Case Name: STATE of Florida, etc., Appellant, v. SARASOTA COUNTY, Florida, etc., Appellee
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1997-05-01
Citations: 693 So. 2d 546
Docket Number: No. 88872
Parties: STATE of Florida, etc., Appellant, v. SARASOTA COUNTY, Florida, etc., Appellee.
Judges: KOGAN, C.J., and SHAW and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 693
Pages: 546–550

Head Matter:
STATE of Florida, etc., Appellant, v. SARASOTA COUNTY, Florida, etc., Appellee.
No. 88872.
Supreme Court of Florida.
May 1, 1997.
Earl Moreland, State Attorney and Henry E. Lee, Chief Assistant State Attorney, Sarasota, for Appellant.
Jorge L. Fernandez, County Attorney and Susan P. Schoettle, Assistant County Attorney, Sarasota, and George H. Nickerson, Jr., Harry F. Chiles and Robert L. Nabors of Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Opinion:
OVERTON, Justice.
We have for review the State's appeal of the trial court's judgment validating proposed bonds issued for the purpose of funding Sarasota County's stormwater management program. We have jurisdiction. Art. V,- § 3(b)(2), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
The facts of this case are as follows. Pursuant to section 403.0891, Florida Statutes, Sarasota County has been developing and refining a stormwater management program since the late 1980s. In 1995, this Court issued Sarasota County v. Sarasota Church of Christ, Inc., 667 So.2d 180 (Fla.1995), approving a 1989 special assessment imposed to fund the stormwater management program. In 1994 and 1995, Sarasota County enacted three ordinances to refine how additional stormwater improvements would be implemented and assessed. Specifically, the ordinances extended the assessments for stormwater services to include all developed properties rather than just developed properties with impervious surfaces, given that all developed property contributes stormwa-ter runoff. However, under the ordinances, developed properties with impervious surfaces are to be assessed at a higher rate than those without impervious surfaces because, of the two, properties with impervious surfaces contribute a greater portion of the runoff. Property in its natural state is considered undeveloped under the ordinance and is not subject to assessment. In 1996, the County issued a resolution declaring that it would issue bonds that would be repaid by the assessments to fund the initial costs of the improvements. The circuit court issued a final judgment approving the assessments and validating the bonds. In the final judgment, the trial judge found that the assessed properties would be specifically benefited by the stormwater management program and that the assessment was fairly and reasonably apportioned.
The state attorney argues that the trial court erred in validating the bonds in this case because the special assessment that will be used to repay the bonds is actually a tax that requires voter approval. To be valid, a special assessment must meet two requirements: (1) the property assessed must receive a special benefit from the services provided; and (2) the assessment must be fairly and reasonably apportioned among the properties receiving the benefit. Sarasota County; City of Boca Raton v. State, 595 So.2d 25 (Fla.1992). The state attorney argues that the assessment at issue meets neither of these requirements.
In Sarasota County, we determined that property which contributes polluted storm-water runoff is specially benefited by the treatment of that runoff. Under the assessment at issue in that case, only developed properties with impervious surfaces were subject to the assessment because those properties contributed the majority of the stormwater runoff. Under the assessment at issue, Sarasota County has attempted to define more accurately the properties that contribute to the stormwater runoff. To that end, the County evaluated which geographic areas generate the stormwater burdens. The County then looked at the relative contribution of stormwater runoff produced by the properties within those areas. After finding that all developed property contributes to the stormwater runoff problem, the County determined that all developed properties are to be assessed, whether or not they contain impervious surfaces. Undeveloped property in its natural state is not assessed. Nevertheless, because properties with impervious surfaces contribute a greater portion of the runoff, they are assessed at a higher rate than properties without impervious surfaces. The County contends that this is a more accurate method of determining the special benefits received by the properties from the treatment of stormwater runoff than the method at issue in Sarasota County.
Because we find competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the County's conclusions and because those conclusions of special benefit are not arbitrary, we find that the trial judge properly found the assessed properties to be specially benefited by the stormwater management program.
We also find that trial judge acted correctly in finding the assessment to be properly apportioned. As noted, properties with impervious surfaces contribute a greater portion of the runoff and are assessed at a higher rate than properties without impervious surfaces. Further, each parcel has been evaluated under a formula to determine the estimated contribution of stormwater runoff that is to be produced by the parcel and the parcels are assessed accordingly.
The state attorney, however, argues that the apportionment is arbitrary because the assessment is apportioned in such a way that property owners who pay the assessment will have their assessments increased to cover the cost of delinquent assessments. We disagree. Under the assessment at issue, if the proceeds collected for any year are insufficient due to delinquencies for the payment of the actual debt service and the County is required to withdraw funds from its debt service reserve, the amount withdrawn will be added to the amount assessed for the following year against all property within the assessed area. Any increase will be offset by the reduction of assessments in a future year, since the proceeds of delinquent assessments that are subsequently paid will be used to redeem bonds. As noted by the County, this approach actually lowers the assessed costs for all parcels by providing additional security for the bonds, which, in turn, results in lower interest rates. Consequently, we cannot say that the County acted arbitrarily in apportioning the assessment.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's final judgment of validation.
It is so ordered.
KOGAN, C.J., and SHAW and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
WELLS, J., dissents with an opinion, in which GRIMES and HARDING, JJ., concur.
. Notably, the County has somewhat blurred the distinctions between the special benefit prong and the apportionment prong. This is because the determination of the amount the property owners are to be assessed goes to the question of proper apportionment rather than to the question of special benefit. A property is either benefited by the services or not; the determination of how much a property is benefited figures into the proper apportionment determination.