Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />.~> . <br /> <br />.':. <br /> <br />~ . I <br /> <br />~~; <br /> <br /> <br />~ ;.' <br />.~ ~. . .. a. <br /> <br />.~ '. <br /> <br />--".,. . <br /> <br />60, <br /> <br />." <br /> <br />Ja(luary 10, 2010 1 Volume 41 No.1 <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />the city satisfied the requirements of S 9-463.05(B)(4) because it gave a C..'_.',) <br />" 'good faith consideration of the future taxes and fees' to be collected . <br />from development property owners." <br />Finding tlJ.ere were no material issues of fact in dispute, and decid- <br />ing the matter on the law alone, the court issued summary judgment in <br />favor of the city. . <br />HBA appealed. <br /> <br />The Court's Decision: Superior. Court's decision affirmed. <br /> <br />The Court of Appeals of Arizona held that under S 9-463.05(B) <br />(4), a municipality is required to ensure that "muilicipal develop- <br />ment fees bear a reasonable relationship to the actual bw:den imposed <br />on the municipality by development." "[A]s long as an impac~ fee is <br />'reasonably related' or 'roughly proportional' to the actual burden im- <br />posed by development, a municipality may be found to comply with <br />S9-463.05(B)(4)." Thus; the court disagreed with HBA: The city was <br />not required to. precisely calculate the impact fees based on the amount <br />of estimated future revenues to be paid by development property own- <br />ers. The city needed only to "show some rational ba.sis for setting the <br />amount of the fee in order to avoid it being 'clearly erroneous,' arbi~ <br />trary, and wholly unwarranted.'" <br />The court concluded that the city did not violate S 9-463.05(B){4).- <br />Rather, the courdound that the city met its duty to consider relevant <br />future revenues before enacting the impact fee Ordinances. The court <br />concluded that the city's impact fees bore a "reasonable relationship <br />or were roughly proportionate to the burden imposed by new'develop- <br />ment," in compliance with S 9-463.05(B)(4). This was because the city: <br />"used only growth-related costs in calculating its -impact fees"; and <br />"Qffset all other funding sources or revenue sources that would pay for <br />the capital improvements . . . ." The city's impact fees "were collected <br />and applied only against the cost of growth-related improvements and <br />did not go to pay for other improvements." <br />In reaching its conclusion, the court rejected HBA's argument that <br />'the city "should have offset various sales and property taxes antici- <br />pated to be collected from the improvements because it will use those <br />taxes to pay for growth-related improvements." The court found that <br />HBA "presented no evidence that the [c]ity actually w[ould] use those <br />revenues for those purposes." Moreover, HBA failed to prove that, in <br />calculating the impact- fees, the city "failed to account for future tax <br />revenues from the development that would be applied to the costs on <br />which the impact fees were calculated." <br />In sum, the coUrt concluded that the city's impact fees bore a "rea- <br />sonable relationship or were roughly proportionate to the burden im- <br />posed by new development," in compliance with S 9-463.05(B)(4). <br /> <br />See also: Home Builders Ass'n of Cent. Arizona v. City of Scottsdale, <br />187Ariz. 479,_930P.2d 993,44 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1447 (1997). <br /> <br />r."" <br />~:-.} <br /> <br />c <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />@ 2010 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />~. '" ~ <br />"ii <br /> <br /> <br />" <br /> <br /> <br />;.~,'/ <br /> <br />~~"" <br /> <br />_ r' <br /> <br /> <br />... : <br /> <br />fb <br />