Legal Update: What The Crystal Ball Says About Koontz

by Miller Starr Regalia

As you may have heard, on June 25, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court released its decision in Koontz v. St. John’s River Water Management District 570 U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 2586 (2013).  Koontz has been hailed by property rights advocates as a major victory for property owners, and lamented by others as the end of collaboration between real estate developers and permitting agencies.  The impact of the case will not be clear for several years, but at this point it seems like there is more thunder than lightning. 

Coy Koontz owned an undeveloped 14.9 acre tract of Florida land.  The property was located in a designated wetland area.  Koontz sought permits from respondent St. John’s River Water Management District (“District”) to develop a 3.7 acre portion of his property.  He offered to mitigate the environmental impact of the development by providing the District with a conservation easement over approximately 11 acres of the land.  The District considered the 11-acre conservation easement to be inadequate.  It stated that it would approve the project only if Koontz agreed to either: (1) Reduce the size of the development to one acre and provide the District with the conservation easement over the remaining 13.9 acres; or (2)  Deed the 11 acre conservation easement to the District and also agree to pay for off-site improvements to District-owned land located several miles away.  Koontz rejected these proposed alternatives and sued.

The Supreme Court held:  (1) A development condition must meet the nexus and rough proportionality requirements even if the permit is denied; and (2) a demand for a monetary exaction must meet the same constitutional standards as a land dedication requirement.


The case arose from the relatively common discussions between a property owner and  permitting agency regarding conditions to be imposed.  The majority of the justices in Koontz treated the alternatives described by the District as demands.  Their analysis was based on the assumption that the requests for dedication of additional conservation easement area, or payment of a monetary exaction were, in essence, take it or leave it development requirements.  The dissent regarded the suggested options as merely part of a negotiating process.  But all nine justices agreed with the proposition that refusing to grant a development permit unless a property owner agreed to an unconstitutional condition was no different from granting the development permit on the condition that the over-reaching government demand was later satisfied. 

In practice, expect cities and counties to make clear in discussing potential conditions that the discussion is exploratory only, that no demands are being made, and that only the council or governing board can set conditions. In this regard, agencies will seek to discuss potential conditions in the context of the negotiation of a development agreement. 

A development agreement requires, by definition, negotiation and agreement between the parties.  Both parties are making concessions that would not otherwise be required.  It is hard to see how a suggestion made by a public agency as part of negotiating a development agreement could be construed as a demand that would invoke a Koontz analogy, absent extraordinary circumstances.  As long as the process is voluntary, it would seem that negotiations of potential development conditions in the context of a development agreement would eliminate the risk that a proposal by a city would be deemed an improper demand.  As a result, expect cities and counties to attempt to negotiate development agreements on a more frequent basis.


The second proposition decided by the Court was more controversial.  The Court held that monetary exactions must satisfy the same “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards as government demands for dedications of property.  The majority held that whether a property owner is required to dedicate land, or make an in lieu monetary payment of the same value, the impacts are the same.  In California, however, in lieu fees and similar monetary exactions calculated for and imposed on a specific development project have been analyzed under the strict constitutional standards for many years.  The Court’s specific holding, based on its facts, does not appear to create any significant change in California. 

The real question is whether this new heightened constitutional scrutiny will apply to development impact fees.  The Mitigation Fee Act, Gov’t Code §66000 et seq. requires that a local agency seeking to impose a fee as a condition of approval of a development project must determine, among other things, that there is a “reasonable relationship” between the fee’s use and the type of development on which the fee is imposed and between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility attributable to the development. 

Courts have held that the reasonable relationship standard of the Mitigation Fee Act differs from the heightened constitutional scrutiny required of project specific exactions.  Development impact fees applied to a broad class of properties have been judged on a lesser standard, and when in doubt, courts have deferred to the legislative body adopting the fee.  This may now change.

As with the monetary demand in Koontz, development impact fees apply to a specific, identified property interest and require the owner to make a specified payment as a condition of proceeding with development.  The impact fees may have been adopted as a result of an impact fee analysis which generally meets the “reasonable relationship” standard, but when applied to a specific project, the fees may be excessive, i.e. not “roughly proportional” to the specific project’s impacts. 

Although Koontz applicability to impact fees will not be known for some time, if a development impact fee looks like an individualized assessment on a particular piece of property, or if it seems excessive compared to the impact of a particular project, it is more likely to be required to pass the heightened constitutional requirements. 


So, does Koontz really change much for real estate developers in California?  A little, but not as much as proponents have claimed.  It means that cities and counties will have to be more careful about what they ask for and how they ask for it.  Lawsuits challenging impact fees may be considered by the courts using the stricter constitutional standards, which will make some agencies leery about being too aggressive in setting impact fees.  But for most development in California, the project will still need approval from the city council or agency governing board, and that approval is still discretionary. 


A more detailed discussion of Koontz will appear in the September Miller & Starr Newsalert.  If you have questions about how the Koontz case will affect you, or about other land use, eminent domain or takings issues, please contact the author.

Written by:

Miller Starr Regalia

Miller Starr Regalia on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.