Quantcast

Appellate court says charter schools aren't entitled to 2018 referendum ad valorem taxes

FLORIDA RECORD

Sunday, December 22, 2024

Appellate court says charter schools aren't entitled to 2018 referendum ad valorem taxes

State Court
Schools

WEST PALM BEACH — The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled that charter schools are not entitled to ad valorem taxes that were collected pursuant to a 2018 referendum in Palm Beach County.

The appellate court affirmed the final judgment that was entered by the circuit court, according to the April 22 decision. Judge Robert M. Gross authored the decision. Judge Melanie May concurred while Judge Jonathan Gerber dissented.

The case involved the 2018 referendum placed on the ballot asking the county's voters to approve a levy involving ad valorem taxes for operational needs for non-charter schools in the district. The taxes were to be used to buy school safety equipment, add funds for program teachers and increase the teachers' pay.

The Academy for Positive Learning, the Palm Beach Maritime Museum and Pedro Olivo filed the underlying lawsuit against the School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida and G-Star School of the Arts Inc. on Jan. 10, 2019, alleging that the school board should share the ad valorem revenues with charter schools.

The court agreed with the school board that the referendum was not a violation of Florida law and entered final judgment in favor of the school board. The charter schools then appealed.

The appellate court rejected the charter schools' argument.

In his dissent, Gerber wrote that excluding charter schools violated a requirement that stated that students who were enrolled in charter schools should be funded as if they were in either a basic program or special program just as students enrolled in public schools.

"I would reverse the circuit court’s final judgment, and remand for the circuit court to enter a new final judgment finding the 2018 Referendum was illegal and therefore void," Gerber wrote.

Gerber wrote that the court should have interpreted the 2018 version of the law as it was written prior to an amendment included in 2019.

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News