Loading...
11121992 SDFAC mins MINUTES SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 12, 1992 6:00 P.M. CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Keith Bobby VonHerbulis Herbert Cherry Leon Brooks MEMBERS ABSENT: Robbie Robertson Storm Richards OTHERS PRESENT: Steve Harriett, Police Chief Tom Weitnauer, Solin Associates Jay Marder, Director of Planning and Development 411 Russ Gibson, Planning Technician Marion Anderson, Recording Secretary Mr. Marder explained that at the last meeting, the Committee had agreed to recommend to the City Commission that the Recreation Impact Fee, as appropriate, be increased if specific facilities were included in the Capital Improvement Program to be constructed within the next 3 to 5 years. Mr. Weitnauer stated that he had gone back and refined everything for Police and Fire Impact Fees. He stated that he had not included the gunnery range in the Police Impact Fees. Steve Harriett stated that ordinarily a firing range would not be located in a place like this. It is something we have had for many years and it needs to be relocated. A more appropriate location for a firing range would be Site 10. This facility is certainly high priced. Chief Harriett stated that if the Police Department were to abandon this site, the Public Works Department would probably take advantage of it. It will probably remain a City utilized function. Safety is another issue that needs to be examined. It is really kind of hazardous to be shooting out there. Chief Harriett stated that there is a firing range that is available through Seminole Community College. Also, there is a 411 county range being constructed under the auspices of Seminole Community College, near the Osceola Landfill. It is not always convenient nor efficient to use the Osceola Landfill site. Chief Harriett stated that in all probability, the Police Department will more than likely keep its firing range. The Osceola Landfill site is not efficient for all agencies to use. As of right now, officers are qualified in 30 minutes or less. This is a high liability area. We train in this area frequently. The fact that we need to relocate is a given, it is just a matter of when. Mr. VonHerbulis stated that a 10,000 square foot industrial building would have $150 in police impact fees. For the same building listed as commercial the fee would be $2200. A good scenario was used, it just wasn't 100% accurate. We were hit with a small dividing number with a larger number to divide into it. Mr. VonHerbulis stated that he could not see real life impact fees being raised from $25.00 to $183.00 and that the Committee needs to come up with some number that is agreeable. We need to discount the numbers to make room for margins of error. MINUTES SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 12, 1992 PAGE 2 Chief Harriett stated that we can always go in and use 20% as a margin of error and hope this works for the Police Impact Fees. It is hard to get excited about impact fees because it is not real money, it will not help today to operate the Police Department. Everything is so identified and tied to growth. It is very hard to use impact fee money in the present. As an example, Chief Harriett stated that when you look at the Mall, $264,000 advertised over the life of the mall is insignificant i.e., a 1.2 million square foot mall would require an additional patrol zone, 4 officers, and 2 cars. An equipped police officer costs about $35,000 to put on the street i.e. radios, fire arms, bullestic vests, etc. The amount of traffic that is going to be generated will require additional traffic specialists that are equipped. Our communication center has to be able to communicate with the people inside the mall, therefore, a satellite transmitter will have to be installed in the mall. Mr. Marder stated that Police and Fire Impact Fees for the mall today would be $450,000. He stated that the City has agreed that • up to 50% of the tax revenue of growth increment, up to 10 years, would be dedicated to accommodating the traffic for the mall. A lot of the improvements are off site. Chief Harriett asked if there is any way to build in some kind of cap, when a point of no return is reached. Mr. Keith asked if it would put the City into a good position if the Committee had some margin for negotiation and stated that if the Committee would go with a pretty hefty figure, it would be in a better negotiation position. Mr. VonHerbulis stated that the Committee should not concern itself with a cap, if it comes to this we will have to negotiate anyway. Mr. VonHerbulis stated that 8 -cents per square foot is not a lot of money for commercial. Increasing residential from $25.00 to $91.00 with at total of $143 for police and fire is not unreasonable for a maximum cost per house. Mr. Brooks asked if impact fees are subject to variation as expenses become greater in all services. Mr. Weitnauer stated that the fees could be updated. Mr. Marder stated that we will