Fort Walton Beach Council agenda — 06-22-2010 Regular — reading text

Enforcement Case Update for 651 Powell Drive NE (Code Enforcement Case No. 08 -1049) 1. BACKGROUND: 1. 1 On Thanksgiving weekend of 2007, a house fire destroyed a majority of the single family residence at 651 Powell Drive NE leaving it uninhabitable. 1. 2 The property owner, Mrs. Anne Brown, was subsequently unable to continue to reside there and over the following months she and her children worked with the insurance company to resolve the issue of whether to raze the structure or to rebuild. 1. 3 On June 27, 2008, a courtesy notice was sent to the property notifying the owner of the Code violations and desired corrections. 1. 4 On August 5, 2008, a re- inspection of the property found that the violations had not been corrected. Subsequently, a notice of violation was sent to the property owner on August 6, 2008, and service was obtained for the violation on August 9, 2008. 1. 5 A re- inspection of the property on September 18, 2008, found the violation remained as before resulting in a notice of hearing being sent to the property owner. For reasons of service, the hearing was not held until February 11, 2009, at which time the Code Enforcement Board issued an Order I to correct the violations, including an administrative fee of $325. 00 and a compliance date of March 13, 2009. 1. 6 On March 13, 2009, a statement of non -compliance was filed, followed by a second notice of hearing for the second hearing date of April 8, 2009. As a result of the April hearing, an Order II, including another $ 325. 00 administrative fee and a fine in the 8th 13th amount of $250. 00 per day beginning on the March required compliance date, was imposed on the property. 1. 7 On September 24, 2009, a letter of intent to foreclose was sent by Code Enforcement Attorney Joseph D. Lorenz on behalf of the City of Fort Walton Beach. 133 Council Meeting, June 22, 2010  1. 8 On October 28, 2009, the son of the property owner entered into a contract to have the remaining structure razed and brought into compliance. As of February 4, 2010, the building was removed and the remaining violations were brought into compliance. After an. inspection by the Code Enforcement Inspector, the case .was closed and the fines were stopped. 1. 9 On February 10, 2010, the Building Official notified the owner' s representative that the fines were no longer accruing. However, a total of $650. 00 in administrative fees and 83, 250„00 in fines had accrued. 1. 10 In response to the notification by the Building Official, the son and caregiver for the property owner provided a letter requesting the City to settle the fees and fines for a total of $1, 650. 00. 1. 11 On May 18, 2010, a courtesy notice was sent to the property owner and caregiver informing them that the heavy equipment on the property would have to be removed. 1. 12 On May 25, 2010, City staff presented the offer for settlement sent by the property owner to City Council. During the discussion on the item, the City Manager advised that staff would provide additional information on the current condition of the property and the feasibility of pursuing the fines through actions such as foreclosure. 1. 12. 1 As a result of the discussions, the City Council moved to continue the item until the meeting of June 22, 2010. 1. 13 On June 1, the property was sited for pool maintenance, litter, and permit 2010, St, required.. Although the heavy equipment was removed after June 1 the property is still in violation. 1. 14 On June 14, 2010, the Code Enforcement Officer met with a representative of the property owner to discuss a resolution for the current violations. During the discussion, the owner' s representative informed Staff a permit would be pulled to install a new fence to enclose the pool until such time as the issues with the insurance company are resolved and construction of the replacement house can begin. Power would also be turned back on to the property to help with the maintenance of the pool. 2. DISCUSSION: 2. 1 On May 12, 2009, Ordinance No. 1793 was adopted to amend Section 1. 05. 08 of the Code of Ordinances, titled Code Enforcement Order Mitigation Procedures, to provide a suggested schedule of mitigation percentages. The percentages in the approved schedule are a follows: Fine Amount of Fine Amount be Paid 0 - $ 205000 20% of the fine amount 2001 - $405000 30% of the fine amount 134 Council Meeting, June 22, 2010  40, 001 and over 13 5% of the fine amount 2 -2 Using the criteria found in the mitigation policy for code enforcement liens, the settlement amount would be $ 650. 00 for the administrative fees and $ 29, 137. 50 for the fines. 3. FINANCIAL INFORMATION: 3. 1 The existing fines and fees on the property located at 651 Powell Drive NE are as follows: Case # Administrative Fee Assessed Fines 08 -1049 650. 