Fort Walton Beach Council agenda — 09-16-08 workshop agenda — reading text

Municipal Purpose, FL Jur. 2d Counties & Municipal Corporations § 67. Express and Implied Powers, FL Jur. 2d Counties & Municipal Corporations § 68. Generally; Appointment of Agents, FL Jur. 2d Counties & Municipal Corporations § 74. Regulating Matters Regulated by State Statute, FL Jur. 2d Counties & Municipal Corporations § 181. Presumption of Validity, FL Jur. 2d Counties & Municipal Corporations § 187. Extent and Limits, FL Jur. 2d Counties & Municipal Corporations § 197. Power of Municipality to Contract, FL Jur. 2d Counties & Municipal Corporations § 205. Generally; Ultra Vires Contracts, FL Jur. 2d Counties & Municipal Corporations § 215. Acquisition by Municipality, FL Jur. 2d Counties & Municipal Corporations § 226. Acquisition by Lease, FL Jur. 2d Counties & Municipal Corporations § 229. Lease by Municipality of Municipally Owned Property, FL Jur. 2d Counties & Municipal Corporations § 238. Municipally Provided Utilities and Services, FL Jur. 2d Counties & Municipal Corporations § 246. Parking Facilities, FL Jur. 2d Eminent Domain § 41. Municipally Owned or Operated Utilities, FL Jur. 2d Energy § 47. Home Rule Power of Counties and Municipalities to Grant Franchises, FL Jur. 2d Franchises from Government § 4. Authority to Improve City Streets, FL Jur. 2d Highways, Streets, & Bridges § 91. Limitations on Authority, FL Jur. 2d Highways, Streets, & Bridges § 94. City Streets, FL Jur. 2d Highways, Streets, & Bridges § 106. Right to Use of Public Roads in Counties, FL Jur. 2d Highways, Streets, & Bridges § 162. Invalidation of County Tax Levy by Municipality, FL Jur. 2d Highways, Streets, & Bridges § 17 L Municipal Regulation, FL Jur. 2d Public Transit § 7. Power to Grant, FL Jur. 2d Public Transit § 96. Forms 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. westlaw. com1printlprintstream.aspx ?rs =WLW 8. 09 & destination= atp & prft=HTMLE &f... 9/ 15/ 2008 http: / web2. /  Page 8 of 80 Page 8 West's F.S. A. § 166.021 2 La Coe' s Forms for Pleading Under Fla. Rules of Civ. Pro. R 1. 610( 121. 2), Form for Complaint for Nuisance Injunction by Town to Prevent Owner from Having More Than Two Dogs as Required by Ordinance. Treatises and Practice Aids 8 Florida Practice Series § 5. 01, Bids. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT Denial of use of municipal facilities without procedural safeguards, see Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Con- rad, 1975, 95 S. Ct. 1239, 420 U.S. 546, 43 L.Ed.2d 448. Alco Municipal property tax as not constituting uncompensated taking of property, see City of Pittsburgh v. Parking Corp., U.S. Pa. 1974, 94 S. Ct. 2291, 417 U.S. 369, 41 L.Ed.2d 132. Prohibiting of real estate " For Sale" signs by ordinance, see Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro Tp., U.S. N.J. 1977, 97 S. Ct. 1614, 431 U.S. 85, 52 L.Ed.2d 155. Rezoning to allow multi -family classification to permit racially integrated low and moderate97income housing, S. Ct. 555, 429 see Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., U.S. I11. 1977, U.S. 252, 50 L.Ed.2d 450, on remand 558 F.2d 1283. NOTES OF DECISIONS I. POWERS GENERALLY 1 - 50 II. HOME RULE 51 -90 III. ORDINANCES GENERALLY 91 -130 IV. ELECTIONS 131 -160 V. OFFICERS 161 -190 VI. EMPLOYEES 191 -220 VII. REAL PROPERTY 221 -250 VIII. CONTRACTS 251 -290 IX. FRANCHISES 291 -330 X. POLICE POWER 331 -410 XI. USE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY 411 -450 XII. ZONING 451 -480 I. POWERS GENERALLY Subdivision Index> Change in form of government 12 Change of name 15 Charter changes 20 Charter limitations 7 Construction of powers 3 Delegation of powers 13 Discretion 2 2008 Thomson Reuters/ West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. print /printstream.aspx ?rs =WLW 8. 09 & destination= atp & prft=HTMLE &f... 9/ 15/ 2008 http: / web2.westlaw.com/ /  Page 9 of 80 West's F.S. A. § 166.021 Page 9 Doubts 4 Emergency powers 18 Enlargement of powers 8 Gambling 17 Implied powers 5 Interstate commerce 11 Limitations upon powers 6 Meetings 23 Municipal functions 9 Necessity of referendum 22 Prior charters 14 Proprietary activities 10 Review of exercise of powers 19 Settlement of claims 16 Sue or be sued 21 Validity 1 1. Validity, powers generally This section, which provides that municipalities shall have governmental, corporate, and proprietary powers to enable them to conduct municipal government, perform municipal functions, and render municipal services and which enables them to exercise any power for municipal services except where expressly prohibited by law, is not unconstitutional even as it relates to rent control. City of Miami Beach v. Forte Towers, Inc., 305 So-2d 764 1974). Landlord And Tenant C= 200. 11 2. Discretion, powers generally Unless expressly or impliedly restrained by statute, a municipal corporation has a discretion in the choice of means and methods for exercising the powers given it for governmental or public purposes. State v. Tampa Wa- terworks Co., 56 Fla. 858, 47 So. 358 ( 1908). Municipal Corporations O= 61 3. Construction of powers, powers generally General powers conferred upon municipal corporations should be construed with reference to the purposes of the incorporation; Liberis v. Harper, 89 Fla. 477, 104 So. 853 ( 1925); Porter v. Vinzant, 49 Fla. 213, 38 So. 607, 111 Am.St.Rep. 93 ( 1905). Both Florida Constitution and Municipal Home Rule Powers Act permit Florida municipalities to do anything that fulfills municipal purpose that is not prohibited by United States or Florida Constitutions, general or special law, or county charter. Everett v. City of Tallahassee, N.D.Fla. 1992, 840 F.Supp. 1528. Municipal Corporations 57 Municipality may exercise any governmental power for municipal purpose except when expressly prohibited by law and municipality may legislate on any subject matter on which legislature may act, except subjects specified by statute. City of Tampa for Use and Benefit of City of Tampa Code Enforcement Bd. v. Braxton, App. 2 Dist., 616 So. 2d 554 ( 1993). Municipal Corporations C=;, 57; Municipal Corporations 65 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http: / Web2.westlaw.comlprint1printstream.aspx / ?rs= WLW8.09 &destination= atp & prft=HTMLE &f... 9/ 15/ 2008  Page 10 of 80 West's F.S. A. § 1666.021 Page 10 Municipalities are not dependent upon legislature for further authorization to exercise any power for municipal purposes, and legislative statutes are relevant only to determine limitations of authority. City of Ocala v. Nye, 608 So.2d 15 ( 1992). Eminent Domain C= 9 Only constitutional limitation placed on municipalities' authority is that such powers be exercised for valid municipal purposes." City of Ocala v. Nye, 608 Sold 15 ( 1992). Eminent Domain C= 9 Local governments may exercise only those powers granted in express words, those necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to powers expressly granted, or those essential to declared objects and purposes of municipal cor- poration. Barry v. Garcia, App. 3 Dist., 573 So. 2d 932 ( 1991), review denied 583 So.2d 1034. Municipal Cor- porations C;;;, 57; Municipal Corporations 4D;;; o 59 Delegations of corporate powers to municipalities and particularly grants of power out of usual range, resulting in public burden or touching right to liberty or property of citizen's common -law right, must be strictly con- strued, and any fair or reasonable doubt should be resolved against exercise of such powers. City of St. Peters- burg v. Florida Coastal Theatres, 43 So. 2d 525 ( 1949). Municipal Corporations C= 58 Rule that expression of one thing excludes another is generally inapplicable to governmental powers. Southern Utilities Co. v. City of Palatka, 86 Fla. 583, 99 So. 236 ( 1923), certiorari granted 44 S. Ct. 454, 264 U.S. 580, 68 L.Ed. 859, affirmed 45 S. Ct. 488, 268 U.S. 232, 69 L.Ed. 930. While grants to municipalities, resulting in public burdens, are to be strictly construed, the construction must nevertheless be sensible and based upon the entire context. Lachman v. Walker, 52 Fla. 297, 42 So. 461 ( 1906). Municipal Corporations , 58 Delegated corporate powers to municipalities, particularly grants of power that are out of the usual range and that may result in public burdens, or which, in their exercise touch the right to liberty or property, or any com- mon law right of the citizen, must be strictly construed. Ex pane Simms, 40 Fla. 432, 25 So. 280 ( 1898). 4. Doubts, powers generally If reasonable doubt exists as to a particular power of a municipality, it should be resolved against the city, but, where the particular power is clearly conferred or is fairly included in or inferable from other powers expressly conferred, and is consistent with purposes of municipality and powers expressly conferred, the exercise of the power should be resolved in favor of the city as to enable it to perform its proper functions of government. State ex rel. Meredith v. Borman, 138 Fla. 149, 189 So. 669 ( 1939); Liberis v. Hai-per, 89 Fla. 477, 104 So. 853 ( 1925). If a reasonable doubt exists as to a particular power of a municipality, it should be resolved against the city. State ex rel. Cole v. Keller, 129 Fla. 276, 176 So. 176 ( 1937); State ex rel. Greeson v. Roberts, 126 Fla. 114, 170 So. 457 ( 1936); Williams v. Town of Dunnellon, 125 Fla. 114, 169 So. 631 ( 1936); State ex rel. Triay v. Burr, 79 Fla. 290, 84 So. 61 ( 1920); Ex pane Davidson, 76 Fla. 272, 79 So. 727 ( 1918); Malone v. Quincy, 66 Fla. 52, 62 So. 922, Ann.Cas. 1916D, 208 (