My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
AG 1999 06 21
CabarrusCountyDocuments
>
Public Meetings
>
Agendas
>
BOC
>
1999
>
AG 1999 06 21
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/25/2002 6:00:16 PM
Creation date
11/27/2017 11:49:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meeting Minutes
Doc Type
Agenda
Meeting Minutes - Date
6/21/1999
Board
Board of Commissioners
Meeting Type
Regular
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
487
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Agenda <br />June 21, 1999 <br />Page l0 <br /> <br />Impact Fees on New Construction <br /> <br />Although widely used elsewhere in the U. S. in areas of high growth, only a few N. C. <br />counties/cities are authorized to impose impact fees. (A detailed summary is attached as Exhibit <br />D. It was developed as part of a study effort of the local Alternative Revenue Task Force in <br />1996-1997.) <br /> <br />Specific legislation is required. Opposition from the real estate industry in N. C. could be <br />expected on any attempt to pursue impact f~es (see Exhibit E). <br /> <br />· Mr. Fennel's 3 - 2 - 1 Sales Tax Plan <br /> <br />Although the concept may make sense to us locally, it is a further restriction to how the State <br />funds education. (See Exhibit F 3-2-1 resolution). Without extensive research of at what level <br />and how the State funds public schools, it is difficult to know how such a plan might work. A <br />thorough study might determine a 'detailed' obligation of various State revenues to public <br />education expense through direct designation of funding sources could be implemented. <br /> <br />Obviously, for such a study to be pursued and implemented would require statewide support and <br />champions of the cause in the legislature. There are numerous states throughout the country that <br />have struggled with similar issues and ultimately resolved the issue (one way or another), tt may <br />be as difficult to resolve inequities in the various formulas used to establish how education is <br />funded as it will be in determining what source of revenues to dedicate to education. The <br />proposal may be worthy of further study, but that effort must occur at the N. C. Legislative level <br />to have any impact. <br /> <br />· Supplemental School Taxes <br /> <br />(Exhibit G, Article 36, "Voted Tax Supplements for School Purposes" and Exhibit H, "Focus <br />Session One - Supplemental School Tax" are attached for references.) <br /> <br />Regardless of how this approach is viewed, it is still a property tax. Variables of the approach <br />may be considered inclusive of options having some significant implications both operationally <br />and politically. <br /> <br />Some of the proposals that follow relating to this option may require further investigation if <br />pursued (possibly even N. C. Legislative approval) and are offered only as "what if's?" <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.