Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBlanche Brick, Impact FeesThe Eagle . theeagle.com Politics Thursday, October 31, 2019 AS In the election for Place 2 on the College Station City Council, impact fees have become a major issue. I served on the city coun- cil when these fees were ad- opted, and I supported the adoption of impact fees be- cause it had become pain- fully obvious that growth did not pay for its costs in two years, as often was stated, and the only way to continue to have smart and sustainable growth was to have this growth bear a Proportion of the costs of Providing the infrastruc- ture it required in water, wastewater and roads. Thus, I believe it might be useful, once again, to try to clarify what impact fees are designed to do and what they are not designed to do. Impact fees never were designed to cover all of the costs of growth. Rather they were created to help finance the costs of growth in a fair and equi- table manner. By law, impact fees can- not cover more than 50% of the costs of the impact of growth. In 1987, the state of Texas passed a law that allowed cities the option of charg- ing impact fees on new growth and development as a means of financing the infrastructure required to service that growth in an equitable manner. Since that time, many fast grow- ing cities have adopted im- pact fees to help cover the costs of providing water and wastewater facilities required to support that t growth. Some also have ad- opted roadway impact fees a as a means of covering part a of the costs of the roadway t infrastructure needed to t support this growth. n Impact fees only apply to new growth and only w lmpacffees critical as College Station grows can be assessed to cover a portion of the cost of the growth as determined by a formula which takes into account the amount of utility revenues, sales and property tax this new growth will generate. The other portion of these cost will be covered by the ex- isting population through raising taxes or increasing utility rates. Roadway impact fees are a charge imposed against new development to fund construction of major road- ways currently included on the city's Thoroughfare Plan in these areas of new growth. It is important for resi- dents to understand that the city of College Station had impact fees in five specific areas beginning in 1992. These were enacted at the request of develop- ers who realized it was in their best interests to bear some of the costs for wa- ter/wastewater facilities in order for development to move forward. Many residents of College Station also have been paying an nnpact fee of $2,100 if they live in parts of the city ser- viced by Wellborn Water. When the city council was considering the adop- ion of citywide impact fees m 2016 as one means of ddressing the costs associ- ted with growth, consul - ants were hired to project he costs of growth over the ext 10 years. The costs for water/ astewater facilities to meet the needs of growth were estimated, by the consultants, to come to $200 million over the next 10 Years. The costs for road- way infrastructure were estimated to be $100 mil- lion over the next 10 years. Thus, the city was looking at a total of $300 million needed to meet these costs or $30 million per year for the next 10 years in addi- tion to the ongoing costs of maintaining the services that were already in place. Ultimately, the fees that were adopted were esti- mated to cover 10% of the estimated costs. It will be left to future councils to decide any adjustments in that rate as required by fu- ture demands. In the past, those who opposed impact fees have maintained that new growth paid for itself in two years. It was painfully clear by 2016 that this was not the case. The city would not have been facing the financial concerns it was facing if growth paid for itself in two years. We had seen increases in revenues from sales taxes and ad valorem taxes. The city had grown by more than 169% since 2000, yet we had been unable to adequately fund maintenance of existing in- frastructure or provide for future growth. In 2015, the Citizens Advisory Commission was formed to prioritize coming i capital improvement needs. b The Transportation Committee of this commis- o sion found $140 million in d transportation needs alone and recommended funding o $70 million. This did not include a funding of other capital t improvements such as a police statio A o to support $50 million in certificates of obligation to begin to address some of these pressing trans- portation needs due to the growth we had seen over the past 10 years. The council had con- sidered adopting impact fees in 2010-2011 but voted 4-3 against adoption. It was estimated that had impact fees been adopted in 2010/2011, the city would have collected $14 million toward these costs by 2015. It was obvious that the city could not continue to grow at the rate it was growing if it did not find a fair and eq- uitable way to finance this growth. I believe that It would have been irresponsible for the Council not to consider impact fees as one of the Possible means available to Pay for the infrastructure required as a result of the growth we were and still are experiencing. As stated above, impact fees cannot cover all of the cost of this growth. The council has raised taxes for the past three years, and there have been increases in other fees to meet these demands, yet we are facing greater demands to fund infrastructure than at any time in the history of this city. I do not believe that we can tax ourselves out of this demand for more nfrastructure, nor do I elieve that we can spend ur way out by attempting o attract more economic evelopment. I believe that must grow our way out f this current issue by string all areas of our city contribute a fair share to this cost. n, community • Blanche Brick was a member center, senior center or of the College Station City Council city hall. The council voted from 2011 to 2017.