5750 Post Road Medical Offices, LLC v. East Greenwich Fire District
138 A.3d 163
R.I.2016Background
- In 2002 the East Greenwich Fire District’s Board adopted a resolution imposing development impact fees on developers within the Town of East Greenwich; fees were to be spent on fire-related capital facilities and must be expended or encumbered within eight years.
- Several developers paid fees between 2009–2013 and then sued, seeking declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and refunds, alleging (1) the fire district lacked authority under RIDIFA to impose such fees and (2) the fees were improperly adopted because they were enacted by resolution rather than ordinance and without required notice/hearings.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the fire district’s charter (P.L. 1998, ch. 26, § 10) vested it with all rights, powers, and privileges conferred upon towns by Title 45 (including RIDIFA), and that the board complied with RIDIFA when adopting the fee schedule.
- The Superior Court granted defendants’ motion and denied plaintiffs’ cross-motion; plaintiffs appealed.
- The Supreme Court held that even if the fire district had statutory authority under its charter, the board failed to adopt the impact fees with the procedural formalities required by RIDIFA (i.e., by ordinance with notice and public hearing), and therefore vacated the Superior Court judgment and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for plaintiffs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the fire district had statutory authority under RIDIFA to impose impact fees | Fire district is not a city/town or recognized unit of local government under RIDIFA; §10 should not be read to grant broad Title 45 powers | §10 of the fire district charter grants “all rights, powers and privileges conferred upon towns by Title 45,” so RIDIFA authority attaches | Court avoided resolving full scope of authority because of dispositive procedural defect; did not decide precise breadth of §10 but noted §10 must be read sensibly |
| Whether RIDIFA requires adoption of impact fees by ordinance (not resolution) | Fees must be adopted as ordinances with formalities (notice, public hearing); resolution adoption was insufficient | The substance controls; a resolution that is in effect an ordinance suffices if all formalities were met | Held RIDIFA clearly requires adoption by ordinance with applicable procedural formalities; the board did not follow those formalities |
| Whether the fire district complied with notice and public‑hearing requirements for ordinances | No evidence of required publication or hearings; plaintiffs requested but defendants produced only meeting minutes | Board acted at a regular meeting and treated the action as legislative; semantics do not matter | Held defendants produced no evidence of required publication/notice or hearings; adoption without those formalities was invalid |
| Proper remedy based on procedural defect | Plaintiffs sought declaratory relief, injunction, and refunds of fees paid | Defendants sought judgment affirming validity and retention/spending of fees | Court vacated Superior Court judgment for defendants and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for plaintiffs (i.e., fees invalid) |
Key Cases Cited
- Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association of Rhode Island v. Charlesgate Nursing Center, L.P., 115 A.3d 998 (R.I. 2015) (standard of review for cross-motions for summary judgment)
- Quest Diagnostics, LLC v. Pinnacle Consortium of Higher Education, 93 A.3d 949 (R.I. 2014) (summary judgment standards)
- Western Reserve Life Assurance Co. of Ohio v. ADM Associates, LLC, 116 A.3d 794 (R.I. 2015) (statutory construction reviewed de novo)
- Hough v. McKiernan, 108 A.3d 1030 (R.I. 2015) (statutory interpretation principles)
- In re Tetreault, 11 A.3d 635 (R.I. 2011) (examining statute as whole when ambiguous)
- Harvard Pilgrim Health Care of New England, Inc. v. Rossi, 847 A.2d 286 (R.I. 2004) (statutory-construction guidance)
- Miller v. Saunders, 80 A.3d 44 (R.I. 2013) (apply unambiguous statute as written)
- Morel v. Napolitano, 64 A.3d 1176 (R.I. 2013) (statutory interpretation principles)
- Peloquin v. Haven Health Center of Greenville, LLC, 61 A.3d 419 (R.I. 2013) (presumption that every statutory word has effect)
- Hanley v. State, 837 A.2d 707 (R.I. 2003) (legislative intent guides statutory construction)
- National Refrigeration, Inc. v. Capital Properties, Inc., 88 A.3d 1150 (R.I. 2014) (contextual statutory reading)
- North End Realty, LLC v. Mattos, 25 A.3d 527 (R.I. 2011) (RIDIFA discussed as specific enabling statute for municipalities)
- O’Connell v. Bruce, 710 A.2d 674 (R.I. 1998) (substance-over-form: a resolution can equal an ordinance if passed with ordinance formalities)
- L.A. Ray Realty v. Town Council of Cumberland, 603 A.2d 311 (R.I. 1992) (notice/hearing requirements give affected owners opportunity to be heard)