Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-21-2001 City of Winter Springs v. State of Florida Case # 99-CA-2212-16GBROWN, WARD, SALZMAN & WEISS, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Usher L. Brown John H. Ward Gary S. Salzman* Jeffrey S. Weiss Suzanne D'Agresta Anthony A. Garganese° Scott D. Danahy James G. Vickaryous Allison Carmine McDonald Alfred Truesdell Arthur R. "Randy" Brown, Jr. Brett A. Marlowe Jeffrey P. Buak Kristine R. Kutz 4 Board Certified Civil Trial Lawyer ° Board Certified Business Litigation Lawyer ° Board Certified City, County & Local Government Law February 21, 2001 Via Hand Delivery Mr. Ronald McLemore, City Manager City of Winter Springs 1126 East S. R. 434 Winter Springs, FL 32708 Re: City of Winter Springs v. State of Florida Case No. 99-CA-2212-16G Dear Ron: 111 North Orange Ave., Suite 875 Post Office Box 2873 Orlando, FL 32802-2873 (407)425-9566 (407) 425-9596 FAX Email: firm@orlandolaw.net Website: www.orlandolaw.net agarganese@orlandolaw.net Enclosed is a copy of the Final Judgment of Validation in this matter. nc rely, l J Anthony A. Garganese City Attorney AAG:kj Enclosure F:\DOCS\City of Winter Springs\General\Correspondence\McLemore008.ki CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA, a municipal corporation and public body corporate and politic of the State of Florida, Plaintiff, vs. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND THE TAXPAYERS, PROPERTY OWNERS AND CITIZENS OF CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA, INCLUDING NON-RESIDENTS OWNING PROPERTY OR SUBJECT TO TAXATION THEREIN, Defendants. 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 99-CA-2212-16G FINAL JUDGMENT OF VALIDATION This cause originally came to be heard on January 28, 2000, pursuant to the Court's Amended Order to Show Cause. Following that hearing, this Court entered a Final Judgment Denying Complaint for Validation. On January 11, 2001, the Florida Supreme Court reversed that Judgment and remanded the cause for further proceedings consistent with that Court's Opinion. A copy of the Opinion is included herein as Attachment A. This Court, having considered the Opinion of the Florida Supreme Court and the matters previously presented, makes the following findings: 1 1. The City of Winter Springs (the "City") is a municipality empowered with broad home rule powers pursuant to Article VIII, section 2(b), Florida Constitution and section 166.021(4), Florida Statutes. 2. Pursuant to Chapter 166, Florida Statutes, the City of Winter Springs is empowered to incur indebtedness. 3. The City of Winter Springs has proposed pursuant to its Resolutions Numbers 895 and 896 (collectively, the "Resolutions") to issue special assessment revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $2,500,000 (the 'Bonds"), and special assessment revenue bond anticipation notes in an amount not to exceed $2,300,000.00 (the "Notes"). Copies of the Resolutions have been introduced into evidence in this matter. 4. The purpose for the Notes and the Bonds is to fund specific improvements within an assessment area known as the Tuskawilla Lighting and Beautification District, a discrete portion of the City of Winter Springs. 5. The project to be funded contemplates the construction of wing walls at the entranceways of the Tuskawilla Lighting and Beautification District ("the District"), improved street lighting on certain main thoroughfares within the District, and signage and landscaping within the District (collectively, the "Project") 6. The Court finds that the Project affects the safety and welfare of those within the District and that the enhancement to the community identity and aesthetic serves a public purpose. 7. The City of Winter Springs is authorized under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Florida, particularly the Constitution of Florida, Chapter 166, Part II, Florida Statutes, the Resolutions, the City Charter, and other applicable provisions of law to issue RIJ the Notes and the Bonds to finance and refinance the cost of the Project. The Bonds and Notes shall be payable solely from and secured by a first lien upon and pledge of the Pledged Revenues, as defined in the Resolutions, which consists of (i) the Assessments and (ii) the moneys including investments on deposit in the various funds and accounts created pursuant to the Resolutions, with the exception of the Rebate Fund (all capitalized terms are as defined in the Resolutions). In addition, the Resolutions provide and, in the case of the Notes, City Resolution No. 899 provides that such Bonds and Notes are additionally secured by a covenant of the City of Winter Springs (the "Covenant") to appropriate in its annual budget by amendment, if necessary amounts sufficient to pay debt service on the Bonds and Notes when due to the extent Pledged Revenues are insufficient to make such payments. The City is authorized by Chapter 166, Part II, Florida Statutes, and other applicable provisions of law to issue the Bonds and Notes to acquire and construct the Project and to pledge the Pledged Revenues and to enter into the Covenant as security for the payment of debt service on the Bonds and Notes. 