Summarizes the results of a detailed survey of impact fees that individual jurisdictions across the country are charging. Unlike in-kind developer exactions, impact fees are expressed in dollars and have published fee schedules, making it easy to compare fees charged by different jurisdictions. The results of the survey reveal where impact fees are most common, how much jurisdictions in various states are charging, and the types of facilities for which fees are being charged. Comparisons with surveys from previous years also shows how fees have been changing over time. The survey contains, for each jurisdiction, the amount of impact fees (and similar charges) by type of facility (roads, water, wastewater, etc.) for five typical land use types: single-family detached, multi-family, retail, office and industrial. Residential fees are per dwelling unit; nonresidential fees are per 1,000 square feet of building area. 46p.

Summarizes the results of a detailed survey of impact fees that individual jurisdictions across the country are charging. Unlike in-kind developer exactions, impact fees are expressed in dollars and have published fee schedules, making it easy to compare fees charged by different jurisdictions. The results of the survey reveal where impact fees are most common, how much jurisdictions in various states are charging, and the types of facilities for which fees are being charged. The survey contains, for each jurisdiction, the amount of impact fees (and similar charges) by type of facility (roads, water, wastewater, etc.) for five typical land use types: single-family detached, multi-family, retail, office and industrial. Residential fees are per dwelling unit; nonresidential fees are per 1,000 square feet of building area. 46p.

Assists Florida school boards and local governments in implementing the state?s 2005 school concurrency requirements. It is partially based on the experiences of the six pilot communities mentioned above. Chapter 1 provides an overview of Florida?s existing school planning requirements and the legislative requirements for school concurrency. Chapter 2 addresses the establishment of a collaborative framework between the school board and local governments and provides a suggested sequence of steps for preparing and adopting the school concurrency program. The Chapter discusses coordination requirements, provides key documents and recommends best practice guidelines for effective engagement of the community. Chapter 3 explores the central task of laying the foundation for the school concurrency program. The recommended practices outline a series of collaborative steps a community can take to develop an effective school concurrency program. Chapter 4 addresses implementation and includes recommendations for the contents of the concurrency management ordinance. The Guidebook also includes model documents that can be used to better integrate the planning requirements and processes of local governments and school boards. 111p.

This fact sheet explains 2007 legislation that grants school boards the authority to make developers contribute to school facilities through a local tax on construction. It includes answers to frequently asked questions 3p.

Offers a template document that can be used by local governments in establishing a school concurrency management ordinance. 21p.

Offers a template document that can be used to develop a public school concurrency agreement. 14p.

This survey shows fees charged on new development to pay for the construction or expansion of off-site capital improvements that are necessitated by and benefit the new development, including school construction in some jurisdictions. Includes impact fees data from 271 jurisdictions on a single-family unit (3 bedroom, 2,000 sq.ft. lot at density of 4 UPA and value of $200,000). Page 40 shows state average fees. 40p.

Presents an evaluation of alternative approaches for establishing public school level of service standards, as it pertains to Florida. The new statutory requirements for school concurrency constitute a fundamental change to public school facilities planning by mandating the adoption of a public school facilities element as a component of the local government comprehensive plan, as well as the inclusion of public school facilities as one of the facilities subject to the concurrency requirement. Over the past decade, the Florida Legislature has progressively strengthened the ties between school planning and land use and comprehensive planning. 54p.

Details the assessment of "proportionate share" costs in Florida, associated with the provision of adequate school facilities concurrent with new development. Proportionate share mitigation is intended to address a specific school concurrency issue, i.e., a lack of school capacity to absorb the students generated by a new residential development, while school impact fees are imposed on all new residential development to pay for the impact of new development on an entire school district. The report outlines the history and justification for these charges and the legislation that created the procedure. It also advises on the creation and implementation of a proportionate share mitigation program 50p.

Focuses on the growing student enrollment for M.R. Elementary, a Pre-K through 8th grade elementary district. M.R. Elementary is experiencing this growth due to four new subdivisions that will be built over the next ten years. The subdivisions are located on the northwest side of the small city of Lichfield and will create 400 new dwellings. This type of fast growth is expected to create a financial strain from the additional students moving into those homes. The district will not receive General State Aid (GSA) and local tax revenue from growth in Equalized Assessed Valuation (EAV) upon their enrollment for approximately two years per student, which will create an educational fund hardship. 6p.

