Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Impact Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County hires TischlerBise to update impact‑fee program; August adoption targeted
Summary
Consultant Ben Griffin of TischlerBise briefed the Cherokee County Board on impact‑fee fundamentals, Georgia constraints (10‑year useful life, six‑year spending window) and next steps: department inventories, a draft report in early spring and a public comment period aimed at an August fee adoption.
The Cherokee County Board of Commissioners received an update on an upcoming impact‑fee study on Nov. 18, as the county begins an update of its fees for roads, parks, public safety facilities, libraries and related capital needs.
Ben Griffin of consultancy TischlerBise, hired after a competitive process, told commissioners the study will inventory department facilities, perform a level‑of‑service analysis, and produce a draft in early spring for public review before the Board considers adoption in August. He described the program’s purpose as aligning growth‑related capital needs with appropriate developer contributions.
“In Georgia, there are a few things that are required,” Griffin said. He noted the need for an adopted comprehensive plan with a capital improvements element, a minimum useful life of 10 years for funded improvements, and a six‑year timeframe to spend collected fees. He told the board impact fees must fund new capacity—not operations, maintenance, repair or replacement—and that fee calculations must show the proposed improvement benefits new development proportionately.
Griffin summarized three common methodologies: past‑oriented cost‑recovery, an incremental approach that preserves current service levels, and plan‑based calculations tied to a CIP or master plan. He said the consultant team will work with fire, sheriff, libraries, parks and public safety staff to set service areas and fee structures, and will consider credits for debt service or dedicated revenues where appropriate.
Commissioners raised questions about whether other systems (stormwater, water, wastewater) could be added, how credits for site‑specific developer improvements would be handled, and whether phased implementation (timed to the fiscal year or CityView system updates) would be appropriate. Staff suggested timing new fees with the fiscal year start (Oct. 1) to ease implementation and noted phasing could be used if increases are large.
Staff stressed the six‑year spending requirement for impact fees and the need to match fee‑funded increases in level of service with outside funding sources like SPLOST where possible. Griffin said the team expects to present a public draft early next spring and to return to the board with an adoption schedule targeting August.
No formal vote was taken; staff will continue departmental meetings and report back on the draft study schedule.
