Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Impact Fee Study topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears updated development impact‑fee nexus study; staff told to return with options and comparisons
Summary
Consultants presented an updated nexus study that recalculated justified impact fees using revised growth projections; supervisors directed staff to return with additional comparisons (including neighboring counties), project-list updates, and options for fee levels and phasing.
San Benito County staff and consultant Walden presented an update to the county’s development impact‑fee nexus study on Feb. 11 and the Board of Supervisors directed staff to return with additional analysis and policy options.
What staff presented: Consultants explained the methodology — estimating demand, identifying facility standards and facility plans, allocating new‑development shares, and calculating per‑unit fees. The update used the most recent AMBAG growth forecast and moved the study base year from 2023 to 2024. The draft study identifies $180.6 million in net project costs countywide; of that, the maximum justified share attributable to new development would be roughly $24.7 million under the study’s assumptions.
The study used different approaches for categories: the ‘existing‑standard’ method for parks and road maintenance, the ‘system‑plan’ method for law enforcement and general government (which assumes an increased level of service and requires alternative funding for the existing share), and a ‘plant facility’ approach for a specific storm‑drain zone. The draft fee schedule shows higher maximum‑justified fees in some categories compared to the prior 2024 draft, driven by constrained growth assumptions and added planned facilities (notably a public safety campus and a new fire station/engine).
Board direction and concerns: Supervisors asked for more detail on specific facility assumptions (parks acreage per 1,000 residents; law‑enforcement and fire facility components; traffic and storm‑drain project lists) and requested comparisons to surrounding counties (Monterey, Santa Cruz) and the City of Hollister. Several supervisors asked staff to explore lowering the residential and commercial fee proposals to be more comparable to nearby jurisdictions, to consider phase‑in schedules for fee increases, and to identify options to encourage commercial/industrial development. Staff agreed to return with additional project‑list detail, comparisons with neighboring counties, and options for fee levels and exemptions, and indicated an initial follow‑up could come back in late February/early March.
