|
PROGRESSIVE RATES FOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS
<br />Typical impact fees charge a flat ra te per dwelling unit, regardless of size . A wide range of housing sizes
<br />are being produced in todayÔs housi ng market. Because smaller units tend to cost less and house families
<br />with lower incomes, the one-size-fits-all approach taken by most impact fee systems imposes a much
<br />larger burden, proportionately, on smaller units, whic h incidently tend to house residents less likely to
<br />be able to afford it.
<br />The regressive nature of one-size- fits-all impact fees was clearly dem onstrated in a seminal 1992 article
<br />9
<br />by Dr. James C. Nicholas of the University of Florida. The 1985 data he presented in that article have
<br />been updated with 2001 data in Table 7 below. These national da
<br />between the size of the dwelling unit, whether measur ed by the number of bedrooms or square footage,
<br />the number of persons living in the unit, which is a measure of the demand on facilities, and the value
<br />of the unit and the income of the household, which are measures
<br />Table 7
<br />DWELLING CHARACTERISTICS BY NUMBER OF BEDROOMS
<br />Median Median $2,000 fee
<br />Unit Family as percent
<br />Median Mean
<br />Bedrooms Sq. Ft. Persons Value Income of income
<br />0500 1.2n/a$14,95613%
<br />1828 1.5$73,740$21,7169%
<br />21,248 2.2$83,655$28,3437%
<br />31,692 2.8$119,539$44,6494%
<br /> 4+2,406 3.5$188,052$68,8343%
<br />Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2001 American Housing Survey (median square feet, mean
<br />persons and median family income based on all dwelling units; median unit value based on owner-
<br />occupied units only).
<br />A flat $2,000 impact fee per dwelling unit, regardless of size or type, would constitute 13 percent of
<br />annual income of the median household living in an efficiency apartment, but only 3 percent of the
<br />median income of a dwelling unit with four or more bedrooms (see Table 7 above). Also, since the
<br />demand on public facilities is often a function of the number of people living in a community, a large
<br />house tends to have about three times the dema nd for services as an efficiency apartment.
<br />Consequently, not only is a one-size-fits-all fee regre ssive, it tends to overcharge smaller units and
<br />undercharge larger units.
<br />While most impact fees do acknowledge the differe nce between housing types, such as single-family and
<br />multi-family units, few of them vary by unit size. This is changing, however. For example, 30 percent
<br />of the 20 Florida counties that assess school impact fees currently base the fees on some measur
<br />dwelling unit size. Three of the counties base fees on the number of bedrooms in combination with
<br />housing type, two have translated bedrooms into four or five size categories (e.g., a one-bedroom unit
<br />is on average less than 800 square feet, etc.) and one county charges school fees on a per square foot
<br />basis.
<br />9
<br /> Nicholas, James C., ÑOn the Progression of Impact Fees,Ò Journal of the American Planning Association , Vol. 58,
<br />No. 4, Autumn 1992, p. 517-525
<br />H Ô C \I N A ÐP A M January 5, 2006 , Page 24
<br />AWAI I OUNTY NFRASTRUCTURE EEDS SSESSMENT OLICY NALYSIS EMORANDUM
<br />
<br />
|