Opinion ID: 1697670
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether a Constitutional provision, state statute or the common law authorize the lawful adoption and implementation of impact fees such as those adopted by the City.

Text: ¶ 17. The State of Mississippi does not have a specific constitutional provision or statute regarding implementation of development impact fees, nor can authority be found in the common law. This truth has been implicitly, if not explicitly, recognized by the Executive [3] and Legislative branches of state government, and the City. The Development Impact Fee Report prepared for the City in 2002, stated, [w]e believe that the Impact Fee Program reflects the city's needs, will be entirely consistent with the proposed Mississippi development impact fee enabling legislation . . . . (emphasis added). To date, the Mississippi legislature has not adopted a statute authorizing development impact fees or enabling legislation to authorize a city to adopt and implement impact fees. ¶ 18. There are twenty-seven (27) states which have adopted development impact fee statutes, although five of the states' statutes related exclusively to roads. [4] For the sake of brevity, the specific statutes of each of these states will not be listed herein. However, Section 66-5-211(3) of Tennessee Code Annotated and Section 7-20-4 of the Annotated Code of West Virginia may be deemed analogous and are illustrative of states whose Legislature have adopted impact fee statutes. ¶ 19. Tenn.Code Ann. § 66-5-211(3) states: Impact Fee means a monetary charge imposed by a county or municipal government pursuant to any act of general or local application, to regulate new development on real property. The amount of impact fees are related to the costs resulting from the new development and the revenues for this fee are earmarked for investment in the area of the new development. ¶ 20. W. Va.Code § 7-20-4 reads as follows: County governments affected by the construction of new development projects are hereby authorized to require the payment of fees for any new development projects constructed therein in the event any costs associated with capital improvements or the provision of other services are attributable to such project. Such fees shall not exceed a proportionate share of such costs required to accommodate any such new development. Before requiring payment of any fee authorized hereunder, it must be evident that some reasonable benefit from any such capital improvements will be realized by any such development project. ¶ 21. Four additional states have determined, in the absence of specific impact fee legislation, that such fees are otherwise authorized. Courts in Kansas, Wyoming, Florida and Ohio have held that municipalities have the authority to adopt impact fees, even though there is not a specific statute to allow for it. In McCarthy v. City of Leawood, 257 Kan. 566, 894 P.2d 836, 844 (1995), the Kansas Supreme Court held reasonable impact fees may be enacted under that state's constitutionally granted Home Rule authority. [5] In Home Builders Ass'n of Dayton & Miami Valley v. City of Beavercreek, 89 Ohio St.3d 121, 729 N.E.2d 349, 353, 97 A.L.R.5th 657 (2000), the Ohio Supreme Court cited its Constitution and held: This court has consistently held that Section 3 of Article XVIII, or the Home-Rule Amendment, gives municipalities the authority to impose exactions, provided that the municipality is not statutorily forbidden from doing so, and the exactions meet constitutional standards. The focus here is whether the impact fee ordinance enacted by the city of Beavercreek violates either the United States or Ohio Constitution. The pertinent section of the Ohio Constitution with which the impact fee must comport is: [m]unicipality shall have authority to exercise all powers of local self-government and to adopt and enforce within their limits such local police, sanitary, and other similar regulations, as are not in conflict with general laws. OH. Const. Art. XVIII, § 3. ¶ 22. Article IV, Section 80 of the Mississippi Constitution declares, [p]rovision shall be made by general laws to prevent the abuse by cities, towns, and other municipal corporations of their powers of assessment, taxation, borrowing money, and contracting debts. Appellees argue this provision of the Mississippi Constitution prohibits assessments or taxation, unless there is specific statutory authority allowing the City to do so. In Adams v. Kuykendall, 83 Miss. 571, 35 So. 830, 835 (1904), this Court stated, [w]e hold the taxing power of the sovereign is vested solely in the State and its relinquishment is never to be inferred.