Feasibility of Enacting an Impact Fee System in Cranston, Rhode Island

This report addresses the problem faced by the City of Cranston, Rhode Island, of how to provide adequate public facilities for city residents in response to rapid expansion of residential construction. Six functional areas of public facilities are the main focus of this analysis. They are educatiion, libraries, recreation, roadways, police and fire protection. The method of this analysis focuses on assessing the City's current inventory of public facilities, projecting needs into the future, and determining their costs as related to those responsible for the growth in that time frame. The formula for the impact fee is based on the population growth, needs projection, cost of facilities in current dollars, and adjustments made necessary by existing deficiencies or anticipated outside financial aid. Three scenarios are developed which are based on different zoning configurations west of Interstate Route 295. A full set of impact fees are proposed for each scenario. Through this analysis it was found that four of the six functional areas studied could benefit from imposition of an impact fee on new developments and legally defended in court if need be. A number of implementation options were considered resulting in proposals for amendment of the Cranston Building Code and the Cranston Subdivision Regulations.


PREFACE
In the short period of time between the economic recession of the early 1980's and the spring of 1986, the City of Cranston experienced an enormous boom of residential construction activity. While viewed favorably at first by the city administration, this intensification of activity soon burdened the city's infrastructure and threatened to adversely impact the public well-being.
In the spring of 1986 the Cranston City Council passed a resolution authorizing the Planning Department to conduct a study assessing how impact fees may help alleviate the part of the burden this new residential construction was creating.
This report is the product of the research and analysis conducted in response to that mandate. The issue of rapid residential growth outpacing the city's ability to provide adequate public facilities underlies the purpose of this study. Without definitive data at hand, the ability of the city's administration to respond was severly limited. The severity of the problem as well as the number of potential solutions was unknown. Ideas for action were based mostly on opinion and assumption.
The City Council chose to study the situation before

INTRODUCTION
Residents and elected officials in Cranston have recently expressed serious concern for the effects that rapid development in the city is having on public facilities and services. It is feared that Cranston will be unable to provide adequate schools, libraries, police and fire services, roadways or recreational facilities to the same capacity in the future as at present. A major cause of concern is the rapid expansion of residential subdivisions taking place, particularly in Western Cranston. The number of building permits issued in this time frame rose from 93 in 1982 to 303 in 1985. 1 Two possible approaches to this issue have been identified. The first focuses on strategies for the city to use in expanding public services at a pace consistent with the city's projected growth. The second focuses on mechanisms the city may want to implement to limit residential growth to a manageable level.

B. PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to investigate measures 1 available to mitigate the effects of rapid residential developnent on Cranston's infrastructure. The method of mitigation focused on is called an "impact fee" system. Impact fees are defined as "charges assessed against new development to off set the cost of providing additional capital facilities necessitated by the new development". The goal is to remain capable of providing necessary public services and facilities to city residents as Cranston grows. The focus of this report is to determine how this objective may be achieved without overburdening any one segment of the population.
Information is assembled here regarding the city's current level of services, projected needs and the costs of projected facilities. Because projected needs are directly related to projected growth, this report will concentrate on making estimates for the public facilities needs through the next ten years, using 1985 as a base date. In some cases, projections past 1995 will be noted, though for illustrative purposes only.

C. METHODOLOGY
The methodology of the analysis is based on the carrying capacity concept, which is measured, in this case, by the city's zoning. That is, given a certain zoning designation, every parcel has a definable amount of development potential.
2 There are seven general steps involved in determining the impact fee: Future facility needs are determined by first projecting residential growth for the city as a whole and calculating the proportion to be located within the service area of each area for each facility type varies. Service area standards for Cranston are elaborated upon in Chapter 3.
There are three projection scenarios presented in this report. The carrying capacity of each scenario has been developed by varying the zoning scheme of the land west of Interstate Route 295 (I-295). Estimated residential growth in each scenario dictates the absolute quantity of public facilities required. Once the projected need for each facility is estimated, the cost of the necessary improvements is calculated, then factored for a ten-year time frame. The ten-year cost is in turn divided by the ten-year residential growth projection to determine the cost per unit.
The key variables involved in the impact fee formula are: 1. cost of facilities required by 1995, 2. service standards applicable to each functional category, 3. service area of projected needs, 4. anticipated outside aid.
The following analysis reveals a tiered fee system based directly upon population projections in definable service areas for three growth scenarios. Also included is an assessment of measures alternative to the impact fee system with explanations of their usefullness to the city. The report concludes with a review of Cranston's prospective needs for the future and policy recemmendations for responding to those needs.  Impact fees are generally more flexible than other financing mechanisms. To justify this flexibility, a great deal of effort must be put into quantifying the physical, economic, and regulatory factors which support the regulation.
There are seven issues that must be addressed in the development of a legally sound impact fee system. They include:

SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS:
Charges levied against real property particularly and directly benefited by local improvements in order to pay the cost of those improvements. a) Exercise of the taxing power b) used to finance improvements which benefit specific property c) Used exclusively to provide for on-site improvements d) Payment of taxes follows actual improvements

SUBDIVISION EXACTIONS:
Requirement that subdividers "dedicate" land for public use or pay a "fee in lieu thereof" which will become part of a fund to purchase such lands or facilities. a) Exercise of the police power b) Used to finance improvements which benefit entire subdivision c) Used primarily to provide for on-site improvements d) Payment of fees only an alternative to required dedication e) Often involves extensive and elaborate negotiation f) Problem where substantial platting has already occurred

IMPACT FEES:
Charges levied on new develoµnent in order to generate revenue for funding improvements necessitated by such new development.
a) Exercise of the police power b) used to finance a development's fair share of improvements which benefit total community c) Used to provide for a variety of on-site or off-site improvements d) Payment of fees usually at time of building permit issuance e) Fees fixed rather than negotiated f) Can apply to already platted or nonplatted parcels g) Alternative or supplement to exactions 8 1) Linkage with the comprehensive plan and/or Capital Improvement Program, 2) Defining facility service areas, 3) Evaluating current facility adequacy,

B. LEGAL ISSUES
A detailed approach is one of the major differences between the impact fee system and previous financing mechanisms. Supported by the technology of the eighties, planners can now quantify the broad range of effects new developments may produce environmentally, socially and economically. From a legal standpoint, the courts generally favor a challenged ordinance if it is supported by a body of quantified data.
To adequately evaluate the validity of an exactions ordinance, the courts use a two-step procedure. The first step is to determine whether the ordinance is to be classifed as a regulatory measure or as a tax. In doing so, the courts look past the ordinance's title to its operative effect.
Their decision is based on the use to which the funds raised will be put. If it is found that the funds raised wi ll be used for financing the expansion of municipal facilities and services, then the ordinance will be regarded as a tax. 9 If, on the other hand, the fees are imposed to regulate land by assuring the provision of adequate facilities and services necessitated by the new development, then the measure will be regarded as a regulation.
The second step the courts take in evaluating the validity of an ordinance is to determine if the measure is authorized under state law. Therefore, if the ordinance is found to be a tax, then the court will examine the extent of that municipality's power to impose taxes. If is is found to be a form of regulation, then the court examines whether the municipality has the power to regulate for the purpose for which the fee is imposed. Taxes are generally more difficult to institute since they require express and specific statutory authorization.
On the other hand, police power regulations are reviewed in a very broad manner. In these cases, the courts look for a close relationship between the fee charged and the captial cost necessitated by new users.
Once statutory validity of an impact fee ordinance has been established by the court, the final test is to determine its constitutionality. There are two approaches a litigant can take to refute the measure on constitutional grounds. The first is to attack the ordinance "on its face". This is to allege that the mere adoption of the ordinance will violate consititutional provisions. When this option is exercised, the court does not consider the specific impact of the ordinance on any one property owner.

10
The second approach, which is more common, is to attack the ordinance "as applied". Therefore, an impact fee is likely to be upheld unless it is clearly unreasonable. To avoid the ordinance being struck down, a municipally must be able to: 1. Justify the rate or rate schedule in terms of its pro rata share of reasonable aniticipated costs of capital facility expansion.

2.
Prove that the money collected is targeted to meeting the costs of capital facility expansion.
Rhode Island possesses one case relevant to this analysis,

CRANSTON PUBLIC LIBRARIES
------,     Table 4. In terms of impact, it is the spread of residential construction from the city's urban center that is creating the most stress on municipal facilities. Table 6 identifies selected public facilities located in census tracts 145 and 146.  The second notable result of comparing Western Cranston to the city overall, is the variation in average parcel size.
By dividing the number of housing units by the residential acreage, we note a significant difference between the two defined areas.
In Western Cranston, there is an average of 1.28 acres of land per housing unit compared to just 0.25 acres per housing unit in the city as a whole. This statistic verifies the suspected predominance of low density residential development. In reality, it reflects two separate, but related, conditions: 1.
Inactive farms, having one or two houses on a large expanse of land, that have been redefined as residential in the city's land use code, 2. Very low density development in areas not serviced by city water or sewer.
It can, therefore, be concluded that when assessing the development potential of Western Cranston, not only that land officially designated "vacant" must be considered, but also the vacant portions of existing very low density developments such as farms. With land values continuously on the rise and interest rates favorable, the current attraction for developing long dormant parcels has heightened. Landowners who previously were willing to "leave well enough alone", now are being encouraged to develop or sell in response to the willingness of developers to pay ever-increasing prices for land.  Scenario A, projects a 34% increase in Cranston's residential growth at build-out. Using past building permit trends as a general estimate of construction activity in the future, projected build-out will occur in about 35 years. The formula below exhibits how this conclusion was reached:

1.) Assessment of Current Municipal
Step

B. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
The capital improvements to be considered for inclusion in this impact fee system must be carefully selected. Working in concert with the appropriate municipal departments and their capital improvement budgets, the following list of potential needs has been generated for the next ten years under For a project to be related to the impacts of residential growth, it must be otherwise unnecessary for a static growth situation. Therefore, we are confined to considering only those projects intended to provide new or expanded capacity to the city's infrastructure system.

1) Service Standards:
One of the key criteria for practical implementation of an impact fee system is the identification and establishment There are three types of standards used in this assessment. The first is a "service area standard". The City of Cranston, in its latest Comprehensive Plan Report, established service area standards for fire and school 19 facilities.
This type of standard involves delineation of a particular geographic area, usually a radial distance, that the facility in question is meant to serve. The second type of standard is a "service population standard".
Two of these are employed in this study: recreation and T is type o stan ar est lis es a quantity of facility or service required for a specified unit of population. The third type of standard is a "floor area standard" and is related to the amount of building area required to serve a set unit of population. We employ three floor area standards in this study: police, library 22,23,24 and schools.
The reasons for police and schools to have more than one standard are elaborated upon later in this chapter. Table 8 graphically identifies all the above referenced standards.

2) Deficiencies:
Before a set of projected capital facilities needs is compiled, the issue of current inadequacies must first be addressed. One of the tenets of the impact fee concept is that new development not be required to finance the correction of past mistakes. For example, the cost of expanding mun icipal facilities to meet a present level of demand should not be borne by future development. Rather, these identified "deficiencies" must be the responsibility of the municipality.   Although a volunteer station house is well-located to serve this area, its resources are limited. The city, therefore, must consider providing full-time fire service to this area.
Another issue which creates concern in planning for a new fire station is the state of the roadway network in Western Cranston. The actual area which could effectively be served within the six-minute response time standard is not clearly definable since the roadway system west I-295 is not complete and will undergo many additions within a ten-year time frame.
The current policy of the City Planning Commission is to require developers to construct through roads, where feasible, in conjunction with subdivision plans for approval. In light of this, it is conceivable that some areas will be made more easily accessible as the city's western sector continues to grow.
As a result, expansion of the fire department to better serve the south-western portion of the city, has been omitted from this scenario due to the generally sparse development located in that area. Although some significant growth is taking place outside the primary service areas of Station These estimates include some land taking where feasible.

42
The cost for some of these facilities is likely to be It is estimated that this action will reduce the total cost to the city for Western Cranston roadways by 50% in the next ten years.
The methodology for determining deficit is based on the assumption that these roads were adequate to carry the traffic generated in Western Cranston in 1980. At that time these roads functioned as rural roads and carried limited traffic.
Since then, a considerable amount of subdivision activity has changed the rural traffic demands on these roads. A review of building permits issued in the last six years results in an estimate of the number of residential units built since 1980 contributing to the deficit. When costs are estimated, a ratio of these residential units to the total residential capacity of Western Cranston is derived. This ratio will represent the percentage of total adjusted cost that cannot be included in the impact fee calculations.

Facilities: Scenario B & Scenario C
Facilities needs under Scenario B and C are similar to those posed under Scenario A, although increased due to the higher population volumes projected. There are no additional functional categories considered. Sewers have been omitted from all three scenarios due to the fee system presently in place requiring a $3,000 payment per unit where an extension of the sewer main in needed to service new developments.
Water is omitted while a separate study of expansion costs is being conducted through the City's Public Works Department.
Schools are omitted from Scenarios B and C for the same reason enumerated in the Scenario A projection.
Fire services are omitted from Scenario B for the same reasons previously noted in the Scenario A projection. In Scenario C, however, sufficient population density is projected in the target area to justify the inclusion of a new station house and appurtenances before 1995.
For the remainder of this analysis references to school and fire facilities will be limited to projections beyond the ten-year time frame.

\
In the future, any or all of the latter three functional areas could be considered for inclusion in the impact fee system. In the event of that consideration, the level of need would have to be identified, the cost estimated and the service area of each defined so appropriate fees could be established. For each case, a certain threshold level of development must be achieved before the need for major facilities construction can be justified.

CHAPTER V FINANCING
There are a number of factors that affect the cost of municipal facilities. These include economies-of-scale when building more than one facility such as ballfields; the bonding cost or interest rate; and the effect of outside aid such as state reimbursements.
In each of the functional categories studied, these factors are considered so that the most accurate estimate of final cost may be derived.

B. Cost Allocation
The method for equitably allocating the costs of the needed capital facilities to all the parties who benefit involves a number of assumptions and adjustments. As stated previously, the cost of the current deficiency must be factored out of each facility's total cost as must the dollar amount of state aid anticipated prior to estimating the impact fee.
To equitably assess a "fair share" of the cost to the city's new development, another adjustment is made in the formula.
To make this adjustment, two assumptions are necessary: 1. That the city's bond for these capital facilities will be paid back in ten to twelve years.    is to be prepared to retire each individual impact fee fund once the bond which originally financed the improvements has been retired. Because of this, the factor noted above is used to adjust all capital facilities costs so that no individual will be disproportionately burdened with paying more than his/her share of the impact cost.
To complete the formulation, the total estimated cost is adjusted to reflect the proportion projected for ten years, then divided by the projected number of residential units to be permitted in that time. Use of this approach limits the total amount of proceeds the city may raise. Because the facility cost is factored down to a ten-year level, the city cannot possibly collect the full value of the facility through impact fees. It makes sense to limit the total amount it is possible to collect through the impact fee because, although new developments create the need for infrastructure expans i on, they will not be the sole beneficiaries. In many ways, all the city's residents benefit when infrastructure systems expand. It results in better service and greater capacity per individual when considered on the whole. Thus, where future developnents will be charged a new one-time fee for the purpose of providing additional city services they necessitate, the total proceeds collected will represent only a small portion of the targeted facilities' final cost.
It is important to note that this methodology would generate the same results using any time frame for adjustment.
The ten-year basis is used so as to be consistent with the anticipated time of bond retirement. The general methodology for the impact fee assessment is as follows: 1} Estimate total cost of capital facilities to build-out 2} Adjust total cost by deleting expected amount of outside or State aid.

3}
Subtract the cost for alleviating the deficit 4} Adjust remainder for ten-year projection.
5} Divide ten-year cost by ten-year residential protection. Graphically: (Total Cost -Outside Aid -Deficit} x Ten Year Adjustment Ten Year Residential Projection = Impact Fee per Residential Unit

C.} Expenditures:
The impact fee concept is based not only on each developer paying his fair share of the additional cost impact on the city's facilities, but also on new developments receiving their fair share of the benefits accrued through expansion of said facilities. A large part of the legal justification for implementing an impact fee system depends upon sound accounting practices. Once ther e is a current inventory of facilities, a set of standards, and a projection of facilities needs, the city must verify its commitment to developing the needed facilities. Two actions are necessary.
1. Identify facilities in the capital improvement budget.
2. Establish sinking funds into which the proceeds of impact fee payments are to be deposited.
It is imperative to include all major capital facilities targeted for financing through impact fees in the city's capital improvement budget. This tie ensures municipal commitment as well as the interaction of all involved departments. By establishing sinking funds, the administration strengthens its commitment by targeting these funds for particular purposes. These funds must be "nonlapsing", meaning the monies deposited in them will not revert to the general treasury at the end of each fiscal year. An individual fund must be established for each functional area.
This practice further sustains the city's commitment to to the development of specific facilities.
When the city administration decides to develop a facility targeted for impact fee funds, it may then expend some or all of the proceeds collected in the corresponding fund. It is projected that impact fee will finance between 15% and 30% of the total cost depending on the facility, its service area, and the amount of outside aid the city receives. This clearly requires a major city commitment to finance the remaining capital cost of facilities even with an impact fee system in place. The fee can reduce the 53 amount to be financed by the city in two ways.
1) use of proceeds collected prior to the bond sale as a partial up-front payment.
2) Should the repayment time of the bond extend beyond ten years, additional proceeds may be collected until the bond is retired.

A. Subdivision Provisions:
A review of impact fee ordinances from Florida,

11) Annual Review
One aspect of impact fee ordinances which make them unique is the degree of specificity required for their application.

B. Building Code Provisions
In

58
The Ansuini case sets an important precedent. Although the City's 7% land dedication requirement was held invalid on its face, the court did not challenge the underlying concept that the city had the authority to require a dedication of land for recreation purposes. Rather, the Court held that the requirement of 7% was arbitrary since it was not attributed to any particular recreational need generated by the new development. Two precautionary points must be added to this discussion. The first is that in Ansuini the Court upheld a commonly accepted land use practice, namely land dedication, which had been in wide use for a number of years. Impact fees do not presently enjoy such wide acceptance in Rhode Island.
currently two municipalities have enacted them, South Kingstown and Woonsocket, and a number of nearby southern New England communities are considering them. With this somewhat limited base of local usage, the courts coul d be less inclined to affirm an impact fee ordinance as constitutional.
The second precautionary point relates to the method of implementing an impact fee system. So far, it has been assumed that these regulations would be added to the city's subdivision regulations as an amendment. The Ansuini case dealt with a subdivision amendment and the draft ordinance in Appendix 4 of this report is written as a proposal f or subdivision amendment. South Kingstown instituted its impact fee system at the subdivision level, following the majority of communities previously enacting impact fee systems. This town 59 has been collecting a fee of $1,043.00 per residential unit which is assessed at the time of final plat approval.
However, a problem directly related to the fair share issue arises when considering how to equitably assess those developments not requiring subdivision approval.

