HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017 09 18 Public Hearings 406 Ordinance 2017-16, First Reading, Update City's Police, Fire, and Parks and Recreation Impact Fees
&200,66,21$*(1'$
,QIRUPDWLRQDO
&RQVHQW
,7(0
3XEOLF+HDULQJV
;
5HJXODU
6HSWHPEHU
WKLVGRHVLPSDFWGHYHORSPHQWGHFLVLRQV
5DIWHOLV)LQDQFLDO&RQVXOWDQWV,QFUHFHQWO\FRPSOHWHGD3ROLFHDQG3DUNVDQG
z
5HFUHDWLRQ,PSDFW)HH6WXG\5HSRUWDWWDFKHGDV([KLELW%5DIWHOLVZRUNHGZLWK
6WDIIWRUHYLHZWKHDQWLFLSDWHGGHYHORSPHQWDFWLYLW\LQWKH&LW\DQGWKHIXWXUHQHHGV
RIWKH3ROLFHDQG3DUNVDQG5HFUHDWLRQ'HSDUWPHQWVEDVHGRQWKHSURMHFWHGEXLOGRXW
RIWKH&LW\5DIWHOLVGHWHUPLQHGWKDWWKHFXUUHQWOHYHOVRI3ROLFHDQG3DUNVDQG
5HFUHDWLRQ,PSDFW)HHVVKRXOGEHDGMXVWHGDVIROORZVEDVHGRQWKHLUILQGLQJVDQG
UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV
3ROLFH3DUNVDQG
5HFUHDWLRQ
&XUUHQW
5HVLGHQWLDO
&RPPHUFLDO 6)1$
3URSRVHG
5HVLGHQWLDOHYHORSPHQW)RUDOOW\SHVRIUHVLGHQWLDOGHYHORSPHQW
WKHSURSRVHG)LUH,PSDFW)HHLQ2UGLQDQFH
7DEOHEHORZVKRZVDFRPSDULVRQRIWKHWRWDO&LW\LPSDFWIHHVWKDWZRXOGEH
z
FKDUJHGWRVHYHUDOFRPPRQW\SHVRIQHZGHYHORSPHQW
7DEOH
2OGYV1HZ,PSDFW)HH&RPSDULVRQ
6LQJOH)DPLO\$SDUWPHQW6))DVW6)
5HVLGHQFH8QLW)RRG5HVWDXUDQW*URFHU\6WRUH
2OG
7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ' ϯK&ϰͲ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϭϴ͕ϮϬϭϳ
WKH&LW\¶V6HUYHU$GGLWLRQDOO\SRUWLRQVRIWKLV$JHQGD,WHPDUHW\SHGYHUEDWLPRQWKH
UHVSHFWLYH0HHWLQJ$JHQGDZKLFKKDVDOVREHHQHOHFWURQLFDOO\IRUZDUGHGWRWKHLQGLYLGXDOV
QRWHGDERYHDQGZKLFKLVDOVRDYDLODEOHRQWKH&LW\¶V:HEVLWH/DVHU)LFKHDQGWKH&LW\¶V
6HUYHU KDVEHHQVHQWWRDSSOLFDEOH&LW\6WDII0HGLD3UHVV5HSUHVHQWDWLYHVZKRKDYH
UHTXHVWHG$JHQGDV$JHQGD,WHPLQIRUPDWLRQ+RPHRZQHU¶V$VVRFLDWLRQV5HSUHVHQWDWLYHV
RQILOHZLWKWKH&LW\DQGDOOLQGLYLGXDOVZKRKDYHUHTXHVWHGVXFKLQIRUPDWLRQ7KLV
LQIRUPDWLRQKDVDOVREHHQSRVWHGRXWVLGH&LW\+DOOSRVWHGLQVLGH&LW\+DOOZLWKDGGLWLRQDO
FRSLHVDYDLODEOHIRUWKH*HQHUDO3XEOLFDQGSRVWHGDWVL[
GLIIHUHQWORFDWLRQVDURXQGWKH
&LW\)XUWKHUPRUHWKLVLQIRUPDWLRQLVDOVRDYDLODEOHWRDQ\LQGLYLGXDOUHTXHVWRUV&LW\6WDII
LVDOZD\VZLOOLQJWRGLVFXVVWKLV$JHQGD,WHPRUDQ\$JHQGD,WHPZLWKDQ\LQWHUHVWHG
LQGLYLGXDOV
5(&200(1'$7,21
6WDIIUHFRPPHQGVWKH&RPPLVVLRQDSSURYHWKH)LUVW5HDGLQJRI2UGLQDQFH1R
EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE NO. 2017 -16
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES CHAPTER 9, ARTICLE VIII, IMPACT FEES, BY
AMENDING POLICE, FIRE, AND PARKS AND RECREATION
IMPACT FEES; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF PRIOR
INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS,
INCORPORATION INTO THE CODE, SEVERABILITY, AND
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Winter Springs, Florida, has previously found
and determined it to be in the best interest of the safety, health, and welfare of the citizens of the City of
Winter Springs to establish police, fire, and parks and recreation impact fees to require new
development to pay their equitable share of public improvements that must be constructed to serve new
growth; and
WHEREAS, the City has retained Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. ( "Raftelis ") to conduct a
periodic reassessment of the City's police and parks and recreation impact fees and to prepare a report
on the appropriateness of the City's current impact fees; and
WHEREAS, Raftelis has reviewed the current police and parks and recreation impact fees and
anticipated development activity and has determined that the current levels of police and parks and
recreation impact fees should be adjusted in accordance with the findings and recommendation set forth
in their City of Winter Springs 2017 Police and Parks & Recreation Impact Fee Study Report, dated
August 17, 2017; and
WHEREAS, the City currently contracts with Seminole County to provide fire and rescue
services within the jurisdictional limits of the City of Winter Springs by Interlocal Agreement; and
WHEREAS, in furtherance of the Interlocal Agreement, the City and County staff met and
reviewed the City's current fire impact fees, projected future capital improvements for the fire
department within the jurisdictional limits of the City of Winter Springs, and anticipated development
activity and growth projected for the City; and
WHEREAS, based on this meeting, the City and County determined that the current level of fire
impact fees should be reduced and adjusted to match the current fire impact fees adopted by Seminole
County, and said reduced level of fire impact fees in the City will be sufficient to maintain the fire and
rescue levels of services within the jurisdictional limits of the City of Winter Springs; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission hereby finds that the aforementioned report and the use of
Seminole County's imposed fire impact fees legally justifies the imposition of impact fees pursuant to
applicable law. See §163.31801, Florida Statutes; See also, Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2017 -16
Page 1of 8
Beach, 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000); Contractors and Builders Association ofPinellas County v. City of
Dunedin, 329 So. 2d314 (Fla. 1976); Wald v. Metropolitan Dade County, 338 So. 2d863 (Fla. 3d DCA
1976); Hollywood, Inc. v. Broward County, 431 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); and
WHEREAS, the City Commission also finds that Section 163.3202(3), Florida Statutes,
encourages the use of innovative land development regulations which includes the adoption of "impact
fees," and
WHEREAS, the City Commission also finds that the impact fees required by this Ordinance are
necessary to mitigate impacts reasonably attributable to new development; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission also recognizes that the Florida Legislature has mandated
that local government plan comprehensively for future growth and that this regulatory Ordinance is
consistent with that mandate. See, e.g., Ch. 163, Fla. Stat.; and
WHEREAS, new land development activity generates public facility and service demands
within the City and it is reasonable to require new development to pay a fair share of the cost of
expanding new public facilities and services attributable to new development; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance is enacted pursuant to the Florida Municipal Home Rule Powers
Act, Section 163.31801, Florida Statutes, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, the City of Winter Springs
Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable law authorizing a municipality to set rates, fees, and charges
for new development; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of
Winter Springs to amend the City's police, fire /rescue and parks and recreation impact fees and
procedures.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COMNIISSION OF THE CITY OF WINTER
SPRINGS HEREBY ORDAINS, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are hereby incorporated herein by this
reference.
Section 2. Code Amendment, Chapter 9, Article VIII, Division 3. The City of Winter
Springs Code, Chapter 9, Article VIII, Division 3, is hereby amended as follows (underlined type
indicates additions and strikeout type indicates deletions, while asterisks (* * *) indicate a deletion from
this Ordinance of text existing in Chapter 9, Article VIII, Division 3. It is intended that the text in
Chapter 9, Article VIII, Division 3 denoted by the asterisks and set forth in this Ordinance shall remain
unchanged from the language existing prior to adoption of this Ordinance):
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2017 -16
Page 2of 8
ARTICLE VIII. IMPACT FEES
DIVISION 3. POLICE, FIRE AND PARKS AND RECREATION
Sec. 9- 391.5. Payment of fees.
(c) Amount of fee. The following impact fees are hereby adopted:
(1) Fire:
(i) Residential:
- Single Family
- Apartment
- Condominium
- Mobile Home
$172.00 / dwelling
unit
$172.00 / dwelling
unit
$172.00 / dwelling
unit
$172.00 / dwelling
unit
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2017 -16
Page 3of 8
(ii) Non - residential:
- Hotel
$313.00 / 1,000 gross sq.ft.
- Motel
$313.00 / 1,000
gross sq.ft.
- Church
$684.00
/ net sq.ft.
- Marina (per boat berth)
$320.00
/ net sq.ft.
- Racquet Clubs
$320.00
/ net sq.ft.
- Health Spas
$320.00
/ net sq.ft.
- Golf Course Clubhouse
$320.00
/ net sq.ft.
- Restaurant - Sit Down
$320.00
/ net sq.ft.
- Restaurant - Drive In
$320.00
/ net sq.ft.
- Hospital - Room Area
$10.00 /
gross sq.ft.
- Hospital - Treatment Area
$5.00 / gross
sq.ft.
- Nursing Home - Room Area
$10.00 /
gross sq.ft.
- Nursing Home -Treatment Area
$5.00 / gross
sq.ft.
- Day Care
$51.00 / net sq.ft.
- Office
$72.00 /
gross sq.ft.
- Bank / Savings - Walk In
$72.00 /
gross sq.ft.
- Bank / Savings - Drive In
$72.00 /
gross sq.ft.
- Retail / Wholesale < 300,000 sq.ft.
$160.00
/ gross sq.ft.
- Retail / Wholesale 300,000- 400,000 sq.ft.
$144.00
/ gross sq.ft.
- Retail / Wholesale > 400,000 sq.ft.
$130.00
/ gross sq.ft.
- Basic Industry
$13.00 /
gross sq.ft.
- Utility Plants / Substations
$13.00 /
gross sq.ft.
- Manufacturing
$6.00 / gross
sq.ft.
- Warehousing / Storage
$6.00 / gross
sq.ft.
- Mini - Warehouses
$6.00 / gross
sq.ft.
- Concentrated Assembly - 50+ persons
$684.00
/ net sq.ft.
- Less Concentrated Assembly - 50+ persons
$320.00
/ net sq.ft.
- Assembly - < 50 persons, non - office /other
$72.00 /
gross sq.ft.
..... . r r. ��srrser��:tir'E 11
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2017 -16
Page 4of 8
2) Police:
(i) Residential (single family, apartment, condominium, mobile home,
assisted living): $275.00 / dwelling unit
Fee ; .hides toe same iim r-esidential de el.,pmeiit -edit sot f.,.-rl, below.
(ii) Non - residential: $0.156 $0.492 per square foot.
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2017 -16
Page 5of 8
RR9.'F. ESwSl:!!'iTlSfrS'lfE�9.'F. f �. E' !'I.'!!*.fl�l�llti7s'lYTl9.�.lST 1111111 M. ..........
I•
(3) Parks and Recreation:
(i) Residential (single family, apartment, condominium, mobile home,
assisted living): $1,665.00 / dwelling unit
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2017 -16
Page 6of 8
2009
$,v
2009
$1,200.00
o
$,v
2011
$1,200.00O
20i2
3
$1,200.00
$,v
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2017 -16
Page 6of 8
(ii) Non - residential: None.
(4) Reserved. Fife,
2013. A feassessment of the impaet fees and efedits shall be pf ovided pfiof to 2013 and eodified-Mi
the City Code.
Section 3. Repeal of Prior Inconsistent Ordinances and Resolutions. All prior inconsistent
ordinances and resolutions adopted by the City Commission, or parts of prior ordinances and resolutions
in conflict herewith, are hereby repealed to the extent of the conflict.
Section 4. Incorporation Into Code. This Ordinance shall be incorporated into the Winter Springs
City Code and any section or paragraph number or letter and any heading may be changed or modified
as necessary to effectuate the foregoing. Grammatical, typographical, and like errors may be corrected
and additions, alterations, and omissions, not affecting the construction or meaning of this ordinance
and the City Code may be freely made.
Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, word or provision of
this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction,
whether for substantive, procedural, or any other reason, such portion shall be deemed a separate,
distinct and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this Ordinance.
Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption by
the City Commission of the City of Winter Springs, Florida, and pursuant to City Charter. However,
pursuant to Section 163.31801(d), Florida Statutes, the Parks and Recreation impact fees adopted herein
shall become effective ninety (90) days from the date that notice of this Ordinance was published in the
newspaper of general circulation because the revised rate for Parks and Recreation constitutes an
increase from the rate in effect upon the adoption of this Ordinance.
[Adoption Page Follows]
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2017 -16
Page 7of 8
ADOPTED by the City Commission of the City of Winter Springs, Florida, in a regular meeting
assembled on the day of 52017.
ATTEST:
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
Andrea Lorenzo - Luaces Charles Lacey
City Clerk Mayor
Approved as to legal form and sufficiency for
the City of Winter Springs only:
Anthony A. Garganese
City Attorney
First Reading:
Legal Ad. Publication:
Second Reading /Adoption:
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2017 -16
Page 8of 8
EXHIBIT B
CITY OF
WINTER SPRINGS
2017 Police and Parks &
Recreation Impact Fee Study
August 17, 2017
Incorporated
1959
ff
RAFTELIS
FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS. INC.
