Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Impact Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Burlington staff propose refocusing impact fees on water, sewer and multimodal transportation
Summary
A consultant and city staff presented a multi-year study recommending that Burlington concentrate new impact fees on water, sewer (buy-in) and multimodal transportation, shelving other facility fees for now because many capital needs identified are maintenance or replacement rather than capacity-expanding projects.
City staff and outside consultants presented draft recommendations Wednesday to rewrite Burlington’s impact fee structure and supported moving most fee collection to water, sewer and a newly framed multimodal transportation fee.
Consultants said the city’s existing fee schedule, adopted in the 1990s and rarely updated, produces only modest revenue—about $350,000 annually citywide across all fee categories—and that most departments’ upcoming capital projects are maintenance or replacement work ineligible under the legal tests for impact fees. The consultants recommended consolidating the “fee stack” and directing new impact fees primarily to: (1) buy‑in charges for water and sewer (new users pay for capacity they consume), and (2) a multimodal transportation fee that can pay for projects that increase person-moving capacity (protected bike lanes, shared-use paths, transit-supportive investments), not just vehicle capacity.
Under the draft, per-residential-unit impact fees would be higher than today in aggregate but significantly lower than earlier draft numbers; consultants estimated a combined fee near $6,200–$6,700 per new residential unit when focusing on transportation and water/sewer. Staff said they expect to seek council direction to adopt new fees in time for FY26 implementation and emphasized the need to revisit the fee list and nexus calculations every five years. Consultants also warned that, even if the fees are adopted, impact fee revenue will rarely pay more than a portion of large capital projects; other funding sources such as bonds, grants or rate revenue would still be needed.
Councilors and public commenters asked about distributional effects (residential vs. commercial), whether fees would disincentivize housing production, and how the city will ensure the fees can be spent on eligible projects and spent within the six‑year window allowed under Vermont law. Staff and consultants said they will test scenarios, provide comparisons with neighboring towns and return with implementation language and a revised ordinance draft. The administration indicated it wants the fees in place for FY26 and will return with ordinance language and outreach materials.
