Municipal Code Corp.#1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

it appears may have been superseded, specifically, or in effect, by the indicated provision, and should be interpreted as a general question whether the subject section(s) should be deleted considering the indicated provision. (3) Current? This questions whether a figure provided for in a section is the current figure, and implies, as a general matter, a question whether the city wishes, alternatively to use "time -to- time" language in place of the figure, i.e., whether language should be inserted providing that such fee, charge or cost shall be in such amount "as established by the city council from time to time." (4) Needed? This identifies a section or sections not normally codified, generally because such matter is covered by regulations promulgated by a department head or other official. (5) Revise to conform to F.S. § ? [Or, "Use F.S. § _ in place of this _T] This identifies a section or portion thereof which conflicts with the cited statute and revision is suggested to conform to the statute, generally by tracking the language of such statute. In such cases, it should be noted that any portion of the statute section cited that is not applicable to the city would be excluded, such as, for example, portions that deal with municipalities of a different population bracket, or portions that direct a state department or officer to perform certain duties. No problems noted. PART I. CHARTER AND RELATED LAWS Subpart A. Charter Subpart B. Related Laws Art. II, § 154 (Palatka Gas Authority's members required to be owners of real property): This is constitutionally questionable in light of such cases as City of Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U.S. 204(1970), Hill v. Stone, 421 U.S. 289 (1975), and Turner v.Fouche, 396 U.S. 346 (1970). 3