City of Miami v. Haigley, Etc.
2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 11195, 2014 WL 3610909, 143 So. 3d 1025 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipal ordinance that imposes a higher user fee on non-residents than on residents for a specific government service does not violate equal protection or the right to intrastate travel, provided there is a rational basis for the distinction, such as residents' prior contributions to the service through taxes.
Facts:
- The City of Miami enacted an ordinance establishing fees for its emergency medical transportation services, provided by the Fire-Rescue Department.
- The ordinance included section 2-234(a)(9), which assessed an additional $100 surcharge for users who were not residents of the City of Miami.
- Cheryl K. Haigley, a resident of St. Petersburg Beach, Florida, was visiting the City of Miami.
- While in Miami, Haigley fell and injured herself, requiring transportation to a local hospital via the City's emergency medical services.
- The City subsequently billed Haigley a total of $445, which included the standard base rate, mileage, and the $100 non-resident surcharge.
- Haigley paid the bill in full.
Procedural Posture:
- Cheryl K. Haigley, individually and on behalf of a class, sued the City of Miami in a Florida trial court.
- The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the non-resident surcharge was an unconstitutional tax and violated the rights to equal protection and intrastate travel.
- Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, striking down the non-resident surcharge as an unauthorized tax and a violation of equal protection and the right to travel.
- The trial court enjoined the City from collecting the surcharge and ordered it to refund all surcharges collected in the preceding four years.
- The City of Miami, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's final summary judgment to the Florida Third District Court of Appeal, with Haigley as the appellee.
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 municipal ordinance that imposes a surcharge on non-residents for emergency medical transportation services violate the Florida Constitution's equal protection clause or the right to intrastate travel, and does it constitute an unauthorized tax rather than a valid user fee?
Opinions:
Majority - Rothenberg, J.
No, the municipal ordinance does not violate the Florida Constitution and constitutes a valid user fee, not a tax. The court found that the surcharge is part of a user fee, not a tax, by applying the three-prong test from State v. City of Port Orange. First, the fee was charged in exchange for a particular governmental service—emergency medical transport. Second, the service benefited Haigley in a manner not shared by the general public. Third, the fee was paid by choice, as Haigley had the option of not entering the City and could have theoretically refused the service. The court further held that depositing the fees into the City's general fund did not convert them into a tax. Regarding the constitutional claims, the court applied the rational basis test for the equal protection challenge because residency is not a suspect classification. The City has a legitimate interest in funding its services, and it is rational to charge non-residents more because residents already contribute to the Fire-Rescue Department's budget through ad valorem taxes. Finally, the court concluded the surcharge does not burden the right to intrastate travel, as it does not restrict anyone's ability to enter or move within the City but merely imposes a cost for the voluntary use of a specific service.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal distinction between a permissible user fee and an impermissible tax, affirming a municipality's authority to charge non-residents more for services. It reinforces the highly deferential rational basis standard for economic classifications based on residency, establishing that offsetting residents' tax contributions is a legitimate governmental purpose. The ruling provides a clear precedent for Florida municipalities seeking to cover the costs of services used by tourists and visitors, allowing them to create differential fee structures so long as they are rationally related to a legitimate objective.
