Commission hears developer credit for waterline upsize and an 18‑month impact-fee study

City staff told the commission a developer has agreed to install a larger water main for a new development in exchange for impact-fee credits, and the commission heard an outline of an upcoming 18-month impact-fee update.

Sarah Kirkland, the city’s public works director, described negotiations with the Lakeside Landings developer. Kirkland said staff asked the developer to “upsize it to a 12 inches line” from the 8-inch main that would have been required, and that the cost difference to go from 8 to 12 inches was “160 or so thousand dollars.” She said the developer agreed to receive that amount as impact-fee credits rather than a direct cash payment to the city.

Separately, Amy Bailey, project manager with Geo Planning Solutions, presented a proposed piggyback agreement to hire a consultant (a firm previously used by nearby jurisdictions) to conduct an impact-fee assessment. Bailey summarized the study’s purpose: “you come up with a per household amount, for water, fire, wastewater, all of those different impact fees.” She said the study can be funded from impact fees and that Raftellis (the financial consultant used as the piggyback) has local comparative data and previously conducted the city’s 2020 study.

Staff estimated the update would take about 18 months to complete. Bailey and staff outlined the implementation process: the consultant produces recommended rates based on departmental capital programs and budgets; the commission then makes policy decisions about how to adopt and phase any new rates; and fees typically take effect 90 days after adoption. Staff also referenced statutory constraints: according to the presenters, state law limits routine impact-fee re-evaluation to every five years, which informed the timeline and the recommendation to proceed now.

Discussion among commissioners framed impact fees as a policy tool to pursue higher-quality, infill and multimodal development aligned with the Lake Wales Envision plan. Commissioners repeatedly described impact fees as an instrument to negotiate public benefits with developers and debated trade-offs between keeping fees competitive with neighboring jurisdictions and using credits or phased implementation to induce desired development types. Several commissioners urged staff to present creative policy options alongside the consultant’s technical recommendations.

No formal vote to hire the consultant or finalize the Lakeside Landings agreement was recorded in the meeting transcript. Staff said they would return with contract documents and implementation options for commission consideration as the study progresses.