Judges: Robert A. Butterworth Attorney General
Filed Date: 9/28/1995
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The Honorable Jim Ford Brevard County Property Appraiser Post Office Box 541271 Merritt Island, Florida 32954-1271
Dear Mr. Ford:
You ask substantially the following questions:
1. Does a community development district, created pursuant to chapter
2. If an exemption applies, must an annual application for exemption from ad valorem taxation be filed pursuant to s.
3. If an exemption applies, is the tax exempt status of the recreational facilities impacted if access and/or fees charged were favorable to residents of the community development district?
In sum:
1. A community development district, created pursuant to chapter
2 and 3. In light of the response to Question One, it is unnecessary to address the issues raised in your second and third questions.
While the ultimate decision to grant an exemption in this matter lies with the property appraiser1 or, upon appeal, the value adjustment board,2 the following comments are offered in an effort to be of assistance.
The community development district in question, Viera East Community Development District (district), was created by administrative rule of the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission pursuant to chapter
The golf course and related facilities were financed by the district's bond issue to be repaid through a pledge of assessments, recreation fees, and certain net revenues of the golf course, which proposal was approved by circuit court order. The district built the golf course on land it owns and does not lease any portion to another party. It also operates and performs normal maintenance on the property using its own employees. The golf course is open to the public but apparently gives preference for tee time and reservations to district residents. Green fees are higher for nonresidents, but upon payment of the $750 recreation fee assessed resident units within the district, a nonresident can receive the same treatment afforded residents.5
QUESTION ONE
Section
(1) Property owned and used by the following governmental units shall be exempt from taxation under the following conditions:
* * *
(c) All property of the several political subdivisions and municipalities of this state or of entities created by general or special law and composed entirely of governmental agencies, or property conveyed to a nonprofit corporation which would revert to the governmental agency, which is used for a governmental, municipal, or public purposes, shall be exempt from ad valorem taxation, except as otherwise provided by law. (e.s.)
While there has been a dispute among several district courts of appeal regarding what constitutes a "political subdivision" for purposes of section
In Department of Revenue v. Canaveral Port Authority,8 the Fifth District Court of Appeal considered whether a port authority, created by special act of the Legislature as a "body politic and a body corporate," was a political subdivision immune from taxation. Unlike the airport authority considered by the Second District Court of Appeal in Sarasota-Manatee Airport Authority v. Mikos,9 holding that the airport authority was immune from ad valorem taxation since its enabling legislation specifically referred to the authority as a political subdivision of the state, the special act creating the port authority did not designate the port as a "political subdivision." The court determined that the port authority was not a part of the centralized, statewide system of port management and operation but rather was an entity created to construct and operate a deep-water port, harbor, and facilities within the port district.
Thus, the port authority was not acting as an agent of the state but was created by special act to carry out a limited purpose. Accordingly, the Fifth District Court of Appeal held that the port authority was not a political subdivision entitled to share in the state's immunity from taxation. The decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal is currently before the Supreme Court of Florida on review.
Chapter
Accordingly, under the rationale of Canaveral Port Authority, supra, such a limited purpose district does not constitute a "political subdivision" for purposes of section
Until this issue is resolved by the Supreme Court of Florida and inasmuch as the community development district is located within the jurisdiction of the Fifth District Court of Appeal, I am of the opinion that a community development district, created pursuant to chapter
QUESTIONS TWO AND THREE
In light of the response to Question One, it is unnecessary to address the issues raised in your second and third questions.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Butterworth Attorney General
RAB/tgk
All bonds issued hereunder and interest paid thereon and all fees, charges, and other revenues derived by the district from the projects provided by this act are exempt from all taxes by the state or by any political subdivision agency, or instrumentality thereof; however, any interest, income, or profits on debt obligations issued hereunder are not exempt from the tax imposed by chapter 220. Further, districts are not exempt from the provisions of chapter 212.
Broward County Port Authority v. Arundel Corporation , 206 F.2d 220 ( 1953 )
Walden v. HILLSBOROUGH CTY. AVIATION AUTH. , 375 So. 2d 283 ( 1979 )
Andrews v. Pal-Mar Water Control Dist. , 388 So. 2d 4 ( 1980 )
Dept. of Revenue v. Canaveral Port Auth. , 642 So. 2d 1097 ( 1994 )
State v. FRONTIER ACRES COMMUNITY DEVELOP. DIST. PASCO ... , 472 So. 2d 455 ( 1985 )
Sugar Bowl Drainage District v. Miller, Et Vir. , 120 Fla. 436 ( 1935 )
Sarasota-Manatee Airport Auth. v. Mikos , 605 So. 2d 132 ( 1992 )