Ord No 14-14-2192ORDINANCE NO.14-14-2192
An Ordinance amending Section 7-3 oftheCodeof Ordinances,including the
establishmentofaparksand recreational impact fee category,andcreating Section 7-
3.2 establishing regulationsforthecollection of such impact fees.
WHEREAS,new development and redevelopment intheCitycan add to and help
maintain the quality oflife under a balanced growth management program;and
WHEREAS,effective growth management is promoted when adequate public facilities
are available toservenew development concurrent withthe impacts ofthat development;and
WHEREAS,theCity Commission requested the preparation ofanimpactfee report,
based uponthemostrecentand localized datain support oftheimpactfee Ordinance tobe
completedand submitted totheCity;and
WHEREAS,thereportpreparedby TischlerBise,Fiscal,Economic and Planning
Consultants,datedApril1,2014 recommended the implementation ofaparks facilities impact
feeforresidential development;and
WHEREAS,assetforthintheimpactfeereport,thecollection of thisimpactfeewill
fund parksand recreation capital improvements required toserve growth,andthe revenue
generated fromimpactfeeswillbenefitnew development by maintaining current citywide levels
of service;,thereby promoting the general welfare ofallCity residents and constitutes a public
purpose;and
WHEREAS,advaloremtaxrevenueandotherrevenueswillnotbesufficienttoprovide
the additional capital improvements forparksand recreation facilities,whichare necessary to
accommodate new development.
NOW,THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI,FLORIDA AS FOLLOWS:
Section1.TheimpactfeereportpreparedbyTischlerBiseprovidesanadequateand
lawfulbasisfortheadoptionandimpositionofparks facilities impactfeesin accordance with
thisOrdinanceandis incorporated hereinbyreference.
Section2.Section7-3 of theCityCode of ordinancesisherebyamendedtoreadas
follows:
Sec.7-3.Comprehensive Ffee Schedule.
There is hereby established a comprehensive fee schedule setting forth fees forthe The
feesforthe following items subjects shallbeassetforthinthe City's ordinance
regulating these subjects,orassetforthinthe City's comprehensive feesandfines
ordinance fa copy of thelattershallbekeptintheoffice of theCityClerkandwhichmay
Ord.No.14-14-2192
be accessed on the City's web page which is currently at www.southmiamifl.gov),
whichever is the most current:
(1)Building permit fees.
(2)Plumbing permit fees.
(3)Mechanical permit fees.
(4)Electrical permit fees.
(5)Land use application fees.
(6)Certificates of use,completionoroccupancyfees.
(7)Public works/utility fees.
(8)Other fees.
(9)Occupational license fees.
(10)Tree removal permit fees.
(11)Development impact fees.
as set forthin tho in tho schedule entitlod "Comprehensive Fee Schedule,"attached to
OrdinanceNo.1454 andadoptedbyreferencehereof,[and any amendments thereto].
(Ord.No.1454,§4,9 690;Ord.No.1501,§1,3 3-92;Ord.No.1512,§1,9 1592;Ord.No.1575,§§
1 3,2 2195;Ord.No.1578,§1,11 95;Ord.No.1594,§§1 3,117 95;Ord.No.1692,§1,11 299;
Ord.No.1730,§1,11700)
Editor's note—
Section 1of Ordinance No.28001730,adopted November 7,2000,amended Ordinance
No.14 901454byaddinganewpermitfeerefund schedule.Atthecity'srequest,
such schedule hasnotbeensotoutherein,butison file intheofficeofthecityclerk.
Section 3.Chapter 7 of theCityCode of Ordinances is amended toadd Section 7-3.2
which shall read as follows:
Sec.7-3.2.Parks Impact Fees.
A.Established.As a condition of the issuance of a building permit for new
development,the person,firmorcorporationwhoorwhichhasappliedforthebuilding
permitforresidentialconstructionshallpaytothe City,theparksimpactfeesassetforth
inthe provisions of this Ordinance.
IL Definitions.For the purpose of this Ordinance,certain terms and words are
defined.Additionallyandwhereapplicable,wordsusedinthepresenttenseshallinclude
thefuture;thesingularnumbershallincludetheplural,andthepluralthesingular:
Building vermit shall have the same meaning as provided in the Florida Building
Codeandshallincludea permit issuedbythe building officialforthe construction.
U:\My Documents\resolutions\Ordinance Impact Fee Ordinance CArev3 Comm Amendment.doc
Ord.No.14-14-2192
enlargement,alteration,modification,repair,movement,demolition,or change inthe
occupancy of a building or structure.
Cayital improvements shall mean physical assets constructed or purchased to provide,
improveorreplaceapublicfacilityandwhicharelargescale,highincost,andhave
an estimated usefullifein excess ofone year.Thecostofacapital improvement is
generally nonrecurring andmayrequire multiyear financing.
Feevaver shallmeananyperson,firm,orcorporationintendingtocommencenew
development and,duringthelifeofthe development,appliesfortheissuance of a
building permit.
Imyact fee study shallmeantheParksand Recreation FacilitiesImpactFeeStudyon
themethodologyusedtoestablishParksandRecreationFacilitiesImpactfeesforthe
City of SouthMiamipreparedbyTischlerBise,datedApril1,2014,which
establishesthebasisforthefairshare of capitalfacilitiescostsattributabletonew
developmentbaseduponstandardandappropriatemethodologies,andacopyof
whichisattachedtoandincorporatedbyreferenceintothis Ordinance butwhichis
excludedfromthecodifiedversion of thisordinance.Acopyshallbeonfilewiththe
City Clerk.
New residential development shall mean the carrying out of any residential building
activity,orthemakingofanymaterialchangeintheuseorappearanceofany
building,er-structure orland,whichresultsinthedividing of existingspaceorthe
addition of anyspacethatcouldbeusedasan additional bedroom or otherwise causes
an additional impact or demand on parks facilities.
C.Imposition of fees.Thereis assessed,charged,imposed,andenactedparksimpact
feesonallnew residential development occurringwithinthemunicipalboundariesofthe
City of SouthMiami.Thesefeeswillbeassessed,charged,orimposedinaccordancewith
thefee schedule provided below andasmaybe amended from time totimebythe City's Fee
Schedule ordinance baseduponthemostrecentand localized data.The effective date of any
increaseinfeesshalltakeeffectatleast90daysfollowingpublicationandenactmentofthe
amended Fee Schedule.
ParksandRecreationDevelopmentFeeScheduleper Housing Unit
Unit Type
Multifamilv
Unit
Single Unit
Single Unit
Number
of
Bedrooms
All Sizes
0-3
4+
Persons
per
Housing
Unit f 11
1.34
2.54
3.45
Proposed
Fee
$1,366
$2,590
$3,519
U:\My Documents\resolutions\Ordinance Impact Fee Ordinance CArev3 Comm Amendment.doc
Ord.No.14-14-2192
Til PPHURecommendedmultipliersarescaledtomaketheaveragevalue bv type of housingforFL
PUMA 4014 match the average value forthe City derived from 2011 American Community Survey data,
withpersonsadjustedtothe Citvwide average of2.80 persons persinglefamilyunit.
D.Payment.TheimpactfeesshallbepaidtotheCitybvtheFeepayeratthetimeof
andastheconditionprecedenttothe issuance ofthebuildingpermit.
E.Disposition of fees.All fees collected by virtue of this Ordinance andany interest
earned on them,other than the allowable administrative cost for collection,shall be
depositedintoaspecialandseparatetrustaccounttobedesignated,"parks andrecreation
facilitiesimpactfeesaccount."Fundsfromthisaccountmaybeexpendedforland
acquisition for parks;for maintaining (not including routine maintenance),furnishing,
equipping,repairing,remodeling,or enlarging of both existing and future facilities;for
construction of new parks facilities;forany architectural,engineering,legaland other
professionalfeesandexpensesrelatedtoanysuchimprovements;andforany
administrative costsnotincurredbythefee collection process.Fundsfromthisaccount
may alsobe expended for retirement of loans and/or bonds that may be,or have been,
issuedtofinancethecapital improvements herein contemplated.
F.Reporting,Collections,and Audits.The City of South Miami's Finance Director
shallkeepanaccurateaccountingandreportingofimpactfeecollectionsandexpenditures
withintheCity.TheCityshallretainupto5%of theimpactfeescollectedtooffsetthe
administrative costs of collectingtheimpactfees(whichshallbelimitedtotheactual
collection costs incurred)andthecost of administering the provisions of thisOrdinance.
Audits of theCity'sfinancialstatementswhichareperformedbyacertifiedpublicaccountant
pursuant to Section 218.39,F.S,as amended,that are submitted tothe Auditor General must
includeanaffidavitsignedbytheFinanceDirectorstatingthattheCityhascompliedwith
Section 163.31801,F.S.f "Florida Impact Fee Act")as amended.
G.Refunds,Credits,and Reimbursements.
(1)Upon application of thepropertyowner,theCityshallrefundthatportion of
anyimpactfeewhichhasbeenondepositforoversix(6)yearsandwhichisunexpendedand
uncommitted,except as described in subsection (3)of this section.The refund shallbemade
tothe then-current ownerorowners of lotsorunits of the development projectorprojects.
(2)If,attherequest of theCity,a Feepayer constructs aparksand recreation
facilities component or dedicates land forfuture facilities and if the constructed facility or
the dedicated land would otherwisehavebeenpaidforby impact fees,theCityshall
reimbursetheFeepayerforParksandRecreationFacilitiesimpactfeespreviouslypaidin
accordance withthefollowingconditions,unlessthe Feepayer andtheCityagreetoother
conditions:
{a}The reimbursement shallbelimitedtoa payback period of five(5)years;
(b}The City shall not reimburse interest on the outstanding balance;and,
(c)The Feepayer shallbe required to provide sufficient documentation
acceptable to the City,of the actual costs incurred for the facility
improvement.
U:\My Documents\resolutions\Ordinance Impact Fee Ordinance CArev3 Comm Amendment.doc 4
Ord.No.14-14-2192
£3}IfanyimpactfeeschargedtoaFeepayerareunexpendedoruncommitted
duringthesixthyearfollowingitscollection,thefeesareexemptfromsubsection(1)ofthis
sectioniftheCityCommissionmakesthefollowingfindings:
£a)Aneedforthecapital improvement stillexists;
(b)Thefeeswillbeusedforanidentifiedpurposewithintwo(2)years of the
finding of need:and
£c)The purpose forwhichthefeeswillbeusedis substantially similar tothe
purpose for which thefeeswere collected.
Section 4.Codification.The provisions of this ordinance shall become andbe made
part of theCode of Ordinances of theCity of South Miamias amended;thatthe sections of this
ordinancemaybe renumbered orre-letteredtoaccomplishsuchintention;andthattheword
"ordinance"maybechangedto"section"orotherappropriateword.
Section 5.Severability.If anysection,clause,sentence,or phrase of this ordinance is
foranyreasonheldinvalidorunconstitutionalbyacourt of competent jurisdiction,thisholding
shallnotaffectthe validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 6.Ordinances in Conflict.All ordinances or parts of ordinances andall
sectionsandparts of sections of ordinancesindirectconflict herewith areherebyrepealed.
However,itisnottheintent of thissectiontorepealentireordinances,orparts of ordinances,
thatgivethe appearance of being in conflict when thetwo ordinances canbe harmonized or
when onlya portion of the ordinance in conflict needs tobe repealed to harmonize the
ordinances.If the ordinance in conflict canbe harmonized by amending itsterms,itishereby
amended to harmonize thetwo ordinances.Therefore,only that portion that needs tobe repealed
to harmonize thetwo ordinances shallbe repealed.
Section 7.Effective Date.This ordinance shall become effective 90 days following its
publication.
PASSED AND ENACTED thisl 7thday of June _,2014.
CLEtfK^
1st Reading 6/03/14
2nd Reading 6/17/14
READ AND/CPPROVED ASTO FORM:
LANGUAGfR^EGALIT/Y.
EXBdj>l2foNTHERE(
mug.
COMMISSION VOTE:4-1
Mayor Stoddard:Yea
Vice Mayor Harris:Yea
Commissioner Edmond:Nay
Commissioner Liebman:Yea
Commissioner Welsh:Yea
U:\My Documents\resolutions\Ordinance Impact Fee Ordinance CArev3 Comm Amendment.doc
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
South"Miami °™?i£E memorandumTHECITYOFPLEASANTLIVINGINTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
To:The Honorable Mayor &Members of the City Commission
From:Steven Alexander,City Manager
Thru:Christopher Brimo AICP,Planning Director
Date:May 28,2014 Agenda ItemNo.
Subject:
An Ordinance of the City of South Miami,Florida,amending Section 7-3 of the Code of
Ordinancesandestablishingaparksandrecreationalimpactfee,andcreatingSection 7-3.2
establishing regulations for the collection of such impact fees.
Background:
In April 2013,the City Commissionapproveda contract withTischler Bise Incorporated,
pursuant toa request forproposal [RFP #PZ 2013-03-01],toconductanImpactFeeStudyand
Transportation ConcurrencyReview;ResolutionNo.77-13-13895.The study wouldlookat
three areasforpossiblefeeassessment;transportation,parks&recreation,andpublicsafety.
The City Administration requested the studyofimpactfeefeasibilityasapossiblemethodof
shiftingthecostofinfrastructurefromnewdevelopmentfromthe existing residents,whopay
foritnow,tothedeveloper.In essenceitmakesnewdevelopmentpayitsown way.
Therefore,adoption of impact fees reduces the financial pressure onlocal residents toraise
taxesandfees.Withnewdevelopment paying foritsfairshareof capacity-enhancing
infrastructureneeds,any current funds that havebeendesignatedtopayfor those projectscan
potentiallybeshiftedtothemoreimmediateneedsof existing residents,suchasfor facility
maintenance and rehabilitation.
The City currentlydoesnotcollectimpactfees,andthepurposeofthestudywasreviewthe
City's current services andfacilitiesand determine whether impact feescouldbe assessed for
new development.The process included an appropriate impact fee determination
methodology andfeeassessmentschedules necessary forthe City to establish anddefendany
proposed fees.Any methodology for establishing impact fees would need to meet the "rational
nexus"test,as well asbein compliance with Florida Statute163.31801the Florida Impact Fee
Act,to guarantee fairness in assessing these fees.
Adoption of impact fees reduces pressure onlocal residents to raise taxes and fees.Andwith
newdevelopmentpayingforitsown capacity-enhancing infrastructureneeds,anycurrent
funds that havebeen designated topayfor those projectscanbeshiftedtothemore
Parks&RecreationImpactFeeOrdinance
May 28,2014
Page 2 of 2
immediateneedsofexistingresidents,suchasfor facility maintenanceand rehabilitation.Asa
resultofthestudytheconsultants concluded thatitwouldonlybe feasible atthistimeforthe
City to assess an impact feeforparksand recreational facilities.It was determined that the
imposition ofa transportation impact fee would notbea feasible option for the City,partly
because thereare limited opportunities for wholesale roadway corridor projects thatwould
improvetrafficflows,butalso the capital costsofimprovingroadwaylevels of servicefor
existing vehicular traffic.Itwassuggestedthatotheroptionsbepursuedthat place less
emphasison j/ehicle utilization,suchasthecreationofamultimodaltransportation district
(MMTD).By establishing a MMTD and having a long-term plan for thedevelopmentof
multimodal infrastructure,the City maybeableto collect mobility feestopayforthat
infrastructure.
The City iscurrently undertaking theSouth Miami Intermodal Transportation Study (SMITP).
The results ofthisstudy will beusedin part,to address the feasibility of assessing a mobility
fee.
Recommendation:
Staffrecommendsthat the Commission approvetheadoptionoftheparksand recreation
impactfeeschedulepursuanttothe recommendations ofthe Tischler Bise impactfeestudy.
Theimpactfeestudyisincorporatedin the proposed Ordinance byreference.
Attachments:
Proposed Ordinance
Parks&Recreation Facilities ImpactFeeStudy;DatedApril 1,2014
Advisory Legal Opinion -Municipalities,useof impact fees Page1of7
Florida Attorney General
Advisory Legal Opinion
Number:AGO 2010-46
Date:November 5,2010
Subject:Municipalities,use of impact fees
Ms.Jerri Blair
City Attorney
City of Wildwood
Post Office Box 130
Tavares,Florida 32778-0130
RE:MUNICIPALITIES -FEES -IMPACT FEES -SOLID WASTE COLLECTION —
UTILITIES -use of impact fees for other purposes,s.163.31801,
Fla.Stat.
Dear Ms.Blair:
On behalf ofthe City Commission ofthe City of Wildwood,you have
been asked to request my opinion on substantially the following
questions:
1.Whether impact fees collected by the City of Wildwood for
purposes of expanding a particular utility service such as
refuse/garbage collectionmaybeusedforanotherutility service
whichgenerally benefits thesubject property which paid theimpact
fees?
