Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUntitledLAw OFFICES BURKEr WILLIAMB 8e SOE8N5SN MARTIN J. eURK[• e. OCR[K STRAATSMA GCORG[ M[ TAGKAeURH SCOTT - rl[LD JAM [S T eRAOSNAW, Jw,• GR[GORr ,., DOCIMO MARR G AlL[N, JR.• [LIZAe CTI• L MANNA MAAT~N L eVRNE• KATNRrN PRVCSSNER P[TCRS° URl K. NCWTON• L~SA [, KRAN ITZ - ROeCgT r~1NDgICN• SJDC J, hE'.GMeO RS nOR MAN E. GAAgT KIM G MCNAI~T EOw•RO M r0%• STN[N A. DRDWN CEnN 5 q ey R%E' DCNN~S rLOrD _E...ANO C. DOLLE~• LINpA '_ OAyeC "^,L N ICN NAR O• M. lOiS eOeAK T~CMAS J. rE[L£v' D[ENA C ~E-eOwITZ n E'L r rEAGER' CCC. L,A M OuICK 9R:AN A, ~'~ERiN• FELICIA J. NELSON CwAALES M CAIDERON• ROeCRT ~ WAODCN ~E~ER M Tw OR50N• MIGMACL q, WOODS BERRY M, PATTfR50N FRANK w, WMITEMUO, SII wAROLD l eRIDGCS• SCOTT M, UMP9Eu .^-MERrI .:. RAN C• MARVANN LNK GOOOKIND 4ArMOND .+. FU CNTCS• TIMOTNr e, MCO9NCR DON G. K:RCMCR DIANA L ~ ElD J:RGINIA R. PESOLA RITA J. TAYLOR 5. CAUL eRUGUCRA STEV CN J. DAW50N MICM ELE R. VAOON JAMES r. RIGAL~ •RRO r[SS~OMAL CORRORAiION rRCrClSIONAL ASSOCIATION AON~'TCD ItANlA! L MISSOURI •AD NITTED MNlA3 oNe wILS~IRe suILO1NG 62s SOUTri GRAND AVENUE, IITN FLOOR l05 ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90017 (2131 236-0600 'f ~C CO PICP 2 31 239-2700 '2!31 23e-2900 r+AggY C. WALL AN5 1 fl~2-Ifle71 ROr•. M SC REN 9CN nflu-Ifle31 MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF AB 1600 V [NTU RA CDJNTr Orr'CC flso couNTr souARC DR'~c Su T[ 207 VENTJRA, DAL:rDR N'A fl3003 'eos, eA.-Taeo Oq ANG[ COUNTV Orr CE 3200 gAgK CENTCR OR vE su *c eso C05TA M[SA, CAU rOq N'A 92ez9 1T~AI 545-SSSD l GNTON PLAZA 7300 COLLEGE eOULEVAgO SU:TC 220 Ov ERLANO PAq K, KAN5A5 ee210 Ifl131 33fl-e20C Or COUNSCI D W'GMT A. NEWELL WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL OUR FILE NO. SAN BERNARDINO CITY/ COUNTY CONFERENCE December 1, 1988 Lake Arrowhead ELIZABETH L. HANNA City Attorney of Twentynine Palms MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF AB 1600 By this time, you probably have heard of a number of explanations of AB 1600 (codified as Government Code Sections 66001 et seq.) having an effective date of January 1, 1989 ("Act"; all section references hereafter are to the Government Code). You and your staff may have spent some time considering what steps are necessary about how to meet the Act's requirements. This letter is intended to supplement the League of Cities material on the Act. What we have tried to develop is a common sense approach to meeting the requirements not only of the Act, but of the other statutory requirements necessary for the lawful adoption of developer fees. I. THE ACT DOES NOT REPRESENT A MAJOR CHANGE IN ESTABLISHING IMPACT FEES. You will find that the findings and actions required by the Act are similar to those which have been required by statutory and case law for many years. The validity of any such fee or exaction has always been in issue unless: (1) the fee charged is reasonably related to the project (see Government Code Section 65909; Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) U.S. , 107 S.Ct. 3141); and (2) the fee will not exceed the reasonable cost of the service or facility provided (see Government Code Sections 53727 (Proposition 62), 54992 and 65959; Beaumont Investors v. Beaumont-Cherry-Valley Water District (1985) 165 Ca1.App.3d 227). For example, Government Code Section 65909 provides that conditions imposed on the issuance of a building permit cannot include the dedication of land or installation of public facilities for a purpose not reasonably related to the use of the property for which the permit is requested. II. THE ACT ONLY APPLIES TO FEES WHICH ARE "MONETARY EXACTIONS". The only fees to which the Act applies are those which are a "monetary exaction" charged an applicant in reference to a "development project" for the purpose of defraying all or part of the cost of "public facilities" relating to the project (Section 66000 "b"). Section 53077 (adopted by Senate Bill 372 contemporaneously with the Act amending Government Code Section 53077, 54997 and 54998) describes "fee" as being one contemplated pursuant to Section 66000(b), and "any fee imposed to provide for an -2- elh/NTS1960 improvement to be constructed to serve a development project". Neither the Act nor Senate Bill 372 apply to: (A) a fee which is a processing, administrative or utility service fee; (B) a fee which is collected under a development or reimbursement agreement; (C) a fee which is an in lieu fee collected under the Quimby Act for parkland dedication (Government Code Section 66477); (D) a non-monetary exaction such as the dedication of land or improvements; (E) taxes or special assessments. Neither the Act or Senate Bill 372 apply to a fee which is a "monetary exaction", unless the fee is charged or imposed for the purpose of defraying the cost, in whole or in part, of "public facilities related to the development", [S 66000(b)] or an "improvement to be constructed to serve a development project". [$ 53077(b)(2)] Note that "public facilities" are defined as public improvements or community amenities. Whether the fee is adopted by ordinance or resolution, findings necessary to meet the Act must be made as set out in Government Code Section 66001(a). However, until your City has reviewed or amended its underl in ordinance or resolution to make sure the findin s are inclu ed, ou must make those findin s each time a ee is im ose on a ro ect as a condition o evelopment. (See A below.) Many impact fee resolutions or ordinances already contain provisions which meet the Act requirements and you should check to insure your existing documents or make findings on the following points to: 1. identify the purpose of fee (S 66001(a)(1)); 2. identify the use to which the fee is to be put ($ 66001(a)(2)); 3. state that the fee will be used for facilities which benefit the project, and make findings that show: -3- elh/NTS1960 (a) a reasonable relationship between the fees and the type of development; and (b) a reasonable relationship between the need for the facility and the type of development. Practically speaking, while the fees may be set forth in an ordinance or resolution containing required findings, planning staff in some cases will include payment of the fee in the conditions of approval for a project. What the Act adds is the requirement that when the City adopts that condition, it determine that there is a "reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility {or the portion attributable to that development)." While this sounds complicated, it actually means that the arithmetic calculation of how the fee is levied on a specific project (although not necessarily the final amount of the fee) needs to be set out in the conditions of approval: For example, a transit condition might look like this: Developer shall pay to the City a transit fee as required by City Ordinance No. in an amount calculated as follows: The cost of new roadways has been determined to be $ x per residential dwelling unit (subject to the adjustment of the fee to increase with the cost of labor and materials) [based on trip calculations set out in the ordinance, the project is proposed to have Y dwelling units, so the fee hereby imposed shall be $ per dwelling unit. III. AUTOMATIC (COST OF LIVING) FEE ADJUSTMENTS: Many impact fee resolutions and ordinances contain automatic increase provisions geared to the cost of living index or engineering news record. What is the fate of these provisions after the Act? Once again, the answer is that the Act doesn't make that much difference. Arguably, the Act may not apply to an "automatic" increase, as the City Council has not taken an action to increase the fee. However, adoption of the original ordinance or resolution containing the automatic increase provision could be construed as an action increasing a fee. Therefore, the conservative approach would make it clear that the findings made apply to a fee increase as well. Because the findings relate to the relationship or -4- elh/NTS1960 nexus between the fee's use and the development on which it is imposed, rather than the amount of the fee, it makes sense to also apply the AB 1600 findings to a prospective increase based on increased cost of public facilities. When the fee is imposed as a condition of development a quantitative relationship must be shown. An automatic increase simply increases both sides of the equation equally. IV. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS TO CONSIDER IN AN IMPACT FEE RESOLUTION OR ORDINANCE. A. Developer Appeals. The author of the Act proposed it in part to meet developer complaints regarding the uncertainty of the amounts ~~ impact fees due and their relevance to the project.- The League therefore has suggested, and we agree, that it would be helpful to include a provision allowing the developer to challenge, by an administrative appeal process, the application of a fee to its development on the basis that there is no reasonable relationship between the development and the need for or use of the fee. In many cases, such appeal procedures already exist, such as zoning regulations and parcel map processing. B. Fees imposed for Districts. Various independent special districts must rely on the City to collect their fees, and the same findings must be made under the Act for such fees. Therefore, the City needs to require that the districts provide all necessary information to make the Act findings, and the City may consider whether it independently should review that information to be sure the criteria are met. In any agreement between the City and a district for the collection of fees, the City should require that an independent district indemnify the City should an action be brought on the basis of failure to meet the Act require- ments. In addition, the City should require the district to segregate any impact fee it holds and make the annual findings as required. 1/ Based on a telephone conversation on 11/18/88 with Casey Sparks, Consultant to the assembly Local Government Committee. -5- elh/NTS1960 (A similar analysis would apply to fees collected within cities for county infrastructure.) C. Findings Necessary to Collect Fees with Building Permits. Government Code $ 53077.5 - Where the fees are imposed on residential development, in order to collect the fee at the time building permits are pulled -- as opposed to the time of final inspection or certificate of occupancy -- certain additional findings must be made in the resolution or ordinance imposing the fee: (a) an account has been established for such fees; and (b) expenditures and obligations of the fees have been authorized; and (c) the City has adopted a proposed construction schedule; or (d) the fees are to reimburse the City. (e) utility service fees may be collected at the time of application for service (as opposed to the capital portion of the connection fee); (f) fees for multifamily development may be paid on a lump sum basis when the first unit is inspected or receives a certificate of occupancy. D. Separate Fund For Impact Fees. Government Code Section 53077 (as amended by SB 372) requires that the fees defined under AB 1600 must be kept in a separate subfund and not be commingled with other city funds, although a separate bank account is not required. Interest earned on the money must remain in that subfund. Where "uncommitted" fees remain in the fund for more than 5 years, the need to retain them must be demonstrated or they must be refunded. (See Government Code S 66001(d).) Therefore, if possible, funds should be -6- elh/NTS1960 budgeted or appropriated annually for the projects they were levied to finance. (This type of requirement is already familiar from the requirements for Quimby Act fees.) In some cases, fees are collected for fire, water or other special districts will be held by them. The district should segregate the funds and interest and annually review the fund as described above. E. Effective Date of the Impact Fee Resolution Or Ordinance. Where the fee is placed on residential development, Government Code Section 65962 requires: (1) Notice of adoption of the ordinance or resolution must be given under Government Code Sections 54986 and 54992; (14 days special notice; back-up information on file 10 days in advance of hearing) (2) The ordinance or resolution is adopted at a regularly scheduled meeting after oral and written testimony is taken (i.e. a protest hearing is held.) (3) the effective date is 60 days from the date of final action; (4) An interim urgency fee under 65962(c) also would be subject to the Act. V. WHAT IS THE PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO MAKE THE ACT FINDINGS? The Act contains no provision invalidating an impact fee imposed without complying with its requirements. Given the "harmless error" provisions of Government Code Section 65010(b), it seems likely that the failure to make the Act findings will result in invalidation of the fee only when that failure masked the fact that the nexus requirements could not be met. The failure to make the Act findings should be distinguished from the failure to meet its nexus requirements, which could result in invalidation of the fee and its refund with interest. However, the procedural and substantive requirements are tested in the same way. The developer wishing to challenge a fee imposed by ordinance or resolution (and not yet applied to the project) may bring a -7- elh/NTS1960 writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure Section 860 within 120 days of the effective date of the ordinance or resolution setting or increasing the fee. Where the developer refuses to pay the fee applied to his project a writ of mandate must be brought within certain time limits: First, where the fee has been imposed as a condition of subdivision development, Government Code Section 66499.37 requires that an action to attack or review the "reasonableness, legality or validity" of the condition must be filed and served 90 days after the date on which the condition was imposed (i.e. 90 days from the date the City Council approved the condition or upheld it on appeal from the Planning Commission). Second, conditions of a building permit must be challenged within 90 days of the City Council decision and served within 120 days of that date. Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 generally limits the time to file a writ of mandate action to 90 days from the date the decision is final where the City has adopted an ordinance to that effect. Alternatively, the developer may pay the fee and protest it by following Government Code Section 65913.5. (Government Code Section 65958.) The protest must be filed within 90 days of imposition of the fee and any lawsuit must be filed within 180 days of that date. The court must direct the City to refund an invalid fee with 8$ interest. VI. IS THERE A REASON TO DO A CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN? The Act provides that a City may adopt a capital improvement plan. Some jurisdictions believe Government Code Section 66002(a)(2) provides authority for fees not otherwise specially authorized under the Subdivision Map Act, such as park fees on single residential building permits. The author's office indicates that originally the capital improvements plan was to be required for the levy of all impact fees. However, Section 66002 now is a compromise provision which provides a planning tool for cities which have not identified the use of fees for public facilities by use of general or specific plans or other public documents. elh/NTS1960 -8- The section provides no "safe harbor" reason to adopt a capital improvement plan and was intended to provide a method for adopting such fees which was acceptable to the building community; the list of "facilities" or "improve- ments" in Government Code Section 66002(c) contains examples of fees for which a capital improvement plan may be done. VII. CEQA REVIEW Adoption of an ordinance or resolution imposing an impact fee is a discretionary action of a public agency sub- ject to CEQA review. The State CEQA Guidelines provide that a fee to fund current capital projects generally is cate- gorically exempt. (14 Cal. Code Section 15473.) However, a fee for prospective capital facilities is not categorically exempt, so that caution suggests a negative declaration should be prepared for the ordinance or resolution. Generally, a condition of development will be reviewed as part of the environmental review for the project. Copies of the Act and Senate Bill 372 are attached for review. -9- elh/NTS1960 Senatt: 811 No. X72 CHAPTER 1002 M ut to upend Sections S70rn, 5/997, and 51998 of the Covern• ment Code, relating to fees. (Apprw ea a Gorsr~wr s.p~ .ta.rs ® !!. t91n Flea .WA SscTStary d State swbar b, 19fT.1 LFCISl.~17VE COUtVSFL'S DIGEST SB X74. Bergeson. Devebpment fees. (I) Existing law requires local agency fees for improvements for residential dtvebpraent to be se egated in a separate capt(a) fuititles account or fund and, with a spCCified exception, to be expended together with earned interest solely for the purpose for which collected. This bill would impose a state-mandated local program by expanding the above requirement to include fees imposed for trnprovements for any type of project undertaken for the purpose of devebptnent, and to include certain fees defined by A8 1600, if enacted. The bW would require the fees to be deposited in a separate capital fscilitiea account or fund. The bill also would make findings of statewide interest and concern and preemption of conflicting local laws and would malts a technical, noruubstantive change. (!) Under etdstfng 4w. any person may request an audit in order to detersntsse whether any foe or change levied by a district exceeds the amount reaaorsably oecassary to rnver the cost of any product or serviw pprmovided by the district. if a person makes flat request, exWing 4w authorizes the board of directors of the dWrict to retain an independent auditor to conduct an audit to determine whether the fee or charge b ressorubk. Eztsdrsg law provides that any costs incurred by a dhtrict io having the audit. as deuribed, cocsductt:d by an independent auditor may be recovered from the person who requests the audit. Thi: bill would extend these provisions to include other specified heal agencie:, including counties and both general law and charter tides. 