Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987 Seminole Co Transportation Impact Fee - Ord 1856MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager Director of Engineering and Planning Building Official Zoning Official City Planner FROM: CITY CLERK ORDINANCE NO. 1856 March 24, 1987 Attached is a copy of Ordinance No. 1856, passed and adopted by the City Commission on March 23, 1987. Said Ordinance to establish a six-month moratorium on all Transportation Impact Fees, and to establish a Transportation Impact Fee Study. ORDINANCE NO. 1856 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANFORD, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING A SIX-MONTH MORATORIUM ON ALL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES; ESTABLISHING A TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, CONFLICTS AND EFFECTIVE AND TERMINATION DATES. WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Sanford, Florida, has determined it to be in the best interest of the citizens of the City of Sanford, Florida, that a six-month moratorium on all transportation impact fees and a study of said fees be immediately implemented by the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF SANFORD, FLORIDA: SECTION 1. MORATORIUM. That a moratorium of six months is hereby placed upon all transportation impact fees within the municipal limits of the City of Sanford, Florida. During said moratoriuim there shall not be imposed or collected any transportation impact fees on any piece of real property or residential or commercial building within the municipal limits of the City of Sanford, Florida_ Said moratorium shall provide the City the opportunity to conduct a study and analysis to determine what should be the amount, if any, of impact fees charged and collected from any real property or development within the municipal limits of the City of Sanford, Florida. During said moratorium no ordinance or resolution shall be passed and enacted within the municipal limits of the City of Sanford, Florida, that places any moratorium on building, construction or occupancy of structure or that purports to assess a fee or lien against property for transportation impact, unless said ordinance or resolution is approved by the City Commission of the City of Sanford, Florida. SECTION 2. STUDY. The City Manager of the City of Sanford, Florida, shall immediately commence a study and analysis for the purpose of determining present and projected growth and and use patterns, present and projected transportation needs and hat should be the appropriate transportation impact fees, if any, within the municipal limits of the City of Sanford, Florida, nd then report back to the City Commission within five (5) onths from the effective date of this Ordinance. SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY. If any section or portion of a section of this ordinance proves to be invalid, unlawful or unconstitutional, it shall not be held,to impair the validity, force or effect of any other section or part of this ordinance. SECTION 4. CONFLICTS_ That all ordinances or parts of Drdinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby revoked. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE AND EXPIRATION DATES. This Drdinance and the moratorium set herein shall take effect immediately upon the Ordinance's final passage and expire one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of March , A.D_ 1987. TTEST: ren L— DEPUTY ,9 TY CLERK MAYOR City of Sanford, Florida. ORDINANCE NO. 1856 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANFORD, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING A SIX-MONTH MORATORIUM ON ALL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES; ESTABLISHING A TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, CONFLICTS AND EFFECTIVE AND TERMINATION DATES. WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Sanford, Florida, has determined it to be in the best interest of the citizens of the City of Sanford, Florida, that a six-month moratorium on all transportation impact fees and a study of said fees be immediately implemented by the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF SANFORD, FLORIDA: SECTION 1. MORATORIUM. That a moratorium of six months is hereby placed upon all transportation impact fees within the municipal limits of the City of Sanford, Florida. During said mbratoriuim there shall not be imposed or collected any transportation impact fees on any piece of real property or residential or commercial building within the municipal limits of the City of Sanford, Florida. Said moratorium shall provide the City the opportunity to conduct a study and analysis to determine what should be the amount, if any, of impact fees charged and collected from any real property or development within the municipal limits of the City of Sanford, Florida. During said moratorium no ordinance or resolution shall be passed and enacted within the municipal limits of the City of Sanford, Florida, that places any moratorium on building, construction or occupancy of structure or that purports to assess a fee or lien against property for transportation impact, unless said ordinance or resolution is approved by the City Commission of the City of Sanford, Florida. SECTION 2. STUDY. The City Manager of the City of Sanford, Florida, shall immediately commence a study and analysis for the purpose of determining present and projected growth and Land use patterns, present and projected transportation needs and chat should be the appropriate transportation impact fees, if any, within the municipal limits of the City of Sanford, Florida, and then report back to the City Commission within five (5) nonths from the effective date of this Ordinance. SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY. If any section or portion.of section of this ordinance proves to be invalid, unlawful or nconstitutional, it shall not be held•.to impair the validity, orce or effect of any other section or part of this ordinance. SECTION 4. CONFLICTS. That all ordinances or parts of rdinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby evoked. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE AND EXPIRATION DATES. This rdinance and the moratorium set herein shall take effect mmediately upon the Ordinance's final passage and expire one undred eighty (180) days from the date of passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of March , .D. 1987. MAYOR TTEST: City of Sanford, Florida. RESOLUTION NO. 1476 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANFORD, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING A GROUP HOMES AND FOSTER CARE FACILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE. WHEREAS, the City of Sanford, Florida recognizes that it has the duty to plan for adequate sites in residential areas for group homes and foster care facilities licensed or funded by the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services; and WHEREAS, the City recognizes that it is appropriate to review the current regulations contained within the City Code concerning group homes and foster care facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF SANFORD, FLORIDA: SECTION 1. CREATED. There is hereby created and constituted a Group Homes and Foster Care Facilities Advisory Committee to be appointed and confirmed by the City Commission. SECTION 2. TERM. The members of the Group Homes and Foster Care Facilities Advisory Committee created by this Resolution shall be appointed for a term of sixty (60) days and said term shall expire at the end of said sixty (60) days from date of appointment unless specifically extended by further action of the Sanford City Commission. SECTION 3. DUTIES. The Group Homes and Foster Care Facilities Advisory Committee is empowered and directed to consider and study the current City Code, together with Staff recommendations and to advise, counsel, and report to the City Commission in writing its findings, recommendations, and conclusions within sixty (60) days from date of appointment. DEPUTY SECTION 4. EXPENDITURES. The members of the Group Homes and Foster Care Facilities Advisory Committee shall receive no compensation and may expend only such sums as may be authorized and appropriated by the City Commission. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of March , A -D. 1987. ATTEST: Cy'ITY CLERK MAYOR v GA's'the City Ct5mmission of the City of Sanford, Florida. ORDINANCE NO. 1856 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANFORD, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING A SIX-MONTH MORATORIUM ON ALL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES; ESTABLISHING A TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, CONFLICTS AND EFFECTIVE AND TERMINATION DATES. WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Sanford, Florida, has determined it to be in the best interest of the citizens of the City of Sanford, Florida, that a six-month moratorium on all transportation impact fees and a study of said fees be immediately implemented by the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF SANFORD, FLORIDA: SECTION 1. MORATORIUM. That a moratorium of six months is hereby placed upon all transportation impact fees within the municipal limits of the City of Sanford, Florida. During said moratoriuim there shall not be imposed or collected any transportation impact fees on any piece of real property or residential or commercial building within the municipal limits of the.City of Sanford, Florida_ Said moratorium shall provide the City the opportunity to conduct a study and analysis to determine what should be the amount, if any, of impact fees charged and collected from any real property or development within the municipal limits of the City of Sanford, Florida. During said moratorium no ordinance or resolution shall be passed and enacted within the municipal limits of the City of Sanford, Florida, that places any moratorium on building, construction or occupancy of structure or that purports to assess a fee or lien against property for transportation impact, unless said ordinance or resolution is approved by the City Commission of the City of Sanford, Florida. SECTION 2. STUDY. The City Manager of the City of Sanford, Florida, shall immediately commence a study and analysis for the purpose of determining present and projected growth and and use patterns, present and projected transportation needs and what should be the appropriate transportation impact fees, if any, within the municipal limits of the City of Sanford, Florida, and then report back to the City Commission within five (5) months from the effective date of this Ordinance. SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY. If any section or portion of a section of this ordinance proves to be invalid, unlawful or unconstitutional, it shall not be held•.to impair the validity, force or effect of any other section or part of this ordinance. SECTION 4. CONFLICTS. That all ordinances or parts of Drdinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby revoked. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE AND EXPIRATION DATES_ This Drdinance and the moratorium set herein shall take effect immediately upon the Ordinance's final passage and expire one aundred eighty (180) days from the date of passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of March , %.D. 1987. MAYOR TTEST: City of Sanford, Florida. --2-- MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager____72 Gyp" FROM: Director of Engineering and Planning 1 NFp eMA T10 Ol,, y N FEBRUARY 25, 1987 SUBJECT: County Transportation Impact Fee Workshop Meeting, February 24, 1987 - Mr. Faison: Seminole County Commissioners held a workshop meeting to discuss the subject transportation impact fee with Roger Neiswender, Chairman of the Citizens Advisory Committee and Bob Nabors, legal consultant for the project. Montye Beamer provided a brief overview similar to infor- mation contained in her recent briefing to City Commission. It is interesting to note that she has still not briefed the Altamonte Springs City Commission although the newspaper indicates that County Administrator and City Manager for Altamonte have reached a mutli-faceted agreement regarding the conflicts between the County and Altamonte Springs impact fee ordinances. Bob Nabors stated that this ordinance is unique, presumably unlike any other in the State of Florida. He stated that a "inconsistent ordinance" adopted by a city would not pass the test of serving a municipal purpose. He sees no problem with assessing the fee at time of permit issuance with collection to occur at or before issuance of the certificate of occupancy. He noted that the ordinance is written so that any change in use of an existing facility would generate a fee requirement if the change in use results in additional "trips" above those attributed to the prior use. State Roads and U.S. Highways are not included in the fee structure. Additional collectors or arterials could be added to the program in future years by the County Commissioners' annual review. A Citizens Review Committee is to be added to the ordinance, in addition to the Technical Committee already provided for. Roger Neiswender, as Chairman and spokesman for the Citizens Committee, commented on a number of considerations by his Committee. The basic concept was that all growth should pay - countywide. He hopes that municipalities will see the overriding benefit of the countywide fee. His Committee has attempted to construct the ordinance in such a way that developers will not be "caught in the middle" or caused to pay "twice" in case of overlapping ordinances between the County and a city. He noted that the County Commission has presently committed 100% of County gas tax revenue to this project including both unincorporated and incorporated areas, and since the cities are spending 100% of their share of gas tax within the incorporated limits, it appears that the unincorporated areas are getting a little less than their fair share. Roger stated that the ITE trips data -used is believed to be the best available and should be used in the future. He recom- mended that government construction exemptions presently included in the ordinance should be reviewed at the first annual review and consideration given to eliminating these. He noted that low cost housing and "lower" cost housing generates as many trips as higher cost housing and that as such should pay its own way. He opposes any direct subsidy of lower cost housing by a reduction in the impact fee, stating that if such a subsidy is to occur it should come from other revenue stream. MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager RE: County Transportation Impact Fee Workshop Meeting, February 24, 1987 February 25, 1987 Page 2 He indicated that the Committee recommends a procedure whereby the impact fee may be payable for commercial property at time of issuance of the final CO for a specific section of the building, with the fee not to be collectable upon issuance of a "shell only" CO to the initial developer. (I see great potential for a problem in this area since it would allow the developer to pass directly to the first tenant of a given space direct respon- sibility for payment of the complete transportation impact fee. It is possible that an individual signing a lease for commercial space might not even be aware of the potential large impact fee cost which he will be required to incur before he opens his door. I feel this is a fee which should be borne by the facility owner not a tenant, since the owner should be able to finance this fee along with other construction costs whereas the tenant has no such opportunity.) Commissioner Barbara Christensen stated that she felt that the whole calculation of impact fees as well as the identification of roads to be included is totally unfair and that the whole mat- ter should be studied before County Commission takes any action. Cheryl Lynch (Central Florida Homebuilders Association) stated that she is opposed to any type of a lien use within the impact fee process which might result from a disagreement between the County and the City. She takes this position since the lien would in fact be placed against the builder and would have little to no leverage in a City vs. County contest. Although Roger Neiswender indicated that the recommendation from his committee regarding the impact fee ordinance was unani- mous, John Howell (Lawyer for Central Florida Homebuilders Association) spoke at length regarding his legal opinion that the ordinance as drafted is unenforceable within municipalities unless the municipalities agree. He stated that his opinion is based upon the Florida Constitution while, as he understands it, Mr. Nabors'legal opinion is based on Florida Statutes. John stated that he feels that a City ordinance to "opt -out" could be found to serve a municipal purpose since the City could believe rightly that the computation of trips for development within a city could properly be different than computation of trips for similar deve- lopment in the unincorporated (less developed) County area. He also noted that proposed timing for construction of roads could be viewed by the City as being insufficient to meet their needs. He stated that if the ordinance is unenforceable, but the County pro- ceeds with placing liens against the property of developers who have not paid the fees, these liens could be viewed as possible slander of property title by the County. Because the worksession was running beyond the time allowed, it was determined to continue the worksession at 10:30 a.m. on March 10. It was also noted that the ordinance would be con- sidered by the County Local Planning Agency at their meeting on March 4, to determine if the proposed ordinance is consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan. It was noted that there would be a joint meeting of elected officials on March 18 and that second reading of the ordinance was still scheduled for March 24. WAS:mch Infomation Copy to: City Attorney City Planner MEMORANDUM FEBRUARY 3, 1987 TO: Mayor and City Commissioners VIA: City Manager��_?�,r FROM: Director of Engineering and Planning SUBJECT: Proposed Seminole County Transportation Impact Fees Since November 1986, City staff has reviewed various draft materials provided by Seminole County. Our major concerns at this time are as follows: 1. City Participation: The City of Sanford has not participated in developing the County's Transportation Impact Fee Program. Responding to a highly technical proposal for which we have had no real input is difficult. This is particularly true in light of the financial implications of the County's proposed fees upon all construction activity in Sanford. Strongly recommend that the City Commission recommend that the County postpone adoption indefinately in order to provide for systematic and thorough participation by Sanford and other cities with similar concerns. If Sanford is to participate in implementing this program, the City should play more than a passing role in program development. Also recommend a munici- pal technical committee be formally incorporated into the process. 