CAO 00-12
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
Office of the City Attorney
Interoffice Memorandum
TO:
COMMISSIONER NANCY LIEBMAN C.A.O. NO. 00-12
MURRAY H. DUBBIN ., J~ I'~
CITY ATTORNEY tlli ~
SEPTEMBER 11, 2000
FROM:
Date:
Subject:
REQUEST FOR LEGAL OPINION - VALET RAMPS
You have requested a legal opinion following City Manager Lawrence Levy's
memo to you on the above subject. Essentially the primary question is whether the City may
alter the way it pennits valet services within the City, such that where two or more valet
cornpanies may presently have permits to operate on a single block face, a new procedure
would be followed to select a single valet company to operate within that single block face,
possibly through competitive bidding or other competitive selection process. Related
questions involve the legal effect of the alteration on the valet company, and existing
relations between businesses and valet companies.
I have concluded that the City may alter its system of issuing permits to valet
cornpanies to allow for one valet company to operate on a single block face. Such alteration
should be preceded by an ordinance amendment that provides for the new manner of
selecting from the existing and new valet companies.
City Code Chapter 18, Division 2, Valet Parking Permits for Use of Public
Property, governs the issuance of permits for valet operations on the city's rights-of-way.
Presently the Code authorizes the City to issue annual permits to valet operators, though the
specific meter rentals are on a two-week cycle. See Code Section 18-361(b). Such permits
are also subject to cancellation or revocation by the City's parking department. (Code
Section 18-339 authorizes the parking department to cancel and revoke authorization for a
valet operator to service a particular location.)
The manner in which pennits are issued to conduct valet operations within the
rights-of-way of the City is within the legislative discretion of the City Commission. North
Beach Yellow Cab Co. v. Village ofBal Harbour, 135 So. 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)(issuance
COMMISSIONER NANCY LIEBMAN
SEPTEMBER 11, 2000
Page 2
of taxi cab permits was within the legislative discretion of the village council, and council
had discretion on the number of taxi cab permits it issued annually). See also Boyd v.
Bonded Garaees. Inc., 160 So.2d 724 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 166 So.2d 593 (Fla. 1964),
in which a valet operator with a contract to provide valet services at the Miami Seaport
(operated by Dade County), challenged the County's right to solicit competitive bids for a
new valet contract covering the seaport, revoke the operator's existing contract, and enter
into a new contract with the successful competitive bidder. While the court focused on the
county's "proprietary control over the Miami Seaport" the principles remain the same.
Governmental authorities may exercise legislative and proprietary discretion in the manner
in which they issue permits for the use of their public property, and alter the prior
authorizations given to engage in commercial activity on public property.
Thus, the City may validly exercise its police power to reorganize its system
of issuing valet permits to further the public's health, safety and welfare. If the Commission
were presented with evidence that excessive congestion results from multiple valet operators
on a single block face, then the Commission could reasonably adopt procedures to implement
a single valet operation on a block face. North Beach Yellow Cab Co.; Bovd; Allport Taxi
Cab AdvisoryComm.. v. City of Atlanta. 584 F. Supp. 961, 966 (N.D. Ga. 1983)(ordinance
limiting taxi permits "is a valid exercise of the City's police power to better meet what the
City determines to be the public needs. 'It is not in the province of this court to inquire as
to the wisdom of passing the ordinance. "'); American VIP Limousines. Inc. v. Dade County,
757 F. Supp. 1382, 1394 (S.D. Fla. 1991)(in reviewing regulations treating taxi cabs
differently from limousines, the court stated: "States are accorded wide latitude in the
regulation of their local economies under their police powers, and rational distinctions may
be made with substantially less than mathematical exactitude. ").
It is recommended that the new procedure be implemented to coincide with the
expiration of existing valet permits. Existing valet operators whose permits were canceled
before their annual term expired may attempt to show that they had a property interest in the
permits, and the city was estopped from canceling the permits early. The Reserve. Ltd. v.
Town of Lone boat Key, 17 F.3d 1374 (l}1h Cir. I 994)(as to revocation ofa building permit).
Such arguments, however, should fail, based upon the cases discussed above. Allport Taxi
Cab Advisory Comm.; American VIP Limousines.
The question has been raised on the effect of altering this permit system on the
relationship between the valet companies and the businesses they serve. The relationships
between valet cornpanies and the businesses they serve have always been subject to the right
COMMISSIONER NANCY LIEBMAN
SEPTEMBER II, 2000
Page 3
pennit, either by modification of the process by which pennits are issued, or by cancellation
or revocation of the pennit, then the business relationships between the valet company and
the corresponding businesses are inevitably and necessarily affected. As with the lawful
issuance or revocation of any pennit, and lawful adoption by the City Commission of
ordinances affecting pennits within its authority, third parties may be affected, and such
possible results are inevitable. In North Beach Yellow Cab Co., ~ the cab company had
entered into a three-year contract with various hotels to provide services, which would have
been affected by the Village's reduction in the number of penn its issued to Yellow Cab.
This multi-year contract did not affect the Court's decision in favor of the Village, allowing
the Village to adjust the number of penn its it issued annually.
Cc: Jacqueline Gonzalez, Director, Miami Beach Parking System
F:\A TIO\HELG\PROJECTO\V ALETRAM\OPINION. WPD