My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC - Minutes - City Council - 8/29/2006
>
City Clerk
>
Permanent Records
>
Permanent
>
CC - Minutes - City Council - 8/29/2006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/15/2020 12:18:46 PM
Creation date
11/12/2018 2:42:12 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
8/29/2006
Retention
Permanent
Retention Type
Permanent
Security
Public
Scanner
Conversion
Scan Date
8/29/2006
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.
/
19
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 Regular Voting Meeting—August 29,2006 Page 15 <br /> �r The Planned Growth Strategy and Parks Master Plan were being done in <br /> the FY2007 budget and would become available in 12-24 months and <br /> staff would look at the impact fees again at that point. <br /> Speakers: <br /> Ethan Edwards, Yavapai County Contractors Association, 126 Marina <br /> Street, thanked staff for an easily understood report. He made the <br /> following points: <br /> • Have low property taxes and income taxes. <br /> • State funds things through sales taxes. <br /> • When you go to a store you pay tax and it is kept there. When <br /> construction is done,taxes go to the point of the building being built. <br /> • No price study had been done and at what point do people choose not <br /> to buy here. <br /> • When people don't build, the City doesn't get the building permit fees <br /> or the impact fees. The City was looking at increasing building permit <br /> fees from 40-50%and then would be looking at sewer rates. <br /> Mayor Simmons explained the City Manager was only recommending the <br /> Police and Fire impact fees be increased at this time, which was <br /> approximately$1,100. <br /> Mr. Edwards continued it didn't say in the report the Council would only <br /> be looking at Police and Fire impact fees; that if someone decided not to <br /> build here the City would lose at least$34,000; sewer impact fees would <br /> also be looked at and without high paying jobs in this area, people would <br /> be hiring unlicensed and non-bonded contractors who undercut the <br /> licensed and bonded contractors; growth could pay for growth with the <br /> transaction privilege tax; impact fees have to be for growth related <br /> buildings, such as building an additional fire station; non-residential fees <br /> had not been levied up to know but if they were it could cost Lowe's an <br /> additional $100,000 and they might decide not to proceed with their <br /> business plans; increases need to be directly related to the project the <br /> City wanted to do;and keep the public informed. <br /> Manager Steve Norwood explained Prescott Valley was also going <br /> through this process as well and would have a public hearing on <br /> Thursday; Prescott Valley was at$2,700 not including water and sewer; <br /> Prescott was at$2,300 and Prescott Valley was recommending increases <br /> to$7,900, and Prescott's maximum would be to$6,000. <br /> Mr. Edwards added the County fees were $1,200 and the Verde Valley <br /> ,,, was$1,100. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.