Scott Morris v. City of Cape Coral, etc.
163 So. 3d 1174
Fla.2015Background
- Cape Coral adopted a special non-ad valorem assessment to fund fire protection, based on a consultant (Burton & Associates) report recommending a two-tier structure: Tier 1 assessed all parcels equally for readiness/operations; Tier 2 assessed developed parcels based on structure value for protection from loss.
- City enacted assessment and note ordinances, adopted initial and final assessment resolutions, then filed a Chapter 75 bond-validation action; notice and a multi-day show-cause hearing were held.
- Eight property owners (led by Scott Morris) opposed, arguing the two-tier method was arbitrary, amounted to a tax, violated law, and raised procedural-due-process and trial errors (denied continuance, reliance on facts not in evidence).
- Trial court validated the assessment, finding City had authority, purpose was legal (fire protection), and apportionment was reasonable; Talan Corporation’s late intervention was denied.
- On appeal to the Florida Supreme Court, the Court reviewed whether the municipality had authority, whether purpose was legal, and whether assessment complied with law; the Court affirmed validation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to levy assessment | City lacked authority under home-rule if chapter 170 controls | City acted under home-rule; chapter 170 not exclusive | City had authority; home-rule validly used (affirmed) |
| Whether fire protection confers a "special benefit" | Benefit is general to the public, thus assessment is a tax | Fire protection has a logical relationship to property value, insurance, safety | Special benefit found; assessment valid as to benefit prong |
| Apportionment / two-tier methodology | Tier 1 (equal charge) and Tier 2 (structure-value based) arbitrary; Tier 2 is a tax | Methodology informed by consultant study; reasonably relates to differing benefits | Method not arbitrary; apportionment reasonable and analogous to prior approvals |
| Procedural objections (continuance, reliance on post-enactment facts, due process) | Trial court abused discretion by denying continuance; court relied on improper facts; due process violated | Notice and multiple public hearings provided; court extended hearing time; valuation issues not determinative | No abuse of discretion; no due process violation; any consideration of updated valuations harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Winter Springs v. State, 776 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 2001) (sets three-part scope of review for assessment validations)
- Sarasota Cnty. v. Sarasota Church of Christ, 667 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 1995) (special-assessment benefit and apportionment are legislative facts reviewed for arbitrariness)
- City of Boca Raton v. State, 595 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 1992) (municipal home-rule authority to levy special assessments unless expressly prohibited)
- Lake Cnty. v. Water Oak Mgmt. Corp., 695 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 1997) (fire protection and solid waste services can confer a special benefit; clarifies Higgs turned on apportionment)
- St. Lucie Cnty. — Fort Pierce Fire Prevention & Control Dist. v. Higgs, 141 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 1962) (assessment invalid where benefit not apportioned in proportion to property value)
- S. Trail Fire Control Dist., Sarasota Cnty. v. State, 273 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1973) (assessment methods may vary; area or flat-basis assessments not per se invalid)
- Fire Dist. No. 1 of Polk Cnty. v. Jenkins, 221 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 1969) (upholding assessments for fire protection services)