2000-23874 RESO
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-23874
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING AND ADOPTING
ADMINISTRATIVE FEES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF CONCURRENCY
STATEMENTS FOR INTERESTED PARTIES, PURSUANT TO THE MIAMI
BEACH AUTOMATED CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM; THE
METHODOLOGY USED TO ARRIVE AT THE COST PER TRIP FOR
MITIGATION OF IMPACTS FROM PROJECTS THAT EXCEED TRAFFIC
CONCURRENCY, PLUS A SCHEDULE OF TRANSPORTATION
CONCURRENCY MITIGATION FEES TO BE CHARGED FROM SUCH
PROJECTS; THESE STATEMENTS TO BE ISSUED AND FEES TO BE
COLLECTED BY THE CITY'S TRANSPORTATION/CONCURRENCY
DIVISION.
WHEREAS, the Miami Beach Automated Concurrency Management System (CMS) is a
computer program that measures the impact of proposed development, redevelopment, or use
intensification projects on public services, including traffic; and
WHEREAS, certain development, redevelopment, or use intensification projects may not
satisfy traffic concurrency requirements due to the fact that the traffic they generate exceed the
available capacity of the City's roadway system; and
WHEREAS, the potential impacts ofthese projects can be evaluated and possibly mitigated
by utilizing mechanisms established by the City's Municipal Mobility Plan (MMP) and Concurrency
Management System (CMS), which require the payment of fees by the project applicants; and
WHEREAS, the administrative fees to be charged for the issuance of individual
Concurrency Statements range from $125 to $335 in cost, as shown in Exhibit A, which is herein
attached and made part of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the revenue produced by the administrative fees will fund the operation,
maintenance, and hi-annual update ofthe CMS and MMP, along with the salaries of added staff for
the Transportation/Concurrency Division; and
WHEREAS, the schedule of fees to be charged for Transportation Concurrency Mitigation
is based on the cost per trip for each area ofthe City, which cost is determined by dividing the costs
ofthe MMP-proposed transportation improvement projects, hy the additional capacity to be realized
through the implementation of such projects, as shown in Exhibits A-I, A-2, and A-3 herein attached
and made part of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the revenues produced by the Concurrency Mitigation fees will be deposited
in specific accounts for either the North, Middle, or South Beach TCMA areas where collected, and
subsequently appropriated for specific MMP projects by Resolution of the City Commission; and
WHEREAS, an annual Concurrency Report, including the total amount of fees collected in
the report year, will be made at a regular City Commission Meeting by the Transportation/
Concurrency Manager.
WHEREAS, these fees and the methodology used to arrive at these fees need to be approved
and adopted by the City Commission in order to be implemented by the City's Transportation/
Concurrency Management Division.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City
Commission hereby approve and adopt administrative fees for the various Concurrency Statements
to be issued for interested parties, pursuant to the Miami Beach Automated Concurrency
Management System; the methodology used to arrive at the cost per trip for the mitigation of impacts
from projects that exceed traffic concurrency, plus a schedule of Transportation Concurrency
Mitigation fees to be charged from such projects; these statements to be issued and fees to be
collected by the Transportation/Concurrency Division.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 12th
day of
April
,2000.
flA
MAYOR
ATTEST:
IL () ! "'1 r P r'lAdq^
cmLERK
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & lANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
F:\PLAN\$ALL \AMELlA \LOPES\CMSFEES. WPD
'j- ?-d7)
Dote
EXHIBIT A
CONCURRENCY STATEMENT FEES
1.
Concurrency Inquiry Statement...............................................................
$125.00
2. Preliminary Concurrency Determination Statement (based on intensity level):
Low (1 to 100 trips) .............................................................................
$125.00
Medium (101 to 400 trips) ...................................................................
$235.00
High (40 I-plus trips) ...........................................................................
$335.00
3.
Final Concurrency Reservation Statement ................................................
$150.00
DEFINITIONS:
1. Concurrency Inquiry Statement (CIS, available capacity inquiry) - To be performed and
issued when there is a request or inquiry as to amount of available infrastructure capacity in
a specific area and no development project is involved. All available capacity information
contained in the inquiry statement is considered to be accurate for only the date that it is
issued.
