Laserfiche WebLink
existed either before or after the adoption of that act to be the .~ole or exclusive <br />sources of such funding. Indeed, the recent legislation expressly enabling <br />school impact fees manifests the intent of the General AssemL, i~ that impact <br />fees coexist with and supplement existing county school funr~ -r methods. <br /> <br /> Conclusion <br /> <br /> It is not customary to fund the construction of North Ca~ <br />schools with impact fees. Today, however, schools receive t~,,. <br />an increasing array of funding sodrces. As hard-pressed Ioc~: <br />cast about for new sources of money, methods that impose s~ <br />funding burden on discrete segments of the population wilt <br />popular. <br /> <br /> la public <br /> <br /> moneys from <br />'overnments <br /> <br /> portion of the <br /> ne more <br /> <br /> Impact fees are feasible only in areas where rapid pop~', on growth and <br /> <br />demand for public facilities are occurring. Public support may ,elop only <br />when public facilities become overcrowded or service stand~' ;ecline. <br />Alternative funding sources like impact fees generally are co ~~'ed only after <br />the public has indicated a clear unwillingness to incur furthe~,~.term debt or <br />to raise property taxes. Impact fees, like other exactions, ar(..~ '!cally <br />palatable only in a community that is more concerned about ti- ,ality of <br />growth and the preservation of community character and pro;.. ,".. /alues than it <br />is with affordability of housing. <br /> In order for impact fees to be useful, growth not only m' ~ rapid, it <br />must be sustained. Fluctuations in building activity may causL ,.tuations in <br />impact fee revenues. As a source of funds, impact fees may L,, ;ready. A <br />local government must be prepared to supplement these re,,,' . with moneys <br />of other types. <br /> <br />64 <br /> <br />59 <br /> <br /> <br />