4346 Police Pub Safety Impact FeesOrdinance No. 4346
An ordinance of the City of Sanford, Florida amending
Subsection 98- 133(a), Chapter 98, Article V, City Code,
pertaining to an impact fee report and a change in impact fees,
of the City Code of the City of Sanford; providing for changes
in the amounts and calculations with regard to police public
safety facilities impact fees and fire public safety facilities
impact fees; providing for implementing administrative
actions; providing for conflicts; providing for a savings
provision; providing for codification and the correction of
scrivener's errors; providing for severability and providing for
an effective date.
Be it enacted by the People of the City of Sanford, Florida:
Section 1. Legislative findings and intent.
(a). The City Commission of the City of Sanford hereby adopts and
incorporates into this Ordinance the City staff report and City Commission agenda
memorandum relating this Ordinance.
(b). Subsection 98 -133 (b) of the City Code relates to the adoption of police
public safety facilities impact fees, recreation facilities impact fees, and fire public safety
facilities impact fees /study /additional subsequent studies and provides as follows:
(b) The Mayor and City Commission may adopt future reports and
studies relating to police public safety facilities impact fees,
recreation facilities impact fees, and fire public safety facilities
impact fees and may impose additional police public safety facilities
impact fees, recreation facilities impact fees, and fire public safety
facilities impact fees in accordance with the provisions of Section 98-
135 of this article, based upon the review and acceptance of such
reports and /or studies.
(c). The Mayor and City Commission have reviewed and accepted the report
and study, dated March 16, 2015, issued by Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. (Mr.
1
CODING: Words sceo are deletions; words underlined are additions. Asterisks ( * * *) indicate text that is
not being amended, but is omitted for space /content convenience.
Tony Hairston, Manager) and entitled "Police and Fire Impact Fee Update ".
(d). The City of Sanford has complied with all requirements and procedures of
Florida law in processing and advertising the Ordinance including, but not limited to, the
cited as the "Florida Impact Fee Act."
(e). Although not a land development regulation, this Ordinance is found to be
consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan of the City
of Sanford in every respect and as to all pertinent goals, objectives and policies.
Section 2. Revision to Subsection 98- 133(a), Chapter 98, Article V, City
Code, Impact Fee Report; Change In Impact Fees. Subsection 98- 133(a), Chapter
98, Article V, City Code of the City of Sanford is amended to read as follows:'
Sec. 98 -133. - Adoption of police public safety facilities impact fees, recreation
facilities impact fees, and fire public safety facilities impact fees /study /additional
subsequent studies.
(a) The study entitled "City of Sanford, Florida Municipal Services Impact Fee Study,"
dated April 9, 2006, prepared by Public Resources Group, Inc., Maitland, Florida, is,
after careful consideration by the Mayor and City Commission, hereby accepted and
adopted by the Mayor and City Commission and said study is incorporated herein by
this reference thereto as if fully set forth herein verbatim. The report and study, dated
March 16, 2015, issued by Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. (Mr. Tony Hairston,
Manager) and entitled "Police and Fire Impact Fee Update ", is, after careful
consideration by the Mayor and City Commission, hereby accepted and adopted by the
Mayor and City Commission and said report study is incorporated herein by this
reference thereto as if fully set forth herein verbatim. The results of the 2015 report and
study shall replace the results of the 2006 study /report with regard to police public
safety facilities impact fees and fire public safety facilities impact fees.
(b) ......
Section 3. Implementing Administrative Actions.
The City Manager, or designee, is hereby authorized and directed to implement
the provisions of this Ordinance and to take any and all necessary administrative
2
CODING: Words str-irkem are deletions; words underlined are additions. Asterisks ( * * *) indicate text that is
not being amended, but is omitted for space /content convenience.
actions to include, but not be limited to, the adoption of administrative rules and the
amendment and modification of tables and other documents to include, but not be
limited to, those published in the City Code. Said actions shall be accomplished in
accordance with Section 1 -10 of the City Code relating to the ongoing review, revision
and maintenance of the City Code.
Section 4. Conflicts /Repealer.
All ordinances or part of ordinances in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby
repealed.
Section 5. Savings.
The prior actions of the City of Sanford in implementation of Part V, Chapter 98
of the City Code of the City of Sanford and related matters as well as the prior impact
ordinances of the City are hereby ratified and affirmed.
Section 6. Severability.
If any section, sentence, phrase, word, or portion of this Ordinance is determined
to be invalid, unlawful or unconstitutional, said determination shall not be held to
invalidate or impair the validity, force or effect of any other section, sentence, phrase,
word, or portion of this Ordinance not otherwise determined to be invalid, unlawful or
unconstitutional.
Section 7. Codification; Scrivener's Errors.
(a). This Ordinance shall be codified in the City Code of the City of Sanford;
provided, however, that Sections 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 shall not be codified. The Code
3
CODING: Words str+sken are deletions; words underlined are additions. Asterisks ( * * *) indicate text that is
not being amended, but is omitted for space /content convenience.
Codifier is granted broad and liberal authority to change section numbers is in the
current City Code and to take other appropriate actions as set forth in Section 1 -10 of
the City Code.
(b). This Ordinance includes a revised Exhibit "A" which is part of Section 98-
135 in the City Code. The table therein contains new land use categories (Development
Classification) that will be applicable to Fire and Police Impact Fees but not applicable
for Park Impact Fees. The Code Codifier shall provide for appropriate modifications to
be codified.
(c). Typographical errors and other matters of a similar nature that do not
affect the intent of this Ordinance, as determined by the City Clerk and City Attorney,
may be corrected with the endorsement of the City Manager, or designee, without the
need for a public hearing.
Section 8. Effective Date.
(a). This Ordinance shall be effective August 17, 2015, for any impact fees
that are reduced from the previously imposed amount.
(b). This Ordinance shall be effective November 16, 2015, for any impact fees
that are increased from the previously imposed amount.
Passed and adopted this 10th day of August, 2015.
City Commis i n of the City of
Sanford, Florp d
Seminole,Co njty, Florida
Jeff ri 7ks yor
4
CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions. I * *) indicate text that is
not being amended, but is omitted for space /content nv e.
Attest.
Cyn is Porter, City Clerk
Approved as to form and
legality:
1 Section. 98 -135 of the City Code relates to the imposition of police public safety facilities impact fees, recreation
facilities impact fees, and fire public safety facilities impact fees fees /rates. The Exhibit referenced in that Section
shall be modified as a result of the enactment of this Ordinance. That provision reads, in full, as follows in the
codified City Code published by the Municipal Code Corporation:
Sec. 98 -135. - Imposition of police public safety facilities impact fees, recreation facilities impact fees, and
fire public safety facilities impact fees fees /rates.
(a) Any person who, after the effective date of this article, seeks to develop real property located in the City by
applying for a building permit or any development order or permit allowing the use of real property without the need
for a building permit to make an improvement to land which shall generate the need for police public safety facilities,
recreation facilities, or fire public safety facilities shall pay police public safety facilities impact fees, recreation
facilities impact fees, and fire public safety facilities impact fees in the manner and amount set forth in this article.
(b) Impact fees may be prepaid for any legally existing parcel of real property. Prepaid impact fees shall run with the
land and are not transferable from a parcel to another parcel. Prepaid impact fees shall vest the parcel only for the
use for which they are paid. No refunds shall be made for any prepaid impact fees except as may otherwise be
provided for in this article.
(c) Impact fees shall be imposed and collected by the City at the rates established in the tables attached as the
Exhibit A to this article which shall be amended from time -to -time by the City Manager to reflect the administrative
adjustment as set forth in subsection 98- 135(d). The impact fees shall be applied in accordance with the definitions
of uses set forth in this Ordinance. Any combination of development classification shall be calculated separately by
each development classification and then added together for determination of a total fee.
(d) The rates set forth in subsections 98- 135(c) shall be administratively adjusted on an annual basis commencing
12 months from the first day of the first month after the effective date of this article and on the same day of each year
thereafter. The indexing rate shall be the annually adjusted CPI and that amount shall be added to the prior
established rates.
(e) The City Manager is hereby delegated full and plenary authority to implement and administer the provisions of
this article, or delegate same to a delegatee, except for matters withheld for action by the Mayor and City
Commission under the provisions of controlling law.
(f) The Mayor and the City Commission may adjust the impact fees imposed pursuant to this article by means of the
adoption of a report or a study pursuant to section 98- 133(b) of this article and the imposition of impact fees relating
to additional impact fees which are the subject of the subsequently adopted report(s) or study(ies).
5
CODING: Words stfiskeR are deletions; words underlined are additions. Asterisks ( * * *) indicate text that is
not being amended, but is omitted for space /content convenience.
� t
WS _ RM
Item No. 1
CITY COMMISSION MEMORANDUM IS- 129
AUGUST 10, 2015 AGENDA
To:
PREPARED BY:
SUBMITTED BY:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission
Cynthia Lindsay, Finance Director
Norton N. Bonaparte, Jr., City Manage
Impact Fee Ordinance
STRATEGIC PRIORITIES:
❑ Unify Downtown & the Waterfront
❑ Promote the City's Distinct Culture
❑ Update Regulatory Framework
❑ Redevelop and Revitalize Disadvantaged Communities
SYNOPSIS:
Ordinance No. 4346, relating to police and fire impact fees is being presented for second reading
and adoption.
FISCAL/STAFFING STATEMENT:
The proposal set forth in the Ordinance presented to the City Commission pertains to changes
proposed to be implemented relative to police and fire impact fees.
Single family and multi - family residential impact fees for police services are proposed to decrease
from $476.41 to $374.90.
Single family and multi - family residential impact fees for fire services are proposed to decrease from
$463.18 to $373.91 and $280.43 respectively.
Commercial and industrial fees are currently $754.32 and $54.04 for police and $436.72 and $45.22
for fire. However, these two non - residential classifications have been expanded to include twenty -
four different land use types. For non - residential land uses the proposed fees are either higher or
lower than existing fees depending on the land use that will be developed on the property which is
assessed impact fees.
BACKGROUND:
The last impact fee update was approved by Commission on August 28, 2006, and prior to that the
impact fees had not been reviewed for over 13 years. A new study relating to police and fire impact
fees was procured by the City from Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. (Raftelis) with Mr. Tony
Hairston serving as Manager of the project. He was assisted by Mr. Joe Williams and special legal
counsel Ms. Susan Schoettle -Gumm of Sarasota. City staff provided a great deal of consultation and
input during the process.
As a result of the study, please see attached schedule of fees for comparison to the fees per the study.
A copy of the full report arising from the study is attached for the review and usage of the City
Commission.
The study addressed four major objectives:
(1). Impact fees should be sufficient to fund the capital requirements associated
with providing service to new growth and development;
(2). Impact fees should not be used to fund any existing capital deficiencies of the
City;
(3). Impact fees should be based upon reasonable level of service standards, which
meet the needs of the City and are similar to industry standards; and
(4). Non - residential impact fees should be expanded to include land use types that
recognize the difference in service demands among land uses.
Under controlling Florida law, the purpose of an impact fee is to assign, to the extent practical,
growth- related capital costs to the City's new customers (residents) that benefit from the facilities
funded by such expenditures. That is, a dual rational nexus must be established which shows that:
(1). The development paying the impact fees causes an impact on public facilities
such that new capacity is needed to serve the development. Impact fees cannot be
charged to fund facility capacity deficiencies; and
(2). The development will benefit from the new capacity.
If both of the above cannot be established, then an impact fee is subject to the assertion that it is an
unlawful tax.
Although impact fees were legitimized in Florida as a result of numerous Court rulings, the Florida
Legislature has recognized the following in Section 163.31801(2), Florida Statutes:
The Legislature finds that impact fees are an important source of revenue for a local
government to use in funding the infrastructure necessitated by new growth. The
Legislature further finds that impact fees are an outgrowth of the home rule power of
a local government to provide certain services within its jurisdiction. Due to the
growth of impact fee collections and local governments' reliance on impact fees, it is
the intent of the Legislature to ensure that, when a county or municipality adopts an
impact fee by ordinance or a special district adopts an impact fee by resolution, the
governing authority complies with this section.
Raftelis conducted its analysis utilizing a functional population analysis applied to capital planning
data, fixed assets records, police and fire call data, and the City's service level standards. The report
reflects updated capital costs of providing police and fire facilities including the proportional share
of the Public Safety Complex allocated to growth.
Raftelis and its professionals and City staff are confident of the report's analysis and
recommendations related to the proposed changes in the impact fees for police and fire public
facilities.
On July 13, 2015, the City Commission approved Ordinance No. 4346 on first reading with a
modification to the fees proposed for Quality Restaurant and High - Turnover Restaurant. The
modification included combining these two categories into one category called Restaurant -Non Fast
Food and using the Quality Restaurant rates.
The City Clerk advertised notice of the public hearing in the Sanford Herald on June 21, 2015.
LEGAL REVIEW:
The Assistant City Attorney prepared the proposed Ordinance and otherwise assisted in this matter.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Commission adopt Ordinance No. 4346.
The requirements of Section 163.31801, Florida Statutes, impose a 90 -day period between
enactment of the proposed Ordinance and the imposition of fees that increase.
There is not a waiting period requirement for fees that are decreasing.
Staff recommends, as set forth in the proposed Ordinance, to implement decreasing impact fees upon
adoption of the Ordinance.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
"I move to adopt Ordinance No. 4346, with combination of Quality and High- Turnover Restaurant
categories into a Restaurant -Non Fast Food category using the Quality Restaurant rates and using
the implementation date of August 17, 2015 for decreasing fees and November 16, 2015 for
increasing fees."
Attachments: (1). Ordinance No. 4346.
