Kidd Constr. Grp., LLC v. Greenville Utilities Comm'n
Decision Date | 19 May 2020 |
Docket Number | No. COA19-910,COA19-910 |
Citation | 845 S.E.2d 797,271 N.C.App. 392 |
Parties | KIDD CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC, Rocky Russell Builders, Inc., and Tommy Williams Builders, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. GREENVILLE UTILITIES COMMISSION, Defendant. |
Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Whitfield, Bryson, and Mason, LLP, by Daniel K. Bryson, Martha A. Geer, Scott C. Harris, and J. Hunter Bryson, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Hartzog Law Group, LLC, by Dan M. Hartzog, Jr., and Katherine Barber-Jones, for Defendant-Appellee.
Kidd Construction Group, LLC, Rocky Russell Builders, Inc., and Tommy Williams Builders, Inc. (collectively "Plaintiffs") appeal from the trial court's order entering summary judgment in favor of Greenville Utilities Commission ("Defendant" or "GUC"). On appeal, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant lacked the authority to charge impact fees for water and sewer services and that the charging of such fees is ultra vires . Plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in concluding otherwise and that we must reverse the trial court's order. For the following reasons, we agree with Plaintiffs.
The North Carolina General Assembly created GUC, a local government entity ("LGE") in 1991 by passing Session Law 1991-861, "An Act to Amend and Restate the Charter of the Greenville Utilities Commission of the City of Greenville" (the "Charter"). The bill delegated power to GUC for "the proper management of the public utilities of the City of Greenville," including "electric, natural gas, water, and sewer services[.]" GUC provides water and sewer services to all of Pitt County.
GUC's Charter states in pertinent part:
An Act to Amend and Restate the Charter of the Greenville Utilities Commission of the City of Greenville, ch. 861, §§ 5-7, 1992 N.C. Sess. Law 370, 373-74 (hereinafter "S.L. 1991-861").
Starting in 2008, at the time of a developer's application for water and sewer service, GUC began requiring contractors and developers of new construction and new developments to pay service connection fees, which consist of two components: a tapping fee and a capacity fee. The tapping fee recovers the cost for physically making a service tap. Capacity fees, or impact fees, are collected in an effort to "recover a proportional share of the cost of capital facilities constructed to provide service capacity for new development or new customers connecting to the water/sewer system." Capacity fees are imposed as a precondition to development approval, to the issuance of building permits, and to receiving service.
In 2016, our Supreme Court decided Quality Built Homes v. Town of Carthage , 369 N.C. 15, 789 S.E.2d 454 (2016) (" Quality Built Homes I "), which examined the Town of Carthage's authority to impose impact fees on developers as a precondition for the issuance of building permits. The Court concluded that municipalities, including Carthage, did not have the statutory authority to impose impact fees for future services. Id. at 20-21, 789 S.E.2d at 458. Subsequent appeals led our Supreme Court to hold that a municipality's liability to refund unlawful impact fee revenue was subject to a three-year statute of limitations. Quality Built Homes v. Town of Carthage , 371 N.C. 60, 74, 813 S.E.2d 218, 228-29 (2018) (" Quality Built Homes II ").
In response to our Supreme Court's holding in Quality Built Homes I , on 20 July 2017 the General Assembly enacted the Public Water and Sewer System Development Fee Act ("the Act" or "System Development Fee Act") to clarify a local government utility's authority to assess upfront charges for water and sewer services. S.L. 2017-138, 2017 N.C. Sess. Laws 996, 996-1002 (codified at N.C. Gen. Stat. § 162A-200 –215 (2019)). The law grants local government utilities specific authority to assess one type of upfront charge—a system development fee—as long as that fee is calculated in accordance with the statute's "written analysis" process. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 162A-205 (2019). The Act became effective on 1 October 2017, providing, "Nothing in this act provides retroactive authority for any system development fee, or any similar fee for water or sewer services to be furnished, collected by a local government unit prior to October 1, 2017." S.L. 2017-138 § 11.
After the legislature passed the System Development Fee Act, GUC hired Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. ("Raftelis"), an independent financial consultant, to perform the financial study required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 162A-205. GUC adopted Raftelis's new fee calculation system, which became effective on 1 July 2018.
Plaintiffs are North Carolina licensed general contractors who work in and around the Greenville, North Carolina area. Plaintiffs initiated a class action suit on 24 April 2018, alleging that Defendant lacked the authority to collect impact fees from the three years prior to the commencement of the action, and thus within the three-year statute of limitations period, and sought recovery of all impact fees paid within that time period—totaling $1.2 million dollars. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on 4 March 2019 contending that its Charter authorized GUC to collect impact fees prior to the enactment of the System Development Act. On 20 May 2019, Judge Lamont Wiggins heard arguments on Defendant's motion for summary judgment and entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant on 3 June 2019.
Plaintiffs timely noticed appeal.
On appeal, Plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred by granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment because GUC's Charter does not specifically authorize GUC to charge impact fees for future water and sewer services. Plaintiffs further argue that GUC's Charter only authorizes the charging of uniform rates and charges, not impact fees. Finally, Plaintiffs argue that the charging of impact fees is outside the authority of GUC because these fees are not reasonably necessary or expedient to carry GUC's express powers into execution and effect.
After careful review, we conclude that GUC does not possess the authority to charge impact fees and that the charging of such fees was ultra vires . We therefore do not reach Plaintiffs’ arguments in the alternative.
"Summary judgment is properly granted when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgement as a matter of law." Campbell v. Duke Univ. Health Sys, Inc. , 203 N.C. App. 37, 42, 691 S.E.2d 31, 35 (2010) (citations and marks omitted). This Court reviews a trial court's ruling on summary judgment de novo. Forbis v. Neal , 361 N.C. 519, 524, 649 S.E.2d 382, 385 (2007). "The de novo standard also applies to questions of statutory interpretation." JVC Enters., LLC v. City of Concord , ––– N.C. App. ––––,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Anderson Creek Partners, L.P. v. Cnty. of Harnett
...Id.Our Court addressed similar language enabling a utilities commission to collect fees in Kidd Construction Group, LLC, v. Greenville Utilities Commission , ––– N.C. App. ––––, 845 S.E.2d 797 (2020). In Kidd , the Greenville Utilities Commission (the "GUC"), a local government entity creat......
-
Daedalus, LLC v. City of Charlotte
...1 October 2017.¶ 26 After the enactment of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 162A-201 in 2017, this Court decided Kidd Constr. Grp., LLC v. Greenville Utils. Comm'n , 271 N.C. App. 392, 845 S.E.2d 797 (2020). There, starting in 2008, the city of Greenville began charging capacity fees at the time of a deve......
-
Daedalus, LLC v. City of Charlotte
...¶ 26 After the enactment of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 162A-201 in 2017, this Court decided Kidd Constr. Grp., LLC v. Greenville Utils. Comm'n, 271 N.C.App. 392, 845 S.E.2d 797 (2020). There, starting in 2008, the city of Greenville began charging capacity fees at the time of a developer's applicati......