021687-Workshop SessionMINUTES
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
205
_ 19 87
The City Commission of the City of Sanford, Florida, met in Workshop Session in
the City Manager's Conference RoOm at the City Hall in the City of Sanford, Florida, at 4:30
o'clock P. M. on February 16, 1987.
Present:
Mayor-Commissioner Bettye D. Smith
Commissioner Whitey Eckstein
Commissioner John Y. Mercer
Commissioner Bob Thomas
Commissioner A. A. McClanahan
City Attorney William L. Colbert
City Manager Frank A. Faison
City Clerk H. N. Tamm, Jr.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman.
The City Manager submitted a memorandum from the Director of Engineering and
Planning as follows:
MEMORANDUM
FEBRUARY 3, 1987
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mayor and City Commissioners
City Manager
Director of Engineering and Planning
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:
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 municipal
technical committee be formally incorporated into the process.
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).
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
supportable transportation program.
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 proposed
206
MINUTES
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
February 16,
19 87
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 46A.
Financial Considerations: Known contributions by major
developments should be identified and understood. In general,
the financial implications are inadequately addressed. Funding
patterns and already committed projects should be clearly
identified.
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~ndesirable~ ·
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 text 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. This 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 proposal
reflects a one-sided approach that does not adequately address
the City of Sanford's interests. While disappointed 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 participate in Seminole
County's Transporation Impact Fee Program.
Ms. Montye Beamer, Deputy County Administrator of Seminole County, appeared to
present a brief overview of the Seminole County's proposed Road Impact Fees. Ms. Beamer
reported the Board of County Commissioners looked at impact fees not as a replacement of
sources of revenue or as an anti-growth idea but a way to get growth to pay for that portion
of infrastructure of the capital facilities that it is presentied to the County. The impact
fees that the County is currently looking include the road impact fees, parks, libraries,
fire safety, and law enforcement. Ms. Beamer discussed the proposed Road Impact Fees
Summary, dated January 19, 1987, as follows:
There are three primary concepts in the development of valid impact fees:
Fair Share - new development should pay for only its' share of facility
expansion costs to meet the needs, or demand, which it generates.
Rational Nexus of Benefits - money collected from new development must be
spent on capital improvements from which the development will benefit in a
reasonable time period.
MINUTES
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
il
207
February. ~6,
Credits - new development should have its' share of costs for new facilites
reduced to reflect: future payments of taxes that would ordinarily be used
for capital facilities; and, contributions of land or improvements that meet
the same need as the fee.
Allowance is also made in the County proposal for a credit of municipal
impact fees, to the extent that they are used on the designated County
roads.
Seminole County's proposed Road Impact Fees structure in consideration of these
concepts, and have the following five key components:
Improvements Driven System - a specific list of improvements necessary to
serve the number of trips generated by the projected 20-year new growth has
been developed.
100% of Costs - The total estimated costs for needed improvements are
included in the calculations. These costs are then allocated between: a)
new growth; b) existing deficiencies; and, c) excess capacity.
The County is in the process of issuing Local Option Gas Tax revenue bonds
to fund the majority of the County share of costs for the first 10 projects.
Equity - Fees are charged to all types of development, including
residential, commercial, and industrial; and, fees are charged on all new
construction occurring in the County, both within cities and in the
unincorporated area.
Two-Tiered System for County Roads - based upon average trip lengths, costs
for the Arterial road system are borne County-wide, while improvements to
Collector roads are charged to development within that Collector road
district. (The three Collector road districts were defined utilizing an
approximate 6-mile radius.)
State, Federal, or City roads over which the County has no authority were
not included in the fee structure, nor were unincorporated area local roads.
Three additional points concerning the proposed road impact fees are highlighted
below:
Level of Service - "D" at Peak Hour was selected during the County's 1985/86
TMP process as the level which met the combined considerations of traffic
flow and financial feasibility, and is equivalent to a "D+" or "C-" level of
service on an average daily basis.
Procedures for Alternatives - have been incorporated in the proposed
ordinance by allowing new development to submit information to justify
obtaining an alternative fee, or to request an appeal hearing, or to request
a vested rights determination.
Developments which have made commitments under the County's interim road
impact fee (since August, 1985) will have the ability to continue to pull
building permits at the old rate for one year.
The draft proposed construction schedule is based on four factors:
- whether or not there is an existing deficiency on the road segment~
- timing of anticipated growth.
- the logical time sequencing of improvements to various segments of
the same or intersecting roads.
