Agenda - Council - 02/27/1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

TO: City Council CC: City-Administrator 'City Engineer .City Fire Director City Building. Inspector RE: .. p~elopme~t. ImPa9t Fees' DATE: November , 1995 This memo relates to Case 9 of your November 14 ~eeting Agenda. Attached yo~'will find a proposed ordinance which staff would like to have introduced at your November 14th Council meeting. Also attached is a proposed resolution for your consideration. The resolution and ordinance will be more thoroughly reviewed with. the Road and Bridge Committee on November 28, 1995 and with the Council on that.evening as well. i want to bring your attention at th~s time to a/% important legal issue relating to impact fees. Over the past few years, the U.S. Supreme Court has become very sensitive with regard to protecting personal property rights. Impact fees such as those represented by the 'attached ordinance and resolution and the more typical park/utility land dedication requirements by Cities are considered property rights. This all stem~ from the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which states that "... private property (shall not) be taken for public use without just compensation." In interpreting this constitutional provision, the courts have stated with regard to exactions demanded by a.City that the exaction must bear a reasonable rel~tionship to the projected impact of the proposed development. Therefo. re, the law requires that the City be able to demonstrate that the impact of. a new development have a direct relationship to the City's transportation system and therefore the City's need for $500 for each newly created lo't. If challenged in the futur~, the City may be required to show on a case by case basis that the exaction is related both in nature and extent to the proposed development's impact. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I !