Opinion ID: 1697670
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: If the ordinance was related to police power, whether the adoption of the ordinance authorized under:

Text: (a) The home rule power of the City to enact police power measures in the absence of a prohibitory statutory enactment; and/or (b) The general planning and zoning statutes. ¶ 23. In their amicus brief, the American Planning Association and the Mississippi Chapter of the American Planning Association submit the holdings of these foregoing state courts prove specific impact fee legislation is not necessary, claiming, [a]lthough state enabling authority for impact fees is certainly preferable so that these standards can be uniformly applied, the absence of such enabling authority is not fatal to the validity of a local impact fee program. ¶ 24. The City argues the authority to adopt impact fees is derived from Mississippi general planning and zoning statutes, as well as Miss.Code Ann. Section 21-17-5, the Home Rule statute. Appellees counter that, Mississippi municipalities are creatures of the state, and they have only those powers delegated to them by statute, otherwise the City has no legal authority with which to adopt these fees. ¶ 25. Miss.Code Ann. Section 17-1-11(1)(a) provides, [t]he governing authority of each municipality and county may provide for the preparation, adoption, amendment, extension and carrying out of a comprehensive plan for the purpose of bringing about coordinated physical development in accordance with present and future needs.... The City argued a Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the City in 2001 and contained, as a condition to development approval, a provision for payment of impact fees. The City argues Miss.Code Ann. Section 17-1-11 grants authority for the City to impose impact fees even absent Home Rule authority. ¶ 26. Miss.Code Ann. Section 17-1-11 has been interpreted as applying primarily to zoning ordinances enacted by municipalities. See Woodland Hills Conservation Ass'n v. City of Jackson, 443 So.2d 1173, 1179 (Miss.1983), (involving validity of rezoning ordinance which quoted Miss.Code Ann. Section 17-1-11 and emphasized its future needs language). ¶ 27. The Circuit Court found no express grant of authority under the Municipal Planning statutes. We agree. Under the Municipal Planning Statutes, Miss. Code Ann. Section 17-1-1, et seq., there are no provisions which grant authority to adopt impact fees or other revenue raising mechanisms to implement the City's Comprehensive Plan. ¶ 28. The City further urges the authority to impose impact fees exists under Miss.Code Ann. Section 21-17-5, commonly known as the Home Rule Statute. The City relies on the language of Section 21-17-5(1), [e]xcept as otherwise provided in subsection (2) of this section, the powers granted to governing authorities of municipalities in this section are complete without the existence of or reference to any specific authority granted in any other statute or law of the state of Mississippi as its authority, and does not require a specific legislative mandate. ¶ 29. The City argues the Circuit Court erred in relying on cases pre-dating amendments to the Home Rule Statute, including City of Jackson v. Pittman, 484 So.2d 998 (Miss.1986) and Delta Elec. Power Ass'n v. Miss. Power & Light, 250 Miss. 482, 149 So.2d 504 (1963) (citing Kuykendall, 35 So. 830). This Court held in Delta, [a] municipality in Mississippi is a creature of the state and has only such power and authority as may be granted to it by statute. Id. at 510. The City argues this holding is inconsistent with the Home Rule Statute, as well as with this Court's holding in Nichols v. Patterson, 678 So.2d 673, 681 (Miss.1996), which was decided subsequent to Legislative amendments to the Home Rule Statute. Patterson holds, Miss.Code Ann. § 21-17-5, gives municipalities discretion in managing municipal affairs. Maynard v. City of Tupelo, 691 So.2d 385 (Miss.1997) was also decided subsequent to the amendments to the Home Rule statute. In Maynard, this Court held, the Home Rule statute grants municipalities the right to adopt ordinances with regard to their `municipal affairs,' but only if said ordinances are not inconsistent with state legislation and/or the Mississippi Constitution. Id. at 387. ¶ 30. The City relies on the Home Rule Statute and argues the foregoing cases grant authority to impose impact fees. In part, we agree. Consistent with our holding in Maynard, we find that Home Rule authority grants municipalities authority to impose fees, as long as the imposition is not inconsistent with legislative mandate or the Mississippi Constitution, and is a fee, as opposed to a tax, as discussed infra. ¶ 31. We conclude there is no constitutional basis, legislative enactment, or common law doctrine, which empowers cities to adopt and impose development impact fees.