Colorado Politics reports that the Colorado Court of Appeals has ruled local governments may impose development impact fees not only on brand-new construction on raw land, but also on major demolition-and-rebuild projects. The case involved Carroll Partners LLC, which challenged Pitkin County’s nearly $950,000 Employee Housing Impact Fee on a project to demolish an existing single-family home and replace it with another one.
The property at issue was not exactly a starter bungalow with a sad lawn chair out front. Carroll Partners bought a 14,807-square-foot home and proposed replacing it with a 14,791-square-foot home. Pitkin County argued the project generated workforce impacts tied to construction and employee housing needs. The Court of Appeals agreed that “new development” under state law is not limited to empty dirt getting its first building.
The Bullet Point Brief
- The Court of Appeals ruled 3-0 that local governments can impose impact fees on major reconstruction projects, not just development on raw land. In other words, scrape-offs do not get to pretend they are invisible.
- Carroll Partners argued “new development” should mean developing a raw parcel or changing the use of land. The court said, nice try, but the statute is not that narrow.
- Pitkin County charged a nearly $948,544 Employee Housing Impact Fee on the project. That is not a typo. That is a fee with its own zip code.
- The old home was 14,807 square feet. The proposed new one was 14,791 square feet. So yes, it is a big-assed house replacing a big-assed house, but the government still needs to justify big-assed fees.
- The court’s logic was that construction workers and the workforce needed to build and maintain these homes create impacts too. That part makes sense. The price tag is where reasonable walks into the weeds and starts talking to itself.
My Bottom Line
I think the Court of Appeals got the process right. Local governments do real work on these projects. Plan review is work. Permitting is work. Building inspection is work. Staff time is not free just because a developer would prefer it to be.
If a specific project generates more work for the county, the cost of that work should not be spread across every taxpayer in the county. It should be paid by the project creating the workload. That is basic fairness, and it is one of the few places where a government fee can make sense without needing three consultants and a ceremonial ribbon cutting.
But here is where local government gets you. The process can be valid while the fee is absolutely nuts. Carroll Partners may be fighting the wrong battlefield if the argument is that the county has no authority to charge anything. The better fight is over the amount. A 14,791-square-foot replacement house is obviously not a weekend shed permit. But a $948,544 impact fee is outrageous enough to make your calculator ask for a lawyer.
That is the trick. Government often wraps an unreasonable number inside a reasonable process. The public hears “impact fee” and thinks, fair enough. Then the bill shows up looking like a ransom note from the Department of Affordability Prevention. Carroll Partners has every right to be righteously ticked about the cost. But the basic principle that projects should pay for the staff time and impacts they create is sound.
So yes, I side with the court on the authority. But Pitkin County should not confuse “we may charge a fee” with “we may back a dump truck up to the applicant’s wallet.” That distinction matters. Local government should recover costs, not use the permitting counter as an ATM with zoning maps.
Source: Colorado Politics
Share your thoughts...