|
Miami-Dade
Legislative Item File Number: 142112 |
|
|
Miami-Dade
Legislative Item File Number: 142112 |
Printable PDF Format
Clerk's Official Copy
|
| File Number: 142112 | File Type: Ordinance | Status: In Committee | ||||||
| Version: 0 | Reference: 14-122 | Control: Board of County Commissioners | ||||||
|
||||||||
| Requester: Public Works & Waste Management | Cost: | Final Action: 12/2/2014 | ||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
| Sunset Provision: No | Effective Date: | Expiration Date: | ||||||
| Registered Lobbyist: | None Listed |
Legislative History |
|||||||
| Acting Body | Date | Agenda Item | Action | Sent To | Due Date | Returned | Pass/Fail |
| |
|||||||
| Board of County Commissioners | 12/2/2014 | 7G | Adopted | P | |||
| REPORT: | First Assistant County Attorney Abigail Price-Williams read the foregoing proposed ordinance into the record. Commissioner Jordan expressed concern about the developer’s ability to seek a third party cost analysis. She inquired whether third party costs would need to be decided upon jointly by both the County and the developer or independently by the developer, noting this could potentially expose the County to liability if the developer believed that the third party costs were fair. Deputy Mayor Alina Hudak explained that the Department Director would oversee and approve the methodology and the process used to hire the transportation engineer. She said that a new methodology was needed to review trip generation information and that this proposal would provide the flexibility to do so. Deputy Mayor Hudak indicated that this proposal was designed to codify previous practice or to update the work being conducted with the development industry to be more responsive to previous issues. She pointed out that ultimately the authority remained with the Administration to define third party costs. Commissioner Jordan pointed out that the language stated that “developers may at their cost seek a third party analysis to determine accurate costs.” While acknowledging that the Department was not required to accept that analysis, she said the County’s costs would not be accurate if there was disagreement. Deputy Mayor Hudak noted the goal was to have the developer pay for the analysis; therefore, it was ultimately the developer’s decision to do so. She said the County was concerned about the outcome of the analysis and how that outcome fell within the criteria defined in the ordinance. Commissioner Jordan said that it was ultimately the County’s decision whether to accept a cost differential between staff’s determination and the analysis. She noted the County would be in conflict with itself if the costs were different. Commissioner Jordan inquired whether the County had already determined the cost that the developer needed to pay. Deputy Mayor Hudak indicated that there was a calculation as to the value of the impact fee. Commissioner Jordan said that the developer could obtain a third party analysis where the costs may be in their favor. She asked whether there would be a conflict in the event that the cost of the third party analysis was different from the cost being charged, if the County agreed that the analysis was legitimate. Assistant County Attorney Craig Coller explained that in the event that an independent fee analysis was conducted, there were criteria in the Code giving the Director the ability to evaluate the analysis. He said that the County Mayor could appeal the decision to the Development Impact Committee (DIC) and the County Commission if the Director disagreed with the analysis’ accuracy. Assistant County Coller said that the Department could make adjustments to the fee schedule and amend the ordinance if it found issues with the fee analysis. Commissioner Jordan observed that a third party may find unique circumstances that should be considered by the Department that may not have been in the County’s standard analysis and an adjustment could be made based upon this criteria. In response to Commissioner Zapata’s request for clarification regarding whether the County maintained final authority after the developer submitted its third party opinion, Assistant County Attorney Coller confirmed that it did. Hearing no further questions or comments, the Commission proceeded to vote on the foregoing proposed ordinance, as presented. | ||||||
| |
|||||||
| Land Use & Development Committee | 11/13/2014 | 1G3 | Forwarded to BCC with a favorable recommendation | P | |||
