Laserfiche WebLink
were appealed to the County Administrator. The County Administrator rendered decisions agreeing <br />with the Community Development Director and those decisions have been appealed to the Board of <br />County Commissioners as a single matter. Because the appeal and associated request for refunds <br />involves school impact fees, county staff has coordinated with School Board staff as required under the <br />inter -local agreement. To date, there has been no dispute about the appeal process. <br />The crux of the subject appeal is the assertion by Impact Fee Consultants that "no growth" has occurred <br />and that without growth impact fees cannot be properly expended on improvements necessary to <br />accommodate growth. Included in Impact Fee Consultant's submittal is a student enrollment chart. <br />Impact Fee Consultants has implied that there has been "no growth" in student enrollment and that <br />enrollment is a necessary component of impact fee determinations. On the contrary, with respect to <br />impact fees, "growth" refers to development and building permits as indicated in Impact Fee Ordinance <br />sections 1000.03, 1000.04, and 1000.06 (see attachment #8). In fact, the County's adopted impact fee <br />system, as well as most other impact fee systems, is based on the premise that each new unit of <br />development (such as a new home) produces impacts. In the case of the 40 units associated with the <br />subject appeal, under the adopted impact fee system it is presumed that each unit on average over time <br />will generate a student demand of roughly .25 students. Therefore, the development of each unit places <br />an impact on school facilities. This premise is the foundation of consumption -based impact fee <br />systems, and those systems have been found to be technically and legally sound. <br />With respect to encumbering or spending school impact fees collected in 2008, School Board staff has <br />provided evidence of timely expenditure of fees on facilities improvements that increased permanent <br />student stations. Those data show expenditures on additions/expansions to Sebastian River High School <br />and Fellsmere Elementary School during the applicable 6 year period, and were confirmed by the <br />County Budget Office (see attachment #9). Data provided by School Board staff also show that the <br />Sebastian River High School project increased permanent student station capacity by 575 (seats) and <br />that the Fellsmere Elementary School project increased permanent student station capacity by 241 <br />(seats). Staff's conclusion was that school impact fees were properly spent and that there is no basis for <br />a refund. <br />With respect to the nine reasons provided with the appeal, the County Administrator's decision contains <br />a detailed response to each reason (see attachment #4a). Those responses were reviewed by Tindale - <br />Oliver & Associates and were deemed accurate and correct. <br />In summary, regarding impact fees, "growth" relates to new development (e.g. building permits). As <br />confirmed during the 2014 impact fee workshops, enrollment counts, like traffic counts on roadways, <br />fluctuate year to year but over time will increase as the effects of the Great Recession balance out, and <br />as development impacts and generation rate averages "play out". In addition, it was also confirmed <br />during the 2014 workshops that sub -area enrollment demands such as those experienced in the north <br />county warrant expansion projects in that sub -area. Expenditures on school facilities, like expenditures <br />on roadway projects, are made in "lump expenditures" as fees accumulate over time and projects are <br />constructed. Fees have been spent on improvements that add permanent student stations, as shown by <br />School Board data and confirmed by the County Budget Office. The consumption -based methodology <br />used in the County's impact fee program and reflected in the impact fee ordinance and the inter -local <br />agreement, is based on the legally and technically sound 2005 impact fee study, and was re -confirmed <br />by the 2014 impact fee study. Furthermore, proper and timely expenditure of fees has been <br />documented. Therefore, county staff has provided adequate "proof' to support its decision, and has <br />found no basis for refunds. <br />F\Community Development\Users \CDADMIN\AGENDA\Current Year \2015\11.10.15 Appeal by IFC of decision by County Administrator to Deny Requests for School 3 <br />Impact Fee Refunds.docx <br />98 <br />