Home Builders Ass'n of Savannah v. Chatham
| Decision Date | 24 February 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. S02A1291.,S02A1291. |
| Citation | 276 Ga. 243,577 S.E.2d 564 |
| Parties | HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF SAVANNAH, INC. v. CHATHAM COUNTY. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Page, Scrantom, Sprouse, Tucker & Ford, Deron R. Hicks, George G. Boyd Jr., Columbus, for appellant.
Jonathan Hart, Emily E. Garrard, Savannah, for appellee.
Home Builders Association of Savannah, Inc. sued Chatham County alleging that certain fees charged by various county departments for the issuance of building permits, and other fees related to real estate development, exceed the true cost of services for which the fees are charged and are not rationally related to cost of the services being provided. The multi-count complaint alleged an illegal tax; a deprivation of property without due process of law under both the Georgia and Federal Constitutions; a violation of OCGA § 48-13-9(a) (); and violation of the Georgia Development Impact Fee Act, OCGA § 36-71-1 et seq. The County denied that the fees are disproportionate to the services rendered, as well as all other allegations in the complaint.
Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed. Based solely on the written submissions of the parties, the trial court granted summary judgment to the County, and denied summary judgment to Home Builders. Because material issues of fact remain to be decided in order to resolve the parties' claims, we reverse the grant of summary judgment.
Chatham County Department of Building Safety and Regulatory Services ("Inspections") issues building permits, certificates of occupancy, and enforces zoning ordinances and building codes in the unincorporated portions of Chatham County, also known as the Special Service District ("SSD"). Inspections collects fees for the issuance of building permits and certificates of occupancy in addition to other fees in order to fund the services it provides. Fees obtained by Inspections are placed in the SSD special revenue fund. Any fees in excess of Inspections' operating costs are placed in an account called the SSD reserve fund restricted revenue account ("SSD reserve account").
Prior to 2000, Inspections charged a building permit fee for new residential or commercial construction of $2 per thousand dollars of construction value, at a valuation rate of $39 per square foot of building. By January 2000, the SSD reserve account showed a surplus of almost two million dollars. Nonetheless, in that month the permit fee was increased to $3.50 per thousand dollars of construction and the valuation rate was increased to $45 per square foot. In June 2002, the permit fee was reduced to the pre-2002 level, but the valuation rate remained unchanged.
The County's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report provides that the SSD reserve account "is restricted for refunds to Inspections customers pursuant to OCGA § 48-13-9."1 No refunds have been made to Inspections customers. Instead, the funds accumulated in the SSD reserve account were expended as follows: In 1998 the County Engineering Department and Metropolitan Planning Commission ("MPC") received...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
RES–GA SCL, LLC. v. Stonecrest Land, LLC
...summary judgment de novo and construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Home Builders Assn. of Savannah v. Chatham County, 276 Ga. 243, 245(1), 577 S.E.2d 564 (2003).So construed, the record shows that in March 2007, Stonecrest Land, LLC entered into a commercial pr......
-
Avery v. Paulding Cnty. Airport Auth.
...Ansley v. Raczka–Long, 293 Ga. 138, 140 (2), 744 S.E.2d 55 (2013) (citations omitted); see also Home Builders Assn. of Savannah v. Chatham County, 276 Ga. 243, 245 (1), 577 S.E.2d 564 (2003). Our review is de novo. See Ansley, 293 Ga. at 140 (2), 744 S.E.2d 55.In their motion for summary ju......
-
Eley v. Fedee
...judgment de novo and construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. See Home Builders Assn. of Savannah v. Chatham County , 276 Ga. 243, 245 (1), 577 S.E.2d 564 (2003). So viewed, the record shows that Fedee admits that she was at fault for an accident in which she pull......
-
Kleber v. City of Atlanta
...summary judgment de novo and construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Home Builders Assn. of Savannah v. Chatham County, 276 Ga. 243, 245(1), 577 S.E.2d 564 (2003). 1. The appellants contend the court erred by finding that their nuisance claims were barred by the ......
-
Local Government Law - R. Perry Sentell, Jr.
...that the ordinance "on its face, violates the home rule provision of the Georgia Constitution." Id. at 368, 578 S.E.2d at 853. 214. 276 Ga. 243, 577 S.E.2d 564 (2003). 215. Id. at 244, 577 S.E.2d at 565. The county Inspections Department issues building permits, certificates of occupancy, a......