Opinion ID: 1450853
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: reasonableness of park improvement fee

Text: In Call v. City of West Jordan, Utah, 606 P.2d 217 (1979), opinion on rehearing, 614 P.2d 1257 (1980), this Court upheld the validity of a city ordinance that required subdividers, as a condition of plat approval, to dedicate certain proposed subdivision land to the city (or pay cash in lieu) for flood control and/or park and recreation facilities. In remanding the case for trial on the constitutionality of the ordinance as applied (i.e., the requirement that seven percent of the subdivision land be dedicated), this Court ruled that the dedication should have some reasonable relationship to the need created by the subdivision. Id. at 1258. The Court quoted the following from Home Builders Ass'n of Greater Kansas City v. City of Kansas City, Mo., 555 S.W.2d 832, 835 (1977): [I]f the burden cast upon the subdivider is reasonably attributable to his activity, then the requirement [of dedication or fees in lieu thereof] is permissible; if not, it is forbidden and amounts to a confiscation of private property in contravention of the constitutional prohibitions rather than a reasonable regulation under the police power. [4] Reasonableness obviously holds the municipality to a higher standard of rationality than the requirement that its actions not be arbitrary or capricious. Under the reasonableness test in Call v. City of West Jordan, supra , the benefits derived from the exaction need not accrue solely to the subdivision (614 P.2d at 1259); flood control and recreation are needs that cannot be treated in isolation from the rest of the municipality. At the same time, the benefits derived from the exaction must be of demonstrable benefit to the subdivision ( Id. at 1259). As with water connection fees, the amount of such exactions or fees should be such that the burden of providing these municipal services falls equitably upon those who are similarly situated and in a just proportion to benefits conferred. Deerfield Estates, Inc. v. Township of E. Brunswick, 60 N.J. 115, 286 A.2d 498, 505 (1971). The measurement of benefits conferred may have a more significant impact on the reasonableness of park fees than on water connection fees. The central facilities that support water and sewer service would generally confer the same benefits in every part of the municipality, but the benefits conferred by recreational, flood control, or other dispersed resources may be measurably different in different parts of the municipality. Park improvement fees should therefore be fixed so as to be equitable in light of the relative benefits conferred on, as well as the relative burdens previously borne and yet to be borne by the newly developed properties in comparison with the other properties in the municipality as a whole. The fees in question should not exceed the amount sufficient to equalize the relative benefits and burdens of newly developed and other properties. The factors to be considered in the determination of relative burden are similar to the factors discussed in Part III in connection with water connection fees. The flexibility to be tolerated within the presumption of regularity and the disclosure of the basis of calculation specified in Part III is also applicable to this type of subdivision charge. The judgments of the trial court are reversed in the appeal and the cross-appeal, and the cause is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. No costs awarded. HALL and STEWART, JJ., concur.