Wash. Townhomes v. Wash.Co.
2016 UT 43
| Utah | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs (property developers/owners) brought a putative class action challenging Washington County Water Conservancy District’s "water availability charge" impact fees as violating Utah’s Impact Fees Act and constituting a constitutional taking.
- District based its impact fees on a "level of service" standard tied to the Utah Division of Drinking Water (DDW) minimum source capacity standard; District contends the DDW standard is mandatory and legislative in nature.
- The district court granted the District partial summary judgment, holding the DDW-based level of service was legal and reasonable as a matter of law, and certified the order under Utah R. Civ. P. 54(b) for immediate appeal.
- The plaintiffs timely appealed; the Utah Supreme Court considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal and whether to treat the filings as a petition for interlocutory review under Utah R. App. P. 5(a).
- The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the district court’s order was not a final "judgment as to one or more but fewer than all claims or parties" under Rule 54(b).
- The Court exercised its discretion to decline interlocutory review, finding the legal and factual questions (e.g., whether the DDW standard is binding and whether Dolan applies) were insufficiently developed on the record to warrant appellate resolution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court order was certifiable under Utah R. Civ. P. 54(b) | The order resolved a critical threshold legal issue warranting immediate appeal | Certification appropriate to obtain appellate guidance on level-of-service legality | Not certifiable: no final "judgment" disposing of a claim or party; Rule 54(b) certification vacated for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether the DDW level-of-service standard immunizes the District’s impact fees from Dolan review | DDW’s legislative adoption does not avoid Dolan takings analysis; fees still subject to heightened review | A legislatively adopted, mandatory DDW standard makes the fee regime non-adjudicative and thus not subject to Dolan; alternativelty, if binding, the standard precisely measures impact | Not reached on merits: Court declined interlocutory review because record/briefing inadequate to resolve whether Dolan applies |
| Whether the District was legally required to build to the DDW standard, affecting fee calculation | Plaintiffs: even if DDW sets facility standards, impact fees must be based on actual usage evidence; DDW rules weren’t meant for impact-fee calculations | District: if legally bound to DDW standards, required facilities create a precise measure of new-development impact, justifying fees | Not reached: factual and legal questions about binding nature of DDW standard inadequately developed |
| Whether appellate intervention is warranted before final judgment (interlocutory review under Rule 5) | Plaintiffs: appellate resolution of threshold principles would promote efficiency and is necessary | District: same position favoring review; both urged resolution | Denied: Court exercised discretion to refuse interlocutory review, remanding for further proceedings in district court |
Key Cases Cited
- Mellor v. Wasatch Crest Mut. Ins., 282 P.3d 981 (Utah 2012) (general rule favoring appeals only from final judgments)
- Powell v. Cannon, 179 P.3d 799 (Utah 2008) (definition of a Rule 54(b) "judgment")
- Houghton v. Dep’t of Health, 206 P.3d 287 (Utah 2008) (standards for interlocutory appellate review)
- Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (U.S. 1994) (takings test for adjudicative exactions)
- Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., 133 S. Ct. 2586 (U.S. 2013) (limitations and guidance on Nollan/Dolan takings framework)
- Platt v. Town of Torrey, 949 P.2d 325 (Utah 1997) (deference/rational-basis standard in agency rate-making decisions)