August 17, 2017
Brian Fields
Community Development Director
City of Winter Springs
1126 East State Road 434
Winter Springs, FL 32708
950 S. Winter Park Drive Phone 407.960.1806 www.raftelis.com
Suite 240 Fax 407.960.1803
Casselberry, FL 32707
Subject: 2017 Police and Parks & Recreation Impact Fee Study
Dear Mr. Fields,
Enclosed is the police and parks & recreation impact fee update report for your use and reference.
The attached report includes an executive summary followed by technical sections regarding the
calculation of impact fees with additional background information. It has been a pleasure working
with you, and we thank you and the City staff for the support provided during the course of this study.
Sincerely,
RAFTELIS FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Tony Hairston
Senior Manager
Joe Williams
Consultant
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................. ..............................4
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY ........................................................ ............................... 4
OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................. ............................... 7
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION ..................................... ..............................8
INTRODUCTION................................................................................. ............................... 8
IMPACT FEE BACKGROUND ............................................................ ............................... 8
SCOPEOF SERVICES ....................................................................... ............................... 9
SUMMARY OF REPORT ...................................................................... .............................10
SECTION 2: SERVICE AREA BUILDOUT PROJECTIONS ....................11
GENERAL............................................................................................ .............................11
SERVICE AREA PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT ................................. .............................11
Assisted Living Facilities ............................................................................ .............................11
GrowthForecast ........................................................................................... .............................12
SECTION 3: POLICE SERVICES ............................... .............................14
GENERAL............................................................................................ .............................14
EXISTING IMPACT FEES .................................................................... .............................14
EXISTING RESOURCES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE .......................... .............................15
INCREMENTAL COSTS PER OFFICER .............................................. .............................16
IMPACT FEE CALCULATION .............................................................. .............................17
CreditConsiderations .................................................................................. .............................18
Cost Allocation and Fee Amounts .............................................................. .............................18
IMPACT C COMPARISON ............................................................... .............................19
SECTION 4: PARKS AND RECREATION .................. .............................21
GENERAL............................................................................................ .............................21
EXISTING IMPACT FEES .................................................................... .............................21
EXISTING RESOURCES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE .......................... .............................21
IMPACT F -E CALCULATION .............................................................. .............................24
CreditConsideration .................................................................................... .............................24
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Level ..................................................... .............................25
IMPACT I ;E COMPARISON ............................................................... .............................25
Police and Parks & Recreation Impact Fee Study I i
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table ES 1: Existing and Calculated Residential Impact Fees ............... ............................... 4
Figure ES 1: Single Family Police Local Comparison ............................ ...............................
5
Figure ES 2: Single Family Parks & Recreation Local Comparison ...... ...............................
5
Table ES 2: Existing and Calculated Non - Residential Impact Fees ...... ...............................
6
Figure ES 3: 1,000 FTT2 Non - Residential Police Local Comparison ........ ...............................
6
Table 1: Future Development by Land Use .............................................. .............................11
Table 2: Existing versus Future Development ......................................... .............................12
Table 3: Residential FTZ Calculation ......................................................... .............................13
Table 4: Land Use Cost Allocation Basis ................................................. .............................13
Table 5: Existing Police Services Impact Fees ........................................ .............................14
Table 6: Existing Police Level of Service ................................................. .............................15
Table 7: Future Officers Needed at the Projected Buildout .................... .............................16
Table 8: Equipment Cost per Additional Officer ...................................... .............................16
Table 9: Vehicle Cost per Additional Officer ............................................ .............................17
Table 10: Police Headquarters Allocations .............................................. .............................17
Table 11: Total Costs for Police Impact Fee Recovery ............................ .............................18
Table 12: Police Cost Allocation Amount ................................................. .............................18
Table 13: Residential Police Impact Fee ................................................... .............................18
Table 14: Non - residential Police Impact Fee ............................................ .............................19
Figure 1: Single Family Police Impact Fee Comparison ......................... .............................19
Figure 2: Multi- family Police Impact Fee Comparison ............................. .............................20
Table 15: Replacement Value of Existing Park Assets ............................ .............................21
Table 16: City Owned Park Inventory ....................................................... .............................22
Table 17: Open Space LOS Requirements for Existing Population ........ .............................22
Table 18: Open Space LOS Requirements for Future Population .......... .............................23
Table 19: Park Land Valuation per Acre ................................................... .............................23
Table 20: Embedded Land Costs .............................................................. .............................23
Table 21: Five -year Parks CIP ................................................................... .............................24
Table 22: Parks CIP Cost Allocation ......................................................... .............................24
Table 23: Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Calculation ......................... .............................25
Figure 3: Single Family Parks & Recreation Impact Fee Comparison .... .............................26
Figure 4: Multi- family Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Comparison ... .............................26
Police and Parks & Recreation Impact Fee Study I ii
This page intentionally left blank to facilitate two -sided printing.
Police and Parks & Recreation Impact Fee Study I iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
The City of Winter Springs (the "City ") currently charges police and parks & recreation impact fees
pursuant to City Code section 9 -351. These impact fees were established with the purpose of
defraying costs of necessary improvements and expansions to these services to meet the demands of
future development. These impact fees were last updated in 2008. The City has engaged Raftelis
Financial Consultants, Inc. ( Raftelis) to develop updated police and parks & recreation impact fees
based on current and localized data and to ensure that the appropriate level of revenue will be
generated from future development for expansion related projects. The calculated impact fees set
forth in this study are consistent with Florida case law, Florida Statutes, and generally acceptable
impact fee methodologies.
The report herein outlines the methodologies, assumptions, and considerations in the development
of each impact fee calculations. The most significant adjustment to the methodology, as described in
further detail in Section 2 of this report, is the treatment of Assisted Living Facilities as residential
development instead of non - residential development. The calculated impact fees below represent
assessment of impact fees to Assisted Living Facilities based on the number of rooms /dwelling units
within each development. The following summarizes the existing residential municipal impact fees
compared to the fully calculated impact fees based on the analysis in this report:
Table ES 1: Existing and Calculated Residential Impact Fees
Description Existing Calculated Difference
Police [1] $355.59 $275.00 ($80.59)
Parks & Recreation [2] 1,200.00 1,665.00 465.00
Total $1,555.59 $1,940.00 $384.41
[1] The existing police impact fee is net of a $148.05 credit established in FY 2013. There is no credit
applicable to the calculated impact fees. The calculated police impact fees are based on Assisted Living
Facilities classified as residential development, where currently the police impact fees for these facilities are
non - residential.
[2] The calculated parks and recreation impact fees are proposed to apply to Assisted Living Facilities. Existing
parks and recreation impact fees do not currently apply to these facilities.
As can be seen on the table above, the impact fees for the police department have been calculated
slightly lower than existing levels, whereas the parks & recreation fee levels are increasing. The
methodology used in this report is based on recovering the appropriate costs allocated to growth.