(2). Raftelis Police and Fire Impact Fee Update Report.
(3). Impact Fee Schedule and Comparisons.
Ordinance No. 4346
An ordinance of the City of Sanford, Florida amending
Subsection 98- 133(a), Chapter 98, Article V, City Code,
pertaining to an impact fee report and a change in impact fees,
of the City Code of the City of Sanford; providing for changes
in the amounts and calculations with regard to police public
safety facilities impact fees and fire public safety facilities
impact fees; providing for implementing administrative
actions; providing for conflicts; providing for a savings
provision; providing for codification and the correction of
scrivener's errors; providing for severability and providing for
an effective date.
Be it enacted by the People of the City of Sanford, Florida:
Section 1. Legislative findings and intent.
(a). The City Commission of the City of Sanford hereby adopts and
incorporates into this Ordinance the City staff report and City Commission agenda
memorandum relating this Ordinance.
(b). Subsection 98 -133 (b) of the City Code relates to the adoption of police
public safety facilities impact fees, recreation facilities impact fees, and fire public safety
facilities impact fees /study /additional subsequent studies and provides as follows:
(b) The Mayor and City Commission may adopt future reports and
studies relating to police public safety facilities impact fees,
recreation facilities impact fees, and fire public safety facilities
impact fees and may impose additional police public safety facilities
impact fees, recreation facilities impact fees, and fire public safety
facilities impact fees in accordance with the provisions of Section 98-
135 of this article, based upon the review and acceptance of such
reports and /or studies.
(c). The Mayor and City Commission have reviewed and accepted the report
and study, dated March 16, 2015, issued by Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. (Mr.
1
CODING: Words StFiGken are deletions; words underlined are additions. Asterisks ( * * *) indicate text that is
not being amended, but is omitted for space /content convenience.
Tony Hairston, Manager) and entitled "Police and Fire Impact Fee Update ".
(d). The City of Sanford has complied with all requirements and procedures of
Florida law in processing and advertising the Ordinance including, but not limited to, the
cited as the "Florida Impact Fee Act."
(e). Although not a land development regulation, this Ordinance is found to be
consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan of the City
of Sanford in every respect and as to all pertinent goals, objectives and policies.
Section 2. Revision to Subsection 98- 133(a), Chapter 98, Article V, City
Code, Impact Fee Report; Change In Impact Fees. Subsection 98- 133(a), Chapter
98, Article V, City Code of the City of Sanford is amended to read as follows:'
Sec. 98 -133. - Adoption of police public safety facilities impact fees, recreation
facilities impact fees, and fire public safety facilities impact fees /studyladditional
subsequent studies.
(a) The study entitled "City of Sanford, Florida Municipal Services Impact Fee Study,"
dated April 9, 2006, prepared by Public Resources Group, Inc., Maitland, Florida, is,
after careful consideration by the Mayor and City Commission, hereby accepted and
adopted by the Mayor and City Commission and said study is incorporated herein by
this reference thereto as if fully set forth herein verbatim. The report and stud,,
March 16, 2015, issued by Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. (Mr. Tony Hairston,
Manager) and entitled "Police and Fire Impact Fee Update ", is, after careful
consideration by the Mayor and City Commission, hereby accepted and adopted by the
Mayor and City Commission and said report study is incorporated herein by this
reference thereto as if fully set forth herein verbatim. The results of the 2015 report and
study shall replace the results of the 2006 study /report with regard to police public
safety facilities impact fees and fire public safety facilities impact fees.
(b) ......
Section 3. Implementing Administrative Actions.
The City Manager, or designee, is hereby authorized and directed to implement
the provisions of this Ordinance and to take any and all necessary administrative
2
CODING: Words stfiGken are deletions; words underlined are additions. Asterisks ( * * *) indicate text that is
not being amended, but is omitted for space /content convenience.
actions to include, but not be limited to, the adoption of administrative rules and the
amendment and modification of tables and other documents to include, but not be
limited to, those published in the City Code. Said actions shall be accomplished in
accordance with Section 1 -10 of the City Code relating to the ongoing review, revision
and maintenance of the City Code.
Section 4. Conflicts /Repealer.
All ordinances or part of ordinances in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby
repealed.
Section 5. Savings.
The prior actions of the City of Sanford in implementation of Part V, Chapter 98
of the City Code of the City of Sanford and related matters as well as the prior impact
ordinances of the City are hereby ratified and affirmed.
Section 6. Severability.
If any section, sentence, phrase, word, or portion of this Ordinance is determined
to be invalid, unlawful or unconstitutional, said determination shall not be held to
invalidate or impair the validity, force or effect of any other section, sentence, phrase,
word, or portion of this Ordinance not otherwise determined to be invalid, unlawful or
unconstitutional.
Section 7. Codification; Scrivener's Errors.
(a). This Ordinance shall be codified in the City Code of the City of Sanford;
provided, however, that Sections 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 shall not be codified. The Code
3
CODING: Words stx+sken are deletions; words underlined are additions. Asterisks ( * * *) indicate text that is
not being amended, but is omitted for space /content convenience.
Codifier is granted broad and liberal authority to change section numbers is in the
current City Code and to take other appropriate actions as set forth in Section 1 -10 of
the City Code.
(b). This Ordinance includes a revised Exhibit "A" which is part of Section 98-
135 in the City Code. The table therein contains new land use categories (Development
Classification) that will be applicable to Fire and Police Impact Fees but not applicable
for Park Impact Fees. The Code Codifier shall provide for appropriate modifications to
be codified.
(c). Typographical errors and other matters of a similar nature that do not
affect the intent of this Ordinance, as determined by the City Clerk and City Attorney,
may be corrected with the endorsement of the City Manager, or designee, without the
need for a public hearing.
Section 8. Effective Date.
(a). This Ordinance shall be effective August 17, 2015, for any impact fees
that are reduced from the previously imposed amount.
(b). This Ordinance shall be effective November 16, 2015, for any impact fees
that are increased from the previously imposed amount.
Passed and adopted this 10th day of August, 2015.
City Commission of the City of
Sanford, Florida
Seminole County, Florida
Jeff Triplett, Mayor
4
CODING: Words stfickeR are deletions; words underlined are additions. Asterisks ( * * *) indicate text that is
not being amended, but is omitted for space /content convenience.
Attest.
Cynthia Porter, City Clerk
Approved as to form and
legality:
William L. Colbert, Esquire
City Attorney
Section. 98 -135 of the City Code relates to the imposition of police public safety facilities impact fees, recreation
facilities impact fees, and fire public safety facilities impact fees fees /rates. The Exhibit referenced in that Section
shall be modified as a result of the enactment of this Ordinance. That provision reads, in full, as follows in the
codified City Code published by the Municipal Code Corporation:
Sec. 98 -135. - Imposition of police public safety facilities impact fees, recreation facilities impact fees, and
fire public safety facilities impact fees fees /rates.
(a) Any person who, after the effective date of this article, seeks to develop real property located in the City by
applying for a building permit or any development order or permit allowing the use of real property without the need
for a building permit to make an improvement to land which shall generate the need for police public safety facilities,
recreation facilities, or fire public safety facilities shall pay police public safety facilities impact fees, recreation
facilities impact fees, and fire public safety facilities impact fees in the manner and amount set forth in this article.
(b) Impact fees may be prepaid for any legally existing parcel of real property. Prepaid impact fees shall run with the
land and are not transferable from a parcel to another parcel. Prepaid impact fees shall vest the parcel only for the
use for which they are paid. No refunds shall be made for any prepaid impact fees except as may otherwise be
provided for in this article.
(c) Impact fees shall be imposed and collected by the City at the rates established in the tables attached as the
Exhibit A to this article which shall be amended from time -to -time by the City Manager to reflect the administrative
adjustment as set forth in subsection 98- 135(d). The impact fees shall be applied in accordance with the definitions
of uses set forth in this Ordinance. Any combination of development classification shall be calculated separately by
each development classification and then added together for determination of a total fee.
(d) The rates set forth in subsections 98- 135(c) shall be administratively adjusted on an annual basis commencing
12 months from the first day of the first month after the effective date of this article and on the same day of each year
thereafter. The indexing rate shall be the annually adjusted CPI and that amount shall be added to the prior
established rates.
(e) The City Manager is hereby delegated full and plenary authority to implement and administer the provisions of
this article, or delegate same to a delegatee, except for matters withheld for action by the Mayor and City
Commission under the provisions of controlling law.
(f) The Mayor and the City Commission may adjust the impact fees imposed pursuant to this article by means of the
adoption of a report or a study pursuant to section 98- 133(b) of this article and the imposition of impact fees relating
to additional impact fees which are the subject of the subsequently adopted report(s) or study(ies).
5
CODING: Words stFis{ceR are deletions; words underlined are additions. Asterisks ( * * *) indicate text that is
not being amended, but is omitted for space /content convenience.
o E �
RAFTELIS
FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
950 S. Winter Park Drive Phone 407.960.1806 v.. +r.r:atfelivsona
Suite 240 Fax 407 . 960. 1803
Casselberry, FL 32707
RAFTEC_[S
FINLNCt4t, CG,`6UL7 ?itiTS, INC,
March 16, 2015
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Commission
City of Sanford
300 N Park Avenue
Sanford, FL 32771
Subject: Police and Fire Impact Fee Update
Enclosed is the 2014 police and fire impact fee update report for your use and reference. The
attached report includes an executive summary followed by technical sections regarding the
calculation of each of the updated impact fees and additional background information. If you
should have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me or Joe Williams. We appreciate
the opportunity to work with you and the City on this important project.
Respectfully Submitted,
Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc.
Tony Hairston
Senior Manager
City of Sanford Police & Fire Impact Fee Study Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................ ..............................1
Introduction......................................................................................... ............................... 1
SECTION 1 — INTRODUCTION
Introduction ...........................
Authorization ........................
Impact Fee Background ........
Summary of Report ...............
Acknowledgments ................
............................................................ ............................... 7
............................................................ ............................... 7
............................................................ ............................... 7
............................................................ ............................... 7
............................................................ ............................... 9
............................................................. .............................10
SECTION 2 — SERVICE AREA AND FUNCTIONAL POPULATION .. .............................11
General............................................................................................... ............................... 11
Population and Development Forecast ................................................ .............................11
Functional Population Parameters .............................................. ............................... 11
Existing and Future Functional Population ................................ ............................... 14
SECTION 3 — POLICE SERVICES IMPACT FEE ................................... .............................18
Introduction.......................................................................................... .............................18
ExistingImpact Fees ............................................................................ .............................18
Existing Resources and Level of Service ............................................ .............................18
IncrementalCosts .............................................................................. ............................... 21
Impact Fee Development ..................................................................... .............................24
Calculated Police Impact Fees ........................................................... ............................... 24
Police Impact Fee Comparisons ........................................................ ............................... 26
Police Impact Fee Revenue ............................................................... ............................... 28
SECTION 4 — FIRE RESCUE SERVICES IMPACT FEE ...................... ............................... 29
Introduction........................................................................................ ............................... 29
ExistingImpact Fees .......................................................................... ............................... 29
Existing Resources and Level of Service .......................................... ............................... 30
IncrementalCosts .............................................................................. ............................... 31
ImpactFee Development ................................................................... ............................... 34
CalculatedFire Impact Fees .............................................................. ............................... 35
Fire Impact Fee Comparisons ............................................................ ............................... 37
Fire Impact Fee Revenue ................................................................... ............................... 39
iIF'ag,
City of Sanford Police & Fire Impact Fee Study List of Tables
Table ES -1 - Historical Police and Fire Impact Fee Revenue ......................... ............................... 1
Table ES -2 - Existing and Calculated Residential Police and Fire Impact Fees ............................ 1
Table ES -3 - Existing Police and Fire Non - Residential Impact Fees .............. ............................... 2
Table ES -4 - Calculated Police and Fire Impact Fees ..................................... ............................... 3
Table 1 — Residential Functional Population ................................................. ...............................
12
Table 2 - Non - Residential Functional Population Coefficients ..................... ...............................
12
Table 3 - Existing Functional Population ...................................................... ...............................
14
Table 4 - Vacant Acreage by Land Use ......................................................... ...............................
15
Table 5 - Projected Residential Functional Population Growth .................... ...............................
15
Table 6 - Projected Commercial and Industrial Functional Population Growth ..........................
16
Table 7 - Functional Population Summary .................................................... ...............................
17
Table 8 - Existing Police Impact Fees ........................................................... ...............................
18
Table 9 - Current Sworn Officer Staffing ...................................................... ...............................
19
Table 10 - Existing and Projected Sworn Officers ........................................ ...............................
19
Table11 - LOS Comparison .......................................................................... ...............................
19
Table 12 - Additional Sworn Officers ........................................................... ...............................
20
Table 13 - Incremental Vehicle Costs ............................................................ ...............................
21
Table 14 - Field Equipment Allocation ......................................................... ...............................
21
Table 15 - Public Safety Complex Cost and Allocation ................................ ...............................
22
Table 16 - Police Allocation of Public Safety Complex ................................ ...............................
22
Table 17 - Police Services Credit Calculation ............................................... ...............................
23
Table 18 - Incremental Cost Summary .......................................................... ...............................
23
Table 19 - Police Services Impact Fee per ERU ............................................ ...............................
24
Table 20 - Police Services Impact Fee Schedule ........................................... ...............................
25
Table 21 - Historical Police Impact Fee Revenue ......................................... ...............................
28
Table 22 - Existing Fire Services Impact Fees .............................................. ...............................
29
Table 23 - Existing Fire Department Staffing ................................................ ...............................
30
Table 24 — Existing and Projected Firefighters .............................................. ...............................
30
Table 25 - Additional Firefighters Needed .................................................... ...............................
