03/05/2001 Park Board Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

particular subdivision and recreational need in the community. The Court was not, • however, prepared to say that the ten percent requirement was unreasonable or arbitrary. (Letter from William G. Hawkins and Associates to Mr. Todd Haas, dated March 3, 1999). Dolan vs. Tigard (1994) The enabling legislation of Minnesota Statutes 462.358 Subd. 2b cited earlier in this report has been further influenced by case law. The U.S. Supreme Count (Dolan vs. Tigard) found that land use extractions must be reflective of a development impact on the infrastructure system. In this respect, park dedication extracted from a land use must reflect the demand they generate for park and recreational facilities. This case established that a rational nexus or relationship must exist between the fees charged for parks and the related impacts that are generated by the use. Kottschade vs. City of Rochester (1995) In this case, the Minnesota Court of Appeals noted that in the case of a dedication, the City is requiring a property owner to give up a constitutional right — the right to receive just compensation when private property is taken for a public purpose. In order to uphold a dedication requirement the City has the burden of proving the required relationship between the property development and the City's need for land dedication. To meet that burden, the City must prove that an "essential nexus" exists between the need for the land and the dedication requirement. If the nexus can be demonstrated, the City must also demonstrate a "rough proportionality" between the development and the City's dedication requirement. (Letter from William G. Hawkins and Associates to Mr. Todd Haas, dated March 3, 1999). other words, the City must be able to prove that the proposed project will create a need for additional park facilities and that the amount of dedication required is roughly proportionate to the impact from the development. A precise mathematical calculation is not required, however, the City must demonstrate that an individualized determination has been made to support the land /cash dedication requirement. City Attorney Comments — (Exhibit A Letter from William G. Hawkins and Associates to Mr. Todd Haas, dated March 3, 1999). "In a park dedication situation, the City must be able to prove two things. First, that the proposed development will create a need for additional park facilities. Second, the City must be able to prove that the amount of the dedication is roughly proportionate to the impact from the development. A precise mathematical calculation is not required; what is required is some sort of individualized determination. It should not be difficult for the City to meet the first or nexus part of the standard, i.e., that the proposed subdivision will create the need for additional park facilities. However, it is my opinion that a unit charge for park dedication fees does not pass the second part of the test. A flat fee charge does not provide an individualized determination that the amount of the charge is roughly proportionate to the need created by the development. The statute makes clear that a dedication must be reasonable and must be based on the fair market value of the land." 4 of 14