Judges: DAN MORALES, Attorney General of Texas
Filed Date: 1/25/1995
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
Honorable O. H. "Ike" Harris Chair Committee on State Affairs Texas State Senate P.O. Box 12068 Austin, Texas 78711
Re: Whether section
Dear Senator Harris:
You asked us several questions involving the proper interpretation of chapter 395 of the Local Government Code, which provides a method by which municipalities and certain other governmental entities may finance capital improvements necessary to accommodate new development. See generally Bray, Caudill, Owen, Once More, the Trilogy, In Retrospect: An Essay on the Virtues of Development Agreements in Texas, 32 S. TEX. L. REV. 1, 12-14 (1991). You provided the following factual background for this request:
The City of Leon Valley is currently in negotiations with the City of San Antonio in regard to a wastewater contract. The City of San Antonio is the regional collector for all wastewater. . . . Negotiations between the City of San Antonio and several suburban municipalities are currently at an impasse due to a difference in interpretation of [chapter 395 of the Local Government Code].
We understand that the suburban municipalities believe the City of San Antonio may collect impact fees for the wastewater service pursuant to a contract for collection if the city recognizes them as impact fees belonging to the city and includes them accordingly in its capital improvements plan. We understand, on the other hand, that the City of San Antonio contends that the impact fees belong to the suburban municipalities and that the municipalities themselves are obligated to pay for the wastewater collection service.
You first ask whether section
A municipality may contract to provide capital improvements, . . . ., to an area outside its corporate boundaries and extra-territorial jurisdiction and may charge an impact fee under the contract, but if an impact fee is charged in that area, the municipality must comply with this chapter. [Footnotes added.]
The legislature codified chapter 395 in 1989. See Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a). The legislature intended the codification to be nonsubstantive. See Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a); see also Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 566, § 1(a). The legislature enacted chapter 395's predecessor, V.T.C.S. article 1269j-4.11, in 1987 as Senate Bill 336. See Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 957, §§ 1-11; Bray, Caudill, Owen, supra, at 12.
In 1987, during the second reading of Senate Bill 336 on the House floor, Representative Millsap added to section 2 of the bill the sentence that is now codified as section
On its face, section 395.011(c) authorizes a municipality to contract to provide capital improvements to an area outside its corporate boundaries and extraterritorial jurisdiction and to charge an impact fee under the contract. See 13 E. MCQUILLIN, MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS § 37.11, at 51 (3d ed. 1987) (stating that, in general, municipal corporation lacks authority to provide improvements beyond its corporate limits unless legislature has provided otherwise). Nothing in the statute limits a municipality to contracting to provide capital improvements only to areas outside the corporate boundaries of another municipality. Nor does the statute limit a "providing" municipality to charging impact fees only in areas outside the corporate boundaries of the "receiving" municipality.
Section
In short, we conclude that section 395.011(c) authorizes a municipality to contract to provide capital improvements to an area inside the corporate boundaries of another municipality. Additionally, section 395.011(c) authorizes the providing municipality to charge an impact fee within the corporate boundaries of the receiving municipality, but only if the parties have contracted accordingly and if the providing municipality complies with chapter 395 of the Local Government Code. Cf. 13 E. MCQUILLIN, THE LAW OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS § 37.11, at 51 (3d ed. 1987) (stating general rule that one municipality may not tax its own residents for improvement within limits of another municipal corporation).
You next asked whether, under section
(a) In lieu of adopting land use assumptions for each service area, a political subdivision may, except for storm water, drainage, flood control, and roadway facilities, adopt systemwide land use assumptions, which cover all of the area subject to the jurisdiction of the political subdivision for the purpose of imposing impact fees under this chapter. [Footnote and emphasis added.]
The legislature added section 395.0455(a) to chapter 395 of the Local Government Code in 1989, following the codification. See Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 566, § 1(b) (House Bill 1786). House Bill 1786, which proposed adding section 395.0455 to the Local Government Code, added to chapter 395 other sections, all of which the legislature hoped would streamline the process a political subdivision must use to adopt impact fees. See House Comm. on State Affairs, Bill Analysis, H.B. 1786, 71st Leg. (1989); Hearings on H.B. 1786 Before the House Comm. on State Affairs, 71st Leg. (Apr. 25, 1989) (statement of Representative Laney, author of bill) (tape available from House Video/Audio Services); Hearings on H.B. 1786 Before the Senate Comm. on Intergovernmental Relations, 71st Leg. (May 25, 1989) (statement of Senator Armbrister) (tape available from Senate Staff Services). Senator Armbrister, who presented the bill to the Senate Committee on Intergovernmental Relations, explained that the process adopted in 1987, with the enactment of V.T.C.S. article 1269j-4.11, was a burdensome one for cities because the statute required a city separately to adopt two plans, a land use assumption plan and a capital improvements plan. Id.; see also Hearings on H.B. 1786 Before the House Comm. on State Affairs, supra (statement of Frank Turner, Planning and Transportation Director for City of Plano). Thus, the municipality was required to hold two separate hearings and comply with statutory notice requirements for each hearing. Hearings on H.B. 1786 Before the Senate Comm. on Intergovernmental Relations, supra (statement of Senator Armbrister). To alleviate the problem, House Bill 1786 proposed, among other things, allowing municipalities to use area-wide adoption plans for each service area. Id.; see also id. (statement of Carl Shahady, representing Texas Municipal League). The municipality therefore avoids having to adopt a land use assumption plan for each individual service area. Id.
Initially, we note that, in your second question, you cited section
Prior to the 1989 amendments to chapter 395, a political subdivision considered and adopted the land use assumptions and capital improvements plans separately. Furthermore, the political subdivision had considered the land use assumptions and capital improvements on a service-area-by-service-area basis, rather than a systemwide basis. Since the 1989 amendments to chapter 395, a political subdivision, including a municipality, may abbreviate the procedure described above in two ways: first, pursuant to section 395.0515(a), the political subdivision may adopt the land use assumptions, the capital improvements plan, and the impact fee simultaneously; and second, pursuant to section 395.0455(a), the political subdivision may adopt systemwide land use assumptions, which cover all of the area subject to the political subdivision's jurisdiction for the purpose of imposing impact fees instead of only the area within a single service area. But see id. § 395.0515(d) (prohibiting political subdivision from consolidating hearings on land use assumptions and capital improvements plan if person timely requests, in writing, separate hearings).
Section 395.0455 expressly authorizes a political subdivision, including a municipality, to adopt land use assumptions that cover "all of the area subject to the jurisdiction of the political subdivision for the purpose of imposing impact fees under [chapter 395]." We believe that, in the context of section 395.0455, "all of the area subject to the jurisdiction of the political subdivision" includes all of the area from which a municipality collects impact fees pursuant to section 395.011. Under section 395.011, of course, that area may be located within the corporate boundaries of another municipality. Section 395.0455 pertains only to land use assumptions, however; it does not affect a municipality's jurisdiction to prepare a capital improvements plan covering the area within the corporate boundaries of another municipality.
We note that, while section
You predicated your third question upon a finding that chapter 395 provides no mechanism by which a municipality may charge impact fees within another municipality. Because we have concluded that a providing municipality may collect impact fees under a contract with the other municipality or by the consent of the other municipality, we need not answer the third question.
Section 395.011(c), in conjunction with the definition of "capital improvements plan" in section 395.001(2), authorizes a municipality that contracts to provide capital improvements to an area outside its corporate boundaries and extraterritorial jurisdiction to include the area in the municipality's capital improvements plan.
Yours very truly,
DAN MORALES Attorney General of Texas
JORGE VEGA First Assistant Attorney General
SARAH J. SHIRLEY Chair, Opinion Committee
Prepared by Kymberly K. Oltrogge Assistant Attorney General
[1] In the context of chapter 395 of the Local Government Code, "capital improvement" designates any of the following facilities that have a life expectancy of three or more years and are owned and operated by or on behalf of a political subdivision:
(A) water supply, treatment, and distribution facilities; wastewater collection and treatment facilities; and storm water, drainage, and flood control facilities; whether or not they are located within the service area; and
(B) roadway facilities.
Local Gov't Code §
[2] Section
[3] An "impact fee," sometimes referred to as a "capital recovery fee," is a fee imposed upon new development to pay for public facilities that new growth necessitates. See Hearings on H.B. 1011 Before the House Comm. on Nat. Res., 70th Leg. (Apr. 8, 1987) (statement of Lyle Johansen, Executive Director, Texas Ass'n of Builders) (copy available from House Committee Coordinator); Bray, Caudill, Owen, Once More, the Trilogy, In Retrospect: An Essay on the Virtues of Development Agreements in Texas, 32 S. TEX. L. REV. 1, 13 (1991). Section 395.001(4) defines "impact fee" as a charge or assessment imposed by a political subdivision against new development . . . to generate revenue for funding or recouping the costs of capital improvements or facility expansions necessitated by and attributable to the new development. The term includes amortized charges, lump-sum charges, capital recovery fees, contributions in aid of construction, and any other fee that functions as described by this definition. The term does not include:
(A) dedication of land for public parks or payment in lieu of the dedication to serve park needs;
(B) dedication of rights-of-way or easements or construction or dedication of on-site water distribution, wastewater collection or drainage facilities, or streets, sidewalks, or curbs if the dedication or construction is required by a valid ordinance and is necessitated by and attributable to the new development; or
(C) lot or acreage fees to be placed in trust funds for the purpose of reimbursing developers for oversizing or constructing water or sewer mains or lines.
[4] The purpose of the Impact Fee Act, codified as chapter 395 of the Local Government Code, is to create a uniform process by which a political subdivision may consider, adopt, and assess impact fees. Bray, Caudill, Owen, supra note 3, at 12. Consequently, chapter 395 is largely procedural, although it also limits the kinds of capital improvements a political subdivision may fund with impact fees. Id.; see Local Gov't Code §§
[5] In the factual situation you present, we note that the City of San Antonio is negotiating with representatives of other municipalities to provide wastewater services to those municipalities. We are uncertain as to whether the city will provide wastewater services for the entire municipality or for an area within the municipality. Because the suburban municipalities themselves are involved in the negotiations, we need not consider whether a property owner whose land was inside the corporate boundaries of one municipality may, on his or her own behalf, contract with another municipality to provide wastewater services for his property.
[6] A municipality also may contract with a providing municipality for wastewater services under section 791.011 of the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Gov't Code ch. 791. Under such an interlocal cooperation contract, however, the providing municipality may not charge an impact fee within the corporate boundaries of the receiving municipality. See Local Gov't Code §
[7] Section
[8] Prior to the adoption and effective date of House Bill 1786, a political subdivision had to notice and conduct a public hearing to consider land use assumptions within a "designated service area" that the municipality then would use to develop a capital improvements plan. Id. § 395.042; see id. § 395.044 (containing notice requirements for hearing on land use assumptions). After the hearing on the land use assumptions, the political subdivision had to vote on an ordinance, order, or resolution approving the land use assumptions. Id. § 395.045.
Once the political subdivision had approved the land use assumptions, it could provide for the development of a capital improvements plan. Id. § 395.046. Upon completion of the capital improvements plan, the governing body of the political subdivision had to notice and conduct a public hearing on the capital improvements plan and the imposition of an impact fee. Id. § 395.047; see id. § 395.049 (containing notice requirements for hearing on capital improvements plan and impact fee). Within thirty days after the public hearing, the political subdivision must have voted to approve or disapprove the adoption of the capital improvements plan and the imposition of the impact fee. Id. § 395.051.
[9] As we stated above, see supra page 3, Representative Millsap proposed adding the statutory predecessor to section