DOCSLIB.ORG

Impact Fees & Housing Affordability: a Guide for Practitioners

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research Visit PD&R’s Web Site www.huduser.org to find this report and others sponsored by HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R). Other services of HUD User, PD&R’s Research Information Service, include listservs; special interest reports, bimonthly publications (best practices, significant studies from other sources); and access to public use databases. Call the HUD User hotline at 1-800-245-2691, option 1, for help accessing the information you need. IMPACT FEES AND HOUSING AFFORDABILITY A Guidebook for Practitioners Prepared for: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Washington, DC Prepared by: Newport Partners, LLC Davidsonville, MD and Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Alexandria, VA June 2008 About the Guidebook This Guidebook was prepared by Liza K. Bowles of Newport Partners, LLC and Arthur C. Nelson of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University under contract to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. It draws heavily on various research papers prepared under subcontract to Newport Partners. These papers and their authors are listed here: • The Past, Present and Future of Impact Fees, August 2005, prepared by James C. Nicholas, University of Florida; • State Impact Fee Enabling Acts and Housing Affordability, February 2005, prepared by Arthur C. Nelson, Ph.D., Professor and Director of Graduate Studies in Urban Affairs and Planning, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, and Clancy Mullen, Duncan Associates; • Proportionate Share Impact Fees and Housing Affordability, January 2006, prepared by Arthur C. Nelson, Ph.D., Professor and Director of Graduate Studies in Urban Affairs and Planning, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; and Liza K. Bowles and David J. Dacquisto, Newport Partners; and, • Infrastructure Financing Techniques: Impact Fees and Alternatives, June 2005, prepared by Arthur C. Nelson, Ph.D., Professor and Director of Graduate Studies in Urban Affairs and Planning, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. • The case study material was developed by Bowles and Dacquisto of Newport Partners in conjunction with Nicholas, Nelson, Mullen and Juergensmeyer. Full copies of the briefing papers as well as additional resource material prepared under this project are available at HUD’s Regulatory Barriers Clearinghouse http://www.huduser.org/rbc/. Acknowledgements In addition to the authors listed here, we would like to acknowledge the help of Lorie Ebersberger for cover design, Kermit Baker for thoughtful review and input, Matthew Hawkins for preparation for publication and Ed Stromberg of HUD for his timely and constructive review and support throughout the project. We would also like to thank the following impact fee experts for serving as a review group on the Guidebook and offering additional insights and information: L. Carson Bise II, AICP Vice President TischlerBise 4701 Sangamore Road S240 Bethesda, MD 20816 Ray Burby University of North Carolina New East Building Campus Box-3140 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3140 Ken Szymanski, AICP Executive Director Charlotte Apartment Association & Apartment Association of North Carolina 2101 Rexford #330E Charlotte, NC 28211-3499 Robert P. Wallace, P.E., AICP Vice President Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. 3660 Maguire Blvd. Suite 103 Orlando, FL 32803 Mark White White & Smith, LLC Planning and Law Group 1125 Grand Blvd. Suite 1500 Kansas City, MO 64106 Finally, we acknowledge the constructive review by David Crowe (who also provided data on the relationship between house size and occupants per unit by unit type) and Paul Emrath, both of the National Association of Home Builders. NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Views and opinions expressed herein are the responsibility of the authors. References herein to any product, process or system do not constitute an endorsement, but are included solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report. TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .......................................................................................... i Introduction .................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1 - Impact Fees - Past, Present and Future ............................................. 7 The Need for Infrastructure Financing Tools ................................................................... 7 The Proliferation of Impact Fees ................................................................................... 12 General Trends in Impact Fees..................................................................................... 14 Chapter 2 - Capital Facility and Infrastructure Financing Options........................ 17 Principles of Efficient Facility Pricing ............................................................................. 17 General Financing Options............................................................................................ 20 Principal Revenue Methods .......................................................................................... 22 Policy-Making Criteria ................................................................................................... 28 Alternative Funding Decision Charts ............................................................................. 32 Decision Chart 2.1 Public Safety Facilities .................................................................... 33 Decision Chart 2.2 Water-Based Utilities ...................................................................... 34 Decision Chart 2.3 Public Amenity Facilities ................................................................. 35 Decision Chart 2.4 Transportation................................................................................. 36 Chapter 3 - The Role of the State .................................................................... 37 Review of State Enabling Acts ...................................................................................... 37 Impact Fee Statutes and Affordable Housing................................................................ 40 Chapter 4 - Impact Fees and Housing Affordability ........................................... 43 Review of Impact Fee Cost Variables ........................................................................... 43 Description of Square Footage Valuations Using Impact Fees ..................................... 48 Elements of Program Design ........................................................................................ 54 Decision Chart 4.1 Designing a Level of Service (LOS) Area ....................................... 62 Decision Chart 4.2 Designing for Affordable Housing ................................................... 63 Decision Chart 4.3 Including Situation Specific Reductions .......................................... 64 Decision Chart 4.4 Assessing Appropriate Revenue Credits ........................................ 65 Specific Housing Affordability Measures as Part of Impact Fee Policy.......................... 66 Decision Chart 4.5 Affordable Housing ......................................................................... 70 Chapter 5 - Case Studies............................................................................... 71 Atlanta, Georgia ............................................................................................................ 71 Albuquerque, New Mexico ............................................................................................ 78 Alachua County, Florida ................................................................................................ 87 Chapter 6 - Summary and Conclusions ........................................................... 93 APPENDICES ................................................................................................ 95 Appendix A. The Relationship between Impact Fees, Planning and Exactions............ 95 Appendix B. Special Assessment Districts ................................................................... 99 Appendix C. Land Purchase Option Contract Language Accounting for Impact Fees at the Purchase of Land ........................................................................ 101 Appendix D. Proportionate Share Impact Fees and Housing Affordability ................. 103 LIST OF TABLES Page TABLE 1-1. METROPOLITAN POPULATION, CITIES & POPULATION PER CITY 1980 - 2000 ............ 7 TABLE 1-2. AVERAGE IMPACT FEES BY TYPE ...................................................................... 12 TABLE 1-3. AVERAGE TOTAL NON-UTILITY IMPACT FEE SINGLE FAMILY HOME........................ 12 TABLE 1-4. CONSTANT SAMPLE IMPACT FEE ....................................................................... 13 TABLE 1-5. PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL IMPACT FEE....................................................... 16 TABLE 1-6. CANTON PARK IMPACT FEES............................................................................. 16 TABLE 2-1. ANNUAL CAPITAL FACILITY AND SERVICE DELIVERY COSTS 1,000 HOUSING UNITS CONSTRUCTED AT DIFFERENT DENSITIES, LOUDOUN COUNTY, VIRGINIA ........................ 18 TABLE 2-2. ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS AND PREFERRED FUNDING FOR SELECTED MAJOR FACILITIES ................................................................................................................. 21 TABLE
Recommended publications
  • FINANCIAL UNDERSTANDING = BUDGETING + ACCOUNTING Controlling the Numbers Rather Than Letting the Numbers Control You

    FINANCIAL UNDERSTANDING = BUDGETING + ACCOUNTING Controlling the Numbers Rather Than Letting the Numbers Control You

    FINANCIAL UNDERSTANDING = BUDGETING + ACCOUNTING Controlling the numbers rather than letting the numbers control you Kerri Nakamura [email protected] David Sanderson [email protected] Audience Scan PLANNING MATTERS and budget planning matters too “Don't tell me what you value, show me your budget, and I'll tell you what you value.” Joe Biden WHAT IS A BUDGET? WHAT IS A BUDGET? • More than a simple accounting of revenue and expenditures • The way one demonstrates priorities – “Show Me the Money!” • Not scary or boring! • Your tool to achieve your mandates and the strategic goals set forth by your legislative body – understanding your agency’s budget and how it works is just as important as understanding your equipment. AGENDA Budgeting Basics Impact Fees 101 Revenue & Expenses Property Tax 101 State Auditor Resources BUDGETING BASICS BUDGETING BASICS ACCOUNTABILITY VS. PROFITABILITY GOVERNMENTAL VS. PROPRIETARY General Fund Capital Project Funds Debt Service Funds Special Revenue Funds Proprietary (full accrual) Enterprise Internal Service BUDGETING BASICS • Budget must be balanced – deficit spending not allowed • All funds lapse to respective fund balances on June 30 – except capital project • Fund Balance maximums (as percent of budgeted revenue) • District = 100% • Town = 75% • City = 25% • County = 50% (unless taxable value exceeds $750M or population exceeds $100K, then 20%) BUDGETING BASICS • Fiscal Year for Municipalities July 1 – June 30 • Public Hearings required to adopt and amend budgets • Monthly
  • Impact Fee Update Study, Including a Comparisons to the 2015 Impact Fee Study

