Jackson officials defend development fees before commission tasked with cutting red tape

A legislative panel tasked with easing the regulations faced resistance on Thursday from human rights advocates who do not want the state to restrict how local authorities use regulations and fees to ease the crisis in the social housing market.

The Regulatory Reduction Task Force spent part of Thursday debating whether building and zoning codes are restricting development and raising housing costs. At issue is whether such housing and development challenges are best addressed by local city and county governments or whether Cheyenne lawmakers should intervene to help lower home prices.

Some cities and counties (most notably Teton County and the town of Jackson) are charging fees to offset the project’s impact on infrastructure, services and even housing supply.

But those fees need to be justified, task force co-chair Sen. Mike Gierau (D-Jackson) said as the panel considered a real estate development requirements bill that would cap development fees.

“We want to make sure that (we set fees) in a manner that complies with the law.”

Senator Mike Gierau

“We can’t just make up numbers out of thin air,” he said. “We want to make sure that (we set fees) in a way that passes legal muster.”

Rep. Clark Stith (R-Rock Springs) echoed a charge made last year by Sen. Ogden Driskill (R-Devil’s Tower) that some local governments may be “abusing local control” by unfairly imposing fees. Some fees are not levied for mitigation purposes but rather “to pursue a low-growth or no-growth strategy,” Stith said Thursday.

But officials in Teton County, where communities have struggled to manage economic growth and address housing affordability issues, dismissed Stith’s claims.

“Since 1995, we have used our regulatory-based housing crisis mitigation program as one tool to share the costs of public housing with developers and landowners who create jobs for workers who cannot afford to live in Jackson,” Jackson City Manager Tyler Sinclair wrote to the commission.

Jackson city lobbyist Andy Schwartz told the task force that his community has dutifully complied with U.S. Supreme Court rulings that limit fees to those that are directly attributable and proportionate to the development’s impact. The city is not in the business of “extorting money from companies,” he said.

“How does the community pay for the costs (of development),” without the authority to set and collect fees, Schwartz asked the commission. “The developer has a certain level of responsibility,” according to court rulings, he told the commission.

Decrease or increase?

The task force will take on just three of the seven bills on Thursday’s agenda — all aimed at lowering housing costs by revamping local zoning and development authorities. The group will focus its efforts on a measure that would cap development fees, another that would require governments to notify applicants about reviews of their projects and one that would limit who can protest zoning changes.

On the protest issue, the task force will consider three options regarding the proportion of neighbors necessary to object to the zoning change. The task force will also consider a draft law on building permits at its next meeting in October.

But task force members were concerned about what Stith called the “burdensome approach” and “new regulatory burden” in this permit bill. Members worry the task force is adding, not reducing, red tape.

“It just seems like we’re putting more stuff on our plate,” said Sen. Wendy Schuler (R-Evanston).

A regulatory panel filed a bill Thursday that would require cities with more than 4,000 residents to adopt several “housing strategies,” such as automatically allowing the construction of accessory dwelling units in certain single-family neighborhoods.

The Task Force left three bills for the Corporations, Elections and Political Subdivisions Committee: Housing on Government Lands, Residential Rental Properties—Application, and City, Municipal and County Regulations.

“City, municipal, and county regulations,” such as the Real Estate Development Requirements Act, would limit development fees. They would prohibit cities with more than 4,000 residents from charging more than administrative fees for building permits.

The Public Land Housing Act would make social housing a priority on state land, a move that is likely unconstitutional when it comes to properties owned by schools, the deputy director of the Bureau of State Lands and Investments told the task force.

The corporate committee will meet later this month in Evanston.