Video index

4.1 PRESENTATION - The City's consultant, Stantec, will provide a presentation on the 2025 Impact Fee Study. This study relates to fees collected to support levels of service needs resulting from population growth for the City's fire, police, parks and recreation and public facilities.

5.1 IMPACT FEES - FIRE, POLICE, PARKS & RECREATION, PUBLIC FACILITIES - The City Commission, at their December 3, 2024, Workshop directed staff to place this matter on their April 1, 2025, Workshop agenda for discussion

Jun 03, 2025 Workshop

4.1 PRESENTATION - The City's consultant, Stantec, will provide a presentation on the 2025 Impact Fee Study. This study relates to fees collected to support levels of service needs resulting from population growth for the City's fire, police, parks and recreation and public facilities.

5.1 IMPACT FEES - FIRE, POLICE, PARKS & RECREATION, PUBLIC FACILITIES - The City Commission, at their December 3, 2024, Workshop directed staff to place this matter on their April 1, 2025, Workshop agenda for discussion

Download Transcript

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:07]

>>> GOOD EVENING , FOLKS AND WELCOME TO THE JUNE THREE CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP AND I WILL HAVE THE ROLE CALLED .

INAUDIBLE - LOW VOLUME ] >>> PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE

OF ALLEGIANCE. >> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH

LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. >> YOU MAY BE SEATED. WE WILL BE

[4.1 PRESENTATION - The City's consultant, Stantec, will provide a presentation on the 2025 Impact Fee Study. This study relates to fees collected to support levels of service needs resulting from population growth for the City's fire, police, parks and recreation and public facilities.]

STARTING OFF WITH ITEM 4 THE PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY CONSULTANT, STANTEC PROVIDING A PRESENTATION ON THE 2025 IMPACT FEE STUDY RELATED TO FEES COLLECTED FROM EVERYTHING TO FIRE, POLICE, PARKS AND RECREATION, AND PUBLIC FACILITIES NOT INCLUDING WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES.

>> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, VICE MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS PETER. I AM WITH STANTEC AND THE CITY REACHED OUT TO US REGARDING THE IMPACT FEES DESCRIBED BY THE MAYOR AND I HAVE A PRESENTATION GOING OVER THE IMPACT STUDY AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS WE ARE MAKING TO THE CITY. AND I DON'T OF THE PRESENTATION WILL COME UP ON THAT SCREEN OR THE ONES IN FRONT

OF YOU. >> IT SHOULD BE ON THE BIG SCREEN HERE. I HAVE IT HERE. THERE IS A LOT OF DETAIL TO GO OVER AND I HAVE A TENDENCY TO SPEAK TOO FAST SOMETIMES. ME AT ANY POINT IF YOU NEED SOMETHING RE-EXPLAINED HER YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS . I WILL BE HAPPY TO COLLABORATE.

>> THANK YOU.

BARE IT IS. -- THERE IT IS . >> I KNOW IT HAS BEEN SOMETIME SINCE THE CITY LOOKED AT THESE AND SOME OF YOU HAVE LESS COMFORT OR KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT THESE ARE OR WHAT THEY ARE USED FOR. ESSENTIALLY, THEY ARE A FEE CHARGED TO ALLOW OR HAVE A NEW DEVELOPMENT PAY ITS OWN WAY SO IT IS ONLY A FEE OR CHARGE THAT IS APPLIED TO NEW DEVELOPMENT DOESN'T AFFECT EXISTING TAXPAYERS OR EXISTING RESIDENTS OR PROPERTY OWNERS. IT IS A ONE-TIME FEE CHARGED WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT FEES AND IT IS DESIGNED TO FUND EXPANSION RELATED COSTS . SO TWO IMPORTANT THINGS THAT IT HAS TO BE CAPITAL SO INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES AND IN SOME CASES VEHICLES ARE ALLOWED FOR PUBLIC SAFETY AND OTHER MAJOR ASSETS WITH A LONGER LIFESPAN. IT CAN'T PAY FOR ONGOING ANNUAL MAINTENANCE, RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT IF A BUILDING IS BEING REPLACED BY THE SAME BUILDING BUT IT WOULDN'T GO TOWARD FUNDING THAT BUT DESIGNED TO CAPTURE THE COST OF EXPANDING SERVICES BECAUSE OF NEW DEVELOPMENT AND AS IT COMES IN COST SERVICES HAVE TO EXPAND PROPORTIONATELY AND WHY THESE FEES ARE PLACED. SO AS I SAID NOT FOR OPERATION OR MAINTENANCE OR REPLACEMENT. WITHOUT MAINTENANCE FEES IT IS A POLICY DECISION FROM THE CITY STANDPOINT WHETHER YOU HAVE IMPACT FEES. YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE THEM AND SOME CITIES DON'T AND SOME CITIES HAVE CERTAIN FEES AND WHILE THEY DON'T CHARGE FOR OTHER SERVICES. THEY ALSO HAVE FEES AT A LOWER COST RECOVERY AND YOU CAN CHOOSE TO ADOPT OR WAIVE THEM AND THAT HAPPENED A LOT AFTER THE RECESSION AND HOUSING CRISIS TO ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT. BUT WITHOUT IMPACT FEES, YOU WILL EXPERIENCE GROWTH AND STILL LIKELY HAVE TO FUND EXPANSION OF SERVICES BUT JUST A QUESTION OF WHERE THAT FUNDING IS COMING FROM IF THE IMPACT IS NOT THERE. IF YOU STILL HAVE TO FUND A NEW PARK OR FIRE STATION OR THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING FIRE STATION, IF YOU DON'T HAVE THOSE FEES TO OFFSET COSTS CUT IT WILL BE FUNDED FROM GENERAL REVENUE SOURCES THAT THE CITY HAS. SO FOR EXISTING TAXPAYERS OR THE FACILITIES MAY NOT BE

[00:05:03]

CONSTRUCTED OR YOU ENTER INTO A SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF FACILITIES SERVING MORE OR MORE PEOPLE SO THE LEVEL OF SERVICE GOES DOWN OVER TIME. SO THE FLORIDA IMPACT FEE IN THE FLORIDA STATE STATUTES IS THE GOVERNING LEGISLATION IN THE STATE AND A FEW BRIEF POINTS I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT AND THESE ARE THE GUIDELINES WE FOLLOW WHEN WE PERFORM THESE STUDIES AND THE CALCULATION HAS TO BE BASED ON THE MOST RECENT AND LOCALIZED DATA WHICH IS THE REASON CITIES UPDATE THEIR FEES BECAUSE AFTER 10 OR 20 YEARS, IT IS HARD TO SAY THAT THOSE FEES ARE BASED ON RECENT LOCALIZED DATA. IT HAS TO BE DESIGNED SO IT IS A PROPORTIONAL MEANING IT IS PROPORTIONAL TO THE BENEFIT OR IMPACT ON THE SYSTEM THAT A DEVELOPMENT HAS CUT MEANING A HOUSE DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME IMPACT AS A WALMART OR A 500 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME IMPACT AS A WALMART. IT IS DIFFERENT. THERE IS A CALCULATION BEHIND THE SCENES AND HOW WE DESIGNED THE FEES SO IT CAPTURES THE PROPORTIONALITY. THEY HAVE TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR IN A SEPARATE FUND. YOU CAN'T JUST COLLECT THOSE AND LOSE TRACK OF WHERE THEY GO TOWARDS FUNDING BUT REALLY IMPORTANT THEY GO TOWARD THE EXPANSION RELATED CAPITAL.

THE CITY'S CURRENT IMPACT FEES WERE LAST DONE IN 2015 AND I HAVE A CURRENT SCHEDULE OF WHAT THEY ARE. FIRE IS $.36 PER SQUARE FOOT AND PARKS AND RECREATION IS $22.89 PER SQUARE FOOT TOWARDS RESIDENTIAL WHICH IS A STATE STANDARD THAT ONLY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES HAVE A DIRECT IMPACT ON THE NEED FOR PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES. PUBLIC FACILITIES IS $.44 PER SQUARE FOOT AND 26 SQUARE FOOT -- SENSE FOR $3.95 PER SQUARE FOOT BUT IF YOU TOOK THE AVERAGE SIZE OF A HOME AND THIS IS THE HEATED SPACE SO EXCLUDING PATIOS AND GARAGES. SO IN THE CITY IS CURRENTLY 1530 SQUARE FEET AND MULTIPLY IT BY THE CURRENT FEE, THE AVERAGE NEW HOME OR NEW DEVELOPED HOME WOULD PAY $6400 AND IMPACT FEES. SO THIS IS GOING BACK TO THE IMPACT FEE LAW, AND THERE HAS BEEN A RECENT UPDATE TO THE STATE STATUTES THAT HAPPENED ABOUT THREE OR FOUR YEARS AGO WHICH IS THE FIRST TIME LIMITS HAVE BEEN PLACED ON IMPACT FEE INCREASES.

SO THE LAW SAYS IF AN IMPACT FEE INCREASE IS RECOMMENDED OR CALCULATED BY A FIRM OR WHOEVER HELPING THE CITY CUT IF THE INCREASE IS BETWEEN ZERO AND 25%, IT HAS TO BE DIVIDED OVER TWO EQUAL ANNUAL INCREMENTS , PHASED IN OVER TWO YEARS. IF IT IS 25 OR 50% CUT IT HAS TO BE PHASED IN OVER A FOUR-YEAR PERIOD, ALLOWING DEVELOPERS TO ABSORB THAT CHANGE A LITTLE MORE SLOWLY THAN WITH A LARGE INCREASE. THE INCREASE OVER 50% CAN'T BE ADOPTED. THAT IS THE NEW CAPPED INCREASE FEET AND IT COULD ONLY BE ADOPTED EVERY FOUR YEARS AND ALSO A STIPULATION IN THIS NEW SECTION OF THE LAW THAT YOU CAN TOTALLY IGNORE THESE LIMITS AND EXCEED THEM IF YOU HAVE EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES. THEY DON'T GO ON TO DEFINE EXACTLY WHAT EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES ARE BUT SOME CITIES AND COUNTIES HAVE USED THAT , AND I WOULDN'T CALL IT A LOOPHOLE BUT A GAP METHOD TO AVOID THE LIMITS ON IMPACT FEE INCREASES AND I HAVE CITED POPULATION GROWTH AND COST INFLATION WHICH EVERYBODY HAS EXPERIENCED THAT. IT ISN'T VERY UNIQUE. BUT ALSO AGE OF THE IMPACT FEE AND SOMETIMES CITIES HAVEN'T TOUCHED THEIR IMPACT FEES SINCE THE 90S AND ARE JUST GETTING TO THEM. THESE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT ARE OFTEN CITED. SO THE CALCULATION OF THE CITIES IMPACT FEE IN THIS STUDY, AND THE COST BASIS IS WHERE WE START. IT CAN BE A COMBINATION OF EITHER AN EXISTING COST OR FUTURE COST. EXISTING IS MEASURED IN YOUR CURRENT FIXED ASSET DATA MEANING YOUR CURRENT INVENTORY OF FACILITIES BUILDINGS VEHICLE THAT ARE UTILIZED BY DIFFERENT SERVICE DEPARTMENTS. WE DO ADD ALL OF THOSE UP AND ESCALATE TWO DOLLARS BASED ON IF YOU BOUGHT THIS BUILDING , I THINK IT WAS PURCHASED OR CONSTRUCT IN 1950 AND WHAT IS THE INFLATION THAT HAS OCCURRED TO GET A MORE ACCURATE COST OF REPLACING THIS BUILDING? WE HAVE ALL THE DIFFERENT ASSETS AND DO THIS

