Ohio Municipal League
175 South Third Street
Suite 510
Columbus, Ohio 43215

614-221-4349 Office
614-221-4390 Fax

email:
Legislative Inquiries
John Mahoney
General Inquiries
info@omunileague.org

For email inquiries to the OML, it would be most helpful if you would include your name, position, city or village you represent. 

Also please include a phone number and/or address for instances when we need further contact with you.

Please type “OML Inquiry” in subject line so that we can identify e-mails picked up as spam.

OML E- BULLETIN
If you would like to sign up for the E-Bulletin, send an email here: info@omunileague.org
 In the e-mail, indicate that you would like to be taken off the paper Bulletin list.

PLEASE CIRCULATE THIS BULLETIN TO YOUR COUNCIL, DEPARTMENT HEADS & STAFF

The Ohio Supreme Court has decided the case of Home Builders Association of Dayton and the Miami Valley et al, Appellees v. City of Beavercreek, Appellant. The high court upheld the City’s impact fee ordinance by a four to three vote. Chief Justice Moyer wrote the majority opinion, which was concurred in by Justices Douglas, Sweeney and Lundberg-Stratton. Justice Cook, Justice Resnick and Justice Pfeifer dissented in two dissenting opinions. The Ohio Municipal League (the "OML") and the Cuyahoga County Law Directors each submitted briefs as an amicus curiae.

The good news is that the case is a major win. The bad news is that the opponents will most likely immediately start an effort to invalidate the concept by legislation. The OML had spoken to the Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives urging against fast action by the General Assembly and encouraging full and deliberative hearings before reaching a judgment.

The syllabus of the opinion is set forth below:

An exaction fee adopted by ordinance that partially funds new roadway projects is constitutional if it bears a reasonable relationship between the city’s interest in constructing new roadways and the increase in traffic generated by new developments, and if a reasonable relationship exists, it must then be demonstrated that there is a reasonable relationship between the impact fee imposed on a developer and the benefits accruing to the developer from the construction of new roadways. (No. 98-2572 - Submitted November 2, 1999 - decided June 14, 2000.) Appeal from the Court of Appeal for Greene County, Nos. 97-CA-0113 and 97-CA-0115.

Contact your State Senator and House Member urging them to support the concept of fair impact fee procedures, such as Beavercreek’s, without legislative interference by the State.