Leander council reviews options to replace roadway adequacy payments with higher roadway impact fees

City engineers and consultants presented a package of options on June 17 to change how Leander pays for road improvements tied to new development, proposing to phase out the city's roadway adequacy payments (RAP) and make up the difference by increasing the portion of roadway impact fees (RIF) charged to new development.

The workshop, led by City Engineer Emily Truman and consultant Ben (last name not specified), reminded council the city's 2021 Transportation Master Plan identifies roughly $320,000,000 in 10-year transportation needs. Truman said the city adopted a RIF ordinance in 2023 and began collecting the fees in 2024, and that council previously directed a collection rate that charges residential development 50% of the assessed maximum and nonresidential development 10%.

City staff described three tools now in use or under consideration. RIFs are assessed by service area and use Institute of Transportation Engineers trip assumptions to estimate a project's share of broader corridor needs; roadway adequacy standards require developers to build or pay for upgrades to adjacent substandard roads; and site-specific traffic impact analyses require on-site mitigation such as turn lanes or deceleration lanes. The RAP is the city's current payment-in-lieu option for right-of-way or construction on adjacent substandard roads; staff proposed largely eliminating routine RAPs and relying on RIFs plus targeted construction requirements.

Why this matters: eliminating RAP would simplify developer payments and concentrate funding in the RIF program, but it also shifts the burden of some site-specific construction costs into a system that spreads cost across a service area. Council members repeatedly pressed staff on who would see higher fees and what the impact would be on small businesses, tenants and schools.

Key details and trade-offs - Collection history and scenarios: staff showed five scenarios ranging from keeping RAP plus the current RIF split (scenario 1) to eliminating RAP and raising residential collection to 100% of the assessed maximum (scenario 5), with corresponding reductions for nonresidential rates. Truman said scenario 2 (current practice: RAP removed but current RIF collection rates unchanged) would yield roughly half of the funding the combined RAP+RIF approach produced since collections began in January 2024. Exact dollar figures were presented for sample projects and service areas during the slides. - Substandard roadway definition: consultant Ben recommended clarifying a substandard road definition so developers know when adjacent roads trigger required upgrades. The proposed checklist included width less than 26 feet, pavement condition index under 50, insufficient drainage (overtopping in a 50-year event) and missing sidewalk. Staff said if a road fails any one of those items it would be considered substandard for the purposes of requiring upgrades or construction. - Change-of-tenant fees: staff said the city has three recorded change-of-tenant RIF collections totaling $9,000 since RIF collection began in January 2024, and that automation of the application form through Development Hub should reduce administrative errors that currently produce surprise bills for tenants. - Impact on schools and charters: council asked whether ISDs and charter schools pay RIFs; staff clarified Leander ISD can be charged under state law and that charter schools do pay RIF and participate in roadway adequacy mitigations under their traffic studies. - Equity and competitiveness: council members and speakers noted that increasing residential fees could slow housing production or raise single-family home prices, while shifting more cost to nonresidential development could deter commercial investment. Staff presented comparisons to nearby municipalities showing a range of collection practices; some adjacent cities use RIFs, others rely more on traffic impact mitigation or bond funding.

Council direction and next steps Council members asked for additional analysis before a policy change: (1) a mean/average RIF estimate across service areas for common uses (coffee shop, strip retail, convenience store) so council can see a single-city average; (2) more detail about how RAP and RIF combined previously produced the current funding levels; (3) a list of how neighboring cities handle change-of-tenant and school projects; and (4) clarification on the substandard roadway criteria and likely number of county roads that would trigger requirements.

Staff said they will prepare service-area means, refine the substandard-road definition language, provide examples of projects across service areas, and show updated collection projections under each scenario for council review at a later transportation workshop.

Community comments and concerns Several council members and residents raised concerns that converting the last corner of a planned neighborhood center to residential would reduce nearby retail options and increase driving. Others noted that the intersection has multiple nearby schools and existing traffic- queuing issues; that context shaped some council members' view that a substantial commercial use there would not be a good fit.

What's next: staff will revise the materials to show mean collections across service areas, provide more examples of comparable cities' practices, and return to a transportation-focused workshop with updated funding and implementation scenarios.