NORTHERN ILL. HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION v. County of Du Page
649 N.E.2d 384, 208 Ill. Dec. 328, 165 Ill. 2d 25 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A government may impose transportation impact fees on new property development without effecting an unconstitutional taking, provided the enabling statute requires that the need for the road improvements funded by the fees is "specifically and uniquely attributable" to the new development paying the fee, and that the new development receives a direct and material benefit from the improvements.
Facts:
- The Illinois legislature passed an enabling statute, effective January 1, 1988, allowing certain counties to establish transportation impact districts and collect fees from new developments to maintain a 'reasonable level of service' on the highway system.
- Pursuant to this first statute, Du Page County passed an ordinance on November 22, 1988, imposing impact fees to ensure new development paid a 'fair share' of transportation improvement costs.
- The legislature repealed the first act and passed the Road Improvement Impact Fee Law on July 26, 1989 (the second enabling act), which provided a more comprehensive scheme for impact fees.
- This second act explicitly required that any fee imposed could not exceed a proportionate share of costs 'specifically and uniquely attributable to the new development paying the fee.'
- Du Page County subsequently passed new ordinances to conform to the second, stricter enabling act.
- The Northern Illinois Home Builders Association and other developers were required to pay these impact fees as a condition for receiving building permits for their new construction projects in Du Page County.
Procedural Posture:
- Northern Illinois Home Builders Association, Inc. (plaintiffs) filed a complaint in the circuit court of Du Page County (trial court) seeking a declaratory judgment that state enabling statutes and county ordinances imposing transportation impact fees were unconstitutional.
- After a bench trial, the circuit court denied the plaintiffs' complaint and upheld the legislation.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court.
- The appellate court affirmed that both enabling acts were constitutional but found a forfeiture provision in one county ordinance to be unconstitutional, ruling it was severable from the rest of the ordinance.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) petitioned for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do state enabling statutes and the county ordinances enacted under them, which impose transportation impact fees on new real estate development, constitute an unconstitutional taking of private property in violation of the United States and Illinois Constitutions?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Harrison
The first enabling statute constitutes an unconstitutional taking, while the second enabling statute is constitutional. The court applied Illinois' strict 'specifically and uniquely attributable' test from Pioneer Trust, which requires that the need for road improvements be directly caused by the new development and that the development receive a direct and material benefit from the improvements funded by its fees. The first enabling act failed this test because its language was too broad, allowing fees to be used for general road maintenance ('reasonable level of service') and for improvements in adjacent areas, which did not guarantee a direct benefit to the fee payer. Therefore, the first act was unconstitutional. The second enabling act, however, is constitutional because it explicitly incorporated the 'specifically and uniquely attributable' standard, ensuring the necessary nexus and proportionality between the development's impact and the fee charged. The court also rejected claims that the second act constituted special legislation, an unconstitutional property tax, or a violation of the uniformity clause, finding the fees to be a valid regulatory service charge based on a reasonable classification. Finally, the court struck down a provision in the county ordinance that penalized developers for appealing their fee amount as a violation of the Equal Protection and Uniformity clauses, but found this provision severable from the rest of the valid ordinance.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the 'specifically and uniquely attributable' test from Pioneer Trust as the controlling standard for development exactions and impact fees in Illinois. It clarifies that for such a fee scheme to be constitutional, the enabling legislation must explicitly limit the use of funds to improvements necessitated by the new development and ensure a direct benefit to that development. The ruling provides a clear constitutional roadmap for municipalities seeking to impose impact fees, while invalidating broader, more generalized funding mechanisms as unconstitutional takings. It reinforces that developers cannot be forced to bear public burdens that, in fairness, should be borne by the community as a whole.
