Miscellaneous Name of Vendor or Contractor:
Expiration Date:
Terms:
Description:
Date Forwarded to Attorney
Suspension Date:
Disposition:
Miscellaneous Information:
073 -486 ANNUAL REPORT OF TIIE ATTORNEY GENERAL
authorizing payment of additional compensation to the chairman of the board of
county commissioners, was not repealed by Ch. 69 -346, supra, or Ch. 73 -173,
supra, and is still in force and effect.
AS TO QUESTION 2:
Section 11 of Ch. 73-17.3, supra [ §145.18(2),F. S.], provides as follows:
In no event shall any person receive for the execution of his powers,
functions and official duties compensation in excess of the salaries
provided in this act, and in no event shall any person receive an increase
in salary in any one fiscal year in excess of twenty percent (20 %) of his
total compensation for the preceding fiscal year ending June
30th . . .
As noted above, both the 1969 and the 1973 laws provided uniform salary
schedules for the county officials therein designated and repealed all special laws
relating to the compensation of county officials. Only lases relating to the travel
expenses of county officers (and extra compensation payable to the chairman of a
board of county commissioners) were excepted from the repealer clause by the 1969
act. Thus, even if it is assumed, arguendo, that the 1963 special law authorized the
payment of in- county travel expense of the county commissioners, and thus was
saved from repeal as an exception to the repealer clause of the 1969 act, the amount
thus received for travel expense could not be counted as a part of the compensation
of the county commissioners for carrying out their official duties.
Accordingly, as to the county commissioners, the second question must be
answered in the negative.
As to the chairman of the board of county commissioners: As noted above, the
compensation of this official was not fixed in the uniform salary schedules
prescribed by the 1969 and 1973 acts; however, the expense allowance authorized
by a special law was expressly saved from repeal by the 1969 act and tacitly
recognized by the 1973 act in renumbering paragraph (2)(d) of §145.121, supra, as
subsection (2). In view of the provision of this section that the additional monthly
expense allowance for the chairman "shall not be considered as part of the
chairman's income from office," it must be concluded that the monthly expense
allowance provided by the 1963 special law in question for the chairman of the
board of county commissioners may not be added to the salary provided by law fora
county commissioner in computing the compensation to which the county
commissioner who is serving as chairman is entitled under the 20 percent limitation
provision quoted above.
Your second question is, therefore, answered in the negative.
073 - 486 — December 26, 1973
COUNTIES t
SUBLEASE OF SPACE IN COUNTY - LEASED
BUILDING— PUBLIC PURPOSE
To: Arthur L Jacobs, Nassau County Attorney, Fernandina Beach
Prepared by: Sharyn Smith, Assistant Attorney General
QUESTION: i
May a part -time assistant state attorney or public defender conduct a
part -time private practice of law in an office on premises leased by the
county, so long as the use of the office for county purposes is not needed
full time, if he pays rent representing a reasonable value of the use of the •
office for private purposes? y E
C +rb
RI°
3
r
N _• `. i4
ANNUAL_ REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 073 -486
K
q
li
SUMMARY:
A part-time assistant state attorney or public defender, in order to
conduct a part-time private law practice, may not sublease space in a I t)
building leased by the county for use as public offices by public
agencies and officers. 1� i
Section 125.35, F. S., as a,neuded by Ch. 70 -388, Laws of Florida, provides that II
the county may sell or lease its real property whenever the county commissioners '
decide it is in the best interest of the county to do so. The property is to be leased to I ,
the highest and hest bidder for whatever length of term and under whatever I(
conditions the county commissioners may determine to be appropriate. The bid in
• the case of a lease serving the highest public interest must be accepted. This 1
requirement was interpreted in AGO 072 -68, which held that a county may not rent
unneeded space in a county -owned building to a veterinarian for the practice of his
profession even though the county had no practicing veterinarian and the need for
p € Y r
P' g q
the services of such a veterinarian within the county was apparent, as a tacit V
recognition of the constitutional prohibition contained in Art. VII, §10, State 1! ,
Const., that a county may not "give, lend, or use its taxing power or credit to aid any I I
corporation, association, partnership or person" except in the limited circums- , I"
tanccs described therein. Cf. O'Neill v. Burns, 198 Sold 1 (Fla. 1967), which held, ,' 1 .