- whether of not other currently planned projects may improve traffic
flow on the road for an interim time period.
The draft construction schedule does not prioritize projects within a given
5-year time period, and review of the proposed schedule is continuing.
The County's proposed road impact fee program has been under the review of a 17-
member Impact Fee Review Committee appointed by the Board of County Commissioners~
in late October of 1986. Meetings with City staffs were also initiated. This
review process has resulted in working through certain questions and some changes
to the original draft proposals, including:
The number of land/building use categories outlined in the original fee
schedule is being increased. Certain commercial developments which have
less impact on major roads than do large retail centers are being identified
separately, and will have a correspondingly lower impact fee.
The definitions, or criteria, for Arterial and Collector Roads have been
reviewed, and then application to the roads within the impact fee system re-
evaluated based on that criteria. This review resulted in the
identification of Howell Branch Road as an Arterial, rather than a
19 87
208
MINUTES
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
February 16,
19 87
Collector.
This change, along with a change in the Collector District designation of
Traffic Zone 143, has resulted in a fee recalculation, which for single
family residential units in each District is as follows:
Original Calculation
New Calculation
North $408.65 $445.45
East $750.50 $690.30
West $540.30 $575.15
Ms. Beamer reported revised calculation figures for single family residential
units in each District as the North District, $448.00, the East District, $688.00, and the
West District, $579.00; and reported the County's final meeting for Draft No. 7 will be
February 17, 1987 at 4:00 o'clock P.M. Ms. Beamer estimated the fee from the North District
to be expended as follows:
Collector Roads $ 44.00
Arterial Road 404.00
The Commission directed Staff to draft recommendations, an update and overview of
the proposed Transporation Impact Fee for the next regular meeting.
The City Manager submitted a letter from W. E. "Pete" Knowles, President of Pete
Knowles and Associates, Inc, as follows:
Pete Knowles and Associates, Inc.
Public Administration Consultant
Post Office Box 532
Sanford, Florida, 32772-0532
W.E. "Pete"' Knowles
(305) 323-1354
January 25, 1987
Mayor Bettye D. Smith
103 Country Place
Sanford, Florida 32771
Re:
Lot development costs/Carriage
Cove
Dear Bettye:
I wish to address the Sanford City Commission on the need to
explore means to-lower lot development costs for projects within the
city limits. This is requested by my client, Lennar Homes, in relation
to.their Carriage Cove project.
The initial problem exists due to costs incurred by being the
initial developer in a specific area. City requirements for transportat-
ion systems are not in proportion to the project's transportation impac%
or needs. The initial developer is required to provide rights-of-way,
engineering, drainage, and street construction at one hundred percent
cf city requirements while other abutting properties contribute nothing
but future impact.
In addition, city requirements for arterial roadway costs To
serve the entire area's transpor%ation system, over and above the impact
created by the development, is not an equitable application of the
authority cf:the City.
Attached is a mad showing the Carriage Cove Expansion area as
part of the residentially zoned area north of the Lake Mary Boulevard
Extension righ%-of-way, south of Airporn Boulevard, east of Seminole
Centre, and west of Pinecrest. This zs an area cf 176.99 acres, zoned
for 2,222 dwelling units. Of that total number of dwelling units,
Carriage Cove represents 331 units or 14.9 percen%. The City of Sanford
is requiring Lennar Homes to ~rovide the right-of-way, engineerzng,
drainage, and construction cos~-s for Rolling Hills Boulevard and
Americana Boulevard (to a point just south of Airport Boulevard).
This is requiring Lennar Homes to contribute one hundred oercent
of the street costs while contributing only 14.9 percent of the trans-
por%ation _mpa~%.~ ~ The =bu~ng~ multi-residentially zoned .~roDe~ties_ ~ are
no~ contributing as they are not being developed an this time.
MINUTES
209
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
February 16,
19 87
Demographics of the State and of the Central F.lorida area clearly
indicate a critical need for dwelling units as this area is zoned and
has been zoned for several years.
While other cities and counties are develop!ng louical means to
gain fiscal resources to provide needed transportation systems, the City
reliance on involuntary contribution of costs and real es%ate can not
be considered viable and especially so when it is not equitably applied
to all developments.
This can be rectified by initiation of a municipal transportation
impact fee that Ks uniform for all development on the municipal road
systems.
On April 22, 1986, the City Commission's advisory board for the
future growth of Sanford voted ~o advxse the City Commission to obtain
the services of a consultant to generate an overall impact fee for
utilities, open space, and transportation. Requirements for involuntary
contributions can no longer be considered a suitable substitute for
equitable assessmen= of costs.