be updating the fees again within the next 2,3, or 4 years. Chief Harriett explained that the Police Department is called to K- Mart and Wal -mart up to 10 times a day and stated that these types of businesses generate a lot of police calls. • Mr. VonHerbulis asked if the Fire Department uses the same communication system as the Police Department. Chief Harriett stated that the Fire Department is on the County's network and explained that they don't go by jurisdiction any more, instead they go by the closest station. Chief Harriett stated that when the mall is developed, the closest station is the Paola Station and that station will be first response. Mr. Keith made a motion to recommend to the City Commission a 50% discount on the proposed impact fees. $91.93 for the Police Department. Seconded by Mr. Brooks. All in favor. Motion carried. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 P.M. 0 1 0 4 0 J e W p , ww `V O o t f ,O� 0 V • N. it ? 11 1111■ p, • 7 11 11101i, A r J \0\ , Ali \ 111 11. i v j (S ' p 1 O T T1 r • uJQ • S `�' N o O 1 r K rn a w w w i �1C e 44 ) N I - �l 4 � ■ „maw Q4 C C• p ... M r O ©� r• .-: O O ' v� pC7 w p . pp ..l CO ; 414 y, O '� N M N M ` 1 0 • O •� p d P p O p O PA IA N O F- N 00 O Kt t,,� joll ry(y M th N _ , N N 0 W 1 0 A w D w , O [ O [Op p p O .Ot • i CO {A N .1 to O y{ O i M 0 ?t % O 0 ( Q q O pp N L N • N H O N H 0 w 0 I ae 1- 1• - • $ o K W g pp pp N .q q qq • • 0 ; .4). 2.1 W O M N w O O CP • p 1 O © O O i p at M N s O J .4 O vi q O pp O W • N M O w w I- r N e 4, W - W W .. Q d L. J d O 6 s D 4 C p o i o O N ti. J 1 - h+ to ...1 - N IQ J N N L r 0 • • H L N • ..- V L Y. �-- H L Y 4, H L Y O W L W t 0 a CC z u. of Systems Development Fee Advisory Committee 0 Meeting Agenda for November 12, 1992 City Commission Chambers First Floor, Sanford City Hall 6:00 P.M. I. Recreation Impact Fee Update - Review of Recommendation to City Commission; See wording of motion contained in minutes of October 8, 1992 meeting II. Police Impact Fees - Revisions by Solin & Associates (attached). III. Fire Impact Fee - Revisions by Solin & Associates (attached). IV. Old or Other Business 0 V. Minutes of Previous Meeting NOTE: Copies of the above - described materials are on file and available for review at the Department of Engineering and Planning, Second Floor, City Hall, 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, 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) PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES NEEDING ASSISTANCE TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY OF THESE PROCEEDINGS SHOULD CONTACT THE PERSONAL OFFICE ADA COORDINATOR AT 3305626 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING • • DRAFT POLICE PROTECTION IMPACT FEE BACKGROUND REPORT for the CITY OF SANFORD, FLORIDA • Prepared by SOLIN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. October 9, 1992 0 SOLIN ANO ASSOCIATES. INC PLANNING CONSULTANTS OLIN A ASSOC 410 POLICE PROTECTION IMPACT FEE BACKGROUND REPORT City of Sanford, Florida BACKGROUND In order to recover the cost of providing capital facilities needed to provide police protection, the City of Sanford adopted the Police Protection Impact Fee in 1989, Ordinance #2024, prepared by Ivey, Bennett, Harris, and Walls, Inc., (IBHW) planning consultants and reviewed by the Impact Fee Committee. The impact fee was structured so that it responded proportionately to new growth and demand for police protection related to the City's residential land use as well as non - residential land uses. After investigating numerous methods used by other communities for developing impact fees for police protection, IBHW recommended a system based on the methodology used by the City of Dunedin, Florida. Some of the attractive features of the Dunedin system were that it responded to both residential and non - residential growth, it has been in place for several years, it was relatively easy to understand and to update, and it has successfully withstood at least one legal challenge, Contractors and Builders Association of Pinellas County v. City of Dunedin, 329 So. 2nd 314 (Fla., 1976). The Dunedin methodology has also been used by other Florida municipalities, including the Cities • of Stuart and Tarpon Springs. While much of the methodology was developed by IBHW, Solin and Associates, Inc., Planning Consultants, was contracted by the City to update the data in this impact fee background report while integrating recommendations of the Systems Development Fee Advisory Committee. II. GENERAL METHODOLOGY The methodology was based on the assumption that a proportion of capital costs involved in providing police protection services could be divided between residential and non - residential development. It was also assumed that the existing capital asset inventory of the Police Department reflected the existing level of police protection service. The objective in the development of the police protection impact fee was to ensure that the revenue