inter alia, that only when there is some clearly identified and concrete public 1 ',. (
purpose as the primary objective and a reasonable expectation that such purpose
will be substantially and effectively accomplished, may the state, or its I I
subdivisions, disburse, loan, or pledge public funds or property to a
nongovernmental entity such as a nonprofit corporation. Accord: Attorney General
Opinions 072 -129 and 072 -167, holding that the leasing of space to private !',
physicians by a hospital corporation or district in a county or hospital corporation's '
t,
building would probably violate Art. VII, § 10. An analogous provision of the 1885
Constitution (Art. IX, §10) has been applied by the Supreme Court to prohibit a
municipality or a housing authority from purchasing land and erecting buildings '
for the use of private corporations for private profit or gain. See, State v. Town of 1
North Miami, 59 So.2d 779 (Fla. 1952); Adams v. Housing Authority of City of , i i
Daytona Beach, 60 So.2d 633 (Fla. 1952). !�
I lowever, if the purpose of the leasing is incidental to, and in furtherance of, �' j
the public purpose of the building, such leasing would not violate Art. VII, §10, III t
State Const. For example, in many municipal and county buildings, space is leased I ! !' ! f
. by private individuals for the sale of food, magazines, newspapers, etc., which are
incidental to the main purpose of the building but are for the convenience of those
who use the building for a public purpose. See, Gate City Garage v. City of 1 , i 4
Jacksonville, 66 So.2d 653 (Fla. 1953). Accord: Attorney General Opinion 055 -101
(dealing with the leasing of office space in the county courthouse by an official , 1 , i '
court reporter who also rendered part - tine, private court reporting). I II ' I . t
In the case of the official court reporter, it is readily apparent that a public
UI
purpose was being served by having the official court reporter located within the I �;,
courthouse. However, in the case of a private attorney engaged in the private 1 i! I
practice of law, no certain benefits will accrue to anyone other than a private I k
arrangement. individual and no primary public purpose is served by such a leasing arrangement. I
Such activity would not serve any public agency or the public generally, nor is it a 1 ;
I
purpose authorized by statute or the constitution. Accord: O'Neill v. Burns, supra.
Although the authorities relied upon herein deal primarily with the leasing of
county -owned property and not the subleasing of property already leased by the 1'
county, I an of the opinion that the court decisions and attorney general opinions 1
cited are sufficiently analogous to the situation presented in the instant case to
likewise prohibit any private individual front subleasing office space in a building 1 i � 1'
leased by the county for county purposes for the purpose of conducting part -time 1 I
private practice of law in such public office building. 1:
813 i
•
073 -487 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
It should be noted that possible conflicts might arise between such an
attorney's private and public practice of law by the conducting of a private practice
in or out of the public office of the state attorney or public defender. By way of
suggestion, I might add that any ethical conflicts should be submitted to the
Professional Ethics Committee of The Florida Bar for determination.
073- 487 — December 26, 1973
COUNTIES
PUBLICATION OF MINUTES OF COUNTY COMMISSION
MEETING —BATES
fi
To: Alton M. Towles, Attorney, Gadsden County Commission, Quincy
Prepared by: Michael Parrish, Assistant Attorney General
QUESTION:
May a hoard of county commissioners enter into a contract with a
newspaper to publish all or a substantial portion of the minutes of county
commission meetings at rates less than those provided by §50.061, F. S.?
SUMMARY:
A board of county commissioners may lawfully contract for the
publication of the minutes of its meetings at rates lower than those
specified in §50.061, F. S.
Your question is answered in the affirmative.
Chapter 67 -84, Laws of Florida, added §125.57, F.C., which reads:
(1) The board of county commissioners of any county in the state
may publish the minutes of its meetings in a newspaper of general
circulation in said county. The costs of such publication of the minutes
may be paid out of the general fund of the county.
(2) It is the intent of this Act to provide the citizens of the county
affected with information concerning the activities and business being
conducted in behalf of the county by the board of county commissioners.
Although §I25.57 was repealed by Ch. 71 -14, Laws of Florida, the repealer
provided:
The repeal of the foregoing sections of the Florida Statutes shall not be
deemed to repeal or limit the powers of the board of county
commissioners, but shall be deemed to continue and expand such powers
and remove certain limitations heretofore prescribed by law.
Thus, although there is no longer any specific statutory authorization, it is clear
that a board of county commissioners has the authority to contract for the
publication Of the minutes of its meetings and to expend county funds therefor. See [
also §12.5.01(1)(w) and (3), F. S.
