Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
K3 <br />MEMORANDUM: <br />TO: ROD VISSER, ASSISTANT COUNTY MANAGER r <br />FROM: MARVIN COLLINS, PLANNING DIRECTOR,, l e..;.CL 6�_ <br />DATE: AUGUST 14, 1991 <br />SUBJECT: IMPACT FEES FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES <br />COPIES: JOHN LINK, COUNTY MANAGER <br />GEOFFREY GLEDHILL, COUNTY ATTORNEY <br />ATTACHMENTS: TITLE VI, CHAPTER 460, OF THE 1987 SESSION LAWS <br />CHAPTER 324 OF THE 1991 SESSION LAWS <br />ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND SCHOOL IMPACT FEES <br />As follow -up to our July 1, 1991 discussion, I am providing <br />basic information about a methodology for developing a system of <br />public school impact fees. The information provided in this <br />memorandum is derived almost exclusively from the publication, The <br />Calculation of Pro ortionate -Share Impact Fees, by James Nicholas. <br />This memorandum does not propose a step -by -step approach to <br />developing a public school impact fee for Orange County. Rather, it <br />highlights important factors to be considered in such an <br />undertaking. While the examples provided herein relate solely to <br />public schools, the factors to be considered have application to <br />all types of capital improvements -- schools, parks, streets and <br />roads, water and sewer facilities, etc. <br />Basis for Impact Fees <br />Impact fees are generally imposed as a condition for some, <br />approval to proceed with development. The objective of such fees is <br />not to raise money but to insure adequate public facilities. Where <br />such facilities are inadequate, permitting development runs counter <br />to the responsibility of a local government to protect public <br />health, safety, and welfare. <br />If the question is one of adequate public facilities, the <br />issue, then, is who should be financially responsible for such <br />adequacy? The reality is that the community and the property owner <br />are the only available candidates to bear such responsibility. It <br />may be argued that the community should be financially responsible <br />for needed facilities, because it is the community that benefits - <br />new housing, job creation, and tax base enhancement. However, it <br />may also be argued that imposing such costs upon the community is <br />unfair, since it had no part in the decision to develop the <br />property and may receive no direct benefits from the development. <br />Increasingly, the answer is that a community need not absorb <br />all costs but may impose a proportionate, or fair, share of such <br />costs upon new development. Impact fees presuppose that new <br />development should pay a proportionate share of facility costs. In <br />