2.Whether the City of Wildwood must return impact fees which have
been collected fora service which will be privatized tothe owner
ofthepropertyforwhichthefeeswere collected ortotheperson
from whom the impact fees were paid?
In sum:
1.Impact fees collectedbytheCityof Wildwood for thepurposeof
refuse collection must be used forthat purpose andforothersolid
waste-related purposes.Other utility services unrelated to solid
waste collection may not be funded with surplus impact fees
collected for refuse/garbage collection.
2.Inthe absence ofany direction from the Legislature as to the
returnof validly collected impactfeesforrefusecollection,this
office would suggest that the city utilize these feesfor solid
http://www.myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printview/A8E0F8C5AAA4D7AD852577D20072...5/28/2014
Advisory Legal Opinion -Municipalities,use of impact fees Page 2of 7
waste-related purposes as considered in St.Lucie County v.City of
Fort Pierce.
Accordingtoinformationyouhavesuppliedtothisoffice,theCity
ofWildwood has,for several years,leviedandcollectedanimpact
fee for refuse collection as well as other utilities and services.
Theimpactfeescollectedbythecityforrefusecollectionwere
imposedand collected pursuant tosection 163.31801,Florida
Statutes.The city has now determined that lower rates can be
maintained through contracting and privatizing therefuse collection
portion of its utility service and has entered into a contract for
thisservicewithaprivate company.However,thecitycurrently
holds$165,981.00thatwascollectedasrefuseimpact fees.Since
thecityis privatizing refuseservices,youstatethatthesefees
will not be used for the expansion of refuse collection services.
Therefore,youhaveaskedwhetherthesesurplusfeesmaybe used for
any other utility service or must be returned.
Question One
Section 163.31801,Florida Statutes,isthe "Florida Impact Fee
Act."[l]The intent of the Legislature in adopting this statute is
provided in subsection (2)thereof:
"The Legislature finds that impact feesarean important source of
revenue for a local government to use in funding the infrastructure
necessitated by new growth.The Legislature further finds that
impact fees are an outgrowth ofthe home rule power ofa local
government to provide certain services within its jurisdiction.Due
to the growth of impact fee collections and local governmentsf
reliance on impact fees,itis the intent ofthe Legislature to
ensure that,when a county or municipality adopts an impact fee by
ordinance ora special district adopts an impact fee by resolution,
the governing authority complies with this section."
Subsection (3)ofthe act requires that any impact fee adopted by
municipal ordinance must,at a minimum:
11 (a)Require that the calculation of the impact fee be based on the
most recent and localized data.
(b)Provide for accounting and reporting of impact fee collections
and expenditures.Ifa local governmental entity imposes an impact
fee to address its infrastructure needs,the entity shall account
for the revenues and expenditures of such impact fee in a separate
accounting fund.
(c)Limit administrative charges for the collection of impact fees
to actual costs.
(d)Require that notice be provided no less than 90 days before the
effective date of an ordinance or resolution imposing a new or
increased impact fee.A county or municipality is not required to
http://www.myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printview/A8E0F8C5AAA4D7AD852577D20072...5/28/2014
Advisory Legal Opinion -Municipalities,useofimpactfees Page3of 7
wait 90 days to decrease,suspend,or eliminate an impact fee."
Nothing in section 163.31801,Florida Statutes,addresses the
redirection of impact fees collected under that statute to other
purposes.
With regard to the imposition ofa viable impact fee,assessment and
collection of such afee must be based upon the pro rata share of
the reasonably anticipated costsof capital expansion required to
provide a service to a user.[2]The nature of such fees was
expressed by the Supreme Court of Florida in Contractors and
Builders Association of Pinellas County v.City of Dunedln,[3]as
follows:
"The avowed purpose of the ordinance in the present case isto raise
money in order to expand the water and sewerage systems,soasto
meet the increased demand which additional connections tothe system
create.The municipality seeks to shift to the user expenses
incurred on his account...."[4]
This office has also concluded that impact fees are in the nature of
user charges.[5]In Attorney General Opinion 76-137,this office
commented upon the imposition of an impact fee for the construction
of municipal water and sewer facilities,stating,"there is little
doubt that the fee imposed (by city ordinance)is not a tax or a
special assessment but isa valid imposition ofan 'impact fee1 or
user charge forthe privilege of connecting tothe city's water and
sewer system ...."
In City of Dunedln,the Court delineated the test tobe applied in
determining the validity of a locally imposed "impact fee."Such an
impact fee must satisfy the following test:(1)new development must
require that the present system of public facilities be expanded;
(2)the fees imposed on users must be no more than what the local
governmental unit would incur in accommodating the new users of the
system;and (3)the fees must be expressly earmarked and spent for
the purposes for which they werecharged.Thus,a viable impact fee,
levied and collected foran express purpose,must be spent for that
purpose.
Inacase involving impact feesforrefuse disposal services,St.
Lucie County v.City of Fort Pierce,[6]the county brought an action
against the city on the parties'waste disposal contract.For a
numberof years,pursuanttoaninterlocalagreement,thecountyhad
granted the city the right to dispose ofits garbage and trash at
one of the county's landfills.The city paid tipping fees to the
county for the use of the landfill.The fees increased over the
course of the agreement and,after a final rate increase,the
parties became involved inadispute concerning thecity'suseof
thelandfill.Afterthefeeincrease,thecitybegan withholding a
http://www.myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printview/A8E0F8C5AAA4D7AD852577D20072...5/28/2014
Advisory Legal Opinion -Municipalities,use of impactfees Page-4 of7
portion ofits payment tothecounty complaining thatthe county was
using part ofthefeesitwas collecting to close oneofthe
county's other landfills.The city argued that it never used the
landfill being closed and was not responsible forthis portion of
the assessed fee.The city then began delivering its waste to
another landfill outside the county.
St.Lucie County sued for declaratory and injunctive relief
concerning the city's right to dispose of its waste outside of the
county.The City of Fort Pierce counterclaimed for damages for
unjust enrichment.The city based its claim on the theory that it
should not be required to pay for the closure ofa refuse disposal
site never used by the city.The trial court ruled in favor of the
city onits unjust enrichment claim and awarded damages to the city.
The damage award under the unjust enrichment theory was the subject
ofthe appeal tothe Fourth District Court of Appeal.The county
raised two points in support of its appeal:1)that the waste
disposal feewasa valid fee and that its partial use for other
county solid waste purposes had no effect on the validity of the
fee,and 2)that the use of these fees for closure of the landfill
was not unjust enrichment.As the court noted,"[s]imply stated it's
the county's position that if these fees are valid user fees and
they are being used for related waste disposal purposes then there
can be no unjust enrichment."The Fourth District Court of Appeal
agreed with the county and reversed the lower court decision.As the
court stated "[w]e find that the fees are valid user fees and that
thefees are being expended fora solid waste-related purpose."[7]
The court's analysis relied on City of New Smyrna Beach v.Board of
Trustees of Internal Improvement Trust Fund.[8]In that case,the
court dealt with a challenge to the expenditures made by the City of
New Smyrna after the collection of a beach use fee.The board's
position was that collection of the beach fee only authorized
expenditures for "beach maintenance."The court rejected this
argument and stated that:"If the term xbeach maintenance'were to
be construed as limited solely to physical upkeep of the beach,then
the municipalities would have to shoulder the economic burden of the
increased costs for law enforcement,life guards,emergency service
and liability insurance."[9]The court upheld the city's
expenditures,and held that the fees could be used for traffic
management,parking,law enforcement,liability insurance,
sanitation,lifeguards and other staff purposes,"so long as such
expenses were beach related."[10]Relying on the holding in City of
New Smyrna Beach,the court in St.Lucie County agreed with the
county that "the use of the fees to close down the Airport Landfill
was a solid waste related purpose and therefore a valid expenditure
from the fees collected."[11]
Similarly,the City of Wildwood has imposed an impact fee for refuse
collection.The City imposed this impact fee pursuant to section
http://www.myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printview/A8E0F8C5AAA4D7AD852577D20072...5/28/2014
Advisory Legal Opinion -Municipalities,use of impact fees Page 5of7
163.31801,Florida Statutes.Asavalidimpact fee,thefeesimposed
mustbenomorethanwhatthecity would incurin accommodating the
new users of the system and these fees must be expressly earmarked
and spentforthe purposes for which they were charged and
collected.As Florida courts and this office have recognized,an
impact fee,levied and collected foran express purpose,must be
spent for that purpose.Thus,the City of Wildwood refuse collection
impact fee maybe spent only forthat purpose and related purposes
and may not be directed to another unrelated utility service.
You have cited section 180.07,Florida Statutes,which relates to
public utilities and provides forthe combination of plants or
systems and the pledge of revenues raised pursuant to this chapter
for the construction and operation of these plants and systems.You
note that subsection (2)of this statute provides:
"Whenever any municipality shall decide to avail itself of the
provisions of this chapter for the extension or improvement of any
existing utility plant orsystem,any then-existing plant or system
may be included asa part of a whole plant or system and any two or
more utilities may be included in one project hereunder.The
revenues of all or any part of any existing plants or systems or any
plants or systems constructed hereunder may be pledged to secure
moneys advanced for the construction or improvement of any utility
plant or system or any part thereof or any combination
thereof."(e.s.)
According to your letter,the City of Wildwood relied on section
163.31801,Florida Statutes,to impose and collect an impact feefor
refuse collection.Further,the city is not considering the
extension or improvement of an existing utility plant,but is
contracting with a private solid waste provider for services.The
clear language of section 180.07(2),Florida Statutes,states that
it applies to projects undertaken pursuant to the provisions of
Chapter 180.Thus,it does not appear that section 180.07(2),
Florida Statutes,provides authority for the City of Wildwood to use
impact fees which were levied and collected for that purpose to
support other utility services.
Question Two
Your second question relates to the disposition of impact fees which
have been levied and collected,but areno longer needed for capital
expansion to provide refuse collection services.
No statutory or other authority of which I am aware or to which you
have brought my attention would authorize the City of Wildwood to
return or refund validly imposed and collect impact fees.[12]In the
absence of any direction in the law for such an action,this office
cannot suggest what may appear tobean equitable resolution to your
http://www.myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printview/A8E0F8C5AAA4D7AD852577D20072...5/28/2014
AdvisoryLegalOpinion-Municipalities,use of impactfees Page6 of 7
question.[13]In the absence of any such legislative authority for a
refund,this office would suggest that the city utilize these fees
for solid waste-related purposes as considered in St.Lucie County
v.City of Fort Pierce,[14]cited and discussed above,which would
represent a valid expenditure of the fees collected.
Sincerely,
Bill McCollum
Attorney General
BM/tgh
[1]See s.163.31801(1),Fla.Stat.
[2]See Contractors and Builders Association of Pinellas County v.
City of Dunedln,329So.2d 314(Fla.1976),appeal after remand,
358 So.2d 846 (Fla.2d DCA 1978),cert,denied.444 U„SB 867
(1979).See also Home Builders and Contractors Association of Palm
Beach County,Inc.v.Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach
County,446 So.2d 140(Fla.4th DCA 1983),petition for review
denied,451 So.2d 848(Fla.1984),appeal dismissed,105 S.Ct.376
(1984).
[3]329 So.2d 314 (Fla.1976).
[4]329 So.2d at 318.Cf.Loxahatchee River Environmental Control
District v.School Board of Palm Beach County,496 So.2d 930(Fla.
4th DCA 1986),approved,515 So.2d 217 (Fla.1987),in which the
court determined that certain service availability standby charges
were within the definition of impact or service availability fees
established by the State Department of Education.
[5]See Ops.Att'y Gen.Fla.76-137 (1976),82-09 (1982),and 85-101
(1985);Inf.Op.to Nieman,dated Oct.4,2010.
[6]676 So.2d 35 (Fla.4th DCA 1996).
[7]Id.at 37.
[8]543 So.2d 824 (Fla.5th DCA 1989).
[9]Id.at 829.
[10]Id.See also Jacksonville Port Authority v.Alamo Rent-A-Car,
600 So.2d 1159 (Fla.1st DCA 1992),review denied,613 So.2d 1
(Fla.1992).
http://www.myfloridalegaI.com/ago.nsf/printview/A8E0F8C5AAA4D7AD852577D20072...5/28/2014
Advisory Legal Opinion-Municipalities,use of impact fees Page 7 of 7
[11]Supra n.6 at 37.
[12]Cf.State ex rel.Victor Chemical Works v.Gay,74So.2d560
(Fla.1954),holding that unless therewassome statutory authority
providing for refunds,money could not be recovered once it had been
paid into the state treasury and that refunds are a matter of
legislative grace;St.Joe Paper Co.v.Department of Revenue,460
So.2d 399 at 404 (Fla.1st DCA 1984),»[a]t common law,there was
no right to a refund from the sovereign;as a result,in the absence
of a statute authorizing a refund,a refund of taxes could not be
allowed unless the taxpayer could demonstrate that thetax was paid
involuntarily or compulsively[;]"Op.Attfy Gen.Fla.75-293 (1975).
[13]Cf.Chaffee v.Miami Transfer Company,Inc.,288 So.2d 209
(Fla.1974),and Ops.Att'y Gen.Fla.06-26 (2006)and 81-10 (1981),
for the proposition that the Attorney General is without authority
to qualify or read into a statute an interpretation or to define
words in a statute in a manner which would result in a construction
that seems more equitable under circumstances presented by a
particular factual situation;such construction when the language of
a statute is clear would,in effect,be an act of legislation which
is exclusively the prerogative of the Legislature.
[14]676 So.2d 35 (Fla.4th DCA 1996).
http://www.myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printview/A8E0F8C5AAA4D7AD852577D20072...5/28/2014
Parks and Recreation Facilities
City of South Miami,Floriiia
TischlerBise
ttuM.U#*t#nH fan*umf[CoMtttUnit
TischlerBise
4701 Sangamore Road
Suite S240
Bethesda,Maryland 20816
800.424.4318
www.tischlerbise.com
TischlerBise
Impact Fee Study
City of SouthMiami,Florida
Table of Contents
Impact Fee Study
City of South Miami,Florida
Impact Fee Study
City ofSouthMiami,Florida
Executive Summary 1
Introduction to Impact Fees 2
General Legal Framework 2
Unique Requirements of the Florida Impact FeeAct 3
Methodologies and Credits 4
Costfor Impact FeeStudy •6
MaximumAllowableImpactFeesByTypeofLandUse 6
Parksand Recreation Facilities impact Fees 7
Methodology 7
ParksandRecreationFacilities Improvements andCosts 8
Parksand Recreation Capital Improvements Needed toServeGrowth 11
Cost for Impact FeeStudy 13
CreditFor Future Principal Payments 14
ParksandRecreation Input VariablesandImpactFees 15
CashFlow Projections 16
Implementation and Administration 17
Credits and Reimbursements 17
Collection and Expenditure Zones 17
Appendix A-Land Use Assumptions 18
Introduction 18
Residential Development 19
Appendix B -Florida Statute:163.31801 24
Title XI 163.31801-Impactfees;shorttitle;intent;definitions;ordinances levying impactfees24
TischlerBise
iise
Fiscal,Economic &Planning Consultants
Executive Summary
4701 SANGAMORE ROAD I SUITE S240 I BETHESDA I MD 20816
Tj 800.424.4318 I F:301.320.4860
300 UNO LAGO DRIVE I SUITE 405 I NORTH PALMBEACH I FL 33408
T:800.424.4318 I F:301.320.4860
WWW.TISCHLERBISE.COM
TheCityofSouthMiami retained TischlerBise,Inc.toanalyze current levelsofservice,andtocalculate
maximumallowableimpactfeesforParksandRecreationfacilitiesin the City.This report presents the
methodologies and calculations used to generate current levelsof service and the maximumallowable
impactfees.Itisintendedtoserveas supporting documentationforfutureupdatestoimpactfeesinthe
City.
The purpose ofthisstudyis to demonstrate the City'scompliancewithFlorida Statute 163.31801 Florida
ImpactFeeAct.Consistent with the state Statute,and the City's master planning documents itis the
intent of the City to:
1.Collect impactfees to fundparksandrecreationcapitalimprovementsrequiredtoservegrowth,
and
2.Touserevenue generated fromimpactfeestobenefitnew development bymaintainingcurrent
citywide levels of service.
Impactfeesare one-time payments usedtoconstructsystem improvements needed to accommodate
newdevelopment.An impactfeerepresentsnewgrowth'sfairshareofcapital facility needs.By law,
impactfeescanonlybeusedfor capital improvements,notoperatingormaintenancecosts.Impactfees
are subject tolegal standards,which require fulfillmentof three key elements:need,benefit and
proportionality.
•First,tojustifyafeeforpublic facilities,itmustbe demonstrated that new development will
create a need for capital improvements.
•Second,new development must derivea benefit from the payment of the fees(i.e.,in the form
ofpublicfacilities constructed withina reasonable timeframe).
•Third,the feepaidbya particular type of development should not exceed its proportional share
of the capital cost for system improvements.
