Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Finance Impact Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Impact‑fee study presentation delayed; public comments surface split views on implementation, exemptions and tiering
Summary
A consultant’s impact‑fee presentation was delayed until 1 p.m.; public commenters and business and civic representatives offered differing views on whether Putnam County should adopt impact fees now, propose exemptions, or use tiered fees and set‑asides for workforce and economic development.
The planning and development public hearing on impact fees was rescheduled to 1:00 p.m. because the county’s consultant was delayed; the board voted to move the report to the afternoon session.
Several members of the public addressed the board before the consultant’s presentation. Brandon Smiley, an investor and home builder, said he opposes implementing impact fees at this time, arguing that volatile construction costs and current interest rates would harm smaller local builders and affordable‑housing projects. Smiley told commissioners he would be “absolutely open” to grant programs or other collaboration that would offset fees for workforce housing and smaller builders.
David Miner, a resident, asked commissioners to consider exemptions for long‑time property owners who have paid taxes on vacant properties for many years, and suggested broader revenue alternatives such as a small sales‑tax increase to spread costs across a wider base.
Michael Woodward of Interlachen spoke in favor of impact fees, saying they shift infrastructure costs to new development rather than existing taxpayers. He recommended a tiered impact‑fee system for residential development so smaller homes pay smaller fees, noting surrounding counties use such tiering.
Benjie Bates, speaking on behalf of the Putnam County Chamber of Commerce, said the chamber’s board voted for full support of impact fees and recommended that the county preserve the ability to set aside a portion of impact‑fee revenue for targeted economic development that brings jobs and expands the tax base.
The board did not take a final action on a fee schedule at the meeting; it moved the consultant presentation to 1 p.m. to allow the presenter to arrive. Commissioners asked questions about definitions such as “workforce housing” and expressed interest in options that mitigate fee impacts for qualified housing and development types.
