5/11/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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