At a meeting of the Durham County Board of Commissioners Monday, the consideration of school impact fees evoked what commissioner Ellen Reckhow called "a very spirited debate."
A public hearing--in which 37 realtors, citizens, parents and developers argued before the county commissioners--consumed the majority of podium time. Speakers discussed whether the county should charge impact fees on new residential developments to compensate for the rapid increase of students in Durham public schools.
Members of the public often spoke of a $5,000 fee accompanying the purchase of all single-family houses and $3,000 for all other housing developments.
The commissioners argued, however, that those numbers represent the maximum amount the county could justifiably charge, not what it actually would charge. They said realtors took the figures out of context and spread them publicly through phone and radio. "I really take offense at the realtors," commissioner Becky Heron said. "Our board had really not meant to discuss any numbers."
What the board did do was pay $57,500 to a consulting firm, Tischler & Associates Inc., to prepare a study about the fees--which opponents said was a waste of taxpayer money.
They also argued that an across-the-board fee that ignores the magnitude of the cost of a housing development would be unfair.
"$5,000 fees for houses and $3,000 fees for condos will eliminate a sector of the population that can afford homes," argued Judd Barrett, speaking for 60 other people from the Research Triangle.
Many said they fear the impact fees would negatively affect the city's growth. Barnette Crabtree, a Durham resident and builder, said imposing impact fees would cost between 1,700 and 2,400 home buyers.
Liz Pullman, a Durham taxpayer since 1961, supported the impact fees, suggesting they fall not on the buyer, but on the developers. "Developers create a need for new schools; developers need to help pay for new schools," she said. Others objected that the developers would merely pass that cost on to buyers by raising prices.
Supporters argued that impact fees are better than the possible alternative, a property-tax increase. "An impact fee is one-time," said Lavonia Allison, chair of the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People. "Property tax is continuous and continues to go up."
Proponents also stressed that the improvement in Durham's quality of education outweighs the monetary burden. They said Durham's classrooms currently include 140 trailers, students are often assigned to lunch periods as early as 10 a.m. and as late as 2 p.m., and that some schools do not have enough books.
The commissioners explained that they will remain open to new methods of implementing impact fees, saying something does need to be done to alleviate the high density of students in public schools.
Commissioner Joe Bowser suggested ideas such as setting the fees on a percentage basis, or exempting programs like Habitat for Humanity.
The state Legislature earlier chose not to grant the county explicit authority to levy the fees, but county attorney Chuck Kitchen said the county would still be legally permitted to impose them.
County Manager Mike Ruffin said that the earliest vote on the issue will likely be in December.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.