The conduct of City Commissioner Mike Rundle continues to be questioned one week after he sent an inflammatory e-mail to the leader of the Lawrence Home Builders Association.
In an e-mail last Wednesday to Bobbie Flory, executive director of the association, Rundle urged her to not tout the results of a 5-year-old study that the organization did regarding whether new single-family growth pays for itself.
In that e-mail he said: "Please tell me that you are not really going to trot out the study that LHBA commissioned several years ago," Rundle wrote. "I can't recall something that was a bigger waste of time for city commissioners and the public than the time we spent reviewing that study and sitting through the presentation when it was unveiled."
On Tuesday, Rundle's comments drew some criticism from a fellow commissioner. City Commissioner Sue Hack, when asked by the Journal-World, said she found the tone of Rundle's letter to be unprofessional.
"I thought the first sentence was extremely condescending," Hack said regarding the reference of "trotting" out the study. "What's disappointing is that we can't possibly move forward on any kind of decision-making if we can't be civil to each other."
The home builder association's study has become an issue again because the city is debating whether to charge new impact fees on new development. Impact fees are specific charges designed to help cover the costs that new development adds to the city's budget.
The fees are controversial because builders and others contend that new development pays for its own costs.
Flory on Tuesday said she didn't want to discuss her thoughts on the tone of Rundle's letter. In an e-mail response to Rundle, she told the commissioner his "negative attitude and lack of respect towards me and the LHBA is disappointing."
Rundle declined to comment for this story. In an e-mail to the Journal-World he said: "I don't have further public comment on Bobbie Flory's correspondence. I'm going to be responding to her short reply to my e-mail through another e-mail or a press conference."
Political motives?
Rundle also did not comment on whether his e-mail to Flory was politically motivated. His seat is up for re-election in April, and the creation of new impact fees has been a major part of past campaigns.
Also just prior to Rundle sending his e-mail to Flory, leaders of the Progressive Lawrence Campaign - of which Rundle has been a member - were posting messages on a local Internet chat board critical of the previous night's City Commission meeting. At that meeting, Flory spoke and asked commissioners to spend more time studying the issue. Some PLC leaders expressed disappointment that no one stepped forward to say that the issue had been significantly studied in 2004 and 2005 by a city-appointed group.
Flory on Tuesday said she hopes Rundle's e-mail spurs more discussion about whether the impact-fee issue really has been studied. The city paid $140,000 last year for a consultant to study whether the city needs additional impact fees. But only half of that study has been completed. The portion of the study that determines how the city could implement impact fees for certain areas of town has not been completed.
"The real point I've been trying to make is that the city needs to finish that study before they start implementing new impact fees," Flory said.
Study not last word
City Manager David Corliss, though, is recommending the city move forward on the issue before the study is completed. He said the city has enough information to craft ordinances creating new impact fees. He said the study only was designed to be one piece of the discussion, and was only providing a snapshot of whether new growth was paying for itself.
The first half of the study, which was presented to commissioners during a study session earlier this year, found that several types of residential growth were nearly paying for themselves. Medium to large-lot single family homes fell $26 short of paying their own way, duplexes fell $9 short, while small-lot single family homes fell $65 short. Apartments were the largest offender, according to the study, falling $341 per unit short.
Corliss, though, stopped short of saying he would use those numbers to form recommendations on what the new impact fees should be. He said conditions in the community likely had changed since the report was done in 2005.
Hack said she was concerned that there was a sentiment that the commission shouldn't wait for the report to be completed.
"It concerns me greatly that we have spent all this money and do not have a report to help us make a decision," Hack said.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
conservative (anonymous) says…
The PLC spends 140,000 on a study, gets part of it, finds it doesn't say what they want, and then pushes for higher fees before the study is completed.
Skip the proposed 1% sales tax increase and get rid of the money wasting PLC.
This city deserves leadership that doesn't look down on the people and doesn't write condescending letters to business groups.
merrill (anonymous) says…
"The fees are controversial because builders and others contend that new development pays for its own costs."
When it is said that residential does not pay for itself what is meant is that each residental does generate enough in personal property taxes to cover the cost of community services that that the city provides.
It is not about whether or not each development covers its' own construction cost per house. It's not about whether or not the real estate industry is clearing a profit on each house. The real estate industry is doing quite well for itself.
Every new structure brings with it additional costs to a municipality in this case Lawrence. Go to city hall to see what services are performed at that location and the number of employees required to accomplish those tasks. Next go to the 11th and Haskell location and browse those services and take notice of all the services,staffing and equipment.
Then notice all of our rec centers and parks plus staffing/equipment,Traffic Safety division,equipment and staffing,two police departments/equipment and staffing,emergency sevices staffing and equipment,library staffing and quipment,swimming pools and the equipment maintenance and replacement. There is the variety of signs and traffic lights(Lawrence does replace a lot of working traffic lights for updated versions). Citizens are never happy about streets and want snow removed right away. Don't forget the county which also provide many of the same services.
This is but a short list of city services and locations.
What is at issue is whether or not each new residential structure is generating enough tax revenue to cover the cost of operating a municipality. Considering increases in property tax are consistently more than 3%-4% annually I would say no. Why not?
Due to the massive numbers of new residential construction taxpayers would have thought that broadening the tax base would be reducing our tax bill. No that did not happen. This is not necessarily uncommon as residential is not taxed accordingly. The shortfall is normally picked up through light industrial and commercial structures but here again municipalities must be careful and extremely selective in how this is accomplished.
jonas (anonymous) says…
"Posted by truthlawrence (anonymous) on December 20, 2006 at 5:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
gootsie,let me get to the point,,all three of the commie commisioners are fruit cakes,now do you get it"
Well, it IS a rather complicated point you're trying to get across. It's a good thing you're using caps lock so much, or it would probably get lost in translation.
merrill (anonymous) says…
Comm. Rundle is far from alone in questioning the validity of that report.
Total property tax revenues are determined by cost of city services (decided by city commission) less other revenues.
Therefore, increase in impact fees = reduction in property tax revenues.
Property tax per a particular household = total revenues (times) that household's share of property.
Therefore, increase in impact fees = reduction in property tax revenues = reduction in property tax per household.
Property tax rate = property tax per household/value of houshold property.
Therefore, increase in impact fees = reduction in property tax rate for two reasons:
1. Property tax per houshold goes down.
2. Value of property does not decrease and may increase slightly.
Bottom line: someone has to pay the taxes. If the builders pay more then the rest of us pay less.(Of course those taxes are a cost that gets passed on)
merrill (anonymous) says…
The cost of living increases began to take off when the real estate industry took over the city,county,and planning commissions about 1987. The housing boom went beyond reality bringing with it astounding increases in property taxes to this day. When the real estate industry took over citizens
began to realize that builders and local real estate giants do not necessarily translate into good planners. Money makers for their industry perhaps but excellent planners for municipalities they are not and now it's hitting taxpayers in the wallet section.
Noweigh (anonymous) says…
It's good that emails like this are finally getting out and the public who elected these Kommisioners will see the error of their ways. The over reaction by western Lawrence voters regarding the Wal-Mart "threat", helped a couple of these people into office. Surely by now, these voters have come to their senses.
What a joke this great town has become.
blue73harley (anonymous) says…
Run(dle)s with scissors. Does not play well with others.
commuter (anonymous) says…
Merrill:
It is nice to see someone trying to defend the 3 members of the PLC.
Housing costs skyrocketed because it was a seller's market. Think about, if you could sell you house to one person for 100,000 or another for 110,000 or another for 115,000. Who would you sell the house to?
The costs of contruction include payroll, any city fees, and materials. Yes the builders and developers make a profit. So what!!! If you do not think the builders and edelopers should make a profit, I think you live in the wrong country.
The problem is now we do not have the tax base but the city wants all of these city services. The city needs to start making some hard choices. Do we need to fund everything? No.
Should we stop building roundabouts? Yes, we could use the money to fix the streets instead of paying 150,000 on one intersection.
Just because you and some of your group liked the way lawrence was 20 years ago doesn't mean it will still be the same today. Times change. Learn to adapt.