2. Preliminary Concurrency Determination Statement (PCDS)- To be performed and issued
when there is a request for a concurrency review involving an individual development
project. The issuance of a valid concurrency information statement is required for all Design
Review Board (DRB) and Planning Board (PC) application (project) packages. The issuance
of a PCDS will secure the project's "place in line" during the review/approval process and
temporary reservation of capacity, if available.
3. Final Concurrency Reservation Statement (FCRS) - To be issued only when a
development project has received all of its required development approvals or sign-offs and
has satisfied its concurrency requirements. Such requirements may include but are not
limited to, the payment of mitigation fees or execution of an enforceable development
agreement for the funding and implementing of needed infrastructure improvements or
capital improvement projects within a designated time period. Pursuant to the issuance of
a FCRS, capacity will be reserved for the specific project for a period not to exceed one (1)
year.
f:\PLAN\$ALL \AMELlA \LOPES\CMSFEES. WPD
EXHIBIT A-i
Miami Death (ontUrrenty Management System
Capati1y per T AZ
TAl CTAl
North Beoc:h
Cunent
Capoc:ity
Available
TCMA Semon
29 44 4,369 9,228 4,859
31 ' 48 38,685 44,457 5,772 1 1
32 50 24,791 84,923 60,132 0 1
34 I 52 31,184 95,700 64,516 0 1
35 ' 55 50,932 64,488 13,556 1 1
36 57 26,219 39,275 13,056 1 1
37 59 16,880 23,382 6,502 0 1
Sub Total 193,060 361,453 168,393
Middle Beoc:h
22 I 30 11,307 11,307 - , 2 , 2
23 33 I " 21,430 32,433 , 11,003 , 0 2
24 35 ' 22,098 23,057 , 959 I 0 2
25 I ' 36 18,533 " 30,967 12,434 ' 0 2
26 I ' '37 11,771 17,124 5,353 , 2 2
27 ' 38 t ,31,157 61,434 , ' 30,277 ' 2 ' ' 2
28 I 42 I 33,421 ' ...., 46,145 , 12,724 2 2
29 .. 45 23,825 ' " , " ' 56,542 " " 32,717 ," , 2 2
30 " 46 I 44,693 54,197 ' 9,504 . ' 2 2
Sub Total 218,235 m,206 114,971
South BelKh
3 2 8,965 14,690 5,725 3 3
4 3 5,820 I 30,300 24,480 3 3
, 5 4 4,799 14,139 9,340 3 3
6 5 8,672 17,572 8,900 3 3
7 6 5,978 10,381 4,403 ,3 3
8 ~: 10,352 22,182 ~ 3 3
9 2,427 2,428 0 3
10 1 7,660 26,222 8,562 3 3
11 11 21,875 30,746 8,871 3 3
12 13 37,651 38,812 1,161 3 3
13 14 28,462 33,021 4,559 3 3
14 16 25,584 26,547 963 3 3
15 17 23,034 , 23,034 - 3 3
16 20 11,895 15,828 3,933 0 3
17 I 21 22,196 28,883 6,687 3 3
18 24 45,948 58,045 12,097 3 3
19 25 65,836 66,659 823 3 3
20 27 32,302 36,003 3,701 31 3
21 28 12,251 19,073 6,822 3 3
Sub Total 391,707 514,565 122,858
Total
803,002
1,209,224
406,222
H:\211 O\excel\CostPerT rip,CurCap-FutCap.xls\taz
03/29/2000
It
1-
ill
1'15
11
~
....-0 -0....... MM -0-0
MM MMM M<-\
-0 on "'-ON MM
MM MMM
on on
M M
...
M
'"
M
;;;
!~ ~!~ ~~ !~
~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~
S:::l "'''' '" "'0 "'0
-"'-0 ... ... "" -
CD'" ........ CD- ...""
"".... -.. .._""
.. .. .. ...
