The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those with disabilities and should be used for no other purpose. These are not legal documents, and may not be used as legal authority. This transcript is not an official document of the Florida Supreme Court.
Dr. Gregory Strand v. Escambia County, Florida
SC06-1894
THE NEXT CASE IS STRAND v.
ESCAMBIA COUNTY.
[INAUDIBLE CONVERSATIONS]
>> GOOD MORNING.
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT.
MY NAME IS DAVID THERIAQUE.
WITH MY IS MR. EN DENNIS.
I REPRESENT DR. STAND IN HIS
APPEAL TODAY.
DR. STRAND IS HERE AS WELL.
WE HAVE RAISED THREE ISSUES
IN OUR APPEAL.
FIRST ISSUE WAS ONE OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT ABUSED ITS
DISCRETION IS DENYING STRAND
A BRIEF 30-DAY CONTINUEANCE.
THE SECOND ISSUE IS WHETHER
THE CIRCUIT COURT'S FINAL
JUDGMENT WAS SUPPORTED BY
COPIES OF SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE.
THE LAST ISSUE IS WHETHER
THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN
ACCOUNTING THE TO USE TAX
INCREMENT FINANCES WITHOUT
COMPLYING WITH THE --
>> CAN YOU FOCUS ON THAT
ARGUMENT.
>> YES, SIR?
>> I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT I
WOULD TAKE THEM IN REVERSE
ORDER AND GO FROM THERE IF
THAT WAS ACCEPTABLE TO THE
COURT.
IT IS OUR CONTENTION THAT
THE COUNTY CEMENTLY DOES NOT
HAVE THE WHOLE RULE POWER TO
UTILIZE THE TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING METHOD THAT THEY
USED IN THESE REVENUE BONDS
WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT ACT.
>> DID WE -- IN TERMS OF THE
ACTUAL TAX INCREMENT FUND
AND THE, THE DEAL THAT'S
BEEN PUT TOGETHER, IS THERE,
HAS THERE BEEN A FINDING?
AND IS THIS CRITICAL TO THE
OUR DECISION OF THE
AUTHORITY AS TO WHETHER IT
HAS BEEN A PLEDGE OF THOSE
FUNDS TO REPAY THE BOND AS
OPPOSED TO, AND I, AN
IDENTIFICATION OF THE MONEY?
AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S
GOING TO BE A DISTINCTION
WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE.
>> I BELIEVE THE FINAL
JUDGMENT DOES CONTAIN A
STATEMENT TO THE EFFECT THAT
THERE HAS NOT BEEN A PLEDGE.
THERE'S ALSO A STATEMENT IN
THE FINAL JUDGMENT THAT THE
AD VALOREM TAX REVENUE IS
BEING UTILIZED TO PAY FOR
THE BOND.
WE BELIEVE IN ISHTH EVENT
THAT IS A -- EITHER EVENT
THAT THAT IS A SEPARATE
ISSUE OF WHETHER THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT, ESCAMBIA COUNTY
IN THIS CASE, HAD THE LEGAL
AUTHORITY TO EVEN UTILIZE
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE CRA, THE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT ACT.
AND THE BASIS FOR THAT IS A
COUPLE-FOLD.
FIRST OFF, BY LOOKING AT THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
REGARDING TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING IN THE STATE OF
FLORIDA, WE WOULD SUBMIT
THAT THAT LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY CLEARLY INDICATES
THAT WHILE HOME RULE POWERS
OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT,
PARTICULARLY COUNTIES, IS
VERY BROAD.
IN THIS INSTANCE, IT DOES
NOT INCLUDECLUDE TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING.
FOR EXAMPLE, IN 1971, THE
FLORIDA LEGISLATURE
SPECIFICALLY AMENDED CHAPTER
125 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES
TO BROADEN THE HOME RULE
POWERS OF COUNTIES.
YET FIVE YEARS LATER, THE
LEGISLATURE PROPOSED A
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
WITH THE 1968 CONSTITUTION
TO ALLOW FOR COUNTIES TO
UTILIZE TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING.
>> SO IS IT YOUR POSITION
THAT EVEN WITH THE
REFERENDUM, THE COUNTY
COULDN'T HAVE ISSUED THESE
BONDS?
>> I BELIEVE WITH THE
REFERENDUM, THEY COULD.
I THINK THE TAX INCREMENT
FINE ANTSING METHOD, IF YOUR
BOGUEGLING GOING TO USE IT
WITH THE -- IF YOU'RE GOING
TO USE IT WITHOUT THE
REFERENDUM THAT THE ONLY
VEHICLE WOULD BE BHOU THE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT ACT.
>> THE COUNTY HAS CONCEDED
THAT THEY ARE NOT
PROCEEDING?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR THAT
THE COUNTY FAILED TO COMPLY
WITH ANY OF THE REQUIREMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT ACT.
THAT THEIR SOLE BASIS
ESSENTIALLY IS WE HAVE THE
HOME RULE POWER TO DO SO.
WE HAVE BROAD HOME RULE
POWERS, AND WITHIN THOSE
BROAD HOME RULE POWERS, WE
CAN USE THIS METHOD.
THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY,
THOUGH, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE
FACT THAT THE, THERE WAS AN
AMENDMENT PROPOSED TO THE
FLORIDA CONSTITUTION, THE
1968 CONSTITUTION, IT WAS
REJECTED BY THE VOTERS, THAT
THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE FOR
THAT AMENDMENT WAS TO ALLOW
COUNTIES TO HAVE THE
AUTHORITY TO USE TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING, AND
THEN THE LEGISLATURE
FOLLOWED UP BY AMENDING
CHAPTER 163 PART 3, TO
SPECIFICALLY GRANT TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING POWERS
TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS THROUGH
--
>> HAVEN'T WE IN FACT,
IMPROVED OF THE ISSUANCE OF
BONDS IN CASES WHERE THE AD
VALOREM TAXES WEREN'T
PLEDGED BY LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS?
>> YES, YOU HAVE.
IF THERE'S NOT BEEN A PLEDGE,
THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT THE
LACK OF A PLEDGE DOES NOT
VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL
REQUIREMENTS OF A
REFERENDUM.
BUT THIS COURT IN ONLY ONE
CASE HAS THERE BEEN ANY
INSTANCE IN WHICH THE COURT
HAS ALLOWED A TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING METHOD TO BE
UTILIZED OUTSIDE OF A CLA,
AND THAT'S THE PEN CASE.
AND IN THAT CASE, IT WAS
BROUGHT BY A PRO SE
LITIGANT.
WE'VE READ THE BRIEFS.
THIS ISSUE, THE ISSUE OF
WHETHER A LOCAL GOVERNMENT
HAD THE AUTHORITY OUTSIDE OF
THE CRA, THE ISSUE REGARDING
THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY,
THOSE ISSUES WERE NEVER
PRESENTED TO THIS COURT.
>> SO YOU THINK THIS HAS
JUST SLIPPED THROUGH THE
CRACKS OVER A LONG PERIOD OF
YEARS WITH REFERENCE TO THE
AUTHORITY OF LOCAL
GOVERNMENT TO ISSUE BONDS?
