Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Impact Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board asks for cost estimate to study public‑safety impact fees after Ehlers outlines options
Summary
Ehlers sketched how a law‑enforcement impact fee could recover a portion of the planned police station; trustees directed staff to return a proposal and cost estimate to bundle a public‑safety impact‑fee feasibility analysis with pending water and sewer fee updates.
Ehlers presented a high‑level overview of municipal impact fees and then examined whether a law‑enforcement (police) impact fee could legally and practically recover part of the planned police station costs.
John Cameron told trustees the firm had done a preliminary analysis and estimated that roughly 45% of the police station's total construction cost — about $7.3 million on a $16.3 million building — could plausibly be attributed to new development rather than existing demand. That maximum recoverable amount depends on the methodology and the service‑level standards selected in the required public‑facilities needs assessment. Ehlers also provided a range of realistic revenue outcomes: a low‑growth scenario that would yield roughly $807,000 over 20 years and a higher‑growth scenario that could produce $2.6 million over the same period.
Ehlers and staff emphasized several practical points: state law requires a detailed inventory and a 30‑day public filing, a class‑1 public hearing and separate accounting of collected fees; fees must be spent on identified capital items within eight years of collection; and fees can be reduced or exempted for affordable housing to protect housing affordability.
Trustees weighed those tradeoffs and asked staff to get a firm estimate of the incremental cost to add a law‑enforcement/public‑safety impact‑fee chapter to the water and sewer impact‑fee update already under way. Village staff said combining the studies would save codification and public‑hearing costs and would be an efficient use of consultant time.
Board action: Trustees instructed staff to return at the next regular meeting with a proposal and appropriation request showing the cost of a combined impact‑fee study for water, sewer and a potential law‑enforcement impact fee.
Why it matters: If the village adopts a law‑enforcement impact fee after a formal study and hearings, future developers would pay a one‑time charge tied to their project that could reduce future borrowing and levy pressure. The feasibility and size of any fee depend on policy choices and growth projections.
What's next: Staff will ask Ehlers to provide a detailed scope and cost estimate to perform a public‑facilities needs assessment and draft impact‑fee ordinance; the board will consider whether to appropriate funds and schedule public hearings.
