11/12/1996 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- M M County -Attorney Vitunac called impact fees a "true cost" of providing the service to the units. He went on to say that the question then became who should pay for the cost of the low-cost housing: utilities customers, the general fund, or some other source. Director Keating advised they had looked at the possibility of imposing additional local option gas tax and had calculated proceeds by using from 10 to 60, but the committee and Board decided against it. Commissioner Bird stressed that other counties offered more favorable impact fees on land costs to attract developers. Commissioner Eggert recounted the results of a study Tim Zorc had conducted which revealed that other counties had other fees which were not labeled impact fees, but which produced similar costs to developers. Director Keating estimated that 37 of the 67 counties in the state have the traf f is impact fees. He explained that Indian River County is limited to three impact fees which provide basic, necessary infrastructure. Commissioner Macht wanted to discuss again why our county has subsidized housing, because he felt that some people are just milking the system at the expense of hard-working taxpayers. Commissioner Eggert submitted that this was not the time for that discussion. Director Keating pointed out that "county funds" were not being used for housing subsidies. The funding of the SHIP program comes from State documentary stamps and the good thing about SHIP money is that it is a deferred payment loan and provides a lot of benefits, such as construction, housing for people who would not be able to have a house on their own, and increased property taxes. Commissioner Eggert recalled that the last time SHIP was discussed, there was a reduction in middle income recipients. Conservation Element Director Keating reviewed some of the objectives and major accomplishments since 1990 under the Conservation Element using the following guide: 11 November 12, 1996 BOOK 99 F'An 795 I