Every time you posts something on this website, I see why I chose to live here. This is a great way of showing my children how people with some good ideas could mess something up.
This also reinforces my children's beliefs to go to college and get an education or start your own business instead of having the government look out after you.
Merrill, I personally think you may have fallen off your bike one to many times.
Peace out or for the PLC people-Pot in. Laws and common sense out.
Remember communism is good in theory but people mess it up. Soviet Union prime example. Lawrence next.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
kshiker (anonymous) says…
Why pay $140,000 for a comprehensive impact fee and development study if you plan on proceeding with your actions without reviewing the results of the study?
Have you ever seen this happen with any other issue? Why did we hire a City Manager within the existing city staff again instead of seeking someone with fresh ideas and a different perspective.
For those of you all who have a major problem with Highberger, Schauner and Rundle, even though I wholeheartedly share your complaints about those three idiots, you may want to direct some of your criticism at Corliss as well. He has become part of the problem.
anthro (james dick) says…
This entire conversation reads so juvenile. It is clear that new development gets a free ride. It is time that the rest of us quit having to pay for it.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
It's interesting that the only real complaint from Hack and Flory is the "tone" of Rundle's email, based almost entirely on the use of the word "trot," which is hardly the most objectionable 4-letter word in the English language.
"The first half of the study, which was presented to commissioners during a study session earlier this year, found that several types of residential growth were nearly paying for themselves. Medium to large-lot single family homes fell $26 short of paying their own way, duplexes fell $9 short, while small-lot single family homes fell $65 short. Apartments were the largest offender, according to the study, falling $341 per unit short."
This study shows that at the very least, modest increases in impact fees are justified, particularly on apartment complexes, of which we currently have an oversupply, anyway.
But as merrill points out, what does it mean that they are "nearly paying their way." Which of the overall costs of new development are included in impact fees, and which are not? This article doesn't make it clear one way or the other.
avoice (anonymous) says…
merrill: Making some very good points amidst all the sophomoric chatter.
commuter: You said, "This also reinforces my children's beliefs to go to college and get an education or start your own business instead of having the government look out after you." Start your own business so you can be the government's moneybags for all the handouts. Either directly because of the extremely high cost of your payroll (while you still can't afford to pay workers enough to get their kids off Health Wave), worker's comp insurance and unemployment insurance; or indirectly because of all the ridiculous taxes you pay, paperwork you have to have fulltime people to address, etc., etc., etc. Whatever you do, don't send your kids off to start their own business unless they really have a chance to become Trump or Gates. In today's "global" economy, only the really big players really succeed. Small business owners everywhere are now wage slaves, just like their employees.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
THis is the shell game that the developers, home builders and politicians play. YEs you can build that loverly development here. Then years later we find out the true demand and not the ones the developer "estimated" are quite a bit higher, such as traffic flows, sewer and water, schools, parks. etc, we then find that the original development was bare bones.
Then there is a sales tax or property tax and roads need rebuilt because the developer for instance used 4 inches of asphalt on a major roadway instead of reinforced concrete 6-7 inches things like that happen. WHom has their taxes go up? That's right the homeowners. We need impact fees, which was the cry FIRST from the developers, to pass this cost on to the homeowner. Now they don't want to pay it, and are now against it, as home sales are slowing.
The real solution is to have the developers and Home Builders build properly and completely, and have a city inspection team that actually goes out to these homes and developements and make these guys fix things THEN instead of LATER which is ALWAYS more expensive than doing it right the first time.
I am all for growth and do not like the fees assessed on the consumers. They are not the ones making the lions share of the money here, ... it is the developer and homebuilders.
In my book the devellopers, home builders, and house flipers, are lower than a used car salesman. That level of loweness must be recognized by the politicians and the City building inspectors. Smart gorwth is right, and growth is good, but putting up POS houses in a minimalist POS development with poor infrastructure designed in, is not smart growth!
That is supposed to be what a planning commission is for, to to be a schill and apoligist for the PLC or the Developers, BUT to look out for the best interests of the consumers, homeowners, and citizens or the City!!!!
oldgoof (anonymous) says…
I'm having a hard time figuring out if truthlawrence has an opinion in this matter.
.
Seriously folks, the name calling and level of argument here makes me wonder if the ljw should remove the comments feature when they do their redesign..
.
Lets get back to the issue and kill the 'South Park' level of postings here.
.
My suggestion to the Home Builders is if their study has any merit, to post it on-line so the public can read it.
commuter (anonymous) says…
avoice-
Success is business is defined in may ways. My kids could be accountants, lawyers, or nay other profession.
They may want to just be able to live. They really haven't defined what they envisioned as success.
Good points but my kids still have about 10 years before they could start a "real" business.
I would encourage them to get a degree or professional skilss first.
optimist (anonymous) says…
Let's settle this. Create impact fees for every new construction project in the city of Lawrence. In fairness however I propose that we impose it retroactively. We should go back to the date of Lawrence's incorporation as a city. Every home built in the city since that date will now have to pay an impact fee, adjusted to today's dollars of course. Considering builder pass the fee on to new home buyers I think it is fair for existing home owners to pay just the same.
I know it will work and be tolerated. Bill Clinton did the same thing with regard to income taxes and taxation of social security benefits his first year in office and we re-elected him. Clearly retroactive taxation isn't that revolting of a prospect.
commuter (anonymous) says…
correction Success IN business is defined in may ways. My kids could be accountants, lawyers, or nay other profession.
x96merrill3 (anonymous) says…
Since the Journal World won't print the whole e-mail, I will...enjoy!!!!
Bobbie,
Please tell me that you are not really going to trot out the study that the LHBA commissioned several years ago. I can't recall something that was a bigger waste of time for city commissioners and the public than the time we spent reviewing that study and sitting through the presentation when it was unveiled. You know very well that the study did not account for huge public costs including schools, financing for streets, waterlines, and sanitary and stormwater sewerlines that serve any new subdivision (as opposed to the cost of infrastructure within a subdivision borne by the developer), and the cost for expansion of the wastewater treatment plant (around 90% of which is attributable to growth). That is pushing 100 million dollars if you for any reason you do not recall.
And please, anyone, especially including any city commissioner who will deny there has been stakeholder input when there has been a great deal of stakehold input is playing politics of the worst sort.
Mike Rundle
budwhysir (anonymous) says…
Come on people politicaly speaking, our city council cant be doing all that bad at thier job. afterall they just got a raise.
Godot (anonymous) says…
Merrill wrote: "Then notice all of our rec centers and parks plus staffing/equipment,Traffic Safety division,equipment and staffing,two police departments/equipment and staffing,emergency sevices staffing and equipment,library staffing and quipment,swimming pools and the equipment maintenance and replacement. There is the variety of signs and traffic lights(Lawrence does replace a lot of working traffic lights for updated versions). Citizens are never happy about streets and want snow removed right away. Don't forget the county which also provide many of the same services."
If new residential does not pay for itself, particularly dense residential and apartments, the reason is because the city provides too many luxury services at taxpayer expense, while neglecting the vital services.
The city does not have to be in the health club, golf course, swimming pool, taxi, soccer club, youth sports club, or even the hospital, business. If these services are needed and wanted by the public, private business should be allowed to develop and operate these businesses without unfair competition from the city.
If the city concentrated on the necessities of streets, sewers, fire and police, and parks, while leaving the provision of luxury activities to private enterprise, new residential development would more than pay for itself.
75x55 (anonymous) says…
Excellent points, Asbestos.
Godot (anonymous) says…
Thanks, Mike, for printing the entire email. Unfortunately for you, the LJW did you a favor by printing only the first two sentences. It is sad for you that you think that the content of your email was worthy of a public official.
budwhysir (anonymous) says…
Would a vote for a pay raise be considered a waste of time???
Godot (anonymous) says…
The city also has no business taxing the public to redevelop the downtown to benefit a few private individuals.
conservative (anonymous) says…
Godot,
x96merrill3 is not Rundle. Look at his past posts and you'll see that clearly. The original Email was signed Mike Rundle and I assume you thought that was who was posting here.
Godot (anonymous) says…
Oldgoof, the PLC does not want the public to see the homebuilders study because it does not support their position.
