Search

The article reports on the collection of impact fees in Tucson, Arizona on December 23, 2014. It mentions that the fee costs more than $10,000 per home while builders acquires a discount after the city failed to comply with a state law which orders the improvement of impact fee programs. An overview of the perspective of Office of Integrated Planning director Nicole Ewing Gavin on the issue is also presented.

The article reports that builders sought more single-family home permits after city of Tucson's, Arizona ability to charge developers impact fees was temporarily stopped.

The article focuses on the performance of commercial real estate market in Tuczon, Arizona in 2007. It cites that after the reported market raise, it has little changed and the absorption of vacant space has remained at a constant 200,000 to 300,000 square feet per year. It states that the new office developments has slowed within the city limits by higher construction costs and impact fees, but still surging in unincorporated areas.

The article reports that Pima County, Arizona has started the implementation of commercial roadway impact fee. A study conducted by Curtis Lueck and Associates suggests that the premise for the collection of impact fees is that businesses with drive-throughs encourage more use of roadways. "Big box" department stores are expected to pay an initial impact fee of $1,825 per 1,000 square feet while grocery stores will pay $2,970 per 1,000 square feet.

Reports on the issues over the increased development impact fees in Pima County and Oro Valley, Arizona. Reaction of local builders to the heightened fees; Comments of Steve Wollerman, president of Southwestern Consulting Engineers, on impact fees; Purpose of the impact fees under the state law.

The article reports on the reactions of developers and officials on the imposition of the new impact fees by the Tucson City Council in Arizona. The fees won't be fully into effect until January 2006 and include a provision for the central core in which there is a discounted impact fees for those who put up new development, regardless if there is infrastructure already in place. The fees is expected to help for infrastructure expansion but is also expected to affect downtown redevelopment by adding costs to the developers interested in downtown suddenly face. Some feels it is good while others disagree.

The article reports that the city council of Tucson, Arizona, is expected to vote today on impact fees for new residential and commercial structures at its weekly meeting at the City Hall. The impact fees would be used to pay for city road improvements. City Manager James Keene proposed an impact fee of $2.15 per square foot for new homes up to 2,200 square feet. All homes larger than 2,200 square feet would pay the maximum fee of $4,730. There is a similar scale for different types of commercial development.

Reports on the increasing development impact fees in Tucson, Arizona. Queries on the feasibility and actual costs of existing and proposed additional fees; Increase of the housing prices; Assessment of the mortgage rates.

Reports on the implementation of impact fees in Tucson, Arizona in 2002 and 2003. Adoption or raising of fees for residential and commercial development; Absorption of infrastructure costs associated with the area's growth; Pima County's adoption of a Roadway Impact Development Fe for commercial development; Financing of arterial capacity transportation needs.

Reports that the town of Oro Valley in Tucson, Arizona, is contemplating a second development impact fee on new homes to help pay for drainage structures. Need for the funds; Arguments against a development fee; Review of the Roadway Development Fee.

Reports on the misgivings of several Tucson, Arizona, city council members about proposed development impact fees in 1999. Councilors' concern that implementation of the fee would encourage sprawl and adversely affect middle-income families; Expected cost to the middle and working class; Possible effect on the home building industry.

Reports on a plan by the city council of Arizona to look into the implementation of a development impact fee for residential and commercial construction. State law allowing municipalities to assess development fees to offset costs linked to public services; Skepticism abut the implementation of an impact fee.

Reports on developments in the real estate business in Tucson, Arizona as of October 28, 1996. University of Arizona's plan to unload surplus property; Consideration of impact fees for new development by the town of Sahuarita.

Discusses the prospects and consequences of impact fees on real estate in Pima County, Arizona. Impact fees as an election issue in the battle for membership in the Pima County Board of Directors; Assessment of full costs; Possibility of developers passing the costs on buyers.

Reports on the slated imposition of impact fees in Pima County, Arizona by August 19, 1996. Maximum charge per house in different benefit areas; Opposition to the fees coming from the building industry; Other projected sources of money for roadway developments; Reevaluation of the fees every two years.

Comments on the possible effect of high impact fees on the residential real estate business in Tucson, Arizona. Narrow profit margin in the business; Potential negative effect on home sales and economic growth.

Reports that the Pima County Department of Transportation will review the amount proposed by the local Board of Supervisors for a development impact fee levied on homes built on the northwest side. Amount proffered by the Southern Arizona Home Builders Association; Possible reduction of the fee; Remarks of Ben Goff, Pima County transportation systems manager.

Focuses on the impending conflict over housing development impact fees in Pima County, Arizona between the county's Board of Supervisors and the Southern Arizona Home Builders Association (SAHBA). Hearing conducted by the board on November 6, 1995; Discrepancy between the county impact fees and fees charged by the SAHBA; Comments.

Reports on Pima County Supervisor Ed Moore's efforts to alert Tucson, Arizona's northwest side residents on the September 1995 meeting on development impact fees. Sending of fliers to residents; Linking of the issue on impact fees to the water issue in the city.

Discusses the effect to Tucson, Arizona homebuyers of the imposition of impact fees. Shift in the formula for qualifying homebuyers; Number of people shut out by adding to $1,000 to a home value at $175,000; Purpose of the impact fees according to County Administrator Chuck Huckleberry.

The article focuses on the costs to operate the wastewater treatment plant of Marana, Arizona. Marana Town Manager Gilbert Davidson says that the town intends to retain the same rating which Pima County charged to the customers of the Marana Wastewater Reclamation Facility. It mentions that the fiscal 2012 budget of the town estimates all impact fees would bring in 2.2 million dollars, It adds that Marana acquired the plant from Pima County on January 3, 2012.

The article reports on the move of the Pima County Board of Supervisors to unanimously vote to accept the report on development fees from the representative of construction and housing industry in Pima County, Arizona.

The article reports on the proposal of the Tucson City Council to suspend some residential construction impact fees in Arizona for one year. It states that on February 10, 2009 more than 150 people in the construction industry rallied at El Presidio Park to show support to the proposal. According to David Pittman, chairman of the Arizona Builders' Alliance, suspending the said fees would increase builder activity across the board.

The article reports on the clarification issued by the Development Services Department (DSD) to the fee structure of a building plan, site plan, grading plan or development plan in Tucson, Arizona. The fee applies to any request to meet with city officials to make revisions to a plan that has already been approved. According to deputy director of the DSD Jessie Sanders, the fee is not being charged for every change or modification to an approved plan.

The article discusses the impact of the postponement of local government's collection of housing impact fees in Arizona. According to Southern Arizona Home Builders Association (SAHBA), collecting fees after a sale instead of the time when building permit is issued will let builders charge less for new homes and help revive the lagging real estate market. The move will also cut the carrying charges builders pay on impact fees and charges are sometimes more than the fees.

The article reports on the unanimous decision of the Tucson City Council to start the assessment process for the implementation of the commercial building impact fees within Tucson, Arizona. However, the council decided to cut half of the fees for the first 18 months of the implementation. The reduce fees go into effect by July 15, 2006 and will end before January 15, 2008.

The article reports on the vote of the Pima Country Board of Supervisors to start the process of raising transportation impact fees because of the increased costs of road building in Arizona. The supervisors directed staff to bring back a proposed ordinance and to research how the county and other jurisdictions set their commercial impact fees. The country staff recommended no change in the fees.

Reports on the plan of Pima County to raise the impact fee it charges to home builders due to the rising cost of building roads. Proposal of increasing the impact fee by County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry; Schedule of the meeting to consider the proposal; Lack of clarity on how the proposed fee will affect consumer demand.

Comments on the regional transportation plan in Tucson, Arizona. Generation of additional revenue through sales tax increase; Insufficiency of the return of a half cent tax yield for the project; Basis of the precarious venture upon presumed revenues from local impact fees which will depend on the continued boom in the construction industry.

Editorial. Comments on impact fees that commercial and residential developers in Tucson, Arizona, will need to comply with in 2003. Cost shift from a broader base to a more specific base; Use of the roadway development impact fee for new transportation capacity; Likelihood that impact fees related to commercial and retail developments will be passed on to the customer.

Focuses on the impact fee ideas for economic development in Arizona. Implementation of tire tax; Need for real estate transfer tax; Generation of revenue.

Comments on the renewal of demand for development impact fees on new homes in the U.S. Improvement of the quality of life by the consumer tax; Understanding of the costs of living in a community without discrimination to new home buyers.

Reports that the Oro Valley Town Council in Tucson, Arizona, has approved an increase in development impact fees that will cover the infrastructure needs identified by its master plan.

Editorial. Comments on the plan by the city council of Arizona to impose a development impact fee to homes to pay for the cost of building infrastructure. Basic tenets of sustainable communities; Pitfall of an impact fee and the city's Infill Fee Waiver Program; Need to understand underlying concepts behind sustainable communities.

Reports on the reactions of developers over the possible effects of the proposed imposition of impact fees in Tucson, Arizona. More onerous nature of the impact fees than residential fees; Factors affecting impact fees; Estimated price range of the fees; Absence of economic study on the fees; Problems in calculating impact fees.

Reports on the opposition of the Southern Arizona Home Builders Association to the proposal of the Pima County Board of Supervisors to levy a road impact fee for the Canada del Oro area. Public opinion in Tucson, Arizona on as to how development should be paid; Need for developers to pay for the road fee.

Editorial. Asserts the need to thresh out differences of views on the development impact fee. Issues on the impact fee; Issue on the three road improvement projects; Stand of County officials; Need to address future transportation concerns.