Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 10 An Ordinance Relating to Road Impact Fees. Meeting Date: March 15, 2005 Contact Name: Contact Number: Item # Terry L. Jamesd ty 407 -905-3100/1018 to Reviewed By: Department Director: City Manager: Subject: Road Impact Fee Background Summary: The road impact fee ordinance was adopted in 1989, and then amended in its entirety in 1999. At that time, a report was prepared concerning the fee methodology and costs. This report was updated in November 2004 and forms the basis for the road impact fee update and increase. This Ordinance also removes the exemptions for churches, hospitals, and other non-profit organizations and provides a phase-in of the all new fees for 90 days if a building permit had been applied for prior to the ordinance adoption. Issue: Should the Mayor & City Commissioners adopt an Ordinance to increase the Road Impact Fee? Recommendations Staff recommends the Mayor & City Commissioners adopt the ordinance to increase the Road Impact Fee as depicted in Exhibit "A" of the attached Road Impact Fee Ordinance Amendment. Attachments: "The City of Ocoee Transportation Impact Fee Update Final Report November 2004" Road Impact Fee PowerPoint slide presentation Road Impact Fee Ordinance Financial Impact: Type of Item: [8J Public Hearing [8J Ordinance First Reading D Ordinance First Reading D Resolution D Commission Approval D Discussion & Direction For Clerk's De/Jf Use: D Consent Agenda D Public Hearing D Regular Agenda D Original DocumenUContract Attached for Execution by City Clerk D Original DocumenUContract Held by Department for Execution Reviewed by City Attorney Reviewed by Finance Dept. Reviewed by ( ) o N/A o N/A o N/A City Manae:er Robert Frank center of GOOd II .~~ o~ Commissioners Danny Howell, District 1 Scott Anderson. District 2 Rusty Johnson. District 3 Nancy J. Parker. District 4 Mayor S. Scott Vandere:rift STAFF REPORT TO: The Honorable Mavor and City Commissioners Terry L. James, Principal Planner j; ~~ ~ FROM: THROUGH: Russ Wagner, Community Development Director DATE: March 4, 2005 RE: Road Impact Fee Update ISSUE Should the Mayor & City Commissioners adopt an ordinance to increase the Road Impact Fee? BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION The Road Impact Fee was initially adopted March 21, 1989 and on June 15, 1999, was amended in its entirety. The basis for the 1999 road impact fee was the "City of Ocoee Transportation Impact Fee Update" report dated November 1998. This report was prepared by Renaissance Planning Group (RPG) as the City's transportation consultant. This report was further updated by RPG in November 2004, and forms the basis again for the proposed update and increase in the road impact fee. The updated report is entitled, "City ofOcoee Transportation Impact Fee Update Final Report" and is dated November 2004. The proposed road impact fee is approximately 113 percent greater than the City's current road impact fee; however, the proposed fee will pay for only 44 percent of the total $163.5 million needed to serve the new development within the City through 2025. At the Commissions direction, the staff has met with the Home Builders Association (HBA) of Greater Orlando to discuss all the proposed impact fee increases and the associated fee calculation methodologies. In addition to the HBA, notices were mailed to the developerslbuilders active within the City, informing them of the meeting dates. The meetings were held on February 11 and 25. The outside attendees were the HBA impact fee consultant, Kirk Sorenson of Governmental Solutions, Inc, and the developerslbuilders who responded to the invitation. Mr. Sorenson reviewed recreational parks, fire, police, and roads impact fee methodologies, and formulated questions concerning the basis for these fee calculations. RPG responded to the questions raised by Mr. Sorenson concerning the road impact fee. (Responses to HBA questions concerning impact fees other than road impact fees are contained in each individual department's staff report.) After consideration of the HBA/Sorenson questions, the Staff has determined that the road impact fee calculation methodology and the subsequent ordinance do not need revision. The proposed Road Impact Fee Ordinance amends Chapter 87 of the City ofOcoee Code, and is in an underline and strike through format to accurately reflect the amended subsections of the Code. Road Impact Fee Ordinance amends the following subsections of the Ocoee Code: . Section 2 and Section 3 amends subsection 87-2 and 87-5, respectively, to provide for the 2004 update to the original 1998 Transportation Impact Fee Report; . Section 3 amends subsection 87-5 to provide for the adjustment of the review deposit for alternate impact fee calculations by resolution; . Section 4 amends subsection 87-9 to provide for exemptions from the road impact fees for various non- profit organizations if they have a building permit application on or prior to the effective date of the road impact fee ordinance and a building permit is issued within 90 days from the adoption date of this ordinance provided the building permit does not increase the square footage of the building structure. . Section 5 amends subsection 87-14 providing a new impact fee schedule. This new schedule added the following land use categories: movie theater, self-service car wash, congregate care facility, church, hospital, supermarket, and business park. Additionally, some land use categories were folded into other closely related categories as follows: quick lubrication vehicle stop folded into auto care center, wholesale tire store folded into retail tire store, and walk-in bank folded into drive-in bank. RECOMMENDATION Based on the "City ofOcoee Transportation Impact Fee Update Final Report" dated November 2004, Staff recommends the adoption of the ordinance to increase the road impact fee for the City of Ocoee. Attachments: "City ofOcoee Transportation Impact Fee Update Final Report" November 2004 Road Impact Fee PowerPoint slide presentation Road Impact Fee Ordinance Copy of Public Hearing Advertisement Orlando Sentinel Date Published llh~is~Qr~ ~,20~ Advertisement '~:'.l'""'~' ~-'''''-~;,!f''''''_.'.' :~':""'crriotocOEE. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FORAN AMENDMENT TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES NOTICE ~ HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Subsection 166.04l(3)(c),.2., Florida Statues, that on Thesday, March 15, 2005 at 7:15 p.m. or as soon thereafter as pracncal, the CITY OF OCOEE CITY COMMISSION will hold the SECOND READING & PUBLIC HEARING at the City of Ocoee Commission Chambers, 150 North Lakeshore Drive, Ocoee, Florida, to consider 'the adoption of the following Ordinance concerning road impact fees: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OCOEE, FLORIDA RELATING TO ROAD IMPACT FEES; AMENDING SEC- TION 87-2 OF ARTICLE J OF CHAPTER 87 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF OCOEE RELATING TO INTENT, PURPOSE AND BASIS; AMENDING SECTION 87.5 OF ARTICLE I OF CHAP- TER 87 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF OCOEE RELATING TO ALTERNATIVE FEE CAL- CULATIONS; PROVIDING FOR REVIEW DEPOSITS TO BE ESTABLISHED BY RESOLUTION; AMENDING SECTION 87-9 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF OCOEE RELATING TO EXEMPTIONS; LIMITING THE EXEMPTION FOR BUll.DiNGS OWNED BY CERTAIN ORGANIZATIONS; REPEALING SECTION 87-14 OF ARTICLE I OF CHAPTER 87 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF OCOEE RELATING TO SCHEDULED FEES; ADOPT- ING A NEW SECTION 87-14 ESTABLISHING A REVISED ROAD IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE OF FEES wmCH SCHEDULE INCREASES THE ROAD IMPACT FEES PAYABLE TO 11IE CITY; PROVIDING FOR SEV- ERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR CODIF1CATION; PRO- VIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Interested parties may appear at the public hearing and be heard with respect to the proposed actions. The complete. case file may be inspected at the Ocoee Community Development DepartmentIPlanning Division locat- ed at 150 North Lakeshore Drive, Ocoee. Florida between the hoUl'll of 8:00 l1..m. and 5:00. p.rn., Monday through Friday, ex.cept legal holidays. The City Commission may continue the public hearings to other dates and times, as it deems necessary. Any interested party shall be advised of the dates, times, and places of any continua- tion of these or 'continued public hearings. Any continuances shall be announced during these hearings and no further notices regarding these matters will be published. You are advised that any person who desires to appeal any deci- sion made at the public hearings will need a record of the pro- ceedings and for this purpose may need to ensure that a verba- tim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testi- mony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Persons with disabilities needing assistance to panicipate in any of these proceedings should contact the City Clerk's Office 48 hours in advance of the meeting at 407-905-3105. Beth Eikenberry, City Clerk RutW)ate: Thursdav. March 3. 2005 O:\Office Procedures\Copy OfPUOlIC Hearmg AdvertISement.dOc ! " CITY OF OCOEE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE FINAL REPORT Prepared for: center of Good L " CITY OF OCOEE ~ Prepared by: RENAISSANCE PLANNING GROUP November 2004 RENAISSANCE PLANNING GROUP City of Ocoee Transportation 1m pact Fee Final Report INTRODUCTION The City of Ocoee continues to experience rapid residential and commercial growth due to its desirable location within the Orlando metropolitan area, availability of vacant land and affordable housing, and excellent access to the region's limited access and arterial roadway network. With such growth comes the challenge to ensure that the City is properly planning for and funding needed long term transportation improvements. This summary report documents revisions to the City's traffic impact fees (TIF) paid by new development. Because impact fees are designed to compensate localities for the transportation impacts created by new development, periodically updating the underlying assumptions used to calculate the impact fee ensures a reasonable relationship, or nexus, between development impacts and the corresponding impact fee levied. Doing so allows the City to capture as much revenue as possible through traffic impact fees to fund roadway projects in response to new growth while also making the City's impact fees more legally defensible and less open to challenge. The City's current TIF program was last evaluated in 1998. That process represented a comprehensive update to the TIF program. By comparison, the analysis documented here represents a summary update to the TIF program. As such, it should be emphasized that the original report prepared in 1998 is still valid and forms the basis for this update. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the technical analysis documented in this report, it is recommended that the City Commission adopted the revised TIF rate schedule shown in Table 1. The recommended TIF rates are approximately 113 percent greater than the City's current TIF rate schedule as shown in Table 2. While this is a substantial increase, it is justified based on the underlying technical analysis regarding the individual components of the TIF formula discussed below, particularly regarding the rapidly increasing cost of constructing additional roadway capacity. While no one revenue source will fully cover the impacts of new development on public infrastructure and facilities, the City's relative lack of other revenues to fund its long-term transportation priorities makes fully applying its TIF rates all the more important. Doing otherwise shortchanges available roadway revenues paid by new development and shifts the burden of constructing roadway capacity to existing residents and taxpayers through higher gas, sales, or other taxes. As discussed in this report, even with the new recommended TIF rate schedule, new development will pay only approximately 44 percent of the total $163.5 million of roadway improvements necessary through 2025. RENAISSANCE PLANNING GROUP City of Ocoee Transportation Impact Fee Final Report TABLE 1: RECOMMENDED TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE Vehicle Miles Traveled Cost per Full Impact Credit per Net Impact Land Use Unit (VMT) VMT Fee VMT (0%) Fee RESIDENTIAL Single Family Dwelling Unit 15.31 $276.14 $4,228.72 $16.99 $3,968.60 Apartment Dwelling Unit 10.61 $276.14 $2,929.61 $16.99 $2,749.41 CondominiumfTownhouse Dwelling Unit 9.38 $276.14 $2,589.37 $16.99 $2,430.10 Mobile Home Dwelling Unit 7.70 $276.14 $2,125.41 $16.99 $1,994.67 Congregate Care Facility Dwelling Unit 3.44 $276.14 $950.03 $16.99 $891.59 lODGING Hotel-Motel Occupied Room 13.29 $276.14 $3,668.87 $16.99 $3,443.19 OFFICE less than 100,000 SF 1,000 SF 24.44 $276.14 $6,747.91 $16.99 $6,332.83 100,000 to 200,000 SF 1,000 SF 18.94 $276.14 $5,229.71 $16.99 $4,908.02 greater than 200,000 SF 1,000 SF 16.82 $276.14 $4,645.24 $16.99 $4,359.50 Medical-Dental 1,000 SF 50.50 $276.14 $13,945.45 $16.99 $13,087.64 Business Park 1,000 SF 17.80 $276.14 $4,914.64 $16.99 $4,612.33 RETAIL less than 50,000 SF 1,000 SF GLA 35.73 $276.14 $9,865.21 $16.99 $9,258.39 49,999 to 100,000 SF 1,000 SF GLA 23.64 $276.14 $6,528.59 $16.99 $6,127.00 100,000 to 199,999 SF 1,000 SF GlA 24.93 $276.14 $6,884.82 $16.99 $6,461.32 200,000 to 299,999 SF 1,000 SF GlA 27.95 $276.14 $7,719.01 $16.99 $7,244.20 300,000 to 399,999 SF 1,000 SF GLA 28.45 $276.14 $7,855.29 $16.99 $7,372.09 400,000 to 499,999 SF 1,000 SF GLA 28.33 $276.14 $7,822.39 $16.99 $7,341.22 500,000 to 999.999 SF 1,000 SF GLA 31.01 $276.14 $8,561.97 $16.99 $8,035.31 1,000,000 to 1,250,000 SF 1,000 SF GLA 32.18 $276.14 $8,885.72 $16.99 $8,339.14 greater than 1.250,000 SF 1,000 SF GLA 30.99 $276.14 $8,557.71 $16.99 $8,031.30 Restaurant, Quality 1,000 SF 108.74 $276.14 $30,025.77 $16.99 $28,178.82 Restaurant, High Turnover (Sit-Down) 1,000 SF 99.92 $276.14 $27,590.54 $16.99 $25,893.39 Restaurant, Fast Food 1,000 SF 106.05 $276.14 $29,284.23 $16.99 $27,482.90 Automobile Care Center 1,000 SF 16.34 $276.14 $4,510.79 $16.99 $4,233.32 Automobile Sales 1,000 SF 40.97 $276.14 $11,312.44 $16.99 $10,616.59 Gas/Service Station (GSS) Fueling Position 27.08 $276.14 $7,477.53 $16.99 $7,017.57 GSS w/ Convenience Mart & car wash Fueling Position 73.18 $276.14 $20,207.56 $16.99 $18,964.55 Self Service Car Wash Stall 23.13 $276.14 $6,388.01 $16.99 $5,995.08 Supermarket 1,000 SF 74.02 $276.14 $20,438.68 $16.99 $19,181.45 Convenience Market (Open 24 Hours) 1,000 SF 142.97 $276.14 $39,478.34 $16.99 $37,049.94 Pharmacy/Drugstore 1,000 SF 35.18 $276.14 $9,713.75 $16.99 $9,116.24 SERVICES Drive-I n Bank 1,000 SF 40.10 $276.14 $11.072.98 $16.99 $10,391.86 INSTITUTIONAL Church (Weekday) 1.000 SF 13.66 $276.14 $3,771.89 $16.99 $3,539.87 Day Care Center 1,000 SF 34.23 $276.14 $9,452.02 $16.99 $8,870.61 MEDICAL Hospital 1,000 SF 24.16 $276.14 $6,670.24 $16.99 $6,259.94 Nursing Home 1,000 SF 2.29 $276.14 $633.23 $16.99 $594.28 RECREATIONAL Golf Course Holes 71.94 $276.14 $19,865.00 $16.99 $18,643.07 Multipurpose Recreational Facility NA 6.53 $276.14 $1,803.67 $16.99 $1,692.73 Movie Theater w/matinee Per Screen 27.42 $276.14 $7.572.39 $16.99 $7,106.59 INDUSTRIAL Light Industrial 1,000 SF 12.84 $276.14 $3,546.68 $16.99 $3,328.52 Manufacturing 1,000 SF 7.04 $276.14 $1,943.80 $16.99 $1,824.24 Warehousing 1,000 SF 9.14 $276.14 $2,523.89 $16.99 $2,368.64 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 SF 3.46 $276.14 $954.64 $16.99 $895.91 PORT AND TERMINAL Truck Terminal 1,000 SF 18.15 $276.14 $5,012.16 $16.99 $4,703.86 2 RENAISSANCE PLANNING GROUP City of Ocoee Transportation Impact Fee Final Report TABLE 2: COMPARISON OF TIF RATES Land Use Category I Unit I Existina I Recommended I Increase RESIDENTIAL Single Familv Dwelling Unit $1,865.97 $3,968.60 $2,102.63 Apartment Dwelling Unit $1,292.73 $2,749.41 $1 456.68 Condom iniumfT own house Dwellina Unit $1,142.59 $2,430.10 $1 287.50 Mobile Home Dwellina Unit $937.86 $1,994.67 $1,056.81 Conareaate Care Facilitv Dwelling Unit New Cat. $891.59 NA LODGING Hotel-Motel IOccupied Room I $1,618.931 $3,443.19 $1,824.26 OFFICE less than 100,000 SF 1,000 SF $2,977.60 $6,332.83 $3,355.24 100,000 to 200,000 SF 1,000 SF $2,307.67 $4,908.02 $2,600.35 areater than 200,000 SF 1,000 SF $2,049.77 $4,359.50 $2,309.74 Medical-Dental 1,000 SF $6,151.89 $13,087.64 $6,935.74 Business Park 1,000 SF New Cat. $4,612.33 NA RETAIL less than 50,000 SF 1 000 SF GLA $4,359.57 $9,258.39 $4,898.82 49,999 to 100,000 SF 1 000 SF GLA $2,885.07 $6,127.00 $3,241.93 100,000 to 199,999 SF 1,000 SF GLA $3,031.10 $6,461.32 $3,430.22 200000 to 299,999 SF 1,000 SF GLA $3,404.55 $7,244.20 $3,839.64 300,000 to 399 999 SF 1,000 SF GLA $3,472.09 $7,372.09 $3 900.01 400,000 to 499,999 SF 1,000 SF GLA $3,450.15 $7,341.22 $3891.07 500,000 to 999,999 SF 1 000 SF GLA $3,776.35 $8035.31 $4,258.96 1,000,000 to 1 250000 SF 1,000 SF GLA $3,920.93 $8,339.14 $4,418.21 areater than 1,250,000 SF 1,000 SF GLA $3,776.19 $8,031.30 $4,255.11 Restaurant, Quality 1,000 SF $13,249.23 $28,178.82 $14,929.60 Restaurant, High Turnover (Sit-Down 1,000 SF $12,174.65 $25,893.39 $13,718.74 Restaurant, Fast Food 1,000 SF $12,922.02 $27,482.90 $14,560.88 Automobile Care Center 1,000 SF New Cat. $4,233.32 NA Automobile Sales 1,000 SF $4,991.75 $10,616.59 $5,624.84 Gas/Service Station (GSS) Pump $3,299.55 $7,017.57 $3,718.02 GSS w/ Convenience Mart & car wast Pump New Cat. $18,964.55 NA Self Service Car Wash Stall New Cat. $5,995.08 NA Supermarket 1,000 SF New Cat. $19,181.45 NA Convenience Market (Open 24 Hours 1,000 SF New Cat. $37,049.94 NA Pharmacy/Drugstore 1,000 SF $4,286.31 $9,116.24 $4,829.93 SERVICES Drive-In Bank 11,000 SF I $4,886.081 $10,391.861 $5,505.78 INSTITUTIONAL Church (Weekdav) 11,000 SF I New Cat. I $3 539.871 NA Dav Care Center 11,000 SF I $4,170.821 $8,870.611 $4,699.79 MEDICAL Hospital 11,000 SF 1 $2 943.321 $6,259.941 $3,316.62 Nursing Home 11,000 SF I $279.421 $594.281 $314.86 RECREA TlONAL Golf Course Holes New Cat. $18,643.07 NA Multipurpose Recreational Facilitv Acre New Cat. $1,692.73 NA Movie Theater w/matinee Per Screen New Cat. $7,106.59 NA INDUSTRIAL Light Industrial 1,000 SF $1,565.01 $3 328.52 $1,763.50 Manufacturina 1,000 SF $857.73 $1,824.24 $966.51 Warehousing 1,000 SF $1,113.70 $2,368.64 $1,254.95 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 SF $387.54 $895.91 $508.37 PORT AND TERMINAL Truck Terminal 1,000 SF I $2,211.681 $4,703.861 $2,492.18 3 RENAISSANCE PLANNING GROUP City of Ocoee Transportation Impact Fee Final Report UPDATING THE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE Ocoee's transportation impact fee (TIF) is calculated by estimating the amount of roadway capacity a given development consumes, known as "demand," by the cost to replace that capacity, "supply." An allowance, or "credit," is also factored into the impact fee equation to account for developer contributions to roadway capacity projects through other revenue sources, such as gasoline taxes, resulting in a net impact fee. Each development category's net impact fee is based on vehicle miles of roadway consumed, reflecting the development's traffic impact. The following sections document the process used to update the City's TIF rate schedule. As discussed above, this methodology builds on the City's current TIF program, adopted in 1998. Updates were made to each component of the TIF formula described above, as shown in the following equation: TIF = VMT X (cost per VMT - credit per VMT), where VMT (vehicle miles of travel) = trip rate X average trip length X percent of new trips, Cost per VMT = the average unit cost to construct roadway capacity to serve the VMT, and Credit per VMT = other revenues which may be spent on roadway capacity expansion projects. Updates to each component are described in more detail below. VMT (DEMAND COMPONENT) Vehicle miles of travel, or VMT, represents the "transportation demand" component of the TIF formula. Transportation demand estimates the amount of roadway capacity different types of land uses will consume. VMT components include the number of vehicle trips that are generated by a given land use (trip rate), the average vehicle trip length, and the percentage of those trips that are "new" trips attracted to the land use (not diverted from the existing traffic flow). Trip rates for each land use category are derived from the ITE Trip Generation Handbook. As with the original TIF ordinance, the most current edition available during the update process was the 6th Edition. (The 7th Edition was recently released, subsequent to completion of the TIF update work effort.) Therefore, no changes were made to land use trip rates. While trip rates for most land uses are provided in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, there is no comprehensive published source for average trip length data. Unlike trip rates, trip lengths vary greatly between jurisdictions depending on land use patterns, the roadway network, and other factors. For this update, current land use trip lengths were strategically assessed for reasonableness and were not substantially changed. For new categories added to the TIF rate schedule, trip lengths were derived through comparison of trip length data for several adjacent/ similar jurisdictions. In the current TIF ordinance adopted in 1998, trip lengths were discounted to include only the portion of travel occurring on the City's roadway network. The portion of travel on county or state roads was not included because, at that time, the City was funding capacity improvements 4 RENAISSANCE PLANNING GROUP City ofOcoee Transportation Impact Fee Final Report only for City roads. Since that time, the City has funded major roadway improvements on county roads, including the four laning of Maguire Road and Old Winter Garden Road. There are other county roads, such as Ocoee-Apopka Road, for which funding responsibility for major improvements will likely fall primarily or exclusively to the City. Accordingly, it was determined appropriate to include the portion of travel on county roads in the calculation of trip lengths for each land use. As with trip lengths, there is no common reference for obtaining primary trip percentages - the percentage of "new" trips attracted to a particular land use that are not diverted from the existing traffic stream. A summary review of the current primary trip percentages was conducted; this data also remained substantially unchanged. COST PER VMT COMPONENT Once an updated VMT, or new travel demand, is determined, it is necessary to update the portion of the TIF formula concerning the cost to serve the new travel demand. This is perhaps the most important aspect of the TIF formula because it provides the most direct linkage between the cost of roadway improvements and the TIF rates charged to fund the implementation of roadway projects. This component is also very important because the cost of roadway projects continues to increase rapidly, particularly for ROW acquisition and roadway construction. Accordingly, great care was taken to ensure that the updated cost component accurately captures the most current cost data for roadway projects in Ocoee. To do so, the five year Capital Improvement Programs (CIP) for Ocoee and Orange County were reviewed to obtain cost information for projects fully funded for construction in the Ocoee area. FDOT's five year work program and Metroplan's five year Transportation Improvement Program were also reviewed. Additionally, project-to-date costs were obtained from the City finance department regarding the four laning of Maguire Road, which was substantially complete at that time and reviewed for comparison purposes. The cost component of the TIF formula is expressed as an average cost per lane mile to construct roadway capacity projects. This was calculated by determining the total cost of each Ocoee-area roadway project, the new capacity added, and the cost per new capacity expressed in lane miles. As shown in Table 3, this results in an average cost per lane mile of $2.33 million, an approximately 29 percent increase above the $1.78 million noted in the current TIF ordinance. The City's average cost per lane mile of roadway capacity compares favorably to that of other jurisdictions, as shown in Table 4. 5 RENAISSANCE PLANNING GROUP City of Ocoec Transportation Impact Fee Final Report CREDIT PER VMT COMPONENT Recognizing that development pays other taxes and fees to fund the construction of roadway projects, the credit component of the TIF formula avoids charging development twice to fund the same improvements. Without credits in the fee structure, the City could be open to potential legal challenge. There are two local revenue sources that can potentially be used to fund capacity projects on the City's roadway system: revenue from public utility franchise fees, including electricity, telephone and propane gas, and revenue from Orange County generated by the local option gasoline tax (LOGT). Using the same methodology employed to develop the current TIF rate schedule, LOGT and utility franchise fee revenues through 2025 were estimated at $96.94 million. Discussions with City staff indicated that none of these revenues currently or are planned to be used for roadway capacity projects. Most non-FOOT roadway projects in Ocoee are funded through TIF revenues or through private developer contributions. However, in the event that these sources do not fully fund roadway capacity improvements, the City has estimated that as much as $19.39 million (20 percent) of total eligible revenue could be allocated to such projects. This is consistent with the current TIF ordinance. This dollar amount forms the basis for calculating impact fee credits. As noted previously, the impact fees developed through this study are expressed as a function of VMT. Accordingly, TIF credits must also be determined on a cost per VMT basis. Assuming that up to $19.39 million in non- TIF revenues could be spent on roadway capacity projects between now and the year 2025, and that an additional 1,141,452 VMT will be consumed on the City's roadways, new development is assessed a credit of $16.99 per VMT consumed. This credit is applied to the impact fee calculation. 