Title
County Counsel recommending the Board:
1) Consider the various options for refunding development impact fees that were ordered by the court to be refunded in the Thomas Austin and Helen Austin v. County of El Dorado et al. litigation (Case Number PC20150633);
2) Direct staff to issue partial refunds by direct payment to the current record owners of eligible parcels as of the last equalized assessment roll, with payment amounts prorated based on the proportional relationship between the amount of fees actually paid on an eligible parcel and the amount of funds subject to refund pursuant to the Settlement Agreements; and
3) Direct staff to develop a claims process to facilitate the refunds, proceed with the refunds once the claims process is implemented, and to return to the Board in approximately six months with a status update on the refunds.
FUNDING: TIM/TIF funds, El Dorado Hills Community Services District Park & Recreation Impact Fee Fund, El Dorado Hills County Water District Fire Impact Fee Fund.
Body
DISCUSSION / BACKGROUND
On December 2, 2015, petitioners Thomas and Helen Austin filed a petition for writ of mandate alleging that the County failed to make required findings under California’s Mitigation Fee Act (MFA). Most of the issues in this case were issues of first impression and included an intermediate decision by the Court of Appeal to determine the proper statute of limitation applicable to this type of petition. In recognition of the complexity of this case, the trial court and the parties agreed to hear the case in three phases: preliminary procedural issues (Phase 1), substantive issues (Phase 2), and refund/remedies issues (Phase 3), with separate briefing for each phase.
Phase 1 of the trial began on January 10, 2023. The Court held that petitioners have “public interest standing” to pursue their claims even though they did not pay many of the county fees at issue. The Court also ruled that the County’s biological in-lieu fees (oak r...
Click here for full text