For police, the incremental capital costs are associated with increased facilities and resources to
accommodate growth and maintain the existing levels of service. To provide a consistent level of
service for all residential development, the identified park capital facilities are apportioned between
existing and future development proportionally as discussed in Section 2. For reference, a
comparison of the existing and calculated fee levels for each service have been compared to other
local communities and are provided on Figures ES 1 and ES 2 on the following page.
Executive Summary 1 4
Figure ES 1: Single Family Police Local Comparison
Single Family Police Impact Fees
$484.05
$355.59 $374.90
$275.00
$185.54
$165.00
$237.25
W.S. Existing W.S. Altamonte Casselberry Lake Mary Oviedo Sanford Seminole
Calculated Springs County
As shown above, the City's existing and calculated police impact fees are in line with other local
communities in Seminole County.
Figure ES 2: Single Family Parks & Recreation Local Comparison
Single Family Parks & Recreation Impact Fees
$1,665.00
$1,200.00
$438.28
$302.09 $335.00
W.S. Existing W.S. Altamonte Casselberry Lake Mary
Calculated Springs
Executive Summary 1 5
$1,312.13
$1,052.34
Oviedo Sanford
$0.00
Seminole
County
The non - residential impact fees are designed to be assessed per FT2 of new development. The
existing police impact fees are $0.492 per FT2, with a credit identified at $148.05 for each
development regardless of its size. Based on historical practice for municipalities in Florida, the non-
residential developments are not assessed impact fees for parks & recreational services. The existing
and calculated non - residential police impact fee levels are provided below:
Table ES 2: Existing and Calculated Non - Residential Impact Fees
Description Existing
Police [1] $0.492
Calculated Difference
$0.156 ($0.336)
[1] The existing police impact fee is applied to new development per FT2 and then
credited a total of $148.05 regardless of the size of the development. No credits
apply to the calculated impact fees.
The rate per FT2 has been decreased to $0.156 based on the cost allocations identified in the body of
this report. However, due to the credit applied to existing development, reviewing the rate per FT2
alone does not accurately represent the adjustment to the impact fee level. The figure below provides
an illustration of the impact for an example 1,000 FT2 non - residential development.
Figure ES 3: 1,000 FT2 Non - Residential Police Local Comparison
Non - Residential 1,000 FT2 Police Impact Fees
$343.95
$309.69
$275.00
$258.68
$156.00 $163.98
$82.00
$0.00
W.S. Existing W.S. Altamonte Casselberry Lake Mary Oviedo Sanford Seminole
Calculated Springs County
Executive Summary 1 6
OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The establishment of impact fees must satisfy the rational nexus requirements as established
by case law. The impact fees must be reasonably related to the cost of providing capital
facilities /equipment needed to accommodate needs attributable to new growth. The impact
fees collected must be used by the City to address the capital costs related to serving new
development. Based on the information made available by the City, the proposed impact fees
are designed to meet these precedents and the requirements set forth in Florida Statutes
Section 163.31801.
2. The fees developed within this report reflect full cost recovery and the City has discretion to
phase -in or otherwise adopt less than the fully calculated fees. However, the adoption of fees
less than the fully calculated rates should be applied to all land uses equally in order to
maintain the calculations in correct proportion. Adopting less than the calculated rates would
increase the reliance on general fund and other revenue sources to meet the demands of
growth.
3. Pursuant to Florida Statute Section 163.31801, the City must provide notice no less than 90
days before the effective date of an ordinance or resolution imposing a new or increased
impact fee.
4. In compliance with Florida Statutes the City should collect and maintain revenue from each
type of municipal impact fee in designated sub - accounts, and use such fees on those facilities
designated for each purpose.
5. The City should adopt the police and parks & recreation impact fees as calculated to ensure
adequate funding sources are available to fund future service expansion projects needed to
provide the identified level of service to new growth.
Executive Summary 1 7
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
The City of Winter Springs currently charges police and parks & recreation impact fees pursuant to
City Code section 9 -351. These impact fees were established with the purpose of defraying costs of
necessary improvements and expansions for these services to meet the demands of future
development. These impact fees were last updated in 2008.
IMPACT FEE BACKGROUND
Impact fees are one -time charges established as a means to recover in whole or in part, the costs
associated with infrastructure and capital equipment needed to accommodate the demands
generated by new development. Historically, impact fees in Florida were a result of home rule powers
with the requirements associated with the development, administration, accounting and expenditure
governed by case law. However, in 2006, Section 163.31801 was added to the Florida Statues, which
placed specific requirements and limitations on that home rule authority. Florida Statutes Section
163.31801 F.S., as amended in 2011, is currently as follows:
163.31801 Impact fees; short title; intent; definitions; ordinances levying impact
fees. —
(1) This section may be cited as the "Florida Impact Fee Act."
(2) The Legislature finds that impact fees are an important source of revenue for a local
government to use in funding the infrastructure necessitated by new growth. The Legislature
further finds that impact fees are an outgrowth of the home rule power of a local government
to provide certain services within its jurisdiction. Due to the growth of impact fee collections
and local governments' reliance on impact fees, it is the intent of the Legislature to ensure
that, when a county or municipality adopts an impact fee by ordinance or a special district
adopts an impact fee by resolution, the governing authority complies with this section.
(3) An impact fee adopted by ordinance of a county or municipality or by resolution of a
special district must, at minimum:
(a) Require that the calculation of the impact fee be based on the most recent and localized
data.
(b) Provide for accounting and reporting of impact fee collections and expenditures. If a
local governmental entity imposes an impact fee to address its infrastructure needs, the
entity shall account for the revenues and expenditures of such impact fee in a separate
accounting fund.
(c) Limit administrative charges for the collection of impact fees to actual costs.
(d) Require that notice be provided no less than 90 days before the effective date of an
ordinance or resolution imposing a new or increased impact fee. A county or municipality
is not required to wait 90 days to decrease, suspend, or eliminate an impact fee.
(4) Audits of financial statements of local governmental entities and district school boards
which are performed by a certified public accountant pursuant to s.218.39 and submitted to
Section 1: Introduction 1 8
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.
Although the statute provides specific impact fee criteria, certain precedents established by case law
also constitute the legal requirements associated with impact fees. Case law precedent for impact
fees in Florida was originally set in the landmark Florida Supreme Court decision, Contractors and
Builders Association of Pinellas County vs. City of Dunedin, Florida. In the ruling, the court identified
certain conditions as necessarily present in order to have a valid impact fee. In general, the court
decision addressed the following:
1. The impact fee should be reasonably equitable to all parties; that is, the amount of the fee
must bear a relationship to the amount of services or facility capacity related to
accommodating the new development;
2. The expenditure of impact fees collected should occur within a reasonable time of collection,
be on improvements that provide additional capacity for demands generated by new
development, and not be used for repair /replacement of existing capital facilities or
operations and maintenance costs; and
3. The impact fees collected should be retained in a separate account, and separate accounting
must be made for those funds to ensure that they are used only for the lawful purposes
described.
