Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Martin County OKs ordinance delegating lien-release approvals to code magistrate over commissioners' objections
Summary
The Board of County Commissioners adopted an amendment to Martin County Code Section 1.98(b) that delegates authority to the special magistrate to approve release or reduction of code-enforcement liens down to an established 10% minimum; the measure passed 4–1 after debate about hardship cases and concentration of decision-making.
The Martin County Board of County Commissioners voted 4–1 on May 6 to adopt an ordinance amending Martin County Code Section 1.98(b) to delegate authority to the county's code enforcement special magistrate to approve reductions and releases of code-enforcement liens down to an established 10 percent minimum. Commissioner John Capps cast the lone dissent.
The change makes a previously followed "10 percent" practice a codified minimum and removes the requirement that the board explicitly approve magistrate-recommended reductions that meet that standard. "I feel like that's a heavy concentration of power in one person's judgment," Commissioner John Capps said during the public hearing, saying he was concerned about rare hardship cases that might merit further review by the board.
County building department representative Jeff Daugherty and senior assistant county attorney Josh Schabrowski described the background: code enforcement's goal is compliance, not punishment, and reductions historically were used after compliance was achieved. Schabrowski told commissioners that about a year earlier the 10 percent practice had been codified in the ordinance; the proposed amendment was intended as an efficiency measure to avoid returning to the board when the magistrate follows the codified minimum.
Commissioner Campi and others said the magistrate process already allows findings of fact and consideration of individual circumstances at the hearing stage. "When our code enforcement officers go to a property, we work to get compliance," Schabrowski said, noting magistrates make discretionary findings and set timeframes for remediation. Staff estimated that 60–70 percent of cases involve homesteaded property, and the county does not pursue foreclosure of homesteaded homes as a matter of policy.
Commissioner Capps said he remained uneasy that people with serious financial hardship might not get a second review by the board; other commissioners said the public hearing before the magistrate is the appropriate place to raise such concerns. Commissioners also discussed practical consequences, including that cross-attached liens can affect multiple properties owned by the same owner (except non-offending homestead property) and that liens generally extinguish after 20 years, after which the county could reinitiate enforcement.
After discussion, Commissioner Campi moved adoption and the board approved the ordinance 4–1, with Capps dissenting. The board did not change the 10 percent minimum; staff said the amendment instead eliminates the redundant step of bringing magistrate-compliant reductions back to the board for routine approval.
The ordinance language referenced during the hearing was Martin County Code Section 1.98(b).
