Sarasota County v. Town of Longboat Key

• Decision Date: 30 November 1977
• Docket Number: No. 76-1632,76-1632
• Citation: 353 So.2d 569
• Parties: SARASOTA COUNTY, Florida, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. TOWN OF LONGBOAT KEY, Florida, City of Sarasota, Florida, City of Venice, Florida, and City of North Port, Florida, Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 569

353 So.2d 569

SARASOTA COUNTY, Florida, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. TOWN OF LONGBOAT KEY, Florida, City of Sarasota, Florida, City of Venice, Florida, and City of North Port, Florida, Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

No. 76-1632.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 30, 1977.

As Modified On Denial of Rehearing Jan. 6, 1978.

Talbot D'Alemberte of Steel, Hector & Davis, Miami, and Richard E. Nelson, Richard L. Smith, and Leslie Telford of Nelson, Hesse, Cyril & Weber, Sarasota, for appellant/cross-appellee.

William R. Korp and Andrew J. Britton of Korp, Wheeler & McGill, Venice, for appellee/cross-appellant, city of Venice.

John R. Wood of Wood, Whitesell & Karp, Sarasota, for appellee/cross-appellant, town of Longboat Key.

William C. Strode of Strode, Hereford & Taylor, Sarasota, for appellee/cross-appellant, city of Sarasota.

Allen J. Levin, Port Charlotte, for appellee/cross-appellant, city of North Port.

BOARDMAN, Chief Judge.

In June 1976 appellees, town of Longboat Key, city of Sarasota, city of Venice, and city of North Port, filed suit against appellant, Sarasota County, Florida, seeking relief from the levy of taxes allegedly used to finance services which were of no real or substantial benefit to the property or residents of the incorporated areas of the county.

Article VII, Section 9(a) of the Florida Constitution authorizes taxation of real and tangible personal property at specified rates by counties, school districts, municipalities, and special districts for their respective purposes. In addition, if authorized by general law, a county which provides services typically provided by a municipality ("municipal services") may levy additional taxes to finance those services within the tax-rate limit set for municipal purposes. Article VII, Section 9(b), Florida Constitution. It has long been held by the courts, however, that the taxing power may not be used to secure revenue from an area for services which do not benefit that area. E. g., State ex rel. Attorney General v. Avon Park, 108 Fla. 641, 149 So. 409 (1933). Included in the 1968 constitution was a specific proscription of taxation of property within a municipality to finance services rendered by the county exclusively for the benefit of unincorporated areas. Article VIII, Section 1(h), Florida Constitution. The supreme court construed Article VIII, Section 1(h) as prohibiting taxation of the incorporated areas for a purpose which would not provide a real and substantial benefit to municipal residents. City of St. Petersburg v. Briley, Wild & Associates, Inc., 239 So.2d 817 (Fla.1970).

In 1974 the legislature enacted a comprehensive statute authorizing a county to provide "municipal services" and facilitating elimination of unconstitutional dual taxation of municipalities for those services which specially benefit the unincorporated areas. The state provides a scheme whereby the recipient of the services will finance those services. For example, by creation of "municipal service taxing or benefit units" within its unincorporated areas the county can assess the full costs of the "municipal service" provided to that unit. Section 125.01(1)(q), Florida Statutes (1975). Alternatively, the whole of the unincorporated area may be assessed the cost of each "municipal service" provided by the county. Municipalities are not, however, precluded from voluntarily participating in a program where the county provides "municipal services" to it. A "special district" may be created to include an incorporated area but only upon passage of an ordinance which sets out the millage to be paid to the county for specific services provided to that district by the county. Section 125.01(5), Florida Statutes (1975).

If a municipality believed that the county is providing a service financed by county-wide revenues which is rendered particularly for the benefit of the unincorporated area, it may petition the county for redress. Upon determination that the service at issue is of special benefit to the unincorporated area or is of no real or substantial benefit to the municipality the county must elect among the following remedies: (1) financing the activity only by funds derived from the unincorporated areas, (2) creating a municipal service authority to provide the service with "funds derived from service charges, special assessments, or taxes within such unit only," and (3) remitting to the municipality the cost of the service identified as having been contributed by the municipality. Section 125.01(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1975). It would seem most reasonable to read this section as providing alternatives one and two for prospective relief and alternative three for retroactive relief.

Pursuant to Section 125.01, Florida Statutes, appellees each filed a separate resolution with the county challenging certain county-provided services and requesting that the county comply with Section 125.01(1)(q). ¹ The county did not respond to the petitions within...