Commission told to raise fees for development

Advertisement

Text size: small | medium | large

By Brandon Shulleeta

Published: October 7, 2008

The Albemarle Planning Commission heard a recommendation Tuesday from county staff to more than triple fees for developers under a subdivision ordinance. But some commissioners said the county should consider increasing the fees more than six-fold.

“They are a little more aggressive than I thought they’d be,” said Mark Graham, the county’s director of community development.

Graham presented the commission a recommendation to increase the percentage that developers have to pay toward the cost of the county’s procedural costs for development under the subdivision ordinance — from about 15 percent to 50 percent.

The recommendation for a fee increase follows the county’s review of its ordinance fees, which also include building regulations, water protection and zoning. The review of the ordinance fees — the first of its kind since 1991 — began in late 2006 and was completed in October 2007, Graham said.

The recommendation for the subdivision ordinance fees were made after reviewing the fees collected by eight similar localities.

However, commissioners questioned whether the staff’s recommendation would increase fees enough.

“Why not more than that?” asked Commissioner Linda Porterfield, who suggested developers pay 100 percent of costs incurred by the county. “If it costs this much money, this is how much they pay.”

The commission asked Graham to come back with figures showing cost and revenue data for fees that would require developers to pay 75 percent and 100 percent of the county’s costs.

“Perhaps, all this time we’ve been a bargain,” said Commissioner Eric Strucko, who noted that the county had neglected to keep up with fee increases raise fees as surrounding localities have.

Commissioner Marcia Joseph expressed reservation on the idea of increasing fees above county staff recommendations, because of the state of the economy, and instead suggested waiting a couple of years or so before considering those even higher fees. However, some commissioners countered that when developers don’t pay enough to make up for all, or nearly all, of the county ordinance costs, it is a disservice to taxpayers.

The county currently collects about $145,000 from subdivision fees per year. The fee increase is expected to bring in more than $476,000 per year, according to county staff.

Charlie Armstrong, vice president of land development for the Southern Development Group, said in an interview Tuesday: “From a homeowner’s point of view, the timing is terrible.”

“To add fees, it ultimately makes the price of a home higher,” Armstrong said, adding that fee increases could hurt both homebuyers who are trying to buy affordable houses and developers who are crunched to put houses on the market for as little money as possible. “It’s a major impact on the business and our customers.”

Graham said he expects there will be a public hearing on the subdivision ordinance fees as early as November.

Reader Reactions

Posted by ( FirstAmendment ) on October 08, 2008 at 7:57 am

If fees have lagged then sure raise them.  I’ve heard the homeowner hardship line for years.  If developers really cared about keeping house cost down maybe they should start by reviewing their profit margin.  Perhaps more disclosure of how much profit or loss developers make would add reason to not raise fees.  Anyone want to disclose their profit for those McMansions?  Educating others would help people understand how little profit is made and why fees should be subsidized by the taxpayer.  So lets hear how much profit or loss is made on a 5,000 sq ft house.  Thanks!

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( ddo74 ) on October 08, 2008 at 5:54 am

I think this is another example of Government singling out one industry to overburden with the cost of their inefficient bureaucracy. If they want to pass all costs to the users, then they need to do it across the board for all services.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Post a Comment

The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.


Tags relating to this article:

  • No tags are associated with this article.

Can't find what you're looking for? Try our quick search:



Email This Print This AddThis Social Bookmark Button RSS Feed Add to My Yahoo!

Advertisement

Advertisement

Online Features
Blogs
DataCenter
Special Reports
Restaurant Guide
Movie Times
 
Video
Breaking News Video
Entertainment
Offbeat & Weird

Advertisement