The URL can be used to link to this page

03/17/1993 Audit I t AUDIT REPORT MONROE COUNTY IMPACT.FEES ASSESSMENTS AND EXPENDITURES March 17, 1993 couNry QG .G kr� r CP"0 i' ; a i Q : f! r Ist S•; FycoVH-r(. Prepared By: Internal Audit Department Clerk of the Circuit Court Danny L. Kolhage, Clerk Monroe County, Florida 4._ bcOUNr.C ,4 IVs' !OW- ........... ! ' FCCUtAY• riannp IL. 1&ottjage. BRANCH OFFICE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT 'BRANCH OFFICE 3117 OVERSEAS HIGHWAY MONROE COUNTY P.O.BOX 379 1 MARATHON,FLORIDA 33050 500 WHITEHEAD STREET PLANTATION KEY,FLORIDA 33070 1 TEL.(305)743-9036 KEY WEST,FLORIDA 33040 TEL.(305)852-9253 TEL.(305)294-4641 I ' March 17, 1993 The Honorable Danny L. Kolhage Clerk of the Circuit Court Re: Audit of Impact Fees Assessments and Expenditures Dear Mr. Kolhage: The Internal Audit Department has completed an audit concerning the assessment and expenditures of Impact Fees. The audit was limited to an examination of approximately 200 residential and commercial building permits to determine whether fair share impact fees had been assessed and collected in accordance with the 1985 Land Use Plan Regulations and the related sections of the Monroe County Code (9.5-491 - 495). The majority of expenditures of fair share impact funds during - 1986 through 1991 were examined to determine whether these funds had been expended in accordance with the provisions of the 1986 Land Development Regulations and the Monroe County Code (Sections 9.5-491 - 495). In general, the impact fees appeared to have been assessed correctly on all residential units and the majority of commercial units examined. Most of the expenditures of impact funds were apparently made without segregation of existing deficiencies versus needs attributable to new population growth (ratio) as stipulated by the 1986 Land Use Plan. The accompanying audit report is provided for your information. Implementation of changes to established procedures will be confirmed in continuing audits of impact fee funds assessments and expenditures. Additional copies of this report will be provided and/or distributed upon your request. Sincerely, Charles J. ansen, Jr. Internal Audit Director cc: Board of County Commissioners (5) Tom Brown, County Administrator Sandee Carlile, Finance Director i I ' AUDIT REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS Sl. Executive Summary A. Introduction S1 B. Assessment and Collection of Impact Funds S1 C. Expenditure of Impact Funds S1 D. Potential Refund of Unspent or Unencumbered Fair Share Impact Fees S3 I. Introduction 1 H. Background 2 III. Scope, Objectives and Methodology • A. Scope 3 B. Objectives 3 C. Methodology 3 IV. Conclusions 4 V. Detailed Audit Findings ! A. Assessment and Collection of Impact Fees 1. Affordable Housing Deed Restrictions Not Recorded 5 2. Missing Affordable Housing Determination Files 7 3. Impact Fees Correctly Assessed and Collected on Residences 8 4. Inconsistent Assessment of Impact Fees for County Owned Land 9 or Facilities Leased to Private Businesses 5. Lack of Formal Agreement for Transportation Impact Fee Credits 11 6. Lack of Documentation for Impact Fee Credit Calculations 12 7. Missing Files in the Building Department's Marathon Office 13 8. Impact Fee Calculations Missing from Permit Files 16 B. Expenditures.of Impact Funds 1. Insufficient Expenditures of Transportation Fair Share Impact Funds 18 2. Community Park Impact Funds Not Expended in Accordance with LDR Ratios 22 3. Library Facility Improvements Not Allocated in Accordance with LDR's Ratios 27 4. Library Books and Other Resources Not Purchased in Accordance with LDR's 32 Established Ratios 5. Limited Expenditures of Solid Waste Fair Share Impact Funds 39 6. Police Facility Improvements Funded from Impact Funds Contrary to 44 Provisions of LDR's 7. Purchase of Police Vehicles from Impact Funds without Adequate Documentation of Adherence to LDR's Ratios 48 8. Refund of Certain Impact Fees Not in Accordance with Provisions of MCC 52 9. +Fair Share Impact Fee Funds Not Deposited on a Timely Basis 53 TABLE OF CONTENTS(Continued) C. Potential Refunds of Fair Share Impact Funds in Fiscal Year 1993 55 VI. Additional Findings 1. Issuance of Manually Typed Certificates of Occupancy 57 VII. Auditee Responses - VIII. Exhibits A. Transportation Impact Funds Collections and Expenditures 60 B. Community Park Impact Funds Collections and Expenditures 61 C. Community Library Impact Funds Collections and Expenditures 62 D. Solid Waste Impact Funds Collections and Expenditures 63 E. Police Facilities Impact Funds Collections and Expenditures 64 F. Audit Advisory Regarding Encumbrance of Impact Funds 65 G. Unrecorded Affordable Housing Waivers 67 H. Inconsistent Assessment of Impact Fees for County Owned Land 68 or Facilities Leased to Private Businesses ' I. Lack of Formal Agreement for Transportation Impact Fee Credits 69 J. Missing Files in the Building Department's Marathon Office 70 K. Impact Fee Calculations Missing from Permit Files 71 1- L. Trial Balance Summary-Bike Paths 72 M. Additions to General Fixed Assets - Community Parks 73 N. Additions to General Fixed Assets -Libraries 74 O. Trial Balance Summaries -Library Books & Materials 75 P. Additions to General Fixed Assets - Solid Wastes 76 Q. Additions to General Fixed Assets -Police Facilities 77 R. Audit Response -Growth Management Division 78 S. Audit Response -County Administrator 89 T. Audit Response -Public Works Division 90 U. Audit Response -Purchasing Department 94 ' V. Audit Response -Finance Department 96 W. Audit Response - OMB Director 99 X. Audit Response -Environmental Management Division 100 Y. Audit Response - Community Services Division 105. ii ; EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • A. Introduction The purpose of this audit was to determine the extent of compliance by the Monroe County government with the requirements of the 1986 Land Development Regulations _ and the related sections of the Monroe County Code, in the assessment and collection of fair share impact fees, as well as the restrictions on the expenditures of those impact fee funds. B. Assessment and.Collection of Fair Share Impact Fees Approximately 200 residential and commercial building permits were selected for audit review to determine whether fair share impact fees had been assessed and collected in accordance with the 1985 Land Use Plan Regulations and the related sections of the Monroe County Code (9.5-491 -. 495). The.new residential structures are assessed on a per unit basis. No errors were noted in,the computation of .impact fees' for the residences reviewed. Impact Fees.for commercial buildings are assessed according to the nature of the business entity on a square footage basis. The majority of the new commercial structures appeared to be assessed in accordance with the 1985 Land Use Plan Regulations and the Monroe County Code (MCC). We did note inconsistencies in the assessment of fair share impact fees for non-profit entities and the commercial properties which lease land owned by Monroe County. In addition, we noted that a number of residential units which qualified for the affordable housing waiver of impact fees did not appear to have the required deed restriction on file with the Clerk of the Circuit Court. We therefore recommend that the Planning Director seek the guidance of the county attorney and take remedial action to protect the financial { interests of Monroe County in these properties. . '. C. Expenditures of Fair Share Impact-Funds The majority of expenditures of fair share impact funds during 1986 through 1991 were (^, examined to determine whether these funds had been expended in accordance with the provisions of the 1986 Land Development Regulations and the Monroe County Code (Sections 9.5-491 - 9.5-495). S1 ' • The 1986 Land Development Regulations (LDR's) identified existing deficiencies of • certain facilities in 1985. These LDR's specified both the amount of the, existing deficiency and the projected cost of providing' additional facilities for anticipated population growth for a twenty year period (1985 - 2005). These dollar amounts of existing deficiencies and projected costs of additional facilities attributable to anticipated population growth can be expressed as a ratio. This ratio then becomes a guideline for alllocating the costs of a capital expansion of a facility between the deficiency which existed at 1985 and that portion of the facility's cost attributable to increased population I growth. Deficiencies in facilities which existed at 1985 must be paid for with general revenues'; only capital expansion of facilities attributable to new population growth are eligible for impact fee funding. Monroe County has experienced approximately a 10% growth since 1986. In the instance of capital expansion needs which were not identified specifically in the Land Development`Regulations, the portion eligible for impact fee funding is limited to the current increase in population growth (10%). The remaining 90% of the expenditures for capital improvements must come from other revenue sources. We noted that most of the expenditures of fair share impact funds appeared to have been made without the segregation of existing deficiencies versus needs attributable to new population growth (ratio) as stipulated by the 1986 Land Use Plan. In several instances these capital improvements were funded entirely by fair share impact funds at the mandate of the Board of County Commissioners. In order to prevent future non- - compliance with the 1986 LDR's, we recommend that the Director of Purchasing not issue any purchase orders against the several fair share impact funds without the written authorization of the Director of Planning, including documentation of the population growth since 1985 and the apportionment of the capital expenditure to both impact funds and additional revenue sources. The term"general revenues,"as used in the Monroe County Code,Sections 491-495, is construed as"revenues , from sources other than Impact Fund Fees." S2 • • D. Potential Refund of Unspent or Unencumbered Fair Share Impact Fees The Monroe County Code (Sections 9.5-491 - 9.5-495) stipulates that persons who paid I fair share impact fees to Monroe County may request a refund of those fair share impact fees which have not been either:spent or encumbered for capital expenditures within six years of the date that Monroe County received these funds. Accordingly, we have reviewed the fair share impact fund revenues and related expenditures for the fiscal years beginning October 1, 1986, through .the fiscal year ended September 30, 1992. It appears that approximately $601,203.86 is eligible for refunds to the original payor of I. _ _ the fair share impact fees during the, fiscal year ending September 30, 1993. This approximate figure may be reduced by the reclassification of capital expansion expenditures which have been apparently paid incorrectly from other revenue .sources. The details of these revenues and expenditures are presented in Exhibits A - E, pages 60 64. Mr. Martin Leitner, of Freilich, Leitner, Carlisle & Shotlidge, stated in a letter • addressed to the County Administrator on March 20, 1992, that he believed that if the budget specifically included a line item for the future ,use of impact fees, that this inclusion in the budget would suffice as an "encumbrance" within the meaning the Monroe County Code. Mr. Leitner's suggestion is not in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles established by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. The Internal Audit Department notified the County Administrator of this situation in an Audit Advisory memorandum dated June 30, 1992, and provided in Exhibit F. Mr. Leitner further suggested that future capital improvements be funded with 50 percent --- fair share impact fees and the remaining 50% to provided by other funding sources. This suggestion does not appear to conform with the specific language of the 1986 Land Development Regulations. i S3 • • • • • MONROE COUNTY IMPACT FEES - ASSESSMENT AND • 'EXPENDITURES i I. Introduction The purpose of this audit was to determine the extent of compliance by the Monroe County government with the requirements of the Land Use Plan of 1986, and the related sections of the Monroe County Code, in the Assessment and Collection of Impact Fees as well as the restrictions on the expenditures of those Impact Fee Funds.;. • A. The Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act of 1985 required each local government to adopt a capital improvement element with level of service standards for public facilities and a capital improvements schedule (Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.3202(2)(g).. In.addition; this Act also encouraged local governments to use innovative land development regulations which must be consistent with and must implement the adopted comprehensive plan (Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.3202 (3). The development of regional impact review processes encourages the use of impact fees by local governments. The courts have affirmed the rational nexus standards for impact fee validity; therefore, there is both legislative and judicial endorsement of the use of impact fees. B. The rational,nexus test requires that a determination be made that: (a) new development — causes a need for the expansion of capital facilities and/or services; (b) Impact fees must be based on the costs of the new facility/service apportioned to the new development; and (c) the use of the fees must benefit those who pay. 2 r C. Determining that the expansion of public facilities or services is necessary and caused by new development (to meet the rational nexus test) requires that local governments differentiate between those capital needs required to meet current population and those required to meet new development needs.3 Impact Fees are being used in Florida to finance roads, sewers, water, parks, fire, police, emergency medical and other combinations of public facilities and services. a t Patricia L. McKay, Jerome W. Milliman, Annie H. Shoemyen, Understanding Impact Fees (Gainesville, FL: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, College of Business Administration, University of Florida, 1986) P. 2 McKay, p. 8. 3 McKay, p. 11. a • McKay, p. 13. 1 • . • • • • II. Background • A. The Monroe County Planning Department is responsible for calculating the amount of impact fee to be paid by new commercial and residential.construction, as well as additions and remodeling of commercial structures which may result in added impact to infrastructure needs (i.e., increased traffic density). B. Impact Fees are assessed at the time that a building permit is issued. A Certificate of Occupancy, necessary for obtaining permanent electrical service, is not issued until the assessed Impact Fees have been paid. [MCC 9.5-491 (b) - 9.5-495 (b)] The Board of County Commissioner's policy is to allow Impact Fees to be paid at any time.between _ the date the building permit is issued and the structure is completed and the Certificate 1 of Occupancy..issued. C. As a part of the annual budget process, the Monroe.County Planning Department, has the additional responsibility for preparing a annual report of proposed expenditures of the Impact Fee revenues [MCC, Section 9.5-492(f)(3)(c)]. According to the Office of Management and Budget, it appears that the Planning Department has limited its role to the review of proposed expenditures initiated by various other Monroe County departments, to determine what portion of expenditures may be properly paid with Impact Fee revenues. Only that portion of the capital improvement which is attributable to new population growth and future growth since the Land Use Plan was implemented in September 1986 is eligible to be paid from the Impact Fee funds. D. The Monroe County Code, states that "any fair share ... fees collected shall be returned to the fee payer if the fees have not been spent or encumbered within six (6) years from li the date the fees were paid. (Fair share ... fees collected shall be deemed to be spent or encumbered,on the basis of the first fee collected shall be the first fee spent for community ... improvements.") [MCC, Sections 9.5-491 - 9.5-495 (0(4)(a)] "The refund of fair share ... fees shall be undertaken through the submission of a refund application to be submitted within one year follow the end,of the sixth year from the date on which the fair share ... fee was paid." [MCC, Section 9.5-491 - 495 (f)(4)(c)] Fair share impact fees were first assessed and collected in October 1986; consequently, any fee payer may request a refund of any unspent or unencumbered fair share impact fees beginning in October 1992. The potential amount of impact fees to be refunded are reported in Exhibits A - E, pages 60-64. 7 MCC, Section(9.5-491 (i)(3)(g) contains slightly different wording, and states: "when the money requested is still in the trust fund account and has not been spent of encumbered by the end of the calendar quarter immediately following six (6)years from the date the fees were paid, the money shall be returned..." 2 ' III..Scope, Objectives and Methodology A. The scope of this audit was limited to: 1. a review of impact fee calculations for a selected sample of new residential and new commercial construction or additions to.commercial sttuctures for the period October 1, 1986, through September 30, 1991. 2. a review of a sample of expenditures of Impact Fee Funds for the period October 1, 1986, through September 30, 1991, and 3. a calculation of the fair share impact fees collected, spent or encumbered, and remaining balances as of September 30, 1992, subject to requests for refunds to fee payers during fiscal year 1993. B. The objectives of this audit were to: 1. Verify that appropriate impact fees have been consistently assessed and collected prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy in accordance with MCC 9.5-491 through MCC 9.5-495 for the sample of records selected for review. 2. Verify that expenditures from the impact fees funds have been for the capital improvements authorized in accordance with MCC 9.5-491 through MCC 9.5-495. 3. Evaluate the extent of impact fee balances which might be subject to the provision of MCC which permits a refund to the fee payer if the fair share impact fees are not expended or encumbered within six years of the date of receipt by Monroe County. [MCC, Section 9.5-491 through MCC 9.5-495 (f)(4)(a) and (c)] C. Methodology 1. Our audit included tests and other audit procedures as.we considered necessary in the circumstances. 2. Specific methods included examining building permit files for new residential and commercial construction permits as well as additions to commercial structures to verify that the Impact Fees were assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Monroe County Code, sections 9.5-491 through 9.5-495. 3 I M. Scope, Objectives and Methodology (Continued) • 3. In addition, paid vouchers were examined to determine if expenditures from Impact Fees Funds had been restricted to capital improvement needs,generated from new population growth in accordance with the stipulations..of the.Monroe County Code, sections 9.5-491 through 9.5-495: 4. Our audit tests were conducted on.a sample of building permits judgmentally selected from Building Department records of building permits issued from October 1987 through September 30, 1991, for those building categories which appeared to require Impact Fees. 5. Building permits files were selected for review during the audit period for the assessment of Impact Fees as follows: Single Family. Res. Commercial Stock Island 5 20 ' Marathon 23 . 60 Plantation Key 14 . 49., • a. An effort was made to include a selection of building permits for commercial ventures; religious structures; non-profit fraternal organizations; utility companies; and residential construction for all three Impact Fee districts. 6. • All expenditures of Impact Fees for the Transportation, Community Park, Solid Waste, Police Facilities funds for the five years ended September 30, 1991 were tested. 7. Due to the quantity of transactions, a judgmental sample of the purchase of library materials was selected, because numerous small purchases were made from the Library Impact funds. All capital improvement expenditures from the Library impact funds were tested. . 8. The Finance Department records were reviewed, for the period October 1, 1986 through September 30, 1991, to obtain the totals of non-impact fee expenditures for capital improvements which may have qualified for partial funding from impact fee funds. Individual invoices and contracts were not examined. IV. Conclusions Except as discussed in appropriate sections of this report, all items tested were in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. We tested for compliance with portions of the Monroe County Code (Sections 9.5-491 through 9.5-495), and portions of the Monroe County Comprehensive Land Use Plan Regulations. 4 • • . • • V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS A. ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF IMPACT FEES 1. Affordable Housing Deed Restrictions Not Recorded ; Condition • Planning Department documentation indicated that at least 34 structures of affordable housing were approved by the Planning Department, during the audit - period October 1986 through September 30, 1991, as being eligible for waiver of Impact Fees under the Affordable Housing requirements as stated in MCC, Section 9.5-266(a)(3) and (4). However, the auditors,were able to locate documentation indicating that the required deed restrictions were filed;with,the Clerk of the Circuit Court on only 15 of the 34 waivers (44%). [Detail indicated in Exhibit G, p. 67.] Criteria The Monroe County Code states that affordable housing.units:are exempt from the payment of the fair share ... Impact Fee provided that prior to the issuance of a building permit for such units, evidence shall be provided to the director of planning that a "notice of deferred payment of impact fee has been recorded on the changing [chain] of title..." [Section 9.5-491 (j)(4). Transportation impact fund] 6 • Effect As a result of the lack of documentation that "the notice of deferred payment of impact fee has been recorded on the changing [chain] of title," the County has no assurances that if new residential units are resold to persons who do not qualify for affordable housing, that the Impact Fee would be known to be due and owing to Monroe County by the new purchaser, or an attorney, agent, or title company handling the property transaction. The amount of potential loss of Impact Fees to Monroe County upon resale of the property, to a purchaser not qualified for the affordable housing waiver could be as much as $39,820.58 (19 x $2,095.82 for a single family residence). [Detail shown in Exhibit G] 6 The other four fair share impact fee funds have identical wording in Sections 9.5-492, 9.5-493, 9.5-494 and 9.5- 495) • r-t I � 5 • i . • • V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) • 1. Affordable Housing Deed Restrictions Not Recorded (continued)( Cause • O( ) 1) There is a discrepancy, between MCC, Section 9.5-266 a 3 and MCC, Section 9.5-491 (j)(4)(a) - Section 9.5-495 regarding whether the "notice of deferred payment of impact fee must be.recorded: on the changing [chain] of title" "prior to the issuance of the building permit" versus "prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy." • I . - 2) Also,, adequate procedures were not established in the first years of Impact Fee assessment to assure that this deed restriction had been filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court. The Department of Growth Management has now corrected this oversight, prior to the audit review, by requiring that the Affordable Housing applicant provide evidence of the recording of the deed restriction • prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Recommendation: 1) The Director of Planning should consult with the.County Attorney to develop written procedures for either obtaining the required recorded notices of deferred payment, or obtaining assurance that impact fees due and owing to Monroe County are properly assessed and collected. Growth Management Division Director's Response: "The Planning Department has already initiated the process of obtaining all recorded notices of deferred payment. Notices to all developers owing impact fees to the County have been sent out and the Department is currently in the process of collecting those fees. Full text of auditee's response, including attachments, is included as Exhibit R, - pate 78. • 6 V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) 2. Missing Affordable Housing Determination Files Condition The Planning Department was unable to locate documentation for 5 applications for Affordable Housing Waiver of Impact Fees which had.apparently been approved. These missing files appeared to date back to the early implementation of the Land Use Plan (1988-1989). Since the Affordable Housing determination files are identified by real estate parcel number and name of applicant, it is difficult to cross- reference to the building permit files which are maintained by building permit number. As a result of the missing files, we were unable to confirm that the total number of Affordable Housing Waivers of Impact Fee Funds issued is limited to the 34 waivers located. [Details shown in Exhibit G] Criteria Monroe County Planning Department management is responsible for maintaining the Affordable Housing Waiver application records in an orderly and efficient manner. Effect As a result of the missing files, the Monroe County BOCC has no assurances that the waiver for Impact Fees for affordable housing were correctly granted because the files cannot be located for audit review. There are no assurances that there are no additional housing impact fee waivers without the required deed restrictions recorded in the chain of title, which were not identified during the audit review. Cause The lack of written procedures specifying the required documentation for Affordable Housing Impact Fee waivers appears to have contributed to inconsistent documentation of determination of eligibility for affordable housing waiver in the files made available for the audit. Recommendation: 1) The Director of Planning should promulgate written procedures for the processing and documentation of Affordable Housing Impact Fee waivers. 7 • V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) 2. Missing Affordable Housing Determination Files (continued) Growth Management Division Director's response: "All applications for deferral of impact fees for affordable housing are processed in the Key, West office. A member of:the Planning Department staff is exclusively assigned to this task which'is accomplished following specific procedures. (SEE EXHIBIT "A", ATTACHED). " • 2) That the Director of Planning institute a search for missing Affordable Housing determination files and cross-reference the Affordable Housing and Building Permit files. Growth Management Division Director's Response: "A Planning Department employee has been assigned to research this item. " 3. Impact_Fees Correctly Assessed and Collected on Residences Condition Impact fees appeared to have been correctly assessed and collected on the 41 building permits for single family residences and 1 mobile home placement selected for audit review. According to Building Department records for 1989-90, 860 I permits were issued for single family residences. Accordingly, we estimate that $1,802,405 should have been collected for single family residence Impact Fees prior to the issuance of the certificates of occupancy for. these 860 residences. However, there were indications that a few of the single family residences were incorrectly coded to another type of building permit and are not included in the above numbers. The 42 residential permits selected for audit review includes 1 placement of new mobile homes, which is assessed a lower Impact Fee than single family residences. Criteria New single family residences, and new mobile home placements, are assessed Impact Fees at a standard rate, regardless of the size or cost of the residence. `(MCC, Sections 9.5-491 - 9.5-495) Effect Reasonable assurances exist that the Impact Fees are being correctly assessed and collected for new single family residence construction and new mobile home placements by the Division of Growth Management. 