Boca Raton council presses staff over Danberg compliance settlement and magistrate process

Public comment and multiple council members on Aug. 26 sharply questioned how a long-running code-compliance matter involving a Danberg development was being handled and whether the city’s special magistrate process is producing consistent outcomes.

Jonathan Njean, speaking during public request, said the magistrate had certified fines and then directed the parties to confer. “You certified a fine for $50,000 that they had levied a fine of a $150,000 at the last meeting. So you levied a fine of $87,000 to mister Danberg from his noncompliance,” Njean said, urging council to reconsider the timeline and the negotiation process and warning that delays could continue through future elections.

City Manager Brown told the council that the magistrate hearing resulted in a directive that both parties attempt to work out a resolution. “The magistrate… directed both parties, the city and the alleged violator, to go see if they could work something out that would resolve the matter,” Brown said, adding that the proposed stipulation “will put some finality to the situation… provide specific dates for compliance. If those dates are not met… we will be back to certify fines.”

The exchange resurfaced later in the workshop during council reports. Deputy Mayor Drucker said she was concerned the staff-recommended fee in the proposed settlement was too low and the compliance timetable too long. “I thought the fee that's been proposed is too low. I thought the timing that's being allotted to this issue with Danberg is too long,” she said, adding that she expected better justification for any reduced fine.

Other council members urged a review of the city’s approach to magistrate fines and appeals. One member criticized a staff recommendation that the settlement figure was formulaic and questioned how a $9,100 figure (as discussed by staff and later contested by council members) had been reached. “I don't support, if the staff is recommending, I don't support the staff in this recommendation,” one council member said during debate.

Brown acknowledged council concerns and said staff would provide the calculation and the facts behind the recommended figure. “I don't have the details on the $9,100, but it was formulaic. I will get you the information,” he said.

Council members discussed possible policy changes including a new ordinance or a threshold that would send certain development-order violations or high-dollar magistrate fines back to the council or CRA for consideration rather than leaving them solely to magistrates. Legal staff explained current code and state statute (ch. 162) make magistrate decisions final and appealable to circuit court, and councilors said they want staff to return with options before the matter appears before the magistrate on Sept. 11.

The council did not take a formal vote during the workshop. Brown said staff had noted the council’s direction and would seek to provide more information before the next meeting. The magistrate hearing and any stipulation remain procedural steps; if compliance dates in any stipulation are missed, the city indicated it will return to re-certify fines.