~ z
1 ej- e e
E .~ ~ ~ ~
1] ~g~ i 1]1
iJ
.I~ ~ .~ \U E .
> . .g~.g Z ! w !
~ E .1 l~f
i ~ .E E .E
000 ~~i
<u uuu U
l
I
~ ~ ..
E
~ ~ e ~
0 i ! ~ I
i:l
. D .5~ e ~",;
o !
ij . Ij
.w E
j.g !
w E a E i ~J
~1i .. ~ 0 E
'Su eUU Z II ..
~] ~ - D U e
.1 ! .j ~ ~
~ on c t
%.8 ~1! 0 il~
k~ U
w~t: !
o . ! ~~ is 0_0
uz ~ i~
~~ , .!!I~ 1
n <w J<J
a> a> ~ 1 ~ u
~ ~ . '€~'€
1: 1: 0
o 0 llil 0 '2 o 0 0
ZZ i:DZ ZUZ
-'" M...-o ... a> <>2
)
~
l
}'J
Jl
~~~~~M~~~~~M~N~~
~~~~~ ~~~~~
~ ~~ ~~~ ~
....,.... "'."
N N t"'<II N
..0 ... ci
'" N '"
on 0'-
'"
...
'"
M
'"
...
N
~~~~~!~~~~~~!~~~
~ ~~~ .~
~ 8"'0"'OS:O o"'oo"'~"''''o
~_~ ~~M~~O~ ~M~M;~~~~
~~~ ~~~ :-~~~~~~~
.-l: .~
cc 1~ - -c1! i1!1!1!
!!_l l ~B dB
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~
{{~,"'j~~ ~~I~{{~{{.H
w w '''' '-; '11- w ~ · ~ w ~ w
l!l5- %-1';- lIliZl!.2ii
~~2n~n ~~~~~.
jjl~~1~~~~j~88uu
-I
~t
f
~
!
~
E
'<:
l
f 11
~ ill
!! < ~
1-= ~ e! .~
1 I~ ! i !i 1! i
~N!i~~j1
-0 ,I..~ . ;1 ~. < ~ _
51 oil! i i 2 E' ;!! '"
I H ~ i'O<'ijna
~ E V . e V, a ~ i ! ~
." i i ~~ } i~ll 'i 11 .0011
-~ OJ ~n~ii~i~!j
i.. .l'c~-._Q.ii2~o
11!-~.5-~~jj 1!iJi i"''''
.~,i!~l~]~~f!i~ill
~J;~~oatl~jl~~J;d
!. :a~..cv...-c_cC~~~!
.wl': l~~"''''~'''.H~.
!]",I~",I~~]]~&&.,,!
~g~:~~;t~g8ji~i~
v~I~zJ~~]~~~dCi~u
~:!~~::~~~N~~~~~~~
~~~N~N~~""~~~
~ ~~:!~: ~~~
:::~=~ ~..."""
~CI)~ NM
~ ~ ....
-0
- ~ M
-
~ ~
'" -
... -
'"
....
-0
'"
~~~~~!~~~~~!
~~~~~~~~~~~~
8(!.l(!.l8"'8!O! ~~:3~
N..oMN:M::z5 NC'lM-G
~ ~ ---;; ~:2 I~ ~ ... ...
~ .~
i:~cc::gC!:c: ::a
E!~n!1 .~
~~hs~o~~~s
~~~ U~~ ~~~~~
'::: '::: ~Iz % '::: ~ .~ .~~ .~
~ ~ "1.11 E ~Ii 1; "5 "5 ~
EE 11 ~ EEl ~ ~ E E ~
<3<3u<3<3<3<3~i~<3
c
.2
~
.
o
U
..,
5
.~
I.s
c
o
II
~ ~ ..
~ ~ I a
i . . ~
;~e iCe
jj~~ .~ i ...
