{ "id": 12420142, "name": "QUALITY BUILT HOMES INCORPORATED and STAFFORD LAND COMPANY, INC. v. TOWN OF CARTHAGE", "name_abbreviation": "Quality Built Homes Inc. v. Town of Carthage", "decision_date": "2016-08-19", "docket_number": "No. 315PA15", "first_page": "15", "last_page": "22", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "369 N.C. 15" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "776 S.E.2d 897", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12643749, 12643750, 12643751, 12643752, 12643753, 12643754, 12643755, 12643756, 12643757, 12643758, 12643759, 12643760, 12643761, 12643762 ], "year": 2015, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/776/0897-01", "/se2d/776/0897-02", "/se2d/776/0897-03", "/se2d/776/0897-04", "/se2d/776/0897-05", "/se2d/776/0897-06", "/se2d/776/0897-07", "/se2d/776/0897-08", "/se2d/776/0897-09", "/se2d/776/0897-10", "/se2d/776/0897-11", "/se2d/776/0897-12", "/se2d/776/0897-13", "/se2d/776/0897-14" ] }, { "cite": "776 S.E.2d 897", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12643749, 12643750, 12643751, 12643752, 12643753, 12643754, 12643755, 12643756, 12643757, 12643758, 12643759, 12643760, 12643761, 12643762 ], "weight": 8, "year": 2015, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "unpublished" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/776/0897-01", "/se2d/776/0897-02", "/se2d/776/0897-03", "/se2d/776/0897-04", "/se2d/776/0897-05", "/se2d/776/0897-06", "/se2d/776/0897-07", "/se2d/776/0897-08", "/se2d/776/0897-09", "/se2d/776/0897-10", "/se2d/776/0897-11", "/se2d/776/0897-12", "/se2d/776/0897-13", "/se2d/776/0897-14" ] }, { "cite": "95 S.E. 481", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1918, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "482", "parenthetical": "noting that county demands for additional authority, such as \"raising of proper funds ... for improvements in some fixed place or in restricted territory . . . can only be conferred by legislative enactment\" (citations omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "175 N.C. 215", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8658305 ], "year": 1918, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "218", "parenthetical": "noting that county demands for additional authority, such as \"raising of proper funds ... for improvements in some fixed place or in restricted territory . . . can only be conferred by legislative enactment\" (citations omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/175/0215-01" ] }, { "cite": "1987 N.C. Sess. Laws 609", "category": "laws:leg_session", "reporter": "N.C. Sess. Laws", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "136 S.E. 612", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1927, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "619", "parenthetical": "\"If the courts attempt to read into the law words of their own..., then this would amount to erecting a legislative despotism of five men_\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "193 N.C. 36", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2217799 ], "year": 1927, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "47", "parenthetical": "\"If the courts attempt to read into the law words of their own..., then this would amount to erecting a legislative despotism of five men_\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/193/0036-01" ] }, { "cite": "675 S.E.2d 641", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "649", "parenthetical": "We \"presum[e] that the legislature carefully chose each word used.\" (citation omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "363 N.C. 189", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4150708 ], "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "201", "parenthetical": "We \"presum[e] that the legislature carefully chose each word used.\" (citation omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/363/0189-01" ] }, { "cite": "398 S.E.2d 475", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "485", "parenthetical": "holding that the latter part of the enabling phrase \"services furnished or to be furnished,\" N.C.G.S. \u00a7 162A-88 (1987) (emphasis added) (governing county water and sewer districts" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "327 N.C. 552", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2498880 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "570", "parenthetical": "holding that the latter part of the enabling phrase \"services furnished or to be furnished,\" N.C.G.S. \u00a7 162A-88 (1987) (emphasis added) (governing county water and sewer districts" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/327/0552-01" ] }, { "cite": "418 S.E.2d 645", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "648", "parenthetical": "\"Ordinary rules of grammar apply when ascertaining the meaning of a statute . ...