Exh 8D~~
STAFF REPORT
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
CITY STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: Support of possible legislative action to insure the
ability of Florida Cities to collect storm water fees
DA'V'E: December 14, 1999
SUBMITTED BY: Jim Hanson, City M r
BACKGROUND: Local governments in Florida have established user
fees for many years pursuant to local government's
constitutional home rule powers. Many Florida cities
have established user fees for their storm water
utilities, including the City of Atlantic Beach. A 1995
Florida Supreme Court ruling in a case concerning the
City of Port Orange brings into question the legal basis
of charging storm water fees. As a result of the Port
Orange decision, the Florida Association of Storm
Water Utilities is recommending that member cities
support a legislative correction to the problems that
have been created by the Supreme Court decision. For
further information see the attached memo from the
Florida Association of Storm Water Utilities dated
August 31, 1999 as well as the recommendation from
Alan Jensen dated November 23, 1999.
BUDGET; The recommendation in this matter is not expected to
have any impact on the Atlantic Beach budget.
RECOENDATION: That the Mayor and Commission of Atlantic Beach go
on record to support legislation that will firmly
establish the ability of Florida cities to charge storm
water fees and to express the City's support in writing
to the Duval Legislative Delegation.
Auk-31-99 04:20pm From-KURT SPITZER
8502224124 T-313 P.O1/03 F-178
ww w ~~- w w
• F!_ORIDA ASSOCIATION of STORMWRT>=R UTILITIES
PO Box ti67 TaAahassee, FL 32302 - www.fa~u.vrg - 850/561-09U4 FAX 850/??2-4124
YIA FRCSIMIZE
MEMK?RA~,DUM
TO: All FASO Members
FRO Kurt S itzer
M p +~
~r
1
DATE: August 31, 7999
RE: Stormwater Fee Litigation and Legislation
You may remember that FASO has joined the City of Gainesville in its appeal of the decision of
the Circuit Court in Leon County that invalidated the City's stormwater fees that had been
charged to an FDOT maintenance complex {nor state toads). The fees were invalidated
because they were "mandatory ; that is, they were not permissive on the part of the entity
receiving stormwater management services and pay[~g the fee.
Since they were not valid user fees, the court reasoned that they were either special
assessments or property taxes, bath of which FDOT is exempt from paying- FDOT relied an the
Supreme Court's 1995 decision in Port OranQS in arguing the Gainesville case.
This is a very important issue for stormwater utilities in particular and local govemments in
general. !t could take years before the Florida Supreme Court renders a decision in the
Gainesville case. We therefore need your assistance in seeking a legislative correclion to the
problems that have been created by the Port Orange decision.
Background
Histarieafly, user fees have been developed pursuant to local govemments' (constitutional)
home rule powers. Additionally, in some cases, there may be specifC authority io impose fees
that has been granted by the Legislature (e.g. Chapter 4Q3, Florida Statutes, authorizes
stormwater ut-lity fees) In both cases, however, 25t years of cars law had left local
governments with broad powers to impose such charges and generally only required that the
charge was reasonable and that there was a rational nexus between the charge imposed and
the service received.
However, in 7995, the Florida Supreme Court ruled in Port Orange that fees must pe permissive
in nature; that is, the fee payer must have the right to decide whether or not to purchase the
service and pay the fee. A library fee is an example of such a voluntary fee.. Also, the court
seemed to require specific statutory authorization far local governments to impose user fees.
The impact of the Court's decision on siormwater and other fecal programs may tie enormous.
Since Part Orange, many challenges have been brought against what ware previously thought
Patrick S. Colkns, PE .borne Regan ~. P. Mcarch4nct, PE Kurt 5prr=er
Presro'ent vice-President Secretary•Trecisvrer Execun~e D~fecror
Vence CQCOQ Segch SQ[QSOTQ County
Auk-31-99 04:20pm From-KURT SPITZER 8502224124 T-313 P.OZ/03 F-1 T6
Memorandum
August 31, 1999
Page two of three
to be routine user fees in trial courts around the state. in addltiort to the lawsuit between
Gainesville and FpO7, School Boards, Community College Districts and even FIaEP have
cfaalienged stormwater and other fees.
Ramifications
In most instances, user fees fund municipal stormwater utilities. County systems usually rely on
non-ad valorem (special) assessments and are probably not girectly effected by the recent
decisions. However, even in those stormwater programs that do not receive significant
revenues from other Governmental entities, the impact of the Court's line of reasoning may still
be consideraple.
