Islamorada, Village of Islands v. Higgs, 3D03-1508.
| Decision Date | 19 November 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 3D03-1508.,3D03-1508. |
| Citation | 882 So.2d 1009 |
| Parties | ISLAMORADA, VILLAGE OF ISLANDS, Appellant, v. Ervin HIGGS, as Property Appraiser of Monroe County, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Weiss Serota Helfman Pastoriza Guedes Cole & Boniske and Edward G. Guedes and Nina L. Boniske, for appellant.
John C. Dent, Jr., and Sherri L. Johnson(Sarasota), for appellee. Before LEVY, GERSTEN, and WELLS, JJ.
Order Denying Rehearing En Banc and Opinion Dissenting From Denial of Rehearing En Banc August 11, 2004.
Islamorada, Village of Islands ("Village"), appeals from a Final Summary Judgment entered in favor of Ervin Higgs, the Property Appraiser of Monroe County, Florida ("Property Appraiser"). We reverse.
The Village has exclusively owned and operated the Plantation Yacht Harbor Marina ("Marina") since April 13, 2000. The Marina is a portion of a recreational facility formerly known as Plantation Yacht Harbor, but now known as Islamorada Founders Park ("Founders Park"). The master plan for Founders Park includes various recreational facilities, and administrative offices for the Village and fire rescue. In 2001, the Village operated the Marina for the purpose of serving the recreational needs of both its residents and the general public, including out-of-town visitors. Boat slips at the Marina were rented on a daily, weekly, monthly, or annual basis. The Marina and the services provided at the Marina were available and open to members of the public. The services included, but are not limited to, the use of a boat ramp, dockage, and refueling. The Village set standardized charges for both fueling and dock space. The revenues of the Village's operation of the Marina exceeded the expenses associated with its operation. In setting the rates for the Marina, the Village intended to provide a flow of revenue and funds to the Village's general fund to help pay debt service incurred when the entire facility was purchased. In 2001, the Property Appraiser denied the Village's application for an exemption from ad valorem taxation for the Marina. The Village appealed to the Monroe County Value Adjustment Board ("VAB"). After an evidentiary hearing before a special master, the special master determined that the Marina represented a proper public function, and was not a proprietary venture. The VAB adopted these findings. The Property Appraiser then appealed the VAB's determination by filing suit in the Circuit Court pursuant to Section 194.036, Florida Statutes. Both parties filed Motions for Summary Judgment. The Circuit Court denied the Village's Motion for Summary Judgment and granted the Property Appraiser's Motion for Summary Judgment. This appeal follows.
Municipalities are not subdivisions of the State and, thus, are not immune to taxation. See Greater Orlando Aviation Auth. v. Crotty, 775 So.2d 978, 980 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
(citing Orlando Utils. Comm'n v. Milligan, 229 So.2d 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969), rev. denied, 237 So.2d 539 (Fla.1970)). However, according to Article VII, Section 3(a) of the Florida Constitution, "[a]ll property owned by a municipality and used exclusively by it for municipal or public purposes shall be exempt from taxation." Moreover, Section 196.199(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2002), provides that the property of the municipalities of the state used "for governmental, municipal, or public purposes shall be exempt from ad valorem taxation, except as otherwise provided by law."
The issue in the instant case is whether a marina that is owned and operated by a municipality is entitled to an ad valorem tax exemption when the marina serves both residents and nonresidents, despite (1) operating in competition with other marinas in the area and (2) generating a profit for the municipality which is deposited into the municipality's general fund. The Village contends that the Marina is entitled to an ad valorem tax exemption because, as the eloquent argument of appellant's attorney clearly demonstrates, the Marina is a recreational facility that is available to residents and nonresidents and is operated without the involvement of a non-governmental lessee or operator. We agree.
(emphasis added). We agree with the foregoing language from the First District.
In the instant case, it is abundantly clear that, despite the fact that the Village earns a profit from its operation of the Marina, the Marina exists and is operated for the comfort, convenience, safety, and happiness of the citizens of the Village. Accordingly, the Order granting Summary Judgment in favor of the Property Appraiser is reversed with directions to enter Summary Judgment in favor of the Village.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
After Oral Argument having been heard by the Court, the Motion for Rehearing En Banc is denied.
The majority has concluded that Islamorada's marina is entitled to tax exemption. I disagree.
In order for the marina to be exempted from ad valorem taxation Islamorada [the Village] must prove1 that the marina meets the requirements of Article VII, Section 3(a), Florida Constitution:
"All property owned by a municipality and used exclusively by it for municipal or public purposes shall be exempt from taxation."2
The marina is owned by the Village and not leased to anyone.3 The issues then are whether the property is used by the Village for a municipal purpose and, if so, whether the property is exclusively used for that purpose. In that regard, other Florida courts have been clear as to municipal purpose or functions. "`Municipal functions' are those ... for the ... benefit and advantage of the urban community embraced within the corporate boundaries." Greater Orlando Aviation Auth. v. Crotty, 775 So.2d 978, 980-81 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000),rev. dismissed, 790 So.2d 1103 (Fla.2001)[e.s.]. "Our courts have ruled that the municipal functions include functions which specifically and peculiarly promote the comfort, convenience, safety and happiness of the citizens of the municipality rather than the welfare of the general public." Crotty at 981 [e.s.]. Specifically as to marinas the First District Court, in Page v. Fernandina Beach, 714 So.2d 1070, 1076 (Fla. 1st DCA),rev. denied, 728 So.2d 201 (Fla.1998), pointed out that the "Municipal operation of a marina is a legitimate municipal corporate undertaking for the comfort, convenience, safety and happiness of the municipality's citizens." [e.s.]
The Fifth District's ultimate conclusion in Greater Orlando Aviation Auth. v. Crotty is:
775 So.2d at 981 [e.s.](footnotes omitted).
In Department of Revenue v. City of Gainesville, 859 So.2d 595, 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), the court stated:
In analyzing whether a provision of services constitutes a municipal purpose pursuant to Article VII, Section 3(a) the focus is whether the function promotes comfort, convenience, safety, and happiness of the citizens of the municipality. [e.s.]
Thus, if the municipality's proprietary use is to serve the "general public," rather than just the "urban community embraced within the corporate boundaries,"4 then it is not a municipal purpose and is constitutionally prohibited from being exempted from taxation.
So, does the Village's marina serve the general public? As laid out in the panel opinion,5 as well as the trial court's final summary judgment,6 the Village operated the marina for the purpose of its serving the "general public"7 as a first class, full service marina catering to owners of large boats throughout the United States and the world.8
As it serves the general public the marina is not a municipal use and is not entitled to tax exemption. But let us assume for argument's sake that the marina use is a municipal use on the (erroneous) theory that some boat slips are available to the citizens of the Village. (This would require us to ignore Crotty, Page, and City of Gainesville.) The Village still would not have shown that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fla. Dept. of Rev. V. City of Gainesville
...City of Gainesville, 859 So.2d at 599-600. Page was recently approved by the Third District in Islamorada, Village of Islands v. Higgs, 882 So.2d 1009 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). In that case, the Village of Islamorada, a municipality, owned and operated a marina available for use by the general pu......
-
Brown v. City of Gulf Breeze
...related facilities. The City converted the property to a private commercial enterprise. Cf. Islamorada, Vill. of Islands v. Higgs , 882 So. 2d 1009, 1011 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (holding that a municipal-owned marina was tax exempt where the municipality earned a profit from the municipality's o......
-
City of Fort Pierce v. Treasure Coast Marina, LC
...operated as private marinas and still competed with private marinas such as Harbortown. Additionally, although the court declined to apply Islamorada, Village of Islands v. Higgs, 882 So.2d 1009 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (finding municipal marinas traditionally serve a municipal or public purpose)......
-
Treasure Coast Marina, LC v. City of Fort Pierce
...entity is exempt from ad valorem taxation.Id. at 1076–77 (emphasis added).Although that portion of Page was dicta, in Islamorada, Village of Islands v. Higgs , the Third District, sitting en banc, expressly approved that reasoning and held that a marina owned and operated by a municipality ......