2. Jurisdiction: At this time, legal issues of jurisdiction appear to be unresolved. In general, the County asserts that, based on its statutory responsibility to maintain certain roads, it has the ability and the right to impose impact fees in cities, even though it does not issue building permits in the city. In addition to road impact fees, staff also notes that Seminole County is developing other impact fees, the following of which are proposed to be imposed within cities: Solid Waste (landfill and transfer stations). . Law Enforcement (jail). Parks and Recreation (regional/major parks). Library (books and buildings). Administration and Maintenance (office, storage and office parking). . Drainage (lands and structures). . Transit (pending). 3. Socioeconomic Data: Road improvements are based on computer modeling techniques which in turn are based on extensive, detailed data. City staff's review concluded that incorrect and incomplete data for both incorporated and unincorporated lands in the Sanford area must be revised prior to developing a sup- portable transportation program. 4. Growth Trend Assumptions: City staff strongly disagrees with several predictions that influence proposed improvements. For example, the County's studies assume the continuation of rural development trends in the west State Road 46 area between downtown Sanford and I-4. 5. Proposed Improvements: City staff does not concur with pro- posed road improvements including segments of Lake Mary Boulevard and County Road 46A west of I-4, timing of Airport Boulevard improvements and the lack of any proposed new roads such as Rinehart Road north of County Road 46 A. 6. Financial Considerations: Known contributions by major deve- lopments should be identified and understood. In general, the financial implications are inadequately addressed. Funding patterns and already committed projects should be clearly identified. DATE'�Lf j ITEM MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners VIA: City Manager FROM: Director of Engineering and Planning RE: Proposed Seminole County Transportation Impact Fees Page 2 7. Proposed February 24, 1987 Adoption: February 24th is too soon to coordinate with the City, resolve differences, draft revisions, etc. To implement a proposal that is in the rough draft stages and has not been adequately addressed by proposed participants is extremely undersirable. 8. Relationship to Comprehensive Planning Process: In general, Seminole County's Transportation Impact Fee Program is out of step with the County's Comprehensive Planning Process. The County's revised Future Land Use Plan and Traffic Circulation Plan Elements should establish overall, agreed upon direction in the areas of land use and major thoroughfares. Future land use intensity and density have not yet been revised and agreed upon for major areas. A Transportation Impact Fee is a detailed implementation tool that should be based on an up-to-date plan. Therefore, Seminole County's Transportation Impact Fee should be accomplished subsequent to the County's updated Future Land Use and Traffic Circulation elements of its revised Comprehensive Plan. Staff also notes that, as part of the City of Sanford's Comprehensive Planning Program, the City anticipates applying a similar modeling technique to the Sanford Urban Study Area as part of the City's Traffic Circulation Plan Element. We anticipate City work to be accomplished in the next 6 to 8 weeks which should provide enhanced opportunities for City -County coordination of data base and evaluation -of road needs. Summary/Conclusion: In November, 1986, the City Planner transmitted a written preliminary review of Seminole County's Socioeconomic Data and Proposed Transportation Impact Fee materials to Montye Beamer, Deputy County Administrator of Seminole County. The City's review generally reflected the above-mentioned concerns in somewhat greater detail. So far, no response has been received and, in general, the County's proposal has not changed. In summary, Seminole County did not seek City involvement at an early enough date in this process. As a result, the pro- posal reflects a one-sided approach that does not adequately address the City of Sanford's interests. While diasppointed that this process has gone as far as it has, City staff would like to actively participate in subsequent revised drafts. Until the City's interests and concerns are resolved in this matter, City staff recommends that City of Sanford not par- ticipate in Seminole County's Transportation Impact Fee Program. JRM:mch Sanford, rjotj P.O. Box 1778 — 32772-1778 (:1� Telephone (305) 322-3161 February 24, 1987 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE BY THE CITY OF SANFORD, FLORIDA. Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held in the Commission Room at the City Hall in the City of Sanford, Florida, at 7:00 o'clock P. M. on March 9, 1987, to consider the adoption of an ordinance by the City of Sanford, Florida, title of which is as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 1856 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANFORD, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING A SIX-MONTH MORATORIUM ON ALL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES; ESTABLISHING A TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, CONFLICTS AND EFFECTIVE AND TERMINATION DATE. A copy shall be available at the Office of the City Clerk for all persons desiring to examine the same. All parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard at said hearing. By order of the City Commission of the City of Sanford, Florida. ADVICE TO THE PUBLIC: If a person decides to appeal a decision made with respect to any matter considered at the above meeting or hearing, he may need a verbatim record of the proceedings,. including the testimony and evidence, which record is not provided by the City of Sanford. (FS 286.0105) H. N. T c37Zlm , J r. City Clerk Publish: February 26, 1987_ "The Friendly City" BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PHONE: 13051 3211130 March 9, 1987 Honorable Bettye D. Smith, Mayor City of Sanford Post Office Box 1778 Sanford, Florida 32772-1778 Dear Mayor Smith: 1101 EAST FIRST SIRFFT SANFORD, FLORIDA .1. %: 1 The Board of County Commissioners at its February 24, 1987, work session directed Bob Nabors, Impact Fee legal counsel, to change certain language in the Road Impact Fee Ordinance. This included a ninety (90) day extension from the effective date of the ordinance for its implementat-'on within municipalities. It was hoped that this would give the County and the seven cities time to resolve their immediate differences. With the addition of an impact fee municipal review committee many other concerns will be addressed during the annual review process. Just as a reminder there is a joint cities -county meeting on March 18, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. at the Agricultural. Auditorium. The road impact fee ordinance and supporting study will be the major focus of this discussion. Because of the Board's direction relating to the changes in the ordinance, the establishment of the impact fee municipal review committee, and the joint meeting I respectfully request that Sanford's second hearing of this ordinance be delayed. I believe that the Board of County Commissioners has expressed its willingness to review possible changes to the ordinance and will continue to do so. Sincerely, Montye E4.Be aC:fe� r Assistant County Administrator MEB/mh cc: Fred W. Streetman, Jr., Chairman Board of County Commissioners Kenneth R. Hooper, County Administrator MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mr. Faison: MARCH 2, 1987 City Manager���7�-���� Director of ��..E...'n--�'gineering and Planning Transportation Impact Fee Moratorium Ordinance First reading was conducted on February 23 for a proposed City of Sanford Transportation Impact Fee Moratorium, to be in effect for a period of 6 -months, following adoption. My memorandum of February 25, 1987 summarizes matters discussed at a Board of County Commissioners Transportation Impact Fee Workshop Meeting on February 24. This meeting has been con- tinued to March 10, 1987, because of lengthy discussions. As a result of that meeting I still see major problems which I do not anticipate can be resolved in the near term. These problems are both technical, having to do with underlying data and study assump- tions, and procedural regarding how the fee will be administered. Montye Beamer's letter of February 19, 1987 responds to a general memorandum of November 20, 1986 from Jay Marder regarding many of our concerns. The letter does not really show any signifi- cant movement by the County toward accommodating the concerns raised. The nearly 3 -month delay in response does not lead me to anticipate a quick resolution (before March 24) of remaining problems. Although there is a joint meeting of "elected officials" scheduled on March 18 I anticipate no significant resolution of "technical issues" at that forum. The proposed Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and underlying study/data have been developed without significant input or participation from Sanford. The proposed Municipal Road Impact Fee Advisory Committee, now included in the draft Ordinance, is a small step in the right direction but falls far short of according the cities