09/17/2008 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5. PUBLIC DISCUSSION Peter Robinson, Laurel Homes, agreed that if they go back to 2005 and use the two ( 2) mills number, that is a real number, but if you go to today's number which is 1/101h of a mill, that would be a debate. He referred to the Country's economic standings, and pointed out how gas and sales tax from out-of-towners help pay for impact fees. He believed we have never done a real trip study of our people here, and said we needed to look at other alternatives. David Harpin felt the way this is structured now, only the county gets benefit from impact fees, and that was a negative incentive to do business. He presented an alternative approach that could cover the needs of the capital requirements over a period of time, that is, to structure the impact fee into the property tax system and add it to final selling price of the unit. That way it would be out of the profit structure and the cost basis of the unit that is being purchased, which could be a significant change in the cost structure of that home or business. Commissioner Wheeler with a good understanding of Mr. Harpin's proposal, thought it had merit, and wanted to know more about it. Fred Mensing, 7580 129 Street, Sebastian, believed the first failure of the impact fee is that it runs off commercial development, and that was created as a finance tool to make governing bodies look good because it kept millage rates down on infrastructure. He also believed that to make industries welcome there has to be incentives, and County government needs to ensure that subdivisions built and other infrastructure turned over by developers (industrial & residential), are properly built with quality materials and labor. He declared that we are at a disadvantage for industry and we need to do everything possible to make industry welcome. He did not support an increase in impact fee. September 17, 2008 12 Public Workshop