Citrus County commissioners debate ethics, lobbying and County Road 491 funding request

Citrus County commissioners spent more than three hours on May 13 debating whether county officials or a former commissioner improperly sought state funding for a County Road 491 project, as public commenters pressed for accountability.

The controversy began after a state appropriations request for County Road 491 was circulated in Tallahassee with Citrus County listed as the recipient; residents later raised questions about who authorized that submission and whether county staff or outside lobbyists had overstepped local rules.

Why it matters: County Road 491 is a longtime local priority. Residents and commissioners said unclear processes for submitting state appropriations and for contacts between commissioners, staff and outside lobbyists have undermined trust and could complicate future efforts to secure state money.

At the meeting, Commissioner Jeanette Barrack moved to direct the county attorney to file an ethics complaint against a former commissioner, asserting she had lobbied on behalf of the developer and asked staff to sign an attestation without board approval. Commissioner Diana Finnegan seconded the motion. That motion failed after voice vote; commissioners split along lines in public comment and in the board chamber, and the item did not pass.

Commissioners and the county attorney discussed two legal frameworks: one (the Jennings case approach) treats ex parte communications in quasi-judicial land-use cases as presumptively prejudicial; another (the Pasco County model) allows private meetings but requires detailed, public disclosure. The board did not adopt either approach at the meeting but asked the county attorney to return with options and draft language for how to handle ex parte communications and related disclosures.

Separately, the board approved two measures aimed at improving transparency and preventing similar confusion. Commissioners directed county legal staff to draft a county ordinance requiring lobbyist registration for anyone who seeks to lobby the county. The commission also directed the county attorney to prepare an ordinance that would bar former county commissioners from lobbying the commission or county staff for a period consistent with the Florida constitution (the board instructed staff to mirror the constitutional provision, which is currently the subject of litigation). Both drafting requests passed unanimously.

Public comment before and during the board meeting was divided. Some speakers urged strong action, including termination of the county administrator; others urged caution and noted staff and commissioners often seek state or federal funds for county priorities. Commissioner comments emphasized a need for clearer, pre-set procedures so future appropriations requests are handled in public and with the board's knowledge.

What the board did: the ethics-complaint motion failed; the board instructed the county attorney to draft (1) a lobbyist-registration ordinance and (2) an ordinance limiting lobbying by former commissioners consistent with the state constitution; and to return with options on codified rules for ex parte communications. Commissioners also discussed but did not adopt emergency disciplinary action against the county administrator.

Next steps: The county attorney will produce draft ordinances and options for handling ex parte contacts and return to the board for review. Commissioners said they want clear administrative rules so county staff, current commissioners and former elected officials know in advance what contacts are permitted and what must be disclosed.

Ending: Several commissioners said they support tightening procedures to prevent future confusion while preserving the ability of county leaders to pursue state funding for infrastructure projects.