Fulton Greens, L. P., “Fulton Greens” sued the City of Alpharetta and various city officials collectively, “the City” for reimbursement of expenses associated with road improvements to Windward Parkway. The parties filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment regarding whether any reimbursement should be monetary, as requested by Fulton Greens, or in development impact fee credits, as asserted by the City. The trial court granted the City’s motion and denied Fulton Greens’ motion. Fulton Greens appeals, and for reasons that follow, we affirm. Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issues of material fact remain and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.1 We review a trial court’s summary judgment ruling de novo, construing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.2
Viewed in this manner, the record shows that Fulton Greens owned a tract of land in Alpharetta that it sought to develop as a shopping center. In connection with the development, and to meet conditions imposed by the City, Fulton Greens agreed to build an extension to Windward Parkway. Fulton Greens and the City subsequently entered into a Private Development Agreement “the Development Agreement” regarding, among other things, the Windward Parkway extension. Under the contract, Fulton Greens committed “to construct, at its cost, the Windward Parkway extension improvements.” The City, in turn, agreed: to grant Fulton Greens post-ordinance impact fee credits, as determined in accordance with Alpharetta’s Roads Impact Fee Ordinance, for right-of-way dedication and road improvements for the Windward Parkway extension. The credits shall be applied by the City against the roads impact fee due for Fulton Greens’ development. To the extent that the credits exceed the roads impact fee due, the excess may, at the option of Fulton Greens, be applied against other development related fees which may become due to the City, including, without limitation, the cost of building permits, and/or may be transferred to others pursuant to the provisions of the Roads Impact Fee Ordinance. Fulton Greens constructed the extension and received impact fee credits from the City. According to Fulton Greens, however, the construction expenses exceeded the total impact fees chargeable against the shopping center development, and thus it had credits it could not use. Fulton Greens subsequently sought monetary reimbursement for the unused credits, as well as reimbursement for other alleged expenses not covered by the credits. The City denied Fulton Greens’ claims, asserting, in particular, that the Development Agreement only required the City to reimburse Fulton Greens through impact fee credits, an obligation that it had fulfilled.
