Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Growth Related Impact Fees FR/SR
Growth -Related Capital Improvements & Impact Fees September 16, 2005 Prepared by lischlerBise Fiscal, Economic & Planning Consultants City of Miami Impact Fees Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 Current Impact Fees 1 Figure 1 — Current Residential Impact Fee Amounts 2 Figure 2 — Graph of Current Residential Impact Fees 2 Figure 3 — Current Nonresidential Impact Fee Amounts 3 Figure 4 — Graph of Current Nonresidential Impact Fees 3 Basic Understanding of Impact Fee Methods 4 Figure 5 — Generic Impact Fee Formula 4 Figure 6 — Proposed Fee Methods and Cost Components 5 Maximum Supportable Impact Fees 5 Figure 7 - Revised Impact Fee Schedule 7 Impact Fee Revenue 8 Figure 8 — Comparison of Current and Projected Impact Fee Revenue 8 Parks and Recreation 9 Figure 9 — Park Impact Fee Methodology Chart 9 Park Infrastructure Standards 9 Figure 10 - Incremental Expansion Cost of Citywide Parks 10 Land for Parks 11 Figure 11 — Land Acquisition Cost 11 Waterfront Parks 11 Figure 12 — Incremental Expansion Cost of Waterfront Parks 11 Pools 12 Figure 13 — Incremental Expansion Cost of Pools 12 Gymnasiums 12 Figure 14 — Plan -Based Cost of Gymnasiums 13 Credit Evaluation 13 Figure 15 — Principal Payment Credit for Future Gym 13 Park Fee Calculations 14 Figure 16 - Park Impact Fee Schedule 14 Cash Flow Analysis of Growth -Related Park Improvements 15 Figure 17 — Projected Cash Flow for Parks 15 Fire -Rescue 16 Figure 18 — Fire -Rescue Impact Fee Methodology Chart 16 Cost Allocation for Fire -Rescue Infrastructure 17 Figure 19 — Proportionate Share Factors for Fire/EMS 17 Fire -Rescue Infrastructure Standards 17 Figure 20 — Infrastructure Standards for Fire -Rescue 18 Credit Evaluation for Fire -Rescue Infrastructure 19 Figure 21 — Credit for Future Debt Service 19 Fire -Rescue Impact Fee Calculations 19 Figure 22 — Fire -Rescue Fee Input Variables 20 II City of Miami Impact Fees Maximum Supportable Fire -Rescue Impact Fees 21 Figure 23 — Fire -Rescue Impact Fees 21 Fire -Rescue Cash Flow Analysis 22 Figure 24 — Cash Flow Summary for Fire -Rescue Infrastructure 22 General Services 23 Figure 25 — General Services Methodology Chart 23 Functional Population 23 Figure 26 — Functional Population 24 Infrastructure Standards for General Services 24 Figure 27 — General Services Infrastructure Standards 25 General Services Impact Fee Calculations 26 Figure 28 — General Services Fee Input Variables 26 Maximum Supportable Fees for General Services 27 Figure 29 — Fee Schedule for General Services 27 Cash Flow Analysis for General Services 28 Figure 30 — Projected Cash Flow for General Services 28 Police 29 Figure 31 — Police Impact Fee Methodology Chart 29 Cost Allocation for Police Infrastructure 30 Police Infrastructure Standards 30 Figure 32 — Police Infrastructure Standards 31 Credit Evaluation 32 Figure 33 — Principal Payment Credit for Police Training Facility 32 Maximum Supportable Impact Fee 32 Figure 34 — Police Fee Input Variables 33 Maximum Supportable Police Impact Fees 34 Figure 35 — Maximum Supportable Police Impact Fees 34 Projected Cash Flow for Police Facilities 35 Figure 36 — Cash Flow Summary for Police Infrastructure 35 Growth -Related Capital Improvements 36 Infrastructure Demand 36 Figure 37 — Summary of Growth Indicators 36 Figure 38 — Projected Demand or Service Units 37 Proposed Means to Meet the Demand for Public Facilities 37 Figure 39 — Summary of Infrastructure Standards 38 Figure 40 — Capital Improvements Schedule 39 Funding Sources for Capital Improvements 40 Figure 41 — Projected Impact Fee Revenue 40 Figure 42 — Percentage of Costs Covered by Impact Fees 40 Implementation and Administration 41 Developer Reimbursements for System Improvements 41 Benefit/Service Area 41 III City of Miami Impact Fees Nonresidential Development Categories 41 Appendix A — Demographics & Development Projections 44 Persons per Housing Unit 44 Figure Al — Year -Round Population by Type of Housing 45 City versus Countywide Housing Characteristics 45 Figure A2 — Persons per Housing Unit Comparison 45 Recent Residential Construction 46 Figure A3 — Housing Units Added by Decade 46 Figure A4 — Residential Building Permits 47 Figure A5 — Building Construction Costs by Type of Development 48 Figure A6 — Average Construction Cost Per Housing Unit 48 Year -Round Population Forecast 49 Figure A7 — Alternative Population Projections 49 Employees per Square Foot of Nonresidential Development 54 Figure A8 — Employee and Building Area Ratios 51 Jobs by Type of Nonresidential Development 51 Figure A9 — Jobs and Floor Area Estimates 52 Projected Jobs in the City of Miami S2 Detailed Development Projections 53 Figure Al — Annual Demographic Data 53 Average Annual Growth Rates 54 Figure All — City of Miami Growth Indicators 54 IV TischlerBise Fiscal, Economic & Planning Consultants 4701 SANGAMORE ROAD t SUITE N210 I BETHESDA, MD 20816 T: 800.424.431 8 1 F: 301 .320,4860 80 ANNANDALE ROAD I PASADENA, CA 91105-1404 Ti 818.790.6170E F: 818.790.6235 W W W.TISCHLERBISE.COM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Miami's current development impact fees were adopted in the late 1980s. In the State of Florida, development impact fees rely on a local government's home -rule authority and must comply with legal guidelines established by case law. In contrast to project -level improvements, impact fees fund growth -related infrastructure that will benefit multiple development projects, or even the entire jurisdiction. These "system improvements" needed to accommodate new development may be funded through a one-time payment, typically collected when a building permit is issued. Unlike on -going taxes, impact fees must be proportionate and reasonably related to the infrastructure demands of new development. Impact fee revenue is placed in a separate, interest -bearing account and only spent on growth -related capital improvements. With input from City staff, TischlerBise identified demand indicators for each type of infrastructure and calculated proportionate share factors to allocate costs by type of development. The formulas used to derive the impact fees are diagramed in a flow chart for each type of infrastructure. Supporting documentation indicates the specific infrastructure standards and cost factors used to derive the impact fees. Impact fee methodologies also identify the extent to which newly developed properties are entitled to various types of credits to avoid potential double payment of capital costs. Current Impact Fees The City of Miami currently exempts all single family housing from paying impact fees. Over the past five years, the City has issued building permits for approximately 100 single-family detached units per year, with many of these being replacement units that would not typically pay impact fees. Also, within Neighborhood Development Zones, the City of Miami currently exempts all types of residential development from paying impact fees. These Zones include approximately one-third of the geographic area of the City. Figure 1 summarizes the current impact fees for residential development, which are imposed per square foot of floor area, with no differentiation by type of housing. The current fee schedule varies by geographic area, with seven separate service areas listed in the left-hand column. • Fiscal Impact Analysis • Impact Fees • Revenue Strategies • Economic Impact Analysis • Fiscal Software • City of Miami Impact Fees Figure 1 - Current Residential Impact Fee Amounts Per Square Foot of Residential Development Fire/Rescue Police GenSery SolidWaste StormSewers Parks/Rec Streets TOTAL $1.14 5 Flagami 3 Coconut Grove 6 Allapattah 1 Edison 2 Downtown 4 Little Havana 7 Virginia Key Average* $0.01 $0.02 $0.02 $0.06 $0.18 $0.20 $0.35 $0.83 * Without Virginia Key Figure 2 provides a visual representation of the variation in residential impact fees by service area and type of infrastructure. The public safety impact fees on residential development are almost non-existent. $0.00 $0.01 $0.00 $0.01 $0.02 $0.01 $0.00 $0.02 $0.02 $0.02 $0.02 $0.01 $0.02 $0.00 $0.02 $0.02 $0.02 $0.02 $0.02 $0.02 $0.00 $0.06 $0.05 $0.06 $0.06 $0.04 $0.06 $0.00 Figure 2 - Graph of Current Residential Impact Fees $0.27 $0.22 $0.17 $0.15 $0.14 $0.10 $0.00 $0.22 $0.17 $0.22 $0.22 $0.16 $0.22 $0.00 $0.54 $0.45 $0.33 $0.30 $0.28 $0.21 $0.00 $0.94 $0.82 $0.78 $0.68 $0.64 $0.00 $0.600 $0.500 $0.400 $0.300 $0.200 $0.100 $0.000 Residential Impact Fees] bRo Gcr� ti s�°� rot,'° / • 4 4 ry 1� ro b • S'ros sec So orwasteewers Gonse Police Ff rescue Sheets 2 City of Miami Impact Fees The City of Miami's current impact fee schedule for nonresidential development is tabulated in Figure 3. In general, the nonresidential fee schedule is more uniform across all geographic areas. Figure 3 - Current Nonresidential Impact Fee Amounts 2 Downtown 5 Flagami 3 Coconut Grove 6 Allapattah 1 Edison 4 Little Havana 7 Virginia Key 5. 41J Fire/Rescue Parks/Rec GenSery SolidWaste StormSews Police Streets TOTAL $0.07 $0.40 $0.10 $0.12 $0.14 $0.28 $0.28 $1.40 $0.00 $0.00 $0.10 $0.12 $0.27 $0.28 $0.54 $1.32 $0,03 $0.00 $0.10 $0.12 $0.22 $0.28 $0.45 $1.20 $0.00 $0.00 $0.10 $0.12 $0.17 $0.28 $0,33 $1.00 $0.02 $0.00 $0.10 $0.12 $0.15 $0.28 $0.30 $0.97 $0.02 $0.00 $0.10 $0.12 $0.10 $0.28 $0.21 $0.84 $0.00 Average* $0.02 * Without Virginia Key $0.00 $0.10 $0.12 $0.00 $0.28 $0.00 $0.50 $0.07 $0.10 $0.12 $0.18 $0.28 $0.35 $1.12 In contrast to the fee schedule for residential development, police impact fees are among the highest fees for nonresidential development (see Figure 4). Figure 4 - Graph of Current Nonresidential Impact Fees $0.600 $0.500 $0.400 $0.300 $0.200 $0.100 $0.000 2.5e C5t v› Jtic Nonresidential Impact Fees `tree pts Solice Soh• dtwa B pey ea_ GenSery p1ReSGue 3 City of Miami Impact Fees Basic Understanding of Impact Fee Methods The basic steps in a generic impact fee formula are illustrated below (see Figure 5). The first step (see the left box) is to determine an appropriate demand indicator, or service unit, for the particular type of infrastructure. The demand/service indicator measures the number of demand or service units for each unit of development. For example, an appropriate indicator of the demand for parks is population growth and the increase in population can be estimated from the average number of persons per housing unit. The second step in the generic impact fee formula is shown in the middle box below. Infrastructure units per demand unit are typically called Level -Of -Service (LOS) standards. In keeping with the park example, a common LOS standard is park acreage per thousand people. The third step in the generic impact fee formula, as illustrated in the right box, is the cost of various infrastructure units. To complete the park example, this part of the formula would establish the cost per acre for land acquisition and park improvements. Figure 5 — Generic Impact Fee Formula Demand Units V Infrastructure Units Dollars per /� per Xper Development Demand Infrastructure Unit Unit Unit When applied to specific types of infrastructure, the generic impact -fee formula is customized using three common impact fee methods that focus on different timeframes. The first method is the cost recovery method. To the extent that new growth and development is served by previously constructed improvements, the City of Miami may seek reimbursement for the previously incurred public facility costs. This method is used for facilities that have adequate capacity to accommodate new development, at least for the next five years. The rationale for the cost recovery approach is that new development is paying for its share of the useful life or remaining capacity of an existing facility that was constructed in anticipation of additional development. The second basic approach used to calculate impact fees is the incremental expansion cost method. This method documents the current LOS for each type of public facility in both quantitative and qualitative measures. The City of Miami will use impact fee revenue to incrementally expand or provide additional facilities as needed to accommodate new development. A third impact fee approach is the plan -based method. This method is best suited for public facilities that have commonly accepted engineering/planning standards or specific capital improvement plans. Figure 6 summarizes the method(s) used to derive the impact fee for each type of public facility. 4 City of Miami Impact Fees Figure 6 — Proposed Fee Methods and Cost Components Type of Fee Cost Recovery (past) Parks & Recreation Not Applicable. k- Fire -Rescue Not Applicable General Services Not Applicable Police Not Applicable 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 MRC Not applicable Cost Allocation 1 00% Residential Functional Population Functional Population Vehicle Trips Maximum Supportable Impact Fees Figure 7 provides a schedule of the maximum supportable impact fees for the City of Miami, as recommended by TischlerBise. The current impact fee schedule includes seven types of infrastructure, which has been reduced to four types of infrastructure in the recommended fee schedule. A fifth impact fee for transportation might be addressed in a subsequent report, pending the outcome of discussions with Dade County officials regarding transportation impact fees and infrastructure needs within the City of Miami. If an impact fee for transportation is recommended, the focus will shift from streets to rail transit with the emphasis on the new streetcar line to be constructed between downtown and midtown Miami. Separate impact fees for solid waste and storm -water facilities are not recommended at this time. However, solid waste vehicles are included as part of the new General Services impact fee. The storm -water facilities impact fee is no longer necessary because the City of Miami is essentially built -out, in terms of its geographic extent (i.e. horizontal land coverage). Current construction is focused on redevelopment and vertical intensity, with new high-rise buildings that do not significantly increase impervious surface. Because stormwater impact fees are linked to increases in impervious surface, this type of fees is no longer suitable. In today's development context, a more appropriate funding mechanism for stormwater capital improvements is the City of Miami's stormwater utility charge. The stormwater utility is similar to conventional water and sewer utilities, relying on periodic bills that require customers to pay for operation, maintenance and expansion of infrastructure. In contrast to one-time impact fees paid by new development, 5 City of Miami Impact Fees stormwater utility charges are a broad -based, ongoing source of revenue with fewer limitations on how the money may be used. Because t he amount ofd new ient mpe(Le., i-vious�surface, this ture construction) pay stormwater utility charges based on revenue source is ideal for fixing current drainage problems. For residential development, TischlerBise recommends that impact fees be imposed per housing unit, for three housing types (single family detached, low-rise and high-rise). The low-rise category includes townhouses, duplexes, residential buildings with 3-9 housing units, plus mobile homes and "other" housing types (i.e. boats and recreational vehicles). The high-rise category includes residential buildings with ten or more housing units. In the City of Miami, single family detached housing units do not currently pay impact fees. The current fee amounts for low-rise and high-rise housing units are based on an average floor area per unit of 1,300 and 1,100 square feet, respectively. The average floor area of residential units was derived from City of Miami building permit records over the past five years. Impact fees on nonresidential development will continue to be imposed per square foot of floor area, with the exception of several nonresidential development types that have unique demand indicators, such as the number of rooms in a hotel (see the lower portion of Figure 7). The fee schedule for nonresidential development is designed to provide a reasonable impact fee determination for common types of development. feestud as discugue ssed further in thement timpleme imes, the plementation may allow or require an independent impacty� section of this report and in the impact fee ordinance. To facilitate comparison between the revised and the current impact fees the two columns on the right side of Figure 7 provide an estimate of the current fees and the increase or decrease in fee amounts. Current fees are estimates based on the citywide averages for the seven impact fee districts (as discussed above and shown in Figures 1 and 2). Because residential impact fees are currently imposed per square foot of floor area, an average housing unit size was also assumed to derive the current fee estimates. 6 ITE Code City of Miami Impact Fees Figure 7 - Revised Impact Fee Schedule Parks Fire/ Rescue General Services Police TOTAL Residential 210 Single Family Detached 230 Low Rise* 220 High Rise** Nonresidential 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 Office 100,001-200,000 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 820 Commercial / Shop Ctr 100,001-200,000 SF 820 Commercial / Shop Ctr 200,001-400,000 SF $6,818 $704 $413 $164 $8,099 $5,998 $619 $363 $144 $7,124 $3,959 $409 $239 $95 $4,702 Other Nonresidential 320 Lodging (per room) 520 Elementary School (per student) 530 Secondary School (per student) 565 Day Care (per student) 620 Nursing Horne (per bed) 'er �aquare, $0.210 Qat'uf ll,ior $0.087 $0.107 $0.162 $0.068 $0.059 $0.116 $0.048 $0.076 $0.003 $0.001 $0.038 $0.307 $0.128 $0.271 $0.355 $0.148 $0.242 $0.336 $0,140 $0.206 $0.317 - $0.368_ $0.287 $0.132 $0.153 $0.120 $0.176 $0.559 $0.197 $0.302 $0.126 $0.751 $0,260 $0.108 $0.696 $0.227 $0.095 $0.609 $0.201 $0.084 $0.527 $0.181 $0.076 $0.452 $0.404 $0.289 $0.240 $0.042 $0.706 $0.745 $0.682 $0.625 $1.080 $0.604 $1.179 $1.064 $0.931 $0.812 $0.709 $143 $29 $37 $89 $81 Current Increase Fee (Decrease) Estimade $0 $8,099 $1,082 $6,042 $915 $3,787 $1.12 ($0.72) $1.12 ($0.83) $1.12 ($0.88) $1.12 ($1.08) $1.12 ($0.41) $1.12 ($0.38) $1.12 ($0.44) $1.12 ($0.50) $1.12 ($0.04) $1.12 ($0.52) $1.12 $0.06 $1.12 ($0.06) $1.12 ($0.19) $1.12 ($0.31) $1.12 ($0.41) * 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. *** Current fee based on floor area. 7 City of Miami Impact Fees Impact Fee Revenue Figure 8 indicates average annual impact fees collected by the City of Miami over the past five years compared to projected average annual impact fee revenue over the next five years. The historical revenues for solid waste, storm sewers and streets are shown in the left column with textured patterns. Even without impact fees for these three types of infrastructure, the projected impact fees for the remaining categories should generate an additional $4.8 million annually, if implemented at the maximum supportable level. Figure 8 — Comparison of Current 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 $o Average Annual Impact Fee Revenue City of Miami 2000-2004 2006-2010 • General Services El Solid Waste 10 Storm Sewers El Streets ❑ Parks • Fire/Rescue ® Police 2000-2004 2006-2010 Police Fire/Rescue Parks Streets Storm Sewers Solid Waste General Services TOTAL $217,808 $53,946 $502,978 $946,980 $473,221 $178,075 $107,399 $2,480,407 $713,000 $814,000 $5,359,000 $0 $0 $0 $432,000 $7,318,000 8 City of Miami Impact Fees PARKS AND RECREATION The park impact fee is derived using the incremental expansion cost method for citywide parks, waterfront parks and pools. The incremental expansion cost method documents current infrastructure standards in both quantitative and qualitative measures. Park impact fees also include the net cost of gymnasiums, based on the City's plan to construct Jose Marti gym during the next five years. As indicated in the park impact fee methodology diagram (see Figure 9), cost components were allocated 100% to residential development. The diagram is intended to read like an outline, with lower levels providing a more detailed breakdown of the impact fee components. The park impact fee is derived from the product of persons per housing unit multiplied by the capital cost per person. The boxes in the next level down, with light -green shading, indicate cost components for four types of infrastructure. Figure 9 — Park Impact Fee Methodology Chart r Residential Development 1 Persons per Housing Multiplied by Capital Unit Cost per Person 1 1 1 r 1 Citywide Park Plus Waterfront Park Improvements Improvements Plus Pools Cost r Plus Net Cost of Gymnasiums Park Infrastructure Standards For the purpose of impact fees, citywide parks must meet the following criteria. Citywide parks are at least three acres and have improvements that draw patrons from the entire geographic area of the City of Miami. Citywide parks include active recreation facilities, such as soccer and baseball fields used for league play, or buildings used for recreation programs. Infrastructure standards are based on an inventory of existing citywide parks and recent expenditures on park improvements. As shown in Figure 10, the inventory of improvements represents an investment with a current cost of approximately $65.7 million. Park improvements cost an average of $181,000 per acre, or $170 per person. Infrastructure standards are derived using estimated population in 2005, as documented in Appendix A. 9 Park Arrnbrister Athalie Range Belafonte-Talcocy Biscayne Clemente Coral Gate Curtis Douglas Duarte Eaton Fern Isle Gibson Grapeland Hadley Henderson King Nigh Kinloch Legion Lurnrrrus Marti Moore Morningside Pace Peacock Reeves Riverside Sewell Shenandoah Simpson City of Miami Impact Fees Figure 10 - Incremental Expansion Cost of Citywide Parks Softball/ Ac a Baseball 5.1 Soccer/ Tennis/Rcgt/ Football Basketball 2` 1 11.9 3.1 1 7.3 4.9 2 3.6 27.7 1 1 10.0 1 9.2 6.2 1 8.4 1 8.0 20.0 29.7 3.5 17.0 1 2 2 1 3.5 13.7 5.9 5.6 1 19.6 1 42.4 1 12.0 9.4 1 3.4 3.5 10.3 1 10.0 8.2 1 Virrick Wainwright West End Williams TOTAL Unit Price Cost of Improvements Existing Level of Service Standards Total Improvements year Round Population in 2005 Citywide Park Acres Per 1,000 Persons Average Improvements Cost Per Acre Improvements Cost Per Person * These costs include items such as parking lots, security lighting, landscaping and irrigation. Source: City of 11fami Pcrrks and Recreation Department. 4.7 21.4 6.9 1 5.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 5 4 2 5 2 3 5 2 2 3 4 3 12 2 5 2 2 10 4 9 5 1 2 2 8 Recreation Building 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Playground Equipment 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 361.1 24 $385,000 $9,240,000 1 2 1 4 1 18 112 $295,000 $176,000. $5,310,000 $19,712,000 1 1 25 $800,000 $20,000,000 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 32 $75,000 $2,400,000 $65,684,000 386,127 0.9 $181,000 $170 Rest- Ivliscelianeous TOTAL MUTE Improvements* 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 $200,000 $1,800,000 $102,000 $238,000 $62,000 $146,000 $98,000 $72,000 $554,000 $200,000 $184,000 $124,000 $168,000 $160,000 $400,000 $594,000 $70,000 $340,000 $70,000_ $274,000 $118,000 $112,000 $392,000 $848,000 $240,000 $188,000 $68,000 $70,000 $206,000 $200,000 $164,000 $94,000 $428,000 $138,000 $100,000 Per Acre Cost $20,000 $3,122,000 $2,497,000 $1,289,000 $516,000 $2,918,000 $1,684,000 $2,837,000 $2,635,000 $1,796,000 $846,000 $1,431,000 $2,419,000 $2,868,000 $4,941,000 $992,000 $2,480,000 $1,517,000 $1,426,000 $993,000 $3,132,000 $2,651,000 $3,892,000 $1,985,000 $1,624,000 $1,295,000 $1,082,000 $481,000 $3,963,000 $964,000 $521,000 $954,000 $2,102,000 $1,831,000 $7,222,000 $65,684,000 I0 City of Miami Impact Fees Land for Parks With 361.1 acres of land for citywide parks, the impact fee infrastructure standard is 0.9 acres per 1,000 residents (see the table above). Maximum supportable impact fees include the cost of buying additional land for citywide parks at a cost of $2,178,000 per acre, or approximately $50 per square foot of land. The cost factor is based on recent acquisitions for Little Haiti Park, as shown in Figure 11. Figure 11— Land Acquisition Cost Ref# EminentDomain Property Address 68 no 254 NE 59th Terrace 101 91 no no 92 67 Yes 301 NE 62nd Street 6421 NE 2nd Avenue 6311 NE 2nd Avenue SqFtLand PwchasePrice 24,829 73,152 16,250 32,500 15,000 $616,542 $2,404,300 $576,269 $1,091,985 $1,933,913 A4fustedPrice $857,000 $3,342,000 $802,000 $1,092,000 $1,934,000 Price/SF $35 $46 $49 $34 $129 TOTAL 161,731 $5,623,010 $8,027,000 $50 Cost Per Acre (rounded) > $2,178,000 Source: City of Miami Economic Development, with market appreciation factor of 39% (not applied to eminent domain properties). yes 212 NE 59 Terrace Waterfront Parks Figure 12 provides an inventory of existing waterfront parks within the City of Miami. Waterfront parks are primarily passive recreation areas that provide access to the bay or the Miami River. This impact fee cost component includes linear improvements or trails that connect waterfront parks and improve the public realm. Based on the original cost of improvements (excluding land), the current infrastructure standard is $147 per person for waterfront parks. Figure 12 — Incremental Expansion Cost of Waterfront Parks Facility 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Antonio Macao Bavfront Bicentennial Kennedy Myers Virginia Key Watson Island Acres Original Cost of 4 30 21 10 486 7 TOTAL 558 Population in 2005 Cost Per Capita Improvements $170,000 $43,211,000 $10,800,000 $275,000 $450,000 $1,600,000_ $430,000 $56,936,000 386,127 $147 11 City of Miami Impact Fees Pools The City of Miami currently has ten public pools, which are listed in Figure 13. Based on the 2005 population, each pool serves an average of 38,613 residents. According to City staff, a new pool has an estimated cost of $1.8 million. Dividing the estimated cost by the average number of residents per pool, equates to an infrastructure standard of $46 per person. Figure 13 -- Incremental Expansion Cost of Pools 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Pool Athalie Range Curtis Gibson Hadley ,Marti Morningside Shenandoah Virrick West End Williams Population in 2005 386,127 Residents Per Pool 38,613 Pools per 100,000 Residents 2.59 Estimated Cost of a New Pool $1,800,000 Cost per Capita $ob Gymnasiums During the next five years, the City of Miami will construct a second indoor gymnasium. The new Jose Marti Gym has an estimated cost of $6.42 million, including site preparation, parking, design/construction management (25% of construction cost) and furniture/equipment (10% of construction cost). Assuming the new gym is open by 2010, the City will be providing 77.5 square feet of indoor gymnasium per 1,000 year-round residents, which equates to an infrastructure cost of $33 per person (see Figure 14). 12 City of Miami Impact Fees Figure .14 — Plan -Based Cost of Gymnasiums Gym Square Feet 'Marti F 14,909 Virrick 15,929 TOTAL 30,838 Projected Population in 2010 398,014 Square Feet per 1,000 Persons 77.5 Cost per Sq Ft* $431 Cost per Capita $33 * Preliminary cost of Jose Marti gymnasium ($6.42 million) provided by URS. Credit Evaluation The City of Miami does not have any existing debt obligations for citywide parks, waterfront parks or pools. If approved at the maximum supportable level, impact fee revenue will be used to incrementally expand park and recreation infrastructure as needed to maintain current level -of - service standards. Homeland Security Bonds, already approved by City voters, will be used to construct the new Marti gymnasium. As shown in Figure 15, the park impact fee methodology includes a revenue credit for future principal payments on the Marti gym. Figure .15 — Principal Payment Credit for Future Gym FY Homeland Persons Principal Payments Security Bonds Per Person 2006 $510,419 389,974 $1.31 2007 $535,940 392,704 $1.36 2008 $562,737 394,822 $1.43 2009 $590,874 396,552 $1,49 2010 $620,418 398,014 $1.56 2011 $651,439 399,281 $1.63 2012 $684,011 400,399 $1.71 2013 $718,211 401,399 $1.79 2014 $754,122 402,303 $1.87 2015 $791,828 403,129 $1.96 Total $6,420,000 $16,12 Discount Rate 5.00% Present Value $12.22 I3 City of Miami Impact Fees Park Fee Calculations The standards used to calculate park impact fees are shown in the boxed area of Figure 16. The park impact fee is the product of persons per housing unit multiplied by the net capital cost per person. For example, the fee for a detached housing unit is 2.91 persons multiplied by $2,343 per person, or $6,818 per single family detached housing unit. In the City of Miami, single family detached housing units do not currently pay an impact fee for parks. The current fee amounts for low-rise and high-rise housing units are based on average floor areas of 1,300 per low-rise unit and 1,100 square feet per high-rise unit. Figure 16 - Park Impact Fee Schedule Persons Per Housing Unit 210 Single Family Detached 230 Low Rise 220 High Rise Level Of Service Park Acreage per 1,000 People Park Land Cost per Acre Land Cost per Person for Citywide Parks Improvements Cost per Person for Citywide Parks Waterfront Park h upruvements Cost Per Person Pools Cost Per Person Gymnasiums Cost per Person Revenue Credit per Person Net Capital Cost Per Person $2,343 Current Increase Maximum Supportable Impact Fee per Housing Unit Fee (Decrease) 210 Single Family Detached $6,818 $0 $6,818 230 Low Rise $5,998 $261 $5,737 220 High Rise $3,959 $221 $3,738 Standards: 2.91 2.56 1.69 0.9 $2,178,000 $1,960 $170 $147 $46 $33 ($13) 14 City of Miami Impact Fees Cash Flow Analysis of Growth -Related Park Improvements As shown in the upper portion of Figure 17, the City of Miami should receive approximately $26.8 million in park impact fee revenue over the next five years, if the maximum supportable fee is imposed on all new housing units. To the extent the rate of development either accelerates or slows down, there will be a corresponding change in the impact fee revenue and capital costs. See Appendix A for discussion of the development projections that drive the cash flow analysis. A summary of capital costs for growth -related system improvements is shown in the lower portion of Figure 17. The need for citywide park improvements is derived from the impact fee infrastructure standards and the projected increase in population over the next five years. To accommodate new residential development, the City will spend approximately $24.2 million on land for citywide parks plus an additional $2 million for improvements to citywide parks. The projected increase in population represents a demand for an additional 11.1 acres of citywide parks. To keep pace with population growth in Miami over the next five years, the City will also spend $1.7 million on waterfront parks and $547,000 on the expansion of pools. The cash flow analysis assumes the City will begin making debt service payments on the new Marti gym in 2008. Figure 17 - Projected Cash Flow for Parks Mani, Florida (Current $ in thousands) 1 Park Fee - Single Family 2 Park Fee - Low Rise 3 Park Fee - High Rise Park Fee Subtotal Citywide Parkland Citywide Park Improvements Waterfront Park Improvements Pools Marti Gym Debt Service Parks Infrastructure Subtotal 2006 $395 $232 $7,270 $7,897 4 5 Cumulative Average 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Annual 2 3 $299 $246 $175 $144 $5,490 $4,518 $5,963 $4,907 $212 $125 $3,905 $4,242 $190 $1,341 $268 $111 $787 $157 $3,485 $24,667 $4,933 $3,785 $26,795 $5,359 $7,841 $5,663 $4,138 $3,485 $3,049 $24,176 $4,835 $652 $471 $344 $290 $253 $2,009 $402 $566 $401 $311 $254 $215 $1,747 $349 $177 $126 $97 $80 $67 $547 $109 $0 $0 $831 $831 $831 $2,494 $499 $9,235 $6,660 $5,722 $4,940 $4,416 $30,973 $6,195 NET INFRASTRUCTURE CASH FLOW- Parks Annual Surplus (or Deficit) ($1,338) ($697) ($815) ($697) Cumulative Surplus (or Deficit) ($1,338) ($2,035) ($2,850) ($3,547) Current $ in thousands ($631) ($4,178) ($836) ($4,178) 15 City of Miami Impact Fees FIRE -RESCUE Since emergency medical calls are more frequent than fire calls, the best demand indicator for the fire -rescue impact fee is the number of residents and jobs located in the city of Miami. As shown in Figure 18, residential impact fees are calculated on a per capita basis. Fees for nonresidential development are determined using capital cost factors per employee. The capital cost of fire apparatus is based on the current inventory of equipment. The incremental expansion cost method for fire apparatus will ensure new development maintains the current infrastructure standards, if the fees are imposed at their maximum supportable level. For the fire station component of the impact fee, the City of Miami will use a plan -based methodology for two new fire stations to be constructed within the next five years. Figure 18 — Fire Rescue Impact Fee Methodology Chart Fire -Rescue Impact Fee Residential Development 1 Nonresidential Development 1 16 City of Miami Impact Fees Cost Allocation for Fire -Rescue Infrastructure An estimate of functional population was used to allocate capital costs to residential and nonresidential development {see Figure 19). For residential development, the proportionate share factor is based on estimated person hours of non -working residents, plus the non -working hours of resident workers. Based on census data, approximately 35% of Miami's population worked in 2000 and 65% did not work. For resident workers, two-thirds of a day (i.e., 16 hours) is allocated to residential demand. Time spent at work (i.e., 8 hours) is allocated to nonresidential development. In 2000, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that 57,408 city residents also worked in Miami. Therefore, total jobs (estimated to be 301,039) include 243,631 non-resident workers that commute into Miami for work. Based on estimated person hours, the cost allocation for residential development is 76% while nonresidential development accounts for 24% of the demand for infrastructure. Figure 19 — Proportionate Share Factors for Fire/EMS Demand Units in 2000 Demand Person Hours/Day Hours Residential Estimated Residents 362,470 Residents Not Working 235,931 24 5,662,344 Workers Living in Miami* 126,539 City Residents Working in Miami* 57,408 16 918,528 City Residents Working Outside ofMiami* 69,131 16 1,106,096 Residential Subtotal 7,686,968 76% Nonresidential Jobs Located in the City of Miami 301,039 City Residents Working in Miami* Non -Resident Workers in 2000 * Source: Table P27 from SF3, Census 2000. 57,408 8 459,264 243,631 8 1,949,048 Nonresidential Subtotal 2,408,312 24% TOTAL 10,095,280 Fire -Rescue Infrastructure Standards The top section of Figure 20 inventories the apparatus currently used to provide fire -rescue services within Miami. The Fire -Rescue Department provided the apparatus inventory and current unit costs for each type of equipment. These costs include all necessary add-ons to make the apparatus ready for service, such as lights and safety equipment. The fleet of fire apparatus in the City of Miami has a current cost of approximately $14.9 million. 17 City of Miami Impact Fees ions. The City is in the process of purchasing two sites and constructing of $10.7two new fire m Ilion, with the tco t of The new stations (land and buildings) have an estimated co interest adding $2.2 million. The total cost is $718w per !1 have a total offloor 4 stations with 165,600 en the new stations are complete, the Fire -Rescue Department th square feet floor area. The impact fees take a conservativethe approach allocating persons and jobs ase total or area of the 14 fire stations to projected demand unitsyear2010 {i.e shown in Figure 20). By using 2010 demand units to derive the infrastructure standards, new development is only paying its proportionate share of the infrastructure cost. Figure 20 — Infrastructure Standards for Fire -Rescue Incremental Expansion Cost of Fire Apparatus e Count Fire Engines Rescue Trucks Quints Aerials Cars / Small Pickups Pickup/Van/Small SUV Large SUV TOTAL Proportionate Share Residential Nonresidential Equipment Per 10,000 Persons Equipment Per 10,000 Jobs Plan -Based Cast of Fire Stations Site 12 Existing Stations New South Station (#14) New North Station (#13) Subtotal Total Cost Residential Nonresidential Sq Ft Per Person SgFtPer Job Interest Cost > Total Cost > Ft of New Builclin Proportionate Share 76% 24% 0.32 0.12 Unit Cost 10 $390, 000 23 $180,000 4 $550,000 3 $900 000 f5 $13,000 28 $19,000 S532,000 26 $23,000 $598,000 159 $93,800 $14,915,000 2005 Demand Units 76% 386,127 persons 24V 318,254 jobs 3.13 1.20 165,600 10,711,000 2 213 000 12924,000 $718 Total Cost $3,900,000 $4,140,000 $2,200,000 $2,700,000 $845,000 2010 Demand Units 398,014 persons 335,470 jobs Cost per Demand Unit 929 3535 $11.24 Cost per Demand Unit $227.03 $85.06 18 City of Miami Impact Fees Credit Evaluation for Fire -Rescue Infrastructure Due to the large initial cost, the two fire stations will be bond financed. Voter -approved bond financing is for $7.5 million. To avoid double payment for the new fire stations, credit is given for future principal and interest payments. As shown in Figure 21, annual debt service payments were allocated to persons and jobs using the same proportionate share factors as in the capital cost analysis. The present value adjustment accounts for the time value of future payments. The 5% discount rate is based on the anticipated annual interest rate for Homeland Security bonds. Figure 21-- Credit for Future Debt Service FY Homeland Security Bond Residential Principal Interest 76% 2006 $596,284 $375,000 $738,176 2007 $626,099 $345,186 $738,176 2008 $657,403 $313,881 $738,176 2009 $690,274 $281,011 $738,176 2010 $724,787 $246,497 $738,176 2011 $761,027 $210,258 $738,176 2012 $799,078 $172,206 $738,176 2013 $839,032 $132,252 $738,176 2014 $880,984 $90,301 $738,176 2015. $925,033 $46,252 $738,176 Total $7, 500, 000 $2,212, 843 Nonresidential Persons Jobs 24% $233,108 389,974 321,697 $233,108 392,704 325,140 $233,108 394,822 328,584 $233,108 396,552 332,027 $233,108 398,014 335,470 $233,108 399,281 338,913 $233,108 400,399 342,356 $233,108 401,399 345,799 $233,108 402,303 349,242 $233,108 403,129 352,685 $7,381,761 $2,331,082 $18.56 $6.92 Discount Rate 5.00% 5.00% Present Value $14.35 $5.36 Debi Service Per Person $1.89 $1.88 $1.87 $1.86 $1.85 $1.85 $1.84 $1.84 $1.83 $1.83 Per Job $0.72 $0.72 $0.71 $0.70 $0.69 $0.69 $0.68 $0.67 $0.67 $0.66 Fire -Rescue Impact Fee Calculations Standards used to derive the fire -rescue impact fees are shown in Figure 22. Documentation on the number of employees per nonresidential development unit may be found in Appendix A. The impact fee is the product of the demand units per development unit, multiplied by the net capital cost per demand unit. For example, the fee for a nursing home is obtained by multiplying 0.36 employees per bed times the net capital cost of $90.94 per employee, to yield an impact fee of $32 per nursing home bed (as shown in Figure 23). 19 City of Miami Impact Fees Figure 22 — Fire -Rescue Fee Input Variables ITE Code Persons Per Housing Unit 210 Single Family Detached 230 Low Rise 220 High Rise Employees per 1,000 Sq Ft 110 Light Industrial 140 Manufacturing 150 Warehousing 151 Nfini-Warehouse 610 Hospital 710 General Office 50,000 SF or less 710 General Office 50,001-100,000 SF 710 General Office 100,001-200,000 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 820 Commercial / Shop Ctr 100,001-200,000 SF 820 Commercial / Shop Ctr 200,001-400,000 SF Employees per Demand Unit 320 520 530 565 620 Level of Service Fire -Rescue Apparatus Fire Stations Debt Service Credit Net Capital Cost Per Demand Unit Standards: 2.91 2.56 1.69 2.31 1.79 1.28 0.04 3.38 3.91 3.70 3.49 4.05 3.16 3.33 2.86 2.50 2.22 2.00 Per Person Per Employee $29.35 $11.24 $227.03 $85.06 ($14.35) ($5.36) $242.03 $90.94 20 City of Miami Impact Fees Maximum Supportable Fire -Rescue Impact Fees Figure 23 provides the schedule of maximum supportable impact fees for fire -rescue infrastructure. The fee for a single family detached house is derived by multiplying the number of persons per housing unit by the net capital cost per person (i,e., 2.91 persons per housing unit times the net capital cost of $242.03 per persoare based on anwhich ls $704 per assumed size of113 OOlt. The square feet estimated current fee amounts shown below per low-rise housing unit and 1,100 square feet per high-rise housing unit. Figure 23 - Fire -Rescue Impact Fees Ciff Residential (per housing unit) 210 Single Family Detached 230 Low Rise 220 High Rise 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 Office 100,001-200,000 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 Conurncial / Shop Ctr 50,001-100,000 SF 820 Commercial / Shop Ctr 100,001-200,000 SF 820 Commercial / Shop Ctr 200,001-400,000 SF Nonresidential Per Demand IN( 320 520 530 565 620 * Current fee based on floor area. $704 $619 $409 Current Increase Fee (Decrease) $0 $704 $10 $609 $9 $400 $0.210 $0.02 $0.19 $0.162 $0.02 $0.14 $0,116 $0.02 $0.09 $0.003 $0.02 ($0.02) $0.307 $0.02 $0.29 $0.355 $0.02 $0.33 $0.336 $0.02 $0.31 $0.317 $0.02 $0.30 $0.368 $0.02 $0.35 $0.287 $0.02 $0.27 $0.302 $0.02 $0.28 $0.260 $0.02 $0.24 $0.227 $0.02 $0.21 $0.201 $0.02 $0.18 $0.181 $0.02 $0.16 21 City of Miami Impact Fees Fire -Rescue Cash Flow Analysis At the maximum supportable level, the fire -rescue impact fees should yield approximately $4.07 million over the next five years (see Figure 24). To accommodate new development, the Fire - Rescue Department will need to expand the apparatus fleet by six vehicles, at an approximate cost of $553,000. The cash flow analysis assumes debt service payments on the new fire stations (approximately $971,000 per year) will begin in FY05-06. The cash flow summary provides an indication of the impact fee revenue and expenditures necessary to meet the demand for fire -rescue infrastructure. To the extent the rate of development either accelerates or slows down, there will be a corresponding change in the impact fee revenue and capital costs of apparatus. See Appendix A for discussion of the development projections that drive the cash flow analysis. Figure 24 — Cash Flow Summary for Fire Rescue Infrastructure Miami, Florida (Current $ in thousands) 2006 2007 9 Fire -Rescue Fee - Single Fa! $41 $31 $25 10 Fire -Rescue Fee - Low Rise $24 $18 $15 11 Fire -Rescue Fee -High Rise $751 $567 $467 12 Fire -Rescue Fee - Goods $57 $55 $57 13 Fire -Rescue Fee - Services $205 $203 $203 Fire -Rescue Fee Subtotal $1,079 $873 $767 Fire Apparatus Debt Service for New Fire Stations Fire -Rescue Infrastructure Subtotal 1 2 3 4 5 Cumulative Average Total Annual 2008 2009 $22 $13 $403 $57 $205 $701 2010 $20 $11 $360 $55 $203 $648 $139 $28 $81 $16 $2,548 $510 $281 $56 $1,019 $204 $4,069 $814 $159 $113 $103 $84 $94 $553 $111 $971 $971 $971 $971 $971 $4,856 $971 $1,131 $1,084 $1,074 $1,056 $1,065 $5,410 $1,082 NETINFRASTRUCTURE CASH FLOW- Fire -Rescue Current $ in thousands Annual Surplus (or Deficit) ($52) ($210) ($307) ($355) ($417) ($1,341) ($268) Cumulative Surplus (or Deficit) ($52) ($263) ($570) ($925) ($1,341) 22 City of Miami Impact Fees GENERAL SERVICES The General Services impact fee addresses the need for general government office space and additional vehicles or equipment necessary to accommodate new development. The following Departments may purchase additional vehicles and equipment with funding from the General Services impact fee: Building, Code Enforcement, NET, Economic Development, City Attorney, CIP, GSA, Information Technology, Parks, Public Works and Solid Waste. As shown in Figure 25, the impact fee for General Services is calculated on a per capita basis for residential development. For nonresidential development, impact fees are allocated according to the number of employees per thousand square feet of floor area. Figure 25 — General Services Methodology Chart General Services Impact Fee 1 Residential Development Persons per Housing Multiplied by Capital Unit Cost per Person � 1 Nonresidential Development i Employees per Multiplied by Capital Thousand Square Cost per Employee Feet Functional Population An estimate of functional population was used to allocate capital costs to residential and nonresidential development (see Figure 26). For residential development, the proportionate share factor is based on estimated person hours of non -working residents, plus the non -working hours of resident workers. Based on census data, approximately 35% of Miami's population worked in 2000 and 65% did not work. For resident workers, two-thirds of a day (i.e., 16 hours) is 23 City of Miami Impact Fees allocated to residential demand. Time spent at work (i.e., 8 hours) is allocated to nonresidential development. In 2000, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that 57,408 city residents also worked in Miami. Therefore, total jobs (estimated to be 301,039) include 243,631 non-resident workers that commute into Miami for work. Based on estimated person hours, the cost allocation for residential development is 76% while nonresidential development accounts for 24% of the demand for infrastructure. Figure 26 — Functional Population Demand Units in 2000 Demand Person Hours/Day Hours Residential Estimated Residents Residents Not Working Workers Living in NGami* 362,470 235,931 126,539 City Residents Working in Miami* City Residents Working Outside of Mami* Nonresidential Jobs Located in the City of Mami City Residents Working in Miami* Non -Resident Workers in 2000 * Source: Table P27 from SF3, Census 2000. 24 5,662,344 57,408 16 918,528 69,131 16 1,106,096 Residential Subtotal 7,686,968 76% 301,039 57,408 8 243,631 8 Nonresidential Subtotal 459,264 1,949,048 2,408,312 24% TOTAL 10,095,280 Infrastructure Standards for General Services During the next five years, the City of Miami plans to modify several floors of the Miami Riverside Center (MRC) to accommodate the demand for service from new development. As shown in Figure 27, planned improvements include the work space for processing building permits and reviewing other types of development applications. The remodeling will enable staff to more efficiently use existing floor space and expedite the permit processing. The expected cost of $1.52 million is allocated to the increase in demand units (i.e. population and jobs) over the next five years. City staff provided an electronic database of vehicles and equipment with a useful life of at least five years and an original purchase price of at least $13,000, which are the minimum criteria the City of Miami has established for impact fee system improvements. This price threshold is the approximate price of a new car on the State of Florida bid list. For the 560 items listed in Figure 27, the total cost is approximately $23 million. The original costs are used in the impact fee calculations because future expansion of the vehicle fleet will require the purchase of new vehicles, not used vehicles at a depreciated cost. The incremental expansion cost methodology 24 City of Miami Impact Fees will enable Miami to maintain the current infrastructure standard by expanding the equipment fleet as needed to accommodate new development. Figure 27 General Services Infrastructure Standards Plan -Based Cost of Building Capacity Expansion MRCDevelopment Related Modifications Residential Nonresidential Public Works, Planning & Zoning Building Department Proportionate Share 76% 24% Incremental Expansion Cost of Vehicles Type of Vehicle Residential Nonresidential boats car/small pickups large trucks other equipment pickup/van street sweeper SUV solid waste trucks TOTAL (rounded) Proportionate Share 76% 24% Estimated Cost $421,600 $1,100,000 TOTAL $1,521,600 2005 to 2010 Demand Unit Increase 11,887 Population 17,215 Jobs Units in Service 5 168 122 64 119 10 13 $23,000 $299,000 59 $142,000 $8,378,000 Cost per Demand Unit $97 $21 1.10 equipment items per 1,000 persons 0.42 equipment items per 1,000 jobs Unit Cost $21,000 $13,000 $49,000 $45,000 $19,000 $89,000 Total Cost $105,000 $2,184,000 $5,978,000 $2,880,000 $2,261,000 $890,000 560 $41,000 $22,980000 2005 Demand Units 386,127 Population 318,254 Jobs Cost per Demand Unit $45 $17 25 City of Miami Impact Fees General Services Impact Fee Calculations Input variables used to derive the impact fees for General Services are summarized in Figure 28. Fees for nonresidential development vary according to the number of employees per development unit. For most types of nonresidential development, the fees are listed per square foot of floor area. The nonresidential development types shown with light -yellow shading have unique demand units, such as the number of rooms in a hotel. Figure 28 — General Services Fee Input Variables Persons Per Housing Unit 210 Single Family Detached 230 Low Rise 220 High Rise Employees per 1,000 Sq F1 110 Light Industrial 140 Manufacturing 150 Warehousing 151 Mnu-Warehouse 610 Hospital 710 General Office 50,000 SF or less 710 General Office 50,001-100,000 SF 710 General Office 100,001-200,000 SF 720 Medical -Dental Office 770 Business Park 820 Commercial / Shop Ctr 25,000 SF or less 820 Coz1uncida1 / Shop Ctr 25,001-50,000 SF 820 Commercial / Shop Ctr 50,001-100,000 SF 820 Commercial / Shop Ctr 100,001-200,000 SF 820 Commercial / Shop Ctr 200,001-400,000 SF Employees per Demand Unit 320 Lodging (per room) 520 Elementary School (per student) 530 Secondary School (per student) 565 Day Care (per student) 620 Nursing Home (per bed) Level Of Service City Hall and Public Works Facility General Government Vehicles Revenue Credit (not applicable) Net Capital Cost per Demand Unit Standards: 2.91 2.56 1.69 2.31 1.79 1.28 0.04 3.38 3.91 3.70 3.49 4.05 3.16 3.33 2.86 2.50 2.22 2.00 0.44 0.08 0.09 0.16 0.36 Per Person Per Employee $97 $21 $45 $17 $142 $38 26 City of Miami Impact Fees Maximum Supportable Fees for General Services The maximum supportable general services impact fees are shown in Figure 29. The impact fee is derived from number of demand units per development unit and the cost per demand unit. For example, the impact fee for a single family detached house is the product of 2.91 persons per housing unit multiplied by $142 per person, which yields $413 per housing unit. The current fee amounts are based on an assumed size of 1,300 square feet per low-rise housing unit and 1,100 square feet per high-rise housing unit. Figure 29 — Fee Schedule for General Services ar�_n.We. Current Increase Per Housing Unit Fee (Decrease) $413 $0 $413 $363 $29 $334 $239 $25 $214 Per Square Foot of Floor Area $0.087 $0.10 ($0.02) $0.068 $0,10 ($0.03) $0.048 $0.10 ($0.05) $0.001 $0.I0 ($0.10) $0.128 $0.10 $0.03 $0.148 $0.10 $0.05 $0.140 $0.10 $0.04 $0.132 $0.10 $0.03 $0.153 $0.10 $0.05 $0.120 $0.10 $0.02 $0.126 $0.10 $0.02 $0.108 $0.10 $0.01 $0.095 $0.10 ($0.01) $0.084 $0.10 ($0.02) $0.076 $0.10 ($0.03) Per Demand Unit Residential 210 Single Family Detached 230 Low Rise 220 High Rise Nonresidential 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 Office 100,001-200,000 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 820 Commercial / Shop Ctr 100,001-200,000 SF 820 Commercial / Shop Ctr 200,001-400,000 SF Nonresidential 320 Lodging (per room) 520 Elementary School (per student) 530 Secondary School (per student) 565 Day Care (per student) 620 Nursing Home (per bed) * Current fee based on floor area. 27 City of Miami Impact Fees Cash Flow Analysis for General Services Projected impact fee revenue for General Services should average approximately $432,000 per year. Over the next five years, Miami expects to spend $1.52 million for growth -related modifications to the Miami Riverside Center (MRC) building. The cash flow analysis for general services (see Figure 30) indicates a need to spend approximately $779,000 for 19 additional vehicles needed to accommodate new development over the next five years. Impact fees are legally restricted to providing public facilities needed to accommodate new development and may not be used to replace existing vehicles and equipment. The cash flow summary provides an indication of impact fee revenue and growth -related expenditures. To the extent the rate of development either accelerates or slows down, there will be a corresponding change in the impact fee revenue and capital costs. See Appendix A for discussion of the development projections that drive the cash flow analysis. Figure 30 — Projected Cash Flow for General Services 2 3 4 5 Cumulative Average 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Annual Miami, Florida (Current $ in thousands) 4 Gen Sery Fee - Single Family $24 $18 $15 $13 $11 $81 $16 5 Gen Sery Fee - low Rise $14 $11 $9 $8 $7 $48 $10 6 Gen Sery Fee - High Rise $439 $331 $273 $236 $210 $1,489 $298 7 Gen Sery Fee - Goods $24 $23 $24 $24 $23 $118 $24 8 Gen Sery Fee -Services $586 $467 $405 $365 $336 $2�159 $432 423 $85 General Services Fee Subtotal MRC Growth -Related Modifications $0 $0 $1,522 $0 $0 $1,522 $304 Gen Sery Equipment $164 $205 $123 $123 $164 $779 $156 General Services Infrastructure Subtotal $164 $205 $1,645 $123 $164 $2,301 $460 I\rETINFRASTRUCTURE CASH FLOW- General Services anent $ in thousands Annual Surplus (or Deficit) $422 $262 ($1,240) $242 $172_ ($142) ($28) Cumulative Surplus (or Deficit) $422 $684 ($556) ($313) ($142) 28 City of Miami Impact Fees POLICE The police impact fee addresses the need for facilities that provide citywide service. As shown in Figure 31, police impact fees use different demand indicators for residential and nonresidential development. Residential impact fees are calculated on a per capita basis and then converted to an appropriate amount by type of housing, based on the average number of persons per housing unit. To allocate nonresidential impact fees by type of development, TischlerBise recommends using vehicle trips as the best demand indicator for police infrastructure. Trip generation rates are highest for commercial developments, such as shopping centers, and lowest for industrial/warehouse development. Office and institutional trip rates fall between the other two categories. This ranking of trip rates is consistent with the relative demand for law enforcement from nonresidential development. Other possible nonresidential demand indicators, such as employment or floor area, do not accurately reflect the demand for service. If employees per thousand square feet were used as the demand indicator, police impact fees would be higher for office and institutional development. If floor area were used as the demand indicator, police impact fees could possibly overstate the impact of industrial development. Also, police officers respond to traffic accidents, which are directly proportionate to trip generation rates. Figure 31— Police Impact Fee Methodology Chart Police Impact Fee Methodology 1 Residential Development Police Buildings Police Vehicles 1 Nonresidential Development Police l3uilclingN Police Vehicles 29 City of Miami Impact Fees Cost Allocation for Police Infrastructure TischlerBise derived proportionate share factors for residential and nonresidential development using estimated average weekday vehicle trips associated with existing development within the City of Miami. As shown in Figure 38, residential units within the City of Miami generate 706,542 vehicle trips on an average weekday (see the line item labeled RVT, base -year estimate). Because of the significant amount of nonresidential development within Miami, nonresidential vehicle trips (NRVT) are much higher with an estimate 1,833,554 average weekday trips in 2005. Based on trip generation, nonresidential development accounts for 72% of the demand for police infrastructure in the City of Miami. The remaining 28% of the capital cost of police infrastructure (i.e. buildings and vehicles) was allocated to residential development. Police Infrastructure Standards As shown in Figure 32, the infrastructure standard for police buildings is based on the current floor area of police headquarters and two substations (a total of 194,000 square feet). For residential development, the infrastructure standard for police buildings is 28% of 194,000 square feet, divided by the 2005 population of 386,127, or 0.14 square feet per person. For nonresidential development, the infrastructure standard for police buildings is 72% of 194,000 square feet, divided by 1,833,554 average weekday vehicle trips to nonresidential development located within the City of Miami. The standard for nonresidential development is 0.08 square feet per vehicle trip. TischlerBise calculated average weekday vehicle trips associated with nonresidential development within the City of Miami using estimated floor area of nonresidential development, trip generation rates and trip adjustment factors. Documentation of the demographic data used in the impact fee study may be found in Appendix A. The cost of new police building space is $299 per square foot, based on plans for a new police training facility. The City of Miami is planning to construct a 95,000 square feet training facility on a publicly -owned site, thus negating a land cost component. Based on the infrastructure standards discussed in the above paragraph, new development over the next five years accounts for 9,233 square feet, or approximately 10% of the total building floor area. Police impact fees will also provide funding to purchase additional police cars as needed to accommodate new development. The City of Miami currently has 1,134 police vehicles with an estimated cost of approximately $27.8 million (see Figure 32). Police cars are not depreciated because new development is not buying into the existing fleet. Under the incremental expansion cost method, new development will pay for additional new vehicles. The cost of vehicles includes all necessary add-ons to make each unit ready for service (e.g. lights, mobile data terminals and safety equipment). 30 City of Miami Impact Fees Figure 32 — Police Infrastructure Standards Incremental Expansion Cost of Police Buildings Site Police Headquarter North Substation South Substation TOTAL Square Feet 153,000 21,000 20,000 194,000 Cost er S Ft of New Buildin p q Residential Nonresidential g Proportionate Share 28% 72% $299 2005 Demand Units 386,127 persons 1,833,554 nonres veh trips 0.14 sq ft per person 0.08 sq ft per nonres veh trip Incremental Expansion Cost of Police Equipment Count Unit Cost Type Marked Patrol Cars Unmarked Cars Trucks Boats Vans SUVs TOTAL Residential Nonresidential 700 $30,500 326 $13,000 23 $23,500 5 $35,000 53 $18,500 27 1,134 Proportionate Share 28% 72% $19,000 $24,500 Total Cost $21,350,000 $4,238,000 $540,500 $175,000 $980,500 $513,000 $27,797,000 2005 Demand Units 386,127 persons 1,833,554 nonres veh trips Cost per Demand Unit $41.78 $22.83 Cost per Demand Unit 0.82 equipment items per 1,000 persons 0.45 equipment items per 1,000 nonres veh trips $20.02 $10.94 31 City of Miami Impact Fees Credit Evaluation Over the next five years the major expenditure for police buildings will be the new training facility. Because this facility will be bond financed using Homeland Security Bonds ($10 million approved by the voters), the impact fee methodology includes a credit for future principal payments (see Figure 33). A credit is not necessary for interest payments because the cost of interest was not added to the impact fee cost estimates. TischlerBise derived future principal payments per demand unit following the same methodology as used for the cost allocation. To account for the time value of money, the present value adjustment assumes a discount rate of 5% per year, which is the anticipated interest rate on the future bonds. Figure 33 - Principal Payment Credit for Police Training Facility FY Homeland Residential Security Bonds 28% 2006 $795,046 $222,613 2007 $834,798 $233,743 2008 $876,538 $245,431 2009 $920,365 $257,702 2010 $966,383 $270,587 2011 $1,014,702 $284,117 2012 $1,065,437 $298,322 2013 $1,118,709 $313,239 2014 $1,174,645 $328,901 2015 $1,233,377 $345,346 Total $10,000,000 $2,800,000 Nonresidential Persons 72% $572,433 $601,055 $631,107 $662,663 $695,796 $730,586 $767,115 $805,471 $845,744 $888,031 $7,200,000 389,974 392,704 394,822 396,552 398,014 399,281 400,399 401,399 402,303 403,129 Nonresidential Vehicle Trips 1,853,576 1,873,252 1,893,049 1,913,071 1,932,804 1,952,601 1,972,502 1,992,299 2,012,096 2,032,054 Discount Rate Present Value Principal Paqyments Per Person $0.57 $0.60 $0.62 $0.65 $0.68 $0.71 $0.75 $0.78 $0.82 $0.86 Per Pip $0.31 $0.32 $0.33 $0.35 $0.36 $0.37 $0.39 $0.40 $0.42 $0.44 $7.03 $3.69 5.00% 5.00% $5.33 $2.81 Maximum Supportable Impact Fee Standards used to derive the police impact fees are shown in the boxed area at the top of Figure 34. A vehicle "trip end" represents a vehicle either entering or exiting a development (as if a traffic counter were placed across a driveway). Trip generation rates are from the reference book Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE, 7th edition, 2003). Trip generation rates are adjusted to avoid double counting each trip at both the origin and destination points. For all types of nonresidential development except commercial, the trip adjustment factor is 50%. For commercial / shopping center development, the trip adjustment factor ranges from 22-35% depending on the floor area of the development. The trip adjustment factor is less than 50% because retail uses attract vehicles as they pass by on arterial and collector roads. For example, when someone stops at a convenience store on the way home from work, the convenience store is not the primary destination. For a small -size shopping center of 50,000 square feet of floor area, the ITE manual indicates that on average 48% of the vehicles that enter are passing by on their way to some other primary destination. The remaining 52% of attraction trips have the shopping center as their primary destination. Because attraction trips are half of all trips, the trip adjustment factor is 52% multiplied by 50%, or approximately 26% of the trip ends. The data contained in Trip Generation (see Table VII-1 of the 5th edition, 1991) indicates there is an inverse relationship between shopping center size and pass -by trips. Therefore, appropriate 32 City of Miami Impact Fees trip adjustment factors have been calculated for each category of shopping center size used in the police impact fee calculations. Figure 34 — Police Fee Input Variables Standards: Persons Per Housing Unit 210 Single Family Detached 2.91 230 Low Rise 2.56 220 High Rise 1.69 Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends Nonresidential Per 1.000 Square Feet of Floor Area 110 Light Industrial 6.97 140 Manufacturing 3.82.82 150 Warehousing 151 Mini -Warehouse 2,50 610 Hospital 17.57 710 General Office 50,000 SF or less 15.65 710 General Office 50,001-100,000 SF 13.34 710 General Office 100,001-200,000 SF 11.37 720 Medical -Dental Office 36.13 770 Business Park 12.76 820 Commercial / Shop Ctr 25,000 SF or less 110.32 819 Commercial / Shop Ctr 25,001-50,000 SF 86.56 820 Commercial / Shop Ctr 50,001-100,000 SF 67.91 820 Commercial / Shop Ctr 100,001-200,000 SF 53.28 820 Commercial / Shop Ctr 200,001-400,000 SF 41.80 Other Nonresidential Per Demand Unit 320 ° I @''�A� , ` a ale 5201 F 530‘;it 565 .0' 620 Trip Adjustment Factors Commercial / Shop Ctr 25,000 SF or less 22% Commercial / Shop Ctr 25,001-50,000 SF 26% Commercial / Shop Ctr 50,001-100,000 SF 29% Commercial / Shop Ctr 100,001-200,000 SF 32% Commercial / Shop Ctr 200,001-400,000 SF 35% All Other Nonresidential 50% Lepel of Service Per Person Per TriP Police Buildings Cost $41.78 $22.83 Police Equipment Cost $20.02 $10.94 Revenue Credit ($5.33) ($2.81) Net Capital Cost Per Demand Unit $56.47 $30.96 33 City of Miami Impact Fees Maximum Supportable Police Impact Fees Figure 35 indicates the maximum supportable fees for detached and attached housing units. Residential impact fees are the product of the average persons per housing unit multiplied by the net capital cost per person. For example, the fee for a high-rise residential is 1.69 times $56.47, or $95 per housing unit. Fees for the majority of nonresidential development categories are given per square foot of floor area. The impact fee is the product of the trip generation rate multiplied by the trip adjustment factor and the net capital cost per vehicle trip for police infrastructure. For example, the fee for a small (less than 25,000 square feet of floor area) commercial building is 110.32 divided by 1,000 multiplied by 0.22, multiplied by $30.96, which yields a fee of $0.751 per square foot of floor area. A specific impact fee for a particular nonresidential building is the product of the floor area of the new building multiplied by the impact fee per square foot. Thus a convenience store with 3,000 square feet of floor area would pay a police impact fee of $2,253 (Le., 3000 x 0.751). Figure 35 — Maximum Supportable Police Impact Fees Pis Residential 210 Single Family Detached 230 Low Rise 220 High Rise Nonresidential 110 Light Industrial 140 Manufacturing 150 Warehousing 151 Nfini-Warehouse 610 Hospital 710 General Office 50,000 SF or less 710 General Office 50,001-100,000 SF 710 General Office 100,001-200,000 SF 720 Medical -Dental Office 770 Business Park 820 Commercial 1 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 820 Commercial / Shop Ctr 100,001-200,000 SF 820 Commercial / Shop Ctr 200,001-400,000 SF Other Nonresidential 320 520 530 565 620 * Current fee based on floor area. °t Per Housing Unit $164 $144 $95 Per Square Foot of Floor Area $0.107 $0.059 $0.076 $0.038 $0.271 $0,242 $0.206 $0.176 $0.559 $0.197 $0.751 $0.696 $0.609 $0,527 $0.452 Per Demand Unit Current Increase Fee (Derreage) $0 $164 $23 $121 $20 $75 $0.28 ($0.1.8) $0.28 ($0.22) $0.28 ($0.21) $0.28 ($0.25) $0.28 ($0.01) $0.28 ($0.04) $0.28 ($0.08) $0.28 ($0.11) $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 ($0.09) $0.28 $0.47 $0.28 $0.41 $0.28 $0.33 $0,28 $0.24 $0.28 $0.17 34 City of Miami Impact Fees Projected Cash Flow for Police Facilities As shown in Figure 36, police impact fees are expected to generate approximately $713,000 per year in revenue. This revenue projection is based on the demographic data described further in Appendix A and the maximum supportable impact fees shown above. Growth -related capital costs for police vehicles average approximately $265,000 per year. To maintain the current infrastructure standards over the next five years, the City of Miami will need to expand the police fleet by an additional 54 cars. Debt service on the new police training facility is projected to be approximately $1.3 million per year. Projected deficits are due to these debt service payments. The cash flow summary provides an indication of the impact fee revenue and expenditures necessary to meet the demand for police facilities. To the extent the rate of development either accelerates or slows down, there will be a corresponding change in the impact fee revenue and capital costs. See Appendix A for discussion of the development projections that drive the cash flow analysis. Figure 36 — Cash Flow Summary for Police Infrastructure vliami, Florida (Current $ in thousands) 14 Police Fee - Single Family $10 $7 15 Police Fee - Low Rise $6 $4 16 Police Fee - High Rise $174 $132 17 Police Fee - Goods $39 $37 18 Police Fee - Services $550 $543 Police Fee Subtotal $779 $723 Training Facility Debt Service Police Vehicles Police Infrastructure Subtotal NETINFRASTRUCTURE CASH FLOW - Police Annual Surplus (or Deficit) Cumulative Surplus (or Deficit) I 2 3 2006 2007 2008 $6 $3 $108 $39 $543 $700 4 5 Cumulative Average 2009 2010 Total Annual $5 $3 $94 $39 $550 $691 $5 $3 $84 $37 $543 $671 $32 $6 $19 $4 $592 $118 $193 $39 $2,728 $546 $3,564 $713 $1,295 $1,295 $1,295 $1,295 $1,295 $6,475 $1,295 $294 $270 $270 $245 $245 $1,323 $265 $1,589 $1,565 $1,565 $1,540 $1,540 $7,798 $1,560 Current $ in thousands ($810) ($841) ($864) ($849) ($869) ($4,234) ($847) ($8I0) ($1,651) ($2,516) ($3,365) ($4,234) 35 City of Miami Impact Fees GROWTH -RELATED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS The Capital Improvements Plan (CIF) identifies infrastructure demands associated with new development activity and proposes public facilities to meet those demands. Infrastructure Demand TischlerBise calculated the demand for facilities using infrastructure standards or obtained capital improvement projects from the City of Miami CIP. Growth indicators for the impact fee study are summarized in Figure 37. The projected increase in jobs, at 3,443 per year, is significantly greater than the projected increase in housing units over the next five years, averaging 1,312 units per year. Converting jobs to nonresidential floor area indicates a projected average increase of almost 1.15 million square feet per year. These projections were used to calculate the need for capital improvements and to estimate the likely revenue generated by impact fees. For a detailed discussion of demographic data and land use assumptions, please see Appendix A at the back of this report. Figure 37 — Summary of Growth Indicators Miami, Florida 2005 2010 20.5 Year -Round Population 386,127 398,014 403,129 NonRes Sq Ft x1000 106,090 111,830 117,570 Housing Units 165,264 171,823 175,546 Jobs 318,254 335,470 352,685 2005 to 2010 Average Annual Increase 2,377 1,148 1,312 3,443 Growth Rate 0.6% 1.1% 0.8% 1.1% 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 2004 [City of Miami Growth Indicators 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 — ♦- • Year -Round Population --I-- NonRes Sq Ft x1000 - • IN - -Housing Units —)(-- Jobs 36 City of Miami Impact Fees For each infrastructure type addressed in the impact fee study, TischlerBise identified an appropriate demand indicator or "service unit". Expected service units over the next five years are listed in Figure 38. Education and government floor area (see line item NR3) is used to estimate vehicle trips, but not impact fee revenue. Figure 38 - Projected Demand or Service Units 1Vflami, Florida Year => 1 2 3 4 5 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 DEMAND PROJECTIONS VS (cumulative) P POPULATION 386,127 389,974 392,704 394,822 396,552 398,014 J JOBS 318,254 321,697 325,140 328,584 332,027 335,470 Pi POPULATION & JOBS 704,381 �711,672 717,845 723,405 728,578 733,484 TVT Total Avg Day Veh Trips 2,540,097 ,56 ,8 ,' 'VA:1 ,9 X.4041 0.,., 2, 14: RT Residential Units: 165,264 167,197 168,657 169,858 170,896 171,823 Rl SingleFamilyDetached 45,978 46,036 46,080 46,116 46,147 46,175 R2 Low Density 51,258 51,297 51,326 51,350 51,371 51,389 R3 High Density 68,028 69,864 71,251 72,392 73,378 74,259 RVT Res Avg Day Veh Trips 706,542 714,284 720,130 724,940 729,099 732,810 NRT NRes Floor Area: 106,090 107,250 108,380 109,530 110,690 111,830 NR1 Goods 18,160 18,360 18,550 18,750 18,950 19,140 NR2 Services 72,400 73,190 73,970 74,750 75,540 76,320 NR3 Edu/Gov - 15,530 15,700 15,860 16,030 16,200 16,370 NRVT NRAvg Day Veh Trips 1,833,554 1,853,576 1,873,252 1,893,049 1,913,071 1,932,804 Proposed Means to Meet the Demand for Public Facilities The demand for public facilities is a function of the projected demand, or service units (shown in the table above) and the infrastructure standards summarized in Figure 39. For each type of public facility, the impact fee study documents the relationship between infrastructure units and demand/service units. For example, the City of Miami currently has 0.9 acres of citywide parks per 1,000 persons. A few of the infrastructure standards are expressed as a capital cost per demand unit to allow flexibility in planning growth -related capital improvements. For example, the standard for waterfront park improvements is $147 per person. This approach enables the City to plan unique improvements to waterfront parks for the benefit of new development. Additional details on growth -related improvements to waterfront parks will be provided in the City's Capital Improvements Plan (CIP), which is approved by the City Commission as part of the on -going budget process. 37 Figure 39 — Summary Type of Amount Parks acres of cii 0.9 Parks 0.9 acres of citywid waterfront Parks $147 p Parks 2.59 square fee Parks 77.5 fire Fire -Rescue 3.13 Fire -Rescue 1.20 fire square fel Fire -Rescue 0.32 square fel Fire -Rescue 0.12 City General Services $97 City General Services $21 vehicl General Services 1.10 General Services 0.42 vehicl feet Police 0.14 square Police 0.08 square feet Police 0.82 poli Police 0.45 poli City of Miami Impact Fees of Infrastructure Standards Infrastructure Units rywide parkland e park improvements ark improvements pools t of gymnasium apparatus apparatus of fire station at of fire station buildings buildings s/equipment es/equipment ofpolice building of police buildings ce vehicles ce vehicles Per Demand Unit 1,000 persons 1,000persons person 100,000 persons 1,000 persons 10,000 persons 10,000 jobs person job person job 1,000 persons 1,000 jobs person vehicle trip to nonres dev 1,000 person 1,000 vehicle trips to nonres dev Cast Factor $2,178,000 $181,000 $1,800,000 $431 $93,800 $93,800 $718 $718 $41,000 $41,000 $299 $299 $24,500 $24,500 Figure 40 provides a schedule of growth -related capital improvements over the next five years. At the top of the table are cumulative facilities, with the middle section indicating net increases. Detailed information on specific capital improvements will be provided in the City of Miami's annual CIP. Pay-as-you-go capital expenditures total approximately $32.66 million over the next five years. The City of Miami anticipates bond financing the construction of two new fire stations, the police training facility and Jose Marti gymnasium. Over the next five years, these debt obligations total approximately $13.83 million. 38 City of Miami Impact Fees Figure 40 - Capital Improvements Schedule Miami, Florida Year => 1 2 3 4 5 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Cumulative Facilities Needed Cl Citywide Parkland acres 361.1 364.7 367.3 369.2 370.8 372.2 C2 Citywide Park improvements acres 361.1 364.7 367.3 369.2 370.8 372.2 C6 Gen Sery Equipment - Res vehicles 426 429 432 434 436 438 C7 Gen Sery Equipment - Nonres vehicles 134 135 137 138 139 141 C8 Fire Apparatus - Res vehicles 120.8 122.1 122.9 123.6 124.1 124.6 C9 Fire Apparatus -Nonres vehicles 38.2 38.6 39.0 39.4 39.8 40.3 C12 Police Vehicles - Res vehicles 318 321 323 325 326 327 C13 Police Vehicles - Nonres vehicles 816 825 834 843 852 861 Additional Facilities Needed Total C1 Citywide Parkland acres 3.6 2.6 1.9 1.6 1.4 11.1 C2 Citywide Park Improvements acres 3.6 2.6 1.9 1.6 1.4 11.1 C6 Gen Sery Equipment - Res vehicles 3.4 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.4 C7 Gen Sery Equipment - Nonres vehicles 0.6 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 6.6 C8 Fire Apparatus - Res vehicles 1.3 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.5 3.8 C9 Fire Apparatus - Nonres vehicles 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 2.1 C12 Police Vehicles - Res vehicles 3 2 2 1 1 9 C13 Police Vehicles - Nonres vehicles 9 9 9 9 9 45 Pay -Go F..xpenditures 1000 's of dollars Cl Citywide Parkland $7,841 $5,663 $4,138 $3,485 $3,049 $24,176 C2 Citywide Park Improvements $652 $471 $344 $290 $253 $2,009 C3 Waterfront Park Improvements $566 $401 $311 $254 $215 $1,747 C4 Pools $177 $126 $97 $80 $67 $547 C5 MRC Growth -Related Modifications $0 $0 $1,522 $0 $0 $1,522 C6 Gen Sery Equipment - Res $139 $123 $82 $82 $82 $508 C7 Gen Sery Equipment - Nonres $25 $82 $41 $41 $82 $271 C8 Fire Apparatus - Res $118 $75 $66 $47 $47 $353 C9 Fire Apparatus - Nonres $41 $38 $38 $38 $47 $201 C12 Police Vehicles - Res $85 $49 $49 $25 $25 $232 C13 Police Vehicles - Nonres $209 $221 $221 $221 $221 $1,091 Total Pay -As -You -Go: $9,852 $7,247 $6,908 $4,561 $4,088 $32,656 Debt Service 1000 's of dollars 1 New Fire Stations $971 $971 $971 $971 $971 $4,856 2 Police Training Facility $1,295 $1,295 $1,295 $1,295 $1,295 $6,475 3 Marti Gym $0 $0 $831 $831 $831 $2,494 Total Obligations: $2,266 $2,266. $3,098 $3,098 $3,098 $13,826 39 City of Miami Impact Fees Funding Sources for Capital Improvements Potential impact fee revenues are summarized in Figure 41, assuming implementation of the fees at the maximum supportable level. Because each type of impact fee should be accounted for separately, TischlerBise provided cash flow summaries in the impact fee analysis for each type of infrastructure. Over the next five years, impact fees are expected to generate approximately $36.59 million for funding growth -related system improvements, if implemented at the maximum supportable level. Average annual impact fee revenue is projected to be approximately $7.32 million per year. Figure 41— Projected Impact Fee Revenue Miami, Florida (Current $ in thousands) Park Fee Subtotal General Services Fee Subtotal Fire -Rescue Fee Subtotal Police Fee Subtotal TOTAL REVENUE 1 2 3 4 5 Cumulative Average 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Annual $7,897 $5,963 $4,907 $4,242 $3,785 $26,795 $5,359 $586 $467 $405 $365 $336 $2,159 $432 $1,079 $873 $767 $701 $648 $4,069 $814 $779 $723 $700 $691 $671 $3,564 $713 $10,341 $8,027 $6,779 $6,000 $5,441 $36,587 $7,317 If impact fees were imposed at the maximum supportable level, the percentage of funding from impact fees varies from a low of 46% for police to a high of 94% for general services (see Figure 42). The level of impact fee funding is a function of planned capital improvements, the impact fee methodology, applicable credits and the extent of bond financing. Impact fees only pay a low percentage of the expected costs of public safety facilities because the debt obligations for new fire stations and the police training facility extend beyond the five-year timeframe of the impact fee analysis. Figure 42 — Percentage of Costs Covered by Impact Fees Type of Impact Fee