|
Post by Lynn on Apr 2, 2007 10:51:35 GMT -4
Just an fyi if you don't already know: The Queen Anne's County Commissioners have amended the impact fee ordinance to include a square footage fee for new additions on existing homes. Ordinance 06-108 was introduced by Eric Wargotz, and co-sponsored by all of the other commissioners - Billups, Fordonski, Gunther, and Ransom. The impact fee will be $3.93 per square foot for all new residential living space including new homes with additional space added to existing homes. The impact fee for commercial space will be as high as $1.75 per square foot. If passed this bill will go in effect on July 1, 2007. Please attend the commissioners' meeting on April 3rd at 7pm and make your views known. Also you can call or e-mail all of the commissioners with your opinions on the bill. Their address is 107 North Liberty Street, Centreville, MD 21617. Or, you can send a message to them at qac.org/depts/cmnrs/cmnrs.htm
|
|
|
Post by Rich Fisher on Apr 2, 2007 11:36:28 GMT -4
It sounds like a new tax that will effect anyone building new addition, etc. Would this tax a homeowner who is building a garage or deck too?
|
|
|
Post by Lynn on Apr 2, 2007 11:47:31 GMT -4
My understanding is that it would apply to garages (I'm not positive though), I do not know about decks.
My house is pretty small and my husband and I are planning on putting on a large addition in the future. If this goes into affect, this fee will add over $4,000 in fees for us. I think its ridiculous. Its called an "impact fee". What is the impact if I already own my house and land and want to put an addition up?
I never thought that Queen Anne's County was hurting so bad financially that they needed to come up with extra ways to financially burden homeowners. Why don't they just add the fees on to new large developers and let them pay the money and leave individual homeowners alone.
|
|
|
Post by gwbushdumb on Apr 2, 2007 11:54:47 GMT -4
Its not a tax. Its basically a fee added on top of the building permit fee.
|
|
|
Post by BlueMule on Apr 2, 2007 12:15:21 GMT -4
Call it what you want. It still puts money into the county coffers. Does it lessen the environmental impact? Don't think so (outside of discouraging the public from adding improvements to their existing structures).
Are the funds from the new fee going into the general fund or are the going into a fund designated for environmental restoration/protection?
|
|
|
Post by matt on Apr 2, 2007 12:35:01 GMT -4
Perhaps a bit of perspective...
It's an "impact fee". It's goal is multi-tiered. First, YES, it will serve to discourage some small additions; but let's be reasonable, someone putting on a 1000SF addition is spending many times the $4k for construction. Although the cost of the fee is not insignificant, in relative terms it's going to work out to less than 2-4% of construction costs.
Second, the county has basically been acting without purpose, and been permitting all manner of ridiculous things which affect all of us as residents of the county and beneficiaries of the local environment. The fee (check out the definition of a fee versus a tax) should go directly to related improvements or cures in the county which have happened as a result of people putting up irresponsible, poorly thought-out additions and "improvements."
Third, it will also put money in the county coffers, as suggested.
Anyone willing to believe that putting a 1000SF addition doesn't impact anyone not living in the home is fooling themselves. The additional materials, space, energy, runoff sediment (during construction), etc, etc ad nauseum all creat an "impact" on the environment both macro and micro.
My wife and I are similarly planning a large addition, but I won't begrudge this fee. Of all the stupid things government employees do, this one will bother me the least during the process.
Did anyone see the development north of Rte 50 blow out its poorly built sediment controls last week or the week before? Anyone care to guess what the end result of the sediment and erosion control failure was? It didn't do much to the site except cost a few bucks for repair... what it DID do is impact the downstream wetlands and receiving waters. Anyone else ever see a poorly done house site with mud or materials running in all directions, or notice septic systems backed up, or hear about, let's just say for giggles, a destructively failed sewage treatment plant?
Your activities have an impact. The original $55 fee barely covered a cursory review.
|
|
|
Post by theodat on Apr 2, 2007 13:48:53 GMT -4
Remember when our property taxes went sky high a few years ago when they changed the tax rate? I can't remember off hand what the percentage was.. But, I cannot think of anything tangible I received because of those tax hikes. I don't have better police coverage in my neighborhood (hey I love those non-registered motorcycles & gokarts in Cloverfields), better roads, trash pickup, or something done about all of the flooding. (although if any of it went to the cross island bike/hike trail I love that..so okay one tangible thing).
So what do we get for this fee? If what Matt says is true...they should enforce the rules that are in place..levy a few fines..then they can raise some more money for impacting the impact.
|
|
|
Post by gwbushdumb on Apr 2, 2007 13:55:35 GMT -4
They, who is They If They is who I think They are They cant even get to work on time much less enforce a rule
|
|
|
Post by theodat on Apr 2, 2007 15:49:16 GMT -4
If you go to www.they.com it explains who they is...but in this case they are the powers that be or the people that be wanting to charge us more money to live in QAC and can't seem to spend the money they gots correctly. I guess I feel better because I can complain about it here, cause it will never change. You can go to all the meetings you want vote for whom you think is the right candidate, but I don't see any change coming down the pike. I am 80 years old still waiting for a change.
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Apr 2, 2007 18:43:17 GMT -4
Call it what you want. IT'S A TAX.
IMPACT FEES=TAXES LICENSE FEES= TAXES TOLLS=TAXES RED LIGHT CAMERA TICKETS=TAXES (that's all I could think of at the moment)
ANY MONEY collected by the gov't is a BIG, FAT, Friggin, T-A-X
ANYONE who thinks different is fooling themselves.
Smells like a duck to me.
This is just another money grab, stop playing the greeny card, The Bay Card. ENFORCE THE RULES WE HAVE. We have PLENTY! Gov't needs to get their money's worth out of their inspectors, fine the crap out of people when they mess up.
Remember the Island House across the Bay?
|
|
|
Post by sarahj on Apr 2, 2007 20:13:30 GMT -4
I don't understand. All I know is that after my husband and I had an addition put on, they re-assed our house and the taxes went up. It sounds to me as if they are double taxing us on this one!
|
|
|
Post by mark on Apr 2, 2007 22:26:31 GMT -4
I would like to know exactly how this "fee" will be spent to mitigate the "impact" that an addition that I put on my own house on my own land may or may not cause.
How about sending me the bill when my erosion controls blow out and there is a mess to be cleaned up?
Matt, you act as though I ought to be happy that I'm going to be afforded the honor of contributing to the collective good of the people. Marx would be proud.
So let me get this straight: since I can afford an addition, I ought to be happily forking over more cash, that dollars to donuts, not one penny of which will ever be spent on environmental impact mitigation.
Not that I want to give the fruitcakes any more bright ideas, but how about just charging me an extra $3k for a new car to cover all of the speeding tickets I *might* get over the life of the car so we won't have to bother patroling the county roads anymore? Sounds like the same logic to me!
|
|
|
Post by matt on Apr 3, 2007 9:17:43 GMT -4
Mark, if what you had to say was so important, why not take the time to register?
I'm not a gummint lover, I'm generally against gummint intrusion, and I can't stand some government prick telling me what to do.
HOWEVER (!), suggesting that putting another 1000SF on your home will have no impact, or that the impact is someone else's problem to deal with is simply denial.
BY ALL MEANS demand - DEMAND - an explanation from your elected officials on where the money goes. It should be getting put into development related improvements (how about reducing the volume of sewage direct-discharged into the bay, or repairing public stormwater facilities, or cleaning up the garbage on the sides of the roads, or, or, or...
Your wish to question where it goes is not unrelated, but it is not sufficient justification for not wanting to pay a fee which, applied properly, could positively impact the health of the environment in which [we all] live.