generated by application of the fee would maintain the existing level of service by providing revenues for capital facilities consistent with residential and non - residential growth. It was also intended to ensure that the fee did not generate more revenue than necessitated by new growth at the existing level of service for police protection. In general, the methodology was based upon the development of a cost per- unit -of- development for police protection. The cost of residential uses would be developed • on a per - dwelling -unit basis and non - residential uses on a per- square -foot basis. Once the costs per unit of development were established, they could be applied to new growth. In order to establish the capital cost for police protection, the existing POLICE.FEE, 1O/09/92 SOON ANO ASSOCIATES. INC. PLANNING CONSULTANTS 1 '1 OLIN ASSOC • value of the Police Department's capital assets were compiled as explained in greater detail below. The next step was to determine the relationship of police protection attributable to residential purposes from that portion that was applicable to non - residential protection. In this regard, the best available data is the records of police complaint calls maintained by the Police Department. The assumption was made that the amount of Police Department activity, expressed in terms of the percent of police complaint calls that were received for residential and non - residential purposes, would define the proportion of the Police Department effort dedicated to residential and non - residential Police Department services. This data was then utilized to calculate the proportion of the Police Department capital asset inventory that was devoted to the residential and non - residential aspects of the City's police protection services. Since new residential growth can be expressed in terms of growth in dwelling units, the residential portion of the Police Department capital asset inventory was divided by the current number of dwelling units in the City of Sanford to arrive at the current cost per dwelling unit for police protection services. Similarly, the non - residential portion of the Police Department capital asset inventory was divided by the existing square footage of each non - residential land use to arrive at the existing cost per square foot for each non - residential land use category. • The per -unit costs for police protection impact fees are calculated using the following formulas: Police Protection Impact Fee Formula For All Residential Land Use: ($ Value of Police Dept. Assets x % Police Complaint Calls by Residential Land Use) / # of Existing Resid. Dwelling Units = $ Fee/DU Police Protection Impact Fee Formula For Each Non - Residential Land Use: ($ Value of Police Dept. Assets x % Police Complaint Calls For Each Non Residential Land Use) / # existing developed S.F. for each Non - Resid. Land Use = $ Fee/S.F. Once the cost per dwelling unit for residential development and the cost per square foot for non - residential development was established, each new residential or non- residential development could be assessed by the City for its impact on police protection services at the building permit stage. In effect, this process would allow the City to assess new growth for the cost of capital facilities necessary for maintaining the existing police protection level of service. The following section describes in detail the processes and sources used to generate the appropriate data. II) POLICE.FEE, 10/09/92 SOLIN ANO ASSOCIATES. INC PLANNING CONSULTANTS 2 OLIN { AS 0( • III. DATA DEVELOPMENT A. Capital Assets. The capital asset inventory utilized or owned by the Police Department was generated from two sources: the Seminole County Property Appraiser for land values; and the Finance Department for the Police Department buildings /improvements and equipment. The total capital value assets of the Sanford Police Department including: land ($130,940); buildings and improvements ($1,104,998); and equipment ($2,997,169) is a total value of $4,233,107 as presented in Table 1. Real property owned by the Police Department includes one main police station headquarters and the Police gunnery range, a site which is shared with the Public Works complex. During its meeting of October 8, 1992, the Systems Development Fee Advisory Committee noted that the assessed value of the gunnery range was not realistic relative to its actual acreage value and use, therefore the Committee recommended excluding its value from this assessment. The real property value of the police station was derived from records of the Seminole County Property Appraiser. TABLE 1 POLICE DEPARTMENT CAPITAL ASSETS City of Sanford, Florida • CAPITAL ASSET VALUE LAND (1) Law Enforcement Center, 815 S. French Avenue, 1.5 Acres $130,940 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS (2) $1,104,998 EQUIPMENT (2) $2,997,169 TOTAL VALUE OF CAPITAL ASSETS $4,233,107 Source: (1) Seminole County Property Appraiser, Appraised