DOCSLIB.ORG

Center for Metropolitan Studies

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Center for Metropolitan Studies Center for Metropolitan Studies Policy Brief Winter 2015/2016 Jeremy Weber1 and Max Harleman2 Innovative Solutions to Regional Issues SHALE DEVELOPMENT, 1. Introduction Shale Gas Development and Public Costs IMPACT FEES, AND MUNICIPAL Pennsylvania covers large portions of two shale formations rich in natural gas, the Marcellus Shale and the Utica Shale. In the FINANCES IN PENNSYLVANIA 2000s, advancements in drilling wells horizontally and in using hydraulics to release gas trapped in shale made drilling in both Executive Summary formations economically attractive. This encouraged extensive drilling, and by 2013 the state had become the country’s second Pennsylvania has experienced wide-spread drilling for natural gas largest producer of natural gas, behind only Texas. Looking in the Marcellus and Utica Shale formations and has become the forward, the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates country’s second largest producer of natural gas, behind only Texas. that in the coming decades the Marcellus Shale in particular will Although drilling can create jobs and income, it also brings public produce more natural gas than any other formation in the U.S. costs, especially for jurisdictions where drilling occurs. In 2012 the state introduced an Impact Fee on natural gas wells, with revenues Although drilling can create jobs and income, it also brings to be distributed to local governments to address drilling-related public costs. Each well can require hundreds of trips by tractor costs. This brief examines how municipal finances have changed trailers or semi-trucks to bring water, sand, and materials to over time based on drilling activity or proximity to it. Relative to the the well site and then to remove wastewater from the site. baseline period of 2006-2008, we find that: The traffic can degrade roads and generate dust, emissions, • Shale development contributed little to municipal tax revenues. and congestion while waste water mismanagement can create • Municipalities with substantial drilling (High Drilling other costs. The industry and associated economic activity municipalities) experienced: can also increase use of emergency services or the time of – A doubling of non-tax revenues due to the Impact Fee. government staff to address zoning or traffic issues. As a result, – A 30 percent increase in total expenditures, most of which the growth in drilling around the U.S. has often increased local was spent on roads. government spending. – A more than doubling of the fund balance (financial Act 13 and the Impact Fee on Unconventional Wells reserves), indicating that roughly half of Impact Fee Prior to 2012, drilling only affected the revenues of revenue was saved. Pennsylvania’s local governments in so much as it affected Although our analysis does not permit determining if the Impact property values, earned income, or other taxable economic Fee covers the local public costs of shale development, under variables; there was no direct tax on wells or production. Then reasonable assumptions we find that in absence of the Impact Fee in February of 2012, Governor Tom Corbett signed Act 13 into revenues, the typical High Drilling municipality would exhaust its law, which revised the state’s oil and gas law and introduced initial fund balance in three years. 1 Assistant Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260. Email: [email protected]. 2 Research Assistant, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260. Email: [email protected] www.metrostudies.pitt.edu This research was supported by funds from the University of Pittsburgh Mascaro Center for Sustainable Innovation and from the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs. 1 a fee, called the “Impact Fee,” on unconventional wells, defined as wells Data and Impact Fee Reporting: that are drilled into a shale formation Our analysis draws on municipal financial data from the Pennsylvania Department below a specified depth. As suggested by of Community and Economic Development. Some municipalities lack financial data the name, the Impact Fee is intended to for at least some years of our study period. All statistics presented are based on offset the public costs associated with municipalities with complete financial data for the study period. We also use municipal- shale gas development. The Fee is levied level data from the Public Utility Commission for the years 2011-2013, which includes on companies operating wells, with the the number of shale wells drilled and the Fees received in each reporting year. Although Fee varying based on the age of the well the Impact Fee was only authorized in 2012, the Fee applied retroactively. All qualifying and the annual price of natural gas. wells drilled prior to 2012, were treated as having been drilled in 2011. Fees collected for reporting year 2011 were collected and distributed with the Fees for reporting year Impact Fee Disbursement 2012. Municipalities, therefore, first received Impact Fee disbursements in calendar According to the Public Utility year 2012. Commission, the Impact Fee has generated between $200 and $225 million each year for reporting years 2011 occur through the awarding