CITY OF TALLAHASSEE
CITY COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM
ACTION REQUESTED ON: September 23, 2009
SUBJECT/TITLE: Discussion of Ox Bottom Crest Concurrency Agreement
TARGET ISSUE: N/A

STATEMENT OF ISSUE

The developer of Ox Bottom Crest (a.k.a. Ox Bottom Hills), Ben Boynton, is requesting that the City Commission rescind the prior Concurrency Agreement, since the development is being modified from an age restricted community to a 183 single-family residential unit development. As a result of the proposed change, the developer is requesting a new Concurrency Agreement that will defer payment until just prior to formal approval of the final plat for a time period not to exceed 3 years. The proposed Concurrency Agreement also includes a request to calculate the required mitigation payment based upon the Concurrency Manual that was in effect at the time of the original development approval (2006 Concurrency Manual) rather than the 2008 Concurrency Manual.

RECOMMENDED ACTION

Option 1: Approve staff’s recommendation and the attached agreement.

FISCAL IMPACT

Postponing payment could result in the delay of the next roadway project in the Northeast Section of the Significant Benefit Program. However, in reality, this roadway project will likely be delayed anyway as a result of the current economic downturn. The City Attorney’s office has reviewed this proposal for legal compliance.

Robert L. Herman, Growth Management Department

Anita Favors Thompson, City Manager

For information, please contact: Robert L. Herman, Growth Management - 891-7015.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL/ISSUE ANALYSIS

HISTORY/FACTS & ISSUES

The approved Ox Bottom Crest (a.k.a. Ox Bottom Hills) development authorizes construction of 183 age-restricted residential units. Based upon a market analysis, the developer has determined that the feasibility of developing an age-restricted development is low. Instead, the market analysis demonstrated that single-family detached dwelling units have a much greater probability of success at the proposed location. Therefore, the developer has chosen to request modification of the existing development to allow the construction of 183 single-family detached residential dwelling units that are not age restricted. As part of the modification process, the developer has submitted a revised concurrency application. Staff has reviewed the application and the impacts of the proposed development result in a required concurrency mitigation payment of $359,435 (based upon the 2006 Concurrency Manual rather than the current 2008 Concurrency Manual).

The developer, Ben Boynton, is requesting that the City Commission rescind the prior Concurrency Agreement since the development is being modified. As a result of the proposed change, the developer is requesting approval of a new Concurrency Agreement (Attachment 1) that will defer payment until approval of the final plat, for a time period not to exceed 3 years. In addition to deferring payment, the developer is also requesting approval to utilize the July 1, 2006 Concurrency Manual, (which is the manual that was in effect at the time of the submittal for approval of the age-restricted development), instead of the 2008 Concurrency Manual, to calculate mitigation payments for the proposed development. The developer understands that all infrastructure and concurrency payments will need to be in place prior to the sale of lots or approval of the final plat. The developer remains optimistic that the timeline will be shorter than the requested 3 years.

Approval of the request would allow the developer to pay the concurrency mitigation dollars to the City at a later point in the development process than the Concurrency Manual requires. It would also result in the collection of fewer concurrency mitigation dollars collected because the payment is based upon the formula included in the 2006 Concurrency Manual rather than the 2008 Concurrency Manual. Staff will be prepared to present, at the Commission meeting, the specific payment amount that would be required under the 2008 Concurrency Manual for comparison purposes.

Staff is recommending approval of the applicant’s request because, in light of the challenging economic times, it maximizes the likelihood that the development will be constructed. It provides a time-limited incentive to stimulate development activity and job creation in the short term. Staff believes the applicant’s request is reasonable in light of the current economic conditions. We are hopeful that deferment of the payment will allow the development to move forward to the construction phase in a shorter time period than 3 years.

CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS

Not Applicable.

OPTIONS

Option 1: Approve the agreement.

Pros: Allows the development to move forward.

Cons: Potential delay in Significant Benefit Project.

Option 2: Recommend denial of the agreement.

Pros: Would not cause a potential delay in the Significant Benefit Project if this project continues forward.

Cons: Developer stated he has problems with paying mitigation cost at this time and development would not move forward.

Option 3: Provide staff alternative direction.

ATTACHMENTS/REFERENCES

Attachment 1: Ox Bottom Crest Concurrency Agreement