Can a special district board repeal its bylaws by simple majority when the bylaws require a supermajority to amend them?

Plain-English summary

The attorney for the Spring Hill Fire Rescue and Emergency Medical Services District asked two questions: whether the district board could repeal its bylaws by a simple majority when the bylaws themselves required a supermajority to amend them, and whether a state statute (section 189.436) would override the bylaws if the two conflicted.

This was an informal response, not a formal Attorney General opinion. The office explained that it generally does not issue opinions interpreting local codes, ordinances, or charters, and that it must presume duly enacted bylaws are valid. As a courtesy, Assistant Attorney General Joslyn Wilson pointed to Sterling v. Brevard County, where a charter review commission had tried to lower its own two-thirds amendment rule by simple majority on the advice of its attorney; the court held that the commission did not properly amend its bylaws that way. Following that reasoning, the district board would appear to have to act under its existing bylaws until they were properly amended.

On the second question, the office noted the general rule that local enactments are inferior to state law, so a clear conflict would be resolved in favor of the statute. But it was not clear any conflict existed here, because section 189.436 (part of the Community Improvement Authority Act) merely lets a board appoint and set the salary of a chief financial officer, and it was uncertain whether the Legislature even intended that act to apply to this fire district. The letter suggested the district seek legislative or judicial clarification.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2011. 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.

Background and statutory framework

The Spring Hill Fire Rescue and Emergency Medical Services District was created as an independent special district by Chapter 2009-261, Laws of Florida, for fire protection, rescue, and emergency medical services, with powers drawn from the special act and Chapters 189 and 191, Florida Statutes.

On the bylaws question, the office relied on Sterling v. Brevard County, 776 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). There, a charter review commission's bylaws required a two-thirds vote on all questions; the commission nonetheless used a simple-majority vote to change that rule, acting on erroneous legal advice, and the courts held the amendment was not proper. The same logic suggested the district board had to honor its supermajority requirement until the bylaws were amended in the manner the bylaws required.

On the conflict question, the office cited the settled principle that local enactments cannot conflict with state law and yield to it when they do (Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of St. Pete Beach, 940 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); West Palm Beach Association of Firefighters v. Board of City Commissioners, 448 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Sarasota Alliance For Fair Elections, Inc. v. Browning, 28 So. 3d 880 (Fla. 2010)). It questioned, however, whether section 189.436 even applied. That section sits within the Community Improvement Authority Act (sections 189.430-189.444), which deals with authorities for projects like professional sports facilities, and the letter noted the act's placement in Chapter 189 appeared to be a product of statutory revision rather than a deliberate legislative choice to give this fire district those powers. It also pointed to section 191.006(5), which lets a district adopt resolutions prescribing its officers' powers and duties.

Common questions

Q: Can a board lower its own supermajority voting rule with a simple majority?
A: The informal comments, following Sterling v. Brevard County, indicate a board generally must follow its existing bylaws (including a supermajority amendment requirement) until the bylaws are properly amended under their own terms. The office did not issue a binding ruling.

Q: Why didn't the AG just answer the question directly?
A: The office's stated practice is not to issue formal opinions interpreting local codes, ordinances, or charters, and to presume the validity of duly enacted bylaws. The letter offered informal comments to be helpful and suggested seeking legislative or judicial clarification.

Q: Does a state statute always beat a conflicting local rule?
A: Florida courts treat local enactments as inferior to state law, so a clear conflict is resolved in favor of the statute. Here, though, the office was not convinced a real conflict existed, and doubted that the cited statute even applied to this district.

Citations and references

Statutes and session laws:

• s. 189.436, Fla. Stat. (chief financial officer, within the Community Improvement Authority Act)
• ss. 189.430-189.444, Fla. Stat. (Community Improvement Authority Act)
• s. 191.006(5), Fla. Stat. (district resolutions prescribing officers' powers)
• Chapter 2009-261, Laws of Florida (Spring Hill Fire Rescue District charter)

Cases:

• Sterling v. Brevard County, 776 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), simple majority could not amend a supermajority bylaw
• Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of St. Pete Beach, 940 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
• West Palm Beach Association of Firefighters v. Board of City Commissioners, 448 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
• Sarasota Alliance For Fair Elections, Inc. v. Browning, 28 So. 3d 880 (Fla. 2010), state law prevails over conflicting local enactment

Source

• Landing page: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/ag-opinions/fire-and-rescue-district-by-laws-amendment
• Original PDF: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/print/pdf/node/8170

Original opinion text

Mr. Andrew J. Salzman

Attorney, Spring Hill Fire Rescue and

Emergency Medical Services District

2570 Coral Landings Boulevard

Suite 201

Palm Harbor, Florida 34684

Dear Mr. Salzman:

On behalf of the Spring Hill Fire Rescue and Emergency Medical Services District, you ask whether the district board of commissioners may repeal the district by-laws by a simple majority vote when the by-laws require a super majority vote of the board to amend the by-laws. You also ask whether section 189.436, Florida Statutes, will prevail over the by-laws if there is a conflict between the statute and the by-laws.

