HomeMy WebLinkAbout61-01 RESOLUTIONRESOLUTION NO. 61-01
A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT THE TWO
REPORTS CONCERNING IMPACT FEES
PREPARED BY DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
hereby accepts the two reports: Impact fee study: Policy Directions
Memorandum and Developmental Fee Survey; prepared by Duncan and
Associates for the City.
PASSED and APPROVED this / day of May, 2001.
a/1Am A 9in
Heather Woodruff, City Cler
APPROVED:
• • Tw
by
As:
submitted by
IMPACT FEE STUDY:
POLICY DIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
duncan
associates
in association with
Cooper Consulting Company
April 2001
submitted by
IMPACT FEE STUDY:
POLICY DIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
duncan associates
in association with
Cooper Consulting Company
April 2001
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
Summary of Findings and Recommendations 1
LEGAL FRAMEWORK 3
Exactions and Impact Fees 3
Rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court 8
Arkansas Statutes 9
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction 11
Arkansas Case Law 12
Conclusions 19
BACKGROUND 21
TYPES OF FACILITIES 26
Water 26
Wastewater 29
Parks 32
Major Roads 33
UST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1: FACILITIES ELIGIBLE FOR IMPACT FEES 7
Table 2: CAPITAL FUNDING BY SOURCE, 2000-2004 21
Table 3: CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, 2000-2004 22
Table 4: SALES TAX CAPITAL FUNDING, 2000-2004 22
Table 5: OUTSTANDING DEBT 23
Table 5: POPULATION GROWTH, 1990-1999 23
Table 6: RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS, 1996-1999 24
Table 7: NATIONAL AVERAGE IMPACT FEES 25
Table 8: CURRENT WATER CUSTOMERS 27
Table 9: POIENTIAL ANNUAL WATER IMPACT FEE REVENUES 29
Table 10: CURRENT WASTEWATER CUSTOMERS 30
Table 11: TREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY 31
Table 12: POTENTIAL ANNUAL TREATMENT PLANT FEES 32
Table 13: PARK DEDICATION REQUIREMENT/FEE-IN-LIEU 33
Figure 1: IMPACT FEE ENABLING ACTS 6
Figure 2: PLANNING AREA 24
Figure 3: WATER FACILITIES 26
Figure 4: WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND FORECAST 28
Figure 5: WASTEWATER TREATMENT CAPACITY AND DEMAND, 1992-1996 . . 30
Figure 6: WATERSHEDS AND DIRECTIONS OF FLOWS 31
Figure 7: EXISTING MAJOR ROADS 34
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this project is to assist the City of Fayetteville in developing a system of development
impact fees to ensure that new development pays a fair share of the cost of infrastructure needed to
serve it. The project has been divided into two phases. This first phase, termed a "feasibility study,"
reviews the legal framework, local data and potential fees, and determines in conjunction with local
officials the type of impact fee system that should be developed in the second phase.
This phase includes a review of applicable statutory and case law, and outlines the legal framework for
impact fees in Arkansas. We also analyze Fayetteville's current development exaction policies, existing
capital facilities and levels of service, growth projections, capital improvements programs, and existing
debt load as additional background data for the policy recommendations.
Another part of this phase of the project is a survey of impact fees and development exactions in
comparable communities. This is provided in a separate report.
The most critical policy issue to be decided is the types of impact fees that should be developed for the
City in Phase II The evaluation is based on selected criteria, including legal authority, general plan
implementation, net revenue potential over current exactions, fairness between existing and future
residents, equity between developers, regional competitiveness, and ease of administration.
Summary of Findings and Recommendations
Our review of relevant statutory and case law demonstrates that cities in Arkansas clearly have the
authority to impose water and wastewater impact fees, to require dedication of land for community
facilities, and to require fees in lieu of land dedication. The City does not currently charge water or
wastewater impact fees, and these could be developed in Phase II The City already has a court -tested
park land dedication and fee -in -lieu requirement, which we could review and update in Phase II
Any other type of impact fee is on less firm ground, although roads would be the next best bet. The
City could consider adopting a land dedication/fee-in-lieu system for arterial and collector street right-
of-way (ROW) to replace the current system of roadway exactions. This would in some sense be a step
backward, however, as the City now requires half -street improvements to adjacent roadways in many
cases. Of all the facility types, a road impact fee would probably have the strongest chance of being
upheld by the Arkansas courts. There is also sufficient information and planning data to develop road
impact fees, but whether to include this in Phase II is a policy issue for the City Council.
The City had expressed an interest in exploring impact fees for a variety of other facilities, including fire
and police protection, solid waste, trails, fleet management and radio sites. Due to questions regarding
the authority of municipalities in Arkansas to use such techniques, we do not recommend proceeding
with development of any of these types of fees at this titne.
In summary, we would recommend that the City proceed with the development of water and
wastewater impact fees and an update of the existing park dedication and fee in -lieu requirements in
Phase II of this project. A water impact fee, covering the cost of distribution and storage facilities,
could generate up to $1 million annually, while an impact fee for the cost of the new wastewater
Fayetteville\IMPACTFEESTUDY—POLICYDIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM Aped 3,2001, Page 1
treatment plant could generate $2 million annually. An update to the park dedication and fee -in -lieu
requirements would not necessarily generate additional revenue, but could help to ensure that the
requirements reflect the existing level of service and the actual demand of new residential development
on the need for park facilities.
Fayetteville \IMPACT FEE STUDY—POUCY DIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM April 3,2001, Page 2
•
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
An impact fee is a form of "exaction," through which a developer or builder is required to contribute
to the costs of public improvements. Typically the fee is levied on some easily measurable unit of
activity, such as the construction of one dwelling unit or of a specified number of square feet of
commercial or industrial space. As the next section of this memorandum explains, such fees are a
logical outgrowth of long-standing exactions practice.
This section examines the legal issues involved in the implementation of impact fees in Arkansas' In
brief, any impact fee should have the following characteristics:
o The fee should be based on actual costs of public improvements, obtained from recent
experience in Fayetteville or, for facilities for which there are no recent, local figures, from
comparable markets;
o The cost calculations should exclude from (or credit against) the calculated cost of
improvements any funds likely to come from outside sources (such as the state gasoline tax) to
pay for the related improvements;
o The fee imposed on any development should not exceed the cost of providing the related public
improvements necessary to serve that development;
a No part of the fee should be based on the cost of curing existing capacity deficiencies or
inadequacies in current treatment levels;
o Following principles of municipal fund accounting, the fees collected should be maintained in
a fund designated only for use on improvements to be supported by the fee, serving the area
in which the fee is collected;
o There should be appropriate refund provisions in case the fees are not used for the intended
purposes within a reasonable time.
The importance of these characteristics will become clearer in the rest of this section.
Exactions and Impact Fees
Following the advent of zoning and subdivision controls, subdividers typically made only minimal
improvements to their projects. Projects were usually built where they could depend on existing parks
and schools. Streets were often simply graded, without such further improvements as curbs and gutters.
1 This chapter has been prepared for the use of the City of Fayetteville by Eric Damian Kelly, Ph.D., FAICP. Dr. Kelly
is both a lawyer and a planner, but he is not licensed to practice law in Arkansas and offers no formal legal opinion on
these matters. Dr. Kelly holds Master of City Planning and Juris Doctor degrees from the University of Pennsylvania
and a Ph.D. in public policy from The Union Institute Cincinnati Dr. Kelly maintains an active membership in the
Colorado bar, although in his cunent position he does not practice.
FayettevilleVMPACTFEE STUDY -POLICY DIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 3
Local water companies often provided water lines, and many homes were built with septic systems.
Sewers were even provided by private parties in some early Arkansas developments.' Gradually, often
in response to citizen complaints, local governments would pave the streets, install curb, gutter and even
sidewalk, and, in some instances, even provide public sewer
During the 1950s, the system began to change, as local governments became increasingly frustrated at
having to provide public facilities at public expense for private developments on which the developers
had, presumably, made a profit. Thus, communities began to require that streets at least be paved and,
in many cases, that curb and gutter and sidewalks also be provided by the developer. Communities also
began to require that public water and sewer lines be installed under the new streets—sometimes as
"dry" lines for future use, where direct links to existing public services were not yet available. Many
communities began to require other, related public facilities, such as street signs and street trees.
It had become widely accepted by the 1960s and early 70s that land developers would provide all public
improvements within a subdivision that were designed to serve that subdivision. However, clearly the
improvements within a subdivision are only a part of the total public improvements that are needed or
affected by a new subdivision. Such off-site facilities as schools and parks typically serve residents of
a number of different subdivisions. Streets in new subdivisions will always connect to a network of
collector and arterial roads outside the subdivision. Similarly, most subdivisions tie into large networks
of sewer systems, water lines and drainage facilities.
It is useless to have roads and sewer and water lines existing in isolation within a subdivision. It is
essential not only to the community but also to the subdivider and to those who purchase lots or homes
from the subdivider that the larger network of roads and pipes not only exist, but that it be adequate
to serve the needs of the new subdivision, as well as the rest of the community. As communities grow,
country roads and commercial collectors that were once adequate to serve needs along them become
overwhelmed with traffic from new developments using those roads to connect to the larger road
network.
Early exactions for schools, parks and off-site facilities potentially serving more than the subdivision
or project on which they are levied fell into two categories: land dedication requirements and negodated
exactions. Land dedication requirements ultimately raised practical, legal and policy problems. Under
ordinances requiring developers to dedicate seven percent (or some other specified percentage) of their
property for park purposes, communities wound up with large inventories of small parcels that were
inefficient to develop and expensive to maintain if developed; those same communities sometimes had
to buy the parkland or school sites that they needed. Fayetteville's own park dedication requirement
has been considered by the Arkansas Supreme Court in Ci? of Fayetteville v. 113.1., Inc.' As a matter of
policy, land dedications for facilities such as trails sometimes fell unevenly on landowners, raising issues
of equity in public policy and equal protection under the law.'
2
See Pulaski Heights Sewerage Co. v. Loughborough, 95 Ark. 264, 129 S.W. 536 (1910)
3 Ciry of Frryettevilk v. LAI., Inc., 280 Ark. 484; 659 S.W.2d 505 (1983)
4
See, for example, No//an v. Califonun Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), and Dolan v. Ciry ofTigard, 114 S. Ct. 2309
(1994), discussed below.
Fayettevil le\IMPACT FEE STUDY—POLICY DIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM April 3,2001, Page 4
In other cases, a community might have a plan for a park, a school or a major roadway affecting the site
of a proposed project. In those cases, communities sometimes required dedication of the site as a
condition of rezoning or subdivision approval. This raised serious questions of equity and equal
protection and ultimately ran afoul of the "rough proportionality" test established by the Supreme Court
in Dolan v. COI ofTigard, discussed below. In Cibl ofThgetteville v. I.B.I., Inc., the Arkansas Supreme Court
raised related concerns about the relationship between the fee and the eventual benefit to the developer
paying the fee.
The next generation of exactions for parks, schools and off-site improvements added a layer of fees in
lieu of dedication (often called simply "fees in lieu"), in which all development was made subject to the
exaction requirement but in which the local government could in appropriate cases substitute a fee equal
to a calculated or stipulated value of the land that would otherwise be dedicated. Such a fee was the
actual exaction proposed to be applied to the subdivider in COI ofFcgetteville v. I.B.I., Inc.
Another important thread in the history of impact fees involves charges imposed by providers of water
and sewer service for connecting to the system. Such charges can be traced back more than 90 years
in Arkansas,' and, much more recently, Obi of Madan v. Baioni (1983).6 Those cases are interesting in that
there seemed little question in the minds of the judges as to whether such a fee could be imposed; the
issue in these cases was how much the fee should be.
During the 1970s, building on the base of "fees in lieu" and on the long practice of charging fees for
the privilege of connecting to water and sewer lines, some communities began imposing calculated
impact fees on all new development. This approach resolves most of the policy and equity questions
at the local level and, if carefully done, falls squarely within the legal guidelines established by the U.S.
Supreme Court and several state courts.
The law related to impact fees has evolved from litigation over local regulatory measures involving
dedication requirements, fees imposed in lieu of dedication, and impact fees, all of which are collectively
called "exactions." The first reported "impact fee" systems were developed in Florida to create a system
charge for roads, similar to the common system buy -in charges for water and sewer systems. However
, such fees were more difficult to implement than similar fees for utility services for two reasons -first,
road fees related to a general governmental service rather than to an enterprise that happened to be run
by the government; second, there was no specific, controllable event (like the physical connection to
the water system) which could be conditioned upon payment of the fee, except for the approval of a
development or subdivision or the later approval of a building permit or certificate of occupancy.
That distinction becomes more important later in this analysis, as it approaches more sophisticated and
complex issues of impact fee law. The early principles of that law, however, were applicable to all types
of impact fees. Specifically, the Florida courts developed a detailed series of legal guidelines for impact
fees in that state. The Florida cases established law as well as policy that have guided other courts and
even legislatures in addressing the issue. The landmark case on impact fees is Contractors dr Builders Assoc
5 Pularki Heights Sewerage Co. v. Loughborough, 95 Ark. 264,129 S.W. 536, (1910); and Hinton v. Bowman, 101 Ark. 306; 142
S.W. 174 (1911)
6 CiD, of Manon v. Baiotd, 312 Ark. 423; 850 S.W.2d 1(1983)
FayettevilleVmPAcT FEE STUDY -POLICY DIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 5
of Pinellas Couto, vs. Cibl of Dunedin? In that 1976 case, the Florida court struck down a system
development fee, but in doing so it gave guidelines for designing an acceptable fee system. Those
guidelines were: the fee to be charged may not exceed the reasonable cost to the system of absorbing
the new users; the fees must be reserved for the purpose for which they are charged; the fees must
actually be used for the designated purpose and used in an area which will directly benefit (or absorb
the impacts from) the development on which the fees are imposed. A system in Broward County was
struck down by an appellate court in 1983 because fees from the entire county were collected in one
fund and there was no assurance that the fees collected would be used in the vicinity of the development
paying the fees, Also in 1983, a Florida court upheld a fee system in Palm Beach County, finding that
it passed the tests set out in the Dunedin and Broward County cases.' The Palm Beach County fee was
a road fee and was based on a complex formula related to traffic generation and road construction costs.
The fee was allocated to a road zone of about six square miles which included the proposed
development. The fee was to be used specifically to build roads.
The Florida cases remain important
today These cases are often cited in
litigation and articles today, but they
established the impact fee policy that
has guided other courts in considering
the issue of impact fees and that has
guided committees that have
developed impact fee legislation in a
number of states. To date, 23 states
have adopted impact fee enabling
legislation. These acts have tended to
embody the constitutional standards
that have been developed by the
courts. However, some states where
State Enabling Act
impact fees are popular, such as
Florida, still do not have impact fee
enabling legislation. One of the reasons that Florida does not have an impact fee enabling act is that
local governments felt that they had more freedom under Florida and national case law than they would
under an explicit enabling statute. Indeed, one of the provisions in most state enabling acts is a
limitation on the types of facilities for which impact fees can be assessed. The types of facilities that are
eligible for impact fees are listed in Table 1.
What is interesting about these new state statutes is that they have largely followed the tests evolving
from the Florida line of cases. Most contain requirements for the computation of the fees, based on
the actual costs of the facilities; some include detailed specifications about what planning and
management charges can be included. Several prohibit the use of the fees to cure existing deficiencies
in the system or to upgrade the level of service in developed parts of a community. All require that the
Figure 1
IMPACT FEE ENABLING ACTS
7 Contractors & Builders .Assoc of Pinellas County vs. City ofDunedin, 326 So 2d 314 (Fla 1976)
8 Holfrutood, Inc. v. Broward County, 431 So.2d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
9 Homebuilders and Contractors .Assoc. of Palm Beach County vs. Board of County Commissioners, 446 So.2d 140 (Fla.App. 1983)
FayettevilleVMPACT FEE STUDY—POUCY DIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 6
fees be segregated for actual use for the purpose for which they are collected. Virtually all require that
the fees be refundable if not actually used for that purpose.
As the local case citations in the preceding section and the discussion below suggest, the evolution of
exactions law in Arkansas has paralleled these developments, referring to some of the leading cases from
other jurisdictions in establishing principles similar to those set out in the Florida cases.
State
Table 1
FACILITIES ELIGIBLE FOR IMPACT FEES
Storm
Roads Water Sewer Water
Parks
Fire
Police
Solid
Library Waste
School
Arizona (cities) • •
Arizona (counties) • •
California •
Georgia •
Hawaii • • • •
Idaho • •••
Illinois •
Indiana • N •
Maine • • L • •
Nevada •
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
Oregon •
Pennsylvania •
Rhode Island •
South Carolina • •
Texas • •
Utah •• •
Vermont • • • 1 • • • • • •
Virginia I .
Washington • • • I •
1
West Virginia • • • • •
Wisconsin (cities) • • • • • • • 1•
Wisconsin (counties) • • • • • • • •
•
• • • •
• • • •
• • • • • • .
• • •
• • • •
•
•
•
-1-M-11•••••
SourceAriz Rev Stat Ann § 9-463.05 (cities), 9-11-1101 et seq. (counties); Cal. Gov't Code, § 66000 et seq.; Colo. Rev. Stat.,
§ 29-1-801 et seq.*: Ga. Code Ann.. § 36-71-1 et seq.; Haw. Rev. Stat., § 46-141 et seq.; Idaho Code, S 67-8201 et seq.; 605 III.
Comp. Stat. Ann., § 5-901 et seq.; Ind. Code Ann., 5 36-7-4-1300 et seq.; Me. Rev. State. Ann,, Title 30-A, § 4354* Nev Rev Stat
§ 2788; N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann., 5 674:21; NJ. Perm. Stat., § 27:1C-1 et seq.; 5 40:551142; New Mexico Stat. Ann., § 5-8-1 et seq.;
Or. Rev. State, § 223.297 et seq.: Pa. Stat. Ann., Title 53, § 10501-A et seq.; General Laws of Rhode Island, §45-22.4; Code of
Laws of S.C.. § 6-1-910 et seq.; Tex. Local Gov't Code Ann.. Title 12. § 395.001 et seq.: Utah Code. 5 11-36-101 et. seq.; Vt. Stat.
Ann.. Title 24, § 5200 et seq.; Va. Code Ann., S 15.1498.1 et seq.; Wash. Rev. Code Ann., § 82.02.050 et seq.; W. Va. Code, §
7-20-1 et seq.; Wis. Stets., 5 66.55
FayettevilleWPA CT FEE STUDY—POUCY DIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM April 3,2001, Page 7
Rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court
The most important recent legal development regarding development fees is the 1994 decision of the
U.S. Supreme Court in Dolan v. Obi of Tigard In that case, the Court held that Tigard, Oregon's,
requirement that Florence Dolan dedicate land to the city for use as a floodway, a greenway and a bike
path amounted to an unconstitutional taking of her land. The case arose when Dolan applied for a
building permit to expand an existing hardware and plutnbing supply store from 9,000 square feet to
17,000 square feet and to pave a 39 -car parking lot. The project conformed with existing zoning, but
the city imposed the exactions as conditions on the issuance of a building permit.
This was the first exactions case to be decided by the Court since its 1987 ruling in No//an v. California
Coastal Commission. The Nollans wanted to demolish an existing single-family dwelling and replace it
with another, larger, single-family dwelling on valuable beachfront property. Their proposal conformed
with local zoning and subdivision regulations, but it also required approval under the state's coastal zone
regulatory program. The Coastal Commission was willing to approve the building permit, but it
conditioned issuance of the permit on the dedication of a trail across the Nollans' beach, connecting
into a larger trail system. In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court created the "rational nexus" test,
suggesting that there was in fact no "rational nexus," or reasonable connection between the proposal
to replace one house with another and the need for additional trails in the area.
