Agenda - 08-20-1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

10- significant problem in dealing with grants. When future grants are relatively certain, but the amount is unknown, the average amount of such grants over the past 5 -10 years is a common means of dealing with the unknown future. This approach, however, will tend to overestimate grants, because there has been a trend toward fewer rather than more grants -in -aid. Nevertheless, grants -in -aid should not be ignored in calculating proportionate share impact fees. General Fund Revenues. The most difficult set of credits to deal with are facilities that are financed out of the General Fund. There is no identifiable funding source nor a systematic means of identifying how new development may have contributed in the past or may contribute in the future. Just because there is no systematic approach, however, does not mean that the issue goes away. Rather, it means that the result will not be systematically derived. A number of Florida impact fees simply employ a percentage reduction in impact fees in recognition of the possible contributions from new development through general revenues. As an example, impact fees have reflected a percentage reduction from total cost in recognition of past and future contributions from the General Fund for school development purposes. Lawsuits that challenge this approach have not yet been heard. Experience has shown, however, that perhaps it is not so important how such matters are incorporated into a system of impact fees as it is that they are addressed. Bond Revenues. The last credit issue to be addressed is bonds. Bonds, whether general obligation or revenue, are commonly used to finance infrastructure. Where bonds exist, they should not be ignored in establishing the amount of the fee. For example, if bonds are used to finance all or a portion of public school facilities, the amount that a single- family home pays to help retire the debt can be credited against [deducted from) the impact fee. Offsets To Im act Fees It is common for developers to provide certain capital improvements. When developers dedicate or build needed facilities, it is a form of payment of impact fees. Thus, it would follow that the amount of impact fees otherwise due would be reduced by the value of that construction. The Banberry Court addressed this in factor #6 - extraordinary costs. Offsets would not be given for on -site improvements or off - site improvements that are needed for or used exclusively by the development. Most impact fee ordinances provide that construction or dedication is a means for payment of impact fees and provide for corresponding reductions. Such a provision insures that a developer is not required to pay more than a proportionate share of capital costs. It makes no difference whether the cost is borne in kind (construction or dedication) or in cash.