El Mirage council reviews draft development-impact fees; asks staff to add projects, calculate credits

El Mirage Common Council members spent a two-hour-plus June 19 work session reviewing preliminary development-impact fee calculations presented by consultant Carson Vice of TishlerBice and asking staff to refine the draft before the formal adoption process.

The council was presented draft fees for parks, police, fire, streets and wastewater and a range of illustrative examples (single-family house, commercial building, data center). Council members asked staff to add a south-side fire station and a park-oriented community/teen center to the Infrastructure Improvement Plan (IIP) for fee consideration, to calculate credits tied to developer contributions and outstanding bond proceeds, and to return a revised set of numbers about a month after the work session.

Why it matters: development-impact fees are one-time charges imposed on new development to pay for growth-related capital improvements. The city’s draft study is intended to meet Arizona’s legal tests for nexus, proportionality and benefit timing; adoption would create new ongoing administrative, auditing and reporting obligations for finance and development services.

Carson Vice emphasized that the draft figures are preliminary and “not set in stone,” and described three common fee methodologies: buy-in (cost recovery for oversized or recently built facilities), consumption-based (incremental expansion tied to current service levels) and plan-based (allocates costs from a master plan or CIP and separates growth vs. non-growth shares). Vice said the study uses a mix of methods: buy-in for identified roadway investments, and consumption/incremental approaches for parks, police and fire.

Draft revenue and project highlights provided to council: - Growth assumptions: about 900 additional residents and roughly 5,500 new jobs over a 10-year horizon; about 5,300,000 square feet of projected nonresidential growth used in the study’s nonresidential baseline. - Parks: the analysis assumes no active future parkland acquisition; approximately two park-amenity projects would be needed under the draft level-of-service, totaling about $975,000 of growth-related cost. Draft park fees shown in the presentation were roughly $2,149 per single-family unit and about $211 per 1,000 sq. ft. for office (other nonresidential categories were listed at lower and higher per-1,000-sq.-ft. values depending on trip/employee factors). (Carson Vice) - Police: draft incremental demand over 10 years of about 4,069 sq. ft. of station space (approximate cost $3.45 million) and about 7.5 additional patrol vehicles (approximate cost $669,000). Draft per-unit fees showed about $1,518 for single-family and $2,469 per 1,000 sq. ft. for commercial in the police category. (Carson Vice) - Fire: the draft estimated approximately 2,970 sq. ft. of new station space and roughly one apparatus (weighted average apparatus cost used was about $450,000); draft fees were approximately $1,246 per single-family unit and about $1,996 per 1,000 sq. ft. commercial. (Carson Vice) - Streets: staff and the consultant identified three roadway investments already built with a combined city investment of about $19.5 million; the consultant’s draft allocated roughly $3.2 million of that work to growth over 10 years, producing a draft streets fee of about $1,153 per single-family unit (methodology: buy-in/cost recovery spread over projected vehicle trips). Vice noted the need to calculate credits where developers already paid for portions of intersections. (Carson Vice) - Wastewater: the study used a plan-based approach for a proposed $5.0 million equalization basin; the consultant’s draft estimated a 10-year growth share near $1.79 million and a per-connection example of about $1,137 for a standard 3/4-inch meter. Vice relied on American Water Works Association (AWWA) meter-capacity ratios to convert average gallons-per-day into meter-equivalent fees. (Carson Vice)

Council members repeatedly raised affordable-housing and small-business concerns. Vice described options to mitigate housing impacts: a progressive residential fee tied to dwelling-unit square footage (smaller units pay less) or targeted fee waivers funded from another city source (but waivers require a policy basis and the fee program be made whole by using other public funds). Several council members asked staff and the city attorney to explore how fee waivers or offsets could be structured for projects such as Housing Authority redevelopment (replacement of 30 units with 60–92 units on the same site) and for local medical facility expansions.

Administrative implications were discussed in detail. Vice and city staff said impact fees will require annual audits, periodic IIP updates, separate funds for each fee category (police facilities, police vehicles, fire facilities, fire apparatus, parks, streets, wastewater), and staff capacity to track collections and eligible expenditures. Staff estimated the new administrative workload could require at least one finance analyst-level hire and higher audit costs.

Council directions and next steps: council members instructed staff and the consultant to (1) add the south-side fire station concept and a small community/teen center (park/community center amenities) into the draft IIP so fees can be modeled for those projects; (2) calculate credits tied to Microsoft, Compass and other developer-funded improvements (for example Dysart/Olive and other intersection funding); (3) check outstanding bonds for debt credits that may reduce fee obligations for new development; (4) reconcile wastewater treatment costs and rate-funded projects with potential fee liabilities; and (5) return to council with a refined set of draft fees (the consultant estimated about one month to deliver revisions).

No formal votes or ordinance actions were taken at the work session. The consultant noted the city may receive a near-term rush of permit activity if council proceeds with an ordinance because some developers pull permits before fees are adopted in order to avoid the charge. Staff said the ordinance and fee schedule would be returned for formal adoption after public hearings and required findings are finalized.

The presentation and council questions highlighted two practical tradeoffs: (a) impact fees would create a steady revenue source to pay for growth-related capital but impose an immediate one-time cost on new development (the consultant estimated the illustrative total draft fee for a single-family home under the presented schedule at about $7,203 across the included categories); and (b) using fee waivers or exclusions for affordable housing or economic-development projects requires alternative city funding (general fund, grants or other sources) to “make the program whole.”

Carson Vice and staff closed by listing cleanup tasks (update Dysart Road cost inputs, add developer contribution credits, refine growth projections and bonded-debt offsets) and said they would return with updated materials for council review. The consultant and staff emphasized that the numbers discussed were preliminary and subject to change following staff review and council direction.

Ending: The council set directions for what to include in the Infrastructure Improvement Plan and asked staff to return with a revised, legally compliant report and fee schedule. No final ordinance or fee adoption occurred at the June 19 work session; further hearings and formal adoption steps remain required under Arizona law.