Large residential developments, such as Rhodes Ranch, are approved under development agreements, which require the builder to construct needed infrastructure such as new fire stations or traffic signals.

Also, impact fees already are assessed for improvements to the water and sewer systems, road construction, and desert tortoise preservation.

Comprehensive Planning Director Barbara Ginoulias said if developers are charged $2,600 a unit, as has been suggested, the county must use the funds within five years.

Ginoulias said the task is challenging because infrastructure needs are not realized for years after developments are built.

But some commissioners believe smaller developers are getting away with creating an impact without assisting the county with the costs associated with an increasing population.

"Development agreements are good for big projects, but it is the smaller projects that are getting away with nothing," Commissioner Chris Giunchigliani said.

Board members asked Ginoulias' staff to continue to study the issue and determine exactly which projects the impact fees can go toward.

State law provides strict restrictions on how impact fees can be used, Ginoulias said. Fees cannot be used to rehabilitate old parks or provide fully operating emergency facilities, for instance.

"We can use the fees to construct a shell fire station, but without the trucks and equipment and without the operation and maintenance," she said, adding that taxpayers would have to pick up those ongoing costs.

Most of the commissioners said they favored development agreements over impact fees.

Ginoulias pointed to the CityCenter Las Vegas project on the Strip. She said developers agreed to give the Metropolitan Police Department $330,000, provide land and build a fire station and give the county Fire Department $1 million for equipment.

Project developers also agreed to build two pedestrian bridges, which cost more than $10 million apiece.

If the county simply charged the CityCenter developers impact fees, it would have collected $3 million.

Commissioners expressed concern with charging housing developers impact fees, because the additional cost would be passed down to home buyers at a time when residents already are struggling to secure loans.

"Whatever you do, it will affect the individual who is going to buy the home," Commissioner Chip Maxfield said. "The worst thing you can do is strangle them. We are struggling in this valley; we need to always be cautious whenever we deal with fees."

The idea of sharing infrastructure costs with developers arose from recommendations made by a Growth Task Force assembled two years ago.

Collins objected to additional studies on the debate over fees.

"You had the Growth Task Force who said you need impact fees," Collins said. "This is the time to do something, or we get farther behind. We don't need another roundtable or another workshop or Growth Task Force Two or Three or Eight.

"We can't ignore the needs of this entire community because some people are not responsible enough to pay their mortgage."

Commission Chairman Rory Reid, who created the Growth Task Force, pushed for a more complete analysis and then return to the state Legislature to push for fewer restrictions on fees.

"I don't think we need another committee, but I think we need a little more clear direction," Reid said.