§ 17-39. General legislative findings.

It is hereby ascertained, determined and declared:

(a)

Pursuant to article VIII, section (1)(f) of the Florida Constitution and F.S. §§ 125.01(1)(m) and (w), the county has broad home rule powers to adopt ordinances to provide for and operate transportation systems, including roadways, transit facilities, and bicycle/pedestrian facilities within the county.

(b)

The county is experiencing growth and new development that necessitates the expansion of transportation facilities to assist the county in reaching its full potential to

(1)

Provide sound, clean economic development,

(2)

To protect the natural beauty in a manner that enables the public and visitors to enjoy the immense opportunities for recreation,

(3)

To afford adequate and efficient traffic corridors, including different mobility options, so that the county is more appealing and accessible as a locale and as a destination for residents, visitors and the workforce, and

(4)

To establish evacuation routes that will help in meeting current and future demands and reduce emergency response delays.

(c)

F.S. §163.3180 encourages local governments that have repealed transportation concurrency to:

(1)

Develop tools and techniques including

a.

Adoption of long-term strategies to facilitate development patterns that support multimodal solutions, including urban design, and appropriate land use mixes, including intensity and density,

b.

Adoption of an area-wide level of service not dependent on any single road segment function, and

c.

Establishing multimodal level of service standards that rely primarily on non-vehicular modes of transportation where existing or planned community design will provide adequate level of mobility; and

(2)

Adopt an alternative mobility funding system that uses one (1) or more of the foregoing tools and techniques.

(d)

Goal 3 of the transportation element of the county's comprehensive plan is as follows:

To establish safe and convenient multimodal transportation system, supporting livable communities and economic development, where access and travel choices are increased through new and enhanced public transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and roadway systems.

(e)

The county has determined that currently available revenues will not be sufficient to provide the transportation facilities that are necessary to accommodate growth resulting from new development.

(f)

Enactment of the mobility fee is consistent with objective 3.1 of the transportation element of the county's comprehensive plan, which states that:

The county shall promote alternative modes of transportation to provide a safe, comfortable, attractive, efficient, and energy-efficient multimodal transportation network and shall encourage the use and expansion of alternative modes of transportation for commuting, as well as for recreational purposes. This coordinated web of streets and travel modes will address resident and visitor travel demands and ensure adequate movement of people and goods as a means to attract and sustain economic development. The county shall adopt a funding strategy and implementing regulations to achieve of this network before November 30, 2014.

(g)

The mobility fee was not enacted prior to November 30, 2014 because of delays in completion of the Orlando Urban Area Transportation Study Regional Travel Demand Model developed as part of the Orlando MetroPlan 2040 long range transportation plan.

(h)

Imposition of the mobility fee implements the capital funding portion of the transportation element of the county's comprehensive plan, which states that:

The county shall work to implement an additional funding mechanism to support needed transportation infrastructure and maintenance either through a charter county sales tax, transportation impact fees, mobility fees, or any other funding mechanisms available to the county. The funding mechanism need not be exclusive to those as listed and may be implemented as a combination of all those available as necessary to support the future need for transportation infrastructure and maintenance.

(i)

Imposition of a mobility fee requiring future growth to contribute its fair share of the cost of growth-necessitated transportation facilities is necessary and reasonably related to the public health, safety, and welfare of the people of the county; provided that the mobility fee does not exceed the actual amount necessary to offset the demand on transportation facilities generated by new development.

(j)

Imposition of an administration fee is also necessary and appropriate to ensure that the county's general fund does not bear the full burden of administering and implementing the mobility fees; provided that the administration fee does not exceed the county's actual costs of administration and implementation.

(k)

The county has studied the necessity for, and implications of, imposing mobility fees and administration fees within the unincorporated area of the county to fund the transportation facilities required to serve new development, and determined that mobility fees and administration fees are an appropriate funding mechanism to fund such transportation facilities.

(l)

All mobility fees collected will be deposited in the mobility fee fund for the corresponding mobility fee district and expended for the purposes set forth herein.

(m)

The establishment of mobility fee districts to regulate mobility fee expenditures is the best method of ensuring that the transportation facilities funded by mobility fees benefit the development for which the mobility fees were paid.

(n)

The mobility fees imposed hereby achieve the goals, objectives and policies of the county's comprehensive plan and utilize the tools and techniques encouraged by F.S. §163.3180.

(o)

The county engaged the 2015 consultants to prepare the mobility fee study because of their collective expertise in the development and implementation of mobility fees, with the expectation that the assumptions and conclusions in the mobility fee study relating to calculation of the mobility fee set forth in section 17-42 hereof, the percentages of internal capture and transit reduction set forth in section 17-43 hereof, the trip generation rates utilized to prepare the mobility fee schedule set forth in table 24 of the mobility fee study, and delineation of the mobility fee district boundaries set forth in section 17-49 hereof, would constitute a proper factual predicate for imposition and expenditure of the mobility fees. The county engaged the 2016 consultant to prepare the supplemental mobility study for the purpose of computing a mobility fee for a new corporate headquarters building category to be inserted in table 24 of the mobility fee study. The county engaged the 2017 consultant to evaluate the implemented mobility fee to determine modifications of fee schedule.

(p)

Based upon the foregoing, the mobility fees imposed hereby:

(1)

Are in compliance with the "dual rational nexus test" developed under Florida case law,

(2)

Meet the "essential nexus" and "rough proportionality" requirements established by the United States Supreme Court in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987) and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994),

(3)

Are consistent with the requirements set forth in F.S. §163.3180, Florida Statutes, and

(4)

Are consistent with and being imposed in accordance with F.S. §163.31801.

(Ord. No. 2015-22, § 1, 3-16-15; Ord. No. 2016-47, § 1(B), 6-20-16; Ord. No. 2018-7, § 1(B), 1-8-18)