My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09/17/2008 (2)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2008
>
09/17/2008 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/2/2018 2:51:37 PM
Creation date
10/1/2015 6:21:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Impact Fee Workshop
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
09/17/2008
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
Archived Roll/Disk#
4021
Subject
Impact Fee Update
Supplemental fields
SmeadsoftID
7318
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mr. Mullen displayed a bar chart depicting residential versus non-residential fees <br />(at a ratio of fee/1,000 sq ft., to fee per typical single-family unit), and pointed out that 1,000 <br />square foot of retail is one and a half times (1 1/2) the fee of a single family unit. He provided <br />comparisons from Orange and Osceola counties as well as other counties in Florida. <br />Mr. Mullen discussed the methodology used by Pasco County and explained how <br />they calculate maximum fees using a standard methodology; how they determine "tipping point" <br />for each land use, based on Fishkind analysis of optimal revenue, stating that they charge the <br />lower of the two for each land use; and reported there were no proportionality of fee to traffic <br />impact. <br />Mr. Mullen described the different approach taken by Marion County and how <br />they determined that "Retail follows rooftops" — meaning that residential growth causes retail <br />development. He explained that they assign responsibility for retail trips originating in the <br />county to residential trip end (65% of retail trips —the rest originate out -of -county or from other <br />non-residential); and they lump offices and business parks in with retail in generalized <br />retail/office category. He thereafter outlined the problems with Marion County's approach, <br />which involves the economic base theory. This theory would essentially not charge anything to <br />the residential sector; it would charge everything to the types of industries that our economic <br />development department would like to attract in Indian River County. He therefore would not <br />recommend this theory for the County. <br />Commissioner O'Bryan talked about the Marion County theory that retail follows <br />residential, and gave an example of Planned Development in Pointe West where they did not <br />build any commercial until they reached a critical mass of residential, because there was no <br />residential there to support the commercial sector. It seemed to fall in the line of "retail follows <br />residential," and he was not sure the economic theory was really viable here. <br />September 17, 2008 3 <br />Public Workshop <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.