July 1992. Police Gunnery Range was not included, ref. text. (2) (1990/91 City of Sanford Audit, by Coopers and Lybrand, independent auditors) and confirmed by the City of Sanford Finance Department, 1992. Prepared by: Solin and Associates, Inc., 1992. B. Residential vs. Non - Residential Calls for Service. Based on the methodology previously explained, it was necessary to distinguish between residential and non - residential types of calls for service in order to establish the percentage distribution of Police Department service demand by each • type of land use. POLICE.FEE, 10/09/92 SOLIN ANO ASSOCIATES. INC. PLANNING CONSULTANTS 3 OLIN 6 ASSOC • The Police Department currently responds to approximately 48,000 calls for service per year. The Department keeps records regarding the location, response time, and the nature of each call. A one -month sample of police complaint calls was divided by residential and sub - categories of non - residential land uses to derive a percentage distribution. The month of May 1992 was selected as a sample period month which should be representative as an average month since school was in session, there were no major holidays, and tourist season was not at its peak. The sample results are presented in Table 2, Columns A and B. C. Residential Dwelling Units. As presented in Table 2, Column D, there were 13,929 dwelling units within the Sanford City limits as reported in the 1990 US Census and updated with building permits since 1990. D. Non - Residential Square Footage. Non - residential land uses were separated into two categories due to the difference in the number of Police calls. Industrial land uses made significantly fewer calls than all other non- residential land uses. Therefore, the Systems Development Fee Advisory Committee recommended separating non - residential into two categories: Commercial /Other and Industrial as presented in Table 2. • E. Discounted Fee. It is accepted and common practice for impact fees to be calculated with the most reliable data available and then to be discounted to something less than 100% of the full calculated fee in order to create a margin of error. The discount protects a governmental jurisdiction, to some degree, from instituting a fee that is higher than may be otherwise appropriate, owing to an undetected error. Such discount is generally intended to prevent challenges regarding the basis for the development of the fee and eliminate staff time and City expense in dealing with such challenges. Discount rates are commonly in the range of 10 -15 %. IV. APPLICATION OF DATA. Following the development of all necessary data to support the selected impact fee calculation methodology, the final step in the process was to apply the data to the formula developed for the impact fee calculation. The per -unit costs for police protection impact fees are calculated using the following formulas: A. Residential Land Uses. Police Protection Impact Fee Formula For All Residential Zoning Districts: ($ Value of Police Dept. Assets x % Police Complaint Calls by Residential Land Use) / # • of Existing Resid. Dwelling Units = $ Fee/DU ($4,233,107 x 60.5 %) / 13,929 = $183.86 impact fee per residential DU. POLICE.FEE, 1O/09/92 SOUN ANO ASSOCIATES. INC PLANNING CONSULTANTS 4 OLIN a Assoc • B. Non - Residential Land Uses. Police Protection Impact Fee Formula For Each Non - Residential Land Use: ($ Value of Police Dept. Assets x % Police Complaint Calls For Each Non Residential Land Use) / # existing developed S.F. for each Non - Resid. Land Use = $ Fee/S.F. (Ref. Table 2) Although the same formula as the previous methodology was used, a change in three key variables in the formula resulted in a much higher non- residential impact fee compared to the previous impact fee. The increase was due to a large increase in the capital assets, a higher percentage of police calls, and due to more detailed data available, it was found that the square footage for non - residential land uses was significantly less than previously calculated. The results of this updated impact fee calculation is presented in the last column of Table 2. During its October 9, 1992 meeting, the Systems Development Fee Advisory Committee discussed discounting the fees and requested a table which presents discount rates of 10% to 50% to review during their final meeting.