REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF
DECEMBER 11, 2007
The Lake County Board of
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE
Commissioner Welton G. Cadwell gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the Board had a workshop last week with the School Board and went through the Impact Fee Ordinance and the supporting documents. He commented that the Agenda was numbered improperly and that the order would be Tab 1 first; which was a concurrency, not impact fee, issue; Tab 2 is the one which affects the fee which would be discussed last, and Tab 3 would be discussed second, making the order for Public Hearings as Tab 1, Tab 3, and Tab 2.
CHAPTER V-A, NECESSARY PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES ORDINANCE
Mr. Sandy Minkoff,
ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF
He commented that this is an Interim Concurrency Ordinance which extends this section of the Code until December 31, 2008, at which time hopefully they will have the Concurrency Amendment adopted.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commissioner Hill, seconded by Commr. Stewart, and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved Ordinance No. 2007-59, Amending Chapter V-A, Entitled Necessary Public Services and Facilities, Section 5A.01.02 Entitled Applicability, to Extend the Expiration Date; Providing for Severability; Providing for Inclusion in the Code; and Providing for an Effective Date.
OF CHAPTER 22, LAKE
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING CHAPTER 22 OF THE LAKE COUNTY CODE ENTITLED IMPACT FEES; AMENDING APPLICABILITY OF PARK IMPACT FEES; DELETING UNNECESSARY AND UNUSED DEFINITIONS; CLARIFYING DEFINITIONS; INCREASING THE SIZE OF THE IMPACT FEE COMMITTEE; ADDING LANGUAGE CLARIFYING THE TIME THAT IMPACT FEES WILL BE DETERMINED; PROVIDING FOR RECAPTURE OF WAIVED IMPACT FEES UPON SALE TO A NON-QUALIFIED INDIVIDUAL; AUTHORIZING DEFERRAL OF IMPACT FEES FOR LOW OR VERY LOW INCOME HOUSING IN CERTAIN INSTANCES; AUTHORIZING PREPAYMENT OF IMPACT FEES; MODIFYING PROVISIONS RELATING TO REFUND OF IMPACT FEES; MODIFYING PROVISIONS RELATING TO EXEMPTIONS FROM IMPACT FEES; AMENDING PROVISIONS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATIVE FEES; AMENDING THE APPEALS PROVISIONS; MAKING CLARIFICATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS TO ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS OF COLLECTING AND ACCOUNTING FOR IMPACT FEES; PROVIDING FOR A SEVERANCE CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE LAKE COUNTY CODE.
He stated that the changes were discussed at the workshop and stated that there are three additional changes they would like to discuss with the Board.
Mr. Minkoff stated that the first change, which is a clarification, was in Chapter 22-14(2) located on page 20 of the Ordinance and adds the word “removal” and the intent of the change is to make it clear that removal of a mobile home and replacement with a new mobile home would still keep the exemption.
He stated that the second change was to 22-16, which substantially reduced the administrative charge for impact fee collection down to a maximum $100 and that at a meeting with several City Managers, it was noted that some cities may have costs in excess of $100. He stated that this change would allow a municipality to set their own fee as long as it did not exceed the actual cost of collection of the fee.
Commr. Cadwell questioned whether they would have to prove to the Board that was the actual collection cost.
Mr. Minkoff stated that it would not have to be proved to the Board, as the objection would come from whom they collected, so they would be the ones to whom it would have to be proven.
Mr. Minkoff stated that the third change was a technical one. He stated that the Board would recall that one of the changes in this Ordinance on page 20 was that it required when a home was destroyed or removed from the site that it would have to be built or replaced within six years in order to stay exempt. He explained that it was pointed out that there were some citizens who had things destroyed or removed recently or within the last couple of years who had been told there was no time limit. He reported that this change would allow everyone either six years from the time it was destroyed or six years from today to be exempt and thereafter it would only be six years from the date the home or building, if it was a commercial use, was destroyed which provides an additional safe haven for existing citizens who had buildings destroyed in the past.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Jean Kaminski, Executive Director of the Homebuilders Association, questioned
the Board regarding Section 22-10 which states that the
Commr. Cadwell asked Mr. Minkoff about the question Ms. Kaminski raised. Mr. Minkoff stated that she had a good point and that Section 22-10, on page 16, the sentence starting with the word “however” on line 20, should be deleted.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stewart, and unanimously carried by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved Ordinance No. 2007-60, Amending Chapter 22, Lake County Code, Impact Fees, with changes including the three items brought forward by Mr. Minkoff today and deletion of the sentence on page 16, line 20, previously mentioned.