Based on the criteria provided above, the impact fees herein will: 1) include local current costs of
improvements associated with the capacities needed to serve new growth; 2) not include costs of
improvements associated with the renewal and replacement (R &R) of existing capital assets or
correction of deficiencies in level of service attributed to existing development; and 3) not include
costs of operation and maintenance of the capital improvements.
This section provides only a general background regarding impact fees. Certain circumstances and
issues regarding the interpretation of specific statutes or case law should be addressed by qualified
legal counsel.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The City and Raftelis entered into a Professional Services Agreement on December 13, 2016 to
perform consulting services for a Police and Recreation Impact Fee Study. The scope of services
provides for a review of the existing and forecast growth by land use categories, a review of the City's
identified capital improvements, allocations of projects to new growth, and the calculation of new
impact fees based on currently available data.
Section 1: Introduction 1 9
SUMMARY OF REPORT
Section 2: Service Area Buildout Projections - This section provides a discussion of the buildout
development anticipated within the City. Staff maintains a detailed Excel based spreadsheet
indicating existing and potential future developments by land use, which have been relied upon for
the purposes of this study.
Section 3: Police Services - This section includes the development of the proposed impact fee for
the capital requirements associated with providing police services, the methodology for the
determination of the proposed fees, assumptions utilized in the design of the fees, and other factors
associated with the fee determination.
Section 4: Parks and Recreation - This section discusses the development of the proposed impact
fee for the capital requirements associated with providing parks & recreation services, the
methodology for the determination of the proposed fees, assumptions utilized in the design of the
fees, and other factors associated with the fee determination.
Section 1: Introduction 1 10
SECTION 2: SERVICE AREA BUILDOUT
PROJECTIONS
GENERAL
This section provides a general discussion of the current service area, population and projected
future development by land use. The City is located near the center of Seminole County and generally
borders Lake Jesup to the North, SR 417 to the East and US 17 -92 to the West. The City does not have
plans for major service area expansion through annexations or other potential service extensions at
this time.
The Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) estimates that as of April 1, 2016 the City
had a population of approximately 36,156. As will be discussed further in this section, the City is
anticipating moderate growth of residential units but significant growth for non - residential
development.
SERVICE AREA PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT
The City maintains detailed service area development projections in a schedule that has been
populated with anticipated redevelopment and growth by land use for each parcel. The table below
summarizes the expected growth by general land use category, which will serve as the basis for cost
allocations, future demands on services, and impact fee levels.
Table 1: Future Development by Land Use
Assisted Living Facilities
As shown on the table above, Assisted Living Facilities (ALF) have been included in the analysis based
on the number of residential dwelling units anticipated. The ALFs have many of the same
characteristics as residential properties including providing full time residences. Per the Florida
Department of Elder Affairs, ALFs are residential facilities that provide supportive services to older
and disabled persons that are unable to live independently but do not require 24 -hour nursing
supervision. The ALF facilities also provide meals and personal care in addition to housing.
Section 2: Service Area Buildout Projections 1 11
Dwelling Units
Square Feet
Description
(DUs)
(FT2)
Single Family
675
N/A
Multi- Family
413
N/A
Assisted Living Facilities
231
N/A
Office
N/A
1,497,050
Commercial
N/A
585,640
Industrial
N/A
24,000
Total
1,319
2,106,690
Assisted Living Facilities
As shown on the table above, Assisted Living Facilities (ALF) have been included in the analysis based
on the number of residential dwelling units anticipated. The ALFs have many of the same
characteristics as residential properties including providing full time residences. Per the Florida
Department of Elder Affairs, ALFs are residential facilities that provide supportive services to older
and disabled persons that are unable to live independently but do not require 24 -hour nursing
supervision. The ALF facilities also provide meals and personal care in addition to housing.
Section 2: Service Area Buildout Projections 1 11
The ALF facilities have historically been included in the commercial classification and charged police
impact fees pursuant to the square footage for each development. Since these ALF facilities were
classified as non - residential they were exempt from paying parks & recreation impact fees.
Classifying these dwelling units as residential for impact fee purposes will allow the City to collect
parks & recreation impact fees to assist with defraying the costs necessary to provide service to these
residents. Since these facilities provide full time living arrangements it is appropriate to classify them
as residential properties. While each unit is significantly smaller in size than the average single family
home, the use of facilities is more intensive. The residents in ALF facilities do not travel for
employment and do not have the means to leave the facility unassisted. Therefore, these facilities set
up programs to keep the residents entertained, which includes trips to City parks and facilities. For
this reason, ALF facilities are now included within parks and recreation service and impact fee
calculations.
Growth Forecast
The City is forecasting approximately 1,319 new residential dwelling units. This represents an
increase over the existing 15,331 dwelling units of around 9 %. Table 2 below presents the forecasted
growth of residential dwelling units and non - residential square feet in the City based on the
development projections maintained.
Table 2: Existing versus Future Development
Description Dwelling Units Square Feet
Existing 15,331 1,622,384
Future 1,319 2,106,690
Growth % 9% 130%
As demonstrated above, growth for each land use is projected by either residential dwelling units or
square feet for non - residential buildings. To apportion the future costs equitably, the residential
units are converted into the expected number of total square feet, based on estimates for average
size of Single Family, Multi- family and ALF units. The estimates of the average size for Single Family
and Multi- family units are consistent with those developed for the Fire Impact Fee Update Report,
dated May 28, 2015. The ALF estimates are based on a review of two ALF complexes the City has site
development plans for, as footnoted on the table on the following page.
(Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank)
Section 2: Service Area Buildout Projections 1 12
Table 3: Residential FT2 Calculation
[1] The City provided information for two ALF developments. The first has total building
square feet of 77,000 for 101 rooms, or 762 ft2 per room. The second has total building
square feet of 130,564 for 144 rooms, or 907 ft2 per room. The combined average ft2 per
room is 847.
Once all growth has been converted to the common basis of square footage, this can be used to
equitably apportion future cost needs between the customer classes. The table below illustrates the
allocation for growth related costs to be recovered from residential and non - residential
developments, which will be relied upon for the police impact fee calculation. As illustrated in the
following section, once the cost has been allocated between the two primary categories, the impact
fee is calculated based on the number of units for residential development and the square footage for
non - residential development.
Table 4: Land Use Cost Allocation Basis
Description FT2 Percentage
Residential 2,315,303 52.4%
Non - residential 2,106,690 47.6%
Total 4,421,993 100.0%
(Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank)
Section 2: Service Area Buildout Projections 1 13
Planned
Average
Projected
Description
DUs
Unit Size
Residential FT2
Single Family
675
2,100
1,417,500
Multi- family
413
1,700
702,100
ALF [1]
231
847
195,703
Total
1,319
2,315,303
[1] The City provided information for two ALF developments. The first has total building
square feet of 77,000 for 101 rooms, or 762 ft2 per room. The second has total building
square feet of 130,564 for 144 rooms, or 907 ft2 per room. The combined average ft2 per
room is 847.