[00:10:06]

SAME OPERATION. WE EXCLUDE ANYTHING FUNDED FROM OTHER SOURCES OR GRANTS, DONATED ASSETS OR MAY BE FUNDED ARE CURRENTLY OUTSTANDING DEBT ON THEM . THERE WASN'T REALLY MANY CASES OF THAT . ASSETS UNDER $500,000 WE EXCLUDED. MINOR ASSETS ARE TYPICALLY NOT INCLUDED IN THE COST BASIS. ON THE FUTURES SIDE IT'S LIKE SERVICE DEPARTMENTS THAT HAVE A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM OR PLAN WITH THEIR PROJECTS EXPANSION RELATED PROJECTS SO YOU HAVE SOME NEW PARK IN YOUR CAPITAL PLAN OR NEW FACILITIES RELATED TO PARKS AND REC OR MAYBE A FIRE SUBSTATION PLANNED TO BE BUILT CUT THOSE ASSETS CAN BE INCLUDED INTO THE COST BASIS. SO THIS PAGE SUMMARIZES THE CALCULATION WE SUMMARIZED FOR THE FOUR FEES. STARTING AT THE TOP OF THE COST BASIS WE IDENTIFIED FOR THE PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES WAS HERE DIVIDED BY THE EXISTING AND FUTURE RESIDENTIAL CAPACITY. SO THIS IS THE SECOND PART OF THE EQUATION IS HOW MANY PEOPLE DO YOU SERVE OR HOW MANY PEOPLE DO YOU HOPE TO SERVE WITH THESE NEW ASSETS OR EXISTING ASSETS? OVER PARKS THIS IS THE ONLY CASE WHERE WE DID INCORPORATE BOTH THE EXISTING ASSETS AND FUTURE ASSETS BECAUSE THERE WERE EXPANSION RELATED PROJECTS IN THE PARKS CIP. SO THE IMPACT FEE WE CALCULATED BASED ON THE COST BASIS AND BASED ON THE CAPACITY FOR PARKS WAS $2.02 PER SQUARE FOOT. IT IS ACTUALLY A REDUCTION OF 30% FROM YOUR EXISTING FEE. I DID LOOK AT THE 2015 METHODOLOGY. IT IS HARD TO SAY WHY THERE IS A REDUCTION. A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE SURPRISED BY THIS WHEN WE CALCULATE FEES BECAUSE THEY ALWAYS EXPECT THOSE FEES TO GO UP AND UP AND IT'S ALWAYS A MEASUREMENT OF CAPACITY THEN IT IS THE COST OF A CERTAIN GOOD OR SERVICE RISING OVERTIME. SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS BASED ON THE COST BASIS AND BASED ON THE RESIDENTS AND THE DEVELOPMENT CURRENTLY SERVED BY PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT, WE ARE CALCULATING THAT TWO DOLLAR TO SENT FEE AND LATER WHEN WE GET TO THE SURVEYS YOU WILL SEE THAT IS ACTUALLY STILL A VERY SUBSTANTIAL FEE IN TERMS OF PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEES. WHEN WE GET TO THE FIRE SERVICE DEPARTMENT, WE CALCULATED $6.7 MILLION COST BASIS AND DIVIDED IT OVER THE EXISTING. SO THIS IS WHAT WE REFER TO AS A BUY IN APPROACH SO EXISTING ASSETS OVER EXISTING CAPACITY IN THE CITY CALCULATING A 45% PER SQUARE FOOT FEE AND WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THAT IS THE COST OF FIRE STATION NUMBER 2 WHICH WAS RECENTLY COMPLETED. THAT IS IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT WHICH EQUATES TO A 25% INCREASE OVER THE EXISTING FEE OF $.36.

