Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHandouts_Workshop_06/22/2010 460 So.2d 879 Page 16 460 So.2d 879 (Cite as: 460 So.2d 879) M Supreme Court of Florida. (Formerly 371147(1)) TOWN OF PALM BEACH et al., Petitioners. Constitutional proscription against "double taxation" V. of municipalities for services accruing primarily to PALM BEACH COUNTY, et al., Respondents. benefit of unincorporated areas and similar statutory No. 63254. prohibition require that municipality and its residents receive a benefit which is "real and substantial ". Oct. 18, 1984. test is not necessarily quantifiable and a benefit may Rehearing Denied Jan. 15, 1985. achieve substantiality without being direct or primary; all that is required is a minimum level of Municipalities brought suit under constitutional benefit which is not illusory, ephemeral or proscription against subjecting municipal property to inconsequential; to meet the test, it is incumbent to taxation for services rendered by county exclusively prove a negative, that a service provided by a county for benefit of property in unincorporated areas. and funded by countywide revenues does not provide The Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, John D. a real and substantial benefit to a particular Wessel, J., entered judgment against municipalities, municipality. West's and they appealed. The District Court of Appeal, F.S.A. § 125.08, West's F.S.A. Const. Art. 8, § 426 So.2d 1063, reversed and remanded. On i (h). petition for discretionary review, the Supreme Court, Adkins, J . , held that: (1) municipalities had [2] Trial <&=1360) burden of proving that services provided by county 388k1360) and funded by countywide revenues did not provide Where facts are essentially undisputed, legal effect a real and substantial benefit to particular of evidence will be a question of law. municipality; (2) trial judge should not have permitted expert on municipal taxation to repeatedly [3] Evidence 506 opine that challenged services did not provide 157006 requisite real and substantial benefit; (3) use of Evidence statute permits opinion testimony on an countywide revenues to support sheriff's road patrol ultimate issue to be decided by trier of fact; and detective divisions was proper, since they however, statute does not imply admissibility of all provided not only minimal level of direct benefit, opinions; if witness' conclusion tells trier of fact but also substantial degree of indirect benefit; (4) how to decide the case, and does not assist it in municipalities failed to carry burden of proving that determining what has occurred, then it is local "nonclassified" roads did not provide a real inadmissible. West's F.S.A. § 90.703. and substantial benefit to municipal residents; and t5) use of county - collected property taxes for [4] Evidence (5-506 maintenance of neighborhood parks maintained by 157k506 county was improper, with regard to two In a suit under constitutional proscription against municipalities, since use of parks by their residents subjecting property within municipality to taxation was illusory, ephemeral and inconsequential, and did for services rendered by county exclusively for not rise to magnitude required by real and benefit of property in unincorporated areas, expert substantial benefits test. may testify to whether certain benefits were received by the municipality, and may, within his expertise, Remanded. testify to importance of potential or unquantitied benefits, but he is precluded from opining whether a Bovd, C.J., concurred in part and dissented in part particular benefit is or is not "real and substantial" with opinion in which Alderman, J., concurred. within meaning of test determining whether municipality has received a benefit. West's F.S.A. West Headnotes § 125.08; West's F.S.A. Const. Art. 8, § 1(h). [1] Taxation Ga2150 [5] Appeal and Error «970(2) 371k2150 30070(2) 2005 Thomson /West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt_ Works. Le ff -mpvc- 460 So, 2d 879 Page 17 (Cite as: 460 So.2d 879) Although trim court has broad discretion in municipalities to ttaxation, for services rendered h, determining subject on which an expert may testify, county exclusively for benefit of property in its decision will be disregarded if that discretion has unincorporated areas, in which municipalities been abused. challenged the use of county- collected property taxes for maintenance of neighborhood parks, District [6] Evidence C-506 Court of Appeal improperly required a showing of 1571506 statistical data as to park attendance, residences of In suit under constitutional and statutory proscription park users and other relevant factors to determine against subjecting property within municipality to whether parks conferred a real and substantial taxation for services rendered by county exclusively benefit on municipalities. for benefit of property in unincorporated areas, trial judge should not have permitted expert on municipal [10] Taxation (2�:-2119 taxation to repeatedly opine that challenged services 371k2119 did not provide requisite real and substantial benefit. (Formerly 371138) West's F.S.A. § 125.08: West's F.S.A. Const. Art. Use by county of county - collected property taxes for 8_§ 1(h). maintenance of neighborhood parks was prohibited, with regard to two municipalities within county, [7] Taxation 02119 since use of parks, which were not located within 371 k2l l 9 boundary of municipalities, by municipalities' (Formerly 371138) residents was illusory, ephemeral and Use of countywide revenues to support sheriff's road inconsequential, and did not rise to magnitude patrol and detective divisions was not precluded by required by real and substantial constitutional proscription against subjecting benefits test. West's F.S.A. § 125.08; West's property within municipalities to taxation for F.S.A. Const. Art. 8, § 1(h). services rendered by county exclusively for benefit *880 John A. DeVault, III of Bedell, Dittmar, of property in unincorporated areas, since road DeVault, Pillans & Gentry, Jacksonville, and W. patrol and detective divisions provided not only a Peter Burns of Steel, Hector, Davis. Burns & minimum level of direct benefit, but a substantial Middleton, Palm Beach, for Town of Palm Beach. degree of indirect benefit. West's F.S.A. § 125.08; West's F.S.A. Const. Art. 8, § 1(h). Carl V.M. Coffin, West Palm Beach, for City of West Palm Beach. [8] Taxation X2727 371k2727 M.A. Galbraith, Jr., Boca Raton, for City of Boca (Formerly 37lk485(3)) Raton. In suit by municipalities under constitutional proscription against subjecting property within Nason, Gildan & Yeager, P.A., Paul M. Sullivan, municipalities to taxation for services rendered by Jr., West Palm Beach, for Village of North Palm county exclusively for benefit of property in Beach. unincorporated areas, municipalities failed to carry burden of proving that use of countywide revenues Charles F. Schoech, Co. Atty.. West Palm Beach, to finance maintenance and construction of local and Robert L. Nabors of Nabors, Potter, "nonclassified" roads in unincorporated sections of McClelland, Griffith & Jones, Titusville, for county did not provide a real and substantial benefit respondents. to municipal residents. West's F.S.A. § 125.08; West's F.S.A. ADKINS, Justice. Const. Art. 8, § I (h). This cause comes before us on petition for [9] Taxation 02725 discretionary review of a question certified to be of 371k2725 great public importance by the Florida District Court (Formerly 37lk485(3)) of Appeal, Fourth *881 District. Pahn Beach In suit by municipalities under constitutional County v. Town of Palm Beach, 426 So.2d 1063 proscription against subjecting property within (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). We have jurisdiction. Art. c> 2005 Thomson /West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. a � 460 So.2d 879 Page 18 (Cite as: 460 So.2d 879, *881) :'. 3 '_;(, ij, Fla. ('i)IiSt. recd e a b which_ mus ac:hievc a nia- ,akude ; described as "real and substantial Brilev, Wild The petitione four municipalities situated within 3939 S� 823. As we have stated in the past, Pa Beach Count, allel t tie} _tl�ave been substantial is not necessarily a quantifiable term and ' subjected to "doub taxation" in contr aveniion of a benefit may achieve substantiality without being article VIII section 1(h) Florida Constitution; direct or primary. All that is required is a ;¢ chrovides: _ "- - `- -- minimum level of benefit which is not illusory, Property situate within municipalities shall not be ephemeral or inconsequential. Id.; Burke 1. subiect to taxation for services rendered by the Charlotte County, 286 So.2d 199 (Fla. 1973), Ciry county exclusively for the benefit of the property of Ormond Beach v. County of Volusia, 383 So.2d or residents in unincorporated areas. 671 (Fla. 1973); Alsdorf v. Broward County, 373 Each of the petitioners challenges the use of So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), cert. denied, 385 property taxes collected by Palm Beach County So.2d 754 (Fla. 1980). To meet this test, it is which support the Palm Beach County Sheriff's road incumbent upon the petitioners to prove a negative- - p at� coT a n_d detective divisions, and also cha llenges that a service provided by the county and funded by t use of count -wide revenues to finance the county -wide revenues does not provide a real and maintenance and _ construction of _ loca substantial benefit to the particular municipality. " nonclassified" roads in the unincorporated sections Briley, Wild, 239 So.2d at 823. In any given case o the count._ Additionally, two of the petitioners, this will be a heavy burden, but it is by no means the Town of Palm Beach and the City of West Palm impossible to prove or "automatic" in the sense that Beach, dispute the use of their county - collected the constitutional test can never be met. See, e.g., property taxes for the maintenance of neighborhood Manatee County t'. Town of Longboat Key, 352 parks. So.2d 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), rev'd in part on other grounds, 365 So.2d 143 (Fla. 