Dr. Gregory Strand v. Escambia County, Florida SC

Transcription

1 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 SC 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.

2 >> 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

3 125 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

4 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

5 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

6 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

7 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

8 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,

9 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

10 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 >> 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

11 THEY ADOPTED THE AMENDMENT IN 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

12 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,

13 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.

14 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.

15 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

16 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,

17 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

18 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

19 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

20 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

21 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 --?

22 >> 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

23 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.

24 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

25 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.

26 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

27 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

28 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.