Exactions and Impact Fees Cases
B.A.M. Development, LLC v. Salt Lake Count (“BAM I”)–-Applying the rough proportionality test to exactions.
B.A.M. Development, LLC v. Salt Lake County (“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 (“BAM III”)—Discussion of how governmental expenses factor into rough proportionality analysis.
Banberry Development Corp. v. City of South Jordan–Reasonableness of Impact Fees.
Call v. City of West Jordan–Exactions must be reasonably attributable to development activity.
Dolan v. City of Tigard–Establishes “rough proportionality” test for exactions.
Home Builders Ass’n v. City of American Fork–Validity of impact fees.
Home Builders Association v. City of North Logan–Impact fees must not require newly-developed properties to bear more than an equitable share of capital costs for facilities.
Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District–Exaction analysis applies whenever government imposes conditions on approval of a land use application.
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission–There must be an essential link between an exaction and a legitimate government interest.
Salt Lake County v. Granite Board of Education — School districts may be charged impact fees.