News and Updates

Total existing home sales fell 6.4% to a seasonally adjusted rate of 4.99 million in December, according to the latest figures by the National Association of Realtors. Sales are at their lowest level since November 2015 and down 10.3% from a year ago (5.56 million in December 2017).

Total existing home sales include single-family homes, townhomes, condominiums and co-ops.

Existing home sales remained sluggish in 2018 due to rising mortgage rates, growing home prices and tight inventory.

Meanwhile, the new home sales report for December scheduled to be released on Jan. 25 will likely be postponed due to the government shutdown.

The first-time buyer share of existing home sales slightly declined to 32% in December from 33% the previous month. The December inventory decreased to 1.55 million units from 1.74 million units in November. At the current sales rate, the December unsold inventory represents a 3.7-month supply, down from a 3.9-month supply last month.

Homes stayed on the market for 46 days in December, up from 42 days in November and 40 days a year ago. In December, 39% of existing homes sold were on the market for less than a month.

The December median sales price for existing homes was $253,600, up 2.9% from a year ago. This marks the 82nd consecutive month of year-over-year increases. The December median condominium/co-op price of $240,600 was up 2.3% from a year ago.

NAHB economist Fan-Yu-Kuo provides more analysis in this Eye on Housing blog post.

Have you ever wondered if the impact fees your company is paying to various jurisdictions are going toward their intended purpose? Interestingly, they often are not.

Over the last 30 years, the Development Planning & Financing Group Inc. (DPFG) has been working with NAHB, HBAs and various home building companies in reviewing, critiquing, and determining the overall fairness and equity of the impact fees proposed by associated jurisdictions.

Over the last seven years, DPFG has conducted a number of in-depth audits of municipalities’ fee programs and we can now conclude greater transparency and oversight are needed related to the expenditure of fees.

Common misuses of fees

Most jurisdictions attempt to utilize fees for the intended purposes. There does, however, appear to be an almost uniform disconnect between the departments that prepare the fee study (e.g., manager, public works and finance departments) and the departments and/or personnel that collect and expend impact fees (accounting and public works departments).

In states with no fee audit requirement, DPFG’s audit findings have found the misuse of impact fees in four general areas:

• Using fees to correct existing deficiencies. While reviewing a fee study, it was noted that federal and state authorities had cited a jurisdiction for not having sufficient fire stations. The jurisdiction was required by the authorities to use its own non-impact fee funds to construct a second fire station to adequately serve its existing population. During the peer review of the impact fee accounts, we discovered that the jurisdiction expended approximately $935,000 of impact fees it was collecting for fire stations 3, 4, and 5 for the construction of the second fire station.
• Using specific impact fees to fund non-authorized capital facilities. During a review of a jurisdiction’s water impact fee accounts, for which separate impact fees were being collected for water capacity and water distribution, DPFG uncovered that the jurisdiction had utilized $4.1 million collected for water distribution to finance water capacity projects. The same jurisdiction also expended approximately $2.2 million in impact fees specifically for sewage collection facilities to fund the wastewater treatment plant, for which it was collecting a separate fee.
• Using fees for the payment of non-capital assets. A jurisdiction funded more than $2.1 million in public works and park department salaries, payroll taxes, health insurance, vacation pay, overtime pay, and even retirement benefits. Fees were used to fund departmental office supplies, cellular service, travel, and meals.
• Using fees for the repair and maintenance of existing facilities. In another jurisdiction, approximately $218,000 in funds were used to repair and replace existing park facilities rather than to construct new park facilities. The city has agreed to replenish the funds taken from the fee accounts through their general fund.

Ensuring proper expenditure of fees

Most state impact fee statutes are vague and open to interpretation, which often leads to misuse.

A possible solution is enacting impact-fee enabling legislation that outlines specific rules and guidelines for the estimation, collection, and expenditure of impact fees. This legislation should also provide a means for independent third parties knowledgeable in impact fees, public infrastructure, accounting and finance to audit the jurisdiction’s expenditure of impact fees.

As a starting point, industry associations may want to consider a broader effort to implement more specific legislation related to the estimation, collection, and expenditure of impact fees. By providing more detailed guidelines and implementing regular peer reviews of fee accounts, both the public and private sectors can feel more confident that jurisdictions are utilizing impact fees for their intended purpose, which is to provide necessary infrastructure for new growth.

Carter T. Froelich, CPA, is managing principal of the Southwest and Mountain Regions of Development Planning & Financing Group Inc. This post was adapted from an article in the Fall 2018 issue of Best in American Living. Read the full article here.