Agenda - Council - 03/12/1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

TO: .CC: City Council · City-Administrator 'City Engineer .City Fire Dire,~tor City Building.~nspector RE: De~alopm. Im act. Fees ' DATE: November .14, 1995 This memo relates' to Case 9 of your November 14 Meeting Agenda. Attached yo6'witl find a proposed ordinance which staff would like to have introduced at your November 14th Council meeting. Als0 attached is a proposed resolution for your consideration. The resolution iud ordinance will be more thoroughly reviewed with. the Road aJ/d Bridge Committee on November 28, 1995 and with the Council ion that.eye, ins as well. I want to bring your attention at th{s time to an important legal issue relating to 'impact fees. Over the past few years, the U.S. Supreme Court has become very sen~sitive 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 p~blic use without ~st compensation." In interpreting this constitutional provision, the courts have stated with regard to ex. actions dennanded by a,City that the exaction must bear a reasonable relationship to the projected impact of the proposed development. Ther'efo'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 a~d therefore the City's need for $500 for each newly creatgd lo't. If challenged in the futur.e, the City may be required to show on ca~e by case basis that the exaction is related both in nature and extent to the proposed development's impact. I I