15THE CITY OF PLEASANT LlVINC
To:
FROM:
DATE:
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
The Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Commission
Steven Alexander, City Manager
Agenda Item No.:i5 August 27, 2014
An Ordinance relating to the fee schedule; amending ordinance 04-11-2077 to change the
title to "Schedule of Fees and Fines" and to increase some fees, adding new fees, and deleting
some fees from the schedule.
BACKGROUND:
Each Year the Mayor and City Commission adopts a new Fee Schedule for City services. Any
such fees may be waived or reduced by the majority vote of the Mayor and City Commission by
way of resolution.
In an effort to provide explanations to the fees being proposed, increased, or eliminated, please
find highlights below.
Building Permit Fee Schedule -Other Fees
Ordinance 14-14-2192 amended Section 7-3 ofthe Code of Ordinances and established a parks
and recreational impact fee, and created Section 7-3.2 establishing regulations for the
collection of such impact fees for residential developments.
In compliance with Florida Statute 119.07, the City is reducing certain City Fees related to
research of Building Department Records and Microfilm Research to be in-line with the actual
cost involved in such research.
Central Services Fee
Certain functions which were previously provided through the Central Services Division
(Procurement Division) are no longer being offered. The changes reflected within the Central
Service Fee schedule reflect the elimination of those specific services. Moreover, certain new
permit fees have been allocated for Special Events, Photos, & Filming.
Parking Division
The City's Finance Department directed an area evaluation for monthly parking permit fees.
Below please find a detail of the monthly fees currently being charged to parking customers
within parking structures/lots in the immediate area:
South Miami Municipal Garage
Sunset Place
Town
1st National Bank of SM
$55 per month
Between $57.95 & $68 per month
$70 per month
$58.85 per month
Furthermore, the City also reviewed neighboring municipalities which have parking programs
and evaluated their monthly parking fees. Below please find a breakdown of the municipalities
and their respective fees:
Surfside
Coral Gables
Miami Parking Authority
$69.55
Between $90.95 -$101.65 per month
Between $65 -$155 per month
Based on the evaluation and the above fees, the City believes that increasing the monthly
parking fee to $65 ($60.75 + $4.25 State Sales Tax) per month will help maintain the City's
parking infrastructure without jeopardizing a loss of existing monthly parking customers.
Community Pool
The City has constructed a new Aquatic Center, featuring a splash pad, poot locker rooms and
administrative office. The City's Parks and Recreation conducted an evaluation for pool entry
fees. Listed below is a detail of the daily entry fees currently being charged by the local
municipalities and Miami Dade County.
City of Miami Beach -Flamingo Pool
Ages 4-17
Adults 18+
FREE ($6 non-residents)
FREE ($10 non-residents)
City of Miami
Adults (18 years and older)
Youth (17 years and younger)
Seniors (62 years and older)
Persons w/ Disabilities and Veterans
$3.00
$1.00
$1.00
$FREE
Miami Dade County -Tamiami Park & A.D. Barnes Park
Child and Adults $2.50
Seniors $1.50
City of Cutler Bay -Cutler Ridge Pool
Adult $2.00
Child $1.50
Senior Citizen $1.25
City of Coral Gables -Venetian Pool
Adult 13 years old & older
Child 3-12 years old
Resident
$11.50
$6.60
Non-Resident
$5.25
$4.15
Based on the evaluation of the above fees, the City believes that the proposed fee structure is
reasonable for city residents and will help offset the operating costs associated with operating
the pool. Additional revenues for the aquatic center will come from facility rentals and aquatic
programs.
Parks Facility Fees
The City's Parks and Recreation Department conducted an evaluation for facility and field rental
fees. Outlined below is a detail of fees assessed by various local municipalities and Miami Dade
County.
Miami Dade County -Tropical Park
Soccer/Lacrosse Field
Additional Usage
$89.18/hr. (lights)
$42.80/hr. (lights)
$79.18/hr. (no lights)
$32.10/hr. (no lights)
City of Miami Gardens
Tennis Court $4.00/hr.
Volleyball $29.00/day
Outdoor Basketball Courts $42/hr. (lights) $29/hr. (no lights)
Education Room $45.00/hr. (residents) $65/hr. (non-residents)
Computer Lab $45.00/hr. (residents) $65/hr. (non-residents)
Town of Cutler Bay
Soccer/Football/Lacrosse Field $35/hr. (lights) $50/hr. (no lights)
Baseball/Softball Field $35/hr. (lights) $40/hr. (no lights)
Pool $75/hr. (3 hr. minimum)
Miami Shores Village
Outdoor Basketball Court $30/hr.
Athletic Fields $40/hr.
City of Doral
Baseball/Softball Field $50/hr. (lights) $40/hr. (no lights)
Football/Soccer Field $80/hr. (lights) $60/hr. (no lights)
City of Miami
Tennis Courts $O.50/hr. (juniors)
$2.00/hr. (seniors)
$3.00/hr. (adults)
City of Coral Gables
Tennis Courts $4.i5/hr. (resident) $7.20/hr. (non-resident)
Classroom $38/hr. (resident) $73/hr. (non-resident)
Village of Pinecrest
Tennis Courts $4.50/hr. (lights) $3.50/hr. (no lights)
City of Fort Lauderdale
Youth In-season $9.00/per hour
Youth Out-of-season $18/per hour
Adult In-season $75/per hour
Adult Out-of-season $125/per hour
Unlike other local municipalities, the city currently does not charge for in-demand facilities,
such as outdoor basketball courts, tennis courts, sand volleyball, computer lab, etc. Based on
the evaluation of the above fees, the City believes that the proposed fee structure is practical
for city residents, will generate additional revenue, and help to offset infrastructure costs.
Public Works & Utilities
The GIS Map or Data fee is increasing to include the Miami-Dade County hourly rate of $90 per
hour as provided to the City via the current Interlocal Agreement with Miami-Dade County plus
a $5 per hour administrative charge for the City's coordination and preparation of the data
submission sheet.
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance 04-11-2077
City of South Miami Ordinance for Approval
Proposed Revisions to the Schedule of Fees for 2015
Miami Dade County Interlocal Agreement Hourly Rates for GIS Graphic Technician and Mapping
Services
City of South Miami Parking Monthly Rate Survey
Ordinance 14-14-2192
Parks and Recreation Facilities Impact Fee Study
Photos, Movie Filming and Farmer's Market Municipality Price Comparisons
ORDINANCE NO. _______ _
An Ordinance relating to the fee schedule; amending ordinance 04-11-2077 to
change the title to tlSchedule of Fees and Fines" and to increase some fees,
adding new fees, and deleting some fees from the schedule.
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission desires to adopt a new Fee Schedule allowing
funding which will cover the cost of services provided; and,
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission desire to revise the adopted Fee Schedule
allowing funding which will cover the cost of services provided; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. That Ordinance 04-11-2077 is hereby amended so as to change the title of the
City's Fee Schedule and to increase some fees, adding new fees, and deleting some fees from
the schedule all as set forth on the attached.
Section 2. Any such fees may be waived or reduced by the Mayor and City Commission
by way of resolution.
Section 3. 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 4. 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 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective upon enactment.
PASSED AND ENACTED this ___ day of __________ , 2014.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
CITY CLERK MAYOR
1st Reading
2 nd Reading
READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM:
LANGUAGE, LEGALITY AND
EXECUTION THEREOF
CITY ATTORNEY
COMMISSION VOTE:
Mayor Stoddard:
Vice Mayor Harris:
Commissioner Welsh:
Commissioner Liebman:
Commissioner Edmond:
1 ORDINANCE NO. _______ _
2 An Ordinance relating to the fee schedule; amending ordinance 04-11-2077 to
3 change the title to ItSchedule of Fees and Fines" and to increase some fees,
4 adding new fees, and deleting some fees from the schedule.
5 WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission desires to adopt a new Fee Schedule allowing
6 funding which will cover the cost of services provided; and,
7 WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission desire to revise the adopted Fee Schedule
8 allowing funding which will cover the cost of services provided; and,
9 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COMMISSION OF
10 THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
11 Section 1. That Ordinance 04-11-2077 is hereby amended so as to change the title ofthe
12 City's Fee Schedule and to increase some fees, adding new fees, and deleting some fees from
13 the schedule all as set forth on the attached.
14
15 Section 2. Any such fees may be waived or reduced by the Mayor and City Commission
16 by way of resolution.
17
18 Section 3. Severability. If any section, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance is
19 for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, this holding
20 shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
21
22 Section 4. Ordinances in Conflict. All ordinances or parts of ordinances and all sections
23 and parts of sections of ordinances in direct conflict herewith are hereby repealed. However, it
24 is not the intent of this section to repeal entire ordinances, or parts of ordinances, that give the
25 appearance of being in conflict when the two ordinances can be harmonized or when only a
26 portion of the ordinance in conflict needs to be repealed to harmonize the ordinances. If the
27 ordinance in conflict can be harmonized by amending its terms, it is hereby amended to
28 harmonize the two ordinances. Therefore, only that portion that needs to be repealed to
29 harmonize the two ordinances shall be repealed.
30 Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective upon enactment.
31
32
33
34
35
PASSED AND ENACTED this ___ day of __________ , 2014.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
CITY CLERK MAYOR
36
37 1st Reading
38 2 nd Reading
39
40 READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: COMMISSION VOTE:
41 LANGUAGE, LEGALITY AND Mayor Stoddard:
42 EXECUTION THEREOF Vice Mayor Harris:
43 Commissioner Welsh:
44 Commissioner Liebman:
45 Commissioner Edmond:
46 CITY ATTORNEY
SCHEDULE OF-of FEES and FINES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Parking Division
Collections
Central Services
Planning & Zoning
Public Works & Utilities
Code Enforcement
Building Permits
Building -Plumbing & Permits
Building -Mechanical Permits
Building -Electrical Permits
Building -Cert. of Use. Completion & Occupancy
Building -Other
Building -Refunds
City Clerk
Police Department
Parks & Recreation -Sports
Parks & Recreation -Rentals
Parks & Recreation -After School House & Camps
Parks & Recreation -Fitness Center
Special Events
BUILDING PERMIT FEES SCHEDULE
SECTION A -BUILDING PERMIT FEES
Description
MINIMUM FEES FOR BUILDING PERMITS
Residential Permit
Commercial Permit
NEW CONSTRUCTION -Whichever is the greater amount to the
following:
o to 25,000 sq. ft. per sq. ft
Plus for 25,00 I and over per sq. ft.
or
Per each $100 of construction cost
NEW CONSTRUCTION, RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS -Whichever is
the greater amount to the following:
Per sq. ft.
or
Per each $100 of construction cost
PARKS & RECREATION DEVELOPMENT FEE PER HOUSING UNIT
Multifamily Per Unit
Single. 0-3 bedrooms. per unit
Single. 4+ bedrooms. per unit
ALTERATIONS, IMPROVEMENTS AND REPAIRS TO BUILDINGS-
Whichever is the greater amount to the following:
Per sq. ft.
or
Per each $100 of construction cost
GENERAL REPAIRS AND OTHER WORK NOT SPECIFIED ABOVE -
Whichever is the greater amount to the following:
Per sq. ft.
or
Per each $100 of construction cost
INSTALLATION, ALTERATION OR REPAIR OF EXTERIOR
WINDOW, DOORS AND SHUTTER
Each
INSTALLATION, ALTERATION OR REPAIR OF CURTAIN WALLS
OR STORE FRONTS
Per sq. ft
2O+J. 20 14/1 5
$100
$150
$0.80
$0.70
$2.00
$0.50
$3.00
$0.75
$3.00
$0.20
$2.00
$9
$0.25
WOOD DECK, WALKWAY, SCREEN ENCLOSURE, POOL DECK,
AWNING, CONCRETE SLAB
Per sq. ft
FENCES, WALLS, AlC SCREENS AND RAILINGS
Per linear foot
ROOFING
Per sq. ft.
