THE CITY OF ORLANDO; THE CITY OF BRADENTON; THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH; THE CITY OF PLANT CITY; THE CITY OF PANAMA CITY BEACH; AND THE CITY OF DAYTONA BEACH, APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE; AND BILL GUNTER AS INSURANCE COMMISSIONER OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This case reviews a lower court's decision on the constitutionality of Florida statutes that allow municipalities to fund retirement programs for police and firefighters using state-collected insurance premium taxes. The appellate court affirmed the statutes' constitutionality but reversed the finding that municipal officials could not serve on the pension trust fund boards.
The appellate court held that the amended statutes creating the voluntary retirement funding program are facially constitutional. However, it reversed the lower court's determination that municipal officials are barred from serving on the pension trust fund boards, finding this must be decided on a case-by-case basis.
[1] A voluntary program established by the legislature, allowing municipalities to receive state-collected taxes for funding retirement programs in exchange for meeting certa…
[2] Serving as a municipal representative on a police or firefighters pension trust fund board does not inherently violate the prohibition against dual office-holding under A…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“As the program is not mandatory as to any city’s participation, we find nothing that renders the amended statutes to be facially unconstitutional.”
Establishes the court's reasoning for affirming the constitutionality of the statutes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSeveral Florida cities appealed a lower court's order concerning the constitutionality of state statutes (Chapters 86-41 and 86-42) that amended exist…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
BARFIELD, Judge.
Appellants seek review of an order finding Chapters 86-41 and 86-42, Laws of Florida, amending Chapters 175 and 185, Florida Statutes (1985) respectively, to be facially constitutional.
We affirm, with one exception, the trial court’s determination the Acts do not violate constitutional tenets. Chapters 175 and 185 create a purely voluntary program whereby municipalities may receive state-collected taxes, imposed on property and casualty insurance premiums, with which to fund retirement programs for local police and firefighters. In exchange for receipt of these funds, the legislature has established certain criteria under which the funds must be operated and managed. The cities may opt into or out of such plans at their discretion. As the program is not mandatory as to any city’s participation, we find nothing that renders the amended statutes to be facially unconstitutional.
However, we reverse that portion of the order finding that both Chapters 86-41 and 86-42 and Article II, Section 5(a), Florida Constitution, barring dual officehold-ing, precluded municipal officials from serving on the Boards of Trustees of the respective municipal police and firefighters pension trust funds. The legislative history, submitted to this Court without objection, reflects the legislative intent that elected or appointed officials could be appointed by the local legislative body to serve as the municipality’s representatives on the Boards. Further, there is nothing inherently inconsistent or incompatible in service by municipal officials on these Boards so as to say that it presumptively violates the prohibition against dual office-holding in Article II, Section 5(a).
Bath Club, Inc. v. Dade County, 394 So. 2d 110 (Fla.1981); Gryzik v. State, 380 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1st DCA), petition for review denied, 388 So. 2d 1113 (Fla.1980).
Such determination must be made on a case-by-case basis as to each Board or individual trustee.
Accordingly, the trial court’s order is AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.
THOMPSON and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. League OF Cities, Inc. v. Dep't OF Ins. & Treas. & Fla. State Lodge, 540 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…, on constitutional grounds. The trial court’s decision holding these chapters to be facially constitutional was affirmed, .with one exception not material to the issues on this appeal, in City of Orlando v. State of Florida Department of Insurance, 528 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). . "This chapter hereby establishes minimum standards for the operation and funding of municipal firefighters’ pension trust fund systems and plans." . "This paragraph shall apply to all boards of trastees and participants.” .…
Authorities Cited
- The Bath Club, Inc. v. Dade Cnty., 394 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 1981)
- Gryzik v. State, 380 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)