Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate approves updated Impact Fees Act after months of negotiation; implementation cost estimate cited
Summary
The Senate passed the Impact Fees Act (SB4) after sponsors said it reflected broad stakeholder compromise; the bill sets rules for capital facilities plans, grandfathering and appeals and estimates up to about $30,000 for some jurisdictions to implement.
The Utah Senate on April 19, 1995, approved the Impact Fees Act (SB4), a bill sponsors described as the product of prolonged committee work and negotiation with mayors, municipal leagues, counties and industry representatives.
Senator Al Mansell, sponsor of the bill, told colleagues the measure updated an earlier draft to reflect case law (Banbury v. West Jordan), established a menu of allowed fee purposes, required capital facilities planning and put protections in place for low‑income housing and certain existing fees. "This bill has been worked on over the past 30 days ... it is a consensus bill," Mansell said, summarizing changes including grandfathering for existing fees through July 1, 1997, a 30‑day appeal window for impact fees, and exceptions for municipalities with populations under 3,000.
Mansell also cited a physical‑note estimate that implementing impact fees could cost approximately $30,000 for an entity that is not already in compliance; he said that cost would be lower for jurisdictions that already maintain required planning and accounting.
Under the measure, cities that opt to impose fees must produce capital facilities plans, keep separate ledger accounting for impact fees and provide public notice and documentation 14 days prior to hearings. The bill includes an appeals path and a limited refund provision (for developers who pay fees but do not proceed with development).
The Senate voted the bill under suspension of the rules, recording 26 ayes, 2 nays and 1 absent; the measure was transmitted to the House. Sponsors asked that intent language be entered in the journal emphasising that impact fees are meant to promote orderly growth, require proportionate shares for new development and avoid arbitrary or duplicate charges.
Implementation guidance and assistance for smaller communities was discussed on the floor; Mansell said the League of Cities and Towns was exploring mobile assistance to help small towns comply with new planning requirements.
The House will receive the bill for its consideration.