>> NO, SIR.
WE THINK THAT THERE HAS ONLY
BEEN ONE OTHER INSTANCE THAT
THIS COURT HAS REVIEWED
WHETHER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
HAS THE ABILITY OUTSIDE OF
THE CRA CONTEXT.
THE ONLYICATES THAT WE'VE
SEEN, YOUR HONOR, THAT EVEN
MENTIONS ALLOWING TAX
INCREMENT FINE ANSING
OUTSIDE THE CONTEXT OF THE
COMMUNITIES COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT ACT WAS THE
PEN CASE THAT I MENTIONED
WAS BROUGHT BY THE PRO SE
LITIGANT, THE BRIEFS NEVER
RAISED THIS ISSUE, AND, AND
--
>> HASN'T THE LEGISLATURE
ITSELF, YOU KNOW, IN
LEGISLATION THAT DESCRIBES
HOME RULE POWER, AND
ESPECIALLY SOME YEARS AGO
WHEN, WHEN IT WAS EXPANDED,
ACTUALLY LISTED THE
AUTHORITY TO ISSUE BONDS?
>> YES, IT DID.
>> AS ONE OF THE SPECIFIC
POWERS OF, OF HOME RULE
GOVERNMENT.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
ONE OF THE SPECIFIC POWERS
DOES ADDRESS BONDING.
BUT IT DOES NOT STATE THAT
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING IS
ALLOWED TO BE THE FINANCIAL
MECHANISM TO SUPPORT THOSE
BONDS, AND THE LEGISLATEF
HISTORY.
>> SO YOU AGREE, THEN, THAT
GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE
COUNTY DOES HAVE THE
AUTHORITY TO ISSUE BONDS?
>> YES, SIR.
CLEARLY UNDER 125.
>> OKAY.
NOW WE GO TO STEP TWO.
AND IS IT YOUR POSITION HERE
THAT THE FLEW IN THE SCHEME
-- FLAW IN THE SCHEME IS
THAT THE PLEDGES AD VALOREM
TAXATION TO SECURE THESE
BONDS AND THEREFORE, THERE
HAS TO BE A REFERENDUM?
>> YOUR HONOR, I BELIEVE THE
FLAW THAT WE'RE FOCUSING IN
ON IS EVEN THOUGH THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT HAS THE ABILITY
TO ISSUE BONDS, THAT THE
HOME RULE POWER DOES NOT
INCLUDE THE TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING METHOD TO SUPPORT
THOSE BONDS.
>> BUT WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE
TAX INCREMENT --
>> THE --
>> THE FINANCING METHOD THAT
THEY WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO
USE IT?
WHAT IS IT?
DOES IT VIOLATE A
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION?
A STATUTORY PROVISION?
>> WE SUBMIT IT VIOLATES
STATUTORY PROVISION.
THAT THE ONE STATED IN WHICH
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE
ALLOWED TO USE TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING IS IN 163 PART 3.
>> PERHAPS YOU CAN HELP
AGAIN BECAUSE YOU AGREED
EARLIER THAT THERE WAS NO
PLEDGE.
OF THE AD VALOREM TAXATION,
CORRECT?
>> YES, MA'AM.
>> YOU SEE -- SO EXPLAIN,
WHAT TAX INCREMENT FINE
ANTSING IN FACT S. --
FINANCING IS.
YOU ARE SAYING IT'S AN
INDIRECT PLEDGE OF
INCREMENTAL AD VALOREM
TAXATION?
IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT IS THE
ISSUE ABOUT IDENTIFYING A
FUND IF YOU ARE NOT PLEDGING
THE AD VALOREM TAXATION FOR
REPAYMENT OF INBONDS?
-- THE BONDS.
>> THE THE TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING IS ESPECIALLY A
METHOD WHERE A LOCAL
GOVERNMENT DESIGNATES A
PARTICULAR AREA OF THAT
COUNTY OR THAT CITY AND SAYS
WE ARE GOING TO FREEZE FOR
ACCOUNTING PURPOSES WHAT
TAXES HAVE BEEN COLLECTED IN
THAT LOCAL.
WE ARE GOING TO DIRECT
DOLLARS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO
CLEAN UP SLUM, TO ADDRESS
BLIGHT, AND AS THE TAX
REVENUE FROM THAT AREA
INCREASES AS A RESULT OF
THOSE IMPROVEMENTS, WE'RE
GOING TO KEEP 95% OF THAT
REVENUE TARGETED IN THAT
AREA.
IT WOULD UTILIZE THE AD
VALOREM TAXES FROM THAT AREA
IN THAT AREA.
>> SO THEY CANNOT THEN, ARE
THEY THEN, ARE THEY BOXED IN
THEN AS FAR AS IF ANOTHER
NEED ARISES?
TO PAY SOMETHING ELSE WITHIN
THE MUNICIPALITY?
ARE THEY BOXED IN BY THE TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING FROM --
FROM USING THAT MONEY FOR
ANOTHER PURPOSE?
>> THEY ARE BOXED IN ON NOT
BEING ABLE TO UTILIZE THE
INCREMENT AND TAX REVENUE IN
THAT AREA.
BUT 95% OF THE NEW TAX
REVENUE IS SULT OF THE
IMPROVEMENTS MUST STAY IN
THE AREA THAT'S BEEN
EARMARKED FOR THE TAX
INCREMENT FINE ANTSIC, SO
THEY CAN'T USE THAT IF
SERVICES AS A WHOLE --
>> SO WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS
-- WHY ISN'T THAT AGAIN --
TO ME, YOUR ARGUMENT IS
REALLY THAT'S A PLEDGE OF
THAT MONEY THAT, WHICH IS
PART OF THE AD VALOREM -- I
MEAN, TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT IS AD VALOREM
TAXATION.
>> I AGREE WITH YOUR HONOR,
BUT THUS COURT HAS HELD THAT
THE MEASUREMENT, THIS COURT
HAS DRAWN A NUANCE, A
DISTINCTION THAT IF YOU FUND
THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY THROUGH THROUGH
THIS TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
METHOD WHERE YOU MEASURE THE
GROWTH AND YOU ARE NOT
ACTUALLY PLEDGING THE AD
VALOREM TAX IS THAT YOU ARE
SAYING WHAT HAS TO BE PLACED
IN THAT FUND IS THE
MEASUREMENT, THE EQUIVALENT
OF THAT MEASUREMENT AND THIS
COURT HAS SAID THAT'S
ACCEPTABLE.
>> BUT IN THAT CASE, THERE
WERE SEVERAL SOURCES OF
REVENUE.
>> YES, SIR.
>> HERE, YOU DON'T ONLY HAVE
IT AS THE MEASURE, IT'S THE
MEANS, THIS IS SIMPLY A ROAD
PROJECT.
AND THE ONLY MEANS FOR THE
PAYMENT IS AD VALOREM TAXES.
>> YES, SIR.
YES, SIR.
>> IT SEEMS.
>> AND WE BELIEVE THE FINAL
JUDGMENT ITSELF WAS SOMEWHAT
CONTRADICTORY, WHICH THE
COUNTY DRAFTED FOR THE
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE.
