My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2005-094
CBCC
>
Official Documents
>
2000's
>
2005
>
2005-094
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/12/2016 11:45:47 AM
Creation date
9/30/2015 8:32:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Official Documents
Official Document Type
Report
Approved Date
03/15/2005
Control Number
2005-094
Agenda Item Number
Jt. Mtg.
Entity Name
Tindale-Oliver & Associates
Subject
IR County Impact Fee Study Final Report
Archived Roll/Disk#
"
Supplemental fields
SmeadsoftID
4830
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.
/
367
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
The vacant land value as a percentage of total property value is multiplied by the percent <br /> of historical general fund capital expansion projects . As illustrated in Table V- 10 , the <br /> percent of past property tax payments on vacant land is 0 . 02 percent. <br /> Table V- 10 <br /> Vacant Land Value Percentagel ' 1 <br /> 1 ;'L a� aIV <br /> 'd �'" CA , <br /> • ! rB , , at"_ �' .,: aipV � , ._,. ., ` ✓ "" rk� 'i a� lll <br /> ,arc- <br /> . s <br /> County Vacant Land Value $ 13080 , 8195230 <br /> Countywide Total Property Value(2) $ 123181 ,250 , 689 <br /> Vacant Land Value Percentage(3) 8 . 87% <br /> Percent of Capital Expansion Projects Funded with General Fund(4) 0 . 18 % <br /> Effective Vacant Land Value Percentage(5) 0. 02 % <br /> ( 1 ) Source : Property Appraiser, IRC <br /> (2) Includes structures . <br /> (3 ) Vacant Land Percent = $ 1 ,080 , 819 ,230/$ 12 , 181 ,250 , 689 <br /> (4) Source : Table VII- 8 <br /> (5 ) Vacant land value percentage (Item 3 ) multiplied by the percent of capital expansion projects <br /> funded with general fund (Item 4) . <br /> Existing Deficiencies <br /> Since the current LOS will become the adopted LOS standard, there are no existing <br /> deficiencies of public buildings . While there are no existing deficiencies , adopting the <br /> existing LOS as the standard does , in fact, create the need to expand facilities in the near <br /> future to meet the needs of new growth . <br /> Net Public Building Impact Cost <br /> The first section of Table V- 11 identifies the facility impact cost per functional resident <br /> as $452 . The second section of the table identifies the revenue credits for the public <br /> building impact fee . The credit calculation includes the present value of projected annual <br /> capital funding per functional resident of $209 , as well as a credit of $0 . 07 for past <br /> property tax payments on vacant land . The addition of these two credits results in a total <br /> revenue credit of $209 per functional resident. <br /> The net impact cost per functional resident (third section of the table) is the difference <br /> between the total impact cost per functional resident and the total revenue credit . This <br /> results in a net impact cost of $243 per functional resident. <br /> Tindale -Oliver & Associates , Inc . Indian River County <br /> February 2005 V- 12 Impact Fee Study <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.