Opinion ID: 1621419
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the ordinance conflicts with the legislature's ad valorem taxation scheme

Text: The County has been candid in admitting that the purpose of the ordinance is to recoup the losses in ad valorem taxation caused by the legislative scheme for valuing property for ad valorem tax purposes. In fact, the County specifically intends the ordinance to substitute for the legislatively prohibited partial year assessment. However, as explained previously, the County has no inherent power to tax, but obtains that authority only from the constitution and general law. See Whitney v. Hillsborough County, 99 Fla. 628, 643, 127 So. 486, 492 (1930). Thus, special acts or local ordinances that impose taxes that are unauthorized by general law are unconstitutional. See Alachua County v. Adams, 702 So.2d 1253, 1255 (Fla.1997). The constitution requires the Legislature to enact the general law regarding the collection of ad valorem taxes, and the Legislature has established a specific statutory scheme for the timing of the valuation and assessment. Section 192.042(1) makes clear that partial year assessments are not authorized for improvements to real property substantially completed after January 1, which shall have no value placed thereon. There is no ambiguity in the statute. It appears that any benefit to taxpayers was specifically contemplated by the legislative scheme. Therefore, the ordinance, which attempts to rectify what the County terms a glitch in the present general statutory law, conflicts with the method and timing for valuation of property for ad valorem purposes established by the Legislature by general statutory law. If there is a windfall created by the current statutory scheme, as the County claims, the County's redress lies with the Legislature. While we do not know why the Legislature has declined to act, as observed by the trial court in this case: We clearly have able and competent legislators who are obligated to do the right thing. To achieve the relief sought, the counties must persuade the Legislature to provide the cure, not the courts. Accordingly, the trial court's decision is hereby affirmed. It is so ordered. HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, WELLS, ANSTEAD, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur.