My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5/18/1995
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1995
>
5/18/1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:05:11 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 2:33:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/18/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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
BOOK 95 PAGE 137 <br />Director Keating pointed out that Indian River County has the <br />fewest number of impact fees and that our impact fees are not the <br />highest. <br />Incentives for Economic Development G Affordable Housing <br />State incentives <br />Alan Campbell of Council of 100 stressed that the State has <br />been dragging its feet on traffic impact fee waivers for targeted <br />industries and the creation of tax incentives. He suggested that <br />the County allow payment of traffic impact fees over a period of <br />years like we do the utilities impact fees and give money back for <br />oversizing improvements. <br />Commissioner Eggert asked why can't we pay the traffic impact <br />fee over 5-10 years, the way we do utility impact fees, and <br />reimburse them for over building. <br />Director Keating noted that if we did implement the financing <br />of impact fees over 5-10 years, it probably would be structured <br />along the lines of water and sewer impact fees. Financing of <br />impact fees might have some benefits to the applications. We know <br />it has a cost to the County. We know it would require a lien on <br />the property, and Tim Zorc made a reference to the effect of the <br />debt on developers' financing. On the up side, a finance plan <br />could reduce the upfront cost and allow payment over time. On the <br />down side, it could reduce the amount of financing that the <br />applicant can obtain, which is why we are not sure of the degree to <br />which it would be used if it were put in place. <br />Director Keating explained that the big difference between <br />financing traffic impact fees and utility impact fees is that we <br />have a lot of existing residents who are financing utility impact <br />fees. When somebody owns a single-family home and the County - <br />brings in water and sewer, they can decide to hook up and pay their <br />impact fees at that time. That is not the case with traffic impact <br />fees. You can expand your house, or do anything to an existing <br />single-family house, without getting an increase in traffic impact <br />fees. The only time you are going to get hit with a traf f ic. impact <br />fee is when you are building a new house. <br />Director Keating pointed out some of the potential costs of <br />establishing a traffic impact fee financing program. It would <br />reduce the amount of traffic impact fees that we collect on an <br />annual basis. People -would be paying an interest rate, but it <br />would be coming in incrementally. Instead of getting money in <br />28 <br />MAY 189 1995- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.