Board of County Commissioners

1. Board of County Commissioners Appeal of DRC Denial September 13, 2011

2. Overview • Project History • Subject of Appeal • Ordinance Requirements • Section 23-93 AIF Calculation • Implications of Approval • Summary • Recommendation

3. Project History • Phase I = 253 Dwelling Units (DUs) • Phase II = 254 DUs • Pulled 7 permits, based on construction type, for Phase I • Paid Phase I impact fees per standard Ordinance rate, but did not request / seek alternative impact fee (AIF) rate • 5 Certificates of Occupancy (COs) issued for Phase I

4. Project History (cont.) • Then, developer requested AIF rate for Phase I and Phase II (separate projects) • Agreement for AIF rate, for Phase II only, approved by Board of County Commissioners on December 14, 2010 • Standard Ordinance rate = $2,454.63 per DU • Alternative rate = $562 per DU (subject to monitoring within 5 years)

5. Subject of Appeal • Developer requested retroactive application of AIF rate to Phase I • Request denied by Impact Fee Committee (IFC) on April 28, 2011, due to direct conflict with Ordinance requirement • Denial appealed to Development Review Committee (DRC) • DRC upheld IFC denial on May 11, 2011

6. Ordinance Requirements • Section 23-93(a), O.C. Code • Developer may seek AIF rate if believes impacts are lower • Alternative calculation must be submitted prior to issuance of initial CO • Here, request for Phase I made after several COs issued for Phase I

7. Section 23-93 AIF Calculation a. In the event an applicant believes that the cost of off-site roadway improvements needed to serve his proposed development is less than the fee established in Section 23-92, the applicant may at his own expense submit an alternative fee calculation to the county administrator or his designee pursuant to the provisions of this section. Such an alternative fee calculation shall be submitted as follows:

8. Section 23-93 AIF Calculation (cont.) (1) Prior to the issuance of the initial certificate of occupancy for a non- phased project; or (2) Prior to the issuance of the initial certificate of occupancy for a phase within a phased project.

9. Implications of Approval • Request directly conflicts with Ordinance requirement • If approved, any other project could seek retroactive application at any time • Impact fees collected, committed, and spent • Approval would lead to uncertainty of impact fee funding of roads in the County’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP)

10. Summary • Developer pulled building permits for Phase I, & did not seek alternative rate • Only after COs issued for Phase I was alternative rate sought • Request directly conflicts with Section 23-93 of Ordinance • IFC denied request, and DRC upheld denial

11. Summary (cont.) • If request is granted, it would: • Establish a bad precedent • Cause uncertainty • Lead to adverse financial implications for CIP

12. Recommendation Uphold the Development Review Committee’s decision and deny the request.

13. Board of County Commissioners Appeal of DRC Denial September 13, 2011