Exactions and Impact Fees Cases
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (US Supreme Court 1987) – There must be an essential link, or "nexus" between an exaction and a legitimate government interest.
Dolan v. City of Tigard (US Supreme Court 1984) –Establishes “rough proportionality” test for exactions.
Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District (US Supreme Court 2013) –Exaction analysis applies whether government imposes conditions on approval or denies an permit, and includes money exactions for offsite mitigation.
Call v. City of West Jordan (Utah 1979 & 1980)–Exactions must be reasonably attributable to development activity.
Banberry Development Corp. v. City of South Jordan (Utah 1981) –Reasonableness of Impact Fees.
Salt Lake County v. Granite Board of Education (Utah 1991) — School districts may be charged impact fees.
Home Builders Ass’n v. City of American Fork (Utah 1999) –Validity of impact fees.
Home Builders Association v. City of North Logan (Utah 1999) –Impact fees must not require newly-developed properties to bear more than an equitable share of capital costs for facilities.
B.A.M. Development, LLC v. Salt Lake Count (Utah 2005) (“BAM I”)–Applying the rough proportionality test to exactions.
B.A.M. Development, LLC v. Salt Lake County (Utah 2008) (“BAM II”)–Rough proportionality analysis compares the expense to the property owner with the cost to address the development’s impact.
B.A.M. Development v. Salt Lake County (Utah 2012) (“BAM III”)—Discussion of how governmental expenses factor into rough proportionality analysis.