Loading...
10081992 SDFAC agn & mins MINUTES S SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT FEE ADVISORY COMMI'1isE OCTOBER 8, 1992 CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Herbert Cherry Bobby VonHerbulis Robert Keith Storm Richards Leon Brooks MEMBERS ABSENT: Robbie Robertson OTHERS PRESENT: Jay Marder, Director of Planning and Development Russ Gibson, Planning Technician Les Solin, Solin and Associates Tom Weitnauer, Solin and Associates Marion Anderson, Recording Secretary • Mr. Marder asked if the Commission wanted to do anything administratively relative to the election of a chairman and vice chairman. The Members agreed that they wanted to keep the Committee the way it is. Mr. Marder stated that he invited Mike Kirby, Recreation Director, to attend the meeting to answer any questions regarding the Recreation Impact Fee. Mr. Marder referred to Page 4 of the Recreation Fee regarding the revised land value for Ft. Mellon Park that is not exaggerated. Other land values were obtained from the Seminole County Property Appraiser and are considered low. For example, the City paid more for the land at Fire Station No. 3 than it is assessed at now. Mr. Richards asked what would be average for appraisals. Mr. Marder stated that he didn't know exactly how the appraiser forms a value. Improvement values from the City's audit originated from insurance that the City has on facilities. Mr. Brooks asked if it is always the recommendation that we keep a high valued land such as Fort Mellon Park. He asked that since it is appraised so high should the City keep it. Mr. Solin stated that there are two different perspectives of land use; 1. for the overall public good, and 2. from an economic return on investment that is the highest and best use of the land. The private sector objective is to achieve the highest and best use for a financial profit. As public planners, we are not looking at the highest and best return on a dollar, but rather at how the land can be best used to serve the overall needs of the citizens of Sanford. Mr. Solin also stated that it would be nice from a social perspective not an economic perspective to have the advantage of a waterfront park. Mr. Solin stated that Ft. Mellon Park poses the same problem today as when Ivey Bennett Harris & Walls completed their study in 1988. Mr. VonHerbulis stated that he personally has problems with the recreation fee having an accumulation of $177,000 with no specific plans for using this money next year. He stated that it is difficult to recommend raising the fee $66.00. $177,000 is there and if the City builds 500 units in the next year, then $15,000 additional dollars would be added. SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE S MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 1992 PAGE 2 Mr. Kirby stated that $177,000 is not enough to build what we need, a community center, although it is a good start. Mr. Richards stated that the ro ert downtown is atypical from the P P Y YP recreation standpoint. Recreation is spread out over a wide area with the lack of a regional recreation center. Mr. Richards recommended that someone look at the system and try to reduce the recreation fee. Mr. Kirby stated that 75% of the youth activities are run out of the Ft. Mellon facility. Our number one need is a community center, to house a large number of kids. The City started last year leasing the Salvation Army facility, and now we are moving to the Gymnastic Association facility as another interim measure. The City had to turn kids away this year for the Summer Playground Program. The influx of people is so great that we need more facilities. Mr. Marder stated that the impact fee is supposed to provide the City with the ability to build capital facilities based on the amount of growth in demand for recreation and parks. Impact fees • will not pay for an entire recreation facility, but rather for that piece or increment of the facility attributable to growth. Mr. Brooks asked if the sale of Ft. Mellon Park would generate enough capital to pay for something somewhere else. Mr. Richards noted that if we can't make substantial improvements now and are thinking of raising the fees $70.00, the impact fees should be kept as low as it can be until a commitment is formed. Mr. Richards stated that unless the city is prepared to make drastic improvements, he would rather have the impact fee stay the same as it is. Mr. Marder noted that the basis of the methodology is that everytime someone builds a house today, they pay for their portion to keep the level of capital facilities the same as it is today. Mr. VonHerbulis asked when is the City looking to build this new facility. Mr. Kirby stated that he didn't know, whenever the money is there. Mr. VonHerbulis stated that the City can't wait until this fee gets up to $500,000 because it will only pay for a portion anyway. Mr. Richards feels that there should be a major commitment. Mr. Marder stated that one way to obtain such a commitment would be to approach the City Commission and say the citizens want a serious commitment regarding recreation facilities. Another way is to work • through the Planning & Zoning Commission via the Comprehensive Plan which would eventually end up with the City Commission. Mr. VonHerbulis stated that if the city said that in Fiscal Year 1993, we are anticipating allocating some money for recreation facilities combined with impact fee dollars (which would not cover the entire cost of the proposed facility) then the high impact fee will be justified. However, until there is such a commitment, Mr. VonHerbulis cannot see how the city can raise recreation fees above the present level. Mr. VonHerbulis made a motion to recommend to the City Commission that, due to the lack of the planned use of impact fee funds for parks and recreation facilities in the City's capital improvement program, recreation impact fees prepared by Solin & Associates should be discounted downward to the same value that is already in place ($279.61) and not raise the fees. Seconded by Mr. Keith. Motion carried by consensus. • • SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE • MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 1992 PAGE 3 Mr. Weitnauer stated that the Police Impact Fees were revised downward because the value of the gunnery range was too high. Mr. Marder stated that the City leases a portion of this property to the Police Benevolent Association. He noted that it might be best to take the gunnery range value out of the fees entirely. Only a small portion of the property is utilized for the gunnery range itself and it is misleading and inappropriate to reflect a waterfront land value for a gunnery range that just happens to be located there for the time being. Also, the value of the improvements such as targets are marginal. Mr. VonHerbulis commented that he was not opposed to taking this portion (the gunnery range) of the property and facilities out of the impact fee calculations. Initially, the study showed the gunnery range land value at $635,000. The study now shows a value of $417.00 which is still too high. Mr. Marder suggested that documentation in the study state the fact that we are omitting the gunnery range from impact fee calculations because there is not a significant improvement value. Mr. Richards suggested that before g P gg • omitting it, someone from the Police Department should be advised because this is something that they may want to move somewhere else. Mr. Marder stated that he had spoken to the Police Chief and discussed the gunnery range with the City Manager and that their conclusions were that the gunnery range is minuscule as far as the impact fees are concerned and could be omitted. Mr. Marder stated that when added up, convenience stores, super markets, and gasoline stores evidence a high number of police calls. Mr. VonHerbulis stated that $181 is a high number (per dwelling unit) but it is not an exorbitant amount for the protection that we get. Mr. Richards commented that he personally feels it is low. Mr. Marder noted that Sanford gets more calls per capita than any other surrounding city. Mr. VonHerbulis stated residential receives 60% of the calls compared to 39% of non residential. Mr. Marder suggested that a table discounting these fees to 50% be prepared, just to see what they look like. Mr. Richards stated that he is not for discounting at all and going with the full $202.00. Mr. VonHerbulis asked how would the Police Department increase their facilities so that this money will go towards accommodating growth. Mr. Marder stated that the only commitment that we have made for police impact fees is for $20,000.00 to pay for interest on certificates of participation utilized to purchase the • communications system and other capital facilities. Mr. Marder also mentioned that the City is looking into the School Board property on French Avenue which could be a potential site for a police and fire safety complex. Mr. Marder stated that Solin & Associates would run the numbers and provide a sheet showing the discounts as well as complete the Fire Impact Fee Update pursuant to additional data from the Fire Department. Mr. Richards noted that he does not feel that the impact fees should be given a discount for residential. It was decided to schedule the next meeting for November 12, 1992. Mr. VonHerbulis made a motion to approve the minutes as circulated. Mr. Keith seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 P.M. • Systems Development Fee Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda for October 8, 1992 City Commission Chambers First Floor, Sanford City Hall 6:00 P.M. 1. Recreation Impact Fee Update A. Revisions by Solin & Associates pursuant to previous meeting (attached). B. Discussion of Anticipated Capital Improvements for Recreation & Parks • II. Police Impact Fees - Revisions by Solin & Associates (attached). III. Status of Fire Impact Fee Update Study • IV. Old or Other Business 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 PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE BACKGROUND REPORT for the CITY OF SANFORD, FLORIDA • Prepared by SOLIN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. September 30, 1992 • SOLIN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING CONSULTANTS OLIN 8 ASSOC • PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE BACKGROUND REPORT City of Sanford, Florida BACKGROUND. In order to recover the cost of providing capital facilities needed to provide parks and recreation facilities, the City of Sanford adopted the Parks and Recreation Facilities Impact Fee in 1988, Ordinance #2046, based on: o Recreation and Open Space Report, City of Sanford, Florida, Ivey, Bennett, Harris & Walls, Inc., (IBHW) November 30, 1988; o Background Summary Report, Parks & Recreation Facilities Impact Fee for the City of Sanford, Florida, IBHW, December, 1988; o Adjusted Recreation Impact Fee Proposal, City of Sanford, Florida, City of Sanford Department of Engineering and Planning, May 24, 1989; and o Input by the Systems Development Fee Advisory Committee. The impact fee was structured so that it responded proportionately to new growth and demand for parks and recreation related to the City's residential land use. 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. Growth in the demand for recreation and park facilities is assumed to be related directly to growth in population and not to growth in the commercial sector. Based on this assumption, the proposed methodology for the City of Sanford Recreation and Park Facilities impact fee will be based on population, as reflected by, and measured in, dwelling units located within the City of Sanford. Therefore, the basis of the proposed fee will be the amount of impact on the recreation and park system created by each new dwelling unit, as expressed in terms of dollars. The approach to developing the recreation and park impact fee will be to compile the value (in dollars) of all capital assets of the recreation and park system, subtract the value of grant contributions and then divide the system value by the number of dwelling units in the City. The result will be the current per - dwelling -unit cost of the Sanford recreation and parks system. Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Formula: ($ Value of Dept.of Parks and Recreation Assets - $ Value of grants received) / # of Existing Resid. Dwelling Units = $ Fee/DU As new dwelling units are subsequently permitted, each dwelling unit can be assessed • its proportionate share of the cost of new recreation and park facilities, based on the cost per dwelling unit identified by this process and the desire to maintain the existing PARK- REC.FEE, 09/30,92 SOUN ANO ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING CONSULTANTS 1 OLIN d ASSOC • level of capital facilities for parks and recreation. These calculations will have to be adjusted on a regular basis in order to keep the impact fee up -to -date. III. DATA DEVELOPMENT A. Capital Assets. The capital asset inventory utilized or owned by the Department of Parks and Recreation was generated from two sources: the Seminole County Property Appraiser for land values; and the Finance Department for the Department of Parks and Recreation's buildings /improvements and equipment. At its meeting of August 8, 1992, the Systems Development Fee Advisory Committee unanimously recommended adjusting Ft. Mellon Park's appraised land value which the Committee found to inappropriately inflate the City's total parks' value when utilized to calculate recreation impact fees. Such an adjustment was also recognized to be necessary during the first development of the impact fee in 1989. Therefore, Ft. Mellon Park's value was adjusted as follows. The total appraised value of the City's parks, excluding Ft. Mellon, was divided by the City's total park acreage, excluding Ft. Mellon, to derive an average land value for park land which was calculated at $20,404 per acre. The value per acre • was multiplied by Ft. Mellon Park's acreage of 24.7 acres to arrive at an adjusted land value of $503,985. As presented in Table 2, the total capital value assets of the Sanford Department of Parks and Recreation including: land ($2,766,205) as presented in Table 1; buildings and improvements ($2,689,104); and equipment ($637,434), is a total value of $6,092,743. B. Grants Assistance. Over the past 17 years, Sanford has taken advantage of several grant assistance opportunities from a variety of sources to assist in the development of the City's recreation and park facilities. As such, grants represent a measurable component in the City's recreation and park facilities. Since the City did not contribute or pay for such assistance, grants must be excluded from impact fees. Therefore, the value of federal and state assistance for the development of the City's recreation and park system must be subtracted from the inventory of recreation and park assets in order to avoid basing a portion of the fee on the value of assets that were not provided by the City. The City has received a total of $471,500 grants since 1975 for the purchase of park land and for the development of park facilities. By updating individual grant amounts to current values using Consumer Price Indexes, the • total 1992 value of grants is $745,180 as presented in Table 3. PARK - REC.FEE, 09/30/92 SOLIN ANO ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING CONSULTANTS 2 OLIN 6 ASSOC • C. Residential Dwelling Units. The 1990 U.S. Census reported that there were 13,834 dwelling units within the Sanford City limits. This figure was updated by adding the number of residential units built since 1990 (i.e., 95) as reported by the City's Building Department, for a total of 13,929 residential units. IV. CALCULATIONS AND RESULTS. The last step in determining the value of the system on a per - dwelling unit basis was to input the data into the equation and perform the calculations. As shown in Table 4, the resulting Parks and Recreation Impact Fee per dwelling unit is $383.92. 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 from instituting a fee that is higher than may be otherwise appropriate. 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 %. Application of a 10% discount fee results in an impact fee $345.53. • • /� 3 / I T INC LANNING CONSULTANTS PARK- REC.FEE, 09/30/92 SOLN ANO ASSOCIATES NC . � 3 OLIN & assoc • TABLE 1 APPRAISED VALUE OF SANFORD PARKS AND RECREATION LAND City of Sanford, Florida CITY - OWNED PARK (1) ACREAGE (3) LAND VALUE (2,4) Academy Manor, Academy Avenue 4.5 $34,200 Bay Avenue, 2430 Bay Avenue 2.4 $138,600 Bel Air #1 and #2 2.0 $115,430 Centennial Park, 400 Park Avenue 1.5 $83,790 Civic Center, 401 East Seminole Blvd. 3.1 $327,290 Coastline Park, 900 West 9th Street 7.9 $50,490 Cultural Arts Building, 119 West Fifth Street 0.2 $11,390 Elliott Avenue, 500 Elliott Avenue 0.8 $60,060 Elm Avenue, 601 Elm Avenue 1.5 $118,480 Fort Mellon Park, 600 East 1st Street (4) 24.7 $503,985 Groveview Subdivision, 306 Springview Drive 6.8 $75,880 Groveview Village, 143 Anthony Drive 4.5 $46,870 Hovanian, 2141 West 25th Street 9.9 $48,190 Jaycee, 427 French Avenue 1.5 • $130,680 Jinkins Circle, 112 W. Jinkins Cir. 2.5 $10,040 Kiwanas, 701 East 25th Place 4.4 - $73,320 Lake Gem Park, 2200 Bel Air Blvd. 3.61 $114,810 Lee P. Moore Park, 106 Sweet Bay Drive 11.75 $150,380 Magnolia Avenue Park, 2951 Magnolia Avenue 1.5 $5,180 McKibben Park, 1301 West 25th Street 7.0 $3,850 Memorial Park, 400 North Park Avenue 1.5 $128,570 • Orange Avenue, 701 North Avenue 0.6 $14,980 Park on Park/9th Street, 800 Park Avenue 1.5 $59,240 Pinehurst, 1000 West 24th Street 10.0 $90,000 Randall Chase, 1508 Celery Avenue 6.8 $43,560 South Pinecrest, 140 Pinecrest Drive 1.76 $14,430 Southside, 201 East 13th Street 1.5 $104,120 Speer Grove, 1830 Mellonville Avenue 0.6 $66,710 Starkes Park, 1501 West 3rd Street 5.3 $68,260 Washington Oaks, 101 Sterling Avenue 0.2 $19,170 Westside Recreation, 919 Persimmon Avenue 3.0 $36,290 Wynnwood, 2401 Summerlin Avenue 0.75 $17,960 TOTAL 135.57 $2,766,205 Source: (1) City of Sanford Department of Parks and Recreation, 1992. (2) Seminole County Property Appraiser, 1992 actual appraised land values. (3) Acreage Provided by Sanford Dept. of Planning and Engineering, 1992. (4) Ft. Mellon Park land value adjustment as explained in the text. Prepared by: Solin and Associates, Inc., 1992. • PARK - REC.FEE, 09/30/92 SOLIN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. � PLANNING CONSULTANTS 4 O 'F it ASSOC • TABLE 2 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CAPITAL ASSETS City of Sanford, Florida CAPITAL ASSET VALUE DEPT. OF PARKS AND REC. LAND (1) $2,766,205 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS (2) $2,689,104 EQUIPMENT (2) $637,434 TOTAL VALUE OF CAPITAL ASSETS $6,092,743 Source: (1) Table 1, herein. (2) (1990/91 City of Sanford Audit, by Coopers and Lybrand, independent auditors) and confirmed by the City's Finance Department, 1992. Prepared by: Solin and Associates, Inc., 1992. TABLE 3 VALUE OF GRANTS RECEIVED FOR PARK DEVELOPMENT City of Sanford, Florida Grant Grant 1992 Amount Source Improvements Funded Year Amount (Per CPI) 1. CDBG Coastline Park - development 1975 $40,000 $104,213 Starke Park - purchase land 2. CDBG Orange Ave. Park - land and 1977 $99,000 $229,078 development Randall Chase Park - development 3. FRDAP Starke Park - development 1980 $50,000 $85,084 4. FRDAP McKibbin Park 1982 $12,500 $18,159 5. LWCF & Lee P. Moore Park - development 1987 $150,000 $185,122 FRDAP 6. F -DNR Groveview Park - development 1991 $120,000 $123,524 TOTAL 1992 VALUE OF GRANTS = $745,180 Abbreviations: CDBG Community Development Block Grant, HUD F- DNR Florida Department of Natural Resources FRDAP Florida Recreation and Department Assistance Program by the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Recreation and Parks LWC Land and Water Conservation Fund by the US Dept. of Interior the F -DNR Sources: City of Sanford, Recreation and Parks Department U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index. • Prepared by: Solin and Associates, Inc., 1992. PARK - REC.FEE, 09/30/92 SOLIN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING CONSULTANTS J C OLIN a £SSOC • TABLE 4 IMPACT FEE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY DEPT. OF PARKS AND REC. CAPITAL ASSETS (Table 2) = $6,092,743 LESS GRANT VALUE (Table 3) - $745,180 SANFORD'S CONTRIBUTION = $5,347,563 DIVIDED BY NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS / 13,929 EQUALS PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE PER DWELLING UNIT = $383.92 Application of a 10% discount fee (Ref. Section IV) results in an impact fee of $345.53. Prepared By: Solin and Associates, Inc., 1992. • • PARK - REC.FEE, 09/30/92 SOLIN ANO ASSOCIATES. INC. Ir ll PLANNING CONSULTANTS 6 8 >S SO( • DRAFT POLICE PROTECTION IMPACT FEE BACKGROUND REPORT for the CITY OF SANFORD, FLORIDA Prepared by SOLIN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. September 30, 1992 • SOLIN ANO ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING CONSULTANTS OLIN & ASSOC • 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 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 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 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. SOUN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING CONSULTANTS POLICE.FEE, 09/30/92 � 1 OLIN 8 ASSOC • In order to establish the capital cost for police protection, the existing value of the Police Department's capital assets were compiled. This data was developed, as explained in greater detail below, by utilizing existing City capital asset information and insurance records. 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. POLICE.FEE, 09/30/92 SOLIN ANO ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING CONSULTANTS 2 OLIN 6 ASSOC • • 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 ($548,668); buildings and improvements ($1,104,998); and equipment ($2,997,169) is a total value of $4,650,835 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. The real property value of these sites were derived from records of the Seminole County Property Appraiser. In order to obtain the value of the gunnery range, the total value of the land for the entire Public Works complex was multiplied by the ratio of the area covered by the gunnery range. TABLE 1 POLICE DEPARTMENT CAPITAL ASSETS City of Sanford, Florida • CAPITAL ASSET VALUE POLICE DEPARTMENT LAND (1) - - - Law Enforcement Center, 815 S. French Avenue, 1.5 Acres $130,940 Police Gunnery Range, 901 W. Seminole Blvd., 4.5 Acres $417,728 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS (2) $1,104,998 EQUIPMENT (2) $2,997,169 TOTAL VALUE OF CAPITAL ASSETS $4,650,835 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. 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 411 type of land use. POLICE.FEE, 09/30/92 SOLIN ANO ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING CONSULTANTS 3 OLIN 6 ASSOC • The Police Department currently responds to approximately 66,000 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. 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 each non - residential land use for existing development. 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 last column of Table 2 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. The per - unit costs for police protection impact fees are calculated using the following formulas: 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 ($4,650,835 x 60.5 %) / 13,929 = $202.00 impact fee per residential DU. Police Protection Impact Fee Formula For Each Non - Residential Land Use: • ($ 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. (Ref. Table 2) POLICE.FEE, 09/30/92 SOLIN ANC ASSOCIATES. INC. PLANNING CONSULTANTS 4 A OLIN 6 ASSOC V flu t o - N 1 TABLE 2 POLICE PROTECTION IMPACT FEE BY LAND USE City of Sanford, Florida • . - .. - - B - - C D Ea F No. of % SHARE ($) # DU or S.F FEE ($) 10% LAND USE Police POLICE OF ASSETS BY LAND PER DU DISC. Calls CALLS USE OR SF ($) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) I R E S I D E N T I A L I 2,022 I 60.5% I 2,813,755.20 I 13,929 DUI 202.00 1 181.80 I 1 NON - R E S I D. I 1,321 I 39.5% 1 1,837,079.80 1 6,160,368 SF 1 0.29 I 0.26 COMMERCIAL - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Retail Sales 628 18.9% 879,007.82 1,756,243 0.50 0.45 and Auto Service Offices, Domestic and 156 4.7% 218,589.25 603,648 0.36 0.32 Business Repair Restaurants 206 6.2% 288,351.77 136,154 2.12 1.90 Airport, Bus and 15 0.4% 18,603.34 25,731 0.72 0.64 Marine Terminals TRANSIENT LODGING 122 3.6% 167,430.06 119,325 1.40 1.26 AND ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRIAL - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Light & Heavy Indust., 35 1.0% 46,508.35 1,502,116 0.03 ' 0.02 III Manufacturing Warehousing, Distrib. 