8. On July 27, 1998, the City Commission of the City of Winter Springs adopted Ordinance 98-704, entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA RELATING TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND RELATED SERVICES PROVIDING A SPECIAL BENEFIT TO LOCAL AREAS WITHIN THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA; PROVIDING DEFINITIONS AND FINDINGS; PROVIDING FOR TITLE AND CITATION; PROVIDING FOR THE CREATION OF ASSESSMENT AREAS; AUTHORIZING THE IMPOSITION AND COLLECTION OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS TO FUND THE COST OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND RELATED SERVICES PROVIDING A SPECIAL BENEFIT TO LOCAL AREAS WITHIN THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS; PROVIDING FOR THE OPTIONAL AND MANDATORY PREPAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS; ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR NOTICE AND ADOPTION OF ASSESSMENT 3 ROLLS AND FOR CORRECTION OF ERRORS AND OMISSIONS; PROVIDING THAT ASSESSMENTS CONSTITUTE A LIEN ON ASSESSED PROPERTY UPON ADOPTION OF THE ASSESSMENT ROLLS; ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES AND METHODS FOR COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS, INCLUDING ASSESSMENTS IMPOSED ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY; AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF OBLIGATIONS SECURED BY ASSESSMENTS; PROVIDING FOR VARIOUS RIGHTS AND REMEDIES OF THE HOLDERS OF SUCH OBLIGATIONS; PROVIDING THAT SUCH OBLIGATIONS WILL NOT CREATE A GENERAL DEBT OR OBLIGATION OF THE CITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN.EFFECTIVE DATE. which ordinance has been implemented as regards the Assessments by Resolution No. 99- 884 (Initial Local Improvement Assessment Resolution), Resolution No. 99-887 (Final Local Improvement Assessment Resolution), and Resolution No. 99-890 (Approval of Corrected Assessment Roll) of the City Commission of the City (said ordinance and resolutions being collectively referred to as the "Assessment Proceedings"). A copy of said Assessment Proceedings has been introduced into evidence in these proceedings. The City of Winter Springs, through its City Commission, has lawful power and authority, without any vote or referendum of any or all of the citizens of the City, to impose, assess, levy and collect the Assessments as provided in the Assessment Proceedings to defray the costs of the Project and the Assessments so imposed, assessed, levied and collected as provided in the Assessment Proceedings are legal, valid and binding first liens upon the property against which the Assessments are made coequal with the lien of all state, county, district and municipal taxes and superior in dignity to all other liens, titles and claims until paid. The Project provides a special benefit to assessed properties and is fairly and reasonably apportioned among such properties. The Assessments are valid and enforceable under Florida law. 4 9. The City of Winter Springs, through its City Commission, has lawful power and authority to adopt the Resolutions, Resolution No. 899 of the City and the Assessment Proceedings and to impose, assess, levy and collect the Assessments and pledge the Assessments and other Pledged Revenues and to take the other acts contemplated by the Resolutions and the Assessment Proceedings including but not limited to the entering into the Covenant in connection with the issuance, sale, delivery and payment of the Notes and the Bonds. 10. The City of Winter Springs has followed the required procedural steps and has adopted the necessary and appropriate resolutions to issue the Bonds and the Notes and to impose the Assessments. 11. The Court finds that the Project will specially benefit the parcels within the District. 12. The City of Winter Springs intends to allocate the cost of the improvements by Assessments to single-family residential units or the equivalent thereof. The Court finds that this apportionment of the cost of the improvements among the benefitted parcels is fair and reasonable and not palpably arbitrary, grossly unequal or confiscatory. Further, the amount of the Assessment does not exceed the reasonable benefit to the parcels assessed. 13. The Court finds that this City has followed all procedural requirements of Chapter 75 in seeking validation of these bonds. 14. The Court has carefully considered the matters raised by intervenors in this action and finds that each is insufficient as a matter of fact and/or as a matter of law to prevent the validation of the proposed Bonds and Notes. 5 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED 1. The original Final Judgment Denying Complaint for Validation dated January 28, 2000, is vacated. 2. The City of Winter Springs, Florida Special Assessment Revenue Bond Anticipation Notes, Series 1999 (Tuskawilla Lighting and Beautification District), in an amount not to exceed $2,300,000.00, are hereby declared to be a valid exercise of the municipal powers of the City of Winter Springs, Florida, and that said Notes, as and when issued, shall be a valid indebtedness of the City of Winter Springs, Florida. 