Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Impact Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board urges review of Concord impact-fee ordinance; council accepts report and will consider ad hoc review
Summary
City staff reported that Concord’s transportation and recreation impact fees have not been adjusted since 2014 and that the Planning Board recommends either a modest one-year inflation update or a phased, full adjustment to bring fees current; the council accepted the report and signaled interest in further review via an ad hoc committee.
City planning staff presented the annual review of Concord’s public capital facilities impact-fee ordinance and the Planning Board’s recommendations; the City Council accepted the report and indicated it will consider forming an ad hoc committee to examine options in more depth before directing staff to prepare ordinance amendments.
Staff explained impact fees are authorized by state law (cited in the report as RSA 674:21 and related provisions), are intended to pay for the marginal cost of capital improvements that expand capacity to serve new growth, and cannot be used for operating costs or to replace existing capacity except to pay the marginal cost of an expansion. The city also noted that, by statute, collected impact fees should be allocated to projects within six years; Concord currently uses a 10‑year capital planning horizon.
The report said Concord has charged transportation and recreation impact fees since 2014 but that fee schedules have not been adjusted since February 2014. To keep pace with inflation since that date, the staff analysis said transportation fees would require a 26.11% increase and recreation fees a 33.72% increase. The Planning Board reviewed options including (1) a one‑year inflation adjustment (small year‑over‑year change) or (2) a full back‑to‑2014 inflation adjustment phased over three years; the board also recommended reinstating transportation impact fees for commercial and industrial development.
Planning Board members suggested the council consider a comprehensive consultant review to examine other potential fee categories (water, sewer, police, fire) and to model distributional impacts. Staff said the FY2030 capital program contains a $200,000 line item that could fund a consultant if the council directs a comprehensive update after the city’s master‑planning work is complete.
Council discussion was wide ranging. Some councilors urged caution, saying higher impact fees can raise housing costs and could disincentivize commercial investment. Others argued impact fees are a fair‑share mechanism that helps avoid shifting capital costs onto existing taxpayers. Several councilors supported forming an ad hoc committee to study options and public impacts before staff pursues ordinance amendments. The mayor said he would decide whether to form an ad hoc committee; staff will stand ready to act on council direction.
