Impact fee pro­grams like one in Pitkin Coun­ty uncon­sti­tu­tion­al, attor­ney says

(The Cen­ter Square) – An attor­ney who worked on a recent U.S. Supreme Court case strik­ing down a local government’s use of “sub­stan­tial” impact fees in Cal­i­for­nia says sim­i­lar fees in Pitkin Coun­ty, Col­orado, also are uncon­sti­tu­tion­al.
The court’s rul­ing in Sheetz v. Coun­ty of El Dora­do cen­tered on a res­i­dent who wished to build a pre­fab­ri­cat­ed house on his prop­er­ty, but the coun­ty charged a $23,420 traf­fic impact fee for a build­ing per­mit. 
The court, using a two-part test “mod­eled on the uncon­sti­tu­tion­al con­di­tions doc­trine,” said per­mit con­di­tions must have “essen­tial nexus” to a local government’s land-use inter­ests …