link: hn://www2.gulf-
stream.ora/weblink/O/doc/90906/Pagel.asux. Please refer to the referenced number above with
any future correspondence.
You will find the responsive documents by going to the same above link.
We consider this closed.
Respectfully,
Town Clerk, Custodian of the Records