My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06/11/2014 (2)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2010's
>
2014
>
06/11/2014 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/4/2018 6:26:43 PM
Creation date
12/14/2016 1:19:10 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Workshop Meeting
Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Date
06/11/2014
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
Subject
Impact Fee
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.
/
302
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 1 Impact Fee Update Study <br />ordinances. If a land use is later proposed that has a greater impact on County <br />facilities than did the previously approved land use, then, of course, impact fees for <br />the new land use would be limited to an amount that simply reflects the increased <br />impact. <br />However, the question frequently arises of whether impact fees should be returned <br />(in cash or as "portable" credits, for example) if the intensity of a land use is reduced <br />or terminated in the future. "Portability," some argue, would allow the credit <br />associated with tearing down a building to be used for another parcel. However, <br />none of the jurisdictions we work with allow for the portability of impact fees that <br />we are aware of, due to a number of reasons. <br />First, local governments plan for capital project funding and provide infrastructure <br />based on development in an area. As part of that process, impact fee revenues are <br />programmed and spent for the construction of necessary infrastructure in the same <br />district as the proposed use. Once the applicant has moved forward with its <br />development, so too does the County with the development's needed infrastructure <br />for that property in that area of the County. Once these fees are committed for use <br />to serve a proposed development, they cannot be "uncommitted," and, of course, <br />previously -built and contracted infrastructure improvements cannot be "ported" to <br />new locations or benefit districts. <br />Second, if the County "refunded" fees to properties that reduce or eliminate their <br />impacts, those "refunds" (having now been committed to meet the needs of the <br />initial land use) would necessarily redirect impact fees paid by others or general <br />fund sources, creating a misallocation of burden between existing development and <br />new growth. <br />Third, during the typical construction timeframe, running from building permit <br />issuance to certificate of occupancy, impact fees paid by a developer will not have <br />been committed and spent by the County. Therefore, if a proposed land use pays <br />impact fees (at building permit) but never comes to fruition (i.e., fails to receive a <br />certificate of occupancy) then impact fees paid by the applicant can be safely <br />returned without disrupting the County's CIP and budgeting process or unfairly <br />shifting costs to existing development or other fee payers. This policy, of course, <br />should be used only during this limited time and should be tied to the termination of <br />Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. Indian River County <br />June 2014 9 Impact Fee Update Study <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.