31
Table26 - Protective Gear ............................................................................. ...............................
31
Table 27 - Vehicle Allocations ...................................................................... ...............................
31
Table 28 - Field Equipment Allocation ......................................................... ...............................
32
Table 29 - Public Safety Complex Cost and Allocation ................................ ...............................
32
Table 30 - Public Safety Complex Cost per Firefighter ................................ ...............................
33
Table 31 — Fire Services Credit Calculation .................................................. ...............................
33
Table 32 - Net Public Safety Complex Cost per Firefighter .......................... ...............................
33
Table 33 - Net Incremental Cost per Firefighter ............................................ ...............................
34
Table 34 — Fire Services Impact Fee per ERU .............................................. ...............................
34
Table 35 - Fire Services Impact Fee Schedule ............................................... ...............................
36
Table 36 - Historical Fire Impact Fee Revenue ............................................. ...............................
39
iii. I I' a L7 L
Executive Summary
Introduction
The City of Sanford (City) has retained Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. to review and update
the City's police and fire services impact fees. Impact fees are an important source for
municipalities to fund infrastructure costs related to growth. The study herein is based on the costs
to provide infrastructure to address needs related to growth based on data specific to each service
and related to the City's characteristics. The calculated impact fees set forth in this study reflect
Florida case law, Florida Statutes, and generally acceptable impact fee methodologies.
During the past several years the City's impact fee revenues have fluctuated due to changing
economic conditions:
'fable ES -1 - Historical Police and Fire Impact Fee Revenue
Fluctuations in impact fee revenues from year to year are common since they are directly
dependent on growth and local economic conditions. Therefore it is prudent for municipalities to
carefully budget the use of impact fees each year. However, the goal of this study is not to target
certain impact fee revenues, but rather to identify the cost of police and fire facilities on a unit
basis in order to assign such costs to future growth.
The report herein outlines the methodologies, assumptions, and considerations in the development
of each updated impact fee calculation. The following summarizes the City's existing residential
municipal impact fees compared to the fully calculated impact fees based on the analysis in this
report:
'fable ES -2 - Existing and Calculated Residential Police and Fire Impact Fees
Police Impact
Fire Impact
Total Police
Fiscal Year
Fees
Fees
& Fire
FY 2014
$86,396
$61,712
$148,108
FY 2013
$302,859
$273,609
$576,468
FY 2012
$265,451
$241,719
$507,170
FY 2011
$150,468
$113,902
$264,370
FY 2010
$102,788
$75,529
$178,317
FY 2009
$167,333
$113,405
$280,738
Fluctuations in impact fee revenues from year to year are common since they are directly
dependent on growth and local economic conditions. Therefore it is prudent for municipalities to
carefully budget the use of impact fees each year. However, the goal of this study is not to target
certain impact fee revenues, but rather to identify the cost of police and fire facilities on a unit
basis in order to assign such costs to future growth.
The report herein outlines the methodologies, assumptions, and considerations in the development
of each updated impact fee calculation. The following summarizes the City's existing residential
municipal impact fees compared to the fully calculated impact fees based on the analysis in this
report:
'fable ES -2 - Existing and Calculated Residential Police and Fire Impact Fees
As shown above, both the residential police and fire impact fees per unit calculated in this Report
are lower than the existing fees. The methodology used in this Report is based on the recovery of
Calculated
Impact Fee Existing
Update
Difference
Police $476.41
$374.90
($101.51)
Fire 463.18
373.91
(89.27)
Combined $939.59
$748.81
($190.78)
As shown above, both the residential police and fire impact fees per unit calculated in this Report
are lower than the existing fees. The methodology used in this Report is based on the recovery of
City of Sanford Police & Fire Impact Fee Study Executive Summary
incremental costs related to growth including a portion of costs related to the Public Safety
Complex. A comparison of the City's existing and updated combined police and fire impact fee
calculations with other municipalities within Seminole County are shown below for informational
purposes:
$1,200
$1,000
$800
$600
$400
$200
M
$940
$749
•. W
Sanford Sanford Altamonte Casselberry Lake Mary Oviedo Winter
Existing Calculated Springs Springs
As shown above, the City's calculated fees based on the most recent data are comparable to impact
fees charged by other nearby municipalities.
The City's existing police and fire impact fees for non - residential land uses are based on the size
of each development with a fee per square foot distinguished between commercial and industrial
uses:
'fable ES -3 - Existing Police and Fire Non - Residential Impact Fees
Description Units Police Fire
Commercial [1] 1,000 sgft. $754.32 $436.72
Industrial [2] 1,000 sqft. $54.04 $45.22
[1] The following business code classifications qualify as commercial properties:
Assembly, Business, Educational, Institutional, Mercantile, and Daycare.
[2] The following business code classifications qualify as industrial properties:
Factory and Industrial, High Hazard, Storage, and Utility and Miscellaneous.
As shown above, there is a large difference in each fee between commercial and industrial for both
the existing police and fire impact fees. Currently, all commercial land uses are charged the same
fee per 1,000 square foot regardless of the type of use and service demand level. In addition to the
updated cost basis for police and fire impact fees, another goal of this study is to review and
recommend an approach to applying non - residential impact fees by more than the existing two
land use types in order to more closely recognize the difference in service demands among land
uses.
21Pag,e
City of Sanford Police & Fire Impact Fee Study Executive Summary
Using the functional population approach and data included in Section 2 of this report, along with
the police and fire impact fee unit cost information in Sections 3 and 4 respectively, the following
land use designations and fees are proposed:
Table ES -4 - Calculated Police and Fire Impact Fees
Recreational
Movie Theater
ERU
Police
Fire
Description Unit [1]
Factor [2]
Impact Fee
Impact Fee
Residential
$284.17
Health/Fitness
1,000 SF GFA
Single Family Dwelling Unit
1.00
$374.90
$373.91
Multi - Family (2 DUs and above) Dwelling Unit
1.00
$374.90
$280.43
Recreational
Movie Theater
1,000 SF GFA
0.52
$194.95
$194.43
Racquet/Tennis
1,000 SF GFA
0.76
$284.92
$284.17
Health/Fitness
1,000 SF GFA
1.77
$663.57
$661.82
Institutional
1,000 ST GFA
0.68
$254.93
$254.26
All Educational/Day Care Center
1,000 SF GFA
0.71
$266.18
$265.48
Church
1,000 SF GFA
0.35
$131.22
$130.87
Hospital
1,000 SF GFA
0.54
$202.45
$201.91
Nursing Home /ALF
Bed
0.51
$192.44
$191.93
Office
1,000 SY GFA
4.65
$1,743.29
$1,738.68
Office
1,000 S.F GFA
0.69
$258.68
$258.00
Medical Office /Clinic
1,000 SY GFA
1.25
$468.63
$467.39
Retail, Gross Sauare Feet
Retail
1,000 S.F. GLA
1.70
$637.33
$635.65
Pharmacy / Drugstore
1,000 ST GFA
2.92
$1,094.71
$1,091.82
Nursery - Garden Center
1,000 S.F GFA
2.21
$828.53
$826.34
Automobile Care Center
1,000 ST GFA
0.68
$254.93
$254.26
Car Sales
1,000 ST GFA
1.20
$449.88
$448.69
Supermarket
1,000 SY GFA
2.92
$1,094.71
$1,091.82
Convenience Market w /out Gas Station
1,000 SY GFA
5.42
$2,031.96
$2,026.59
Service Station
Pump
1.74
$652.33
$650.60
Quality Restaurant
1,000 SY GFA
4.65
$1,743.29
$1,738.68
High- Turnover Restaurant
1,000 ST GFA
5.50
$2,061.95
$2,056.51
Fast Food Restaurant w/Drive- Through
1,000 ST GFA
9.43
$3,535.31
$3,525.97
Industrial
Industrial/Manufacturing
1,000 S.F. GFA
0.41
$153.71
$153.30
Warehousing
1,000 SY GFA
0.26
$97.47
$97.22
Mini - Warehouse
1,000 SF GFA
0.19
$71.23
$71.04
Transient
Hotel/Motel Room 0.29 $108.72 $108.43
[ I ] "GFA" = Gross Floor Area; "GLA" = Gross Leasable Area.
[2] ERU = Equivalent residential unit; this amount represents each land use in comparison to a single- family residential
standard; multi - family is 1 ERU for Police and 0.75 for Fire services.
3 1Pa4-
City of Sanford Police & Fire Impact Fee Study Executive Summary
As shown above, all land uses are indicated in terms of single - family residential units by an
equivalent residential unit (ERU) factor. This provides a means to apply police and fire impact
fees among the various land uses, based on characteristics of each. The following charts
summarize the updated police and fire impact fees for selected non - residential land uses compared
to the City's existing fees and those of other nearby communities in Seminole County:
High Turnover Restaurant (3,500 ft')
41£'at�e
City of Sanford Police & Fire Impact Fee Study Executive Summary
Retail (30,000 ft2
The following is a summary of the observations and recommendations developed by RFC during
our investigation, analyses, and preparation of this report:
1. The imposition of impact fees must satisfy the rational nexus requirements as determined by
case law. The impact fees must be reasonably related to the capital cost of providing capital
facilities /equipment needed to accommodate needs attributable to new growth. The impact
fees collected must be used by the City to address the capital costs related to serving new
development. Based on the information made available by the City, the proposed impact fees
are designed to meet these precedents and the requirements set forth in Florida Statutes Section
163.31801.
51Patge
Warehousing (50,000 ft2)
$100,000
$89,448
$90,000
$80,000
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$9,735
_ 574 $10,500
$7,
$10,000
$4,963
$4,750 $4,538
NAM on=
$0
Sanford Sanford
Altamonte Casselberry Lake Mary Oviedo Winter
Existing Calculated
Springs Springs
The following is a summary of the observations and recommendations developed by RFC during
our investigation, analyses, and preparation of this report:
1. The imposition of impact fees must satisfy the rational nexus requirements as determined by
case law. The impact fees must be reasonably related to the capital cost of providing capital
facilities /equipment needed to accommodate needs attributable to new growth. The impact
fees collected must be used by the City to address the capital costs related to serving new
development. Based on the information made available by the City, the proposed impact fees
are designed to meet these precedents and the requirements set forth in Florida Statutes Section
163.31801.
51Patge
City of Sanford Police & Fire Impact Fee Study Executive Summary
2. The fees developed within this report reflect recovery of identified costs and the City has
discretion to phase -in or otherwise adopt less than the fully calculated fees. However, the
adoption of fees less than the fully calculated rates should be applied to all land uses equally
in order to maintain the calculations herein in correct proportion. Adopting less than the
calculated rates would increase the reliance on general fund and other revenue sources to meet
the demands of growth.
3. Pursuant to Florida Statute Section 163.31801, the City must provide notice no less than 90
days before the effective date of an ordinance or resolution imposing a new or increased impact
fee. The statutory 90 day notice requirement does not apply to reductions in the City's police
and fire impact fees that are proposed for many land uses. As there are some land uses that
will have higher impact fees under the proposed schedule that trigger the 90 day requirement,
the City will need to determine how it wants to implement the new fee schedule under the
statutory requirements.
4. In compliance with Florida Statutes the City should continue to collect and maintain revenue
collected from each type of municipal impact fee in designated sub - accounts, and use such fees
on those facilities designated for each purpose.
(Remainder of page intentionally left blank)
Section I — Introduction
Introduction
The City of Sanford (the "City ") is the County seat for Seminole County located in central Florida.
Sanford is bounded to the East by Orlando- Sanford International Airport, to the North by Lake
Monroe, to the West by Interstate -4, and to the South by Seminole State College and the City of
Lake Mary. The City provides a full range of municipal services, including police and fire rescue
services; construction and maintenance of streets and other infrastructure; recreation activities and
cultural events; and water, wastewater and stormwater utilities. Through the master planning
process and concurrency management, the City has recognized that impact fees are a fundamental
funding strategy to ensure that future demands for these services incurred for future growth are
paid for by future growth. The City has previously adjusted its police and fire impact fees in 2006,
with modifications to the commercial and industrial methods of collection in subsequent years.
The City desires to update its police and fire impact fees based on the most recent and localized
costs, and seeks to provide additional land use categories in particular for commercial and
industrial developments.
Based upon recent demographic data, the City's population is estimated at 53,563 as of 2010.
More recent Census estimates reflect the City's 2012 population to be 54,651. With economic
conditions improving, it is expected that the population will continue to grow. Based on the City's
2009 comprehensive plan update, the expected build out population is 78,611. Because of the
recession since the last comprehensive plan update, the build out date is expected to occur later
than 2025. For purposes of this report it is estimated that build out will occur between 2030 and
2040, representing a 1.3% to 2.0% annual growth rate. Prior to the recession the City's population
growth rate exceeded 5% per year. Based on information in the 2009 comprehensive plan update,
the City also anticipates significant commercial and industrial development in addition to the
growth in new residents.
Authorization
Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. ( "RFC ") was authorized by the City to update police and fire
rescue impact fees pursuant to a task order executed through Purchase Order 033705 pursuant to
the RFC's continuing contract with the City dated October 23, 2012.
Impact Fee Background
Impact fees are one -time charges established as a means to recover in whole or in part, the costs
associated with infrastructure and capital equipment needed to accommodate the demands
anticipated to be generated by new development. Such capital costs generally include the
construction of improvements together with general plant, engineering, administration, surveying,
land, legal and financing costs for utility fees. For municipal impact fees, including police and
fire, such costs also include equipment costs for sworn officers and firefighters. Based on the
City's adopted policy of a three (3) year useful life for capital expenditures, equipment costs
included in the impact fee calculations have an anticipated minimum useful life of three years.