6 RENAISSANCE PLANNING GROUP City of Ocoee Transportation Impact Fee Final Report TABLE 3: AVERAGE COST PER LANE MILE OF NEW CAPACITY Lane Capacity VMC Cost Per Lane Jurisdiction Segment From To Total Cost Length Miles Added Added Added Mile Ocoee Maine Street Maauire End $8,929,525 1.24 2.48 19,400 24,056 $3,600,614.92 Ocoee Profesional Parkway Maguire Rd Blackwood Ave $3,146,852 0.75 1.5 19,400 14,550 $2,097,901.33 Ocoee Old Winter Garden Blackwood Hempel $2,206,825 0.42 0.84 20,400 8,568 $2,627,172.62 Oranae Apopka-Vineland SR50 AD Mims $8,221,573 2.91 5.82 15,100 43,941 $1,412,641.41 Orange Good Homes Rd Old Winter-Garden SR50 $2,584,219 0.67 1.34 15,100 10,117 $1,928,521.64 TOTAL 11.98 89,400 101,232 $2.333,370.38 Sources Ocoee: FY 2003-2007 CIP Orange: FY 2003-2007 CIP Note: Only Ocoee-area, capacity increasing projects used. Costs include DES, ROW, CST, and utilities relocation. TABLE 4: COMPARISON OF AVERAGE COST PER LANE MILE OF NEW CAPACITY Ocoee/OC CIP5 $2,333,370 FOOT $2,302,541 Metroplan LRTP $2,255,906 Maguire (5. of SR 50) $2,095,988 7 RENAISSANCE PLANNING GROUP City of Ocoee Transportation Impact Fee Final Report LAND USE CATEGORIES The land use categories contained in the current fee schedule were reviewed to ensure they accurately and comprehensively reflected the types of development occurring in Ocoee. Based on this review, several changes were made. A few land uses were deleted or folded into other categories, such as quick lubrication vehicle stop (folded into auto care center), wholesale tire store (folded into retail tire store), and walk in bank (folded into drive in bank). The following land uses were added: . Movie theater; . Self service car wash; . Congregate care facility; . Church; . Hospital; . Supermarket, and . Business park. Changes were also made upon comparison of several similar land use categories. For example, the category of congregate care facility was added after comparing six similar retirement categories. TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN LINKAGES Although Ocoee's TIF ordinance is based on objective standards regarding the demand for and cost of providing roadway capacity, rather than tied to a specific set of long-term roadway improvements, there is still an important linkage between the TIF ordinance and the City's long range transportation planning efforts. From a policy perspective, this linkage is most important in considering the scope of the TIF rates in relation to the City's long-term roadway improvement priorities as expressed in the City's Transportation Master Plan (TMP) and newly adopted 2020 Comprehensive Plan. It is important to note that the TMP, which was used in preparing the current TIF ordinance, is also the basis of the Comprehensive Plan's Transportation Element. Accordingly, the City's official long-term transportation priorities have not substantially changed since adoption of the current TIF ordinance in 1998. However, Metroplan Orlando has undertaken recent efforts to update the regional traffic model and underlying socioeconomic data for its new Long Range Transportation Plan. The new regional traffic model was used to test the TMP's 2020 roadway improvement priorities to determine if major changes were warranted in project priorities that could affect the 8 RENAISSANCE PLANNING GROUP City of Ococe Transportation Impact Fee Final Report demand and cost component assumptions of the TIF. Although application of the new traffic model has not yet received close scrutiny in the region, including Ocoee, review of traffic volume outputs from the new model suggests that major revisions to the City's long-term transportation priorities are unnecessary. PROJECTIONS OF IMPACT FEE REVENUE Using the 2025 socioeconomic data assumptions from Metroplan's new regional traffic model, an analysis was undertaken to project how much revenue could be raised by the City's updated transportation impact fee to pay for needed improvements over the next 20 years. It should be noted that these growth assumptions are for the entire City-County Joint Planning Area (JPA), rather than entirely within the City limits. However, using the growth projections does not over-estimate potential revenues because most of the growth was assumed to occur inside the City's portion of the JP A, and future annexations may occur to capture more of that growth within Ocoee by 2025. The amount of projected revenues that would be generated in five-year increments using the recommended TIF rate schedule are shown in Table 5. The projected revenues are not discounted to the net present value because it is assumed that impact fee revenues will be invested at a rate at least equal to the discount rate until they are spent. These revenue projections are then compared with the estimated capital improvement costs for City-funded transportation improvements in the Transportation Master Plan, which are expected to be approximately $163.5 million in new capacity improvements (from 2000 to 2025). As shown, even with the proposed significant increase, impact fee revenues are projected to total approximately $71.4 million through 2025, or only 44 percent of the cost of the transportation improvements included in the Transportation Master Plan. This indicates that other revenue sources will need to be used to fund roadway projects, such as a larger portion of the gas tax, and particularly through developer contributions. 9 RENAISSANCE PLANNING GROUP City of Ocoee Transportation Impact Fee Final Report TABLE 5: PROJECTED TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE REVENUES - 2000 TO 2025 New Impact Unit of I 2005 I 2015 2025 DeveloDment Fee Rate Measure Amount I Revenue I Amount I Revenue Amount I Revenue ImDact Fee Revenue Forecast Single Family Residential $3,969 Dwelling Unit 1,643 $6,520,414 4,929 $19,561,242 8,215 $32,602,071 Multi Family Residential $2,749 Dwellinq Unit 429 $1,178,946 1,286 $3,536,839 2,144 $5,894,731 Industrial $1,824 1000 SF 452 $824,719 1,356 $2,474,158 2,260 $4,123,597 Service $10,392 1000 SF 259 $2,694,271 778 $8,082,814 1,296 $13,471,356 Commercial $7,018 1000 SF 438 $3,070,470 1,313 $9,211,410 2,188 $15,352,349 Total $14,288,821 $42,866,462 $71,444,104 Transportation Fundina Sources (millions of current vear dollars) 2000-2005 2005-2025 TOTAL Facility Cost $64.4 $99.1 $163.5 Estimated Impact Fee Revenue $14.3 $57.2 $71.4 43.7% Balance -$50.2 -$41.9 -$92.1 Notes: 1. Population and Employment forecasts for 2005 and 2015 are interpolated based on the adopted Metroplan 2000 and 2025 population and employment forecasts. 2. 2005 revenues are based on 2005 population and employment forecasts. 3. 2005 costs are based on transportation capacity projects funded through FY 2007/08. DISCOUNT FACTOR In adopting or revising a TIF ordinance, some jurisdictions have opted to include an across- the-board reduction in the proposed fee schedule through use of a "discount factor." This is an arbitrary percentage that is applied to the rate schedule to reduce the actual fees paid by new development. It is important to note that this is a policy issue, not a technical issue. There is no basis in the technical analysis to reduce the TIF any more than is justified through the credit component of the TIF formula. While applying a discount factor may make a noticeable increase in impact fees more politically feasible and perhaps reduce the incentive for a legal challenge, doing so also ultimately shifts the burden of revenue collection for new roadway projects from new development to existing residents and taxpayers. A summary review of other jurisdictions in the metropolitan Orlando area indicated that most do not apply a discount factor, nor give other types of discounts, such as to non-profit organizations. Another approach is a phased implementation of a new rate increase. This approach was used by Orange County in implementing its current TIF rate schedule. This is essentially the same as applying a discount factor that decreases over time. While the effect of applying various discount factors to the recommended new TIF rates was analyzed, this approach is not recommended for the reasons stated above. 10 RENAISSANCE PLANNING GROUP City of Ocoee Transportation Impact Fee Final Report COMPARISON WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS Ocoee's current and recommended TIF rate schedules were compared with other jurisdictions in the metropolitan Orlando area to put changes to the TIF rates in context. Ocoee's current TIF rates were first compared with twelve other jurisdictions, both city and county, in the greater Orlando metropolitan area (see Appendix). The highest fee for each common land use category is highlighted as well as how Ocoee's TIF ranks among all of the jurisdictions. As shown, Ocoee's current TIF rates for most categories are generally in the midpoint of all jurisdictions. Two caveats should be noted about this comparison. First, each jurisdiction uses different assumptions in calculating its impact fees, and some jurisdictions, such as Orlando, Winter Garden, and Orange County, have TIF rates that vary by geographic area, limiting a category-by-category comparison to a certain extent. Second, each jurisdiction adopts and updates its TIF rates on a different schedule, also limiting a side-by-side comparison. For informational purposes, the recommended new TIF rate schedule was then compared with the existing TIF rate schedules for the other twelve jurisdictions (also see Appendix). Because this comparison reflects a higher rate schedule for Ocoee only, the recommended rate schedule would place Ocoee first in most categories among the various jurisdictions, as expected. Coincidentally, Orange County recently updated its TIF rate schedule. Accordingly, the County's draft new TIF rates were compared with Ocoee's recommended new rates (Table 6). As shown, the two TIF rate structures compare favorably, with Orange County's fees for many land use categories being higher than the recommended rates for Ocoee. 11 City of Ocoee Transportation Impact Fee Final Report RENAISSANCE PLANNING GROUP TABLE 6: COMPARISON OF NEW TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES - OCOEE AND ORANGE COUNTY Proposed Fee (1) Orange Difference (4) Land Use Cateaorv (2) Unit Ocoee CountY (3) Absolute T Percent RESIDENTIAL Sinale Familv Dwellina Unit $3,968.60 $3,398.00 $570.60 17% Apartment Dwellina Unit $2,749.41 $2,382.00 $367.41 15% Mobile Home Dwellina Unit $1,994.67 $1,773.00 $221.67 13% LODGING Hotel-Motel IOccuoied Room I $3,443.191 $2,520.001 $923.191 37% OFFICE less than 100,000 SF 1,000 SF $6,332.83 $6,210.00 $122.83 2% 100,000 to 200,000 SF 1,000 SF $4,908.02 $4,822.00 $86.02 2% !Heater than 200,000 SF 1,000 SF $4,359.50 $4,291.00 $68.50 2% Medical-Dental 1,000 SF $13,087.64 $14,332.00 -$1,244.36 -9% RETAIL less than 50,000 SF 1,000 SF GLA $9,258.39 $12,281.00 -$3,022.61 -25% 49,999 to 100,000 SF 1,000 SF GLA $6,127.00 $12,540.00 -$6,413.00 -51% 100,000 to 199,999 SF 1,000 SF GLA $6,461.32 $11,279.00 -$4,817.68 -43% 200,000 to 299,999 SF 1,000 SF GLA $7,244.20 $10,288.00 -$3,043.80 -30% 300,000 to 399,999 SF 1,000 SF GLA $7,372.09 $9,600.00 -$2,227.91 -23% 400,000 to 499,999 SF 1,000 SF GLA $7,341.22 $9,072.00 -$1,730.78 -19% 500,000 to 999,999 SF 1,000 SF GLA $8,035.31 $7,940.00 $95.31 1% 1,000,000 to 1,250,000 SF 1,000 SF GLA $8,339.14 $7,248.00 $1,091.14 15% lareater than 1,250,000 SF 1,000 SF GLA $8,031.30 $6,934.00 $1,097.30 16% Restaurant, Qualitv 1,000 SF $28,178.82 $11,867.00 $16,311.82 137% Restaurant, Hiah Turnover (Sit-Down 1,000 SF $25,893.39 $16,330.00 $9,563.39 59% Restaurant, Fast Food 1,000 SF $27,482.90 $25,152.00 $2,330.90 9% Automobile Care Center 1,000 SF $4,233.32 $4.492.00 -$258.68 -6% ~utomobile Sales 1,000 SF $10,616.59 $5.684.00 $4,932.59 87% Supermarket 1,000 SF $19,181.45 $12,092.00 $7,089.45 59% Pharmacv/Druastore 1,000 SF $9,116.24 $7,394.00 $1,722.24 23% SERVICES Drive-In Bank 11,000 SF I $10,391.861 $23.153.001 -$12,761.141 .55% INSTITUTIONAL Dav Care Center 11,000 SF 1 $8,870.611 $6,566.001 $2,304.61 35% MEDICAL Hosoital 11,000SF I $6,259.941 $6,067.001 $192.94 3% Nursina Home 11,000 SF I $594.28T $2,106.001 -$1,511.72 -72% INDUSTRIAL LiQht Industrial 1,000 SF $3,328.52 $3,039.00 $289.52 10% Manufacturina 1,000 SF $1,824.24 $1,662.00 $162.24 10% Warehousina 1,000 SF $2,368.64 $2,158.00 $210.64 10% Mini-Warehouse 1,000 SF $895.91 $869.00 $26.91 3% Notes 1. Proposed fee shown is 100%; no discount factor applied. 2. Only land use categories common to both jurisdictions shown. 3. Orange County TIF schedule effective July 1, 2005. 4. Ocoee's proposed TIF rate as compared to Orange County's proposed TIF rate. Land use categories shown in red are those for which the Orange County fee exceeds the proposed Ocoee fee. 12 Land Use Unit City of Ocoee Impact Fee (o:a;k12\ IROsidenihilltodglng . .' . Single Family Detached Multi-Family Condominium Mobile Home Park Hotel Motel tiStJititla"a(> . ~ospital Day Care Center NlJ"rsing Home ~c!~~~i:'::.. Light Industrial Manufacturing Wa~~()us~n~__ Mini-Warehouse Truck Terminal 0ti'I<:.. Office, 100,000 sf or less Office, 100.001-200.000 sf Office, m~~e than 2pci,0~0 sf Office, M~~!~~-"Dental- faQ,ooo sf or le~~_ Office. Medical/Dental- 100,001-200.000 sf Office, Medical/Dental - more than 200,-000 sf : ~~iri~~~a~~';~: : :. .' Auto Sales, New Cars -Wholesale Tire Store Bank (Drive- Thrul Bank (Walk-In) _ COnvenience store wtGas Pumps Drug stor~t~~armacy Gas Station No Co-nvenlence Mart Gas Station wtConvenience store Quick Lube Center Restaurant, Fast Food ~staurant: High-Turnover Restaurant, Quality Ret!~, 5~,OOO ~ or less Retail. 50.001-100.000 sf Retail,100.001:200.0()().sf Retail. 200.001-300,000 sf Retaic300,001-400.ooo sf Retail. 400,001-500.000 sf Retail, 500.00H ,000.000 sf Retail. 1.000.001=1.250.000 sf Retail, more than 1,250,000 sf $1.865.97 $1.292.73 $1,14259 $937.86 $1.618.93 $1,618.93 Sixth Sixth Second Fifth Fourth Fourth Dwelling Dwelling ~ell~~9 Dwelling Room Room $2,943.32 $4,170.82 $279.42 (Al Fifth Eighth Second 1,000 s.t 1.000 s.l. Bed 1,000s.l. $1,565.01 Fourth 1.000 s.l. $857.73 Seventh 1.000s.l. $1.1.13.70 Sixth 1,000 s.l. ~. $387.54 Sixth 1.000 s.l. $jCij,... First 1,000 s.l. $2,977.60 Sixth 1,000"'" $2,307.67 Fourth - 1.000 s.l. $2,045127 Fifth 1,000 s.l. $6.151.89 Sixth 1,000 s.t $6~151.89 Sixth 1.000 s.l. $6.151.89 Sixth 1,000s.l. $4,99.1~ Fourth -Say(sl .. 