This bill amends the Mitigation Fee Act to add specific procedural and accounting checks on local fees charged as conditions of project approval. It requires local agencies to state fee purposes and uses, tie fees to the actual cost and need created by the development, deposit and account for fees under existing accounting rules, and perform recurring five-year findings about unspent balances.
If a project’s fee account has collected “sufficient funds” to complete an identified improvement but the improvement remains unbuilt, the agency must either set a near-term construction start date or refund the unexpended portion (plus interest) on a prorated basis to current record owners — unless refunding would cost more than the payout, in which case the agency may reallocate after a noticed hearing. The bill also bars fees from covering existing infrastructure shortfalls and requires credits where a new project removes an earlier use that already caused part of the facility need.
Practically, the measure raises transparency and refund risk for long-accumulating fee accounts while clarifying when and how credits should reduce fees for redevelopment.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill imposes explicit findings and accounting duties for local development fees, requires five-year reviews of unexpended balances, creates a 180-day deadline to commit to construction or refund when funds are sufficient to build an identified improvement, and mandates fee credits when a new project replaces a prior use.
Who It Affects
City and county finance and planning officers who establish, hold, or spend development mitigation and impact fees; developers and property owners who pay or receive credits for those fees; and capital project managers who must schedule construction or face refunds.
Why It Matters
It tightens the link between fee revenue and the projects those fees fund, increases the chance of refunds if projects are delayed, and forces local agencies to choose between returning money, reallocating it after public process, or accelerating construction.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill layers procedural and accounting requirements onto the existing Mitigation Fee Act. At fee adoption or increase, a local agency must identify the fee’s purpose and the specific public use for which the fee will be applied; if the fee finances public facilities the agency must identify those facilities (by reference to a capital improvement plan or other public document).
The agency must also explain how the fee’s use and amount reasonably relate to both the kind of development being charged and the portion of the facility cost attributable to that development.
All receipts subject to the statute must be deposited, invested, accounted for, and expended under Section 66006’s rules. The bill then creates a recurring accountability checkpoint: beginning in the fifth fiscal year after the first deposit and every five years thereafter, the agency must make findings about any unexpended portion of the fund.
Those findings must identify the intended purpose, demonstrate a continuing reasonable relationship between fee and purpose, list all funding sources and amounts still needed to finish incomplete improvements, and provide the approximate dates when those funds are expected to be deposited.If, under the standards referenced in Section 66006, the agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete an identified public improvement but the improvement remains unbuilt, the agency has 180 days to either name an approximate construction commencement date or refund the unexpended fee balance (plus interest) on a pro rata basis to the then-current record owners of the affected lots or units as shown on the last equalized assessment roll. The statute allows flexibility in refund mechanics — direct payments, temporarily suspending future fees, or other reasonable means — and treats the governing body’s choice of refund mechanism as a legislative decision.The bill also recognizes administrative practicality: if the administrative costs of processing refunds would exceed the refund amount, the agency after a public hearing (with notice under Section 6061 and postings in three prominent locations in the project area) may instead reallocate the revenues to another eligible fee-funded purpose that serves the same project.
Finally, the bill restricts fee coverage to the additional demand caused by the new development (not preexisting deficiencies) and requires agencies to provide fee credits or proportional reductions when a development removes or replaces an earlier use that already contributed to the need for the funded facility.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The agency must make formal findings about any unexpended fee balance in the fifth fiscal year after the account’s first deposit and every five years thereafter.
When the account has 'sufficient funds' to finish an identified improvement, the agency has 180 days to set an approximate construction start date or refund unexpended fees plus interest.
Refunds must be distributed pro rata to the then-current record owners of lots or units as listed on the last equalized assessment roll unless the agency chooses another reasonable refund method.
If the administrative cost of issuing refunds exceeds the refund amount, the agency may—after a public hearing with Section 6061 notice and local postings—reallocate the funds to another fee-eligible project that serves the same development.
The bill forbids including costs attributable to existing facility deficiencies in a fee and requires a fee credit or proportional reduction when a project removes or replaces a prior use that contributed to the facility need.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Required findings at fee adoption or increase
This subsection requires agencies, when establishing or raising a fee, to state its purpose, the intended use (identifying financed facilities when applicable), and to explain the reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and amount and the type of development being charged. Practically, this pushes fee resolutions to be more explicit about the facilities funded and the nexus and proportionality analysis that supports the dollar amount.
Reasonable relationship between fee amount and cost
Subdivision (b) focuses on the price side of the nexus test: the agency must document how the fee amount reasonably corresponds to the portion of the facility cost attributable to the development. This creates a record-level obligation that planners and finance staff will need to satisfy when setting per-unit or per-square-foot fees.
