12-09-1999
'-'
....,
~ .
CITY OF EDGEW A TER
CITIZENS CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
WORKSHOP
December 9, 1999
5:30 p.m.
1. Opening Remarks - Vice Chairman Frank Roberts opened the Citizens Code
Enforcement Board workshop on Thursday, December 9, 1999 at 5:35 p.m. Members
present were Vice Chairman Frank Roberts; Linda Johnson; Maureen Bomer; George
Ann Keller; and Ben DelNigro. Chairman Anthony Fowler and Sonja Wiles were not in
attendance. Also present were Code Enforcement Officers Beverly Kinney-Johnson and
Jon C. Williams; Kenneth R. Hooper, City Manager; Nikki Clayton, City Attorney;
Donald Schmidt, Mayor; James Brown, Councilman; Harriet Rhodes, Councilwomen;
Judith Lichter, Councilwomen; Dennis I. Fischer, Building Official; and Tonya L. Elliott,
Minutes Transcriber.
Ms. Clayton said at the last code board meeting it was decided a workshop might benefit
everyone and would be somewhat of an orientation. She said it would not be appropriate
to discuss any specific cases and asked the board members to keep any questions they
had in general.
2. Orientation - a) Creation of Code Enforcement Boards & b) Statutory
Framework: Ms. Clayton discussed the creation of code enforcement boards and
statutory framework. She said the Code Board acts in a Quasi-Judicial manner and is
also considered to be an administrative agency. Ms. Clayton said in 1980 the Florida
Legislature adopted Chapter 162, which regulates local code enforcement boards. She
then explained different sections of the statute. Ms. Clayton gave a detailed explanation
of section 162.09, Administrative fines; costs of repair; liens; section 162.11, Appeals;
and section 162.12, Notices. She said the section that addresses notices is very specific
and highly technical and must be followed strictly. General discussion followed on board
members being held liable for decisions they make, and owner/tenant situations.
C) Case Law and Opinions of Attorney General: Ms. Clayton said case law is law
made by judges as they are asked to interpret the meaning of Chapter 162 as it applies to
a particular set of facts. She said early questions about the statute involved whether or
not the creation of the code enforcement board was an unlawful delegation of judicial
authority in violation of the separation of powers. She said the argument was resolved by
the Courts in favor of the creation of code enforcement board being a legitimate exercise
of legislative authority. Ms. Clayton said therefore the City could adopt a Code
Enforcement Board, a citation system that goes directly to the County Courts, or a
Hearing Officers Special Master. Discussion followed on Special Masters.
Ms. Clayton discussed section 162.09 Administrative fines; costs of repair; liens, and a
case that shows what a Court does with facts that go before it. She said the name of the
case was PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE FO FREDERICK
JACOBSON, Appellant, vs. ATTORNEY'S TITLE INSURANCE FUND, INC.,
'-'
.....,
2
Appellee. She said the case derives from an appeal, from an appeal to the Circuit Court.
So the Code Enforcement Board issued an Order, they appealed the Order to the Circuit
Court, the Circuit Court issued an Order and now the party representing Mr. Jacobson
have appealed to the 3rd District Court of Appeals saying that the Circuit Court wasn't
right. Ms. Clayton said what happened was the Code Enforcement Board liened the
property, a subsequent purchaser found out after the fact that there was a lien on the
property. Since he had title insurance he made the title insurance fund pay him for the
lien. The A TIF paid the lien and sued saying the lien was not valid because applicable
notice requirements were not strictly complied with as outlined in Section 162.12(1). Ms.
Clayton said those requirements are very technical and must be followed to the letter
which states that the alleged violator be sent notice by certified mail, by hand delivery, or
by leaving a notice at the violator's place of residence. She said the record in this case
showed that the notice was sent by regular mail. She said the statute goes on to state that
if the lien is to be recorded in the public records, a certified copy of the order imposing
the fine must be recorded. The records show that the order recorded by the county was
not a certified copy. In view of the county's facially apparent failure to notice or record
the lien in compliance with the statute, the court held that it did not even substantially
comply with the statutory requirements for obtaining a lien. Discussion followed on this
case; and the Opinions of Attorney General, which were provided by Board Member
Linda Johnson.
Ms. Clayton said in 1993 the Attorney General responded to a question from an attorney
for the City of Lauderdale Lakes. He asked if the municipal Code Enforcement Board
refuses to reduce a fine imposed, is the City Council authorized to reduce the fine. The
Attorney General said the City Council has no authority to reduce a fine imposed by the
Code Enforcement Board or a lien arising from the Boards fine. She said this has now
been changed through legislative clarifications and the courts have also held that the
owner of the treasury, the City Councilor County, are the ones to whom the lien runs.
Therefore, the City Councilor County can forego the lien if they choose.
d) Edgewater's Code Enforcement Board & e) Relationship of Code Enforcement
Board and City Council: Mr. Fischer gave a brief history of the Code Enforcement
Board. He said it can be very frustrating because sometimes the Council interest is to be
aggressive and then changes to be more hands-off on the codes that are enforced. Mr.
Hooper said the current codes are sometimes contradictory and are being worked on.
There was a lengthy discussion on resolving the current code issue and enforcement.
Ms. Clayton said part of the goal setting should be to decide if the emphasis will be to
accomplish compliance as the foremost goal or revenue production and enforcement
procedures. She said if compliance over enforcement were emphasized people would be
more cooperative.
--
....."
3
3) Definition of Quasi-Judicial Board; 4) Powers and Duties of Code Enforcement
Board as a Quasi-Judicial Board; 5) Enforcement of Edgewater's Code of
Ordinances including Land Development Code and Zoning Code: Ms. Clayton
eXplained a 1996 case out of the 3 rd District of Appeals in which the court described what
it thought a Quasi-Judicial Body of Code Enforcement would be. She said a Quasi-
Judicial Board is a powerful, highly responsible, deliberative body and consequently as
outlined in the Edgewater Code of Ordinances that a Board member can only serve on
this Board. Ms. Clayton said Board members are not suppose to talk with people who are
cited, they must observe the code of ethics which apply to govern their behavior, and
therefore act somewhat like a judge in deliberations. Discussion followed on these issues.
Ms. Clayton said the powers and duties are outlined in the statute and gave the sections
that apply to the Board. She also provided a copy of duties as described in the City Code.
7) General Discussion & 8) Items for Future Discussion: Ms. Clayton said this was the
time for general discussion to see if there is any guidance, questions that need to be
answered further and if there are any items for future discussion that need to be placed on
an Agenda for a later time. Discussion followed on the following items: definition of
fine verses lien, appeals of Code Enforcement Board Orders, foreclosures, gaining
compliance over enforcement, guidelines for the Board, one unified code, owner/tenant
situations, educating the public, and legal council.
9) Adjourn: There being no further discussion the workshop adjourned at 7:43 p.m.
Minutes respectfully submitted by:
Tonya L. Elliott, Minutes Transcriber
A:\workshop 12999