Fort Walton Beach Council agenda — 06-22-2010 Regular — reading text

www.tonicraig. info From: Jeff McInnis [ mailto:jmcinnis @asglegal. com] Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 1: 01 PM To: ' Toni Craig' Cc: ' Scallan, Rita'; smithB @mail. okaloosa. kl2.fl. us Subject: In Re: Stormwater Management Utility Ordinance 1768 Importance: High Toni: As you know, I represent the Okaloosa County School Board. I have recently been asked by School District staff to communicate with you regarding the Stormwater Utility fees that have recently begun to be assessed against the public school facilities plants located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Fort Walton Beach. A recent review of School District water bills for the 12 educational and ancillary plants located within the City of Fort Walton Beach indicates that the additional Stormwater Utility fee charges have been added to each of these locations under the monthly utility bill. The School District would ask that you review the applicability of the City' s Ordinance 1768 as to the educational and ancillary plants owned by the District in light of the provisions of Section 1013. 371( 1) wherein all public school educational and ancillary plants in the State of Florida are exempt from " impact fees or service availability fees" and the provisions of Section 10. 13. 51( 1)( b) and ( 2) which specifically provide that " the provisions of any law, municipal ordinance, or county ordinance to the contrary notwithstanding, the provisions of this section regulate the levying of assessments for special benefits on school or community college districts and the directing of the payment thereof. Any municipal ordinance or county ordinance making provision to the contrary is void." The history of the adoption by the Florida Legislature of Section 1013. 51( b) as reflected in the Legislative Analysis of Chapter 95 -341, states the statute addition was intended to " limit the scope of potential assessments of local governments to school boards" and " limit the exactions and costs that can be passed onto school boards." We believe that the current fees being added to the water bills of the public schools within the City of Fort Walton Beach are not properly assessable to those operations. I would like to have the opportunity to review 151 Council Meeting, June 22, 2010 the Ordinance and its application to public school facilities with you as soon as possible. We need to schedule a meeting as soon as possible to discuss this matter in view of the fact that the overall monthly assessment to the public schools is several thousand dollars.I will look forward to hearing from you. Thank you. Jeff McInnis cc: Rita Scallan Bill Smith Please Note New E -Mail Address: jmcinnisLa)asgle al. com Jeff McInnis Anchors Smith Grimsley A Professional Limited Company 909 Mar Walt Drive, Suite 1014 Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32547 Telephone: 850/ 863 -4064 Fax: 850/ 862 -1138 Fax) 850/ 664 -5728 ( Direct) 2 152 Council Meeting, June 22, 2010  Page 1 So. 3d - - - -,2009 WL 3233014 ( F1a.App. 2 Dist.), 34 Fla. L. Weekly D2085 C' ite as: 2009 WL 3233014 (F1a. App. 2 Dist.)) H District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District. CITY OF CLEARWATER, Appellant, V. SCHOOL BOARD OF PINELLAS COUNTY, Ap- pellee. No. 2D08 -5187. Oct. 9, 2009. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; J. Thomas McGrady, Judge. Pamela K. Akin, City Attorney, and Paul Richard Hull, Assistant City Attorney, Clearwater, for Ap- pellant. Charles W. Hall and Mark D. Tinker of Banker Lopez Gassler, P. A., St. Petersburg; James A. Robinson, School Board Attorney, Largo; and J. Bruce Harper and Dennis R. Pemberton of Harper, Kynes & Geller, P. A., Clearwater, for Appellee. Major B. Harding and J. Jeffry Wahlen of Ausley & McMullen, Tallahasee, for Amicus Curiae Florida School Boards Association, Inc. PER CURIAM. 