Related articles:

State Court rules fire districts can't charge developers fees NW Fire to seek sprinkler mandate Marana delays fire code update Marana delays fire code update

Other articles by Aaron Mackey:

UA-led space research concludes Mars once had water, perhaps life UA's biggest college gets interim dean Deal lets students pursue bachelor's degrees online UA fraternity's hazing documentedUA report cites hazing at fraternity booted from campus Incoming president of regents aims to cut students' costs UA lags in money made off its innovationsRegents like C+ transfer requirementRegents call for cooperation Regents OK 5-year deal, highest pay for Miller

Finance and Accounting
Charles E. Gillman Company
Accounting Specialist Administrative & Professional
Jorgensen Brooks Group
Counselor Mechanical
Komatsu Equipment Co
Resident Field Mechanic Administrative & Professional
Tucson Urban League
CEO/President Trades/Construction
RANCHO RESORT
MAINTANANCE POSITION Sales and Marketing
Everready Glass
Sales Reps

Northwest Fire/Rescue District officials are working to be authorized to charge impact fees on new homes in the wake of a failed attempt to get money from home builders.

In a unanimous decision, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled on June 29 that the district exceeded its authority by trying to charge a fee on every home under construction.

The fee, if collected, would've funded new stations and equipment necessary to keep up with rapid growth in the district, which covers Marana and unincorporated areas on the Northwest Side, fire officials said.

The decision was a victory for Lennar/US Home and Southern Arizona Home Builders Association officials, who have contended that the fee was illegal.

The home builders' organization had backed Lennar after it refused to pay the fee. The builder won at the trial level, though the decision was reversed upon appeal.

Ultimately, the state's highest court sided with the builder.

Fire officials said Northwest and the 150 other fire districts across the state must now come up with another funding method to accommodate rapid growth without overburdening their tax base.

The solution is clear to Northwest officials: They want the same authority cities and towns have to charge developers for the impact of growth.

Currently, fire districts aren't allowed to target builders as a source of revenue and can raise funds only through property taxes, bonds and fees.

It can take at least two years before a new home shows up on property-tax rolls. The district has to provide services to the homes while it receives a much smaller amount of tax money, Northwest officials said.

Municipalities such as Marana can charge developers for parks and other services, but Northwest can't charge to provide safety and firefighting services, said Fire Marshal Randy Karrer.

Officials in the district will ask state legislators for a law that would give them authority similar to cities' and towns' so they could charge a fee for every new house.

The fee would be earmarked for new fire stations and equipment, Karrer said.

Such a proposal would almost surely be opposed by home builders and could reignite the same debate that wound through the court system since 2003.

SAHBA would oppose any fee that specifically targets growth, said President Ed Taczanowsky.

"Fire protection is everybody's responsibility," said Taczanowsky, who would like to see a broader proposal where current and future residents combine to foot the bill.

But current residents aren't responsible for straining the level of fire service provided by the district, said Northwest governing board member Vince Baker.

And when Marana or Pima County approves new houses and other buildings, the fire district is required to protect them while receiving little revenue from property taxes, Baker said.

If the district had collected the fee, it would have raised around $730,000, or roughly one-third of the cost of a new fire station.

Karrer said the court's ruling shows that any proposed legislation would have to be narrowly tailored to apply directly to construction and show a direct benefit to incoming homeowners.

"It's clear that the Supreme Court would like to see something a bit more specific," Karrer said. "It's going to have to address the growth end of it."

For now, Karrer said he'd like to be able to sit down with SAHBA and other home builders to talk about solving the problem in a way amenable to both sides.

For Taczanowsky, it's too early to tell whether there could be a compromise, but he's hoping for a resolution.

"There's more productive ways for SAHBA and the district to spend their money than a court fight," he said.