My client continues t,o offer support and assistance to the City,
while paying for an equitable share of infrastructure costs attributed
to their respective development.
To do so, requires careful preparation of data and time combined
with technical knowledge of transportation needs and costs. It will not
come easily nor quickly and continued delay serves only ~o delay providing
needed housing.
The City Commission is asked to initiate and expedite a revised
system of allocating development's transportation costs. ! ask this
matter ~o be placed on the Commission agenda at an early date and that
I be allowed the opportunity to dmscuss this matter.
Sincerely,
W. E. "Pete" Knowtes
'President
WEK/ak
C.C.
Sanford City Commission
City Manager
City Engineer
Mr. Ralph Smith, Sr.
W. E. "Pete" Knowles, President of Pete Knowles and Associates, Inc, representing
Lennar Homes, appeared to support the request.
The Commission directed Staff to study the situation and report back to the
Commission with a creative solution for the problem.
The Commission directed the City Attorney to prepare the proper resolution
declaring March, 1987 as City of Sanford "Clean'Up - Fix Up" Month.
The City Manager submitted a memorandum from the Director of Engineering and
Planning as follows:
MEMORANDUM FEBRUARY 11, 1987
210
MINUTES
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
February 16,
19 87
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
City Manager
Director of Engineering and Planning
Proposed Architect Contract for Cultural Arts Center
Rehabilitation
Mr. Faison:
Attached is a proposed letter contract from Burke & Bales
Associates, Inc. dated January 15 and revised February 9, 1987. This
proposed contract is the result of an architect selection process
carried out under the provisions of Florida Statutes and considerable
fee negotiation following selection. Members of the selection and
negotiating panel included Jim Jernigan, Jay Marder, and myself.
During discussions with all three candidates on the "short list"
it became apparent that the $100,000 budgeted in this year's Capital
Budget for this project would almost certainly be insufficient for
complete design and restoration of the facility. As noted in the
attached letter, the estimated cost of construction for the
renovation, determined from standard cost curves will be approximately
$165,000, not including architectural services or constructin over-
sight. To help in this significant shortfall, Jerry Mills has already
begun working toward obtaining a State grant in the amount of up to
$50,000. If received this grant would leave us with a shortfall of
approximately $35,000 for the project as now envisioned. (These
costs, other than the proposed architect fee, are of course estimates
at this time.) During repeated inspections of the facility it has
been noted that there are a number of leaks in the building as well as
some floor settlement which may be the results of termites. Even if a
full scope rehabilitation of this building is not authorized in the
near future, significant work to prevent further deterioration of this
historic facility is clearly necessary.
It is recommended that City Commission authorize execution of the
attached contract for design and preparation of construction
documents.
The Commission authorized the proposed Architect Contract for the Cultural Arts
Center Rehabilitation to be considered at the next regular meeting.
The City Manager submitted a memorandum from the Director of Engineering and
Planning as follows:
MEMORANDUM
FEBRUARY 11, 1987
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
City Manager
Director of Engineering and Planning
Value Engineering Requirement for Effluent Disposal
Facilities
Mr. Faison:
We presently have under design effluent treatment and
transmission improvements as well as effluent disposal systems
estimated to have a total cost of approximately $17 million, of which
approximately $7 million will be paid by State and Federal grants.
Time-table for completion of this design work is May 1, 1987,
according to our Temporary Operating Permit.
EPA and DER regulations require a "value engineering" review of
planned facilities and systems whenever the total cost of a program
exceeds $10 million. Although there are two separate grants involved
in our program, DER has specified that because of the total cost a
value engineering review will be required. To avoid last minute design
"breakage" this value engineering review should be accomplished about
two months before completion of design.
As indicated by the attached letter of February 5, 1987 Conklin,
Porter and Holmes has obtained a proposal for the required value
engineering from the firm of CRS Sirrine, the same firm which
performed the value engineering proposal for our Yankee Lake design.
The proposed fee for this work has been negotiated downward from
$29,331 to $23,450. This fee for services should be considered as
additional scope under the Conklin, Porter and Holmes Contract
MINUTES
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
211
February 16,
19 $7
Amendment for design of the treatment plant effluent filtration and
transmission facilites. A significant portion of this cost should be
grant eligible.
It is requested that City Commission approve this addition to the
Conklin, Porter and Holmes Contract during the February 23 City
Commission meeting.
The Commission authorized same to be considered at the next regular meeting.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
ATTEST:
MAYOR