Donovan v. Okaloosa County
37 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 6, 82 So.3d 801, 2012 WL 16587 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A county may lawfully issue and validate revenue bonds to fund a beach restoration project, supported by special assessments, so long as the project serves a paramount public purpose, the special assessments are based on logical special benefits and fair apportionment, and bond validation is not prematurely sought merely because environmental permits have not yet been issued.
Facts:
- Okaloosa County developed a plan for beach restoration and renourishment in a portion of the County.
- The County determined to fund the project through state government grant money and revenue bonds.
- The revenue bonds would be funded by the first cent of a tourist development tax and special assessments on properties within a designated Municipal Service Benefit Unit (MSBU).
- The County created the MSBU by ordinance in December 2007, consisting of subassessment areas in Okaloosa Island and the western portion of the City of Destin.
- After notice and hearing, the County adopted Resolution 08-125 (the "Assessment Resolution") in August 2008, imposing special assessments on properties within the MSBU based on a feasibility study, finding the properties received a special benefit.
- In October 2008, the County adopted Resolution 08-201 (the "Bond Resolution"), authorizing the issuance of up to $20,000,000 in revenue bonds for the beach restoration project.
- The County’s MSBU Ordinance and Assessment Resolution were subsequently modified or amended, including changes to MSBU boundaries and recalculations of assessments, in response to related legal decisions.
Procedural Posture:
- Okaloosa County filed a bond validation complaint in the circuit court pursuant to chapter 75, Florida Statutes, on November 18, 2008.
- Property owners within the MSBU subject to the assessments (Appellants) intervened in the circuit court, filing an answer and multiple counterclaims to the County's complaint.
- A bond validation hearing was held in the circuit court in April and August 2009.
- On March 26, 2010, the circuit court issued an order validating the bonds, determining the County was authorized to issue them, the MSBU was lawful, assessments were lawfully imposed, and property owners received a special benefit, while ruling many issues raised by appellants were collateral.
- Appellants timely filed an appeal of the circuit court's judgment in the Florida Supreme Court pursuant to section 75.08, Florida Statutes.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can a county lawfully validate revenue bonds to fund a beach restoration project, supported by special assessments on property owners, when environmental permits have not yet been issued and property owners claim the project primarily benefits private interests?
Opinions:
Majority - Canady, C.J.
Yes, the circuit court's judgment validating the revenue bonds for Okaloosa County's beach restoration project is affirmed because the County complied with procedural requirements, the bond validation was not premature despite unissued permits, the project serves a paramount public purpose, and the special assessments are valid. The court held that the County fulfilled the condition precedent for bond validation by adopting the Bond Resolution, and its interpretation of its own MSBU Ordinance to adopt both initial and final assessment resolutions jointly was entitled to deference, as the ordinance did not require separate hearings. The Court applied the `Hillsboro Island` test, ruling that bond validation was not premature simply because environmental permits had not yet been issued. There is no statutory requirement for permits to be issued prior to validation, and the County made a reasonable demonstration that regulations would be met, with no risk of irreparable harm from work commencing pre-permit. The court further determined that issues regarding sand quality or erosion control lines were collateral to bond validation proceedings. The project serves a paramount public purpose, as beach restoration is a "necessary governmental responsibility" declared by the Legislature, addressing a "serious menace to the economy and general welfare of the people of this state" (Fla. Stat. § 161.088). The special benefits received by private property owners (storm protection, enhanced property values) are incidental and do not "tarnish" the public character of the project, distinguishing it from cases where private benefits were paramount. Finally, the special assessments were found valid because the County's legislative findings of special benefits (storm protection, enhanced property values, increased recreational opportunities) were supported by competent, substantial evidence and were not arbitrary. Similarly, the apportionment methodology, which allocated costs based on storm damage reduction for beachfront properties and recreation for all properties, was a reasonable legislative function that was not arbitrary and was supported by competent, substantial evidence. The court noted that the project does not need to be physically located "within" the MSBU, as long as it provides special benefits to properties within it, regardless of where sand is placed seaward of the mean high water line.
Concurring in result - Lewis, J.
Justice Lewis concurred in the result, meaning he agreed with the ultimate outcome of affirming the bond validation, but not necessarily with all of the reasoning articulated in the majority opinion.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies a local government's authority to fund large-scale environmental protection projects through revenue bonds and special assessments in Florida. It establishes that bond validation can proceed even if environmental permits are pending, providing greater flexibility for project financing. The decision also reinforces the high deference given to legislative determinations of public purpose and special benefits for assessments, requiring a strong showing of arbitrariness to overturn them. This precedent allows counties to address critical issues like beach erosion effectively, balancing public welfare with the funding mechanisms, and ensuring that collateral issues are addressed in appropriate administrative forums rather than delaying essential bond validations.
