THE CONTINUED EFFECT OF IMPACT FEES PAT WALKER, PAT WALKER CONSULTING MATT ROJAS, SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP Arrested Development.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Seekonk Board of Assessors
Advertisements

Past and Current Initiatives in Pinellas County to Coordinate Planning between the School Board and Local Governments 1996 – Interlocal Agreement and Comprehensive.
PROPOSITION 218 IMPACTS ON UTILITY USER FEES Case Study City of Dixon Sewer Rate Repeal of 2007.
2013 Public Law Changes House Enrolled Act 1276 Public Law 6 Amends IC and Township Board Meetings Effective.
By Law Offices of Wayne D. Gerhold One Gateway Center, 18 th Floor Pittsburgh, PA (412)
Educational Facilities Developer Fee Information October /5/2015.
How to Hit a Homerun Saving Energy and Updating Facilities Presented by Shirley McNutt.
Florida Redevelopment Association
United States Geothermal Policy Geothermal Steam Act Revision Under Consideration Dr. R. Gordon Bloomquist, Ph.D. Washington State University Energy Program.
Fiscal Analysis of the Fair Rent and Home Ownership Initiative A Presentation to the Fillmore City Council June 23, 2006.
Rail Freight Assistance Program (RFAP) S ETTING THE S TAGE FOR THE F UTURE Rail Transportation Assistance Program (Rail TAP) RFAC Meeting April 28, 2010.
Regulatory Assessment Fees 1 Water & Wastewater Reference Manual.
PUBLIC HEARING: Development (Impact) Fees - Land Use Assumptions & Infrastructure Improvement Plan Reports June 30, 2014.
2010 – 2011 Budget Workshop Jessica N. Hunt, CPA Business Manager Industrial Independent School District May 27, 2010.
Development (Impact) Fee Program Changes to Comply with State Law Mayor and Council Study Session June 3, 2014.
1 South Dakota Department of Education – Grants Management Rob Huffman – Administrator Mark Gageby – Special Education Fiscal Kim Fischer – Fiscal Monitoring.
Reduction and Deferral of Impact Fees Board of County Commissioners Discussion Item March 29, 2011.
“Bridging the Gap” Budget and Finance Workshop January 2006.
Impact Fee Analysis: Maintaining the Public’s Trust.
Budget Committee Workshop February16, Oregon’s local budget law is a group of statutes that require local governments to prepare and adopt annual.
Money Handling Procedures Updated by Roger Sparrow, Karen Ramage & David Herbst April 2014.
Sunshine Coast Regional District Development Cost Charges July 3, 2014 Infrastructure Services Committee Bob Twerdoff.
SB 1525 and Municipal Development Fees: Responding to the 2011 Reforms Andrew J. McGuire Gust Rosenfeld, PLC Peter W. Culp Squire, Sanders & Dempsey LLP.
School Budget (Draft)
Board of County Commissioners School Concurrency June 10, 2008 Adoption Public Hearing.
Fiscal Monitoring and Oversight Tecumseh Local School District January 8, 2013 Roger Hardin, Assistant Director Finance Program Services (614)
Space Coast Communities Association Cocoa Beach, Florida September 19, 2015 COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION BUDGETING.
2006 ANNUAL CONFERENCE CALIFORNIA SOCIETY OF MUNICIPAL FINANCE OFFICERS COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT FINANCING FOR SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE Sam Sperry,
2015 Police and Firefighter Pension Law Enrolled CS/SB 172 Bonni S. Jensen Klausner, Kaufman, Jensen & Levinson
Community Development Department DEVELOPMENT FEE STRUCTURE.
1 TOP TEN NON- COMPLIANCE ISSUES PRESENTED BY APC COMMITTEE.
Fight On Training on NIH Conflict of Interest Rule and Introduction to diSClose Dan Shapiro Director, Research Compliance Ben Bell Manager, Research Compliance.
M ICHIGAN P UBLIC S ERVICE C OMMISSION Energy Optimization Plans 2011 Biennial Review Pre-Filing Update Rob Ozar, Manager Energy Optimization Section March.
CAREER TECHNICAL EDUCATION FACILITIES PROGRAM Cycle 2 Conversions.
Amending the Regional Agreement Presentationby Massachusetts Association of Regional Schools 1.
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP DECEMBER 14, Sec Review requirements. (a) The City Manager shall each fiscal year prepare a preliminary capital improvement.
Implementing SB 1525: An Update Cheyenne Walsh Squire Sanders (US) LLP Government Finance Officers Association of Arizona Winter Conference Prescott, Arizona.
Copyright 2010, The World Bank Group. All Rights Reserved. Statistical Project Monitoring Section A 1.
LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR UNSOLICITED PROPOSALS FLORIDA COUNCIL FOR PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS OCTOBER 3, 2013 Lee A. Weintraub, Esq. Becker & Poliakoff,
Planning & Community Development Department Zoning Code Amendment Public Hearing Proposed elimination of the 50% review step from the design review process.
Solid Waste Management Plans Update Webinar Training March 5, 2014.
Utility Financial Management AWWA Intermountain Section Leadership Forum Session Two November 10, 2015.
Student Activity Funds Procedures and Findings MGFOA October 22, 2015 Melanson Heath Certified Public Accountants John J. Sullivan, CFE.
MHSA Revised Fiscal Policies California Department of Mental Health Carol Hood January 17, 2008.
1 Service Center FY2006 Billing Rate Proposal Preparation.
Department of Public Works Recommended Residential Impact Fee Distribution Methodology Change October 26, 2015.
S.B Municipality Fees. S.B – Environment Budget Reconciliation Bill Enacted during the 2011 regular legislative session and becomes effective.
PART 300 § General CF Program Requirements (Submission, Obligations, Etc.) PART 300 § General CF Program Requirements (Submission,
Department of Environmental Quality Life-of-Site Permitting Required Changes to Solid Waste Management Rules 15A NCAC 13B March 10, 2016.
Christopher M. Quinn, MACC, CPA, CFE, CGFO, CGMA Finance Director Tuesday, May 3 rd, 2016.
ANNEXATION Statutory Overview July 19, 2011 David L. Yearout, AICP, CFM.
Welcome. Contents: 1.Organization’s Policies & Procedure 2.Internal Controls 3.Manager’s Financial Role 4.Procurement Process 5.Monthly Financial Report.
2016 NSF Large Facilities Workshop New Initiatives Business Roundtable II-III May 25-26, 2016 Jeff Lupis, Division Director, Division of Acquisition and.
Orange County Government Adoption Public Hearing May 10, 2016 Board of County Commissioners School Impact Fee Update.
FIRE PROTECTION CONTRACTS Workshop on Senate Bill 239 (Hertzberg) July 21, 2016 Nevada LAFCo – Presented by P. Scott Browne, Counsel.
SB 1525 and Municipal Development Fees: Responding to the 2011 Reforms
FY2007 Billing Rate Proposal Preparation (Part I)
Water & Wastewater Capacity Charge Work Shop
City of Delavan 2017 Budget.
School District Bonds and Citizens' Oversight Committees
Division of Waste Management
System Development Fees
HOME Underwriting and Subsidy Layering Training
Seekonk Board of Assessors
Roselle Park School District
Proposed 2018 Budget Truth In Taxation Hearing December 5, 2017
UNDERSTANDING HOW TO MAXIMIZE YOUR FEES
POST-ISSUANCE COMPLIANCE
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES AB 1600 UPDATE
Legislative Update: SB 2224 and SB 322 October 1, 2019.
Presentation transcript:

THE CONTINUED EFFECT OF IMPACT FEES PAT WALKER, PAT WALKER CONSULTING MATT ROJAS, SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP Arrested Development

Presentation Objectives Review status of implementing sections of Discuss issues cities/towns are facing with implementation Discuss upcoming audit requirements for cities/towns without an advisory committee Potential RFI for audit services Questions

A.R.S. §

Unauthorized Fee Categories Starting January 1, 2012, fees could no longer be collected for unauthorized fee categories §(K)  General government fees, administrative buildings, larger library/park facilities, arts & cultural fees, police/fire training centers, solid waste collection/disposal, etc.  By January 1, 2012, revised fee schedule with unauthorized fees deleted/reduced out of existing schedule were adopted

Treatment of Previously-Collected Fees Where development fees have been collected and accumulated for a purpose that will no longer be permitted under the amended statute:  Accumulated fees are “grandfathered” and can continue to be expended for the purpose for which they were collected through January 1, 2012; §(K) Alternatively, must be spent in the same “category” of necessary public service §(K)(1)  Example: fee collected for police training facility could be spent on other police facilities If accumulated fees are not expended by January 1, 2020, must be distributed equally among remaining fee categories (likely unconstitutional – we don’t recommend this one) §(K)(2)

Treatment of Fees Pledged to Debt Service “Grandfathering” of dedicated fees for debt service:  Where an existing fee (adopted prior to January 1, 2012) was pledged to debt service of facility financed prior to June 1, 2011:  The development fee may continue to be collected as necessary to meet those debt service obligations – even if the fee is no longer within an authorized category under SB 1525 §(R), Sess.L.§(4)  After August 1, 2014, can only be used to pay P&I on that debt service  Until August 1, 2014, any existing fee (i.e., fee adopted prior to January 1, 2012) can be pledged to debt service if it is a fee within an authorized category and it was included in an IIP adopted before June 1, 2011  The existing fee can continue to be collected after August 1, 2014 (i.e., after the adoption of a new fee schedule) if it meets these requirements §(S)

