The URL can be used to link to this page

09081992 SDFAC mins • 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. • MINUTES SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 8, 1992 PAGE 2 Mr. Weitnauer explained that Capital Assets are composed of the recreational land value, the equipment, and any structures. Mr. VonHerbulis stated that he finds it a little bit difficult to charge people for the amount of land value for a park and asked if this is a method provided by the State. Mr. Marder stated that the State does not have a standard impact fee methodology. Mr. VonHerbulis asked if the Recreation Impact Fee was based strictly on fixed assets and is not based on fuel or any maintenance upkeep. Mr. Marder stated that this is correct based on major equipment, buildings, and land. Mr. VonHerbulis stated that with a balance of $177,000 and with no plans to use this money throughout the next year, he did not see a way or have any just cause to approve an increase of the Recreational Impact Fee. Regarding Fort Mellon Park, Mr. Marder stated that the Park was so high that the • use of $55,751 per acre for park development multiplied by the 24.5 acres of Ft. Mellon Park resulted in a much lower park impact fee of $279.61, which is without a discount. Mr. Marder suggested that the Committee could lower the land value by stating that Fort Mellon is a very unique place because of its location on the water. The consultants utilize the average land value of all the rest of the parklands and plug that value in for the Fort Mellon Park acreage based on the fact that we adjusted it the last time. Mr. Marder stated that one of the issues that the Committee tried to come to grips with the last time was how to separate out the different non - residential land uses. Regarding the Police Impact Fees, Mr. Weitnauer stated that the formulas are just as they were done in 1988 (see attachment). The assessed value of all the Police Department's assets multiplied by the percentage of police calls by residential land use are then divided by the number of residential dwelling units. For non- residential the square footage of each non - residential land use is utilized. Mr. VonHerbulis stated that right now we are showing that there is $4.8 million in assets in the Police Department and asked if the Committee could look at the assets. Mr. Marder stated that the communication system was very expensive. The equipment was $2.9 million. The assets of the Police Department includes the Gunnery Range which shares the land with Public Works . The land value needs to be adjusted to properly reflect the area being utilized by the Police Department. It was decided that $4.00 per square foot for the Police Impact Fee was too much and Mr. Marder stated that this would have to be discounted. Mr. Weitnauer stated that the total assets for Fire were $1,319,000 in the 1988/89 • study and that now we are at $2 million (see attachment) . Mr. VonHerbulis stated that assets for Fire at $1.3 million going up to $2 million with a new fire station being added is justified. The cost for the equipment, buildings and land justified the increase for Fire. Regarding the next meeting, Mr. VonHerbulis asked how much time would be needed to obtain accurate assessments and to finish miles of paperwork to have a final draft of proposed impact fees. Mr. Weitnauer stated that he would need approximately three-weeks. It was decided that the next meeting of the Systems Development Fee Advisory Committee would be October 8, 1992 at 6:00 P.M. in the City Commission Conference Room. Systems Development Fee Advisory Committee • Meeting Agenda for September 8, 1992 * Utilities Conference Room * * Second Floor, Sanford City Hall * 7:00 P.M. I. Introduction of Members, City Staff and Consultants II. Status Report A. Existing Fees B. Amount Collected to Date C. Use of Fees III. Status of Update by Consultants IV. Old or Other Business NOTE: Copies of the above - described materials will be available for review at the meeting. Such 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 • RECREATION, POLICE AND FIRE IMPACT FEE SUMMARY OF COLLECTIONS AND EXPENDITURES City of Sanford, Florida • September 3, 1992 IMPACT FEE YEAR AMOUNT Recreation 1989 10,336.93 • $279.61 per dwelling 1990 39,048.05 1991 126,537.31 1992 5,986.94 Subtotal 181,909.23 Expenditures 1 - 4,675.00 Balance 177,234.23 Fire 1989 11,230.74 • $53.91 per dwelling unit 1990 17,999.88 1991 29,397.33 • $.031 per square foot of nonresidential uses 1992 6,680.57 Subtotal 65,308.52 • Expenditures - 23,008.37 Balance 42,300.15 Police 1989 8,354.73 • $25.87 per dwelling unit 1990 13,425.63 1991 29,562.34 • $.079 per square foot of nonresidential uses 1992 14,014.55 Subtotal 65,357.25 Expenditures - 4,675.00 Balance 60,682.25 1 Update of Impact Fee Study by Solin & Associates. 