Deposit, investment, and accounting under Section 66006
Receipts covered by this section must be handled under the accounting and reporting rules in Section 66006. That cross-reference centralizes financial controls and reporting in the existing statutory framework, which means agencies cannot use ad hoc accounting to mask unspent balances and must follow the public information and audit path already established.
Five‑year findings for unexpended balances
Starting in the fifth fiscal year after the first deposit into an account (and every five years after), the agency must make findings for any remaining unexpended portion: restate the fee’s purpose, show a reasonable relationship between fee and purpose, list anticipated funding sources and amounts needed to finish incomplete improvements, and give approximate dates when those funds will be deposited. The findings are tied to the public information requirements of Section 66006(b), and the statute limits the finding obligation to funds actually in the agency’s possession (excluding letters of credit, bonds, or other future-payment instruments). Missing this procedural checkpoint triggers refund exposure under subdivision (e).
Trigger and mechanics for refunds when funds are sufficient
When the agency determines—using the standard in 66006(b)(1)(F)—that it has collected sufficient funds to complete an identified public improvement but the improvement is not constructed, the agency has 180 days to identify an approximate construction start date or else must refund the unexpended balance (with interest) to then-current record owners on a prorated basis. The subsection recognizes multiple refund mechanisms (direct payment, temporary fee suspension, or other reasonable methods) and declares the governing body’s selection of remedy to be a legislative act, which affects administrative discretion and political accountability.
Administrative cost exception and reallocation after public hearing
If the cost of processing refunds would exceed the refund amount, the agency may, after a Section 6061-noticed public hearing and posted notices in three prominent local places, allocate the funds to another fee-eligible purpose that serves the original project. This provides a practical exception to small-dollar refunds but requires a public process and local notice before diversion.
No charging for existing deficiencies; credits for replacement uses
Subdivision (g) bars agencies from including costs that address preexisting facility shortfalls in new fees; fees may only cover the incremental demand attributable to the new project to maintain or achieve an adopted level of service. Subdivision (h) requires agencies to account for prior uses on a site: when development replaces or removes a use that previously caused part of the facility need, the agency must provide a proportional fee credit or reduction. Together these rules protect payers from double-charging and require agencies to calculate net impacts rather than gross needs.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Infrastructure across all five countries.
Explore Infrastructure in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Current property owners in projects with long-accumulating fees — they gain a clear refund route (pro rata) when funds are sufficient to build improvements but construction has not started.
- Owners and developers of redevelopment projects — they receive explicit fee credits or reductions when a new development removes or replaces prior uses that already contributed to facility demand.
- City and county planners and finance staff — they get a clearer statutory checklist to justify fee nexus and amounts, which strengthens defensibility against legal challenges if records are properly kept.
- Taxpayers and watchdogs — five-year findings and cross-references to Section 66006 increase transparency about unspent fee balances and financing plans.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local governments (planning and finance departments) — they must produce and maintain more detailed nexus documentation, run five-year reviews, track anticipated funding sources and dates, and potentially process refunds.
- Small jurisdictions — they may face disproportionate administrative burden from five-year findings and refund mechanics, and may resort to the administrative-cost exception which shifts funds away from original project intent.
- Developers and initial payers — they lose predictability if agencies are forced to refund or reallocate fees, and will need to factor credits and possible pro rata refunds into project economics.
- Capital project managers — they face pressure to accelerate construction schedules or secure alternative financing to avoid triggering refund obligations, potentially distorting project prioritization.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two legitimate aims that pull in opposite directions: protect payers and hold agencies accountable by returning unused fee revenue or crediting redeveloped sites, versus preserve local agencies’ ability to aggregate funds and use flexible financing to build multi‑phase infrastructure — a tension between fiscal accountability and long-term capital planning certainty.
The bill tightens accountability but leaves important operational questions open. It ties refund triggers to a 'sufficient funds' determination that is itself governed by Section 66006(b)(1)(F); agencies and courts may disagree about the timing and calculation of that threshold, creating litigation risk.
Requiring findings only for moneys 'in possession' excludes instruments like letters of credit and bonds, which preserves some of the practical financing tools agencies use, but also raises questions about whether agencies could restructure financing to avoid refund triggers while leaving projects unfunded.
The refund-to-'then-current record owners' rule protects whoever holds title at refund time, which can advantage later purchasers rather than the original fee payers. The bill permits alternative refund methods and temporary fee suspensions, but the governing body's legislative choice may inject political discretion into what are effectively restitution payments.
The administrative-cost exception is practical for tiny refunds, but it allows reallocation of funds after a hearing — a pathway that could be used frequently in small or slow jurisdictions and may dilute the original nexus intent. Finally, implementing proportional credits for replaced uses demands a baseline measurement of the prior use’s impact; that valuation is technically complicated and will require local policy choices (per-unit equivalencies, historic data, or negotiated credit schedules).
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.