\" (citations omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "332 N.C. 129", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2508179 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "134", "parenthetical": "\"Ordinary rules of grammar apply when ascertaining the meaning of a statute . ...\" (citations omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/332/0129-01" ] }, { "cite": "451 S.E.2d 284", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "289", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "339 N.C. 413", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2558127 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "419-20", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/339/0413-01" ] }, { "cite": "367 S.E.2d 655", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "658" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "322 N.C. 271", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2516033 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "276" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/322/0271-01" ] }, { "cite": "517 S.E.2d 874", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "878", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "878" }, { "page": "878" }, { "page": "879", "parenthetical": "holding that \"the [town's] ordinance on its face exceeds the express limitation of the plain and unambiguous reading of' the applicable Public Enterprise Statutes" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "350 N.C. 805", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 132228 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "811", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "811" }, { "page": "812" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/350/0805-01" ] }, { "cite": "130 S.E. 861", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1925, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "863", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "190 N.C. 732", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8613589 ], "year": 1925, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "735", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/190/0732-01" ] }, { "cite": "176 S.E. 298", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1934, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "301-02" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "207 N.C. 180", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8624341 ], "year": 1934, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "186" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/207/0180-01" ] }, { "cite": "731 S.E.2d 800", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 5, "year": 2012, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "807" }, { "page": "809" }, { "page": "809-10", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "366 N.C. 142", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4351487 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2012, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "150" }, { "page": "154" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/366/0142-01" ] }, { "cite": "145 S.E. 28", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1928, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "29" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "196 N.C. 184", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625441 ], "year": 1928, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "187" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/196/0184-01" ] }, { "cite": "90 N.C. 437", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8696709 ], "year": 1884, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "438", "parenthetical": "\"[Municipalities] contribute largely to the life-principle of American liberty, and are . . . invested with appropriate corporate functions . . . [which] may be enlarged, abridged or modified at the will of the legislature . . . .\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/90/0437-01" ] }, { "cite": "71 S.E. 520", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1911, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "522" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "155 N.C. 379", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652503 ], "year": 1911, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "384-85" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/155/0379-01" ] }, { "cite": "758 S.E.2d 364", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2014, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "369" }, { "page": "369", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "367 N.C. 400", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4322689 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2014, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "405" }, { "page": "405" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/367/0400-01" ] }, { "cite": "62 S.E. 758", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1908, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "760" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "149 N.C. 65", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11269620 ], "year": 1908, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "69" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/149/0065-01" ] }, { "cite": "548 S.E.2d 704", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "707", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "353 N.C. 647", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 135724 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "651", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/353/0647-01" ] }, { "cite": "684 S.E.2d 151", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "154", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "363 N.C. 612", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4151122 ], "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "616", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/363/0612-01" ] }, { "cite": "287 S.E.2d 851", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "854" }, { "page": "853", "parenthetical": "dictum" }, { "page": "853", "parenthetical": "concluding that an increased rate on all customers to fund a new treatment plant \"did not reflect any services yet to be furnished, but merely the same service which had previously been furnished\"" }, { "page": "853", "parenthetical": "concluding that the town validly increased rates on all customers to pay for \"a necessary improvement to the already existing sewer system without which the Town could not continue to provide sewer service\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "305 N.C. 248", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567388 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "252" }, { "page": "251" }, { "page": "251-52" }, { "page": "251-52" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/305/0248-01" ] }, { "cite": "442 S.E.2d 45", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "50" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "336 N.C. 37", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2538018 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "43-44" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/336/0037-01" ] }, { "cite": "2015 WL 4620404", "category": "reporters:specialty_west", "reporter": "WL", "weight": 3, "year": 2015, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "unpublished" }, { "page": "*4-5" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 976, "char_count": 19071, "ocr_confidence": 0.716, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.138639900707698e-08, "percentile": 0.428287517920929 }, "sha256": "ced2663babc2c7157606b17d0f1b170eae1d868782726adabf979b4c5be7cbd2", "simhash": "1:321094ed676d0052", "word_count": 3023 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:48:28.411797+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2018-10-24", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "QUALITY BUILT HOMES INCORPORATED and STAFFORD LAND COMPANY, INC. v. TOWN OF CARTHAGE" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "NEWBY, Justice.\nIn this case we consider whether the Town of Carthage exceeded its municipal authority under the Public Enterprise Statutes, N.C.G.S. \u00a7\u00a7 160A-311 to -338 (2015), by adopting certain water and sewer \u201cimpact fee\u201d ordinances. Upon approval of a subdivision of real property, the ordinances trigger immediate charges for future water and sewer system expansion, regardless of whether the landowner ever connects to the system or whether Carthage ever expands the system. As creations of the legislature, municipalities have only those powers delegated to them by the General Assembly. When Carthage adopted the ordinances at issue here, it exercised power that it had not been granted. The impact fee ordinances are therefore invalid and, accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.\nIn 2003, following a period of rapid population growth, Carthage adopted two similar impact fee ordinances: one pertaining to its water system, and the other pertaining to its sewer system. In their, current form, the ordinances state that the impact fees \u201cshall be used to cover the costs of expanding the [water and sewer] systemfs].\u201d Carthage, N.C., Code \u00a7\u00a7 51.076(F) (water), 51.096(H) (sewer) (2015). These costs include \u201cwater treatment plant expansion, elevated storage expansion, and transmission mains\u201d for the water system, id. \u00a7 51.076(F), and \u201cgravity mains, force mains, and lift stations\u201d for the sewer system, id. \u00a7 51.096(H).\nUnder both ordinances, a landowner who seeks to subdivide property and receives \u201cfinal plat approval,\u201d id. \u00a7\u00a7 51.076(C)(1), 51.096(B), must pay water and sewer impact fees \u201cbased on water meter size according to the town\u2019s fee schedule,\u201d id. \u00a7\u00a7 51.076(B), 51.096(A), in amounts ranging from $1,000 to $30,000 per connection. Carthage, N.C., Fee and Rate Schedule 4 (July 1, 2016). \u201cIf a [property] has received its final plat, then the entire [water and sewer] impact fee[s] shall be paid at the earliest or next occurrence of . . . [the] (a) Tap fee; or (b) Development permit.\u201d Id. \u00a7\u00a7 51.076(C)(2), 51.096(C); see also Fee and Rate Schedule 4 (\u201cWater/Sewer Impact Fees are due upon final plat approval for new subdivisions (major or minor) or upon application for building permit, whichever occurs first.\u201d). Tap fees cover Carthage\u2019s costs \u201cto \u2018tap\u2019 or access\u201d the \u201cwater and/or sewer line that exists in front of the property,\u201d whereas \u201cimpact fees offset. . . costs to expand the system to accommodate development.\u201d\nImpact fees are assessed \u201cin addition to the regular water and sewer tap fees,\u201d and the monthly service charges to water and sewer customers. If a property owner does not pay the impact fees, Carthage \u201cwill refuse\u201d to issue building permits. Certain exceptions exist \u201cfor temporary or emergency service,\u201d id. \u00a7 51.076(A)(2)(b), and any service solely for \u201cfire protection,\u201d id. \u00a7\u00a7 51.076(E), 51.096(G), but in all instances, impact fees are assessed regardless of the property owner\u2019s actual use of the systems or whether Carthage actually expands the systems. In 2014 Carthage\u2019s Town Manager reported that the Town had \u201cneglected to make needed improvements to its water and sewer systems for many years.\u201d\nPlaintiffs are North Carolina corporations engaged in residential homebuildmg. At the time of filing their action, plaintiffs had paid Carthage a total of $123,000 in water and sewer impact fees.\nOn 28 October 2013, plaintiffs filed their complaint seeking, inter alia, a declaratory judgment and monetary damages. Plaintiffs allege that \u201cCarthage has acted outside the scope of its legal authority\u201d by \u201ccharging\u201d the impact fees \u201cwithout a specific delegation of authority from the General Assembly\u201d and that, accordingly, plaintiffs are entitled to a return of all impact fees paid, plus interest and attorneys\u2019 fees.\nCarthage timely answered the complaint, contending that \u201cthe water and sewer fees imposed by Defendant were authorized by North Carolina\u2019s Public Enterprise Statute\u201d and asserting various affirmative defenses, including, inter alia, the statute of limitations and estoppel. All parties moved for summary judgment. On 17 October 2014, the trial court entered an order granting summary judgment for Carthage. Plaintiffs appealed the summary judgment order to the Court of Appeals.\nThe Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court\u2019s grant of summary judgment in favor of Carthage. Quality Built Homes Inc. v. Town of Carthage, _ N.C. App. _, 776 S.E.2d 897, 2015 WL 4620404 (2015) (unpublished). Applying \u201cbroad construction\u201d interpretation principles under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-4, the Court of Appeals concluded that Carthage acted within its delegated municipal authority to impose and collect the impact fees under the Public Enterprise Statutes, Quality Built Homes, 2015 WL 4620404, at *4-5 (citing, inter alia, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-4 (2013); Homebuilders Ass\u2019n of Charlotte v. City of Charlotte, 336 N.C. 37, 43-44, 442 S.E.2d 45, 50 (1994); and Town of Spring Hope v. Bissette, 305 N.C. 248, 252, 287 S.E.2d 851, 854 (1982)), which enable municipalities to \u201cestablish and revise... schedules of rents, rates, fees, charges, and penalties for the use of or the services furnished by any public enterprise,\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-314(a).\nWe allowed both plaintiffs\u2019 petition and defendant\u2019s conditional petition for discretionary review. We review matters of statutory interpretation de novo, In re Ernst & Young, LLP, 363 N.C. 612, 616, 684 S.E.2d 151, 154 (2009) (citations omitted), as well as orders granting summary judgment, viewing the allegations as true and \u201cthe presented evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party,\u201d Dalton v. Camp, 353 N.C. 647, 651, 548 S.E.2d 704, 707 (2001) (citation omitted).\nFrom the very formation of our State government, municipalities, in their various forms, have been considered \u201ccreatures of the legislative will, and are subject to its control.