TischlerBise evaluatedpossible methodologies,anddocumentedappropriatedemand indicators bytype
ofdevelopmenttodocumentlevelsofserviceandcalculatefees.Local demographicdataand
improvementcostswereusedtoidentifyspecificcapitalcosts attributable togrowth.This report
includessummarytablesindicating the specificfactors,referred toaslevelofservice standards,usedto
derive the impact fees.
ThegeographicareafortheParksandRecreation Facilities impactfeesisthe City ofSouth Miami;and
the demand indicator is residential development.
•Fiscal Impact Analysis •Impact Fees «Economic Impacts •Infrastructure Financing •Market and Financial Feasibility •Fiscal Software •
.Introductionto Impact Fees:
Impact Fee Study
City ofSouth Miami,Florida
Impactfeesare one-time paymentsusedto construct systemimprovements needed to accommodate
new development.Animpactfee represents newgrowth's proportionate shareofcapitalfacilities.
Impactfeeshavedefinedparametersforuse.Theyarenotacompletesolutionforinfrastructure
financing needs.Rather,theyareonecomponentofacomprehensiveportfolioto ensure provision of
adequate publicfacilities.Impactfeesmayonlybeusedforcapital improvements or debt servicefor
growth-related infrastructure.In contrast togeneraltaxes,impactfeesmaynotbeusedfor operations,
maintenance,replacement or correcting existing deficiencies.
GENERAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Both state andfederalcourtshave recognized the imposition ofimpactfeesondevelopmentasa
legitimateformofland use regulation,providedthefeesmeetstandardsintendedtoprotectagainst
regulatorytakings.Land useregulations,developmentexactions,andimpactfeesaresubjectto the Fifth
Amendmentprohibitionontakingofprivatepropertyforpublicusewithoutjustcompensation.To
comply withthe Fifth Amendment,development regulations mustbeshownto substantially advancea
legitimate governmental interest.In thecaseofimpactfees,thatinterestis In theprotectionof public
health,safety,andwelfarebyensuringthatdevelopmentisnotdetrimentaltothequalityofessential
publicservices.Themeans to thisendarealsoimportant,requiringbothproceduraland substantive due
process.Theprocessfollowedtoreceivecommunityinput,with stakeholder meetings,worksessions,
and public hearings provide opportunityforcommentsandrefinementstotheimpactfees.
Thereislittlefederalcaselawspecifically dealing withimpactfees,although other rulings onothertypes
of exactions (e.g.,land dedication requirements)are relevant.Inoneofthemostimportant exaction
cases,the U.S.SupremeCourtfound that agovernmentagencyimposingexactionsondevelopment
must demonstrate an"essentialnexus"betweentheexactionandtheinterestbeingprotected(see
Nollan v.California Coastal Commission,1987).In amorerecentcase (Dolan v.City of Tigard,OR,1994),
the Court ruled thatan exaction alsomustbe "roughly proportional"totheburdencreatedby
development.However,the Dolan decision appearedtoseta higher standardof review for mandatory
dedicationsofland than for monetary exactionssuchasimpactfees.
Therearethreereasonablerelationshiprequirementsforimpactfees that related closely to"rational
nexus"or"reasonable relationship"requirementsenunciatedbyanumberofstatecourts.Although the
term"dualrationalnexus"isoftenusedtocharacterizethe standard bywhichcourtsevaluatethe
validityofimpactfees under the U.S.Constitution,we prefer amorerigorousformulation that
recognizes three elements:"need,""benefit,"and"proportionality."Thedualrationalnexus test
explicitly addresses only the firsttwo,althoughproportionalityisreasonablyimplied,andwas
specifically mentioned by the U.S.Supreme Courtin the Dolancase.Individual elements of the nexus
standard are discussed further in the following paragraphs.
All newdevelopmentinacommunitycreatesadditionaldemandsonsome,orall,public facilities
providedbylocal government.If the capacityoffacilitiesisnotincreasedtosatisfy that additional
demand,thequalityor availability ofpublicservicesfortheentirecommunity will deteriorate.Impact
feesmaybeusedtorecover the costof development-related facilities,butonlyto the extent that the
needforfacilitiesisa consequence of development that issubjectto the fees.The Nollan decision
reinforcedthe principle thatdevelopmentexactionsmaybeusedonlytomitigateconditionscreatedby
TischlerBise
Impact Fee Study
City ofSouthMiami,Florida
the developments uponwhich they areimposed.That principle clearly appliestoimpactfees.In this
study,theimpactofdevelopmenton infrastructure needsis analyzed intermsof quantifiable
relationships between various types of development and the demand forspecific facilities,basedon
applicable level of service standards.
Therequirementthatexactionsbe proportional totheimpactsofdevelopmentwas clearly statedbythe
U.S.Supreme Courtin the Dolan case(although the relevanceof that decisiontoimpactfeeshasbeen
debated)andis logically necessarytoestablishapropernexus.Proportionality isestablished through
the procedures usedto identify development-related capitalcosts,andin the methods usedtocalculate
impactfeesforvarious types of facilitiesandcategories of development.The demand for facilities is
measured in terms of relevant and measurable attributes of development (e.g.atypicalhousingunit's
household size).
Financial Accounting
A sufficient benefit relationshiprequires that impactfee revenues be segregated from other funds,and
that they be expended onlyon the facilitiesforwhich the fees were charged.Impactfees must be
expended inatimely manner and the facilitiesfundedby the fees must serve the development paying
thefees.However,nothingin the U.S.Constitutionorthe state enabling legislation requiresthat
facilitiesfundedwithfee revenues beavailableexclusivelyto development paying the fees.In other
words,benefit may extend to ageneralareaincluding multiple real estate developments.Procedures
for the earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues are discussed further below.All of these
procedural,aswellas substantive,issues are intended to ensure that new development benefits from
the impactfees they arerequiredtopay.Theauthorityandproceduresto implement impactfeesis
separate from,and complementary to,the authority torequire improvements aspart of subdivisionor
zoning review.
UNIQUE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FLORIDA IMPACT FEE ACT
In Florida,impact feesarean outgrowth of home rule power and compared to other states,the enabling
legislationisrelativelybrief.[See Appendix B-Florida Statute:163.31801]TheActrequiresthe
calculationofimpactfeestobebasedon most recent andlocalizeddata.Administrative chargesfor the
collection of impactfeesarelimitedtoactualcosts.Thechieffinancial officer of the local government
hasspecificresponsibilitiesfor accounting andreportingcollectionsand expenditures ofimpactfees.In
contrast to the legal precedent in other states,Florida law states,"Inanyaction challenging an impact
fee,the government has the burden of provingbya preponderance of the evidence that the imposition
or amount of the fee meets the requirements of state legal precedent or this section."
As documented inthis report,the City of South Miamihas complied with the Florida Impact FeeActand
applicablelegal precedents.Impactfeesare proportionate andreasonablyrelatedto the capital
improvement demands of new development.Specific costs have been identified usinglocaldataand
current dollars.WithinputfromCitystaff,TischlerBise determined demand indicatorsforeach type of
infrastructureandcalculatedproportionatesharefactorstoallocatecostsby type of development.This
report documents the formulasandinputvariablesusedtocalculate the impactfeesfor three types of
parksand recreation capital components.Impact fee methodologies also identify the extent to which
new development is entitled tovarious types ofcreditstoavoidpotential double payment of growth-
related capital costs.
METHODOLOGIES AND CREDITS
Impact Fee Study
City of SouthMiami,Florida
Conceptual Impact Fee Calculation
In contrast toproject-level improvements,impactfeesfund growth-related infrastructure that will
benefitmultipledevelopment projects,ortheentire jurisdiction (usually referredtoassystem
improvements).Thefirst step isto determine anappropriate demand indicatorfor the particulartype of
infrastructure.Thedemandindicatormeasuresthenumberofdemandunits(e.g.,population)foreach
unit of development.For example,anappropriateindicator of the demand forparksispopulation
growthand the increaseinpopulationcanbe estimated from the average number of personsper
housingunit.Thesecondstepintheimpactfee formula istodetermineinfrastructureunitsperdemand
unit,typicallycalledlevel of service (LOS)standards.In keeping withtheparkexample,a common LOS
standardisparkacreageper thousand people.Thethirdstepin the impactfeeformulais the cost of
various infrastructure units.To complete the park example,thispartof the formula would establish the
cost peracreforlandacquisition and/or park improvements.
Calculation Methodologies
Impact feescanbe calculated byanyoneof several legitimate methods.Thechoiceofa particular
methoddepends primarily ontheservice characteristics and planning requirementsforeach facility
type.Each method hasadvantagesanddisadvantagesina particular situation,and to some extent can
be interchangeable,becauseeach allocates facility costsin proportion totheneedscreatedby
development.
Reduced toitssimplestterms,the process of calculating impactfees involves twomainsteps:(1)
determining thecostof development-related capital improvements,and (2)allocating thosecosts
equitablyto various typesofdevelopment.In practice,though,the calculation ofimpactfeescan
becomequite complicated becauseofthemany variables involved in defining the relationship between
development andtheneedfor facilities.The following paragraphs discussthreebasic methods for
calculatingimpactfees,andpossibleapplicationofeach method.
CostRecoveryor Buy-In Fee Calculation.Therationalefor the costrecoveryapproachis that new
developmentis paying foritsshareoftheusefullifeand remaining capacity of facilities already builtor
land already purchased fromwhichnewgrowth will benefit.This methodologyisoftenusedforsystems
that were oversized such as sewer and water facilities.
Incremental Expansion Fee Calculation.The incremental expansion method documents the current level
ofservice (LOS)foreachtypeof public facility inbothquantitativeand qualitative measures,basedon
anexistingservicestandard(suchassquare feet per student).Thisapproach ensures that there areno
existing infrastructure deficiencies orsurplus capacity inexisting infrastructure.New development is
only payingits proportionate sharefor growth-related infrastructure.Thelevel of service standards are
determinedinamanner similar tothe current replacement cost approach usedby property insurance
companies.However,in contrast to insurancepractices,the fee revenues would not befor renewal
and/orreplacementof existing facilities.Rather,revenue will beusedtoexpandorprovide additional
facilities,asneeded,to accommodate new development.Anincrementalexpansioncost method isbest
suited forpublicfacilities that willbe expanded inregular increments,with LOS standards based on
current conditions in the community.
TischlerBise
Impact Fee Study
City ofSouthMiami,Florida
Plan-Based Fee Calculation.Theplan-based method allocatescostsforaspecifiedsetof improvements
toa specified amount of development.Facility plans identify needed improvements,and land useplans
identify development.In this method,the totalcost of relevantfacilitiesisdividedby total demand to
calculateacostperunitofdemand.Then,the costperunitof demand ismultipliedby the amount of
demandperunit of development (e.g.,housingunitsorsquarefeet of buildingarea)ineachcategoryto
arriveatacostperspecificunitof development (e.g.,singlefamily detached unit).
Credits
Regardless ofthemethodology,aconsiderationof"credits"isintegralto the development ofa legally
validimpactfee methodology.Thereare two typesof"credits,"eachwithspecificanddistinct
characteristics,butbothofwhichshouldbeaddressedin the calculation of impactfees.Thefirstisa
creditduetopossibledoublepaymentsituations.Thiscouldoccurwhencontributionsaremadebythe
property owner toward the capitalcostsof the publicfacilitycoveredby the impactfee.This type of
creditisintegratedinto the impactfeecalculation.Thesecondisacredittowardthe payment ofafee
for dedication of public sitesorimprovements provided bythedeveloperandforwhichthe facility feeis
imposed.Thistypeofcreditisaddressedinthe administration andimplementationofa facility fee
program.
Fee Methodologies
Each ofthefeemethodologies discussed abovewereconsideredto calculate impactfeesforthe City of
SouthMiami.Where capacityissufficienttoservecurrentdemand the incrementalexpansion method
documentsthecurrent level of service (LOS)foreachtypeof public facility.The cost recovery method,
usedonthe rationale thatnewdevelopmentis paying foritsshareoftheusefullifeand remaining
capacityofanexistingfacility,isused to calculatea new growthshare of recreationalfacilities.The
following tablesummarizesthemethod(s)usedto derive theimpactfeeforeachcomponentofthe
Parksand Recreation Facilities impact fees.
Figure1:Summary of Impact Fee Methodologies
Parks and Recreation Facilities I
Type of Public Facility Cost Recovery
(Past)
Incremental Expansion
(Present)
Plan Based
(Future)
Parks and Recreation •Recreational Facilities
•Developed Parkland
•Park Improvements Not Applicable
Reporting Results
Calculations throughoutthistechnical memo arebasedonan analysis conductedusing Excel software.
Resultsarediscussedinthememousingone-andtwo-digit places (inmostcases),whichrepresent
rounded figures.However,the analysis itselfuses figures carried totheirultimate decimal places;
thereforethesumsandproductsgeneratedinthe analysis maynotequalthesumorproductifthe
reader replicates the calculation withthe factors showninthereport(duetothe rounding of figures
shown,not in the analysis).
TischlerBise
l-{...c.-.v^5..-.,
COST FOR IMPACT FEE STUDY
Impact Fee Study
City of SouthMiami,Florida
Included inthe Parks and Recreation facilities impact fee is thecostfor preparation ofthe Impact Fee
Study.The City of South Miami incurred acostof $36,000 forthe 2013 Impact Fee Study to establish
maximum supportableimpactfeesfor Parks and Recreation Facilities and Multi-Modal Transportation
Facilities (tobe discussed inafuture document).To distribute thecost among eachstudy component,
half ($18,000)of the totalprojectcostwasassignedtotheParksandRecreation Facilities feeevaluation.
The component shares andcostsareshownin Figure 2.
Figure2:Impact Fee Study Preparation Cost
Fee Components 2013 Component Costs
Parks and Recreation $18,000
Multi-Modal Transportation $18,000
Total Study Cost P^o^^S^^^Wf'-^'X
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE IMPACT FEESBY TYPE OF LAND USE
Figure 3 provides ascheduleofthe maximum allowable impactfeesbytypeoflanduseforthe City of
South Miami.Thefees represent the highestamountallowableforeachtypeofapplicablelanduse,and
represents new growth's fair share of the costforparksandrecreationcapitalfacilities.The City may
adoptfees that arelessthantheamountsshown.However,areductioninimpactfeerevenue will
necessitate anincreasein other revenues,a decrease inplannedcapital expenditures,and/or a
decrease in levels of service.
Thefeesforresidentialdevelopmentaretobeassessedperhousingunitandshouldbecollectedwhen
building permits are issued.As anoption,thefeesfor single residential unitsarepresentedbysizeofthe
unit,basedonnumberofbedroomsandpersonsper housing unitfactors.See Appendix Aforfurther
explanation of these factors andfee options.
Figure3:Summary of Maximum Allowable ImpactFeesbyLandUse
Unit Type
Number of
Bedrooms
Persons per
HousingUnit [1]
MultifamilyUnit
Single Unit
Single Unit
All Sizes 1.34
0-3 2.54
4+3.45
Wi^M^^^^^^^^M ^^^^^MVS^^^^m ^^^^^P*r^«W^^W mmamm
[1]PPHU Recommended multipliers are scaled to make the average value by
typeof housing for FL PUMA 4014matchthe average value fortheCityderived
from2011 American CommunitySurvey data,with persons adjusted to the
Gtywide average of 2.80 persons per single family unit.
Parks and Recreation Facilities Impact Fees
METHODOLOGY
Impact Fee Study
City of SouthMiami,Florida
The Parks and Recreation Facilities impactfees include threecomponents.Figure 4 illustrates the Parks
and Recreation impact fee components and methodology.An incremental expansion cost methodology
wasusedto calculate thedeveloped parkland andparkimprovementscomponents.A cost recovery
methodwasusedto calculate the recreation facilities component.All capital costshavebeen allocated
100 percent to residential development.
Based onrecentgrowthtrendsand discussions withCitystaff,TischlerBise calculated abaseyear
population estimateof 11,979,foruseinthe Impact Fee Study.Please note:because population
estimates usedin the impact fee study arebasedonyear-round population,estimates andprojections
presented herein represent more conservative figures than the University of Florida'sBureauof
Economic and Business Research household population data.
Figure4:Parksand Recreation Facilities Impact Fee Methodology Chart
TischlerBise
Persons
per
Housing Unit
Developed
Parkland
(incremental)
Residential
Development
multiplied by
Net Capital Cost
Per Person
plus
Park
Improvements
(incremental)
1
plus
Recreational
Facilities
(cost recovery)
impact Fee Study
CityofSouthMiami,Florida
PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS AND COSTS
Developed Parkland
The City ofSouth Miami doesnotanticipate purchasing additionalparklandinthe foreseeable future.
Rather,the City planstomaintainthecurrent level ofservicefordevelopedparklandwitha citywide
servicearea that itprovidestoexistingdevelopment.Thus,theincrementalexpansionmethodologyis
usedtocalculatethis component of the ParksandRecreation Facilities impactfees.
The City intendstouseimpactfeestodevelopaportionofitsundevelopedinventoryof parkland.In
ordertohost improvements suchasathletic fields,playgrounds,parking,picnic andotheramenities,
parkland mustfirstbe developed intermsof basic infrastructure (e.g.,sewer/water,parking,grading,
etc.).Figure 5 provides acurrent inventory of City-maintained parkland,including 10acresof
undeveloped land designated asSouth Miami Park,and34.94acresof developed parkland,allwitha
citywide service area.
As shownin Figure 5,thecurrentlevelofserviceis2.92acresper1,000residents (rounded),basedona
dividing the34.94developedacresby the currentpopulationof11,979.
Thecostper person is calculated by multiplying thecurrent LOS (2.92 acresperthousand persons)by
theestimatedcostto develop aparkacre provided bythe City ($175,000 peracre)and dividing thistotal
by1,000.This resultsinacurrentparklanddevelopmentcostperpersonof$511.00.
Figure5:Incremental Expansion -Developed Parkland
Cityof South Miami Parkland
Dante Fascell Park
Brewer Park
Murray Park
Fuchs Park
Marshall Williamson Park
Jean Willis (FloweringTree)Park
AH-America Park
Van Smith
Dison
Palmer Park/S.M.Field
South Miami Park
TOTAL 10.00
Source:Oty of SouthMiami
•Acreage -
Undeveloped Developed
7.50
1.50
3.50
5.00
3.50
0.50
1.40
1.14
1.00
9.90
10.00
34.94
Level ofService (LOS)Standards
Inventoryof Parkland Acres 34.94
2013 City Population 11,979
LQS^Acr.es-per_IhQusan&Person ——~-
Cost Analysis
LOS:Acres perThousand Person 2.92
Land Development Cost per Acre $175,000
|ParklandCostper Person $511.00
TischlerBise
Impact Fee Study
City ofSouthMiami,Florida
Park Improvements
The park improvementscomponentisbasedonthe incremental expansion methodology.The City of
SouthMiamimaintainsactiveandpassivepark improvements foruseby the.current population.Asthe
residentpopulationgrows,the Cityintendstouseimpactfee revenue toaddpark improvements to
existingparksas necessary tomaintain the current level of service of 3.59unitsper1,000 residents.As
shown below,the Cityhas43park improvements including sports fieldsandcourts,playgrounds,and
picnic amenities.The combined value of park improvements is $5,075,586.The calculation to determine
levelofserviceisasfollows:43units/(11,979/1,000 residents)=3.59unitsper1,000residents
(rounded).Theaveragecostperunit of existingpark improvements is $118,037.Tocalculate the costof
park improvements percapita,the averagecostperunitismultipliedby the levelofserviceresultingin
apark improvements cost percapita of $423.75.
Figure6:Incremental Expansion -Park Improvements
Park Improvements
Handball Courts 4 $30,000 $120,000
Pavilion 3 $15,000 $45,000
Playgrounds 5 $55,000 $275,000
Football/Soccer Fields (Lighted)1 $175,000 $175,000
Base/Softball Fields (Lighted)7 $200,000 $1,400,000
Open Fields (Unlighted)4 $150,000 $600,000
Tennis Courts 10 $30,000 $300,000
Basketball Courts 3 $47,225 $141,675
Volleyball Courts,Sand 2 $17,000 $34,000
Restrooms/Concession 3 $110,000 $330,000
Pool 1 $1,654,911 $1,654,911
1 TOTAL 43 $5,075,586
Average Cost per Improvement $118,037
Source:CityofSouthMiami
Level ofService (LOS)Standards
Inventory of Park Improvements
Total Park Acres
Improvements per Acre
2013 Qty Population
LOS:Improvements per Thousand Person
Cost Analysis
LOS:Acres perThousand Person,
Average Cost per Improvement
Improvement Cost per Person
TischieiBise
43
34.94
1.23
11,979
3.59
$118,037
$423.75
Impact Fee Study
City ofSouth Miami,Florida
Recreation Facilities
in2001,aneedwasidentifiedfora recreational facility toservecurrentdemandsand expected
development In theCityofSouth Miami.Asshownin Figure 7,thecityconstructedthe22,032square
foot Murray/Gibson-Bethel CommunityCentertoservearesidentpopulationofapproximately14,000
people(bothexistingandnewresidents),andreserved25percentofthetotal facility toservenon
residentmembers.Therefore,a25percent reduction factorisappliedtothetotalsquarefeetto
determine the 16,524squarefeetof the totalspacethatwillbeusedtocalculate the level of servicefor
this component.
Based onan adjusted square footage of 16,524 anda capacity toserve approximately 14,000 residents,
acost recovery methodologyisusedto calculate the level of service of1.18squarefeetperresidentby
dividing 16,524squarefeetby14,000 residents.The City spent $2.5 million toconstructthe22,032
square foot facility,which equatestoacostper square footof $113.Thecostper person is derived by
multiplying the1.18 LOS bythecostper square foot ($113),resulting inacostperpersonof$133.34.
Figure7:Cost Recovery -Parks and Recreation Facilities
Facility
Murray/Gibson-Bethel Cbmm.Cntr |$2,500,0001
Reduction Factor ;
Share of Facility ForCity Residents
Source:City ofSouth Miami
Level ofService (LOS)Standards
Inventory of Square Feet
City Population to be Served
jLOS:SquareFeetper Person
Cost Analysis
LOS:Square Feet per Person
Cost per Square Foot
Recreation Facility Cost per Person
TischlerBise
Square Foot;
22,032|
*•"<••-£$&.
16,524
16,524
14.000
1.18
:$ii3
$133.34
10
Impact Fee Study
CityofSouthMiami,Florida
PARKS AND RECREATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED TO SERVE GROWTH
Parks and Recreation Facilities Capacity
In 2001,the City ofSouth Miami constructedanewrecreation facility designedtoservearesident
populationofapproximately14,000people,withadditionalspacetoservenon-residentguests.Issuance
ofageneralobligationbondprovided the necessaryfundingto construct the new facility.
Basedonacapacityto serve 14,000residentsand the landuse assumptions (seeAppendixA)usedto
project the potential rate ofnew development,there remainsenoughcapacityto serve approximately
twenty yearsofgrowth.ShowninFigure8is the annualresidential demand for the recreational facility
squarefootageforeachyearpastcurrentdemand,untiltheremainingcapacityis utilized byfuture
development.
Figure 8:Recreational Facility Remaining Capacity to Serve Growth
W
''•f2fl$
sfej12033$.
TischlerBise
Demand for Remaining
Population LOS Facility SF Capacity
11,979 ''•:';S^^^ff;
12,074 1.18 14,247 2,277
12,169 1.18 14,359 2,165
12,266 1.18 14,474 2,050
12,363 1.18 14,588 1,936
12,460 1.18 14,703 1,821
12,559 1.18 14,820 1,704
12,658 1.18 14,936 1,588
12,759 1.18 15,056 1,468
12,859 1.18 15,174 1,350
12,961 1.18 15,294 1,230
13,064 1.18 15,416 1,108
13,167 1.18 15,537 987
13,271 1.18 15,660 864
13,376 1.18 15,784 740
13,482 1.18 15,909 615
13,589 1.18 16,035 489
13,696 1.18 16,161 363
13,805 1.18 16,290 234
13,914 1.18 16,419 105
14,024 1.18 16,548 0
ii
Impact Fee Study
City ofSouthMiami,Florida
Projection of Growth-Related Infrastructure Needs
Needsduetofuturegrowthwerecalculatedusing the currentlevelsofserviceandcostfactorsfor the
incrementalexpansionofdeveloped parkland andparkimprovements.Growth-relatedneedsarea
projection oftheamountofexisting infrastructure andestimatedcostsoveraspecifiedperiodneeded
to maintain current levels ofserviceforexpected population increases.Figure 9belowisasummaryof
the growth-related needsto incrementally expand thenumberof developed park acres,and park
improvements.
The pace and location ofnew development will drive decisions regarding the timing of individual
improvements.Additionally,asnew development occurs,the City maychoosetonegotiatefor
developers tomake capital investmentsinreturnfor credits against the Parks and Recreation Facilities
Impact Fees.
Figure 9:ParksandRecreationIncremental Improvement Needs
Acres per Thousand Persons
$175,000
Land Development
Cost per Acre
Demand
Unit:
Population
"Projected Demand"[11"
Year
Base
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Five-Year Totals
11,979
12,074
12,169
12,266
12,363
12,460
12,559
12,658
12,759
12,859
12,961
Cost of Necessary Parkland
Cost of Necessary Improvements
Cost of Necessary Parkland
Cost of Necessary Improvements
[1]Shown as rounded numbers
TischlerBise
Park Acres
35
35
36
36
36
36
37
37
37
38
38
$245,791
$501,802
Improvements
43
43
44
44
44
45
45
45
46
46
47
$203,825
$416,125
3.59
$118,037
Park Improvements
Improvement Thousand Persons
Average Cost per Improvement
12
COST FOR IMPACT FEE STUDY
Impact Fee Study
City ofSouthMiami,Florida
Included in thefee is thecostfor preparation ofthe Parks and Recreation Facilities impact fees.As
shown in Figure 10,thisis calculated basedonthe projected growth in South Miami population over the
next five years,which isthe recommended period oftime impact fees should beineffect before
reevaluation to reflect changes in development and levels of service.Between 2013 and 2018,the City
of South Miami population is projected to grow by 481 persons.The consultant costtopreparethe 2013
Impact Fee Study ($18,000)is divided by the 5-year net increase in population (481)to derive aper
person cost of $37.42.
Figure10:ImpactFeeStudy Preparation Cost(ParksandRecreationPortion)
TischlerBise
Fee Component
Proportionate Share
Consultant Fee
Demand Unit
Increase in Population
Cost per Demand Unit
Residential
$18,000 $18,000
481
$37.421
13
CREDIT FOR FUTURE PRINCIPAL PAYMENTS
Impact Fee Study
City of South Miami,Florida
The City ofSouth Miami borrowed moneyto fund construction ofthe Murray/Gibson-Bethel
Community Center.Because ofthis,TischlerBise recommendsthe Parks and Recreation Facilities impact
fees include acreditforfuture principal payments onthe existing General Obligation debt.New
residential developmentthatpaysthe Parks and Recreation Facilities impactfeeswillalsocontributeto
future principal payments paid from property tax revenue.To account for thetime value of money,
annual principal paymentsarediscountedusinganetpresentvalue formula basedon the estimated
average interest rates overthelifeofthe bond.A credit isonly necessary for principal payments
because the recreation facilities componentwas based onthe construction costofthe facility andnot
thedebt service schedule.Figure 11 shows the credit calculated based onthe projected principal
payments startinginfiscalyear2014 through the remainder of the bond's term.
The applicable net present value ofthe credit for residential development is $85.51 per person.This will
be subtracted from the gross capital cost per person to derive anet capital costper person tobeused in
calculating themaximumsupportableimpactfeefor Parks andRecreation Facilities.
Figure 11:CreditforFuturePrincipal Payments onParksandRecreation Facilities
Fiscal
Year Principal Persons
2014 $60,000 12,074
2015 $65,000 12,169
2016 $70,000 12,266
2017 $75,000 12,363
2018 $75,000 12,460
2019 $80,000 12,559
2020 $85,000 12,658
2021 $90,000 12,759
2022 $90,000 12,859
2023 $95,000 12,961
2024 $100,000 13,064
2025 $105,000 13,167
2026 $110,000 13,271
2027 $120,000 13,376
2028 $125,000 13,482
2029 $130,000 13,589
2030 $135,000 13,696
TOTAL $1,610,000
Discount Rate*
Net Present Value
*Average estimatedinterestrateoverlifeofloan
Source:City ofSouthMiami
14
Impact Fee Study
City ofSouth Miami,Florida
PARKS AND RECREATION INPUT VARIABLES AND IMPACT FEES
Figure12providesasummaryoftheinputvariables(describedin the chapter sectionsabove)usedto
calculatethenetcapitalcostperpersonofdevelopedparkland,parkimprovements,andrecreational
facilities.The Parks and Recreation impactfeesaretheproductofpersonsper housing unit(see
AppendixA -Land UseAssumptions),bytype,multiplied bythetotalnetcapitalcostperperson.
Feesareprovidedformultifamilyunitsandanaveragesizedsinglefamilyunit.Asanoption,feesare
also presented bysizeofsinglefamilyhousingunit,basedonhouseholdsizeestablishedbynumberof
bedrooms(seeAppendixAfor further explanation).Each Persons per Housing Unit factor ismultiplied
by the netcapital cost per person toderive the impactfeeperunit.
An example of the calculation foran average singlefamily unit is:the net capital cost per person
($1,020.00)multiplied bythepersonsperhousingunitfor that sizeunit (2.80)toderivetheimpactfee
per average single family unit of $2,856.
Figure 12:Parks and Recreation Input Variables and Maximum Allowable Impact Fees
'arks and Recreation Capital Costs Per Person
Parkland Land Development $511.00
Park Improvements Developed Parks $423.75
Parks and Recreation Facilities $133.34
Impact Fee Study $37.42
tmmmmmmm^^^^^m^^
Debt Service Credit
Parks and Recreation Development Fee Schedule per Housing Unit
Unit Type
Multifamily Unit
Single Unit
Single Unit
lISgoSEigg
($85.51)
|$J02u1%S
[1]PPHU Recommended multipliers are scaled to make the average value by
type of housing for FL PUMA 4014 match the average value for the City derived
from 2011 American Community Survey data,with persons adjusted to the
Citywide average of 2.80 persons per single family unit.
TischlerBise
15
CASH FLOW PROJECTIONS
Impact Fee Study
CityofSouthMiami,Florida
This section summarizes the potential cash flow to the QtyofSouthMiami,if development occursas
projected,and the Parks and Recreation impactfeeis implemented at the maximumallowable amounts.
Thecashflowprojectionsarebasedontheassumptionsdetailedinthischapter,and the development
projections discussed in Appendix A -LandUse Assumptions.Thecashflowprovidesan indication of
theimpactfeerevenue generated bynewdevelopment,andcapitalexpendituresnecessaryto meet the
demandfornewparksandrecreation facilities broughtaboutbynew development andtheexisting
debt servicefor the Murray/Gibson-BethelCommunityCenterGeneralObligationbond.
Necessaryexpendituresassociatedwiththeincrementalexpansionofdevelopedparkland,andpark
improvementsarecalculatedbasedoncurrentcostsperunit,andonmaintaining the currentlevelsof
service.Forthecost recovery expendituresassociatedwiththerecreation facility General Obligation
bondthetotalpaymentsforthe10-yearperiodareshowninthecapitalcostsection.Thecash flow
deficit representsthe portion ofthe full debt service not recouped through impact fee revenues.The
cash flow isalso affected bythe reduction of impact fee revenue duetoacreditforfuture payments of
the General Obligation debtforthe recreational facility.
Figure13:CashFlow Summary
Parks and Recreation Cash Flow
Net Cost per Population
New Population [1]
Revenues;:
Potential Revenue,2013-2023 (rounded)
Parks and Recreation Necessary Improvements
Recreation Facility Debt Service [2]
ImpactFeeStudy
Total Capital Costs,2013-2023
CumulativeSurplus/fDeficit)
2013-2023
$1,020.00
982
$1,001,643
$917,927
$1,332,483
$18,000
$2,268,410
($1,266,768)
[1]TischlerBise,LandUse Assumptions
[2]Reflectsthe total debt service obligation (principaland interest)
TischleiBise 16
Implementation and Administration
Impact Fee Study
City ofSouthMiami,Florida
All costsin the impactfeecalculationsaregivenin current dollarswithno assumed inflationrateover
time.Necessarycost adjustments canbemadeaspartof the recommended annualevaluationand
updateofimpactfees.Oneapproachistoadjustfor inflation in construction costsbymeansofan index
like theone published by Engineering News Record (ENR).This index canbe applied against the
calculatedimpactfee.Ifcostestimateschange significantly the City shouldrecalculatethefees.
Therearecertain accounting proceduresthat should be followed bythe City!For example,monies
received shouldbeplacedinaseparatefundand accounted forseparatelyandmayonlybeusedforthe
purposesauthorizedinanimpactfeeordinance.Interestearnedonmoniesinthe separate fundshould
be credited to the fund.