8 'iE • V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) 3. Impact Fees Correctly Assessed and Collected on Residences (continued) Cause Since the Impact Fee may be paid at either the time the building,permit is issued or the Certificate of Occupancy issued, we were unable to reconcile the Impact Fees collected in fiscal year ended September 30, 1990, [$898,964.57] to the maximum Impact Fees assessed in fiscal year ended September 30, 1990. Instead, individual impact fees selected for audit were traced to the Finance Department cash receipts, regardless of the fiscal year the fees were received. Recommendation: None. Positive finding. 4. Inconsistent Assessment of Impact Fees for County Owned Land or Facilities Leased to Private Businesses ' Condition Impact Fees for four commercial entities and one private club, located on Monroe County land, were not consistently assessed, although building permit fees were - charged in the five instances. In contrast, when the County leased land and a building from a privately owned corporation for the Key Largo Library, the County was correctly exempted from the payment of impact fees. [Details included in Exhibit H] Criteria MCC Section 9.5-491.1(j)(5) provides an exemption for Impact Fees to be assessed against publicly owned governmental buildings. The Land Development Regulations (MCC 9.5-4 (P-18)) define a public building as being "owned or operated by a governmental agency..." 9 V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) 4. Inconsistent -Assessment of Impact Fees for.County Owned Land or Facilities Leased to Private Businesses (continued) Effect It appears that two of the five Monroe County lessees may have received: improper exemption from Impact Fees on at least one expansion of facilities each. [Exhibit H] Cause There was no documentation in the files which indicated that issues involving complex building permits (non-residential) were reviewed by the office of Director of Planning to ensure consistency among the three, separate planning department locations. Recommendation: 1) The Director of Planning should establish written procedures for management review of non-residential Impact Fees in order to ensure consistency of assessment of Impact Fees among the three separate planning department locations. Growth Management Division Director's Response: "Nonresidential impact fees are calculated through a computer spreadsheet program available in each office for consistency purposes. However, such a program does not list all possible nonresidential uses. In those instances when a use is not listed, an individual assessment is calculated by the Capital Improvements Coordinator in Key West. " • 2) The Director of Planning should obtain a written opinion from the County Attorney concerning the applicability of Impact Fees to lessors of Monroe County owned land. Growth Management Division Director's Response: "A written consultation will be obtained from the Growth Management consulting firm. " 10 • V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) 5. Lack of Formal Agreement for Transportation Impact Fee Credits Condition Three Planning Department files for commercial projects which received,credits for transportation impact fees were selected for audit review. The three files'did not contain the formal credit agreements with the County, specifying the work to be done and the amount of the credit to be issued as'required by the MCC Section 9.5- 491(g)(2). The total amount of transportation fair share impact fees waived for these projects totaled $15,138.58. [Details shown in.Exhibit.I]. Criteria MCC Section 9.5-491 (g)(6) specifies that a formal agreement will be prepared and executed by the applicant and the County. Further MCC states that "the proposed credit agreement shall be prepared by qualified professionals in the fields of transportation planning and engineering, impact analysis and economics." [MCC, Section 9.5-491 (g) (3)] Effect The auditors could not obtain sufficient evidence to determine that the work performed met the criteria of the Land Use Plan or the Monroe County Code since copies of written agreements were not made available to the auditors. Cause According to the Planning Department staff, the Director of Planning transferred the task of negotiating the scope of work to be done to qualify for transportation fair share impact fee credit, as well as the required inspections and final acceptance of the work performed, to the Department of Public Works because the Planning Department did not have the staff with the necessary road engineering training and experience. According to the County Engineering Director, the Department of Public Works did not secure the written agreement required by the MCC, but did obtain the property owner's or contractor's statement of costs of performing the ' work. Recommendation: 1) The Director, Growth Management Division, should establish written procedures requiring that the Building Department obtain documentation of a written agreement between the property owner and County before approving Impact Fee credits. 11 V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) 5. Lack of Formal Agreement for Transportation Impact Fee Credits (continued) Growth Management Division Director's Response: "The Monroe County Code does not require that "an engineer" estimate the costs of roadway improvements. However, prior to the.issuance of:a C.O., the Building Dept. should require that the Director of Planning indicate (in writing) ! that: (a) The permit holder has.entered into,an agreement with the County to . construct.capital roadway, improvements consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (b) The permit holder has provided a plan of the proposed improvements certified by a duly qualified and Florida licensed "road engineer". (c) The Public Works Dept. has approved the costs related to the improvements based upon local precedent for similar work. "Copies of all of the above must be provided to the Building Dept. for inclusion within their permanent file. " 6. Lack of Documentation for Impact Fee Credit Calculations Condition Three Planning Department files for commercial projects which received credits for transportation impact fees were selected for audit review. The three files did not contain the documentation required by the MCC to qualify the applicant to receive a credit for transportation fair share impact fees. Instead of a calculation of estimated costs prepared by an engineer, a statement of costs incurred was prepared and submitted by the applicant. No documentation was provided to verify that either the Planning Department or the Public Works Department reviewed the costs submitted by the applicant to determine that the "proposed costs for the suggested roadway improvement were professionally acceptable and fairly assessed the cost for the capital improvement." [Details shown on Exhibit I] 12 r , • V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) 6. Lack of Documentation for Impact Fee Credit Calculations (continued) Criteria MCC Section 9.5-491(g)(2)(b) and (g)(3) stipulates that the property owner must submit a written proposal for the scope of roadway work to be performed and a valuation of the cost of the roadway improvements prepared by a qualified professional.in the fields of transportation planning and engineering ... According to MCC, these documents must be reviewed by the county planning director, including the proposed costs.. A formal credit agreement:shall then be prepared and signed by the applicant and the county. .[Italics added] Effect Since no documentation was made available during the audit that the costs submitted by the applicant were verified by county staff, the auditor could not obtain assurance that the fair market value or actual cost of the roadway improvements is equal to the amount of credit issued against the Transportation Impact Fees assessed. Recommendation: 1) That the Director of Planning establish written,procedures to require documentation of the actual cost of the roadway improvements prior to the final issuance of the Impact Fee Credit and the Certificate of Occupancy. Growth Management Division Director's Response: "This action has been properly corrected through coordination with the Engineering Department. " • 7. Missing Files in the Building Department's Marathon Office Condition Our audit review in the Marathon office included 83 building permit files to determine if Impact Fees had been assessed according to the provisions of the Monroe County Code (Sections 9.491 - 9.495) Eight of the 83 building permit files selected could not be located by the Building Department's Marathon office. [Details shown in Exhibit J] Unlike the Key West and Plantation Building Department offices, the Marathon office did not retain a photocopy of the applicant's payment check and county receipt copy in the building permit files. 13 V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) . . . . 7. Missing Files in Building Department's Marathon Office (continued) Criteria Monroe County Department management is responsible for maintaining all county records in an orderly manner at all times. All accounting transactions, including receipt of county funds, should provide a clear audit trail from the time that money is collected until the funds are deposited in an appropriate bank and then recorded in the.Finance Department records. Effect 1) As a result of missing files, the auditors were unable to verify that the impact fees assessed and collected were for the correct amounts for these five missing files. i . 2) There were $436,358.97 in Impact Fees assessed on the 78 building permit files that the auditors were able to examine. Of this amount, $395,992.22 had been collected during the period of audit coverage (October 1986 - September 30, 1991). - 3) Due to the eight missing building permit files, Monroe County BOCC has no assurances that the correct impact fees were assessed in all records selected for audit. Cause 1) The lack of written office procedures appears to have contributed to the variance in standards of maintaining impact fee records as a part of building permit files. 2) The lack of adequate office space in the Marathon office appears to have required the necessity of storage of records off site in a mini-warehouse. All County offices, including the Clerk of Circuit Court, store past fiscal year records offsite due to a lack of on-site storage space. However, during the audit field work, the Marathon office removed several file cabinets and storage boxes to a mini-warehouse without prior knowledge of the auditors. Files and records may have been lost or misplaced during the movement to the offsite storage. I 14 -- e • V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) 7. Missing Files in Building Department's Marathon Office (continued) Recommendation: 1) The Director, Growth Management Division, should promulgate written procedures for the maintenance of documentation in the building permit/impact fee files, including applicant Impact Fee payment receipts, to ensure consistency within the three separate building department offices and to provide uniform time frame for archiving building permit records.• Management should consider storing building permit files which were completed within the past two fiscal years'on site to provide better auditor access. Growth Management Division Director Response: "At the present time, all three (3) offices maintain.Impact Fee receipts as follows: (a) Entered in computer (b) "Hard copy" or receipt in permanent files (or receipt book). (c) Office copy of permit (or file folder) is hand noted (or printed) with receipt number. "These three (3) separate actions assure a prompt and accurate means for the verification of the payment of impact fees. "NOTE: During the time between the establishment of the requirement for paying of impact fees (i.e: Comprehensive Plan 9/86) and the initiation of computerized records (10/87), all impact fee payments were manually recorded by means of hard copies of receipts and handwritten notation on either permits or file folders. " . 'I 2) The Director, Growth Management Division, should establish written procedures to ensure adequate control over the movement and storage of records. r-� 15 V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) 7. Missing Files in Building Department's Marathon Office (continued) Growth Management Division Director's Response: "The lack of adequate storage space at both the Plantation Key and Marathon offices prevents us from maintaining "in house"files which are older than two (2) years. In the Stock Island office, we are able to maintain "in house"files up to seven (7) years old. "Additional storage space will be leased for Plantation Key; and the consolidation of the Key West and Marathon offices within the new County building should assure the County of an "in house" capability of maintaining permit files at least three (3) years old. " 8. Impact Fee Calculations Missing from Permit Files Condition There were eight building permit files in the Building Department's Marathon office, in which the Impact Fee calculation was missing. There were 3 instances where Planning Department personnel could not reconstruct the Impact Fees charged. [Detail in Exhibit K] Criteria The Monroe County Code provides a schedule of fair share impact fees to be charged for various types of residential and commercial structures. [MCC, Section 9.5-491 (c)] ' These fees are based primarily on the square footage and intended usage of commercial structures. Effect In these three instances, the Impact Fees appear to have been incorrectly calculated and under-assessed. 7 Four additional sections of the Monroe County Code (9.5-492 -9.5-495) contain similar fee schedules for the other fair share impact fees. I " 16 • V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) 8. Impact Fee Calculations Missing from Permit Files (continued) Cause Unlike the Key West and Plantation building Department offices, the Marathon office did not retain a photocopy of the applicant's payment check, County receipt copy, and Impact Fee calculation in the building permit files as a standard procedure. Recommendation: 1) The Director of Planning should establish written office procedures which require documentation of Impact Fee calculations in the building permit files, together with sufficient information concerning applicant payment of Impact Fees to provide an audit trail and to ensure consistency within the three separate building department offices. Growth Management Division Director's Response: "The referenced procedure has been implemented by the Plantation Key and Stock Island offices, but not by the Marathon office in all instances. Proper directive is being issued to the Marathon office to adhere to the established procedure. " Corrective Actions Taken: We were informed by the Planning Department that action is being taken to collect Impact Fees which were incorrectly assessed at a rate below what should have been assessed or Impact Fees which were inadvertently not assessed any amount. [Detail in Exhibit K] i-- • 17 • V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) B. EXPENDITURES OF IMPACT FUNDS 1. Insufficient Expenditures of Transportation Fair Share Impact Fee Funds Conditions • Transportation Impact Fees in the amount of $6,101,065.50, plus $1,334,483.70 in interest earned, were collected during the period October 1, 1986, through • September 30, 1992. Only $69,524.12 in expenditures were made from Transportation Impact Fee Funds during that time period, for.the Card Sound Road Project, except for the several refunds. [Details shown in Exhibit A] a) Several refunds were made of Impact Fees collected for projects not commenced or which subsequently qualified for the affordable housing waiver ($110,255.30) which reduced the net Transportation Impact Funds available for capital improvements. This included a large refund to a condominium complex, as a result of non-commencement of second and third phases. Subsequently, the additional condominiums' fair share impact fees are currently being paid on a per unit basis as the units are sold. b) Our review included Finance Department records for the period from October 1, 1986 through July 31, 1992. This review indicated that a total of $134,612.39 had been expended for capital improvements (several bike paths) made to the county transportation system paid from Monroe County Trust Funds which could have qualified for partial funding through the use of Impact Fees instead of Monroe County Transportation Trust Funds. [Exhibit L] Criteria 1) The Monroe County Code states that "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 ..." (MCC Section (i)(3). Monroe County Land Use Regulations (LDRs) differentiate between the funding needed to bring the existing 1985 road system up to an acceptable standard versus accommodating new growth. [LDR, Section B (1)(d] [Italics added] 18 V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) 1. Insufficient Expenditures of Transportation Fair Share Impact Fee Funds (continued) 2) The Monroe County LDRs identified specific roadway projects as needed capital improvements and costs for each district. [LDR, Section B (1) (d)] The LDR projected "costs of needed improvements to be $299 million dollars of which 45 to 100 million dollars are catch up costs. It is projected that the cost to accommodate new growth will between 80 - 190 million dollars." [LDR, Section B (1)(d)] Table 1 Area Served Identified Projected Needs Deficiency due to new growth (Impact Fees) Subdistrict I (Upper Keys) $ 71,412 37% $123,603 63% Subdistrict II (Middle Keys) 11,781 37% 20,475 63% Subdistrict III (Lower Keys) 25,302 37% 46.068 63% $110,000 $189,000 3) The Monroe County Code was subsequently modified to state: "Proceeds from each account shall be used exclusively for the capital expansion of the county's major road network system in the subdistrict from which the moneys have come, with the exception that a portion of the funds from each district may be allocated to projects outside of the subdistrict, on U.S. 1, Card Sound Road, and C-905 in Key Largo, and the proceeds are used in a manner consistent with 'M' the capital improvements plan of the comprehensive plan:" [Italics added] 4) The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners took action on August 6, 1991, to "Officially obligate $5.5 million of the Transportation Impact Fees and $1.211 million of the Card Sound Bridge Enterprise Fund (cash) to fund this project." [Improvements to Highway 905, Card Sound Road] • • 19 n • V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) • 1. Insufficient Expenditures of Transportation Fair Share Impact Fee Funds (continued) 5) Capital improvement projects which were not specifically identified in the Monroe County LDR's and which serve,the needs of population existing at 1985 must be.funded out of Monroe County Transportation Trust funds,' and other revenue sources, and partially out of the Impact Fee funds in.a ratio which reflects the population growth since 1985 (i.e., 90% from other sources versus 10% from Impact Fee funds, based on a 10% increase in population since 1985)9. This rationale was illustrated in a memorandum from the Director of Planning to the County Administrator, dated September 5, 1991, which indicated -- approval for new bike paths in several locations in the county to be paid from Impact Fees "using the buy-in approach based on 10% population growth since 1986." This memorandum recommended each project be funded with Impact Fees for 10% of the cost with 90% provided from other sources. Since bike paths in Monroe County were not specified as a deficiency in the existing transportation system in the Land Use Plan of 1986, this proration of the costs between the other sources and the fair share impact fee funds appears to be appropriate. Effect As a result of not allocating transportation capital expansion (bike paths) between Monroe County Transportation trust funds, and other revenue sources, and fair share transportation impact fees (10%), in each subdistrict in which improvements were made, financial statements reflect that only $69,524.12 in fair share impact funds have been utilized at September 30, 1992. Unless corrective action is taken by the Department of Public Works, fair share transportation impact funds from each subdistrict may be subject to refunding ($575,980.19). [Details in Exhibit A] [MCC, Section 9.5-490 (i)(3) (d) and (g)]' In addition, using Impact Funds for partial costs of eligible projects would have released Transportation Trust Fund • revenues and other revenue source moneys for other uses. 8 The.Monroe County Statistical Abstract of 1991 indicates a Monroe County population in 1985 at 70,729 and Monroe County Population at 78,024 in 1990, for an increase in population of 10.3% 9 Land Use Plan Regulations state that transportation revenue sources include the state gas tax, road bond funds, revenue diversions, and ad valorem taxes. 20 . 1 • • • V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) 1. Insufficient Expenditures of Transportation Fair Share Impact Fee Funds l (continued) Cause • As part of the audit review, we interviewed mid-level Public Works Department management. Public Works management did not appear to be knowledgeable of the processes involved in obtaining the use of the Transportation:Fair Share Impact Fee funds for partially funding county roadway projects. According to mid-level managers interviewed, fund balances were not being monitored and plans for capital improvements from impact funds.were not being prepared at mid-level management levels. Recommendation: 1. The Director of Planning should promulgate written procedures for county department managers to utilize in obtaining approval by the Planning Department and County Attorney to partially fund eligible road improvements with Impact Fee Funds. Growth Management Division Director's Response: "The Planning Department has promulgated such procedure and it is currently being utilized by County Departments. (SEE EXHIBIT "B", ATTACHED)" Full text of auditee's response, including attachments, is included as Exhibit R. 2. The County Administrator should consider establishing a training program for county staff concerning eligibility requirements for expenditure of Impact Fee funds. County Administrator's Response: "The Division Directors are charged with the overall responsibility and are considered very knowledgeable concerning the eligibility for expending Impact Fee funds. However, in every case, the Directors must obtain a ruling from the office of the County Attorney opining as to said eligibility. It is considered that any additional training beyond that presently being informally provided in Division and Department Director meetings is not warranted. " Full text of auditee's response, including exhibits, is included as Exhibit S. 21 V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) 1. Insufficient Expenditures of Transportation Fair Share Impact Fee Funds (continued) 3. The Director, Division of Public Works, should identify those capital expansion costs which were paid out of other revenue sources and have that percentage attributable to new growth needs applied to the appropriate subdistrict's fair share transportation impact funds. • Director of Engineering's Response: "To comply with this direction, we researched our files back to October 1, 1986 and came up with several potential projects which may qualify for reimbursement. The following list identifies the road, cost, year constructed and a detailed description of the work. .. " [This lengthy list is included in the full text of the response in Exhibit T]. "The above projects numbered 1 - 13 were funded by Constitutional Gas Tax Revenue while projects numbered 14 - 16 were funded with Local Option Gas Tax Revenue. According to a memorandum from the Director of Planning, each capital improvement project can be funded with Impact Fees for 10% of the project cost. " Auditor's Comment: Our review of updated financial reports for the fiscal year ended September 30, 1992, did not indicate that changes were made to reflect a portion of the cost of the projects cited above as being expended from Transportation Fair Share Impact Funds. 2. Community Park Impact Funds not Expended in Accordance with LDR Ratios • Condition 1) Community Park Impact Funds in the amount of $46,950.06 have been expended or encumbered from the total Community Park Impact fees collected for the six years ended September 30, 1992 ($466,371.02, plus I $99,667.61 in interest earned). [Details shown in Exhibit B] 22 V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) 2. Community Park Impact Funds not Expended in Accordance with LDR Ratios (continued) 2) Community Park Impact Fees in the amount of $30,115.92 were expended for Islamorada community park improvements (1991) and resurfacing of the Coral Shores school tennis courts (1988) without the.prior approval of the Planning Department concerning the allocation of the total expenditure between the general revenue funds for existing deficiencies and the • Community. Park Impact Funds for new'population growth'since 1986. • [Exhibit B] 3) Monroe County financial records for the,fiscal years October 1, 1986 through September 30, 1992, indicated that $1,117,797.15 had been expended for community parks capital improvements from general revenues. [Exhibit M] However, we are unable to determine what portion i r of these improvements funded from general revenues were for capital expansion of facilities, and therefore eligible for partial funding from fair share community park impact funds. Criteria 1) Monroe County Code states "Each year, at the time the annual county budget is reviewed, the director of planning shall propose appropriations to be spent from the accounts." [Impact Fee Funds] [Section 9.5-492 (t)(3)(c)] MCC further states that the "proceeds from each account shall be used exclusively for the capital expansion of the county's community park facilities in the subdistrict from which the moneys have come, and in a manner consistent with the capital improvements plan of the comprehensive plan. [Sec 9.5-492(f)(3)(a] [Italics added] 2) Monroe County Land Use Regulations (LDR) state that capital improvements needed to correct existing community park deficiencies will be financed through a general revenue bond backed by ad valorem taxes. [LDR, Section J (7)] These LDRs further stipulate that,capital improvements needed to expand existing facilities to accommodate new growth will be financed through impact fees. [LDR, Section J (7)] [Italics added] 3) Monroe County LDR's identified deficiencies which existed in 1985, as well as projections of additional facilities needed because of anticipated ' population growth as follows: [LDR, Section J (3) - (7)] 23 V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) 2. Community Park Impact Funds not Expended in Accordance with LDR Ratios (continued) Table 2 • Area Served Identified. Projected Needs Deficiency • due to new growth • (Impact.fees) Subdistrict I (Upper Keys) $1,252,800 32% $2,700,000 68% Subdistrict II (Middle Keys) 580,000 21% 2,160,000 79% Subdistrict III (Lower Keys) 1,691,860 39% 2,700,000 61% Subdistrict IV (Key West) 1.398.380 53% 1.260.000 47% $4,923,040 $8,820,000 Effect As a result of not allocating community park capital expansion improvements between general revenues and Impact Fund, per subdistrict, in the ratio cited above, financial statements reflect that a limited amount of Community Park impact funds collected in FY 1987 have been utilized at September 30, 1992. Fair share community park impact funds from two subdistricts may be subject to refunding in the amount of $25,223.67. [Details shown in Exhibit B] Cause 1) Impact Fees for Community Park improvements were used to fund 100% of the improvements at the Islamorada park. However, U.S. Census data was not made available to demonstrate that need for acquisition of the new facilities was based solely on new population growth. Unless a community park was constructed as a need for an entire new subdivision, it would be unlikely that 100% funding by Impact Fees would be permissible. 