Laserfiche WebLink
BOOK ht 9 FADE _2 42 <br />TABLE 3. MULTI -FAMILY DWELLING <br />UMTS <br />DISTRICT <br />I <br />II <br />III <br />IV <br />V <br />VI <br />VII <br />VIII <br />IX <br />Multi -Family existing TIF <br />$835 <br />$780 <br />$640 <br />$576 <br />$871 <br />$697 <br />$338 <br />$495 <br />$639 <br />Multi -Family proposed <br />TIF <br />$830 <br />$830 <br />$830 <br />$830 <br />$830 <br />$830 <br />$830 <br />$830 <br />$830 <br />Dollar amount difference <br />for a MF housing unit <br />-$5 <br />+$50 <br />+$190 <br />+$254 <br />-$41 <br />+$133 <br />+$492 <br />+$335 <br />+$191 <br />Percentage change <br />(increase or decrea-1 <br />-0.59% <br />6.41% <br />29.68% <br />44.09% <br />-4.71% <br />19.08% <br />145.56% <br />67.67% <br />29.89% <br />Proposed TIF rate as <br />percentage of current TIF <br />99.41% <br />106.41$ <br />129.68% <br />144.09% <br />95.29% <br />119.08% <br />245.56% <br />167.67% <br />129.89% <br />For single-family dwelling units, the traffic impact fee rate will be increased in all 9 districts. <br />Percentage of increase varies from 0.7% in district 5 to 159.4% in district 7. <br />For multi -family dwelling units, the traffic impact fee rate will be decreased in 2 districts and will <br />be increased in seven districts. Percentage change varies from -4.7% in district 5 to +145.6% in <br />district 7. <br />Timine of Impact Fee Pavment <br />As proposed, the revised traffic impact fee ordinance does not change the timing of impact fee <br />payment. Currently, traffic impact fees must be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. <br />Specifically, those fees must be paid at the time of concurrency certificate issuance. <br />As indicated, the PSAC recommended that the timing of impact fee payment be changed from <br />building permit issuance to certificate of occupancy (CO) issuance. This proposal, however, is <br />problematic both administratively and legally. From an administrative perspective, not requiring <br />traffic impact fee payment until CO affects the county's concurrency regulations. Basic to the <br />concurrency concept is that capacity is reserved when impact fees are paid and a concurrency <br />certificate is issued Modifying the timing of traffic impact fee payment would change that. The <br />legal issue is related According to the county attorney's office, projects that are built without <br />payment of impact fees (therefore without reserving roadway capacity) could not be denied a CO if <br />capacity is not available at time of CO. If a CO were then issued, the concurrency law would be <br />violated. <br />For the reasons identified above, staff recommends that the timing of traffic impact fee payments not <br />be changed <br />ALTERNATIVES <br />With respect to the revised traffic impact fee ordinance and development policies, the Board of <br />County Commissioners has several alternatives. These are: <br />Do nothing and maintain the existing traffic impact fee ordinance and development policies; <br />adopt the revised traffic impact fee ordinance and development policies; or <br />adopt the revised traffic impact fee ordinance and development policies with changes; <br />Analvsis of Alternatives <br />With respect to the county's traffic impact fee ordinance, there are three principal alternatives. These <br />are listed above. <br />The Board of County Commissioners could opt to do nothing and make no changes to the current <br />ordinance. That, however, would keep in place a system that is unfair and inequitable. It would <br />allow feepayers in some areas to pay too little. It would also continue to charge teepayers for some <br />uses to pay too much and some to pay too little. Finally, it would retain a system where credit <br />amounts are not accurately reflected Staff does not support this alternative. <br />The second alternative is to adopt the proposed ordinance. Doing so would update the current <br />ordinance to reflect the most current data. It would also create a fairer, more equitable program. <br />Staff supports this alternative. <br />MAY 119 1999 <br />32 <br />I <br />