My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03/06/2008
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2008
>
03/06/2008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/1/2018 10:16:20 AM
Creation date
10/1/2015 6:21:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Impact Fee Workshop
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
03/06/2008
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
Archived Roll/Disk#
4017
Subject
Impact Fee Update Public Workshop
Supplemental fields
SmeadsoftID
7311
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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
future expenses. Ms. Ecker argued that if we do not have impact fees or if we have them <br />unrealistically low, taxpayers would be burdened with taxes. She recommended that the Board, <br />sustaining the idea of the application of impact fees, endorse at least the base of the Duncan <br />Report, but perhaps ask them to come up with some projections for the future, in the next five <br />years. <br />Peter Robinson, 315 Greytwig Road, and a member of the Task Force review group, <br />pointed out that the County's first concern should not be whether we want to raise impact fees, <br />but should be looking at how much money the County is "sitting on" and has not spent. He <br />clarified that the County has $60 million in its traffic account for roads that it has not spent, and a <br />lot of which is over seven (7) years in age. He challenged the County to examine its levels of <br />service, and urged the Board to take a break on raising impact fees, until we get some real <br />numbers on expenditures. He suggested the County needed to help "little people" and, "If you <br />want to do the roads, spend your penny sales tax on it, raise your gas tax, and then use the impact <br />fees." <br />Administrator Baird felt compelled to correct some of Mr. Robinson's comments <br />regarding the law of tax. He and Mr. Robinson engaged in discussion regarding the system as <br />set up by the State Legislator, repairs to roads and bridges, and the use of sales tax and impact <br />fees for those projects. <br />Don Wright, Sebastian, a participant on the Impact Fee study, and who wrote the section <br />on Parks and Recreation, had problems with the way the Consultants did their reports, because <br />"everything they did is historical." He reminded the Board that the impact fee law said, "It needs <br />to be proportionate to the need, and it needs to provide benefit for the new resident." He thought <br />there was a major flaw in how the study was done because it did not define specifically what that <br />"need" is and how much it is going to cost for specific projects. He referred to the economic <br />13 <br />March 6, 2008 <br />Public Workshop <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.