Boca Raton no longer will have a special election on Jan. 13 after a judge deemed the questions planned for the ballot unconstitutional, the city has confirmed.
Circuit Court Judge Joseph Curley granted a temporary injunction Monday to halt two referendum questions from appearing on the January election ballot. The questions referred to charter and ordinance amendments, initiated by residents who formed a group called Save Boca, that identically propose the requirement of an election for any selling or leasing of more than half an acre of city-owned land.
Curley’s order comes after a hearing on Nov. 25 when he heard arguments from Ned Kimmelman, a Boca Raton resident and retired attorney who sued the city and the Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections Office in an attempt to halt the Jan. 13 ballot questions. Kimmelman also initially sued Save Boca and its founder, Jon Pearlman, but then dropped them as defendants in the case before last week’s hearing.
In response to Curley’s order, the city wrote in a statement this week that the Jan. 13 election has been canceled. The city had yet to pay for any election preparations, “but will wait to see if we receive any administrative expenditures from the supervisor of elections.”
A statement from the supervisor of elections office concurs with the city in that the office will not be administering the Jan. 13 special election for Boca Raton, and the city will be responsible for any actual costs incurred for the preparation of the election up until this point.
A few weeks ago, the city estimated they could pay at least $460,000 for the January election.
According to Curley’s order, the Jan. 13 election would have violated a portion of the Boca Raton charter that states proposed amendments must be placed to a vote within a 90-day timeline. The Jan. 13 election date “is beyond the three months required for a vote under the city’s charter,” according to Curley’s order.
During a city meeting on Monday, City Attorney Joshua Koehler said that the city cannot run its own elections; rather, it relies entirely on the county supervisor of elections office to do so. “That Jan. 13 date was the earliest date the supervisor could offer,” Koehler said.
Curley also wrote that the “charter ordinance funs afoul of the Florida Constitution and the city’s own municipal powers,” citing other factors considered by the court.
Koehler said, “It is true that the court found that the election date was set beyond the 90-day charter limit, but even if the election had been scheduled within the 90-day limit, the court still ruled that the petition language itself was unconstitutional as a separate, completely independent issue.”
The judge removed the measures from the January ballot “because of the substance of the petitions themselves, not because of what the city did or did not do,” Koehler said.
Save Boca founder Jon Pearlman said during Monday’s meeting that the city undermined its residents by electing not to provide a defense before Curley at last week’s hearing.
Neither Save Boca or Pearlman could provide defense because Kimmelman had dismissed them as defendants from the case on Nov. 12. This dismissal prevented Save Boca from “presenting a defense,” according to a statement on Save Boca’s website.
“The judge allowed the hearing to take place absent a Save Boca defense,” the group wrote.
After the proposed charter and ordinance amendments were found unconstitutional, Mayor Scott Singer said during Monday’s meeting that he would like the council to consider an alternative ordinance.
This substitute would establish requirements for the sale, lease or disposition of city-owned lands larger than a half-acre, such as multiple public hearing and written findings about how the deal serves the public interest and benefits city residents.
“I think this cuts to the thrust of what some of the people might have thought that they were signing when they signed the petition. It avoids the ambiguity and it sets forth requirements,” Singer said at Monday’s meeting. “A court has now said that a referendum is not appropriate for this matter. That was the crux of their opinion. So this is a protection that is available, and I think we ought to explore it.”
The March 10 election ballot remains unchanged.
Residents will cast votes for a new mayor, council member seats A, B and D, and two referendum questions:
— One question is about whether the city should move forward with the government campus redevelopment project as proposed by Terra and Frisbie, the development firms representing the project.
— Another question is about whether the city should spend $175 million in bond funds on a new police station.