Historically, impact fees in Florida were a result of home rule powers with the requirements
71Pa�e__
City of Sanford Police & Fire Impact Fee Study Section 1 — Introduction
associated with the development, administration, accounting and expenditure governed by case
law. However, in 2006, Section 163.31801 was added to the Florida Statues, which placed specific
requirements and limitations on that home rule authority. Florida Statutes Section 163.31801 F.S.,
as amended in 2011, is currently as follows:
163.31801 Impact fees; short title; intent; definitions; ordinances levying
impact fees. —
(1) This section may be cited as the "Florida Impact Fee Act."
(2) The Legislature finds that impact fees are an important source of revenue for a
local government to use in funding the infrastructure necessitated by new growth. The
Legislature further finds that impact fees are an outgrowth of the home rule power of
a local government to provide certain services within its jurisdiction. Due to the growth
of impact fee collections and local governments' reliance on impact fees, it is the intent
of the Legislature to ensure that, when a county or municipality adopts an impact fee
by ordinance or a special district adopts an impact fee by resolution, the governing
authority complies with this section.
(3) An impact fee adopted by ordinance of a county or municipality or by resolution
of a special district must, at minimum:
(a) Require that the calculation of the impact fee be based on the most recent and
localized data.
(b) Provide for accounting and reporting of impact fee collections and expenditures.
If a local governmental entity imposes an impact fee to address its infrastructure needs,
the entity shall account for the revenues and expenditures of such impact fee in a
separate accounting fund.
(c) Limit administrative charges for the collection of impact fees to actual costs.
(d) Require that notice be provided no less than 90 days before the effective date of
an ordinance or resolution imposing a new or increased impact fee. A county or
municipality is not required to wait 90 days to decrease, suspend, or eliminate an
impact fee.
(4) Audits of financial statements of local governmental entities and district school
boards which are performed by a certified public accountant pursuant to s.218.39 and
submitted to the Auditor General must include an affidavit signed by the chief
financial officer of the local governmental entity or district school board stating that
the local governmental entity or district school board has complied with this section.
(5) In any action challenging an impact fee, the government has the burden of
proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the imposition or amount of the fee
meets the requirements of state legal precedent or this section. The court may not use
a deferential standard.
Although the statute provides specific impact fee criteria, certain precedents established by case
law also constitute the legal requirements associated with impact fees. Case law precedent for
impact fees in Florida was originally set in the landmark Florida Supreme Court decision,
Contractors and Builders Association of Pinellas Courtly vs. City of Dunedin, Florida. In the
ruling, the court identified certain conditions as necessarily present in order to have a valid impact
fee. In general, the court decision addressed the following:
City of Sanford Police & Fire Impact Fee Study Section 1— Introduction
1. The impact fee should be reasonably equitable to all parties; that is, the amount of the
fee must bear a relationship to the amount of services requested;
2. The system of fees and charges should be set up so that there is not an intentional
windfall to existing users;
The impact fee should, to the extent practical, only cover the capital cost of construction
and related costs thereto (engineering, legal, financing, administrative, etc.) for increases
in or expansions of capacity or capital requirements that are required solely due to
growth. Therefore, expenses due to normal renewal and replacement of a facility (e.g.,
replacement of a capital asset) should be borne by all users of the facility or
municipality. Similarly, increased expenses due to operation and maintenance of that
facility should be borne by all users of the facility; and
4. The local government must adopt a revenue - producing ordinance that explicitly sets
forth restrictions on revenues (uses thereof) that the imposition of the impact fee
generates. Therefore, the funds collected from the impact fees should be retained in a
separate account, and separate accounting must be made for those funds to ensure that
they are used only for the lawful purposes described.
Based on the criteria provided above, the impact fees herein will: 1) include local current costs of
improvements associated with the capacities needed to serve new growth; 2) not reflect costs of
improvements associated with the renewal and replacement (R &R) of existing capital assets or
deficiencies in level of service attributed to existing development; and 3) not include any costs of
operation and maintenance of the capital improvements and equipment.
This section provides only a general background regarding impact fees. Certain circumstances
and issues regarding the interpretation of specific statutes or case law should be addressed by
qualified legal counsel.
Summary of Report
In addition to Section 1, this report has been subdivided into four other sections. The following is
a brief discussion of the remaining sections included in this report.
Section 2 — Service Area and Functional Population. This section of the report provides a general
discussion of the residential and non - residential land use characteristics, and
development of functional population estimates for both existing and future
development.
Section 3 — Police Impact Fee. This section includes the development of the proposed impact fee
for the capital requirements associated with providing police services, the
methodology for the determination of the proposed fees, assumptions utilized in the
design of the fees, and other factors associated with the fee determination.
City of Sanford Police & Fire Impact Fee Study Section 1 — Introduction
Section 4 — Fire /Rescue Impact Fee. This section discusses the development of the proposed
impact fee for the capital requirements associated with providing fire /rescue services,
the methodology for the determination of the proposed fees, assumptions utilized in
the design of the fees, and other factors associated with the fee determination.
Acknowledgments
This report was prepared with the cooperation and assistance of City staff. The following
personnel were instrumental to the completion of this project:
• Ms. Cindy Lindsay - Director of Finance
• Mr. Russell L. Gibson — Director of Planning and Development Services
• Chief Cecil E. Smith —Chief of Police
• Chief Craig Radzak — Fire Chief
• Jim Krzenski — Administrative Services Manager
• Ms. Joann Johnson — Building & Licensing Coordinator
• Ms. Jennifer Blake — Crime Analyst
We further wish to recognize all other supporting personnel that provided technical assistance to
these members.
(Remainder of page intentionally left blank)
101Pa��
Section 2 — Service Area and Functional Population
General
This section provides a general discussion of the current service area, population, and functional
population factors.
Population and Development Forecast
Since impact fees are designed to recover the proportionate cost of new facilities attributed to
growth, it is necessary to identify the existing population and future growth projections. Based
upon recent demographic data, the City's population is estimated at 53,563 as of 2010. The City's
Comprehensive Plan updated November 2009 serves as the basis of future land use and growth
parameters for purposes of this impact fee analysis. The Comprehensive Plan forecasts the City's
population to by 78,611 by 2025. For purposes of this report, 78,611 is assumed to be a build out
number through 2030, instead of 2025 based on recent growth trends. This implies an average
annual growth rate of 1.9 %. Regardless of the actual growth rate, the proposed fees are based on
a cost to serve the future population so the year in which the build out population is reached does
not have a material impact on the fee calculation but may affect the City's level of service targets
from year to year.
Functional Population Parameters
The goal of the impact fee study is to assign the police and fire protection costs associated with
new development on an equivalent unit basis. Two primary methods of allocating costs include
1) actual service calls based on historical records; and 2) population figures weighted and adjusted
for time spent at various land uses based on traffic and other data. This second method is
commonly referred to as "functional population" and typically relies on trip data obtained through
survey sources. While the service call method would ideally provide an indication of existing and
potential future demand for services, this data is not readily available in sufficient detail to allocate
costs among various land uses. Conversely, trip data is readily available from sources such as the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and is widely accepted for the purpose of identifying
functional population by land use. The trip data is applied to each land use along with other
demographic data in order to establish a functional population by land use. Functional population
measures the number of persons at a particular location measured over a 24 hours period. For
example, for single family residential a typical functional population would reflect a person at
home 100 hours per week (e.g. 10 -14 hours per day during weekdays and 20 -30 hours during the
weekend). Based on 168 hours per week, this equates to 60% occupancy or 0.6 functional
population per resident. Applying this factor to the average household size of 2.35 persons equates
to 1.41 functional population per single family residential unit. Table 1 summarizes the existing
residential functional population based on this criteria:
111Pa 4
City of Sanford Police & Fire Impact Fee Study Section 2 - Functional Population
Table 1- Residential Functional Population
[1] Population and Households data obtained from 2010 -2012 U.S. Census 3 -Year Estimates. Household data
shown herein may differ from Seminole County property appraisers parcel count identified in this report.
[2] Amount assumes 100 hours spent at home out of a 168 hour week.
For non - residential land uses, the functional population is determined through the process of
applying the following attributes to each land use, typically measured per 1,000 square feet (i.e.
per unit): 1) trips per unit and per employee; 2) trip end adjustment; 3) hours worked; 4) occupants
per trip; 5) number of visitors, visitor hours, and visitor hours per week. Trip data is primarily
obtained from the ITE manual (9th Edition, 2012), and employee data, visitors, and other data is
obtained from sources including the 2009 National Household Travel Survey (U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Division); and the Building Area per Employee by Business
Type (ITE).
Table 2 provides the functional residential coefficient for each non - residential land use:
Table 2 - Non- Residential Functional Population Coefficients
ITE
Average
Impact Unit [I]
Functional
Recreational
Visitor
Household
Occupancy
Population/
Housing Type
Population [1]
Households [1]
Size
Factor [2]
Unit
Single Family
35,392
15,056
2.35
60.0%
1.41
Multi - Family
15,157
8,424
1.80
60.0%
1.08
Mobile Home
2,062
991
2.08
[2]
[3]
Total
52,611
24,471
2.15
14.05
53.12
[1] Population and Households data obtained from 2010 -2012 U.S. Census 3 -Year Estimates. Household data
shown herein may differ from Seminole County property appraisers parcel count identified in this report.
[2] Amount assumes 100 hours spent at home out of a 168 hour week.
For non - residential land uses, the functional population is determined through the process of
applying the following attributes to each land use, typically measured per 1,000 square feet (i.e.
per unit): 1) trips per unit and per employee; 2) trip end adjustment; 3) hours worked; 4) occupants
per trip; 5) number of visitors, visitor hours, and visitor hours per week. Trip data is primarily
obtained from the ITE manual (9th Edition, 2012), and employee data, visitors, and other data is
obtained from sources including the 2009 National Household Travel Survey (U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Division); and the Building Area per Employee by Business
Type (ITE).
Table 2 provides the functional residential coefficient for each non - residential land use:
Table 2 - Non- Residential Functional Population Coefficients
42.70 N/A 2.50 21.35 9 1.75 34.86 1.00 7.00 2.39
121I'a4`
ITE
Land Use
Impact Unit [I]
LUC
Recreational
Visitor
Movie Theater
1,000 SF GFA
443
Racquet/Tennis
1,000 SF GFA
491
Health/Fitness
1,000 SF GFA
492
Institutional
Functional
per
All Educational
1,000 SF GFA
520
Church
1,000 SF GFA
560
Library
1,000 SF GFA
590
Hospital
1,000 SF GFA
610
Nursing
[2]
[3]
Home /ALF
1,000 SF GFA
620
Office
14.05
53.12
Office
1,000 SY GFA
710
Medical
15.26
1.00
Office /Clinic
1,000 SY GFA
720
Retail, Gross
0.31
7.02
Square Feet
2.21
15.20
1.50
1,000 S.F.
1.06
Retail
GLA
820
42.70 N/A 2.50 21.35 9 1.75 34.86 1.00 7.00 2.39
121I'a4`
One
Visitor
Trips
Way
Worker
Occupants
hours
Days
Functional
per
Trips per
Employees
Factor
Hours
per Trip
per
per
Resident
Unit
Employee
per/Unit
(50 %)
[2]
[3]
Visitors
Trip [2]
Week
Coefficient
14.05
53.12
0.26
7.03
9
2.21
15.26
1.00
7.00
0.74
14.03
45.71
0.31
7.02
9
2.21
15.20
1.50
7.00
1.06
32.93
45.71
0.72
16.47
9
2.21
35.67
1.50
7.00
2.50
15.43
N/A
0.80
7.72
9
1.83
13.32
2.00
5.00
1.01
9.11
20.64
0.44
4.56
9
1.83
7.89
1.00
7.00
0.49
56.24
N/A
2.50
28.12
9
1.83
48.96
0.15
5.00
0.89
13.22
N/A
2.69
6.61
9
1.83
9.41
0.15
5.00
0.76
7.60
NIA
2.50
3.80
9
1.83
4.45
0.15
5.00
0.69
11.03
N/A
3.29
5.52
9
1.15
3.05
1.00
5.00
0.97
36.13
N/A
4.83
18.07
9
1.15
15.94
1.00
5.00
1.77
42.70 N/A 2.50 21.35 9 1.75 34.86 1.00 7.00 2.39
121I'a4`
City of Sanford Police & Fire Impact Fee Study Section 2 - Functional Population
Transient
Trips
per
Unit
90.06
68.10
32.30
102.2
4
168.5
6
737.9
9
89.95
127.1
5
716.0
0
5.87
3.56
2.50
Visitor
ITE
Land Use
Impact Unit [I]
LUC
Pharmacy /
Way
Worker
Drugstore
1,000 SY GFA
880
Nursery -
Hours
per Trip
Garden Center
1,000 SY GFA
817
Car Sales
1,000 SY GFA
841
Supermarket
1,000 SY GFA
850
Service Station
Pump
944
Convenience
9
1.75
Market w /out
1.53
16.15
Gas Station
1,000 SY GFA
851
Quality
51.12
9
Restaurant
1,000 SY GFA
931
High- Turnover
9
1.75
Restaurant
1,000 SY GFA
932
Fast Food
0.25
N/A
Restaurant
1,000 SY GFA
933
Industrial
N/A
7.46
Industrial/
1,000 S.F.
Bien
Manufacturing
GFA
d
Warehousing
1,000 SY GFA
150
Mini -
358.0
Warehouse
1,000 SF GFA
151
Transient
Trips
per
Unit
90.06
68.10
32.30
102.2
4
168.5
6
737.9
9
89.95
127.1
5
716.0
0
5.87
3.56
2.50
Hotel/Motel Room 310 8.17
[ 1 ] "GFA" = Gross Floor Area; "GLA" = Gross Leasable Area
[2] Assumed
[3] From 2009 National Household Travel Survey.