CREDITS AND REIMBURSEMENTS
Ifadeveloperconstructsaparksandrecreation facilities componentthatwas included inthefee
calculationsordedicateslandforfutureinvestments,it will benecessarytoeitherreimbursethe
developeror provide acreditagainstthe Parks and Recreation Facilities impactfees.Thelatteroptionis
more difficult to administer becauseitcreatesuniquefeesforspecificgeographicareas.Basedon
TischlerBise's experience,itis better forthe City toestablishareimbursementagreementwiththe
developer that constructsasystemimprovement.Thereimbursement agreement shouldbe limited toa
paybackperiodofnomorethantenyearsandthe City shouldnotpayinterestontheoutstanding
balance.The developer mustprovidesufficientdocumentationof the actualcostincurredfor the system
improvement.TheCity should only agree to pay the lesser of the actual construction cost or the
estimated cost usedin the impact fee analysis.If the Citypays more than the cost used in the fee
analysis,there will be insufficient feerevenue.Reimbursement agreementsshouldonlyobligatethe City
ofSouth Miami toreimbursedevelopersannually according toactualfeecollectionsfromthebenefiting
area.
COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE ZONES
The reasonableness ofimpactfeesis determined inpartby their relationship to the local government's
burdentoprovidenecessarypublicfacilities.Theneedtoshowa substantial benefitusuallyrequires
communities to evaluate collectionand expenditure zonesforpublicfacilities that havedistinct
geographic service areas.Therefore,developments payingfeeswillbe benefiting from the provisionof
additionalcapital improvements in their servicearea.Theimpactfees prepared for the City ofSouth
Miamiarebasedoncapital improvements that will havecitywidebenefits;therefore,acitywideservice
area is appropriate.
TischlerBise 17
w^PEftDixJi^iMnvsE^A^mP'mm-
INTRODUCTION
Impact Fee Study
City ofSouthMiami,Florida
As part ofourWorkScope,TischlerBisehas prepared documentation on demographic data and
development projections that willbe used in the Cityof South MiamiParksand Recreation Facilities
Impact FeeStudy.The demographic estimates for2013willbe used in the fee calculations.The
development projections are used solelytoillustrateapossible future paceforservice demands,impact
fee revenues,andcapital expenditures.
Base year residential development estimates were developed based on historic trends,current data
maintained by the Miami-Dade County Assessor's Office,and discussions with staff.
Three assumptions informed the calculation of projections for each year past the base.First,TischlerBise
assumed historic trends would continue.Second,the twenty-year projectionsdonotincludeanylarge-
scale development projects that woulddivergeforhistoricgrowth patterns.Lastly,the projections
assume the City ofSouthMiamiwouldnotannexadditionallandsfor development inthe twenty-year
projection window.
Thedatahereinarefor the CityofSouthMiami2013ParksandRecreation Facilities ImpactFeeStudy.
18
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Impact Fee Study
City ofSouthMiami,Florida
Current Housing Unit Estimates
Impact fees require an analysis ofcurrent levels of service.For residential development,current levels of
service are determined using estimatesof population and housing units.Toestimate current housing
units inthe City ofSouth Miami,TischlerBise began by calculating the distribution of housing units by
typeof structure from the decennial census and the 2011 American Community Survey 5-year
Estimates.According tothe Census data,the housing unit inventory inthe City is65percent single units
and35 percent units in multi-unit structures.Single Unit includes detached,attached-condominiums,
and manufactured home structures.According to Miami-Dade County data,the City has 3,643 single
unit housing structures (single family detached and condominium),and95 structures with multiple
housing units.
FigureA14:City of South Miami Residential Structures
Property Type
Single Family
Condominium
Multifamily
Total
Source:Miami-Dade CountyProperty Appraiser.(Uul 13)
2013 Assessment Roll Change by Property Type
Holding the2011 U.S.Censusunit distribution constant,thenumberofhousingunitsin the 95multi-unit
structurescanbecalculatedasfollows:(3,643singleunits/65%)X35%=1,988housingunitsinmulti-
unitstructures.Thisequatestoabaseyearestimateof5,631totalhousingunitsin the City ofSouth
Miami.
FigureA15:Residential HousingUnitsin the City of South Miami
2011
Distribution[1]
2,854
789
2,854
789
95
3,643 3,738
Structure Type
Single Unit [3]
2+Units
Total 5,631
[1]U.S.Census Bureau,2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates:Table B25024
[2]City of South Miami
[3]Single Unit includes detached,attached,and manufactured homes
Source:City of South Miami
Based on household characteristics and data availability,TischlerBise recommends using two housing
unit categories fortheimpactfeestudy:(1)Single Unit and (2)2+Unit.(Further discussion on housing
characteristics by housing unittypeandbedroomcountis provided attheendofthismemo.)
19
Impact Fee Study
City ofSouthMiami,Florida
Persons Per Housing Unit
According tothe U.S.Census Bureau,ahouseholdisahousingunitthatisoccupiedbyyear-round
residents.Impactfeesoftenuseper capita standards andpersonsper housing unit (PPHU)orpersons
per household (PPH)to derive proportionate-share fee amounts.
•When PPHU isusedin the fee calculations,infrastructurestandardsarederivedusingyear-
round population.
•When PPH isusedin the fee calculations,theimpactfeemethodologyassumes all housingunits
will beoccupied,thus requiring seasonal orpeak population tobeusedwhen deriving
infrastructure standards.
TischlerBise recommends that impactfeesforresidential development in the CityofSouthMiamibe
imposed according tothenumberof year-round residentsperhousingunit (PPHU).Thismethodology
assumes some portion of the housingstockwillbevacant;andaccordingto the U.S.CensusBureau
American Community Survey,the Cityhada2011vacancyrate of 16.6percent.
Persons per housing unit (PPHU)requires data on population in occupied unitsandthetypesofunitsby
structure.Thesedataarecollectedinthe U.S.Census Bureau,American Community Survey (ACS).Figure
A16belowshows 2011 ACS 5-year estimates for the City ofSouth Miami.To calculate the PPHU,persons
in occupied units (11,507)is divided bytotal housing units (5,034).Dwellings witha single unitper
structure (detached,attached,and manufactured homes)averaged 2.80 persons per housing unit.
Dwelling unitsinstructureswith multiple units averaged 1.34 persons perhousingunit.The2011
average personsperhousingunit (PPHU)of2.29 will beheldconstantoverthe projection period since
theimpactfeesrepresentsa"snapshot approach"ofcurrentlevelsofserviceandcosts.The2.29 PPHU
factor will beappliedtothebaseyear2013housingunitestimate calculated above.
Figure A16:Persons per Housing UnitbyTypeof Unit,2011 American CommunitySurvey
2011 Summary by
Type ofHousing
Subtotal
GroupQuarters _
total"
Persons
11,507
56
11,563
House
holds
4,198
4,198
Persons per
Household
2.74
Housing
Units
5,034
5,034
Source:U.S.Census Bureau,2007-2011 American Community Survey
TischlerBise
Persons Per Housing
HsgUnitMix
2.29 Vacancy
Rate
16.6%
20
Impact Fee Study
City ofSouthMiami,Florida
Year-Round Population Estimates and Projections
Based onrecentgrowthtrendsand discussions withCitystaff,TischlerBise calculatedabaseyear
population estimate,forusein the ImpactFeeStudy.Please note:because population estimates used
in the impact fee study arebasedonyear-roundpopulation,estimates andprojections presented
herein willbe lower than the University of Florida's Bureau of Economicand Business Research
household population data.
Tocalculatea2013year-roundpopulation,TischlerBise usedannualintercensalJulypopulation
estimates from the U.S.CensusBureaufor2006-2010toestablishapopulationgrowth trend anda
relationship between City of SouthMiamiand Miami-Dade Countypopulation.AccordingtoCensus
estimates,over the last decade the City of SouthMiamihas hosted onaverage0.47 percent of the
annualMiami-Dade County population,but the sharehas decreased slightlyeachyear.The2013Cityof
SouthMiamiImpactFee Study assumes the Citywillnot annex additionallandin the next twenty years.
Therefore,the shareofCountypopulationin the Cityisnotlikelytoincrease,butthrough more intensity
oflanduse,the assumption used to calculate projected population estimates is that the sharewill
decrease only 0.01 percent by 2033.
The Florida Office of Demographic Research estimates the County hasa2013 population of 2,577,768.
According to the Office's long-term growth projections,the population of Miami-DadeCounty \s
projected to exceed 3millionby 2033.This equates to roughly a 0.89 percent growth ratefor the Miami-
Dade County population between 2010and2033.Byapplying the City's share of County population to
the 2033 projected population itis projected the City of South Miamiwill have a2033 population of just
over 14,000.See FigureA17for additional detail.The exponential growth rate of 0.79 percent calculated
from the City's 2010 and2033 population estimates was used to estimate a 2013 base year population
of 11,979 for the City of South Miami.
Figure A17:Population Estimates and Projections forCity of South Miami
PopulationEstimates [1]PopulationEstimates[2]Population
Projections[3]
2006 200820102011 2012 2013 2033
11,273 11,39211,699 $M$$$m !ii&n#85 W&tim mmwrnxm
2,405.911 2,436.062 2,505379 2316337 2351,290 2,577,768 "••3,072,178
Cityof South Miami
Miami-Dade County
City share ofCounty 0.47%0.47%0.47%0.47%0.47%0.47%0.46%
[1]U.S.Census:Intercensal Population Estimates
[21 Florida Office of Demographic Research:County Population Projections
[3]Florida Office of Demographic Research:County Population Projection.Qty projection calculated
from.46%City share of County population trend
TischlerBise
Exponential Growth Rates
2006-10 2010-33
m>&i:o2rt
21
Impact Fee Study
City ofSouthMiami,Florida
Demand Indicators by Size of Detached Housing
TischlerBise analyzed demographic datainanefforttorefinetheimpactfeescheduletobemore
progressive for residential development.This canbedoneby developing feesbysizeofhousingunit
basedonbedroomcount.Household size can be derived using custom tabulations of demographic data
by bedroom rangefromsurveyresponsesprovidedby the U.S.CensusBureauinfilesknownasPublic
Use Micro-data Samples (PUMS).Because PUMS dataare only available forareasof roughly 100,000
persons,the CityofSouth Miami isin Florida Public Use Micro-data Area (PUMA)04014.Data isfirst
analyzedforthe PUMA areaandthen calibrated toconditionsinthe City.
TischlerBise used2011 ACS 5-YearEstimatestoderivepersonsperhousingunitbynumberofbedrooms.
Asshownin Figure A18,recommended multipliers were scaled tomakethe average valuebytypeof
housing for Florida PUMA 04014matchthe average value derived from ACS dataspecifictoSouth
Miami.As the number of bedrooms increases,personsperunitincreases.
Figure A18:AveragePersonsandTripEndsbyBedroomRangeinCityofSouthMiami
UnitType
Single Unit 0-3 Bdrms
Single Unit4+Bdrms
Multifamily Units Total
GRAND TOTAL 5,472 2,469
[1]American Community Survey,Public UseMicrodataSamplefor FL PUMA
04014 (unweighted data for2011).
[2]Personsper Housing Unit factorsarescaledtomaketheaveragevalueby
typeofhousingfor FL PUMA 04014matchtheaveragevaluederived
from American Community Survey 2011data,withpersonsadjustedto
the Citywideaverageof2.80personspersingleunit.
Population and Housing Unit Projections
TischlerBise usedatwo-step process to project housing unitsforeachyearpastbaseyear 2013.First,to
calculate unitsaddedeach year,the annual net population increase was divided bythe PPHU factor
(2.29).Thetotalunitsestimatewasthen distributed bytypeof structure using theassumed 2013 unit
mix from above (65 percent single unitand35 percent multi-unit structures).Over the 20-year
projection period,theshareof single unitstructures decreases bylessthanonepercent.See Figure A19
belowforasummaryofpopulationandhousingunit projections.
Population and housing unit projections areusedto illustrate the possible futurepaceof service
demands,revenues,and expenditures.Asthese factors will vary totheextentthat future development
varies,therewillbevirtuallyno effect ontheactualamountoftheimpactfees.
TischlerBise 22
..l;*.v.w.,.,*»».»-!«V*S:.
Figure A19:Populationand Housing UnitProjectionsinCityofSouthMiami,2013-2033
Impact Fee Study
City ofSouthMiami,Florida
SUMMARYOFDEMAND PROJECTIONS (Cit)
TOTAL YEAR-ROUND POPULATION
TOTAL HOUSING UNITS
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
HousingUnits
SingleUnits
MultifamilyUnits
tLimits)
0.79%
2.29 PPHU
2011
65%
35%
mi
:"?11,979
'5,631
$643
i -l;988
12,074
5,672
3,660
2,012
12,169
5,713
3,686
2,027
12,266
5,755
3,713
2,042
12,363
5,797
3,741
2,056
12,460
5,839
3,768
2,071
12,559
5,882
3,796
2,086
12,658
5,925
3,823
2,102
WoiiM
12,759
5,969
3,852
2,117
12,859
6,013
3,880
2,133
five-Year Increments
12,961 13,482
6,058 6,285
3,910 4,057
2,148 2,228
14,024
6,523
4,210
2,313
lIBiliil
2,045
892
567
325
102
45
28
16
TOTAL y 5,631
12-13
5,672
13-14
5,713 5.755 5,797 5,839 5,882 5,925 5,969 6,013 6,058 6,285 6,523 892 45
14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 27-28 32-33ANNUALINCREASES(CityLimits)IIS
Year-Round Population
Housing Units
95
41
95
41
97
42
97
42
97
42
99
43
99
43
101
44
100
44
102
45
106
46
110
48
102
45
Source:Florida Office of Demographic Research;City of South Miami;TischlerBise
TischlerBise 23
M£MDJKB\T:FwwDA$ixrmE:$6&318Q£
Impact Fee Study
CityofSouthMiami,Florida
TITLEXI 163.31801 -IMPACT FEES;SHORT TITLE;INTENT;DEFINITIONS;ORDINANCES LEVYING
IMPACT FEES
Florida Impact Fee Act
(1)Thissectionmaybecitedas the ''Florida ImpactFeeAct."
(2)The Legislature finds that impactfeesareanimportantsourceofrevenueforalocal
government to useinfunding the infrastructure necessitated bynewgrowth.TheLegislature
further finds that impactfeesareanoutgrowthofthehomerulepowerofalocal government
toprovidecertainserviceswithinitsjurisdiction.Dueto the growthofimpact fee collections
and-local governments'relianceonimpactfees,itis the intentof the Legislature toensure
that,whenacountyor municipality adoptsanimpactfeebyordinanceoraspecialdistrict
adoptsanimpactfeebyresolution,thegoverningauthoritycomplieswiththissection.
(3)An impact feeadoptedby ordinance ofa county or municipality orby resolution ofa special
district must,at minimum:
(a)Require that the calculationof the impactfeebebasedon the most recent andlocalized
data.
(b)Provide for accounting and reporting ofimpactfee collections andexpenditures.Ifa
localgovernmental entity imposesanimpactfeetoaddressits infrastructure needs,the
entityshallaccountfortherevenuesandexpendituresofsuchimpactfeeina separate
accounting fund.
(c)Limit administrative chargesforthe collection ofimpactfeestoactualcosts.
(d)Require thatnoticebe provided nolessthan90daysbeforetheeffectivedateofan
ordinanceorresolution imposing aneworincreasedimpactfee.Acountyor
municipalityisnotrequiredtowait90daysto decrease,suspend,oreliminatean
impact fee.
(4)Auditsof financial statements oflocalgovernmentalentitiesanddistrictschoolboardswhich
are performed byacertifiedpublic accountant pursuant tos.218.39and submitted to the
AuditorGeneralmustincludeanaffidavitsignedby the chieffinancialofficerof the local
governmentalentityordistrictschoolboardstatingthatthe local governmentalentityor
districtschoolboardhascompliedwiththissection.
(5)In any action challenging an impact fee,the government hasthe burden of proving by a
preponderance of the evidence that theimpositionor amount of the fee meets the
requirements of state legal precedent orthissection.The court maynotusea deferential
standard.
History.—s.9,ch.2006-218;s.1,ch.2009-49;s.5,ch.2009-96;s.5,ch.2011-14;s.1,ch.2011-149.
