HBA OF CENT. ARIZONA v. City of Mesa
226 Ariz. 7
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- HBA challenged Mesa's cultural facilities development fee under A.R.S. § 9-463.05 on grounds that cultural facilities are not 'necessary' public services and that the fee lacks beneficial use and reasonable relationship.
- Mesa amended its impact fee ordinance in 2007 after a consultant study to fund infrastructure costs, including cultural facilities.
- The fee was calculated by dividing the current cost of existing cultural facilities by the number of equivalent dwelling units, with amounts set below study recommendations.
- Mesa lacked specific future plans for constructing or expanding cultural facilities, but relied on general planning and a study projecting future needs.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Mesa; HBA appealed contending the fee is invalid under the statute; the appellate court granted cross-motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are cultural facilities 'necessary public services' under §9-463.05(A)? | HBA contends cultural facilities aren’t necessary services. | Mesa argues breadth of 'necessary' includes tourism planning and facilities. | Yes; cultural facilities are necessary public services. |
| Does Mesa's fee have a rational relationship to the burden from new development? | HBA argues lack of specific plans and beneficiaries undermines nexus. | Mesa shows growth, LOS maintenance costs, and study-supported per-unit cost. | Yes; fee bears a rational relationship to growth-related burden. |
| Does the fee satisfy 'beneficial use' under § 9-463.05(B)(1) and 'reasonable relationship' under (B)(4)? | HBA claims no particular benefit to a specific development and insufficient factual support. | City findings and study show general benefit and proportional funding; flexible planning allowed. | Yes; findings and study provide beneficial use and reasonable relationship. |
Key Cases Cited
- Home Builders Ass'n of Cent. Ariz. v. City of Scottsdale (Scottsdale III), 187 Ariz. 479 (1997) (development fees reviewed de novo; reasonableness of nexus and use)
- Home Builders Ass'n of Cent. Ariz. v. City of Scottsdale (Scottsdale I), 179 Ariz. 5 (1993) (less restrictive standards for development fees; presumption of validity with factual findings)
- Apache Junction v. City of Apache Junction, 198 Ariz. 493 (2000) (limits on 'necessary' services; planning authority)
- Goodyear v. City of Goodyear, 223 Ariz. 183 (2009) (growth-related costs; credit considerations for other revenue)
- United States v. Comstock, 130 S. Ct. 1949 (2010) (test for 'necessary' elastic, case-by-case)