I’ve seen a lot of confusion circulating since the Planning & Development Committee vote on the impact fee study. I want to address that directly and transparently, because misunderstandings shouldn’t drive the narrative on something this important.
Even a few of my colleagues, for some reason in full council, tried to summarize the committee’s decision by saying that Council “voted against impact fees” and that’s simply not accurate in any way whatsoever.
Here’s what actually happened, and why I think my vote made sense once you see the full picture:
1. We Didn’t Vote Against Impact Fees
The motion in committee was to deny moving forward with the study process at this time, not to oppose impact fees as a tool.
That’s an important distinction:
- Impact fees remain a potential piece of the infrastructure funding toolbox.
- What we voted on was whether to jump into a more expensive, full study then and there.
- The feasibility work we already have gives us the foundation to revisit the conversation without incurring that cost again.
2. My Vote Was About Stewardship, Not Opposition
My motion wasn’t about arguing against impact fees as a concept. It was about how and when we pursue them, and whether the proposed process respected taxpayers and public trust.
The original feasibility work already answered many of the questions the full study was going to address, and it did so without spending hundreds of thousands of dollars. Moving forward with another study under the premise we were given, one that embedded assumptions about revenue tools like a penny sales tax voted down twice by voters, felt like a waste of taxpayer money and a misdirected signal.
So I chose to stop it.
That doesn’t mean the entire topic is closed forever. It means we now have the data, context, and foundation to pick it back up in the future intentionally, transparently, and at a time when the conversation can be grounded in trust, not confusion.
3. This Conversation Is Far From Over
The committee’s decision didn’t eliminate impact fees from consideration. It simply paused a process that, in my judgment, was on track to become costly and counterproductive.
I wrote the resolution myself, so it’s as simple as me resubmitting it again when the time is right.
If and when Council chooses to re-engage the topic, we can do so without starting from scratch, and without spending another $100,000 on duplicative work.
This is exactly the kind of nuanced leadership that doesn’t always translate neatly into a headline or social media post, which is why I’m glad to have this platform and newsletter to explain what really happened.
This County Council has the tools, the data, and the ability to revisit impact fees in a way that:
✔ Protects taxpayers
✔ Uses existing information efficiently
✔ Builds public trust
✔ Keeps the conversation focused on solutions
That’s the difference between doing something and doing something right.
And that’s why I voted the way I did.
