Loading...
05-26-1970 Supporting DocumentsMINUTES N4 665 A.DJOl1RNFD '1EFTING An adjourned meetin^ of the City Council of t'-e City of Clermont was held in the Council Chambers on Tuesday, 'lav 26, 1970. Tho ereetinn alas called to order at 7:P P. !'. by 'Iayor ^on F. Smitl; with all members orn,sent. Other officials present ,ern: City Tanager Johnson, City Controller Fleming, City Attorney Lannle,y, Chief of Police Tvndal and Citv Jndge Hovis. Others present. were: 'Ir. and "rs. C. Rurout, Messrs. Henry rzn.ch, E. Schumann, C. Mangold, P., ngden and Ors. !'eaver, :Matson and Davis. Mildred nnllar acted as Clerl,. The invocation a,as given by Councilman Vander'reer. The Minutes of the Regular Meeting held on `lay 12, 107n +:i re approved as written. Drs. Weaver and !Watson appeared before the Council and renorted that the City of Grove.land had appointed three persons to serve on the Airport Committee; he further stated that the Committee had located a parcel of 50 acres, within a G' mile radius of Clermont and Groveland, which they considered as a prime location, for a purchase price of S2n.000.no and inquired of Council's authority in this matter. Following a discussion Mayor Smith recommended that the Committee report further findings to the Council after a meeting with the renresentative of the Federal Aviation Authority. Mr. Burout appeared before the City Council to protest the erection of a block wall and a sprinkler system alongside his property by an adjoin- ing property owner. 'lr. Burout was advised that the matter would be investigated. City Manager Johnson advised that he had received bids on 12" cast iron pipe and fittings as follows: American Cast Iron Pipe Comnanv $ 4.08 per foot Fittings: $528.no a ton Davis Meter ? Supply Co. S 4.40 per foot Fittings: $ 525.00 a ton and recommended acceptance of the low bid. Motion was made by Councilman Bratton, seconded by Councilman Oswalt, and carried, that the low bid as submitted by American Cast Iron Pipe Comnanv be accepted. Motion was made by Councilman Oswalt, seconded by Councilman VanderMeer, and carried, that City Manager Johnson be authorized to proceed with securing bids, and entering into a contract, for the laying of approximately 4800 feet of 12 inch main from the Grand Highway well to the Highland Avenue tank. City Manager Johnson submitted his report both orally and written and a copy is attached hereto. City Council authorized City Manager Johnson to proceed with advertising in the Florida Municipal publications for applications to fill the position of City Manager, to be effective as of November 1, 1970. Comments were made on the success of the new fishing pier. Councilman Cochran suggested and it was agreed that City Manager Johnson request a survey of local lakes to determine the fish population. City Attorney Langley gave an analysis and commentary of the Reis versus MINUTES N4 666 City of Clermont decision and recommended that Council accost the Judge's decision, +ihich is as follows: 1. That the actual assessment is upheld in the amount of $2448.no, (GO',; of the original assessment). 2. That procedure followed by the City in assessing, the notice ' and hearings, the validit;, and overall purpose of the nroje.ct, the rower and authority of the, city were all confirmed and uphold as being .just and proper. 3. All other property owners are harred from further objections as to their assessments (page 7 of Judgment). Following an explanation by the Cite Attorney of the recourse Council could take, motion was made kv Councilman nslralt, seconded by Councilman Vanderi-leer, and carried, that the matter he tabled inasmuch as the city has within 30 days from the ilay 2nth date of the order to file a certified statement that the above adjust!•ient has been made by the City of Clermont and decision accepted. Councilman Cochran inquired the status of the sewer nroject and was advised by City Attorney Langley that the City !ras awaiting clearance of the land trade. Inasmuch as City Attorney Langley was to be in Ilaycross, Ga. on Wednesday, 'lay 27th, he was authorized to continue on to Atlanta to follow up on this matter. City Manager Johnson presented, and it was moved by Councilman Oswalt that it he passed, a Resolution that the City of Clermont enter into a Sanitary Sever line easement agreement with the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company. The motion was seconded by Councilman Bratton and