Source: http://www.myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/Opinions/C35353BEEA22A287852580EC0068B827
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 08:44:51+00:00

Document:
RE: GOVERNMENT IN THE SUNSHINE LAW–SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CODE ENFORCEMENT HEARINGS–inapplicability of Sunshine Law requirement that public be given reasonable opportunity to be heard at quasi-judicial Code Enforcement hearings conducted by Special Magistrate; requirement that outcomes of such hearings be presented at public hearing conducted by Special Magistrate. s. 286.0114, Fla. Stat. (2016), and s. 162.07(4), Fla. Stat. (2016).
1. Section 286.0114, Florida Statutes, does not require that members of the public be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard at quasi-judicial code enforcement hearings held by a special magistrate pursuant to authority delegated from the county code enforcement board.
2. Section 162.07(4), Florida Statutes, contemplates that the outcomes of such code enforcement hearings will be presented at a public hearing conducted by the special magistrate.
§ 162.07(4), Fla. Stat. (2016) (italicized emphasis added). Pursuant to this procedure, as a result of the board’s public vote on its “finding,” each outcome of the public hearing on alleged code violations is, necessarily, presented at a public hearing of the board.
The question of whether a special magistrate is required to present each outcome of the code enforcement hearings at a public hearing appears to fall between these two guideposts. However, because the statutory provisions contemplate that the board will present the outcomes of code enforcement hearings at a public hearing of the board, it would be most consistent to implement a process whereby the special magistrate similarly presents the outcomes of code enforcement hearings at a public hearing of the special magistrate.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that section 286.0114 (3)(d), Florida Statutes, does not require that members of the public be given a “reasonable opportunity to be heard” at quasi-judicial code enforcement hearings conducted by a special magistrate pursuant to authority delegated by the county code enforcement board, and that section 162.07(4), Florida Statutes, contemplates that the outcomes of code enforcement hearings will be presented at public hearings conducted by the special magistrate.
 See Informal Attorney General's Opinion dated November 15, 2016, to Mr. Lonnie N. Groot, Esquire (reflecting that § 162.074(4), Fla. Stat., neither specifically requires “that an oral pronouncement” be made regarding the special magistrate’s “findings of fact…and conclusions of law,” nor provides “a specified timeframe within which the order must be rendered”).
 § 286.0114(1), Fla. Stat. (2016).
 § 286.0114(3)(d), Fla. Stat. (2016).
 § 162.03(2), Fla. Stat. (2016).
 See Michael D. Jones, P.A. v. Seminole Cty., 670 So. 2d 95, 96 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (“The powers given by the Legislature to code enforcement boards by Chapter 162 do not appear to us as having crossed the line between ‘quasi-judicial’ and ‘judicial.’”); accord, Verdi v. Metropolitan Dade County, 684 So. 2d 870, 873-74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (“[C]ode enforcement proceedings are quasi-judicial rather than judicial in nature and…the County's use of hearing officers in these proceedings is constitutionally authorized.”).
 § 286.0114(3)(d), Fla. Stat. (2016) (italicized emphasis added).
 § 162.07(4), Fla. Stat. (2016).
 Op. Att’y Gen. Fla. 01-77 (2001).
 City of Tampa v. Brown, 711 So. 2d 1188, 1189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). In that case, the Court concluded that, because the violator had “received notice, had the opportunity to be heard, and was provided a copy of the final order from which an appeal could be taken[,]” the city was not required to serve the order on the violator by certified mail. Id.

References: § 162
 § 162
 § 286
 § 286
 § 162
 v. 
 v. 
 § 286
 § 162
 v.