2 $20,000 during FY 1991/92 for debt service on Certificate of Participation for new station. Similar debt service budgeted in FY 92/93. Also includes Solin & Associates • contractual services. 3 Includes Solin & Associates contractual services. $20,000 for debt service budgeted in FY 92/93 on Certificate of Participation used to purchase communications equipment. RECREATION, POLICE AND FIRE IMPACT FEE SUMMARY OF COLLECTIONS AND EXPENDITURES City of Sanford, Florida • September 3, 1992 IMPACT FEE YEAR AMOUNT Recreation 1989 10,336.93 • $279.61 per dwelling 1990 39,048.05 1991 126,537.31 1992 5,986.94 Subtotal 181,909.23 Expenditures 1 - 4,675.00 Balance 177,234.23 Fire 1989 11,230.74 • $53.91 per dwelling unit 1990 17,999.88 1991 29,397.33 • $.031 per square foot of nonresidential uses — 1992 6,680.57 • Subtotal 65,308.52 Expenditures - 23,008.37 Balance 42,300.15 Police 1989 8,354.73 • $25.87 per dwelling unit 1990 13,425.63 1991 29,562.34 • $.079 per square foot of nonresidential uses 1992 14,014.55 Subtotal 65,357.25 Expenditures' - 4,675.00 Balance 60,682.25 1 Update of Impact Fee Study by Solin & Associates. 2 $20,000 during FY 1991/92 for debt service on Certificate of Participation for new • station. Similar debt service budgeted in FY 92/93. Also includes Solin & Associates contractual services. Includes Solin & Associates contractual services. $20,000 for debt service budgeted in FY 92/93 on Certificate of Participation used to purchase communications equipment. 4 TffE GREATER 0 '(....m.Z=74r77 ,, 1ANFORO C/- IAMBER OF COMMERCE SANFORD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IMPACT FEE STUDY July, 1992 The Study was Based on the Following Proposed Building: Business Name: S.I.S. Industries, Inc. Building Type: Pre - Engineered Metal Building Type of Business: Electronic Assembly Construction Cost: $300,000 Zoning: Commercial /Light Industrial # of Employees 15 - 20 Land Area: 1.5 - 2.0 Acres Parking Needs: 25 Spaces III Building Size: 10,000 Square Feet Total Restrooms: 2 Office Restrooms A. 2,000 S.F. Office Area 2 Warehouse Restrooms B. 8,000 S.F. Light Manufacturing MUNICIPALITY: TRANS. POLICE FIRE UTILITY SCHOOL COUNTY TOTALS Altamonte Springs $5,036 $210 $250 ' $6,640 $0 $13,122 $25,258 Brevard County $10,754 $151 $197 $10,727 $0 $0 $21,829 Casselberry $1,625 $0 $0 $9,484 $0 $12,244 $23,353 Deland $1,060 $0 $0 $3,086 $2,300 $9,380 $15,826 Eustis $0 $203 $150 $3,420 $0 $3,770 $7,543 Lake County $3,770 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,770 Lake Mary $0 $530 $550 $10,622 $0 $8,754 $20,456 Longwood $2,801 $600 $0 $8,910 $0 $8,754 $21,065 Orange County $9,354 $80 $3,569 $3,380 $0 $0 $16,383 Sanford $0 $310 $790 $4,113 $0 $8,754 $13,967 Seminole County $8,754 $0 $248 $9,830 $0 $0 $18,832 Titusville $7,602 $126 $74 $2,390 $0 $300 $10,492 • Volusia County $9,380 $0 $750 $10,691 $0 $0 $20,821 III 400 East 1st Street • Sanford, Florida 32771 • (407) 322 -2212 THE GREATER La 1ANFORO CHAMBER OF COMMER TOTAL IMPACT FEES BY COUNTY LOWEST TO HIGHEST Altamonte Springs \ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\`x$25,2 Casselberry \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $ Brevard County \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \\\` 829 Longwood \\\\ \ " \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \‘ 1 $21,065 Volusia County \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $20,81 Lake Mary \\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $20,456 Seminole County \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 8,832 Orange County \ \ \M$16, 383 Deland \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \` $15,826 Sanford A, $13,967 Titusville \ $10,492 Eustis \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ $7,$43 Lake County k -- 1,770 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 (Dollars) (Thousands) 400 East 1st Street • Sanford, Florida 32771 • (407) 322 -2212 • • THE GREATER ■••■•407 _ ANFORO Cf-64 MBER OF COMMERCE IMPACT FEES BY COUNTY ALPHABETICAL LISTING Volusia County \ \ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ $20,81 Titusville \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \� \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \mi $10, 492 Seminole County \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ 1$18,832 Sanford $13,967 Orange County \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \N\\\ \i$16,383 • Longwood \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \` \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ $21,065 Lake Mary \\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \` $20,456 Lake County 1$$,770 Eustis \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ 1 $7,543 Deland \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \, \ \ \ \\ \\\\ x; $15,826 Casselberry \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ' $23,353 Brevard County \\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ „ $21,i329 Altamonte Springs \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ O\\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \�.1 $25,258 r 0 5 10 15 20 2 5 30 (Dollars) (Thousands) 400 East 1st Street • Sanford, Florida 32771 • (407) 322 -2212 THE GREATER J'ANFORD CA/A MBER OF COMMERCE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES LOWEST TO HIGHEST • Brevard County \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ 1$10,754 Volusia County \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \� \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ 1$0,380 Orange County \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \O \ \\ $9,354 Seminole County \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N1$8,764 Titusville \ 10,602 Altamonte Springs \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \x$5,036 Lake County \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \*1 $3,770 Longwood \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ 1$2,801 Casselberry 01,625 Deland \ \ \ \i$1,b60 Lake Mary 1$0 Eustis ISO Sanford 1$0 f f f 0 2 4 6 8 10 1 2 (Dollars) (Thousands) 410 400 East 1st Street • Sanford, Florida 32771 • (407) 322 -2212 THE GREATER _PA AfFORD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE POLICE IMPACT FEES LOWEST TO HIGHEST Longwood \\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ Lake Mary \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ $530 Sanford ‘. $310 Altamonte Springs \ $210 Eustis \Nj$203 • Brevard County \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ 1$151 Titusville \ \ \ \ $126 Orange County \ \ \ \ \ \\ \1$130 Deland l$0 Casselberry 1$0 Seminole County ISO Volusia County $0 Lake County $0 r r r r r r 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 (Dollars) 400 East 1st Street • Sanford, Florida 32771 • (407) 322 -2212 THE GREATER .FAA/FORD Cf1A MBER OF • COMMERCE FIRE IMPACT FEES LOWEST TO HIGHEST Orange County \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $3,569 Sanford $090 Volusia County \ \ \\ $750 Lake Mary O \ \ \ \\ . 1$550 Altamonte Springs \$250 • Seminole County \`$248 Brevard County x$197 Eustis \1$150 Titusville `3 $74 Lake County ;$0 Deland ISO Casselberry 1$0 Longwood 1$0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 (Dollars) 400 East 1st Street • Sanford, Florida 32771 • (407) 322 -2212 THE GREATER • amilm 7Z=7 :1 1"...F J4 NFORO CHAMBER OF COM UTILITY IMPACT FEES LOWEST TO HIGHEST Brevard County \\\\\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \� 1$10,7 10, 727 Volusia County \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ 1$10,691 • Lake Mary \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \= $10,622 Seminole County \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \` $9,830 Casselberry $9,484 Longwood \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ $8,610 Altamonte Springs \\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \` $6,640 Sanford $4,113 Eustis 10,420 Orange County \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ $3,380 Deland \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \. $3,086 Titusville \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ $2,39p Lake County !$0 r r r r r r 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 (Dollars) (Thousands) 400 East 1st Street • Sanford, Florida 32771 • (407) 322 -2212 • THE GREATER • ZIL077 J 4 NFORD CI- 1A MBER Q COMMERCE SCHOOL IMPACT FEES LOWEST TO HIGHEST • Deland \ \\\\\ \\\\\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \� 1$2,300 Eustis 1$0 Lake County !VD Altamonte Springs 1$0 Brevard County IV) Casselberry IV) Lake Mary IV) Seminole County ;$0 Titusville ISO Volusia County I$0 Longwood 1$0 Orange County I$0 Sanford IV) r r r r 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 (Dollars) 400 East 1st Street • Sanford, Florida 32771 • (407) 322 -2212 1 f DRAFT PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE BACKGROUND REPORT for the CITY OF SANFORD, FLORIDA • Prepared by SOLIN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. September 4, 1992 SOLIN ANO ASSOCIATES. INC PLANNING CONSULTANTS OLIN 1 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 Impact Fee 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, has been contracted by the City to update the data in this impact fee background report. 