Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocument Submitted into the RecordF� . 3 City of Miami Impact Fees City Commission Presentation November 17, 2005 TischlerBise Fiscal, Economic & Planning Consultants With Susan Schoettle-Gumm Attorney at Law Submitted Into the public record in connection with item_on PriscillaA.Thompson Clerk 1 Comparison of Fees Imposed Existing 0 Proposed • Police • Police ▪ Fire and Rescue .Fire and Rescue • Parks and Recreation • Parks and Recreation • Solid Waste • General Services • Streets • Storm Sewers • General Services • Terminate fees • storm sewers • Suspend fees • streets Submitted Into the public record in connection with item F1Z•3 on 11-r1-05 2 Priscilla A. Thompson -- City Clerk Comparison of Fee Schedule Existing • Fees calculated and imposed by Planning Area • Fees calculated with coefficients or dollars per square foot for all development • Retain existing fee schedules for building permit applications accepted prior to a specified date Proposed . Uniform City-wide fees by facility type • New fees applied to building permit applications submitted after a specified date • Residential fees imposed per dwelling unit by type of housing • Nonresidential fees imposed per square foot or demand unit (e.g. per room for lodging) Submitted Into the public record in connection with item .3 on >>-f-65 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 3 Comparison of Exemptions/Deferrals 4) Eliminate Exemptions • Duplex & MF in targeted community development areas • Single family detached • Nonprofit JVs w/City *Convert to Deferral • Low & moderate income duplex & MF housing Proposed Deferral Program • Owner -occupied affordable housing • Rental affordable housing receiving direct funding from Florida Housing Finance Corp. or other state/federal affordable housing agencies Submitted Into the public' record in connection with item is-3 on n-t/-os 4 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Affordable Housing Deferral Criteria Adopted by Resolution: • Can be updated annually • Can be modified as needed based on program experience Affordable housing: • Owner occupied: sales price < $236,000 . Rental: receives direct funding or loan from Florida Housing Finance Corp. or other state/federal afford. housing agency Submitted into the public record in connection with item f1Q•3 on ti-11-of Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 5 Affordable Housing Deferral Process: . Owner submits petition . Petition must include list of all "affordable" units/lots, specify the sales/rental price, recorded covenant for each unit/lot, information on any state/federal funding • Covenant establishes legal restriction on unit/lot — impact fees due if unit no longer "affordable" as defined by City resolution Submitted Into the public record in connection with item Fe-3 on 1l- ►'] - Ds Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 6 Affordable Housing Deferral 4, Deferral Agreement: . Owner agrees to keep units/lots as "affordable" for at least 10 years, and impact fees are a lien on the property. • Owner -occupied units shall be owner's primary residence and not rented. Annual affidavit submitted to City. • Monitoring of rental units to be based on annual monitoring by FHFC or other state/federal agencies. • City may enforce agreement by civil action and/or foreclosure of lien. Submitted Into the public record in connection with item -3on n- zi -or Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 7 Generic Impact Fee Formula Demand Units Infrastructure Units Dollars per Xper X per Development Demand Infrastructure Unit Unit Unit See Figure 5 Submitted Into the public recordli connection with item 3 on l !47 -06' 8 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Cost Recovery (past) Fee Methods and Cost Components Type of Fee Parks & Recreation Fire -Rescue General Services Incremental Expansion (present) 1) Citywide Parks 2) Waterfront Parks 3) Pools Apparatus Vehicles and Equipment 1) Buildings 2) Vehicles and Equipment Plan -Based (future) Gymnasiums Stations Growth -Related Modifications to 1VIRC Cost Allocation Submitted Into the public record in connecton with item F0•3 on 1j-_i1 -o5 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 100% Residential Functional Population Functional Population Vehicle Trips 9 Proposed Fee Schedule (1 of 3) General Police TOTAL Services Per Housing Unit $413 * Low Rise includes townhouses, duplexes, 3-4 and 5-9 units per structure, plus mobile homes and other (e.g. boats, recreational vehicles). ** High Rise includes 10-19, 20-49 and 50+ units per structure. Submitted Into the public' record in connection with item n• 3 on II-n-0r Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 10 Proposed Fee Schedule (2 of 3) ITE Code General Police TOTAL Services Nonresidential Per Square Foot of Floor Area 110 Light Industrial 140 Manufacturing 150 Warehousing 151 Mini -Warehouse 610 Hospital 710 General Office 50,000 SF or less 710 General Office 50,001-100,000 SF 710 General Office100,001-200,000 SF 720 Medical -Dental Office 770 Business Park 820 Commercial / Shop Ctr 25,000 SF or less 820 Commercial / Shop Ctr 25,001-50,000 SF 820 Commercial / Shop Ctr 50,001-100,000 SF $0.210 $0.087 $0.107 $0.404 $0.162 $0.068 $0.059 $0.289 $0.116 $0.048 $0.076 $0.240 $0.003 $0.001 $0.038 $0.042 $0.706 $0.745 $0.682 $0.625 $1.080 $0.604 $1.179 $1.064 $0.931 $0.812 $0.709 $0.307 $0.128 $0.271 $0.355 $0.148 $0.242 $0.336 $0.140 $0.206 $0.317 $0.132 $0.176 $0.368 $0.153 $0.559 $0.287 $0.120 $0.197 $0.302 ` $0.126 $0.751 $0.260 $0.108 $0.696 $0.227 $0.095 $0.609 820 Commercial / Shop Ctr 100,001-200,000 SF $0.201 $0.084 $0.527 820 Commercial / Shop Ctr 200,001-400,000 SF $0.181 $0.076 $0.452 Submitted Into the public record in connection with 11 item 1JC• 3 on t-1 ___ Priscilla A. Thompson -:, City Clerk Proposed Fee Schedule (3 of 3) ITE Code Fire/ General Police TOTAL Rescue Other Nonresidential Per Demand Unit $143 $29 $37 $89 $81 320 Lodging (per room) 520 Elementary School (per student) 530 Secondary School (per student) 565 Day Care (per student) 620 Nursing Home (per bed) $40 $16 $87 $7 $3 $19 $8 $3 $26 $14 $6 $69 $32 $13 $36 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item FR-3 on -ai Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 12 Existing and Projected Impact Fee Revenue $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 Average Annual Impact Fee Revenue City of Miami See Figure 8 2000-2004 2006-2010 General Services • Solid Waste • Storm Sewers ❑ Streets ❑ Parks • Fire/Rescue O Police Submitted I nto he _public record in connection with 13 item Fe. 3 on - ti - o Priscilla A. Thompson City Cleric Growth -Related Capital Improvements for Parks and Recreation )Over the next five years, impact fees will fund: . 11.1 acres of additional City-wide Parks • $24.2 million for land • $2.0 million for improvements • $1.7 million for Waterfront Park improvements • N 30% of an additional pool ■ N 6% of the new gymnasium Submitted Into the public record in connection with items=on it-i1-os Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Growth -Related Capital Improvements for Fire -Rescue Over the next five years, impact fees will fund: . N 27% of two new fire stations • N 6 additional vehicles/apparatus Submitted Into the public record in connection with item Fe2.3 on )I-»-os Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Growth -Related Capital Improvements for General Service *Over the next five years, impact fees will fund: . 19 additional vehicles . $1.5 million for growth -related modifications to the MRC building Submitted Into the public' record in connection with item )R . 3 on /J-,7-D5 Priscilla A. Thompson --- City Clerk 16 Growth -Related Capital Improvements for Police *Over the next five years, impact fees will fund: • 54 additional vehicles • N 8% of the new Police Training Facility Submitted Into the public record in connection with item re.3 on 1)-17-ob- Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Comparison to other jurisdictions Single Family per dwelling unit Total Impact Fees Miami proposed $8,099 Miami -Dade Co. $2,924 Palm Beach Co. $6,279 Wellington $5,211 Orange Co. $3,518 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item rg- 3 on II- rl-eS Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Comparison to other jurisdictions Multi -family (low rise) per dwelling unit Total Impact Fees Miami proposed $7,124 Miami -Dade Co. $1,853 Palm Beach Co. $4,300 Wellington $3,684 Orange Co. $2,622 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item PE-3 on j Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Comparison to other jurisdictions 4-Office (100,001 sq. ft.) Total Impact Fees Miami proposed $70,600 Miami -Dade Co. $1,212 Palm Beach Co. $11,594 Wellington $171,291 Orange Co. $12,420 Submitted into the publc record in connection with item tc2 a on n-1, -cS Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Miami Neighborhoods United response to the first reading of the Growth -Related Capital Improvements & Impact Fees report of TischlerBise, consultants to the city, before the Miami City Commisison, originally scheduled for November 3 but reschduled for November 17, 2005. This report is presented to the City Clerk to be incorporated into the public record by Steve Hagen, Chair of the Parks Committee. We request that the City Attorney consider this as a public information request for important documents and answers which we have previously requested but have not received. Please note that our oral presentation will cover only five of our major concerns. We recommend that you study all of our concerns and recommendations so you will have the benefit of why Miami Neighborhoods United believes that the proposed ordinance, in its present form, needs improvements in order to be in the best interests of new residents of Miami. In its present form it will not provide adequate park land to serve future residents. The Parks Committee of Miami Neighborhoods United is relieved that this Commission finally has the oppurtunity to hear this proposed ordinance which in concept could make significant progress toward charging new residents more closely for the capital needs which are brought about by the additions of new residents to our city. It could be a great ordinance if just a few simple. but significant changes are made. We wish this ordinance or an improved version would have been in place over the last two years when this city has experienced some of its most rapid residential growth with new population being added to our city. First we will address our five major concerns. then some lesser yet important concerns and then then we will leave you with a bit of history of leaders who took bold stands to create and oresrve some of our most important parks. Our FIRST major concern is the number of acres the contractor and adminisration are using to describe our park system or should we say the number of acres they are using to calculate park acreage per thousand residents. This park acreage inventory figure is critical as when it is divided by our population it gives the most important factor used to determine the new park land which will be needed to serve Miami's new residents. As you know, if you use incorrect data, you will get an incorrect answer. Please refer to page ten of the Tischler Bise Report. You will notice only 33 of Miami's 106 parks are listed as "City Wide Parks" We would like the adminstration to explain why only these 33 parks are being used as a base to calculate our park acreage per resident. We need to explore this topic. 1 of 13 SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM FR. s ON a-) 7- os %le iC 06- 0104-3 C'RD Miami Neighborhoods United Summary of Miami Parks: Citywide Parks which the adminstration has described as active parks, more than three acres with facilities: 361.1 acres Parks Tess than three acres 117.0 Waterfront Parks: Note: The Parks Department provided a list of Parks and has identified those which are waterfront parks. We are using a fist of acreage provided by the oparjks deparmtn a few months ago but evidenity there is a newer list of acreage which the capital projects office but it has not been provided to us. Antonio Maceo Bayfront Baywood Park at 1.87 acres is under 3 acres above Bicentennial Brickell Park at 2.2 acres is under 3 acres above Dinner Key Picnic Island # 4, 5, 6 Kennedy Park at 20.89 acres is included in Citywide Parks Legion Park at 13.7 acres is included in Citywide Parks Legion Park Picnic Island # 2 Lumus Park at 5.9 acres is included in Citywide Parks Martel Park at .6 acres is under 3 acres above Marti Park at 5.6 acres is included in Citywide Parks Miami Cemetery Morningside Park at 42.38 acres is included in Citywide Parks Morningside Picnic Island # 3 Pace Park at 12.0 acres is included in Citywide Parks Pace Park Picnic Island # 2 Pallot / Magnolia Park at 3 acres is under 3 acres above Peacock Park at 9.4 acres is included in Citywide Parks Riverside Park at 3.5 acres is included in Citywide Parks Sewell Park at 10.33 acres is included in Citywide Parks Spring Garden...two small waterfront parks not yet owned by city Strerns Park Myers Park Virginia Key Beach Park Virginia Key City Beach & Hammock Virginia Key nature walk being developed with Miami -Dade County Virrick Park at 4.7 acres is included in Citywide Parks Japanese Garden and adjoining boat launch Wainwright Park at 21.4 is included in Citywide Parks Watson Island Park per City Commisison Total currect park acreage in Miami 2 4.0 61.0* 30.0 56.7 11.49 10.00 19.28 11.02 5.4 10.0 77.0 Submitted Into the publl 72.0 record in connection wit 20.0 item rg..5 onn-n-oS Prisalla A. Thomp 5.0 City CIE 5.0 875.99 • Please note that in the report, Bayfront Park is listed as a waterfront park but the 61 acres was not listed nor was the 61 acres included in the total for waterfront parks. Please note that 12 acres will be added to the above total when Little Haitti Park is completed and a modest number of new park acres will be added to the above total with the completion of Miami River Walk. Baywalk on the mainland and on Watson Island will most likely not include any additional park acreage as it will be consructed over existing property. Please note that the city. since 2001 has consistently listed 486 acres on Viraina Key, the . picnic islands in Biscayne Bay, parks less than three acres and the Miami Cemetery when talking about total park acreage which produces a total park acreage of 1194 acres. This is the number that was given to the Trust for Public Land in 2002 for the report which resulted in a ratio of 3.1 acres per thousand residents. The administration is now using just 361 acres as a base to calculate a park acreage ratio. 361 divided by the 2005 year—round population of 386,127 which equals .9 (nine tenths) acres Per thousand residents or 39.2 square feet per person. Miami Neighborhoods United is not counting 317 acres of land on Virginia Key which the city has listed because the land is not designated or improved as parkland. (486 —77- 72-20 = 317) We are adjusting our park acreage to 875.99 acres to accurately represent the number of acres of park land available for residents to enioy in Miami. 875.99 acres divided by a population of 386,127 produces 2.26 acres per thousand residents or 98.45 square feet per resident. This is .84 acres less than the city reported to theTrust for Public Land in 2002. If this Commission approves of using .9 acres per thousand residents, as a new standard, you would be eliminating and totally ignoring for imapct fee purposes 50% of Miami's actual useable park acreage. The .9 acre number is less than the 1.3 acres per thousand Level of Service minimum standard as stated in the Miami Neighborhood Comprehensive Plan and you would be in violation of that plan. We all understand that Miami is at the bottom of list when it comes to park acreage per resident of allhigh density cities in the United States. We may never remove ourselves from the bottom of that list produced by Trust for Public Land in Washington, DC. We quoted that study in our July 7, 2005 presentation. As caretakers and stewards of our small but precious park acreage You must not cause a further dilution of our park acreaae. If you are to add new residents. you must do so only if we you can do so without diluting our current acreage per resident ratio. October 31, we reviewed the Tischler report with Peter Hamick of the Trust for Public Land over the telephone and indeed he found it troubling why a vast majority of Miami park land would be eliminated from the total acrege number. He said that cities usually use a "reality" number of acres to be used as the base for impact fee purposes. He explained that by "reality" he meant actual total acreage. Miami's current "reality" number of acres per thousand is 2.26 acres per thousand. In a telephone conversation October 31 with Mr. Tischler, neither he nor an associate, Mr. Guthery who produced the data for this report, would answer our question as to what percentage of their municipal clients create separate categories — categories which are then totally eliminated from park acreage calculations. 3 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item Fit• 5 on ‘i-1-1-os Priscilla A. Thompson r,;h• r`InrL We also spoke with one of the maior consultants in the United States, Duncan and Assoicates of Austin, Texas which produces impact fee studies such as the report we are discussing. They_ do work in Florida and they said it is common to create categories for the purposes of determining their replacement cost. for establishing the type of facilities which my be needed or to determine the type of maintenance and plantings needed in passive parks. The creation of park categories does not mean that you eliminate whole categories of parks from total acreage for impact fee purposes. indeed all park acreage is included in the arriving at total park acreage. The only time they eliminate a category of park land from the total is when it is total wetland or some other type of land which is not accessable to the public a majority of the year. Duncan and Associates said they only knew of one consultant which routinely eliminaes all small neighborhood parks (in our case. parks three acres and less) and other categories of parkland from being counted for impact fee purposes and that consultant is TischlerBise. Thev offered the name We conclude that TisschlerBise is a rarity in their field in using this methodolgy. Mr. Tischler of TischlerBise told us the process of dealing with the city of Miami began about the fall of 2003. All members of our committee thought the process had begun in the fall of 2004 as that is when we first heard about it at a Commission meeting. Mr Tischler said much time passed before a contract was awarded, then it took considerable time to get all the insurance requirements in place, time for the city to supply data and then the actual study took just three months. Is it possible that the administration was interviewing many consultants to find a methodology they would be comfortable with to produce very conservative fees, much lower than what other consultants might recommend? We recommend that our new total park acreage of 875.99 acres be used to calculate the appropriate number of acres per thousand residents which will result in a number of Z.26 acres per thousand new residents or 98.45 square feet per new resident and that the Miami Neighborhood Comprehensive Plan be adjusted to 2.26 acres per thousand residenets. Furthermore we recommend that during the first yearly review, that twelve acres be included for Little Haiti Park and another other new park acreage be added to the total with new calculations to be applied to fees. See a later section on annual and trianial review and adjustment. Our SECOND major concern is about the cost of new Dark land: On page 11, figure 11 five parcels of land wich were purchased for the creation of Little Haiti Park are listed with a price per square foot of $50 listed as an average. This $50 cost is then used in the calculation of acquiring aditional acres of land for the creation of new parks. Mr.Tischler told me they did not explore the cost of raw land, underimproved land or other types of land in other areas of the city. Duncan & Associates said it would cost about $20,000 to hire a firm to determine the most current cost per square foot of land in various parts of the city where parks are most needed. We recommend that, as a condition of this ordinance, that this Commisison order the admistrations to hire a contractor to provide current market prices per square foot for acquiring real estate parcels throughout the city which would be appropriate for park land. We recommed that they give you prices on parcels of three acres and less and of more than three acres. These prices should then be incorporated into this ordinance not Submitted Into the public 4 record in connection with item Ff.-3 on it. ii- cis Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk later than two months after this first reading. We further recommend that twelve months later and every twelve months that a similar study be conducted and that the prices per quare foot be adiusted in the ordinance and not lust reviwed as is currently stated in the ordinance. Our THIRD maior concern is about purchasing park land in a timely manner: We have deep concerns that as land prices rise, some years more rapidly then others, that the fees collected for the purchase of land may not be invested in timely manner and that these time delays may inhibit the purchase of all the acreage the funds were expected to purchase. Subsequently if land purchasees are delayed, the park equipment costs will also rise as the time clock is running. We recommend that you establish an ongoing program of banking park land prior to the need, prior to approving building applications, so there would always be a park land inventory which would be matched to various building permits. Funds from the "Land Trust" established by this Commission could be used to start this land bank for parks and then park impact fees, as they are collected, would replenish the fund Our FOURTH maior concern is about the Impact Fee Review Board and its powers: in the ordinance, mention is made of an impact Fee Review Board but there is no definition of such a board. We recommend that the Parks Advisory Board be named in the ordinance to provide oversight in the collection, dispersal, review and adjustment of impact fees for parks and not just city staff as it is currently. We further recommend that the word review be replaced with the words "review and adjust" in regard to every aspect of the yearly and trienal work. As we stated in our July presentation before this Commission, we recommend again that the Parks Advisory Board be a board elected by the voters with one member being elected from each NET area. This could be done thru meetings in each NET area. It would not be necessary to use the elections department. Furthermore, the Parks Department working with NET should establish "Friends of Parks" volunteer group to act as stewards for the parks in their NET area. Any neighborhood which chooses to look after a specific park should be also recogonized and assisted by the Parks Department and NET. Our FIFTH maior concern is about the defensibility of the ordinance: During the Tischler presentation in September, one of you stated that there must be a "happy medium" in regard to the amount of impact fees to be imposed. We would like to say that the impact fees you are considering should be approached stricly as an exercise in real numbers and any thought of altering the numbers to come up with fees which may be more or Tess acceptable to the development community and to new residents could be challenged by developers or citizen groups. We believe that the number of residents per unit as presented by TischlerBise are very conserative on the side of the developer and new residents and the fees collected will not provide the necessary funds need to purchase new park land to serve these new residents. 5 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item Fe.3 on it- 11-6 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk We question whv some residences which are oversized and which could very well house more than the average number of residents of 1.67 persons per unit are not being charged more in impact fees. Collier County and the City of Chicago charge more for larger residences. We recommend that you look seriously at adding larger fees to oversized units. While the new fees may seem quite high, we believe they would be defensible bv reference to the case of The Homebuilders Association of Metro Orlando, Plaintiffs, v. Osceola County,Florida where school impact fees in the amount of $9,708.30 per residence were upheld. in 2005. Concern about purchasing new parkland without using eminent domain. At the September information session one or more of you expressed your concerns about the ability of finding additinal acreage in Miami which could be converted to parkland. This is especially important when the process of eminet domain is mentioned. After several phone calls around city hall several months ago we were able to secure a list of city own property and as you may know there is not many large parcels owned by the city available which would be appropriate for parkland. Our request for a list of county owned property has still not been met by the city. We understand that there may be as much as 500 acres of vacant County own property which could be appropraite for parkland. We were told that securing such a list is very complicated and that the city was wonting on it. Does the city have such a list now? We request a copy be mailed to address at the end of this document. Residential developers have been placing trees and gardens on the tops of buildings and parking garages for decades and whv not? Such gardens offer residents of these buildings wonderful views of their surroundngs and in Miami our sunrises an sunsets are truly breathtaking. We recommend that the offstreet parking authority work in partnership with developers to provide much needed parking structures along commercial corridors. Techiniques are available to place two or more floors of parking underground. even in South Florida. Ground floors can be occupied bv retail with one or two more floors of parking above that. The structure then gets crowned with a roof top garden with the ability to add tot lots for children and shade strucutres for domino games and social gathering. Imagine residents all over the city meeting up for the sunrise or sunset hours? Imagine the foot traffic which wouei be created to and from these structures? These roof top garden parks can be placed on vacant or underdeveloped commercial land such as outdated strip shopping areas in the city which would be great canditates for this type of redevelopment. Concern about what impact fees are in other cities: At the information session in September, one of you requested that TischlerBise or staff provide you with a list of what fees are being charged in other Florida cities. We hope we will see that list today. If it is not provided we request that the adminstration mail a copy to the address at the end of this document. Because we are a volunteer group we did not have the time to speak with all the cities in Florida to acquire the data, but we believe we know the answer. You will most likely see that Miami's proposed fees for parks will be the highest in Florida. This is due to the fact that many cities do need to take advantage of the Florida Statue which allows impact fees because those cities have high park acreage per resident numbers already. We hope we will Submitted Into the public 6 record in connection with item tr- _ n ► - r1- DS Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk also see a list of the acreage per thousand residents number along with the list of fees for these cities. You can be assured that all major Florida cities have more acreage per thousand residents than Miami. We know that Tampa is above average in the United States in terms of parks with about eleven acres per thousand residents, therefore they are not charging fees. They do realize they have slipped slightly over the last few years and that they need to start charging fees so that they do not slip further in the rankings. In reguard to their central business zone, they do require developers along the water to incorporate 35% open space into their plans at ground level with many restrictions on what qualifies as open space and 10% open space is required for properties not on the water. Collier County has had impact fees for parks higher than what is being proposed in our ordinance and we assume that real estate in Collier County may be less expensive per square foot when compared to Miami so their fees will purchase more land than in Miami. They charge fees on two categories of parks. They actually adjust their fees yearly and not simply review them as is called for in Miami's ordinance. Chicago is 83 percent above Miami in terms of park acreage per thousand residents at about 4.1 acres per thousand compared to our 2.26 In June. when we spoke with them. their fees were already higher than what is being proposed in the ordinace before you and we were told at that time they were reviewing the fees and were considering a substantial one hundred percent increase. Concern about park categories being created. It is acceptable to create certain categories of parks, however by doing so, there also comes the obligation of establishing corresponding standards which each park must measure up to. The report before you has created three categories of parks and Miami's own list of parks has seven additiiomal categories of parks so there is much confussion. We expect that Goody Clancy, the parks consultant under Miami 21, may very well recommend certain categories and standards for our parks, so if you pass this ordinance, we recommend that you reserve the ability to add or change categories and add standards for categories at a later date. In the Goody Clancy public meetings thus far, one of the top