| Author | Post |
|---|
starleen
Member
| Joined: | Wed Dec 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | Coolidge |
| Posts: | 679 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 07:17 am |
|
halos02 wrote: orchardranchres wrote: Happy Fathers day Jeff. I just want to say how much I for one appreciate all that you do for us. The really nice thing is that you are always courteous and respectful. You always take the time to get back promptly and with a good attitude. I can't tell you how many times I didn't know or understand something and you took the time to explain in this public place how things work in our local city. Sometimes I still don't agree with it and tell you so, but you never once told me or anyone else on here that I know of "to get a clue before you spew" like the other council person I voted for Mr. Barnes does. You never try to intimidate or talk down to the people who elected you. So on Fathers day, many THANKS!
ps., Please run for Mayor.
Did you know that if Jeff was to run for Mayor he would have to resign from Council? If he didn’t win, he would be off the Council until the next election (if he won). Do you want him to chance that? I don’t. I think he would be a great Mayor, but again would you want him to take the chance?
Wow. As an elected rep, don't you think you should keep such thoughts to yourself? What agenda are you pushing here?
|
QCVillager
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 05:37 am |
|
link to short 2 minute VIDEO of Mayor Sanders / Town of Queen Creek, Mayor Insalco of Apache Junction and Mayor Lewis of Town of Gilbert describing impact of the State budget passed by State Legislature.
Last edited on Thu Jun 25th, 2009 05:39 am by
|
halos02
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 23rd, 2009 07:42 am |
|
orchardranchres wrote: Happy Fathers day Jeff. I just want to say how much I for one appreciate all that you do for us. The really nice thing is that you are always courteous and respectful. You always take the time to get back promptly and with a good attitude. I can't tell you how many times I didn't know or understand something and you took the time to explain in this public place how things work in our local city. Sometimes I still don't agree with it and tell you so, but you never once told me or anyone else on here that I know of "to get a clue before you spew" like the other council person I voted for Mr. Barnes does. You never try to intimidate or talk down to the people who elected you. So on Fathers day, many THANKS!
ps., Please run for Mayor.
Did you know that if Jeff was to run for Mayor he would have to resign from Council? If he didn’t win, he would be off the Council until the next election (if he won). Do you want him to chance that? I don’t. I think he would be a great Mayor, but again would you want him to take the chance?
|
orchardranchres
Member
| Joined: | Sun Aug 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 152 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 22nd, 2009 03:14 am |
|
Happy Fathers day Jeff. I just want to say how much I for one appreciate all that you do for us. The really nice thing is that you are always courteous and respectful. You always take the time to get back promptly and with a good attitude. I can't tell you how many times I didn't know or understand something and you took the time to explain in this public place how things work in our local city. Sometimes I still don't agree with it and tell you so, but you never once told me or anyone else on here that I know of "to get a clue before you spew" like the other council person I voted for Mr. Barnes does. You never try to intimidate or talk down to the people who elected you. So on Fathers day, many THANKS!
ps., Please run for Mayor.
|
GSBill
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 21st, 2009 02:43 am |
|
| Take your time..I know you're busy. I know QC isnt the lone guy out in this mess..Its time for a new plan..We cant keep flying into the same pane of glass expecting a different outcome each time. While you're at it how about a break down of town employees earning over 75k per year and what they do?
|
QCVillager
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 21st, 2009 02:24 am |
|
GSBill wrote: our buy-in to the waste-water treatment facility isnt for pass thru traffic, HPEC, Desert Mountain Park aren't for pass thru traffic. Design Svcs Bldg not. Fire Trucks and Fire houses aren't for pass thru traffic. none of these things are for pass thru traffic Bill.
Can you itemize the cost of the things you listed? We both know the fire dept was rushed. I support 100% having our own fire dept as I'm sure you do. HPEC hasnt turned into to what was supposed to be. What was the original cost estimate and what was the final cost and why was there a difference?
i'll get it to you next week. i have three iterations at the house (somewhere) and want to be sure i get you the right current break-down.
since HPEC happened before my time, i will definitely have to get you that next week. i only know final costs and don't know what original cost projections were.
|
GSBill
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 21st, 2009 02:16 am |
|
our buy-in to the waste-water treatment facility isnt for pass thru traffic, HPEC, Desert Mountain Park aren't for pass thru traffic. Design Svcs Bldg not. Fire Trucks and Fire houses aren't for pass thru traffic. none of these things are for pass thru traffic Bill.
