Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Impact Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission recommends increases to police, fire and parks impact fees; consultants cite growth and rising construction costs
Summary
On Dec. 9 the Planning Commission recommended City Council adopt increases to municipal impact fees for police, fire/EMS and parks and recreation (Ordinances 3145 and 3146). City staff and consultants said growth, capital plans (including a proposed public safety complex) and construction-cost inflation justify the increases; commissioners requested more comparative and operating-cost detail before council action.
The Planning Commission on Dec. 9 recommended approval of proposed increases to Apopka’s municipal impact fees for police, fire/EMS and parks and recreation, forwarding Ordinances 3145 and 3146 to City Council with a consistency finding.
Finance Director Blanche Sherman and consultant Sean Ocasio (Raftalis) presented the study and methodology. The consultant described the dual-rational-nexus test, which requires fees to be proportional to growth-related capital costs and restricted to capital projects (not operations). The study used recent localized data, city asset records, capital improvement plans and population/unit forecasts. Ocasio said existing embedded assets and planned capital (including a public-safety complex and a new fire station) were apportioned to growth and turned into a per-unit fee.
The presentation showed that combined residential impact fees (police, fire and parks) would rise from about $2,515 per dwelling unit to about $3,578 per unit (roughly a 42% increase), with police and fire fees moving to higher comparative levels than some peer cities. The consultant and staff said the city’s planned police/public-safety investments and recent market inflation in vehicles and construction explain much of the increase.
Commissioners pressed for clearer peer comparisons (some comparator municipalities rely on county-provided services and so are not directly comparable), asked how often municipalities update fees, and whether the new state phasing rules and extraordinary-circumstance procedures were met; staff said the city held two required workshops and that developer-funded roadway improvements tied to recent rezoning support the timing of an updated fee. Commissioners asked for more granular documentation (per-project costs, which projects are recoverable under the statute) to be included in the record sent to council. The commission’s recommendation for both ordinances passed on voice votes; the matter will next go to City Council for second reading and final action.
