Laserfiche WebLink
4. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS <br />4.A. COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT <br />4.A.1. IMPACT FEES <br />Community Development Director Bob Keating reminded the Board that at their <br />April 15, 2008, Board of County Commission Meeting, staff was directed to bring back the <br />consultant from Duncan Associates to discuss the methodology used in the Impact Fee Study, and <br />to respond to questions from the Board. <br />Staff's report from Item 12.A.I. of the April 15th Commission Meeting was provided <br />to the Board (copy on file), for review of the options that were discussed in that meeting. Director <br />Keating identified the five options as to how the Board could proceed, pointing out that they were <br />not all exclusive, they could be mixed and matched. He specified that the options fall into different <br />categories, and indicated that the Board could decide to: (1) Not accept the report, which would <br />maintain the existing impact fee rates; (2) Accept the report and let staff make changes to the level <br />of service and minor characteristics as recommended by the consultant; 3) Accept the report and <br />phase in the increased fees over a period of time; (4) Accept the report, but discount the proposed <br />fees to maintain rates at existing levels; or (5) Approve the updated report, eliminate the solid <br />waste and library impact fees (since neither are big revenue producers), and increase the traffic <br />impact fees (staff's recommendation). He advocated accepting the report and phasing in the fees <br />as recommended in the report. <br />Budget Director Jason Brown provided the Board with the rationale for eliminating <br />the two impact fees, and emphasized that traffic impact fees are a prioritization of need. He also <br />mentioned that traffic impact fees do not have a significant operating cost attached to them as <br />libraries do. <br />2 <br />May 9, 2008 <br />Special Call <br />