28 0.8% 37,206.68 1,095,773 0.03 0.02 INSTITUTIONAL - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - Hospital, Church 93 2.8% 130,223.38 462,988 ' 0.28 0.25 Other Institutional 38 1.1% 51,159.19 458,390 0.11 0.09 TOTAL I 3,343 l 100% I 4,650,835 I 1 1 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., $4,650,835). (4) Dwelling Units per 1990 US Census and updated by building permits. Square footage by land use per 1992/1993 Tax Roll, City of Sanford. (5) Column C divided by Column D. (6) Column E less 10% discount. Note: Table doesn't include Agricultural, Centrally Assessed or Miscellaneous land use categories due to no calls reported. Also, government calls were not included. Prepared by: Solin and Associates, Inc., 1992. ID POLICE.FEE, 10/01/92 5 Veil. -S I r Z TABLE 2 POLICE PROTECTION IMPACT FEE BY LAND USE City of Sanford, Florida • A No. of % SHARE ($) # DU or S.F FEE ($) 10% LAND USE Police POLICE OF ASSETS BY LAND PER DU DISC. Calls CALLS USE OR SF ($) ( ( ( ( ( ( I RESIDENTIAL 1 2,022 I 60.5% 1 2,813,755.20 1 13,929 DU 1 202.00 1 181.80 1 NON - R E S I D. I 1,321 I 39.5% 1 1,837,079.80 1 6,160,368 SF 1 0.29 1 0.26 COMMERCIAL 1,005 30.1% 1,399,901.30 ' 2,521,776 056 050 TRANSIENT LODGING 122 3.6% 167,430.06 119,325 1.40 1.26 AND ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRIAL 63 1.9% 88,365.87 2,597,889 0.03 0.02 INSTITUTIONAL 131 3.9% 181,382.57 921,378 0.20 0.18 TOTAL 1 3,343 1 100% 1 4,650,835 1 - W. l - - - 1 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., $4,650,835). (4) Dwelling Units per 1990 US Census and updated by building permits. Square S footage by land use per 1992/1993 Tax Roll, City of Sanford. (5) Column C divided by Column D. (6) Column E less 10% discount. Note: Table doesn't include Agricultural, Centrally Assessed or Miscellaneous land use categories due to no calls reported. Also, government calls were not included. Prepared by: Solin and Associates, Inc., 1992. • POLICE.FEE, 10/01/92 5 VEV-S r /N -A 3 TABLE 2 POLICE PROTECTION IMPACT FEE BY LAND USE City of Sanford, Florida • A B C D E F No. of % SHARE ($) # DU or S.F FEE ($) 10% LAND USE Police POLICE OF ASSETS BY LAND PER DU DISC. Calls CALLS USE OR SF ($) ( ( (3) ( ( ( I RESIDENTIAL r 2,022 I 60.5% 1 2,813,755.20 1 13,929 DU 1 202.00 1 181.80 N ON - R E S I D. 1 1,321 1 39.5% 1 1,837,079.80 1 6,160,368 SF 1 0.29 I 0.26 COMMERCIAL - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - Convenience Store, 395 11.8% 548,798.33 30,033 18.27 16.44 Grocery Store, Gas/Service Station Restaurant, Including 135 4.0% 186,033.40 94,289 1.97 1.77 Drive -Thru All Other Commercial 475 14.3% 665,069.41 2,397,454 0.28 0.25 TRANSIENT LODGING 122 3.6% 167,430.06 119,325 1.40 1.26 AND ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRIAL 63 1.9% 88,365.87 2,597,889 0.03 0.02 INSTITUTIONAL 131 3.9% 181,382.57 921,378 0.20 0.18 TOTAL 1 3,343 1 100% f 4,650,8351 - - - 1 - - - 1 - - - • 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., $4,650,835). (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. (6) Column E less 10% discount. Note: Table 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. • POLICE.FEE, 10/01/92 5 6xx.xl o A Sanford, fij . rld • P.O. Box 1778.32772 -1778 Telephone (407) 330 -5673 CITY OF SANFORD SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE OCTOBER 1, 1992 MEMBERS: Mr. Robbie Robertson 414 West 9th Street Sanford, Florida 32771 (7/27/94) Mr. Herbert Cherry 1407 West 15th Street Sanford, Florida 32771 322 -8553 (7/27/93) Mr. Robert M. Keith 808 Clinton Street Sanford, Florida 32771 • 321 -0238 (7/27/93) Mr. Bobby VonHerbulis McKee Development 2290 West Airport Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32771 323 -1150 (7/27/94) Mr. Storm Richards 2451 Cedar Avenue Sanford, Florida 32771 323 -9021 (7/27/95) Mr. Leon Brooks, Jr. 1405 Valencia Court, East Sanford, Florida 32771 322 -4418 (/27/95) STAFF: • Jay R. Marder, AICP, Director of Planning and Development 330 -5670 Marion Anderson, Recording Secretary 330 -5673 FAX 330 -5666 "The Friendly City" • MINUTES SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 8, 1992 7:00 P.M. UTILITIES CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Herbert Cherry Bob