A. Unless otherwise specifically authorized by the Development Fees Act, no municipality or county may enact or impose an impact fee.

B. If it complies with the Development Fees Act, a municipality or county may enact or impose impact fees on land within its respective corporate boundaries.

C. A municipality and county may enter into a joint powers agreement to provide capital improvements within an area subject to both county and municipal platting and subdivision jurisdiction or extraterritorial jurisdiction and may charge an impact fee under the agreement, but if an impact fee is charged in that area, the municipality and county shall comply with the Development Fees Act.

D. A municipality or county may waive impact fee requirements for affordable housing projects.

History: Laws 1993, ch. 122, § 3; 2001, ch. 176, § 1.

The 2001 amendment, effective June 15, 2001, added Subsection D.

No vested development rights under impact fee ordinance. — Where the municipal impact fee ordinance exempted developers who possessed development rights that vested prior to the ordinance's date of enactment from paying the impact fee; prior to the date the ordinance was enacted, the municipal planning commission approved a site plan for subdivision of land owned by plaintiff; the approved plan established zoning, tract boundaries, vehicle access, bicycle and trail access, public transit access, internal circulation requirements, building heights, setbacks, and common landscape standards; none of the tracts were platted; and the regulations which were promulgated pursuant to the ordinance defined vested rights as development rights acquired and resulting from building permit approval, final plat approval, preliminary plat approval, or site plan for subdivision or site plan for building permit approval and defined site plan for subdivision as a plat that covers at least one lot and specifies access and building criteria, under the ordinance, a developer receives development rights at the time it receives approval of a reliable platting pattern, the developer's original site plan for subdivision did not confer the development rights necessary to establish vested rights under the ordinance, because it did not provide a reliable platting pattern, and the developer was not exempt from paying impact fees. Andalucia Dev. Corp., Inc. v. City of Albuquerque, 2010-NMCA-052, 148 N.M. 277, 234 P.3d 929.

No common law vested development rights. — Where the municipal impact fee ordinance exempted developers who possessed development rights that vested prior to the ordinance's date of enactment from paying the impact fee; prior to the date the ordinance was enacted, the municipal planning commission approved a site plan for subdivision of land owned by plaintiff; the approved plan established zoning, tract boundaries, vehicle access, bicycle and trail access, public transit access, internal circulation requirements, building heights, setbacks, and common landscape standards; none of the tracts were platted; and development of the property was subject to subsequent municipal approvals and the continuance of the project remained entirely within the municipality's discretion, the original site plan for subdivision did not confer a vested development right under common law and the developer was not exempt from paying impact fees. Andalucia Dev. Corp., Inc. v. City of Albuquerque, 2010-NMCA-052, 148 N.M. 277, 234 P.3d 929.