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 14 <br /> Councilwoman Suttles — over$18,000 by the time all development fees <br /> and permits were issued, including water and sewer and how much was <br /> too much;it was getting harder and harder to build here. <br /> Councilman Lamerson asked why the City didn't get a bigger portion of <br /> property taxes and Mr.Woodfill responded the State limited the amount. <br /> Mayor Simmons asked how shared revenue came about and Mr.Woodfill <br /> replied the State agreed not to implement a State property tax and sales <br /> tax. <br /> Jim Lawrence,345 High Chaparral Loop— <br /> • Impact fees could build a facility but did not cover any operating or <br /> maintenance costs,so personnel,vehicles,etc.were in addition. <br /> • Decide if existing residents pay, or new growth. New buildings <br /> were needed to handle the additional growth. If the City was going <br /> to provide services,they must decide who was going to pay for it. <br /> Councilman Roecker asked Chamber of Commerce CEO David Maurer <br /> what the Chambers position was regarding increasing impact fees. <br /> Mr. Maurer responded they supported police and fire at the proposed <br /> increases without the escalator and they opposed commercial impact fees <br /> as well as any other increases at this time. <br /> Mayor Simmons proposed police and fire impact fees be changed to the <br /> recommended levels and let the rest of the fees wait. <br /> Councilman Bell asked how long before the issue came back to Council <br /> and Mr. Woodfill responded the Parks Master Plan and Growth Strategy <br /> Plan were part of this year's budget and impact fees for Parks, Recreation, <br /> Library and Streets would come back in a couple years to include projects <br /> from those specific plans. <br /> Councilman Lamerson asked if police cars and fire trucks were included <br /> and Mr.Woodfill replied impact fees could be used to buy a fire truck for a <br /> new fire station, but could not pay to replace a truck. <br /> Ethan Edwards remarked he was against impact fees, feeling the <br /> transaction privilege tax took care of that; but he realized there was a gap <br /> and he realized emergency services were necessary and would not <br /> oppose police and fire impact fee increases. <br /> Attorney Kidd said he would draft two ordinances for next week, one <br /> proposed with only police and fire impact fees, and the other with <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.