When an IIP Has to Be Amended IIP does not need to be amended for any change to planned infrastructure that:  Addresses only infrastructure elements in the existing IIP AND  Changes will not, individually or cumulatively with other amendments, increase the level of service in the service area OR  Cause an increase in the development fee of greater than 5 percent when a new or modified fee is assessed as a result of the changes to the IIP Notice of these amendments must be published at least 30 days before adoption; advisory committee must be informed §(D)(10) Regardless, IIP and land use assumptions underlying the IIP must be reviewed and/or updated a minimum of once every 5 years §(D)(3)  If update necessary, municipality must prepare update before 5 year expiration; hearing must be scheduled and notice provided within 60 days of completion of proposed update §(D)(4)  If update determined to be unnecessary, municipality must provide notice of this determination and provide process for objectors to file written objections §(D)(8)

Tracking Development Fee Expenditures and Refund Requirements Critical to carefully track fee collections and expenditures to maintain compliance with required time-frames and avoid refunds  IIP should identify realistic, conservative time-frames for completion of infrastructure items against which development fees are charged  IIP amendments should track and reflect any delays or changes in construction schedules or required infrastructure  Maximum of 10 years for most NPS infrastructure; 15 years for water/wastewater  Document financing agreements and reservations of capacity to avoid running afoul of new “entitlements” to immediate service  Consider more extensive use of development agreements, and disclose relevant agreement provisions in the IIP Tie fees and fee collections to infrastructure in a manner that limits the potential for and scale of future refunds  Remember that refunds only have to be paid against fees collected AFTER July 31, 2014; will have limited near-term effects

Tracking Grandfathering Rules Procedures in place to track new grandfathering rules?  Indexing rules are no longer effective or permitted; all fees must incorporate projected cost inflation in the originally adopted fee  Developments are entitled to pay under fixed/frozen fee schedule for 24 months after grandfathering trigger Suggest implementing procedure to issue written “frozen” fee schedule to developers at the time of the fee grandfathering trigger (with identified 2-year expiration date)  Commercial, industrial, multifamily: final site plan or subdivision approval  Single-family residential: initial building permit

Ten Percent Rule? I. If the development fee was collected for the construction of all or a portion of a specific item of infrastructure, and on completion of the infrastructure the municipality determines that the actual cost of construction was less than the forecasted cost of construction on which the development fee was based and the difference between the actual and estimated cost is greater than ten per cent, the current owner may receive a refund of the portion of the development fee equal to the difference between the development fee paid and the development fee that would have been due if the development fee had been calculated at the actual construction cost.

Review of Critical Dates January 1, 2012  Development fee moratorium lifted; new fee programs can be adopted  Unauthorized fees must be dropped from all existing fee schedules July 31, 2014  Last date that collected development fees will not be subject to refund requirements August 1, 2014  New fee programs must be in place; municipalities can no longer collect existing fees unless grandfathered January 1, 2020  All accumulated existing fees must be expended within fee category; remaining fees distributed

REPORTS & AUDITS

Annual Report Requirements Report must be posted on website and submitted to Clerk 90 days after close of fiscal year Can be “unaudited figures” Amount spent on capital project and location of project Amount spent on items other than a capital improvement project (i.e. development fee study, interest, etc.)

Changes to Annual Reporting Requirements Annual report requirements expanded as follows:  Must address each service area  Must address debt service obligations for any facility for which development fees are a source of funding (and the timeframe to repay those obligations)  Must address funds advanced by the municipality that will be repaid from development fees in greater detail (source of funds, terms of repayment) §(N)

ARS § (G)(2)

Task Force In December, a number of Finance Professionals met to discuss biennial audit requirements Communities that did not go with Advisory Committee are faced with an audit this year Issues discussed by team:  Know of 1 City that has completed audit  Many firms have offered to do audit  “Certified Audit”  Who can do the audit?

Task Force Audit has 3 parts:  Progress of IIP – Not clear by definition of “Inequities of implementing the plan”  Revenues collected and expenditures made for “each project in the plan” Revenues not tracked per project  Evaluate inequities – Is it on timing of projects or inequities on imposing the development fee?

Task Force When does audit need to be completed? Statute doesn’t specify. 2 years from effective date was group consensus August 1 effective date, 25 month audit? June 30 audit? Tie to annual report?

Task Force Review DIF ordinance to see what audit would contain (i.e. level of service in each service area?) Firm that did IIP and not study could do the audit? Agreed upon procedures – given by employees of the entity-problem? RFI has been developed and asking for feedback

Arizona Revised Statutes Biennial Audit  In addition to Annual Report  Conducted by “qualified professionals”  Reviews: Collection and exp. of fees for EACH project Level of service in each service area Land assumptions Public Hearing within 60 days of release

Advisory Committee – Squire Sanders Alternative: biennial audits of land use assumptions, IIP, and development fees  Must be done by qualified professionals  Cannot be same professional that created the fee study  Public comment and public hearing required 21

Biennial Audit Alternative –Gust Rosenfeld In lieu of advisory committee, municipality may provide for an independent, biennial certified audit of land use assumptions, IIP, and development fees §(G)(2)  Must be conducted by “qualified professionals”  Cannot use same consultants that prepared the IIP/fee study documents  Must be posted and reviewed at public hearing within 60 days

Questions/Discussions

Contact Information Pat Walker – Matt Rojas