Once all growth has been converted to the common basis of square footage, this can be used to
equitably apportion future cost needs between the customer classes. The table below illustrates the
allocation for growth related costs to be recovered from residential and non - residential
developments, which will be relied upon for the police impact fee calculation. As illustrated in the
following section, once the cost has been allocated between the two primary categories, the impact
fee is calculated based on the number of units for residential development and the square footage for
non - residential development.
Table 4: Land Use Cost Allocation Basis
Description FT2 Percentage
Residential 2,315,303 52.4%
Non - residential 2,106,690 47.6%
Total 4,421,993 100.0%
(Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank)
Section 2: Service Area Buildout Projections 1 13
SECTION 3: POLICE SERVICES
GENERAL
The City maintains a Police Services Department (Police Department) to provide law enforcement
services primarily within the City limits. The Police Department currently staffs 56 sworn officers
and 13 civilian officer positions. There are also 3 reserve officers on staff, bringing the total current
number of officers to 72. The Police Headquarters Building currently accommodates the entire police
force; however, this building will not be sufficient to accommodate full staffing at the projected
buildout. The support staff currently consists of 26 employees in positions such as dispatchers, crime
scene technicians, records clerks, civilian code enforcement and an administrative assistant. These
support personnel generally grow in proportion to the police force.
The City's Police Department is also a member of an Inter -local Voluntary Cooperation Operational
Assistance combined mutual aid agreement (Mutual Aid Agreement). The Mutual Aid Agreement is
comprised of many of the other municipalities within Seminole County and a few other contiguous
areas. This Mutual Aid Agreement spans from 2017 - 2021 and allows the parties involved to provide
support without having jurisdictional boundaries and conflicts.
EXISTING IMPACT FEES
The City currently charges Police Services impact fees to new development within the City limits
based on the following schedule:
Table 5: Existing Police Services Impact Fees
Description Units Fee
Residential Dwelling Unit $355.59
Non - residential [1] FTz $0.492
Total
[1] The impact fee is applied to new development per FTz and
then credited a total of $148.05 regardless of the size of the
development.
As shown above, a new development will either qualify as a residential development or a non-
residential development for police impact fees. While this general methodology will not change, the
ALF facilities are being transitioned from a non - residential per square foot basis to a residential per
unit basis for the updated impact fee calculations, as discussed in Section 2.
Section 3: Police Services 1 14
EXISTING RESOURCES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE
The City currently staffs 72 officers consisting of 56 sworn officers, 13 civilian officers and 3 reserve
officers. While the Police Department manages the actual staffing level pursuant to needs based on
call volumes, the current level of service can be measured in several different ways. The traditional
method of measuring the level of service for a Police Department is the number of officers on staff
per thousand residents. This ratio is simple to calculate and is easy to understand and compare
amongst other communities. However, it has been recognized in the industry that there are certain
shortcomings implied when using this ratio.
The future expected development in the City is much more heavily weighted towards non - residential
development than the existing mix of residential and non - residential development. The non-
residential development does not directly drive an increase in population, so relying on the existing
ratio of sworn officers per thousand residents would likely under forecast the need for future sworn
officers. In turn, the existing level of service calculation has been based on the number of sworn
officers per million square feet of development. This ratio provides a more representative potential
demand for future police services and generates a fee level based on maintaining the current level of
service provided. To calculate the existing level of residential square footage, the average dwelling
unit factors for single family and multi - family units provided on Table 3 was utilized. The table below
provides the calculation of the existing number of police officers per million square feet of
development.
Table 6: Existing Police Level of Service
Description Amount
Residential FTz [1] 30,379,500
Non - residential FTz 1,622,384
Total Existing FTz 32,001,884
Existing Sworn Officers 56
Officers per million FTz 1.75
[1] Residential FTz reflects multiplying existing single family
and multi - family units by the average size per unit provided
on Table 3.
As calculated above, the existing level of officers compared to the existing FTz of development
provides a ratio of 1.75 officers per million FTz. This ratio is being used as a proxy to forecast the
need for additional officers in the future, based on the premise that call volumes per FTz for future
development will be approximately the same as existing development. Table 7 on the following page
presents the anticipated need for officers in the future based on the current level of service provided.
Section 3: Police Services 1 15
Table 7: Future Officers Needed at the Projected Buildout
Description Amount
Total Future FTz [1] 4,421,993
Officers per million FTz 1.75
Additional Officers 7.74
Additional Officers Rounded 8.00
[1] Total future FTz obtained from Table 4.
Based on the forecast of future development maintained by the City and the existing level of service
of sworn officers per million FTz of development, the City is anticipated to need an additional 8
officers. By hiring these additional officers, the City will maintain a consistent level of service for
existing and future development. With the addition of 8 sworn officers and the existing level of sworn
officers of 56, the City is projected to have an estimated staff of 64 sworn officers once fully built out.
INCREMENTAL COSTS PER OFFICER
Costs related to growth in the police force typically include a combination of equipping new officers
with vehicles, field equipment, protective gear and providing the necessary facilities such as police
stations. Impact fees are created to recover a portion of capital costs required to serve new growth,
causing certain equipment purchased for new officers to be excluded from the impact fee analysis.
These operating cost items typically include uniforms, handcuffs and traffic vests. Items included in
the impact fee analysis generally have a minimum of a three to five -year life and are not replaced
frequently such as radios, firearms, and lighting packages for vehicles.
The table below illustrates the cost of equipping each new officer with impact fee eligible items. While
a total cost of approximately $7,800 was identified to equip each officer, it was determined that
$1,250 was related to operating costs and the remaining $6,550 was impact fee eligible.
Table 8: Equipment Cost per Additional Officer
Description Amount
Pistol
$600
Radio
4,500
Ballistic Vest
750
Taser
700
Total
$6,550
As shown on the table above, there are four key capital items identified for equipping each new officer
added to the police force at a cost of $6,550. In addition to the equipment, each officer is provided a
fully equipped police vehicle (car or SUV), which has the average costs identified on Table 9.
Section 3: Police Services 1 16
Table 9: Vehicle Cost per Additional Officer
Description Amount
Vehicle [1] $31,663
Radio 6,000
Lighting and Emergency Equipment 5,000
Radar 1,500
Rifle 800
Camera System 4,000
Total $48,963
[1] Vehicle cost represents average cost of 15 police vehicles
purchased over the past three years.
As shown above, the cost per additional fully equipped vehicle is $48,963. Non - capital items such as
striping and medical gear has been excluded from this amount. It is anticipated that each additional
officer added to the police force will receive one fully equipped vehicle.
In addition to the equipment and vehicle costs outlined, the City provides fully equipped and
furnished facilities for each officer's use. The Police Department currently resides in the police
headquarters building and has indicated that this facility will require an expansion to staff all
necessary officers through buildout. The headquarters building was originally built in December
1997 and is fully paid off with no outstanding annual debt service requirements. Since the building
has been paid off and the need for expansion has been identified, the existing headquarters building
is not allocated to future police officers and is therefore not include in the impact fee calculation.
