El Mirage council accepts impact-fee report but votes to halt adoption process

El Mirage Mayor Jamacia and the City Council on Feb. 18 accepted a consultant's development impact fee analysis but voted to conclude the evaluation instead of beginning the statutory adoption process for new fees.

The council heard from staff and consultant Carson Bice that TischlerBise had analyzed roughly $34.4 million in capital projects across fire, parks, police and streets. Robert, presenting the report, said the analysis estimated that development impact fees could cover about $14 million of the identified capital needs, with roughly $17.2 million expected to remain on the city's general-fund obligations and $3.2 million tied to wastewater funds. "Those $34,400,000 of total projects basically covers two funds," Robert said during the presentation.

Council members probed specific line items. Staff said a second fire station and apparatus drive additional personnel needs not captured in capital cost estimates: "If you add a second fire station' you're looking at 12 to 15 personnel," staff said. For police, the consultant's projections would fund vehicles and facilities but not personnel operations; staff emphasized that impact fees are capital-only and cannot pay ongoing salaries.

The analysis also flagged developer credits for firms that previously built roads: the memo cited credits of about $3.5 million for Microsoft and roughly $245,045 for T.I. Cold relating to prior contributions to Dysart Road and portions of Olive Road.

During council debate several members said they worried the fees could make small projects and local retail less competitive and could raise costs for buyers and renters in planned affordable housing. Others supported limited adoption for select categories (parks, streets, wastewater) or said the city should adopt fees to avoid shifting growth costs entirely to residents. One council member noted the reimbursement risk should growth not materialize, saying the city would remain liable if it fronted projects by bonding and then failed to collect projected fees.

Mayor Jamacia moved to accept the report and to conclude the evaluation (option 2); the motion was seconded and carried on the council floor. Staff said the vote accepted the TischlerBise analysis as a record but instructed administration not to proceed immediately with the statutory adoption process. The council recorded the motion as carried and asked staff to preserve the analysis as part of the city's official record.

What happens next: staff will maintain the report as an official record and will not start the fee-adoption timeline unless council later directs otherwise. The city's capital improvement plan continues to be the vehicle for prioritizing projects and funding options.

Authorities and fiscal details: the consultant presented multiple fee scenarios showing, for a representative 1,250'2,000-square-foot single-family home, combined development impact fees could total roughly $8,000 plus a wastewater fee of about $1,137 (meter-dependent), or about $9,000 in total under the consultant's model. Staff emphasized that any formal adoption would follow Arizona's statutory process and that developer credits are treated as credits rather than cash reimbursements unless improvements are performed and billed.