Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Impact Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oviedo council reviews impact-fee technical report; directs staff to seek first reading and pursue parks master plan
Summary
At a workshop Oct. 20, Oviedo councilmembers were briefed on a consultant’s updated impact-fee technical report covering parks, fire/rescue, police and administrative facilities and instructed staff to prepare an ordinance for first reading to set fees at the maximum allowed by state statute, phased over four years.
The Oviedo City Council on Oct. 20 held a workshop presentation on an updated impact-fee technical report covering parks and recreation, fire/rescue, law enforcement and administrative facilities. The consultant recommended updated fee calculations based on projected population and employment growth, but noted statutory caps that limit how much the city can increase fees without a separate extraordinary-circumstances finding.
Jonathan Paul, principal of New Urban Concepts, presented the technical report. He explained the methodology: projecting population and employment growth (to create a ‘‘functional equivalent population’’ that counts employees at a reduced impact rate), estimating facility needs and costs over a 10-year horizon, and calculating per-resident or per-unit fees. Paul said the firm modeled inflation (3.5% annually) and used present-day dollars to derive fee recommendations.
Key findings presented by Paul included estimated needs for additional city staff and facilities over the 10-year horizon (roughly 15 law-enforcement personnel, 10 fire-rescue personnel, 11 parks/recreation staff and 13 administrative staff) and corresponding project-cost estimates. For parks, he used the city’s comprehensive-plan level-of-service target (10 acres per 1,000 residents) and estimated roughly 56 acres of new need tied to projected growth over 10 years.
Under Florida law, Paul explained, increases to existing impact fees are capped: a fee cannot exceed a 50% increase over the current rate without an extraordinary-circumstances finding; increases above certain thresholds also must be phased in (up to four years for a maximum increase). Paul recommended not pursuing an extraordinary-circumstances finding now because the city intends to update its parks master plan; that master plan would provide stronger justification if council later sought a larger, immediate increase.
Paul presented calculated fees that, for several categories, exceed the statutory caps; for instance, the calculated park fee for a single-family residence would be about $4,700 but the 50% statutory cap would limit the city to about $4,316 phased over four years. Similar gaps exist in police, fire and administrative categories. Staff and the consultant recommended adopting the maximum rate allowable under statute and phasing increases over the prescribed years unless the council first adopts a master plan and then pursues an extraordinary-circumstances finding.
Councilmembers asked detailed questions about methodology, data sources (American Community Survey for employment estimates at the city level), and how large existing facilities such as a golf course factor into per-capita acreage calculations. Several members advocated promptly updating fees to reflect current costs; others emphasized that a parks master plan would strengthen future requests and unlock other funding opportunities.
Council reached consensus to have staff prepare an ordinance for first reading to set updated impact-fee rates at the statutory maximum (phased over the required timeline) and to pursue a parks and recreation master plan (staff to return with funding options and whether to do the work in-house or hire a consultant). The consultant and staff will return with an ordinance and supporting documents for first reading.
