To:
No voting conflict of interest is created where a city commissioner votes to increase the rent at a city-owned mobile home park located approximately four miles from a mobile home park owned by the commissioner. It is remote and speculative to assume that by raising the rent at the city-owned park he would be able to justify charging a higher rent at his park, which is much smaller and has no amenities. Referenced are CEO's 93-4, 86-44, 85-87, and 85-77
Through your letter of inquiry and subsequent correspondence, we are advised that you serve as a member of the Fort Meade City Commission. You advise that the City owns a 251 lot rental mobile home park and that in September 1991 the Commission voted to institute a series of rent increases for the mobile home park. The rent increases have generated a legal dispute between the City and the park's residents, and you anticipate the possibility of matters coming before the City Commission to resolve the dispute.
You indicate that you own a mobile home park approximately four miles north of the City in the community of Homeland. Your park is significantly smaller than the City's, you advise, having only seven spaces and offering no amenities. If the City-owned park's rent is increased, you indicate, you may be able to justify increasing the rent at your park, because the rent from the City-owned park and other mobile home parks will be used as a comparison in accordance with Chapter 723, Florida Statutes.
No county, municipal, or other local public officer shall vote in his official capacity upon any measure which would inure to his special private gain; which he knows would inure to the special private gain of any principal by whom he is retained or to the parent organization of subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he is retained, other than an agency as defined in s. 112.312(2); or which he knows would inure to the special private gain of a relative or business associate of the public officer. Such public officer shall, prior to the vote being taken, publicly state to the assembly the nature of his interest in the matter from which he is abstaining from voting and, within 15 days after the vote occurs, disclose the nature of his interest as a public record in a memorandum filed with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who shall incorporate the memorandum in the minutes.
We previously have recognized that any gain or loss to a public officer resulting from a particular measure may be too remote or speculative to constitute "special gain." Thus, in CEO 86-44, we advised that a city council member was not prohibited from voting on a site plan for a shopping center located adjacent to the florist store he owned and operated. Similarly, in CEO 85-77, we found that a school board member who owned a retail clothing business near the site of a proposed school district administrative complex was not prohibited from voting on matters relating to the use of the school district's property. See also CEO 85-87
More recently, in CEO 93-4, we advised one of your fellow Commissioners that Section 112.3143(3), Florida Statutes, would not be violated were he to vote on rent increases at the City's mobile home park, where he proposed to build an r.v. park across the street from the City park.
In your situation, although you have indicated that you may be able to justify charging higher rents at your mobile home park if the City's mobile home park raises its rent, it would appear to be premature as well as speculative to anticipate that your votes to raise rent at the City-owned mobile home park would inure to your special private gain.