Fort Walton Beach Council agenda — 05-25-2010 Regular — reading text

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 61 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 8' hearing, an Order II, including another $ 325. 00 administrative fee and a fine in the 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. g1_  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 =th.6 remaining violations were brought into compliance. After an inspection by the Code Enforcement Inspector, the case was closed and the fines were stopped. 2. DISCUSSION: 2. 1 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. 2.2 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 $15650. 00. 2. 3 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 - $ 2000 20% of the fine amount 20, 001 - $ 40, 000 30% of the fine amount 40, 001 and over 35% of the fine amount 2. 4 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, 1 37. 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 835250. 00 4. CODE ENFORCEMENT RECOMMENDATION: 4. 1 The City' s Code Enforcement Attorney recommends acceptance of the offer of $1, 650. 00 from the property owner as full settlement of the liens against the property, citing reasons of homestead exemption and owner competence. 92_ 5. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 5. 1 Staff requests City Council authorization to follow the recommendation of the Code Enforcement Attorney and accept the settlement offer of $1, 650. 00 to release the liens on the property at 651 Powell Drive NE. The property at 651 Powell Drive NE is currently in compliance. 6. ATTACHMENTS: 6. 1 Ordinance No. 1793 6.2 Letter requesting settlement from Drew Brown, on behalf of Ann Brown 6. 3 E -Mail from Code Enforcement Attorney to Staff, dated May 17, 2010 7. SIGNATURE BLOCK: 7. 1 Submitted By: Timothy Bolduc, CBO, BCA, Building Official 7. 2 Reviewed and Concur: r°' °" eySl. 4ltAtd Michael D. Beedie, P. E. Engineering & Utility Services Director 7. 3 Reviewed and Concur. Br n y Wunker, Pinance Director 7. 4 Reviewed for Agenda Oity ert T. Mearns, Manager 93-  Page 1 of 1 Tim Bolduc From: Joseph D. Lorenz [ law @jdlorenz.com] Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 1: 11 PM To: Tim Bolduc Subject: Re: 651 Powell Tim, As we have discussed, I have doubts as to whether or not we could even proceed against this property due to homestead issues. I have discussed that with you and Ms. Craig earlier. I was told that the owner was now under medical care, perhaps in a nursing home. My understanding is that this property was brought into compliance by demolition of the home. We may also have notice issues since we have been dealing with relatives who may not technically have the authority to accept notices or make representations for the owner, who may be incompetent. I would not be able to recommend further legal action at this time, so if the City can recoup its costs for this case, I would recommend the Council strongly consider that offer. Please let me know if you have questions. Joe Lorenz Original Message - - - -- From: Tim Bolduc To: Joseph D. Lorenz Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 7: 47 AM Subject: 651 Powell Joe, I anticipate presenting the Brown settlement offer at the up coming council meeting. For the back up information, do you have a recommendation as to if the council should accept it? Tim Bolduc, C. B. O. Building Official Engineering Services Department City of Fort Walton Beach P. Q. Box 4009 Fort Walton Beach, FL 32548 Phone: 850 -833 -9605 Cell: 850 -585 -4644 Nextel: 186 *13224 *25 Web Page: www.fwb. org Email: tbolducCa7fwb. org Please Note: Florida has a very broad public records law. Most written communications to or from City of Fort Walton Beach officials are public records available to the public and media upon request. Your e -mail address and communications may therefore be subject to public disclosure. Think Green - Please consider the environment before printing this e- mail. 5/ 18/ 2010 - 94- Mr. Tim Bolduc, 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, 2,010 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 company ( Citizen' s) over how much Mom should be reimbursed. We had several contractors and engineers provide opinions on whether or not her house should be restored or razed. The consensus 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 resolved was ill-advised, according to Meanwhile, the fines continued 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. 95- 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, 96-  READING DATE zsi' ORDINANCE 1793 AMENDED BEACH, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FORT ' WALTON FLORIDA; PROVIDING FOR AUTHORITY; ADOPTING SECTION ENTITLED CODE