Visitor
One
9
1.15
hours
Days
Way
Worker
Occupants
Trips per
Employees
Factor
Hours
per Trip
Employee
per/Unit
(50 %)
[2]
[3]
N/A
2.50
45.03
9
1.75
N/A
1.89
34.05
9
1.75
21.14
1.53
16.15
9
1.75
87.82
1.16
51.12
9
1.75
N/A
2.50
84.28
9
1.75
0.75
7.00
369.0
762.57
0.25
N/A
2.50
0
9
1.75
N/A
7.46
44.98
9
2.17
N/A
10.00
63.58
9
2.17
358.0
N/A
14.29
0
9
2.17
Hotel/Motel Room 310 8.17
[ 1 ] "GFA" = Gross Floor Area; "GLA" = Gross Leasable Area
[2] Assumed
[3] From 2009 National Household Travel Survey.
N/A
Visitor
2.94
9
1.15
hours
Days
Functional
N/A
per
per
Resident
Visitors
Trip [2]
Week
Coefficient
76.30
1.00
7.00
4.12
57.70
1.00
7.00
3.11
26.73
1.00
7.00
1.69
88.30
1.00
7.00
4.12
144.99
0.25
7.00
2.45
643.24
0.25
7.00
7.64
90.13
1.00
7.00
6.55
127.96
0.75
7.00
7.75
762.57
0.25
7.00
13.30
N/A
2.00
2.94
9
1.15
1.37
1.00
5.00
N/A
1.28
1.78
9
1.15
0.77
0.75
5.00
3.89
0.64
1.25
9
1.15
0.79
0.75
7.00
0.48
4.09
9
1.50
5.65
1.00
7.00
Below is a list of a few non - residential land uses and descriptions to supplement the table above:
• Nursing Home (LUC 620) - A nursing home is defined as any facility whose primary
function is to care for persons unable to care for themselves. The term is applicable not
only to rest homes, which are primarily for the aged, but also to chronic and convalescent.
This type of facility is characterized by residents who do little or no driving. Traffic is
primarily generated by employees, visitors, and deliveries.
• Quality Restaurant (LUC 93 1) - This land use consists of eating establishments of high
quality and with turnover rates generally of at least one hour or longer. Generally, quality
restaurants do not serve breakfast, some do not serve lunch; all serve dinner. Typically,
the restaurants included in this land use are not a chain, and reservations are required.
• High- Turnover Restaurant (LUC 932) - This land use consists of sit -down eating
establishments with turnover rates generally of one hour or less. This type of restaurant is
usually moderately priced and frequently belongs to a restaurant chain. Generally, these
restaurants serve lunch and dinner; they may also be open for breakfast and are sometimes
open 24 hours per day. Some facilities contained within this land use may also contain a
bar area for serving food and alcoholic drinks.
• Fast Food Restaurant (LUC 933) - This type of restaurant is characterized by a large
carryout clientele; long hours of service (some are open for breakfast, all are open for lunch
131P tie
0.58
0.36
0.27
0.42
City of Sanford Police & Fire Impact Fee Study Section 2 - Functional Population
and dinner, some are open late at night or 24 hours); and high turnover rates for eat -in
customers.
• Industrial/Manufacturing - Generally includes Light Industrial, Heavy Industrial,
Manufacturing and Industrial Parks.
• Warehousing (LUC 150) - Warehouses are facilities that are primarily devoted to storage
of materials. They may also include office and maintenance areas.
• Mini - Warehouse (LUC 151) - A mini - warehouse is a building in which a storage unit or
vault is rented for the storage of goods. Each unit is physically separated from other units
and access is usually provided through an overhead door or other common access point.
Existing and Future Functional Population
Relying on the residential and non - residential functional population analysis described above
along with other information available from the City and the Seminole County Property
Appraisers, the City's existing and future functional populations can be estimated for impact fee
calculation purposes. Relying on 2013 Seminole County Property Appraiser land use data and the
functional population factors described above, the City's existing functional population is
estimated to be 48,205 as shown in Table 3:
Table 3 - Existing Functional Population
Total 48,205
[1] Amounts derived from Seminole County Property Appraiser data as of January 2014. Multi- Family
and Mobile homes are estimated based on Property Appraiser data and US Census data..
Relying on the City's Comprehensive Plan and the functional population data above, the future
functional population can be derived. Table 1 -6 of the Comprehensive Plan identifies developable
14 1Pag
Func.
Total
Pop/
Func.
Land Use Type
Measurement
Units [1]
Unit
Pop
Single Family
Dwelling
13,549
1.41
19,104
Multi - Family
Dwelling
8,000
1.08
8,640
Mobile Home
Dwelling
900
1.25
1,125
Subtotal
22,449
1.29
28,869
Office
1,000 ft2
1,131
0.97
1,099
School/Daycare/Religious
1,000 ft2
1,027
1.01
1,034
Medical/Dental services
1,000 ft2
161
1.77
285
Shopping/Errands
1,000 ft2
4,856
2.39
11,607
Social/Recreational
1,000 ft2
236
1.06
251
Family /personal business
1,000 ft2
402
0.86
346
Manufacturing
1,000 ft-
2,214
0.58
1,279
Industrial
1,000 ft2
1,089
0.58
629
Warehousing
1,000 ft2
1,789
0.36
644
Restaurants
1,000 ft2
180
7.75
1,399
Fast Food
1,000 ft2
57
13.30
764
Subtotal
13,142
1.47
19,336
Total 48,205
[1] Amounts derived from Seminole County Property Appraiser data as of January 2014. Multi- Family
and Mobile homes are estimated based on Property Appraiser data and US Census data..
Relying on the City's Comprehensive Plan and the functional population data above, the future
functional population can be derived. Table 1 -6 of the Comprehensive Plan identifies developable
14 1Pag
City of Sanford Police & Fire Impact Fee Study Section 2 — Functional Population
vacant land by ten major land use categories. This table identifies the potential housing units, and
from this information, the remaining non - residential units can be identified as summarized in Table
4:
'fable 4 - Vacant Acreage by Land Use
Source: City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan (Table 1 -6)
The residential functional population factors, weighted for single - family and multi - family units
likely for each land use, are summarized on Table 5:
Table 5 - Projected Residential Functional Population Growth
Average
Remaining
Vacant,
Maximum
Potential
Acreage
Population/
Developable
Density
Housing
(non -
Land Use
Land (acres)
(du/acre)
Units
Residential)
Low Density Residential - Single Family
12
6
72
0
Medium Density Residential - 10
113
10
1,129
0
Medium Density Residential - 15
178
15
2,673
0
High Density Residential - 20
83
20
1,662
0
Waterfront/Downtown Business District
104
50
1,039
83
I -4 High Intensity
40
50
1,000
20
Westside Industry & Commerce
305
20
3,047
152
Airport Industry & Commerce
79
50
1,580
47
Residential/Office /Institutional
27
20
190
18
General Commercial
215
20
601
185
Total
1,156
12,993
505
Source: City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan (Table 1 -6)
The residential functional population factors, weighted for single - family and multi - family units
likely for each land use, are summarized on Table 5:
Table 5 - Projected Residential Functional Population Growth
[ 1 ] Based on expected mix of single family and multi- family housing units.
[2] Differences due to rounding.
15111age
Average
Functional
Projected
Potential
Population/
Functional
Land Use
Housing Units
Unit [1]
Population
Low Density Residential - Single Family
72
1.41
102
Medium Density Residential —10
1,129
1.31
1,480
Medium Density Residential — 15
2,673
1.28
3,416
High Density Residential — 20
1,662
1.24
2,069
Waterfront/Downtown Business District
1,039
1.15
1,190
I -4 High Intensity
1,000
1.18
1,179
Westside Industry & Commerce
3,047
1.28
3,894
Airport Industry & Commerce
1,580
1.21
1,915
Residential /Office /Institutional
190
1.21
230
General Commercial
601
1.21
728
Total [2]
12,993
1.25
16,204
[ 1 ] Based on expected mix of single family and multi- family housing units.
[2] Differences due to rounding.
15111age
City of Sanford Police & Fire Impact Fee Study Section 2 - Functional Population
The remaining acreage after accounting for residential growth is allocated between commercial
and industrial based on a typical allocation based on the land use description. This allocation and
identification of functional population is summarized in Table 6:
'fable 6 - Projected Commercial and Industrial Functional Population Growth
161Pa e
Remaining
Acreage
Assumed
Functional
Projected
(non-
Commercial
Sq. Ft. !
Pop /1,000
Function
Land Use
Residential)
Allocation
Acreage
Acre
ITE Codes
sqft
Population
Low Density Residential -
Single Family
0
0%
0
0
0.00
0
Medium Density Residential -
10
0
0%
0
0
0.00
0
Medium Density Residential -
15
0
0%
0
0
0.00
0
High Density Residential - 20
0
0%
0
0
0.00
0
Waterfront/Downtown Business
210, 710, 560, 720,
District
83
100%
83
9,208
820, 443, 620, 932
1.75
1,336
210, 710, 560, 720,
I -4 High Intensity
20
100%
20
7,632
820, 443, 620, 932
2.46
376
210, 710, 560, 720,
Westside Industry & Commerce
152
20%
30
8,200
820, 443, 620, 932
1.70
423
210, 710, 560, 720,
Airport Industry & Commerce
47
20%
9
8,200
820, 443, 620, 932
1.70
131
210, 710, 560, 720,
Residential /Office /Institutional
18
100%
18
7,789
820, 443, 620, 932
1.74
244
210, 710, 560, 720,
General Commercial
185
80%
148
7,789
820, 443, 620, 932
1.74
2,009
Total
505
309
4,520
Remaining
Acreage
Industrial/
Assumed
Functional
Projected
(non-
Warehouse
Sq. Ft. /
Pop /1,000
Function
Land Use
Residential)
Allocation
Acreage
Acre
ITE Codes
sqft
Population
Low Density Residential -
Single Family
0
0%
0
0
0.00
0
Medium Density Residential -
10
0
0%
0
0
0.00
0
Medium Density Residential -
15
0
0%
0
0
0.00
0
High Density Residential - 20
0
0%
0
0
0.00
0
Waterfront/Downtown Business
210, 110, 150, 560,
District
83
0%
0
7,727
720, 820, 443, 932
1.01
0
210, 110, 150, 560,
1 -4 High Intensity
20
0%
0
7,727
720, 820, 443, 932
1.01
0
210, 110, 150, 560,
Westside Industry & Commerce
152
80%
122
7,727
720, 820, 443, 932
1.01
946
210, 110, 150, 560,
Airport Industry & Commerce
47
80%
38
7,727
720, 820, 443, 932
1.01
292
210, 110, 150, 560,
Residential /Office /Institutional
18
0%
0
7,727
720, 820, 443, 932
1.01
0
210, 110, 150, 560,
General Commercial
185
20%
37
7,727
720, 820, 443, 932
1.01
288
Total
505
196
1,526
161Pa e
City of Sanford Police & Fire Impact Fee Study Section 2 — Functional Population
Table 7 summarizes the existing and projected functional population for residential and non-
residential land uses:
Table 7 - Functional Population Summary
Residential
Non - Residential
Total
Existing
Projected
28,869
16,204
19,336
6,046
48,205 22,250
Total
45,073
25,382
70,455
The projected functional population amounts shown above will be used to apportion growth related
police and fire protection costs to future development, and the functional population analysis by
specific land use will provide the basis for the proposed fees to be applied to such land uses.
(Remainder of page intentionally left blank)
17 1Pag
Section 3 — Police Services Impact Fee
Introduction
The City maintains a Police Services Department (Police Department) to provide law enforcement
within the city limits. The Police Department currently staffs 130 sworn officers and 20 civilian
support positions. The Public Safety Complex currently serves as the headquarters for the police
force. This facility is shared with the Fire Department and the costs have been allocated based on
a number of square feet for each department as described in further detail below. There are
currently twenty employees listed as support personnel and this number is projected to grow
proportionally with the number of officers in the future. The City's Comprehensive Plan currently
estimates that the population will be 78,611 at build out.
Existing Impact Fees
The City currently charges Police Impact Fees for new development within the City limits based
on the classification of development. The following table illustrates the fees charged by the City:
Table 8 - Existing Police Impact Fees
Description Units Fee
Residential D.U. $476.41
Commercial [1] 1,000 ft, $754.32
Industrial [2] 1,000 ft2 $54.04
[1] The following business code classifications qualify as commercial
properties: Assembly, Business, Educational, Institutional, Mercantile,
and Daycare.
[2] The following business code classifications qualify as industrial
properties: Factory and Industrial, High Hazard, Storage, and Utility
and Miscellaneous.
As shown above, the fees vary significantly between commercial and industrial land uses per 1,000
square feet. The residential land use does not currently allow for a difference in demand between
a single family residence versus an apartment complex or other multi- family type housing
arrangements. By using the functional population methodology as described is Section 2, these
differences can be quantified and therefore reflected in the impact fee. Other methodologies
including historical call data was reviewed during the study, but ultimately found to be unreliable
due to the difficulty in identifying specific land uses for each call. For example, a call reported on
a particular corner could be related to a number of land uses that differ on each corner, or could be
related to a traffic incident. The functional population approach provides a means to identify
services based on the movement of population, and a better means to identify services by land use.
