Alachua County v. Adams
702 So. 2d 1253 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Florida Constitution, the authority for a county to levy a non-ad valorem tax and the purposes for which the resulting revenue may be spent must both be established by general law; a special law cannot authorize a county to use tax proceeds for a purpose explicitly prohibited by the general law that authorized the tax.
Facts:
- The Florida legislature enacted a general law, section 212.055, authorizing counties to levy a discretionary sales surtax for infrastructure projects.
- The general law defined 'infrastructure' as fixed capital expenditures with a life expectancy of at least five years and explicitly stated that surtax proceeds 'shall not be used for operational expenses of any infrastructure.'
- In 1994, the legislature passed chapter 94-487, a special law applicable only to Alachua County.
- This special law authorized Alachua County to use its infrastructure surtax revenues for the 'operation and maintenance of parks and recreation programs and facilities established with the proceeds of the surtax.'
- Alachua County and its municipalities subsequently entered an interlocal agreement to use the surtax proceeds to operate and maintain a county-wide recreational program.
- Dwight Adams, a citizen and taxpayer of Alachua County, contested the constitutionality of the special law and threatened legal action to enjoin a referendum on the surtax.
Procedural Posture:
- Alachua County and the City of Gainesville filed a declaratory judgment action in the trial court, seeking a declaration of the legality of the special law and an interlocal agreement.
- The trial court held that the special law, chapter 94-487, was an unconstitutional special act.
- Alachua County, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the First District Court of Appeal.
- The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding the special act unconstitutional.
- Alachua County then appealed that decision to the Supreme Court of Florida.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a special law that authorizes a county to use the proceeds of a local government infrastructure surtax for operational expenses, a use explicitly prohibited by the general law authorizing the surtax, violate Article VII, sections 1(a) and 9(a) of the Florida Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Grimes, Senior Justice
Yes, the special law violates the Florida Constitution because it purports to amend a general taxing statute for a single county, contravening the constitution's requirement that non-ad valorem taxes be authorized by general law. The court rejected the argument that the 'general law' requirement applies only to the 'form of taxation' and not the use of its proceeds, finding the distinction 'unpersuasive and largely semantic.' The purpose of Article VII, sections 1(a) and 9(a) is to prevent the legislature from undermining state tax sources by enacting special laws authorizing local governments to impose non-ad valorem taxes for local purposes. Allowing this special act would convert the general infrastructure tax into a general grant of sales tax authority to counties, modifiable at will by special legislation, which is the exact outcome the constitution was designed to prevent.
Dissenting - Overton, Justice
No, the special law does not violate the Florida Constitution because the constitution only requires the 'form of taxation' to be authorized by general law, not the specific uses of the tax revenue. The dissent argued that the majority's opinion restricts the ability of local citizens to tax themselves for desired services and contradicts prior court decisions which distinguished between the authority to impose a tax and the allocation of its revenues. According to the dissent, previous cases under both the 1885 and 1968 constitutions allowed special laws to expand the permitted uses of revenues from a tax authorized by general law. The dissent contended that the majority was effectively overruling this precedent and interpreting the 1968 constitution to be more restrictive of local government power than its predecessor, contrary to its intent.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the constitutional principle that the legislature cannot create special exceptions for individual counties that contradict the terms of a general taxing statute. It establishes that the Florida Constitution's 'general law' requirement for non-ad valorem taxes applies not just to the authority to levy the tax, but also to the specific purposes for which the tax revenue can be spent. The ruling prevents the piecemeal erosion of general tax schemes, ensuring uniformity and preventing counties from using special legislation to fund projects expressly forbidden by the statewide framework. This strengthens the constitutional division between state and local taxing authority by limiting local governments' ability to circumvent restrictions imposed by general law.