upon roll call vote on passage of the Resolution the result was: Ayes: Vanderbleer, Oswalt, Smith, Cochran and Bratton. Total Ayes: Five. Nayes: bone. So the Resolution was adopted and the Humber 162 assigned to it and a copy ordered posted. City Manager Johnson submitted the follo�-,inp recommendation of the Electrical Board as pertaining to "aster Electrician Examinations; that upon proof being submitted that the applicant has successfully passed the "Block" Examination as a '!aster electrician, that this be accepted as part of the examination and the remainder be based on the Clermont Electrical Code. "lotion was made by Councilman VanderMeer, seconded by Councilman Oswalt, and carried, that this recommendation of the Electrical Board be accepted. City Controller Fleming reported to the Council that the collection of blater and Sanitation bills continues to be an never ending problem and that on Hav 21st delinquent accounts totaled ninety eight, or about 8 % , and that service was discontinued to each of these accounts, as per ordinance regulation, and that this resulted in much unpleasantness and abuse for the employees. He reouested the Council's comments on the handling of this problem. It was consensus of Council that Citv Controller Fleming has been authorized to carry out the policy as stated in the Ordinance and that he should continue to do so; that is, that all°Water and Sanitation bills are due on or before the loth of month and Water will he cut off if not paid by the 20th of the following month and that a fee of 53.00 must be paid before service is resumed". Motion was made by Councilman Vanderrleer, seconded by Councilman Oswalt, and carried, that the City Controller he authorized to pay the balance MINUTES N9 667 Of 3r,uvu,un clue June 1st on the purchase of Lots 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14 in Block 142 of Johnson's RcpIat. The members of the Council were requested to attend a work session meeting in the office of the City Attorney at 8:00 1,. M. on Thursday, May 28th. Fhe meeting was adjourned by Mayor Smith. �L�.G .1�'v d'- ICJ G�.i� 1;.�2.✓ Hi dred Dollar, Acting Clerk Don E.Smith, Mayor CITY CONTROLLER'S REPORT The collection of the monthly !rater and Sanitation hills is a never ending problem. Each and every 21st of the month we have a number of unpaid accounts. Each bill states "Due on or before loth of month" and "hater will be cut off if not paid by 2nth of followinq month. Fee of S3.nn must he paid before service will he resumed". fly position has been, that as long as the percentage of delinquents remained below 3 or 4 7 the office staff would make telephone calls' to those delinquents who apparently had forgotten, had illness in the family, been out of town or were due consideration from the Fact that they were not in the chronic group of delinquents. The chronic de- linquents received no consideration, the service w.as cut Off. This procedure eliminated much unpleasantness but unfortunately steadily deteriorates as the percentage gradually increases until it z is out of hand. The May 21st list: of delinquents totaled ninety einlrt or about 8". On the morning of 'lay 21st the +later nepartment was furnish the comnlete' list with instruct;,ans to discontinue service to each. Most of the Councilman probably received calls or ,isits and received a taste of the abuse the clerks in City Hal.1 and the person actually turning the service off received. Many were pleasant and actually anoligized for neglecting to pay on time, paid the $3.nn service fee and t.!ent on their way. Most arc, un- reasonable, rude, crude and thr2eatening. The foregoing is a resume of the handling of this Problem and I re- quest your comments. John !!. Fleming Controller CITY MANAGER'S RSORT The poles for lighting the soft ball field are now in stock and v+e hope to have them set this week. The project should be completed and the field ready for use sometime during June. The fishing pier continues to he used to a considerable extent. From one to six or eight people are on the pier most of the time. ThL fishing has been much better than I expected. I am sure that some of you have received 'phone calls, or visits, from irate water customers during the past few days. Although the collection of accounts is not under my supervision or authority I do think that some definite policy should he established regarding past due accounts and that such policy should he definite