Some developers don't think these contributions are so voluntary, though, considering the school district acknowledges it often requires a donation in cash, land or other in exchange for favorable support on zoning applications, modifications and building permits.

The discontent of these unidentified developers emerges in a newly released legislative report that estimates the school district now needs about $1.6 billion in new facilities to serve a student population of about 368,000--and grows at an annual rate about 8,750 new students each year.

In a recent review of the district's land-acquisition policies, the state Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability examined issues such as whether the district has identified its facility needs and planned for them, acquired the land it needs, adopted policies to acquire land at the lowest reasonable price and constructed cost-effective facilities.

Among its findings, the state legislative agency discovered a school district practice that often compels a developer to donate money or property in excess of the impact fees set by county ordinance.

In a recently published article, GlobeSt.com indirectly reported about one such instance. Pulte Homes Corp., in partnership with Cropseyville Corp. N.V., has offered to give the district 14 acres of land in a proposed mixed-use residential project in southwest Miami-Dade County, in addition to the estimated $3 million in impact fees owed on the project.

It is uncertain whether Pulte is among those developers objecting to such coercion, since officials still haven't responded to a request from GlobeSt.com for comment.

"Some developers feel coerced to make a voluntary contribution, so that the district staff will not oppose their developments," according to the state legislative report. The district acknowledged the practice in a written response to the findings.

"It would be accurate to say that some members of the development community object in principle to this additional layer of jurisdictional review, and feel, perhaps deservedly so, that the process is not strictly a voluntary one, since the school district will express its concerns or opposition to a development if additional mitigation for school impacts is not proffered," according to a school district response.

District officials argued, in response, that the existing impact fees assessed on a project might simply fall short of the actual impact the development might have on the public schools.

"There is no question that a review and revision of the educational facilities impact fee, to make it more commensurate with the true impact of additional development on the public school system, would be preferable to the present system," according to the response.

"First, it would create a level playing field for all developers and allow them to calculate up-front their developments' soft and hard costs; second, it would eliminate the need for district involvement in zoning issues over which it admittedly has no control; and third, it would restore the district's good standing with the local land use, zoning and development communities."

To allay concerns, the district agreed to seek alternative strategies to the practice of forced contributions.

"The district has taken OPPAGA's comments under advisement and will consider and discuss other possible options for dealing with the impacts of additional development on the public school system," according to the district's response.

Instant Insights /

GlobeSt.com EXCLUSIVE: Miami-Dade School District Shaking Down Builders

Related Stories

Recommended For You