Utah Supreme Court
How should Utah courts analyze development exactions under Dolan? B.A.M. Development v. Salt Lake County Explained
Summary
B.A.M. Development challenged Salt Lake County’s requirement to widen 3500 South as a condition for development approval, alleging an unconstitutional taking. The trial court applied the Dolan analysis but failed to properly compare costs.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
The Utah Supreme Court’s decision in B.A.M. Development v. Salt Lake County provides crucial guidance for practitioners handling development exaction cases under the Dolan rough proportionality analysis. This case clarifies how Utah courts should evaluate whether municipal exactions constitute unconstitutional takings.
Background and Facts
B.A.M. Development sought approval for a residential development from Salt Lake County. The County conditioned approval on B.A.M. expanding 3500 South from 17 feet half-width to eventually 53 feet half-width. B.A.M. challenged this exaction as an unconstitutional taking, arguing the additional 13-foot requirement was grossly disproportionate to the development’s impact—a 3.04% increase in traffic.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether the trial court correctly applied the Dolan rough proportionality analysis from Dolan v. City of Tigard. The parties disagreed on how to measure the relationship between the exaction and the development’s impact, with each side offering different percentage calculations to support their positions.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court clarified that the Dolan analysis has two components: the exaction and impact must be related in nature (the exaction addresses the problem created by the development) and in extent (measured by cost). The court emphasized that both factors should be measured using the same standard—specifically, the cost to each party. The impact should be measured as the cost to the municipality of addressing the development’s burden, while the exaction should be measured as the value of land dedicated by the developer plus any other required costs.
Practice Implications
This decision provides a clear framework for constitutional property challenges involving development exactions. Rather than engaging in various percentage calculations, practitioners should focus on demonstrating the comparative costs to both parties. Trial courts must now determine whether the costs are roughly equivalent, making expert testimony on valuation and municipal costs essential for effective advocacy in exaction cases.
Case Details
Case Name
B.A.M. Development v. Salt Lake County
Citation
2008 UT 74
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20070137
Date Decided
October 24, 2008
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
The trial court incorrectly applied the Dolan rough proportionality analysis by failing to compare the respective costs of the exaction and impact to the parties.
Standard of Review
Correctness for mixed questions of law and fact involving constitutional property concerns where the legal concept is easily defined
Practice Tip
When challenging development exactions, focus expert testimony and evidence on the comparative costs to both the developer and municipality rather than attempting various percentage calculations.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.