Building contractors association filed action to have city’s sewer connection/capitalization fee declared unlawful because as an impermissible tax, rather than a fee for services.
The District Court held fee was lawful and dismissed complaint. Association appealed. The Supreme Court of Idaho vacated and remanded. On remand, the District Court entered summary judgment that fee was impermissible tax, treated the taking as regulatory taking and denied equitable defenses and awarded compensation and attorney fees and costs. City appealed, and association cross-appealed.
The Supreme Court of Idaho held that:
- Study on reasonableness of fee was relevant and should have been considered before trial court granted summary judgment on remand;
- Allowing city to present the evidence would not offend notions of fair play and justice;
- Association’s failure to file notice of claim under Idaho Tort Claims Act (ITCA) did not bar its federal takings claim;
- Association’s failure to seek review under Regulatory Takings Act did not bar its federal takings claim;
- Factual issues as to whether city conferred a benefit on association as result of sewer connection fee precluded summary judgment on city’s equitable defense of unjust enrichment; and
- Simple interest, rather than compound interest, applied to federal takings claim.
Study on reasonableness of city sewer connection/capitalization fee was relevant and should have been considered, after remand from Supreme Court, before trial court granted summary judgment to building contractors association that fee was impermissible tax; trial court misread Court’s reversal of prior summary judgment.
Allowing city to present evidence of reasonableness of city sewer connection/capitalization fee in response to building contractors association’s summary judgment motion following remand from Supreme Court decision would not offend notions of fair play and justice; city was not required to conclusively establish fee’s purpose when imposed, its evidence, construed in its favor, established case for reasonableness, and allowing determination to stand could lead to a windfall to developers at taxpayer expense.
Genuine issues of material fact arising from consulting study on city’s $2,280 sewer connection/capitalization fee precluded summary judgment for building contractors association that fee was impermissible tax.
Building contractors association’s failure to file notice of claim under Idaho Tort Claims Act (ITCA) did not bar its federal takings claim arising from city’s sewer connection/capitalization fee.
Building contractors association could not seek compensation under Regulatory Takings Act for city’s sewer connection/capitalization fee, and, thus, association’s failure to seek review under the Act did not bar its federal takings claim.
Genuine issues of material fact as to whether city conferred a benefit on building contractors association as result of sewer connection fee precluded summary judgment on city’s equitable defense of unjust enrichment in association’s suit challenging fee.
Simple interest, rather than compound interest, applied to federal takings claim, as post-judgment interest was a procedural matter governed by state law.