COM 0999.006 2004-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

9-11-06: 9= 54AM:1b085283463 .'8085283462 +t 9 Requiring the applicant to secure future commitments from the County for services and j infrastructure capacity that the County is responsible for planning and building seems 1 place the applicant in the position of reprioritizing the County's budget with no authority over the County. The University of Maryland, National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education recently completed a study on Inappropriate Use, Inconsistent Standards, and Unintended Consequences of Adequate Public Facility Ordinances (APFO). "APFO's are designed to assure that public schools, roads, sewers, water for fire fighting, police and rescue response times and/or other infrastructure or services are "adequate" to support proposed new development. (In other parts of the country, APFO's are sometimes referred to as "Concurrency Requirements.") The study concluded that APFO's were responsible for deflecting as much as io percent of the new home development that otherwise would have been built within the designated growth areas. The effect of this shift is that the amount of housing available in those counties is reduced, housing prices are inflated, and the growth simply moves elsewhere, often to rural areas never intended for growth or worse, simply does not occur. In short, the APFO's appear to be fueling the same pattern of development the State's Smart Growth policy is intended to curtail." "APFO's consistency with local comprehensive plans is possible only if adequate funding is allocated to provide necessary infrastructure in the plan's designated areas. When roads, schools, or other infrastructure are judged to be insufficient to meet the standards established within APFO's, the result is often a moratorium on building until the infrastructure is ready to come on line. The study recommended different financing options to provide adequate funding for infrastructure such as tax increment financing and special tax (improvement) districts. We recognize the need to address the current infrastructure deficiencies. We suggest that the Council find alternative ways to increase public infrastructure capacity for existing and future growth by bundling the following tools to provide the necessary financing: 1. Increase and/or dedicate a portion of the real property tax revenues to specific infrastructure. 2. The County may issue and sell bonds to provide funds for such improvement districts. Bonds issued to provide funds for such improvements may be either bonds when the only security therefore is the properties benefited or improved or the assessments thereon or bonds payable from taxes or secured by the taxing power of the county. 3. The County has the power to levy and assess a special tax on property located in a district to finance the special improvements (Community Facilities Districts) and to pay the debt service on any bonds issued to finance the special improvements. 4. Tax increment financing (TIF) is a way for governments (usually municipal authorities) to help finance new capital projects by taking advantage of expected property tax returns. A county, for example, may designate as a TIF district a plot j of land that is planned to be redeveloped. Then the county can borrow against expected increased tax revenues to build infrastructure such as sewers, roads and transportation services.