Section 50.061, F. S., provides that the rates specified therein must be charged
for "official public notices or legal advertisements." Clearly, the minutes of
meetings of a county commission are not "legal advertisements, nor do they
appear to be 'official public notices" within the scope of §50.061. Although the
term official public notices is not defined in Ch. 50, F. S., it appears from a reading F
of §50.061 in pari materia with the other sections of that chapter that the intent of
the legislature was to make the rates specified in §50.061 applicable only to notices
required by statute or notices in the nature of or in lieu of process or in exercising -
5 t
4.,YNWSC:g3 ROBERTS E. R. HAFNER
r
PRESIDENT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
r
DUVAL COUNTY * P. O. SOX S49
JACKSONVILLE *9 . r TALLAHASSEE 32302
*•R
r ** PHONE 224.3145
♦*
* • AREA CODE 904
JIM HOSKINSON
VICE PRESIDENT -
LAKE COUNTY - - WILLIAM J. ROBERTS
TAVARES STATE ASSOCIATION i / CO NTY COMMISSIONERS TALLAHASSEE
THE PEOPLE$ GOVERNMENT O � J(O /( Q ANSWERIILF TO THE MOM - GENERAL COUNSEL
WAYNE GODWIN .., y, p-7
SECRETARY-TREASURER December 12, 19 f 5 WILSON W. WRIGHT
SANTA ROSA COUNTY TALLAHASSEE
MILTON ASSOCIATION COUNSEL
Honorable Paul E. Sawyer
Monroe County Attorney
P. O. Box 1680
Key West, FL 33040
RE: COUNTY COMMISSIONERS - Use of
county vehicle; rental or
donation of office space to
counties; casual secretarial
help; SACCO 075 -13
Dear Mr. Sawyer:
Recently you requested the advice of the undersigned on
substantially the following questions:
I.
IN LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF §145.121(2),
F.S., MAY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PROVIDE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD WITH A
COUNTY OWNED OR LEASED VEHICLE FOR GENERAL
USE?
II .
MAY THE COUNTY MAKE USE OF THE PRIVATELY -
OWNED OFFICE SPACE OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
BOARD, WITH OR WITHOUT COMPENSATION, FOR
THE CONDUCT OF COUNTY BUSINESS?
III.
MAY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PROVIDE SECRETARIAL HELP ON A DAY TO DAY
BASIS TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO ASSIST IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF COUNTY BUSINESS?
AFFILIATES: COUNTY ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION; STATE ASSOCIATION COUNTY ENGINEERS AND ROAD SUPERINTENDENTS: STATE ASSOCIATION
COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING DIRECTORS: COUNTY SERVICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION; STATE ASSOCIATION COUNTY WELFARE EXECUTIVES:
FLORIDA ASSOCIATION COUNTY HEALTH OFFICERS: FLORIDA STATE CIVIL DEFENSE ASSOCIATION: FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY AGRI-
CULTURAL AGENTS: STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION EXECUTIVES: FLORIDA STATE ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERS
A s$OCIATION; FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF EXTENSION HOME ECONOMICS AGENTS; FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS
. 1
Honorable Paul E. Sawyer
Page 2
December 12, 1975
As to Question I.
While it might be appropriate for a county commissioner
to use a county owned or leased vehicle on special occasions in
the conduct of county business, there appears to be no authority
which would permit the county to furnish a commissioner with an
automobile for his use on a full time basis. In this regard,
see §145.17, F.S. Section 145.121(2), F.S., authorizes the Board
of County Commissioners to provide an additional expense al-
lowance to the chairman of the Board of County Commissioners,
which allowance shall not exceed $50 per month. Section 145.131(1),
F.S. repeals all special laws or general laws of local application
relating to the compensation of county officials, except those
laws pertaining to travel expenses or the payment of extra com-
pensation to the chairman of the board. Section 112.061(7)(e),
F.S. allows agencies to grant monthly allowances in fixed amounts
for the use of privately -owned automobiles.
While there is no authority to appropriate a county owned
or leased vehicle to a county commission chairman on a full time
basis there is ample authority to grant him a fixed monthly al-
lowance or reimbursement for in county travel expenses and there
is precedent and provision for the adoption of special legislation
to provide for a fixed monthly expense allowance to reimburse him
for in county travel.
As to Question II.
The new Standards of Conduct Law, enacted by the 1975
Legislature, contains a specific prohibition against public
officers dealing in a private capacity with his or her own agency
and provides in part:
"No...public officer acting in an
official capacity shall either directly
or indirectly for his own agency purchase,
rent, or lease any realty, goods, or
services from any business entity of
which he, his spouse, or child is an
officer, partner, director, or proprietor,
0104 or in which such officer or employee,
7.›, his spouse or child, or any combination
of them, has a material interest. Nor
shall a public officer or employee,
acting in a private capacity, rent,
leas or sell any realty, gooc '", 0TH
services...if he is serving as an
officer or employee of any political
subdivision, to that subdivision or to
,'..
Honorable Paul E. Sawyer
Page 3
December 12, 1975
any agency thereof." §112.313(3), F.S.,
as amended, Chapter 75 -208, Laws of
Florida.
By its plain language this new act prohibits county commissioners
from leasing office space to the county even if the consideration
paid therefor is merely nominal.
On the other hand, it would not vioate state law for a
county commissioner to donate the use of the office to the county.
