Legal Report, December 2012

Corbett and White, P.A., Palm Beach County League of Cities December 13, 2012

Legal Report-December                                        General Counsel, Trela J. White

  1. Palm Beach County Commission on Ethics:  Recent Advisory Opinions
    RQO 12-070:  The Palm Beach County Commission on Ethics (the “COE”) reviewed whether a municipal employee could work for the city as a certified planner to develop a city transit project where he was co-owner of a property located within the development area.  The COE stated that municipal employees are prohibited from using their official position to give themselves a special financial benefit not shared with similarly situated members of the general public.  In evaluating conflicts of interest under the local Palm Beach County Code of Ethics, the COE considers: (1) the number of persons who stand to gain from a decision; and (2) whether the gain or loss is remote or speculative.  Where the class of persons who stand to gain from a decision is small, it is more likely that the employee will have a conflict.  Here, the municipal employee owns a condominium in the affected area.  However, over 500 parcels of land are located in the affected area.  Based upon the facts presented in this case, the economic benefit or loss affects a class of persons large enough so as to remove any prohibited individual financial benefit to the municipal employee.  Therefore, the employee could work on the project for the city even though he owned property in the affected area.
  2. RQO 12-071:  The Palm Beach County Commission on Ethics (the “COE”) reviewed whether an advisory board member was prohibited from voting on a new development coming before his board given that the new development was located in one of the subdivisions within the board member’s property owners association.  The COE stated that municipal employees are prohibited from using their official position to give themselves a special financial benefit not shared with similarly situated members of the general public.  In evaluating conflicts of interest under the local Palm Beach County Code of Ethics, the COE considers: (1) the number of persons who stand to gain from a decision; and (2) whether the gain or loss is remote or speculative.  Where the class of persons who stand to gain from a decision is small, it is more likely that the advisory board member will have a conflict.  Here, while the board member’s home is within the affected POA, the board member is one of approximately 1450 owners in the POA.  The board member’s home is located over a mile away from the proposed development site and the board member’s interest in the area, as a similarly situated member of the POA, is less than one-tenth of a percent.  Based upon the facts presented in this case, the economic benefit or loss affects a class of persons large enough so as to remove any prohibited individual financial benefit.  Therefore, the advisory board member is not prohibited from voting on or participating in this matter.
  3. Town of Gulf Stream et al vs. Palm Beach County, and Sharon R. Bock, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach County, Intervenor  Case No. 502011CA017953XXXXMB.  Inspector General Funding Lawsuit.
    Fourteen municipalities have sued Palm Beach County challenging the method of funding for the Inspector General program.  The municipalities contend that the current funding method is an unlawful tax and invades municipal home rule budgetary authority.  The Inspector General filed a Motion to Intervene, and a hearing on this Motion was held on October 24, 2012.  On November 16, 2012, Judge Catherine Brunson denied the Inspector General’s Motion to Intervene.  On August 30, 2012, the municipalities filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.  The purpose of the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment was to ask the Court to rule on the legality of the funding method without further delay and before a trial commences.  A hearing on the Municipalities’ Motion was held on November 29, 2012.  Judge Brunson has not ruled on the municipalities’ Motion yet.
  4. City of Orlando and Lasercraft, Inc. vs. Michael Udowychenko, etc.Case Number SC12-1471.  Red Light Cameras.
    This case was reported on at the July 2012 League meeting and the details are contained in the July Legal Update, which is located on the League’s website.  On November 6, 2012, the Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction of the case.  No further action has been taken by the Florida Supreme Court at this time.
  5. City of Palm Bay vs. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.Case Number SC11-830.  Superiority of Code Enforcement Liens.
    This case was reported on at the July 2012 League meeting and the details are contained in the July Legal Update, which is located on the League’s website.  No further action has been taken by the Florida Supreme Court at this time.