Albany Area Builders Ass'n v. Town of Guilderland
74 N.Y.2d 372, 547 N.Y.S.2d 627, 546 N.E.2d 920 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When the state legislature enacts a comprehensive and detailed statutory scheme regulating a specific subject matter, such as highway funding, it demonstrates an intent to preempt the field, thereby precluding municipalities from enacting local laws on the same subject.
Facts:
- The Town Board of Guilderland projected a substantial population increase that would adversely affect its transportation network, requiring road system expansion.
- The Board found that its current revenue sources were insufficient to fund the necessary road improvements.
- In response, the Board adopted a local law, the Transportation Impact Fee Law (TIFL), to make new development contribute its 'fair share' of the costs.
- TIFL required applicants for building permits to pay a 'transportation impact fee' if their project would generate additional traffic.
- The fees were calculated based on a detailed schedule according to the size and use of the proposed development.
- All fees collected under TIFL were to be deposited into a special trust fund, separate from the general budget, to be used exclusively for capital improvements and expansion of the roadway network.
Procedural Posture:
- Two builders' associations and three building companies (plaintiffs) sued the Town of Guilderland (defendant), challenging the validity of its Transportation Impact Fee Law (TIFL).
- The Appellate Division (an intermediate appellate court) declared TIFL invalid, concluding it was not authorized by statute and was preempted by state laws regulating roadway funding.
- The Town of Guilderland (appellant) appealed the decision.
- The Court of Appeals of New York (the state's highest court) granted leave to appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a comprehensive state statutory scheme for funding roadway improvements preempt a town's local law that imposes a 'transportation impact fee' on new developments to fund those same improvements?
Opinions:
Majority - Kaye, J.
Yes. A local law is preempted and therefore invalid where the State has evidenced an intent to occupy an entire regulatory field. The State Legislature has enacted a comprehensive and detailed regulatory scheme in the field of highway funding, which preempts local legislation on that subject. The court reasoned that state preemption can be implied from the nature of the subject matter and the purpose and scope of the state legislative scheme. Here, provisions in the state's Town Law and Highway Law establish an elaborate and uniform system for how towns must budget for, finance, and expend funds on roadway improvements. This comprehensive scheme demonstrates the State's intent to occupy the field. TIFL intrudes upon this scheme by creating a separate funding mechanism that circumvents the state-mandated budgetary process and evades the statutory requirements for fiscal accountability, thereby thwarting the State's overriding policy concerns for uniform and responsible fiscal management of public funds.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the doctrine of state preemption as a fundamental limit on municipal home rule powers in New York. It clarifies that even without an express prohibition from the legislature, a sufficiently comprehensive and detailed state statutory scheme can implicitly occupy a field, precluding local regulation. By striking down the impact fee for roadway funding, the court signaled that novel local financing mechanisms for areas already governed by state law are vulnerable to preemption challenges. This ruling effectively requires municipalities seeking to impose such fees to first obtain explicit enabling legislation from the state, thereby channeling major policy changes on municipal finance through the state legislature.
