|
Monday, July 14, 2008 11:27 PM
 E-mail to a friend
By Jessie Burchette
jburchette@salisburypost.com
Officials with a local builders' group threaten to fight a proposal to charge residential developers fees to help pay for their impact on public services.
The draft land-use study for western Rowan County recommends enacting an impact fee or adequate public facilities fee on all major subdivisions. No dollar amount is specified, but members of the Land Use Steering Committee briefly discussed a $15,000 fee per lot.
Top officials with the Salisbury-Rowan Home Builders Association say they will do whatever is necessary — including going to court — to block the fees.
"We're in the middle of a recession, we don't need impact fees," said Eric Beaver, a Landis builder who has served several terms as president of the local home builders group.
A second public workshop on the land-use study is set for 5 to 8 p.m. today in the main lobby at South Rowan High School.
Beaver said the Home Builders Association would join with any developer to mount a legal challenge if the fees are enacted.
"We will fight tooth and nail any type of adequate public facility fee," said Mac Butner, executive director of the association. "We will fight it to the death."
Butner, a longtime local Realtor and broker, said the fight against the fees is the No. 1 issue for home builders across the state.
"It's a regressive measure targeting a specified industry," Butner said, "It's not fair to penalize one industry."
Butner said the proposed fee for Rowan County will likely be discussed at an upcoming meeting of the Salisbury-Rowan Home Builders Association.
County planners recommended against including the fee proposal in the land-use draft study.
Ed Muire, county planning director, advised the 11-member steering committee that, in his opinion, impact or adequate public facility fees are illegal.
Muire cited various court ruling and opinions of various legal experts.
The prospect of a adding a per-lot fee for new residential development to help offset the cost of new schools drew some interest from the Rowan County Board of Commissioners in 2005.
Commissioners invited Richard Ducker, an expert from the Institute of Government in Chapel Hill, to explain the fees, their implementation, the benefits and the problems.
Ducker said only two counties, Orange and Chatham, have legal authority from the N.C. General Assembly to have impact fees.
Ducker noted that Cabarrus, Stanly and some other counties collect money through the use of an adequate public facilities ordinance tied to the county's zoning and subdivision ordinance.
Ducker noted that Cabarrus County doesn't charge an outright fee but seeks a "voluntary contribution."
That contribution is now more than $8,000 per lot.
The Cabarrus home builders organization has joined a developer in challenging the legality of the contribution.
China Grove is the only municipality in Rowan county with an adequate public facilities fee.
Commissioners here have shown little interest in the fees, but have expressed concerns that more and more builders of low-end housing may look at Rowan.
But impact fees apply to all builders.
Beaver, who has been in the business of building homes for 36 years, said that while he understands the concern about large builders coming in from outside the county, the fees would also hurt small builders who have been here for years.
Comments (11)
What do you think? Post your comment below.
SalisburyPost.com is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse.
SalisburyPost.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not SalisburyPost.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please send us an email to webmaster@salisburypost.com with the article title and offensive post's contents and we will review it for possible removal.
Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
They owe us
Previous Post Validation? Previous Post Validation? : Thursday, July 17, 2008 2:00 PM
The point is that residents living outside the city limits owe nothing to the city. In fact, the figures by Wright seem to show that the city may owe the residents outside the city some money. The cities get a lot of subsidies from the county, state and federal governments. When will the city be sending out the checks?
Report Abuse
: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 1:18 PM
Case in point: Larry Wright Thanks for validating the previous post.
Report Abuse
Larry Wright
Since Forced Annexation was Mentioned : Wednesday, July 16, 2008 11:52 AM
"Some city council members are fond of saying that since we live outside the city that we “owe” you money. Well, get out your calculators and tell us how much you think we owe. I’ll give you my figures. From your annexation report, the average amount of tax a year for a house would be $890 if we were in the city. Since we are not in the city, we will reduce that amount by the cost from your annexation report for fire and police protection which is $338 and $305 respectively. That leaves $247. I would estimate that my wife and I spend about 2 hours a week driving on city streets, and about ½ hour a week using city sewer facilities or drinking city supplied water. We also breathe city air, but so far you have not found a way to tax that. So we spend about 1.5% of our time in the city using your infrastructure. One and a half percent of $247 is $3.72, but do we really owe you that amount? Don’t forget your share of our sales tax dollars as well as the Powell funds, other state funds you receive and possibly even federal funds on occasion. Once those funds are considered, you may actually owe us money." The above comments were made by me at a recent City Council meeting. No one from the City Council (or anyone else) has taken issue with my figures derived from their Annexation Report. Where are the above figures wrong? That nearby residents owe the city money is a fairy tale created by Hankins, Romanet and others at the NCLM. Mayor Kluttz is a member of the NCLM.
Report Abuse
: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 7:42 AM
No impact fees, no fees or any sort I like! No tax increases, no new taxes I say! No telling me what to do with my property, my neighbor's opinion doesn't matter - the property I own! Farms are bad, no tax support for farms I say! No illegal immigrants, different they are from me! No rich boys club, 200 acres I do not own! No forced annexation, pay for my share I will not! No abortion, male I am! Be quiet I will not...entitled I am.
Report Abuse
Jack Sanger
tax : Wednesday, July 16, 2008 4:22 AM
I don't want my taxes going up to pay for someone to grow hay,who is already getting almost a half million a year in federal and state money.
Report Abuse
Pulaski
FAO Larry Wright : Tuesday, July 15, 2008 2:08 PM
Larry, you of all people should understand why builders should have to pay for the burden on society they are creating by adding another home/ family to the community infrastructure. I hope that you remember this when the bulldozers move into the farmland behind your house and throw up 500 more houses, with 300+ families that need schools, all who expect city water and fire/police coverage. I for one don't want my taxes going up to build more schools and other public infrstructure just because of unrestricted influx into an area with limited facilities. Those who come here, OVER AND ABOVE existing residents should have to pay!
Report Abuse
Has just as much to do with "land use" as the "plan" : Tuesday, July 15, 2008 11:36 AM
What "No Impact Fees Needed" says seems to have just as much to do with land use as the hair-brained idea that we should pay farmers to farm, pay for the advertising fees of entertainment venues like Lazy 5 Ranch, and build more parks. So you may want to come out tonight and ask that illegal immigration be added to the "land use plan." It makes just as much sense as the other stuff they've packed into it to line their own pockets!
Report Abuse
No Impact Fees Needed
What is Fair? : Tuesday, July 15, 2008 10:33 AM
Suppose the new home owner is a retired couple with their own septic tank and well. Why should they "to foot the bill for new schools, emergency services, water, etc required because of new construction"? Are you gonna make the "impact fees" retroactive to all other home owners to make it fair? The illegal aliens contribute very heavily to our needing more new schools, emergency services, water, etc." If we kick the illegals out, then onerous land use plans may not be needed at all. The main part of our population growth is illegal aliens. Why should we legal residence pay the bill for the illegal aliens?
Report Abuse
Taxed into Debt
Come out and BE HEARD tonight at the Land Use workshop : Tuesday, July 15, 2008 6:43 AM
Those who oppose the ideas contained in the Land Use Plan should come to South Rowan High School, and drop in for the informal question and answer session, any time between 5 and 8 PM. Fill out surveys, and bring index cards with your written comments to place in the comment boxes. Your conservative voices need to be heard, and tonight is the LAST public session for you to exercise that right. The farmland protection/impact fee/heritage tourism crowd have heretofor dominated the discussions, and if common sense conservatives simply stay home tonight, we will get the liberal tax and spend "heritage" plan that apathy will have earned us!
Report Abuse
Pulaski
What is fair? : Tuesday, July 15, 2008 5:47 AM
Why SHOULDN'T builders have to pay a fair share for the services that the occupiers of their new homes will use? ..... It isn't right or fair that the rest of the community has to foot the bill for new schools, emergency services, water, etc required because of new construction.
Report Abuse
Larry Wright
Right On : Tuesday, July 15, 2008 5:43 AM
Thank you Home Builders for standing up for what is right. Impact fees, if they are ever approved, will go up, and up and up. Officials will see it as easy money. Who thinks they are necessary and why?
Report Abuse
|
Update, noon: Waters rise around Rowan
