Judges: Robert A. Butterworth Attorney General
Filed Date: 2/2/2001
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
Ms. Emeline C. Acton Hillsborough County Attorney Post Office Box 1110 Tampa, Florida 33601
Dear Ms. Acton:
Your office has requested my opinion on substantially the following question:
May the county amend its charter to place a cap on the annual increase in the county's operating budget, with the provision that the cap may be waived by an affirmative vote of at least six of the seven members of the board of county commissioners?
In sum:
The county may not amend its charter to place a cap on the annual increase in the county's operating budget, even with a provision that the cap may be waived by an affirmative vote of at least six of the seven members of the board of county commissioners. Such an amendment would conflict with the provisions of Chapters
According to your letter, the Hillsborough County Charter Review Board convenes every five years to study county government and to place proposed changes to the charter on the next general election ballot. One such change under consideration is a proposed cap on increases in the county's operating budget. This cap would limit increases to no more than three percent or the annual inflation rate, whichever is lower. However, under this proposal, the cap could be waived by the affirmative vote of six members of the seven-member county commission. Sponsors envision this cap proposal as an effective way to hold down the cost of government by restricting the county commission's discretion when establishing a budget and setting the tax rate to fund it. You ask primarily whether the waiver provision would overcome legal problems encountered by similar caps enacted in other Florida counties in the past. I believe such a provision would not overcome those problems.
Chapter
Chapter
As noted in your letter, the courts of this state have previously struck down attempts by a county to impose a tax cap as inconsistent with the general laws providing for the establishment of a county budget and imposition of ad valorem taxes contained in Chapters
For example, in Board of County Commissioners of Marion County v.McKeever,3 the Fifth District Court of Appeal concluded that a county ordinance imposing a millage cap on ad valorem taxes for a period of up to ten years unconstitutionally conflicted with the statutory scheme set forth in Chapters
The court noted that Chapter
In reaching this conclusion, the McKeever court relied on the Supreme Court of Florida's decision in Board of CountyCommissioners of Dade County v. Wilson.7 In that decision, the Supreme Court held that a proposed ordinance to set the millage rate through an initiative petition process was unconstitutional because it conflicted with section 200.191 (now section
In Charlotte County Board of County Commissioners v. Taylor,9 the Second District Court of Appeal struck down as unconstitutional a tax cap amendment to the county charter setting a revenue cap on revenues received from ad valorem taxes. The court concluded that the amendment was inconsistent with general laws that required the county commission, not electors, to establish a budget and levy ad valorem taxes based upon certain statutory criteria. The court stated:
"Chapter 129 establishes a budget system for each county and sets forth how it shall be prepared, approved, and adopted. The budget controls the levy of taxes and the expenditure of money for all county purposes. §
* * *
[T]he tax millage in Charlotte County must be determined, pursuant to chapters 129 and 200, by the Board of County Commissioners of Charlotte County. The electors have informed the appellant that they do not want taxes raised unnecessarily. If the voters are not satisfied with the commissioners' actions in this regard, they have a remedy through the ballot box at the next popular election."10
As you can see, Florida courts consistently have struck down local provisions that seek to limit a county commission's discretion in setting an annual budget and millage rate. However, you ask whether a proposal that would permit the budget cap to be overridden by an affirmative vote of six of the seven county commissioners is sufficient to overcome the objections raised in these court decisions.11
The cases discussed above recognize that the Legislature has specified the manner in which county budgets are to be established and provided the exclusive manner by which countywide millage rates are to be set. Nothing in Chapter
Accordingly, in light of the above, I am of the opinion that the county may not amend its charter to place a cap on the annual increase in the county's operating budget, even with a provision that the cap may be waived by an affirmative vote of at least six of the seven members of the board of county commissioners, since such an amendment would conflict with the provisions of Chapters
Sincerely,
Robert A. Butterworth Attorney General
RAB/tjw
"(b) County debt service millage, which shall be that millage rate necessary to raise taxes for debt service as authorized by a vote of the electors pursuant to s. 12, Art. VII of the State Constitution.
(c) County voted millage, which shall be that millage rate set by the governing body as authorized by vote of the electors pursuant to s. 9(b), Art. VII of the State Constitution.
(d) County dependent special district millage, as provided in subsection (5)."
And see, Art.