\u201d Lutterloh v. City of Fayetteville, 149 N.C. 65, 69, 62 S.E. 758, 760 (1908); see King v. Town of Chapel Hill, 367 N.C. 400, 405, 758 S.E.2d 364, 369 (2014); Bd. of Trs. of Youngsville Twp. v. Webb, 155 N.C. 379, 384-85, 71 S.E. 520, 522 (1911). Fundamental to our system is the legislature\u2019s ability to confer upon municipalities certain authority needed to effectuate the purposes of government. N.C. Const, art. VII, \u00a7 1 (\u201cThe General Assembly shall provide for the organization and government... of counties, cities and towns, and... may give such powers and duties to ... [them] as it may deem advisable.\u201d); White v. Comm\u2019rs of Chowan Cty., 90 N.C. 437, 438 (1884) (\u201c[Municipalities] contribute largely to the life-principle of American liberty, and are . . . invested with appropriate corporate functions . . . [which] may be enlarged, abridged or modified at the will of the legislature . . . .\u201d); see also 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries *470 (\u201c[Municipalities] are erected for the good government of a town or particular district....\u201d)\nThe General Assembly delegates express power to municipalities by adopting an enabling statute, which includes \u201cimplied powers . . . essential to the exercise of those which are expressly conferred.\u201d O\u2019Neal v. Wake County, 196 N.C. 184, 187, 145 S.E. 28, 29 (1928); see Lanvale Props., LLC v. County of Cabarrus, 366 N.C. 142, 150, 731 S.E.2d 800, 807 (2012); Town of Saluda v. County of Polk, 207 N.C. 180,186,176 S.E. 298, 301-02 (1934). \u201cAll acts beyond the scope of the powers granted to a municipality are [invalid].\u201d City of Asheville v. Herbert, 190 N.C. 732, 735, 130 S.E. 861, 863 (1925) (citations omitted).\nWhen determining the extent of legislative power conferred upon a municipality, the plain language of the enabling statute governs. Smith Chapel Baptist Church v. City of Durham, 350 N.C. 805, 811, 517 S.E.2d 874, 878 (1999) (citation omitted). If the \u201clanguage of [the enabling] statute is clear and unambiguous, there is no room for judicial construction, and the courts must give it its plain and definite meaning.\u201d Id. at 811, 517 S.E.2d at 878 (quoting Lemons v. Old Hickory Council, BSA, 322 N.C. 271, 276, 367 S.E.2d 655, 658 (1988)). \u201c[A] statute clear on its face must be enforced as written.\u201d Bowers v. City of High Point, 339 N.C. 413, 419-20, 451 S.E.2d 284, 289 (1994) (citation omitted).\nIf the enabling statute is ambiguous, the \u201clegislation \u2018shall be broadly construed ... to include any additional and supplementary powers that are reasonably necessary or expedient to carry them into execution and effect.\u2019 \u201d King, 367 N.C. at 405, 758 S.E.2d at 369 (citation omitted) (quoting N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-4). The \u201cbroad construction\u201d mandate of section 160A-4 is \u201ca rule of statutory construction rather than a general directive,\u201d Lanvale Props., 366 N.C. at 154, 731 S.E.2d at 809, and, as such, is inoperative when the enabling statute is clear and unambiguous on its face, see id. at 154-55, 731 S.E.2d at 809-10 (citations omitted).\nCarthage asserts that under the Public Enterprise Statutes it has broad authority to \u201ccollect monies\u201d for the \u201coperation, maintenance and expansion\u201d of its water and sewer systems, and that such authority extends to the collection of impact fees. Carthage claims that \u201cimpact fees\u201d fall squarely within its \u201cauthority to charge \u2018fees\u2019 or \u2018charges\u2019 \u201d under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-314. We disagree. While the enabling statutes allow Carthage to charge for the contemporaneous use of its water and sewer systems, the plain language of the Public Enterprise Statutes clearly fails to empower the Town to impose impact fees for future services.\nThe enabling statutes at issue here provide, in pertinent part, that \u201c[a] city may establish and revise... rents, rates, fees, charges, and penalties for the use of or the services furnished by any public enterprise,\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-314(a), that \u201c[a] city shall have authority to acquire, construct, establish, enlarge, improve, maintain, own, operate, and contract for the operation of any or all of the public enterprises ... to furnish services,\u201d id. \u00a7 160A-312(a), and that \u201ca city shall have full authority to finance the cost of any public enterprise by levying taxes, borrowing money, and appropriating any other revenues therefor,\u201d id. \u00a7 160A-313.\nThese enabling statutes clearly and unambiguously empower Carthage to charge for the contemporaneous use of water and sewer services\u2014not to collect fees for future discretionary spending. See Smith Chapel, 350 N.C. at 811, 517 S.E.2d at 878 (finding that the \u201cplain language\u201d of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-314 is \u201cclear and unambiguous\u201d). A municipality\u2019s ability to \u201cestablish and revise\u201d its various \u201cfees\u201d is limited to \u201cthe use of\u2019 or \u201cthe services furnished by\u201d the enterprise, which provisions are operative in the present tense. See Dunn v. Pac. Emp\u2019rs Ins. Co., 332 N.C. 129, 134, 418 S.E.2d 645, 648 (1992) (\u201cOrdinary rules of grammar apply when ascertaining the meaning of a statute . ...