Answer Brief of Respondent, Ken Pruitt, St. Lucie County Property Appraiser
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Filing # 49824289 E-Filed 12/08/2016 07:32:19 PM SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO: SC16-1107 Lower Tribunal Case Nos. TREASURE COAST MARINA, LC, 4D14-3064 et al., 56-2011-CA-2968 Petitioners, vs. THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA, etc., et al., Respondents. __________________________________/ __________________________________________________________________ ANSWER BRIEF OF RESPONDENT, KEN PRUITT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER On Discretionary Review from a Final Decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal __________________________________________________________________ Loren E. Levy Fla. Bar No. 0814441 Jon F. Morris Fla. Bar No. 113037 The Levy Law Firm 1828 Riggins Lane RECEIVED, 12/08/201607:33:29 PM,Clerk,Supreme Court Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Telephone: 850/219-0220 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Respondent, Ken Pruitt St. Lucie County Property Appraiser TABLEOFCONTENTS Page Table ofAuthorities ............................................................................... ii Preliminary Statement ............................................................................ vi Statement ofthe Case and ofthe Facts .................................................. 1 Summary of Argument .......................................................................... 11 Standard ofReview ............................................................................... 14 Argument ................................................................................................ 14 I. THE CITY MARINA AND THE FISHERMAN'S WHARF MARINA WERE USED FOR MUNICIPAL PURPOSES AND ARE EXEMPT FROM AD VALOREMTAXATION. II. RIVERFRONT LACKS STANDING TO CONTEST THE EXEMPT STATUS OF THE CITY MARINA AND FISHERMAN'S WHARF MARINA. 38 Conclusion ............................................................................................. 38 Certificate of Service .............................................................................. 39 Certificate of Compliance ...................................................................... 40 11 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases: CAPFA Capital Corp. 2000A v. Donegan, 929 So.2d 569 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) .............................................. 21,22,23 City of Ft. Pierce v. Treasure Coast Marina, LC, 195 So.3d 1141 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) ………………………… passim City of Gainesville v. Crapo, No. 01-03-CA-4664, (8th Jud. Cir. Ct. (Nov. 25, 2008)) .............. 19 City of Gainesville v. Crapo, 953 So.2d 557 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) ............................................... 20 City of Miami Bch. v. Hogan, 63 So.2d 493 (Fla. 1953) ................................................................ 18 City of Sarasota v. Mikos, 374 So.2d 458 (Fla. 1979) .............................................................. 16 Daytona Bch. Racing & Rec. Facilities Dist. v. Paul, 179 So.2d 349 (Fla. 1965) .............................................................. 17 Dep’t of Admin. v. Horne, 269 So.2d 659 (Fla. 1972) .............................................................. 35 Dep't of Revenue v. City of Gainesville, 859 So.2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) …………………………….. 15 Dep't of Revenue v. City of Gainesville, 918 So.2d 250 (Fla. 2005) .............................................................. passim Dep’t of Revenue v. Markham, 396 So.2d 1120 (Fla. 1981) ............................................................ 34 Garcia v. Andonie, 101 So.3d 339 (Fla. 2012) .............................................................. 14 iii Greater Orlando Aviation Auth. v. Crotty, 775 So.2d 978 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) .............................................. 25,30 Green v. City of Pensacola, 126 So.2d 566 (Fla. 1961) ……………………………………….. 34 Islamorada, Village of Islands v. Higgs, 882 So.2d 1009 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) .............................................. passim Jones v. Dep’t of Revenue, 523 So.2d 1211 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) ............................................. 35 Maronda Homes, Inc. v. Lakeview Reserve Homeowners' Ass'n, Inc., 127 So.3d 1258 (Fla. 2013) ............................................................ 14 Page v. City of Fernandina Bch, 714 So.2d 1070 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) ............................................. 25,29 Paul v. Blake, 376 So.2d 256 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1979) ............................................... 35 Rickman v. Whitehurst, 74 So. 205 (1917) ............................................................................ 34 Saunders v. City of Jacksonville, 25 So.2d 648 (Fla. 1946) ................................................................. 13,32 Sebring Airport Auth. v. McIntyre, 783 So.2d 238 (Fla. 2001) ............................................................... 17 Volusia County v. Daytona Bch. Racing & Rec. Facilities Dist., 341 So.2d 498 (Fla. 1976) ............................................................... 17 Williams v. Jones, 326 So.2d 425 (Fla. 1975) ............................................................... 17 Zingale v. Crossings at Fleming Island Cmty. Dev. Dist., 960 So.2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) ………………………………. 23,24,25 iv Zingale v. Powell, 885 So.2d 277 (Fla. 2004) .............................................................. 14 Florida Constitution: Art. VII, § 3(a), Fla. Const. ....................................................................... passim Art. VII, § 3(c), Fla. Const. ……………………………………………… 32 Art. VII, § 4(j), Fla. Const. ……………………………………………… 30 Art. VII, § 10(c), Fla. Const. ……………………………………………. 36-37 Art. VIII, § 2(b), Fla. Const. …………………………………………….. 32 Laws of Florida: Ch. 97-197, § 2, Laws of Fla. (1997) ....................................................... 15 Ch. 311, Fla. Stat. (2016) ………………………………………………. 30 Ch. 315, Fla. Stat. (2016) ……………………………………………… 30 Florida Statutes: § 166.047, Fla. Stat. (1997) ...................................................................... 15 § 189.055, Fla. Stat. (2016) …………………………………………….. 23 § 342.07, Fla. Stat. (2014) ........................................................................ 30 v PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Petitioners, Riverfront Development, LC, and Treasure Coast Marina will be referred to collectively herein as "Riverfront." Respondent, City of Fort Pierce, Florida, will be referred to herein as the "City." Respondent, Fort Pierce Redevelopment Agency, will be referred to herein as the "FPRA." Respondent, Ken Pruitt, St. Lucie County Property Appraiser, will be referred to herein as the "property appraiser." References to the record on appeal will be delineated as (R- volume #-page#). References to the Petitioners' Initial Brief will be delineated as (IB-page #) vi STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND OF THE FACTS This ad valorem tax case involves the taxable status of two marinas owned and operated by a municipality. The Fourth District Court held that marinas are generally considered a traditional municipal function and, therefore, the two marinas were being used for a municipal or public purpose as defined by Dep't of Revenue v. City of Gainesville, 918 So.2d 250 (Fla. 2005). City of Ft. Pierce v. Treasure Coast Marina, LC, 195 So.3d 1141 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). Accordingly, the district court concluded that the marinas were exempt from ad valorem taxation. The district court certified the following question as one of great public importance: IN LIGHT OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE V. CITY OF GAINESVILLE, 918 SO.2D 250 (FLA. 2005), DOES A MUNICIIPALLY OWNED AND OPERATED MARINA STILL QUALIFY AS A TRADITIONALLY EXEMPT 'MUNICIPAL OR PUBLIC PURPOSE' UNDER ARTICLE VII, SECTION 3(a) OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION? Id. at 1147. This Court respectfully is requested to answer the certified question in the affirmative. In October 2011, the plaintiffs, Riverfront Development, LC and Treasure Coast Marina (collectively "Riverfront"), who are the owners and operators of the Harbortown Marina located in St. Lucie County, Florida, filed suit 1 against the property appraiser, the Department of Revenue (department), the City of Ft. Pierce (City), and the Ft. Pierce Redevelopment Agency (FPRA). (R-1-1) Riverfront sought to “declare unconstitutional the application of Article VII, Section 3(a) of the Florida Constitution with respect to marinas which are owned and operated by Defendants Fort Pierce and the FP Redevelopment Agency in Ft. Pierce, Florida;” and “permanently enjoin Defendant Pruitt from granting Defendants Fort Pierce and FP Redevelopment Agency an ad valorem tax exemption in violation of Article VII, Section 3(a) of the Florida Constitution.” (R-1-61) The complaint alleged that Riverfront operated the Harbortown Marina at a competitive disadvantage because it was located in close proximity to the two municipally-owned marinas and must charge higher fees for boat slips and diesel fuel resulting from the disparity in ad valorem tax treatment. (R-1-63-64) Riverfront alleged that the municipally-owned marinas were commercial enterprises that were indistinguishable from a private enterprise and, as a result, were not used exclusively for a municipal or public purpose and were not essential to the health, morals, safety, and general welfare of the residents of Ft. Pierce. (R- 1-69) The “City Marina” has been owned and operated by the City of Ft. Pierce for decades and was established in 1938. (R-5-798) The “Fisherman’s 2 Wharf” Marina was acquired by the FPRA in 2007. At that time, the plan was to make certain repairs to the Fisherman’s Wharf Marina and operate it as overflow and seasonal dockage for the existing City Marina. (R-4-623) During 2011-2013, the Fisherman’s