Committee considers updates to impact fees: CPI indexing, exemptions for affordable housing and redevelopment, and planning board conditions

New Castle County Land Use Committee members discussed Ordinance 25045 on June 17, a proposed update to county impact fees that would index fees to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), require an annual review and a full study every five years, and preserve exemptions for certain affordable housing and for existing gross floor area on redevelopment/brownfield sites.

County staff presentation: Matthew Rogers and Anthony Sikowski of the Department of Land Use presented the ordinance and accompanying slides. Rogers described the proposal as updating fees to reflect inflation since the 1999 baseline and moving the fee index from the Engineering News‑Record construction index to CPI on the grounds that many fee‑funded items (vehicles, equipment, technology) are not captured by construction indices. The ordinance would also require an updated impact fee study every five years.

Exemptions and redevelopment: The proposal exempts workforce dwelling units (the county’s pre‑2014 affordable housing program), Moderately Priced Dwelling Units (the current program), low‑income housing under 100% AMI, and redevelopment/brownfield development with a credit for existing gross floor area (GFA); new gross floor area would be subject to fees. Rogers said, “the exemption for redevelopment is to cover the gross floor that’s existing on the site. So the part that would actually be redeveloped,” and staff clarified that additional new GFA would pay impact fees.

Council questions and concerns: Council members supported updating the fees but several raised concerns. Councilman Cartier asked whether brownfield redevelopment should still be exempt in full for all fee types, noting that redevelopment can create new demands on local services such as fire and rescue. Cartier said Claymont examples had prompted him to ask whether the local fire company’s capital needs are being considered. Staff and other council members said the redevelopment credit gives a credit for existing GFA but new GFA pays fees, and that more targeted approaches (tax increment financing, project‑specific agreements) could accompany redevelopment incentives.

Planning Board recommendation and text change: Staff noted the Planning Board gave conditional approval; the department recommended striking language that would treat State Strategies Level 3 and 4 areas as having higher development costs — staff and the sponsor recommended removing that clause. Staff said the ordinance’s code changes do not rewrite the redevelopment credit language found in Article 8 but that clarifying language could be added and staff were open to continuing discussions with council sponsors in the days before final council action.

Public comment and next steps: A member of the public, Bruce Weingard, spoke in support of impact fees as a pay‑as‑you‑go mechanism. Council sponsors said they would work with Land Use staff to resolve outstanding drafting questions quickly and hoped to finalize action before the new fiscal year; staff noted the ordinance also requires a study to be completed within roughly 18 months, which will provide further opportunity to refine policy and geographic questions.