\u201d (citations omitted)).\nThough the enabling statutes allow municipalities to charge for \u201cservices furnished,\u201d unlike similar county water and sewer district enabling statutes, the language at issue here fails to authorize Carthage to charge for services \u201cto be furnished.\u201d See McNeill v. Harnett County, 327 N.C. 552, 570, 398 S.E.2d 475, 485 (1990) (holding that the latter part of the enabling phrase \u201cservices furnished or to be furnished,\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 162A-88 (1987) (emphasis added) (governing county water and sewer districts), plainly allowed the charge for prospective services, which are \u201cnot limited to the financing of maintenance and improvements of existing customers\u201d). Since 1982 this Court has cautioned that municipalities may lack the power to charge for prospective services absent the essential \u201cto be\u201d language. Bissette, 305 N.C. at 251, 287 S.E.2d at 853 (dictum) (\u201c[W]e agree that under [N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-314(a)] a municipality may not charge for services \u2018to be furnished.\u2019 \u201d). We simply cannot read language into a statute where it does not exist. N.C. Dep\u2019t of Corr. v. N.C. Med. Bd., 363 N.C. 189, 201, 675 S.E.2d 641, 649 (2009) (We \u201cpresum[e] that the legislature carefully chose each word used.\u201d (citation omitted)); Carlyle v. State Highway Comm\u2019n, 193 N.C. 36, 47, 136 S.E. 612, 619 (1927) (\u201cIf the courts attempt to read into the law words of their own..., then this would amount to erecting a legislative despotism of five men_\u201d).\nThe language of the impact fee ordinances plainly points to future services, thus requiring Carthage to invoke prospective charging power. Both ordinances contemplate \u201cexpanding\u201d the systems, including \u201cplant\u201d and \u201cstorage expansion,\u201d and the water impact fee is assessed on property that is \u201cto be served\u201d by the water system. The fees are not assessed at the time of actual use, but are payable in full at the time of \u201cfinal [subdivision] plat approval\u201d\u2014a time when water, sewer, or other infrastructure might not have been built and only a recorded plat exists. Moreover, Carthage charges the impact fees in addition to tap fees, which are assessed when a property owner actually connects to the system. Indeed, plaintiffs were required to pay some impact fees before improving or establishing a need for services on their property. Cf. Bissette, 305 N.C. at 251-52, 287 S.E.2d at 853 (concluding that an increased rate on all customers to fund a new treatment plant \u201cdid not reflect any services yet to be furnished, but merely the same service which had previously been furnished\u201d).\nMunicipalities routinely seek and obtain enabling legislation from the General Assembly to assess impact fees. E.g., Act of June 28, 1988, ch. 996, sec. 1, 1987 N.C. Sess. Law (Reg. Sess. 1988) 178, 178 (enabling Rolesville to \u201cprovide by ordinance for a system of impact fees\u201d); Act of June 23, 1987, ch. 460, sec. 13, 1987 N.C. Sess. Laws 609, 613 (same for Pittsboro); Act of July 8, 1986, ch. 936, sec. 1, 1985 N.C. Sess. Laws (Reg. Sess. 1986) 221, 221 (same for Chapel Hill); see also Mills v. Bd. of Comm\u2019rs of Iredell Cty., 175 N.C. 215, 218, 95 S.E. 481, 482 (1918) (noting that county demands for additional authority, such as \u201craising of proper funds ... for improvements in some fixed place or in restricted territory . . . can only be conferred by legislative enactment\u201d (citations omitted)). Yet it appears that Carthage has elected not to pursue such legislation.\nFurthermore, Carthage has the authority to charge tap fees and to establish water and sewer rates to fund necessary improvements and maintain services to its inhabitants, which is sufficient to address its expansion needs. See Bissette, 305 N.C. at 251-52, 287 S.E.2d at 853 (concluding that the town validly increased rates on all customers to pay for \u201ca necessary improvement to the already existing sewer system without which the Town could not continue to provide sewer service\u201d).\nWhile the Public Enterprise Statutes at issue here enable Carthage to charge for the contemporaneous use of its water and sewer systems, the statutes clearly and unambiguously fail to give Carthage the essential prospective charging power necessary to assess impact fees. Because the legislature alone controls the extension of municipal authority, the impact fee ordinances on their face exceed the powers delegated to the Town by the General Assembly, thus overstepping Carthage\u2019s rightful authority. See Smith Chapel, 350 N.C. at 812, 517 S.E.2d at 879 (holding that \u201cthe [town\u2019s] ordinance on its face exceeds the express limitation of the plain and unambiguous reading of\u2019 the applicable Public Enterprise Statutes).