My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Reso 2000-230
SIBFL
>
City Clerk
>
Resolutions
>
Regular
>
2000
>
Reso 2000-230
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/3/2013 3:05:30 PM
Creation date
1/25/2006 1:56:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CityClerk-Resolutions
Resolution Type
Resolution
Resolution Number
2000-230
Date (mm/dd/yyyy)
05/18/2000
Description
Tischler & Assoc., Inc., Conduct an Impact Fee Feasibility Study, $4,700.
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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
<br />r--------~-----------------------------, <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />: ~ TiscWer & Associates, Inc. CAll TOll-FREE (800) 424-4318 <br /> <br />I . <br />I Please send the following: 4701 Sangamore Road, Suite N210 <br />o Reprint "20 Points to Know About Impact Fees" Bethesda. MD 20816 <br />I 0 (301) 320-6900. Fax (301) 320-4860 <br />Recent TA Fiscal & Economic Newsletters <br />I Also: Los Angeles. CA <br />I Information about TA Consulting Services: <br />o Fiscal Impact Analysis <br />I 0 Impact Fee Modeling and Critiques <br />I 0 Capital Improvement Programs <br />I 0 Revenue Strategies <br />I 0 Growth Policy Studies <br />I 0 Economic Development Strategies <br />o Market and Financial Feasibility Studies <br />I 0 Infonnation about MUNIES. FISCALS & CRIM City State _ Zip <br /> <br />L______________________________________~ <br /> <br />Some communities and their consultants tend to use <br />a level of service met elsewhere in the jurisdiction. It <br />is illegal to extract from new development fees to pay <br />for a higher level of service unless the jurisdiction is <br />using other funds to bring other parts of the jurisdic- <br />tion up to this same level of service. <br /> <br />D Do not rely solely on the jurisdiction's assump- <br />tions; instead, obtain your own background informa- <br />tion. Various local government departments may not <br />be familiar with the requirements of impact fees and <br />are therefore unlikely to understand clearly the differ- <br />ence between adopted and existing levels of service, <br />the relationship between service delivery areas and ex- <br />isting and new capital facilities, and several other is- <br />sues. If builders ask local jurisdictions the right ques- <br />tions, they should be able to extract the needed infor- <br />mation. <br />Some of the questions to ask are: What is the basis <br />for the land use projections? How were service areas <br />ascertained to meet the rational nexus requirements? <br />How were levels of service and cost factors deter- <br />mined? How have credits for other payments been <br />considered? <br /> <br />II Analyze the capital improvement budget. Poten- <br />tial impact fee rev.enues need to be related to the capi- <br />tal improvement budget or capital improvement plan. <br />That is, there should be capital projects in the plan <br />that' can legitimately use impact fees. It is important <br />for builders to become familiar with this budget and <br />its validity over both the short and long terms. <br /> <br />II Be familiar with the likely geographic service ar- <br />eas in order to evaluate the rational nexus requirement. <br />In summary, rational nexus requires a reasonable rela- <br />tionship between the need for the capital facility and <br /> <br />Name <br /> <br />the use of impact fees directly benefitting those pay- <br />ing. To show a direct benefit to the development pay- <br />ing the impact fee, jurisdictions tend to describe larger <br />service areas than may be appropriate. <br />D Can a jurisdiction provide the needed capital fa- <br />cilities? The recommended impact fees should dem- <br />onstrate some relationship to what the jurisdiction is <br />capable of providing. Whether due to time lag, back- <br />log of existing facilities, debt ratios, or political con- <br />straints, the effort that goes into setting an impact fee <br />will be diminished if the jurisdiction canno.t,provide <br />the needed capital facilities in a timely fashion (as- <br />suming that the impact fee does not pay 100 percent <br />of the new cost). <br />II Understand the importance of granting credits. Un- <br />der the provisions of some state statutes, the future <br />tax payments of a house or nonresidential property that <br />are used to cover the debt service of a particular capi- <br />tal facility need to be credited against the impact fee <br />amount on a discounted basis. Even in states that do <br />not require the granting of credits, the "spirit" of im- <br />pact fees is to avoid double payments. <br />',., <br /> <br />Reality Testing <br /> <br />As already mentioned, impact fees are popular be- <br />cause elected officials perceive them as a free <br />revenue source not paid by current constituents. As a <br />practical matter, several of the flawed impact fee meth- <br />odologies gained acceptance because the fee amount <br />ultimately proved to be much lower than the amount <br />discussed in the impact fee report. Of course, in some <br />jurisdictions, lower fees are subject to annual increases. <br /> <br />Agency <br /> <br />Title <br /> <br />Telephone <br /> <br />Street <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.