IPFNA_Ord Issues Memo_Mar_06 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Infrastructure and Public Facility Needs Assessment St udy – Ordinance Issues Memorandum, March 1, 2006, page 5 C. TIME OF COLLECTION/ASSESSMENT The current fair share assessments are imposed duri ng the rezoning process, and are collected prior to final subdivision approval for single-family lots and prior to site plan approv al for multi-family and hotel/motel development. Collection at time of subdivision woul recommendation that single-family homes be assessed on the basis of dwelling unit size, since the square footage of the home is not known at that time. While there is no i nherent reason why multi-family and nonresidential fees could not be coll ected at time of site plan approval, site plan approval is not required for single-family units, an d it would seem to be simpler and more administratively efficien all impact fees at the same point in the developm ent process. For these reasons, we recommend that the impact fees be collected at the time of building permit for While the fees should be collected at building pe rmit, they could be assessed at an earlier time. Assessment can mean several things. It can simply be notice tha building permit, based on the fee schedules that are in place when the building permit is applied for. Or it can mean that the fee schedule in place at th e time of assessment is the one that will apply to the property. Assessment of fees at subdivision would e ssentially be the same as waiving impact fees for any existing lot that was already subdivided at the time of ordinance adoption or that could be developed without subdivision. D. PRE-ORDINANCE CREDITS Some building permits will be issued in projects for which developers have already paid fair share assessments. To prevent double-charging, it will be necessary to either reimburse the developer, or to reduce or eliminate the impact fees that are charged for those b passed along the cost of the fair share assessment to the extent possible in the sale of the lots, reimbursing the developers would have the effect of handing them windfall prof its. A better alternative might be to reduce or eliminate the impact fees due to be paid a We recommend the following approach. Prior to th e effective date of the or dinance, County planning staff would need to identify all parcels or subdivisi ons for which fair share assessments have been paid, and the amounts paid for each type of facility. If the project is bu ilt-out, no credits would be needed. If no development has yet occurred, the credit would be the amount paid, adjusted for inflation since the time of payment. If building permits have al ready been issued for a particular subdivision, but some development potential remains. the credit would be the amount paid, adjusted for inflation, less wh the subdivision would have generated in impact fees had the fee schedule been in place. The resulting credit amounts would be available to offset impact fees otherwise due for building permits issued for the applicable parcels or within the subdivisions on a first-come, first-served basis until the credits are exhausted. The amount of the credits would be annually adjusted that is used for the impact fees. A time limit, suc h as ten years, could be imposed on the use of the credits. Fair share assessments that were imposed as a condit ion of zoning approval, but have not yet been paid by the effective date of the impact fee ordinance (b ecause the property has not been subdivided or site- planned) would be replaced by the obligation to pay impact fees Another issue that must be addressed is cred its for developers who made impact fee-eligible contributions prior to the impact fee ordinance, bu t who did not receive credit against fair share 13276 research blvd , ste 208 austin tx 78750 phone 512 258 7347 fax 512 258 9994 email clancy@duncanplan.com # # # #