Comments on: Letter to the Editor: City is questioned about Impact Fee Use

By: Timothy Simpson

Timothy Simpson — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 16:59:36 +0000

To embelish Sedona Curious, how about Perplexing? With a Community Plan missing teeth insofar as enforcement, a strange method of charging a flat fee for sewer service instead of metered usage, lack of credibility to uphold rezoning amendments to the Community Plan, such as was the case with a zone change approval to Fairfield based on inclusion of affordable units (which stipulation was left out of the subsequent Development Agreement,) and now this questionable policy for disbursement of development impact fees, I don’t get it. What, exactly is the pecking order? If developers are able to earmark where their impact charges are to be spent, much the same as is suggested in obituary notices, are they not then, in fact, running this place? Further, why is it that the City of Sedona spends even more money on surveys that are ultimately ignored? Between the Chamber of Commerce, building contractors, and the Department of Planning & Zoning, what need is there for other branches at City Hall, including a City Council?

By: Sedona Curious

Sedona Curious — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 00:23:36 +0000

Goimaric’s response is lacking in specificity. Perhaps it was intentional that he repeated the State law, although it was supplied to him in a reference url (as well as the verbiage from the Sedona Code). We want to know what types of uses staff defined for each of the developments that have been built in the past, how it relates to the resident survey findings and what steps can be taken to revise or correct them as well as preventing anything similar from happening in the future. Thus, Goimarac merely fueled the flames of curiosity.

By: Michael Goimarac, Sedona City Council Response

Michael Goimarac, Sedona City Council Response — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 17:43:00 +0000

The Mayor requested that I respond to the inquiry concerning why impact fees received for Park and Recreation impacts cannot be used for other city purposes.

Under the current law, fees cannot be redistributed from one DIF category to another. Per ARS 9-463.05, funds shall be used to provide the same category of necessary public service for which the development fee was assessed for the benefit of the same area, as defined in the infrastructure improvements plan that was incorporated into the impact fee study in 2006. To quote the statute directly, it states:

“Monies received from a development fee identified in an infrastructure improvements plan adopted or amended pursuant to subsection D of this section shall be used only to provide the same category of necessary public service for which the development fee was assessed.”

The general premise behind impact fees is that any new development creates an additional impact on the demand for parks, police protection, etc. The fee is intended to cover the cost per development for such impacts. There is a separate fee created for each specific impact, i.e. parks and recreation, police protection, etc. These separate fees are then aggregated into a single development impact fee that is assessed to each new development. When the fee is collected, it is then distributed back into separate accounts for each impact. It would be running afoul of the statute to take, for example, park and recreation impact fees and use them for roads or police protection. A developer could claim that the City did a “bait and switch” by assessing him a fee for parks and then never applying it to his benefit for park uses.

Hopefully, this answers your question.

Michael Goimarac”