## Facts

- St. Johns County studied whether to impose development impact fees, including for public educational facilities, to address capital needs caused by growth.
- A consultant proposed a methodology to calculate projected school-capacity costs attributable to new residential development and to allocate those costs per dwelling unit.
- The county adopted an educational facilities impact fee ordinance requiring payment of a fee as a condition to issuance of new building permits.
- Collected fees were placed in a trust fund for the school board to use only for capital expenditures (acquisition, construction, expansion, and equipping) required by new development.
- The ordinance provided (i) refunds (with interest) for unspent funds after six years upon application by the current landowner and (ii) credits for land dedications and construction of educational facilities.
- The ordinance applied countywide but would not be effective inside a municipality until an interlocal agreement authorized collection there.
- A builders’ association and a developer filed a declaratory judgment action challenging the ordinance’s constitutionality; the trial court granted summary judgment to the challengers.
- The district court affirmed, concluding the ordinance violated the state constitutional requirement of a uniform system of free public schools, and certified a question of great public importance.

## Issues

1. Whether a county may impose an impact fee on new residential construction to fund new public school facilities.
2. Whether the ordinance violated the state constitutional requirement for a uniform system of free public schools by functioning as an impermissible charge for access to public education.
3. Whether the ordinance satisfied the “dual rational nexus” test requiring (a) a reasonable connection between new development and the need for additional facilities and (b) a reasonable connection between the fee paid and benefits received by the fee payer.

## Decision

- The court held that local governments may impose school impact fees on new residential development if the dual rational nexus test is satisfied.
- The court concluded the ordinance satisfied the first nexus prong (new residential development reasonably relates to increased demand for school capacity).
- The court held the ordinance could not be enforced to collect fees until the second nexus prong was satisfied (assurance that expenditures would reasonably benefit the developments paying the fees).
- The court severed an exemption provision that would have excused payment based on lack of school-age children or attendance at private schools, because it tied the charge to actual “use” of public schools.
- The court rejected the broad view that educational impact fees are per se unconstitutional under the free-schools mandate, but required the fee structure to remain impact-based rather than usage-based.

## Legal Principles

- A development impact fee is valid only if it meets the dual rational nexus test: (1) growth from new development creates the need for additional public facilities, and (2) the fee payer receives a reasonable benefit from facilities funded by the fee.
- Educational facilities impact fees are not barred by the constitutional requirement of free public schools when imposed as a one-time exaction to offset capital costs caused by new development.
- Provisions that effectively convert an impact fee into a “user fee” for public education—by basing liability on whether residents actually attend public schools—conflict with the free-schools mandate.
- Unconstitutional portions of an impact-fee ordinance may be severed when the remaining provisions can function independently and continue to serve a lawful purpose.
- Collection may be prohibited until administration of the ordinance ensures that fee revenues are allocated and spent in a manner reasonably related to the paying development.

## Conclusion

The court approved the authority to impose school impact fees in principle, but required strict compliance with the dual rational nexus test, barred collection absent satisfaction of the benefit-to-payer requirement, and severed a usage-based exemption to prevent the fee from operating as a charge for access to free public education.


St. Johns County v. Ne. Fla. Builders Ass'n, Inc., 583 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 1991)