Thesis (M.S.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1957. / Typescript. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaf 95).

Thesis (M.S.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1960. / Typescript. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Göttingen.

The main purpose for undertaking this study is to provide factual information on impost fees and development cost charges in British Columbia. The general aim of the study is to impart a better understanding of the two concepts, particularly with reference to their purpose and the circumstances causing their evolution. This study has four objectives: 1. to determine and discuss some of the major factors and events which prompted the municipalities in British Columbia to consider and adopt the levying of impost fees; 2. to clarify the philosophy and implementation strategies of the impost fee concept and determine the extent of its use in British Columbia prior to the advent of the development cost charge legislation; 3. to determine and discuss some of the major factors and events which prompted the provincial government to abolish impost fees and introduce development cost charges; and, 4. to examine and synthesize the development cost charge legislation to ascertain its philosophy, purpose and the requirements provided therein, as well as to determine the extent of its current use in the province. The information required to satisfy these objectives was collected in three distinct ways: (1) interviews with officials and representatives from various municipalities and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, (2) a questionnaire which was forwarded to 36 localities in the province, and (3) review of the limited amount of literature relating to the subject matter. This study has derived four observations: 1. The impost fee concept evolved from the municipalities' search for an alternate source of revenue to offset the financial liabilities created by their restrictive modes of revenue generation and the increasing demands for additional expenditures. More specifically, this fee was found to be a direct result of municipal strategies to alleviate the cost burdens created by urban population growth. 2. The commonly accepted definition of an impost fee is: a levy which is assessed against a developer by a municipality to defray the municipal costs of constructing or expanding services necessitated by new developments. It was perceived that the basic intent of the impost fee was to meet the demand and costs for new and improved services by imposing a financial requirement on those lands that created the demand. A questionnaire survey, conducted in January and February of 1977 revealed that a number of municipalities had adopted the impost fee concept. Of the 36 survey localities, it was found that 21 or slightly more than 58 per cent levied some form of impost. 3. The demise of the impost fee concept was found to be attributable to the municipalities1 abuse of the land use contract provision of the Municipal Act. Evidence showed the provincial government felt the land use contract contributed to inconsistencies in the development and subdivision approval process, was being used by some municipalities to require excessively high service standards from developers, and was unduly increasing the cost of housing. Further research showed that while the provincial government was sympathetic towards the municipalities' financial problems in terms of financing services for new development areas, it was reluctant to grant municipalities unlimited taxing power to acquire revenues for this purpose. Therefore, the provincial government granted the municipalities the legislative power to impose development cost charges subject to a number of restrictions and requirements, stipulated in the legislation. 4. The purpose of the development cost charge was found to be basically the same as the commonly accepted purpose of the impost fee; that being to: "provide the municipality with a source of revenue so that the municipality may call upon its banked capital cost charges to pay for a major capital expenditure that becomes necessary in relation to its highways, sewer, water, drainage, or park systems". Investigations indicated that the provincial government's philosophy behind the development cost charge provision was to make the legislation regulatory, uniform and taxing. Ancillary to this, "certainty" was to be reinstated in the development process. A survey conducted in July of 1979 revealed that 19 localities have already taken advantage of this legislation and had enacted development cost charge by-laws. A review of the development and subdivision approval process in the Municipality of Richmond showed "that the development cost charge provision of the Municipal Act does not represent the only means available to the municipalities to acquire specific revenues from developers. It was found that by exercising their administrative power, municipalities can enter agreements with developers - much like the land use contract - and contract with them to provide revenues to be used in much the same manner as development cost charges. / Applied Science, Faculty of / Community and Regional Planning (SCARP), School of / Graduate

This article examines whether the use of impact fees and special assessments affect the level of capital spending and two major own source revenues of local capital spending (taxes and long-term debt) by analyzing a panel of 695 American cities with populations over 20,000 during the time period of 1980-2000. Since impact fees and special assessments are heavily used in a growing community and because it covers less than half the costs of new development, the findings demonstrate that the private financing of public infrastructure (impact fees and special assessments) increases the level of local capital spending. It also leads to an increase in the level of long-term debt use. Although it provides partial tax relief, it is not a strong substitute for taxes. Thus, impact fees and special assessments are not a substitute for local capital spending. It is rather a supplemental revenue source to fund local capital infrastructure.

Utveckling av infrastruktur är en förutsättning för att hantera, men också för att stimulera, urbanisering och stadsutveckling. År 2012 inleddes vad som kom att kallas stockholmsförhandlingen där staten, Stockholms läns landsting och fyra kommuner skulle besluta om finansiering av nya tunnelbanesträckningar samt bostadsbebyggelse i Stockholms län. Att genomföra stora infrastrukturprojekt är kostsamt och kräver omfattande finansiering och den första april 2017 öppnades nya möjligheter upp för finansiering av sådana projekt. Denna nya möjlighet innebär att kommuner kan ålägga exploatörer att medfinansiera en del av kommunens kostnader för investeringar i transportinfrastruktur, så kallad medfinansieringsersättning. Den nya medfinansieringsersättningen är i sin tur ett verktyg för så kallad värdeåterföring. Under antagandet att infrastruktur ger upphov till stora värdeökningar i närliggande fastigheter används värdeåterföring för att den som har nytta av infrastruktur ska finansiera densamma. Internationellt har värdeåterföring sedan länge använts för att finansiera infrastruktur och således finns det en mängd olika metoder för hur det ska gå till. Syftet med denna uppsats har varit att, med utgångspunkt i hur värdeåterföring implementeras vid utbyggnaden av tunnelbanan i Stockholm, jämföra olika metoder för värdeåterföring. Jämförelsen av tre olika metoder: Development Impact Fees, Tax Increment Financing och Special Assessments, har gjorts i form av fallstudier med utgångspunkt i faktorer så som möjlighet till applicering på svenska förhållanden, grad av värdeåterföring och deltagandegrad. Fallstudier tillsammans med teori om markvärden visar att värdeåterföring är en finansieringsmetod med stor potential att möjliggöra infrastrukturinvesteringar. Utgångspunkten är att en bra metod för värdeåterföring bör kännetecknas av att det värde som återförs står i relation till nyttan samt att deltagandegraden är hög. Det visar sig att samtliga studerade metoder har sina för- och nackdelar och att total rättvisa är svår att åstadkomma. Samtidigt visar det sig att den metod som i störst utsträckning anses uppfylla kriterierna för vad som är en bra metod för värdeåterföring inte lämpar sig bäst i Sverige givet rådande förhållanden. Att Sverige har regioner med olika förutsättningar, framförallt skillnader i markvärden, har bidragit till slutsatsen att ett strikt rikstäckande ramverk kan vara kontraproduktivt i syftet att utnyttja värdeåterföringens fulla potential. / Development of infrastructure is fundamental to manage, but also to stimulate urbanization and development of cities. In 2012, an agreement called stockholmsförhandlingen, was made where the state, Stockholm County Council and four municipalities were to decide how a new subway should be financed and how the supply of housing in the Stockholm region were to be solved. It is not a new finding that infrastructure projects require large investments but in April 2017 a new possibility of financing these kinds of projects occurred. This opportunity makes it possible for municipalities to oblige developers to bear a part of the infrastructure costs. This new possibility is a tool for value capturing. With the assumption that infrastructure cause large increases in values of nearby properties, value capturing is used because property owners who benefit from the infrastructure should contribute to the cost of the investment.  Value capturing has been widely used internationally and therefore there are many ways to accomplish it. The purpose of this thesis is, with starting point in the financing of the new subway in Stockholm, to compare different methods for value capturing. The comparison of the three methods; Development Impact Fees, Tax increment Financing and Special Assessments has been made using case studies to acknowledge the possibilities of implementing each method in current Swedish legislation and conditions.  The case studies, along with theory about property values shows that value capturing is a method of big potential to enable investments in infrastructure. The conclusion is also that a good method should be characterized by the fact that the value captured is in proper relation to the benefits received but also a high level of participation. It has been shown that all three methods have its advantages and disadvantages and that total justice is hard to accomplish. At the same time, it has been shown that the method best meeting these requirements perhaps isn’t the best method for implementation in Sweden. The fact that Sweden has regions with different attributes, especially large variations in property value has led to the conclusion that a strictly nationwide framework could turn out to be counterproductive in the purpose of utilizing the full potential of value capture.