Georgetown council reviews revised development‑impact fee draft; water component removed

Georgetown City Council held a special work session on July 23 to review a revised draft of a proposed development‑impact fee schedule and to hear public comment on how the fees could affect housing, utilities and local businesses.

Consultant Ben Griffin summarized the purpose and limits of impact fees and described changes in the latest draft, while city staffer Chase Avizito walked council through three hypothetical development scenarios to show how the proposed fees would apply.

Impact‑fee purpose and key changes

Consultant Ben Griffin told the council that “impact fees are one‑time payments for growth‑related infrastructure, generally collected at the time of building permits,” and outlined three common methodologies used to set fees. Griffin said the revised draft makes several reductions from earlier versions and that, after staff review, the draft removes the water component entirely from the proposed fee schedule for the time being.

City staff member Chase Avizito said the wastewater component was narrowed so that only development inside Wastewater Treatment Plant 1’s collection area would pay wastewater impact fees; developments in other collection areas would not. “We are removing all components related to water,” Avizito said, explaining staff want to revisit water once the city better understands system‑wide costs and benefits to future development.

Examples, projected revenue and distribution of fees

Avizito and the consultants ran three simulated projects to show how the draft fees would apply: an 8‑acre commercial project, a 10‑acre industrial building in the Lanes Run Business Park, and a 49‑acre subdivision totaling about 150 single‑family lots in Treatment Plant 1’s area.

- For the residential example, consultants calculated roughly $2,800 per unit for the nonutility components and about $2,500 per unit for the utility (wastewater) component, producing an illustrative figure of about $5,200 per single‑family home in that scenario. Ben Griffin and Chase Avizito characterized those as per‑unit examples tied to the specific simulated assumptions.

- For the commercial and industrial examples, the consultants showed lower nonutility per‑square‑foot rates; the industrial example carried no wastewater component because it fell in Treatment Plant 2’s service area.

Avizito gave a 10‑year revenue projection tied to the draft: about $9.5 million attributable to wastewater within Treatment Plant 1’s collection area over 10 years, roughly $3.4 million for police facilities/equipment, about $2.1 million for municipal facilities, and just over $5 million for fire facilities, apparatus and equipment. Avizito cautioned those are estimates and said fee revenue would vary with actual growth.

Public comment: builders, industry and legal counsel

More than a dozen members of the development, building and industrial communities spoke. Bob Johnson of the Building Industry Association warned of effects on affordability: “The median price for [homes] in Scott County is $379,000,” Johnson said, adding that many households could be priced out if home costs rise further. John Traylor, chairman of the Scott County Industrial Forum, said a per‑square‑foot industrial fee could have changed his company’s development choice: he said a 61‑cent‑per‑square‑foot charge “would have meant day one we would have had written a check for $76,000” and that the firm would not have located here.

Developers and property owners said rising lot, material and labor costs already compress margins; several speakers described current construction costs for apartments and the pass‑through of fees into sale prices or rents. Developer Doug Charles summarized that development is capital‑intensive and risky, noting that many developers enter multi‑year commitments and that added upfront fees affect project economics and contracts already under way.

Richard Murphy, a land‑use attorney, raised a legal point about local authority. “There’s no express statute in Kentucky allowing impact fees,” Murphy said, referring to the statutory framework under KRS 100; he advised the council that state law questions may need resolution before the city adopts an impact‑fee regime.

Council response and next steps

Council members thanked presenters and public speakers and expressed a range of views. Several council members said more analysis is needed to avoid deterring business development or worsening housing affordability. Others emphasized the city’s need for new revenue to keep pace with growth‑driven demands on fire, police and municipal facilities.

No ordinance or fee schedule was adopted at the July 23 session. Staff and consultants indicated they will refine the draft and return with updated analyses and answers to legal and implementation questions; council members suggested evaluating alternatives such as tax increment financing and other funding tools alongside impact‑fee options.

Meeting formality

At the start of the special meeting council approved minutes from the July 14 meeting by voice vote. The impact‑fee discussion that followed was a work session and public hearing on the draft study; no final council action adopting fees occurred on July 23.