| REPORT: | Assistant County Attorney Dennis Kerbel read the foregoing proposed ordinance into the record. Mr. Brian Adler, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price and Axelrod, 1450 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2300, appeared before the Committee on behalf of the Florida Atlantic Builder’s Association, in support of the foregoing ordinance. He thanked staff and Chairman Diaz for sponsoring this proposed ordinance. Mr. Adler said he had several meetings with members of the development community, and with County staff. Ms. Truly Burton, Builders Association of South Florida, 111 NW 183rd Street, Suite 111, Miami Gardens, appeared before the Committee in support of the foregoing ordinance. She expressed appreciation to the County Administration and staff for this proposal. Ms. Burton asked the Committee to encourage staff to bring forth these housekeeping issues. She noted the Code was a living document and many changes had occurred in the construction industry within the past five to six years. She noted staff’s prudence had made a lot of difference and this should be continued. Commissioner Jordan said that she initially voted against this proposal on first reading as she was confused about the third party analysis; however, she determined the department was not bound by that analysis. In response to staff’s request, Vice Chairman Suarez requested that an appropriate memorandum be prepared asking Board of County Commission Chairwoman Rebeca Sosa to waive the Board's Rules of Procedure to allow this proposed resolution to be heard at the December 2, 2014 Board meeting. Hearing no further comments or questions, the Committee members proceeded to vote on the foregoing ordinance, as presented. | ||||||
| |
|||||||
| Board of County Commissioners | 10/15/2014 | Municipalities notified of public hearing | Land Use & Development Committee | 11/13/2014 | 10/7/2014 | ||
| |
|||||||
| Board of County Commissioners | 10/7/2014 | 4E | Adopted on first reading | 10/21/2014 | P | ||
| REPORT: | First Assistant County Attorney Abigail Price-Williams read into the record the title of the foregoing proposed ordinance. During the setting of the agenda, County Attorney Cuevas announced County staff had requested that the Board suspend the six-week requirement between the adoption of first reading and the public hearing for this proposed ordinance due to its impact on municipalities and to allow the item to be considered at the 2014 November committee cycle. There being no comments or objections, the members of the Board proceeded to take a roll call vote. NOTE: The foregoing proposed ordinance was adopted on first reading and scheduled for public hearing before the Land Use and Development Committee (LUDC) on Thursday, December 11, 2014, at 9:30 a.m. | ||||||
| |
|||||||
| Board of County Commissioners | 10/7/2014 | Tentatively scheduled for a public hearing | Land Use & Development Committee | 11/13/2014 | |||
| |
|||||||
| Board of County Commissioners | 9/30/2014 | Requires Municipal Notification | |||||
| |
|||||||
| Office of the Chairperson | 9/29/2014 | Assigned | Alina Tejeda-Hudak | 9/29/2014 | |||
| REPORT: | Returmed to Mayor's office | ||||||
| |
|||||||
| County Attorney | 9/29/2014 | Assigned | Craig H. Coller | 9/29/2014 | |||
| |
|||||||
| County Mayor | 9/26/2014 | Assigned | Alina Tejeda-Hudak | 9/26/2014 | |||
| |
|||||||
| County Mayor | 9/26/2014 | Assigned | County Attorney | 10/7/2014 | |||
| REPORT: | PWWM - Craig Coller - Comm. Diaz Sponsor - pending cmte assignment - first reading 10/7 BCC - Attachment: Road Impact Fee Schedule | ||||||
| |
|||||||
| County Attorney | 9/26/2014 | Assigned | Craig H. Coller | ||||
| |
|||||||
| Legislative Text |
|
TITLE ORDINANCE RELATING TO ROAD IMPACT FEES; AMENDING SECTIONS 33E-8, 33E-9 AND 33E-12; ADDING LAND USE CATEGORIES TO THE ROAD IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE; AMENDING THE TABLE OF PRESENT DAY COST MULTIPLIERS TO FISCAL YEAR INCREMENTS; AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC WORKS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR TO UTILIZE THE INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS TRIP GENERATION MANUAL UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS; AUTHORIZING APPROVAL OF INDEPENDENT FEE COMPUTATION STUDY METHODOLOGY BY THE DIRECTOR; ELIMINATING REQUIREMENT OF A JOINT COUNTY/ MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE AND PROVIDING THAT THE DIRECTOR SHALL SOLICIT AND CONSIDER RECOMMENDATIONS FROM MUNICIPALITIES; AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE BODY WHEREAS, this Board desires to accomplish the purposes set forth in the accompanying Mayor�s Memorandum, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA: Section 1. Section 33E-8 of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida, is hereby amended as follows: 1 Sec. 33E-8. Fee computation by adopted schedule. The feepayer may elect to allow the County Public Works >>and Waste Management<< Director to use the impact fee schedule set forth below developed pursuant to the formula set forth in Section 33E-7(a). The Impact Fee Per Unit of Development shall be multiplied by the Present Day Cost (PDC) Multiplier for the [[calendar]] year in which the fee is paid in accordance with the table in subsection 33E-8(d). (a) The following impact fee schedule shall be used by the County Public Works >>and Waste Management<< Director in computing the road impact fee: TABLE 100 ROAD IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE OUTSIDE URBAN INFILL AREA ITE Code ITE Land Use Type Trip Generation Rate1 (ADT)2 Per Unit of Dev. Trip Length (mile) % New Trip3 Impact Fee Per Unit of Dev. ($)>>6<< Port and Terminal 30 Truck Terminals 9.85/1,000 GSF4 6.25 100% 6,338 Industrial 130 Industrial Park 6.96/1,000 GSF 6.16 100% 4,414 140 Manufacturing 3.82/1,000 GSF 6.16 100% 2,423 150 Warehousing 4.96/1,000 GSF 6.16 100% 3,146 151 Mini-Warehouse 2.50/1,000 GSF 5.90 100% 1,519 Residential 210 Single-Family Detached 9.57/unit 6.09 100% 6,001 220 Apartment (Rentals) 6.72/unit 6.09 100% 4,214 >>222 High-Rise Apartment or Condominium (more than three floors) 4.20/unit 6.09 100% 2,634<< 230 Condominium, Townhouse 5.86/unit 6.09 100% 3,674 240 Mobile Home 4.99/unit 6.09 100% 3,129 >>251 Senior Adult Housing - Detached 3.68/unit 6.09 100% 2,307 252 Senior Adult Housing - Attached 3.44/unit 6.09 100% 2,157 253 Congregate Care Facility 2.02/unit 6.2 100% 1,289 254 Assisted Living Facility 2.66/bed 6.2 100% 1,698 255 Continuing Care Retirement Community 2.28/unit 6.09 100% 1,532<< Lodging 310 Hotel 8.92/[[occupied]] >> available<< room 6.09 100% 5,593 >>311 All Suites Hotel 6.24/available room 6.09 100% 3,913<< 320 Motel 9.11/[[occupied]] >> available<< room 6.09 100% 5,712 Recreational 420 Marina 2.96/berth 6.30 100% 1,920 430 Golf Course 35.74/hole 6.30 100% 23,183 >>480 Amusement Park 75.76/acre 6.30 100% 49,142 490 Tennis Courts (open to public; no ancillary facilities) 31.04/court 6.30 100% 20,134<< 491 Racquet Club 38.70/court 6.30 100% 25,103 492 Health/Fitness 4.02/1,000 GSF 6.30 100% 2,608 Institutional 520 Elementary School 1.29/student 1.25 75% 125 530 High School 1.71/student 4.00 100% 704 540 Jr./Community College 1.20/student 6.07 100% 750 550 University 2.38/student 6.07 100% 1,487 560 Church/Synagogue 9.11/1,000 GSF 4.00 100% 3,752 565 Day Care Center 79.26/1,000 GSF 1.25 50% 5,100 Medical 610 Hospital 17.57/1,000 GSF 6.20 100% 11,216 620 Nursing Home 2.37/bed 6.20 100% 1,513 >>630 Clinic 31.45/1000 GSF 6.20 100% 20,076<< Office 710 General Office Building 1�50,000 15.65/1,000 GSF 6.07 100% 9,778 50,001�100,000 13.34/1,000 GSF 6.07 100% 8,337 100,001�200,000 11.37/1,000 GSF 6.07 100% 7,109 200,001�300,000 10.36/1,000 GSF 6.07 100% 6,476 300,001�400,000 9.70/1,000 GSF 6.07 100% 6,061 400,001�500,000 9.21/1,000 GSF 6.07 100% 5,758 500,001�600,000 8.83/1,000 GSF 6.07 100% 5,521 600,001�700,000 8.53/1,000 GSF 6.07 100% 5,329 700,001�more 8.27/1,000 GSF 6.07 100% 5,168 720 Medical Office Building 36.13/1,000 GSF 6.07 100% 22,580 >>750 Office Park7 11.42/GSF 6.07 100% 7,137<< 760 Research Center 8.11/1,000 GSF 6.07 100% 5,068 770 Business Park 12.76/1,000 GSF 6.07 100% 7,975 Retail >>813 Discount Superstore (free standing) 50.75/1000 GSF 5.9 42% 12,948 816 Hardware / Paint Store / Pool Supply (free standing) 51.29/1000 GSF 2.36 75% 9,347<< 817 Nursery/Garden Center 36.08/1,000 GSF 4.00 75% 11,144 820 Shopping Center/General Retail 1�10,000 152.03/1,000 GSF 2.36 32% 11,821 10,001�50,000 86.56/1,000 GSF 2.36 42% 8,833 50,001�100,000 67.91/1,000 GSF 2.36 51% 8,416 100,001�200,000 53.28/1,000 GSF 4.00 58% 12,727 200,001�300,000 46.23/1,000 GSF 4.00 62% 11,805 300,001�400,000 41.80/1,000 GSF 5.90 64% 16,252 400,001�500,000 38.66/1,000 GSF 5.90 66% 15,501 500,001�600,000 36.27/1,000 GSF 5.90 67% 14,763 600,001�800,000 32.80/1,000 GSF 5.90 69% 13,748 800,001�1,000,000 30.33/1,000 GSF 5.90 70% 12,899 1,000,001�1,200,000 28.46/1,000 GSF 5.90 71% 12,274 1,200,001�more 27.67/1,000 GSF 5.90 72% 12,103 841 Car Sales5 Car Sales (new and used car sales area) 33.56/1,000 GSF 5.90 75% 15,290 Car Sales (services and parts sales area) 21.44/1,000 GSF 5.90 75% 9,768 [[Car Sales (parking area) 4.96/1,000 GSF 6.16 100% 3,146]] >>848 Tire Store 24.87/1000 GSF 5.9 100% 15,108 850 Supermarket (free standing) 102.24/1,000 GSF 2.36 50% 12,422<< 853 Convenience Market with Gasoline 845.60/1,000 GSF 1.25 35% 38,090 >>862 Home Improvement Superstore 30.74/1,000 GSF 5.9 75% 14,005 875 Department Store (free standing) 22.88/1000 GSF 5.9 42% 5,838 880 Pharmacy / Drugstore (no Drive thru) 90.06/1000 GSF 2.36 32% 7,003 881 Pharmacy / Drugstore (with Drive thru) 96.91/1,000 GSF 2.36 32% 7,535 890 Furniture Store (free standing) 5.06/1,000 GSF 4.00 50% 1,042<< Services 911 Bank (Walk-in) 156.48/1,000 GSF 1.25 50% 10,069 912 Bank (Drive-in) 246.49/1,000 GSF 1.25 50% 15,862 931 Quality Restaurant 89.95/1,000 GSF >>-or-<< 6.16 75% 42,787 >>Quality Restaurant 2.86/seat8 6.16 75% 1,360<< 932 High Turnover Restaurant 158.37/1,000 GSF >>-or-<< 4.00 50% 32,612 >>High Turnover Restaurant 4.83/seat8 4.00 50% 995<< 933 Fast Food Restaurant No Drive Thru 716.00/1,000 GSF 1.25 50% 46,075 934 Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 496.12/1,000 GSF 1.25 50% 31,925 >>937 Coffee / Donut Shop 818.58/1000 GSF 1.25 35% 36,838<< 944 Service Stations w/Gasoline 168.56/pump 1.25 35% 7,593 Notes: 1. Rates are derived from Trip Generation, An Informational Report, 7th Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 2003. 2. ADT = Average Daily Traffic. 3. Percentage of New Trips from ITE Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition (retail assumes 10% diverted-link trips in addition to pass-by trips from the formula) and Dade County existing Road Impact Fee Schedule. 4. GSF = Gross Square Feet. 5. The trip generation rates of services and sales areas for Car Sales were obtained from a survey study of Miami-Dade County car dealerships. 6. Base year for Impact Fee Per Unit of Development is 2006. >>7. Office Park means a planned development including offices together with support services such as banks, restaurants and service stations in a campus-like arrangement. 8. Seats = Maximum occupancy. For Quality Restaurants and High Turnover Restaurants, the Fee may be computed per seat at the option of the feepayer as provided herein. << TABLE 100A ROAD IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE WITHIN URBAN INFILL AREA ITE Code ITE Land Use Type Trip Generation Rate1 (ADT)2 Per Unit of Dev. Trip Length (mile) % New Trip3 Impact Fee Per Unit of Dev. ($)>>6<< Port and Terminal 30 Truck Terminals 9.85/1,000 GSF4 6.25 100% 5,993 Industrial 130 Industrial Park 6.96/1,000 GSF 6.16 100% 4,174 140 Manufacturing 3.82/1,000 GSF 6.16 100% 2,291 150 Warehousing 4.96/1,000 GSF 6.16 100% 2,974 151 Mini-Warehouse 2.50/1,000 GSF 5.90 100% 1,436 Residential 210 Single-Family Detached 9.57/unit 6.09 100% 5,674 220 Apartment (Rentals) 6.72/unit 6.09 100% 3,984 >>222 High-Rise Apartment or Condominium (more than three floors) 4.20/unit 6.09 100% 2,490<< 230 Condominium, Townhouse 5.86/unit 6.09 100% 3,474 240 Mobile Home 4.99/unit 6.09 100% 2,958 >>251 Senior Adult Housing - Detached 3.68/unit 6.09 100% 2,182 252 Senior Adult Housing - Attached 3.44/unit 6.09 100% 2,039 253 Congregate Care Facility 2.02/unit 6.2 100% 1,219 254 Assisted Living Facility 2.66/bed 6.2 100% 1,606 255 Continuing Care Retirement Community 2.28/unit 6.09 100% 1,449<< Lodging 310 Hotel 8.92/occupied room 6.09 100% 5,288 >>311 All Suites Hotel 6.24/available room 6.09 100% 3,699<< 320 Motel 9.11/occupied room 6.09 100% 5,401 Recreational 420 Marina 2.96/berth 6.30 100% 1,815 430 Golf Course 35.74/hole 6.30 100% 21,920 >>480 Amusement Park 75.76/acre 6.30 100% 46,465 490 Tennis Courts (open to public; no ancillary facilities) 31.04/court 6.30 100% 19,037<< 491 Racquet Club 38.70/court 6.30 100% 23,735 492 Health/Fitness 4.02/1,000 GSF 6.30 100% 2,466 Institutional 520 Elementary School 1.29/student 1.25 75% 118 530 High School 1.71/student 4.00 100% 666 540 Jr./Community College 1.20/student 6.07 100% 709 550 University 2.38/student 6.07 100% 1,406 560 Church/Synagogue 9.11/1,000 GSF 4.00 100% 3,547 565 Day Care Center 79.26/1,000 GSF 1.25 50% 4,823 Medical 610 Hospital 17.57/1,000 GSF 6.20 100% 10,605 620 Nursing Home 2.37/bed 6.20 100% 1,430 >>630 Clinic 31.45/1000 GSF 6.20 100% 18,982<< Office 710 General Office Building 1�50,000 15.65/1,000 GSF 6.07 100% 9,246 50,001�100,000 13.34/1,000 GSF 6.07 100% 7,883 100,001�200,000 11.37/1,000 GSF 6.07 100% 6,722 200,001�300,000 10.36/1,000 GSF 6.07 100% 6,123 300,001�400,000 9.70/1,000 GSF 6.07 100% 5,731 400,001�500,000 9.21/1,000 GSF 6.07 100% 5,444 500,001�600,000 8.83/1,000 GSF 6.07 100% 5,221 600,001�700,000 8.53/1,000 GSF 6.07 100% 5,039 700,001�more 8.27/1,000 GSF 6.07 100% 4,886 720 Medical Office Building 36.13/1,000 GSF 6.07 100% 21,350 >>750 Office Park7 11.42/GSF 6.07 100% 6,748<< 760 Research Center 8.11/1,000 GSF 6.07 100% 4,792 770 Business Park 12.76/1,000 GSF 6.07 100% 7,540 Retail >>813 Discount Superstore (free standing) 50.75/1000 GSF 5.9 42% 12,243 816 Hardware / Paint Store / Pool Supply (free standing) 51.29/1000 GSF 5.9 75% 8,838<< 817 Nursery/Garden Center 36.08/1,000 GSF 4.00 75% 10,537 820 Shopping Center/General Retail 1�10,000 152.03/1,000 GSF 2.36 32% 11,177 10,001�50,000 86.56/1,000 GSF 2.36 42% 8,352 50,001�100,000 67.91/1,000 GSF 2.36 51% 7,957 100,001�200,000 53.28/1,000 GSF 4.00 58% 12,034 200,001�300,000 46.23/1,000 GSF 4.00 62% 11,162 300,001�400,000 41.80/1,000 GSF 5.90 64% 15,367 400,001�500,000 38.66/1,000 GSF 5.90 66% 14,657 500,001�600,000 36.27/1,000 GSF 5.90 67% 13,959 600,001�800,000 32.80/1,000 GSF 5.90 69% 12,999 800,001�1,000,000 30.33/1,000 GSF 5.90 70% 12,196 1,000,001�1,200,000 28.46/1,000 GSF 5.90 71% 11,606 1,200,001�more 27.67/1,000 GSF 5.90 72% 11,444 841 Car Sales5 Car Sales (new and used car sales area) 33.56/1,000 GSF 5.90 75% 14,457 Car Sales (services and parts