My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC Minutes 02/27/2012 Workshop
Laserfiche
>
City Clerk's Public Records
>
Minutes
>
City Commission Minutes
>
City Commission Minutes Archives
>
2012 City Commission Minutes
>
CC Minutes 02/27/2012 Workshop
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/15/2012 11:05:20 AM
Creation date
3/15/2012 10:55:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Meeting Type
Workshop
City Clerk - Doc Type
Minutes
City Clerk - Date
2/27/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
CASSELBERRY CITY COMMISSION <br />Minutes of I'ebruary 27, 2012 -wm•hshop <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />MI•. Don Martin, Community Development Director, gave a presentation regarding the City's Impact Fees <br />covering the following points: <br />® Background <br />® Fee Overview <br />® Practical Application <br />® Development considerations <br />MI•. Martin explained the purpose of impact fees and gave a breakdown of the types of impact fees collected <br />by the City, the amounts collected since the last update, current fund balances, and fund usage and future fund <br />intent. <br />A copy of the PowerPoint presentation is attached to and made a part of these minutes. <br />Discussion: Discussion ensued regarding the City's impact fees and the difference in fees for new <br />development versus redevelopment. Mr. Alan Ambler, Water Resources Manager, and Mr•. Marty <br />Pawlikowski, Special Projects Coordinator, were present to address specific questions for clarification <br />pwposes. <br />Staff Conclusions: <br />® Impact fees do affect the cost of development, but not significantly to the level as you might <br />expect. <br />® All impact fee studies need to be re-evaluated and updated. He noted these are usually done <br />by third party vendors and the funds would come out of the impact fees and not the General <br />Fund; typically updated every five years. <br />® If the Commission wished to provide relief, staff recommended suspension for a time certain <br />period rather than elimination of the fees. <br />® Road impact fees should be converted to mobility fee. Fiiaancing available throz~gh ~•oad <br />if~~pactfee•~irrr~d balance. <br />Further discussion ensued regarding the various requirements for conversion to a mobility fee, and the <br />possibility of waiving or reducing the impact fees for a year as a marketing strategy to encourage development. <br />Consensus: Commission consensus was that new impact fee studies should be conducted for all the <br />impact fees, with the exception of utilities, as that study is currently underway. The <br />Commission directed Mr. Newlon to proceed with seeking consultant(s) to conduct the shidies <br />and to bring the details regarding cost back to the Commission for consideration at a future <br />date. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.