SWIMMING POOLS
Each
PARKING LOTS AND DRIVEWAYS
Per sq. ft.
PARKING LOT SEAL COATING AND STRIPING
o to I ,000 per sq. ft.
Each additional 1,000 sq. ft. or fraction
DEMOLITION
o to 1,000 sq. ft
Each additional 1,000 sq. ft. or fraction
PAINTING, SANDBLASTING OR STEAM CLEANING
Commercial only, each
SIGNS
Each
MOVE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE
Per sq. ft
TEMPORARY BUILDING
Per sq. ft.
TEMPORARY PLATFORMS
Each
ORNAMENTAL IRON
Per sq. ft.
PILE DRIVING
First pile, each
Additional pile, each
$0.20
$0.50
$0.14
$300
$0.15
$0.15
$10
$0.50
$15
$100
$75
$0.20
$0.30
$150
$0.10
$65
$20
ANY OTHER WORK NOT COVERED
Per each $100 of construction cost
AlC SCREENS, MASONARY FENCES, RETAINING WALL &
RAILING
Per linear foot
LANDSCAPING, TREES
Each
Residential
Commercial
New Construction
LANDSCAPING, HEDGES
For each 100 L. F.
Residential, each 100 L. F.
Commercial, each 100 L. F.
New Construction, each 100 L. F.
LANDSCAPING, GROUND COVER
o to 250 sq. ft.
Each additional 250 sq. ft. or fraction
Residential, 0 to 250 sq. ft.
Residential, each additional 250 sq. ft. or fraction
Commercial, 0 to 250 sq. ft.
Commercial, each additional 250 sq. ft. or fraction
New Construction, 0 to 250 sq. ft.
New Construction, each additional 250 sq. ft. or fraction
FOOTING FOR POLES
Each
REINSPECTION FEE
Each
$3.00
$0.30
$0
$20
$20
$0
$25
$25
$0
$0
$200
$50
$200
$50
$7.50
$50
BUILDING PERMIT FEES SCHEDULE
SECTION F -OTHER FEES
Description
MINIMUM FEE FOR ITEMS IN SECTION F
Residential Permit
Commercial Permit
UP FRONT PLANS REVIEW FEE
An initial fee of twenty five percent (25%) ot the anticipated total permit fee is
due at the time any permit application is made and construction documents are
submitted for review and approval. Non-refundable, credited towards permit fee.
OTHER FEES
Permit card replacement
Forty (40) year certification fee
Information provided on other building matters
Fee for working on Sundays and Holidays
RESEARCH BUILDING DEPTARTMENT RECORDS
per hour
RE-INSPECTION FEE
Each
CHANGE OF CONTRACTOR
Base fee (percentage of original permit fee)
Minimum
Maximum
THRESHOLD BUILDING INSPECTION
Per hour, minimum 3 hours per single request
SPECIAL REQUEST FOR AFTER HOURS INSPECTIONS
Per hour, minimum 3 hours per single request
2-O-J-l. 20 I 4/1 5
$100
$150
$15
$250
$100
$500
$50
30%
$65
$500
$125
$125
ADDITIONAL COSTS
In addition to the basic application fees listed, applicants shall pay for all
reasonable costs incurred by the City in processing said applications, These
costs shall include but not limited to advertising, staff time and costs for qualified
experts, such as architects, planners, attorneys and others deemed necessary for
the review and evaluation of an application. These fees shall be in addition to any
other fees required by the City.
REVISIONS TO APPROVED DRAWINGS
Per sheet
PLAN REVIEW
Review after second rejection
Each additional review
LOST PLANS FEE
Base fee (percentage of original building permit fee)
Maximum
SHOP DRAWING REVIEW
Each
WORKING WITHOUT A PERMIT
First time offense, $100 plus double of permit fees
Minimum
Second time offense, $200 plus double of permit fees
Minimum
Third time offense, $500 plus twice the double permit fee
Minimum
$40
$50
$75
30%
$500
$100
$165
$200
$1,000
CENTRAL SERVICE FEE SCHEDULE
Description
FINGE:RPRINTING
ReU
~
BACKGROUND CHECK
per application
PHOTOS
2 passport photos
PASSPORTS
Per application
Express mail charged for expedite passports
SPECIAL EVENTS
Admin. processing fee
Non-Refundable Application Fee
Deposit (refundable)
Expedite fee (3 business days)
Farmers Market permit fee per event
PHOTOS & FILMING MOVIES
30 day permit non refundable
Still Photo Fee per day (8:30 am to 5:30 pm)
Filming Fee per day (8:30 am to 5:30 pm)
NOTARY
First Page
Each additional page
City Document
LAMINATING
per sheet
PHOTOCOPIES
Page 7 of 30
~ 2014115
$15
$100
$60
$500
$60
$500
$10
$2
$5
$2
CENTRAL SERVICE FEE SCHEDULE
Black & White, per page single-sided
Black & White, per page double-sided
Color, per page one-sided
Color, per page double-sided
Page 8 of 30
$0.15
$0.30
$0.50
$1
COLLECTIONS FEE SCHEDULE
Description
Local Business Tax
RESIDENTIAL USE (Apartments only)
up to 5 Units
6 to 50 Units
51 to 100 Units
101 to 200 Units
201 to More Units
PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL
Up to 1,000 SQ FT
1,00 I to 3,000 SQ FT
3,001 to 10,OOOSQ FT
10,00 I SQ FT & Over
BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL
I Employee
2 to 9 Employees
10 to 24 Employees
25 or more
RETAIL AND WHOLESALE TRADE
up to 1,000 SQ FT
1,000 to 2,000 SQ FT
2,00 I to 5,000 SQ FT
5,001 to 15,OOOSQ FT
15,000 SQ FT & Over
TRANSPORTATION, WAREHOUSING &
COMMUNICATIONS
Minimum Rate
I 0 to 25 Employees
26 or More Employees $
7,500 to 20,000 SQ FT an Additional
20,00 I SQ FT and Over an Additional
CODE 2-O+J-2014/15
100
101
102
103
104
201
202
203
204
301
302
303
304
401
402
403
404
405
501
502
503
504
505
$91.16
$158.03
$243.11
$303.88
$364.65
$121.55
$181.81
$243.11
$291.72
$158.03
$243.11
$335.02
$425.43
$158.03
$243.11
$425.43
$607.00
$911.00
$243.11
$273.48
$303.88
$30.70
$60.78
MANUFACTURING & INTENSIVE USES
Minimum Rate
7,500 to 15,000
15,00 I to 25,000 SQ FT
25,00 I to SQ FT and Over
LIEN SEARCHES
24 Hours (only single family residences)
48 Hours
72 Hours
5 Days
BURGLAR ALARM FEE
Alarm registration fee, residential, one time
Alarm registration fee, commercial, annually
Alarm non-registration fee per occurance
First false alarm
Second false alarm
Third false alarm
Fourth false alarm
Fifth and each additional occurrence
OTHER FEES
Coin Operating Machine
Garage Sale, 2-day permit
Credit Card Processing Convenience Fee (Per Transaction)
Cost per Check Issued, Companies only
$273.48
$303.88
$334.27
$364.65
$250.00
$135.00
$105.00
$105.00
$50
$100
$75
no charge
$50
$100
$150
$200
$36.47
$20.00
$3.00
$2.00
PARKING DIVISION FEE SCHEDULE
Description
Hourly Meter Parking Rate
Library, 2-hour limit, hourly
Meter Rental Fee Daily
Valet Parking Daily
Parking Permits per Month (~ includes Sales Tax)
Residential Parking Decal Annually (maximum of 2)
Residential Paking Visitor Annually (Maximum of I)
Page 11 of 30
2-O+J. 2014/15
$1.50
$1.00
$25.00
$25.00
$~ $65
$20.00
$40.00
PARKS & RECREATION FEES SCHEDULE
RENTALS
Description
GYMNASIUM RENTAL (2hr min)
Resident, per hour
Non Resident, per hour
Not-for-Profit, per hour
GYMNASIUM RENTAL 1/2 court
Resident, per hour
Non Resident, per hour
Not-for-Profit, per hour
MULTI PURPOSE ROOM (3 hr min)
Resident, per hour
Non Resident, per hour
Not-for-Profit, per hour
SOUTH MIAMI PARK Field Rentals
Resident, per hour
Non Resident, per hour
Not-for-Profit, per hour
MURRAY PARK Small Fields (Softball Area)
Resident, per day
Non Resident, per day
Not-for-Profit, per day
MURRAY PARK (Big Field)
Resident, per day
Non Resident, per day
Not-for-Profit, per day
DANTE FACELL Pavilion
Resident, per day
Non Resident, per day
Not-for-Profit, per day
~ 2014/15
$100
$200
$-I-W $90
$50
$100
$7& $45
$60
$120
$7& .MS.
