Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Council fails to override veto on updated impact-fee ordinance amid sharp public debate

January 14, 2025 | New Castle County, Delaware


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Council fails to override veto on updated impact-fee ordinance amid sharp public debate
The New Castle County Council did not override County Executive Matthew S. Meyer’s veto of substitute No. 1 to Ordinance 24-8, a measure to update and increase impact fees. The motion to override ended in a 6-6 vote with one member not voting; the override required 10 votes to succeed.

Supporters argued the county has not adjusted impact fees since 1999 and said those fees are needed to fund parks, fire and emergency services, libraries and other infrastructure that new development requires. Council member Knoepko (first reference name from transcript) noted the gap since 1999 and cited the legal authority for impact fees in state law. Council members and members of the public said the shortfall in county revenue and rapid growth, especially south of the canal, meant developers should pay more of the costs their projects create.

Opponents — including builders’ and business groups — urged the council to delay action and work with the incoming county executive on a comprehensive plan. The Home Builders Association of Delaware and the Committee of 100 urged a fuller analysis of fiscal impacts and a collaborative approach with the new administration. Several speakers raised concerns that higher fees would be passed through to homebuyers and could affect housing affordability.

Public testimony during the meeting was lengthy: fire-service representatives argued existing impact fees no longer cover needed equipment and stations; community groups said the proposed increases would be a small share of new-home costs and would protect long-term taxpayers; developers and housing-industry speakers called for a more targeted or progressive fee structure and additional study. Council members debated whether to wait for the new county executive to propose a package or to act now to prevent further erosion of the fee base as new homes are built.

Action: The veto override motion for substitute No. 1 to Ordinance 24-8 failed (roll call: 6 yes, 6 no, 1 not voting). The ordinance remains vetoed.

View full meeting

This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.

View full meeting

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Delaware articles free in 2025

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI