03/05/2001 Park Board Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

03/03/99 15:44 LAW OFFICES 2140 4TH AUE 4 651 464 4568 NO.592 PO4 Mr. Todd Haas March 3, 1999 Page 3 record in this case showing that 10% is not unreasonable as to the property of these plaintiffs, given the particular needs of Bloomington, the 10% requirement might be arbitrary as a matter of law because it does not consider the relationship between this particular subdivision and recreational need in the community." Not surprisingly, since the Collis decision, many if not most municipalities have adopted a 10% park dedication fee requirement. The Collis case stands for the principal that a municipality may require dedication of land for public use as a condition of plat approval if a reasonable relationship exists between the approval of the subdivision and the municipality's need for the land. In Kottschade v. City of Rochester, 537 N. W.2d 301 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995), the Minnesota Court of Appeals returned to this issue in the context of a right -of -way dedication requirement. The Court in Kottschade analyzed and applied the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision of Dolan v. City of Tigard, 114 S. Ct. 2309 (1994). The Court 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 two things. First, the city must show that an "essential nexus" exists between the legitimate state interest (the need for the land) and the condition exacted by the city (the dedication of the land). Second, if the nexus can be demonstrated, the city must demonstrate a "rough proportionality" between the plan development and the city's requirement for a dedication of land. "No precise mathematical calculation is required, but the City must make some sort of individualized determination that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development." 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. It is important to reiterate some of the language used by the courts. A "precise mathematical calculation" is not required; what is required is some sort of individualized determination." It should not be difficult for the City of Andover to meet the first or "nexus" part of the standard, i.e., that a proposed subdivision will create the need for additional park facilities. However, it is my opinion that a unit charge for park dedication fees does