IN THE FINAL JUDGMENT IT
SPECIFICALLY REFERS TO 163
AS THE AUTHORITY OF WHAT THE
COUNSELLY -- COUNTY WAS
ATTEMPTED TO DO.
IN FACT, THE COUNTY EVEN
ADMITTED IN THEIR OBJECTION
FOR OUR MOTION FOR
CONTINUEANCE THAT THEY WERE
RELYING UPON 163 PART 3.
SO THERE IS SOME
INCONSISTENCY IN THE FINAL
JUDGMENT.
THERE IS INCONSISTENCY IN
THE COUNTY'S JUDGMENT IN TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING THE ONE
CASE THAT ADDRESSED THE
MEASURE, THE MIAMI BEACH
CONTEXT DID SO IN THE CASE
OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
AGENCY AND IT WASN'T OUTSIDE
OF CRA AND OUR -- INCREMENT
METHODOLOGY AS LONG AS IT
FOLLOWS THE STATUTORY
CRITERIA THAT THE
LEGISLATURE SPECIFICALLY
STATED WAS THE SOLE METHOD
BY WHICH TO DO THAT.
>> NOW, WHAT WOULD YOU YOU
THINK, LET'S JUST THINK THIS
OUT AND HELP ME BECAUSE WHAT
I'M THINKING IS THAT THE
REASON THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE
IS BECAUSE WHEN YOU REALLY
ARE HAVE AGREDEVELOPMENT,
THERE IS AN ANTICIPATION
THAT IS A DIRECT RESULT OF
WHAT'S GOING TO GO GOING ON.
PROPERTY VALUES WILL
INCREASE, AND THEREFORE, IT
WILL BE A NO LOSS REALLY TO
OTHER REVENUES.
IS THAT, IS THAT YOUR, AND
HERE YOU HAVE JUST -- HERE
WE ARE TALK ABOUT ROADS SO
THAT'S OUTSIDE OF REALLY A
REDEVELOPMENT OF A BLIGHTED
AREA.
>> I BELIEVE THE COUNTY'S
POSITION IS THAT THE ROADS
WILL ALLOW FOR MORE
DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS THE
SAME THING AS THE
REDEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD
TAKE PLACE.
I THINK WHAT'S IN --
ENLIGHTNING ABOUT THAT
ANALOGY IS IF YOU LOOK AT
THE FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF
THE ORDINANCE, THEY TRACK
THE STATUTORY FINDINGS
NECESSARY FOR DETERMINATION
OF BLIGHT AND SLUM.
EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS CASE
IS ESSENTIALLY A COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT ACT TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING, BUT
CALLING IT SOMETHING ELSE.
>> BUT YOU AGREE THAT
THEY'RE NOT REDEVELOPING A
SLUM AREA LIKE YOU SAID, AND
TRYING TO ADDRESS BLIGHT IN
A NEIGHBORHOOD, ALL THEY'RE
DOING IS BUILDING A,
EXPANDING A BRIDGE,
ESSENTIALLY, RIGHT?
>> THERE ARE -- WE AGREE,
OUR POSITION, YOUR HONOR, IS
THAT THIS IS NOT BLIGHT OR A
SLUM.
THIS IS PRETTY LOW KEY.
>> AND THE STATUTE IS
DESIGNED FOR AN ENTIRE
NEIGHBORHOOD FOR A SQUARE
MILE AREA WHERE THERE IS
BLIGHT AND YOU WANT TO
REDEVELOP THAT?
YOU WANT TO BRING IN STORES
AND, AND APARTMENT BUILDINGS
MAYBE AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
THIS IS JUST BUILDING,
EXPAND AGBRIDGE.
>> THIS IS EXPANDING A ROAD
AND EXPAND AGBRIDGE.
>> WHENEVER A COUNTY WANTS
TO EXPAND A BRIDGE OR EXPAND
A ROAD THEY HAVE TO GO NOW
THROUGH THAT STATUTE.
>> IF THEY WANT TO USE THE
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
METHODOLOGY, YES, SIR.
THEY HAVE OTHER BOND
AUTHORITY UNDER 125 THAT
THEY CAN UTILIZE, BUT IF THE
COUNTY OR A LOCAL -- ANY
LOCAL GOVERNMENT WANTS TO
ATTEMPT TO USE THIS TAX
INKREMENT FINANCING METHOD,
IT IS OUR POSITION THAT THE
STATUTE CLEARLY INDICATES
THAT THE ONLY VEHICLE TO DO
SO IS THROUGH 163 --
>> BUT WHY?
IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE --
IF THEY'RE PLEDGING, AND YOU
SAID AGAIN, IN JUSTICE
ANSWERED MY INITIAL QUESTION
IS NOT A PLEDGE OF AD
VALOREM TAXESING, TAXES, WHY
WOULD THE LEGISLATURE HAVE
AN INTEREST IN PRECLUDING
THIS FINANCING THEME --
SCHEME OTHER THAN IN THE
CRA?
I MEAN, EXPLAIN THE REAL
WORLD IMPLICATIONS OF THAT.
SO WE HAVE SOME CONTEXT FOR
HOW, YOU KNOW, MAKING A
DECISION IN THIS CASE.
>> JUDGE, I WOULD NOT,
JUSTICE PARENTY, I WOULD NOT
EVEN ATTEMPT TO GUESS WHY
THE LEGISLATURE WOULD DO ONE
THING OR ANOTHER.
>> BUT AGAIN, MUNICIPALITIES
UNDER THEIR HOME RULE HAVE
THIS BROAD POWER, WHY IS IT,
WHAT SELS WRONG IF IT
DOESN'T VIOLATE THE
CONSTITUTION?
>> OUR CONTENTION IS THAT
THE LEGISLATURE KNEW ABOUT
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING WHEN
THEY ADOPTED THE AMENDMENT
IN 170 -- IN 1971 TO
EXPLAINING -- EXPAND THE
HOME RULE POWERS OF LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS OF COUNTIES.
YET FIVE YEARS LATER THEY
HAVE PROPOSE
ADCONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
TO AUTHORIZE TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING.
THAT ACT IN AND OF ITSELF
WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO FINE
ANY MINUTES THAT WE COULD
POINT TO FROM THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, THAT
ACT IN AND OF ITSELF WOULD
INDICATE TO US THAT IF THE
HOME RULE POWERS INCLUDED
THE ABILITY TO USE TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING, THERE
NEVER WOULD'VE BEEN A REASON
TO DO THE PROPOSED
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
>> I THINK REALLY WHAT SHE'S
ASKING YOU, WHAT'S THE
IMPACT?
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?
WHAT IS IT ABOUT THE TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING THAT ON
THE GROUND IS SUCH AN EVIL
THING THAT IT IT COULD NOT
BE USED?
OR WHAT'S THIM PACT, WHATS
RR THE HARM I THINK IS WHAT
SHE'S ASKING YOU?
WHAT'S THE IMPACT TO THE
CITIZEN THAT, THAT, THAT SHE
NEEDS TO KNOW?
