Browse
Search
Agenda - 08-20-1991
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1991
>
Agenda - 08-20-1991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/8/2017 11:36:20 AM
Creation date
11/8/2017 11:33:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
8/20/1991
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
155
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
11 <br />Title VI,- Chapter 460, of the 1987 Session Laws allows <br />provision to be made for credits against required impact fees when <br />a developer installs improvements of a type that generally would be <br />paid for by impact fees. The enabling legislation also gives the <br />County the right to spell out the circumstances under which a <br />developer would be allowed to install such improvements and receive <br />credits. <br />Benefit-Considerations <br />The amount of an impact fee is only one factor considered in <br />terms of the legality of any impact fee program. The sufficiency of <br />the benefits that are received by fee payers is another criterion <br />set out by the courts for determining the reasonableness of an <br />impact fee. <br />There are three standards that may be used in determining <br />sufficiency of benefit. The main difference among these standards <br />is just who will benefit from (make use of) the facilities to be <br />financed, in whole or in part, with the impact fees. The first <br />standard is exclusive benefit, the second is substantial benefit, <br />and the third is reasonable benefit. In practice, the methods of <br />implementing the latter two are almost identical. <br />A benefit would be exclusive if no one other than the <br />occupants of the development that paid the impact fee could use the <br />facilities provided with those fees. Complying with this standard <br />would imply that the improvements be on -site or in close proximity <br />to the development. Minimal distance between facility and <br />development becomes the indicator of the degree of benefit to the <br />individuals in that development as opposed to those in other <br />developments. <br />When facilities such as public schools are provided, it is <br />impossible to see how use could be confined to individual <br />developments. To a great extent, the provision of exclusive benefit <br />and impact fees are not compatible. However, few, if any, states <br />employ a strict exclusive benefit rule. Rather, the standard is <br />what may be considered to be a preponderance of benefit going to <br />the development paying the fees. In such cases, consideration <br />should be given to the use of relatively small geographic areas for <br />both the collection and expenditure of impact fees. Such small <br />areas would be the evidence of benefit (use). This would involve <br />identifying a number of subareas of the community and establishing <br />impact fee trust funds for each subarea. All receipts coming from <br />such subareas would be spent within those areas. <br />Title VI, Chapter 460, of the 1987 Session Laws addresses the <br />issue of benefits and subareas through the following provision: <br />"In order to insure that impact fees paid by a particular <br />development are expended on capital improvements that benefit <br />that development, the County may establish for each category <br />of capital improvement for which it collects an impact fee at <br />least two geographical districts or zones, and impact fees <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.