Stafford County staff presents impact‑fee study; Board agrees to send highest option to Planning Commission
May 08, 2024 | Stafford County, Virginia
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Staff introduced an impact‑fee study and a project list developed to fund transportation projects associated with growth, then asked the Board whether to send fee options to the Planning Commission for review.
Matt and Brian (staff) reviewed the current ordinance, explaining that the existing ordinance assesses developers $3,000 per new dwelling unit and that county policy currently funds the commercial side of the fee. "The current ordinance says that the each dwelling unit and each business per 1,000 square feet will be assessed $3,000," staff said. Staff presented consultant scenarios that calculate impact fees under different assumptions about how much of future growth impact fees would pay.
On consultant estimates, Brian summarized the study’s north/south distinctions and three scenarios. "For residential, that fee for the North, for 100%, is just under $12,000 and for the South, it's just over $6,000," he said, and staff said the packet includes alternatives that would fund 100%, 50% or 25% of the listed projects. Staff emphasized impact fees are complex, that the Board may send a single option to the Planning Commission, and that sending the highest option preserves the Board’s ability to adopt lower rates later.
Board members asked whether projects already in the pipeline would be grandfathered. County counsel (Rashida McClendon) explained fees are assessed at building permit and that the fee assessed is tied to site‑plan or subdivision approval; approved plans pay the old fee while submitted (not approved) plans may be subject to new fees upon approval. Counsel advised the Board to consider limiting any grandfathering window so long‑pending plans do not remain indefinitely grandfathered.
After discussion, the Board indicated consensus to send the highest (100% growth) option to the Planning Commission and to bring the Impact Fee Advisory Committee appointments forward for consideration; staff said it will place the Master Plan and the selected fee option on consent for referral to the Planning Commission and will return with advisory‑committee appointment details.
Matt and Brian (staff) reviewed the current ordinance, explaining that the existing ordinance assesses developers $3,000 per new dwelling unit and that county policy currently funds the commercial side of the fee. "The current ordinance says that the each dwelling unit and each business per 1,000 square feet will be assessed $3,000," staff said. Staff presented consultant scenarios that calculate impact fees under different assumptions about how much of future growth impact fees would pay.
On consultant estimates, Brian summarized the study’s north/south distinctions and three scenarios. "For residential, that fee for the North, for 100%, is just under $12,000 and for the South, it's just over $6,000," he said, and staff said the packet includes alternatives that would fund 100%, 50% or 25% of the listed projects. Staff emphasized impact fees are complex, that the Board may send a single option to the Planning Commission, and that sending the highest option preserves the Board’s ability to adopt lower rates later.
Board members asked whether projects already in the pipeline would be grandfathered. County counsel (Rashida McClendon) explained fees are assessed at building permit and that the fee assessed is tied to site‑plan or subdivision approval; approved plans pay the old fee while submitted (not approved) plans may be subject to new fees upon approval. Counsel advised the Board to consider limiting any grandfathering window so long‑pending plans do not remain indefinitely grandfathered.
After discussion, the Board indicated consensus to send the highest (100% growth) option to the Planning Commission and to bring the Impact Fee Advisory Committee appointments forward for consideration; staff said it will place the Master Plan and the selected fee option on consent for referral to the Planning Commission and will return with advisory‑committee appointment details.
Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!
Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.
✓
Get instant access to full meeting videos
✓
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
✓
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
✓
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
30-day money-back guarantee
