Loading...
Minutes 04-23-09 MINUTES OF THE CODE COMPLIANCE BOARD WORKSHOP HELD ON THURSDAY, APRIL 23,2009, AT 3:00 P.M. IN CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PRESENT: Michele Costantino, Chair Richard Yerzy, Vice Chair Kathleen Carroll, arrived 3:14 p.m. Robert Foot Kirk LaRock Jamie LaTour James Brake, Alternate Scott Blasie, Code Compliance Administrator Jim Cheraf, Board Attorney Chair Costantino opened the meeting at 3:13 p.m. The agenda was reviewed and it was noted a discussion of foreclosures was not on the agenda. Motion Mr. LaTour moved to amend the agenda to add foreclosures. Vice Chair Yerzy seconded the motion that unanimously passed. 1. Acceptance Letter Chair Costantino reviewed the new letter of appointment. The prior letter indicated the members were to contact the City Clerk's office if they would be absent. The Code requires the members contact the Chair. The Statute was reviewed and the Code Compliance Board was the only Board that could remove members on its own. There is a procedure outlined for removal of members. Having two out of three consecutive meetings unexcused was cause for removal. Mr. Karageorge advised he would not be present at the June meeting. Mr. Foot announced he would not be available for the June meeting as well. 2. Lien Reduction Ordinance Scott Blasie, Code Compliance Administrator, announced the item was requested to be put on the agenda and he was available to answer questions the members had. 1 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Board Workshop Boynton Beach, Florida April 23, 2009 The following were the questions asked and answers received: Q. In order to make the request for a lien reduction, do the violations have to be corrected and is the fee $200? A. The fee for lien reduction is $200. If the Petitioner has other properties or liens, there are additional $50 increments charged over and above the $200 base amount, for each lien recorded against the property. No outstanding Code violations could remain, nor could there be monies owed to the City for any items such as garbage collection, taxes, water. Q. Is there a certain formula for the members to charge regarding lien reductions? A. Some municipalities charge a percentage and some have no set formula. The amount was determined by consensus of the Board. There was lengthy discussion regarding the amount to charge. One member felt around 5% was equitable, while another disagreed, based on the premise it was not the Board's job to make money for the City, rather it was to gain compliance. To charge 5% across the Board would not be fair. New owners bring the property into compliance within 30 to 60 days, when it was out of compliance for 10 years. It was thought those individuals should not be charged 5%. Rather, the new owners should be thanked and charged administrative costs, or less. Imposing 5% across the Board has not occurred, nor was it a Board guideline. Discussion included the members should review each case individually, and if the violations were particularly offensive and the neighborhood has suffered, the amount, or higher, may be appropriate. Other factors were if the Respondent was disrespectful to the Code Officer or the Board, or if they were unwilling to attempt to cure the violation, a higher percentage would be appropriate. There were instances when the Board imposed higher fines. Each case must be determined on its own merits and there was no benchmark, per se. There were differing philosophies among Board members such as whether a fine enforced would deter others from incurring violations. The liability for the fine rested with the property owner as opposed to who caused the violation. The current economic environment was also discussed, as the Board was in a position where realtors bring buyers to the Board, and if there is no reduction, the sale falls through. Sentiments were expressed that the City, in terms of its Officers and number and time spent on inspections should not be dismissed. When Respondents or new owners bring the property into compliance quickly, the Board usually charges administrative fees. With the amount of foreclosures occurring, the City should at least capture administrative fees as something was better than nothing. Using 5% as a starting point, and subtracting down based on the merits of the case was suggested. 2 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Board Workshop Boynton Beach, Florida April 23, 2009 Q. Would the new water bill change the way the Board reviews landscaping violations and will there be other cases forthcoming? A. I n the past, when water shortages or restrictions were declared if a case involved dead grass, it was tabled. The matter was handled administratively, and staff did not send violation notices to individuals with lawns in ill repair. If the property was a rental/commercial property, they were treated the same way as they were in the past. Mr. Blasie corresponds with the City Forrestor to see how he would handle site plan issues with commercial properties and often staff asks for an incremental plan. Staff used a lot of discretion. Landscaping was usually minor and was reviewed administratively. The Board revisited the 5% penalty, and noted while 5% was a relatively small part of the total, the Board should proceed on a case-by-case basis. Some communities start their fines at 10%. Hypoluxo has a magistrate; Lake Worth was very hard on violators, but it also deterred businesses from locating there. Boynton Beach has a reputation among contractors and builders as being user friendly. Mr. Blasie complimented the members on the job they do. He suggested when the Board levies the fine initially, they be cognizant of the criteria in the statute regarding the efforts to comply, the gravity of the violation and factors of that nature. He spoke about investors. Most investors were trying to do the right thing. It was helpful to create an environment where the investor was willing to come before the Board, and address the issue, without becoming financially ruined. 3. Sexual Predator Ordinance Mr. Blasie reported this item was put on the agenda at the request of a Board member. He recalled there was one item that was an oversight on his part where the predator remained in the house. The Board order had expired, and the Respondent remained in the house for several months longer than he was allowed. Q. Is there an expiration date on the Board Order? A. The Respondent was given a certain amount of time to comply and the City certified the lien on the house. In the recent instance, the Board learned the Respondent was still there when a request for a lien reduction was made. Q. After the lien is certified, what is the next step if the Respondent does not comply? A. Foreclosure could not be used until three months from the filing of the lien. In this instance, the dwelling was homesteaded and foreclosure was not an option. There were alternative enforcement actions and models available. The City could seek a civil remedy which would be for injunctive relief to enforce the Ordinance, 3 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Board Workshop Boynton Beach, Florida April 23, 2009 or they can recite the continuing violation as a quasi-criminal violation. Code Enforcement is an effective means to achieve compliance, and in this type of case, they have obtained 95% compliance. Alternative remedies would rarely have to be used. Once notice is provided by staff and authorization from the City Commission is given to file the lawsuit, they can proceed. It was noted because the members had the verbatim record, they were able to proceed in their actions fairly. 4. Foreclosures The Board has been dealing with foreclosure issues. Mr. Blasie explained there was concern with vacant duplexes on MLK Boulevard and there is an impression the Board can just foreclose on the lien; however, it is costly. Most properties have at least one encumbrance on it, that being a mortgage, and it was common for landlords to use rental properties to leverage other activities. In most instances, it is not in the City's best interests to foreclose. A foreclosure is litigation, occurring in court. Taking the property, although an option, is not what it appears to be. The City does not want to be in the real estate business, as the City has to then maintain the property and keep drug activity from occurring there. There are issues with taxes, maintenance and liability. The actions can also tarnish the City's image, and it was not a good standard of practice. Two of the five recent foreclosures heard by the Board had drug activity. At a Community Redevelopment Agency/HOB meeting it was discussed the homes were nuisance issues and they needed to be addressed. There were substantial liens on the property and often the liens were greater than the value of the property. If the nuisance is addressed, it would be an improvement. The Community Redevelopment Agency has offered to share the cost with the City in this regard. The situation was similar to reducing a lien. The situation is what is good for the City dollar-wise after all obligations are met, what is left and what ongoing obligations might be. This was different than respecting the wants of an investor. The Board has to consider how it would work out for the City. Attorney Jim Cherof advised the courthouse was a poor destination to achieve any level of satisfaction. The actions take forever. A starting point of 5% is probably what could be expected. Q. If the Board determines to move forward in a foreclosure action, does the City still continue its abatement actions? A. Yes. Recently the City had to wait on a contract from the County to abate the issue, as there are not many companies that do a good job boarding up a dwelling. The cost is around $1,500. The company is used by the Community 4 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Board Workshop Boynton Beach, Florida April 23, 2009 Redevelopment Agency and West Palm Beach as once they board up the home, nobody enters it. Q. When a foreclosure is before the court, does the judge want it mediated? A. Under Florida court rules, all cases are required to go to mediation before they go to trial. The City treats mediation as an opportunity to resolve the issue and avoid going to trial. Chair Costantino suggested when members hear Code cases, they trust their instincts and listen to all the parties. It was important to know the Code and Chapter 162. Many cases are repetitive and the Board is not present to solve the Respondents' problems; rather, to judge the case and move it forward. Respondents should be directed to the officer. Mr. Blasie often leaves the room to speak with the Respondents about what needs to be done. There being no further business before the Board, the workshop properly adjourned at 4:02 p.m. ~Cli/UjUfrtL ChJJzL~ Catherine Cherry 0 Recording Secretary 042709 5