Agenda - 09-16-2008 - 6d - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

p~ SCHOOL IMPACT FEES. Ct~e~ Hnt-CAxRSOeo Cmr $CHOOIS Orange County, North Carolina interest being protected. (See Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 1987.) In a more recent case (Dolan v. City of Tigard, OR, 1994), the Court ruled that an exaction also must be "roughly proportional" to the burden created by development. However, the Dolan decision appeared to set a higher standard of review for mandatory dedications of land than for monetary exactions such as impact fees. REQUIRED FINDINGS There are three reasonable relationship requirements for impact fees that are closely related to "rational nexus" or "reasonable relationship" requirements enunciated by a number of state courts. Although the term ~"dual rational nexus" is often used to characterize the standard by which courts evaluate the validity of development impact fees under the U. S. Constitution, we prefer a more rigorous formulation that recognizes three elements: "impact or need;' "benefit," and "proportionality." T'he dual rational nexus test explicitly addresses only the first two, although proportionality is reasonably implied, and was specifically mentioned by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case. The reasonable relationship language of the statute is considered less strict than the rational nexus standard used by many courts. Individual elements of the nexus standard are discussed further in the following paragraphs. Demonstrating an Impact. All new development in a community creates additional demands on some, or all, public facilities provided by local government. If the supply of facilities is not increased to satisfy that additional demand, the quality or availability of public services for the entire community will deteriorate. Impact fees may be used to recover the cost of development- related facilities, but only to the extent that the need for facilities is a consequence of development that is subject to the fees. The Nollan decision reinforced the principle that development exactions may be used only to mitigate conditions created by the developments upon which they are imposed. That principle clearly applies to impact fees. In this study, the impact of development on improvement needs is analyzed in terms of quantifiable relationships between various types of development and the demand for specific facilities, based on applicable level-of-service standards. Demonstrating a Ben t. A sufficient benefit relationship requires that impact fee revenues be segregated from other funds and expended only on the facilities for which the fees were charged. Fees must be expended in a timely manner and the facilities funded by the fees must serve the development paying the fees. However, nothing in the U.S. Constitution or the State enabling Act authorizing Orange County's impact fees requires that facilities funded with fee revenues be available exclusively to development paying the fees. In other words, existing development may benefit from these improvements as well. Procedures for the earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues are typically mandated by the State enabling act, as are procedures to ensure that the fees are expended expeditiously or TISChIer~~S~ 5 tlxc2,Caud~micar.Plinntnttt~t:utiants