6TilE CITY OF PLEASANT LIVING
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
INTER-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 Item No.:6
SUBJECT:
An Ordinance of the City of South Miami, Florida, amending Section 7-3 of the Code of
Ordinances and establishing a parks and recreational impact fee, and creating Section 7-3.2
establishing regulations for the collection of such impact fees.
BACKGROUND:
In April 2013, the City Commission approved a contract with Tischler Bise Incorporated,
pursuant to a request for proposal [RFP #PZ 2013-03-01], to conduct an Impact Fee Study and
Transportation Concurrency Review; Resolution No. 77-13-13895. The study would look at
three areas for possible fee assessment; transportation, parks & recreation, and public safety.
The City Administration requested the study of impact fee feasibility as a possible method of
shifting the cost of infrastructure from new development from the existing residents, who pay
for it now, to the developer. In essence it makes new development pay its own way.
Therefore, adoption of impact fees reduces the financial pressure on local residents to raise
taxes and fees. With new development paying for its fair share of capacity-enhancing
infrastructure needs, any current funds that have been designated to pay for those projects can
potentially be shifted to the more immediate needs of existing residents, such as for facility
maintenance and rehabilitation.
The City currently does not collect impact fees, and the purpose of the study was review the
City'S current services and facilities and determine whether impact fees could be assessed for
new development. The process included an appropriate impact fee determination
methodology and fee assessment schedules necessary for the City to establish and defend any
proposed fees. Any methodology for establishing impact fees would need to meet the "rational
nexus" test, as well as be in compliance with Florida Statute 163.31801 the Florida Impact Fee
Act, to guarantee fairness in assessing these fees.
Adoption of impact fees reduces pressure on local residents to raise taxes and fees. And with
new development paying for its own capacity-enhancing infrastructure needs, any current
funds that have been deSignated to pay for those projects can be shifted to the more
Parks & Recreation Impact Fee Ordinance
May 28,2014
Page 2 of2
immediate needs of existing residents, such as for facility maintenance and rehabilitation. As a
result of the study the consultants concluded that it would only be feasible at this time for the
City to assess an impact fee for parks and recreational facilities. It was determined that the
imposition of a transportation impact fee would not be a feasible option for the City, partly
because there are limited opportunities for wholesale roadway corridor projects that would
improve traffic flows, but also the capital costs of improving roadway levels of service for
existing vehicular traffic. It was suggested that other options be pursued that place less
emphasis on vehicle utilization, such as the creation of a multimodal transportation district
(MMTD). By establishing a MMTD and having a long-term plan for the development of
multimodal infrastructure, the City may be able to collect mobility fees to pay for that
infrastructure.
The City is currently undertaking the South Miami Intermodal Transportation Study (SMITP).
The results of this study will be used in part, to address the feasibility of assessing a mobility
fee.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Commission approve the adoption of the parks and recreation
impact fee schedule pursuant to the recommendations of the Tischler Bise impact fee study.
The impact fee study is incorporated in the proposed Ordinance by reference.
ATTACHMENTS:
Proposed Ordinance
Parks & Recreation Facilities Impact Fee Study; Dated April 1, 2014
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
ORDINANCE NO. _______ _
An Ordinance amending Section 7-3 of the Code of Ordinances, including the
establishment of a parks and recreational impact fee category, and creating Section 7-
3.2 establishing regulations for the collection of such impact fees.
WHEREAS, new development and redevelopment in the City can add to and help
maintain the quality of life under a balanced growth management program; and
WHEREAS, effective growth management is promoted when adequate public facilities
are available to serve new development concurrent with the impacts of that development; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission requested the preparation of an impact fee report,
based upon the most recent and localized data in support of the impact fee Ordinance to be
completed and submitted to the City; and
WHEREAS, the report prepared by TischlerBise, Fiscal, Economic and Planning
Consultants, dated April 1, 2014 recommended the implementation of a parks facilities impact
fee for residential development; and
WHEREAS, as set forth in the impact fee report, the collection of this impact fee will
fund parks and recreation capital improvements required to serve growth, and the revenue
generated from impact fees will benefit new development by maintaining current citywide levels
of service;, thereby promoting the general welfare of all City residents and constitutes a public
purpose; and
WHEREAS, ad valorem tax revenue and other revenues will not be sufficient to provide
the additional capital improvements for parks and recreation facilities, which are 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:
Section 1. The impact fee report prepared by Tischler Bise provides an adequate and
lawful basis for the adoption and imposition of parks facilities impact fees in accordance with
this Ordinance and is incorporated herein by reference.
Section 2.
follows:
Section 7-3 of the City Code of ordinances is hereby amended to read as
Sec. 7-3. Comprehensive Ffee Schedule.
There is hereby established a comprehensive fee schedule setting forth fees for the The
fees for the following items subjects shall be as set forth in the City's ordinance
regulating these subjects, or as set forth in the City's comprehensive fees and fines
ordinance (a copy of the latter shall be kept in the office of the City Clerk and which may
U:\My Documents\resolutions\Ordinance Impact Fee CArev3.doc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
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, completion or occupancy fees.
(7) Public works/utility fees.
(8) Other fees.
(9) Occupational license fees.
(10) Tree removal permit fees.
Qll Development impact fees.
as set forth in the in the schedule entitled "Comprehensive Fee Schedule," attached to
Ordinance No. 1454 and adopted by reference hereof, [and any amendments thereto].
(Ord. No. 1454, § 4, 9 690; Orc/. No. 1501, § 1, 3 3 92; Orc/. No. 1512, § 1, 9 1592; Ord. No. 1575, §§
1 3,221 95; Ord. No. 157&, § 1, 4495; Orc/. No. 1594, §§ 1 3, 11 795; Ord. ,'\,'0. 1692, § 1, 11299;
Orc/. ,".'0. 1730, § 1, 11 7 (0)
EC/itor's Rote
Section 1 of Ordinance No. 28 00 1730, adopted November 7, 2000, amended Ordinance
No. 14 90 1454 by adding a new permit fee refund schedule. At the city's request,
such schedule has not been set out herein, but is on file in the office of the city clerk.
Section 3. Chapter 7 of the City Code of Ordinances is amended to add 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, firm or corporation who or which has applied for the building
permit for residential construction shall pay to the City, the parks impact fees as set forth
in the provisions of this Ordinance.
!!:.. Definitions. For the purpose of this Ordinance, certain terms and words are
defined. Additionally and where applicable, words used in the present tense shall include
the future; the singular number shall include the plural, and the plural the singular:
Building permit shall have the same meaning as provided in the Florida Building
Code and shall include a permit issued by the building official for the construction,
U:\My Documents\resolutions\Ordinance Impact Fee CArev3.doc 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
enlargement, alteration, modification, repair, movement, demolition, or change in the
occupancy of a building or structure.
Capital improvements shall mean physical assets constructed or purchased to provide,
improve or replace a public facility and which are large scale, high in cost, and have
an estimated useful life in excess of one year. The cost of a capital improvement is
generally nonrecurring and may require multiyear financing.
Feepayer shall mean any person, firm, or corporation intending to commence new
development and, during the life of the development, applies for the issuance of a
building permit.
Impact fee study shall mean the Parks and Recreation Facilities Impact Fee Study on
the methodology used to establish Parks and Recreation Facilities Impact fees for the
City of South Miami prepared by Tischler Bise, dated April 1, 2014, which
establishes the basis for the fair share of capital facilities costs attributable to new
development based upon standard and appropriate methodologies, and a copy of
which is attached to and incorporated by reference into this Ordinance but which is
excluded from the codified version of this ordinance. A copy shall be on file with the
City Clerk.
New development shall mean the carrying out of any residential building activity or
the making of any material change in the use or appearance of any building or
structure or land, which results in an additional impact or demand on parks facilities.
~ Imposition of fees. There is assessed, charged, imposed, and enacted parks impact
fees on all new residential development occurring within the municipal boundaries of the
City of South Miami. These fees will be assessed, charged, or imposed in accordance with
the fee schedule provided below and as may be amended from time to time by the City'S Fee
Schedule ordinance based upon the most recent and localized data. The effective date of any
increase in fees shall take effect at least 90 days following publication and enactment of the
amended Fee Schedule.
Parks and Recreation Development Fee Schedule per Housing Unit
Persons
Number l2Jl!.
Q[ Housing Proposed
Unit Tvpe Bedrooms Unit VI Fee
Multifamily
Unit All Sizes 1.34 $1,366
Single Unit 0-3 2.54 $2,590
Single Unit 4+ 3.45 $3,519
Sinqle Unit .• Avq 2.80 $.2,865
U:\My Documents\resolutions\Ordinance Impact Fce CArev3.doc 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
fl] 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 of2.80 persons per single family unit.
D. Payment. The impact fees shall be paid to the City by the Feepayer at the time of
and as the condition precedent to the issuance of the building permit.
E. Disposition of fees. All fees collected by virtue of this Ordinance and any interest
earned on them, other than the allowable administrative cost for collection, shall be
deposited into a special and separate trust account to be designated, "parks and recreation
facilities impact fees account." Funds from this account may be expended for land
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; for any architectural, engineering, legal and other
professional fees and expenses related to any such improvements; and for any
administrative costs not incurred by the fee collection process. Funds from this account
may also be expended for retirement of loans and/or bonds that may be, or have been,
issued to finance the capital improvements herein contemplated.
.E:.. Reporting, Collections, and Audits. The City of South Miami's Finance Director
shall keep an accurate accounting and reporting of impact fee collections and expenditures
within the City. The City shall retain up to 5% of the impact fees collected to offset the
administrative costs of collecting the impact fees(which shall be limited to the actual
collection costs incurred) and the cost of administering the provisions of this Ordinance.
Audits of the City's financial statements which are performed by a certified public accountant
pursuant to Section 218.39, F.S, as amended, that are submitted to the Auditor General must
include an affidavit signed by the Finance Director stating that the City has complied with
Section 163.31801, F.S.( "Florida Impact Fee Act.") as amended.
G. Refunds, Credits, and Reimbursements.
ill Upon application of the property owner, the City shall refund that portion of
any impact fee which has been on deposit for over six (6) years and which is unexpended and
uncommitted, except as described in subsection (3) of this section. The refund shall be made
to the then-current owner or owners o[1ots or units of the development project or projects.
ill If, at the request of the City, a Feepayer constructs a parks and recreation
facilities component or dedicates land for future facilities and if the constructed facility or
the dedicated land would otherwise have been paid for by impact fees, the City shall
reimburse the Feepayer for Parks and Recreation Facilities impact fees previously paid in
accordance with the following conditions, unless the Feepayer and the City agree to other
conditions:
!ill The reimbursement shall be limited to a payback period of five (5) years;
ihl The City shall not reimburse interest on the outstanding balance; and.
.c.0 The Feepayer shall be 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 CArev3.doc 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
ill If any impact fees charged to a Feepayer are unexpended or uncommitted
during the sixth year following its collection, the fees are exempt from subsection (1) of this
section if the City Commission makes the following findings:
ill) A need for the capital improvement still exists;
ihl The fees will be used for an identified purpose within two (2) years of the
finding of need; and
if) The purpose for which the fees will be used is substantially similar to the
purpose for which the fees were collected.
Section 4. Codification. The provisions of this ordinance shall become and be made
part of the Code of Ordinances of the City of South Miami as amended; that the sections of this
ordinance may be renumbered or re-Iettered to accomplish such intention; and that the word
"ordinance" may be changed to "section" or other appropriate word.
Section 5. Severability. If any section, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance is
for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, this holding
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 6. Ordinances in Conflict. All ordinances or parts of ordinances and all
sections and parts of sections of ordinances in direct conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
However, it is not the intent of this section to repeal entire ordinances, or parts of ordinances,
that give the appearance of being in conflict when the two ordinances can be harmonized or
when only a portion of the ordinance in conflict needs to be repealed to harmonize the
ordinances. If the ordinance in conflict can be harmonized by amending its terms, it is hereby
amended to harmonize the two ordinances. Therefore, only that portion that needs to be repealed
to harmonize the two ordinances shall be repealed.
Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective 90 days following its
publication.
PASSED AND ENACTED this __ day of _____ , 2014.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
1st Reading
2nd Reading
READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM:
LANGUAGE, LEGALITY AND
EXECUTION THEREOF
U:\My Documents\resolutions\Ordinance Impact Fee CArev3.doc
APPROVED:
MAYOR
COMMISSION VOTE:
Mayor Stoddard:
Vice Mayor Harris:
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
CITY ATTORNEY
U:\My Documents\resolutions\Ordinance Impact Fee CArev3.doc
Commissioner Edmond:
Commissioner Liebman:
Commissioner Welsh:
6
Advisory Legal Opinion -Municipalities, use of impact fees
Number: AGO 2010-46
Date: November 5,2010
Florida Attorney General
Advisory Legal Opinion
Subject: Municipalities, use of impact fees
Ms. Jerri Blair
City Attorney
City of Wildwood
Post Office Box 130
Tavares, Florida 32778-0130
Page 1 of7
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 of the City Commission of the 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 collection may be used for another utility service
which generally benefits the subject property which paid the impact
fees?
2. Whether the City of Wildwood must return impact fees which have
been collected for a service which will be privatized to the owner
of the property for which the fees were collected or to the person
from whom the impact fees were paid?
In sum:
1. Impact fees collected by the City of Wildwood for the purpose of
refuse collection must be used for that purpose and for other solid
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. In the absence of any direction from the Legislature as to the
return of validly collected impact fees for refuse collection, this
office would suggest that the city utilize these fees for solid
http://www.myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printview/ A8EOF8C5AAA4D7 AD852577D20072... 5/28/2014
Advisory Legal Opinion -Municipalities, use of impact fees Page 2 of7
waste-related purposes as considered in St. Lucie County v. City of
Fort Pierce.
According to information you have supplied to this office, the City
of Wildwood has, for several years, levied and collected an impact
fee for refuse collection as well as other utilities and services.
The impact fees collected by the city for refuse collection were
imposed and collected pursuant to section 163.31801, Florida
Statutes. The city has now determined that lower rates can be
maintained through contracting and privatizing the refuse collection
portion of its utility service and has entered into a contract for
this service with a private company. However, the city currently
holds $165,981.00 that was collected as refuse impact fees. Since
the city is privatizing refuse services, you state that these fees
will not be used for the expansion of refuse collection services.
Therefore, you have asked whether these surplus fees may be used for
any other utility service or must be returned.
Question One
Section 163.31801, Florida Statutes, is the "Florida Impact Fee
Act."[1] The intent of the Legislature in adopting this statute is
provided in subsection (2) thereof:
"The Legislature finds that impact fees are an important source of
revenue for a local government to use in funding the infrastructure
necessitated by new growth. The Legislature further finds that
impact fees are an outgrowth of the home rule power of a local
government to provide certain services within its jurisdiction. Due
to the growth of impact fee collections and local governments'
reliance on impact fees, it is the intent of the Legislature to
ensure that, when a county or municipality adopts an impact fee by
ordinance or a special district adopts an impact fee by resolution,
the governing authority complies with this section."
Subsection (3) of the act requires that any impact fee adopted by
municipal ordinance must, at a minimum:
"(a) Require that the calculation of the impact fee be based on the
most recent and localized data.
(b) Provide for accounting and reporting of impact fee collections
and expenditures. If a local governmental entity imposes an impact
fee to address its infrastructure needs, the entity shall account
for the revenues and expenditures of such impact fee in a separate
accounting fund.
(c) Limit administrative charges for the collection of impact fees
to actual costs.
(d) Require that notice be provided no less than 90 days before the
effective date of an ordinance or resolution imposing a new or
increased impact fee. A county or municipality is not required to
http://www.myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printview/A8EOF8C 5AAA4D7AD852577D200n... 5/28/2014
Advisory Legal Opinion -Municipalities, use of impact fees Page 3 of7
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 of a viable impact fee, assessment and
collection of such a fee must be based upon the pro rata share of
the reasonably anticipated costs of 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
Bui~ders Association o£ Pine~~as County v. City o£ Dunedin,[3] as
follows:
"The avowed purpose of the ordinance in the present case is to raise
money in order to expand the water and sewerage systems, so as to
meet the increased demand which additional connections to the 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 is a valid imposition of an 'impact fee' or
user charge for the privilege of connecting to the city's water and
sewer system . "
In City o£ Dunedin, the Court delineated the test to be 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 were charged. Thus, a viable impact fee,
levied and collected for an express purpose, must be spent for that
purpose.
In a case involving impact fees for refuse disposal services, St.
Lucie County v. City o£ Fort Pierce,[6] the county brought an action
against the city on the parties' waste disposal contract. For a
number of years, pursuant to an inter local agreement, the county had
granted the city the right to dispose of its 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 in a dispute concerning the city's use of
the landfill. After the fee increase, the city began withholding a
http://www.myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printview/A8EOF8C5AAA4D7AD852577D20072... 5/28/2014
Advisory Legal Opinion -Municipalities, use of impact fees Page 4 of7
portion of its payment to the county complaining that the county was
using part of the fees it was collecting to close one of the
county's other landfills. The city argued that it never used the
landfill being closed and was not responsible for this 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 of a refuse disposal
site never used by the city. The trial court ruled in favor of the
city on its unjust enrichment claim and awarded damages to the city.
The damage award under the unjust enrichment theory was the subject
of the appeal to the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The county
raised two points in support of its appeal: 1) that the waste
disposal fee was a 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
the fees are being expended for a solid waste-related purpose. "[7]
The court's analysis relied on City of New Smyrna Beach v. Board of
Trustees of Interna~ 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 'beach 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.myfioridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printview/A8EOF8C5 AAA4D7AD852577D200n... 5/28/2014
Advisory Legal Opinion -Municipalities, use of impact fees Page 5 of7
163.31801, Florida Statutes. As a valid impact fee, the fees imposed
must be no more than what the city would incur in accommodating the
new users of the system and these fees must be expressly earmarked
and spent for the purposes for which they were charged and
collected. As Florida courts and this office have recognized, an
impact fee, levied and collected for an express purpose, must be
spent for that purpose. Thus, the City of Wildwood refuse collection
impact fee may be spent only for that 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 for the 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 or system, any then-existing plant or system
may be included as a 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 fee for
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 are no 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 to be an equitable resolution to your
http://www.myfioridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printview/A8EOF8C5AAA4D7AD852577D20072... 5/28/2014
Advisory Legal Opinion -Municipalities, use of impact fees Page 60f7
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 Dunedin, 329 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 1976), appeal after remand,
358 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 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 Cps. Att'y Gen. Fla. 76-137 (1976), 82-09 (1982), and 85-101
(1985); Inf. Cp. 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.myfloridaiegal.com/ago.nsf/printview/ A8EOF8C5AAA4 D7 AD852577D200n... 5/28/20] 4
Advisory Legal Opinion -Municipalities, use of impact fees Page 7 of7
[11] Supra n.6 at 37.
[12] Cf. State ex re~. Victor Chemica~ Works v. Gay, 74 So. 2d 560
(Fla. 1954), holding that unless there was some 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), n[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 the tax was paid
involuntarily or compulsively[;]n Cp. Att'y Gen. Fla. 75-293 (1975).
[13] Cf. Chaffee v. Miami Transfer Company, Inc., 288 So. 2d 209
(Fla. 1974), and Cps. 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.myfioridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printview/A8EOF8C5AAA4D7 AD852577D20072... 5/28/2014
Parks and Recreation Facilities
Impact Fee Study
City of South Miami, Florida
Submitted to:
City of South Miami Florida
April 1,2014
Prepared by:
III!
I
Economic &
4701 Sangamore Road
SuiteS240
Bethesda, Maryland 20816
800.424.4318
www.tischlerbise.com
lischlerBise
TischlerBise
4701 Sangamore Road
Suite 5240
Bethesda, Maryland 20816
800.424.4318
www.tischlerbise.com
1ischlerBise
Impact Fee Study
City of South Miami, Florida
T ABLE OF CONTENTS
IMPACT FEE STUDY
City of South Miami, Florida
Impact Fee Study
City of South Miami, Florida
Executive Summary ....••••.••••.....•••.••...•••••..••.....•••.••••...••..••...••••••...•••.•••••.•.•••......••••.••••••...•.•••.•••...•...••• 1
Introduction to Impact Fees .•••••••....••.••••••.••••.••..••••....•....••••••.•..•...•.••••...•.•..•.•••••...•.......•.••..••.......•••••• 2
General Legal Framework ......................................................................................................................... 2
Unique Requirements of the Florida Impact Fee Act ............................................................................... 3
Methodologies and Credits ....................................................................................................................... 4
Cost for Impact Fee Study ......................................................................................................................... 6
Maximum Allowable Impact Fees By Type of Land Use ........................................................................... 6
Parks and Recreation Facilities Impact Fees ........................................................................................ 7
Methodology ............................................................................................................................................. 7
Parks and Recreation Facilities Improvements and Costs ........................................................................ 8
Parks and Recreation Capital Improvements Needed to Serve Growth ................................................. 11
Cost for Impact Fee Study ....................................................................................................................... 13
Credit For Future Principal Payments ..................................................................................................... 14
Parks and Recreation Input Variables and Impact Fees .......................................................................... 15
Cash Flow 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 -Impact fees; short title; intent; definitions; ordinances levying impact fees ......... 24
lischler8ise ,
1 hie 4701 SANGAMORE ROAD I SUITE S240 ! BETHESDA I MD 20816
T: 800.424.4318 I F: 301.320.4860
Fiscal, Econornic & Planning Consultants 300 UNO LAGO DRIVE I SUITE 405 I NORTH PALM BEACH! FL 33408
T: 800.424.4318 I F: 301.320.4860
WWW.TISCHLERBISE.COM
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of South Miami retained TischlerBise, Inc. to analyze current levels of service, and to calculate
maximum allowable impact fees for Parks and Recreation facilities in the City. This report presents the
methodologies and calculations used to generate current levels of service and the maximum allowable
impact fees. It is intended to serve as supporting documentation for future updates to impact fees in the
City.
The purpose of this study is to demonstrate the City's compliance with Florida Statute 163.31801 Florida
Impact Fee Act. Consistent with the state Statute, and the City's master planning documents it is the
intent of the City to:
1. Collect impact fees to fund parks and recreation capital improvements required to serve growth,
and
2. To use revenue generated from impact fees to benefit new development by maintaining current
citywide levels of service.
Impact fees are one-time payments used to construct system improvements needed to accommodate
new development. An impact fee represents new growth's fair share of capital facility needs. By law,
impact fees can only be used for capital improvements, not operating or maintenance costs. Impact fees
are subject to legal standards, which require fulfillment of three key elements: need, benefit and
proportionality.
• First, to justify a fee for public facilities, it must be demonstrated that new development will
create a need for capital improvements.
• Second, new development must derive a benefit from the payment of the fees (Le., in the form
of public facilities constructed within a reasonable timeframe).
• Third, the fee paid by a particular type of development should not exceed its proportional share
of the capital cost for system improvements.
TischlerBise evaluated possible methodologies, and documented appropriate demand indicators by type
of development to document levels of service and calculate fees. Local demographic data and
improvement costs were used to identify specific capital costs attributable to growth. This report
includes summary tables indicating the specific factors, referred to as level of service standards, used to
derive the impact fees.
The geographic area for the Parks and Recreation Facilities impact fees is the City of South Miami; and
the demand indicator is residential development.
, Fiscal Impact Analysis .. Impact Fees· Economic Impacts· Infrastructure Financing' Market and Financial Feasibility· Fiscal Software·
INTRODUCTION TO IMPACT FEES
Impact Fee Study
City of South Miami, Florida
Impact fees are one-time payments used to construct system improvements needed to accommodate
new development. An impact fee represents new growth's proportionate share of capital facilities.
Impact fees have defined parameters for use. They are not a complete solution for infrastructure
financing needs. Rather, they are one component of a comprehensive portfolio to ensure provision of
adequate public facilities. Impact fees may only be used for capital improvements or debt service for
growth-related infrastructure. In contrast to general taxes, impact fees may not be used for operations,
maintenance, replacement or correcting existing deficiencies.
GENERAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Both state and federal courts have recognized the imposition of impact fees on development as a
legitimate form of land use regulation, provided the fees meet standards intended to protect against
regulatory takings. Land use regulations, development exactions, and impact fees are subject to the Fifth
Amendment prohibition on taking of private property for public use without just compensation. To
comply with the Fifth Amendment, development regulations must be shown to substantially advance a
legitimate governmental interest. In the case of impact fees, that interest is in the protection of public
health, safety, and welfare by ensuring that development is not detrimental to the quality of essential
public services. The means to this end are also important, requiring both procedural and substantive due
process. The process followed to receive community input, with stakeholder meetings, work sessions,
and public hearings provide opportunity for comments and refinements to the impact fees.
There is little federal case law specifically dealing with impact fees, although other rulings on other types
of exactions (e.g., land dedication requirements) are relevant. In one of the most important exaction
cases, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a government agency imposing exactions on development
must demonstrate an "essential nexus" between the exaction and the interest being protected (see
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 1987). In a more recent case (Dolan v. City of Tigard, OR, 1994),
the Court ruled that an exaction also must be "roughly proportional" to the burden created by
development. However, the Dolan decision appeared to set a higher standard of review for mandatory
dedications of land than for monetary exactions such as impact fees.
There are three reasonable relationship requirements for impact fees that related closely to "rational
nexus" or "reasonable relationship" requirements enunciated by a number of state courts. Although the
term "dual rational nexus" is often used to characterize the standard by which courts evaluate the
validity of impact fees under the U.S. Constitution, we prefer a more rigorous formulation that
recognizes three elements: "need," "benefit," and "proportionality." The dual rational nexus test
explicitly addresses only the first two, although proportionality is reasonably implied, and was
specifically mentioned by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case. Individual elements of the nexus
standard are discussed further in the following paragraphs.
All new development in a community creates additional demands on some, or all, public facilities
provided by local government. If the capacity of facilities is not increased to satisfy that additional
demand, the quality or availability of public services for the entire community will deteriorate. Impact
fees may be used to recover the cost of development-related facilities, but only to the extent that the
need for facilities is a consequence of development that is subject to the fees. The Nollan decision
reinforced the principle that development exactions may be used only to mitigate conditions created by
lischlerBise 2
2
Impact Fee Study
City of South Miami, Florida
the developments upon which they are imposed. That principle clearly applies to impact fees. In this
study, the impact of development on infrastructure needs is analyzed in terms of quantifiable
relationships between various types of development and the demand for specific facilities, based on
applicable level of service standards.
The requirement that exactions be proportional to the impacts of development was clearly stated by the
U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case (although the relevance of that decision to impact fees has been
debated) and is logically necessary to establish a proper nexus. Proportionality is established through
the procedures used to identify development-related capital costs, and in the methods used to calculate
impact fees for various types of facilities and categories of development. The demand for facilities is
measured in terms of relevant and measurable attributes of development (e.g. a typical housing unit's
household size).
FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING
A sufficient benefit relationship requires that impact fee revenues be segregated from other funds, and
that they be expended only on the facilities for which the fees were charged. Impact fees must be
expended in a timely manner and the facilities funded by the fees must serve the development paying
the fees. However, nothing in the U.S. Constitution or the state enabling legislation requires that
facilities funded with fee revenues be available exclusively to development paying the fees. In other
words, benefit may extend to a general area including multiple real estate developments. Procedures
for the earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues are discussed further below. All of these
procedural, as well as substantive, issues are intended to ensure that new development benefits from
the impact fees they are required to pay. The authority and procedures to implement impact fees is
separate from, and complementary to, the authority to require improvements as part of subdivision or
zoning review.
