HomeMy WebLinkAboutHandouts_Regular_Any Other Matters_Okun _05/14/2015 � °
Village of Teauesta, et al, vs. Palm Beach Countv — a legal challen�e to the fundin� method
for the countvwide OfFce of Insaector General.
The Village of Tequesta, along with 13 other municipalities in the county, is challenging the
funding mechanism for the countywide Office of Inspector General. During the time that this
case has been in the court system, local news media, especially the Palm Beach Post, has
reported certain goings on with a strong bias in favor of the Office of Inspector General and
opposed to the municipalities. Unfortunately, a great deal of this reporting easily leads a reader
to believe that the lawsuit is about abolishing the Office of Inspector General, getting rid of the
inspector general personally, and that the municipalities aze opposed to the very existence of that
ofFice. Some of it has gone so far as to imply that local elected officials must have something to
hide since they have agreed to participate in this lawsuit. Nothing could be further from the
truth!
The truth of the matter is that the lawsuit only challenges the funding method that Pa1m Beach
County has adopted to finance this countywide program. The lawsuit does not oppose the
existence or any of the functions of the program, and it does not oppose the current inspector
general herself. Rather, the Village has joined West Pa1m Beach and 13 other municipalities in
suing Palm Beach County because it is our belief that the funding method adopted by Palm
Beach County for this countywide program will harm Village residents through the illegal
imposition of double taxation.
Palm Beach County's intent to bill municipalities each year and take municipal tax dollars each
year (in an undetermined amount) in order to help fund the Office of Inspector General is
unprecedented in Florida history and Florida law. Without exception, countywide programs to
which municipalities are bound a.re, and have always been, paid for with county tax dollars; NOT
municipal tax dollars. Each and every other county wide program in Palm Beach County
(including the countywide Commission on Ethics - which was created at the same time as the
Office of Inspector General, or the Sheriff's OfFice) is fully funded with county tax dollars
through the county's budget.
However, under the county's funding method, the county would use both county and Village tax
dollars to pay for the countywide Office of Inspector General program. Each year, the county
would determine how much money the Office of Inspector General needs in order to operate.
The county would fund a portion of that budget with county tax dollars. The county would also
fund a portion of that budget with Village tax dollars. So, not only would you pay twice for
inspector general services (on both your counry tax bill and your Village tax bill) when residents
of unincorporated Palm Beach County would only pay once (they only get a county tax bill), but
your Village Council would have no say over how much Village revenue the county took each
year to fund the inspector general's office. This would make it very difficult, if not impossible,
to know what millage rate to adopt or know how to budget Village tax revenue. This is an
invasion by the county into the Village's "home Rule" authority which is granted to all
municipalities by law.
No one disputes the fact that the countywide program of Office of Inspector General was created
through an aff'umative vote of the electors of Palm Beach County in a referendum election.
However, the creation of a countywide program by referendum does not allow that countywide
program to be funded contrary to law with Village tax dollars. Also, to the extent that the Palm
1 OtiL�t.�N `Y1dV1�Dl,tt'
Beach Post has reported that the electors created a separate office of inspector general just for
municipal oversight, the Post is incorrect. The law does not a11ow a county to create municipal
programs in municipalities by referendum. The referendum created a countywide program,
which should be fully funded with county tax dollazs.
In addition to the issue of illegal double taxation and "Home Rule" invasion, the lawsuit raises
the issue of the Village's sovereign immunity. It is our strong belief that the counry's funding
method is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. By law, the Village can't be forced to
pay money to the county to help fund the countywide Office of Inspector General (or any
countywide program) unless the Florida legislature passes a law requiring such a payment
(which it hasn't), or the Village Council agrees to pay pursuant to a written agreement with the
county (which it hasn't). In other words, if the Village got a bill from the counry and decided to
not pay it, the law of sovereign immuniry would prevent the counry from suing the Village to
collect. .
We have already been successful with the sovereign immunity argument in court. On July 11,
2013, the Tria1 Judge dismissed counterclaims filed by the county because the county failed to
show how municipal sovereign immunity had been waived.
It is interesting to know that the attomeys for Pa1m Beach County have publicly admitted that the
questions raised in the municipalities' lawsuit are legitimate ones. It is also important to
understand that the municipality's success in this lawsuit does not eliminate the Office of
Inspector General or in any way reduce the duties and function of that countywide program. It
simply will require the county to fund the program in the same way it funds all other countywide
programs - with county tax dollars, not Village tax dollars.
If the County prevails, the implications are far reaching: not only will the Office of Inspector
General countywide program be funded through the double taxation of Village residents, but
there would be nothing to stop the county from funding a11 of its countywide programs (Sheriff,
Commission on Ethics, Wellfield Protection, and others) through the double taxation of Village
residents. The Village could lose control of its budget, and residents of unincorporated Palm
Beach County would derive a tax benefit on the shoulders of Village and other municipal
taxpayers. THAT is what this lawsuit is about; nothing more.
2