Study finds impact fees on new housing developments in Georgia lack transparency | Georgia

(The Center Square) — A contemporary research of impact fees throughout Georgia discovered “large differences” in how jurisdictions method imposing impact fees.

But the transparent theme of the Georgia Public Policy Foundation overview is a lack of transparency.

“There had never been a one-stop compilation of each jurisdiction’s impact fees,” Chris Denson, GPPF’s director of coverage and analysis, informed The Center Square. “And so, that was the single motivation when we set out.

“Of route, we would have liked to peer additionally what sort of revenues had been derived from impact fees around the state,” Denson added. “And transparency for that form of information was once hit and miss.”

According to the group’s analysis, Cherokee County implemented the state’s first countywide impact fees in 2000. Today, the county collects the most revenue from impact fees of any jurisdiction in Georgia, and GPPF found that the county has increased its fees by 83% over two years.

Impact fees are a hot-button topic amid rising housing prices in metro Atlanta and statewide. “In a local weather of more and more unaffordable housing prices, it’s honest to invite whether or not those new prices towards development new housing make sense,” GPPF said in its conclusion.

Local governments charge impact fees on new development, saying the charges are necessary to offset the costs of related infrastructure, whether it’s parks or roads.

“Unfortunately, we simply didn’t to find the transparency to be truly what we had been hoping for,” Denson said. “I will level you to a few jurisdictions which might be excellent, that experience a narrowly outlined impact charge in phrases of the revenues they pull in and what they spend against, in line with their accounting recordsdata, however the ones jurisdictions are the exception, now not the rule of thumb.”

When asked about the takeaway of the study, Denson said there is an opportunity for governments to provide their constituents with more details about their programs.

“I feel the primary could be better transparency — simply so we will be able to see how the revenues are getting used,” Denson said. “I feel that will pass far against serving to out with network buy-in against both rising or assessing those impact fees.”