My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03/03/2009 (2)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2009
>
03/03/2009 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/14/2020 12:21:21 PM
Creation date
10/1/2015 6:21:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
03/03/2009
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
Archived Roll/Disk#
4025
Book and Page
136, 865-929
Supplemental fields
SmeadsoftID
7332
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
58
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Discussion continued as staff and Commissioners discussed what the time frames <br />are for the permitting process, and what a good mechanism would be for individuals to take <br />advantage of the impact fee reductions, without taking advantage of the system. <br />Commissioner Wheeler stressed that he was opposed to reducing residential <br />impact fees, but he would rather do that, than break the law by differentiating between the <br />commercial and residential fees. <br />Jason Brown, County Budget Director, displayed the Impact Fee Reduction <br />Proposal (copy on file), which provided statistics on proposed reductions to various categories of <br />impact fees. He divulged that waiving impact fees on Fire Rescue, Law Enforcement, <br />Corrections, Public Buildings, and Solid Waste would result in a 9.9% reduction in residential <br />impact fees, and a 35.2% reduction in non-residential impact fees. <br />(Clerk's Note: Chairman Davis noted that Director Brown 's spreadsheet was <br />available on the County's website, www.ircgov.com.) <br />Commissioner Wheeler stated that if impact fees were reduced, the financial <br />burden would be shifted elsewhere. He recalled that in May 2008, he had supported <br />implementing impact fees which had been proposed in the Duncan Associates Impact Fee <br />Report, with the exemption of commercial and industrial fees, and that he had wanted to revisit <br />the latter two categories, and that he still supported this action. <br />Commissioner Solari believed that the intent of impact fees was to ameliorate the <br />impacts of development, and he could not support the use of impact fees to promote <br />development. He also wanted to review the Duncan Associates' Report, and to permanently <br />March 3, 2009 25 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.