The strategy was first discussed at a meeting of the Southeastern Municipal Executives group two weeks ago. Since then:
More such actions are expected in other communities in southeast Wisconsin.
Impact fees paid by developers are intended to cover some of the costs incurred by communities when new developments require expansions of sewer and water service, construction of roads and traffic control systems, increases in emergency services and creation of parks and playgrounds.
The fees typically are passed on from the developers to people buying homes in new subdivisions.
Municipalities and towns all over the state impose some form of impactfees, but the practice is especially prevalent in the growing suburban communities of southeastern Wisconsin.
Communities that impose some impact fees on developers includeMenomonee Falls, Waukesha, Oconomowoc, Pewaukee, Delafield, New Berlin, Germantown, West Bend, Mequon, Franklin and the towns of Pleasant Prairie and Caledonia.
Supporters of theproposed budget provision - which would change the 1995 state law that allowed cities, villages and towns to charge impact fees - argue that a clarification is needed to curb abuses that resulted in new-home buyers in some parts of the state paying fees of up to $15,000 per home.
Jerry Deschane, director of government affairs for the Wisconsin Builders Association, the motivating force behind the budget measure, said municipalities that impose moratoriums on development run a very high risk of being sued by developers.
"We've heard communities talk about moratoria and we would advise caution. That's a powerful word," said Deschane.
Building moratoriums may only be declared in an emergency situation, he said, and according to legal advice received by the Builders Association the impending implementation of this legislation does not constitute an emergency.
"It's a pressure tactic being used to pressure builders and developers into not supporting this proposal," he said. "But it won't work. The direction from my members is that we need to proceed."
West Bend's Miller did not deny that there is an element of the pressure tactic in his city's consideration of a moratorium, but he said municipal officials feel they have no choice.
"We don't want to do what we're doing. We don't want to have to tell our developers we're going to delay their projects. But if enough communities do this, developers will get their legislators to take this out of the budget," he said.
"They're the ones who started this. They're the ones who control the outcome. They can play fair and act to get this out of the budget, or we can play hard ball."
But Miller, echoing Bloomberg's comments, said the uncertain impact of the legislation on municipal budgets does indeed constitute an emergency.
"We don't know what kind of expense this will put on the community. Thereare things in this proposal that will have a definite impact on the city's budget, such as paying for sidewalks and street lights," he said.
"Until we know how much it will cost, I can't budget for it."
Germantown Village Administrator Paul Brandenburg said the resolution approved by the board does not specifically mention the budget measure, "but I think that was a fairly large impetus behind this."
With the village planning to build a new library and other facilities as well as develop a new park, the erosion by the state of municipal revenue sources is a major concern for local officials, he said.
Brandenburg will make a recommendation to the board next month on how long the building moratorium should last and whether it should apply to residential, industrial and/or commercial development.
Assembly Republicans, led by Rep. Marc Duff (R-New Berlin), tried this week to placate municipal officials by amending the budget bill to delay for a year the implementation of the impact fee change and to move up the time in the development process when municipalities may collect some money from developers.
But city and village officials said the effort, while it may have been well-intentioned, was not good enough.
"It's like instead of losing a whole arm we'd lose the arm only up to the elbow. We still lose," said Menomonee Falls village President Joe Greco of the GOP budget amendment.
Bloomberg said she wrote a memo to Duff outlining her concerns before the Assembly Republican caucus action and applauded him for his effort to change the measure. But she said the GOP amendment did not go far enough and she continues to believe the entire issue should be thrown out of the budget bill.
"This is such a fundamental part of the daily life of a city that you have to be careful you have clearly understood the issue," she said, adding that state law on impact fees is complicated and that many legislators did not understand the implication of what they were doing.
"Things are never as simple as they appear at 11 p.m. with a lobbyist in your office. I would love to have the whole issue just go away."
Greco agreed. "It's pure special-interest pork and has no place in the state budget," he said.
At issue in the provision, part of the state budget bill, are the kinds of things that may be included in the impact fee assessment, the method used for charging developers a fee in lieu of a parkland donation and the timing of impact fee payments.
Under language added to the budget bill last month by the Legislature's Joint Finance Committee, impact fees could not be assessed to pay for improvements in transportation facilities, like bus shelters; solid waste and recycling facilities; and libraries.
The budget bill is expected to be acted on by the Assembly next week.
Then it goes to the Senate.