2) According to Office of Management and Budget records, the Board of County Commissioners authorized the expenditure of Impact Fees in an amount not to exceed $25,000 for new playground equipment for Islamorada Park at the April 24, 1991, BOCC meeting. 24 • V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) 2. Community Park Impact Funds not Expended in Accordance with LDR Ratios (continued) 3) Although the BOCC approved and the County Attorney approved this use of Impact Funds, the Land Use Regulations restrict,the use of Impact Fees to improvements related to new growth and au allocation must be made between existing deficiencies at 1985 and needs related`to new population growth since 1986 as cited in the LDR. The total capital expenditures for community parks must be closely analyzed to isolate the capital expansion improvements from routine maintenance and replacement of equipment which does not increase capacity. According to the LDRs, only 79% of the capital expansion expenditures, in subdistrict II, are eligible to be. charged to the community park impact funds in accordance with the.LDR. Recommendation: 1) The Director, Division of Public Works should obtain written approval from the Planning Director""concerning the eligibility of specific capital expansion projects to be funded from Impact:Fees,,in whole or in part, prior to including such projects in the Community Park Impact Fund budget and departmental budgets. Director of Facilities Maintenance (Public Works) Response: "Regarding the Community Park Impact Fund, the Director of Growth Management Division inquired as to the method in which we obtain approval. We coordinate with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regarding all capital expansion projects, who in turn obtains written approval from the Planning Director concerning the eligibility of funding the project with impact fees. OMB takes the appropriate steps to receive Board approval and in turn provides us with an account number and an amount so we can proceed with the project. " 2) The Director of Purchasing should obtain written approval from the Planning Department before issuing purchase orders against Impact Fee Fund 311 to ensure the correct apportionment between fair share impact funds and other revenue sources. 25 • V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS.(continued) 2. Community Park Impact Funds not Expended in Accordance with LDR Ratios (continued) Director of Purchasing's Response: • "The Purchasing Department will require written approval from the Planning Department before issuing a purchase order(s)'against any of the following Impact Fee Fund Numbers 311, 312, 323, 314. The approval(s) shall insure the correct apportionment between fair share impact funds and other revenue sources. "The written approval(s) shall be in the form of a memo signed by the Planning Department Director or his designee stating that all conditions for correct apportionment have been met as to 'fair share" impact funds and other revenue sources. . This memo shall become a part of the documentation authorization the issuing of said purchase order(s). "This approval shall become effective upon action at the.direction of the - County Administration for the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida. " 3) The Director of Finance should identify specific accounting object codes to segregate capital expansion expenditures which qualify for matching community park impact funds. Clerk's Response: "There are no specific requirements on the assignment of object/project codes in the Uniform Accounting System Manual. Therefore, any object/project codes assigned by the Office of Management and Budget during the budgeting process relative to,these expenditures would be acceptable to the Finance Department subject to a five'digit limit. " 4) The Director, Division of Public Works, should identify those capital expansion costs which were paid out of other revenue sources and have that percentage attributable to new growth needs applied to the appropriate subdistrict's fair share community park impact funds. . 26 • V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) 2. CommunityPark ar Impact Funds not Expended in.Accordance with LDR Ratios --i (continued) • Director of Facilities Maintenance (Public Works) Response: "Capital expansion projects.,from the past years that were paid out of other revenue sources are listed below with the costs associated,with same. ... " [Auditor's note: A listing of ten projects for a total.of$981;690.76 was provided. This list is included in the full text of auditee response in Exhibit T.] Auditor's Comment: Our review of updated financial records for the fiscal year ended . September 30, 1992, did not indicate that changes were made to reflect a portion of the cost of the projects cited above as being expended from the Community Park fair share impact funds. 3. Library Facility Improvements Not Allocated in.Accordance with LDRs Ratios Condition 1) Expenditures were incurred for the use of Impact Fees for library facility expansion in FY90/91 and FY91/92 without the prior approval of the Planning Department concerning the allocation of the expenditure between other revenue sources and Impact Fee funds for new growth since 1985. The auditors did, however, review memoranda from the Planning Department addressing these issues for FY 1989-90. 2) There were expenditures of Impact Funds totaling $198,643.81 for capital outlays for library facilities in the period of October.1986 through September 30, 1992. A total of $151,643.81 has been expended from the Lower Keys library fair share impact funds which includes $143,858 for the addition to the Key West Library. [Details shown on Exhibit C] 3) According to Monroe County financial records, there was $1,377,182.21 in ' expenditures from other funding sources for capital improvements in community libraries facilities during the fiscal years October 1986 - July 1992. This includes a portion of the contract for $629,571.00 for an addition to the Key West library building. [Exhibit N] It appears that a larger percentage of the cost of the library addition could be eligible for funding from the Subdistrict I library fair share impact funds. 27 V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) 3. Library Facility Improvements Not Allocated in Accordance with LDRs Ratios 1 (continued) Criteria 1) Monroe County Code states that "Each year, at the time'the annual county budget is reviewed, the director of planning shall propose appropriations to be spent from the fund. The proceeds shall be spent for:.capital expansion of the county's library facilities in the subdistrict from which the moneys have come, and in a manner consistent with the capital improvements plan of the comprehensive plan." (Section 9.5-493 (f)(3)(c) and (a) [Italics added] 2) Monroe County Land Use Regulations (LDR) state that capital improvements needed to correct existing county library facility deficiencies will be financed through a general revenue bond backed,by ad valorem taxes. [LDR, Section I (4)] These LDR's further stipulate that capital improvements needed to expand existing facilities to accommodate new growth will be financed through impact fees. [LDR, Section I (3)] [Italics added]. r 3) The Monroe County LDRs identified deficiencies in Library facilities which existed in the base year of 1985, as well as projections of additional facilities needed because of anticipated population growth as follows: Table 3 Area Served Identified Deficiency Projected Needs (based on square footage) due to new growth (based on $75 s.f. cost) (based on $100 s.f.) Subdistrict I (Key West) $521,700 29% $1,260,000 71% Subdistrict II (Marathon) 130,200 21% 482,400 79% Subdistrict III (Upper Keys) 190,425 14%. . . 1,150,400 86% $1,123,100 $2,892,800 28 V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) 3. Library Facility Improvements Not Allocated in Accordance with LDRs Ratios (continued) Effect As a result of not allocating community library facility expenditures between other revenue sources and Impact funds for all qualifying capital expansion projects, financial statements reflect that only Key West and Key Largo have utilized community library impact funds :for facility_expansion at September 30, 1992. Actually, some of the expenditures made from other revenue. sources, as shown on Exhibit N, may have qualified for partial impact fee funding. [MCC, Section 9.5-492 (f)(4)(a) and (c)] [LDR, Section I] Cause • 1) The purchase orders or contracts were not split between the impact funds and other funding sources, according to the percentages stipulated in the Land Development Regulations, for fiscal years 1990/91 and 1992/92. 2) Regardless of the approval of the BOCC, management should adhere to Land Use Regulation requirements documenting the restriction of use of Impact Fees to improvements related to new growth. Recommendation: 1) The Director, Office of Management and Budget, should obtain written approval from the Planning Director concerning eligibility of capital expansion projects to be funded from Impact Funds, in whole or in part, prior to including such projects in the Library Impact Fund budget and the related Library budget. • 29 ' • . V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) 3. Library Facility Improvements Not Allocated in Accordance with LDRs Ratios . (continued) Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director's Response: • "Through a.coordinated effort with the planning Department, there now exists an IMPACT FEE EXPENDITURE APPROVAL FORM which must be properly completed prior to any expenditure of impact fees from Funds 1 _ 130, 131, 132, 133, or 134. [Auditor's note: Finance Department has• redesignated Impact Funds 310, 311, 312, 313, and 314 to Funds 130, 131, 132, 133, and 134, respectively,; effective OgtobeK 1.; 1992.] The proper completion of this form ensures that all departments involved in the approval process have completed their part of the,approval process. The Office of Management and Budget is the last department to sign off on the approval and takes the responsibility for providing completed copies to all involved departments. The proper completion of this form will therefore make the project a viable project for inclusion into the Monroe County Budget. A copy of the Approval Form is attached as reference. " Full text of auditee's response, including attachments, is included as Exhibit U. 2) The Director of Purchasing should obtain written approval from the Planning Department before issuing purchase orders against Impact Fee Fund 312 to ensure the correct apportionment between the fair share impact funds and other revenue sources. Director of Purchasing's Response: "The Purchasing Department will require written approval from the Planning Department before issuing a purchase order(s) against any of the following Impact Fee Fund Numbers 311, 312, 313, 314. The approval(s) shall insure the correct apportionment between fair share impact funds and other revenue sources. 3) The Director of Finance should provide unique object codes for those library capital expansion projects which qualify for matching impact funds. 30 N.J V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) • 3. Library Facility Improvements Not Allocated in Accordance with LDRs Ratios (continued) • 4) The Director, Library Department, should identify those library facility capital expansion costs which were paid out of other revenue source's and have that percentage attributable to new growth needs applied to the appropriate subdistrict's fair share library impact funds. Community Services Division Director's.response: • "Based upon the attached documentation from Planning and Legal staff we believed we were correctly budgeting and expending library impact fees in 1989. Also, we believed that we correctly budgeted and expended impact fees in FY92. This belief was ratified on March 22, 1992 by the attached memo from the Director of Planning titled "Impact fees expenditures. " In this memo Mr. Aghemo states "My staff has reviewed the proposed expenditures... and agrees that they meet the requirements of the Land Development Regulations" "Page 12 of that memo specifically states that the expenditures were ' justifiable and fundable with impact fees. "The auditing staff disagrees with the interpretation of these documents and reads the land plan a bit differently. Be that as it may, it is my understanding that there is a new procedure to expend impact fees which is consistent with the audit staffs interpretation. Library staff in the future will follow these new procedures to the letter if they wish to expend any impact fees in the future. " Full text of auditee response, including attachments, is included in Exhibit V.] Auditor comment: The auditor has not received any information indicating that an attempt has been made by the Department to identify those library facility additions which might have qualified for additional Library fair share impact funds. 31 • • V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) 4. Library Books and Other Resources not Purchased in Accordance with LDRs Established Ratios Condition • 1) Expenditures totalling $178452.51 were incurred for the use of Impact Fees for library books and materials without the prior approval of the Planning Department or the allocation of the total expenditure between the general revenue funds and the library impact funds in accordance with ratios established in theLand Development Regulations. ;[Details shown on Exhibit C] 2) As part of the audit test of transactions, we were unable to locate any documentation in OMB, the Planning Department, or the Finance Department which indicated that the Planning Department had approved these expenditures or determined the allocation between existing deficiencies•and new population growth for the past four fiscal years. There was no segregation of the replacement books (not eligible for partial impact funding) and the additional books (eligible for partial impact funding.) Also, there was no indication on the invoices as to whether the materials were considered to be correcting the 1985 identified deficiency or needed because of new population growth. We noted a county attorney's opinion dated in February 1992, that the purchase.of books probably qualified as a capital improvement expenditure within the meaning of the Land Use Plan Regulations. According to the LDRs, films and periodicals were also specifically cited as deficiencies and eligible for impact fee funding. 3) We noted on the sample of invoices selected for audit review that the vendor invoices are dated prior to the purchase order issuance. Although • the books are ordered from a single source (the publisher), this practice may not have adversely impacted the expenditure of funds since competitive bids would not likely have been obtained for small purchases. Regardless, bypassing the Purchasing Department by placing orders for books and other materials is not in compliance with the budgetary controls in the Monroe County purchasing procedures. 4. 32 • • • V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) • 4. Library Books and Othr Resources not Purchased in Accordance with LDRs Established Ratios (continued) 4) Our review of Finance Department records for the period beginning October 1, 1986, through September 30, 1992, indicates'$556,940.58 had been expended for library books, films, periodicals, and other materials from revenue sources other than impact fee funds. However, the Finance records were not segregated to distinguish between replacement of the • number of books and films which existed,at 1985 and the capital expansion of library materials (resources) which would include only. additional volumes over the 1985 level (net increase in volumes). [Detail in Exhibit 0] Criteria 1) Monroe County Code states "Each year, at the time the annual county budget is.reviewed, the director of planning shall propose appropriations to be spent from the fund. (MCC Section 9.5-493 (f)(3)(c) The proceeds shall be spent for the capital expansion of the county's library facilities, in the subdistrict from which the moneys have come, and in a manner consistent with the capital improvements plan of the comprehensive plan. (MCC Section 9.5-493 (f)(3)(a) [Italics added] 2) Monroe County Land Use Regulations (LDR) state that capital expansion improvements needed to correct the existing county library resources (i.e., non real property items such as books, video material, etc.) deficiencies will be financed through general revenues. [LDR, Section I (4)] These LDRs further stipulate that Library resources (i.e., books, videos, etc.) needed to expand existing facilities to accommodate new growth will be financed through impact fees. [LDR, Section I (3] [Italics added] 3) The Monroe County LDRs identified deficiencies in the number of books, periodicals, and films at the Monroe County libraries in the base year of 1985, as well as projections of additional books, periodicals and films needed because of anticipated population growth as follows: 33 • V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) . ' • • 4. Library Books and Other Resources not Purchased in Accordance with LDRs Established Ratios (continued) Table 4 • Area Served Identified Deficiency Projected Needs Additional Books . due to new growth (at $16 each) . (Impact Fees) Subdistrict I (Key West) .. $1,032,576 44%: $1,326,842 :56% Subdistrict II (Marathon) 641,808 ; 55%- 524,566 45% Subdistrict III (Upper Keys) 385,760 24% . 1,234,272 76% $2,060,144 $3,085,680 Table 5 Area Served Identified Deficiency Projected Needs Additional Films due to new growth (at $500 each) (Impact Fees) Subdistrict I (Key West) $ 0 0% $26,466 100% Subdistrict II (Marathon) .7,250 33% . 10,464 59% Subdistrict III (Upper Keys) 7,750 24% 24,670 76% $15,000 $61,550 Table 6 • Area Served Identified Deficiency Projected Needs Additional Periodicals due to new growth (at $27.10 each) (Impact Fees) Subdistrict I (Key West) $ 54 02% $2,247.40 98% Subdistrict II (Marathon) . 61 33% 939.50 67% Subdistrict III (Upper Keys) 27 0.1% 2,210.60 99% $542 $5226.50 • 34 • V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) 4. Library Books and Other Resources not Purchased in Accordance with LDRs Established Ratios (continued) The LDRs state "It is the policy of the Comprehensive Plan that there should be four library books, .6 square feet of library space, .001 films, and .004 periodicals for each Monroe County.resident." : Therefore, -the deficiencies cited in the LDR refer to'additional books, films and periodicals needed by the libraries, not replacement volumes or renewal periodical subscriptions. For example, a new subscription to the New • York Times would qualify for matching Impact Funds but not a renewal to the-Wall Street Journal; an additional set,of encyclopedias would qualify for matching impact funds, but not a replacement set of encyclopedias. The assumptions used in the LDR were that a film would cost $500; a periodical, $27.10, and a book, $16.] [Italics added] Effect 1) As a result of not allocating community library capital expansion of the number of volumes, films, and periodicals between general revenues and fair share impact funds, for all qualifying purchases of additional.library books, films and periodicals as defined in the LDR, financial statements do not reflect that the library impact funds have been expended as stipulated in the LDR and illustrated in the above tables. Unless the Library Department takes action to reclassify all purchases made,from other - revenue sources for "additional" books, films, and periodicals, which are eligible for partial impact fee funding, the fair share community library impact funds from certain subdistricts could be subject to refunding in future years. [MCC, Section 9.5-493 (f)(4)(a)] 2) Expenditures for books, films and periodicals from general revenues during the period of October 1, 1986 through September 30, 1992, totaled $556,940.58 (74%). [Exhibit 0] Expenditures and encumbrances for books, films, and periodicals from impact funds during this same period totaled $198,643.81 (26%) [Exhibit C], for a combined total expenditure from all sources of $755,584.39. However, we are unable to determine what portion of these expenditures funded from general revenues were for "additional" books, films, and periodicals within the meaning of the LDRs. 35 • • • V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) , 4. Library Books and Other Resources not Purchased in Accordance with LDRs Established Ratios (continued) Cause According to the County Librarian, Monroe County libraries make numerous small purchases of books, publications, videos and other materials throughout the year. Instead of dividing each purchase order into separate funding ` categories for both general fund,expenditures and impact fund expenditures, the operating funds have been utilized first and then the Impact Fee Funds. The practice of obtaining purchase orders after the books and related vendor invoices have been received appears to have contributed to lack of • apportionment of the,costs between fair share impact`funds and general revenues. Further, none of the purchase orders examined differentiated between replacement volumes and capital expansion volumes as required in the LDRs. Recommendations: 1) The Director, Office of Management and Budget, should obtain written approval from the Director of Planning concerning the eligibility of library book purchases from Impact Fee Funds prior to including such items in the Library Impact Fund budget and the related Library Department's budgets. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director's Response: "Through a coordinated effort with the planning Department, there now exists an IMPACT FEE EXPENDITURE APPROVAL FORM which must be properly completed prior to any expenditure of impact fees from Funds 130, 131, 132, 133, or 134. [Auditor's Note: Finance Department has changed Impact Fund numbers 310, 311, 312, 313, and 314 to numbers 130, 131, 132, 133 and 134, respectively.] The proper completion of this form ensures that all departments involved in the approval process have completed their part of the approval process., The Office of Management and Budget is the last department to sign off on the approval and takes the responsibility for providing completed copies to all involved departments. The proper completion of this form will therefore make the project a viable project for inclusion into the Monroe County Budget. A copy of the Approval Form is attached as a reference. " � c 36 V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) 4. Library Books and Other Resources not Purchased in Accordance with LDRs Established Ratios (continued) 2) That the Director, Library Department, request an opinion from the county attorney as to specifically which library resource materials qualify for impact fee funding since the Land Development Regulations referenced only books, periodicals, and films. Community Services Division Director's Response: "Based upon the attached documentation'from-Planning and Legal staff we believed we were correctly budgeting and expending library'impact fees in 1989. Also we believed that we correctly budgeted and expended impact fees in FY92. This belief was ratified on March 22, 1992 by the attached memo from the Director of Planning titled "Impact fees expenditures". In this memo Mr. Aghemo states "My staff has reviewed the proposed expenditures... and agrees that they meet the requirements of the Land Development Regulations" "Page 12 of that memo specifically states that the expenditures were justifiable and fundable with impact fees. "The auditing staff disagrees with the interpretation of these documents and reads the land plan a bit differently. Be that as it may, it is my understanding that there is a new procedure to expend impact fees which is consistent with the audit staffs interpretation. Library staff in the future will follow these new procedures to the letter if they wish to expend any impact fees in the future. " Full text of auditee's response, including attachments, is included as Exhibit Auditors' Comment: We have not been furnished a recent legal opinion which relates to the specific issue in this recommendation, the eligibility of materials other than "books" for purchase with impact fees. This issue was originally raised in the County Attorney's memorandum of February 6,'1992. 3) The Director of Finance should make available unique object codes for the capital expansion of books, films, and periodicals which qualify for matching impact funds. 37 • V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) • 4. Library Books and Other Resources not Purchased in Accordance with LDRs Established Ratios (continued) Clerk's Response: "There are no specific requirements on the assignment of object/project codes in the Uniform Accounting System Manual. Therefore, any . object/project codes assigned by the Office of Management and Budget - during the budgeting process relative to these expenditures would be acceptable to the Finance Department subject to a five digit limit. " , 4) The Director of Purchasing should ensure written approval,exists from.the Planning Department before issuing,purchase orders against Impact Fee Fund 312 in order to correctly apportion expenditures between the Impact Fee Funds and the related library department capital improvement expenditure accounts funded by general revenues. Director of Purchasing's Response: "The Purchasing Department will require written approval from the Planning Department before issuing a purchase(s) against any of the following Impact Fee Fund Numbers 311, 312, 313, 314. The approval(s) shall insure the correct apportionment between fair share impact funds and other revenue sources. ... Full text of auditee's response, including exhibits, is included as Exhibit . 5) The Director, Library Department, should make a determination whether any materials paid out of other revenue sources should be reclassified and have that percentage attributable to new growth needs applied to the appropriate subdistrict's fair share community park impact funds. Community Services Division Director's Response: "Based upon the,attached documentation from Planning and Legal staff we believe we were correctly budgeting and expending library staff impact fees in 1989. Also, we believed that we correctly budgeted and expended impact fees in FY92. This belief was ratified on March 22, 1992 by the attached memo from the Director of Planning titled "Impact Fees expenditures. " In this memo Mr. Aghemo states "My staff has reviewed the proposed expenditures... and agrees that they meet the requirements of the Land Development Regulations" 38 • V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) 4. Library Books and Other Resources not Purchased in Accordance with LDRs Established Ratios (continued) "Page 12 of that memo specifically states that the expenditures were justifiable and fundable with impact fees. "The auditing staff disagrees with the interpretation of these documents and reads the land plan a bit differently. Be that.as it may, it is my understanding that there is a new procedure to expend impact fees which is consistent with the audit staffs interpretation. Library staff in the future will follow these new procedures.to the letter if they wish to expend any impact fee revenues in the future. " Full text of auditee's response, including attachnients, including as Exhibit • Auditors' Comment: The auditor has not received any information indicating that an attempt has been made by the Department to identify those Library book and material purchases which may have qualified for additional Library fair share impact funds. 5. Limited Expenditures of Solid Waste Fair Share Impact Fee Funds Condition 1) One expenditure of $29,535 for recycling containers was made from Solid Waste Fair Share Impact Funds from the time that the Impact Fees were initially collected in October 1986 through September 30, 1992. Solid Waste impact fees in the amount of $357,627.17 plus $85,909.35 in earned interest were collected during this time period. (Exhibit D] However, there appears to have been capital expansion expenditures made to county recycling centers which could have qualified for partial funding through the use of Impact Fees instead of special district funds. The projects would be for such items as Recycling Containers throughout the county and the necessary support vehicles. • 39 • V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) • . I ° 5. Limited Expenditures of Solid Waste Fair Share Impact Fee Funds (continued) 2) Financial records reviewed for the period October 1, 1986, through September 30, 1992, identified $398,421.30 in recycling expenditures - •-_ made from revenues other than fair share impact funds. By using the "buy-in" approach, based on the population growth since 1985, 10% of these purchases could have :been made from solid waste fair share impact funds. [Exhibit P] Criteria. 1) Monroe County Code states that the funds collected pursuant to these provisions shall be used solely for the purpose of construction or expansion of solid waste facilities in Monroe County, including but not limited to acquisition of trucks and housing building equipment. (MCC Section 9.5- 494 (e) 2) Monroe County Land Use Regulations (LDRs) require that financing needed for new landfill sites come from three sources: Impact Fees, Service Charges and Special Assessments. (LDR, Section D (6] r 3) The Monroe County LDRs identified no existing deficiencies in solid waste facilities in Monroe County in the base year of 1985; however, projections were made for additional facilities needed because of anticipated additional population growth as follows: [LDR, Section D (4) and (5)] Table 7 Area Served Identified Projected Needs Deficiency due to new growth (Impact Fees) Subdistrict I (Upper Keys) $ 0 0% $7,614,000 100% Subdistrict II (Middle Keys) 0 0% 7,614,000 100% Subdistrict III (Lower Keys) 0 0% 20,524.000 100% $ 0 $20,524,000 These LDR's emphasized the purchase of new land for additional landfill operations and the related equipment but did not limit the use of solid waste impact funds for these purposes. [LDR, Section F (6)] 40 V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) . 5. Limited Expenditures of Solid Waste Fair Share Impact Fee Funds(continued) 4) A memorandum from the Director of Planning to the County Administrator,.dated September 5, 1991, indicates approval for new "roll- off containers for recycling" in several locations in the County to be paid from Impact Fees in full, since the County had already made capital improvements to recycling program in excess of $300,000.from other funding sources. The amount requested ($29,500) was less than 10% of the $300,000 already spent. 5) Recycling equipment in Monroe County was not specified as a deficiency in the existing solid waste system in the Land Use Plan of 1986. In the absence of a deficiency being cited in the Land Development Regulations, a proration of costs between the other funding sources and the fair share impact fee funds based on a 10% population growth, appears appropriate. This "buy-in approach" was previously authorized by the Director of Planning for bike path funding, Finding.B.1. 6) The County Attorney's Office issued a memorandum subsequent to the expenditure of the Impact Fee Funds which concurred with the use of those funds for the purchase of new roll-off containers for recycling. Effect As a result of not apportioning the cost of recycling capital improvements between the solid waste fair share impact fund (10%) and the appropriate capital expenditure funds for various countrywide recycling equipment (90%), the solid waste fair share impact funds did not appear to be utilized on a timely basis. Although recycling containers and equipment were purchased in FY 1990 and 1991, solid waste fair share impact funds were only used for this purpose in 1992. Since the recycling equipment purchases from Impact Funds are greater than the Impact Funds collected in FY 1987, solid waste impact funds will not be subject to refunding in FY 1993. [MCC, Section 9.5-493 (f)(4)(a)] [Detail shown in Exhibit D] 41 I • V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) • 5. Limited Expenditures of Solid Waste Fair Share Impact Fee Funds(continued) • Cause Subsequent to the adoption of the Land Use Plan of 1986, the Board of County Commissioners decided to haul solid waste out of the county instead of purchasing additional landfill sites as originally proposed in the Land Use Plan of 1986. In September 1991, the Division of Growth Management interpreted the LDRs and MCC to allow the purchase of recycling capital equipment. (MCC section 9.5-494) This alternative use of Solid Waste Impact Fee Funds was not implemented until after the BOCC decided.to haul solid waste out of Imo , the county instead of purchasing additional landfill sites.• The County Attorney has subsequently approved the purchase of recycling equipment as eligible for Impact Funds. Thus, the utilization of the Impact Fee funds was delayed but not as a result of lack of planning by the Division of Environmental Management (Recycling Department). Recommendation: 1) The Director, Division of Growth Management, should consult with the County Attorney's Office about updating the Land Use Regulations and related Monroe County Code sections to consider the BOCC decisions to haul solid waste out of the county and implement a county-wide recycling - program. Growth Management Division Director's Response: This consultation will take place with the County's consulting law firm. 2) The Director of Purchasing should ensure written approval exists from the Planning Department before issuing purchase orders against Impact Fee Fund 313 to ensure the correct apportionment between fair share impact funds and other revenue sources. Director of Purchasing's Response: "The Purchasing Department will require written approval from the Planning Department before issuing a purchase(s) order against any of the following Impact Fee Fund Numbers: 311, 312, 313, 314. The approval(s) shall insure the correct apportionment between fair share impact funds and other revenue sources. ... " 42 • • V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) , , . • 5. Limited Expenditures of Solid Waste Fair Share Impact Fee Funds (continued) 3) The Director of Finance should identify specific accounting object codes to segregate capital expansion.expenditures which qualify for matching,fair share solid waste impact funds. Clerk's Response: • "There are no specific requirements on the assignment of object/project codes in the Uniform Accounting System Manual. Therefore, any. object/project codes assigned by the Office;of Management and Budget during the budgeting process relative to these expenditures would be acceptable to the Finance Department subject to a five digit limit. " 4) The Director, Division of Environmental Management, should identify those capital expansion costs for recycling equipment which were paid out of other revenue sources and have that percentage attributable to new growth needs applied to the appropriate subdistrict's fair share solid waste impact funds. . Director of Environmental Management's Response: "Pursuant to (this) recommendation.. enclosed (Attachment 1) is a list of capital equipment purchases with corresponding funding sources. "All items listed with the exception of seven (7) multi-material recycling , containers (purchased in July of 1992 from impact fees at a cost of $29,736), and fourteen (14) multi-material and open top containers • (purchased from an equipment note at a cost of$43,120) were paid out of "other revenue sources" - i.e., regular budget, and grant monies. "Of the total $1,091,802.82, items totalling $721,487.82 were purchased from regular budget appropriations. Assuming that 10% is still appropriate for the "buy-in" approach (page 27, 5.2), $27,148.78 of the funds spent from the regular budget could.be applied to solid waste impact fees. (See Attachment 2.) "Although our impact fee consultant informs us that grant monies can be considered an "other revenue source", to be conservation, only the regular budget was used in the calculations to determine amounts applicable to impact fees. " Full text of auditee's response is included as Exhibit W. 43 V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) 6. Police Facility Improvements Funded from Impact Funds Contrary to Provisions of LDRs Condition 1) Impact Fees were expended for equipment for the Plantation Key jail facilities, in the amount of $31,757.91, without documentation of the allocation of total expenditures between the general revenue funds and • impact funds for capital expansion in accordance with the Land Development Regulations. These expenditures were for new equipment and furnishings for the Plantation Key jail; however, the Lower Keys and Middle Keys Police Facility Impact Funds were also,used for these Plantation.Key jail expenditures because prisoners from the lower and middle Keys were sent to the Plantation Key jail to meet jail population limits set by a Federal judge. [Details shown in Exhibit E] 2) Our review of Finance Department records for the period beginning October 1, 1986 through September 30, 1992, indicates $8,705,683.45 has been expended for police facility capital improvements. Not all capital improvements (i.e., new root) are considered capital expansion as defined in the Land Development Regulations. [Exhibit Q] Criteria 1) Monroe County Code states "Each year; at the time the annual county budget is reviewed, the director of planning shall propose appropriations to be spent from the fund. [MCC Section 9.5-495 (g)(3)(c)] The MCC further states that "Proceeds from each account shall be used exclusively for the capital expansion of the county sheriff's department in the subdistrict from which the moneys have come, and in a manner consistent with the capital improvements plan of the comprehensive plan." (MCC, Section 9.5-495 (g)(3)(a) [Italics added] 2) Monroe County Land Use Regulations (LDR) state that fmancing needed to correct the existing police office deficiencies (as of 1985) of $1,040,475 will be financed by a general revenue bond backed by the county's ad valorem taxes. [LDR, Section F (5)] These LDR's further stipulate that an estimated $6,341,500 cost to accommodate new growth will come from impact fees. [LDR, Section F (5] [Underlining added] 44 V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) 6. Police Facility Improvements Funded from Impact Funds Contrary to Provisions of LDRs (continued) 3) The Monroe County LDR identified deficiencies in the police office facilities in Monroe County in the base year of 1985, as well as projections of additional facilities needed because of anticipated additional population growth as follows: [LDR, Section F (3) and (4)] Table 8 Area Served Identified Projected Needs Deficiency due to new growth (at $75 s.f.) (Impact Funds) Office Facilities Subdistrict I (Key West) $ 878,325 20% $3,562,500 80% Subdistrict II (Marathon) 33,750 10% 315,000 90% Subdistrict III (Plantation) 128.400 09% 1,230,000 91% $1,040,475 $5,107,500 Jail Facilities Subdistrict I (Key West) $ 0 0% $234,000 100% Subdistrict II (Marathon) 0 0% 0 0% Subdistrict III (Plantation) 0 0% 0 0% $ 0 0% $234,000 The Land Development Regulations specified police office deficiencies at 1985 but no jail deficiencies were specified that would not be corrected by the jail expansion in progress at the date of the Monroe County Land Use Plan (1986). Consequently, all additional jail facilities identified were apparently considered to benefit new population growth and eligible for funding entirely from impact fees ($234,000). Effect As a result of the lack of documentation in the Planning Department and the ', Finance Department, we cannot verify that these expenditures for 'ail facilities from police facility impact funds were in accordance with the LDRs nor that these expenditures should have been apportioned to all impact fee subdistricts since the facility was located in Plantation Key. Also, it appears that a portion of the cost of the Cudjoe Sheriff's station was eligible for funding from the police facility fair share impact fees. 45 • V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) • 6. Police Facility Improvements Funded. from Impact Funds Contrary to Provisions of LDRs (continued) Cause Impact Fees for police jail facility capital improvements (Plantation) were utilized to fund $31,757.91 of the cost of new equipment for the Plantation Key jail facilities. The auditors were unable to locate documentation in OMB, • Planning Department, or Finance Department records to support the Monroe County Sheriff Department's request for reimbursement from Impact Fee Funds for the $31,757.91 acquisition costs of new furnishings for the jail in Plantation Key as being eligible for police facility fair share impact funds, according to the LDRs provisions. • Recommendation: 1) The Director of Planning should establish written procedures to ensure coordination of the Impact Fee Fund budget with the Sheriff Department's operation budget for capital expansion improvements. Division of Growth Management Director's Response: "The Planning Department has promulgated such procedure and it is currently being utilized by County Departments. (SEE EXHIBIT "B", ATTACHED)" Full text of auditee's response, including attachments, is included as Exhibit R. 2) The Director of Purchasing should obtain written approval from the Planning Department before issuing purchase orders against Impact Fee Fund 314 in order to ensure the correct apportionment between fair share impact funds and other revenue sources. Director of Purchasing's Response: "The Purchasing Department will require written approval from the Planning Department before issuing a purchase order(s) against any of the following Impact Fee Fund Numbers 311, 312; 313, 314. The approval(s) shall insure the correct apportionment between fair share impact funds and other revenue sources. ... " 46 V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) 6. Police Facility Improvements Funded from Impact Funds Contrary to Provisions of LDRs (continued) 3) The Director of Finance should obtain written approval from the Planning Department before transferring funds to reimburse the Sheriff Department for capital expansion to ensure correct apportionment between fair share impact funds and other revenue sources. • Clerk's Response: "The Finance Department shall review supporting documentation for. reimbursement to the Sheriff Department for capital'expansion to include written approval from the Planning Department to ensure correct apportionment between fair share impact funds and other revenue sources. 4) The Director of Finance should identify object codes to segregate those capital expansion expenditures which qualify for matching impact funds. Clerk's Response: "There are no specific requirements on the assignment of object/project codes in the Uniform Accounting System Manual. Therefore, any object/project codes assigned by the Office of Management and Budget during the budgeting process relative to these expenditures would be acceptable to the Finance Department subject to a five digit.limit. " 5) The Director of Planning should request the Sheriff's Department to identify those capital expansion costs which may have been paid out of other revenues sources and have that percentage attributable to new growth needs applied to the appropriate subdistrict's fair share police facility impact funds. Division of Growth Management Director's Response: • "A written request will be sent to Sheriff Roth to coordinate this item." Auditor comment: • The auditor has not received any information indicating that an attempt has been made by the Sheriff's Department to identify those police facility capital expansion costs which may have qualified for the use of additional Police Facility fair share impact funds. 47 V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) • 7. Purchase of Police Vehicles from Impact Fiuids without Adequate Documentation of Adherence to LDRs Ratios Condition • 1) Expenditures were incurred for the purchase of new police vehicles from Impact Funds, in the amount of$153,052.29, without documentation that the additional vehicles needed were the result of population increases since 1986 rather than to correct existing deficiencies in equipment which were identified in 1985. [Exhibit E] 2) Monroe County financial statements do not provide an itemized breakdown of the Sheriff's Department expenditures for police vehicles from revenues other than impact funds. Instead, the financial records 'indicate a combined amount for the Sheriff's Department capital outlays of $7,990,681.20. [Exhibit Q] Criteria 1) Monroe County Code states "Each year, at the time the annual county budget is reviewed, the director of planning shall propose appropriations to be spent from the fund. (MCC Section 9.5-495 (g)(3)(c) The proceeds shall be spent for the capital expansion of the county sheriff's department in the subdistrict from which the moneys have come, and in a manner consistent with the capital improvements plan of the comprehensive plan. (MCC Section 9.5-495 (g)(3)(a) [Italics added] 2) The Monroe County Land Development Regulations (LDRs) identified deficiencies in the police vehicles in Monroe County in the base year of 1985, as well as projections of additional facilities needed because of anticipated population growth as follows: [LDR, Section F (3) and (4)] [Underlining added] 48 I~, V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) 7. Purchase of Police Vehicles from'Impact Funds without'Adequate Documentation of Adherence to LDR Ratios (continued) • Table 9 Area Served Identified Projected Needs Deficiency due to new growth (Impact Fees) Police Vehicles Subdistrict I (Key West) $ 84,000 46% ' $ 98,000 54% Subdistrict II (Marathon) 98,000 50.% 98,000 50% Subdistrict III (Plantation) 98.000 26% 280.000 74% $ 280,000 $ 476,000 3) Monroe County LDRs identified a deficit in police vehicles in 1985 of 20 vehicles. These LDR's require that funds needed to eliminate the existing vehicle deficiencies (as of 1985) of$280,000 will be financed by a general revenue bond backed by the county's ad valorem taxes. [LDR, Section F (4) and (5)] These LDRs further stipulated that an estimated $784,000 cost to purchase an additional 34 police vehicles to accommodate new population growth will come solely from impact fees. [LDR, Section F (4) and (5] The LDR further states: "Replacement cost expense of existing vehicles in 1985 will come out of the County's general revenue fund and be paid by ad valorem taxes. " [Italics added] Effect Police Facility Fair Share Impact Fees were utilized to fund the acquisition of new police vehicles. The auditors were not able to obtain assurance that the acquisition of these new vehicles were apportioned between general revenues and impact funds as specified in the LDRs. Nor were the auditors able to confirm that the purchase of these vehicles were to remedy the deficiencies which existed at 1985 rather than the 34 vehicles identified as needed to anticipated population growth (eligible 100% impact funding). • 49 • V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) • 7. Purchase of Police Vehicles from Impact Funds without Adequate Documentation of Adherence to LDR Ratios (continued) Cause • 1) The County Sheriff's Department made a decision to expend funds for the acquisition of additional police vehicles in the three districts and requested reimbursement from the Monroe County Finance Department for use of Impact Fee Funds without documentation from the Planning Department as to what percentage of these new acquisitions was attributable to new growth rather than to correct the deficiencies of police vehicles which existed in 1985. • Recommendation: 1) The Director of Planning should establish written procedures to ensure coordination of the Impact Fund budget with the Sheriff Department's operating budget for capital improvements to identify which police vehicles are needed due to correct deficiencies which existed at 1985, versus to accommodate new population growth, and the specific district to be served r-- by these vehicles. Division of Growth Management Director's Response: "A written request will be sent to Sheriff Roth to coordinate this item. " 2) The Director of Purchasing should obtain written approval from the Planning Department before issuing purchase orders against Impact Fee Fund 314 to ensure correct apportionment between impact funds and other revenue sources. Director of Purchasing's Response:. "The Purchasing Department will require written approval from the Planning Department before issuing a purchase order(s) against any of the following Impact Fee Fund Numbers 311, 312, 313, 314. The approval(s) shall insure the correct apportionment between fair share impact funds and other revenue sources. " • 3) The Director of Finance should obtain written approval from the Planning Department before transferring funds to reimburse the Sheriff Department for capital expansion improvements to ensure correct apportionment between fair share impact funds and other revenue sources. r-, 50 -Z V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) . • 7. Purchase of Police Vehicles from Impact Funds without Adequate r Documentation of Adherence to LDR Ratios (continued) Clerk's Response: "The Finance Department shall review supporting documentation for reimbursement to the Sheriff Department for capital expansion to include written approval from the Planning Department to ensure correct apportionment between fair share impact funds and other revenue sources. 4) The Director of Finance should identify specific object codes to segregate the purchase of police vehicles which,may qualify for matching police facility fair share impact funds from routine replacement of vehicles. Clerk's Response: "There are no specific requirements on the assignment of object/project codes in the Uniform Accounting System Manual. Therefore, any object/project codes assigned by the Office of Management and Budget during the budgeting process relative to these expenditures would be acceptable to the Finance Department subject to a five digit limit." 5) The Director of Planning should request that the Sheriff's Department identify those capital expansion costs which were paid out of other revenue sources and have that percentage attributable to new growth needs applied to the appropriate subdistrict's fair share police facility impact funds. Division of Growth Management Director's Response: "A written request will be sent to Sheriff Roth to coordinate this item. " Auditor Comment: The auditor has not received any information indicating that an attempt has been made to identify those police facility capital expansion costs which may have qualified for the use of additional Police Facility fair share impact funds. 51 V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) 8. Refund of Certain Impact Fees Paid Not in Accordance with Provisions of MCC Condition The Monroe County Planning Department assessed a mental health center in the middle Keys $19,000 in various Impact fees in accordance with the requirements of MCC (Sections 9.5-491 - 9.5-495.) Subsequently, the BOCC approved the refund of the Impact Fees to this mental health facility in exchange for "in-kind services". to Monroe County residents on August 8, 1990. (Monroe County Resolution 377-1990). Criteria The Monroe County Code (Sections 9.5-491 - 9.5-495) does not provide for an exchange of Monroe County impact fees for "in kind services." The only entities which are "exempt" from the Impact fees are publicly owned and operated government and/or utility facilities and affordable housing. The r -. criteria for credits against the Transportation Impact Fee, Solid Waste Impact Fee, and Police Facility Impact Fee requires either (1) donation of land for roadways or construction of roadway; (2) donation of land for solid waste disposal or construction of solid waste disposal facilities; or (3) donation of land or construction of police facilities. Effect The refund of $19,000 to the mental hbath center resulted in the County being in non-compliance with the provisions of the MCC and the Land Development Regulations. Cause The Director, Division of Growth Management, appears to have initiated a request for refund of these fair share impact fees in response to action taken by the BOCC rather than request an opinion from the county attorney as to the interpretation of the MCC as to eligibility of this refund. Recommendation: 1) The Director of Planning should obtain a written opinion from the County Attorney concerning corrective actions to be taken regarding this refund of Impact Funds which was made contrary to the provisions of the Monroe County Code. 52 • V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) • 8. Refund of Certain Impact Fees Paid Not in Accordance with Provisions of MCC (continued) Division of Growth Management Director's Response: "A written opinion will be requested from the Growth Management consulting law firm. " Auditor comment: • It would appear more appropriate that the.Monroe.County Attorney's Office be requested to take necessary actions to secure the County's interest in the relevant properties (for example, by means a lein placed on the property until the necessary deed restrictions have been filed). 2) The Director of Finance should obtain a written opinion concerning the refund of Impact Funds from the County Attorney for any reasons other than an applicant qualifying for affordable housing subsequent to the payment of Impact Fees. Clerk's Response: "The Finance Department shall review supporting documentation for refund of Impact Funds for any reasons other than an applicant qualifying for affordable housing subsequent to the payment of impact fees to include written approval from the County Attorney. " 9. Fair Share Impact Fee Funds Not Deposited on a Timely Basis Condition Deposits of fair share impact fees were not being made on a timely basis at the Marathon office of the Monroe County Building Department. Instead of depositing fair share impact fees on the date payment was received, the checks were apparently allowed to accumulate in the office and a deposit was made once or twice a month during 1990 and 1991. , 53 • V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) • 9. Fair Share Impact Fee Funds Not Deposited on a Timely Basis (continued) Criteria Sound financial practices dictate that all County funds received should be. deposited promptly in order to safeguard the county assets and maximize the interest earnings on County funds on deposit. • Cause There appears to have been a lack of supervision of this function of the clerical work performed at the Marathon office of the Monroe County Building Department. In addition, there appears to have been a lack of communication between the Finance Department, a part of the Clerk of the Circuit Court's offices, to the County Administrator when such lapses in deposit frequency were noticed. Recommendation: 1) The County Administrator should establish written procedures for all county departments requiring prompt deposit of fair share impact funds. County Administrator's Response: "The Monroe County Building Official has written a memorandum addressed to the Assistant Building Officials and Building Office Coordinators dated February 14, 1992, which directed that all building deposit receipts are to be deposited daily. The content of this memorandum has been reemphasized. " 2) The Director of Finance should establish written procedures for notifying the County Administration when irregularities in deposits are noted. Clerk's Response: "The Finance Department has implemented a procedure whereby County Administration will be notified when irregularities in deposits are noted. " 54 • V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) 9. Fair Share Impact Fee Funds Not Deposited on a Timely Basis (continued) Corrective Action Taken The Monroe County Building Official wrote a memorandum addressed to the Assistant Building Officials and Building Office Coordinators dated February 14, 1992, which directed that all building deposits receipts should be deposited daily. C. Potential Refunds of Fair Share Impact Funds as of December 31, 1992 Methodology: The Impact Fund revenues, according to the Monroe County Financial Statements for the fiscal years ended September 30, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, and 1991 were obtained. The Impact Fee refunds were subtracted from the related appropriate Impact Fee Fund balances. The expenditures of the five Impact Funds were obtained from the financial statements for the fiscal years ended September 30, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, and 1991 and 1992. These expenditures were then subtracted from the Impact Fee revenues collected, on a first in, first spent basis, as specified in the Monroe County Code.. These revenues and expenditures are summarized, for each fair share impact fund, by subdistrict, in Exhibits A - E. Condition 1) Based on the fair share impact fund expenditures as recorded in Finance Department records, as of September 30, 1992, it appears that $601,283.06 is potentially refundable to individuals who paid fair share impact fees in the fiscal year beginning in October 1986 and ending on September 30, 1987. Additional fair share impact funds not expended or encumbered within six years of the date of receipt by Monroe County, will become potentially refundable on a quarterly basis during the calendars years 1993 -. 1998 as the six year anniversary of the date of receipt lapses. 2) These findings are summarized in columnar form on Exhibits A - E on a per subdistrict basis since the impact funds must be expended in the subdistricts where the moneys were collected in most instances. 55 • V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) C. Potential Refunds of Fair Share Impact Fees as of December 31, 1992 (Continued) Criteria 1) The Monroe County Code, states that "any fair share :.._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. Fair share ... fees collected shall be deemed to be spent or encumbered on the basis of the first fee collected shall be the first fee spent for ... improvements."1° • [MCC , Sections 9.5-492`- 9.5-495 (f)(4)(a)] Fair share impact fees were first assessed and collected in October 1986; consequently any fee payer may request a refund of any unspent or unencumbered fair share impact fees beginning in October 1992. The potential amount of impact fees to be refunded are reported in Exhibit A. 2) The Monroe County Code states the refund of fair share ... fees shall be undertaken through the submission of a refund application to be submitted within one (1) year following the end of the sixth year from the date on which the fair share ... fee was paid or within three (3) months of noncommencement. The refund application shall include the following information: (i) A notarized sworn statement that the fee payer paid the fair share park fee for the property and the amount paid;-and (ii) A copy of the receipt issued by the county for the payment of the fee." [MCC, Section 9.5-492 (f) c] 11 Effect In accordance with the provisions of the MCC enacted in 1986, Monroe County may be required to refund fair share impact fees previously collected instead of using those funds to partially fund needed capital expansion improvements. Cause County management has not appropriated impact fee funds and other funding sources during the past several years. Transportation Impact Fee Funds have recently been designated for the Card Sound Bridge, and Solid Waste Impact Fee Funds cannot currently be used for landfill replacement due to change in policy to •haul-out.waste. 1° The other four fair•share impact fee funds have similar wording in Sections 9.5-491 - 9.5-494. -, 11 The other four fair share impact fee funds have similar wording in Sections 9.5-491 -9.5-494. 56 V. DETAILED AUDIT FINDINGS (continued) C. Potential Refunds of Fair Share Impact Fees as of December 31, 1992 (Continued) • Recommendation: 1) That the County Administrator seek to identify additional funding sources for the required funding from general revenue funds, and other funding sources, in order that the required matching of fair share impact funds may be achieved and needed capital expansion improvements made to correct the deficiencies which existed at 1985. County Administrator's Response: "The County Administrator has always and will continue to aggressively seek funds for improving the County's infrastructure as evidence by his initiative in the passage of the one cent infrastructure sales tax referendum, the one cent tourist bed tax, the refunding of three municipal capital improvement revenue bonds, implementation of the Personal Service Fees at the airports, proving for — paid parking, increased user fees, and fines. " VI. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS 1. Issuance of Manually Typed Certificates of Occupancy Condition A number of Certificates of Occupancy continue to be issued manually (typed) instead of through the computer system. Criteria According to the Assistant Building Official of the Key West Office, the present computer system software implemented by the Building Department in October 1988 has a safeguard built into the software program to prevent a certificate of occupancy from being issued until payment Of all required permits-and fees. Effect The issuance of manually prepared certificates of occupancy bypasses the computer software safeguards and potentially allows certificates of occupancy to be issued without payment of all required fees. In addition, manually typed certificates of occupancy are not subsequently entered into the computer system. Therefore, certain computer generated reports are incomplete and inaccurate. 57 • VI. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS 9. Issuance of Manually Typed Certificates of Occupancy (continued) Cause 0 The lack of a written office procedures for the building permit process, including implementation of the new computer system, appears to have hindered Building Department employee training and use of this computer system. In addition, the lack of specific written procedures for the three Building Department offices to adhere to in the issuance of building permits and,certificates,of occupancy appears to have resulted in inconsistent enforcement of county regulations: Recommendation: 1) The Director, Division of Growth Management, should establish written procedures to be used by all Building Department personnel in the processing of building department permits and certificates of occupancy to ensure consistency among the three offices and ensure a complete data base. Division of Growth Management Director Response: "The Building Department has already prepared public handouts for the requirements related to the obtaining of both permits as well as C.O. 's. These handouts are the same in all three (3) offices. MCC (Article X) requires that all impact fees be paid prior to the issuance of a C.O. This is consistently being done. " ' C 2) The Director, Division of Growth Management, should establish written procedures to ensure that all manually prepared certificates of occupancy are subsequently entered into the computer system and to ensure that all reports are complete and accurate. Division of Growth Management Director Response: "At the present time, our computer capability allows us to enter all manually prepared C.O. 's into the computer. Initially, this was not the case. "A memorandum to all three (3) offices can make such action mandatory. " • 58 VI. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS 9. Issuance of Manually Typed Certificates of Occupancy (continued) Table 10 MONROE COUNTY BUILDING DEPARTMENT • CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY ISSUED JANUARY 1989 DECEMBER 1991 1989 1990 1991 Typed Computer Typed Computer Typed Computer Stock Island 278 48 (15%) 51 316 (86%) 18 222 (93%) Marathon 112 22 (16%) 10 88 (90%) 9 52 (85%) Plantation 295 65 (18%) 42 285 (87%) 17 304 (95%) The above data indicates that the Building Department has begun using the computer to issue certificates in the majority of instances in 1991. However, written procedures are needed to ensure that manually issued certificates of occupancy are included in the computer issued reports. 59 - -- �- -_ �__ I J ] 1 II TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES COLLECTIONS AND EXPENDITURES Year District Impact Fees Interest Less Net Funds Less Cumulative Funds Subject (Finance). Collected. Less Earned Refunds Available Expenditures Encumbrances Balance of to Refunding at 9/30/92 Unspent Funds in FY 1993 FY 1987 1 (UKeys) $303,417"68 $3,241.97 FY 1988 1 $0.00 $306,659.65 $0.00 $0.00 $306,659.65 $281,213.82 450,829.66 26.986.46 0.00 477.816.12 0.00 0.00 784,475.77 FY 1989 1 544,244.66" :. "96.423.61 .00 640,668.27 0.00 0.00 1,425,144.04. FY 1990 1 234.1.19.70 130.561.18 1,610.00 363.070.88 FY 1991 1 _ 313.140.16 - 138.572_83 3,220.00 448.492.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.736.707.91 FY 1992 1 339.877.53 112.953.09 3,220.00 449.610.62 25,445.83 0.00 2.655. 2.01 • TOTAL $2,185,629.39 $508,739.14 $8,050.00 0.00 2.655.012.01 -" .- .._.. $2.686.318.53 $25,445.83 $0.00 • FY 1987 2(M/Keys) $110.462"64 $1.092.93 $0.00 • FY 1988 2 300.4 2_64 _ $1,092.93 $111.555.57 •$0.00• $0.00 $111,555.57 0.00 320.997.69 ' • 0_00 $97,511.70 - FY 1989 2 349.269.00 60.901.54 0.00 842.723.86 - FY 1990 2 0.00 410,170.54 0.00 0.00 842,723.80 143.531.98 79.418.61 19,265.30 203,685.29 FY 1991 2 133.888.60 83.23229 ." 0.00 0.00 . 1,046.409"09 FY 1992 2 0.00 147 217.120.89 0.00 0.00 1.263.529.98 .907.4.7 65.724.78 0.00 213.632.25 14.043.87 •TOTAL $1.192.478.33 $303,949.20 $19.265.30 $1,477,162.23 $14,043.87• 0.00 1,463,118.36 0.00 FY 1987 3 1S N/KeYs) $224,61 1"96 $2.677.13 $0.00 $227,289.09 '4- • FY 1988 3. 55.1,801.24 24,016.37 $0.00 $0.00 $227,289.09 $197,254.67 FY 19898 3 418551.801.4624 29 ,016.3794 0.00 575.817.61 0.00 0.00 803,106.70 FY 1990 3 0.00 509,850.40 0.00 0.00 1,312,957.10 430,994.67 ". 128,051.50 82,940.00 476,106.17 0.00 0.00 FY 1991 3 604,494.60 144,270.41 .537.828.28 ' FY 1992 3 398,613.25 130,394.04 0.000.00 529, 7.29 748,765.01 0.00 0.00 2.537.828.28 '• TOTAL $2,628,910.18 $520,865.39 $82,940.00 $3 066,835. 30'034.42 0.00 3,036,801.15 $30,034.42 s0,00 FY 1987 KCB $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 00 $0.00 FY 1988 KCB • 3,220.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.33.22 0.00 3,253.22 0.00 FY 1989 KCB 20,937.63 1220.15 0.00 22,157"78 0 00 3,253.22 FY 1990 KCB 16,100.00 2682.41 0.00 0.00 25,411.00193, 1 FY 1991 KCB 0.00 18,78241 0.00 0.00 44,193.41 24,150.00 3981.01 0.00 28,131.01 FY 1992 KCB 17,710.00 . 4013.18 0.000.00 0.00 94,047.60 TOTAL 21,723.18 0.00 0.00 94,07.60 $94,047.60 $11,929.97 $0.00 $105,977.57 $0.00 • $0.00 • 6 Year Totals $6.101,065.50 $1,345,483.70 $110,255.30 $7,336,293.90 $69,524.12 $0.00 $7248,979.12 $575,980.19 , • Financial Statements of 9/30/92 (2/24/93 Update) *Key Colony Beach and Middle Keys Combined(expenditures) 1 - - i -- } ! COMMUNITY PARK IMPACT FEES COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURES Fiscal years ended September 30.1987 - 1992 Year District ,Impact Fees , Interest Less Net Funds Less Less Cumulative Funds Subject (Finance) -- Collected- Earned Refunds Available Expenditures Encumbrances Balance of to Refunding • at 9/30/92, Unspent Fds in FY 1993 FY 1987 1 (L/Keys) $26.065.20 .$274.73 $0.00 $26,339.93 $0.00 $0.00 $26,339.93 $22,045.79 • • -- FY 1988 1 - 35.823.60" - ::2.462.77 0.00 38,286.37 •• 0.00 0.00 64.626.30 • -. . FY 1989 1 47,206.40 _• 7,628.58 0.00 54,836.98 . . 0.00 • 0.00 119,463.28 - •. . FY 1990 1 - 18,918.48 10,780.72 128.40 29,570.80 0.00 0.00 149,034.08 • FY 1991 1 24,652.80 11257.31 256.80 35.653.31 0.00 0.00 184,687.39 _ :FY 1992 1 • 22.856.88 • .:9.049.20 256.80 31.649.28 •4,294.14 0.00 212,042.53 - . TOTAL $175.525.$6 •$4.1.453.31 5642.00. $216,336.67 $4,294.14 $0.00 FY 1987 2( /Keys) $8,089.20 $83.68 $0.00 $8,177.88 $0.00* $0.00 $6.177.98 • $3.177.89 . - FY 1988 2 19,299.55 - 1,141.80 0.00 20,441.35 _ 0.00 0.00 28,619.23 FY 1989 2 27.392.00 - 4.370.15 0.00 31.762.15 0.00 0.00 60,381.38 -- FY 1990 2 _10.578.15. .5.476.52 1,204.95 -14.849.72 - 0.00 0.00 '75,231.10 FY 1991- 2 10.785.60 . 5.737.77 0.00 16,523.37 0.00 0.00 91,754.47 FY 1992 2 11.556.00 4.686.00 0.00 16.242.00 5,000.00• ' 0.00 102,996.47 X TOTAL $87,700.50 $21.500.92 $1,204.95 $107,996.47 $5,000.00• $0.00 ON FY 1987 3(U/Keys) $16.906.00 $203.20 $0.00 $17,109.20 $0.00 $0.00 $17,109.20 - FY 1988 3 42,84280 • 1,625.20 0.00 44.468.00 7.540.00 0.00 54.037.20 FY 1989 3 , , 29,31296 - -6,156.35 0.00 35.469.31 0.00 0.00 89,506.51 • FY 1990 3 35,074.60 .8.822.35 6,676.80 37.220.15 0.00 0.00 126.726.66 FY 1991 3 41,302.00 10,091.03 0.00 51.393.03 0.00 0.00 178.119.69 • .FY 1992 3 30,644.80 - 8.824.33 0.00 39,469.13 30,115.92 0.00 187,472.90 TOTAL $196,083.16 $35,722.46' $6,676.80 $225.128.82 $37,655.92 $0.00 • FY 1987 4(KCB) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 .00 FY 1988 KCB 256.80 2.66 0.00 259.46 0.00 0.00 259.46 FY 1989 KCB 2.182.80 - 90.37 0.00 2.273.17 0.00 0.00 2,532.63 FY 1990 KCB 1,284.00 ' 194.27 0.00 1,478.27 - 0.00 0.00 4,010.90 FY 1991 KCB 1,926.00 - 345.83 0.00 2.271.83 0.00 0.00 6,282.73 FY 1992 KCB 1,412.40 357.79 0.00 1,743.21 0.00 0.00 8,025.94 TOTAL $7.06200 $990.92 $0.00 $8,025.94 $0.00 $0.00 6 Year Totals $466,371.02 $99,667.61 $8,523.75 $557,487.90 $46,950.06 $0.00 $510,537.84 - $25,223.67 Financial statements @ 9/30/92 (2/24/93 update) *Key Colony Beach and Middle Keys expenditures Combined - - - a > > > COMMUNITY LIBRARY IMPACT FEES COLLECTIONS AND EXPENDITURES Fiscal years ended September 30, 1987 - 1992 Year, District .Impact Fees Interest Less Net Funds Less Library Less Library (Finance). Collected Earned Refunds Available Facilities Resources Encumbrances Balance of ton Refunding ds t Expenditures Expenditues at 9/30/92 Unspent Funds in FY 1993 FY 1987 1 (L/Keys) $38.380.00 $440.37 $0.00 $38,820.37 FY'1988 1 49 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $38,820.37 $0.00 ,210.00 3,249.88 0.00 52.459.88 0.00 FY-1989. 1 72,390.00 10;892.14 0-00 83,282.14 000 0.000.00 91,280.25 FY 1990 1 27.170.00 15,038.69 190.00 42,018.69 6.035.96 0.00 0 00 0.00 0,545. FY 1991 1 40,350.30 ]2.t01.59 380.00 52,071.89 1:749.85 35,986.82 000 210,545.12 • 2 FY 1992 1 57.427.50 .8.514.80 380.00 65,562.30 143.858.00 12,906.01 0.00 33,678.63 1 TOTAL $284,927.80 - ••$50.237.47 ' $950.00 $334.215.27 $151,643.81 $48.892.83 0.00 33,678.63 • FY 1987 2(M/Keys) $11,970.00 $93.03 $0.00 $12,063-03 $000• - FY.1988 2 S0.00 $0.00 $12,063.03 •$0,OO 20.140.00 "1,012.84 0.00 21.152.84 ' 0.00 0 00• FY 1989 2 21,850.00 3.983.50 0.00 25,833.50 0.00 33,215.87 FY 1990 2 • 0.00 0.00 0.00 59,049.37 14.250.00 5.422.08 380.00 19.292.08 .0.00 22.353.23•FY 1991 2 15,960.00 5.727.50 0.00 21.687.50 • 0.00 58,700.20 FY 1992 2 0.00 • 18,975.52 0.00 58,700.20 17.100.00 4.343.86 0.00 21.443.86 0.00 7,933.32•TOTAL $101.270.00 $20;582.81 $380.00 $121.472.81 0.00 72.210.74 17 N • --- _ $0.00 • $49,262.07• $0.00 S FY 1987 3(U/Keys) $25,270.00 $306.36 $0.00 $25,576.36 $0.00 f� FY 1988 3 64,030.00 1.836.61 0.00 65,866.61 0.00 $0.00 0.00 0.00$0.00 $91.442.97 $0.00 FY 1989 3 38,570.00 10,041.78 0.00 48,611.78 .442.97 FY 1990 3 52 0.00 0.00 0.00 140,054.75 ,440.00 13,958.25 9,880.00 56,518.25 47,000.00 • 24,433.81 • FY 1991 3 64,980.00 9.879.89 0.00 74,859.89 0.00 27,987.82 0.00 172„0.00 011.26 6 • P. FY-1992 3 46,740.00 •8,702.67 0.00 55.442.67 0.00 27.875.98 0.00 199.577.95 . TOTAL $292,030.00 $44,725.56 $9,880.00 $326,875.56 • $47,000.00 $80,297.61 $0.00 $0.00 FY 1987 4(KCB)* $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 FY 1988 KCB 380.00 4.48 0.00 384.48 $0.00. $0.00 $0.008 $0.00 FY 1989 KCB 3,230.00 106.08 0.00 3,336.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 384.48 FY 1990 KCB 1,900.00 '253.47 0.00 2,153.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,874.03 FY 1991 KCB 8,931.90 398.56 0.00 9.330.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,204.49 FY 1992 KCB 2,090.00 411.18 0.00 2,501.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 17,705. 7 TOTAL $16,531.90 $1,173.77 $0.00 $17,705.67 0.00 17,705.67 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 -- 6 Year Total $694,759.70 $116,719.61 $11,210.00 $800,269.31 $198,643.81 $178,452.51 $0.00 $423,172.99 $0.00 Financial Statements @ 9/30/92 (2/24/93 update) *Key Colony Beach and Middle Keys expenditues Combined , -- ---- - l SOLID WASTE IMPACT FEES COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURES Fiscal years ended September 30, 1987 - 1992 • Year District Impact Fees . ..Interest. Less Net Funds Less • Less Less Cumulative Funds Subject(Finance) Collected Earned Refunds Available Expenditures Expenditures Encumbrances Balance of to Refunding Land&Equip. Recycling Eq. at 9/30/92 Unspent Funds in FY 1993 FY 1987 1 (L/Keys) $14,333.07 $178.16 $0.00 $14,511.23 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $14,51123 $0.00 FY-1988 1 19,582.48 • 1.202.06 0.00 20.784.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 $35,295.77 FY 1989 1 27•.989.25 . 4,326.15 0.00. 32,315.40 0.00 0.00 • 0.00 $67.611.17 FY,.1990 1 9.916.24 6.106.54 65.04 15,957.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 $83,568.91 FY.1991 1 17,646.63 5,906.55 130.08 23.423.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 $106,992.01- . FY 1992 1 19.703.23 -5,572.97 130.08 25,146.12 0.00 14,516.00 0.00 $117,622.13 TOTAL • $109,170.90 $23292:43 $325.20 $132,138.13 $0.00 $14,516.00 $0.00 • • FY 1987 2(M/Keys) $4,487.80 $84.19 $0.00 $4,571.99 $0.00 . . $0.00' $0.00 $4,571.99 $0.00 • • FY 1988 2 21.590.43 885.74 0.00 22.476.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 $27,048.16 • - FY-1989 2 21.408.24 -3.726.46 0.00 25.134.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 $52,182.86 FY 1990 2 6,854.61 4.635.60 130.08 11.360.13• 0.00 • 0.00 0.00 - $63,542.99 FY 1991 2 7,915.86 •4,919.59• 0.00 12.835.45 • 0.00 • 0.00 0.00 $76,378.44 FY 1992 2 6,921.38 3.818.86 .00 10,740.24 0.00 4,573.00' $82.545.68 ice! TOTAL $69.178.32 $18.070.44 $130.08 $87.118.68 $0.00 $4,573.00* $0.00 tS C\ t� t7. FY 1987 3(U/Keys) $10,343.99 $100.83 $0.00 $10.444.82 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $10,444.82 $0.00 C FY 1988 3 70,535.09 3.463.20 0.00 73,998.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 84,443.11 FY-1989 3 22.911.24 8.822.35 0.00 31.733.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 116,176.70 FY 1990 3 18,913.39 10.615.69 3,382.08 26.147.00 . 0.00. 0.00 0.00 142,323.70 • A. FY 1991 3 32,488.07 11.026.46 .00 43,514.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 185,838.23 FY 1992 3 20,769.13 9,414.52 0.00 30,183.65 0.00 10,446.00 0.00 205,575.88 TOTAL $175,960.91 $43,443.05 $3,382.08 $216,021.88 $0.00 $10,446.00 $0.00 FY 1987 4(KCB) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0-00 FY 1988 KCB 130.08 0.83 0.00 130.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 130.91 FY 1989 KCB 1,105.68 37.60 0.00 1,143.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,274.19 , FY1990 KCB 650.40 96.40 0.00 746.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,020.99 FY 1991 KCB 975.60 779.81 0.00 1,755.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,776.40 FY 1992 KCB 455.28 188.79 0.00 644.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,420.47 TOTAL $3,317.04 $1,103.43 $0.00 $4,420.47 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 6 Year Totals $357,627.17 $85,909.35 $3,837.36 $439,699.16 $0.00 $29;535.00 $0.00 $410,164.16 $0.00 Financial statements @ 9/30/92 (2/24/93 Update) 'Key Colony Beach and Middle Keys expenditures combined POLICE FACILITIES IMPACT FEES COLLECTIONS AND EXPENDITURES Fiscal years ended September 30, 1987 - 1992 • • Year District Impact fees Interest Less Net Funds Less . Less Less Less Cumulative Funds Subj.(Finance) Collected . Earmed Refunds Available Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Encumbrances Balance of to Refunding_ Vehicles Jail Facilities Office Facilities at 9/30/92 Unspent Funds in FY 1993 FY 1987 1 (L/Keys) $22.618.62 $240.64 $0.00 $22.859.26 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $22,859.26 $0.00 FY 1988 1 29.621.70 1;292.30 0.00 $30,914.00 13,571.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.201.59 •FY.1989 1 48,358.19 4,985.63 0.00 $53,343.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 93,545.41 FY 1990 1 15.846.60 7.960.15 102.38 $23,704.37 16.507.08 10,585.97 0.00 0.00 90,156.73 Pt'1991 1 23.408.12 2.159.92 102.38 $25.465.66 15,605.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 100,016.95 FY..1992 1 26.921.71 1.370.54 204.76 $28,087.49 15,640.59 0.00 11,952.33 0.00 100,511.52 TOTAL : • 5166,774.94 $18,009.18 - $409.52 $184,374.60 $61,324.78 ' $10.585:97 $11,952.33 $0.00 FY 1987 2(M/Keys) • $7.151.27 $86.83 $0.00 $7,238.10 $0.00• $0.00 • $0.00• $0.00 $7,238.10 $0.00 FY1988 2 21.079.23 848.10 0.00 21,927.33 13,751.67• 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.413.76 FY 1989 2 • 27.001.51 3.803.15. 0.00 30.1304.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.218.42 FY 1990 2 10.562.62 5.002.96 2,211.31 13.354.27 16.545.11 * 10,585.97• 0.00 0.00 32,441.61 _ • FY 1991 2 9.382.21 5,285.16 0.00 14,667.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 47,108.98 FY 1992 2 9.953.69 4.278.50 . 0.00 14.232.19 0.00 0.00 5,648.49 • 55.692.68 TOTAL $85.130.53 $19.304.70 $2,211.31 $102.223.92 $30,296.78* $10,585.97• $ • $0.00 k 5,648.49 O1 - - = • 'P FY 1987 3(U/Keys) $15,513.37 $190.59 $0.00 $15,703.96 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $15,703.96 $0.00 Z FY 1988 3 59,678.43 ' 2.532.70 0.00 62.21 1.13 13.751.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 64.163.43 til FY 1989 3 28.728.66 6,950.38 0.00 35.679.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 . 99,842.47 FY 1990 3 28,574.57 9.542.59 5.323.76 32.793.40 16,434.05 10.585.97 0.00 0.00 105,615.85 FY 1991 3 40,345.58 10,513.89 0.00 50,859.47 15,604.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 140,870.89 FY 1992 3 27,843.83 9,335.53 0.00 37.179.36 15,640.59 0.00 16,840.33 145,569.33 TOTAL - $200.684.44 $39,065.68 $5,323.76 $234,426.36 $61,430.73 $10,585.97 " $16,840.33 $0.00 FY 1987 4(KCB)*• $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 FY 1988 KCB 204.76 2.33 0.00 207.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 207.09 FY 1989 KCB 1,740.46 57.20 0.00 1,797.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,004.75 FY 1990 KCB 1,023.80 166.42 0.00 1,190.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,194.97 FY 1991 KCB 1,535.70 308.62 0.00 1,844.32 0.00 . 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,039.29 FY 1992 KCB 1,126.18 298.88 0.00 1,425.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,464.35 TOTAL $5,630.90 $833.45 $0.00 $6,464.35 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 6 Year Totals $458,220.81 $77,213.01 $7,944.59 $527,489.23 $153,052.29 $31,757.91 $34,441.15 $0.00 $308,237.88 $0.00 Financial Statements of 9/30/92 (2/24/93 Update) •Key Colony Beach and Middle Keys Combined expenditures • Exhibit F •bGpuNTkc 4.� �UJ�'�`JVM CU�`�'; OG ISM % U; , WVN ♦ . 7 •t °f.OU"fY•`. • i' arrnp IL♦ 1o[Ijage BRANCH OFFICE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT BRANCH OFFICE 3117 OVERSEAS HIGHWAY MONROE COUNTY P.O. BOX 379 MARATHON, FLORIDA 33050 500 WHITEHEAD STREET PLANTATION KEY, FLORIDA 33070 TEL.(305)743-9036 KEY WEST, FLORIDA 33040 TEL.(305)852.9253 TEL.(305)294.4641 AUDIT ADVISORY r-, TO: Tom Brown Monroe County Administrator FROM: Danny L. Kolhage Clerk of the Circuit Court SUBJECT: Immediate Audit Concerns Impact Fee Audit Memorandum from Martin L. Leitner, dated March 20, 1992 DATE: June 30, 1992 In connection with:our'audit•:of Impact Fees, we have reviewed a memorandum from Martin Leitner, dated _March" 20, 1992,' and have `concerns regarding proposals made in this memorandum (copy attached) that we believe deserve your attention prior to our completion of the preliminary report. Our inimediate concern is with the definition of the term "encumbrance" and the proposal that the Board of County Commissioners pass a Resolution expressly stating that the funds for the specified FY 1992 impact fee projects, as described herein, are. "encumbered" for such projects and purposes and that a line item has been established in the County budget therefor. Mr. Leitner's definition of "encumbered" does not appear to be consistent with generally accepted governmental accounting practices and is not acceptable for Monroe County financial statements. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (paragraph 1700.129) defines encumbrances as "commitments related to unperformed (executory) contracts for goods or services." This publication further states that encumbrances outstanding at year-end represent the estimated amount of the expenditures-ultimately to result if unperformed contracts in process at year-end are completed. • .Encumbrances' outstanding at year-end do not constitute expenditures or liabilities. 65 • • Exhibit F (continued) Mr. Tom Brown page 2 June 30, 1992 According to the Principles of Governmental Accounting, Auditing; and Financial Reporting (GAAFR), encumbrances are reported, not as expenditures, but as a reservation of fund balances, which is based on third party restrictions (e.g., contract with vendor). This publication goes on to state that "Because an 'encumbrance is only a commitment, it does not meet the expenditure or liability recognition criteria." Further, the Clerk of:the Circuit Court is charged with the responsibility of preparation of financial statements for the .previous fiscal year, which statements shall be prepared in compliance with generally accepted governmental accounting principles (Section 218.32 (1)(a), Florida Statutes). In addition, "any word, sentence, phrase, or provision of any special act, municipal charter,or other law that prohibits or restricts a unit of local government from complying with this section or any rules or regulations promulgated hereunder is hereby nullified and repealed to the extent of such conflict (Section 218.33(3), Florida Statutes. In our opinion, despite any action by the Monroe County Board of Commissioners, a planned expenditure of Impact Fee Funds cannot be considered "encumbered or expended" within the meaning of generally accepted governmental accounting principles without the issuance of valid purchase order or an executed contract for goods or services. Based upon the above, it is our conclusion that only those planned Impact Fee capital improvements which have a valid executed contract (or purchase order), with a specified vendor, for a specified:sum, for specified.goods or services dated prior to October 1, 1992, can be included on the Monroe County annual financial statements for the fiscal year ended September 30, 1992. Line item appropriations in the current budget can not be reported in the financial statements as encumbrances. In addition, the sum of the several Impact Fees eligible for refund upon request of property owner as of the financial statement date must be disclosed in footnotes to the financial statements as a contingent liability for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1992. Please contact Charles Mansen at 292-3439 or me at 292-3550, if you have any questions concerning the above matters. ' • • • cc: Lorenzo Aghemo, Director of Planning • ' Marva Green:, CPA; Kemp'& Green 66 • • EXHIIBIT G Unrecorded Affordable Housing Waivers Applicant Name Property # Waiver Building Identification Location Date Permit J/ Eglantina S. Beiro ' 001921400-000000 Summerland 5-7-91 89-1-2134 Elmidio & A. Rodriguez 00169460-000000 Sugarloaf 6-13-89 A17550 Anthony J. Yaniz ' 00 1 7 1 7 10-000000 Sugarloaf 10-6-89 N/available Alfred & C. Tellone ' 00169880-000000 Sugarloaf 8-25-89 N/available Elaine K. New ' 00170220-000000 Sugarloaf N/avail2 N/available Derrick B. Shields ' 00250591-004700 Big Pine 7-28-89 N/Available Kenneth & A. Newsom ' . 