links to Federal and state court decisions relating to takings, exactions and impact fees
Robson Ranch Quail Creek v. Pima County (AZ/2007)
County adopted sewer connection fee that assessed flat fee per fixture unit. Robson Ranch sued claiming impairment of 1998 contract and violation of "reasonable realationship" test. Appeals Court found no impairment, but remanded case for "reasonable relationship" review.
Save our Septic Systems v. Sarasota County (FL/2007)
County 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 remanded action on surcharges to Trial Court for further review.
Drebick Investments v. City of Olympia (WA/2006)
Drebick wanted to build office building and claimed lesser traffic impact than adopted fee schedule. Olympia rejected independent fee study and charged full fee based on areawide needs. Drebick sued. Washington Supremes upheld City. US Supremes declined review.
Home Builders Association of Lincoln and Hartland Homes v. City of Lincoln (NE/2006)
Lincoln adopted impact fees for water, wastewater, parks and roads in 2003. Home Builders and Hartland Homes sued. District Court ruled that City had implicit authority to enact and collect impact fees under it's home rule charter. Nebraska Supremes agreed.
Lee County v. Tina Brown (FL/2006)
Lee County adopted school impact fees with early effective date. Lee Builders and Brown sued claiming fee created "facially unconstitutional impairment on (housing) construction contracts." Trial Court agreed. Appeals Court reversed Trial Court stating fee satisfied legal tests.
Durham Landowners et. al. v. Durham County (NC/2006)
Durham County adopted school impact fees. Developers sued alleging that it was imposed without proper State enabling legislation and was therefore illegal. Trial Court agreed with plaintiffs and ordered refund of fees with interest. Appeals Court agreed, but denied interest.
Charleston Trident Home Builders v. Town of Sommerville (SC/2006)
Non-profit corporation challenged impact fee ordinance on issues of authority, remedies, plan compliance and fee calculation. Circuit court granted Town summary judgement. Builders appealed. SC Supremes upheld ordinance as complying with State Impact Fee Act.
James T. James v. County of Kitsap (WA/2005)
To avoid building moratorium, about 2,000 builders agreed to let County impose impact fees and delay actual fee collection. When County later tried to collect fees, James sued. Washington Supremes ruled James should have challenged fee within 21 days of imposition.
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 $500,000 exaction fee to "ease shortage of low-income housing in the city." San Remo sued. US Supremes upheld state court findings and rejected "duplicative takings" relitigation.
Lingle v Chevron U.S.A. (US/2005)
Hawaii enacted law capping rent oil companies could charge dealers who leased stations. Chevron USA sued. US Supremes jettisoned 25 year-old takings test (Agins) that alllowed courts to invalidate state laws that did not "substantially advance a legitimate state interest."
Susette Kelo, et al v. City of New London (US/2005)
New London used eminent domain to condemn homes so land could be used for economic development. Kelo sued. US Supremes ruled "proposed disposition of this property qualifies as a 'public use' within the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment." Decision caused national uproar.
Home Builders of Metro Orlando v. Osceola County (FL/2005)
Osceola County tripled its school impact fee to almost $10,000 in 2004. Home Builders challenged fee calculation methodology, but not concept of impact fees. Court ruled that methodology was "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 separate actions, later consolidated, arguing that towns unlawfully delegated authority to adjust impact fees to planning boards. Trial Court ruled for towns. NH Supremes declined review.
Home Builders of Mississippi v. City of Ocean Springs (MS/2004)
Ocean Springs adopted impact fee. Homebuilders sued. Lower court ruled fee unauthorized. Mississppi Supremes agreed stating City lacked authority under state law to levy fees and affirmed lower court order for City to return collected funds, estimated in excess of $100,000.
Town of Flower Mound v. Stafford Estates (TX/2003)
Flower Mound required developers to improve abutting streets, even if improvement was not necessary to accommodate impact of their subdivision. Stafford rebuilt road and then sued. Texas Supremes declared requirement "taking without just compensation."
Rogers Machinery v. Washington County and City of Tigard (OR/2002)
Tigard assessed $37,000 road impact fee when Rogers expanded business. Rogers sued claiming that it would not add new employees. 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 $700 per unit impact fee ordinance requiring builders in new residential areas to pay impact fee for each unit. Home Builders sued. Mississippi Supremes ruled that 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 dwelling unit parkland dedication fee in1985. Homebuilders sued. Court ruled the fee a tax because it was "a charge to pay the cost of government without regard to special benefits conferred."
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. California 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 new cost-based charges. City later imposed a water connection charge. Pardee sued. Court upheld the 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 their new townhouse project, claiming it amounted to a "taking." Colorado Supremes ruled fee legal and not subject to a takings analysis.
Home Builders Association of Central Arizona v. City of Apache Junction (AZ/2000)
Arizona impact fee statutes require facilites to be "municipally provided." Apache Junction adopted school impact fee. Builders sued. Arizona Court ruled school fees not authorized by State statute, including those allowing "special assessments."
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 Appellate Court reversed, stating it did not have a "matching funds" provision. Ohio 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. Illinois Curt dismissed lawsuit because it was filed beyond legal statute of limitations for challenging.
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 prelimary 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. Homebuilders sued, claiming that City had imposed illegal fees by ignoring seven cost credit criteria established in Banberry. Utah Court 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 impact fees. Home Builders sued and claimed fees violated Banberry principles. Utah Supremes upheld fees as valid and stated that Home Builders offered no "affirmative evidence" that would negate City's cost calculations.
