Ben Griffin, the consultant leading Berkeley County’s impact-fee study, told the County Commission on May 1 that the draft charges would require new development to pay a proportionate share of growth-related capital costs in the unincorporated county.

Griffin said the study projects about 35,000 additional people and roughly 14,500 new housing units in the unincorporated area over the next 10 years and converts those forecasts into demand for public facilities and equipment. “Impact fees are one-time payments for growth-related infrastructure,” Griffin said during the presentation.

The draft uses an incremental methodology for most components — county administration, fire and rescue, law enforcement and parks and recreation — meaning fees are intended to maintain existing levels of service as population grows. For elementary schools the study uses school-seat calculations and credits existing debt. Griffin said the study estimates roughly 55,000 square feet of additional elementary school space and 16 acres of land over 10 years.

Key cost and projection highlights Griffin presented included: an assumed $20 million proxy cost for county administration facilities tied to a cited judicial-center expansion; an estimated $12 million for 24,000 square feet of fire and rescue facilities plus equipment and land needs; about $1.7 million in land for fire and rescue; roughly $3.9 million for park amenities, $266,000 for trail construction and $1.3 million for 5,300 square feet of recreation facilities; and an elementary-school per‑student capital cost net of credits that produced proposed residential school fees. On nonresidential development the study converts job growth to square footage using Institute of Transportation Engineers multipliers.

Griffin said the study’s proposed maximum fee per single-family home across all included components would be about $11,657. “That number is the ceiling,” a commissioner noted during discussion; Griffin confirmed the commission may adopt lower fees or phase them in, but any proportional reduction must be applied uniformly across land-use categories for the same component.

Commissioners questioned who enforces the rules and what oversight exists. Commissioner Hardy asked, “What is the regulatory body of this that implements these regulations on this impact fee?” Griffin replied that West Virginia’s enabling statute authorizes counties to adopt impact fees and that the study is designed to follow that statutory framework. He added that the enabling language provides limited procedural detail and that, where necessary, federal case law and standard auditing practices inform administration and audit of funds, and that impact-fee funds must be kept separate from the general fund.

Commissioners and Griffin discussed administration details: service area (the unincorporated county), timing for spending (fees should be spent within a few years so fee-payers receive benefit), site-specific credits (developers who dedicate land or construct a required improvement receive credits), and debt credits (existing and planned debt are deducted so development is not charged twice). Griffin recommended updating the study every three to five years, or sooner if costs escalate.

The presentation included comparisons to neighboring jurisdictions’ fees (Jefferson County and Frederick County) and development-projection methodology choices. Commissioners said they wanted time to digest the numbers. No adoption vote was taken; commissioners directed staff to continue review and said the item will return to a future meeting for possible formal action.

Ending: The commission held detailed technical questions and asked staff and the consultant for follow-up material about statutory oversight, administrative procedures, and how credits would be applied. The presentation will be posted with the packet and returned for a formal decision at a later meeting.