Local Government Exactions from Developers After Beaver Meadows
| Publication year | 1987 |
| Pages | 42 |
1987, January, Pg. 42. Local Government Exactions from Developers After Beaver Meadows
Colorado's local governments increasingly rely on developers to provide financing for and construction of public improvements related to their developments. These so-called "exactions" include amenities such as streets, sidewalks, schools, water and sewer systems, parks and drainage facilities. Despite frequent challenges by developers asserting that such exactions involve unconstitutional "takings," impermissible taxes and arbitrary and capricious administrative actions, the improvements exacted and local procedures for imposing exactions generally have been upheld. However, in 1985 the Colorado Supreme Court surprised many observers by invalidating two unusual exactions in Beaver Meadows v. Larimer County Board of Commissioners.(fn1)
This article briefly reviews Colorado exaction law prior to 1985. It also discusses the Beaver Meadows decision and outlines the issues which still remain after Beaver Meadows.
Before Beaver Meadows, Colorado exaction cases outlined a doctrine which said, in effect, that local governments can address the anticipated adverse impacts from development by imposing affirmative or negative conditions on required development approvals at any stage of the development process, provided that (1) the local government's power to consider those adverse impacts at that stage of the development process is spelled out in local ordinances, (2) the conditions imposed are reasonable and (3) the local government's discretion to impose such conditions is circumscribed by some (very low) quantum of statutory and administrative standards and safeguards.
In King's Mill Homeowners Association v. City of Westminster,(fn2) the City of Westminster agreed to rezone 119 acres of land from residential to commercial but made the rezoning conditional upon development of the site as a regional shopping center and conformance with site plan and subdivision regulations. Neighboring landowners challenged the imposition of such conditions as a violation of the traditional requirement of uniform treatment within zoning categories, and appealed the case to the Colorado Supreme Court. Admitting that the case was one of first impression in Colorado, the court held that [t]he power to impose conditions on re-zoning is an exercise of the police power and such conditions are valid as long as they are reasonably conceived.(fn3)
In contrast, Bethlehem Evangelical Lutheran Church v. City of Lakewood(fn4) involved the imposition of conditions on a building permit rather than rezoning. The church wished to construct a gymnasium adjacent to its school. Lakewood conditioned issuance of the required building permit on dedication of certain land for street widening and payment of $16,000 worth of curb, gutter, sidewalk and street improvements. The church challenged those conditions as being the result of a standardless delegation of legislative power and a taking without just compensation, but lost on both counts.
In holding for the City, the Colorado Supreme Court emphasized that the authority to impose such conditions was a question of local law and that Lakewood's municipal code authorized such conditions when new public improvements were necessitated by the proposed construction. The court determined that "necessity" was an adequate standard to circumscribe the authority of the city and allow for adequate judicial review. Perhaps more importantly, the court characterized the case as an extension of the King's Mill doctrine of "reasonable conditions" and focused on the reasonableness of Lakewood's conditions to deny the taking claim.(fn5)
Finally, in Cottrell v. City and County of Denver,(fn6) a case which did not involve development...
To continue reading
Request your trial