- The discount table was added to this report for the Committee's review as Table 3. • • POLICE.FEE, 10/09/92 SOLIN ANO ASSOCIATES. INC. PLANNING CONSULTANTS 5 a1I { ASSOC TABLE 2 POLICE PROTECTION IMPACT FEE BY LAND USE City of Sanford, Florida • A B C D E No. of % SHARE ($) OF # DU or S.F IMPACT LAND USE Police POLICE ASSETS BY LAND FEE Calls CALLS USE ( (2) (3) ( ( I RESIDENTIAL 1 2,022 1 60.5% 1 $2,561,029.70 1 13,929 DUI $183.86 DU 1 N O N - R E S I D. 1,321 39.5% $1,612,077.30 6,160,368 SF $0.27 SF COMMERCIAL / OTHER 1,258 37.6% $1,591,648.20 3,562,479 SF $0.44 SF INDUSTRIAL 63 1.9% $80,429.03 2,597,889 SF $0.03 SF I TOTAL 1 3,343 1 100% 1 $4,233,107 1 - - - 1 - - - I Source: (1) City of Sanford Police Department, Police Call records for May, 1992. (2) Percent of total police calls by land use. (3) Column B multiplied by the total value of Police Department capital assets (i.e., $4,233,107). (4) Dwelling Units per 1990 US Census and updated by building permits. Square footage by land use per 1992/1993 Tax Roll, City of Sanford. (5) Column C divided by Column D. • Note: Table 2 doesn't include Agricultural, Centrally Assessed or Miscellaneous land use categories due to no calls reported. Also, government calls were not included. Prepared by: Solin and Associates, Inc., 1992. TABLE 3 DISCOUNTED POLICE PROTECTION IMPACT FEE BY LAND USE City of Sanford, Florida LAND USE 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Discount Discount Discount Discount Discount 1 RESIDENTIAL (per DU) I $165.47 1 $147.08 1 $128.70 1 $110.31 1 $91.93 I 1 NON - RESIDENTIAL (per SF) 1 $0.243 1 $0.216 1 $0.189 1 $0.162 1 $0.135 1 COMMERCIAL/OTHER (per SF) $0.396 $0.352 $0.308 $0.264 $0.22 INDUSTRIAL (per SF) $0.027 $0.024 $0.021 $0.018 $0.015 Prepared by: Solin and Associates, Inc., 1992. • POLICE.FEE, 10/09/92 6 DRAFT FIRE PROTECTION IMPACT FEE BACKGROUND REPORT for the CITY OF SANFORD, FLORIDA • Prepared by SOLIN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. October 12, 1992 SOtJN AND ASSOCIATES, INC PLANNING CONSULTANTS OLIN & ASSOC • FIRE PROTECTION IMPACT FEE BACKGROUND REPORT City of Sanford, Florida BACKGROUND In order to recover the cost of providing capital facilities needed to provide fire protection, the City of Sanford adopted the Fire Protection Impact Fee in 1989, Ordinance #2030, prepared by Ivey, Bennett, Harris, and Walls, Inc., (IBHW) planning consultants and reviewed by the Impact Fee Committee. The impact fee was structured so that it responded proportionately to new growth and demand for fire protection related to the City's residential land use as well as non - residential land uses. After investigating numerous methods used by other communities for developing impact fees for fire protection, IBHW recommended a system based on the methodology used by the City of Dunedin, Florida. Some of the attractive features of the Dunedin system were that it responded to both residential and non - residential growth, it has been in place for several years, it was relatively easy to understand and to update, and it has successfully withstood at least one legal challenge, Contractors and Builders Association of Pinellas County v. City of Dunedin, 329 So. 2nd 314 (Fla., 1976). The Dunedin methodology has also been used by other Florida municipalities, including the Cities • of Stuart and Tarpon Springs. While much of the methodology and description was developed by IBHW, Solin and Associates, Inc., Planning Consultants, was contracted by the City to update the data in this impact fee background report while integrating recommendations of the Systems Development Fee Advisory Committee. II. GENERAL METHODOLOGY The methodology was based on the assumption that a proportion of capital costs involved in providing fire protection services could be divided between residential and non - residential development. It was also assumed that the existing capital asset inventory of the Fire Department reflected the existing level of fire protection service. The City's goal for fire protection was to maintain the existing level of service (e.g., Insurance Service Organization (ISO) rating of 5 for the entire Fire Department operation). This implied that the capital asset inventory must grow at a rate consistent with the City's growth and consistent with the City's goal of maintaining the ISO rating of 5. Therefore, the objective in development of the fire protection impact fee was to ensure that the revenue generated by application of the fee would maintain the existing level of service by providing revenues for capital facilities consistent with residential and non - residential growth. It was also intended to ensure that the fee did not generate more revenue than necessitated by new growth at the 411 existing level of. service for fire protection. FIRE.FEE, 10/12/92 SOLIN ANO ASSOCIATES. INC PLANNING CONSULTANTS 1 OLIN & ASSOC In general, the methodology was based upon the development of a cost per- unit -of- • development for fire protection. The cost of residential uses would be developed on a per- dwelling -unit basis and non - residential uses on a per- square -foot basis. Once the costs per unit of development were established, they could be applied to new growth. The existing value of the Fire Department's capital assets was compiled in order to establish the capital cost for fire protection as explained in greater detail below. Capital assets include land, building and improvements, and equipment owned or utilized by the Fire Department. The next step was to determine the relationship of fire protection attributable to residential purposes from that portion that was applicable to non - residential protection. In this regard, the best available data is the records of calls maintained by the Fire Department. This data includes fire and emergency medical calls. The assumption was made that the amount of Fire Department activity, expressed in terms of the percent of fire and emergency calls that were received for residential and non - residential purposes, would define the proportion of the Fire Department effort dedicated to residential and non - residential Fire Department services. This data was then utilized to calculate the proportion of the Fire Department capital asset inventory that was devoted to the residential and non - residential aspects of the City's fire protection services. Since new residential growth can be expressed in terms of growth in dwelling units, the residential portion of the Fire Department capital asset inventory was divided by the current number of dwelling units in the City of Sanford to arrive at the current cost per dwelling unit for fire protection services. Similarly, the capital asset inventory was divided by the existing floor area of non- residential sub - categories of Commercial /Other and Industrial to calculate the existing cost per square foot for the non - residential categories. The per -unit costs for fire protection impact fees were calculated using the following formulas: Fire Protection Impact Fee Formula For All Residential Land Uses: ($ Value of Fire Dept. Assets x % Fire Loss Calls) / # of Existing Resid. Dwelling Units = $ Fee /DU Fire Protection Impact Fee Formula For Each Non - Residential Land Use: ($ Value of Fire Dept. Assets x % Fire Loss Calls) / # existing developed S.F. for each Non - Resid. Land Use Category = $ Fee /S.F. Once the cost per dwelling unit for residential development and the cost per square foot for non - residential development was established, each new residential or non- residential development could be assessed by the City for its impact on fire protection ID services at the building permit stage. FIRE.FEE, 10 /12/92 SOLIN ANO ASSOCIATES. INC. PLANNING CONSULTANTS 2 OLIN A ASSOC • • In effect, this process would allow the City to assess new growth for the cost of capital facilities necessary for maintaining the existing fire protection level of service. The following section describes in detail the processes and sources used to generate the appropriate data. III. DATA DEVELOPMENT A. Capital Assets. The capital asset inventory utilized or owned by the Fire Department was generated from two sources: the Seminole County Property Appraiser for land values; and the Finance Department for the Fire Department buildings /improvements and equipment. The total capital value of assets of the Sanford Fire Department is $1,910,868 which includes land ($162,039); buildings and improvements ($664,718); and equipment ($1,084,111). Fire Station No. 1 shares its site with the Utilities Department. The portion of the site attributable to Fire Station No. 1 was based on the Seminole County Property Appraiser's land value divided by the land area (square footage) of the entire site. The resulting per - square -foot value was multiplied by the area utilized by the Station to arrive at the value of the portion of the site occupied by the Fire Station. • TABLE 1 FIRE DEPARTMENT CAPITAL ASSETS City of Sanford, Florida CAPITAL ASSET VALUE FIRE DEPARTMENT LAND (1) - - - Fire Station #1, 1303 S. French Ave. $29,909 Fire Station #2, 3770 S. Orlando Dr. $56,000 Fire Station #3, 1300 Central Drive $76,130 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS (2) $664,718 EQUIPMENT (2) $1,084,111 TOTAL VALUE OF CAPITAL ASSETS $1,910,868 Source: (1) Seminole County Property Appraiser, Appraised July 1992. (2) (1990/91 City of Sanford Audit, by Coopers and Lybrand, independent auditors) and confirmed by the City of Sanford Finance Department, 1992. • Prepared by: Solin and Associates, Inc., 1992. FIRE.FEE, 10/12/92 SOLIN ANO ASSOCIATES. INC PLANNING CONSULTANTS 3 OIIH 4 ASSOC • • B. Residential vs. Non - Residential Calls for Service. Based on the methodology previously explained, it was necessary to distinguish between residential and non - residential types of calls for service in order to establish the percentage distribution of Fire Department service demand by each type of land use. The Fire Department currently responds to approximately 3500 calls for service per year. The Department keeps records regarding the location, response time, and the nature of each call. A one -month sample of fire and emergency calls were divided by residential and non - residential zoning districts to derive a percentage distribution, similar to that utilized by the City of Dunedin. The month of May 1992 was selected as a sample period month which should be representative as an average month since school was in session, there were no major holidays, and tourist season was not at its peak. Results of the sample are presented in Table 2, Columns A and B. C. Residential Dwelling Units. As presented in Table 2, Column D, there were 13,929 dwelling units within the Sanford City limits as reported in the 1990 US Census and updated with building permits since 1990. • D. Non - Residential Square Footage. Table 2, Column D, presents the square footage for the two non - residential land use categories used. E. Discounted Fee. It is accepted and common practice for impact fees to be calculated with the most reliable data available and then to be discounted to something less than 100% of the full calculated fee in order to create a margin of error. The discount protects a governmental jurisdiction, to some degree, from instituting a fee that is higher than may be otherwise appropriate, owing to an undetected error. Such discount is generally intended to prevent challenges regarding the basis for the development of the fee and eliminate staff time and City expense in dealing with such challenges. Discount rates are commonly in the range of 10 -15 %. The first column of Table 3 presents a 10% discounted impact fee for each land use. IV. APPLICATION OF DATA. Following the development of all necessary data to support the selected impact fee calculation methodology, the final step in the process was to apply the data to the formula developed for the impact fee calculation. A. Residential Land Uses: The per -unit costs for fire protection impact fees are calculated using the • following formulas: FIRE.FEE, 10/12/92 SOON ANO ASSOCIATES. INC. PLANNING CONSULTANTS 4 OLIN { ASSOC • Fire Protection Impact Fee Formula For All Residential Land Uses: ($ Value of Fire Dept. Assets x % Fire Loss Calls) / # of Existing Resid. Dwelling Units = $ Fee /DU ($1,910,868 x 86.4 %) / 13,929 = $118.52 impact fee per residential DU. B. Non - Residential Land Uses. Fire Protection Impact Fee Formula For Each Non - Residential Land Use: ($ Value of Fire Dept. Assets x % Fire Loss Calls) / # existing developed S.F. for each Non - Resid. Land Use = $ Fee /s.f. (Reference Table 2). Although the same formula as the original impact fee calculation in 1989 was used, a change in two key variables in the formula resulted in a much higher non - residential impact fee compared to the previous impact fee. The increase was due to an increase in the capital assets, and due to more detailed data available, it was found that the square footage for non- residential land uses was significantly less than previously calculated. The results of this updated impact fee calculation is presented in the last column of Table 2. • During its October 9, 1992 meeting, the Systems Development Fee Advisory Committee discussed discounting the fees and requested a table which presents discount rates of 10% to 50% to review during their final meeting. The discount table was added to this report for the Committee's review as Table 3. • FIRE.FEE, 10/12/92 SOUK ANO ASSOCIATES. INC PLANNING CONSULTANTS 5 OLIN 1 ASSOC • TABLE 2 FIRE PROTECTION IMPACT FEE BY LAND USE City of Sanford, Florida A - B C D E No. of % FIRE SHARE ($) OF # DU or S.F IMPACT LAND USE Fire CALLS ASSETS BY LAND FEE Calls (2) USE (1) (3) ( ( 1 RESIDENTIAL 1 236 1 86.4% 1 $1,650,990 1 13,929 DUI $118.53 DU I NON - R E S I D. 37 13.6% $259,878.05 6,160,368 SF $0.042 SF COMMERCIAL / OTHER 35 12.9% $246501.97 3,562,479 SF $0.069 SF INDUSTRIAL 2 0.7% $13,376.08 2,597,889 SF $0.005 SF I TOTAL 1 273 1 100% 1 $1,910,868 1 - - - 1 I Source: (1) City of Sanford Fire Department, Fire Call records for May, 1992. (2) Percent of total fire calls by land use. (3) Column B multiplied by the total value of Fire Department capital assets (i.e., $1,910,868). (4) Dwelling Units per 1990 US Census and updated by building permits. Square • footage by land use per 1992/1993 Tax Roll, City of Sanford. (5) Column C divided by Column D. Note: Table 2 doesn't include Agricultural, Centrally Assessed or Miscellaneous land use categories due to no calls reported. Also, government calls were not included. Prepared by: Solin and Associates, Inc., 1992. TABLE 3 DISCOUNTED FIRE PROTECTION IMPACT FEE BY LAND USE City of Sanford, Florida LAND USE 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Discount Discount Discount Discount Discount 1 RESIDENTIAL (per DU) 1 $106.67 1 $94.82 1 $82.97 1 $71.11 1 $59.26 I 1 NON - RESIDENTIAL (per SF) 1 $0.037 1 $0.033 1 $0.029 1 $0.025 1 $0.021 I COMMERCIAL/OTHER (per SF) $0.062 $0.055 $0.048 $0.041 $0.034 INDUSTRIAL (per SF) $0.004 $0.004 $0.003 $0.003 $0.002 Prepared by: Solin and Associates, Inc., 1992. • FIRE.FEE, 10/12/92 SOl_NV ANO ASSOCIATES. INC. PLANNING CONSULTANTS 6 OLIN ASSOC t. f APPENDIX • LAND USE SUB - CATEGORIES FOR VERSION #1 POLICE IMPACT FEE BACKGROUND REPORT, Table 2 • POLICE•FEE, 10/08/92 SOLIN AND ASSOCIATES. INC IF PLANNING CONSULTANTS 6 O LIN . ASSC)( LAND USE SUB - CATEGORIES FOR POLICE IMPACT FEE BACKGROUND REPORT, Table 2 City of Sanford, Florida • LAND USE CODE LAND USE SQUARE FOOTAGE COMMERCIAL RETAIL SALES AND AUTO SERVICE 10 