My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/10/2015 Impact Fee Update
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2010's
>
2015
>
11/10/2015 Impact Fee Update
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/2/2018 2:04:05 PM
Creation date
3/3/2016 10:42:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Date
11/10/2015
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
Subject
Impact Fee Update Study
Tindale Oliver & Associates
Supplemental fields
SmeadsoftID
13707
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
293
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Indian River County I Impact Fee Update Study <br /> In 2006, the Florida legislature passed the "Florida Impact Fee Act," which recognized <br /> impact fees as "an outgrowth of home rule power of a local government to provide certain <br /> services within its jurisdiction." § 163.31801(2), Fla. Stat. The statute — concerned with <br /> mostly procedural and methodological limitations — did not expressly allow or disallow any <br /> particular public facility type from being funded with impact fees. The Act did specify <br /> procedural and methodological prerequisites, most of which were common to the practice <br /> already. <br /> More recent legislation further affected the impact fee framework in Florida, including the <br /> following: <br /> • HB 227 in 2009: The Florida legislation statutorily clarified that in any action <br /> challenging an impact fee, the government has the burden of proving by a <br /> preponderance of the evidence that the imposition or amount of the fee meets the <br /> requirements of state legal precedent or the Impact Fee Act and that the court may <br /> not use a deferential standard. <br /> • SB 360 in 2009: Allowed fees to be decreased without the 90-day notice period <br /> required to increase the fees and purported to change the standard of legal review <br /> associated with impact fees. SB 360 also required the Florida Department of <br /> Community Affairs (now the Department of Economic Opportunity) and Florida <br /> Department of Transportation (FDOT) to conduct studies on "mobility fees," which <br /> were completed in 2010. <br /> • HB 7207 in 2011: Required a dollar-for-dollar credit, for purposes of concurrency <br /> compliance, for impact fees paid and other concurrency mitigation required. The <br /> payment must be reduced by the percentage share the project's traffic represents of <br /> the added capacity of the selected improvement (up to a maximum of 20% or to an <br /> amount specified by ordinance, whichever results in a higher credit). The courts <br /> have not yet taken up the issue of whether a local government may still charge an <br /> impact/mobility fee in lieu of proportionate share if the impact/mobility fee is higher <br /> that the calculated proportionate share contribution. <br /> • HB 319 in 2013: Applied mostly to concurrency management authorities, but also <br /> encouraged local governments to adopt alternative mobility systems using a series <br /> of tools identified in section 3180(5)(f), Florida Statutes, including: <br /> 1. Adoption of long-term strategies to facilitate development patterns that <br /> support multimodal solutions, including urban design, and appropriate land <br /> Tindale-Oliver&Associates, Inc. Indian River County <br /> June 2014 4 Impact Fee Update Study <br /> 3Q <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.