09-05-89 Workshop
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA
WORKSHOP MEETING - CITY COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 5, 1989
7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
Commission Chambers
Please be advised that if a person decides to appeal any decision made
by the City Commission with respect to any matter considered at this
meeting or hearing, such persons will need a record of these
proceedings, and for this purpose such persons may need to ensure that
a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes
the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. The
City does not provide or prepare such record.
1. Funding authorization and levels for charitable organizations and
special events (City Commission).
2. Responsibilities and legal requirements for promoting the NovemBer
bond issue for staff and City Commission (Commissioner McCarty). '
3. Framing of Bond Referendum (City Attorney).
4. Alternatives for the
Commission).
City Manager selection process (City
5. Concerns that the Commission want addressed in contract
negotiations with Delray Golf Inc. (Commissioner Andrews).
6. Proposed interlocal agreement with Solid Waste Authority (City
Manager).
7. Permit parking in the City Parking lot north of the Holiday Inn
(City Manager).
8. Sales methods for City owned property (City Manager).
9. Proposed Enterprise Zone Boundary Changes (City Manager).
10. Duplexes on substandard lots (Commissioner McCarty).
.
[try DF DElRAY BEA[H
100 N.W. 1st AVENUE
OELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444
407/243.7000
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM: ~alcolm T. Bird, Interim City Manager
DATE: September 1, 1989
SUBJECT: September 5, 1989 - Workshop
Benevolent Associations Budget Requests
Attached is a
from various
received was
$ 128,890.
decision to
summary of requests for funding for fiscal year 1989-90
Benevolent Associations. The total amount of requests
$ 215,494. The total amount proposed for funding is
This information is provided to assist Commissioners'
determine what agencies are to be funded and at what levels.
Additional information and funding recommendations will be provided on
Tuesday at the Workshop.
MTB/rab/sfd
\
THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS
.
,
,
..
M E M 0 RAN DUM
To:
Honorable Mayor and Commission
~alcolm T. Bird, Interim City Manager
From:
Date:
August 31, 1989
Subject: Administrative Policy and Procedure -
Special Events
Purpose:
The purpose of this policy, pending approval by the
City Commission, is to formalize procedures for "Special
Event" contributions from City Funds.
A "Special Event" is defined as a specific activity or
event intended for a particular purpose, service or
occasion.
Procedures:
The presentation and consideration of requests for City
funding by Organizations/agencies will comply with the
following guidelines.
1. Organizations desiring contributions from the City of
Delray Beach are required to complete the City's Request for
Special Event Contribution application.
All applications shall be accompanied by a letter
outlining the intent of use and signed by the requesting
organization head or representative.
2. Those requesting organizations be organizations which
provide a benefit to the Citizens of Delray Beach.
3. Funding eligibility will be determined or denied by a
majority vote of the City Commissioners at their first Commission
meeting following acceptance of the request.
4. The total "Special Events" Budget appropriation should not
exceed $50,000 annually.
All requests will be considered individually and should meet
one or more of the criteria on the application in section 2
and 3.
1
.
SPECIAL EVENT CONTRIBUTION REQUEST
1. NAME OF ORGANIZATION/AGENCY
ADDRESS
CITY
PHONE
CONTACT PERSON'S NAME
POSITION WITH ORGANIZATION
REQUEST $
2. Does the organization meet the following criteria?
(a) Incorporated, private, and non-profit
(b) Tax Exempt status under IRS code 501 (c) (3)
(c) Not a private foundation
(d) Charitable contributions to organization are tax
deductible
(e) Annual Independent audit report
- (f) Annual Budget with Board approval
3. Does the organization address any of the following
priority needs?
Education
-
Cultural Enrichment
Entertainment
Community Service
=====Economic Development/Redevelopment
Recreation
4. Number of Delray Beach participants anticipated
5. For what or how will the requested funds be used?
Please explain.
6. From what other sources does your organization receive
funds or donations? Please explain.
I
.
7. What is the total budget for your event or activity?
Does this budget include reimbursements to the City for
other services provided,i.e. security, clean-up. If Yes,
please list services below:
Service Provided
Cost
City Commission
Date of Commission review:
Approved
Denied
.
Respectfully Submitted,
Malcolm T. Bird, Interim City Manager
/YK
1
..
(
M E M 0 RAN 0 U M
~
TO:
Robert A. Barclnsk.
Assistant City Manage~ / Community Services
"o~
RDLJf~r-t E. ~3d.....~i..""Cle
Acti.nn Di~'ector (3+ F~IJblic Wor~(s
DATE:
,Jul.\! 1..,. 19f39
:',UB.J EeT
~; .l,j .I~. It,rILRLOCi"L l"bf~U~t'1Ef'IT I'- em rlLlI~ I c: I I'-'I\L RE,C:YCL I t~G
I have eX31nined the draft of a proposed lnterlocal Aqreelnent
for Murlicj.pal Recvc:llnq from the Solid Waste Authorltv and flnd'
it to b(~ <:t. q(:.?n(.?~t-.ic aqrt-::?ement for an ",3.11 encDftlpa~:;sinqll curbslde\
r"ecyclinq Dr-oqranl. "The City already has- a contract with Waste,
Manaoement Inc. ttldt provides all of ttle ser"vices specified In
the proposal wi.th the 8).:ception o~ the disposal sectiorl. Trlis
interlocal dQreement proposal r-equlY-eS the City to relillQU1S!j
c)wney-shlp of all ecvc:lable fJlateri"al to the S.W.A. and to dlSOOSE
of said Inater-ials IJfllv at S.W.A. specified ],QCatlons.
It is my ullder"standina that Waste Manaelement Inc: is se~l--
ouslv conternolalinq ltle constructlorl and oper-atioll \Jf it 5 OWf)
MRF in PaInl Beac:tl (:(JUlltV~ an(j t~lat the OrOSEJect for s\Jbstafltlal
revenues from the sale of the ~ecYclable mater-ials may tJ8 forth--
COffilno. I WI:Jllld hesitate to eflter ir"lto any irlter"local aClreement
In ttle Ilear- fLltur-e \Jntil such tlole as inore irlformati(Jn fr-ofn Waste
Manaoemerlt 1rle:. tJecomes available.
In the eV811t that Waste Manaaelnerlt IrlC. does not COI'1strlJc1
elF operate a facility of their own. it may be an option for' us to
par-tlcloate in a S.W.A. oriqiflated pr-C)CJram. I feel that the City
has a very thoroughly conceived and well executed program initi-
ated and should continue under our current arranqement.
HE~;/ roes
l
.
CITY OF DELRAY BEA[H
'/
[-
1,r~
jUL , 3 'S89
100 N.W. 1st AVENUE
DELAAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444
407/243.7000
r'. '
MEMORANDUM
7 - (I'" C'1
i
I COM~'U',
TO: Bob Barcinski, Asst. City M~nager Community Services
I
'ROM, City Manag.r ~~
SUBJECT: INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR MUNICPAL RECYCLING
DATE:
July 10, 1989
Please review the attached draft of an interlocal agreement between the
City and the Solid Waste Authority. As I recall Tim Hunt indicated
that this was a generic agreement which may not have universal
application to the City. Please prepare a response for my signature.
WOB:cl
Encl
~
10 "'Bob s"...~;""
i4"le41 ~~..........,
~ '1'8.... e-... .......er
~ ~,JJ.~
THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS
,
I
.
f
.
.
.
i
I
J
,
i
J
I
,
!
.
i
I
.!k, ~
.g~&~
.;....,,'u;s Pot.....OAM8
HERBERT C.G'.SON
SIE"NA"O A.CON",O
I<ATHL.l!:EN ..J. r...OGO'NS
I-lE,6,THER McNAMARA RUOA
PRO"I:SSIONAL ASSOCIATION
F"LOR10A NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
303 F'IRST STREET, SUITE 400
WEST PALM BEACH, F'LORIC", 33402..e29
(0407) ess-seee
W. TERRY GIBSON UBQ8-IQeOJ
HERBERT T.GIBSON (11;04-1;188)
June 23, 1989
~.. L .
$ ',1
JUN 2 b 19l:!~
Mr. Walter Barry
City Manager
City of Delray Beach
100 N.W. First Avenue
Delray Beach, FL 33444
(;11 Y i"..',\, ."
. ,~ , !, .
,
Dear Mr. Barry:
EnClosed is a draft of a proposed Interlocal
Municipal Recycling for your review and comment,
with the direction of Tim Hunt. Please feel free
at any time to discuss.
Agreement for
in accordance
to contact me
enc.
Si~~~relY yours,? ~ ~
~~~~
BAC:dlr
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR MUNICIPAL RECYCLING
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this _____ day of
,
I
1989, by and between the SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY OF
PALM BEACH COVNTY, an independent special district created
pursuant to Chapter 75-473, Laws of Florida, as amended,
hereinafter called "Authority", and the ~ OF DELRAY BEACH, a
municipal corporation, chartered an~~~d in accordance with
the laws of the State of Fl~~ereinafter called "City", for
a municipal redycling pro~m and a~tivities in accordance with
~
Chapter 403, Part IV, Fla. Stat.
WIT N E SSE T H:
WHEREAS, the Authority has been empowered by law and through
,
interlocal agreement to carry out the powers, obligations and
requirements in Palm Beach County, Florida, prescribed to a
"county" pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 403, Part IV, Fla.
Stat.; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 403, Fla. Stat. makes the Authority
I
municipal inVOlvement; and
responsible for initiating recycling programs and insuring
WHEREAS, Chapter 403, Fla. Stat. encourages the Authority to
enter into interlocal agreements with municipalities to establish
recycling programs and carry out recycling activities; and
WHEREAS, City, desires to work in cooperation with the
Authority to establish a municipal reCYCling program toward
achievement of the State recycling goal and the requirements of
Chapter 403, Part IV, Fla. Stat.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual
covenants and promises hereinaft~~ained to be kept and
performed by the parties h~9and' for the mutual benefi t of
the City and the Autho~~it is agreed as fOllows:
1. Ci ty has entered i.ltO a contract for the COllection and
hauling of reCYClable materials (as defined in Chapter 403, Part
IV, Fla. Stat.) with a private collection and hauling company
(Contractor) authorized to make such COllections within the
City's jurisdiction.
2. The City shall record, cOllect and assemble all data
necessary for reporting on behalf of City in compliance with the
Authority's countywide recycling plan for Palm Beach County,
Florida, and other applicable state and local law.
3. City shall permit the Authority to conduct review of the
Ci ty' s recycling program to determine whether the Ci ty' s
recycling program is meeting the requirements of the Authority's
countywide recycling plan for Palm Beach County, Florida, and
other applicable state and local law.
4. City shall promptly provide to the Authority Copies of
any and all recycling ordinances passed or adopted by the qity
now or in the future.
5.
Curbside Service Area.
This provision applies only to
uni ts receiving curbside solid waste collection service. The
COllection hauler shall drive by and provide collection service
fourplex dwellings in the service area.
to City residents living in single-family and up to and inCluding
provided promotion materials will be distributed, informing the
residents as to when and how the materials will be recovered. No
residents will be deleted from a route list because of infrequent
Authority or City
participation, unless it is determined that the curbside
waste COllection service area.
recycling plan is not feasible in a particular curbside solid
6. Collection schedule shall have a frequency of once per
;
week per each residence and shall be made on the same day as 8
garbage/refuse collection.
7.
Point of COllection.
COllection shall be at curbside,
roadway.
or within six (6) feet of the paved surface of the public
8.
Data COllection.
The Contractor shall collect the
fOllowing data each day for each route and COllection crew:
A. Total number of households on each
route.
B. Number of households setting out any or
.
2
all materials.
C. COllection hours.
D. Route miles.
E. Date and general weather conditions.
This data shall be submitted in a monthly
report to the Authority by the 10th day of the
fOllowing month. Data sheets shall be
available from the Authority on request. All
data and program information shall be retained
for the periOd of the agreement. The
Authority has the right to request any
additional COllection or contract related
information from the City or Contractor as
may be required for the program.
9. COllection of Source-separated ReCYClable Material.
Individual reSidentS/homeowners shall separate their solid waste
into recyclables and non-recYClables as described hereafter.
Each household will receive a reusable container approved by the
Authority into which recyclable material will be deposited.
