Fort Walton Beach Council minutes — 10-09-07 workshop minutes — reading text

161 MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING OF THE CITY OF FORT WALTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 9, 2007 INTRODUCTION A Council Workshop Meeting of the City Council of Fort Walton Beach, Florida, was held on Tuesday, October 9, 2007 at 5: 30 p. m. with the following members present: Mayor Mike Anderson Councilmen: Mike Holmes, Virgil Miller, Dennis Reeves, Bill Garvie, Dr. Wayne Pullen, Jim Hartwell, and Mike Minich Also Present:Joyce Shanahan, City Manager; Helen Spencer, City Clerk; Toni Craig, City Attorney; and Department Directors Absent: Lisa Absher, Finance Director CALL TO ORDER The Mayor called the meeting to order. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor led in the Pledge of Allegiance. REVIEW OF CODE ENFORCEMENT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES Dr. Pullen explained he requested this item be placed on the agenda to discuss concerns he has with the City's Code Enforcement process, and that the following two questions be asked and discussed this evening: 1) Should all citizens of the City be treated the same in regards to Code Enforcement; and 2) Are Fort Walton Beach City officials exempt from Code Enforcement, should they meet the same standards as the citizens of the City. Dr. Pullen spoke of a former City councilmember whose commercial property was not cited for code violations until after his term on Council had ended. Dr. Pullen stated his feeling that the code could have been enforced while the individual was still a member of Council. Missy McKim, CDS Director, stated the goal of Code Enforcement is compliance, not punishment, and the objective is to provide clear, consistent, and systematic processes for the investigation, notification and compliance with the City's Code of Ordinances. She informed that about 5% to 10% of the violations go before the Code Enforcement Board, and even a smaller percentage end up with an Order II, which is the order where fines are applied to a property. In response to Dr. Pullen' s first question regarding whether all citizens/cases should be treated the same, Ms. McKim advised the City works with property owners in order to gain compliance. She explained that every violation is different; some are simple to correct, sometimes homeowners have personal issues, and at other times, property owners are unable to maintain their property due to health reasons or because of their age. In that case, the City may give a property owner a little more time or leeway to correct the violation. However, Ms. McKim advised that if a particular case drags on with one excuse after another from a property owner, and there is no compliance after several months, the case will then be forwarded to the Code Enforcement Board for enforcement and compliance. She also advised that elected officials are not exempt from the code process, and the person whom Dr. Pullen was referring to has had various code violations for years; that when one was corrected another would arise. Ms. McKim continued that since the hurricanes of a few years ago there was a lot of damage to the individual' s business and the violations had gotten worse and there was no effort to comply by the individual, and that is when the City moved forward. 1 6 2Council Workshop 10- 09-07 CODE ENFORCEMENT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES lCONT) Dr. Pullen acknowledged that Staff and the Code Enforcement Board works with citizens who may have a problem complying and commended both for their efforts. Discussion ensued regarding the lienlforeclosure process and that homesteaded properties cannot be foreclosed upon, but the possessions can be foreclosed upon. The City Attorney stated there was a time when the City filed a foreclosure in part with the foreclosure of a mortgage, and the City acted as a second lien holder. She further advised homesteads are a difficult legal issue and the courts are divided I as to whether the liens are attached to the homesteads when first filed, and that the City could proceed to get a judgment which is good for 20 years; however, it would not stand the same as a lien against a homestead. Also discussed was the frustration for residents who live next to a homesteaded property that does not comply; that the City is working on several foreclosures but it is a lengthy process; and that property owners are notified of foreclosure and the majority of owners will comply. Further discussion included how violations are brought to the City's attention. Ms. McKim advised that complaints are acted upon by the Code Enforcement officers, and with the formation of the neighborhood program more complaints are being relayed. She further informed that the code officers each take one- half of the city and patrol the areas, all complaints received are checked, and the area where the violation is reported is checked for similar violations. Also discussed were the courtesy notices sent by the City and that the notices are a step in the City's process that is in addition to the required steps of the State Statute. Council expressed the importance of portraying a favorable impression to possible investors and visitors in the City, and cited a need to take a look at the Code Enforcement rules. Ms. McKim noted that codes in other communities are more stringent than those of the City, and she offered to come back to Council with options for possible changes in the code provisions to make them more concrete. She advised she will begin discussing the codes with the neighborhood committees in January for their opinions and input. Ray Seip, 121 Nebraska Avenue, mentioned the two notices his daughter received in violation of City Code Sections 10. 91 Righto- f- Way Protection, and 10.91. 02 Permit Required for storage of vehicles in the right-of- way without a permit. He expressed his understanding that the purpose of the section is to protect the right-of- way from structures, said the vehicle is not a structure and was not stored, and believed it was not a good citation. He pointed out a photo of the vehicle with a paint mark put on the tire two years ago that he understood was used to determine whether or not the vehicle had been moved. He questioned how it was put there and objected to defacing private property. He discussed the City's practice of responding to complaints via anonymous phone calls and suggested that complaints be made in writing at the City using a notarized Affidavit of Complaint form. He pointed out sample wording he copied from the County ordinance he suggested be used to amend the ordinance. He also discussed the problem of presumed trespassing on private properties by the City's Code Enforcement officers, pointed out AGo-2002-27 that addressed the issue of entering private premises without consent. Millie Thrush, 316 Sudduth Circle, stated her feeling that the City is one of the most lax in code enforcement that she has encountered, and that Council really look at the issue of code enforcement and how it effects the way citizens and visitors perceive the City. I FEE SCHEDULE REVISIONS FOR THE CDS DEPARTMENT Ms. McKim provided information on the fee schedule revisions, new fees that have been created to cover the cost of the Building Division' s expenses, as well as changes to the Building Permit Process. She advised that fees for projects are based on an individual basis; for example, condominium projects are usually charged as an entire project, while townhomes may be charged differently if they are individually owned. She noted there is no difference in fees for projects in the CRA area. Council Workshop 10- 0709- 163 FEE SCHEDULE REVISIONS conl Discussion ensued regarding fees for re- inspections. Malcolm Foley, Planning Manager, advised that if the re- is inspection punitive, meaning that the contractor called for a re- inspection when the work isn't ready to be inspected, the third re- i n s p ec t i o n fee is tripled from $ 35.00 to $ 105. 00. ADJOURNMENT Being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:40 p. m. APPROVED: ~~- J@;? MAYOR. _ A1ii 1P CI ClZ. lYe