FL AGO 2017-08 2017-11-30

Can a Florida county withdraw from its statutorily designated regional planning council if the interlocal agreement says it can?

Short answer: No. Section 186.504(5) requires that 'each county shall be a member of the regional planning council created within the comprehensive planning district encompassing the county.' Section 186.512 names every Florida county's council. A county cannot withdraw, and an interlocal agreement's withdrawal provision cannot trump the statutory mandate.

Disclaimer: This is an official Florida Attorney General opinion. AG opinions are persuasive authority but not binding precedent. This summary is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Consult a licensed Florida attorney for advice on your specific situation.

Plain-English summary

The Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council was created in 1973 by an interlocal agreement under § 163.01 among Charlotte, Collier, Glades, Hendry, Lee, and Sarasota Counties. The interlocal agreement contains a withdrawal provision allowing member counties to leave by resolution. Three counties (Sarasota, Lee, and Charlotte) had passed such resolutions and proposed to stop paying dues within 12 months.

The Council asked whether those counties could actually withdraw. The AG concluded they could not. The Florida Regional Planning Council Act, originally enacted in 1980 (Ch. 80-315, Laws of Florida), once said membership was discretionary. But a 1984 amendment changed that. Section 186.504(5) now reads: "each county shall be a member of the regional planning council created within the comprehensive planning district encompassing the county." Section 186.512 then names every Florida county and assigns it to a specific council. Section 186.505(12) gives the council the power to "fix and collect membership dues, rents, or fees when appropriate," which means the assigned counties have to pay.

Section 163.01(9)(b) of the Interlocal Cooperation Act provides the closer: "An interlocal agreement does not relieve a public agency of any obligation or responsibility imposed upon it by law." So a withdrawal clause in the 1973 interlocal agreement, drafted before mandatory membership existed, can't overcome the later statutory mandate. The AG declined to address whether a county could nonetheless withdraw from the interlocal agreement itself or stop paying dues under it; that's a contractual dispute outside the AG's authority.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2017. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Was Florida regional planning council membership originally mandatory?
A: No. The 1980 Regional Planning Council Act (Ch. 80-315, codified at former §§ 160.01-160.08) expressly said: "Nothing contained in this act shall be construed to mandate local general-purpose government membership or participation in a regional planning council."

Q: When did county membership become mandatory?
A: 1984. Chapter 84-257, § 11, Laws of Florida, amended the act to retain discretion for municipal participation but require county membership.

Q: Did the interlocal agreement's withdrawal provision matter?
A: No, because § 163.01(9)(b) provides that "[a]n interlocal agreement does not relieve a public agency of any obligation or responsibility imposed upon it by law." The 1984 statutory change imposed mandatory membership on the counties; the contractual withdrawal clause cannot override that.

Q: Could a regional planning council compel dues payment?
A: Yes. Section 186.505(12) gave councils the express power to "fix and collect membership dues, rents, or fees when appropriate." Mandatory members are subject to dues set by the council under that authority.

Q: Could a county withdraw from the interlocal agreement itself?
A: The AG explicitly declined to opine on that. It's a contractual question, and the AG's office isn't the right forum for resolving rights and obligations under an agreement.

Q: How does this fit with prior AG opinions?
A: The opinion follows AGO 95-47, which dealt with the analogous Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council question and reached the same conclusion: statutory designation overrides interlocal agreement provisions on membership.

Background and statutory framework

Florida divides its territory into comprehensive planning districts under § 186.512, with one regional planning council per district. The councils were originally created by interlocal agreement under § 163.01 (the Florida Interlocal Cooperation Act), but the substantive statutory framework now lies in §§ 186.501–186.513.

Three threads weave together to lock counties into mandatory membership: § 186.504(5) (membership), § 186.512 (designated composition), and § 186.505(12) (dues). The Legislature's intent was visible: regional planning needs a stable, contiguous geography of counties, not an opt-out structure that lets counties bail when budget pressures arise.

