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.”