Infrastructure Fundin, Parks & Recreation 87% General Services 94% Fire -Rescue 75% Police 46% 40 City of Miami Impact Fees IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION Development impact fees should be periodically evaluated and updated to reflect recent data. One approach is to adjust for inflation using the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index published by The McGraw-Hill Companies. This index could be applied to the adopted impact fee schedule. If cost estimates or demand indicators change significantly, the City should redo the fee calculations. At a minimum, TischlerBise recommends that the impact fee study must be updated every five years. TischlerBise also recommends annual accounting reports that indicate impact fee revenues, expenditures and end of the year fund balances by type of infrastructure. Fees should be spent within five to seven years of when they are collected, with the expenditures limited to growth - related system improvements. Developer Reimbursements for System Improvements Specific policies and procedures related to site -specific developer reimbursements will be addressed in the ordinance that establishes the impact fees. Project -level improvements, required as part of the development approval process, are not eligible for credits against impact fees. If a developer constructs a system improvement included in the fee calculations, it will be necessary to either reimburse the developer or provide a credit against the fees for the development that provided the system improvement. The latter option is more difficult to administer because it creates unique fees for specific geographic areas. Based on experience, it is better for the City to establish a reimbursement agreement with the developer that constructs a system improvement. The reimbursement agreement should be limited to a payback period of no more than ten years and the City should not pay interest on the outstanding balance. The developer must provide sufficient documentation of the actual cost incurred for the system improvement. The City should only agree to pay the lesser of the actual construction cost or the estimated cost used in the impact fee analysis. If the City pays more than the cost used in the fee analysis, there will be insufficient fee revenue. Reimbursement agreements should only obligate the City to reimburse developers annually according to actual fee collections. Benefit/Service Area To ensure a substantial benefit to new development paying impact fees, the City of Miami has evaluated collection and expenditure zones for public facilities that may have distinct benefit or service areas. In the City of Miami, impact fees for parks, police and general services will benefit new development throughout the entire City. Therefore, TischlerBise recommends citywide implementation of these three types of impact fees. To ensure a substantial benefit to new development paying fire -rescue impact fees, TischlerBise recommends two collection and expenditure zones, with the Miami River as the recommended boundary between the north and south service areas for fire -rescue impact fees. Nonresidential Development Categories The nonresidential development categories in the impact fee schedule will apply to a majority of the new construction anticipated within Miami. Nonresidential development categories 41 City of Miami Impact Fees (summarized below) are based on land use classifications from the book Trip Generation (ITE, 2003). Shopping Center (820) — A shopping center is an integrated group of commercial establishments that is planned, developed, owned and managed as a unit. A shopping center provides on -site parking facilities sufficient to serve its own parking demands. Shopping centers may contain non-merchandizing facilities, such as office buildings, movie theaters, restaurants, post offices, banks, health clubs and recreational facilities. In addition to the integrated unit of shops in one building or enclosed around a mall, many shopping centers include out -parcels. For smaller centers without an enclosed mall or peripheral buildings, the Gross Leaseable Area (GLA) may be the same as the Gross Floor Area (GFA) of the building. General Office (710) — A general office building houses multiple tenants including, but not limited to, professional services, insurance companies, investment brokers and tenant services such as banking, restaurants and service retail facilities. In the impact fees study, this category is used as a proxy for institutional uses that may have more specific land use codes. Business Park (770) — According to ITE, a business park is a group of flex -type buildings served by a common roadway system, The tenant space includes a variety of uses with an average mix of 20-30% office/commercial and 70-80% industrial/warehousing. Light Industrial (110) — Light industrial facilities usually employ fewer than 500 persons and have an emphasis on activities other than manufacturing. Typical light industrial activities include, but are not limited to printing plants, material -testing laboratories and assembling of data processing equipment. Warehousing (150) — Warehouses are primarily devoted to the storage of materials. Manufacturing (140) — In manufacturing facilities, the primary activity is the conversion of raw materials or parts into finished products. In addition to the actual production of goods, manufacturing facilities may have office, warehouse, research, and associated functions. Even though churches are a common type of development, they do not have a specific impact fee category due to a lack of sufficient data. The Institute of Transportation Engineers does not publish trip rates per church employee and the weekday trip generation rate per 1,000 square feet of floor area is not based on enough studies to be statistically valid. For churches and any other atypical development, staff must establish a consistent administrative process to reasonably treat similar developments in a similar way. When presented with a development type that does not match one of the development categories in the published fee schedule, staff should first look in the ITE manual to see if there is land use category with valid trip rates that match the proposed development. The second option is to determine the published category that is most like the proposed development. Churches without daycare or schools are basically an office area (used throughout the week) with a large auditorium and class space (used periodically during the week). Some jurisdictions make a policy decision to impose impact fees on churches based on the fee schedule for warehouses or mini -warehouses. The rationale for this policy is the finding that churches are large buildings that generate little weekday traffic and only have a few full time 42 City of Miami Impact Fees employees. A third option is to impose impact fees on churches by breaking down the building floor area into its primary use. For example, a church with 25,000 square feet of floor area may have 2,000 square feet of office space used by employees throughout the week. At a minimum, impact fees could be imposed on the office floor area, based on the published rate per square foot for a small office. An additional impact fee amount could be imposed for the remainder of the building based on the rate for a warehouse or mini -warehouse. The key consideration for these administrative decisions is to be reasonable and consistent. If an applicant thinks the administrative decision is not reasonable, it is appealed to the elected officials for their consideration. 43 City of Miami Impact Fees APPENDIX A -- DEMOGRAPHICS & DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: DRAFT MEMORANDUM Alicia Cuervo Schreiber, Chief of Operations City of Miami, Florida TischlerBise July 15, 2005 Demographic Data and Development Projections In this draft memo, TischlerBise documents the demographic data and development projections that will be used in the impact fee study for the City of Miami, Florida. Although long-range projections are necessary for planning capital improvements, a shorter time frame of five to six years is critical for the impact fees analysis. Infrastructure standards will be calibrated using 2005 data and the first projection year for the cash flow model will be fiscal year 2005-2006. The City of Miami's fiscal year begins October 1st. Persons per Housing Unit The relationship between persons and housing units can be measured in two different ways. If persons are matched to households (i.e., occupied housing units) then seasonal or peak population should be used to derive the level of service standards for impact fees. This approach is more complicated because it requires data on the number of lodging rooms and average peak - season occupancy in a community. If persons are matched to housing units (i.e., the entire housing stock including vacant units) then year-round population should be used to derive the level of service standards for impact fees. The City of Miami impact fee study will use persons per housing unit and year-round population data. As shown in Figure Al, the City of Miami had 148,388 housing units in 2000. The blended or weighted average, household size in 2000 for all housing types was 2.61 persons per household. With vacant housing units included, the ratio drops to 2.36 persons per housing unit. TischlerBise recommends the use of three residential categories in the impact fee calculations. Differentiating impact fees by type of housing helps make the fees proportionate to the demand for public facilities. Single family detached housing units average 2.91 persons per housing unit. Low-rise housing averages 2.56 persons per unit. As shown in the following table, the low-rise category includes townhouses; duplexes; 3-4 and 5-9 units per structure; mobile homes and other housing (e.g., boats and recreational vehicles). High-rise housing units average 1.69 persons per unit. The high-rise category includes 10-19, 20-49 and 50+ units per structure. 44 City of Miami Impact Fees Figure Al — Year -Round Population by Type of Housing Units in Structure 1-Detached 1-Attached (Townhouse; Two (Duplex) 3:or4,. 5 to 9 Mobile'Ho Other Total SF3 Sample Data SF 1 100-Percent Data Renter & Owner Peter ons Ise Lt FEB 3.08 132,641 49,100 22641 22,574' '32415 43,029 �,993 3 0 ,053 2 81 g,627 2 62 12,570 351,036134,359 2.61 76 Persons Per Housing Unit in 2000 Housing Persons Per Persons Hsehlds ppi3 Units Housing Unit Hsg Mix Single Family Detached 132,641 43,029 3.08 45,523 2.91 31% °% Housing Persons Per Vacancy Units Housing Unit Rate 45,523 2.91 5.5% 17,1149 2. 88 6.2% 9.0% 4% 34 '.9,3% Group Quarters Sample Difference TOTAL * Low -Rise includes 1-attached, 2, 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. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 data. 11,611 (177) (161) 362,470 134,198 148,554 City versus Countywide Housing Characteristics In general, the City of Miami has a very balanced stock of housing, with each residential category having approximately one-third of the housing units (see Figure A2). In contrast, countywide data for all of Miami -Dade County indicates a more suburban pattern with a higher percentage of single-family detached units (43%) and a lower share of low-rise housing (23%). The countywide data also indicate more people per housing unit, especially for single-family detached housing. Figure A2 — Persons per Housing Unit Comparison Housing 7'pes Single Family Detached Low Rise High Rise Weighted Avg (all unit types) City of 1Vliami Persons/HU Ma 2.91 2.56 1.69 31% 34% 35% 2.36 , 100% Miami -Dade (Countywide) Persons/HU Mix 3.21 2.61 1.80 2.59 43% 23% 34% 100% 45 City of Miami Impact Fees Recent Residential Construction Figure A3 offers a historical perspective on the number of housing units added by decade in the City of Miami. Since the "boom" decades (i.e., 1950s, 1960s and 1970s), the rate of housing construction decreased over the past two decades. However, as discussed further below, there has been a significant increase in new housing starts since 2000. Figure A3 — Housing Units Added by Decade Housing Units Added by Decade City of Miami, Florida 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Source: Table H34, SF3 Census 2000, U.S Census Bureau Figure A4 indicates calendar year 2000 through 2004 residential building permit data for the City of Miami. The 2000-2003 data are from the U.S. Census Bureau and the preliminary 2004 data are from the City of Miami building permit records. Annual residential construction has averaged 3,375 housing units over the past five years. In other words, the rate of housing construction is approximately double the rate experienced in the 1980s and 1990s. City of Miami building permit records for the past five years indicate a significant difference in the mix of new housing units when compared to the existing housing stock. Over the past five years, high-rise housing accounted for 95% of the new units, low-rise housing accounted for 2% of the new units and single family detached housing accounted for 3% of the new units. Although attached housing units are the dominant type of new construction, the City of Miami has permitted over 100 single-family detached units during each of the past three years. 