Keith Bobby VonHerbulis OTHERS PRESENT: Jay Marder, Director of Planning and Development Russ Gibson, Planning Technician Tom Weitnauer, Solin and Associates • Les Solin, Solin and Associates Mr. Marder called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Mr. Marder stated that in 1989 Police, Fire and Recreation Impact Fee Ordinances were adopted. An update process was built into the Ordinances . New capital facilities including the communication system for the Police Department, Fire Station #3 and equipment, and more park facilities need to be incorporated into the fees . Mr. Marder gave a summary of collection and use of the fees (See Attachment) . Mr. VonHerbulis asked if the dollars that are being raised would allow the Recreation, Police or Fire Departments to use impact fee monies for budget purposes . This way the overall budget could be lowered i.e. $25, 000 for each department. Mr. Marder stated that impact fee funds can only be utilized for capital expenditures and then only for that portion related to the growth. Impact fees cannot be utilized for general operating expenditures. Mr. VonHerbulis asked if the Recreation Department has any plans to use any of its Impact Fees for the next fiscal year. Mr. Marder stated that, based on the existing Five Year Capital Improvement Budget, the Recreation and Parks Department does not plan on drawing from impact fee monies next year. Mr. VonHerbulis stated that his committee of the Greater Sanford Chamber of Commerce tried to see how Sanford impact fees compared to different competing local • governments on a prototype building. The municipalities included Altamonte Springs, Brevard County, Casselberry, Deland, Eustis, Lake County, Lake Mary, Longwood, Orange County, Sanford, Seminole County, Titusville, and Volusia County. A copy of the Chamber study was passed out during the meeting (see attachment to minutes) . VonHerbulis stated that dollar wise, Sanford is one of the best places to build. Mr. Marder explained that in developing the impact fees update scope of services, the City used the same basic methodology that was used in 1988/89 which was to take all the City's Capital Facilities and figure out what they were worth per unit of development, per dwelling unit, and for Police and Fire, to look at the difference between residential and non - residential uses . Mr. Weitnauer stated that Ivey Bennett Harris and Walls selected the system that the City of Dunnedin used because this system could be updated easily and had been upheld in the courts. Mr. Weitnauer proceeded to explain a draft of the Recreation Impact Fee Update study (see attachment) . Capital assets minus the grant values which the City had received for Parks was divided by the number of total dwelling units yielding the impact fee per dwelling unit. Often it is recommended that impact fees be discounted 10 to 15% to cover a margin of error. Ul 1 UO 7G Lb:Gb 5UL1N HNll HbbUl. (b5 HV12 • 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 existing level of service for fire protection. FIRE.FEE, 10/6/92 SeLM 4 *NOD ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING CONSULTANTS 1 Ul. 1 u 7G 10;G7 HIVL HOOUL (OD r'UJ • 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 each non - residential sub - category by land use arrive at the existing cost per square foot of non - residential development for each non - residential category. The per -unit costs for fire protection impact fees are 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 = $ 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 services at the building permit stage. FIRE.FEE, 10 /06/92 SOON ANO ASSOCIATES, INC ci PLANNING CONSULTANTS 2 OCT 06 '92 16:30 SOLIN AND ASSOC 765 PO4 • 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 SOLIN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING CONSULTANTS 3 • OCT 06 '92 16:30 SOLIN AND ASSOC 765 P05 • 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 each non - residential land use. 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 last column of Table 2 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. The per -unit costs for fire protection impact fees are calculated using the • following formulas: FIRE.FEE, 10 SOL AND ASSOCIATES, INC. rd P CONSULTANTS 4 UCT tab 'y2 1b:31 SULIN AND ASSOC ?65 PO6 • 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 = $118.52 impact fee per residential DU. Fire Protection Impact Fee Formula For Each Non - Residential Land Use: ($ 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). • • FIRE.FEE, 10/06/92 SOLIN AND ASSOCIATES, INC firli PLANNING CONSULTANTS ✓ OCT 06 '92 16:32 SOLIN AND ASSOC 765 P07 VERSION #1 TABLE 2 FIRE PROTECTION IMPACT FEE BY LAND USE • City of Sanford, Florida A B C D E F No. of % FIRE SHARE ($) # DU or S.F FEE ($) 10% LAND USE Fire CALLS OF ASSETS BY LAND PER DU DISC. Calls (2) USE OR SF ($) (1) (3) (4) (5) (6) 1 RESIDENTIAL 236 86.4% 1,650,990 1 13,929 DU 1 118.53 1 106.67 {NON - R E S I D. .. 