    Impact Fee Update Study, Including a Comparisons to the 2015 Impact Fee Study

    Introduction to Impact Fees Affordable Housing Advisory Committee February 22, 2021 Purpose . Manatee County Comprehensive Plan . A long-term plan to meet current and future community needs . Establishes level of service . Establishes goals and objectives of how we will grow . Manatee County Land Development Code . Implements the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan 2 County’s Comprehensive Plan . Objective 10.1.3. - Non-Ad Valorem Funding Sources. Maximum utilization of user fees, intergovernmental transfers, and other funding sources to limit reliance on local ad valorem revenues for funding capital improvements. Policy 10.1.3.1. Use impact fees as a means of establishing and paying for future development's proportionate cost of capital improvements for public facilities necessary to maintain adopted levels of service, where there is demonstrated nexus between impact of the future development and the capital facilities needed to address any such impact. Policy 10.1.3.3. Establish and utilize other appropriate funding sources for capital projects to minimize reliance on ad valorem revenues for capital expenditures. 3 Manatee County Population Projections 4 Why We Have Impact Fees? . New construction increases demand for County services like law enforcement, parks and roads . When new homes or businesses are built, a one-time impact fee is collected . Helps ensure new development pays its share of the costs incurred by the County to accommodate its increased population . Chosen as primary funding of Board for funding capacity-adding infrastructure . Fees are for capacity improvements of development and cannot be used to play catch-up for deficiencies or for operations 5 History .
  • The Basics of Impact Fees

    The Basics of Impact Fees

    Methodologies and Estimates of the Fiscal Impact of New Developments and Annexations on Municipal Governments INSTITUTE FOR GOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AND RESEARCH Methodologies and Estimates of the Fiscal Impact of New Developments and Annexations on Municipal Governments Prepared by Jeanne E. Bilanin, Ph.D. with assistance from J. Shaun O’Bryan, B.A. Institute for Governmental Service and Research University of Maryland College Park, Maryland December 2007 Table of Contents Introduction…..................................................................................................................... 1 Capital Impacts…................................................................................................................ 1 Operating Impacts…............................................................................................................ 5 Proposed Model…............................................................................................................... 6 Workbook 1: Capital Impacts, Worksheet: Capacity.......................................................... 7 Workbook 1: Capital Impacts, Worksheet: CIP.................................................................. 9 Workbook 1: Capital Impacts, Worksheet: LOS................................................................. 10 Workbook 1: Impact Fees, Worksheet: Unit Costs............................................................. 12 Workbook 1: Capital Impacts, Worksheet: Tipping Points................................................. 13 Workbook 2:
  • Housing Impact Fees: a New Strategy to Keep Communities Strong

    Housing Impact Fees: a New Strategy to Keep Communities Strong

    HOUSING IMPACT FEES A NEW STRATEGY TO KEEP COMMUNITIES STRONG THE PROBLEM fter years of population decline, Philadelphia has once again become CHANGE IN INCOME VERSUS Aa desirable place to live. Although this is a sign of progress it has also HOUSING COSTS meant that many long term Philadelphia residents have been displaced. • Between 2000 and 2012, in the gentrifying portions of West, South, and North Philadelphia, housing prices skyrocketed, while incomes shrank. • During that same timeframe, the African American population in those neighborhoods decreased by 22%-29%. Meanwhile, the Caucasian population increased. • The number of new high-end market-rate housing units is increasing by roughly 2,300 units per year every year for the past five years. This adds 750 new single-family for-sale homes and 1,550 new rental units each year at a rate that far out-paces new affordable housing units, despite Philadelphia’s ongoing affordability crisis. • And we are seeing that with market-rate housing development, there is an increase the demand for affordable housing. As new residents with higher incomes move to Philadelphia, they spend money here that they previously would have spent elsewhere. This means an increase for the City’s tax base and support for new jobs, often for low-wage workers. Change in Median Household Income, 2000 - 2012* Change in Median Gross Rent, 2000 - 2012* Change in Median Home Sale Price, 2000/2002 - 2012/2014* *adjusted to 2012 dollars Sources: 2000 U.S. Census, 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, and City of Philadelphia Office of Property Assessment 2016 UPDATE || PHILADELPHIA COALITION FOR AFFORDABLE COMMUNITIES THE • New residential development is changing the affordability landscape.
  • Development Impact Fee Report Fiscal Year End June 30, 2019