$36
$50
$30
$+W36
$~50
$+00 30
$WQ60
$J-W 75
$-I-W 50
$120
$230
$100
FUCHS PARK Pavilion
Resident, per day
Non Resident, per day
Not-for-Profit, per day
PAVILION
Resident, per day
Non Resident, per day
Not-for-Profit, per day
PALMER PARK without lights Base !Softball Field
Resident, per hour
Non Resident, per hour
Not-for-Profit, per hour
PALMER PARK with lights Base !Softball Field
Resident, per hour
Non Resident, per hour
Not-for-Profit, per hour
PALMER PARK SoccerlFlag Football Field wlo light
Resident, per hour
Non Resident, per hour
Not for Profit, per hour
PALMER PARK Soccer/Flag Football Field with light
Resident, per hour
Non Resident, per hour
Not for Profit, per hour
SECURITY DEPOSIT for all rental
Residential, per rental
Non Residential, per rental
Not-for-Profit, per rental
BATTING CAGE
Residential. per rental
$120
$230
$100
$120
$230
$100
$30
$36
$25
$36
$50
$30
$110
$200
$100
Non Residential. per rental
Not-for-Profit. per rental
MARSHALL WILLIAMS TENNIS COURT RENTAL
Resident. per hour
Non Resident. per hour
Not-for-Profit. per hour
FUCHS PARK SAND VOLLEYBALL COURT RENTAL (2 hr min)
Resident. per hour
Non Resident. per hour
Not-for-Profit. per hour
EDUCATION ROOM RENTAL (2 hr min)
Resident. per hour
Non Resident. per hour
Not-for-Profit. per hour
COMPUTER LAB (2 hr min)
Resident. per hour
Non Resident. per hour
Not-for-Profit. per hour
MURRAY PARK OUTDOOR BASKETBALL FULL COURT RENTAL
WITH LIGHTS
Resident. per hour
Non Resident. per hour
Not-for-Profit. per hour
MURRAY PARK OUTDOOR BASKETBALL FULL COURT RENTAL
WITH OUT LIGHTS
Resident. per hour
Non Resident. per hour
Not-for-Profit. per hour
MURRAY PARK AQUATIC CENTER PARTY PACKAGE
0-35 people (3 hrs)
36-64 people (3 hrs)
$25.00
$35.00
$20.00
$30.00
$40.00
$20.00
$45.00
$60.00
$35.00
$30.00
$40.00
$25.00
$25.00
$35.00
$20.00
$265.00
$315.00
Additional hours. per hour
BREWER PARK OUTDOOR BASKETBALL HALF COURT RENTAL
Resident. per hour
Non Resident. per hour
Not-for-Profit. per hour
BREWER PARK TENNIS COURT RENTAL
Resident. per hour
Non Resident. per hour
Not-for-Profit. per hour
DANTE FASCELL PARK OUTDOOR BASKETBALL HALF COURT
RENTAL
Resident. per hour
Non Resident. per hour
Not-for-Profit. per hour
DANTE FASCELL PARK SAND VOLLEYBALL COURT RENTAL
Resident. per hour
Non Resident. per hour
Not-for-Profit. per hour
$10.00
$15.00
$5.00
$10.00
$15.00
$5.00
$25.00
$35.00
$20.00
PARKS & RECREATION FEES SCHEDULE
SPORTS
Description
BASKETBALL
Resident
Non Resident
FOOTBALL
Resident I st Child
Resident 2nd Child
Resident 3rd Child
Resident 4th Child
Non Resident I st Child
Non Resident 2nd Child
Non Resident 3rd Child
Non Resident 4th Child
Resident
Non-Resident
SOCCER
Resident
Non Resident
TRAVELING SOCCER
Resident
Non Resident
TENNIS
Resident
Non Resident
CHEERLEADING
Resident I st Child
Resident 2nd Child
Resident 3rd Child
Resident 4th Child
Page 16 of 30
2:O-I--l-2014/15
~
$62.30
~
$42,JQ
PARKS & RECREATION FEES SCHEDULE
SPORTS
"Jon Resident I st Child
Non Resident 2nd Child
Non Resident 3rd Child
Non Resident 4th Child
Resident
Non-Resident
TRAVEL BASKETBALL
Resident
"Jon Resident
TRACK
Resident
Non-Resident
MARTIAL ARTS
Resident
Non Resident
Page 17 of 30
$30
$60
PARKS & RECREATION FEES SCHEDULE
COMMUNITY POOL
Description
Daily Fees
Y outh/T een (age 3-17) Resident
Y outh/T een (age 3-17) Non-Resident
Adult (age 18-59) Resident
Adult (age 18-59) Non-Resident
Senior (age 60+) Resident
Senior (age 60+) Non-Resident
Person wI Disabilities. Veterans & US Military Residents
Person wI Disabilities. Veterans & US Military Non-Residents
Page 18 of 30
2014/2015
PARKS & RECREATION FEES SCHEDULE
AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM & CAMPS
Description lO-I-J-2014/15
AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM Monthly (First child)
Resident
Non Resident
AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM Monthly (Second child)
Resident
Non Resident
AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM Monthly (Third child)
Resident
Non Resident
AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM Weeldy (First child)
Non Resident
AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM Weeldy (Second child)
Non Resident
AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM Weeldy (More than two
children, per Child)
!'-Jon Resident
SPRING CAMP
Resident, per week per child
Non-Resident, per week per child
SUMMER CAMP (First child)
Resident, per week per child
Non Resident, per week per child
SUMMER CAMP (Second child)
Resident. per week per child
Non Resident. per week per child
Page 19 of 30
$30
$75
$30
$75
PARKS & RECREATION FEES SCHEDULE
AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM & CAMPS
SUMMER CAMP (Third child)
Resident. per week per child
Non Resident. per week per child
WINTER CAMP
Resident, for 2 week period per child
Non Resident, for 2 week period per child
DAY CAMP
Resident, per day per child
Non Resident, per day per child
HOLIDAY CAMP
Resident. per day per child
Non Resident. per day per child
Page 20 of 30
$60
$150
$10
$30
PLANNING AND ZONING FEE SCHEDULE
Description
ERPB APPLICATIONS
RS AND RT ZONING DISTRICTS
New construction, per dwelling unit
ALL OTHER ZONING DISTRICT
New construction
Renovation
SIGNS
First sign
Each additional sign
Revisions, fences, walls, etc.
Each additional appearance before the Board
Appeal ERPB decision
REZONING
Ten acres or less per lot
Over ten acres per lot
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS
Each application
Each extension request
SPECIAL USE APPLICATIONS
Each application
Each extension request
VARIANCES
First variance request
Each additional variance request
Each extension request
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
PUD Major change
PUD Minor change
~ 2014/15
$750
$900
$450
$225
$50
$225
$150
$100
$6,000
$20,250
$3,000
$500
$3,000
$500
$3,000
$1, 125
$500
$5,250
$1,500
PLAT APPLICATION
Tentative plat
Final plat
Waiver of plat
LDC AMENDMENT (Text Amendments)
I.General standards. miscellaneous provisions
II. Change permitted use schedule
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Each application
DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI)
Application fee. plus
Residential. per square foot of gross floor area
Non-residential. per sq. ft. of gross floor area
Mixed-Use. per square foot of gross floor area
DRI SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE
Per square foot of gross floor area of change
DRI EXEMPTION SENATE BILL 360
Per request. plus
Residential. per square foot of gross floor area
Non-residential. per sq. ft. of gross floor area
Mixed-Use. per square foot of gross floor area
TEMPORARY SIGNS & BANNERS
Temporary signage. per sign (maximum 30-days)
Banner over public street (maximum 14-days)
Banner per pole (minimum $300) (per 30-days)
MD COUNTY SIGN APPLICATION
per sign
NEWSRACK APPLICATION FEE
per newsrack
$5.000
$4.000
$4.500
$3.000
$6.000
$30.000
$25.000
$0.075
$0.10
$0.10
$0.075
$25.000
$0.075
$0.10
$0.10
$75
$300
$30
$100
$50
OUTDOOR SEATING
Seating/Dining on Public Right-of-Way
Each outdoor seat, annually (annually increase by $10 to max. of $65)
Each stand-alone table top without seating used for consumption of
beverages or food, annually
Seating/Dining on Private Property
Annual permit for all outdoor dining/seating
OUTDOOR DISPLAY OF RETAIL MERCHANDISE
Annual permit for outdoor display of retail merchandise
PERMANENT GENERATOR
Each application
TEMPORARY STORAGE UNIT (PODS)
Residential (max. size 8' x 16', per 14 day period)
Non-residential (max. 8' x 32', per 30 day period)
If associated with a building permit
TREE REMOVAL PERMIT
First tree to be removed
Each additional tree to be removed
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE
I Administrative Per Se
2 Administrative Per Se
3 Administrative Per Se
I Consumption on Premises
2 Consumption on Premises
4 thru 8 Consumption on Premises
4 Consumption on Premises -SRX
MICROFILM RESEARCH
Per request per hour, only if search exceeds 30 minutes of administrative
time.
$55
$520
$250
$250
$100
$50
$150
No fee
$75
35
$100
$200
$500
$250
$250
$750
$1,000
VACATE STREET, ALLEY, EASEMENT or OTHER PUBLIC PER
REQUEST
COVENANTS, EASEMENTS OR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
PER REQUEST
MODIFICATION I RELEASE OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS,
EASEMENTS OR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS PER REQUEST
REQUEST OR RELEASE OF UNITY OF TITLE EACH
APPLICATION
PHOTOCOPIES AND PUBLICATIONS
Microfilm reader/printer copies. each
Official zoning map in color
Small official city map
Future land use map in color
Custom GIS map. each copy
Land Development Code
Comprehensive Plan
Hometown Regulations
Census data packet
Black & White copy. single-sided
Black & White copy. double-sided
DVD of recorded meetings
Printed and Binded copy of the City budget book
LETTERS
Condominium conversion letter
Flood zone letter
Zoning and land use verification letter
$3.000
$5.000
$500
$1.500
W
$15
$5
$15
$15
$75
$50
$5
$3
$0.15
$0.30
.il.Q
$25
$1.000
$100
$100
PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITIES FEE SCHEDULE
Description
PERMIT FEES
Minimum permit fee
Permit extension fee, for 60 day period
DRAWINGS
Revisions to approved drawings, per sheet
Shop drawing review
INSPECTIONS
Reinspection, per request
After hour Inspection
CHANGE OF CONTRACTOR
Percentage of original permit fee
Minimum
Maximum
WORK WITHOUT PROPER PERMITS ANDIOR INSPECTIONS
After the fact permit fee: For any work performed without proper permits
and/or inspections
Minimum, per day
SANITARY SEWER, WATERLINE, GAS LINE, AND OTHER
o to 100 linear feet
Each additional 100 linear feet or fraction
WORK ON DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
o to 100 linear feet
Each additional 100 linear feet or fraction
POLES, DOWN GUY, ANCHOR, SPLICE PIT, MANHOLE OR
FIRE HYDRANTS
Installation or removal, each unit
Page 25 of 30
2-O-I-l-2014/15
$150
$150
$25
$100
$65
$300
30%
$65
$250
Permit fees
quadrupled
$1,000
$125
$50
$85
$50
$40
PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITIES FEE SCHEDULE
Description
SIDEWALK, CURB AND GUTTER
Per every 100 linear feet or fraction
for additional -50 ft
DRIVEWAY
Per approach
PAVING
0-30 square yards
Additional 100 square yards or fraction
STRIPING OF ROADWAY
per 100 linear feet or fraction of roadway
STREET NAME OR DIRECTIONAL SIGNS
Per sign installation
BRIDGES
0-1000 square feet
Each additional 100 square feet or fraction
PERMANENT TRAFFIC BARRICADE, GUARDRAIL AND
GUIDEPOSTS
Each 100 linear feet or fraction
CULVERTS
Each linear foot of pipe or fraction
TRAFFIC SIGNAL, per intersection or location
New
Upgrade or modification
BUS SHELTERS
Each
Page 26 of 30
1-O+J--2014/1 5
$65
NIA
N/A
$200
$40
$100
$15
$1,140
$230
$85
$10
$1,710
$1,114
$115
PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITIES FEE SCHEDULE
Description
EXCAVATIONS FOR UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION
o to 250 sq. ft
Each additional 250 sq. ft. or fraction
LANDSCAPING, TREES
Each
Exisiting single family residential
Multi-family owner occupied
Commercial
New Construction
LANDSCAPING, HEDGES
For each 100 L. F.
Exisiting single family residential for each 100 L. F.
Multi-family owner occupied for each 100 L. F.
Commercial for each 100 L. F.
New Construction for each 100 L. F.
Page 27 of 30
2-OH--2014/15
$125
$50
$0
$0
$20
$20
$0
$0
$25
$25
PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITIES FEE SCHEDULE
Description
LANDSCAPING, GROUND COVER
o to 250 sq. ft.
Each additional 250 sq. ft. or fraction
Exisiting single family residential for each L. F.
Multi-family owner occupied for each L. F.
Commercial 0 to 250 sq. ft.
Commercial each additional 250 sq. ft. or fraction
New Construction 0 to 250 sq. ft.
New Construction each additional 250 sq. ft. or fraction
TEMPORARY STAGING AREA, CRANE, TRAILER, TRUCK ON
THE RIGHT OF WAY
Flat fee per day for first 5 days
Every five days or fraction thereof after
TEMPORARY FULL ROAD AND SIDEWALK CLOSURE
No single lane roadway closure permitted. Excludes city events and events
funded by the city.
Per linear. Ft.of road, rounded to the next higher whole number in ft.,per
day
TEMPORARY SIDEWALK CLOSURE
Permit requires French Barricades along curb or EOP. For special event Shr.
max., incl. set up time. Excludes city events and events funded by the city.
Each 25 square feet or fraction
Maximum permit fee
MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC (MOT)
Intrusion into and/or using one-way lane
Roadways with two-way traffic
Detour, per direction
Sidewalk intrusion, each
Landscaping contractor, special permit per year
PUBLIC WORKS HOURLY RATE (SPECIAL EVENTS)
Page 28 of 30
W-I-l--20 1 4/1 5
$0
$0
$200
$50
$200
$50
$200
$300
$0.25
$75
$10,000
$100
$200
$100
$100
$100
PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITIES FEE SCHEDULE
Description
Non-supervisor
Supervisor
Public Works Fees & Materials
Barricades (up to 100) per day
Barricades (10 I or more) each per day
Missing Barricades Fee (each)
CUSTOM GIS MAPAND/OR DATA
Charged per hourly rate of non supervisor MDC Hourly Rate -$5 Admin
Fee
Page 29 of 30
2-O-I-J-20 I 411 5
$40
$45
il1.5.
$85
li
$50
PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITIES FEE SCHEDULE
Description
TRASH COLLECTION
Up to 1/2 truck load (12.5 cubic yards), once per week
Over 1/2 truck load (12.5 cubic yards) or any part thereof
Special collection
Appliances, each
Page 30 of 30
~ 2014/15
no charge
$156
$-hS6
~ $50
ORDINANCE NO.l4-14-2192
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 eomprehensive fee sehedule 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 ofthe City Clerk and which may
Ord. No. 14-14-2192
be accessed on the City's web page which is currently at www.southmiamifl.gov),
whichever is the most current:
(1) Building permit fees.
(2) Plumbing permit fees.
(3) Mechanical permit fees.
(4) Electrical permit fees.
(5) Land use application fees.
(6) Certificates of use, completion or occupancy fees.
(7) Public works/utility fees.
(8) Other fees.
(9) Occupational license fees.
(10) Tree removal permit fees.
a.u Development impact fees.
as set forth in the in the sohedule entitled "Comprehensive Fee Sohedule," attaohed to
Ordinanoe No. 1454 and adopted by referenoe hereof, [and any amendments thereto).
(Ord. NofJ. 1454, § 4, 9 690; OI'Gl. 1\'6. 15()1, § 1, 33 92; OrG. {>"'6. 1512, § 1, 9 15 92; OFfl.. (1..10. 1575, §§
1 3, 2 21 95; OFfl.. (>"'6. 1578, § 1, 4 4 95; OrG. Me. 1594, §§ 1 3, 11 795; Orf1. Ne. 1692, § 1, 11 2 99;
Ore. Ne. 173(), § 1, 11 7 ()~
EditGr's Rste
Seotion 1 of Ordinanoe No. 28 00 1730, adopted November 7,2000, amended Ordinanoe
No. 14 90 1454 by adding a new permit fee refund sohedule. At the oity's request,
suoh sohedule has not been set out herein, but is on file in the offioe of the oity olerk.
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 Ordinance CArev3 Comm Amendment.doc 2
Ord. No. 14-14-2192
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 residential development shall mean the carrying out of any residential building
activity, or the making of any material change in the use or appearaace of any
building, er-structure or land, which results in the dividing of existing space or the
addition of any space that could be used as an additional bedroom or otherwise causes
an additional impact or demand on parks facilities.
h 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
gJ Proposed
U:\My Documents\resolutions\Ordinance Impact Fee Ordinance CArev3 Comm Amendment.doc 3
Ord. No. 14-14-2192
[11 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 penn it.
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 andlor 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 perfonned 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.C "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 oflots or units of the development project or proiects.
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:
W 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.
t£2 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 Ordinance CArev3 Comm Amendment.doc 4
Ord. No. 14-14-2192
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:
~) A need for the capital improvement still exists:
® The fees will be used for an identified pumose within two (2) years of the
finding of need; and
W The pumose for which the fees will be used is substantially similar to the
pumose 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 thiSi17thday of---"'-J ..... u ...... n""-e ___ , 2014.
~~ ~~7
1 st Reading 6/ 0 3 / 1 4
2nd Reading 6/ 1 7 / 1 4
COMMISSION VOTE: 5-0
Mayor Stoddard: Yea
Vice Mayor Harris: Yea
Commissioner Edmond: Yea
Commissioner Liebman: Yea
Commissioner Welsh: Yea
U:\My Documents\resolutions\Ordinance Impact Fee Ordinance CArev3 Comm Amendment.doc 5
THE 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.:jfJ
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 Blse 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
Oty 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
multi modal 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, Z014
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 col~ection may be used for another utility service
which general~y benefits the subject property which paid the impact
fees?
2. Whether the City of Wildwood must return impact fees which have
been co~lected 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 AD852577D200n... 5/28/2014
Advisory Legal Opinion -Municipalities, use of impact fees Page20f7
waste-related purposes as considered in St. Lucie County v. City of
Fort Pierce.
l
According to information you have supplied to this office, the City
of Wildwood has, for several years, levied and collected an £mpact
fee for refuse collection as well as other utilities and services.
The £mpact fees collected by the city for refuse collection were
imposed and collected pursuant to section 163.31B01, Florida
Statutes. The city has now determined that lower rates can be
maintained through contracting and privatizing the refuse collection
portiono£ its utility servioe 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 £mpact fees. Since
the oity is privatizing refuse servioes, you state that these fees
will not be used for the expansion of refuse oollection services.
Therefore, you have asked whether these surplus fees may be used for
any other utility service or must be returned.
Question One
Seotion 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 impaot fees are an important souroe 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 £mpact 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 £mposes an £mpact
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.myfloridaiegal.com/ago.nsf/printview/A8EOF8C5AAA4D7 AD852577D200n... 512812014
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 of Pine~~as County v. City of 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 'Lmpact fee' or
user charge for the privilege of connecting to the city's water and
sewer system . "
In City of 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 of 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 interlocal 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.myfloridaiegai.com/ago.nsf/printview/ A8EOF8C5AAA4 D7 AD852577D20072... 5/28/2014
Advisory LegalOpinion .. Municipalities, use of impact fees Page-40f7
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' unjus.t 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 ox New Smyrna Beach v. Board of
Trustees of Interna~ ~rovement Trust FUnd. [a] 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 hoard'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
he 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. "[g] 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."[IO] 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.n[ll]
Similarly, the City of Wildwood has imposed an impact fee for refuse
collection. The City imposed this impact fee pursuant to section
http://www.myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printv iew/ A 8EOF8C5AAA4 D7 AD8525 77020072... 5/28/2014
Advisory Legal Opinion -Municipalities, use ofimpact fees Page 50f7
163.31801, Florida Statutes. As a valid impaot fee, the fees ~posed
must be no more than what the oity would inour in aooommodating the
new users of the system and these fees must be expressly earmarked
and spent for the purposes for whioh they were oharged and
colleoted. As Florida courts and this offioe have recognized, an
impaot fee, levied and oolleoted for an express purpose, must be
spent for that purpose. Thus, the City of Wildwood refuse colleotion
~aot fee may be spent only for that purpose and related purposes
and may not be direoted to another unrelated utility servioe.
You have oited seotion 180.07, Florida Statutes, whioh relates to
publio utilities and provides for the oombination of plants or
systems and the pledge of revenues, raised pursuant to this chapter
for the oonstruotion and operation of these plants and systems. You
note that" subseotion (2) of this statute provides:
"Whenever any munioipality shall deoide to avail itself of the
provis~ons of this chapter for the extension or improvement of any
existing utility plant or system, any then-existing plant or system
may be inoluded as a part of a whole plant or system and any two or
more utilities may 'be inoluded in one projeot hereunder. The
revenues of all or any part of any existing plants or systems or any
plants or systems oonstructed hereunder may be pledged to seoure
moneys advanoed for the oonstruction or improvement of any utility
plant or system or any part thereof or any oombination
thereof." (e.s.)
Aooording to your letter, the City of Wildwood relied on seotion
l63.3lBOl,Florida Statutes, to impose and oolleot an impaot fee for
refuse oolleotion. Further, the oity is not oonsidering the
extension or improvement of an existing utility plant, but is
contracting with a private solid waste provider for servioes. The
clear language of section IBO.07(2), Florida Statutes, states that
it applies to projeots 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
~paot fees whioh were levied and collected for that purpose to
support other utility servioes.
