Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/06/2011

Home

20 October 10, 2010 !Volume 41 No. 19 Zoning Bulletin the Ordinance limited the use of the fees to capital improvements to the City's sewer and water systems. The court further determined that the City had the authority to impose such fees Several Alabama statutes granted municipalities the power to "construct, operate, and maintain water and sewer systems." The court found that "[u]ndoubtedly implied within [those powers was] the power to charge the users of those systems fees to defray the cost of providing such services." Moreover, the court found the City's police powers "allow[ed] it to control sanitary matters within its municipal limits ...." Having found the city had the power to impose such service fees, the court concluded that: "the City's assessment of the service fees through its adoption of the [O]rdinance was proper." The court next rejected the Home Builders' argument that the Or- dinance was invalid because the fees charged to the Home Builders were unrelated to the benefits realized by the Home Builders. The court noted that the burden of proving this argument rested on the Home Builders, and the Home Builders had failed to cite any supporting Ala- bama law. In any case, the court explained that "Alabama law does not require that fees precisely comport with the benefits provided to property owners." Rather, service fees were valid as long as there was a "substantial indirect benefit" to the person assessed the fee (i.e., here, the Home Builders). Here, the court found the service fees imposed by the Ordinance passed this "substantial indirect benefit" test. Owners of property who wanted to connect to the City's water and/or sewer sys- tem would "certainly benefit." Furthermore, the court found the City had arrived at the amount to charge the service fees based on numer- ous studies and reliance on experts. See also: Martin v. City of Trussville, 376 So. 2d 1089 (Ala. Civ. App. 1979), writ denied, 376 So. 2d 1095 (Ala. 1979). See also: Board of Water and Sewer Com'rs of City of Mobile v. Yar- brough, 662 So. 2d 251 (Ala. 1995). Case Note: The court explained that to pass the "substantial indi- rect benefit" test, service fees need not provide each assessed per- son with a proportional direct benefit. "Instead, all that need be shown is that each person against whom the service fees are as- sessed received at least a substantial indirect benefit." Case Note: The Home Builders had also made two constitutional arguments. They had argued that to the extent the service fees ex- ceeded "the benefit bestowed upon the [H]ome [B]uilders, such ex- 8 © 2010 Thomson Reuters j