Local business leaders urge alternatives to proposed linkage fees for affordable housing

Nancy Kiefer, Chamber of Commerce representative, told the Volusia County Economic Development Committee Tuesday that the linkage fee proposal before the city would raise only modest revenue and could hinder business attraction. "The total amount raised from the projects would have been $500,000," Kiefer said, describing a 2023 review of developments that would have been subject to the fee. "I think there's a, you know, misunderstanding out there that that money can be used for repairs. It can be used to lift houses out of flood zones. It can't. It could only be used for for new development."

Kiefer said the Chamber supports a dedicated funding source for affordable housing but opposes the linkage fee mechanism because it is effectively an impact fee on new development. "Anytime you start taxing new development, it does send up a signal that, you know, we're we're really not interested in attracting new business to the area," she said. She described a Chamber alternative that would capture a share of annual increases in real‑estate values and route that revenue into the city's affordable housing trust fund. "We looked at several different scenarios, but the amount of dollars that come from that are much higher even at the lowest levels," Kiefer said, offering illustrative ranges that the group had modeled.

Jeff (City of Daytona representative) told the committee the two large projects that would have produced most of the linkage revenue in 2023 were Halifax Health Hospital and Embry Riddle. "The 2 projects would that would have basically funded linkage fees in 2023 would have been Halifax Health Hospital and Embry Riddle," he said. Committee members and presenters framed the trade‑off as a choice between generating modest, project‑linked revenue versus identifying a broader, ongoing local funding source.

Discussion: Committee members asked for more detail on the Chamber—s alternative and requested staff analysis comparing projected revenue under the linkage fee to the real‑value‑capture proposal. Kiefer noted that, under the linkage fee as drafted, proceeds would be limited to new development and not available for repairs or flood‑mitigation work on existing housing stock.

Direction: The committee encouraged staff to present more detailed revenue projections and program rules at a future meeting so commissioners and the public could compare mechanisms.

Outcome: No formal vote or ordinance was taken at the committee meeting; members were asked to attend the city commission meeting that evening to comment on linkage fees and the Chamber—s alternative.

Ending: Presenters said public hearings and additional staff analysis will follow before any revenue mechanism is adopted; no timetable for a final decision was set at the committee meeting.