1. Individuals Mav Chaitenge the Fees _ FpOT and School Districts have argued that the
fee is a special as$essment pecause once the charge is found to be a special
assessment or a tax, the agency is exempt from it's payment by statute. Since special
assessments must show benefits to property and not individuals, it is plausible to
foresee situations where, for example, a group of renters may challenge stonnwater
fees, arguing that they are actually special assessments, and that the property owner
should pay the charge.
While city govemments are authorized to impose special assessments, the benefrt tests
for these types of charges are different than those for user fees. Such differences would
likely require recalculating/restructuring the cost allocation methods used for your utility.
Additionally, special assessments typically appear on the end-of--year property tax
invoke,-not on the monthly water~sewer bill.
2. Refundins~ Improperly levied Chars~es. It is also possible to foresee situations where
local governments could be required to refund improperly imposed stormwater charges.
One small, north Florida county recently lost a case in the l`lorida Supreme Court
concerning a special assessment and has been ordereq to refund all revenues that it
had collected after the trial court determined their special assessment was invalid. A
similar fate could await stormwater utility fees that were determined to be special
assessments and then not recalculated to be valid special assessments.
3. General Threats to Home ule. Prior to Port Orange, it was assumed that cities and
counties in Florida had the power to undertake any action and initiate any program
deemed to be ir1 the public interest as long as the Constitution or general law did nGt
prohibit it. Since mast user fees are not so prohibited, local governments have been
aple to initiate and fund many valuable programs throughout the stats_ Thee may also
be at risk, Given the recent line of thinking coming from the courts
If Florida is to deal with its mounting starrr-water problems it must maintain a sound institutional
and policy framework from which it can do so The stoRnwater utility concept is good public
policy. It creates a dedicated funding source that allocates costs in an equitable manner to
those that create the demand. This issue gees rrglat tp the heart of the st'ormwater triiliIy
concept. !t needs your urgent attenfiorl:
Auk-31-99 04:20pm From-KURT SPITZER 6502224124 T-313 P.03/03 F-178
Memorandum
August 31, 1999
Page three of three
Recommendation
ItaS technically possible for the Legislature to correct many of the problems created by the Port
Orange decision- For example, Chapter X03, FS, which permits stormwater utilities, could be
amended so that clear authorization is given to city arld county govemments to require parsons
within a stormwater utility to pay a reasonable fee for stormwater management services.
While the Legislature could remedy the problem, whether they would is another quesgon; they
certainly will not do so unless the issue is identified as a serious problem by their constituent
local govemments.
Many legislative delegations will soon begin to hold their annual hearings with their local
govemments. It is important that your city or county commission includes ibis issue as a priority
quring the delegation meetings and in other legislative forums. To that end, its important that all
FASU members bring thES issue forward to senior staff and etected officials,
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 850/b61-09p4. I'd be happy to
discuss the issue with you or any other local officio{, such as your city or county attorney,
topbyist, or member of your Commission or Council.
KS/bw
G ~p~wwwa~~F~o~a.O+aeaa~ya~ww~Oe,,aw eoc
ALAN JENSEN ATTY 526 P02
ALAN C. JENSEN
,A.ttaznep at Law
935 Narih Zbird Street
]Post Q;ft"ice ;Boar 54457
~aclcsanville Beaeh, Florids 322~i0-0457
Tele~Iaone (904} 2~6-2504
D,A,TE:
TO:
COMPANY:
FAX NUMBER:
NUMBER OF PAGES:
FROM:
czrl~N~rnx~TTl R zv0.:
FAX ME11~OFlANJDUN~
November 23, 1999
Jim Hanson, City Manager
City of Atlantic Beach
NOV 23'99 13:56
Fa~u'le f904) 7A6-9960
Time: i •~ ~'~
(904) 247-5805
5 (izzcluding cover sheet) ~~jjp~
ALAN C. JENSEN, ESQ.`~`L
Stormwater Fev Litigation and Lebislation
I~IFJSSAGE
Jim:
I have reviewed Bob K,asoy's Memorandum to David Thompson dated September 1, 1949, and the
attached Memorandum dated August 31, 1999, from Kurt Spitzer to all FASU members.
