Chatham County Online BBS
February 09, 2012, 09:55:40 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Read the latest Chatham news at Chatham Journal
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Tags Login Register  
Digg This!
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down
  Send this topic  |  Print  
Author Topic: Why do they laugh at me?  (Read 3305 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
djkelly
Chathameister
****
Offline Offline

Last Login:August 01, 2011, 08:55:31 PM
Date Registerd:January 31, 2009, 10:16:44 PM
Posts: 740


« Reply #45 on: September 23, 2009, 10:02:30 PM »


No, we can't approve thousands of new homes over a 4 year period and expect it not to cost the county taxpayers anything.

Wasn't there an impact tax in place before those homes were approved?

The impact fee ordinance was passed in 1999 and has been updated several times since then.

With interest the fee has collected over $15 million.  Just over $4 million has been spent so far with the other $11 million reserved for future debt payments.
Logged

Always watch what people do, not only what they say.  For deeds will betray a lie.
djkelly
Chathameister
****
Offline Offline

Last Login:August 01, 2011, 08:55:31 PM
Date Registerd:January 31, 2009, 10:16:44 PM
Posts: 740


« Reply #46 on: September 23, 2009, 10:30:02 PM »

I want to make sure I understand this all.

A land transfer tax is applied to all real estate transactions.

An impact fee is applied to new home construction.

If this is correct, it makes sense to me that an impact fee is a more correct way to add a fee for a new demand of services.


Impact fees have been used for a long time to fund things like roads and water lines which have a direct link between growth and the need for expansion.  The use for schools is a more recent development and still somewhat controversial as the link is not as direct.

We all pay taxes to support schools so the cost is spread over a large base.  An impact fee spreads the cost for new schools over a much smaller base.  As in the general population, not all newcomers have children so some are paying extra to support services they won't use.  Someone who lives in the county and has been paying taxes for years would be hit with an impact fee if they buy a new home in the county even though they haven't added to the need for services.  Someone without children could sell their home, leave the county and the family who buys it may have 6 children but won't pay the impact fee because it's not a new home.

Retirement communities are another sticky area.  Should homes in a retirement community for those over 65 that doesn't allow children be required to pay the fee?  They obviously won't require more schools to be built but if we're all taxed for schools to spread the cost maybe they should still pay.  There are plenty of examples of cases where the impact fees aren't as fair as they sound.

The study of future costs does not consider any additional revenue that new development could bring such as sales tax or jobs which would also offset the cost of new development. 

Although in general residential development leads to more costs than they generate in taxes, this is not evenly distributed across all residential development.  Three of the biggest expenses for the county are schools, law enforcement and social services.  Which would add more to those expenses?  A high priced, gated community or a trailer park?  The impact fee model makes no distinction.

Impact fees and land transfer taxes are a crutch to avoid making tough choices and telling people they can't have all the fancy bells and whistles they would like in terms of county services.
Logged

Always watch what people do, not only what they say.  For deeds will betray a lie.
belle
Guest
« Reply #47 on: September 23, 2009, 10:47:56 PM »

sure, as long as all other property owners without kids are exempt as well.

and let that apply to those who do not send their kids to public schools. and make that retro-active, too. sure.
Logged
RandysRight
Guest
« Reply #48 on: September 24, 2009, 12:11:46 AM »

Isn't the county budget less than it was last year?

2009-10 approved budget
Total Property Valuation: $8.5 billion
Tax Rate 60.22 cents
Total Property Tax Revenue: $50,309,194
Total General Fund: $80,495,239
Total Water Fund: $6,272,797
Total Waste Management Fund: $3,691,827


2008-09 approved budget
Total Property Valuation: $7.4 billion
Tax Rate 65.63 cents
Total Property Tax Revenue: $48,199,017
Total General Fund: $82,482,269
Total Water Fund: $5,163,799
Total Waste Management Fund: $3,964,151


but it was revenue neutral!


Gotta love government definitions.
dj said a funny LOL
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up
  Send this topic  |  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!