TO MAKE A DECISION IN THIS
CASE.
>> WELL, FOR ONE THING, I
WOULD SUBMITS RAR VEHICLE
THAT A LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAN
UTILIZE TO GET AROUND THE
REFERENDUM.
I THINK THAT'S PERHAPS THE
ONE --
>> THATSTHER MAIN POINT THAT
YOU'RE MAKE, RIGHT.
>> YES, SIR.
>> THAT YOU THINK THAT THERE
SHOULD BE A REFERENDUM.
>> YES, SIR.
IF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS
GOING TO USE THE TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING METHOD
OUTLETICIDE OF CHAPTER 163
PART 3, THEN USE IT THROUGH
THE REFERENDUM REQUIREMENTS
SET FORTH IN THE
CONSTITUTION.
AND THE REFERENDUM, SINCE WE
ARE DEALING WITH TAX DOLLARS
OF LOET LOCAL CITIZENS
THROUGHOUT THE COUNY, WE
WOULD SUBMIT IT IS A VERY
SIG ISSUE AND THAT'S WHY
DR. STRAND BROUGHT THE
LITIGATION.
>> I GUESS MY QUESTION IS
THEN, WHAT REALLY, I KNOW
YOU TALK ABOUT THE CONS--
PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT THAT DID NOT PASS
IN CHAPTER 163.
HAS THIS KIND OF FINANCING
IN IT.
BUT WHAT WOULD HAVE PROHIBITED
AL, A LOCAL GOVERNMENT FROM
USING THAT KIND OF FINANCE?
I MEAN, THE STATUTES, AS I
UNDERSTAND THEM, DON'T GO
THROUGH EVERY KIND OF
FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENT THAT A
COUNTY CAN DO, SO WHAT IS
THERE OUT THERE OTHER THAN
AS YOU SAY, THAT
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT DID
NOT PASS.
THAT WOULD HAVE PROHIBITED
THE COUNTY FROM DOING THAT?
I MEAN, SAY EVEN IN 1950,
LONG BEFORE THE, THE
PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT?
WHAT WAS OUT THERE THAT SAID
OR COULD BE INTERPRETED TO
SAY THIS KIND OF FINANCING
ACCOUNTING CAN'T DO?
>> I WOULD SUBMIT THE
CONSTITUTION REQUIREMENTS
REQUIRING A REFERENDUM AND
THAT THE SOLE HEALTH UDTO
AVOID THAT, THE LEGISLATURE
HAS IDENTIFIED IS THROUGH
CHAPTER 163 PART 3.
THAT THE, THE CONCERN ABOUT
UTILIZING AD VALOREM TAXES,
TARGETING IT FOR A
PARTICULAR AREA, NOT PUTTING
ALL THE AD VALOREM TAXINIZE
TO A COUNTY POOL, SO TO
SPEAK.
IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT OCCURRED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OCCURREDKERS.
ARE THOSE TAX DOLLARS, FOR
EXAMPLE IT IS LARGER THAN
PERDEO KEY.
THE TAX REVENUE THAT WILL
GROW ON THE KEY, IF THIS
STANDS, WILL NOT GO INTO
THAT GENERAL POOL.
SO THERE ARE TAX
IMPLICATIONS COUNTIWIDE.
>> SO THAT'S WHY I DON'T
KNOW WHY YOU ARE CONCEDING
THIS ISN'T A PLEDGE OF AD
VALOREM TAXES BECAUSE THAT'S
TO ME THE, THE OTHER PROBLEM,
THE POTENTIAL PROBLEM WITH
THE IT.
BUT OW GIVING UP ON THAT
ARGUMENT?
>> WE'RE NOT GIVING UP ON
THE ARGUMENT.
WHAT I CONCEDE IS I THINK
THE COURT IN KBRAEM BEACH
STATED THAT IN THE CONTEXT
OF A COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
ACT FUNDING MECHANISM, IT
DOESN'T CONSTITUTE A PLEDGE.
I THINK IF WE'RE OUTSIDE THE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT ACT,
IT DOES CONSTITUTE A PLEDGE.
I THINK THAT'S THE
DISTINCTION.
IN MIAMI BEACH, YOU HAD A
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY AT ISSUE.
>> WHY WOULD THAT MAKE ANY
DIFFERENCE?
THE LEGISLATURE DOESN'T HAVE
ANY RIGHT TO VIOLATE THE
CONSTITUTION.
AND SO WE'VE OBVIOUSLY HAVE
STRUCK DOWN IN PAST CASES
LEGISLATIVE SCHEMES, YOU
KNOW, THAT HAVE ATTEMPTED TO
DO THAT.
I'M, I GUESS WHERE WE ALL
REALLY HAVE THE SAME
QUESTION.
YOU SEEM TO, AS YOU HAVE,
AND AS WE APPRECIATE YOUR
CANDOR WITH REFERENCE TO
WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A
VIOLATION OF THE
CONSTITUTION, THAT, THAT
THIS DOES NOT VIOLATE THE
CONSTITUTION.
SO YOUR BOTTOM LINE, IF I
UNDERSTAND IT THEN, SO THAT
WE CAN COME TO GRIPS WITH IT,
YOU KNOW, PRECISELY, IS THAT
THE ONLY TIME THIS KIND OF
FINANCING CAN BE USED IS
UNDER THE STATUTORILY
AUTHORIZED COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT ACT, IS THAT
CORRECT?
>> YES AND NO.
IF I CAN BACK UP FOR ONE
SECOND, JUSTICE ANSTEAD.
MY STATEMENT THAT IT DOESN'T
VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION IS
LIMITED TO WHEN THE TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING IS
UTILIZED IN A C, A.
>> THAT'S WHAT I SAID.
THE ONLY TIME --
>> I JUST DIDN'T WANT TO
STATEMENT TO BE EVEN OUTSIDE
OF A CRA.
IF IT'S OUTSIDE OF A CRA, WE
BELIEVE IT DOES VIOLATE THE
CONSITUTION.
>> YOU ARE WELL INTO YOUR
REBUTTAL.
>> THANK YOU, SIR.
>> MR. LOTT?
>> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT,
MY NAME IS RICHARD LOTT.
MY ASSOCIATE PATRICIA LOTT
ALSO HERE TODAY.
>> DOES THE ORDER HAVE ALL
THE PREDICATES THAT THIS IS
ALL BEING DONE UNDER THE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT ACT?
YOUR OPPONENT SAYS THAT THE
ORDER THAT YOU PREPARED FOR
CONSIDERATION BY THE TRIAL
COURT JUDGE MAKES ALL THESE
REFERENCES TO THE ACT?
>> I NEED TO STRAIGHTEN OUT
MAYBE A MISUNDERSTANDING
HERE.
ABOUT THE USE OF ONE 63 AND
THE REFERENCES TO THOSE
PARALLELS IN 163 WITH THE
METHOD THAT THE COUNTY USED.
BASICALLY --
>> CAN YOU FIRST ANSWER
JUSTICE ANSTEAD'S QUESTION.
THEN YOU CAN ELABORATE.