OF CHAPTER 22, LAKE
Mr. Sandy Minkoff,
ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; ADOPTING AN UPDATED EDUCATIONAL IMPACT FEE STUDY; ADOPTING UPDATED AND INCREASED EDUCATIONAL IMPACT FEES; AMENDING SECTION 22-21 OF THE LAKE COUNTY CODE TO ADOPT THE IMPACT FEE STUDY FOR EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IN LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, DATED JUNE 28, 2007; AMENDING SECTION 22-22 OF THE LAKE COUNTY CODE TO ADOPT INCREASED EDUCATIONAL IMPACT FEES; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; PROVIDING A SEVERANCE CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Heather Wooding, on behalf of all parents from Pine Ridge Elementary, where she has been the SAC Chairman for the past five years, stated that she agreed it was for the children that they were here and that the study has proven that there does need to be an increase of the impact fees, though the School Board differs in the amount of what those should be and felt they should all meet in the middle, stating that $14,000 was too high, but $9,000 was too low and perhaps they should come to a compromise somewhere in the middle. She stated that good business and good economics cannot be brought in without good schools.
Mr. Van Church, Political Director
for Service Employees International Union, who represent the over 2,000
non-instructional school staff in
Ms. Michele Bodzioch, from
Mr. Bill Calhoun, of
Mr. Choice Edwards, from Clermont,
stated that he is for commercial growth but does not want to pay for it. He expressed his gratitude to the School
Board and Board of County Commissioners for the courage to stand up against the
opposition for quality education of
Ms. Nancy Fullerton, a retired school teacher and guidance counselor, supports those who wish to increase the impact fees including the costs of financing and would like to see the higher costs in the different categories. She stated that the developer may have to cut profits, or stop building until the market catches up. She believed the order of impact fee payment should be first and foremost by the residential developer and then the payment by the new homeowner, but there should be no payment from the existing residents or raising of taxes.
Mr. Carl Ludecke, of Charlie Johnson Builders, addressed the Board stating that he had visited about 100 elementary school classrooms in the north end of the County together with an American Legion project and every one of those classrooms had an average of 19 students. From a construction standpoint, he suggested turning two classrooms into three because of the large square footage of these rooms, explaining the classrooms could be increased by fifty percent by reconfiguring and redesigning the rooms. He believed that there were alternative ways to increase capacity in school rooms other than raising the impact fee.
Mr. Keith Schue, of
Mr. Mike Baker stated that if the
impact fee is raised, thousands of people will stop coming to
Mr. Bob Funk, a retired airline pilot,
stated that when his industry was deregulated and there was chaos many years
ago, the airline industry did not come before the Board asking to be subsidized
by the taxpayers of
Mr. Frank Wood, a veteran teacher
from Eustis, who teaches Economics in Mt. Dora High School, stated that he
comes before the Board as a parent, homeowner, and taxpayer and that tonight
there is an opportunity to build a better community by building Lake County
schools and hopes that they weigh the long-term needs of the community when
considering the adjustment of the School Impact Fee to the level determined by the
School Board. He urged the Board to
consider two important facts, stating that according to the U. S. Census
Mr. Dan Robuck asked that the Board listen closely to new information that Mr. Don Magruder would present. He commented that the economy was worse than he had ever seen it, and they are asking the Board not to make the situation worse by instituting the second highest impact fee in the nation. He referred to a recent article in The Wall Street Journal which stated that in areas with lower taxes and fees, the people are prospering, but in areas where the taxes and fees are higher, the individuals are not prospering.
Mr. Bob Foley, of Montverde, stated that his son attended year-round school beginning in 1996 for a period of three years and commented that nothing has really changed to date, explaining that the schools were overcrowded then as well as now. He mentioned that portables are used all over the County because residential units built from 1996 to 2004 did not pay anything towards new classrooms and that cost was burdened by all taxpayers, not just those moving into the County. He reported that in 2004 the BCC approved an impact fee to create new funding for new student stations, but it did not provide funding for the interest costs. He urged the to Board approve the impact fee on behalf of all the parents in the County.