Initially recyclables shall mean green glass, brown glass, clear
glass, aluminum cans, plastic milk bottles, plastic beverage
containers, and household batteries which will all be deposited
into this one reusable container, and newspaper will be bagged
and placed on top or alongside of the reusable container. The
aforementioned materials shall be prepared for COllection in
accordance with prOCeSSing standards in paragraphs A through F
below:
,
A. Glass- rinsed whole bottles and jars, shall not inClude
Cooking ware, plate glass, safety glass, light bUlbs,
ceramics and nOn-glass materials. Caps, lids, and any
type of top must be removed from the bottles. Labels
may remain on the bottles, but bottles will be empty,
rinsed, dry and unbroken.
3
B. Aluminum- Aluminum cans (beverage) and containers (pet
food, tuna, etc.) shall be empty, rinsed and dry.
C. Plastic Beverage Containers_ Milk jug type containers
;
(HOPE), and soft drink bottles (PET), empty, rinsed and
dry, with tops, caps or lids removed, are included in
this. category. No other plastic bottles or containers
.
are permitted, but if markets develop in the future
other plastic items may be included upon direction by
.
the Authority.
O. News~apers_ Shall be dry and placed in brown (kraft)
paper bags. No additional magazine or any other types
of paper are permitted. Plastic bags may be used if
,
brown bags are not available.
E. Tin cans- Steel and tin-coated steel cans shall not be
inCluded.
F. Household Batteries~ Dry cell batteries only shall be
placed in the cOllection container.
.
(automobile, truck, boat, etc.) type batteries shall
Wet cell
not be inCluded.
I
10. Should the State of Florida (or the Department of
Environmental Regulation) determine any of the above items to be
non-recyclable pr determine new recyclable materials during the
term of this agreement, the Authority and the City will negotiate
,
a method for terminating or modifying this agreement, as
appropriate.
11.
for having Collected materials transported to the Authority'S
Transportation and Equipment.
The City is responsible
directed by the Authority for recYCling.
Material Recycling Facility (MRF) or any other site(s) as
delivered to the MRF containing an excess of lOt residue as
described in this agreement and/or material not listed as
recyclable material in paragraph (9) of this agreement shall be
disposed of by and at the expense of the Contractor/City in
accordance with state and local law, rules and regulations.
Any load of material
COllection/hauling equipment must be of a type to
4
,
provide for rear unloading and be compartmentalized.
12. Im
re ared rec clable materials. When the
.
.I~
Contractor'. crew encounters imprOperly prepared material or non-
recyclable items, they must follow this procedure:
A. The COllector shall pickup all recyclable materials
,
except those contaminated by food or other foreign
matter or those which cannot be conveniently retrieved
from' the
I
materials
reusable container.
ImprOperly sorted
to the reusable container.
reusable containers or temporarily removed and returned
or contaminated materials will be left in the
an Authority-approved form in the container.
The COllector shall leave
Will"notify the resident that material has not been
The form
properly sorted, and provide information on how to
information.
contact the City's recyCling coordinator for further
B. The COllector shall SUPply data from the reCords of
eight (8) of this agreement to the City or Authority as
visitation maintained in accordance with paragraph
requested.
It shall be the responsibility of the
Ci ty' s recycling coordinator to contact residents who
repeatedly place imprOperly sorted materials at the
curb Or encourage them to properly sort materials.
13.
Compliance with apPlicable law.
The transportation of
recyclable materials shall be undertaken in a suitable and
adequate manner for such activity, and shall Comply with all
local zoning ordinances and any other applicable local and state
statutes, ordinances and regUlations.
14. Materials flow plan. Criteria shall be established for
acceptance of loads deemed unsuitable for proCeSsing at the MRF.
When the Contractor enters the MRF with a load, it will be dumped
on the tipPing floor and sorted with the use of a front-end
loader.
If the load contains in excess of 10\ residue, (meaning
paper other than newspaper, dirty cans or bottles, or items not
5
I
~
I
these materials.
listed as recyclables by the Authority), the MRt will not accept
It will then be the responsibility of the
Contractor td dispose of such Contaminated recyclables in a
Suitable manner.
15.
Authority, Contractor and City shall participate in promotion and
education efforts as outlined below:
A. The City shall at least once a year distribute notice
of serVice availability to each targeted household
Promotion and Education Responsi bili ties.
The
during the first year and up to two notice
distributions in Subsequent years.
B. The Contractor shall distribute notices of imprOperly
,
prepared materials, of cOllection schedule changes, ,of
unacCeptable materials or any other pertinent
information to reSidents as required.
C. The Contractor shall require employees to deal
courteously with customers on the telephone and on-
proper material preparation.
route'to promote the cOllection service and eXplain
D. The Authority shall be available to participate in
promoting the cOllection serVice at area fairs,
neighborhoOd association programs, or other community
events~
E. The Authority shall be available to give advice to the
City on prOmotion and education material Content and
presentation.
F. The City shall be responSible for the development,
printing, and SUPPlying of prOmotion and education
materials.
expenditUres of grant funds it may receive in accordance with
16. City shall maintain accurate records of any
state grant gUidelines and shall make these records available to
the Authority and Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
as provided in Chapter 17-716.430, F.A.C.
17. The City agrees that it shall require that all
6
recyc1ab1es (as defined herein) separated from the normal waste
stream that are collected within the City shall be delivered to
the Authority's MRF or any other site(s) as directed by the
Authority for recYCling and shall become the property of the
Authority, and City will take such action as is necessary to
insure against and prevent sCavenging and unauthorized removal of
such recyc1abies wi thin the jurisdiction of the. Ci ty and such
.
other action as may be necessary i to aSSure the success of the
program.
18. City and Authority further agree to expand the scope of
residential,
recycling services to inClude such other areas as mUlti-family
commercial and governmental units at such timlt as
\ .
I
the parties agree it is appropriate or as required by law, 'and
the parties hereto agree to use :900d-faith effort to reach
agreeable terms to provide such additional services as required.
19. The term of this agreement shall begin on October 1,
1989, and continue through and inCluding September 30, 1994.
Thereafter, this Agreement shall be automatically renewed for
one-year terms unless either party gives the other party a'
written notice of intent to not renew at least ninety (90) days
before the date of next termination.
Notwithstanding
effect.
termination, any rights or duties imposed by law shall remain in
20. This agreement may be mOdified only by the mutual
written consent of both parties.
modifies any provision or application of this agreement, the
21. In the event of a change in law that abrogates or
parties hereto agree to enter into good faith negotiations and
use their best efforts to reach a mutually acceptable
modification of this agreement.
22. All formal notices effecting the provisions of this
agreement shall be delivered in person or be sent by registered
or certified mail to the individual deSignated below, until such
time as either party furnishes the other party written
7
,
instructions to contact another individual:
For Authority:
SOlid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County
5114 Okeechobee Blvd., Suite 2-C
West Palm Beach, FL 334517
Attention: Executive Director
.
For the City:
CitY'of Del ray Beach
100 N,W. First Avenue
Delray Beach, FL 33444
Attention: City Manager
23. If any ClaUse, section or provision of this agreement
shall
be
.
deClared
to be
unconsti tutional, 'invalid
or
by a change in law, the same shall be eliminated
unenforceable for any cause or reason, or is abrogated
or negated
,
from tHis
agreement, and ;the remaining portion of this agreement shall be
in full force and effect and be as valid as if Such invalid
~
portion thereof~had not been incorporated herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into
this Agreement effective as of the day and year first above
written.
WITNESSES:
As to the Authority:
SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY OF
PALM BEACH COUNTY
w
By:
Timothy F. Hunt, Jr.
Executive Director
Approved as to form and legal SUffiCiency:
By:
Authority Counsel
ATTEST:
As to the City:
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH
City Clerk
By:
Mayor
Approved as to fotm and legal SUffiCiency:
By:
City Attorney ,
8
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM: ~~Malcolm T. Bird, Interim City Manager
DATE: August 31, 1989
SUBJECT: September 5, 1989 - Workshop
Permit Parking - Parking Lot North of the Holiday Inn
Purpose
The purpose of this item is to discuss requests to allow permit parking
in the City parking lot north of the Holiday Inn.
Background
Permit parking is authorized by ordinance in the parking lots at
Sandoway and Anchor Parks. Resident Only permit parking is authorized
at Ingraham Park. Citizens with the appropriate permit can park at any
metered locations at Sandoway and Anchor. These permits are not just
restricted to residents only. There are no designated permit only
locations in these lots. They are all metered; the permit does not
require deposit into the meters.
Requests have been made to allow permit parking at the 24 metered
locations in the City lot north of the Holiday Inn. The City Attorney
has voiced some concern about authorizing this because he felt it might
jeopardize grant funds received for beach restoration. However, even if
permit parking were allowed, it would not preclude anyone without a
permit from utilizing the parking meters. We do not think that this
would jeopardize our funding, because we really are not changing any
parking mix or the availability of parking. Anyone can purchase the
parking permit. The lot would not be restricted to residents only.
Staff is recommending that we allow permit parking in this lot through a
change in the ordinance.
Another option that might be considered is to allow permit parking in
the north lot and to install 24 metered parking spaces in the Ingraham
lot. This would still leave 25 spaces at Ingraham for resident only
parking. The Ingraham lot is under-utilized.
Recommendation
Authorize permit parking in the north parking lot.
MTB/rab/sfd
7
.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM: ~Malcolm T. Bird, Interim City Manager
DATE: August 31, 1989
SUBJECT: September 5, 1989 - Workshop
Clarification - Sale Method - City Owned Property
Clarification is requested from City Commission for the policy
established for the sale method of City owned property.
It is staff understanding that the purchaser may work through a broker,
however, the City would not list with a particular broker. The sales
price will be set so that the net income to the City will be equal to
or exceed our purchase costs after payment of closing costs. The City
would not hire a real estate firm or broker to handle the sale of the
property, but, we could notify real estate firms of the availability of
the parcel and provide them will general listing information.
MTB/rab/sfd
l
.
~
'. .
MEMORANDUM
TO: MALCOLM BIRD, INTERIM CITY MANAGER
"
FROM: LULA BUTLER, DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENTc7~
SUBJECT: PROPOSED ENTERPRISE ZONE BOUNDARY CHANGE
DATE: SEPTEMBER 1, 1989
-----------------------------------------------------------------
We received correspondence from the Department of Community
Affairs providing the City with another opportunity to change the
boundary of our existing zone. The change may be an addition,
deletion or both. The Ci ty Commission may apply by adopting a
resolution and completing the required application.
Staff has considered this opportunity and is recommending two
specific areas be added to the boundary. The first area,
considered is the IBM complex. As you know, IBM has announced \
its intent to consolidate its operation to its main site in Boca
Raton. They will be vacating current leased facilities over the
next two years. The complex is composed of 45.8 acres of
commercial (SAD) property. Since we will be expecting to attract
businesses to fill the vacant space, the incentives offered under
the enterprise program may prove to be an asset. The second area
to be added is the vacant land south of Lake Ida Road, between
Roosevelt Avenue and 1-95, it is approximately 9.75 acres of
residentially zoned property. The effect would be an increase of
commercial percentage to 56% and a decrease of residential to
43%. The criteria for the Enterprise Zone requires that the area
be at least 40% residential and at least 40%
commercial/industrial, according to zoning classification.
Staff is working with the
Enterprise Zone incentives.
effort is attached for your
Chamber of Commerce to promote the
A copy of our brochure used in this
reference.
Recommendation
Staff is recommending that the Ci ty Commission direct staff to
expand the Enterprise Zone boundary to include the parcels as
identified and make a formal application to the Department of
Community Affairs by the September 15, 1989, deadline.
LB:kwg
Disk:Lula Butler
B:EZONE
cr
I
,
,
~
~ll
_....--.J
tll,*.'"
. n'
'i~-~!
"j ,
. i-__.-~
-Ii ..
"oj
-.:....;.,
'..~.:........!'
0 n t:J :>- :>- td n en t:J '>j H
,." ;J" 0 ..... 00 '" ~ " " rt 0
" a p.. 00 " 0" rt 0
n i5- '" 0 '" w. '" a
0 00 rt " .. ..... '"
~ '" rt 0 ..... 0 o"~ ~ 00 "
rt ..... " f-' '<: N 00 ,... 00 rt
'" " <: rt '" ~ "'~ .....
rt 0 ..... ..... " " I . 0
" ,." :>- " 0 rt '" '" "
(l) 00 rt " ..... 0 ,... td ~ >< :0<:
00 ..... OQ '" '" t:J '" (l) .. "
" a ;J"rt 0" rt ..... 00 " OQ 0 '""'
" 00 0"0 " (l) rt '" (l) " " "
'""' 0 .. p..", (l) I .. 00 " 0
rt rt ..... OQ " " '" 0 rt (l) '""'
..... p.. (l) rt rt 0 '""' a
" (l) rt (l) ..... (l) N ~
OQ .. " '" ..... H
" " 00 (l) td rt "
" 0 0 (l) " ,... "
td 00 ..... a " rt 0 p.. :>- '" " td
.." " 00 rt'O rt .. ,." OQ 00 00 ..... .....
,... p.. I ..... " rt ..... (l) 00 '" p.. rt
'-" OQ 00 (l) rt ..... " ~ rt 0 (l) p..
(l) '" 00 ..... 0" '" "
0 rt 00 " OQ '" .....
.." 0 0 rt p.. " (l) " td H
0 0 " ..... (l) 00 .0 rt " "
0 00 rt " ..... p.. rt
0 " " (l) 0 OQ (l)
,." 00 rt ,... 00 " (l) '1
'" 00 ..... 00 rt 00 rt .....
(l) '" 0" '0 00 a
.." .." .0 I (l) rt I t:J
,... N " '" " ..... ..... n
0 0 (l) 0 (l) 0 H '1 .....
00 .. " ;J" (l) rt
0 0 rt 0 ..... " '<:
0 0 '""' 0 '1 rt
0 0 (l) ,." p.. 0 :0<:
" '1 "
rt td td "
(l) " "
H " " p.. OQ
.." " 0 (l) OQ (l)
,... .." " " .. (l) '1
0 '-" rt rt 0 rt
(l) '1 '""'
0 0 " ..... (l) :<:
0 0 00 0" " 0
0 0 '" " rt '1
rt l><"
..... :>- 00
0 00 ;J"
" 00 0
00 0 '0 :0<:
00'0 Hen ~:o<: '>j n en S- "
(l) " 0 " .."" " 0 (l) a ..... '"
(l) '1 0 .po ..... " " '1 " " "
?i"rtS::"O " p.. rt .. " p.. rt :0<:
1-1-1-""1:1 ro Ort ..... '1 ..... " (l) .....
" " p.. O(l) " ..... " f-' 0 0
OQ ..... " 0 0" OQ 0" '" "
'0 rt ,." ~" " td 00 '"
,."" (l) " rt rt :>- "
..... rt en en" 0 ..... '1 p.. '1 :>-
rt (l) n (l) (l) (l) 0 (l) OQ (l)
a ;J" '1 " td " " (l) .0 Z
00 ..... ! .. "~(l) 00 rt "
" ..... '1.." (l) t:J
~ " ..... N c:: ,." t:J 00
(l) " (l) (l) rt_ rt '1 (l) .." rt c::
a '1 00 '<: '-" ..... 0 f-' N .....
'0 w. 00 0 '""' a '1 ,... " :0<:
,"",0 -. 0 1-" " .po OQ
0 ..... .. ""~N 0 '<:
'<: " ..... 00_ (l) rt 00
a rt p.. 0 p.. ;J" ~ 0
(l) (l) 00 '" .po 0
" " 0 ~ ,." ,." '1 0
rtp.. ,." 0 ...
~.. " ..... '1 "
(l) " " " ..... 0 t:J
'1 p.. " (l) 00 rt ,." '"
rt p.. " ..... 00
..... 0" en '""' (l) " "
00 '1 "''' " 00 " '1
..... 0 "'0 '1 00 .....
" " 0"'0 ..... (l) '0
OQ ;J" '""' f-' (l) td 00 rt
" ""'1-" 00 0 ~ .....
(l) '1 " '" " 0
""(l) " oo~ " td "
,.,,- rt .." 0
0 !-',.-...L/l '" " 0
'1'0 o ..,,_ " " ,."
rt '1 " "'0 rt
0 00 '-"0 0 '" en
p.. 00 " " (l)
'0 " ~~~ rt '1
'1 " .." - - ~ 0 ..
0 (l) " .." " .....
" '-"n c:: ,... "
" " 0,"", rt .po " '"
rt ~..... ..... " 00
..... " (l) '""' 0 p..
.. 0 " ..... 0
(l) ~ rt rt 0 0
..... ~ rt
'0 en (l) ;J"
0 " " 00 (l)
00 ..... '0 '1
..... rt '0 ~
rt,<: '""'.." ~
..... ..... '" '"
0'0 (l) _ 0
" '1 00 0 ...
0 0 ~
..... ,." 0
" ..... ~
'""'
(l)
>> t:J en en :0<: > td
00 f-' '1 0 (l) " 00 (l)
00 N " " " '" 00 "
0 ;J" 00 rt ..... 0 (l)
n (l) ;J" 0 <: n ..
1-1. ..... pt '1 0 ..... 0
" a n f-' " f-'
rt (l) " 0 n (l) rt (l)
..... '1 00 " (l) " ..... "
0 (l) " " 0 rt
" 00 rt rt "
'< (l)
'1
td 00
.." " 00
N p.. I
0 00 00
(l) '"
0 rt
.." 0 .."
0 0 0
'" 00
'" '"
.." .." .." .0 I
,... N Ln " '"
0 N 0 (l) 0
00
0 0 0 rt
0 0 0
0 0 0
H
.." .." "
,... .." Ln n
0 N 0 '1
(l)
0 0 0 "
0 0 0 00
0 0 0 '"
S- n "'en '>j'>j '" en S- ..... n rt " en 0 n S- n 00 en td en S-
o rt n ~ " (l) '" " 0 ..... " n rt f-' 0 ..... n 0 (l)
rt " 0 0 " f-' '1 " n " 0 p..0 ;J" ..... " " ~ 0 n '1 g
..... rt 00'0 ..... p.. '0 .. " f-'rt " '0 (l) (l) " rt rt'O " ..
n '1 '1 (l) f-'OO 00 ..... " " '1 t:J(l) '1 " " '1 '< (l) ..... "
t-J.I-" " '< n f-' p.. ..... '0 " rt f-' ..... ~n f-'
'0 0" a 0 " W (l) (l) 0" '1 '< 0 ~ 0" " 0 W(l)
" " - H> n ..... " td " 0 ...... H> ,... en td " " H> W td
rt rt 0 f-' ,... > " .." rt 00 Z O(l) " rt p.. > "
(l) ..... en en " f-' '1 p.. Ln ..... rt ..... en iNl'i p.. ..... en .po '1 p..
p..0 '0 (l) 00 '0 (l) 00 00 ~ 00 (l) ~.. 00 0 0 (l) N(l) 00
" (l) '1 " " " " (l) " ;J" '1 ..... (l) " .. '1 ..." (l)
H> 00 n .. f-' 00 rt rt 0 00 00 rt .. n rt 00 (l) .. ~.. rt
'1 ..... ..... rt (l) ..... 0 ..... (l) '1 .....
0 H> " n " p.. (l) 0 H> en n .." H> n
a '1 f-' (l) " " ~ .." '1 (l) (l) > ,... rt (l) t:J '" H
0 ..... 00 rt H> rt W rt 0 '1 00 '1 0 " 00 (l) 00 "
:<: a N 0 00 0 .po 0 a .. (l) 00 a ;J" f-' rt n
(l) (l) '0 '1 '" ..... " .po 0 '1 ..... 0
00 0 p.. 0 " n ..... 0 n W 0 " a a
rt rt >1:: 00 " (l) W .@ rt (l) en rt '1 en '< " (l)
;J" ..... p.. " ..., ;J" 00 " N ;J" (l) " rt
'" (l) f-'N rt en rt 0 f-' (l) 0" td 00 (l) 00'0 ~(l) '1
" '1 N ;J" ..... " W '" (l) '1 00 0 W '1 ..... '0 .pop.. (l)
f-' ;J"(l) 0 f-' " '1 a en rt n p..0 00 '0
a n (l) ..... " " ,... 00 (l) n " " " n (l) '1 W 0
..... ..... a 00 '1 " ..... 0" " ..... rt "'- '1 t:J
td rt a '" ..... n ..... rt rt 00 n '" rt ..... ..... "'''' rt (l)
(l) ..... (l) '1 (l) " " ..... rt (l) " ..... " .. ... '" (l) 00
" (l) '1 00 '1 '0 (l) " rt (l) (l) ~O p.. n
n 00 -00 (l) td ..... 00 " 5= 0 00 00 '1
;J" 00 0 00 0 f-' n " 0 ;J" n " .....
'>j H> ..... n 0 (l) " " (l) td ..... 00 '0
~ t:J" .. " rt td 00 " " rt " o rt rt
.." td " a rt '" 0 " (l) '1 0 ;J" f-' '<'< 0 .....
NO '< ..... ;J" '1 '" '0 n 0" '" " rt " H> 0
Lnn f-' (l) 00 " '1 " " H " (l) '" ;J" rt '1 "
" n,< rt 0 00 '1 " 0 (l) :0<:
0 " > rt 0 00 '" (l) (l) ~ f-' " " 00 " 0
0," '1 n f-' (l) " '1 " " N a " ..... '1 H>
0" '" 0 N 00 " rt '0 rt '" p.. ~p.. n
~rt " ;J" ..... a 0 '1 a ... td ""(l) ;J" en
0 00 (l) p.. 0 " (l) (l) ~ (l) 00 ,," (l)
" " ..... ..... " (l) .. " " 0 rt W '1
td f-' a " (l) ,,~ (l) rt n n 000 ,... ..
0 ~ rt (l) 00 rt .." " t:J ;J" ..... ,... . .....
'< .." ..... '1 n ..... N rt (l) " iNl ,... n
" ,... " ..... (l) rtLn ..... '" f-' n f-' ~ '" (l)
rt 0 00 00 " " f-'- 0 (l) '1 0 00 00
o - rt (l) 0 " 00 " " 00 '"
" '" n (l) p..0 ..... '< " (l)
0 H ..... rt 0 " p.. rt '1
~O rt :~ " (l) ~ '< .. .."
I ~ t:J '< ..... "'- p.. " W ..... ,...
0- " f-' rt .po n
I " (l) ..... iNl (l) .po
~n f-' t-< 00 td " " ~ 00 W
" 0 " :0 '1 f-' '"
rt n l><" ~'< f-'- rt
'< " (l) " '< td 0 00
rt rt 0 0 "
0 '" 0 ..... " '< 00 Ln
n '1 " " " rt " '"
0 '1 rt'O rt "
~ td l><" ~ (l) " 0 .....
'1 .." rt rt " 0
..... " Ln .. ..... '1
00 n 00 (l) (l) ~ 00
00 (l) " " N
..... f-' 0 I rt " "
0 '" 0 ... 00
" rt 0 ~ (l)
(l) I en
'1 n
00 '1
(l)
~ (l)
.." "
Ln .....
0 "
00
0
0
0
~
n ...... H n n n :>- td
n >< 0 " 0 ..... 00 (l)
l><" rt '1 ~ rt 00 "
" (l) ..... 0 (l)
f-' (l) n <
'" " 00 ..... 0
0 td ..... " f-'
0" (l) rt H rt (l)
(l) " '< " ..... "
'1 (l) 0 rt
rt < n en "
0 ;J" n
td f-' ..... ;J"
" (l) f-' 0
'1 " p.. 0
n rt f-'
..... 00
"
00
l><"
.....