1,,o16~ First 1.000 s.l. $4.886.08 Eleventh 1.000 s.l. $2.882.90 Tenth 1,000s.l. $8,851.12 (e) Tenth 1.000.set $4,286.31 Fifth Pump $3.299.55 Seventh Pump $3.299~ Fifth . Bay(s) $783.00 Sixth _',OOOs.l. $12.922.02 Ninth l.ooos.l. $1.~17 465 Fifth 1.000 s.l. $13,249.23 Third 1.ooos.l. $4~59~ Seventh 1.000 s.l. $2,885.07 Eighth l.ooos.l. $3.031.10 Seventh 1.000 s.l. $3.404.55 Fifth 1,_ooos.l. $3,472.09 Fifth 1.000 sJ. $3,450.15 Fifth 1.000 sJ. $3.776.35 Fourth 1.000 s.l. $3:920.93 Fourth 1,ooos.l. $3,776.19 Fourth TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE COMPARISON City of Attamonte Springs Cff:y of Winter Garden South of North of Turnpike Turnolke City of Oviedo Orange County C~yof Mount Dora City of Orlando City of Apopka City of Casselberry City of Kissimmee $607.17 $1.103.35 $709.40 $2,990.00 $2,189.00 $1.192 $1,201 ..,874'" $3,059.93 $3,398 $420.64 $669.23 $491.83 ~Jl.~ti]ij $1,408.00 $807 $632 ~1li1.1. $2.148.67 $2.382 $371.79 $642.25 $434.12 $1.414. NA NA $735 ~"~~ NA NA NA $527.88 $357.00 - -$1:05400 $859.00 $600 $603 $2,~ $1,595.51 $1.773 $565.93 $997.11 $673.14 $1.544.00 $1.446.00 $1.243 $795 ".,/,..'" $2.91285 $2.520 $565.93 $997.11 $460.68 $1.064.00 $774.00 $1.243 $674 ".,,".n $2.912.85 $2,520 $1.064.61 $2,25_1.83 $1.285.50 $3,40s,oO $2,444.00 $2.147 $1.622 $4,962.37 $3.820.151 $6.0611 $2.011.46 $2,51627 $1,457.10 $5.502.00 $4,507.00 $3.651 $5,000 $6.268.01 $4,825.261 $8,6$6 $165.69 NA $200.72 $264.00 $242.00 NA $245 NA NAI .2.1Cl61A~ $442.21 $940.16 $534.73 $1.624.00 $2,157.00 $892 NA NA NA ".lI3f $242.36 $519.00 $292.65 $890.00 $1,182.00 $493 $441 $1.586.61 $1,221.41 ..,6$1 $314.69 $658.80 $191.52 $1.155.00 $1.636.00 $624 $450 .. $2,060:11 $1.585.92 -~- ~ $158.61 $351.67 $516.35 $582.00 $290.00 $334 $32 (B) 11.GaIl.36 $799.35 $669 NA NAI- NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA $988.47 $2,201.36 $1.195.10 $3.694.00 $3.790.00 $2,126 $1,532 $6...... $5.000.76 $6.210 $766.42 $1.67Y8 $925.44 (E) $2,110.00 $1.626 $1.395 S5.046M $3.884.87 $4,822 $520 to $653 $1.556.59 $865.68 (El $2,110,()O $1.378 ""'II _$3,312,53 $4.291 $2.292.27 NA $2.768.65 $6.03~00 $6.717.00 NA $3,492 ". 1 $11,552.28 $14,332 $2.292c27 NA $2)6865 $8.033.00 $6,71700 NA $3,492 1 $11.552.28 $14.332 $2.292.27 NA $2,768.65 $6,033.00 $6,717.00 NA $3,492 1 $11.552.28 $14,332 ... -... .... NA $1.784.79 $1.220.13 _,,,,,.00 $5,742cOO NA NA NA NA $5,684 NA NA NA - NA NA NA NA ~, NA NA NA $5.047.87 $6,693.64 $4:334.54 $22.514.00 $12.207.00 $10,792 $10,000 $34,1ae.14 $26.733.44 $23.153 $.5.047..8.7 $6,693.64 $2.5~7.21 NA $8.20200 $10,792 $7 ,858 -,.ae."~ $26,733.44 $23,153 $16,631.22 NA $10,019.44 $17,976.00 $14,834.00 NA $17.000 (C) ..... $42,285.18 NA $2,914.07 NA $2,069.98 $2,862.00 $3,915.00 NA $5.65 $9,214.71 $7,394 $4.812.43 $4.281.42 $3.994.40 $3.480.00 $2.080.00 $2.S't $3,000 $9.658.11 NA $5.060.51 $4,281.42 NA NA $2.080.00 $2,597 $3,000 $9.658.11 NA NA NA NA $4,116.00 $3,584.00 NA $'1.506 $4.174.55 NA $16,367:69 $8.006.81 $11,751473 $33,054.00 $ 17.706JlO $11.259 $16.000 $50.761..73 $25.152 $4.300.10 $8~006.81 $4.287.04 $13.76.5,_00 $11,422.00 $11.259 NA $14.831.01 $16.330 $2.967.58 $8,OSJll,81 $3.721.67 $10.382,0.0 $8.731.00 $11,259 $5.646 $14,831.01 $11.867 $2,713.99 $4,533.42 $2,329.94 (El $2,816.:.00 $7.144 $3.836 ~.42 $11.061.911--~_!~~ $2,076.02 $3.023.28 $1,832.49 (El $2,177.00 $4.847 $4.500 $9,582.31 $7,376.68 $1 $2,282.61 $3,014.45 $1.754.67 (El $2.177.00 ~4,414 $3,400 $8.639.39 $6.650.80$11;211 $2.307.56 $2,980.74 $1.633.82 (E) $2,171.00 $4,325 $3.400 $8.639.39 $6.650.80 $1U61 $2,046.52 $2.567.78 $1,8!819 (El $2,17L()O $3.818 $3.000 $8,222.37 $6,32_9.77 ...tOO $1,870.46 $2~338.36 $1.806.95 (El $2,171.00 $3.475 $3,000 $8.222.37 $6,329.77 ..,at2 $1.706.16 $2,20798 $1.610.83 tEl $2.385.00 $3,231 $2,900 $7.2,23.82 $5.561.06 ..... $1.476.45 $2,032.16 $1.545.46 (El $2,385.00 $2,925 $2.885 $6.039.58 $4.649.41 I'/'- $1,332.04 $1.997.02 $1,507.67 (El $2,385.00 $2,773 $2,813 $6,039.58 $4,649.41 $ll" Notes: O~~~~__Curre~tly adopted fee s~~_~dule__ Altamonte Springs: 2002 Update fee schedule Apopka: F~e~chedule effective for 209_4 Casselberry: Fee schedule effective 1t1t01 )<.issimmee: F~e sch~_~~_I~ eff~~ive 5t1/05 (75% r~t_~ Mount Dora: Fee schedule effective 4/13t04 (uses Lake County TlF rates) OrlandC\: Fee schedule effective 1997; excludes special p~~_areas_!Ind activity centers Oviedo: Fee -schedule effective 9/17101 Winter Garclen~_ _Fee~~h_edul~__~ffectiv~_1_~~1I04____ __ Orange ,?~unty: 1aO% fee sche~~j'Nith three percent inde~_i~g increase) effect~ve 7/1tO~ Semjnole~ounty: -No effective d~te provided: fees shown for South Cent~l_distri~t _~s "ave~ge" fees countywide Notes: r,fo TIF rate- schedule provTded- by Winter sPlines. Osceola County calculates fees by auto trip by district - methodology is not comparable for comparison purposes. A. ynit is per 1 ,000 sq~~re fe~t B. Unit is per storage unit C. Un~!J_s per pump D. Tourist retail-for Orange County E. Fee is calculated by formula for specific square footage Appendix 1 Seminole County $1.18 $79 $66 $65 $82 $82 $1.867 $5,683 $244 W $681 $66~ $3OE W $2.591 $2,15' $1.91E $4.27 $4,27 $4.27 NP NP $9,68 $7,121 N N! $2,69, $2,69~ . W $15.85 N; $12.19 $5.75 $3.06 $3,06 $3,00 $2.81 $2,61! $2,60 $2.69' $2.74 Appendix 2 OCOEE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES COMPARISON MATRIX. TABLE 7 Land Use City of Ocoee Next Highest Jurisdiction Next Lowest Jurisdiction New Fee Rank Fee Rank Jurisdiction Fee Rank Jurisdiction Single Family $3,968.60 1 #N/A 0 #N/A $2,130.00 2 Winter Garden South f'\partment $2.749.41 1 #N/A 0 #N/A $1,476.00 2 Winter Garden South CondominiumlTownhouse $2,430.10 1 #N/A 0 #N/A $735.00 2 Oviedo Mobile Home $1,994.67 1 #N/A 0 #N/A $1,071.00 2 Winter Garden South Congregate Care Facility $891.59 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Hotel-Motel $3,443.19 1 #N/A 0 #N/A $1,762.00 2 Winter Garden South less than 100,000 SF $6,332.83 1 #N/A 0 #N/A $3,826.00 2 Winter Garden South 100,000 to 200,000 SF $4,908.02 1 #N/A 0 #N/A $2,851.00 2 Winter Garden South greater than 200,000 SF $4,359.50 1 #N/A 0 #N/A $2,361.00 2 Winter Garden South Medical-Dental $13,087.64 1 #N/A 0 #N/A $8,548.00 2 Winter Garden South Business Park $4,612.33 1 #N/A 0 #N/A $3,019.00 2 Winter Garden South less than 50,000 SF $9,258.39 3 $10,327.00 2 Orange County $8,185.00 4 Winter Garden North 9,999 to 100,000 SF $6,127.00 3 $6,691.00 2 Orange County $5,303.00 4 Winter Garden North 100,000 to 199,999 SF $6,461.32 3 $6,716.00 2 Orange County $5,323.00 4 Winter Garden North 200,000 to 299,999 SF $7,244.20 1 #N/A 0 #N/A $6,983.00 2 Winter Garden South 300,000 to 399,999 SF $7,372.09 1 #N/A 0 #N/A $6.195.00 2 Winter Garden South 00,000 to 499,999 SF $7,341.22 1 #N/A 0 #N/A $5,668.00 2 Winter Garden South 500,000 to 999.999 SF $8.035.31 1 #N/A 0 #N/A $5,220.00 2 Winter Garden South 1,000,000 to 1,250,000 SF $8.339.14 1 #N/A 0 #N/A $2,925.00 2 Orlando greater than 1,250,000 SF $8,031.30 1 #N/A 0 #N/A $2,813.00 2 Oviedo Restaurant, Quality $28,178.82 1 #N/A 0 #N/A $11,259.00 2 Orlando Restaurant, High Turnover (Sit-Down) $25,893.39 1 #N/A 0 #N/A $13,529.00 2 Orange County Restaurant, Fast Food $27,482.90 3 $29.450.00 2 Winter Garden North $25,451.43 4 Mamonte Springs utomobile Care Center $4,233.32 1 #N/A 0 #N/A $2.843.00 2 Orange County utomobile Sales $10,616.59 1 #N/A 0 #N/A $3,542.00 2 Winter Garden South Gas/Service Station (GSS) $7,017.57 2 $9,098.00 1 Winter Garden South $7,004.00 3 Winter Garden North GSS w/ Convenience Mart & car wash $18.964.55 1 #N/A 0 #N/A $8,786.00 2 Winter Garden South Self Service Car Wash $5,995.08 1 #N/A 0 #N/A $4,000.00 2 Oviedo Supermarket $19,181.45 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Convenience Market (Open 24 Hours) $37,049.94 2 $39,834.00 1 Winter Garden South $30,665.00 3 Winter Garden North PharmacylDrugstore $9,116.24 1 #N/A 0 #N/A $8,526.00 2 Winter Garden South Drive-In Bank $10,391.86 5 $10,792.00 4 Orlando $10.000.00 6 Oviedo Church (Weekday) $3,539.87 1 #N/A 0 #N/A $800.00 2 Oviedo Day Care Center $8,870.61 1 #N/A 0 #N/A $5,250.00 2 Winter Garden South Hospital $6,259.94 1 #N/A 0 #N/A $3.970.00 2 Winter Garden South Nursing Home $594.28 1 #N/A 0 #N/A $245.00 2 Oviedo Golf Course $18,643.07 1 #N/A 0 #N/A $2,372.84 2 Casselberry Mu~ipurpose Recreational Facility $1,692.73 3 $6,000.53 2 Casselberry #N/A 4 #N/A Movie Theater w/matinee $7,106.59 5 $10,180.83 4 Casselberry #N/A 6 #N/A ~ht Industrial $3,328.52 1 #N/A 0 #N/A $1.742.00 2 Orange County IManufacturing $1,824.24 1 #N/A 0 #N/A $963.00 2 Orange County Warehousing $2,368.64 1 #N/A 0 #N/A $1.238.00 2 Orange County Mini-Warehouse $895.91 1 #N/A 0 #N/A $591.00 2 Winter Garden South Truck Terminal $4,703.86 1 #N/A 0 #N/A #N/A 2 #N/A n ~ Background mpact fees adopted ~ Cu rrent traffic 1998 o Fees assessed by land use category for new development Fund the cost to provide additional roadway capacity to serve new growth Major funding source for roadway projects in Ocoee o o o Why Update? Accurately account for rapid increase n roadway costs Ensure that new development pays its fair share for roadway capacity consumed - Prevents shifting burden to existing taxpayers Ensure impact fees remain legally defensible (rationa I nexus) Other recent traffic impact fee updates: - Orange County, Winter Garden, Osceola County, others o o o o I11pact Fee COl11ponents D Travel - the amount of travel generated by new development - Trip length, trip rate, percent of new trips Travel cost - the cost to provide new roadway capacity Travel credit - reductions based on other transportation costs/fees new development pays o o o Findings · Recommended fees are 1130/0 increase - Justified based on technical analysis and current roadway costs - Favorable to recent Orange County and Winter Garden updates · Recommended fees would generate approximately $3 million annually, $71 million by 2025 · Estimated roadway costs through 2025 are $164 million · Even at full increase, new fees would fund only 440/0 of identified roadway priorities; $92 million shortfall Fee Reductions Potential Two methods - Across-the-board discount factor o - Phase-in of rates over time Policy decision, not technically based Advantages: fee increase more palatable, less incentive for legal scrutiny Disadvantages: reduced revenue collection, burden of difference falls to existing community . . o Fee COl11parison Sal11ple Example Land Use Unit Current Fee Recommended Category Fee Single Family DU $1,865.97 $3,968.60 Multi-Family (Apartment) DU $1,292.73 $2,749.41 Hotel/Motel Room $1,618.93 $3,443.19 Office (less than lOOk SF) 1000 SF $2,977.60 $6,332.83 Retail (100-200k SF) 1000 SF $3,031.10 $6,461.32 GLA Fast Food Restaurant 1000 SF $12,922.02 $27,482.90 Gas Station Pump $3,299.55 $7,017.57 Bank 1000 SF $4,886.08 $10,391.86 Warehousing 1000 SF $1,113.70 $2,368.64 Mini-Warehouse 1000 SF $387.54 $895.91 City of Ocoee City COl11l11ission Proposed Traffic Impact Fee Revisions March 15, 2005 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OCOEE, FLORIDA RELATING TO ROAD IMPACT FEES; AMENDING SECTION 87-2 OF ARTICLE I OF CHAPTER 87 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF OCOEE RELATING TO INTENT, PURPOSE AND BASIS; AMENDING SECTION 87-5 OF ARTICLE I OF CHAPTER 87 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF OCOEE RELATING TO ALTERNATIVE FEE CALCULATIONS; PROVIDING FOR REVIEW DEPOSITS TO BE ESTABLISHED BY RESOLUTION; AMENDING SECTION 87-9 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF OCOEE RELATING TO EXEMPTIONS; LIMITING THE EXEMPTION FOR BUILDINGS OWNED BY CERTAIN ORGANIZATIONS; REPEALING SECTION 87-14 OF ARTICLE I OF CHAPTER 87 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF OCOEE RELATING TO SCHEDULED FEES; ADOPTING A NEW SECTION 87-14 ESTABLISHING A REVISED ROAD IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE OF FEES WHICH SCHEDULE INCREASES THE ROAD IMPACT FEES PAYABLE TO THE CITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Ocoee has the authority to adopt this Ordinance pursuant to Article VIII of the Constitution of the State of Florida and Chapter 166, Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Ocoee desires to adopt a revised Road Impact Fee Schedule of Fees; provided, however, that the existing fees shall apply to any new buildings for which a building permit application has been submitted to the City on or prior to the effective date of this Ordinance and for which a building permit is issued within ninety (90) days from the date of adoption of this Ordinance; and 006.330515.3 WHEREAS, the City has conducted an update to that certain City of Ocoee Transportation Impact Fee Update, dated November 1998, and according to this update has made a determination as to the necessary impact fees. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF OCOEE, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Authoritv. The City Commission of Ocoee has the authority to adopt this Ordinance pursuant to Article VIII of the Constitution of the State of Florida and Chapter 166, Florida Statutes. SECTION 2. The existing Section 87-2 of Article I of Chapter 87 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Ocoee, Florida is hereby amended to read as follows (with deletions stricken and additions underlined): 006.330515.3 ~ 87-2. Intent; purpose; basis. A. This article is intended to implement and be consistent with the City of Ocoee Comprehensive Plan and Ocoee Transportation Master Plan. B. The purpose of this article is to ensure that new development pays a fair share of the anticipated costs of needed city road system improvements necessary to serve new development. c. This article is based on an inventory of facility costs and capacity, an estimate of transportation demand, an analysis of projected credits for developer contributions and the development of an impact fee schedule contained in a report entitled "City of Ocoee Transportation Impact Fee Update" dated November 1998. as undated bv that certain City of Ocoee Transnortation Imnact Fee Undate Final Renort nublished November. 