A. Takings Review Procedure. Prior to any proposed action to exact or seize property, the city attorney shall review the proposed action to determine if a constitutional taking requiring “just compensation” would occur. The city attorney shall review all such matters pursuant to the guidelines established in subsection (B) of this section. Upon identifying a possible constitutional taking, the city attorney shall, in a confidential, protected writing, inform the council, commission or board of the possible consequences of its action. This opinion shall be advisory only. No liability shall be attributed to the city for failure to follow the recommendation of the city attorney.

B. Takings Guidelines. The city attorney shall review whether the action constitutes a constitutional taking under the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, or under Article I, Section 22 of the Utah Constitution. The city attorney shall determine whether the proposed action bears an essential nexus to a legitimate governmental interest and whether the action is roughly proportionate and reasonably related to the legitimate governmental interest. The city attorney shall also determine whether the action deprives the private property owner of all reasonable use of the property. These guidelines are advisory only and shall not expand nor limit the scope of the city’s liability for a constitutional taking.

C. Appeal. Any owner of private property who believes that his/her property is proposed to be “taken” by an otherwise final action of the city may appeal the city’s decision to the appeal authority within thirty days after the decision is made. The appeal must be filed in writing with the city recorder. The appeal authority shall hear and approve and remand or reject the appeal within fourteen calendar days after the appeal is filed. The appeal authority, with advice from the city attorney, shall review the appeal pursuant to the guidelines in subsection (B) of this section. The decision of the appeal authority shall be in writing and a copy given to the appellant and to the city council, commission or board that took the initial action. The appeal authority’s rejection of an appeal constitutes exhaustion of administrative remedies rendering the matter suitable for appeal to a court of competent jurisdiction. (Ord. 2012-09 § 2 (Att. B (part)); Ord. 12-11-2001C § 2 (part). Formerly 17-3-14)