links to Federal and state court decisions relating to takings, exactions and impact fees
California Building Industry v. City of San Jose (CA/2015)
San Jose required residential developments of 20+
homes to sell 15 percent at below-market prices to qualified buyers or pay
$122,000 in-lieu fee. Appeals court held ordinance a legal exercise of
police power and not subject to heightened scrutiny.
Quality Built Homes v. Town of Carthage (NC/2015)
Town required water/sewer impact fees be paid at time of subdivision approval. Developer claimed homes may never be built and sued. Court of Appeals upheld municipal authority to assess fees for services "to be furnished" as opposed to services presently available.
Daniel Walker v. City of San Clemente (CA/2015)
San Clemente adopted impact fee of $1,500 per dwelling to provide beach parking in 1989. After collecting $10 million in fee revenues, the city determined the parking was not needed, but did not return the money. Walker sued. Trial court ordered refunding. Appeals court agreed.
KLN Construction v. Town of Pelham (NH/2014)
Pelham did not spend impact fee revenues to build new fire station within required six-year period. Fees were to be used with bonds that did not pass. KLN sued for refund. Supremes ruled refund should be paid to current property owner rather than original developer.
Daniel Levin, et al v. City and County of San Francisco (CA/2014)
San Francisco required property owners
withdrawing rent-controlled property from rental market to pay large lump sums
to displaced tenants. Levin sued alleging unconstitutional taking in violation
of Fifth Amendment. District court agreed with Levin.
Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District (US/2013)
Koontz wanted to develop 4 acres of 15 acre wetland property. District requested reduced development, conservation easement and off-site improvements. Trial court found request contrary to Nollan/Dolan. FL Supremes disagreed. US Supremes reversed FL Supremes.
Beaumont v. Riverside County (CA/2012)
Beaumont participated in countywide Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee program. County prioritized projects and cities collected fee and remitted to county. City collected fees and spent funds on projects rather than remit to county. County sued. Superior court ruled for city.
Lanvale Properties v. County of Cabarras (NC/2012)
County adopted adequate public facilities ordinance for
schools as a substitute for impact fees in 1998. Lanvale
refused to pay and sued. Appeals court
ruled APFO illegal stating special permission from legislature needed. NC
Bullock v. City of Ashland (OR/2011)
Ashland formed local improvement district (LID) to pay for sidewalks and traffic calming measures. Bullock protested claiming, among other things, that the LID should be voided because boundary was "gerrymandered." Apeals court upheld trial court ruling for city.
Effingham County v. Park West (GA/2011)
County requested Park West to pay annual impact fee of $300,000 over ten years with $1.2 million letter of credit. Park West sued claiming payment before building permits were issued was a violation of Georgia impact fee act. Superior and Appeals courts agreed with Park West.
NorCal Investment Partners v. City of Redding (CA/2010)
City imposed variable rate impact fee to pay for new $55 million road interchange. Amount of fee based on proximity and beneficial relationship to interchange. NorCal sued claiming insufficient nexus and departure from past practice. Trial and Appeals courts upheld fee.
Home Builders Association of Central Aizona v. City of Mesa (AZ/2010)
Mesa adopted impact fee for cultural facilities. Homebuilders sued stating that, while such facilities were "desirable, valuable, worthwhile, important," they were not "necessary" municipal services as required by Arizona law. Superior court upheld fees and Appeals court concurred.
Amward Homes v. Town of Cary (NC/2010)
Town adopted Adequate Public School Facilities Ordinance that required classroom availability before development approval. Amward paid mitigation fee and sued. Appeals court ruled ordinance invalid (ultra vires) and ordered Town to refund fees and pay litigant attorney fees.
Home Builders Association of Middle Tennessee v. Williamson County (TN/2010)
County assesses privilege tax on new construction at permit stage based on proposed square footage. After finding that some completed projects were larger than proposed size, County requested more fees. Trial and appeals courts upheld additional fees. TN Supremes did not.
St. Croix Valley Home Builders Association v. Township of Oak Grove (WI/2010)
Town prepared needs assessment study and adopted impact fees. Home Builders sued claiming fee disproportionately imposed developoment costs. Town claimed ordinance contained appellant mechanism and Home Builders did not use it. Appeals court agreed.
Homebuilders Association of Tulare/Kern County, Inc. v. City of Lemoore (CA/2010)
Lamoore adopted impact fees for seven different facilities, including garbage trucks and a naval air museum. Home builders sued. Appeals court found fees to be reasonable and not in conflict with state law and sustained City's choice of using of a "standards-based"methodology.
Drees Company v. Hamilton Township (OH/2010)
Township adopted impact fees. Drees sued arguing that impact fees were unauthorized taxes. Trial court ruled fees were not taxes and that there was no statutory prohibition. Appeals court agreed. Decision allows townships to adopt impact fees as Beavercreek case did for cities.
Lanville Properties v. Cabarras County (NC/2010)
County amended subdivision code in 1998 to include school APFO and then moved it to zoning code in 2007. Builders sued. Trial court ruled APFO unauthorized. County claimed challenge subject to two-month limitation on zoning amendments. Appeals court ruled APFO not zoning.
St. Clair County Home Builders v. City of Pell City (AL/2010)
City adopted sewer impact fee and water capital recovery fee in 2007 after eight-year planning process. Home builders sued claiming fees were unconstitutional tax and due process and equal protection violations. AL Supremes upheld Trial court ruling for City.
Salt Run & Village of Maineville v. Hamilton Township (OH/2010)
Salt Run seeks to develop 20 residential lots and annexes into incorporated village to avoid payment of $40,000 in Township impact fees. Township places liens on annexed properties to insure payment of fees at closing. Salt Run and Maineville sue. Case in process.
Anne Arundel County v. Halle Development (MD/2009)
County road impact fee ordinance required funds to be spent within six years of collection. Halle filed class action suit for rebate of unspent fees paid between 1988 and 1996. Circuit court agreed with Halle and ordered $4.7 million refunded. Appeals court confirmed refund.
Union Land Owners Association v. County of Union (NC/2009)
After failing to get state approval to assess school impact fees, County adopted APFO with "voluntary mitigation payments." Trial court upheld fees, but appeals court reversed saying APFO not to be used "to obtain indirectly the payment of what amounts to an impact fee."
Daniel McClung v. City of Sumner (WA/2009)
Sumner required upgrading of drainage system as condition for change of use. McClung challenged requirement as taking under Nollan/Dolan. Federal district court refused to apply Nollan/Dolan test. Circuit court of appeals agreed. US Supremes refused review.
Building Industry Association of Central California v. City of Patterson (CA/2009)
Builder agreed to pay $700 per unit affordable housing fee and future new fee if "reasonably justified." New fee was $20,000 per unit and builder claimed it violated "vested and contractual rights." Appeals court found no "reasonbable relationship" between fee and project impact..
Home Builders Association v. City of Goodyear (AZ/2009)
Goodyear adopted 16 impact fees. Builders sued claiming City did not consider future revenues from property that would be used for same growth-related costs as impact fees (Banberry). Superior court upheld fees as only needing to be "reasonably related." Appeals court agreed.
Anne Arundel County Ethics Commission v. Robert Dvorack (MD/2009)
Two former County officials represented class action lawsuit against County impact fees. County claimed they used insider knowledge from prior county employment. Ethics commission agreed. Circuit court disagreed. Appeals court ordered circuit court to consider penalties.
Joy Builders v. Town of Clarkston (NY/2009)
Clarkston required $558,000 parkland exaction to approve 77 lot subdivision. Joy sued claiming requirement based on flawed citywide study that failed to include "individualized determination" (Dolan) of their property. Trial court and NY Supremes ruled fee rational.
Pulte Home Corporation v. City of Manteca (CA/2009)
Manteca increased development fee for "government building facilities." Pulte sued claiming "vested right" to pay lower fee based on development agreement. Appeals court ruled fee level not vested and amount paid should be that in effect at time of building permit issuance.
Gus Meyers v. County of Calaveras (CA/2009)
Calaveras updated road mitigation fee based on three criteria and included projects on Meyers land. Meyers disagreed with study findings and sued. Appeals court ruled County sufficiently demonstrated reasonable relationship between project need and fee amount.
Belleau Woods v. City of Bellingham (WA/2009)
Belleau agreed to give conservation easement in lieu of mitigation fee as condition of rezoning. Bellingham then enacted park impact fee. Belleau paid $110,000 under protest and sued. Appeals court ruled easement not an impact fee and did not mitigate all park impacts.
Home Builders Associaton of Central Arizona v. City of Prescott (AZ/2009)
Prescott enacted impact fees on new residential development, but not on non-residential uses. Builders claimed violation of state law. Court found rationale was legislative finding based on factual determination and should not be "second guessed" by the courts. Appeal filed.
Florida Home Builders Association v. City of Tallahassee (FL/2009)
Tallahassee required residential projects to be certain percent affordable or pay in-lieu fee. Builders sued claiming due process violation, taking and unlawful taxation. Circuit court ruled ordinance was not taking of property without just compensation. District appeals court agreed.
B.A.M. Development v. Salt Lake County (UT/2009)
Salt Lake required land dedication for street widening. BAM dedicated 40 feet, but balked at later request for 13 more feet, claiming a "taking" that did not meet "rough proportionality" test. District and appeals courts upheld law. UT Supremes sent case back for Nollan/Dolan review.
F.D.R. Srour Partnership v. Montgomery County (MD/2009)
Srour pulled permits for first phase of warehouse project before impact tax enacted. When he went back to permit last two phases, County required $300,000. Srour sued. Appeals court ruled, even though project started prior to tax adoption, unpermited phases subject to tax.