City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey (US/1999)
Del Monte Dunes tried to develop 38 acre beachfront property. City repeatedly denied plans and demanded smaller and smaller development. Del Monte sued. US Supremes ruled Del Monte was denied right to use it's land and upheld $1.5 million jury award.
Country Joe v. City of Eagan (MN/1998)
Eagan imposed road connection charge as condition for issuance of building permits. Country Joe sued, arguing the charge was illegal and sought refund. Minnesota Court found that even though charge was illegal, Country Joe had no basis for recovering fees.
Bernadine Suitum v. Tahoe Regional (US/1996)
Ms. Suitum wanted build home on vacant lot in Incline Village. Agency denied her permit and issued her compensatory "transferable development rights." Suitum sued. US Supremes held that "ripeness' requirement was not met, even though she had not sought TDRs.
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)
Schlesinger wanted to convert low-income housing units into condominiums. To obtain rezoning, he agreed to pay "impact fees" to replace lost low-income housing. He subsequently defaulted on promissory note and City sued. Court ruled City was not authorized to condition rezoning.
Florence Dolan v. City of Tigard (US/1994)
Ms. Dolan wanted to expand hardware store and pave parking lot. Tigard required dedication of adjacent floodplain and bikeway. Dolan sued. US Supremes ruled there was no "essential nexus" and her benefit did not justify exaction (Rough Proportionality Test).
Bainbridge, et al v. Douglas County School Board (CO/1994)
Douglas County adopted school impact fees in 1992. Bainbridge sued. The court ruled that fees assessed on building permits were invalid because State statutes provided for subdivision exactions. It ordered a refund of all fees and Bainbridge received "post-judgment interest."
Richard Ehrlich v. City of Culver City (US/1994)
Ehrlich wanted to demolish private tennis facility and build luxury condominium. City required $280,000 ad hoc recreational fee and $33,000 "art in public places" fee to rezone site. Ehrlich sued. US Supremes disapproved recreational fee and approved "art" fee.
David Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (US/1992)
Lucas bought two oceanfront lots on Isle of Palms near Charleston. Two years later, State established coastal setback line that prevented development of lots. Lucas sued. US Supremes ruled the law was a "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 Jean wanted to build mixed use waterfront complex (Levi Plaza) and sued. California 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 in 1987. Builders sued, claiming many new residents had no children. Florida Supremes ruled fees were not in conflict with Florida constitution, did not violate uniform school system, and all cities should participate.
Building Industry Association of Southern California v. City of Oxnard (CA/1990)
Oxnard imposed "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. BIA sued. Court ruled fee met "rational nexus" and "reasonable formula" tests.
Key West v. RLJS Corporation (FL/1989)
RJLS initiated 168 unit condominium project in 1981 and pre-sold many units. Key West adopted impact fees in 1984. RJLS sued, claiming it should not have to pay because it could not pass on added costs. Court ruled that "unanticipated fees or costs" did not invalidate ordinance.
Albany Area Builders Association v. Town of Guilderland (NY/1989)
Guilderland imposed 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. Colorado 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 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 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 law stating it promoted "legitimate public interests in health, the environment, and the fiscal integrity of the area (prevented nuisance effects)."
Russ Building Partnership v. City and County of San Francisco (CA/1987)
San Francisco imposed $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 case "unripe" because landowner had not sought local variances that could allow more development.
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."
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." Utah Supremes expanded Banberry and found fees "reasonable."
City of College Station v. Turtle Rock Corporation (TX/1982)
College Station required developers to dedicate land or pay in- lieu fee for new parks. Turtle Rock paid fee and sued. Texas Supremes ruled ordinance "reasonable" and "accomplished legitimate goal substantially related to public health, safety, welfare."
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. Utah 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 zoning was not a "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 the city, or pay equivalent of that value in cash, to be used for flood control and/or parks and recreation facilities." Call sued. Utah Supremes said ordinance was "within the scope of the powers" of the City.
Penn Central Transportation v. City of New York (US/1978)
City designated Grand Central Terminal historic landmark and allowed transfer development rights. Penn Central denied request to build skyscraper above terminal. Penn Central sued, claiming "uncompensated taking." US Supremes ruled TDRs provide adequate compensation.
Contractors and Builders Association of Pinellas County v. City of Dunedin (FL/1976)
Dunedin enacted water and sewer fee stating that "those who create the inordinate demand for services ought to bear the prime cost of same." Contractors sued. Florida 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. Krughoff sued, claiming City had no authority. He also claimed he was denied equal protection because law exempted non-residential developers. Illinois Supremes upheld City.
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. The court ruled that exactions can be justified based on "general public need for recreational facilities caused by subdivisions (Reasonably Attributable Test).''
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).
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. Illinois Supremes ruled ordinance invalid in that it did not show that it would "directly and exclusively" benefit the development (Specifically and Uniquely Attributable Test).
Donald Ayers v. City of Los Angeles (CA/1949)
Ayers filed to develop 13 acre tract on Sepulveda Boulevard in 1944. Los Angeles requested dedication of ten foot strip of land for right-of-way and planting. Ayers sued. Citing Euclid v. Amber, California Supremes upheld requirement as "authorized" and "reasonable."
