Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/03/2017

Home

interest and the exaction,imposed by the city (i.e., reconfirming the decision in Nollan) and (2) the nature of the exaction must be "roughly proportional" to the impact created by the project. Thus, in order to meet the "rough pro- portionality" component of Dolan for ad hoc project -specific fees, a city or local agency does not need to make a precise mathemati- cal calculation. However, it must make some sort of individualized determination that the required exaction is related, both in nature and scope, to the actual impact of the pro- posed development. Koontz In Koontz, the U.S. Supreme Court held that land -use agencies imposing conditions on the issuance of development permits must comply with the "nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards set forth in Nollan and Dolan, even if the condition consists of a requirement to pay money and the permit is denied for failure to agree to the condition. The Koontz deci- sion was the first case in which a monetary exaction was found to be an unconstitutional condition. STATE STATUTORY REGULATIONS In addition to the U.S. Supreme Court deci- sions in Nollan, Dolan, and Koontz, which establish the essential nexus and rough proportionality standards that are applicable to all government -imposed conditions on the development of real property, most individual states have established their own statutory regimes that are specific to development impact fees (as opposed to other types of exactions) and impose requirements and ob- ligations above and beyond the constitutional standards outlined above. Below are some examples of state statu- tory regulations that govern development impact fees. While these statutory regimes contain many similarities, they represent just a handful of examples, and brief summaries do not account for the differences and unique features of each statute. Accordingly, it is cru- cial that planners familiarize themselves with the regulations and landmark case holdings that govern development impact fees in their own state. California The Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code §§66000 et seq.) codifies the Nollan/Dolan tests and further requires that a city or other local agency identify (I) the fee's purpose and use; (2) the reasonableness of the relation- ship between the fee and a given project; and (3) the reasonableness of the relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility attributable to the project (Government Code §66001). In addition, California's Mitigation Fee Act includes certain noticing and protest pro- cedures for development impact fees, dedica- tions, reservations, or other exactions that a developer can use to waive its right to chal- lenge an exaction if not paid under protest within the specified time frame; however, the waiver provision does not apply if the city or local agency fails to give the requisite formal written notice at the time it imposes the fee (Government Code §66020). Georgia The regulations governing development im- pact fees in Georgia include, among other things, provisions outlining minimum stan- dards for local ordinances that impose impact fees, the refund of development impact fees, and administrative appeal and arbitration provisions for developers wishing to chal- lenge the imposition of such fees (§§36-71-1 etseq.). Idaho Idaho's development impact fee regulations are similar to Georgia's and, like California's, also give a developer the right to pay the fees under protest without waiving its right to ap- peal the fees at a future date (§§67-82o1 et seq.). Rhode Island The Rhode Island Development Impact Fee Act (§§45-22.4-1 et seq.) is also similar to the California and Georgia development impact fee regulations as it codifies the Nollan/Dolan tests and provides minimum standards for local fee ordinances, protest procedures, and standards for calculating development impact fees. South Carolina The South Carolina Development Impact Fee Act (§§6-1-910 et seq.) is also similar to those states discussed above. It identifies certain projects that are exempt from the Act's provi- sions and sets forth detailed requirements for calculating the amount of fees. COMMON TYPES OF IMPACT FEES AND OTHER TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT -RELATED EXACTIONS Generally speaking, development impact fees usually encompass the following categories or types: infrastructure fees; sewer fees; water fees; police and fire protection fees; school fees; park fees; traffic impact fees; and so- called "fair share" programs. However, not every jurisdiction chooses to assess develop- ment impact fees in these categories, nor Development impact fees are a common tool to help finance the development of new infrastructure It is VI out- impactfee policy is on sound legal footing _ y ZONINGPRACTICE 7.17 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 3