Heath Haussamen's second question to the mayoral candidates was regarding the contentious topic of impact fees:

1. •Do you support the city’s implementation of impact fees? Why or why not?
   

I have expressed limited support for the city’s implementation of impact fees previously in this blog, to council members and others who asked my opinion, and at the LCAR candidate forum.  However, there are some key aspects to how the impact fees are structured that I would have asked to see handled differently:  

1.  Given that developers and contractors may be able to currently establish the required infrastructure less expensively and on credit, the City having a set fee, and one that is extracted whole and before work starts, can present understandable frustration.  I would suggest that the City’s arguments for the fees would have been better served if more time could have been spent showing how it would cost less and be more lasting for the City to do the infrastructure than if the contractors do it themselves.  The City’s case could have benefitted even further if it had included a list of qualifiers and a program allowing for payment on an installment plan.

2.  Rotarians recognize this question: is it fair to all concerned?  While making a case for those who increase the infrastructure needs being the ones to pay for them, the City unfortunately included scenarios where existing infrastructure in already established areas could be updated or replaced by the fees.  In the fairness arena, this would seem to miss the mark.  More attention should have been given to separating out funding streams so that there would be less question of fairness.  Rules should be fair, consistent, and transparent.

3.  Insufficient time was spent clarifying that not only would implementation of the fees be delayed, but also that the Council still has an option to either further delay them or abandon them if the economic situation does not improve.

In short, I believe I understand why the City Council felt they had to impose the impact fees, but I believe some significant amendments to the structure of the program and its presentation to the public should have occurred.

[Please note, in my last blog on this topic, I referred to the "emergency center" several times when I should have referred to it as the "emergency dispatch center" or MVRDA - Mesilla Valley Regional Dispatch Authority.]