Question Two
Your second question relates to the disposition of impaot fees whioh
have been levied and oollected, but are no longer needed for capital
expansion to provide refuse oollection services.
No statutory or other authority of whioh I am aware or to whioh you
have brought my attention would authorize the City of Wildwood to
return or refund validly imposed and colleot impact fees. [12] In the
absence of any direotion in the law for such an action, this office
cannot suggest what may appear to be an equitable resolution to your
http://www.myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printview/ A8EOF8C5AAA4D7 AD852577D20072... 5/28/2014
Advisory Legal Opinion -Municipalities, use ofimpact fees Page 6 of7
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.
Si.ncerely,
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 Bui~ders 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 wi thin the defin"i tion of impact or service availability fees
established by the State Department of Education.
[5] See Ops. Att'y Gen. Fla. 76-137 (1976), 82-09 (1982), and 85-101
(1985); Inf. Op. to Nieman, dated Oct. 4, 2010.
[6] 676 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) .
[7] Id. at 37.
[81 543 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.myfloridaJegal.com/ago.nsf/printv iew/ A8EOF8C5AAA 4 D7 AD852577D200n... 5/28/2014
Advisory Legal OpinIon -Municipalities, use of impact fees Page 70[7-.
[~1] Supra n.6 at 37.
[12} Cf. State ex reI. Victor Chemical 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), "[a]t. common law, there was
no right to a refund from t.he sovere.ign; as a result, in the absence
of a statute authorizing a refund, a refund of taxes could not. be
allowed unless the t.axpayer could demonst.rate that. the tax was paid
involuntarily or compulsively[;]II Cp. Att'y Gen. Fla. 75-293 (1975).:
[13] Cf. Chaffee v. Miami Transfer Company, Inc., 288 So. 2d 209
(Fla. 1974), and Cps. Attfy Gen. Fla:. 06-26 (2006) and 81-10(1981),
for the proposition that. the Attorney General is without authority
to qualify or read int.o 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 present.ed by a
particular fact.ual situation; such const.ruction 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.mytloridalegaJ.com/ago.nsf/printv iewl A 8EOF8C5AAA 4 D7 AD852577D20072... 5/28/2014
Parks and.Rec~~~ti()n.' Faciliti~s .
. .. . ·J,~pa~Fee. Study
. City: of: Sti'utb Miami,F'loriqa .
"::" "'. " .. " :".: .....
", . " -:' .
.... :'.';. ",
TlSChlerBise
IIw.&l.ft~ .~(CMtI'C.nh
TischlerBise
4701 Sangamore Road
Suite S240
Bethesda, Maryland 20816
800.424.4318
www.tischlerbise.com
lischlerBise
•• = \ ,"' •• " •• "'~\l" .. -, ... '''',
Impact Fee Study
City of South Miam~ Florida
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IMPACT FEE STUDY
City of South Miami, Florida
Impact Fee Study
City o{ 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 Irnpact 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
TlSChlerBise
...... ' !.,.~:, ... ~ :"~""''V 1. .. .-.,. 'to',
lischlerBise
Fiscal, Economic & Planning Consultants
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
4701 SANGAMORE ROAD I SUITE S240 I BETHESDA' MD 20816
T. 800.424.4318 I F: 301.320.4860
300 UNO LAGO DRIVE I SUITE 405 I NORTH PALM BEACH I FL 33408
T. 800.424.4318 I F. 301.320.4860
WWW.TISCHlERIlISE.COM
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
proportionalitv·
• 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 (i.e., 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'
Impact Fee Study
City 0/ South Miaml Florida
INTRODUCTION TO IMPACT FEES . -. ---. .. -. . -.
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. Thev 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 substantiallv advance a
legitimate governmental interest. In the case of impact fees, that Interest is In the protection of pub!!c
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, a.lthough 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 reasonablv 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 capacitv 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
2
Impact Fee Study
City oj 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
, .•• f" < '.~'.~ ,.. .... ~ •.. ·.-.i : .H": .,,:, ... ,
METHODOLOGIES 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.
CALCULAnON 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 facilit'!
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 fife and remaining capacity of facifities 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 faciffty 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
faclfities, 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.
TlSChlerBise 4
: "~: i .' ... 0; .... f. I";I··· •• ~/·:..·"'.·I ... I.
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
• I J.' , .~. '.,., t, ,-I "",;;' •• 'j. '~l'!'
Impact Fee Study
City of South Miam~ 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
Facillties (to be discussed tn 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
• ••
Parks and Recreation $18,000
Multi·Modal Transportation $18,000
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE IMPACT FEES BY TYPE OF LAND USE
Figure 3 provides a schedule of the maximum a"owable 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 recreati<?n 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
(1) PPHU Recommended multipliers are scaled to make the average value by
type of housing for Fl PUMA 4014 match the average value forthe aty derived
from 2011 American Community Survey data, with persons adjusted to the
atywlde average of 2.80 persons persingle family unit.
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, TlschlerBise 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 1
Persons multiplied by
per Net Capital Cost
Housing Unit Per Person
I
I I I
Developed plus plus
Parkland Park Recreational
(incremental) Improvements Facilities
(incremental) (cost recovery)
lischlerBise 7
.... ':' ... ~,.~~.,.~.,-.. ~ ._ ......•. "
Impact Fee Study
City 0/ South Miomi, Florida
PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS AND COSTS
DEVELOPED PARKlAND
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
Dante Fascell Park
8rewerPark
Murray Park
Fuchs Park
Marshall Williamson Park
Jean Willis (Flowering Tree) Park
Ali-America Park
Van Smith
Olson
Palmer Park/S.M. Field
South Miami Park
TOTAL
Source: aty of South Miami
Lellel of Ser'llce {LOS} Standards
10.00
10.00
7.50
1.50
3.50
5.00
3.50
0.50
1.40
1.14
1.00
9.90
34.94
Inventory of Parkland Acres 34.94
2013 a PDPulatlo!nl!!.i!' .1! .•••• !I ......... 1.1,E9m79!j
8
Impact Fee Study
CityafSouth 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 / (11,979/1,000 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 -Cost per Total
Park Improvements Units Unit Value
Handball Courts I--~~-t---~~~I-~~~
Pavilion I_--=---i---~==I_-"l:"':":'=!
Playgrounds I_--=---i---~==I_"';:;':==!
Football/Soccer Fields (Lightedll-_-!:..-~ ___ ~~~I-:2=~~
Base/Softball Fields (Lightedll-_~_-+ __ -1~~~2::~~~
Open Fields (Un"ghtedll-_~~~ ___ ~~~I-~~~
Tennis Courts I--~:..--t---~~~I-"";:~~
Bas ketball Courts 1-----=~_4_-_2~~1_-==~~
Voll eyba II Courts, Sa nd I_---=:..---i---~==I_-"l;:...;.!=!
Source: Oty of South Miami
Lellel of Service (LOS) Standards
Inventory of Park Improvements
Total Park Acres
Improvements per Acre
2013 aty Population
43
34.94
1.23
11.979
LOS: improvements per Thousand Person I 3.59
Cost Analysis
LOS; Acres perThousand Person.
Avera
lischlerBise
',:, t .," ...... ,...,_ ".~. ..,,' .,',
9
Impact Fee Study
City 0/ South MiamI, Florida
RECREATION FACIUTIES
In 2001, a need was identified for a recreational facility to serve current demands and expected
development in the aty 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 2S 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 aty 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 1: Cost Recovery -Parks and Recreation FaCilities
Total Square Cost per
FaclITt-y -------V-al-u-e---~-~ Square Foot
Murray/Gibson Bethel Comm. Cntr $2,500,000 22,032 $113
Reduction Factor }/;:~;\t;&?'·;'/'·:.{;!!Vt7~~
Share of Facility ForOty Resldentsl L.. ____ ---=1;;:6~,5=.24.:.J1
Source: Otyo/South Mioml
Level of Service (LOS) StllndDrds
Cost AnalysIs
lOS: Squa re FeetperPerson
TlSChlerBise 10
r.,.,., l' ~''''I''.; ,. .'1 "''''''Ij ! ........ , •• ,",
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
12,074
12,169 1.18 14.359
12,266 1.18 14,474
12.'363 1.18 14,588
12,460 1.18 14.703
12.559 1.18 14.820
12.658 1.18 14,936
12.759 1.18 15,056
12.859 1.18 15.174
12.961 1.18 15.294
13.064 1.18 15,416
13,167 1.18 15.537
13.271 1.18 15.660
13,376 1.18 15.784
13.482 1.18 15.909
13,589 1.18 16,035
13,696 1.18 16.161
13,805 1.18 16,290
13,914 1.18
14,024 1.18
lischlerBise 11
: , , I "" ~ ", ..... I
PROJECTION OF GROWTH-RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS
Impact Fee Study
City of South Miam~ 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
2.92 Acres perThousand Persons
Land Development
$175,000 Cost per Acre
Demand
Unit: PrOjected Demand [1)
Year
Base
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Population
11,979
12,074
12,169
12,266
12,363
12,460
12,559
12,658
12,759
12,859
12,961
Park Acres 1m rovements
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 Necessa ry Parkland $245,791
Cost of Necessary Improvements $203,825
Cost of Necessary Parkland
Cost of Necessa ry Improvements $416,125
(1) Shown as rounded numbers
lischlerBise
~ •• ~ 1·'1<: ............ "."-",, .• , . <~, ... ! •. ""
3.59 ImprovementThousand 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 ($18,000) 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 Prepara"tion Cost (Parks and Recreation Portion)
Fee Component Residential
Proportionate Share 100%
Cons ulta nt Fee $18,000 $18,000
lischlerBise 13
.... , .,0, ............ ,-......... .
CREDIT FOR FUTURE PRINCIPAL PAYMENTS
Impact Fee Study
City oj 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 ofthe 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
lischlerBise
,· •••. ;.·-.,:-... ,.~ ........ ;" .... r'~ .• '·.
Fiscal
Year
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
TOTAL
Principal Persons
$60.000 12,074
$65,000 12,169
$70,000 12,266
$75,000 12,363
$75,000 12,460
$80,000 12,S59
$85,000 12,658
$90,000 12,759
$90,000 12,859
$95,000 12,961
$100,000 13,064
$105,000 13,167
$110.000 13,271
$120,000 13,376
$125,000 13,482
$130,000 13,589
$135,000 13,696
$1,610,000
Discount Rate-
Net Present Value
• Average estimated interest rate over life of loan.
