News & Analysis as of

Impact Fees

Nossaman LLP

Legislatively Enacted Fees Have Another Day in Court

Nossaman LLP on

On Tuesday, June 24, 2025, the California Court of Appeal heard argument in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado. You may recall that the California Court of Appeal previously held that legislatively enacted development impact fees...more

Allen Matkins

2025 Land Use, Environmental & Natural Resources Update

Allen Matkins on

California stands at a pivotal juncture in 2025, confronting an array of environmental and housing challenges. As usual, the California State Legislature is considering numerous strategies to address these issues. This year’s...more

Allen Matkins

SB 937: Deferral of Residential Development Impact Fees

Allen Matkins on

Senate Bill (SB) 937 (Wiener) went into effect on January 1, 2025. SB 937 eases the financial burden on residential developers by prohibiting local agencies from imposing fees on specified residential development projects...more

Houston Harbaugh, P.C.

The Law of Unintended Consequences?

Houston Harbaugh, P.C. on

Pennsylvania Senate Bill 102 Moves Forward- On May 12, 2025, Pennsylvania Senate Bill 102 was referred to the Pennsylvania Senate Appropriations Committee. The draft legislation had originally been referred to the...more

Miller Starr Regalia

Sheetz v. El Dorado County: Death Knell for Development Fee Programs or Harbinger of Judicial Deference?

Miller Starr Regalia on

The United States Supreme Court’s most recent Takings case, Sheetz v. El Dorado County, California enunciated a seemingly simple holding, that legislatively-imposed development fees are not, as such, exempt from analysis...more

Lowndes

Osceola County Approves Increase to Impact Fees

Lowndes on

On September 9, 2024, the Osceola Board of County Commissioners voted to approve an increase to County mobility impact fees, which will substantially increase the cost of development in the County. Impact fees are a one-time...more

Blank Rome LLP

Massachusetts Superior Court Holds That New HCA Law Does Not Apply Retroactively

Blank Rome LLP on

On June 10, 2024, Associate Justice Jeffrey Karp, of the Massachusetts Superior Court, Essex (the “Court”), issued an important—and, to many licensed cannabis businesses in Massachusetts, surprising—ruling in the case of...more

Allen Matkins

New California Assembly Committee Aims to Reduce Permitting Obstacles for Housing and Climate Projects

Allen Matkins on

The Assembly Select Committee on Permitting Reform held its first hearing on June 18, 2024, commencing its efforts to address California’s housing and climate crises by reforming the state’s land use permitting regime....more

Lowndes

Update to Proposed Impact Fees in Osceola County, St. Cloud, and Mt. Dora

Lowndes on

Osceola County and St. Cloud have proposed increases to some of their impact fees as further discussed in  “Osceola County, St. Cloud, and Mt. Dora Propose Massive Increases to Impact Fees”. After hosting required public...more

Lowndes

Osceola County, St. Cloud, and Mt. Dora Propose Massive Increases to Impact Fees

Lowndes on

Osceola County, City of St. Cloud, and City of Mt. Dora are all set to vote on proposed increases to impact fees that, if approved, will substantially increase the cost of development in these jurisdictions. Below is...more

Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass

Supreme Court Impact Fee Decision Creates Opportunities for Developers and Property Owners

On April 12, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion that may significantly affect how development impact fees are assessed in California. In Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, the Court unanimously held that...more

Holland & Knight LLP

Permit Conditions and Impact Fees Subject of Recent U.S. Supreme Court Decision

Holland & Knight LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court in April 2024 issued a unanimous decision in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California (144 S. Ct. 893), concluding that the "Takings Clause" in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution applies to...more

Stoel Rives -  Ahead of Schedule

The United States Supreme Court Determines There Is No Distinction Between Legislative and Administrative Takings

In a typical permitting process, the local government may place certain conditions on issuing a building permit to further a legitimate public purpose.  While the local government has “substantial authority to regulate land...more

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP

Sheetz v. County of El Dorado: The Supreme Court's Latest Restraint on Development Fees

On April 12, 2024, Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California, 601 U.S. 267, 144 S. Ct. 893 (2024). Sheetz concerned El Dorado County's imposition of...more

Polsinelli

SCOTUS Decision May Limit Municipalities’ Ability to Collect Impact Fees

Polsinelli on

In April, the Supreme Court held in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California that the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution applies to legislative land-use conditions, such as impact fees. This will result in...more

Troutman Pepper Locke

Massachusetts Cannabis Firms Contest Alleged Misdocumentation of Community Impact Fees

Troutman Pepper Locke on

Recent developments in the Massachusetts cannabis industry, significant legislative changes, and legal actions have spotlighted the contentious issue of so-called community impact fees. These fees, which are intended to...more

Downey Brand LLP

U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Legislatively-imposed Permit Conditions Must Satisfy the ‘Essential Nexus’ and ‘Rough...

Downey Brand LLP on

In a highly-anticipated case revolving around development impact fees, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, 144 S.Ct. 893 (2024) that legislatively-imposed conditions on building permits...more

Cozen O'Connor

U.S. Supreme Court Revisits the Right of Local Government to Exact Permit Conditions from Developers

Cozen O'Connor on

The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has again rejected a state's narrow interpretation of the constitutional limits on government's ability to impose development conditions. A unanimous SCOTUS ruled on April 12 in favor of the...more

Sands Anderson PC

Sheetz v. County of El Dorado: Chipping Away at Elected Officials’ Power Over Development Costs

Sands Anderson PC on

The US Supreme Court’s decision in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado earlier this month will affect how local governments impose impact fees in the future and who pays certain development costs....more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

What the Sheetz: Where California Development Impact Fees Stand Following Recent Supreme Court Decision

Undoubtedly, development impact fees (DIFs) can make or break the pro forma of any development project. Until this month, developers hoping to challenge the assessment of project-related DIFs were often limited in the causes...more

Latham & Watkins LLP

US Supreme Court Decision Invites Scrutiny of Legislatively Imposed Impact Fees

Latham & Watkins LLP on

The unanimous opinion holds that development impact fees established through the legislative process are subject to constitutional scrutiny as potential regulatory takings. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the...more

Allen Matkins

Sustainable Development and Land Use Update 4.18.24

Allen Matkins on

On April 12, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its much-anticipated ruling in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado. The case concerned the legality of a local jurisdiction’s imposition of a traffic impact...more

Rosenberg Martin Greenberg LLP

Supreme Court Leaves the Sheetz Out In Takings Case

When the government wants to take private property for a public project, it must compensate the owner at fair market value. The just compensation concept comes from the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, which provides: “nor...more

Otten Johnson Robinson Neff + Ragonetti PC

U.S. Supreme Court: Legislative Impact Fees Can Be Unconstitutional Exactions Too

Last week, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California, in which the Court held that for the purpose of a takings claim there is no distinction in whether permit conditions...more

Saul Ewing LLP

U.S. Supreme Court Decides Two Takings Cases in One Week

Saul Ewing LLP on

It is rare for the Supreme Court to decide cases involving the Constitution’s Takings Clause, and, indeed, not uncommon for the Court to go years without considering the Clause at all; so, when the Court issues two decisions...more

113 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 5

"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:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide