Hollywood, Inc. v. Broward County
431 So.2d 606 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Charter counties in Florida may, as a valid exercise of their police power, require developers to dedicate land or pay impact fees for county-level parks as a condition of plat approval, provided the exactions reasonably offset needs directly attributable to the new development and the funds are earmarked for the substantial benefit of the new residents.
Facts:
- Broward County, Florida, a charter county, enacted Ordinance 77-43 (as amended), which mandates that developers, as a condition of plat approval, must dedicate land or pay a fee to be used for expanding the county-level park system.
- The ordinance provides three alternative compliance options: 1) dedicating three acres for every one thousand residents, 2) paying an amount equal to the value of the land that would have been dedicated, or 3) paying a scheduled impact fee per dwelling unit.
- Hollywood, Inc., a real estate development corporation, submitted a plat for approval and chose the second option, paying an amount equal to the value of the land that would have been dedicated.
- Broward County maintained a standard of three acres of developed county-level parkland per one thousand residents and demonstrated that new subdivisions would necessitate the acquisition and development of new land to maintain this standard.
- The county presented evidence that the fees collected under the ordinance were less than the amount required to maintain its parkland standard for new residents, even after accounting for future property taxes paid towards existing park bonds.
- The ordinance explicitly requires the collected funds to be expended within a reasonable time for acquiring and developing land for county-level parks within fifteen miles of the platted area, specifically to meet the needs created by and substantially benefit the residents of the new development.
Procedural Posture:
- Hollywood, Inc. commenced an action in a Florida trial court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as a refund of the fee paid under the Broward County ordinance.
- The trial court concluded that the Broward County ordinance was a valid and constitutional exercise of the county's legislative powers.
- Hollywood, Inc. appealed the trial court's decision to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, challenging the ordinance's validity.
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 Florida charter county have the legal authority under its home rule powers and the state constitution to enact an ordinance requiring developers, as a condition of plat approval, to dedicate land or pay a fee for the expansion of a county-level park system to accommodate the new residents of the development, without violating constitutional rights or constituting an illegal tax?
Opinions:
Majority - Hurley
Yes, a Florida charter county has the legal authority to enact an ordinance requiring developers to dedicate land or pay a fee for county-level parks as a condition of plat approval. The court affirmed the trial court's conclusion that the ordinance is valid, finding no violation of the Broward County Charter or constitutional rights. First, the court addressed Hollywood, Inc.'s assertion that Broward County lacked authority under its charter. The court found that Florida's constitution (Article VIII, Section 1(g)) vests broad home rule powers in charter counties, allowing them 'all powers of local self-government not inconsistent with general law.' Broward County's charter further reinforces these broad powers, stating they 'shall be construed liberally in favor of the county government.' The court found no provision in the charter that prohibited the enactment of this type of ordinance, rejecting the argument that Section 6.12 (Plat Ordinance) implicitly limited the county's power to impose such requirements. Second, the court addressed the constitutionality of the ordinance, specifically claims of due process and equal protection violations, unconstitutional taking without just compensation, and illegal taxation. The court relied on Florida Supreme Court precedent, particularly Contractors & Builders Association of Pinellas County v. City of Dunedin, which established that local governments can impose impact fees that do not exceed a pro rata share of the reasonably anticipated costs of capital expansion required by new development, provided funds are specifically earmarked for those costs and are not inconsistent with state law. The court also cited Wald Corp. v. Metropolitan Dade County, which introduced the 'rational nexus' or 'reasonable connection' test. The court synthesized these precedents into a two-pronged test: 1) a reasonable connection (rational nexus) between the need for additional capital facilities and the growth generated by the subdivision, and 2) a reasonable connection (rational nexus) between the expenditure of funds and the benefits accruing to the subdivision, with funds specifically earmarked for new residents. The court found that Broward County successfully demonstrated both prongs: evidence supported the need for additional park facilities due to new residents and showed the fees were an equitable pro rata share. Furthermore, the ordinance adequately earmarked funds for acquiring and developing new park land within fifteen miles, which the county demonstrated would substantially benefit the new residents due to their travel patterns for county-level parks. The court distinguished the present ordinance from prior cases like Admiral Development Corp. v. City of Maitland (which involved an arbitrary fixed percentage fee) and Broward County v. Janis Development Corp. (which involved a road impact fee in a non-charter county with insufficient earmarking), emphasizing that the present ordinance was a valid regulatory measure rather than an illegal tax.
Analysis:
This case is a foundational decision in Florida for the validity of impact fees and developer exactions, particularly for parks and recreation. By clearly articulating and applying the 'rational nexus' test, the court provided a framework for local governments to mitigate the public service demands created by new development without running afoul of constitutional limitations on taxation or property rights. The ruling reinforces the broad home rule powers of Florida charter counties, allowing them significant flexibility in land use planning and infrastructure funding. Future cases would continue to refine the specifics of what constitutes a 'reasonable connection' and 'substantial benefit' under this test, but Hollywood, Inc. firmly established the permissibility of such exactions when properly structured and supported by evidence.