!W= ... e S~
,1~ .s ~ ~~
-< .__E__ c.,
i lill ~ ! ~ .~ ~ g
11 Sl~ p ] L~ ~ ~ ~
::;5 ~~l.E1d~ ~~
" "& ~ ."'~ 1 ! <S U ~ ~ lill ~
IS ~ z c ~ ,. . a 1;1~
11 d <3 ~ 1 5 P ~ ~II,;
~<3~1l.f] ~~';~~~~
oc!~ .~1iGlloO
~i~&E~~~~~~1
dJ~~!~~~JlJlJl(:)
11
il
"0
ONM"\I")"CI)o.O-NMO
MMMC")MMMM..............
.Q
~
'"
E.XHIBIT A-2
~~
~...:
M.a
-o~
~~
:I
I
~
a
E.X' H I B I r A" 3
Table 3
Miami Beach Concurrency Management System
T ronsportotion Cost per Trip of Additional Capacity
FulURl Capacity (based an
TAl. c.. CIfOlir ~...., ~. project bank)
North Beach
Addi'ianal Capacity Cas' per Trip
29 9,228 9,228 -
31 44,457 47,569 3,112
32 84,923 85,772 849
34 95,700 96,657 957
35 64,488 65,778 1,290
36 39,275 40,453 1,178
37 23,382 23,616 234
Sub Total
361,453
369,073
7,620 $
1,841
Middle Beach
22 11,307 11,985 678
23 32,433 34,703 2,270
24 23,057 23,518 461
25 30,967 31,896 929
26 17,124 17,295 171
27 61,434 62,048 614
28 46,145 47,529 1,384
29 56,542 57,107 565
30 54,197 54,739 542
Sub Total
333,206
340,822
7,616 $
2,783
South Beam
3 14,690 14,690 -
4 30,300 32,421 2,121
5 14,139 14,280 141
6 17,572 17,748 176
7 10,381 10,589 208
8 22,182 23,957 1,775
9 2,428 2,428 -
10 26,222 28,058 1,836
11 30,7 46 32,591 1,845
12 38,812 39,588 776
13 33,021 33,681 660
14 26,547 28,140 1,593
15 23,034 24,186 1,152
16 15,828 15,828 -
17 28,883 31,771 2,888
18 58,045 62,689 4,644
19 66,659 68,659 2,000
20 36,003 37,803 1,800
21 19,073 20,790 1,717
Sub Total 514,565 539,895 25,330 $ 2,016
. Additional counts will be undertaken to determine the affects adjacent municipalities and to consistently updated the base line.
H,\211 O\excel\CostPe,T rip,CurCap-FulCapxls\ Table 3
03/2 9/2000
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
http:\\ci.miami-beach.fl.us
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO.
3C6:C6
TO:
Mayor Neisen O. Kasdin and
Members of the City Commission
Lawrence A. Levy ~
City Manager ~
DATE: April 12, 2000
FROM:
SUBJECT:
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING AND ADOPTING
ADMINISTRATIVE FEES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF CONCURRENCY
STATEMENTS FOR INTERESTED PARTIES, PURSUANT TO THE MIAMI
BEACH AUTOMATED CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM; THE
METHODOLOGY USED TO ARRIVE AT THE COST PER TRIP FOR
MITIGATION OF IMPACTS FROM PROJECTS THAT EXCEED TRAFFIC
CONCURRENCY, PLUS A SCHEDULE OF TRANSPORTATION
CONCURRENCY MITIGATION FEES TO BE CHARGED FROM SUCH
PROJECTS; THESE STATEMENTS TO BE ISSUED AND FEES TO BE
COLLECTED BY THE CITY'S TRANSPORTATION/CONCURRENCY
DIVISION.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.
ANAL YSIS
The Miami Beach Automated Concurrency Management System (CMS) is a mechanism to measure
the impact of proposed development, redevelopment, or use intensification projects on public
services, including traffic. A project is considered to satisfy traffic concurrency requirements when
the traffic generated by such project does not exceed the available capacity of the City's roadway
system.
The potential impact of projects that exceed the available capacity can be evaluated and possibly
mitigated by utilizing mechanisms made available by the City's Municipal Mobility Plan (MMP)
and Concurrency Management System (CMS). This process requires the payment of fees by the
affected parties.
