04/10/1996 Audit - C adrov
L_'
AUDIT REPORT
REVIEW OF MONROE COUNTY
IMPACT FEE EXPENDITURES
April 10, 1996
• GOUNry %.•
�4t �'M
GJJM CuiQG, & dot
ur '� •r`
Q'
COUNT
Prepared by:
Internal Audit Department
Clerk of the Circuit Court
Danny L. Kolhage, Clerk
Monroe County, Florida
f"
April 10, 1996
The Honorable Danny L. Kolhage
Clerk of the Circuit Court
Re: Review of Monroe County Impact Fee Expenditures
j Dear Mr. Kolhage:
The Clerk's Internal Audit Department has completed a review of the Monroe County Impact
Fees Expenditures. This review is a follow-up to a prior audit report dated, March 17, 1993.
The scope of this audit was limited to a review of compliance to the laws, regulations, policies,
and procedures for impact fees; an examination of the build up of Impact Fee funds in the
various categories; and to estimate potential refunds.
We wish to thank all Divisional Directors, Directors and individuals from the Sheriff's
Department for their cooperation and assistance that provided us during this review. I would
also like to thank Charles J. Mansen, Jr. CIA (former Internal Audit Director) for his hard work
and guidance in this audit.
In the area of Impact Fee Expenditures, there is a lack of long-range planning on the part of
appropriate personnel. Proper long-range planning is required under the Monroe County Code
and is essential for ensuring that all funds collected are used as intended. The review also found
various inconsistencies in the Monroe County Code.
The County Administrator has directed appropriate personnel to provide the Director of Planning
with long-range plans to ensure that Impact Fees in all categories are used as intended. In
addition, the Administrator has directed the County Attorney to investigate necessary changes
in the Monroe County Code to ensure that the Code reflects the current intent of the BOCC.
The accompanying audit report is provided for your information. Additional copies of the report
will be provided and/or distributed upon your request.
Sincerely,
Carie E. Bamberg, CPA
Internal Audit Director
__I
I -
cc: Board of County Administrators (5)
James Roberts, County Administrator
James Hendrick, County Attorney
Bob Herman, Division Director of Growth Management
Mike Lawn, Division Director of Environmental Management
Peter Horton, Division Director of Community Services
Reggie Paros, Division Director of Public Safety
Dent Pierce, Division Director of Public Works
John Carter, Director of the Office of Management and Budget
Anthonia Gerli, Director of Planning
Dave Koppel, Director of Engineering
Steve Casey, Major in Charge of Bureau of Administration, Sheriff's Department
Sandee Carlile, Clerk's finance Director
Maurva Greene, External Auditor
I'-
•
r-
AUDIT REPORT
REVIEW OF MONROE COUNTY IMPACT FEE EXPENDITURES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page #'s
S 1 Executive Summary S 1 - S4
I. Scope and Objectives 1
II. Methodology 1
III. Background 2
IV. Conclusions 2
V. Audit Findings:
A. The Current Monroe County Code Needs Clarification to Include
the Provisions of Subsequent Resolutions as Ordinances 3
B. The Current Monroe County Code Contains Inconsistent Provisions
for Refunds of Impact Fees 4 - 5
C. An Annual Review Has Not Been Prepared as Required by the
Monroe County Code 5 - 6
D. The Annual Budget for Impact Fees is Prepared Without Input
from the Various Division Directors and Does Not Represent
Specific Projects 7
E. The Capital Projects Budget is Prepared Without Considering
Funding from Impact Fees 8
F. Inadequate Use of Transportation Impact Fees 9 - 10
G. Lack of Long-Range Planning of Parks and Recreation Impact Fees 11 - 12
H. Lack of Long-Range Planning of Library Impact Fees 12 - 13
I. Lack of Long-Range Planning of Solid Waste Impact Fees 13 - 14
J. Inadequate Use of Police Facilities Impact Fees 14 - 16
i
AUDIT REPORT
REVIEW OF MONROE COUNTY IMPACT FEE EXPENDITURES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page #'s
V. Audit Findings:
K. Inadequate Use of Fire and EMS Impact Fees 16 - 17
VI. Auditee Responses:
VII. Exhibits:
A. Analysis of Impact Fees Budget to Actual Al - A2
B. Transportation Impact Fees Collection and Expenditures B1
C. Parks and Recreation Impact Fees Collection and Expenditures C1
D. Libraries Impact Fees Collection and Expenditures D1
E. Solid Waste Impact Fees Collection and Expenditures El
F. Police Facilities Impact Fees Collection and Expenditures Fl
G. Fire and EMS Impact Fees Collection and Expenditures G1
H. Transportation Impact Fees: Estimated Refunds and Current
Seven Year for Use of Funds H1
I. Police Facilities Impact Fees: Estimated Refunds I1
ii
AUDIT REPORT
REVIEW OF MONROE COUNTY IMPACT FEES EXPENDITURES
I. Scope and Objective:
A. At the request to the Monroe County Clerk of the Circuit Court and the County
Administrator, the Internal Audit Department has completed a review of Monroe County
Impact Fee Expenditures.
B. The review was performed as a follow-up to a prior audit report dated, March 17, 1993,
to review compliance with laws, regulations, policies and procedures, to examine the
build up of Impact Fee funds in the various categories, and to estimate potential refunds.
II. Methodology:
A. The Internal Audit Department examined the following documents:
1. Florida Statutes related to Monroe County Impact Fees.
2. The Monroe County Code (MCC), local ordinances, resolutions, policies, and
procedures.
3. Minutes of the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) meetings.
4. Prior Internal Audit Report on Impact Fees, March 17, 1993
B. The following personnel were interviewed during the review to obtain information about
the operations of the Monroe County's Impact Fees.
1. Director of the Office of Management and Budget
2. Budget Manager
3. Division Director of Growth Management
4. Acting Director of Planning
5. Division Director of Environmental Management
6. Environmental Manager
7. Director of Engineering
8. Division Director of Community Services
9. County Librarian
10. Division Director of Public Safety
11. Major in Charge of Bureau of Administration, Sheriff's Department
12. Executive Assistant to the Bureau of Administration, Sheriff's Department
13. Planning and Research Director, Sheriff's Department
14. Finance Director, Sheriff's Department
C. We analyzed Impact Fee revenue and expenditures by category and subdistrict and
calculated potential Impact Fee refunds.
1
I ,
III. Background:
A. Purpose and Intent of Impact Fees:
According to the Monroe County Code (MCC), Article X: Impact Fees, § 9.5-490, the
purpose and intent of the Impact Fee procedures is to establish procedures for
calculation, collection, expenditures and administration of Impact Fees imposed on new
development; to ensure that new development contributes its fair share towards the costs
of capital improvements; and that new development reasonably benefits from capital
improvements made with proceeds of Impact Fees.
B. Legal Authority for Planning for Impact Fees:
Effective 11/19/92 the Monroe County Code was amended by Ordinance No. 033-1992,
which directs the Director of Planning to prepare a report on the subject of Impact Fees.
According to MCC §9.5-490.2(b), this report shall be prepared at least once a year prior
to the adoption of the annual budget and shall include recommendations for amendments
to the code for all categories of capital improvements and the identification of capital
improvements projects anticipated to be funded wholly or partially with Impact Fees.
C. Budgeting of Impact Fees:
According to MCC §9.5-490.4(c), the annual budget should identify projects that will be
funded, in whole or in part, with Impact Fees. The identified projects should be based
on the annual review of Impact Fees as provided in MCC §9.5-490.2(b).
D. Legal Obligation for Funding Unspent Fees:
As stated in MCC §9.5-490.4(d)(3), the current property owner may request a refund of
fees paid plus interest earned, if the fees have not been appropriated by the county within
six (6) years after the date the fee was collected. MCC §9.5-490.4(d)(4), provides that
the six (6) year time period may be extended if the capital improvement requires more
than six (6) years to plan, design and construct.
IV. Conclusion:
Impact Fee funds are not being used, especially in the categories of Transportation,
Police Facilities, and Fire and EMS. This situation is due to a lack of long-range
planning on the part of appropriate personnel. If Impact Fees are not properly planned,
they may go unutilized and may need to be refunded. If capital projects due to new
growth are not paid for with Impact Fees then the cost of such projects will be paid by
all taxpayers and not by new development as intended by the MCC.
2
V. Audit Findings:
A. The Current Monroe County Code Needs Clarification to Include the Provisions of
Subsequent Resolutions as Ordinances:
Finding(s):
The provisions of Resolution #492-1992, #493-1992, #494-1992, #496-1992, #497-1992,
and #089-1993 have not been incorporated into the current Monroe County Code (MCC).
These resolutions include provisions that establish requirements for Impact Fee districts,
Impact Fee subdistricts, appropriate accounts, deposit of funds in interest-bearing assets, and
restrictions on appropriation and use of Impact Fee funds.
Section 9.5-490.2(a) of the MCC states "Article x [Impact Fees] shall remain in effect unless
and until repealed, amended or modified by the board in accordance with applicable state
law and local ordinances and procedures MCC §9.5-490.2(d) Amendments: states "Changes
to article x [Impact Fees] must be made by ordinance; changes to resolutions imposing and
establishing specific impact fee schedules may be made by resolution of the board. Nothing
herein precludes the board or limits its discretion to amend this article X or the resolutions
imposing specific impact fee schedules at such other times as may be deemed necessary."
Section 9.5-490.2(b) requires the director of planning to prepare an annual report on the
subject of Impact Fees. Section 9.5-490.2(c) states "This annual review may, in whole or
in part, form the basis for county recommendations to the board and board actions to
repeal, amend or modify this article X and/or fee schedules; however, the county may cite
and the board may rely upon such other data, information, reports, analyses and documents
relevant to such decisions as may be available."
Resolutions, which are statements of policy, are not adopted with the same legal formality
as the original Monroe County Code, which was adopted by ordinance as statement of law;
therefore, intended amendments made by resolution are not included in the Monroe County
Code and are not apparent to uninformed readers and users of the Monroe County Code.
Also, the annual review required by MCC §9.5-490.2(b) was not performed by the former
Planning Director; therefore, timely recommendations have not been presented to the Board
for amendments to the Code.
Recommendation(s):
1. The County Administrator should seek the County Attorney's opinion on the subject of
converting the amendments to ordinances, so they may be incorporated into the Monroe
County Code to reflect the intent of the Board of County Commissioners
2. The Director of Planning or Acting Director should prepare and present the annual report
or reviewof Impact Fees in accordance with the current Monroe County Code.
County Administrator's Response(s)
1. The County Attorney is reviewing the possibility of regular ordinances to incorporate
resolution provisions without lengthy review by the Department of Community Affairs,
the Governor and his cabinet.
3
2. The Director of Planning will prepare the Impact Fee Annual Report prior to the
adoption of the annual budget in accordance with Monroe County Code.
B. The Current Monroe County Code Contains Inconsistent Provisions for Refunds of
Impact Fees:
Finding(s):
Provisions of the Monroe County Code are inconsistent as to whether refunds of Impact
Fees should be made to the current owner or original fee payer upon nonexpenditure of
Impact Fee funds within the six-year limitation established by MCC §9.5-490.4(b)(2) and
(4).
In the general provisions of Article X, §9.5-490.4(d)(3) of the MCC states "The current
property owner may apply for a refund of impact fees paid by an applicant if the county has
failed to appropriate the impact fees collected from the applicant within the time limits
established in subsection (b)(2) and (4) of this section." Section 9.5-490.4(d)(4) states
"Refunds shall be made only to the current owner of property on which the impact producing
development was proposed or occurred."
Section 9.5-492.(e)(4)a. states in part that "Any fair share park fees collected shall be
returned to thefee payer if the fees have not been spent or encumbered within six (6) years
from the date the fees were paid.
Section 9.5-493.(f)(4)a. states in part that "Any fair share library fees collected shall be
returned to the fee payer if the fees have not been spent or encumbered within six (6) years
from the date the fees were paid.
Section 9.5-494.(g)(1) states that "The [solid waste impact fees]fees collected pursuant to
this section shall be returned to the then present owner of the land development if the fees
have not been spent or encumbered within a reasonable time, but not later than by the end
of the calendar quarter immediately following six (6) years from the date fees were paid.
Section 9.5-495.(g)(3)a. states that "Any fair share police facilities fees collected shall be
returned to the fee payer if the fees have not been spent or encumbered within six (6) years
from the date the fees were paid.
If Monroe County is required to refund Impact Fees, refunding may be delayed by inability
to determine the proper payee. The lack of consistency concerning the refunding of Impact
Fees is caused by the inconsistent wording of refunding provisions of the various Impact Fee
sections of the Monroe County Code as required by MCC §9.5-490.2(d). Also, the annual
review required by Monroe County Code §9.5-490.2(b) was not performed by the former
Planning Director.
4
Recommendation(s):
1. The County Administrator should determine whether the intent of the Board of County
Commissioners was to provide Impact Fee refunds to the original payee or the current
owner concerning new land development subject to Impact Fees.
2. The County Administrator should request a County Attorney's opinion on the subject of
amending the current Code to reflect the intent of the Board of County Commissioners
concerning the proper payee for Impact Fee refunds.
County Administrator's Response(s)
1. Although the Code speaks for itself, the current language may not reflect current BOCC
intent, economic reality or practicality. The County Administrator will ask for
clarification from the BOCC of their intent with reguards to Impact Fee refund policy.
2. Once the BOCC's intent is clear, the County Attorney will investigate necessary changes
to the Code.
C. An Annual Review Has Not Been Prepared as Required by the Monroe County Code:
Finding(s):
Interviews with the County Administrator, the Division Director of Growth Management
and the Acting Director of Planning revealed that an annual report on the topic of Impact
Fees has never been prepared. Monroe County Ordinance No. 33-1992, effective 11/19/92,
requires that the Director of Planning prepare a report on the topic of Impact Fees at least
once each year.
The MCC §9.5-490.2 (b) and (c) states:
"(b) Annual Review:
(1) At least once every year prior to board adoption of the annual budget and capital
improvements program, the director of planning shall prepare a report on the subject of
Impact fees.
(2) The report shall include the following:
a. Recommendations on amendments, if appropriate, to this article or to resolutions
imposing and setting specific impact fees for particular categories of capital
improvements.
b. Proposed changes to the capital improvements element and/or an applicable capital
improvements program, including the identification of capital improvements projects
anticipated to be funded wholly or partially with impact fees.
c. Proposed changes to the boundaries of impact fee districts or subdistricts.
d. Proposed changes to impact fee schedules as set forth in the resolutions imposing and
setting specific.
e. Proposed changes to levels of service.
f Proposed changes in calculation methodology.
g. Other data, analysis or recommendations as the director of planning may deem
appropriate, or as may be requested by the board.
5
(3) Submission of impact fee annual report:
The director of planning shall submit the impact fee annual report to the planning
commission which shall receive the report and take such actions as it deems appropriate,
including, but not limited to, requesting additional data or analyses and holding public
workshops and/or public hearings.
(4) Planning commission action:
The planning commission shall attach its recommendations to the annual report and
forward the report and recommendations to the board.
(c) Effect of Annual Review
This annual review may, in whole or in part,form the basis for county recommendations
to the board and board actions to repeal, amend or modify this article X and/or fee
schedules; however, the county may cite and the board may rely upon such other data,
information, reports, analyses and documents relevant to such decisions as may be
available. "
' According to MCC §9.5-490(a)(1)b, the purpose and intent of Impact Fee procedures
includes:
"...assuring that new impact producing development contributes its fair share towards the costs
of capital improvements reasonably necessitated by such growth. "
The annual report on Impact Fees should be prepared by the Director or Acting Director
of Planning in order to ensure that the proper amount of fees is collected and spent as
intended. This report provides a long-range plan for the use of Impact Fees. If Impact
Fees are not properly planned, they may go unutilized. If Impact Fees are not properly
used in the time period as mandated by the Monroe County Code, they may have to be
refunded. If capital improvements necessitated by new development, are not paid for with
Impact Fees, then the cost of such improvements may be paid by all taxpayers. The intent
of the law is that capital improvements necessitated by new development, should be paid for
with Impact Fees.
The former Director of Planning did not prepare the annual report on Impact Fees as
required by the Monroe County Code. The former Director of Planning resigned 7/7/95,
and an Acting Director of Planning was appointed 7/10/95.
Recommendations:
1 1. The Director of Planning or Acting Director of Planning should prepare the annual report
on the subject of Impact Fees as mandated in the Monroe County Code.
2. The County Administrator should establish administrative procedures to ensure that the
Director of Planning receives information from the appropriate personnel in order to
prepare the annual report on Impact Fees.
3. The County Administrator should establish an annual (or semiannual or quarterly)
meeting on Impact Fees for all personnel responsible for Impact Fees, to inform
appropriate personnel of procedure and code changes. An attorney knowledgeable about
Impact Fees should attend this meeting to answer questions with regard to proper use of
these Impact Fee funds.
6
County Administrator's Response(s)
1. The Director of Planning will prepare the Impact Fee Annual Report prior to the
adoption of the annual budget in accordance with Monroe County Code.
2. The Director of Planning will request that the appropriate departments identify projects
anticipated to be funded by impact fees for inclusion in the Impact Fee Annual Report.
3. The County Administrator will review the proposed Impact Fee with appropriate
department heads and attorney staff projects as a part of the Capital Projects portion of
the annual budget.
D. The Annual Budget for Impact Fees is Prepared Without Input from the Various
Division Directors and Does Not Represent Specific Projects:
Finding(s):
The Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) prepares the budget of
Impact Fee expenditures without input from appropriate personnel who are responsible for
ensuring that the funds are spent as intended. Therefore, budgeted expenditures do not
represent specific projects.
According to MCC §9.5-490(a)(1)b, the purpose and intent of Impact Fee procedures
includes:
.assuring that new impact producing development contributes its fair share towards the costs
of capital improvements reasonably necessitated by such growth. "
Procedures for appropriation of Impact Fee funds are provided in the MCC §9.5-490.4(c),
which states in part:
" (1) The county, as part of the annual budget and capital improvements programming process,
shall each year identify capital improvement projects anticipated to be funded in whole or
in part with impact fees. The capital improvement recommendations shall be based upon
the impact fee annual review set forth in section 9.5-490.2(b) and such other information
as may be relevant. "
If Impact Fees are not properly planned, they may go unutilized. If Impact Fees are not
used in the time period as mandated by the Monroe County Code, they may have to be
refunded. If capital improvements necessitated by new development, are not paid for with
Impact Fees, then the cost of such improvements may be paid by all taxpayers. The intent
of the law is that capital improvements necessitated by new development, should be paid for
F with Impact Fees.
Also, since budgeted expenditures are not based on current year projection of expenditures,
the annual financial statements (which compare budget amounts to actual expenditures) could
be misleading to the reader. See Exhibit A.
7
•
Recommendations:
1. Procedures should be established to ensure that the Director of OMB receives information
from the appropriate personnel, to budget Impact Fee expenditures that reflect actual
requirements.
County Administrator's Response(s)
1. The Capital budgets including Impact Fee expenditure budgets, has been incorporated
into the annual budget cycle. Each division will be given a budget package which
includes instructions for submission of specific capital projects which are incorporated
in the annual budget review.
E. The Capital Projects Budget is Prepared Without Considering Funding from Impact
Fees:
Finding(s):
The Director of OMB stated that the Capital Projects Budget is prepared without considering
the use of Impact Fees. When budgeting for capital projects funding from special fund
accounts such as Impact Fees, should be considered to ensure that Impact Fees are spent as
intended.
According to MCC §9.5-490(a)(1)b, the purpose and intent of Impact Fee procedures
includes:
"...assuring that new impact producing development contributes its fair share towards the costs
of capital improvements reasonably necessitated by such growth. "
Procedures for appropriation of Impact Fee funds are outlined in the MCC § 9.5-490.4(c),
and states in part:
" (1) The county, as part of the annual budget and capital improvements programming process,
shall each year identify capital improvement projects anticipated to be funded in whole or
in part with impact fees. The capital improvement recommendations shall be based upon
the impact fee annual review set forth in section 9.5-490.2(b) and such other information
as may be relevant. "
If the Capital Projects Budget is prepared without considering funding sources, then capital
projects due to new growth will be paid by all taxpayers and not with Impact Fees as
intended by the code. If Impact Fees are not utilized in the time period mandated by the
code, they may have to be refunded.
This situation exists because appropriate personnel do not provide the Director of Planning
and/or the Director of OMB with a list of capital projects which identifies projects that
qualify for funding from Impact Fees.
8
Recommendations:
1. The Director of OMB should consider all funding sources when preparing the Capital
Projects Budget Report.
2. The County Administrator should establish procedures to ensure that appropriate
personnel provide the Director of Planning and the Director of OMB a list of capital
projects. This list should identify projects and amounts that qualify for funding from
Impact Fees.
County Administrator's Response(s)
1. OMB and Construction Management jointly prepare a seven year Capital Projects plan
using information provided by the Director of Planning. Projects undergo a planning
review which identifies which, if any, Impact Fee can be used.
2. The Director of Planning will request that the appropriate departments identify projects
anticipated to be funded by Impact Fees for inclusion in the Impact Fee Annual Report.
F. Inadequate Use of Transportation Impact Fees:
Finding(s):
Impact Fees available for roads and bike paths have been collected but not used as intended
by the Monroe County Code. The "Monroe County Seven Year Roadway/Bicycle Path
Plan", approved by the Board of County Commissioners, on November 21, 1995, does not
identify projects that could qualify for Impact Fee funding. If Impact Fees are not properly
planned, they may go unutilized and may need to be refunded. If capital improvements
necessitated by new development are not paid for with Impact Fees, then the cost of such
improvements may be paid by all taxpayers. The intent of the law is that capital
improvements necessitated by new development, should be paid for with Impact Fees. See
Exhibit H for our estimate of funds which might need to be refunded over the next seven
years.
According to MCC §9.5-490(a)(1)b, the purpose and intent of Impact Fee procedures
includes:
"...assuring that new impact producing development contributes its fair share towards the costs
of capital improvements reasonably necessitated by such growth. "
Procedures for appropriation of Impact Fee funds are outlined in the MCC §9.5-490.4(c),
which states in part:
" (1) The county, as part of the annual budget and capital improvements programming process,
shall each year identify capital improvement projects anticipated to be funded in whole or
in part with impact fees. The capital improvement recommendations shall be based upon
the impact fee annual review set forth in section 9.5-490.2(b) and such other information
as may be relevant. "
The MCC §9.5-491(i)(3) provides guidelines for determining how Transportation Impact
Fees can be used. The following is an excerpt from the section:
9
"The funds collected by reason of the establishment of the fair share transportation fee shall be
used solely for the purpose of acquisition, expansion and development of the major road network
system determined to be needed to serve new development... "
The time period in which Impact Fees can be appropriate are set in the MCC §9.5-
490.4(b)(2)c which states:
"Impact fees shall be appropriated only within six (6) years of the beginning of the fiscal year
immediately succeeding the date of collection, unless such time period is extended as provided
herein. "
The six (6) year time period may be extended as discussed in the MCC §9.5-490.4(b)(4)
which states:
"...impact fee funds may be appropriated beyond six (6) years from the beginning of the fiscal
year immediately succeeding the date of collection if the appropriation is for a capital
improvement which requires more than six (6) years to plan design and construct and the demand
for the capital improvement is generated in whole or in art by the development or the capital
improvement will serve the proposed development. "
If Impact Fees are not appropriated during the statutory time period they can be refunded
as provided in the MCC §9.5-490.4(d)(3):
"The current property owner may apply for a refund of impact fees paid by an applicant
if the county has failed to appropriate the impact fees collected from the applicant within
the time limits established in subsection (b)(2) and (4) of this section." Section 9.5-
490.4(d)(4) states "Refunds shall be made only to the current owner of property on which
the impact producing development was proposed or occurred."
Each year the Director of Engineering in his report, "Monroe County Seven Year
Roadway/Bicycle Path Plan", identifies roads and bike paths to be built or upgraded.
Although the plan presented to the Board of County Commissioners, did not identify
projects that could qualify for Impact Fee funding, this information was provided to the
auditors. See Exhibit H for a schedule of dollars that qualify for funding from Impact Fees.
According to our interview with the Director of Engineering, he has not received a report
identifying dollars available and amounts spent in his area. He is also not aware that the
statutory time period has expired for some funds and the time period will be expiring on
additional funds over the next several years. See Exhibit B for our analysis of available
funds and Exhibit H for our estimate of funds which might need to be refunded over the
next four years.
In addition, the Director of Engineering feels that the code is too restrictive as to how he
can spend the funds. He has requested approval from the Director of Planning concerning
projects that could qualify for Transportation Impact Fees. However, most projects do not
qualify.
10
Recommendations:
1. The Director of Engineering should continue to identify projects that qualify for funding
from Impact Fees in his seven (7) year plan. This information should be provided
annually to the Director of Planning.
2. The Director of OMB should provide an analysis on the status of Impact Fees concerning
amounts collected, expenditures and, if appropriate, a calculation of potential refunds.
This analysis should be distributed to appropriate personnel including the Director of
Engineering.
3. The Director of Engineering should provide the Director of Planning with information
explaining how the code restricts uses of funds and give recommendations for
amendments in the code. The Director of Planning could then incorporate this
information in the annual report on Impact Fees.
County Administrator's Response(s)
1. The County Engineer will continue to identify projects that qualify for funding from
Impact Fees in the seven (7) year plan and forward to the Director of Planning.
2. It may be necessary to make some simplifying assumptions about the timing of receipt
of individual impact fee payments versus the expiration of legal authority to spend those
fees in order to determine how potential refunds are to be calculated. OMB will
investigate if there are precedents for handling impact fee refunds or whether current
county ordinances need to be clarified.
3. The County Engineer will provide the Director of Planning with information explaining
how the code restricts uses of funds and give recommendations for amendments in the
Code.
G. Lack of Long-Range Planning of Parks and Recreation Impact Fees:
Finding(s):
There exist a lack of long-range planning for Impact Fees available for park and recreation
facilities. The Parks and Recreation Planner is responsible for writing grant proposals for
the various parks and recreation facilities. In these grant proposals, funding sources are
identified; however, amounts from each funding source, such as Impact Fee funds, are not
identified.
According to MCC §9.5-490(a)(1)b, the purpose and intent of Impact fee procedures
includes:
"...assuring that new impact producing development contributes its fair share towards the costs
of capital improvements reasonably necessitated by such growth. "
Procedures for appropriation of Impact Fee funds are outlined in the MCC §9.5-490.4(c),
and states in part:
" (1) The county, as part of the annual budget and capital improvements programming process,
shall each year identify capital improvement projects anticipated to be funded in whole or
in part with impact fees. The capital improvement recommendations shall be based upon
11
the impact fee annual review set forth in section 9.5-490.2(b) and such other information
as may be relevant. "
If Impact Fees are not properly planned, they may go unutilized. If Impact Fees are not
used in the time period as mandated by the Monroe County Code, they may have to be
refunded. If capital improvements necessitated by new development are not paid for with
Impact Fees, then the cost of such improvements may be paid by all taxpayers. The intent
of the law is that capital improvements necessitated by new development, should be paid for
with Impact Fees.
According to our interview with the former Park and Recreation Planner, she has not
received a report identifying dollars available and amounts spent in her area. See Exhibit
C for our analysis of available funds.
Recommendations:
1. The Parks and Recreation Planner should develop a long-range plan which would identify
current and projected parks and recreation projects. This plan should identify projects
and amounts that could qualify for funding from Impact Fees. This information should
be provided annually to the Director of Planning to be incorporated in the annual report
on Impact Fees.
2. The Director of OMB should provide an analysis on the status of Impact Fees concerning
amounts collected, expenditures and, if appropriate, a calculation of potential refunds.
This analysis should be distributed to appropriated personnel including the Parks and
Recreation Planner.
County Administrator's Response(s)
1. Administration will establish coordinating procedures between Growth Management and
Public Works to establish long-range planning for Parks and Recreation Impact Fees.
2. It may be necessary to make some simplifying assumptions about the timing of receipt
of individual impact fee payments versus the expiration of legal authority to spend those
fees in order to determine how potential refunds are to be calculated. OMB will
investigate if there are precedents for handling impact fee refunds or whether current
county ordinances need to be clarified.
H. Lack of Long-Range Planning of Library Impact Fees:
Finding(s):
There exists a lack of long-range planning for Impact Fees available for county libraries.
The Division Director of Community Services and County Librarian plan expenditures due
to new development based on funds available. Also, when the Division Director of
Community Services and County Librarian request information concerning available Impact
Fees from the Office of Management and Budget, they are given different amounts.
12
The purpose and intent of Impact Fees, is stated in the MCC §9.5-490(a)(1), which states
in part:
"The purposes and intent of the impact fee procedures are:
b. ...assuring that new impact producing development contributes its fair share towards the
costs of capital improvements reasonably necessitated by such growth. "
Procedures for appropriation of Impact Fee funds are outlined in the MCC §9.5-490.4(c),
and states in part:
" (1) The county, as part of the annual budget and capital improvements programming process,
shall each year identify capital improvement projects anticipated to be funded in whole or
in part with impact fees. The capital improvement recommendations shall be based upon
the impact fee annual review set forth in section 9.5-490.2(b) and such other information
as may be relevant. "
If Impact Fees are not properly planned, they may go unutilized. If Impact Fees are not
used in the time period as mandated by the Monroe County Code, they may have to be
refunded. If capital improvements necessitated by new development are not paid for with
Impact Fees, then the cost of such improvements may be paid by all taxpayers. The intent
of the law is that capital improvements necessitated by new development, should be paid for
with Impact Fees.
According to our interview with the Division Director of Community Services and County
Librarian they have not received a report identifying dollars available and amounts spent in
their area. They have requested information concerning available Impact Fees and received
conflicting information. See Exhibit D concerning our analysis of funds available.
Recommendations:
1. The Division Director of Community Services and/or County Librarian should develop
a long-range plan which would identify current and projected projects for all county
libraries. This plan should identify projects and amounts that could qualify for funding
from Impact Fees. This information should be provided annually to the Director of
Planning. This information could then be incorporated in the annual report on Impact
Fees.
2. The Director of OMB should provide an analysis on the status of Impact Fees concerning
amounts collected, expenditures and, if appropriate, a calculation of potential refunds.
This analysis should be distributed to appropriate personnel including the Division
Director of Community Services and/or County Librarian.
County Administrator's Response(s)
1. Currently, the Library has in place a Library Long-term plan as required by the State
Division of Library and Information Services. A five (5) year Impact Fee plan will be
incorporated into the existing long-term Library plan of operation. The Library plan is
scheduled to be updated within the next 120 days.
2. It may be necessary to make some simplifying assumptions about the timing of receipt
of individual impact fee payments versus the expiration of legal authority to spend those
fees in order to determine how potential refunds are to be calculated. OMB will
13
investigate if there are precedents for handling impact fee refunds or whether current
county ordinances need to be clarified.
I. Lack of Long-Range Planning of Solid Waste Impact Fees:
Finding(s):
There exists a lack of long-range planning for Solid Waste Impact Fees. The Division
Director of Environmental Management plans expenditures based on dollars available.
Also, budgeted appropriations for the fiscal year ended 9/30/96 are in excess of funds
available. See Exhibit A.
According to MCC §9.5-490(a)(1)b, the purpose and intent of Impact Fee procedures
includes:
"...assuring that new impact producing development contributes its fair share towards the costs
of capital improvements reasonably necessitated by such growth. "
Procedures for appropriation of Impact Fee funds are outlined in the MCC §9.5-490.4(c),
and states in part:
" (1) The county, as part of the annual budget and capital improvements programming process,
shall each year identify capital improvement projects anticipated to be funded in whole or
in part with impact fees. The capital improvement recommendations shall be based upon
the impact fee annual review set forth in section 9.5-490.2(b) and such other information
as may be relevant. "
If capital projects are not properly planned and budgeted, then proper amounts may not be
used to pay for projects due to new growth. If capital improvements necessitated by new
development are not paid for with Impact Fees, then the cost of such improvements may be
paid by all taxpayers. The intent of the law is that capital improvements necessitated by
new development, should be paid for with Impact Fees.
The Divisional Director of Environmental Management and/or Environmental Manager did
not provide the auditors with a long-range plan of projects requiring the use of Impact Fees.
Expenditures of Solid Waste Impact Fees are based on funds available. If the Division
Director of Environmental Management determines availability of funds based on the
budget, he may overspend available funds from Solid Waste Impact Fees.
According to our interview with the Divisional Director of Environmental Management
and/or Environmental Manager, they have not received a report identifying Impact Fee
funds available and amounts spent in their area. According to the budget for the fiscal year
ended September 30, 1996, available funds are insufficient to support budget appropriations
for Solid Waste Impact Fees. See Exhibit E concerning our analysis of available funds and
Exhibit A for budget expenditures.
14
Recommendations:
1. The Division Director of Environmental Management and/or Environmental Manager
should develop a long-range plan which would identify current and projected projects for
use of Solid Waste Impact Fees. This plan should identify projects and amounts that
could qualify for funding from Impact Fees. This information should be provided
annually to the Director of Planning to be incorporated in the annual report on Impact
Fees.
