Government Affairs
2008 Election Candidates and Candidate Survey Responses back to main Candidate page
Candidate Survey Responses – On The Issues – Each Question, All Candidates
4. What is your position regarding Development or “Impact” Fees in Flagstaff?
Mayor Joseph Donaldson
My position on impact fees is still in need of more information. While I do favor implementing impact fees that will provide opportunities for new growth to begin paying its community way, I want to see the final summary of the consultant group. Many Arizona cities have impact fees. Many Arizona cities are growing at very high rates in spite of their impact fees. As one Council member put it in considering an annexation recently, every annexation should pay their way into the city. That Council member stated the obvious. If they don't pay, the community broadly picks up the costs of belonging to our community.
Sara Presler-Hoefle
Development paying for its impacts it has upon the community is an important value. I support impact fees and believe this concept is one tool in the tool box. Development should pay for itself. $7,100 could be sensible for second homes, and maybe more than $7,100 is sensible. However, under current market conditions, it may or may not be sensible for affordable/workforce housing. Since the State of Arizona doesn’t allow for the City to assess an impact fee upon only second homeowners, I propose the following to build consensus between those that want impact fees and those that do not want impact fees:
I am willing to agree that police, fire, and other essential services are a priority. I think a step-up approach could apply to impact fees based on updated studies and community needs. This will provide predictability for developers and home buyers, as well as accessibility for affordable housing market in the immediate future. A step-up approach where impact fees are limited to essential services for 2008 to 2010 would keep an immediate open market to foster affordable housing development. From 2010 to 2012, impact fees would step up, across the board for new development projects. Then, 2012 to 2014 implement another step up increase for new development projects. We could cap the fees at the proposed $7,100.
Impact fees are directly tied to the rate of growth. A sensible, balanced approach is needed. This plan could facilitate the immediate need for affordable housing and create long term accountability for growth and development. This may be a better solution than no impact fees and charging all citizens for the consequences of growth caused by a few. This may not be the solution, but it is an approach to building consensus in this process. Another solution is to lobby the legislature to modify the policy and allow local government to have more local control. If we can’t do something now, let’s find out how we can do it, together, and ask the legislature to respond to our needs as a community.
The median home price is 10.7 times greater than the median wage and 8 times the median household income. Teachers in Flagstaff make around the same as Phoenix, yet homes are $100,000 more in Flagstaff. Police and nurses generally make less money than their counterparts in Phoenix. Employers are experiencing recruitment and retention issues- maybe the employer would contribute the value of the impact fee to their employee for retention purposes, participate in down payment assistance, or help with closing costs. Some employers could even offer rental housing opportunities for employees to save and move into home ownership in our community.
Karla Brewster
I am for them- BUT, that should not impact the cost of the designated affordable homes as this should be a negotiated item for developers to implement a certain percentage or number of affordable homes into their developments and have the city or other funding source pay those fees for those homes so they are not passed on to the consumer. Impact fees on a half-million or million dollar home would be less than the amount the realtor would get. I also would not include parks or roads as part of the impact fees as those items are available to every one in the community.
Coral Evans
I support fees for infrastructure necessitated by new development however I do not support the proposal currently before City Council which would implement an impact fee of $9,000 per new home, approximately. I believe that such a high impact fee would simply work to further the affordability housing crisis that the City is currently facing.
Morgan Hagaman
I am against impact fees. Impact fees are just added costs to the developer that the developer is already paying for. The developer is already setting aside land for parks, trails, streets and sidewalks. The impact fees that the city wanted to impose put most of the fee towards these items that the developer is already paying for. Adding these costs will just be added to the cost of the house when the buyer shows up. The developer isn’t going to eat those extra costs. Studies show that for impact fees to be needed, your city needs to have more than 3% growth. Flagstaff is less that 3% growth. We need to listen to our own study. The cost of a house in this town is already very expensive. We need to do everything we can to try and keep the costs of building these homes as minimal as possible, to keep the housing as affordable as possible. These impact fees also affect any new commercial building that will prevent businesses from expanding or even starting up which does not help Flagstaff economically.
John McCulloch
I do not support them. Impact fees, which proponents argue will supplement existing long range capital improvements, and force developers to “pay their fair share,” are a catch-22 for those of us who oppose urban sprawl. If we impost impact fees to offset budgeted or proposed long range capital funding, then we are in many ways compelled to approve new developments in order to fund the capital improvements we might have otherwise budgeted or bonded for. There appears to be plenty of debt capacity to accomplish the community’s priorities. And adjustments of the “imaginary wants of the state” and the reallocating of existing revenue funds should be sufficient to afford the basic needs of our community.
Micole Shorty
Impact fees will ultimately be passed on the consumers and will make purchasing a home even harder. If we are trying to get working families into homes, we need to make it as painless as we can. Lets exhaust all other options before committing.
Al White
I am in support of impact fees. They are a legitimate form of cost recovery for the community to pay for delivery of services that development requires but doesn’t pay for. Cost recovery is my responsibility to the taxpayer. The current proposal is 50% of what it should or could legitimately be. This proposal shows a council willing to incrementally install fees out of respect for cost of doing business in Flagstaff. |
