School Board Fair Share Payments
Hillsborough County v. Hillsborough School Board -- The facts of the case arise out of a petition for declaratory judgment filed by the school board. The school board requested that the court answer two questions: (1) whether the school board had the legal authority under sections 1013.33(13) and 1013.51(1)(a) and (b) to fund offsite transportation improvements (here a turn lane and signalization) associated with a new school campus in the rural area of the county and (2) whether the county had the authority to compel the school board to expend funds for such improvements.
After a one day non-jury trial, the court issued a final judgment. In that judgment, the court ruled that under its interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions, the school board was only required to fund those transportation improvements that were "contiguous to" the school site. The court defined "contiguous to" as touching or running through the school site itself.
The legal issues for FAC include whether, despite the trial court's ruling that school boards are not responsible for funding transportation improvements unless they touch or run through the proposed school site, school boards remain responsible and able to provide for funding all of the transportation improvements necessitated by a new school whether contiguous to the site or offsite, or simply because section 1013.51, Florida Statutes, clearly permits them to fund such improvements.
After the briefs, including FAC's amicus brief, were filed, on February 10, 2010, the Court issued a per curiam affirmed order, upholding, without comment, the trial court's order.
Growth Management: SB 360
The City of Weston v. Crist case challenges the constitutionality of SB 360 in two ways: (1) that it failed to achieve a 2/3rds vote and is a nonbinding unconstitutional unfunded mandate and (2) the bill failed the single subject rule. Neither the Florida Association of Counties nor the Florida League of Cities is formally participating in the lawsuit. Approximately four counties have decided to directly participate and between 15 and 20 municipalities have done the same. You can link to the pleadings here. A hearing on motions for summary judgment was heard on June 3, 2010.
Exactions
St. Johns River Water Management District v. Koontz
Case No. 5D6-1116, Fifth DCA
Case No. SC 09-713, Fla Supreme Court
The Koontz decision from the Fifth District Court of Appeals held that a temporary taking of property occurs when a government entity conditions development approval upon a requirement that a circuit court Judge determines is an unreasonable exercise of the police power, after a de novo review of the evidence. Moreover, in the circuit court inverse condemnation suit, it is government’s burden to show that the challenged condition is a reasonable exercise of the police power. The Fifth District’s decision greatly extends the bounds of Florida takings law. Link to opinion here.
The facts in Koontz are relatively straight forward. Mr. Koontz wanted to destroy almost 4 acres of wetlands to develop part of his property. As mitigation for wetland impacts he offered to preserve the remaining 11 acres of his property. The St. Johns’ Governing Board determined that the proposed mitigation was less than the amount called for under St. Johns’ mitigation guidelines. Therefore, the Governing Board denied Mr. Koontz’s permit application. The final order of denial pointed out that Mr. Koontz could build his desired project if he were to provide additional mitigation or, alternatively, could reduce the size of his project so that only one acre of wetlands would be destroyed, with mitigation being preservation of the remainder of the property. Mr. Koontz declined to pursue either alternative and chose not to pursue his administrative remedies under Chapter 120 of the Florida Statutes. Instead he proceeded directly to circuit court under Article X, section 6(a) of Florida’s Constitution, claiming an exaction taking of his property. The trial court found that additional mitigation was an unreasonable exercise of the police power, invalidated any requirement for additional mitigation, found a temporary regulatory taking, and awarded over $300,00 as damages for the temporary loss of use of the property. The trial court's decision was affirmed by the Fifth District, which denied rehearing en banc but certified the following question as one of great public importance:
Where a landowner concedes that permit denial did not deprive him of all or substantially all economically viable use of the property, does Article X, section 6(a), of the Florida Constitution recognize an exaction taking under the holdings of Nollan and Dolan where, instead of a compelled dedication of real property to public use, the exaction is a condition for a permit approval that the circuit court finds unreasonable?
The Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction. The briefs are currently being filed. Link to them here. The Florida League of Cities and FAC filed a joint amicus brief on behalf of the water management district. The oral argument was held on April 5, 2010.