>> ARE ALL THOSE REFERENCES
TO THE ACT SET OUT IN THE
JUDGE'S ORDER APPROVING THE
ISSUANCE OF THESE BONDS?
THAT'S YOUR OPPONENT SAYS
YOU ALL PUT ALL THAT IN
THERE.
>> WELL, WE PUT IN PARALLEL
PROVISIONS, BUT WE WERE NOT
RELYING ON THE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT ACT.
SO WE DIDN'T PUT IN THE
SPECIFIC THINGS ABOUT
CHAPTER 163 BLIGHT AND SUCH.
IN THE FINDINGS BECAUSE WE
WEREN'T, WE WRNT DOING A, A
BLIGHT REPLACEMENT OR --
>> WHAT REFERENCE TO 163 DID
YOU PUT IN THERE?
AND WHAT RELEVANCE TO, TO,
TO THE 163 DOES THE COUNTY'S
AUTHORITY IN THIS CASE HAVE?
>> OKAY.
THE BIG QUESTION THAT WAS
DECIDED WHEN STATE OF, STATE
v. MIAMI BEACH WAS DECIDED
WAS DOES TAX INCREMENT
VIOLATE THE RULE THAT SAYS
YOU HAVE TO HAVE A
REFERENDUM IN ORDER TO
PLEDGE AD VALOREM TAXES?
AND 163 IS THE STATE
STATUTORY PRONOUNCEMENT THAT
SAYS THIS IS ONE WAY OF
DOING IT.
>> FOR COMMUNITY --
>> FOR COMMUNITY, FOR
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT.
>> AND WHAT THEY SAID IN
THAT CASE IS THAT IT'S NOT A
PLEDGE OF THE AD VALOREM
TAXES THAT WOULD REQUIRE
REFERENDUM IF YOU JUST USED
A TAX INCREMENT MEASURE THE
AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT GOINIZE
TAA TRUST FUND AND THE LIEN
THAT THE BOND HOLDERS HAVE
DOESN'T ATTACH UNTIL THE
TRUST FUND IS MONIES
DEPOSITED IN THE TRUST FUND
AND THE TRUST FUND IS THEN
THEIR HOLDING CASH TO BE
USED TO PAY THE BOND
HOLDERS.
AND THAT WAS THE SPECIFIC
DISTINCTION.
>> WELL, I'M STILL HAVING
DIFFICULTY, THOUGH, MAYBE
IT'S BECAUSE IT'S JUSTICE
LEWIS INDICATES THAT YOU
NEED TO ANSWER THE FIRST
QUESTION FIRST.
THAT IS, DID YOU ALL PUT
REFERENCES TO THE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT ACT IN THE
JUDGE'S ORDER?
>> AS FAR AS REFERENCES TO
CHAPTER 163, YES, WE DID.
>> AND WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE
TO PUTTING REFERENCES TO THE
ACT IN A CASE THAT DOESN'T
INVOLVE THE ACT?
>> OKAY.
163 WAS THE FIRST STATUTORY
METHOD PROMULGATED THAT
EXPLAINED BY A TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING DID NOT REQUIRE A
REFERENDUM.
>> OKAY.
SO YOU PUT IT IN THERE JUST
FOR ILADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES
AND THE INALG.
>> FOR ANALOGY AND
COMPARISON PURPOSES TO SHOW
THAT WE WERE MEETING THE
SAME REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE
COUNTY'S SCHEME AS THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH MET IN THE
MIAMI BEACH SCHEME.
AND THE WHOLE REASON FOR
DOING THAT IS TO UTILIZE THE
METHODOLOGY AND THE THINKING
THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAD
DECIDED USEFUL AND WHICH
THIS SUPREME COURT DECIDED
WAS CORRECT IN ALLOWING TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING TO BE
USED.
>> EVEN THOUGH YOUR PONENT
APPARENTLY DOESN'T CLAIM IT,
WHY DOESN'T THIS VIOLATE THE
CONSTITUTION WITH REFERENCE
TO PLEDGING THE ADD VALOREM
TAXATION.
BECAUSE CLEARLY, THE PEOPLE
IN THIS DISTRICT, THEIR AD
VALOREM TAXES IN THE
INCREMENT, YOU KNOW, THAT
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, ARE
OPENLY GOING TO BE USED TO,
TO PAY THESE BONDS.
IS THAT CORRECT?
IT IS CORRECT, BUT THE
REASON --
>> THOSE AD VALOREM TAXES?
>> NO.
AND THE REASON I --
>> THOSE AREN'T AD VALOREM
TAXES THAT YOU'VE AGREED TO
USE, THAT IS, ONCE YOU GET
ALL THIS STUFF DONE AND THE
TAXES, YOU KNOW, GO UP, AND
SO NOW YOU ARE GOING TO USE
THOSE AD VALOREM TAXES TO
REPAY THESE BONDS.
ISN'T THAT WHAT THIS SAYS?
>> NO, YOUR HONOR.
>> WELL, TELL ME HOW --
WHAT'S THE PROVISION IN, IN
THE BONDING AGREEMENT FOR
HOW THE BONDS ARE GOING TO
BE PAID AND HOW THE DEBT ON
THE BONDS IS GOING TO BE
PAID.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THE SAME METHOD THAT WE USED
IS THE ETHUDTHAT THIS COURT
APPROVED IN THE STATE OF
MIAMI TOO.
STATE v. MIAMI BEACH CASE.
>> I DON'T WANT TO KNOW
THAT.
I WANT TO KNOW WHAT FUNDS
THE COUNTY IS GOING TO USE
TO PAY OFF THESE BONDS.
ACCORDING TO THE BOND
ORDINANCE AND THE BOND
RESOLUTION, THE AMOUNT THAT
WILL BE DEPOSITED IN THE
FRUST FUND WILL BE THE
AMOUNT EQUAL TO REALLY --
WHAT THE TAXINIZE CREASED
FROM ONE YEAR TO THE NEXT.
SNOM WILL YOU ANSWER THIS
QUESTION.
WHAT'S THE SOURCE OF THE
FUNDS?
I THINK THAT'S WHAT HE ASKED
YOU.
>> THERE'S NO SPECIFICATION
OR LIMITATION AS TO WHAT THE
FUNDS R. THE COUNTY COULD
USE ANY FUNDS THEY WANTED
TO.
THE REQUIREMENT IS --
>> THERE'S NO SPIFKS IN
THERE THAT YOU ARE GOING TO
USE THAT INCREASE -- SPIFKS
IN THERE THAT INCREASE
REVENUE FROM TAXES THAT
SHOULD COME FROM THE
INCREASED VALUATIONS AS A
RESULT OF THE PROPERTIES IN
THIS DISTRICT HAVING
INCREASED TAXABLE --
>> EXACTLY -- SAME LOGIC
EXACTLY THAT WAS USEDDED IN
MIAMI BEACH, AND THAT IS,
YOU USE THE TAX INCREMENT
FROM ONE YEAR TO THE NEXT AS
THE MEASURE OF WHAT WAS
DEPOSITED IN THE TRUST FUND.
