On July 14, the Talbot County Council weighed a simple question: who pays when new development drives up the cost of our roads, schools, and libraries, the developers and builders who profit from it, or the rest of us? Council President Chuck Callahan and Councilman Dave Stepp voted to shift that cost onto taxpayers’ backs. They lost, barely, and residents should understand what they tried to do.
An impact fee, established in Talbot in 2005, is paid by developers so that new construction, as county finance officer Martha Sparks explained in the Star Democrat, “contributes to the public facilities it relies on,” including “roads, bridges, parks, schools and libraries.” Each year it is adjusted to keep pace with the direct construction costs of that infrastructure, which rose about 3 percent this past year. As Sparks put it, this is “not a fee increase in the traditional sense” but an “inflation alignment.” When prices rise, someone must pay, and we all know how prices have risen lately, on everything. Here, it is either the developers or the taxpayers.
Stepp moved to waive that adjustment; Callahan seconded. Vice President Pete Lesher and Councilwoman Lynn Mielke voted no. Keasha Haythe was absent. The motion died on a 2–2 tie, and the fee keeps its value. It survived on arithmetic, not leadership.
The stakes are plain in the county’s own words. “When fees are not adjusted to match rising costs,” Sparks warned, “the gap between what development requires and contributes grows, and that gap shifts onto existing taxpayers.” Lesher agreed: “Our existing taxpayers subsidize infrastructure; we socialize the costs.”
Callahan’s case? “I just don’t like it.” He called himself “not a big fan” of fees and punted the question to “the next council.” That is candid, but from a sitting president it is an evasion. “I don’t like it” is a preference, not a reason.
It is worth saying why that answer came so easily. Callahan is, by trade, a builder, a principal of West and Callahan, a general contracting firm in Easton. Although he does not develop new projects himself, some have questioned whether he should recuse himself from matters that may directly affect the profits of his peers in the construction trade.
Stepp’s stated worry was the “unfairness to developers.” A councilman is entitled to a background, but Stepp is elected to represent taxpayers, not contractors. On July 14, those interests sat on opposite sides of the same vote, and both men chose developers over the public.
Understand the real choice: who pays. Growth costs money. The only question is the address on the tax bill, the developer who profits from the new rooftop, through a reduced fee, or every household in Talbot, through higher taxes, year after year.
Callahan and Stepp preferred to tax the people and called it relief. It isn’t relief. It’s the same bill, readdressed to you. One issue transcends party lines and unites most Talbot residents: smart growth. Talbot will keep growing, and growth will always carry costs. The real questions are who pays, who profits, and how we protect the quality of life that makes Talbot so appealing in the first place. Let’s remember Lakeside, and the lessons it taught us.
This was a chance to lead. Lesher and Mielke took it by representing the people. Callahan and Stepp did not. When you vote, remember who is looking out for you, the county, and our future.
Brian Naranjo is a candidate for Talbot County Council and lives in St. Michaels
19 Responses
The cogency of Mr. Naranjo’s opinion piece strongly commends his candidacy for the County Council.
Nice to see someone who states the facts and backs them up with evidence. I agree, Brian Naranjo will make an excellent County Councilman!
This is an excellent article. From Trump on down to our local Council members, you can count on Republicans not caring about the people they supposedly serve. You can bet they will always vote for money interests over people.
Mr. Naranjo is spot on. For those in doubt, consider a scenario reductio ad absurdum. Say a global behemoth mega-bucks firm decides to invade Talbot County, our “Land of Pleasant Living,” with a ginormous data center? We already know the real-time consequences from other locations so victimized by these plunderers’ humongous electronic intrusions into our private, personal information, conducted in buildings covering mega acreage, using mega quantities of water and electricity – the cost overrun of these utilities, by some mystical formula, passed on to innocent residents, including seniors. The present situation, though smaller, presents the same problem. So, were there to be a plebiscite, imagine what your answer would be: (a) Let the developer honestly pay the civic costs of the development; or (b) inflict the new civic burden upon the citizenry, and especially on old grandma & grandpa?
I would like to see what construction companies are already paying. What is their burden today? How much of this “inflation” bill is due to new construction? It’s easy to take the facts that support one point of view, but to make informed decisions we should be looking at ALL the facts. Surely someone in Talbot County government knows the answers to these and other pertinent questions. Maybe the Spy will do some investigative reporting on it. Maybe Stepp and Callahan will explain their thinking in more detail. Please…
Fair. I wrote an argument, not a survey.
Some of what you’re asking is already on the shelf. Talbot’s impact fee schedule, building permit fees, and water and sewer connection charges are public records — Planning & Zoning and Public Works can produce them. And the Department of Legislative Services publishes an annual table of what every Maryland county charges, so we can be measured against our neighbors instead of argued about in the abstract.
Your third question is the hard one, and I don’t think anyone can answer it today. Our fee dates to 2005. It’s been indexed to construction costs since, but adjusting a number isn’t the same as re-examining whether the number was ever right. The analysis that separates costs driven by new development from the cost of replacing systems that are simply old is called a nexus study, and I don’t know when Talbot last did one. That’s worth finding out before the next council votes on anything.
Mr Robertson,
Construction companies don’t pay the fees, developers (the owners of the construction projects) do. Developers calculate project costs up front, land, engineering, planning, contractors, insurance, legal, development impact fees, etc., and evaluate those costs in relation to their projected profits.
Existing taxpayers have provided existing infrastructure, roads, schools, parks, libraries, recreational facilities, etc., that developers benefit from in marketing thier projects.
As a matter of fairness, the developers should pay the added costs to the community that thier development causes, development impact fees are calculated to allocate just the costs of those impacts to the developers.
They are causing the impacts, they should pay for them. Nothing unfair about that.
If, in their judgment, the profits aren’t lucrative enough to justify the costs, they can invest in other opportunities. The community, and taxpayers, shouldn’t subsidize their profits.
Development impact fees reflect that perfectly appropriate policy decision.
It would be nice to know what the existing impact fees are. I’m sure they vary depending on the type of development. Take two developments along Mathewstown Rd for example. There are the apartments at the corner of Mathewstown and Elliott Rd (The Promenade?). Further down Mathewstown we have the Gannon Estates development of single family homes. Oh, and lets not forget Lakeside at Trappe. It would be good if someone from the Office of Planning and Zoning would provide the impact fees for each of those developments.
https://www.talbotcountymd.gov/uploads/File/PlanningPermits/PZ/Impact%20Fees/FY%2026%20Impact%20Fee%20Schedule%20(Revised).pdf
Absolutely correct! I am very happy to support a candidate who sees where developers have influence and is willing to oppose them. I encourage everyone to consult the state board of elections page that show who has donated to the Republicans over the last elections. That is why I am ignoring my loyalty to the President to support Brian. We all need to ask “who supports the direction we want” for Talbot County and who does not. For me, that is clear.
This is the link for contributions. Gunsallus leads by a wide margin with $33.000.
https://campaignfinance.maryland.gov/login
https://www.talbotcountymd.gov/uploads/File/PlanningPermits/PZ/Impact%20Fees/FY%2026%20Impact%20Fee%20Schedule%20(Revised).pdf
https://www.talbotcountymd.gov/uploads/File/PlanningPermits/PZ/Impact%20Fees/FY%2026%20Impact%20Fee%20Schedule%20(Revised).pdf
Impact fees paid by developers support vital institutions in our community as you can observe by the list, but it is important to understand the significance of the differential between Single Family Detached and Other Residential. For instance, a single family detached house can be any size so the $9,617. fee and the $8,307. fee is the same if the house is 1000 square feet or 20,000 square feet. Furthermore, the other residential fees of $6,988. or $5,940. are for each apartment. While I am not sure how the levels of impact are determined it seems to me that the fee for one apartment should much less than for a home. So, if the council is reviewing impact fees they need to start with making them more equitable and base the fee level on square footage. To have the fee for a 500 square foot apartment be almost as much as a 5,000. square foot home makes no sense. If we want to provide more affordable housing and still have funds to support our vital institutions let’s start there.
Richard — The impact fee is meant to assist with costs of public services, e.g., education, emergency services, transportation, parks and recreation, etc. As such, square footage is not a significant variable.
JT, I am well aware of use of the funds and noted my support of same in my opening statement. My point more directly is that a larger dwelling should pay a larger fee and a smaller one, like an apartment, should be much less. To be even more direct, the fee of approximately $9000. On a multi million dollar waterfront home is too low and a $6,000. feet on an apartment is too high.
Perhaps. I missed your point. If square footage is not a significant variable then maybe they should not call them impact fees and call them public service fees.
Richard — t
This is the most useful point in the whole thread, and it’s the direction I’d want the next council to take.
You’ve put your finger on something the “just waive it, protect the builders, pass it on to the taxpayers” crowd misses: the trouble with our fee isn’t only that it drifts below cost, it’s that it’s flat. Roughly the same charge for a 20,000-square-foot waterfront home and, per unit, for a 500-square-foot apartment. Whatever you call it, that isn’t proportional.
J T is right that the fee is meant to track demand on services, not square footage as such. But those aren’t really in tension — occupancy, bedrooms, and lot size all correlate with impact, and none of them are captured by a single flat number. A tiered schedule could reflect real demand and be fairer at the same time.
And here’s the part I care about most: a flat per-unit fee lands hardest on exactly the housing we most need. Six thousand dollars is a rounding error on a multimillion-dollar build, but a real deterrent on a modest apartment. If we want workforce in Talbot, the schedule shouldn’t quietly tax it at the highest effective rate while under-charging the luxury end.
The tool for getting this right is a nexus study — the analysis that ties each fee to the actual cost a given type of development imposes. I don’t know when Talbot last did one, and that’s where I’d start: not scrapping the fee, but finally making it fair. Thanks for pushing the conversation there.
Brian
https://Brianfortalbot.com/
In my experience, government at the town and county level, when functioning properly, looks out for the well being of all its constituents. Government must do things like fairly taxing and applying fees to businesses and household alike. Sounds like Mr. Callahan and Mr. Stepp don’t see things that way. That won’t do in Talbot County.
The citizens of Talbot, through their hard work, have built a community that is very attractive to both new residents and Developers alike. Our community will not stand for leadership like Callahan and Stepp who don’t seem to understand how to fairly charge Developers for the advantage of developing properties on our beautiful and valuable county land. I’ll be voting them out this November.
I found this an interesting and informative thread. We have a very important election coming in November. Lynn Mielke’s votes on Council reflected what she thought best for the citizens of Talbot County so the Republicans mounted a primary challenge and pushed her out. Let’s vote for what we each believe to be in the interest of all Talbot citizens over party affiliations. If you think Talbot development has been poorly handled, make note that Republicans have been in control of Talbot government for the last 16 years. Vote for change in November.