Catch-Up
Though my blog took the last two months off, I myself was able to work off and on via email and telephone. Mayor Thompson was gracious enough to collect written statements from me on two separate hot-button items and to make sure my views were represented in the discussions.
They are artless, but I'm posting them here for the sake of the record.
Water Rates.
1. The City's first obligation is to the taxpayers and voters who approved the bonds together with the fee structure that would both retire the bonds and provide revenue for the next capital upgrades which would be required in 30 to 50 years. Providing relief to businesses who are hurt by the new fee structure is also a reasonable goal, consistent with our desires to be friendly to businesses and to increase our tax base, but this goal has to be secondary to the primary goals of providing water and protecting the residents, voters, and taxpayers.
2. The tiered rate structure, which climbs up to $6 per 1,000 gallons, is inherently unfair. My read of the businesses that use water in this quantity is that they do not use water to excess, but that they use it on behalf of large numbers of consumers. The purpose of the tiered structure was to discourage homeowners from wasting culinary water out of doors. In this goal, the rates overshoot the mark. I have been told that residential usage typically stays in the 12,000 gallon range. Charging excessively for usage above 200,000 gallons will not effect homeowners, but it will punish businesses who use culinary water for legitimate culinary needs.
3. Synthesizing points 1 and 2, above, the conclusion I reach is that it would be fair to hold residences harmless by keeping the same base rate and overage rate up to 12,000 gallons (or so), then to enact a flat fee for usage above that figure. In order to provide some measure of relief to businesses, I would be amenable to removing $250,000 of annual depreciation from the cost model. This would still ensure residents that revenues would be available for repair and upgrades when necessary, so that we would never again see the crisis of 2006. I could also vote to remove $500,000 from the cost model if that were the only way to move forward, but would rather not.
4. We cannot provide water below cost. (This should go without saying.)
Road Impact Fees
The present City Council has created revenue streams for growth-related infrastructure by adopting impact fees for roads, water, sewer, public safety and parks. In accordance with state law, these impact fees are justified by their place in a capital facilities plan which shows the city's plans for infrastructure and calculates the percentage of infrastructure needs which may be attributed to new growth. Because American Fork is one of the first communities to undertake this level of planning, our impact fees are higher than those of our surrounding communities. Understandably, this fact has drawn protest from developers. My notes (below) date from when the controversy was ripe. On February 5, the Council acknowledged an omission in the capital facilities plan and directed staff to create a new category, "strip mall," which will reduce fees for such developments, but will not compromise the future of a much-needed revenue stream. The February 5 vote sets in motion a 120-day public notice process for this action.
1. I support revisiting and updating the capital facilities plan on which these are based, if it is true that recent UDOT announcements render the plans obsolete.
2. I would support any petition submitted by a prospective business showing that their patronage is less than our projections show -- if the planning commission is willing to endorse the numbers.
3. I would support the creation of a new "strip mall" category, which usage places lower demand on roads and may therefore be assessed a lower fee -- so long as the planning commission accepts the numbers.
4. As to revenue models, the City needs to recover through its impact fees 100 percent of capital facilities needs attributable to growth. We have not got another revenue stream to cover these costs; I have not got the political will to raise property taxes to do so; we cannot continue to defer maintenance and construction. I cannot support any figure less than 100 percent.
They are artless, but I'm posting them here for the sake of the record.
Water Rates.
1. The City's first obligation is to the taxpayers and voters who approved the bonds together with the fee structure that would both retire the bonds and provide revenue for the next capital upgrades which would be required in 30 to 50 years. Providing relief to businesses who are hurt by the new fee structure is also a reasonable goal, consistent with our desires to be friendly to businesses and to increase our tax base, but this goal has to be secondary to the primary goals of providing water and protecting the residents, voters, and taxpayers.
2. The tiered rate structure, which climbs up to $6 per 1,000 gallons, is inherently unfair. My read of the businesses that use water in this quantity is that they do not use water to excess, but that they use it on behalf of large numbers of consumers. The purpose of the tiered structure was to discourage homeowners from wasting culinary water out of doors. In this goal, the rates overshoot the mark. I have been told that residential usage typically stays in the 12,000 gallon range. Charging excessively for usage above 200,000 gallons will not effect homeowners, but it will punish businesses who use culinary water for legitimate culinary needs.
3. Synthesizing points 1 and 2, above, the conclusion I reach is that it would be fair to hold residences harmless by keeping the same base rate and overage rate up to 12,000 gallons (or so), then to enact a flat fee for usage above that figure. In order to provide some measure of relief to businesses, I would be amenable to removing $250,000 of annual depreciation from the cost model. This would still ensure residents that revenues would be available for repair and upgrades when necessary, so that we would never again see the crisis of 2006. I could also vote to remove $500,000 from the cost model if that were the only way to move forward, but would rather not.
4. We cannot provide water below cost. (This should go without saying.)
Road Impact Fees
The present City Council has created revenue streams for growth-related infrastructure by adopting impact fees for roads, water, sewer, public safety and parks. In accordance with state law, these impact fees are justified by their place in a capital facilities plan which shows the city's plans for infrastructure and calculates the percentage of infrastructure needs which may be attributed to new growth. Because American Fork is one of the first communities to undertake this level of planning, our impact fees are higher than those of our surrounding communities. Understandably, this fact has drawn protest from developers. My notes (below) date from when the controversy was ripe. On February 5, the Council acknowledged an omission in the capital facilities plan and directed staff to create a new category, "strip mall," which will reduce fees for such developments, but will not compromise the future of a much-needed revenue stream. The February 5 vote sets in motion a 120-day public notice process for this action.
1. I support revisiting and updating the capital facilities plan on which these are based, if it is true that recent UDOT announcements render the plans obsolete.
2. I would support any petition submitted by a prospective business showing that their patronage is less than our projections show -- if the planning commission is willing to endorse the numbers.
3. I would support the creation of a new "strip mall" category, which usage places lower demand on roads and may therefore be assessed a lower fee -- so long as the planning commission accepts the numbers.
4. As to revenue models, the City needs to recover through its impact fees 100 percent of capital facilities needs attributable to growth. We have not got another revenue stream to cover these costs; I have not got the political will to raise property taxes to do so; we cannot continue to defer maintenance and construction. I cannot support any figure less than 100 percent.
posted by Heidi Rodeback at 6:30 PM
1 Comments:
Welcome back!
Post a Comment
<< Home