Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Development Impact Fees: Understanding the Current Law Presented by Andrew J. McGuire, Esq. Gust Rosenfeld PLC.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Development Impact Fees: Understanding the Current Law Presented by Andrew J. McGuire, Esq. Gust Rosenfeld PLC."— Presentation transcript:

1 Development Impact Fees: Understanding the Current Law Presented by Andrew J. McGuire, Esq. Gust Rosenfeld PLC

2 Alternate Title: Impact Fee Legislation: The Gift That Keeps On Giving

3 Recent History – Testing the Waters  2005 – HB 2066 (Striker)  Added annual reporting  Added penalty for not reporting

4 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

5 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.

6 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

7 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

8 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

9 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

10 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)

11 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

12 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

13 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)

14 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

15 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

16 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

17 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

18 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

19 SB 1406 Continued  DIF Ordinance must be modified to:  Establish 24-month grandfathering provision  Set forth process for “certification” to be issued  Final approval defined  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

20 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

21 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....

22 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

23 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

24 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

25 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

26 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

27 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

28 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

29 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

30 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)

31 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

32 QUESTIONS? Andrew J. McGuire Gust Rosenfeld PLC 201 East Washington Street, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona (602) direct dial 602) facsimile


Download ppt "Development Impact Fees: Understanding the Current Law Presented by Andrew J. McGuire, Esq. Gust Rosenfeld PLC."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google