Agenda - 05-26-1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8 Mr. Moses Carey May 4, 1992 Conclusion im4 ct_Fee vs. IT Tax: We understand that an effort was made several years ago to obtain enabling legislation for a countywide impact tax. The effort was not successful, and this impact fee system was developed as an alternative. It was noted during our discussion that an impact tax would be a more flexible financing mechanism than an impact fee, and a suggestion was made that the General Assembly be approached again with this idea. Small Window of OpportunitZ for Comment Discussion: Related to these last three points, there was discussion of the need for a longer period of time to consider this idea. The current schedule allows limited time for exploration of alternatives to what has been proposed, and limited time for community -wide discussion and reaction. Several Council members asked that the County decide not to attempt to have a fee system in place by July 1, 1992, and that more time be allotted to discussion of the proposal and other alternatives. Systems: One Council Member expressed concern that no thought was being given in the proposal to the possibility of merger of the two school systems. It was suggested that the financing package be designed with flexibility to accommodate sharing of facilities-and possible merger of the two systems in the future. We appreciate your consideration of these comments and concerns as you hold your Public Hearings on the proposal. We have asked our staff to prepare some additional information for us, and expect to consider a formal resolution at our May 26 Council meeting. It is our intent to forward this to your Board for consideration immediately thereafter. Again, thank you for the briefing, and for considering our comments. Establishing an impact fee would be a significant step, and therefore we believe the proposal deserves an especially delliberate process of consideration. KSB / cyc Sincerely, enneth S. Broun Mayor -Z_