\nThe ordinances are therefore invalid and, accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court\u2019s grant of summary judgment for the Town of Carthage. We conclude that discretionary review was improvidently allowed as to the remaining issues on appeal and remand this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the unresolved issues.\nREVERSED AND REMANDED; DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED IN PART.\n. Not at issue here, on 23 June 2014, plaintiffs amended their complaint to, inter alia, add equal protection and due process claims.\n. Because of its resolution of the matter, the Court of Appeals did not reach the statute of limitations or estoppel issues. Quality Built Homes, 2015 WL 4620404 at :|!5. Moreover, the court overruled plaintiffs\u2019 argument that they are entitled to recover attorneys\u2019 fees and costs. Id. at *6.\n. Enabling statutes pertaining to other entities employ the same \u201cto be furnished\u201d prospective language, which section 160A-314(a) does not. E.g., N.C.G.S. \u00a7 162A-9 (2015) (enabling water and sewer authorities to \u201cestablish and revise a schedule of rates ... for the services furnished or to be furnished\u201d); id. \u00a7 162A-14(3) (enabling certain \u201cgoverning bod[ies]\u201d to \u201cfix ... charges ... for the services furnished or to be furnished by any water system or sewer system of the authority\u201d); id. \u00a7 162A-49 (2015) (same for district boards of metropolitan water districts). Accord id. \u00a7\u00a7 162A-53(3), -72, -73(3), -85.13(a), -85.19(a)(3) (2015).", "type": "majority", "author": "NEWBY, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Ferguson, Hayes, Hawkins & DeMay, PLLC, by James R. DeMay; and Scarbrough & Scarbrough, PLLC, by James E. Scarbrough, for plaintiff-appellants/appellees.", "CranjUl Sumner & Hartzog LLP, by Susan K. Burkhart, for defendant-appellant/appellee.", "Law Office of John T. Benjamin, Jr., P.A., by John T. Benjamin, Jr. and William E. Hubbard, for Leading Builders of America, amicus curiae.", "Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A., by Edward F. Hennessey; and J. Michael Carpenter, General Counsel, for North Carolina Home Builders Association, Inc., amicus curiae.", "Ellis & Winters LLP, by Matthew W. Sawchak and Paul M. Cox; and F. Paul Calamita for North Carolina Water Quality Association, amicus curiae." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "QUALITY BUILT HOMES INCORPORATED and STAFFORD LAND COMPANY, INC. v. TOWN OF CARTHAGE\nNo. 315PA15\nFiled 19 August 2016\nCities and Towns\u2014water and sewer impact fee ordinances\u2014for future use and expansion\u2014invalid\nThe Town of Carthage exceeded its municipal authority under the Public Enterprise Statutes by adopting water and sewer \u201cimpact fee\u201d ordinances that, upon approval of any subdivision of real property, triggered immediate charges for future water and sewer system expansion. These fees were assessed regardless of the property owner\u2019s actual use of the systems or whether Carthage actually expanded its systems. The plain language of the statute empowered the Town to charge for contemporaneous use of water and sewer services, not to collect fees for future discretionary spending.\nOn discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-31 of a unanimous, unpublished decision of the Court of Appeals,_N.C. App._, 776 S.E.2d 897 (2015), affirming an order allowing summary judgment entered on 17 October 2014 by Judge James M. Webb in Superior Court, Moore County. On 5 November 2015, the Supreme Court allowed defendant\u2019s conditional petition for discretionary review as to additional issues. Heard in the Supreme Court on 17 May 2016 in session in the Old Burke County Courthouse in the City of Morganton pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-10(a).\nFerguson, Hayes, Hawkins & DeMay, PLLC, by James R. DeMay; and Scarbrough & Scarbrough, PLLC, by James E. Scarbrough, for plaintiff-appellants/appellees.\nCranjUl Sumner & Hartzog LLP, by Susan K. Burkhart, for defendant-appellant/appellee.\nLaw Office of John T. Benjamin, Jr., P.A., by John T. Benjamin, Jr. and William E. Hubbard, for Leading Builders of America, amicus curiae.\nRobinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A., by Edward F. Hennessey; and J. Michael Carpenter, General Counsel, for North Carolina Home Builders Association, Inc., amicus curiae.\nEllis & Winters LLP, by Matthew W. Sawchak and Paul M. Cox; and F. Paul Calamita for North Carolina Water Quality Association, amicus curiae." }, "file_name": "0015-01", "first_page_order": 91, "last_page_order": 98 }