4/18/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOOK 9 ��.: i 893 County staff has three primary objections to the concept of the county collecting impact fees from tenants to reimburse the original developer. First, staff is concerned that such an equire the county to collect T"pseudo-impact shefunds u tifu arrangement would r fees" for capacity that has already been paid for. collected would not be true impact fees that go toward funding capacity. Tenants could misconstrue the River Mall e as an extr tionact fee e charged by the county for the Indian Second, staff is concerned that tenants would not be fully aware of the charges in upfront negotiations between the developer and tenants. Thus, the county could become a party to an unwelcome "surprise fee" put upon tenants that otherwise should be addressed up front during developer -tenant negotiations. Third, staff is concerned that such an arrangement would set a precedent, obligating the county to consider other such arrangements and. potentially involving the county in matters that should be addressed in developer -tenant negotiations. Because of these objections, staff suggested that the developer either negotiate up front with tenants to pay the developer for impact fee costs or require tenants to buy the developer's pre -paid capacity. Under the latter arrangement, the county could withhold from tenants utilities service and building permits unless the tenant obtained (bought) a capacity assignment from the developer. A form of this arrangement is currently used by some project developers. DeBartolo officials rejected these alternatives and requested county consideration of impact fee collections from tenants, as previously described. Based on the previously stated objections, staff's consensus on the request is that the county should not agree to collect "impact fees" from tenants to pay back the developer. However, if the Board of County Commissioners decides to approve such an agreement, the agreement should be structured as outlined in the County Attorney's memo (see attachment #2), to ensure disclosure and cover administrative costs. County Contribution of up to $1.1 Million During the DRI review and approval process DeBartolo, the county, the regional planning council, DCA, and FDOT agreed on traffic improvements that must be provided to mitigate the anticipated traffic impacts of the project. The resulting required improvements include 58th Avenue widening and intersection improvements, widening SR 60 from 66th Avenue to 58th Avenue, paving 26th Street from 66th Avenue to 58th Avenue, and improvements related to project driveways. Throughout the DRI review process, staff informed the developer that the county is performing the 58th Avenue widening, and would participate in the paving of 26th Street (50% contribution) via the petition paving process. Thus, the developer's primary off-site road improvement costs relate to : •widening SR 60 from 66th Avenue to 58th Avenue •participating in the paving of 26th Street •providing improvements for project driveways (turn lanes, signalization). According to DeBartolo, the estimated total cost of these improvements is $3.2 million, which is $1.1 million over the project's $2.1 million TIF assessment. DeBartolo is requesting that the county make up the difference via anticipated 1 cent sales tax revenue increases that may be generated by the project, or from other sources, such as traffic impact fees collected from other project developers. - 36 APRIL 18, 1995