real partnership participation in the studies and the fee determination/implementation. To achieve a real measure of part- nership, the charter of the proposed Advisory Committee should be siginficantly expanded and its role, responsibilities, and rela- tionship to the Board of County Commissioners spelled out in signi- ficantly greater detail. in short, the Ordinance should give this Committee a real input to the Board of County Commissioners with the Board committing themselves to serious consideration of recommen- dations from the Advisory Committee. As a separate issue the proce- dure for fee payment deferral past issuance of a "shell only" certificate of occupancy needs to be closely reviewed to insure against the possibility of a developer passing the impact fee payment responsibility to the first tenant in new commercial space. In view of the foregoing I recommend that City Commission move forward with second reading and adoption of the moratorium ordinance on March 9, in order to assure that it is in place prior to adoption of the County ordinance, scheduled for March 24. WAS -. mch xc: City Attorney City Planner � DATE 3 % le7 IC C � � 4TEM -? MEMORANDUM MARCH 6, 1987 TO: City Manager FROM: Director of Engineering and Planning SUBJECT: Local Planning Authority Review of Proposed Transportation Impact Fee Moratorium Ordinance Mr. Faison: On March 5, 1987 Planning and Zoning Commission, as LPA for Sanford reviewed the proposed Transportation Impact Fee Moratorium Ordinance for consistency with the City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan. By a unanimous vote the Planning and Zoning Commission concluded that there was no inconsistency between the proposed Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan for City of Sanford. WAS:mch xc: City Planner Zoning Inspector DATE � - P �Gc �GC2 ITEM � L _ MEMORANDUM FEBRUARY 27, 1987 TO: John Morris, Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Director of Engineering and Planning SUBJECT: LPA Review of Proposed Transportation Impact Fee Related Ordinance On February 23 the City Commission approved on first reading an ordinance to establish a six month moratorium on all transpor- tation impact fees and directing a transportation impact fee study by City staff. A copy of the draft ordinance is attached herewith. Under new Florida Growth Management Statutues it is believed that the Local Planning Agency should review any proposed impact fee ordinance to insure that there is not an inconsistency between "it and the Comprehensive Plan. Since this ordinance contemplates a moratorium of any new transportation impact fee it is believed that no inconsistency exists. It is requested that Planning and Zoning Commission consider this matter at the March 5 meeting and confirm this staff recommendation. WAS:mch xc: City Manager City Planner Zoning Inspector MEMORANDUM MARCH 2, 1987 TO: City Manager��'-- �.e FROM: Director of Engineering and Planning SUBJECT: Transportation Impact Fee Moratorium Ordinance Mr. Faison: First reading was conducted on February 23 for a proposed City of Sanford Transportation Impact Fee Moratorium, to be in effect for a period of 6 -months, following adoption. My memorandum of February 25, 1987 summarizes matters discussed at a Board of County Commissioners Transportation Impact Fee Workshop Meeting on February 24. This meeting has been con- tinued to March 10, 1987, because of lengthy discussions. As a result of that meeting I still see major problems which I do not anticipate can be resolved in the near term. These problems are both technical, having to do with underlying data and study assump- tions, and procedural regarding how the fee will be administered. Montye Beamer's letter of February 19, 1987 responds to a general memorandum of November 20, 1986 from Jay Marder regarding many of our concerns. The letter does not really show any signifi- cant movement by the County toward accommodating the concerns raised. The nearly 3 -month delay in response does not lead me to anticipate a quick resolution (before March 24) of remaining problems. Although there is a joint meeting of "elected officials" scheduled on March 18 I anticipate no significant resolution of "technical issues" at that forum. In view of the foregoing I recommend that City Commission move forward with second reading and adoption of the moratorium ordinance on March 9, in order to assure that it is in place prior to adoption of the County ordinance, scheduled for March 24. WAS:mch xc: City Attorney City Planner MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mr. Faison: MARCH 2, 1987 City Manager Director of Engineering and Planning Transportation Impact Fee Moratorium Ordinance First reading was conducted on February 23 for a proposed City of Sanford Transportation Impact Fee Moratorium, to be in effect for a period of 6 -months, following adoption. My memorandum of February 25, 1987 summarizes matters discussed at a Board of County Commissioners Transportation Impact Fee Workshop Meeting on February 24. This meeting has been con- tinued to March 10, 1987, because of lengthy discussions. As a result of that meeting I still see major problems which I do not anticipate can be resolved in the near term. These problems are both technical, having to do with underlying data and study assump- tions, and procedural regarding how the fee will be administered. Montye Beamer's letter of February 19, 1987 responds to a general memorandum of November 20, 1986 from Jay Marder regarding many of our concerns. The letter does not really show any signifi- cant movement by the County toward accommodating the concerns raised. The nearly 3 -month delay in response does not lead me to anticipate a quick resolution (before March 24) of remaining problems. Although there is a joint meeting of "elected officials" scheduled on March 18 1 anticipate no significant resolution of "technical issues" at that forum. The proposed Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and underlying study/data have been developed without significant input or participation from Sanford. The proposed Municipal Road Impact Fee Advisory Committee, now included in the draft Ordinance, is a small step in the right direction but falls far short of according the cities real partnership participation in the studies and the fee determination/implementation. To achieve a real measure of part- nership, the charter of the proposed Advisory Committee should be siginficantly expanded and its role, responsibilities, and rela- tionship to the Board of County Commissioners spelled out in signi- ficantly greater detail. In short, the Ordinance should give this Committee a real input to the Board of County Commissioners with the Board committing themselves to serious consideration of recommen- dations from the Advisory Committee. As a separate issue the proce- dure for fee payment deferral past issuance of a "shell only" certificate of occupancy needs to be closely reviewed to insure against the possibility of a developer passing the impact fee payment responsibility to the first tenant in new commercial space. In view of the foregoing I recommend that City Commission move forward with second reading and adoption of the moratorium ordinance on March 9, in order to assure that it is in place prior to adoption of the County ordinance, scheduled for March 24. WAS: mch xc: City Attorney City Planner DATE3 e6 ?ea a,t_, 4TEM MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MARCH 6, 1987 City Manager Director of Engineering and Planning Local Planning Authority Review of Proposed Transportation Impact Fee Moratorium Ordinance Mr. Faison: On March 5, 1987 Planning and zoning Commission, as LPA for Sanford reviewed the proposed Transportation Impact Fee Moratorium Ordinance for consistency with the City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan. By a unanimous vote the Planning and Zoning Commission concluded that there was no inconsistency between the proposed Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan for City of Sanford. WAS:mch xc: City Planner Zoning Inspector DATE 3 9- '4f % ITEM 7- MEMORANDUM FEBRUARY 27, 1987 TO: John Morris, Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Director of Engineering and Planning SUBJECT: LPA Review of Proposed Transportation Impact Fee Related Ordinance On February 23 the City Commission approved on first reading an ordinance to establish a six month moratorium on all transpor- tation impact fees and directing a transportation impact fee study by City staff. A copy of the draft ordinance is attached herewith. Under new Florida Growth Management Statutues it is believed that the Local Planning Agency should review any proposed impact fee ordinance to insure that there is not an inconsistency between `it and the Comprehensive Plan. Since this ordinance contemplates a moratorium of any new transportation impact fee it is believed that no inconsistency exists. It is requested that Planning and Zoning Commission consider this matter at the March 5 meeting and confirm this staff recommendation. WAS:mch xc: City Manager City Planner Zoning Inspector February 20, 1987 MEMORANDUM TO: Impact Fee Review Committee vc� FROM: Roger Neiswender, Chairman I" The time and effort each of you contributed to the Committee's work on the proposed Road Impact Fees is sincerely appreciated and to be commended. I would like to again extend a wholehearted and open invitation f or your participation in the upcoming meetings with the County. As a reminder, the two most