Daniel Guggenheim v. City of Goleta (CA/2009)
Goleta enacted rent control law limiting mobile home park owners to annual five percent increases. Guggenheim claimed "taking" because it created a transfer of wealth, violated his due processes and singled out mobile homes. US appeals court agreed (2-1). On appeal.
Raintree Homes v. Village of Long Grove (IL/2009)
Village adopted school and open space impact fees on residential builders. Raintree sued. Trial court ruled fees unauthorized and ordered refund. Appelate court upheld ruling finding no evidence that ordinances considered anything individual to builders' activity.
Wolf Ranch v. City of Colorado Springs (CO/2009)
City charged drainage fee as condition of land use approval. Wolf Ranch refused to pay fee claiming it violated State private property rights act (RIPA). Supremes upheld fee because it was adopted via legislative process and uniformly assessed to all property owners in basin.
St Johns Water Management District v. Koontz (FL/2009)
St. Johns conditioned issuance of development permit on provision of off-site drainage improvements to mitigate environmental impact. Koontz refused and sued. District Court of Appeals ruled requirement was violation of Nolan/Dolan and resulted in a taking.
Builders Association of Greater Indianapolis v. Zionsville Plan Commission (IN/2008)
Zionsville prepared park impact fee study that justified $1000 per unit and then adopted $1800 per unit fee based on national survey average. Builders sued stating fee did not comply with Indiana statutes. Superior court invalidated fee and ordered $337,000 in refunds plus interest.
Kamaole Pointe v. County of Maui (US/2008)
Maui enacted law requiring 40 to 50 percent of new housing units to be affordable, or pay fee in lieu or dedicate land. Kamaole claimed fee was an "unconstitutional, facially and as applied" taking. US district court upheld fee. Appeal filed and settlement negotiations underway.
Action Apartment Association v. City of Santa Monica (CA/2008)
Santa Monica required multi-family projects to provide on or off-site affordable housing. Action sued claiming requirement did not meet Nollan/Dollan "heightened scrutiny nexus" and "rough propotionality" tests. Appeals court upheld ordinance as not "facially reviewable."
Palermo at Lakeland v. City of Bonney Lake (WA/2008)
Bonney Lake enacted water system development charge but did not use most current data in study. Palermo claimed fees were not based on "equitable costs." Trial court ordered fees recalculated with refunds. Appeals court agreed on overpayments, but not attorney fees.
Robson Ranch Quail Creek v. Pima County (AZ/2007)
Pima adopted sewer connection fee that assessed flat fee per fixture unit. Robson claimed "impairment of contract" and violation of "reasonable realationship" test. Trial court upheld fee. Appeals court found no impairment, but sent case back for "reasonable relationship" review.
Save our Septic Systems v. Sarasota County (FL/2007)
Sarasota required existing septic users to connect to central sewers and pay impact fees and surcharges with funds to be used for recoupment. SOSS sued. Circuit court ruled impact fees and recoupment proper, but sent "surcharge" question back to trial court for further review.
Home Builders of Lane County v. City of Eugene (OR/2007)
Builders challenged methodology used by city to develop service availability charges for wastewater facilities because it did not "contain data and information necessary to arrive at a base per unit charge." Appeals court agreed with trial court that no such requirement existed.
State Route 4 Bypass Authority v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (CA/2007)
County required property owners to dedicate land for highway bypass. Owners sued claiming request violated Dolan "rough proportionality" rule and they were treated differently from others. District Court of Appeal ruled for County stating "equality of burden" not required.
Drebick Investments v. City of Olympia (WA/2006)
Drebick wanted to build office building and claimed less traffic impact than adopted fee schedule assumed. Olympia rejected independent fee study and charged full impact fee based on areawide needs. Drebick sued. WA Supremes upheld City. US Supremes refused review.
Home Builders Association of Lincoln and Hartland Homes v. City of Lincoln (NE/2006)
Lincoln was first city in Nebraska to adopt impact fees for water, wastewater, parks and roads. Home Builders challenged authority. District court ruled City had implicit authority to enact and collect impact fees under home rule charter. NE Supremes agreed.
Lee County v. Tina Brown and First Home Builders of Florida (FL/2006)
Lee County adopted school impact fees. Builders filed class action challenging validity of fees under "dual rational nexus" and "impairment of contracts." While finding fees reasonable, Trial court agreed with "impairment."issue. Appeals court reversed Trial court on "impairment."
Durham Landowners. v. Durham County (NC/2006)
Durham County adopted school impact fee ordinance. Developers sued alleging it was without proper state enabling legislation and therefore illegal. Trial court agreed with Landowners and ordered refund of fees with interest. Appeals court agreed with Trial court, but not to interest.
Charleston Trident Home Builders v. Town of Sommerville (SC/2006)
Charleston Trident challenged impact fee ordinance on issues of statutory compliance, including adequacy of capital improvements plan and method of fee calculation. Circuit court and SC Supremes upheld ordinance as substantially complying with State statutes.
Branciforte Heights v. City of Santa Cruz (CA/2006)
Santa Cruz required dedicated open space and impact fee under Quimby Act. Developer requested credit. City refused. Developer paid fees under protest and sued. Appeals court ruled credit for private open space against parkland dedication is discretionary, not mandatory.
James T. James v. County of Kitsap (WA/2005)
State act requires adoption of comprehensive plan prior to adoption of impact fees. County collected impact fees during period its plan was not in compliance. James sued and requested refund. WA Supremes ruled James did not challenge ordinance within statutory time limits.
San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco (US/2005)
San Remo wanted to convert residential rooms into tourist rooms and City required $600,000 exaction fee to "ease shortage of low-income housing in the city." San Remo sued. US Supremes upheld (9-0) state courts and rejected "duplicative takings" relitigation.
Lingle v Chevron U.S.A. (US/2005)
Hawaii enacted rent cap on oil company-owned service stations. Chevron claimed cap was an unconstitutional taking. US Supremes (9-0) jettisoned 25 year-old Agins "takings" test that allowed invalidation of state laws that did not "substantially advance legitimate state interest."
Susette Kelo v. City of New London (US/2005)
New London used eminent domain to acquire land for purposes of economic development. Kelo sued. US Supremes ruled (5-4) "proposed disposition of this property qualifies as 'public use' within Takings Clause of Fifth Amendment." Decision received national attention.
Home Builders of Metro Orlando v. Osceola County (FL/2005)
Osceola County tripled its school impact fees to $10,000 using new "Global" approach. Builders challenged fee calculation methodology, but not concept of impact fees. Circuit court ruled methodology "reasonable and not arbitrary" and met "dual rational nexus" test.
Caparco v. Danville/Drowne v. Sandown (NH/2005)
Danville and Sandown both enacted impact fee ordinances. Caparco and Drowne filed consolidated actions arguing that towns unlawfully delegated authority to adjust impact fees to planning boards. Trial Court ruled for towns. NH Supremes declined review.
Sold v. Town of Gorham (ME/2005)
Seven developers challenged impact fees as condition of subdivision approval. Superior court ruled for one, but stated others should have challenged fee in previous lawsuit against Town. ME Supremes reversed ruling stating developers did not present timely challenge.
Potts Construction v. North Kootenai Water District (ID/2005)
Potts owned 13 lots and paid an $800 water hook up fee for each, but only activated service to eight. Later, the District requested a $2,000 per lot "capitalization" fee for the remaining five. Potts claimed breach of contract. District court agreed with Potts, but ID Supremes reversed.
Collier Building Industry Associaton v. Collier County (FL/2005)
Collier enacted government buildings impact fee. Builders sued claiming there was no nexus between need for governmental space and presence of people at certain land uses; and that the use of impact fees can not substitute for ad valorem taxes. Challenge withdrawn.
Metropolitan Builders of Greater Milwaukee v. Village of Germantown (WV/2005)
Germantown built "spray-ground" with impact fees instead of proposed swimming pool. Builders sued. Court ruled Village could "impose fees for general type of facility, such as aquatic center, without committing itself to any particular proposal before charging fees."
Town of Flower Mound v. Stafford Estates (TX/2004)
Flower Mound required developers to improve abutting streets (and pay impact fee). Stafford sued. Trial and appeals courts ruled exaction not "roughly proportional" to impact of Stafford's proposed development and constituted constitutional taking. TX Supremes agreed.
Home Builders of Mississippi v. City of Ocean Springs (MS/2004)
Ocean Springs adopted impact fees totalling about $4,500 per unit. Home builders sued. Trial court ruled fee unauthorized stating City lacked authority under state law to levy fees and ordered City to return $100,000 in collected funds. MS Supremes agreed.
Dennis Pavlina v. City of Vancouver (WA/2004)
Pavlina initiated office project in Clark County in 1988 and made required road improvements. Vancouver annexed and required impact fees for unfinished phase. Pavlina paid and sued. Hearing examiner, superior court and appeals court upheld fees and awarded attorney costs.
Twin Lakes Development v. Town of Monroe (NY/2003)
Twin Lakes wanted to subdivide 28 acre parcel into 22 lots. Monroe required $1,500 per lot parkland dedication in lieu fee and $22,000 in "consulting" costs. Twin Lakes paid under protest and sued. Court upheld Monroe saying Twin Lakes failed to establish due process violation.
KMST v. County of Ada (ID/2003)
Ada County required KMST to construct public street and pay $100,000 impact fee. KMST sued claiming taking and requested credit for street. ID Supremes found no taking with regard to street dedication and that KMST failed to exhaust "administrative remedies" regarding fee.
City of Battleground v. Benchmark Land Company (WA/2002)
Battleground conditioned project approval on off-site street improvements. Benchmark sued. Appeals court invalidated condition because it was not "proportional to impact." WA Supremes reversed stating Nollan/Dolan misapplied and public safety was legitimate concern.
Rogers Machinery v. Washington County and City of Tigard (OR/2002)
Tigard assessed $37,000 road impact fee when Rogers expanded his business. Rogers sued claiming he would not add new employees. Appeals court upheld fee saying it "applied to a broad class of property" and "did not involve individual discretionary determinations."
Home Builders Association of Mississippi v. City of Madison (MS/2002)
Madison adopted ordinance requiring builders in new residential areas to pay $700 impact fee for each unit. Home builders sued. MS Supremes ruled impact fee constituted a "tax" and became embroiled in judicial jurisdictional issues relating to refunds.
Home Builders Assoc. of Greater Des Moines v. City of West Des Moines (IA/2002)
West Des Moines adopted $100 per acre and $200 per unit parkland dedication fee. Builders sued. IA Supremes ruled fee a tax because it was "a charge to pay the cost of government without regard to special benefits conferred," but denied payment of attorneys fees.
Thompson v. Village of Newark (IL/2002)
Newark enacted ordinance authorizing asssessment of school impact fees on new development. Thompson claimed ordinance was statutorily unauthorized enactment by a non-home-rule municipality. Appeals court concurred that ordinance was invalid.
Isla Verde International Holdings v. City of Camas (WA/2002)
Camas adopted automatic 30 percent open space set-aside as condition for plat approval. Isla Verde sued. WA Supremes held that provision did not meet statutory requirement that an "individualized determination" must show the set-aside was necessary to mitigate impact.
Homebuilders Association of Metro Portland v. Tualatin Hills Park District (OR/2002)
Tualatin Hills adopted park system development charge (impact fee). Builders sued. Court dismissed "takings" and "constitutional" claims and upheld fee as legislatively imposed monetary exaction that was "reasonably related" to park costs it was designed to mitigate.
Home Builders Association of Northern California v. City of Napa (CA/2001)
Napa adopted ordinance requiring developers to set aside ten percent of all new residential units for low or moderate income families or pay an in-lieu fee. HBA sued. CA appeals court upheld ordinance and refused to apply "heightened standards" of Nollan/Dolan.
City of North Las Vegas v. Pardee Construction (NV/2001)
To obtain development approval, Pardee agreed to pay North Las Vegas all existing impact fees and any future "cost-based" charges. City later imposed water connection charge. Pardee sued. Court upheld new charge as being "cost-based" and not an impact fee.
Krupp v. Breckenridge Sanitation District (CO/2001)
Breckenridge assessed wastewater plant investment fee on new building projects. Krupp challenged assessment on new townhouse project, claiming it amounted to a "taking." CO Supremes ruled fee legal and not subject to a takings analysis.
Home Builders Association of Central Arizona v. City of Apache Junction (AZ/2000)
Apache Junction adopted school impact fee. Builders sued claiming state statutes require facilites to be "municipally provided." Superior court upheld fee. Appeals court reversed saying school impact fees were not authorized by state statutes.
Home Builders Association of Dayton v. City of Beavercreek (OH/2000)
Beavercreek enacted impact fee. Homebuilders sued charging it was a taking without just compensation. Trial Court upheld fee while Appeals court reversed stating it did not have "matching funds" provision. OH Supremes upheld ordinance as constitutional.
Sundance Homes v. County of Du Page (IL/2000)
Sundance paid transportation impact fees to County in 1990 and waited more than five years to file for refund. County refused to refund. Sundance sued. IL Supremes dismissed lawsuit because it was filed beyond legal statute of limitations for challenging.
City of Annapolis v. Mareen Waterman (MD/2000)
Annapolis required park in-lieu fee with subdivision approval. Waterman sued. Appeals court upheld fee as not a "taking" or "economic deprivation" and clarified that exactions as regulations can be either possessory (easements and dedications) or non-possessory (fees).
Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach (FL/1999)
Aberdeen operated manufactured home park with restrictive covenants prohibiting residents under 18 years old. County adopted school impact fee. Aberdeen sued. Court agreed with Aberdeen that it did not increase need for new schools and fee was unconstitutional as applied.
New Castle Investment v. City of LaCenter (WA/1999)
LaCenter adopted road impact fee after New Castle received preliminary plat approval. New Castle claimed it was vested and sued. Court ruled New Castle was not vested because fees were not "land use control ordinances" and not subject to "subdivision vesting statutes."
Home Builders Association of Utah v. City of American Fork (UT/1999)
American Fork adopted impact fees. Home builders sued claiming that City had imposed illegal fees by ignoring seven Banberry "cost credit" criteria. UT Supremes ruled fees legal stating that Banberry criteria were for "illustrative purposes" only, and not mandatory.
Home Builders Association of Utah v. City of North Logan (UT/1999)
North Logan adopted four impact fees. Home Builders sued claiming fees violated Banberry principles. UT Supremes upheld fees and stated that Home Builders offered no "affirmative evidence" that would negate City's cost calculations.
City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes (US/1999)
Del Monte Dunes tried to develop 38 acre beachfront property. Over several years, Monterey repeatedly denied plans and demanded smaller and smaller development. Del Monte sued. US Supremes ruled (9-0) Del Monte denied right to use land and upheld $1.5 million award.
David Nolte v. City of Olympia (WA/1999)
Olympia passed ordinance to collect impact fees in urban growth area with County concurrence. Nolte sued. Appeals court ruled that impact fees can only be imposed as "condition of development approval" and City had no approval authority outside its borders.
Garneau v. City of Seattle (US/1998)
Seattle adopted tenant relocation law requiring landlords to pay $2,000 in moving expenses for displaced low-income residents. Garneau sued. US appeals court upheld ordinance saying it neither "physically invades property, nor denies all economically viable use of property."
Country Joe v. City of Eagan (MN/1998)
Eagan imposed road connection charge as condition for building permits. Country Joe sued arguing the charge was illegal and sought refund. MN Supremes found that even though charge was illegal, Country Joe had no basis for recovering fees.
Home Builders Association of Central Arizona v City of Scottsdale (AZ/1997)
Scottsdale adopted resources development fee. Builders sued. AZ Supremes upheld fee as valid act of power to regulate land use and that the fee conferred a benefit. Court also indicated that a concrete plan for water acquisition was not required prior to adoption of fees.
Bernadine Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (US/1996)
Suitum wanted build home on vacant lot in Incline Village. Tahoe denied permit and granted "transferable development rights." Suitum claimed "taking." District and Appeals courts ruled case not "ripe" because she had not tried to sell TDRs. US Supremes disagreed 9-0.
Vintage Construction v. City of Bothell (WA/1996)
Bothell charged subdivision $400 per lot in lieu parkland dedication fee. Vintage sued. Court found fee must relate to value of land that would be otherwise dedicated and that the burden is on City to demonstrate fee was related to land value. City required to refund fee.
Northern Illinois Builders Association v. County of Du Page (IL/1995)
NIBA challenged legality of two State enabling acts and three County ordinances imposing road impact fees. Court declared first act and first ordinance unconstitutional, and second act and second ordinance constitutional. Monies collected under first ordinance were ordered returned.
City of Portsmouth v. Schlesinger (NH/1995)
In order to rezone apartments to condominiums, Schlesinger agreed to pay $2.5 million "impact fee" to replace lost low-income housing. He subsequently defaulted on promissory note and City sued. Court ruled fee illegal for "diminution in low-income housing" and no rational nexus.
Robin Steel v. Cape Corporation (MO/1995)
Property downzoned to open space without consent of owner. Steel sought rezoning to residential. City refused. Court ruled OS zoning was denial of economically viable use of property based on Lucas, but upheld school adequacy requirements as satisfying Dolan.
Florence Dolan v. City of Tigard (US/1994)
Dolan wanted to expand hardware store and pave parking lot. Tigard required dedication of floodplain and bikeway. Dolan sued. US Supremes ruled (5-4) for Dolan stating that "individualized determination" should establish "essential nexus" and "rough proportionality."
Bainbridge v. Douglas County School Board (CO/1994)
Douglas County adopted school impact fees in 1992. Bainbridge sued. Trial court ruled fees assessed on building permits were invalid because State statutes provided for subdivision exactions and ordered refund of all fees and "post-judgment interest."
Richard Ehrlich v. City of Culver City (CA/1994)
Ehrlich wanted to convert private tennis facility into 30 townhouses. Culver City required $280,000 mitigation fee to rezone site. Ehrlich sued. CA Supremes upheld using "zoning to facilitate availability of private recreational facilities", but found mitigation fee unsupportable.
Christopher Lake Development v. St. Louis County (US/1994)
Developer sought approval for 42 acre residential project. County conditioned approval on extensive off-site storm water drainage improvements. Appeals court ruled that conditions for drainage system to serve entire watershed area violated Dolan "proportionality" standards.
City of Marion v. Baioni (AR/1993)
City adopted "tapping fees" on all new connections to water and wastewater lines. Baioni challenged validity of fees under state law. Lower court ruled fees invalid. Supremes reversed lower court stating that fees were not taxes, but service charges and they did not require referendum.
David Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (US/1992)
Lucas bought two oceanfront lots on Isle of Palms near Charleston for $1 million. Two years later, State established coastal setback line that prevented development of lots. Lucas sued. US Supremes ruled (6-3) law was "taking without just compensation (Total Deprivation)."
Blue Jeans Equities v. City and County of San Francisco (CA/1992)
San Francisco adopted transit impact fee. Blue Jeans wanted to build mixed use waterfront complex (Levi Plaza) and sued. Appeals court upheld fee based on minimum "rational relationship" test, rather than more stringent "heightened scrutiny" Nollan test.
