Infrastructure Fees discussed in County Work Session
News August 11, 2022
GILMER COUNTY, Ga. – Though not a new topic, Gilmer’s Board of Commissioners delved into infrastructure fees during their August Work Session as developments continue to come to the county. While much of the vocal opposition to continually increasing developments spreads across a number of issues, one issue that Chairman Charlie Paris has noted in different meetings is the need for more infrastructure as these subdivision increase population and density in the areas away from the city.
In fact, all of the Board of Commissioners have discussed fees in other meetings. Much of the time using the term “Impact Fees.” The effect that an increasing number and size of developments has on the county is something that Paris said needs to be addressed. Specifically addressing a development with, possibly, over a thousand homes, the need for fire stations and services in the area is only a part of the impact these developments continue to have.
Paris said, “The bottom line on this is that once these things are built out, we’re looking at having to build additional fire houses, we’re going to have to buy fire engines, ambulances, all that to fill those fire houses. We’re definitely going to need more ambulances because we’ve got to place them a little bit closer in to some of these developments than what they are. We’ll have to staff those firehouses. We’re going to have to improve roads. We’re looking at a potential nightmare here for Gilmer County down the road.”
Paris explained that developers wanting to build in areas where services don’t reach, there needs to be aid offered in terms of upgrading infrastructure, thus the “infrastructure fees.”
Whether impact or infrastructure, the fees will be used to offset what Paris called putting “taxpayer’s on the hook” for those costs.
Post Commissioner Karleen Ferguson supported the idea saying that she has been talking about impact fees for years. Indeed, it has been a topic of debate multiple times in recent years with the county. Post Commissioner Hubert Parker cautioned adding staffing to the wording for the fees as the taxes generated by those residents coming to those homes would be for that. But infrastructure fees would be for the tangible material costs of roads, buildings, and equipment.
While the discussion was brief, all three commissioners indicated a willingness to broach the subject. However, with no action to be taken this month, the board is individually considering and researching the item and are expected to return in September for a deeper discussion and possibly beginning the process of adding impact fees to the county.
The board was also cautioned by Public Works Director Jim Smith to not limit this to residential developments. He said that developments like shopping centers or other commercial or other developments requiring special needs from roads, emergency, and other county services could and should be included in the topic. Public Works will also be developing research on additional inclusions. Smith stated, “It’s certainly past time that we start looking at that. All you have to do is talk to the communities around us and you’ll see that it’s a standard.”
Discussing developments, impact fees, and financial costs
News January 18, 2022
ELLIJAY, Ga. – Gilmer’s Commissioners are still discussing developments in the county as citizens and business continue the debate of Gilmer’s future including a topic of impact fees. With developments increasing, some groups like Keep Gilmer Rural are still pushing hard in the county to increase restrictions for incoming developers looking to build 1000 unit properties and similar issues.
When Chairman Charlie Paris broached the subject, he questioned impact and infrastructure as the common issue the county as a whole faces with some higher-density developments. Paris spoke on needs like new fire stations and increased staff for public safety departments as well as new roads, traffic, and connections to be built and maintained.
The idea for regulations and ordinances requiring developers to provide assistance for these needs was also questioned by Paris.
Specifying impact fees is the obvious first concept for this, but Paris looked further at requiring land to be dedicated for fire stations or road widening or other additions.
Post Commissioner Hubert Parker agreed that the taxpayers should not shoulder the immediate costs of these massive developments. Post Commissioner Karleen Ferguson said, “I am for impact fees and have been for a long time.”
Public Works Director Jim Smith also agreed saying that he understood that impact fees are generally frowned upon but he felt that any developer coming into town and making as much money as they do on their developments should participate in the building up of the necessary infrastructure/ Smith stated, “It is nothing but fair that they participate on the front end and the existing taxpayer is not burdened with the requirement to build that infrastructure for them.”
Discussion continued on how to engage such judgments. A case by case basis was proposed, but later spoken against as potentially having a perception of unfairness to one entity or another. Another thought of presetting certain lot number limits to tiers of impact fees could be a possibility. Citizens are questioning those developers who would max out the possible lots numbers before hitting next tiers to avoid those higher fees and then immediately building an additional subdivision nearby as a separate project that they will eventually join together.
Fire Chief Daniel Kauffman commented on the topic saying that fire and rescue infrastructure do benefit from impact fees. He also stated that he had experience with such things in a previous job.
Fire Chief Daniel Kauffman speaks to Gilmer’s Board of Commissioners during the January Worksession.
Eventually, the board decided to look further into the issue via committee to return with investigations and better information to include local developers as well as citizens and others with possible special insight. No specifics have been set into who would be on the board aside from an agreement among the BOC that local developers would need to have representation.
Smith told the commissioners that impact fees could be imposed in different ways including partial fees or full coverage, split amongst the developer or other parties. Paris said his idea would have the fees imposed on the developers without affecting builders who build in the project.
The board also received questions and comments during their regular meeting after tabling the agenda item. The board members explained that they were looking deeper into the topic and will hold the agenda item as a discussion topic in future meetings so they may continue looking at the topic, discussing, and developing both a committee and the possibility of actually implementing impact fees in some manner in the future.
Some even called for the board to extend the current moratorium to aid in continued discussion. However, Chairman Paris said he said when the board established the moratorium that he wouldn’t ask to extend it and he wanted to stick to his promise.
Gilmer to contract compaction testing in developments
News September 22, 2021
ELLIJAY, Ga. – Gilmer is moving forward with contracting out some testing and inspections for compaction with regards the subdivisions coming into the county.
According to a presentation from Planning and Zoning Director Karen Henson, a quote was requested to have Geo-Hydro Engineers, Inc. take over “compaction testing and drainage inspections on new subdivisions.”
Currently, the county uses the Road Department for compaction testing.
Henson’s proposal using Geo-Hydro Engineers, Inc. has their quote at $500 per inspection for up to three hours worth of time spent. Additional time required would charge at $90 an hour. Henson noted that the county charges per lot fees for inspections already and could transfer the costs into those fees. She noted that she needed to look deeper to see if the already established fees could cover extra trips if the developers wanted to do sections at a time. She also noted other situations with multiple roads or some small roads.
Her initial proposal wanted to add invoicing to developers should the standard fee not cover the costs of inspections.
According to Public Works Director Jim Smith who was the Planning and Zoning Director until 2010, the department contracted an engineering firm under his leadership and charged a fee to cover an engineer coming from the firm to perform the compaction testing. Smith also noted that the same firm did inspections for the Road Department.
Smith went on to say that his opinion would be that the firm should work for the county in these inspections. However, passing on the costs through fees would mean that the developer covers the costs of the inspections rather than the county’s taxpayers.
Since approved in the meeting, the process will see the engineer providing a report to the county from the inspections. Smith said he would not sign off on the projects without an acceptable inspection.
With advice from County Attorney David Clark, the indication is that a final approval could not be given until the inspection fees are completed. This was confirmed as Post Commissioner Hubert Parker clarified with Henson that the county will be paying the firm, but the funds would come directly from the fees imposed on the developers.
Geo-Hydro Engineers has been used by Gilmer County for its courthouse and both parking lots in addition to three airport projects according to Smith.
The Board of Commissioners also discussed utilizing the contracted firm on the pool project for filling in the pool and testing the compaction of pool before the bid project begins to construct the new pool. However, costs could require the fill-in to be bid out if it is higher than $50,000, according to Clark.
February will decide the moratorium, ordinance, and future of Gilmer’s large developments
News February 3, 2021
ELLIJAY, Ga. – As Gilmer’s Commissioners continue working on limiting and controlling growing sizes and numbers of developments in the county through its ordinance, they received the other side of the moratorium’s effects when a Special Called Meeting saw a large group of developers seeking information about the future of their work.
With lot size minimums looking to increase, current lots smaller than the minimum would be grandfathered in. Some comments in the meeting revolved around these increases with one speaker, Develle Frady, asking about a parent looking to split their land and give a piece to their child to build on. He said this would hurt some of those people working hard all their life to cut some land and leave it to kids.
Frady said the changes wouldn’t stop growth, but rather create more class division.
Crystal Chastain spoke in the meeting as well asking to support some more of the developments. While she said she the county needs to control growth and it does need to grow, she wanted the county to put off the vote for the ordinance changes advertisement to look deeper into the topic. She said the county needs “affordable workforce housing.” Something that could be accomplished through developments.
Crystal Chastain speaks to the BOC about her opinions and requests for the county’s Land Use Ordinance in a meeting on January 29, 2021.
Post Commissioner Karleen Ferguson agreed saying she has been thinking about the affordable housing. She said she and the board is trying to balance the issue and she was thinking on a half acre increase and what it would do to affordability. It is something she has worked on in previous positions as well. She promised Crystal that the board is considering the issues saying, “We’re working on it.”
Much of the discussion centered on lot size changes and the effect the changes will have on citizens and the county. Other commenters repeated asking the commissioners to delay and look closer at what consequences and effects the changes may cause.
The meeting also saw minor confusion on the exact changes as the county continues to work on the issue. It has yet to formally approve anything on the Land Use Ordinance, and, in fact, it remains in unfinished business on their agendas as the county once again pushed back approving advertisement of the changes in favor of continuing talks with the community. Some of the confusion in the community has come from exactly this reason, the county has had two separate meetings with numerous speakers both for and against the changes being discussed. As new changes and adjustments are made at every meeting, the county is constantly changing the proposed ordinances to keep pace with citizens comments.
Keith Sumner, a local builder in Gilmer, debates the Land Use Ordinance and its effects on citizens.
Commission Chairman Charlie Paris said during the meeting that if they were to have voted on something that day, it would only have been to advertise changes.
To make these changes, the county must go first approve an official advertisement of the changes, hold an official public comments meeting, then approve the changes once during a monthly meeting, then approve changes a second time during the following meeting for final adoption of those changes. After all of January with its work session, regular meeting, and a special called meeting, the county has yet to take its first official step in making these changes to the ordinance.
Instead, with some commenters in the meeting asking the county to look again and one asking to wait and see if the market changes soon, they are once again tabling the discussion to possibly adjust the changes once more and consider advertising again in February. Pushing the item back is creating an issue with the county’s moratorium in place and set to expire in a few months. The County Attorney David Clark suggested the board consider this alongside their motion to table the discussion. He asked that if the commissioner continue pushing the vote back, they discuss lifting the moratorium. He said it could be unfair to developers to continue the moratorium indefinitely if the ordinance change discussions continued too much longer.
Clark said, “I’d encourage you not to extend the moratorium.”
Clark also warned that he felt like much of the current discussion focused on lot sizes, but there could be more “nuts and bolts” in the changes that could come to light after the lot sizes.
Other issues the county is considering includes road quality and zoning labels among others.
Ferguson requested a joint meeting between the Board of Commissioners and the Planning Commission to further discuss the Land Ordinance. Paris agreed saying that he also wanted some representation from the Builders Association and a few other associations at the meeting to include their input as well.
That joint meeting has officially been published for Monday, February 8, 2021, at 2:30 p.m. in the Jury Assembly Room of the Gilmer County Courthouse. It will prove to be a busy week for the county as this meeting comes only two days before their February Work Session on February 10, 2021, at 9 a.m. and the Regular Meeting on February 11, 2021, at 6 p.m., both at the same location.
The county is also going to obtain information from other neighboring counties on the topic from the Northwest Georgia Regional Commission (NWGRC).
Gilmer looks at developments, subdivisions, and it’s future as rural or metro
News January 19, 2021
ELLIJAY, Ga. – Gilmer’s Land Ordinance could push our county into a metro city rather than our rural agricultural based feel. A comment from County Attorney David Clark offered his professional opinion on what could happen with the current ordinance’s density restrictions on land use ordinances.
Looking to changes that could limit some of that density growth, the topic was ultimately pushed to a later meeting, however, that decision came after a lengthy discussion on the proposed changes. Revisits to the ordinance have come after a Gilmer has experienced record setting numbers and sizes of developments in the county. In July of 2020, there were nine multi-lot developments with plans filed. An overabundance of developments like this could and is changing the face of Gilmer County. For better or worse is a split response among some citizens and developers.
Public Works Director Jim Smith
Even the County Attorney David Clark warned the Board on the possible outcomes of the ordinance as it appears right now. Commenting on the high number of developments, Clark said part of the need for a response was due to “the high demand that was being placed on the infrastructure that simply wasn’t there.”
Clark went on to offer the board his thoughts on Gilmer’s increasing population density saying, “Density is not a friend to an agricultural community. In my opinion, it’s the enemy.”
With notes referencing the county’s own emblem, he pointed out the major agricultural influence the county has through its poultry, apple orchards, and the mountain rural life. He also offered other counties as evidence including North Cobb and Paulding Counties when he was much younger.
Clark said, “Gilmer is known and is an agricultural community. The density that is allowed, the size of the lots that are allowed at this current time, is going to change that.”
The continuing density growth and concerns have been echoed through citizens comments on recent topics such as the Flint Mountain Holdings’ 305 lot major subdivision on Highway 282. However, the Board is currently looking at the Land Ordinance to possibly address these issues.
More recently, September saw a major moratorium on certain subdivisions, greenspace developments, and Class E Roads. These large developments are now continuing to push for a return to work since that moratorium. However, discussions on the Land Use Ordinance are continuing after minor confusion on some of the recommendations from the Planning Boards and the needs of what the Commissioners and the people of the county desire for the ordinance and for developments in the future.
Clark called Gilmer County’s future a “bedroom-subdivision of Atlanta” if the major density increase is kept as is. This could support increasing numbers of people working from home. The allowance of unrestricted developments could lead to this outcome. However, he said it ultimately comes down to what the Commissioners want Gilmer to look like “30 years down the road.”
He reiterated that some restrictions the board is considering is a major part of shaping that future.
Speaking with Public Works Director Jim Smith, the Commissioners heard more concern for loopholes within the ordinance and fixes that Smith wants requiring rezoning from R2 high density in situations that do not meet certain requirements. Smith also spoke about county roads needing support in the face of these developments. Especially since these roads were not built to handle the traffic and wear due to the adverse impact.
Smith went on to add that he believed a solution for roads be that the developer need pay for the improvements that the roads require rather than setting that burden on taxpayers who must have the Road Department go out and improve, fix, and upgrade the roads.
Echoing similar sentiments, Planning and Zoning Director Karen Henson said that zoning should match road requirements and capabilities.
The county is currently looking at the ordinance and taking in these and other comments as they are attempting to address all of these issues, ultimately trying to balance its growth with density, developers, roads, and citizens’ needs. Yet, no final action has been taken. Instead, the commissioners are listening to citizens and hope to address these issues either next month or in a special called meeting with possible changes to the ordinance to keep Gilmer away from issues like these. Chairman Charlie Paris even released a statement reassuring citizens that he is listening.