The following shall describe the methodology to determine proportionate fair-share mitigation.
(A) Proportionate fair-share mitigation for concurrency impacts may include, without limitation, separately or collectively, private funds, contributions of land, and construction and contribution of facilities, and may include public funds if the use of public funds are authorized by the City Council.
(B) A development shall not be required to pay more than its proportionate fair share. The fair market value of the proportionate fair-share mitigation for the impacted facilities shall not differ among the forms of proportionate share mitigation.
(C) The methodology to be used by the Planning Official to calculate an applicant’s proportionate fair-share mitigation shall be as provided for in F.S. § 163.3180(12), as follows:
“The cumulative number of trips from the proposed development expected to reach roadways during peak hours from the complete build-out of a stage or phase being approved, divided by the change in the peak hour maximum service volume (MSV) of roadways resulting from construction of an improvement necessary to maintain the adopted level of service, multiplied by the construction cost, at the time of developer payment, of the improvement necessary to maintain the adopted level of service.”
or
Proportionate Fair Share = [[(Development Tripsi) /(SV Increasei)] x Costi]
Where:
Development Tripsi = Those trips from the stage or phase of development under review that are assigned to roadway segment “i” and have triggered a deficiency per the concurrency management system or have further degraded the LOS of an already deficient roadway segment;
SV Increasei = Service volume increase provided by the eligible improvement to roadway segment “i” per § 30.48;
Costi =Adjusted cost of the improvement to segment “i”. Cost shall include all improvements and associated costs, such as design, right-of-way acquisition, planning, engineering, inspection and physical development costs directly associated with construction at the anticipated cost in the year it will be incurred.
(D) The term “cumulative” used above includes only those trips from the stage or phase of a development being considered in the application., The trips expected to reach the failing roadway for this calculation are those identified in the development’s traffic impact analysis. All assumptions used in the proportionate fair-share calculation should be consistent with those used by city in its Concurrency Management System.
(E) In the context of the formula for the proportionate fair-share calculation “development trips” apply only to those trips that trigger a concurrency deficiency or are adding trips to an existing deficient roadway segment.
(F) For the purposes of determining proportionate fair-share mitigation, the city shall determine improvement costs based upon the actual cost of the improvement as obtained from the Capital Improvements Element, the CIP, the TPO Transportation Improvement Program, or the FDOT Work Program. Where such information is not available, improvement cost shall be determined using one of the following methods:
(1) An analysis by the city of costs by cross section type that incorporates data from recent projects and is updated annually. In order to accommodate increases in construction material costs, project costs shall be adjusted by the inflation factor established by the United States Department of Commerce; or
(2) The most recent issue of FDOT Transportation Costs, as adjusted based upon the type of cross section (urban or rural); locally available data from recent projects on acquisition, drainage and utility costs; and significant changes in the cost of materials due to unforeseeable events. Cost estimates for state road improvements not included in the adopted FDOT Work Program shall be determined using this method in coordination with the FDOT District.
(G) If a proposed form of proportionate fair-share mitigation is other than financial then the value of the proportionate fair share mitigation improvement shall be determined using one of the methods provided in this section.
(H) If the fair market value of an alternative form of fair-share mitigation is less than the total proportionate fair-share obligation as determined above, the applicant must pay the difference. The city is authorized to accept forms of proportionate fair share mitigation that exceed the actual values calculated above. Under no circumstances shall the city approve an application that obligates the city to compensate an applicant for proportionate fair-share mitigation that exceeds the value calculated above.
(I) If the land or right-of-way dedication is proposed as a form of proportionate fair-share mitigation, the value of the land or right-of-way shall be the fair market value established by an independent appraisal approved by the city at the time of the application and at no expense to the city. The applicant shall supply a survey and legal description of the land or right of way and a certificate of title or title search of the land to the city at no expense to the city with the application, and shall at closing deliver clear title by warranty deed to the city.
(Ord. 531, passed 1-9-2007)