without exception or interference. I am sure that Mr. Fleming will have more to sav about this later in his report. I expect to have a tentative budget for your consideration within the next few weeks. ldith ever increasing expenses and services it will be most difficult to stay within the limits of our expected revenues. The matter of a City Manager to replace me is respectfully called to your attention. What part, if any, do you want me to take in finding someone? Do you v+ant to advertise for applications or do you want me to see %that is available in this general area first? no you want me to interview prospects and matte recommendations to you or do you want to handle the entire matter yourselves? !lhatever course ,you wish to take should start soon. As I have previously stated, I will stay on for a month or so if necessary but prefer to leave the last of December. You should also agree to the salary you expect to pay and I am certain that it will be more than the present rate. In my opinion it will take at least $10,500.00 to get a good man and it will quite probably take $11,000.00. RespAMJohnson submitted, May 26, 1970 7 i . - N/¢/ S l S' '✓ GOrn it/Pit/ //'i`/Z� .. I �7 /,7 SS'n/him%� ii / - % I (/ / `j (' 1,aow&1lt n1f71vd ?,1 7OICI' C/T U it, t%E .j G�prlNl! i9S 9F/41 I n A /�l?/?N(I �PGn'! �r/P r�E'�j GIB ('CTiU✓,/S iiS T i � 7-/a Hi/. /i•ss �'s5�/l�,�rs • �s P� v, /% o� cT �,;,,��TJ � ;` GcY(ns/_= I / /7 r �reNc(/ /$ NOr J//q/—S 4/12-1 2Z,NicJ pis � L^ �/� /,/� �l / 6� /����i�/cam/ Tz, 77, Icv�y B/OW %Ts covA/.G� 1 F /?4 /�li 7- lei ,, c / ///j47 (I P `�/�l'S Cu��J�O/✓.' I I OT )I,Lpc, N /UaT DdC'/t�GU'9?F ;t UPIOlA 7-h p. C'"NT/?cam /�SS.G�✓S�CA�/U� 3. Flicy m,/ 11 T" 1n l& / /i,7V s/ti c L TIC . :7oc4rP!Z Gowr7— fou/vc` T�tr 7-1F /9✓`✓`C°SSiyllv%' i ' C 1 i 1Ex 6, /&,/ T/N :�lNclif/ ,�NrvN/iT %�f�T T/i N Gt l vo T I N I /n r'�1 % 4-,7e% iA,1._- .moo/ii� ON 6-0v0G/w S/G/o y ft�c- Gc r�rir?Fivri %�/fT [rlc° fl G r,�T T/«- clo'lu r. T c)IC)- Gvoi?T ).F /JSi Ns5/ilNrv/ XcrlV U/""//rI /%.S 10 1�5 // 57/),u l$ /11P cr}Sl�: C tr z lrs s T 11//�i.�7% 7�� i�/� ��/� T/i s i(-j To ja ory ji cU%/� /Vi7 /dOS/- O'Iu�/S1 Cl I ! t: I'. 1- L i : IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 4985 GUS REIS, ) P]aintiff, )Z. VS. CITY OF CLERMONT, a Municipal ) O R D E R Zvi corporation; and DON E. SMITH, ) RAY COCHRAN, R. E. OSWALT, JAY VANDEfRMEER and SAM P. BRATTON, ) - :• F; Cit Councilmen ) Y :.: _1 Defendants. ) SUMMARY OF CASE 1. Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants for an injunction and declarator decree (')ud ment) to reven t D f d y g p e en ant, the City of Clermont from assessing the cost of installation of a sanitary sewage system in said city, against his "grove 0 property". 3 f 2. Defendants answered, admitting the assessment, 0 refusal to modify it, and setting up the defense that the S assessment made is equal to or less than.the special benefit U f' accrued to Plaintiff's property. 3. Motion for Judgment on Pleadings was filed by Defendants. That Motion was disposed of by stipulation of the parties at the trial. i 4. The case was set for trial by the parties and trial was had on the issues made by the pleadings. This cause came on for final hearing on the 17th day of February, 1970; at which time this Court heard the testimony and reviewed the documented evidence submitted by counsel for the respective parties. The attorneys waived oral argument and agreed to submit briefs in support of their respective positions in accordance with a schedule set out in that certain order dated February 20, 1970. • GUS REIS vs. CITY OF CLERMONT, ET AL PAGE 2 All briefs have been submitted, and the Court is con- strained to express appreciation to Mr. Gluckman and Mr. Langley for their extensive research and able presentation of authorities which proved to be most helpful to the Court in arriving at its decision in this complex and complicated case. The Court has reviewed the evidence and arguments contained in the briefsand has read all cases and other authorities cited by counsel in support of their respective positions, as well as other cases and authorities thought, by the Court, to be appropriate in this case. Based upon a review of the file in this case, the evidence and law presented, the Court finds: 1. The Court has jurisdiction over the parties and & the subject matter of this suit; 3 2. The Plaintiff is GUS REIS, of Orlando, Orange County, Florida; 3. The Defendants are: the CITY OF CLERMONT, a Municipal U K corporation; and DON E. SMITH, RAY COCHRAN, R. E. OSIVALT, JAY VANDERMEER and SAM P. BRATTON, City Councilmen, all of Clermont, Florida; 4. The attorney for Plaintiff is DAVID GLUCKMAN, of the firm of BORNSTEIN, PETREE & GLUCKMAN, 125 South Court Avenue, Orlando, Florida; 5. The attorney for Defendants is RICHARD H. LANGLEY, 630 Montrose Street, Clermont, Florida. PLAINTIFF'S THEORY OF CASE The Plaintiff's theory of the case is that the assessment, as made by Defendants against his property is in excess of the special benefits, if any, to the property assessed and that such assessment is illegal and unconstitutional, and deprives him of equal protection and is a taking of his property ;:1 GUS REIS vs. CITY OF CLERMONT, ET AL PAGE- 3 without due process of law. In support of his theory he cites F.S. Sections 170.08 and 184.05 (9); Article 1, Section 2 and Article 1, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution; Section I of the 14th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution; and the following cases: Klemm v. Davenport, 129 So. 904; Fisher V Board of County Commissioners, Dade County 84 So. 2d 572 (1956); 48 Am Jur. Special and Local Assessments, Section 4, 29A; Fla Jur. Special Assessments, Section 4; Myles Salt Co v St Mary Drainage District, 239 U.S. 478, 60L.Ed. 392; City of Treasure Island v. Strong, 215 So. 2d 473; Meyer V. City of Oakland Park, 219 So. 2d 417; Atlantic Coastline Railroad Company v. City of Lakeland, 115 So. 669; Klein v City of New Smyrna Beach (1963) 152 So. 2d 466; City of Tallahassee v. Baker, 53 So. 2d 875; Raskin v. City of Miami Beach, 38 So. 2d 836. DEFENDANTS' THEORY OF CASE Defendants' theory of the case is that: 1. The special benefit to the property in question has been decided by the appropriate legislative body, and in fact, the special benefits are greater than the special assessment. 2. That the burden of proving that the special benefits are not as great as the cost thereof is on the Plaintiff; and, 3. There is a strong presumption in favor of the City (legislative body) that the determination by it as to the special benefits is correct. As authority for their contentions, Defendants cite: Summerland Inc vs City of Punta Gorda, 135 So. 611; Ocean Beach Hotel Co. vs. Town of Atlantic Beach, 2 So. 2d, 879; Rosche vs. City of Hollywood, 55 So. 2d, 909; Klein 'vs. 0 GUS REIS vs. CITY OF CLE NIONT, ET AL PAGE 4 City of New Smyrna Beach, 152 So. 2d, 466; and Meyer vs. Cit of Oakland Park, 219 So. 2d, 417. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE AIM ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL Evidence was submitted in the form of admitted pleadings, documents, pictures, maps, affidavit, and oral testimony. All evidence was directed toward the issue of whether or not the special assessment made by the Defendants against the property of the Plaintiff, was, in fact, in excess of benefits to that property. Plaintiff's counsel argued that the evidence showed that the assessment (in the amount of $4,080.00) was in substantial excess of the special benefits accruing and thereby constituted, to the extent of the excess, taking of private property for public use, without just compensation. Defendants' counsel argued that the Defendants made a legislative determination that the special benefit to Plaintiff's property, "along with all other assessed property", exceeded the special assessment levied against it. That this finding by the Defendants created a presumption of correctness which was not overcome by strong, clear and positive rp oof on behalf of the Plaintiff. i FINDINGS OF FACT i Based upon the admitted pleadings, documents, photographs, maps, affidavit, stipulations, testimony, etc, submitted into evidence in this case the Court makes the following find- ings of fact, pertinent to the issue in the case: 1. The Plaintiff is the owner of real property in Lake County, Florida, to wit: Tracts 49A, 49B, 50, 50A, 63 East of right of way of U. S. Highway 27, and 64, all being in Section 19, Township 22 South, Range 26 East, f h D f d z- II being within the corporate limits o t e e en an City of Clermont, Florida. (Description taken from Pleadings of Parties.) U GUS REIS vs. CITY OF CLEMONT, ET AL PAGE 5 2. That the above described property had assessed against it, by the Defendant - City, the sum of $4,080.00, as its proportionate share for the construction and maintenance of a sanitary sewer system for the City of Clermont. 3. That said assessment was made against said property based upon its front footage along the U. S. Highway. 4. That said property - had been in the past, was at the present time and was contemplated to be in the future used for the growing of citrus products. S. The sewer line was to extend between 820 feet to 870 feet of the 1020 feet assessed. 6. The slope (topographical character) of the Plaintiff's land limits its use for residential or commercial lots unless the same is terraced or filled. 7. The Plaintiff timely objected to the special assessment made against his property, and Defendants refused to adjust the assessment previously made. 8. No determination as to specific benefits to Plaintiff's property was ever made by the Defendants. 9. No residential or commercial construction had taken place in the near proximity of the Defendant's property in the past five years (and no evidence was submitted to the Court to show that all of this grove property would likely benefit by having access to a sewer line, within a reasonable time in the future). 10. The construction of the sewer line as outlined to the Court, in relationship to the Plaintiff's property, will not benefit all of the property owned by the Plaintiff and assessed for such improvement; and in no way will such construction enhance the value of said property in an amount equal to or greater than the amount of the assessment. GUS REIS vs. CITY OF CLERMONT, CT AL PAGE 6 CONCLUSIONS OF LAN 1. The Defendant - City of Clermont imposed a special assessment against Plaintiff's property in excess of the benefits it will likely receive from the installation of a sewer system in the City of Clermont. 2. The value of the benefits to the property, as a result of having access to a central sewer system, as originally determined by the Defendants on a lineal foot basis of 1020 feet, should be reduced by the value per lineal foot not directly serviced by the proposed sewer line, and by the extent to which the said sewer line will be used by the general public over and above the use to which a portion of said property may be benefited in the forseeable future. 3. The deduction to be made in regards to the above conclusions - and based upon good faith equity of this cause and substantial justice required under the circumstances of this particular case - is 40% of the total sum of said assessment, to which extent said assessment is hereby adjudged to be void. 4. The Plaintiff in this case has followed the adminis- trative and judicial procedures outlined by our legislature in F.S. Section 184.05(9), 1969; and has not been guilty of any conduct which, in law, would constitute an estoppel against his right to contest the amount of the assessment in question. OPINION OF COURT In an attempt to be of assistance to the public and the bar, this Court has, with the help of the able attorneys in this cause, chosen to write an opinion in the hope that such will serve as a helpful guide to all concerned, in the future. El GUS REIS vs. CITY OF CLERMONT, ET AL PAGE 7 The question before the Court was one of fact; whether or not (based upon the evidence submitted), as a matter of law, the special assessment levied against Plaintiff's property was in excess of the special benefits, if any, realized or capable of being. realized within a reasonable time. Incidential to the above, certain questions as to presumptions, burden of proof, and authority of this Court to abate or reduce the assessment made by the Defendants - legislative body, was raised. There was no question of legality raised as to the procedures used by the Defendants in making the initial assessment, but only as to Defendants' failure to abate or to adjust the initial assessment so that the special assessment would not exceed the benefits to the property being assessed. Chapters '. 170 and 184 F.S. 1969 are applicable to this case. This Court has jurisdiction to revise the findings of said legislative body, City of Clermont. Section 184.05 (9) F.S. 1969 reads, in part: "* * *The Council shall not confirm any assess- ment in excess of the special benefits to the property assessed, and the assessments so con- g firmed shall be in proportion to the special benefits. * * * The assessments so made shall be final and conclusive as to each lot or parcel assessed unless proper steps be taken within ten days in a court of competent 'uris�ictionto secure relieT If the assessment against any property sill be sustained or reduced or abated by the Court, the treasurer o t e municipality s = note t—ilat fact on t e assessment roll opposite that description of the property affected thereby. (underscoring supplied) Proper steps were taken by the Plaintiff to secure relief from the special assessment made against his property. It is interesting to .note that the Plaintiff is the only property owner in Clermont, Florida, that timely objected, and that there is little danger of other litigation on this same question concerning this same special assessment. See Section 184.05(a)' supra. ;_ GUS REIS vs. CITY OF CLERMONT, ET AL PAGE 8 To sustain a special assessment, the benefit to property assessed for a public improvement must be (1) actual, (2) physical and material, and (3) not merely speculative or conjectural. In order to justify the assessment made, the benefits must be substantial, certain and capable of being realized within a reasonable time. See 29 Fla. Jur. p.517 There are two tests used to determine the validity of a special assessment: (1) The improvement must be reasonable and appropriate for local public purpose; and (2) the assess- ment must be reasonable in amount and fairly apportioned according to benefits, good faith and substantial justice. In this case, the first step has not been questioned. The evidence in this case shows that the second test was not met. It is a general rule of law that statutes providing for special assessments are to be strictly construed and strictly applied in favor of the owners of the property assessed and against the assessing authority. See Am. Jur. Special or Local Assessments (1st Ed.§ 4); and Snell Isle Homes, Inc. v. St. Petersburg, 199 So.2d 525 (Fla. 1967). If specially assessed property is or may be, enhanced in value by the improvement when made, it should be subject to assessment in proportion to the benefits it will likely receive from the completed improvement. The general enhancement in value of the locality, as a whole, may be taken into consideration in making an apportionment of the benefits to the individual properties. See Ocean Beach Hotel Co. v. Town of Atlantic Beach, 2 So. 2d 879 (Fla 1941), and cases cited therein. The power to determine whether or not the property assessed to pay costs of local improvements is benefited by such improvement is legislative, not judicial. Id. However, U GUS REIS vs. CITY OF CLERNONT, ET AL PAGE 9 such determination is subject to review by a court with competent jurisdiction and said court may sustain, abate or reduce, said legislative assessment. See §184.05 (9) F.S. 1969. Property owners may lose their right to petition the court for relief against a special assessment, by failing to properly or timely assert the same in a court having jurisdiction, or by estoppel or waiver. See: City of Treasure Island v. Strong, 215 So.2d 473 (Fla. 1968); Klein v. City of New Smyrna Beach, 152 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 1963). Although it is generally true that it is not absolutely incumbent upon the assessing authority to make a formal determina- tion that each property ownership will be specially benefited by the improvement to be made, when there is no obvious relation- ship in terms of special benefits between the property sought to be assessed (grove property) and the nature of the improvement project (public sewer system), a specific determination of such benefits is necessary to sustain the assessment and the absence of such a determination may constitute a jurisdictional defect in the assessment proceedings. See' City of Treasure Island v. Strong, supra. Since no question was raised as to the above principle, the Defendants - City, under its legislative authority, possessed the power to allocate on a fair and reasonable basis, and to prorate the same, SUBJECT, however, to a timely showing by the Plaintiff owner that such assessment was erroneous and unfair for the reason that the assessment against his property was not supported by commensurate special benefits derived from the specific type improvement. The above right is endowed by the consitutional require- ment that an assessment in excess of the special benefits accuring to the property is a confiscation or taking of GUS REIS vs. CITY OF CLERMONT, ET AL PAGE 10 property without due process of law. Such right may be lost by waiver, estoppel or laches if not timely asserted. In the case before the Court, the Plaintiff, having failed to assert his rights as to the procedure followed but having asserted his rights by asking for a review of the assessment made in relationship to the benefits to be received, is, by the evidence submitted to this Court, entitled to relief only insofar as the assessment is in excess of the benefits receivable. This Court has found that said assessment is in excess of the benefits to be received in this particular case, and, z therefore, as to the excess, such amounts to the taking of = property without just compensation and is declared void, '. 0 as a matter of law. See Summerland v. City of Punta Gorda, 3 134 So. 611, (Fla. 1931) According to several cases in this jurisdiction, there arises a presumption in favor of the validity of assessments o by municipalities, and such can be overcome only by strong, direct, clear and positive proof submitted by or on behalf i of the complaining party. However, such presumption arises 4 only when the assessing authority makes specific findings as required by their charters and the Statutes of this State, and such is not properly and timely contested in a court of competent jurisdiction. No such presumption arose in this case. See Rosche v. City of Hollywood, 55 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 1952) where estoppel played an important part in the court's decision. In Meyer v. City of Oakland Park, 219 So. 2d 417 (Fla. i } 1969), the Court found that the resolution of the City of f. Oakland Park provided: t "* * * that upon completion of the project each El GUS REIS vs. CITY OF CL MONT, ET AL PAGE 11 assessment would be credited, prorata, for the difference betoreen the amount of the assessment confirmed and the actual cost of the project, but in no event should the final assessments execeU tie amounts of benc% is coniirm�Lreso uFion." (underscoring supp ie , The Supreme Court, in the above case, stated that there are many elements entering into the question of determining and pro rating benefits. It then listed them as follows: (1) Physical condition, (2) Nearness to or remoteness from residential and business districts, (3) Desirability for residential or commerical purposes, and (4) Any other conditions peculiar to the locality where the lands "improved" are located. This Court has found in this case, that, in considering the evidence submitted in relationship to the above listed elements - and others, the assessment made by the Defendant City did exceed the value of benefits to the property of the Plaintiff. This Court is impressed with the fine opinion in City of Tallahassee v. Baker, 53 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 1951) and the legislative pronouncements contained in chapters 170 and 184 F. S. 1969. It is the opinion of this Court that the assessment contested by Plaintiff is in excess of the benefits received and to the extent that such assessment is excessive; the same is void, as a matter of law. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The sewer assessment confirmed by Defendant - City of Clermont, against Plaintiff's property above described in this order, be and the same is hereby adjudged to be void to the extent of 40% of the assessment made by Defendants, GUS REIS vs. CITY OF CLERMONT, ET AL PAGE 12 the City of Clermont, is hereby ordered to make all necessary changes and corrections in its assessment lien records to show that the sewer lien which the Defendant - City of Clermont holds against the Plaintiff's said property (described above) be the sum of 60% of the sum heretofore assessed and levied against said property. 2. The Defendant City of Clermont, shall within 30 days from the date of this order, file with this court a statement certified by its clerk that the above adjustment has been made on the books of the Defendant - City of Clermont. 3. Plaintiff and Defendants shall bear their respective costs in this cause. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at Tavares, Lake County, Florida, this 20th day of,, May 1970. W. Troy Hall, Jr., CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I CERTIFY that copy hereof has been furnished to DAVID GLUCKMAN, ESQUIRE, of BORNSTEIN, PETREE & GLUCIGMAN, 125 South Court Avenue, Orlando, Florida, and RICHARD H. LANGLEY, ESQUIRE Post Office Box 188, Clermont, Florida 32711, by mail, this 20th day of May , 1970.