Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Impact Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Palm Coast staff present transportation impact fee study; council debates inflation, FDOT funding and scope
Summary
City consultants told the council that updated transportation impact fees reflect large increases in construction and vehicle‑miles costs since 2018. Council members discussed the statutory 50% cap, potential extraordinary‑circumstances findings, the sensitivity of fees to anticipated outside funding and whether to remove US 1 from the fee plan.
City staff and consultants presented an updated transportation impact fee study that would raise many fees, reflecting large increases in construction and capacity costs since the 2018 study. The council debated whether to find “extraordinary circumstances” to exceed statutory caps and how to treat anticipated state and grant funding.
Jonathan Paul, principal of New Urban Concepts, summarized the technical approach and drivers: “Transportation impact fees are a way for new development to mitigate its impact. They are not fees or assessments charged on existing residents or existing businesses.” He told the council the study bases fees on projected capacity needs out to 2050 and uses localized and national data sources updated since 2018.
Why this matters: The study showed per‑mile roadway costs had about doubled since 2018 in Palm Coast, driven by higher construction and materials costs and updated travel‑demand data. State rules adopted in 2021 mean municipalities generally cannot increase fees beyond a 50% cap without making a formal finding of extraordinary circumstances; that finding has new procedural requirements and may require super‑ or unanimous majorities in the future.
Major policy issues discussed: - Inflation and indexing: Consultants said the state no longer provides a DOT construction index and that municipalities must either build projected inflation into their adopted fee schedule or conduct new studies to increase fees later. - Sensitivity to outside funding: Jonathan Paul and staff explained that fees are highly sensitive to reasonably anticipated funding from FDOT, TPO and grants. Council members pressed staff to model scenarios assuming higher FDOT/TPO shares for major corridors, especially State Road 100. - Project list scope: Council members debated whether to keep US 1 projects in the fee horizon (the study’s 2050 baseline makes US 1 improvements show up). After discussion, council members indicated they prefer removing US 1 from the list because its projected need is 15–20 years out and including it makes fees less defensible today. - Extraordinary circumstances: Staff and the consultant outlined the legal standard and said Palm Coast’s rapid recent growth, updated trip‑generation data and sharply higher construction costs formed the basis for an extraordinary‑circumstances finding if council chose that route.
Numbers and next steps: The consultant presented proposed fee increases (varied by land use) and two implementation paths: (1) follow statute and cap increases at 50% phased over four years, or (2) adopt the full calculated rates after a formal extraordinary‑circumstances finding (requires additional public workshops and a super‑/unanimous vote depending on statute changes). Council asked staff to provide a supplemental analysis (including a clearer assumption on anticipated FDOT/TPO funding and the percent increase adopted in 2018) before first reading of any ordinance.
Ending: Staff will return with revised cost assumptions and a proposed ordinance incorporating council direction; the council signaled interest in removing the US 1 projects and in pursuing a defensible extraordinary‑circumstances record if the full fee package is adopted.