Source: City of South Miami
$4.97
$5.34
$S.71
$6.07
$6.02
$6.37
$6.72
$7.05
$7.00
$7.33
$7.65
$7.97
$8.29
$8.97
$9.27
$9.57
$9.86
$124.16
4.00~
$85.51
14
Impact Fee Study
City of 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 Capitol Costs
Parkland land Development
Developed Parks
Per Person
$511.00
$423.75
$133.34
lischlerBise
j ," •• " , .... , #"" -'. ,."." • l ";. , .•. ~ •.
Park Improvements
Parks and Recreation Facilities
Impact Fee Study $37.42
[1] PPHU Recommended multipliers are scaled to make the average value by
type of housing for Fl PUMA 4014 match the average value for the City derived
from 2011 America n Community Survey data, with persons adjusted to the
Citywide average of 2.80 persons per single family unit.
15
Impact Fee Study
City 0/ South Mlam~ Florida
CASH FLOW PROJECTIONS
" 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 bv 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 forthe recreational facility.
Figure 13: Cash Flow Summary
lischlelSise
. 0'''; I.f...,.,..-' .... :-.~ .. ~.~ .. , .......... ,~ ••••
Parks and Recreation Cash Flow 2013-2023
Net Cost per Population
New Population [1]
Revenues
Potential Revenue, 2013-2023 (rounded)
$1,020.00
982
$1,001,643
_ _. _ . _ -. -Cos ts -. . -. .
Parks and Recreation Necessary improvements
Recreation Facility Debt Service [2]
Impact Fee Study
Total Capital Costs, 2013·2023
$917,927
$1,332,483
$18,000
$2,268,410
Cash Flow -.
Cumulative Surplus/(De/1c/t) ($1,266,768)
[1] TIschlerBise, Land Use AssumptIons
[2] Reflects the total debt service obligation (principal and interest)
16
IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION
Impact Fee Study
City oj South Mlam~ 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.
17
Impact Fee Study
City of South Miaml Florida
ApPENDIX A-LAND USE ASSUMPTI()NS--_~ ____________ ~
INTRODUCTION
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, TischlerBlse
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.
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: Citv of South Miami Residential Structures
Property Type
Single Family
Condominium
Multifamily
Total
Units Structure
2,854
789 .....
3,643
Source: Mia mi-Dade County Property Appraiser. (lJul13)
2013 Assessment Roll Change bV PropertvTvpe
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 Al5: Residential Housing Units in the Citv of South Miami
Structure Type
Single Unit [31
2+ Units
Total
2011 Base Year _10 iI y_
3,643
1,988
5,631
[1) U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates: Table B25024
[2) Ci ty of South Mi a mi
[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: (1) Single Unit and (2) 2+ Unit. (Further discussion on housing
characteristics by housing unit type and bedroom count is provided at the end of this memo.)
lischlerBise 19
, ' •. I ....... ,', ".-~ ." : . ' •. '~ .\.
PERSONS PER HOUSING UNIT
Impact Fee Studv
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
infrast.ructure 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 ~ureau .
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 Tvpe of Unit, 2011 American Communltv Survey
Group Quarters __ --:;..;;;.... ___ _
TOTAL 5
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey
20
Impact Fee Study
City oj 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 JulV 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
Populotion estimates [lJ Populotion Estimates [2J
CltyOfSouthMlami~~~~~~m~~~=II!_II.=II=11111
Mlami·Dade county,--,,,-,,,;~;;,--==::,:=--"""'::'7.::=:'-=~~-"'==-:?'=l.......:=-=:~:?,-_~~~
CI tv share of County
III u.s. Census: Intercensal Population Estimates
(21 Florida Office of Demographic Re.e."h: County Population Projections
(31 Florida Offtce of Demogra phlc Research: County Population ProJection. Ow projection calculated
from .46% City sha re of County populat1on trend
lischlerBise ; .,,' ~, ..... ,-" ,'.-..•. /.( , ...... ,,<,
Exponent!.1 Growth Rates
2006-10 2010·33
w~~1f1~~~~: iE~i;~~
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
basec;l 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 fQr 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
Persons Persons per
UnTt Type
Multifamily Units Total I;;,;,;.;~=;:..;&.:; __ ';"';;;~;;.;;.J.. _______ __
GRAND TOTAL 5,472 2,469
[1) American Community Survey. Public Use Mlc~odata Sample for FL PUMA
04014 (unwelghted 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 Otywide 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 of the impact fees.
TlSChlerBise 22
I" J 1 • .".0'-'''''' A. ... y..,.~1: .... "' ............ .
Figure A19: Population and Housing Unit Projections in City of South Miami, 2013 -2033
SUMMARY OF DEMAND PROJECTIONS (City Limits)
TOTAL YEAR-ROUND POPUlA1l0N 0.79%
TOTAL HOUSING UNITS
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Housing Units
singleUnl1s
Multifamily Units
TOTAL
2.Z9 PPHU
20ll
65%
35%
Source: Florida Office of Demographic Research; aty of South Miami; TischlerBise
lischlerBise
•••• ,J •••• " ...... , .. t.t>....,,,, .• 'Ii, ............ ,,. .• (;
Impact Fee Study
City of South Miami, Florida
23
Impact Fee Study
City 0/ South Miam~ Florida
APPENDIX B -FLORIDA STATUTE: 163.31801 ---
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 com~lies 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.
lischlerBise 24
1.·:.1I •• · ... · ... '..;~II\J/ ... ''t·'''"' ... tl''l.
., ... ;",.'
:".
City of South Miami
.. 1 Ii. . . .1 .... i . J i .....
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
MULTI MODAL 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 MIAMI 12
FIGURE 7 MULTI MODAL 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, j Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
1... .. t
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
:3 ..
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 uninc~rporated areas could either create new
MIAM.-..... r~ ...
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
I.. . : . .t ... . .t. . . .. 1..22 . ." .......... f
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 polici~s 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
aker
SW 88th St
Pinecrest
SW 9Znd St ~
'"
a: L ; !kS J . i illL. at i'
SW 91\1 SI
Source: Michael Baker Jr., Inc., 2013.
3 Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
.. 112 .. _2_ .. L.2 .... __ 1 . 3 ._5t __ .... _.' E. __ 6 _z. .•. LiL ... £Ii. La _ .... _._B. • .LI.J5.. ... _ ..
Figure 2
Changes After the Repeal of the Growth Management Act
OLD. _ U98H01O)
Reqo~approval from
the fJorida ~t --
of COmmunity Affairs.
Staffed by 61 planners
and assistants.
OLD Developers were required to pay for
Improvements to streets. schools. parks.
water. garbage. drainage and sewer
systems their developments would cause to -
fail below standards.
NEW -.
(ASOFaa.1,201I) can ohIVobJett on
grounds ofnepllve
Impact to "tmpOi'tant
state resourcas and -
fadJJtles: now undeflned. .m'::"_ .. :iUty stiffed by 32 _nmlnd ..
assistants.
NEW local governments are now
responsible for controlling the Impact of
growth on streets. schools and parks.
Source: Northeast Florida Regional Council
aker 4 Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
J :.
South Miami Concurrency Management System
Florida Statute 163.3180(1 b), Concurrency, states that "The local goverqment 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 ofFS 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 wiJJ
be conducted to maintain the LOS standards set forth in the comprehensive plan. As ~ew
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 andlor CC andlor CO andlor 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 concurrepcy
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 Re U1red) Exempt Projects No Concurrency Re utred) ''4'
• New development on vacant land. 0 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 0 Single-family and two-family residences on
25 spaces. previously platted lots.
0 Public uses that the City Commission finds essential
to the health and safety of city residents.
0 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
. .L LiM .. _.2 .. _3. _.L 2.. 1. ... J.i 3 3. J . _ .. J . ;, .. & I.. .i. i..._
Table 2
_ _ South Miami LOS Standards
r5:~~_·~'~===~:~;._~=-3~.~~~2~:_~·.~~·; _"!::~~a""i~~~~=--'~7r~:~~=~. $' -:":.. ~~:~~
-South Cixle Highway -150% of "C· Capacity
-Bird Road -120% of"e" Capacity
-Principal and Minor Arterials (Sunset Crive, Red Road, and Kendall Crive) -"F" Capacity
-Collectors (SW 48111 Street, Miller Crive, SW 62"d Avenue, and Ludlam Road) -"E" Capacity (except those located in
the County's Urban Infill Area" which are exempt from concurrency review)
-Certain are exempt if they are located in the Urban Infin Area
Because much of the Cityis 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 andlor 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
i ".""~ ," "9~"''/ ;.l~:~;"lA~~S .·1 •...... ~. . ..... ~ ...... Jf
j
t: ."
E ',HISTORIC; ',,~~ " ;T I
~~ISTR!CT' ' ,. ' ',,"1,':--::, I L ' .....
" ',~ 'E . "..11.
eo.~:' : a ~ It.
4th,. S t .~:~:"
, " .. ~'
~ p
! •
• ~,' SW; 68th St
. , -. "'-' .
. .....
~ SW 76thSt" ' ,~
'" ....
Source: Michael Baker Jr., Inc.
Citywide Transportation Capacity Assessment
Li
The previous section identified the current LOS standards for various roads within the City. In
order to determine jf 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
I.._.L .... L n,... .. 3 . u.s s .. .JL
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 (FDOT) Generic Cost Per Mile Models worksheet
(updated AprilS, 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
Table 3
FDOT's Generic Cost Per Mile Models
Description
Add 2 Lanes to Existing 2 Lane Urban Undivided Arterial (1 Lane Each Side) with
4' Bike Lanes
Widen 2 Lane Urban Arterial to 4 Lane Divided with 22' Median & 4' Bike Lanes
Add 2 Lanes to Existing 3 Lane Urban Undivided Arterial (1 Lane Each Side) with
Center Tum Lane & 4' Bike Lanes
Widen 4 Lane Urban Divided'Arterial to 6 Lane Urban Divided with 22' Median & 4'
Bike Lanes
Widen 6 Lane Urban Divided Arterial to 8 Lane Urban Divided with 4' Bike Lanes
Two Directional 12' Shared Use Path
Sidewalk Construction -5' One Side, 4" Depth
Source: FDOrs Generic Cost Per Mile Models worksheet (updated Aoril8, 2013),
Cost Per Mile
$3,472,028
$4,065,273
$3,637,222
$3,774,587
$4,276,798
$231279
$110,392
aker 8 Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
.. ; .. L . X 5 : ,
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 multimodal 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 FOOT, 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: I) 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 multi modal 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 jor the Creation and Evaluation ojTransportation 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
.. i.J '" L . L. il... ; 1 .. J:..i t. ut .. ..:.. ; " L. .L Jt £.. ....... ;;
• 1&1 Support Mobility
• I&J Fund Mobility
• 0 Support the Purpose of the Designation (urban infill, urban redevelopment, downtown
revitalization, urban infill and redevelopment)
• 0 Implement Alternative Modes of Travel
• I2SI Demonstrate How Mobility will be Provided
• 0 Address Urban Design
• I2SI Identify Appropriate Land Uses Mixes
• 1&1 Establish Minimum Intensity and Density Standards for Development
• 181 Address Network Connectivity
• 0 Mitigate. Impacts to the Strategic Intermodal System (SIS)
0= Covered in the City's Comprehensive Plan
1&1 = 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 multimodal
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
.t 33 & ... i .... J ..... _. .... J; : .. kQ£ .;2.11
Figure 5
Miami-Dade County TCEA Comprehensive Plan Comparison
Goals, objeclives, and policles that support Miam~D.do's
TCEA ' ... "",s.; 10m. rad",!o ant and CreMID Basic TCEA Requirements Other Elements
Jurisdictions In
Urban Inflll
Area'
Miami-Dade Counlv
Aventura 2
Bel Harbour 0
Golden Beach 0
Hialeah 0
indian Creek Village 0
Key Blscayna 0
Medley 0
Miami 2
Miami Beach 0
Miami Gardens 0
Miami Lakes 0
Miami Shores 0
Miami 51: rinas 0
North Bay VHlaae 0
North Miami 3
North Miami B.ach 0
Cos-Lock. 0
Palmetto Bay 0
Plnecrast 0
South Miami 2
Sunny Isles Beach 0
Surfsld. 0
Vlralnla Gardens 0
West Miami 0
RatlnQ Scale
X
X QI
x x
X X
X x X
X X
X X
X
X X X
X
X x X
x x x x x
X X X X
X
X x X X x x X X
X X X X X X X
X X X x x
x X X x X X X
X X X
X
x x x x x x X
x
x
o -Does not mention a TCEA or references the future designation of a TCEA.
