Case Name: David M. POMERANCE and Richard C. Pomerance, Appellants, v. HOMOSASSA SPECIAL WATER DISTRICT, etc., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2000-03-24
Citations: 755 So. 2d 732
Docket Number: No. 5D98-2504
Parties: David M. POMERANCE and Richard C. Pomerance, Appellants, v. HOMOSASSA SPECIAL WATER DISTRICT, etc., Appellees.
Judges: ANTOON, C.J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 755
Pages: 732–735

Head Matter:
David M. POMERANCE and Richard C. Pomerance, Appellants, v. HOMOSASSA SPECIAL WATER DISTRICT, etc., Appellees.
No. 5D98-2504.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
March 24, 2000.
Karen 0. Gaffney of Haag, Gaffney & Wilcox, P.A., Inverness, for Appellants.
Jack A. Moring of Myers & Moring, P.A., Crystal River, and Sidney F. Ans-bacher of Upchurch, Bailey & Upchurch, P.A., St. Augustine, for Appellees.

Opinion:
THOMPSON, J.
David M. Pomerance and Richard C. Pomerance appeal a final judgment in favor of the Homosassa Special Water District. In contention is whether the district properly assessed property owned by the Pomerances. We affirm.
In 1988, the district annexed Halls River Estates, lying north of the Pomerance property. The nine-acre Pomerance property was already within the district. After annexing Halls River Estates, the district ran water lines to serve Halls River Estates and to serve land, including the Pom-erance property, previously lying within district boundaries. The district specially assessed the Pomerance property and the other properties abutting the water lines. After unsuccessfully protesting the assessment before the district, the Pomerances sued for relief in the circuit court. Their main contention, below and on appeal, is that their property will not be benefitted by the water line because the property consists primarily of wetlands and cannot be developed.
The Pomerances first argue that chapter 88-533, which authorized the annexation, is void because by its terms the effectiveness of the authorization is conditioned on a vote of the electors to be held by 2 December 1988. The election was held on 6 December 1988, four days late. We conclude that we need not rule on the validity of the act because the Pomerance property was within the territorial boundaries of the district before the enactment of chapter 88-533. Since the Pomerance property was already within the district, the district was authorized to extend water service to it, and to assess the property therefor, regardless of the validity of chapter 88-533.
The Pomerances next argue that there was no special benefit to their property because the district did not make a factual finding that the property was specially benefitted. Such a factual finding was not required. See City of Treasure Island v. Strong, 215 So.2d 473 (Fla.1968) ("when, as in the instant case, there is an inherent and obvious legislative determination in the enabling provision that the benefits flowing from a particular improvement are of the kind as would usually accrue to particular properties, it is not absolutely incumbent on the taxing authority to make a determination that each property ownership will be specially bene-fitted by the improvement"); see also, City of Hallandale v. Meekins, 237 So.2d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970), adopted, cert. discharged, 245 So.2d 253 (Fla.1971) (sanitary sewer system is by its nature designed to afford special or peculiar benefits to abutting or other property within the protective proximity of the improvement, and, because of presumption of special benefit to abutting property, city was relieved of necessity of making specific finding of benefit as to each parcel).
The Pomerances also argue that their property was not in fact benefitted by the improvement. The burden is on the property owner to overcome the dual presumptions that a sewer system improvement is of special benefit to those in proximity to it, and that the legislative determination of special benefit is correct. Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now/Acorn v. City of Florida City, 444 So.2d 37, 38-39 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), rev. denied, 451 So.2d 847 (Fla.l984)(citing Meekins; Meyer v. City of Oakland Park, 219 So.2d 417 (Fla.1969); Atlantic Coast Line R. v. City of Winter Haven, 112 Fla. 807, 151 So. 321 (1933); Atlantic Coast Line R. v. City of Gainesville, 83 Fla. 275, 91 So. 118, 121 (1922)). A water system is similar to a sewer system in the manner in which it benefits abutting property. See Murphy v. City of Port St. Lucie, 666 So.2d 879 (Fla.1995) (abutting properties specially benefitted by extension of existing water and sewer system into areas of the city not served by any system). The factual conclusions of the lower court should not be disturbed when the judgment is supported by suffi cient evidence in the record, and when both parties had the opportunity to present evidence and expert testimony to the trial court. Id. at 38.
In the instant case, it was the Pom-eranees' burden to overcome the presumptions that their property was benefitted from the improvement, and the presumption that the district correctly determined that the property received a special benefit. At trial, the parties presented conflicting expert testimony regarding the amount of the property that was wetlands, and the amount of the property that could be developed. The trial court found that the Pomerances did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there was no benefit to the property from the extension of water service to it. Because that finding is supported by the evidence, we cannot disturb it on appeal.
Finally, the Pomerances argue that the board was arbitrary in using the front-foot method of assessment, and that it improperly equated the benefit obtained with the pro rata cost of bringing water to the properties. The front foot method of assessment is a valid exercise of the legislative power to make and spread such special assessments. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 151 So. at 323. The front foot method is the more traditional, although other methods are permissible. City of Boca Raton v. State, 595 So.2d 25, 31 (Fla.1992), modified on other grounds, Sarasota County v. Sarasota Church of Christ, Inc., 667 So.2d 180 (Fla.1995). The manner of the assessment is immaterial and may vary within the district, as long as the amount of the assessment for each tract is not in excess of the proportional benefits as compared to other assessments on other tracts. Id. (citing South Trail Fire Control District v. State, 273 Só.2d 380, 384 (Fla.1973), modified on other grounds, Sarasota County v. Sarasota Church of Christ, Inc., 667 So.2d 180 (Fla. 1995)). Further, the district was not required to specifically itemize a dollar amount of benefit to be received by each parcel. Id . (citing Cape Dev. Co. v. City of Cocoa Beach, 192 So.2d 766 (Fla.1966)). As noted earlier, the legislative determination as to the apportionment of the costs of those benefits should be upheld unless the determination is arbitrary. Sarasota County v. Church of Christ, 667 So.2d at 184. The Pomerances have not shown that the selection of the front-foot method, which was allowed by the enabling legislation, was arbitrary.
In view of this result it is not necessary to discuss the points on appeal regarding the Pomerances' contention that the recor-dation of the assessment constituted a cloud on the title that the lower court should have removed, and that the assessment was a slander of title for which they were entitled to damages.
AFFIRMED.
ANTOON, C.J., concurs.
HARRIS J., dissents, with opinion.
. Contrary to the implication created by the dissent, the Pomerances do not argue that their assessment should be reduced; rather, their argument is that it should be eliminated entirely.