The new study was commissioned, at a cost of $140,000, because the PLC did not like what they read in the homebuilder study. Unfortunately for them, they do not like what the new report says, either.
They want to rush the decision on the impact fees before the new study is finished because they know the new study will show that, by and large, residential and large retail growth pays for itself.
That is why Corliss says the new study should not be a major factor in the decision about impact fees. He clearly has been told by his bosses, the PLC majority, that he should not let facts interfere with the primacy of their political will.
I predict the new study will show that the kind of growth that does not pay for itself is "smart growth."
chocolateplease (anonymous) says…
Just because Rundle's email may have lacked diplomacy or tact, admittedly important leadership skills, consider his frustration, and consider the way his private email exchange which was not public somehow became public. Here you have the home-builder association leader talking about an outdated, poorly conducted, and previously hashed over (and found lacking) study to support her thought that the builders shouldn't have to pay for the costs that THEY generate. The costs that THEY generate get passed to the city who then passes them onto all of our citizens in a costly, after-the-fact political manner. IT is more fair for the builders to pay up front and pass the costs onto the new home buyers, and maybe they'll even trim a little of their profits with the competitive market what it is. The home-builders are taking Lawrence residents for a ride if we are to believe that their self-serving study means they shouldn't pay these fees. Rundle is probably just annoyed as all of us should be.
Godot (anonymous) says…
Conservative, thanks for the clarification. Do you think that post was a true rendition of Rundle's email?
conservative (anonymous) says…
It was not a private email chocolate, it was correspondence from an elected official to someone who is on the docket for a public issue. The tone of the email is inexcuseable and should not be tolerated in any official.
conservative (anonymous) says…
Godot,
No problem. Yes I think it is the actual email. It is also posted on the LJWorld site here: http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/dec...
along with the reply.
x96merrill3 (anonymous) says…
For those who are feeling sorry for Rundle that his "Private e-mail" was made public....here is the list of recipients on that e-mail...notice that it included Chad Lawhorn, the author of TODAY'S article who chose not to present the information to you.
From: Mike Rundle [mailto:myrrundle@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 1:23 PM
To: Flory Bobbie
Cc: Corliss Dave; David Schauner; dschauner@sunflower.com; boog@lawrence.ixks.com; Mike Amyx; Sue Hack; Debbie Van Saun; John Miller; dreynold@sunflower.com; Lawhorn Chad
Subject: Regarding the homebuilders cost of growth study
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"The city also has no business taxing the public to redevelop the downtown to benefit a few private individuals."
That's funny-- you sure seem to think that the public should be taxed to subsidize development in other parts of the city.
chocolateplease (anonymous) says…
Okay, I guess it was more of a public email, and quite cranky sounding. Criticism is warranted toward Rundle. But I still find my focus on the heart of the message which was what a piece of junk that old study was and how it was being mis-used to support the idea of avoiding fees that should be paid by the builders. It is disingenuous for Flory to highlight that report as a meaningful measure of the costs of development in this town, yet she did it anyways. Doesn't that bother anybody?
Godot (anonymous) says…
Well, chocolateplease, if what you say about the homebuilder study is true, I guess we should wait for the $140,000 study to be completed and fully discussed before any decisions on impact fees are made. Makes sense, doesn't it?
The new study does indicate this:
"Medium to large-lot single family homes fell $26 short of paying their own way, duplexes fell $9 short, while small-lot single family homes fell $65 short. Apartments were the largest offender, according to the study, falling $341 per unit short."
If the fees were that minimal, there probably would not be much objection.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
chocolateplease (anonymous) says…
Gadot said "we should wait for the $140,000 study to be completed and fully discussed before any decisions on impact fees are made"
Maybe. I thought I'd read (but could be mistaken) that the part of the study already completed clearly demonstrated that costs weren't being paid by development. If that is true, then perhaps getting the fees implemented now makes sense since waiting only prolongs the process and increases the ever-mounting costs this city is facing, and the actual fee amounts can be adjusted later. But I haven't read the incomplete study myself, so I defer to others who have. And yes it seems the fees wouldn't be anything outrageous, especially paid up front which is most efficient economically.
rhd99 (anonymous) says…
Rundle's actions especially from this e-mail that he sent says plenty about his ability to protect the interests of ALL Lawrence residents. Truthlawrence, You're right in that Highberger Schauner & Rundle are the reasons why costs have skyrocketed in terms of housing & apartment rentals & they NEVER established rent controls against the holding companies of these apartments. Let's face it, folks, these three commissioners LOVE the status quo. They don't want to make Lawrence it's own community. They love this bedroom community style that drives up costs because people have jobs in Kansas City or Topeka that easily trump the wages of all jobs here in Lawrence, except for maybe the professors, doctors, & lawyers. By the way, why is it that some jobs here in Lawrence DO NOT pay the minimum wage? Have they moved Lawrence into a positive direction for the future? NO!
commuter (anonymous) says…
I find it funny that Chad was on the e-mail. Do you think Rundle "planted" this e-mail to help his chances in the next election.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
When the facts don't support the PLC Kommissioner's ideology and rhetoric they (and their most vocal supporters) resort to personal attack, name calling and the like. Nothing I could call "new" in this news story, just another chance for logrithmic, bozo and Rundle to spew invectives at those they disagree with, and then assert as axiomatic that "new development doesn't pay for itself" hoping that if they say it enough, despite evidence to the contrary, that mere repetition of this incantation it will make it become so.
It is kind of sad really.
nbnozzy (anonymous) says…
I wish I could say I am surprised by Rundle's actions, but it's getting so common that the word "pathetic" equates to the name of Mike Rundle.
The lil Napolean of Lawrence, Ks., once again rushes toward his Waterloo........
Godot (anonymous) says…
chocolateplease, I was being facetious when I said that if the fees were that low, there wouldn't be many objections. The fees will be magnified hundreds of times over the actual shortfall because their real purpose is to stifle new development, not actually pay for infrastructure.
But, playing along, lets say that the fees would be exactly what the study says is the shortfall between the taxes paid and the services used.
That means that the Commissioners just wasted the impact fees from 5,385 new large homes on the impact fee study.
And they wasted the impact fees on 577 new duplex units on the upcoming bicycle race.
Puts it in perspective, does it not?
budwhysir (anonymous) says…
Marion,
you seem to be ignoring me lately but, I have been reading all of these posts. Keep in mind that politicaly speaking, I am completly in tune with what is going on with politics now adays. That includes the fact that all day kindergarten now costs 1 million a year
kshiker (anonymous) says…
The first part of the study was meant to study residential real estate development in the city and specifically identify whether or not new development was paying its own way.
The second part of the study was intended to factor in the results of the first study and recommend to the city how to appropriately implement an impact fee ordinance to accomodate the findings of the first study.
Since this City Commission authorized this two-part study, wouldn't it be appropriate for the city to wait for the results of the second part of the study before we make a major change to implement a new impact fee ordinance? I don't think this is too unreasonable to wait for the results of the study to be completed.
The main reason this idea is being "trotted" out by the City Commission right now is for three reasons: (1) The PLC commissioners are trying to inflame and mobilize their base before the upcoming elections; (2) this study is not coming back with the findings that the commission was hoping for, namely that residential real estate development is significantly underpaying for the cost of development; and (3) there is a real fear on the part of the anti-growth crowd that at least 2 of their commissioners will be unseated in the next election and they will lose their narrow majority on the commission. Thus, they will no longer be able to enact impact fee ordinances.
As a pro-growth citizen, I myself am very encouraged by these recent events. The tide has clearly turned against the PLC and the silent majority of citizens who stayed home in 2003 when these guys were elected are finally going to mobilize next year and vote them out of office. The beauty of representative democracy at work!
Gootsie (anonymous) says…
Good grief. When you insult Rundle on his sexual preference, you insult all people who are gay. If you choose to attack him on his political beliefs, go ahead. But leave his personal choices out. They add nothing to this.
Tis the season, you know.
Andini (anonymous) says…
I never meant to insult Rundle. I was just asking a question.
Sorry.