3. The City of Winter Springs, Florida, Special Assessment Revenue Bonds (Tuskawilla Lighting and Beautification District) in an amount not to exceed $2,500,000.00, are hereby declared to be a valid exercise of the municipal powers of the City of Winter Springs, Florida, and that said Bonds, as and when issued, shall be a valid indebtedness of the City of Winter Springs, Florida. 4. The Assessments to be imposed within the special assessment area known as the Tuskawilla Lighting and Beautification District, as created by the City of Winter Springs, are a valid exercise of the municipal authority of the City of Winter Springs and are valid and enforceable under Florida law. 5. The improvements to be funded by the Assessments will specially benefit the properties within the District that are subject to the assessment. 6. The apportionment of the cost of the improvement is fair and reasonable and the methodology by which the special assessments are allocated is a valid and legal methodology. 7. The Project is for a valid, lawful and public purpose for which the Assessments may be imposed and levied. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, in Sanford, Seminole County, Florida this day of 001. v Copies Furnished To: Gregory T. Stewart Anthony Garganese Virginia B. Townes Beth Rich ards-Rutberg Michael D. Jones 191 Judi' C. HOY011 /S/ GENE R. STEPHISNSON The Honorable Gene R. Stephenson Circuit Judge 7 supreme Court of 11oriba No. SC00-413 CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, Florida, etc., Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, et al., Appellees. [January 11, 2001] HAR.DING, J. We have on appeal the final judgment of the trial court refusing to validate special assessment bonds. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(2), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed, we reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the cause for further bond validation proceedings. Appellant, the City of Winter Springs, Florida (City), filed a complaint for validation of special assessment bonds .for the financing of local improvements in a discrete portion of the City known as the Tuscawilla Lighting and Beautification Attachment A District (District).' Proposed improvements include enhanced landscaping, signage, and lighting at various locations within the District. Appellees, the State of Florida and Intervenors on behalf of the Property Owners and Citizens of the City of Winter Springs (Validation Opponents), filed an answer opposing validation of the bonds. After a bench trial, the trial court denied the City's complaint to validate the bonds, holding that the special assessment was not in compliance with the law. The City timely filed this direct appeal. This Court's scope of review in bond validation cases is limited to the following issues: (1) whether the public body has the authority to issue bonds; (2) whether the purpose of the obligation is legal; and (3) whether the bond issuance complies with the requirements of the law. See State v. Inland Protection Fin Cr., 699 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 1997); Poe v. Hillsborou h CounjL 695 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 1997); Northern Palm Beach County Water Control Dist v State, 604 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 1992); Taylor v. Lee County 498 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 1986). To comply with the requirements of the law, a special assessment funding a bond issuance ' Tuscawilla is a Planned Unit Development located within the City, consisting of a number of different independent developments with approximately four thousand homes, a county club and golf course, and several commercial properties. In the early 1990's, a group of Tuscawilla homeowners approached the City requesting authority to form a taxing district for the maintenance and improvement of certain common areas within Tuscawilla no longer being maintained by the developer. -2- must satisfy the following two -prong test: (1) the property burdened by the assessment must derive a special benefit from the service provided by the assessment; and (2) the assessment for the services must be properly apportioned among the properties receiving the benefit. See Lake County v Water Oak Management Corp., 695 So. 2d 667, 668 (Fla. 1997) (citing City of Boca Raton v State, 595 So. 2d 25, 30 (Fla. 1992)).2 "[T]he standard [of review] is the same for both prongs; that is, the legislative determination as to the existence of special benefits and as to the apportionment of the costs of those benefits should be upheld unless the determination is arbitrary." Sarasota County v. Sarasota Church of Christ, 667 So. 2d 180, 184 (Fla. 1995).3 Z In this case, it was conceded that the City had the authority to issue the bonds, and there was no suggestion that the purposes for