1 37 1 13.6% 259,878.05 1 6,160,368 SF 1 0.04 I 0.03 COMMERCIAL - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Retail Sales 9 3.3% 63,058.63 1,756,243 0.04 0.03 and Auto Service Offices, Domestic and 4 1.5% 28,663.04 603,648 0.05 0.04 Business Repair Restaurants 3 ' 1.2% 22,930.42 136,154 , 0.17 0.15 Airport, Bus and 0 0% 0 25,731 0 0 Marine Terminals TRANSIENT LODGING 6 2.2% 42,039.09 119,325 0.35 0.31 AND ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRIAL - - - - -- --- - - - - - - - - • Light & Heavy Indust., 2 0.7% 13,376.08 1,502,116 0.01 0.01 Manufacturing Warehousing, Distrib. 0 0% 0 1,095,773 0 0 INSTITUTIONAL - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Hospital, Church 5 1.8% 34,395.62 462,988 0.07 0.06 Other Institutional 8 2.9% 55,415.17 458,390 0.12 0.10 TOTAL 1 273 1 100% 1 1,910,868 1 - - - 1 - - - 1 - - - 1 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 (Le., $1,910,868). (4) Dwelling Units per 1990 US Census and updated by building permits. Square footage by land use per 1992/1993 Tax Roll, City of Sanford. (5) Column C divided by Column D. (6) Column E less 10% discount. Note: Table doesn't include Agricultural, Centrally Assessed or Miscellaneous land use categories due to no calls reported. Also, government calls were not included. Prepared by: Solin and Associates, Inc., 1992. 1111 SOL. ANO ASSOCIATES. INC. ra PLANNING CONSULTANTS Ut -1 Ub ''JG lb:...) G 5ULIN HNU HbbUL (OD r o VERSION #2 TABLE 2 FIRE PROTECTION IMPACT FEE BY LAND USE III CIty of Sanford, Florida A B C D E F No. of % FIRE SHARE ($) # DU or S.F FEE ($) 10% LAND USE Fire CALLS OF ASSETS BY LAND PER DU DISC. Calls (2) USE OR SF ($) (1) (3) (4) (5) (6) 1 RESIDENTIAL 1 236 1 86.4% 1 1,650,990 1 13,929 DU T-118.53 1 106.67 I I N ON - R E S I D. I 37 I 13.6% 1 259,878.05 1 6,160,368 SF I 0.04 I 0.03 COMMERCIAL 16 5.9% 112,741.22 2,521,776 0.04 0.03 TRANSIENT LODGING 6 2.2% 42,039.09 119,325 0.35 0.31 AND ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRIAL 2 0.7% 13,376.08 2,597,889 0.01 0.01 INSTITUTIONAL 13 4.8% 91,721.66 921,378 0.09 0.08 I TOTAL I 273 I 100% I 1,910,868 I - - - 1 - - - t - - - 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 (Le., $1,910,868). III (4) Dwelling Units per 1990 US Census and updated by building permits. Square footage by land use per 1992/1993 Tax Roll, City of Sanford. (5) Column C divided by Column D. (6) Column E less 10% discount. Note: Table doesn't include Agricultural, Centrally Assessed or Miscellaneous land use categories due to no calls reported. Also, government calls were not included. Prepared by: Solin and Associates, Inc., 1992. III SOLIN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. w PLANNING CONSULTANTS 'TTM L" "L".0 1 !t NA< %VI - 7 • I •.•■1—•11 111 Ia, 1 I4`. I 4 VERSION #3 TABLE 2 FIRE PROTECTION IMPACT FEE BY LAND USE • City of Sanford, Florida A B C D E F No. of % FIRE SHARE ($) # DU or S.F FEE ($) 10% LAND USE Fire CALLS OF ASSETS BY LAND PER DU DISC. Calls (2) USE OR SF ($) (1) (3) (4) (5) (6) I RESIDENTIAL I 236 I 86.4% 1,650,990 13,929 DU 1 118.53 1 106.67 NON - R E S I D. 1 37 1 13.6% 259,878.05 1 6,160,368 SF 1 0.04 1 0.03 COMMERCIAL - -- - -- --- - - - - - - - - - Convenience Store, 2 0.7% 13,376.08 30,033 0.45 0.40 Grocery Store, Gas/Service Station Restaurant, Including 3 1.2% 22,930.42 136,154 0.16 0.15 Drive -Thru All Other Commercial 11 4.0% 76,434.72 2,355,589 0.03 0.02 TRANSIENT LODGING 6 2.2% 42,039.09 119,325 0.35 0.31 AND ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRIAL 2 0.7% 13,721.66 2,597,889 0.01 0.01 INSTITUTIONAL 13 4.8% 91,721.66 921,378 0.09 0.18 TOTAL 1 273 100% 1 1,910,868 1 - - - - - - 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. (6) Column E less 10% discount. Note: Table 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. SOUN ANO ASSOCIATES, INC IN PLANNING CONSULTANTS __ -- FTR FPPP in - lfl cANA O\ Sanford Fl rjd P.O. Box 1778.32772 -1778 Telephone (407) 330 -5673 CITY OF SANFORD SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE OCTOBER 1, 1992 MEMBERS: Mr. Robbie Robertson 414 West 9th Street Sanford, Florida 32771 (7/27/94) Mr. Herbert Cherry 1407 West 15th Street Sanford, Florida 32771 322 -8553 (7/27/93) Mr. Robert M. Keith 808 Clinton Street Sanford, Florida 32771 • 321 -0238 (7/27/93) Mr. Bobby VonHerbulis McKee Development 2290 West Airport Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32771 323 -1150 (7/27/94) Mr. Storm Richards 2451 Cedar Avenue Sanford, Florida 32771 323 -9021 (7/27/95) Mr. Leon Brooks, Jr. 1405 Valencia Court, East Sanford, Florida 32771 322 -4418 (7/27/95) STAFF: Jay R. Marder, AICP, Director of Planning and Development 330 -5670 Marion Anderson, Recording Secretary 330 -5673 FAX 330 -5666 "The Friendly City"