10/18/2022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

6.0 An analysis of the impact on small businesses as defined by Section 288.703, F.S., and an analysis of the impact on small counties and small cities as defined by Section 120.52, F.S. There will be little impact on small businesses because of the establishment of the District. If anything, the impact may be positive because the District must competitively bid all of its contracts and competitively negotiate all of its contracts with consultants over statutory thresholds. This affords small businesses the opportunity to bid on District work. Indian River County has a population of 159,788 according to the Census 2020 conducted by the United States Census Bureau and is therefore not defined as a "small" county according to Section 120.52, F.S. 7.0 Any additional useful information. The analysis provided above is based on a straightforward application of economic theory, especially as it relates to tracking the incidence of regulatory costs and benefits. Inputs were received from the Petitioner's Engineer and other professionals associated with the Petitioner. In relation to the question of whether the proposed LP Community Development District is the best possible alternative to provide public facilities and services to the project, there are several additional factors which bear importance. As an alternative to an independent district, the County could establish a dependent district for the area or establish an MSBU or MSTU. Either of these alternatives could finance the improvements contemplated in Tables 1 and 2 in a fashion similar to the proposed District. There are a number of reasons why a dependent district is not the best alternative for providing public facilities and services to the LP development. First, unlike a CDD, this alternative would require the County to administer the project and its facilities and services. As a result, the costs for these services and facilities would not be directly and wholly attributed to the land directly benefiting from them, as the case would be with a CDD. Administering a project of the size and complexity of the development program anticipated for the LP development is a significant and expensive undertaking. Second, a CDD is preferable from a government accountability perspective. With a CDD, residents and landowners in the District would have a focused unit of government ultimately under their direct control. The CDD can then be more responsive to resident needs without disrupting other County responsibilities. By contrast, if the County were to establish and administer a dependent Special District, then the residents and landowners of the LP development would take their grievances and desires to the County Commission meetings. Third, any debt of an independent CDD is strictly that District's responsibility. While it may be technically true that the debt of a County -established, dependent Special District is not strictly the County's responsibility, any financial problems that a dependent Special District may have may reflect on the County. This will not be the case if a CDD is established. Another alternative to a CDD would be for a Property Owners' Association (POA) to provide the infrastructure as well as operations and maintenance of public facilities and services. A CDD is superior to a POA for a variety of reasons. First, unlike a POA, a CDD can obtain low-cost funds from the municipal capital market. Second, as a government entity a CDD can impose and collect its assessments along with other property taxes on the County's real estate tax bill. Therefore, the District is far more assured of obtaining its needed funds than is a POA. Third, the proposed District is a unit 11 121