School Board asks Circuit Court to order that Moran cease retention of the money and return funds to the district
On April 24, the Sarasota School Board and two individuals — Brian Joseph Dunn and Lori Verier — filed what formally is titled a Verified Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief, and Alternatively, for Writ of Mandamus against Tax Collector Mike Moran “in his official capacity,” in the 12th Judicial Circuit Court.
They contend that Moran violated public trust by having his office take a commission for collecting the revenue derived from a special 1-mill Sarasota County School District tax that voters have approved by margins of more than 80% during the past two referenda.
One mill represents $1,000 of the value of a property.
The first vote of approval of the tax came in 2002, the complaint notes, “and the referendum has been approved at each election, in which it was presented, since such time.”
An exhibit filed with the complaint — from a letter that Moran sent in July 2025 to Sarasota County Schools Superintendent Terry Connor and County Administrator Jonathan Lewis — shows that the School Board revenue collected in 2024 totaled $103,962,920. The 2% commission on that amount added up to $2,079,258.
The complaint adds, During the November 12, 2025 distribution the Tax Collector retained $260,515.08 for the purposes of his ‘commission.’ ” “Thereafter,” it continues, “just four (4) days later, during the November 19, 2025 distribution, the Tax Collector retained an additional $420,234.05 as his ‘commission.’ ”
“To date, up to and through March 12, 2026,” the complaint says, “the Tax Collector has diverted $2,055,798.65 in funds intended for the School Board as his own personal commission.”
It provides exhibits to support those statements.
The complaint further points out, “[D]ue to the Tax Collector’s unauthorized taking of millage funds, the School Board has already had to limit employee health care benefits, roll back educational programs, and implement staff reductions — including teachers.”
It also contends, “The Tax Collector’s proposed diversion of these trust funds to inflate his own budget by more than one-third violates the fundamental trust fund principle that protects the taxpayers of Sarasota County.”
The complaint argues, “The Tax Collector should not now be permitted to inflate his budget by more than one-third on the backs of the Sarasota County electorate and Sarasota County schools, especially where he as a County Commissioner had himself ratified the previous practice.”
It further stresses that, for about 23 years, “[T]he School Board has not paid any commission to the Tax Collector on the voter-approved millage.”
During the November 2024 General Election, Moran — a former two-term Sarasota County commissioner — defeated Barbara Ford-Coates, who had served as the county’s tax collector since 1984.
The complaint asks that the court “order that (1) Tax Collector is obligated to comply with Florida Statutes section 192.091(4) disbursement and auditing procedures; (2) the Tax Collector must cease his retention of such monies and revert all unlawfully retained monies; and (3) such other relief the Court deems just and proper.”
Florida Statute 192.091 governs the commissions paid to property appraisers and tax collectors. The following is the relevant portion of that law, in the context of the School Board complaint:
Attorney Daniel J. DeLeo, with the Sarasota firm Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, is representing the School Board.
As the Legal Information Institute of the Cornell Law School explains, a writ of mandamus is an order from a court directing a government official “to properly fulfill their official duties or correct an abuse of discretion.” Quoting the U.S. Department of Justice, the Institute adds, “ ‘Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, which should only be used in exceptional circumstances of peculiar emergency or public importance.’ “
In the complaint, DeLeo described both plaintiffs Dunn and Verier as residents, voters and taxpayers of Sarasota County who own real property in the county and pay ad valorem taxes, “including the voter-approved school millages.”
Typically, The Sarasota News Leader has observed, the defendant in a civil case has 20 to 30 days to provide a response. The 12th Judicial Circuit Court docket shows that Moran was served with the School Board complaint on April 28. A member of his staff told the process server that she was authorized to accept service, the document notes.
State law and judicial precedent
The complaint points out, “Florida Statute 1011.73(1) gives citizens the ability to choose to tax themselves an additional voted millage or ad valorem tax for the exclusive use of schools in their own school district.
It notes of the referendum that was conducted on March 8, 2022, that “a county wide campaign [described] that the funds would be used exclusively for Sarasota County schools,” adding, “the Sarasota County electorate approved the voted millage by 84.19% in favor of the measure.”
The ballot language “presented to each voter” explained that the funds would be used “explicitly [for] School operational purposes, including recruiting and retaining quality teachers; implementing and preserving educational programs; providing textbooks, technology, and other resources; and sharing funds with charter schools proportionate to student enrollment as required by law,” the complaint says.
Since that 2022 referendum covered the period from July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2026, another referendum was held on Nov. 5, 2024, as the School Board shifted the timing of the referenda from spring to fall, the complaint adds. In November 2024, the measure passed with 84.06% of approval of the voters casting ballots on it, the complaint continues.
The ballot language for that referendum, the complaint points out, was as follows: “To retain and recruit quality teachers; provide workforce training; improve school safety and security; preserve the arts; upgrade technology and classroom resources; fund other education programs and school operational needs … and sharing funds with charter schools proportionate with student enrollment.”
The complaint also notes, “Both the 2022 [referendum] Resolution and the 2024 Resolution provided that but for the voted millage, the School Board, as well as local charter schools, would face revenue shortfalls and resulting significant budget cuts requiring the elimination of numerous academic programs and positions.”
Moreover, DeLeo writes in the complaint, “Under long-established Florida law, when an enforced contribution is exacted from the people by the power of taxation for a specific public purpose, the fund so raised is a trust fund in the hands of its legal custodians and may not be diverted to any other purpose.” He cited the 1932 Florida Supreme Court ruling in Oven V. Ausley.
He also cited a 1981 Florida Third District Court of Appeal ruling in City of Miami v. Gates, as well as a Florida Attorney General Opinion (1982-125) in making the following argument: Where taxes are explicitly voted and assessed for the benefit of a specific fund in accordance with the specific authorization of the legislature, those tax funds may be used for that precise purpose and for none other.”
Then, in pointing to the 23 years in which the School Board paid no commission to the Tax Collector’s Office, the complaint says, “The School Board, the electorate, and the individual taxpayers of Sarasota County have relied upon this longstanding practice in establishing annual budgets, in passing referendum measures, and in casting their votes with the reasonable expectation that 100% of voter-approved funds would be directed to the educational purposes for which they were voted.”
DeLeo continues, “Further, each voted millage election was preceded by a campaign in which the voters were specifically told on numerous occasions that every penny of the voted millage would go to specifically enumerated purposes to improve Sarasota County schools.
“Furthermore,” he writes, “this fact was supported by two decades of settled law and practice of every penny of the voted millage going to Sarasota County schools.”
DeLeo emphasizes, “Despite the Tax Collector’s justification of the commission by stating that he must maintain statutory compliance, the governing statute does not require the taking of any commission whatsoever and he does so at his sole discretion.”
Moreover, he writes, “This abrupt reversal of course threatens to divert trust funds that voters approved exclusively for classroom education, teacher compensation, school safety, and student programs.
“Such sudden and unjustified change in course comes after the Tax Collector, despite repeated calls for budget decreases throughout Sarasota County, actually increased his budget for the 2026 fiscal year by roughly 34%, or over two million dollars.”