1 -DeSignates a TCEA but addresses few if any of the evaluation criteria.
x X
x X X
X x
X X
X X x x
x
X Xx
X X
X X
x
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
X
x x
X X X
x
X
X X
X X
(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.
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 andfor TCMAs but do not actually designate either one in either
city.
(4) RCEA = Redevelopment Concurrency Exception Area
UDS = 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
. .3 . L.... .; ..... 3 .. 3 .. ilJ..JL.. L. £i. ... ; . ..,', _'._ '._ ;._F J .f, J
Figure 6 .
. Multi·Modal Transportation Options in and Around South Miami " .
.1
.~eg~~ ,.~: .... •. i'.
. . Metror.atl ~t .. tl"r;';'
. ;' .'-.. ~;.
/ . -. . B.~lS ~.tgp
/.
SW 76th St
OMel.and Mall
.. '
aker
• .. SW 88th St
Source: Michael Baker Jr., Inc., 2013.
12
SW 8,ith S'
N Kendall Dr
Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
l1li support Mobility
l1li Fund MoblUly
iii Support tho Purpooe 01 the Dellgnatlon (urban InUlI, urban ",do.elopmen~
downtown ",vllanzallon. urban Inlill and RId ••• lapmenll
if Implement Altemattv8 Modis of flaysl
~ ~
$30,000
$1$,000
$S,ooo
$S,ooo
13 Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
. .1. ••
Multimodal Transportation Districts (MMTD)
; . Ii ; .• Ii L
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 oj 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 improv~ments 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,
recreationa:l, 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
Analyze Land Us. Mix and O'llanlzatlon
Analyze Network Connecllvlty
DeHne Modal Network
Areawlde QualllylLevel of S.Me. Analyala
~ ~
$10,000
$25,000
$25,000
15 Concurrency Review Study
City "of South Miami
",j ,
Figure 7
Multimodal Transportation District Checklist
Cliteria for a Multimodal Indicators for a Successful Contra-Indicators
Transportation District District for a District
• Size of District too
• Min. Residential Pop: 5,000 small or too large to
Appropriate Scale of • Minimum Population/Jobs support appropriate
Development Ratio: 2to 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 Land uses spaced located within the typically •
Acceptable Separation of Land acceptable range for walking too far apart for
Uses (1/4 to 14 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 marainal [)Otential 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 usage
Reglonallntermodal • 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
Netvvork recommended minimum of 50 • Unconnected street
polygons per square mile pattern with cul-de-
• Connected street pattern, sacs and dead ends
generallv arldllke
• Meets recommended Level of
Service standards for each
mode
• Transit oriented development
Acceptable Levels of Service pedestrian, transi~ 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: FOOT's Multimodal Transportation Districts and Areawide Quality of Service Handbook.
aker 16 Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
.1 J.. .2._ : .. 3.. .. : _.z.. .. .. li!iLl 3 . . . 1 .. n. "--
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.
Emergenc;y Services LOSAnalys;s
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 jndicates 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 stafi"mg 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
fa ..... ,._ ..
~
t.1
:E
"-4
N
:::3 a.
~
SW 76th St
aker
:a :. I. & L . kt. , .
Figure 8
MO'SDltal Facilities in South Miami
i.~ .
SW Mth s'
SW 88th St N Kendall Dr
Source: Michael Baker Jr., Inc., 2013.
18 Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
aLl.. . £ _ aa_ .L .....• L ....
Fire and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) -Miami-Dade Fire Rescue (MOFR) 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 of Pinecrest also relies on MOFR. According to the County's Public Safety
Mu/amado/ LOSAnal,ysis
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 MOFR if ultimately
annexed by the City.
Figure 9 illustrates the generalized annual average daily volumes for Florida's urbanized areas
as obtained from the FOOT's 20]3 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 multimodaJ transportation
features, the FOOT'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
S J.
Figure 9
Annual AVAr::!IOA Volumes for Urbanized Areas ~--~--------~~~~~~~~~----
BICYCLE MODEl
(Multiply .l1OIorized vehicle volumes shown below by lIU.uber of
directional roadway Ia""" 10 deleruliDo lWo-way maldl/UllU seMee
volumes.)
Paved
ShoulderfBicyc!e
Lane Coveuge
049%
5()"S4%
85·100%
BCD
* 2,900 7 p600
2,100 6,700 19,700
9,300 19,700 >19,700
PEDESTRIAN MODEz
....
(Multiply rllOloriud vehicle volumes ShoWII below by munbor of
di1~etiolllll roadway lanes to detemliDo lWo-way IIlIlliimum sr:wice
vohrnleS.)
Sidewalk Coverage B C
0-49% .. *
5()"S4% .. 1,600
S5·100% 3,SOO 10,700
D
2,SOO
8,700
17,400
BUS MODE (Scheduled Fixed Route)J
(BlIses ill peak hour ill peek dire.lion)
Sidewalk CO"'Ilrage D C D E
0·84% > 5 2: 3 2 2
85-100% > oJ 22: 1
Source: FOOT's 2013 Quality/Level of Service Handbook.
: ; a ;;
aker 20 Concurrency Review Study
City of South Miami
2.l.S ... L.5.11I . Q . ; .1 ... I. . . ... 1;/
Summary and Recommendations
Th~ 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-enhanci]lg 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 multimodal infi'astnlcture plan). The TCEA concept is a."l 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
a~so 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 <;::ity 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
~~~.".I.!!!~~~!?_.l.!'1iamiHera:::ld::.:.t:.:o;:.:m,--__ _
VILLAGE OF PINECREST
Public Notice
On Tuesday, July 8,201.4, 01 8:00 p.m., the Village Council will conduct the
following Public Hea!i~9 to be held ot the Pinecrest Municipal Center, Council
Chamber, 1 ~6.45 ,Pi~~crestParlcway, Pinecrest, Florida:
Hearing #2014.o:i:082( Christ the King lutheron Church, the opplicant, is requesting
approval 01 0 conditional use permit and omended site development plan lor the
establishment 01. 0 14.400 squore foot daycore and pre-school/kindergarten lor 216
students within ;a;n e~is"tl.ng building In the PS Distrld with proposed site improvements to
include· addi6oiiOl·lOljrucaping, fencing and improvement 01 16 parking spaces lor the
property IOCOte~c~X:1~r~,s Red Rood.
All !"';';'ed"pa;,,,,;o;.'~ig~d 10000ei!d. Ob)8dioN or .. p .... ;. .. oIapproYU1 may be modo in per .... a11ho
heorios or ~Ied in..m,;ng'prioi' '" .fat""' hooring. IntomrecI poOi .. raquesIing information ore asked '" conlllCl
'he Build;ng .od ffoMirie .. O.pa. ...... by c:oUi"ll 305.234.2121, \'io" ..... 1 al plonning@pinllcre.1-II.gov ct
wrlH"9 '" "'" .doportmont ... ·.1i!645 Pi.ocm/ Porkway. Pin"", ... '. Florida 33156. Refar '" !he Hoati"ll Number
when ma~ 'on. inqLliry.
In =otdon,:~ .. wilh!ho Ametieoft. wilh OIsohil~'" Ad 01 1990. 011 P""""' who ore di.abled and who ....,
",","of accommodatio., 10 por1icipalo in Ibis m .... "'S because .1 that .""bllily .... vId conlUd "'e V'dIog. Clerk al
(lOS) 2342121 not 1000' than foo, business days prior 10 such proceeding.
Should any porion docido '" appeal ony dec:U;',. 01"'. Villose Council wi'" ra.pocIlo any ...... r considered 01
aut:h meclirtg Of hearing, that perlOn win need a ,ecord of the pn:III::ecdinlP und, for SUQ purposo, moy need 10
cnsutO Ihcd a w:.ba1im tocord of lbo proceedings G cncde. whida rcc:ord indvd'es the lestimony ond evidence upon
wt.~ ,he appeal is 10 be based (F.S. 286.0105).
Guido H.ingUGnzo, Jr., CMC
Vi1fogeC1erl:
www.pinecrest-f1.g0Y
Priced to sell at $864,600
1211 Mariana Ave, Coral Gables, FL 33134
SE SUNDAY~J.~~~, 2DliL29~~. •. ;.
. ..s:
. ;.' .' .. . ' " ..
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
COURTESY NOTICE
NonCE IS HEIIEBY given lllal me CUy Commission 01 \he CUy 01 Sou\!I Miami, Florida will conduct Public
HeariniJ(s) al its regular City Commlssiun meeting SCheduled lor T!H!sday. June 17. 2014 bsginning al
7:00 p.m., In \he City Commission CIlambl!rs, 6130SVnset Drive, to consider \he klilowing item(s):
A Resolution authOrizing 1IIe CIty Managerlo enlerinlll a fiVe (5) year cont!aclagreem"nt willi W Parldng.
inc. for an amount ROllo elU:eed $1.120,419 for a fiVe (5) year period.
A Resolution lor Special Use Approval to perm~ a generat rel;lauranlaI5701 Sunsel Drive. ShoPli al
Sunset PIal:e Unit Cl1D, within tI1a Specialty RetaR "SR', Hometown Oislrit1 Overlay "HO-oY".
