June 22, 2012 Work Session 8Imposition of Conditions

Blanket Dedication, TIFs, Impact Fees & (hopefully) Guidance

Daniel D. Crean, Pembroke, New Hampshire

Work Session 8 addresses the manner in which conditions may be imposed, generally, and with specific reference to certain concerns.

Mike Donahue will address imposition of conditions generally.

Dan Crean will address issues selected issues relating to blanket exactions, financial matters such as TIFs and impact fees, and guidance in imposing fees.

2

Nollan, Dolan, and Land/Vest◦Requirements addressed in general in work session

# 7 – tie between condition and needs/benefits and consideration of magnitude of exaction.

◦Whether conditions are imposed legislatively or administratively, these cases suggest that there can be problems with the “easy way” to impose on developers some portion of development costs.

◦The “easy way” means that simple fees or exactions that do not consider rational nexus or rough proportionality may be problematic, even when following legislative imposition of exaction.

3

To avoid (i.e., minimize) problems, some form of individualized assessment is required even in the use of such commonly viewed “blanket” exactions as impact fees.

For example, ◦ RSA 674:21, V. Impact fees

By ordinance Proportional amount of specific capital items Separate account Time requirements for usage & potential return

4

Though no community, today, would ever consider use of extortion, it is well to recall how the New Hampshire Supreme Court characterized blanket exactions in the 1981 case of J.E.D. Associates, Inc. v. Atkinson◦ Subd. Reg. required dedication of 7-

1/2 % of land area in order to subdivide land No regard for whether town needed

land or coordination with other public land

In lieu of land dedication, town would accept $ = to land

5

This appears to us to be an out-and-out plan of extortion whereby developers are required to pay for the privilege of using their land for valid and reasonable purposes even though it satisfies all other requirements of the town's zoning and subdivision regulations.

So the Town bids its $ farewell.

6

In addition to consideration of relationship and amount, another consideration with respect to impact fees is whether they constitute tax or fee.

7

8

What a wonderful world this would be if judges could understand impact fees!

Well, maybe not so wonderful unless local governments understand them as well!

9

2010 NH Case of Clare v. Hudson◦ Interchangeable use of impact fee and surety

for performance (also attributable to municipality’s lack of clarity in record-keeping)

◦ Use of performance bond v. imposition of impact fee

◦ Former involves surety for performance - latter is a different animal

Work session 11 identifies some additional concerns and speaks to some methods that seek to prevent problems

10

Another way to get tied up?

11

Don’t shift costs of development

May provide means of raising funds for infrastructure to assist in future development

Require municipal planning and record-keeping to function properly

Pembroke, NH TIF plan included in materials

12

Keep public purpose foremost in studies, findings, and wording◦ WORDS DO MATTER

Tie conditions (performance of developer obligations) to a public purpose or use – other than “show me the money!”

Understand use it or lose it standards & Maintain ability to refund

Record-keeping essential

13

Questions, Comments, Concerns

Contact:

Attorney Daniel CreanCrean Law Office

Pembroke, NH 03275928-7760

creanlaw@comcast.netwww.creanlaw.com

14