71ie biU would also make technical. rsonsubstantive changes. (9) The California Constitution requires file state to reimburse heal agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that rsirabursement, including the creadon of a State Mandates Claims Fund Io pay the costa of mandates which do nest a:teed iSU0.00() statewide and other procedures for calms whose statewide costs e:teed :300,000. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates deterroiriea that this bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to those REPRINT m so Ch 1(w-2 - 2 strtuiory procedures rnd, tf the strte~-ide cult dears not cooed i311t),t>D0, shall be made fran the State ~landrtes Clams Fund Thr peoph• of the State of Cabfornra do enact as follows. SECTION 1. Section SJO,' of the Government Code is atnendrJ to real. 5.7077. (a) If a local agency requires t:~e payment of a fee specified in paragraph t_^^) of subdiwsion (b~ to connection wuh the approvrl of a development protect, the local agency receiving the fee shall deposit it with the other fees for the tmpro~ ement ,n a separate eap,tal fae,ht,es account or fund to a m.nner to avoid any comminglu,g of the fees with other re.enues and funds of the local agency, except for temporary u,vestments, and expend those fees solely for the purpose for which the fer w•as collected..~n~ interest income earned by moneys to the expire) facilities account or fund shall also be deposited in that account or fund and shall be expended only for the purpose for which the fee wis originally collected, except that the requirements of this sentence shall not apply to interest on the fees paid pursuant to Section 66177 until January 1, 1983. (b) For purposes of this section: (1) "Development project" mews any project undertaken for the purpose o! development. "Development project" includes a project involving the iuuance of a permit for construction or reconstruction, but not a permit to operate. (2) "F'ee" means any fee imposed to provide for an improvement to be constructed to serve a development project, or which is a fer within the meaning of subclivi~ion (b- of Section 66000, as added by Assembly Bill 1600 of the 19ti?-88 Regular Session, if enacted, rnd that is imposed by the locrl agency as a condition of approving the development project. (~) "Local agency" means a county, city, whittler genera) law or chartered, city and county, school district, special district, or any other municipal public eorporanon or d,strict. {c) Any person may request an audit of any local agency fee or charge that is sub)ect to Section S499T, including fees or eflai t{es of school districts, in accordance with that srchon. (d) The legislature finds and declrres that untimaly or improper allocahur- of development fees holders economic growth and u, therefore, a matter of statewide interest rnd concern It is, therefore, the intent of the lxgislature rhat subdisis,o,i (a) shall supersede all conflicting local laws and shill rpply in chrrter cities. SlrC. 2. Stchon S~t99'1 of the Cosrrnmrnt Code is amrrnded to read. 51997• (at An~• person may request ari audit in order to d~rtrrmine NI-ethei any fee or c)-argr Ir~ied by a local agency r>`<rrds lhrrrnount reasonrbl~ nrc~ss.ir~ to cover the cost of and Sit ~~ - 3 - Ch. 1002 product or xrtiice pro.~ded b- the local agency If a person makes that request, the legislative body of the local agency may retain an independent auditor to conduct an audit to delermine whether the fee or charge is reason~bfe. (b1 Anv costs incurred b. a local agency in ha~•ing an audit conducted by an independent auditor pursuant to subdivision (a) may be recovered from the person who requests the audit. (c- Any audit conducted b~ an independent auditor to determine whether a fee or chargt levied by a local agency exceeds the amount reasonably necessary to cover the cost of providing the product or ser~~ce shall conform to generally accepted auditing standards. (d~ The procedures specified in this sectbn shall be alternative and in addition to those specified in Section S49BS. (e1 "Local agency," as used in this chapter, means a county, city, whether general law or chutered, city and county, school district, special district, or any uther municipal public corporation or district. (f) The Legislatures finds and declares that oversight of local agency fees is a matter of statewide Interest and concern. It is, therefore, the intent of the Legislature that thb chapter shall supersede a!1 conflicting local laws and shall apply in charter cities. SEC. J. Section 54998 of the Covernrsunt Code is amended to read: 54998. This chapter shall not be construed u granting any additional authority to any local agency to ky any fee or charge which is not otherwise authorized by another provision of law nor shall its provisions be construed as granting authority to any local agency to kvy a new fee or char a when other provisions of law specifically prohibit the kvy of a ~ee or charge. SEC. 4. Notwithstanding Section 17810 of the Government Code, if the Commission on State Mandates detetmines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those cods shall be made pursuant to Part T (commencing with Section 175001 of Division ~ of Titk 2 of the Government (;ode. If the statewide cost of the claim for reimbursement does not a:teed five hundred thousand dollars (t30t1,000), reimbursement shall be made from the State Nandatei Claims Fund. O ~~~ ttu GOVERNMENT t'ODE § 66001 CAAPTER 5. FEES FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS (NEW] Section 66000. Definitions. 66001. Fee as condition of approval; agency requirements. 66002. Capita] improvement plan; adoption; updates; hearings. 66003. Reimbursement agreements; inapplicability of chapter, operative date of chapter. Chapter 5 was added by Stats.1987, c. 9t7, 4 1, operative Jan 1, 1989. Former Chaptcr 5, District Planning Law, was repealed b3/ Stata.198~, c. 1009, c. t9 § 66000. Definitions As used in this chapter: (a) "Development project" means any project undertaken for the purpose of development "Devel- opment project" includes a project involving the issuance of a permit for conswction or reconswr tion, but not a permit to operate. (b) "Fee" means a monetary exaction, other than a tax or special assessment, which is charged by a local agency to the applicant in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the coat of public facilities related to the development project, but does not include fees specified in Section 6647?, fees for processing applications for governmental regulatory actions or approvals, or fees collected under development agreements adopted pursuant to article 2.5 (commencing with Section 65864) of Chapter 4. (c) "Local agency" means a county, city, whether general law or chartered, city and county, school district, special district, or any other municipal public corporation or district; provided that "local agency" does not include a school district if Senate Bill No. 97 of the 1987-88 Regular Session is enacted and becomes effective on or before January 1, 1988. (d) "Public facilities" includes public improvement, public services, and community amenities. iAdded by Stats.1987; c. 927, § 1, operative Jan. 1, 1989.) Operative Jan 1, 1989. § 66001. Fee as rnndition of approval; aseney requirements (a) In any action establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition of approval of a development project by a local agency on or after January 1, 1989, the local agency shall do all of the following: (1) Identify the purpose of the fee. (2) Identify the use to which the fee is to be pnt. If the ass is financing public facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital improvement plan as speeitied in Sections 65408 or 66002, map be made in applicable general or specifk plan requirement, or may be made in other public document that identify the public facilities for which the fee is charged. (3) Determine how there is s reasonable rebtionahip between the fee's use sad the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. (4) Determine how there is a reasonable rehtionsltip between the need for the public facility and the type of devebpmeat project on which the fee is imposed. (b) In any action imposing a fee as s eoaditioo of approval of a devebpmeat project by a bcal agency on or after January 1, 1989, the heal agency shall determine how there is s reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee sad the cost of the public factlity or portion of the public facility attnbutable to the devebpment on which the tee is unposed. (c) Upon receipt of a fee eabject to this section; the bal agency shall deposit, invest, account for, and expend the tees pursuant to Section b80?7. (d) The tai agency shall mare igndu,gs onee'each final year with respect to any portion of the fee remaining unexpended or nnoommitted in ib account five or more pears after deposit of the fee to identify the purpose to _ghiclz the fee is t6;;~e pat and to demonstrate a reasonable rehtionahip between the fee and the purpose: for which if w~u chased. The findings required by thh subdivision Astsrtska • • • y>dCata. aNtlons . by ir~wt-dntsnt . 48- 66001 GOVERNMENT CODE need only be made for moneys in the possession of the local agency and need not be made with respect to letters of credit, bonds, or other instruments taken to secure payment of the fee at a future date. (e) The local agency shall refund to the then current record owner or owners of the development project or projects on a prorated basis the unexpended or uncommitted portion of the fee, and any interest accrued thereon, for which need cannot be demonstrated pursuant to this subdivision. A local agency may refund the unexpended or uncommitted revenues by direct payment, by providing a temporary suspension of fees, or by any other means consistent with the intent of this section. The determination by the governing body of the local agency of the means by which those revenues are to be refunded is a legislative act. If the administrative costs of refunding unexpended or uncommitted revenues pursuant to this subdivision exceed the amount to be refunded. the local agency, after a public hearing, notice of which has been published pursuant to Section 6061 and posted in three prominent places within the area of the development project, may determine that the revenues shall be allocated for some other purpose for which fees are collected subject to this chapter and which serves the project on which the fee was originally imposed. (Added by Stats.1987, c. 927, § 1, operative Jan. 1, 1989.) Operative Jarz. 1, 1989. § 66002. Capita! improvement plan; adoption; updates; hearings (a) Any local agency which levies a fee subject to Section 66001 may adopt a capital improvemenE plan, which shall indicate the approximate location, size, Ume of availability, and estimates of cost for all facilities or improvements to be financed with the fees. Ib) The capital improvement plan shall be adopted by, and shall be annually updated by, a resolution of the governing body of the local agency adopted at a noticed public hearing. Notice of the heanng shall be given pursuant co Section 65090. In addition, mailed notice shall be given to any city or county which may be significantly affected by the capital improvement plan. This notice shall be given no later than the date the local agency notices the public hearing pursuant to Section 65090. The information in the notice shall be not less than the information contained in the notice of puhlic hearing and shall be given by firsttlass mail or personal delivery. (c) "Facility" or "improvement," as used in this section, means any of the following: (1) Public buildings, including schools and related facilities; provided that school facilities shalt not be included if Senate Bill 97 of the 1987-58 Regular Session is enacted and becomes effective on or before January 1, 1988. (2) Facilities for the storage, treatment, and distribution of nonagricultural water. (3) Facilities for the collection, treatment, reclamation, and disposal of sewage. (4) Facilities for the collection and disposal of storm waters and for flood control purposes. (5) Facilities for the generation of electricity and the distribution of gas and elect-icity. (6) Transportation and transit facilities, including but not limited to streets snd supporting improvements, roads, overpasses, bridges, harbors, ports, airports, and related facilities. (7) Parks and recreation facilities. (8) Any other capital project identified in the capital facilities plan adopted pursuant to Section 66002. (Added by Stata.1987, c. 927, § 1, operative Jan. 1, 1989.) Operative Jan. 1, 1989. , § 66003. Relmburxment agreemcnU; lnapplicabillt7 0[ chapter, operative dente of chapter This chapter does not apply to a fee imposed pursuant to a reimbursement agreement by and between a city or county and a property owner or developer for that portion of the cat of s public facility paid by the property owner or developer which eaceeda the need for the public fsciliq UndarllM kMICatN chanp~s Or addlt{OM by alMftdrtNM 44 GOVERNMENT CODE § 66410 Note f attributable to and reasonably related to the development This chapter shall become operative on January 1, 1989. (Added by Stata.1987, c. 927, § 1, operative Jan. 1, 1989.) Operative Jaye. 1, 1989. §§ 66100 to 66180. Repealed by Stats. 1984, c. 1009, § 29 §§ 66200 to 66390. Repealed by Stats.1983, c. 1009, § 29