    Development Impact Fee Report Fiscal Year End June 30, 2019

    Development Impact Fee Report Fiscal Year End June 30, 2019 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA. Intentionally Left Blank City of Huntington Beach Development Impact Fee Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2019 Submitted by Dahle Bulosan, Acting Chief Financial Officer Intentionally Left Blank Table of Contents City Council Directory ................................................................................................I City Officials Directory ...............................................................................................II I Transmittal Letter ...........................................................................................................1 Introduction Legal Requirements for Development Impact Fee Reporting ..................................... 3 Description of Development Impact Fees ................................................................... 5 Development Impact Fee Master Fee Schedule ......................................................... 9 Development Impact Fee Report Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Summary ....... 11 Financial Summary Report Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee ............................ 13 Police Facilities Development Impact Fee .................................................................. 17 Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee ...................................................................... 19 Library Development Impact Fee...............................................................................
  • How Economic Protectionism Kept Wal-Mart Stores, Inc

    How Economic Protectionism Kept Wal-Mart Stores, Inc

    Nova Law Review Volume 20, Issue 2 1996 Article 12 The Vermont Barrier: How Economic Protectionism Kept Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Out of St. Albans, Vermont Michael A. Schneider∗ ∗ Copyright c 1996 by the authors. Nova Law Review is produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press (bepress). https://nsuworks.nova.edu/nlr Schneider: The Vermont Barrier: How Economic Protectionism Kept Wal-Mart Sto The Vermont Barrier: How Economic Protectionism Kept Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Out of St. Albans, Vermont TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................. 919 II. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT LAW IN VERMONT ...... 921 A. Composition of the Commissions and the Board .... 921 B. Permit Applications and Their Evaluation ........ 922 C. ProceduresBefore the Commissions and Board .... 924 D. Party Status to ProceedingsBefore the Commissions and Board .................... 926 E. Appealing Commission Decisions: The Province of the Board ............................ 927 F. Appealing Board Decisions to the Supreme Court of Vermont ......................... 928 III. THE ST. ALBANS CASE .......................... 929 A. The Setting, the Parties,and Their Positions ...... 929 B. The ProceedingsBefore the Board ............. 931 C. Ecological Concerns Allayed ................. 932 D. ProtectionistFears Displayed ................ 937 E. Other Issues ............................ 945 IV. THE PENDING APPEAL IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VERMONT ................................ 946 V. PROPOSAL .................................. 947 VI. CONCLUSION ................................ 949 I. INTRODUCnON Wal-Mart Stores, the world's largest retailer, is experiencing opposition to the execution of its expansion plans from citizens' groups in different areas of the country, particularly in the northeast United States.' In Hornell, New York, a group called "Taxpayers Against Floodmart" obtained a court order to stop construction on a partially completed 125,000 square- 1. See David Morris, Superstore Invasion Provides a Good Test of Local Democracy, BuFF.
  • Fiscal Impact Analysis North Downtown Specific Plan City of Walnut Creek

    Fiscal Impact Analysis North Downtown Specific Plan City of Walnut Creek

    DRAFT REPORT Fiscal Impact Analysis North Downtown Specific Plan City of Walnut Creek Prepared for: Raimi + Associates Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. June 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 A. THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA 1 B. DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 2 C. NET ANNUAL CITY FISCAL IMPACTS 4 D. FISCAL IMPACTS OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL COMPONENTS 5 E. ONE-TIME CONSTRUCTION-RELATED REVENUE TO CITY 6 F. KEY FINDINGS 7 II. METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS 8 III. LIMITING CONDITIONS 12 APPENDIX TABLES Appendix 1: Summary Net Fiscal Impact Appendix 2: City of Walnut Creek Demographics, 2017 Appendix 3: Proposed Development Program Appendix 4: Project Demographics Appendix 5: Property Tax Revenue Projection Appendix 6: Property Transfer Tax Revenue Projection Appendix 7: Property Tax In-Lieu of VLF Revenue Projection Appendix 8: Sales Tax Revenue Projection Appendix 9: Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue Projection Appendix 10: Business License Fee Revenue Projection Appendix 11: Franchise Fee Revenue Projection Appendix 12: Licenses, Permits and Fees Projection Appendix 13: Police Department Cost Projections Appendix 14: Public Works Department Cost Projections Appendix 15: Arts and Recreation Department Cost Projections Appendix 16: General Government Cost Projections Appendix 17: Administrative Services Cost Projections Appendix 18: Community and Economic Development Cost Projections Appendix 19: Development Impact Fees by Land Use Appendix 20: Development Impact Fees by Fee Type Appendix 21: Report 'Fiscal Impact Analysis, West Downtown Specific Plan, Preferred Alternative, City of Walnut Creek,’ June 2014, by BAE I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The following report has been prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) for the City of Walnut Creek, under contract with Raimi + Associates.
  • Paying for Prosperity: Impact Fees and Job Growth

    Paying for Prosperity: Impact Fees and Job Growth

    _____________________________________________________________________________________________ PAYING FOR PROSPERITY: IMPACT FEES AND JOB GROWTH Arthur C. Nelson Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Polytechnic Institute Mitch Moody Georgia Institute of Technology A Discussion Paper Prepared for The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy June 2003 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION CENTER ON URBAN AND METROPOLITAN POLICY SUMMARY OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS * DISCUSSION PAPERS/RESEARCH BRIEFS 2003 Civic Infrastructure and the Financing of Community Development Stunning Progress, Hidden Problems: The Dramatic Decline of Concentrated Poverty in the 1990s The State Role in Urban Land Development City Fiscal Structures and Land Development What the IT Revolution Means for Regional Economic Development Is Home Rule the Answer? Clarifying the Influence of Dillon’s Rule on Growth Management 2002 Growth in the Heartland: Challenges and Opportunities for Missouri Seizing City Assets: Ten Steps to Urban Land Reform Vacant-Property Policy and Practice: Baltimore and Philadelphia Calling 211: Enhancing the Washington Region’s Safety Net After 9/11 Holding the Line: Urban Containment in the United States Beyond Merger: A Competitive Vision for the Regional City of Louisville The Importance of Place in Welfare Reform: Common Challenges for Central Cities and Remote Rural Areas Banking on Technology: Expanding Financial Markets and Economic Opportunity
  • FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS San Luis Obispo General Plan Update

    FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS San Luis Obispo General Plan Update

    FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS San Luis Obispo General Plan Update Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis 1 August 2014 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS San Luis Obispo General Plan Update Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Major Findings .............................................................................................................................................. 3 LUCE Projected Development ........................................................................................................... 5 Discussion of Fiscal Impacts ............................................................................................................... 9 Public Facilities Financing.................................................................................................................. 21 Appendix A: Methodology for the Fiscal Analysis .............................................................. 28 Appendix B: Development Impact Fee Estimates............................................................... 37 Page 2 Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis August 2014 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS San Luis Obispo General Plan Update Introduction This report evaluates the fiscal impact of proposed land uses in the City of San Luis Obispo Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update. The report calculates the projected City revenues and costs that would be generated by new development included in the LUCE, as well
  • Development Impact Fees: a Primer

    Development Impact Fees: a Primer

    DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES: A PRIMER By Carmen Carrión and Lawrence W. Libby1 The use of development impact fees to finance public facilities that are necessary to service new growth is a practice that has gained importance and acceptance in the last decade. In the U.S. the practice and widespread use of the DIF are asymmetric. Even though DIF are widely accepted, many public officials, developers and the general public do not yet understand the need for DIF and their effect on the economy. There are important policy and legal issues involved. Selected state experience is reviewed here. Definition Development Impact Fees are one time charges applied to new developments. Their goal is to raise revenue for the construction or expansion of capital facilities located outside the boundaries of the new development that benefit the contributing development (Nicholas, et al., 1991). Impact fees are assessed and dedicated principally for the provision of additional water and sewer systems, roads, schools, libraries and parks and recreation facilities made necessary by the presence of new residents in the area. The funds collected cannot be used for operation, maintenance, repair, alteration or replacement of capital facilities. A development impact fee is a form of financial exaction but there are differences in specific terminology from one place to another. In some communities these development charges are called impact fees while others may be called benefit assessments, user fees or connection charges. In other words, a development impact fee is a financial tool to reduce the gap between the resources needed to build new public facilities or to improve ones to serve new residents and the money available for that purpose.
  • Impact Fees and Housing Affordability

    Impact Fees and Housing Affordability

    Impact Fees and Housing Affordability Impact Fees and Housing Affordability Vicki Been New York University, School of Law Abstract Approximately 60 percent of U.S. cities with more than 25,000 residents now impose impact fees to fund infrastructure needed to service new housing and other development (GAO, 2000). In 89 jurisdictions selected for study in California, the state in which impact fees are most heavily used, the average amount of fees imposed on single- family homes in new subdivisions in 1999 was $19,552, with fees ranging from a low of $6,783 to a high of $47,742 (Landis et al., 2001). Although California jurisdictions impose fees higher—perhaps much higher—than those in other jurisdictions, impact fees are an increasingly important cost of development, especially in the fastest growing areas of the United States. The increasing use of impact fees and the costs that they may add to the development process raises serious concerns about the effect using impact fees to fund infrastruc­ ture will have on the affordability of housing. This article explores this controversy. Part I reviews how impact fees work and the role they currently play in the provision of infrastructure and regulation of land use, and explores why impact fees have gained such prominence in recent years. Part I also surveys the empirical evidence about how and where these fees are being used, what the fees are used to finance, and the amount of the fees. Part II reviews the justifications for using impact fees to finance the provision of infrastructure and explores the dangers impact fees pose.

  • Development Impact Fee Study Update Report Fort Mill, SC

    City Development Impact Fee Study Update Report Fort Mill, SC Final Document February 10, 2020 Acknowledgements Preparation of the Development Impact Fee Study Update Report for the Town of Fort Mill was a collaborative process involving numerous stakeholders; including the Fort Mill Town Council, Fort Mill Planning Commission, Fort Mill Town staff, and their hired consultant. All their efforts are greatly appreciated. Fort Mill Town Council Guynn Savage – Mayor Larry Huntley – Mayor Pro-Tem Ronald Helms Chris Moody James Shirey Lisa Cook Trudie Bolin Heemsoth Fort Mill Planning Commission James Traynor – Chair Matthew Lucarelli Andy Agrawal Tom Petty Ben Hudgins Chris Wolfe Hynek Lettang Fort Mill Town Staff David Broom, Town Manager Chris Pettit, Assistant Town Manager Penelope Karagounis, Planning Director Consultant City Explained, Inc. Matt Noonkester Nadine Bennett Final Document i February 10, 2020 Table of Contents Introduction Chapter 1 Parks & Recreation Chapter 2 Fire Protection Chapter 3 Municipal Facilities & Equipment Chapter 4 Conclusion Chapter 5 Appendices APPENDIX A State Enabling Legislation APPENDIX B Town Development Impact Fee Ordinance APPENDIX C US Census Data & ITE Employee Space Ratio Calculations APPENDIX D Parks & Recreation Inventory & Analysis Tables APPENDIX E Fire Protection Inventory & Analysis Tables APPENDIX F Municipal Facilities & Equipment Inventory & Analysis Tables Final Document ii February 10, 2020 Chapter 1 Introduction INTRODUCTION The Town of Fort Mill, South Carolina implemented a development impact fee ordinance on August 24, 2015, and started collecting impact fees on October 1, 2015 (the effective date of the ordinance). Four categories ― parks and recreation, fire protection, municipal facilities and services, and transportation ― were included in the original development impact fee ordinance; however, a 100% discount rate adopted for the transportation impact fee category meant they were not collected by the Town.