St. Johns County v. Northeast Florida Builders Association (FL/1991)
St. Johns County adopted school impact fees. Builders sued claiming ;many new residents had no children. FL Supremes ruled fees were legal and not in conflict with the state constitution or uniform school system, and that all cities should participate.
Building Industry Association of Southern California v. City of Oxnard (CA/1990)
Oxnard adopted "growth requirements capital fee" of 63 cents per square foot on new residential development and 33 cents per square foot on new non-residential development. Builders sued. Court ruled fee met "rational nexus" and "reasonable formula" tests.
City of Key West v. RLJS Corporation (FL/1989)
RJLS initiated 168 unit condominium in 1981 and pre-sold many units. Key West adopted impact fees in 1984. RJLS sued claiming it could not pass on added costs. Appeals court reversed Circuit court stating "unanticipated fees or costs" did not invalidate ordinance.
Albany Area Builders Association v. Town of Guilderland (NY/1989)
Guilderland enacted transportation impact fee on new development. Albany Builders sued. Court ruled State Legislature had specifically assumed responsibility for highway funding and home rule authority of local government was limited by "pre-emption doctrine."
Arvid and Beverly Bloom v. City of Fort Collins (CO/1989)
Fort Collins adopted transportation "utility fee" that required residential uses with arterial street frontage to pay 14 cents per lineal foot per month and non-residential uses to pay 56 cents per lineal foot. Bloom sued. CO Supremes ruled it a reasonable "special fee," and not a tax.
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles (US/1987)
First Lutheran operated campground for handicapped children called "Lutherglen." Flood destroyed many buildings. County adopted ordinance prohibiting reconstruction of buildings. First Lutheran sued. US Supremes ruled (6-3) regulation amounted to a taking.
James and Marilyn Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (US/1987)
Nollans wanted to replace beachfront bungalow with larger home. Commission required public view access across property. Nollan sued. US Supremes ruled (5-4) it a "taking" because of "insufficient nexus" between end sought (view access) and means chosen (lateral access).
Keystone Bituminus v. DeBenedictus (US/1987)
Pennsylvania law prohibited coal mining that caused "subsidence damage" to public buildings. Keystone sued. US Supremes upheld (5-4) law stating it promoted "legitimate public interests in the health, environment and fiscal integrity of the area (prevented nuisance effects)."
Russ Building Partnership v. City and County of San Francisco (CA/1987)
San Francisco enacted $5 per square foot transit impact fee on new office space. Russ sued. Court ruled fee was not tax because it was "triggered by the voluntary action of the developer to construct something and directly tied to an increase in ridership generated by development."
Williamson County Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank (US/1985)
Hamilton Bank obtained preliminary plat approval for residential cluster development. County rezoned property reducing density. Hamilton sued. US Supremes found (7-0) case "unripe" because landowner had not sought local variances that could allow more development.
City of College Station v. Turtle Rock Corporation (TX/1984)
College Station required developers to dedicate land or pay in- lieu fee for new parks. Turtle Rock paid fee in protest and sued. TX Supremes reversed earlier Missouri City decision and ruled ordinance accomplished legitimate public goal and was reasonable and constitutional.
Hollywood, Inc. v. Broward County (FL/1983)
Broward County adopted park dedication/impact fee ordinance. Hollywood, Inc. sued. Appeals court ruled fee was authorized (by Charter), reasonable (conservative in calculation), used valid methodology (not fixed percent) and earmarked (dedicated for new parks).
Homebuilders of Palm Beach County v. Palm Beach County (FL/1983)
Palm Beach County adopted "Fair Share Contribution for Road Improvements Ordinance" in 1979 that charged $300 per new dwelling unit. Homebuilders sued. Court ruled that fee was not a tax and met "tests laid down in Dunedin and followed in Hollywood, Inc."
Town of Longboat Key v. Lands End (FL/1983)
Longboat Key enacted impact fee for parks and open space and deposited revenues in general fund. Lands End claimed illegal tax. Appeals court ruled fee not a tax, but indicated Town needed to establish "proper nexus" and establish "clear and adequate restrictions" on fee use.
Thomas Ross Lafferty v. Payson City (UT/1982)
Payson City enacted $1,700 per unit impact fee to "offset costs of necessary increases in municipal services." Lafferty sued claiming fee was illegal tax and "discriminatory on new homeowners." UT Supremes expanded Banberry and found fees "reasonable."
Banberry Development Corporation v. South Jordan City (UT/1981)
South Jordan adopted $800 water connection charge and $235 park improvement fee per unit. Banberry sued. UT Supremes upheld fees and set forth seven cost credit criteria to use as a guide in determining "equitable share of the capital costs in relation to benefits conferred."
Agins v. City of Tiburon (US/1980)
Agins acquired five acres of view ridgeland. Tiburon downzoned property based on master plan. Agins sued. US Supremes ruled (9-0) zoning was not "taking" because it "substantially advanced a legitimate government interest" and "did not deny an economically-viable use."