TischlerBise 24
••MM^f :?$•••:•'/"SKSIB^f^S;'
City of South Miami
Table of Contents
CONCURRENCY REVIEW 1
INTRODUCTION 1
BRIEF HISTORY OF FLORIDA LAW 2
SOUTH MIAMI CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 5
CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION CAPACITY ASSESSMENT 7
TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY EXCEPTION AREAS (TCEA)9
MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICTS (MMTD)14
SPECIALTY LEVELS OFSERVICE (LOS)ANALYSIS 17
SUMMARYAND RECOMMENDATIONS 21
Tables
TABLE1 CONCURRENCY REVIEW REQUIREMENTS IN SOUTH MIAMI 5
TABLE2 SOUTH MIAMI LOS STANDARDS 6
TABLE3 FDOT'S GENERIC COST PER MILEMODELS 8
TABLE 4 SOUTH MIAMI TCEA PLANNING EFFORT (PRELIMINARY)13
TABLE 5 SOUTH MIAMI MMTD PLANNING EFFORT (PRELIMINARY)15
Figures
FIGURE1CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI BOUNDARY 3
FIGURE 2 CHANGES AFTER THE REPEAL OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT 4
FIGURE3 SOUTH MIAMI URBAN INFILL &REDEVELOPMENT AREA 7
FIGURE 4 SOUTHWEST VIEW OF SOUTH DIXIEHIGHWAY 8
FIGURE 5 MIAMI-DADE COUNTY TCEA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPARISON 11
FIGURE 6 MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS INANDAROUND SOUTH MIAM112
FIGURE7 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT CHECKLIST 16
FIGURE8POLICE,FIRE,ANDHOSPITALFACILITIES IN SOUTH MIAMI 18
FIGURE9ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY VOLUMES FOR URBANIZEDAREAS 20
afer Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
wmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
CONCURRENCY REVIEW
Introduction
InSeptember2013,theCity of SouthMiami(City)contained
approximately 2.31 squaremiles of land,hadan estimated population
of 11,998,!and was one of 34 incorporated municipalities in Miami-
DadeCounty(County).Together,the34 incorporated municipalities
coveredapproximately217.59squaremilesandthe unincorporated
areas covered approximately 1,761.77 square miles.2 In January
2013,theCountyreportedatotalpopulation of 2,496,435with
1,102,955individualslivinginunincorporatedareasand1,393,480
individuals livingin incorporated municipalities.Assuch,theCity
containedapproximately0.12percent of theCounty'slandand0.48
percent ofthe County's population (varies slightly depending upon data source).Figure1
illustrates the boundary oftheCity,whichis located adjacenttotheCityofCoralGablestothe
eastandthe Village of Pinecrest tothe south,butis mostly surrounded by unincorporated areas.
TheCountyisresponsibleforprovidingpublicfacilitiesandservicestomost of theresidentsand
businesses inthe unincorporated areas.This places a large burden ontheCounty's resources,
andinsome unincorporated areas,has resulted inlesser quality orlesser convenient access to
public facility facilities and services (e.g.,police response times)thanare typically provided in
the incorporated municipalities.On November 20,2012,theBoardof County Commissioners
unanimously approved Resolution No.R-983-12,Resolution Creating Task Forceto Review
Pending Annexation and Incorporation Proposals andto Make Recommendations onHow the
County ShouldProceedto Address the Remainder of the Unincorporated Communities,The
intent was to create an Annexation and Incorporation Task Force that would provide the County
with recommendations onhowtheremainderofthe unincorporated areascouldeithercreatenew
incorporatedmunicipalitiesorbeannexedbyanexisting
one.Thiswassimilartowhathasbeenlongencouragedby
MIA M 1-DAnF^i Broward County in order to allow more localized
•'"^l irUHl/CMB municipalities address and implement policy for their own
localizedissues,thereby allowingBrowardCountyto
concentrate on more regional issues.wsim
wmmmmmm
In recent years,theCityhas made proposals to annex some ofthe surrounding unincorporated
areas (primarily thosejustnorthandsouthoftheCity boundary),butthose proposals were
temporarily setasideuntilfurtherstudiescouldbecompletedtoanalyzepublic sentiment,
financialfeasibility,andotherfactors.AstheCitycontinuestoconsider annexation
opportunities andalsonew development opportunities within itscurrent boundary,itwas
necessary toreviewtheCity's concurrency review procedures and Levels of Service (LOS)
standardsthatareinplacetoensurethatadequatepublicfacilitiesandservicescontinuetobe
maintained.The purpose ofthis study isto analyze concurrency requirements within the City for
12013 Impact Fees:Demographic Memo,TischlerBise,August 28,2013.
2The square miles were calculated from GIS parcel data that was obtained from Miami-Dade County.
aker Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
new development,redevelopment,and revitalization project proposals and to present urban
planning concepts thatmaybe considered bytheCityto potentially increase the viability and
number of suchprojectopportunities.
The remaining sections of thisstudycoverthetopicsbelow.TheCityshouldusethe
information presented to determine whethersome oftheirexisting policies can bemodifiedtobe
less restrictive fornew development proposals (e.g.,whether programs canbe implemented to
reduce impact fees).The information shouldalsobeusefulfor understanding some of the
implications associated with annexing potential unincorporated areas in terms of maintaining
adequate LOS standards forpublicfacilitiesandserviceswithinthose areas.
•Brief History ofFlorida Law
•South Miami Concurrency Management System
•Citywide TransportationCapacity Assessment
•Transportation ConcurrencyExceptionArea(TCEA)
•Multimodal Transportation District(MMTD)
•Specialty Levels of Service(LOS)Analysis
•Summary and Recommendations
Brief History of Florida Law
The 1985 Florida Growth Management Act (GMA)was passed,largelyin part,tomakesurethat
all of thestate'scitizenswere afforded access to adequate public facilities andservices.The
GMA required local governments to develop state-approved comprehensive plans that included
LOS standards and goals,objectives,and policies for various elements (land use,transportation,
open space,etc.).The GMA also required local governments toperformconcurrencyreviews
for certain development proposals.Concurrency was mandated bythestatetomakesurethat
adequate public facilities would continue tobe provided after new developments are constructed.
Forexample,if a new development wouldresultin increased trafficonlocalroadsand500new
residents toa local population,a concurrency reviewmay determine thatimpactfeeswouldbe
required topayforimprovedroadway infrastructure andnewpark facilities.GovernorRick
Scott repealed theGMAin 2011 which subsequently leftitupto local governments approve
theirowncomprehensiveplansandLOS standards.TheGovernorfeltthatthe GMA was
prohibitive to economic development inthe state and was also a contributing factor to sprawl
because manybusinesses decided todevelopoutside of congested urban areas wheretheywould
notbesubjecttosignificantimpactfees (if any)-specificallythosethatwouldbedetermined
during the transportation concurrency process thatwaspreviously mandated bythe state.
However,theCitycontinuestobesubjectto various statelawsthat pertain toconcurrency
review procedures thatare described throughout thisstudy.Figure2highlightssome of the
changesthatoccurredfollowingtherepeal ofthe GMA.
aker Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
aker
Figure 1
City of South Miami Boundary
^ftoK&W^SW58
SW 91st St LoirFfjol HAMMOO
Source:Michael Baker Jr.,Inc.,2013.
Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
mmwmwmmmmmmmmmm
Figure 2
Changes After the Repeal of the Growth Management Act
The Changes:01dv^3NTew
LAi^nXPSE-ELAI^CHAHGSaL
OLD
Requiredapprovalfrom
theFloridaDepartment
ofcommunity Affairs.
Staffedby61planners
and assistants.
cfcemiaBflRiJf&irs
NEW
(ASOF0ai,20U)
canonlyobjeaon
groundsofnegative
Impactto'Important
state resources and
facilities,*now undefined.
Staffedby32plannersand
assistants.
PUBLIC SERVICES &DEVELQEERJEEESL
OLD Developers were required to pay for
Improvements to streets,schools,parks,
water,garbage,drainage and sewer
systems their developments wouldcauseto
fail below standards.
NEW Local governments are now
responsibleforcontrolling the Impactof
growthon streets,schoolsandparks.
Sctrte aorthwaflorkti tegsosiceaidi
Source:Northeast Florida Regional Council
aker
Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
4WMiM!il^^^•wiirw
South Miami Concurrency Management System
Florida Statute 163.3180(lb),Concurrency,states that "The local government comprehensive
planmust demonstrate,for required or optional concurrency requirements,thatthe levels of
service adopted canbe reasonably met.Infrastructure needed to ensure that adopted level-of-
service standards are achieved and maintained forthe 5-year period ofthe capital improvement
schedule must be identified pursuant tothe requirements ofFS 163.3177(3).The comprehensive
plan must include principles,guidelines,standards,and strategies forthe establishment ofa
concurrency managementsystem."Inotherwords,everylocal government is responsible for
making sure their five-year capital improvement schedule is tailored such that improvements will
be conducted to maintain the LOS standards set forth inthe comprehensive plan.Asnew
development,redevelopment,and revitalization projects occur inthe City,the capital
improvement schedule mayneedtobe adjusted to account for maintaining consistent LOS
standards for public facilities.Therefore,theCity's concurrency management system is used to
trackand assess when public facilities and services may fall shortofthe adopted LOS standards
and to determine what capital improvement projects may be necessary to combat those impacts.
TheLandDevelopmentCode of theCity of SouthMiami
describes the City's currentconcurrencyreview
procedures.TheLand Development Codeindicatesthat
"Adevelopmentpermit,Certificate of Completion(CC),
Certificate of Occupancy (CO),or Certificate of Useand
Occupancy (CU)shallnotbeissuedwhenLevel(s)of
Service(LOS)forpublicservicesandfacilitiesdonot
meet or exceed LOS standards,or when the issuance of a
development permit and/or CC and/or CO and/or CU
wouldresultinareduction of theactualLOSforany
serviceorfacilitybelowtheestablishedLOS standards..."Table 1 showstheconcurrency
reviewrequirementsfortheCity -specificallywhattypes of projectsrequireaconcurrency
determination.Concurrency determinations areconductedbytheCity,County,andother
applicableagenciestoreviewpotentialimpactstostreets,sewage,water,drainage,solidwaste,
and recreational facilities.Table 2 summarizes the current LOS standards as identified in the
Land Development Code.Consequently,non-exempt projectsaresubjectto concurrency
reviewsthatcomparethedevelopmentproposaltotheLOSstandardsforeachcategoryshown.
Table 1
Concurrency Review Requirements in South Miami
Non-Exempt Projects (Concurrency Required)Exempt Projects (No Concurrency Required)
New development on vacant land.
Building additions which increases gross floor area
by 5,000 square feet or more and increases public
facility usage.
Changes of use which increase required parkingby
25 spaces.
Source:Land Development Code oftheCityofSouthMiami.
aker
Changes in use which clearly do not cause an
increase in demand uponanypublicfacility(or
which cause a reduction in demand)and that donot
require more than 25 parking spaces.
Single-family and two-family residences on
previously platted lots.
Public uses that the City Commission finds essential
to the health and safety ofcity residents.
Projects approved priorto the adoption of the Land
Development CodeonOctober 26,1989.
Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
mmmmmmmsmmmm
Table 2
South Miami LOS Standards
•South Dixie Highway-150%of MDD Capacity
-BirdRoad -120%of MEn Capacity
-Principal and Minor Arterials(Sunset Drive,RedRoad,and Kendall Drive)-"Fu Capacity
-Collectors (SW 48th Street,Miller Drive,SW 62nd Avenue,and Ludtam Road)-UEM Capacity (except those located in
theCounty'sUrban Infill Area"whichare exempt from concurrencyreview)
-Certainprojectsare exempt iftheyarelocatedintheCounty'sUrban Infill Area
•Disposal system shalloperatewithadesigncapacityofnolessthan2%abovetheaveragedailyflowforthe
preceding year (as determined by the County)
-TheCounty system maintainscapacitytocollectanddisposeof100gallonsofsewagepercapitaperday.
-Properties without sewersmust obtaini aseptictank permit from the County Health Department.
-Watersystemshalloperatewitharated capacity ofnolessthan2%abovethemaximum daily flow forthe preceding
year(as determined bytheCounty).
-Waterisdeliveredatapressureno less than20 PSI andnogreaterthan 100 PSI andminimum fire flows must be
maintainedasapprovedbytheCountyFireDepartment.
•[gig^^ounWs\^bem ^Q^QJggpjgPacjty jo deliver up to 200 gallons per capita per day.
Source:LandDevelopmentCodeoftheCityofSouth Miami.
Note:LOS capacity levels for streets range from "A"to MF"and depend onthe number oflanesandthe average daily
traffic volumes.LOS "A"is generally afree flow street,withlow traffic volumesandhighspeeds,whereasLOS "F"
describes forced flow operation at low speeds where stoppages may occur for short and long periods of time.
Because muchoftheCityis already fully-developed with relatively aging infrastructure,itcan
be difficult fortheCityto attract new development opportunities that would resultina
significant economic boost forthe community.In addition tothe costs required for a company to
construct anew facility thatmaybring numerous jobsand/or residents totheCity,underthe
current concurrency review requirements,the company mayhavetopay significant impact fees
to modernize the infrastructure to maintain adequate LOS standards for public facilities and
services.As mentioned in Table 2,certain projects are exempt from transportation concurrency
if they are located within the County-designated urban infill and redevelopment area,which is
depicted in Figure3.Thatareaispartofthe County's TCEA,andas such,projects that
encourage useof public transportation are exempt from transportation concurrency iftheyare
consistent withtheCity's comprehensive plan.Furthermore,theentireCityislocatedwithinthe
County's TCEA and certain projects in other parts oftheCityare also exempt from
transportation concurrency,butthe requirements for project exemptions are more stringent if
theyare located outside the urban infill and redevelopment area.Since impact fees for
maintaining adequate LOS standards for transportation canbe significant ina congested urban
area,thestateprovides municipalities withother options to emphasize andplanfor enhanced
multimodal transportation infrastructure projects (public transportation,pedestrian,bicycle,etc.),
oneofwhichisby implementing aTCEA,inordertoreduce congestion onlocalroads.Those
optionsarealsoexploredlaterinthisstudy.
aker Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
——mmmm mvmmmmm wwmmwmmmmMMMH
Figure 3
South Miami Urban Infill&Redevelopment Area
^SW 76th St
Source:Michael Baker Jr.,Inc.
*?2 "y >**
Citywide Transportation Capacity Assessment
The previous section identified the current LOS standards for various roads within the City.In
order to determine if roadway projects could be conducted to enhance capacity (e.g.,by adding
additional lanes),Michael BakerJr.,Inc.(Baker)performed a general assessment ofthe existing
roadway infrastructure.The assessment consisted ofa Google Earthstreetviewtour of theCity
to determine iftherewere cost-feasible opportunities toadd additional lanesorto conduct large-
scale roadway modifications to improve traffic flow.As shown in Figure4,because theCityis
largely built-out with existing infrastructure,road edges tendtobe close to buildings,parking
lots,andother features that severely limit roadway expansion possibilities.For example,within
thisview of SouthDixieHighway,theM-Pathmulti-usetrailandtheelevatedMetrorailtrack
prevent expansion ofthe southbound lanes,whereas buildings andparkinglots prevent
expansion ofthe northbound lanes.Although thisisonlyoneviewoftheCity'sroads,itwas
provided to illustrate that limited optionsfor wholesale corridor improvements are available
aker Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
mmmmmssmmm*mmmw&mam =E5535S3aS=3^E
within theCity,unless a significant amount of property acquisition and demolition is conducted.
ItisnotedthatBakeronlyconductedawholesalecorridorassessmentanddidnotconductan
intersection by intersection analysis to determine if signalization,signage,and turn lane
improvements could be conducted insome locations to ease traffic congestion.For reference
purposes,various construction "CostPerMile"estimates are provided inTable3fromthe
Florida Department of Transportation's(FDOT)GenericCostPerMileModels worksheet
(updated April 8,2013).The estimates are representative ofthe entire state of Florida anddonot
include the additional coststhatwouldbe required for design,property acquisitions,demolitions,
utility relocations,etc.Duetothe extreme costsand impacts thatwouldbe associated with
roadway widening,theCityis actively considering conducting multimodal transportation
improvements thatwould encourage greater use of bicycle,pedestrian,andmass transit facilities
withthegoal of placinglessemphasisonautomobileutilization,which isdiscussedinthe
followingsections ofthisstudy.
Figure 4
Southwest View of South Dixie Highway
Source:GoogleEarth,2013.
Table 3
FDOT's Generic Cost Per Mile Models
Description Cost Per Mile
Add2LanestoExisting2LaneUrban Undivided Arterial(1LaneEachSide)with
4'Bike Lanes $3,472,028
Widen 2 Lane Urban Arterial to4 Lane Divided with 22'Median &4'Bike Lanes $4,065,273
Add2LanestoExisting3LaneUrbanUndividedArterial(1LaneEachSide)with
Center Turn Lane &4*Bike Lanes $3,637,222
Widen 4 Lane Urban Divided Arterial to6 Lane Urban Divided with 22'Median &4'
Bike Lanes $3,774,587
Widen 6 Lane Urban Divided Arterial to8 Lane Urban Divided with 4'Bike Lanes $4,276,798
Two Directional,12'Shared Use Path $231,279
Sidewalk Construction -5*One Side,4"Depth $110,392
Source:FDOTs Generic Cost Per MileModels worksheet (updated April8,2013).
aker 8 Concurrency Review Study
CityofSouth Miami
Transportation Concurrency Exception Areas (TCEA)
As previously mentioned,the entire Cityis located withintheCounty'sTCEA.The2009
CommunityRenewalAct(CRA)classified theentireCountyasaTCEAaswellasall local
governmentsqualifiedasDense Urban LandAreas(DULAs),whichisa classification thatis
determined based on specific population and density criteria.Eight DULA counties were
identified intheCRA including Miami-Dade,Broward,Palm Beach,Orange,Seminole,Lake,
Hillsborough,andPinellas.Non-ruralareas within those counties were identified as TCEAs
(except Miami-Dade whichwasentirelyidentifiedasaTCEA).WithintheTCEAs,thereisno
longer a state-mandate requiring local governments to conduct transportation concurrency and to
collect impact fees from developers;rather,theCRA allowed local governments to collect
mobility fees from developers in order to implement multimodal transportation projects that are
intended toreducevehiculartraffic.AlthoughtheCityis currently designated asaTCEA,itis
still subject to transportation concurrency reviewin order to maintain the adopted LOS standards
-unlessa proposed developmentisexemptperthe requirements of theCounty'sTCEA.If the
City wanted toexpanduponits ability toexempt development proposals from transportation
concurrency,itwouldneedtoupdateitscomprehensiveplantoincludevariouselements
required fortheestablishment of aTCEA,as described inthissection.ItisnotedthatFDOT,the
Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEC),and theCounty Planning Department
should be consulted to determine whattype of planning effortis appropriate fortheCity
considering theCity'sintentionstoeasedevelopment restrictions andhefty transportation impact
fees.
