Can a Florida city enforce its alcohol ordinances on the grounds of a state community college located inside the city?

Plain-English summary

The Melbourne city attorney asked the AG's office whether valid municipal ordinances regulating alcohol were enforceable on property owned or controlled by Eastern Florida State College, a Florida College System institution. The office declined to issue a formal opinion, citing its standing policy that it would not opine on the responsibilities of one government officer at the request of another without participation from the affected agency, and grounding that policy in section 16.01(3), Florida Statutes.

Senior Assistant Attorney General Gerry Hammond did, however, offer informal comments. The opinion pointed Melbourne to section 1001.64(5), Florida Statutes, which expressly gave each Florida College System institution's board of trustees responsibility for the use, maintenance, protection, and control of the institution's buildings and grounds, "including placing restrictions on activities and on access to facilities, firearms, food, tobacco, alcoholic beverages, distribution of printed materials, commercial solicitation, animals, and sound." The same statute placed law enforcement on college property with the board and authorized it to employ police officers. The implication, though never stated as a holding, was that the legislature had committed alcohol policy on Florida College System property to the trustees, not to the surrounding municipality.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2016. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Chapter 1001 has been amended several times since 2016, and the relationship between municipal home-rule authority and state-owned property continues to be litigated. Before relying on this informal opinion, check the current text of section 1001.64 and any later AG opinions or court decisions addressing concurrent jurisdiction.

Common questions

Q: Why didn't the AG issue a formal opinion?
A: Section 16.01(3), Florida Statutes, authorized the AG to issue legal opinions on state-law questions about the duties of governmental officers and agencies. The office's published policy was that it would not opine on the duties of one government officer at the request of another. Here, Melbourne was asking about its authority to enforce city ordinances on property of Eastern Florida State College, a separate state-level agency. Because the college had not joined the inquiry, the office treated it as a dispute between two governments and offered only informal commentary.

Q: What did section 1001.64(5) actually say at the time?
A: It made each board of trustees responsible for the "use, maintenance, protection, and control" of the institution's buildings, grounds, property, equipment, name, trademarks, and financial resources. It expressly authorized boards to "plac[e] restrictions on activities and on access to facilities, firearms, food, tobacco, alcoholic beverages, distribution of printed materials, commercial solicitation, animals, and sound." The opinion treated that as the legislature's grant of regulatory authority over alcohol on college property to the board of trustees.

Q: Did the opinion say city ordinances never applied on college property?
A: It did not go that far. The office only noted in informal comments that the statute "appeared" to give responsibility for alcohol policies on college property to the boards of trustees. It did not address the broader doctrinal question of whether a city's general police power extended into state-owned campuses, leaving that for the courts or a later formal opinion if both sides participated.

Q: Who enforced laws on Eastern Florida State College property?
A: The opinion pointed to section 1001.64(23), Florida Statutes, which placed law enforcement within the board's jurisdiction and authorized the board to employ police officers. Section 1012.88 was also cited as part of the campus-police framework.

Q: What should Melbourne have done next based on the opinion?
A: The office closed by trusting the comments would "assist you in advising your client, the City Council of the City of Melbourne." If the city believed it had a genuine jurisdictional conflict with the college, the practical paths would have been to negotiate an interlocal agreement, ask the AG for a joint opinion with the college's participation, or seek a declaratory judgment.

Background and statutory framework

The Florida College System (formerly the community college system) consists of public two-year and four-year institutions chartered under Part III of Chapter 1001, Florida Statutes. Each institution is governed by a board of trustees appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate. Section 1001.64 lists those boards' powers and duties, treating each campus as a quasi-municipal corporation with its own authority over its grounds and operations.

Florida municipalities derive their police power from the home-rule provisions of Chapter 166 and Article VIII, section 2 of the Florida Constitution. That power is broad inside the city but is not unlimited. Where the state has expressly committed a subject to a different agency (here, college trustees) by general law, the city's ordinance generally yields. The AG's office did not adjudicate that conflict in this informal opinion, but its choice of statutory citations signaled the answer it would have given on a fully briefed formal question.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• § 16.01(3), Fla. Stat. (AG opinion authority)
• § 1001.64, Fla. Stat. (Florida College System trustee powers)
• § 1012.88, Fla. Stat. (college law enforcement officers)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/ag-opinions/alcoholic-beverages-municipal-ordinances
• Original PDF: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/print/pdf/node/8058

Original opinion text

Ms. Alison L. Dawley

City Attorney

City of Melbourne

900 E. Strawbridge Avenue

Melbourne, Florida 32901

Dear Ms. Dawley:

Thank you for contacting the Florida Attorney General's Office for assistance in determining "[w]hether valid municipal ordinances regarding alcohol are enforceable on property owned or controlled by college institutions of the Florida College System[.]" Attorney General Bondi has asked me to respond to your letter.

After reviewing the information you have submitted, it does not appear that this is a matter upon which this office may comment. The Florida Attorney General is statutorily authorized to provide legal opinions on questions of state law relating to the duties and responsibilities of governmental officers and agencies. See section 16.01(3), Florida Statutes, and Department of Legal Affairs Statement Concerning Attorney General Opinions (available as FAQ at myfloridalegal.com). It is the policy of this office not to comment on the duties and responsibilities of one governmental officer or agency at the request of another. Thus, with a fact situation such as the one you present, i.e., the enforcement of municipal ordinances on the property of another governmental agency, Eastern Florida State College, this office will not comment in the absence of a request that includes the college.

However, in an effort to assist you I offer the following informal comments.

Eastern Florida State College is a Florida College System institution operating pursuant to Part III, Chapter 1001, Florida Statutes. The powers and duties of Florida College System institution boards of trustees are set forth in section 1001.64, Florida Statutes. Among those powers is that expressed in subsection (5):

"Each board of trustees shall have responsibility for the use, maintenance, protection, and control of Florida College System institution owned or Florida College System institution controlled buildings and grounds, property and equipment, name, trademarks and other proprietary marks, and the financial and other resources of the Florida College System institution. Such authority may include placing restrictions on activities and on access to facilities, firearms, food, tobacco, alcoholic beverages, distribution of printed materials, commercial solicitation, animals, and sound." (e.s.)

Thus, it appears that the Legislature intended to give the responsibility for policies placing restrictions on activities and access to alcoholic beverages on college property to the boards of trustees of Florida College System institutions.[1] This statute also places responsibility for law enforcement within their jurisdiction with each board of trustees and authorizes each board to employ police officers to accomplish the duties imposed by the statute.[2]

I trust that these informal comments will assist you in advising your client, the City Council of the City of Melbourne.

Sincerely,

Gerry Hammond

Senior Assistant Attorney General

GH/tsh

[1] And see s. 1001.64 (4)(b) and (8), Fla. Stat., authorizing the adoption of policies by each Florida College System institution board of trustees for such things as the buildings and grounds of the institution and student activities.

[2] Section 1001.64 (23), Fla. Stat. And see s. 1012.88, Fla. Stat.