Call v. City of West Jordan (UT/1979)
West Jordan required subdividers to "dedicate land to city, or pay equivalent of that value in cash, to be used for flood control and/or parks and recreation facilities." Call paid fees under protest and sued. UT Supremes ruled ordinance "within the scope of the powers" of City.
Penn Central Transportation v. City of New York (US/1978)
New York City designated Grand Central Terminal historic landmark and allowed transfer development rights. Penn Central denied skyscraper above terminal and sued claiming "uncompensated taking." US Supremes ruled (6-3) TDRs provide adequate compensation.
Contractors and Builders Association of Pinellas County v. City of Dunedin (FL/1976)
Dunedin enacted water and sewer impact fee stating that "those who create the inordinate demand for services ought to bear the prime cost of same." Contractors sued. FL Supremes found fee "reasonable, proportional and earmarked (Dual Rational Nexus Test)."
Krughoff v. City of Naperville (IL/1972)
Naperville required donation of land or cash in lieu for new parks and schools inside or within one mile of the city. Krughoff sued claiming City had no authority and that he was denied equal protection because law exempted non-residential developers. IL Supremes upheld ordinance.
Associated Home Builders of Greater East Bay v. City of Walnut Creek (CA/1971)
Walnut Creek required dedication or fees in lieu for parks as a condition for subdivision approval. Builders sued. Court ruled that exactions can be justified based on "general public need for recreational facilities caused by subdivisions (Reasonably Attributable Test).''
Norwick v. Village of Winfield (IL/1967)
Winfield adopted "sewer property charge," but had no plans for spending collected funds. Norwick sued. Trial court ruled that charges for actually expanding its sewer system were legal, but charges to build sewers at an undetermined future time and place were not. Appeals court agreed.
Jordan v. Village of Menomonee Falls (US/1966)
Menomonee Falls required dedication of land for schools and parks. Jordan sued. Reducing previous "Pioneer Trust" test requiring "direct benefit" and "strict proportionality," US Supremes ruled only "reasonable nexus" required in determining need (Reasonable Connection Test).
Jenad v. Village of Scarsdale (NY/1966)
Scarsdale adopted subivision regulations with parkland dedication fee in-lieu provisions. Jenad claimed fee was "unauthorized tax." Appeals court upheld fee as "not a tax, but reasonable form of village planning" and "merely a kind of zoning, like set-back and side-yard regulations."
Pioneer Trust and Savings v. Village of Mount Prospect (IL/1961)
Mount Prospect required dedication of one acre per 60 dwelling units "for public use." Pioneer sued. IL Supremes ruled ordinance invalid in that it did not show it would "directly and exclusively" benefit the development (Specifically and Uniquely Attributable Test).
Hartman v. Aurora Sanitary District (IL/1961)
Under protest, Hartman connected to a sewer line owned by the Aurora Sanitary District and paid $160 "connection" fee. Hartman sued claiming fee was unconstitutional, unauthorized and a special nonuniform tax. Court ruled it a legitimate exercise of police power and a reasonable fee.
Donald Ayers v. City of Los Angeles (CA/1949)
Ayers filed to develop 13 acre tract on Sepulveda Boulevard in 1944. Los Angeles required dedication of ten foot strip of land for right-of-way and planting. Ayers sued. CA Supremes, citing Euclid v. Amber, upheld requirement as "authorized" and "reasonable."
Atlantic Construction Company v. City of Raleigh (NC/1949)
Atlantic sought water and sewer service from Raleigh outside its city limits, but felt requested fee was discriminatory, inequitable and unreasonable. Atlantic paid and sued. NC courts ruled fees were valid since cities were not required to provide such services and they were optional.
Lee v. Scriver (MN/1919)
City of Northfield authorized local residents to form neighborhood association to provide sewers in 1895. Twenty years later, Lee connected to sewer system and refused to pay his fair share cost. Appeals court ruled Lee should pay his fair share plus interest from date of connection.
Hinton v. Bowman (AR/1911)
Bowman constructed sewer that would serve 100 lots. Hinton wanted to build one home on several lots and pay only for one connection. The question was how to determine reasonable cost? Courts ruled that cost should be based on number of connections rather than number of lots.
Pulaski Heights Sewerage Company v. Loughborough (AR/1910)
Loughborough built home and connected to adjacent sewers without compensating Pulaski. Pulaski severed connection. Loughborough sued. Trial court ruled Pulaski could not deny "public interest" service, but could charge reasonable fee. Appeals court looked at costs and set $60 as fair fee.
Harter v. Barkley (CA/1910)
Harter requested connection to Redondo Beach sewers. City required permit fee, sewer fund fee and construction fee. Harter disputed sewer and construction fees and sued. Courts ruled City had "wide disretionary power" to provide sewers and set amount of fees.