|
February 10, 2019 I Volume 13 I Issue 3
<br />Affirming the trial court's opinion, the Court of
<br />Appeal, Sixth District, California concluded that
<br />CUSD's fee study failed to "contain the data re-
<br />quired to properly calculate a development fee."
<br />The Court of Appeal explained that, in California,
<br />statutory law authorizes a school district to levy a
<br />fee against new residential construction for the
<br />purposes of funding the construction or reconstruc-
<br />tion of school facilities. (See Ed. Code § 17620,
<br />subd. (a)(1).) The court also explained that, as set by
<br />prior court precedent, fee studies must satisfy a
<br />three -factor test: (1) There "must be a projection of
<br />the total amount of new housing expected to be built
<br />within the District" (since the fee is to be assessed
<br />per square foot of development); (2) "[T]he District
<br />[must] determine approximately how many students
<br />Contributors
<br />Corey E. Burnham -Howard
<br />For authorizatioh to photocopy, please'. contact the West's
<br />Copyright Clearance Center at 222 Rosewood Drive,
<br />Danvers, MA 01923, USA (978) 750-8400; fax (978) 646-
<br />8600 or West's Copyright Services at 610 Opperman
<br />Drive, Eagan, MN 55123, fax (651)i 687-7551. Please
<br />outline the specific material involved, the number of copies
<br />you wish to distribute and the purpose or format of the use.
<br />This publication was ,created to provide you with accurate
<br />and authoritative information concerning the subject matter
<br />covered; however, this publication was not necessarily pre-
<br />pared by persons licensed to practice law tin a particular
<br />jurisdiction. The publisher is not engaged in, rendering legal
<br />or other professional advice and this publication is not a
<br />substitute for the advice of an attorney. If, you require legal
<br />or other expert advice, you should seek the services of a
<br />competent attorney or other professional.
<br />Zoning Bulletin is published and copyrighted by Thomson
<br />Reuters, 610 Opperman Drive, P.O. Box 64526, St. Paul,
<br />MN 55164-0526. For subscription information: call (800)
<br />229-2084, or write to West, Credit Order Processing, 620
<br />Opperman Drive, PO Box 64833, St. Paul, MN 55164-9753.
<br />POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Zoning Bulletin,
<br />610 Opperman Drive, P.O. Box 64526, St. Paul, MN
<br />55164-0526.
<br />•..,,.. THOMSON REUTERS°
<br />610 Opperman Drive
<br />P.O. Box 64526
<br />St. Paul, MN 55164-0526
<br />1-800-229-2084
<br />email: west.customerservice@thomsonreuters.com
<br />ISSN 0514-7905
<br />v2019 Thomson Reuters
<br />All Rights Reserved
<br />QuinlanTM is a Thomson Reuters brand
<br />Zoning Bulletin
<br />will be generated by the new housing" (in order to
<br />measure the extent of the burden imposed on schools
<br />by the new development); and (3) "[T]he District
<br />must estimate what it will cost to provide the neces-
<br />sary school facilities for that approximate number of
<br />students." The court explained that since the process
<br />involves projections, figures need not be exact, but
<br />must show a "requisite connection between the
<br />amount of the fee imposed and the burden created."
<br />"[F]acilities fees are justified only to the extent that
<br />they are limited to the cost of increased services
<br />made necessary by virtue of the development," said
<br />the court.
<br />Here, the court found that CUSD failed to satisfy
<br />the three -factor test in that its fee study: (1) failed to
<br />project the "total amount of new housing expected
<br />to be built within the District," but instead projected
<br />a "vague and unrestricted figure" that provided "no
<br />guidance" for CUSD to determine whether new
<br />school facilities were needed due to anticipated
<br />development; (2) failed to "realistic[ally] estimate
<br />how may students would be generated by new
<br />development"; and (3) was unable to estimate the
<br />cost to provide necessary school facilities because it
<br />was unable to identify facilities needed to satisfy
<br />quantified needs, since the needs could not be quan-
<br />tified without quantification of the amount of new
<br />development or amount of new students.
<br />The court concluded that CUSD's decision to en-
<br />act a development fee in this case was invalid
<br />because CUSD "did not decide that its enrollment
<br />increases would necessitate the construction of new
<br />schools but nevertheless based the amount of the
<br />development fee on the cost of building new
<br />schools." The court found that this "discontinuity"
<br />precluded the CUSD "from being able to demon-
<br />strate a reasonable relationship between the impact
<br />of new development and the development fee," as
<br />required.
<br />CUSD argued that even if it failed to satisfy the
<br />three -factor fee test, the fee imposed against Sum-
<br />merHill was valid because CUSD "applied an `alter-
<br />native' `reasonable methodology' that was sufficient
<br />to support the fee." CUSD maintained that because
<br />its enrollment already exceeded its capacity "every
<br />single additional student generated by new develop-
<br />ment [would] result in a financial impact on the
<br />District." The court accepted the validity of that
<br />statement, but concluded that it failed to satisfy the
<br />statutory requirement that CUSD demonstrate "a re-
<br />lationship between the amount of the fee and impact•
<br />of development on the need for new or reconstructed
<br />school facilities." Here, found the court, "the fee
<br />study's use of hypothetical new schools that CUSD
<br />2 © 2019 Thomson Reuters
<br />
|