IMPACT FEE REVOTE
Richmond voters are being asked on December 6, to overturn the new Impact Fee Ordinance recently adopted by the Selectboard. I urge a NO vote. This will leave the new impact fees adopted by the Selectboard in place.
This special vote has been necessitated by a Home Builders Association supported petition. The special vote itself will cost Richmond taxpayers approximately $3,000.
The major issue of contention is the inclusion in the Selectboard-approved ordinance of a school impact fee that would be levied against new housing. I support that fee, because I believe new housing creates real new costs for our school system.
I have several issues with the ad paid for by Tayt Brooks that appeared in the October issue of the TimesINK. Here is my take.
The Impact Fee is not a tax, as is asserted. It is a one-time fee for real costs, similar to the fee we each pay when we install a phone or an internet connection in our homes. It is a fee charged only to us and not to our neighbors. Such a fee, of course, charges everyone the same, regardless of income, because the true cost is the same. Thus, the new Impact Fee does not cause increased taxes throughout our community of tax payers.
In the last fiscal year, our old Impact Fee Ordinance, the one I hope is replaced, brought in approximately $24,000 for our schools. If our new ordinance fails to include a school impact fee, we all will have to pitch in to cover the lost income. Our taxes will go up.
The new Impact Fee ordinance is based on a careful review of costs to the Town when new houses are built. Our current Ordinance is grossly out of date. As well, it contains other features such as charges for new bedrooms that most agree should be eliminated. If the December ballot item passes, these difficulties will continue.
Some feel that there should be no school Impact Fee based on a Consultant’s study that concluded adding students actually would reduce taxes since our schools are under capacity. That study only considered income generated by additional students and ignored expenses they generate in terms of new teacher hires (or reduced teacher layoffs) and even simply classroom supplies. I have redone all the calculations and again conclude the burden of new students will increase our taxes, not reduce them. Curiously, the Home Builders Consultant told us directly that he was not interested in looking at our figures or even considering the expenses side of the equation.
To provide a picture of our current situation, using State figures together with the estimate of school-aged children made by the Home Builders, last year some 50 children were added to our schools. As additional expenses when new students arrive, one has to factor in new teacher hires (or reduced teacher layoffs) or even simply classroom supplies to the equation. These expenses are substantial, and we all would have to pay for them.
It also is uncertain that our schools actually are under capacity. The reason is that education has changed considerably since the current space calculations were made. New programs such as Kindergarten have been added and increased pressures now exist for Special Education. Just go and visit our schools to appreciate the impact these have had on school space.
It has been proposed that approximately 500 households living in the Chittenden County area would be priced out of housing by the new impact fee. Those who attended the last Selectboard public comment session, or who have watched the videotape, recognize that the proponents of this view neither could explain nor defend that figure, displaying little knowledge of the current housing situation in Richmond.
Again, I urge Richmond voters to vote NO on the December 6 ballot.
Respectfully,
Robert B. Low
Richmond, VT 05477