F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Jun e 14 , 2 006 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HEEL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

_____________________________

N o. 04- 1361 0

_____________________________ D. C. Docket N o. 99-10054-CV-JCP ELIZABETH J. NEUMONT, LA W RE NCEF. SCH EI TE R, DA VI D J. TH OMA S, SU SA NAEL EN A T HO MAS , ind ivi dua llya nd o n be ha lf of a ll oth er s si milarl y situa te d, Pl ai nti ff s- A ppe lla nts ,

ve rs us STATE OF FLORIDA, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, D ef en da nts -A ppe lle es .

_________________________________________ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Southern D istrict of Florida

_________________________________________

(J un e 14, 200 6)Honora ble Will is B. Hunt, J r., Senior United States District J udg e for the Northe rn District of * Geor g ia, sitting by

desig nation. 2 Befo re EDMONDSON, Ch ie f Ju dg e, BARKETT, Circ ui t J ud ge , and HUNT , * District Judge. PE R CU RIA M: CERTIFI CATION FROM THE UNITED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT TO THESUPREME COURT OF FLORI DA, PURSUANT TO FLA. R. APP. P. 9.15 0( a). TO THE SUPREM E COURT OF FL ORI DAAN D I TS HO NO RAB LEJUST ICE S: T his c as e pr es en ts q ue sti ons unde r the U nit edS ta te s C onst itu tio n a nd the la w s of the S ta te of

F lor ida . W e m ak e thi s c ertif ic at ion be cause r es olu tio n of thi s state law question m ay rem ove the need to decide certain questions of feder al constitu tional law. “ W hen deciding cases, we address question s of feder al co nst itu tio na l l aw onl y a s ala st r es or t. ” S av e O ur D une s v. A laba m a D ep ’ t of Env tl . Mg mt., 8 34 F.2d 98 4, 9 89 (11 th Cir . 19 87 ). In F eb ru ary 199 7, Mo nr oe Co unt y , F lor ida , e na ct edO rd ina nc e 004- 1997 , w hic h r es tr ic ts c erta in p ro pe rt ie s in the F lor ida K ey s f ro m be ing use d a s sh or tte rm va ca tio n r en ta ls. E liz ab eth N eu m ont a nd o the r pr ope rt y ow ne rs sub j ec t t o th e O rd ina nc e (c oll ec tiv el y “ Pl ai nti ff s” ) fi le d ac la ss a ct ion in the S outhe rn D istri ct of Florida against Monroe County (“ Monroe”) alleging that the Ordinance w asSe c tio n 1 25 .6 6( 4) (b ) s tate s, in p art : 1 I n c a se s inwh ic h th e pr op os e d ord inanc e or re so lutionc hang e s th e a c tual li st of permitted, conditional, or prohibited uses wit hin a zoning categ ory , or chang es the actua l zoni ng map desig nation of a pa rce l or parc els of land involving 10 contig uous acr es or more , the boar d of county commissioners shall provide for public notice and he ari ng s a s f

oll ow s: 1. The board of county

commissioners shall hold two advertised public he aring s on the proposed or dinanceor re solution . . . . 2. . . . T he a dv e rtise me nt s ha ll b e in s ub stanti a lly thefo llo wi ng fo rm : NOTI CE OF ( TYPE OF) CHANGE The (name of local gove rnmental unit) propose s to adopt the following by ordinanc e or r esolution: (titl e of or dinanceor re solution). A public hea

ring on the ordinanc e or r esolution will be held on (date and time) at (mee ting plac e). I n Plaintiffs’ Second Amende d Complaint, t hey al l ege that Monroe violated F lorida Statutes 2 section 166.041. This se ction sets out proce dures unde r which a municipality

is empowere d to enac t an ordinance. Be cause this c ase pertains to a county ordinanc e, the pr oper statutory section -- as the district court re cog nized -- see ms to be section 125.66. 3 en ac te d a nd e nf

or ce d in am an ne r w hic h de pr ive d th em of due pr oc es s a nd de pr iv ed th em

of p ro pe rty with ou t ju stco m pe ns at io n. Pl ai nti ff s a lso a dva nc edc la im s un de r Fl or ida la w . A m ong the ir

c la im s, Pl ai nti ff s c ont en d th at

Mo nr oe vio la te d F lor ida S ta tut es se ct ion 125 . 66 w he n it 1 m ad e ch an ge s to the O rd ina nc e dur ing the e na ct m en t pr oc es s. B ec au se no 2 co nt ro ll in g F lo rid a Su pr em e Co ur t au th or it y see m s t o e xi ston th is qu es ti on , we ce rt if y the iss ue to the F lor ida

S upr eme Co ur t.4

Fl or ida S ta tut es se ct ion 125 . 66 s et s ou t the pr oc ed ur es und er w hic h a co unt y is em

pow er edto en ac t a n or din an ce . G ive n th at se ct ion ’ s r eq uir emen ts, Mon ro e ad ve rt ise d a nd h el d tw o pu bli c he aring s on the pr opos edO rd ina nc e. T he first public advertisem ent directed re aders on how to obtain a copy of the proposed Or dinance. A t the first hearing, the Board of County Commissio ners (BO CC) discuss ed a diffe rent and previously unavailable draft of the O rdinance, which subs ta nti al ly a dde d to the qua nti ty of r eg ula tio ns a nd the dif

fi cu ltyof m ee tin g th e O rd ina nc e’ s r eg ula tory bur de ns. Mon ro e la te r publ ish ednot ic e of ase co nd h eari ng. A t the se co nd h eari ng, the BO CC dis cu sse d adr af t of the O rd ina nc e w hic h w as una va ilable to the pub lic unt il thr ee da y s be fo re the he aring . T he BO CC a lso c onsi de re d a nd a dopt eda t the he aring c erta in p re vio usl y unp ubl ish edc ha nge s to the dr af t O rd ina nc e, inc lud ing an a ddi tio na l pr ohi bit ion a ga ins t va ca tio n r en ta ls i n th e Co mm er ci al F ish ing Re sid en tia l D istri ct . T he BO CC the n e na ct edthe O rd ina nc e at the se co nd h eari ng. Pl ai nti ff s arg ue tha t the O rd ina nc e shou ld b e voi d ab i nit io be cause Mo nr oe am ended the Ordinance during the enactm ent process in a m anner that violated se ct ion 125 . 66. T he dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud edtha t M onr oe didnot vio la te se ct ion 125. 66.5

Fl or ida S ta tut es se ct ion 125 . 66( 4) (b ) co nta ins the not ic e re qui re m en ts f or pr opos edor din an ce s th at c ha nge the a ctua l l ist

of pe rm itt ed , c ondi tio na l, or prohibi ted uses within a zoning category . The district court r ecognized that

“ [u ] nde r Fl or ida

la w , stric t c om

pli an ce w ith the not ic e re qui re m en ts o f the state statute is a j urisdictio nal and m andatory prere quisi te to the valid enactm ent of a zo nin g m ea sur e. ” S ee S outhe rn E ntm ’ t C o. of F la . , I nc . v. Ci ty of

Bo y nto n B ea ch , 736 F.Supp. 1094, 1102 (S.D . F la. 1990 ) (c iting Ellison v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 183 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 1966 )). “ Failure to follow the state statutory not ic e re qui re m en ts r en de r[ s] az oni ng o rd ina nc e voi d. ” I d. T he part ie s a gr ee tha t, und er F lor ida la w , Mo nr oe w oul d be r eq uir edto re ne w the e na ct m en t pr oc es s if “ subs ta nti al or

m at eria l c ha nge s” w er e m ad e to the Or dinance during the enactment process. T he parties, however, disagree on what constitu tes a substantial and m aterial c hange. P laintiffs contend th at a substantial an d m at eria l c ha nge inc lud es ( 1) a ny c ha nge to a pr opos edor din an ce tha t w oul d al te r the a ctua l l ist

of pe rm itt ed , c ondi tio na l, or

pr ohi bit eduse s or

( 2) ac ha nge ne ce ssaryto se cu re le gis la tiv e pa ssa ge of the or din an ce . Mo nr oe c ount er s by ar gui ng tha t a

sub sta nti al or

m at eria l c ha nge inc lud es onl y tho se c ha nge s to the original pu rpose of a proposed ordin ance. T he district court relied chieflyon an opi nio n bythe F lor ida

A tto rn eyG en er al a nd g rante d su mm ary j udgmen t t o6

Monroe because the original general purpose of the Or dinance rem ained co nsi ste nt thr ough out

the e na ct m en t pr oc es s. S ee 198 2 F la . O p. A tt’ y G en . 219 , Fl a. A G O 082 -9 3. W e ha ve dou bt about

the c orre ct

appl ic at ion of

state la w in thi s c as e. T he Florida Supreme Court m ay review a question of law ce rtified by this Court

“ w hic h is de te rm

ina tiv e of the c au se a nd f

or w hic h th er e is n o c ontro lli ng precedent of the supreme court of Florida. ” F LA . C ON ST . art . V, § 3( b) (6 ). Fi ndi ng n o appl ic ab le sup re m e co ur t pr ec ed en t, w e the re fo re c ertif y to the F lorida Co ur t the f

oll ow ing que sti on: W he th er, fo r pu rp os es of F lo rid a St at ut es sec ti on 12 5.6 6( 4) (b ), a “ subs ta nti al or

m at eria l c ha nge ” in a

pr opos edor din an ce dur ing the enactm ent process (that is, the kind of change that would require a co unt y to start

the pr oc es s ov er ) is c onf ine d to ac ha nge in the “ original general purpos e” of the proposed ordinance, or w hether a subs ta nti al or

m at eria l c ha nge inc lud es ( 1) ac ha nge to the “ ac tua l l ist of pe rm itt ed , c ondi tio na l, or

pr ohi bit eduse s w ith in a

z oni ng ca te gory , ” or

( 2) ac ha nge ne ce ssaryto se cu re le gis la tiv e pa ssa ge of the ordinance? W e be lie ve thi s st at e la w que sti on s houl d be r es olv edby the F lor ida Su pr eme Co ur t. I n c ertif y ing thi s qu es tio n, w e do n ot i nte nd t o r es tr ic t the state co ur t’s co ns id erat io n o f th e is su es pre se nt ed . W e as k fo r th e st at e co ur t’s h el p.

“ [L ] at itu de e xte nds to the S upr eme Co ur t’ s r es ta te m en t of the . . . iss ue s a nd the m an ne r in w hic h th e an sw er s are giv en . ” W as hburn v. Rabun, 755 F . 2d 1 404,7

1406 ( 11th C ir . 198 5) . T o a ssi st the state c ourt, the e nti re r ec or d in thi s c as e an d the br ie fs of

the part ie s are tr an smitt edhe re w ith . QUESTION CERTIFIED.