We checked with the Auditor General's Office to determine whether
the state has a policy against the county occupying office space
without a leasehold agreement. We were told that, although the
county may want a lease for, inter alia, insurance reasons, there
is no state law or policy requiring it to do so. Your second
question is answered accordingly.
As to Question III.
As to your third question, if the secretarial help provided
the chairman of the board performs only county business, there is
no ethical or legal conflict. If he or she assists the chairman
in the conduct of his private business, however, his or her
continued employment would violate §145.17, F.S., as explained
.1■1
above.
Summary
The use of a county owned vehicle by a Board of County
Commissioner Chairman on a full time basis is not authorized.
A county officer may donate office space to the county but he
may not receive rent therefor, even if only nominal. A County
Commissioner may donate employees for county business but may
not reimburse his own employees from county funds.
We truly hope this opinion will assist you in the conduct
of your affairs.
Sincerely,
-7 -
WILLIAM J. ROBERTS WILSON W. WRIGHT
WJR:WWW:MEE: jd
cc: Attorney General
State of Florida
+` •
CEO 77 -60. April 21, 1977
•
CONFLICT OF INTEREST: LAW PARTNER OF COUNTY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF BANK WISHING TO BID ON COUNTY
FINANCING
•
•
No prohibited conflict of interest would be created were a County to do business with a bank on whose
Board of Directors sits a law partner of the designated County Attorney, which partner performs certain
County duties in the absence of the County Attorney. Pursuant to Section 112.313(3), Florida
Statutes (1975), a public officer is prohibited from acting in a private capacity to sell any realty,
goods, or services to his public agency or to any agency within the political subdivision he serves,
and it has been determined previously that one acts in a private capacity to sell whenever a business
entity of which he is a director sells. See CEO 76 -12. However, the term "public officer" is defined
to include "any person elected or appointed to hold office in any agency Although the
appointed County Attorney thus constitutes a public officer, the definition is not applicable to his
law partner who receives no appointment. Nor is the law partner a County employee but, rather, an
independent contractor. See CEO 75 -17 and CEO 76 -29. Accordingly, as the County Attorney's law
partner is not a officer, the prohibition set forth in Section 112.313(3) is not applicable to
him.
CEO 77 -61. April 21, 1977
VOTING CONFLICT OF INTEREST: EXPRESSWAY AUTHORITY MEMBER MAJORITY STOCKHOLDER IN CORPORATION OWNING
PROPERTY WITHIN PROPOSED EXPRESSWAY ROUTE
Although a public officer may not be prohibited from voting on any matter, where he elects to vote on
a measure in which he has a personal, private, or professional interest which inures to his special
private gain, he is required to disclose such conflict via the filing of a memorandum of voting con-
flict. Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes (1975). A member of a local Expressway Authority who is
majority stockholder in a corporation owning property which would be condemned were two of several
route alternatives to be adopted by the Authority has a professional interest in the measure which
stands to be affected by the outcome of the vote. Accordingly, were the Expressway Authority member
to exercise his right to vote on the measure, he would have a voting conflict of interest requiring
disclosure on CE Form 4, Memorandum of Voting Conflict.
CEO 77 -62. April 21, 1977
VOTING CONFLICT OF INTEREST: VOTING ON MATTER AFFECTING VALUE OF PROPERTY OWNED BY PARENT
Section 286.012, Florida Statutes (1975) provides that a voting officer may not abstain from voting
unless there is or appears to be a conflict of interest under the provisions of Section 112.311,
Section 112.313, or Section 112.3143 of the Code of Ethics. Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes (1975),
the voting conflict of interest section of the Code of Ethics, provides that no officer shall be pro -
hibited from voting in any matter. But, where he exercises his right to vote on a measure in which he
has a personal, private, or professional interest which inures to his special gain or to the special
gain of any principal by whom he is retained, he must disclose such conflict by the filing of a memo-
( randum of voting conflict. Where a member of the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission is faced
with a vote regarding the development of land located adjacent to land owned by his father, he gay look
to Section 112.311, which provides that "it is essential to the proper conduct and operation of' govern-
ment that public officials be independent and impartial Should he feel that his
is threatened by virtue of his father's property interest, he may abstain from voting on the matter;
or he may elect to vote, whereupon he is required to file a Memorandum of Voting Conflict, CE Form 4.
CEO 77 -63. April 21, 1977
CONFLICT OF INTEREST: TEACHER CONTRACTING WITH SCHOOL BOARD TO PERFORM WORK FOR ANOTHER SCHOOL
A public employee is prohibited by Section 112.313(3), Florida Statutes (1975) from acting in a private
capacity to sell any goods or services to his own political subdivision or to any agency thereof. A
public school teacher therefore would appear to be prohibited from accepting, on a bid basis, a contract
to install a sprinkler system for an elementary school within his school district. However, Section
112.316 of the Code of Ethics states that it is not the intent of the standards of conduct provisions
of the law to prohibit private pursuits which do not interfere with the full and faithful discharge of
public duty. Thus, in a previous opinion (CEO 76 -157) no conflict was found where a municipal Parks
and Recreation Department employee had contracted with the City Council to provide trash and garbage
pickup for city parks, because the employee was not in a position to supervise or regulate the City
Council and because his duties did not involve approval or recommendations as -to contracts relating to
sanitation services. However, in CEO 76 -193, Section 112.316 was deemed inapplicable where an offset -
press operator with a City printing department wished to bid privately on contracts to do printing
with the City because the employee was in a position to indirectly influence the determination of
which jobs would be printed. See also CEO 75 -196 and CEO 76 -172. In the instant case the instructor
teaches physical education in an elementary school and is not in a position to offer advice or recom-
mendations to the School Board relative to the installation of a sprinkler system for a different
school as he has no expertise in landscaping. Accordingly, no conflict is deemed to exist under these
circumstances.
To the extent that this interpretation contradicts that of CEO 76 -174, that opinion is superseded.
CEO 77 -64. April 21, 1977
CONFLICT OF INTEREST: CHAIRMAN OF MUNICIPAL PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD REAL ESTATE AGENT FOR PROPERTY
OWNERS SELLING LAND TO CITY
Section 112.313(3), Florida Statutes (1975). prohibits an officer of a political subdivision from
selling realty to any agency of that subdivision. Thus, a prohibited conflict of interest was created
where the Chairman of a municipality's Planning and Zoning Commission represented, in his capacity as
• a real estate salesman, property owners in the sale of land to the city. It is further provided
within the Code of Ethics that no public officer or employee shall "have or hold any employment or
contractual relationship . that would impede the full and faithful discharge of his public duties."
Section 112.313(7)(a), Florida Statutes (1975). The subject Commission Chairman stood to benefit
financially from the sale and negotiated directly with the City, thus creating a conflict with his
duty to protect the public interest.
Section 112.3175, Florida Statutes (1975) provides that a contract executed in violation of the Code
of Ethics, as in the instant case, is voidable.
-3-
I .
.
. .
. f
. i
•
•
Basle &lei= & P LzpozaI Pi
•
•
•
Harry Harris, Chairman 1. Manager/Treasurer
John Parker Wing II Public Service Building, Stock Island Charles Aguero
Harry Pritchard Key West, Florida 33040
•
Puiegton Howanitz Phone (3051 296 - 9680 Attorney
Jerome Shipley Richard Payne
Apri.l 5, 1976
•
Mr. Ralph W. White
Clerk of the Court
Monroe County Courthouse
. 500 Whitehead Street
Key West, Florida 33040
Dear Mr. White:
• In accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding
entered into on the 6th day of June, 1975 and amended by the
Board of County Commissioners on the 9th day of March, 1976,_.
the following amount is due this District for services rendered
by Mr. Richard Payne, Assistant County Attorney, to the Board of
County Commissioners for the quarterly periods so specified.
October 1, 1975 thru December 31, 1975 $ 3,000.00
January 1, 1976 thru March 31, 1976 3,000.00
Fringe Benefits (14.85% x $6,000) 891.00
Insurance Coverage ($20.19 x 6 months) 121.14
Workmen's Compensation (.80 per $100 per yr.) 48.00
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $ 7,060.14
.
Sincerely yours,
_,‘Aati"
Charles P. Ag
Manager /
CPA /b /
9 ,4( .
Iv ' V
•
/
4 ,
/
. ( ‘A 91
i 's.
•
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE MONIIOE COUNTY WASTE COLLECTION,
& DISPOSAL DISTRICT HIE';LD TUESDAY, AUGUST 5, 1975, MARATHON, FLA.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Pritchard
immediately following the County Commissioner's meeting. Upon roll
call the following Board Members were present: Puriegton Howanitz,
John Parker, Jerome Shipley, Ms. Martha Wedel. Also present. were:
Charles Aguero, Ralph White, Richard Payne, Paul Sawyer, Fred Aichinger,
members of the press and interested citizens.
The first item on the agenda was: Approval of payment to
(in amount of $2 756.28) for work completed
Toppino & Sons, Inc. ,
at the Long Key disposal site.
A motion was made by Mr. Howanitz, seconded by Mr. Shipley,
approving payment. The following vote was recorded: Mr. Howanitz - yes,
Mr. Parker - yes, Mr. Shipley - yes, Ms. Wedel - yes, Chairman Pritchard -
yes. Voting no - none. Motion carried unanimously.
The second item on the agenda was: Item #2A - Approval of
payment to the Tax Assessor's office (in the amount of $9,730.63) for
quarterly payment due. Item #2B - Approval of payment to Swacar, Inc.
(in the amount of $15,300.00) for a one (1) ton truck, hoist equipment
and two (2) 25 yard trailers. -•
A motion was made by Mr. Shipley, seconded by Mr. Howanitz,
approving the above payments. The following vote was recorded: Mr.
Howanitz - yes, Mr. Parker - yes, Mr. Shipley - yes, Ms. Wedel - yes,
Chairman Pritchard - yes. Voting no none. Motion carried unanimously.
• The third item on the agenda was: Additional compensation -
Ernest Cafege.
Mr. Aguero informed the Board that he had made Mr. Cafege
Supervisor of all landfill operations effective July 1, 1975. However,
under the CETA program, this would not become effective until August 6,
1975. He requested permission to pay the compensation due Mr. Cafege,
retroactive to July 1, 1975, out of his budget.
A motion was made by Mr. Shipley, seconded by Mr. Howanitz,
approving the additional compensation due Mr..Cafege. The following
vote was recorded: Mr. Howanitz - yes, Mr. Parker yes, Mr. Shipley -
yes, Ms. Wedel - yes, Chairman Pritchard - yes. 'Voting no - none.
Motion carried unanimously..
Regular Meeting - August 5, 1975
The fourth item on the agenda was: Approval of Warrants for
the month of July, . 1975.
A motion was made by Mr. Shipley, seconded by Ms. Wedel,
approving the Warrants for the month of July, 1975. .The following
vote was recorded: Mr. Howanitz - yes, Mr. Parker - yes, Mr. Shipley
yes, Ms. Wedel - yes, Chairman Pritchard - yes. Voting no - none.
Motion carried unanimously.
The fifth item on the agenda was: Approval of minutes for
meetings held July 1st and July 15th, 1975.
A motion was made by Mr. Shipley, seconded by Mr. Howanitz,
approving said minutes. The following vote was recorded: Mr. Howanitz -
yes, Mr. Parker - yes, Mr. Shipley - yes, Ms. Wedel - yes, Chairman
Pritchard - yes. Voting no - none. Motion carried unanimously.
The sixth item on the agenda was: Discussion on selection of
consulting engineers for 201 Study.
Mr. Aguero stated that he had been asked by the Board to go
through the fourty -six (46) applicants that were received and select
ten (10) out of the fourty -six. He then presented a list of the ten (10)
consulting firms that he had selected to the Board.
Chairman Pritchard stated that he should go through the ten
that he had selected and narrow this down to three firms for final
evaluation at the next regular meeting.
The seventh item on the agenda was: Mrs. Alice Skinger, Vice
President of the Middle Keys Citizen Association, wishes to address the
Board.
Mrs. Skinger addressed the Board stating that this was a
follow -up of her presentation to the Board on May 26, 1975 regarding
the monies due to the District from the City of Key Colony Beach and
the City of Layton. Various matters were discussed concerning what
legal action could be taken in this regard.
Mr. Aguero advised that an Interlocal Agreement had been
• entered into with the City of Layton whereby the City of Layton had
agreed to assess millage and levy ad valorem property taxes upon all
of its citizens residing within the municipal.limits of the City of
Layton equal to the millage and ad valorem taxes annually set and
levied by the District for the citizens residing within the unin-
corporated areas of the District. That annually the City shall collect
the taxes so levied and pay the same over to the District as their
share of the operational expenses for said services.
The eighth item on the agenda was: Adoption of Tentative
Budget.
Mr. Aguero presented copies of the Tentative Budget to each
Board Member.
Mr. Shipley stated that he would like to discuss the compen-
"sation for the attorney for the Waste Board. Mr. Aguero advised that he
had allocated $14,000 dollars for Mr. Payne's salary under Salaries &
Wages and that this amount was based on Mr. Payne working for the Waste
Board on a part -time basis. Mr. Shipley suggested that since Mr. Payne's
time would be needed on a more extensive basis, the Waste Board could pay
his salary on a full time basis and bill the Board of County Commissioners
under the Interlocal Agreement for the time Mr. Payne spent on County
business. •
After some discussion it was decided that $6,000 dollars be
added to the $14,000 dollars already allocated, for a total of $20,000
per annum being paid to Mr. Payne out of the Waste Board budget.
A motion was then made by Mr. Howanitz, seconded by Mr. Shipley,
that the Tentative Budget be approved as submitted with an addition of •
$6,000 dollars being added under Salaries & Wages to cover Mr. Payne's
salary and that the Waste Board bill the Board of County Commissioners on
a quarterly basis for the time spent on County business by Mr. Payne.
The following vote was recorded: Mr. Howanitz - yes, Mr. Parker - yes,
Mr. Shipley = yes, Ms. Wedel - yes, Chairman Pritchard - yes. Voting no -
none. -Motion carried unanimously.
The ninth item on the agenda was: Change Order for Cates
Construction Company.
Mr. Aguero advised the Board that the Change Order was for
additional work which included construction of a foundation for the Air
Curtain Destructor to be placed at the Long Key Disposal Site. He stated
that Mr. Cates was awarded the bid for construction of the Scale House
at Long Key.
After some discussion, it was decided that the District should
advertise for bids for construction of a foundation for the Air Curtain
Destructor.
raw: 1 vut
•
A motion was made by Mr. Shipley, seconded by Mr. Howanitz
authorizing the Manager to advertise for bids on the above project. The
following vote was recorded: Mr. Howanitz - yes, Mr. Parker - yes, Mr.
Shipley - yes, Ms. Wedel - yes, Chairman Pritchard - yes. Voting no -
none. Motion carried unanimously.
The tenth item on the agenda was: Approval of Resolution
Transferring Funds. Mr. Aguero read the resolution to the Board.
A motion was made by Ms. Wedel, seconded by Mr. Howanitz,
approving said resolution. The following vote was recorded: Mr. Howanitz -
yes, Mr. Parker - yes, Mr. Shipley - yes,'Ms. Wedel - yes, Chairman
Pritchard - yes. Voting no - none. Motion carried unanimously. A copy
of said resolution is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
There being no further business, Pritchard declared
the meeting adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Charles P. Aguero
. Secretary
•
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
r
#c1-3 • • titx •
, 0,01 . bait
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
KEY WEST, FLORIDA
RECORDER COUNTY CLERK
COLLECTOR OF DELINQUENT TAXES COUNTY AUDITOR
M E M O R A N D U M •
To: M Michael Cates, County Attotne y
From: Ralph W. White, Cteni
Subject: Memorandums o? Understanding with County Attorney
and Assistant County Attorney
• Date: June 14, 1977
In reviewing the Memorandum o5 Understanding as approved by
the Board o? County Commizzionetz at out tegutat meeting on
June 7, 1977, I Bind that there ate substantial queation4
tegatdJ g the payment o6 certain attoeations such as o??ice
tentat, telephone expenses, postage, etc., based upon the
?acts contained in an opinion ion the Attorney Genetat ?tom
the State o? Florida 73 -486 dated December 26, 1973 and an
op-(.i7.-Con ?nom the State Association o? County Commissioners
Council dated Deeembet 12, 1975 and an opinion ?tom the Com-
mission on Ethics 77 -60 dated Aptit 21, 1977 to the a6sect
that the County is ptoh.Lbited ?nom teasing, tenting, of
payment o6 any expenses to appointed o6sicets o? the Boatd o?
County Commissioners.
I have suggested that the County Attorney and the Assistant
County Attorney be on a ptosessionat contract basis and that
a ?tat 6igute be apptoptiated in addition to their compensa-
tion ?ot cteticat and administrative supplies.
I cannot see how it wilt be possible to audit the use o? County
employees in a private taw practice non wilt it be possible to
isolate the use o? County equipment and suppties which ate
utilized in a private taw o??iee.
Please advise me at the earliest passible date your thoughts
to this matter pending etati6ication. Once again I must advise
you that my o??ice wilt te6use to make payment Got any expenses
other than salaries at this point.
11) D /
RALP W. WHITE
� CLERK CIRC URT.
RWW /v
p p . o, a o x
CC: We,— �(EY W EST. F 33040
2
;'A: :ATIOM-- ! FV!''TfTTONP-- PFAT,TY TN TNTFR VTVo ; TRUST-- SETTLOR WHO IS ALSO A CO- TRUSTEE
• 11 rr, f!'7'7 (IF " ' '.T MAT"!T *\.T"!T"1!' P'FPMn'FMT pr:TfTNCE nN TRUST PROPERTY NOT QUALIFIED TO
'1['TAT "J CT.1TM Toil HOMESTEAD EXEMPT[ON ON SUCH PROPERTY. ARTICLE VII, SECTION 6, STATE
^ONSTTTTJTION, SECTIONS 196.031, 689.071, F.S.
To DeVane Mason, Property Appraiser, Gadsden County, Quincy, Florida
Under present Fi.orida law, the interest of one who is the settlor of a trust, as well as
! ir1 co- trustee and benoticiary, does not qualify tor a claim of homestead exemption from ad
valorem taxation on the trust property even though such person might maintain permanent
resident.._ thereon. None of these three incidents separately qualifies for a claim of homestead
exemption, and their concurrence likewise cannot be said to qualify. October 8, 1976; 076 -204
PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES- -SEX DISCRIMINATION - -RIGHT OF FEMALE POLICE OFFICERS TO ASSUME
PATROL DUTY PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. §2000(e), AS AMENDED.
To: Honorable Gwendolyn S. Cherry, Representative, 106th District, Miami
A policy or regulation which excludes all female officers from patrol duty or limits the
functions performed by female officers to such areas as juvenile and rape investigations violates
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. October 11, 1976; 076 -205
DOCUMENTARY STAMP TAX - -CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT IS STATUTORY EX OFFICIO AGENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE FOR THE COLLECTION OF EXCISE TAX ON DOCUMENTS -- UNLESS ON A CASH BASIS SUCH AGENT WILL BE
COVERED BY BLANKET BOND PURCHASED BY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE WITH COSTS ASSOCIATED THEREWITH
ALLOCATED TO THOSE BONDED- -SUCH AGENT IS ENTITLED TO, AND BY LAW IS REQUIRED TO BE PAID, THE
PRESCRIBED COMPENSATION, AS COLLECTION COSTS, FOR STAMPS SOLD. CHS. 74 -325 AND 76 -199, LAWS OF
FLORIDA; § §116.03, 145.121(1), 201.11(1) AND (2), 201.12, 218.36(2) AND (4), AND 219.06, F.S.;
RULES 12A- 4.01(2), 12A- 4.01(3)(a), 12A- 4.01(6)(a), (b), AND (c), 12A- 4.01(7), 12A -4.07, AND
12A- 4.08(1), F.A.C.
To: J. Ed Straughn, Executive Director, Department of Revenue
The clerk of the circuit court, when collecting the excise tax on documents as required by
5201.11(2), F.S., is acting or serving as the ex officio agent of (the State and) the Department
of Revenue for the collection of such tax. Section 201.11(2), F.S., requires that the clerk
as such ex officio agent be bonded as required by, and provided for in, the duly promulgated
rules of the Department of Revenue. The existing rules provide that the Department of Revenue
will purchase a blanket 'bond covering all agents collecting documentary stamp taxes with all
costs associated therewith to be allocated to those agents so bonded and the cost of the coverage
' for each agent being deducted from any commission due that agent.
When the clerk of the circuit court collects the documentary stamp taxes for, and as the
ex officio agent of (the State and) the Department of Revenue, §201.11(2), F.S., requires
that he be compensated at the prescribed rate as is any other authorized agent performing
the same service for the Department of Revenue. Such compensation to the clerk is income
of the office of Lhe clerk.of the circuit court and not personal income of the clerk.
October 11, 1976; 076 -206
COUNTIES - -COUNTY COMMISSION AUTHORIZED TO CONTRACT WITH AN EMPLOYEE AT A FIXED ANNUAL COMPENSATION
FOR ALL REQUIRED LEGAL SERVICES AND SUCH OFFICE EXPENSES THAT SUCH EMPLOYEE MAY ENCOUNTER -- AMOUNT
AND MANNER OF COMPENSATION TO BE PAID AND TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH CONTRACT REST WITHIN
DISCRETION OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS -- ANNUAL AND MONTHLY RATE OF COMPENSATION FOR PURPOSES OF
RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTIONS ARE THOSE SPECIFIED IN SUCH CONTRACT WHICH GOVERNS FOR ALL PURPOSES,
§ §121.021(22), 125.01(1)(3), F.S.
To: Ernest Ellison, Auditor General, State of Florida
A Board of County Commissioners was authorized under §121.01(1), (3), F.S., to enter into
the 5 -year employment contract with a county employee at a fixed annual compensation for all
required legal services to the County and for such office expenses that such county employee
may encounter. The decision to enter into such contracts and the amount and form or manner
of compensation to be paid and the terms and conditions thereof is a decision which rests within
the sound discretion of the Board of County Commissioners. For purposes of retirement contri-
butions, the Board has determined that the annual and monthly rate of compensation is that
specified in the contract which governs for all purposes until otherwise determined by the
judiciary. October 11, 1976; 076 -207 - ; - - --
BOARD OF BUSINESS REGULATION -- DIVISION OF PARI - MUTUEL WAGERING -- AUTHORITY TO PROMULGATE
RULE. SECTIONS 20.16, 550.01, 550.05, F.S.
To: John R. Culbreath, Representative, 36th District, Brooksville
Absent sub eguent judicial or 1;illative clarification, a rule proposed by the Division
?Sri u l :rT to ro r
all 11-)r.:3,. t .:;
a within a 50 mile r iiius to open their
stables in i r.i_ 1: -; , tr ip :; by ^ \ mb r 1 and to remain op °n until ton days beyond the closing of
thc wirtcr r.ir:i::; se on, would :Ip[ to violate the nece nsary statutory authority requirement
l,udiciaiiy expre_ed by the Florida courts. October 14, 1976; 076 -208
-2-
•