46 City of Miami Impact Fees Figure A4 — Residential Building Permits Miami, Florida Total Housing Units in 2000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004* New Housing Units Total Units in 2005 Single Family All Other * preliminary City of Miami building penrrit data. Total 46,099 119,165 165,264 28% 72% The significance of high -density housing is clearly seen in the following chart that indicates construction costs for six types of development over the past five years. The three residential categories (see R1, R2 and R3 in Figure A5) were discussed above. The three general types of nonresidential are goods production (NR1), services (NR2) and education/government (NR3). Except for the year 2000, when the City of Miami experienced a construction spike in the services sector, new residential construction has been dominant. Although it may include some private institutions, the education/government category typically represents public sector development that is exempt from the payment of property taxes and impact fees. 47 City of Miami Impact Fees Figure AS — Building Construction Costs by Type of Development $900,000,000 $ 800,000,000 $700,000,000 $600,000,000 $500,000,000 $400,000,000 $300,000,000 $200,000,000 $100,000,000 $0 City of Miami Building Construction Costs 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 DNR1 = Goods ■ NR2 = Services ❑ NR3 = Edu/Gov © R1 = Single Family • R2 = Low Density © R3 = High Density Using City of Miami building permit records, TischlerBise derived average construction costs by type of housing (see Figure A6). The weighted average construction costs will be used to indicate the relative magnitude of impact fees in comparison to recent construction costs. For example, if the City of Miami approved an impact fee of $4,000 per single-family detached house, the impact fee would represent a 2% increase in the price of housing (based on the average construction cost of almost $200,000 for a single family house). Figure A6 - Average Construction Cost Per Housing Unit 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Weighted Avg Source: City of Miami building permit data. Ingle Family R3 = High Density R2 = Low Density R1 = S $188,076 $79,198 $75,310 $173,754 8126,823 $114,340 $114,186 $158,974 $48,171 $146,898 $66,392 $90,683 $94,229 _ $296,726 $208,616 $188,975 $178,128 $199,212 48 City of Miami Impact Fees Year -Round Population Forecast Based on City of Miami year 2000 census data and population estimates from 2001 through 2004 from the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research, TischlerBise prepared alternative projections of year-round population through the year 2015 (see Figure A7). For the impact fee study, TischlerBise recommends °gncrementarithmic s of grolon, which wth over time. times the recent population growth pattern, but 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 cumulative 379,550 386,127 389,974 392,704 394,822 396,552 398,014 annual increase 6,577 3,847 2,730 2,117 1,730 1,463 As shown in Figure A7, the recommended projection flattens out over time to roughly match the 2015 "realistic" population projection from City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). In comparison to the "realistic" projection, the previous population projections used in the City's Comprehensive Plan (see the Miami EAR "historic" projection in Figure A7) are significantly below the 2004 population estimate of 379,550 residents. Figure A7 — Alternative Population Projections 430,000 420,000 410,000 400,000 390,000 380,000 370,000 360,000 350,000 1998 city of Mlami Population Projections! 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 -- Linear Trend Extrap* -11-- Logarithmic (recommended) Mani EAR - FTistoric** - Mami EAR - Realistic*** * Based on regression line using annual data from 200through 2004. Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, 11/04. ** See Table LA.1 from Evaluation & Appraisal Report(EAR), Miami *** Annual growth rate of 0.55%, yields the "realistic" population projection from page 6 of the EAR. 49 City of Miami Impact Fees Employees per Square Foot of Nonresidential Development In addition to data on residential development, the calculation of impact fees requires data on nonresidential development in the City of Miami. The impact fee study will convert projected jobs to nonresidential floor area using square feet per employee multipliers. TischlerBise uses the term "jobs" to refer to employment by place of work (i.e., located within Miami). The square feet per employee multipliers shown below were derived from national data published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and the Urban Land Institute (ULI). Impact fee methodologies may also use the number of employees per thousand square feet (KSF) to differentiate fees by type of nonresidential development. In Figure A8, gray shading indicates three nonresidential development prototypes that will be used by TischlerBise to calculate vehicle trips and estimate potential impact fee revenue as part of the impact fee cash flow analysis. The prototype development for goods -producing jobs is Business Park, which ITE defines as a group of flex -type buildings served by a common roadway system. In a Business Park, the tenant space includes a variety of uses with an average mix of 20-30% office/commercial and 70-80% industrial/warehousing. The prototype for service jobs is a 50,000 square feet shopping center. The prototype for educationlgovernment jobs is a 200,000 square feet office building. 50 City of Miami Impact Fees Figure A8 - F»nployee and Building Area Ratios ITE Code Commercial /Shopping Center 820 8 820 820 820 Land Use / Size 25K gross leasable area 50 100K gross leasable area 200K gross leasable area 400K gross leasable area General Otflce 710 710 710 710 10K gross floor area 25K gross floor area 50K gross floor area 100K gross floor area Industrial 151 150 140 110 000 Mmi-Warehouse Warehousing Manufacturing Light Industrial Other Nonresidential 720 620 610 565 530 520 520 320 Medical -Dental Office Nursing Home Hospital Day Care Secondary School Elementary School Elementary School Lodging * Source: hip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers (2003). ** Employees per demand unit calculated from trip rates, except for Shopping Center data, which are derived from Development Handbook and Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers, published by the Urban Land Institute. *** According to ITE, a Business Park is a group of flex -type buildings served by a common roadway system The tenant space includes a variety of uses with an average mix of 20-30% office/conuuet cial and 70-80% industrial/warehousing. Demand Holy Trip Ends WI* Trip Ends Emp Per Sq Ft Unit Per Dmd Unit* Per Employee* Dmd Unit** Per Emp 1,000 SgRFt 1,000 Sq Ft 1,000 Sq Ft 1,000 Sq Ft 1,000 Sq Ft 1,000 Sq Ft 1,000 Sq Ft 1,000 Sq Ft i, , 1,000 Sq Ft 1,000 Sq Ft 1,000 Sq Ft 1,000 Sq Ft 1,000 Sq Ft bed 1,000 Sq Ft student student student 1,000 Sq Ft 110.32 4 67.91 53.28 41.80 22.66 18.35 15.65 13.34 2.50 4.96 3.82 6.97 36.13 2.37 17.57 4.48 1.71 1.29 14.49 na na na na 5.06 4.43 4.00 3.61 56.28 3.89 2.13 3.02 8.91 6.55 5.20 28.13 19.74 15.71 15.71 room 5.63 3.33 84 2.50 2.22 2.00 4.48 4.14 3.91 3.70 0.04 1.28 1.79 2.31 4.05 0.36 3.38 0.16 0.09 0.08 0.92 12.81 0.44 300 400 450 500 223 241 256 271 22,512 784 558 433 247 na 296 na na na 1,084 na Jobs by Type of Nonresidential Development Figure A9 indicates three different job estimates for the City of Miami. The 2000 estimate of 195,231 jobs is from the U.S. Census Bureau's Zip Code Business Patterns. The 2003 data, including the detailed breakdown by type of industry, is from ESRI Business Information Services. The impact fee study assumes the 2003 job mix documented by ESRI remains constant through 2010. The 2004 job estimate, which is significantly higher than the other two sources, was derived from traffic analysis zone (TAZ) data from the Miami -Dade Planning Department, Research Division. In Figure A9, the two columns with light gray shading show the conversion of job data into estimated floor area of nonresidential development, using the three prototypes 51 City of Miami Impact Fees discussed above. The estimated floor area data is reasonably close to the actual floor area data obtained from the Miami -Dade County Property Appraiser's Office, as shown with light yellow shading in the table below. Figure A9 — Jobs and Floor Area Estimates Goods Producing Manufacturing Construction T► ansp/Com/Util Wholesale Trade Other Services Retail Trade Fin/Ins/RE All Other Services Subtotal Education/Government Education Government Subtotal GRAND TOTAL 195,231 (1) U.S. Census Bureau Zip Code Business Patterns. (2) FSRI Business Information Service (3) TAZ data from Miami -Dade Planning Department, Research Division, based on 2000 and 2015 data points. 2003 (2) 11,344 3,107 6,037 12,503 686 33,677 26,220} 15,469 80,979 12"2.668 65"'b 204,627 53,518 314,81 taro Property Appraiser Square Feet 16,498,92 73,458,82 20,567,1391 110,524,895 Projected Jobs in the City of Miami TischlerBise obtained year 2000 estimate of approximately 301,000 jobs in the City of Miami and a year 2015 projection of approximately 353,000 jobs in the City of Miami from the Research Division of the Miami -Dade Planning Department. The job data are consistent with the socioeconomic inputs used by the Metropolitan Planning Organization for transportation planning. As documented in the following table, the City of Miami maintains a ratio of roughly two jobs for each housing unit in the City of Miami (see jobs -to -housing ratio in Figure A10). 52 City of Miami Impact Fees Detailed Development Projections The demographic data shown in Figure A10 will be used as key inputs to the impact fee study, Projected population was converted to housing units assuming a slight decline in the number of persons per housing unit over time from 2.36 in 2000 to 2.32 in 2010. Projected jobs in the City of Miami were converted to nonresidential floor area using square feet per employee multipliers and a constant job mix of 18% goods producing, 65% services and 17% education/government. Annual increases at the bottom of the table indicate nonresidential development will add approximately 1.15 million square feet of floor area per year in the City of Miami. Figure A10 - Annual Demographic Data Miami, Florida 2000 ® 2006 2007 2008 2009 FlaillME Cumulative Base Yr 1 2 3 4 5 10 irPopulation in Households 350,859 374,516 378,363 381,093 383,211 384,941 386,403 391,518 ' Pop in Group Quarters* 11,611 11,611 11,611 11,611 11,611 11,611 11,611 11�611 Year -Round Population 362,470 386,127 389,974 392,704 394,822 396,552 398,014 403,129 Persons Per Hsg Unit 2.36 2.34 2.33 2.33 2.32 2.32 2.32 2.30 Housing Units 148,388 165,264 167,197 168,657 169,858 170,896 171,823 175,546 Jobs to Housing Ratio 2.03 1.93 1.92 1.93 1.93 1.94 1.95 2,01 Jobs 301,039 318,254 321,697 325,140 328,584 332,027 335,470 352,685 Noires Sq Ft (? 1,000) Goods Producing Services Producing Education/Government Total Avg Sq Ft Per Job Annual Increase 18,160 18,360 18,550 18,750 18,950 19,140 20,120 72,400 73,190 73,970 74,750 75,540 76,320 80,240 15,530 15,700 15,860 16,030 16,200 16,370 17,210 106,090 107,250 108,380 109,530 110,690 111,830 333 333 333 333 333 333 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 117,570 333 2005-2015 AvgAn1 Year -Round Population 3,847 2,730 2,117 1,730 1,463 1,700 Jobs 3,443 3,443 3,443 3,443 3,443 3,443 Housing Units 1,933 1,460 1,201 1,038 927 1,028 Goods Producing KSF** 200 190 200 200 190 196 Services Producing KSF** 790 780 780 790 780 784 Education/Government KSF** 170 160 170 170 170 168 * The 2000 group quarters population is assumed to remain constant through 2015. ** KSF = square feet of floor area in thousands. 53 City of Miami Impact Fees Average Annual Growth Rates Some planners, demographers and economist use average annual growth rates as a means to evaluate development projections. Simple (i.e., non -compounded) growth rates for four key growth indicators are provided in Figure A11. Figure All — City of Miami Growth Indicators Marni, Florida Year -Round Population NonRes Sq Ft x1000 Housing Units Jobs 2005 2.014 2015 386,127 398,014 403,129 106,090 111,830 117,570 165,264 171,823 175,546 318,254 335,470 352,685 2005 to 2010 Average Annual Increase 2,377 1,148 1,312 3,443 Growth Rate 0.6% 1.1% 0.8% 1.1% 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 2004 City of Mani Growth Indicators! 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 — t - Year -Round Population -- /--NonRes Sq Ft x1000 • • IN - • Housing Units —E— Jobs 54