Laserfiche WebLink
"the impact fees have the potential of being user fees that will be paid primarily <br />by those households that do contain public school children, thereby colliding <br />with the constitutional requirement of free public schools."s6 The court did <br />concede, however, that it would not find objectionable a provision that <br />exempted from the payment of an impact fee permits to build adult facilities in <br />which, because of land use restrictions, minors could not reside,s? <br /> <br /> Refunds If Fees Remain Unexpended <br /> <br /> One corollary of the benefit principle of the rational nexus test is that fees <br />collected must be spent soon enough so that the facilities funded by impact fees <br />will be available in time to serve the new residents of a development for which <br />the fees were paid. Clearly, the fact that a new school will eventually be <br />constructed nearby may offer scant consolation to a family with school-age <br />children who occupy their new house some years before the new facility is <br />opened. The practical significance of this principle cannot be overemphasized. <br />If the growth rates for new development are slower than expected, the balances <br />of the funds that are earmarked for disbursement in particular benefit zones may <br />be slow to increase to necessary levels. If impact fee receipts fall behind <br />schedule, the governmental unit expending the funds has two choices. The unit <br />may assign supplemental rever~es from another source to supplement impact <br />fee revenues and build the new public facility on schedule. Or, as early case <br />law made clear, if this is not done, it must refund the fees already collected.$6 <br /> <br />56. 583 So. 2d at 640. <br /> <br />57. Id., n. 6. <br /> <br />58. City of Fayelteville v. IBI, Inc., 658 S.W.2d 505 (Ark. 1983). <br /> <br />50 <br /> <br /> <br />