00 83, 250.00 4. STAFF COMMENTS: 4. 1 Engineering Services staff will continue to monitor the property to insure continued compliance with city codes. 5. ATTACHMENTS: 5. 1 Settlement Offer from Drew Brown on behalf of Ann Brown 5. 2 Pictures of Property 6. SIGNATURE BLOCK: 6. 1 Submitted By: Timothy Bolduc, CBO, BCA, Building Official 6. 2 Reviewed and Concur: -- s' r4 Michael D. Beedie, P. E. Engineering & Utility Services Director 6. 3 Reviewed and Concur: Brandy Wunker, Finance Director 6. 4 Reviewed for Agenda: Obert T. Mearns ty Manager 135 Council Meeting, June 22, 2010 Mr. Tim Bolduic, C.B.O. Building Official City of Fort Walton :Beach Engineering Department P.O. Box 4009 Fort Walton Beach, ]FL 32548 RE: Ann Brown'residence (former), 651 Powell Drive (Kenwood), Fort Walton Beach Dear Mr. Bolduc: I am Drew Brown, one of Ann Brown' s sons and holder of Power of Attorney for my mother. I understand from your February 11, 2010 email correspondence to my brother, Jeff, that the City has levied administrative fees of $650 and fines of $83, 250 on my Mom for the condition of her house. The purpose of my letter to you is to request a reduction in the fine amount. As you know, Mom' s house was gutted by fire. We have had considerable conflict with our insurance corripany ( Citizen' s) over how much Morn should be reimbursed. We had several contractors and engineers provide opinions on whether or not her house should be restored or razed. The consenslus was that it should be razed. The insurance company opined that it should be rebuilt.In either case, the amount of money they offered was far short of the amount required. The conflict led to the :house' s protracted state of disrepair. Our dispute with the insurance company is yet unresolved and is fast approaching the point to which we will seek legal remedy. The unresolved insurance issue put us in an untenable position. The insurance company didn' t care about the- fines ( they told us " that' s between you and the City ") and the City can' t get involved in the insurance dispute. Tearing the house down before the, insurance conflict was Meanwhile, the fines continued to resolved was ill-advised, according to our legal counsel. accrue, so we made a family decision (Mom has Alzheimer' s) to go ahead and raze the house and take our chances with the insurance matter. This was completed on February 4, 2010 and per your February 10 email to Jeff, stopped further accrual of fines. Our costs have reached nearly 28,000, which of course, is on us until (or if)the insurance matter is resolved. To date, all expenses associated with the fire and the tearing down of the house have rested squarely on the family. As a family we found ourselves in a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. ' Upon legal counsel's advice if we tore the house down we would be boxing ourselves in as it related to our dealing with the insurance company. If we didn't tear it down we faced our current situation with the city. Eventually, we followed the city's instructions, and in derogation of legal advice, we tore the structure down. Even though we did not complete the razing of the house as quickly as the city would have liked, we did take extraordinary steps to secure the property and deter vagrants, children and others that might have been attracted to such a burned out structure. We locked the doors, boarded up the windows and other possible entrances and we locked any and all passages through the fences that surround the property. We stayed in communication with the city and worked to minimize any problems that the structure may have posed. Fortunately, there were no negative consequences of leaving the structure standing as long as we did. 136 Council Meeting, June 22, 2010 I understand City' s need to address the condition of the house. At the same time, as we look to the possibility of reducing the fines, I appeal to you consider our dilemma. Further, I' ll touch on the obvious, not to lecture, but in the hope that you will identify with me. Fire makes victims out of anyone it touches. Even if the insurance company reversed position and did the right thing, our loss as a family is still staggering. Mom' s house, and most of what was in it- 40 years of living- is gone. My request to you is to help us stop the bleeding. My mother has lost enough. Respectfully, I ask to you reduce the fees and fines to: $ 650 for administrative fees, plus $ 1, 000 in fines. Thank you for your time. Please feel free to contact me at any time at 256 -527 -4755. I look forward to your hearing from you. Sincerely, 137 Council Meeting, June 22, 2010  June 14, 2010 651 Powell Drive NE 138 Council Meeting, June 22, 2010  June 1, 2010 651 Powell Drive NE 139 Council Meeting, June 22, 2010