FOR POLICE 9.6 MILLION AND CALCULATED $.43 IS ACTUALLY 63% INCREASE OVER THE EXISTING FEET . PUBLIC FACILITIES IS 13.8 MILLION WHICH IS A $.67 PER SQUARE FOOT WHICH IS A 51% INCREASE OVER THE EXISTING FEE AND SOME THINGS TO POINT OUT WITH THE LAND, BUILDINGS, AND IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDED FOR ALL OF THESE BUT FOR FIRE AND POLICE VEHICLES ALSO INCLUDED AND THE STATE LAW SAYS YOU CAN INCLUDE PUBLIC SAFETY VEHICLES IN THESE CALCULATIONS AND ALSO IF YOU DO A SCHOOL IMPACT FEE YOU CAN INCLUDE SCHOOL VEHICLES. THE COSTS WERE REMOVED FOR OTHER FUNDING SOURCES AND THE PARKS EXPANSION CIP WAS INCLUDED. SO THAT WAS ALL OF THE FEES WE CALCULATED PER THAT SQUARE FOOT BASIS. IF YOU WANTED TO LOOK AT WHAT IT WOULD BE FOR AN AVERAGE SINGLE-FAMILY HOME, I CALCULATED THOSE FEES FOR IT ACED ON THE AVERAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE. THE PARKS FEE CURRENTLY IS $4400 PER NEW AVERAGE SINGLE-FAMILY HOME REDUCED TO 3000 , WHICH IS A $1300 DECREASE. FIRE IS INCREASED TO 689 WHICH IS AN INCREASE OF $138. POLICE AND PUBLIC AUTHORITIES ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE CAPPED AT THE 50% BASED ON THE LIMITS THAT THE STATE LAW HAS PLACED ON IMPACT FEE INCREASES WHICH WOULD BE AN INCREASED TO $606 AND PUBLIC FACILITIES TO $1017. OVERALL

[00:15:03]

COPY EXISTING FEES ADDED UP WERE PREVIOUSLY $6000 PER AVERAGE SINGLE-FAMILY HOME AND THE NEW FEES ADDED UP ON AVERAGE WOULD BE $5400 PER SINGLE-FAMILY HOME SO AN OVERALL DECREASE REALLY RELATED TO THAT PARKS FEE DECREASE AND IT IS A SUBSTANTIAL

11% INCREASE OVERALL. >>

>> WHEN IT IS CAPPED AT 50% AND YOU SAID IT TAKES FOUR YEARS TO COLLECT THAT AND YOU SAID ABOUT THE DEVELOPER, HOW DOES THAT WORK FOR YEARS OUT WITH A DEVELOPER WHO SELLS A HOUSE. WHO IS PAYING THE THREE OVER FOUR YEARS?

>> NOBODY PAYS THE FEE OVER FOUR YEARS. THEY PAY ON WHATEVER PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT WAS OCCURRING IN THE YEAR WERE EVER THEY WERE AT IN THAT SCHEDULE OR MAYBE THE DEVELOPMENT IS COMING IN YOUR 2 WHICH IS THE FEE THEY PAY. THESE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE PHASED IN OVER A FOUR-YEAR PERIOD SO THE $200 INCREASE FOR POLICE FOR EXAMPLE WILL BE THAT $50 INCREASE PER YEAR UNTIL YOU GET TO THESE LEVELS IN THE FOURTH YEAR. AND I AM NOT ACTUALLY SURE IF THAT IS THE THINKING BEHIND GIVING RELIEF TO THE DEVELOPER. BUT THEY DON'T REALLY GIVE A REASON AS TO WHY THEY PUT THESE LIMITS ON THE INCREASES. AND LIKE I SAID, --

>> I MISUNDERSTOOD. AT THAT HERE IS THIS A FEE SPREAD OVER THIS THERE. EXPECT THEY WOULD PAY THE FEE UPFRONT.

UP THAT QUARTER EVERY YEAR. >> ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING THIS IS AN ANNUAL INCREASE AS TECHNICALLY CAPPED AT 12.5% BECAUSE OF IT WAS AT 25% IT WOULD BE OVER TWO YEARS AND IF

THAT 50% OVER FOUR YEARS. >> I DO HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.

THE POLICE AND PUBLIC FACILITIES CAP A 50%. SO THE PROPOSED SAYS 606 AND WHAT WAS THE ACTUAL CALCULATED? WHAT WAS IT?

>> THE ACTUAL CALCULATED WOULD BE 63% INCREASE. SO TO ADD ANOTHER $20 OR SO, I BELIEVE WHICH IS $15 AND THAT IS THE

CALCULATED FEET . >> WHAT WITH THE PUBLIC

FACILITIES? >> 51% SO PRETTY MUCH THE SAME.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> DOES THE DECREASE GET PHASED-IN EVERY THREE OR FOUR YEARS?

>> NO. THAT IS IMMEDIATE. ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOU DO BY PUBLISHING THESE RESULTS IS YOU ARE SAYING YOU CALCULATED THE COST OF CAPACITY AND WE ARE CURRENTLY CHARGING OVER THAT COST OF CAPACITY SO YOU HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT AS SOON AS

POSSIBLE. >> THANK YOU.

>> WHEN THIS AGENDA WAS PRESENTED THAT WE WERE GIVEN YOUR DOCUMENTATION. THE NUMBERS DON'T MATCH.

>> IT WAS A PRELIMINARY AND WE HAVE MADE SOME REFINEMENTS. FOR EXAMPLE WE HAD THE FIRE IMPACT .

>> YOU DID NOT HAVE THE NEW FIRE STATION IN THE FIRE NUMBERS. SO THE REASON WE DON'T CONCLUDE FLEET IS BY STATE STATUTE?

