ILNews

Special judge invalidates local impact fee

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In the first court decision of its kind in Indiana, a special judge has invalidated Zionsville's parks impact fee because it violates state statute.

Boone Superior Special Judge Rebecca McClure granted summary judgment Friday in favor of the Builders Association of Greater Indianapolis in the case of BAGI v. Zionsville Plan Commission, et al., No. 06D01-0610-PL-0380, ruling that the town's 2005 ordinance establishing a park impact fee doesn't comply with the impact-fee statute requirements outlined in portions of Indiana Code Section 36-7-4.

In March, attorneys for BAGI filed a motion for summary judgment in the case that was filed in October 2006 and challenged the local fee of $1,862 per lot. The association argued the amount exceeds what state statute allows and asked the court to require Zionsville to instead establish a fee conforming to Indiana law.

Park impact fees go to recreational land and facilities necessitated by new residents. The fees are usually paid for by homebuilders when obtaining a building permit to construct a new home; the fee is often passed on to a new homeowner, typically at closing. Statue says that an impact fee on a development may not exceed the impact cost minus the sum of non-local revenues and impact deductions.

In her ruling, Judge McClure noted that the municipality's utilization of the "national average" in determining the local impact fee fails to comply with state law.

Attorney Bryan Babb, who represented the builders association, credited Judge McClure for a fine job on a difficult issue of first impression.

"This is the first ruling that has interpreted the Impact Fee Statute to invalidate an impact fee," he said.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT