In Home Builders Ass'n of Cent. Ariz. v. City of Scottsdale, 187 Ariz. 479, 482, 930 P.2d 993, 996 (1997), the Arizona Supreme Court expressly declined to hold that the term "beneficial use" as it is used in A.R.S. 9-463.05 is a rigid construct that requires "the benefit to be based on 'locked in' or unchangeable plans." 187 Ariz. at 484, 930 P.2d at 998. Distinguishing special assessments from development fees, the Scottsdale III court noted that in A.R.S. 9-463.05, the Legislature chose not to require a municipality to produce "preliminary plans that show the location and the type and character of the proposed improvements and estimates of the cost and expenses" associated with future services to be funded through impact fees. Id. at 483, 930 P.2d at 997 (quoting A.R.S. 48-577). It noted that the omission of such limiting language demonstrated the Legislature's affirmative decision not to require concrete plans to support the imposition of an impact fee. Id. nstead the court concluded that a more flexible approach would allow cities to deal with particular issues as they arise -- "to require more fixed and certain plans would make it difficult, if not impossible, to prepare in advance for the consequences of continued growth." Id.