Existing Resources and Level of Service
The City currently staffs 130 sworn officers along with necessary support personnel. The staffing
is as follows:
18 1P i g c
City of Sanford Police & Fire Impact Fee Study Section 3 — Police Services
Table 9 - Current Sworn Officer Staffing
The current level of staffing achieves a Level of Service (LOS) of 2.38 officers per 1,000
population within the City's limits based on a current estimated population of 54,600. The City
currently has a targeted police LOS of 2.62 officers per thousand population. The table below
illustrates not only the City's current position and current targeted position, but also the currently
achieved LOS of 2.38 and the targeted LOS requirements at the projected build out of the City.
Table 10 - Existing and Projected Sworn Officers
Full Time Sworn Officers
Support Personnel [ 1 ]
Total Personnel
Current Population
Existing Target
LOS LOS
130 143
20 22
150 165
Build Out Population
Existing Target
LOS LOS
187 206
29 32
216 238
LOS Achieved [2] 2.38 2.62 2.38 2.62
[1] Target LOS and Build -Out is projected based on current ratio of support personnel
to sworn officers.
[2] Based on 54,600 population for Existing and Target. Build -Out based on 78,611.
A typical comparison often used between municipalities is the measurement of the number of
officers per 1,000 population within the service area. This table is provided for illustration
purposes only and it should be noted that the level of service between communities will be different
based on a number of factors that are unique to each community.
Table 11- LOS Comparison
Level of Service Comparison
Sanford — Existing
Sanford — Current Target
Sanford — Build Out (Existing LOS)
Sworn Officers/
Officers Population 1,000
130 54,600 2.38
143 54,600 2.62
187 78,611 2.38
Within Seminole County:
Position
Staffing
Police
Chief
1
Police
Deputy Chief
1
Police
Captain
2
Police
Lieutenant
6
Police
Sergeant
16
Police
Officer
104
Total
130
The current level of staffing achieves a Level of Service (LOS) of 2.38 officers per 1,000
population within the City's limits based on a current estimated population of 54,600. The City
currently has a targeted police LOS of 2.62 officers per thousand population. The table below
illustrates not only the City's current position and current targeted position, but also the currently
achieved LOS of 2.38 and the targeted LOS requirements at the projected build out of the City.
Table 10 - Existing and Projected Sworn Officers
Full Time Sworn Officers
Support Personnel [ 1 ]
Total Personnel
Current Population
Existing Target
LOS LOS
130 143
20 22
150 165
Build Out Population
Existing Target
LOS LOS
187 206
29 32
216 238
LOS Achieved [2] 2.38 2.62 2.38 2.62
[1] Target LOS and Build -Out is projected based on current ratio of support personnel
to sworn officers.
[2] Based on 54,600 population for Existing and Target. Build -Out based on 78,611.
A typical comparison often used between municipalities is the measurement of the number of
officers per 1,000 population within the service area. This table is provided for illustration
purposes only and it should be noted that the level of service between communities will be different
based on a number of factors that are unique to each community.
Table 11- LOS Comparison
Level of Service Comparison
Sanford — Existing
Sanford — Current Target
Sanford — Build Out (Existing LOS)
Sworn Officers/
Officers Population 1,000
130 54,600 2.38
143 54,600 2.62
187 78,611 2.38
Within Seminole County:
Altamonte Springs
97 42,173 2.30
Casselberry
53 24,732 2.14
Lake Mary
37 14,559 2.54
Longwood
38 13,687 2.78
191Pa «c
City of Sanford Police & Fire Impact Fee Study Section 3 — Police Services
Level of Service Comparison
Oviedo
Winter Springs
Outside Seminole County:
Apopka
Bradenton
Coconut Creek
Coral Gables
Daytona Beach
Deland
Delray Beach
Edgewater
Homestead
Jupiter
Maitland
Ocoee
Orlando
Ormond Beach
Port Orange
Winter Garden
Winter Park
Sworn
Officers/
Officers
Population
1,000
59
33,316
1.77
69
33,874
2.04
86
40,721
2.11
120
53,871
2.23
91
48,159
1.89
174
45,503
3.82
231
64,488
3.58
63
27,144
2.32
142
64,218
2.21
29
21,511
1.35
108
57,879
1.87
108
50,603
2.13
41
16,786
2.44
75
34,187
2.19
740
233,160
3.17
65
40,587
1.60
81
56,402
1.44
69
31,492
2.19
82
28,434
2.88
Note: Other Communities data obtained from Florida Department of Law Enforcement as of
2010.
Based on the City's existing LOS, comparisons to similar communities, and the overall assessment
of police resources, it is assumed that the existing LOS will be sufficient through the City's build
out. As mentioned previously, the City's current target for police LOS is 2.62 which would require
an additional 19 officers at build out over the existing projections as shown on Table 10 above. It
is projected that 57 additional officers will be required to maintain the existing level of service
through build out, and therefore this amount of officers has been used throughout the Report in
calculating additional costs that will be recovered through impact fees. Should the City determine
in the future to increase the level of service over the existing LOS of 2.38, funds other than impact
fees would be needed to bring the City up to the higher LOS.
Table 12 - Additional Sworn officers
20111ag
LOS
Number of
Achieved /
Officers
Target
Current Population
130
2.38
Build Out Population
187
2.38
Additional Officers
57
20111ag
City of Sanford Police & Fire Impact Fee Study Section 3 — Police Services
Incremental Costs
Costs related to growth in the police force typically include a combination of equipping a new
officer with vehicles, field equipment, protective gear, etc. The following tables illustrate the
incremental costs necessary for each officer added to the police force.
Table 13 - Incremental Vehicle Costs
Patrol Vehicle
Additional Equipment
XTL 5000 Dispatch Radio
XTL 1500 County Net Radio
Motorcycle
Additional Equipment
XTL 5000 Dispatch Radio
XTL 1500 County Net Radio
Total Vehicles
Total Cost
Allocation
Per Officer
$28,153
100%
$28,153
$4,260
100%
$4,260
$2,081
100%
$2,081
$4,800
5%
$240
$4,260
5%
$213
$2,081
5%
$104
$45,635
130
$35,051
The above allocations and amounts were provided by the City. As can be derived from the
allocation percentages, each officer is assigned a patrol vehicle while one out of every twenty
officers is assigned a motorcycle in addition to an everyday patrol vehicle.
The table below allocates the existing field equipment among the number of existing sworn
officers to calculate an average cost per officer. It is assumed that the current ratio of this
equipment to the number of officers will be maintained as the number of officers increases over
time. Therefore the existing average cost is assumed to be the incremental cost for additional
future officers.
'fable 14 - Field Equipment Allocation
[1] Includes bicycles, boat, golf carts & trailers.
[2] Special Weapons & Equipment generally excludes the officers' basic issue weapons.
[3] Other includes canine, traffic & crime unit equipment.
In addition to vehicles and field equipment, officers are provided with standard issue weaponry
along with necessary holsters and a ballistic vest. Those costs are included in Table 18 below.
211Pag
Sworn
Field Equipment
Total Cost
Officers
Per Officer
Administrative Computer Equipment
$214,000
130
$1,646
Office Equipment and Furniture
$407,000
130
$3,131
Special / Other Vehicles [1]
$255,000
130
$1,962
Special Weapons & Equipment [2]
$107,000
130
$823
Other Equipment [3]
$271,000
130
$2,085
Generator
$172,000
130
$1,323
Total Equipment
$1,426,000
$10,970
[1] Includes bicycles, boat, golf carts & trailers.
[2] Special Weapons & Equipment generally excludes the officers' basic issue weapons.
[3] Other includes canine, traffic & crime unit equipment.
In addition to vehicles and field equipment, officers are provided with standard issue weaponry
along with necessary holsters and a ballistic vest. Those costs are included in Table 18 below.
211Pag
City of Sanford Police & Fire Impact Fee Study Section 3 — Police Services
In addition to all of the above, there are costs attributed to growth associated with the Public Safety
Complex. The Police Department has been allocated 47,953 square feet out of a total 75,000
square feet, or 64% of the total with the remaining allocated to the fire services. The current
standard provides for 225 square feet per officer within the Public Safety Complex, this allows for
a maximum of 213 officers at the current space allocation. Since the maximum amount of officers
and firefighters projected at full capacity for the Public Safety Complex will not be met by the
projected population growth in this study, certain amounts of the Public Safety Complex are
reserved for future growth. As shown on the table below, the costs are first totaled and then
allocated to police and fire services:
Table 15 - Public Safety Complex Cost and Allocation
Total Cost of Public Safety Complex:
Amount
Principal of Original Borrowing [1]
$18,000,000
Cost of Refunding, Series 2012
63,106
Total Principal Costs
$18,063,106
PV of Remaining Interest Payments [2]
2,848,194
Total Costs to be Allocated
$20,911,301
Allocation of Public Safety Complex:
Police Fire
Assigned Square Feet 47,953 27,047
Percent 64% 36%
Allocated Facilities Cost $13,370, 128 $7,541,173
[1] The total Public Safety Complex funding included bonds and other sources with a total reported cost of
$21.4 million. Other funding sources included grants and City reserve funds.
[2] Assumed discount rate of 3.25 %.
As shown above, the principal borrowed for the Public Safety Complex of $18,000,000 excludes
other funding sources such as grants and reserves. Once the proportional costs of the Public Safety
Complex have been allocated to police services, as shown above, it is then necessary to derive the
cost per officer. The City's projected 187 officers at build out, as shown on Table 12, are divided
into the total allocated costs of $13.37M to compute the incremental cost per officer. The table
below illustrates this process:
Table 16 - Police Allocation of Public Safety Complex
Additional
The Public Safety Complex was funded through a loan and has generally been paid by
governmental revenue sources other than impact fees. It is assumed that the police impact fee
revenues will not fully fund the allocated annual debt service requirements. The primary reason
221Pa(,
Existing
Needs
Reserved
Total
Officers
130
57
26
213
Percent
61%
27%
12%
100%
Facilities Cost
$8,155,407
$3,575,832
$1,638,888
$13,370,128
Cost per Officer
$62,734
$62,734
$62,734
$62,734
The Public Safety Complex was funded through a loan and has generally been paid by
governmental revenue sources other than impact fees. It is assumed that the police impact fee
revenues will not fully fund the allocated annual debt service requirements. The primary reason
221Pa(,
City of Sanford Police & Fire Impact Fee Study Section 3 — Police Services
being that the annual loan payments will likely end before build out occurs within the City, leaving
a gap between the funds available and the funds needed in any given year. It is assumed that 75%
of the growth related debt service costs will be funded by fire and police impact fees based on a
review of City budget policy, leaving the remaining 25% to be funded by other City funding
sources. As other revenues, typically the General Fund, will be used on the loan payments, a credit
allowance is applied to reduce the impact fees and avoid the appearance of double- charging new
development for the Public Services Complex through impact fees and taxes.
The following table illustrates these assumptions and provides for the incremental credit amount
per officer.
Table 17 - Police Services Credit Calculation
Amount
Facilities Allocated to Future Growth
$3,575,832
Amount Funded from Future Police Impact Fees [1]
2,681,874
Amount Funded from Other Sources
$893,958
Calculated Credit per Officer [2]
$15,683
[1] Assumes 75% of cost is recovered through impact fees.
[2] Based on 57 additional officers.
The net cost per additional officer for the Public Services Complex is $47,050 as shown below:
Incremental Costs Amount
Gross $62,734
Credit 15,683
Net $47,050
Below is a table summarizing of all of the incremental costs as described above, to establish the
total cost for each additional officer added, net of credits.
Table 18 - Incremental Cost Summary
Description
Amount
Capital Equipment
$10,366
Vehicles
35,051
Field Equipment
10,970
Police Sub - Station [1]
352
Net Facilities (PSC)
47,050
Subtotal Incremental Cost per Officer
$103,789
Less Credit for Grants
0
Total Incremental Cost per Officer
$103,789
[1] Amount reflects a planned 208 square foot police
sub - station
at a cost of $75,000 allocated throughout the entire service area
and officers.
231Pao
City of Sanford Police & Fire Impact Fee Study Section 3 — Police Services
Impact Fee Development
The total future capital needs based on the incremental cost per officer and the total number of
additional officers necessary at build out are as follows:
Officers Needed 57
Incremental Cost per Officer $103,789
Total Costs to Recover $5,915,973
In order to develop the impact fees, it is necessary to calculate the cost per functional unit. Table
7 in Section 2 provides for the additional functional units associated with the projected
development within the City, which ultimately drives the build out population projection.
Therefore the 22,250 additional functional units are appropriate for allocating the $5.9M in costs.
Total Costs to Recover $5,915,973
Additional Functional Units 22,250
Cost/Functional Unit $265.89
Functional Units are then converted to ERUs based on the Single Family Residential Functional
Population per Unit figure of 1.41.
'fable 19 - Police Services Impact Fee per ERR
Cost /Functional Unit $265.89
Residential Functional/Unit 1.41
Cost/ERU $374.90
Calculated Police Impact Fees
The functional population approach and data included in Section 2 of this report, along with the
impact fee unit cost information above have been used to develop the proposed land use
designations and fees. For residential land uses, historical call data was reviewed and tabulated
for 2011 through 2014. This call data indicated that calls to multi- family properties were indicate
that multi- family calls were per unit were between 90% to 100% of single - family calls when
measured per unit. Based on this data, and the police department's indication that multi - family
land uses tend to be call intensive, it is proposed that the police fees for multi - family units should
be the same as single family residential. The following is the proposed police impact fee schedule:
241Pao
City of Sanford Police & Fire Impact Fee Study Section 3 - Police Services
Table 20 - Police Services Impact Fee Schedule
Description
Impact Unit [ 1)
ERU Factor [2]
Police Impact Fee
Residential
1,000 SY GFA
2.92
$1,094.71
Single Family
Dwelling Unit
1.00
$374.90
Multi- Family (2 DUs and above)
Dwelling Unit
1.00
$374.90
Recreational
1,000 ST GFA
1.20
$449.88
Movie Theater
1,000 SF GFA
0.52
$194.95
Racquet /Tennis
1,000 SF GFA
0.76
$284.92
Health/Fitness
1,000 SF GFA
1.77
$663.57
Institutional
1,000 SY GFA
4.65
$1,743.29
All Educational/Day Care Center
1,000 SF GFA
0.71
$266.18
Church
1,000 SF GFA
0.35
$131.22
Hospital
1,000 SF GFA
0.54
$202.45
Nursing Home /ALF
Bed
0.51
$192.44
Office
1,000 ST GFA
0.26
$97.47
Office
1,000 S.F GFA
0.69
$258.68
Medical Office /Clinic
1,000 SY GFA
1.25
$468.63
Retail. Gross Sauare Feet
Retail
1,000 S.F. GLA
1.70
$637.33
Pharmacy / Drugstore
1,000 SY GFA
2.92
$1,094.71
Nursery - Garden Center
1,000 SY GFA
2.21
$828.53
Automobile Care Center
1,000 SY GFA
0.68
$254.93
Car Sales
1,000 ST GFA
1.20
$449.88
Supermarket
1,000 S.F GFA
2.92
$1,094.71
Convenience Market w /out Gas Station
1,000 SY GFA
5.42
$2,031.96
Service Station
Pump
1.74
$652.33
Quality Restaurant
1,000 SY GFA
4.65
$1,743.29
High- Turnover Restaurant
1,000 ST GFA
5.50
$2,061.95
Fast Food Restaurant w/Drive- Through
1,000 S.F GFA
9.43
$3,535.31
Industrial
Industrial/Manufacturing
1,000 S.F. GFA
0.41
$153.71
Warehousing
1,000 ST GFA
0.26
$97.47
Mini - Warehouse
1,000 SF GFA
0.19
$71.23
Transient
Hotel/Motel Room 0.29 $108.72
[1] "GFA" = Gross Floor Area; "GLA" = Gross Leasable Area.
[2] ERU = Equivalent residential unit; this amount represents each land use in comparison to a single- family residential
standard; multi - family is 1 ERU for Police and 0.75 for Fire services.
251Pa4ge
City of Sanford Police & Fire Impact Fee Study Section 3 — Police Services
Police Impact Fee Comparisons
The following compare the City's existing police impact fees among various land uses to the
calculated impact fees and those imposed in other nearby communities. The existing police impact
fees for residential, commercial, industrial are $476.41 /unit, $754.32/1,000 ft2 and $54.04/1,000
W, respectively.
Single Family Residential Police Impact Fees
$600
$500 $476 $484
$400 $375
$300
$200
$100
$0
Sanford
Existing
Sanford
Calculated
$356
$237
Oviedo Winter
Springs
Office Building (10,000 ftz) Police Impact Fees
$8,000 $7,543
$7,000
$6,000
261Pat`
City of Sanford Police & Fire Impact Fee Study Section 3 — Police Services
High Turnover Restaurant (3,500 ft2)
Police Impact Fees
27 1 P age
City of Sanford Police & Fire Impact Fee Study Section 3 — Police Services
Police Impact Fee Revenue
Fluctuations in impact fee revenues from year to year are common since they are directly
dependent on growth and local economic conditions. Therefore it is prudent for municipalities to
carefully budget the use of impact fees each year. The following table shows the City's reported
police impact fee revenue during the past five years:
'fable 21 - historical Police Impact Fee Revenue
Impact Fee
Fiscal Year Revenue
FY 2014 $86,396
FY 2013 $302,859
FY 2012 $265,451
FY 2011 $150,468
FY 2010 $102,788
FY 2009 $167,333
Because of the uncertainty of future growth, a projection of future impact fee revenue is not
reflected in this study.
281Pagc
Warehousing
(50,000 ft2) Police Impact Fees
$30,000
$24,479
$25,000
$20,000
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$2,702
$4,874
M
$4,450
r
is
$3,644
$4,000
$1,628
$0
Sanford
Sanford
Altamonte
Casselberry
Lake Mary Oviedo Winter
Existing
Calculated
Springs
Springs
Police Impact Fee Revenue
Fluctuations in impact fee revenues from year to year are common since they are directly
dependent on growth and local economic conditions. Therefore it is prudent for municipalities to
carefully budget the use of impact fees each year. The following table shows the City's reported
police impact fee revenue during the past five years:
'fable 21 - historical Police Impact Fee Revenue
Impact Fee
Fiscal Year Revenue
FY 2014 $86,396
FY 2013 $302,859
FY 2012 $265,451
FY 2011 $150,468
FY 2010 $102,788
FY 2009 $167,333
Because of the uncertainty of future growth, a projection of future impact fee revenue is not
reflected in this study.
281Pagc
Section 4 — Fire Rescue Services Impact Fee
Introduction
In addition to the Police Services Department, the City also maintains a Fire Rescue Services
Department (Fire Department) which currently operates three stations and is comprised of seventy
one Firefighter /Rescue personnel and approximately seven other full time equivalent
administrative and support positions including the fire chief, fire marshall, and inspectors. One of
the three fire stations is located at the City's Public Safety Complex. As discussed in Section 3 of
this report, the Public Safety Complex includes both police and fire department administrative
functions. 27,047 square feet of the Public Safety Complex or 36 %, is allocated to the Fire
Department. The other 64% is allocated to the Police Department, as explained in Section 3. The
current standard provides for 225 square feet per firefighter within the Public Safety Complex, this
allows for a maximum of 120 firefighters at the current space allocation. There are currently only
two civilian members of the Fire Department, the current ratio of civilians to active firefighters is
assumed to stay consistent as the Fire Department grows as necessitated by population growth.
The City's fire department utilizes recommended standards by the National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) in assessing its level of service needs and it is the department's intent to
maintain staffing levels that provide services to all developed areas within the City limits in order
to be able to respond to service calls within a specified time period. The City reports that its
existing Insurance Service Organization (ISO) property insurance rating is three (3), which is an
improvement compared to the City's previous rating of four (4). The highest ISO rating available
is one. The ISO's Public Protection Classification Service gauges the fire protection capability of
the local fire department to respond to structure fires within its service area.
Existing Impact Fees
The City currently charges the following Fire Services Impact Fees for new development within
the City limits based on the following classification of development:
'fable 22 - Existing Fire Services Impact Fees
Description Units Fee
Residential D.U. $463.18
Commercial [1] 1,000 sqft. $436.72
Industrial [2] 1,000 sgft. $45.22
[I] The following business code classifications qualify as commercial
properties: Assembly, Business, Educational, Institutional, Mercantile,
and Daycare.
[2] The following business code classifications qualify as industrial
properties: Factory and Industrial, High Hazard, Storage, and Utility
and Miscellaneous.
As shown above, the fees vary significantly between Commercial and Industrial land uses per
1,000 square feet. The Residential land use does not currently allow for a difference in demand
between a single family residence versus an apartment complex or other multi - family type housing
29 1Pa`
City of Sanford Police & Fire Impact Fee Study Section 4 — Fire Services
arrangements. By using the Functional Population methodology as described is Section 2, these
differences can be quantified and therefore reflected in the Impact Fee.
Existing Resources and Level of Service
The current level of staffing for the Fire Department is as follows:
Fable 23 - Existing Fire Department Staffing
Position
Staffing
Fire Chief
1.0
Deputy Chief
1.0
Battalion Chiefs - Administrative
2.0
Fire Marshall
0.3
Inspector
2.5
Health and Safety Officer
0.0
Firefighter/Rescue Personnel
72.0
Total
78.8
Using the current. estimated population of 54,600 within the City limits, the level of service based
on the number of Firefighter/Rescue Personnel per 1,000 population currently achieved is 1.32.
The City has established a standard for the fire level of service of 1.32 firefighters per 1,000
population inside the City limits, which is currently being met. The table below illustrates LOS
requirements at the projected build out of the City.
'fable 24 — Existing and Projected Firefighters
Chief & Other
Firefighter/Rescue Personnel
Support Personnel
Total Personnel
LOS Achieved [1]
Build -Out
Additional
Existing Assumed Firefighters
7 7 0
72 104 32
2 3 1
81 114 33
1.32 1.32
[1] Based on 54,600 population for Existing and Target. Build -Out based on
78,611 population.
Level of Service Comparison Firefighters
Sanford - Existing 72
Sanford - Target 72
Sanford - Build -Out 104
301 P a g c:
Firefighters/
Population 1,000
54,600 1.32
54,600 1.32
78,611 1.32
City of Sanford Police & Fire Impact Fee Study Section 4 — Fire Services
Based on the City's existing LOS standard, comparisons to similar communities, and the overall
assessment of firefighting resources it is assumed that the standard LOS should be targeted through
the City's projected build out. As mentioned previously, the City's current target for firefighters
LOS is 1.32 which would require an additional 32 firefights at build out over the existing staff as
shown on Table 25 below.
'fable 25 - Additional Firefighters Needed
Incremental Costs
The development of costs associated with each additional firefighter added include the need for
protective gear, vehicles (admin, fire trucks, etc.), field equipment (communication equipment,
fire and rescue equipment, etc.) and an allocation of the necessary facilities for administrative and
fire protection services. The tables below illustrate these costs, beginning with protective gear:
Table 26 - Protective Gear
Protective Gear [ 1 ] $3,082
[1] Includes helmet, coats, etc.
The following table allocates the existing vehicles over the number of fire fighters currently staffed
in order to derive the cost associated per firefighter:
Table 27 - Vehicle Allocations
LOS
Per
Number of
Achieved /
Firefighters
Firefighters
Target
Current Population (Target LOS)
72
1.32
Build Out Population
104
1.32
Additional Firefighters
32
$1,196,000
Incremental Costs
The development of costs associated with each additional firefighter added include the need for
protective gear, vehicles (admin, fire trucks, etc.), field equipment (communication equipment,
fire and rescue equipment, etc.) and an allocation of the necessary facilities for administrative and
fire protection services. The tables below illustrate these costs, beginning with protective gear:
Table 26 - Protective Gear
Protective Gear [ 1 ] $3,082
[1] Includes helmet, coats, etc.
The following table allocates the existing vehicles over the number of fire fighters currently staffed
in order to derive the cost associated per firefighter:
Table 27 - Vehicle Allocations
The existing field equipment is also divided through by the existing level of firefighters since it is
assumed that the current ratios of equipment to firefighters will be maintained as the number of
firefighters increases.
311Pa
Current
Per
Vehicles
Total Cost
Firefighters
Firefighter
Five Engines / Pumpers
$2,310,000
72
$32,083
Tower Truck
$666,000
72
9,250
Five Rescues
$1,196,000
72
16,611
Two Jet Skis
$52,000
72
722
Boat
$211,000
72
2,931
Dive Vehicle
$47,000
72
653
Two Cargo Trailers
$62,000
72
861
Command & Administrative Vehicles
$419,000
72
5,819
Total Vehicle Cost
$4,963,000
$68,930
The existing field equipment is also divided through by the existing level of firefighters since it is
assumed that the current ratios of equipment to firefighters will be maintained as the number of
firefighters increases.
311Pa
City of Sanford Police & Fire Impact Fee Study Section 4 — Fire Services
Table 28 - Field Equipment Allocation
In addition to all of the above costs a significant component of costs attributed in part to growth is
the City's Public Safety Complex. In order to allocate, the costs must be totaled and first split
between police and fire services. This allocation is based on the allotment of square feet for each
service, with fire services requiring 36 %. As shown on the table below, the costs net of grants and
other sources are first totaled and then allocated to police and fire services:
Fable 29 - Public Safety Complex Cost and Allocation
Total Cost of Public Safety Complex:
Amount
Current
$18,000,000
Field Equipment
Total Cost
Firefighters
Per Firefighter
Communications Equipment
$332,000
72
$4,611
IT & EOC Equipment
$301,000
72
4,181
EMT & Medical Equipment
$414,000
72
5,750
Fire & Rescue Equipment
$790,000
72
10,972
Furniture and Fixtures
$177,000
72
2,458
Generators
$445,000
72
6,181
Fixed Training Tower
$400,000
72
5,556
Total Equipment Cost
$2,859,000
$39,709
In addition to all of the above costs a significant component of costs attributed in part to growth is
the City's Public Safety Complex. In order to allocate, the costs must be totaled and first split
between police and fire services. This allocation is based on the allotment of square feet for each
service, with fire services requiring 36 %. As shown on the table below, the costs net of grants and
other sources are first totaled and then allocated to police and fire services:
Fable 29 - Public Safety Complex Cost and Allocation
Total Cost of Public Safety Complex:
Amount
Principal of Original Borrowing [1]
$18,000,000
Cost of Refunding, Series 2012
63,106
Total Principal Costs
$18,063,106
PV of Remaining Interest Payments[2]
2,848,194
Total Costs to be Allocated
$20,911,301
Allocation of Public Safety Complex:
Police Fire
Assigned Square Feet 47,953 27,047
Percent 64% 36%
Allocated Facilities Cost $13,370,128 $7,541,173
[1] The total Public Safety Complex funding included bonds and other sources with a total reported cost of
$21.4 million. Other funding sources included grants and City reserve funds.
[2] Assumed discount rate of 3.25 %.
As shown above, the principal borrowed for the Public Safety Complex of $18,000,000 excludes
other funding sources such as grants and reserves. Once the proportional costs of the Public Safety
Complex have been allocated to fire services, as shown above, it is then necessary to derive the
cost per firefighter. The City's projected 104 firefighters at build out, as shown on Table 25, are
divided into the total allocated costs of $7.54M to compute the incremental cost per firefighter.