UNIQUE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FLORIDA IMPACT FEE ACT
In Florida, impact fees are an outgrowth of home rule power and compared to other states, the enabling
legislation is relatively brief. [See Appendix B -Florida Statute: 163.31801] The Act requires the
calculation of impact fees to be based on most recent and localized data. Administrative charges for the
collection of impact fees are limited to actual costs. The chief financial officer of the local government
has specific responsibilities for accounting and reporting collections and expenditures of impact fees. In
contrast to the legal precedent in other states, Florida law states, "In any action challenging an impact
fee, the government has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the imposition
or amount of the fee meets the requirements of state legal precedent or this section."
As documented in this report, the City of South Miami has complied with the Florida Impact Fee Act and
applicable legal precedents. Impact fees are proportionate and reasonably related to the capital
improvement demands of new development. Specific costs have been identified using local data and
current dollars. With input from City staff, TischlerBise determined demand indicators for each type of
infrastructure and calculated proportionate share factors to allocate costs by type of development. This
report documents the formulas and input variables used to calculate the impact fees for three types of
parks and recreation capital components. Impact fee methodologies also identify the extent to which
new development is entitled to various types of credits to avoid potential double payment of growth-
related capital costs.
lischlerBise 3
METI-IODOLOGIES AND CREDITS
CONCEPTUAL IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
Impact Fee Study
City of South Miami, Florida
In contrast to project-level improvements, impact fees fund growth-related infrastructure that will
benefit multiple development projects, or the entire jurisdiction (usually referred to as system
improvements). The first step is to determine an appropriate demand indicator for the particular type of
infrastructure. The demand indicator measures the number of demand units (e.g., population) for each
unit of development. For example, an appropriate indicator of the demand for parks is population
growth and the increase in population can be estimated from the average number of persons per
housing unit. The second step in the impact fee formula is to determine infrastructure units per demand
unit, typically called level of service (LOS) standards. In keeping with the park example, a common LOS
standard is park acreage per thousand people. The third step in the impact fee formula is the cost of
various infrastructure units. To complete the park example, this part of the formula would establish the
cost per acre for land acquisition and/or park improvements.
CALCULATION METHODOLOGIES
Impact fees can be calculated by anyone of several legitimate methods. The choice of a particular
method depends primarily on the service characteristics and planning requirements for each facility
type. Each method has advantages and disadvantages in a particular situation, and to some extent can
be interchangeable, because each allocates facility costs in proportion to the needs created by
development.
Reduced to its simplest terms, the process of calculating impact fees involves two main steps: (1)
determining the cost of development-related capital improvements, and (2) allocating those costs
equitably to various types of development. In practice, though, the calculation of impact fees can
become quite complicated because of the many variables involved in defining the relationship between
development and the need for facilities. The following paragraphs discuss three basic methods for
calculating impact fees, and possible application of each method.
Cost Recovery or Buy-In Fee Calculation. The rationale for the cost recovery approach is that new
development is paying for its share of the useful life and remaining capacity of facilities already built or
land already purchased from which new growth will benefit. This methodology is often used for systems
that were oversized such as sewer and water facilities.
Incremental Expansion Fee Calculation. The incremental expansion method documents the current level
of service (LOS) for each type of public facility in both quantitative and qualitative measures, based on
an existing service standard (such as square feet per student). This approach ensures that there are no
existing infrastructure deficiencies or surplus capacity in existing infrastructure. New development is
only paying its proportionate share for growth-related infrastructure. The level of service standards are
determined in a manner similar to the current replacement cost approach used by property insurance
companies. However, in contrast to insurance practices, the fee revenues would not be for renewal
and/or replacement of existing facilities. Rather, revenue will be used to expand or provide additional
facilities, as needed, to accommodate new development. An incremental expansion cost method is best
suited for public facilities that will be expanded in regular increments, with LOS standards based on
current conditions in the community.
TischlerBise 4
Impact Fee Study
City of South Miami, Florida
Plan-Based Fee Calculation. The plan-based method allocates costs for a specified set of improvements
to a specified amount of development. Facility plans identify needed improvements, and land use plans
identify development. In this method, the total cost of relevant facilities is divided by total demand to
calculate a cost per unit of demand. Then, the cost per unit of demand is multiplied by the amount of
demand per unit of development (e.g., housing units or square feet of building area) in each category to
arrive at a cost per specific unit of development (e.g., single family detached unit).
CREDITS
Regardless of the methodology, a consideration of "credits" is integral to the development of a legally
valid impact fee methodology. There are two types of "credits," each with specific and distinct
characteristics, but both of which should be addressed in the calculation of impact fees. The first is a
credit due to possible double payment situations. This could occur when contributions are made by the
property owner toward the capital costs of the public facility covered by the impact fee. This type of
credit is integrated into the impact fee calculation. The second is a credit toward the payment of a fee
for dedication of public sites or improvements provided by the developer and for which the facility fee is
imposed. This type of credit is addressed in the administration and implementation of a facility fee
program.
FEE METHODOLOGIES
Each of the fee methodologies discussed above were considered to calculate impact fees for the City of
South Miami. Where capacity is sufficient to serve current demand the incremental expansion method
documents the current level of service (LOS) for each type of public facility. The cost recovery method,
used on the rationale that new development is paying for its share of the useful life and remaining
capacity of an existing facility, is used to calculate a new growth share of recreational facilities. The
following table summarizes the method(s) used to derive the impact fee for each component of the
Parks and Recreation Facilities impact fees.
Figure 1: Summary of Impact Fee Methodologies
REPORTING RESULTS
Calculations throughout this technical memo are based on an analysis conducted using Excel software.
Results are discussed in the memo using one-and two-digit places (in most cases), which represent
rounded figures. However, the analysis itself uses figures carried to their ultimate decimal places;
therefore the sums and products generated in the analysis may not equal the sum or product if the
reader replicates the calculation with the factors shown in the report (due to the rounding of figures
shown, not in the analysis).
lischlerBise 5
Impact Fee Study
City oj South Miami, Florida
COST FOR IMPACT FEE STUDY
Included in the Parks and Recreation facilities impact fee is the cost for preparation of the Impact Fee
Study. The City of South Miami incurred a cost of $36,000 for the 2013 Impact Fee Study to establish
maximum supportable impact fees for Parks and Recreation Facilities and Multi-Modal Transportation
Facilities (to be discussed in a future document). To distribute the cost among each study component,
half ($18,000) of the total project cost was assigned to the Parks and Recreation Facilities fee evaluation.
The component shares and costs are shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Impact Fee Study Preparation Cost
Fee Components 2013 Component Costs
Parks and Recreation $18,000
Multi-Modal Transportation $18,000
Total Study Cost $36,000
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE IMPACT FEES BY TYPE OF LAND USE
Figure 3 provides a schedule of the maximum allowable impact fees by type of land use for the City of
South Miami. The fees represent the highest amount allowable for each type of applicable land use, and
represents new growth's fair share of the cost for parks and recreation capital facilities. The City may
adopt fees that are less than the amounts shown. However, a reduction in impact fee revenue will
necessitate an increase in other revenues, a decrease in planned capital expenditures, and/or a
decrease in levels of service.
The fees for residential development are to be assessed per housing unit and should be collected when
building permits are issued. As an option, the fees for single residential units are presented by size of the
unit, based on number of bedrooms and persons per housing unit factors. See Appendix A for further
explanation of these factors and fee options.
Figure 3: Summary of Maximum Allowable Impact Fees by Land Use
Unit
Multifamily Unit
Single Unit
Number of
[1] PPHU Recommended multipliers are scaled to make the average value by
type of hous ing for FL PUMA 4014 match the average va I ue for the City derived
from 2011 America n Community Survey data, with persons adjusted to the
Citywide average of 2.80 persons per single family unit.
TaschlerBise 6
PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES IMPACT FEES
METHODOLOGY
Impact Fee Study
City of South Miami, Florida
The Parks and Recreation Facilities impact fees include three components. Figure 4 illustrates the Parks
and Recreation impact fee components and methodology. An incremental expansion cost methodology
was used to calculate the developed parkland and park improvements components. A cost recovery
method was used to calculate the recreation facilities component. All capital costs have been allocated
100 percent to residential development.
Based on recent growth trends and discussions with City staff, TischlerBise calculated a base year
population estimate of 11,979, for use in the Impact Fee Study. Please note: because population
estimates used in the impact fee study are based on year-round population, estimates and projections
presented herein represent more conservative figures than the University of Florida's Bureau of
Economic and Business Research household population data.
Figure 4: Parks and Recreation Facilities Impact Fee Methodology Chart
Residential
Development
I
I
Persons multiplied by
per Net Capital Cost
Housing Unit Per Person
I I
Developed plus plus
Parkland Park Recreational
(incremental) Improvements Facilities
(incremental) (cost recovery)
lischlerBise 7
PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS AND COSTS
DEVELOPED PARKLAND
Impact Fee Study
City of South Miami, Florida
The City of South Miami does not anticipate purchasing additional parkland in the foreseeable future.
Rather, the City plans to maintain the current level of service for developed parkland with a citywide
service area that it provides to existing development. Thus, the incremental expansion methodology is
used to calculate this component of the Parks and Recreation Facilities impact fees.
The City intends to use impact fees to develop a portion of its undeveloped inventory of parkland. In
order to host improvements such as athletic fields, playgrounds, parking, picnic and other amenities,
parkland must first be developed in terms of basic infrastructure (e.g., sewer/water, parking, grading,
etc.). Figure 5 provides a current inventory of City-maintained parkland, including 10 acres of
undeveloped land designated as South Miami Park, and 34.94 acres of developed parkland, all with a
citywide service area.
As shown in Figure 5, the current level of service is 2.92 acres per 1,000 residents (rounded), based on a
dividing the 34.94 developed acres by the current population of 11,979.
The cost per person is calculated by multiplying the current LOS (2.92 acres per thousand persons) by
the estimated cost to develop a park acre provided by the City ($175,000 per acre) and dividing this total
by 1,000. This results in a current parkland development cost per person of $511.00.
Figure 5: Incremental Expansion -Developed Parkland
Acreage
City of South Miami Parkland Undeveloped Developed
lischlerBise
Dante Fascell Park
Brewer Park
Murray Pa rk
Fuchs Pa rk
Marshall Williamson Park
Jean Willis (Flowering Tree) Park
All-America Park
Van Smith
Dison
Palmer Park/S.M. Field
South Miami Park
TOTAL
Source: City oj South Miami
Level of Service (LOS) Standards
Cost Analysis
LOS: Acres perThousand Person
Land Devel
7.50
1.50
3.50
5.00
3.50
0.50
1.40
1.14
1.00
9.90
10.00
10.00 34.94
8
Impact Fee Study
City of South Miami, Florida
PARK IMPROVEMENTS
The park improvements component is based on the incremental expansion methodology. The City of
South Miami maintains active and passive park improvements for use by the current population. As the
resident population grows, the City intends to use impact fee revenue to add park improvements to
existing parks as necessary to maintain the current level of service of 3.59 units per 1,000 residents. As
shown below, the City has 43 park improvements including sports fields and courts, playgrounds, and
picnic amenities. The combined value of park improvements is $5,075,586. The calculation to determine
level of service is as follows: 43 units / {11,979/1,OOO residents} = 3.59 units per 1,000 residents
(rounded). The average cost per unit of existing park improvements is $118,037. To calculate the cost of
park improvements per capita, the average cost per unit is multiplied by the level of service resulting in
a park improvements cost per capita of $423.75.
Figure 6: Incremental Expansion -Park Improvements
Total Costper Total
Park Improvements Units Unit Value
Ha ndba II Cou rts I----~ _ ___+----L~~I---...i.:~~
Pavi I i on I---_---::. _ ___+---~~~I----Z.~~
PI a ygrou nds 1--_2_-+ ___ ..2.:~~1--~:!..3.!..~
Footb a II /Socce r Fi e Ids (Li ghte d) I-----"'-----i---..::...::;;..::.:.::..::..::.t-,..=:.:...::.:=.::..j
Base/Softball Fields (Lighted)I-_-f.._-J ___ ~~~J.--.i~~~
Ope n Fi elds (Unl ighted) I--~~-J---.z..=~~l---~~~
Tennis Courts 1--~~-J---2~~1---2.:~~
Basketball Courts I--~----i---~~~t-~~~
Vall eyba II Cou rts, Sa nd I--___ --+ ___ ~___'_'-'-'-+__--'..;;....:;~
Source: City of South Miami
Level of Service (LOS) Standards
Inventory of Park Improvements
Total Park Acres
Improvements per Acre
2013 City Popul ation
43
34.94
1.23
11,979
lOS: Improvements per Thousand Person I 3.59
Cost Analysis
TischlerBise 9
RECREATION FACILITIES
Impact Fee Study
City of South Miami, Florida
In 2001, a need was identified for a recreational facility to serve current demands and expected
development in the City of South Miami. As shown in Figure 7, the city constructed the 22,032 square
foot Murray/Gibson-Bethel Community Center to serve a resident population of approximately 14,000
people (both existing and new residents), and reserved 25 percent of the total facility to serve non-
resident members. Therefore, a 25 percent reduction factor is applied to the total square feet to
determine the 16,524 square feet of the total space that will be used to calculate the level of service for
this component.
Based on an adjusted square footage of 16,524 and a capacity to serve approximately 14,000 residents,
a cost recovery methodology is used to calculate the level of service of 1.18 square feet per resident by
dividing 16,524 square feet by 14,000 residents. The City spent $2.5 million to construct the 22,032
square foot facility, which equates to a cost per square foot of $113. The cost per person is derived by
multiplying the 1.18 LOS by the cost per square foot ($113), resulting in a cost per person of $133.34.
