R92-159RESOLUTION NO. ~ 92-/~-~
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, IN
SUPPORT OF THE POSITION ASSUMED BY THE
TOWN ATTORNEY OF THE TOWN OF JUPITER,
FLORIDA, IN HIS MEMORANDUM OF 8/3/92
REGARDING ESTABLISHMENT OF A LIMIT TO
THE AMOUNT THAT THE TOWN BUDGET CAN BE
RAISED FROM ONE FISCAL YEAR TO THE NEXT.
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Boynton
~each, Florida hereby supports the position of the Town
Attorney of the Town of Jupiter in his Memorandum of 8/3/92
regarding establishment of a limit to the amount that the
To~n budget ~n be raised from one fiscal year to the next.
BE ITRESOLVED ~Y THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY , FLORIDA, THAT.
Section 1. The City Commission of the City of
Boynton Beach, Florida does support the position assumed by
th~ Town Att0~ney of the Town of Jupiter in his Memorandum
of 8/3/92 regardinq establishment of a limit to the amount
that the budget ca~ be raised from one fiscal year to the
next.
Section 2o The City Clerk is hereby directed to
send a copy of this Resolution to the Town Clerk of the Town
of Jupiter for distribution to all of the elected officials
of the Town of Jupiter.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this
/C~ day of September, 1992.
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
M/ayor
Commissioner
ATTEST:
Cit~ Clerk'
Commissio
(Corporate Seal)
T/Jupiter. Bud
9/10/92
IX.
LEGAL
C.2
AGENDA MEMORANDUM NO. 92-201
September 15, 1992
Proposed Resolution No. R92-.z~E: In support of the position
assumed by the Town Attorney~;h his memorandum of August 3, 1992
regarding establishing a li~)~ to amount that bud et can be
~aised from one fisca:l year~t~ another g
At the last regular City Con~nission meeting of September 2, 1992
Commissi~nerAgui.l~a distributedLcop~es of a proposed Ordinance {and
opinion); an~oRdd~ance authorized bY MichelleAlexander, Citizens for
Responsible Government {CRG}, that would in effect limit the amount a
town/city could raise.its budget in any~particular year to the increase of
the consumer prior index, as published in the Wall Street Journal. The CRG
had plans to p~ace this proposed-ordina, nce on a referendum in the Town of
Jupiter. The Town Attorney of Jupiter, as understood; was of the opinion
that this proposal was ~~ and believed that it would be defi-
cated in court.
support from ~he other~ Cities in
either in ~:a resolubion~or a'lebten~ It was
the concensus of the City Conmission to,have the Cit~Atto. rneyd~aft a
resolution in support of the' Town of Jupiter's efforts.
J~.xScott Miller
~ity Manager
JSM:cd
RESOL ION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, IN
SUPPORT OF THE POSITION ASSUMED BY THE
TOWN JUPITER,
OF~/3/92
BE
NEXT.
Section 2. The City Clerk
'coPY of this Resolution to the Town
Jupiter for distributi°n to ail
the Town of Jupiter.
, of Boynton
he Town
8~3/92
the
next.
of
the
OF THE
directed to
Town
officials
PASSED AND ADOPTED this
day of September, 1992.
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
Mayor
Vice Mayor
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Corporate Seal)
!/Jupiter. Bud
9/10/92
ORDINANCE NO.
An ordina.nce of the Town of Jupiter, Florida,
establishing a limit to the amount that the
Town Budget can be raised from one fiscal y~ar
to the next. Providing that any increase in the
total budget of the Town shall b~. limite~l, tn the
increa~ of the consumer j~rice index as
~ubii~hed in the Wall Street loun~ for the
flvelv¢ months precedint the adoption of sa/d
bud~t; unless ,~d ~)udge! is approvod --by
re-t~Yendum by~jorlty of the general
electorate of the Town of Jupiter.
WHEREA~, the cinzans of the Town of Jupiter deem it necessary and advi.~bl¢ to
adopt a limit to the spending 0i tho taxpayer, s money w~thout their consent,
WHEREAS, the citizens of the Town of Jupiter, deem it necessary and advisable to
adopt this ordinance in order to ensure t'[sc'al respons~ity/a¢countabillty;
NOW THEREFORE, be it ordained by the
citizens and Town Council of the Town of
Jupiter, F~orida.
Section 1. The bud. get of: the town of Jupiter shall not be increased more the= thc
amount of increase demonstrated by the constimer price index for the twelve (12) months
i' prior to the adopdoh date of {he annual budget of the Town; except as provided for
~'~1 herein.
Section The Council of the Town of Jupiter may adopt a budget with an
Town
~ mcr~a.se in excess of the ~onsumer price index, after said pro~sed budget has been
~ approved by referendum by.the majority of the general electorate of the Town of Jupiter.
! Section 3. For the~purpose of the ordinance the consumer price index shall be as
!e,stabl[shed by the federal Hon~ Loan Bank Board and published in the Wall Street
i Journal.
Sectio, n 4. Modification to rigs ordinanc~ must be approved by referendum vote of the
general electorate of the Town of Jupiter.
Section 5. Any ordinance of the Town of Jupiter in conflict with this ordinance is hereby
appealed.
Section 6. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
Michele Alexander
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
The Honorable Mayor and Town Council,
and Lee R. Ewett, Town Manager
Thomas J..ai . Town atto=ney//J / f
CFRG Proposed ordinance
August 3, 1992
I have reviewed the -~ ord~?a'nCe~ ~prop~e~?by'..the so-called
citizens for Responsible adopted, the
proposed ordinance
budget can be increas
the Consumer Price Index (C~X).
Darther,
the Town
based upon
ordinance
provides that any budget adOPted byt~e Town' ~neXcess of the CPI
of the ma3orxty~o voters in the
must be approved by a referendum '~ '- f
Town of Jupiter.
I have concluded that this proposed ordinance is fatally
flawed and is unconstitutional whether it be.adopted by the Town
council or by referendum vote. If challenged the ordinance would
be held by a court to be unconstitutional and contrary to genera]
law. The basis for my opinion is set forth below.
Cases involving attempts to impose millage capsvia ordinance
and referenda upon local governments have been litigated and are
analogous to CFRG'S proposed ordinance to limit budget increases.
These millage cap proposals have been uniformly held by the courts
to be unconstitutional. For example, in Board of County
Commissioners of Marion Countv v. McKeever, 438 So.2d 299 (Fla. 5th
DCA 1983), the Court held that Marion County could not by
referendum obtain the approval of vo~ere to place a cap
ordinance) on the millage rate for the County,s Transportation
Trust Fund. In holding the proposed ordinance unconstitutional,
the court citedseveral statutory provisions, including Fla. Stats.
SS129.03(3), 200.065(2), (d), 200.011, 339.083(1), 336.59, which,
in the court's opinion, contemplate the annual preparation and
adoption of a budget and the fixing of millage rates. The Court
determined that a millage cap Would bind future commissions and was
therefore unconstitutional:
The county commission is required to ~
'.determine the amount to be raised for all
county purposes'...To conclude otherwise would
allow one county commission to conceivably'
bind future commissions in the exercise of
their prerogative under the state constitution
to levy a millage of up to ten mills for all
county purposes. Art. VII. SP(b), Fla. Const.
~, 436 So.2d at 302.
Similarly, CFRG's proposed ordinance would bind future Town
Councils from adopting an annual budget which meets the needs of
the Town's citizens. Although the McKeever opinion dealt with a
County, similar statutory provisions apply to municipalities. See
e.q. Fla. Stats. SS200.001 and 200.065.
The Court also held invalid a provision in the Marion County
ordinance, which (like CFRG's proposed ordinance) required voter
where a millage increase in excess of the cap was
approval
proposed:
In order for a future commission to levy a
millage...in excess of the cap, it would have
to ask the voters... Should the voters reject
such a request, the commission not only would
find its prerogative under the state
2
constitution curtailed but it~ could face
serious problems in financing necessary road
improvements 'and maintenance. 'We thi~ that
the principle set out in .'_3 - -- _, 293
SO.2~ 689 (Fla. i974), t~the effect that'one
A budggt~ap-per c~.~ ~oposed ordinance would also be held--
invalid b~9~e~it ~9n~t~s ~hge99ral law. see ~__
~, 38:6 So.2d 556 (~la. 19:80). ,ID Dade,Countv ~. Wilson, the
ordinance which
established 'a millage ~ ative petition
$~2~0~91 (renumbered as
200.065. LikeWise; CFR~.'S'prop~ed ordinance would
place a limztation upon the, Tow~ c~unci11 s!~ermination of an
appropriate budget and millage rate through the initiative petition
process.