You say the taxes go nowhere, and surely our employees working in government are generally less useful than is possible to imagine, but there are often "invisible" improvements people rarely think to consider. Storm drain, stormwater management, and most environmental protection systems might as well not exist for the awareness of the public eye.
Anyone see the damage to the stormwater systems along Rte 8 south of Camp whatever it is (I can't belive I forgot the name... Wright?)? Anyone consider that not repairing that facility will lead to sediment in the Bay as well as a lack of stormwater quantity and quality controls coming off the public road?
A tax goes into the general coffers. A fee, by INTENT, is supposed to go to a specific budget or cause... a "fee" on construction should be getting put to controlling possible damages caused by that construction.
Marx can kis$$ my a$$. Mark should learn to think objectively, or at least register if his "thoughts" are worthwhile.
|
|
|
Post by uvrays on Apr 3, 2007 9:39:48 GMT -4
I e-mailed Ransom about this. This was his response: "I support raising the impact fee on new construction, I do no support applying it to additions."
I also e-mailed Fordonski (she is my District rep) and she has yet to respond. I've e-mailed her in the past and she is good at giving you an answer, but not the answer to your question.
I got a reply from Fordonski. My question was: "What's the deal with Ordinance 06-108? I hope you and the other commissioners are not really thinking about an impact fee on residential additions?"
"Thank you for sharing your concerns. As you are no doubt aware, any increase in population, from external or internal sources, has an eventual effect on County public facilities (schools, roads, etc.) Installing or improving those facilities has capital costs. Impact fees can pay a small part of the interest on some of those capital costs. These fees vary based upon commercial versus residential, age-restricted housing versus unrestricted, etc. That is, they as fairly as possible reflect the use of the facilities.
In the past, impact fees have applied only to new construction. In response to concerns raised by various people that renovations or additions to homes might be getting a “free ride” at the expense of fellow taxpayers, an amendment to the new impact fee ordinance was proposed to impose impact fees on a “per square foot” of living space basis instead of per unit and to apply impact fees to additions and renovations to living area of existing residences.
The amendment was not an additional tax imposed on County taxpayers, but a very small reapportioning of the interest on those capital costs of new or improved public facilities that are required by growth. Those current residents/taxpayers who made such home improvements would pay, one time, $3.92 per square foot of such additions, and when public facilities would be built, all 23,000 taxpayers would pay a tiny bit less each year for those facilities."
|
|
|
Post by uvrays on Apr 3, 2007 12:40:03 GMT -4
Did Fordonski answer the "I hope you and the other commissioners are not really thinking about an impact fee on residential additions?" question?
Matt, what's the big deal about registering? That has NO bearing on the topic.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Apr 3, 2007 12:51:38 GMT -4
Sounds like, in her poli-speak, she answered your question - she supports the amendment to the ordinance.
The bearing on the topic is that sniping from the sidelines, without personal investment, is weak. I'm here occasionally, post my honest viewpoint from my same log-in, and take the inevitable heat some of my opinions draw.
Jes' me ah guess.
|
|
|
Post by uvrays on Apr 3, 2007 12:53:05 GMT -4
O.k. I'm with ya.
Just got a reply from Fordonski: "I am voting for the new impact fee. Although I agree with the principles behind the amendment, I believe the implementation needs to be changed and agree that the amendment should be withdrawn and re-worked to do it right."
Carol
|
|
|
Post by an islandr on Apr 3, 2007 13:24:45 GMT -4
I e-mailed Ransom about this. This was his response: "I support raising the impact fee on new construction, I do no support applying it to additions." That is different then the story he had a couple of weeks ago. He was for the impact fee on additions to keep builders from cheating. To keep them from building a small home and then adding on later. I am glad that he has come around.
|
|
|
Post by misternuke on Apr 3, 2007 19:12:41 GMT -4
Hey Matt....
This is me...Mark
I'm almost late for the meeting, so I'll keep this short.
Wasn't able to find my password last night, but would have made more of an effort if I thought it was gonna give you reason to doubt my intent, sincerity or determination.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Apr 3, 2007 20:13:02 GMT -4
O.k. I'm with ya. Just got a reply from Fordonski: "I am voting for the new impact fee. Although I agree with the principles behind the amendment, I believe the implementation needs to be changed and agree that the amendment should be withdrawn and re-worked to do it right." Carol Was this typed correctly? Doesn't this say that she is voting "for" the amendment even though she agrees that it "should be withdrawn and re-worked?" And this follows her quote in your last post where she argues that it applies the fees "as fairly as possible." Either this is confusing because it was mistyped, it's confusing because I'm not reading it correctly, or it's confusing because it's coming from a politician. Right now I think they're all just as likely.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Apr 3, 2007 20:55:47 GMT -4
Am I wrong or is the "it's not a tax it's a fee" argument a little insulting? Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and believe that everything collected from the environmental impact fees will go to efforts to protect/improve the environment. Do you really believe these will be new initiatives? Do you really believe they would not have occured without the fees? I don't.
I believe that any effort that will benefit from the impact fee would have happened even if the fee had not been imposed. (And yes, I believe it will be imposed, I don't recall something like this ever failing). But, if I'm right about the efforts, then they would have been paid for, or are currently being paid for, by our taxes. Therefore, all the fee does is offset tax dollars.
If the "fee" simply makes tax dollars available for something else, then what's the difference between a fee and a tax? Aren't the proceeds of the fee really benefitting that other project that isn't started yet? And didn't one of the respondents actually say that the fee paid by a few will reduce the taxes paid by all? If fees = taxes or fees offset taxes or you can't tell the difference between the benefit of a fee or of a tax, then don't try to make me feel better by calling it one rather than another.
I notice that very nearly all the arguments for the fee speak of the impact of increased population. Putting an addition onto my house does not increase the population: I'm already here. Putting an addition onto my house does not increase the demands on the sewage treatment plant, there's still only me (and besides, I'm not connected to the plant). Putting an addition onto my house does not increase runoff: I know this because the water runs into my yard, not out of it! Putting an addition onto my house does not increase the wear on the public roads, there's still only me.
If anything, putting an additon onto my house will make the empty property next to mine less desirable for construction. My house will be large and close to the property line. In fact, I may purchase that vacant property to keep it vacant. If I do that, then I will be doing my part to control the population in the county, control the amount of sewage generated, control runoff that could have been caused by developing the other property, and control the wearing of the roads by preventing more cars from being added to the community. If new construction and new families have a cost, then the way I see it, the county should pay me for putting an additon on my house. Where do I send the bill?
|
|
|
Post by matt on Apr 4, 2007 9:33:15 GMT -4
falgar, IIRC I often see eye-to-eye with you, so this isn't intended maliciously, but...
Your arguments aren't very coherent.
1. Fee v. Tax - this IS an important distinction. If a new program is necessitated by the level of growth, construction, development and population in the county, then the growth could be expected to pay for it. Frankly, QA's inability to protect it's natural resources and controll growth is astounding.
2. Putting an outward addition onto your home IS increasing runoff - even if you lived in the bottom of a pond as you suggest.
3. Putting an addition on your house may enable additional population in the county, even if your short-term use is not family growth.
4. Putting an addition onto your home does enable additional sewage/septic discharge. This IS environmentally expensive. Most often, homes are added to for aesthetic or space - additional rooms.
5. Suggesting that allowing you to put a big addition up will reduce the likelihood of someone building next door is... well, let's just say it's a stretch. Suggesting that you're going to build such a big POS so close to the line as to keep anyone from wanting to live there is suggesting you NEED to be limited through permits.
No insults here... just an alternative perspective. I am entirely against gummint waste (and most of gummint is wasted). I am also against irresponsible taxes. As someone unlucky enough to be intimately familiar with government, especially county/town government and the amazing ways in which they do nothing and ask for more money to do it... I am against government intrusion.
HOWEVER, there are times, such as when our county is incapable of controlling growth or limiting sewage spills into the bay, that fees aimed at fixing these abhorent wrongs could make sense. I am tired of our county handing over land and permits to the likes of KHov, Breeding, and so many others, with no planning, control, or benefit. I've seen enough additions, too, that ought to have been disallowed, so that I think it'd be OK to impose a small FEE for such things.
Example, a home near us. Couldn't have been more than 800 SF. Septic fails in the area - we were told NO septic systems pass in the area. Yet, this house suddenly was dwarfed by the "addition" that is perhaps 2000 SF... so low on the water that they must be pumping the septic tank every couple weeks and have no trenches. How'd that get permitted? Addition - "garage."
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Apr 4, 2007 17:25:16 GMT -4
There is NO distinction, a tax is a tax is a tax. Call it what you want. "FEES" is a politically correct TERM for a TAX.
If you think different than you have bought the PC Crap that most politicians are selling.
REPEAT: This is another MONEY GRAB. (PERIOD)
|
|
|
Post by outlaw on Apr 4, 2007 20:47:09 GMT -4
Many families outgrow their homes and can't afford to buy anything larger in this area. Forcing them to pay an impact fee for an addition is unfair in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Apr 4, 2007 23:41:08 GMT -4
matt,
If a new program is funded by a fee and if the program dies if the fee doesn't bring in enough money and if the fee is discontinued when the need for the program goes away, then I might agree that there is a distinction.
If an existing program is supplemented by a fee or if a new program is partially funded by a fee and partially by taxes, then there is no distinction. You can insist that these five dollars went into this pot and those five dollars went into another, but the guy paying the ten dollars just sees his wallet get thinner.
If you define runoff as water that hits a hard surface then of course, any new hard surface increases runoff. However if you define runoff as water that runs off my property, then I'm telling you that an addition to my property does not increase the water leaving my property. At the very worst, there will be less water running onto my property.
Building a new sewage treatment plant may enable additional population. Building new roads may enable additional population. Building a medical center may enable additonal population. Will all those be assessed an environmental impact fee? And since when are we taxed/feed/fined for what might happen? As someone else asked, should $3000 be added to the price of my new car to cover the speeding tickets that the new care will enable me to get?
Sewage/Septic: we're back to that "enabling" again. If you want to continue that argument, then aren't you saying that because my home will be larger there is the possibility that I might sell to a larger family? If that's the case, then the size of the "fee" should be relative to the number of additional people that might be comfortable in the house. But why should my house be singled out? Shouldn't everyone's hom be assessed a fee relative to the number of people who could live there? That would lead to a fee based on square footage. Square footage is very closely related to value. Property tax is assessed based on value. But we already have taxes based on the value of our homes which is related to the square footage of our homes which is related to the number of people who might possibly live there which is related to the potential sewage/septic loading which is related to the environmental impact.
If you want to limit sewage spills, fine those responsible for the spills. If I spill gas into the Bay, there's a hefty fine assessed. It doesn't matter whether I can afford to pay it or whether it could be better spent correcting the problem; I screwed up and now I pay a fine. If the town spills sewage into the bay they propose/impose a fee on us. Fine the town some amount proportional to the size of the spill and see if that makes a difference.
If you want to control growth, let's just say no to new development. Don't pretend a $8000 "fee" is going to slow a developer from building a $600K house.
If you want to control additions, insist on putting some teeth into existing zoning and permit laws. However, be aware that the restrictions that look so good when the neighbor wants to build might not be so attractive when it's you that wants to build.
But zoning and permits are not what this thread was about. If you want to assess a fee on new developments, particularly those that will cause an increase in population, then I'm all for it. If it doesn't seem fair that new construction will cost more than my house did, that's too bad; I've been paying taxes to maintain the infrastructure I use, now you need to contribute to the additional infrastructure you will use. But, that addition on my house (or yours) will not require any additional infrastructure so go find your money elsewhere.
|
|