Pursuant to the CMS, a schedule of fees and the methodology used to arrive at these fees need to be
approved and adopted by the City Commission in order to become effective and implemented by the
City's Concurrency Division. Two different fee schedules are being proposed by this Resolution,
as follows:
P,IPLAN\SALL IAMELIA ILQPESICMSPEES.WPD
AGENDAITEM~
DATE~
April 12, 2000
Commission Memorandum
Schedule of Concurrency Fees
Page 2
1. Concurrency Statement Fees (or administrative fees) to be charged for issuance of the
various concurrency statements that will be required from prospective applicants, as follows:
Concurrency Inquiry Statement........................................................................
Preliminary Concurrency Determination Statement (based on intensity level):
Low (1 to 1 00 trips) ..............................................................................
Medium (10 1 to 400 trips) ....................................................................
High (40 I-plus trips) .............................................................................
Final Concurrency Reservation Statement........ ................................................
$125.00
$125.00
$235.00
$335.00
$150.00
The revenue produced by these administrative fees will fund the operation, maintenance, and
bi-annual update of the Automated Concurrency Management System and Municipal
Mobility Plan, along with the salaries of added staff for the Transportation/Concurrency
Division. We estimate that approximately one thousand (1000) Concurrency Statements may
be issued a year.
2. Transportation Concurrency Miti2ation Fees. A specific methodology was used to arrive
at the cost per trip of additional capacity for mitigation of impacts caused by projects that
exceed concurrency. This methodology is as follows:
() CURRENT CAPACITY. The CMS provides information on the current available capacity
of the T AZs, as shown in Table 1, herein attached. The additional capacity per T AZ was
determined by applying the additional capacity, as listed in Table 2, to the existing or current
capacity. The future capacity is the sum ofthe current capacity and the additional capacity.
() PROJECT BANK. The Municipal Mobility Plan (MMP) created a "Project Bank"
comprised of a number of transportation improvement projects, as shown in Table 2,
Project Bank Cost Estimates, herein attached. Table 2 also identifies the T AZs that will
benefit from these transportation improvement projects and the additional capacity in terms
of a percentage increase expected to be realized. Some of these projects have already
identified funding sources or have been programmed for construction, while others remain
unfunded. A portion of the funding for these unfunded projects could be provided from fees
collected for development projects that do not satisfy transportation concurrency
requirements.
The yet unfunded "Project Bank" transportation improvement projects were sorted by the
area of the City they benefit, and rough cost estimates were produced, as shown in Table 1
and as follows:
*
Ten (10) projects for North Beach, at approximately $10 million,
Sixteen (16) projects for Middle Beach, at approximately $31.9 million; and
Eleven (11) projects in South Beach, at approximately $25.7 million.
*
*
April 12, 2000
Commission Memorandum
Schedule of Concurrency Fees
Page 3
o TCMA/T AZ. The City was divided into three (3) Transportation Concurrency Management
Areas (TCMAs) - North, Middle and South Beach TCMAs - which were further separated
into thirty two (32) traffic analysis zones (TAZs) for traffic concurrency management
purposes.
o The COST PER TRIP for each area of the City, as shown in Table 3, was determined by
dividing the costs of transportation improvement projects by the additional capacity realized
through implementation of the project bank. Transportation Cost Per Trip of Additional
Capacity. The costs per trip once a project fails to satisfy traffic concurrency requirements
based on current capacity are as follows:
*
$1,841.54 in North Beach, which has the largest amount of trips available, and
approximately $10 million in programmed but yet unfunded MMP transportation
improvement projects.
*
$2,783.30 in Middle Beach, which has the least amount of trips available and
approximately $32 million in programmed/unfunded MMP projects. Middle Beach
contains several roadway links (Alton Road, 41st Street, and 63rd Street) which have
severe level-of-service (LOS) problems.
*
$2,015.16 in South Beach, where there are some trips available in most TAZs,
excepting the ones in and near the Art Deco Historic District and Redevelopment
Areas, and approximately $25.7 million in programmed/unfunded MMP projects.
However, South Beach is served by an existing and enhanced Electrowave shuttle
route, and is the first area of the City where the TCMAlUrban Transit Village
concept will be tested.
