Brisbane council debates how to use impact fees; directs staff to prepare scorecard

Brisbane City Council spent more than two hours on Feb. 19 exploring whether and how the city should adopt development impact fees to fund parks, transportation, housing and other capital needs. Staff outlined legal constraints in the Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600) and recent nexus studies that identify needs and proportionality for four fee categories: parks and recreation, commercial contributions to affordable housing, transportation and public facilities.

The discussion focused on what projects the fees could legally support and how to set levels that are both defensible under the law and competitive with neighboring cities. City Attorney Tom said the studies must show a clear nexus and proportionality and cautioned that ‘‘formal legal challenges are not common but do occur on large developments,’’ while noting the practical use of development agreements as an alternative or complement to statutorily constrained fees.

Council members debated design choices, including whether to tie fees to square footage (the common standard) or to construction costs. Council member O'Connell said square footage better measures the physical impact of a project, while other members, including Council member Kern, said a construction-cost approach could expand policy options but would require careful legal review. Tom agreed more research is needed if the council wants to pursue a construction-cost basis.

Members discussed examples residents have raised, including using funds to remodel Mission Blue's kitchen or to add community-center capacity. Council member Davis urged linking fees to renewals and inspections for short-term rentals and to be realistic about whether fee revenue would yield large, spendable pots or modest, targeted sums. Council members also talked about non-fee options such as partnering with regional agencies (for example, commute.org for shuttles) and investing fee revenues to provide a steady funding stream.

By the end of the session the council coalesced around next steps: staff (Christina Fernandez and the planning team) should use the feedback to prepare a detailed scorecard that recommends priorities and suggested fee ranges by land use and include an estimate of expected revenue under realistic build-out scenarios. The council asked staff to return with those materials and the legal analysis necessary to evaluate a construction-cost approach. No ordinance was adopted at the meeting.

The council is expected to take up the fee recommendation and any required public hearings in a future meeting once the scorecard and supporting studies are available.