This lists both city and town and county impact fees, including fees for school facilities, with links to the ordinances, resolutions, or codes.

This describes why an impact fee is necessary, what are impact fees, what kinds of exemptions are available, what is concurrency and why it is necessary. 3p.

This paper examines issues of fairness and legal sufficiency with respect to the calculation and administration of impact fees by units of local government. It describes the methodologies for calculating impact fees, levels of service, credit, service areas, transportation related issues, growth-related costs, administrative issues, advisory panels, appeals, etc.

The author believes that impact fees are not the answer to alternative funding mechanisms for school construction. Home owners, home builders, and school district representatives should join forces to urge legislators to make school funding a state priority. 2p.

This study of impact fees for educational facilities in Lake County, Florida presents the methodology, summarizes the data, and explains the calculations of the fees. It includes a definition and rationale for impact fees, describes the rules governing impact fees in Florida, and a nexus of benenfits of educational facilities. It also details the variable costs of educational facilities. 29p.

In 2003, the National Association of Home Builders adopted policy concerning impact fees: "The financing of off-site infrastructure that serves or has the potential for serving more than one project should be based on community-wide or broader funding sources, rather than impact fees/taxes on new housing." This suggests alternatives to providing off-site infrastructure.

This discusses key components of impact fees and excise taxes, and gives Michigan examples. 25p.

California school districts are allowed to charge a fee on new residential construction as an alternative to the traditional residential developer fee, if certain requirements are met. This analysis is organized into three sections: 1) an introductory section that sets forth the legal requirements that must be met in order to charge alternative fees on new residential construction; 2)projections of the number of unhoused students attributable to new residences projected to be constructed in the District during the next five years. The allowable building construction, site acquisition and site development costs for the unhoused students are calculated and divided by the projected square footage of residential development to determine the alternative fee; 3) a demonstration that a reasonable relationship exists between the fee and the development upon which the fee is to be charged. Appendices include existing school building capacity, allowable site acquisition and development costs, student generation rates, allowable building construction costs, etc. 19p.

The use of development impact fees to finance public facilities that are necessary to service new growth is a practice that has gained importance and acceptance in the last decade. In the U.S. the practice and widespread use of the DIF are asymmetric. Even though DIF are widely accepted, many public officials, developers, and the general public do not yet understand the need for DIF and their effect on the economy. There are important policy and legal issues involved. Selected state experiences are reviewed here. [Authors' abstract] 14p.

Impact fees are one-time payments from real estate developers to school districts used to build school improvements needed to accommodate new real estate development. Impact fees for the Pasco County, Florida School District are proportionate to the school capital facility service demands of new development. This ordinance outlines those fees and the procedures for administering them. 13p

Municipalities in suburban Chicago impose fees ranging from $2,223 to $8,942 on new four-bedroom homes. Other "unofficial" fees and the cost of complying with regulations add significantly to these totals. Impact fees are passed through to new home buyers in the form of higher prices or reduced choice of size, location, and amenities. Due to the incentives facing policymakers and the lack of accurate information on the true cost of new development, impact fees are unlikely to reflect the true cost of public services or infrastructure. High impact fees are regressive, reduce the supply of moderately priced housing and may negatively affect a community’s ability to attract and retain good-paying jobs.

This report outlines 14 recommendations to the Washington State Legislature for speeding up and streamlining the financing of local school construction. Recommendations include directives to improve investment options for the state's Permanent School Fund; change the state standard for construction cost per square foot to reflect actual construction costs; allow school districts the option to acquire facilities with lease/purchase agreements. Compliance with the state's smart growth objectives and reconsidering the state's reliance upon revenues from the timber trustlands to fund K-12 construction.

Discusses the identified statewide need for constructing school facilities and outlines a brief legal history of school impact fees in Florida. The paper reports the results of a 1998 survey of school impact fees in Florida conducted by the author, and ends by discussing some of the issues that distinguish school impact fees from other types of impact fees. 18p.