Figure 7: Cost Recovery -Parks and Recreation Facilities
Total Square Cost per
Facility Value Feet Square Foot
Murray/Gibson Bethel Comm. Cntr $2,500,000
Reduction Factor
22,032
25%
Share of Facility For City Residents 1'--____ ....:1:.;.6~,5..::.24.;"J1
Source: City of South Miami
Level of Service (LOS) Standards
Cost AnalYSis
lischlerBise
$113
10
Impact Fee Study
City of South Miami, Florida
PARKS AND RECREATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED TO SERVE GROWTH
PARKS AND RECREATION FACIlITIES CAPACITY
In 2001, the City of South Miami constructed a new recreation facility designed to serve a resident
population of approximately 14,000 people, with additional space to serve non-resident guests. Issuance
of a general obligation bond provided the necessary funding to construct the new facility.
Based on a capacity to serve 14,000 residents and the land use assumptions (see Appendix A) used to
project the potential rate of new development, there remains enough capacity to serve approximately
twenty years of growth. Shown in Figure 8 is the annual residential demand for the recreational facility
square footage for each year past current demand, until the remaining capacity is utilized by future
development.
Figure 8: Recreational Facility Remaining Capacity to Serve Growth
Demand for Remaining
Popu I a ti on LOS Fa ci Ii ty SF Ca pa city
Bose 2013 11,979 Resident Portion of SF = 16,524
1 2014 12,074 1.18 14,247 2,277
2. 2015 12,169 1.18 14,359 2,165
3 2016 12,266 1.18 14,474 2,050
4 2017 12,363 1.18 14,588 1,936
5 2018 12,460 1.18 14,703 1,821
6 2019 12,559 1.18 14,820 1,704
7 2020 12,658 1.18 14,936 1,588
8 2021 12,759 1.18 15,056 1,468
9 2022 12,859 1.18 15,174 1,350
10 2023 12,961 1.18 15,294 1,230
11 2024 13,064 1.18 15,416 1,108
1.2 2025 13,167 1.18 15,537 987
13 2026 13,271 1.18 15,660 864
14 2027 13,376 1.18 15,784 740
15 2028 13,482 1.18 15,909 615
16 2029 13,589 1.18 16,035 489
17 2030 13,696 1.18 16,161 363
18 2031 13,805 1.18 16,290 234
19 2032 13,914 1.18 16,419 105
20 2033 14,024 1.18 16,548 0
lischlerBise 11
PROJECTION OF GROWTH-RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS
Impact Fee Study
City oj South Miami, Florida
Needs due to future growth were calculated using the current levels of service and cost factors for the
incremental expansion of developed parkland and park improvements. Growth-related needs are a
projection of the amount of existing infrastructure and estimated costs over a specified period needed
to maintain current levels of service for expected population increases. Figure 9 below is a summary of
the growth-related needs to incrementally expand the number of developed park acres, and park
improvements.
The pace and location of new development will drive decisions regarding the timing of individual
improvements. Additionally, as new development occurs, the City may choose to negotiate for
developers to make capital investments in return for credits against the Parks and Recreation Facilities
Impact Fees.
Figure 9: Parks and Recreation Incremental Improvement Needs
Parkland
Level
of 2.92 Acres per Thousa nd Persons
Service
Unit
$175,000
Land Development
Cost
Year
Base 2013
1 2014
2 2015
3 2016
4 2017
5 2018
6 2019
7 2020
8 2021
9 2022
10 2023
Cost per Acre
Demand
Unit:
Population
11,979
12,074
12,169
12,266
12,363
12,460
12,559
12,658
12,759
12,859
12,961
Projected Demand [1]
Park Acres Improvements
35 43
35 43
36 44
36 44
36 44
36 45
37 45
37 45
37 46
38 46
38 47
Five-Year Total 481 1 2
Cost of Necessary Parkland $245,791
Cost of Necessary Improvements $203,825
Ten-Year Total 982 3 4
Cost of Necessary Parkland $501,802
Cost of Necessa ry Improvements $416,125
[1] Shown as rounded numbers
lischlerBise
I Park Improvements
3.59 Improvement Thousand Persons
$118,037 Average Cost per Improvement
12
COST FOR IMPACT FEE STUDY
Impact Fee Study
City of South Miami, Florida
Included in the fee is the cost for preparation of the Parks and Recreation Facilities impact fees. As
shown in Figure 10, this is calculated based on the projected growth in South Miami population over the
next five years, which is the recommended period of time impact fees should be in effect 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 cost to prepare the 2013
Impact Fee Study ($18,OOO) is divided by the 5-year net increase in population (481) to derive a per
person cost of $37.42.
Figure 10: Impact Fee Study Preparation Cost (Parks and Recreation Portion)
Fee Component Residential
Proportionate Share 100%
Consultant Fee $18,000 $18,000
lischlerBise l3
CREDIT FOR FUTURE PRINCIPAL PAYMENTS
Impact Fee Study
City of South Miami, Florida
The City of South Miami borrowed money to fund construction of the Murray/Gibson-Bethel
Community Center. Because of this, TischlerBise recommends the Parks and Recreation Facilities impact
fees include a credit for future principal payments on the existing General Obligation debt. New
residential development that pays the Parks and Recreation Facilities impact fees will also contribute to
future principal payments paid from property tax revenue. To account for the time value of money,
annual principal payments are discounted using a net present value formula based on the estimated
average interest rates over the life of the bond. A credit is only necessary for principal payments
because the recreation facilities component was based on the construction cost of the facility and not
the debt service schedule. Figure 11 shows the credit calculated based on the projected principal
payments starting in fiscal year 2014 through the remainder of the bond's term.
The applicable net present value of the credit for residential development is $85.51 per person. This will
be subtracted from the gross capital cost per person to derive a net capital cost per person to be used in
calculating the maximum supportable impact fee for Parks and Recreation Facilities.
Figure 11: Credit for Future Principal Payments on Parks and Recreation Facilities
Fiscal
Year Principal Persans
2014 $60,000 12,074 $4.97
2015 $65,000 12,169 $5.34
2016 $70,000 12,266 $5.71
2017 $75,000 12,363 $6.07
2018 $75,000 12,460 $6.02
2019 $80,000 12,559 $6.37
2020 $85,000 12,658 $6.72
2021 $90,000 12,759 $7.05
2022 $90,000 12,859 $7.00
2023 $95,000 12,961 $7.33
2024 $100,000 13,064 $7.65
2025 $105,000 13,167 $7.97
2026 $110,000 13,271 $8.29
2027 $120,000 13,376 $8.97
2028 $125,000 13,482 $9.27
2029 $130,000 13,589 $9.57
2030 $135,000 13,696 $9.86
TOTAL $1,610,000
Discount Rate* 4.00%
Net Present Value $85.51
* Average estimated interest rate over life of loan.
Source: City of South Miami
lischlerBise 14
Impact Fee Study
City oj South Miami, Florida
PARKS AND RECREATION INPUT VARIABLES AND IMPACT FEES
Figure 12 provides a summary of the input variables (described in the chapter sections above) used to
calculate the net capital cost per person of developed parkland, park improvements, and recreational
facilities. The Parks and Recreation impact fees are the product of persons per housing unit (see
Appendix A -land Use Assumptions), by type, multiplied by the total net capital cost per person.
Fees are provided for multifamily units and an average sized single family unit. As an option, fees are
also presented by size of single family housing unit, based on household size established by number of
bedrooms (see Appendix A for further explanation). Each Persons per Housing Unit factor is multiplied
by the net capital cost per person to derive the impact fee per unit.
An example of the calculation for an average single family unit is: the net capital cost per person
($1,020.00) multiplied by the persons per housing unit for that size unit (2.80) to derive the impact fee
per average single family unit of $2,856.
Figure 12: Parks and Recreation Input Variables and Maximum Allowable Impact Fees
Parks and Recreation Capital Costs
Parkland Land Development
Park Improvements Developed Parks
Parks and Recreation Facilities
Impact Fee Study
I GROSS CAPITAL COST
Debt Service Credit
I NET CAPITAL COST
Parks and Recreation Fee Schedule Unit
Number of
Unit
Multifamily Unit
Per Person
$511.00
$423.75
$133.34
$37.42
$1,105.51
($85.51)
$1,020.00
[1] PPHU Recommended multipliers are scaled to make the average value by
type of housi ng for FL PUMA 4014 match the average va I ue for the City derived
from 2011 Ameri ca n Community Survey data, with persons a djusted to the
Citywide average of 2.80 persons per si ngl e fami Iy unit.
lischlerBise 15
CASH FLOW PROJECTIONS
Impact Fee Study
City of South Miami, Florida
This section summarizes the potential cash flow to the City of South Miami, if development occurs as
projected, and the Parks and Recreation impact fee is implemented at the maximum allowable amounts.
The cash flow projections are based on the assumptions detailed in this chapter, and the development
projections discussed in Appendix A -Land Use Assumptions. The cash flow provides an indication of
the impact fee revenue generated by new development, and capital expenditures necessary to meet the
demand for new parks and recreation facilities brought about by new development and the existing
debt service for the Murray/Gibson-Bethel Community Center General Obligation bond.
Necessary expenditures associated with the incremental expansion of developed parkland, and park
improvements are calculated based on current costs per unit, and on maintaining the current levels of
service. For the cost recovery expenditures associated with the recreation facility General Obligation
bond the total payments for the lO-year period are shown in the capital cost section. The cash flow
deficit represents the portion of the full debt service not recouped through impact fee revenues. The
cash flow is also affected by the reduction of impact fee revenue due to a credit for future payments of
the General Obligation debt for the recreational facility.
Figure 13: Cash Flow Summary
lischlerBise
Parks and Recreation Cash Flow 2013-2023
Net Cost per Population
New Population [1]
Revenues
Potential Revenue, 2013-2023 (rounded)
Costs
Parks and Recreation Necessary Improvements
Recreation Facility Debt Service [2]
I mpa ct Fee Study
Total Capital Costs, 2013-2023
Cash Flow
Cumulative Surplus/(De!icit)
[1] TischlerBise, Land Use Assumptions
$1,020.00
982
$1,001,643
$917,927
$1,332,483
$18,000
$2,268,410
($1,266,768)
[2] Reflects the total debt service obligation (principal and interest)
16
IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION
Impact Fee Study
City of South Miami, Florida
All costs in the impact fee calculations are given in current dollars with no assumed inflation rate over
time. Necessary cost adjustments can be made as part of the recommended annual evaluation and
update of impact fees. One approach is to adjust for inflation in construction costs by means of an index
like the one published by Engineering News Record (ENR). This index can be applied against the
calculated impact fee. If cost estimates change significantly the City should recalculate the fees.
There are certain accounting procedures that should be followed by the City. For example, monies
received should be placed in a separate fund and accounted for separately and may only be used for the
purposes authorized in an impact fee ordinance. Interest earned on monies in the separate fund should
be credited to the fund.
CREDITS AND REIMBURSEMENTS
If a developer constructs a parks and recreation facilities component that was included in the fee
calculations or dedicates land for future investments, it will be necessary to either reimburse the
developer or provide a credit against the Parks and Recreation Facilities impact fees. The latter option is
more difficult to administer because it creates unique fees for specific geographic areas. Based on
TischlerBise's experience, it is better for the City to establish a reimbursement agreement with the
developer that constructs a system improvement. The reimbursement agreement should be limited to a
payback period of no more than ten years and the City should not pay interest on the outstanding
balance. The developer must provide sufficient documentation of the actual cost incurred for the system
improvement. The City should only agree to pay the lesser of the actual construction cost or the
estimated cost used in the impact fee analysis. If the City pays more than the cost used in the fee
analysis, there will be insufficient fee revenue. Reimbursement agreements should only obligate the City
of South Miami to reimburse developers annually according to actual fee collections from the benefiting
area.
COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE ZONES
The reasonableness of impact fees is determined in part by their relationship to the local government's
burden to provide necessary public facilities. The need to show a substantial benefit usually requires
communities to evaluate collection and expenditure zones for public facilities that have distinct
geographic service areas. Therefore, developments paying fees will be benefiting from the provision of
additional capital improvements in their service area. The impact fees prepared for the City of South
Miami are based on capital improvements that will have citywide benefits; therefore, a citywide service
area is appropriate.
lischlerBise 17
ApPENDIX A -LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
INTRODUCTION
Impact Fee Study
City of South Miami, Florida
As part of our Work Scope, TischlerBise has prepared documentation on demographic data and
development projections that will be used in the City of South Miami Parks and Recreation Facilities
Impact Fee Study. The demographic estimates for 2013 will be used in the fee calculations. The
development projections are used solely to illustrate a possible future pace for service demands, impact
fee revenues, and capital 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 projections do not include any large-
scale development projects that would diverge for historic growth patterns. Lastly, the projections
assume the City of South Miami would not annex additional lands for development in the twenty-year
projection window.
The data herein are for the City of South Miami 2013 Parks and Recreation Facilities Impact Fee Study.
TlSChlerBise 18
Impact Fee Study
City of South Miami, Florida
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
CURRENT HOUSING UNIT ESTIMATES
Impact fees require an analysis of current levels of service. For residential development, current levels of
service are determined using estimates of population and housing units. To estimate current housing
units in the City of South Miami, TischlerBise began by calculating the distribution of housing units by
type of structure from the decennial census and the 2011 American Community Survey 5-year
Estimates. According to the Census data, the housing unit inventory in the City is 65 percent single units
and 35 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), and 95 structures with multiple
housing units.
Figure A14: City of South Miami Residential Structures
Property Type
Single Family
Condomi ni um
Multifa mi Iy
Total
Units Structure
2,854
789
3,643
Source: Mia mi-Dade County Property Appra iser. (lJul13)
2013 Assessment Roll Cha nge by Property Type
2,854
789
95
3,738
Holding the 2011 U.S. Census unit distribution constant, the number of housing units in the 95 multi-unit
structures can be calculated as follows: (3,643 single units / 65%) X 35% = 1,988 housing units in multi-
unit structures. This equates to a base year estimate of 5,631 total housing units in the City of South
Miami.
Figure A15: Residential Housing Units in the City of South Miami
Structure Type
Single Unit [3]
2+ Units
Total
2011 Base Year
Distribution [1] -,.,€IQ-
65% 3,643
35% 1,988
5,631
(1) U.s. Census Bureau, 2011 America n 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 for the impact fee study: (I) Single Unit and (2) 2+ Unit. (Further discussion on housing
characteristics by housing unit type and bedroom count is provided at the end ofthis memo.)
lischlerBise 19
PERSONS PER HOUSING UNIT
Impact Fee Study
City of South Miami, Florida
According to the u.s. Census Bureau, a household is a housing unit that is occupied by year-round
residents. Impact fees often use per capita standards and persons per housing unit (PPHU) or persons
per household (PPH) to derive proportionate-share fee amounts.
• When PPHU is used in the fee calculations, infrastructure standards are derived using year-
round population.
• When PPH is used in the fee calculations, the impact fee methodology assumes all housing units
will be occupied, thus requiring seasonal or peak population to be used when deriving
infrastructure standards.
TischlerBise recommends that impact fees for residential development in the City of South Miami be
imposed according to the number of year-round residents per housing unit (PPHU). This methodology
assumes some portion of the housing stock will be vacant; and according to the u.S. Census Bureau
American Community Survey, the City had a 2011 vacancy rate of 16.6 percent.
Persons per housing unit (PPHU) requires data on population in occupied units and the types of units by
structure. These data are collected in the u.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS). Figure
A16 below shows 2011 ACS 5-year estimates for the City of South Miami. To calculate the PPHU, persons
in occupied units (11,507) is divided by total housing units (5,034). Dwellings with a single unit per
structure (detached, attached, and manufactured homes) averaged 2.80 persons per housing unit.
Dwelling units in structures with multiple units averaged 1.34 persons per housing unit. The 2011
average persons per housing unit (PPHU) of 2.29 will be held constant over the projection period since
the impact fees represents a "snapshot approach" of current levels of service and costs. The 2.29 PPHU
factor will be applied to the base year 2013 housing unit estimate calculated above.
Figure A16: Persons per Housing Unit by Type of Unit, 2011 American Community Survey
2011 Summary by Persons House-Persons per Housing Persons Per Housing
Type of Housing holds Household Units Hsg Unit Mix
Single Unit 9,1251 3,010 I 3.03l 3,257 I 2.80 J 65%
2+Unit 2,382 1 1,188 I 2.011 1,7771 1.34 I 35%
Subtotal 11,507 4,198 2.74 5,034 2.29 Vacancy
Group Quarters 56 Rate
TOTAL 11,563 4,198 5,034 16.6%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Sun.ey
lischlerBise 20
Impact Fee Study
City of South Miami, Florida
YEAR-RoUND POPULATION ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS
Based on recent growth trends and discussions with City staff, TischlerBise calculated a base year
population estimate, for use in the Impact Fee Study. Please note: because population estimates used
in the impact fee study are based on year-round population, estimates and projections presented
herein will be lower than the University of Florida's Bureau of Economic and Business Research
household population data.
To calculate a 2013 year-round population, TischlerBise used annual intercensal July population
estimates from the u.S. Census Bureau for 2006 -2010 to establish a population growth trend and a
relationship between City of South Miami and Miami-Dade County population. According to Census
estimates, over the last decade the City of South Miami has hosted on average 0.47 percent of the
annual Miami-Dade County population, but the share has decreased slightly each year. The 2013 City of
South Miami Impact Fee Study assumes the City will not annex additional land in the next twenty years.
Therefore, the share of County population in the City is not likely to increase, but through more intensity
of land use, the assumption used to calculate projected population estimates is that the share will
decrease only 0.01 percent by 2033.
The Florida Office of Demographic Research estimates the County has a 2013 population of 2,577,768.
According to the Office's long-term growth projections, the population of Miami-Dade County is
projected to exceed 3 million by 2033. This equates to roughly a 0.89 percent growth rate for the Miami-
Dade County population between 2010 and 2033. By applying the City's share of County population to
the 2033 projected population it is projected the City of South Miami will have a 2033 population of just
over 14,000. See Figure A17 for additional detail. The exponential growth rate of 0.79 percent calculated
from the City's 2010 and 2033 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 for City of South Miami
Population Estimates {lJ Population Estimates [2J
City of South Miami I----"=cq..-~=+----'=""+--=.:::<.:...:<.:=t_-=o:.::.:::.t--=.:=:..=+_--...=!=::!.j
Mi ami-Dade CountyL......;::.c.;.:;===--==="--==,,-,,-,--=<==,,-,,-,-=::..=:;:;..::.J.---=,,,",-,..<,;,.;;.,,",-_-=:";"::'.=.;..;;.J
City share of County 0.47% 0.47% 0.47% 0.47% 0.47% 0.47% 0.46%
[1] U.S. Census: Intercensal Populatlon Estimates
[2] Florida Office of Demogra phic Resea rch: County Population Projections
[3] Florida Office of Demogra phic Resea rch: County Popul ation Projection. City projection ca Icul ated
from .46% City share of County population trend
lischlerBise
Exponenti a I Growth Rates
2006-10 2010-33
0.93%
1.02%
0.79%
0.89%
21
Impact Fee Study
City of South Miami, Florida
DEMAND INDICATORS BY SIZE OF DETACHED HOUSING
TischlerBise analyzed demographic data in an effort to refine the impact fee schedule to be more
progressive for residential development. This can be done by developing fees by size of housing unit
based on bedroom count. Household size can be derived using custom tabulations of demographic data
by bedroom range from survey responses provided by the U.S. Census Bureau in files known as Public
Use Micro-data Samples (PUMS). Because PUMS data are only available for areas of roughly 100,000
persons, the City of South Miami is in Florida Public Use Micro-data Area (PUMA) 04014. Data is first
analyzed for the PUMA area and then calibrated to conditions in the City.
TischlerBise used 2011 ACS 5-Year Estimates to derive persons per housing unit by number of bedrooms.
As shown in Figure A18, recommended multipliers were scaled to make the average value by type of
housing for Florida PUMA 04014 match the average value derived from ACS data specific to South
Miami. As the number of bedrooms increases, persons per unit increases.
Figure A18: Average Persons and Trip Ends by Bedroom Range in City of South Miami
Unit Type
Single UnitO-3 Bdrms
Single Unit 4+ Bdrms
Single Unit Subtotal
Multifa mi Iy Units Tota I
Persons
[1}
2,862
1,561
4,423
1,049
Housing
Units [1}
1,245
500
1,745
724
GRAND TOTAL 5,472 2,469
Persons per
Housing Unit [2}
2.54
3.45
2.BO
1.34
[1] American Community Survey, Public Use Microdata Sample for FL PUMA
04014 (unweighted data for 2011).
[2] Persons per Housing Unit factors are scaled to make the average value by
type of housing for FL PUMA 04014 match the average value derived
from American Community Survey 2011 data, with persons adjusted to
the Citywide average of 2.80 persons per single unit.
POPULATION AND HOUSING UNIT PROJECTIONS
TischlerBise used a two-step process to project housing units for each year past base year 2013. First, to
calculate units added each year, the annual net population increase was divided by the PPHU factor
(2.29). The total units estimate was then distributed by type of structure using the assumed 2013 unit
mix from above (65 percent single unit and 35 percent multi-unit structures). Over the 20-year
projection period, the share of single unit structures decreases by less than one percent. See Figure A19
below for a summary of population and housing unit projections.
Population and housing unit projections are used to illustrate the possible future pace of service
demands, revenues, and expenditures. As these factors will vary to the extent that future development
varies, there will be virtually no effect on the actual amount ofthe impact fees.
lischlerBise 22
Figure A19: Population and Housing Unit Projections in City of South Miami, 2013 -2033
BaseVr 1 2 3 4 5 6
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
SUMMARY OF DEMAND PROJECTIONS (City Limits)
TOTAL YEAR-ROUND POPULATION 0.79% 11,979 12,074 12,169 12,266 12,363 12,460 12,559
TOTAL HOUSI NG UNITS 2.29 PPHU 5,631 5,672 5,713 5,755 5,797 5,839 5,882
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Housing Units 2011
Single Units 65% 3,643 3,660 3,686 3,713 3,741 3,768 3,796
Multifamily Units 35% 1,988 2,012 2,027 2,042 2,056 2,071 2,086
TOTAL 5,631 5,672 5,713 5,755 5,797 5,839 5,882
ANNUAL INCREASES (City Limits) 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19
I Year-Round Population 95 95 97 97 97 99
Housing Units 41 41 42 42 42 43
Source: Florida Office of Demographic Research; City of South Miami; TischlerBfse
TlSChlerBise
7 8 9
2020 2021 2022
12,658 12,759 12,859
5,925 5,969 6,013
3,823 3,852 3,880
2,102 2,117 2,133
5,925 5,969 6,013
19-20 20-21 21-22
99 101 100
43 44 44
Impact Fee Study
City of South Miami, Florida
Five-Year Increments ==> CumulatiVe Avg.Ann.
10 15. 20 Inaease lnaease
2023 2028 2033 2013-2033 2013-2033
12,961 13,482 14,024 2,045 102
6,058 6,285 6,523 892 45
3,910 4,057 4,210 567 28
2,148 2,228 2,313 325 16
6,058 6,285 6,523 892 45
2013-2033
22-23 27-28 32-33 AVRAnnual
102 106 110 102
45 46 48 45
23
ApPENDIX B -FLORIDA STATUTE: 163.31801
Impact Fee Study
City of South Miami, Florida
TITLE XI 163.31801 -IMPACT FEES; SHORT TITLE; INTENT; DEFINITIONS; ORDINANCES LEVYING
IMPACT FEES
FLORIDA IMPACT Fee ACT
(1) This section may be cited as the "Florida Impact Fee Act."
(2) The Legislature finds that impact fees are an important source of revenue for a local
government to use in funding the infrastructure necessitated by new growth. The Legislature
further finds that impact fees are an outgrowth of the home rule power of a local government
to provide certain services within its jurisdiction. Due to the growth of impact fee collections
and local governments' reliance on impact fees, it is the intent of the Legislature to ensure
that, when a county or municipality adopts an impact fee by ordinance or a special district
adopts an impact fee by resolution, the governing authority complies with this section.
(3) An impact fee adopted by ordinance of a county or municipality or by resolution of a special
district must, at minimum:
(a) Require that the calculation of the impact fee be based on the most recent and localized
data.
(b) Provide for accounting and reporting of impact fee collections and expenditures. If a
local governmental entity imposes an impact fee to address its infrastructure needs, the
entity shall account for the revenues and expenditures of such impact fee in a separate
accounting fund.
(c) Limit administrative charges for the collection of impact fees to actual costs.
(d) Require that notice be provided no less than 90 days before the effective date of an
ordinance or resolution imposing a new or increased impact fee. A county or
municipality is not required to wait 90 days to decrease, suspend, or eliminate an
impact fee.
(4) Audits of financial statements of local governmental entities and district school boards which
are performed by a certified public accountant pursuant to s. 218.39 and submitted to the
Auditor General must include an affidavit signed by the chief financial officer of the local
governmental entity or district school board stating that the local governmental entity or
district school board has complied with this section.
(5) In any action challenging an impact fee, the government has the burden of proving by a
preponderance of the evidence that the imposition or amount of the fee meets the
requirements of state legal precedent or this section. The court may not use a deferential
standard.
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
Concurrency Review Study for
City of South Miami
Final Report
April 2014
Presented by Michael Baker Jr., Inc.
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 OF SERVICE (LOS) ANALySiS ............................................................. 17
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................. 21
Tables
TABLE 1 CONCURRENCY REVIEW REQUIREMENTS IN SOUTH MIAMI .............................. 5
TABLE 2 SOUTH MIAMI LOS STANDARDS ............................................................................. 6
TABLE 3 FOOT'S GENERIC COST PER MILE MODELS ......................................................... 8
TABLE 4 SOUTH MIAMI TCEA PLANNING EFFORT (PRELIMINARY) ................................... 13
TABLE 5 SOUTH MIAMI MMTD PLANNING EFFORT (PRELIMINARY) .................................. 15
Figures
FIGURE 1 CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI BOUNDARy ...................................................................... 3
FIGURE 2 CHANGES AFTER THE REPEAL OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT ........... 4
FIGURE 3 SOUTH MIAMI URBAN INFILL & REDEVELOPMENT AREA .................................. 7
FIGURE 4 SOUTHWEST VIEW OF SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY ................................................. 8
FIGURE 5 MIAMI-DADE COUNTY TCEA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPARISON .............. 11
FIGURE 6 MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS IN AND AROUND SOUTH MIAMI12
FIGURE 7 MUL TIMODAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT CHECKLlST. ................................. 16
FIGURE 8 POLICE, FIRE, AND HOSPITAL FACILITIES IN SOUTH MIAMI. ............................ 18
FIGURE 9 ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY VOLUMES FOR URBANIZED AREAS ........................ 20
aker Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
CONCURRENCY REVIEW
Introduction
In September 2013, the City of South Miami (City) contained
approximately 2.31 square miles of land, had an estimated population
of 11,998,1 and was one of 34 incorporated municipalities in Miami-
Dade County (County). Together, the 34 incorporated municipalities
covered approximately 217.59 square miles and the unincorporated
areas covered approximately 1,761.77 square miles.2 In January
2013, the County reported a total population of 2,496,435 with
1,102,955 individuals living in unincorporated areas and 1,393,480
individuals living in incorporated municipalities. As such, the City
contained approximately 0.12 percent of the County's land and 0.48
percent of the County's population (varies slightly depending upon data source). Figure 1
illustrates the boundary of the City, which is located adjacent to the City of Coral Gables to the
east and the Village of Pinecrest to the south, but is mostly surrounded by unincorporated areas.
