Lazaro Aleman
ECB Publishing, Inc.
For several months now, the topic of resurrecting impact fees keeps surfacing at Jefferson County Commission meetings.
The interest began in April, when Planning Official/County Coordinator Shannon Metty first mentioned the issue. Metty noted that the county was only collecting the impact fees for fire and emergency medical service, which together amounted to $110.02.
Her question to the commission was, whether it wanted to bring back the impact fees for law enforcement and roads, which had been suspended since the Great Recession of 2008.
Ever since, Commissioner Betsy Barfield has focused on the issue of impact fees, which typically are one-time charges that local governments impose on new or proposed developments to offset the financial consequences that such projects place on public infrastructures and services, such as roads, schools, parks and water and sewer systems.
“We have kicked around impact fees for a while now,” Barfield said in mid June. “I think it’s time to resurrect this sleeping bear.”
Although she was not one for advocating taxes, Barfield said that she found the present situation unacceptable, in that taxpayers were having to underwrite the costs that growth was creating in the form of increased demands on the roads and emergency services.
“We need to see what we can do to net zero the expenses of these new businesses and growth that we’re experiencing, because I don’t see Jefferson County slowing down in its growth,” Barfield said. “Meanwhile, our ad valorem budget is being eaten up with the costs, and the citizens are bearing the cost of this growth. There is a cost for doing business, and I like for it to start being equitable for everybody.”
At the time, Attorney Scott Shirley, who was still then advising the commission, noted that a proposed development on the north side of the Lloyd interchange “was going to take up a great deal of roadway capacity.”
“And so having an impact fee in place that could be charged when these projects come online would go a long ways to make the kinds of improvements that you would need to make to offset the traffic impacts of the development,” Shirley said.
He further noted that the road impact fee that the county discontinued in 2008 had generated too little to accomplish much in the way of road improvement projects, given the limited number of development at the time.
“But now that you’ve got the possibility of much bigger, much larger scale, and much more intense type of development coming your way,” Shirley said. “And having impact fees in place would go a long way to offsetting the traffic impacts that you are going to experience when these developments come online. So this may be a good time to be looking at impact fees.”
County Attorney Heather Encinosa, who then was still on the wings waiting to assume the role of county attorney, agreed. She explained that the monies derived from the road impact fees had to be spend on capacity-adding capital improvement projects to the road system for which the impact fee was being charged.
“It does have to add capacity,” Encinosa noted.
But the money didn’t have to be used specifically or overwhelmingly for growth, she added.
“For example, you don’t have to build a new road,” Encinosa said. “You can widen an existing road. You just may not be able to fund it 100 percent with impact fees. You may have to use other resources in the mix. There are definitely legal restrictions how you use the money, but they are not impossible.”
Jefferson County, she added, was not alone in thinking of resurrecting impact fees.
“A lot of cities and counties had impact fees and when the recession hit, they took them away as a sort of local stimulus,” Encinosa said. “But now that they’re all seeing a lot of new growth, there is growing demand for impact fees.”
Concurrency was another issue that needed to be addressed in the land-use regulations to ensure that new developments did not outstrip local governments’ ability to handle them, Barfield said.
Concurrency aims to ensure that adequate public facilities are in place to serve new developments as they occur or within specified time periods. Concurrency requires that a developer may not proceed with a project unless, or until, specific infrastructures such as roadways, schools and water and sewage services are in place. Developments also are not permitted if they reduce services below establish levels, and may be required to pay for a portion of the improvements via a “pay as you grow” system.
Before impact and concurrency fees may be imposed, however, studies must be done to justify and determine the exact amount of the fees. The law, moreover, requires that such studies be done periodically, to ensure that the impact fees accurately reflect the reality.
At the last discussion of the issue, the attorneys were asked to work up a request for proposals (RFP) to solicit the services of a consultant to do the necessary study, and also research the original impact fee ordinance and bring back the findings back to the board for discussion.
Encinosa also offered to prepare a general presentation on impact fees, which she indicated she would be bringing to the board sometime in August.