Call v. City of West Jordan, 19186
| Decision Date | 23 July 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 19186,19186 |
| Citation | 727 P.2d 180 |
| Parties | John CALL and Clark Jenkins, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF WEST JORDAN, Utah, Defendant and Respondent. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Robert J. Debry, Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs and appellants.
Stephen G. Homer, West Jordan City Atty., West Jordan, for defendant and respondent.
Plaintiffs, John Call and Clark Jenkins, appeal from the trial court's dismissal of their complaint and the entry of judgment in favor of defendant, City of West Jordan.
In 1974, West Jordan formulated a plan to expand its flood control and public park systems to meet the increasing needs of the growing city. As part of its plan, West Jordan decided to impose an impact fee as a condition to granting plat approval to subdivision developers. The fee was seven percent of the land in the subdivision or, at the option of the city, the equivalent value in cash. West Jordan, Utah, Ordinance 33, § 9-C-8(2) (1975). Plaintiffs paid the fees under protest and later brought this action attacking the ordinance.
We have issued two previous opinions in this case. In our first opinion, Call v. City of West Jordan, 606 P.2d 217 (Utah 1979) (Call I ), we held that U.C.A., 1953, §§ 10-9-1 to -30 empowered West Jordan to exact an impact fee to provide for flood control and parks as a condition to granting plat approval. On rehearing, in Call v. City of West Jordan, Utah, 614 P.2d 1257 (1980) (Call II ), we upheld the facial constitutionality of the ordinance, but we remanded to give plaintiffs an "opportunity to present evidence to show that the dedication required of them had no reasonable relationship to the needs for flood control or parks and recreation facilities created by their subdivision, if any." Id. at 1259.
On remand, the trial court allowed plaintiffs to amend their complaint to include a claim that the ordinance was invalid because West Jordan had not followed statutory requirements in enacting it. Although West Jordan does not cross-appeal the allowance of the amendment, it urges this Court to limit the case to the constitutional "reasonableness" issue. However, the pleadings may be amended after remand within the sound discretion of the trial court so long as they do not cover issues specifically foreclosed by the appellate court. Street v. Fourth Judicial District Court, Utah County, 113 Utah 60, 191 P.2d 153 (1948), Utah R.Civ.P. 15; see White v. Lobdell, 196 Mont. 156, 638 P.2d 1057 (1982); Diversified Capitol Corp. v. City of North Las Vegas, 95 Nev. 15, 590 P.2d 146 (1979). The trial court allowed West Jordan to argue why the pleadings should not be amended; but after consideration, allowed the amendment. Neither Call I nor Call II specifically addressed this issue, and we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's allowing the amendment. Therefore, the issue of whether West Jordan had followed statutory requirements in enacting the ordinance was properly before the trial court.
Because of problems encountered by the plaintiffs in its discovery of information in the possession of West Jordan and because of our decision in Banberry Development Corp. v. South Jordan City, 631 P.2d 899 (Utah 1981), the trial court issued a pretrial order which placed on West Jordan the burden of producing evidence on several issues. These issues may be condensed into two main issues: (1) the reasonableness of the impact fee as applied to plaintiffs, and (2) whether the ordinance had been adopted according to statutory requirements.
It is necessary in this opinion to treat only the second issue. West Jordan was required at the threshold to present prima facie evidence that the city had followed the statutory requirements contained in U.C.A., 1953, §§ 10-9-1 to -30 in enacting the ordinance. Within section 25, the legislature has set forth specific procedures that a municipality must follow to exercise the powers granted to it:
In exercising the powers granted to it by the act, the planning commission shall prepare regulations governing the subdivision of land within the municipality. A public hearing thereon shall be held by the legislative body, after which the legislative body may adopt said regulations for the municipality.
The trial judge held in his conclusions of law that the ordinance was validly promulgated and that "[i]t was not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the city failed to comply with the provisions of section 10-9-25, Utah Code Annotated, in the promulgation of the ordinance." This conclusion was supported by the court's finding of fact No. 22:
Prior to the adoption of the Ordinance, the governing body of the City conducted a public hearing in which an overall master plan for the development of the city was discussed. This hearing (held in August 1974) was conducted in the West Jordan school auditorium so as to accommodate the large number of citizens in attendance. The specific concept of flood control and having an impact fee paid by new developers was discussed at that public hearing. The Ordinance was prepared by the West Jordan Planning and Zoning Commission, even though the City Attorney was responsible for the selection of the actual language used in the text of the Ordinance. The plaintiffs submitted no evidence to show that a public hearing was not held or that the Planning and Zoning Commission did not prepare the Ordinance.