sales area) 21.44/1,000 GSF 5.90 75% 9,236 [[Car Sales (parking area) 4.96/1,000 GSF 6.16 100% 2,974]] >>848 Tire Store 24.87/1000 GSF 5.9 100% 14,285 850 Supermarket (free standing) 102.24 2.36 50% 11,742<< 851 Convenience Market 737.99/1,000 GSF 1.25 35% 31,432 853 Convenience Market with Gasoline 845.60/1,000 GSF 1.25 35% 36,015 >>862 Home Improvement Superstore 30.74/1000GSF 5.9 75% 13,242 875 Department Store (free standing) 22.88/1000 GSF 5.9 42% 5,519 880 Pharmacy / Drugstore (no Drive thru) 90.06/1000 GSF 2.36 32% 6,621 881 Pharmacy / Drugstore (with Drive thru) 96.91/1,000 GSF 2.36 32% 7,125 890 Furniture Store (free standing) 5.06/1000 GSF 4.00 50% 985<< Services 911 Bank (Walk-in) 156.48/1,000 GSF 1.25 50% 9,521 912 Bank (Drive-in) 246.49/1,000 GSF 1.25 50% 14,998 931 Quality Restaurant 89.95/1,000 GSF >>-or-<< 6.16 75% 40,456 Quality Restaurant 2.86/seat8 6.16 75% 1,286<< 932 High Turnover Restaurant 158.37/1,000 GSF >>-or-<< 4.00 50% 30,835 >>High Turnover Restaurant (optional) 4.83/seat8 4.00 50% 940<< 933 Fast Food Restaurant No Drive Thru 716.00/1,000 GSF 1.25 50% 43,565 934 Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 496.12/1,000 GSF 1.25 50% 30,186 >>937 Coffee / Donut Shop 818.58/1,000 GSF 1.25 35% 34,864<< 944 Service Stations w/Gasoline 168.56/pump 1.25 35% 7,179 Notes: 1. Rates are derived from Trip Generation, An Informational Report, 7th Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 2003. 2. ADT = Average Daily Traffic. 3. Percentage of New Trips from ITE Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition (retail assumes 10% diverted-link trips in addition to pass-by trips from the formula) and Dade County existing Road Impact Fee Schedule. 4. GSF = Gross Square Feet. 5. The trip generation rates of services and sales areas for Car Sales were obtained from a survey study of Miami-Dade County car dealerships. 6. Base year for Impact Fee Per Unit of Development is 2006. >>7. Office Park means a planned development including offices together with support services such as banks, restaurants and service stations in a campus-like arrangement. 8. Seats = Maximum Occupancy. For Quality Restaurants and High Turnover Restaurants, the Fee may be computed per seat at the option of the feepayer as provided herein. << (b) If the type of [[activity]] >>land use< (c) In determining existing development activity, as defined in Section 33E-5(h) of this chapter, and the units of proposed or existing development, the County [[Planning and Zoning]] >>Regulatory and Economic Resources<< Director shall use the building permit and certificate of use information contained in the records of the Miami-Dade County [[Department of Planning and Zoning]] >>Regulatory and Economic Resources Department<< and municipal building code and zoning regulation administering agencies. (d) Table of Present Day Cost (PDC) Multipliers[[by Calendar Year]]. Calendar Year PDC Multiplier 2006 >>Base Year<< 1.000 2007 1.035 >>not used 1<< 2008 1.094 >>not used1<< 2009 1.141 >>used after April 22, 20091<< 2010 1.184 2011 1.225 2012 1.267 2013 1.308 2014 >>through September 2015<< 1.351 >>Fiscal Year (October 1 � September 30)<< [[2015]]>>2015-2016<< [[1.396]]>>1.430<< [[2016]]>>2016-2017<< [[1.442]]>>1.477 2017-2018 1.527 2018-2019 1.577 2019-2020 1.628 2020-2021 1.682<< Source: This table is based on the table of Construction Cost Inflation Factors published August 3, 2006 by Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Office of Policy Planning for FDOT Fiscal Year 2007 (July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007). PDC Multiplier values have been interpolated onto a calendar year interval>>or onto a Miami-Dade County Fiscal Year respectively. Note: 1. Use of the Present Day Cost multiplier was first implemented upon the April 22, 2009 effective date of Ordinance 09-08.<< Section 2. Section 33E-9 of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida, is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 33E-9. Fee computation by independent study. The feepayer may elect, either prior to or subsequent to paying the scheduled impact fee (Section 33E-8), to utilize an independent fee computation study pursuant to the formula set forth in Section 33E-7(a). The feepayer shall provide the County Public Works >>and Waste Management << Director notice of intent to utilize an independent fee computation study prior to, but no later than, the time of application for a building permit. All such studies initiated after the issuance of a building permit shall be completed and submitted to the Public Works >>and Waste Management << Director within six (6) months of issuance of building permit. Nothing within this section shall allow a building permit for development activity to be issued without the payment of a road impact fee as provided for in Section 33E-6 herein >>or without an authorized deferral of payment upon acceptance of a letter of credit as provided in Section 33E-6.1 or upon the acceptance of a voluntary lien as provided in Section 33E-18.