City of Daytona Beach Shores v. State

Citations: 483 So. 2d 405; 10 Fla. L. Weekly 629Docket: 65,912, 66,700

Court: Supreme Court of Florida; December 11, 1985; Florida; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Supreme Court of Florida addressed consolidated cases regarding the legality of beach "user fees" imposed by the City of Daytona Beach Shores, St. Johns County, and the City of St. Augustine Beach for motor vehicle access to Atlantic beaches. The City of Daytona Beach Shores sought review of a Fifth District Court of Appeal decision that conflicted with prior case law. The court determined it had jurisdiction and quashed the district court's decision while reversing the trial court's judgment related to St. Johns County. It ruled that no constitutional barrier exists against reasonable user fees for sovereign land access, provided the generated revenue is exclusively used for the maintenance, operation, and improvement of those lands. The court also acknowledged that taxpayers bore the costs of the litigation initiated by the State of Florida to prevent local governments from collecting these fees. The City of Daytona Beach Shores had enacted an ordinance in 1982 to impose the fee, citing increased costs for providing public services to the growing number of beach users, with the funds designated for beach-related expenditures and improvements.

The state attorney initiated a lawsuit against the city, asserting that the city lacked the authority to impose a beach access fee. The trial judge sided with the state, determining that the fee infringes on public access to navigable waters and is not a valid regulation of the beach. The district court of appeal upheld this decision, declaring the ordinance an improper use of the city’s police powers and highlighting that the fee unfairly required vehicle drivers to finance unrelated governmental activities and cover the full cost of beach clean-up.

In response to a newly adopted ordinance by the St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners, which imposed a one-dollar fee per vehicle during peak use times, it was noted that a significant majority of beach-goers accessed the beaches via motor vehicles. The ordinance specified that the fee revenue was to be allocated for beach-related vehicle usage costs. The trial court subsequently barred fee collection, citing the district court's ruling that the fee discriminated against drivers.

The state contended that local governments lacked constitutional or statutory authority to regulate vehicle access or charge fees for beach access. However, the 1985 Florida Legislature enacted section 161.58(2), allowing local governments to impose vehicle access fees with a three-fifths governing body vote, provided the funds are used for beach maintenance. The legislation clarified that local governments could charge reasonable fees for vehicular beach access, in alignment with the public trust doctrine, which ensures public access to Florida's beaches. The court found that the ordinance did not unjustly discriminate between motorists and pedestrians, as a significant majority of beach users arrived by vehicle, necessitating public welfare services such as sanitation and traffic control.

The Court emphasized the dangers posed by the combination of vehicles and people on beaches, citing the duty of local governments to warn users when vehicle control is insufficient, as established in *Ralph v. City of Daytona Beach*. It recognized that prohibiting vehicle access could restrict beach use primarily to local residents due to limited parking. Therefore, the Court found that implementing a reasonable access fee for vehicles is a permissible solution. The case was remanded to the district court to assess the reasonableness of the beach access fees and ensure compliance with section 161.58 of the Florida Statutes, effective October 1, 1985. 

Chief Justice Boyd dissented, arguing that the Coastal Zone Protection Act of 1985, specifically section 161.58(2), which allows local governments to permit vehicular traffic on beaches, is unconstitutional and lacks a rational basis. He contended that this delegation of authority undermines the legislature's responsibility to protect public health and safety. Boyd insisted that with the current heavy beach usage, allowing vehicles is dangerous and that a complete prohibition on vehicular traffic is the only rational and constitutional response. He further noted the environmental harm caused by vehicles in less populated coastal areas and argued for an absolute prohibition as the only acceptable policy.