I do not believe there is any immediate action which needs to be taken by the City at this time in
regard to our stormwater fees_ However, Mr. Spitzer recommends that local gov~rnmPnts identify
the stormwater fees as a serious issue to our legislative delegations so that it can be considered
during their annual meetings. Mr. Spitzer has requested the assistance of all FASU metnbezs in
seeking a legislative correction to the problems that have been created by certain court decisions.
Atlantic .Beach should therefore express in writing to the Duval legislative delegation its concerns
regarding the stormwater fees issue and a request that the problems created by the Port Qrant~
decision be cozrected by legislation. ,A, copy of that decision is faxed herewith.
zf I can provide any further inforn~ati.on or assistance in this regard, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Alan
Tha information contained in this facsimile message is attorney privileged and confi,demtial information intended only
for rho usa of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disseminatioa,
distribution or copying of this couzznunication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error, please immediately notify us by talaphone and return the original xxtessage to us at the above eddrrsa via U.S.
Postal Service. Thank you. '
ALAN JENSEN ATTY
650 So.2d 1
19 FIa. L, Weekly 5563
(Cite as: 650 So.2d 1}
STAT1v of Florida, Appellant,
v.
The CTfY O); PORT ORANGE, Z:lorida, a
political suDdi~uision of the State of
l~orida, Appenee.
No. 83143.
Supzeme Court of Florida_
Nov. 3, 1994.
Rehearing Aenied Feb. l7, 2995.
eFlction was brought cballengjng legality of city's
issuance of transportation utility bonds. The Circuit
Court, Volusia County, Richazd H. Orfi~nger, 3.,
declared that bond issue was valid, and state appealed.
The SLpzezne Court, Wells, l"., held thy[
transponation utility fees used to finance bands were
unauthorized tax, rather than valid user fee, and thus
bond issue was unauthorized and invalid.
Reversed.
jlJ MUNICIPAL COR~ORATIONS~917(Z)
268k917(2)
Judicial inquiry in bond validation proceedings is
limited to determiniuag if public body has autlwrity to
issue subject bonds, determining if purpose of
obligation is legal, and ensuring that authorization of
obligation complies with requirements of law,
[2] MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS G'906
268k906
Subsumed within inquiry as to whether public body
has authority to issue subject bond is legality of
financing agreemezlt upon which bond is secured.
(3J MUNICIPAL CORPORATION5 G~931
268k93 l
Transpozrarian utility fees assessed by city co fund
tzansportatiorz utility bonds were unaudwrized taxes,
rather than user fees, and therefore bonds were
invalid, as such fees involved mandatory charges
imposed upoA those whose only choice was owning
developed property within boundaries of city.
- - (4] MUNICIPAL CORPOIt.ATIONS G~956(X)
2681sJ56(I)
Taxation by city must be expressly authorized either
526 P03 NOV 23'99 13:56
gage Y
by Florida Constitution oz grant of Florida legislature_
j4J MU1`IiC1PA.L CORPORATIONS 0957(1)
2b8k957(l)
Taxation by city rrnrst be expressly authorized either
by Florida Constihrtion or grant of Florida legislature.
[5] l~1UNICIPAL CORPORATION5 G~956(1)
268k956(1)
Power of municipality co tax should not be broadened
by scuaantics.
(671tiIUNICIPAI, CORPORATIONS C°~962
2b8k962
Pundittg for maintenance and arnprovemeztt of existing
municipal road system, every when limited to capital
projects, is revem~e for exercise of sovereign function
cotuemplated witksist definition of tax.
j7l MUIVICIPAi. CORPORATIONS G~722
2b8k722
"User fees," which unlike taxes need not be
authorized by general law, are based upon proprietary
right of governing body permitting use of
instrumentality involved; such fees share common
traits that distinguish them from taxes, including that
they are charged iza exchange for particular
governmental service with. benefits patty payiztg fee in
tuannet not shared by other members of society, and
they are paid by choice, in that patty paying fee has
option of not utilizing governmental service and
thereby avoiding charge_
Ste publication Words and Phrases for other judicial
constructions and deltnitions.
I7] MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS C:-a9S5(1}
268k956(1)
"User fees," which unlike taxes need not be
authorized by general law, are based upon proprietary
right of goveruit~ body permitting use of
instrumentality involved; such fees share cotnnaon
traits that distinguish them from taxes, including That
they are charged in exchange for particular
govemmental service with benefits parry payir~ fee in
mauuaz not shared by other members of society, aad
they are paid by choice, in that patty paying fee has
option of not utilizing govemznenral service and
thereby avoiding ebazge.
