Quasi Judicial Ordinance Changes

At the July 29, 2025 BOCC meeting, Commissioner Kinnard seems to be proposing some changes to the quasi judicial ordinance to remove the presumed prejudice from ex-parte communication.

How does this affect Citrus County? Check out the video or read the summary below!

Summary

Curtiss Bryant discusses an ordinance being proposed by Commissioner Jeff Kinnard to the Citrus County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on July 29th. The ordinance would revise the county’s quasi-judicial hearing rules, particularly regarding ex-parte communication—communications outside official hearings between commissioners and developers, citizens, or others involved in pending land use applications.

Currently, Citrus County prohibits ex-parte communication in quasi-judicial matters, adhering to the 1991 Jennings v. Dade County ruling, which presumes all ex-parte communications are prejudicial. This has led to a strict policy where commissioners are told not to read related emails or discuss projects outside of hearings. However, commissioners have admitted during the Tuscany Ranch hearing to reading emails, conducting site visits, and receiving citizen input outside the hearing. All five commissioners disclosed having some form of ex-parte communication, raising concerns about fairness and potential legal challenges to their decisions.

Kinnard's proposal references Pasco County’s model ordinance, which allows ex-parte communication but requires full disclosure before a vote. This includes:

• Disclosing who the communication was with and what was discussed.
• Including written communications in the official record.
• Reporting site visits and expert input.

A disclosure form would be created for commissioners to log these interactions. Bryant supports this added transparency but believes the form should be more detailed—requiring summaries of conversations, not just checkboxes—so the public and other parties can assess potential influence or bias.

He also recommends Citrus County consider an approach like St. Augustine’s. Their ordinance removes the presumption of prejudice for incidental ex-parte communications (e.g., citizens unaware of the rules who speak to commissioners). However, it discourages commissioners from initiating or participating in such conversations, offering them a framework to politely decline meetings. This method balances transparency with fairness and prevents silencing the public, as happened at the May 27th meeting when citizens were blocked from speaking about a pending application.

Bryant concludes that while allowing ex-parte communication with proper disclosure can improve access and transparency, it must include safeguards to discourage abuse and ensure fairness for all sides. He encourages public participation in Tuesday’s BOCC meeting and hopes for thoughtful deliberation by the board.