By DAPHNE HUTCHINSON

By DAPHNE HUTCHINSON

Rappahannock New* Staff Writer

This coming session of the General Assembly may be the year for impact fees, if the lawmakers’ receptivity to this proposed growth management tool can be judged by remarks from Del. C. Richard Cranwell, chairman of the General Assembly subcommittee studying off-site road improvements and public infrastructure.

The cost of roads, schools, sewer extensions and other parts of the public infrastructure must be apportioned fairly, Del. Cranwell said, speaking at last Wednesday’s subcommittee hearing in Charlottesville. “That’s why I’ve started to look at impact fees with an open mind.” Such fees “provide certainty to the developer while ensuring that new residents pay their fair share,” he said.

But the signals from the subcommittee chairman were mixed on whether the 1989 General Assembly should afford all local governments the authority to charge developers for a portion of the cost for the off-site facilities their projects demand or whether enabling legislation should be restricted to the “golden crescent” of Northern Virginia, Richmond and Tidewater. In addition, he seemed at times to be saying that the revenue from impact fees should be be spent only for transportation needs.

At the outset of Wednesday’s public hearing, Del. Cranwell noted that the joint subcommittee is an outgrowth of the Governor’s Study on Transportation in the 21st Century and that it is addressing “what to do to assist governments with their transportation problems.” Traditionally, management strategies such as impact fees have been employed in high-growth areas, said Del. Cranwell, adding “We may be getting to the point in certain parts of Virginia where we have to allow impact fees.”

Repeatedly, the subcommittee chairman said he thinks legislation is needed this year — at least for some financially-strapped counties whose transportation infrastructure has not kept pace with development. “I am concerned with