City Attorney Mr Murphy told the Temple City Council on April 16 that two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions require changes in how local officials use social media and how cities structure development impact fees.
"If you're using your social media as an elected official you can't block people from commenting," Mr Murphy said, summarizing the court's holding in the case transcripted as "Okon Ratcliffe versus Garnier." He advised officials who use social accounts for government business to either stop allowing public comments or create a distinct public account for official matters and allow open dialogue there.
Mr Murphy also briefed the council on what the transcript identifies as "Sheets versus County of El Dorado," describing a unanimous ruling that a takings claim challenging legislatively adopted development impact fees is possible and must be decided on the facts at trial rather than dismissed at an early stage.
"They didn't say that it was a taking," Mr Murphy said. "They just said it was possible," and recommended that the city drill down on the categories and metrics used to calculate fees — for example, measuring sewer-related charges by bedrooms, square footage or bathrooms rather than a flat per-unit fee — to better show a nexus and rough proportionality to mitigating impacts.
Mr Murphy said the concurrence authored by several justices encourages jurisdictions to do the detailed work that supports a fee's justification. "If you do the work, you'll probably find that you're going to be okay," he said.
The attorney urged staff to review the city's fee schedule and noted that while Temple City has relatively few development-impact fees, other jurisdictions with large undeveloped areas may be more exposed to challenges.
The briefing did not result in any immediate policy changes; Mr Murphy recommended the city manager and community-development staff present refinements to the fee schedule in a future report to council.