Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/04/2010

Home

"" '.~:. ".',' -.,~. ....> .,.'. \. . .~> . ...i:..;. ... ;. ~ 6, . . ". ::.... ., .....-. ,~".::; I TI I i r !(('\ ! - i -! i I .j , , I I .j I . i I .1 I i I 'I I . ,I ! ,~ I i ! I , I i .j i ! . ! ! , ! I ! ! I 1 - ~ ! ! I. , i I i i , I I /((.(.....~""~ \ . i " .~-/ .::. ; :.i....C..:. . . Zoning Bulletin January 10, 2010 I Volume 41 No.1 'Fees~Home builders association alleges city violated Arizona statutory law in calculating '. dev~lopment impact fees . . It contends city had to more precisely calculate the offset of relevantJuture revenues. against its development fees Citation: Home Builtf.ers Ass'n of Cent. Arizona v. City of Goodyear, 2009 WL 4638851 (Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 12009) ARIZONA ,(12/08/09)-Arizona statutory law,. A.R.S. ~ 9-463.05(B)(4) requires that any development fees assessed by a mu- nicipality"bear a reasonable relationship to fhe burden imposed upon the municipality to p!-"ovide additional necessary public services to the development.'; The' statute instructs municipalities to, in determining the extent ofthe burden.imposed by the development, consider among other things: "the ~ontribution made or to be made in the future in cash or by taxes, fees, or assessments by the property owner towards the capital costs of the necessary public service covered by the develop- ment fee." This case addressed the issues of: (1) how precisely a city's calcula- tions had to be in ensuring that its impact fees "reasonably relate" to the burden of necessary growth-related improvements; and (2) whether a city: met that duty. . The BackgroundlFacts: In December 2006, the city adopted 16 de- velopment impactfee ordinances (the "Ordinance,s"). The Ordinances increased the development impact fees to be assessed for numerous public services. . . In August 2007, the Home Builders Association of Central Arizo- na ("HBA") filed an action in court, challenging the city's adoption of the Ordinances. HBA alleged that, in setting the impact fee amounts, the city violated A~R.S. ~ 9-463.05(B)(4). HBA said this was because the city failed to: "offset the impact fee by anticipated sale, property, 'or constiuctionprivilege t~es that will be generated by the develop- ment and used for the same capital purposes funded by the imp~ct fees." In other words, HBA argued that the city failed to comply with ~ 9-463.05(B)(4) because it did not "offset" relevant future revenues against its development fees. Because of that failure, HBA asserted that the city "failed in its duty to ensure that t~e impact fees 'reasonably re- late to' the bUrden of necessary growth-related improvements." The trial court-rejected HBA's contention that~ 9-463.05(B)(4) re- quired the city to reduce the impact fees' on a dollar-for-dollar basis by the amount of future revehuesestimatedto be paid by the development toward the cost of improvements. The court found that the statute did not require a "precisem~thematical calculation"; it only required the city to meet a " 'rough proportionality' test.'~ The court concluded that @ 2010 Thomson Reuters 7 . ~.... ~ "~ii '. . t} I' 'I I ,I 'I [, :I Ii III Iii .lli ill : I I! 1,1 Iii ill i'l II. Iii 'II I,i ill ;1, ':: . 1'1 Iii II, ;V ili :II !,i '.'.'1'1 , . : i ! i _______ ~u I \ ';.' '., 59