Opinion ID: 1126406
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Character of Availability Charge

Text: Recently, this Court had the occasion to address, at length, the character of a valid user fee as compared with a tax in fee's clothing. See Collier County v. State, 733 So.2d 1012 (Fla.1999). Collier County involved a rather transparent attempt by a local government to collect ad valorem taxes on those properties which, because of improvements not substantially complete on January 1 of a given tax year, have historically escaped tax liability for up to twenty-seven months after completion of the improvements. See § 192.042(1), Fla. Stat. (1999). Because the County was, nonetheless, required to provide essential governmental services to these properties, Collier Countyendeavoring to recoup this alleged windfall from the affected property ownerspassed an ordinance establishing an interim governmental services fee applicable to these properties. As stated in this Court's Collier opinion: The purpose of the fee is to provide the equivalent of a partial year assessment of ad valorem taxes on improvements to property substantially completed after January 1 that would not otherwise be subject to ad valorem taxation at its new increased value. However, the County stresses that the assessment is not based on the value of the property, but rather on the increased cost of providing certain growth-sensitive services as a result of the improvement. . . . . The government growth-sensitive services funded by the fee are: (1) the Office of the Sheriff; (2) elections; (3) code enforcement; (4) courts and related agencies; (5) animal control; (6) libraries; (7) parks and recreation; (8) public health; (9) medical examiner; (10) public works; and (11) support services. The County admits that these are the exact services funded through the general revenue fund from ad valorem taxes that all property tax payers are required to support. Collier County, 733 So.2d at 1015-16 (footnote omitted). Not surprisingly, even though Collier County presented expert testimony to the effect that the fee had been calculated based upon an elaborate formula which excluded fixed governmental costs not impacted by improvements to property, this Court rejected the county's characterization of the charge as anything other than a tax. In Collier County, the services supported by the fee were admittedly the same services otherwise paid for through ad valorem tax funds. In analyzing why the interim governmental services fee was not a valid user fee, we reasoned: The County's ordinance includes a savings clause providing for the collection of the same amount of money as a fee upon the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, if the uniform method of collection is declared invalid. However, a change in the method of collection will not convert a prohibited tax into a valid fee. As we stated in City of Port Orange, [650 So.2d 1 (Fla.1994),] the power to tax should not be broadened by semantics which would be the effect of labeling what the City is here [attempting to collect] a fee rather than a tax. 650 So.2d at 3. In City of Port Orange, this Court found an alleged transportation utility fee to actually be an impermissible tax. In that case, the City sought to levy a fee on property owners to support the operation, maintenance and improvement of the local road system. See id. at 2. We explained that user fees are charged in exchange for a particular governmental service which benefits the party paying the fee in a manner not shared by other members of society. Id. at 3 (emphasis supplied). In that aspect, user fees are similar to special assessments, in that the fee must result in a benefit not shared by persons not required to pay the fee. . . . . As explained above, the services to be funded by the Interim Government Services Fee provide no direct benefit to the property. Those paying the fee are not benefitted by the services provided in a manner not shared by those not paying the fee. Instead, the services to be funded by the fee are the same general police-power services provided to all County residents. Moreover, the fee would not provide the source for any capital improvements to the County's existing facilities, but instead would defray the operating costs for the County to exercise its sovereign functions. Just as the fee fails to meet the requirements of a special assessment, so does it fail to qualify as a valid fee. Collier County, 733 So.2d at 1018-19. Applying this same Port Orange analysis here, in contrast, even though the respondent cries tax, the Availability Charge has all of the earmarks of a valid utility facilities user fee. In Port Orange, we noted that user fees are charged in exchange for a particular governmental service which benefits the party paying the fee in a manner not shared by other members of society. Port Orange, 650 So.2d at 3. Here, there is no question that the Availability Charge provides a special benefit to those paying the fee: unlimited access to reclaimed water for non-potable, outdoor uses, such as irrigation and washing activities. Rather than going into the general fund, the money which is recouped through the Availability Charge is tied directly to payment for reclaimed water distribution line improvements extending to the individual properties (not transmission lines to other parts of the county), and collection of the charge ceases when those costs have been recovered. Further, those paying the fee receive unlimited access to reclaimed water, a benefit which is not shared by persons not required to pay the fee. See Collier County v. State, 733 So.2d 1012, 1018 (Fla.1999). These are not the indicia of a tax. Nonetheless, the trial court erroneously concluded that a voluntary user fee would permit those who choose to use the reclaimed water to pay for the service and would not indiscriminately burden those property owners who have no need or desire to use reclaimed water. This focus was too narrow. There is no question that the Beach Cities voluntarily receive water service from the County, and nothing in the record evidences their desire to stop receiving such service. While it is true that only certain customers may have access to the necessarily limited quantities of reclaimed water, and that these customers, therefore, pay a portion of the distribution line costs attributable to this special benefit, that is not dispositive of the question. It is clear that the reclaimed water system is an integrated part of the whole water service system, and the remainder of the system costs, not attributable to provision of this special benefit, are borne by all users of the system. [8] Absent a valid interlocal agreement which would allow the Beach Cities to pick and choose between integral components of the water system through which they are provided this essential water service, the voluntary choice was made by all customers within the served municipalities when they opted either to receive the integrated water service or not. [9] See supra note 6. Further, where a governmental entity provides access to traditional utility services, [10] this Court has not hesitated to uphold local ordinances imposing mandatory fees, regardless of whether an individual customer actually uses or desires the service. [11] See Stone v. Town of Mexico Beach, 348 So.2d 40 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) (finding that a mandatory flat rate for garbage service, regardless of use, was not contrary to constitutional standards); State v. City of Miami Springs, 245 So.2d 80 (Fla.1971) (ruling that a flat rate for sewer charges for all single family residences, unrelated to actual use, was not unreasonable, arbitrary or in conflict with state or federal constitutions or law); see also Riviera Beach v. Martinique 2 Owners Ass'n, 596 So.2d 1164 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (holding that the subject solid waste removal ordinance applied to unoccupied condominiums without regard to actual use); Town of Redington Shores v. Redington Towers, Inc., 354 So.2d 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978) (holding that mandatory sewer charges against unoccupied property applied from the date the sewer main was available to be used, and that sewage charges were reasonably related to the value of service rendered either as actually consumed or as readily available). [12] Because the Availability Charge has the characteristics of a valid fee, the trial court erred in determining it to be an invalid tax. Based upon the foregoing, we vacate the order denying the complaint for bond validation, and remand this case to the trial court with directions to enter a judgment validating the bonds. It is so ordered. WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and QUINCE, JJ., concur.