Reverend David Johnson, a minister of 27 years, stated that both sides must be considered noting the fact that better schools are needed, but at the same time they need to realize where it is taken from, where it is being put, what will it be for, and whether it would weaken or strengthen the economy. He suggested this issue should be a matter of prayer as it is very crucial and believes there is a way through God’s help to get the schools built.
Mr. Brett DeGarmo, a Lake County resident of two years, chose to move to Lake County after having lived in 18 states, moved 35 times, lived in over 20 counties and had built homes in seven other states, commented that only one State other than Florida had an impact fee. He reported that the other states’ impact fees were for water, sewers and roads. He commented that he stands for the businesses and economic growth in the County, but was concerned about the justification of where the impact fees would be going. He explained that he knew what effect impact fees have had on other counties and the states in which he has lived and it did not promote growth or help in recruiting. He stated that if the County were going to try to recruit businesses and establish healthy economic growth, large impact fees would deter people, including middle management and executives, from coming into the County. He explained that he would be willing to keep impact fees, but that the fees should not be increased.
Ms. Carol Saviak, Executive Director
of the Coalition for Property Rights, stated that she was disappointed that they
were discussing this issue at all and that when the economy is hurting, taxes
should not be raised. She commented that
impact fees are narrowly based taxes levied on a few thousand people and was
amazed that a Commission that would struggle at raising utility fees by $20
does not hesitate to tax 3,000-4,000 property owners $7,500. She stated that impact fees have a great
effect on those who can least afford it, emphasizing that impact fees will not
build a better community or school system.
She commented that if they make
Mr. Ron Boddicker, of Tavares, addressed the Board stating that one of the most revealing aspects of the national real estate downturn had been to note the reduction in prices of developer’s new homes, and thinks that gives insight into the kinds of profits involved. He believed that even with the absorption of the interest of the impact fees, the developer would still make a fair profit on each home. He commented that the developer could choose to absorb some or all of the costs, and he would like to see those who are building mansions charged a higher impact fee which would go into a fund to assist affordable housing. He stated that there are other solutions and suggested that the County needs the entire impact fee.
Ms. Jeanne Etter, of
Mr. Robert G. Buckert, stated that he felt strongly about having quality schools built, because without them quality education would be lacking. He commented that he was in favor of the impact fee.
Ms. Terry Godts commented that a
school impact fee would not work against business interests, and commented that
it would be the best thing for business, noting that excellent schools attract
excellent business. She relayed an
experience in St. Cloud where improvements were made to make the city
attractive to business, but when the Mayor of St. Cloud took a potential
businessman who planned to move his business there, he was very impressed with
the improvements of the town until they visited the high school, which was old
and run down with many portable buildings, and the businessman stated that was
all he needed to see. She stated that
the lack of good schools was the deal breaker, and commented that excellent
schools attract excellent business opportunities, and that
Mr. Greg Gruetzmacher stated that he is opposed to the impact fees and that by imposing the fees, the County is blocking out the younger generation because they would not be able to afford a new home.
Mr. Mark Keller, of Clermont, stated that the County has a very narrowly defined impact tax for growth which had been used improperly in the past for ongoing operations and not building for the future. He commented that now they are going to make people moving into the County carry the entire tax burden. He stated that the fee should be a burden shared by all and not concentrated on a few thousand.
Mr. Mike Archer stated that for the
past five years he has been a teacher, and by spending any time in the schools
overcrowding could be seen, and there would be an awareness of the education
budget’s lack of funds to solve this problem.
He reported that the schools are financially broke, and it would not be
fair to cram children into the classes as this does not promote good learning
skills. He stated that the leaders in
Mr. Andrew Arvesen, of Clermont, voiced
his opinion that builders and developers as pavers and profiteers were
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 6:20 p.m. Commr. Cadwell announced that the Board would recess for 10 minutes.
PUBLIC HEARING (CONT’D.)
