Gidman v. Catholic Service Bureau, 81-943
| Decision Date | 16 June 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-943,81-943 |
| Citation | 416 So.2d 1168 |
| Parties | Justin V. GIDMAN, Alexander L. Suto, and Steven I. Greenwald, Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. CATHOLIC SERVICE BUREAU, Cross-Appellant, v. CITY OF BOCA RATON, a municipal corporation, and Jefferson H. Milner, John J. Meyer, Randolph H. Femmer, William Konrad, and Carol G. Hanson, in their respective capacities as members of the City Council of the City of Boca Raton, County of Palm Beach, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Justin V. Gidman, Alexander L. Suto, Steven I. Greenwald, and Jeffrey Watkin of Suto, Greenwald & Gidman, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellants/cross-appellees.
Byron B. Mathews, Jr., of McDermott, Will & Emery, Miami, for cross-appellant.
M. A. Galbraith, Jr., City Atty., Boca Raton, for appellees.
Robert A. Eisen of Marchbanks, Bell & Eisen, P.A., Boca Raton, for intervenor-Florence Fuller Child Development Center, Inc.
Appellee, City of Boca Raton, contracted to contribute matching funds for use in the operation of a child day care center. Appellants sued to enjoin the contribution, contending that it is expressly prohibited by the City Charter. From an adverse summary judgment appellants have perfected this appeal.
The record reflects that on September 29, 1980, the City Council of Boca Raton, by resolution, authorized the mayor and city clerk to contract with the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitation Services for the City to contribute the sum of $29,730.10 to match State and Federal funds to be used for the operation of the Florence Fuller Child Development Center, a tax exempt child care center in Boca Raton, which provides subsidized child care services for individuals who meet the organization's eligibility requirements for assistance. Appellants, residents and taxpayers of the City, filed a suit for injunction, asserting 1) the City Council exceeded its Charter authority in spending taxpayers' money for a non-municipal purpose; and 2) the contribution constituted an expenditure of public funds for the indirect benefit of a charitable organization in violation of Section 7.06 of the City Charter. Appellees answered, contending that the contribution did not violate the City Charter because the Florence Fuller Child Development Center was an educational organization and thus did not fall within the purview of the alleged charter limitation. Additionally, the appellees argue the City was authorized to make the questioned contribution under Article VIII, Section 2(b), Florida Constitution, and the Municipal Home Rule Powers Act, Chapter 166, Florida Statutes (1973).
Both parties argued there was no genuine issue of material fact and moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment for appellees because it found the Center is an educational organization and is not "a religious, charitable benevolent, civic or service organization so as to make this a prohibited transaction under the provision of 7.06 of the Charter." The judgment further provided:
[T]he Court concludes that a functional test should be applied in transactions of this nature and that test should be determined in light of whether or not the service which is being performed on a contractual basis is, in fact, a municipal service of which the City under the Constitution of the State of Florida and its Charter is permitted to engage.
Initially, we would dispose of the last of the above mentioned defenses by simply pointing out that Article VIII of the Constitution and the Home Rule Powers Act, which grant broad powers to municipalities, are both expressly limited. The Constitution authorizes municipalities to exercise "any power for municipal purposes except as otherwise provided by law." Article VIII, § 2(b) (emphasis added), while the statute provides that "It is the further intent of the Legislature to extend to municipalities the exercise of powers for municipal governmental, corporate, or proprietary purposes not expressly prohibited by the constitution, general or special law, or county charter...." § 166.021(4), Fla.Stat. (1979). The Charter provision involved in this case is Section 7.06 of the Boca Raton City Charter, which provides:
7.06 Expenditure of Funds Limited
No city funds shall be expended in any manner whatsoever to accrue either directly or indirectly to the benefit of any religious, charitable, benevolent, civic or service organization.
In view of the foregoing, we hold the broad grant of Home Rule Powers is limited by Section 7.06 of the Boca Raton City Charter.
Thus, it appears the focal point of the controversy between these parties is whether the Florence Fuller Child Development Center is a charitable organization. No one argues that the City's contribution does not accrue either directly or indirectly to the Center. Appellees' main argument is that the Center is an educational organization and thus the contribution is not prohibited by Section 7.06 of the Charter.
The affidavit of the executive director of the Center is attached to the appellees' motion for summary judgment. Paraphrased, it states, in pertinent part, that the Center is a nonprofit educational organization providing infant nursery, preschool, after school, and summer programs for economically disadvantaged children. It is a licensed child care facility employing seventeen teachers, two social workers, one nurse, two cooks, recreational directors and others. The sources of its funds are 61% public, 15% thrift shop, 12% United Way, 8% contributions, and 4% miscellaneous. Finally, the affidavit states that "[t]he Center is a tax exempt organization under section 501(c)(3) of the Int. Rev. Code as an 'educational, charitable organization.' "
The reflections of this record make it quite clear that the Center is an educational organization. While caring for the enrolled children it provides education of various sorts. This, no doubt, is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Boca Raton v. Gidman
...is permitted to engage. On appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of the trial court. Gidman v. City of Boca Raton, 416 So.2d 1168 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). In doing so it held that although the child care center is undoubtedly an educational facility, it is also a cha......