B.A.M. Development, L.L.C. v. Salt Lake County
2012 UT 26
| Utah | 2012Background
- B.A.M. Development sought a development permit for a 15-acre parcel abutting Highway 171 in unincorporated Salt Lake County and dedicated a 40-ft right of way as per county standards.
- WFRC and UDOT later advised that the required dedication should be 53-58 ft, prompting the county to update standards and inform BAM that the permit would require a larger exaction.
- B.A.M. appealed the Planning Commission decision; the Board denied relief, and BAM filed suit in district court, which ruled for the County; the court of appeals affirmed, then this Court remanded for a new trial.
- The third trial applied a rough-proportionality test (Dolan/Nollan framework) to compare the exaction’s cost to alleviating traffic impacts with the development’s impact on infrastructure.
- Trial findings: traffic will increase; road-widening projects cost about $6,748,700 (1998 dollars); BAM’s share of that cost was 5% ($337,500); BAM’s own exaction cost was $83,997.29; court held exaction did not violate rough proportionality.
- This Court affirms the trial court, upholding inclusion of state/federal costs in the rough-proportionality calculation and limiting review to the 18-ft supplemental exaction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether rough proportionality must include broader governmental costs | BAM argues only county costs count. | County contends Dolan/Nollan permit broader costs; state/federal costs may be included. | Costs to broader government entities are properly included. |
| Whether the scope of the exaction analyzed was only 18 ft or the full 53-58 ft | 2darily appealing only to 18 ft; broader exaction not reviewable. | Entire exaction is within scope; prior proceedings limited the review. | Review limited to the 18 ft supplemental exaction; full 53 ft not reopened. |
| Timeliness of BAM's appeal under Rule 4(a)-(b) tolling | Postjudgment motion tolled the time to appeal. | Motion was a recapitulation not tolling under Rule 4(b). | Rule 4(b) tolling properly triggered; appeal timely. |
| Applicability of Banberry/Call to development exactions | Banberry-like standard governs reasonableness of exaction. | Banberry applies to subdivision charges, not road dedications. | Banberry does not control; Call/Nollan/Dolan framework governs. |
| Whether Trial court properly included state costs in Dolan analysis | State costs should be excluded or narrowly construed. | State costs relevant to alleviating impact on state highways; should be included. | State costs properly included; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (U.S. 1994) (rough-proportionality requirement)
- Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1987) (essential nexus between exaction and governmental purpose)
- Call v. City of West Jordan, 606 P.2d 217 (Utah 1979) (variation of reasonable-relationship test)
- Banberry Development Corp. v. South Jordan City, 631 P.2d 899 (Utah 1981) (factor-based reasonableness for subdivision charges)
- B.A.M. Development, L.L.C. v. Salt Lake County (B.A.M. II), 2008 UT 74, 196 P.3d 601 (Utah 2008) (Dolan analysis includes costs of broader community)
- Salt Lake County v. Bd. of Educ., 808 P.2d 1056 (Utah 1991) (Takings background for development exactions)