Golden Nugget Group v. Metropolitan Dade County

• Decision Date: 08 February 1985
• Docket Number: No. 65324,65324
• Citation: 464 So.2d 535,10 Fla. L. Weekly 113
• Parties: 10 Fla. L. Weekly 113 GOLDEN NUGGET GROUP, et al., Petitioners, v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, et al., Respondents.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 535

464 So.2d 535

10 Fla. L. Weekly 113

GOLDEN NUGGET GROUP, et al., Petitioners, v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, et al., Respondents.

No. 65324.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 8, 1985.

Gerald F. Richman and Bruce A. Christensen of Floyd, Pearson, Richman, Greer, Weil, Zack & Brumbaugh, Miami, for petitioners.

Robert A. Ginsburg, County Atty., and Vicki J. Jay, Asst. County Atty., and Stuart L. Simon of Fine, Jacobson, Block, England, Klein, Colan & Simon, Miami, Special Counsel for Metropolitan Dade County, Lucia A. Dougherty, City Atty., and Robert N. Sechen and Gisela Cardonne, Asst. City Attys., Miami, for City of Miami, and M. Louise Barrett, City Atty., and Christopher G. Korge, Asst. City Atty., and Sandra W. Schneider, Miami Beach, Special Counsel for City of Miami Beach, for respondents.

OVERTON, Justice.

This cause is before us on petition to review Metropolitan Dade County v. Golden Nugget Group, 448 So.2d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), in which the district court of appeal declared valid section 212.057, Florida Statutes (1983), which authorizes certain counties to implement a "bed tax" on short-term rentals, and held invalid the portion of a Dade County ordinance enacted pursuant to the statute providing for the collection of its tax revenues. We have jurisdiction, article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution, and we approve the decision of the district court.

The legislature, by chapter 83-354, Laws of Florida, enacted section 212.057, ^* which empowers "[e]ach county, as defined in s. 125.011(1)" to levy a three percent convention development tax on payments made to rent, lease or use any living quarters or accommodations. Section 212.057 provides that the tax revenues must be used to improve the largest existing publicly-owned convention center in the county and to construct a convention center in the county's most populous municipality. Counties authorized to levy the tax are those counties which operate "under a home rule charter adopted pursuant to ss. 10, 11 and 24 of Art. VIII of the Constitution of 1885, as preserved by Art. VIII, s. 6(e) of the Constitution of 1968." See § 125.011(1), Fla.Stat. (1983). Dade, Hillsborough, and Monroe Counties potentially meet this definition, but only Dade County has adopted a home-rule charter.

Pursuant to section 212.057, Dade County enacted ordinance 83-91, which implements the tax and provides for the collection, distribution, and application of the revenues. Petitioners, each of whom owns a hotel or motel or operates tours in Dade County, sought a determination that the statute and ordinance were invalid and unconstitutional. The trial court entered an order enjoining the respondents from assessing the tax. Citing Florida Attorney General Opinion 83-71, the trial court declared the statute defective on the grounds that it includes no mechanism for tax collection and by implication provides that the revenues collected will be segregated and paid to municipalities in contravention of section 212.20, Florida Statutes (1983). Further, the trial court found the ordinance to be in irreconcilable conflict with section 212.18, Florida Statutes (1983), because it purports to authorize collection of the tax by the Dade County tax collector.

On appeal, the district court affirmed in part and reversed in part. While agreeing with the trial court that the tax collection portion of the ordinance was invalid, the district court held that section 212.057 and the remainder of the ordinance are valid and constitutional. The district court found that because the statute was expressly made a part of chapter 212, which includes a comprehensive scheme for the collection, administration, and enforcement of all taxes imposed by the chapter, the legislature was not required to publish independent collection mechanisms. The district court concluded that, pursuant to chapter 212, the tax must be collected by the Department of Revenue and paid to the state treasurer for deposit into the general revenue fund as mandated by sections 212.18 and 212.20, Florida Statutes (1983). The revenues must then be returned to the counties by future appropriation measures contemplated by section 215.32, Florida Statutes (1983), which governs the handling of all revenues paid to the state treasurer. On rehearing, the district court directed that the funds collected pursuant to the ordinance be paid to the Department of Revenue.

The district court further rejected the petitioners' assertions that the statute concerns a prohibited subject and violates equal protection guarantees, due process requirements, and uniform taxation provisions, noting that this Court upheld against constitutional attack a statute employing almost identical language in Miami Dolphins, Ltd. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 394 So.2d 981 (Fla.1981). In upholding the statute's constitutionality, the district court also refused to accept the petitioners' argument that section 212.057 is a special law or general law of local application implemented without notice or referendum, finding that the statute satisfies the criteria for a general law enunciated by this Court in Department of Legal Affairs v. Sanford-Orlando Kennel Club, Inc., 434 So.2d 879 (Fla.1983). The district court pointed out that the three counties potentially eligible to implement the tax have substantial tourist-oriented economies, and they have concentrated on developing facilities that will attract convention tourists in order to improve their tourist industries. Noting that "[w]hen a classification is made by the Legislature in the enactment of general laws, the presumption is in favor of the classification's reasonableness," the district court quoted a portion of this Court's decision in Lewis v. Mathis, 345 So.2d 1066, 1068 (Fla.1977):

[I]f any state of facts can reasonably be conceived that will sustain the classification attempted by the Legislature, the existence of that state of facts at the time the law was enacted will be presumed by the courts. The deference due to the legislative judgment in the matter will be observed in all cases where the court cannot say on its judicial knowledge that the Legislature could not have had any reasonable ground for believing that there were public...