In Dolan, the Supreme Court expanded upon the rational nexus test, adding to it a requirement that
there be a "rough proportionality" between the impact of a proposed development and the burden of
the exaction imposed on it. In Dolan, there clearly was a rational nexus the expansion of a commercial
enterprise is bound to lead to some increase in runoff and some increase in traffic, probably even in
bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Thus, the City of Tigard satisfied the basic requirement of the Nollan test.
The Supreme Court sought more.
The City of Tigard's goal in seeking trail dedication was to develop a trail network as part of its
transportation system. That is a perfectly reasonable public goal. The problem was not with the goal.
The problem was with its implementation. The City did not seek an impact fee. It wanted land. The
amount of land it wanted had nothing to do with the probable trail usage of customers of the hardware
store. It was not even based on the probable traffic generation of customers of the hardware store.
That might have provided a reasonable basis for dedication, if the City had argued that it had a public
policy of encouraging at least XX percent of all trips to be by bicycle or foot and that some bicycle and
foot traffic would thus be imputed to every traffic generator. That is not what the City did,
however at least not initially. What it did was to map its trails. The Dolans' hardware store lay along
a mapped trail. The City needed the land to link up the trail. The amount of land and the route of the
land that the city sought in the dedication was based on the trail routing and design, not on traffic
impact.
Tigard's city staff ultimately computed some traffic generation figures for the hardware store and even
argued that some trips might be by bicycle. The argument failed, as it should have. All of that figuring
was spurious. There is every indication that the city would have sought precisely the same exaction for
the trail if the hardware store expansion had been 1/10 the proposed size or twice the proposed size.
The City wanted that land, because it provided a key link in the trail regardless of the extent of the
impact of the proposed development.
Fayetteville\IMPACT FEE STUDY—POLICY DIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM Apnl 3,2001, Page 8
The Supreme Court has not invalidated all forms of exactions. In Dolan, it simply clarified its earlier
holding in No//an, adding to it a requirement that exactions should bear a "rough proportionality"
between the exaction and the impact of the proposed development. The Court suggested that the
calculation of proportionality should be based on an "individualized determination." That is exactly
what an impact fee system does An impact fee system takes the individualized facts of a proposed
development and computes the estimated traffic impact of that development (an individualized
determination) and then bases the fee on that computation (giving us something that we hope is actually
better than a "rough" proportionality). Although critics of the Dolan decision have argued that it can
be interpreted as requiring a complete impact study of every development, there is nothing in the
Court's language to indicate that. In fact, given the anti -regulatory bias of some members of the Court,
it seems likely that they would find the simplicity of an impact fee system far preferable to a regulation
that required complex impact assessments of every project.
Arkansas Statutes
Cities in Arkansas have relatively broad general authority to manage their own affairs. By statute, cities
in Arkansas with a population greater than 2,500 people (defined as "cities of the first class" under Ark.
Code Ann. §14-37-104) have been given authority "to perform any function and exercise full legislative
power in any and all matters of whatsoever nature pertaining to its municipal affairs including, but not
limited to, the power to tax."' The preceding section defines "municipal affairs" essentially by
exclusion, saying that such affairs include "all matters and affairs of government germane to, affecting
or concerning the municipality or its government" except for a list of 15 excluded items. That list
ranges from those to be expected—governmental tort immunity, public meetings, and regulation of
alcohol and gambling to some surprising ones like hours and vacation policies for governmental
employees but none of the items on the list relate to the subject of development exactions or fees.
Thus, by omission from this broad enactment, municipalities in Arkansas appear to retain broad
authority to deal with the issues of financing the costs of growth.
In addition, the state has given municipal governments express authority regarding the construction,
opening and laying out of streets and public grounds (Ark. Code Ann. 514-54-601); drainage of property
(Ark. Code Ann. 514-54-601); to construct and acquire waterworks and "prevent the pollution of
water," which presumably authorizes the operation of sewage collection and treatment systems (Ark.
Code Ann. §14-54-702). The statute providing authority to local governments to act broadly in dealing
with municipal affairs has apparently been subsequently clarified with language making it clear that
"emergency medical services, ambulances and emergency medical technicians" fall within the scope of
municipal affairs.
Most directly relevant to this memo is the more specific authority given to municipalities to "control
the development of land." (Ark. Code Ann 514-56-417). It is important to note that, like many early
subdivision acts, the Arkansas law makes the adoption of a "master street plan" a condition precedent
to the regulation of the development of land." Relevant statutory provisions governing the master
street plan say:
I° Ark. Code Ann. 514-43-602.
I I Ark. Code Ann. §14-56-417(a)(1)
FayettevilleVMPACT FEE STUDY—POUCY DIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM April 3,2001, Page 9
(1) Master Street Plan. The commission may prepare and adopt a master street plan
which shall designate the general location, characteristics, and functions of streets and
highways.
(2) (A) The plan shall include the general locations of sqeets and highways to
be reserved for future public acquisition.
(B) The plan may provide for the removal, relocation, widening, narrowing,
vacating, abandonment, and change of use or extension of any public ways.'
The authority to regulate development under Ark. Code Ann. 514-56-417 includes the following:
(b) (1) The regulations controlling the development of land may establish ot
provide for the minimum requirements as to:
(B) The design and layout of the subdivision, including standards
for lots and blocks, street rights-of-way, street and utility grades, and
other similar items; and
(C) The standards for improvements to be installed by the
developer at his own expense such as street grading and paving; curbs,
gutters, and sidewalks; water, storm and, sewer mains; street lighting;
and other amenities.
(2) (A) ....
(B) They may provide for the dedication of all rights-of-way to the
public.
(5) (A) The regulations shall require the developer to conform to the
plan currently in effect.
(B) (i) The re dons may require the reservation, for future
public acquisition of land for community or public facilities
indicated in the plan.
This reservation may extend over a period of not more
than one (1) year from the time the public body responsible for
the acquisition of reserved land is notified of the developer's
intent.
12
Ark. Code Ann. §14-56-414(d)(1)
Fayetteville\IMPACTFEE STUDY-POUCY DIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 10
•
(6) When a proposed subdivision does not provide areas for a community
or public facility based on the plans in effect, the regulations may provide for
reasonable dedication of land for such public or community facilities, or for a
reasonable equivalent contribution in lieu of dedication of land, such
contribution to be used for the acquisition of facilities that serve the
subdivision.
Note that in striking down the park fee requirement in Fayetteville in Ciy of Fgetteville v. I.B.I., Inc., the
Arkansas Supreme Court relied on the language in (b)(5)(A), above, combined with that in (b)(6). See
discussion above and analysis below.
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
Cities of the first class in Arkansas have relatively broad extraterritorial jurisdiction, as set out in Ark.
Code Ann §14-56-413. The language reads specifically:
(a) (1) (A) The territorial jurisdiction of the legislative body of the city having a
planning commission, for the purpose of this subchapter, shall be exclusive and shall
include all land lying within five (5) miles of the corporate limits.
The "subchapter" to which this sentence refers is headed "municipal planning" and includes the statute
discussed above dealing with the regulation of the "development" of land (see Ark. Code Ann.
§14-56-417). There are some limitations on the five -mile limit where the extraterritorial jurisdicdon of
another city would encroach on that area." Fayetteville appears to be subject to a separate limitation,
restricting the extraterritorial jtuisdiction of cities with populations from 50,000 to 150,000 as of 1989
to 2 -mile extraterritorial jurisdiction." There is a savings clause allowing the city to continue to exercise
jurisdiction over any area over which it had exercised jurisdiction prior to a date that appears to be July
3,1989."
The planning commission must designate the area subject to such jurisdiction." A separate section of
the subchapter indicates that the designation of the territorial jurisdiction should occur in the context
of a "planning area map," which should also show "the general location of streets, public ways, and
public property.'
The Arkansas Supreme Court has addressed tangentially the issue of exactions imposed by a
municipality outside the city limits in one case. In Cibl of Marion v. Baioni, discussed below, the city had
adopted impact fees that applied to sewer and water connections within the city but had not applied
13
Ark. Code Ann. §14-56-413(a)(1)(B)
14
Ark. Code Ann. §14-56-413(a)(2)(A)(ii)
15
Ark. Code Ann §14-56-413(a)(2)(C)
16 Ark. Code Ann. §14-56-413((b)(1)
17
Ark. Code Ann. §14-56-412.
FayettevilieVMPACT FEE STUDY—POLICY DIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM April 3,2001, Page 11
those fees to five contract users outside the city; based on the city's finding that the city incurred no
operating or maintenance costs for such users, the court found no constitutional objection to the city's
disparate treatment of these two groups.
Arkansas Case Law
The Arkansas Supreme Court first upheld an impact -like fee in 1910 in Branch v. Gerlach." The authority
of the city of Argenta to impose the fee was not setiously at issue in the case. A property owner
proposed to make one connection to the system -and offered to pay the fee for one connection -but then
intended to connect several houses on different lots to the system through that one connection. The
city required that there be one connection, accompanied by the required fee, for each lot to which there
was a connection. The court held:
The only question raised, therefore, is whether or not the city had the right to require
a separate connection for each lot. We hold that it did have such power. It is a
reasonable exercise of the police power. Sound reason may be discovered why the
houses on different lots should have separate connection with the sewer, so that the
supervision may be more effective, and so that the stoppage of one connection will not
affect other premises. (p. 451)
This is very much like the "rational nexus" requirement established by the Supreme Court in Nollan and
was sufficient to sustain the one lot/one connection/one fee formula used by the city in this early case.
Another early case, Hinton v. Bowman (1911),19 involved a connection charge for tying into a privately
constructed sewer line -but it dealt directly with the reasonableness of the fee in language that is relevant
today. The facts were somewhat similar to Branch v. Gerlach, discussed immediately above, in that a
property owner held 12 lots and had extended a sewer line behind all of them but now proposed to
connect only one residence located on three lots. The court provided this basic fiscal analysis and
contrasted the positions of the parties:
It appears that about one hundred lots can be served by this sewer, and that its
construction cost about $1,600. It is therefore insisted by defendant that $16 for each
lot, making $192 for the twelve lots, is a reasonable charge for such connection. The
plaintiff, however, contends that he only wishes to make one connection, and that his
residence is only situated upon three lots; and he therefore insists that $48 would be a
reasonable charge for such connection. (pp. 174-75)
After a good deal of discussion of related issues and of the extent to which it had the authority to deal
with the reasonableness of fees, the court held:
It appears from the testimony that in the city of Little Rock the average cost for similar
sewer connections is from $ 50 to $ 60. The testimony further shows that the plaintiff,
believing the city had a right to give to him the connection he desired for the three lots,
18 Branch v. Got& 94 Ark. 378, 127 S.W. 451 (1910)
18 Hinton v. Bowman, 101 Ark. 306, 142 S.W. 174(1911)
FayettevilleVMPACTFEE STUDY—POUCY DIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 12
agreed to pay $ 75 therefor, which was the price fixed by the city as a compensation for
such connection. In his answer, which is duly sworn to, defendant stated that he was
willing before this suit was instituted to permit this connection to be made for these
three lots for the sum of $ 60, and he also stated therein that this was a reasonable
charge therefor. Upon a consideration of all the testimony and the circumstances of this
case, we think that $ 60 should be allowed for making this connection with the
residence and the three lots. But this will not give a license to plaintiff or any grantee
from him to make connection for any of the other lots, either directly with the main
sewer, or indirectly by means of the lateral sewer Any connection made by any of the
other lots with the lateral sewer is in effect a connection with the main sewer, and
whenever that is done defendant will be endtled to a reasonable compensation
therefore. (p. 175)
In reaching that conclusion, the court relied in part on its earlier 1910 decision in Pulaski Heights Sewerage
Co. v. Longborougb, where a property owner had physically connected to a sewer operated by a private
company, under the authority of the city government, and refused to pay the required fee. The
corporation claimed the right to set the fee without interference. The court held that, because the
corporation provided a public service under authority of the city, it could review the reasonableness of
the fees. After some analysis of rate -setting principles applied in other cases, the court held:
The evidence in this case fails to furnish a satisfactory standard to determine what
compensation for connection of plaintiffs residence with the sewer of Pulaski Heights
Sewerage Company would be reasonable and just to all parties. The nearest approach
is the average costs of connections with sewers in Little Rock. The sewer in question is
in the vicinity of that city. In Little Rock the average cost is about fifty or sixty dollars
for a connection, mostly $50. One charge was as high as $83. As the cost of the sewer
in question was expensive, more so than the average in Little Rock, we think that $60
should be allowed for a connection with it in this case, the highest average in Little
Rock; and it is so ordered. (p. 537)
A somewhat difficult case in Arkansas exactions law is one involving Fayetteville. COI ofFayetteville v.
I.B.I., Inc. struck down as unconstitutional a fee -in -lieu of dedication required by the city as a condition
of subdivision approval . The court provided this description of the fee requirement, which was
adopted in accordance with Fayetteville's comprehensive plan, as applied to I.B.I.:
With respect to public parks, the planning commission projected the maximum possible
residential population for each neighborhood by 1990. It then determined the number
of acres of public parks that would be needed in each neighborhood if and when that
maximum was reached. By subtracting the existing park acreage from the projected
need, the planning cotranission determined the park acreage that would be needed in
each neighborhood if it reached its maximum residential population.
IBI's specific neighborhood comprises more than a thousand acres, the exact figure not
being shown. Twenty-eight acres of parks will be needed if that neighborhood reaches
its projected maximum population. There being now only twelve acres of parks in the
neighborhood, there may be a deficit of sixteen acres. To provide for the acquisition of
the needed acreage, every developer of a new residential subdivision must dedicate a
specified fraction of an acre for each residential unit or make a cash contribution in a
FayettevilleVmPAcr FEE STUDY -POLICY DIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM Apnl 3,2001, Page 13
specified amount in lieu of the dedicated land. No dedication of land will be accepted
unless the planning commission finds it to be suitable for park purposes and consistent
with the city's general plan. (p. 506)
The court held that the program was too vague to be enforceable:
The two planning commission witnesses made no pretense of saying that any definite
plan for the specific location of future parks now exists 1131 could not have offered any
land, presumably anywhere, in the required fractional acreage that would have been
accepted by the city. No land has been accepted from any developer; only contributions
of money are acceptable. No location for any future park has been determined. Such
locations will be decided on a case-by-case basis, as the particular area develops in the
future. This is said to be good planning, which no doubt it is. The money contributed
will be placed in an interest-bearing account, but there is no way of saying just when it
will be spent, or even for what, since it may be used not only for the acquisition of land
but also for equipping existing or future parks.
As we read the statute, it contemplates something more specific than the Fayetteville
plan in its present stage. The statute requires the developer "to conform to the plan or
plans currently in effect." § 19-2829, supra. In effect there is no plan in effect in
Fayetteville, unless a map and a statement of projected deficiencies in park acreage can
be regarded as a plan currently in effect. (p. 507)
One of the clear concerns of the court was with the lack of any time limit on when the funds could be
spent:
There is apparently no way of determining when, if ever, the contributed money will be
spent, or where, other than in the district, or for what, except as the planning
commission may eventually decide. Yet IBI must make its contributions now, with no
way of assuring its purchasers of residential lots that the increased price they must pay
will result in their access to a public park within ten years or even within fifty years.
The statute confirms the view that something reasonably definite is essential to a plan
requiring the dedication of land or the contribution of money. (p. 507)
In language immediately following that quoted, the court refers to the one-year time limit established
on the acquisition of lands "reserved" for future acquisition under the same statute, perhaps hinting that
one year might be the relevant measure -but it does not say that. The opinion concludes with this
statement:
We are unwilling to say that the legislature intended for the cash contributions to be
made in return for a vague assurance that the money would be spent at some time in the
future, somewhere in the neighborhood, for some public park purpose, with no
provision for a refund to the contributor even if the residential area should never be
developed as expected. (p. 508)
FayeftevilleVMPACT FEE STUDY—POLICY DIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 14
What appears to be the leading case on the subject of exactions and fees in Arkansas is CO/ of Mation
v. Baioni (1993). The first paragraph of the court's opinion reflects the parallels between the evolution
of this fee and the history of exactions provided above:
This case involves certain sewer and water "tap and access fees" the City of Marion has
charged appellees, as developers of residential land in and around the city. Marion has
experienced a considerable growth in population since 1975, and this influx of new
people has resulted in the city exceeding the design capacity of both its water and sewer
systems. Between July of 1988 and August of 1990, the city enacted a series of
ordinances that placed "tapping fees" on builders or lot owners connecting on to the
city's existing water and sewer systems and required "access fees" from any person or
entity connecting to the city's transmission lines. These fees only apply to new
development. The ordinances, as amended, provide that the funds collected from these
respective fees must be placed in separate accounts designed as the "water expansion
account" and "sewer expansion account," and used solely to expand the city's water and
sewer systems. (pp. 1-2)
Local builders challenged the constitutionality and validity of the system under Arkansas law. As the
case evolved, it focused on one what is probably the most critical question regarding the validity of such
a fee under state law -that question is, "Is this a fee, which the governing body may simply adopt by
ordinance, or is it a tax, subject to procedural and substantive limits imposed on taxation under the state
constitution and state law?" A chancellor found that the fee system amounted to a tax that had not
been approved by a vote of the people, as required under Ark. Code Ann. §26-73-103. The appellate
court ultimately ruled for the city. In doing so, it began with this generalized statement of the rule for
distinguishing taxes from fees:
The distinction between a tax and a fee is that government imposes a tax for general
revenue purposes, but a fee is imposed in the government's exercise of its police
powers. (p. 2)20
The court continued with this analysis.
In this case, the chancellor reviewed considerable legal authority leading him to the
general conclusion that a governmental levy or fee, in order not to be denominated a
tax, must be fair and reasonable and bear a reasonable relationship to the benefits
conferred on those receiving the services. We agree with the chancellor's conclusion,
which seems to be the prevailing rule in other jurisdictions. However, the rule's
application is not always an easy one for the courts. (p. 2, citing several impact fee and
related cases from other states)
The court provided this more specific analysis:
Under the City of Marion ordinances, sewer and water fees total $950.00 for each single
family unit. While $150.00 of this amount is required to tap -in to the sewer system, the
actual cost of tapping -in is about fifteen or twenty dollars. The chancellor held, and
20
Citing COI of.North Link Rork v. Graham, 278 Ark. 547, 647 S.W.2d 452 (1983)
FayettevilleWPA CT FEE STUDY—POLICY DIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM Apnl 3,2001, Page 15
•
appellees argue on appeal, that because the fees imposed by the city exceed the services
provided, the fees are in actuality taxes. Such a conclusion ignores the fact that the
tapping and access fees established by Marion are for the raising of funds to pay for the
extension of existing water and sewer systems to developments where new users reside.
Raising such expansion capital by setting connection charges, which do not exceed a pro
rata share of reasonably anticipated costs of expansion, is permissible where expansion
is reasonably required, if the use of the money is limited to meeting the cost of that
extension. [emphasis in the original] (p. 3)21
The court went on to uphold the validity of the fee ordinances, applying what amounts to a "rough
proportionality" analysis under Dolan, although the case mentions neither Nollan nor Dolan:
Here, the city's expert witness, John Sheahen, testified that he determined an
appropriate level of fees to developers that justified the projected costs of water and
sewer facilities needed to serve future customers. He said that the projected costs for
extending the water system would require $805.00 per single family unit and sewer costs
would require $808.00 per unit. Obviously, the city's combined water and sewer
connection fees, $950.00, imposed on builders and developers for new users is
considerably less than the costs projected by Sheahen—$1,613.00 per single family unit.
Such evidence certainly supports the chancellor's finding that the city's fees are
reasonably related to the benefits conferred on the appellees, and in our de novo review
of the record, we also conclude the fee amounts established by the city are more than
reasonable.
