City of Key West v. Key West Golf Club Homeowners' Assoc. Inc.
228 So. 3d 1150
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- City of Key West established a stormwater utility (ordinance §74.365) funding citywide stormwater management by fees based on impervious surface; exemptions/reductions exist for properties that retain runoff.
- Key West Golf Club Homeowners’ Assn., Key West Golf Club, LLC, and Key West HMA, LLC (collectively plaintiffs) were billed beginning 2003 and sued in 2009 seeking a declaration that the fee as applied to their Stock Island properties was illegal.
- Plaintiffs’ properties discharge stormwater into an adjacent tidal salt marsh and Gulf via seven culverts and do not qualify for the ordinance’s retention-based exemptions.
- Trial court found the City controls and maintains a stormwater system on North Stock Island (catch basins, culverts, pipes) but concluded plaintiffs were non- or minimal-users and exempted them from future fees (no refunds for past fees).
- The undisputed record showed plaintiffs’ discharges contribute to need for the utility and that citywide anti-pollution and MS4-permit-related programs funded by the utility benefit plaintiffs and protect their ability to discharge; City spent modest amounts maintaining local culverts/drains.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Can these properties be charged any stormwater utility fee? | Plaintiffs: they receive little or no benefit and thus should not be charged. | City: plaintiffs discharge runoff and receive flood-control and pollution-control benefits; fee is avoidable by retaining runoff. | Held: Plaintiffs may be charged; they contribute to need for and benefit from the utility. |
| 2. Does the fee reasonably relate to benefits received? | Plaintiffs: fee bears no reasonable relationship because their runoff does not flow through Key West island infrastructure and they are minimal users. | City: rates fund unitary, citywide flood and pollution control (including nonstructural MS4/pollution programs); legislative method (impervious area) is authorized and reasonable. | Held: Fee bears a reasonable relationship; trial court erred by focusing only on local flood infrastructure and ignoring citywide anti-pollution services. |
| 3. Should citywide pollution-control costs be funded by taxes instead of fees? | Plaintiffs: water-quality benefits are general/public and should be tax-funded. | City: statutes authorize funding these programs via user fees; fees avoid subsidizing dischargers by non-discharging taxpayers. | Held: Legislature may authorize fees; court will not substitute its policy preference for the legislature’s. |
| 4. Is judicial rate reallocation appropriate here? | Plaintiffs: sought reduced rate/exemption for North Stock Island properties. | City: ad hoc judicial reductions would unfairly shift costs to other ratepayers; rate setting is legislative. | Held: No exemption; rate-setting is legislative function and broad discretion to use impervious-area method. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Gainesville v. State, 863 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 2003) (upholding impervious-surface method for stormwater fees and validating fee as non-tax user charge)
- Sarasota Cty. v. Sarasota Church of Christ, Inc., 667 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 1995) (rejecting ad valorem taxation to shift stormwater remediation costs from developers to non-contributors)
- State v. City of Miami Springs, 245 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 1971) (municipality may charge mandatory sewer fee regardless of whether particular property’s sewage enters pipes)
- Town of Redington Shores v. Redington Towers, Inc., 354 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978) (upholding sewer fee applied to unoccupied condominiums)
- Stone v. Town of Mexico Beach, 348 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) (upholding mandatory flat-rate garbage service fee irrespective of actual use)
- City of Riviera Beach v. Martinique 2 Owners Ass’n, 596 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (solid waste ordinance applied to unoccupied condominiums without regard to actual use)