Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Leander staff proposes simplifications to roadway impact fees; council signals interest in grouped land‑use categories and limited exemptions
Summary
City staff briefed council on the roadway impact fee program, collection history and options to simplify the change‑of‑tenant process, including grouping land‑use categories, waiving small settle‑up fees under $2,000, and limited exemptions for relocations and certain uses; no ordinance was adopted and staff will return with draft policies.
City staff on Thursday presented options to revise Leander’s roadway impact fee (RIF) program and the “change‑of‑tenant” settle‑up process, recommending simplification of land‑use categories and limited exemptions intended to reduce administrative burden while ensuring funding for road projects.
Robin Griffin, Executive Director of Development Services, summarized how the RIF program functions: a 10‑year project list tied to five service areas, fees intended to cover growth‑related projects, and a process that started collections in 2024. Griffin said the city’s adopted schedule provides a 50% discount for residential development and a 90% discount for commercial in the current rate structure and noted state rules limit rate updates to once every three years.
Staff described the change‑of‑tenant issue: many developments are built as “shell” buildings and pay a preliminary fee; when a tenant is identified later, the city currently collects a settle‑up to reflect the use’s actual trips. The settle‑up process intends to make fees fairer but creates practical challenges for applicants and staff, and may discourage relocations.
Policy options presented to council included: grouping detailed land‑use categories into broader buckets (for example, a single fee for “office” instead of many niche office types); waiving settle‑up fees below a de minimis threshold (staff suggested $2,000); reduced or waived fees to incentivize existing small businesses relocating within the city; limited exemptions for certain public, religious or low‑income housing uses; and special handling for older or vacant buildings. Staff recommended against making partial changes to the maximum collection rates without a full RIF update, and noted the city is due for a RIF study update in 2027 (staff offered the option to accelerate that study).
Council discussion focused on simplifying the fee schedule, avoiding barriers to small businesses, defining “small business” for relocation incentives and the tradeoffs between using RIF revenue versus bonds and taxpayer funds for road projects. Several council members said they favored grouping land‑use categories and clarity for small business exemptions; at least one council member suggested eliminating the change‑of‑tenant settle‑up entirely for the majority of tenant changes.
No ordinance or rate change was adopted. Staff said it will return with more detailed proposals and a draft ordinance after refining categories, thresholds and exemption criteria.
