Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, January 11, 2024, 11:30 AM
https://n2v.almanacnews.com/square/print/2024/01/11/menlo-park-sees-big-increase-in-impact-fees
Town Square
Menlo Park sees big increase in impact fees
Original post made on Jan 11, 2024
Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, January 11, 2024, 11:30 AM
Comments
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Menlo Park: Park Forest
on Jan 11, 2024 at 11:05 pm
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
a resident of Menlo Park: Park Forest
on Jan 11, 2024 at 11:05 pm
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
Hopefully the city has an alternative source of funds if the US Supreme Court rules against El Dorado County in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado. It is a simle case of imposing impact fees as a quid promquo for getting a building permit.
This case was heard by the court just last Tuesday.
Web Link
Posted by PH
a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Jan 16, 2024 at 11:44 am
PH is a registered user.
a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Jan 16, 2024 at 11:44 am
PH is a registered user.
A bit more complicated than quid pro quo fee for a permit. Web Link
Fees that meet "nexus" and "proportionality" requirements are well established in law. AB1600 is based on that (for *administrative* fees).
Sheetz is objecting to the size of the fee not its existence.
They say the "fee" is not "proportionate" and El Dorado sidestepped the proportionality requirement, by adopting a fee imposing ordinance in lieu of an administrative fee anchored by a valid AB1600 nexus study.
El Dorado allegedly took the ordinance route to avoid proportionality.
Each of the fees in the above Menlo Park article are *administrative* fees consistent with a valid underlying AB1600 nexus study that justifies proportionality. I hope. If not, they should be struck.