See publication Words anti Phrases for other judicial
constructions and definitions.
[8J M'tfNICIPAL CORPORATIONS f~956t2)
Copt. ~ West 1999 No Claiztr to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works
ALAN JENSEN ATTY
650 So.Zd l
(Cite as: 650 5o.2d 1)
268k956(2}
Constitutional provisions placing limit on ad valorem
miJlage available to municipalities, exempting
bomcsteads from. taxation up to minin} sir limits, and
exempting from levy spec~cally delineated
homesteads cannot be circumvented by creative
approaches to generating revenue that are i~a fact
taxes. West's F.S. A,. Coast. Art. 7, § 9; Art. 10, §
4.
Ig3 TAXATION 0196
371k196
Constitutional provisions placing limit on ad valorem
rnillage available to municipalities, exempting
hoznesteadS from taxation up to minimum ~~, earl
excAapting from levy specifically delineated
homesteads cannot be circurxivented by creative
approaches to generating revenue that are in fact
taxes. West's P.S.A. Coast. Art. 7, § 9; Art. I0, §
4.
~X Roben A. Butterworth,, Atty. Gen_, Joseph C.
Mellichamp, I>:I, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., and Eric 1.
Taylor, Assn. Atty. Gen,., Tallahassee, for appellants.
Peter L. Dame of Squire, Sanders & Deztspsey,
Jacksonville, and Maureen S_ Si)cora, Ciry Atry., Ciry
of Port Orange, Port Orange, for appellee.
s2 David J. Russ, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Dcpt. of
Community Affairs, Tallahassee, amicus curiae for
Florida Dept. of Community Affairs.
Roy K. Payzze, Asst. City Atry., Orlando, amicus
curiae for City of Orlando.
Kraig A. Corer, Asst_ Gee. Counsel, Florida Ixague
of Cities, Inc., Tallahassee, amicus curiae for Tire
Florida League of Cities, lac.
Susan F1. Churuti, Alas County Atry., President
and C. Allen Watts of Cobb, Cole & Bell, Daytona
Beach, amicus curiae for The Florida Assn of County
Attys., Ina
Paul R. Gougelutan of Reinman, Harrell, Grahaut,
Mitchell & Wa[twood, P.A., Melbourne, amicus
curiae for The Florida Bar, by and through, its Local
Government Law Secbioxr.
George H. Nickerson, Jr., Robert L. Nabors and
Rani T. Partridge of Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson,
P.A., Tallahassee, and Stephen E. Demarsh, tlsst.
County Attp., Sarasota, amicus curiae for Sarasota
526 P04 NOV 23'99 13:57
Page Z
Cwnty.
Stanley Jaunes Brainerd, Gen. Counsel, l~lorida
Chamber of Commerce, Tallahassee, amicus curiae
for Florida Charnbcr of Commerce.
WELLS, Justice.
We have oa appeal a decision of the trial court
declaritzg that a proposed bond issue is valid. We
have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(2), F71a. Coast.
[1) Judicial inquiry in bozo] validation proceedings is
limited. Specifically, courts should: (1 } determine if
a public body has the authority to issue the subject
bonds; (2} determine if the purpose of the obligation
is legal; azul (3) ensure that the authorization of fire
obligation complies with ttie requireaxients of law,
Taylor v. Lec Counry•, 498 So.2d 424, 42.5 (Fla.1986)
(citing Wohl v. State, 4$0 So.2d 639 (FIa.19$5)).
The City of Port Orange (the Ciry} enacted a
"Transportation .Utility Ordinance," City of Part
Orange Ordinance No. 1992-11, creating a
"Transportation Utility" of the City and adopting a
"transportation utility fee" relatizig to the use of city
roads. The fee is imposed upon the owmers and
occupants of developed properties within the Ciry.
No fees are imposed on undeveloped property. Any
u~ipaid fee becomes a lien upon the property until such
fee is paid. The costs to be defrayed by the fee arc
the City's expenses relatizig to the operation,
maintenance, and improvement of the local road
system. The circuit court limited these costs to capital
projects.
The orduiaztce requires that city-maintained roads be
Classified as arterial, collector, or Iocal roads, tied the
cost of constructing tint] mainranaitrg such roads be
allocated separately. Because arterial and collector
roads provide mobility and facilitate traffic movement
to anti from all pzoperties, the ordinance requires that
costs incurred by the City oa those roads be allocated
to all developed properties within the city.
The furiCtion of local roads, it was detezurined, is to
provide access to abutting properties. The ordinance
requixcs the City to allocate costs incurred on local
roads to developed properties fronting chose toads.
None of the costs of local roads are allocated to
properties fronting private s~bciivision roads.
Tkie City is required by the ordinance to estimate the
Copt. ~ West 1999 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works
ALAN JENSEN ATTY
650 So.2d 1
(Cite as: 6S0 So.2d 1, *2)
amoutu of usage of the local roads by the owners and
occupiezs of developed properties through a mixture
of aca~al tzaffic counts and the use of a "'Drip
Generation A+iauual;" developed by the Institute of
Trafbie F..~gineezs. The Ciry allocates the costs for
tech class of roads to the users of that class of toad in
proportion to the number of trips generated by each
user. [FNI] The *3 ordinance states that the fees
Property Class
Commercial Property
Property Class
Commercial Property generating
Dwellings on Public Roads
Dwellings on Private Roads
Dwellings on state or County Roads
The City further authorized the issuance of
Transportation t3dlity Bonds, City of Fort Orange
Ordinance No. 199?-28, to fznaztce the costs of
constructing, renovating, expanding, and improving
certain. city transportation. facilities. Such bonds are to
be paid by a pledge of the transpoxtatiozantility fees.
[Zj Subsumed within the inquiry aS to whether the
public body has the authority to issue the subject bond
is the legality of the financing agreement upon which
the bond is secured. GRW Corp. v. Department of
Corrections, 642 So.?d 718 {F1a.1944). Integral to
the financing agreement bare under review ]s the
pledge of what the bortcl ordirsatace labels
"transportation utility fees." Thus, we must determine
whether tilt pledge of the transportation utility fees is
a pledge of tax revenue or is a pledge of user charges
or fees. Because a tax must be authorized by general
law, the City agrees that if the transportation utility
fee is a tax, even broad home rule powers granted to
municipalities do not authorize it.
[3] The circuit coon ruled chat the transportation
utility fee is a valid user fee, not a tax, and the Ciry is
authorized under municipal home rule powers to
impose and collect the fee. We do trot agree. We
reverse the decision of the circuit court. We hold that
what is designated iur the boned ordinance as a
transportation utility fee is a tax which must be
authorized Dy general law.
[4)[S) This Gown bas held that taxation by a city must
be expressly authorized either by tkae Florida
Constitution or giant of the piorida Legislature.
"Doubt as to the powers sought to be exorcised must
Page 3
collected from any property need not be in close
proximity to such property or provide a special bene;6t
ro such property that is different in type or degree
fzvm benefits provided to the community as a whole.
FN1. City of fort OFSLtge Resolution No. 42-71,
Section Z, sev forth the t'ollowiz~g rates to be utilized
in deteruliriiag aazisportatiountility ftes:
Rate (S/month}
Z_29
Rate {$/month}
.0002984/trip
2.29
.50
.50
generating 0-142 trips per day
be resolved against the municipa)zty and itn favor of
the general public. " City Of Tampa v. Birdsong
Motors, Inc_, 261 So.2d 1, 3 (Fia.1972). It is our
view that the power of a municipality to tax should not
be hzoadened. by semantics which would be the effect
of labeling what ilte City is here collecting a fee rather
than a taz.
(6) In Ciry of Boca Raton v. State, 595 So.2d 25
{F1a.1992), this court noted that a tax is an enforced
burden imposed by sovereign right for the support of
the government, the m;n;ftrarion of law, and [he
exercise of various functions the sovereign is called
on to perform. Klenano~ v, Davenport, 100 Fla. 627,
631, 129 So. 404, 947 (1930). Funding for the
maintenance and improvement of an existing
municipal road system, even when limited to capital
projects as the circuit court dicl here, is ievezrue for
exercise of a sovereign function contemplated within
thrs defuutron 4f a tax.