five concerns which residents have expressed is the lack of access to the Miami River and Biscayne Bay. If you define waterfront parks as. quote: "primarily passive recreation areas that provide access to the bay or the Miami River" then facilities such as musuems and shopping centers may not be compatible in these passive waterfront parks. We are certain developers doing work in Miami are very aware of the benefits of locating their residential buildings close to existing parks. This is evident by any number of marketing materials we see daily in newspapers. We would like to show you a four page insert which appeared in the Miami Herald October 24, 2005. This insert shows five residential high rise properties all located near water and near parks. Indeed this map is one of the best maps we have seen in terms of showing parks as it very clearly shows all of Miami's parks in green. In fact it includes some small parks that we have not seen even on the most professional maps. It clearly shows all of Virgina Key (excepting the County owned sewer facility) and Watson Island as huge parks. These maps are wishfutl thinking on the park of developers as they are Submitted Into the public' record in connection with item Fa•3 on it-i1•o5 Priscilla A. Thompson City C lArk not accurate. 7 Indeed. it would be accurate to say that 95% of the residential proiects that have been completed, are under constuction or in the planning stages in Miami are located within one quarter mile of a park but the report before you ignores and does not count many of our parks as parks for impact fee purposes. We expect that the creation of parks anywhere in Miami woule attract development near new parks. If polled, developers could not deny that access to waterfront parks and all parks are great marketing atttibutes and have measurable value. Again we recommend that our total park acreage of 875.99 acres be used to calculate the appropriate number of acres per thousand residents which will result in a number of 2.26 acres per thousand new residents or 98.45 square feet per resident. Concern about large facilities covering green acreage. There is no provision to replace green park acreage when large facilities like pools, courts, gymnasiums and museums are added to parks. We recommed that twice the acreage which is covered by buildings or facilities be converted to dollars per new resident and be added on a yearly basis to the per person cost of the park land aquisition impact fee. Concern that impact fees due may be dramatically reduced by credits. What is the rational for allowing developers to petition the city to receive credit for installing any of the long list of capital improvements when the main purpose of the impact fees should be to acquire additional park land with just ten percent going to improvements? MNU can easily see where a developer will be credited back the entire fees they should have paid to the city for the purchase of park land. We recommend that credits be granted only for green space additions on the development and then the credit should be resticted to ten percent of the total fee. In other words, all Capital Improvement Projects, many of which involve pouring concrete, should not be open to credits against the park land impact fee. Concern about not using cost recovery method. On page four of the report, three methods of assessing impact fee are discussed. Quote: "The first method is the cost recovery method. To the extent that new growth and development is served by previously constructed improvemnts, the city of Miami may seek reimbursement for the previously incured public facility costs" Taxpayers of existing property over the years have paid for all existing infrastructure. It could be argued that new residents who live within one quarter of one half mile of a "major" park not found elsewhere in the city receives the greatest benefit of that park therefore they should pay a one time fee to pay for the benefit of a facility not found elsewhere in the city. When a single family residence is constructed and also upon resale the owner is paying for the cost of impact fees incorporated into the sales price but in addition they are paying substantinal dollar amount for the benfit of front side and back yards. Multifamily family residents must understand that parks serve as their front, side and back yard, therefore a one time fee which could be quite substantial is appropriate. We believe that between the cost of land, constuction costs, marketina costs, developer markup and the sales price there is adeauate elasticity in market Priced units to absorb the impact fees resulting from our recommendations. There are ways to delay the collection of fees if the unit qualifies as work force priced affordable housing. 8 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item f-Q-..3 on h .. D5 Priscilla A. Thompson City C!crk Of course, it could be argued that, due to the location of the real estate and the sales price that new residents will pay higher property taxes but higher property taxes do not allow for the capital expenditure to purchase additional parkland. Impact fees do. In this regard, this and future adminsitrations and commissions should not ask residential and commercial taxpayers to pay for additional bonds to pay for additional park land and improvemnts and other standard infrastucture items brought about by increased population. Reauest for higher taxes should be limited to making major additions to our infrastucture such as a possible museum or entertainment facility and not for day to day needs brought about by population growth. If there is no clear reason for not using the cost recovery method then we recommend that this method be incorporated into the plan to charge future residents for past expenditures especially in regard to residential units located near premier parks not found anyplace in the city while they also contribute toward maintaining the 2.26 acres per thousand standard. Concern about the cost of improvements for Waterfront Parks. On page 11, figure 12 there is a list of "Original Costs of Improvements". We verified with Tishler that the city provided these figures and Tishler believes they are original dollars costs and not current cost numbers. Which are they? We recommend that you make certain these numbers are current cost numbers. Additional questions. requests for information and recommendations. Some of the questions above and below were submitted via via email to Lourdes Slaysak October 1 but we never received a reply from her. Subsequently Alicia Schrieber responded with an email but most of ourquestions were still not answered. We request answers from the adminstation at this time. What residents or residents groups were contacted and invited to attend and did attend any meetings in developing this study and ordinance? Since we have not received a copy of the RFP used to seek a contractor, what was stated in that document or any other document as to the goal or goals to be achieved in regard to acquiring new parkland. We request that a copy of the RFP and any other documents used in selecting TischlerBise be mailed to the address at the end of this document. DRI areas will be be excluded from impact fees. We would like to receive a map of these areas mailed to the address at the end of this document. Is it the intention to change the cut off date for builder applicants who will pay the old fee and the new fees to be the first Friday after the date the Commission actually approves it on second reading? Is it the intention of the ordinance that if an application is submitted before the cut off date but then expires that the applicant can then reapply and still pay the old fees? This is unclear to us. We recommend that it be cleary stated in the ordinance that if an application is not approved by the day the ordinance is passed on second reading that any pending applications will pay the new fees. Submitted Into the public' 9 record in connection with item Fe•3 on It- 11-C6 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Is it standard practice that any petitions which challenge the fees are to be directed to the city manager and then the applicant can appeal to the Commission? Can not the Parks Advisory Board, elected as we recommend, hear such appeals? Now that we have a bond issue in place which is paying for the creation and improvements of Little Haiti Park and some other park improvements which all residential and commercial taxpayers will be paying off, what happens when new taxes are collectd on new residential and commercial property? Do the bonds get paid off sooner or does everyone pay less given the addition of new taxable properties We do not expect a huge outcry from residents on this ordinance, especially at this time of recovery from Hurricane Wilma but residents in all five Commisison districts have already spoken out on this subject durina the input sessions of the Miami Neiahborhood Comprehensive Plan review conducted in 2004. Although those sessions were poorly attended, some good comments were collected by the Codina consualtants from Texas who were hired by the city. If vou were to read the comments from those meetings, vou would learn that residents in four out of five Commisison districts clearly said then wanted and needed more parks in their neighborhoods, however those needs were not incorporated in the Evaluation and Appraisal Report which was submitted to the Department of Community Affairs in Tallhessee A simple look at a city map will confirm that many neighborhoods are miles from a park, a far cry from the one quarter mile walk which is the standard recommended by park professionals. As the parks study portion of the of Miami 21 plan moves forward, this need of residents will be validated a second time. Miami Neighborhoods United which represents residents in 24 neighborhoods around Miami are looking to this Commisison to do the right thing in regard to this ordinance. It is no fault of this Commission or Adminsitration that some Miami leaders and residents of the past have collectively placed parks on the bottom of the list of operation funds and of capital improvments funds over many years. Indeed we have a park acreage deficite which we must not allow to grow worse, especially when you are at the helm of the city at a time which is experiencing unpresindented populatioon growth. There have been a few bright spots in Miami's past in term of parks and it is worth looking at the history of how some of our parks were created. We would like to single out a few of Miami's parks to demonstrate that it took concerned and dedicated individuals who cared for and understood the value of parks and who spoke out tireleslly to bring about their creation and to preserve them as parks. Simpson Park, our oldest hammock park in Miami was saved in the late fifties by Phillip Wiley and others. Mr. Wiley, a nationally recogonized writer had letters published attacking the historical group at the time for wanting to destroy a sigificant part of the park to construct a historical museum. Does this sound familiar today with so much of our parkland be covered with buildings which could be located elsewhere? David Kennedy Park is named after Mayor David Kennedy who in 1972 created the Parks for People Committee. They papered a billboard on a building at the old port of Miami facility which read "Let's Tear Down This Sign and Replace it with a Beautiful Park for People. 39 million of bond money was approved to create Bicentennial Park. Submitted Into the public 10 record in connection with lttm r 'Pf . b or ti - i't-oS Qriscalla A. Thompson .city Clerk Bicentennial Park was then created by filling boat slips of the old port of Miami which was then moved to Dodge Island. The downtown community slowed down the process as they wanted wanted to use the site to construct a museum, an auditorium, a luxury hotel and a yacht club. The Miami Herald ran a series of stories entitled, "It's your Bayfront" The people spoke up and voted to approve bonds to develop it as a park. And now the Miami Herald is taking a 180 degree turn and supporting buildings in Bicetennial. Wainwright Park is named after Commissioner Lois Wainwright who served We single out this park as it is one of only few larger passive parks we have where a person can go and escape the concrete which has become the trademark of Miami. We are indebted to Commissioner Wainwright for her years of advocacy for parks. Virginia Key many people may not know is a collection of city and county own land with a variety of desiginations and as we learned earlier it is not all desiginated as park land. There are thirty acres of Virginia Key which have remained green and open to the public thanks to Mable Miller who is with us today. Because of the efforts of a group organized by her, known as "Friends of Virginia Key" they we able to prevent the Goodyear Corporation from using 30 acres for their own private use. And in the last few years, The Virginia Key Trust under the direction of Atalie Range is working to assure that this important part of our past is preserved for future generations to learn from and enjoy. Miami Neighborhoods United join Mable Miller in her reauest that this Commission declare all of Miami's portion of Virginia Key as restrictedpark land and we urge this Commission to get on with the process of opening those portions which can be opened to the public so that when we look at a map colored all preen we will know that it is truly a park. So we have activists. a mayor. a commissioner and even a newspaper who all took stands to develop andpreserve park land and Miami residents are thankful for their efforts. This ordinance is about developers and new residents paving their fair share. When a developer decides to do business in Miami and a new resident decides to call Miami home they must accept Miami with all its wonderful assets and they must accept our warts. They must understand that our wart of a park land deficit will always be a part of our city character but we must not allow this wart to get larger. Our developers and new residents must contribute to the purchase of new parkand at the rate of 2.26 acres per thousand or 98.45 square feet per resident. We are here to ask you to do your part in providing adequate park land to serve new residents so that we and future generations can look back and say that our generation and specifically this Commisison did all we could for the addition of park land. This is your time to shine. The voters of Miami have entrusted this Commisison to be good stewards of all of Miami's assetsand add parks in proportion to the new population. Please act responsibly for the residents of Miami and for the generations to follow. Please incorporate our recommendations into this ordinance and other ordinances. 11 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item Fe. 3 on i t f1- os Priscilla A. Thompson &ity_ clerk Theinformation requested in this response should be sent to: Parks Committee of Miami Neighborhoods United, 725 NE 73 Street, Miami 33138 305 754 0099 Added after November 3, 2005: Please note Miami Neighborhoods United was present at the September 22, 2005 Commission Meeting at which time there was to be a first reading of the "Impact Fee Ordinance". Instead the Commission chose to hear from and question the two persons from TischlerBise the consultant hired by the the administration to conduct the impact fee study. The two persons present from TischlerBise included an attorney and a data person. The next first reading of the subject ordinance was scheduled for November 3, 2005. That Commission meeting was postponed to Nobember 3 due to Hurricane Wilma recovery efforts. Miami Neighborhoods United had twelve people present at the November 3 Commission meeting for the first reading. The city manager said the attorney for TischlerBise cound not be present and therefore the first reading would have to be continued to Nobember 17. Sally Jude, a member of the Parks Committee of Miami Neighborhoods United and also chair of Parks Advisory Board of the City of Miami immediately proclamed along With other members of the parks commttee that we wanted a time certain for the November 17 meeting. The city attorney immediately replied that a time certain could not be set because this was not a Planning and Zoning item. Steve Hagen, chair of the Parks Committee of MNU then approached the microphone and stated he had spoken with the data man, Duane Guthery, at Tischler Bise on November 1 and Mr. Guthery said he was not going to be at the meeting. Hagen's microphone was turned off and the Commission Chair Sanchez said this was not a public hearing. Hagen later learned from Otto Budet of the Mayors office that the attorney for TischlerBise had to attend her brothers wedding. Hagen found out from TischlerBise that, Susan Schoettle- Gum, a subcontractor of TischlerBise, lives in Sarasota, Florida and was to attend a wedding of her brother on Friday November 5 in Memphis, Tennessee. When Hagen asked Ms. Schoettle- Gum as as to how long the wedding had been planed, she was defensive and said to ask that question of the city mangers office. Miami Neighborhoods United is greatly concerned as to the number of delays in hearing this ordinace because we estimate that the taxpayers of Miami are loosing between 3-6 million dollars in imapct fees for parks, plus other impact fees with every residential condo building of 400 units being approved under the current ordinance. In regard to the last delay, which certainly the administation knew about, as indeed weddings are planned months in advance, we request a public appology for causing a dozen people to miss work and important engagements. We further question why it was necessary to postpone the hearing because the attorney could not be present, given the fact that TischlerBise does business with at at least four other attorneys in Florida who know Florida law. Furthermore, why did the admistration feel it was Submitted Intm the public 12 rz. _;;;;. • with Item 2. 3 on U - 11-or Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk necessary to have the attorney present but not the data man when in fact, the data is just as important as the law in the formulation of impact fee ordinances. Let is also be noted that at the July presentation to the Commission by MNU, that Chairman Sanchez requested the admistration to include the Parks Committee of MNU in the impact fee work. Assistant City Manager Alecia Schriber, after that meeting, told Parks Committee Chair Hagen that, "You we be called when we are ready for you" Our first contact with the Admistration was a meeting November 15. The admistration has not even consulted with your own Parks Advisory Board. As of November 16, 2005 the PAB had not been provided with a copy of the TischlerBise study, nor a copy of the ordinance. MNU finds it terribly troubling that this board was also excluded from the process. Thus, you will understand the total frustration of MMU in this process which has been totally closed to public imput, especially when it was recommended by Chairman Sanchez. 13 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item Fe.3 on i- ti,-os Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk FR.3 TO: MEMORANDUM Alicia Cuervo Schreiber, Chief of Operations Jorge L. Fernandez, City Attorney Rafael Suarez -Rivas, Assistant City Attorney FROM: Susan P. Schoettle-Gumm, Attornvy & DATE: November 16, 2005 RE: Submitted Into the public record in connection with item Fe.3 on 11- )1- Ds" Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Language Changes to Proposed City of Miami Impact Fee Ordinance File Number: 05-01042 cc: Dwayne Guthrie, TischlerBise This memorandum details changes to the previously published proposed ordinance language for Chapter 13, Article 1, entitled "Development Impact and Other Related Fees" of the Code of the City of Miami, Florida. The changes suggested in this memorandum relate to issues raised by City Commissioners in previous discussions on impact fees, to correction of typographical errors, or to changes in the dates of adoption of the proposed ordinance. Section 13-2. Findings. Subsection (5): Change "December 17, 2005" to "January 31. 2005". Section 13-3. Intent. Add the following language as the last sentence of Sec. 13-3. Intent: It is the City Commission's intent to suspend imposition of the street impact fee to provide for coordination with Miami -Dade County regarding transit -related transportation system improvements and the development of an appropriate City transportation/transit impact fee. Section 13-5. Definitions. Insert the following at the beginning of the definition for Impact Fee Coefficient (follows the definition for Impact fee): "Impact Fee Coefficient shall mean the charge ...". Change "December 17, 2005" to "January 31, 2005". Section 13-7. Imposition of impact fees and establishment of impact fee benefit districts. Subsection (a): Change "December 17, 2005" to "January 31, 2005" in three places. Section 13-8. Deferral of impact fees for affordable housing. Subsection (b), add the following at the end of subsection (b): "If a petition is approved, the property owner and the City shall execute an Affordable Housing Impact Fee Deferral Agreement, in a form acceptable to the Office of the City Attorney and as specified in the applicable resolution establishing the deferral program. The City Manager is authorized to execute such agreements on behalf of the City." 1 as - 010 soim;,L/ , a Section 13-12. Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Schedule. Change the fee amounts as follows: Single Family Detached $6,818, Low Rise $5,737, and High Rise $3,738. Section 13-16. Administrative procedures for impact fee determinations, affordable housing deferrals, refunds and credits. Subsection (d) Petitions for refund of impact fees should read as follows beginning with subsection (d)(2): (2) Only the current owner of property may petition for a refund. A petition for refund must be filed within ninety (90) days of any of the above -specified events giving rise to the right to claim a refund. Failure to timely file a petition for refund shall waive any right to an impact fee refund. (3) The petition for refund shall be submitted to the Chief of Operations on a form provided by the City for such purpose. The petition shall contain a notarized affidavit that petitioner is the current owner of the property; a certified copy of the latest tax records of Metropolitan Dade County showing the owner of the subject property; a copy of the dated receipt for payment of the impact fee issued by the city's building department; and a statement of the basis upon which the refund is sought. Section 13-22. Previous impact fee schedules. Change "December 17, 2005" to "January 31, 2005" in two places. Section 13-27. Calculation of impact fee. Subsection (a): Change "October 17, 2005" to "January 31, 2005" in two places. Submitted Into the public - record in connection with item rR. on 11-n-�g Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 2 Miami Neigk6orkoocls Unitec! November 17, 2005 Commissioners City of Miami Miami, FL RE: Ordinance File Number 05-01042 Development of Impact Fee and Other Related Fees Dear Commissioners: Regarding the referenced ordinance and the accompanying study "Growth -Related Capital Improvements & Impact Fees" prepared by TischlerBise dated September 16, 2005: 1. Police Infrastructure Standards calculations (TischlerBise pages 30 and 31) specifically exclude the cost of land, whereas the Infrastructure Standards for Fire -Rescue (page 18) provides for the cost of land. The Police calculations should include the cost of land. 2. Park Impact Fee Schedule is in violation of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (TischlerBise study page 14) Acceptable Level of Service Standard, Policy CI- 1.2.3.(a) " ... 1.3 acres of public park space per 1000 residents." - because of inappropriate methodology in the study. The Level of Service of 0.9 is carried forward from page 10 based on "Citywide Parks" only. The consultant's methodology does not take into consideration actual and planned growth throughout the city. The October 2005 Large Scale Development Report shows 47% of Residential/Condo Units outside of downtown (Attachment B). This does not count the huge number of single family and smaller multifamily residential units being developed outside of downtown. The consultant's methodology also does not take into consideration the current Land Use Map or the Miami 21 Project planning for development of higher density along the transit corridors, at transportation nodes, workforce housing outside of downtown, etc. MNU proposes that the appropriate current level of service for the Impact Fee calculations, conservatively, is: Park Type Acreage (Useable) Citywide Parks 361 Waterfront Parks 282 (558+61-337) 117 Parks Less than 3 Acres Total Current Useable 760 Acres Year Round Population 386,127 People Revised Level of Service 2.0 Acres per 1,000 People * See Attachment A for detailed calculations Page 1 5e1/m.14i- 3 SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR °TEM ON 11-1v-65- , y,\e Flo The Level of Service calculated above is somewhat above the Acceptable LOS of the MCNP and would result in the following Park Impact Fee Schedule: Net Capital Cost Per Person $4,739 Maximum Supportable Fee Per Housing Unit Parks and Recreation Impact Fee 210 Single Family Detached $13,790 230 Low Rise $12,132 220 High Rise $ 8,009 * See Attachment A for detailed calculations. This cost, which will be passed through to the sale price of the incremental unit, is a reasonable cost for incremental parks, satisfies the City's minimal LOS in the MCNP and is still significantly BELOW the current, ACTUAL LOS of 3.1 acres per 1,000. MNU has investigated with other cities and consultants to verify that the above calculation is common practice and defensible. Sec. 13-12 of the City Code should be modified to incorporate the above. Sec. 13.25 will also have to be modified. 3. We also request that Sec. 13-6(c) be modified such that building permits for any DRI for which a development order has been issued be obtained within 6 months (instead of 15 months) to be grandfathered. 4. There is no allocation of Park Impact Fees to Non-residential developments. Parks must be available for employees near their place of employment for use during breaks and overall quality of life. Given the current and planned efforts of the City to create mixed -use neighborhoods, it would be appropriate to include a park Impact Fee for non-residential developments. The commissioners are well aware that successful cities throughout the United States provide for such parks for daytime use by employees. 5. MNU also believes that the Land Acquisition Cost per Square Foot for parks of $50 (TischlerBise page 11) is not representative of the cost of acquisition of appropriately located land. We request that a methodology of current market values by area within the city be established for the Annual Reviews and modification per Sec. 13-13(f), in time for the first Annual Review and modification. Sincerely, Hadley C. Williams Chair MCNP / Miami 21 Committee Page 2 Submitted Into the public' record in connection with item on fl- %'-05 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Attachment A MNU Letter to City of Miami Commissioners November 17, 2005 Re: Ordinance File Number 05-01042 Notes re Item 2. A. Waterfront parks Acreage (Useable) is: Total TischlerBise Waterfront Parks Acres (Page 11) 558 Plus — Bayfront Park Acreage +61 Less — Virginia Key current non -park acreage (486 total - 77-72 in use) -337 Total Useable B. 282 Persons Per Housing Unit 210 Single family Detached 2.91 230 Low Rise 2.56 220 High Rise 1.69 Level of Service Park Acreage per 1,000 People 2.0 Park Land Cost per Acre $2,178,000 Land Cost per Person for Useable Parks $4,356 Improvements Cost per Person for Citywide Parks $170 Waterfront Park Improvements Cost per Person $147 Pools Cost Per Person $46 Gymnasiums Cost per Person $33 Revenue Credit per Person ($13) Net Capital Cost Per Person $4,739 Maximum Supportable Impact Fee per Housing Unit Current Fee Increase (Decrease) $13,790 210 Single Family Detached $13,790 $0 230 Low Rise $12,132 $261 $11,871 220 High Rise $ 8,009 $221 $7,788 Page 3 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item i.3 on li-11-05 Priscilla A. Thompson "- City Clerk Attachment B, MNU Letter to City of Miami Commissioners November 17, 2005 Re: Ordinance File Number 05-01042 CITY OF MIAMI LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT REPORT: 1995 - PRESENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT htto://www. miamigov. com/planning/gages/MonthlvDR(Oct2005-Legal). xls Citywide Major Use Special Permits (MUSP) and applicable Class II, Special Exception & Exempt Projects Summation by NET Area As of September 30, 2005 Allapattah Coral Way No. 22 32 % of Total 6.5 9.4 Res / Condo 4,669 3,457 Downtown 97 28.4 46,460 Flagami 13 3.8 6,948 Little Haiti 8 2.3 1,524 Little Havana 42 12.3 5,047 Model City 1 0.3 135 NE Coconut Grove 20 5.9 1,597 Overtown 14 4.1 3,329 SW Coconut Grove 4 1.2 94 Upper East Side 19 5.6 2,208 West Flagler 4 1.2 662 Wynwood/Edgewater MIAMonthlyDR(Oct1005)NETArea PercentagesMNU.x/s (NET Totals) 65 19.1 11,462 Units % of Total Square Footage 5% 4% 53% 8% 2% 6% 0% 2% 4% 0% 3% 1% 13% Hotel 0 107 3,959 Office 446,834 235,744 5,597,846 % of Total 5.8 3.1 72.6 Retail 77,203 294,915 3,350,205 % of Total 1.2 4.7 53.1 Parking Spaces 9,046 7,244 85,718 % of Total 5.5 4.4 52.5 Cost/Revenue (est.) 125 0 0.0 64,666 1.0 11,786 7.2 0 0 575 69,745 0.0 0.9 118,661 236,608 1.9 3.7 2,415 8,184 1.5 5.0 0 252 0 0 147,074 530,546 0.0 1.9 6.9 665 174,269 97,976 0.0 2.8 1.6 186 3,895 5,319 0.1 2.4 3.3 0 0 0 0 0 221,282 47,090 419,109 Page 4 0.0 2.9 0.6 5.4 10,217 234,006 29,049 1,622,950 0.2 3.7 0.5 25.7 136 4,843 1,608 22,866 $ 745,103,103 $ 485,686,031 $ 20,143,463,790 $ 786,916,543 $ 201,386,166 $ 373,458,111 $ 18,000,000 $ 690,223,123 $ 344,391,295 44,501,549 320,406,195 54,105,005 2,913,741,162 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item Fe-3 on I t -,? - os Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk