Development projects: fees and charges.
The implementation of SB 937 is expected to significantly alter the financial landscape for residential developers across California. By postponing the collection of development-related fees until a later stage in the construction process, the bill aims to encourage more residential development, particularly in areas where costs have been prohibitive. It also empowers developers to potentially safeguard their financial commitments through mechanisms such as performance bonds. The legislation may yield a more favorable environment for housing projects, particularly those that include designated units for lower-income households.
Senate Bill 937, introduced by Senator Wiener, amends Section 66007 of the Government Code and specifically targets development projects, particularly focusing on the regulation of fees and charges imposed by local agencies. This bill is key to enhancing the development process by altering the timeline for when fees for public improvements, such as water and sewer connections, can be collected. Essentially, it mandates that local agencies can only require the payment of such fees upon the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy or a temporary certificate, which can ease the financial burden on developers during the critical phases of construction.
General sentiment around SB 937 appears to reflect a positive outlook from those within the development and housing sectors who view it as a vital step toward alleviating immediate financial pressures on new residential projects. However, the bill could be viewed with caution by local governments concerned about their revenue streams from fees that support public infrastructure. Overall, proponents argue that the bill fosters housing development, while opponents may fear implications for local agency funding.
One notable point of contention lies in the exemptions the bill provides for lower-income housing developments. Although the bill encourages broader development, it also stipulates specific conditions under which fees can be deferred. Local agencies hold certain powers in determining fee collection timelines and can still request earlier payments under particular circumstances. Questions remain about the impact on local control as agencies navigate the new requirements, raising concerns about the balance of state influence over local governance.