Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Swanson disclosed that the economic concerns they have with the fees is that they <br />will in fact add an undue burden to the cost of a family house or a residence. He thought it was a <br />misnomer to think that impact fees do not affect newcomers. He displayed a chart which <br />indicated that if the impact fees are adopted, there would be a total of close to 63% of the <br />existing families within the County being shut out of the housing market. To simplify the <br />analysis, they looked at median income and compared that to the fees being proposed. They also <br />looked at traffic and road impact fees, and school impact fees. He explained the issues they have <br />with school impact fees and related that Duncan Associates relied on a limited sample to <br />calculate their facility cost. <br />Mr. Swanson presented an overview of the total impact fee result as a consequence of <br />applying the variables he used in calculating the impact fees mentioned before, and compared it <br />with the recommendations of the Consultant. He felt there was a lot of information to consider. <br />He argued that impact fees should not be used to replace existing capacity; there needed to be a <br />segregation of existing from the new capacity, and charge the development with their <br />proportionate fair share traffic impact fee as a result of that variable. Mr. Swanson thereafter <br />responded to questions from the Board as follow: <br />Chairman Bowden questioned whether Mr. Swanson had taken into consideration student <br />station vacant availability, when he was looking into student stations. She also asked how many <br />student stations were available. <br />Commissioner Wheeler questioned whether Mr. Swanson had said we were using impact <br />fees collected to repave Streets. <br />7 <br />March 6, 2008 <br />Public Workshop <br />