Impact Fees 2009 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

was mixed commercial and residential development, rejecting the city’s contention that before the 40th Street SW improvements, street infrastructure and access were insufficient to support any development except low-density residential. The district court found the following facts that undercut this city argument and supported the court’s findings: Rochester had rezoned significant portions of the SJC property fronting TH 63 from low-density residential to commercial-industrial use; Rochester had approved a general development plan proposed by Kottschade for a 70-acre commercial development prior to the special assessments and the 40th Street SW improvements; Rochester had approved a preliminary plat for the proposed commercial development; and Kottschade had established at trial that he had two legal access points for the SJC property, the minimum access necessary for commercial development. The district court further found that the special assessments were not uniform in that the city only levied the assessments against undeveloped land within the Willow Creek TID. The evidence through traffic engineer testimony showed, however, that a residential area north of 40th Street SW accounted for the vast majority of the traffic on 40th Street and, accordingly, had benefited from the 40th Street improvements. The court found that the Rochester policy of assessing only undeveloped properties and not developed properties within the Willow Creek TID was “unfounded” and “unsupported.” “No meaningful fact or reason was given as to why developed properties would not be benefited by a new road, bridge, and amenities such as sidewalks and a bike path.”18 Ultimately, the district court recognized that the assessments failed all legal tests because the city never devised the fees a s assessments, but rather as impact fees based on the city’s TID formula. The TID formula is not one that looks at special benefit based upon a market approach but is rather a formula that starts with the projected cost of a project and divides that cost amongst the properties deemed to be benefited based upon projected traffic usage as determined by the size and zoning of the property and the projected trips associated with that size of zoned property.19 Accordingly, the district court concluded that the TID fees established by the city for the SJC property were in the exact same amount as the special assessment ultimately levied against Plaintiffs’ property, $1,716,586.34. TID fees cannot be imposed involuntarily as they are not authorized under Minnesota law. The TID fee has the characteristics of a road impact fee, which is not legally sanctioned.20 For these reasons, the district court set aside the special assessments in excess of $1.7 million. The SJC decision demonstrates that attempting to clothe an impact fee as a special assessment cannot bestow a legal imprimatur on the fee because of the divergent nature and purposes of impact fees and special assessments. Rochester’s TID fees are the culmination of a process in which the city has attempted to implement a formula to meet the projected costs of future transportation improvements in a designated area of the city (a TID) by having developers pay for the impact of their developments on transportation infrastructure based on the TID fee formula. The TID calculation is devoid of any consideration of the extent to which the developer’s property has received any special benefit, that is any increase in value, as a result of the transportation improvements. This disconnect between the inherent nature of special assessments and impact fees proved fatal for Rochester when forced to defend its impact fees under the measure of legality provided by special assessment law. Simply put, Minnesota cities should not be attempting to adopt and impose impact fees for road improvements unless the Minnesota Legislature—as 25 other state legislatures across the country have done—adopts enabling legislation with uniform and fair standards for implementing such fees. 1 See, e.g., “Assessments: Not a special feeling,” 1/27/08 Minneapolis Star Tribune. 2 SJC Properties, LLC, et al. v. City of Rochester, Olmsted County Dist. Ct. File Nos. 55-C6-05-1988/1991/1992/1994/1995/1996 /1997, July 3, 2008, appealed Sept. 2, 2008, and pending as App. Ct. File No. A08-1536 (“SJC Properties”). 3 M INN. S TAT. Ch. 429. 4 Carlson-Lang Realty Co. v. City of Windom, 240 N.W.2d 517, 519 (Minn. 1976).