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

1913); State ex rel. Ellis v. Tampa Waterworks Co., 56 Fla. 858, 47 So. 358, 19 L.R.A.,N.S., 183 ( 1908). Any fair and reasonable doubt concerning existence of power encroaching upon liberty of citizens is resolved against municipality, especially where such power would infringe upon long recognized existing rights. Nash v. 2008 Thomson Reuters/ West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http: / Web2.westlaw.comlprint1printstream.aspx / ?rs—WLW8.09 &destination =atp &prat= HTMLE &f... 9/ 15/ 2008  Page 11 of 80 West's F.S. A. § 166. 021 Page 11 Vaughn, 133 Fla. 499, 182 So. 827 ( 1938). Municipal Corporations 0-," 7 589 5. Implied powers, powers generally Where particular powers are expressly conferred on a municipality, and there is also a general grant of power, such general grant by intendment includes all powers that are fairly within the terms of the grant and are essen- tial to purposes of municipality and not in conflict with particular powers expressly conferred. State ex rel. Meredith v. Borman, 138 Fla. 149, 189 So. 669 ( 1939); State ex rel. Johnson v. Goodgame, 91 Fla. 871, 108 So. 836 ( 1926); Liberis v. Harper, 89 Fla. 477, 104 So. 853 ( 1925). The general powers given a municipality are intended to confer other powers than those specifically enumerated, and general powers should be interpreted with reference to the purposes of the incorporation. State ex rel. Meredith v. Borman, 138 Fla. 149, 189 So. 669 ( 1939); Liberis v. Harper, 89 Fla. 477, 104 So. 853 ( 1925); State ex rel. Ellis v. Tampa Waterworks Co., 56 Fla. 858, 47 So. 358, 19 L.R.A.,N.S., 183 ( 1908); Porter v. Vinzant, 49 Fla. 213, 38 So. 607, 111 Am.St.Rep. 93 ( 1905). A municipal corporation can exercise only such powers as are granted to it in express terms, or those necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to the powers expressly granted, or those that are essential and indispsensable to accomplish the objects and purposes of the corporation. State ex rel. Meredith v. Borman, 138 Fla. 149, 189 So. 669 ( 1939); Haines City v. Certain Lands Upon Which Taxes and Special Assessments are Delinquent, 130 Fla. 379, 178 So. 143 ( 1938); Town of Bithlo v. Bank of Commerce, 92 Fla. 975, 110 So. 837 ( 1927); Wyeth v. Whitman, 72 Fla. 40, 72 So. 472 ( 1916); Ferguson v. McDonald, 66 Fla. 494, 63 So. 915 ( 1914); Malone v. Quincy, 66 Fla. 52, 62 So. 922, Ann.Cas. 1916D, 208 ( 1913); Scott v. Tampa, 62 Fla. 275, 55 So. 983, 42 L.R.A.,N.S., 908 ( 1911); Hardee v. Brown, 56 Fla. 377, 47 So. 834 ( 1909); State ex rel. Ellis v. Tampa Water- works Co., 56 Fla. 858, 47 So. 358, 19 L.R.A.,N.S., 183 ( 1908); State ex rel. Worley v. Lewis, 55 Fla. 570, 46 So. 630 ( 1908). Implied powers in conflict with express powers will not be granted to municipality. State ex rel. Greeson v. Roberts, 126 Fla. 114, 170 So. 457 ( 1936). Municipal Corporations C= 59 General charter powers were designed to confer necessary authority not expressly conferred. 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. When to accomplish a general municipal purpose authority and powers are specially conferred on a city, and it does not appear that only the powers expressly given are to be exercised, other authority and powers that are in- cident to or consistent with those expressly given, may be implied. Malone v. City of Quincy, 66 Fla. 52, 62 So. 922, Am.Ann.Cas. 191613, 208 ( 1913). 6. Limitations upon powers, powers generally Generally, only constitutional limitation on municipal power is that such power must be exercised for municipal purpose; therefore, municipalities are not dependent on legislature for further authorization, but legislative stat- utes may be relevant to determine limitations of authority. Thomas v. State, App. 5 Dist., 583 So.2d 336 ( 1991), approved 614 So. 2d 468. Municipal Corporations 57 Statutes could confer upon municipality any power not conflicting with constitutional provisions. City of Lake- 0 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 12 of 80 West's F.S. A. § 166.021 Page 12 land v. Amos, 106 Fla. 873, 143 So. 744 ( 1932). Municipal Corporations C= 56 Reasonable exercise of power by municipal government authorities is always required. Adolphus v. Baskin, 95 Fla. 603, 116 So. 225 ( 1928). Municipal Corporations C:= 61 Express and implied powers of municipality can be exercised only through appropriate officers or agents duly authorized. Town of Bithlo v. Bank of Commerce, 92 Fla. 975, 110 So. 837 ( 1926). Municipal Corporations 61 A statute could not authorize municipality to violate organic right of individual. Cawthon v. Town of De Funiak Springs, 88 Fla. 324, 102 So. 250 ( 1924). Municipal Corporations 0= 58 Wide latitude is allowed in exercise of municipal authority, so long as there is no abuse of authority or violation of organic or fundamental rights. State v. Ackerly, 69 Fla. 23, 67 So. 232 ( 1915). Municipal Corporations C= 57 State statutes that require multifamily dwellings that are at least 75 feet high and contain a public elevator to have at least one public elevator capable of operating on alternate power during a five -day period following a disaster do not preempt a city from adopting local legislation relating to vertical accessibility, so long as the loc- al enactment is not inconsistent with state statutes. Op.Atty.Gen., 2006 -43, October 18, 2006 ( 2006 WL 2989603). 7. Charter limitations, powers generally The charter provisions of the city of St. Petersburg, Florida, limiting the power of city officials had to be con- strued for the protection of the inhabitants of the city against the possibility that city officials would dissipate or engage in reckless expenditures of public moneys to the great harm of the taxpayer and inhabitants of the muni- cipality. Brownell v. City of St. Petersburg, S. D.Fla. 1941, 38 F.Supp. 1003, reversed 128 F.2d 721. Municipal Corporations 4D= 858 The general powers conferred by statutes on all municipalities of Florida supplemented existing charter powers possessed by City of Pensacola. State v. City of Pensacola, 40 So.2d 569 ( 1949). Municipal Corporations 4C= 57 When the people and the Legislature have promulgated a city charter and have in meticulous detail named and designated the powers and duties of each department, including those of the city manager, city commission may not deviate materially from the course charted for it without authority from the source from which its power was derived. Fuller v. Gardner, 138 Fla. 837, 190 So. 442 ( 1939). Municipal Corporations 65 Municipality's legislative authority had to be found within its legislative charter, and when latter required muni- cipality to pursue certain course regarding matters provided for thereby, municipal legislative authority could not proceed otherwise. Luers v. Kuykendall, 135 Fla. 644, 185 So. 448 ( 1938). Municipal Corporations C--P 60 Charter of a municipality generally defines the orbit in which it must move and execute every power and duty imposed on it. Abell v. Town of Boynton, 95 Fla. 984, 117 So. 507 ( 1928). S. Enlargement of powers, powers generally 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http: / web2.westlaw.comlprint1printstream.aspx / ?rs= WLW8.09 &destination= atp &prft=HTNCE& E.. 9/ 15/ 2008  Page 13 of 80 West's F.S. A. § 166.021 Page 13 Self -determination enlargement of corporate powers was unauthorized. Pursley v. City of Ft. Myers, 87 Fla. 428, 100 So. 366 ( 1924). 9. Municipal functions, powers generally Implicit in the power to provide municipal services is the power to construct, maintain, and operate the neces- sary facilities. City of Gainesville v. State, Dept. of Transp., App. 1 Dist., 778 So. 2d 519 ( 2001). Municipal Cor- porations 265 Municipality may exercise any governmental, corporate, or proprietary power for municipal purpose except when expressly prohibited by law, and municipality may legislate on any subject matter on which legislature may act, except those subjects specifically proscribed by Municipal Home Rule Powers Act. City of Boca Raton v. State, 595 So. 2d 25 ( 1992), modified 733 So. 2d 1012. Municipal Corporations C=P, 57; Municipal Corpora- tions e =-65 Municipal purpose" within meaning of this chapter and Const. Art. 8, § 2( b) giving cities broad powers to act for municipal purposes is not a restrictive term, but must be an activity related to conduct of municipal govern- ment, exercise of municipal function, or provision of municipal service. City of Ormond Beach v. County of Volusia, App. 5 Dist., 535 So. 2d 302 ( 1988). Municipal Corporations C= 57 All. functions of a municipal corporation, not governmental, are strictly municipal, and " municipal functions" are those granted for specific benefit and advantage of urban community embraced within corporate boundaries, and include all functions which specially and peculiarly promote comfort, convenience, safety, and happiness of cit- izens of the municipality, rather than welfare of the general public, and such " municipal functions" include proper care of streets and alleys, parks, and other public places, and erection and maintenance of public utilities and improvements generally. City of Lakeland v. State ex rel. Harris, 143 Fla. 761, 197 So. 470 ( 1940). Muni- cipal Corporations C;;P 725; Municipal Corporations C=; 733( 1); Municipal Corporations C;Z? 733( 2); Muni- cipal Corporations C;=, 734 Municipal functions are those granted for special benefit and advantage of citizens of municipality. Chardkoff Junk Co. v. City of Tampa, 102 Fla. 501, 135 So. 457 ( 1931). Municipal Corporations C=-::>725 Governmental functions are those conferred upon municipality as local agency of limited jurisdiction to be em-