PORT ST. LUCIE – The City Council here voted unanimously Oct. 13 to decline participation in a municipal lawsuit against the State of Florida in which 25 cities and counties have opposed the implementation of Senate Bill 180, calling it the “largest incursion into local home rule authority” since the 1968 adoption of Florida’s Constitution.
City Council members had previously discussed the issue on Sept. 22 and directed staff to further investigate the matter and report back.
Some of them expressed dismay that it had come back so soon since they were still not prepared to decide on joining the lawsuit, which has already been filed.
One of the primary contention points of the bill authored by Pinellas County Sen. Nick DiCeglie – whose stated purpose was to ensure municipalities didn’t hinder rebuilding after hurricanes – was that “any person” can sue the local government alleging violations of the law with new zoning or land use restrictions. That municipality then has 14 days to repeal the restriction before litigation begins.
Before the Council actually took up the matter in the latest meeting, its liaison with the state legislature, Chris Carmody, mentioned the issue in his legislative update.
“I did talk to Rep. [Toby] Overdorf and asked him specifically what he though about this bill,” he said. “He said, Fiona McFarland, the House member who had this bill, and her Senate counterparts are very interested in doing some fixes on that. I don’t think they’re going to outright repeal what they did, [but] I do think they’re going to do some tweaking on it.”
A short while later when the city clerk read the resolution into the record “authorizing participation” in that lawsuit, Councilman David Pickett was the first to pose a clarification question.
“What other big cities have signed?” he asked. “I want to make sure we weren’t the only big city joining the lawsuit.”
When City Attorney Richard Berrios admitted he didn’t have that information on-hand, Councilwoman Stephanie Morgan expressed frustration that the Board was actually considering approval that day.
“At the last meeting, it was stated that we didn’t want to be hasty with this, and then all of a sudden, it’s on our agenda,” she said. “I’ve got a little bit of heartburn with that [and] with Chris giving his report that they are hoping it’s going to brought back for modifications. I don’t like lawsuits to begin with.”
Councilman Anthony Bonna concurred.
“I am not in support of moving forward with the lawsuit,” he said. “I think it’s premature. I think the best legislation is made through the legislative process, and the legislator has indicated they’re willing to look at this and make some fixes in January. The lawsuit’s going to move forward with or without us. I don’t really see a huge benefit to the city for tacking onto this when in two months they’re going to be working through the process.”
For her part, Vice-Mayor Jolien Caraballo admitted to being “conflicted” over the city’s possible participation in the lawsuit but doesn’t have much hope that the aforementioned tweaking would help. She also alluded to other developmental interests that are opposed to any changes to that legislation.
“Would I be considering the lawsuit had I not received a letter from an attorney basically letting us know that if we passed anything, they are probably going to sue us,” she said. “I wouldn’t even be thinking about it quite honestly [and] be in agreement with most of the Board that we shouldn’t add on to the lawsuit. Based upon Mr. Carmody’s comments, I did not feel 100 percent hopeful that we’re going to see resolution this session in regards to the concerns we have. I guess my question is, will we be taken seriously at the state if we don’t participate in the lawsuit? We’re potentially going to get sued, unless everyone’s saying they’re going to stop moving forward with the mobility fee right now. I want to have a bit broader discussion on really what the strategy’s going to be for this Board.”
Mayor Shannon Martin, like some of her colleagues, expressed consternation that the matter was even before the Council that day.
“I see another side about joining it that could be political in nature as well,” she said. “Again, I was surprised to see this on the agenda when we just had that conversation literally at the last Council meeting. So, I’m not inclined to jump into it right now.”
When Mayor Martin prodded staff for a reason, Berrios admitted culpability and told her the Board could table the resolution to a date uncertain instead of voting that day if it preferred. He’d also found a list of the cities requested by Council Pickett at the onset.
“I believe Council had asked for a follow-up on it when it was coming back,” he said. “I must have misinterpreted right away, so I can take the blame. I do have a list of the cities. The bigger cities would be Fort Lauderdale; you have Destin, Lake Alfred, Windemere, Delray Beach, Deltona, Stuart, Manatee County, Orange County – I can just keep going – but there’s a bunch of plaintiffs already.”
The closest large city on that list aside from Fort Lauderdale would actually be the City of West Palm Beach. Councilman Pickett, however, continued his resistance, fearing that smaller cities would be tempted to not join the suit if Port St. Lucie did so. While other Treasure Coast communities like Vero Beach have debated the idea, Stuart has been the only local community so far to joined.
Pickett then made a motion to deny the resolution, which was seconded by Councilwoman Morgan. When Mayor Morgan questioned Berrios whether tabling or denying was better, the attorney recommended sticking with the motion on the floor.
“If the appetite changes, the litigation progresses or that willingness of the Legislature to move forward with changing 180 changes, you can revisit that,” Berrios said. “We’ll consult with Council on the availability of joining the lawsuit at that point.”
The City Council then voted unanimously to deny the resolution to participate in the lawsuit.