News
Fill out this form to email this article to a friend
County may cut impact fees
Commissioner Jim Norman says it wouldkick-start construction.
By BILL VARIAN, Times Staff Writer
Published January 17, 2008
TAMPA - Hillsborough County commissioners are considering whether to temporarily reduce impact and other construction fees to kick-start the moribund residential construction industry.
Commissioner Jim Norman asked the county staff to prepare a package of incentives for home building. He wants something prepared in case a Jan. 29 property tax reduction measure on the statewide ballot fails to pass.
Norman said the county needs to do what's in its power to spur the local economy by putting roofers and carpenters back to work. That will become more important if the property tax package fails and people remain reticent about buying new homes.
"These are tough times," Norman said. "These people are dying out there without jobs. You've got to do something."
The rest of the board unanimously backed the proposal in concept.
However, Commissioner Rose Ferlita expressed concern about the county acting too soon to reduce any source of revenue. She said she believes the state will pass some form of property tax reduction, regardless of the Jan. 29 outcome, meaning the county may take in less money.
Residential construction is down across the nation, sharply in parts of Florida, including the Tampa Bay region. Legislators are hoping that the proposal before voters to reduce taxes for homesteaded properties will spur construction. But the amendment faces strong opposition from government employees and some owners of nonhomesteaded properties.
Norman offered his proposal at the end of the Wednesday's meeting, when few were in attendance. The idea could be seen by some growth management advocates as a move to gut impact fees, which help pay for roads and schools made necessary by new homes.
While Norman emphasized impact fees Wednesday, he said after the meeting he is open to any ideas. For instance, he said would like to ask banks whether they would consider offering lower interest rates on loans to builders that break ground on new subdivisions.
Any reduction in impact fees would be temporary, for six months to a year, he said.
"It's not just waiving impact fees," Norman said. "It's just trying to create a financial environment that's better than anywhere else."
Bill Varian can be reached at varian@sptimes.com or 813 226-3387.
[Last modified January 17, 2008, 01:16:20]
Share your thoughts on this story
Comments on this article
|
by Ralph
|
02/21/08 12:19 PM
|
|
Jim Norman knows economics as well as Richard Pryor knew heart surgery. By lowering impact fees for developers we(citizens) would soon pay higher millage rates to support those roofers and carpenters. Where is all the money they made during the boom.
|
|
by tom
|
01/17/08 07:23 PM
|
|
reticent means hesitant to speak. reluctant means hesitant to act.
|
|
by Dimbo
|
01/17/08 06:43 PM
|
|
Once again Jim Norman shows who he favors in this community. We need to get "roofers and carpenters back to work", more like we need to get the developers and Ralph Hughes more work and money.
|
|
by cavedog
|
01/17/08 11:19 AM
|
|
Norman is a lame duck, he is not eligible for re-election. Since his sports complex dream was shot down, he is shopping for a new job. Looks like he is showing the developers how much clout he has. Can you say, "Lobbyist?".
|
|
by disgusted again
|
01/17/08 10:06 AM
|
|
Typical Jim Norman. With houses sitting empty throughout the county and people going into foreclosure, he wants to add to the glut by taking away the money that would go to schools and roads. When does he come up for re-election?
|
|
by Dr_Dug
|
01/17/08 09:56 AM
|
|
Another dumb idea from City Leaders. Construction and Overgrowth started this situation,so deals on impact fees is ridiculous. Impact fees are important for the areas affected by growth,not lures to INCREASE building!! STUPID IDEA FROM THE RANKS !!!!
|
|
by Pilgarlic
|
01/17/08 06:44 AM
|
|
The housing market needs to heal by absorbing EXCESS SUPPLY. This measure would a) probably have little effect, and b) to the extent that it IS successful it would only exacerbate the oversupply! What are they thinking?
|