School board workshop favors limiting proportionate-share mitigation to assessed impact fee

Collier County School Board workshop — Sept. 23, 2025 — Collier County officials and outside counsel reviewed two proportionate-share mitigation proposals tied to the Milkaway Farms and Lake Mirage developments and sought board direction on whether to accept full proportionate-share payments or to limit mitigation to the assessed impact-fee amount.

The workshop featured a presentation by district staff member Jim Lipsey and outside counsel Chris Wilson of CJ and Wilson Law. Wilson said, “the proportionate share fee is based upon the current cost per student station,” and explained that the district’s assessed impact fee is lower than the current per‑station cost, which can create a gap between a full proportionate‑share calculation and the assessed impact fee.

Why it matters: accepting the full proportionate‑share payment can yield more money up front but creates transferable, perpetual credits that developers can sell or apply to other projects. That can reduce future impact‑fee revenue the district would otherwise collect on those dwelling units and imposes tracking and administrative burdens. Limiting mitigation to the assessed impact fee reduces future capacity‑and‑revenue exposure but leaves the district to fund the remaining capital need from its capital plan.

In a sample scenario presented by counsel, a hypothetical 107‑unit development produced an assessed impact‑fee total of $656,004.45 (107 × $6,001.35) while the full proportionate‑share calculation produced about $1,000,071.04 — a difference that, when converted into impact‑fee credits, equated to roughly 174 credited units (67 more than the development proposed). Counsel and staff warned those excess credits could be transferred to other projects and be difficult for staff to track.

Staff presented two options: (1) accept the full proportionate‑share amount and issue credits equal to the payment (the district receives the full current impact but creates transferable credits and ongoing tracking obligations), or (2) limit the proportionate‑share mitigation to the assessed impact fee (the district collects less than the full calculated impact but avoids transferable perpetual credits and eases administrative tracking). Counsel summarized statutory context, noting changes from recent law (cited in the presentation as Senate Bill 1080) that constrain the kinds of exactions districts can require and make a consistent, nondiscriminatory policy necessary.

Board members asked detailed questions about tracking, timing and payment. One board member asked who is responsible for tracking credits; counsel said the statute allows credits to be transferable and saleable and that the district would be served by tracking credits if it pursued that route. Staff clarified that an impact fee is assessed at the time building permits are applied for, and that a proportionate‑share agreement fixes credits at the time of payment rather than at the time an agreement is signed.

There was confusion among participants about recently published fee tables and the ordinance effective dates. Staff said a $6,135 figure used in some calculations corresponds to a phased increase in the district ordinance and that the effective date for the phase that reaches that level is December 2025 (phase 2), not July; staff noted the ordinance language and published table appeared inconsistent and recommended clarifying the ordinance timing before final action.

No final policy was adopted at the workshop. Board members expressed a clear consensus in favor of option 2 — limiting proportionate‑share mitigation to the assessed impact‑fee amount — but several speakers emphasized that this was direction for staff and not a formal board enactment. Staff said each future proportionate‑share agreement would still come to the board for public hearing and formal action. Jim Lipsey summarized the staff recommendation: “That’s my recommendation. . . . I would say, in my opinion, my recommendation is we collect what is owed to us on the impact fee and upfront and not be in a position to issue the contractor credits that we could make that money on it later.”

The board also asked staff whether the chosen approach should be applied uniformly to all applicants; counsel advised the district must apply a uniform policy — it cannot treat developers differently in the same time period — and recommended the board adopt a single approach and notify applicants accordingly.

What’s next: staff will clarify the ordinance timing and the impact‑fee figures, and the item(s) for Milkaway Farms and Lake Mirage will return on a regular board agenda as public‑hearing items for formal action rather than as additional workshops. No vote or ordinance change occurred at this workshop.