Laserfiche WebLink
parts in different ways just to justify what we do with impacts, and that new businesses should <br />bear the burden they create. <br />Commissioner O'Bryan commented on the trip types and the people who drive <br />from one area to another because of convenience. He presented a scenario of new homes and <br />the people's choice of banks and their locations, and did not see a new trip in that, because <br />everyone has to go to a bank somewhere, and he could not see how that was a new mile traveled. <br />He analyzed that impact fee is a fixed cost in the price of a house amortized over 30 years, which <br />does not change. He felt we need to keep impact fees in so we can keep our millage rate low, <br />because low property tax is what will draw people here. <br />Director Keating explained the determination of new trips and trip lengths in <br />relation to banks. <br />Administrator Baird cautioned about additional consultant charges, and said we <br />have to ask our consultant if we could legally do something similar to what the Pasco study had <br />done. <br />Attorney Collins alluded to a bid problem and said because if there is methodology <br />to determine trip lengths, lane miles, and the cost of the roads, and it is determined that a <br />particular use generates so many trips, or what would cost to serve those trips in terms of <br />building roads, then it would be very dangerous to say we are going to give someone a break <br />because we think that is a preferred development to rooftops, even though the data shows this is <br />what it costs. <br />Vice Chairman Davis asked if a study could be created stipulating that if you have <br />manufacturing, your impact fees would be less because you are paying sales tax on the product <br />that you may be selling and therefore we would get that extra one cent. <br />September 17, 2008 10 <br />Public Workshop <br />