HomeMy Public PortalAbout21--9927 The Public Rights ProjectSponsored by: Mayor Pigatt and Vice Mayor Williams
RESOLUTION NO. 21-9927
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF OPA-LOCKA, FLORIDA,
AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC RIGHTS PROJECT, A
PROJECT OF THE TIDES CENTER, COMMUNITY
JUSTICE PROJECT AND SOUTHERN POVERTY
LAW CENTER TO FILE A LAWSUIT ON BEHALF OF
THE CITY OF OPA-LOCKA, FLORIDA, THAT
FACIALLY CHALLENGES SECTION 1 OF CS/HB 1
(2021); PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION OF
REPRESENTATIONS; PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, the City of Opa-Locka ("City") exercises control over its annual
budget as a means to respond to the diverse needs, interests, and values of the community
it represents; and
WHEREAS, the City has structured its FY 2022 Budget and has provided for
increases in staffing in the City's Police Department ("Department") due to current needs
of the Department but may need to make future reductions in other areas of the
Department's budget; and
WHEREAS, these potential reductions will have an effect on line items of the
City's law enforcement budget. To that end, the City requires full control of its budget
in order to be responsive to the needs of its residents and City police operations; and
WHEREAS, Section 1 of CS/ HB 1 creates a State executive review process that is
triggered when a City Commissioner or the State Attorney in the applicable Judicial
Circuit objects to a funding reduction to the operating budget of the City's law
enforcement agency; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission is concerned that seeking grant funding in the
future to improve policing operations will trigger an executive review process when the
funding is no longer available; and
WHEREAS, CS/ HB 1 delegates this process to the Administration Commission
comprised of the Governor and Cabinet, which has the power to amend or modify the
budget as to each separate item within the operating budget of the City's law enforcement
Resolution No. 21-9927
agency with no limiting principles on the Administration Commission's discretion; and
WHEREAS, The Public Rights Project, Community Justice Project and Southern
Poverty Law Center intend to file the lawsuit on behalf of a coalition of Florida cities; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission desires to move forward as a participant in the
litigation.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF OPA-LOCKA, FLORIDA, THAT:
Section 1. Adoption of Representations. The foregoing "Whereas"
clauses are hereby ratified and confirmed as being true and the same are
hereby made a specific part of this Resolution.
Section 2. Statement of Impact. The City Commission hereby states that
it is suffering a current injury because its FY 2022 budget considerations will be
impacted by HB 1 and any future grant dollars will be considered increases that
would trigger an executive review process when such funding is later not
available.
Section 3. Authorization of Representation. The City Commission of the
City of Opa-Locka hereby authorizes Public Rights Project, Community Justice
Project, and the Southern Poverty Law Center to file a lawsuit bringing a facial
challenge to Section 1 of CS/ HB 1 on behalf of the City of Opa-Locka as a
Plaintiff, seeking declaratory, injunctive, and other appropriate relief.
Section 4. Scrivener's Errors. Sections of this Resolution may be renumbered or
re -lettered and corrections of typographical errors which do not affect the intent may be
authorized by the City Manager, and approved by the City Attorney, without need of
public hearing, by filing a corrected copy of same with the City Clerk.
Section 4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon the adoption
and is subject to the approval of the Governor or Governor's Designee.
Resolution No. 21-9927
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of October, 2021.
MOTION FAILED
Matthew Pigatt, Mayor
ATTEST:
a Flores, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
4e,/
rcli
Burnadette Nor i - eeks, P.A. 1
City Attorney
Moved by: Vice Mayor Williams
Seconded by: Commissioner Taylor
VOTE: 2-2
Commissioner Taylor NO
Commissioner Bass NO
Commissioner Davis ABSENT
Vice -Mayor Williams YES
Mayor Pigatt YES
TO: Opa Locka City Commission
FROM: Public Rights Project, Community Justice Project, and the Southern Poverty
Law Center
RE: The Case for Challenging HB 1
I. Executive Summary
The Combating Violence, Disorder, and Looting and Law Enforcement Protection
Act, also known as HB 1, obstructs municipalities' ability to control their budgets —a core
local power. HB 1 gives the governor and his cabinet the power to line -edit municipal
budgets with binding legal effect whenever a reduction to the law enforcement budget is
challenged by the state attorney, member of the City Commission, or possibly even a
county sheriff.' This review process chills local government action.
Municipalities need full control of their budgets so that they can function properly.
Municipal revenue can be variable, which is why cities need full authority to structure
their budgets to weather changes. When revenues are down in periods of economic
hardship, municipalities need flexibility to tighten spending wherever such measures
would be most efficient, whether those tightening measures affect law enforcement or
parks and recreation. When municipalities receive opportunities to apply for one-time
grants to supplement a city budget or need to make a large expenditure to update the
infrastructure or technology in a department, they need the flexibility to make this
increase without being locked into maintaining a higher spending level. Furthermore,
municipalities need flexibility to reorganize their departments if certain programs would
fit better under the purview of another department.
Municipalities also require full control of their budgets in order to be responsive to
the needs of their residents. Budgets reflect community priorities and values. If residents
need greater investment in municipal human services as they struggle in the wake of a
pandemic and economic downturn, then it is the municipality's duty and prerogative to
formulate a budget that is responsive to residents' needs and values.
In the summer of 2020, the murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, among
others, catalyzed many Floridians to call on their local governments to rebalance
budgeting priorities to invest in public safety strategies that prioritize social and human
services separate from law enforcement. These residents pointed out that law
enforcement has been relied on as a first responder for non-violent incidents that could
be addressed with a public health or social service approach, but that these community
approaches need funding. Many municipalities responded by exploring how non -law
enforcement functions such as service programs could be transferred from the law
enforcement budget .to other municipal departments.
Matt Dixon, Florida Panel Paves Way for Law Enforcement to Appeal Local Police Budget Cuts, Politico
(June 15, 2021), https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2021/06/15/florida-panel-paves-way-for-
law-enforcement-to-appeal-local-police-budget-cuts-1386464.
1
grant to law enforcement can trigger HB 1. Simply shifting non -law enforcement
programs or positions out of the law enforcement budget can also trigger HB 1.
HB 1 looms over budgeting decisions right now, creating uncertainty about what
decisions could risk state takeover of the budget. Now is the time to challenge this law
facially rather than wait for further injury.
III. Facial Legal Claims
Not only do municipalities have standing to challenge HB 1, but they also have five
claims to assert in arguing that HB 1 violates the Florida Constitution. These claims have
been researched and analyzed by national and Florida non-profit organizations including
Public Rights Project and Community Justice Project, and by a private firm, Jenner &
Block.
Claim One: Separation of Powers
Under the Florida Constitution, no branch of government can exercise the powers
of another branch and no branch can assign its constitutionally given powers to another
branch. Fla. Const. art. II, § 3; Smithy. State, 537 So. 2d 982, 987 (Fla. 1989). HB 1 assigns
two fundamentally legislative powers to the executive branch. First, HB 1 gives the
Governor and his cabinet the ability through the municipal budget revision process to
reduce appropriations of public funds, which is a power that belongs exclusively to the
legislative branch. See, e.g., Florida House of Representatives v. Martinez, 555 So. 2d
839, 845 (Fla. 1990). Second, HB 1 gives the Governor and his cabinet the ability to revise
municipal decisions with binding effect, even though the ability to limit municipal power
is also an exclusively legislative authority. See, e.g., Askew v. Cross Key Waterways, 372
So. 2d 913, 915-19 (Fla. 1978). Because HB 1 delegates two legislative functions to the
executive branch, it violates the Florida Constitution on its face.
Claim Two: Nondelegation Doctrine
To the extent the legislative branch had some authority to delegate to the executive
branch here, HB 1 nonetheless violates the nondelegation doctrine enshrined in the
Florida Constitution. This doctrine holds that any delegation of legislative functions must
be accompanied by "some minimal standards and guidelines ascertainable by reference
to the enactment establishing the program." Askew v. Cross Key Waterways, 372 So. 2d
913, 925 (Fla. 1978). The nondelegation doctrine aims to prevent the executive "from
acting through whim, showing favoritism, or exercising unbridled discretion.' S. All. for
Clean Energy v. Graham, 113 So. 3d 742, 748 (Fla. 2013). But HB 1 does not provide any
such guidelines that instruct the executive how to review municipal reductions to the law
3
IV. Conclusion and Recommendation
HB l's injury to municipal autonomy is egregious and strategic, and it obstructs
the ability of municipalities to structure a budget that best responds to the needs and
values of its residents. Municipal autonomy and responsive local democracy are worth
defending, and pursuing this litigation would allow municipalities to defend their
authority from increasing encroachment by the state. We recommend that this
Commission vote to pursue this lawsuit.
5