1 Affirmed. See Cite of Gainesville v. Fla. Dep' t of Transp., 920 So. 2d 53 ( Fla. 1 st DCA 2005). FULMER, WALLACE, and KHOUZAM, JJ., Con- cur. F1a.App. 2 Dist.,2009. City of Clearwater v. School Bd. of Pinellas County So. 3d - - - -,2009 WL 3233014 ( F1a. App. 2 Dist.), 34 Fla. L. Weekly D2085 END OF DOCUMENT 2009 Thomson Reuters. 1` n to Orig. US Gov. Works. 153 Council Meeting, June 22, 2010  12 % 17/ 2009 10: 31 8629490 Ac! RE PAGE , ANCHORS + SMITH + GRIMSLEY A Pk0ir110NAL Lwnf o COMPANY ATToRNP, s A.Ne COUNSELORS AT LAw 909 MAR WALT r) RrVF- SUrM 1014 FoRr WPkt.TcN Bengt. FL 12347 -6711 8.50) 863 -40}64 M501) 13652 t 138 FAA { tti,5t) fiCr4 -5728 FtiK W% rW.Ji tr,, V..fiAl_LOM G. LEDON ANCHORS Data- S. PLNtCpIMN" rrufa W. GRD4,' 11T TluonrY W. SHAW 51L« N 8. BAUMAN SlfM,,a A- EWE N W. SCOTT Fl,)." TR ANWF X4. MCBIUM C, jf:FFKZY MCINNIS Deccmber 17. 2009 RXHARD P. PETINWANN* WALTr•X J & Mn-M 19'29 -2001 AuxD AamrrtLD L\ AtASNu C" M= CtUiCALV, TR1',L Tori Craig, Esquiire SaW OP CMUMCArON Post Off-tee Box 2917 Fort Walton Beach, FL. 32549 VIA FACSIMILE Our Client The School Board of Okaloosa County, Florida Your Client The City of Fort Walton Beach In Re Stormwater Management Utility User Fee Refund Dear Toni: Following; our mcent telephone conversation regarding the status cyfthe Sto.rmwater Managemen t Utility User Fees against the School Board, I havc discumed with the School District' s CFO the issue of the refund of fees that were previously paid. The School District would prefer that the City provide a lump sum cash refund of all of the fees paid through November 2009 for each and every school within the jurisd.ic: tional limits of the City of Fort Walton Beach. If this is not a financial pozsibly for the City, we would then request that if the refund is to be in the form credits to fucure City utility bills to the schools that the complem refund be accomplished within the School District' s current >tscal year which ends June 30, 2010. in mggard - to the billing, it is my understanding that the bills to the :schools for Decemlaer 2049 did not contain the Stormwater Management U11111ty User Fccs and therefore that issue seems to be corrected. 1 would appnmciate you letting mcl;now as soon as possible how the City krill be handling the rcfLind of the f-cs that were previously paid which, as we have discussed, the School District bebevcs were not a legal obligation of the District If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Sincerely, ANCHORS S GRTNIST. EY, PLC C. Jc C4jwe cc: Ritat "-'C , lan. CF 154 Council Meeting, June 22, 2010 In A r 7 ann  6/ 16/ 2010 711 So. 2d 1322 i West Reporter Image ( PDF) 711 So. 2d 1322, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1377 District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District. CITY OF COCOA, Florida, Appellant, V. SCHOOL BOARD OF BREVARD COUNTY, Florida, et al. Appellees. No. 97 -2622. June 5, 1998. City brought complaint against school board and community college to recover unpaid stormwater utility fees. The Circuit Court, Brevard County, Frank R. Pound. jr,, J., dismissed complaint. City appealed. The District Court of Appeal, Griffin, C. J., held that trial court was required to make further factual findings regarding whether defendants could be required to pay fees. Reversed and remanded. West Headnotes 268 Municipal Corporations 268XI Use and Regulation of Public Places, Property, and Works 268)CI( W Sewers, Drains, and Water Courses 2681<712 Connections with Sewers or Drains 2681<712t9 k. Judicial Proceedings. Most Cited Cases Remand for trial court to make further factual findings was warranted to permit determination of whether school board and community college were exempt from payment of stormwater utility fees to city. West' s F. S. A. §§ 235. 26, 235. 341 403. 0893( 1). 1322 Bradly Roger Bettin, Sr., of Amari, Theriac & Eisenmenger, P. A., Cocoa, for Appellant. Frank J. Groff* and Harold T. Bistline, of Stromire, Bistline, Miniclier, & Griffith,