Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Impact Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews nexus studies and asks staff for a fee matrix to guide impact‑fee decisions
Summary
Staff and consultants presented four nexus studies (parks, housing, transportation, public facilities) and comparative peer analysis; council asked staff to prepare an easy-to-use matrix showing fee options (above/at/below average) and to return with recommended fee levels and a public-noticing plan.
On Jan. 15 the Brisbane City Council received a presentation from Assistant City Manager Christina Fernandez and consultants on four nexus studies prepared to support adoption of development impact fees for parks and recreation, affordable housing, transportation and public facilities.
Fernandez said the studies comply with AB1600 (the Mitigation Fee Act) and that while a nexus study defines a legally defensible "maximum justifiable fee," the council must make a policy choice about setting realistic fees (below, at or above peer averages) that will survive public scrutiny and legal review. Consultants presented prototype scenarios (single‑family, multifamily, hotel, industrial, retail and R&D) and a comparative survey of six nearby jurisdictions to show how Brisbane’s allowable maximums would stack up.
Consultant Khushbu (Matrix) explained that the affordable‑housing component frequently dominates maximum fees in many prototypes, pushing totals higher, and noted some peer cities have not updated fees in many years. Council members asked detailed questions about AB602 square‑foot calculations for residential fees, vesting tentative maps and which projects would be exempt, whether fee deferrals until certificate of occupancy are permissible, and the eight‑year limit on a nexus study’s applicability. City legal counsel and staff confirmed that nexus studies must be updated no less frequently than every eight years and that fee increases within the nexus range typically do not require a new study.
Rather than adopt fee levels at the meeting, council directed staff to return with a prepared matrix or interactive tool showing fee choices per prototype (above/at/below average), to recommend specific fee levels and to identify noticing and reporting steps required under state law. Staff said they will also clarify how fees would be administered (special funds required, reporting and permissible uses) and the relationship between impact fees and development agreements.
