By Brian Wright
Casa Grande Dispatch
People involved in building a master- planned community projected to house nearly 50,000 people got some help last week from the Pinal County Board of Supervisors.
At the board’s Dec. 5 meeting, supervisors voted 2-1 to approve reduced impact fees for the development, to the tune of 53 percent, despite a presentation from county staff recommending the supervisors deny the request.
The development area is in western Pinal County, just south of the Ak-Chin Indian Community near the city of Maricopa, and within Maricopa’s general planning area.
Attorney Jordan Rose of Rose Law Group represented developer TOUSA Recovery Acquisitions in discussions with the supervisors.
In an email to the Maricopa Monitor, Rose said the impact fees were “clearly miscalculated” from the beginning and said the property was to pay 31 percent of all the fees charged in the impact area. Rose also said because of main access to the property from Arizona 347 (its western boundary), traffic from the development would have less effect on county-maintained roads.
She said it wasn’t legal for a county to charge more in fees than the potential impact costs will total.
She said the amended fees are “in line with the actual impacts of the actual development.”
Supervisors Clark Smithson and Pete Rios agreed with Rose and approved the 53 percent reduction in the impact fees. Board Chairman David Snider voted against the reduction and sided with recommendations from county staffers.
Tischler Bise, a fiscal, economic and planning consultant company, calculated the fees on behalf of the county.
In a letter to Assistant County Manager Greg Stanley, Carson Bise, president of Tischler Bise, expressed concerns about agreeing to reduced impact fees for the developer. The letter included concerns regarding a “very long” time frame for full build-out. Bise said a critical mass of residential units must be occupied before retailers can be drawn to the area.
“The requested 53 percent reduction in fees for a significant portion of the
development projected in (the area) would result in a revenue shortfall and jeopardize the capital improvements plan,” Bise said.
However, two of the supervisors weren’t convinced by the information given by Tischler Bise and county staffers.
“It appeared to me (Rose) made a better presentation than the county staff did,” Smithson told the Maricopa Monitor.
Smithson said Rose’s arguments seemed more “reasonable” than those presented on the other side.
For two years, the developers followed a long and complex process in compliance with a county ordinance that allows for recalculation of impact fees, Rios said in an email.
The “developer has worked with the county to arrive at a different set of fees, as
to suing the county like many other developers are doing over these fees,” he said.
Snider said Rios’ statement about companies suing over development fees isn’t entirely accurate.
“There are a series of developers who have lawsuits against the county, with
litigation pending,” he said. “All of them, to the best of my knowledge … have to do with development agreements that are good for 10 years, with an option on the board’s part, to renew.”
Snider said the board had agreed in all those cases not to renew the contracts because it was in the best interest of the taxpayers, who would be saddled with the expense of impact fees not charged to developers.
“I do not believe that Pinal County is being, or has been, sued, specifically on impact fees — period,” he said.
Snider was also against the reduced fees because he said the science behind the developer’s fee calculations is flawed.
“It’s not accurate, and it’s not warranted to only figure the impact of a subdivision or master-planned community at total build-out,” he said. “That’s the crux of the issue.”
Rios said an initial projection of about 90 years to complete the development was cut by a consultant to about 30 years.
No matter how long the project takes, Snider said his main concern is about how it will affect taxpayers and the impact it will have on road usage in the area.
“There will be impacts on existing county road structures because people will be going to Maricopa for services and will be going to Casa Grande or Phoenix or Tucson, and they will be using county roads.”
One of the arguments made by Rose and developers for the reduction in fees was the concept of “internal capture,” essentially a decreased need for road usage outside the development area.
County staff and its consultants disagreed on this point, saying the internal capture model is used more for urban, dense developments.