The interesting legal move is § 163.01(9)(b), which functions as a constitutional-style override clause for interlocal agreements. Counties can structure their cooperation contractually, but the contracts cannot override later statutory obligations. That makes the 1984 amendment effective even against the preexisting 1973 agreement.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- § 163.01, Fla. Stat. (Florida Interlocal Cooperation Act)
- § 186.504, Fla. Stat. (Membership in regional planning councils)
- § 186.505, Fla. Stat. (Powers and duties)
- § 186.512, Fla. Stat. (Composition of regional planning councils)
- Ch. 80-315, Laws of Fla. (original Regional Planning Council Act)
- Ch. 84-257, § 11, Laws of Fla. (1984 mandatory-membership amendment)

Prior AG opinion:
- Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 95-47 (1995)

Source

Landing page: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/ag-opinions/withdrawal-from-regional-planning-council
Original PDF: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/print/pdf/node/1492

Original opinion text

Ms. Margaret Wuerstle

Executive Director

Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council

1400 Colonial Boulevard, Suite 1

Fort Myers, Florida 33907

RE: REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL – INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT – COUNTIES – whether a county may withdraw from its regional planning council. §§ 163.01 and 186.504, Fla. Stat.

Dear Ms. Wuerstle:

On behalf of the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, you have asked for an opinion on the following question:

Must a county participate in its statutorily designated regional planning council, despite an interlocal agreement provision pertaining to procedures for terminating membership?

In sum:

Section 186.504, Florida Statutes, mandates county participation in its regional planning council; therefore, a county may not withdraw as a member county.

In 1973, the counties of Charlotte, Collier, Glades, Hendry, Lee, and Sarasota entered into an Interlocal Agreement creating the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council ("Interlocal Agreement") pursuant to section 163.01, Florida Statutes.[1] There is a withdrawal provision in the Interlocal Agreement that allows a member county to withdraw its membership by resolution.[2] You indicate that Sarasota, Lee, and Charlotte counties have each passed resolutions to withdraw from the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council within 12 months and to cease paying dues at that time.

In 1980, the Florida Legislature enacted the Florida Regional Planning Council Act, Chapter 80-315, Laws of Florida, originally codified at sections 160.01 through 160.08, Florida Statutes, and now at sections 186.501 through 186.513, Florida Statutes. In section 160.01(4), Florida Statutes, the Legislature expressly stated that membership in a regional planning council was not mandatory: "(4) Nothing contained in this act shall be construed to mandate local general-purpose government membership or participation in a regional planning council."

In 1984, however, the Legislature amended section 160.01(4), now 186.504(5), to mandate county membership:

"Nothing contained in this act shall be construed to mandate municipal local general-purpose government membership or participation in a regional planning council. However, each county shall be a member of the regional planning council created within the comprehensive planning district encompassing the county."[3]

In 2015, the Legislature expressly designated the composition of each regional planning council in section 186.512, Florida Statutes, assigning every county in Florida to a council:

"(1) The territorial area of the state is subdivided into the following districts for the purpose of regional comprehensive planning. The name and geographic area of each respective district must accord with the following:

(h) Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council: Charlotte, Collier, Glades, Hendry, Lee, and Sarasota Counties." (e.s.)

Thus, the Legislature has created regional planning councils with mandatory county membership and has designated the particular council to which each county must belong. There is nothing in the Florida Regional Planning Council Act, sections 186.501 to 186.513, Florida Statutes, that allows a county to decline to participate in its council.[4] Moreover, one of the statutory powers and duties of a regional planning council enumerated in § 186.505(12), Florida Statutes, is to "fix and collect membership dues, rents, or fees when appropriate." Thus, a member county would be subject to any dues imposed by the regional planning council under this provision.

Your second question regarding whether a county may withdraw from the Interlocal Agreement and cease paying dues pursuant to that document is beyond the purview of this office to decide. This office is not the appropriate forum for determining rights and obligations under the agreement that may be in dispute under such circumstance.

It is my opinion that the counties of Sarasota, Lee, and Charlotte are mandatory members of the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council and may not refuse their statutory obligation to participate.

Sincerely,

Pam Bondi

Attorney General

PB/tebg

[1] Found at /files/pdf/page/1F857CC31C83D42D852581E900711BD2/SWFRPC_Interlocal_Agreement.pdf.

[2] Id. at 2.d., Effective Date, Duration, Termination and Withdrawal.

[3] Ch. 84-257, Laws of Fla., § 11.

[4] § 163.01(9)(b), Fla. Stat., provides, in part: "An interlocal agreement does not relieve a public agency of any obligation or responsibility imposed upon it by law[.]" As this office observed in Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 95-47 (1995), regarding whether a county could withdraw from the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council if there were a provision in its interlocal agreement authorizing withdrawal: "In light of the legislative directive as to how a regional planning district will be designated and the subsequent designation of the membership of District 5 by the Executive Office of the Governor, it would appear that any alteration to the district's designation and the composition of its membership would need to be addressed by that office or the Legislature."