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, 09/08/92 1 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. As presented in Table 2, the total capital value assets of the Sanford Department of Parks and Recreation including: land ($4,206,280) as presented in Table 1; buildings and improvements ($2,689,104); and equipment ($637,434), is a total value of $7,532,818. 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. C. Residential Dwelling Units. The Comprehensive Plan, Data Inventory and Analysis, 1991 reported that there were 14,706 dwelling units within the Sanford City limits. 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 $461.56. 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 govrernmental 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 of $415.40. PARK- REC.FEE, 09/08/92 2 4 III TABLE 1 APPRAISED VALUE OF SANFORD PARKS AND RECREATION LAND City of Sanford, Florida CITY -OWNED PARK (1) LAND VALUE (2) Academy Manor, Academy Avenue $34,200 Bay Avenue, 2430 Bay Avenue $138,600 Bel Air #1, 1800 Palm Way $114,810 Bel Air #2, 1801 Rose Way $620 Centennial Park, 400 Park Avenue $83.790 Civic Center, 401 East Seminole Blvd. $327.290 Coastline Park, 900 West 9th Street $50,490 Cultural Arts Building, 119 West Fifth Street $11,390 Elliott Avenue, 500 Elliott Avenue $60,060 Elm Avenue, 601 Elm Avenue $118,480 Fort Mellon Park, 600 East 1st Street $1,944,060 Groveview Subdivision, 306 Springview Drive $75,880 Groveview Village, 143 Anthony Drive $46,870 Hovanian, 2141 West 25th Street $48,190 Jaycee, 427 French Avenue $130,680 Jinkins Circle, 112 W. Jinkins Cir. $10,040 Kiwanas, 701 East 25th Place $73,320 • Lake Gem Park, 2200 Bel Air Blvd. $114,810 Lee P. Moore Park, 106 Sweet Bay Drive $150,380 Magnolia Avenue Park, 2951 Magnolia Avenue $5,180 McKibben Park, 1301 West 25th Street $3,850 Memorial Park, 400 North Park Avenue $128,570 Orange Avenue, 701 North Avenue $14,980 Park on Park/9th Street, 800 Park Avenue $59,240 Pinehurst, 1000 West 24th Street $90,000 Randall Chase, 1508 Celery Avenue $43,560 South Pinecrest, 140 Pinecrest Drive $14,430 Southside, 201 East 13th Street $104,120 Speer Grove, 1830 Mellonville Avenue $66,710 Starkes Park, 1501 West 3rd Street $68,260 Washington Oaks, 101 Sterling Avenue $19,170 Westside Recreation, 919 Persimmon Avenue $36,290 Wynnwood, 2401 Summerlin Avenue $17,960 TOTAL $4,206,280 Source: (1) City of Sanford Department of Parks and Recreation, 1992. (2) Seminole County Property Appraiser, 1992 Values. Prepared by: Solin and Associates, Inc., 1992. •fal • PARK - REC.FEE, 09/04(92 SOLIN AND ASSOCIATES. INC PLANNING CONSULTANTS 3 O LIN 1 • TABLE 2 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CAPITAL ASSETS City of Sanford, Florida CAPITAL ASSET 1 VALUE l DEPT. OF PARKS AND REC. LAND (1) $4,206,280 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS (2) $2,689,104 EQUIPMENT (2) $637,434 TOTAL VALUE OF CAPITAL ASSETS 1 $7,532,818 SOURCE: (1) Table 1, herein. (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. TABLE 3 VALUE OF GRANTS RECEIVED FOR PARK DEVELOPMENT City of Sanford, Florida Grant Grant 1992 Amount 4111 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 U.S. Department of Interior the F -DNR SOURCES: City of Sanford, Recreation and Parks Department U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index. 4111 PREPARED BY: Solin and Associates, Inc., 1992. PARK - REC.FEE, 09/04/92 SOLIN AND ASSOCIATES, INC PLANNING CONSULTANTS T /t OLIN { AI%DC • TABLE 4 • IMPACT FEE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY DEPT. OF PARKS AND REC. CAPITAL ASSETS (Table 2) = $7,532,818 LESS GRANT VALUE (Table 3) - $745,180 SANFORD'S CONTRIBUTION = $6,787,638 DIVIDED BY NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS / 14,706 EQUALS PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE PER DWELLING UNIT = $461.56 Application of a 10% discount fee (Ref. Section IV) results in an impact fee of $415.40. Prepared By: Solin and Associates, Inc., 1992. • t • PARK - REC.FEE, 09/04/92 SOLIN ANO ASSOCIATES. INC PLANNING CONSULTANTS 5 OLIN { AS10, • DRAFT POLICE PROTECTION IMPACT FEE BACKGROUND REPORT for the CITY OF SANFORD, FLORIDA • Prepared by SOLIN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. September 4, 1992 • SOON ANO ASSOCIATES. INC F PLANNING CONSULTANTS _ I 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 ofPineUas 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, has been contracted by the City to update the data in this impact fee background report while developing a methodology which divides the non - residential land uses into sub - categories. 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 4110 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. POLICE.FEE, 09/04/92 SOLIN ANO ASSOCIATES. INC PLANNING CONSULTANTS 1 OLIN . <, SO( • 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 411 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, 09/04/92 SOON AND ASSOCIATES, INC PLANNING CONSULTANTS 2 OLIN G l 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 ($762,140); buildings and improvements ($1,104,998); and equipment ($2,997,169) is a total value of $4,864,307 as presented in Table 1. MRESEARClitt Real ReMproggrwooqiiptioolpArogpityriOgit090# ich shar+ d with the. `ubhe ' orks :eom lex. 'l``he real l per a e 01 ::.iiiiii:•i:•iiii:::: ::•:::::.� :::::::::::::::: :::•::. i:. iiii:::• i::•:::..:::: :::::::::::.i:.i:.:':ti•:::.i::: .::::: .::: ::•:: ::::: ::•.K:.i:.i:.:: :.:::::: ::::::.� :• •::::::. .::::: ::: .... `• ^:y4i:Qi:ti;:j;: 3:_K: Q:tiv ?i{;:;:j4} iii: ivi:' +'t {:; }i:::.::..:.i::•.:. .::: :•::.:;'::.::::;'::::.;': ;::.:... ..: }i:' % ::v: ..:...:ii: ..... , ... ::ii ::i: ... .: i::i:: :: ' ' . ':' . ' «:derived from records of':: >:t o:::: Seminole un r roperty ppraise In order to obtain the value of the gunnery range, the total value f the p rid. £or the entire Public 'marks complex wa nultipli d the ratio f the area Bred by the gunnery range. TABLE 1 POLICE DEPARTMENT CAPITAL ASSETS City of Sanford, Florida CAPITAL ASSET 1 VALUE • POLICE DEPARTMENT LAND (1) - - - Law Enforcement Center $130,940 Police Gunnery Range $631,200 BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS (2) $1,104,998 EQUIPMENT (2) $2,997,169 TOTAL VALUE OF CAPITAL ASSETS $4,864,307 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 type of land use. • POLICE.FEE, 09/08/92 SOLIN AND ASSOCIATES. INC PLANNING CONSULTANTS 3 F . ASSO 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 sud- 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 14,706 dwelling units within the Sanford City limits as reported in the City of Sanford 1991 Comprehensive Plan, Data Inventory and Analysis. 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 ($4,864,307 x 61.84 %) / 14,706 = $ 204 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, 09V8/92 SOLIN ANO ASSOCIATES. INC. PLANNING CONSULTANTS 4 OLIN { ASS'1< . TABLE 2 POLICE PROTECTION IMPACT FEE BY LAND USE . ' City of Sa nford, Florida LAND USE A B C D E F • No. of % SIIARE # DU or S.F FEE ($) 10% Police POLICE ($) OF BY LAND PER DU DISC. Calls CALLS CALLS USE OR SF (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 1 RESIDENTIAL 1 888 1 61.84% I - - - 1 14,706 DU I $204 DUI I NON - RESIDENTIAL 1 548 1 38.16% 1 - -- 1 6,542,357 I .28 SF I 1 SEMI - PUBLIC Hospital Church COMMERCIAL Retail Sales and Service Building Materials Convenience Store Department Stores Domestic and Business Repair, Non -Pro Office Grocery Stores Roadside Stands Business and III Professional Offices Restaurant Drive -in Restaurant TRANSIENT LODGING AND ENTERTAINMENT Hotel or Motel Alcoholic Bev. Sales Commercial Amusements AUTOMOTIVE Automobile & Truck Service Automotive Dealer Sales INDUSTRIAL I TOTAL 1 1 1 1 I I 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., 4,864,307). (4) Square footage by land use per 1992/1993 Tax Roll, City of Sanford. III (5) Column C divided by Column D. (6) Column 5 less 10% discount. Prepared by: Solin and Associates, Inc., 1992. SOLIN ANO ASSOCIATES, INC PLANNING CONSULTANTS POLICE.FEE, 09/08/92 OLIN 5 DRAFT • FIRE PROTECTION IMPACT FEE BACKGROUND REPORT for the CITY OF SANFORD, FLORIDA Prepared by SOLIN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. September 8, 1992 • SOLIN AND ASSOCIATES. INC PLANNING CONSULTANTS OLIN 4 nll0( 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, has been contracted by the City to update the data in this impact fee background report while developing a methodology which divides the non - residential land uses into sub - categories. 