Ascension’s Parish Council has considered imposing impact fees on new developments on two occasions since the early 1990s and recently empanelled a Finance subcommittee to do so again. Two members of that subcommittee appeared before Finance on Monday in Gonzales to recommend updating a 2005 study of transportation impact fees.
Since impact fees are an assessment, a 2/3 Council majority (eight votes) is required for adoption. In 2006, impact fees garnered only seven.
“The subcommittee vote, which was not unanimous, was to make a recommendation to hire Duncan Associates but we saw no need for a new feasibility study, only an updated transportation fee study,” said subcommittee member Gasper Chifici who also serves on Ascension’s Planning and Zoning Commissions.
He contacted the firm that performed the study eight years ago and would charge a flat fee of $25,000 plus $2,000 per day to update it. Chifici estimates the total cost to retain Duncan Associates at approximately $30,000.
Chifici also calculated the potential revenues which impact fees might have generated from 2006-13; intentionally excluding 2005 when the parish experienced “an incredible growth spurt.”
“Had the Council gone forward, between $14-20 million would’ve been collected, something on the average of $2-3 million per year,” he said. “That could’ve been used for transportation improvements related directly to the impact of the individual developments.”
“It may be that (Duncan Associates) will come back and say that we missed our opportunity,” Chifici said.
Finance Committee members were divided in any event.
“The basic premise is that, if we can get the people that move in and cause the most new impact to pay a larger share, the residents who are already here will not have to shoulder that burden,” said Councilman Kent Schexnaydre. “That is the basic premise and I agree with that 100%.”
Councilman Todd Lambert, who served on the council when the fees last failed, took a different view.
“The resistance in ’05 was from commercial development which pay much larger fees,” he recalled “and the issue of how particular districts are set up. The only way to do a major project is to create a large district and you may have someone paying the impact fees to fund a project that he will never use.”
Lambert stressed that impact fee revenue can only be expended to fund new roads.
“For existing roads you can’t do any work unless we add a turn lane or an entirely new lane and we all know how expensive that is,” he expressed doubt that revenues would be sufficient to fund such projects.
“Whether you live in St. Amant, Prairieville or Gonzales, if traffic on Hwy 621 eases it will help everyone out,” countered Schexnaydre. “Alleviating traffic in one corridor will alleviate other traffic corridors.”
Councilman Randy Clouatre expressed a different concern. Would impact fees have negatively affected growth by discouraging new residents from moving to Ascension since 2005?
“Possibly,” Gasper Chifici responded.
But, typically, impact fees are factored into the homebuyer’s mortgage and spread out over many years. The monthly increase would be minimal according to Chifici.
“There might be people who decide against moving here because of impact fees, but what about those people who don’t come because of traffic?” Kent Schexnaydre posited, saying he knows of specific instances. “Growth will be exponential in the next ten years with tremendous, unprecedented expansion of industry and secondary industries.”
Councilwoman Teri Casso was also unconcerned by the argument that impact fees may deter potential growth.
“I’ve heard it a couple of times that people won’t come in and build. Well, I went into business in Ascension Parish in 1996. There were no impact fees. I went into business in Baton Rouge in 2006 where there were certainly impact fees. But I still went into business. It’s simply the cost of doing business,” she said.
“If this is where you want be, this is where you’ll be. But it behooves us to collect accurate data and continue to move forward with this discussion.”
The fees garnered support from one of the Council’s strongest anti-tax voices.
“I’m actually a proponent, believe it or not, of impact fees,” said Councilman Daniel “Doc” Satterlee. “We’re all getting tired of spending money for study after study” though.
In the end, the committee tasked Parish President Tommy Martinez with developing a “scope of work” and negotiating a firm price from Duncan Associates before moving forward. Martinez who has, in his capacity as Ascension’s chief executive, authority to spend up to $50,000 without council approval, cautioned the committee.
He noted that impact fees have actually been considered twice before; in 2006 and in the early 1990s.
“If, in your mind, you’re not going to support this, it might be a waste of $30,000,” he recommended.
Costly studies and inaction were a common theme on Monday. East Ascension Drainage Board also met and Kent Schexnaydre’s frustration was palpable as he grilled Drainage Director Bill Roux about a $500,000 drainage study and its recommendations that have not been implemented.
Roux reported on all the major drainage projects, both ongoing and still on the drawing board. One, in particular, affects Schexnaydre’s constituents in District 2 who bore the brunt of historic rainfall in May. The district lies in south Ascension including Sorrento and the area drained by the Panama Canal/Conway Bayou system.
Roux explained that the clearing and snagging project on the Panama/Conway is nearing completion but strongly urged that measures be undertaken to address the “bottleneck” created by Airline Hwy and the rail line that runs alongside it. A hydrological evaluation of the entire Panama/Conway basin is underway to determine how large openings need to be at the railroad trestle and under Airline Hwy to allow floodwaters to escape on the way to Lake Maurepas.
Schexnaydre had other concerns, though. A $500,000 study was commissioned a few years ago which recommended clearing existing drainage channels in the lower Panama/Conway basin.
“I’m talking about the lower Panama and lower Conway where it crosses Airline Hwy and where it crosses the Interstate,” Schexnaydre tried to redirect Bill Roux’s focus.
It made little impression. Roux stressed that digging out Panama Canal and Conway Bayou to hold twice the volume of water would provide little benefit during a “500-year event” like the one in May.
“We can’t associate the event we had two months ago with what needs to be done with the bayous. Once it overtops, the bayou is insignificant. The only thing that will solve that problem is to remove the bottleneck that keeps it from flowing naturally to Lake Maurepas,” Roux answered a question that Kent Schexnaydre had not asked.
It was little comfort to the District 2 Councilman.
“I understand that, but my concern now is to proceed with the permits we need to clean out existing channels to get them back to the way they were when built,” Schexnadre responded. “We spent $500,000 for a study that recommended we clear existing channels. I just want to know how soon we’re going to start putting in for permits.”
“Every little bit helps. We had people with six inches of water in their houses. They would appreciate water going down just six inches. If we can reduce just that much by clearing out existing channels, that would be a big help to these people,” Schexnaydre continued.
No date has been set to obtain those permits.