Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate adopts amended Development Fees Act after marathon floor debate
Summary
After extended debate and multiple floor amendments, the Senate passed the seventh substitute of SB 95, the Development Fees Act, including a provision that grandfathered certain critical habitats and clarified where park-related impact fees may be charged.
The Utah Senate passed the seventh substitute to Senate Bill 95 on Feb. 23, 1995, after extensive floor debate and a series of amendments aimed at narrowing and clarifying impact-fee authority.
Sponsor Senator Mansell opened the discussion on development impact fees and sought to balance new-growth infrastructure costs with fairness to existing residents. Senator Watson offered an amendment the floor identified as the "Safe and Tortoise Amendment," which would grandfather critical habitats in existence as of Jan. 1, 1995, so that Washington County's Habitat Conservation Plan could continue to be implemented without requiring separate developer-by-developer negotiations with the federal government. Watson said the change would allow planned development north of the freeway near St. George to move forward and "allow Washington County [to] continue to do what they've done with the agreement of the development community," which supporters said was essential to preserve negotiated mitigation agreements.
Senators debated whether impact fees should cover trails and walkways. Senator McAllister proposed an amendment to clarify that the statutory definition of "park" would exclude trails, walkways, bike paths and horse trails only when they were outside park boundaries; the amendment, as explained, permits fees to be used to develop trails that lie inside a park but prevents assessment of impact fees for trails outside park boundaries. After robust discussion—including arguments about fairness to new homebuyers and about curbing the growth of impact fees—the body adopted that amendment.
Senator Taylor then proposed a follow-up amendment requiring that an impact fee "bear a reasonable relationship to the actual environmental mitigation required by the Habitat Conservation Plan," language the sponsor and several colleagues supported as a restraint on fee-setting. The combined amendments were adopted and the bill passed by roll call (22 ayes, 7 nays). Several senators recorded conflicts of interest as required on the floor. The measure will now be transmitted to the House for further consideration.
