Legal Report, October 2014
General Counsel, Trela J. White
1.
Chandler v. City of Greenacres, 39 Fla. L. Weekly D1232 (Fla 4th DCA,
June 20, 2014)
Joel Edward Chandler anonymously emailed the City on multiple occasions
requesting certain public documents. The City Clerk responded to all emails
notifying the sender to fill out a form on the City website in order to obtain
the documents. The City required the form so that it had an address or other
identifiable source of payment for the associated production costs. No form
was filled out and five months later, Chandler emailed again requesting the
documents. The City Clerk again informed the sender that the City’s
form had to be filled out in order to determine the cost of production of the
documents. Chandler filed a petition for writ of mandamus demanding
production of the public records, and also seeking attorney’s fees and
costs under the Public Records Act. The Fourth District Court of Appeal
concluded that the City could not condition the disclosure of public records
on filling out the form, and the estimated costs to produce the documents
should have been emailed to the anonymous sender. The Court held that a
person requesting access to or copies of public records cannot be required to
disclose his name, address, telephone number or other identifying information
prior to releasing the records unless the public records custodian is required
by law to collect such information. The City Clerk in this case was not
required by state statute to collect such information.
2.
Ocean Palm Golf Club Partnership v. City of Flagler Beach, 39 Fla. L.
Weekly D1151 (Fla. 5th DCA, June 6, 2014)
A landowner owned an old golf course parcel and a vacant condo parcel
situated within the golf course parcel. After multiple failed attempts to
develop the condo parcel, the landowner applied for a comprehensive plan land
use amendment to allow the development of single-family homes on both the golf
course parcel and the condo parcel. The City rejected the plan amendment and
the landowner sued arguing a taking. The Fifth District Court of Appeal held
that it was within the City’s discretion to reject the plan amendment.
The City’s refusal to amend the comprehensive plan did not interfere
with the landowner’s reasonable investment-backed expectations of the
recreational use of the property as a golf course. The Court held that even
if golf courses had become unprofitable in the current market, there was no
taking. The Court wrote: “In effect, the [landowner’s] position
is that if a landowner buys a piece of property and the economy later takes a
downturn, resulting in the frustration of the landowner’s expectations,
then the government must act as a guarantor for the landowner’s
investment after it becomes unprofitable due to, not the zoning regulations,
but outside market forces. This is not the purpose of eminent domain
law.”
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 sued Palm Beach County challenging the method of
funding for the Inspector General Program (the “OIG Program”).
The current funding method authorizes the Board of County Commissioners to set
an amount the municipalities must pay for the OIG Program and to bill
municipalities for that amount. The municipalities contend that the current
funding method is an unlawful tax and invades municipal home rule budgetary
authority.
A three day non-jury trial regarding this matter commenced Tuesday, August
19, 2014. The parties submitted proposed orders to Judge Brunson on
September 2, 2014, and are awaiting a ruling.