2. The Director of OMB should provide an analysis on the status of Impact Fees concerning
amounts collected, expenditures and, if appropriate, a calculation of potential refunds.
This analysis should be distributed to appropriated personnel including the Division
Director of Environmental Management.
3. The Director of OMB should revise the 95/96 budget for Solid Waste Impact Fees
expenditures to avoid expenditure of funds in excess of total available funds.
County Administrator's Response(s)
1. During the yearly budget process, a Long-Range plan will be developed for the
expenditure of Impact Fees. This plan will identify projects and amounts that qualify for
funding from Impact Fees.
2. It may be necessary to make some simplifying assumptions about the timing of receipt
of individual impact fee payments versus the expiration of legal authority to spend those
fees in order to determine how potential refunds are to be calculated. OMB will
investigate if there are precedents for handling impact fee refunds or whether current
county ordinances need to be clarified.
3. The Solid Waste Impact funds balance forward were overestimated due to the FY 1995
expenditure being made near the end of the year, after budget estimates were already
made. OMB will transfer $100,000 from appropriation for county-wide projects into
contingency to avoid expenditure of funds in excess of total available.
J. Inadequate Use of Police Facilities Impact Fees:
Finding(s):
Impact Fees available for police facilities have been collected but not used because projects
that may have qualified for Impact Fee funding have not been identified. Recently a new
jail facility was built on Stock Island. No analysis was made to determine if part of the
facility could be paid with Impact Fee funds. If Impact Fees are not properly planned, they
may go unutilized and may need to be refunded. If capital improvements necessitated by
new development are not paid for with Impact Fees, then the cost of such improvements
may be paid by all taxpayers. The intent of the law is that capital improvements
necessitated by new development, should be paid for with Impact Fees. See Exhibit I for
our estimate of funds which might need to be refunded over the next seven years.
15
According to MCC §9.5-490(a)(1)b, the purpose and intent of Impact Fee procedures
includes:
"...assuring that new impact producing development contributes its fair share towards the costs
of capital improvements reasonably necessitated by such growth."
Procedures for appropriation of Impact Fee funds are outlined in the MCC §9.5-490.4(c),
and states in part:
" (1) The county, as part of the annual budget and capital improvements programming process,
shall each year identify capital improvement projects anticipated to be funded in whole or
in part with impact fees. The capital improvement recommendations shall be based upon
the impact fee annual review set forth in section 9.5-490.2(b) and such other information
as may be relevant. "
The MCC §9.5-495(d) provides guidelines for determining how Police Facilities Impact
Fees can be used:
"(1) The funds collected pursuant to these provisions shall be used solely for the purpose of the
capital expansion of police facilities in Monroe County, including but not limited to:
a. Design and construction plan preparation;
b. Land acquisition;
c. Acquisition of new patrol cars; and
d. Acquisition of jail facilities.
(2) Said funds shall not be used to maintain existing police facilities"
The time period in which Impact Fees can be appropriate are set in the MCC §9.5-
490.4(b)(2)c which states:
"Impact fees shall be appropriated only within six (6) years of the beginning of the fiscal year
immediately succeeding the date of collection, unless such time period is extended as provided
herein. "
The six (6) year time period may be extended as discussed in the Monroe County Code
§9.5-490.4(b)(4) which states:
"...impact fee funds may be appropriated beyond six (6) years from the beginning of the fiscal
year immediately succeeding the date of collection if the appropriation is for a capital
improvement which requires more than six (6) years to plan design and construct and the demand
for the capital improvement is generated in whole or in art by the development or the capital
improvement will serve the proposed development. "
If Impact Fees are not appropriated during the statutory time period they can be refunded
as explained in the MCC §9.5-490.4(d)(3) which states:
"The current property owner may apply for a refund of impact fees paid by an applicant
if the county has failed to appropriate the impact fees collected from the applicant within
the time limits established in subsection (b)(2) and (4) of this section." Section 9.5-
490.4(d)(4) states "Refunds shall be made only to the current owner of property on which
the impact producing development was proposed or occurred. "
The Major in Charge of Bureau of Administrations for the Monroe County Sheriff's
Department stated, in an interview, that prior to 1990 he attempted to spend funds as
16
intended. Once Ordinance 33-1992, was adopted, no one communicated to the Major in
Charge of Bureau of Administrations either the changes in the code or procedures for
requesting such funds.
No one individual is responsible for developing a long-range plan for Police Facilities
Impact Fees that would ensure funds are spent as intended. According to our interview with
the Major in Charge of Bureau of Administrations, he has not received a report identifying
dollars available and amounts spent in his area. He is also not aware that the statutory time
period has expired for some funds and the time period will be expiring on additional funds
over the next seven years. See Exhibit F concerning our analysis of available funds and
Exhibit I for our estimate of funds which might need to be refunded over the next seven
years.
Recommendations:
1. The County Administrator should determine the appropriate personnel who will be
responsible for ensuring that Police Facility Impact Fees are spent as intended.
2. The appropriate personnel should develop a long-range plan which would identify
projects and amounts that qualify for funding from Impact Fees. This information should
be provided annually to the Director of Planning to be incorporated in the annual report
on Impact Fees.
3. The appropriate personnel should be instructed on the procedures for requesting Impact
Fee funds.
4. The Director of OMB should provide an analysis on the status of Impact Fees giving
amounts collected, expenditures and, if appropriate, a calculation of potential refunds.
This analysis should be distributed to appropriate personnel including the Major in
Charge of Bureau of Administrations.
County Administrator's Response(s)
1. The Sheriff's Department Major in charge of Bureau of Administrations is responsible
for ensuring that Police Facility Impact Fees are planned for expenditure as intended.
2. The Sheriff's Department has been requested to provide long-range Impact Fee projects
to the Director of Planning.
3. OMB has revised the Request for Impact Fee Expenditure Request form (see attached)
to clarify procedures for requesting funds.
4. It may be necessary to make some simplifying assumptions about the timing of receipt
of individual impact fee payments versus the expiration of legal authority to spend those
fees in order to determine how potential refunds are to be calculated. OMB will
investigate if there are precedents for handling impact fee refunds or whether current
county ordinances need to be clarified.
K. Inadequate Use of Fire and EMS Impact Fees:
The Division Director of Public Safety has never prepared a long-range plan for the use of
Fire and EMS Impact Fees. If Impact Fees are not planned, they may go unutilized and
may need to be refunded. If capital improvements necessitated by new development are not
17
paid for with Impact Fees, then the cost of such improvements may be paid by all
taxpayers. The intent of the law is that capital improvements necessitated by new
development, should be paid for with Impact Fees.
According to MCC §9.5-490(a)(1)b, the purpose and intent of Impact Fee procedures
includes:
"...assuring that new impact producing development contributes its fair share towards the costs
of capital improvements reasonably necessitated by such growth. "
Procedures for appropriation of Impact Fee funds are outlined in the MCC §9.5-490.4(c),
and states in part:
" (1) The county, as part of the annual budget and capital improvements programming process,
shall each year identify capital improvement projects anticipated to be funded in whole or
in part with impact fees. The capital improvement recommendations shall be based upon
the impact fee annual review set forth in section 9.5-490.2(b) and such other information
as may be relevant. "
Fire and EMS Impact Fees have been collected for only three (3) years (since the 92/93
fiscal year). The Division Director of Public Safety, stated in an interview with the
auditors, that in the past projects may have qualified for Impact Fee funding, but the funds
were not requested. According to the Director, the dollars available are small and not in
immediate danger of being refunded. The Division Director of Public Safety stated that he
knows of capital projects that might qualify for Impact Fee funds. He also stated that there
currently exists an excess capacity of Fire and EMS units and that the amount and types of
capital improvements do not correlate with the requirements of Resolution #492-1992.
The Division Director of Public Safety also feels that there is a lack of communication
between his department and the Planning Department. He feels that the Impact Fee
approval process has never been adequately explained.
Recommendations:
1. The Division Director of Public Safety should develop a long-range plan which would
list projects, due to new growth, and estimated dollars necessary to support such growth.
This information should be provided annually to the Director of Planning to be
incorporated in the annual report on Impact Fees.
2. The Division Director of Public Safety should request from the Planning Director an
opinion from the Impact Fee Attorney concerning any proposed projects that could
qualify for funding from Fire and EMS Impact Fees.
3. The Director of OMB should provide an analysis on the status of Impact Fees concerning
amounts collected and expenditures. This analysis should be distributed to appropriate
personnel including the Division Director of Public Safety.
4. The Planning Director should coordinate with the Division Director of Public Safety to
evaluate what effect new development has on Fire and EMS. Then the Planning Director
should recommend to the Board of County Commissioners what amount of Fire and EMS
Impact Fees, if any, that should be collected.
18
County Administrator's Response(s)
1. The Public Safety Department has been requested to provide long-range Impact Fee
projects to the Director of Planning.
2. The revised Requested for Impact Fee Expenditure Request form requires approval of
proposed Impact Fee projects by the County Attorney's office and the Planning Director
before planning or expenditure.
3. It may be necessary to make some simplifying assumptions about the timing of receipt
of individual impact fee payments versus the expiration of legal authority to spend those
fees in order to determine how potential refunds are to be calculated. OMB will
investigate if there are precedents for handling impact fee refunds or whether current
county ordinances need to be clarified.
4. The Planning Director will coordinate with the Public Safety Director to evaluate the
effect of new development on Fire and EMS. The Planning Director will recommend
to the BOCC collection levels, if any, for Fire and EMS Impact Fees.
19
VI. Auditee Responses
u = g```• ; ~�'� BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
..r „� ..�� MAYOR Shirley Freeman, District 3
OUNTY0MONROE �-� Il.�.l �.la`` Mayor Pro tern Jack London, District 2
KEY WEST FLORIDA 33040 j4-; •I" �; Wilhelmina Harvey,District I
(305)294-4641
Keith Douglass,District 4
��+•:- ' Mary Kay Reich,District 5
4. jos
County Administrator
•
5100 College Road A ���4
Key West , FL 33040 ;4�
voice: (305) 292-4441 n .
fax: (305) 295-4544
MEMORANDUM
•
Date: April 4, 1996
To: Danny L. Kolhage, Clerk of the Circuit Court -
From: James Roberts, County Administrator
Subject: Preliminary Audit Report - Review of Monroe County Impact Fee Expenditures
Per Charles Mansen's memorandum dated January 12, 1996, responses to the audit findings are
as follows:
Finding(s): Section A. "The Current Monroe County Code Needs Clarification to Include the
Provisions of Subsequent Resolutions as Ordinances:"
Answer:
1. The County Attorney is reviewing the possibility of regular ordinances to incorporate
resolution provisions without lengthy review by the Department of Community Affairs, the
Governor and his cabinet.
2. The Director of Planning will prepare the Impact Fee Annual Report prior to the
adoption of the annual budget in accordance with Monroe County Code.
Finding(s): Section B. "The Current Monroe County Code Contains Inconsistent Provisions
for Refunds of Impact Fees:"
Answer:
1. Although the Code speaks for itself, the current language may not reflect current BOCC
intent, economic reality or practicality. The County Administrator will ask for clarification
from the BOCC of their intent with regards to Impact Fee refund policy.
2. Once the BOCC's intent is clear, the County Attorney will investigate necessary changes
to the Code.
1
Finding(s): Section C. "An Annual Review Has Not Been Prepared as Required by the
Monroe County Code:"
Answer:
1. The Director of Planning will prepare the Impact Fee Annual Report prior to the
adoption of the annual budget in accordance with Monroe County Code.
2. The Director of Planning will request that the appropriate departments identify projects
anticipated to be funded by impact fees for inclusion in the Impact Fee Annual Report.
3. The County Administrator will review the proposed Impact Fee with appropriate
department heads and attorney staff projects as a part of the Capital Projects portion of the
annual budget.
Finding(s): Section D. "The Annual Budget for Impact Fees is Prepared Without Input froth
the Various Division Directors and Does Not Represent Specific Projects:"
Answer:
1 1. Capital budgets, including Impact Fee expenditure budgets, has been incorporated into
the annual budget cycle. Each division will be given a budget package which includes
instructions for submission of specific.capital projects which are incorporated in the annual
budget review.
L •
Finding(s): Section E. "The Capital Projects Budget is Prepared Without Considering
Funding from Impact Fees:"
•
Answer:
1. OMB and Construction Management jointly prepare a seven year Capital Projects plan
using information provided by the Director of Planning. Projects undergo a planning
review which identifies which, if any, Impact Fee can be used.
2. The Director of Planning will request that the appropriate departments identify projects
anticipated to be funded by Impact Fees for inclusion in the Impact Fee Annual Report
L' t,
Findings(s): Section F. "Inadequate use of Transportation Impact Fees:"
Answer:
L
1. The County Engineer will continue to identify projects that qualify for funding from
Impact Fees in the seven (7) year plan and forward to the Director of Planning.
2. It may be necessary to make some simplifying assumptions about the timing of receipt
of individual impact fee payments versus the expiration of legal authority to spend those
fees in order to determine how potential refunds are to be calculated. OMB will investigate
2
if there are precedents for handling impact fee refunds or whether current county
ordinances need to be clarified. .
3. The County Engineer will provide the Director of Planning with information explaining
how the code restricts uses of funds and give recommendations for amendments in the
Code. •
Findings(s): Section G. "Lack of Long-Range Planning of Parks and Recreation Impact
Fees:"
Answer
1. Administration will establish coordinating procedures between Growth Management and
Public Works to establish long-range planning for Parks and Recreation Impact Fees.
2. (See answer for Section F.2)
Findings(s): Section H. "Lack of Long-Range Planning of Library Impact Fees:"
Answer: .
1. Currently, the Library has in place a Library long-term plan as required by the State
Division of Library and Information Services. A five (5) year Impact Fee plan will be
•incorporated into the existing long-term Library plan of operation. The Library plan is
scheduled to be updated within the next 120 days.
it
2. (See answer for Section F.2)
Findings(s): Section I. "Lack of Long-Range Planning of Solid Waste Impact Fees:"
Answer:
1. During the yearly budget process, a Long-Range Plan will be developed for the
expenditure of Impact Fees. This plan will identify projects and amounts that qualify for
funding from Impact Fees.
2. (See answer for Section F.2)
3. The Solid Waste Impact funds balance forward were overestimated due to a FY 1995
expenditure being made near the end of the year, after budget estimates were already made.
OMB will transfer$100,000 from appropriation for county-wide projects into contingency
to avoid expenditure of funds in excess of total available. •
•
Findings(s): Section J. "Inadequate Use of Police Facilities Impact Fees:"
Answer:
1. The Sheriffs Department Major in Charge of Bureau of Administrations is responsible
for ensuring that Police Facility Impact Fees are planned for expenditure as intended.,
2. The Sheriffs Department has been requested to provide long-range Impact Fee projects
to the Director of Planning.
3. OMB has revised the Request for Impact Fee Expenditure Request form (see attached)
to clarify procedures for requesting funds.
4. (See answer for Section F.2)
�L Findings(s): Section K. "Inadequate Use of Fire and EMS Impact Fees:"
Answer:
1. The Public Safety Department has been requested to provide long-range Impact Fee
projects to the Director of Planning.
,II
2. The revised Request for Impact Fee Expenditure Request form requires approval of
r ;
proposed Impact Fee projects by the County Attorney's office and the Planning Director
before planning or expenditure.
3. (See answer for Section F.2)
4. The Planning Director will coordinate with the Public Safety Director to evaluate the
effect of new development on Fire and EMS. The Planning Director will recommend to
the BOCC collection levels, if any, for Fire and EMS Impact Fees.
Please call me with any questions.
•
•
Attachment •
!
4
•
Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
Impact Fee Expenditure Request
Section 1 -To be completed by requesting department
Requestor: Title: Date:
Facility type: Project name •
Description of project:
Impact fee district: Boundaries of Service Area:
Boundaries within project's fee district: Yes_No_ Type of project: Capital_Operational Maintenance,_
Useful life of project: (Must exceed 5 years to qualify as capital project)
Project serves: Development that existed in 1986 Started after 1986_ Projected to start after 1986_
Would project have been needed to maintain level of service standards if no growth had occurred since 1986:
Section 2- Planning review
j
Reviewer: Title: Date:
Project eligible for total impact fee funding:
Fund
District 1 amount(Lower Keys)
District 2 amount(Middle Keys)
District 3 amount(Upper Keys)
Project eligible for partial impact fee funding:
Fund
District 1 amount(Lower Keys)
District 2 amount(Middle Keys)
District 3 amount(Upper Keys) •
Concurr with planning review_ Object to planning review_ Notes:
Section 3-OMB review
Reviewer: Title: - Date:
Funds available: Yes_No_ Transfer request prepared: Yes_No_ Resolution prepared: Yes_No_
Agenda summary prepared?Yes_No_
Date of BOCC action:
OMB Form Revised 2/16/96
VII. Exhibits
Exhibit A
ANALYSIS OF IMPACT FEES BUDGET TO ACTUAL
•
For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30,1994 For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30,1995 (Unaudited Financial) For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30,1996 (Budget)
ROADWAYS %Budget %Budget
Budget Actual Variance Used Budget Actual Variance Used Budget Aerial Variance
Revenue 295,000 567,586 272,586 Revenue 431,300 829,516 398,216 Revenue 456,000
Expenses (6,593,226) (241,762) 6,351,464 3.67% Expenses (6,270,300) (994,410) 5,275,890 15.86% Expenses (6,231,000)Excess Rev.Over/ Refunds (161,000) (2,951) 158,049 Refunds
(Under)Expend. (6,298,226) 325,824 6,624,050 Excess Rev.Over/
Excess Rev.Over/
(Under)Expend. (6,000,000) (167,845) 5,832,155 (Under)Expend. (5,775,0(30)
Fund Balance 10/1/93 2,774,666 2,774,666
Residual Equity Transf 3,900,000 3,300,000 (600,000) Fund Balance 10/1/94 6,400,490 6,400,490 Fund Balance 10/1/95 6,232,645
Fund Balance 9/30/94 376,440 6,400,490 6,024,050 Fund Balance 9/30/95 400,490 6,232,645 5,832,155 Fund Balance 9/30/96 457,645
PARKS AND
•
RECREATION %Budget Budget
Budget Actual Variance Used Budget Actual Variance Budget Actual Variance
Revenue 34,900 203,417 168,517 Revenue 137,560 167,361 29,801 Revenue _ 126,350
Expenses (586,070) (50,636) 535,434 8.64% Expenses (646,560) (70,000) 576,560 10.83% Expenses (783,350)
Excess Rev.Over/ Refunds - (16,000) (680) 15,320 Refunds 0
(Under)Expend. (551,170) 152,781 703,951 Excess Rev.Over/
Excess Rev.Over/
(Under)Expend. (525,000) 96,681 621,681 (Under)Expend. (657,000)Fund Balance 10/1/93 486,033 486,033
Residual Equity Transf 0 0 0 Fund Balance 10/1/94 638,814 638,814 Fund Balance 10/1/95 735,495 Fund Balance 9/30/94 (65,137) 638,814 703,951 Fund Balance 9/30/95 113,814 735,495 621,681 Fund Balance 9/30/96 78,495
LIBRARIES
Budget %Budget
Budget Acmat Variance Used Budget Actual Variance Used
Budget Actual Variance
Revenue 39,000 156,343 117,343 Revenue 124,450 156,160 31,710 Revenue 124,450
Expenses (513,084) (298,565) 214,519 58.19% Expenses (414,450) (72,506) 341,944 17.49% Expenses (489,450)
Excess Rev.Over/ Refunds (10,000) (484) 9,516 Refunds (10,000)
(Under)Expend. (474,084) (142,222) 331,862 Excess Rev.Over/ • Excess Rev.Over/
(Under)Expend. (300,000) 83,170 383,170 (Under)Expend. (375,000)
Fund Balance 10/1/93 525,293 525,293
Residual Equity Transf 0 0 0 Fund Balance 10/1/94 383,071 383,071 Fund Balance 10/1/95 466,241 Fund Balance 9/30/94 51,209 383,071 331,862 Fund Balance 9/30/95 83,071 466,241 383,170 Fund Balance 9/30/96 91,241
A-1
Exhibit A
ANALYSIS OF IMPACT FEES BUDGET TO ACTUAL
For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30,1994 For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30,1995 (Unaudited Financial) For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30,1996 (Budget)
SOLID WASTE %Budget %Budget
Budget Actual Variance Used Budget Actual Variance Used Budget Actual Variance
Revenue 17,500 61,583 44,083 Revenue 42,750 56,198 13,448 Revenue 42,750
Expenses (473,118) (128) 472,990 0.03% Expenses (532,750) (489,719) 43,031 91.92% Expenses (232,750)
Excess Rev.Over/ Refunds (10,000) (128) 9,872 Refunds (10,000)
(Under)Expend. (455,618) 61,455 517,073 Excess Rev.Over/ Excess Rev.Over/
(Under)Expend. (500,000) (433,649) 66,351 (Under)Expend. (200,000)
Fund Balance 10/1/93 472,518 472,518
Residual Equity Transf 0 0 0 Fund Balance 10/1/94 533,973 533,973 Fund Balance 10/1/95 100,324
Fund Balance 9/30/94 16,900 533,973 517,073 Fund Balance 9/30/95 33,973 100,324 66,351 Fund Balance 9/30/96 (99,676)
POLICE
FACILITIES %Budget %Budget
Budget Actual Variance Used Budget ACplal Variance Used
Budget Actual Variance
Revenue 22,000 105,405 83,405 Revenue 71,250 108,836 37,586 Revenue 87,875
Expenses (406,125) (300) 405,825 0.07% Expenses (536,250) 0 536,250 0.00% Expenses (627,875)
Excess Rev.Over/ Refunds (10,000) (300) 9,700 Refunds (10,000)
(Under)Expend. (384,125) 105,105 489,230 Excess Rev.Over/ Excess Rev.Over/ _ _ __
(Under)Expend. (475,000) 108,536 583,536 (Under)Expend. (550,000)
Fund Balance 10/1/93 411,254 411,254
Residual Equity Transf 0 0 0 Fund Balance 10/1/94 516,359 516,359 Fund Balance 10/1/95 624,895
Fund Balance 9/30/94 27,129 516,359 489,230 Fund Balance 9/30/95 41,359 624,895 583,536 Fund Balance 9/30/96 74,895
FIRE AND EMS %Budget %Budget
Budget Actual Variance Used Budget Actual Variance Used Budget Awl Variance
Revenue 34,960 65,532 30,572 Revenue 44,227 61,625 17,398 Revenue 40,004
Expenses (58,737) (210) 58,527 0.36% Expenses (114,726) 0 114,726 0.00% Expenses (187,004)
Excess Rev.Over! Refunds (4,500) (210) 4,290 Refunds 0
(Under)Expend. (23,777) 65,322 89,099 Excess Rev.Over/ Excess Rev.Over/
(Under)Expend. (74,999) 61,415 136,414 (Under)Expend. (147,000)
Fund Balance 10/1/93 34,583 34,583
Residual Equity Transf 0 0 0 Fund Balance 10/1/94 99,905 99,905 Fund.Balance 10/1/95 161,320
Fund Balance 9/30/94 10,806 99,905 89,099 Fund Balance 9/30/95 24,906 161,320 136,414 Fund Balance 9/30/96 14,320
A-2
1
I xhibit B
- TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURES
Fiscal Years Ended September 30,1987-1996 1 ,
1
Less Cumulative
District Impact Fees Interest Less Net Funds Less; Encumbrances Balance of
Year (Finance? Collected Earned Refunds Available Expenditures and Transfers Unspent Fds
FY 1986/87 1(L/Keys) $303,417.68 $3,241.97 $0.00 $306,659.65 0..00 $0.00 $306,659.65
FY 1987/88 1(L/Keys) 450,829.66 • 26,986.46 0.00 477,816.12 00 0.00 784,475.77
' FY 1988/89 1(L/Keys) 544,244.66 96,423,61 0.00 640,668.27 0.00 0.00 1,425,144.04
FY 1989/90 1(L/Keys) 234,119.70 130,561.18 1,610.00 363,070.88 0.00 0.00 1,788,214.92
FY 1990/91 1(L/Keys) 313,140.16 138,572.83 3,220.00 448,492.99 0.00 0.00 2,236,707.91
FY 1991/92 , 1(L/Keys) 339,877.53 112,953.09 3,220.00 449,610.62 25,445.83 0.00 2,660,872.70
FY 1992/93 1(L/Keys) 184,452.75 53,333.38 5,618.20 232,167.93 11,743.60 0.00 2,881,297.03
' FY 1993/94 1(L/Keys) 200,000.73 39,253.53 7,294.56 231,959,70 3,649.50 0.00 3,109,607.23
*FY 1994/95 1(L/Keys) 129,323.04 63,235.64 2,318.46 190,240.22 567,205.76 0.00 2,732,641.69
*FY 1995/96 1(L/Keys) 118,750.00 33,250.00 0.00 152,000,00 785,000.00 0.00 2,099,641.69
TOTAL - $2,818,155.91 $697,811.69 $23,281.22 $3,492,686.38 $1,393,044.69 $0.00
' FY 1986/87 2(M/Keys) $110,462.64 $1,092.93 $0.00 $111,555.57 $0.00 $0.00 $111,555.57
FY 1987/88 2(M/Keys) 307,418.64 13,579.05 0,00 320,997.69 0.00 0.00 432,553.26
FY 1988/89' 2(M/Keys) 349,269.00 60,901.54 0.00 410,170.54 0.00 0.00 842,723.80
FY 1989/90 2(M/Keys) 143,531.98 79,418.61 19,265.30 203,685.29 0.00 0.00 1,046,409.09
FY 1990/91 2(M/Keys) 133,888.60 83,232.29 0.00 217,120.89 0.00 0.00 1,263,529.98
FY 1991/92 2(M/Keys) 147,907.47 65,724.78 0.00 213,632.25 14,043.87 0.00 1,463,118.36
FY 1992/93 2(M/Keys) 71,998.79 31,735.25 4,980.92 98,753.12 194.00 0.00 1,561,677.48
FY 1993/94 2(M/Keys) 42,913.77 21,422.27 8,581.66 55,754.38 1,515,00 0.00 1,615,916.86
*FY 1994/95 2(M/Keys) 186,494.25 32,699.95 633.00 218,561.20 196,355.18 0.00 1,638,122.88
**FY 1995/96 2(M/Keys) 23,750.00 19,000.00 0,00 42,750.00 417,000.00 0.00 1,263,872.88
TOTAL $1,517,635.14 $408,806.67 $33,460.88 $1,892,980.93 $629,108.05 $0.00
FY 1986/87 3(U/Keys) $224,611.96 $2,677.13 $0.00 $227,289.09 $0.00 $0,00 $227,289.09
FY 1987/88 3(U/Keys) 551,801.24 24,016.37 0.00 575,817.61 0.00 0.00 803,106.70
FY 1988/89 3(U/Keys) 418,394.46 91,455.94 0.00 509,850.40 0.00 0.00 1,312,957.10
FY 1989/90 3(U/Keys) 430,994.67 128,051.50 82,940.00 476,106.17 10.00 0.00 1,789,063.27
FY 1990/91 3(U/Keys) 604,494,60 144,270.41 0.00 74$,765.01 ' 0.00 , 0.00 2,537,828.28
FY 1991/92 3(U/Keys) 398,613.25 130,394.04 0.00 529,007.29 30,034.42 0.00 3,036,801.15
FY 1992/93 3(U/KeyS) 295,901.68 63,829.27 47,308.63 312,422.32 . 10.00 0.00 3,349,223.47
FY 1993/94 3(U/Keys) 209,115.99 41,784.30 1,686.06 249,214.23 219,036.05 0.00 3,379,401.65
*FY 1994/95 3(U/Keys) 161,469.15 60,602.16 0.00 222,071.31 230,848.75 0.00 3,370,624.21
**FY 1995/96 3(U/Keys) 118,750.00 38,000.00 0.00 156,750.00 860,000.00 0.00 2,667,374.21
TOTAL $3,414,147.00 $725,081.12 $131,934.69 $4,007,293.43 $1,339,919.22 $0.00
I ,
FY 1986/87 4(KCB) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
FY 1987/88 4(KCB) 3,220.00 33.22 0.00 3,253.22 0.00 0.00 3,253.22
FY 1988/89 4(KCB) 20,937.63 1,220.15 0.00 22,157.78 0.00 0.00 25,411.00
FY 1989/90 4(KCB) 16,100,00 2,682.41 0.00 18,782.41 0.00 0.00 44,193.41
FY 1990/91 4(KCB) ' 24,150.00 3,981.01 0.00 28,131.01 0.00 0.00 72,324.42
FY 1991/92 4(KCB) 17,710.00 4,013.18 0.00 21,723.18 0.00 0.00 94,047.60
FY 1992/93 4(KCB) 15,025.50 3,819.94 561.82 18,283.62 0.00 0.00 112,331.22
FY 1993/94 4(KCB) 3,798.00 4,579.44 0.00 8,377.44 0.00 0.00 120,708.66
*FY 1994/95 4(KCB) 8,229.00 6,932.70 0.00 15,161.70 10.00 0.00 135,870.36
**FY 1995/96 4(KCB) 4,750.00 4,750.00 0.00 9,500.00 129,000.00 0.00 16,370.36
TOTAL $113,920.13 $32,012.05 $561.82 $145,370.36 $129,000.00 $0.00
FY 1991/92 • CW 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 57,363.35 0.00 (57,363.35)
FY 1992/93 CW 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 22,500.00 0.00 (79,863.35)
FY 1993/94 CW 215.10 4,503.24 0.00 4,718.34 10.00 0.00 (75,145.01)
*FY 1994/95 CW 4,111.24 176,418.74 0.00 180,529.98 0.00 0.00 105,384.97
**FY 1995/96 CW 0.00 95,000.00 0.00 95,000.00 4,040,000.00 0.00 (3,839,615.03)
TOTAL 4,326.34 275,921.98 0.00 280,248.32 4,119,863.35 0.00
Ten Year Total $7,868,184.52 $2,139,633.51 $189,238.61 $9,818,579.42 $7,610,935.31 $0.00
1
FY 1986/87 All Districts $638,492.28 $7,012.03 $0.00 $645,504.31 $0.00 $0.00 $645,504.31
FY 1987/88 All Districts 1,313,269.54 64,615.10 0.00 1,377,884.64 10.00 0.00 2,023,388.95
FY 1988/89 All Districts 1,332,845.75 250,001.24 0.00 1,582,846.99 '0.00 0.00 3,606,235.94
FY 1989/90 All Districts 824,746.35 340,713.70 103,815.30 1,061,644.75 0.00 0.00 4,667,880.69
FY 1990/91 All Districts 1,075,673.36 370,056.54 3,220.00 1,442,509.90 0,00 0.00 6,110,390.59
FY 1991/92 All Districts 904,108.25 313,085.09 3,220.00 1,213,973.34 126,887.47 0.00 7,197,476.46
FY 1992/93 All Districts 567,378.72 152,717.84 58,469.57 661,626.99 34,437.60 5,050,000.00 2,774,665.85
FY 1993/94 All Districts 456,043.59 111,542.78 17,562.28 550,024.09 224,200.55 (3,300,000.00) 6,400,489.39
*FY 1994/95 All Districts 489,626.68 339,889.19 2,951.46 826,564.41 994,409.69 0.00 6,232,644.11
Nine Year Total 7,602,184.52 1,949,633.51 189,238.61 9,362,579.42 1,379,935.31 1,750,000.00
I **FY 1995/96 All Districts 266,000.00 190,000.00 0.00 456,000.00 6,231,000.00 0.00 457,644.11
Ten Year Total $7,868,184.52 $2,139,633.51 $189,238.61 $9,818,579.42 $7,610,935.31 $1,750,000.00
r
*FY 1994/95 Unaudited Financial Statements
**FY 1995/96 Per Budget B-1
T.