B. BUILDING CODE REGULATIONS
Can these regulations be implemented at the building

C. SUMMARY
In this study we consider the option of using impact fees as a mechanism for partially alleviating the financial problems caused by Cranston's growth. Because this procedure is relatively new to Rhode Island, it must be properly documented, and assessments quantitively justified.
The validity of an impact fee ordinance depends heavily upon how equitable it is determined to be by the courts.
Underlying the issue of equitability there is the question of pertinence of the ordinance as a land regulatory device. The 61 "Equal Protection Clause" of the 14th Amendment requires government to restrict actions which unnecessarily burden particular segments of the populace.
Refining the list of items to be considered for benefit from the impact fee was carried out using this concept as a basis. First considered were the major capital projects necessitated by the city's estimated ten-year growth. Those for which costs or service area could not be quantified were removed. Items under current study were removed. The final list represents those items unquestionably necessary in the next decade which lent themselves to reasonable estimations of need and cost. Each item and functional area stands on its own and is justified using its own set of criteria.
Impact fees, however, are just one of many mechanisms available to relieve pressure put on Cranston's infrastructure by the recent wave of growth. Those elements included in the foregoing chapters of this report and the draft ordinances are justifyable items to include in an impact fee system for the City of Cranston.
The next chapter identifies a number of alternative development control measures available to the city. This analysis does not assume these provisions to be exclusive of each other. It would be conceivable to adopt more than one of the mechanisms described in response to the city's growth requirements.

ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MEASURES
The objective in this chapter is to clarify the regulatory context in which the impact fee option is being considered. One must realize that growth control and infrastructure expansion are opposing ends of the same dilemma. The developers view is that city facilities and services are not expanding fast enough to serve his needs. On the other hand, the city views the problem as development occuring too fast for the municipal captial budget to keep up.
If growth is allowed to continue unchecked, the city may find itself in a situation where, because the infrastructure is so burdened, drastic measures become necessary.
The City Council, by authorizing this study, has embraced its responsibility to address the situation before it progresses to crisis proportions. In the process of researching municipal needs for the future, a number of other regulatory mechanisms were considered. The purpose of this approach is to suggest an overall growth management plan for the city. Through this holistic approach, we identified the following potentially useful tools to aid the city.

A. DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULING:
Under this scheme large developments would be phased so as to minimize the impact they might have on the city's facilities and to ensure better management of enviromnental impacts such as erosion. This concept has been advocated in twelve Massachusetts communities for the purpose of regulating the rate at which residential development can occur.

B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
This type of analysis which all federal agencies must prepare when proposing a "major action" could be implemented One direct method of controlling land use is to actually purchase open space areas of value. By establishing a policy for ranking areas of critical concern (such as wetlands and agricultural land), the city may maximize return on its expenditures. One method of financing such a policy could be to institute a real estate transfer tax. The proceeds of the tax could be placed into an escrow account and used when priority parcels become available. This type of tax often exempts first time homebuyers.

E. MORATORIUM OF BUILDING PERMITS:
This mechanism is favored only in cases where continued Providence, combined with the advantages of a rural residential setting. In order to adequately serve these new residents, the City must concern itself with regulating expansion of public services and facilities in a rationally planned manner. This is possible only if there is a clearly identified set of priorities. Haphazard residential development will otherwise create stress on all infrastructure facililties thus undermining the City's growth control policies.
As a response to these needs, the impact fee approach has many assets to consider. First, it is derived from the long accepted system of exactions for public dedication. Second, the concept is simple and quantifyable. Those developments creating an increased need for infrastructure improvements should, under this type of system, be assessed a fair share of the cost required to provide the necessary improvements.
Third, the impact fee is targeted to provision of specific facilities which will directly benefit those required to pay it. Fourth, enactment of an impact fee system requires a commitment on the part of the City to provide said facilities.