issuance of the bonds were not entirely proper. Rather, the City's purpose for the bonds is well - recognized as a basis for special assessments. See, e._., section §170.01(1), Fla. Stat. (1999) (authorizing municipalities to impose special assessments to fund "related lighting, landscaping, street furniture, signage, and other amenities as determined by the governing authority of the municipality") . ' This Court has employed the same "special benefits" test to analyze the validity of special assessments in the context of bond validation cases, see, e.g,•, Collier Coun , v State, 733 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 1999) (affirming trial court's invalidation of revenue certificates because assessment did not satisfy the first prong of the "special benefit" test); State v. Sarasota County, 693 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 1997) (affirming trial court's judgment validating proposed bonds issued for purpose of funding stormwater management program because assessment met both prongs of "special benefit" test);_ City of Boca Raton v. State, 595 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 1992) (reversing trial court's invalidation of special assessment improvement -3- _9 In this case, however, the City's legislative finding that the special assessment confers a special benefit upon the land burdened by the assessment was not arbitrary and, therefore, was entitled to a presumption of correctness by the trial court. By substituting its own judgment for that of the locally elected officials, and thus failing to attach a presumption of correctness to the legislative determination, the trial court erred as a matter of law. Validation Opponents argue there is no evidence to support the City's conclusion that the improvements will provide a special benefit to all tax parcels located within the District. Section 1.03(E) of City Resolution 99-884, however, provides the City's specific findings regarding the "special benefits" derived from the improvements: The Tuscawilla Improvements will provide a special benefit to all Tax Parcels located within the Tuscawilla Improvement Area ... by improving and enhancing the exterior subdivision boundaries, the interior subdivision bonds to improve downtown infrastructure because special assessment met both prongs of "special benefit" test), and "non -bond validation" cases where municipalities have attempted to utilize "special assessments" (in lieu of ad valorem taxes) to finance specific improvements or services. See, e.gLake County v. Water Oak Me. Cm., 695 So. 2d.667. (Fla. 1997) (holding that fire protection services funded by county's special assessment specially benefitted real property in county); Harris v. Wilson, 693 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 1997) (affirming validation of special assessment for solid waste disposal facility); Sarasota County v. Sarasota Church of Christ Inc., 667 So. 2d 180. (Fla. 1995) (holding that special assessment for stormwater services is a valid special assessment). -4- areas, the subdivision identity, and the subdivision aesthetics and safety, thus enhancing the value use and eniovment of such 12meerty. City of Winter Springs, Fla., Resolution No. 99-884 (July 12, 1999) (emphasis added). Moreover, the City did employ the services of an outside consultant and appraiser to specifically "analyze whether or not such improvements would have a beneficial impact on home values in the general area." Letter from Appraiser to City of Winter Springs (April 10, 1998). After evaluating the nature, and area, of the proposed improvements, the property appraiser concluded that there would be a beneficial impact on overall property values in the area: Me reviewed numerous subdivisions and PUDS ... [and] had discussions with residential appraisers, developers, and Realtors regarding beautification projects, either in place or proposed, so that we might have an insight into market opinion on this issue. From this analysis, it was concluded that having improvements, such as those proposed for the Tuscawilla PUD and described to us, in place enhances the market perception of the area and, ultimately, the surrounding property values within the development.... There appears to be a positive and certain influence on the market value for properties in areas where such improvements are made. Id. In addition, during the validation hearing, the appraiser provided uncontroverted testimony regarding the special benefit conferred upon properties in the District: Q. [City Counsel] Now, W. Robbins, what did you, based on your investigation and your work in this project, what was your opinion in terms -5- of what these improvements would have on the value of property, beneficial value of this property in the assessment area. A. [Appraiser] I concluded that there would be a positive, general overall benefit to the surrounding properties. Q. [City Counsel] Could you tell the Court basically why you felt that. A. [Appraiser] It was from my discussions with the developers, residential appraisers, and