Oviedo presses county on mobility‑fee spending, seeks protections for funds within benefits district

Council reviewed a draft interlocal agreement to implement the county—s mobility fee and to reconcile funds collected that may benefit Oviedo.

Planning/legal staff and outside counsel outlined four topics staff had analyzed: statutory compliance, termination of the prior county road impact fee agreement, how the county has spent collected funds, and timing of payments from the city to the county under a new interlocal. City staff—s data review found roughly $740,000 of fees in the city database that staff flagged as potentially inconsistent with county accounting; county staff provided a revised figure closer to $1.2 million when the two databases were compared.

Why it matters: the interlocal determines whether, and how, mobility fees collected inside Oviedo or in adjacent unincorporated areas will be spent on projects that benefit the city and whether the city receives credits or set‑asides for county‑collected fees that affect Oviedo roadways.

Legal guidance and negotiating posture: Jonathan Paul (city legal counsel) told council the statute places interlocal obligations on local governments but, in his reading, the statute does not explicitly require that every past county expenditure be reconciled or retroactively reallocated by formula. “I have scoured these laws... and I do not have it jumping off the page at me,” Paul said, explaining the legal distinction between what the statute mandates and what is a useful bargaining position during negotiations.

Areas of agreement and staff recommendations: staff confirmed the draft ILA requires a 25 percent county set‑aside when county mobility fees come from development within the city—s benefits district. Council discussed whether the city could insist that the county hold Oviedo—s 25 percent in the county account (and pay interest) or accept county stewardship provided the ILA requires the county to return unspent funds to the city if not used within the statutory period. Staff noted the draft requires county expenditures within five years of payment and returns to the payor if funds are unused; council asked staff to clarify the ordinance timing (city code had a seven‑year reference) and to seek revision so that, if county funds are not spent in five years, the funds would come back to the city so the city can spend them on benefits‑district projects before the developer refund clock runs.

Project mapping and examples: staff used GIS overlays to show which county projects were inside Oviedo—s mobility‑benefits district. Some county projects billed to impact fees or mobility fees (for example, turn lane work) were located outside Oviedo—s benefit area; other substantial allocations—most notably a multi‑million dollar allocation for a Slavia Road/Red Bug Lake area project—are recorded in county accounts but are largely tied to parts of the county network west of the city. Council members pressed for assurances that large allocations identified in the county plan that are recorded against the suburban district would be used for projects in Oviedo—s benefits district or be available to the city if unused.

Council direction: staff said they will return a revised draft ILA that clarifies the five‑year spend rule and the process for returning unspent funds to the city, and will continue to reconcile project tables with county staff. Council also directed staff to ask the county to consider a negotiated 25 percent share of mobility fee revenue collected from unincorporated development inside Oviedo—s mobility benefits district (staff acknowledged the county had opposed that request previously). The ILA is scheduled for a council decision on July 21.

Next steps: staff will continue database reconciliation with county staff, request the county agree to the return-to-city language for unspent funds within the five‑year window, and bring a revised interlocal agreement to council for action on the previously announced July 21 agenda.