City of Miami v. Haigley, Etc., 143 So. 3d 1025

City of Miami ordinance (section 2-234) sets ambulance/EMS user fees and a $100 surcharge for non-residents; collected fees go into the City General Fund.
In 2010 Haigley (a non-resident) was transported by City Fire-Rescue and billed $445, including a $100 non-resident surcharge; she paid and later sued seeking refunds and declaratory relief.
Plaintiffs challenged the surcharge as an unauthorized tax (not a user fee) and as violating Florida constitutional equal protection and the right to intrastate travel.
Trial court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs, struck the surcharge, enjoined future collection, and ordered refunds; City appealed.
The Third District reviewed de novo and analyzed (1) whether the charge is a tax or user fee under the three-prong Port Orange test, and (2) whether the surcharge violates equal protection or burdens intrastate travel.
Court concluded surcharge is a user fee, not a tax, and does not violate equal protection or intrastate travel rights; reversed and remanded with directions to enter judgment for the City.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the $100 non-resident charge is a tax or a user fee	Haigley: surcharge is an unauthorized tax; placement into General Fund converts it to tax	City: charge meets Port Orange user-fee test (service exchanged, benefit to payer, avoidable by choice); fungibility of funds does not transform fee into tax	Fee is a user fee under Port Orange; depositing into General Fund does not convert it to a tax (Crist controlling)
Whether the surcharge violates equal protection (residents v. non-residents)	Haigley: disparate treatment of residents and non-residents is irrational and unequal	City: residency not a suspect class; surcharge rationally related to legitimate purpose because residents pay ad valorem taxes funding Fire-Rescue while non-residents do not	No equal protection violation; rational-basis review satisfied
Whether the surcharge unconstitutionally burdens the right to intrastate travel	Haigley: extra charge penalizes non-residents and impedes movement	City: surcharge does not restrict entry or movement; it merely charges for a service rendered to non-residents who do not pay municipal taxes	No burden on intrastate travel; bona fide residency distinctions historically permitted

State v. City of Port Orange, 650 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1994) (establishes three-prong test distinguishing user fees from taxes)
Crist v. Ervin, 56 So. 3d 745 (Fla. 2010) (deposit of fees into general revenue does not automatically convert fees into unconstitutional taxes; money fungible)
City of Miami v. Quik Cash Jewelry & Pawn, Inc., 811 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (application of Port Orange factors to municipal fees)
Gargano v. Lee County Bd. of County Comm’rs, 921 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (choice/avoidable-use analysis for user-fee characterization)
State v. J.P., 907 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 2004) (right to intrastate travel and related privacy/movement protections)
Baldwin v. Fish & Game Comm’n of Mont., 436 U.S. 371 (U.S. 1978) (upholding higher nonresident fees for wildlife licenses as not burdening travel)
Martinez v. Bynum, 461 U.S. 321 (U.S. 1983) (bona fide residence requirements do not necessarily burden migration)