00246221-001200 Big Pine 8-11-89 N/Available Jimmy & M. Canup ' 003 1 9492-00 1 300 No Name Key 7-18-89 N/Available Gregory L. Gato ' 003 1 949 1-003 800 No Name Key 8-4-89 N/Available Paul Burress ' 00267610-000000 Big Pine Key 10-6-89 - N/Available John Coffin 003 1 63 90-000000 Big Pine Key N/Avail2 81-1-0273 James K. Greene ' 00369080-000000 Grassy Key 9-6-89 N/Available John Lavarack '. 00333200-000000 Marathon 9-6-89 N/Available Jack & R. Ferguson ' 00369120-000000 Grassy Key 7-6-89 N/Available Peter & L. Harris ' 00395631-000600 Lower Matecumbe 4-18-91 N/Available Brian & P. Riffe ' 00371920-000000 Grassy Key 6-15-892 N/Available Bryan & R. Trotter ' 00371930-000000 Grassy Key 6-15-892 N/Available Louanne Williams ` . 00398250-000000 Key Largo 9-21-90 N/Available Richard Russell ' 00094630-000200 Islamorada 10-4-90 N/Available Scot &•M Tkacs ° 003 95 63 1-000400 Lower Matecumbe 7-18-91 N/Available Property located in this name in Property Appraisers' records(8/4/92). a Affordable Housing Waiver approval.file not located in Planning Department. Property located in a different name in the Property Appraisers' records(8/4/92). Details of Finding A.1. 67 • Exhibit H INCONSISTENT ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT FEES FOR COUNTY OWNED LAND OR FACILITIES LEASED TO PRIVATE BUSINESSES Building Impact Fees Applicant Name Permit# Collected Rockland Aviation 3 90-1-0893 $571.41 W.Ortenblad,Inc. 3 B12830 1 0.00 (dba Marathon Fuel Farm) Monroe Co.Flight Dept. 3 88-2-0133 i 10,670.10 Marathon Yacht Club 3 : 89-2-1020 0.00 Marathon Jet Center 3 91-2-2281 760.65 K—Mart Corporation 88-3-00462 2 0.00 Monroe County Code,Section 6.42 states: 'The county,the state,the United States,all corporate municipalities situated wholly within the boundardies of the count,the city electric system,the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority,the county school district,other governmental entities,and the fire departments and volunteer emergency medical departments shall be exempt from the requirements for a building fee for construction in the county. There will be no waiver of buuilding fees for any other application than those enumerated in the preceding paragraph. i The land is owned by Monroe County and Leased to the various commercial entities. 2 The land is owned by the K—Mart Corporation and leased to Monroe County. Monroe County has the option of purchasing the,land and building during the life of the lease. 3 This entity(lessee)paid building permit fees on this permit. Details of Finding A.4. • 68 Exhibit I LACK OF FORMAL AGREEMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE CREDITS Construction Building Impact Fees Applicant Name Type Pew t# Credited Alan D. McCaskill Warehouse 90-1-00406 2 $5,161.98 3 Steve Henson Office/Warehouse 1 91-1-0835 2 3,801.603 Larry Hendricks Retail Store i 91-1-2019 2 6,175.00 3 Total Transportation Fair Share Impact Fee Credit $15,138.58 i No formal written agreement executed by Monroe County and property owner. 2 No written proposal of scope of work and projected costs prepared by traffic engineers. 3 No documentation that County Engineer compared applicants schedule of costs incurred to cost breakdowns of similar county road projects. (i.e.,cost of fill,asphalt,etc.) Details of Finding A.6. • 69 • Exhibit J MISSING FILES IN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT'S MARATHON OFFICE Construction Building Impact Fees Applicant Name Type Permit# Collected J.Birren Warehouse 88-2-0807 Marathon Yacht Club Office/Warehouse $9-2-1020 0,00 Anthony Rojas Retail Store 88-2-0766 0.00 Alan Schmitt Commercial addition 89-2-0961 9,790.52 1 New Life Assembly of GodInterior renovation 88-2-0148 0,00 Boy Scouts of America Converted dormitory 88-2-0156 0.00 to ship's store Thomas Richards Gasoline pumps 88-2-0625 0.00 • • Building permit indicates a commercial addition plus two apartments to vdsting commercial structure. Impact fee calculation indicated that only one dwelling unit was assessed in conjunction with this commercial addition. Details of Finding A.9. • • • 70 • Exhibit K IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS MISSING FROM PERMIT FILES Building Impact Fees Applicant Name Permit# Collected P S Marina 3(dba Faro Blanco) 88-2-175 $3,968.05 Marathon Veterinary Clinic B12984 5,094.90 CDF, Inc. (dha Side Door Lounge) 88-2-658 7,505.00 Simone Balonga (Commercial) 88-2-0382 4,065.60 Keys Woodworkers(dha Subway Shop) B13337 1,527.00 Islamorada Bank 90-3-2155 0.00 William Thornton (dha Sand Dollar) 88-2-0724 5,737.66 2 Frank Mansen(dha Banana Bay) B12843 113,459.00 • • Planning Department management has indicated that additional impact fees should have been collected on this construction permit;and an effort is being made at present to collect the 'additional fees which should have been collected prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. 2 Impact Fees assessed as a retail building. This structure apparently should have been assessed partially as a retail building and a single family residence(manager's apartment)as same structure. Details of Finding A.10. • • 71 l � Exhibit IL TRIAL BALANCE SUMMARIES (Expended from revenue sources other than fair share impact fund fees) • • Year Fund Cost Object Description Amount Center Code 9/30/87 102 946541 506549 Bike Path (Unspecified) $2,913.35 9/30/87 102 946541 506561 Bike Path — 5th Street 2,987.58 9/30/89 102 946541 506670 Bike Path — Long Key 9,629.57 9/30/90 102 946541 506690 Bike Path — Plantation 33,701.36 9/30/90 102 946541 506691 Bike Path — Plantation 13,367.76 9/30/90 102 950542 541642 Bike Path — Key Largo 10,836.39 9/30/91 102 946541 506683 Bike Path — Big Pine 11,332.27 • 9/30/91 102 946541 506716 Bike Path — Long Key 13,387.79 9/30/92 102 950542 541634 Bike Path — Key Largo 25 344.61 9/30/92 102 ' .946541 506729 - Bike Path Stock Island 2,076.95 9/30/92 102 950541 506364 Bike Path — Sombrero Beach 500.00 9/30/92 102 950542 541642 Bike Path — Key Largo 4,245.45 9/30/92 102 950542 541646 Bike Path II — Stock Island 1,328.59 9/30/92 102 950542 541734 Bike Path — Vaca Key 1,827.55 9/30/92 102 950542 541735 Bike Path — Knight's Key 1,133.17 Total expenditures which might qualify for matching impact funds $134,612.39 The above expenditures might qualify for matching fair share transportation impact funds, in accordance with the provision of the Land Development Regulations [LDR, Section B.1 (d)] to the extent that these expenditues represent the expansion of existing transportaion facilities; adding additional capacity to existing facilities; or acquiring new facilities. • Routine maintenance or resurfacing existing roadway does not qualify for matching fair share transportation impact funds. It would appear beneficial if those expenditures which represent a capital expansion of facilities, within the meaning of the Land Development Regulations, and are thereby eligible for partial funding from fair share transportaion impact funds were segregated into separate accounts from other non—qualifying capital expenditures. Detail on.Finding B.1.. 72 Exhibit M • ADDITIONS TO GENERAL FIXED ASSETS — COMMUNITY PARKS (Expended from revenue sources other than fair share impact fund fees) Year Type Description of Property Acquisition Acquired Facility Amount 9/30/87 Bldg Parks & Beaches (Uninc, area) $1,216.60 ' 9/.30/87 Equip Parks & Beaches 9,171.27 9/.30/87 Land Key Largo Park 1,000.00 9/30/87 Bldg Higgs Beach Tiki Huts 6,290.15 9/30/88 Bldg Tennis Courts — Coral Shores 7,540.00 9/30/88 Bldg Parks& Beaches (Uninc. area) 1,041.97 9/.30/88 Equip Unspecified (#092001) • 5,088.94 9/.30/88 Equip Pigeon Key 7,910.00 9/30/89 Equip Higgs Beach Gun Mounts 35 823.41 9/30/89 Equip Higgs Beach Pivilion 103,212.26 9/30/89 Equip Higgs Beach Pier 238,279 81 9/30/89 Land ' Big Pine Key Rec. Center 64 280.07 9/30/90 Land Big Pine Leisure Club 34,125.00 9/.30/90 CIP Big Pine Leisure Club 128,375.00 9/30/90 Land Big Pine Key Athletic Club 20 829.56 9/30/90 .CIP Big Pine Key Athletic Club 83,318.22 9/.30/90 CIP Higgs Beach 60,681.01 9/30/90 CIP Harry Harris Park 149,766.42 9/30/91 Equip Parks& Beaches (#092000) 1,767.97 9/.30/92 CIP Harry Harris Park 11,459.20 9/30/92 CIP St. Peters Rec, Park 2,561.00 9/30/92 CIP Baypoint Park 15,527.17 9/.30/92 CIP Higgs Beach 1,575.00 9430/92 CIP Marathon Tennis Courts 603.24 9/30/92 . CIP • Land _ • ,125,000.00 9/30/92 CIP Sombrero Beach 185.50 9/.30/92 CIP Higgs Beach 1,168.38 Total Expenditures which might qualify for matching impact funds $1,117,797.15 Certain expenditures listed above might qualify for matching fair share community park impact funds, in accordance with the provisions of the Land Development Regulations [LDR,Section J] to the extent that these expenditures represent the expansion of existing facilities;additional additional capacity to existing facilities; or acquiring new facilities, Routine maintenance of existing facilties does not qualify for matching fair share community park impact fee funds (i.e., adding sand to existing beach, resurfacing existing tennis courts). It would appear beneficial if those expenditures which represent a capital expansion of facilities, within the.meaning of the Land Development Regulations, and are thereby eligible for partial funding from fair share community park impact funds were segregated into separate accounts from other non—qualifying capital expenditures. Detail on Finding B.2. ' • 73 ` • Exhibit N ADDITIONS TO GENERAL FIXED ASSETS — LIBRARIES (Expended from revenue sources other than fair share impact fund fees) Year Type • Description of Property Acquisition Acquired Facility Amount 9/30/90 Land Key Largo Library $31,334.30 9/30/91 CIP Key Largo Library 752,023.22 9/30/91 ? Key West Library 6,365.16 9/30/91 Bldg Key West Library Addition (A&E) 14,925.00 9/30/91 Equip Islamorada Library 48,653.00 9/30/92 Bldg Key West Library Addition 478,251.00 9/30/92 Bldg Key West Library addition (Arch. & Eng.) 39,325.00 9/30/92 Equip. Key West Library 2,049.70 9/30/92 Equip Islamorada Library 4,255.83 Total Expenditures which might qualify for matching impact funds $1,377,182.21 Certain expenditures listed above might qualify for matching fair share library impact funds, in accordance with the provisions of the Land Development Regulations [LDR, Section I] to the extent that these expenditures represent the expansion of existing facilities; additional additional capacity to existing facilities; or acquiring new facilities. Routine maintenance of existing facilties does not qualify for matching fair share library impact fee funds (i.e., replacement of existing roof; replacement of worn furnishings). It would appear beneficial if those expenditures which represent a capital expansion of facilities, within the meaning of the Land Development Regulations, and are thereby eligible for partial funding from fair share library impact funds were segregated into separate accounts from other non—quali 'tying capital expenditures. Detail on Finding 13.4. • • • • • • • 74 • Exhibit 0 TRIAL BALANCE SUMMARIES (Expended from revenue sources other than fair share impact fund fees) 'Year Fund Cost Object Description Amount Center Code 9/30/87 002 260002 571660 Key West Materials(Books,etc.) $52,519.44 9/30/88 002 260002 571660 Key West Materials 52,605.28 9/30/90 002 260002 571660 Key West Materials 33,708.27 9/30/91 002 260002 571660 Key West Materials 43,868.12 9/30/92 002 260002 571660 Key West Materials 43,779.44 $226,480.55 9/30/87 002 260003 571660 Bookmobile Materials(Books,etc.) 1,999.32 9/30/88 002 260003 571660 Bookmobile Materials(Books,etc.) 1,558.01 9/30/90 002 260003 571660 Bookmobile Materials(Books,etc.) 1,291.20 9/30/91 002 260003 571660 Bookmobile Materials(Books,etc.) 1,567.72 9/30/92 002 260003 571660 Bookmobile Materials(Books,etc.) 1,610.00 $8,026.25 9/30/87 002 260004 571660 Marathon Materials(Books,etc.) 20,536.54 9/30/88 002 260004 571660 Marathon Materials(Books,etc.) 17,845.54 9/30/90 002 260004 . .571660 Marathon Materials(Books,etc.) 12,019.63 9/30/91 002 260004 571660 Marathon Materials(Books,etc.) . 25,560.63 9/30/92 002 260004 571660 Marathon Materials(Books,etc.) 23,064.14 $99,026.48 . 9/30/87 002 260005 571660 Islamorada Materials(Books,etc.) 12,130.91 9/30/88 002 260005 571660 Islamorada Materials(Books,etc.) 12,031.64 9/30/90 002 260005 571660 Islamorada Materials(Books,etc.) 9,567.44 9/30/91 002 260005 571660 Islamorada Materials(Books,etc.) 14,010.10 9/30/92 002 260005 571660 Islamorada Materials(Books,etc.) 13,895.14 $61,635.23 9/30/87 002 260006 571660 Key Largo Materials(Books,etc.) 12,133.52 9/30/88 002 260006 571660 Key Largo Materials(Books,etc.) 12,055.14 9/30/90 002 260006 571660 Key Largo Materials(Books,etc.) 8,601.84 9/30/91 002 260006 571660 Key Largo Materials(Books,etc.) 20,018.54 9/30/92 002 260006 571660 Key Largo Materials(Books,etc.) 18,895.14 $71,704.18 9/30/89 002 260000 ' 571660.' Combined(unspecified) $90,067.89 • Total Expenditures which might qualify for matching impact funds $556,940.58 The above expenditures might qualify for matching fair share library impact funds, in accordance with the provision of the Land Development Regulations[LDR,Section I(4)] to the extent that these expenditures represent the acquisition of additional volumes,films and periodicals. Replacement of worn or outdated volumes would not appear to qualify for matching fair share library impact fee funds. Other miscellaneoous library expenditures also do not appear to qualify for matching fair share library impact fee funds. It would appear beneficial if those expenditures which represent a capital expansion of facilities, within the meaning of the Land Development Regulations,and are thereby eligible for partial funding from fair share transportaion impact funds were segregated into separate accounts from other non-qualifying capital expenditures. Detail on Finding B.5. 75 Exhibit P ADDITIONS TO GENERAL FIXED ASSETS — SOLID WASTE (Expended from revenue sources other than fair share impact fund fees) Year Type Description of Property Acquisition Acquired Facility Amount 9/30/90 Transfer Recycling — Unspecified $23,885.00 9/30/90 Transfer Recycling — Unspecified 232,014.90 9/30/90 '? Additions 549.00 9/30/90 Equip Recycling Program 53,109.88 9/30/92 Equip Recycling Program 88,862.52 Total Expenditures which might qualify for matching impact funds $398,421.30 • • Certain expenditures listed above might qualify for matching fair share solid waste impact funds, in accordance with,the provisions of the Land Development Regulations [LDR, Section D (4) and (6)] to the extent that these expenditures represent the expansion of existing facilities; additional additional capacity to existing facilities; or acquiring new facilities. Routine maintenance of existing facilties does not qualify for matching fair share solid waste impact fee funds but can, under certain circumstances, he considered a capital expenditure (i.e., a new roof which adds to the useful life of the building). It would appear beneficial if those expenditures which represent a capital expansion of facilities, within the meaning of the Land Development Regulations, and are thereby eligible for partial funding from fair share solid waste impact funds were segregated into separate accounts from other non—qualifying capital expenditures. Detail on Finding B'.5. • 76 1 7Exhibit Q ! ADDITIONS TO GENERAL FIXED ASSETS — POLICE FACILITIES (Expended from revenue sources other than fair share impact fund fees) Year Type Description of Property Acquisition Acquired Facility Amount 9/30/88 Equip Jail overcrowding $7,805.16 9/30/90 Land Norman's Island Jail Site (Stock Isl.) 4,858,904.00 9/30/89 Bldg Corrections Facility Doors 19 785.00 _ 9/30/89 Equip Key West Jail — 3rd Floor 683,552.51 9/30/89 Equip Sheriff Substation — Cudjoe 325 807.35 9/30/91 Bldg Plantation Key Temporary Jail Fac. (#301) 242,650.00 9/30/91 Bldg Plantation Key Temporary Jail Fac. (#303) 610,760.84 9/30/91 Bldg Marathon Temporary Jail Fac. (#303) 1,422,130.79 9/30/91 Bldg Key West Jail (#304) 462,973.40 9/30/91 Equip. , Criminal System Capital Purchase (#020805) 768.99 9/30/91 Equip Jail Overcrowding ` 9,148.25 • 9/30/91 Equip Jail Operations �493.02 9/30/91 Equip Marathon Jail 6,470.00 9/30/91 Equip 1988 Const Fd Prcd 22,984.21 8,674,233.52 9/30/92 Bldg Marathon Jail Storage Bldg, 2,795.00 9/30/92 Bldg Plantation Jail Mobile Office 9,412.00 9/30/92 Bldg Key West Jail 14,995.56 9/30/92 Equip Jail Overcrowding 1,867.37 9/30/92 Equip Jail Opertions 2,380.00 Total Expenditures.which might quality for matching impact funds $8,705,683.45 Certain expenditures listed above might qualify for matching fair share police facilities impact funds, in accordance with the provisions of the Land Development Regulations [LDR, Section F (4) and (5)] to the extent that these expenditures represent the expansion of existing facilities; additional additional capacity to existing facilities; or acquiring new facilities. Routine maintenance of existing facilties does not qualify for matching fair share police facilities impact fee funds (i.e., replacing facility doors, furnishings, etc.) It would appear beneficial if those expenditures which represent a capital expansion of facilities, within the meaning of the Land Development Regulations, and are thereby eligible for partial funding from fair share police facility impact funds were segregated into separate accounts from other non—qualifying capital expenditures. Detail on Finding B.6, - . 77 • • Exhibit R • IMPACT FEE AUDIT REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS (REPORT DATED 11/12/92) GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION (RESPONSE PROVIDED: BY ROBERT L. HERMAN, DIRECTOR OF GROWTH MGMT. ) • On October 16, 1992, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 33 -1992 (Impact Fee Procedural Ordinance) and Reso- lutions No. 492 , 493 , 494, 495 , 496, and 497-1992 . These Resolu- tions and Ordinance will take effect after the Ordinance has been approved by the DCA and 'filed by the office of the Florida Secre- tary of State. These Resolutions and Ordinance establish procedures for the imposition,. calculation, and collection of impact fees, in effect offering compliance with most of the recommendations of subject report . In order to respond to subject report, however, the following comments are, offe_ red, as .if . the aforementioned pending legislation did not exist . : 1 . The Director, Division of Growth Management, should establish written procedures requiring that the Building Department obtain documentation of a written agreement between the prop- - ' erty owner and County before approving Impact Fee credits . RESPONSE The Monroe 'County Code does not require that "an engineer" estimate the costs of roadway improvements .' However, prior to the issuance of a C.O. , the Building Dept. should require that the Director of Planning indicate (in writing) that: (a) the. permit holder. has entered into an .agreement with the - County :to construct capital roadway improvements consis- tent with the 'Comprehensive Plan. (b) The 'permit holder has provided a plan of the proposed improvements certified by a duly qualified and Florida licensed ."road engineer" . • (c) The Public Works Dept. has approved the costs related to . the improvements based upon local precedent for similar work. .. --1 ' i Copies of all the above must be provided to the Building Dept. for inclusion within their permanent file. • • • • 78 • Exhibit R (continued) • 2 . The Director, Division of Growth Management, should promul- gate written procedures for the maintenance of documentation in the Building Permit/Impact Fee files, including applicant Impact Fee payment receipts, to ensure consistency within the three separate building department offices and' to provide a uniform time frame for archiving building permit records . Management should consider storing building permit files which were completed within the past two fiscal years on site to provide better auditor access. RESPONSE At the present time, all three (3) offices maintain Impact Fee receipts as follows: (a) Entered in Computer (b) "Hard- copy" of receipt in permanent files (or receipt book) . ( (c) Office copy of permit (or file folder) is hand noted (or printed) with receipt number. These three (3) separate actions assure a prompt and accurate means for the verification of the payment of impact fees . NOTE: • During the time between the establishment of the requirement for paying of impact fees (i .e. Compre- hensive Plan 9/86) and the initiation of computer- ized ,records (10/87) , all impact fee payments were manually recorded by means of hard copies of re- ceipts and handwritten notation on either permits or file folders . 3 . The Director, Division of Growth Management, should establish written procedures to ensure adequate control over the move- ment and storage of records . RESPONSE The. lack, of. adequate storage space at' both the Plantation Key and Marathon, offices prevents us from maintaining "in house" • files: which - are older than` two (2) years .. In the Stock Island ,office.,, we are able to maintain "in house" files up to seven (7) years old. • Additional' storage apace will be leased for Plantation Key; and the consolidation of the Key West and Marathon offices I _' within the new County building should. assure the County of an "in house" capability of maintaining permit files at least three (3) years old. • • 79 • • Exhibit R (continued) 4 . The Director, Division of Growth Management, should consult with the County Attorney' s office about updating the Land Use Regulations and related Monroe County Code sections to consid- - er the BOCC decisions to haul solid waste out of the County and implement a county-wide recycling program. RESPONSE This consultation will take place with the County' s' consult- ing law firm. 5 . The Director, Division of Growth Management, should establish written procedures to be used by all Building Department personnel in the processing of Building Department permits and Certificates of Occupancy to ensure consistency among the three offices and ensure a complete data base. RESPONSE The Building Department has already prepared public handouts for the requirements related to the obtaining of both permits as well as C.O. ' s , These handouts are the same in all three (3) offices . MCC (Article X) requires that all impact fees be paid prior to the issuance of a C.O. This is consistently being done. • 6 . The Director, Division of Growth Management, should establish written procedures to ensure that all manually prepared cer- tificates of occupancy are subsequently entered into the computer system and to ensure that all reports are complete and accurate. RESPONSE At the 'present time, our computer capability allows us to enter all manually prepared C.O. ' s into the computer. Initial- ly, this was not the case. A memorandum to all three (3) offices can make such action mandatory 7 . The Director of Planning shall consult with the County Attor- ney to develop written procedures for either obtaining the required . recorded notices of deferred payment, or obtaining ;assurance that . impact fees due and owing to Monroe County are properly assessed and collected. RESPONSE The Planning Department has already initiated the process of obtaining all recorded notices of deferred payment. Notices to all developers owing impact fees to the County have been sent out and the Department is currently in the process of collecting those fees . 80 • • j Exhibit R (continued) • • 8 . The Director of Planning should promulgate written procedures for the processing and documentation of Affordable Housing Impact Fee' waivers .• RESPONSE All applications for deferral of impact fees for affordable housing are processed in the Key West office. A member of the Planning Department staff is exclusively assigned. to this task which is accomplished following specific procedures . (SEE EXHIBIT "A" , ATTACHED) • -- 9 . That the Director of Planning institute a search for missing Affordable Housing determination files and cross-reference the Affordable .Housing and Building Permit files. RESPONSE A Planning Department employee has been assigned to research this item. . • 10 . The Director of Planning should establish written procedures for management review of non-residential Impact Fees in order to ensure consistency- of assessment of Impact Fees among the - three. separate: Planning Department locations. RESPONSE Nonresidential impact fees are calculated through a computer spread sheet program available in each office for consistency purposes . However, such program does not list all possible nonresidential uses . In those instances when a use is not listed, an individual assessment is calculated by the Capital Improvements Coordinator in Key West. - 11 . The Director of Planning should obtain a written opinion from the County Attorney concerning the applicability of Impact Fees to lessors of Monroe County owned land. RESPONSE . .A written consultation will be obtained form the Growth Man- ; agement . consu-lting 'law firm. • 12 . That the Director of, Planning establish written procedures to ;require documentation of the actual cost of the roadway im- provements prior to the final issuance of the Impact Fee Credit and the Certificate of Occupancy. RESPONSE This action has been properly corrected through coordination with the Engineering Department . • 81 Exhibit R (continued) • 13 . The Director of Planning should promulgate written procedures for County department managers to utilize in obtaining approv- al by the Planning Department and County Attorney to partial- ly fund eligible road improvements with proper Impact Fee Funds . RESPONSE. The Planning Department has promulgated such procedure and it is currently being utilized by County Departments . (SEE EXHIBIT "B" , ATTACHED) 14 . The Director of Planning should establish written office procedures which require documentation of Impact Fee calcula- tions in the building permit files, together with sufficient information concerning applicant payment of Impact Fees to provide an audit trail and to ensure consistency within the three separate Building Department offices . RESPONSE The referenced procedure has been implemented by the Planta- . i tion .Key. and Stock Island offices, but not by the Marathon office in allinstances . Proper directive is being issued to the Marathon office to adhere to the established procedure. 15 . The. Director of Planning should establish written procedures to ensure coordination of the Impact Fee Fund budget with the Sheriff Department' s operation budget for capital expansion improvements . RESPONSE The procedure referred to in Item No. 13 , above, includes the Sheriff' s Department . 