The Bay County Board of County Commissioners on Nov. 4 acknowledged receipt of a consultant-prepared impact-fee study that calculates potential one-time capital charges for new development across nine service areas, including fire rescue, EMS, law enforcement, corrections, solid waste, libraries, parks and transportation. The board added the report to the consent agenda and voted to accept it; no fee increases were adopted.

The study, presented by consultant Logan Camp and introduced by Ian Crowley, used a consumption‑based methodology that compares the cost of adding capacity to current and projected demand. Camp told the board the county’s population is roughly 200,000 and residential permitting has averaged about 2,500 new units per year. The firm reviewed capital assets, credits for other revenue sources, and demand factors to calculate fees by land use.

Using the firm’s example numbers, a single‑family home would carry roughly $8,100 in combined impact fees across all studied service areas, with nearly half of that amount coming from the transportation component. Camp noted the county currently collects impact fees for fire rescue, libraries and regional parks; five other service areas would be new if adopted.

Board members and staff repeatedly told the consultant that a transportation impact fee was effectively off the table because of an earlier surtax policy adopted by the board. Chairman Moore and other commissioners emphasized that transportation costs shown in the consultant’s example would not be charged without separate board action.

The consultant reviewed legal constraints, including the state Impact Fee Act and subsequent legislation affecting notice periods, data recency, and limits on fee increases. Camp said fees must be based on recent, localized data, that a 90‑day notice period is required for increases, and that statutory changes now limit the use of an “extraordinary circumstances” exception to raise fees more rapidly without specified supermajority votes.

The study was placed on the consent agenda as item 5 and the board recorded a unanimous roll‑call vote to acknowledge receipt of the report. Staff said acceptance of the report is a procedural step that preserves the county’s legal nexus between fees and capital needs; any actual fee changes would require a separate implementation process, additional public notice and a subsequent board action.

Next steps described by staff included using study findings to consider whether and how to update the county’s fee schedule, to ensure compliance with statutory notice and data requirements before any change, and to engage in further public outreach if the board elects to pursue fee adoption.