Transcript Document
Development Impact Fees: Understanding the Current Law
Presented by Andrew J. McGuire, Esq.
Gust Rosenfeld PLC
Alternate Title: Impact Fee Legislation: The Gift That Keeps On Giving
Recent History – Testing the Waters 2005 – HB 2066 (Striker) Added annual reporting Added penalty for not reporting
Recent History – Going for a Home Run 2006 – HB 2381 (Striker) Massive attack on DIFs Sweeping changes “to prevent cities from doing stupid things like adopting plans for lakes they have no money to build.” Defined list of public services
HB 2381 continued Linked CIP to DIFs CIP approved long before DIF study Amended easily only for Developer request Linked DIFs to specific improvements Required identity of other non-DIF funds Refunds to PAYOR Direct offsets for sales taxes, HURF, etc.
HB 2381 continued Introduced indexing (one good thing) Look-back would have invalidated all DIF studies – De facto building moratorium Refund discrepancies within 2 years VETOED by Governor
Recent History – Let’s “Play Nice”
2007 – SB 1423 Collaborative cities/HBACA effort to respond to Governor’s veto Major changes for “transparency” and “workability” as required in veto letter
SB 1423 Continued – Transparency “Transparency” New accounting requirement Ensures that impact fees collected for one type of service (e.g. roads) are not spent on another type of service (e.g. parks) New planning requirements Requires adoption/amendment of IIP prior to assessment of a new/modified fee
SB 1423 Continued - Transparency “IIP” broadly defined to fit within existing procedures: One or more written plans that identify the public service that is proposed for a fee Can be a capital improvements plan IIP must: Estimate public services required by new dev Forecast cost and time to finance and build
SB 1423 Continued - Transparency IIP released to public 60 days in advance of hearing Public hearing on IIP at least 30 days in advance of adoption Public hearing may address both the IIP and the development fee report concurrently IIP may be amended w/o hearing to allow shuffling w/n category (only 14-day notice of amendment required)
SB 1423 Continued – Transparency New reporting requirements DIF Reports must: Identify methodology used to calculate fees Explain relationship between fees to be assessed and needs identified in IIP Identify any index for automatic adjustment and timing of adjustments
SB 1423 Continued - Workability “Workability” Clarification of DIF Uses Can be used to offset costs of infrastructure, improvements, real property, engineering and architecture, financing, and other capital costs Also for appurtenances, equipment, vehicles, furnishings, and other items associated with public services
SB 1423 Continued - Workability Clarification of DIF Credits Available only for items in the IIP AND for which a DIF was assessed Changes to Time Frames Public hearing 30 days prior to adoption (previously 15 days) Effective 75 days after adoption (prev. 90) 14 days notice prior to IIP amendment without hearing (new)
SB 1423 Continued - Workability Deferred Fees (optional) Allows deferred fee payments in a development agreement Paid no later than 15 days after C of O Only applies to residential units Requires security (bond, LOC, etc.) (mandatory) Establishes 2-year statute of limitations for development fee collections
SB 1423 Continued - Workability Fee Indexing Automatic adjustment of development fees on an annual basis, without a public hearing 30 days notice required for automatic adjustments Adjustment mechanism must: Be based on nationally recognized index Be disclosed in the development fee report
Recent History – Swinging for the Fences, Again 2008 – SB 1406 Full laundry list re-emerged Credits for private, on-site amenities Grandfathering of fees: Various dates: date of application; date contract signed; date of subdivision approval Various periods: forever, 10 years, 5 years, 2 years Definition of necessary public services (exclusive lists; brick and mortar only) Level of service identified for all uses Linking IIP more closely to DIF study
SB 1406 Continued Resulting bill included Loose tie-in for fee to be used for benefit of same area in which it is assessed Seemingly unnecessary clarifying language regarding credits Clarifying language regarding determination of offsets in fee calculation; “forecast” replaces “consider” “Other sources of revenue” from property owner, but no list
SB 1406 Continued IIP Contents clarified Comparison of existing service levels Forecast revenue sources along with estimated time to complete (already in statute) The Big Dog – Grandfathering No new fees or increases for 24 months from “final approval” Indexing still applied; not grandfathered
SB 1406 Continued DIF Ordinance must be modified to: Set forth process for “certification” to be issued Final approval defined Establish 24-month grandfathering provision Site plan approval for multi-family and commercial, unless no site plan, then plat Final plat for single-family residential Does NOT include renewals or modifications; can’t restart the clock VETOED – fortunate timing
2009 Sessions – Strange Days Indeed HB 2259 Told veto was unlikely Required benefit areas + DIFs collected and spent in same Clarified credits “Consider” to “forecast” (significant b/c of Goodyear result) + include calculation of other revenues w/r/t DIFs
HB 2259 Continued 24-month grandfathering provision Same as in 2008 bill HELD IN COW as legislature adjourns Sine Die Another bullet dodged? Not in the least, as along comes . . . .
2009 Sessions Continued – The Nuclear Option HB 2008 Don’t be fooled by the Constitution, apparently a budget bill can alter DIFs Included all of the provisions of HB 2259 Benefit areas Still allows single zone Likely to spawn many IIP amendments
HB 2008 Continued “Forecasting” other revenues Still only applicable to extent such revenues are used for capital in IIP Unfortunately, lose some benefit of HBACA v. Goodyear decision Comparison of existing LOS v. new LOS Developers really do believe they are forced to upgrade other neighborhoods
HB 2008 Continued Forecast sources of revenue to fund IIP Developers convinced that some projects in IIP (and for which DIFs are charged) will never be built (i.e. Town Lake) Grandfathering Increases inapplicable for 24 months after “final approval” – not extended by renewal Written schedule upon request
HB 2008 Continued Moratoria – 6/2009 – 6/2011 for: Building Codes; federal funding exception Increases to new construction TPT Development fees Not impose new fees Not increase existing Currently law; challenge pending
2010 Session – What was old is new again Moratorium not enough for HBACA HB 2249 (Rep. Biggs) Refunds required if facility is not built within 7 years after first DIF collected Exempts water/sewer Ignores developer delays Contains no direction as to how “facility” is determined
HB 2249 Continued Introduced as refund to payor; amended to current property owner Dangerous first step toward tying fees to specific projects Lacks any direction as to how property owner would determine if project built Fails to account for changes to IIP allowed by statute (i.e. developer request) Sailed through committee
2010 Session Continued HB 2259 (Rep. Biggs) Seemingly redundant language regarding proportionate share LOS limited to existing; if upgraded along with new development, cost of upgrade apportioned to the city’s costs Funds from existing residents must be paid prior to DIF funds used
HB 2259 Continued Detail in IIP required for sources of funds to pay City share of infrastructure Assigned to one committee; sailed through; ready for caucus
2010 Session Continued HB 2397 (various sponsors) Essentially repeals all of the changes over the past five years Repeals moratorium on DIF increases and building codes Triple assigned in committee (the kiss of death)
So where are we now?
Apply only indexed increases in fees until 2011 (unless moratorium extended) DIF studies already underway/anticipated Complete studies to avoid waste of taxpayer funds; delayed effective date New studies should be timed for end of moratorium
QUESTIONS?
Andrew J. McGuire Gust Rosenfeld PLC 201 East Washington Street, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 (602) 257-7664 direct dial 602) 340-1538 facsimile [email protected]
www.gustlaw.com