School district delays filing impact‑fee recommendation after developer concerns; consultants recommend large increase

A consultant’s draft educational facilities impact-fee study recommending a substantial increase to the school impact fee prompted further outreach to developers and a revised timeline for formal action.

Raul Perez, presenting an ABAC update, said the draft report and supporting materials were distributed to committee members and county partners and that the consultant’s recommendation would nearly triple some existing fees (the draft cited large percentage increases compared with the 1996 baseline). After feedback from the building and developer community — described in the meeting as “sticker shock” — the district decided to delay taking the recommendation to the full school board and to hold additional meetings with the Builders Association of South Florida, the Latin Builders Association and other stakeholders.

Perez told the committee the district is coordinating with county staff and legal counsel to prepare a unified recommendation. He said the district and county plan to produce a joint recommendation in March and present a unified recommendation to the school board in April. Following board action, the matter would move to the Miami‑Dade County Board of County Commissioners for adoption and ordinance changes as needed.

Legal context and constraints: district counsel explained that impact fees are governed by Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes and county ordinance; the study must demonstrate the fee’s connection to new development and the fee must meet statutory and case‑law standards. Counsel also explained a voting constraint: county commission approval typically requires a majority, but an increase greater than 50% triggers a two‑thirds threshold under recent statutory amendments.

Committee discussion focused on implementation, affordability and a recommended frequency for periodic review. Members asked whether the consultant study itself would change or whether only implementation would be adjusted; Perez said the study’s numbers largely stand but the district may recommend phased implementation or a lower initial increase. Several board members urged embedding a review cadence — the committee discussed a four‑year cycle — so the fee does not remain unchanged for decades.

Next steps: Perez said the district will continue meetings with developers this month, finalize a recommendation in March with county staff and counsel, then bring a unified recommendation to the school board in April and, after board action, to the county commission. ABAC members asked staff to include a recommended review frequency in the forthcoming report; Perez said that will be included in the recommendation.

Ending: The committee received the update and instructed staff to continue stakeholder consultation, coordinate with county counsel on statutory constraints and return with a joint recommendation that includes a proposed review cycle and implementation options (including possible phased increases).