Legislative Matter

Miami-Dade Legislative Item
File Number: 162691

Printable PDF Format

File Number: 162691

File Type: Ordinance

Status: In Committee

Version: 0

Reference:

Control: Transportation and Public Works Committee

File Name: BICYCLE LANES OR PEDESTRIAN TRAILS AND GREENWAYS

Introduced: 11/22/2016

Requester: NONE

Cost:

Final Action:

Agenda Date: 12/6/2016

Agenda Item Number: 4A

Notes:

NOTE TO CAO: ITEM FILED IN COMMISSIONER'S FOLDER

Title:

ORDINANCE RELATING TO ROAD IMPACT FEES; AMENDING SECTION 33E-10 OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; REQUIRING THAT BICYCLE PATHS, BICYCLE LANES AND GREENWAYS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONSIDERATION AS OFF-SITE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT CONTRIBUTIONS IN-LIEU-OF-FEE; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE

Indexes:	BIKE PATH
	IMPACT FEE

Sponsors:

Daniella Levine Cava, Prime Sponsor

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

Transportation and Public Works Committee	2/16/2017	1G1	Deferred				P
REPORT:	Assistant County Attorney Annery Alfonso read the foregoing proposed ordinance into the record. Chairman Barreiro opened the public hearing. Mr. Victor Dover, 6227 SW 57 Street, South Miami, appeared before the TPWC, noting there were no protected bike lanes and no bike infrastructure in the community. He said people were interested about riding bikes but concerned about sharing bikes with streets, noting the need to accelerate the creation of a low stress bike network. Mr. Dover stated that the ordinance looked like a way for this to happen with developers paying for biking infrastructure. He said this was a good method to move faster and catch up. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Levine Cava mentioned this legislation would assist in bringing bicycle infrastructure, support the complete streets policy objectives, and help with the development of transportation projects such as the Underline and Ludlam Trail. She said she was here to answer any questions. Commissioner Sosa stated that she supported bicycles; that the Ludlam Trail and the Underline were already Board priorities; and that any new funding related to bicycles and pedestrians should be committed to that priority. She said it would be easier for a developer to pay the County a fee and the County would use that fee at its discretion on such projects. Commissioner Sosa stated she was not willing to change the funding target and any new funds should be dedicated to the existing priority. She said the Underline and Ludlam Trail needed to be completed first. Commissioner Sosa reported that greenways were not good for bicycles. Commissioner Heyman pointed out that there was no vacant County land in her District. She expressed concern over not having the ability to change lane structures to make a dedicated bicycle easement. Commissioner Heyman said she was trying to get an extra grass cut on County roads during the summer months and other and other road improvements. She noted that bike paths, bike lanes and greenways were not realistic in her area and that money that would otherwise go to road improvements should not be taken away. Assistant County Attorney Dennis Kerbel clarified that there was currently a choice of paying cash or to build a project with road impact fees and this proposal gave discretion to the Transit and Public Works (TPW) Department Director to determine whether the project made sense. He said that it gave a bike lane as an option for the developer to build in addition to the option of a lane mile or an intersection improvement, subject to the TPW Department Director’s analysis. Assistant County Attorney Kerbel mentioned that this was an option as an alternative to paying cash into the Roadway Impact Fee Trust Fund. He said that roadway impact fees were based on districts and kept in those districts. Ms. Alice Bravo, Director, TPW Department, clarified that there would be an analysis conducted to determine whether a bicycle facility would help take vehicles off the roadway. Chairman Barreiro questioned whether the TPW Department Director would have the final word when there was competing studies. Assistant County Attorney Kerbel indicated that the TPW Department Director decided whether to accept the bike path as a contribution in lieu; however, noted an appeal process existed and the County, not the developer had the final authority. He said the analysis was whether you were taking cars off the road or removing obstructions that affect the throughput of the road. Ms. Bravo noted a standardized methodology would be used to conduct the analysis. Commissioner Sosa pointed out that we failed to see the reality of what was happening, to realize how many people would be living in Miami-Dade County; and to plan transportation and development properly. She expressed concern that this was doing the same thing, noting she did not want to see more bike lanes on the roads until the transportation and infrastructure issues were resolved. Commissioner Sosa said she did not want to see people’s lives endangered, noting this risk would not occur on the Ludlam Trail. She said we should not support other projects that would take away from the SMART Plan. Commissioner Moss inquired whether there was an analysis on the fiscal impact of this proposal to divert impact fees to convert bike lanes. Ms. Bravo reported that this information was not available. Discussion ensued between Commissioner Moss and Ms. Bravo about bike lane connectivity and developer contributions. Commissioner Moss raised the issue that there will be a funding crisis for road re-pavement, noting the deteriorating condition of existing roadways. Commissioner Levine Cava explained that the proposal was developed in cooperation with the TPW Department. She said it was an option and there was no requirement that it be approved. Commissioner Levine Cava noted it was an opportunity for the County to use road improvement fees for bicycle facilities, consistent with County priorities. She said she concurred over the road problems and safety hazards; however, noted the County had significant needs for bicycle facilities that could be addressed through this legislation. Commissioner Levine Cava pointed out that this contribution was not mandated; that it required TPW Department approval; that it needed to be consistent with existing plans; that it was another tool; and that it did not mandate or divert funds from places where road maintenance was a greater priority. Chairman Barreiro asked Deputy Mayor Alina Hudak and Ms. Bravo, to provide a fiscal impact report on this proposal. Hearing no further questions or comments, the TPW Committee voted to defer the foregoing proposed ordinance to no date certain. Following the vote, Commissioner Moss asked and Chairman Barreiro agreed to place road repairs, materials used and funding sources on a future TPW Committee meeting agenda. Commissioner Sosa asked Deputy Mayor Hudak and Ms. Bravo, to provide a report determining whether the proposed funding could be used for road improvements, the Ludlum Trail and the Underline.

County Attorney	2/1/2017		Assigned	Transportation and Public Works Committee	2/16/2017

Transit and Mobility Services Committee	1/19/2017	1G1	No action taken due to cancellation of meeting

Board of County Commissioners	12/6/2016		Tentatively scheduled for a public hearing	Transit and Mobility Services Committee	1/19/2017

Board of County Commissioners	12/6/2016	4A	Adopted on first reading		1/19/2017		P
REPORT:	County Attorney Abigail Price-Williams read into the record the title of the foregoing proposed ordinance. Hearing no comments or objections, the members of the Board proceeded to vote on the foregoing ordinance as presented. The foregoing proposed ordinance was adopted on first reading and scheduled for a public hearing before the Transit and Mobility Services (TMS) Committee meeting on Thursday, January 19, 2017, at 12:00 p.m.

County Attorney	11/22/2016		Referred	Transit and Mobility Services Committee	1/19/2017

County Attorney	11/22/2016		Assigned	Dennis A. Kerbel	11/29/2016

Legislative Text

TITLE
ORDINANCE RELATING TO ROAD IMPACT FEES; AMENDING SECTION 33E-10 OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; REQUIRING THAT BICYCLE PATHS, BICYCLE LANES AND GREENWAYS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONSIDERATION AS OFF-SITE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT CONTRIBUTIONS IN-LIEU-OF-FEE; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE

BODY
WHEREAS, this Board has promoted bicycle transportation as an alternative transportation modality in order to reduce congestion on County roads and promote the environment; and
WHEREAS, chapter 33E of the Miami-Dade County Code requires that in order to obtain the appropriate zoning permits and approvals that new development address the impact that such development has on the traffic congestion; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to section 33E-10, a developer has the option to construct a roadway improvement in lieu of paying a road impact fee under certain conditions, and such roadway improvement contributions in-lieu-of-fee �shall be entitled to an adjustment equal to the percentage increase or decrease of the road cost in the road impact fee formula�; and
WHEREAS, in addition to a roadway for automobile traffic, a bicycle path, bicycle lane, or greenway that is used as an alternative form of transportation could have significant benefits of lessening the traffic impact of such a development; and
WHEREAS, this Board wishes to be explicit that the quantifiable reduction of road impact caused by the contribution in lieu-of-fee of a bicycle path, bicycle lane or greenway is considered on the same basis as a contribution of a roadway for vehicular traffic,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Section 33E-10 of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida, is hereby amended to read as follows:1
33E-10 Roadway improvement contributions in-lieu-of-fee

(a) In lieu of payment of all or part of the road impact fee, the County Public Works Director may accept the offer of a feepayer to construct all or part of an off-site roadway improvement. All contributions in-lieu-of-fee shall be in accordance with the Comprehensive Development Master Plan and the short range transportation improvement program. >>Without prejudice to the County Public Works Director�s review of the merits of any particular project pursuant to sections (b)-(c), below, a bicycle path, bicycle lane, or greenway that can be used for bicycle transportation shall be eligible for consideration as an off-site roadway improvement.<< Such contributions in-lieu-of-fee shall be credited against payment of an impact fee in the amount determined by the County Public Works Director pursuant to Sections 33E-8 or 33E-9. The total amount of contributions in-lieu-of-fee shall not exceed the road cost portion of the impact fee formula in Section 33E-7. Contributions in-lieu-of-fee shall not be applied to the two (2) percent County administrative cost portion of the impact fee which shall remain the responsibility of the feepayer and must be paid at the time of building permit issuance.

Where a feepayer seeks to apply a contribution in-lieu-of-fee credit against payment of the road impact fee, the administrative fee portion of the impact fee shall be the sum of: (a) two (2) percent of the contribution in-lieu-of-fee or one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) whichever is less and (b) two (2) percent of the remaining road cost not satisfied by the contribution in-lieu-of fee.

Previously approved contributions in-lieu-of-fees which are: (1) unused and (2) based on a net road cost which has been subsequently adjusted, shall be entitled to an adjustment equal to the percentage increase or decrease of the net road cost in the road impact fee formula. Previously approved contributions in-lieu-of-fees which are: (1) unused and (2) based on a road cost which has been subsequently adjusted, shall be entitled to an adjustment equal to the percentage increase or decrease of the road cost in the road impact fee formula. Any such adjustment shall only be utilized to offset road impact fees and shall not be refundable.

(b) An offer by a feepayer to construct road improvement contributions in-lieu-of-fee must be accompanied by plans in sufficient detail to permit the County Public Works Director to determine that County or State design standards will be used and to determine the cost of such improvements.

(c) The County Public Works Director may accept or reject an offer of contributions in-lieu-of-fee. When such improvements are not consistent with standards set forth in the impact fee manual the >>County<< Public Works Director may reject the offer of contributions in-lieu-of-fee. >>Notwithstanding any provision of the impact fee manual, the County Public Works Director must consider a contribution in-lieu-of-fee consisting of a bicycle path, bicycle lane, or greenway that can be used for bicycle transportation on the same or substantially similar basis as a proposed roadway project.<< If >>an offer for a contribution in-lieu-of-fee is<< rejected, the >>County<< Public Works Director shall state in writing the reasons for the rejection. Any appeal from such a decision of the County Public Works Director to reject improvement contributions in-lieu-of-fee shall be reviewed by the County Development Impact Committee Executive Council pursuant to the procedures set forth in the adopted impact fee manual.

* * *

Section 2. 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 3. 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 4. This ordinance shall become effective ten (10) days after the date of enactment unless vetoed by the Mayor, and if vetoed, shall become effective only upon an override by this Board.

1 Words stricken through and/or [[double bracketed]] shall be deleted. Words underscored and/or >>double arrowed<< constitute the amendment proposed. Remaining provisions are now in effect and remain unchanged.