A Resolution amending a Special UseApproval \0 permit a pubDc carwash at 5795 South Dixie Highway,
within lIIe TODD UghllntllJSlrial "TODD-U4" zoning usa distritt.
A Resolution aulilOrizing 1IIe City ManagerlD enter into a !We (5) year contract wiIIlBidera LLC Real Estate
and Auctiun Sermes lor as;et IiquIclIlllng &CI'IbIs.
(
An Onfl113llCe amending Sedillo 7-3 olllle Code or Ordinances Indudi~ !he establislvn8llt ot a parks)
and recrvation facilities lmpad lee caIegory, and creating Section 7-3.2 establishing regulaliuns lor !he
collectkm 01 Impact lees.
AllIn1Eresled parties I18lnvt1ed to attend and will be heanI.
for Iur1Iu:r information. pIASe contact 111" City Clerk':! 0Ifie0 at 305-663-6340.
Malia M. Mel1l!lldez, CMC
CllyCiork
_1D __ 2lIII.D1OS.1l1eClly __ lbepWlcIlcllHap ........ _IlIlPl'A1aRY_ ..... O'1hI&_
AGeOCV .. _dl_ .. .., __ lIl1scnu1l11; .. IIeaMg ..... ''''wiI....s.lOCOIl101l11t __ 1IIl11ha1 .. r __ IIIcdedP<l1llllIfflt/IlilldID ...... IITaI. __ oIl1IeplllCll .... b_wIIlch __ ,.. _ara ___ lle_ls .. ba_
Spectacular, move-in-ready, Spanish-Alhambra style Coral Gables home.
Built in 2002 with all the modern amenities including impact windows yet
with details, feel and charm of a 1926 home. Located in the North Gables section
of Coral Gables where you are centrally located to the best schools, shopping
and dining while remaining in on enclave of elegance and greenery.
(.
[.A;BA
.,. ') 1l1~~~~
Calixto A. Navarro
CABA Real Estate
calixtarea lestate@gmail.cam • 2,515sf • 3 Bedroom, 3 Bath • Formal dining room • Family rcom
• Cozy court yard with fountain • Romeo and Juliet balconies • Marble master
bath with steam shower
cell: 786-210-8713
You've Got A Friend in the Real Estate Business
MIAMI DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW
PubITshed Oally except Saturday. Sunday and
Legal HoIlilays
Miami. M'l8ml·Dade County. Florida
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE:
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared
M. ZALDIVAR. who on oath says that he or she is the
LEGAL CLERK. Legal Notices of the Miami Daily Business
Review flk/a Miami Review. a dally (except Saturday. Sunday
and legal Holidays) newspaper. published at Miami In Miami-Dade
County. Florida; that the attached coPy of advertisement,
being a Legal Advertisement of Notice In the matter of
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR JUNE 17.2014
in the XXXX Court.
was published in said newspaper In the issues of .
0610612014
Affiant further says that the said Miami Dally Business
Review is a newspaper published at Miami in said Miami-Dade
County, Florida and that the said newspaper has
heretofore been continuously published In said Miami-Dade County.
Florida, each day (except Saturday. Sunday and Legal Holidays)
end f1as been entered as second class mall matter at the post
office In Miami In said Miami-Dade County. Florida, for a
period of one year next preceding the first publication of the
attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he or
she has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporatton
any discount. rebate. comrriisslon or refund for the purpose
of securing this advertisement for bllcation In the said
newspaper.
(SEAL)
M. ZALDIVAR personally known to me
m'" !4-. B. THOMAS ~p;~ ~'\ Notary PubliC -Slate 01 florida I. .l My Comm. Expires Nov 2. 2011 ~ \ .. ~ W Commission /I Ff 034747 ~' ... ,Iff,:,~""" Bon4ed Through National Notary Assn •.. -
Photos, Movie Filimg and Farmer's Market Municipality Price Comparisons
City of Coral Gables
Commercial Permits
Still Photography $ 66 per day/per location
Video/Movie $ 303 per day/per location
Still Photography at City Facilities $ 424 per day/per location
Video/Movie at City Facilities $ I, I 02 per day/per location
Residential Permits
Still Photography $ 193 per 3 days
Video/Movie Photography $ 193 per 3 days
Major Motion Picture $ 331 per 14 days
Country Club Prado -Park
Still Photography $ 88 per day/per location
Video/Movie $ 303 per day/per location
Vanetian Pool
Still Photography $ 485 per day/per location
Video/Movie $ 303 per day/per location
Farmer's Market $30 per booth per Saturday Oanuary -March)
$250 per booth for I I weeks from January -March
Village of Pinecrest
Personal Photograhy at Pinecrest Gardens $ 100 per day
Commercial Stills at Pinecrest Gardens $ 1.000 per day
Commercial Film at the Pinecrest Gardens $ 1,500 per day
No Charges for the use of private homes, fees generated through Miami Dade
County, not the Village of Pinecrest.
Farmer's Market $1000 per week in the month on November
$1.400 per week in the months of December through April
$ 500 per week in the months of May through October
Village of Palmetto Bay
Video Commercial/Film/Movies only in the parks $ 428 per day
Commercial Photography/ Photo Shoot only in the parks $ 214 per day
Personal Photography/Photo Shoot $ 80.25 per day
No charges for the use of private homes, fees generated through Miami Dade
County, not the Vii/age of Palmetto Bay.
Farmer's Market None
Town of Cutler Bay
Video Commercial/Film/Movies all are taken care of through Miami Dade County Film Dept. (Cost taken care of through Miami Dade County Film Dept.)
If a Special Event Permit is needed for the above mentioned the fee the charge would be $106.88
(Police services are charged seperately)
Farmer's Market None
ORDINANCE NO. 04-11-2077
An Ordinance of the Mayor and the City Commission of the City of South
. Miami, Florida relating to the fee schedule; amending ordinance 21-09-2013
as amended by ordinances to increase some fees, adding new fees, and
deleting some fees from the schedule, providing for severability, ordinances
in conflict, and an effective date.
WHEREAS, the City reviewed fees schedules for Miami-Dade County and several
municipalities; and,
WHEREAS, the City found that fees for the County and other municipalities are higher than
those fees included in the South Miami Fee Schedule; and,
WHEREAS, the cost of services for Planning; Building; Parking; Parks & Recreation; Public
Works; Central Services; and other related fees increased considerably in the past year with new
services being requested; and,
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission desire to adopt a new Fee Schedule allowing
funding which will cover the cost of services provided; and,
WHEREAS, any such fees may be waived or reduced by the majority vote of the Mayor and
City Commission by way of resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MA YOR AND CITY COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. That Ordinance 21-09-2013 shall be amended by this Ordinance by replacing
the Permit Fee IFee Schedule with the amended Permit Feel Fee Schedule as attached.
Section 2. If any section, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, the holding shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 3. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance are repealed.
Section 4. Any such fees may be waived or reduced by the Mayor and City Commission
by way of resolution.
Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of January ;:2011.
Schedule to Fees Revised FY 11 Page lof2
Additions shown by underlining and deletions shown by e~
Ord. No. 04-11-2077
ATTEST:
1 st Reading 1 2 / 1 3 / 1 0
2nd Reading 1 / 4 / 11
APPROVED:
COMMISSION VOTE: 4-0
READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND SUFFICIENCY:
(~ ~ip
CITY ATTORN
Mayor Stoddard:
Vice Mayor Newman:
Commissioner Palmer:
Commissioner Beasley:
Commissioner Harris:
W:\My Documents\resolutions\Ordinance Schedule offees update.doc
Schedule to Fees Revised FY 11 Page 2 of2
Additions shown by underlining and deletions shown by oV0FStrildfig.
Yea
absent
Yea
Yea
Yea
To:
Via:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Background:
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
South Miaini
2001.
The Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Commission
Hector Mirabile, PhD, City Manager /1 . 0 _ ~
Alfredo Riverol, CPA, Cr.FA, Chief financial Officer ~
December 7,2010 Agenda Item No.:H
An Ordinance of the Mayor and the City Commission of the City of South
Miami, Florida relating to the fee schedule; amending ordinance 21-09-2013 as'
amended by ordinances to increase some fees, adding new fees, and deleting
some fees from the schedule, providing for severability, ordinances in conflict,
and an effective date.
The City reviewed fees schedules for Miami-Dade County and several
municipalities. The City found that fees for the County and other municipalities
are higher than those fees included in the South Miami Fee'Schedule. The cost
of services for Planning; Building; Parking; Parks & Recreation; Public Works;
Central Services; ~d other related fees increased considerably in the past year
with new services being requested. The Mayor and City Commission desire to
adopt a new Fee Schedule allowing funding which will cov:er the cost of services
provided. Any such fees may be waived or reduced by the majority vote of the
Mayor and City Commission by way of resolution.
Backup
Documentation:
• Schedule of fees.
Miami-Dade County Information Technology Department·
Inter/ocal Service and Maintenance Agreement
MIAMI .• .oE BiI!lhi1
and material basis as mutually approved by the parties. The County will develop a scope of work
and project plan that meets business needs in the most cost effective manner.
$125.00 N/A
-22-
PARKING MONTHLY RATES FROM VARIOUS MUNICIPALITIES & GARAGES:
AGENCY
City of Coral Gables·
Miami Parking Authority
Town of Surfside
South Miami Municipal Garage
Sunset Place Garage
Town Kitchen & Bar Gara.ge
1st NationaLBank ofSM
RATES (S)
',':.,:,, .,',' :',:;:",' ""'>:'>\~:"',:':' ':': ,,' ",' " " '
Between $90.95 & $101.65
BetWeen$65.0Cf&$155.00
$69;55 per Month
Betweeri $57.95 & $68.00
$70;00 per Month
. $58.$5 per Month
As required per the agreement executed July 27, 2011, please find below our annual monthly
rate survey and the associated recommendations for current monthly rates of on-street
permits in the City of South Miami.
It is our recommendation that the current rate of $65.00 including tax per Month is adequately and
suggestively reasonably priced, when considering the demographics and use of the indicated areas.
The current fee structure is based on the fair market value rate, and lower to local and neighboring
municipalities with a base calculation for monthly rates.
While aligning with the City's objectives, in creating an environment that is conducive to a vibrant
downtown in conjunction with a pleasant parking experience, we concur that the currently established
fee structure for the ~f monthly permits in the ~th Miami is indeeG!-compatible to the
market rate value. It is our intention to encourage the continued success through our efforts of carefully
evaluating our proposed pricing considerations, which further appropriately encourages and supports
local attractions, activities, shops and restaurants in achieving their objectives.
Carlos Marenco
August 14, 2014