Source: http://www.myflsunshine.com/ago.nsf/sunopinions/133E603A53D9DF6B852582BF00508C09
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 15:01:20+00:00

Document:
We are in receipt of your letter on behalf of the Town of Bay Harbor Islands requesting an opinion regarding the application of the Florida Sunshine Laws to records and meetings relating to security system plans for certain school facilities. Attorney General Pam Bondi has asked me to respond to your question.
As to whether particular records are exempt from disclosure, we direct you to the terms of section 119.071(3)(a)1., Florida Statutes (2017), which we discuss further below. As to the public meetings requirement, we are unable to offer our opinion, as it appears that the eligibility for an exemption depends upon the particular facts the Town proposes to discuss, thus constituting a mixed question of law and fact, which this office does not resolve.
The Town of Bay Harbor Islands and the School Board of Miami-Dade County are parties to a Joint Use Agreement (attached to the opinion request) that allows the School Board to use certain Town property and the Town to use certain facilities of the Ruth K. Broad Bay Harbor K-8 Center. The Town uses the school facilities for after-school activities, summer camps, and winter camps for school-aged children. The Joint Use Agreement specifies the outdoor and indoor School Board facilities that the Town may use, the days and hours of use permitted, and each party’s security obligations. Simply stated, during school hours, the School Board is required to provide the security of the outdoor and school facilities. During non-school hours, the Town is required to provide the security of the outdoor and school facilities.
Your question requires consideration of three general statutes that provide that public meetings and records related to security systems and/or security system plans are confidential and exempt from the Government in the Sunshine laws. The first, section 281.301, was enacted in 1987, and pertained simply to “security systems for any property owned by or leased to the state or any of its political subdivisions[.]” In 1990, the Legislature added to each mention of “security systems,” the term “information relating to” security systems, and added to the term “records,” a list of formats that could constitute information relating to a security system. The amendment also added that records and meetings held by an agency that related to a security system for privately owned or leased property would be protected from disclosure to the public.
(1) Information relating to the security systems for any property owned by or leased to the state or any of its political subdivisions, and information relating to the security systems for any privately owned or leased property which is in the possession of any agency as defined in s. 119.011(2), including all records, information, photographs, audio and visual presentations, schematic diagrams, surveys, recommendations, or consultations or portions thereof relating directly to or revealing such systems or information, and all meetings relating directly to or that would reveal such systems or information are confidential and exempt from ss. 119.07(1) and 286.011 and other laws and rules requiring public access or disclosure.
In 2001, the Legislature created sections 119.071 and 286.0113, Florida Statutes, stating that these provisions were intended to “expand and clarify” the exemptions in section 281.301 for public records and public meetings. The list of exempt records in section 281.301 formed the basis for the new definition of “security system plans” in section 119.071, to which a number of additional kinds of records were added.
The phrasing of section 286.0113(1), and the statement of legislative intent included in the session law, show that the exemption for public meetings in that provision applies to any portion of a meeting in which a record as defined in section 119.071(3)(a) would be revealed.
There is very little case law dealing with records that relate to security systems and security system plans. In Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority v. Post-Newsweek Stations, Orlando, Inc., 157 So. 3d 401 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015), the Fifth District Court of Appeal stated that the statutory language in sections 119.071(3)(a) and 281.301 was clear and unambiguous. The court found that video footage captured by a surveillance system used in public buses was directly related to and revealed information about the security system, and thus was confidential and exempt from public records disclosure. It concluded that, because “[t]he videos, which are records, reveal the capabilities—and as a corollary, the vulnerabilities—of the current system[,]” they clearly fell within the statutory exemptions.
In Attorney General Opinion 2001-75, this office characterized section 281.301 as having a “comprehensive scope,” providing a “broad exemption from disclosure[.]” We concluded that the exemption covered security plans or security needs assessments that a private entity has provided to, and thus were on file with, a governmental entity such as a law enforcement agency.
Presumably, the Town of Bay Harbor Islands should be able to determine whether records in its possession would come within the protections provided by sections 119.071(3) and 281.301, as outlined by the above judicial and Attorney General opinions.
It is evident from the statutes that a portion of a meeting in which any security system record as defined in section 119.071(3)(a) would be revealed is exempt from the public meetings law pursuant to section 286.0113(1). Beyond that, the Town must decide on a case-by-case basis whether a proposed discussion would “relate directly to” a security system or to information related to the security system pursuant to section 281.301(1). Each proposed discussion will involve a new set of facts that the government must evaluate, adhering closely to the statutory language.
 “Attorney General Opinions are intended to address only questions of law, not questions of fact, mixed questions of fact and law, or questions of executive, legislative or administrative policy.” Frequently Asked Questions About Attorney General Opinions, myfloridalegal.com.
 Each of the three statutes was amended in the 2018 Legislative Session to apply the same exemptions that now cover security system plans to fire safety system plans. See Ch. 2018-146, Laws of Fla.
 Ch. 87-355, § 1, Laws of Fla.
 Ch. 90-360, § 101, Laws of Fla.
 The only discussion in the Staff Analyses of the changes to the statute involved records of private entities that are on file with public agencies. The Committees observed that the provision was intended to correct the fact that, “[i]n many cases, local police departments and sheriff offices have copies of plans for security systems installed in privately owned buildings located within their jurisdictions. Under [then] current law, the public has access to these security system plans.” Staff of Fla. S. Committee on Governmental Operations, HB 2513 (1990) Staff Analysis & Economic Impact Statement (Fla. State Archives), at p. 3. See also Op. Att’y Gen. Fla. 2001-75, note 1 and accompanying text re: Staff of Fla. H. Committee on Governmental Operations, HB 2513 (1990) Staff Analysis and Economic Impact Statement (Fla. State Archives) at p. 9.
 Staff of Fla. H.R. Select Committee on Security, CS/SB 16-C (2001) Analysis (Fla. State Archives) at p. 1.
 Ch. 2001-361, §§ 1-2, Laws of Fla. In 2005, multiple exemptions were transferred from § 119.07(6) to § 119.071, and the exemption for security system plans became subsection 119.071(3). Ch. 2005-251, Laws of Fla.
 Cent. Fla. Reg’l Transp. Auth. v. Post-Newsweek Stations, Orlando, Inc., 157 So. 3d 401, 405 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). This office followed the Central Florida Regional Transportation case in Op. Att’y Gen. Fla. 2015-06, when we concluded that surveillance video recordings from a security system in Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority facilities constituted “information which reveals a security system[,]” and thus constituted confidential and exempt records.
 Critical Intervention Servs., Inc. v. City of Clearwater, 908 So. 2d 1195, 1197 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).
 In 1993, when Op. Att’y Gen. Fla. 1993-86 was issued, the museum was assigned to the Department of State. § 265.26(4), Fla. Stat. (1993). The museum is currently operated by Florida State University. § 1004.45(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2017).

References: v. 
 § 1
 § 101
 § 119
 § 119
 v. 
 v. 
 § 265
 § 1004