Agenda - 05-26-1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1 question is yes, since the resident's move to a new home will probably free an existing home for a new resident moving in. While the existing resident and not the new one would pay the impact fee, , there is no simple way of dealing with such situations effectively. For example, the existing "resident" could be a young married couple with no children. The couple builds a new home and sells their existing residence to a retired couple from another state. , The couple who built the new home then decides to have children, and, in the long run, creates an additional demand for more schools. If the retired couple had to pay the impact fee as a "new , resident ", the cost of needed facilities would be passed to them and not the young married couple. The number of examples which could be provided to support or ' oppose payment of impact fees by existing residents is endless. Perhaps the important point to remember, though, is that over the long term, an individual home will be bought and sold many times. , Whether a new home is built by a couple with children from another state or by an existing family with no children, both the direct and indirect result is to set up a situation where a demand for ' additional school facilities is created. The demand may not be immediate, but it exists because of the opportunity for a home to be occupied by a family with school -age children. In this sense , then, the existing resident must share the responsibility for creating additional demand as well as payment of the impact fee. OFFSETS TO IMPACT FEES I One concern which has been expressed by developers and municipal representatives is that exactions in the form of water, ' sewer, street, and recreation facilities are already in place in local development approval processes. If developers must pay impact fees, the ability of local governments to "exact" other ' improvements may be affected. However, when developers dedicate or build needed facilities, it is a form of payment of impact fees. Thus, it follows that the amount of impact fees otherwise due would be reduced by the value of that construction or dedication. Most impact fee ordinances provide that construction or dedication is a means for payment of impact fees and provide for corresponding reductions.,guch a provision insures that a developer is not required to pay more than a proportionate share of capital costs. It makes no difference whether the cost is borne in kind (construction or dedication) or in cash. Title VI, Chapter 460, of the 1987 Session Laws allows provision to be made for credits against required impact fees when a developer installs improvements of a type that generally would be paid for by impact fees. The enabling legislation also gives the County the right to spell out the circumstances under which a developer would be allowed to install such improvements and receive credits. One obvious example of an offset would be the situation where a developer proposes a large residential development and dedicates land for a school site. Instead of utilizing all of the land for Page - 22 1