We need not rule on the accuracy of this finding to resolve the issues presented in this case. Nevertheless, we are free to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court on the issue of law as to whether these facts satisfy the requirements of section 10-9-25. Olwell v. Clark, 658 P.2d 585 (Utah 1982), Automotive Manufacturers Warehouse, Inc. v. Service Auto Parts, Inc., 596 P.2d 1033 (Utah 1979). As mentioned above, the pretrial order placed upon West Jordan the burden of making a prima facie showing that it had satisfied the requirements of section 10-9-25. We hold as a matter of law that it failed to carry this burden.
Some months prior to the August 1974 public hearing, the West Jordan Planning and Zoning Commission had discussed on numerous occasions the idea of requiring developers to dedicate a portion of their subdivision or to pay an equivalent value in cash for parks and flood control. In fact, on March 20, 1974, the Commission adopted a motion to have the city require five percent from subdividers to use for parks. A month later, after the Commission had exacted the five percent fee from at least one subdivider, the city planner told the Commission that the city had no legal basis to impose the fee. During this time, a special committee was preparing the West Jordan Master Plan. The master plan speaks only in general terms about the need for parks and recreational facilities. It also addresses in vague terms who should pay for capital improvements to the city, hinting that incoming residents should pay more than existing residents because "equity in community improvements are [sic] seldom fairly shared through taxation." Nothing in the master plan proposes that developers either dedicate seven percent of their subdivisions or the cash equivalent as a condition to receiving approval for their plats. West Jordan asserts, however, that the "specific concept of flood control and having an impact fee paid by new developers was discussed" at the public hearing on the master plan. The minutes of the public hearing were not introduced as an exhibit, nor are they included in the record. However, one of the witnesses for West Jordan testified as to what was in the minutes:
[Mr. Moosman:] [T]he minutes reflect that Mrs. Schmidt asked [the city planner] concerning what was going on with the flood control problems. And perhaps I could read that. It would be quicker.
....
[The Court] ... Go ahead and read the pertinent parts. What does Mrs. Schmidt say?
A. [The witness:] She asked [the city planner] to tell what the County Flood Control had in mind for developers in the--
Q. Yeah. Go ahead.
A. [The city planner] then explained that each developer must take care of his own flood water that originates on his property. They have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
BAM DEVELOPMENT v. Salt Lake County
...property to the city, Call I, 606 P.2d at 218, so the cases are distinguishable on that basis. Additionally, in Call v. City of West Jordan, 727 P.2d 180 (1986) (Call III), the Court upheld a trial court order which placed "the burden of producing evidence" regarding "the reasonableness of ......
-
Richards v. Baum
...to present whatever legitimate contentions they have so that their rights and liabilities may be fully decided, see Call v. City of West Jordan, 727 P.2d 180, 181 (Utah 1986), and this Court has the power to direct the trial court to allow an amendment to the pleadings on remand. Olsen v. R......
-
Call v. City of West Jordan
...action certification and dismissed appellants' case. Appellants again appealed to the supreme court, which, in Call v. West Jordan, 727 P.2d 180 (Utah 1986) (Call III ), ruled that appellants' pleadings had been appropriately amended upon remand; the City, rather than appellants, had the bu......
-
Schultz v. Averett
...245 (requiring strict adherence to statutory land use requirements for ordinances to have validity); see accord Call v. City of West Jordan, 727 P.2d 180, 183 (Utah 1986) ("Failure to strictly follow the statutory requirements in enacting the ordinance renders it invalid."). Here Mr. Schult......
-
The Evolution of Real Estate Development Exactions in Utah
...used to alleviate the need. --------- Notes: [1] 606 P 2d 217 (Utah 1979), remanded 614 P.2d 1257 (Utah 1980), reversed on other grounds, 727 P.2d 180 (Utah 1986), and affirmed on various grounds by the Utah Court of Appeals, 129 UAR 38 (Utah 1990). [2] 631 P.2d 899 (Utah 1981). [3] 642 P.2......
-
Article Title: Utah Zoning Law: the Zoning Ordinance
...in Utah, Utah Bar J., Aug.-Sept. 1990, at 11. 12. See generally Home Builders Ass'n v. City of North Logan, 983 P.2d 561 (Utah 1999). 13. 727 P.2d 180 (Utah 1986). See also, Hatch v. Boulder Council, 2001 UT App. 55 (Utah App. 2001). 14. Id. at 183 (emphasis added). 15. Bradley v. Payson Ci......