of grants 2. How Has Shale Development and to 2014. For each reporting year, roughly while others are defined based on Impact Fee Revenue Affected $25 million goes to various state agencies population. Municipal Finances? or county conservation districts. Of the remaining Fees collected in the year, 40 The remaining 60 percent of Fee revenue Classification of Municipalities percent go to the Marcellus Legacy Fund, enters the Unconventional Gas Well We focus on municipalities because which funds remediation of abandoned Fund and is disbursed to counties and they bear much of the financial burden wells and infrastructure investments. municipalities. The disbursements from heavy use of roads by the drilling More than half of the Marcellus Legacy depend on the number of wells, industry. They also receive nearly Fund goes directly to state agencies and population, and highway mileage two-thirds (64 percent) of the revenues programs, with the remaining amount in the county or municipality. Local disbursed through the Unconventional disbursed directly to counties. All governments can use the funds based Gas Well Fund. And because of their counties can receive disbursements from on thirteen criteria set forth in the act, generally small budgets, Impact Fee the Legacy Fund, regardless of whether including repairing roads and bridges and revenues represent a larger share of they contain wells. Some disbursements emergency services. annual municipal revenues than they do for counties. Figure 1: Municipal Map of Total Qualifying Wells Drilled Up To 2013 2 Figure 2: Municipalities by Group In line with the geography of the All reported statistics are based on the • Impact Fee Revenue as a Share Marcellus Shale, drilling activity varies median, which is the value at which half of Total Revenue: To measure across the state, with no wells drilled of municipalities (of a given group) have a the importance of Impact Fees in municipalities in the southeast and greater value and half have a lower value. for municipal budgets, for each much drilling in the northeast and The Magnitude and Importance municipality we divide its average the southwest (Figure 1). We divide of Impact Fee Revenues annual disbursement over its average municipalities into four groups based • Impact Fee Disbursements Per Capita: annual municipal revenues for the on drilling activity or proximity to it: High The typical municipality in the High 2009-2011 period. For the typical Drilling, Low Drilling, Near Drilling, and Far Drilling group received $130 in Impact High Drilling municipality, Impact Fee Drilling (Table 1 and Figure 2). We divide Fee disbursements per capita per revenue represented 31.6 percent of the 2006-2013 period into three periods: reporting year, significantly more than the municipality’s average total revenue 2006-2008 (prior to large-scale drilling), the Low Drilling group, which received in the years immediately preceding 2009-2011 (much drilling, without Impact only $11 per capita, or the Near Drilling the Impact Fee (2009-2011). The Fees), and 2012-2013 (much drilling, with Group, which received even less percentage was much lower for the Impact Fees). (Figure 3). Low and Near Drilling groups, at 3.8 and 0.1 percent (Figure 3). Table 1: Classification of Municipalities Number of Municipalities Why Report Median Values? Definition: Total (With Any With Complete Group Although commonly used, the mean “Municipalities that...” Financial Data) Financial Data (or the average) can be very sensitive ..have more than the median 225 201 to observations with extreme values. High Drilling number of wells drilled, among Thus, the inclusion or exclusion of one municipalities with wells or two municipalities with extreme ..have less than the median 203 180 values can substantially change the Low Drilling number of wells drilled, among mean value. In contrast, extreme municipalities with wells values have little, if any, effect on ..have no wells but are in 1,147 965 Near Drilling the median, making it a reliable counties with a shale well measure of the experience of the ..are in counties without a 972 882 Far Drilling typical municipality. shale well All 2,547 2,228 www.metrostudies.pitt.edu 3 Total Revenues Over Time than half of the typical municipality’s • Road Expenditures Per Capita: • Total Revenues Per Capita: During the revenue. Road expenditures increased by 30.3 2012-13 period, the typical municipality • Non-Tax Revenues Per Capita: The percent for the High Drilling group in the High Drilling group experienced increase in total revenues primarily compared to 3.1 percent for the Low a 67.4 percent increase in revenues reflects an increase in non-tax Drilling municipalities. In contrast, road per capita over the 2006-08 value revenues, which includes Impact Fee expenditures decreased for Near and (from $352 to $590) (Table 2).
Load more

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 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
    [Show full text]
  • 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 .
    [Show full text]
  • 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:
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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...............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]