McLeod v. Orange County
645 So.2d 411, 1994 WL 570638 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Florida charter counties possess the constitutional authority to levy public service taxes within their unincorporated areas, provided such taxes are not inconsistent with general or special laws, mirroring the taxing power of municipalities.
Facts:
- In August 1991, Orange County, a charter county, adopted Ordinance 91-17, levying a public service tax on the purchase of electricity, metered or bottled gas, water service, fuel oil, and telecommunication services within its unincorporated area.
- In November 1992, Orange County adopted Ordinances 92-35, 92-B-10, and 92-B-11, which authorized the financing of county capital projects through public service tax revenue bonds.
- Ordinances 92-B-10 and 92-B-11 authorized the issuance of Public Service Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 1992, to pay for various capital projects, including the acquisition of environmentally-sensitive land.
- The bond-financed projects could be located without limitation as to their location within the county, meaning they could be within incorporated or unincorporated areas.
- Johnie A. McLeod is a resident of and property owner in the unincorporated section of Orange County.
Procedural Posture:
- Orange County initiated a bond validation proceeding in the Florida Ninth Judicial Circuit Court (a trial court) to validate a proposed bond issue.
- The circuit court issued a final judgment validating the bonds and confirming Orange County Ordinances 92-B-10 and 92-B-11.
- Johnie A. McLeod, as appellant, filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of Florida, challenging the circuit court's validation of the proposed bond issue.
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 charter county in Florida, without explicit general law authorization, have the power to levy a public service tax in its unincorporated areas under the Florida Constitution, and is such a tax unlawful if its proceeds potentially benefit incorporated areas?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, a charter county in Florida has the power to levy a public service tax in its unincorporated areas under the Florida Constitution, and such a tax is not unlawful even if its proceeds potentially benefit incorporated areas, as long as it is not inconsistent with general or special laws. The Court relied on its holding in State ex rel. Volusia County v. Dickinson (1972), which established that "unless precluded by general or special law, a charter county may without more under authority of existing general law impose by ordinance any tax in the area of its tax jurisdiction a municipality may impose." This conclusion is derived from a combined reading of Article VII, Section 9(a) and Article VIII, Section 1(g) of the Florida Constitution, which together grant charter counties the authority to levy any tax a municipality may impose, if it is within the county's taxing jurisdiction, including a public service tax under section 166.231, Florida Statutes. The Court rejected McLeod's argument that the tax violated Article VIII, Section 1(h) of the Florida Constitution by potentially favoring incorporated areas. This constitutional provision only prohibits the taxing of property within municipalities for services exclusively for the benefit of unincorporated areas; there is no comparable prohibition against taxing unincorporated areas for services that may also benefit municipalities. Furthermore, Article VIII, Section 1(h) applies solely to property taxes, whereas the public service tax in question is an excise tax on specified purchases. The Court also affirmed that Orange County properly enacted the ordinance pursuant to the county procedures outlined in section 125.66(1), Florida Statutes, rather than municipal procedures. While an administrative error regarding notification for disabled persons was noted, it was deemed harmless as no prejudice was shown. (Grimes, C.J., Overton, Shaw, Kogan and Harding, JJ., and McDonald, Senior Justice, concurred.)
Analysis:
This case solidifies the broad taxing authority of Florida charter counties, affirming their ability to levy "municipal-type" taxes like public service taxes in their unincorporated areas without specific enabling general legislation, so long as no general or special law prohibits it. It clarifies the scope of home rule for charter counties and reinforces the precedent set in Volusia County v. Dickinson. The decision also provides important clarification on the limitations of Article VIII, Section 1(h) of the Florida Constitution, distinguishing between property taxes and excise taxes and confirming the direction of its protective intent, which primarily safeguards municipal property from being taxed for exclusive unincorporated area benefits.
