My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
COM 1329.014 2006-2008
ClerkCouncil
>
Council Records
>
Communications
>
2006-2008
>
COM 1329.014 2006-2008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/11/2008 8:49:38 AM
Creation date
9/11/2008 8:47:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Communications
Communications - Type
COM
Communications - Council Term
2006-2008
Communication
1329
Point
014
Author
Chris Yuen, Planning Director
Communications - Referred To
PC
Document Relationships
AGE PC 10/07/2008 2006-2008
(Related To)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\2006-2008\Plannning Committee (PC)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Honorable Pete Hoffmann <br />Chair and Presiding Officer <br />and Members of the County Council <br />COUNTY COUNCIL <br />Page 7 <br />September 9, 2008 <br />of the house, but the difference is small: only about 30% more fora 4,000 square foot <br />house vs. a 1,000 square foot house. For simplicity's sake, Bi11324 did not vary the fees <br />by house size. <br />In contrast, property taxes are proportionate to value. For example, the property tax bill <br />for a home with a taxable value of $100,000, after applying all exemptions, in the <br />homeowners' class, is $555/yr., whereas for a home with a taxable value of $1,000,000, <br />after exemptions, the property tax bill is $5,550/yr. A 5%across-the-boazd increase in <br />property tax rates (to generate the equivalent of an impact fee) would cost the owner of <br />the $100,000 home $27.75/yr., while the owner of the $1,000,000 home would pay an <br />additional $277.50/yr. <br />In this sense, impact fees can be considered regressive compared to property taxes, again, <br />if the homebuyer bears the cost of the impact fee. <br />4. The County will have to budget operating funds for the new facilities, especially <br />parks. <br />If the County builds new parks with impact fees, it also has to budget funds to operate the <br />parks from other revenue sources. Bylaw, impact fees cannot be used for operating <br />expenses or salaries. ,The operating and maintenance costs for roads are relatively low <br />compared to the capital costs, and the impact fee will not generate enough funds to <br />greatly increase county investment in police, fire, or solid waste facilities. <br />5. Impact fees involve considerable administrative costs. <br />Naturally, these fees have to be collected and put in the proper accounts. The interface <br />with the fair share system creates some administrative issues (the prior fair share payment <br />has to be offset against any impact fee.) The affordable housing grants and loans will <br />also require much record-keeping and administration to determine eligibility. The impact <br />fee program will need additional staff in Planning, Finance, DPW-Building Division, and <br />the Office of Housing and Community Development. <br />6. The proposed impact fees are less than the "fair share" assessments. <br />The current "fair share" assessment is about $11,500 for asingle-family dwelling. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.