The County is responsible for providing public facilities and services to most of the residents and
businesses in the unincorporated areas. This places a large burden on the County's resources,
and in some unincorporated areas, has resulted in lesser quality or lesser convenient access to
public facility facilities and services (e.g., police response times) than are typically provided in
the incorporated municipalities. On November 20, 2012, the Board of County Commissioners
unanimously approved Resolution No. R-983-12, Resolution Creating Task Force to Review
Pending Annexation and Incorporation Proposals and to Make Recommendations on How the
County Should Proceed to 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 on how the remainder of the unincorporated areas could either create new
incorporated municipalities or be annexed by an existing
one. This was similar to what has been long encouraged by
Broward County in order to allow more localized
municipalities address and implement policy for their own
localized issues, thereby allowing Broward County to
concentrate on more regional issues.
In recent years, the City has made proposals to annex some of the surrounding unincorporated
areas (primarily those just north and south of the City boundary), but those proposals were
temporarily set aside until further studies could be completed to analyze public sentiment,
financial feasibility, and other factors. As the City continues to consider annexation
opportunities and also new development opportunities within its current boundary, it was
necessary to review the City's concurrency review procedures and Levels of Service (LOS)
standards that are in place to ensure that adequate public facilities and services continue to be
maintained. The purpose of this study is to analyze concurrency requirements within the City for
1 2013 Impact Fees: Demographic Memo, TischlerBise, August 28, 2013.
2 The square miles were calculated from GIS parcel data that was obtained from Miami-Dade County.
aker 1 Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
CD
new development, redevelopment, and revitalization project proposals and to present urban
planning concepts that may be considered by the City to potentially increase the viability and
number of such project opportunities.
The remaining sections of this study cover the topics below. The City should use the
information presented to determine whether some of their existing policies can be modified to be
less restrictive for new development proposals (e.g., whether programs can be implemented to
reduce impact fees). The information should also be useful for understanding some of the
implications associated with annexing potential unincorporated areas in terms of maintaining
adequate LOS standards for public facilities and services within those areas.
• Brief History of Florida Law
• South Miami Concurrency Management System
• Citywide Transportation Capacity Assessment
• Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (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, largely in part, to make sure that
all of the state's citizens were afforded access to adequate public facilities and services. 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 to perform concurrency reviews
for certain development proposals. Concurrency was mandated by the state to make sure that
adequate public facilities would continue to be provided after new developments are constructed.
For example, if a new development would result in increased traffic on local roads and 500 new
residents to a local population, a concurrency review may determine that impact fees would be
required to pay for improved roadway infrastructure and new park facilities. Governor Rick
Scott repealed the GMA in 2011 which subsequently left it up to local governments approve
their own comprehensive plans and LOS standards. The Governor felt that the GMA was
prohibitive to economic development in the state and was also a contributing factor to sprawl
because many businesses decided to develop outside of congested urban areas where they would
not be subject to significant impact fees (if any) -specifically those that would be determined
during the transportation concurrency process that was previously mandated by the state.
However, the City continues to be subject to various state laws that pertain to concurrency
review procedures that are described throughout this study. Figure 2 highlights some of the
changes that occurred following the repeal of the GMA.
aker 2 Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
Figure 1
City of South Miami Boundary
Rd
Unincorporated o Coral Gables
sw
0' "" South Miami ':}
>
;; SVIJ 70th St 1
SW72nd
Unincorporated
Pinecrest
Source: Michael Baker Jr., Inc., 2013.
aker 3 Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
Figure 2
Changes After the Repeal of the Growth Management Act
The CbaDges: Old vs. New
L&NDUSEPLANCHANOES
OLD
(1986-2010)
Required approval from
rhe Florida Department
of community Affairs.
Staffed by 61 planners
and fklrllfa 'llPartIItfIK
Of CotlIm!Jldty Artaln
NEW
(AS OF OCll. 20U)
Can only object on
grounds of negaUve
impact to "important
stilte resources and
facilities,.'" now !.mdeflmJd,
Staffed bl' planners and
assistants.
PUBLIC SERVICES" DEVELOPER FEES
OLD Developers were H:lQuired to for
to schools, rkll'ks,
and sewer
would cause to
Source: Northeast Florida Regional Council
aker 4 Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
South Miami Concurrency Management System
Florida Statute 163 .3180(1 b), Concurrency, states that "The local government comprehensive
plan must demonstrate, for required or optional concurrency requirements, that the levels of
service adopted can be reasonably met. Infrastructure needed to ensure that adopted level-of-
service standards are achieved and maintained for the 5-year period of the capital improvement
schedule must be identified pursuant to the requirements of FS 163.3177(3). The comprehensive
plan must include principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies for the establishment of a
concurrency management system." In other words, every local 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 in the comprehensive plan. As new
development, redevelopment, and revitalization projects occur in the City, the capital
improvement schedule may need to be adjusted to account for maintaining consistent LOS
standards for public facilities. Therefore, the City's concurrency management system is used to
track and assess when public facilities and services may fall short of the adopted LOS standards
and to determine what capital improvement projects may be necessary to combat those impacts.
The Land Development Code of the City of South Miami
describes the City's current concurrency review
procedures. The Land Development Code indicates that
"A development permit, Certificate of Completion (CC),
Certificate of Occupancy (CO), or Certificate of Use and
Occupancy (CU) shall not be issued when Level(s) of
Service (LOS) for public services and facilities do not
meet or exceed LOS standards, or when the issuance of a
development permit and/or CC and/or CO and/or CU
would result in a reduction of the actual LOS for any
service or facility below the established LOS standards ... " Table 1 shows the concurrency
review requirements for the City -specifically what types of projects require a concurrency
determination. Concurrency determinations are conducted by the City, County, and other
applicable agencies to review potential impacts to streets, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste,
and recreational facilities. Table 2 summarizes the current LOS standards as identified in the
Land Development Code. Consequently, non-exempt projects are subject to concurrency
reviews that compare the development proposal to the LOS standards for each category shown.
Table 1
Concurrency Review Requirements in South Miami
Non-Exempt Projects (Concurrency Required) Exempt Projects (No Concurrency Required)
• New development on vacant land. • Changes in use which clearly do not cause an
• Building additions which increases gross floor area increase in demand upon any public facility (or
by 5,000 square feet or more and increases public which cause a reduction in demand) and that do not
facility usage. require more than 25 parking spaces.
• Changes of use which increase required parking by • Single-family and two-family residences on
25 spaces. previously platted lots.
• Public uses that the City Commission finds essential
to the health and safety of city residents.
• Projects approved prior to the adoption of the Land
Development Code on October 26, 1989.
Source: Land Development Code of the City of South Miami.
aker 5 Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
Table 2
South Miami LOS Standards
Streets
-South Dixie Highway -150% of "D" Capacity
-Bird Road -120% of "E" Capacity
-Principal and Minor Arterials (Sunset Drive, Red Road, and Kendall Drive) -"F" Capacity
-Collectors (SW 48th Street, Miller Drive, SW 62 nd Avenue, and Ludlam Road) -"E" Capacity (except those located in
the County's Urban Infill Area" which are exempt from concurrency review)
-Certain projects are exempt if they are located in the County's Urban Infill Area
(see the note at the bottom of the table for a general description of the various capacity levels)
Sewage
-Disposal system shall operate with a deSign capacity of no less than 2% above the average daily flow for the
preceding year (as determined by the County)
-The County system maintains capacity to collect and dispose of 100 gallons of sewage per capita per day.
-Properties without sewers must obtain a septic tank permit from the County Health Department.
Water
-Water system shall operate with a rated capacity of no less than 2% above the maximum daily flow for the preceding
year (as determined by the County).
-Water is delivered at a pressure no less than 20 PSI and no greater than 100 PSI and minimum fire flows must be
maintained as approved by the County Fire Department.
-The County system maintains capacity to deliver up to 200 gallons per capita per day.
Drainage
Any development must adequately accommodate runoff from the i-day, 1-in-1 O-year frequency storm.
Solid Waste
The County solid waste system shall maintain a minimum capacity of 5 years, or capacity as determined by the
County to be sufficient. A generation rate of 7 pounds per person per day may be used for calculation.
Recreation
The public (City and school board recreational lands) park land within the City shall equal at least 4 acres per 1,000
persons.
Source: Land Development Code of the City of South Miami.
Note: LOS capacity levels for streets range from "A" to "F" and depend on the number of lanes and the average daily
traffic volumes. LOS "A" is generally a free flow street with low traffic volumes and high speeds, whereas LOS "F"
describes forced flow operation at low speeds where stoppages may occur for short and long periods of time.
Because much of the City is already fully-developed with relatively aging infrastructure, it can
be difficult for the City to attract new development opportunities that would result in a
significant economic boost for the community. In addition to the costs required for a company to
construct a new facility that may bring numerous jobs and/or residents to the City, under the
current concurrency review requirements, the company may have to pay 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 Figure 3. That area is part of the County's TCEA, and as such, projects that
encourage use of public transportation are exempt from transportation concurrency if they are
consistent with the City's comprehensive plan. Furthermore, the entire City is located within the
County's TCEA and certain projects in other parts of the City are also exempt from
transportation concurrency, but the requirements for project exemptions are more stringent if
they are located outside the urban infill and redevelopment area. Since impact fees for
maintaining adequate LOS standards for transportation can be significant in a congested urban
area, the state provides municipalities with other options to emphasize and plan for enhanced
multimodal transportation infrastructure projects (public transportation, pedestrian, bicycle, etc.),
one of which is by implementing a TCEA, in order to reduce congestion on local roads. Those
options are also explored later in this study.
aker 6 Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
Figure 3
South Miami Urban Infill & Redevelopment Area
ti
City Boundary ~ ~
~'
Source: Michael Baker Jr., Inc.
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 Baker Jr., Inc. (Baker) performed a general assessment of the existing
roadway infrastructure. The assessment consisted of a Google Earth street view tour of the City
to determine if there were cost-feasible opportunities to add additional lanes or to conduct large-
scale roadway modifications to improve traffic flow. As shown in Figure 4, because the City is
largely built-out with existing infrastructure, road edges tend to be close to buildings, parking
lots, and other features that severely limit roadway expansion possibilities. For example, within
this view of South Dixie Highway, the M-Path multi-use trail and the elevated Metrorail track
prevent expansion of the southbound lanes, whereas buildings and parking lots prevent
expansion of the northbound lanes. Although this is only one view of the City's roads, it was
provided to illustrate that limited options for wholesale corridor improvements are available
aker 7 Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
within the City, unless a significant amount of property acquisition and demolition is conducted.
It is noted that Baker only conducted a wholesale corridor assessment and did not conduct an
intersection by intersection analysis to determine if signalization, signage, and tum lane
improvements could be conducted in some locations to ease traffic congestion. For reference
purposes, various construction "Cost Per Mile" estimates are provided in Table 3 from the
Florida Department of Transportation's (FOOT) Generic Cost Per Mile Models worksheet
(updated April 8, 2013). The estimates are representative of the entire state of Florida and do not
include the additional costs that would be required for design, property acquisitions, demolitions,
utility relocations, etc. Due to the extreme costs and impacts that would be associated with
roadway widening, the City is actively considering conducting multimodal transportation
improvements that would encourage greater use of bicycle, pedestrian, and mass transit facilities
with the goal of placing less emphasis on automobile utilization, which is discussed in the
following sections of this study.
Figure 4
Southwest View of South Dixie H.t'.nUI!:II\I
Table 3
FOOT's Generic Cost Per Mile Models
Description Cost Per Mile
Add 2 Lanes to Existing 2 Lane Urban Undivided Arterial (1 Lane Each Side) with $3,472,028 4' Bike Lanes
Widen 2 Lane Urban Arterial to 4 Lane Divided with 22' Median & 4' Bike Lanes $4,065,273
Add 2 Lanes to Existing 3 Lane Urban Undivided Arterial (1 Lane Each Side) with $3,637,222 Center Turn Lane & 4' Bike Lanes
Widen 4 Lane Urban Divided Arterial to 6 Lane Urban Divided with 22' Median & 4' $3,774,587 Bike Lanes
Widen 6 Lane Urban Divided Arterial to 8 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: FDOT's Generic Cost Per Mile Models worksheet (updated April 8, 2013).
aker 8 Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
Transportation Concurrency Exception Areas (TCEA)
As previously mentioned, the entire City is located within the County's TCEA. The 2009
Community Renewal Act (CRA) classified the entire County as a TCEA as well as all local
governments qualified as Dense Urban Land Areas (DULAs), which is a classification that is
determined based on specific population and density criteria. Eight DULA counties were
identified in the CRA including Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Orange, Seminole, Lake,
Hillsborough, and Pinellas. Non-rural areas within those counties were identified as TCEAs
(except Miami-Dade which was entirely identified as a TCEA). Within the TCEAs, there is no
longer a state-mandate requiring local governments to conduct transportation concurrency and to
collect impact fees from developers; rather, the CRA allowed local governments to collect
mobility fees from developers in order to implement multi modal transportation projects that are
intended to reduce vehicular traffic. Although the City is currently designated as a TCEA, it is
still subject to transportation concurrency review in order to maintain the adopted LOS standards
-unless a proposed development is exempt per the requirements of the County's TCEA. If the
City wanted to expand upon its ability to exempt development proposals from transportation
concurrency, it would need to update its comprehensive plan to include various elements
required for the establishment of a TCEA, as described in this section. It is noted that FDOT, the
Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEC), and the County Planning Department
should be consulted to determine what type of planning effort is appropriate for the City
considering the City's intentions to ease development restrictions and hefty transportation impact
fees.