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, 09/08/92 SOLIN ANO ASSOCIATES, INC PLANNING CONSULTANTS 1 OLIN • ■ • • 1 • SOLIN ANO ASSOCIATES. INC PLANNING CONSULTANTS r 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. In order to establish the capital cost for fire protection, the existing value of the Fire Department's capital assets was 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 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 fire loss calls maintained by the Fire Department. This data represents a record of all calls that involve fire damage of $100 or more. The assumption was made that the amount of Fire Department activity, expressed in terms of the percent of fire loss calls that were received for residential and non - residential purposes, would define the proportion of the Fire Department effort dedicated to residential and non - residential Fire Department services. This data was then utilized to calculate the proportion of the Fire Department capital asset inventory that was devoted to the residential and non- residential aspects of the City's fire protection services. • Since new residential growth can be expressed in terms of growth in dwelling units, tilt residential portion of the Fire Department capital asset inventory was divided by the current number of dwelling units in the City of Sanford to arrive at the current cost per dwelling unit for fire protection services. Similarly, the capital asset inventory was divided by the existing floor area of each non - residential sub - category by land use arrive at the existing cost per square foot of non - residential development for each non - residential category. The per -unit costs for fire protection impact fees are calculated using the following formulas: Fire Protection Impact Fee Formula For All Residential Land Uses: ($ 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, 09/08/92 SOLIN ANO ASSOCIATES. INC PLANNING CONSULTANTS 2 OLIN £ SII 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 $2,068,959 which includes land ($320,130); buildings and improvements ($664,718); and equipment ($1,084,111). RESI AR 1! S X851 . ** Fire Station No. 1 shares its site with the LUtilities Department The portion of the site attributable tt Fire S tation. No. j' 4 1<: >was .tease ::'Q the a rn nole:; ou . ': P.ro -.erty: .Ira ser s landvalue divided by the land a (square footage) of the entire site. The resulting per square loot valt a was 1nultlplied by the area utilized by the Station, it driveways, parking areas, etc. to arrive at the value o €the portion of the: site occupied by the F i e 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. $188,000 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 $2,068,959 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 FIRE.FEE, 09/08/92 SOLIN ANO ASSOCIATES, INC PLANNING CONSULTANTS 3 OLIN { Ails( • 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. All fire loss calls reported in the Department's records are defined as any call that involves property damage of $100 or more. A one -month sample of fire loss 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 s 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 14,706 dwelling units within the Sanford City limits as reported in the City of Sanford 1991 Comprehensive Plan, Data Inventory and Analysis. 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, 07/08/92 SOLIN ANO ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING CONSULTANTS 4 OLIN 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 ($2,068,959 x ) / 14,706 = $ 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, 09/08/92 SOLIN AND ASSOCIATES. INC PLANNING CONSULTANTS 5 OLIN 6 AS SD! TABLE 2 FIRE PROTECTION IMPACT FEE BY LAND USE City of Sanford, Florida • LAND USE A B C D E F NO. % SHARE # DU FEE 10% OF FIRE ($) OF or S.F ($) DISCOUNT FIRE CALLS CALLS BY PER CALL LAND DU OR S USE SF (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) RESIDENTIAL SEMI - PUBLIC Hospital Church COMMERCIAL Retail Sales and Service Building Materials Convenience Store Department Stores Domestic and Business Repair, Non -Pro Office Grocery Stores Roadside Stands • Business and Professional Offices Restaurant Drive -in Restaurant TRANSIENT LODGING AND ENTERTAINMENT Hotel or Motel Alcoholic Bev. Sales Commercial Amusements AUTOMOTIVE Automobile & Truck Service Automotive Dealer Sales INDUSTRIAL I TOTAL 1 1 1 1 I I Source: (1) City of Sanford Fire Department, fire loss call records for May, 1992. (2) Percent of total fire loss calls by land use. (3) Column B multiplied by the total value of Fire Department capital assets (i.e., $2,068,959). • (4) Square footage by land use per 1992/1993 Tax Roll, City of Sanford. (5) Column C divided by Column D. (6) Column 5 less 10% discount. Prepared by: Solin and Associates, Inc.. 1992. SOLIN AND ASSOCIATES. INC PLANNING CONSULTANTS OLIN FIRE.FEE, 09 /08/92 6