As we ring in the new year, I thought that I'd start a post to let people have the opportunity to make a New Year's wish.
This time last year The Gorilla in the Corner that the BOMA refused to address was clearly re-apportionment. I don't know if it was something in the water or what, but an amazing thing happend in July - the BOMA addressed and passed a Re-apportionment plan.
For this next year it is my hope and wish that significant progreess is made on the other Gorilla in the Corner - Trafic and Road Improvements. Now before I get a lecture from the mayor on what has or has not been done to address road improvements in the city, please hear me out...
It is true, we are fortunate to have capacity with our water and sewer services for our current and future growth . This is no small feat and credit needs to be given to where it is due.
Aside from the many things that I have disagreed with the past administration over, the fact is we are not a city strapped by the weight of debt for basic necessity infrastructure needs and we owe that to the few who led our city with the vision of where we are today in mind. Take a look around us: Thompson's Station has significant issues with how to provide water and sewer services to the growth potential that we keep hearing about there, Fairview is still on a state imposed growth moratorium because of sewer plant capacity issues, Mt. Pleasant officials have their hands full (literally) with their own sewer issues, and even Brentwood has reoccurring problems with its waste water every time it rains.
Now, having said that... It is no secret that our road situation is quickly catching up to us. Those same leaders who prepared our city so well for our current growth in regards to water and sewer issues turned a blind eye to preparing our city for the traffic that we currently experience. (Really, unfinished Miles Johnson Parkway, and the other improvements that the BOMA recently approved are only band-aids.) For years, folks around here heard that the state was looking at improving Duplex, Beechcroft (CSX Crossing) and Main Street. Truth is, our previous mayor and current administrator for some reason chose not to participate in the very organization where the funding for these types of projects are prioritized from - the Nashville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (the MPO). Instead, they delegated the responsibility of participating in the MPO to the assistant city engineer - Brad Dilling. Now you tell me, how seriously is Spring Hill going to be taken when you have city and county mayors of the MPO trying to get there projects prioritized over the needs of Spring Hill when the mayor won't even show up to the MPO meetings? Fortunately, this has changed. Mayor Leverette participates in the MPO. Now projects like Duplex Rd are given funding commitments and are again beginning to move forward.
We've heard it so many times from our current City Administrator "It wouldn't be a wise use of taxpayers' dollars to upgrade Port Royal, Kedron or Buckner because construction vehicles will just tear them up." And also, "We need to wait until those areas are built out before we spend the money to do that." Well, that day is upon us now where roads must be addressed. Our current BOMA did the right thing in appropriating the funds for the Thoroughfare Plan, albeit about five years too late. Here's the two most important things that the Thoroughfare Plan is going to produce: 1. Appropriate road design to handle current and future projected traffic needs, and 2. A prioritized list of improvements that will be effective in handling current and future traffic needs.
It's time for all of us to cinch up our boot straps, and while the Master Thoroughfare Plan is being completed, find a way to fund the improvements that need to occur. We can't afford to wait until after the April elections or the completion of the Thoroughfare Plan.
Any thoughts?
Friday, December 29, 2006
My New Year's Wish... Roads Improvements
Posted by Gorilla in the Corner at 10:43 AM
Labels: Board of Mayor and Aldermen
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Post Ratings
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: The information on this website is a series of personal opinions and is not meant to reflect an official position by the City of Spring Hill.
9 comments:
I know we have gone here before, but it is an idea that I support so I will go there again....
IMPACT FEES...
We could add up to $2,000 per building onto our impact fees and still be competitive with other cities. On a development like Meadowbrook of 1,000 new homes, that would bring in an additional $2,000,000.00 in revenue, and that is on one development. I would propose that half of this be used for immediate road/infrastructure improvements, while the other half be placed into secure investment accounts to be used in the future when the infrastructure improvements we make now need maintenance/upgrades. This keeps the future cost to taxpayers in check and forces the developers to pay for their impact more long term.
Some may say, "If we raise impact fees, nobody will want to build here." People still build in other cities with higher impact fees, and with our current growth, people will continue to want to build here. And should we lose some new construction, I think that too would improve our situation, as it would bring our growth into a more manageable rate, and allow us to be proactive in our improvements, rather than having to play catch up after our growth has exceeded our improvements.
Are you aware that the Spring Hill BOMA recently doubled the impact fees for the purpose of improving infrastructure: "et sic de similibus".
Are you proposing another increase?
A lecture from the mayor? That has to be an interesting piece of auditory brilliance.
My wish? That Gorilla start his mayoral campaign now.
Yes I am proposing another increase in impact fees. The $0.25 increase that was passed only brings in another $500 per structure (based on a 2,000 sq ft structure)or $500,000 per 1,000 units built. The state allows up to $1.00 per square foot as an impact fee. If we adopted a higher impact fee, we would be able to generate more funds for road construction and be able to partner with the state. State officials have already been quoted as saying that cities that assist with funding road construction can find their projects time line bumped up significantly, and with our growth and current timeline for state road improvements, I feel we need to do everything we can to improve our timeline for improvements. New developments are seriously impacting our current infrastructure needs, and therefore I feel that our impact fees should truly match the impact.
1,000 sq ft house
Current Impact Fee
=============
$500 Base Fee
$500 (.50 per sq ft)
-------------
$1,000 ($1.00 per sq ft)
The state maximum. According to you, you can't raise it up any more than it already is.
2,000 sq ft house
Current Impact Fee
=============
$500 Base Fee
$1,000 (.50 per sq ft)
-------------
$1,500 ($0.75 per sq ft)
Your proposal?
2,000 sq ft house
Your Proposed Impact Fee
=============
$500 Base Fee
$1,500 (.75 per sq ft)
-------------
$2,000 ($1.00 per sq ft)
That would only add $500 more per 2,000 sq ft house, not $2,000.
So, would you trade the 35 Acres Dino Roberts gave to Maury County for a School at Meadowbrook, or the additional $500,000 in 'revenue' as you would say?
Also, don't you know that state laws say that an impact fee that is used for 'revenue' and 'investment accounts' is an illegal tax?
It would not be used as a revenue, it would be for defined uses such as widening/improving roads, hiring new employees to serve the new additions (ie. Police, Fire, Public Works). The parts that I referred to being placed into interest bearing accounts would also have a defined future use to maintain (ie. re-pave the same roads improved during the original construction). As far as I am aware, this is permitted as long as the use is defined and the funds are being applied to projects with direct impact on the development to which the fee was charged.
Further, based on your numbers, another $0.50 increase per square foot on a 2,000 square foot residence would bring in an additional $1,000 not $500, and my reference to $2,000 in my original post was a total between impact fee per square foot + other fees (sewer, etc) that Spring Hill and other cities charge, where we would still be competitive with other cities in the area.
In regards to the donation of land, going with $500,000 as a price like you state, that would value the land at $14,285.71/acre, which searching on-line is the going rate for prime land in Williamson County on the river. I found land in Williamson County for $6,500/acre which would make 35 acres worth $227,500, in which case $500,000 seems like it would be worth more. In addition, I favor requiring developers to leave open space/recreation space in every development, and feel that if a development as massive as Meadowbrook is being built and would require a new school to service the children living there, then the developer should set land aside or the development should be downsized. In a case like this, I would not be opposed to giving credit for fair market value of the land donated for the construction of a school as a deduction from the total impact fee.
I am sure that Charlie Raines would love that since he is a builder. I have never figured out how he can be a builder for the city and be an alderman. The codes guys must really feel like they are between a rock and a hard place when ever they have to fail one of his houses on a codes issue. Trust me there is still good ole boys. I do not care what none of you say and the sad thing is there always will be. Thank ya
"I know we have gone here before, but it is an idea that I support so I will go there again...."
Forgive us for being so stupid. We're just simple Spring Hill people, not mentally gifted Floridians.
Josef Stalin would love you.
Do not try and be humble. That would require you to not be so conceited and that clearly is not possible.
Post a Comment