Vacant Commercial 4,144 11 Stores, One Story 447,512 12 Mixed Use - Store and Office or Store 240,068 and Residential or Residential Combination 13 Department Stores 141,995 14 Supermarkets 10,250 15 Regional Shopping Centers 0 16 Community Shopping Centers 468,829 26 Service Station /Gas 19,783 Stations /Convenience Stores 27 Auto Sales, Commercial Garages, 411,862 • Body Shops, Farm and Machinery Sales and Service, Auto Rental, Marine Equipment, Trailers and Related Equipment, Mobile Home Sales, Motorcycles, Construction Vehicle Sales 28 Parking Lots (Commercial or Patron), 4,595 Mobile Home Parks 29 Wholesale Outlets, Produce Houses, 699 Manufacturing Outlets 30 Florist, Greenhouses 6,506 Subtotal 1,756,243 OFFICE, DOMESTIC AND BUSINESS REPAIR 17 Office Buildings, Non - Professional 226,190 Services Buildings, One Story 18 Office Buildings, Non - Professional 113,217 Services Buildings, Multi -Story 19 Professional Services Buildings 97,221 • 23 Financial Institutions (Banks, Savings 116,692 and Loan Companies, Mortgage Companies, Credit Services) POLICE.FEE, 10/01/92 SOON AND ASSOCIATES, INC PLANNING CONSULTANTS 7 OLIN 6 ASSOC • 24 Insurance Company Offices 2,963 25 Repair Service Shops (Excluding 47,365 • Automotive), Radio and T.V. Repair, Refrigeration Service, Electric Repair, Laundries, Laundromat Shops, Commercial Garages, Farm and Machinery Sales and Services, Auto Rental, Marine Equipment, Trailers and Related Equipment, Mobile Homes Sales, Motorcycles, Construction Vehicle Sales Subtotal 603,648 AIRPORT, BUS, AND MARINE TERMINALS 20 Airports (Private or Commercial), Bus 25,731 Terminals, Marine Terminals, Piers, Marinas Subtotal 25,731 RESTAURANTS 21 Restaurants, Cafeterias 94,289 22 Drive -in Restaurants 41,865 Subtotal 136,154 • TRANSIENT LODGING AND ENTERTAINMENT 31 Drive -in Theaters, Open Stadiums 0 32 Enclosed Theaters, Enclosed 0 Auditoriums 33 Nightclubs, Cocktail Lounges, Bars 30,873 34 Bowling Alleys, Skating Rinks, Pool 60,760 Halls, Enclosed Arenas 35 Tourist Attractions, Permanent 0 Exhibits, Other Entertainment Facilities, Fairgrounds (Privately Owned) 36 Camps 0 37 Race Tracks; Horse, Auto or Dog 0 38 Golf Courses, Driving Ranges 5,279 39 Hotels, Motels 22,413 Subtotal 119,325 • POLICE.FEE, 10/01/92 SOLIN ANC ASSOCIATES, INC PLANNING CONSULTANTS 8 co: & Ass • INDUSTRIAL LIGHT AND HEAVY • INDUSTRIAL, MANUFACTURING 40 Vacant Industrial 3,154 41 Light Manufacturing, Small 1,407,228 Equipment Manufacturing Plants, Small Machine Shops, Instrument Manufacturing, Printing Plants 42 Heavy Industrial, Heavy Equipment 43,377 Manufacturing, Large Machine Shops, Foundries, Steel Fabricating Plants, Auto or Aircraft Plants 43 Lumber Yards, Sawmills, Planing 4,261 Mills 44 Packing Plants, Fruit and Vegetable 33,088 Packing Plants, Meat Packing Plants 45 Canneries, Fruit and Vegetable 0 Packing Plants, Meat Packing Plants 46 Other Food Processing, Candy 11,008 Factories, Bakeries, Potato Chip Factories 47 Mineral Processing, Phosphate 0 • Processing, Cement Plants, Refineries, Clay Plants, Rock and Gravel Plants Subtotal 1,502,116 WAREHOUSING, DISTRIBUTION 48 Warehousing, Distribution 1,082,696 49 Open Storage, New and Used Building 13,077 Supplies, Junk Yards, Auto Wrecking, Fuel Storage, Equipment and Material Storage Subtotal 1,095,773 INSTITUTIONAL IIOSPITAL, CHURCII 71 Churches 286,726 73 Privately Owned Hospitals 176,262 Subtotal 462,988 OTHER INSTITUTIONAL • 70 Vacant Institutional 0 72 Private Schools and Colleges 138,844 POLICE.FEE, 10/01/92 SOLIN AND ASSOCIATES, INC PLANNING CONSULTANTS 9 ON 7 . ASSOC • 74 Homes for the Aged 129,305 75 Orphanages, Other Non - Profit or 7,573 • Charitable Services 76 Mortuaries, Cemeteries, Crematoriums 18,756 77 Clubs, Lodges, Union Halls 85,917 78 Sanitariums, Convalescent and Rest 71,365 Homes 79 Cultural Organizations, Facilities 6,630 Subtotal 458,390 Source: Seminole County Tax Roil, 1992/93, Horida Department of Revenue Compiled by: City of Sanford Department of Engineering and Planning Reformatted by: Reformatted categories to be consistent with categories of the Police Impact Fee Background Report, Solin and Associates, Inc., 1992. • • POLICE.FEE, 10/01/92 SOLIN ANO ASSOCIATES. INC PLANNING CONSULTANTS 10 OLIN 1 ASSOC • CHRONOLOGY OF IMPACT FEE REVISIONS (Impact fees are shown without any discounting) PARK & REC POLICE FIRE Res. Non -Res. Res. Non -Res. Res. Non -Res. ($/DU) ($/SF) ($/DU) ($/SF)** (VDU) ($/SF)•• I Existing $279.61 n/a $25.87 $0.079 $53.91 $0.031 1st Draft, SepL 8 mtg. $383.92 n/a $204.00 0.28 wasn't avail. wasn't avail 2nd Draft, Oct. 8 mtg. $345.53 n/a $202.00 0.29 $118.53 0.042 3rd Draft, Nov 12 mtg. I •$279.61 n/a I $183.86 _ 0.27 $118.53 I 0.042 • Park and Rec Fee. On Oct. 8th meeting, the Committee decided to keep the existing fee amount. •• Non -Res. Police and Fire Fees are shown as a totals for illustrative purposes only. See Table 2 for Non -Res. sub - category fees. • • SOLIN AND ASSOCIATES. INC. PLANNING CONSULTANTS r A Assoc