The table below illustrates this process:
321Pa ;e
City of Sanford Police & Fire Impact Fee Study Section 4 — Fire Services
Table 30 - Public Safety Complex Cost per Firefighter
Additional
Needs Reserved Total
32 16 120
27% 13% 100%
$2,007,485 $1,016,847 $7,541,173
$62,734 $62,734 $62,734
The Public Safety Complex was funded through a loan and has generally been paid by
governmental revenue sources other than impact fees. It is assumed that the fire impact fees will
not fully fund the annual debt service requirements allocated to the Fire Department. The primary
reason being that the annual loan payments will likely end before build out occurs within the City,
leaving a gap between the funds available and the funds needed in any given year. It is assumed
that 75% of the growth related debt service costs will be recovered through impact fees based on
a review of City budget policy, leaving the remaining 25% to be recovered through other City
funding sources. As other revenues, typically in the General Fund, will be used on the loan
payments, a credit allowance is applied to reduce the impact fees and avoid the appearance of
double - charging new development for the Public Services Complex through impact fees and taxes.
The following table illustrates these assumptions and provides for the incremental credit amount
per firefighter:
Table 31— Fire Services Credit Calculation
Facilities Allocated to Future Growth
Existing
Firefighters
72
Percent
60%
Facilities Cost
$4,516,841
Cost per Fighter
$62,734
Additional
Needs Reserved Total
32 16 120
27% 13% 100%
$2,007,485 $1,016,847 $7,541,173
$62,734 $62,734 $62,734
The Public Safety Complex was funded through a loan and has generally been paid by
governmental revenue sources other than impact fees. It is assumed that the fire impact fees will
not fully fund the annual debt service requirements allocated to the Fire Department. The primary
reason being that the annual loan payments will likely end before build out occurs within the City,
leaving a gap between the funds available and the funds needed in any given year. It is assumed
that 75% of the growth related debt service costs will be recovered through impact fees based on
a review of City budget policy, leaving the remaining 25% to be recovered through other City
funding sources. As other revenues, typically in the General Fund, will be used on the loan
payments, a credit allowance is applied to reduce the impact fees and avoid the appearance of
double - charging new development for the Public Services Complex through impact fees and taxes.
The following table illustrates these assumptions and provides for the incremental credit amount
per firefighter:
Table 31— Fire Services Credit Calculation
Facilities Allocated to Future Growth
$2,007,485
Amount Funded from Future Fire Impact Fees [1]
1,505,614
Amount Funded from Other Sources
$501,871
Calculated Credit per Firefighter [2]
$15,683
[1] Assumes 75% of cost is recovered through fire impact fees.
[2] Based on 32 additional firefighters.
The net cost per firefighter after accounting for credits is $47,050 as shown below:
Table 32 - Net Public Safety Complex Cost per Firefighter
Incremental Costs Amount
Gross
$62,734
Credit
15,683
Net
$47,050
The table below summarizes all of the costs described above, and in addition provides the cost per
firefighter for stations 32 and 38, in order to derive the total incremental cost per additional
firefighter. No additional grants other than those identified for the Public Safety Complex have
been assumed in this study.
331Paae
City of Sanford Police & Fire Impact Fee Study Section 4 — Fire Services
'fable 33 - Net Incremental Cost per Firefighter
Description
Amount
Protective Gear
$3,082
Vehicles
68,930
Field Equipment
39,709
Dive & Water Rescue Specialty Unit [1]
2,596
Stations 32 & 38 [2]
23,019
Public Safety Complex
47,050
Subtotal Incremental Cost per Firefighter
$184,386
Less Credit for Additional Grants
0
Total Incremental Cost per Firefighter
$184,386
[1] Amount reflects $270,000 costs allocated among 104 total firefighters
(build out).
[2] Amounts based on $1,657,366 total cost of Stations 32 and 38 allocated
among 72 total firefighters for an average buy -in cost. The third existing
station is located within the PSC and therefore not separately shown.
Impact Fee Development
The total future capital needs based on the incremental cost per firefighter and the total number of
additional firefighters necessary at build out are as follows:
Firefighters Needed 32
Incremental Cost per Firefighter $184,386
Total Costs to Recover $5,900,352
In order to develop the impact fees, it is necessary to calculate the cost per functional unit. Table
7 in Section 2 provides for the additional functional units associated with the projected
development within the City, which ultimately drives the build out population projection.
Therefore the 22,250 additional functional units are appropriate for allocating the $5.9M in costs.
Total Costs to Recover $5,900,352
Additional Functional Units 22,250
Cost/Functional Unit $265.18
Functional Units are then converted to ERUs based on the Single Family Residential Functional
Population per Unit figure of 1.41 as derived in Section 2.
'fable 34 — Fire Services Impact Fee per ERU
Cost/Functional Unit $265.18
Residential Functional/Unit 1.41
Cost/ERU $373.91
34 1'r age
City of Sanford Police & Fire Impact Fee Study Section 4 — Fire Services
Calculated Fire Impact Fees
The functional population approach and data included in Section 2 of this report, along with the
impact fee unit cost information above have been used to develop the proposed land use
designations and fees. For residential land uses, historical fire call data was reviewed and tabulated
for 2012 through 2014. This call data indicated that calls to multi- family properties were
approximately 70 -75% of single - family calls when measured per unit. Based on this data and
discussions with fire department staff it is proposed that the fire impact fees for multi - family units
should be 75% per unit compared to single family residential. The following is the proposed fire
impact fee schedule:
351Pag,c
City of Sanford Police & Fire Impact Fee Study Section 4 - Fire Services
Table 35 - Fire Services Impact Fee Schedule
Description Impact Unit [1] ERU Factor [2] Fire Impact Fee
Residential
Single Family Dwelling Unit 1.00 $373.91
Multi- Family (2 DUs and above) Dwelling Unit 0.75 $280.43
Recreational
Movie Theater 1,000 SF GFA 0.52 $194.43
Racquet/Tennis 1,000 SF GFA 0.76 $284.17
Health/Fitness 1,000 SF GFA 1.77 $661.82
Institutional
All Educational/Day Care Center
1,000 SF GFA
0.71
$265.48
Church
1,000 SF GFA
0.35
$130.87
Hospital
1,000 SF GFA
0.54
$201.91
Nursing Home /ALF
1,000 SF GFA
0.49
$191.93
Office
1,000 SY GFA
1.20
$448.69
Office
1,000 SY GFA
0.69
$258.00
Medical Office /Clinic
1,000 SY GFA
1.25
$467.39
Retail. Gross Sauare Feet
Retail
1,000 S.F. GLA
1.70
$635.65
Pharmacy / Drugstore
1,000 SY GFA
2.92
$1,091.82
Nursery - Garden Center
1,000 SY GFA
2.21
$826.34
Automobile Care Center
1,000 SY GFA
0.68
$254.26
Car Sales
1,000 SY GFA
1.20
$448.69
Supermarket
1,000 SY GFA
2.92
$1,091.82
Convenience Market w /out Gas Station
1,000 SY GFA
5.42
$2,026.59
Service Station
Pump
1.74
$650.60
Quality Restaurant
1,000 SY GFA
4.65
$1,738.68
High - Turnover Restaurant
1,000 S.F GFA
5.50
$2,056.51
Fast Food Restaurant w/Drive- Through
1,000 SY GFA
9.43
$3,525.97
Industrial
Industrial/Manufacturing
1,000 S.F. GFA
0.41
$153.30
Warehousing
1,000 SY GFA
0.26
$97.22
Mini - Warehouse
1,000 SF GFA
0.19
$71.04
Transient
Hotel/Motel
Room
0.29
$108.43
[1] "GFA" = Gross Floor Area; "GLA" = Gross Leasable Area.
[2] ERU = Equivalent residential unit; this amount represents each land use in comparison to a single- family residential
standard; multi - family is 1 ERU for Police and 0.75 for Fire services.
361 Pa g,
City of Sanford Police & Fire Impact Fee Study Section 4 — Fire Services
Fire Impact Fee Comparisons
The following compare the City's existing fire impact fees among various land uses to the
calculated impact fees and the impact fees imposed in other nearby communities. The existing
fire impact fees for residential, commercial, industrial are $463.18 /unit, $436.72/1,000 ft2 and
$45.22/1,000 ft2, respectively.
$14,000
$12,000
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$0
Office Building (10,000 ft2) Fire Impact Fees
371P -a g e
City of Sanford Police & Fire Impact Fee Study Section 4 — Fire Services
High Turnover Restaurant (3,500 ft')
Fire Impact Fees
$45,000
381Pa
City of Sanford Police & Fire Impact Fee Study Section 4 — Fire Services
Warehousing (50,000 ft2) Fire Impact Fees
$70,000
Impact Fee
Revenue
$64,969
$60,000
FY 2013
$273,609
$50,000
$241,719
FY 2011
$40,000
FY 2010
$75,529
$30,000
$113,405
$20,000
$10.000
$2,261 $4,861
$3,930 $6,500 $2,910
$300
Sanford Sanford
Altamonte Casselberry Lake Mary Oviedo Winter
Existing Calculated
Springs Springs
Fire Impact Fee Revenue
Fluctuations in impact fee revenues from year to year are common since they are directly
dependent on growth and local economic conditions. Therefore it is prudent for municipalities to
carefully budget the use of impact fees each year. The following table shows the City's reported
fire impact fee revenue during the past five years:
Table 36 - Historical Fire Impact Fee Revenue
Fiscal Year
Impact Fee
Revenue
FY 2014
$61,712
FY 2013
$273,609
FY 2012
$241,719
FY 2011
$113,902
FY 2010
$75,529
FY 2009
$113,405
Because of the uncertainty of future growth, a projection of future impact fee revenue is not
reflected in this study.
391p„
��t,L
Impact Fee Schedule and Comparisons
[1] "GFA" = Gross Floor Area; "GLA" = Gross Leasable Area.
[2] ERU = Equivalent residential unit; this amount represents each land use in comparison to a single - family residential standard; multi - family is 1 ERU for
Police and 0.75 for Fire services.
ERU
Police Impact Fee
Fire Impact Fee
Description
Impact Unit f 11
Factor f21
Current
Proposed
Current
Proposed
Residential
Single Family
Dwelling Unit
1.00
$476.41
$374.90
$463.18
$373.91
Multi- Family
Dwelling Unit
1.00
$476.41
$374.90
$463.18
$280.43
Recreational
Movie Theater
1,000 SF GFA
0.52
$754.32
$194.95
$436.72
$194.43
Racquet/Tennis
1,000 SF GFA
0.76
$75432
$284.92
$436.72
$284.17
Health/Fitness
1,000 SF GFA
1.77
$75432
$663.57
$436.72
$661.82
Institutional
All Educational/Day Care Center
1,000 SF GFA
0.71
$754.32
$266.18
$436.72
$265.48
Church
1,000 SF GFA
0.35
$754.32
$131.22
$436.72
$130.87
Hospital
1,000 SF GFA
0.54
$754.32
$202.45
$436.72
$201.91
Nursing Home /ALF
Bed
0.51
$754.32
$192.44
$436.72
$191.93
Office
Office
1,000 ST GFA
0.69
$754.32
$258.68
$436.72
$258.00
Medical Office /Clinic (all)
1,000 ST GFA
1.25
$75432
$468.63
$436.72
$467.39
Retail, Gross Square Feet
Retail
1,000 S.F. GLA
1.70
$754.32
$637.33
$436.72
$635.65
Pharmacy / Drugstore
1,000 ST GFA
2.92
$754.32
$1,094.71
$436.72
$1,091.82
Nursery - Garden Center
1,000 ST GFA
2.21
$754.32
$828.53
$436.72
$826.34
Automobile Care Center
1,000 ST GFA
0.68
$754.32
$254.93
$436.72
$254.26
Car Sales
1,000 SY GFA
1.20
$754.32
$449.88
$43632
$448.69
Supermarket
1,000 ST GFA
2.92
$754.32
$1,094.71
$436.72
$1,091.82
Convenience Market w /out Gas Station
1,000 ST GFA
5.42
$754.32
$2,031.96
$436.72
$2,026.59
Service Station
Pump
1.74
$754.32
$652.33
$436.72
$650.60
Quality Restaurant
1,000 ST GFA
4.65
$754.32
$1,743.29
$436.72
$1,738.68
High- Turnover Restaurant
1,000 SY GFA
5.50
$754.32
$2,061.95
$436.72
$2,056.51
Fast Food Restaurant vv/Drive- Through
1,000 SY GFA
9.43
$754.32
$1535.31
$436.72
$3,525.97
Industrial
Industrial/Manufacturing
1,000 S.F. GFA
0.41
$54.04
$153.71
$45.22
$153.30
Warehousing
1,000 ST GFA
0.26
$54.04
$97.47
$45.22
$97.22
Mini - Warehouse
1,000 SF GFA
0.19
$54.04
$71.23
$45.22
$71.04
Transient
Hotel
Room
0.29
$754.32
$108.72
$436.72
$108.43
[1] "GFA" = Gross Floor Area; "GLA" = Gross Leasable Area.
[2] ERU = Equivalent residential unit; this amount represents each land use in comparison to a single - family residential standard; multi - family is 1 ERU for
Police and 0.75 for Fire services.
Single Family Residential
# - • ! 1i1 •
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$o
$ 100,000
$90,000
$80,000
$-10,000
$60,000
$50,000
$40,GW
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$o
Retail (30,000 sqft)
$53,608
$35,731 $38,189 $39,760
Kalman
$89,448
$4,963 $9,735
$4,750 $7,574
$10,500 $4,538
I
law
so
Sanford Sanford
Altamonte Casselberry
Lake Mary Oviedo Winter
Existing Calculated
Springs
Springs