My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
IPFNA Aug mtg Q&A final 906
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
General Planning Department Information
>
IPFNA
>
About Impact Fees
>
IPFNA Aug mtg Q&A final 906
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/21/2011 12:48:45 PM
Creation date
12/21/2011 12:48:44 PM
Metadata
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
: <br />Question <br />13. Are “impact fees” and “land tax” the same thing? <br />Response: <br /> No. Impact fees are not considered a tax. They are a one-time <br />fee designed to partially off-set the initial costs of infrastructure <br />construction and financing. A land tax is on-going exaction that is paid by <br />landowners to government, and not only funds initial construction and <br />financing costs, but also is used for operational funding and maintenance <br />of existing infrastructure. <br />CAPTAIN COOK <br />: <br />Question <br />1. Under the current system, affordable housing is not exempt <br />from fair share contributions. If an impact fee ordinance is adopted, and <br />affordable housing is exempted, will that be retroactive? <br />Response: <br /> In the first place, affordable housing will not be exempted from <br />the impact fee system. Although the affordable housing owner or builder <br />may not be personally responsible for impact fee payment, the fee must <br />be paid into the impact fee system from another source. Neither the <br />impact fee nor the program for payment of affordable housing impact fees <br />will be applied retroactively. <br />: <br />Question <br />2. Has the impact fee study anticipated the tax base that is <br />projected? <br />Response: <br /> The Infrastructure and Public Facilities Needs Assessment <br />Study establishes the maximum impact fee value that can be assessed for <br />each of the various infrastructure elements. It will be up to the County <br />Council to determine how much of that maximum is appropriate, should <br />the County move forward with an impact fee ordinance. Certainly one of <br />the considerations for the Council would be how much might be available <br />from the collection of other taxes that the County receives, and how that <br />relates to the overall budgetary requirements of the County, and the <br />projects perceived to be necessary for funding during that budgetary <br />cycle. <br />: <br />Question <br />3. Regarding the benefit principle: wouldn’t there be better <br />representation (pay-benefit) if there were more than 4 districts? How about <br />the same number of districts as we currently have represented by the <br />County Council? <br />Response: <br /> The number of benefit districts needs to be carefully <br />considered. If there are too many benefit districts, it may take longer to <br />build the fund and it might be difficult to spend all the money collected <br />within that district within the 6-year statutory time limit. By aggregating <br />Public Meeting Questions and AnswersPage 4 <br />August 15 & 16, 2006 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.