1978). The trial court resolved each issue adversely to the county and held that the four challenged services do 12] In the present case, the facts are essentially not provide a "real and substantial benefit" to the undisputed. Although petitioners contend that there municipalities' residents or property. The Fourth was highly conflicting lay and expert testimony, a District Court of Appeal reversed, finding a lack of review of the disputed factual issues pointed to by competent substantial evidence to support the trial petitioners demonstrates that it is not the facts which court's ruling and concluded that each of the are contraverted, but rather the legal conclusions to services do substantially benefit the petitioners. be drawn therefrom. For example, the petitioners Recognizing the need for "equitable and fair and state that evidence of the benefit derived by the uniform treatment under the taxing statutes," the municipality from the sheriff's backup or *882 distric court certified the following question to thi standby capacity was in conflict at trial. It is clear C �� to us, however, that the existence and availability of Whether the "real and substantial benefits" test standby assistance is not disputed, nor is there any established by Cin of St. Petersburg v. Brile question that the backup capacity has not been Wild & Associates, 239 So.2d 817 (F1a.1970) has widely used in the past. What is at issue is the been correctly interpreted and appropriately legal conclusion to be drawn from this fact. As this applied in this case? Court has consistently stated, where the facts are 426 So.2d at 1072. essentially undisputed, the legal effect of the evidence will be a question of law. Uhrig v. [1 ] The issue of county taxation of municipalities Redding, 150 Fla. 480, 8 So.2d 4 (1942); Florida for services accruing primarily to the benefit of East Coast Railway v. Thompson, 93 Fla. 30, 1 I 1 unincorporated areas is not one of equity and So. 525 (1927). fairness. The constitutional proscription against "double taxation article VIII, section 1(h), Florida [3] As a further corollary to the issue of the alleged Constitution, and indeed, the statutory prohibition, conflict in the factual evidence presented, the Court section I25.08, Florida Statutes (1981), are not must address the propriety of admitting into framed in terms of proportionality. Each merely evidence expert opinion testimony that the benefits requires that the municipality and its residents conferred upon the municipalities were not "real and c 2005 Thomson /West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. 460 So. 2d 879 Page 19 (Cite as: 460 So.2d 879. *882) substa i`al," Petitioners argue that section 90.703, been admitted or considered b fitc trial Dart. Florida Statutes (1981), permits opinion testimony on an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of As the district court has previously noted, any fact. See: North v. State, 65 So.2d 77, 88 decision concerning article VIII. section 1(h) "is (Fla_ 1952), We agree. However, section 90.703 limited to the facts, taxable years, and circumstances does not imply the admissibility of all opinions. If of [the] particular case Alsdorf v. Brolvard the witness' conclusion tells the trier of fact how to Count 373 So.2d 695, 701 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), A decide the case, and does not assist it in determining cert. denied, 385 So.2d 754 (Fla. 1980). what has occurred, then it is inadmissible. See, Accordingly, any decisions concerning the dual e.g., United States v. Milne, 487 F.2d 1232, 1.235 taxation issue must be carefully scrutinized to (5th Cir.1973). ascertain the facts existing in the individual county. [4] Although the expert may testify to whether [7] At trial, petitioners presented several statistical certain benefits were received by the municipality, reports and other quantifiable evidence to and may, within his expertise, testify to the demonstrate that the sheriff's road patrol and importance of potential or unquantified benefits, he detective divisions do not provide a substantial is precluded from opining whether a particular benefit to the municipalities` citizens. The reports, benefit is or is not "real and substantial" within the garnered from the sheriffs computer records, meaning of Brilev, Wild. An illustration of this expressed in percentage form the actual assists to the principle is found in Gifford v. Galaxie Homes, Inc., city by the road patrol and *883 detective divisions 223 So.2d 108, 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). In as a proportion of overall municipal police activity. Gifford, an action for negligent construction, it was The only other evidence presented by petitioners held proper for the duly qualified expert to respond was opinion testimony that the use of sheriff's patrol when asked whether the premises were "constructed cars by off -duty deputies does not provide any and maintained according to reasonably safe crime - deterrence benefit to the municipalities in construction and engineering standards." Id. See which the deputies reside. also, Millar v. Tropical Cables Corp., 99 So.2d 589 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958). However, it would have been Even though it is the petitioners' burden to improper for the expert to assert to the trier of fact demonstrate the absence of real and substantial that the premises were "negligently constructed." benefit, and not the respondents' burden to prove the While this is to some degree a matter of semantics, presence of any requisite benefit, the respondents we find the distinction necessary. See Ehrhardt on presented numerous former and present police Evidence. § 90.703 at 451 (West 1977). officers who testified to benefits which are extant Otherwise., the trier of fact is being directed to but non- quantifiable. For instance, the respondents arrive at a conclusion which it should be free to presented evidence that reduction of crime in the determine independently from the facts presented, urban unincorporated corridor between the turnpike We do not think that section 90.703 was intended to and the municipalities' boundaries will necessarily be so broad. See e.g., Ehrhardt, § 90.703; have some spillover effect by curtailing the Feldman v. Department of Transportation, 389 movement of crime into the cities. Testimony was So.2d 692, 694 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). presented concerning the ever - present standby cap pabi ity of the sheriffs department, which is [5][6] Although the trial court has broad discretion available to assist any municip in times o f in determining the subject on which an expert may emergency or when requested. M unicipal residen testify. its decision will be disregarded if that o ften travel in the unin corporated areas and thereby discretion has been abused. Johnson v. State, 393 temporarily fall within a protective jurisdtctton o So.2d 1069 (F1a.1980); Buchman v. Seaboard th — eglieriff. Whenev er called upon by a municipality, Coast Line Railroad, 381 So.2d 229 (Fla, 1980). In though historically infrequently, the s ert s Wrt _ the instant case, the trial judge permitted the an etective divisions have responded. petitioners' expert on municipal taxation to repeatedly opine that the challenged services did not In addition. it is undisputed that the assist chart provide the requisite real and substantial benefit. prepared by petitioners reflects only the minimum That particular opinion testimony should not have number of times a deputy- sheriff has entered a : l r. 2005 Thomson /West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. 460 So.2d 879 Page 20 (Cite. as: 460 So.2d 879, *883) mut �4jaht� to give aid of assistance to municipal unincorporated area of the county, and ail local ur residents. The sheriff stated that many noncrime nonclassified roads located within the unincorporated municipal assists are likely to be unreported by areas of the county. The petitioners challenge the deputies. The petitioners concede that the assist use of their county - collected taxes to fiord chart does not reflect time, money or effort maintenance and construction of the nonclassified expended in each assist. The evidence at trial was roads. substantial that the majority of reported intertnunicipality assists involved nonroutine matters The entire substance of petitioners' evidence requiring above average expenditures of deputy concerning these roads was that categorically a time, money and expertise. Finally, the quantified nonclassified road, because of *884 its description assist chart failed to fully account for assists such as and unincorporated area location, could not possibly the recovery by the sheriff's office of property be of real and substantial benefit to the municipal stolen in a municipality. residents. The expert who presented this ~— generalized characterization testified that he did not Of course, as petitioners note, even allowing a know who used the roads, did not know the volume margin of error of 100 per cent in the assist chart's of traffic on any of the roads, and did not know numerical data, the number of assists would still whether property abutting the nonclassified roads remain minimal when stated as a percentage of was commercial or residential. The record reflects police activity. However, the relative number of that petitioners merely identified the total road assists is not the sole issue. The constitutional system of the county and separated it into two question is whether the municipal residents components -- classified and nonclassified. substantially benefit from the challenged programs, and not whether the county provides proportionally Palm Beach County identified at least thirteen significant services. nonclassified roads which have traffic volumes comparable to roads on the classified road system. Taken independently, each of the above benefits It was stipulated that the thirteen identified roads would not be constitutionally substantial. We are, were not intended to be all - inclusive. Although the however, constrained to review the benefits county did not present evidence of who used the delivered by the challenged services as a composite. roads, it did note that the roads were not subdivision In doing so, we find that the sheriff's road patrol streets or shell -rock as petitioners had described all and detective divisions provide not only a minimal nonclassified roads. We reiterate that the level of direct benefit, but also a substantial degree petitioners must bear the burden here. The of indirect benefit. That benefit, as a matter of respondents are not required to prove that the law, given the geographic makeup of Palm Beach existing benefits are substantial. The petitioners County, is sufficient to withstand the petitioners' must prove the nonexistence or nonsubstantialitg of heavy burden of proving a lack of substantial benefits. benefit. It is evident from the trial court's written decision that the trial judge did not discuss and From the foregoing, it is clear in this uncontested consider many of the above benefits and failed to factual record that the petitioners presented a paucity accord proper weight to the evidence of of evidence and failed to carry the burden of proving unquantifiable indirect and potential benefits, that local nonclassified roads do not provide a real Whereas the constitutional test does not rest solely and substantial benefit to municipal residents. on quantitative benefits, the district court has correctly applied the holding of Brilev, Wild to the We disapprove, however, the district court's instant case and we approve its decision on this statement that a municipal petitioner must identify point. all roads which do not provide a substantial benefit. Palm Beach County, 426 So.2d at 1070. In this [81 Respondent, Palm Beach County, pursuant to case, petitioners merely failed to identify any roads section 337.03, Florida Statutes (1981), has falling into the requisite category. Because we do responsibility for all minor arterial roads within the not wish to impose a mechanical test under which county not on the state highway system, all collector municipalities may never prevail, we refrain from roads, whether located in the municipal or requiring future municipal contestants to institute C- 2005 Thomson /West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. 400 So ­'d 879 � Page 21 (Cite as: 460 So.2d 879, *884) expen6 e road -by -road examinations and user recreational facilities. The fev, residents doing su studies. Although such studies may be necessary or would not raise the level of use to one of real and helpful, it is for the individual claimant to make the substantial benefit, decision of whether such evidence will be presented. We find that the district court has correctly applied [9] We find that the district court improperly the requirements of Briley. Wild to this point. required a showing of "statistical data as to park attendance, residence of park users or other relevant The National Recreational and Park Association, factors ... ° Palm Beach County, 426 So.2d at 1070. which promulgates the park standards relied upon by Briley, Wild requires only that a municipality the respondents' expert, defines a neighborhood park challenging a county levied tax prove the absence of as one which consists of one to four acres of land a real and substantial benefit. Although this is a and is located within walking distance of the difficult burden, not every case will require intended user. There are no neighborhood parks in extensive and costly studies. It remains for the the Town of Palm Beach or the City of West Palm individual petitioner to determine what evidence will Beach. although there were at the time of trial be presented to the trier of fact. In the instant case, approximately thirty neighborhood parks throughout national park standards and the location of the many the remainder of the county in both incorporated and parks in Palm Beach County demonstrate the unincorporated areas. Additionally, the Palm insignificant possibility that residents of West Palm Beach County Director of Parks testified that there Beach and Palm Beach will use parks that are not are no such facilities within walking distance of maintained for their benefit. This case falls directly either municipality. within the confines of Briley. Wild, where we stated that: The trial court ruled that any benefits enjoyed by We can conceive of services sought to be rendered the municipalities' residents from county operated by a county within a particular unincorporated area neighborhood parks were at best illusory. We which would have no consequential benefits to the agree. As the trial judge noted in his written municipalities of the county, such as ... a park or Judgment, the Town of Palm Beach is an island, recreation facility for the residents of [an connected to the mainland only by several bridges. unincorporated area] ... Each of these bridges leads into West Palm Beach. Briley, Wild, 239 So.2d at 824. Therefore, in order to take advantage of a neighborhood park, a resident of Palm Beach would [ 10] We recognize that a city resident may visit a have to leave the town, pass through a large city neighboring municipality or outlying unincorporated which has no county- funded neighborhood parks, area and use a neighborhood park, inasmuch as such and arrive at an ultimate destination surely not parks are available to the general public without within walking distance. In addition, we think it restriction. We find, from the geographical highly unlikely that a resident of Palm Beach would makeup of Palm Beach County and the locations of bypass the facilities within the town's limits in order the numerous parks, neighborhood and otherwise, to recreate at a distant, moderately inaccessible park that use of neighborhood parks by these two which has no facilities. petitioners' residents is illusory, ephemeral and inconsequential, and does not rise to the magnitude As to the City of West Palm Beach, an analogous required by the real and substantial benefits test. situation arises. West Palm Beach has several large county operated nonneighborhood parks within its On this point alone, we find that the district court boundaries and maintains its own local parks. has misapplied the test enunciated in Briley, Wild. Although there may be county funded neighborhood We therefore quash the district court's determination parks in municipalities adjoining West Palm Beach, that the petitioners did not meet their burden of these are not within walking distance of West Palm proving lack of substantial benefit. *885 Beach residents. In order to actively and intentionally use a county operated neighborhood Respondents have cross- appealed on the issue of the park, a resident of West Palm Beach would have to propriety of the trial court's imposition of conditions ignore his or her own city's local parks and bypass on the otherwise automatic stay pending review. nearby large nonneighborhood parks with extensive Since a determination of this issue will not affect the �c, 2005 Thomson /West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. 461) So.2d 879 Page 22 (Cite as. 460 So.2d 879. *885) right< 4 the parties, . and the issue ik no, one that municipalities may organize police furccs to involving the general public interest, the question provide their residents with additional law need not be addressed. See State v. Kinner, 398 enforcement services does not relieve municipal So.2d 1360, 1362 (Fla. 1981). residents of the obligation of paying county taxes to finance the operation of the sheriff's office. The For the foregoing reasons, the cer tified qu is sheriff is accountable to the voters for the use of the an in the affirmativ as t thee s her if f's road t resources entrusted to the office. Similarly, patrol, d divi sions, and nonclassified roads county- maintained roads in unincorporated areas are and answered in the ne ativ as to the neighborhood available for use by everyone. Favoritism toward parks. We remand this cause to the district court one area of the county at the expense of another can with instruction that it be further remanded to the be remedied through the political process. trial court. for proceedings consistent with this opinion,- Regarding the issue of "neighborhood parks," 1 believe the record shows that such parks are It is so ordered. available for use and enjoyment by anyone who happens to be in the area, including county SHAW. H McDONALD, EHRLICH and residents, city residents, and travellers from other . JJ., concur. areas. They are an amenity provided by the whole county community for use by the whole county BO�'D, C.J. concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion, in which ALDERMAN, J., community. Even if, as the majority finds, it is Concurs. unlikely that city residents would use the neighborhood parks in question, their existence and maintenance in those neighborhoods serves the BO�` Chief Justice, concurring in part and interest of and benefits all the residents of the entire dissenting in part. county, both in and out of the incorporated areas. 1 concur with those portions of the majority opinion Palm Beach County is a metropolitan community in that reject the argument of the municipalities that which the need for urban services and amenities certain county services, financed by county -wide serving the whole community does not stop at taxation, are benefitting only residents in the municipal boundary lines. unincorporated areas of the county. 1 dissent from that portion of the majority opinion that holds that I would answer the certified question in the certain county- financed "neighborhood parks" in affirmative as to all issues and approve the district unincorporated locations benefit only the residents of court decision in its entirety. unincorporated areas in violation of the state constitutional right of residents of municipalities in ALDERMAN, J., concurs. the eount)�. 460 So.2d 879 *886 The sheriff of a county in Florida is the sheriff for all the people of the county. The fact END OF DOCUMENT C 2005 Thomson /West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.