Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Impact Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House passes substitute SB 95 after lengthy debate over impact fees and local control
Summary
After hours of debate and multiple amendments, the House passed the seventh substitute to SB 95, a bill to authorize and set rules for local impact fees, by a 44–29 vote. Lawmakers split over local control, housing affordability, and which types of capital improvements impact fees should fund.
Representative Christine Waters brought the seventh substitute to SB 95 to the House floor on Feb. 27, 1995, saying the measure "authorizes impact fees for the following capital improvements" and lays out guidelines for water, wastewater, stormwater, power, roadways, parks and certain public safety facilities. The House voted 44–29 to pass the measure to the Senate after a series of amendments.
Supporters said the bill provides needed statewide parameters for a practice that previously had little statutory oversight. "This particular bill authorizes impact fees for the following capital improvements," Christine Waters, the sponsor, told the chamber while outlining the bill's scope. Proponents argued that clear rules would protect affordable housing by limiting inconsistent or excessive local fees on starter homes.
Opponents pressed for stronger local authority and warned of uneven effects on residents. During debate, a string of amendments drew attention to specific items lawmakers wanted clarified. One amendment replaced the term "fire station" with "public safety facility," another deleted a definition that excluded trails and walkways from park funding, and a third removed an obsolete date tied to a preexisting exemption.
Representative Stephanie Atkinson, who offered an amendment to allow existing impact fees to continue if not increased, was explicit about her stance: "I hate impact fees," she said, arguing that the status quo imposes uneven costs on incoming residents and that local officials should be accountable. Supporters of statewide limits countered that some fee practices had been used to place costs disproportionately on those least able to afford housing.
The bill drew extended exchanges over whether new growth or existing residents should bear costs for new amenities such as bike paths and trails in growing communities including St. George and Washington County. Representative Waters and amendment supporters emphasized that adjustments were intended to preserve local flexibility while setting transparent rules.
After final summations — including a characterization of some impact fees as "taxation without representation" by a member speaking for summation — the House completed a roll-call vote. The seventh substitute to SB 95 passed 44 yes to 29 no and was returned to the Senate for further consideration.
The House also adopted several technical and coordinating amendments during debate; the adopted changes clarify eligible fee purposes and grandfathering provisions for certain preexisting fees. The next procedural step is transmittal back to the Senate for concurrence or further action.
Ending: The bill was passed by the House and transmitted to the Senate; members indicated further interim study and local coordination could follow as the measure moves forward.