Exhibit. C
PARK AND RECREATION IMPACT FEES COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURES
Fiscal Years Ended September 30,1987-1996
Less Cumulative
District Impact Fees Interest Less Net Funds Less Encumbrances Balance of
Year (Finance) Collected Earned Refunds Available Expenditures and Transfers Unspent Fds
FY 1986/87 1 (L/Keys) $26,065.20 $274.73 $0.00 $26,339.93 $0.00 $0.00 $26,339.93
FY I987/88 1 (UKeys) 35,823.60 2,462.77 0.00 38,286.37 0.00 0.00 64,626.30
FY 1988/89 1 (UKeys) 47,208.40 7,628.58 0.00 ' 54,836.98 0.00 0.00 119,463.28
FY 1989/90 1 (UKeys) 18,918.48 10,780.72 128.40 29,570.80 0.00 0.00 149,034.08
FY 1990/91 1 (UKeys) 24,652.80 11,257.31 256.80 35,653.31 0.00 0.00 184,687.39
FY 1991/92 1 (UKeys) 22,856.88 9,049.20 256.80 31,649.28 4,294.14 0.00 212,042.53
FY 1992/93 1 (UKeys) 44,232.24 7,059.17 0.00 51,291.41 156,099.94 0.00 107,234.00
FY 1993/94 1 (UKeys) 74,973.60 3,168.58 680.00 77,462.18 33,254.72 0.00 151,441.46
*FY 1994/95 1 (UKeys) 55,465.20 8,343.61 340.00 63,468.81 70,000.00 0.00 144,910.27
**FY 1995/96 1 (UKeys) 47,500.00 4,750.00 0.00 52,250.00 192,700.00 0.00 4,460.27
TOTAL $397,696.40 $64,774.67 $1,662.00 $460,809.07 $456,348.80 $0.00
FY 1986/87 2(M/Keys) $8,089.20 $88.68 $0.00 $8,177.88 $0.00 $0.00 $8,177.88
FY 1987/88 2(M/Keys) 19,299.55 1,141.80 0.00 20,441.35 0.00 0.00 28,619.23
FY 1988/89 2(M/Keys) 27,392.00 4,370.15 0.00 31,762.15 0.00 0.00 60,381.38
FY 1989/90 2(M/Keys) 10,578.15 5,476.52 1,204.95 14,849.72 0.00 0.00 75,231.10
FY 1990/91 2(M/Keys) 10,785.60 5,737.77 0.00 16,523.37 0.00 0.00 91,754.47
FY 1991/92 2(M/Keys) 11,556.00 4,686.00 0.00 16,242.00 5,000.00 0.00 102,996.47
FY 1992/93 2(M/Keys) 13,108.00 3,805.87 128.40 16,785.47 6,600.00 0.00 113,181.94
FY 1993/94 2(M/Keys) 18,720.00 6,700.41 0.00 25,420.41 0.00 0.00 138,602.35
*FY 1994/95 2(M/Keys) 13,260.00 6,901.08 340.00 19,821.08 0.00 0.00 158,423.43
**FY 1995/96 2(M/Keys) 9,500.00 3,800.00 0.00 13,300.00 168,000.00 0.00 3,723.43
TOTAL $142,288.50 $42,708.28 $1,673.35 $183,323.43 $179,600.00 $0.00
FY 1986/87 3(U/Keys) $16,906.00 $203.20 $0.00 $17,109.20 , $0.00 $0.00 $17,109.20
FY 1987/88 3(U/Keys) 42,842.80 1,625.20 0.00 44,468.00 7,540.00 0.00 54,037.20
FY 1988/89 3(U/Keys) 29,312.96 6,156.35 0.00 35,469.31 0.00 0.00 89,506.51
FY 1989/90 3(U/Keys) ' 35,074.60 8,822.35 6,676.80 37,220.15 0.00 0.00 126,726.66
FY 1990/91 3(U/Keys) 41,302.00 10,091.03 0.00 51,393.03 0.00 0.00 178,119.69
FY 1991/92 3(U/Keys) 30,644.80 8,824.33 0.00 39,469.13 30,115.92 0.00 187,472.90
FY 1992/93 3(U/Keys) 70,578.41 7,813.63 128.40 78,263.64 11,970.00 0.00 253,766.54
• FY 1993/94 3(U/Keys) 86,424.00 10,985.35 0.00 97,409.35 , 16,701.24 0.00 334,474.65
*FY 1994/95 3(U/Keys) 60,180.00 17,999.76 0.00 78,179.76 0.00 0.00 412,654.41
**FY 1995/96 3(U/Keys) 47,500.00 9,500.00 0.00 57,000.00 405,000.00 0.00 64,654.41
TOTAL $460,765,57 $82,021.20 $6,805.20 $535,981.57 1 $471,327.16 $0.00
•
I
FY 1986/87 4(KCB) • $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
FY 1987/88 4(KCB) 256.80 2.66 0.00 259.46 0.00 0.00 259.46
FY 1988/89 4(KCB) 2,182.80 90.37 0.00 2,273.17 0.00 0.00 2,532.63
FY 1989/90 4(KCB) 1,284.00 194.27 0.00 1,478.27 0.00 0.00 4,010.90
FY 1990/91 4(KCB) 1,926.00 •345.83 0.00 2,271.83 0.00 0.00 6,282.73
FY 1991/92 4(KCB) 1,412.40 357.79 0.00 1,770.19 0.00 • 0.00 8,052.92 • '
FY 1992/93 • 4(KCB) 3,558.40 238.98 0.00 3,797.38 0.00 0.00 11,850.30
FY 1993/94 4(KCB) 2,040.00 405.35 0.00 2,445.35 0.00 1 0.00 14,295.65
*FY 1994/95 4(KCB) 4,420.00 791.57 0.00 5,211.57 0.00 0.00 19,507.22
**FY 1995/96 4(KCB) 3,325.00 475.00 0.00 3,800.00 17,650.00 0.00 5,657.22
TOTAL $20,405.40 $2,901.82 $0.00 $23,307.22 $17,650.00 $0.00
Ten Year Total $1,021,155.87 $192,405.97 $10,140.55 $1,203,421.29 1,124,925.96 $0.00
FY 1986/87 All Districts $51,060.40 $566.61 $0.00 $51,627.01 $0.00 $0.00 $51,627.01
FY 1987/88 All Districts 98,222.75 5,232.43 0.00 103,455.18 7,540.00 0.00 147,542.19
FY 1988/89 All Districts 106,096.16 18,245.45 0.00 124,341.61 0.00 0.00 271,883.80
FY 1989/90 All Districts 65,855.23 25,273.86 8,010.15 83,118.94 0.00 0.00 355,002.74
FY 1990/91 All Districts 78,666.40 27,431.94 256.80 105,841.54 0.00 0.00 460,844.28
FY 1991/92 All Districts 66,470.08 22,917.32 256.80 89,130.60 39,410.06 0.00 510,564.82
FY 1992/93 All Districts 131,477.05 18,917.65 256.80 150,137.90 174,669.94 0.00 486,032.78
FY 1993/94 All Districts 182,157.60 21,259.69 680.00 202,737.29 49,955.96 0.00 638,814.11
*FY 1994/95 All Districts 133,325.20 34,036.02 680.00 166,681.22 70,000.00 0.00 735,495.33
**FY 1995/96 All Districts 107,825.00 18,525.00 0.00 126,350.00 783,350.00 0.00 78,495.33
Ten Year Total $1,021,155.87 $192,405.97 $10,140.55 $1,203,421.29 $1,124,925.96 $0.00
' *FY 1994/95 Unaudited Financial Statements
**FY 1995/96 Per Budget C-1
•
i,
Exhibit D
LIBRARIES IMPACT FEES COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURES
Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 1987 - 1996
Less Cumulative
District Impact Fees Interest Less Net Funds Less Encumbrances Balance of
Year (Finance) Collected Earned Refunds Available Expenditures and Transfers Unspent Fds
FY 1986/87 All Districts $75,620.00 $839.76 $0.00 $76,459.76 $0.00 $0.00 $76,459.76
FY 1987/88 All Districts 133,760.00 7,103.81 0.00 140,863.81 0.00 0.00 217,323.57
FY 1988/89 All Districts 136,040.00 25,023.50 0.00 161,063.50 0.00 0.00 378,387.07
FY 1989/90 All Districts 95,760.00 34,672.49 10,070.00 120,362.49 52,526.88 24,433.81 421,788.87
FY 1990/91 All Districts 130,222.20 28,107.44 " 760.00 157,569.64 119,453.19 27,987.82 431,917.50
FY 1991/92 All Districts 123,357.50 21,972.51 380.00 144,950.01 164,697.33 27,875.98 384,294.20
FY 1992/93 All Districts 128,722.04 15,521.75 380.00 143,863.79 2,864.92 0.00 525,293.07
FY 1993/94 All Districts 143,549.23 12,793.68 484.00 155,858.91 298,080.86 0.00 383,071.12
*FY 1994/95 All Districts 135,673.80 20,485.89 484.00 155,675.69 72,506.10 0.00 466,240.71
**FY 1995/96 All Districts 114,000.00 10,450.00 10,000.00 114,450.00 489,450.00 0.00 - 91,240.71
Ten Year Total $1,216,704.77 $176,970.83 ' $22,558.00 $1,371,117.60 $1,199,579.28 $80,297.61
*FY 1994/95 Unaudited Financial Statements
**FY 1995/96 Per Budget
D- 1
Exhibit E -
SOLID WASTE IMPACT FEES COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURES
Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 1987 - 1996
Less Cumulative
District Impact Fees Interest Less Net Funds Less Encumbrances Balance of
Year (Finance) Collected Earned Refunds Available Expenditures and Transfers Unspent Fds
FY 1986/87 All Districts $29,168.86 $363.18 $0.00 $29,532.04 $0.00 $0.00 $29,532.04
FY 1987/88 All Districts 111,838.08- 5,551.83 0.00 117,389.91 0.00 0.00 146,921.95
FY 1988/89 All Districts 73,414.41 16,912.56 0.00 90,326.97 0.00 0.00 237,248.92
FY 1989/90 All Districts 36,334.64 21,454.23 3,577.20 54,211.67 0.00 0.00 291,460.59
FY 1990/91 All Districts 59,026.16 22,632.41 130.08 81,528.49 0.00 0.00 372,989.08
FY 1991/92 All Districts 47,849.02 18,995.14 130.08 66,714.08 29,535.00 0.00 410,168.16
FY 1992/93 All Districts 46,790.24 15,689.59 130.08 62,349.75 0.00 0.00 472,517.91
FY 1993/94 All Districts 42,772.10 18,810.85 128.00 61,454.95 0.00 0.00— 533,972.86
*FY 1994/95 All Districts 38,510.34 17,688.14 128.00 56,070.48 489,719.00 0.00 100,324.34
**FY 1995/96 All Districts 28,500.00 14,250.00 10,000.00 32,750.00 232,750.00 0.00 (99,675.66)
Ten Year Total $514,203.85 $152,347.93 $14,223.44 $652,328.34 $752,004.00 $0.00
*FY 1994/95 Unaudited Financial Statements
**FY 1995/96 Per Budget
i
E- 1
Exhibit F
POLICE FACILITIES IMPACT FEES COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURES
Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 1987-1996
Less Less Less Total Less Cumulative
District Impact Fees Interest Less Net Funds Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Less Encumbrances Balance of
Year (Finance) Collected Earned Refunds Available Vehicles Jail Facilities ;Office Facilit. Expenditures and Transfers Unspent Fds
FY 1986/87 All Districts $45,283.26 $518.06 $0.00 $45,801.32 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 45,801.32
FY 1987/88 All Districts 110,584.12 4,675.43 0.00 115,259.55 41,255.00 0.00 0.00 41,255.00 0.00 119,805.87
FY 1988/89 All Districts 105,828.82 15,796.36 0.00 121,625.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 241,431.05
FY 1989/90 All Districts 56,007.59 22,672.12 - 7,637.45 71,042.26 49,486.24 31,757.91 0.00 81,244.15 0.00 231,229.16
FY 1990/91 All Districts 74,671.61 18,267.59 204.76 92,734.44 31,210.87 0.00 0.00 31,210.87 0.00 292,752.73
FY 1991/92 All Districts 65,845.41 15,283.45 204.76 80,924.10 32,480.92 0.00 17,600.82 50,081.74 0.00 323,595.09
FY 1992/93 All Districts 76,266.71 11,596.46 204.76 87,658.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 411,253.50
FY 1993/94 All Districts 88,253.05 17,152.15 300.00 105,105.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 516,358.70
*FY 1994/95 All Districts 81,469.68 27,365.86 300.00 108,535.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 624,894.24
ine Year Total 704,210.25 133,327.48 8,851.73 828,686.00 154,433.03 31,757.91 17,600.82 203,791.76 0.00
**FY 1995/96 All Districts 71,250.00 16,625.00 10,000.00 77,875.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 702,769.24
Ten Year Total $775,460.25 $149,952.48 $18,851.73 '$906,561.00 $154,433.03 $31,757.91 $17,600.82 $203,791.76 $0.00
*FY 1994/95 Unaudited Financial Statements
**FY 1995/96 Per Budget __
F-1
Exhibit G I
FIRE AND EMS IMPACT FEES COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURES
Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 1987-1996
1 Less Cumulative
District Impact Fees Interest Less Net Funds Less Encumbrances Balance of
Year (Finance) Collected Earned Refunds ;Available Expenditures and Transfers Unspent Fds
FY 1986/87 1 (L/Keys) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 , $0.00 1 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
FY 1987/88 1 (UKeys) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 •
FY 1988/89 1 (UKeys) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FY 1989/90 1 (UKeys) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FY 1990/91 1 (UKeys) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FY 1991/92 1 (UKeys) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FY 1992/93 1 (UKeys) 12,589.41 59.87 0.00 12,649.28 0.00 0.00 12,649.28
FY 1993/94 1 (UKeys) 26,372.26 774.30 210.00 26,936.56 0.00 0.00 39,585.84
*FY 1994/95 1 (UKeys) 17,968.73 2,058.10 105.00 19,921.83 0.00 0.00 59,507.67
**FY 1995/96 1 (UKeys) 14,250.00 950.00 1,000.00 14,200.00 73,000.00 0.00 707.67
TOTAL $71,180.40 $3,842.27 $1,315.00 $73,707.67 $73,000.00 $0.00
FY 1986/87 2(M/Keys) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
FY 1987/88 2(M/Keys) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FY 1988/89 2(M/Keys) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FY 1989/90 2(M/Keys) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FY 1990/91 2(M/Keys) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FY 1991/92 2(M/Keys) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FY 1992/93 2(M/Keys) 4,214.87 22.86 0.00 4,237.73 0.00 0.00 4,237.73
FY 1993/94 2(M/Keys) 7,019.80 244.75 0.00 7,264.55 0.00 0.00 11,502.28
*FY 1994/95 2(M/Keys) 11,849.03 640.27 105.00 12,384.30 0.00 0.00 23,886.58
**FY 1995/96 2(M/Keys) 3,800.00 285.00 1,000.00 3,085.00 21,000.00 0.00 5,971.58
TOTAL $26,883.70 $1,192.88 $1,105.00 $26,971.58 $21,000.00 $0.00
FY 1986/87 3(U/Keys) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
FY 1987/88 3(U/Keys) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FY 1988/89 3(U/Keys) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FY 1989/90 3(U/Keys) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FY 1990/91 3(U/Keys) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FY 1991/92 3(U/Keys) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 i 0.00 0.00 0.00
FY 1992/93 3(U/Keys) 17,381.43 104.13 0.00 17,485.56 0.00 0.00 17,485.56
FY 1993/94 3(U/Keys) 29,479.26 1,005.68 0.00 30,484.94 0.00 0.00 47,970.50
*FY 1994/95 3(U/Keys) 25,528.38 2,396.64 0.00 27,925.02 0.00 0.00 75,895.52
**FY 1995/96 3(U/Keys) 19,000.00 1,235.00 2,000.00 18,235.00 88,000.00 0.00 6,130.52
TOTAL $91,389.07 $4,741.45 $2,000.00 $94,130.52 $88,000.00 $0.00
FY 1986/87 4(KCB) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
FY 1987/88 4(KCB) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FY 1988/89 4(KCB) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FY 1989/90 4(KCB) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FY 1990/91 4(KCB) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 I '0.00 0.00 0.00
FY 1991/92 4(KCB) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FY 1992/93 4(KCB) 210.00 0.00 0.00 210.00 0.00 0.00 210.00
FY 1993/94 4(KCB) 630.00 6.21 0.00 636.21 ' 0.00 0.00 846.21
*FY 1994/95 4(KCB) 1,155.00 28.44 0.00 1,183.44 0.00 0.00 2,029.65
**FY 1995/96 4(KCB) 475.00 9.00 0.00 484.00 , 1,004.00 0.00 1,509.65
TOTAL $2,470.00 $43.65 $0.00 $2,513.65 $1,004.00 $0.00
Ten Year Total $191,923.17 $9,820.25 $4,420.00 $197,323.42 ' $183,004.00 $0.00
FY 1986/87 All Districts $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
FY 1987/88 All Districts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FY 1988/89 All Districts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FY 1989/90 All Districts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 0.00
FY 1990/91 All Districts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FY 1991/92 All Districts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FY 1992/93 All Districts 34,395.71 186.86 0.00 34,582.57 0.00 0.00 34,582.57
FY 1993/94 All Districts 63,501.32 2,030.94 210.00 65,322.26 0.00 0.00 99,904.83
*FY 1994/95 All Districts 56,501.14 5,123.45 210.00 61,414.59 0.00 0.00 161,319.42
**FY 1995/96 All Districts 37,525.00 2,479.00 4,000.00 36,004.00 183,004.00 0.00 14,319.42
Ten Year Total $191,923.17 $9,820.25 $4,420.00 $197,323.42 $183,004.00 $0.00
*FY 1994/95 Unaudited Financial Statements
1 **FY 1995/96 Per Budget G-1 1
Exhibit H
! TRANSPORTATION - IMPACT FEES
Estimated Refunds and Current Seven Year Plan for Use of Funds
Estimated Refunds
Amount Auditors ' Less Unused timated
Year Year Originally Allocated Impact Fees Impact Fees dditional Planned Estimated
Subject to Collected Collected Interest Used as of 9/30/95 Interest Expenditures Refunds
Refund Less Refunds (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
FY 1993/94 FY 1986/87 638,492 279,794 918,286 0 0 0 0
FY 1994/95 FY 1987/88 1,313,270 562,863 1,876,133 0 0 0 0
FY 1995/96 FY 1988/89 1,332,846 522,742 335,517 1,520,071 76,000 1,596,071 0
FY 1996/97 FY 1989/90 720,931 200,245 0 921,176 46,100 967,276 0
FY 1997/98 FY 1990/91 1,072,453 197,842 0 1,270,295 63,500 815,143 518,652
FY 1998/99 FY 1991/92 900,888 106,089 0 1,006,977 50,300 0 1,057,277
FY 1999/2000 FY 1992/93 508,909 41,094 0 550,003 ! 27,500 0 577,503
FY 2000/01 FY 1993/94 438,481 26,516 0 464,997 23,200 0 488,197
FY 2001/02 *FY 1994/95 486,675 12,449_ 0 499,124 25,000 0 524,124
Nine Year Total $7,412,945 $1,949,634 $3,129,936 $6,232,643 $311,600 $3,378,490 $3,165,753
(1) The annual interest is allocated to collected Impact Fees on a pro rata share basis of; fees collected(original fee less refunds),
plus interest in prior years,less amounts used in prior years. (Auditor's estimated calculation.)
(2) Impact Fee dollars are used on a first-in first-out basis as provided in the Monroe County Code Section 9.5-490.4(b)(2)c.
(3) Auditors estimated refund.
(4) Estimated interest calculated at 5%of current refund times the number of years before refund is due.
(5) Amounts taken from"Monroe County Seven Year Roadway/Bicycle Path Plan";see below. The planned expenditures are
applied to unused Impact Fees on a first-in first-out basis.
*Per Unaudited Financial Statements
Current Seven Year Plan for Use of Funds
District 1 District 2 District 3 Key Colony Total Cumulate
Year Lower Keys Middle Keys Upper Keys Beach All Districts Total
FY 1995/96 873,990 150,000 477,998 0 1,501,988 1,501,988
FY 1996/97 240,768 10,530 250,438 0 501,736 2,003,724
FY 1997/98 210,635 55,089 56,410 0 322,134 2,325,858
FY 1998/99 211,049 45,498 145,198 0 401,745 2,727,603
FY 1999/2000 31,965 11,827 82,700 0 126,492 2,854,095
FY 2000/01 39,450 107,672 94,243 0 241,365 3,095,460
FY 2001/02 109,859 116,238 56,933 0 283,030 3,378,490
The above amounts are based on the"Monroe County Seven Year Roadway/Bicycle Path Plan",approved
November 21, 1995,by the Board of County Commissioners.
H-1
1
Exhibit I
POLICE FACILITIES - IMPACT FEES
Estimated Refunds
Estimated Refunds
Amount Auditors Less Estimated
Year Year Originally Allocated Impact Fees Unused Additional Estimated
Subject to Collected Collected Interest Used Impact Fees Interest Refund
Refund Less Refunds (1) (2) (3) 1 (4)
FY 1993/94 FY 1986/87 45,283 3,867 49,150 0 0 0
FY 1994/95 FY 1987/88 110,584 29,151 139,735 0 0 0
FY 1995/96 FY 1988/89 105,829 43,236 14,906 134,159 6,700 140,859
FY 1996/97 FY 1989/90 48,370 14,994 0 63,364 6,300 69,664
FY 1997/98 FY 1990/91 74,467 16,110 0 90,577 13,600 104,177
FY 1998/99 FY 1991/92 65,641 9,843 0 75,484 11,300 86,784
FY 1999/2000 FY 1992/93 76,062 8,072 0 84,134 12,600 96,734
FY 2000/01 FY 1993/94 87,953 6,060 0 94,013 14,100 108,113
FY 2001/02 *FY 1994/95 81,170_ 1,994 0 83,164 12,500 95,664
Nine Year Total $695,359 $133,327 $203,791 $624,895 $77,100 $701,995
(1) The annual interest is allocated to collected Impact Fees on a pro rata share basis of; fees collected(original fee less refunds),
plus interest in prior years,less amounts used in prior years. (Auditor's estimated calculation.) ,
(2) Impact Fee dollars are used on a first-in first-out basis as provided in the Monroe County Code Section 9.5-490.4(b)(2)c.
• (3) Auditors estimated refund. I. '
(4) Estimated interest calculated at 5% of current refund times the number of years before refund is due.
*Per Unaudited Financial Statements
I
Per the Sheriff's Office-Bureau of Administrations'memorandum dated 12/5/95,the Sheriff's Office has requested
from the Acting Director of Planning,a legal opinion regarding the use of Impact Fees to fund the
construction cost of the detention facilities in Plantation Key,Marathon,and Key West. If approved all
current Police Facilities Impact Fees will be utilized.
•
I
I
•
I-1
- I