Impact Fees 2009 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5 In re Village of Burnsville Assessments, 287 N.W.2d 375, 377 (Minn. 1979) (“we cannot agree that it would be justified to assess a property owner for benefits he may not receive for 15 to 20 years, if at all”). 6 State ex. rel. Oliver Iron Min. Co., 151 N.W. 545, 547 (Minn. 1915); see also Carlson-Lang Realty, 240 N.W.2d at 519 (“An assessment that exceeds the benefit constitutes the taking of property without fair benefit in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.”). 7 N. Deal, “Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees: Should California’s Department of Transportation (Caltrans) have legal authority to impose?” Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose State University College of Business at 7 (June 2005) (“Caltrans Report”). 8 B. Ryan, “Local Road Tax Options: Is Minnesota Really That Different?” MnDOT (May 2006), at 11. 9 See also Caltrans Report at 11-12 (citing 13 technical criteria established by HUD for effective impact fee legislation). 10 Id. (quoting B. Blaesser & C. Kentopp, Impact Fees: The “Second Generation,” in 1991 Zoning and Planning Handbook at 267 (emphasis added by court)). 11 Cf. Country Joe, 560 N.W.2d at 685 (“By definition, an impact fee must be ‘in an amount which is proportionate to the need for the public facilities generated by new development.’” (citation omitted)). 12 Caltrans Report at 2. 13 Country Joe, 560 N.W.2d at 683-84. 14 See MINN. STAT. § 444.075, subd. 3 (authorizing sewer and water charges). 15 Country Joe at 684. 16 Country Joe at 687; see M INN. S TAT. § 412.251(11) (catch-all provision). 17 MINN. STAT. § 429.051; Buettner v. City of St. Cloud, 277 N.W.2d 199, 203 (Minn. 1979). 18 SJC Properties , supra note 2, Conclusion of Law No. 6. 19 SJC Properties , supra note 2, Mem. at 29. 20 SJC Properties , supra note 2, Conclusion of Law No. 9.