Doesn't Commisioner Rundle live in a house that has a entrance off of an alley?
blue73harley (anonymous) says…
I agree Gootsie. Rundle being gay has nothing to do with his stupid, tactless correspondence. I'm thinking he was dropped on his head as a child.
cutny (anonymous) says…
Rundle's doing a great job. The homebuilders with their crappy minimum standard housing are the ones whose principles ought to be questioned. Budwhysir, if you're so "in tune" with politics, it seems as though you would know that it was the county commissioners who received a raise, not the city. Otherwise though, thanks for telling us how well informed you are. It certainly shows.
Lifelong_Lawrencian (anonymous) says…
How about some facts to stimulate more discussion. The impact fee builders paid in 2006 for a 1" water meter is $4,290--increased from $3,900 in 2005, which is the year the city's study examined. The impact for 2007 will be $4,680 an increase of $780 since 2005. Would this scheduled increase not cover the city's shortfall without raising impact fees futher?
How many new homes will have to be constructed to cover the cost of the growth study who's results the city is ignoring?
commuter (anonymous) says…
Cutny- Are you a member of the PLC?
Quality of the homes isn't the issue. It is the e-mail that Commission Rundle and the higher than mighty tone he sent to Bobby.
From what I have saw and have read, the LHBA would like the study to be completed before any fees are inacted. Rundle and his buddies do not like this idea. Why?
Do I think Rundle is doing a good job, No. That is why I will not vote for him or any member of the PLC.
If Rundle and his buddies do not like the study, then they should have to pay for it themselves out of their own pockets.
I agree with Commissioner Hack.
Lifelong_Lawrencian (anonymous) says…
Alas, I silenced the crowd again. It is amazing what facts do to a discussion that is dominated by rhetoric.
Andini (anonymous) says…
It took me 168 posts before I finally got one removed.
Is that a record?
Jamesaust (anonymous) says…
I guess I agree with Bozo for once.
I breathlessly couldn't wait to read this "unprofessional" [duh! duh! duh!!] and "negative" [duh! duh! duh!!] email.
I guess I'm still waiting. *yawn*
All is see is one extremist disagreeing with another extremist.
The LHBA "study" was about as worthless as at least one City (a/k/a, tax-payer funded) "study" on the subject I've seen too. Both seem to pick a conclusion and then work backward for a justification.
I'm doubtful I'll vote for Rundle again but it has nothing to do with this email joke-of-a-controversy.
Souki (anonymous) says…
"This also reinforces my children's beliefs to go to college and get an education or start your own business instead of having the government look out after you."
I can't think of a single private business that isn't in some way subsidized by the government.
Souki (anonymous) says…
"The city does not have to be in the health club, golf course, swimming pool, taxi, soccer club, youth sports club, or even the hospital, business. ... If the city concentrated on the necessities of streets, sewers, fire and police, and parks, while leaving the provision of luxury activities to private enterprise, new residential development would more than pay for itself."
Why do you get to decide which are the necessities and which the luxuries? There are certainly people who think of streets as luxuries. Why not let them decide?
Tychoman (anonymous) says…
budwhysir, the County Commission just got a pay raise, different from the City Commission.
The posts on this thread are a complete and utter joke. This makes me think there should be a test in order to be allowed to vote. Most of you wouldn't pass.
zimmerman (anonymous) says…
Ok, let me get this straight...
Those of you who are against raising impact fees are against it because you LIKE your taxes to go to development that has nothing to do with you? If you don't like Rundle or his tone, that's one thing. Personally, after reading the whole email, it seems like he was genuinely angry at people who are trying to rip off our community. I don't know if it was professional or not, but I think the sentiment was right on target.
But even if you didn't like his tone, you should at least pay attention to the major body of the letter (the one that wasn't printed in the story) that deals with all of the things that the initial report left out. I'm really pretty digusted by the fact that the reporter who wrote the story didn't even mention one of the problems Rundle had with the report.
Once again, it seems like all we get is a story about an argument between two people with different political agendas, and it isn't made clear what it is they're actually arguing about. It would nice if someone would have asked Bobby Flory why financing for streets, waterlines, and sanitary and stormwater sewerlines were not included in their report. For all I know, maybe there's a good reason they didn't include those things.
Maybe I'm crazy, but that seems to be the real story here. Instead we get a story that a city planner has disagreements with construction companies. Wow! Talk about news. A disagreement like that only happens in Lawrence right?
oldgoof (anonymous) says…
Godot: "Oldgoof, the PLC does not want the public to see the homebuilders study because it does not support their position."
Goof's point: I didn't ask PLC to post it, I am suggesting the Homebuilders Association post it.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"The impact fee builders paid in 2006 for a 1" water meter is $4,290--increased from $3,900 in 2005, which is the year the city's study examined."
"Alas, I silenced the crowd again. It is amazing what facts do to a discussion that is dominated by rhetoric."
Well, it's quite probable that the cost for installing the water hookups used in the study was out-of-date, as well, so until you can provide complete facts, you really haven't provided anything useful to the discussion.
toefungus (anonymous) says…
No test is necessary. All elected officials know taxpayers are saps.
Lifelong_Lawrencian (anonymous) says…
The city study of 2005 says that an average new home cost the city about $25. The LHBA commissioned report says it makes the city about $630. These reports are basically in agreement. The difference is chump change. The important thing to note is that the impact fees builders already pay has increased by more than this amount since 2005. Use whatever number you like. The unanimous result is that builders/developers pay more than their "fair share".
Lifelong_Lawrencian (anonymous) says…
Here's the link to the LHBA growth study:
http://www.lhba.net/LHBAgrowthStudy.pdf
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Sounds to me that your judgement on the matter is immune (or is that averse?) to complete information, LL.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
From this article--
"Also just prior to Rundle sending his e-mail to Flory, leaders of the Progressive Lawrence Campaign - of which Rundle has been a member - were posting messages on a local Internet chat board critical of the previous night's City Commission meeting."
Does anyone know what Lawhorn is talking about here and/or have a link?
Lifelong_Lawrencian (anonymous) says…
So Bozo give me some information. Or better yet, define the "complete information" you want. I'll see what I can do.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"Or better yet, define the "complete information""
I already did. We know what was charged in 2005 when the study was done, but what was the actual cost? Is the current charge still less than the actual cost?
Godot (anonymous) says…
Zimmerman, this has been thoroughly debated in other threads, but, here we go, again: the reason those of us who are not developers, or are not even planning to buy a new home in Lawrence, are against impact fees is because these fees will increase the valuation, and therefore the taxes, on all homes, not just the new ones.
We also know that the call for impact fees is not based on fact, it is based on a negative emotion and on the no-growth political agenda of the PLC, thus the push to impose them prior to the next election, when the PLC will surely lose their majority on the City Commission.
conservative (anonymous) says…
Bozo, you are really thick. The 2005 report takes into account the actual costs. That is what the research was for. So the fact that the fees to developers has gone up way more than the shortage in the report shows that new development is now actually putting money into the city's coffers.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"We also know"
Speaking royally again, I see, Godot.
You should really have those delusions of grandeur checked into.
Godot (anonymous) says…
Boozo, the "we" are me and my friends. If you had any, you would have recognized the use of the term.
doesnotplaywellwithothers (anonymous) says…
"That means that the Commissioners just wasted the impact fees from 5,385 new large homes on the impact fee study"
Considering that Lawrence builds about 300 new homes a year we have to wait another 200 years to break even on that study alone, not counting any new studies and the usual lawsuits that will arise along with city staff spending time coming up with new ordinances and enforcement.
we need to broaden our tax base including new businesses and retail.
See you next April.
zimmerman (anonymous) says…
Godot,
I guess what I'm wondering is how much money will impact fees raise property taxes, and is this going to be more than what we're already using our tax money for to cover these impact fees. At the moment it seems like you're saying we either pay for the developers fees now or we pay for them later.
This seems to be the real issue, but no one is talking about it. Instead we're talking about political agendas and pro growth vs. no growth. If you can really show me that paying for developers fees with our taxes is actually beneficial to other home owners I'll probably start agreeing with you even though I, like many people in this town, don't own a home.
You said that the call for impact fees was not based on fact but on emotion. It seems that emotions are pretty high on both sides of this issue. I'd agree with you that emotions with no facts to back them up are no way to make decisions.
So if you have any factual data on how property taxes will increase more than what we're already paying for developers to have, what I consider to be a free ride, then I would be very interested to see it.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"The 2005 report takes into account the actual costs."
Does it? If it did, why were the fees increased in 2006? And why were they increased considerably more than the reported deficits above, which included more than just water hookups?
It could be that the increases in the water connection charges mean they reflect the real costs. And maybe they don't. Do you really know one way or the other? Who does, and how can we get them to tell us?
Would you agree that the impact fees for water connections should reflect the true costs? What about other infrastrucure costs? Should they be subisidized by the rest of the city?
thickly but inquiringly yours,
just another bozo
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Very good post, zimmerman-- I've actually been saying something similar for a long time.
The argument that impact fees, if truly based on the actual costs of creating all of the infrastructure required by new development, will cause a significant increase in property valuations citywide, ignores a very big elephant in the room:
Where is the money that pays for that now coming from? If making the end users of that infrastrucure actually pay for it will really wreak havoc on the real estate market, what sort havoc is the current system having, and on whom?
We need answers to those questions. And, yes, we also need complete answers as to what the true costs of development really are. All of them. Only then can we decide what the fairest ways are of paying for them, and then clearly indentify who is being asked to provide subsidies, and why.
Godot (anonymous) says…
If one were to assign an impact fee that fairly reflected the users of infrastructure money, a fee would be assessed to the sale of every home in near east Lawrence, old west Lawrence, and North Lawrence because those old houses are the fire dangers, they have the collapsing, leaky sewer lines, the crumbling streets and cracking, bulging sidewalks, and the parks that are maintained by the city. They are the neighborhoods with high traffic counts, and dense population.
In the new developments, the developers have built, and paid for, new sewers, new sidewalks, new water lines, parks, the homes are all up to code....
The impact fee on new construction, as proposed by the PLC, is a punitive fee simply meant to add cost to new moderate to high value construction. They exempt "affordable housing" from the impact fee.
Note that the study shows that the neighborhoods with small lots, and apartments, have the highest gap between the taxes generated and the resources used. In other words, affordable housing is the kind of growth that does not pay for itself.
If "making the people who use the services pay for them," were truly the motivation behind the impact fees, the PLC would never have proposed that "affordable housing" be exempted from the fee.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Your little fiction conveniently omits that all of those properties have been paying into the city funds that pay for the maintenance of such things for decades, but instead of doing all of that maintenance as would have been prudent, those funds have been tapped into to subsidize the new infrastructure required by new development.
Lifelong_Lawrencian (anonymous) says…
Godot makes a great point about affordable housing. But even though it hurts my mouth to say it, the Bozo makes a good point too about older properties. However, he is still unwilling to accept the fact that new development pays for itself.
15 years ago, new development did not pay for itself. The city used to pay for the extra cost for wider streets than the standard width, larger diameter water mains, the extra sidewalk required on through streets, etc.
The question is, should new development be required to pay for itself? One could argue that the city was better off economically when it did not.
When should the cost of our infrastructure be shared by the community as a whole? Nearly half of the cost of the 6th street extension recently completed was paid for by the state, since it is a state hiway. Is this fair to people who live in Goodland?
Godot (anonymous) says…
The funds paid by property owners in the olders sections of town that Bozo claims have been tapped into to subsidize new infrastructure required by new development have actually been frittered away on the golf course, the T, the subsidies for downtown businesses, exhorbitant salaries and perks for city administrators, lawsuits against Walmart, $140,000 impact fee studies (and many others) whose findings are ignored, competing with private health clubs and music and art teachers with the parks and rec classes;and, of course, million dollar roundabouts.
The fact is that the taxes generated by the older neighborhoods have not been enough to support their use of services for years, and the newer, higher valued properties have been subsidizing them for just as long, and will into the future.
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
Good luck on ever getting "complete answers" on what the costs of new development are. Also good luck in getting "complete answers" on the benefits of new development. Complete answers implies perfect knowledge and since some of those costs/benefits are dependent on FUTURE sales prices, inflation, and national economic conditions which are not predictable (at least not very accurately), it is just not going to happen. It is easy to calculate the cost of a new road today, but the benefit of that road in the future and who in the future should bear what part of the costs is just a Wild Ass Guess (WAG).
It would be like and individual saying, "I won't invest for retirement until I have complete answers and perfect knowledge of future interest rates, the markets, global, and national economic conditions for the next 5-20 years." I know what a stock, or bond, or mutual fund will cost me today, what it will be worth 10 years from now is much less certain. Prediction is very difficult, especially of the future. But to be effective we have to make decisions today, even with imperfect knowledge.
But a lot of this detail misses the much broader point. The PLC Kommissioners have regularly recited the incantation "New development does NOT pay for itself" and chanted the mantra "Smart Growth" whenever it halted projects it disagreed with, raised fees on those they don't like, or spent money they didn't have. only now are the plc admitting that they have no hard cold facts to back up that claim. That is what Rundle is so upset about, the PLC simply do not know if new development pays for itself or not! Apparently that remains true even after spending $140K taxpayers money trying to answer the question! The study itself proves my point on accuracy of current costs ($140K) but speculative nature of future value (probably little or none).
Lawrence and indeed every community makes WAG's about what new development is going to cost now and the benefits in the future. They use these numbers in planning and budgeting, and to equitably as possible spread the costs and benefits appropriately. Is that process ever perfectly fair operating with perfect knowledge? No. Never has, never will be. Spend $140 million on a study, you still won't know. Life is not fair, get over it.
So at the end of the day Lawrence is left with a choice; 1) Be more restrictive of new development and increase the valuations of existing properties and the property taxes, or 2) be less restrictive of new development keeping current values and taxes reasonable overall. The PLC policies choose to be restrictive making housing less affordable in Lawrence and property values and taxes HIGH.
But at least now the PLC Kommissioners can no longer use the incantations and chants about smart growth and new development not paying for itself as an excuse and reason for their choice!
merrill (anonymous) says…
Actually this incident has performed a positive impact for which Commissioner Rundle deserves a pat on the back. His concern for the taxpayer in this case is his job. It has put this study under more intense scrutiny for what it did not accomplish.
Commissioner Hack also deserves a vote of thanks for her comment which further escalated this matter into the spot light which will likely spark more public debate and interest.
We know the real estate/housing industry is making money which is their business, however that is not the question.
http://ohioline.osu.edu/cd-fact/1260.... a brief explanation however each community may have some individual differences. The basic question is do homes generate enough tax revenue to cover the long list of community sevices?
If homes are not covering the cost of community services what is the best avenue to counter the inflated property tax problem?
There may be some misunderstanding regarding what the commission is searching for, which could be clarified if some evening each commissioner could explain exactly what is their objective.
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
Godot, is of course correct,
"The funds paid by property owners in the older sections of town that Bozo claims have been tapped into to subsidize new infrastructure required by new development have actually been frittered away on the golf course, the T, the subsidies for downtown businesses, exorbitant salaries and perks for city administrators, lawsuits against Walmart, $140,000 impact fee studies (and many others) whose findings are ignored, competing with private health clubs and music and art teachers with the parks and rec classes;and, of course, million dollar roundabouts."
There is no "lock box" where real estate taxes paid in older neighborhoods are kept. They are wasted by the PLC Kommissioners just like any other dollar in the City's budget.
zimmerman (anonymous) says…
I'm still waiting for any facts you have that say property taxes will increase more than the money generated by impact fees. I haven't read anything about this yet, so I'm still wondering if there's anything out there to back up this idea. Godot, if you have anything please humor my ignorance. Also, are we definitely sure that property taxes would increase? I realize that property taxes would increase if property values were increased, but are we sure that the impact fees would cause developers to pass that on to the value of the home? Once again, I realize this might be a stupid question to some of you, but I would like to know if there is any data to show that increased impact fees automatically equates to higher property taxes.
On a side note, a tiny fact I just found: it seems that the majority of people in town don't own a house (55% according to the 2000 census), so if property taxes did increase would the majority be affected at all? It seems that if property taxes do increase, it would only affect home owners, and if impact fees aren't charged then it affects everyone. I realize this isn't necessarily the best way to make a decision on an issue, but I think it should be taken into account.
Lifelong_Lawrencian (anonymous) says…
Impact fees are no different than the price of concrete. If they go up so do property values. Increased property values also affect the rents paid by those who are not homeowners. Nothing happens without a consequence. But is the increase in property value better than paying the increased tax that developers/new homeowners would otherwise pay?
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"However, he is still unwilling to accept the fact that new development pays for itself."
The minute you prove, and include all, not just part, of the associated expenses, I'll believe it. So far, you've done little more than assert it.
"Impact fees are no different than the price of concrete. If they go up so do property values.'
Correct. But under this whole line of thinking, the city of Lawrence would be well-advised to pay for all the expenses of the new developments, including buying all the lots and constructing the houses. This would drive down property valuations across town, saving everybody a bundle in property taxes.
Man, why didn't we think of this sooner?
kshiker (anonymous) says…
Zimmerman --
Are you naive enough (read stupid) to think that property taxes would not go up significantly if somehow the City Commission were able to impose impact fees on new real estate development in the city?
The problem with that thinking is that it fails to take into account basic economics. The simple fact is that impact fees raise the cost of housing. When a developer pays an impact fee on a new housing development, this fee is nominally paid by the developer but is actually passed on directly to the home buyer.
The simple fact is that this raises the cost of housing and has the effect of pricing some low- to middle-income consumers out of the market for new construction homes (bearing in mind that an impact fee of $3,000 per 1/3 acre lot will eventually raise the cost of a new home over $9,000 when rolled into a 30-year mortgage). The result is that demand for new construction homes is reduced and the supply is accordingly constricted by profit-conscious builders. When the supply of new housing is constricted, growth in the community slows down and you thus have a more narrow property tax base.
When you have a narrow property tax base, the existing homes within the community are forced to pay a higher mill levy to make up for the resulting slowdown in revenue. Therefore, you have effectively discouraged growth and raised the tax burden for existing homeowners.
If you have problems with the construction industry seeking a profit from their work, then perhaps you could apply that logic to your own line of work and accordingly reduce the prices that you charge in your particular industry. However, I doubt you are either able or willing to take that step!
Godot (anonymous) says…
Lifelong, I do not understand, "But is the increase in property value better than paying the increased tax that develoepr/new homeowners would otherwise pay?
Impact fees will cause new homeowners to pay more for their homes at first purchase, and then will cause them to pay more property tax for the inflated price indefinitely into the future. Owners of existing homes will see the taxable values of their homes increase as the County Appraiser adjusts them upward to reflect the increase in sales prices of homes in the city.
The second half of the $140,000 study, the half that will recommend the appropriate dollar amount of the impact fees, if any, has not even been completed, so there is no way to guage exactly how they will affect our future taxes. Likewise, there is no way for the Commissioners to determine what fees, if any, would be appropriate to levy now.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"Are you naive enough (read stupid) "
Jeez, dude, you ignore everything that doesn't support your very skewed argument, and want to call someone asking some questions you have no answers for stupid.
Godot (anonymous) says…
100% of the property owners pay property tax. The ones who own rental property pass property taxes on to the 55% of citizens who are renters.
kshiker (anonymous) says…
Bozo --
"Skewed" arguments? The simple fact is that impact fees raise the cost of housing. To echo Godot's comments, for those of you who do not know how your property taxes are assessed, the county appraiser looks at the sale of homes in the area which are comparable to your home, these are called the comparables.
When impact fees are built into the price of new homes, this raises the cost of homes in the neighborhood. When an appraiser looks at the sales validation questionnaire on the sale of the new home, he will note that home prices in the particular area (say NW Lawrence) are increasing and adjusts the appraisals of existing homes in the area accordingly to reflect the rising value.
So, even though you may not live in a new construction home, your taxes are going up year-after-year due to rising property values, increased valuations and higher sale prices on new homes. When a new home is built in any area of the city, that new home broades the tax base and pays property taxes. So, there is an increase in property tax revenue for the city.
And please do not pretend to be indignant at the tone of my comment Bozo, your sarcastic and derisive comments routinely mock participants who fail to agree with your point of view.
Godot (anonymous) says…
Merrill wrote: "The basic question is do homes generate enough tax revenue to cover the long list of community sevices?
If homes are not covering the cost of community services what is the best avenue to counter the inflated property tax problem?"
Answer: cut services that are not basic to the functioning of a community; cut salaries of public employees; reduce the number of public employees; have public employees drive Ford Focuses on official business rather than SUV's; cease construciton of extravagant public buildings. Stop doing for the community with tax dollars what could be done by free enterprise.
Expand the tax base by making the community inviting to new retail and industry.
That is just a start.
George_Braziller (anonymous) says…
Godot's arguments make no sense:
"If one were to assign an impact fee that fairly reflected the users of infrastructure money, a fee would be assessed to the sale of every home in near east Lawrence, old west Lawrence, and North Lawrence because those old houses are the fire dangers, they have the collapsing, leaky sewer lines, the crumbling streets and cracking, bulging sidewalks, and the parks that are maintained by the city."
-- My property has been paying taxes for 148 years. I can guarantee you that my house is NOT a fire danger. If there is a "collapsing, leaky sewer lines" or "crumbling streets" it's because the infrastructure has not been maintained. The connection to the sewer from my house to the main is MY responsibility and not the City's. No cost to the tax payers. But I have to have something to connect to.
"In the new developments, the developers have built, and paid for, new sewers, new sidewalks, new water lines, parks, the homes are all up to code...."
-- Over a three year period there were FIVE water main breaks in my block alone. The water lines were ancient and were just recently replaced. It's all about delayed maintenance of the existing infrastructure.
"The impact fee on new construction, as proposed by the PLC, is a punitive fee simply meant to add cost to new moderate to high value construction. They exempt "affordable housing" from the impact fee."
-- There are basic costs associated with what it takes to have a comfortable home. If you choose to buy a $200K+ house that is your choice. When you're spending that kind of money what is another $2,000-3,000? Why should I have to pay additional taxes for waterlines, schools, streets, firestations, sanitary and stormwater lines, additional sewer processing plants? It isn't just the cost of building a house. There are many more costs associated with creating a neighborhood.
"In other words, affordable housing is the kind of growth that does not pay for itself."
-- You're probably the same person who screams that we don't have any manufacturing or blue collar jobs that can sustain the local economy. Where do you think that people would live?
Godot (anonymous) says…
The study points out that single family homes built on small lots, and apartments, have the highest negative difference between taxes generated and the cost of services used. Small lots are $65 short; apartments are $341 short, per unit.
The more "affordable housing" there is, the more it adds to the property tax bill for everyone.
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
If older neighborhoods have deferred maintenance it is not a lack of impact fee's or real estate taxes that is the problem, it is about the wrong priorities for tax dollars.
Why should impact fees on new construction, or real estate taxes on existing homes, pay for golf courses, the T, the subsidies for downtown businesses, exorbitant salaries and perks for city administrators, lawsuits against Walmart, $140,000 impact fee studies, and million dollar round-a-bouts?
Shouldn't those fess first pay for maintenance of older neighborhoods and then be used for these other projects if there is a surplus?
Godot (anonymous) says…
And, George Braziller, I am quite sure that your property has not been paying property taxes for 148 years. A person has paid property taxes, and certainly not for 148 years, and they were, no doubt, minimal, because the county appraised old houses at a very low value until recently.
I am sorry you took personal affront at my assessment of the condition of old neighborhoods in Lawrence. Your home might be a shining example of the wonders that spending thousands of dollars can accomplish to renovate and update an old home. I do not know.
The fact of the matter is that most of the old neighborhoods in Lawrence have been neglected, that many of the homes are firetraps, that the streets are in disrepair (sometimes purposefully, in order to slow traffic), and that the sewers are cracked and leaking, and that they back up, and that the sidewalks are a mess.
The fact that the city commissioners of years gone by have neglected the maintenance of these neighborhoods does not make it right that this city commission should penalize new growth.
The city should narrow its "vision" and concentrate on the basics.
George_Braziller (anonymous) says…
Godot, with your "argument" I guess I should just tear my house down and build an apartment complex on my 50' x 115' lot then it will supposedly "pay it's way."
Good night. Done with you.
Godot (anonymous) says…
George Braziller, actually, if we are to believe the $140,000 study, an apartment building would be the least effective use of your land, from the standpoint of cost of infrastructure.
JOEHAWK (anonymous) says…
Does anyone else see another problem?
Highest property values in the state X One of highest property tax rates in state = Maximum taxes imposed and collected.
where does all that money go?
Impact fees are taxes, they are just on a select tax base.
This city has the worst parks and rec facilities of any other city around, bad roads, etc.
We have chased the businesses out of town who pay taxes, even if they are granted breaks, they still pay taxes. We give huge breaks to save a dying downtown. We now want to kill new housing.
You can increase tax revenues without raising taxes. You do this with volume. It's simple supply and demand.
The City has choked supply and killed demand. This is big business folks, we need someone better qualified than a grocery clerk to make these decisions.
cowboy (anonymous) says…
This should be a very simple question to answer in a concrete simple yes or no. Does the city have a professional accountant ? Obviously not or we would not be having this conversation. Cost versus revenue over a defined time period. How complex is that.
If the city would hire some competent analysts / accountants / CFO types they could put together a finacial plan , a capital expense plan and a defined budget for the commission to manage rather than letting amateurs write the checks each tuesday for the latest pet project.
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
joehawk, where does the money go? Obviously not to maintenance of older neighborhoods. You might look at godot's excellent listing that I freely copied to make a similar point.
But do you want to know something really scary? Can you imagine where we are going to be in five years if the Kommission builds us a $30 million dollar library downtown?
The HORROR!
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/dec...
budwhysir (anonymous) says…
For clarification, if you send an email, does it actualy relay what you want to say or could it be taken out of context??
I am unsure of this and wondering if this could be the case. When dealing in politics I find there are several things that I read and take the wrong way.
Godot (anonymous) says…
Good point, budwhysir! The public should have access to all emails sent by Commissioner Rundle with regard to growth, and impact fees, and the Lawrence Home Builders Association, in fact, any matter that has come before the city commission for consideration, so that we, the voting public, can put the email in question in context.
Excellent!
By the way,I wonder how mass emails that discuss issues before the commission and sent to other commissioners, city employees and select media representatives are treated under the open meetings regulations.
budwhysir (anonymous) says…
I am not sure how they handle those emails.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"The simple fact is that impact fees raise the cost of housing."
No, that's not a "fact." If done accurately and fairly, they merely make sure that those who are building and buying that housing are paying for all of the expenses incurred in creating it and connecting it to city services, and not passing it along to other taxpayers.
If it's subsidized, (as has been the norm for at least a couple of decades running) the housing still costs the same, it's just that someone not living in the house(s) are paying the costs.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"Why should impact fees on new construction, or real estate taxes on existing homes," pay for golf courses, the T, the subsidies for downtown businesses, exorbitant salaries and perks for city administrators, lawsuits against Walmart, $140,000 impact fee studies, and million dollar round-a-bouts?
Included in the general misinformation that comprises your entire list, impact fees do not now and will not in the future pay for anything on that list, with the possible exception of roundabouts (where are the "millon dollar" roundabouts, btw?) which any road designer will tell you is the most efficient and safest type of intersection for many intersections, although I understand that in your grade-school mentality, it has a funny name and can be dropped in anywhere you want to ridicule something while lacking the sound information or arguments required to do so.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"Oh, Big Fat Log; you will have plenty of "postcards"."
I bet that you could get funding from the PLC for your campaign, Marion.
zimmerman (anonymous) says…
kshiker--
Thanks a bunch for your condescending tone. It really makes me want to believe everything you have to say. Maybe I am naive. I'll grant you that (again, I'm not a home owner, so much of this is new to me). But if I'm so "stupid" because I don't know what you know show me the facts and figures that proove what you're saying. Of the little I know about economics, it's the market demand that sets the value of a particular item being sold. If developers could get away with raising the prices and not have it affect their sales, why would they wait until they had to pay more for impact fees? Plus, if they're just going to raise the price of the house, why would they be so against impact fees? If they can sell the house for more then they're not losing anything, and impact fees wouldn't be a problem to them at all. Again, if I'm wrong about this let me know, but don't be so high and mighty about it. If you're interested in people agreeing with your opinion you shouldn't alienate them so much.
Lifelong--
As far as property taxes automatically increasing rent, I know this isn't alway true. I lived in the same rented house for years while property taxes increased, and my landlord never increased the rent. It seems at lease possible that landlords would simply take the hit (they're already making a killing on all the students that live here).
Finally, those of you who are so against impact fees...
I realize many of you don't like the city commission, but whether or not you agree with them, don't demonize them or make them out to be idiots just because you don't agree with them. From what I've seen, the main reason they are for these impact fees is that they think it's for the public good. I don't see how any of the commissioners would profit from raising impact fees. However, I do see how developers could profit from eliminating them and have tax payers carry the load instead. I don't have anything against developers, but I realize that as business men and women they look after their own interests first, and the public's a much distant second. There's nothing immoral or unethical about that, but it is a fact, and it's something people should realize when they hear any arguments made by developers against impact fees.
Noweigh (anonymous) says…
Most of Rundle's writings and speeches are written by ghost writers and PLC types behind the scenes that have always pulled his strings anyway. That he chooses to communicate primarily via email only strengthens that belief. Anxious to see new email communications from PLC, er, Rundle, in the future.
kshiker (anonymous) says…
Bozo --
The next time you buy a house check out the special assessments disclosures. I will guarantee that you are already paying for sewer and water hookups and street construction. Special assessments are a widely used and available alternative to impact fees. So widely used, in fact, that the City of Lawrence is already assessing special assessments against most new real estate developments in the city. Why should developers have to pay an impact fee as well as homeowners be forced to pay the special assessments?
x96merrill3 (anonymous) says…
Rundle DID comment on the e-mail, just not to the newspaper.
x96merrill3 (anonymous) says…
Rundle DID comment to the media about the e-mail, just not to the newspaper.
Godot (anonymous) says…
Well, x96merrill3, what was his comment?
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"Why should developers have to pay an impact fee as well as homeowners be forced to pay the special assessments?"
I don't know of any circumstance where there is such double taxation as you claim. Special assessments are used to make improvements in older existing neighborhoods to pay for improvements that benefit, and were usually requested by, that neighborhood.
Impact fees are used for new developments that pay for totally new infrastructure, and therefore don't need to use special assessments.
If you know of any situation where there is such double taxation, let us all know about it, OK?
Rhoen (anonymous) says…
It's ludicrous for people in a city who elect untrained, uneducated, and unqualified "administrators" to expect them to, all of a sudden, develop workable critical thinking skills, an ability to produce "professional" communications, and to otherwise function competently in office.
Why be surprised that Mr. Rundle can't do any better than this?
The surprise is that anyone would have expected him to!
It may be very with-it , hip, and trendy for a community to prop up various and sundry "ordinary" citizens into important city management roles ... but it's naive to anticipate that they will be able to do a very good job once they're in office.
Why not nominate (and vote for) people who can demonstrate that they might, realistically, understand the needs, goals, and functions of the office and who might be able to fulfill those?
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Maybe we should just install a royal family, don't you think Rhoen?
Godot (anonymous) says…
" What Rhoen wants is for us to vote ... monied interests in who will use the public purse to further their pursuit of wealth."
Isn't that what the PLC are pushing with the co-called library project?
kshiker (anonymous) says…
Bozo --
I am currently paying special assessments on a newly-constructed townhome in NW Lawrence. I pay roughly $300 per year in special assessments (estimated, I can't remember the total amount for this year).
If the city already has the ability to levy special assessments on new developments, then why is it necessary to enact impact fees as well? My special assessment is being paid for sewer and water hookup and street improvements. Aren't these the same items that an impact fee would cover?
Is it that much more onerous for the city to impose a special assessment on a new home rather than levy an impact fee on the developer?
Godot (anonymous) says…
"The library project is being pushed by the same developturds that push every other development in this town. "
Well, good, then, if the PLC are not in favor of the downtown re-development project, they should be able to quash this proposal at the next city commission meeting.
Godot (anonymous) says…
My theory as to why the PLC has not stomped this out is that they have their eye on the coming election, and need to garner support from downtown property owners, and from people who still are under the misconception that this is about a new library.
budwhysir (anonymous) says…
Politicaly speaking, E-MAIL stands for electronic mail. This would be any type of letter or form typed on a computer and sent via E-MAIL over the internet.
Regular mail is sent via a truck in an envelope to a destination and requires opening and reading.
Just wanted to clear up email vs regular mail
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"My special assessment is being paid for sewer and water hookup and street improvements. Aren't these the same items that an impact fee would cover?"
Somebody needs to pay for those things, and if you use the sewer, water and streets for which you are being charged, that's appropriate.
If you're being charge twice for the same thing, through an impact fee, and through a special assessment, then that's not a good thing, for you especially.
If you really think you're being double charged, I hope you bring it up with city officials, and not just on this forum.
Have you lodged your complaint with the city yet?
Godot (anonymous) says…
Actually, Bozo, there is no procedure by which one can complain to the city about their property tax assessment, other than via the poll. The procedure is to appeal to the county, and the county only considers appeals of the valuation assigned to your property.
budwhysir (anonymous) says…
Since we are on the topic of taxes, does anyone know what impact fees are?? I have heard this term very often and would like a definition.
My view would be that an impact fee would be one that would impact the income of taxes. If there is an impact there should be a defact. Such as increased spending.
Just curious if anyone has any input I would love to read about it.
Godot (anonymous) says…
I met a guy today who moved to Lawrence from Missouri to be near his beloved. He wants to open a business, as he has done before in another Kansas town and in Missouri.
He said he has never before experienced the runaround, the hassles, the roadblocks that Lawrence puts in the way of new business owners - ever.
That is why we need impact fees, because we pay all these city employees to block the way for new businesses.
budwhysir (anonymous) says…
Would everyone have a different outlook if this had been said during a news interview or radio talk show?? Just curious
lunacydetector (anonymous) says…
think of a man, then take away reason and accountability. THAT pretty much sums up the "email." :)
kshiker (anonymous) says…
Currently the city uses special assessments in new residential developments to pay for sewer, water and street improvements (at least they did in mine, which is probably one of the most recently-built subdivisions). Special assessments are a fee that is levied against the property for a certain number of years and paid monthly along with the mortgage payment, homeowners insurance and property taxes.
When a special assessment is levied against a property, there are numerous procedural safeguards built in to ensure that the money collected is used only to pay for the actual cost of providing city services to that new development. So, for any share of additional city cost generated by the new development, the homeowner is only paying the actual costs associated with providing services to his or her home.
In this specific situation, the city seems to be moving toward an impact fee rather than a special assessment. Impact fees, unlike special assessments, do not have the same procedural safeguards built in to ensure that the funds raised are actually being spent on the actual development. Most likely, the city is using the term "impact fee" but the actual result will be much closer to an "excise tax." An excise tax is simply a tax levied on new real estate development collected by city and deposited into the city general fund. Under this type of infrastructure financing, there is absolutely no requirement that the revenue generated must be spent on the actual real estate development. I'm afraid that it sounds like this is what the city is moving toward.
For those of you who want more information on impact fees, both for and against, go to the following websites:
http://www.impactfees.com/
http://www.nahb.org/generic.aspx?sect...
For an overview and brief description of special assessments, please refer to this AG's opinion:
http://www.kscourts.org/ksag/opinions...
Before you make up your mind, get the facts. I agree that a homeowner should be required to help pay for the actual cost of providing city services to his or her home, but an excise tax or impact fee is not the way to accomplish this. We should just keep using special assessments. This is just a revenue grab by the city.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
So it appears that you aren't being double taxed, kshiker. That's good.
I don't really see a problem with the impact fees going into the general fund, so long as the city's funds for investing in the infrastructure needs for which they were collected are adequate to the task.
This allows the city some flexibility to put money where it's needed the most at any particular point in time. That would effectively mean that sometimes less is spent than is collected, but sometimes more is spent than is collected-- just like about everything else the city collects money to do.
That said, I don't think impact fees should be used to subsidize other city functions any more than the rest of the city should be required to subsidize infrastructure needs of new development, which has been the policy for at least a couple of decades.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Godot said:
"Actually, Bozo, there is no procedure by which one can complain to the city about their property tax assessment, other than via the poll."
And what do you do when you go to the poll? You elect city commissioners. But you seem to be implying that once elected, city commissioners no longer have telephone numbers or email addresses, and that you can't go to city commission meetings to address a concern.
Is that what you're saying?
Godot (anonymous) says…
Very informative, KSHiker, thank you. And the response it drew from Bozo was informative as well.
I can just see it now: impact fees being used for homeless shelters, soccer fields, bike trails, convention centers, etc, while the sewers and streets remain in disrepair.
kshiker (anonymous) says…
This has been an issue at the statewide level for years and, frankly, I feel the cities' pain on these types of issues. Cities are increasingly being asked to provide more services with less money. When the state got rid of the revenue transfers in 2002, the cities were left with a fairly large hole in revenues to fund existing city services.
However, the movement toward excise taxes and impact fees are merely an attempt by cities to get more general fund revenue to pay for general city programs. If you really are serious about adequately funding infrastructure development (which everyone should be), then you should probably look to expand the use of special assessments and other innovative financing tools for infrastructure development.
I have absolutely no problem with homeowners paying for the actual of providing services to their new development, but when the revenue dervied is inappropriately used to fund things which should properly be paid for by property and sales taxes, then this is when it becomes a major problem for me.
All the more reason the City Commission should wait for the second half of the impact fee study to be completed before any actions are taken. ALL the relevant stakeholders, including homebuilders and community development organizations, need to have a say in this process as we move forward. If this thing is done incorrectly, then growth could potentially slow down even more in Lawrence. And even though some people on this site think that might be a good thing, it would ultimately mean less state money for Lawrence public schools, less federal funding for social welfare services and transportation, and less property and sales tax revenue to fund existing city services. We need to be concerned about continuing to encourage new families to make Lawrence their home and to broaden the property and sales tax base of the city's economy.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
I suppose you'll make whatever baseless claim you can think up for your kneejerk bitching, just like now, Godot.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
You make some good points, kshiker, but I still don't think that putting impact fees into the general fund is that big a problem, as long as over time, for every dollar collected, a dollar is spent for the purpose for which it's collected. Putting it in the general fund just gives the city some flexibility in financing all city services.
It can work in the reverse direction, too. When there is a spike in the amount of new infrastrucure expenditures, the funding would be there from the general fund until collection of impact fees can catch up.
"We need to be concerned about continuing to encourage new families to make Lawrence their home and to broaden the property and sales tax base of the city's economy."
Lawrence has a population of nearly 90,000. What population level will be enough? 120,000? 500,000? 25 million? Since population growth also requires a growth in required city services and infrastructure, what is the appeal of this obvious pyramid scheme?
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
"I am abit curious as to exactly what medication one might use to cure the nagging inflammation brought on by negative emails."
Take indes finger and apply it to the "delete" key. Repeat until relief fro symptoms occurs.
mechman (anonymous) says…
garnett needs some help maybe boog,boog & boog will go apply!!!!!!!!!
budwhysir (anonymous) says…
Why is this such a long lasting topic, The city council meeting will be coming up soon and we must look into the new registry that must be voted on.
Godot (anonymous) says…
"Our original mission has been accomplished."
Well, what was the mission? To screw things up?
Godot (anonymous) says…
They are putting the PLC to bed because simply uttering the phrase 'PLC' brings on feelings of revulsion and disgust in the minds of the voters.
Godot (anonymous) says…
Does this mean that none of the PLC will seek re-election?