Panama City holds first hearing on transportation impact fees; consultants outline two‑district fee table and public raises concerns about grocery-store costs

Panama City held a first public hearing on Jan. 14 for an ordinance (3256) that would create a new Transportation Impact Fee program and impose one‑time fees on new development. The ordinance had its first reading; commissioners did not adopt the ordinance at the meeting. City staff and consultants from Kimley‑Horn summarized a year‑long study that proposed two fee districts, formulas based on capacity consumed and costs per lane mile, and fee tables by land use.

Hadley Peterson, an urban planner with Kimley‑Horn, told the commission the firm worked with city staff and engineers for nearly a year, conducting comparative reviews, engineering cost calculations and planning‑board briefings. Kimley‑Horn recommended two district boundaries — “Panama City proper” and “Panama City North” — with different fee schedules to reflect differing trip lengths and road-network characteristics. Peterson said transportation impact fees in Florida are governed by statute and the proposals apply a dual‑nexus test to ensure the fees are proportionate to development impacts.

Project engineer 'Vinny' described typical capacity improvements that qualify for impact‑fee funding: lane additions, new roads, and some multimodal capacity work such as added turn lanes, two‑way left‑turn lanes, or where repaving coincides with adding bike lanes or sidewalks. Peterson and Vinny said impact‑fee revenues cannot be used for operations, maintenance or to pay for previously completed projects; fees are intended to fund capacity increases tied to new development.

Kimley‑Horn presented sample fees in the packet for common land uses (single‑family units, multifamily, retail and grocery uses). Commissioners and residents asked practical questions: how redevelopment is treated, whether fees apply to infill or replacement buildings, and how credits would be handled. Kimley‑Horn said redevelopment projects would generally receive credits for existing trip generation unless the new use increased trip generation capacity. Staff noted that legally approved development orders in place before adoption cannot be made retroactive.

Public comment reflected a mix of support and concern. Several residents urged caution, worried high fees would deter desired supermarkets and small commercial projects. Commissioners asked staff to notify local engineers, builders and developers before the ordinance’s second reading; staff agreed to notify the local builders association and the city’s engineering partners and to consider an industry Q&A session with Kimley‑Horn.

Commissioner remarks emphasized a balance: new development should help pay for capacity it creates, while the city must avoid discouraging needed retail and housing. Staff confirmed the ordinance’s second reading will be scheduled at a later meeting and recommended outreach to engineers and developers before final action. If adopted as proposed, the fees would take effect April 1 (staff said), subject to the statutory process and any subsequent commission modifications.

What’s next: The ordinance had a first reading on Jan. 14. Staff will notify local engineers and developers, hold follow‑up briefings and return the ordinance for a second reading where commissioners may adopt, amend or reject the program.