My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC - Minutes - City Council - 11/22/2011
>
City Clerk
>
Permanent Records
>
Permanent
>
CC - Minutes - City Council - 11/22/2011
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/15/2020 12:14:25 PM
Creation date
11/12/2018 2:40:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC - Minutes
Department
City Clerk
Sub
Clerk Records
Content
Minutes
Committee Status
Current
Document Type
City Council
Meeting Type
REGULAR
Meeting Date
11/22/2011
Retention
Permanent
Retention Type
Permanent
Security
Public
Scanner
Conversion
Scan Date
12/14/2011
Record Series
GS1016, #10260
Conversion Meeting Type
REGULAR
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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
Prescott City Council <br /> Regular Voting Meeting — November 22, 2011 Page 9 <br /> Impact Fee Fund be used to repay the Capital Improvement Fund <br /> loan. <br /> Councilman Blair asked why the State would want to assert their <br /> authority on what a community could do to better serve its citizens <br /> by having impact fees to be able to have a funding mechanism to <br /> survive. Mr. Brehm said the main push for this came from Central <br /> Arizona Homebuilders (CAH). He said that it was a compromise <br /> between the municipalities and the home builders. <br /> Councilman Blair said that they will no longer hear that growth <br /> pays for growth. <br /> Mr. McConnell said there was a broad view which could be taken <br /> on this issue. He said that the ordinance was to do away with <br /> recreation and public building impact fees. He said that it was <br /> reflecting a sentiment among certain parties that, whereas streets, <br /> and utilities were necessary for new development, recreation and <br /> public buildings were not. He noted that communities were more <br /> than streets and utilities. The municipalities would have fewer tools <br /> as they went into the future, to be able to affirmatively respond to <br /> growth paying for growth. <br /> Councilman Blair noted that users' fees may be more appropriate <br /> to be able to provide maintenance. Mr. McConnell said it could <br /> lead to a division of the community. Some communities charged a <br /> cost of service depending on when someone moved there. <br /> Councilwoman Suttles asked if that was just the start with what the <br /> State was going to do. Mr. McConnell said they had been <br /> collecting fees, but the increases were frozen. He said they could <br /> only be used to defray the impacts of new growth. The City had a <br /> number of funds and they did interfund loans that the Council was <br /> aware of, at interest rate. <br /> Councilman Lamerson asked how much money was left in the <br /> Impact Fee Fund for parks and recreation. Mr. Brehm said that it <br /> was a deficit, as the revenue was pledged to go back to the Capital <br /> Improvement Fund. Mr. McConnell said there were separate <br /> impact fee funds for parks and recreation, there were two different <br /> funds. Councilman Lamerson said his question was specific to <br /> parks and recreation and how much money was left in the funds. <br /> He said that he heard that one was zero and asked about the <br /> other. Mr. Brehm said that as of June 2011, the Parks Impact Fee <br /> Fund had $1,470,726.00. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.