City council debates changes to local impact fees

Thursday, January 20, 2011

by Brian S. Orban

Looking to encourage future construction in the Mountain Home area, the city council debated proposed changes to fees included in local building permits.

During its Jan. 10 meeting, the city council looked at three proposals involving the city's impact fees that could make it more affordable for businesses and industrial companies to build here.

Last week's discussion follows a recent meeting by the city's impact fee advisory committee. Mandated by state law, the annual meeting focused on how much the city charges developers for each building permit.

For the full story, pick up a copy of the Mountain Home News or click on this link to subscribe to the newspaper's online edition.

Comments

View 1 comment

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

I cannot comment on pending zoning applications, but I can answer your two points regarding the approved Calvary Chapel use:

1. The Calvary Chapel required a conditional use permit to occupate the former Thrifty Car Sales lot. A conditional use permit means that use (church) will be permitted only if certain conditions are met, and continue to be met, as long as that use continues. Those conditions are public record and are available for viewing by anyone at City Hall. Extensive conditions were placed on that approval, and they are (as far as I know) continuing to meet them. That approval process had no less than two public hearings, at which no one spoke in opposition, nor did anyone submit written testimony in opposition. Among the things the church offered in their application was a waiver of the 300 ft. rule on alcohol establishments, and offering public use of that large parking lot during non-church days. As you can see, maximum public input in this process is vital.

2. Couldn't agree more. Churches ought to pay taxes like everyone else. But state and federal law about religious tax exemptions are what they are, and until we change that, that's what we get when a property owner chooses to change valuable commercial property into tax-exempt religious property. I will offer that the amount of foregone property tax in the Thrifty Car Sales lot case was surprisingly small when I looked it up.

-- Posted by Councilman Schroeder on Fri, Jan 21, 2011, at 8:31 AM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration:

If you already have an account, follow this link to login
Otherwise, follow this link to register