>> BUT, FOR THE BONDING,
AGAIN, WE'RE HERE, AND THE
ONLY REASON WE ARE LOOKING
AT THE BONDING FINANCING
SCHEME IS BECAUSE THAT
AFFECTS THE, THE THE BONDS
THEMSELVES.
THE BONDING, WHETHER IS
GOING TO BE ISSUING THESE
BONDS, WHO IS GOING TO BE
PURCHASING THE BONDS
CERTAINLY WANTS TO BE TO
KNOW ABOUT HOW THEY ARE
GOING TO BE REPAID.
IF IN A PARTICULAR YEAR
THERE IS SOMETHING
EXTRAORDINARY THAT OCCURS,
DOES THE.
WILL THE COUNTY HAVE THE
OPTION TO NOT TAKE THE
AMOUNT THAT'S, THAT'S THE
INCREASE AND USE IT FOR
SOMETHING ELSE?
OR ARE THEY BOUND TO PUT
EVEN IF IT DOESN'T PUT --
ARE THEY POUND TO -- BOND TO
PUT THAT MUCH INTO THAT
TRUST FUND?
>> THEY ARE BOUND TO PUT
THAT MUCH IN THE TRUST FUND.
>> BUT ARE YOU SAYING IT
DUDSVENT TO COME FROM AD
VALOREM TAXES?
>> IT DOESN'T HAVE TO COME
FROM AD VALOREM TAXES.
IT CAN COME FROM ANY SOURCE
THAT THE CONTY WISHES FOR IT
TO COME --
>> INCLUDING AD VALOREM
TAXES.
>> INCLUDING AD VALOREM
TAXES, IF THEY WISH.
BUT THE REASON THIS COURT
DECIDED THE MIAMI BEACH CASE
AND SAID THAT IT WASN'T A
VIOLATION OF THE REFERENDUM
REQUIREMENT IS BECAUSE THERE
IS NO PLEDGE OF THE AD
VALOREM TAXES --
>> I GET --
>> IS THIS -- --
>> COURT.
JURISPRUDENCE CONSISTENT.
THEY DIDN'T COME ALONG AND
THE CONTY OF VOLUSIA JUST
SHORTLY THEREAFTER AND
INDICATE YOU COULDN'T DO
INDIRECT DIRECTLY, WHICH YOU
CAN'T DO DIRECTLY?
AND THAT PRESENTS THE
DILEMMA FOR TRYING TO FIGURE
OUT HOW THIS ALL WORKS
BECAUSE IF YOU'RE GOING TO
TAKE WHAT YOU TAX ON REAL
PROPERTY AND PUT IT IN A
TRUST FUND, AND THEN THE
TRUST FUND'S GOING TO USE IT,
THAT'S JUST DOING IT
INDIRECTLY.
BUT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS
YOU CAN'T DO IT DIRECTLY.
>> WELL, IN VOLUSIA COUNTY
CASE HAS BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY
REDUCED IN IMPORTANCE IN THE
ST. LUCIE CASE BECAUSE IN
THE VOLUSIA CASE, THERE WAS
NO PROVISION THAT SAID THAT
THE COUNTY WOULDN'T CONTINUE
TO RETAIN, KEEPING OFFERING
SERVICES AT THE SAME LEVEL
THAT IT HAD IN THE PAST TO
PRODUCE NONAD VALOREM
REVENUES.
THE VOLUSIA COUNTY CASE WAS
STRICTLY NONAD VALOREM
REVENUE CASE, AND BASICALLY
WHAT VOLUSIA COUNTY STOOD
FOR IS THAT YOU COULDN'T
PLEDGE ALL OF THE NON-AD
VALOREM REVENUES TO A BOND
ISSUE BECAUSE IN EFFECT, IF
YOU PLEDGED ALL OF THE NAUJ
AD VALOREM REVENUES TO PAY
BACK THE BONDS, THEN
NECESSARILY, YOU WOULD HAVE
TO USE AD VALOREM TAXES TO
PAY FOR THE THINGS THAT
WOULD OTHERWISE --
>> HOW IS THAT -- SEE,
THAT'S WHAT I'M HAVING A
PROBLEM BECAUSE THE BONDS IN
THIS CASE ARE HOW MUCH?
$135 MILLION?
>> CORRECT.
>> WE KNOW WITH WHAT'S GOING
ON WITH THE LEGISLATURE THAT
THERE IS A GOOD CHANCE THAT
THE AD VALOREM TAX BASE IS
GOING TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY
REDEUCED IN THE FUTURE.
WHY -- IN TERMS OF THE
POLICY OF REF -- OF VOTERS
IN THE COUNTY, BEING ABLE TO
MAKE DECISIONS ON MAJOR
PROJECTS LIKE THIS, WHY
ISN'T IT BETTER TO ENFORCE
THE REFERENDUM REQUIREMENT
SO THAT THE COUNTY RESIDENTS
KNOW IN THE FUTURE WHEN
THERE IS SOMETHING ELSE THAT
THEY WANT TO HAVE DONE THAT
CAN'T BE DONE, THEY'VE MADE
A DECISION.
AND, AND I'M STILL -- I'M
STILL HAVING TROUBLE AGAIN,
WHETHER YOU ARE SAYING YOU
DON'T HAVE TO PUT AD VALOREM
TAXES IN, THAT'S THE MEASURE,
BUT THAT WOULD MEAN THAT,
THAT THAT IMPLICATES WHAT WE
SAID IN VOLUSIA COUNTY IT
SEEMS TO ME.
>> WELL, THE SUPREME COURT
HAS NOT REALLY BEEN IN A
POSITION TO CHANGE WHAT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION
SAYS.
AND HOW --
>> WHICH SAYS WHAT?
WHICH SAYS THAT THERE SHOULD
BE A REFERENDUM --.
>> IF YOU --
>> IF YOU PLEDGE AD VALOREM
--
>> IF YOU PLEDGE AD VALOREM
TAXES AND THIS COURT HAS
SAYS.
>> THE CONSTITUTION SAYS
IT'S PAYABLE FROM AD VALOREM.
IT'S -- THE LANGUAGE FROM
THIS COURT THAT MAY HAVE
BEEN STRETCHED A LITTLE BIT,
BUT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS
PAYABLE FROM AD VALOREM
TAXES.
AND I DON'T THINK YOU CAN
DENY THAT THE MAJORITY OF
THE PAYMENTS FROM THIS
PAYMENT FROM THIS BOND IS
FROM AD VALOREM TAXES
BECAUSE THIS ISN'T CRA WHEN
YOU HAVE LEASE AND SALES
LANDS.
DO YOU AGREE?
I MEAN, IT'S A ROAD PROJECT.
>> WELL, NO, WELL I WILL
AGREE WITH YOU THAT THE
CONSTITUTION DOES SAY IN
SPECIFIC CASE --
>> FOR THE RECORD AND FOR
THE RECORD BEFORE US, WHAT
IS GOING TO BE THE PRIMARY
SOURCE OF THE REVENUES THAT
WILL GO INTO THIS TRUST FUND
TO PAY THESE BONDS?
>> WE DON'T KNOW BECAUSE THE
CASE -- IT'S UMTO THE
COUNTIES HERE TO DECIDE
WHICH MONIES THEY WANT TO
PUT INTO THE TRUST FUND THAT
WILL EQUAL THE REQUIRED
AMOUNT AND THE REQUIRED
AMOUNT IS --
>> SO IF WE DON'T KNOW, HOW
DOES THAT NOT GIVE US
CONCERN ABOUT THE NECESSITY
OF BUDGETARY FLEXIBILITY
LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT IN --?
>> WELL, FOR THE EXACT SAME
REASON THAT IN THE CRA CASES
WHERE HE SAID THAT IF AD
VALOREM TAX MONEY IS SET
ASIDE IN A TRUST FUND FOR
PAYMENT OF BONDS, THAT THAT
DOESN'T VIOLATE THE REF REPDM
REQUIREMENTS.
>> WELL, BUT, I MEAN,
BLIGHTED SLUM AREAS IN MOST
COUNT ARE LIMITED IDEAS AND
THEY'RE SPECIFIC
REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE ACT
YOU HAVE TO FULFILL FOR
SPECIFIC PUBLIC PURPOSE
NEEDS.
IF WE ACCEPT YOUR
PROPOSITION HERE, WHAT IS TO
KEEP ESCAMBIA COUNTY OR ANY
OTHER COUNT ME FROM THIS
STATE TO LOOK AT A SECTION
OF ROAD AND SAY WE'RE GOING
TO DECLARE THIS A SPECIAL
DISTRICT AND DO WHAT'SDEN
HERE SEGMENTALLY ALL ACROSS
THE COUNTY.
AND IT NEVER GOES BEFORE THE
PEOPLE FOR REFERENDUM AND
FOR 35, 40 YEARS THE PEOPLE
ARE BOUND IN THE COUNTY'S
BUDGET FLEXIBILITY BECAUSE
EXACTLY WHAT'S BEING DONE
HERE IN ESCAMBIA COUNTY AND
ONE SPECIFIC SMALL AREA OF
THE COUNT EIS DUFRN NUMEROUS
TIMES AROUND THE COUNTY.
>> WELL, THE REASONING
BEHIND THE TAX INCREMENT IS
THAT THE AREA IS SUBJECT TO
REDEVELOPMENT AND AN
INCREASE IN PROPERTY VALUES
BECAUSE OF A PROJECT.
CERTAINLY, THERE WILL BE A
LOT OF AREAS, AS THE COUNTY
IS DEVELOPED, WHERE IT WOULD
MAKE NO SENSE FOR THE COUNTY
TO EXPECT ADDITIONAL
REVENUES BECAUSE OF
DEVELOPMENT.
WHEN THE AREAS THAT ARE
INVOLVED IN THE PARTICULAR
SPOT ARE ALREADY DEVELOPED.
SO THERE ARE PLENTY OF
SITUATIONS SITUATIONS THAT
WOULD PREVENT THE COUNTY
FROM GOING TO EVERY LITTLE
DISTRICT --
>> YOU ARE JUST TALKING
ABOUT PRACTICAL REASONS.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT -- AND
WHAT'S THE COURT'S INFS?
THE COURT'S INTEREST IS TO
TRY TO EFFECTUATE THE INTENT
OF THE CONSTITUTION TO MAKE
SURE THAT, AGAIN, TAXPAYERS
HAVE MEANINGFUL INPUT WHERE
THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THEY
NEED IT.
AND I AM STILL CONCERNED.
YOU SAID, WELL, WHAT'S GOING
TO STOP THE COUNTY?
IT'S JUST NOT GOING TO BE
FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE BUT I
DON'T THINK -- BUT NOTHING
OTHER THAN THAT WOULD STOP
THE CONTY, SAY NEY DECIDED
THEY HAD A GREAT DEAL WITH
ROAD BUILDERS AND THEY JUST
WERE GOING TO START BUILDING
ROADS ALL OVER.
THEY DON'T HAVE -- WE DON'T
MEASURE WHETHER IT'S A GOOD
IDEA OR NOT.
THAT'S NOT THIS COURT'S
DOMAIN.
BUT WE'VE GOT TO BE
CONCERNED AS TO WHETHER THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
HAVE BEEN VIOLATED.
>> WELL, THE CONSTITUTIONAL
ISSUE THAT IS OF CONCERN
HERE IS WHETHER OR NOT A
REFERENDUM IS REQUIRED IN
THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE
REVENUES THAT ARE GOING TO
BE USED TO PAY THE BONDS
BACK ARE DEPOSITED IN A
TRUST FUND AND PLEDGED TO
PAY THE BONDS VERSUS A
COMMITMENT BY THE COUNTY TO
USE ITS AD VALOREM TAXES TO
PAY THE BONDS.
AND IN THE MIAMI BEACH CASE
WHERE YOU SAID THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION IS
NOT VIOLATED BECAUSE YOU ARE
NOT PLEDGING THE AD VALOREM
TAXES.
YOU ARE PUTTING THE MONEY
INTO A TRUST FUND AND THEN
THE TRUST FUND WHERE THE
LEAN ATTACHES, THAT DOESN'T
REQUIRE A REFERENDUM.
>> ARE YOU CLAIMING THAT THE
VOLUSIA CASE IS NO LONGER
GOOD LAW?
>> YOUR HONOR, RESPECTFULLY,
I DON'T THINK THAT THE
VOLUSIA CASE IS PARTICULARLY
PERTINENT HERE BECAUSE
VOLUSIA CASE HAD TO DO WITH
A --
[INAUDIBLE]
>> WELL,.
>> [INAUDIBLE]
>> WELL, I THOUGHT THAT'S
WHAT YOU WERE CLAIMING HERE,
THAT THIS IS A PLEDGE OF
NON-AD VALOREM TAXES.
>> NO, I'M, I'M,
[INAUDIBLE]
EXPLAINING THAT, THE PLEDGE
HERE IS THE PLEDGE OF THE
MONIES THAT, THAT ARE ON
DEPOSIT IN THE TRUST FUND.
JUST THE SAME AS IN MIAMI
BEACH AND JUST THE SAME AS
IT WAS IN --
>> JUST LIKE IN VOLUSIA
COUNTY, THOUGH, DOES THNT
COUNTY VIEW A POINT WHERE IT
OPIGATES ITSELF UNDER SO
MANY BONDING SCHEMES WITHOUT
THE APPROVAL OF THE VOTERS
OF THE COUNTY THAT
EVENTUALLY THE GLASS GETS
FILLED UP AND THEY DON'T
HAVE ANY MONEY LEFT TO PAY
ANY OTHER DEBTS.
YOU'VE ESSENTIALLY OBLIGATED
THE COUNTY NOW FOR WHERE
THEIR AD VALOREM TAX INCOME
IS GOING TO GO.
JUST BY DE FACTO, ISSUING
BONDS IN THIS METHOD.
SO JUST LIKE INDIRECTLY IN
VOLUSIA COUNTY, SHOULDN'T WE
LOOK AT THE IMPACT HERE.
AS FAR AS WHERE THE EFFECT
IS GOING TO BE.
>> ESPECIALLY WHEN THE COUNTY
APPEARS TO BE USING THIS
SCHEME.
TO AVOID THE REFERENDUM.
>> THE VOLUSIA COUNTY CASE
WITHIN A COUPLE OF YEARS WAS
LIMITED WITH THE EXPLANATION
BY THIS VOLUSIA DIDN'T HAVE
ANY SAFEGUARDS THAT SAID
THAT THE COUNTY WOULD NOT
HAVE TO, CONTINUE-SERVICES
AT THE SAME LEVEL SO TO THE
EXTENT --
>> WHAT INCOME DOES THE
COUNTY HAVE OTHER THAN AD
VALOREM TAXES?
>> WELL, IT HAS THE HALF
CENT SALES TAX, THE INSFRU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
INSFRUCHECKTURE SALES TAX
THAS THE GUARANTEED
ENTITLEMENT REVENUE --
>> WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE
COUNTY'S OUTLAY EVERY YEAR
IS FULFILLED BY REVENUE FROM
AD VALOREM TAXATION?
DO YOU KNOW?
>> I REALLY COULDN'T TELL
YOU MOTTHE EMENT IS --
AMOUNT IS OR WHAT THE
PERCENTAGES ARE.
BUT THERE ARE SUBSTANTIAL
RESOURCES OF THE COUNTY
OTHER THAN AD VALOREM TAXES,
WHICH CAN BE USED TO, TO
OPERATE THE COUNTY.
>> WHAT WOULD THE REVENUE BE
HERE IF ADEQUATE FUNDS WERE
NOT PUT IN THE TRUST ACCOUNT
AS MADE IN THE COUNTY IN
THAT CASE WHAT ENFORCEMENT
RIGHTS WOULD THE BOND
HOLDERS HAVE?
>> AS FAR AS APPROPRIATIONS.
>> THE SAME RIGHTS THAT THE
BOND HOLDERS BEFORE.
M AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE AD
VALOREM TAX INCREMENT YEAR.
>> THAT MONEY WOULD COME
FROM WHAT SOURCE.
WHAT COUNTY THE SOURCES
WOULD HAVE.
>> AD VALOREM MONEY OR NONAD
VALOREM.
>> IT COULD BE EITHER ONE.
>> ANY AND ALL MONIES
AVAILABLE.
THAT'S CORRECT.
BUT AS IN THE, AS IN THE
REFERENDUM IN THE
REQUIREMENT NOT BEING
APPLICABLE TO THE YAM MIAMI
BEACH CASE BECAUSE THE TAXES
WERE DEPOSIT UNDERSTOOD A
TRUST FUND AND THE LIEN
ATTACH SAID AT THE POINT
WHERE THEY WENT INTO THE
TRUST FUND, THAT THERE ARE
WAY THEY GOT AROUND THE
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT
FOR A REFERENDUM.
AND NOTHING ABOUT THE MIAMI
BEACH CASE SAYS THIS IS
EXCLUSIVE TO BLIGHTED AREA
AND ENFACT ESCAMBIA COUNTY
DID A FINE ANTSING WHERE ALL
OF THE COUNTIES TAX
INCREMENT REVENUES NEWS WERE
PLEDGED FOR A DEFENSE
COUNTING SYSTEM FOR THE
GOVERNMENT AND THAT FOUNT
THIS TO BE INDISTINGUISHABLE
FROM THE MIAMI BEACH CASE
EVEN THOUGH IT HAD NOTHING
TO DO WITH REDEVELOPMENT.
THE REASON YOU FOUND IT IN,
IN DISTINGUISHABLE IS
BECAUSE JUST LIKE MIAMI
BEACH, IT TOO DID NOT
REQUIRE THAT AD VALOREM
TAXES BE PLEDGED TO THE
BONDS.
>> WITH OUR ASSISTANCE, YOU
HAVE EXCEEDED OUR TIME.
BRING YOUR REMARKS TO A
CONCLUSION, PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.,,
I THINK CLAIM HERE THAT -- I
AM SORRY, THE APPELLANT'S
CLAIM HERE, IS THAT FOR SOME
REASON, THE TAX MYTH
ODDOLOGY IS IMPLEMENTED TO
THE REDEVELOPMENT OF
BLIGHTED AREA.
THIS COURT HAS GONE PAST
THAT WITH THE CASE.
THE REDEVELOPMENT ASPECT OF
THE MIAMI BEACH CASE WAS NOT
CRITICAL TO THE
INTERPRETATION OF THE
REQUIREMENT FOR A REF
REMEMBER EN DUMB IN THE
EVENT OF AD VALOREM TAX
LEVEE BECAUSE THE MONEY WAS
NOT PLEDGED.
THE AD VALOREM TAXES WERE
NOT PLEDGED.
THE MONEY ON THE TRUST FUND
WAS PLEDGED.
THAT IS WHAT IT STOOD FOR.
IT DIDN'T STAND FOR THE IDEA
THAT THE, THE REDEVELOPMENT
AREA WAS A SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCE THAT WAS
EXEMPTED FROM THE
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.
ALL THE TAX INCREMENT
FINANCIAL IS SUBJECT TO THE
SAME RULE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU.
>> HOW ABOUT IT?
HAVE WE IMPROVED, THE FACT,
THE SCHEME LIKE THIS WITH
REFERENCE TO THE NAVAL AIR
STATION THERE, SAME THING.
THIS COURT DID ALLOW TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING;
HOWEVER, THE AUTHORITY IN
THAT INSTANCE HAD NO TAXING
POWER AND THE ISSUES THAT WE
HAVE BEEN DISCUSSION TODAY
WERE NOT BRIEF.
WE REVIEWED THE BRIEFS.
THE QUESTION OF THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, THE
CONFINES OF THE COME-TY
REDEVELOPMENT ACT OF THE
PROSAY LIG AM, THOSE ISSUES
WERE NOT BEFORE THE COURT,
TO THE EXTENT THAT THIS
COURT LOOKS AT PENN AND
BELIEVES IT HOWE AUTHORIZES
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH
REQUIREMENTS OF THE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT ACT.
WE WOULD ASK THE COURT TO
RECEDE FROM THAT DECISION.
>> ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT
THIS TYPE OF FYP NAG --
FINANCIAL IS APPROPRIATE FOR
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT?
>> CHIEF JUSTICE, WE HAVE
DIFFICULTY WITH THIS CONCEPT
TO BEGIN WITH.
>> YOU AGREE, I MEAN, THE
LEGISLATURE WOULDN'T HAVE
THE ABILITY TO PLACE IT IN
THAT STATURE IF IT IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO BEGIN
WITH.
TWHI COURT HELD IT WAS.
WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE WHOLE
CONCEPT OF IMPLEMENT VIE
FANSING IN THE VOLUSIA CASE,
IT CAN'T DO INDIRECTLY WHAT
DO YOU DIRECTLY.
MIAMI BEACH SAID IN THE
CONTEXT OF CRA, THIS METHOD
WAS A LOT.
WE DIDN'T CHAPING CHALLENGE,
THAT HERE, WE DON'T HAVE
CRI.
>> THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THE COURT WILL TAKE ITS
MORNING RECESS.