Of major importance, we point out that the city ordinances require the tapping and
access fees to be segregated and placed into accounts to be used solely and exclusively
to expand the capacity of the city's water and sewer systems. In other words, these
funds will be used directly to benefit the new users and for no other purposes. Graham,
278 Ark. 547, 647 S.W.2d 452; Contractors & Builders Ass'n, 329 So.2d 314; Amherst
Builders Assn, 61 Ohio 345, 402 N.E.2d 1181. This fund restriction distinguishes this
case from those situations where municipalities have imposed fees to underwrite the
costs of a special service to a new development but instead the monies benefited the
general public. (p. 3)
Because the Arkansas court cited it several times in upholding the Marion fees, it is worth a brief
discussion of the 1980 Ohio case, Amherst Builders' Association v. Ciy of Amherst. In that case, the court
considered a challenge to a sewer tap -in fee of about $400 per single-family dwelling unit, where the
evidence showed that the cost of inspection was approximately $140 In discussing the fee, the court
cited the appellate court's decision in (upholding total water and sewer connection charges of $450 as
"fair and reasonable")with approval and also referred to one of its own earlier decisions:
In State, ex rel. Stoeckle, v. Jones (1954), 161 Ohio St. 391, we endorsed this concept of cost
equalization in an analogous situation. There the municipality had partially funded the
21 citing Contractors & Builders Assoc of Pinellas Counry vs. up, ofDunedin, 326 So.2d 314 (Fla 1976), and Amherst Builders
.Assn, 61 Ohio St. 345, 402 N.E.2d 1181 (1980).
u Englewood Hills, Inc., v. Village of Engkwood, 14 Ohio App 2d 195, at 198, 237 N E 2d 621, at 624 (1967)
FayettevilleVmPA CT FEE STUDY -POLICY DIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM April 3,2001, Page 16
construction of a sewage system by levying special assessments. However, the
assessments on unimproved property were only a fraction of those on improved
property. In order to rectify this inequity, the village adopted an ordinance which
established a $300 tap -in charge on subsequently improved property. (p. 1184)
After examining the care with which the fee was developed, relying both on EPA estimates of relative
burden placed on the plant and the "investment value" of the plant, and after noting that the actual fee
was significantly lower than the precise calculations might have justified, the court upheld the fee as a
valid exercise of the police power.
In 1995, the Arkansas Supreme Court revisited the tax versus fee issue in Barnhart v. City ofFayettevilly23
where it held that a $2.02 monthly "fee" imposed by the city for the purpose of paying off bonded
indebtedness related to the construction of a waste incineration plant by a special authority, was an
unauthorized tax:
Under the terms of the Ordinance, each residence in Fayetteville is assessed the monthly
surcharge until the year 2003, and, in addition, each residence is assessed a fee for the
sanitation services that are actually provided. Fayetteville was neither acquiring, owning,
maintaining, nor operating the plant. It was acquired, owned, to be maintained, and to
be operated by the Authority. The surcharge is not related to providing sanitation
services in Fayetteville, but instead is a fee imposed to pay the debt for the Authority's
acquisition of the plant. Since the surcharge is not related to services provided by
Fayetteville, it is not a "fee," but rather is a "tax." (p. 542)
The court went on, however, to reiterate the core of its policy holding in Baioni:
A governmental levy of a fee, in order not to be denominated a tax by the courts, must
be fair and reasonable and bear a reasonable relationship to the benefits conferred on
those receiving the services. (pp. 542-43, quoting City ofMarion v. Baion)
Similarly, in another case, the court held that a $3 monthly fee added to the water and sewer bill and
denominated a "public safety fee" was actually a tax where it was used to pay for salary increases for
police officers and firefighters.24
A 1992 Arkansas appellate cases raises questions about the stage at which dedication requirements and
related fees can be imposed. In Jonesbom v. Vuncannon,25 Vuncannon was proposing a shopping center
on land that had previously been subdivided. Under the Jonesboro ordinance, Vuncannon was required
to resubdivide the land and the city required that Vuncannon dedicate additional right-of-way along the
road on which the project faced. The court struggled with the issue of whether the statute is broad
enough in scope to allow application to this situation:
25 Bamhart v. City ofFayeneville, 321 Ark. 197, 900 S.W.2d 539 (1995)
24 City ofNorth Little Rock v. Graham, 278 Ark. 547, 647 S.W.2d 452 (1983)
25 Jonesboro v. Vuncannon, 310 Ark. 366, 837 S.W.2d 286,(Ark. 1992)
Fayetteville\/MPACT FEE STUDY—POL/CYD/RECT/ONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 17
Section 14-56-417 thus gives a planning commission authority to promulgate a
regulation "controlling development of land" which requires dedication of rights -of -way
to the public. If a replatting of land to combine lots as the Vuncannons wished to do
constitutes "development of land" under a valid regulation, then the Statute could
provide authority for requiring reasonable rights -of -way dedication. Obviously the
"development of land" contemplated in the subsection @)(2)(A) through (D) has to do
with land which is not yet developed. That was the situation in Newton Circuit Clerk v.
American Security Co., 201 Ark. 943,148 S.W.2d 311 (1941), which is cited by the City.
No one questions the power of the City to require dedication of rights -of -way in land
which is the subject of an initial subdivision plat. References in the record make it
unmistakable that the Vuncannons' property is part of land which has already been
platted as Turtle Creek Ranch Addition.
We do not know if the Jonesboro Planning Commission has a regulation governing the
replatting of land. We have no idea whether a replatting of land which has already been
the subject of a platted addition constitutes "development of land" under an applicable
regulation. The point is that the Statute gives authority to promulgate a regulation. It
does not directly authorize taking land without compensation, nor does it authorize the
trading of a waiver of a zoning fire safety requirement for a right of way dedication.
The court affirmed an award of damages in inverse condemnation in the amount of $5,282.90 for a
9 -foot strip of land given to the city.
It is important to examine one 8th Circuit decision applying Nollan and Dolan to a regulatory exaction
in Arkansas. The material facts of Goss v. City ofLittle Rocks are summarized by the 8th Circuit the first
time the case reached it:
In September 1971, Charles Goss purchased 3.7 acres located next to a two-lane state
highway in a rural, unincorporated area outside Little Rock. Goss has operated a
convenience store, gas station, laundromat, and car wash on the premises ever since. In
1985, Little Rock annexed a portion of its surrounding area that included the Goss
property. In accordance with the city code, the annexed area was classified by default
as an "R-2" district for single-family residences. Under the city ordinances, Goss'
business activity would be limited to "C-3" general commercial district zones;
nevertheless, Goss was permitted to continue his operations pursuant to a
nonconforming use exception.
Although Goss continues to utilize his property in the same commercial capacity in
which it has been used for the past twenty years, he asserts that sale of his commercial
enterprise and property is contingent on rezoning. Qt. App. 31). In April 1993, Goss
petitioned Little Rock to have his property rezoned as a "C-3" zone. In May, Little
Rock's Staff and Planning Commission agreed to recommend to the Little Rock Board
of Directors that the area be rezoned, but only on the condition that Goss dedicate a
portion of his property to Little Rock for future expansion of the adjacent highway. The
demanded dedication ran the entire length of Goss' property (633.68 feet) and 55 feet
26 Gorr v. City ofLLn4 Rock, 90 F.3d 306 (8th Circ. 1996); appeal after remand, 151 F.3d 861 (8th Circ. 1998), reh. den.
1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 25465; cert. den. 526 U.S. 1050,143 L. Ed. 2d 517,119 S. Ct. 1355 (1999)
Fayetteville\IMPACT FEE STUDY —POLICY DIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 18
0
into the lot. The total acreage of the demanded dedication approximates eight -tenths
of an acre, or twenty-two percent of the total property. Goss objected to the condition.
(p. 307)
The planning commission and city board of directors approved the subdivision subject to the condition
recommended by the staff. Goss filed a federal suit claiming an unconstitutional taking, among other
things. The district court dismissed Goss's action and Goss appealed. The 8th Circuit reversed the
dismissal and remanded to the district court for consideration of the case on its merits. The appellate
court relied extensively on Nollan and Dolan in concluding that "the allegation of facts might entitle
relief in this case."
On remand, the district court held that the exaction in this case met the nexus test of Nollan but failed
to meet the Dolan test:
The District Court's conclusion is correct: the dedication could alleviate the problems
associated with increased traffic if it were used, as planned, to expand the highway
adjacent to Goss's land. Applying Dolan, the District Court held that Little Rock had not
met its burden of proving that the dedication was roughly proportionate to the impact
that the proposed rezoning would have on traffic. The court found that Little Rock's
assessment of the impact of rezoning was too speculative because that assessment was
based on traffic that could, as said by the city's witness, "conceivably" be generated at
some unknown point in the future if a strip mall were erected on Goss's land, although
there are no plans to build a strip mall on the property and there is no reason to expect
one to be built. (p. 863)
Although agreeing with the district court's analysis, the appellate court rejected the lower court's
proposed remedy:
Next we consider the question of remedy. The District Court ordered that, because the
dedication requirement was a taking, Little Rock must rezone Goss's property without
the requirement. We reverse this order. As discussed above, Little Rock has a legitimate
interest in declining to rezone Goss's property, and the city may pursue that interest by
denying Goss's rezoning application outright, as opposed to denying it because of
Goss's refusal to agree to an unconstitutional condition, as the city did here. (pp. 863-4)
The appellate court agreed with the district court that Goss was not entitled to damages; he based his
damage claim on the failure of a contract of purchase that was contingent on the rezoning, but the
"contract" was an oral one with his son and a partner and was not legally binding under the Arkansas
Statute of Frauds.
Conclusions
Impact fees are the form of exaction that best meets the constitutional tests for exactions established
by the U.S. Supreme Court and, on separate principles, by the Arkansas courts. Some of the principles
that must be incorporated in such a system are as follows.
Fayetteville\IMPACTFEE STUDY-POL/CYD/RECTIONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 19
❑ There must be a clear relationship, or nexus, between the impacts of the proposed development
and the burdens placed on it (Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, Goss v. City of Little Rock, City of
Marion v. Baioni, City of Fayetteville v. I.B.I., Inc.).
❑ The burden imposed on the developer must be "roughly proportional" to the impacts of the
proposed development (Supreme Court rule) or, under different language of similar effect in Arkansas,
"fair and reasonable" (City of Marion v. Baioni; similar principles applied in Hinton v.Bowman, Branch v.
Gerlach and Pulaski Heights Sewerage Co. v. Longborough, where the court used the similar phrase
"reasonable and just to all parties").
❑ The exaction must be based on a plan (Ark. Code Ann. §14-56-417(5), construed in City of
Fayetteville v. LB.L., Inc.).
❑ There must be considerable certainty in the plan regarding not only the benefit to the developer
from the proposed facility but also an assurance that the funds paid will be refunded if not used for the
designated purpose within a reasonable time (Dolan v. City ojTigard, City ofFayetteville v. LB.L, Inc.; national
case -law regarding impact fees, discussed in first part of this memo).
❑ There appears to be no difference in authority to impose such fees for different types of
facilities, except that there is a 91 -year history of judicial support for sewer and water connection fees
that simply does not exist for fees charged for other facilities (City ofMarion v. Baioni; similar principles
applied in Hinton v.Bowman, Branch v. Gerlach and Pulaski Heights Sewerage Co. v. L.ongbomugh).
❑ Impact fees or other exactions for parks, roads and stormwater drainage facilities should be
rooted in Ark. Code Ann. §14-56-417, which allows a city to require land dedication, or on Ark. Code
Ann. §14-56-414(6), which allows a city to impose fees in lieu of dedication "When a proposed
subdivision does not provide areas for a community or public facility based on the plans in effect..."
❑ Exactions for other facilities, such as libraries and public safety facilities, may be harder to
defend than for parks, stormwater drainage or roads in light of the language in Ark. Code Ann.
§14-56-417(6) requiring that contributions in lieu be "used for the acquisition of facilities that serve the
subdivision," since it is easier to relate specific improvements for these types of facilities to specific
developments.
❑ The root of the statutory authority to impose such fees is in the authority of the city to regulate
development, authority which extends beyond the city's boundaries. Thus, there appears to be adequate
authority to impose impact fees on new development in any area which the city has designated as
subject to its development regulation through its inclusion in an "area planning map..""
❑ Although "development" is defined in the statutes by reference to a non-exclusive list of
activities, only one of which is platting of land, impact fees should probably be assessed at platting, even
if actual collection of fees is deferred until time of building permit.
27 Ark. Code Ann. §§14-56-412, 14-56-413
Fayetteville\/MPACT FEE STUDY-POL/CYD/RECT/ONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 20
BACKGROUND
The major impetus for this project is the need for a major wastewater treatment plant expansion. With
an estimated total project cost of $100 million, the wastewater improvements could well be the most
costly and extensive capital project ever undertaken by the City.
The City finances most capital improvements on a pay-as-you-go basis. This is done utilizing revenues
from the one -percent City sales tax adopted in 1993 (of which, by City Council resolution, at least 75
percent is used to fund capital projects), the one -percent Hotel, Motel, Restaurant sales tax adopted in
1996 to fund park improvements, and operating revenues from the City's enterprise funds, including
water, wastewater and solid waste.
Long-term debt is used sparingly by the City. In 1989, a bond issue passed overwhelmingly, but
included money to build a high school for the school district. The developers sued and won in the
Arkansas Supreme Court. Since then, the City's Capital Improvements Program has been funded
primarily with a one -cent sales tax, which was passed in 1993. Recently, however, voters approved a
$6.95 million bond issue for the Town Center convention center, with debt service to be paid with the
Advertising and Promotion Hotel, Motel and Restaurant Tax.
The current five-year capital improvements program (CIP) is somewhat unusual because of the inclusion
of $106 million in bond funding, most of it for the new wastewater treatment plant. Excluding that
water and sewer bond funding, the CIP includes almost $86 million in capital funding for the five-year
period. Over half of the pay-as-you-go funding is from the one -percent sales tax, as shown in Table 2.
Table 2
CAPITAL FUNDING BY SOURCE, 2000-2004
Sales Tax
$45,758,000
53.3%
Water & Sewer Fund
$14,472,000
16.8%
Shop Fund
$8,690,000
10.1%
Off -Street Parking Fund
$6,564,000
7.6%
Airport Fund
$3,486,000
4.1%
Parks Development Fund
$3,457,000
4.0%
Community Dev't Block Grant Fund
$2,015,000
2.3%
Solid Waste Fund
$756,000
0.9%
General Fund
$700,000
0.8%
Source: City of Fayetteville. Five Year Capital Improvements Program,
2000-2004, November 1999 (excludes bond funding).
The City's largest capital expenditures are in the areas of water and wastewater, streets and drainage, as
shown in Table 3.
Fayetteville\IMPA CT FEE STUD Y—POLICYD/REC TIONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 21
Table 3
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, 2000-2004
Water & Wastewater
$25,646,000
29.9%
Street
$20,090,000
23.4%
Bridge, Drainage & Transportation
$10,256,000
11.9%
Shop
$8,690,000
10.1%
Parks and Recreation
$6,850,000
8.0%
Other
$5,349,000
6.2%
Public Safety
$3,516,000
4.1%
Airport
$3,486,000
4.1%
Source: City of Fayetteville, Fire Year Capital Improvements Program,
2000-2004, November 1999 (excludes bond -funded wastewater treatment
plant project).
The City's sales tax capital funding is spent on a wide variety of improvements. Foremost among these
are streets, water and wastewater and parks, as shown in Table 4.
Table 4
SALES TAX CAPITAL FUNDING, 2000-2004
Project Type
Amount
Percent
Streets
$19,390,000
42.4%
Water & Sewer
$11,174,000
24.4%
Other
$3,741,000
8.2%
Parks
$3,393,000
7.4%
Bridge & Drainage
$3,042,000
6.6%
Fire
$2,121,000
4.6%
Police
$1,395,000
3.0%
Library
$852,000
1.9%
Transportation
$650,000
1.4%
Source: City of Fayetteville, Fire Year Capital Improvements
Program, 2000-2004, November 1999.
The City has about $30 million in outstanding debt. Two-thirds of that is in water and sewer revenue
bonds, as shown in Table 5.
Fayetteville\/MPACTFEE STUDY—POLICYDIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 22
Table 5
OUTSTANDING DEBT
Bond Issue
Original Issue
Original Amount
Outstanding*
Hotel & Restaurant, Series 1995 (Continuing Ed Center)
1979
$2,675,000
$1,335,000
Sales Tax, Series 1997
(Walton Arts Center)
1986
$2,610,000
$1,700,000
Water & Sewer, Series
1999 (Water Main/Tanks)
1992
$8,365,000
$7,815,000
Water & Sewer, Series
1994 (Water Main(Tanks)
1994
$5,500,000
$3,585,000
Hotel & Restaurant, Series 1998 (Town Center)
1998
$6,950,000
$6,765,000
Water & Sewer. Series
2000 (New Wastewater Plant)
2000
$10,000,000
$10,000,000
* as of December 31, 2000
Source: City of Fayetteville, Annual Budget and Work Program, 2001, December 2000.
Impact fees are most appropriate for communities that are experiencing rapid growth. The Fayetteville -
Springdale -Rogers Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), comprised of Washington and Benton Counties,
is the fifth fastest growing MSA in the country, based on its population growth between 1990 and
1998.' Washington County, of which Fayetteville is the county seat, has been growing at a compound
annual growth rate of 2.9 percent since 1990, and over half of the population added since then has been
in Fayetteville. The city itself has been growing at 3.6 percent annually, about four times faster that the
state as a whole. It is not surprising that this pace of growth has created problems in terms of the City's
ability to finance the capital improvements needed to accommodate new development.
Table 5
POPULATION GROWTH, 1990-1999
Fayetteville
42,249
58,163
15,914
3.62%
Springdale *
29,941
42,339
12,398
3.92%
Other Municipalities
10,503
17,411
6,908
5.78%
Unincorporated
30,716
28,680
(2,036)
-0.76%
Washington County:
113,409
146,593
33,184
2.89%
* Washington County portion only
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program, "Population Estimates for Places: Annual
Time Series. July 1, 1990 to July 1. 1999 (includes April 1, 1990 Population Estimates Base)" (SU-99-7).
Oct. 20. 2000 internet release date (1990 figure shown is for April 1).
'U.S. Census Bureau, StatirticalAbrtract of the United Stater 2000, Table No. 34, p. 33.
Fayetteville\IMPACT FEE STUDY—POL/CYD/RECTIONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 23
In recent years, the City has been issuing permits for an average of about 580 new dwelling units
annually, as shown in Table 6.
Table 6
RESIDENTIAL
BUILDING PERMITS,
1996-1999
Year
Single -Family
Multi -Family
Total
1996
445
154
599
1997
265
281
546
1998
272
40
312
1999
357
515
872
Source: City of Fayetteville, Inspection Department.
In addition to development within its incorporated limits, the City is also affected by, and has some
control over, development in unincorporated areas within its extraterritorial jurisdiction. Within this
area, which extends five miles from the corporate limits or half the distance to any adjoining
municipality, the City exercises joint subdivision authority with the County. The area covered by the
City's extraterritorial jurisdiction is larger than the area within its corporate limits. The combined
corporate and extraterritorial jurisdictions are referred to as the City's planning area, which covers
approximately 92 square miles.
Figure 2
PLANNING AREA
Fayetteville\/MPACTFEE STUDY—POL/CYD/RECT/ONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 24
r
A recent impact fee survey of over one hundred jurisdictions across the country provides a
representative sample of typical fees by type of facility and type of land use. As shown in Table 7, the
highest fees, as well as the most commonly charged, are for water and wastewater facilities. Road and
park impact fees are also fairly substantial, while fees for public safety facilities are generally modest,
reflecting the more labor-intensive nature of public safety services.
Table 7
NATIONAL AVERAGE IMPACT FEES
Single- Multi- Retail Office Industrial
Family Family (per 1,000 (per 1,000 (per 1,000
Facility (per unit) (per unit) sq. ft.) sq. ft.) sq. ft.)
Water $2,189 $1,599 $765 $961 $487
Wastewater $1,956 $1,599 $815 $809 $522
Road $1,535 $1,065 $3,116 $1,792 $881
Park $1,218 $1,018 $0 $0 $0
Public Safety $493 $493 $190 $155 $68
School $2,750 $1,467 $0 $0 $0
Source: Dr. James C. Nicholas. Holland Law Center, University of Florida at Gainesville, 2000.
Fayetteville\IMPACTFEE STUDY-POLICYDIRECT/ONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 25
•
r
TYPES OF FACILITIES
Water
The City does not currently charge new water
customers a connection fee to help defray the off -site
capital costs to the utility system associated with a
new customer. Such a one-time, up -front fee, called
by many names including capital recovery fee and
system development charge, is one of the most
common forms of development impact fees. While
cities lack explicit statutory authority to impose water
or wastewater impact fees in Arkansas, these fees
have a long history and have been litigated in
Arkansas. Consequently, there appears to be
adequate legal authority for the City to impose water
impact fees.
The City of Fayetteville and three other cities make
up the Beaver Water District, which operates two
regional water treatment plants located east of
Lowell, Arkansas (see Figure 3). The District owns
all of the municipal and industrial water allocation in
Beaver Reservoir, which averages 120 million gallons
per day (mgd). The District pays only for the plant,
with the cities responsible for constructing the
transmission lines needed to get the water from the
plant to their distribution systems. The regional
water treatment plant was expanded about five years
ago.
The treated water supplied by the Beaver Water
District is pumped through parallel 36 -inch and 42 -
inch diameter transmission lines. The high service pump station at the Beaver Water District is
equipped with four vertical turbine pumps, capable of delivering about 30.6 mgd of treated water to the
City of Fayetteville each day. The pump station and the new 42 -inch line were put into full-time
operation in 1993. The lines run south from the plant, over Fitzgerald Mountain and into the
Fayetteville system east of Lake Fayetteville. A surge tank 20 feet in diameter by 100 feet tall is located
on top of Fitzgerald Mountain. The surge tank has a capacity of 0.25 million gallons (mg) and functions
as a buffet for the operation of the high service pumps at the Beaver Water District. A hydraulic model
indicates that the maximum capacity of the parallel transmission lines is approximately 46 mgd.
Figure 3
WATER FACILITIES
�� �reatment Plant
LEGEND -T_ Lth
•
TANK
42" WATERLINE
30" OR 36WATERLINE n J
24" WATERLINEN�'
' 1
J
I s
r e� t 1
R:. WYI
.:
j:.'J'
fit .a -
The City's water distribution system is divided into five pressure planes. The primary pressure plane,
which receives all of the water delivered from the Beaver Water District, currently has six ground
storage tanks and one elevated storage tank located at four sites with a total capacity of 27 mg. Because
Fayetteville\/MPACTFEE STUDY—POL/CYD/RECT/ONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 26
many areas
of the city are
above the
overflow elevation of the primary pressure
plane, water must be
repumped to supply four
additional
areas of high elevation.
The City sells water on a wholesale basis to four customers: the Washington Water Authority, the
Mount Olive Water Association, the City of Elkins and the City of West Fork. In addition, the City
provides retail water service, including water pipes, meters and billing, to development in the cities of
Farmington and Greenland, as well as a portion of Johnson. As shown in Table 8, 84 percent of the
City's water customers are within Fayetteville's city limits.
Table 8
CURRENT WATER CUSTOMERS
Fayetteville
23,453
84%
Elkins (wholesale)
1
0%
Farmington
1383
5%
Greenland
349
1%
Growth Area
1850
7%
Mount Olive (wholesale)
2
0%
West Fork (wholesale)
1
0%
Wheeler
203
1%
RDA/WWA(wholesale)
4
0%
White River
540
2%
27.786 100%
Source: FayettevilleWater ater and Sewer Department, "Number
of Water Customers, Active Only, February 2001'
The City's 1996 WaterMasterPlanning Study analyzed historic water usage, and noted that water usage
has been growing significantly faster than population 29 In 1995, average water demand was 12.44 mgd,
and maximum day usage that year was the highest on record at 21.56 mgd. The ratio of maximum to
average day water demand over the last twenty years ranged from 1.25 in 1992 to 1.85 in 1990. The
study determined that the capacity of the transmission lines from the Beaver Water District would be
adequate to accommodate projected growth in water demand through 2015, but that the capacity of the
pumping station would be reached shortly after the year 2000 (see Figure 4). However, it noted that
facilities are in place for adding a new pump or pumps to meet this demand. The study's major
recommendation was for the City to establish a policy for constructing a transmission grid of 12 -inch
and larger water lines spaced generally on a one -mile grid in the growth areas of the eastern and western
planning jurisdictions.
The City's current policies on line extensions and developer cost participation can be briefly described
as follows. When a line needs to be extended to provide service to a new development, developers pay
only the cost of the line needed to serve the subdivision, which in most cases is an eight -inch line (six-
inch water lines are acceptable under some situations). If the line needs to be oversized to serve other
developments, the City pays for the cost of the oversizing. In a few cases, the City has required a
developer to front the entire cost of a water line, and used a pro rata agreement to recoup some of line
29 McGoodwin, Williams and Yates, Inc., Fayetteville Water Master Planning Study, October 1996
Fayetteville\/MPACT FEE STUD Y—POL/CYD/RECTIONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 27
cost from subsequent developers benefitting from the line, which is then remitted to the original
developer.
Figure 4
WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND FORECAST
xi9
e0
.Wpn 6eMCe Pwngati:'
...
..
...
.............
.....................
.. .
.
-
OnlineOb1a4H. 1893''
......
....
.........
.......
....
...
..
. ....
1-
_....::
.......
..
.....
......._
...
.. ._.
._
..._
..........
_.... ......::[
......_.
.
X00
::
---
150
..
..
..
..............
..
.
.
s.....
a.
:
Manor um CUy �Iml
5a.9
..
50
-
t5A
_
__
�.^"'"- rwecaYd AYY
lee
••
"••
_
K.bICd AY011a1 �'IJiIaO
So
rYa,
The water master plan did not provide costs for centralized facilities, since the City does not own the
water treatment plants, and the two major transmission lines from the treatment plant to the city have
adequate capacity through the planning period covered by the water master plan. It may be difficult to
charge impact fees for water treatment capacity because the City does not own the facilities, but it would
certainly be possible for the City to recoup the cost of the excess major transmission line capacity that
would be consumed by new water customers.
The master plan does provide cost estimates for elevated and ground storage tanks and major water
transmission lines ranging from 12 to 24 inches in diameter that will be needed to accommodate
projected growth in the planning area over the 20 -year planning horizon from 1995 to 2015. If the five-
year -old master plan is still considered to be reasonably accurate, it could be updated and used to
develop water impact fees for major transmission/distribution lines and storage tanks. Using the plan's
2000 to 2015 needs and projections of growth in water demand, as well as current customer demand
data, the potential fee for transmission/storage facilities can be estimated in an order -of -magnitude
fashion to be in the neighborhood of $800 to $900 per single-family dwelling or equivalent, as shown
in Table 9. This estimate is conservative because it is based only on the cost of distribution system
improvements. A water impact fee could also recoup the cost of transmission lines from the treatment
plant, and perhaps also the City's share of treatment plant costs. Nevertheless, this is a reasonable
estimate of the amount of a water impact fee that could be assessed by the City. It would conservatively
generate half a million dollars annually, based on recent residential growth trends within the city limits,
not even including nonresidential customer growth or new customers outside the city, which could
bump it up to $1 million annually.
Fayetteville\IMPACTFEE STUDY—POL/CYD/RECT/ONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 28
Table 9
POTENTIAL ANNUAL WATER IMPACT FEE REVENUES
Ground Storage
$7,600,000
Transmission Lines
$10,993,000
Total Improvement Cost, 2000-2015
$18,593,000
New Maximum Day Water Demand (gpd)
17,110,000
Cost per New Maximum Day gpd of Water Demand
$1.09
Maximum Day Demand per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (gpd/EDU)
793
Cost per Equivalent Dwelling Unit
$862
Average Annual New Dwelling Units
583
Potential Annual Revenue from City Residential Growth
$500,000
Fayetteville Residential as Share of Total Usage
0.50
Potential Total Annual Wastewater Fee Revenue
$1,000,000
Source: 2000-2015 improvement costs in 1996 dollars and projected increase in maximum day
water demand from McGoodwin, Williams and Yates, Inc.. Fayetteville Water Master Planning
Study. October 1996; maximum day demand per EDU from Fayetteville Water and Sewer
Department. "Number of Water Customers. February 2001' and Consumption of Water Customers
(Usage in 100 Gallons). February 2001'; average annual new dwelling units based on building
permits issued by City from 1996 to 1999 (see Table 6).
Wastewater
The City does not currently charge new wastewater customers a connection fee to help defray the off -
site capital costs to the utility system associated with a new customer. Such a one-time, up -front fee,
called by many names including capital recovery fee and system development charge, is one of the most
common forms of development impact fees. While cities lack explicit statutory authority to impose
water or wastewater impact fees in Arkansas, these fees have a long history and have been litigated in
Arkansas. Consequently, there appears to be adequate legal authority for the City to impose wastewater
impact fees.
The City's current policies on line extensions and developer cost participation can be briefly described
as follows. When a line needs to be extended to provide serve to a new development, developers pay
only the cost of the line needed to serve the subdivision, which in most cases is an eight -inch line. If
the line needs to be oversized to serve other developments, the City pays for the cost of the oversizing.
In a few cases, the City has required subdivisions in an area to pay at the time of final plat to upgrade
an overloaded lift station or to build parallel force main. If the projects are not built, the City will
refund the money. For example, the City collected $200 per lot from new subdivisions platted within
one-half mile on either side of the Salem Road line to pay for the eight -inch parallel force main.
As noted earlier, the need to build a second wastewater treatment plant in the near future was a major
impetus for this study. The current wastewater treatment plant was built in 1988, with a biological
treatment capacity of 17 mgd. It is estimated that a new plant will cost in the neighborhood of $100
million. Three hundred acres of land have been purchased for the new plant, and the City is applying
for a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for it. The current Paul
Noland Wastewater Treatment Plant processes wastewater for the cities of Fayetteville, Elkins,
Farmington, Greenland and parts of Johnson. The City also maintains the sewer collection systems for
Fayetteville\/MPA CT FEE STUD Y—POLICYDIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 29
the cities
of Farmington and
Greenland,
although the cities
own the pipes. Over
90 percent of the
City's wastewater customers,
however, are located within the
city limits, as shown in Table 10.
Table 10
CURRENT WASTEWATER CUSTOMERS
Fayetteville
22,032
92%
Elkins (wholesale)
1
0%
Farmington
1,311
6%
Greenland
315
1%
Growth Area
176
1%
Total
23,835
100%
Source: Fayetteville Water and Sewer Department, "Number of
Sewer Customers, Active Only, February 2001"
The City's lI/astewaterFacilityPlan, completed in 1997, determined that the treatment plant was at or even
slightly exceeding its capacity, having exceeded its maximum monthly design capacity of 17 mgd a
couple of times in recent years (see Figure 5).
Figure 5
WASTEWATER TREATMENT CAPACITY AND DEMAND, 1992-1996
am—
ta00— \r moa MM YoNh
ItOD— Deolgn UM
t—M...N.E• BASE. .a. a N Oman NE. mums . WON
taro—
a tea 12.4 mpd D
t00— R...JIuWs
100 —
OAD
The facility plan evaluated the alternatives of expanding the existing treatment plant versus building a
second plant in the Illinois River basin. About half of the city is in the Illinois River basin, and currently
wastewater from that basin is transferred by lift stations and force mains to the White River basin, where
the Noland treatment plant is located. Locating a second treatment plant in the Illinois River basin
would eliminate the need for several costly, high maintenance lift stations and allow most of the
collection system to convert to gravity mains. While expanding the existing plant would be more cost-
effective in terms of treatment costs, the second plant alternative would have offsetting savings in terms
of lower collection system costs. In the recommended two -plant option, construction of the new
treatment plant would establish a clear distinction between the flows from the two watersheds. Nine
lift stations would be abandoned. However, some effluent would still be transferred between
watersheds to equalize demand and capacity at the two plants.
Fayetteville\/MPACT FEE STUDY —Pot ICY DIRECTIONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 30
Figure 6
WATERSHEDS AND DIRECTIONS OF FLOWS
,B
I
11
__Mrs BM
1 •gip^••�, • % WWT!
91
mW BM�BWI iB
�u+B
n
The new plant, to be constructed in two phases, will almost double the City's current treatment capacity.
This will be about the amount of new capacity required by the year 2020, as summarized in Table 11.
Table 11
TREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY
Average Day (myd) Peak Month (mgd)
Existing Plant 11.4 17.0
New Plant 10.1 15.7
Total 21.5 32.7
2020 Demand 21.5 33.5
Source: CH2M-Hill, Fayetteville Wastewater Facility Plan. February 1997
The new treatment plant is estimated to cost about $40 million. Dividing this cost by the anticipated
growth in equivalent residential customers by 2020, at which time both new and existing plants are
expected to be operating close to their capacities, results in an estimated cost per equivalent dwelling
unit, as shown in Table 12. Based on recent building permit trends within the City of Fayetteville,
residential growth within the city limits could be expected to yield about $1 million in annual revenue
from wastewater impact fees. City residential users, however, count for only about half of total flows
to the treatment plant. Assuming that growth in other types of customers is similar to recent growth
in City residential customers, potential revenues could be as high as $2 million annually.
Fayetteville\/MPACT FEESTUDY—POLIcYD/RECT/ONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 31
fl
Table 12
POTENTIAL ANNUAL TREATMENT PLANT FEES
New Treatment Plant Cost
$40,400,000
New Equivalent Dwelling Units, 1996.2020
23,290
Cost per Equivalent Dwelling Unit
$1,735
Annual New Dwelling Units, City of Fayetteville
583
Potential Annual Revenue from City Residential Growth
$1,010,000
Fayetteville Residential as Share of Total Usage
0.50
Potential Total Annual Wastewater Fee Revenue
$2,020,000
Source: Cost from CH2M-Hill, Fayetteville Wastewater Facility P/an, February
1997; new equivalent dwelling units derived from February 2001 usage by
customer class and population growth projections from 1996 to 2020 from RNJ
Group. Inc.. Fayetteville Wastewater Collection System Master P/an, April 1997;
annual new units in Fayetteville is average from 1996-1999 building permits:
Fayetteville residential as share of total usage from Fayetteville Water and Sewer
Department, "Number of Sewer Customers, Active Only, February 2001."
These calculations are intended only to provide an order -of -magnitude sense of potential fee levels and
revenue. A detailed wastewater impact fee study would need to take into consideration a number of
factors. For example, the wastewater master plan notes that the City will need to spend approximately
$10 million on improvements to the existing plant, even though the improved plant will have about the
same amount of capacity. Some of this cost may be attributable to upgrading the plant's treatment
quality, to the extent that is the case, new customers should be given credit against their impact fees for
the rate revenue they will generate that will be used to remedy these deficiencies in treatment quality.
Similarly, the existing plant appears to be operating somewhat over its designed and permitted capacity,
so some of the cost of the new plant may be attributable to serving existing customers.
A detailed impact fee study could also review the possibility of charging a fee for collection system
improvements. As both the treatment plant and collection master plans make clear, there are a number
of collection system improvements that are needed to implement the two treatment plant scenario.
However, additional analysis would be required to determine the portion of those costs that could be
attributed to projected growth. Given the potential magnitude of the treatment plant component of
a wastewater impact fee, the City may not want to perform the analysis required to determine a
defensible fee for collection system improvements.
Parks
Fayetteville provides a wide diversity of recreational areas and open space for its residents. The City
has 23 neighborhood and community parks totaling 414 developed acres, 14 undeveloped parks sites
containing 48 acres and about 2,000 additional acres of land at three lake sites. The City also provides
facilities at and maintains 10 sites owned by the school district.
On November 14,1995, the citizens passed a one cent hotel, motel, restaurant (HMR) tax to implement
the unfunded plans for existing and future park facilities. The City is currently updating its park master
plan.
Fayetteville\/MPACTFEE STUD Y—POL/CYD/RECT/ONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 32
The City's subdivision regulations require developers of all new residential subdivisions to dedicate park
land or pay a fee in -lieu of dedication. Major development comprising more than 40 acres or more than
100 housing units are required to dedicate parkland unless no suitable park site is available. The
dedication requirement per dwelling unit varies by housing type. The fee in -lieu of dedication is updated
every two years based on the average cost of park land. In 1994, the fees were based on $12,000 an
acre. This was increased to $15,000 per acre in November 1997 and subsequently to the current level
of $18,750 per acre in December 1999. The city is divided into four quadrants, which serve as benefit
districts for expenditure of the fees -in -lieu. The fee revenue is spent within the benefit district in which
it is collected. The fees are spent on park land acquisition and development.
Table 13
PARK DEDICATION REQUIREMENT/FEE-IN-LIEU
Housing Type Acres/Unit Cost/Acre Fee/Ui
Single -Family 0.025 $18,750 $470
Multi -Family 0.020 $18,750 $375
Source: Fayetteville Subdivision Regulations, Section 159.30(K), updated by Resolution
4199 passed November 11. 1999, effective December 10. 1999..
The current dedication requirements for single-family and multi -family units accurately reflect the
differences in average household sizes between owner -occupied and renter -occupied units. However,
the correlation between housing type and tenure is not precise, and actual data on household size by
housing type is available from the census and should be used. The source of the dedication requirement
for mobile homes is less clear, and again this should be updated using available census data. The City
has an excellent inventory of park land and facilities for the current effort to update the park master
plan. This inventory should be used to ensure that the dedication requirement does not exceed the
current level of service provided by the City.
The City's current park land dedication and
fee in -lieu
requirement has been litigated up to the state
Supreme Court. Our recommendation is that the City
retain this
system, and update it to reflect the
current level of service as well as differences
in household size by
housing type.
Major Roads
The City's Master Street Plan is an official map that is used in conjunction with the Circulation Element
of the 2020 General Plan. It classifies streets into a number of functional types, including
freeway/expressways, principal arterials, minor arterials, collectors and local streets. The Master Street
Plan shows the location of new roads and allows the City to preserve corridors for roadways expected
to need widening or extension.
Fayetteville\/MPACT FEE STUDY-POL/CYD/RECT/ONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 33
Figure 7
EXISTING MAJOR ROADS
rt
"14^ 1
_ 4
'- I r
� I
I �y 2-< w
1 �� `�^ 11 t j '..•V.
Lo i 1 I �v
r — ii
Legend
3L _
Irf ��u I L City limits
..1}� � ' l-c:ieie' I I t = Planning Area
r ,./ MSP Existing Streets
I ��
The long-range transportation plan for the two -county region (Washington and Benton Counties) is
the 2020 Regional Transportation Plan for Metropolitan Northwest Arkansas, which was developed in 1995.
The five-year update to that plan is currently in draft form. The Transportation Improvement Program
for FY 2001-2003 has $2.5 million programmed for two major widening projects within the City of
Fayetteville over the three-year period. The City also had road improvements programmed in its Five
Year Capital Improvements Program, 2000-2004, which is updated every two years.