The revenue collected, as above-mentioned, will be deposited in specific accounts for each area,
and subsequently appropriated by Resolution of the City Commission for the implementation
of specific MMP projects.
An annual Concurrency Report, including the total amount of fees collected in the report year,
will be made at a regular City Commission Meeting by the Transportation/Concurrency
Manager.
Pursuant to the extensive and innovative planning and concurrency efforts undertaken by the
Transportation/Concurrency Division staff and City consultants, the Administration recommends
approval of the fee schedules and of the methodology used to arrive at these fees, as stated.
Attachments: Tables 1, 2, and 3
\\l ao..
LL/MS/JJ/ AJ
P,\PLAN\$ALL\AMELlA \LOPES\CMSPEES. WPD
7 A BLE 1.
Miami Beath (onturrenty Management System
(apacity per T AI.
TAl CTAl
North Beath
Current
CapodIy
Available
TCMA Sedion
29 44 4,369 9,228 4,859
31 48 38,685 44,457 5,772 1 1
32 50 24,791 84,923 60,132 0 1
34 52 31,184 95,700 64,516 0 1
35 55 50,932 64,488 13,556 1 1
36 57 26,219 39,275 13,056 1 1
37 59 16,880 23,382 6,502 0 1
Sub Total 193,060 361,453 168,393
Middle Beath
22 30 ... 11,307 11,307 .. 2 2
-
23 33 21,430 32,433 .. 11,003 0 2
24 35 22,098 23,057 I 959 0 2
25 36 18,533 30,967 , 12,434 .. 0 2
26 37 .... 11,771 17,124 ... 5,353 2 2
27 38 .' 31,157 . . 61,434 ,.. . 30,277 2 2
..
28 . 42 33,421 '46,145 . . 12,724 2 2
29 ......45 23,825 ',. . 56,542 .. 32,717 .2 ..' 2
.
30 46 44,693 54,197 '. 9,504 ....... 2 2
Sub Total 218,235 333,206 114,971
South Beath
3 2 8,965 14,690 5,725 .3 3
4 3 5,820 30,300 ..... 24,480 3 3
5 4 4,799 14,139 9,340 3 3
6 5 8,672 1 7,572 8,900 3 3
7 6 .. 5,978 .. 1 0,381 4,403 3 3
8 . 7 10,352 22,182 1 h830 31 3
9 8 2,427 '.. .' 2,428 \ 0 ... . 3
.,.... ... ..' .,
10 9 '.. .. 1 7,660 26,222 . "8,562 ......... 3 3
11 11 21,875 30,746 .... 8,871 3 .. 3
12 13 37,651 38,812 1,\61 3 3
13 14 28,462 33,021 4,559 3 3
14 16 25,584 26,547 963 3 3
15 17 23,034 .~'. 23,034 - 3 3
16 20 11 ,895 15,828 3,933 0 3
17 21 .... 22,196 j 28,883 .. 6,687 3 3
18 24 45,948 58,045 12,097 3 3
19 25 65,836 66,659 823 3 3
20 27 32,302 36,003 3,701 . 3 3
21 28 12,251 19,073 6,822 3 3
Sub Total 391,707 514,565 122,858
Total
803,002
1,209,224
406,222
H:\211 O\excel\CostPerT rip,CurCap-FutCap.xls\taz
03/29/2000
)
~
]
II
C'ol I~
! il
j~
]"'5
'il
:i
~
......, ..,.... ..- -..,..,
MM MM MM MMC"l
..,,,, "'..,'" - -
MM MMM MM
'" '"
M M
..
M
'"
M
;;;
.,..,. ~~ .,..,. ~~~
-0 0'"
88 8~ 88 888
0'" "'''' '" '" 01,,(')0'
"'''' - ..... ..,..... ..... "'-
<Xl'" .. ... ..<Xl -..... '"
"'...... ;;; ...... _ ",'
... ......
~ ~
;D 'E:a 'E 'E 'E
0 .. 0 .. " ..
c E c E E E
G '0 e :2 .. " -8 e 1
." 1ft u >
c ~ a ~ ~~
o ~ a ~
::;~ ~~ ~ E c
III .': w:': W2: y w ~
> c ~ C
'.0:: ::) a ~ ~I '=5'5
~ ~ ." E ~ :g E
"e E "E " ~ ..
~ 0 o a o 0 ~J~
;;:U UU UU
'E
~
!:
0
9 'E
E
~ .. 'E E
E ..
~ E ~ i
..
~ a u
;; 9 e
e a .....
o !! ! .e 'E E e
"i ~ e e .. .. 0
"Q w E ij
~ ..
-0 o >
~ 'E ~~ :!1 ~ ! i
~o 8 e z;e;.
:SU cU u- .. ~
.e'" ..- ;;~ ~ 'E
E 0
V'l 8 .. 0 ~ ~ - ~
~-E u.e
c u e ..
3..8 a'" _ 0 o >
~Ii :EI~ ~U -t ~
..... .. .! E ~
--- >
o .. .. c " 'C a _ 0
uz ~ .. .~ 0 ~ !l~
.e .c e E ~i\
y~ .ee.e
v u v .. v
o 0 <w ." !! o > a
.. .. I~ ~ eU .. < ..
<Xl <Xl ~ 6 a>~a>
.e .e .ee.e
-c " ""E 8 t":'=t
o 0 o ~ oiS 0"'0 0
ZZ XCii Z e zuz
_ '" M.. ..,..... CDo..~
1"]
lJl
g~C;)~NM~~~~~M~N~M~
00-0,..........0- OM-N-Q
NNNNN MNNNN,
~ ~~ ~~~ ~
.....,..." U")...,.'
N N N N
-0 "'" 0
'" '" '"
'" ",'
'" -
..
'"
M
'"
'"
'"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ ~~~I~I~ ~~~~~
a N~M~~O-o MM_Mo-~M-o-o
o ~~~ ~:~ ~-~~-~--E
-- ~~ -- ----
ii i~ ~ iii iiii
i i .5.S E E i 5 ~ i i i
~uCtggo!!u~~v~~vv~
o~llsnp~o5<Si5ja
~~~~~~E~E~~~c~C~
W foU ,Y "2 "2 ,Y - .f ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~
oo.g ::t:Jg'~a:~ooaoooo
-g~ E ~ ~.. ~ E S:g:g E~~~:g
88~8~~d~8~~~~88~
oj
i1
'"
e
..
E
..
~
E
'"
c
Q
Ci
"'Ei u .~
~ C
!t! 5 i 8
~ :~..( .:
1_ E E ~ c;:
Il u ~ I:; .,g c: ~
.;; !t!.1J I ~ l'~ ~ e ~
~ i~ -: 0 ; IS ~
.., E 2 e ~ U g ~ I "~ -
~ f.5'~ 'g ,5's i ~ ~ vi
'i ~Eag ~.!.(-oe.s
.~ E d 9 u ~ ~ g 'e .~ ! ~
_. :;; w l5 .. e2 >- ~ l!---
." ;; "8 ..! "~I ~ 'EQ:&. ; .. Q ci 1!
_~ ~i:.ie~ii~~~!i!
i~ g.8~~~~i:!~~g5"'5
Ei 'E..s::-E-O;Ei:i:J\~"'~
~ E - -Ii ~-o"'8- Cj E ~-o e~-o
-= -..IIidz E~ E~! t.J~M~ 0 6
i ~"'O .~ ~ 5 c .! .! J\ ~ .~ ~ E v=i l5
~~~e~~~~d~io"E1!.c~
i~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~-=~w~ ij~ ij
<lc8~~c8!~~88~g&=ti<
..ar::..!!Vi2..!!V\..!!c:atOl::c:CD(I)ClIIi:....
~ a "'0 oS '5:g"E:g2 5 a .9 ~ i a ~
8~i~~i~i]~~~~o~8
~.~~~~~O-N~~~~CD.
_______NNNNNNNN.
~~e:N~N~~.~~~
~ CClQ).OCCl o..-oN
r-..;:::~. ~U'lr-..~
--- --....
