A decision could be handed down later this spring by the U.S. Supreme Court in a case that may provide parameters to how much a county can charge when it comes to impact fees.
Nearly eight years ago a man named George Sheetz purchased 10 acres in El Dorado County in northwestern California as the site to place an 1,800-square-foot manufactured home.
After Sheetz cleared much of the site and made other necessary property arrangements, he was told by county officials that it would cost nearly $23,500 in what was then called a “traffic mitigation fee” to move the home to his site.
Sheetz paid the fee, but under protest, beginning a process that would see him file a suit against El Dorado County, only to lose in both local trial court as well as the California Court of Appeal.
After the California Supreme Court declined to review the case, Sheetz and his attorneys decided to try one more time: taking the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court, which to the surprise of some law experts, agreed last year to hear the case.
Pivotal is the question of how large a fee can any county reasonably charge an individual when it comes to the building or development of a given project.
The case has won the attention of the National Association of Home Builders as well as the California Building Industry Association, which have together filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to review and decide on the matter.
Because the El Dorado County is empowered by the California State Legislature, legal experts say the case will fundamentally address the question of the Fifth Amendment’s taking clause, which governs private property protection issues.
In their joint brief, the NAHB and California Building Industry Association have suggested that what is officially called Sheetz v. Eldorado County will provide the higher court with an opportunity to close any loophole in the “prohibition against governmental demands for unconstitutional conditions.”
Offering its own take on the case at hand, the Wall Street Journal has asked: “The question is simple: Can governments use building permits to extort property owners?”
Those in favor of upholding such fees as being legally permitted by state legislatures include the National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, and the Government Finance Officers Association.
By Garry Boulard
