11-13-2002 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FF -14. Federal Budget Cutbacks (GC) 2 3_ Issue: Congressional budget actions or devolution of program responsibilities may place 4 fiscal burdens on the state and on local governments. 5 6 Response: The state should not reduce aids or increase fees to local governments as 7 a means for dealing with cutbacks in federal revenues. The state should take responsibility 8 for reductions in federal revenues, rather than placing the burden on cities and on their 9 property taxpayers. 10 11 FF -15. Price of Government (GC) 12 13 Issue: The price of government legislation enacted in 1994 was intended to measure the 14 overall effect of state and local taxation over a long period of time. The targets measure 15 government revenues as a percent of personal income. Unfortunately, the targets have been 16 misinterpreted and used unfairly to criticize city tax and budget decisions. 17 18 Response: The price of government statutes, as they apply to local governments, 1.9 should be repealed. If the price of government law is to continue to be applied to local 20 governments, price of government calculations should be based on the sum of levy and 21 state aid, not just levy, and based on Long -term trends, not single -year events. "in FF -16. Impact Fees (RS) 24 25 Issue: New development and the resulting growth create an increased demand for public 26 infrastructure and other public facilities. Severe constraints on local fiscal resources and dramatic 27 forecasts for population growth have prompted cities to critically reconsider ways to pay for the 28 inevitable costs associated with new development. Traditional financing methods tend to 29 subsidize new development at the expense of the existing community, discourage sound land -use 30 planning, place inefficient pressures on public facilities, and allow under - utilization of existing 31 infrastructure. Consequently, local communities are exploring methods to ensure new 32 development pays its fair share of the true costs of growth. Given the existing authorization to 33 impose fees on new development for water, sanitary and storm sewer, and park purposes, it is 34 reasonable to extend the concept to additional public infrastructure and facilities improvement 35 also necessitated by new development. 36 37 Response: The Legislature should authorize cities to impose impact fees so new 38 development pays its fair share of the off -site, as well as the on -site, costs of public 39 infrastructure and other public facilities needed to adequately serve new development. 40 41 FF -17. Delayed Assessments for Roads (RS) d2 43 Issue: Current law allows a city to recoup the costs for water, storm sewer or sanitary sewer improvements by levying additional assessments on the property benefiting from the 4.3 improvement, but not previously assessed. This authority for delayed assessment has not been 5