Government imposes impact fees and exactions on the land development process in order to pay for public facilities needed to service a particular project. To the extent that the fee or exaction exceeds the land developer's proportionate share of the facility's cost, the levy is an unconstitutional taking of property. Courts scrutinize the calculations for imposing such fees and exactions by government, particularly if they are "ad hoc". It is therefore useful, if not necessary, for government to "regularize" the land development condition process through appropriate local ordinances. [Author's abstract]

Exactions are payments made by a developer to local governments for the right to proceed with a project. Exactions can include development fees, the dedication of public land, the construction or maintenance of public infrastructure, or the provision of public services. Developers complain that exactions have become excessive, stifling economic growth. Government officials argue that these levies are essential to growth. Although California leads the nation in imposing fees on new residential development, little is known about their nature, for example, the extent to which they are passed on to consumers in the form of higher home prices. This volume presents an econometric analysis of development fees in Contra Costa County in the San Francisco Bay area that has experienced rapid growth in recent decades. 80p.

Written for members of the building industry who need to understand and respond to local impact fee initiatives, this covers the basic facts and guides the reader to additional sources of information on impact fees, including legal and economic aspects, political and public relations strategies, feasible alternatives and other technical issues. 176p.

This study assesses the merits of impact fees as a school finance mechanism, and identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the statutory framework within which they are imposed in Washington state. As background, the shortcomings of the state’s present system for financing school construction is explained. There is a survey of the use of school impact fees by Washington jurisdictions, and an examination of the operation of impact fees in selected cities, counties and school districts to illustrate some of the issues raised by the present system. Includes a set of recommendations for legislative and administrative actions that might make school impact fees a more equitable, understandable and accountable local revenue source, and perhaps reduce some of the present dissatisfaction with them among both payers and users of the fees. 52p.

Advises on how identify and counter threats made to school district revenue by shifts in tax collection. Tax increment financing districts, property tax reduction litigation, property tax abatement, impact fees, and depressed economic conditions are discussed.

Reviews legal challenges to property tax formulas to fund schools, with particular attention to actions in California and Florida. Remedies and alternative funding instruments are discussed, including capping of property assessments, lower assessments for long-term residents, and impact fees. Includes 20 references.

Examples of several school districts using innovative financing to build new schools, including a public private partnership arrangement in Greenville, South Carolina. Other methods discussed include naming rights, joint use, impact fees, and increasing sales taxes.

Fast growing suburban communities have turned to impact fees to help pay for new schools. But such fees are an unfair, ineffective, and inefficient way for schools to raise revenue. [Author's summary]

Faced with too many students in too few classrooms and not enough cash for construction, counties across Florida are adding school impact fees on new houses to pay for growth. The trend is driving up the cost of new homes and intensifying a debate over how much of the education cost should be paid by buyers of new homes.

School impact fees are a tax that forces developers and new homeowners to pay an up front fee to benefit the public school system and promote construction of new schools within the community. In Florida, many elderly and retirement communities argue that they should be exempt from paying school impact fees. This article argues that school impact fees are very important to the future of public education and school construction which benefits every realm of society, including the elderly. All segments of society are benefited by public education even though they may not directly utilize the school systems.

Community leaders in Osceola County, Florida, have stepped up criticism of home builders in an attempt to pressure them into dropping a court challenge against a controversial school impact fee.

Describes, with examples, public-private partnerships to build new schools in rapidly developing areas, particularly where the developer spends impact fees to build the school themselves. This also describes the lease/purchase approach taken by the The Houston Independent School District.

Describes impact fees, how they work, their relationship to property taxes, how they have worked in the states that allow them, and recommendations for effective impact fees in New Jersey.

Impact fees are assorted fees for water, sewer, roads, schools, etc., assessed to builders and developers when they apply for permits. Home builders have no choice but to pass them along to their customers - home buyers. The Chicago-based American Planning Association puts the national average for cumulative impact fees at $14,441 per dwelling unit. Fees top $100,000 in some parts of California. Since they're added to a mortgage with interest, the net impact is even higher.

This discusses how the aging of the population affects education. The first section, "Shades of Gray," discusses how as the population ages, schools may face tougher competition for public resources, noting how tensions have surfaced in one Florida county. It examines reasons for older Americans' reluctance to pay taxes and impact fees related to education. Some school leaders hope to persuade more retirees to volunteer in the classroom, both to help students and to bolster community support for public schools. Conflict over how to finance public education fairly could become even fiercer in the coming decades as the proportion of elderly residents on fixed incomes climbs in many communities. On any issue, particularly the school funding issue, older voters are hard to ignore because of their propensity to cast ballots in proportionally higher numbers than any other age group. The question for the future may be how the baby boomers will see things once they enter old age. [Free subscriber registration is required.]

