My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01/22/2014
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2010's
>
2014
>
01/22/2014
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/29/2018 3:55:27 PM
Creation date
1/19/2016 1:37:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Workshop Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
01/22/2014
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
Subject
Impact Fee Update
Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. Presentation
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
0 reflect all impact fee variables of Facility Inventory, Level of Service (LOS), Cost, Credit and <br />to <br />• <br />Demand, and the Affordable Growth Strategy. <br />TRANSPORTATION <br />Mr. Tindale displayed a chart that defined several facilities built since the last Study and <br />he defined the future projects in the County's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). He explained <br />each of the components of the formula used: Demand x Cost — Credit = Impact Fee. He <br />showed another chart of the variations in the data, and using current data based on a 2,000 sq. ft. <br />single family residence, the Impact Fee decreased to less than 5%. He said the County's <br />construction cost component is below statewide standards, equaling $2.6 million dollars for the <br />total cost per lane mile. He explained how deflated the gas tax is today, pointing out that the <br />State indexes their gas tax, but the County is not allowed to. He mentioned that this is a major <br />issue when you add inflation, and when you have the fleet efficiencies projected, the gas tax <br />erodes. Under the credit component he discussed the revenue sources, displaying a chart of the <br />rate comparison. He said the Board could discuss at a later workshop maintaining the current <br />LOS, but he wanted to point out that the rate comparison is designed to maintain a LOS -D. <br />A lengthy discussion was led by Mr. Tindale regarding the Affordable Growth Strategy, <br />and he displayed several charts that depicted different scenarios of the Affordable Growth <br />Strategy. He said the strategy uses non -impact fee revenue projections, and allocates a <br />reasonable portion of those revenues toward future investments in Capital, allowing the County <br />to buy down non-residential impact fees to spur economic development, while keeping <br />residential impact fees at the same level, and maintaining adequate LOS for infrastructure. <br />After a discussion on the Affordable Growth Strategy, Chairman O'Bryan presented an <br />example to clarify that if the charts indicated a growth rate of 2%, the County could maintain its <br />LOS. Ninety -percent of the cost would come from impact fees, and 10% could be from other <br />revenue sources. <br />Impact Fee Update Workshop <br />January 22, 2014 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.