V)COQ) Nt"')
.. ..
- -
- M
- -
S' '"
-
<Xl -
.. -
<Xl
.....
..,
on
.....
..,
M
~~~~~~~~~~~~
88~88~~~8~8~
r.t)or.t)~
~--O"'"
NNM-o
CON......
......
8~~8~8Si!
N-oMN-oM~
t"')N'"" '""MM
'""'"" CII4 lII4C114
~ ~
cccc~cc ~
, t) t) t) 0 G t) 0
EEEEcEE e
eBg!ge!-8~t.J'.2
~~~ p~ ~~ al-A
e e e E e E ::; ~
~ ~ ~ :; ~ ~ "i .~ .~ .~ .~
.g.g.g"~ E.g]" -0 '2 E
"e"E"e ~ E"E ~ E E E E
00000 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 0
UUUUUUU<<<U
a~
0.1
~l
c
t
..
e
e
o
U
'"
c
"Q
e
1
c
8
~
c: C C
~ E e E
~~! c ~
.!g~ ~ e ~
j;"€e e! III
C)w- ~ 0 tJlI'I
g~g ~ 9 ~ i
!oo:!]II'I..5 E
~.:!:acocc g~
qj~u~"g ~ ~~
~"o.~t)~ 'u-'e
-"~5ogc 0 ...
:e~~i:ot)ou... cf=6
-=geE..8.e'E"'- ~e
~.5 EI~.c ~ ::0 '5.g g g
;:, 0 ~l {Is ~ g U E ~ ~ e
::::. ~ 61 ~ ~ i IX .s .!"'O "1]
"E ~-E o~~ g CE~':O
1 d ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ -5 ~ .~
5 c: ! &1 ~ $ ., Ii 2 2 '0 0
~~~C:.~l~~~~~ g
-gi~~jS-=S~~~]
o>-7c(u...~U'lu.JV1V")V1U
o
ONM.r.t)~Q)o..O-NMO
MMMMMMMM..................
-"
~
V'l
~~
0,..:
~a
~%"
......
]
TAau:. ~
u
~
.
5
~
i
y
h
~s
.,,,
r8
Table 3
Miami Beac:h Concurrency Management System
T ransportotion Cost per Trip of Additional Capodty
Future CapociIy (based on
TAl c..c....,,..........-r PR>ied baN:1
NartIt 8IlIlh
TABL.e 3
Additional Copocily Cas! _ Trip
29 9,228 9,228
31 44,457 47,569 3,112
32 84,923 85,772 849
34 95,700 96,657 957
35 64,488 65,778 1,290
36 39,275 40,453 1,178
37 23,382 23,616 234
22 11,307 11,985 678
23 32,433 34,703 2,270
24 23,057 23,518 461
25 30,967 31,896 929
26 17,124 17,295 171
27 61,434 62,048 614
28 46,145 47,529 1,384
29 56,542 57,107 565
30 54,197 54,739 542
Sub Total
361 ,453
369,073
IliddIe Beach
Sub Total
333,206
340,822
Scdh Beach
7,620 $
7,616 $
1,841
2,783
3 14,690 14,690 .
4 30,300 32,421 2,121
5 14,139 14,280 141
6 17,572 17,748 176
7 10,381 10,589 208
8 22,182 23,957 1,775
9 2,428 2,428 .
10 26,222 28,058 1,836
11 30,746 32,591 1,845
12 38,812 39,588 776
13 33,021 33,681 660
14 26,547 28,140 1,593
15 23,034 24,186 1,152
16 15,828 15,828 .
17 28,883 31,771 2,888
18 58,045 62,689 4,644
19 66,659 68 659 2,000
20 36,003 37,803 1,800
21 19,073 20,790 1,717
Sub Total 514,565 539,895 25,330 $ 2,016
. Additional counts will be undertaken to determine the affects adjacent municipalities and to consistently updated the base line.
H:\2) 1 O\..c.I\CostP.rT np,Cu.cop.FutCopxls\ T obi. 3
03/29/2000