[7] User fees are charges based upozt the proprietary
right of the governing body perrnittirrg the use of the
insttumentaliry involved. Such fees share common
traits that distinguish them from taxes: they are
charged iar exchange for a particular governmental
service which benefits the party paying the fee in, a
manner not shared by other members of society,
National Cable Television Assn. v. United States, 415
U.S. 336, 341, 94 5.Ct. 1146, 1149, 39 L.F.ti.2d 370
(1974); and they are paid by choice, in that the party
paying the fee: bas the option of not utilizing the
governmental service and thezeby avoiding the
charge. Bmerson College v. Ciry of Boston, 391
Mass. 415, 462 N.E.2d 1098, 1105 (1984) (citing
Copr. ®West 1999 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works
143-6,000 trips per day
526 P05 N(]V 23'99 13:5?
ALAN JENSEN ATTY
650 So.2d 1
(Cite as: 650 So.2d i<, *3)
City of Vanceburg v. Federal Bnesgy Regulatory
Comm'n, 571 F.Zd 634, 644 n. 48 (D.C.Cir.1977),
cert. denied, 439 U. S. 818, 99 S.Ct. 79, 58 L.Eti.2d
108 (1978)). The above concept of user fees was
approved by Phis Court in City of Daytona Beach
Shores v. State, 483 So.2d 405 (F1a.1985). The
City's transportation utility fee falls within our
defir-ition of a tax, not our defuaition of a user fee.
Tile circuit Court found this transportation utility fee
to be similar to the concept of irrtpaci fees which this
Court has approved. Impact fees imposed by a
municipality were upheld in Contractors and Builders
Association v. City of Dunedin, 329 So.2d 314
(F1a.1976). However, in that case, impact fees were
clearly limited:
*4 Raising expansion capital by setting connection
charges, which do trot exceed a pro rata share of
reasonably anticipated costs of expansion, is
permissible where expansion is reasonably retitrired,
if use of the money collected is limited to meeting
the costs of expansion. Users "who benefit
especially (sicJ, not from the maintenance of the
system, but by Ehe extension of the system ... should
bear the cost of that extension." Hartman v. Aurora
Sanitary District, (23 Ill.2d I(19, I77 N.E.2d 214,
218 (II1.1961) ]. On the other hand, it is not "just
and equitable" for a zn~utlicipally owned utility to
impose the entire burden of capital expenditures,
including replacement of existing pIattt, an persons
connecting to a water and sewer system after an
arbitrarily chosen time cet'tain.
The cost of new facilities should be borne by new
users to the extent new use zequires new facilities,
but only to that extent. When new facilities xaust be
built in any event, looking only to new users for
necessary capital 8~vcS old users a windfall at the
expense of new users.
Id, at 320-21 (footnote ouaittecl).
Thus, the irupact fee itr Catatractors and Builders
Association v. City of Dunedin was a valid user fee
because it involved a voluntary choice to connect uato
an eaistixaS instrumentality of the municipality. The
Port Orange fee, unlike Dunedizi s impact fee, is a
mandatory charge imposed upon those whose only
526 P06 NOV 23'99 13:58
Page 4
choice is owning developed property within the
bouzxiarics of the municipality.
The circuit court cites to storm-water utility fees as
being analogous to the transportation utility fee.
However, storm-water utility fees are expressly
authorized by section 403.031, Florida Statutes
(1993). Similarly, various municipal public works
and charges for their use are authorized by chapter
180, Florida Statutes (1993). However, the City's
transportation utility fee is not authorized by chapter
180, Florida Statutes.
What the City's transportation utility fee does is
convert the roads and the municipality into a toll road
system, with only owrters of developed property in the
city zequired to pay the toils. We Find uo siaiutory or
constitutional authority for such tolls by a
municipality.
(8] Finally we recognize the revenue pressures upon.
the municipalities and all levels of gavernzrtent in
Florida. We understarxl that this is a czeative effort in
response to the need for revemte. However, in
Florida's Consritution, the voters have placed a limit
on ad valorem millage available to municipalities, art.
VII, § 9, Fla. Const.; made homesteads exempt front
taxation up to minimTim lirrtits, art. VII, § 9, Fla.
Const.: and exempted from levy those homesteads
specifically delineated in anicle X, section 4 of the
Florida Constitution. These constitutional provisions
cannot be circumvented by such creativity.
The issuance by the City of transportation utility
revenue bands in an aggregate principal amount not to
exceed $500,004, pursuant to Ozdirance Na. 1942-28,
is raot authorized and is hereby invalidated. The
circuit court's judgment is zeversed.
It is so ordered.
GRIMES; C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN,
HAIZDING and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
END OF DOCUMENT
Capt. l9'Vltest 1.994 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. GVorks