2004. D. The intent of the City Commission is to periodically revise this article to adjust the fee schedule to reflect changes in growth patterns in the City of Ocoee and changes in cost of constructing new roadway facilities. -2- SECTION 3. The existing Section 87-5 of Article I of Chapter 87 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Ocoee, Florida is hereby amended to read as follows (with deletions stricken and additions underlined): ~ 87-5. Alternative fee calculation. A. In the event that an applicant believes the impact of his new building on the roadway network will be less than that derived utilizing the Schedule of Fees in ~ 87-14, the applicant may submit an alternative road impact fee calculation to the Development Review Committee. The Development Review Committee shall review the data, information and assumptions used by the applicant as part of the alternative road impact fee calculation methodology to determine whether the requirements of this section are satisfied. If the Development Review Committee finds that the requirements of this section are satisfied, it shall review the results of the study and determine the applicant's alternative road impact fee for recommendation to the City Commission. If the Development Review Committee finds the requirements of this section are not satisfied, it shall recommend to the City Commission the Road Impact Fee Schedule set forth in ~ 87-14 for the applicant. The decision of the City Commission as to the use of an alternative road impact fee or the Road Impact Fee Schedule shall be [mal and binding on the applicant. B. The alternative road impact fee calculations shall be based on data, information or assumptions contained in the City of Ocoee Transportation Impact Fee Update, dated November 1998. as undated bv that certain City of Ocoee Transnortation Imnact Fee Un date Final Renort nublished November. 2004. and shall be compatible with assumptions used for development of a standards-driven impact fee calculation, provided that: (1) The independent source is an accepted standard source of transportation engineering or planning data; (2) The independent source is a local study carried out by a qualified traffic planner possessing membership in the American Institute of Certified Planners or a professional engineer licensed by the State of Florida pursuant to an accepted methodology of transportation planning or engineering; or (3) If a prior applicant submitted during a prior approval process a traffic impact study consistent with the criteria required by this section and if that study is determined by the Development Review Committee to still be valid, the traffic impacts of the new building shall be presumed to be as 006.330515.3 -3- described in such prior study. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that a traffic impact study which is more than two years old is invalid. C. The trip length, diversion and capture factor used in the alternative road impact fee calculation shall be based on actual surveys conducted in the City of Ocoee or Orange County or based on professional studies, including commonly used references. For the purposes of the alternative road impact fee calculation, the diversion and capture factor shall be the percentage of average daily trips that a proposed use will generate that constitute new or additional trips added to roadways identified within the Ocoee Transportation Master Plan. Those trips that do not represent additional trip ends shall not be counted as new or additional trips. D. The new building shall be presumed to generate the maximum number of average daily trips to be generated by the most intensive use permitted under the applicable land development regulations, such as the Comprehensive Plan or zoning regulations, or under applicable deed or plat restrictions. E. The cost of the city review of the alternative road impact fee calculation shall be paid by the applicant. Upon submittal of the alternative road impact fee calculation by the applicant, the city shall collect a review deoosit from the annlicant. such review deoosit shall from time to time be established bv the Citv Commission bv resolution flat fce of $500 and a revic'l,- deposit of $1,000 from the applicant. Section 1-12 of Article I of the Land Development Code (Chapter 180 of the Code of Ordinances of the City), as it may from time to time be amended, shall be followed when collecting review fees and deposits under this section. SECTION 4. The existing Section 87-9 of Article I of Chapter 87 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Ocoee, Florida is hereby amended to read as follows (with deletions stricken and additions underlined): ~ 87-9. Exemptions. The following shall be exempt from payment of the road impact fee: A. Those buildings which have been issued a certificate of occupancy prior to March 21, 1989; provided that the foregoing shall not create an exemption from this article as it relates to increases in the square footage of any such building footprint. 006.330515.3 -4- B. Publicly owned and operated buildings used for general governmental purposes, including public schools, libraries, community centers, and similar tax supported structures. C, Buildings owned by a fraternal, benevolent, charitable, eleemosynary, philanthropic, altruistic, civic, community, veteran, educational or other nonprofit organization for which a buildinl! oermit aoolication has been submitted to the City on or orior to the effective date of this Ordinance and for which a buildinl! oermit is issued within ninety (90) days from the date of adootion of this Ordinance: orovided. however. that the forel!oinl! shall not create an exemotion from this article as it relates to increases in the SQuare footal!e of any such buildinl! footorint. D. Additions to or expansions of single-family residential buildings. SECTION 5. The existing Section 87-14 of Article I of Chapter 87 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Ocoee, Florida is hereby repealed in its entirety and the following is hereby adopted in lieu thereof: ~ 87-14. Schedule of Fees. The road impact fees shall be as follows: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference made a part of this Ordinance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the fees in place immediately prior to the adoption of this Ordinance shall apply to any new buildings for which a building permit application has been submitted to the City on or prior to the effective date of this Ordinance and for which a building permit is issued within ninety (90) days from the date of adoption of this Ordinance. SECTION 6. Severabilitv, If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion hereto, SECTION 7. Codification. It is the intention of the City Commission of the City that the provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made a part of the Code of 006.330515.3 -5- Ordinances of the City; and that sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered or relettered and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "chapter", "section", "article", or such other appropriate word or phrase in order to accomplish such intentions; and regardless of whether such inclusion in the Code is accomplished, sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered or relettered and the correction of typographical errors which do not affect the intent may be authorized by the City Manager, without need of public hearing, by filing a corrected or recodified copy of same with the City Clerk. SECTION 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon passage and adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED this _ day of ,2005. APPROVED: ATTEST: CITY OF OCOEE, FLORIDA Beth Eikenberry, City Clerk S. Scott Vandergrift, Mayor (SEAL) ADVERTISED ,2005 AND ,2005 READ FIRST TIME ,2005 READ SECOND TIME AND ADOPTED , 2005 UNDER AGENDA ITEM NO. FOR USE AND RELIANCE ONLY BY THE CITY OF OCOEE, FLORIDA; APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY this _ day of , 2005. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP By: City Attorney 006.330515.3 -6- Attachment "A" City of Ocoee Road Impact Fee Schedule of Fees Land Use: Unit of Measure Net Impact Fee RESIDENTIAL -~ Sinale Family Dwellina Unit $3,968.60 Apartment Dwelling Unit $2,749.41 CondominiumlTownhouse Dwellina Unit $2,430.10 - ~._"...- - Dwelling Unit $1,994.67 Mobile Home Congregate Care Facility Dwelling Unit .- $891.59 LODGING Hotel-Motel --.... --.- Occupied Room $3,443.19 OFFICE -- less than 100,000 SF 1,000 SF $6,332.83 100,000 to 200,000 SF -~----- ~. 1,000 SF $4,908.02 greater than 200,000 SF 1,000 SF $4,359.50 Medical-Dental -~ 1,000 SF $13,087.64 ~ Business Park ~-~~_-J.OOO SF $4,612.33 RETAil --. less than 50,000 SF .- 1,000 SF GLA $9,258.39 -- --- 49,999 to 100,000 SF 1,000 SF GLA $6,127.00 100,000 to 199,999 SF -- 1,000 SF GLA --- - ---- $6,461.32 200,000 to 299,999 SF 1,000 SF GLA .-- $7,244.20 300,000 to 399,999 SF 1,000 SF GLA $7,372.09 400,000 to 499,999 SF 1,000 SF GLA $7,341.22 500,000 to 999,999 SF --.-- 1,000 SF GLA $8,035.31 1,000,000 to 1,250,000 SF 1,000 SF GLA $8,339.14 greater than 1,250,000 SF 1,000 SF GLA .- -- $8,031.30 Restaurant, Quality 1,000 SF $28,178.82 Restaurant, High Turnover (Sit-Down) 1,000 SF -- -- $25,893.39 Restaurant, Fast Food 1,000 SF $27,482.90 Automobile Care Center 1,000 SF $4,233.32 Automobile Sales 1,000 SF $10,616.59 Gas/Service Station (GSS) Fuelina Position $7,017.57 -- GSS w/ Convenience Mart & car wash Fueling Position 1----.----.-- $18,964.55 -- Self Service Car Wash ._-~ 1----- Stall $5,995.08 - Supermarket 1,000 SF $19,181.45 Convenience Market (Open 24 Hours) 1,000 SF $37,049.94 Pharmacy/Drugstore 1,000 SF $9,116~ SERVICES Drive-In Bank 1,000 SF -- ----- $10,391.86 INSTITUTIONAL Church (Weekday) . - -- 1,000 SF $3,539.87 Day Care Center 1,000 SF $8,870.61 MEDICAL -- Hospital 1,000 SF $6,259.94 Nursina Home 1,000 SF $594.28 ,--_RECREATIONAL Golf Course Holes $18,643.07 Multipurpose Recreational Facility NA $1,692.73 Movie Theater w/matinee Per Screen $7,106.59 INDUSTRIAL Light Industrial 1,000 SF $3,328.52 Man ufacturing ...-.--. 1,000 SF $1,824.24 Warehousing 1,000 SF -- $2,368.64 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 SF -- $895.91 PORT AND TERMINAL Truck Terminal 1,000 SF $4,703.86 Home Builders Association Questions Kirk Sorenson, PhD. Governmental Solutions, Inc. HBA Impact Fee Consultant . 1st Public Meeting held on February 11, 2005 . 2nd Public Meeting held on February 25, 2005 GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS "Heeting Today's Challenges" February 7, 2005 Public Finance Mr. Terry L. James, Principal Planner Planning Division, Community Development Department City ofOcoee 150 N. Lakeshore Drive Ocoee, Florida 34761 5596 SE Lamay Dr. Stuart, FL 34997 (772) 781-4036 Fax: (772) 286-2226 Cell: (561) 704-1314 Subject: City ofOcoee Impact Fee Update Questions Reference: City ofOcoee Impact Fee Updates www.govsolutions.org Dear Mr. James, ksor@bellsouth.net Please find attached several questions regarding the City's impact fee updates for Transportation, Fire, Police, and Parks & Recreation. The Home Builders Association of Metro Orlando, in conjunction with our professional staff, is presenting these questions for the Friday, February 11 th workshop. We are grateful for this opportunity and look forward to Friday's discussion. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (772) 781-4036. Sincerely, JCt4S~ Impact Fees . Market Studies . Strategic Planning . Fiscal Impact . Quality Mgmt. . Economic Analysis . Demographics Kirk Sorenson, Government Solutions Cc: Rick McKee, Home Builders Association of Metro Orlando Robert Frank, City Manager Paul Rosenthal, City Attorney Russ Wagner, Community Development Director 1 Questions Regarding the City of Ocoee Impact Fee Updates 1. Transportation Impact Fee Update The Update calculates attributable road construction cost at $2.3 million per lane mile. This is based on only 3 city road projects and 2 county road projects. Why are the other projects listed in the CIP omitted from the cost calculations? Are there previously constructed roads that could be used as a standard to better calculate the lane mile cost? Typically, the total cost per lane-mile should be based on the aggregate cost of design, ROW, and new construction costs. The Update does not identify the specific transportation cost elements. This makes it difficult to analyze the average lane mile cost for anomalies. Would the City provide this data to allow us to conduct a thorough review of the transportation impact fees? The Main Street expansion project costs are 79% greater than the average costs of the other road projects. This cost is considered atypical based on excessive ROW costs and should be excluded from the analysis. Would the City be willing to exclude the project from the fee calculations? The CIP and Update does not identify specific revenue sources used by each road project. Many of the road projects appear to be funded by grants, developer contributions, or other sources (other than impact fees). These revenue sources should be clearly identified in the CIP and Update. Revenue credit should be applied in the calculation if "other than impact fee funds" are being used. Would the City please provide the necessary backup data used to calculate "other than impact fee" revenue? The Update references a 20-year planning horizon to calculate revenue credits (based on the Comprehensive Plan). This credits equate to about $1-million per year in other sources of revenue applied to road projects. The 2003 CIP indicates the generation of substantial revenue from funding sources other than impact fees. A 5-year projection of cost and revenue will result in more accurate data as opposed to a 20-year period. How are these revenues accounted for in the Update? Normally gas tax revenues collected in the current year should be credited to new development over a 25-year amortization period, at the prevailing discount rate. The Update does not adequately address the collection and use of local option gas tax revenue. What is the data source used to calculate the revenue credits? The Update does not provide the necessary data to verify the VMT calculation. A worksheet should provide the trip rates, trip lengths, and new trip factors for each land use category. Would the City be willing to provide this information? 