09/17/2008 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the aforementioned study, or increasing fees at this time. However, looking at these traffic models, they have to be very careful, because they might reduce commercial but could get sued by residential developers. Vice Chairman Davis thought the question was, "does no growth pay its own way," and felt that raising impact fees could generate less revenue. Commissioner Wheeler agreed with comments about the increasing and lowering of fees, but did not think that was possible in the real world, because someone has to pay the bills for the growth, the streets, and the infrastructure that we need. He argued that we are not paying 80% of our impact fees, we are paying about 50% of the impact with impact fees, and the other 50% comes from gas tax and the one cent optional sales tax, so there was a 50% reduction off the top just looking at impact fees generally. He said we have to be careful and decide what we want for infrastructure — how we are going to build it, and how we are going to pay for it. Vice Chairman Davis did not agree fundamentally with that premise, and because half of our roads or infrastructures are paid with gas and sales tax, he believed the economic engine that creates more gas and sales tax is what we are trying to increase the fee on. He also believed that if we were to reduce the impact fees on commercial/industrial we would generate more sales tax and more jobs and other things that actually contribute to the economic base. He did not believe those numbers were static; and did not believe that if you reduce impact fees by a dollar, that sales tax or any other taxes that are generated in the business world, do not increase at all. Commissioner Flescher did not believe in treating the impact fee as a vacuum, because as the impacts arrive, they also share their burden by paying the taxes and they are actually part and parcel to the process. He remarked that we are separating and defining the September 17, 2008 9 Public Workshop