1999-017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

17> C-7 11 i Although the benefit derived need not be direct and immediate, the benefit must be special and peculiar to the property assessed and not a general benefit to the entire community. Thus, services which are provided by a government may be essential to the public welfare but fail to provide the special benefit necessary for the imposition of a valid assessment.6 Fair and Reasonable Apportionment Requirement An improvement or service which specially benefits the assessed properties must also be "fairly and reasonably apportioned among the benefited properties." C of Boca Raton v. State, 595 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 1992); Parrish v. Hillsborough County, 123 So. 830 (Fla. 1929). For example, in South Trail Fire Control Dist. Sarasota County v. State,. 273 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1973), the Court upheld the apportionment scheme that assessed business and commercial property on an area basis while other property was assessed on a flat rate basis. The Supreme Cointt heli, that lh& Illarnler of the assessment's apportionment is immaterial and may vary provided that the amount of the assessment for each property does not exceed the proportional benefits it receives as compared to other properties. However, improper apportionment will defeat a special assessment when a special benefit is otherwise available. In City of Ft. Lauderdale v. Carter, 71 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 9954), a special assessment for garbage, waste and trash collection was apportioned based upon the value of the property. The Court held this assessment to be invalid in that apportioning on the basis of value did not bear any reasonable relationship to the services provided. See St, Lucie County -Ft. Mlcrco Fire Prevention and Control uistris:t v. Hlgys, 9H9 So. 2d 744 (Flet. 1962) "For example, in Growler V. Phillips, 146 Fla. 440, 1 So, 2d 629 (Fla. 1941), a special assessment for the estab4shmenl and maintenance of a hospital was found to riot afford a special or peculiar benefit to the real property assessed. The court reasoned that the hospital provided benefits to the entire community because of its availability to any person but that no logical relationship existed between the construction and maintenance of the hospital and the assessed properly. Additionally, in Whisnant v. Stringfellow, 50 So 2d 885 (Fla 1951), an assessment for the county heallh unit was held to be invalid in that it benefited everyone in the county, regardless of their slalus a$ properly owners