immediate meetings are the worksession next Tuesday, February 24th, at 10:30 a.m. in Room N300, County Services Building, and the Local Land Planning Agency hearing at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 4th, in Room W120, County Services Building. For your information and review, a copy of the materials distributed to the Board of County Commissioners for the worksession is enclosed. The Committee's recommendations, which I reviewed yesterday with Montye Beamer and Pam Hastings, are included. This schedule will require a fair amount of time from the County staff and consultants, from me, and, hopefully, from many of you. In recognition of this, I suggest that the Committee's work on the next Impact Fee -Fire/Rescue- begin on Wednesday, March 11th, at 4:00 p.m.; this meeting will be held at the Ag Auditorium. This will give each of us time to complete our review of this draft study, which was mailed on February 12, 1987. Our work on the Library and Parks impact fees will be scheduled during the March 11th meeting. kjj I look forward to seeing you then as well as at the other meetings. .0'rr M E M O R A N D U M TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Montye E. Beamer, Assistant County Administrato DATE: February 20, 1987 SUBJECT: Road Impact Fee Work Session Tuesday, February, 24, 1987, 10:30 a.m. On Tuesday, February 17, 1987, the Impact Fee Review Commit- tee unanimously approved the Ordinance Draft CA7 with several clarifications. Robert Nabors of Nabors, Giblin, Steffens and Nickerson, will be present at the work session to review the Ordinance. A summary of changes to the Ordinance through Draft 7 is attached. Draft CA7 has been distributed previously to the Board of County Commissioners on February 12, 1987. In addition, Roger Neiswender, Chairman of the Impact Fee Review Committee, will be present to discuss the Committee's recommendations which are also attached. Several members of the Impact Fee Review Committee are anticipated to be in attendance. Invitations to the work session also have been extended to the Land Planning Agency/Planning and Zoning Commission and to the cities. Although the public hearing on the Road Impact Fee Ordinance which is scheduled for February 24 at 7:00 p.m. must be convened as advertised, continuation to 7:00 p.m., March 24, 1987, is recommended. The following key meetings are scheduled prior to March 24: o Wednesday, March 4, 1987 - 7:00 p.m. Land Planning Agency Public Hearing continued from February 4, 1987 Room W120, County Services Building o Wednesday, March 18, 1987 - 7:00 p.m. Joint City/County Meeting (all cities) Agricultural Center Auditorium. MEB/mh Attachments: - Impact Fee Review Committee Recommendations - Summary of Ordinance Changes through Draft CA7 IMPACT FEE REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS PROPOSED SEMINOLE COUNTY ROAD IMPACT FEES On February 17, 1987, the Impact Fee Review Committee unani- mously approved Ordinance Draft CA7. This approval is to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners and the Local Land Planning Agency/Planning and Zoning Commission with specific recommendations for addition. To provide an overview of the Committee's deliberations and resulting recommendations, discussion of the following major points of philosophy and intent is offered: o Impact fees are charged only for new additional trips generated. o It is imperative that the ordinance be countywide - to avoid the inequity and market disadvantages which would result from levying the fees in only some areas of the County, and - because a strong arterial and collector road system is important to the comprehensive plans and future quality of life in all seven cities and the unincorporated area o Participation by the cities is the much preferred alternative to the lien provision, although the reasons for this provision are recognized from a business viewpoint. o It seems logical that the County has the authority to levy fees for the Countywide road system - however, should the legality of the ordinance within the municipalities not be upheld, the entire ordinance and program should be revisited. o No applicant who is subject to paying impact fees in a munici- pality should be delayed or made to pay twice because of a City/County dispute. o The full County share of the 6 -cent local option gas tax was credited in the impact fee calculation. - This leaves the unincorporated area without a source of road revenue equivalent to the Cities' 36.4% share of the local option gas tax. The Board should consider addressing this inequity when additional or new revenues become available. o The Builder's share for growth has been assured by the impact fees; these must be closely monitored and placed into special trust accounts. The County's share of the program commitment is less well- defined and will come from a variety of sources. To insure that adequate monies are available to pay for the deficit, the same standards must apply. - The Committee sought a clear-cut process to insure the iden- tification of funds and to monitor these on an annual basis. - If the funding for the County share falls short, results could include: - rebates of impact fees; - reductions to impact fee charges; and/or - overall lowering of the level of service. - The major thrust of this discussion is attached as Appendix A. o Ease of Appeals/Alternative Calculations, including - clear procedures - timely processing. o Government Exemption o Affordable Housing The specific recommendations for incorporation in Ordinance Draft CA7 are as follows: o Time of Fee Assessment The assessment of fees should be made at the time of issuance of a building permit. All appeal rights become effective at that same time. o Assessment Method The County should perform the land use assessment and fee cal- culation, unless the County and a City address in their interlocal agreement a specific arrangement for the City to perform this function. - The particular concern expressed by the Committee was con- sistency of category/fee determinations for nonresidential construction. -2- o Type of Permits to be Assessed Fees should be assessed to only those building permits which will result in actual trip -generating occupancy. o Time of Fee Collection The collection of fees should be made in conjunction with issuance of a certificate of occupancy. - Exception will be made where a City does not have a certifi- cate of occupancy procedure or does not enter into an interlocal agreement. - In these cases, the County should bill for the fees based upon the issuance of a building permit as reflected in the City's records, setting a due date for payment. o Refund Provisions The time allowed to apply for a refund of unspent fees should be extended from 120 days, to 12 months following the end of the fiscal year which marks six years from the date the fees were collected. o Citizen Advisory Committee A Citizens' Advisory Committee should be formally established to participate in the annual review process with representa- tion from both development interests and the community -at - large. o Annual Review Items Each annual review should include: - Determination of possible over -collection whether based upon proposed costs vs, actual costs or a change in the list of improvements - Funding source for the non -impact fee share of improvement costs Items specifically identified for County study during the first year, with review by Committee(s) at the first annual review, include: - Right-of-way width - Low -trip roads - Design standards -3- - Actual costs - right-of-way, construction, engineering/ studies - Inclusion of Government to pay fees, including the legal and equity aspects of this issue as well as clarification regarding "quasi -public" agencies - Rate Categories with the opportunity provided to the indus- trial community in particular to take the initiative for Input in the form of an alternative calculation study. o Effective Date An effective date certain should be set at 60 days after the passage of the ordinance. - The primary concern of the Committee was to allow sufficient time for the Cities and County to enter into interlocal agreements following adoption of the Ordinance. In this way a consistent effective date and procedures could be imple- mented Countywide. o Affordable Housing A rebate provision for low-income housing should be developed and added to the Ordinance. This was presented in the Road Impact Fees study review draft dated October 27, 1986 (page 24). - The rebate mechanism proposes that new construction should pay its fair share but that the payment be covered by the same revenue sources used to fund low-income housing programs. o Clarifications The final ordinance should incorporate the following clarifi- cations offered by the County's legal counsel, Robert Nabors: - The "mixed-use" calculation will be defined generally as applicable to construction involving multiple distinct enterprises or functions. - The vested rights section will be revised to provide: - notice and an opportunity to comment on and discuss the staff recommendation prior to submission to the Board; - notice of preliminary Board determination with a hearing If requested by the owner; and -4- - criteria that are as compatible as possible with previous determinations, including those made under the interim impact fee resolution or in written commitment agreements. - The advisory committees will set their own meeting times, but they may additionally meet at the request of the County Administrator. - The