North Port Road & Drainage District v. West Villages Improvement District
82 So.3d 69, 37 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 67, 2012 WL 300879 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipal dependent special district's home rule powers do not extend to levying non-ad valorem special assessments on real property owned by an independent special district when the independent district lacks specific statutory authority to pay such assessments, and compelling payment would violate constitutional prohibitions against drawing money from the state treasury without appropriation.
Facts:
- The North Port Road and Drainage District (NPRDD) is a municipal dependent special district wholly contained within the City of North Port.
- West Villages Improvement District (West Villages) is an independent special district of the State of Florida, created by a special legislative act.
- West Villages owns nine parcels of real property located within the City of North Port.
- In mid-2008, NPRDD amended its enabling ordinance to permit the levy of non-ad valorem assessments against real property owned by governmental entities.
- West Villages received notices of proposed non-ad valorem assessments from NPRDD for its nine parcels for the 2008-2009 fiscal year.
- West Villages timely filed written objections, arguing that NPRDD lacked explicit or necessarily implied legislative authorization to impose assessments on public property.
- At a public hearing, West Villages reiterated its objections verbally and in writing, but NPRDD passed a resolution establishing the assessment rates and adopting the assessment roll.
- It is undisputed that the nine parcels of West Villages’ property, including wetland preservation, water management, recreational tracts, gopher tortoise preserve, and a public roadway, are used for public purposes rather than nonpublic or private commercial purposes.
- West Villages’ enabling statute only permits it to levy non-ad valorem assessments for property, facilities, and services it makes available or furnishes.
Procedural Posture:
- West Villages timely filed written objections to NPRDD's proposed non-ad valorem assessments, asserting a lack of legislative authorization for assessments on public property.
- At a public hearing, West Villages verbally and in writing reiterated its objections to the proposed assessments.
- Despite West Villages’ objections, NPRDD passed a resolution establishing the non-ad valorem assessment rates and adopting the assessment roll.
- West Villages filed appeals to address the imposition of the non-ad valorem assessments for each of the nine parcels.
- On October 17, 2008, the district director for NPRDD issued a letter to West Villages denying the appeals.
- On November 14, 2008, West Villages filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the circuit court (trial court).
- The circuit court denied West Villages’ petition, citing City of Boca Raton v. State and determining that a dependent special district has authority to levy non-ad valorem assessments on specially benefited properties under both home rule and statutory authority.
- West Villages appealed the circuit court's decision to the Second District Court of Appeal.
- The Second District Court of Appeal held that NPRDD could not lawfully impose the special assessments on West Villages’ real property without statutory authority.
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 dependent special district, under its home rule powers, have the authority to levy non-ad valorem special assessments on real property owned by an independent special district of the state, where the independent district lacks statutory authority to pay such assessments and the property is used for public purposes?
Opinions:
Majority - Polston, J.
No, a municipal dependent special district's home rule powers do not extend so far as to allow its special assessments on real property owned by an independent special district of the state, where the independent district lacks statutory authority to pay such assessments. The court reasoned that while municipalities possess broad home rule powers under Article VIII, section 2(b) of the Florida Constitution and chapter 166, Florida Statutes, these powers are limited and do not permit legislation on subjects expressly prohibited by the constitution or preempted by general law, as delineated in section 166.021(3). NPRDD's special assessments on West Villages' property fall within these limitations for two primary reasons: (i) West Villages' enabling statute (chapter 2004-456, section 3(2)(q)) only permits it to levy assessments for property, facilities, and services it provides, not to pass through assessments imposed by another entity like NPRDD, nor can it use chapter 170 or section 298.305, Florida Statutes, for this purpose. Furthermore, its property is used for public purposes, meaning it cannot be assessed as if privately owned under its enabling act. (ii) NPRDD is constitutionally prohibited from compelling payment that would effectively draw money from the state treasury without a legislative appropriation, as mandated by Article VII, section 1(c) of the Florida Constitution. Since West Villages lacks any lawful means to pay these special assessments, NPRDD's attempt to impose them exceeds its home rule authority.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the boundaries of municipal home rule power, particularly for dependent special districts, when they seek to impose financial burdens on independent special districts. It underscores that such powers are not absolute and are circumscribed by both state statutes and constitutional provisions, especially those governing state appropriations and the authority of other governmental entities. The ruling establishes a precedent that one governmental entity cannot indirectly force another, particularly a state-created district, to make payments for which it lacks statutory authority or where such payment would circumvent constitutional requirements for state spending. This decision reinforces the principle of fiscal accountability and the necessity of explicit legislative authorization for inter-governmental financial obligations, thereby impacting future cases involving special assessment disputes between different governmental entities.
