HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-Truly Burton-Letter to Mayor:as
April 19, 2026
Builders Association
of South Florida
BUILDING GREAT CITIES
SINCE 1944
Hon. Eileen Higgins and City Commissioners
City of Miami
3500 Pan American Drive
Miami, FL 33133
Re: Deferral request on Item FR 2, file No. 19130, April 23, 2026 Agenda
Dear Mayor and Commissioners:
Submitted into the pubes
rector or it m(s) pZ
Z City Clerk
www.basfonline.org
111 NW 183rd Street, Suite 111
Miami Gardens, FL 33169
On behalf of the Builders Association of South Florida (BASF), we write to express our opposition to Ordinance
FR.2 as currently drafted (Acella File ID #19130). BASF represents a broad cross-section of the South Florida
development community, including builders, developers, contractors, and associated professionals responsible for
delivering the housing, infrastructure, and economic growth that sustain our region.
Our members help the City of Miami grow and thrive, particularly in their delivery of much needed additional housing.
While our members appreciate the City's efforts to reduce Section 54-56's impacts on the building community and
ultimately on property owners, the specific amendments proposed in FR.2 nevertheless present significant legal
deficiencies and perpetuate the disproportionate requirements that builders improve public infrastructure far in excess of
the burden new development places upon that infrastructure.
Presently, any proposed construction over $100,000 in value entitles the City to require infrastructure that costs
up to ten percent (10%) of the construction cost. In an era where builders are engaging in significant new
development to alleviate our housing shortage, this cost has become exorbitant. Increasing the threshold to trigger
the requirement to $250,000 is a step in the right direction. But because the existing regulations contain no cost control
mechanism or any standards by which required improvements are selected, there is a tendency to have new development
pay near the maximum of this amount, which can add significant cost to development projects. These costs are folded
into the cost of housing rent, home sales, commercial rental rates, and the like.
More troubling is that because the impacts of new development on existing infrastructure are currently not
quantified and that significant deficiency remains unremedied in the proposed amendments, both FR.2 and
the code section it proposes to amend are legally problematic. The requirement to pay for infrastructure to mitigate
the impacts for new development is an exaction, specifically an impact fee. Under United States and Florida law,
exactions are only permissible when (i) there's a nexus between the new development and the need for upgraded
infrastructure, (ii) the cost assessed to new development (or improvements required to be constructed) is roughly
proportional to its impact, and (iii) expenditure of fees collected provides a substantial benefit to the feepayer. Both the
existing City Code and FR.2 fail that test.
1 01 13o M(
444- TNILI BLr-fol - lS2)4(7-.- wl(-j-a-v
BASF to Mayor Higgins and City Commission
Defer FR. 2
Page Two
Subtnttted into the p blic
record for ite '(s) K- a-
ou L( I2-3 240 . City Clerk
Rather than being based on objective, quantifiable impacts to City infrastructure, FR.2 continues the blanket
percentage of construction cost methodology. Worse, it arbitrarily and capriciously sets different rates based upon
homestead status and building type with no findings as to why one may require more off -site infrastructure than another.
The amendments proposed in FR.2, while marginally lessening the burden on feepayers, nevertheless fail to address the
fundamental deficiencies of the entire exaction scheme.
To be very clear — the BASF and its membership do not object to paying for infrastructure attributable to, and
necessary to mitigate the impacts of new development. What we object to is the perpetuation of a City
regulation that unlawfully and disproportionately shifts the public infrastructure burden to builders. This
regulation dates back to 1975 — well before the settled case law on exactions that prohibits this today. Rather than
adopting FR.2 as currently drafted, the City should instead repeal the existing, and constitutionally defective, Section 54-
56, and prepare a new system that lawfully assesses the infrastructure impacts of new developments and improvements to
existing properties.
Thus, BASF respectfully requests a deferral of FR.2 to give our members time to collaborate with the
Administration in devising a formula or methodology that fairly, transparently, and equitably places the true cost burden
of new infrastructure caused by new development — and nothing more — on our membership. The City should also bring
forward an ordinance repealing the existing Section 54-56 to remove the current and disproportionate burden on the
community members who build the very housing that the City has recognized it so desperately needs.
In the meantime, we will continue to work with your staff, as we have for the past five years, to help alleviate the well -
documented housing affordability crisis both in the City and in Miami -Dade County as well. Thank you.
Sincerely,
/6uivni
(Ms.) Truly Burton
Executive Vice President
Cc: City Manager James Reyes
City Attorney George Wysong, Esq.
Melissa Tapanes Llahues, President
Cynthia Caldevilla, First Vice President
Nelson Stabile, Immediate Past BASF President