<< (a) If the feepayer elects to utilize an independent fee computation study, the feepayer shall, at [[his]] >>the feepayer�s<< own expense, prepare and present to the County Public Works >>and Waste Management<< Director such a study that shall document the basis upon which the value of each of the components of the fee formula set forth in Section 33E-7(a) was determined. [[The feepayer shall follow the impact fee study methodology contained in the impact fee manual.]] >>The study shall use a methodology that has been approved by the Public Works and Waste Management Director.<< [[Subjects of t]] >>T< (1) Trip generation rates; (2) Average vehicle trip length; (3) New vehicle trip rates; (4) Non-transit trip percentages. (b) The feepayer shall, at the time the independent fee computation study is submitted to the County Public Works >>and Waste Management<< Director, pay to the County >>Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources<< Director a nonrefundable independent study administrative cost in the amount set forth in the >>Implementing Order<< [[impact fee manual]] to be used solely [[by the County]] for the processing and review of the independent fee calculation study >>by the Public Works and Waste Management Department<<. This amount shall not be credited against the road impact fee payment >>and shall not be refunded.<< (c) The County Public Works >>and Waste Management<< Director shall determine if an independent fee computation study: (1) Adheres to the impact fee formula set forth in Section 33E-7(a); (2) Provides complete, thorough, and accurate information; >>(3) Complies with the methodology approved by the Public Works and Waste Management Director; and<< [[(3)]]>>(4)<< Is prepared by an individual or entity qualified to perform Traffic Engineering and Operations Studies in accordance with the standards set forth in Rule 14-75.003 of the Florida Administrative Code. (d) Upon approval of the independent fee calculation study by the County Public Works >>and Waste Management<< Director, >>the fee may be computed based upon the findings of the study using the road impact fee formula set forth in Section 33E-7.<< [[based on his determination that the conditions described in Section 33E-9(c) are fully met, the feepayer shall pay the amount of the fee so computed.]] (e) [[Should the County Public Works Director determine that the conditions described in Section 33E-9(c) are not fully met by the independent fee study he shall issue a letter to the applicant stating the deficiencies and his intent to reject the independent fee calculation study unless the deficiencies are corrected.]] >>In the event that the Public Works and Waste Management Director determines that the conditions described in Section 33E-9(c) have not been fully met by the independent fee study, a letter shall be sent to the applicant identifying the deficiencies in the study that must be corrected and stating an intent to reject the independent fee calculation study unless the deficiencies are corrected.<< If the County Public Works >>and Waste Management<< Director determines that the deficiencies in the independent fee study have not been corrected within sixty (60) working days from the date of the letter of intent, [[he]]>>the Director<< shall issue a >>second<< letter rejecting the independent fee study. (f) Any appeals from a decision of the County Public Works >>and Waste Management<< Director to reject an independent fee study because of deficiencies shall be >>filed with the Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources Director within 30 days of the decision and shall be<< reviewed and decided by the County Developmental Impact Committee Executive Council [[, pursuant to the procedures set forth in the adopted impact fee manual]]. * * * Section 3. Section 33E-12 of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida, is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 33E-12. Impact fee expenditures. (a) Funds from the roadway [[impact fee]] trust funds, including any accrued interest, shall be used only in accordance with Section 33E-11 for the purpose of financing roadway capacity improvements incorporated into the Miami-Dade County Metropolitan Planning Organization's adopted long range transportation plan or short range transportation improvement program[[, except that an amount not to exceed three (3) percent of the gross receipts shall be used by Miami-Dade County to offset the cost of administering the provisions of this chapter]]. (b) Highest priority for [[impact fee]]>>roadway<< trust >>fund<<[[account]] expenditures shall be for roadway capacity improvements deemed by the Miami-Dade County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) as