Inshort,the TCEA isintendedtooffsettheadverseimpacts of transportation concurrency by
encouragingthe development of multimodaltransportationinfrastructurethroughavariety of
planning strategies thatmustbe incorporated intoacomprehensive plan.If a TCEA isadopted
bytheCity,thennewdevelopmentsinthesubject area arenotsubjecttoa transportation
concurrency review aslongas they areconsistent with theadopted comprehensive plan.There
arefivespecifictypes of areasthatmaybedesignatedasa TCEA andthecomprehensiveplan
mustaddressdifferent objectives andpoliciesforeach:1)urbaninfill area,2)urban
redevelopment,3)downtown revitalizationwithinthecentralbusinessdistrict,4)urbaninfilland
redevelopment area,and5)anurbanservice area (i.e.,anareaintendedforpublic facilities).
Inordertoestablisha TCEA,itmustbedocumentedinalocal government's comprehensive
planandmustalsobecompatiblewiththevariouselements of theplan.Thecomprehensiveplan
mustprovidesupportforthesizeandboundaries of the TCEA includingatrafficstudythat
considers existingconditionsaswellas future conditionsaftermultimodal transportation
strategiesare implemented.Itisnotedthata TCEA may crossjurisdictionalboundariesandthat
the comprehensive plan must addresssubsequentimpactsthat may occuroutsidethe TCEA after
multimodal transportation projects are carried out(aswellastothe Florida Interstate Highway
System).TheFebruary2007reportbythe Florida Department of Community Affairs (nowthe
DEC)titled AGuidefortheCreationand Evaluation of Transportation Concurrency Exception
Areas describes thebasicTCEAelementsthatmustbeincludedina comprehensive plan,as
listed below.
aker Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
13 SupportMobility
13 FundMobility
0 Support the Purpose of the Designation (urban infill,urban redevelopment,downtown
revitalization,urbaninfilland redevelopment)
12 ImplementAlternativeModes of Travel
13 DemonstrateHowMobilitywillbeProvided
0 AddressUrbanDesign
13 IdentifyAppropriateLandUsesMixes
13 EstablishMinimumIntensityandDensity Standards for Development
13 AddressNetworkConnectivity
0 Mitigate Impactstothe Strategic Intermodal System (SIS)
0 =Covered intheCity's Comprehensive Plan
13 =NotCoveredinthe City's Comprehensive Plan
The2007reportalsoincludesadetailed evaluation of theCounty'sTCEAandhowthe
comprehensiveplans of itsvariouslocalgovernmentsaddresstheirrolewithintheTCEA.As
shown in Figure5 andalsointhe bullet list above,theCity's comprehensive planis currently
missingmany of theelements identified asbasicTCEA requirements.Figure 6 illustrates some
of theCity'sexisting multimodal transportation infrastructure.Generally speaking,inorderto
be designated asaTCEA,theCitywouldhaveto develop amoredetailedmultimodal
transportation infrastructure planthatis financially-feasibible andthat supports greater mobility
for public transportation,pedestrians,and bicyclists inthe TCEA.By implementing sucha plan,
theCity would havea guidebook forbetter supporting,funding,and managing mobility projects
that would reduce vehicular traffic (thus reducing impact feesand creating additional
development interest).Aspart of this study,theCity requested information onthelevel of effort
that would be necessary to update its comprehensive planto include the required TCEA
elements.Baker,prepared the preliminary cost estimate in Table4,including general
descriptions ofthe associated effort,toassisttheCitywith determining the appropriate level of
effortforsucha comprehensive planupdate.
aker 10 Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
WWWIMiM^^
Goals,objectives,andpoliciesthatsupportMiami-Dade's
TCEA (purpose;infill,redevotopmont,and transit)
Jurisdictions in
Urban Infill
Area1
Mlaml-Dade County
Aventura
Bal Harbour
Bay Harbor Islands
Biscayne Park
Coral Gables
El Portal
Golden Beach
Hlaleah
Indian Creek Village
Key Biscayne
Medley
Miami
Miami Beach
Miami Gardens
Miami Lakes
Miami Shores
Miami Springs
North Bay Village
North Miami
North Miami Beach
Opa-Locka
Palmetto Bay
Pinecrest
South Miami
Sunny Isles Beach
Surfside
Virginia Gardens
West Miami
Is
as
II
Figure 5
Miami-Dade County TCEA Comprehensive Plan Comparison
Basic TCEA Requirements Other Elements
i
vt '
3
gj
PC
J2L
i2L
Rating Scale
0-Doesnotmention a TCEAor references thefuturedesignationofaTCEA.
1-Designates aTCEAbut addresses fewifanyofthe evaluation criteria.
2-Mentions the TCEA in basic detail.Satisfaction of the evaluation criteria is not linked to the TCEA.
3 -Provides explicit detail on the TCEA.Satisfaction of the evaluation criteria is linked to the TCEA.
(1)CoralGablesandNorth Miami areincludedoninthistabletoprovideadditional information ontheirindependent
TCEAs.They are also included in the Table 5.
(2)Policies4.1and4.2oftheTransportationElementstatethat Aventura will implementalocalpublictransitsystemto
operate exclusively within the localTCEA.
(3)Miami Shores TransportationElementPolicy1.12 and Miami SpringsTransportationElementPolicy 1.1.8 seta
priority to evaluate thepotential effectiveness ofTCEAs and/or TCMAsbutdonotactually designate eitheroneineither
city.
(4)RCEA=Redevelopment Concurrency ExceptionArea
UDB=Urban Development Boundary
UIA =Urban Infill Area
Source:AGuide for the Creation and Evaluation of Transportation Concurrency ExceptionAreas,Florida Department
of Community Affairs,February 2007.
aker 11 Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
Figure 6
Multi-Modal Transportation Options in and Around South Miami
Dadef&nd Mall
SW 88th St
Source:Michael Baker Jr.,Inc.,2013.
aker 12
svv a.uh $•
N Kendall Dr
Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
Table 4
1 South Miami TCEA Planning Effort (Preliminary)
TCEA Comprehensive Plan Element General Description Estimated Cost (preliminary)
B Support Mobility
Identifyand illustrate alternativemodesof transportation,parking managementstrategies (particularly inthedowntownarea
wheremerchantsfeelthatparkingiscurrentlydeficient),transient-orienteddesignstandards,landusestrategies,
interconnectivityplansbetweenvariousmodesof transportation,etc.Severalconceptswillbeevaluatedto detemriine arefined
mobilityconceptmat best integratesthevarioustransportation modes inawaythat encourages reducedautomobiletrafficon
localroads.Itwillbe necessary tominimizethemobilityimpactstosurroundingjurisdictionsaspartofthisprocess.The
existingbikewayplanandotherelementswithintheCity'scomprehensiveplanwillalsobereviewedforconsistencywithTCEA
requirements.
$30,000
H Fund Mobility
A financially-feasible capitalimprovement funding system identifying sourcessuchaspublicinvestmentthroughredevelopment
taxes orgrants,parking revenues,private investment by developers tofundtheTCEA improvements,andother sources.This
may include a cash flow analysis toillustratetheCity'sabilitytoaffordthe implementation of multimodal transportation projects.
$15,000
0 Support the Purpose of the Designation (urbaninfill,urban redevelopment,
downtown revltalization,urbaninfilland redevelopment)
Providethe justification for identifying variousportionsofthecityasoneofthe allowable TCEAcategories (including size,
purpose,andgoals).AlthoughtheCity'scomprehensiveplancurrentlyprovidessomeofthis information,theTCEAplanning
effort will include a review ofall areas of the City that could potentially beeligibleforbeing desiqnated asa TCEA
$5,000
0 Implement Alternative Modes of Travel
Adetailedimplementationschedule willbeidentifiedforeachmodeof transportation identified.AlthoughtheCity's
comprehensiveplancurrentlycontainspoliciesforsupportingandfundingmobilityprojects,itwillbenecessarytoreviewthe
previous analyses for consistency with TCEA requirements.
$5,000
B Demonstrate How Mobility will be Provided This component elaboratesontheimplementation schedule byidentifyinganycommittedfunding agreements (publicor
private)to illustrate how and when the mobility projects will be provided.$5,000
0 Address Urban Design TheCity's comprehensive plancurrently addresses designguidelinesforaccessibilitytotransitfacilities.Detaileddesign
specifications must be identified in order to develop aplanthat supports and implements the mobility strateqies for the TCEA.$20,000
El Identify Appropriate Land Uses Mixes
Land use strategies willbeidentifiedinorderto encourage mobilitywithintheTCEAandto reduce focusonautomobile
transportation.ThekeyistoencouragewalkingandbikingwithintheTCEA,socomplementarylandusemixeswillbe
identified in order to accomplish that qoal.
$10,000
El Establish Minimum Intensity and Density Standards for Development IntensityanddensitystandardswillbeidentifiedinordertoeffectivelymanagetrafficflowswithintheTCEA(e.g.,residentsand
employees per acre).$5,000
El Address Network Connectivity Connectivity between theidentifiedmobilitystrategiesandthegreatermetropolitanareaalso need tobeidentified.Assuch,it
will be necessary to consider how allof the mobility strateqies fit into similar networks in the surroundinq communities.$5,000
0Mitigate Impacts tothe Strategic Intermodal System (SIS)
TheSISinFloridais made upofstrategictransportationfacilitiesthatareusedforthe movement ofpeopleandgoods(e.g.,
commercialairportsandfreightraillines).FDOTwillbecontactedtodeterminewhatSIS facilities arelocatedintheCityand
surroundinq areas,and the mobility strategies will attempt to minimize impacts to those facilities.
$5,000
General Coordination,Meetings,and Documentation ThroughouttheTCEAplanningprocess,regularcoordinationandmeetingswithFDOTandCitystaff willbenecessary.Itis
anticipated that public meetings and City Council meetings will also be conducted.$15,000
Total (Preliminary)$120,000
Source:Michael Baker Jr.,Inc.,2013.
0=CoveredintheCity's Comprehensive Plan
El =Not Covered in the City's Comprehensive Plan
13 Concurrency Review Study
Cityof South Miami
Multimodal Transportation Districts (MMTD)
SimilartoTCEAs,MMTDs are intended to reduce automobile trafficby assigning primary
prioritytoothermodes of transportation.FDOT's Multimodal Transportation Districtsand
AreawideQuality of ServiceHandbook (Handbook)describesthe requirements necessary fora
municipality to establish aMMTD.LikeTCEAs,comprehensive plans mustbe updated to
include plans for implementing alternative modes of transportation (public transit,pedestrian,
bicycle,etc.),butunlikeTCEAs,comprehensive plan updates for MMTDs adopt LOS standards
forthose alternative modes of transportation.Theintent of theMMTDisto reduce
transportation impactfeesby reducing automobile traffic.The collection of impact fees is
typicallyusedtopayforthe planned improvements totheMMTD (e.g.,additional bike lanes)
andnot necessarily for roadway improvements thatwould provide additional vehicular capacity.
Whenanew development is proposed withinaMMTD,itis subject to transportation
concurrency reviewandthe associated LOS standards forallmodes of transportation identified
inthe comprehensive plan (within TCEAs,projects are exempt from transportation concurrency
becausemultimodal strategies are already inplacetoreducetraffic).UnlikeTCEAs,MMTDs
are not limited to urban infilland redevelopment areas.The Handbook identifies the following
basic criteria for a MMTD:
•Provision of acomplementarymix of land usesincluding residential,educational,
recreational,and cultural uses.
•Provision of an interconnected network of streets designed to encourage walking and
bicycling withtrafficcalmingwheredesirable.
•Provision of appropriate densities and intensities of land useswithinwalking distance of
transitstops.
•Provision of daily activities withinwalking distance of residences;public infrastructure
thatis safe,comfortable,and attractive for pedestrians;adjoining buildings opentothe
street;and parking facilities structured toavoidconflictwith pedestrian,transit,
automobile,and truck travel.
•Provision of transitservicewithinthedesignated area,ora definitive commitment tothe
provision of transit.This definitive commitment should be found in local planning
documents and inthe approved capital improvements program.For new developments,
transitconnectivitytothemajor urban area mustalsobeincluded,oradefinitive
commitment for transit connections,again evidentinboth planning documents and the
approvedcapital improvement program.
Baker prepared the preliminary cost estimate inTable5,including general descriptions of the
associated effort,to assist theCitywith determining the appropriate level of effort for aMMTD
planning effort(in accordance withthe Handbook).Figure7 identifies the successful indicators
for establishing a successful MMTD.
aker 14 Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
Table 5
South Miami MMTD Planning Effort (Preliminary)
MMTD Element General Description Estimated Cost (preliminary)
Assess Scale of Development
TheMMTDwillbedefinedaspartofthis element andvariousmapsofexistingconditionsandmultimodaltransportation
infrastructurewillbe presented Currentdemographicandlanduseinformationwillalsobeinventoriedand preliminary goals
and objectives will be defined.
$10,000
Analyze LandUseMixand Organization
Adetailedanalysisofland uses withintheMMTDwillbeconductedto make surethattheywouldencourageasafe,attractive,
and comfortable environmentforpedestrians.Itwillbekeytoincluderesidential landusesinthe MMTD becausetheyare
typicallythemostlikelytoutilizemultimodaltransportationfeaturesforroutineactivities(e.g.,visitstogrocerystoresand
restaurants).
$10,000
Analyze Network Connectivity
Aspartof this element,theexistingmultimodalinfrastructurewillbe evaluated withintheCity based onthepreviouslanduse
analysis..It willbe used to analyze where potentialshortfalls In connectivity exist thatwouldnot altow convenient access
between complementary land uses thatwould encourage mobility.The results ofthis element will be used to define themodal
network.It isanticipatedthat GIS willbeutilizedtoconductvariouspath analyses between complementary land uses and
preliminaryLOSstandardswillbeidentified.Surveys oflocalcitizensand businesses may need tooccurinordertoobtain
perceptions about use ofmultimodal transportation infrastructure.
$25,000
Define Modal Network
Basedontheresultsofthenetworkconnectivityanalysis,areaswherethereareshortfallsinmobilitywillbeidentifiedfor
pedestrians,bicyclists,and other usersofpublictransportation.Those shortfalls canthenbe used to develop modal networks
that are intended to resolve deficiencies and provide strategic multimodal facilities throuqhout the City.
$25,000
Areawide Quality/Level of Service Analysis
This element willincludea detailed determination ofLOS standards for the variousmultimodal transportation facilities,which
will ultimatelybeincludedinthe comprehensive plan,land development code,and concurrency review procedures.Inaddition,
an Areawide Qualityof Service (QOS)analysis willbe conducted,whichistheoverall measurement ofperceived performance
of service from the user's point of view.
$20,000
Final Evaluation of Proposed Multimodal Transportation District ThisisthefinalevaluationtodetermineiftheproposedareaisagoodcandidateforaMMTD.Itisbasicallyachecklistto see if
the proposed area meets all of the "Indicators fora Successful District"as shown in Figure 6.$10,000
General Coordination,Meetings,and Documentation ThroughouttheMMTDplanningprocess,regularcoordinationand meetings withFDOTandCity staff willbe necessary.Itis
anticipated that public meetings and City Council meetings will also be conducted.$15,000
Total (Preliminary)$115,000
Source:Michael Baker Jr.,Inc.,2013.
