The long-simmering issue of impact fees is back in force, with a full-house presentation at City Hall Oct. 2, a resolution in support from the Public Service Board last week, and a City Council briefing scheduled for tomorrow (see bottom of story for council agenda item).

Oct. 2, developers and builders, and their employees and subcontractors, packed City Council chambers during an initial public discussion in front of city Reps. Susie Byrd, Ann Morgan Lilly and Beto O'Rourke, who were serving as the Planning and Development legislative review committee.

El Paso Water Utilities President and CEO Ed Archuleta, who works for the Public Service Board, explained the rationale behind impact fees -- in a nutshell, making new growth pay for itself. The cost of infrastructure -- under Texas law, transportation, stormwater, and water and sewer -- can be passed on to developers. The proposal in El Paso would apply only to water and sewer.

Archuleta made a similar argument Wednesday morning before the Public Service Board, which approved a resolution in support of the fees. The resolution states, in part, that the El Paso Water Utilities has spent $200 million in the last 10 years on "growth-related projects that could have been funded in whole or in part with impact fees," which if in effect "would have mitigated rate increases and/or allowed for more rehabilitation projects."

A little more than 10 years ago, in 1996, City Council defeated an impact fee proposal.

The current proposal is opposed by developers and builders. Among that group is Bobby Bowling IV, who is part of the family that runs Tropicana Homes. He and the lawyer representing developers, Theresa Caballero, spoke at the City Hall meeting in opposition. Bowling said in an interview after that meeting that he expected Archuleta to "come in with high numbers, and we'd argue about it."

But he said he was "blindsided" by Archuleta's argument that impact fees could reach into the past to "recoup" costs associated with infrastructure built before imposition of impact fees.

"We're going to go after an (attorney general's) opinion to stop that, and file an injunction and lawsuit," Bowling said. Generally, he and others argued that the fee would hurt the affordable housing market.

Before an impact fee can be adopted, however, it will go through an exhaustive, and long, public process. Done very quickly, it could happen by January, although city staff said it was "more realistic" to look to March, or even June.

That would place it right in the middle of the city elections, which already promise to be hard-fought and possibly toxic. Bowling and some of his builder and developer peers were instrumental in the loss by Mayor Ray Caballero to Joe Wardy in 2003, and will be active again in the spring elections against city Reps. Susie Byrd and Steve Ortega. Most likely, Mayor John Cook also will be a target.

The proposal presented by Archuleta calls for a total fee of $3,742 for water and sewer on the typical home, which uses less than a 1-inch meter. The fee would apply to new development anywhere in the city, something Byrd said she would like adjusted, so homes inside the city paid less than new homes on the edges.

In Central El Paso, for example, where lines exist and may need rehabilitation, "should a person be paying same amount as on the East Side, where we need a whole system?"

Byrd said that was just one question, and "there's a lot of discussion before anybody can make a final determination. … This is the beginning. It's a lengthy process."

***

The wording of tomorrow's Council agenda [link]:

18B. Discussion and action on recommendations submitted on October 2, 2008 by the Planning & Development Legislative Review Committee regarding:

1. 10-Year City Annexation Plan;
2. Creation of a Capital Improvements Advisory Committee related to the imposition of impact fees;
3. Imposition of Roadway Impact Fees, and recommended fee schedules;
4. Imposition of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees, and recommended fee schedules;
5. Timeline for City Council consideration, review, adoption and imposition of roadway and water/wastewater impact fees;
6. Other recommendations related to annexation provisions and imposition of impact fees.
[Development & Infrastructure Services, Patricia D. Adauto, (915) 541-4853]

***

Sito Negron can be reached at sito@epmediagroup.com or 351 0605