>> CORRECT. >> OKAY. MY OTHER QUESTION IS FOR PARKS NOW THAT THE GOLF COURSE IS UNDER PARKS AND RECREATION EVEN THOUGH THERE IS AN ENTERPRISE FUND, ARE THOSE COSTS CALCULATED -- HAVE THOSE COSTS BEEN CALCULATED OR IS IT

APPROPRIATE TO CAPTURE THOSE? >> THAT IS TRICKY . I HAVE NOT SEEN THAT WERE A GOLF COURSE IS USED WITHIN PARKS AND

RECREATION. >> IT IS AN UNCOMMON FROM FLORIDA THAT MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSES ARE JUST PARTS OF THIS BUT WE HELD THEM SEPARATE BECAUSE THEY ARE AN ENTERPRISE FUND BECAUSE THEY CARRY DEBT AND THEY ARE NOW UNDER PARKS AND REC SO MY QUESTION WOULD BE SHOULD THOSE COSTS -- SHOULD BE READ LOOKED AT BECAUSE OF THE GOLF COURSE? AND THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS AND WHAT ABOUT THE MARINA?

>> IF YOU WANT COMFORTABLE WITH AN ANSWER, VICE MAYOR WOULD LIKE

TO TAKE THAT. >> MY QUESTION IS WHERE IS THE

[00:20:12]

EXPANSION ON THE GOLF COURSE? WE ARE TALKING ABOUT REDUCING OR AT LEAST WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THAT.

>> ACTUALLY, WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT BUILDING A WHOLE NEW RECREATIONAL FACILITY AND THAT ISN'T IN ANY OF THE CALCULATIONS EITHER. I AM JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. I HAVE BEEN COMING TO THESE MEETINGS FOR OVER 10 YEARS AND I HAD NO IDEA WE HAD A PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT FEE AND NOBODY HAS EVER MENTIONED IT AS FAR AS I COULD TELL AND AT ANY MEETING I WENT TO MA ONLY TALKED ABOUT PARKS AND REC, FIRE AND POLICE SO IT WAS A LITTLE BIT OF A SURPRISE. SO I JUST HAD A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT IS IN AND WHAT IS OUT. SO UNDER PARKS, FOR EXAMPLE, BOARDWALK IS IN NUMBER -- NONE OF THE OTHER BEACH WALK OVER CZAR IN AND THEY WERE TAKEN OUT YEARS AGO. SO I AM CONCERNED THAT WHAT YOU USED TO CALCULATE THE NUMBERS IS PROBABLY NOT AS ACCURATE AS IT COULD BE IS MY CONCERN. AND ABOUT PROBABLY ALL

OF THESE CALCULATIONS. >> JUST TO GO BACK TO THE PREVIOUS POINT ON THE GOLF COURSE. I THINK AN ARGUMENT CAN BE MADE THAT IT IS AN AMENITY THAT DOESN'T BENEFIT EVERYONE EQUALLY AND IT HAS A DEDICATED REVENUE STREAM AND THE SAME WITH THE MARINA WHEREAS THE OTHER PARKS AND REC ASSETS ARE FUNDED

BY GENERAL REVENUES. >> WE HAVE SOME FUNDED BY FEES IN THE POOL IS A GOOD EXAMPLE. AND BASEBALL FIELDS ARE ANOTHER EXAMPLE AND THEY ARE IN YOUR CALCULATIONS. I AM SAYING THAT I WANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE ACTUALLY CAPTURING EVERYTHING WE ARE LEGALLY ALLOWED TO CAPTURE AND CONCERNED WE ARE NOT.

THEREFORE I HAVE ALWAYS THOUGHT THAT THE PARKS FEES WERE MAY BE A LITTLE HIGH . I WAS VERY CONCERNED WHEN WE GOT THE ORIGINAL NUMBERS WHERE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FEES WERE GOING DOWN BECAUSE IT DIDN'T LOOK LIKE A RESCUE WAS CAPTURED PROPERLY AND A NEW FIRE STATION WASN'T CAPTURED AND I AM GLAD TO SEE THAT HAS BEEN CORRECTED. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE ARE CAPTURING EVERYTHING WE ARE LEGALLY ALLOWED TO CAPTURE AND I AM NOT COMPETENT THAT WE HAVE. THAT WOULD BE TO THE STAFF.

>> IT HAS BEEN SOME TIME WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS STUDY OVER THE COURSE OF A YEAR OR SO AND WE REQUESTED ALL THE MYSTERY AND FIXED ASSET DATA AND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE STUDY SO IT IS KIND OF HOW THIS GOT MISSED BECAUSE OF A MORE RECENT EDITION.

>> THIS PLAN HASN'T ALWAYS BEEN AS ROBUST THAT WE WANTED TO BE NOW. LET ME SAY IT THIS WAY. IT COULD BE THAT OTHER THINGS ARE MISSED AS WELL AND I WOULD GO ASK THE STAFF TO GO BACK AND RESEARCH OTHER ISSUES TO CAPTURE EVERYTHING WE ARE LEGALLY ALLOWED TO CAPTURE BEFORE WE SET NEW NUMBERS. THANK YOU.

>> I HAVE TRAN 12 AND THEN COMMISSIONER POYNTER.

