Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach
2000 Fla. LEXIS 911, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 390, 760 So. 2d 126 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A government-imposed impact fee is unconstitutional as applied to a specific development if the development does not create a need for the new facilities being funded, nor does it derive a benefit from them, thereby failing the dual rational nexus test.
Facts:
- Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P. (Aberdeen) owns and operates a mobile home park designated as housing for persons aged 55 or older.
- Aberdeen's recorded 'Supplemental Declaration of Covenants' prohibits anyone under the age of 18 from permanently residing in the community and explicitly states this prohibition is not subject to waiver, exception, or amendment.
- An earlier, unrecorded 'Primary Declaration' contained a general provision allowing the developer to revoke any restrictions, but by its own terms, this document was not effective until recorded, which never occurred.
- Volusia County enacted an ordinance imposing countywide public school impact fees on all new dwelling units to fund school expansion necessitated by new development.
- Aberdeen paid $86,984.07 in impact fees under protest for 84 new homes built in its community.
- As of July 1998, no children had ever lived in Aberdeen, and the youngest resident was 42 years old.
Procedural Posture:
- Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P. sued Volusia County in a Florida trial court (Circuit Court), seeking a declaration that the county's school impact fee ordinance was unconstitutional as applied to its community.
- Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The trial court denied Volusia County's motion and granted Aberdeen's motion, ruling that the ordinance was unconstitutional as applied to Aberdeen.
- Volusia County (Appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Fifth District Court of Appeal.
- Contemporaneously with its appeal, Volusia County requested that the district court certify the case to the Supreme Court of Florida as a matter of great public importance requiring immediate resolution.
- The Fifth District Court of Appeal granted the certification request, passing the case directly to the Supreme Court of Florida.
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 county ordinance imposing public school impact fees on new residential construction violate the dual rational nexus test when applied to a mobile home community with deed restrictions that prohibit minors from residing there?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Quince
Yes, the county ordinance imposing public school impact fees is unconstitutional as applied to Aberdeen. A local government cannot impose school impact fees on a development that is legally deed-restricted to prohibit minors because such a development fails both prongs of the dual rational nexus test. The court reasoned that the 'Supplemental Declaration' prohibiting minors was the controlling legal document, making Aberdeen a true age-restricted community. Applying the dual rational nexus test, the court found the fee failed the first prong because a community that cannot house children does not generate new students and therefore does not create a 'need for additional capital facilities' like schools. The fee also failed the second prong because the community does not receive a special 'benefit' from the new schools, as its residents cannot use them. The court dismissed arguments about indirect benefits, such as schools serving as emergency shelters, as too attenuated to satisfy the test. This exemption for deed-restricted housing does not convert the impact fee into an unconstitutional user fee, as it is based on the nature of the development itself, a distinction noted as permissible in the controlling precedent of St. Johns County v. Northeast Florida Builders Ass'n.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of the dual rational nexus test by requiring a direct, substantial connection between a specific development and the need for and benefit from a public facility funded by impact fees. It carves out a clear exemption for deed-restricted, age-prohibited communities from school impact fees, distinguishing them from general residential developments where the presence of children can fluctuate over time. The case reinforces the crucial legal distinction between a valid regulatory fee, which must provide a special benefit to the feepayer, and an impermissible tax for general public welfare. Future legal challenges to impact fees will likely cite this case to argue for exemptions where a development's specific nature or restrictions demonstrably prevent it from creating the impact the fee is designed to mitigate.
