Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04171996CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING RIL 17. 199,6 Chairman Nicolini called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. PRESENT: Chmn. Nicolini Mr. Goelz Mr. Metcalf Mr. May Mr. Generazio Mr. Neglia Mr. Cosco NOT PRESENT: Mr. Gilliams ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Tim Williams, City Attorney Mr. Steven Lulich, Board Attorney Randy Bonar, Code Enforcement Officer Ken Schmitt, Code Enforcement Officer Dorri Bosworth, Secretary The Board was given memorandums from Mr. Lulich and Mr. Williams regarding the proposed $25.00 summons fee. Chmn. Nicolini called a break, giving the Board time to review the letters. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None APPROVAL OF MINVTE~: Mr. Metcalf made a motion to approve the minutes of March 20, 1996. Mr. Neglia seconded the motion. Roll call was taken. 7-0 motion carried. ATTORNEY'S MATTERS: None OLD BUSIMESS~, None ~w BU~XNE$$: Randy Bonar introduced the new code enforcement officer, Mr. Ken Schmitt. Mr. Schmitt reviewed his background with the members. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING ~....APRIL 17, 1996 PAGE TWO CASE# 96-11200 - 101 CAPRI AVENUE - SCOTT B. FROST Mrs. Jill Frost, 101 Capri Avenue, was representing her husband. Randy Bonar, Mrs. Frost, and the city attorney were sworn in by Mr. Lulich. Mr. Williams stated to the Board that the violation has now been corrected. There was some miscommunication regarding two boats in the Frost's yard. Upon notification the residents immediately corrected the violation with one boat. The second boat, which was for sale, was not corrected. However, at the time of this meeting it was no longer in violation. The City was not looking at any imposition of any fines. The Board could decide to find the respondents in violation, though. Mr. Generazio asked Mr. Bonar how long the boat was in violation? Mr. Bonar stated 6 days. When the case was opened there were two boats, one in the driveway and one at the property line in the side yard for sale. The boat in the driveway was removed the next day. The Frost's didn't realize both boats had to be moved. Mr. Frost was out of town and Mrs. Frost Worked during the day. There was no correspondence with either of them. Randy served a summons on 4/11/96. After the summons was delivered, the boat on the property line was moved. Mr. Metcalf stated the violation did occur, the City should not levy any fines but, in case the violation was repeated it would be a re-occurrence and he recommended the respondents be found guilty with no penalty. Mr. Metcalf made a motion that the respondent be found guilty of violating the code but no penalty or charges be assessed. Mr. Neglia seconded the motion. Mr. Generazio stated he felt in this type of situation where the resident came into violation without even realizing it, came into compliance as quick as they possibly could, with the exception of a miscommunication, there shouldn't be any need to show any violation at all. The case should be dismissed. Roll call was taken on Mr. Metcalf's motion: Chmn. Nicolini YES Mr. Generazio NO Mr. Goelz YES Mr. Neglia YES Mr. Metcalf YES Mr. Cosco YES Mr. May YES Motion carried 6-1. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 17, 1996 PAGE T~REE RECOMMeNDATiON TO CITY COUNCIL - RI~GULAR MEMBER -- TERM TO EXPII~ 3/99 - REALTOR POSITION Chmn. Nicolini stated he felt since Mr. Generazio has realtor experience, the Board may want to move him into the realtor position, and move Mr. Cosco (alternate member) into Mr. Generazio's position (businessman's position). An outside application was received from Mr. Dave Costa. The secretary noted if Mr. Cosco was moved to a regular member position, the City may have to advertise the vacant alternate position. Chmn. Nicolini suggested nominating Mr. Dave Costa right into the alternate position, Mr. Generazio into the realtor position, and Mr. Cosco intO Mr. Generazio's position, and requested the City Attorney's opinion. Mr. Lulich, Board Attorney, requested that on Board matters, questions be directed to him. In the past, normal procedure has been to move the alternate member into the vacant regular member position and fill the alternate position. Mr. Metcalf made a motion that the Board recommend moving the alternate, Mr. Cosco, into the vacant seat. But further wants to go out and advertise since there was only one applicant. Mr. Neglia and Mr. Generazio noted the vacant position had been advertised since February and only one application had been received. Mr. Costa had previously been unanimously reco~ended to City Council when there was a past vacancy. After further discussion, Mr. Neglia made a motion to nominate Mr. Cosco to fill Mr. Gilliams' position, and Mr. Costa to fill the alternate position. Mr. Generazio seconded the motion. It was pointed out that Mr. Metcalf's motion was not seconded. Mr. Goelz seconded Mr. Metcalf's motion. Two motions were on the floor, which was not allowed. The motion that received a second first would be voted on. Chmn. Nicolini called for roll call on Mr. Neglia's motion: Roll Call: Mr. Metcalf NO Mr. May YES Mr. Generazio YES Mr. Neglia YES Mr. Cosco YES Chmn. Nicolini YES Mr. Goelz NO Motion carried 5-2. CODE ~NFORCEMEN~..BOARD REGULAR MEETIN~ OF APRI~ 17, 199~ PAGE FOUR BOARD ATTORNEY'S.RKOUESTS AND REPORTS: Mr. Lulich stated the City usually presented a proposed Order for each case brought before the Board. The previous case, Case #96- 