Supreme Court Update: Sheetz v. El Dorado County

1456277065_smaller

Supreme Court Update: Sheetz v. El Dorado County

COUNTY NEXUS

Exaction or impact fees are an important way for local governments to balance the benefits of growth with its impacts on the pre-existing community. Limiting the ability of counties to legislatively enact generally applicable development impact fees would impede our efforts to protect the health and welfare of their communities while ensuring that those who create the need for new community infrastructure fairly bear the costs.

BACKGROUND

A resident of El Dorado County, California  challenged the constitutionality of a traffic mitigation fee required in exchange for a development permit, arguing that the fee violates the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause under the Nollan/Dolan unconstitutional conditions test, which prevents governments from applying exaction fees unless they can demonstrate an essential “nexus” between their interest and the fee charged as well as “rough proportionality” between the fee charged and the proposed impact of the development. This case asks whether Nollan/Dolan is limited to fees issued on an an individual basis or whether it also applies to legislatively enacted, generally applicable impact fees and thereby compels local governments to make case-by-case determinations if such fees are warranted.

NACo ADVOCACY

In a Local Government Legal Center Amicus Brief filed in support of the respondent, NACo argued that counties across the country rely on legislatively adopted impact fees to address the burdensome impacts of new development on the availability and quality of local infrastructure, facilities, programs, and services. Without the ability to impose impact fees, local governments would need to resort to imposing new or increased taxes, displace the anticipated infrastructure costs necessary to meet the needs of new residential and commercial development onto existing residents and businesses or even impose development moratoria in the absence of funds to pay for required infrastructure. Expanding Nollan/Dolan to encompass legislative enacted impact fees could diminish this important policy tool.

CURRENT STATUS

On April 12, the Court issued a narrow 9-0 decision vacating the state court's ruling that Nollan/Dolan does not apply to legislatively-enacted impact fees and remanding the case for another look. While the Court's ruling does create heightened constitutional scrutiny for legislatively-enacted impact fees, it does not prevent local governments from enacting reasonable permitting conditions, including impact fees, via legislation. Learn more about the Court's decision and what it means for counties here

2024-2025 Supreme Court Term

Seattle, Washington
Advocacy

NACo Legal Advocacy: City of Seattle et al. v. Kia/Hyundai

The question at hand in City of Seattle et al. v. Kia/Hyundai is whether or not the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard preempts state tort claims brought forth by local governments alleging that Kia and Hyundai’s failure to install “reasonable” anti-theft technology constitutes negligence and public nuisance.

Court House
Advocacy

NACo Legal Advocacy: Perttu v. Richards

Perttu v. Richards has implications on the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and could increase the amount of Section 1983 inmate-initiated cases against county jails that reach federal court, ultimately resulting in counties having to expend resources on frivolous lawsuits.  

Image of Telecom-towers.jpg
Advocacy

NACo Legal Advocacy: McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. V. McKesson Corporation

McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. V. McKesson Corporation could make it more difficult for counties to challenge FCC orders, many of which have taken steps to preempt and curtail local authority by limiting counties’ abilities to manage their own right of way and assess fair market value permitting and impact fees on providers seeking to construct, modify or extend telecommunications infrastructure in their communities. 

Image of Water-infrastructure.jpg
Advocacy

NACo Legal Advocacy: San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has implications for the ability of county governments that own and operate wastewater treatment facilities to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. 

Image of Gavel_3.jpg
Advocacy

NACo Legal Advocacy: Lackey v. Stinnie

Lackey v. Stinnie will impact the ability of state and local governments to avoid paying litigation fees in a civil rights case if they change their conduct (i.e. repeal a law) after a court has granted a preliminary injunction.

police investigating a crime scene
Advocacy

NACo Legal Advocacy: Garland v. VanDerStok

Garland v. VanDerStok has implications for the ability of county law enforcement to uphold public safety and investigate crimes involving ghost guns.

Image of Budgeting_2.jpg
Advocacy

NACo Legal Advocacy: Stanley v. City of Sanford

Stanley v. City of Sanford will impact the ability of county governments to balance budgets by reducing or eliminating post-employment benefits for disability retirees. 

Image of GettyImages-991802694.jpg
Advocacy

NACo Legal Advocacy: EMD Sales, Inc. v. Carrera

EMD Sales, Inc. v. Carrera could make it more difficult for county governments to prove exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which would increase the potential for costly litigation.

Related News

Image of Finance.jpg
Advocacy

NACo releases new SALT deduction resource

Counties urge Congress and the Administration to restore the full SALT deduction to restore fairness in taxation and preserve essential local services

THE_County Countdown_working_image-4.png
Advocacy

County Countdown – January 14, 2025

Every other week, NACo's County Countdown reviews top federal policy advocacy items with an eye towards counties and the intergovernmental partnership.

Social Security reform
Advocacy

Social Security Fairness Act signed into law

President Biden signed the bipartisan Social Security Fairness Act into law, repealing the Windfall Elimination Provision.

2164052442
Advocacy

Now accepting interim policy resolutions for the 2025 NACo Legislative Conference

Submit policy resolutions by February 5, 2025.

Capitol
Advocacy

U.S. Congress passes continuing resolution to fund the government until March 14, 2025

The U.S. Congress passed a second Continuing Resolution (CR) to extend federal spending and avert a government shutdown through March 14, 2025. 

GettyImages-1432990358.jpg
Advocacy

Congress Passes Landmark Outdoor Recreation Package

Lawmakers passed the bipartisan EXPLORE Act (H.R.6492) on December 19 to boost outdoor recreation opportunities on public lands for county residents and visitors and aid gateway communities

Upcoming Events

Image of b&w_GettyImages-1125719715_retired couple.png
Webinar

One Size Doesn’t Fit All: Help Employees Protect Their Retirement Income When it Matters Most, a NACo EDGE Webinar

Wednesday, September 18, 2024 |  1:00 - 2:00 PM ET

When it comes to retirement investments, your employees may need help choosing the right thing at the right time. Join Nationwide and NACo EDGE for this September 18 webinar to learn how you can help savers stay on track for retirement by offering automatic features that deliver in-plan lifetime income.

Can’t wait for the webinar? Learn more at our resource hub at nrsforu.com. You can also enjoy this quick read and watch a 2-minute video in Nationwide's nrsforu.com newsroom to learn more about helping employees be more confident in their retirement planning and explore other upcoming Nationwide webinars at nrsforu.com webinars

This webinar is brought to you by NACo EDGE, establishing people, purchasing, and performance cost-saving solutions that can be applied to counties nationwide. EDGE is owned by NACo, advised by county leaders and 100% focused on solutions for U.S. Counties. Learn more about NACo EDGE here.