Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
13 <br /> CHCCS School Impact Fee Report(DRAFT) <br /> term"dual rational nexus" is often used to characterize the standard by which courts evaluate the validity <br /> of impact fees under the U.S. Constitution, we prefer a more rigorous formulation that recognizes three <br /> elements: "impact or need," "benefit," and "proportionality." The dual rational nexus test explicitly <br /> addresses only the first two, although proportionality is reasonably implied, and was specifically <br /> mentioned by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case. The reasonable relationship language of the <br /> statute is considered less strict than the rational nexus standard used by many courts. Individual elements <br /> of the nexus standard are discussed further in the following paragraphs. <br /> Demonstrating an Impact.All new development in a community creates additional demands on some, or <br /> all, public facilities provided by local government. If the supply of facilities is not increased to satisfy that <br /> additional demand,the quality or availability of public services for the entire community will deteriorate. <br /> Impact fees may be used to recover the cost of development-related facilities, but only to the extent that <br /> the need for facilities is a consequence of development that is subject to the fees. The Nollan decision <br /> reinforced the principle that development exactions may be used only to mitigate conditions created by <br /> the developments upon which they are imposed.That principle clearly applies to impact fees. In this study, <br /> the impact of development on improvement needs is analyzed in terms of quantifiable relationships <br /> between various types of development and the demand for specific facilities, based on applicable level- <br /> of-service standards. <br /> Demonstrating a Benefit. A sufficient benefit relationship requires that fee revenues be segregated from <br /> other funds and expended only on the facilities for which the fees were charged. Fees must be expended <br /> in a timely manner and the facilities funded by the fees must serve the development paying the fees. <br /> Procedures for the earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues are typically mandated by the State <br /> enabling act, as are procedures to ensure that the fees are expended expeditiously or refunded. All of <br /> these requirements are intended to ensure that developments benefit from the fees they are required to <br /> pay.Thus, an adequate showing of benefit must address procedural as well as substantive issues. <br /> Demonstrating Proportionality. The requirement that exactions be proportional to the impacts of <br /> development was clearly stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case (although the relevance of <br /> that decision to impact fees has been debated) and is logically necessary to establish a proper nexus. <br /> Proportionality is established through the procedures used to identify development-related facility costs, <br /> and in the methods used to calculate impact fees for various types of facilities and categories of <br /> development. The demand for facilities is measured in terms of relevant and measurable attributes of <br /> development. For example, the need for school improvements is measured by the number of public <br /> school-age children generated by development. <br /> METHODOLOGIES I <br /> Any one of several legitimate methods may be used to calculate impact fees. The choice of a particular <br /> method depends primarily on the service characteristics and planning requirements for the facility type <br /> being addressed. Each method has advantages and disadvantages in a particular situation, and to some <br /> 6 <br />