The Supreme court's ruling in Dade County v. Wilson, supra, is
easy to understand when on~ examines the practical difficulties
presented by a budget cap. The proposed ordinance limits the Town --
Council's discretion with respect to establishing the level of
funding necessary to meet the needs of its citizens. Thus, if the
Town's population continues to grow rapidly (a reasonable
assumption given its growth during the last decade), the number of
residents requiring Town services and capital facilities will
substantially increase. However, pursuant to CFRG's proposed
ordinance the revenues available to meet the increased demands of
growth from one fiscal year to the next is restricted, such
3
irresponsible
legislation
could result in severe
reductions in
capital
maintain
services, including police services and shortfalls in
expenditures such as those necessary to provide for and
parks and recreation facilities.
It must also be recognized that the fact that CFRG's proposed
ordinance might be approved by the voters in a referendum does not
cure its constitutional flaws. In fact, the referendum aspects of
the ordinance actually make the proposed ordinance even more
See Marion Countv.~. McKeever, 436 So.2d at 303,
unconstitutional.
fn. 5.
Accordingly,
withstand judicial
CFRG's proposed ordinance cannot possibly
scrutiny due to its blatant and undeniable
conflict with the Florida Constitution, general law, and opinions
of the Florida Supreme Court. Because the proposed ordinance is
unconstitutional and contrary to Florida law, I cannot certify this
ordinance as legally sufficient. My certification of the proposed
ordinance would also, in my opinion, run contrary to my
responsibilities as Town Attorney. Pursuant to Fla. Sta~.
S166.041[a) ordinances, by definition, shall be "enforceable as a
local law." Given the proposed ordinance's legal infirmities it
could not be enforced. Consequently, I would be remiss were I to
advise you to adopt an ordinance that cannot be enforced.
Pursuant ~o Article X, S3 of the Town Charter the Town Council
may adopt the proposed ordinance within 20 days after the Town
Clerk's certificate of sufficiency (as to the n,~m~r of signatures
necessary and not as to the proposed ordinances legal sufficiency).
4
Given the proposed
recommendation that
proposed by
ordinance is
ordinance'e unconstitutionality it is my
the Town Council not adopt the ordinance
CFRG. The Charter provides that if the proposed'
"not passed...by~ the ¢oun~-...,_as~°rOVided,~ in the
then such proposed ordinance,...shall be
council to electoral vote at ~he next ~general
municipal election." (emphasis'?supplied). It is crucial to note
...... - ........ ~ ~ $~--~ter to "the pracedin~ Section
the reference in ~ect~on 3!O£-un~ ~n~.-~ .... . , ~_~ · ~
The~ignifica~ce o~,Se.9~gn 2,is that~it governs the
disposition of ~he proposed ordinance if ~he Town council elects
not to pass it. SPecifical,l¥, %2 mandatestWO conditions, both of
which must occur if the proposedordinance is to be submitted by
the Town Council to a vote of the people. First, the required
number of qualified electors must have affixed their signatures to
the petition which accompanies the proposedordinance' Second, the
petition must contain "a request that the proposed ordinance be
submitted to a vote of the people, if not passed by the council."
Se~ Town of Juoiter. Florida, Article X ~2 (read in pari materia or
together with Article X ~3). This second requirement is quite'
clear since the word "and" is a conjunction wb£ch requires both the~_
first and second phrase of the first sentence in Article X, ~2 to
be me~. Therefore, based upon the foregoing analysis, it is my
opinion that if the Town council chooses not to pass CFRG~s
proposed ordinance the Town Council is not compelled to submit the
proposed ordinance to electoral vote at the nex~general municipal
election. This is so because the petitions which accompany the
proposed ordinance do not contain a.requeet that ~ha said proposed
ordinance be submitted to a vote of the people, if not passed by
the council. See, Charter of the Town of Juoiter. Florida, Article
X, SS2 and 3.
Finally, in the event the Town Council should choose not to
adopt the~proposed ordinance and should the petitioners disagree
with your decision I recommend that a legal opinion from the
Attorney General be sought. By doing so the petitioners will have
the benefit of a second opinion as to.the constitutionality of the
proposed ordinance and the construction of Sections 2 and 3 of
Article~X of the Town Charter which I believe to clearly require
the petitions to contain a request that the proposed ordinance be
submitted to a vote in order to compel the Town to place the
Proposed o~dinance before its voters.
6
What's not in a
hat can J
might consider moving, to
· Briny Breezes or Hypoluxo the drily
tO
cap J'up~ter:s budget is
~'led ,by,aa-anS~y wguld-
growth reqmres
state aid
e'ollections
msn't
· built a
the
lose money its
trion, the
isn't motivated by
angry
Ful-
Wa-
the
live ~n
such
of ~he
next
~2 for
r value. Jupi-
the
p it from