15 Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
m4wmmMmwwimm<
Multimodal 1
Figure 7
["ransportation District Checklist
Criteria for a Multimodal
Transportation District
Indicators for a Successful
District
Contra-Indicators
for a District
Appropriate Scale of
Development
♦Min.ResidentialPop:5,000
♦Minimum Population/Jobs
Ratio:2to1
♦Provision of scheduled transit
•Size of District too
smallortoolargeto
support appropriate
intensities and
densities
♦No transit service
Complementary Mixof Land
Uses
♦3or more significant land
uses
•Physical integration of
components
•Single Land Use
Land Uses Promoting
Multimodal Usage
•Land uses that are mutually
supporting •Single Land Use
Acceptable Separation ofLand
Uses
♦Different land uses are
located within the typically
acceptable range forwalking
(1/4to Vz mile)
♦Land uses spaced
toofar apart for
typical pedestrian
comfort
Appropriate Densities and
Intensities of Land Uses
•Minimum of 4 residential units
per acre formarginalpotential
•Minimum of40 employees
peracreformarginalpotential
•Less than minimum
residential unitsper
acre and minimum
employees per acre
Appropriate Organization of
Land Uses
•Core area of activities and
services
•Activity centers along
corridors concentrated atkey
intersections promoting
transit usage
•Isolated or
scattered
Development
Regional Intermodal
Connectivity
•Regional Intermodal
connections present
•No regional
intermodal service
Interconnected Multimodal
Network
♦Each modal network meets
connectivity index standard
usingpolygonmethodology:
recommended minimum of 50
polygons per square mile
♦Connected street pattern,
generally gridlike
•Poor Connectivity
on modal networks
•Unconnected street
pattern with cul-de-
sacs and dead ends
Acceptable Levels of Service
for Each Mode
•Meets recommended Level of
Service standards for each
mode
•Transit oriented development
pedestrian,transit,and
bicycleLOSofC
•Non-motorized oriented
development pedestrian and
bicycleLOSofC and transit
LOS of D
•Poor Level of
Service
Acceptable Areawide Quality
of Service for each Mode
AreawideQualityof Service
meets recommended standards Poor Level of Service
Source:FDOT's Multimodal Transportation Districts and Areawide Quality ofService Handbook.
aker 16 Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
Specialty Levels of Service (LOS)Analysis
Asthe City continues to consider options to annex surrounding unincorporated areas and also to
increase mobility within the current City boundary,it was important to review LOS
characteristics for emergency services (police,fire,and EMS)as well asfor multimodal
transportation features (pedestrian,bicycle,and public transportation).No recommended LOS
standards are provided inthis section -only qualitative information is provided suchthatthe
Citycangaina preliminary understanding as future options are weighed.
Emergency Services LOS Analysis
Figure8 illustrates the existing presence of police,fire,and hospital facilities inthe City.This
sectionreviewsLOSfor emergency services withintheCity.As annexation continuestobe
considered,the City,County,andother emergency services entities mayusethis information to
help understand what additional staffing,equipment,and facilities maybeneededtoallowfor
adequateresponsetimesforexisting.andnewCityresidentsandbusinesses.
Police -WithintheCity,policeservicesareprovidedbytheSouth
Miami Police Department (SMPD).The City's Annexation
Proposal2012 documentindicatesthattheSMPDcurrentlyhasan
approximateratio of fiveofficersforevery 1,100 citizens.The
documentalsoindicatesthataverageresponsetimesbytheSMPD
arelessthantwominutesforemergenciesandlessthanfive
minutes for routine calls,whereas the Miami-Dade Police
Department (MDPD)hasresponsetimes of approximately eight
minutesfor emergencies and25minutesforroutinecallsinthe
nearbyunincorporatedareas.AccordingtotheCounty'sPublic
Safety Progress Report,3 the County as a whole reported an
averageresponsetime of 8.2minutesfortheMDPD,althoughthe
MDPD'sBusinessPlanforFiscalYears2012and2013 identifies reduced response timeasakey
objective.Considering the proposed annexation atthetime,theSMPDpolicechieffeltthatthe
responsetimescouldbemaintainedwithareductionintheratiotofourofficersforevery 1,100
citizensandindicatedthattheproposedannexationareaisnotsubstantiallylargeinsizeandthat
the distance travelledwouldnot drastically increase.Althoughtherearemanyguidebooks
available for determining policestaffing demands,suchastheU.S.Department of Justice's
Guidelines for Starting and Operating aNewPolice Department,the actual procedures are
typicallybasednumerousfactorsincluding geographical area of patrol,populationserved,
averagenumber of incidents,communitygoals,budgets,etc.Therefore,theCityshould
continuetomonitoritsownneedsforpoliceservicesandplanaccordingly,similartowhatwas
conducted forthe Annexation Proposal.
3http://www.miamidade.gov/results/public_safety.asp.
aker
17 Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
Mm^pww^
Figure 8
Police,Fire,and Hospital Facilities in South Miami
SW 72nd St
SW 76th St
avis-Rd
03ric?i-,nd ,V)al!
SW 88th St
aker
a.
Squth Miami Hospital fjj S^flOMETOVV
fir ,.<>*
J?SS
a.
3
iami Ciry East
r
>SW 80th St
SW S4t.h S*
SW 88th St N Kendall Or
Source:Michael Baker Jr.,Inc.,2013.
18 Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
aker
Fire and Emergency Medical Services (EMS)-Miami-Dade Fire Rescue (MDFR)provides
firefighting and EMS services forthe City and surrounding unincorporated areas (from Station
14 in South Miami).Other private companies also provide EMS ambulance and paramedic
services within the City and there are two hospitals located intheCity (South Miami Hospital
and Larkin Community Hospital).The adjacent City of Coral Gables hasits own fire department
andthe Village of Pinecrest also relies on MDFR.According tothe County's Public Safety
ProgressReport,theCountyasawholereportsanaverage
response time of 8.05 minutes for the MDFR.The MDFR's
Business Plan for Fiscal Years 2012 and 2013 identifies several
measures toreduceresponsetimes including constructing new
facilities,hiringadditional firefighters,purchasingadditional
equipment,improving communications,etc.ThespecificMDFR
responsetimewithintheCityisunknownatthistime;however,
the previously-proposed annexationareasarecurrentlyservedby
MDFRandwouldcontinuetobeservedby MDFR if ultimately
annexed by the City.
Multimodal LOS Analysis
Figure9 illustratesthe generalized annualaveragedailyvolumesforFlorida'surbanizedareas
as obtained fromtheFDOT's 2013 Quality/Level ofService Handbook.FDOTprovidesLOS
classificationsforbicycle,pedestrian,andbusmodes,buttheinformationdoesnotconstitutea
standard.If theCitydecidesto implement LOS standards forsuchmultimodaltransportation
features,theFDOT's Handbook notonly provides LOS standards,italsoincludessuggested
designelementsforthose features.Aspart of theMMTDplanningprocess(andtoalesser
extenttheTCEAplanningprocess),itisanticipatedthataLOSclassificationsystemwouldbe
identifiedandthatallroadwayswithintheCitywouldbeclassifiedusingthatsystem.
Thereafter,LOSstandardswouldbeadoptedand improvements wouldbefocusedoncorrecting
shortfallsinthemultimodaltransportationnetwork.Forexample,theCity of North Miami's
TransportationMasterPlanutilizedtheregression-basedLOSanalysisdescribedinthe FDOT's
Multimodal Transportation DistrictsandAreawideQuality of Service Handbook toidentify
shortfallsintheexistingpedestrianandbicyclenetworksandtodeveloplong-termmobility
recommendations.
19 Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
Figure 9
Annual Average Daily Volumes for Urbanized Areas
BICYCLE MODE2
(Multiply motorized vehicle volumes shown below bynumber of
directionalroadwaylanesto determine two-way maximum service
volumes.)
Paved
Shoulder/Bicycle
Lane Coverage BC D E
0-49%*2,900 7,600 19,700
50-84%2,100 6,700 19,700 >19,700
85-100%9,300 19,700 >19,700 **
PEDESTRIAN MODE2
(Multiplymotorizedvehiclevolumesshownbelowby number of
directionalroadwaylanesto determine two-way maximum service
volumes.)
SidewalkCoverage
0-49%
50-84%
85-100%
B
3,800
1,600
10,700
D E
2,800 9,500
8,700 15,800
17,400 >19,700
BUSMODE(ScheduledFixed Route)9
(Busesinpeakhourinpeakdirection)
SidewalkCoverage
0-84%
85-100%
B
>5
>4
C
>4
>3
D
>3
>2
E
>2
>1
Source:FDOT's 2013 Quality/Level of Service Handbook.
aker 20 Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
Summary and Recommendations
The following list includes key items that were identified within this concurrency review study:
•Concurrency reviews are conducted to make sure that adequate public facilities continue
tobe provided asnew developments occur.The City's concurrency reviews evaluate the
impactsto streets,sewage,water,drainage,solidwaste,and recreation.
•TheCityis largely built-out and there are limited opportunities for wholesale roadway
corridor projects that would improve traffic flows.Consequently,theCityhas adopted
roadway LOS standards that are generally considered inadequate for streets.
Furthermore,theCitydoesnot currently collect transportation impactfeesthatwould
typicallybe determined through the concurrency review process.
•Becausenomajor capacity-enhancing roadway projectswereidentified,theCityshould
focus on enhancing and encouraging alternative modes of transportation (bicycle,
pedestrian,andmass transit),thereby reducing emphasis on automobile utilization.
•Although theCityiscurrentlylocatedwithina TCEA,itdoesnothavethetraditional
elements of aTCEAthatwouldallowmost development proposals tobeexempt from
transportation concurrency(e.g.,theCitydoesnotcurrentlyhavea well-defined and
financially feasible multimodal infrastructure plan).TheTCEAconceptisanolder
conceptandmanymunicipalitiesarenowinfavor of establishingaMMTD.
•A MMTD is similar toa TCEA,butthe MMTD establishes LOS standardsfor
multimodal facilities andallows municipalities tocollectmobilityfeestopayfor
multimodal infrastructure (inlieu of conducting transportation concurrency reviewsand
collectingimpactfees).
•AdditionalspecialtyLOS data was presented foremergencyserviceswithintheCityand
also for multimodal facilities.
Basedontheinformationpresentedhereinand through discussionswiththeCity,Bakerhas
determined thattheexistingLOS standards are generally considered inadequate for streets.
Becausethere are limited opportunities for wholesale roadway corridor projectsthatwould
improvetrafficflowswithintheCity,other options should be pursued that place less emphasis
onvehicleutilization.By establishing aMMTDandhavingalong-termplanforthe
development of multimodal infrastructure,the Citymaybeabletocollectmobilityfeestopay
forthat infrastructure.If successful,that process wouldeliminatetheneedfor transportation
concurrencyinallorselect areas withintheCity,aswellasthecollection of potential
transportation impactfees.ItisnotedthattheCityiscurrentlyconductingan Intermodal
Transportation Plan thatwillevaluatemany of theelements of aMMTDstudy.Itmaybe
possibleto incorporate theelements of the Intermodal Transportation Plan intoaMMTDstudy
toreducethecosts shown previously inTable5.
aker 21 Concurrency Review Study
MIAMI HERALD |MiamiHerald.com
VILLAGE OF PINECREST
Public Notice
On Tuesday,July 8,2014,at8:00p.m.,the Village Council will conduct the
following Public Hearing tobe held atthe Pinecrest Municipal Center,Council
Chamber,12645 PihWcrest Parkway,Pinecrest,Florida:
Hearing #2014-0708^1.Christ the King Lutheran Church,the applicant,is requesting
approval ofa conditional use permit and amended site development plan for the
establishment of a 14,400 square foot daycareand pre-school/kindergarfen for 216
students within an existing building inthe PS District with proposed site improvements to
include additional landscaping,fencing and improvement of16 parking spaces for the
property located dt;M>2?5 Red Road.
All Interested partialpro urged to attend.Objections or expressions of approval ma/bemadsin person atthe
hearing or Hied InWriting-prior to oratthehearing.Interested parties requesting information are asked tocontact
the Building ond Planning Department by calling 305.234.2121,via e-mail at planntng@pinecresl-fl.gov or
writing to me department of 1.2645 Pinecrest Parkway,Pinecrest,Florida 33156.Refer tothe Hearing Number
when making an inquiry.
In accordance.with the Americans with Disabilities Actof 1990,all persons whoaredisabledandwhoneed
specialaccommodations to participate in mismeeting becauseofthatdisability should contacttheVillage Clerk at
(305)234-2121 notlater thanfour business dayspriorto such proceeding.
Should any person decidetoappealany decision ofthe Village Council with respect toany matter considered at
suchmeeting or hearing,that person will needa record ofthe proceedings and,forsuchpurpose,mayneedto
ensurethata verbatim recordofthe proceedings ismade,which recordincludes the testimony and evidence upon
whichtheappeolistobebased (F.S.286.0105).
GuidoH.hguanzo,Jr.,CMC
Villoge Clerk
www.pinecrest-fl.gov
SE SUNDAY,JUNE8,2014 I 29SE
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
COURTESY NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY giventhatthe City Commission ofthe City ofSouth Miami,Florida willconduct Public
Hearing®atits regular City Commission meeting scheduled for Tuesday.June 17.2014 beginning at
7:00p.m..inthe City Commission Chambers,6130SunsetDrive,to consider the following item(s):
AResolution authorizing theCity Manager toenter into a five (5)yearcontract agreement with Laz Parking,
Inc.foran amount notto exceed $1,120,419 fora five (5)yearperiod.
AResolution forSpecial Use Approval to permit a general restaurant at 5701 SunsetDrive,Shopsat
SunsetPlaceUnit CI1D,within the Specialty Retail "SR",Hometown District Overlay "HD-OV".
AResolution amending a Special Use Approval to permit a public carwashat 5795 South Dixie Highway,
withinthe TODD LightIndustrial "T0DD-U4"zoning usedistrict
AResolution authorizing the City Manager toenterintoa five (5)yearcontract withBidera LLC Real Estate
/AnOrdinano
*and recreate
I collection of
Ordinance amending Section 7-3ofthe Code of Ordinances including the establishment ofaparks
recreation facilities impact fee category,andcreating Section 7-3.2 establishing regulations forthe
impactfees.)
ALL interestedpartiesare invited toattendand will beheard.
Forfurtherinformation,pleasecontactthe City Clerk's Office at*305-663-6340.
MariaM.Menendez,CMC
CityClerk
Pursuant to Florida Statutes286J)t05.theCtty hereby advises the pubffc thatIfa perstrntfeddes toappealanytectstonmadebythisBoard.
Agency or Commission withrespecttoanymatterconsidered atits meeting or hearing,be orshe wiB needa record ofthe proceedings,
andthatfarsuchpurpose,affected personmayneedtoensurethata verbatim record d the proceeds b madewhich rec^
testimonyandevidenceuponwhichtheappealistoba based.
Priced to sell at $864,600
1211 Mariana Ave,Coral Gables,FL 33134
Spectacular,move-in-ready,Spanish-Alhambra style CoralGables home.
Built in 2002 with all the modern amenities including impact windows yet
withdetails,feelandcharmofa 1926 home.LocatedintheNorth Gables section
of Coral Gables where you are centrally located tothebest schools,shopping
and dining while remaining inan enclave of elegance and greenery.
•2,515sf •3 Bedroom,3 Bath •Formal dining room •Family room
•Cozy courtyardwithfountain•Romeo and Juliet balconies •Marble master
bath with steam shower
CMBA
[J "flfAt ESTATE
Calixto A.Navarro
CABA Real Estate
calixtorealestate@gmail.com
cell:786-210-8713
You've Got A Friend in the Real Estate Business
MIAMI DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW
Published DailyexceptSaturday.Sundayand
LegalHolidays
Miami,Miami-DadeCounty,Florida
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE:
Beforetheundersignedauthoritypersonallyappeared
M.ZALDIVAR,whoonoath says thatheor she isthe
LEGAL CLERK,LegalNoticesofthe Miami Daily Business
Review f/k/a Miami Review,a dally (except Saturday,Sunday
andLegalHolidays)newspaper,publishedatMiamiin Miami-Dade
County,Florida;thattheattached copy of advertisement,
being aLegal Advertisement of Notice in the matter of
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
NOTICEOFPUBLICHEARINGFORJUNE 17,2014
in the XXXX Court,
was published insaid newspaper in the issues of
06/06/2014
Affiant further saysthatthesaid Miami Daily Business
Review isa newspaper publishedatMiamiinsaidMiami-Dade
County,Florida andthatthesaid newspaper has
heretoforebeen continuously publishedInsaid Miami-Dade County,
Florida,eachday(exceptSaturday,Sunday andLegal Holidays)
andhasbeenenteredassecondclassmailmatteratthepost
office in Miami insaid Miami-Dade County,Florida,fora
periodof one yearnextprecedingthefirstpublicationofthe
attachedcopyofadvertisement;andaffiantfurthersaysthatheor
shehasneitherpaidnorpromisedanyperson,firm or corporation
anydiscount,rebate,commissionor refund forthepurpose
ofsecuringthisadvertisement for/ublication In thesaid
newspaper.
(SEAL)
M.ZALDIVAR personally known to me
p i ft it m n ffi ih <i .w ft *ft a
*0S!fr B.THOMAS/4?£&o\Notary Public -State of Florida|I«C ^Bpa*!My Comm.Expires Nov 2,2017
^®w Commission #FF 034747
'''£#W#*Bonded Through National Notary Assn.j