TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online

Impact Fees Are The Key To Resolving County-School Board Dispute

ADVERTISEMENT

The Tampa Tribune

Published: November 4, 2007

It's disheartening that two elected boards, plus their legal staffs and administrators, cannot settle a simple dispute over who should pay for off-site road improvements needed for new schools. Yet, that's been the case for years between Pasco County government and the school board, and another round of talks last week failed to solve the issue.

In government, perhaps the fewer involved the better chance at resolution. So a committee that will be co-chaired by Commission Chairwoman Ann Hildebrand and School Board Chairwoman Marge Whaley to hash out the issue, as agreed during a workshop between the two entities, is a good idea. They are strong leaders who should be able to separate fact from fiction and put a stop to some unnecessary requirements by the county.

Deciding who should pay for road improvements needed for new schools is critical as the county and district near a Feb. 1 deadline to implement school concurrency, a state law requiring that additional classrooms be available to accommodate new residential development.

County government's failure to tie school capacity to new development in the past - action that could have taken voluntarily before the Legislature stepped in - has resulted in an enormous backlog for the school system, which is only beginning to make a dent. And the county already has approved 65,000 housing units, yet to be built, that won't have to comply with concurrency.

As some officials noted at last week's meeting, it's taxpayers' money, no matter which government pays for off-site road improvements. But that's not the point. Residential growth approved by the county is driving the need for more schools, so both the county and developers should be responsible for footing the transportation bill. It's that simple.

The county already levies transportation impact fees against new development, so the funding source is there, and part of it should be spent on off-site road improvements needed for schools.

If the county needs to raise the fee again - as was mentioned during the joint workshop - to pay for off-site road improvements, it should. This is what impact fees are for - to make developers pay for their projects' impacts.

Here's another idea that both school and county officials should discuss: creating educational facilities benefit districts. These are districts that can issue bonds and levy assessments on residents, among other financing tools, to build schools. This is yet another alternative to provide more classrooms in a timely fashion.

The school district already is paying for on-site road improvements and turn lanes, among other needs, and giving the county the rebate it receives annually for paying fuel taxes - nearly $380,000 the last three years. Its money needs to be used to build new classrooms and wings, not help fund the county's transportation needs.

Crucial funding issues can be addressed by increasing or partially redirecting the county's impact fees for transportation to improve roads along school sites, plus following a consultant's recommendation to raise the school impact fee from $4,800 per single-family home to $10,477 to generate more money for school construction.

Numerous studies show that higher impact fees do not slow growth. In fact, the Pasco school district, which gained about 2,000 new students this year, is one of only five districts in the state that continues to grow, even with more than $15,000 in impact fees already being levied per single-family home.

In taking these steps, officials can finally break a longtime deadlock so concurrency can be successfully implemented. Surely, county officials don't want a moratorium on new residential development if school capacity isn't available.

Share this:

Loading Comments...

Email Print

ADVERTISEMENT