In short, the TCEA is intended to offset the adverse impacts of transportation concurrency by
encouraging the development of multimodal transportation infrastructure through a variety of
planning strategies that must be incorporated into a comprehensive plan. If a TCEA is adopted
by the City, then new developments in the subject area are not subject to a transportation
concurrency review as long as they are consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan. There
are five specific types of areas that may be designated as a TCEA and the comprehensive plan
must address different objectives and policies for each: 1) urban infill area, 2) urban
redevelopment, 3) downtown revitalization within the central business district, 4) urban infill and
redevelopment area, and 5) an urban service area (i.e., an area intended for public facilities).
In order to establish a TCEA, it must be documented in a local government's comprehensive
plan and must also be compatible with the various elements of the plan. The comprehensive plan
must provide support for the size and boundaries of the TCEA including a traffic study that
considers existing conditions as well as future conditions after multimodal transportation
strategies are implemented. It is noted that a TCEA may cross jurisdictional boundaries and that
the comprehensive plan must address subsequent impacts that may occur outside the TCEA after
multimodal transportation projects are carried out (as well as to the Florida Interstate Highway
System). The February 2007 report by the Florida Department of Community Affairs (now the
DEC) titled A Guide for the Creation and Evaluation of Transportation Concurrency Exception
Areas describes the basic TCEA elements that must be included in a comprehensive plan, as
listed below.
aker 9 Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
• ~ Support Mobility
• 1&1 Fund Mobility
• Support the Purpose of the Designation (urban infill, urban redevelopment, downtown
revitalization, urban infill and redevelopment)
• Implement Alternative Modes of Travel
• ~ Demonstrate How Mobility will be Provided
• Address Urban Design
• ~ Identify Appropriate Land Uses Mixes
• ~ Establish Minimum Intensity and Density Standards for Development
• I8J Address Network Connectivity
• !?J Mitigate Impacts to the Strategic Intermodal System (SIS)
EZI = Covered in the City's Comprehensive Plan
I&l = Not Covered in the City's Comprehensive Plan
The 2007 report also includes a detailed evaluation of the County's TCEA and how the
comprehensive plans of its various local governments address their role within the TCEA. As
shown in Figure 5 and also in the bullet list above, the City's comprehensive plan is currently
missing many of the elements identified as basic TCEA requirements. Figure 6 illustrates some
of the City's existing multimodal transportation infrastructure. Generally speaking, in order to
be designated as a TCEA, the City would have to develop a more detailed multimodaI
transportation infrastructure plan that is financially-feasibible and that supports greater mobility
for public transportation, pedestrians, and bicyclists in the TCEA. By implementing such a plan,
the City would have a guidebook for better supporting, funding, and managing mobility projects
that would reduce vehicular traffic (thus reducing impact fees and creating additional
development interest). As part of this study, the City requested information on the level of effort
that would be necessary to update its comprehensive plan to include the required TCEA
elements. Baker. prepared the preliminary cost estimate in Table 4, including general
descriptions of the associated effort, to assist the City with determining the appropriate level of
effort for such a comprehensive plan update.
aker 10 Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
Figure 5
Miami-Dade County TCEA Comprehensive Plan Comparison
Goals, objectives, and policies that support Miami-Dade's
TCEA (purpose: inftll, redevelofment, and transit) Basic TCEA Requirements Other Elements
§ 'c :?' ,g '" " ,g OJ) .0 "f5. c: Cl
'" lli '" ;:. ;:. <!) l-
iD OJ) '" '0 ~ '" ';;; (f) '" 0' § _. '" Ii; '0 " '> &'12 " " co 0 " tl OJ t) Ziji '2 OJ) '" £ u " x c " "' 0." '" C l-v ~ c '" " 6 C2 " '" to c I-" '" u '" '" :a c 2:1 c: t) ::;; u ~ c E ~ e. 0> u C ? ~o " 0
'0 x .~ ~ .~ OJ) 0 ;;; " c: t} " ~I-,~ E OJ ~ ~ 8-'"", " E :J 0 c: 0. OJ " '" "" E '" '" '" ° v E -::; '-' " (.) " 8 g ~ " O"l g~ " " "lli " t ~ 0 '§. .£ ~ :2! t: iJ) 1)) ro !2 8:.: c: ,;:; " .-!: 0._ i:o OJ ,£ 0 c: OJ) '" if> "., ::;;
1il ~ e z.g ';;; ro a. .c '" e c: ~ "
,,}; () ~ ::> (f) 15 -' -~IY is "" € n ~ 6ifJ c:;.:{ ~ u
~ Cl. -0::> a~ '" ~ ~ 6 ill '" a. " ro c: c .c
0:: g-ro ~ " '0 0 ~ ::> "' c: !2' oc j .~ c:. 0 ro '-' ~ t5 von 2-E ~ ~~ ~ Q E~ E :g to ," 0" OJ) if> OJ) '" E OJ) of; ,,~ "'"0 Oi OJ) " " " '" .~ " "§ '-' OJ) :o::;~ OJ)t ro-u t E on t 'OJ cu 1))-0 OJ) '" OJ) OJ) !g g~ " 0 ~ Jurisdictions in "'1:> "' ru &g §,§ '" 0 OJ) ~&1 ~.~ §{l OJ) OJ) OJ) OJ) .8 0 o. ,_ u
<ll " " §.ro '0 "-'0 ~ Q) '" ~ .~ OJ) " 5: y.?~ "iii iii Urbanlnfill :> 52 '0 0, c: U'i..,.. " c. c .2 c: E> i5~ "0 C C C C C 0 oil(f) > § ~g => "' '" OJ 0. 6l " u '" i'i5" ~~ ~ ~E ~ ~ '" o ,u r~ ~ "' Area1 0 <{l5. (f)", Of; (f) u.. J:J::; tI, _.J~ "i ~I-j;: 0 '0 1--
Miami-Dade County 2 X X X X X X X X X X
Aventura 2 X (if X X X X X X X
Bal Harbour 0 X
Bay Harbor Islands 0 X
Biscayne Park 0
Coral Gables 2 X X X X X X X
EI Portal 0 X
Golden Beach 0
Hialeah 0 X X X X X X X X X
Indian Creek Village 0
Key Biscayne 0 X
Medley 0
Miami 2 X X X X X X X X x
Miami Beach 0 X X X X X X X
Miami Gardens 0 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Miami Lakes 0 X X X X X X x
Miami Shores 0 X X (3) X (3)
Miami Sprin9,s 0 X X I"' X X (3)
North Bay_Village 0
North Miami 3 X X X X X X X X X X X X X
North Miami Beach 0 X X X X X X X X X X
Ope-Locka 0 X X
Palmetto Bay 0 X X X X X X
Pinecrest 0 X X X X X
South Miami 2 X X X X X X X
Sunny Isles Beach 0
Surfside 0 X
Virginia Gardens 0
West Miami 0 X
Rating Scale
o -Does not mention a TCEA or references the future designation of a TCEA.
1 -Designates a TCEA but addresses few if any of ttle 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) Coral Gables and North Miami are Included on In thiS table to provide additional information on their Independent
TCEAs, They are also included in the Table 5.
US
0
l-
Q)
:S
£'
OJ) u
il '0 c: ru
ljj
(jJ
0
-'
OJ)
" m
::>
X
X
X
X
(2) Policies 4.1 and 4.2 of the Transportation Element state that Aventura will implement a local public transit system to
operate exclusively within the local TCEA,
(3) Miami Shores Transportation Element Policy 1.12 and Miami Springs Transportation Element Policy 1.1.8 set a
priority to evaluate the potential effectiveness of TCEAs and/or TCMAs but do not actually designate either one in either
city.
(4) RCEA'" Redevelopment Concurrency Exception Area
UDB = Urban Development Boundary
UIA '" Urban Infill Area
Source: A Guide for the Creation and Evaluation of Transportation Concurrency Exception Areas, 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
~ i
,...".. oSir,,!l,,-.o 0 ft r --t::~~ <'II 40" 51"
Legend.. o~ uL'·~ .~ -!.~I:' ..
~ "'. ~, ::r
Metrorail Stations » • ~, ,
Bus Stop Sl~D4ath rl
Curb Bike Lane ~
Paved Bike Path .(erw~;,J
..
.....
.. "11'"''
c:J City Boundary q
aker
~ ... --.......
.. •
Source: Michael Baker Jr., Inc., 2013.
12
• 9,_ • • • ~ • f 0
41' ...
l t «(
St
N
Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
Table 4
South Miami TCEA Planning Effort (Preliminary) ;
TCEA Com rehenslve Plan Element General Descr! tlon Estimated Cost rehmma
Identify and illustrate alternative modes of transportation, parking management strategies (particularly in the downtown area
where merchants feel that parking is currently deficient), transient-oriented design standards, land use strategies,
interconnectivity plans between various modes of transportation, etc. Several concepts will be evaluated to determine a refined
181 Support Mobility mobility concept that best integrates the various transportation modes in a way that encourages reduced automobile traffic on $30,000
local roads. It will be necessary to minimize the mobility impacts to surrounding jurisdictions as part of this process. The
existing bikeway plan and other elements within the City's comprehensive plan will also be reviewed for consistency with TCEA
requirements.
A financially-feasible capital improvement funding system identifying sources such as public investment through redevelopment
181 Fund Mobility taxes or grants, parking revenues, private investment by developers to fund the TCEA improvements, and other sources. This $15,000
may include a cash flow analysis to illustrate the City's ability to afford the implementation of multimodal transportation P!ojects.
o Support the Purpose of the Designation (urban infill, urban redevelopment, Provide the justification for identifying various portions of the city as one of the allowable TCEA categories (including size,
downtown revitalization, urban infill and redevelopment) purpose, and goals). Although the City's comprehensive plan currently provides some of this information, the TCEA planning $5,000
effort will include a review of all areas of the City that could potentially be eligible for being designated as a TCEA.
A detailed implementation schedule will be identified for each mode of transportation identified. Although the City's
I;;] Implement Alternative Modes of Travel comprehensive plan currently contains policies for supporting and funding mobility projects, it will be necessary to review the $5,000
previous analyses for consistencywith TCEA requirements.
181 Demonstrate How Mobility will be Provided This component elaborates on the implementation schedule by identifying any committed funding agreements (public or $5,000 private) to illustrate how and when the mobility projects will be provided.
[Y'1 Address Urban Design The City's comprehensive plan currently addresses design guidelines for accessibility to transit facilities. Detailed design $20,000 specifications must be identified in order to develop a plan that supports and implements the mobility strategies for the TCEA.
Land use strategies will be identified in order to encourage mobility within the TCEA and to reduce focus on automobile
181 Identify Appropriate Land Uses Mixes transportation. The key is to encourage walking and biking within the TCEA, so complementary land use mixes will be $10,000
identified in order to accomplish that Qoal.
181 Establish Minimum Intensity and Density Standards for Development Intensity and density standards will be identified in order to effectively manage traffic flows within the TCEA (e.g., residents and
employees per acre). $5,000
I8l Address Network Connectivity Connectivity between the identified mobility strategies and the greater metropolitan area also need to be identified. As such, it $5,000 will be necessary to consider how all of the mobility strategies fit into similar networks in the surrounding communities.
The SIS in Florida is made up of strategic transportation facilities that are used for the movement of people and goods (e.g., o Mitigate Impacts to the Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) commercial airports and freight rail lines). FOOT will be contacted to determine what SIS facilities are located in the City and $5,000
surrounding areas, and the mobility strategies will attem~t to minimize im~acts to those facilities.
General Coordination, Meetings, and Documentation Throughout the TCEA planning process, regular coordination and meetings with FOOT and City staff will be necessary. It is $15,000 anticipated that public meetings and City Council meetings will also be conducted.
Total (Preliminary) $120,000
Source: Michael Baker Jr., Inc., 2013.
I;;] = Covered in the City's Comprehensive Plan
I8l = Not Covered in the City's Comprehensive Plan
aker 13 Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
EZ
Multimodal Transportation Districts (MMTD)
Similar to TCEAs, MMTDs are intended to reduce automobile traffic by assigning primary
priority to other modes of transportation. FDOT's Multimodal Transportation Districts and
Areawide Quality of Service Handbook (Handbook) describes the requirements necessary for a
municipality to establish a MMTD. Like TCEAs, comprehensive plans must be updated to
include plans for implementing alternative modes of transportation (public transit, pedestrian,
bicycle, etc.), but unlike TCEAs, comprehensive plan updates for MMTDs adopt LOS standards
for those alternative modes of transportation. The intent of the MMTD is to reduce
transportation impact fees by reducing automobile traffic. The collection of impact fees is
typically used to pay for the planned improvements to the MMTD (e.g., additional bike lanes)
and not necessarily for roadway improvements that would provide additional vehicular capacity.
When a new development is proposed within a MMTD, it is subject to transportation
concurrency review and the associated LOS standards for all modes of transportation identified
in the comprehensive plan (within TCEAs, projects are exempt from transportation concurrency
because multimodal strategies are already in place to reduce traffic). Unlike TCEAs, MMTDs
are not limited to urban infill and redevelopment areas. The Handbook identifies the following
basic criteria for a MMTD:
• Provision of a complementary mix of land uses including residential, educational,
recreational, and cultural uses.
• Provision of an interconnected network of streets designed to encourage walking and
bicycling with traffic calming where desirable.
• Provision of appropriate densities and intensities of land uses within walking distance of
transit stops.
• Provision of daily activities within walking distance of residences; public infrastructure
that is safe, comfortable, and attractive for pedestrians; adjoining buildings open to the
street; and parking facilities structured to avoid conflict with pedestrian, transit,
automobile, and truck travel.
• Provision of transit service within the designated area, or a definitive commitment to the
provision of transit. This definitive commitment should be found in local planning
documents and in the approved capital improvements program. For new developments,
transit connectivity to the major urban area must also be included, or a definitive
commitment for transit connections, again evident in both planning documents and the
approved capital improvement program.
