00:00The meeting opened with a examination of impact fees in unincorporated areas and their implications for homeowners and developers. A central point of discussion was whether properties with existing wells and septic systems should be classified as vacant land or land with a house. This classification affects whether impact fees apply when these properties connect to public water and sewer systems. Clarification was provided that impact fees would only be imposed on properties opting to connect to county services, a point that resonated throughout the meeting as members emphasized fairness to current residents.

02:48The council deliberated on the intricacies of applying impact fees, particularly the adoption of a tiered system versus a flat rate. The tiered system would require homeowners who expand their properties to pay increased fees based on the new size, whereas a flat fee system would not impose additional charges for expansions. This distinction raised concerns about the financial burden on residents, with particular attention given to protecting those who have lived in their homes for many years. One council member proposed that long-term residents be exempt from impact fees when expanding their homes, arguing they have “paid their dues.”

17:43Further complicating the discussion was the treatment of accessory dwelling units (ADUs), with varying interpretations on whether they should be classified as part of the main residence or as multifamily units. This classification impacts the fees assessed, as multifamily units typically incur lower rates. The current ordinance prevents landowners from leasing or selling ADUs separately, implying no additional impact fee for ADUs under a single-family residence fee system.

54:09The idea of developing an affordable housing program parallel to neighboring counties was also entertained. Although statutes allow for exemptions for qualifying affordable housing, the council recognized that this would necessitate further legislation. A commissioner expressed interest in creating an affordable housing framework, highlighting the need for future discussions to address this issue comprehensively.

01:04:10Another topic was the timing of impact fee collection, with suggestions to collect fees at the time of permit issuance for residential projects and at the Certificate of Occupancy for commercial projects. This approach sparked debate over potential preferential treatment and the legal risks of inconsistencies. A participant suggested that charging fees at the Certificate of Occupancy could ease cash flow burdens for developers, while opponents argued for upfront collection to avoid financial strain on the county.

32:20Public comments added further perspectives, with individuals like Michael Woodward advocating for a tiered fee system to avoid penalizing those building smaller homes. Woodward proposed that additions to existing homes be exempt from additional fees, encouraging homeowners to improve their properties without financial penalties. This suggestion aligned with the council’s broader goal of fostering economic development without disproportionately impacting existing residents.

25:36The council also explored the potential for creating incentive programs to attract businesses, recognizing the importance of not overwhelming them with high impact fees. Discussions included establishing a fund to subsidize these fees for targeted industries, with an emphasis on transparency and fairness. The meeting concluded with the adoption of an ordinance setting impact fees for various public facilities, including fire protection and transportation, and a unanimous vote to amend the fiscal year budget.