Jacksonville Port Authority v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc., RENT-A-CA

• Decision Date: 18 May 1992
• Docket Number: RENT-A-CA,INC,No. 91-2269,91-2269
• Citation: 600 So.2d 1159
• Parties: 17 Fla. L. Weekly D1312 JACKSONVILLE PORT AUTHORITY, a Florida Corporation, Appellant, v. ALAMO, a Florida Corporation, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 1159

600 So.2d 1159

17 Fla. L. Weekly D1312

JACKSONVILLE PORT AUTHORITY, a Florida Corporation, Appellant, v. ALAMO RENT-A-CAR, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellee.

No. 91-2269.

District Court of Appeal of Florida First District.

May 18, 1992.

Rehearing Denied June 30, 1992.

John A. Delaney, Gen. Counsel and Bruce Page, Asst. Counsel, Jacksonville, for appellant.

George A. Golder, Egerton K. van den Berg, and John R. Hamilton of Foley & Lardner, Orlando, for amici curiae City of Tallahassee, et al.

James C. Rinaman and Lee T. Griffin of Marks, Gray, Conroy & Gibbs, P.A., Jacksonville, for appellee.

Margaret D. Mathews of Stagg, Hardy, Ferguson, Murnaghan & Mathews, P.A., Tampa, for amicus curiae Thrifty Rent-A-Car System, Inc.

J. Everett Wilson of Pestcoe & Associates, P.A., Coral Gables, for amicus curiae Dynasty Exp. Corp.

WIGGINTON, Judge.

The Jacksonville Port Authority (JPA) brings this appeal from a final declaratory judgment wherein the trial court found that the JPA had imposed an unauthorized tax against Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. (Alamo), by virtue of its charging Alamo a six percent "privilege fee" on Alamo's gross receipts. For the following reasons, we reverse.

The JPA, created by the Laws of Florida, ¹ is an independent public agency that owns and operates the Jacksonville International Airport (JIA). The JPA possesses no independent taxing authority, and receives its revenues from state and federal grants, landing fees, rentals, concession fees and facility lease fees. Its powers derive from the Jacksonville Charter and Related Laws (Charter ), by virtue of which the JPA may adopt rules and regulations regarding projects and facilities under its control as well as the power to fix, regulate and collect rates and charges for the services and facilities furnished by any project under its control. ² In adopting said rules and regulations, the JPA is limited only to the extent that the rules and regulations "shall be just and reasonable and consistent with public interest." ³

In 1987, the JPA began construction of a $101 million expansion program at JIA which was scheduled for completion in 1991. On April 27, 1989, the JPA adopted a resolution implementing rules and regulations and imposing on nontenant rental car companies a six percent gross receipts "user" or "privilege" fee for access by their vans to public airport roads and terminal ramps. In contrast, other commercial agencies making use of the airport, such as hotels, resorts, taxis and limousine services are charged only a flat rate of $75 to $150 per quarter and $.25 per trip.

Alamo has operated its off-airport rental and parking business since 1984 from property it owns and maintains approximately two miles from JIA. Alamo furnishes its customers with free courtesy van transportation to and from the airport on public roadways and ramps. Alamo has no contract or agreement with the JPA and until July 1, 1989, had free access to all ramps and roadways at the JIA, as did all other off-airport commercial enterprises and the general public. In addition, five "tenant" car rental agencies located on the airport, which competitively bid for and obtained lease agreements with the JPA, each pay ten percent of their gross receipts.

The stated purpose for enactment of the fee imposed on nontenant companies was three-fold: (1) to preserve current revenue, as tenant companies would be less likely to move off airport; (2) to narrow the competitive gap between the on and off airport companies; and (3) to fund airport expansion.

In the resolution, the JPA made findings that off-airport (nontenant) commercial operators derive substantial revenues from business generated at the airport, and that the benefits derived by the off-airport operators from their use of the airport bore no reasonable relationship to the small fees they were then required to pay. The JPA also found that the benefits derived by on-airport (tenant) and off-airport rental car agencies were similar, with the exception that on-airport agencies enjoy a two to three percent competitive advantage by way of "walk-up" customers. The JPA further stated in the resolution that it must take action to raise and protect revenues, and to maintain a fair and equitable schedule of rates and charges for all commercial beneficiaries.

The parties stipulated that both cost and benefit studies had been considered by the JPA before drafting the resolution, and that the information had been shared with all concerned. It was also stipulated, however, that the six percent fee did not directly correlate with any cost analysis performed; instead, the six percent figure was a factor of the ten percent fee charged the tenant companies reduced by the small percentage of competitive advantage the tenant companies enjoyed over the nontenant companies. Additionally, it was stipulated that the fees Alamo pays to the JPA are used to generate revenue for support of all three airports located in Jacksonville, even though Alamo uses only the JIA. Further, the six percent gross receipts fee paid by Alamo and the other nontenant companies was not specifically enumerated or pledged within the revenue bond issue financing the new airport.

Alamo filed suit prior to the effective date of the resolution, claiming that the six percent fee was effectively an unauthorized tax and was invalid as exceeding the JPA's authority to fix rates and charges for the facilities and services furnished which are just, reasonable and in the public interest, as authorized by the Charter. A non-jury trial was held during which the parties stipulated to the following issue and sub-issues relevant to this appeal:

... [W]hether the rate schedule imposed on off-airport rental car agencies by the JPA Rules and Regulations is unauthorized and not legally enforceable because:

a. It is an unauthorized tax pursuant to Article VII, section 1(a) of the Florida Constitution[;] or,

b. It exceeds the JPA's authority to "fix, regulate and collect rates and charges for the services and facilities under its control" (Charter); or,

c. It is not "just and reasonable and consistent with the public interest" (Charter).... ⁴

It was Alamo's contention before the trial court that any fee imposed on it by the JPA must be based on a "cost analysis" not of its use of the entire airport, but of its use strictly of the roadways and ramps at the JIA terminal as being the only "just and reasonable" method of charging for "services and facilities furnished." Alamo also asserted that its use of the JIA facilities is identical to usage by resort and hotel vans, taxis and limousines, and any "just and reasonable" fees imposed on Alamo should relate to those fees and not to the tenants' ten percent fee.

In a lengthy opinion, the trial court found that the fee was not authorized by the Charter, and was "therefore an illegal tax prohibited by Article VII, section 1(a) of the Constitution of the State of Florida (1968)." The court agreed with Alamo's assertion that the JPA exceeded its legal authority by imposing an unreasonable fee not related to or commensurate with Alamo's use of the facilities furnished. The court went on to find that Alamo's use of the JPA facilities "is identical to that of the taxis, limousines and hotel vans, in that the JPA provides no additional or different services or facilities to Alamo as compared to those other airport commercial users." The court found this to be a violation of the Charter which authorizes charges only for the "services and facilities provided," and concluded, therefore, that the six percent fee was not "just and reasonable and consistent with the public interest." Thus, the court reasoned that since the fee was not "just and reasonable," it was an unlawful tax.

We must agree with the JPA and amici curiae City of Tallahassee, et al., supporting the JPA, that in arriving at the foregoing conclusion, the trial court applied a faulty analysis of the issues and too-narrowly construed a U.S. Supreme Court decision, as well as erroneously ignored a plethora of case law upholding similar or identical gross receipt fees, or user fees, in other jurisdictions under like circumstances. First, drawing from the argument made by amici, it does not necessarily follow that if the fee is unauthorized under the Charter, it is a fortiori an unlawful tax. Rather, as they propound, the issue is twofold: (1) whether the six percent charge is a user fee or a tax; and (2) whether the six percent charge, if a fee and not a tax, is authorized by the JPA Charter. In response to the first issue, we agree with the JPA that the six percent gross receipts fee is not a tax.

The United States Supreme Court distinguished between a tax and a user fee, defining a tax as providing revenue for the general support of the government, while defining a user fee as imposing a specific charge for the use of publicly-owned or publicly-provided facilities or services. Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana, 453 U.S. 609, 621-622, 101 S.Ct. 2946, 2955, 69 L.Ed.2d 884, 896-897 (1981). The Florida Supreme Court has defined it thusly:

In common parlance, a tax is a forced charge or imposition, it operates whether we like it or not and in no sense depends on the will or contract of the one on whom it is imposed.

State ex rel. Gulfstream Park Racing Association v. Florida State Racing Commission, 70 So.2d 375, 379 (Fla.1953) [citations omitted].

As observed by the JPA and amici, in this case the fee is for Alamo's use of all of the JPA's facilities which benefit Alamo by generating its business. If Alamo wished to avoid the fee, it could obtain its customers from another source. The subject charge is tied exclusively to Alamo's use of the airport facilities to conduct its business.

In analyzing the tax issue, the trial court recognized the validity, but misapplied the holding, of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Evansville-Vanderburgh Airport...