most needed to serve new development. Such determination by the MPO shall consider recommendation from >>the County Public Works and Waste Management Director. In preparation for said recommendation to the MPO, the Director shall solicit and consider recommendations from the various municipalities located in Miami-Dade County<<[[a joint County/municipal committee as provided for in the Metro-Miami-Dade road impact fee manual]]. Th[is]>>e Director�s<< recommendation is not limited to only County or State designated roadways, but may include municipal roads and select transit capital improvements pursuant to subsection 33E-12 (d). Before funds can be allocated or expended for any capacity enhancement projects on local roads within any one Road Impact Fee District, funding for all programmed capacity needs for County arterial and collector roadways, and municipal collector roadways, within said District must have been identified and encumbered, as determined by the Miami-Dade County Public Works >>and Waste Management<< Director. Trust account funds shall be deemed expended in the order in which they are collected. Policies to be used in scheduling the expenditure of [[impact fee]]>>roadway<< trust funds through the long range transportation plan and short range transportation improvement program shall be set forth in the impact fee manual. The County may construct or provide any of the roadway improvement elements listed above or alternatively may contract with a municipality to construct or provide such elements with road>>way trust funds.<< [[impact fees.]] (c) Roadway trust funds may be expended on roadway >>capacity<< improvements to the State road network within [[the]]>>a<< benefit district >>provided that there must be vehicular access to the subject State road from within the benefit district.<< [[Except in the case of roadway improvements to a State road which has vehicular access within the benefit district, n]] >>N< (d) Roadway trust funds may be expended on select transit capital improvements provided that the Board of County Commissioners, after recommendation from the Mayor in consultation with the Public Works >>and Waste Management<< Director and after public hearing, determines that any such transit use of roadway trust funds would be effective as part of the county's strategy for providing roadway capacity within the Urban Infill Area. Roadway trust funds may only be used for select transit capital improvements within the Urban Infill Area. Only impact fees generated from within the Urban Infill Area may be used for select transit capital projects. Transit projects are to be selected for road>>way trust fund<< [[impact fee]] funding on the basis of their expected effectiveness as roadway capacity improvements. (e) Each year the County Public Works >>and Waste Management<< Director shall present to the Metropolitan Planning Organization pursuant to the Organization's procedures for their review and approval, the annual program for expenditure of roadway >>trust funds for roadway<< capacity improvements projects [[utilizing road impact fee trust fund monies]], to be included within the [[t]]>>T< Section 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or provision of this ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected by such invalidity. Section 5. It is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners, and it is hereby ordained that the provisions of this ordinance, including any sunset provision, shall become and be made a part of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida. The sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intention, and the word �ordinance� may be changed to �section,� �article,� or other appropriate word. Section 6. The provisions of Section 1 of this ordinance relating to �The Table of Present Day Cost (PDC) Multipliers� (Section 33E-8(d)) shall become effective ten (10) days after the date of its enactment unless vetoed by the Mayor, and if vetoed, shall become effective on such date only upon an override by this Board. The remaining provisions of this ordinance shall become effective ninety (90) days after the date of its enactment unless vetoed by the Mayor, and if vetoed, shall become effective on such date only upon an override by this Board. HEADER Date: To: Honorable Chairwoman Rebeca Sosa and Members, Board of County CommissionersFrom: Carlos A. Gimenez Mayor Subject: Ordinance Relating To Road Impact Fees; Amending Sections 33E-8, 33E-9 and 33E-12 STAFF RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Ordinance pertaining to Road Impact Fees, amending Sections 33E-8, 33E-9 and 33E-12 of the Miami-Dade County Code. Section 33E-8 is amended to add land use categories to the Road Impact Fee Schedule, modify the Table of Present Day Cost Multipliers to Fiscal Year increments, and authorize the Public Works and Waste Management