Committee backs budget subcommittee change to impact-fee distribution, sends proposal to full commission

The Codes and Zoning Enforcement Committee voted to send an amended impact-fee ordinance to the full county commission recommending that a $1,500 baseline be retained in the general fund and that any excess be credited to the capital projects fund (line 171) for residential, commercial and industrial development.

The change, proposed by the budget and finance subcommittee and discussed at length by the committee, matters because it shifts how new development fees are routed — affecting funding available for capital projects such as sidewalks, road improvements and water-system grants while leaving core general-fund receipts intact.

Committee members debated two implementation approaches: maintain a flat $1,500 baseline with all increases routed to fund 171, or use a percentage split (for example 30%/70%) between general fund (line 101) and capital projects (line 171). Committee Chair (Speaker 1) said Budget & Finance’s amended motion reads as a recommendation rather than a binding change by this subcommittee: “Unless it goes to the full committee to be voted on, it's just a suggestion.”

Members who supported forwarding the Budget & Finance language argued sending a single, clear recommendation maximizes the chance the full commission will adopt the change. As Speaker 1 put it, failing to present a coherent, agreed recommendation risks losing the opportunity: “You get one opportunity to present this. If it's something that is important to this county ... you don't wanna blow it.”

Opponents and questioners pressed several practical points. They sought clarification on the wording and on how the change would affect different project types. Speaker 2 noted that industrial applicants often negotiate waivers, and that a lower assessed fee could be preferable to a higher fee that a developer successfully seeks to waive. Rosalie (staff) provided examples showing how the new formula would change fees in sample residential and commercial projects and said that the county’s permitting software can be configured to calculate either approach; she advised the committee that budget amendments remain available later if adjustments are needed.

The committee discussed specific impacts: under the proposed structure a 2,450-square-foot residence would still contribute a $1,500 baseline to the general fund, with the increase routed to capital projects; a 9,000-square-foot commercial development that under the old scale would have paid about $2,700 would instead have a modeled $7,000 impact fee under the proposed base-plus-rate approach, with the first $1,500 to the general fund and the remainder to capital projects. Committee members noted those figures were examples to illustrate distribution rather than new policy beyond the routing change.

After discussion, a motion to adopt Budget & Finance’s amended language and forward it to the full commission carried on a voice vote. The record shows a favorable voice vote — individual tallies were not recorded in the committee transcript. The committee then voted to forward the amendment to the full commission with a favorable recommendation so the item can proceed through work sessions and the commission’s readings.

The committee also discussed timing and the ordinance’s effective date. Staff reminded members that many impact fees are set to take effect with the next budget cycle and that changing an effective date could restart the process. Speaker 1 noted that budget amendments can be used after passage if the commission wants to reallocate funds later.

What’s next: the amendment will appear in the commission’s work session schedule and then proceed to first reading at a subsequent commission meeting; the committee asked staff to clarify final ordinance language and to confirm whether the ordinance should retain the July 1, 2025 effective date or be amended by the commission.