realtors, and engaging them in a discussion about what the impact of these types of improvements generally have on, or what their perception of those impacts are. And to see every person that I discussed this matter they conveyed to me for various reasons it would have a positive overall impact on those surrounding homes. Validation opponents also argue that because other people outside of the District may benefit from the improvements, the improvements do not confer a "special" benefit upon property owners in the District. This argument fails, however, because the mere fact that the opponents presented testimony that non - neighborhood residents drive through the District on their way to other parts of the City, and en route will incidentally benefit from improvements in the District such as new signs, landscaping and street lighting, does not invalidate the special assessment. See Charlotte County v. Fiske, 350 So. 2d 578, 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) (holding that a special benefit is not lost merely because other properties incidentally benefit); see also Lake County. 695 So. 2d at 670 (holding that a special benefit can only be conferred to the real property itself, i.e., not to mere 12 passersby). This Court has held that "if reasonable persons may differ as to whether the land assessed was benefitted by the local improvement, the findings of the city officials must be sustained." City of Boca Raton v State, 595 So. 2d 25, 30 (Fla. 1992). Accordingly, the trial court failed to give appropriate deference to the legislative findings of the City and to the record evidence that provided support for those findings. The specific findings of the City Commission declare that the assessment for the District would improve exterior subdivision boundaries, interior subdivision areas, subdivision identity and subdivision aesthetics, and would enhance the safety, value, and the use and enjoyment of all properties within the District. These findings are supported by the analysis and testimony of the City's appraiser, who was specifically employed to address the benefit question. Moreover, Validation Opponents adduced no evidence to counter these legislative findings. Without any evidence or rational basis to overcome the presumption of correctness which attends the City's legislative findings, there can be no invalidation of the bonds.' ' Further, this Court has stated that, "[i]n evaluating whether a special benefit is conferred to property ... the test is whether there is a `logical relationship' between the services provided and the benefit to real property." Lake County v. Water Oak Mgt. Cor, p , 695 So. 2d 667, 669 (Fla. 1997) (citing Whisnant V. Stringfellow, 50 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 1951), and Crowder v. Phillips, 146 -7- The second prong of the special assessment test established in City of f Boca Raton requires that the assessment be fairly and reasonably apportioned among the properties that receive the special benefit. See City of Boca Raton, 595 So. 2d at 29. And though a court may recognize valid alternative methods of apportionment, so long as the legislative determination by the City is not arbitrary, a court should not substitute its judgment for that of the local legislative body. See Sarasota Church of Christ Inc., 667 So. 2d at 184; see also Harris v. Wilson, 693 So. 2d 945, 947 (Fla. 1997); State v. Sarasota Coun , 693 So. 2d 546, 548 (Fla. 1997). The City's method for apportioning the costs of the proposed improvements was thoughtfully selected to assure equitable treatment to every land owner in the District. Through its Resolution 99-884, the City provided the framework for apportionment of the beautification assessment to be "substantially proportional to the area of Buildings located [within the District]." City of Winter Springs, Fla., Resolution 99-884 § 1.03(F) (July 12, 1999). Inasmuch as the District contains single-family homes, multifamily buildings, and a few Fla. 440, 1 So. 2d 629 (1941) (on rehearing)). Here, it is not unreasonable to conclude that there is a "logical relationship" between the proposed beautification and lighting enhancements within the District and the special benefit of enhancing the values of individual properties situated therein. -8- commercial properties, the City first sought to determine whether all three property uses would benefit from the proposed improvements on the same basis. It determined they would not, as its consultant testified at the trial: Me know for a fact from analysis that single-family [residences] produce[] a different impact on the road system and the community as more than say multi -family condos or apartments, that there's a different benefit realized. The City then analyzed the mix of properties within the District to find an appropriate basis for assessing the different property uses equitably. It determined that the average square footage of each single-family dwelling unit in the District - - the vastly predominant form of property use - - was 2200 square feet. It then created