Loading...
Minutes 09-19-11 workshop MINUTES OF THE CODE COMPLIANCE BOARD WORKSHOP HELD ON MONDAY SEPTEMBER 19, 2011, AT 6:30 P.M. IN CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PRESENT: Michele Costantino, Chair Shana Bridgeman, Assistant City Attorney Richard Yerzy, Vice Chair Diane Springer, Code Compliance Coordinator Kathleen Carroll Gary Cole Robert Foot RoseMarie Yerzy Robert Bucella, Alternate ABSENT: Aimond Alexis I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:29 p.m. II. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved unanimously by the Board. III. New Business A. Lt. Harrison – Changes to the Code Compliance Department Lt. Harrison explained the changes to Code Enforcement, new scheduling and the duties the Officers would be performing. Code Enforcement had always been a part of the Police Department since the early 1990’s. One of the problems in the past was that Code operated in the Police Department, but also operated as a satellite division on the outside. The Chief’s initiative was to change that and incorporate Code Enforcement in the day-to-day business with the Police Department. They are under the White Collar Bargaining unit. As part of the Police Department, evenings and weekends would be assigned. In the evenings, Code Enforcement Officers would be scheduled to work until 9:00 p.m. and on weekends, within three districts. There would be at least one Officer on duty in each district, each day of the weekend for calls that come in, such as non- permitted Saturday morning garage sales. Many people want to report Code violations in the evenings and now the Code Officers would be ready to respond and have an immediate solution to the problems. The goal was to have two officers per district and Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Board Workshop Boynton Beach, FL September 19, 2011 would report directly to District Commanders. The administrative section of Code Compliance reports to Lt. Harrison, which includes the Chief Code Officer. Chair Costantino requested a map of the districts and how they were broken down. Lt. Harrison explained that I-95 was an east and west barrier and Boynton Beach Boulevard was a north and south barrier. Everything south of the Boulevard would be District 3; north of the Boulevard, west of I95, would be District 2; north of the Boulevard, east of I95, would be District 1. Chair Costantino inquired, for the officers that attend the evening Code Compliance Board meetings, how it would work for coverage. Lt. Harrison explained just as officers would go to traffic court, the Code Board would be their primary function for the evening. If they are on duty at the same time, Ms. Springer would schedule them to appear in front of the Board first and then go on the road and complete the remainder of their duties. Ms. Carroll inquired how a citizen would reach a Code Officer on a weekend. Lt. Harrison replied the way all citizens report Code violations would be changed. They would now call dispatch directly. Code Officers would have a radio, would be on the police channel, would have laptops in their cars, and would be responding directly to calls via dispatch. Mr. Cole inquired about the online reporting currently in place and Lt. Harrison advised a resident should call dispatch directly. They could always send something in through the internet, but it would be better to meet someone face-to-face. Code Compliance would be moving to the old fire station and walk-in complaints would come to the police lobby, with a single-service entrance for everyone. The public would be informed of these changes through various media outlets, a press release by the Public Information Officer and possibly the water bills. The various Homeowner Associations could also communicate the information to their residents via bulletin board or newsletter. Mr. Foot inquired what resources were available to monitor the noise levels. Lt. Harrison indicated the officers have sound meters that are calibrated. They would be responding, which was one of the reasons there was night duty now. She advised there was the availability of having them stay over their shift if a complaint was known to be a chronic problem. Ms. Carroll expressed her concern with the role of the Board with sex offenders. Chair Costantino advised that once it was determined that a sex offender was not registered and living within the City limits or registered, but living in a place not allowed, it would be brought before the Board by the Police Department. Ms. Carroll recited the policy as it was in the past and it was confirmed that nothing in the process had changed. Major Frank Briganti, the supervisor for Lt. Harrison, mentioned that background checks would be available for all Code Officers, which would give them access to criminal history records. It would be restricted, but they would have access to records they did not have access to before. This would give them the means to see where other Code 2 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Board Workshop Boynton Beach, FL September 19, 2011 Officers had been and determine if a person at an address they were responding to had a criminal history and the Code Officer needed assistance from a Police Officer. B. Diane Springer – Reading the case book Ms. Springer began discussion on the reading of the case book. She provided examples to each Board member and explained the process and order in which things appeared in the violation. She advised the last page of the complaint was the most important as it listed the violations cited and the narrative. It was the information which went to the resident in the mail, asking them to correct the violation. Ms. Springer continued to explain the foreclosure process. There could be two narratives. One narrative could ask that the property be registered and another narrative that states the property was registered, but there were still other violations outstanding. Ms. Springer mentioned that some residents claim they did not get service or notification of the complaint. She advised it would not come before the Board without service. The three ways a resident could be served; certified mail, posting or advertising in the newspaper, which was not done any longer. If the green card was not returned ten days before the meeting, the property would be posted. Ms. Yerzy inquired what if the property was in foreclosure and owned by the lender, what address would be listed with the Tax Collector’s office. Ms. Springer indicated if the person was living there, the person was cited. If the property was vacant, the bank would be cited through the foreclosing attorney. If the property was registered, the bank would be cited with the registered information on record. C. Open Discussion by the Board 1. Foreclosures Chair Costantino inquired when there was a lien reduction and the person gets up and explains their side of the case, where does the Board’s authority begin? Ms. Springer advised the Ordinance states when the property goes into default, which would be the lis pendens, that was when the bank could be cited for not registering the property. Chair Costantino advised it gets confusing because a realtor could be sent to plead the case because the realtor wants to get the property sold. Attorney Bridgeman stated once there was a lis pendens, liens cannot be recorded until the final judgment was entered and there was a certificate of title, as far as the foreclosure goes. However, they could be cited while the foreclosure case was pending and wait until after the foreclosure case was concluded. You could then certify the lien and record it because the lis pendens would not affect the lien. Any lien recorded after 3 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Board Workshop Boynton Beach, FL September 19, 2011 the lis pendens was filed, and before the conclusion of the foreclosure, would not be valid. As far as other violations like trash, debris, broken windows or pools, the bank could be cited and the lien could be recorded because the bank, not the property, was being cited. Chair Costantino expressed concern that there was confusion when the realtor presents the case and indicates the bank did not give them the property until recently. Attorney Bridgeman stated the bank does not care because they are not losing any money. The realtor does what they can to bring the property into compliance so it can be sold. They are the ones that get the commission off the sale, and are the ones that work diligently to get the property in compliance. The buyers, who were trying to get into the community and maintain the property, are the ones benefitting from the Board reducing the lien. The bank does not care if the lien was reduced or not. The bank would never pay it and the property would stay abandoned. Reducing the lien for the realtor would benefit him and allow him to place a person in the home that wanted to contribute to the community. Chair Costantino inquired what option would the Board have on the properties that were sitting for over a year that no one wanted and should be demolished. Attorney Bridgman advised they could be cited and the lien certified, but again advised it was the bank who was destroying the property, not the realtor who appeared that was trying to better the community. The bank would not benefit. If a person appeared that represented the bank, that was different. Some attorneys represent a bank where there was a sale and closing pending, but was still a benefit to the Board and the community to reduce the lien and allow the purchase to go through instead of having a lien that prevents it from going through. Attorney Bridgeman advised many realtors pay costs of bringing a property into compliance out of their own pockets because the bank refuses to contribute. The buyer cannot afford to contribute, so the realtor tries to help get the deal closed. The documents from the bank may indicate the purchaser had to pay the lien costs or the bank may have a portion earmarked for the liens. If the bank were required to pay out a lot of money, they would let the property sit empty. The bottom line was, if the properties are going to be occupied, the liens would have to be greatly reduced. Mr. Foot wanted clarification on the lis pendens and inquired if it becomes court record. Attorney Bridgeman advised the lis pendens would be filed in the public record in the same way liens are recorded. The lis pendens would be the first thing to go public. 2. Repeat Offenders Ms. Springer explained a star in front of the name would indicate a repeat violator and it would be announced at the meeting by the Code Officer. A repeat violator was a property owner who was in violation of the same section of the Code within a five-year period. It does not have to be on the same property. The case would have had to go to the Board and a Board order issued. 4 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Board Workshop Boynton Beach, FL September 19, 2011 3. Securing Swimming Pools (Grate System) There was discussion on what would be a proper method to secure a swimming pool. Chair Costantino inquired if the grate method of securing was not by the Code, would it be an acceptable barrier. One case in the past indicated the grate system met the standards, but it was the HUD standards, and not acceptable by the City’s Code. Acceptable methods of enclosure would be an additional barrier such as a kiddie fence, fenced back yard, or screened enclosure. In an email sent by Mr. Blasie, he indicated a grate system would be in compliance if the water was removed from the pool. 4. Others – Open Discussion Chair Costantino provided handouts to the Board. If a Code Officer had to write a ticket, the handout indicated the fines they could assess. The Board was not allowed to have a schedule of fees and fines. A decision must be made on the case brought before them. The schedule of fines was for reference and informational purposes only. There was discussion on reducing the liens and whether a ruling should be made for the Board to, at a minimum, charge administrative costs. It would be at the Board’s discretion whether to reduce the lien and by how much to reduce the lien. There was consensus to evaluate each lien reduction request on a case-by-case basis and attempt to get information as to how much banks would be willing to pay, if anything. Mr. Foot inquired of Attorney Bridgeman regarding the reference on page 2 of the attachment which indicated there was no prohibition against circulating a writing informing other members of the Board of an intended action. However, responses may not be solicited or supplied. Attorney Bridgeman emphasized it was referring to writing, not speaking or meeting with someone. Once a person writes something, it becomes public record. No responses could be solicited, and it could not be discussed whether in writing or in person. A person could discuss something generic, but could not discuss anything that could potentially come before the Board. The rule included anything previously discussed at a meeting that could potentially come up again at a later meeting. Violating the ruling, would be a misdemeanor. Chair Costantino indicated all the board orders were caught up and lien reductions would once again be held separate from the regular Code Compliance Board meeting beginning in October. 5 Meeting Minutes Code Compliance Board Workshop .!2.ynton Beach, FL September 19, 2011 IV. Adjournment Vice Chair Yerzy moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Carroll seconded the motion that unanimously passed. The meeting adjourned at 7:44 p.m. [I, (~/C_.f (bA,ivL:- Ellie Caruso Recording Secretary 6