Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Impact Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Marion County board reviews impact‑fee indexing; members seek workshop on "extraordinary circumstances" pathway
Summary
Staff presented an annual index calculation (2.75%) and a history of collections (about $23.7 million since 2024). Board members pressed for clearer district‑level accounting, and several requested a near‑term workshop to explore whether a statutory "extraordinary circumstances" path could permit faster or larger fee increases.
Planning manager Xavier Bolity briefed the Marion County School Board on June 18 about the district’s educational impact‑fee annual indexing exercise. He emphasized that the board was not requesting a rate increase at this time and that state law generally limits impact‑fee increases to once every four years.
"We are not requesting any increase in impact fee rates," Bolity said, explaining that the county ordinance still contains a legacy annual‑indexing clause but that 2021 amendments to Florida’s impact‑fee law changed how and when fees can be increased.
Using the county‑prescribed methodology and baseline values from the 2023 impact‑fee study, staff calculated an annual index value of 2.75 percent. Bolity told the board that since collections resumed in 2024, roughly 5,700 residential units have generated about $23.7 million in impact‑fee revenue; approximately $20.6 million of those receipts have been allocated toward debt service, leaving a balance of roughly $3.2 million.
Board members pressed staff for clearer, district‑level accounting and for transparency about how impact‑fee receipts are used. "It is not accurate information to say that we've spent it on debt service when…these dollars can only be spent in the collection districts," Dr. Campbell said, asking staff and finance to provide a spreadsheet showing collections and uses by educational benefit district.
Several board members asked legal staff to research the "extraordinary circumstances" pathway in the state law that can allow a jurisdiction to exceed normal increase limits if a strict demonstrated‑need study is completed, hearings are held, and governing bodies approve the change. Attorney Powers noted the statutory language contains eligibility limits and referenced section 163.31801(6) and related subsections; the board asked legal staff to advise whether the district’s 2024 reinstatement of fees counts as a prior increase for the statute’s five‑year timing clause.
The board unanimously requested a near‑term, focused workshop (July preferred) to consider timing and cost for a demonstrated‑need study, the statutory tests for "extraordinary circumstances," and whether to pursue the alternate pathway as part of a multi‑year strategy.
Next steps: staff will prepare a district‑by‑district accounting of collections and uses for board review and will work with the superintendent’s office and legal counsel to schedule the requested workshop and provide a timeline and cost estimate for any study the board wants to pursue.