The most recent detailed transportation analysis for Fayetteville's major road system was conducted in
1992.30 This analysis included compiling a complete inventory of the City's major road system,
determining the peak hour capacity of each road segment, and identifying existing (1992) and projected
(2010) traffic volumes. While somewhat dated, the study provides useful background information.
so DeShazo, Stanek & Tang, Inc., Pear t ration of Roadway Imp mcrments in Fayetteville, Arkansas, August 1992 (two volumes).
Fayetteville\/MPA CT FEE STUDY—POL/CYD/RECT/ONS MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 34
The City maintains an inventory of the major street system. The inventory includes the name of each
street, the functional classification, from and to segment endpoints, the length of the segment in feet,
number of lanes, and pavement and ROW width. Current (1999) traffic counts are available for most
roadways in the region from the Planning and Research Division of the Arkansas State Highway and
Transportation Department.
The City does not impose a road impact fee on new development, but there are a number of developer
exactions for roads in the subdivision regulations. A "large scale development," defined as any
development larger than one acre, must dedicate sufficient right-of-way (ROW) to bring any abutting
or intersecting major road to the standards of the master street plan. A lesser dedication may be
recommended by the planning commission and approved by the city council in cases of undue hardship
or practical difficulties " When commercial, industrial or multi -family development is proposed
adjacent to any street not constructed to current city standards, the developer is required to dedicate
sufficient ROW and install paving, curb and gutter, and sidewalks necessary to bring the street into
conformity with current standards. The City Council may reduce the dedication requirement, and the
cost of required improvements shall be in proportion to the needs created by the development 32
Finally, off -site road improvements may be required where a proposed subdivision has access to paved
streets only by way of substandard or unimproved streets. In such cases, the subdivider is required to
contribute a proportionate share of the cost of the off -site improvements. The proportionate share is
based on the acreage of the subdivision as a share of the acreage of all property benefitting from the
improvement, or by an alternative method determined by the planning commission.33
In general, these requirements mean that development abutting an unimproved or substandard street
must dedicate the required ROW and construct the half of the street improvement. The developer does
have the option to do a traffic study to attempt to demonstrate that the required improvement exceeds
the impact of the development. Even lot splits can trigger the requirements to improve abutting
roadways.
The City's explicit statutory authority relating to major road exactions appears to be limited to requiring
the dedication of land or payment of a fee in -lieu of land for improvements shown on a master street
plan. The City's current roadway exaction ordinances, as well as those of most other Arkansas
municipalities, go quite a way beyond requiring ROW dedication. They even include payment of an
individually -calculated proportionate share of the cost of certain off -site improvements in some
circumstances. Whether an Arkansas municipality's implicit authority to ensure the provision of
adequate infrastructure to serve new development extends to imposing road impact fees is uncertain.
In the absence of clarifying legislation, the courts will ultimately decide this question. Whether the City
should proceed to develop road impact fees in this context is a policy decision for the City Council.
31 Section 159.54: Large scale development.
32 Section 159.55: Street improvements.
33 Section 159.33: Required off -site improvements.
Fayetteville\/MPACT FEESTUDY—POL/CYD/REcrloN$ MEMORANDUM April 3, 2001, Page 35
0 •
DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY
FAYETTEVILLE; ARKANSAS
submitted by I duncanIassociates
in association with
Cooper Consulting Company
April 10, 2001
0 r
Table of Contents
SUMMARY- Development Fee Survey............................................................................. 3
Population and Growth Trends...................................................................................... 3
Studiesand Sales Tax Revenues.................................................................................... 4
Roadsand Drainage Facilities....................................................................................... 5
Waterand Sewer Facilities............................................................................................. 7
Park, School and Library Facilities................................................................................. 8
Police, Fire and Sidewalk Facilities................................................................................9
Rezoning, Sub•divisions and Variances.........................................................................10
SURVEY RESPONSES - Individual Cities.....................................................................12
Bentonville, Arkansas.................................................................................................. 12
Conway, Arkansas....................................................................................................... 14
FortSmith, Arkansas...................................................................................................17
Jonesboro, Arkansas.................................................................................................... 19
Rogers, Arkansas......................................................................................................... 21
Springdale, Arkansas................................................................................................... 23
Bozeman, Montana..................................................................................................... 25
ChapelHill, North Carolina......................................................................................... 27
FortCollins, Colorado................................................................................................. 29
Lawrence, Kansas................................................................................................I....... 33
Springfield, Missouri................................................................................................... 36
Fayetteville\IMPACT FEE STUDY -DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 10, 2001, Page 2
SUMMARY - Development Fee Survey
As part of the Fayetteville Impact Fee Study, a survey of development fees in 11 jurisdictions was conducted.
The survey included 6 Arkansas jurisdictions (Bentonville, Conway, Fort Smith, Jonesboro, Rogers and
Springdale) and 5 jurisdictions outside the State (Bozeman, MT; Chapel Hill, NC; Fort Collins, CO;
Lawrence, KS; and Springfield, MO). Key factors in selection of jurisdictions included proximity to
Fayetteville (northwest Arkansas), fast growth communities and/or traditional college communities. Note:
Information contained in the tables is a SUMMARY; refer to individual survey sheets for exact information.
Population and Growth Trends
As the table below indicates, surveyed Arkansas jurisdictions range in population from Bentonville's 19,730
people to Fort Smith's 80,000. Outside the state, Bozeman has the smallest population with 33,000 people
and Springfield, Missouri has the largest with 151,600 people. All Arkansas jurisdictions classify themselves as
"fast growing" with the exception of Fort Smith, whose growth is "moderate" (note that Fort Smith also has
the largest population, therefore a slower rate of growth is not unusual). In states outside Arkansas, Bozeman
and Fort Collins classify themselves as "fast growing" with the others considered "moderate growth"
communities.
Population densities are another interesting comparative factor. Jonesboro, with an average of 486 persons
per square mile, is one-third as densely populated as Springdale — both with similar populations. Jonesboro
contains almost twice the square miles (86) as any other surveyed jurisdiction within Arkansas. Overall,
Arkansas communities have a much lower density than surveyed jurisdictions outside the state. Lawrence,
Kansas is the most densely populated, averaging almost 2,900 persons per square mile. The remainder of the
out-of-state jurisdictions reflects densities usually twice or three times that of the surveyed Arkansas
jurisdictions.
rkansas Cities
Fayetteville
58,150
44
1,322
Fast
Bentonville
19,730
23
850
Fast
Conway
43,150
40
1,079
Fast
Fort Smith
80,000
53
1,509
Moderate
Jonesboro
51,000
86
593
Fast
Rogers
37,800
38
995
Fast
Springdale
44,800
31
1,445
Fast
Other Cities
Bozeman, Montana
33,000
13
2,538
Fast
Chapel Hill, North Carolina
45,000
20
2,250
Moderate
Fort Collins, Colorado
122,300
47
2,602
Fast
Lawrence, Kansas
83,700
29
2,886
Moderate
Springfield, Missouri
151,600
75
2,021
Moderate
Fayettevl l le\IMPACT FEE
STUDY -DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY
April 10, 2001, Page 3
S
Studies and Sales Tax Revenues
Based on interviews, only Bentonville and Conway are actively looking at development impact fees.
Historically, revenue for capital projects in Arkansas jurisdictions is primarily generated through sale tax
levies. Typically, it is a sales tax from ½% to 1%. The capacity to generate revenue, however, varies greatly. A
1% sales tax in Bentonville raises $2 million annually, while the same percent in Fort Smith generates between
$14 - $16 million and in Jonesboro, $11 million. City size, proximity to growth corridors and the amount of
commercial businesses within a jurisdiction all contribute to the capacity to generate revenue via sales taxes.
Outside Arkansas, all but Springfield employs some type of development fee system to fund streets, drainage,
water and sewer. With the exception of Bozeman and Chapel Hill, these jurisdictions also have sales tax levies
to fund capital projects.
Based on information provided, it appears that only Bentonville is a beneficiary of a countywide sales tax. In
addition to Bentonville's 1% general fund sales tax, Benton County has a countywide 1% sales tax, for which
Bentonville is remitted its pro rata share. The city uses this revenue for capital projects. Springdale has an
interesting twist. It has a "voluntary" property tax levy for the fire department and library.
Arkansas Cities
Bentonville
On -going study on impact
1% city and 1% county -wide
Parks, fire, streets,
fees
sales tax
municipal buildings (funded
$2 million
via county sales tax revenue)
Conway
In process of reviewing
h% sates tax
Roads, fire stations, drainage
impact fee RFP submissions
$3.6 million
Fort Smith
Comprehensive plan update
1% sales tax
Roads it drainage based on
underway
$14 - $16 million
CIP
Jonesboro
City updating zoning and
1% sates tax
16 dedicated to roads; ''A
subdivision ordinances
$11 million
eliminating fees for
sanitation, mosquito
spraying, bird removal,
reducing property tax
Rogers
Updated fees in 2000; may
1% sales tax
Justice center, fire training
update comprehensive plan
$55 million
& administration buildings,
soonstreets
.
ft drainage
Springdale
Comprehensive plan update
1% sales tax
75% of revenue devoted to
underway
$8.5 million
capital projects; based on
CIP
Voluntary Property Tax
.15% mit Fire ($43,500)
.10% Libraries ($27,300)
Fayettevlile\IMPACT FEE STUDY —DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 10,2001, Page 4
S
Other Cities
Bozeman, MT
Transportation impact fee
No sales tax for public
N/A
study completed in 1996.
improvements permitted.
Chapel Hill, NC
School impact fee study;
No sales tax for public
N/A
may create different impact
improvements.
fees for different
residential uses.
Fort Collins, CO
No development fee studies
1.% sales tax issues
3 sales taxes: streets &
on going.
$5 million
transportation; community
enhancement; parks
Lawrence, KS
Updating zoning ordinance;
1% countywide sates tax
Parks and recreation and
looking at "Adequate Public
$7.2 million for city
part of county health facility
Facilities" ordinance.
based on CIP
Springfield, MO
Only discussed impact fees;
1/8% and '/. % sales tax
1/8% devoted to state
nothing more.
$4 and $8 million
identified road projects
(reimbursed by state);
Plus: $4 million in property
,'A % parks and other road
tax
improvements
Property tax for fire stations
& stormwater etc.
Roads and Drainage Facilities
Conway has perhaps the most liberal road improvement policy, requiring no improvement to an adjacent
roadway if it is a city -maintained roadway, but it does require dedication of rights -of -way if a boundary street.
Fort Smith and Jonesboro require developers to bring the adjacent street up to standard city standards, and if
needed, dedicate right-of-way. Rogers requires developers to not only dedicate right-of-way, but requires
additional lanes to be added if necessary. Bentonville's and Springdale's policies are similar to Rogers, but they
have provisions for "payment -in -lieu" for major street improvements.
Cities outside of Arkansas have some very similar road improvement polices to many of those jurisdictions
within the State. However, Bozeman and Fort Collins have transportation "impact" fees that are charged to
the builder at the point of applying for a building permit. These transportation fees can add an average of
$1800 to the cost of a single-family home; but more strikingly, they can add over $500,000 to a 100,000
square foot commercial development. The table below summarizes the results of the detailed survey sheets.
oa
Arkansas Cities
Bentonville
Bring road up to meet Master Street Plan; if Lanes
Typically require on -site detention;
needed but not in CIP, dedicate ROW; if in CIP,
off -site improvements only required if
makes "payment -in -lieu" for lanes.
downstream hazard.
Conway
If city maintained, no improvements required;
Provide off -site drainage
ROW dedication if Boundary Street.
improvements as needed.
Fayettevi I I e\IMPACT FEE STUDY -DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 10, 2001, Page 5
Fort Smith
Bring adjacent roads up to city standards;
Same as above
provides ROW for additional lanes if needed.
Jonesboro
Same as above
Same as above
Rogers
Bring adjacent roads up to city standards; Provide
Same as above
ROW & road improvements, including additional
lanes if needed.
Springdale
Bring adjacent roads up to city standards;
Same as above
Occasionally, if improvements not immediately
needed, developer makes a "payment in Lieu;"
Funds go into one account but assigned to specific
street; no refunds.
Other Cities
Bozeman, MT
Transportation Impact Fee:
Provide off -site drainage
Single-family home = $1778
improvements as needed.
Commercial (100,000 sf) _ $492,600
Chapel Hill, NC
Provide ROW for additional lanes and sometimes
Same as above
build additional lanes, a negotiated process.
Fort Collins, CO
Donate'h of ROW based on local street standard
One time fee for development of a lot
& construct street; If improved above the local
or parcel based on percentage of
street standard, developer reimbursed for
impervious area. Twelve drainage
additional cost,
basins have been identified with ten
having drainage development fees. As
PLUS (a[ building permit)
an example, an 8600 square foot lot
Street Oversizing Capital Expansion Fee:
having 50% impervious area would
have a drainage development fee
Single-family home = $1624
between $215 to $987, depending on
Commercial (100,000 sf) = $541,000
which basin the property is located.
Larimer County Transportation Expansion Fee:
Monthly stormwater fee examples:
$8.13 for 8600 sf single-family lot and
Single-family home = $164
Commercial (100,000 sf) = $54,100
$82.34 for 1 -acre commercial site.
Lawrence, KS
Provide all road improvements and ROW; If major
Monthly stormwater utility fee based
street improvement premature, developer signs
on impervious surface.
agreement not to oppose future "Benefit
Single-family: 1801 - 3000 sf = $3.75
District."
Commercial 1 ac. site (90%
impervious) = $21.04
Springfield, MO
Dedicate ROW and construct two lanes for
Provide all storm drainage
internal arterial; Adjacent road - dedicate ROW &
improvements and on -site detention
improve road (but not add lanes); If road-
facilities. If detention "buy out" is
widening underway, developer makes "payment in
permitted, the fee for I or 2 family
Lieu" to cover the cost. City may agree to
residence is $1 per cubic feet of
recoupment agreement or cost sharing for
required detention; commercial is $2.
significant improvement. If property rezoned for
If development btw. 24,000 - 100,000
commercial or industrial use, City may require full
cf of detention, fee drops to ½; if
roadway improvements including additional lanes.
greater, no buyout. Detention buy-
outs approved on case -by -case basis.
FeyettevllleVMPACT FEE STUDY -DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 10, 2001, Page 6
is
Water and Sewer Facilities
The cost and recoupment policies for extending or oversizing water and sewer lines are somewhat similar
across Arkansas jurisdictions. Both Fort Smith and Rogers have a $150 "connection fee" for new
subdivisions, the former is based on per acre and the latter on per lot. Conway has perhaps the more
formalized provision for recoupment of fees for line extensions or oversizing. With the exception of
Springfield, all jurisdictions outside Arkansas had some type of sewer and water "impact fee." Chapel Hill and
Fort Collins have substantial water and sewer "impact fees." Chapel Hill's combined "sewer and water
availability fee" is $3500; while Fort Collins's "wastewater and water plant investment fees" can add $1030 for
wastewater and $3810 for water to the cost of a home (based on a 10,000 sf lot). Wastewater and water fees
for non-residential development within these communities are even higher. Bozeman has similar but lower
impact fees for wastewater and water services.
Arkansas Cities
Bentonville
Tie -on fee. $125
$350 - 5/8 inch meter plus bore/cut
Tap fee - $75
$1500 - 2 inch meter, plus bore/cut
No fee for new subdivision; cost to tap
main line - $1000 to tap an 8" line.
Conway
$300 - 4" service (20 feet or less)
$250 - 3/." inch meter (30 feet or less)
$450 - 4" service (greater than 20 feet)
$350 (equal to or greater than 30 feet)
Plus: $350 for cutting or boring
Plus: $150 cutting or boring
Conway Corporation serves as contractor to
install in new subdivisions; Provision for
recoupment of fees for line extensions of sewer
and water through issuance of connection
certificates by Conway Corporation.
Fort Smith
Tie on fee: $150 per acre in subdivision; $350 for
Non -Street Crossing: 3/." tap - $260; 2"
individual service.
tap - $960; $13/ft. > 10 ft.
Sanitary sewer lines serving areas >100 acres
Street Crossing - CUT: 3/." tap - $410; 2"
eligible for partial reimbursement; Provision for
tap - $1225; $23/ft. >20 ft. in street and
city participation for oversizing lines; city may
$13/ft. out of street
pay difference in cost of the line size; subject to
Street Crossing - BORE: )." tap - $325; 2"
Board of Directors approval.
tap - $1025; $5/ft. > 20 ft. in the street
and 13/ft. out of street
Jonesboro
Option of paying City Water / Light $30 per lineal
Jonesboro Improvement District installs
foot to install sewer tines; most are installed by
all water lines. Tap fee for 3/." line is
developer. $250 sewer inspection connection fee
$150; a 2" line is $500.
goes into fund for building sewer trunk lines.
Rogers
$150 per lot "connection fee"
$150 per lot "connection fee"
Developer is required to pay all cost of extending
1'A inch or greater water meter, the
service. On a case -by -case basis, the city may
charge is whatever actual cost is.
contribute to the extension of water and sewer.
Springdale
Sewer service fee: 4" $285 for individual service;
Tap fee: 5/8 inch - $275, plus bore/cut
Subdivision: sewer & water service paid by
developer; city may contribute to oversizing.
Fayettevi l le\IMPACT FEE STUDY —DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 10, 2001, Page 7
0
Other Cities
Bozeman, MT
Sewer impact fee: $2716.07 residential
Water impact fee: $2142.31 residential
Chapel Hill, NC
Combined sewer/water "availability fee."
Combined sewer/water "availability
Typical new house: $3500
fee."Typical new house: $3500
Service 4" $615 - $700, plus street crossing
�" tap - $260 - $410, plus street crossing
Tie on fee - $350 or 4" service line
Fort Collins, CO
Wastewater Plant Investment Fee (examples)
Water Plant Investment Fee (examples)
Single-family Residential $1030/unit
Single-family Residential (3/4 inch tap)
Non -Residential $6500 for 1 inch meter;
$610 + $.32 per square feet of lot area
$18,900 for 2 inch meter
Non -Residential $15,300 for 1 Inch meter;
$53,600 for 2 inch meter
Plus, "raw water fee"
Lawrence, KS
Sewer system development charge of $460
5/8" - $450.07
Any line extension 12" or less is required to be
Water system development charge of
made fully by the developer. There is no
$355
provision for recoupment of line extension cost if
the developer must extend lines to reach existing
water or sewer service.
Springfield, MO
5/8" - water meter is $300 sewer fee
1" water meter - $600 (inclusive)
1" - water meter is $500 sewer fee
If a water main extension is on the Master
Plan for main extension, the City will cost
Developer provides sanitary sewer to
share for The City also has a
development. Minimum size tract for a septic
recovery agreement
cost whereby the
tank is 3 acres. Special projects - City has
who the main
entered into agreements with developers to come
eceiveerd
extension can receive recoupment ofthe
tnsion
up with a formula to apportion recoupment costs
expense based on the lineal front foot of
based on a per acre calculation. The City's olic
n y
development occurring on either side of
for oversizing lines is to pay the difference
the tine. Cost recoupment is limited to 5
PIPE cost, not installation costs.
years; just initiated in last few years.
Park, School and Library Facilities
Based on information from the survey, Arkansas jurisdictions do not fund parks, schools or libraries through
any development fees, dedications or payments -in -lieu. Only three of the six surveyed jurisdictions have a
portion of their property taxes that is dedicated to libraries (Conway, Jonesboro and Springdale). Springdale
has a "voluntary" property tax for libraries that generates approximately $27,000 annually.
Surveyed jurisdictions outside Arkansas fund parks, trails, open space, schools and libraries through a number
of revenue sources. Fort Collins has a "capital expansion fee" that funds parks, libraries, police, fire and
governmental administration buildings. School impact fees are charged separately by the respective school
districts in Fort Collins ($446 - $484 per dwelling unit). Chapel Hill has a school impact fee of $3,000 per
dwelling unit. Bozeman has a methodology for calculating recreation needs based on the density of proposed
development.
Fayetteville\IMPACT FEE STUDY -DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 10, 2001, Page 8
• S
•1114 1,bx.u.
Arkansas Cities
Bentonville
N/A
N/A
N/A
Conway
N/A
N/A
1 mit county property
tax
Fort Smith
N/A
N/A
N/A
Jonesboro
N/A
N/A
1 mil property tax
Rogers
N/A
N/A
N/A
Springdale
N/A
N/A
1 -mil property tax
A "voluntary" library
tax of .0010 mits
Other Cities
Bozeman, MT
State law authorizes land dedication
N/A
N/A
requirements for parks. Based on sliding
scale depending on size of lots.
Chapel Hill, NC
Requires improved recreation space as an
$3000 per dwelling unit
N/A
amenity for apartments and subdivisions;
Town Council can authorize payments -in -
lieu.
Fort Collins, CO
"Capital expansion fee" (CFE)
Poudre School District
"Capital expansion
impact fee - $484.26
fee" CEF for library =
Ex. - Home:
CEF community parkland - $1,426
per dwelling;
$453
1701 - 2200 sf
PLUS: parkland fee - $1,275
Thompson School
District impact fee -
$446.00 per dwelling
Lawrence, KS
Part of the City's share of the 1%
N/A
N/A
countywide sates tax funds parks.
Springfield, MO
A portion the '4% sales tax funds parks.
N/A
Portion of property
tax
Police, Fire and Sidewalk Facilities
With one exception, none of the surveyed Arkansas jurisdictions has any development fees for police, fire or
installation of sidewalks. Fort Smith has an innovative sidewalk financing method — when a building permit is
purchased on a residential or commercial improvement, there is a "sidewalk assessment fee" charged.
Springdale has a "voluntary" property tax of .0015 mils that raises approximately $43,000 per year for the Fire
Department. Outside Arkansas, jurisdictions have similar requirement for installation of sidewalks. However,
Springfield, Missouri, requires sidewalks on residential streets based on density. If not needed at a particular
location, Planning and Zoning Board can approve a sidewalk "buyout" at $16.63 per linear foot. In the area
of impact fees, Fort Collins has a "capital expansion fee" for development impacts to the Fire and Police
Departments. Bozeman has only an impact fee for development impacts to the Fire Department.
Fayetteville\IMPACT FEE STUDY —DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 10, 2001, Page 9
�.
Arkansas Cities
Bentonville
N/A
N/A
5 -foot sidewalks are required in residential
and commercial development.
Conway
N/A
N/A
Sidewalks on both sides of collectors and
arterials, commercial or office districts
regardless of classification of streets.
Fort Smith
N/A
N/A
Developers must install sidewalks in new
subdivisions. PLUS, almost every building
permit includes an amount for sidewalks
known as the "sidewalk assessment fee."
Fee ranges from $50- $3000.
Jonesboro
N/A
N/A
Sidewalks required on one side of collectors
and arterials.
Rogers
N/A
N/A
Developers must install sidewalks on both
sides of street in new residential and non-
residential developments.
Springdale
N/A
"Voluntary" Fire tax
Sidewalks are required on both sides of
of .0015 mils; raises
street in residential and non-residential
$43,000/year
development.
Others Cities
Bozeman, MT
N/A
Impact fee:
Sidewalks are required on both sides of
Home -$181.87
street in residential and non-residential
Bus. $450/1000 sf
development.
Chapel Hill, NC
N/A
N/A
Same as above
Fort Collins, CO
"Capital expansion fee"
"Cap. Expansion Fee"
Same as above and sometimes bike lane
Home:
Home: $112
Home: $163
1701-2200 sf
Bus.: $12,100
Bus.: $17,400
00,00
Ind.: $3,300
Ind.: $4,800
100,00
10 sf s
Lawrence, KS
N/A
N/A
One side of local streets and both sides of
collector and arterial.
Springfield, MO
N/A
N/A
Sidewalks required both sides of collectors
& arterials; required on both sides of local
res. streets based on density. If not needed
at a particular location, p & Z can approve
sidewalk buyout - $16.63 / foot.
Rezoning, Subdivisions and Variances
Rezoning, subdivision and variance fees vary widely in the surveyed jurisdictions. Clearly the fees charged by
Arkansas communities are significantly less than those charged by surveyed communities outside the State.
Fees in Chapel Hill are perhaps the highest, with it not being unusual for total development fees to run
between $20,000 - $30,000.
FayetteV i l le\IMPACT FEE STUDY -DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 10, 2001, Page 10
• ..
Arkansas Cities
Bentonville
Rezoning - $225
Preliminary ft Final Plat -
Variance - $125
$125+$1/Lot
Conditional Use - $125
Conway
Rezoning • $75
Minor - $100; Preliminary
Variance - $35
Plat -$150+ $5/lot
Conditional Use - no fee
Final Plat - $100
Fort Smith
Rezoning - $130
Preliminary ft Final Plat -
Variance - $50
$25 filing fee
Conditional Use - $50 / $75
Jonesboro
Rezoning - $30
Minor or Preliminary Plat -
Variance - $25
$25 + $.60/lot
Conditional Use - $25
Final Plat - $25 + $.60/lot
Rogers
Rezoning - $200
Preliminary Plat - $200 +
Variance - $100
$1/lot >50 lots
Conditional Use - $100
Final Plat - $200 + $1/lot
>50 lots
Springdale
Rezoning - $175
Preliminary Plat - $100
Variance - $75
Final Plat - $50 + $1 /lot
Conditional Use - $75
Other Cities
Bozeman, MT
Rezoning - $400 + $5/acre
Preliminary Plat - $200 +
Variance - $180 residential;
up to 80 acres; $3/acre >80
$3/lot up to 100 lots; $1/
$300 all others
acres
tot >100 tots
Conditional use permit - $660
Final Plat - $50 + $1 /lot
Chapel Hill, NC
Initial zoning application:
Preliminary Plat - $5000 +
Variance - $330
$800 + $40/acre
$200/lot
Special use permit - $5000 +
Site Plan Review: $1700 +
Final Plat - $270 + $40/lot
$20/acre
$17/sf floor area
Final Zoning Permit: ½ of
initial application fee
Fort Collins, CO
Rezoning - $977
Overall Dev. Plan - $1599
Variance - $25
Major amendment to land
Project Dev. Plan no Plat -
Do not issue conditional use
use plan - $3206
$3887; with Plat - $5879
permits
Final Plan - $1000
Lawrence, KS
0- 5 acres: $200 - $350
Plat - $100 <5 lots; $200 >4
Variance • $30 residential;
5 - 10 acres: $225 - $375
lots +$3/lot >4 lots
$60 all others
10-20acres: $250- - $4O0
>20 acres: $2 $275 • $425
Prel. Dev. Plan - $200; &
Use permitted upon review -
Final Dev. Plan - $100
$50
Springfield, MO
Rezoning - $630
Preliminary Plat - $390
Variance - $350
Final Plat - $165
Conditional Use - $700
Fayetteville\IMPACT FEE STUDY -DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 10, 2001, Page 11
SURVEY RESPONSES - Individual Cities
Bentonville, Arkansas
Contacts
City Hall, 117 W. Central Avenue, Bentonville, AR 72712
Mr. Troy Galloway, Planning Director, 501-271-3122 talloway@bentonvillear.com
Mr. Roger Terrell, Utilities Director, 501-271-3143 rterrell@bentonvillear.com
Mr. Stewart Smith, 501-271-3111 (sales tax) ssmith@bentonvillear.com
Ms. Denise Land, 501-271-3111 (sales tax) dland@bentonvillear.com
Size and Growth
Population: 19,730
23.2 square miles
Fast growing city, via voluntary annexation
Studies
Impact fee study that is on going by Paul Tischler should be completed by end of March. The study
includes wastewater, sewer, police, fire, parks, and libraries, but does not include drainage, or
electricity because of the advent of deregulation.
Sales Tax
The city collects a 1 -cent sales tax that goes into the general fund. In addition, Benton County has a
1 -cent sales tax in which the City of Bentonville shares. This tax generated $2,067,000 in sales tax
revenue in 2000 and is informally referred to by the City as the "capital sales tax." Revenues from
this tax go into a separate fund called the "County Sales Tax Department" fund whereby funds can
be transferred to pay for capital projects that might include parks, fire, streets and municipal
buildings. The City tries to avoid use of these funds for enterprise -funded operations such as water,
sewer and electric.
Roads
In new subdivisions, the developer pays to bring adjacent roads up to standard of master street plan.
If additional lanes are planned based on the Master Street Plan but are not yet part of the 5 -Year
CIP, the developer dedicates only the ROW. However, if the additional lane improvements are in
the CIP, the developer makes a payment in -lieu for the cost of the additional lane. The amount is
based on engineering estimates completed by the developer's engineer and approved by the City.
Drainage
Off -site drainage improvements are limited to those cases where a development may pose a hazard
to down stream properties. The majority of developments provide on -site detention/retention that
releases storm water at pre -development flows.
Fayetteville\IMPACT FEE STUDY -DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 10, 2001, Page 12
P
Water and Sewer
Sewer tie -on fee: $125/ DU or commercial or industrial development
Tap fee: $75
Water tap fee: $350/DU for 5/8 meter, plus $50 deposit. A 2" tap (commercial such as a fast-food)
is $1500. No fee for new subdivision; develop installs the individual taps but does pay to tap the
main line into subdivision which is usually $1000 to tap an 8" line. The water tap fee covers the cost
of city installing the tap. Also a cost to bore the street ($20/ft) or to trench ($45/sq. yd.)
Parks
No development fees or dedications
Schools
No development fees
Libraries
No development fees
Police
No development fees
Fire
No development fees
Sidewalks
5 -foot sidewalks are required in residential and commercial development
Zoning and Subdivision Fees
Zoning fees - $225
Subdivision Plat (preliminary and final) - $125 plus $1 per lot
Fayetteville\IMPACT FEE STUDY —DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 10, 2001, Page 13
Conway, Arkansas
Contacts
1201 Oak Street, Conway, AR 72032
Mr. Bill Polk, Planning Director, 501-450-6105, billpolk@conwaycorp.net
Mr. Ken Pickett, Asst. Planning Director, kpickett@conwaycorp.net
Mr. Tommy Shackelford, Mgr. Eng. and Ping., Conway Corp, 501-450-6050
tommys@conwaycorp.net
Size and Growth
Population: 43,176
Square Miles: 40
Fast growing through voluntary annexation and annexation of "islands"
Studies
The city is in process of looking at putting out an RFP for infrastructure fees study.
Sales Tax
In 1993, the City passed a'h cent sales tax for paying off bonded indebtedness to fund roads, fire
station, drainage and other improvements. The tax raises approximately $3.6 million per year. When
the bonds are paid off, the sale tax will sunset. (Perry Faulkner 501-450-6101)
Roads
In new subdivisions, the developer pays for all on -site improvements and provides ROW for
additional lanes for Boundary Streets if needed in accordance with Master Street Plan. If a
development is adjacent to a collector or an arterial that the City has accepted for maintenance, the
developer may develop lots off of this roadway without regard to condition or adequacy of the
external street. If the road is a local street that has been accepted for maintenance by the City, the
developer may divide off the road but also meet the City's standards for access. If the road is a dead
end road, the furthest lot from the intersection of this road with an arterial or collector or another
local road that has at least two outlets must be nor more than 650 from that intersection. If the
ROW is 60, there is 40 feet of paving, and no more than 44 lots or if the ROW is 50 feet, there is no
more than 44 lots and the lot width at the building line for each lot is no less than 90 feet, then the
distance from the intersection may be 1120 feet.
Drainage
Developer can be required to provide off -site drainage improvements if needed for plat approval,
but this is a rare occurrence.
Water and Sewer
All water and sewer mains are constructed in accordance with City of Conway ordinances and
Conway Corporation policy. Water mains are sized according to future development potential and
fire flows. Sewer mains are sized to future development potential. The Manager of Engineering and
Planning of the Conway Corporation serves as contracting agent to install water and sewer
improvements in new subdivisions. Projects are funded through draws off letters of credits or
cashier checks. Customers provide a letter of credit or a cashier's check equivalent to the estimated
Fayettevi II a\IMPACT FEE STUDY -DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 10, 2001, Page 14
cost of the project, including engineering costs, prior to the commencement of the job.
Customers paying for water or sewer main extensions are entitled to recover a portion of their costs
if the extension fronts the property of other potential customers. The method by which this is
accomplished is through the issuance of connection certificates by the Conway Corporation to the
customer paying for the water or sewer main.
Certificates will be issued equal to the number of potential lots or building sites along the extension,
in agreement with the customer paying for the extension. The value of each certificate is determined
by dividing the total cost of the extension by the number of potential lots or building sites along it.
The customer paying for the main(s) surrenders one certificate upon connection of this water or
sewer service line to the main extension. Each outstanding connection, certificate earns interest
(currently at the rate of 6 percent per year) for the first three years from the date of original issue.
Additional service connections to a water or sewer main extension will be made by the Corporation
only upon receipt of a connection certificate, or upon payment of the face value of the certificate
plus the interest earned.
Example: sewer 'h mile line extension cost $300,000; developer plans to build 50 lots; additional
land that will benefit from the line extension has the potential for an additional 100 lots; total lots is
150; value per lot is $2,000. Developer's benefit is $100,000 ($300,000 divided by 50 lots); developer
is paid $2000 (plus interest earned) for each new service line tied to the sewer line plus interest. In
addition to line extension, homes in new subdivisions are charged $30 for a meter installation where
the meter setter has been set during the construction of water mains in a subdivision.
Conway Corporation Residential Service Installation Cost Schedule where water and sewer services
have not been provided at a potential building site. This is in addition to any connection certificate
charges due on any main.
3/4" water meter installation 30 feet or less - $250; > 30 feet - $350; cutting/boring $150
4" sewer service installation 20 feet or less $300; > 20 feet - $450; cutting/boring $350
Parks
No fees or dedications
Schools
No fees
Libraries
A one -mill
tax is
charged
countywide
to support the
library.
Police
No fees
Fire
No fees
Sidewalks
The Subdivision Ordinance requires sidewalks be on both sides of collectors and arterials, as well as
both sides with a commercial or office districts regardless of classification of streets. This applies
only to new developments.
Fayetteville\IMPACT FEE STUDY -DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 10, 2001, Page 15
C
Electric and Cable
City provides overhead electric and cable services to city residents. Customers pay 60 percent of
underground conduit costs for underground electric and cable. This is the approximate difference in
the cost of overhead and underground facilities.
Zoning and Subdivision Fees
Rezoning fees - $75
Variance - $35
Conditional Use — no fee
Subdivision Plat: Minor Plat - $100; Preliminary Plat - $150 plus $5 per lot; Final Plat - $100
Sign Permit: $15
Parking lot permit: $25 for first 25 spaces; $10 for each additional 50 spaces
Fayetteville\IMPACT FEE STUDY -DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 10, 2001, Page 16
Fort Smith, Arkansas
Contacts
P.O. Box 1908, Fort Smith, AR 72902
Mr. Wally Bailey, Planning Director, 501-784-22l6wbailey@fsark.com
Mr. Roger Cox, Utilities Dept. Records Coordinator, 501-784-2236 rcox@fsark.com
Size and Growth
Population: 80,000
Square Miles 53.4
Moderate Growth
Studies
Retained Gould Evans out of Kansas City to prepare new Comprehensive Plan
Sales Tax
Early 1990's the City passed a 1 -cent sales tax for roads and drainage improvements. Tax raises $14-
16 million a year. Improvements based on CIP.
Roads
In new subdivisions, the developer pays to bring adjacent roads up to city standards and provides
ROW for additional lanes if needed. Developer provides signalization if needed.
Drainage
Developer provides off -site drainage improvements if needed.
Water and Sewer
Sanitary sewer lines that serve areas in excess of 100 acres are eligible for partial reimbursement as
outlined in current ordinances. Developers pay a sanitary sewer tie on fee for developments where
new lines have been installed and taps provided. This fee is calculated at $150.00 an acre or part of
an acre. Homeowners requesting new taps on existing lines pay a tap fee of $350.00 plus the
additional cost of installing service lines to the property line. Charges are set by ordinance and total
cost varies according to field conditions. In areas where additional water and sewer line size is
required to serve a larger area than is originally developed, the developer can apply for City
participation in betterment cost for the difference in cost of the line sizes. All City participation in
cost sharing is subject to Board of Directors approval.
Water taps costs are set according to code, and vary according to the size of taps. The cost of water
taps is also affected by the degree of difficulty in reaching the property line of the customer. Taps
larger than 2" are installed by licensed contractors, and paid for by the developer.
- Non -Street Crossing: '/4" tap - $260.00, 1" tap -$300.00, 2" tap - $960.00; $13.00 / foot > 10'.
- Street Crossing — CUT: 3/4" tap -$410.00, 1" tap - $450.00, 2" tap - $1225.00; $23.00 / foot > 20' in
street and $13.00 /each additional out of street footage.
- Street Crossing — BORE: 3/s" tap - $325.00, 1" tap - $365.00, 2" tap - $1025.00; $5.00 / additional
foot in the street > 20' minimum; $13.00 /additional out of street footage.
FayettevlileVMPACT FEE STUDY —DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 10, 2001, Page 17
E
Parks
No fees or dedications
Schools
No development fees charged.
Libraries
No development fees charged.
Police
No fees
Fire
No fees
Sidewalks
Developers must install sidewalks in new subdivisions. The building permit fee includes a certain
percent for sidewalks, "sidewalk assessment fee." Once the building permit is approved that portion
of the fee that goes to sidewalks is transferred to the "sidewalk" fund. The fee is charged on almost
any residential or non-residential building permit, except for small permits. Fees raise approximately
$150,000 each year for sidewalks. Used to install sidewalks in areas that do not have sidewalks.
Sidewalk fees are based on the estimated value of the construction costs:
•- • • • • • r
$20,001 -$80,000= $50 $10,001 -$50,000= $100
$80,001 and greater - $100 $50,001 - $100,000 = $500
$100,001 - $1,000,000 = $1000
$1,000,001 or greater = $3,000
Zoning and Subdivision Fees
Rezoning fees - $130
Variance - $50
Conditional Use - $50 / $75
Subdivision Plat (preliminary and final) - $25 paid to the county as a filing fee
Fayetteville\IMPACT FEE STUDY -DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 10, 2001, Page 18
Jonesboro, Arkansas
Contacts
P.O. Box 1845, Jonesboro, AR 72403
Mr. Jeff Hawkins, Planning Director, 870-932-0540 jhawkins@jonesboro.org
Mr. Jerry Reece, Eng. Services Supervisor Utilities Dept., 870-930-3320 Fax: 930-3333
Size and Growth
Population: 51,000
Square Miles: 86
Fast Growing
Studies
Comprehensive Plan completed in 1996 and the Unified Development Ordinance in 1999; the city
staff have broken the zoning and subdivision back out as separate documents and should adopt
revised ordinances in this Spring.
Sales Tax
In 1995, a $55 million bond issue was passed that was backed by a 5 -year 1 -cent sales tax. It expired
in June 2000 (average annual revenue generated by 1 cent sales tax is approximately $11 million per
year). A new sales tax was passed in October 2000. It is a 1 cent sales tax; 'h dedicated to streets and
drainage; other dedicated to eliminating fees for sanitation, mosquito spraying, bird removal, and the
portion of the "general purpose" ad valorem tax.
Roads
In new subdivisions, the developer pays for all on -site improvements and provides ROW for
additional lanes if needed in accordance with Master Street Plan.
Drainage
Developer provides off -site drainage improvements if needed for plat approval.
Water and Sewer
The developer has the option of installing sewer based on the City Water and Light Improvement
District's specifications or the developer can pay the Improvement District $30 per lineal foot to
install it. Developer installs most and must provide as-builts, tests, and confirmation that
improvements have no outstanding bills or liens. There is a $250 sewer inspection connection fee
that goes into a special fund for building sewer trunk lines.
The Improvement District installs all water lines. The water tap fee for 3/" line is $150; a 2" line is
$500. There is no charge for boring or cutting a street because the homeowner is responsible for
making arrangement for this in existing developments.
Parks
No fees or dedications
FayettevilieVMPACT FEE STUDY —DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 10, 2001, Page 19
C
Schools
No fees
Libraries
1 mil ad valorem tax for libraries
Police
No fees
Fire
No fees
Sidewalks
Zoning ordinance requires sidewalks on one side of collectors and arterials.
Electric
The City Water and Light Improvement District provides electric service to city residents that is
substantially cheaper then other electric providers outside city limits. This has spurred annexation
into Jonesboro.
Zoning and Subdivision Fees
Rezoning fees - $30
Variance - $25
Conditional Use - $25
Subdivision Plat (minor, preliminary and final) - $25 plus $.60 per lot; site plan $25
Fayettevi l le\IMPACT FEE STUDY -DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 10, 2001, Page 20
C
Rogers, Arkansas
Contacts
207 South 2nd Street, Rogers, AR 72756
Mr. Maurice Kolman, Director, Office of Transportation and Planning (did not interview)
Mr. Derrel Smith, Asst. City Planner, 501-621-1186 dsmith@rogersark.org
Mr. Mark Johnson, Rogers Water Utilities, 501-936-5406 markcjohnson@usa.net
Size and Growth
Population: 37,800
Square Miles 38
Fast Growth
Studies
June 2000 major changes were made in development fees and building fees.
Zoning and subdivision update in 1998; there maybe an update of the growth comprehensive plan
during this next year.
Sales Tax
In 1996 bond issue passed underwritten by 1% sales tax; funded construction of a criminal justice
building, fire training and administration facility, and street and drainage improvements. The 1% tax
raised $4.7 mil in 1997; $4.7 mil in 1998; $5 mil in 1999; and $5.5 mil in 2000. (Source: Peggy in
Clerk's Office)
Roads
In new subdivisions, the developer pays to bring adjacent roads up to city standards and provides all
right-of-way and development improvements, including additional lanes if needed. The large-scale
development and subdivision ordinance require that developer improve half of street; and dedicate
pave, curb and gutter and sidewalks.
Drainage
Developer provides on- and off -site drainage improvements based on development requirements.
Water and Sewer
Developer funds all water and sewer improvements. If sewer or water extension is required,
developer is required to pay all cost of extending service. On a case -by -case basis, the city may
contribute to the extension (if the extension is in an area the city plans to extend service, then there
is more of a possibility that the city will share costs.
A $150 per lot ($300) "connection fee" is charged for both water and sewer service. Businesses are
charged the same $300 "connection fee." Customers that require a 1'k" or greater water meter, the
Utilities Department installs and charges whatever the cost might be.
Cost of setting a meter in a new subdivision is $10, plus $20 deposit (for existing customers) for
both water and sewer. Renters pay $25 for water and $30 for sewer plus a $50 deposit each service.
Fayettevi l l e\IMPACT FEE STUDY -DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 10, 2001, Page 21
Parks
No fees or dedications, but developers are strongly encouraged to provide recreation area,
particularly flood prone areas.
Schools
No development
fees
Libraries
No development
fees
Police
No development
fees
Fire
No development
fees
Sidewalks
Developers must install sidewalks on both sides of street in new residential and non-residential
developments.
Zoning and Subdivision Fees
Rezoning fees - $200
Variance - $100
Conditional Use - $100
Large Scale Development Plan - $200
Subdivision Plat: Preliminary Plat - $200 plus $1 per lot over 50 lots; Final Plat - $200 plus $1 per lot
over 50 lots
Lot split - $100
Fayettevl l l e\IMPACT FEE STUDY —DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 10, 2001, Page 22
E
Springdale, Arkansas
Contacts
Dept. of Planning and Community Development, 201 Spring Street, Springdale, AR 72764
Ms. Patsy Christie, Planning Director (not interviewed)
Ms. Melissa McCarville, Assistant Planning Director, 501-750-8550 mmccarville@springdaleark.org
Mr. Chris Brown, Engineering Dept. cbrown@ springdaleark.org
Ms. Denise Pearce, City Clerk (sales tax) 501-750-8117
Mr. Otto Potter (roads and drainage) 501-750-8550 opotter@springdaleark.org
Mr. Rick Pulvirenti (water and sewer) 501-751-9479 / 750-4039 fax)
Mr. Paul Justice, NW Arkansas Reg. Ping. Commission, 501-751-7125 pjustice@mail.com
Size and Growth
Population: 44,800
Square Miles: 31
Fast Growth
Studies
City is working on an update to the land use plan; they adopted a new Master Street Plan in April of
2000. It is continually working on updates to various portions of the zoning ordinance and recently,
the sign ordinance has been evaluated.
Sales Tax
1% sales tax passed in 1992. 75% of the revenue generated goes to capital projects listed in the
Capital Improvement Plan; the remainder goes to the General Fund. In 2000, sales tax revenue
generated was $8.5 mil with $6.4 mil going to capital projects.
City council has approved a "voluntary" tax for libraries and the fire department. In the past it was
on the county's tax bill, but in 1996 it was taken off. It is now sent out by the City Clerk's office.
Since this time revenues have fallen substantially from this "voluntary" tax. Revenues collected last
year for the Fire Department were $43,487 (millage rate of .0015) and revenues collected for
Libraries were $27,312 (millage rate of .0010).
Roads
Developer constructs all improvements and is required to improve adjacent street based on the
Master Street Plan. If street improvements are not immediately needed, the city has a provision for a
"payment in lieu." Most often the developer will ask for a waiver of improvements and the Planning
Commission usually does not grant the waiver but requires "payment in lieu" of constructing the
improvements. At this point the developer submits an amount that the engineers reviews and both
parties mutually agree upon the amount. "Payments in lieu" are not done frequently; most of the
time the planning commission will want the improvements done immediately. Funds received "in
lieu" go into one account but assigned to the street (presently there are 18 different submittals).
Funds in lieu are usually related to adding an additional lane. Money is paid in cash with no
provision for refunds.
Fayettevl lle\IMPACT FEE STUDY —DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 10, 2001, Page 23
Drainage
Developer provides on and off -site drainage improvements based on impact of development.
Developers must account for all on -site drainage and any drainage improvements needed so that
development does not harm downstream. Special permission must be granted for detention.
Commercial detention remains the responsibility of commercial property owner.
Water and Sewer
Developer pays total cost; city will contribute to paying for oversizing of lines. Water tap fee for
5/8" is $275, plus $250 for a full street bore or $649 for a street cut; Sewer service fee for 4"
connection is $285, but developer pays no water or sewer tap fee, if they install water and sewer in
new subdivision.
Parks
No development fees or dedications required
Schools
No development fees
Libraries
There is a 1 -mil ad valorem tax for library operations collected by the County (Marsha Ransom, 756-
7706). The City of Springdale has a "voluntary" library tax of .0010 mils (see above discussion under
"sales tax.)"
Police
No development fees
Fire
The City of Springdale has a "voluntary" Fire Department tax of .0015 mils (see above discussion
under "sales tax."
Sidewalks
Sidewalks are required on both sides of street in residential and non-residential development;
occasionally variances are approved the exempt sidewalk installation. There is also a provision for
"payments in lieu"
Zoning and Subdivision Fees
Rezoning - $175
Variance - $75
Conditional Use Permit - $75
Subdivision - Preliminary Plat - $100; Final Plat
Plat - $50
$50/lot or $1/lot, which ever is greater; Informal
Fayetteville\IMPAGT FEE STUDY -DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 10,2001, Page 24
C
Bozeman, Montana
Contacts
20 East Olive Street, P.O. Box 1230, Bozeman, MT 59771
Mr. Chris Saunders, Impact Fee Coordinator, 406-582-2360 csaunders@bozeman.net
Mr. Mike Certalic, Water Superintendent, 406-582-3200 mcertalic@bozeman.net
Size and Growth
Population: 33,000
Square Miles: 13
Fast Growth: Est. 4.6%
Studies
Transportation, fire, water and wastewater impact fee study completed in 1996.
Sales Tax
No sales tax for infrastructure improvements; only resort towns are allowed to levy sales tax for
public improvements.
Roads
Transportation impact fee charged for new development: single-family home - $1778; general use
office - $3090/1000 sf; commercial development (100,000 so - $4926/1000 sf; fast food -
$9210/1000; light industrial - $1297/1000 sf; elementary school - $151/1000 sf; high school -
$319/1000 sf; and church - $1086/1000 sf. Impact fee credits given for some ROW dedication and
off -site improvements made by developer.
Drainage
Developer provides on -site and off -site drainage improvements needed for plat or site plan
approval.
Water' and Sewer
Impact fees for water and sewer are based on the size of the water meter. Impact fees for single-
family connections are $2,142.31 for water and $2,716.07 for sewer. Time and materials cost is
charged for connection to main lines.
Parks
State law authorizes land dedication requirements for parks. Park dedication is part of state law and
subdivision ordinance. It is based on a sliding scale depending on size of lots proposed or fixed
amount per dwelling not to exceed .03 acres.
Lots greater than 5 acres - no park dedication required
Lots 3 to 5 acres - 2.5% of subdivision land devoted to recreation
Lots 1 to 3 acres - 5% of subdivision land devoted to recreation
Lots 'k to 1 acre - 7.5% of subdivision land devoted to recreation
Lots less than acre - 11% of subdivision land devoted to recreation
Fayetteville\IMPACT FEE STUDY -DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 10, 2001, Page 25
Subdivisions of 6 lots or less are not required to dedicate land or make a payment in lieu of
dedication.
The Comprehensive Plan supports changes to allow off -site parkland dedication. There is no
recreation land dedication required for non-residential development. Multifamily requirements for
provision of recreation vary.
Schools
No fees
Libraries
No fees
Police
No fees
Fire
Impact Fees based on type of dwelling unit or use and square footage. Typical fees are: single-family
- $181.87; townhouse - $152.74; multifamily 4-plex - $83.40; office (50,000 sf) - $355/1000 sf;
commercial (50,000 sf) - $450/1000 sf; and warehouse (50,000 so - $534.57/1000 sf
Sidewalks
Required to install sidewalk on both sides according to city street standards; standard sidewalk is 5
feet wide and located a foot from curb. Required in residential and commercial development.
Developer pays all costs. Requiring sidewalks to be installed with development of subdivision up
front or a "date certain." No longer than 3 years delay is typical.
Zoning and Subdivision Fees
Rezoning - $400 plus $5 per acre up to 80 acres, then $3 per acre over 80 acres.
Variance - $180 singe household, $300 others
Special Use Permit — $660
Subdivision - Preliminary Plat - $200 plus $3 per lot to 100 lots then $1 per lot; Final Plat - $50 plus
$1 per lot.
Fayettevi l l e\IMPACT FEE STUDY -DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 10, 2001, Page 26
•
Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Contacts
306 North Columbia Street, Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Mr. Roger Waldon, Planning Director, 919-968-2731 rwaldon@town.ci.chapel-hill.nc.us
Orange Water and Sewer Authority, 919-968-4421
Size and Growth
Population: 45,000
Square Miles: 20
Moderately Growing
Studies
Orange County conducted study for school impact fees; looking at changing fee structure. Currently
all residential pays the same fee. Looking at a tiered system with lower fees for multifamily,
townhouses and mobile homes.
Sales Tax
No sales tax for infrastructure improvements
Roads
In new subdivisions, there is a system of required developer improvements. The developer pays for
all on -site improvements, provides ROW for additional lanes and sometimes builds additional lanes
or makes nearby intersection improvements. Based on rational nexus between impact and need for
improvement; it is mostly a negotiated process.
Drainage
Developer provides on -site and/or off -site drainage improvements if needed, as a condition of
approval for new development.
Water and Sewer
Orange Water and Sewer Authority charges a combined sewer/water "availability fee." The typical
fee for a new house in an average subdivision would likely be approximately $3,500.
Sewer
Sewer Service for "non -street crossing:" $615, $20 / additional foot > 10 feet
Sewer Service for "street crossing - cut:" $700, $33 / additional foot > 20 feet in street/out of street
Tie on fee: $350 for 4" service line
Water
Water tap fees for "non -street crossing" are: 3/" tap = $260, 1"= $300 and 2" = $960; $13 /
additional foot > 10 feet
Water tap fees for "street crossing — cut: " 3/" tap = $410, 1" _ $450, 2" = $1225; $23 / additional
foot > 20 feet in street and $13 / foot out of street
Water tap fees for "street crossing - bore:" 3/" tap = $325, 1" = $365, 2" = $1025; $5 / additional
foot >20 feet in street and $13 / foot out of street
Fayettevi lle\IMPACT FEE STUDY -DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 10, 2001, Page 27
Parks
Ordinance requires improved recreation space as an amenity for apartments; recreation area is
required for subdivisions, based on zoning district's land use intensities; Town Council can authorize
payments in lieu of land or improvements if it finds that recreation needs are met by public facilities
in close proximity to development.
Schools
Currently a fee of $3000 per dwelling unit, but a proposal to raise the fee is under consideration.
Libraries
No fees
Police
No fees
Fire
No fees
Sidewalks
Sidewalks are typically required to be constructed on -site and sometimes off -site to continue
connectivity; developer provides all improvements.
Zoning and Subdivision Fees
Application fees run between $20,000 to $30,000 for many developments
Zoning Map Amendments - Initial application fee: $800 plus $40 per acre
Zoning Compliance Permit - Site Plan Review fee: $1700 plus $17/sf of floor area
Zoning Compliance Final Permit Issuance -'k of Initial Permit Fee
Board of Adjustment - Variance: $330 and Appeal: $220
Special Use Permit - $5000 plus $20 per acre
Master Land Use Plans - $5000 plus $20/100 sf of land area
Subdivision - Preliminary Plat - $5000 plus $200/lot; Final or Minor Plat - $270 plus $40/lot
Fayette V i l le\IMPACT FEE STUDY -DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 10, 2001, Page 28
I
Fort Collins, Colorado
Contacts
P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 80522
Mr. Cameron Gloss, Current Planning Director, 970-221-6750 cgloss@fcgov.com
Mr. Dave Stringer (roads), 970-221-6605 dstringer@fcgov.com
Ms. Dee Toplyn (sales tax) 970-221-6530 dtoplyn@fcgov.com
Mr. Matt Baker (street oversizing), 970-224-6108 mbaker@fcgov.com
Ms. Mary Young (water and waste water), 970-416-2630 myoung@fcgov.com
Ms. Jean Pakech (drainage), 970-221-6375 jpakech@fcgov.com
Size and Growth
Population: 122,304
Square Miles: 47
Fast Growth
Studies
City just raised "street oversizing capital expansion" fee rates; work was completed in-house.
Sales Tax
The City has three quarter -cent sales taxes for capital projects. The taxes are one -quarter cent for
streets and transportation, one -quarter cent for community enhancement projects (City/School
District community projects, performing arts center, library technology, etc.), and one -quarter cent
for natural areas and parks (natural areas acquisition and maintenance, and community park
improvements). This tax is projected to generate $5 million in fiscal year 2001.
Roads
A "street oversizing capital expansion" fee is charged at the point of building permit. It is what is
commonly known as a "road impact fee." It is based on the assumption that certain streets, such
arterials and collectors, have a community wide benefit and all development should pay their fair
share to improve these streets (Master Street Plan). The term "oversized" comes from the
calculation of "oversizing" a street from the required local street standard to the collector or arterial
standard. Developers are required to donate one-half of the required right-of-way needed for a local
street (25.5 feet), and construct within that right-of-way the local street standard (15 feet of asphalt,
10 foot parkway strip and 4.5 foot sidewalk). If the adjacent road is required to be improved above
the local street standard, the developer is reimbursed by the city for the additional cost or the city
undertakes the construction and the developer only pays the cost of improving a local street cross-
section. If it is a large street and a substantial amount of right-of-way is required (over and above the
local street standard), the City will purchase the right-of-way. Fort Collins collects approximately
$4.5 to $5 million a year in "street oversizing capital expansion" fees.
Street oversizing capital expansion fees" charged for new development: single-family home - $1624;
general use office - $2710/ 1000 sf (offices under 50,000 sO; commercial development (100,000 sf) -
$5410/1000 sf; fast food - $20,630/1000 sf; light industrial - $1160/1000 sf; schools do not pay
street oversizing fee; they must upgrade adjacent street based on projected impact of school; and
church - $1520/1000 sf. The rates are based on Institute of Traffic Engineering (ITE) trip
Fayetteville\IMPACT FEE STUDY -DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 10, 2001, Page 29
generations.
In addition, Larimer County has a "transportation expansion fee" to improve regional roadways.
Fort Collins collects it at the building permit, and remits it back to the County on a quarterly basis.
A committee representing all jurisdictions in Larimer County selects roadway improvement projects.
These rates are approximately 10% of Fort Collins's street oversizing capital expansion fee.
Drainage
Stormwater development fees are collected when a lot or parcel of land is developed within the city
that creates an impervious surface covering more than 350 square feet. The fee is a one time charge
and is payable upon the issuance of a building permit. The fee pays for the design, right of way
acquisition and construction or reconstruction of major stormwater systems.
The city is divided into twelve storm drainage basins. City Council adopted a basin -financing plan
based on the cost of new facilities for each basin. Ten basins currently collect fees for new
development. At this time, the Poudre River and Box Elder/Cooper Slough basins do not collect
new development fees.
The development fees are determined by:
- Stormwater basin and basin rate in which the lot is located
- Gross area of each parcel of land
- Percent of impervious surface
- Amount of on -site detention, if any, that will be provided on the lot
(Gross sq. ft. of lot) x (Basin Rate) x (Percent Impervious) x (On -site Detention Reduction Factor)
For Estimate purposes only the following impervious percentages can be used:
Average Residential Lot = 50% impervious; Average Commercial Site = 80% impervious
Basin Name
Per Acre
Rate
Per Sq Ft
Rate
Basin Fee for
8,600 sq ft Lot*
Dry Creek
$5,000
$0.1147842
$494.00
Evergreen/Greenbriar
$10,000
$0.2295684
$987.00
Old Town
$4,150
$0.0952709
$410.00
West Vine
$7,004
$0.1607897
$691.00
Canal Importation
$6,181
$0.1418962
$610.00
Spring Creek
$2,175
$0.0499311
$215.00
Foothills
$6,525
$0.1497934
$644.00
Fox Meadows
$6,468
$0.1484848
$638.00
McClelland Mail Creek
$3,717
$0.0853306
$367.00
Fossil Creek
$2,274
$0.0522039
$224.00
Fees shown are for an 8,600 sq. ft. residential lot, using 50 percent impervious. Lots of larger size
and more intense imperviousness will have higher fees. This is an estimate only due to the many
factors that affect this fee that are not included in the above formula.
Fayetteville\IMPACT FEE STUDY -DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 10, 2001, Page 30
Fort Collins also collects monthly stormwater fees for all developed properties within the city. These
fees are for operation, maintenance of the system and capital projects. The stormwater fee for an
average single-family home site of 8600 square feet would be $8.13 ("light runoff"). Commercial fees
average $82.34 per month based on a typical 1 -acre lot ("heavy runoff"). The stormwater monthly
utility fee is based on lot size, share of open space, base rate and rate factor. The base rate equals
.0023527 and the rate factor varies depending on impervious surface: very light = .25; light = .4;
moderate = .6; heavy = .8; very heavy = .95. Single-family homes over 12,000 feet receive a 25%
reduction. The formula to calculate the monthly fee is: (Lot area + Open Space) x Base Rate x Rate
Factor.
Water and Sewer
The City has a wastewater and water "plant investment fee" (PIF) that is charged at the time of
building permit. This is a one-time development fee collected to pay for growth related capital
expansions cost of water supply, storage, transmission, treatment and distribution facilities. The fee
varies with the number of dwelling units and the lot area served for residential users, and with the
size of the water meter for non-residential users. For single-family, the wastewater is per dwelling
unit; the water fee is based on square footage of lot. Commercial development based on meter size.
Wastewater Plant Investment Fee (examples)
Single-family Residential $1030/unit
Non -Residential $6500 / 1 inch meter $18,900 / 2 inch meter
Non-residential customers discharging high strength wastewater exceeding average concentrations
of BOD and/or TSS are subject to PIF surcharges.
Water Plant Investment Fee (examples)
Single-family Residential (3/4 inch tap) $610 + $.32 per square feet of lot area
Non -Residential $15,300 / 1 inch meter $53,600 / 2 inch meter
Raw Water Fee
Raw water is required for the increase in water use created by new development and to insure a
reliable source of supply in dry years. The Raw Water Requirement can be satisfied with water stocks
or city certificate or by cash payment at the time of building permit. See the City of Fort Collins's
web site for rates.
Capital Expansion Fee
A "capital expansion fee" is paid at the time of building permit. This fees goes toward funding
capital costs for libraries, community parkland, police, fire and general government services.
The following fee schedule is based on an "average" residential home having from 1701 to 2200
square feet and an "average" commercial or industrial development of 100,000 square feet. The
detailed fee schedule is available on Fort Collins's web site (www.fcgove.com).
Residential
$453
$1,426 $112 I
$163
$207
Commercial
N/A
N/A $12,100
$17,400
$19,500
Industrial
N/A
N/A $3,300
$4,800
$5,400
Fayetteville\IMPACT FEE STUDY -DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 10, 2001, Page 31
Parks
In addition to the "capital expansion fee" for community parkland, there is a parkland fee charged at
the time of residential building permit. Based on an "average" residential home having from 1701 to
2200 square feet, the fee charged would be $1275.
Libraries
See "capital expansion fee"
Police
See "capital expansion fee"
Fire
See "capital expansion fee"
Schools
The Poudre School District has a school impact fee of $484.26 per residential dwelling and
Thompson School District has a school impact fee of $446.00 per residential dwelling.
Sidewalks
Sidewalks are provided as part of street improvements. Are required on both sides and sometimes as
bike lane is required.
Zoning and Subdivision Fees
Rezoning — $977 plus $.50 per mailing label for notification
Major amendment to land use plan - $3206 plus $.50 per mailing label for notification
Variance - $25
Non -conforming use review - $1389
Overall Development Plan - $1599
Project Development Plan without Subdivision Plat - $3887 + $.50 per mailing label for notification
Project Development Plan with Subdivision Plat - $5879 plus $.50 per mailing label for notification
Final Plan with or without a Subdivision Plat - $1000
Fayetteville\IMPACT FEE STUDY -DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 10, 2001, Page 32
Lawrence, Kansas
Contacts
Planning Department, P.O. Box 708, Lawrence, KS 66044
Ms. Linda Finger, Planning Director (not interviewed)
Ms. Sheila Stogsdill, Asst. Planning Director, 785-832-3150 sstogsdill@ci.lawrence.ks.us
Mr. Chad Voigt (drainage), 785-832-3037 cvoigt@ci.lawrence.ks.us
Mr. Roger Coffee, Director of Dept. of Utilities, 785-832-7810 / 7897 (fax)
or Ms. Deedee Commons, dcommonons@ci.lawrence.ks.us
Ms. Debbie Sparks (county sales tax), 785-832-5287
Mr. Ed Mullins (city sales tax), 785-832-3214
Size and Growth
Population: 83,682
Square Miles: 29
Moderate Growth
Studies
Currently updating zoning ordinance and looking at cost for doing an "Adequate Public Facilities"
ordinance/fee system (spoken with Eric Kelly, Duncan Associates)
Sales Tax
1994 passed a 1% countywide sales tax. Support for the sale tax was based on the agreement that the
general ad valorem taxes that went to the city and county would be lowered by 7 mils (5 from city
and 2 from county), while that portion going to the city -county schools would be increased by 7 mils
to build a new high school. Douglas County uses to fund court renovations, operating cost for the
jail and city -county health building (approximately $3.6 million received annually by County); the
City of Lawrence expends its portion of the sale tax revenues (approximately $7.2 million received
annually by City) based on a 5 -year Capital Improvements Plan for parks and recreation and to fund
the city's portion of the health facility.
Roads
Developer is required to provide all required road improvements and necessary right-of-way. If
major street improvement is premature, developer signs an agreement that he will not oppose
establishment of a "Benefit District" in the future. A benefit district is an "assessment" that appears
on property tax and is paid over an extended period of time. City will participate in Benefit District
if the improvements are deemed to be of benefit to the city at large.
Drainage
There is a citywide, monthly stormwater utility fee; it is based on impervious surface. A single-family
home was determined to have an average of 2366 sf of impervious surface. This is called "equivalent
residential unit" (ERU). Fee paid on water bill.
January 2001 $3.00 per ERU; January 2003 goes to $4.00 per ERU
Commercial properties charged for actual ERU's (based on development's total impervious square
feet divided by 2,366) times $1.27 per 1000 SF impervious surface. Fee applies to City properties and
tax-exempt properties.
Fayetteville\IMPACT FEE STUDY -DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 10, 2001, Page 33
Single family residences charged based on total building footprints on the lot:
up to 1000
0.67
ERU's
$2.01
1001 to 1800
1.00
ERU's
$3.00
1801 to 3000
1.25
ERU's
$3.75
3001 to 4000
1.80
ERU's
$5.40
4001 and up
2.50
ERU's
$7.50
Multi -family units charged based on
"unit size." Unit size = total footprints / # units
up to 750
0.37
ERU's
$1.11
750 and
up
0.66
ERU's
$1.98
Water and Sewer
No water service is provided until provisions for installing sanitary sewer have been made. The
developer is required to install all water and sewer improvements. Any water line extension 12" or
less is required to be made fully by the developer. There is no provision for recoupment of line
extension cost if the developer must extend lines to reach existing water or sewer service. If a line is
required to be oversized, there may be participation by City. The city may choose to extend water
lines to commercial or industrial properties at no cost to the development; however, the cost of
internal distribution mains are the responsibility of property owner. The city does not provide
benefit district financing for water improvements.
If the Department of Utilities installs water lines, the charge is $8 per lineal foot for water main
installation to existing lots. If the installation costs exceed this amount, the developer is charged
based on actual costs. The Department has a fee calculation method specifically for cul-de-sac lots as
it does for corner lots.
Residential home: water tap and meter fee for 5/8" is $450.07, plus a water system development
charge of $355 and a sewer system development charge of $460; Total: $1265.07
Parks
No development fees; 1% sales tax funds much of acquisition.
Schools
No development fees
Libraries
No development fees
Police
No development fees
Fire
No development fees
Sidewalks
Sidewalks are required on one side of local streets and both sides of collector and arterial. If
sidewalks do not need to be provided at the time development is approved, the development must
sign an agreement not to contest a "benefit district" formation in the future.
Fayetteville\IMPACT FEE STUDY -DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 10, 2001, Page 34
Zoning and Subdivision Fees
Rezoning:
City: the following fees plus legal advertisement:
BZA - Residential $30; Other $60
Use permitted upon review -$50
Subdivision Plats:
$100 for 4 lots or less
$200 for >4 lots, plus $3 / lot over 4 lots
Preliminary Development Plan - $200; Final Development Plan - $100
Plat Recording Fee - $20 per sheet
Covenants Filing Fee - $6 for 1" page, $2 each additional
Flood Plain Permits - $20
Site Plan - $50; Site Plan Renewal - $25
Fayetteville\IMPACT FEE STUDY -DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 10, 2001, Page 35
Springfield, Missouri
Contacts
Planning and Development Dept.,
Mr. Fred May, Ping. Dir. (not interviewed) 417-864-1037 fred_may@ci.springfield.mo.us
Mr. Andy Furedy (dev.) 417-864-1612 tell 1882 fax andy_furedy@ci.springfield.mo.us
Ms. Julie Gimlin (drainage) 417-864-1939 julie_gimlin@ci.springfield.mo.us
Ms. Mary Mannix (sales tax) 417-864-1399 mary_mannix@ci.springfield.mo.us
Mr. David Hutchison (roads) david_hutchison@ci.springfield.mo.us
Mr. Mike Delong, City Utilities of Springfield, 417-831-8527 mdelong@cityutilities.net
Size and Growth
Population: 151,580
Square Miles: 74.8
Moderate 8% growth over 10 years
Studies
The City has discussed the possibility of impact fees, but nothing else.
Sales Tax
Springfield instituted a sales tax to fund certain capital, operations and expenses of the city. It has a
1% general sales tax for operations and maintenance, a 1/8 -cent (raise $4 million per year) for road
improvements, mostly intersection improvements that are on the state's projects list but of a low
priority, and a'/s-cent sales tax (raises $8 million a year) for parks and other road improvements. The
State Department will reimburse the city for sales tax revenues expended on state identified road
improvements (program started because some of the roads needing improvement within the city
were far down the list of approved state projects, so the city speeded up the process by funding with
sales tax revenues). The City also uses $4 million in property tax revenues to fund bonds to
construct stormwater improvements, fire stations and other municipal facilities.
Roads
The developer is required to make all internal local and collector street improvements. For arterial
streets within a subdivision, the developer is required to dedicate right-of-way and construct two
lanes of any portion of the arterial street that provides direct access to the subdivision. The
developer is also required to dedicate rights -of -way, make paving improvements and provide
sidewalks on any adjacent road that is substandard and will not provide the level of service needed
for the development. If a road -widening improvement is underway, the developer is required to
make a "payment in lieu" to cover the cost of the sidewalk and any other required improvements.
The City Council may agree to some sort of recoupment agreement or cost sharing with property
owners for significant roadway improvement provided by the developer that will benefit the City or
adjacent property owners when their property develops. With residential subdivisions there is a
limited amount of off -site roadway exactions that can be required. If property is being rezoned for
commercial or industrial use, the City can require at time of zoning certain conditions of approval.
The City may require full roadway improvement including additional lanes, based on traffic impact
studies completed for large developments.
Fayetteville\IMPACT FEE STUDY -DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 10, 2001, Page 36
Drainage
Developers are required to provide all storm drainage improvements and are most often required to
provide on -site detention facilities. If a developer plans to construct a detention basin their engineer
will use the TR55 or HECI software to calculate their detention volume and size their outlet weirs.
A more simplified calculation is used for smaller basins or "buyouts" which allows bypassing the
expense of hiring an engineer for these calculations only. The simplified approach calculates by the
volume of detention needed: for every 1/10 of an acre of impervious surface development, the
developer is required to construct 1280 cubic feet of detention. If detention "buy out" is permitted,
the fee for 1 or 2 family residences is $1 per cubic feet of required detention; commercial is $2. If
the development goes over 24,000 - 100,000 cubic feet of detention, the fee drops to 'k. The city
approves detention buy-outs on a case -by -case basis. If there is any potential for downstream
impact, then there is no buy out approved. Sometimes developers are permitted to construct
downstream improvements to reduce detention cost. Cost of downstream improvements reduces
overall buyout cost calculations. In the past, storm water detention basins were allowed to discharge
on private property, which caused a lot of legal problems and expense. The City now requires that
basins discharge onto a public right-of-way, into a drainage easement, or that the engineer or
architect certifies it discharges into a "natural surface -water channel" and must notify downstream
property owners of this certification.
Water and Sewer
City provides gas, water, sewer and electric service. The City sometimes provides service extension
for utilities if there is economic development potential because of the project. If a water main
extension is on the Master Plan for main extension, the city will cost share for over sizing. The city
also has a cost recovery agreement whereby the developer who installed the main extension can
receive recoupment of the expense based on the lineal front foot of development occurring on
either side of the line. Cost recoupment is limited to 5 years; just initiated in last few years.
Water service charge: 1" $600 (all inclusive)
Developers are required to provide sanitary sewer to their developments. Minimum size tract for a
septic tank is 3 acres. On special projects the City has entered into agreements with developers to
come up with a formula to apportion recoupment cost based on a per acre calculation. The longest
period for reimbursement is 20 years. The City's policy for oversizing lines is to pay the difference in
PIPE cost not installation costs. (Bob Shaffer 417-864-1920)
Sewer fee based on water meter size and charged at time of building permit: 5/8" meter is $300; a 1"
meter is $500.
Parks
No development fees for parks
Schools
There are no development fees for schools.
Libraries
Capital improvements are funded through a portion of the property tax millage; run by a separate
city/county board.
Fayetteville\IMPACT FEE STUDY -DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 10, 2001, Page 37
0 r
Police
No development fee for police.
Fire
Fire Department capital improvements are funded through sales tax collections.
Sidewalks
Sidewalks are required to be constructed on both sides of the collector and arterial streets. Sidewalks
are not required on local commercial or industrial streets; however, on local residential streets,
sidewalks are based on density: less than 3 units per acre, sidewalks not required; 3 - 5 units per acre,
sidewalks are required on one side; > 5 units per acre, sidewalks are required on both sides of
residential streets. If a developer presents a reason to the Planning and Zoning Commission as to
why it would not be effective to construct sidewalks in their development, such as a large channel
along the street, then the commission can approve a sidewalk buyout at $16.63 / linear foot.
Zoning and Subdivision Fees
Rezoning - $630 for district change; $700 for PUD amendment;
Variance - $350
Conditional Use Permit - $700
Subdivision - Preliminary Plat - $390; Administration Fee for Final Plat - $165 and Appeal to
Commission or Council of Plat $130; Administrative Subdivision (5 lots or less in an existing
subdivision: $48).
Fayetteville\IMPACT FEE STUDY -DEVELOPMENT FEE SURVEY April 10, 2001, Page 38
FAYETTEVLLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Mayor Coody and City Council
THRU: Don Bunn, Assistant Public Works Director
John Maguire, Administrative Services Director
FROM: Tim Conklin, City Planner
Stephen Davis, Budget Manager
DATE: April 19, 2001
SUBJECT: Acceptance of two reports prepared by Duncan & Associates in association with
Cooper Consulting Company titled Impact Fee Study: Policy Directions
Memorandum and Development Fee Survey. City Council direction on Phase
Two of the impact fee study project is also requested.
The City contracted with Duncan & Associates to perform a development impact fee study. The contract
consisted of two phases: Phase One: Policy Directions and Phase Two: Implementation.
City Council is presented the two reports prepared by Duncan & Associates in association with Cooper
Consulting Company (Duncan & Associates), titled Impact Fee Study: Policy Directions Memorandum
and Development Fee Survey in completion of Phase One of the Impact Fee Study project.
Duncan & Associates presented the accompanying reports to City Council at a meeting held on Thursday
April 12. The conclusion of the reports was that the City could consider development impact fees for
essentially four infrastructure areas or types. The consultants arrived at their conclusion after reviewing
Arkansas law and court case findings.
The four infrastructure areas identified in the consultant's report are
• Water impact fee,
• Wastewater impact fee,
• Land dedication for community facilities or fee in lieu of land
dedication, and
• Street/Road land dedication or fee in lieu of land dedication.
The consultant did note in the summary section of their report that the first three impact fees are on firm
ground and that the street/road fee would be on less firm ground.
H:\B UDOE"MROJ ECTS\DE V ELOPM\dcvclopment. impact. fee. report.trasm ittalc ity.counci I.wPD
0
Staff requests direction from City Council on whether or not to proceed with Phase Two and if Council
decides to proceed with Phase Two which fee areas to study. Phase Two will include impact fee studies
for the infrastructure area selected by City Council for study as well as development of the implementing
ordinances and public participation. The consultants recommend a stakeholder advisory committee be
established for any work to be undertaken in Phase Two.
If City Council elects
to
proceed with Phase
Two, staff will need
to negotiate an agreement with the
consultant and submit
the
agreement for City
Council approval at a
future Council
meeting.
I l:U3UDGE'fPROJ ECTS\DEVELOPM\development.impact.@e.report.trasmiltal.city.council.wPD
• STAFF REVIEW FORM •
XX AGENDA REQUEST
CONTRACT REVIEW
GRANT REVIEW
For the Fayetteville City Council meeting of May 1, 2001
FROM:
Tim Conklin Planning Public Works
Stephen Davis Budget & Research Administrative Services
Name Division Department
ACTION REQUIRED: Acceptance of two reports prepared by Duncan & Associates in association with Cooper Consulting
Company titled Impact Fee Study: Policy Directions Memorandum and Development Fee Survey. City Council direction
on Phase Two of the impact fee study project is also requested.
COST TO CITY:
Impact Fee Study -
$None at this time 99,721.00 City Wide
Cost of this Request Category/Project Budget Category/Project Name
30,020.00
Account Number Funds Used To Date Program Name
Sales Tax Capital
69,701.00 Imp.
Project Number Remaining Balance Fund
Bu GET EVIEW: XX Budgeted Item Budget Adjustment Attached
B g t Manager Administrative Services Director
C
Officer
3 REVIEW:
D N /
d l
ate
4aool
Date
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
GRANTING AGENCY:_
Internal juditor
ADA Coordinator
Grant Coordinator
Date
Date Cross Reference
1/21 New Item: Yes No
y 23 Prev Ord/Res #:
to
Orig Contract Date:
Date
Orig Contract Number:
e
Date
tl:\BUDG?7\PROJECTS\DEVELOPM\dcvelopment.impact.fee.report.to.city.council.Agenda Request.wpd
•
STAFF REVIEW FORM - Page 2
Description Impact Fee Report to City Council Meeting Date May 1. 2001
Comments: Reference Comments:
Budget Manager
Accounting Manager
City Attorney
(nn c Jr Jl+ o/ t c -1€-- r,fari;t.j,.ac.
errr 4i� �cr.s�f Co)(e.i. �+. hz..� a rn w {-�.. /'�t�..�" �� 1�. O I rr...(). /c a f' —(C 11,..E-4
/c✓ fi:/:h.lir( / rc Lo yn.,..r. 4j. -f P- Vc'. n,s.,ry'yi�/,K ry✓�f�J+4w-Ji JNsk 4.
Vv,✓ rcl Jt. f, j ..�o�L.LT NoT Ott.Zrt S4.rccf/tI<.f :i:/o.4' itei (ry'1,., r 4�,r( P.i�L uL rn�
Purchasing Officer
ADA Coordinator
Internal Auditor
Grants Coordinator
H:\DUDGE"DPROJECTS\DEVELOPM\development.impact.fee.report.to.city.council.Agenda Request.wpd
FAYETTEVI�LE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
To: Tim Conklin, Planning Director
From: Heather Woodruff, City Clerk
Date: May 9, 2001
Attached is a copy of the resolution accepting the two reports prepared by Duncan and Associates
regarding Impact Fees. The original will be microfilmed and filed with the City Clerk.
• �.
NAME OF FILE: Resolution No. 61-01
CROSS REFERENCE:
05/01/01 Resolution No. 61-01
April/2001 Two Reports approved (Impact Fee Study: Policy Directions
Memorandum and Development Fee Study by Duncan & Associates in
association with Cooper Consulting Company)
04/19/01 Departmental Memo to Mayor Coody and City Council thru Don Bunn
and John Maguire from Tim Conklin and Stephen Davis
05/01/01 Staff Review Form
05/09/01 Departmental Memo from City Clerk
NOTES: