St. Johns County v. NE Fla. Builders Ass'n, Inc.

Majority - Grimes

Yes, a county ordinance imposing educational facilities impact fees on new residential construction does not violate Florida's constitutional mandates for a uniform system of free public schools, is not preempted by state law, and does not constitute an unlawful delegation of power, provided it satisfies the dual rational nexus test and is severed of provisions that convert it into a user fee. First, the court held that the ordinance satisfied the first prong of the dual rational nexus test, which requires a reasonable connection between the need for additional schools and the population growth from new development. The court rejected the argument that the fee was a tax because some new residences might not house public school children, reasoning that the fee provides capacity to serve all dwelling units over their useful life, and the county had demonstrated a need based on average student generation rates. Second, the court found that the ordinance, as written, failed the second prong of the dual rational nexus test, which requires a reasonable connection between the expenditure of funds and the benefits accruing to those who pay the fees. This was because the ordinance was not effective in municipalities without an interlocal agreement, meaning funds could be spent on schools benefiting areas that had not paid the fee. The court ruled that no impact fees could be collected until substantially all of St. Johns County's population was subject to the ordinance, ensuring that those paying the fees would benefit from the expenditures. Third, addressing the constitutional challenge of "free public schools," the court clarified that this mandate prohibits tuition but does not exempt property owners from contributing to school costs through taxes or permissible impact fees. However, Section 7(B) of the ordinance, which allowed feepayers to avoid the fee based on the absence of public school children in their household, transformed the impact fee into an unconstitutional "user fee." The court found Section 7(B) severable from the rest of the ordinance, preserving the ordinance's validity. Fourth, the court rejected the argument that the ordinance violated the "uniform system" of public schools, noting that the constitutional provision does not mandate uniform funding sources or identical facilities across counties, but rather a common plan or purpose. The court suggested impact fees could even help achieve uniformity by funding schools in growing areas. Fifth, the court concluded that the county was not preempted by the constitution or state law from enacting the ordinance. It clarified that school board taxing authority does not limit county involvement in school financing, and state statutes actually contemplate county contributions to education. Counties have home-rule powers unless explicitly preempted by general or special law. Finally, the court found no unlawful delegation of power, as the county made the fundamental policy decisions, determined the fees, and placed them in a trust fund, while the school board's discretion was sufficiently limited to spending funds for new educational facilities as prescribed and providing annual accountings to the county.