1.
Purpose: In order to adequately provide for expansion of Cranston's munici al ca ital facilities in the functional cate orroadwa , the Cit Council is to recover a fair share of the cost the City incurs to provide ex ansion of its ma·or ca ital facilities, to an acce ted standard, as Cranston continues to grow. The assessment charged to the sudivider/developer under this section is calculated on a per-unit b asis. The fees collected shall be assessed in accordance with the table set f orth in subsection C6 of this section and deposited into separate non-la sin trust funds for each of the functional categories included. Exoen iture o t e procee s co ecte t roug th is fee shall be restricted to the items listed in subsection 2. Definitions: a.) Service Area: That area defined by geographic boundaries noted elsewhere in this section, from which each capital improvement draws its otential users. 145 and 146 as defined in t h e 1980 Census of Population. c.) Citywide: When noted a s a service area, any location within the corporate limits of the City of Cranston. d.) Major Capital Facilities: Those capital improvement needs which cannot, or traditionally are not, financed from the City's operating budget. 7. Collection of Fees: This Fee is applicable to all subdivisions that are recorded with the Ci ty Clerk after the effective date of this ordinance. The Ci ty Plan Commission shall assess the Fee at the time of final plat approval. The Citv Treasurer shall collect said Fee prior to plat recording. The proceeds shall be deposited into the appropriate fund as determined b y the City Plan Commission in accordance with the formula set forth in Subsection CG of this section.

Exemptions:
a.) Any parcel of land which, on the effective date of this Ordinance, has been recorded with the Citv Clerk as part of an accepted plat or subdivision.
b.) All subdivisions designated solely f or the purpose of establishing a n d carrying on commercial or industrial business operations.
c.) At the discretion of the Plannin Commission, b a majority vote, all or part of the Fee, for anv or a 1 functi ona categories, may be waived in return for land dedication, or provision or construc tion of specific improvements of equal or greater value to that which is waiv ed. No exemption shall be granted for dedication of land for ublic road ri ht-of-wav; construction of roadways, installation of publi c water; surface drainage and or detention basins; subsurf ace drainage; and subsur fa ce wastewater removal systems required currently or in the f uture as a standard prerequisite f or subdivision approval. 9. Appeals: Any person who is aggrieved by any decision made by the City Plan Commission relative to the a dministration of this section may appeal that decision to the Platting Board of Review by filing a written request with the secretary of the Platting Board of Review within f ourt een days after said decision, describin with articularit the decision o f the Cit Plan Commission at its next regular meeting, hear and consider the appeal.
In determinin the a peal, the Plattin Board of Review shall determine whether the Planning Commission's decision is correct an may affirm, modify, extend or overrule that decision.
10. Expendi tures: Expenditures from funds established in subsection CS of this Section ma v be made by the City Council for the the mitigation of the impacts of residential growth in the City of Cranston.
11. Annual Review: The Citv Plan Commission shall annually review the Fee Schedule established herein and shall report t o the City Council, at its first meeting o f each f isca l year, the results o f such review including any recommended revisions of said schedule based on changes in construction or other capital cost indexes, and/ or changes in zoning. The City Plan Commission shall also consider changes and/or amendments in t he Fee formulation and assessments, including the establishment of new trust funds for the purpose of collecting capital de velopment impact fees for major capital facilities not currentlv anticipated. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect upon its final adoption.
Approved as to form and legality: (3.) Assessment: The Fee shall be assessed by the Building Inspector and paid in f ull as part of the permit application process. In special cases, the Building Inspector mav at the uildin permit application sta e, re u irin the remainto be paid at any time prior to issuance of a certificate of occuoancv .
In such cases the dollar amount o f the imPact fee vet to be paid shall constitute a lien on the proPertv should the owner choose to sell said Property prior t o receivin an occuoanc permit . In no case shall a certificate o f occuPancv be issued unti the impact fee for the property is paid in full.
(4.) Distribution of proceeds: Revenue from the impact fee assessments shall be p l aced in the accounts designated below: