Every other county has impact fees. What is the problem?

There are a dozen other threads, read & get ramped up if you really want to know.:a040:

I seriously doubt that a one time impact fee is going to sway any major retailer one way or the other. $100,000 (for example) is chump change to Costco.

I’m perfectly happy with that. We already have way too much traffic around TV. We do not need more.

Yes, I am happy. Let’s look at why.

- At least one of The commissioners wanted to pause the impact fee decision to take the time to have a truly independent expert analyze the effects of the increase, good idea.

- Unfortunately, the commissioners were put into a circumstance where they had no choice but to immediately make an important decision that should not have been fast tracked.

- The commissioners were wrongly put through a nasty negative attack of their character that could be characterized as bullying and had every right to respond in kind with vengeance against their attackers.

- Instead of an understandable nasty response, the commissioners took the high road and did not try to stick it to the party that unscrupulously dredged their character through the mud.

- When forced to make a decision on an expedited time line, the commissioners chose something very rare these days. They comprised down the middle, going half way between today’s impact fees and the maximum amount they could have imposed.

What a rare and nice thing, political compromise. Something that seems to never happen these days.

I understand that the new impact fees won’t come close to covering the 25 % property tax increase, but whatever revenue they raise can reduce the county’s residents property taxes by an equal dollar amount and the counties budget will be revenue neutral. That is not a tax increase, it is a tax reallocation.

I don’t care if it is a 1% or a 10% property tax reduction, the important thing is that IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO! Thanks to the new commissioners for not buckling to the intense pressure put on them and having the intestinal fortitude to do the right thing. :bigbow:

The State bill will not pass. $2mil/yr will not have a significant impact on taxes, a study should have been completed...............could have been completed in less than 30 days.

Abrogation of their fiduciary responsibility for political expediency is never "the right thing to do".

What study should have been done? (honestly curious, not trying to make any point)

:coolsmiley:
Some say the 2019 Road Impact Study should be updated.
A new study could have been completed, IF necessary.
The study takes county data then.......plug & play into a model.
Easily completed within 30 days.
:ho:

In what way did they abrogate their fiduciary responsibility?

Some would argue that their responsibility is to all their constituents, all the residents in the county. If this action increases income which leads to reduced taxes while not negatively impacting the future stability of the county finances, isn't that exactly what they are supposed to do?

I haven't been able to find the 2015 study to see how things changed in the four years prior to the latest study. It would be interesting to use that to speculate how they might have further changed in the past 18 months.

2015 was $2600
2019 was $2666

Ok, thank you.

Taking a closer look at the table in the 2019 report I see that both those numbers are at or near the 40% adoption mark. The table also provides the 100% mark and those numbers are similar in the two years for every category. Not much changed between 2015 and 2019.

It would have been nice to see some analysis of the cost/benefit of changing the discount fee, something more than just splitting the difference.

It is too bad that, because of astute political maneuvering by the forces of the Developer, the road-impact fee was not increased to 100%.

Hopefully, impact fees will be imposed for other Developer-necessitated county infrastructure like: fire and police buildings and equipment, sewage lines and plants, libraries, other government buildings, ambulances and similar equipment, and parks. We need to stop subsidizing the Developer's massive expansion of The Villages. It will happen, but the current residents should not be paying for it.

Remember the basic fact: The increase in impact fees is NOT a tax increase. It will be offset by a reduction in property taxes-- for both present and future residents AND businesses.

That is NOT a fact.

It may be offset by a reduction in property taxes. It may also offset money in the general fund that gets used for something else. Perhaps it will be used to offset a decrease in services currently provided by the developer. Perhaps property taxes would have been lowered this year just as they were last year without any change in the fee.

The impact of the increased fees is yet to be seen, we might be rethinking the idea in a year or so.