Striking a blow to some of the state's fastest-growing districts, the Florida Supreme Court has ruled that an adults-only housing complex near Daytona Beach does not have to pay school impact fees because none of its residents are school-age. Impact fees, which are levied on home builders but frequently passed on to home buyers, are used by some local governments to help offset the cost of building new schools. [Free subscriber registration is required.]

This discusses a Florida law case concerning the payment of public school impact fees by a developer of a mobile home park persons aged 55 and older.

An increasing number of municipalities across the nation are adopting local ordinances which impose "impact fees" on developers in order to finance costs associated with new construction. This article defines impact fees, as well as discusses alternatives to imposing impact fees. The author then discusses an Ohio case which provides a comprehensive analysis of the attacks usually launched against impact fee laws. For those states or municipalities considering developing their own impact fee system without specific state authority, the statute implemented by Texas is examined in detail as a working model.

Impact fees are one-time charges assessed to residential developers that help pay for new roads, libraries, school buildings, and other infrastructure needed for growing populations. The fees' highly political nature has pitted school officials against developers, with mixed results. Utah, South Carolina, Florida, and Colorado initiatives are discussed.

One page discussion of methods that can be used alone or in combination to fund school facilities: lease or lease-purchase plans; establishing business/community partnerships; imposing school impact fees; making bond issues more attractive to voters.

Impact fees to fund new schools have been used in the U.S. for about 15 years and courts have generally recognized a local government's authority to adopt one-time, up-front fees. State enabling legislation varies, but research seems to show that fees that differentiate by housing type and size are generally more equitable and progressive than flat-fee programs. This offers seven principles for a constitutionally valid exaction.

Impact fees significantly reduce the burden on small town governments to pay for capital facilities necessitated by new development. Describes how an impact fee program in St. Albans, Vermont, helped offset costs in providing additional facilities and services related to parks and recreation, law enforcement, the library, fire protection, road equipment, and schools.

Under California law, developers are required to pay school districts impact fees of $1.84 per eligible square foot. However, the Huntington (California) School District says the state-mandated fee falls far short of expenses and attempts to convince developers to increase the fee voluntarily. The Utah State legislature recently outlawed educational impact fees.

High-growth school districts can learn from Park City, Utah, about the adoption of school facility impact fees. These fees are levied against new residential units to offset the additional costs to a school district. A sidebar summarizes variation in state laws pertaining to impact fees and cites some legal challenges to their imposition.

The debate on impact fees centers on two questions: How do you measure the impact? Who pays for the additional service capabilities required by growth? Stakeholders in this debate include builders and real estate developers, local governments, the individual homebuyer, all of the current property tax payers in the service area, and state and federal legislators. All the stakeholders have a different view on who should pay and the type of impact incurred.

In Denver, the Home Builders Association and others have sued a county and a school district that are charging builders $2,000 per home in school impact fees. Builders can fight impact fees by assuring schools are being built when they are needed. Other suggestions to minimize impact fees are discussed, and a list of ten characteristics of an equitable fee ordinance provided.

Orange County, Calif., established a system of impact fees imposed on new housing developments to raise funds to finance new school construction. Reviews the events that led to the adoption of such a fee; analyzes the fee and the methodology for calculating it; and reviews the legal issues which arise when impact fees are used to finance public facilities.

An overview of school impact fee ordinances and statutes from the states that permit their use. Includes a list of typical school impact fee provisions.

Comprehensive and current collection of online information relating to impact fees and infrastructure financing. The website is provided as a public service by Duncan Associates, one of the nation’s leading impact fee consulting firms.

Compilation by the National Association of Home Builders of resources that provide in-depth information on various legal and policy issues surrounding the use of impact fees. Resources include books, PowerPoint presentations, articles, and studies describing the negative consequences of imposing impact fees.

Information on financing school construction and renovation through partnerships between schools and the private sector, community organizations, public agencies, and school districts.

Information on funding methods for public school facilities construction and modernization, compiled by the National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities.