By DOTTY NIST
A proposed ordinance that would replace the Walton County Code Enforcement Board (CEB) with a special magistrate recently moved forward from its first county commission hearing and will continue to be considered.
The Special Magistrate Ordinance was taken up at the April 28 Walton County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) regular meeting at the Walton County Courthouse.
The CEB is an unpaid volunteer board appointed by the BCC. Special magistrates, often retired judges, are hired in some areas to hear code violation cases rather than code boards being used.
Walton County Attorney Mark Davis commented that the ordinance was not proposed as a criticism of CEB members but mainly because county code requires the county attorney to represent the code board. He said he could not do that and also advise staff on code enforcement issues coming before the CEB/represent staff at CEB meeting. In some instances an outside attorney has been hired to represent county staff at CEB meetings.
With a special magistrate, Davis said he would be able to represent staff at CEB meetings, eliminating the need to hire outside counsel.
District 5 Commissioners Cindy Meadows said she did not see the use of a special magistrate as a “plus” for any citizen. She thought it would likely be less expensive to hire an attorney to represent staff on occasions when it was necessary. She expressed concern that eliminating the code board would “take out the human element.”
District 1 Commissioner Bill Chapman spoke in favor of the use of the special magistrate, observing that “personal feelings” sometimes get involved with CEB cases. He said this was in no way meant to be critical of the CEB members.
District 2 Commissioner Cecilia Jones asked Davis if a “hybrid” system was possible in which a person charged with a code violation could choose between a code board and a special magistrate. Davis responded that a couple of places use such a system but report that respondents always choose the code board rather than a special magistrate.
Meadows observed that the Walton County Planning Commission had recommended unanimously against the ordinance and that the citizens she had spoken with were upset about the proposed move to a special magistrate. She moved for denial of the ordinance, but her motion was not seconded.
Chapman moved to implement the ordinance and move it to the second reading. Jones seconded for discussion.
District 4 Commissioner Sara Comander asked if it would be possible to have staff provide information on the cost of using a special magistrate and also information on possibility of a hybrid procedure. Chapman agreed to modify his motion to allow for that information to be furnished at the time of the second reading.
Santa Rosa Beach resident Mary Nielson questioned the commissioners on how the magistrate would be chosen.
Davis responded that this would be through a request for qualifications (RFQ) procedure with a two-year appointment.
Nielson expressed concern on behalf of citizens that a special magistrate would be “more easily controlled” than a board with a “variety of citizens,” since the BCC would hold sway over the magistrate’s “pocketbook.” She emphasized the importance of a transparent selection process if the county goes to a special magistrate.
Tom Stein, CEB chairman, told the commissioners that he had served on the CEB ever since the time it was separated from the planning commission, some 15 years ago. He said that in former years the CEB had been represented by an independent attorney rather than the county attorney.
Davis responded that the code would not allow this, although it could be changed.
Most citizens, Stein maintained, would prefer a jury of their peers. Another component, he continued, was that if the CEB were eliminated, this could lead to other volunteer boards being eliminated. Without the volunteer boards, Stein warned, there could be more influence over decisions by “politically powerful individuals.”
Miramar Beach resident Suzanne Harris, who serves on the planning commission, credited the CEB and the planning commission for doing a “wonderful job.” She urged the commissioners to listen to the video from the planning commission meeting at which that board had recommended against going to a special magistrate and to the reasons why this would not be a good idea.
Harris spoke in opposition to decisions on code violations being made by “one person.” If a special magistrate is hired, it must be someone from out of the area, she urged.
A vote was taken on Chapman’s previously-stated motion. It was approved 4-1, with Meadows voting no.
Later in the meeting, after looking at the ordinances applying to the CEB, Davis reversed what he had earlier indicated about an independent attorney being hired to represent the code board. He told the commissioners that the current ordinance would provide for such an attorney to be hired to represent the CEB. He volunteered to research the costs to do that along with the other details that the BCC had previously asked him to explore and provide information on.
Chapman moved to have Davis do so, and the motion was approved.
As of press time, no date had been set for the second reading of the ordinance and for the requested information to be furnished to the commissioners.
