The central issue at the meeting was the decision not to award administrative costs in two separate compliance cases. The magistrate cited an Attorney General opinion identified as AGO 2014-04, which states that costs associated with in-house personnel, such as city employees involved in case prosecution, cannot be recovered unless explicitly authorized by the legislature. This opinion was pivotal in the magistrate’s decision-making process.

During the proceedings, one compliance case involved a property on Twin Rivers Boulevard, owned by Daryl and Donna E. Davis. Officer Lindsay Long Street presented evidence, highlighting that construction work had been completed without the necessary permits. She detailed the timeline, beginning with a notice of violation issued on July 10, 2024, and subsequent efforts by the property owner to secure a permit. Despite delays, largely attributed to a building official’s vacation and complications with rights owned by AT&T and Spectrum, the property was eventually brought into compliance.

The city sought $500 in administrative costs, covering preparation, inspections, and meetings. However, the magistrate declined, emphasizing the lack of statutory authorization for such costs in special magistrate hearings. Daryl Davis explained the challenges faced during the permit process, including resubmitting corrected documents due to measurement discrepancies. The magistrate acknowledged the property’s compliance but reiterated the decision to decline administrative costs.

In a similar compliance case, Sher Winkler and Marie Adams, property owners on Covington Street, were also found to have erected an unpermitted accessory structure. Officer Long Street submitted 20 pages of evidence, including property records and photographs. The magistrate again declined the city’s request for administrative costs, referencing the same Attorney General opinion.

The magistrate elaborated on the complexities of defining administrative costs and the potential legal repercussions of awarding them incorrectly. Concerns were raised about the possibility of appeals if the city’s cost structure were challenged. It was noted that some cities might be overlooking the Attorney General opinion.

During the meeting, it was acknowledged that the city’s fee schedule included administrative fees based on insights from conferences. However, city representatives conceded they were not legal experts and would defer to the magistrate’s legal interpretation. The magistrate stressed the importance of ensuring a clear understanding of the legal context and agreed to disseminate the Attorney General opinion among city officials for future decision-making.

The magistrate’s decision not to award administrative costs reflects a cautious approach to compliance case handling, prioritizing legal compliance and avoiding challenges to the city’s cost assessment structure.