My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2005-169a
CBCC
>
Official Documents
>
2000's
>
2005
>
2005-169a
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/19/2016 11:11:28 AM
Creation date
9/30/2015 8:44:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Official Documents
Official Document Type
Interlocal Agreement
Approved Date
05/17/2005
Control Number
2005-169A
Agenda Item Number
9.A.1
Entity Name
Tindale-Oliver
Subject
Impact Fee Study Interlocal Agreement
Supplemental fields
SmeadsoftID
4919
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.
/
318
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
o The County desires to establish a standard of 5 acres per 1000 residents <br /> (hypothetical example) . <br /> o The current population of the unincorporated county, including both <br /> permanent and seasonal residents , is approximately 89 , 000 . <br /> o An increase in the standard of 1 acre per 1000 population would require an <br /> additional 89 acres of parks acreage to be added to the inventory of parks <br /> acreage . <br /> o The County budgets the acquisition of 89 acres of park land using non- <br /> impact fee revenues in its Five-Year Capital Improvement Program . <br /> o The County can base its Park Impact Fee on a standard of 5 acres per 1000 <br /> residents because it has a financial plan to correct the existing deficiency . <br /> Revenue Credits <br /> • The County must evaluate the revenue credit that each unit of new development <br /> generates and could be used to fund new capital facilities (property tax, sales tax , <br /> etc . ) . <br /> • The present value of these revenues per unit of land use that historically have <br /> been used or projected in the future to be used for capital facility expansion is <br /> subtracted from the cost per unit of land use of providing capital expansion <br /> facilities ( i . e . , the revenue credit) . <br /> • The revenue credit ensures that new development does not pay more than its <br /> proportionate share of future capital costs . <br /> • As non- impact fee revenues increase for capital facility expansion (e . g . , sales tax) , <br /> the revenue credit increases and the impact fee decreases . <br /> • As non - impact fee revenues decrease for capital facility expansion (e . g . , <br /> reallocate sales tax to other capital investment or operating/maintenance) , the <br /> revenue credit decreases and the impact fee increases . <br /> IMPACT FEE IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS <br /> Administration <br /> • The program must be easy for the public to understand through the use of web site <br /> access of the ordinance , an administrative manual , forms , impact fee schedules , <br /> and brochures . <br /> • If multiple impact fees are adopted , an Impact Fee Coordinator position will be <br /> necessary as a point of public contact and to manage the increased administrative <br /> responsibilities created by the program . Similar positions exist in counties with <br /> multiple impact fees . <br /> Effective Date of Implementation <br /> • The ordinance may be effective upon filing with the Department of State . <br /> Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County <br /> May 2005 I - 5 Impact Fee Study <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.