Focusing on the additional needs related to growth, it has been identified that approximately 10,000
FT2 of space will be needed, at an average cost of $200.00 per FT2. The expansion of the headquarters
building has been allocated proportionally to existing and future development based on the number
of officers. The cost of expanding the police headquarters per officer is provided on Table 10 below:
Table 10: Police Headquarters Allocations
Description Amount
Police Headquarters Expansion [1] $2,000,000
Officers (Build -Out) 64
Cost per Officer $31,250
[1] Based on 10,000 FT2 expansion with an average cost of $200.00 per FT2.
IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
To calculate the appropriate impact fee per dwelling unit of residential development and per
thousand square feet of non - residential development, first the total costs to be recovered are
identified and then distributed among the customer classes. The total cost per additional officer to
be recovered from future development consists of equipment costs, vehicles and a portion of the
police headquarters building, as identified above for eight future officers. This amount is identified
below:
Section 3: Police Services 1 17
Table 11: Total Costs for Police Impact Fee Recovery
Description
Amount
Cost per Officer:
Equipment
$6,550
Vehicle
48,963
Police Headquarters
31,250
Total Per Officer
$86,763
Officers Needed
8
Total Costs for Impact Fee Recovery
$694,104
Credit Considerations
Funding for the Police Department improvements and capital expenditures related to expansion can
come from many different sources including police impact fees and any other ad valorem and non -
ad valorem revenues. However, these alternate funding sources are not anticipated to substantially
support the capital expansion needs of the Police Department and therefore are not considered in
this study.
The City currently maintains a police impact fee balance of $378,584. The City anticipates these funds
will be utilized to address other police related infrastructure needs not reflected herein and therefore
this existing balance is not applied toward the infrastructure costs enumerated above.
Cost Allocation and Fee Amounts
Using the square footage information provided on Table 4, the net costs for impact fee recovery are
allocated between residential and non - residential development as follows:
Table 12: Police Cost Allocation Amount
Description FTz Percentage Amount
Residential 2,315,303 52.4% $363,425
Non - residential 2,106,690 47.6% 330,679
Total
4,421,993
$ 694,104
Once the net costs have been allocated the next step is to calculate the impact fee per anticipated unit
of development. For residential development the impact fee will be applied per dwelling unit and for
non - residential development the impact fee will be applied per square foot, as illustrated on the
tables below:
Table 13: Residential Police Impact Fee
Allocated Costs $363,425
Dwelling Units 1,319
Cost per Dwelling Unit $275.53
Rounded Cost per Dwelling Unit $275.00
Section 3: Police Services 1 18
We recommend the City implement a slightly rounded impact fee of $275.00 based on the analysis
discussed above. The existing police impact fee per residential dwelling unit is $355.59. This
represents approximately a 23% decrease to the fee level for residential development.
Table 14: Non - residential Police Impact Fee
Allocated Costs $330,679
Dwelling Units 2,106,690
Cost per Square Foot $0.156
As for the non - residential development, the calculated impact fee per FT2 is $0.156 as compared to
existing rate of $0.492.
IMPACT FEE COMPARISON
$355.59
Figure 1: Single Family Police Impact Fee Comparison
$275.00
Single Family Police Impact Fees
$484.05
$185.54 $165.00
$237.25
$374.90
$0.00
W.S. Existing W.S. Altamonte Casselberry Lake Mary Oviedo Sanford Seminole
Calculated Springs County
Section 3: Police Services 1 19
Figure 2: Multi- family Police Impact Fee Comparison
Multi- family Police Impact Fees
$374.90
$355.59
$299.28
$275.00
$168.20 $165.00
$133.75
$0.00
W.S. Existing W.S. Altamonte Casselberry Lake Mary Oviedo Sanford Seminole
Calculated Springs County
Section 3: Police Services 1 20
SECTION 4: PARKS AND RECREATION
GENERAL
The City owns and maintains parks and recreation facilities for the benefit of residents and visitors.
As the City grows, additional facilities and improvements to recreation amenities are necessary. This
section provides an analysis for the City's updated parks and recreation impact fee level based on the
costs to meet demands from growth.
EXISTING IMPACT FEES
New residential development in the City is required to pay parks and recreation impact fees of
$1,200, as of 2008. This fee is collected equally from single family and multi - family per unit of
development. As discussed in Section 2, the ALF units will be considered as residential units for the
updated impact fee calculation.
EXISTING RESOURCES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE
The City maintains parks with a combined total of 350 acres. Currently, 125 acres are developed and
available for use, 50 acres are undeveloped and 175 acres are designated as environmentally
sensitive. Amenities provided throughout the park network include softball fields, tennis courts,
basketball courts and soccer fields, a senior center and therapy pool, playground equipment, a splash
playground and a fishing pier. Each of the amenities above will also be available to future residents.
The City has made a significant investment into park related facilities and assets. The City's asset
reports show facilities and equipment investments of over $11 million. After removing items not
typically impact fee eligible such as mowers, sprinklers, and road resurfacing projects, there are $9.7
million of assets identified to be eligible for impact fees. Many of the assets were acquired more than
ten years ago, and do not represent current and localized costs. Therefore, an inflation factor was
applied to each asset, based on the CPI -U inflation index, to bring forward to a current replacement
cost level. For example, using the CPI -U inflation index factors developed, an asset that cost $1.00 in
1995 would cost $1.57 to replace today. After applying the appropriate factor to each asset based on
the year placed in service, the $9.7 million cost basis is increased to approximately $13.3 million
reflecting replacement cost of these assets. The table below illustrates the two values:
Table 15: Replacement Value of Existing Park Assets
Description Original Cost Replacement Cost [1]
Impact Fee Eligible Park Assets $9,714,400 $13,281,520
[1] Replacement cost calculated based on applying CPI -U inflation factor to the original cost of each asset.