16 . The Director of Planning should request the Sheriff' s Depart- :ment to. identify .those capital expansion costs which may have been paid out of other revenue sources and have that percent- age attributable to new growth needs applied to the appropri- ' ate subdistrict' s fair share police facility impact funds. RESPONSE A written request will be sent to Sheriff Roth to coordinate this item. • r_I 82 Exhibit R (continued) 17 . The Director of Planning should establish written procedures to ensure coordination of the Impact Fund budget with the Sheriff Department' s operating budget for capital improve- ments to identify which police vehicles are needed to correct deficiencies which existed at 1985 , versus to accommodate new population growth, and the specific district to be served by these vehicles . RESPONSE` A written request will be sent to Sheriff Roth to coordinate this item. 18 . The Director of Planning should request that the Sheriff' s Department identify those capital expansion costs which were paid out of other revenue sources and have that percentage attributable to new growth needs applied to the appropriate subdistrict' s fair share police facility impact funds. RESPONSE A written request will be sent to Sheriff Roth to coordinate this item. 19 . The Director of Planning should obtain a written opinion from the County Attorney concerning corrective actions to be taken regarding this refund of impact funds which was made contrary to the provisions of the Monroe County Code. RESPONSE A written opinion will be requested from the Growth Manage- ment consulting law firm. 83 .. y . Exhibit R (continued) • AFFORDABLE HOUSING SYSTEM 1. If the Building Department receives an inquiry they are to refer the inquirer to Planning. If someone proposes to use affordable housing to gain points in Dwelling Unit Allocation System (R.O.G.O. ). the Building Department refers him/her to Planning immediately so he/she may pick up an application. The Planning Department does not need to review the Building Department application file for compliance with affordable housing standards . However, the R.O.G.O. application will not be accepted unless all paperwork is in and the applicant can qualify. . NOTE: Individuals who want to apply for Affordable Housing should apply as soon as possible. The best time may be when they submit _ their application for a Building Permit. • 2 . Affordable Housing application received by .the Planning Department. 3 . The affordable housing application is forwarded to Tiffany (Stock Island Office) . 4 . The affordable housing application is reviewed for completeness. NOTE: Information received from IRS takes 6 to 13 weeks, • or longer. Tax information must be received from IRS. 5 . Application is reviewed for compliance with the affordable housing section. L . a) 70%. •of . income derived frbm income earned in MONROE COUNTY. b) Yearly income is below adjusted medium income. c) Monthly 'PITI/ rent payments are below adjusted medium . income percentage. • d) All documentation is properly fill out, signed, and notarized.. '--- • : e) Has the applicant (s) submitted all pertinent data (ie: copies of insurances, liens, mortgages, loans, ect. ) on the property. • 6 . ' A) If the applicant complies : The applicant is forwarded a letter stating they qualify for affordable housing, however, a letter of • approval .•.: will : not - be • •issued until the applicant submits the recorded .deed restriction to the PlanningDepartment (Stock Island) . Once it is determined that the applicant properly filed the deed restriction• a • • 84 • Exhibit R(continued) letter of approval for the affordable housing will be issued. The letter issued will only be valid for one year. The applicant must re-qualify every year. B) If the applicant does not comply: The applicant is forwarded a letter stating they do not qualify. 7) If the applicant is approved the Building Department will be sent a memo which states that applicant has been approved •for affordable housing (waiver of impact fees) . The memo for the applicant will be valid for only one year. 8) Steps 4, 5 , 6 & 7 are completed by Tiffany in the Stock Island Planning Department. • • • • • , I • I • • • • • • L. • 85 ' • • Exhibit R(continued) II **SAMPLE FORM** IMPACT FEE EXPENDITURE APPROVAL FORM SECTION 1 - TO BE COMPLETED BY THE DEPARTMENT REQUESTING THE ; I EXPENDITURE 1. Person Requesting Approval: Melonie Bryan, Mike Lawn 2 . Facility Type: Park 3 . Name of Project: Watson Field Improvements 4. Description of Project: The Public Works Division will be making a number of improvements to the existing baseball/softball facilities at Watson Field and has requested impact fee funding for the following components of the project: Sod the outfield : (f,irst. time) $ 26, 000 Construct new dugouts ' 8, 000 1, Construct new scorekeepers booth 30, 000 Install electrical wiring for lighting 7;000 • 5 . Location of Project (by fee district, if applicable) : Big Pine Key (District 1 - Lower Keys) 6. Boundaries of Service Area: Lower Keys ; ! 7. These boundaries are: X Within Project's Fee District Beyond Project's& Fee District How, and. based on. what factors, has the service area been defined? A community park of this size typically draws users from a three to twelve mile radius. 8 . Estimated Cost of. Project: Total project = $88, 000 Impact Fee req uest quest = $71, 000 9 . Type of Project: X Capital Operational Maintenance • • • • • • • 86 . Exhibit R (continued) 10. What is the useful life of the project? 15 to 20 years. . Note: A .useful life of five years or more qualifies as a capital project. A useful life of less than.five years is -- unlikely, absent special circumstances, to qualify as .a capital project. If special circumstances exist, provide a detailed description below: N/A 11. Who will the project primarily serve? t ' Development that existed in 1986 X New Development (since 1986) X Projected New Development after 1986 12 . Would the project have been needed to maintain adopted level of service standards even if no new growth had occurred since 1986? No. The: Park Facilities Impact Fee Report prepared by I Freilich, Leitner, Carlisle and Shortlidge indicates the I ' activity-based park facilities in the Lower Keys currently meet the County' s level of service standard. In the absence - i of additional development, the existing park facilities would continue to provide adequate service with only routine maintenance. . . SECTION 2 - PLANNING REVIEW Reviewed by: Mark Rosch Project .Not Eligible for Impact Fee Funding for the Following Reason(s) : X Project Eligible for Total Impact Fee Funding. Approved, for $ 71000 . 00 in impact fees ' from the Community Park fund as follows: $. _71 , 000 . 00 from Lower Keys (District 1) , $ • 0 from Middle Keys (District 2) $ 0 from Upper Keys (District 3) Project Eligible for Partial Impact Fee Funding. • , Approved for $ in impact fees from the fund as -follows: $ from Lower Keys (District 1) l $ from Middle Keys (District 2) I_ ! $ • . from Upper Keys (District 3) •Code Citationsand'Notes: '; • Section 9 . 5-492 (f) (3) (a) of the' Monroe County Land Development Regulations authorizes the expenditure of impact fees 87 - . 1-1 Exhibit R (continued) • on the capital expansion of the County' s community park facilities in a manner consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed project meets these requirements. Watson Field is an existing park facility in the Big Pine ACCC. i Since the Lower Keys activity-based Y y- park facilities already meet the County' s LOS standard, there are no existing deficiencies in this impact fee subdistrict . The new facilities will help meet the needs of future development. Given that the Lower Keys park impact fee subdistrict has no existing deficiencies and that the project will provide additional capacity to serve new growth, the capital improvement r--� portions of the project may be funded entirely with impact fees . Since the project will primarily benefit new residents living in the Lower Keys, the funds should withdrawn from the Lower Keys subdistrict .account . • : SECTION 3 - LEGAL REVIEW • Reviewed by: Concur with the Planning Review i Object to •the Planning Review ' Notes: • SECTION 4 - OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT & BUDGET REVIEW i ; Reviewed by: • ,Data Of ,BOCC •Action: • BOCC approval for $ in impact fees from the fund as follows: • $ from Lower Keys (District 1) $ . from Middle Keys (District 2) $ • . from Upper Keys (District 3) Notes: • Copies of this completed checklist have been distributed to: Finance Department Planning Department . : Person Requesting Approval • • • • 88 Exhibit S COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 1 . The County Administrator should consider establishing a train- ing program for county staff concerning eligibility require- ments for expenditure of Impact Fee funds. RESPONSE The Division Directors are charged with the overall responsi- bility and are considered very knowledgeable concerning the eligibility requirements for expending Impact Fee funds . However, in every case, the Directors must : obtain a ruling from the office of the County Attorney opining as to said eligibility. It is considered that any additional training beyond that presently being informally provided in Division and Department Director meetings is not warranted. 2 . The County Administrator should establish written procedures for all County departments requiring prompt deposit of fair 4 share , impact,, funds . . (CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN: The Monroe County Building Official wrote a memorandum addressed to the Assistant Building Officials and Building Office Coordinators dated February 14, 1992 which directed that all building deposits receipts should be deposited daily. ) RESPONSE The Monroe County Building Official has written a memorandum addressed to the Assistant Building Officials and Building Office Coordinators dated February 14, 1992, which directed that all building deposits receipts are to be deposited dai- ly. The content of this memorandum has been reemphasized. 3 . That the County Administrator seek to identify additional funding .sources, for, the required funding from general revenue funds, and other lfunding. sources, in order that the required matching of fair share impact funds may be achieved and need- ed capital expansion improvements made to correct, the defi- ciencies which existed at 19:85 . . T RESPONSE. The County Administrator has always and will continue to aggressively seek funds for improving the County' s infrastruc- ture as evidence by his initiative in ' the passage of the one cent infrastructure sales tax . referendum, the one cent tour- ist bed tax, the refunding of three municipal capital improve- ment revenue bonds, implementation of the Personal Service Fees at the airports, providing for paid parking, increased user fees and fines, etc. • 89 ExhibitT PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION 1 . The Director, Division of Public Works, should identify those capital expansion costs which were paid out of other revenue sources and have that percentage attributable to new growth needs applied to the appropriate subdistrict' s fair share transportation' impact funds . RESPONSE (PROVIDED BY DAVE KOPPEL, DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING) To comply with this direction, we researched our files back to October 1, 1986 and came up with several potential projects which may qualify for reimbursement . The following list identifies the road, cost, year constructed, and a de- scription of the work. 1 . Bertha St. , Key West Roads I, $213 , 046, 1992 Existing road consisted of 2 - 14' lanes . Work included as- phalt leveling and surface courses, plus the installation of a drainage system. New road consists of 2 - 11' lanes plus 2 - 3 ' paved shoulders for bicyclists and/or pedestri- ans . In. my opinion, the work is a capital expansion of the major' road . network because, 1) the installation of the drainage system which required unusual thick asphalt in places to provide the proper flow to the new catch basins and drainage wells is a capital expense, 2) 2 - 11' lanes plus 2 - 3 ' paved shoulders/bike lanes provide more capaci- ty than 2 - 14' lanes, and 3) Bertha Street is part of the major road network. 2 . Caribbean Dr. West, Summerland Key Roads I, $114, 702 , 1991 1-1 Existing road consisted of 2 - 8' lanes . Work included asphalt leveling and surface courses, widening, and the installation of a drainage system. New road consists of 2 - 10' lanes and 2 - 5' paved shoulders/swales . Work is clearly capital in nature but whether or not Caribbean Drive West can be considered part of the major road net- work: is arguable.* Caribbean • Drive is, a collector road but this leg (Caribbean Drive West) is questionable. , 3 . Westshore, Eastshore, and Ocean Drive, Summerland Key Roads II, ' $305, 287, 1991 Existing ,roads consisted of 2 - 9 .5 ' lanes . Work included asphalt leveling and surface courses, widening, plus the installation of turn lanes at US1 . New roads consist of 2 - 11' lanes plus 2 - 3 ' paved shoulders/bike path lanes on Westshore Drive and Ocean Drive. work is clearly a capital expansion of the .major road network. 4 . Newfound Blvd. , Big Pine Key Roads III, $122, 184, 1990 Existing. road consisted of 2 - 9 .5' lanes . Work included asphalt .leveling ..and surface courses, widening, plus the installation of 'a turn lane at US1. New road consists of 2 - 11' lanes . Work is clearly a capital expansion of the major road network. 90 1—! Exhibit T (continued) • 5 . High Point Road, Plantation Key Roads III, $23, 474, 1990 Existing road consisted of 2 - 10' lanes. Work included asphalt leveling and surface courses, • widening, plus the installation of a turn lane at US1. New road consists of 2 - 10' lanes varying to 12 ' . Work is clearly a capital expansion of the major road network. • 6 . Venetian Blvd. , Plantation Key Roads II, • $199 , 101, 1988 Existing road consisted of 2 - 16' lanes. Work included significant asphalt leveling which was used in lieu of reconstruction, and asphalt surface course. New road con- sists of 2 - 12 ' lanes and 2 - 4' paved shoulders/bike lanes . In my opinion, the work is a capital expansion of the major road network because, 1) the extent of the as- phalt used was beyond that for normal maintenance because of the failure of the existing road base and thus a capi- tal expense,. 2) 2 - 12 ' lanes plus 2 - 4' paved shoul- ders/bike lanes provide more capacity than 2 - 16' ,lanes, and 3) Venetian Blvd. is part of the major road network. 71 7 . Spanish Main and Puerto Bello Drive, Cudjoe Key Roads I, $157; 300, 1988 Existing road consisted of ' 2 - 10' lanes . Work included asphalt leveling and surface courses, plus widening. New road consists of 2 - 11' lanes . Work is clearly a capital expansion of the major road network as Puerto Bello is an extension of Spanish Main. !-1 I 8 . 107th and 109th Gulf, Key Vaca Roads VI, $73 , 790, 1988 Existing road consists of 2 - 10' lanes . Work included asphalt leveling and surface courses, plus widening. New road consists of 2 - 11' lanes . Work is clearly a capital expansion of the major road network. 9 . Plante St . , Palm Drive, Lime Drive, Collins Street, Sound t- J Drive, Largo. Avenue., Key Largo Roads VIII, $111, 305, 1987 Existing roads varied between 14 ' and 19 ' . Work included F1 asphalt . 1eve.ling and surface courses, plus widening. New roads are.: 20' wide. Work is clearly a capital expansion but may not qualify as part of the major road network; ,- 1 however we view these roads as collectors. • 10 . Sugarloaf Blvd. , 1st St. , 4th St.,, Big Coppitt Roads I, $332 , 250, 1987 ' • Existing roads vary between 15' and 21' . All roads were LJ widened to 20 ' and 22 ' using asphalt leveling and surface courses . Work is clearly a capital expansion of the major ' j road network. • 91 Exhibit T (continued) 11 . Ships Way and Kyle Blvd. , Big Pine Key Roads II, $104, 973 , 1987 Existing roads vary between 17' and 21' . Both roads were widened to 20' and 24' using asphalt leveling and surface courses . Work is clearly a capital expansion of the major road network. 12 . Copa D'Ora, Middle Keys Roads I, $37, 038, 1987 Existing road was 19 ' wide. Work included asphalt leveling and surface courses, plus widening to 20' . In our opinion this is a capital expansion of the major road network since widening did occur and since Copa D'Ora is a collec- tor, although a minor one. 13 . Coral Shores Dr. , Bayview Dr. , Lobster Tail Dr. , Little Torch Roads I, $44, 014, 1987 Existing roads vary between 18' and 19 ' wide. Work includ- ed asphalt leveling and surface courses, plus widening to 20' . In our opinion this is a capital expansion of the major road network- since widening did occur and since these roads are collectors, although minor. 14 . Plantation Key Bike Path, $33, 701.36, 1990 New bike path located on US1. Project identified in Audit Report, Exhibit L. 15 . Plantation Key Bike Path, $10, 836 . 39 , 1990 New bike path located on Woods Ave. and Gardenia Street near Coral Shores school . Project identified in Audit report, Exhibit L. 16 . Stock Island Bike Path, $2 , 0786 . 95, 1992 New bike path located on Cross Street . Project identified in Audit Report, Exhibit L. The above projects: numbered 1 - 13 were funded by Constitutional Gas Tax Revenue :while projects numbered 14 - 16 were funded with Local Option Gas `�Tax Revenue. According to a memorandum from the • Director of: Planning,, each capital improvement project can be funded with 'Impact Fees for 10A of the project cost. • • 92 Exhibit T (continued) 2 . The Director, Division of Public Works should obtain written approval from the Planning Director concerning the eligibili- ty of specific capital expansion projects to be funded from Impact Fees, in whole or in part, prior to including such projects in the Community Park impact Fund budget and depart- mental budgets . RESPONSE (PROVIDED BY MICHAEL LAWN, DIRECTOR OF FACILITIES MAINTENANCE) Regarding the Community Park Impact Fund, the Director of the Growth Management Division inquired as to the method in which we obtain approval . We coordinate with the Office of Manage- ment and Budget (OMB) regarding all capital expansion projects, who in turn obtains written approval from the Plan- ning Director concerning the eligibility of funding the project with impact fees . OMB takes the appropriate steps to receive Board approval and in turn provides us with an ac- count number and an amount so we can proceed with the project. 3 . The Director, Division of Public Works, should identify those capital expansion costs which were paid out of other revenue sources . and have• that percentage attributable to new growth needs applied to the appropriate subdistrict' s fair share- - community park impact funds . RESPONSE (PROVIDED BY MICHAEL .LAWN, DIRECTOR OF FACILITIES MAINTENANCE) Capital expansion projects from the past years that were paid out of other revenue sources are listed below with the costs associated with same. PROJECT NAME AMOUNT Higgs Beach Gun Mounts $ 35,823 .41 (50/50 matching grant) Higgs Beach Pavilion 103 , 212 .26 Same : Higgs . Beach Pier 238,279 . 81 Same Big Pine Recreation Center 64, 28.0 . 07. Big Pine Leisure Club . (Land) 34, 125 . 00 Big. Pine Leisure Club (Bldg. ) 128 , 375 . 00 . •Big Pine Athletic Club (Land) 20, 829 .56 Big Pine Athletic Club (Bldg. ) 83, 318 .22 .Higgs Beach Capital Improvements 60, 681. 01 Harry Harris Park Capital 149 , 766 .42 93 Exhibit U PURCHASING DEPARTMENT 1. The Director of Purchasing should obtain written approval L . from the Planning Department before issuing purchase orders against Impact Fee Fund 311 to ensure the correct apportion- - ment between fair share impact funds and other revenue sourc- es . 2 . The Director of Purchasing should obtain written approval from the Planning Department before issuing purchase orders against Impact Fee Fund 312 to ensure the correct apportion- ment between the fair share impact funds and other revenue sources . 3 . The Director of Purchasing ensure written approval exists from the Planning Department before issuing purchase orders against Impact Fee Fund 312 in order to correctly apportion expenditures between the Impact Funds and the related library department capital improvement expenditure accounts funded by general revenues . • 4 . The Director of Purchasing should ensure written approval exists from the Planning Department before issuing purchase orders against Impact Fee Fund 313 to ensure the correct apportionment between fair share impact funds other revenue sources . 5 . The Director of Purchasing should obtain written approval from the Planning Department before issuing purchase orders against Impact Fee Fund 314 in order to ensure the correct apportionment between fair share impact funds and other reve- nue sources . • 6 . The Director : of Purchasing should obtain ' written approval from the Planning Department before issuing purchase orders against Impact Fee Fund 314 to ensure correct apportionment between impact funds and other revenue sources. RESPONSE (PROVIDED BY DICK COFER, DIRECTOR OF PURCHASING) The Purchasing Department will require written approval from the Planning Department before issuing a purchase order(s) against any of the following Impact Fee Fund Numbers 311, 312 , 313 , 314 . The approval (s) shall insure the correct appor- FT; tionment between fair share impact funds and other revenue sources. • 94 Exhibit U (continued) The written approval (s) shall be in the form of a memo signed by the Planning Department Director or his designee stating that all conditions for correct apportionment have been met as to "fair share" impact funds and other revenue sources . This memo shall become a part of the documentation authoriz- ing the issuing of said purchase order(s) . This approval shall become effective upon action at the direc- tion of the County Administrator for the Board of . County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida. • 95 Exhibit V FINANCE DEPARTMENT (RESPONSES PROVIDED BY SANDEE CARLILE, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE) 1 . The Director of Finance should identify specific accounting object codes to segregate capital expansion expenditures which qualify for matching community park impact funds. RESPONSE There are no specific requirements on the assignment of ob- ject/ , property . codes in the Uniform Accounting System Manu- al . Therefore, any object/project codes " assigned by the Office of Management and Budget during the budgeting process relative to these expenditures would be acceptable to the Finance Department subject to a five digit limit. 2 . The Director of Finance should provide unique object codes for those library capital expansion projects which qualify for matching impact funds . RESPONSE There are no specific requirements on the assignment of ob- ject/ property codes in the Uniform Accounting System Manu- al . Therefore, any object/project codes assigned by the Office of Management and Budget during the budgeting process relative to these expenditures would be acceptable to the Finance Department subject to a five digit limit . 3 . The Director of Finance make available unique object codes for the, capital expansion of books, films, and periodicals which qualify for matching impact funds . RESPONSE There are no specific requirements on the assignment of ob- ject/ property codes in the Uniform Accounting System Manu- al . Therefore, any object/project codes assigned by the Office of Management and Budget during the budgeting process relative to : these expenditures would be. acceptable to the Finance',Depar.tment subject to a five digit limit. 4 . The Director' of Finance should identify specific accounting object codes to segregate capital expansion expenditures which - qualify for matching fair share solid waste impact ,funds . RESPONSE There are no specific requirements on the assignment of ob- ject/ property codes in the Uniform Accounting System Manu- al . Therefore, any object/project codes assigned by the Office of Management and Budget during the budgeting process relative to these expenditures would be acceptable to the Finance ,Department" subject to a five digit limit. 96 ? i Exhibit V (continued) 5 . The Director of Finance should obtain written approval from the Planning Department before transferring funds to reim- burse the Sheriff Department for capital expansion to ensure correct apportionment between fair share impact funds and other revenue sources . RESPONSE The Finance Department shall review supporting documentation for reimbursement to the Sheriff Department for capital expan- sion to include written approval from the Planning Department to ensure correct apportionment between fair share impact funds and other revenue sources. 6 . The Director of Finance should identify object codes to segre- gate those capital expansion expenditure which qualify for matching impact funds. RESPONSE There are no specific requirements on the assignment of ob- ject/ property codes in the Uniform Accounting System Manu- al . Therefore, any object/project codes assigned by the Office of Management and Budget during the budgeting process relative to these expenditures would be acceptable to the Finance Department subject to a five digit limit. 7. The Director of Finance should obtain written approval from the Planning Department before transferring funds to reim- burse the Sheriff Department for capital expansion improve- ments to ensure correct apportionment between fair share impact funds and other revenue sources. RESPONSE The Finance Department shall review supporting documentation for reimbursement to the Sheriff Department for capital expan- sion to include written approval from the Planning Department to ensure correct apportionment between fair share impact funds and other revenue sources. 8 . -The Director of Finance should identify specific object codes to segregate the purchase of police vehicles which may quali- fy for matchingpolice facility fair share impact funds from routine replacement of vehicles . ;RESPONSE There are no specific requirements on the assignment of ob- ject/ property codes in the Uniform Accounting System Manu- al . Therefore, . any object/project codes assigned by the Office of Management and Budget during the budgeting process relative to these expenditures would be acceptable to the Finance Department subject to a five digit limit. • 97 • Exhibit V (continued) 9 . The Director of Finance should obtain a written opinion con- cerning the refund of Impact Funds from the County Attorney for any reasons other than an applicant qualifying for afford- able housing subsequent to the payment of Impact Fees. RESPONSE The Finance Department shall review supporting documentation for refund of Impact Funds for any reasons other ' than an applicant qualifying for affordable housing subsequent to the payment of . Impact. Fees to include written approval from the County Attorney. 10 . The Director of Finance should establish written procedures for notifying the County Administration when irregularities . in deposits are noted. (CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN: The Monroe County Building Official wrote a memorandum addressed to the Assistant Building Officials and Building Office Coordinators dated February 14, 1992 which directed that all building deposits receipts should be deposited daily. ) RESPONSE The Finance Department has implemented a procedure whereby County Administration will be notified when irregularities in deposits, are noted. • • • 98 Exhibit W OMB DIRECTOR 1 . The Director, Office of Management and Budget, should obtain written approval from the Planning Director concerning eligi- bility of capital expansion projects to be funded from Impact Funds, in whole or in part, prior to including such. projects in the Library Impact Fund budget and the related Library budget . 2 . The Director, Office of Management and Budget, should obtain written approval from the Director of Planning concerning the eligibility of library book purchases from Impact Fee Funds prior to including such items in the Library Impact Fund budget and the related Library Department' s budgets . RESPONSE (PROVIDED BY MELANIE BRYAN, DIRECTOR OF OMB) Through . a coordinated effortwith the planning Department, there now exists an IMPACT FEE EXPENDITURE APPROVAL FORM which must be properly completed prior to any expenditure of impact fees from Funds 130, 131, 132, 133 , or 134 . The proper completion of this form ensures that all departments involved in the approval process have completed their part of the approval process . The Office of Management -and Budget is the last department to sign off on the approval and takes the responsibility for providing completed copies to all involved departments . The proper completion of this form will there- fore make the project a viable project for inclusion into the Monroe County Budget. A copy of the Approval Form is attached as reference. 