Laserfiche WebLink
William Goodrich Ltr <br />May 18, 2005 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />be disproportionate to the amount of the petitioner's property that would be benefited by the service. <br />Because this proposed amendment does not satisfy all parts of the Dolan test, application of the <br />amendment to a petitioner would be an unconstitutional taking of a petitioner's property. <br /> <br />The proposed amendment is subject to an additional objection that is not usually found with <br />subdivision exactions, taxes, or special assessments related to public improvements. The issu~ such <br />exactions or charges ordinarily pose to the Courts is whether the public is asking a petitioner or <br />developer to bear a disproportionate cost of public improvements. That objection is true in this case <br />since thc developer would be required to pay the cost of making service available to all properties <br />passed by the sewer and water extension. However, a further problem is that the additional amount <br />required to be paid by the petitioner into the escrow fund is not used for a public purpose, but is <br />restricted to the use of providing private sewer service to the intervening properties. Therefore, in <br />my opinion, the application of tiffs requirement of the proposed charter amendment would fail even <br />the first test in the Dolan analysis because it does not promote a legitimate state interest. <br /> <br />Very truly yours, <br /> <br />Charles L. LcFevere <br /> <br />CI.L:peb <br /> <br />(2 L-262978vl <br />RA 125-9 <br /> <br /> <br />