time for payment of delinquent fees will be extended from 15 calendar days to 30 or 45 calendar days from receipt of the notice, allowing time for the owner to obtain finan- cing, if necessary. - Due to limited trip -generation data, daycare and private school/library institutional categories will be eliminated from the Impact Fee Rate Schedule and handled as individual calculations. -5 APPENDIX A Transportation Impact Fee Funding Mechanism Concern --------------------------------------------------- As limited -funding sources are available to serve transportation needs in Seminole County, there is some concern that adequate monies will not be available for the Impact Fee Program as disbursements come due. Dev- elopment's share has been assured by its placement into a trust account which is closely monitored to ensure that withdrawals are only made for legitimate outlays. Looking past the intent of the current Commission Cas evidenced by the recent bonding of the Local Option Gas Tax), howev- er, there is no such specific assurance with respect to the County's share of the program committment. There is wording that the County is obligated to provide the necessary -funding, and that its full share of the LOUT for the next twenty years will foot the bill. The fact cannot be ignored, though, that those same monies were used either in whole or in part for maintanance and opera- tions during each of the past two fiscal years. If the gamble that ad- ditional revenue sources in the -form of Gas or Local Option Sales Taxes will be available _o_ does not pan out, a choice might have to be made between maintaining our roadways or proceeding with the program. Know- ing the alternative that would be chosen, a lose -lose situation would result. Impact Fees would be refunded, with the ensuing traffic night- mare choking residents as well as developers. This.member's proposal, rejected by the County Staff as too binding, is to lock the County's share of the LOGT into the program in writing in the ordinance until that share is -Fully funded. This would certify the committment to the full program, even to the point of a. property tax in- crease to cover operations and maintenance if no additional revenue mat- erializes. At least one member of this committee would feel better about the time he's spent in this process if that committment were made. John Tracy SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO SEMINOLE COUNTY PROPOSED ROAD IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE THROUGH DRAFT CA7 o Arterial/Collector Road Definitions An addition was made to include those portions of an intersec- tion with a Local Road that are a necessary and integral element of the improvement design for the traffic flow on the designated road. o Temporary Construction Trailers The definition of building was amended to specifically exclude temporary construction sheds or trailers from fee assessment. o Alternative Calculations A presumption of validity for the data utilized in the County's Road Impact Fee Study was incorporated; this will allow an applicant to submit an alternative calculation based on the same data sources without having to prove the validity of the source. - In addition, the alternative calculation can be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit, rather than prior to application for the building permit. o Uses of Monies Allowed uses of impact fees have been clarified in the ordi- nance to include: - repayment of monies transferred or borrowed from other County funds; - repayment of bonded indebtedness, including issuance costs; and - reimbursement to a municipality for front -ending growth - related costs from its own revenues in excess of the munic- ipal impact fee credit. o Time for Expenditure of Funds The time period for encumbering/expending monies collected has been set uniformly at six years. o Exemptions/Changes in Use and Fee Calculation Construction of a new or expanded building, or a change in the use of a building, would require payment of the impact fee only if new trips would be generated. Where new trips are generated, fees would be calculated on the net increase in trips. - Agricultural construction which will not generate additional trips was included in this modification. A specific agri- cultural exemption, therefore, was deleted. - Buildings or dwelling units, including mobile homes, which are replacements of existing units and do not generate an Increase in trips will not be charged impact fees. Examples of how fees should be calculated will be included in the final Road Impact Fee Study. o Vested Rights Vested rights determination requested by an owner of property within a municipality has been incorporated; this includes consultation with the City Attorney. Prior to the effective date of the ordinance, a vested rights review of the current written County development agreements must be completed. o Payment Clarification was inserted in the ordinance that the impact fees are payments in addition to any other fees or charges due for the issuance of a building permit. If a municipality has entered into an interlocal agreement, fees will be collected in accordance with the provisions of that agreement. Provision was also made for an agreement for phased payment of fees where multiple building permits are issued for a single building. o Property Liens as Collection Enforcement Provision In the event the impact fee is not paid -prior to the issuance of a building permit due to mistake, inadvertence, or because a municipality has not entered into an interlocal agreement, the County may proceed to enforce the fees by serving notice to the owner and permittee and by filing a claim of lien against the property if the fees are not received by the County within fifteen (15) days of being served. The ordi- nance identifies that foreclosure proceedings may be initiated after one (1) year. -2- o Developer Contributions Credits The credit for land donated as right -of -wap will be based upon submission of a written appraisal, subject to the review of the County Engineer. o Municipal Contribution Credit If a city levies a road impact fee of its own, and there is disagreement between the City and County as to the credit against the County's road impact fee, the developer/builder may enter into an agreement with the County to defer a portion of the County's fee until agreement is reached between the two local governments. A credit can be given for a municipality utilizing its own impact fees or other revenues on a designated County road. o Appeal Hearings An applicant/owner may request a hearing without having to pay the impact fee; however, he would not be able to pull a build- ing permit unless the fee was paid. o Ordinance Review Requirement Annual review will occur with the review of the Capital Improvements Element of the Comprehensive Plan; this would Include the review of revenues to fund the non -impact fee share of improvement costs. - Any changes to the ordinance, the study, road classifica- tions, fees, or district boundaries must be done by ordinance. Other reviews could be initiated when signifi- cant changes, such as Developments of Regional Impact, occur. - If an annual review results in the Board's determination that a rebate is due, the amending ordinance must establish the rebate procedure. o Municipal Advisory Committee A technical advisory committee is established to participate in all aspects of the required annual review. Membership is to be the Mayor of each municipality or the Mayor's designee. The Committee is requested to provide comment, information and assistance to the County Administrator and the Board. o Alternative County Road Definitions Minimum attributes for definition of a road as an Arterial or a Collector were added. -3- - This was done to allow the County to define a road segment according to its characteristics rather than being confined to the more restrictive State Department of Transportation road classification list. o Exclusion from Administrative Procedures Act The clarification has been added that hearings and procedures were not intended to be subject to the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. o Individual Calculation of Impact Fees For land uses not identified in the Impact Fee Rate Cate- gories, and for mixed land uses, the County Engineer shall review the proposed construction to determine the trip genera- tion and fees. o Escrow of Impact Fees If a municipality enacts an ordinance attempting to interfere with or prevent the imposition or collection of fees, the County will escrow any fees collected from within that city until resolution is obtained. o Fee Schedules Fee schedules were originally presented in the Road Impact Fee Study Draft of October 27, 1986; the final fee schedules will be included as appendices to the ordinance. Fees have been recalculated based upon: Howell Branch Road being defined as an Arterial, rather than as a Collector; and Traffic Zone 143 being made part of the West Collector District, rather than the East District. The fees are pre- sented as whole dollars. The resulting fee recalculation for single-family residential units in each district is as follows: Original Calculations New Calculations North $408.65 $445 East 750.50 690 West 540.30 575 In the fee schedule the number of land/building use categories has been increased from 21 to 39. The new categories were added to make the fee schedule as comprehensive and as fair as possible; the Institute of Transportation Engineers trip gen- eration rates were still utilized in the calculations for these new categories. -4- The impact fee rate categories changed as follows: (1) added mobile homes, mini -warehouses, wholesale/warehousing, and walk-in banks/savings and loans, all of which have lower trip rates than the original general categories; (2) sepa- rated apartments/condominiums and hotel/motel units rather than having them combined into single multifamily or lodg- ings categories, respectively; (3) incorporated recreational (marinas, golf courses, racquet clubs) and institutional (e.g., churches) uses, which were not originally identified; (4) added medical offices, convenience markets, and drive-in restaurants, having higher trip generation rates than the original; (5) added nursing homes and service stations, which have different bases for trip rate calculations than the general hospital or commercial categories; and (6) com- bined certain retail categories due to data limitations, always utilizing the lower fee. o Project Construction Schedule The proposed construction schedule will become an appendix to the final Road Impact Fee Study; the Study itself will be adopted by reference in the Ordinance. At this time, the only change in the schedule has been to Wymore Road; based on fur- ther review, it has been moved from 2001-05 to 1991-95. -5- MEMORANDUM February 12, 1987 TO: CITY CLERK j FROM: CITY MANAGERtf�j%d" RE; FEBRUARY 23, 1987 AGENDA ITEM TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE Please place the following on the February 23, 1987 Agenda, worded as it is here. "Consideration of appropriate action resulting from work Session discussions on Transportation Impact Fee proposals." MEMORANDUM February 19, 1987 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION FROM: CITY MANAGERL?rI , v RE: TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES REGULAR AGENDA ITEM #3 Recommend introduction and first reading of an ordinance to establish a moratorium on new impact fees for a period of six (6) months for reasons expressed in the attached report from the Director of Engineering and Planning, letter from the City Attorney, and draft of said ordinance. DATE` ITEM l MEMORANDUM FEBRUARY 18, 1987 TO: City Manager FROM: Director of Engineering and Planning SUBJECT: Seminole County Transportation Impact Fees Mr. Faison: Recommendation - While a Countywide Transportation Impact Fee is considered necessary to provide adequate road improvements necessitated by growth, the presently framed County Ordinance and proposed Interlocal Agreement leaves much to be desired. It is therefore recommended that City of Sanford move forward with an ordinance to establish a moratorium on new impact fees for a period of 3 to 6 months to allow time and provide an incentive for the City and County to agree on a mutually acceptable Ordinance and Interlocal Agreement. Because of prespective timing of County Ordinance adoption it is recommended that first reading for our Ordinance be on February 23, 1987. Summary - The proposed Transportation Impact Fee has been developed by the County over the past 18 months with very little interaction with City of Sanford until the last few months, by which time the basic study data, assumptions, and projections had been firmed up. Staff concerns relative to apparent discre- pancies in data and population projections which were presented to the County have gone essentially uncorrected and in most cases unresponded to. There is great concern about the accuracy of results and projections based upon questionable data_ I understand that both Casselberry and Winter Springs are moving forward with impact fee moratorium ordinances to allow time for further study on various aspects of the Transportation Impact Fee. It is recommended that City of Sanford similarly move forward with a moratorium ordinance in order to allow time, with County cooperation, to validate or correct the foundation data of the County impact fee study and to resolve other issues relative to the Interlocal Agreement and Ordinance. Background - Rapid growth projected for all of Seminole County clearly justifies some form of transportation impact fee in order for growth to pay for its share of road improvements to be required. This impact fee should include development within the entire County, not just the unincorporated areas, since all resi- dents of the County, present and future, will utilize the various roads of the County arterial and collector network. Studies leading to the development of the proposed Ordinance and fee structure have been ongoing for over a year but have, until recent months, been progressing with little or no input or involvement by Sanford, and I assume the other municipalities. in the Fall an Impact Fee Review Committee was established by the County, however, no municipal representatives were included. The Central Florida Homebuilders Association has hosted a number of luncheon meetings to which representatives of the cities and County were invited regarding the subject of impact fees. These meetings were valuable for the limited exchange of ideas, however, there have been no perceptible "course changes" as a result. Recent events as summarized in the following paragraphs show, I feel, that much work remains to be done before the adoption and implementation of a Countywide Impact Fee which is fair, equitable, defensible, and based on best available data and projections. On February 4, 1987 the Impact Fee Review Committee, Chaired by Roger Neiswender, held a marathon meeting (2:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M.), attempting to work out a final recommendation to County Commission regarding the proposed impact fee. They did not achieve this objective, however, several recommendations were adopted. It was recommended that the implementation target, following ordinance adoption, be 60 days vice 10 days, in order to iTE;'J1 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager RE: Seminole County Transportation Impact Fees February 18, 1987 Page 2 allow cities and the County to try to work out differences and enter into interlocal agreements. There was considerable concern expressed that if this was not done that "the development com- munity" would be caught in the middle. It was also recommended that adoption of the ordinance be delayed until mid March in order to allow this Committee time to complete its work. Representa- tives of five cities who happened to be present in the audience were asked for any comments they might have regarding the ordi- nance. All five, including Altamonte Springs, Winter Springs, Casselberry, Lake Mary, and Sanford were "negative" regarding their perception of the likely City position regarding adoption of the impact fee in its present form. Mr. John Howell, Esquire, representing the Central Florida Homebuilders voiced strong legal opinion that the County's proposal to unilaterally apply impact fees within incorporated areas was not legally defensible. (John has taken that position previously, also.) On February 5 there was a meeting of city attorneys with the County consultant attorney for the impact fee ordinance. Attorneys for all cities except Longwood voiced strong concerns regarding the ordinance and proposed interlocal agreement as they are now drafted. Bill Colbert called particular attention to his concern that at a similar prior meeting in early January he had understood commitment from County representatives to redraft both the ordinance and the interlocal agreement to provide for strong city participation in the technical review process, but that one month and several drafts later he has seen no move to implement that commitment. (I consider that provision to be critical.) Attorney for Winter Springs indicated considerable concern for the proposed impact fee as a whole and stated that an ordinance was being prepared by Winter Springs to specifically prohibit imple- mentation of the County transportation impact fee within Winter Springs. Other objections from the various cities included the following: Concern for quality of underlying data and land use projections. Appropriateness of inclusion of certain roads in the program as either arterials or collectors. Unresponsive time schedule for improvements. Large size of collector districts. Heavy emphasis of construction in the less developed sections of the County (especially north section). This concern included both impact fees and gas tax reve- nue expenditures. Concern that certain road improvements were politically driven. Concern that city collection of the impact fee, as pro- posed by one alternative of the interlocal agreement, would be complicated and subject to disagreement regarding appropriate fee, with no provision for city administrative cost recapture other than by an "add on" fee. City Attorney's letter of February 12, 1987 delivered Draft No. 7 of the proposed Ordinance and Draft No. 4 of the proposed Interlocal Agreement, recently received from the County consulting attorney. These are the drafts Montye Beamer mentioned on February 16. MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager RE: Seminole County Transportation Impact Fees February 18, 1987 Page 3 Section 4.11 of the revised draft prescribes a Municipal Road Impact Fee Advisory Committee. This is progress, however, the Draft Ordinance leaves much to be desired relative to the func- tioning responsibility and authority of this Committee. We have primarily been pursuing the creation of a "technical" committee to principally address the technical