Laconia planning staff recommends phased increase to impact fees; board schedules public hearing

Laconia planning staff presented a final impact-fee study and a draft ordinance Sept. 2 that would expand what projects may be charged and raise the maximum fees the city could collect for new development. Planning Director Rob Mora told the Planning Board the city's 2009/2011 study left current fees far below what a modern analysis supports; the consultant's new maximum rate for a single-family home is $19,307. The draft ordinance the board reviewed would initially collect 25% of the new maximum and include automatic annual adjustments tied to inflation, with a proposed 5% annual step until full (100%) collection is reached by 2040. Why it matters: the proposed changes would broaden the types of public infrastructure funded through impact fees (including municipal facilities and public works), raise the per-unit and per-square-foot amounts for many housing and commercial types, and change how waivers and exemptions are handled. Key details from the presentation and board discussion - Study findings: the consultant compared Laconia to peer communities and recalculated needs across multiple departments using updated capital-inventory and CIP data. Mora said the new study produced a maximum single-family impact fee of $19,307 (the city's previous full-study number had been roughly $7,629 and the city had been collecting 25% of that number between 2011 and 2021 and 50% since 2021). - Draft ordinance: staff proposed initially setting the city's fee schedule at 25% of the new maximums and applying an annual CPI-based adjustment; the draft also removes the existing discretionary waiver process and replaces it with a limited set of statutory exemptions and a workforce-housing exemption. - Workforce-housing exemption: the draft says up to 20% of units in a project designated as workforce housing could be exempt from impact fees. The board discussed changing the exemption language so that a minimum percentage (for larger projects) would be required rather than a single-unit minimum. - Examples cited in the meeting: multifamily unit fees and two-family fees would change under the new method (transcript figures: multifamily about $13,000 per unit; two-unit structures about $16,000; attached single-family about $11,050; commercial retail roughly $9.42/sq. ft.; office about $6.87/sq. ft.; industrial about $2.67/sq. ft.). - Implementation and timeline: staff recommended two Planning Board hearings (first Oct. 7, follow-up in November) to gather public comment and revisions before a recommendation to City Council. If advanced by the board and adopted by Council, the ordinance would take effect on the Council-adopted date; staff also proposed annual reporting to Council and the board on fee levels and collections. Board direction and next steps The board voted to schedule the initial public hearing for Oct. 7 and asked staff to prepare comparison charts that show: (a) Laconia's current fees, (b) the proposed fees at the board's selected percentage, and (c) fees in comparable municipalities that collect similar categories of impact fees. Members also asked for clearer examples of how proposed exemptions would work on sample projects. No final fee schedule or rate change was adopted Sept. 2; the board's action was to schedule the Oct. 7 public hearing and to request supplemental materials in advance of that hearing. What was not decided The Planning Board did not set a final percentage (staff suggested 25% as a starting point and left the final rate to the board), did not adopt the ordinance, and did not set a firm effective date beyond the general recommendation that the adoption date be the Council's effective date. Additional context Staff said state law changed since the city's prior study and now permits impact fees to fund additional municipal categories beyond roads, schools, parks, police and fire, which is why the study added municipal facilities and public works sectors. Mora said the consultant (DTA) reviewed the city CIP and departmental capital inventories and met with department heads in person to compile the study. Board members stressed the need for clear public comparisons and for easily digestible handouts at the Oct. 7 hearing. Ending The Planning Board set the Oct. 7 meeting as the first public hearing on the proposed chapter; staff will publish the final study and draft ordinance and distribute the comparison materials requested by the board ahead of that session. The board indicated it expects at least one more Planning Board hearing before the matter is recommended to City Council.