5/10/1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

cities would participate because we feel a countywide recreation area would benefit everyone by consolidating and eliminating duplication of staff and resources, but for the purpose of the study, it was felt it might be well to segregate the unincor- porated area, and this figure evolved from that area only. We are blending some revenue sources, including the General Fund as stated on Page 45. If we did not want to blend some General Fund revenue sources in with that, then the level would be the $431 shown on Page 44. Chairman Scurlock stated that he leaned toward the lower figure for several reasons, one obviously being from the point of community acceptance. However, there are a number of develop- ments that occur that basically provide a lot of their own recreational facilities (tennis - golf - swimming pools - yachting facilities, etc.), and he felt it will continue to be the trend that a lot of our up -scale projects will do this, which will mitigate their impact. Personally, at first look, the Chairman felt the figure should be in the under $300 range. Commissioner Eggert spoke of the problems being encountered by the Housing Authority in trying to provide affordable housing, noting that there are 700 units in the county now that should be condemned and replaced. Actually, probably 2,000 units are needed, and the higher the impact fees get, the more difficult it becomes to bring in any low income housing. Chairman Scurlock pointed out that, on the other hand, that is exactly who is demanding the services. He did not believe we can waive impact fees; so, his thinking about this is that if we are going to subsidize public housing, we have to "belly up to the bar" and pay the impact fees for them - and if this community is willing to support that, then that is what we should do. MAY 101988 ih.____ 31 50,0 2 FGE. 311