aspects of the Ordinance and its underlying plans, requirements, socioeconomic analysis, and land use projections. Discussions with representatives of several other cities indicate great concern for the "skewing" of road improvements more heavily into the north area of the County at the expense of the southern section. While there may definitely be technical considerations relative to this concern it is more likely to be politically oriented. This type of a split agenda could lead to real workability problems for the Advisory Committee. It is therefore recommended that the Technical Advisory Committee be given a more directly technical charter and membership with possibly the "political" aspect being addressed by a separate committee. It is recommended that this Committee not be placed under the control of the County Administrator. Any member of the Committee, as well as the designated representative of the County Board of Commissioners, should be able to call a meeting. The charter of the Committee should be to provide recommen- dations directly to the County Board of Commissioners as well as to the County Administration. Ordinance should specify that the County Board of Commissioners will give due consideration to the recommendations of the Technical Advisory Committee and give reasonable response in cases where the Committee recommendations are not adopted. Recommend that a time -table for Committee meetings be established which recognizes the various functions to be accomplished including amending, revising and updating of the study, ordinance, appendix, construction schedule, and designated roads, etc. I feel that a number of meetings will be required and that the review will need to start a number of months before the due date for the ordinance annual update. I note that the proposed effective date in this most recent draft is left blank rather than the 60 days after enactment recom- mended by the County's Impact Fee Advisory Committee and discussed among the attorneys. Draft 4 of the Proposed Interlocal Agreement has incorporated the option for cities to collect fees only on residential improve- ments with all others to go directly to the County. Because of the complexity of the fee structure this is an improvement, and will likely be the alternative recommended by staff whenever agreement is reached on other matters. The new draft also provi- des for reimbursement to the city of administrative costs incurred in fee collection but only provides for this under the option where the city collects all fees. This reimbursement provision needs to be expanded to include some percentage for collection of residential fees. Although previously requested the Draft Interlocal Agreement contains no language or commitments relative to the Technical Advisory Committee. It is recommended that this feature be included so that the Ordinance and the Interlocal Agreement have a better interlock. The briefing by Montye Beamer on February 16 contained no new information. Most prior staff concerns and objections remain unanswered. i ) r WAS : mchZ`� Stenslrom, vIcintosh, Julian, Colbert C� Whigham, P. 2l. Attorneys and Counsellors at Law Douglas Stenstrom Kenneth W. VicIntosh Ned N. Julian, Jr. William L. Colbert Frank C.Whigham Clayton D. Simmons Thomas E.Whigham Robert K.'iviclntosh Suite 22 Sun Bank Post Office Boy 1330 Sanford, rlorida 32TI2-1330 (305) 322-2171 February 18, 1987 Frank A_ Faison, City Manager City of Sanford, Florida Sanford City Hall Post Office Box 1778 Sanford, Florida 32772-1778 Dear Frank: I have been tracking the County's proposed transportation impact fee ordinance. The Ordinance is now in its seventh draft and in its present form still provides areas of concern_ It appears that the item will come up for adoption soon whether or not the cities concur or enter into interlocal agreements concerning its implementation. Several cities are considering whether or not to legally challenge certain aspects of the Ordinance. winter Springs and Casselberry have begun the adoption process of an ordinance which would propose a moratorium on the imposition of transportation impact fees within their cities for 90 days while additional data is gathered and evaluated. I have consulted with their attorneys and prepared a similar ordinance for consideration by the Sanford City Commission. There are several interesting legal questions raised by the proposed ordinance (the power of a non -charter county to enact an ordinance effective within an incorporated municipality, and double taxation), as well as the validity of underlying data and assumptions that went into the creation of the districts and priorities of construction. The outcome of litigation can never Frank A. Faison February 18, 1987 Page 2 be known, but additional time might result in working out the areas of concern to everyone's satisfaction, additional data on which to base a decision, or a joint effort on the part of those adversely affected to bring about change. Sincerely, STENSTROM, McINTOSH, JULIAN, COLBERT & WHIGHAM, P. A. Wi liam L_ olbert WLC/lss Enclosure ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE O E CITY OF SANFORD, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING A MONTH MORATORIUM ON ALL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES; ESTABLISHING A TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, CONFLICTS AND EFFECTIVE AND TERMINATION DATES. WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Sanford, Florida, has determined it to be in the best interest of the citizens of the City of Sanford, Florida, that a--tfrr-e_e_-month I moratorium on all transportation impact fees and a study of said fees be immediately implemented by the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF SANFORD, FLORIDA: SECTION 1. MORATORIUM. That a moratorium of six months is hereby placed upon all transportation impact fees within the municipal limits of the City of Sanford, Florida. During said moratoriuim there shall not be imposed or collected any transportation impact fees on any piece of real property or residential or commercial building within the municipal limits of the City of Sanford, Florida. Said moratorium shall provide the City the opportunity to conduct a study and analysis to determine what should be the amount, if any, of impact fees charged and collected from any real property or development within the municipal limits of the City of Sanford, Florida. During said moratorium no ordinance or resolution shall be passed and enacted within the municipal limits of the City of Sanford, Florida, that places any moratorium on building, construction or occupancy of structure or that purports to assess a fee or lien against property for transportation impact, unless said ordinance or resolution is approved by the City Commission of the City of Sanford, Florida. SECTION 2. STUDY. The City Manager of the City of Sanford, Florida, shall immediately commence a study and analysis for the purpose of determining present and projected growth and land use patterns, present and projected transportation needs and what should be the appropriate transportation impact fees, if any, within the municipal limits of the City of Sanford, Florida, and then report back to the City Commission within five (5) months from the effective date of this Ordinance. SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY. If any section or portion of a section of this ordinance proves to be invalid, unlawful or unconstitutional, it shall not be held to impair the validity, force or effect of any other section or part of this ordinance. SECTION 4. CONFLICTS. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby revoked. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE AND EXPIRATION DATES. This Ordinance and the moratorium set herein shall take effect immediately upon °the Ordinance's final passage and expireone hundred (180) days from the date of passage. eighty PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , A.D. 1987, ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR As the City Commission of the City of Sanford, Florida. /��/.�, Sanford, P.O. Box 1778 — 32772-1778 Telephone (305) 322-3161 February 24, 1987 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE BY THE CITY OF SANFORD, FLORIDA. Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held in the Commission Room at the City Hall in the City of Sanford, Florida, at 7:00 o'clock P. M. on March 9, 1987, to consider the adoption of an ordinance by the City of Sanford, Florida, title of which is as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 1856 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANFORD, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING A SIX-MONTH MORATORIUM ON ALL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES; ESTABLISHING A TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, CONFLICTS AND EFFECTIN/." AND TERMINATION DATE. A copy shall be available at the Office of the City Clerk for all persons desiring to examine the same. All parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard at said hearing. By order of the City Commission of the City of Sanford, Florida. ADVICE TO THE PUBLIC: If a person decides to appeal a decision made with respect to any matter considered at the above meeting or hearing, he may need a verbatim record of the proceedings,. including the testimony and evidence, which record is not provided by the City of Sanford. (FS 286.0.05) H. N. Tam Jr. City Clerk Publish: February 26, 1987. "The Friendly City"