a formula that assigned each single-family home an "equivalent residential unit" value of 1, and it extrapolated the ERU value to the multifamily dwelling units and to the commercial properties in the District based on square footage. It then determined that vacant parcels would pay the same as a single-family dwelling unit, and that commercial property would in no event be assessed less than a single-family home. This method, the City Commission found, had the effect of "fairly and reasonably allocating the cost to specially benefitted property, based upon the number of ERUs attributable to each benefitted property In in the manner hereinafter described."' City Resolution 99-884 § 1.03(G). Moreover, there was testimony by the City Manager at the validation hearing that nearly all property owners in the District use the Winter Springs Boulevard entry for access to their property: The majority of people and to some degree I would say every individual that lives in the district is going to use that road. The City also brought forward expert witness testimony that the location of any particular properties in relation to the improvements was not an appropriate factor for allocation, because the main benefit of the improvements ... was to provide an enhanced identity to the community, safety, and landscaping. All of those are the types of benefits that in our professional opinion spread equally throughout the entire community. This testimony was bolstered by the expert's observation on cross-examination that "[t]he other enhancements, such as street lights, which enhance[] the safety of the community ... are equally enjoyed also by everybody in that 'The City's assessment methodology -- using Equivalent Residential Units -- finds direct support in Rushfeldt v. Metropolitan Dade County, 630 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), review denied, 639 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 1994). There the court upheld "the propriety of the unit method utilized for the special assessments" imposed in the taxing district. Id. at 645 (quoting trial court's Final Summary Judgment). -10- community . " Though a court, like Validation Opponents, might envision alternative apportionment schemes (e.g., based upon square footage of each particular home, or the proximity of a property in relation to each of the proposed improvements, or even based in some part upon studied usage of various roadways), the choice of apportioning assessments by one or another methodology is not for this Court -- or even Validation. Opponents.' Rather, it is a City responsibility in the first instance which must be upheld if not arbitrary. See Sarasota Church of Christ, 667 So. 2d at 184.' ' It should be noted, however, that in Rushfeldt v. Metropolitan Dade Coo , 630 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), the court addressed a contention from property owners that fair apportionment required a different assessment for residents close to and remote from guard gate improvements and guard services in a gated neighborhood. The court categorically rejected that contention, holding there is no requirement for "tiered assessments based on a property's proximity to the entrance, " and that distinction being suggested between residents in the neighborhood "could make it impossible to ever create a special taxing district. " Rushfeldt; 630 So. 2d at 645 (quoting trial court's judgment). The Rushfeldt decision is particularly pertinent here, because the court there sustained the very same improvements which are at issue here -- street lights, landscaped green areas, and better roads. Id. To the same effect is Northern Palm Beach County Water Control District v. State, 604 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 1992), which also upheld special assessments for signs, landscaping, irrigation, and street lighting in a mixed -use community with more than 2000 residential properties. ' In Cape Development Co. v. City of Cocoa Beach, 192 So. 2d 766, 771 (Fla. 1966), this Court also held that benefits need not be determined by the City on the basis of a valuation of each individual dwelling unit. In this case, the Court -11- community. " Though a court, like Validation Opponents, might envision, alternative apportionment schemes (e.g., based upon square footage of each particular home, or the proximity of a property in relation to each of the proposed improvements, or even based in some part upon studied usage of various roadways), the choice of apportioning assessments by one or another methodology is not for this Court -- or even Validation Opponents.6 Rather, it is a City responsibility in the first instance which must be upheld if not arbitrary. See Sarasota Church of Christ, 667 So. 2d at ,184.' 