GIAC Residential Improvement District Bill

The Residential Improvement District Act has passed the S.C. General Assembly. As long as the governor goes along, this removes (in my mind) any excuse for county council not to insist that Carolina Station and subsequent large developments agree to put their development into such a special tax district agreeing that the development pay for the school facilities that it requires. (The subsequently added Getting Developments to Pay for their Public School Needs, accessible by clicking the item in the left-hand menu goes into greater detail.) The Residential Improvement Act specifically calls out public school facilities as public facilities that it can be used to cover.

The more people we can get pressing for this, the better. Let's not let "perfection get in the way of good." Protection against possible abuses or developer bankruptcies such as performance bonds with reliable insurance companies, if not in the statute, such can be insisted upon by the county in its development agreements.

I have been told that the governor's signing or not will be history on June 27. County council should defer approval of Carolina Station and its development agreement until this and it has worked out the phasing of the special taxes so International Paper is satisfied that it is not stuck with the brunt of them, (so that most are passed on to sub-developers and the final buyers into the development.) or refuse development approval.

The detailed information herein on the residential improvement district bill may be outdated and not accurately reflect what has actually passed. To view the S.C. Residential Improvement District Act as passed by the S. C. General Assembly, awaiting the governor's signature, click the S.C. Residential Improvement District Act here or the corresponding item in the menu on the left.

To view this in the context of other growth management tools click Growth Management Tools

Click here to view the Horry County staff PowerPoint presentation at the March 3 impact fee workshop comparing the current stage of the Residential Improvement District bill to the existing Public Works Improvement District statute.

Click the section on this page that you might want to skip to and read from their titles below:

The Residential Improvement District (RID) Act bill, H4745 and now a companion bill S1213 are works in progress at this writing. H4745 was introduced at the General Assembly on February 21, 2008. It would reduce the general taxes current taxpayers have to pay for new development by transferring taxes from them to those who require additional public facilities not previously needed. It would do so by issuance of a bond that would, in the language of the bill, remove all county or other local government obligation for the bond. That bond would be paid with taxes imposed on the property owners in the residential development district with the agreement of the original landowner/developers. The agreement would pass with the land so that all sub-developer owners, buyers or users of the developed property would be obligated to the special district taxes for a period specified in the original development agreement.

The bill explicitly includes the costs for providing school facilities as well as other public facilities that are located any place in the service area agreed to be included in the RID special taxes. That tax liability is to be in addition to the general taxes paid in a locality. The language of the bill does not limit the area of the service district although specifically extending the service area to the entire county or municipality would be highly desirable as there is a propensity for courts to require service areas to be located near a development.

The bill also allows agreed upon facilities traditionally paid for by a developer or by a loan paid for by the developer to be included in the RID taxes.

To view the current text of H4745 click here. Click here to see the current text of S1213 the companion Residential Improvement District bill introduced in the S.C. Senate on March 27.

Click Growth Management Tools and then click "Putting it All Together (Overview: Impact Fees, Residential Improvement and Public Work Districts) for a comparison of these various fiscal growth management tools.

After further e-mail discussions, there is no apparent need to significantly change the content of the March 5 "GIAC Residential Improvement District Act Bill Recommendations and Comments" section below. However two further recommendations and some further explanations and clarifications are desirable.

First an additional recommendation suggested by an Horry County senior planner follows:

"I think the most important thing that we have to guard against is increased assessments. There should be some language in the RID [Residential Improvement District bill and statute] that sets assessment rates. Once the assessment is established it cannot be altered. It would be based on acreage, meaning a 1,000 acre tract of land with a $10 million dollar bond equates to $10,000 per acre. A ¼ acre lot therefore only pays a $2,500 assessment over the life of the bond plus interest. So, if only 500 acres are developed of a proposed 1,000 acre development, the remaining 500 acres absorbs its pro rata share of the bond. Whether or not the land is worth the amount of bonding placed on it is another matter that the bank most certainly will weigh before issuing the bond."

The recommendation, with which I agree, was offered after the following comments:

"How will the developer guarantee repayment? One would initially assume that the land for which the RID is issued secures the money. This is bad if the developer defaults and a portion of the land has been transferred to private ownership. A portion of the obligation (hopefully no more than the pro rata) will almost certainly be passed along to the buyers. The remaining land I suppose would be sufficient security. What happens though if only 2,000 instead of the proposed 3,000 homes are built and the land left over does not sufficiently offset its portion of the bond proceeds?"

Second, as my thinking has evolved, it seems to me that it would be a good idea to make the RID's allowed financing more flexible as to who floats the associated bond or bonds. Whoever does so would have the most control over when the moneys are spent (for example, when the true public facilities portion is spent compared to when expenditures for the facilities that are typically provided by developers are spent ). And I, at least, would be more comfortable if the county officials who are subject to election had that control rather than developers who are profit driven.

My major concern is possible non-performance and, if not assured, its potential impact on the developments' buyers and the county. But before further discussing that, I want to fully clarify, differences in my outlook since first writing the March 5 "GIAC Residential Improvement District Act Bill Recommendations and Comments." For instance, I still have no problem with the words in item 7: "H4745 should require that RID bonds be used strictly for the items in a local government’s budget or as otherwise specifically listed in a development agreement." But I, now, have some problems with the tone here in line with my discussion under item 9. I more fully appreciate the position of the developer and am not so against including facilities that a developer typically includes in the bond.

The developer/property owners must get back the taxes that they have to pay under an RID until they sell, to stay in business, by including them in the selling price of the homes. And so the new home buyers will (properly) pay for the public facilities and those facilities that a developer includes, by bond or otherwise, (in taxes or in purchase price) in any event. The buyer always must ultimately pay, not the developer.

On the other hand, I am no longer as cavalier in my attitude as in the final words of item 9: "if the local government becomes obligated, it appears to be in no worse state than it would have been in a similar situation without the RID arrangement." If the developer fails to perform under a RID, the county could become obligated for facilities that it may well have no need for -- those typically constructed by the developer.

If people have bought the lots on which homes are to be built and the developer bails out (bankruptcy or otherwise), the buyers are still stuck with the special district taxes. That is not good in itself. And the buyers would likely complain to the county and/or seek redress with an attorney. Attorneys typically sue anyone and everyone they might possibly be able to get damages from. And the county has the biggest pockets. The county, after all will be the owner of any facilities that have been built and, even though its name is not on the bond, the county collects the taxes and it could possibly be argued to be complicit. You tell me what the result would be.

I have received no assurances from anyone that performance bonds are feasible to really ensure that developers complete the construction of homes for buyers of land obligating the buyers to the special assessment RID taxes. Perhaps this, with the concern that bonds might be inadequate to fund true public facilities after builder facilities are paid, should be expressed as concerns and leave it to others how to address those concerns, rather than make specific recommendations.

Gary Loftus responded to my last concern by e-mailing:

"If the full faith and credit of the County is NOT to be used, is it not the responsibility of the issuer of the bonds to figure out how to guarantee payment?? If they are not reasonably sure they will be repaid, they don't issue them. And, they will require insurance and/or performance bonds, etc. Is that not the case??"

I responded that I flat out did not know and that I had no independent knowledge about performance bonds or how quasi-municipal bonds can be structured in general and hoped others might be able to give some guidance.

Further Explanations and Comments

I continued with the following that I include here:

"I'm not even clear what advantage getting the county in the middle of a developer's RID financing has for a developer, except, perhaps, avoiding getting involved in the bond repayment collection process where the county already has an established method (taxation) and procedure for doing so.

"Others seem to be hung up on the 4% bit, that Mulvaney said was an up-front contribution from the developer [that some consider very meager]. I pass that off with the realization that that is ultimately an issue for the developer and buyers into the development in which the county, and so the rest of us, have no stake -- as long as performance is assured.

"The latest issue that sprang to mind when I noticed that either 'the owner or government entity is authorized to acquire, own, construct, establish, install, enlarge, improve, and expand any improvement' with emphasis on 'enlarge, improve, and expand' may (or may not) be adequately covered in a particular development agreement. That brought to my mind that either party might, on their own, dig deeper into existing bond funds more than they were set up to handle -- resulting in a shortfall for the originally agreed items that they were set up to handle for the other party.

"Both parties should be interested in assuring they would be covered for non-performance -- that is assuming the county contracts and supervises the public facility construction and the developer handles the other facility construction (in accordance with county standards). As to S.C. legislation, would it not be better that a RID statute addresses this? Or maybe not? What happens when rising costs make the bond funding inadequate? Is the county stuck with any difference? How about the developer?

"Some may feel these concerns are premature, possibly leading to 'analysis paralysis,' but I believe it is planning (what a concept). I am delighted that a statute is in the hopper covering schools. I hope that some of the consequences for non-performance that have resulted in other jurisdictions (according to one Sr. Horry County Planner's experience with somewhat similar approaches elsewhere) are protected against here.

"I believe everyone should express their concerns early in the process rather than be faced with unacceptable legislation that counties simply find unacceptable -- like the impact fee statute before being moderated by the S.C. Supreme Court in the Summerville case."

Overall Conclusions

The RID has such overwhelming potential pluses from the perspective of existing homeowners/taxpayers that I would be inclined to support reasonable RID legislation if some protection could be feasibly incorporated to ensure developer/sub-developer performance through the actual home building phase. I don't know, one way or another, whether performance bonds are a feasible or adequate approach.

Click here to see the text of S1213 the companion Residential Improvement District bill introduced in the S.C. Senate on March 27 to H4745, that can be viewed by clicking here.

(The following recommendations and comments have been sent to S.C. Rep. Mulvaney, an initial bill sponsor; the other bill sponsors in the Horry County legislative delegation and my representatives in the delegation; Horry County council; Horry County government and school system CFOs, planning director and some staff; Coastal Carolina Association of Realtors; the South Carolina Association of Realtors CEO; the S.C. Association of Counties and the Horry County PRIDE leadership.)

H4745, the Residential Improvement District (RID) Act bill as introduced at the General Assembly on February 21 is an excellent concept in that it proposes to do exactly what should be done in fairness to current taxpayers. H4745 would reduce the general taxes current taxpayers have to pay for new development by transferring taxes from them to those who require additional public facilities not previously needed. Doing so by issuance of a bond, as in the bill, is desirable, and removal of county or other local government obligation for the bond, as in the bill, is desirable.

By statute and fairness, any special taxation district requires landowner agreement, and the bill specifies that the special taxes run with the land, requiring payment of taxes by any future buyers, users or developers of the properties. This is still short of the costs to local governments and taxpayers because of newly required operational costs. (For instance, the net operating fund fiscal impact on the Horry County government is three times the net total capital fund impact in Heartwood, a proposed residential community development with residences at an assessed value of $175,000 each) including the costs of the additional load on existing public facilities such as roads external to the development. These all require increased local property taxes that someone has to pay or a reduction in the overall locality’s level of service. But Horry County government can do only what it can do in accordance with state law and no previous statute even covers new school facilities, except by general taxation, certainly not those external to the development.

The bill currently would include special taxes on facilities currently paid for by developers as well as those traditionally considered public facilities. As there are potential problems associated with this inclusion, let’s first take up the bill as if it strictly concerned those facilities that are traditionally considered public facilities. These include those that are generally considered essential such as fire and police protection, jails, schools and EMT services. The Horry County budget, upon which its taxation and the Tischler-Horry County fiscal impact analysis software is based, includes: fire, police, jail, parks, libraries, government facilities and health and human services.

1. Any special tax district requires the landowners and the local government’s agreement before it can be implemented, the function of a statute such as envisioned by H4745 should be to limit the approvals required by developers, rather than enumerate those allowed.

2. The potential consequences of H4745 providing funding of any other public facilities than those considered as such in the local government budget should be carefully reviewed (see item 9 below). Although a particular development agreement can obviously contain anything that the developer and local government agree to, even then, a developer’s say as to generally acknowledged public facilities, at most, should be limited to non-essential facilities such as municipal centers and, perhaps, libraries.

3. A developer would, of course, have to agree to the appraised value of developer-contributed public structures and dedicated land

4. H4745 should not limit where in a county or municipality the public facilities are located or indicate that a developer has a say on such. For instance, a jail at the far extreme of a county would house a percentage of the county population as prisoners, that percentage of its cost times the estimated number of people in a new development should be included in the RID bond.

5. H4745 should be based on the proportionate share of estimated usage – regardless of whether or not this confers other than incidental benefits to other property owners or developers or whether or not those facilities primarily service the owners assessed, deleting any provision stating otherwise. Any such language should be struck.

6. H4745 should not require a capital improvement plan (or “owner proposed improvement plan,” as in the current bill) beyond a local government listing of the new facilities required, their estimated cost and a showing of the proportion of use to the development to be ascribed to those facilities.

8. The cost ascribed to public facilities in the bond is, of course, subject to separate appraisal by the developer's appraiser and developer agreement. If the development does not require the full capacity of an added public facility, the RID bond shall only cover the percentage of capacity that the development is estimated to require; similarly, if the development's estimated requirements exceed the capacity of the existing public facility that would serve the development, but building a completely new public facility is not immediately feasible, the RID bond shall cover the percentage of capacity overrun and be held in reserve for later use for such a public facility that will, at least in part, serve the development.

9. The potential consequences to the local government of adding particular facilities as an integral part of an RID bond other than those generally recognized as public facilities should be carefully evaluated.

In the RID approach, the developer’s resources rather than that of the local government are used as security for the bond for which special taxes will be collected. Until development landowners sell, they will be paying those extra taxes on the unsold portions of the bond. These extra costs can be offset with the RID approach by including facilities that the developer traditionally pays for in the bond that will also be included in the taxes that buyers pay.

The buyers, are through the additional taxes, making payments on the facilities that a developer traditionally pays for as well as the fiscal impact of the public facilities they require. Buyers always have to pay for the facilities that a developer traditionally pays for with or without an RID arrangement. With a RID arrangement they are paying for them in taxes although the developer may be able to offer a lower selling price even if he includes in his costs the special taxes that he paid while the property was unsold.

The buyer’s real costs will be the selling price plus taxes and a mortgage loan the buyer can qualify for will depend on the sum of the selling price, interest on the mortgage, taxes and insurance. The profit that the developer can successfully put in will be determined by market prices plus the taxes.

The bottom line is that the developers profits will still be limited by the market

If a developer or sub-developer does not or can not complete a structure that a buyer has agreed to pay for, a buyer still has to pay the taxes on the additional facilities. And there is no inducement for a developer to sell at other than the market price even though some of the developer’s normal expenses could be covered in the existing bill by the additional special district taxes that the buyer is obligated to. The seller could sell at a reduced sales price and make the same profit because of those taxes, but who can determine whether or not this is the case, and what difference does it make – the market for informed buyers including the extra taxes will determine?

True, a buyer should include the special taxes in the buying decision as part of his total costs, but will the buyer be fully informed? I don’t know the current disclosure laws in South Carolina, but those special taxes should be required to be fully disclosed in every real estate transaction and, if not, the seller held legally liable.

Perhaps the greatest concern is that a buyer who after putting money into the property may fail to get the structure he paid for, because the developer bailed out -- perhaps through bankruptcy -- before the structure is completed, but the buyer is still obligated to pay the special district taxes until the bond is paid off. It appears to me that that possibility should be thoroughly evaluated by attorneys and finance people and measures put in place (a performance bond?) to protect a buyer in such a circumstance.

If a situation develops where the developer bails out, might the buyer seek relief from the local governing body? Regardless, as the local government is collecting the taxes, although not, strictly speaking, obligated for a bond, is it immune from legal action from non-performance on such a bond – especially in that Section 6-35-160 of H4745 says: “The improvements are to be or become the property of the municipality, county, State, special purpose districts, or other public or quasi-public entity.”? I’m not a lawyer, but it appears to me that that possibility should be thoroughly evaluated by attorneys and finance people. Typically, lawyers spread their suit against all possible parties, especially seeking those with the deepest pockets, and the local government would have the deepest pockets. However, even if the local government becomes obligated, it appears to be in no worse state than it would have been in a similar situation without the RID arrangement.

10. Clarification: Four percent “up-front” fee and the costs to set up the bond?

At the January 18, 2008 meeting at the Coastal Carolina Association of Realtors building, Rep. Mulvaney, a primary sponsor of the bill, said that four percent was an up-front fee to be paid by the developer. A handout at that meeting referred to the four percent this way: “4% ‘commission’ proposed in current bill is a set fee, just as bank, bond, underwriting, and attorney fees on a development usually are.”

But section 6-35-100 of H4745 says something that appears to be different: “The governing body shall collect, upon the issuance of any bond securitized by assessments, an improvement fee in an amount of four percent of the total value of each bond. The improvement fee must be used to construct improvements or collective improvements, as defined in Section 6-35-110, in a service area that is related to and serves the district. The governing body may contract with the owner, or with a third party, for the construction of the improvements. The improvements must be part of the improvement plan. “

From: “The improvement fee must be used to construct improvements,” the four percent is not to pay for “bank, bond underwriting, and attorney fees or development fees” or the costs required to set up the bond.

Who would pay for such costs: the developer, the local government, or the proceeds from the bond?

11. Including operating expenses as well as capital expenses as part of RID taxes is desirable if at all feasible.

I have no idea whether existing state law allows or can be changed to, or there is a precedent in some other state whereby an original developer/property owner can agree to setting up a special tax district in which the taxes are not paid by the developer but are an obligation to a buyer or user (including the developer) only after the developed property is put into use. If such could be legislated, operating costs required by the new development would be paid via special district taxes rather than added to everyone else's tax burden.

The ultimate costs to the county for additional family residences, if the same level of service is to be maintained, has to come out of the taxes that everyone else pays as well unless the development pays them through a special tax district.

Click here to view the Horry County staff PowerPoint presentation at the March 3 workshop comparing the current stage of the Residential Improvement District bill to the existing Public Works Improvement District statute. Note that both require development landowner agreement.

Click here to view the full text of the Public Works Improvement District statute.

Alan Clemmons, S.C. District 107 House representative, a real estate attorney and sponsor of H4575, has agreed to the publication of his 3/4/08 e-mail response to the 3/5/08 GIAC Residential Improvement District Act Bill Recommendations and Comments copied and pasted above. It follows:

The greatest risk associated with the RID concept lies very clearly with the developer, as he faces the risk associated with the bond as well as the market risks associated with financing a new housing development. Ultimately, it's the developer's land that is used as security for the bond, and his willingness to take this risk is what makes the RID infrastructure improvements possible. The developer risks loss of his real property assets if the bond goes unpaid. The developer also faces tremendous risk vis-Ã -vis the buyer of his product, his ability to market the development and his bottom line. The developer's ultimate goal is to make his product attractive to buyers so that he sells every home in the development. Until every home is sold, the developer still has an obligation to pay the portion of the RID bonded indebtedness for the homes that remain unsold. In Florida, developers actually advertise what their special assessment (RID) fees are and what infrastructure improvements are made as a result. This has become a commodity in Florida and a marketing attribute for new developments made possible through special assessment districts. The development will not be attractive to potential buyers, if the infrastructure to support the development goes unfinished or is not of high quality. This is important for the current RID development but also for any future development he wishes to undertake.

The risks posed to local government are few. Under a RID, the local government commits virtually no financial resources to infrastructure improvements supported by the RID. Expenses to the local government come into play when once the infrastructure improvements are operational, and at that time, the homes within the RID are subject to property taxes. Those property tax revenues will be greater than the property tax revenues generated from the undeveloped land, and that additional revenue will be sufficient to support operational expenses. I will have to conduct some further research and speak with my colleagues on your question regarding legal action from non-performance on a bond and the local government's obligations. But my understanding is that the infrastructure improvement does not become property of the local government until it is complete. Thus I suspect that the risk again lies with the developer.

To read the Impact Fee statute text in the S.C. Code, click here and scroll down to 6-1-9-10. For a further discussion of impact fees on this Web site, click here.

The immediately following, with a few clarifications, was e-mailed to all members of the Horry County council on the basis of information received at a January 18 meeting in the Coastal Carolina Association of Realtors building on the old Air Force base where Rep. Mulvaney presented the bill and a handout of the then anticipated bill text was available. It is included here because, except for the quoted exact words of the January 18 handout that are not necessarily repeated in H4745, there is much still appropriate information.

The salient change in the current recommendations is due to the realization that the developers have to pay the RID taxes until the development is sold and need to be allowed to offset the infrastructure costs that they normally provide in the taxes charged to buyers, given appropriate safeguards. Such infrastructure costs have been passed on to the buyer in the property sales price in the past. With H4745 the buyer would pay for them in taxes as well as to offset the costs to the developer from the taxes paid before sale -- currently the general taxpayer pays for the truly public infrastructure to be included in the RID taxes, with H4745, the development buyers would pay.

CC February 19 Impact Fees Public Input (augmented for e-mail distribution as there will be no public input because public input for second reading not advertised)

· If as the county attorney says, a new $101,000 Tischler study is required to pass an impact fee, the vote against the study makes further discussion moot, But . . .

· The county staff has already paid for the developed budget-director-blessed Horry County - Tischler software that can show the net capital fund fiscal impact of development to the county -- although to be complete, we also need more data from the school system

· Sommerville, partnering with Tischler, passed impact fees on roads, fire, and police protection under the current impact fee statute, based on its existing level of service -- the courts approved.

· The existing impact fee statute has a big hole in not including schools and otherwise fails to meet the proportionate share requirement. So any impact fee ordinance passed based on that statute should make clear that it is merely an interim tool until a more adequate one is developed.

· Janet Carter tells me that an ordinance like an impact fee must, constitutionally, reflect a developments proportionate share of the public facilities the development requires and must be applied uniformly across the county.

· Proportionate share is the key to any impact fee or similar ordinance. The fee should be in proportion to the additional load placed on county facilities, new or existing, by the new development.

· However, passing a true proportionate share ordinance does not have the backing of an existing state statute and so would require the county to have the nerve to stick its neck out on the basis of home rule and test it in the courts.

· There is an existing Public Works Improvement District Act statute that could include schools, but not schools outside the district taxed.

· And there is a Residential Improvement District bill in its formative stages that specifically includes schools including other public facilities, even those outside the special tax district.

· If this bill becomes a statute it could provide the basis for a true proportionate share ordinance. Developers appear to prefer that to impact fees.

- It allows individual developers to have a say in its fiscal application -- beyond their appropriate

approval of the appraised value of the public facilities that they may contribute for credit

- It requires the covered public facilities to be in proximity to a development,

- It requires a capital improvement plan that, although desirable, has no bearing on maintaining

- It includes facilities currently provided by developers thereby potentially misleading buyers as

to the true cost of their purchase (because of their additional tax obligation), and, should the

developer go bankrupt before the structures they paid for are in place, would obligate buyers

I request that county council place the impact fee ordinance on the table to be taken up at such later time that the requirements and form of a more desirable proportionate share ordinance are better determined.

And that county council direct the most knowledgeable members of staff to proactively seek, with council’s help, to be included in negotiations on the final form of a Residential Improvement District bill – specifically, Janet Carter for her legal expertise and knowledge of what is administratively workable and Fred Liner, our CFO, for his knowledge of the potential financial impacts of the proposed bonds on the county’s liabilities.

(A.) “Assessment” . . . “must be proportionate to the value of the improvements to be constructed in the district as determined by the property owner. [Emphasis added]”

B) “Capital Improvements” . . . The owner, [Emphasis added] after due investigation and study may determine that improvements located outside the boundaries of an improvement district confer a benefit upon property inside an improvement district . . . Improvements must service primarily [emphasis added] the owners of the property within the improvement district and thereby must be situated in close proximity to the improvement district [emphasis added].”

(A) (1) “Only a governing body that has an owner-proposed [emphasis added] comprehensive plan . . . may impose a residential improvement act assessment.”

D) “[A]n assessment that results in benefits to property owners or developers within the service area other than the fee payor, in an amount which is greater than incidental benefits is prohibited.[emphasis added – as opposed to proportionate share]”

*Some further details listed in the handout follow: “(B) ’Capital Improvements” include but are not limited to [underlined in handout] parkways, parks and playgrounds, recreation facilities, athletic facilities, [italicized for reference in the following “comment on note]" pedestrian facilities, sidewalks, parking facilities, and underground parking facilities, and facade redevelopment, storm drains, the relocation, construction, widening, and paving of streets, roads, including demolition of them, underground facilities, all activities authorized by Chapter 1 of Title 31 (State Housing Law), any building or other facilities for public use [emphasis added], any public works eligible for financing under the provisions of Section6-21-50, services or functions which a county or municipality in accordance with state law may provide and all things incidental to the improvements . . . “

Comment on note: The bolded portion would encompass what are clearly public facilities traditionally paid for by all the citizens of a jurisdiction such as those for fire and police protection, schools, jails and other associated capital equipment. The italicized portion is included in the net total capital fund fiscal impact considered in the Horry County-Tischler software. The other items listed are generally considered costs of development traditionally paid for by the developer as part of the cost of doing business.

The Horry County-Tischler software includes the following in its net total capital fund fiscal impact computation: fire, police, jail, parks, libraries, and government facilities. It does not include schools as does the Residential Improvement District Act proposal.