Loading...
Minutes 07-01-10 MINUTES OF THE CODE COMPLIANCE BOARD LIEN REDUCTION MEETING HELD ON THURSDAY, JULY 1, 2010, AT 4:00 P.M., IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PRESENT: Michelle Costantino, Chair Richard Yerzy, Vice Chair James Brake Robert Foot Mark Karageorge Kirk LaRock Kathleen Carroll, Alternate Scott Blasie, Code Compliance Administrator Shana Bridgeman, Assistant City Attorney ABSENT: Jamie LaTour, Vice Chair I. Call to Order Chair Costantino called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m. II. Approval of Agenda Motion Vice Chair Yerzy moved to approve. Mr. Brake seconded the motion that passed unanimously. III. Swearing in of Witnesses and Introduction Attorney Bridgeman explained the hearing procedures and administered the oath to all who would be testifying. IV. Old Business A. Reconsideration of Lien Reduction Case #09-3282 US Bank National Association 150 NE 27th Avenue Chair Costantino explained as Chair, she has the right to call a special meeting. After reviewing the facts of the case, the minutes and discussions with the Code Compliance 1 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Lien Reduction Boynton Beach, FL July 1, 2010 Administrator and Coordinator, she brought the case back for reconsideration. She expressed her opinion the case was a bit overdone. Chair Costantino passed the gavel to Vice Chair Yerzy. Motion Chair Costantino moved to reconsider Case #09-3282. Vice Chair Yerzy seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-2 (Messers. Foot and Karageorge dissenting.) Diane Springer, Code Compliance Coordinator, presented the case as contained in the staff report. There were various violations associated with the property, which were complied June 14, 2010. There were 192 days of non-compliance and a fine of $200 a day which totaled $38,400 plus the administrative costs. At the Lien Reduction meeting held on June 21, 2010, the lien was reduced to $6,000. Ms. Springer explained the mowing, trash and debris violations had complied as noted in the meeting materials on November 18, 2009, which was prior to the date the Board set for compliance. The only item not addressed at that time was the registration. Mr. Foot inquired if it was a coincidence the case was related to the City Commission receiving a letter which had errors in it from the Respondent. He expressed he hated to think they would reconsider a case when the Respondent protests it after a hearing. He asserted they do not recognize all the factors considered at the meeting. He expressed chances were high the Board would have to defend its action at a City Commission meeting, but the Board could do so. He did not think the Board should be cowed by a Respondent protesting the Board's decision. Chair Costantino clarified the reason she brought it back was the fine. The Board usually figured on a 5% fine, more or less. The total amount of lien was $38,400 and she explained $6,000 was not 5% of the accrued amount. While Chair Costantino recognized she urges the members to consider each case on its own merit, she felt the fine was terribly overdone. Mr. Karageorge was disturbed by the letter because there were inaccurate statements made. One issue he considered when he made the motion was the property was out of compliance for 192 days. He admitted he did not take the sale price of the property which was $40K into consideration because he did not recall it being presented. The Board had several options, one of which was to do nothing and have no reduction. The other option was to zero out the fine. He did what was fair and just for the citizens of the City. Mr. Karageorge could see some reduction, but if they reduced the fine to zero or just administrative costs, he could not support it. Mr. Brake inquired about the mowing. Ms. Springer confirmed the mowing was complied prior to the Board's Order. The only item in question was the registration. The property had never been out of compliance for anything but the registration after the compliance date. 2 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Lien Reduction Boynton Beach, FL July 1, 2010 Mr. Brake pointed out the fine was high for what the Board typically assessed for registration violations. Ms. Springer compiled a comparison of the fines associated with all the cases the Board heard last week. She commented the Respondent in this case was aware of the fines assessed for the other cases and felt the reduction to $6,000 for just the registration violation was still too high. Mr. Foot respectfully reminded all of the members that the Code allows them to penalize someone for a violat~on. It did not say if they came into compliance a day late or a year later that there should be no penalty. Mr. Foot maintained the Board had to uphold the reason for the ordinance being in place through enforcement. He felt the Board had the ability to make examples of violators which would deter others from making the same errors. Ms. Carroll objected to the word enforcement and contended the role of the Board was to gain compliance. The Respondent complied and kept the property in compliance. She asserted the Respondent had no control over the bank and while she expected a fine, she did not expect an excessive fine. She agreed the fine was excessive. The Board has the ability to set large fines for violators who blatantly disregard the Orders, and do not appear before the Board and those cases do not come back to the Board; they go to Court. She explained the people who have complied and apply for reduction should be given every consideration, especially those that did not create the problem and who "stepped up to the plate." She explained the message Mr. Foot was sending, when the Board acted punitively, was do not do business in the City of Boynton Beach and if they did, the Code Compliance Board would "nail them." She pointed out the economy was devastated and people were trying to rectify the situation. The City needed people to come into Boynton to purchase properties and take care of them. If the new owners did not do so, then the Board would address them. There was discussion of the penalties and fines. Attorney Bridgeman clarified the fine attaches to violator and the lien to the property, so long as the lien was recorded prior to a Lis Pendens being filed for a foreclosure or any action of that nature. Mr. Karageorge acknowledged Ms. Carroll's stance, but he thought they were taking the position they were charged with. Motion Based on testimony and evidence presented in the aforementioned case, and having been advised that the Respondent has complied with all lien reduction procedures set forth in Section 2-84 through 2-89 of the City of Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, Mr. Brake moved that this Board reduce the fines instituted in the aforementioned case by virtue of this Board's Order of November 18, 2009, to an amount of $3,000, including 3 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Lien Reduction Boynton Beach, FL July 1, 2010 administrative costs. Mr. Brake further clarified his motion was to amend the prior Order made last week. The motion died for lack of a second. Motion Based on testimony and evidence presented in the aforementioned case, and having been advised that the Respondent has complied with all lien reduction procedures set forth in Section 2-84 through 2-89 of the City of Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, Chair Costantino moved that this Board reduce the fines instituted in the aforementioned case by virtue of this Board's Order of November 18, 2009, to an amount of $1,920, including administrative costs and hereby amended the previous Order. Ms. Carroll seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-3 (Messers. Brake, Foot and Kafageorge dissenting.) Motion Mr. Brake moved to adjourn. Mr. Yerzy seconded the motion. V. Discussion Ms. Springer announced there would be no Lien Reduction hearing due to the Budget Workshops. Any reductions needing to be heard would be placed on the regular agenda. She explained Scott Blasie, Code Compliance Administrator, requested in reference to cases involving registration and no other violations, that the Board reduce the fines to the administrative costs. Staff verified via computer that the property was registered. There were no inspections involved. She also pointed out that because the Department incurred a lot of expenses in filing the liens, staff had to put a line item in the budget. Staff further recommended that no fines, under any circumstances, be rescinded except in instances of duplication. In those instances, the fines could be reduced to an amount that would include the $250 filing fees. Ms. Springer clarified the City paid the $250 filing fee which was not inclusive of staff time. The recommendation was made by Mr. Blasie in accordance with the workshops they held seeking recommendations on issues. VI. Adjournment There was a vote on the motion to adjourn. The motion unanimously passed. The meeting adjourned at 4:23 p.m. Q~~ry~ Recording Secretary 070710 4