11200, Frost - 101 Capri Avenue, did not have a proposed Order presented by the City. The Board members were given a copy of the proposed Order, which was drafted when the respondents were not in compliance. The City Attorney discussed proposed changes to the Order with the Board. Mr. Lulich read the corrected proposed Order. Mr. May made a motion to accept the Order as revised. Mr. Generazio seconded the motion. Roll call was taken. Motion carried 7-0. NEW DISCUSSION - PROPOSED $25.00 SUMMONS FEE -LETTER DATED 4/3/96 FROM MR. TIM WILLIAMS Chmn. Nicolini reviewed the discussion held by the Board at its last regular meeting regarding a suggestion to charge a $25.00 fee to a violator when a summons was issued to appear before the Board. The purpose of the fee was for recovering the city's costs incurred for staff's time, attorney's fees, and the Board's time for each case presented before the Board. A recommendation was made to the City Council, and the City Attorney was asked to research the legality of the fee. Mr. Lulich stated the City Attorney researched the implementation of recovering costs, and he had researched when a fine can be imposed; the main question being if a fine can be assessed even if a violator comes into compliance shortly before a hearing. His research found opinions by the Florida Attorney General which stated "The Board could only impose a fine after the Board has given time for compliance." Florida Statute 95.09 stated "A Code Enforcement Board is authorized to impose costs against a violator who is found to have committed a code violation even though he corrects the violation within the time given by the Code Enforcement Board." If the Board hasn't heard the case and made any decision, and given the violator time to come into compliance, the Board isn't in a position to assignor levy costs. The purpose of the Board is to hear a case and then decide if the respondent is in fact in violation. The issuance of a summons does not guarantee the respondent is guilty of a violation allowing a fine to be imposed. ~ODE ENFORC~.MENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL ~.7, 1996 Mr. Neglia questioned why have a Code Enforcement Officer issuing notices of violations if the Board decided if there was a violation or not? Mr. Lulich and the Board reviewed procedures of finding a resident in violation of a city code, the steps of taking the case before the Board, and the procedures and functions of the Board. Mr. Williams stated there were 2 notices and 2 opportunities for a violator to come into compliance. First, the code enforcement officer notified them of the violation and gave them reasonable time, in his judgement, to cure the violation. If they came into compliance during that time there is no fine or costs, and the Board never hears of the case. Second, if the violation is not cured, a hearing is set and a notice of the hearing (summons) is given. If the violation is cured after the summons is issued and before the hearing, it was Mr. Williams' opinion that the City could impose costs, at the hearing, if the Board determined the violation occurred. Mr. Williams further stated a 1994 amendment in the statute stated "If the local governing body prevails in prosecuting a case before the Enforcement Board, it shall be entitled to recover all costs incurred in prosecuting the case before the Board." The revision was not addressed by any Attorney General's opinion, but Mr. Williams opined that it was clear enough that if the Board determined a violation, even if there was a violation but the violation was corrected, the City still prevailed and was entitled to costs. It could not be a flat fee but be related to each individual case. Because the State statute required attorneys be present at the hearings, a~torney fees could be recovered. Mr. Lulich stated there would be a difference in enforcing the collection of costs vs. fines, as unpaid fines could be placed as liens on property, and costs could not. The summons should also be amended and state that the recoverance of costs incurred by the City may be imposed. Mr. Neglia was excused at 3:24 p.m. Mr. Lulich also stated the costs should not be arbitrarily figured and only costs incurs-ed in ~prosecuting the case before the Board", as stated in the statute. Mr. Williams stated the costs would have to be discussed and set at the hearing, subject to the respondents review. CODE ENFORCEMENT REGULAR MEETI.~.G. OF .APRIL 17, 1996 PAGE SIX Mr. Generazio made a motion that the Board requests the city attorney to present from the city, the prosecution costs per case, in each individual case, at each hearing. Mr. May seconded the motion. Roll call was taken. 6-0 motion carried (Mr. Neglia not present). Mr. Lulich noted at the last meeting a motion was carried to "recommend to City Council to have a $25.00 fee assessed whether the violators come into compliance or not by the date of the hearing for the paperwork & preparation to bring the case before the Board. If a fine is assessed by the Board at the hearing, the $25.00 would be deducted from the fine." Mr. May made a mo'¢ion to rescind his motion of the recommendation to City Council. M~3. Generazio seconded the motion. Roll call was taken. 6-0 notion carried. BUILDING{IFFICIAL'$__F~qTTERS: None ~ENERAL DISCUSSION: None PUBLIC ZN~UT: None Mr. Generazio made a motion to adjourn the meeting. seconded the motiou.. C~. Nicolini adjo'crned the meeting at 3:32 p.m. Mr. Goelz U/Loui~ NicSli~, Chai~man "Dorri Boswo~th, Code Enforcement Board Secretary