Chapter 2009-261, Laws of Florida, creates the Spring Hill Fire Rescue and Emergency Medical Services District as an independent special district for the purpose of providing fire protection and firefighting services, rescue services, and emergency medical services.[1] Section 2(1) of the special act provides that the "district is organized and exists for all purposes and shall hold all powers set forth in this act and chapters 189 and 191, Florida Statutes."

As discussed in this office's statement concerning Attorney General Opinions,[2] opinions generally are not issued on questions requiring an interpretation only of local codes, ordinances or charters rather than the provisions of state law. Moreover, this office must presume the validity of any duly enacted by-laws. In an effort to be of assistance, however, I would note that the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Sterling v. Brevard County,[3] considered the validity of action taken by a charter review commission (CRC) which had adopted by-laws requiring a two-thirds vote of the CRC on all questions or motions. According to the court, "[w]hile discussing the super majority issue on June 19, 1998, the attorney for the commission erroneously opined that a simple majority could amend the bylaws. Based on this misdirected legal advice, the CRC, by a simple majority vote, modified Rule 16 to provide that a simple majority could amend the CRC's bylaws."[4] In considering the decision of the lower court, the district court stated that the judge "correctly ruled that the CRC did not properly amend its bylaws or Rule 9 at the meeting on June 19th."[5]

Following the rationale expressed in the Sterling case, the district board of commissioners would appear to be required to act in accordance with its duly enacted by-laws until such by-laws have been properly amended.

You also ask whether a statute or the by-laws would prevail in the event of a conflict. The courts have recognized that enactments by local governments are inferior to state law.[6] Thus, if there is a clear conflict between a state statute and a by-law, the statute would prevail. It is not, however, clear that such a conflict exists with regard to the instant inquiry as section 189.436(1), Florida Statutes, merely provides that the board may appoint and fix the salary of a chief financial officer of the authority.[7] Moreover, while the special act provides that the district has all powers set forth in the special act and Chapters 189 and 191, Florida Statutes, I would note that section 189.436, Florida Statutes, is a part of the "Community Improvement Authority Act," sections 189.430-189.444, Florida Statutes. The act provides for the creation of community improvement authorities which seek to generate local support for the development of projects, including professional sports facilities and related amenities and infrastructure.[8] A question would therefore be raised as to whether the Legislature intended the Spring Hill Fire Rescue and Emergency Medical Services District to exercise the powers of a community improvement authority even though such provisions are contained in Chapter 189, Florida Statutes.[9]

The district may wish to seek legislative or judicial clarification of its duties and responsibilities. I hope, however, that the above informal comments may be of assistance.

Sincerely,

Joslyn Wilson

Assistant Attorney General

JW/tsh

[1] The district's boundaries were subsequently revised in Ch. 2010-264, Laws of Fla.

[2] Available online at: http://myfloridalegal.com/opinions.

[3] 776 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

[4] Id. at 282.

[5] 776 So. 2d at 283.

[6] See, e.g., Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of St. Pete Beach, 940 So. 2d 1144, 1147 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); West Palm Beach Association of Firefighters v. Board of City Commissioners, 448 So. 2d 1212, 1215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Sarasota Alliance For Fair Elections, Inc. v. Browning, 28 So. 3d 880, 890-891 (Fla. 2010) (concurrent legislation by a local government may not conflict with state law; if conflict arises, state law prevails).

[7] And see s. 191.006(5), Fla. Stat., authorizing a water control district "[t]o adopt resolutions and procedures prescribing the powers, duties, and functions of the officers of the district;" and s. 3(5) and (6) of the district charter providing that the board of supervisors has the authority to "employ such personnel as deemed necessary for the proper function and operation of the district" with the salaries of district personnel and any other wages to be determined by the board.

[8] See s.189.432(1) and (2), Fla. Stat., respectively defining "Authority" to mean an authority created under the Community Improvement Authority Act, and "Board" or "board of supervisors" to mean the governing body of an authority. And see s. 189.432(7), Fla. Stat., defining "Project" to mean "facilities, attractions, and other improvements authorized by this act, including professional sports facilities, related amenities and infrastructure, and systems, facilities, and services determined by an authority to be beneficial to the development, ownership, and operation of any of the foregoing, including the acquisition of land and any interest therein."

[9] Compare ss. 189.401-189.429, Fla. Stat., containing provisions relating to special districts. Chapter 2000-348, Laws of Fla., which created the Community Improvement Authority Act, did not place the act within Ch. 189, Fla. Stat.; such assignment appears to have been made by the Division of Statutory Revision.