2 2. Fire Impact Fee Update Typically, capital facility needs that are not created by new development are not used in the calculation of total facility costs. These costs are normally financed with other revenue sources. In addition, the ratio of 50% funded by impact fees based on the 2020 population does not correspond to the CIP requirements and lacks rational nexus. Please explain the methodology used to calculate facility cost data? The facility costs are typically based on the LOS per demand unit. What is the level of service used in the Update (i.e. square foot per weighted or functional population)? Residential and nonresidential impact fees should be broken down by specific land uses (i.e. single-family, multi-family, retail, office, etc.). The facility cost should be applied based on those consuming the service, such as land use functional population projections. Would the City be willing to add these categories to the Update? Past and future revenue credits should be applied in the calculation to account for tax payments made by new development for capital facilities. Other revenue sources should also be identified. How is the City accounting for these revenue credits? 3. Police Impact Fee Update A 5-year CIP should be used to determine anticipated facility cost per weighted resident. This cost data can be used to determine the future facility cost based on the service requirements of new development. Please explain how the facility costs are calculated for new development? The LOS could be determined by the existing facility area per weighted resident. This would then be used to determine the projected cost per new resident. Are the facility cost based on the existing LOS? The Update uses 20-year law enforcement needs assessment to determine the short- term impact fees for new development. Would the City be willing to use the 5-year capital plan to determine facility costs? Residential and nonresidential impact fees are normally broken down by land use (Le. single-family, multi-family, retail, office, etc.). The cost should be applied based on a demand component, such as functional population at each type of land use. Would the City be willing to add these categories in the Update? There are no revenue credits for past or future tax payments made by new development for new capacity. Would the City be willing to include these factors in the impact fee calculation? 3 4. Parks & Recreation Impact Fee Update Typically, facility needs are based on a 5-year CIP rather than a 20-year growth management plan. This would ensure the benefits principles are achieved. Would the City be willing to use the adopted CIP to determine facility cost data? In most impact fee studies, the cost per weighted resident is used to determine future costs per resident (at existing levels of service). What demand components are used in the Update to determine cost per resident or dwelling unit? Past and future tax payments should be accounted for in the calculation to ensure new development is not double charged for the same capital facility. How is the City accounting for these revenue credits? To ensure new development is receiving the required benefit from the new facility, they should be located near the planned new development or existing resident should contribute to the facility costs. Are the planned recreational facilities located geographically near areas of future growth or are they serving the entire City? Typically, additional housing categories are represented in impact fee studies, such as multi-family, hotel, mobile home, and retirement home. The fee should be based on the weighted resident is each type of housing unit. Would the City be willing to use additional residential land use categories? 4 Impact Fee Methodology Questions Page 1 of 1 James, Terry From: Kirk Sorenson [ksor@bellsouth.net] Sent: Monday, February 28,2005 12:52 PM To: James, Terry; Wagner, Russ; Rick McKee (E-mail) Subject: Impact Fee Methodology Issues Hey Terry, I am finalizing our recommendations regarding the Ocoee impact fee updates. As we previously discussed, the following data will be required prior to our final report. If you can get this to me today I will provide our report to you tomorrow. Thanks for your cooperation, Kirk Sorenson (772) 781-4036/Fax: (772) 286-2226 Parks 1. Current parkland deficiencies as of 2004 (Table 10 identifies unfunded deficiencies, please list these items). 2. Latest impact fee trust fund report for FY ending 2003 and 2004. Fire 1. Latest impact fee trust fund report for FY ending 2003 and 2004. 2. What was the $9.6 million in outstanding debt used for? 3.2004 estimated commercial property in City. 4. The 2000 and 2004 existing inventory is identical. Please provide the current existing facility inventory. 5. Taxable value of a) developed land in city b) vacant land in city. Police 1. Current inventory of capital facilities (i.e. HQ) as of 2004 (with estimated sq.ft. and cost if available) 2. Latest impact fee trust fund report for FY ending 2003 and 2004. Roads 1. Latest impact fee trust fund report for FY ending 2003 and 2004. 2. 5-year revenue and expenditure report (capital only). 3/4/2005 City of Ocoee Community Development Department March 7, 2005 HBAlSORENSON IMPACT FEE QUESTIONS-2/23/05 1. How many gas tax dollars collected by Orange County and the State were expended in Ocoee for capacity-adding road projects? The Finance Department is compiling the requested data. 2. Could you provide a 5-year history of municipal gas tax revenue collection and appropriation? The Finance Department is compiling the requested data. HBAlSORENSON IMPACT FEE QUESTIONS-2/28/05 Parks 1. Current parkland deficiencies as of 2004 (Table 10 identifies unfunded deficiencies, please list these items). The only deficiency is one soccer field as indicated in the report. 2. Latest impact fee trust fund report for FY ending 2003 and 2004. Sent separately via e-mail on 3/1/05. Fire 1. Latest impact fee trust fund report for FY ending 2003 and 2004. Sent separately via e-mail on 3/1/05. 2. What was the $9.6 million in outstanding debt used for? Three fire stations and the associated land purchases. 3. 2004 estimated commercial property in City. The City does not have this data. 4. The 2000 and 2004 existing inventory is identical. Please provide the current existing facility inventory. Data is pending. 5. Taxable value of a) developed land in city b) vacant land in city. The City does not have this data. File: H:\DEVELOPMENT REVIEWS\lmpact Fees\HBA-Sorenson Coord_Questions\HBA Impact Fee Questions_Summary .doc Page 1 of 2 City of Ocoee Community Development Department March 7, 2005 Police 1. Current inventory of capital facilities (Le. HQ) as of 2004 (with estimated sq. ft. and cost if available) 7,816 square feet for the police headquarters. The cost information will be provided by the Finance Department as soon as possible. 2. Latest impact fee trust fund report for FY ending 2003 and 2004. Sent separately via e-mail on 3/1/05. Roads 1. Latest impact fee trust fund report for FY ending 2003 and 2004 Sent separately via e-mail on 3/1/05. 2. 5-year revenue and expenditure report (capital only). This information was sent via e-mail on 3/2/05 @ 3:24 pm. Bold-Italics-Red = Outstanding questions. File: H:\DEVELOPMENT REVIEWS\lmpact Fees\HBA-Sorenson Coord_Questions\HBA Impact Fee Questions_Summary .doc Page 2 of 2 Community Development Department (Roads) Questions Regarding the City of Ocoee Impact Fee Updates Transportation Impact Fee Update 1. The Update calculates attributable road construction cost at $ 2.3 million per lane mile. This is based on only 3 city road projects and 2 county road projects. Why are the other projects listed in the CIP omitted from the cost calculations? Are there previously constructed roads that could be used as a standard to better calculate the lane mile cost? Response: Road construction costs used in the TIF calculation must be based on major capacity- addinB (widening) projects (as opposed to resurfacing or intersection types of projects). The five projects used represent all recent such projects in Ocoee for which construction had commenced, was fully funded, or was programmed in the CIP. Given the rapid increase in ROWand construction costs and the fact that TIF ordinances are updated frequently, using previously constructed roadways in the cost analysis may not yield the most accurate results. We are also not aware of any such projects that would be applicable. 2. Typically, the total cost per lane-mile should be based on the aggregate cost of design, ROW, and new construction costs. The Update does not identify the specific transportation cost elements. This makes it difficult to analyze the average lane mile cost for anomalies. Would the City provide this data to allow us to conduct a thorouoh review of the transportation impact fees? Response: While not line-itemed in a table, the cost of each phase for each project is contained in the formula used to calculate each project cost (simply the sum of the cost of each phase) in the Excel file containing the costs worksheet which we can provide. Project phase costs are also contained in the documents cited to derive the project costs (Ocoee and Orange County's Capital Improvement Programs). 3. The Maine Street expansion project costs are 79% greater than the average costs of the other road projects. This cost is considered atypical based on excessive ROW costs and should be excluded from the analysis. Would the City be willino to exclude the projectfrom the fee calculations? Response: In calculating the average cost per lane mile, we strived to ensure fairness in how the cost was calculated. For this reason, based on the seven major capacity-adding projects identified, we purposefully excluded the projects with the highest cost per lane mile (Maguire Road widening) as well as the lowest (one segment of the Old Winter Garden Road widening). Both projects could have legitimately been included, and it is worth noting that the result of doing so would have been an average cost per lane mile of $2.47 million, rather than the $2.33 million we used. Additionally, our calculation compares favorably with FDOT's Transportation Costs Handbook and Metroplan's 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan, as shown on the costs worksheet in the Excel database. Finally, given the concern stated above of the number of projects included in the cost calculation, we would not recommend excluding another project, which would result in the calculation being based on only two City projects (and two Orange County projects). Page 1 4. The CIP and Update does not identify specific revenue sources used by each road project. Many of the road projects appear to be funded by grants, developer contributions, or other sources (other than impact fees). These revenue sources should be clearly identified in the CIP and Update. Revenue credit should be applied in the calculation if "other than impact fee funds" are being used. Would the City please provide the necessary backup data used to calculate "other than impact fee" revenue? Response: While the City may use other revenue sources as are available on certain projects, this varies tremendously from project to project, and cannot be guaranteed as a reliable revenue source for a "typical" roadway project. (This also does not speak to Orange County's financing arrangements, since County road projects are also included in the calculations.) More importantly, this question confuses the cost and credit analyses of the TIF update. Review of the CIP is done only to establish recent, average roadway costs. Treatment of revenues and credits is more global in nature, again because of the substantial variability inherent in financing individual projects. As indicated in the report, the City's Finance Department has indicated that the only potential revenue sources used to fund major capacity-adding roadway projects over time are LOGT and utility franchise fees. However, the Finance Department indicated that both revenue sources have not been historically or currently, or are projected to be, applied towards such projects. Instead, they are typically used for maintenance/resurfacing or landscaping projects. This condition is the same as that reported in the 1998 TIF update. As with that update, we generously assumed that up to 20 percent of these revenues would be used on major capacity-adding projects anyway, and this is reflected in the credit calculation. This still results in a $92.1 million revenue shortfall (56 percent) by 2025. To decrease the revenue generated from the TIF even further based on the assumption that a certain amount or percentage of private or other funds will be available on every future roadway project is not fiscally responsible. 5. The Update references a 20-year planning horizon to calculate revenue credits (based on the Comprehensive Plan). This credits equate to about $l-million per year in other sources of revenue applied to road projects. The 2003 CIP indicates the generation of substantial revenue from funding sources other than impact fees. A 5-year projection of cost and revenue will result in more accurate data as opposed to a 20-year period. How are these revenues accounted for in the Update? Response: As with the 1998 TIF update, the 20 year planning horizon is used consistently for all components of the TIF calculation, including the amount of new growth and VMT generated by new growth. The 20 year timeframe is used to match the City's Comprehensive Plan as well as the socioeconomic data developed by Metroplan which is used to calculate new growth. Using an "interim" year as the basis of these calculations would therefore not be ideal. As with the previous question, citing revenue breakdowns from the CIP is not appropriate as it reflects only a one-time "snapshot" of varying financing arrangements on a relatively small number of projects. If a different CIP reflected very small amounts of other, non-LOGT, revenues for a given set of projects, we would guess that would not be advocated as the source for the revenue and credit calculations in the TIF. Additionally, since it has already been established that the City cannot reliably count on other, non-TIF revenues to fund major roadway projects, choosing any given timeframe between now and 2025 is somewhat of an academic exercise. The computations associated with the report do show costs and revenues in five year increments, but this is for illustrative purposes. Page 2 6. Normally gas tax revenues collected in the current year should be credited to new development over a 25-year amortization period, at the prevailing discount rate. The Update does not adequately address the collection and use oflocal option gas tax revenue. What is the data source used to calculate the revenue credits? Response: The report indicates that the "projected revenues are not discounted to the net present value because it is assumed that impact fee revenues will be invested at a rate at least equal to the discount rate until they are spent." The amount of LOGT and utility franchise fee revenues was obtained from the City Finance Department based on FY 2002 collections and extrapolated to 2025. 7. The Update does not provide the necessary data to verify the VMT calculation. A worksheet should provide the trip rates, trip lengths, and new trip factors for each land use category. Wauld the City be willina to provide this information? Response: All of this information is contained in the Excel database contammg the TIF calculations which we can provide. As indicated in the report, the trip lengths, trip rates, and percent new trips were generally reviewed for reasonableness in this update, but no changes were made from the 1998 update. For trip rates in particular, the 1998 update used the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 6th Edition which was also the most current source at the time the analysis for this update was conducted. Page 3 Impact Fee Methodology Questions Page 1 of5 James, Terry From: Jacob Riger [jriger@citiesthatwork.com] Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 3:06 PM To: 'Jacob Riger'; 'Kirk Sorenson'; James, Terry; 'Whit Blanton (E-mail)' Cc: Wagner, Russ; Rosenthal, Paul Subject: RE: Impact Fee Methodology Questions As agreed at today's meeting, I've done some follow-up research regarding the issue of the discount rate and credit calculation. I inadvertently mis-characterized how this was handled. It had been many months since we did the calculations, and I apologize for any confusion. Here's the situation: The 1998 report did apply a discount factor of seven percent. The rationale for this from the report (attached - see Page 3-2) is as follows: "In order to calculate the revenue amount in terms of 1998 dollars, the 22-year LOGT revenue stream had to be adjusted using a discount rate. Ocoee's Finance Department does not have an established discount rate. Orange County uses a discount rate of 5.5 percent for its impact fee update, which is based on its current rate of return on investments. For this impact fee update, a discount rate of seven percent is assumed. This estimate is considered conservative because it results in a lower present (1998) value than the 5.5 percent discount rate." In the update, we used the exact same methodology. We were given current year LOGT and utility franchise fee collections by the Finance Department as well as projected annual increases (which were six percent or seven percent for each revenue stream). We then used this information and the seven percent discount factor to calculate revenue projections through 2025. This is the same process that was used in the 1998 report. Hope this helps to clear up this issue. Thanks. Jacob M. Riger, AICP Senior Planner Renaissance Planning Group 1850 Bassett Street, #625 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 352-0061 (303) 352-0058 fax www.citiesthatwork.com From: Jacob Riger [mailto:jriger@citiesthatwork.com] Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 4:08 PM To: 'Kirk Sorenson'; 'James, Terry'; 'Whit Blanton (E-mail)' Cc: 'Wagner, Russ' Subject: RE: Impact Fee Methodology Questions See responses to the questions below. Thanks. Jacob M. Riger, AICP Senior Planner Renaissance Planning Group 1850 Bassett Street, #625 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 352-0061 (303) 352-0058 fax www.citiesthatwork.com 3/412005 Impact Fee Methodology Questions Page 2 of5 From: Kirk Sorenson [mailto:ksor@bellsouth.net] Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 10:51 AM To: 'Jacob Riger'; 'James, Terry'; 'Whit Blanton (E-mail)' Cc: 'Wagner, Russ' Subject: RE: Impact Fee Methodology Questions After reviewing my files I do have the excel file with the calculations. Below are a couple other questions for your consideration. I am sure this information is readily available. Thanks, Kirk 1. The current study does appear to adjust trip length to reflect travel on only impact fee funded local roads. The Update suggests that local impact fee dollars will be appropriated to some County roads. I recommend maintaining the same methodology for determining trip length (i.e. 40.4% on City roads only) otherwise there will need to be a credit component for County and State gas tax dollars used in Ocoee, since funding for many of these road projects is derived from local, county, and state sources combined. City residents continue to pay State and County gas taxes and should be afforded a proportional share to these revenue credits to ensure a fair share impact fee is calculated. Response: In this update, we did include travel on both city roads and county roads (but not state roads) as part of the VMT calculation based on the recognition that the City has funded improvements to County roadways and will likely need to continue to do so in the future. The recent four laning of Maguire Road is an example of this. The City has also participated in funding the pending four laning of Old Winter Garden Road. We agree that interesting jurisdictional issues are raised in this type of situation, but we feel we are being conservative for several reasons: · We do not typically see TIF studies that even bother to make these jurisdictional distinctions (except perhaps for freeways and toll roads). If we had included state roads for example, the state's unfunded needs for the widening of SR 50 alone would have substantially increased the impact fee. · Because this is a consumption-based, not improvements-based TIF, we did not directly use the regional traffic model for any calculations and did not update the VMT percentages from the 1998 report, which were based on the old traffic model. We believe that using the new traffic model to update these figures would have shown an increase in VMT, which would have resulted in a higher fee. · A project located in the city generating travel on county roads that isn't assessed for travel on county roads is not paying its full fair share. This shouldn't be "double-counting" because a project located in the county generating travel on city roads probably isn't paying for that impact, either. · While it is theoretically possible for the county to improve a county road in the City of Ocoee that benefits Ocoee development, what actually has been happening is that the City has already had to improve county roads in the city that benefit county development. The City doesn't get paid by the County for this benefit. Notwithstanding, we agree that it's difficult to precisely quantify travel, impacts, costs, revenues, and benefits when considering multiple jurisdictions. 2. Local roadway costs provided by Orange County are not consistent with the cost in the 3/4/2005 Impact Fee Methodology Questions Page 3 of5 Update (projects adjacent to the City). Response: As indicated in response to your previous question yesterday, without having had the benefit of Orange County's report at the time, we suspect that they are considering all projects countywide, many of which are likely in relatively undeveloped areas and would result in lower ROWand CST costs. We only considered county projects located in or adjacent to Ocoee. These were taken directly from the County's 5 year CIP. 3. Do you have a list of the planned additional lane miles to be constructed by the County and FOOT. Response: The "Segments" tab of the "HBA.xls" file shows the funded and planned (unfunded) projects for Ocoee through 2025 (see column K for five year funded improvements and column N for 2025 planned improvements) . 4. Could you provide a 5-year revenue history for the Local Option Gas Tax and the Utility Tax. Response: As indicated in response to this question yesterday, this question is best answered by the City of Ocoee Finance Department. Terry is coordinating with them. 5. The cost per VMC increased by 28% while the credit per VMC decreased by 31%. Please provide a brief explanation of the primary variable related to each of these changes? Response: As you know, the biggest factor driving costs is the rapidly-increasing cost per lane mile of additional capacity, which is really driven by substantial increases in ROWand CST costs over time. As for credits, they were determined using the same methodology as the 1998 report, and are based directly on gas tax and utility franchise fee collections by the City's Finance Department. It's not surprising that costs and needs continue to rise faster than revenues - this is the reality that almost all local governments in Florida are facing when it comes to transportation projects. We feel we have been conservative in calculating the updated TIF, such as in which projects were used to calculate roadway costs, the "20 percent" revenue credit, etc, and that the resulting numbers reflect the travel demand and transportation funding realities that Ocoee continues to face. -----Original Message----- From: Jacob Riger [mailto:jriger@citiesthatwork.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 23,20055:05 PM To: 'James, Terry'; 'Whit Blanton (E-mail)' Cc: 'Wagner, Russ'; ksor@bellsouth.net Subject: RE: Impact Fee Methodology Questions To keep the ball rolling, I have provided summary answers to the questions below. I can provide more formal/detailed responses later if needed. Please see responses after each question below. Thanks. Jacob M. Riger, AICP Senior Planner Renaissance Planning Group 1850 Bassett Street, #625 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 352-0061 (303) 352-0058 fax 3/4/2005 Impact Fee Methodology Questions Page 4 of 5 www.citiesthatwork.com From: James, Terry [mailto:tjames@ci.ocoeeJl.us] Sent: Wednesday, February 23,20052:02 PM To: Jacob M. Riger (E-mail); Whit Blanton (E-mail) Cc: Wagner, Russ Subject: FW: Impact Fee Methodology Questions FYI -----Orig i na I Message----- From: Kirk Sorenson [mailto:ksor@bellsouth.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 23,20053:56 PM To: James, Terry Cc: Rick McKee (E-mail) Subject: RE: Impact Fee Methodology Questions Hey Terry, I may have one or two more but this will give your consultant something to consider. Thanks, Kirk Questions Regarding the City of Ocoee Transportation Impact Fee Updates 1. Transportation Impact Fee Update 1. How many gas tax dollars collected by Orange County and the State were expended in Ocoee for capacity-adding road projects? Response: This question is best answered by the Ocoee Finance Department. Terry is going to coordinate with them. 2. The Study reflects a lane-mile cost of $2.33 million based on Ocoee and Orange County average cost data. The table below reflects the Orange County lane-mile cost is $1,652,836. Please explain the discrepancy? Response: Without reading through the Orange County final report in detail, I would guess that they are including projects countywide, many of which are likely in relatively undeveloped areas and would result in lower ROWand CST costs (since the most developed/urbanized portions of Orange County are in municipalities). We only considered Orange County projects located in or adjacent to Ocoee. Their 2004 cost of $1.65 million per lane mile is lower than the $1.78 million cost calculated in Ocoee's 1998 TIF update. (BTW, Orange County's TIF consultant did not produce even a draft report until we had substantially completed our work effort for Ocoee. They did not have more current data available while we were in the process of updating the TIF.) 3/4/2005 Impact Fee Methodology Questions Page 5 of5 19'9'0 1998 Pare.,,! 2QQ4 Par..an! Stud,. Study Change Study Change 5235,252 SS94.557 153'"'8 S525.124 .12-" $68.931 $78.300 1488 5131.018 67... 54 76.880 $611,232 2r.. 5996.694 63.. $181.063 S' .284.089 64-'. 51,652.836 29." 1.500 8.038 78,. 8.249 3.. $104.13 $159.15 53".. $200.37 25.. $30.12 $46.01 53*'. $44.41 .3.... 24.66 24.33 .188 25.20 4.. 24.86 24.33 -18. 39.42 828.. 52.568 $3.887 518.. SS.049 30'!'. 5143 $1120 518. $1 152 56.. S 1.825 $2 767 52-. $3.299 19810 Source: 2004 OC Transportation Impact Fee Study 3. Could you provide a 5-year history of municipal gas tax revenue collection and appropriation? Response: This question is also best answered by the Ocoee finance department. Terry will coordinate with them. 4. Are credits based on the existing ordinance (20% of .Iocal revenues going to capacity) . Response: Yes, the methodology for calculating credits is the same methodology used in the 1998 update, which is that up to 20% of gas tax and utility franchise fee revenues collected by the City could be used to help fund major capacity projects. As indicated previously, this is a generous assumption since the City has not done this historically or currently and does not project doing so in the future. As indicated previously, the City's Finance Department has stated that such funds are spent on maintenance and landscaping projects, not adding capacity. 5. I did not receive the trip rate, trip length, or % new trip information. Response: This information is located in the "HBA.xls" file I emailed to Kirk - the "VMT" tab of the workbook contains all trip data used in the calculations (which are unchanged from the 1998 update). This is also noted on the "documentation" tab of the workbook. 3/4/2005 Vehicle Miles Cost Per VMC Credit Per VMT Net Impact Fee Percent Change Existing Update Analys Update Analys Update Analys Update Analys DIF Update Analysis Land Use Unit (VMT) (VMT) VMC VMC VMT (0%) VMT (0%) RESIDENTIAL Single Family DU 15.31 9.82 $276.14 $245.22 $16.99 $22.32 $3,968.60 2,188.97 1,865.97 113% 17% Apartment DU 10.61 6.80 $276.14 $245.22 $16.99 $22.32 $2,749.41 1,516.50 1,292.73 113% 17% Condominium/Townhouse DU 9.38 6.01 $276.14 $245.22 $16.99 $22.32 $2,430.10 1,340.37 1,142.59 113% 17% Mobile Home DU 7.70 4.94 $276.14 $245.22 $16.99 $22.32 $1,994.67 1,100.20 937.86 113% 17% LODGING Hotel-Motel Rm 13.29 8.52 $276.14 $245.22 $16.99 $22.32 $3,443.19 1,899.17 1,618.93 113% 17% OFFICE less than 100,000 SF 1K SF 24.44 15.67 $276.14 $245.22 $16.99 $22.32 $6,332.83 3,493.01 2,977.60 113% 17% 100,000 to 200,000 SF 1K SF 18.94 12.14 $276.14 $245.22 $16.99 $22.32 $4,908.02 2,707.12 2,307.67 113% 17% greater than 200,000 SF 1KSF 16.82 10.79 $276.14 $245.22 $16.99 $22.32 $4,359.50 2,404.58 2,049.77 113% 17% Medical-Dental Office Building 1K SF 50.50 32.39 $276.14 $245.22 $16.99 $22.32 $13,087.64 7,218.77 6,151.89 113% 17% RETAIL less than 50,000 SF 1K SF 35.73 22.91 $276.14 $245.22 $16.99 $22.32 $9,258.39 5,106.67 4,359.57 112% 17% 49,999 to 100,000 SF 1K SF 23.64 15.16 $276.14 $245.22 $16.99 $22.32 $6,127.00 3,379.48 2,885.07 112% 17% 100,000 to 199,999 SF 1K SF 24.93 15.99 $276.14 $245.22 $16.99 $22.32 $6,461.32 3,563.88 3,031.10 113% 18% 200,000 to 299,999 SF 1K SF 27.95 17.93 $276.14 $245.22 $16.99 $22.32 $7,244.20 3,995.70 3,404.55 113% 17% 300,000 to 399,999 SF 1K SF 28.45 18.24 $276.14 $245.22 $16.99 $22.32 $7,372.09 4,066.24 3,472.09 112% 17% 400,000 to 499,999 SF 1K SF 28.33 18.17 $276.14 $245.22 $16.99 $22.32 $7,341.22 4,049.21 3,450.15 113% 17% 500,000 to 999,999 SF 1K SF 31.01 19.88 $276.14 $245.22 $16.99 $22.32 $8,035.31 4,432.05 3,776.35 113% 17% 1,000,000 to 1,250,000 SF 1K SF 32.18 20.64 $276.14 $245.22 $16.99 $22.32 $8,339.14 4,599.64 3,920.93 113% 17% greater than 1,250,000 SF 1K SF 30.99 19.87 $276.14 $245.22 $16.99 $22.32 $8,031.30 4,429.84 3,776.19 113% 17% Convenience Market with Gaso FP 72.64 46.58 $276.14 $245.22 $16.99 $22.32 $18,824.81 10,383.24 8,851.12 113% 17% Gasoline/Service Station FP 27.08 17.37 $276.14 $245.22 $16.99 $22.32 $7,017.57 3,870.69 3,299.55 113% 17% Restaurant, Fast Food 1KSF 106.05 68.01 $276.14 $245.22 $16.99 $22.32 $27,482.90 15,158.80 12,922.02 113% 17% Restaurant, High Turnover (Sit- 1 K SF 99.92 64.07 $276.14 $245.22 $16.99 $22.32 $25,893.39 14,282.07 12,174.65 113% 17% Restaurant, Quality 1K SF 108.74 69.73 $276.14 $245.22 $16.99 $22.32 $28,178.82 15,542.65 13,249.23 113% 17% New Car Sales 1K SF 40.97 26.27 $276.14 $245.22 $16.99 $22.32 $10,616.59 5,855.81 4,991.75 113% 17% PharmacylDrugstore 1K SF 35.18 22.56 $276.14 $245.22 $16.99 $22.32 $9,116.24 5,028.26 4,286.31 113% 17% Quick Lubrication Vehicle Shop Bay 6.43 4.12 $276.14 $245.22 $16.99 $22.32 $1,665.30 918.53 783.00 113% 17% Wholesale Tire Store Bay 8.34 5.35 $276.14 $245.22 $16.99 $22.32 $2,162.18 1,192.60 1,016.62 113% 17% SERVICES Drive-In Bank 1K SF 23.66 15.17 $276.14 $245.22 $16.99 $22.32 $6,131.43 3,381.93 4,886.08 25% -31% Walk-In Bank 1K SF 40.10 25.71 $276.14 $245.22 $16.99 $22.32 $10,391.86 5,731.86 2,882.90 260% 99% INSTITUTIONAL Day Care Center 1K SF 34.23 21.95 $276.14 $245.22 $16.99 $22.32 $8,870.61 4,892.78 4,170.82 113% 17% MEDICAL Hospital 1K SF 24.16 15.49 $276.14 $245.22 $16.99 $22.32 $6,259.94 3,452.81 2,943.32 113% 17% Nursing Home 1K SF 2.29 1.47 $276.14 $245.22 $16.99 $22.32 $594.28 327.79 279.42 113% 17% INDUSTRIAL Light Industrial 1KSF 12.84 8.24 $276.14 $245.22 $16.99 $22.32 $3,328.52 1,835.92 1,565.01 113% 17% Manufacturing 1K SF 7.04 4.51 $276.14 $245.22 $16.99 $22.32 $1,824.24 1,006.20 857.73 113% 17% Mini-Warehouse 1K SF 3.46 2.22 $276.14 $245.22 $16.99 $22.32 $895.91 494.16 387.54 131% 28% Warehousing 1K SF 9.14 5.86 $276.14 $245.22 $16.99 $22.32 $2,368.64 1,306.48 1,113.70 113% 17% PORT AND TERMINAL Truck Terminal 1K SF 18.15 11.64 $276.14 $245.22 $16.99 $22.32 $4,703.86 2,594.52 2,211.68 113% 17% Transportation Issues Lane Mile Cost. Based on the recent Orange County Impact Fee Update the lane mile cost should be $2,072,150 rather than $2,333,370. Using the same capacity added (8450) the VMC is $245 rather than $276. Jurisdiction Segment Cost Per lane Use th ese Lane Miles Capacity VMC Mile projects Added Added Added Maguire Rd $4 .750 ,444.44 No 0 0 0 Maine Street $3,600,614.92 Yes 2.48 19400 24056 Profesional Parkway $2,097,901.33 Yes 1.5 19400 14550 Old Winter Garden $2,627,172.62 Yes 0.84 20400 8568 Apopka-Vineland $1,412,641.41 Yes 5.82 15100 43941 Old Winter Garden $887,771.68 No 0 0 0 Good Homes Rd $1,928,521.64 Yes 1.34 15100 10117 $2,472.152.58 11.98 89400 101232 Average VMC Added 8450 % Change 2004 Cost for 1 mile of capacity $ 276.14 $ 245.22 14% 1998Cost for 1 mile of capacity $ 215.00 28% Cost Per lane Mile Ocoee Ocoee Ocoee Ocoee Orange Orange Orange $3,600,614.92 $2,097,901 .33 $2,627,172. 62 $1,412,641.41 $1,928,521.64 $2,333,370.38 2,072,150.37 2004 Credit for 1 mile of capacity $ 16.99 1998 Credit for 1 mile of ca acit $ 24.59 -31 % Lane Mile Cost Revenue Credit/Discount Rate The revenue credit (See attachment) in this analysis is based on the same projections in the Update. The only difference is the discount rate. With a more reasonable discount rate of 4.5%, which is the current long-term municipal borrowing rate, the credit component can be calculated at $22.32 compared to the Update's credit of$16.99. VMT Added 2002 -2025 1,141,452 $ $ Total GTiUF Revenues (millions) 96.94 127.39 Percentage i Amount Available for Ca aci (millions) 20% $ 19.39 $ 25.48 Credit per VMT Across the Board Ad'ustment $16.99 $22.32 0% Credit Calculation Trip Length Should be consistent with the 1999 Update and reflect a 40.4% City road use. This would reduce the trip length factor by 36%. The fact that the City is paying for some county roads should not affect the trip length. It will have an affect on the cost data by including these roads in the lane mile cost. As an alternative we could increase the trip length by the percentage of impact fee contributions made to county roadways. Not all county roads are being 100% funded by impact fees. 3 Finance Department Impact Fee Methodology Questions Page lof3 James, Terry From: Horton, Wanda Sent: Tuesday, March 01,20058:26 AM To: James, Terry Subject: RE: Impact Fee Methodology Issues Thanks. From: James, Terry Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 5: 13 PM To: Horton, Wanda Subject: RE: Impact Fee Methodology Issues The last meeting was on 2/25. The HBA is supposed to issue a recommendations report and that is the reason for this information request. There are no additional meetings planned with the HBA. The "game plan" will be discussed at the next City Attorney day with the City Manager, and additional meetings may be scheduled depending on his direction. -----Original Message----- From: Horton, Wanda Sent: Monday, February 28,2005 5:07 PM To: James, Terry Cc: Wagner, Russ; Frank, Robert; Rosenthal, Paul; Bishop, Ed; Carter, Donald Subject: RE: Impact Fee Methodology Issues Terry, Parks-Question 2-- The answer was provided to Johnny Farmer just a few minutes ago. Fire- Question 1- We will provide to the department director. 2- This is the debt for the three fire stations and the land purchases. 5- This information should be provided by GIS (Mike O'Halloren) or someone in planning Police- Question 1- We can provide the cost of buildings but Police should have the square footage 2- We will provide to the department director. Roads- Question 1 We will provide to the department director. 2 This information will have to be compiled because it is not reported separately in the financials. When is your next meeting scheduled? From: James, Terry Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 4:09 PM To: Horton, Wanda Cc: Wagner, Russ; Frank, Robert; Rosenthal, Paul Subject: FW: Impact Fee Methodology Issues As you can see we are still discussing impact fee issues with the HBA. Their impact fee consultant has just submitted another round of questions and the Directors have indicated that your Finance Dept. could 3/412005 Impact Fee Methodology Questions Page 20f3 answer them better than they could. Could you please provide the to the following questions below: . Parks: Question #2 . Fire: Questions #1, 2 & 5 . Police: Question #1 & 2 (cost only) . Roads: Question #1 & 2. . We are trying to wrap up the HBA discussion and react to the HBA report before the 3/15/05 second reading on the impact fee ordinances. Thank you for your cooperation. Terry L. James, AICP Principal Planner Community Development Department-Planning Division City of Ocoee, Florida (407) 905-3100x1018 Fax: (407) 905-3158 E-Mail: tjames@ci.ocoeeJl.us -----Original Message----- From: James, Terry Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 2:24 PM To: Farmer, Johnny; Goclon, Steve; Firstner, Richard; Jacob M. Riger (E-mail) Cc: Wagner, Russ Subject: FW: Impact Fee Methodology Issues FYI - We just received this request from Kirk Sorenson, the Home Builders Assoc. impact fee consultant. Please respond to the questions for your departments and get them back to me ASAP. Don't be concerned if you cannot get to it today -- just do your best. If you have any questions, please contact me at the numbersladdress below. Thank you for your cooperation. Terry L. James, AICP Principal Planner Community Development Department-Planning Division City of Ocoee, Florida (407) 905-3100x1018 Fax: (407) 905-3158 E-Mail: tjames@ci.ocoee.fl.us -----Original Message----- From: Kirk Sorenson [mailto:ksor@bellsouth.net] 3/4/2005 Impact Fee Methodology Questions Page 3 of3 Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 12:52 PM To: James, Terry; Wagner, Russ; Rick McKee (E-mail) Subject: Impact Fee Methodology Issues Hey Terry, I am finalizing our recommendations regarding the Ocoee impact fee updates. As we previously discussed, the following data will be required prior to our final report. If you can get this to me today I will provide our report to you tomorrow. Thanks for your cooperation, Kirk Sorenson (772) 781-4036/Fax: (772) 286-2226 Parks 1. Current parkland deficiencies as of 2004 (Table 10 identifies unfunded deficiencies, please list these items). 2. Latest impact fee trust fund report for FY ending 2003 and 2004. Fire 1. Latest impact fee trust fund report for FY ending 2003 and 2004. 2. What was the $9.6 million in outstanding debt used for? 3. 2004 estimated commercial property in City. 4. The 2000 and 2004 existing inventory is identical. Please provide the current existing facility inventory. 5. Taxable value of a) developed land in city b) vacant land in city. Police 1. Current inventory of capital facilities (i.e. HQ) as of 2004 (with estimated sq.ft. and cost if available) 2. Latest impact fee trust fund report for FY ending 2003 and 2004. Roads 1. Latest impact fee trust fund report for FY ending 2003 and 2004. 2. 5-year revenue and expenditure report (capital only). 3/412005