Yarbrough v. Young, AY-182
| Citation | 462 So.2d 515,10 Fla. L. Weekly 99 |
| Decision Date | 03 January 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. AY-182,AY-182 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 99 Joe YARBROUGH, Mayor of the City of Perry; Byrum Whitfield, Thomas Demps, Joe Nola and T. Anderson Bowdoin, constituting the City Council of the City of Perry, Florida, Appellants, v. Earl W. YOUNG, W.H. Bolton, Vincent Dirubbio, Ralph Clark, J. Herschel McClellan, Jerry D. Dickert, John E. Loughridge, Bishop Clark, Jacob M. Sanhein, Robert D. Sayers, Joe R. Roberts and D.L. Frith, Appellees. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Isadore F. Rommes, Jr., Perry, W.O. Birchfield, Martin, Ade, Birchfield & Johnson, Jacksonville, for appellants.
Don Dansby, Perry, for appellees.
This is an appeal from an order finding that certain actions of the Perry City Council (Council) violated Florida's "Sunshine Law". Section 286.011, Florida Statutes. We reverse.
For several months before October 1983, the City of Perry (City) considered renovating and upgrading certain aspects of its utility system. The City contracted with a private engineering firm to make a preliminary report and recommendations. The report's first draft recommended a utility improvement program costing 1.3 million dollars. Several drafts and months later, the City gave public notice--a posted agenda outside of city hall--of a regular Council meeting to be held on October 25, 1983. The posted agenda included an update by the City Manager on the revenue bond issue to finance the proposed utility system improvements. At the October 25th Council meeting, however, the City Manager stated that his update was not ready. The mayor then announced that the update would be placed on the agenda of a special Council meeting to be held on October 28, 1983. At the October 25th Council meeting, no Council member or city official mentioned any dollar amount regarding the utility system improvements.
Immediately after the October 25th Council meeting, the mayor announced the upcoming October 28th Council meeting's agenda on a local radio station. Also, on October 26, 1983, the City posted the agenda for the October 28th meeting outside of city hall, which stated that one of the three items to be covered included "Council review and approval of agreement between the City of Perry and bond underwriters and bond counsel for revenue utility bond issue." The agenda stated no dollar amount. Additionally, the City hand delivered copies of the agenda to local media.
On October 27, 1983, the Taco Times, Perry's twice-weekly newspaper, published an article regarding the October 28th special meeting, wherein it was twice stated that the utility system improvements to be discussed were worth 1.3 million dollars. The article's reporter had attended the October 25th meeting. During the final hearing below, the reporter testified that she had used the 1.3 million-dollar amount since it was the sum she believed had been stated in previous engineering reports. The City Manager never told the reporter an amount for the utility system improvements other than 1.3 million dollars. There was no evidence adduced that the Council or City Manager misled the reporter.
On October 27, 1983, the engineering firm submitted a 40-page updated draft--at least the eighth update--of its preliminary report to the Council. The updated report recommended that the City formally adopt the report as the City's master plan for utility system improvement, and set the total cost at 8.8 million dollars. The City Manager testified below that inflation and the combination of other utility system projects contemplated since 1981 caused the increase to the 8.8 million figure. Prior to October 28, 1983, the mayor had discussed the 8.8 million-dollar amount in private meetings with the City Manager, the City Attorney, the City Engineer and a banker. Also, the City Manager admitted to discussing the larger amount with the City's professional staff before October 25, 1983.
On October 28, 1983, the Council met as scheduled with all commissioners except one. The city staff and two reporters were also present. After the private engineers reviewed the updated preliminary report, the Council unanimously adopted the report as the City's master plan for utilities improvement. Following discussion, the Council also authorized the City Manager to sign an agreement between the City, bond underwriters and bond counsel. The Council planned a revenue bond issue of 8.8 million dollars for financing the utility...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
News and Sun-Sentinel Co. v. Cox
...`public meeting', the better view is that reasonable notice is mandatory, although a posted agenda is unnecessary." Yarbrough v. Young, 462 So.2d 515, 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (citing Hough v. Stembridge, 278 So.2d 288 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1973)) (emphasis in original). Here, on March 31, 1988, a g......
- Edward M. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Vaughn
-
Slawson v. Alabama Forestry Com'n
...under Florida's sunshine law. Hough v. Stembridge, 278 So.2d 288, 291 (Fla.App. 3 Dist.Ct.App.1973); Yarbrough v. Young, 462 So.2d 515, 517 (Fla.App. 1 Dist.Ct.App.1985). "Although the statute does not contain a specific notice requirement, it has been held that 'reasonable notice' of a pub......
-
Florida v. City of Port St. Lucie
...Manual, section (D)(4)(a)3., 4. (2017).Few cases address the question of what is reasonable notice. In Yarbrough v. Young , 462 So.2d 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), three days' notice of a special meeting was deemed adequate. In Rhea v. City of Gainesville , 574 So.2d 221, 221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)......