Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/04/1997

Home

Page 8 m January t997 Z.B. the total area of a subdivision for park purposes. Alternatively, a developer could pay a fee in lieu of dedication. The developer of Shawna Downs agreed to pay $400 per lot for park purposes. The city conditioned approval of the subdivision on receipt of the fees and construction of the horse trails. Vintage Construction Co. acquired the property from the former owner, completed the project and paid the fees. It then sued to recover the fees. It pointed out that under the state law authorizing payments in lieu of land dedication, a municipality had to show the payment was "reasonably necessary as a direct result of the proposed development." While Vintage's case against the city was pending, the state Supreme Court ruled a fee assessment had to be "specific to the site." The court also invalidated a $400-per-lot fee the city had imposed on another developer. Vintage said the fee it paid was the very same fee and was also invalid. Bothell said its method for calculating Vintage's fee was based on city- wide averages of $28,000 per acre and 3.5 lots per acre. It explained the city required developers to dedicate 5 percent of land for open space. Five percent of the average lot value was therefore $400. According to the city, if it had used the actual figures for Vintage's development, the per-lot fee would have been higher. (It did not produce any figures to support this claim.) The city also said $400 per lot was a base figure, and it would have been willing to negotiate with Vintage. The city also claimed even if the fee was invalid as a fee in lieu of dedication, it could require fee payment as a condition of annexation. Vintage said the fee was not tied closely to the actual land the city could have required it to dedicate, tt also noted that in calculating the fee, the city did not take into account the value of the horse trails it had to build. The court granted judgment to the city. Vintage appealed, arguing the fee was invalid. DECISION: Reversed, in favor of Vintage. The city failed to show the necessary relationship between the $400-per-lot fee and the value of land it could have required Vintage to dedicate. The city failed to show a site-specific relationship between the fee and the value of the land that would have been dedicated. It failed to consider how the horse trails might have affected the fee. The city did not even show the $400- per-lot fee was lower than the value of the land the city could have required Vintage to dedicate. The city could not simply use a base figure to determine fees. The statute required a municipality to show a fee was reasonably necessary as a direct result of a development. Before asking for a fee in lieu of dedication, the city at least had to consider the dedication of a specific amount of land. The city never asked Vintage to dedicate a particular amount of/and, nor did it calculate the value of a dedication. The fee was not valid as a condition of annexation. Once the city annexed the Shawna Downs property, it had to comply with the state law on fees. see also; Henderson Homes l~c. v, City of Bothell, 877 P, 2d ] 76 (J994). see also: Trime~ Dev. Co. ~: Ki~g Country, 877 P. 2d 187 (1994).