Director (Director) to utilize the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual as appropriate. Section 33E-9 is amended to authorize approval of the independent fee computation study methodology by the Director. Section 33E-12 is amended to replace the requirement of a Joint County/Municipal Committee with a provision that the Director shall solicit and consider recommendations from Municipalities. SCOPE The scope of this item extends to any permit for development activity within Miami-Dade County. FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE It is estimated that moving the adjustment date of the Present Day Cost from January 1, 2015 to October 1, 2015 will decrease the projected Road Impact Fee revenue by an estimated $1,580,000.00 during Fiscal Year 2014-15. This one-time reduction in cash flow will not affect major roadway projects. However, it is expected to have a minimal impact on existing countywide continuing programs such as roadway resurfacing, intersection improvements or traffic control devices. TRACKING The provisions of this Ordinance are monitored by Gaspar Miranda, P.E., Assistant Director, Highway Engineering of the Public Works and Waste Management Division. MANAGER'S BACKGROUND BACKGROUND On December 6, 1988, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Dade County Road Impact Fee Ordinance (Ord. No. 88-112), now Chapter 33E of the Miami-Dade County Code. Road Impact Fees are collected to ensure that adequate levels of roadway services are maintained within benefit districts. The assessed amount of the fee is determined in proportion to the amount of new demand that a specific type of development will introduce onto County roads. The modifications to the ordinance address industry requests for an expedient process for calculating Road Impact Fees that is more reflective of current development practices. Additional modifications will streamline the process, and introduce certain efficiencies that will benefit the community. The proposed amendments are as follows: 1) The Ordinance will add 23 new land use categories to the Road Impact Fee Schedule (Schedule) and eliminate one (1) sub-category to reflect current development types in Miami-Dade County. This will allow for a more accurate method to assess how differing land uses will impact vehicular traffic and ensure that feepayers are charged in accordance with these impacts. 2) This Ordinance amends the calendar day for the Present Day Cost Table to the beginning of the Miami-Dade County fiscal year for consistency with the inflation adjustments to other County Impact Fees. The Present Day Cost multiplier for 2014 will not be adjusted on January 1, 2015. It will remain in effect until October 1, 2015, and thereafter will adjust in accordance with the County�s fiscal year. This amendment also provides for Present Day Cost multipliers through Fiscal Years 2020-21, as the current Table of Present Day Cost multipliers ends in calendar year 2016. The Present Day Cost multiplier is developed by the Florida Department of Transportation and is based on cost factors that affect road construction within the State of Florida. Although the delay in the adjustment of the Present Day Cost multiplier will cause a loss of an estimated $1,580,000.00 in Road Impact Fee revenues during Fiscal Year 2014-15, this change will result in a simplified process consistent with other County Impact Fees. 3) This Ordinance authorizes the Director to utilize a land use category from the current edition of the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers in instances where a proposed development does not fall within a land use category in the Schedule. Additionally, Section 33E-9 allows fee payers to contract with a qualified transportation engineer to demonstrate through an independent study that a lower fee is appropriate for a specific development. The methodology proposed by the feepayer�s transportation engineer must be approved in advance by the Director. Currently, the methodology is set by the ordinance, not allowing for flexibility to this process. These amendments will ensure that the most appropriate fee is assessed. 4) Section 33E-12 is being amended to replace the inactive Joint County/Municipality Committee with a process where input is solicited from municipalities. This codifies current practice. The proposed amendments will more accurately represent the demand generated by certain developments and improve the assessment of fees. The amendments also provide a more efficient process that reflects current practice and reduces delays to feepayers. ________________________ Alina T. Hudak Deputy Mayor |
|
Home |
Agendas |
Minutes |
Legislative Search |
Lobbyist Registration |
Legislative Reports
Home | Using Our Site | About | Phone Directory | Privacy | Disclaimer
E-mail your comments,
questions and suggestions to
Webmaster
|
