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.