Las Vegas Sun

November 15, 2009

Currently: 53° | Complete forecast | Log in

Bill to charge developers impact fees dies in Assembly

Monday, May 24, 1999 | 11:13 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- A bill sought by Las Vegas to allow it to levy impact fees on new developments to pay for parks and fire stations has died quietly in the Assembly.

Assemblyman Tom Collins, D-North Las Vegas, said a compromise could not be reached. So the decision was made not to take another vote on Senate Bill 457.

The present state law allows cities and counties to impose impact fees in new developments for such things as streets, sewer, water and drainage projects. Las Vegas has yet to approve any of these fees for new subdivisions.

Marvin Leavitt, lobbyist for the city, said developers in many cases put in the streets, sewer and water facilities. In some cases developers will include a park in a subdivision. But none builds a fire station.

Collins said some suggested that any new impact fee be put to a public vote. But that was rejected.

The bill was the victim of bad timing. It had passed the Senate, but came up for a final vote in the Assembly the day after the Las Vegas City Council gave preliminary approval to raising the property tax by 2 percent to pay for new parks.

Assemblywoman Sandra Tiffany, R-Henderson, said there's an additional $20,000 in taxes and fees already imposed on a new home.

In addition, she said, Gov. Kenny Guinn has a policy of no new taxes. But Pete Ernaut, chief of staff for Guinn, said the governor may have signed that bill since it only gave an option for a new fee and it dealt with local, not state government.

The 14 Republicans in the Assembly voted solidly against the measure. And some Democratic leaders, wanting to avoid the label of pro-tax, joined them.

The following day the bill was revived and placed on the desk of the Assembly, where it died.

Supporters stressed impact fees make growth pay for growth.

When new developments are built, the businesses and homes in those areas should foot the bill for parks and other amenities, rather than having all the city's taxpayers shoulder the burden, backers said.

archive

  • Most Read
  • Discussed
  • Most E-mailed

Calendar »

  • 15 Sun
  • 16 Mon
  • 17 Tue
  • 18 Wed
  • 19 Thu