Laserfiche WebLink
FOCUS SESSION THREE: IMPAC~ FEES <br /> <br />depend on both the volume of new construction and the ultimate amount per unit <br />levied. Public policy fiscal analysis firm Tischler & Associates recently concluded a <br />study of the costs of development ("Capital Costs Due to Growth", 1996) in <br />Cabarrus County. Tischler concluded that the real cost of providing services and <br />infrastructure to a new house varied depending upon where it was constructed. In <br />the three different geographic areas of the County Tischler studied (transitional, <br />rural, and urban), initial capital costs associated with the construction of one new <br />single family unit were dete,'tsfined as: <br /> <br />1) Transitional - $18,522 <br />2) Rural - $7,163 <br />3) Urban- $3,332 <br /> <br />Pros/Cons: Impact fees do have a high likelihood of charging those who are <br />making the increased demand on the system. Depending on the fee charged, they <br />could generate significant revenue over time but should not be expect~ to fully <br />fund future school capital expenditure. It should be hotel that the advance work is <br />complex as is administration. There is a relatively high litigation possibility and <br />resistance can be expected from the development community. Revenues can only be <br />used in the specific areas in which they are coll~tecl and cannot be used to "catch <br />up" on existing deficits. Impact fees, while legally defensible, are still relatively new <br />and must be carefully drawn to withstand judicial scrut~xty. <br /> <br />1. A Practifioner's Gu_id,, to Development Impact Fees, ]ames C. Nicholas, et al. <br />2. Marvin Collins, Director, Orange County Planning Depa,~m,en~ (919) 732-8181. <br />3. A Technical Report on the Calculation of Proportionate Share Impact Fees for Financing <br />Public School Capital Needs, Orange County Planning Depaxa,~ent, 1993. <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br /> <br />