6 It should be noted, however, that in Rushfeldt v. Metropolitan Dade un , 630 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), the court addressed a contention from property owners that fair apportionment required a different assessment for residents close to and remote from guard gate improvements and guard services in a gated neighborhood. The court categorically rejected that contention, holding there is no requirement for "tiered assessments based on a property's proximity to the entrance, " and that distinction being suggested between residents in the neighborhood "could make it impossible to ever create a special taxing district. it Rushfeldt; 630 So. 2d at 645 (quoting trial court's judgment). The Rushfeldt decision is particularly pertinent here, because the court there sustained the very same improvements which are at issue here -- street lights, landscaped green areas, and better roads. Id. To the same effect is Northern Palm Beach County Water Control District v. State, 604 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 1992), which also upheld special assessments for signs, landscaping, irrigation, and street lighting in a mixed -use community with more than 2000 residential properties. ' In Cape Development Co. v. City of Cocoa Beach, 192 So. 2d 766, 771 (Fla. 1966), this Court also held that benefits need not be determined by the City on the basis of a valuation of each individual dwelling unit. In this case, the Court -11- Moreover, a mere disagreement of experts as to the choice of methodology is legally inconsequential. See Rosche v. City of Hollywood, 55 So. 2d 909, 913 (Fla. 1952) ("If the evidence as to benefits is conflicting and depends upon the judgment of witnesses, the findings of the City Commission will not be disturbed. ") . In fact, the validation opponents' expert witness recognized that his opinion on methodology did not invalidate the one selected by the City: Q. [City Counsel] Are you saying that these assessments are invalid? A. [Opponents Expert] No. I'm not saying that any assessment is invalid. It happens all the time. I'm just saying that this particular assessment with four thousand plus homes was not treated properly, in my opinion. I concluded that there would be a positive, general overall benefit to the surrounding properties. As this Court noted in City of Fort Myers v. State, 95 Fla. 704, 117 So. 97, 104 (1928), however, "[n]o system of appraising benefits or assessing costs addressed a contention that a valid assessment required the City to "have each parcel of land affected show a dollar and cents comparison of benefits derived to assessment[.]" Id. The Court saw no merit in that contention, pointing out: There are over a thousand parcels of property affected in this improvement project, and to require a municipality to itemize and set forth opposite each parcel the amount in dollars said parcel would benefit from said improvements is unduly tedious and beyond the requirements .... Id. at 773. As noted above, the Tuscawilla Beautification District has over 4000 residential unit parcels, which would prove even more tedious to itemize. -12- has yet been devised that is not open to some criticism. " Rather, a host of elements enter into the proration of benefits, including: [P]hysical condition, nearness to or remoteness from residential and business districts, desirability for residential or commercial purposes, and many other peculiar to the locality where the lands improved are located. Meyer v. City of Oakland Park, 219 So. 2d 417, 419-20 (Fla. 1969). The "Equivalent Residential Unit" ("ERU") method of apportioning based upon average building square footage of single family and multi -family residences was reasonable. There is no requirement to "tier" assessments based on proximity to the improvement, nor is there any requirement to value the benefit on each individual property within the District. Even an unpopular decision, when made correctly, must be upheld. A review of the record in this case yields competent, substantial evidence to support the City's determination of apportionment and, therefore, the City's findings regarding apportionment cannot be said to be "arbitrary." Rather, in this instance, the City's findings are entitled to a presumption of correctness, and the trial court erred as a matter of law in substituting its judgment for that of the locally -elected officials. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court appealed from is reversed, and the -13- cause remanded for further bond validation proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND IF FILED, DETERMINED. An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Seminole County - Bond Validation Gene R. Stephenson, Judge - Case No. 99-CA-2212-16G Arthur J. England, Jr. of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Miami, Florida; George H. Nickerson, Jr., Gregory T. Stewart, and Virginia Saunders Delegal ofNabors, Giblin & Nickerson, P.A., Tallahassee, Florida; Anthony A. Garganese, City Attorney, Brown, Ward, Salzman & Weiss, P.A., Orlando, Florida; and Virginia B. Townes of Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A., Orlando, Florida, for Appellant Michael D. Jones and Clifton H. Gorenflo of Leffler & Associates, P.A., Winter Springs, Florida; and Beth Richards-Rutberg, Assistant State Attorney, Sanford, Florida, for Appellees -14