Centerton council holds lengthy public hearing on impact-fee study; council votes to recommend consultant's numbers

The Centerton City Council opened a public hearing and heard more than an hour of testimony and department-head responses on a consultant-prepared impact-fee study that would impose one-time development charges on new construction to pay for capital facilities.

The consultant’s study—presented as the maximum recommended levels—proposes fees that would be charged per new housing unit and per commercial square foot to finance parks, streets/drainage, police and fire capital. City staff emphasized that impact fees can only be used for new capital infrastructure and must be kept in segregated funds, not the general fund.

Councilor Joshua Hagen moved the council "to recommend the fees as presented," a motion the body approved after public comments and department-head assurances. The vote is a council recommendation; the ordinance establishing the fees and the effective date would come later if the council proceeds.

Why it mattered: The hearing drew developers, home builders and residents who warned of higher housing costs and urged phased implementation, grandfathering or exemptions. Schubert Mitchell Homes’ Michael Barry told the council that higher fees add materially to development cost and that, if fees are the main revenue path, developers may reconsider whether Centerton remains financially viable for new subdivisions. “Those higher fees could force home builders and developers to really look at, okay, is this a place where we can build and sell our homes?” Barry said.

Developer and real-estate perspectives: Schubert Mitchell Homes urged grandfathering for projects already approved and suggested fee reductions or incentives for affordable housing. A developer representative noted that if fees were phased in, builders might rush to file permits before a fee take effect. Home‑building industry testimony also emphasized that a fee borne as a flat dollar amount is regressive for lower‑priced homes. One commenter calculated the potential mortgage impact and noted the monthly increase would vary with interest rates; another real-estate professional noted rising home prices and said part of the fee impact is offset by annual appreciation.

Staff and consultant explanations: City staff and the consultant explained that impact fees are intended for capital expansion only and noted limitations: fees cannot be used for maintenance or to remedy existing deficiencies and must be tied to documented capital costs and service-level standards. The consultant, Tishler (referred to in the study as Tysler/Tishler Baez), told the council the fees are per unit and apply to multifamily units on a per‑unit basis; they also explained the formula used (replacement costs, projected growth, standard per-person service multipliers) and cautioned that raising fees above the consultant’s maximum would require another study.

Public reaction and council response: Residents and local builders offered competing arguments: several residents urged adoption because Centerton needs sidewalks, parks and additional fire and police capacity; builders and landlords warned of price pressure for buyers and urged phasing, exemptions or lower levels. Councilors asked for clarity on the timing and on whether fees could be set lower than the consultant maximum; staff confirmed fees may be set below the consultant’s caps but cannot later be increased above the study amounts without doing a new study (which has a significant cost).

Outcome: After hearing testimony and department-head input, councilors voted to recommend the fees as presented by Tishler (the consultant). Council members acknowledged the fees’ regressive nature and asked staff to include grandfathering language for permits already issued and to work with developers on implementation details as the ordinance is drafted.

What’s next: Staff will draft an ordinance implementing the recommended fees and bring it back to the council for formal adoption; staff also will incorporate council guidance on grandfathering, effective date and implementation mechanics. The consultant’s study and the public record will be used to craft the ordinance.

Ending: The public hearing underscored trade-offs between funding capital infrastructure and housing affordability; councilors said they will attempt to balance those concerns in the forthcoming ordinance.