Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e FF-14. Federal Budget Cutbacks (GC) <br />2 <br />.3._ <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br /> <br />.2 <br />P FF-16. Impact Fees (RS) <br /> <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />.38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br /> <br />e <br />45 <br /> <br />Issue: Congressional budget actions or devolution of program responsibilities may place <br />fiscal burdens on the state and on local governments. <br /> <br />Response: The state should not reduce aids or increase fees to local governments as <br />a means for dealing with cutbacks in federal revenues. The state should take responsibility <br />for reductions in federal revenues, rather than placing the burden on cities and on their <br />property taxpayers. <br /> <br />FF-lS. Price of Government (GC) <br /> <br />Issue: The price of government legislation enacted in 1994 was intended to measure the <br />overall effect of state and local taxation over a long period of time. The targels measure <br />government revenues as a percent of personal income. Unfortunately, the targets have been <br />misinterpreted and used unfairly to criticize city tax and budget decisions. <br /> <br />Response: The price of government statutes, as they apply to local governments, <br />should be repealed. If the price of government law is to continue to be applied to local <br />governments, price of government calculations should be based on the snm of levy and <br />state aid, not just levy, and based on long-term trends, not single-year events. <br /> <br />Issue: New development and the resulting growth create an increased demand for public <br />infrastructure and other public facilities. Severe constraints on local fiscal resources and dramatic <br />forecasts for population growth have prompted cities to critically reconsider ways to pay for the <br />inevitable costs associated with new development. Traditional financing methods tend to <br />subsidize new development at the expense of the existing community, discourage sound land-use <br />planning, place inefficient pressures on public facilities, and allow under-utilization of existing <br />infrastructure. Consequently, local communities are exploring methods to ensure new <br />development pays its fair share of the true costs of growth. Given the existing authorization to <br />impose fees on new development for water, sanitary and storm sewer, and park purposes, it is <br />reasonable to extend the concept to additional public infrastructure and facilities improvement <br />also necessitated by new development. <br /> <br />Response: The Legislature should authorize cities to impose impact fees so new <br />development pays its fair share of the off-site, as well as the on-site, costs of public <br />infrastructure and other public facilities needed to adequately serve new development. <br /> <br />FF -17. Delayed Assessments for Roads (RS) <br /> <br />Issue: Current law allows a city to recoup the costs for water, storm sewer or sanitary <br />sewer improvements by levying additional assessments on the property benefiting from the <br />improvement, but not previously assessed. This authority for delayed assessment has not been <br /> <br />5 <br />