Can you itemize the cost of the things you listed? We both know the fire dept was rushed. I support 100% having our own fire dept as I'm sure you do. HPEC hasnt turned into to what was supposed to be. What was the original cost estimate and what was the final cost and why was there a difference?
185 million is a lot of money. I saw some presentations by staff hawking the need for yet additional improvements to accommodate and capitalize on pass thru traffic. I still dont understand how growth is supposed to pay for itself yet we owe 185 million for what I see as a fraction of hard items worth. Granted I dont know enough to pick this issue apart however I do believe that if expenditures were measured and a pay as you go model was in place, QC would not have its back against the wall as it faces possible bankruptcy if this bill passes. Once the last home is built, the fee collected, QC should be self sustaining.
Looks like we're a Chevy town living the Ferrari lifestyle.
I want the same nice and needed things everybody else wants at the time we can afford them. Spending based on projections is dangerous business. Gambling of sorts. When dealt a losing hand the tax payer always picks up the tab.
|
QCVillager
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 21st, 2009 01:58 am |
|
so Bill, looking at the Waste Water Treatment facility for instance... that capacity isn't needed for you. if we shut the doors after you got here and never issued another permit then it wouldn't be necessary. meanwhile, YOU already paid for the capacity that was needed for you within the price you paid to your builder. your builder paid the Impact Fee to TOQC.
now, if we have a moratorium of Impact Fee collection for the next three years... anyone else who comes in (and they WILL come it, we know that) will not have to pay for the Waste Water facility which was built to accommodate their impact.
so, if the new growth doesn't pay for their impact, what happens ? in order to pay for that facility, the Town would have to pull money from General Fund. the Town would have to pull money from O/M budgets to pay the costs of that plant. we would likely pull one full beat of MCSO out of service, we would likely close Parks so that their O/M costs would be zero, that way we could funnel those funds over to pay for that waste water plant that is for the New growth.
all of this would mean YOU and the current residents and businesses who all paid their Impact Fees will have essentially paid TWICE. that is inherently unfair. especially since these Impact Fee rules are the rules we've played by according to legislatures and voter approved initiatives.
much of this way of doing business was in place years ago, but the idea that growth should pay for itself was really hammered home in the Arizona Growing Smarter legislation. you might find it pretty interesting research.
Last edited on Sun Jun 21st, 2009 02:19 am by
|
QCVillager
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 21st, 2009 01:53 am |
|
our buy-in to the waste-water treatment facility isnt for pass thru traffic, HPEC, Desert Mountain Park aren't for pass thru traffic. Design Svcs Bldg not. Fire Trucks and Fire houses aren't for pass thru traffic. none of these things are for pass thru traffic Bill.
and it cannot be said that Impact Fees were collected for one purpose and then doled out to something else. Impact Fees are comprised of the following seven categories... Wastewater, Parks/Rec, Libraries, Town Facilities, Public Safety, Transportation, and Fire development (none of those are to accomodate pass thru traffic. the fees are to provide for new growth). also, you cannot collect an Impact Fee for Library category and then spend the money for Transportation category. they also can only be used for Capital expenditures and not for ongoing Operations or Maintenence.
cities/towns make projections as to what will be needed with respect to waste-water treatment capacity for instance. lets use that as an example. so, your growth projections tell you that you are at full capacity or will be soon. means you have to buy additional capacity to accomodate new growth. a waste water treatment facility is a such a huge investment and time consuming process. one needs a site and all sorts of regulatory issues come up that it takes a long time to build. so much so, that you overbuild in advance of future needs. your two neighboring cities/towns (Gilbert and Mesa) are also needing additional capacity to provide for growth. what to do ?
