On Ballot Question 301

Louisville’s registered voters will decide on two citizen-initiated ballot questions on 4 November 2025. In this newsletter I discuss ballot question 301; in a past newsletter I discussed ballot question 300. After stating the content of ballot question 301 and providing some relevant  background, I explain my opposition to ballot question 301. I conclude by briefly reflecting on the impacts and benefits of new development.

What does ballot question 301 ask?

Ballot question 301, if approved, would expand the City's categories of development impact fees, require external analysis of such fees every five years (starting next year), and create a residents’ board to advise on these analyses. Ballot question 301 would not set any impact fees; City Council would retain that authority. I briefly explain the terminology of ballot question 301; I also recommend that you read the City’s informational webpage on ballot question 301.

Development impact fees are fees that the City charges for new developments to defray certain costs that new developments bring to the City. For instance, development of a new commercial building will usually result in increased usage of the City’s roadways, leading to increased roadway maintenance demands; an impact fee for transportation infrastructure would defray the increased cost of maintaining the City’s roadways. Or, for instance, development of a new residential neighborhood will usually increase usage of the City’s library, leading to increased library services demands; an impact fee for library services would defray the increased cost of providing the City’s library services. In all such cases the impact fee charged should be commensurate with the impact expected from the particular development.

What is the status of impact fees in Louisville?

Currently, the City charges an impact fee for transportation infrastructure for new commercial developments, and the City charges impact fees for transportation infrastructure, library services, and parks and trails for residential developments. For all new developments the City also charges water and wastewater tap fees, essentially impact fees for water and wastewater infrastructure. The City decided on these impact fees in 2017 when it last conducted an impact fee analysis; these impact fees have been adjusted for inflation over the intervening years. The City analyzes and sets its water and wastewater tap fees separately.

Why do I oppose ballot question 301?

At its meeting on 7 October 2025, City Council unanimously adopted a resolution opposing ballot question 301. While this resolution accurately reflects my position on ballot question 301, this resolution neither fully conveys nor explains my perspective. I oppose ballot question 301 for the following three principal reasons.

First, ballot question 301 is not necessary at present. The City plans to hire consultants to conduct an impact fee analysis next year; City Council will then adopt updated impact fees based on this analysis’ findings. I would expect this analysis to explore categories of impact fees beyond those currently charged by the City; nonetheless, when the City initiates this analysis, I will seek to ensure that the City’s consultants perform such an exploration. Conducting an impact fee analysis and updating the City’s impact fees will proceed as a public process with multiple opportunities for input from all interested stakeholders.

Second, ballot question 301 establishes categories of impact fees in advance of its required impact fee analysis. The categories and corresponding amounts of impact fees must be legally grounded in an impact fee study. Establishing categories in advance potentially exposes the City to legal challenges, particularly if the impact fee study does not find grounds for all of the categories. If Louisville’s registered voters approve ballot question 301, then City Council could act to avert such legal challenges by setting to zero the impact fees not supported by the impact fee analysis. Such a choice might generate pushback from residents but would be permitted by the language of ballot question 301.

Third, ballot question 301 establishes duplicative categories of impact fees. Specifically, the City already charges water and wastewater tap fees for new developments. If Louisville’s registered voters approve ballot question 301, then City Council could eliminate such duplication by renaming the water and wastewater taps fees. Also, the City funds certain programs and services—historic preservation, open space, parks, and recreation—partially or wholly through dedicated sales taxes. Some of these taxes overlap with the City’s current categories of impact fees, but these taxes are not impact fees.

More generally, development brings impacts and benefits. For instance, most Louisville residents benefit from the residential developments that created their homes and the commercial developments that created businesses we patronize, and all Louisville residents benefit from the residential and commercial developments that contribute much of the City’s tax base. Charging impact fees to defray the costs that new development brings to the City is entirely reasonable, but these impact fees must not only be commensurate with the impact, but also strike a balance between impacts and benefits. Over Louisville’s almost 150 year history as a city, the impacts and benefits of development have been born in sundry and disparate ways. Today we must ensure that development equitably impacts our community, recognizing our history and envisioning our future, and that development benefits our entire community. Today we must also ensure that development aligns with the City’s climate goals and respects our natural environment.

I hope that I have clearly conveyed and explained my opposition to ballot question 301. I have emphasized those issues about which I am most concerned and knowledgeable. Ballot question 301 would entail other consequences for Louisville, but I will not speculate further here.