My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01/21/2014
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2010's
>
2014
>
01/21/2014
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/29/2018 3:55:00 PM
Creation date
9/25/2015 5:37:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Date
01/22/2014
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
Book and Page
239
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.
/
239
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 />4. Assigning secondary priority to vehicle mobility and primary priority to <br />e nsuring a safe, comfortable, and attractive pedestrian environment, with <br />convenient interconnection to transit. <br />5. Establishing multimodal level of service standards that rely primarily on non- <br />vehicular .modes.. of transportation where existing or planned . community <br />design will provide adequate level of mobility. <br />6. Reducing impact fees or local access fees to promote development within <br />u rban areas, multimodal transportation districts;and a balance of mixed-use <br />development in certain areas or districts <br />housing. <br />for affordable or workforce <br />Also, under HB 319, a mobility fee funding system expressly rri:ust comply with the dual <br />r Via. <br />rational nexus test applicable to traditional impact fees. Furthermore, any mobility fee <br />VIS <br />revenues collected must be used to implement the local government's4plan, which served <br />weit <br />as the basis for the fee. Finally, un r HB 319,analte tive mobility systtem, that is not <br />ctwe <br />mobility fee-based, must not imposewpon new development any responsibility for funding <br />an existing transportation deficiency <br />® .. . > <br />The following paragraphs provide furtherri:dy�etail710 <br />on, <br />• <br />applicable here. <br />th !generally, applicable legal standards <br />Impact FeeDefinition <br />.t . <br />impact4fee isa one time capitakcharge levied against new development. <br />ax <br />An impact fee is designnee cover the ''portion of the capital costs of infrastructure <br />Vitik <br />capacity consumed4bynew development. <br />%• The principle purpose pf an impact fee is to assist in funding the implementation of <br />projects identified in the Capital Improvements Element (CIE) and other capital <br />improvement1programfor the respective facility/service categories. <br />Impact Fee vs. Tax <br />• An impact fee is generally regarded as a regulatory function established as a <br />condition for improving property and is not established for the primary purpose of <br />generating revenue, as are taxes. <br />• Impact fee expenditures must convey a proportional benefit to the fee payer. <br />• An impact fee must be tied to a proportional need for new infrastructure capacity <br />created by new development. <br />Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. <br />January 2014 <br />Indian River County <br />4 Impact Fee Update Study <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.