>> I WOULD AGREE WITH COMMINSSIONER MINSHEW. I AM ESPECIALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE BOARDWALKS. AND NORTH BEACH PARK BOARDWALK IS AN IN HERE AND THAT IS A LOT OF MONEY. ALSO, I NOTICED WHEN I WAS LOOKING TO THIS THAT I NOTICED THE NEW FIRE STATION WASN'T IN HERE. I ADDED IT IN MYSELF ABOUT A $5 MILLION ASSET . MY CALCULATION PUT IT WELL OVER $700 . I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT DATA AND I AM NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THAT UNLESS I

CAN SEE THE NUMBERS. >> WE HAD PLANNED ON THAT AFTER

THIS. >> I WOULD LIKE TO SAY ONE OTHER THING. IF THE LAW SAYS WE ARE ALLOWED TO DO THIS IMPACT FEE INCREASE EVERY FOUR YEARS AND WE HAVEN'T DONE IT IN 10 YEARS AND WE ARE CAPPED AT A 50% INCREASE, I WOULD LIKE SOMEBODY TO PULL OUT THE 2029 CALENDAR AND MAKE SURE WE DO IT AGAIN IN FOUR YEARS SO WE DON'T GET HIT BY A CAP AGAIN . THAT WOULD BE RECAPTURING WHAT WE ARE LOSING THERE. WHO KNOWS WHERE INFLATION

WILL GO AND WE DO NEED OUR FEES. >> COMMISSIONER AND THEN VICE

[00:25:10]

MAYOR. >> A POINT OF CLARIFICATION. I KNOW THAT PARKS AND REC IS OVERSEEING THE GOLF COURSE. BUT HAVE WE TAKEN IT OUT AS AN ENTERPRISE BUSINESS? I UNDERSTAND BUT IT'S STILL AN ENTERPRISE BUSINESS. AND I ALSO AGREE THAT WE HAVE A LOT OF EXPENSES WITH THE MARINA AS WELL AND I DON'T BUY THE ARGUMENT THAT IT DOESN'T BENEFIT EVERYBODY SO, THEREFORE IT SHOULDN'T BE IN BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE A BOAT, OR SWIM OR PLAY GOLF AND THAT PERSON DOESN'T SO NOT EVERYBODY USES THE SAME FACILITIES BUT THEY ARE THERE FOR EVERYBODY TO USE SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE A WEAK ARGUMENT. AGAIN I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MAYBE THESE NUMBERS TWEAKED A LITTLE BIT AND MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE RIGHT NUMBERS AND THERE

TO MAKE A DECISION. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.

>> THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF AND HOW MUCH DOES THIS STUDY COST? AND IF IT DOES HAVE TO GO BACK FOR RECALCULATION, IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL COSTS TO DO THAT?

>> I CAN GO BACK AND SEE IF THERE IS ROOM IN THE EXISTING SCOPE BASED ON WHAT WE BUILT ON THE PROJECT AND IF THERE HAS BEEN DELAYS AND A FEW RECALCULATIONS ALREADY . BUT I DON'T KNOW OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

>> OKAY. THINK YOU, VICE MAYOR. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE

CONTINUE? PROCEED PLEASE. >> OKAY. SO THIS NEXT SLIDE SHOWS THE EXISTING FEES AND A PHASE AND EFFECT OVER THE TWO-YEAR PERIOD FOR THE FIRE IMPACT FEES AND A FOUR-YEAR PERIOD FOR POLICE AND PUBLIC FACILITIES. THIS IS ULTIMATELY WHEREVER IT ENDS UP IF OUR CALCULATIONS ARE IF THIS GOES AND ORDINANCE YOU CAN FOLLOW THE INCREASES OVER THAT FOR YOUR ..

THIS IS THE PARKS AND REC SERVICE. THESE ARE CALCULATED BASED ON THE AVERAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND WE TRIED TO DO JUST A REGIONAL INTAKE ON REGIONAL ENTITIES, AS MANY AS WE COULD FIND. I ADDED ONE ADDITIONAL AT THE TOP TO SHOW YOU THAT THERE ARE OTHER FEES THAT HIGH BUT IT IS RARE . THAT IS THE HIGHEST ONE AND WE THREW IT IN THERE TO GIVE YOU A COMPARISON OF SOME OTHER PLACES WITH HIGH FEES BUT IN THE REGION THE CURRENT FEES IS FAR AND AWAY THE HIGHEST AND EVEN THE RECALCULATED FEE IS ABOVE THOSE AND NORTHPORT IS ANOTHER ONE NOT IN THE REGION BUT TO ADD SOME OTHER HIGHER PARKS AND REC FEES AND THAT SPEAKS TO THE LEVEL OF SERVICE AND THE AMOUNT OF AMENITIES PROVIDED PER CAPITA AND THAT IS WHAT IT IS , A PROPORTION OF HOW MANY AMENITIES YOU HAVE TO HOW MANY YOU SERVE. SO IT ISN'T A BAD THING BUT THAT'S A SURVEY FOR PARKS AND RECREATION . THIS IS THE FIRE SURVEY OR FIRE IMPACT FEE. THE CURRENT IS IN GREEN AND RECALCULATED IN ORANGE. AND THIS IS THE POLICE IMPACT SURVEY IN THE CURRENT IS RECALCULATED IN THE GREEN AND THIS IS THE FOUR-YEAR AND IT WOULD TAKE SOME TIME TO GET THERE. AND THAT FOR YOUR . IT IS LIKELY THAT SOME OF THESE OTHER ENTITIES COULD ADOPT THESE INCREASES THEMSELVES. SO IT IS HARD TO SAY. IT IS ALSO HARD TO SAY WHAT THEIR FEES ARE IF THEY ARE OVER 100% OR IF THEY COULD CHARGE THOSE. THEY COULD HAVE AN INTERNAL POLICY THEY ARE TRUE -- CHOOSING THESE AT 50%. WE DON'T KNOW HOW LONG IT HAS BEEN SINCE THEY UPDATED THOSE FEES OR SOME OF THE LOWER ONES AND THEY COULD BE DECADES-OLD SO JUST SOME THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT. THE PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE IS CURRENTLY AT 678 AND RECALCULATING THIS OTHER FEE THAT GOES TO THE TOP BUT THERE ARE A FEW IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD

[00:30:03]

WITHIN 20 OR 40 OR $50 AND AGAIN THIS IS A FEE AND I DON'T KNOW IF I EXPLAINED IT ADEQUATELY BUT COMMISSIONER IT IS ONE THAT GOES TOWARD EXPANDING PUBLIC FACILITIES LIKE CITY HALL AND THE ADMINISTRATION FACILITIES OR FLEET BUILDING.

>> THERE IS NO FLEET IN PUBLIC FACILITIES SURVEY IN THE THING

WE GOT. >> NOT LIKE VEHICLES BUT IF THERE IS A MAINTENANCE BUILDING. BUT YOU LIKE TO THINK OF THEM AS THE INTERNAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT THAT HELPS THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS RUN I.T., HR, FINANCE, ET CETERA.

>> SO COULD THE STAFF TELL ME HOW MUCH MONEY IS SITTING IN THIS PUBLIC FACILITIES SURVEY TODAY TO? THAT I WAS UNAWARE OF?

THE IMPACT FEE FUND? >> THANK YOU. I HAVE THE TOTALS FOR ALL FOUR FUNDS AS PROVIDED BY THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT.

POLICE HAS 506,000, FIRE HAS 510,000 IN HAS 4.4 MILLION. A

FACILITIES HAS 1.7 MILLION. >> DO YOU KNOW WHEN THE LAST TIME ANYTHING CAME OUT OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES FUND CLICK

>> LAST YEAR 28,000 WAS EXPENDED OUT OF THAT FUND AND THEY DON'T HAVE THE DETAIL ON WHAT THAT WAS FOR.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER?

>> I DO HAVE A QUESTION . THREE PAGES WORTH OF COMMERCIAL CALCULATIONS THAT WERE DONE. THE FOOT NOTE SAYS IT WAS WEIGHTED BASED ON ANALYSIS OF PASCOE COUNTY APPRAISER AND SAYS THAT IN THREE DIFFERENT PLACES. IS THAT A TYPO THAT THEY ARE IN THERE? EFFECT WE USED THAT DATABASE.

>> HOW CAN WE BE SURE THAT THE WRONG DATA WASN'T USED AND IT

IS JUST IN FACT THE TYPO? >> I HAVE THE DATABASE AND I CAN INCLUDE THAT -- IT IS A LOT TO INCLUDE.

>> SURE. I WILL TAKE IT. I LOT -- LIKE A LOT .

>> I AM SORRY IT IS A TYPO . >> THAT IS FINE. I AM A PROFESSIONAL TYPO MAKER. SORRY FOR THE PEOPLE I SEND E-MAILS

TO. >> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS?

>> SO NEXT STEPS IT IS REALLY UP TO THE COMMISSION DIRECTION FOR THOSE FEES IF THE COMMISSION DECIDED TO GO FORWARD WITH THE FEE SCHEDULE AS PRESENTED. YOU WOULD SET A PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR THE ADOPTION AND ALSO NOTICE 90 DAYS IN ADVANCE OF COLLECTING THOSE NEW FEE LEVELS TO GIVE NOTICE TO THE LOCAL COMMUNITY THAT THOSE FEES WILL BE CHANGING AND AGAIN IT IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED THAT EVERY FOUR YEARS THE CITY LOOK AT RECALCULATING THOSE IMPACT FEES AND SEE IF THERE ARE INCREASES THAT COULD BE ADOPTED. SO THAT IS THE CONCLUSION OF THE PRESENTATION. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR HIM? SEEING NONE.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU .

>> CAN I ASK ANOTHER QUESTION ? SO FOR THE CITY MANAGER. CAN YOU SEND ALL OF US WHEN YOU FIND OUT WHAT THE COMMISSIONER ASKED WHAT IT COST TO FUND THIS TYPE OF A STUDY BECAUSE I THINK IF WE DO IT EVERY FOUR YEARS, IT IS A LOT OF MONEY.

>> SO WE PULLED UP SOME BACKGROUND ON THIS AND THE COST WAS $50,000. IN THE SCOPE IT ALLOWS FOR SOME ADJUSTMENTS AFTER THE FACT BASED ON COMMISSION INPUT SO WE BELIEVE THERE IS ROOM IN THE CURRENT SCOPE TO FINALIZE ANY ADJUSTMENTS THAT WE WOULD WANT TO MAKE BASED ON INPUT TONIGHT.

