Loading...
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