1. Board of County Commissioners DRC Appeal Ruby Lake PD – Hilton Garden Inn / Homewood Suites / Lake Buena Vista August 20, 2013

3. Presentation Outline IntroductionIntroduction Project HistoryProject History SummarySummary Requested ActionRequested Action

4. Presentation Outline IntroductionIntroduction Project History Summary Requested Action

5. Owner Dinesh Kalidas, trustee for DK Land TrustOwner Dinesh Kalidas, trustee for DK Land Trust 2 Hotels / 1 Parcel2 Hotels / 1 Parcel 267 rooms total267 rooms total Shared amenities and drivewayShared amenities and driveway Hilton Garden Inn/Homewood Suites 11400 Marbella Palms Court Introduction © Google 2013

6. Introduction History of Appeal Entered into Alternative Impact Entered into Alternative Impact Fee Agreement with County Fee Agreement with County – Pay $178,890 instead of $713,958 due - Monitor within 5 years - Agree to pay any difference plus interest Monitoring study initiated Monitoring study initiated March 2008 July 2012

7. Monitoring resulted in an additional $159,399 + $33,430 interestMonitoring resulted in an additional $159,399 + $33,430 interest Appellant requested relief from additional fees due, waiver of interest amount, and payment planAppellant requested relief from additional fees due, waiver of interest amount, and payment plan Impact Fee Committee (IFC) denied the appealImpact Fee Committee (IFC) denied the appeal DRC upheld the IFC’s denialDRC upheld the IFC’s denial September 2012 History of Appeal February 2013 March 2013 August 2012 Introduction

8. Follow-up monitoring study within 5 years of effective date Any additional fees due within 30 days of demand Interest calculated from effective date through date of demand Interest rate established by State Comptroller pursuant to Section 55.03, FL Statutes Introduction Code Requirements and Terms of Agreement

9. Presentation Outline Introduction Project History Summary Requested Action

10. Approved by Impact Fee Committee February 2008Approved by Impact Fee Committee February 2008 Agreement approved by BCC March 2008Agreement approved by BCC March 2008 Paid $178,890 instead of $713,958 standard ordinance feePaid $178,890 instead of $713,958 standard ordinance fee Project History

11. Hilton Garden Inn/ Homewood Suites Impact Fee Rate ($/room) Total Fee (267 rooms) Ordinance (Hotel)$2,674$713,958 Alternative Study$670$178,890 Initial Savings$535,068 Project History Alternative Road Impact Fee Savings

12. Monitoring study week of 7/9/2012Monitoring study week of 7/9/2012 Data CollectionData Collection −Machine Counts −Manual Count Verification Data Collection Project History

13. O/D SurveysO/D Surveys Survey RateSurvey Rate −25% Required −60% Collected Surveyors Data Collection Project History

14. Impact Fee Rate ($/room) Total Fee (267 rooms) Ordinance (Hotel) $2,674$713,958 Monitoring Study $1,267$338,289 Previously Paid$670$178,890 Additional Road Impact Fees Due $159,399 Project History Monitoring Results

15. Additional Road Impact Fees Due Interest (as of date of demand) Total Due Project History $159,399 $33,430 $192,829

16. Initially Paid Additional Fee Total Fee Ordinance Fee Savings Project History $178,890 $159,399 $338,289 $713,958 $375,669 53%

17. Presentation Outline Introduction Project History Summary Requested Action

18. Appellant entered into contractual agreement with County County conducted monitoring study $192,829 due to County as of August 20, 2012 Summary

19. Over last 15 years BCC entered into 101 alternative road impact fee agreements where monitoring completed 23 agreements resulted in additional fees owed First time Board being asked to invalidate terms of agreement Historically Summary

20. Presentation Outline Introduction Project History Summary Requested Action

21. Uphold Development Review Committee’s decision and deny appeal. Requested Action

22. Inconsistent with County Code and practices Unfair to other property owners in county who have paid their impact fees or met terms of alternative agreements Negative financial impact to the County Negative precedent regarding contractual agreements Implications of Granting Appeal

23. Monitoring Study conducted when site was 97.8% occupied.Monitoring Study conducted when site was 97.8% occupied. Appellant concern: higher occupancy = higher ARIF rateAppellant concern: higher occupancy = higher ARIF rate Trip generation based on the number of trips per occupied roomTrip generation based on the number of trips per occupied room Higher occupancy provides more statistically valid results; does NOT result in higher trip generation rateHigher occupancy provides more statistically valid results; does NOT result in higher trip generation rate Fee Reduction: Occupancy Appeal Request

24. Example: A 100-room hotel is 80% occupied and generates an average of 400 daily trips. Trip Generation Rate = 400/80 occupied rooms = 5.0 trips/occupied roomExample: A 100-room hotel is 80% occupied and generates an average of 400 daily trips. Trip Generation Rate = 400/80 occupied rooms = 5.0 trips/occupied room Example: The same 100-room hotel when 90% occupied generates 450 daily trips. Trip Generation Rate = 450/90 occupied rooms = 5.0 trips/occupied roomExample: The same 100-room hotel when 90% occupied generates 450 daily trips. Trip Generation Rate = 450/90 occupied rooms = 5.0 trips/occupied room Trip Generation

25. Many hotel guests attending conference at Orange County Convention Center (OCCC)Many hotel guests attending conference at Orange County Convention Center (OCCC) Appellant concern: convention attendance = higher trip generation + longer trip lengthAppellant concern: convention attendance = higher trip generation + longer trip length Monitoring indicates lower trip generation due to high occupancy busses (Mears)Monitoring indicates lower trip generation due to high occupancy busses (Mears) Monitoring indicates shorter trip length - OCCC trip length (4.6 miles) vs. overall average trip length (8.76 miles)Monitoring indicates shorter trip length - OCCC trip length (4.6 miles) vs. overall average trip length (8.76 miles) Fee Reduction: Convention Appeal Request

26. Average Trip Length

27. OC Code Chapter 23 Article IV –Pro rata share of costs of improvements required by growth –Not the purpose to collect fees in excess of impact Section 23-93 defines Alternative Road Impact Fee (ARIF) process Variables 1.Trip generation 2.Average trip length 3.% New Trips Obtained by either by conducting new study or transferring results Background

28. Fee ReductionFee Reduction –Occupancy –Convention Payment PlanPayment Plan Waiver of InterestWaiver of Interest Appeal Request

29. Demand letter sent on August 20, 2012 ARIF requires payment within 30 days Intended to ensure value of funds during monitoring period Deferral is basically loan Provision of agreement and Code Rate set by State Comptroller Payment Plan Appeal Request Waive Interest

30. Trip Generation (trips/room) Average Trip Length (miles) % New Trips Impact Fee Rate ($/room) Total Fee (267 rooms) Ordinance Hotel 6.98.48100$2,674$713,958 Alternative Study 2.237.15100$670$178,890 Monitoring Study 3.468.76100$1,267$338,289 Monitoring Study Results Monitoring Study Results