Edgewater workshop reviews updated impact fees, proposes new government‑buildings charge

Neegan Kemp, a consultant with Banish, told the Edgewater city council in a June 17 workshop that the city’s impact‑fee schedules — last updated in 2019 — have been reanalyzed and that a new government‑buildings fee is being proposed alongside updates to existing fees.

Kemp said the study uses a consumption‑based methodology that charges new development for the capital infrastructure it consumes. "Impact fees by definition are one‑time capital charges to new development," she said, adding that fees must be based on recent, localized data and cannot be used for maintenance or operations. Kemp also noted a 90‑day waiting period before implementing any increases and said the government bears the burden of proof if a fee is challenged.

The presentation broke calculations into five service areas. For a single‑family home, Kemp reported slide values showing a total fee of about $3,900 when the proposed government‑buildings fee is included and about $3,100 for the existing fees alone; she said the city’s current adopted fee was shown in the materials as about $3,700. Kemp emphasized those headline numbers mask offsets and credits in different categories and told the council that, "in reality, there is really not a big increase that's gonna be experienced by new development."

On fire services, Kemp said the inventory includes two stations and a support building and that building unit costs were estimated at roughly $450 per square foot for stations and $275 for support buildings, with land values near $140,000 per acre. After accounting for grant credits (presented as about $280,000 per year), she reported a net per‑person cost for fire of roughly $670, which when multiplied by residents per unit yields the fire‑portion fee examples cited in the slides.

Kemp reported police infrastructure values near $6.7 million and an implied per‑person investment around $320, producing a single‑family example near $408; she said police fees in the study generally decreased for Edgewater. For government buildings, the consultant said the inventory included eight primary buildings and one support building (about 30,000 square feet on roughly 50 acres) and presented a calculated per‑person investment near $610 and corresponding single‑family examples in the slides.

Parks and recreation were shown as a combined land and facility investment of roughly $850 per person before credits; Kemp said lands were valued around $95,000 per acre and cited outstanding debt on projects such as Whistle Stop Park as part of the credit calculations. Transportation used a lane‑mile approach (presented unit cost about $3.7 million per lane mile) and an average home travel estimate (about 26 person‑miles per day) to derive a transportation component example near $6,600 before credits; the study modeled the city's share of that total near 6% in example calculations.

Kemp also explained statutory constraints from recent state action, telling the council that a 2021 House bill (referenced in the presentation as House Bill 337) limits how quickly and how much existing fees may increase but allows exceptions when a recent study demonstrates extraordinary circumstances and when two public workshops occur followed by a two‑thirds governing‑body vote. "This workshop is serving as the first of those two public workshops for the city," she said.

Kemp highlighted local drivers for the analysis — roughly 1,800 new residents in five years and post‑pandemic construction‑cost escalation — and identified local capital needs the fees would help fund, including a planned new fire station, a training facility and park improvements such as a proposed pickleball court. She closed by outlining the schedule presented to the council: a second public workshop on July 15, an anticipated first ordinance reading in early August and a September adoption hearing, with any increases becoming effective 90 days after adoption.

After the presentation, a council member asked whether technical study findings are required before adopting changes; Kemp replied that technical evidence showing proportionality to development impacts is required and that the council could adopt a reduced assessed portion (for example, adopting at 90%) but could not lawfully exceed statutory limits without following the exception process.

The workshop did not include formal motions or votes on the fee ordinance; staff and consultants are scheduled to return for the July 15 workshop for further public discussion.