Housing First Minnesota v. City of Corcoran, Minnesota, et al.

The Cities of Corcoran and Dayton, Minnesota (the “Cities”) impose valuation-based permit fees on residential building permit applicants. A valuation-based permit fee schedule, generally speaking, becomes more costly as the construction value increases. Housing First Minnesota (“Housing First” or “Petitioner”), a trade association representing home builders operating in the Cities, brought suit asserting that the Cities’ building permit fees violate the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. Housing First also alleged that the building permit fees were not proportionate with the actual cost of the services provided and thus violate Minn. R. 1300.0160, Subp. 2. A Minnesota trial court granted the Cities summary judgment on all claims. The Minnesota Court of Appeals DIÀUPHG GLVPLVVDO RI WKH WDNLQJV FODLPV 7KH FRXUW RI DSSHDOV ÀUVW UHPDUNHG WKDW ´>W@KH WDNLQJV FODXVH ZDV applicable in Koontz because the governmental authority conditioned the issuance of a land-use permit on a grant by the landowner of an easement—an interest in the landowner’s real property.” The court then concluded that the Cities’ building permit fees were “user fees” not subject to the Takings Clause. The court simultaneously reversed dismissal of Petitioner’s claims under state law and remanded those claims to the district court. The Minnesota Supreme Court declined discretionary review regarding the takings claims. The questions presented are: 1. Whether valuation-based building permit fees are exempt from unconstitutional conditions analysis under Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, 570 U.S. 595 (2013).