Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Impact Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission tables proposed impact-fee increase, directs phased rollout after public outcry over housing costs
Summary
After more than two hours of public comment, the Daytona Beach City Commission voted to table final action on proposed increases to residential and service impact fees and directed staff to return with a phased implementation plan, saying the increases should be spread over years to reduce near-term impacts on housing affordability.
The Daytona Beach City Commission on Aug. 20 declined to adopt new impact fees on second reading and instead voted to table the ordinance and ask staff to return with a phased approach after a lengthy public hearing and robust public comment. The motion to table passed unanimously. The commission directed staff to prepare a phased rollout that most commissioners said should reach the consultant-recommended levels over three years (staff direction; not a final ordinance change).
The item would have updated fees that the city charges new development to fund services including fire, police, parks and general government. Consultant Raftelis presented the study the city used to calculate increases and told the commission the recommended overall increase for a typical single-family home is about $1,045 — raising an example total from roughly $3,147 to $4,192 per home — figures the firm said could be phased in across multiple years. Raftelis partner Joe Williams told commissioners, “Weare proposing a $1,045 increase in the impact fees for a typical single-family home.”
The public hearing drew about two dozen speakers, including developers, real estate agents, builders, business groups and residents. Speakers representing the Daytona Regional Chamber of Commerce and the Volusia Homebuilders Industry Association urged a more gradual approach and warned the combined effect of the proposed fee increases and recently adopted linkage fees for affordable housing risked harming attainable and workforce housing. David Robinson, director of advocacy for the Daytona Regional Chamber of Commerce, said impact fees “are intended to address future growth, not to retroactively correct past deficiencies.” Nathan Bechchar, president of the Volusia Homebuilding Industry Association, said the fees should not be used to “pay for infrastructure needs that have been ignored for the past decade.”
Real-estate and title professionals said higher fees will be passed to homebuyers and increase mortgage payments. Shelly Stewart, who identified herself as working in the title industry, presented a mortgage example saying that, under the proposed fee increases and current mortgage rates, a buyer could pay roughly $30,000 more over a 30-year loan when interest is included. Several speakers asked the commission to respect statutory limits: “No more than 50% without proving extraordinary circumstances,” in one speakers words, referencing the state statutory guardrail discussed during testimony.
Support for the increases came from some residents who framed the higher fees as shared investment in public safety and infrastructure. Ted Hordecke, speaking as a resident, said the city could charge more and still be “pro-business,” and urged residents to “kick in a little bit” to fund necessary services.
After the hearing the commission discussed whether to phase the increases and over what period. Staff and Raftelis told the commission the local ordinance can use an extraordinary-needs study to justify a larger increase and to choose a phase-in schedule; Raftelis said a common phasing example would be three equal annual increments. The city manager said staff would return with a phased-implementation proposal for the commission to consider. Commissioners gave staff direction (not a formal ordinance amendment) to prepare a three-year phasing schedule for the increases and to bring back specific percentages and an amended ordinance for the next meeting. The commission stated it will continue the item to a future meeting so it can consider the phased numbers and required notices under state law.
What the commission did not do Wednesday was adopt the ordinance on second reading; that item will return with concrete implementation options. The decision to table followed repeated public concern that the combined new fees and linkage/affordable housing charges could make smaller local builders uncompetitive and reduce the production of lower-cost housing.
Commissioners and staff emphasized the differences between discussion, direction and a formal vote. The formal vote on whether to adopt the fee ordinance will occur only after the commission reviews the phased schedule and the city publishes any required notices under state law. The legal and procedural framework the city must follow for implementation was discussed at length during the hearing.
