Evaluating the equity, efficiency and effectiveness of development impact fees.

摘要

Texas Senate Bill 336 took effect in 1990 and gave cities the authority to adopt development impact fees for new water, sewer, drainage and road facilities. Since passage of the bill, numerous Texas cities have adopted development impact fees. In the 1999 Texas legislative session, House Bill 2045, which would change the way development impact fees are implemented in the state, was introduced. The bill passed both houses and was vetoed by Governor Bush. The development impact fee issue is expected to resurface in the 2001 legislative session. This dissertation analyzed the proposed changes and their effects on impact fee implementation in the state.Development impact fees remain popular, with several cities adopting them each year in Texas. This research determines if Texas cities are implementing development impact fees in ways that are equitable, efficient, and effective.Research indicates that development impact fees in Texas are not being implemented in a way that is horizontally equitable. Horizontal equity requires that governments treat all residents alike. The proposed legislation would require a 50 percent credit for tax contributions. This legislative change would have little effect on Texas cities because they are currently assessing impact fees at a level less than 50 percent of the infrastructure cost.Few cities are implementing impact fees in a way that is development efficient. Those cities charging varying impact fees, depending on a development's location within the community, are viewed as development efficient. The proposed legislative changes would redefine a service area and could dramatically change fee implementation in the state.This research also found that impact fee cities have a higher total real estate value than non-impact fee cities. Impact fee assessment is reflected in the sales price of real estate in the city, which is then reflected in the total real estate value of the community. Another finding of the research was that impact fee cities have a lower level of general obligation debt than non-impact fee cities. Because of the impact fee, cities can pay for infrastructure as they go instead of passing bonds.