St. Petersburg v. Briley, Wild & Assocs., Inc. - 239 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1970)

Rule:

Fla. Const. art. VIII, § 1(h) (1968), prohibits the taxation of municipally-situate property by the county for any services rendered by the county where no real or substantial benefit accrues to city property from such services. Conversely, this provision permits such taxation where such service is found to be of real and substantial benefit to such property.

Facts:

Appellants, a city and its taxpayers, sought review of declaratory judgment in favor of Briley, Wild & Associates, Inc., a construction engineering firm and county, under Fla. Const. art. VIII, § 1(h). Appellants intervened in a friendly declaratory suit by appellees to determine whether the proscription against the use of city tax funds for the finance of a sewage project benefiting unincorporated areas was applicable. Appellants argued that the proscription against the use of funds derived from general ad valorem taxes for the project applied.

Issue:

Was the expenditure of countywide levied tax monies authorized?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed, concluding that the expenditure of countywide levied tax monies was authorized because the project would substantially benefit city property. The court explained that the proposed sewage project would render substantial benefits, as substandard treated sewage was discharged at points close to the city and the project would help remedy this situation. The court noted that the indirect benefit accrued to all residents and property of the entire county by elimination of pollution from waters surrounding the county. The court found that a proper interpretation did not require a direct and primary use benefit to avoid the proscription.