Monday, Oct. 8, 2007 | 7:42 a.m.
Clark County commissioners took a pass Tuesday on implementing development impact fees. They did, however, ask staff to come back with other ideas.
Although their reasons for rejecting the plan - concerns about the housing slump and affordable housing - might have merit, we wanted to look at what the proposed impact fees could have meant for the community.
A consulting firm the county hired two years ago recommended a fee of $2,600 per house and a comparable amount for other types of development.
Q
More than $166 million over five years, according to the consultant. The breakdown: $89 million for parks, nearly $4 million for police stations, $26.6 million for fire stations and more than $46.5 million for transportation needs.
For comparison's sake, let's take a look at some hits the county budget is expected to take during the next five years.
The green tax breaks state lawmakers approved for environmentally friendly development are expected to cost the county $174.1 million in that time. That's a worst-case scenario. Also, they're likely to affect not only capital projects, but also the county's operating budget, which means it's not necessarily an apples-to-apples comparison to the development fee.
Perhaps a better comparison is with the state's transportation plan, which county officials have estimated will divert $14 million a year in property tax es from the county. That money - $70 million over five years - would have gone to capital projects, just like the impact fee.
So, the impact fee could have covered the cost of the county's contribution to state transportation and still left $96 million for the county for parks, police, fire and other transportation projects.
Then again, county staff said the consultant's recommendation was based on a faster growth rate than what has materialized lately. That means the $166 million figure might not be accurate.
OK, enough number crunching. Not everything comes down to mathematics. Sometimes other considerations come into play.
For example, the plans for Las Vegas National Golf Course hit a bump in the road last week.
You'll recall that local real estate broker John Knott and a couple of other financiers purchased the golf course in August. Many of the homeowners around the course are afraid it will be developed, disrupting the neighborhood's character, ruining their views and negatively affecting their property values.
Knott, however, has said the current plan is to keep it as a golf course. He wants to improve the course's profitability, he said, and to that end had been working on a deal with Harrah's Entertainment under which the gaming giant would manage the golf course.
But then a new concern arose.
The Sun reported last month, just days before an expected announcement about the deal with Harrah's, that one of Knott's partners in the course pleaded guilty to a federal tax charge in 2002. The charge stemmed from a bribery scheme involving the New Jersey mob. The partner, Jason Halpern of New York, and his construction company were the victims of a mob shakedown, his attorney told the Sun.
So what happened to the anticipated arrangement with Harrah's?
Since the Sun's report, no deal has been announced. During a meeting with residents last week, Knott wouldn't comment specifically on where things stand with Harrah's , saying only that there had been "a delay in us implementing our plan" for the golf course.
Now for an interesting debate about office complexes.
Sound like an oxymoron? Well, try being nerdy with us and imagine you are a county commissioner. Picture an office complex with four units, each individually owned. Now imagine that one of the owners wants a use permit so she can lease her space to a hair salon. However, her neighbors - a lawyer, a mortgage broker and a dentist - are upset.
"This is an office complex, not a retail or commercial center!" they say.
What do you do?
For their part, commissioners weren't quite sure.
Commissioner Tom Collins asked what the difference was between the existing businesses and a hair salon. After all, lawyers, dentists and mortgage brokers have clients that come to the office, just like hair stylists. And cosmetologists must obtain a license from a state board that regulates their industry, just like lawyers, dentists and brokers.
So how did they vote?
In the end, they unanimously agreed to deny the permit. Commissioner Susan Brager noted that salons do some retail business, plus its would-be operating hours are longer than those of the other businesses at the complex.
After a long discussion, Reid concluded that the issue needed to be clarified in the future.
"I don't think we've ever thought about it until the last 20 minutes," he said.
archive