>> AND THE MATH IN MY HEAD IT DOES SEEM LIKE EVERY FOUR YEARS IS WORTH IT ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THE RISK OF THE 50% CAP AND THAT THE INCREASE IS PHASED IN SO WE ARE LOSING OUT AND IT TAKES FOUR YEARS IT TAKES TO CAPTURE THE MONEY WE SHOULD

[5.1 IMPACT FEES - FIRE, POLICE, PARKS & RECREATION, PUBLIC FACILITIES - The City Commission, at their December 3, 2024, Workshop directed staff to place this matter on their April 1, 2025, Workshop agenda for discussion]

BE CAPTURING. >> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM 5.

THE DISCUSSION. IS THERE ANY MORE DISCUSSION REGARDING IMPACT FEES? I BELIEVE I SENSE A THREE COMMISSIONER CONSENSUS THAT WE HAVE QUESTIONS AND WE NEED TO DO SOME TWEAKING. VICE MAYOR ?

>> I MEAN , OUR FACILITIES AREN'T IMPROVING TO THAT EXTENT

[00:35:09]

WHERE IT WILL BE OVER 50% IN FOUR YEARS AND I AM NOT SAYING DON'T DO IT BUT THAT IS HOW THEY CALCULATED IT. THEY CALCULATED IT OFF OF WHAT YOU HAVE CURRENTLY AND WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. I AM NOT SAYING I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF DOING THAT BUT I DON'T THINK YOU WILL GET HIT WITH A 50% COUNT IN FOUR YEARS IF YOU DO THAT. AND THE QUESTION IS I DON'T THINK WE WILL SEE TOO MUCH CHANGE FROM WHAT WE HAVE IF WE GO BACK AND RECALCULATED, IT IS A FEW HUNDRED DOLLARS WHICH IS THE WAY I LOOK AT IT. WE ARE STILL LOOKING AT, IN MY OPINION, LOOKING AT WHAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN MISSED AND THEN YOU HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE LEGAL . DOES A GOLF COURSE ALLOW IT TO BE IN THERE AND DOES THE ENTERPRISE FUND ALLOW IT TO BE IN THERE ALL OF THOSE THINGS ONCE THE LEGAL ASPECT GETS ADJUSTED. IT IS LOOKING LIKE IT WILL BE A DECREASE OVERALL.

ANYWAY. THAT IS ALL I HAVE. >> YES. THAT AND LESS AND LESS HOUSES ARE BEING BUILT. THIS IS ONLY FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. WE

HAD 75 NEW HOUSES LAST YEAR . >> 2023 AND 2024 COMBINED.

>> SO THESE NUMBERS, ALTHOUGH THEY LOOK IMPACTFUL, IT WILL BE LESS AND LESS OPPORTUNITIES FOR THIS CITY TO COLLECT ANY OF THESE DOLLARS BECAUSE IT'S ONLY FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION.

>> I THINK THAT IS AN EXCELLENT POINT AND BEGGING THE QUESTION OF WHAT IS THE IDEAL INTERVAL OF HOW OFTEN IT HAPPENS AND MAYBE FOUR YEARS IS TOO AGGRESSIVE AND 10 YEARS TO SLOW SO MAYBE THAT IS SOMETHING WE CAN COMMISSION STAFF TO FIND OUT AND SEE WHERE IS THE BREAKEVEN POINT OF WHEN THOSE NUMBERS TAPER OFF.

>> AND I DID SAY THIS TO STAFF AND I WILL MAKE A QUICK POINT ABOUT THIS. THIS STUDY WAS DISCUSSED AND I HAD A DISCUSSION WITH DALE OVER IT. WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IT FOR A WHILE TRYING TO GET THIS IMPACT FEE STUDY DONE. I KNOW THAT MS. GIBSON HAS BEEN SCREAMING FROM THE ROOFTOPS TO TRY TO GET IT DONE FOR THE LAST FEW YEARS. IT IS WELL OVERDUE. I ALSO WANT TO MENTION THAT PREVIOUS COMMISSIONS HAVE TRIED TO MOVE THIS SOONER THAN WHAT IT WAS AND IT GOT LOST IN TRANSITION. I DO AGREE THAT 10 YEARS IS WAY TOO LONG TO HAVE BEEN DOING THIS AND WE SHOULD'VE DONE IT A FEW YEARS AGO.

>> DO WE HAVE CONSENSUS? >> ALL I WANT TO SAY IS THAT REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE PUTS AND TAKES ARE AND WHETHER IT IS UP OR DOWN OR INCREASE OR DECREASE IS , I WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING ALLOWABLE BY LAW IS PROPERLY CAPTURED AND WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE DOING. AND THEN I THINK THAT IT IS UNCONSCIONABLE TO ME THAT YOU ARE TELLING ME NOW THIS HAS BEEN DRAGGING ON FOR TWO OR THREE YEARS AND IT IS COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE. SO WHETHER OR NOT IT IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE EVERY FOUR OR SIX YEARS OR WHATEVER, I THINK IT IS DEPENDENT ON THE CONFIDENCE IN THOSE NUMBERS USED TO CREATE IT AND THE CONFIDENCE AND HOW WE ARE MANAGING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN GOING FORWARD . AND THEN I THINK WE COULD MAKE GOOD DECISIONS ABOUT IS THIS SOMETHING WE SHOULD DO EVERY FOUR YEARS OR MAYBE EVERY