My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC - Minutes - City Council - 9/19/2006
>
City Clerk
>
Permanent Records
>
Permanent
>
CC - Minutes - City Council - 9/19/2006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/15/2020 12:18:47 PM
Creation date
11/12/2018 2:42:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC - Minutes
Department
City Clerk
Sub
Clerk Records
Content
Minutes
Committee Status
Current
Document Type
City Council
Meeting Type
STUDY SESSION
Meeting Date
9/19/2006
Retention
Permanent
Retention Type
Permanent
Security
Public
Scanner
Conversion
Scan Date
9/19/2006
Record Series
GS1016, #10260
Conversion Meeting Type
STUDY
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
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 Study Session—September 19,2006 Page 12 <br /> Councilman Lamerson commented the City didn't have a property tax,that <br /> was collected by Yavapai County and asked where the taxes went and <br /> Mr.Woodfill replied the City got a portion, but the county, school district, <br /> college and flood control district received a bigger share of the taxes <br /> collected. <br /> Councilman Lamerson said the impact fee was a one-time fee, but <br /> couldn't be used to upgrade existing infrastructure even though the new <br /> growth impacted and damaged the existing infrastructure, for instance <br /> impact fees could not be used to rebuild Iron Springs Road and asked if <br /> he was correct. Mr. Woodfill acknowledged that was correct but there <br /> could be some justification that new development required a widening of a <br /> roadway, such as Willow Creek Road that was increased from to four or <br /> five lanes and impact fees could be used in proportion to the costs of <br /> adding a lane or two. Mr. Lamerson said he could not support the <br /> increase in impact fees. <br /> Councilman Roecker asked Ms. Bristol what the reaction was when talking <br /> with commercial people when they were told there were no impact fees for <br /> commercial or businesses and Ms.Bristol responded they needed to know <br /> all the costs they were facing, such as buy-in fees, off-site improvement <br /> costs, building permits, etc. and impact fees was just one of the things <br /> they looked at when choosing a community and they asked what the other <br /> kir communities in the area charged as well. <br /> Mr. Woodfill noted for commercial property such as a shopping center, <br /> Chino Valley charged $1,180 per 1,000 square foot; Prescott was <br /> proposing $2,246 per 1,000 square feet; Peoria charged $15,767 per <br /> square foot. The last page of the January 2006 study was a comparison <br /> of other cities and the type of structure. <br /> Speakers: <br /> Howard Mechanic,309 Bloom Place,made the following points: <br /> • Need to cooperate with other cities,not compete. <br /> • Shouldn't give away tax revenues. <br /> • General Plan says growth will pay full cost of growth. If do less,not <br /> following General Plan. <br /> • Two alternatives,cut back on services or put it on sales tax. Fixed <br /> income residents would cover the cost of a fire station caused by <br /> new development. <br /> • A house in Prescott cost $200,000 five years ago and the impact <br /> fees were about 5%. Now the average house was $400,000 and <br /> the impact fees should be increased accordingly. <br /> • Some Councilmembers were supportive of raising impact fees; <br /> kire property and sales tax increases had been brought up in other <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.