Mayfield holds public hearing on impact-fee study for parks and roads

Mayfield Town Council held a public hearing Wednesday, Sept. 10, 2025, to review an impact-fee study that would establish maximum fees developers and new homebuilders could be charged to pay for parks, roads and related infrastructure.

The study — described to the council as an Impact Fees Facilities Plan (IFFP) and Impact Fee Analysis (IFA) — was paid for entirely with a grant, town officials said. The council and staff said state regulations require an engineered analysis before the town may set or adjust impact fees. Amanda, a town staff member who presented the study, said, "We collect that at the time we sell a building permit," explaining that impact fees are assessed at permit issuance rather than as an ongoing tax.

Why it matters: Impact fees create a dedicated revenue source for infrastructure needed because of growth. Town speakers stressed that state rules limit how fee proceeds may be used — they cannot fund routine maintenance and must be tied to the documented capital impact of new development. Council members and residents discussed how the funds could be combined with grants to complete projects sooner.

Key facts and discussion

- Current fee practice: Town staff said the existing fees are $1,000 per permit for road improvements and $800 per permit for parks and open space. Those figures were established when the council first began charging fees but the study updates the methodology and identifies state-allowed maximums.

- Study and compliance: The presentation identified the study components (IFA and IFFP) and said the analysis uses population and growth projections to calculate maximum allowable fees under state regulation. The presenter noted the study followed engineering and demographic methods used by regional planning institutes when projecting growth.

- Use limits and spending window: Council and staff emphasized that impact-fee proceeds cannot be used for ongoing maintenance; they must pay for capital improvements attributable to growth. Funds received in a given year must be spent within a six-year window tied to the receipt year, town staff said.

- Public concerns and options discussed: Several residents raised questions and suggestions. One commenter asked whether the town could sell a portion of the property designated as a future park to raise funds. Town officials said the original purchase agreement and promises to property owners constrain options and could expose the town to litigation; the town will review the original contract language before pursuing sale or reconfiguration. Another resident suggested reallocating existing proceeds from earlier phases of development instead of charging new homeowners; staff said state law generally prevents charging current homeowners retroactively and noted prior fee collections were not always earmarked for the park.

- Grants and matching: Staff discussed using fee revenues as local match to pursue additional funding. The council mentioned the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program and an upcoming $200,000 CDBG opportunity; staff cited an example of another town (Manti) that contributed $75,000 and subsequently received about $235,000 in CDBG funds to complete a project.

Council process and next steps

Council members and staff said the public hearing is the legally required hearing on the study; only one hearing is required but the council may hold additional hearings by choice. The council did not set final fees at the hearing; any enactment of specific fee amounts will be a later agenda item requiring council action. The council closed the public hearing by motion and voice vote and then moved on to the regular meeting agenda.

Ending

The council directed staff to continue reviewing the study and the underlying agreements tied to the park property and to return with any proposed fee ordinances or other formal motions at a future meeting. No ordinance or fee schedule was adopted at the Sept. 10 meeting.