EAST CENTRAL REGIONAL WASTE-WATER FACILITIES OPERATION BOARD, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, 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.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal reviewed a Department of Community Affairs (DCA) declaratory statement determining that East Central Regional Wastewater Facilities Board (ECR) was not a special district. While affirming that conclusion, the court reversed and remanded because DCA exceeded its jurisdiction by making additional findings on budgetary authority and bonding powers that were not presented in the petition.
The court affirmed DCA's determination that ECR was not a special district but reversed and remanded because DCA exceeded the scope of its permissible review by making findings on budgetary authority and bonding powers that were not presented in the petition. DCA lacked statutory authority to regulate entities that are not special districts.
[1] An agency's authority is limited to powers expressly granted by legislative enactment or necessarily implied therefrom.
[2] An agency may not expand its own jurisdiction beyond that conferred by statute.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Having concluded that ECR was not a special district, DCA went beyond the scope of the petition by making further findings on issues not presented to it and potentially affecting entities not before it.”
Establishes that DCA exceeded its jurisdiction by addressing matters outside the scope of the petition.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceECR was created by an interlocal government agreement between five municipalities to manage wastewater treatment facilities. In June 1994, the City of…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Agency Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PARIENTE, Judge.
East Central Regional Wastewater Facilities Board (ECR) appeals from a declaratory statement issued by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), pursuant to section 120.565, Florida Statutes (1993), on a petition filed by City of West Palm Beach for a determination of ECR’s status as a special district. We have jurisdiction to review the declaratory statement. § 120.68, Fla.Stat. (1993). Although ECR does not challenge DCA’s determination that it was not a special district, we agree with ECR that DCA’s additional findings concerning ECR’s budgetary authority and its authority to issue revenue bonds exceeded the scope of DCA’s permissible review.
ECR is a creation of an interlocal government agreement, as provided in section 163.01, Florida Statutes (1993), between the City of West Palm Beach, the City of Lake Worth, the City of Riviera Beach, the Town of Palm Beach, and Palm Beach County. Its purpose is to manage the wastewater treatment facilities serving the residents of those municipalities. In June 1994, after a question as to the legal status of ECR arose, the City of West Palm Beach filed a petition with DCA asking for its formal opinion whether ECR was a special district under chapter 189, Florida Statutes.
By its declaratory statement, DCA concluded that ECR was not a special district because it had not been created in accordance with the exclusive methods for creation of special districts as detailed in chapter 189. However, in its declaratory statement, DCA also concluded that the City of West Palm Beach, and not ECR, has budgetary approval authority over the wastewater treatment fa cilities, and that ECR lacked any authority to issue revenue bonds.
The City of West Palm Beach’s petition solely addressed the issue of whether ECR was a special district, raising this question in seven specific questions concerning special district status. Having concluded that ECR was not a special district, DCA went beyond the scope of the petition by making further findings on issues not presented to it and potentially affecting entities not before it. See § 120.565, Fla.Stat. (1993); Florida Optometric Ass’n v. Department of Professional Regulation, Bd. of Opticiamy, 567 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).
DCA also exceeded its jurisdiction in interpreting the terms of the interlocal agreement, once it determined ECR was not a special district. While section 189.4035(1) authorizes DCA to determine whether ECR was a special district, nothing in the statute empowers DCA to regulate entities which are not special districts and thus to define the extent of ECR’s authority under the interlocal agreement. As stated in Department of Environmental Regulation v. Falls Chase Special Taxing District, 424 So. 2d 787, 793 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), review denied, 436 So. 2d 98 (Fla.1983):
An agency has only such power as expressly or by necessary implication is granted by legislative enactment. An agency may not increase its own jurisdiction and, as a creature of statute, has no common law jurisdiction or inherent power such as might reside in, for example, a court of general jurisdiction.
Accordingly, we remand to DCA with instructions to strike all portions of the declaratory statement which go beyond the finding that ECR is not a special district. § 120.68(12), Fla.Stat. (1993).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
FARMER, J, and WOLF, JAMES R., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vanette Webb and Laura L. Whiteside v. Sch. Bd. OF Escambia Cnty., 1 So. 3d 1189 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…consider any school board officer’s request for reimbursement of reasonable legal expenses pursuant to the statute. An agency, however, has no common law jurisdiction. See E. Cent. Reg’l Wastewater Facilities Operation Bd. v. City of W. Palm Beach, 659 So. 2d 402, 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). The trial court, not the appel-lee, has jurisdiction to hear common law [*1191] claims. As such, although the trial court properly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the appellant’s statutory claim, it erred…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Falls Chase Special Taxing Dist., 424 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Fla. Optometric Ass'n & Alan P. Fisher v. Dep't OF Prof'l Reg., 567 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)