Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Impact Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Orem consultant presents new impact-fee study; proposed maximums would raise single-family assessment to roughly $35,000
Summary
A consultant presented a draft impact-fee facilities plan and analysis showing proposed maximum allowable fees that could raise an example single-family assessment from about $12,000 to roughly $35,000; staff recommended a December public hearing on the maximums and offered phased or buy-in removal options to reduce immediate impacts.
A consultant hired by Orem presented a draft impact-fee facilities plan and impact-fee analysis to the City Council work session, saying the documents establish the statutory ‘‘maximum allowable’’ fees that the council may adopt, reduce or reject. The consultant said the IFFP/IFA covers parks, public safety (police and fire), transportation, culinary water, wastewater and stormwater, and uses a 10-year planning window to calculate proposed capital needs and allocations.
The consultant said, “The impact fee is a onetime fee on new development activities.” He showed preliminary capital estimates—about $2.8 million for police facilities, roughly $4.5 million plus $700,000 for fire apparatus, and about $3.5 million in transportation improvements—and explained how those costs feed into a per-unit fee schedule. Using a standard 0.2-acre single-family lot assumption, the study's proposed maximum would move a typical single-family impact-fee assessment from about $12,000 (current) to roughly $35,000.
Councilmembers pressed staff about how the fee is assessed (typically at permit issuance), whether developers can seek credits or reimbursements, and how the city might avoid sudden affordability shocks. The consultant said statute allows developers to seek review and reimbursement for over-collection or incorrect assumptions and highlighted a six-year window for spending collected funds; however, the maximum schedule is intended to set a ceiling rather than an immediate fee the council must charge.
Multiple councilmembers suggested alternatives to adopting full maximums: remove the ‘‘buy-in’’ component (repaid past oversizing) from the fee calculation to lower near-term amounts, phase-in a percentage of the maximum over several years, or adopt a single lower value tied to a local benchmark such as the county median. The consultant offered to run scenario analyses (e.g., 60%, 80% of the maximum or phased increases) and recommended a preliminary work session before the December public hearing so the city can present a more precise proposed fee level to the public.
Next steps: staff said the draft IFFP/IFA will be distributed to council and posted for public review; a noticed public hearing is scheduled for December 9 (staff signaled the council may present the maximum allowable schedule at that hearing), after which any adopted increases would be subject to applicable statutory wait periods.
