Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Impact Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County staff outlines plan to shift impact fees from per-unit to square footage model
Summary
Staff described a consultant-led impact-fee study that would break fees into square-footage bands (including discounts for smaller homes) and expand fee categories; final fee estimates not yet available.
Get email alerts on the Impact Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mister Armand, speaking to the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee on Sept. 23, described a county-financed impact-fee study under contract with consultant Tishler Bise that will consider switching some residential and nonresidential impact fees from a per-unit basis to a square-footage basis.
Armand said the current structure separates fees into categories — fire/EMS, administration, law enforcement, and parks (land and facilities) — and that nonresidential fees are tied to trip-generation rates. He said the updated study seeks a rational nexus to support breaking single-family and multifamily units into square-footage bands so smaller units pay fees proportionate to their size. “The way the current schedule works is you have one fee for a single-family residential unit,” Armand told the panel, and that yields the same fee for an 800-square-foot ADU and a 10,000-square-foot home.
As described by Armand, the study will examine whether smaller homes — for example, houses at or below 1,250 square feet and multifamily units at or below 750 square feet — could receive lower fees aligned to their service demand. He said legal review and discussions with municipalities and the development community will follow the consultant’s draft, and that the Board of County Commissioners will be asked for feedback and final action once staff completes that process. Armand said staff hoped to bring fee discussions before the board within the calendar year but that estimated fee amounts were not yet available.
No vote or decision occurred at this meeting; the item was an informational briefing and the consultant’s draft remains under review.
