Fernandina Beach Moves Toward Magistrate System for Code Enforcement issues

The City of Fernandina Beach took its first step Tuesday to disband its volunteer Code Enforcement & Appeals Board and replace it with a special magistrate, a change city officials said would streamline enforcement, reduce delays, and address chronic staffing problems.

The Commission voted 4–1 Tuesday on the first reading of the change ordinance. The ordinance will return to the City Commission for a second and final reading at a future meeting.

If passed on a second vote, the ordinance would dissolve the existing board and shift all code enforcement hearings to a magistrate system authorized under Chapter 162, Florida Statutes.

City Manager Sarah Campbell introduced the ordinance, explaining that the proposal would shift Fernandina Beach to a magistrate system already used by many Florida municipalities.

“This is the consideration to disband the existing Code Enforcement Board and move to a magistrate process,” Campbell said. “Chapter 162 provides that a special magistrate may be utilized in a municipality’s code enforcement system with the same status and power as the Code Enforcement Board, and the city wishes to institute a special magistrate system.”

City Attorney Teresa Prince said the city’s existing board has been unable to function consistently because it no longer meets statutory recommendations.

“Under 162.05 of the Florida Statutes, a municipality of this size should have seven members of a board,” Prince said. “We currently have four (sitting) members of a board.”

Prince said the shortfall has created recurring quorum challenges.

“It’s hard to get citizens to volunteer for these boards,” she said. “The four that we have currently, they faithfully show up, but now that we only have four, we have to make sure we have a quorum.”

Because the city code mirrors the seven-member structure, Prince said all four sitting members must be present and vote to conduct business.

“Since we’re supposed to have seven, we have to have four of them actually present, and then all four of them would have to vote when we can’t fill all the positions,” she said.

Under the ordinance, the existing board would continue operating until May 1 if the ordinance passes on second reading. After that date, the city would issue a request for proposals and hire a special magistrate.

City Attorney Prince

“That would be effective May 1st, so your current code enforcement board, if you were to pass this ordinance on second reading, would stay in place until May 1st and perform their duties,” Prince said. “But then we would also go out for an RFP and hire a special magistrate.”

Prince said the city already uses a special magistrate for certain violations, including beach parking, noise, and street performer citations.

“All of those citations when they’re issued go straight to the special magistrate,” she said. “That’s also to tell you that the city does have a familiarity with the process.”

Commissioner Joyce Tuten said she had spoken with current board members, who expressed concern about losing citizen involvement, but acknowledged the operational problems.

“They did have concern about losing community members serving on the board who might have a deeper understanding of an issue or compassion of an issue,” Tuten said. “But they also acknowledged the concern of the board… that they only have four.”

Tuten said the magistrate system could also allow cases to move more quickly.

“I also appreciate the notion that a special magistrate could be called in an emergency,” she said. “I know many of us know code enforcement issues that drag on for a long time.”

Commissioners also questioned the cost of hiring a magistrate. Prince said other jurisdictions have found expenses to be limited and recoverable.

“The cost has been fairly nominal,” Prince said. “And we can charge that cost… back to the person that the enforcement’s being levied against.”

Campbell estimated the cost based on her prior experience as city manager of Orange Park.

“It was approximately two hours of an attorney’s time per month,” she said. “So if that attorney charges $250 to $350 an hour, you’d be looking at $500 to $700 a month.”

Vice Mayor Darron Ayscue cast the lone dissenting vote, saying he wanted more information and community input before moving forward.

“I’ve heard the same concerns that Commissioner Tuten has heard,” Ayscue said. “I think from a 30,000-foot view on this issue… there’s a lot of concerns from code enforcement all the way down.”

“So I’m no on this first reading until I can get a little bit more information,” he said.

Commissioner Genece Minshew supported the ordinance, maintaining the goal of code enforcement is timely compliance, not punishment.

“The goal of code enforcement is not to generate a lot of fines,” Minshew said. “The goal of code enforcement is to get the problem fixed.”

“And the more expeditiously we can resolve the issue for the neighborhood and the community, the better it is for everybody,” she said.

The ordinance will return to the City Commission for a second and final reading at a future meeting.