99 - . ExhibitX ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DIVISION 1 . The Director, Division of Environmental Management, should identify those capital expansion costs for recycling equip- ment which were paid out of other revenue sources and have that percentage attributable to new growth needs applied to the appropriate subdistrict' s fair share solid waste impact funds . RESPONSE (PROVIDED BY BARRY BOLDISSAR, - DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT) Pursuant to (this) recommendation. . . enclosed (Attachment 1) is a list of capital equipment purchases with corresponding funding sources. All items listed with the exception of seven (7) multi-materi- al recycling containers (purchased in July of 1992 from im- pact fees at a cost of $29, 736) , and fourteen (14) multi-ma- terial and open top containers (purchased from an equipment note at a cost of $43 , 120) were paid out of "other revenue sources" - i.e. , regular budget, and grant monies . Of the total $1, 091, 802 . 82, items totalling $721, 487. 82 were purchased from regular budget appropriations . Assuming that 10% is still appropriate for the "buy-in" approach " (page 27, 5 . 2) , $72 , 148 . 78 of the funds spent from the regular budget could be applied to solid waste impact fees.. (See Attachment 2 . ) • • • Although our impact fee consultant informs us that grant monies can be considered an "other revenue source" , to be conservative, only the regular budget was used in the calcula- tions to determine amounts applicable to impact fees. BLH. 643/TXTADAMS • • 100 EXISTING CAPITAL EQUIPMENT PURCHASES • REVISED 2/17/93 (ALL EQUIPMENT LISTED HAS A 5 YEAR LIFE) PURCHASE • - ITEM- -- " - DATE EQUIPMENT (NOTE) REGULAR BUDGET GRANT IMPACT FEES Truck (Mack 1987) 9/87 $ $78,014.00 $ Truck (Mack 1987)- 9/87 78,014.00 - .. Truck (Mack 1988) 9/88 .86, 164.00 • Multi-Material Containers 9/89 7,937.00 Multi-Material Containers . 9/89 • 7,937.00 Multi-Material Containers 9/89 ) 7,937.00 Multi-Material Containers 9/89 7,937.00 Truck (Mack 1989) - • 9/89 • 78,352.00 E. Platform Truck . 1/90 366.67 a N N Portable Glass Crusher 3/90 'a3,410.00 c Front End Loader 3/90 33,300.00 c m a Baler 4/90 23,885.00 Multi-Material Containers- 4/90 Multi-Material Containers 4/90 6,850.00 Multi-Material Containers .4/90 6,850.00 Multi-Material Containers 4/90 • 6,850.00 "- • Multi-Material Containers 4/90 6,850.00 6,850.00 Paper Containers 4/90 3,350.00 Paper Containers 4/90 3,350.00 Paper Containers : . 4/90 3,350.00 _ Catepillar Foklift 5/90 20,780.00 Conveyor System 5/90 438.03 Van (Nissan 90) 6/90 13,389.00 �, _ 6 id u REVISED 2/17/93 (ALL EQUIPMENT LISTED HAS A 5 YEAR LIFE) • PAGE 2 PURCHASE ITEM DATE EQUIPMENT (NOTE) REGULAR BUDGET GRANT IMPACT FEES . . Jaw Bucket .. ... - . 9/90 $ $ $ 6,500.00 $ Bar Code Scanner 10/90 1,895.00 • Curbside Truck 11/90 10,653.00 91,942.00 • Curbside Truck • - - - 11/90 10,653.00 91,942.00 Conveyor. 1/91 - . 11,280.00 . Crane Truck (90) 2/91 . 48,550.0C• Hot Water Pressure Washer 7/91 2,318.60 Multi-Material Containers 9/91 4,411.00 ti Multi-Material Containers 9/91 4,411.00 E. c ,, Multi-Material Containers 9/91 5,480.00 . k - N Multi-Material Containers 9/91 5,480.00 n 0 o 20 Yd. Roll-Off Bins .. 9/91 2,300.00 �' co 20 Yd. Roll-Off Bins 9/91 2,300.00 a 20 Yd. Roll-Off Bins 9/91 2,300.00 20 Yd. Roll-Off Bins 9/91 2,300.00 - . Office Paper Bins 9/91 2,350.00 Office Paper Bins 9/91 2,350.00 Office Paper Bins 9/91 2,350.00 • Office Paper Bins 9/91 2,350.00 Rcy. Oil Containers 4/92 2,145.00 Rcy, Oil Containers 4/92 • 2,145.00 Rcy. Oil Containers 4/92 2,145.00 Multi-Material Containers 7/92 4,248.00 Multi-Material Containers 7/92 Multi-Material Containers 7/92 4,248.00 Multi-Material Containers, 7/92 4,248.00 Multi-Material Containers 7/92 4,248.00 Multi-Material Containers 7/92 4,248.00 Multi-Material Containers 7/92 4,248.00 L 1AA nn Zd I 0 1' I ]:L. ,-1 CA P I TAIL EQUIPMENT ; PURCHASES REVISED 2/17/93 (ALL EQUIPMENT LISTED HAS A 5 YEAR LIFE) PAGE 3 • PURCHASE - ITEM • • . . DATE EQUIPMENT (NOTE) REGULAR BUDGET GRANT IMPACT FEES . 3 Cubic-Yd Hopper . 7/92 $ • $ $ 499.50 • $ 3 Cubic-Yd Hopper ' 7/92. 499.50 Baler/Densifier 8/92 27,467.52 Rear View Camera 9/92 1,599.00 Baler/Conveyor . 11/92 25,383.00 70,227.00 Truck (Mack 1992) - ' " 11/92 79,848.00 Multi-Material Container 11/92 3,536.00* • 712.00 a ' Multi-Material Container 11/92 4,248.00 a N 0 Multi-Material Container 12/92 " 4,248.00 Multi-Material Container . 12/92 4,248.00 • 0 o E. Multi-Material Container 1/93 - 4,248.00 g. Multi-Material Container 1/93 4,248.00 Open Top Container. (40 yd) 1/93 - 2,800.00 - = Open Top Container (40 yd) 1/93 2,800.00 Open Top Container (20 yd) 1/93 2,124.00 Open Top Container (20 •yd) 1/93 2,124.00 - Open Top Container (20 yd) 1/93 2,124.00 ' Open Top Container (20 yd) 1/93 2,124.00 Open Top Container (20 yd) 1/93 2,124.00 Open Top Container (20 yd) 1/93 . 2,124.00 TOTAL COST $43,120.00 $721,487.82 $297,459.00 $ 29,736.00 *All but $712 of entire Amount was 'paid out of the Equipment Note (MSD) • • ExhibitX (Continued) 1 • Attachment. 2 Population Sub-District Growth Share Lower Keys 2 , 380 $20 ,750. 94 Middle Keys 1 , 446 $12,607 . 52 Upper Keys 4, 449 $38 ,790 . 32 TOTAL • 8 , 275 $72,148.78 • • • • • • 104 • Exhibit Y ^;z r-• BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER OOYIMONROE _ �� MAYOR,JackLo ,D Z ,,,yLORIDA 33040 a , .;.k , ;�., Shirley Freeman,District 3 ( )294-4641 cr .. r,r � � ►Ois,.. � 1(� Mary Kay Rslch.District 5 MEMORANDUM:t s AD To : Charles Mansen From: Peter J. Horton, Division Director .4?: 1-.\--- Community Services Division Date: February 24, 1993 Re : Response to Preliminary Audit Report. in refe to Library Impact Fees rence - Based upon the attached documentation from Planning staff we believed we were correctly budgetingad and Legal impact fees in 1989. Also, we believed had expendingecorrectly li- brary budgeted and expended impact fees in FY92. carrraty rati- fied on March 22, 1992 by the attached memo from the eliei. ecs f lanning titled "Impact fees expenditures". Director of Aghemo states ' My staff has reviewed theIn this memo Mr. -, and agrees that they meet the proposed expenditures. . . ment Regulations". requirements of the Land Develop- Page 12 of that memo specifically states that were justifiable and fundable with impact fees. the expenditures The auditing staff disagrees with the interpretation documents and reads the land plan a bit differently. Be thatof these it may, it is" my understandingently. B as expend impact fees which is osistenth withere s thee audit - interpretation: procedure to Library. staff in the future will follow' new procedures.to the letter if they wish to expend any impact fee revenues in the future. 105 . • • Exhibit Y (Continued) • • MEMORANDUM • TO: Donald Craig ' Director, Planning & Building H FROM; Mary A. Quinn • Library Director RE: Capital-. Improvement Plan for Libraries DATE: June 16, 1989 • According to the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan adopted the Board of County Commissioners on February 28, 1986, an by additional_ 28 ,928 square feet of space will be needed the county libraries to accommodate new for o and 2005. Over 12,000 square feet of this spaceewillnbe985 needed in the lower keys (Subdistrict One) and over 11 ,01 square feet in the upper keys (Subdistrict Three) . Inall three subdistricts , this new growth demand for. a si.gn.if.icant amount of new lmaterialsin sucheas books , films and periodicals . The library located in Key Largo, begun in 1962 and consisting of 1 ,880 square feet of space has been replaced with a new facility containing an additional 10,000 square feet to accommodate the new growth in Subdistrict Thr ee. The facility in Key West (Subdistrict One) will need according to the Comprehensive Plan an additional 12,000 square feet of space and is slated to have a new Children's. Wing added to the. existing structure, again , to accommodate new growth . The planning process calls for the hiring of a ' consultant to prepare a building program statement , an architect to draw. plans and finally, the construction of the new•wing ..., The facial ity in .Marathon . (Subdistrict Two) needs, 'present time ; additional materials (books, films and the periodicals) over and above those budgeted for to meet the new growth already. evidenced in this area. As' stated. in the Comprehensive Plan , financing for improvements which are needed to accommodate new growth over the twenty yeaar period is to come 'from impact fees. (pp . 69-71 of Comprehensive Plan , Vol . II attached) - The attached Table gives the schedule of expenditures for the three subdistricts through 1990. 106 • • 1 , - -� - FISCAL YEAR SPACE BOOKS • FILMS PERIODICALS TOTALS. • I 1588/85 - 10,010 sq.ft-. ' 3,919 books 233 films 15 .. Dist.3 $47-,000.00 (@':$30.ea.) I • (e .$16./book (videos) y. Largo fixtures b $450.00 Key. j Sub average cost (e $30.ea.) - . furnishings *1 $62,704.00 . $6,990:00 $117,144.00 1989/90 $25,000.00 4,000 books Sub. Dist.1 Studies- 8 (e $16./book), • 103 (.00O.ea.) • Key West • preltmt.nar $300.00 . Y - $64,000.00 - . architectural . $ 89,300.00 plans .. . . - ' •1989/90 2,661 books 100 films 1 - Sub. Dist.2 - (e $16./book 7 (e $30.ea:) • • Marathon' - � ) (videos)- $510.00 $42,576.00 (e $30.ea.) $ 46,086.00 s •$3,000.00 sr- 1989/90 '� 1,659 books o- Sub. Dist.3 • (e $16./book) (videos)films 15 (@ $30.ea.) 0 Key Largo - � $450.00 $26,544.00 $3,000.00 8. - Islamorada - ` $ 34,986.00 312 books • (e $16./book) • . $4.992.00 OTALS: . • • $72,000.00 • $200,816.00 $12,990.06 $1,710.00 $287,516.00 *I - Furnishings anticipated to serve .space required for new growth. Exhibit Y (Continued) Table 5: SOURCES OF CAPITAL IMpRO� FUNDING 1985-2005 1/ Year State Local Total 1985 - 1990 $6, 552, 395 $1 , 081 , 145 1990 - 1995 6 , 552 , 395 � 7, 633 , 540 1995 - 2000 6 552 395 1 , 081 , 145 15, 267, 080 , 552 , 395 1 , 081 , 145 22, 900, 620 2000 - 2005 6, 552 , 395, 1 , 081 , 145 30, 534 , 160 1/ In 1985 dollars. I. Library Facilities 1. . • ' Introduction Library services in Monroe County are provided b one of ten (10 ). administrative divisions of Countyy Isystem was established by the Monroe County BoardvofnCount Com- missioners for the purpose of operating and public library service for the citizens of ma ptaining ublic a free governed and funded through a Library Advisory Boardand d is the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners .facilities are described in Volume I of this Plan. These existing • 2. • Level of Service It is the- policy of the Comprehensive Plan that there should be four library books , . 6 • square feet of library space, . . 001 films and :004 .periodicals for each Monroe County resident . • Pro ected Demand Ca ital I royement• s and Costs • Based. • upon the Comprehensive Plan 's level of service standard for library facilities , the County needs an additional 11 , 231 square feet of library. space, . 128, 759 volumesfac, 30 films . and 20 periodicals to bring the existing ites to sufficient standards. The cost. for this isbrar estimatedltoitot l $2, 918, 011 ' in 1985 dollars . (See Table 1 ) al . - 69 - • 108 Exhibit Y (Continued) • • Table 1: GHOSTS TO CORRECT EXISTING DEFICIENCIES IN LIBRARIES 1/ Needed Addt' I • . Period- Volumes Sq. Ft., Films cals Costs Key West SubdIstrict. 1 . 64,536 6,956 -- . 2 $1,554,330.20 Marathon Subdistrict 2 40,113 1,736 14.5. 17 779,718.70 ' Islamorada and • . Key Largo Subdistrict 3 24�110 • 2,5539 - 1_ 1 , 5834962.10 • TOTAL. 128,759 11,231 30.0 20 $2,918,011.00 1 / The assumptions used .are that a film will cost $500 . 00, a periodical costs $27 . 10 , a book costs $16.00, and a square foot of library space costs $100. 00. Based upon the projected growth in Monroe County over the next twenty years , it is estimated that County libraries will need an additional -28 , 928 square feet of space to sufficiently meet the needs for library space from new growth. Over 12 , 000 square feet of this demand is in Subdistrict One ( the •lower Keys ) , 4, 824 square feet is in the middle Keys . (Subdistrict Two ) and over ' 11 , 010 In the upper Keys (Subdistrict Three) . (See Table 2) Based on these projections new library facilities will need to be constructed in Key West ,. Marathon and Key Largo. • • 'In addition to this library space, it is projected that new growth will also demand a significant amount of additional • library ' books; films and periodicals . (See Table 2) • Costs for those new facilities are estimated to total $6, 007 , 844 in 1985 dollars . - 70 - • 109 • . Exhibit Y (Continued) - Table 2: DEMAND AND . COSTS FOR LIBRARY FACILITIEg &NROE COUNTY, 1985 - 2005 11 Total Space New Books . Films Periodicals Costs 28, 928 sq ft . 192, 855 123 . 10 • 192 . 86 - $6, 007 , 844 1/ The assumptions used are that a film costs $500 .00, a perIod- Ical costs $16. 00 , : and a square foot of library space costs T- $75 . 00 . . 4. • Financing Financing for the needed capital improvements will come from revenue bonds , ad valorem taxes and impact fees . The neces- sary $2, 918, 011 to bring existing facilities up to sufficient level of service standards will come through a general revenue bond backed by ad valorem taxes ., The .46,077, 844 needed to .expand existing facilities to accommodate new growth over the next twenty years will be financed through impact fees . (See Table 3 ) Table 3: FINANCING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR LIBRARY FACILITIES, 1985-2005 • Costs Bonds and ad valorem taxes (To meet deficiencies ) $2, 918, 011 Impact fees • (To accommodate new growth) 6 007 844 • TOTAL $8;925, 855 _ J. . Park Facilities I. Introduction Monroe County . residents and citizens throughout the United States enjoy the recreational .opportunities the Florida Keys offer. . In part these opportunities are available because of the existence in• the County of six state parks , three national wildlife refuges , two national marine sanctuaries, nine county parks,, and playgrounds at six of the public schools where resi- dents can recreate. Because of the number and size of the federal and state facilities, there is an over abundance of regional . parks in • . . - 71 - • 110 Exhibit Y (Continued) MEMORANDUM To : Peter Horton, ACA for Community Services Mary Quinn, Library Director From: Mark Rosch, Capitol Improvements Coordinator Date: July 7, 1989 Re : Checklist for Spending Impact Fees . , ! Monroe County regulations and Florida case law impose a number of restrictions on how impact fees can be spent. The following questions will help you determine whether a proposed expenditure is permissible. 1) Is the money being spent on improvements to one of the public services listed below? transportation community parks libraries solid waste police 2) Is the money being spent on a capital expansion for one of the public services listed in question #1? 3) Is the money being spent in the subdistrict from which it was collected? 4) Is the money being spent in a manner consistent with the capital improvements plan of the comprehensive plan? 5) Is the money being spent to provide, for new residents, the same level of service available to existing residents? References Generally: Contractors and Builders Assoc. of Pinellas County v. City of Dunedin, 329 So.2d 314 (FL 1976) (subsequent decision on remand) 358 So.2d 846 (FL 1978) - Transportation: Section 9. 5-491(i) , Monroe County Code Community Parks: Section 9.5-492(f) , Monroe County Code Libraries: Section 9. 5-493(f) , Monroe County Code Solid;"Waste: Section 9. 5-494(e, f) , Monroe County Code- Police: Section 9. 5-495(g) , Monroe County Code • • 111' PROJECTED DEMAND FOR LIBRARY FACILITIES DISTRICT 1 • PER CAPITA LEVELS OF SERVICE (a) t 0.6 SQ FT OF LIBRARY SPACE 4 BOOKS 0.001 FILMS 0.004 PERIODICALS DISTRICT 1 ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL YEAR POPULATION SPACE (sq BOOKS ADDITIONAL PERIODICAL ft) • FILMS PERIODICALS 1985 43,073 6,956 (b) 64,536 (b) 0.90 (b) 2.0 b 1986 43,999 3,703 1987 45,043 627 4,1783.7 ( ) 1988 46,129 - 651 4,342 1.01 4.23 1989 47,094 579 1.1 4.3 1990 47,964 522 33,860 1.0 3.9 -. 1991 48,665 421 2,804 0.7 .5 . 1992 49,367 422 ,804 0.7 2 2.8 1993 50,072 2,8110.7 r 1994 50,778 424 2,818 0.7 2.8 .+ N 1995 51,486 4�5 2,832 0.7 2.8 o N 1996 2,832 0.7 2.8 N 1997 1998 - 1999 ' 2000 2001 a 2002 2003 2004 ' 2005 Sources: (a) FL Keys Comprehensive Plan, Volume 2, page 69. (b) 1985 deficiencies taken from FL Keys Comprehensive Plan, Volume 2, page 70. p , PROJECTED DEMAND FOR LIBRARY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2 PER CAPITA LEVELS OF SERVICE (a) 0.6 SQ FT OF LIBRARY SPACE 4 BOOKS 0.001 FILMS 0.004 PERIODICALS DISTRICT 2 YEAR POPULATION SPACE (s ADDITIONAL Nq ft) ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL FILMS ADDITIONAL PERIODICALS 1985 12,028 1,736 (b) 40,113 b) 1 4.5 1986 12,4281,599 ` 0.4 (b) 11.6 (b) 240 1987 12,884 - 274 1988 13,482 359 2,391 0.6 1.8 1989 13,819 202 1,346 0.36 1.3 1990 14,203 231 1,537 0. .5 pry 0. 1991 14,423 132 1.5 se 1992 14,642 131 879 0.2 2 0 0.9 = 1993 14,860 131 F 876 0.2 0.9 F-' 1994 15, 86 .078 . 131 870 0.2 0.9 ►C 1995 15,295 130 868 0.2 0.9 L.) 1996 0.2 0.9 �] 1-' 1997 0 1996 1999 . G' 2000 2001 °. ' 2002 2003 2004 2005 Sources: (a)-FL Keys Comprehensive Plan, Volume 2, page 69. (b) 1985 deficiencies taken from FL Keys Comprehensive Plan, Volume 2, page 70. S , PROJECTED DEMAND FOR LIBRARY FACILITIES DISTRICT 3 PER CAPITA LEVELS OF SERVICE (a) . . 0.6 SQ FT OF LIBRARY SPACE 4 BOOKS 0.001 FILMS 0.004 PERIODICALS _ DISTRICT 3 ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL YEAR POPULATION SPACE (s4- ft) BOOKS PE FILMS YEAR - RIODICALS 1985 15,471 2,359 359 (b) 224,110 (b) 15.5 (b) 1.0 (b) 1986 15,985 1987 16,481 - 298 , 1,984 0.5 2.1 1988 17,294 487 3,250 0.5 2.0 1989 17,788 297 1,978 0.5 232 .0 1990 18,333 327 2,180 0.5 . tml 1991 18,592 155 1,035 0.5 12 . .0 xL� 1992 18,849 154 1,028 0.3 1.0 1993 19,104 153 0.3 7.0 N 1994 19 358 152 1,015 0.3 1.0. N • 1995 19,610 151 O.3 1.0 ).0 PA. 1996 — 7,008 0.3 1.0 c 1997 yii4C1-* 1998 1999 5' 2000 2001 a 2002 2003 2004 2005 Sources: (a) FL Keys Comprehensive Plan, Volume 2, page 69. (b) 1985 deficiencies taken from FL Keys Comprehensive Plan, Volume 2, page 70. r Exhibit Y (Continued) MEMORANDUM w To Peter Horton, ACA for Community Services. Mary Quinn, Library Director From: Mark Rosch, Capitol Improvements Coordinator • Date: July 19, 1989 . Re Schedule for Adoption of Library CIP . Listed below is the schedule for adopting a 5-year capital improvements plan (CIP) for the libraries. Pursuant to page 80, volume 2 of the comprehensive plan, "the CIP shall be received by the Planning Commission and shall be the subject of a public hearing prior to adoption. " Note that we must have the CIP in final form by August 17 in order to the make the Planning Commission agenda. July 20 public notice du e for PC meeting August 7 public .,notice due for BOCC meeting _ August 17 PC agenda deadline ' ' August 31 . PC meeting at KCB . September 8 .BOCC agenda deadline September 19 BOCC meeting at Marathon courtroom cc: Howard Tupper • 7. Donald Craig • • • • - •• 115 ' . Exhibit Y (Continued) MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning Commission • . • FROM: Mark Roach, Capital Improvements. Coordinator DATE: • August 18,. 1989 • . . . , • REGARDING: FY 89/90 Library Capital Improvements Budget • Attached is the proposed library capital improvements budget et for the upcoming fiscal year. Pursuant to volume 2, chapter 5, section L of the comprehensive plan, the 5-year capital improvements plan is to be received by the Planning Commission. In lieu of the 5-year plan, which will be prepared next year as part of the comprehensive plan update, I am resentinannual budget for your review. Following this pres nt tion, this the budget will go before the Board of County Commissioners for adoption at the September 19 public hearing. 116 • ' FY 1989-90 Library Facilities . _.Without Proposed Improvements Level of Service (millions of $) - 0.5 • • 0.0 ':•:•:•:•:•:•.1•:. "%W.."0. •••••:•:•:•:•:•:•• MI cr —10 s. -2.0 Key West Marathon Key Largo/Islamorada -m..55 4 Space Books f:::•:::::::.: Films I Periodicals J1 J ' _ _ I FY 1989-90 Library Facilities With Proposed Improvements p s Level of Service (millions of $) 0.5 0.0 • 0.5 til ...---1:::: � I •i _ cs— • s • -2.0 Key West Marathon Key Largo/Islamorada Space % Books 1:•:::::::=:=: Films • Periodicals re Exhibit Y (Continued) ` ft-'" ' ---�V MEMORANDUM SEP 1989 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Mark Rosch, Capital Improvements Coordinator SUBJECT: FY 89/90 Library Capital Improvements Budget DATE: August 18, 1989 MEETING DATE: August 31, 1989 PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOARD ACTION: Yes % No X Referral: ( ) ; Commissioners District RECOMMENDED ACTION (list conditions) : Approval SUMMARY OF REQUEST/REPORT Attached is the proposed capital improvements budget for the upcoming fiscal year. library rsu- ant to volume 2, chapter 5, section L of the comprehensive plan, , the 5-year. capital .mprovements plan is to be received by the Planning Commission.t.'.;.The 5-year plan will be next year as the entire comprehensive plan isprepared over the updated. In the meantime, in the absence of a 5-year plan, I am presenting this annual budget for your review. Following this budget will presentation, the go before the Board of County Commissioners for adop- tion at the September 19 public hearing. ACTION BY: Ordinance Resolution CITIZENS COMMITTEE STATEMENT: X No Yes(attach) , AGREEMENT/CONTRACT: N/A COMPUTER CODE NAME (always begins with STF) : STFLIB1.CIP 119 Exhibit Y (Continued) I - MEMORANDUM To : Peter Horton, ACA for Community. Services Mary Quinn, Library Director ✓ From: Mark Roach, Capital Improvements Coordinator Date: September 12, 1989 • Re : Justification for Proposed Impact Fee Expenditures • The proposed library capital improvements budget for fiscal year 1989/90 includes the expenditure of $252,530 in impact fees. This checklist will help document that the fees are being spent in a proper and legal manner. 1) Is the money being spent on improvements to one of the public services listed below? transportation community parks libraries solid waste police The proposed expenditures are for library services. 2) Is the money being spent on a capital expansion for one of the public services listed in question *1? The $25,000 for the PEE study of a children's wing in Key West is clearly a capital expansion. The land development regulations define capital improvements as "the planning of, engineering for, acquisition of land or equipment, and the construction of improvements. . . .". Impact fee expenditures for books,, films, and periodicals are specifically contemplated' on page 71 of volume 2 of the comprehensive plan. - In preparing the county's library impact fee, Dr. James Nicholas incorporated the costs of providing additional books, films, and periodicals (see Nicholas, Monroe County Impact Fee Calculations and' Methodologies, June 1986) . During a phone conversation on 7/25/89, Nicholas advised against spending fees On newspapers (except on those microfiche) or current novels, due to their limited lifespans. Video cassettes are, newcomers to the library shelves and consequently are not addressed in the comprehensive plan or the impact fee calculations. However, if impact fees can be used to buy films, then expenditures on videog ought to be permissible as well. 120 • Exhibit Y (Continued) Furnishings (lamps, carpet, chairs, etc. ) for expanded floor 'space, such as in the Key Largo library, qualify for impact fee funding. An vacant room or wing is not a "library" expansion - unless it contains certain furnishings. 3) Is the money being spent in the subdistrict from which it was collected? Yes. The proposed plan would spend $89,300 from the District 1 .fund on the Key West library, $46,086 from the District 2 fund on the Marathon library, and $117,144 from. the District 3 fund on the Islamorada and Key Largo libraries. 4) Is the money being spent in a manner consistent with the capital improvements plan of the comprehensive plan? To date, the county has no capital improvements plan. In lieu of this requirement, the proposed capital improvements budget was presented to both the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners at public hearings. 5) Is the money being spent to provide, for new residents, the same level of service available to existing residents? Estimates indicate ' that it will take almost $5 million to bring our library facilities up to the level of service standards set forth in the comprehensive plan. Population growth prior to 1986 is responsible for 74 of this deficit. If the county's capital improvement expenditures consist only of impact fees, critics could accuse the county of holding one group of residents (the newcomers) to a higher standard than another group (the pre-1986 population) . • Fortunately, the county made a good-faith effort toward reducing the deficits when it authorized a $777,457 expenditure of bond funds for the purchase of the Key Largo library. The 10,010 sq ft provided by the facility is 7,407 sq ft more than that required by the pre-1986 population, and 6,313 sq ft more than that required; by:: the 1988 population. In fact, the surplus space should meet the needs of growth in . District 3 through the year 2020. While ,the $777,457 will by no means eliminate the county s LOS. ' deficits, it is a healthy step in the right direction. . 2 • • 121 i } Exhibit Y (Continued) ^ MEMORANDUM • • To : Captain Tom Brown, County Administrator Danny Kolhage, County Clerk Randy Ludacer, County Attorney Pam Womack; Budget Director Dent Pierce, Director of Public Works David Koppel, Director of Engineering Mike Lawn, _Director of Facilities Maintenance Peter Horton, Director of Community Services Mary Quinn, Director of Libraries Barry Boldissar, Director of Environmental Management Connie Grabois, Director of Recyc],ing Richard Roth, Sheriff Mary. Ambrose, Sheriff' s Office Finance Director Captain Steve Casey, Sheriff's Office ' Commander of Support Services Through: Robert Herman, Director of Growth Mana emen -' , 1) 'd, 9 t From: Lorenzo Aghemo', Director of Planning / Date: March 22, ' 1992 Re : Impact Fee Expenditures • Pursuant to the staff meeting held in Captain Brown's office on March 12, 1992, Marty Leitner, the County' s impact fee — consultant, has prepared one omnibus legal review of a variety of projects proposed pro osed to be funded with impact fees. A copy of Mr. Leitner' s memo is attached. ` My.ptaff has - reviewed„ the proposed expenditures sunmtarize4liri7 I' age' 13:'�,of the. memo and .agrees that 'they meet the requirements of ir he ''land development -regulations. Once these proposed expenditures are encumbered (i.e'. once the County Commission acts to establish line items for the projects in the County budget) , we will have eliminated the possibility of mandatory refunds .in fiscal year 1992. As indicated on page 13 of Mr. Leitner's memo, much of the funding is already encumbered.. The Office of Management and Budget will prepare the necessary resolutions to encumber the remaining project funding-. The County is in the. process of revising the impact fee ordinance, a process that is expected xp to take. 6 complete. As •noted on page 4 of Mr. Leitner's memo12we°area to recommending that no: additional projects be Proposed for impact fee funding until the new and updated impact fees are adopted by the County Commission. 122