Ms. Sherry Boam expressed the
importance of quality education and asked the Board to approve the increase in
impact fees. She stated those coming
into the County should contribute to the school system, because good schools
sell homes and bring businesses here. She
stated that one of the nation’s prominent home builders, Lennar Homes, produced
the flyer distributed to the Board showcasing the three schools around their
development because good schools sell good homes. She asked the Board do what is necessary to
help the children of
Mr. Gerry Suarez, Senior Vice President of Thomas Mortgage, stated the he was not concerned with things of the past and stated that the issue at hand is funding future growth and the needs it creates. He commented that people would be priced out-of-the market if the impact fee is increased; stating that now is not the time, and requested finding solutions.
Mr. Jim Kehrig stated that the majority of people coming into the County are buying used homes, and that the retirees and elderly are buying most of the new homes and neither group would pay impact fees. He expressed concern with what had been done with the tax increase money due to the number of people coming into the County as well as what happened to the State lotto fund for schools. He mentioned that he had noticed all the schools being built or renovated were done so in a high-end manner and that children cannot be taught any better in a Cadillac than in a Chevy.
Ms. Vicki Zaneis, a former realtor,
stated that fact, not emotions, should determine the decision of impact fees
stating that the taxpayers of
Ms. Arlene Sunderlage, former
teacher and President of the PTO at Sawgrass Bay Elementary, stated that her
neighborhood in Clermont had gone through a tremendous growth period. She stated that educating the children needs
to be first and foremost and that the impact fee was needed to fund that. She urged the Board to take heart of what was
needed for the future of
Ms. Jean Kaminski, a longtime
Ms. Therese Tucker moved to Leesburg
approximately one year ago and was excited to be in the County, stating that
her concerns for
Ms. Dawn McNulty, a contractor,
realtor and mother residing in
Mr. Alan Parrow, CEO and President of Pringle Development, addressed the Board stating that from a personal point of view and from the point of view of his company they would be better off if they raised the fee to the levels being proposed. He explained that Pringle Development generates over 98 percent of its earnings from developing and building homes for active adults 55 and older, and HUD authorized communities where no one under the age of 18 can live and therefore, their buyers are not charged an impact fee. However, he urged the Board not to support the proposed increase stating it was ill-conceived. He commented that the argument before the Board was how to fund schools, not whether having good schools is good or not. He opined that if the increase were passed all new home sales would stop other than those in the active adult market place and those will do nothing to fund schools. He reiterated his request not to pass the school impact fee.
Mr. Vance Jochim stated that one of
the reasons he moved to
Ms. Sue Jantz commented that there had been a suggestion earlier that two classrooms could be reconfigured into three in order to save money and challenged them to reconfigure the homes now being used as two homes to three homes; thereby they could spread the cost of the building. She opined that people responsible for developing in new areas should fund the impact and does not think the school system was asking for funding for existing schools.
Mr. Dale Sands stated that the proponents of the impact fee have some very valid points in theory, and he was 100 percent for good schools. However, he remarked that raising impact fees would not generate more money for the school district at this time because there are so few houses being constructed right now, and by eliminating even more potential buyers, they would end up with less revenue. Secondly, he stated that even if there were a large volume of work going on and the impact fee did not hamper the sales of homes, the poor spending accountability of the School Board has to be considered a lot more than the impact fees. He commented that if the impact fee would really generate funds and accountability was restored, he suggested bringing it back when the economy is better.
Mr. Bill Edgington stated that the Board should think through the impact fee issue from an economic situation. He commented that money is not going to make the difference, that it comes down to teachers, administrators, and using the funds in a proper way.
Commr. Cadwell stated there were some organizations that asked to speak and then the discussion would be brought back to the Board for a vote.
Mr. Robert Johnson representing the
Chamber Alliance, which was made up of eight Chambers of Commerce in Lake
County representing about 32 businesses, stated that they deal with a diverse
group of individuals who have diverse opinions on this issue and they are here
tonight representing them all. He commented
that they are committed as businesses in the community to the school system and
to affordable housing. He explained that
they had looked at the actual study and the fact is that impact fees are for
new growth. He stated that
Mr. Don Magruder, Chairman, Florida
Building Material Association, stated he would like to discuss facts and
fairness, two aspects that have been missing from the discussion. He opined that builders and businesses do pay
their fair share for growth with high sales tax, ad valorem taxes and excessive
county fees. He thought that the problem
Mr. Bill Deese, representing the
Greater Lake County Association of Realtors (GLCAR), stated that
Mr. Rob Kelly, representing the
Citizens Coalition as President, addressed the Board and stated that the core
issue was whether or not the
Mr. Jim Bible, representing the Home
Builders Association of Lake County, stated that he was here to discuss whether
the Henderson Young & Company (HY) School Impact Fee Report dated June 28, 2007,
justifies Lake County assessing the highest impact fees in the State of Florida
and the second highest in the country.
He commented that in 2003 the school impact fee was tripled from $1,200
to $3,489; in 2005, at the request of the School Board, the Board of County
Commissioners doubled the school impact fee from $3,489 to over $7,000. He stated that the County decided that the
study’s original recommendation of $17,500 was not in compliance with the
Interlocal Agreement, so the consultant changed the fee to $14,646, which the
School Board has recommended to the Board for adoption. He then submitted for the record a
presentation, with thirteen exhibits and additional supporting documents and
data, referring to the latest school impact fees, some of which will not go
into effect until next year. He reported
that Seminole, Brevard and
Mr. Bible stated there were three significant issues with the HY Impact Fee Study which were the inclusion of borrowing costs in the calculation of the impact fees, the inclusion of costs to pay for the State Mandated Class-Size Reductions, and the fact that the Henderson Young study used outdated data from 2004 and 2005 to project student populations, revenue and expenses. Mr. Bible explained how a failure to use the most recent data combined with a poor methodology resulted in an impact fee calculation which was not believable and that the study overstated enrollment and understated revenue. He commented that the Henderson Young methodology with the correct data would show that no impact fee amount would be justified. He stated this comparison demonstrates that the study by HY should be discarded and a new study commissioned using legally defensible data and methodology.
He stated that the School Board has
not tackled the funding of existing deficiencies by fully evaluating alternative
funding sources, but has selected impact fees because they tax only new homes
and had historically been a safe political decision. He submitted a copy of a letter from an
attorney which provides a legal opinion that the inclusion of borrowing costs
in the impact fees is illegal, that the inclusion of costs related to the State
Mandated Class-Size Reductions in the calculation of impact fees is illegal,
that the exclusion of credits in the calculation of the impact fees are illegal
and that non-compliance with the 2006 Florida Impact Fee Act requirement to use
the most recent and localized data is illegal.
Mr. Bible urged the Board to reject this Impact Fee Study and not to
vote for the highest impact fee in the State of
Mr. Randy Young, of Henderson Young
& Company, responded to Mr. Bible’s remarks by stating that HYs report had
been on the record for months and everyone has had an opportunity to put it
under the microscope. He pointed out
that the excess revenue of the School Board that was shown as actually borrowed
money. Mr. Young commented that a judge
Mr. Young mentioned that much has been made about the fact that the data in the study goes back to 2005, but the five year plan for the district that was included covers up to 2010, so there is still some future left. He stated that no one had raised the point that if they redo the study and revise the enrollment forecast, they would also need to revise the revenue forecast. He commented that the School Board relies heavily on property taxes and sales taxes to pay for its capital improvements, both of which are in the same downward spiral as the rest of the economy. If they were going to upgrade the enrollment forecast he would insist that they update the School Board’s five year plan revenue forecast to reflect not only the decline in property values that have already occurred, but also the possible increase in decline in tax base depending on the voters’ decision January 29 with tax reform.
Mr. Larry Metz, Chairman of the Lake
County School Board, stated that one of the reasons there was an issue that
seems divisive was that they have a funding system for school capital
facilities that leaves a gap in funding at the School Board level, which forced
them to look into imposing an impact fee designed to close the gap in capital
funding so that there would be no deficiency in their capital plan. He stated that they have a list of unfunded
capital projects that have been there since he has been on the School Board, and
the object to have an adequate impact fee was to make sure as new residential
units come on line that generates students they must have the ability to
generate enough student stations to avoid a situation resulting in overcrowded
schools. They commissioned an impact fee
study conducted by a qualified expert in accordance with established case law
precedence to determine what the impact fee should be. He stated that the School Board instructed
the consultant to have the study be data driven, and based on student stations,
likewise to consider revenue streams that
Ms. Kyleen Fischer, representing
District 5 of the Lake County School Board, asked the Board to make a declaration
in support of public education, teaching professionals, and support staff
working in overcrowded conditions in the Lake County School System. She explained that the students in the
Ms. Cindy Barrow, representing
District 3 of the Lake County School Board, stated that part of the School
Board’s ability to ensure that new student stations can be built was an
accurate impact fee which reflects the true cost of providing new schools. She stated that the
Mr. Scott Strong, representing
District 2 of the Lake County School Board, stated that he supported the impact
fees and the inclusion of interest in the calculation. He asked that the Board review and analyze
the facts before them. He stated that a
quality school system would provide the growth and diversified economy needed
Mr. Jimmy Connor, representing
District 4 of the Lake County School Board, stated that since 2001 the School
Board has undertaken 27 major construction projects in the
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 8:40 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a 10 minute break.
OF CHAPTER 22, LAKE
Commr. Cadwell stated that a spokesman for Lennar Homes wished to inform everyone that their brochure was not a public endorsement of impact fees.
Commr. Cadwell explained that they have worked closely with the School Board concurrency and will continue to work through this process. He commented that he was concerned that they do not have a legal opinion that the interest is valid. He stated that two years ago they prevented the legislature from taking away their ability to impose impact fees, but the legislature continues to try to remove that option. He explained that he was not comfortable with the full amount of the requested impact fee, but felt comfortable with the $9,324 figure, which excludes the interest fee and thought it was defendable. He specified that there was no case law saying the interest fee is illegal, but there was no case law saying it is legal, since at the present time they cannot obtain a legal opinion saying it is valid.
Commr. Hill stated that the Impact Fee Committee has worked long and hard on this and there were a lot of very close votes when they talked about the fees. She commented that she felt the study should be legally justifiable, all the numbers should be correct, and there should be no reason to question the numbers. She explained that she knew there was no legal opinion and stated she was more comfortable adopting the study without the interest fee component and setting the fee at the $9,000+ figure.
Stewart stated that she had listened to everything that had been said tonight and
noted there were some good points made.
She stated that our schools are in a crisis, these are very difficult
economic times, and that the decision being made tonight would have a huge
impact on this County. She reported that
the life of a school teacher, even when conditions are perfect, includes the
responsibility of preparing our country’s children to become educated,
productive citizens who will be able to compete in the global market. She stated that on a daily basis, teachers
are required to meet the needs of every single student in their rooms including
the bright ones, the not so bright ones, the behavior problems, the handicapped
and even the hungry and tired students who do not receive the nurturing they
need at home. She reported that the
County had a tax base of 80 percent residential and 20 percent commercial, and
the residential does not pay for itself.
She stated that even with increased taxes and fees, citizens have had to
unfairly pay to keep up with the uncontrolled growth, and there still was not
enough money to pay for the schools. She explained that
Commr. Renick explained that the issue comes down to the borrowing fees, and they did not include any of the borrowing costs the last time, which put the School Board farther behind. She related that there have been other counties who had included this and she was willing to take the risk of adding in the borrowing cost. She commented that the basic issue that everyone agrees on is increasing impact fees, but she felt that who shoulders the burden should be part of the picture.
Commr. Stewart agreed that if the schools were not fully funded, they would still be behind.
Commr. Renick stated that as far as whether or not they collected the fee, that interest is a big part of their expense and she felt they would end up right where they were before if that was not included.
Commr. Hill stated that it was a legal issue and she did not like putting it to the cost of the actual student stations as she felt they were two separate costs. She commented that because they have a financial management decision as to how to get that station, they were adding it on and stated that the student station and the cost is one fee, the interest is another fee and she did not see putting them together on an impact fee. She commented that what is different this time that they did not have last time was an Interlocal Agreement stating they have proportionate share requiring that the developer come in with proportionate share over and above the impact fee if they do not meet capacity in that area.
Commr. Cadwell stated the School Board would have to agree with concurrency and would have to agree that this would be what it would cost if they wanted to build in this area.
Commr. Cadwell felt that if they stay at a stalemate, the impact fees would stay the same, and that a 2/2 vote is a no vote.
On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Cadwell, and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the adoption of the School Impact Fee Study without the interest fee component setting the fee of single family homes at $9,324, multi-family homes at $5,689, and mobile homes at $3,297.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
WELTON G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN
NEIL KELLY, CLERK