Section 4: Parks and Recreation 1 21
As previously mentioned, the City currently provides 350 total acres of park land. Of the total acres,
approximately 165.6 acres are owned and maintained by the City for the use of all existing and future
residents. The inventory of City owned parks is provided below along with the acreage of each:
Table 16: City Owned Park Inventory
Description Amount
Central Winds Park
98.50
Bear Creek Nature Trail
8.70
Sunshine Park
10.20
Trotwood Park
28.00
Sam Smith Memorial Park
8.30
Moss Park
2.30
Fruitwood Park
0.30
Ranchlands Park
1.00
Torcaso Park
7.80
Winding Hollow Park
0.50
Total Park Acreage
165.60
The City's 2009 Recreation and Open Space Element of the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the
City owned open space required level of service is 4.0 acres per 1,000 residents. As of April 2016 the
Florida Estimates of Population publication from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research
(BEBR) estimates the population in the City to be 36,156. The table below illustrates the current level
of service requirements to service the existing population compared to the amount of open space
provided by the City:
Table 17: Open Space LOS Requirements for Existing Population
Description Amount
Existing Population 36,156
LOS: Open Space Acres per 1,000 population 4.0
Required Open Space Acres 144.62
Total City Owned Acres 165.60
Remaining Acres 20.98
To forecast the amount of acreage required to serve the future development, the first step is to
estimate the future population. The future population is forecast to grow by 3,111 to a total City
population of 39,267. The 3,111 forecast was developed by utilizing the average persons per
household statistic of 2.36 for the existing population, which was calculated by taking the existing
population of 36,156 divided by the number of existing residential units of 15,331 (obtained from
Table 2). The table on the following page illustrates the LOS requirements for future residents:
Section 4: Parks and Recreation 1 22
Table 18: Open Space LOS Requirements for Future Population
Descri
Amount
Forecast Population 3,111
LOS: Open Space Acres per 1,000 population 4.0
Required Open Space Acres 12.44
Of the 20.98 acres remaining, the future population will require only 12.44 to maintain the desired
minimum LOS standards. To evaluate the cost associated with the 12.44 acres needed to serve future
residents, a few data points were compiled and averaged to develop a reasonable cost per acre in City
limits. The first data point came from four recent vacant property sales in the City since June 1, 2015,
which yielded an average cost per acre of $38,156. The second data point was obtained from the
Seminole County Property Appraiser's website, which values parcels related to Central Winds Park
at $87,120 per acre. Each of the parcels reviewed were coded as vacant governmental. As illustrated
on the table below, the average is $62,638:
Table 19: Park Land Valuation per Acre
Description
Recent Sales Valuation
Seminole County Property Appraiser Valuation [1]
Average Valuation per acre
[1] Valuation based on parcels that belong to Central Winds Park.
Amount
$38,156
$87,120
$62,638
By extrapolating the average cost per acre developed above, to the amount of acreage required to
serve future residents the currentvalue of the embedded land cost can be developed. The table below
illustrates this value:
Table 20: Embedded Land Costs
Descriptio
Required Open Space Acres
Average Valuation per Acre
Total Embedded Land Costs [1]
[1] Difference in calculation due to rounding.
Amount
12.44
$62,638
$779,391
Additionally, the City maintains a five -year capital improvement plan (CIP) for the parks and
recreation division. The five -year CIP, which spans from FY 2018 through FY 2022 identifies slightly
more than $5 million of improvements. Of these improvements $360,000 is for replacement of
playground equipment and $55,000 is for replacing scoreboards. Since impact fees are not eligible to
fund replacement projects, these items have been excluded from the analysis. The five -year CIP is
provided below:
Section 4: Parks and Recreation 1 23
Table 21: Five -year Parks CIP
Description
5 -year Total
Trotwood Park Pavilion
$150,000
Torcaso Park Fieldhouse
3,000,000
Torcaso Park Pavilion
100,000
Park Playgrounds
360,000
Parks Scoreboards
55,000
Central Winds Park Amphitheater
300,000
Outdoor Fitness Course
75,000
Magnolia Park Amphitheater
1,035,000
Total
$5,075,000
Less: Replacement Projects
(415,000)
Impact Fee Eligible Amount
$4,660,000
Notes:
Multi- purpose gymnasium.
Replacement of playground equipment.
Replacement of scoreboard.
Of the total $5,075,000 of projects identified above, $4,660,000 is eligible for impact fee funding from
existing and future residents.
IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
In order to reflect a consistent level of service provided to both existing and future residents, the
embedded assets identified on Table 15 and the CIP costs from Table 21 have been allocated based
on the respective number of units. As identified on Table 2, there are currently 15,331 residential
units in the City and growth is projected to provide an additional 1,319 units. The table below
provides an illustration of the cost allocation between existing and future development:
Description
Existing Development
Future Development
Total
[1] Derived from Table 2.
[2] Obtained from Table 15.
[3] Obtained from Table 21.
Table 22: Parks CIP Cost Allocation
Percent of Existing Park
CIP Project
Units [1] Assets [2]
Costs [3]
92.1% $12,229,368
$4,290,838
7.9% 1,052,152
369,162
Total
$16,520,206
1,421,314
100.0% $13,281,520 $4,660,000 $17,941,520
As shown above, 7.9% of the costs identified for the embedded assets and the CIP projects have been
allocated to future residents based on the anticipated number of units to be developed. The allocation
above provides for a constant level of service provided throughout the City and does not place an
undue burden on future residents. The cost identified above are added to the land costs required on
Table 20, resulting in the total amount to be recovered from impact fees of $2,220,705.
Credit Consideration
While the funding sources for the parks CIP program do not anticipate full funding from impact fees,
it is primarily due to the inherent timing issue of project completion and impact fee revenues.
Section 4: Parks and Recreation 1 24
Generally, communities implement projects prior to fully realizing the anticipated development,
which creates a lag of impact fee revenues compared to capital expenditures. Therefore, it is
recommended that the City keep detailed accounting records of future park capital projects by
recording the date of the project, the purpose and the funding source used. If the project is eligible
for impact fee funding, but impact fee balances are not sufficient to fully fund the growth portion
identified, then as impact fees are collected in the future they can be used to reimburse the other
funding sources. No credits from other revenue sources have been identified for the purposes of this
calculation, as it is assumed that other funding sources generated by future users will be utilized to
provide for the necessary ongoing operating and repair /replacement costs required.
The existing impact fee balance of $1,054,417 held by the City should be utilized for funding of CIP
projects identified that will expand /increase the level of parks & recreation services provided to
existing residents. The impact fees were paid by these residents and can only be used for the purpose
of expanding parks & recreation services, such as the fieldhouse and amphitheaters identified in the
5 -year CIP.
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Level
Since the parks and recreation impact fees only apply to residential development, the total costs
identified above of $2,220,705 will be collected from the 1,319 residential units anticipated. The table
below provides the impact fee calculation:
Table 23: Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Calculation
Allocated Costs $2,220,705
Dwelling Units 1,319
Cost per Dwelling Unit $1,668.46
Rounded Cost per Dwelling Unit $1,665.00
IMPACT FEE COMPARISON
The figures on the following page provide a comparison of the existing and calculated parks and
recreation impact fees for the City with other local municipalities in Seminole County:
Section 4: Parks and Recreation 1 25
Figure 3: Single Family Parks & Recreation Impact Fee Comparison
Single Family Parks & Recreation Impact Fees
$1,665.00
$1,200.00
W.S. Existing W.S.
Calculated
$438.28
$302.09 $335.00
son
Altamonte Casselberry Lake Mary
Springs
$1,312.13
$1,052.34
$0.00
Oviedo Sanford Seminole
County
Figure 4: Multi- family Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Comparison
Multi- family Parks and Recreation Impact Fees
$1,665.00
$1,200.00
W.S. Existing W.S.
Calculated
$738.35
$259.15 $270.46 $335.00
0 E 0 1
Altamonte Casselberry Lake Mary Oviedo
Springs
Section 4: Parks and Recreation 1 26
$1,052.34
$0.00
Sanford Seminole
County