.." td 00
,... .." " 00
:>- N Vol p.. I
00 Vol '" 00 00
00 (l) '"
..... 0 '" rt
00 0 '" .."
rt '" Ln 0
"
"
rt
'" 00
n .." (l) '"
..... N .." .0 I
rt ,... .po .." " '"
'< Ln 0 Ln '" 0
- 00
:0<: .po 0 0 rt
" '" 0 0
" .po 0 0
"
00
(l)
'1 H
.." "
'" .." ..,. n
N Vol Ln '1
(l)
.po Vol 0 "
00 0 0 00
Ln Ln 0 (l)
"""1 " n td n ""en "1 n en S-
,..." (l) (l) 0 0 " n " " (l)
N" (l) " '< " a 0 " '1 '1 "
p.. p.. rt " rt ..... '0 p.. < < "
" 00 00 (l) rt '1 f-'(l) 00 (l) ..... "
0 '1 0 ..... '< '1 n f-'
0 rt 0 " 0" 0 " (l)
0 ,." n " " ,." ..... :0<: td
" " ~ rt n f-' ..... :>- "
..... 0" rt '1 .."..... rt en f-' p..'i p..
rt (l) ;J" '1 LnO ..... (l) p..(l) 00
;J" '" (l) " < '1 0" f-''' (l)
" " 000 ..... < '" (l) rt
" 00 n rt 0 rt .....
" (l) 0 f-' 0,." ..... n " en
p.. ~'< ~'i (l) (l) 00 n :>-
" 0 00 00 (l) ;J" rt .."
p.. ,." " " a p.. 0 f-' ,...
p.. 0 " " 0 " N
..... '1 .....p.. 0 " ,." f-' "
rt rt (l) rt " H 0 rt Ln
..... '< '1 ;J" p.. 0 '1 ..... 0
0 (l) n 0
" 0 " n rt '0 '0 00
"'0 " 0 " rt (l) '"
f-'(l) p.. " n rt 0 t:J '1 ..... ,."
" 00 ..... (l) < ..... <00 0 t:J
00 n rt rt " ..... '1 ..... ;J" rt (l)
rt " ..... '1 ..... rt p.. (l) " 00
"'0 rt " (l) (l) n 00 en t:J n
,." '< n 00 " rt n (l) '1
,." ,... rt 0 " OO;J" f-' .....
Ln (l) ..... '1'0 '0 00 '1 '0
'0 .@ 0 00 l><" '1 0 " rt
(l) 00 " '" 00 rt 0 00 f-' '< .....
rt f-' f-' I ;J"O 00 rt 0
00 0 0 '" 0 '1 " en "
0 rt '< 0 '0 .." " p.. n
" 00 (l) en 00 ,... a (l) 00 ;J" 0
(l) n '" " (l) 0 ,."
,." 00 0 '1 ,." 0 (l) rt '1 0
0 '0 0 0 0 ~ 00 < f-' en
'1 (l) '0 '1 0 '0 ..... 00 (l)
0 (l) " '1
,." 0 00 " " " 00 <
~ ,." " rt 00 .....
f-' I a (l) N H n
..... en 00 '1 0 00 0 0 (l)
f-' '" ..... " 0 rt 00
..... '1 0" 00 rt ,." "
(l) < (l) l><";J" 0 00 f-'
00 ..... ,." '1 rt
n 0 00 ,." " 0"
" (l) '1 rt 0 " p.. "
0" 00 (l) " '1 rt (l) p..
0 p.. I " 00
< td (l) ,." '1 rt (l)
(l) 0 " ..... ..... 00 rt
n rt (l) 00
rt :0<: " 00 f-' l><" 0
;J" (l) p.. ,."
(l) '" '" 00
rt " rt rt .."
..... rt '1 " N
" n 0 ..... p..
n ;J" " '0 (l) Ln
0 ..... 00 " 0
a f-' ~ rt 0
(l) p.. .." 00
Ln ~ 0
f-' n 0
(l) " 0 " 0
< '1 0 '1
(l) (l) 0 p..
f-' ~ 00
0 "
,." "
p..
..
11q)
[ITY DF DELAAY BEA[H
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
3lU 5.1-__ Is! STREET, Sl!ITF ~ DELRAY l:lEACH. rLORIDA 33483
.Hl7/24]-709() TFLfCOPIFR 407/:!78-n55
t1EMORANDUM
Date:
August 18, 1989
To:
City Commission
Malcolm T. Bird, Interim City Manager
David M. Huddleston, Director of Finance
Elizabeth I\rnau. C'tt.y Clerk
From: Herbert VI.A. Thiele, City Attorney
Subject: Parameters For Informat~on Concerning 1989 General
Obliqation Bond Referendum
Attached hereto for your information and review, please find a
copy of the March, 1989 decision in the Palm Beach County, v.
Hudspeth, 540 So.2d 147,14 FLW, 610 (Fla. 4th DCA, March 8,
1989).
This memorandum with accompanying case is being sent to you for
your infQz:mation. in anticipation of questions concerning the
amount o~involvement that the City may desire in the proposed
General Obligation Bond issue which is proposed in our
Comprehensive Plan.
The basic intent of this case is that while a local government
not only may, but should, alloca.te tax dollars to educate the
electorate on the purposes and essential ramifications of
referendum issues, it must do so fairly and impartially.
Thus, as a guideline in the City's involvement in the proposed
General Obligation Bond, the court's phrasing at Page 9 clearly
indicates that the City must take a neutral position
(informational presentation only) on the issue, wherein it
states that "the funds collected from taxpayers theoretically
belong to proponents and opponents of (county) action alike.
To favor one side of any such issue by expending funds obtained
from those who do not favor that issue turns government on its
head and is the antithesis of the democratic process".
(emphasis added). .
Should you desire any additional information or guidelines on
this subject, please contact the City Attorney's Office.
fiSh
Attachment
cc: Stephen Sanford, Esq.
d
.
\ .' .
----
PAGE
.,
l>4(la$oo~d 147
14 Fla. L. Week. 610
R~kfgR)39
Sl;l.ta!;ase
I'lode
"
PALM BEACH COUNTY and Jackie ~Inchester. SuperVIsor of ElectIons of Palm Beac,
County. Appellants.
v.
George L. HUDSPETH, Jr., John O. Farsons. Mary L. ReIlly. George Dunton,
~illiam Laminsky, Sarah Laminsky, Sol SIlverman, Jean Hammer. International
Brotherhood of ElectrIcal Workers. Local UnIon 323 and Palm Beach County AFL
ClG. et al.. App~llees.
~Jo. BB-29'j (:.
DistrIct Court of Appeal of Florida.
Fourth [,1'::.1:1' lC~.
March S. ;1383.
Clarlf lcatlon DenIed A~lrl L i3. 19E:S.
Opponents brought =.U.lt cnallenglng placement on ballot Of rE'teren'lJum proposlf
unified health care dlstr~(:t in county. T~e ClfCIJ_Lt Court. F'alnj 8eac~1 County
Ricnard B. Bur!-:-. J.. enJolr:ed Placement i~.r '~f(J.<2~,tl(lrJ ')11 t:lallclt. ~-'ut tnen '.::.taye.:
injunctIon. and opponent"::. a.ppe2.iec. ;"hE- ~ll.::,t;:~c-:: Cou.rt ,~i7 f1f)[,;::,(:.~. hi:=.'r'::,~?y.
C.J.. held that.: (1) ~)aliot '=uJTtmary ':::;i'J ;!()~ -'l''':'ia..te reqtl~rE.'r:It:-~-I'" ,=-'~ '-~~~Jrlda.
Election Cooe tha.: ';:.l..lJTlmarv be qrlflt<?,~ lP ''':.'=2-":' c.fHJ u_rlamL'l'~UC'!J', _(::~"n(:Jual::::je. ~;-!
(2) while a county not only may but Should allocate Tax dOllars ~0 ~d~~ate th~
electorate on purpose and e-=:,sen"':la.l raml+!i:'2-"tlc,n:=_ of refE-ff:-rHJtJ_r: 1,em:=., ~t 1;IU_':;,
do so faIrly and impartIally.
Reversed and remandeo.
[1 ]
104K55
COUNTIES
K. Ordinances~ by-laws.
Fla.App. 4 Dis~1989.
Language of ballot summary propOSing uniform health care dIstrict In county di
not violate requirement of Florida Election Code that summary be prInted in
"clear and unambiguous language": bJhi le slJ.mmary '::::poke of the "effective
delivery of quality health care services," the terms "effective delivery" and
"quality health care services" were not inherently ambiguous and properly
described justifications for adoption of proposal. West's F.S.A. s 101.161(1)
Palm Beach County v. Hudspeth
540 So.2d 147. 14 Fla. L. Week. 610
[2]
104K55
COUNTIES
K. Ordinances and by-laws.
Fla.App. 4 Dist. 1989.
Ballot summary proposing unified health care distrIct in county did not violat
Florida Election Code, which requires that summary be prInted In "clear and
unambiguous language," by using the term "consolidation." even though as to a
portion of county's reSidents, proposal would really "create" a taxing
district: use of term did not. in and of itself. justify settIng electIon
aside, nor did it fatally infect electior, 'L,her. cOl!.ple,j 1.!llth aliege,j errors 0'
omission. l..jest's F.S.A. s 101.151(1).
Palm Beach County v. Hudspe th
rOPR. eel WEST '989 NO CLAIM TO ORIG. U.S. GOVT. WORK
.
\
....
540 So.2d 147
540 So.2d 147. 14 Fla. L. !-leek. 610
[3]
268K860
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS
K. Purposes of appropriations or expenditures In general.
Fla.App. 4 Dist. 1989.
No Florida cases or legislative acts specifically or by necessary implication
prohibit expenditu.re of public fu_nds. for any lawful purpose found by unit of
local government to be in publIC Interest. provided that government otherwise
has power or aut Ill) f1 ty '\:1'::' act In matter under consideratIon.
Palm Beach CO'-Lnty 'J. H'-Ld~.r:'o't'i
540 So.2d 147.14 Fia,_. i-I "0' , EoH'
[4]
104K5:,
COUNTIES
K. Ordinances ana 0y ldW .
Fla.App. 4 DIS:. 'S~~.
t~hile COtlntv DCl; -"I.:.V :"-:'"12-v' -_''-I; ':::.;-:,,!-'-..:..(~ 21..!.()cate tax dollars to educate the
electorate on [:>u:,po':::;.;::- '~;-I'- ~~'::"=''='!''-.~_ l'2.fT,i~ !_c,::}r~or:'~. n; r~fE'rendum item':::.. ,\ nlJ'--:
do so rat r 1 y anG ~ fTlC'dr -r:- ~ c. ~ ,',' .
Palm Beach County r:1J.IJ''::.;~'': ~:
540 So.2d 147. ill ~~~~~, _, :-t~et' ~:~;i)
Glen J. Torc...'.ila.. j.,ie-::.t ~-'c-im t;i::>CCti. Tel' appellants.
Richard A. ~~lcking G: ".aPla~,. (:,c,,:ng.:\ Bloom. P.A.. West Palm Beach. lor
appellees.
AdrIan WInterT!el.j cf A'Jflan i..,nterfleld. P.R.. Palm Beach, appellee, pro se.
Carl V.H. CO+Ilri. ~ie.=.t F'2.lm Beach. for amICUS curiae, City of West Palm Beach
Thomas A. Sheehan. III of Moyle. FlanIgan, Katz. Fitzgerald 3: Sheehan, P.A..
West Palm Beac~~for amICUS curIae, CItIzens for Better Health Care. Inc.
I James R. Wolf . 'Gen. Counsel. Florida League of Cities, Inc., Tallahassee. Pau
J. Nicoletti, Gen. Coun2.el. Palm Beach County Hun. League. Inc., !-lest Palm
Beach. and William .J. Roberts. Gen. Counsel. Florida Ass'n of Counties. Inc..
for amicus curiae. FlorlGa Leaque ot Cities. Inc.. and Palm Beach County Hun.
League, I nc . - '.
James K. Green ot Green. EIsenberg and Cohen. West Palm Beach, for amicus
curiae, American Civil Uberties Union at Florida, Inc., Palm Beach Chapter.
PAGE
2
HERSEY, Chief Judge.
The controversies whIch we address in this appeal Involve the validity
of county action in obtainIng voter approval of an Independent special taxing
district to provide "e"lth care and the propriety of expenditures made by the
county in promotlnq passaqe of the Health Care Act.
This effort to create a county-wide health care district began in 1987. At
that time there were In existence three separate independent health care
districts located in VarIOUS parts of the county and the central and
northeastern portions of the county constituted a dependent health care
district. Each independent dIstrict was authorized to and did collect a
special tax to raise money to pay for the dls"(r ibution of heal th care se1"\'" ,__
within each partie,_Liar dlstnct. These r:axe~. '"'ere In addition to the county'=
CORP. leI WEST 1989 NO CLAIM TO ORIG. U.S. GOVT. WORK
l
i'
.
\~
.
540 So. 2d 147 PAGE 3
ten mill tax (which is the maximum millage that a county is permitted by law
impose). During the same period, the county utilized a portion of its tax
collections to provide health care services so that the residents within
independent districts were being taxed tWice for health care serVices.
Chapter 87-450, Laws of Florida, provided for the creation of a unifIed heal
care di~trict encomp.assLng all of Palm BeachdCounty. dThe.techoical method
employed to create the dIstrIct was to expan the Doun aries ot one ot the
districts to include the entire county and to abolish all other health care
districts. The county referendum, requIred by the statute. was defeated at tr
polls in March of 1988.
Subsequently, varIOUS changes tilere made in the plan to meet objections tidHch
had been voiced by opponents of the unlfied health care district.
The legislature then adopted Chapter 88-460. Laws of Florida, whlch
generally folloti/ed its predecessor except t0at the ~11I iage cap imposed on the
district '..Jas reduced from three to tti'O mill",. and the governlng body !..Jas
expanded to provlde for more eqUitable representatlon. .
As a rest.d t of the foregOing. the Palm Beach County Commisslon caJ-lsed the
follOWing ballot quest ion to be placed on the t~ovember E:. 19BB. ballot:
PALM BEACH COUNTY HEALTH CARE ACT
Shall the Palm Beach County Health Care Dlstrlct O~ estaoi15heG I 1=' u!a~. "I}!
and coordinate the effectIve delivery of !~ua~!~V ~ea!~~i l:are serVIces.
IncludIng trauma care. indigent medical car'_:. rl,)me ilea.:.::n .:a.r~, efTlE-f';!i?nCy. 2j'"'J'
()ther medical serVices through consolidation ,-.f cllsrrlcts lnto .Jllf?
comprehensive system and be author 1 zed to lev\' annu2.1ly a.n ao val(lrer" :ax not"
to exceed 2 mills for cost effective health care serVIces ior the oeople or
Palm Beach County?
Yes
No_
In addition, the county authorized the expenditure of funds. not to exceed
S50,OOO, to p~te the passage of the Health Care Act. and county employees.
as part of the~official duties, were encouraged to accept speakIng
engagements to-promote passage of the Act.
Appellees then sought an injunction to remove the Health Care District
question from the ballot and to prevent the cou.nty from expendIng funds to
promote it.
After notice and hearing an order wa~ ent~red requiring thit the
question be removed trom the ballot and prOhibiting the coun.y from
distributing materials to promote passage of the Act. The former constituted
mandatory injunction and the latter a traditIonal "restrainIng order'" or
injunction.
This court stayed the injUnctIon so that the question remained on the ballot
and the Health Care Act was approved by a majority of the voters on November 8
i988.
Thus, while the correctness of the lower tribunal's "Temporary Restraining
Order" or more correctly. temporary injunction. is technically moot since the
events and activities which it encompassed are history, we have elected to
retain jurisdiction in order to address the question of whether passage of the
Health Care Act was tainted by the ballot language or by inappropriate
expenditures made to advocate its passage.
On the first question, there is a considerable body of law to assi.i.t thi'=.
COPR. (C) WEST 1989 NO CLAIM TO ORIG. U.S. GOUT. WORK
.
...-..-......---
540 So.2d 147
PAGE
4
court, if only by analogy and deduction, in determining ~hether the ballot
language is legally sufficient. The same cannot be said of the question of tl
propriety of expending taxpayers' money to promote (or to oppose) the passage
of particular legislation. On this question, there is a paucity of precedent
in this or any other jur1sdiction.
THE BALLOT LANGUAGE
The prel1m1nary test wh1ch a ballot summary must meet is established by the
Florida Elect10n Code. sect10n 101.161(1). Florida Statutes (1987), wh1ch
provides in pert1nent part:
I~henever a const! tlltlonal amendment or other public measure is submitted to
the vote of the people. the substance of such amendment or other publ1c measu.'
shall be Pflnted In clear ano llnamb191.lOUS language on the ballot after the lL
of cand1Gate~..... The ~.uD'3tance of the amendment or other publ ic measu.re ';na,
be an explanatory statement. not exceed1ng 75 words 1n length. of the ch1ef
purpose OT tr1e meas~re.
Thus. trre ft:'<l!...Llfement5 a.re tnat the summary conSist of an explanation oi the
"chief pU.rpo'=.e" 0; the part lcu.liir leg1slatIon and that the langua'~e be "( Ie-ill"
and [-Lnambl(~LlO!_L'=',"
[1] Opponent':; .)~ t;-,E' rlecil:n Car;=: HCt.. represented by appellees. contena !:-l~l~
the summary' 'J!_i.f:>';:;:lorl \:io_a.tE-'::, ~hese reqUirements in -=,everal respecF'="
The ballot '=,tlrTlrlarv ':;,oea~~'::. '=J~ :-r-,E' "efrective delIvery of ,=!l1allty health (:arc-
serVices. f.H=' Pi? 1 leE-'=, obJec: to the use ()f "buzz ll..lords" such aE, these~ a..~ i2q~:
that they are amOl'OUOIJ.S. are oesigned to promote rather than to iniorm
and do not de:~cr1be the ",.u.t,stance of the proposal. The trial court reJectec
appellees' pO,o.It10n. p01nting out that the underlYing legislation util1zed
similar ter~l~?logy.
The terms eitective delivery'" and "quality health care services" are not
inherently amb1guous. As used 1n the summary. they rather obv10usly 1mpart ~
comparative fl~r to the prov1S10n in which they are contained. Thus, the
-- .. .
~ import of the prov1sion is that the unification of health care districts wil:
permit more effective delivery of services than is possible without such
unificat10n. It further indICates that health care services will be of h1gner
quality because of. or as a result of. unification. These are both
justificat10ns for adoption of the Act and explanatory of its chief purpose.
The trial court correctly rejected appellees' contrary POSItion.
[2] Another argument posed by opponents of the Act is that the swmmary
is fatally flawed because of the m1sleading effect of use of the term
"consolidation." The substance of this argument is that voters 1n that portiO
of the county not presently w1thin the boundaries of one of the three
independent health care districts would be misled because, as to them, the Act
really "created" a taxing district rather than "consolidated" taxing
districts. In other words. the Act imposed upon citizens outside of the
existing independent distr1cts a health care tax for the first time, whereas
the ballot summary could be construed as exempting them from the new distr1ct
and any such tax, if it did in fact only "consol1date" existing districts.
taAbe~c~~~so~rQmP~~~yi~eID~~t~cAtye~s ~~~~~yw~o~it~ b~~e~~~S~~~g~ae~h@h~~,
appellees describe in an entirely separate and distinct argument based upon
other perceived inadequacies 1n the ballot summary language. Because they are
related in a cause and effect sense and thus. 1n our V1ew. constitute bu., ",'e.
COPP. IC) !~EST 1989 NO CLAIM TO ORIG. U.S. GOVT. WORi(
l
l'
,
,
540 $o.2d 147
PAGE
5
~
sides of the same equation. we will consider them together.
There is something to be said for the proposition that use of the term
"consolidate" is inherently misleading if in fact it is required to convey thE
meaning "create" to some but not all of its readers. While the distinction i~
semantic, the impact of a "new" as opposed to a "different" tax is real rather
than technical. Like everyone else in Palm Beach County, taxpayers outside of
the boundaries of the three existing independent health care dIstricts pay a
certain amount which will be devoted to providing health care services. UnllK
those within the distrIcts. however, they do not pay a separate and additional
a,Tlouot imposed by a health care dictr.ict. Under th," Act they lllt'l1 do so for
the tirst time. The question is Whether thIS IS made suffICIent y clear by tr
language chosen. Does use of the term "consolidate" make It less than clear?
Does the paU.Cl ty of explanatory language a'c. to the make-up and powers of the
governIng body add to the confUSIon to the extent that the Act must be struck
down as parading under false colors? '
While not controllIng, l.>Je hold that use of the term "consolIdate". rather
"create" would not. HI and of itself. Ju:=.t1i" ,~etttnq the electLon aSIde.
'.>Jas. in fact. a technIcally correct use of that term because that portLon
the county not Included ILlithln one of the three Independent health care
<taXIng) dIstricts was properly referred to as a aependent dIstrIct. The
summary refers to establishIng a unIfied H~a.ltr, C2re District "througrl
consolidation of districts Into one comprehen51ve '~ystem" I-:Jnlch. as we have
pointed out. I,)a~. technically correct.
The more Important questIon IS ulhether '_['3e of It-,e term "consolIdate" coupled
with alleged errors of omission--what the summary does not say--fatally infect
the election.
Our supreme court, in Hill v. Milander, 72 So.2d 796, 798 (Fla.1954I,
explained that "[wlhat the law requnes is that the ballot be fan and adv1se
the voter suff~ently to enable him intelligently to cast his ballot." There
are two perspe6tJves from which the summary of any propOSition to be placed on
the ballot may-he viewed and each has both negative and positlve
elements. The summary must not have a tendency to mislead the voters, whether
by what It says or by what it fails to say. The second perspective from which
ballot summary language is to be viewed concerns its informational content.
i.e., whether the summary gives the voter fair notice of the main purpose of
the legislation so that the voter knows what decision is being made.
Askew v. Firestone. 421 $0.2d 151 (Fla.1982). provides an example ofa ballot
summary deemed to be misleadIng. The summary in that case reads: "Prohibits
former legislators and statewide elected officers from representing other
persons or entities for compensation before any state government body for a
period of 2 years follOWing vacation of office, unless they file full and
public disclosure of their finanCial interests." Id. at 153. This language.
taken alone and out of context. 1S not necessarily deceptive. However, there
was already in place an absolute prohibition against former legislators and
statewide elected officers appearing before state agencies for two years
follOWing vacation of office. Thus the proposed amendment liberalized this
prOViSion while apparently imposing an impediment to such appearances (filing
of a financial disclosure). The Askew court struck the provision from the
ballot as "misleading to the public concerning material changes to an existing
constitutional provision... ," 421 $0.2d at 155. The chief purpose of the act
COPR. (C) I~EST 1989 NO CLAIM TO ORIG. U. $. GO\JT. 110RK~
than
It
of
~
.
----.----- _4.________~~,_....__
540 $0.2d 147
PAGE
6
as portrayed by the summary language was to limit appearances before state
agencies by former state employees. The actual purpose was to eliminate the
prohibition against such appearances.
The same cannot be said of the ballot summary of the Health Care Act. The
"chief purpose" of the Act was to create a county-wide health care distrlct.
The perceived tendencies to mislead involve questions concerning the impact 0
the special tax and the authority and nature of the governing body. These
peripheral issues, 'Hhile of legitimate concern, do not have a direct bearing
the main purpose of the Act. although they are essential to the implementatln
of that purpose. As OUf supreme court pOinted out in Carroll v. Firestone. ~
So.2d 120" (Fla.19G6>. It IS not necessary to explain every ramificatJon 0:
proposed legislation. only the chief or maln purpose.
Tlus r,oldHI'~ pertains as "Jell to the argument that a fourth speclal heal th
.::are GI'3trlct must be created before it can be "consolidated" l,tJith. the three
eXlstln'~ ,jlStrlct.=" Technical shortcomings of such mechanical detail" ",Imply
ClO not [1''=,1::.' tl) the lev~l <)f ",::lear and conclusive defects" requlre"d to
Invalidate an electIon.
~~;everal (If tl"-iP. ca.sE'-.=. relleCj .::tn t!~/ appellee'=:; can be readIly dl'3t.lntJLLl'::.nel]
lJn that Da:::;.':"3, FI)r exalnple. In ~<obrin v, Leahv. 528 So.2d 392 (rl,:;"" {~
:ev. denlec, ~2? \o.2d 577 <Fla.1388). the voters were asked to ~!.:.m!.na[e _
particular t::.oarG !n rne -=.am~ eiectlon at l1Jhlr:h they lJ.lere elec:ln~ c>;:::..~~\,()r"-~
serve on thaI. boara. Tile ballot '3ummary referred neIther to E>1lITIlnat11on '.
board nor to the appa.rent Incorv..=,I:.=,tency In the two courses Ot act.i.\,)fl ".DIlle '.,"
electlon forced voters to take. No such Internal Inconslstency was fOlstea
upon the voters by the Health Care Act.
Pointing out that many details of a proposed plan were not explained on ene
ballot, the supreme court nonetheless held a ballot summary adequate In ~11ami
Dolphins, Ltd. v. i1etropolltan Dade County. 394 $0.2d 981 (Fla.1981). The
court noted th~it was common knowledge that details regarding any proposec
~ referendum are-gTist for the media's mlll for months in advance of an
election. Thus it was "idle to argue" that every proposal on a ballot must
appear at great and undue length. Id. at 987.
The ballot summary 1S llmlted to seventy-flVe words. Tne ralson d'etre Or tf
summary is to give the voter an accurate picture of the main purpose of tho
proposed leglslatlon. As population grows and technology advances, tne .
complexity of problems with which government must cope increases
proportionately. The sheer scope of a particular legislative solution to a
modern problem may therefore relegate all but the most crucial and skeletal
elements of the legislation to the realm of voter self-education. That
educationdmust necessarily be found outside the voter's booth and preferably
well In a vance ot the electlon. .
The ballot summary Involved here does not explain the nature and extent of
authority of the governing body, does not tell voters In the northeast corrldc
that they will be subjected for the first time to an assessment of two mills a
health care district taxes which will be in excess of the ten mill limitatio~
imposed upon counties, whether the district is dependent or independent. or
whether it is authorized to lssue certaln bonds.
The length of the preceding paragraph mentioning just a few of the detailS
omitted from the ballot summary is exactly seventy-flve words. Can i,
seriously be contended that a ballot summary not only must explicate tne fCia.irt
COPR. (C) WEST 1983 NO CLAIM TO iJRIG. U.S. GD\!-;-. ~IORf
,
l
.
540 So.2d 147
PAGE
7
purpose of proposed legiSlation, but also must furnish various details that aJ
of particular interest to one or more groups of voters? We answer this
question in the negative and find no constitutional infirmity in the ballot
summary of the Health Care Act.
EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS
[3J As noted earlier, the Palm Beach County Commission approved the
expenditure of s50.000 to promote passage of the Health Care Act. The Issue 1
the propr iety of the expend I ture of publ ic funds for the purpose of support i no:
(or opposing) political issues.
Appellants <the county and the elections supervisor) look for authority
to section 12~,.01. FlondC'. Statute". <1987>. ~Ihich sets forth the general power
of county government. Sect Ion 125.01< i) <,,,,) allows the county to "[p]erform an
other acts not Inconsistent With law. which acts are in the common interest o~
the people of the county. ar"j exerCi=.e all powers and privileges not
specifically prOhlC>lted bv la,"'." ~:;ectlon 125.01(3)(b) provides fo.r liberai
construction of th.? ':=.ectl('n "tn '~.eC:I_lre for the counties the broad exerCIse (It
home rule pOlLlers authorl z~ci by the State Constitu.tion."
In Speer 'I. Cil'".on, :t.( '::':"~".' ~Ci7 <Fla.l'378>. the supreme court held that
section 125.0: ~ 1) '~1.\lE"::. :,. {~ COIJXlt)' '=. governIng body the power to carrv l)f
county government. -.;,e '=-'~'Ll?~_ '?C,t-ated that unless the legislature has preE:'fiIPt+:',
a particular '3ubJecr t,y gen,c"iL or sDecIal law. the county has full ali:thc,o'
to act In exerc15e 07 :-lome .'d_l.;:> p,)iJJer. Accordi:lgly. the court found that t:-I>-"
county had the po~'er te. l~.'",lJ.e a cate'30ry of general obligation bonds. .
Appellants' POSItion that the cou.ntv has the authority to expend publiC funo'",
to promote the passage or an ordinance aeemed by it to be in the publiC
interest finds '3upport H, a lIne of Attorney General opinions. Opinions of tho
Attorney General are conSIdered persuasive, but do not constitute binding
authority on the courts of "lor Ida. Beverly 'I. Division of Beverage of the
Department of ~Iness RegulatIon, 282 So.2d 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973).
In 1974 Op. A~ Gen. Fla. 074-113, (April 10, 1974), the Attorney General
concluded that a muniCIpal i ty may spend munlClpal funds to purchase newspaper
advertisements supporting or orposing the repeal of a county utilities tax. IT
1978 Op. Att.'y Gen. Fla. 078-41. <March 9, 1978). the decision was that
muniCipal funds may be expended to support a bond issue to raise funds to
acquire and develop parks and recreation areas. In 1984 Op. Att'y Gen. Fla.
084-17, (February 9. 1984), the Attorney General concluded that members of the
state House of Representatives are not barred by law from speaking against a
proposed amendment to the state constitution. and that if the legislature
deemed expenditure of public funds to support or oppose adoption of an
amendment or to disseminate information about it to be in the public interest.
then the legislature could authorize such expenditures, provided they are
authorized by l~,:, nr resolution. made pursuant to a budget, or otherwise
appropriate. In 1986 Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 086-87, (October 7, 1986>, the
Attorney General said that unless restricted by, and to the extent consistent
with, general or special law, the Brevard County Commission may expend public
funds to advertise its position in an upcoming referendum, provided that prior
to making such an expenditure. the Brevard County Commission makes
appropriate legislative findings as to the purpose of the expenditure and the
benefits which would accrue to the county therefrom.
These Attorney General opinions emphasize. and we echo. that there are
COPR. <C) WEST 1989 NO CLAIH TO ORIG. U.S. GOVT. WORK~
.
,
.
.
.
O;i
54'0 So.2d 147
PAGE
8
~
no Florida cases or legislative acts that either specifically or by necessary
implication prohibit the expenditure of public f~nds for any lawful purpose
~@~~nM~n~ ~U~ergfsJo~eJ ~~~e~8m@~to~oakthe~itget8~Jici~ntReeM1tt@fo~d@~ th,
consideration. It follows that q~estioned expenditures m~st be tested on a
case-by-case basis; the inq~iry is one for the JudicIal branch, and the issu,
to be resolved is whether the particular expenditure offends the Constitution
of the State of Florlda. laws of the State of Florlda. or fundamental concept~
of justice and falr play.
Article I, section 1, of the Florlda Constitu.tion provides that political
power is inherent In the people and that thlS power 15 not to be denled or
Impaired by the enuncIatlon of any other rights. To the extent. then, that a
proposed expenditure of public funds. lnfrlnge'? u.pon or tends to infnnge upon
the polltlcal power reserved to the people. that expendlture wlll be
deemedconstitutlonally Impermlsslble.
Flndlng little gUldance in Florida law ror the application of this standard,
we turn to forelgn experience for enllghtenment.
In the case of Citizens to Protect Public F'.lnds 'I. Board of Education of
ParsIppany-Troy Hlils Tp.. ,::: N.,), ',72. 'c',,: ii.c'c ",;,11',:153). the '~e~1 .Jersey
Supreme Court upheld the dIsmissal oi a '=.u.~-- for ,:ieclaratory :tldqment. At
issue was whether a. school bond eiE'c-tli"")rl l"-i2..'=_ .nv2..:.1c ant) l.Llnetrlt?r~lj.se of pubil'_
funds to advocate a favorable vote on 7=r--llC=' -"~Inc~ l'=,'::.ue !.t.la~, lllegal. ~rlting tor
the court was Justice Wllllam .J. Brennan. ,,"., (late,' Supreme Court Jl.J.stlce)
who saId that the expendltures for booklets prOmotlng passage of the Issue wer
illegal and beyond the board's powers., but trlat cne Issue was moot because thE
election had already passed. In that case. the partles conceded at oral
argument that the actIons under attack, if improper. would not suffice to
jovaljdate the election ~lready hPfld., and that therefore the Iss~e.washmoot.
~~ H.~a at 67b. Hpparent y, a re und or reDayme~t was not sought In t at
action. Nevertheless. the court found the issue important enough to comment a
follows: --..........
[TJhe board ~e use of public funds to advocate one side only of the
controversial question without affording the dIssenters the opportunity by
means of that financed medium to present their side, and thl~ imperilled the
propriety of the entire expenditure. The public funds entrusted to the board
belong equally to the proponents and opponents of the proposition, and the use
of the funds to finance not the presentatIon of facts merely but also argument
to persuade the voters that only one side has merit. gives the dissenters just
ca~se for complaint.
98 A.2d at 677. ,
The opinion also referred to the seminal CalifornIa case dealing with
expendit~res of public funds on ballot measures. Mines v. Del Valle, 201 Cal.
273, 257 P. 530 (1927), overr~led in part on other grounds, Stanson v. Mott, 1
Cal.3d 206, 551 P.2d 1, 130 Cal.Rptr. 697 (1976). In that case. the court
found that the use of public funds to further a bond issue was illegal unless
the power to do so had been gIven to the governmental agency expending the
funds in clear, uneq~ivocal language. The court found that such power had not
been given to the board.
It must be conceded that the electors of said City OPPOSIng sald bond
issue had an equal right to and interest in the funds in said power fund as
. COPR. (C) WEST 1989 NO CLAIM 70 ORIG. U.S. GOUT. WORK:
.
540 So:2d 147
PAGE
9
those who favored said bonds. To use said public f~nds to advocate the
adoption of a proposition which was opposed by a large number of said elector
would be manifestly unfair and ~nj~st to the rights of said last-named
electors, and the action of the board of public serVIce commissioners in so
doing cannot be s~stained, unless the power to do so IS gIven to said
board in clear and unmistakable lang~age.
257 P. at 537.
In Stanson v. Mott, the Supreme Court of CalifornIa held that the Department
of Parks and Recreation had authorIty to dIssemInate InformatIon about a bond
election, but could not expend publIC funds to promote the Issue.
notwithstandIng legIslatIve approval of plaCIng the bond act on the ballot.
The court saId that executIve offICials were not free to spend public funds f,
any "publIC purpose" they may choose, but lTIust utIlIze approprIated funds In
accordance with the legIslatIvely deS!0nated purpose. That case Involved fun,
approprlatedlfor spec.lfled p~rpo::;es. ".ihlch dI'~ notprov.lae for CamRalgn h
expenses. ~ thou.gtl thIS approaCh 1':; 171U,[8 l~I::--:::,trlctlve than reqUired In t e
present case. Stanson contaIns general language whIch ".Ie conSIder "pertInent:
A fundamental precept of this llCltioll'.o def'locratlc el.?ctnra! Droc"c;c; "0 "hat
the government may not "take '::::.lde-=:,' .In ~lt.::-ctlon conte~.t-=:. or bestoliJ an u.nfalr
advantage on one of several COlTlpetlnq iact;.:.ns. ,; P,lnClpal ,janger 'edrea C'y
our country'::;. founder:=:. lay iTi tne poss.:.tl!l:--:v tii'3..~_ :h>? he. 1 (JE-f'::, (Ii gov{?rnmentn
authority tuould use off iClal POlder ImPfOper,:.y t,) ~'erp(~tuate :nemselves. or
,
their a.llles. In offIce: the selectIve USE (;T ;::'u_t,_iC tt-1no'=, 111 electlon
campaigns" elf i::::O!-1rse. raises the specter o~- _~:_~'::.t '=:.LlCh an improper ,jistortlon
the democratIC electoral process.
130 Cal.Rptr. at 705. 551 P.2d at 9 ICltat;0ns omitted).
A more recent California case IS. LeaQue of ~iomen \Ioter';; of CalIfornia v.
Co~ntywide CrImInal Justice CoordInatIon CO~~ittee. 203 Cal.App.3d 529. 250
Cal.Rptr. 161 (1988). The CalifornIa appellate court held that the use of
public f~nds t~ormulate and draft a proposed InItIatIve to reform the
· criminal j~sti~system and to identify proposed sponsors was not an improper
expenditure since It did not amo~nt to a partIsan campa.ign actiVity. See also
Stern v. Kramarsky, 84 MISC.2d 447. 375 N.Y.S.2d 235 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1975).
[4] The theme which predominates in these cases. and one which is reinforced
by logic and common notions of faIr play. is Simply stated. While the county
not only may but should allocate tax dollars to educate the el~ct0rate on the
purpose and essential ramifications of referendum items, It m~st do so fairly
and impartially. Expenditures for that purpose may properly be found to be In
the public interest. It is never in the publiC Interest. however. to PIck up
the gauntlet and enter the fray. The funds collected from taxpayers
theoretically belong to proponents and opponents of co~nty action alIke. 10
favor one side of any such issue by expending funds obtained from those who do
not favor that issue turns government on its head and is the antithesis of the
democratic process.
In order to create a speCial taxing district, government must permit the
people to be heard and, in fact, to make the ultimate decision at the ballot
box. If government. with its relatively vast financial resources, access to
the media and technical know-how, undertakes a campaign to favor or oppose a
measure placed on the ballot, then by so doing government underc~ts the very
fabric which the constit~tion weaves to prevent Qovernment from stIflIng the
COPR. <C) WEST 1989 NO CLAIM TO ORIG. U.S. GOVT. WORK
~
.
,
~
540 So.2d 147
PAGE 10
voice of the people. An election which takes place in the shadow of omniSCle
government is a mockery--an exercise in futility--and therefor a sham. The
appropriate function of government in connection with an issue placed before
the electorate is to enlighten. NOT to proselytize.
We do not mean to imply that Palm Beach County undertook any such blitzkrieg
We address the issue of law only. and not t~e facts. ~e therefore make no
attempt to pass judgment on each expendlture in question here. nor was the
trial court given the opportunity to do so. However. appellees seek to reco.,.
for such expend I tures as may be fou.nd to hav,,, been Improper. We remand for
flJ.rther appropriate proceedings on thlS lSS'-le should appellees care to pursue
it.
Finally. on appeal. appeliees cha] lenge the validity of the
provided for the creatlon of a unlfled health care dlstrlct.
treat thlS Issue or the other 1'3sues ralsed by appel lees for
this appellate proCeedIng.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DELL and GUHTHEF' '-'-.-,.
END OF DOCUMENT
. -: :~i:,
special act whicl
We do not
the flrst time II
..I~_)
;38S NO CL~IM TG ORIG. J.S. GOVT.
-,
.~UI\
~
--.........
--.........
.
[ITY DF DELRAY BEA[H
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
:;! IJ 5.1. I sl S J 1< 1,1-. I, SUITI': 4 DELRA Y BEACH, FLORIDA 33483
-.j.07i~4:. 7(Jl)U TELECOPIER 407/2784755
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 23, 1989
To: City Commission
From: Herhert W. A. Thiele, City Attorr.ey
Subject: 1989 General Obligation Bond Election Ballot
Attached hereto please find a copy of an opinion rendered by our bond
counsel, Mudge, Rose, Guthrie, Alexander 81 Ferdon, relative to the 198P
General Obligation Bond election ballot question. In light of the "singl!!
purpose rule" you will note that our bond counsel is recommendinp: that th~
referendum ballot contain four ballot questions, rather than the single
question that we had requested.
This matter Rhoulrl be scheciuled for the next available City Commission
workshop mef'ting for further discussion. II' the interim, if you have an)'
questions, please contnct Stephen Sanford at Mudge, Rose or the City
;;:;:ey,s Office.
!
I
cc: Malcolm Bird, Intf'rim City Mana!,""r
Elizabeth Arnau, rity rlerk
David IV". Huddleston, Directnr of Finane"
Stephen Sf1nfol'd, Esq.
3
l
c
.
MUDGE ROSE GUTHRIE AL.EXANDER & FERDON
FOR
MEMORANDUM
H~~bert W. A. Thiele, Esq.
City Attorney
August 23, 1989
Re: City of Del ray Beach, Florida
Single Purpose Rule for Bond Elections
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The City of Delray Beach, Florida (the "City"), wishes
to issue general obligation bonds to fund several capital
projects pursuant to its Decade of Excellence Bond program ahd
the City's newly submitted Comprehensive Plan. Such capital
projects include reconstruction of and improvements to certain
streets and drainage facilities, paving and drainage improvements
to certain alleys, construction of sidewalks, landscaping and
general beautification measures along streets and sidewalks,
construction and redevelopment of publj_c park and recreational
facilities, improvements to certain' cultural facilities, and
construction and renovation of several fire facilities and the
purchase of related equipment. The City plans to submit the
proposed bond issue to the voters for their approval at a
referendum election now set for November 7, 1989.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
May the proposed bond issue and projects to be funded
by the bond proceeds be submi tted to the voters in a single
question?
SHORT ANSWER
The single
upheld by the Florida
or more separate and
proposi tion must be
voters approval.
purpose rule, promulgated and repeatedly
Supreme Court, states that if there are two
distinct propositions to be voted on, each
stated separately and distinctly for the
Based upon our reading of Florida case law, we believe
that the Decade of Excellence Bond program encompasses four (4)
l
.
separate;;'"~rid distinct purposes for which the bonds will be
issued: 1) streets, drainage, sidewalks and general
beautification projects; 2) recreational and cultural facilities;
3) fire facilities and related equipment; and 4) initial seed
money for the acquisition and construction of various
redevelopment proj ects in the City. Under the single purpose
rule, voters must be given the opportunity to cast their votes
effectively by allowing them the opportunity to accept some
measures and rej ect others. Accordingly, the purposes of the
proposed bond issue should be stated separately and distinctly on
the ballot to be submi tted to the voters. If the purposes are
not effectively separated on the ballot, then, pursuant to case
law, a court may uphold a challenge of the Bond referendum and
declare the results invalid.
DISCUSSION
4;,'
,
The single purpose rule, first promulgated by ~be
Florida Supreme Court in Antuono v. City of Tampa, 99 So. ~i24
(1924), states that if there are two or more separate, distiict
and unrelated purposes to be submitted for voter approval, etch
such purpose should be stated separately and distinctly on the
ballot. Id. at 326. The Court held that:
elections are invalid where held under such
restrictions as to prevent the voter from casting
his individual and intelligent vote upon the
object or objects sought to be obtained. The
obj ect of the rule preventing the submission of
several and distinct propositions to the people
uni ted as one in such a manner as to compel the
voter to reject or accept all is to prevent the
joining of one local subject to others in such a
way that each shall gather votes for all, and thus
one measure, by its populari ty or its apparent
necessity, carries other measures not so popular
or necessary and which the people, if granted the
opportuni ty of separate ballots, might defea't.
Id. at 326.
Where a natural relationship exists among the projects
to be funded by a bond issue, however, they may be submitted to
the voters as a single proposal. State v. City of Miami, 76 So.2d
294, 296 (Fla. 1954). The Florida Supreme Court has held that
parks and recreational facilities are so interrelated as to
-2-
.
.
l
.
;4,... ~" ";
constit~'a single purpose, Grapeland Heights Civic Association
v. City.,of MIami, 267 So.2d 321, 323 (Fla. 1972); costs of
reconstruct4ng, renovating and restoring a museum building for a
city hall and other city offices, including a fire station, and
the purchase of municipal radio equipment to be installed in the
city hall and on city vehicles are so closely related that they
consti tute a single purpose and can be placed on one ballot,
State v. City of st. Augustine, 235 So.2d 1, 3 (Fla. 1970); using
the proceeds of a bond issue for the construction of several
roads in the county constitutes a single purpose, Lewis v. Leon
County, 107 So. 146, 158 (Fla. 1926).
However, if the several projects are essentially
unrelated so as to consti tute di stinct purposes, they must be
separated on the ballot when submitted for voters approval. The
Florida Supreme Court has held that storm sewers and drains are
separate and distinct projects from watermains, and that garbage
incinerators are separate and distinct from both storm sewers and
drains, and watermains. Antuono v. City of Tampa at 327.
Recently, the Court held that three proj ects to be funded bll. a
proposed municipal bond issue a police facility, a fl~e
station, and a sewer compression station - could not tpe
collectively referred to as a single purpose of provid!ng
essential municipal services in a bond referendum. Winterfield
v. Town of Palm Beach, 455 So.2d 359, 361 (Fla. 1984). The Court
stated that since any project to be funded by a municipal bond
issue can be categorized as providing essential services,
grouping projects under such a broad purpose for voter approval
violates and "effectively eviscerates" the single purpose rule.
Id. at 361.
While the Court found a violation of the single purpose
rule in Winterfield, since more than one purpose would be served
by the proposed bond issue, the Court nonetheless refused to
invalidate the results of the referendum election. The Court
sought to balance the single purpose requirement against the
harshness of per se invalidation and held that the facts in the
particular case did not support invalidation. Id., at 361.
However, where the sufficiency of the ballot is questioned in
appropriate proceedings before the election, or if fraud,
corruption or coercion is asserted due to violation of the single
purpose rule, the Winterfield Court held that there would be
stronger grounds for invalidation of the election. Id. at
361-362.
If a natural
projects to be funded by
collectively grouped as
relationship does not exist between
a particular bond issue, they cannot be
one proposition to be submitted on a
-3-
I
.
,
;,
ballot for voter approval. However, a number of propositions may
be submitted to the voters at the same time on a single ballot if
each distinct and unrelated purpose for which the indebtedness is
contemplated is stated separately, and provision is made to allow
the voters the opportunity to vote upon each specific proposition
independent of the other measures. Antuono v. City of Tampa at
326.
Treating the City's proposed projects as a single
proposal, as has been argued by you, would probably not be upheld
if subjected to judicial attack. Stating that the projects are
naturally related in that they are necessary to effectuate the
elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan would in our view
probably not be upheld under a single purpose rule challenge. We
believe there are four (4) separate and distinct purposes for
which the bonds will be issued. Accordingly, these projects
should be submitted as separate propositions for voter approval,
so that the rationale of the single purpose rule is not violated.
rd. at 326. otherwise, the election may be set aside if
challenged in a timely manner, or afterwards on the grounds ~Clf
lack of good faith by officials by proposing a single questhm
for the financing of the projects. Winterfield v. Town of P.lm
Beach at 361.
Attached hereto
indicating the four (4)
submitted to the voters.
for your reference is
distinct propositions
a sample ballot
which should be
-4-
I
.
ALTERNATIVES/METHODS FOR THE PROCESS OF
SELECTING A CITY MANAGER
Page Two
OPTION II
IN-HOUSE SEARCH (NATIONAL OR REGIONAL)
In years past, the City has
City Manager by advertising
tions and local newspapers.
conducted national
in national and/or
Those professional
searches for the position of
regional professional publica-
publications include:
Talent Referral Service
A subsidiary of ICMA which recruits qualified women and
minority candidates
Annual Membership Fee $400
ICMA Newsletter
Cost to Advertise based on $7.50 per column line
Public Administration Times *
Recruiter
Cost to Advertise based on $28.75 per column inch
IPMA Recruiter Service *
,
National Cities Weekly
Publication of the National League of Cities
Cost to Advertise is based on $7.00 per line
Quality Cities Magazine *
Publication of the Florida League of Cities
It should be noted that executive search firms such as Mercer-Slavin also use
these publications in their recruiting efforts.
Local newspapers such as the Miami Herald, The Sun Sentinel and the Palm Beach
Post are also used.
* Courtesy service at no charge.
SELECTION PROCESS
**Se1ection Committee comprised of current and former City Managers from
surrounding cities prepare a short list of candidates to be interviewed
by the Commission or a preliminary short list to be further reduced by
the Commission to arrive at an interview list.
**Selection Committee comprised of Commission appointed citizens prepare
a short list of candidates to be interviewed by the Commission or a
preliminary short list to be further reduced by the Commission to
arrive at an interview list.
** Technical support from City staff available upon request from the Commission
or the Selection Committee.
.
ALTERNATIVES/METHODS FOR THE PROCESS OF
SELECTING A CITY MANAGER
Page Three
OPTION II (Continued)
Estimated Costs to Advertise
$2,202
Estimated Travel Costs for all
Candidates Interviewed
$2,000
Pre-Employment Physical/Drug Screening
(Final Candidate Only-Required by City)
$
99
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST FOR IN-HOUSE SEARCH
$4,301
OPTION III - APPLICATIONS FOR CITY MANAGER FROM OTHER CITIES
.
Request applications from other municipalities in the area who have recently
conducted a search/interview process for the City Manager's position.
Estimated Travel Costs for all
Candidates Interviewed
$2,000
Pre-Employment Physical/Drug Screening
(Final Candidate Only-Required by City)
$
99
TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS BY USING APPLICATIONS
FROM OTHER CITIES
$2,099
l
.
ALTERNATIVES/METHODS FOR THE PROCESS OF
SELECTING A CITY MANAGER
Page Four
OPTION IV - CONSIDERATION OF INTERNAL CANDIDATES OR OTHER QUALIFIED
CANDIDATES WITH WHOM COMMISSION IS FAMILIAR
The City Commission may choose to interview and consider internal
or other qualified candidates with whom they are currently familiar.
this process, each commissioner might submit two names and a ranking
lished to arrive at a short list of candidates to be interviewed.
candidates
Utilizing
be estab-
*Estimated Travel Costs for all
Candidates Interviewed
$1,000
Pre-Employment Physical/Drug Screening
(Final Candidate Only-Required by City)
$
99
TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS FOR INTERNAL CANDIDATES
OR OTHER QUALIFIED CANDIDATES
$1,099
,
.
*Due to the selection of the candidates being based upon the Commissioner's
knowledge of the individuals, it is projected that in most cases the individu-
als will either be internal or will be located within closer proximity to the
City than those individuals in the other options listed. Therefore, the total
estimated travel for all candidates has been reduced.
OPTION V
SELECTION PROCESS DETERMINED/DEVELOPED BY CITIZENS COMMITTEE
The Commmission may choose to designate a Citizens Committee to recommend the
type of selection process and to determine the steps within the process.
Total estimated costs are projected to fall between the cost of Option I,
($18,616) and Option II ($4,301).
/bh
cc: Robert A. Barcinski - Assistant City Manager-Community Services
John W. Elliott, Jr. - Assistant City Manager-Management Services
l
.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM: Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager/Community Services
DATE: August 31, 1989
SUBJECT: September 5, 1989 - Workshop
Golf Course Contract Negotiations
Purpose
The purpose of this item is to obtain input from City Commission on
items of concern and items that Commission wishes to include as part of
staff's contract negotiations with Delray Golf, Inc. Staff is in the
process drafting the contract document and anticipate meeting with
representatives of Delray Golf, Inc. the week of September 11th. ,
I have also attached copies of excerpts from Mr. Goldstein's proposal
that list exceptions to the City's RFP. The exceptions contained in
exhibit 12 were the basis for his bid.
RAE/sfd
5
.
TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES FOR EVALUATION. IT IS HOPED THAT THE MAJOR-
ITY WILL CHOOSE TO STAY AS IT IS IN THE BIDDERS BEST INTEREST TO
HAVE A STABLE TRAINED WORKFORCE. INFORMATION CONCERNING PURCHASE
OF STOCK ETC HAS BEEN COVERED IN ITEM H. ABOVE.
P. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
BECAUSE OF THE UNUSUAL ASPECTS OF THIS BID AND SOME OF THE
EXCESSIVELY RIGID REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFP EXHIBIT 12 IS A LISTING
OF EXCEPTIONS TO THE RFP WITH SUGGESTED CHANGES. THIS BID IS MADE
WITH THE SPECIFIC UNDERSTANDING THAT THOSE CHANGES SHOWN IN
EXHIBIT 12 ARE THE BASIS FOR THIS BID AND THAT ALL OTHER PARTS OF
THE RFP NOT HEREBY AMENDED ARE ACCEPTED AND ARE THE BASIS FOR THE
BID.
,
.
l
.
1
i
)'
PROPOSAL FOR OPERATION OF THE
. DELRAY BEACH MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE
EHIBlT 12
1. SINCE THE BIDDER HAS OBLIGATED HIMSELF TO PAYMENTS OF $IOS.OOO
PER YEAR FOR BOND SERVICE TO ACCOMPLISH THE IMPROVEMENTS ANTICI-
PATED TO BE PAID FOR BY THE SURCHARGE IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT NO
SURCHARGE SHALL BE IMPOSED BY THE CITY DURING THE TERM OF THIS
CONTRACT OR ANY EXTENSION THEREOF.
2. ON PAGE 7 OF THE RFP ITEM 8. FEES. THE MANAGEMENT FIRM SHALL
SET THE FEES WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY MANAGER. HOWEVER. THE
CITY MANAGER SHALL NOT WITHHOLD APPROVAL OF INCREASES WHICH DO
NOT EXCEED THE NATIONAL CONSUMER PRICE INDEX OF THE PREVIOUS
YEAR. THE BIDDER WILL NOT LOSE THE RIGHT TO MAKE AN INCREASE
BECAUSE ONE IS NOT REQUESTED EACH YEAR. THE NEXT INCREASE MAYBE
AN ACCUMULATION OF C.P.I. INCREASES FOR WHICH THE BIDDER HAS NOT
APPLIED.
3. ON PAGE 7 ITEM 9 FINANCIAL REPORTING. IT IS UNDERSTOOD BETWEEN
THE PARTIES THAT THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHALL BE PRE- <
PARED IN THE SAME FORMAT AS THE ANNUAL UNAUDITED STATEMENT OF
REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES AND SHALL BE SUBMITTED IN THE THIRD '
YEAR IN SATISFACTION OF THAT REQUIREMENT.
4. ON PAGE 7 ITEM 10 REMODELING /RENOVATIONS. THE CITY AGREES
THAT NO ACTION TAKEN UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL
IN ANYWAY PERMANENTLY REDUCE THE SCOPE OF SERVICES WHICH MAY BE
OFFERED OR THE SIZE OF THE LEASED SPACES WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC
APPROVAL OF THE MANAGEMENT FIRM IN WRITING.
5. ON PAGE 7 OF THE RFP ITEM II. UTILITIES. THE CITY SHALL HAVE
UNLIMITED ACCCESS... THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE ADDED: ANY DAMAGE
DONE TO THE COURSE SHALL BE REPAIRED AT THE EXPENSE OF THE CITY
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT FIRM. ANY OPERATION ON THE
COURSE SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE MANAGEMENT FIRM AT LEAST 5
DAYS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF SUCH WORK EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF
AN EMERGENCY WHICH WILL REQUIRE THE LONGEST PRACTICAL NOTICE
POSSIBLE. IN ALL CASES THE ROUTE OF ACCESS SHALL BE AS DIRECTED
BY THE MANAGEMENT FIRM.
6. ON PAGE 8 ITEM 13. HOURS OF OPERATION. THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE
ADDED: EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF HURICANES OR OTHER POTENTIALLY
DESTRUCTIVE WEATHER WHEN THE MANAGEMENT FIRM MAY CLOSE ~HE COURSE
FOR THE PROTECTION OF LIFE AND PROPERTY SOLELY AT THEIR DISCRET-
ION. WHEN THE COURSE OR A PORTION THEREOF IS NOT SUITABLE FOR
PLAY BECAUSE OF EXCESSiVE WETNESS OR MAINTAENANCE REQUIREMENTS AS
DETERMINED BY THE GREENSKEEPER AND THE PRO THE COURSE OR A PORT-
ION THEREOF MAYBE CLOSED AND THE CITY NOTIFIED. FURTHER iT IS
UNDERSTOOD THAT THE CI_Uf3HOUSE. RESTROOMS ON THE COURSE AND OTHER
FACILITIES MAYBE Cl,OSFD Fr~OM TIME TO TIME FOR RENOVATIONS AND OR
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE.
E..'t. \-h e, 1\ \ '-
l
.
7. PAGE 8. ITEM 18 HAZARDOUS WASTE. THE FOLLOWING SHALl BE
ADDED TO THIS SECTION: THE CITY SHALL HOLD HARMLESS THE MANAGE-
MENT FIRM FOR ANY DETERIORATION OF COURSE CONDITION WHICH IS
CAUSED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE WELL FIELD ORDINANCE AS WR[TTTEN
OR AS MODIFIED DURING THE LIFE DF THE CONTRACT OR ANY EXTENSIONS
THERETO WHEN SUCH PROVISIONS PRECLUDE THE USE OF ANY SUBSTANCE
WHICH IS IN GENERAL USE ON OTHER COURSES IN THE AREA AND IS THE
PREFERRED SUBSTANCE FOR CONTROL OF ANY PEST OR IS USED TO ENHANCE
COURSE CONDITION.
8. PAGE 9. ITEM 19. MAINTENANCE. THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE ADDED TO
THIS SECTION: THE CITY SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONDIT[ON OF
THE COURSE DURING THE TIME THAT THE PRESENT OPERATOR IS IN CON-
TROL OF THE COURSE. THE CONDITION SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED TO DETE-
RIORATE FROM THE CONDITION AT THE TIME THAT THE BIDS ARE RECEIVED
BY THE CITY.
9. THE TERMS OF ITEM ONE OF ADDENDUM NO.#I TO THE RFP GREEN FEES:
IS UNDERSTOOD BY THIS BIDDER TO MEAN THAT THE CITY SHALL BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING FROM THE OUTGOING OPERATOR A PRORATA
SETTLEMENT FOR ALL UNEXPIRED PREPA[D GREENS FEES OF WHATEVER TYPE
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO PREPAID GREENS FEE ANNUAL RATES. ANY
DISCOUNT BOOK OF GREEN FEE TICKETS, ANY COURTESY PASSES AND ANY
ACCESS AUTHORIZED THROUGH BARTER OR TRADE OR AS COMPENSATION FOR
SERVICES RENDERED. THE FUNDS THUS RECEIVED SHALL BE PAID TO TME
MANAGEMENT FIRM AT THE BEGINING OF THE CONTRACT PERIOD ALONG WITH
A COMPLETE LISTING OF THE HOLDERS OF SUCH AUTHOR[TIES TO PLAY.
ANY PERSON OR PERSONS WHO HAVE A CLAIM FOR SUCH USE SHALL HAVE NO
RIGHT OF ACTION AGA[NST THE MANAGEMENT F[RM IF THEY ARE OMITTED
FROM SUCH A LISTING AND SHALL HAVE RIGHTS ONLY AGA[NST THE OUT-
GOING OPERATOR.
10. ALTHOUGH THE RFP ANTICIPATES THE CONTRACT COMMENCMENT TO BE
THE I OF JAN. 1990 THIS BIDDER IS PREPARED TO ENTER AT AN EARL[ER
DATE IF THAT IS THE DESIRE OF THE CITY. HOWEVER, SHOULD THE CITY
ELECT THIS OPTION THEN THE CITY SHALL AGREE TO A FUNDING FORMULA
WHICH WILL INSURE THAT THE MANAGEMENT FIRM WILL NOT SUFFER A LOSS
DURING THE LOW REVENUE PRODUCING MONTHS. [T IS ANTICIPATED THAT A
PORTION OF THE REQUIRED FUNDS WOULD COME FROM THE SOURCES NAMED
IN ITEM 9 ABOVE.
II. IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH [S THE OWNER
OF THE LIQUOR LICENSE AT THE SNACK BAR AND ~ILL ARRANGE FOR THE
TRANSFER OF SAID LICENSE TO THE MANAGEMENT FIRM SO AS TO PERMIT
THE MANAGEMENT FIRM TO SERVE L[QUOR AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE
LEASE.
1
.
MEMORANDUM
TO: ~ Malcolm T. Bird, Interim City Manager
FROM: Robert A. Barcinski, Asst. City Manager/Community Services
DATE: August 31, 1989
SUBJECT: September 5 Workshop Item
InterlocaI Agreement - Solid Waste Authority
Purpose
The purpose of this item is to obtain Commission direction concerning
the execution of an interlocal agreement with the Solid Waste Authority
for Recycling.
Summary
The main issue of this agreement is that all recyclables would be turned
over to the SWA. The SWA would market recyclables and obtain the
revenue, not the City. Under our contract with Waste Management, the
City receives revenues for the sale of recyclables. The estimated
revenue that the City would receive next fiscal year is $ 15,000. If we
enter into this agreement, Waste Management has indicated that they
would reduce the monthly charges to our homeowners by .05 (approximately
$ 9,000 per year total). This is a policy issue for Commission
consideration.
Recommendation
Staff recommendation is to not enter into the interlocal agreement,
collect the revenues from the sale of recyclables, and utilize the
revenue for special recreational activities or for the purchase of
products made from recyclable material.
RAE/sfd
~
.