Baker prepared the preliminary cost estimate in Table 5, including general descriptions of the
associated effort, to assist the City with determining the appropriate level of effort for a MMTD
planning effort (in accordance with the Handbook). Figure 7 identifies the successful indicators
for establishing a successful MMTD.
aker 14 Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
Table 5
South Miami MMTD Plan'ning Effort (Preliminary)
MMTD Element General Descr! tlon Estimated Cost rehmma
The MMTD will be defined as part of this element and various maps of existing conditions and multimodal transportation
Assess Scale of Development infrastructure will be presented. Current demographic and land use information will also be inventoried and preliminary goals $10,000
and objectives will be defined.
A detailed analysis of land uses within the MMTD will be conducted to make sure that they would encourage a safe, attractive,
Analyze Land Use Mix and Organization and comfortable environment for pedestrians. It will be key to include residential land uses in the MMTD because they are $10,000 typically the most likely to utilize multimodal transportation features for routine activities (e.g., visits to grocery stores and
restaurants ).
As part of this element, the existing multimodal infrastructure will be evaluated within the City based on the previous land use
analysis. It will be used to analyze where potential shortfalls in connectivity exist that would not allow convenient access
Analyze Network Connectivity between complementary land uses that would encourage mobility. The results of this element will be used to define the modal $25,000 network. It is antiCipated that GIS will be utilized to conduct various path analyses between complementary land uses and
preliminary LOS standards will be identified. Surveys of local citizens and businesses may need to occur in order to obtain
perceptions about use of multimodal transportation infrastructure.
Based on the results of the network connectivity analysis, areas where there are shortfalls in mobility will be identified for
Define Modal Network pedestrians, bicyclists, and other users of public transportation. Those Shortfalls can then be used to develop modal networks $25,000
that are intended to resolve deficiencies and provide strategic multimodal facilities throughout the City.
This element will include a detailed determination of LOS standards for the various multimodal transportation facilities, which
Areawide Quality/Level of Service Analysis will ultimately be included in the comprehensive plan, land development code, and concurrency review procedures. In addition, $20,000 an Areawide Quality of Service (QOS) analysis will be conducted, which is the overall measurement of perceived performance
of service from the user's point of view.
Final Evaluation of Proposed Multimodal Transportation District This is the final evaluation to determine if the proposed area is a good candidate for a MMTD. It is basically a checklist to see if $10,000 the proposed area meets all of the "Indicators for a Successful District" as shown in Figure 6.
General Coordination, Meetings, and Documentation Throughout the MMTD planning process, regular coordination and meetings with FOOT and City staff will be necessary. It is $15,000 anticipated that public meetings and City Council meetings will also be conducted.
Total (Preliminary) $115,000
Source: Michael Baker Jr., Inc., 2013.
aker 15 Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
Figure 7
Multimodal Transportation District Checklist
Cliteria for a Multimodal Indicators for a Successful Contra-Indicators
Transportation District District for a Dishict
• Size of District too
• Min. Residential Pop 5,000 small or too large to
Appropriate Scale of • Minimum Population/Jobs support appropriate
Development Ratio: 2 to 1 intensities and
• Provision of scheduled transit densities
• No transit service
• 3 or more significant land
Complementary Mix of Land uses Single Land Use Uses Physical integration of • •
components
Land Uses Promoting • Land uses that are mutually Single Land Use supporting •
Multimodal Usage
• Different land uses are
located within the typically • Land uses spaced
Acceptable Separation of Land acceptable range for walking too far apart for
Uses (1/4 to Y:, mile) typical pedestrian
comfort
• Minimum of 4 residential units • Less than minimum
Appropriate Densities and per acre for marginal potential residential units per
Intensities of Land Uses • Minimum of 40 employees acre and minimum
per acre for marqinal potential employees per acre
• Core area of activities and
services Isolated or Appropriate Organization of • • Activity centers along scattered Land Uses corridors concentrated at key Development intersections promoting
transit usaqe
Regionallntermodal • Regional intermodal • No regional
Connectivity connections present intermodal service
• Each modal network meets
connectivity index standard • Poor Connectivity
Interconnected Multimodal using polygon methodology: on modal networks
Network recommended minimum of 50 • Unconnected street
polygons per square mile pattern with cul-de-
• Connected street pattern, sacs and dead ends
generall'Lgridlike
• Meets recommended Level of
Service standards for each
mode
• Transit oriented development
Acceptable Levels of Service pedestrian, transit, and • Poor Level of
for Each Mode bicycle LOS of C Service
• Non-motorized oriented
development pedestrian and
bicycle LOS of C and transit
LOS of 0
Acceptable Areawide Quality Areawide Quality of Service Poor Level of Service of Service for each Mode meets recommended standards
Source: FOOTs Multimodal Transportation Districts and Areawide Quality of Service Handbook.
aker 16 Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
Specialty Levels of Service (LOS) Analysis
As the 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 as for multimodal
transportation features (pedestrian, bicycle, and public transportation). No recommended LOS
standards are provided in this section -only qualitative information is provided such that the
City can gain a preliminary understanding as future options are weighed.
Emergencv Services LOS Analvsis
Figure 8 illustrates the existing presence of police, fire, and hospital facilities in the City. This
section reviews LOS for emergency services within the City. As annexation continues to be
considered, the City, County, and other emergency services entities may use this information to
help understand what additional staffing, equipment, and facilities may be needed to allow for
adequate response times for existing and new City residents and businesses.
Police -Within the City, police services are provided by the South
Miami Police Department (SMPD). The City's Annexation
Proposal 2012 document indicates that the SMPD currently has an
approximate ratio of five officers for every 1,100 citizens. The
document also indicates that average response times by the SMPD
are less than two minutes for emergencies and less than five
minutes for routine calls, whereas the Miami-Dade Police
Department (MDPD) has response times of approximately eight
minutes for emergencies and 25 minutes for routine calls in the
nearby unincorporated areas. According to the County's Public
Safety Progress Report,3 the County as a whole reported an
average response time of 8.2 minutes for the MDPD, although the
MDPD's Business Plan for Fiscal Years 2012 and 2013 identifies reduced response time as a key
objective. Considering the proposed annexation at the time, the SMPD police chief felt that the
response times could be maintained with a reduction in the ratio to four officers for every 1,100
citizens and indicated that the proposed annexation area is not substantially large in size and that
the distance travelled would not drastically increase. Although there are many guidebooks
available for determining police staffing demands, such as the U.S. Department of Justice's
Guidelines for Starting and Operating a New Police Department, the actual procedures are
typically based numerous factors including geographical area of patrol, population served,
average number of incidents, community goals, budgets, etc. Therefore, the City should
continue to monitor its own needs for police services and plan accordingly, similar to what was
conducted for the Annexation Proposal.
3 http://www.miamidade.gov/results/public_safety.asp.
aker 17 Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
Figure 8
Police, Fire, and Hospital Facilities in South Miami
Legend * Police Station
rn Hospital
... Fire Station
c:J City Boundary
aker
•
~~
a
D
Larkin~ommunity Hospital ruv
South Miami Hospital m *
Source: Michael Baker Jr., Inc., 2013.
18
s!
o
o
j i
N
Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
Fire and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) -Miami-Dade Fire Rescue (MDFR) provides
firefighting and EMS services for the 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 in the City (South Miami Hospital
and Larkin Community Hospital). The adjacent City of Coral Gables has its own fire department
and the ViI of Pinecrest also relies on MDFR. According to the County's Public Safety
Multimodal LOS Analvsis
Progress Report, the County as a whole reports an average
response time of 8.05 minutes for the MDFR. The MDFR's
Business Plan for Fiscal Years 2012 and 2013 identifies several
measures to reduce response times including constructing new
facilities, hiring additional firefighters, purchasing additional
equipment, improving communications, etc. The specific MDFR
response time within the City is unknown at this time; however,
the previously-proposed annexation areas are currently served by
MDFR and would continue to be served by MDFR if ultimately
annexed by the City.
Figure 9 illustrates the generalized annual average daily volumes for Florida's urbanized areas
as obtained from the FDOT's 2013 Quality/Level of Service Handbook. FDOT provides LOS
classifications for bicycle, pedestrian, and bus modes, but the information does not constitute a
standard. If the City decides to implement LOS standards for such multimodal transportation
features, the FDOT's Handbook not only provides LOS standards, it also includes suggested
design elements for those features. As part of the MMTD planning process (and to a lesser
extent the TCEA planning process), it is anticipated that a LOS classification system would be
identified and that all roadways within the City would be classified using that system.
Thereafter, LOS standards would be adopted and improvements would be focused on correcting
shortfalls in the multimodal transportation network. For example, the City of North Miami's
Transportation Master Plan utilized the regression-based LOS analysis described in the FDOT's
Multimodal Transportation Districts and Areawide Quality of Service Handbook to identify
shortfalls in the existing pedestrian and bicycle networks and to develop long-term mobility
recommendations.
aker 19 Concurrency Review Study
:
City of South Miami
Figure 9
Annual Average Daily Volumes for Urbanized Areas
C"'~'-"~'~'"-'"'"-'~~'·H""'_· _. '~-"-~~~"~~~ __ ~_'H-~'~!mr-H--'~~_'-~--'--'-'-_~~_'_H'~--,-~~.H_H'_H-'-__ ""'il
BICYCLE MODE!
(Multiply motOlized vehicle volumes ShOWH below by Humber of
directional roadv.;ay lanes to detenuiue twoMway maximum <,;cl'\'ice
volumes.)
Paved
ShoulderiBicycie
Lane Coverage
0-49%
50-84~·o
85-100%
B
*
2,100
C
2,900
6,700
9,300 19,700
D
7,600
19,700
·19.700
PEDESTRlAl"l MODE 2
E
19,700
"19.700
**
(I'\'fultiply motorized vehicle \'oiumes shown belovo' by number of
directionallOaclv.:ay lanes to detennine two-way maximum .<:.ervice
volumes,)
Sidewalk Coverage B C D
0-49°'0 * * 2.800
50-84'!-o * 1,600 8.700
85-IOO~/o 3,800 10.700 17.400
BUS MODE (Scheduled Fixed Route)3
(Bu~e., in peak honr ill peak direction)
Sidewalk Coverage B C D
0-84% ·5 ::::4 2:3
85-100% >-1 2:3 >2
E
9.500
15.800
>19.700
E
::::2
2: 1
lValues 5110'wn an:: presented as two .. \vay annual avcrage iliIily volumes. for lev~ls ()f
service and are fOJ the automobileitruck modes unless specificaUy stated. This table
docs not constitute a <,tandflfd and should be used only for general planning
applications, The computer models fi'01ll which this table is derived should be u'"cd for
more sptXifn: pJallning npplicatiol.lo;.. The table and derivjJlg computer model" shoukl
not be: used 1'01' con:idor or iUfersection design .. where more n::fined techniques exist
C~~ku1ation'> arc based on plalUling 8pplicariom of the Highway Capacity Manual and
the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual
:I Levelofsen;ice for tlle bicycle and pedestrian modes ill thi.r, table is based on mun!>er
ofmotol'ized vehicles. not tltllllbet'ofbicycli-:,ts ol·pedeo;.trians using the facility.
3 Buses per hOUfSho,\\ll ru:e only for thc:peak hom' in the single direcrionofrlte high:t·traffic
flow.
"* Call1lOt be achieved using table input value defaults,
*'" Not applicable for that level of s(:J.·v.Ne letter grade. For the automobile mode,
volumes. greater t11.'lU level of s.ervice D become F bc{:ause imet'secrIDu capacitie:. have
been reached, F01' the bicycle mode~ the kvel of ~et'viJ;e lettet: grade (including F) ~ not
achievable becllllSC; ther¢: is no maximum vehicle vohuue tlucshold using table input
value deL'luh':..
Source:
Florida Department of Transportation
Systems Planning Office
ww\\',dot.state.tlusm!auuingJwstemsi'im:losfdefmlit.shilU
Source: FOOT's 2013 Quality/Level of Service Handbook.
aker 20 Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
a
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
to be provided as new developments occur. The City's concurrency reviews evaluate the
impacts to streets, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste, and recreation.
• The City is largely built-out and there are limited opportunities for wholesale roadway
corridor projects that would improve traffic flows. Consequently, the City has adopted
roadway LOS standards that are generally considered inadequate for streets.
Furthermore, the City does not currently collect transportation impact fees that would
typically be determined through the concurrency review process.
• Because no major capacity-enhancing roadway projects were identified, the City should
focus on enhancing and encouraging alternative modes of transportation (bicycle,
pedestrian, and mass transit), thereby reducing emphasis on automobile utilization.
• Although the City is currently located within a TCEA, it does not have the traditional
elements of a TCEA that would allow most development proposals to be exempt from
transportation concurrency (e.g., the City does not currently have a well-defined and
financially feasible multi modal infrastructure plan). The TCEA concept is an older
concept and many municipalities are now in favor of establishing a MMTD.
• A MMTD is similar to a TCEA, but the MMTD establishes LOS standards for
multimodal facilities and allows municipalities to collect mobility fees to pay for
multimodal infrastructure (in lieu of conducting transportation concurrency reviews and
collecting impact fees).
• Additional specialty LOS data was presented for emergency services within the City and
also for multimodal facilities.
Based on the information presented herein and through discussions with the City, Baker has
determined that the existing LOS standards are generally considered inadequate for streets.
Because there are limited opportunities for wholesale roadway corridor projects that would
improve traffic flows within the City, other options should be pursued that place less emphasis
on vehicle utilization. By establishing a MMTD and having a long-term plan for the
development of multimodal infrastructure, the City may be able to collect mobility fees to pay
for that infrastructure. If successful, that process would eliminate the need for transportation
concurrency in all or select areas within the City, as well as the collection of potential
transportation impact fees. It is noted that the City is currently conducting an Intermodal
Transportation Plan that will evaluate many of the elements of a MMTD study. It may be
possible to incorporate the elements of the Intermodal Transportation Plan into a MMTD study
to reduce the costs shown previously in Table 5.
aker 21 Concurrency Review Study