Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/01/2004

Home

Country Joe, inc., et al., Respondents, vs. City of Eagan, petitioner, Appellant. C8-95-228... Page 4 of 7 necessarily be implied in face of legislative silence in order to effectuate the village's express power to create residential zones); Almquist, 308 Minn. at 63-65, 245 N.W.2d at 825-26 (holding that the power to adopt a zoning moratorium may be implied to effectuate the town's zoning powers despite the legislature's silence on whether cities, as well as counties, possessed such authority). Accordingly, we conclude that the authority to impose a road unit connection charge cannot be implied from the city's municipal planning authority. See Mangold, 274 Minn. at 357, 143 N.W.2d at 820. II. The city next contends that the court of appeals erred in rejecting case law'from other jurisdictions approving of similar charges as "impact fees." Impact fees have been lauded by local governments in recent years as a welcome means to "shift a portion of the cost of providing capital facilities to serve new growth from the general tax base to the new development generating the demand for the facilities." Martin L. Leitner & Susan P. Schoettle, A Survey of State Impact Fee Enabling Legislation, in Exactions, Impact Fees and Dedications: Shaping Land-Use Development and Funding Infrastructure in the Dolart Era 60 (Robert H. Freilich & David W. Bushek eds., 1995). An impact fee has been defined as a form of development exaction that is: * in the form of a predetermined money payment; * assessed as a condition to the issuance of a building permit, an occupancy permit or plat approval; * pursuant to local government powers to regulate new growth and development and provide for adequate public facilities and services; * levied to fund large-scale, off-site public facilities and services necessary to serve new development; * in an amount which is proportionate to the need for the public facilities generated by new development. Brian W. Blaesser & Cba'istine M. Kentopp, Impact Fees: The "Second Generation," in i991 Zoning and Planning Handbook 255,264 (Kenneth H. Young ed., 1991). Commentators suggest that an impact fee differs from a tax in that an impact fee is levied as "compensation ~br the services rendered." Id. at 266 (citation omitted). Thus, key to the concept of a true impact fbe is that the amount assessed a developer must reflect the cost of infrastructure improvements necessitated by the development itself. Conversely, "a charge having no relation to the services rendered, assessed to provide general revenue rather than compensation, is a tax." Id. Impact fees have also been distinguished from special assessments: "The primary difference is that special assessments represent a measure of the benefit of public improvements on new or existing development, whereas impact fees typically measure the cost of the demand or need for public facilities as a result of new development only." Id. at 267 (emphasis added). The contractors argue that impact fees are lawful only if such fees are authorized, or appropriately limited, by state enabling legislation. They cite a number of cases from other jurisdictions in support of their contention that it "is well-settled that impact fees, such as the Road Unit Connection Charge, are illegal without specific enabling legislation." [4] They also point to the failure of a bill proposing an ~1e ://C :\D~cuments%2~and%2~Settings\ageis~er.RAMSEY~L~ca~%2~Settings\Temp~rary... 6/25/2004