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

Robert Taylor Bowling 1881 -1939) Joshua J. Pope Thomas T. Cobb Andrea M. Kurak 1916- 2004) NV. Warren Cole, Jr. 1926 -2008) BB Andrew C. Grant Christopher N. Challis Elan R. Kaney Kathryn D. Weston Jonathan D. Kaney Jr. J. Lester Kaney C. Allen Watts OLE Kelly V. Parsons Michael J. Woods Maja S. Sander Harold C. Hubka since 1925 James A. Stowers Thomas S. Hart Katherine Hurst Miller Scott NV. Cichon Da }`k; na Beach E DeLand Leanne M. Siegfried Robert A. Merrell III Michael O. Sznapstajler Bruce A. Hanna Caryn N. Diamond 351 East 1.` raw York Avenue John P. Ferguson Melissa B. Murphy Suite 200 Rhoda Bess Goodson Jonathan D. Kaney III Del- and, Florida 327, Thomas J. Leek 386) 736 -7700 OF COUNSEL Michael P. Olivari Larry y D. Marsh Fax ( u E+) 785- 1// Mark A. Watts Heather Bond Vargas y + 5pp4yy Jay D. Bond, Jr. November 24, 2009 Mr. Kurt Spitzer Florida Stormwater Association 719 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32301 Re:Re: UpdatedUpdated OpinionOpinion LetterLetter DearDear Mr.Mr. Spitzer:Spitzer: YouYou havehave askedasked meme forfor anan updateupdate toto mymy opinionopinion letterletter dateddated SeptemberSeptember 6,6, 2006,2006, asas toto whetherwhether thethe StateState oror itsits politicalpolitical subdivisions subdivisions maymay refuserefuse payment payment forfor stormwaterstormwater utilityutility services.services. ThisThis updateupdate isis basedbased onon mymy considerationconsideration ofof thethe effect,effect, ifif any,any, ofof thethe decisiondecision ofof thethe SecondSecond DistrictDistrict CourtCourt ofof AppealAppeal issuedissued OctoberOctober 99 ofof thisthis year.year. InIn thatthat decision,decision, thethe DistrictDistrict CourtCourt affirmedaffirmed anan unpublishedunpublished decisiondecision ofof thethe circuitcircuit courtcourt forfor PinellasPinellas County,County, whichwhich hadhad heldheld thethe SchoolSchool BoardBoard waswas notnot liableliable forfor thethe stormwater stormwater feesfees imposedimposed byby thethe CityCity ofof Clearwater.Clearwater. First,First, thethe decisiondecision ofof thethe SecondSecond DistrictDistrict waswas issuedissued withoutwithout anyany explanatory explanatory opinion,opinion, butbut withwith aa citationcitation toto thethe Gainesville Gainesville IIIIII decisiondecision byby thethe FirstFirst DistrictDistrict CourtCourt ofof Appeal.Appeal. TheThe opinionopinion ofof thethe FirstFirst DistrictDistrict inin GainesvilleGainesville IIIIII cancan bebe foundfound atat 920920 So.So. 2d2d 5353( ( 2005).2005). AA decisiondecision byby thethe SecondSecond DistrictDistrict CourtCourt withoutwithout opinionopinion isis notnot controllingcontrolling precedent,precedent, eveneven inin thethe DistrictDistrict wherewhere itit waswas issued.issued. SeeSee thethe SupremeSupreme CourtCourt decisiondecision onon thethe effecteffect ofof perper curiamcuriam affirmancesaffirmances asas precedents,precedents, inin Department Department ofof LegalLegal AffairsAffairs vs.vs. DistrictDistrict CourtCourt ofofAppeal,Appeal, FifthFifth District,District, 434434 So.So. 2d2d 310310 ( ( Fla.Fla. 1983)1983) Second,Second, thethe controllingcontrolling precedentprecedent inin suchsuch casescases isis notnot GainesvilleGainesville IIIIII butbut thethe SupremeSupreme Court'Court' ss opinionopinion inin Gainesville Gainesville H.H. InIn Gainesville Gainesville IIII( ( 863863 So.So. 2d2d 138),138), thethe SupremeSupreme CourtCourt acceptedaccepted thethe substancesubstance ofof JudgeJudge Benton'Benton' ss analysisanalysis inin Gainesville Gainesville I,I, foundfound atat 778778 So.So. 2d2d 519519 ( ( Fla.Fla. 1st1st DCADCA 2001),2001), holdingholding thatthat aa stormwaterstormwater utilityutility feefee waswas aa serviceservice chargecharge ratherrather thanthan aa specialspecial assessment.assessment. InIn GainesvilleGainesville I,I, JudgeJudge BentonBenton restated restated thethe lawlaw distinguishingdistinguishing utilityutility useruser feesfees fromfrom specialspecial assessments,assessments, concludingconcluding thatthat basedbased onon aa numbernumber ofof factors,factors, thethe CityCity hadhad imposed imposed aa useruser fee.fee. TheThe statestate hadhad alsoalso claimedclaimed sovereignsovereign immunityimmunity inin GainesvilleGainesville II butbut thethe FirstFirst DistrictDistrict declared declared inin thatthat casecase thatthat 036758036758 - - 004:004: CWATTCWATT / / TVEILTVEIL : : 00742098.00742098. DOC;DOC; 2)2) 173173 CouncilCouncil Meeting,Meeting, JuneJune 22,22, 20102010  egg Mr. Kurt Spitzer N November 24, 2009 Page 2 there was no sovereign immunity and that for purposes of the stormwater utility fee, the Department of Transportation was a " person" subject to just and equitable utility fees under 180. 13( 2). However, insofar as the Gainesville claim involved money damages rather than declaratory relief, Gainesville I held that a vendor may not sue a state agency in the absence of a written contract, and remanded the case for the taking of evidence on that issue. The City instead dismissed that case and began the bond validation case which led directly to the Supreme Court in Gainesville II. In Gainesville II, the Supreme Court noted that there are a number of factors to be considered as to the applicability of a city or county ordinance to other political subdivisions, and no one of those factors ( including involuntariness of a utility service or the absence of written contract) is determinative. The Supreme Court specifically declined to decide the Department of Transportation' s, cross- appeal, which had asserted that the Department enjoyed statutory immunity, since the City of Gainesville had presented its case in the form of a bond validation only. Thus, the holding in Gainesville I appears to be the current determinative precedent with respect to the absence of sovereign immunity. In Gainesville III, a different panel of judges in the First District Court pointed out that the City of Gainesville relied upon the argument that FDOT fell within the definition of "person" subject to just and equitable rates and charges for water and sewer utility service under § 180. 13, FLA. STAT. The Court noted that Chapter 180 of the Statutes does not authorize cities to operate stormwater utilities, and that therefore this particular statute did not waive sovereign immunity in the absence of a written contract for services which would waive such immunity. The Court did not examine the totality of factors announced by Gainesville I and followed by the Supreme Court in Gainesville H. In these respects only, the Gainesville III panel differed with the Gainesville I panel from the same court. Although there is a process for resolving conflicts between different panels of the same court, that process has not yet been followed. The Gainesville III decision was handed down in 2005. The 2006 Legislature amended Chapter 180 and