Kane County rethinking impact fees in sluggish economy

Fearing a detrimental blow to already sluggish construction and business growth, Kane County Board members will take a hard look at whether now is the right time to increase impact fees for developers.

The county examines both the need and the rates for impact fees every five years. That means an update is due in 2012, and the process begins now.

The county has received about $21 million in impact fees since the creation of the program. That money is used to supplement other funding sources to create road and other infrastructure improvements in the county. The discussion of an impact fee hike will begin with an analysis of where future road improvements may be needed based on population growth.

“As population shifts, as population grows in Kane County, the Kane County highways are attraction points,” said Tom Rickert, Kane County's deputy transportation director. “For example, since I've been here, traffic on Randall Road has increased by five times. We promote economic growth by ensuring appropriate improvements.”

But county board members on the Transportation Committee weren't convinced impact fees — or raising them — are a good idea during an economic slump.

“Are there any studies on businesses locating outside the county rather than inside the county because of impact fees?” asked board member T.R. Smith.

“Yes, there have been individuals that have stated that that occurs,” Rickert answered.

Board member Mike Donahue echoed Smith's concern. He said impact fees were created to slow economic growth just enough for government to catch up on the infrastructure to support it.

But Transportation Committee Chairman Cathy Hurlbut said board members must remember impact fees are responsible for $21 million in roadway improvements that wouldn't exist without the fees. She said taxpayers would rather have development pay for its own needs rather than be asked to pay for growth out of their own pockets.

“I'd say there probably have been (development) projects that wouldn't have happened but for those road improvements,” Hurlbut said. “And you have to replace the funding. It's not coming from property taxes. It's not coming from sales taxes. We want to stimulate growth, but can we stimulate growth if we can't pay for the roadways?”

Board members will continue the discussion of impact fees in the lead-up to a new list of needed roadway improvements due next summer.