in this case, all three cities/towns sign an IGA (Inter Gov't Agreement) to build a facility jointly and it costs something like $150m bucks. each city/town pays a share based on how much capacity they will have. now, just like you and i at our own homes... this is a LOT of money. money, for most of us, that we don't just have sitting around under the mattress. so we take out loans (WIFA in this instance) which are low (actually, below market rate) municipal rates, but none-the-less have interest and principal payments due.
http://www.queencreek.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2647
Last edited on Sun Jun 21st, 2009 02:01 am by
|
GSBill
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 21st, 2009 12:23 am |
|
Queen Creek has a total in bonded debt of $185 million, and payments must be made on schedule to bondholders much like homeowners must pay their mortgage each month. If we can no longer collect the fees, we have no other revenue source large enough to repay existing debts.
This is disturbing. I dont fully understand how QC needs new fees coming in to pay for existing debt. What I see is QC has built infrastructure to accommodate pass thru traffic with monies collected that should have been used for the benefit of town residents. The pass thru traffic didnt chip in and now we are left holding the bag and hoping for future impact fees to carry the current debt load.
Please tell me I am way off base and explain what really happened.
If we can no longer collect the fees, we have no other revenue source large enough to repay existing debts
Arent the fees supposed to pay for things needed that are newly created by the new development, not the existing? This plan is a plan of financial disaster and could never work. Who borrowed us into a journey destined towards bankruptcy? If monies were used the right way this new bill would have no affect on QC's financial stability.
|
QCVillager
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 21st, 2009 12:09 am |
|
Legislature's budget would ruin communities
Jon Wootten, Commentary
June 17, 2009 - 4:16PM
I am compelled to write in response to recent comments by House of Representatives Majority Whip Andy Tobin, R-Paulden, defending the state budget approved by the Arizona Legislature. As a local elected official, I want to ensure that my constituents and legislators understand what this would mean.
The Legislature's approved budget would:
Place a three-year freeze on collection of development impact fees.
Take a significant portion of local revenues from vehicle license taxes.
Decrease commercial property taxes from 22 percent to 10 percent, making it more difficult for local governments to raise bond revenues that are guaranteed with property taxes.
Prevent communities from increasing local retail and construction sales taxes for three years.
Queen Creek would be hardest hit by the freeze on development impact fees. Our ability to collect this one-time fee when a building permit is issued is the only opportunity we have to hold home builders accountable for the impact of projects on our community and to ensure existing residents are served by adequate infrastructure.
Impact fees are set aside in special funds and are the main source of repayment for infrastructure projects. By law, these funds may only be used for their designated purpose. Queen Creek's development fee structure was created in cooperation with stakeholders, including homebuilders, who recommended it to the Town Council.
Queen Creek has a total in bonded debt of $185 million, and payments must be made on schedule to bondholders much like homeowners must pay their mortgage each month. If we can no longer collect the fees, we have no other revenue source large enough to repay existing debts. Queen Creek would have to slash another 23 percent of its operating expenses in addition to the 33 percent it has cut in the past three years. Services such as street and parks maintenance, code enforcement, recreation programs, libraries, and significant portions of public safety would be eliminated or drastically reduced.
In explaining the rationale for supporting the development impact fee freeze, Tobin classified uses of the fees as essential or nonessential. For example, he views parks as nonessential. Queen Creek currently collects a development impact fee to pay for new parks and used the funds to build two parks that are heavily used by residents. Our parks development impact fees are already committed to repay the $20 million debt for these two facilities. If the Legislature changes the rules and makes parks "nonessential," it removes Queen Creek's ability to pay this debt.
Queen Creek voters requested these parks and embrace them as important to their quality of life. The Legislature's proposed actions discount citizens' voices in shaping their communities. Anyone who believes that parks are not critical for growing areas is out of touch with the family life of average citizens and has not compared crime rates for towns with and without adequate parks.
No one will be served by bankrupting communities that have managed growth responsibly. If the Legislature believes new growth need only pay for "essentials," then let's agree upon what is "essential" in today's economic reality. Admit this will result in higher local taxes and don't hide behind claims of "no new taxes."
I implore the Legislature to begin listening to communities and work with us to ensure we can pay our debts.
Jon Wootten is a member of the Queen Creek Town Council.
|
Current time is 06:57 am | |
|