HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttachment 2 - Opportunities to improve the Community Development Department as it relates to Code EnforcementOpportunities to improve the Community Development Department as it relates to Code Enforcement
Related to the January 24, 2024 City Council Special Meeting
Submitted June 18, 2024
Todd Morley, City Manager
During the January 24, 2024 Special City Council Meeting, City Council reached consensus on a number of tasks. One of which was to present any
findings and/or opportunities to be distributed to the City Council on ways the city can improve our Community Development Department as it
relates to Code Enforcement. Specifically, code enforcement concerns related to the property located at 112, 116, 118 & 120 Jackson Ave. and a
neighboring property located at 7802 N. Atlantic Ave.
Resulting from the Meeting, a review was undertaken to understand what Code Enforcement Department actions may have contributed to the
concerns. The review involved interviews by the City Manager with Peg Schaller, David Dickey, Brian Palmer and Chris Robinson. A Report of
Findings was produced which was presented at the May 7, 2024 Special City Council Meeting. The Report of Findings helped to frame "what
happened" in an unbiased, objective manner. The report did not include recommendations.
The recommendations are included in this document and are built upon the findings of the previous effort, which are referenced herein. Also
included are additional observations and analysis which support the recommendations.
This document is presented in two sections:
1. Clarification and summarization of each finding, with associated determinations of root causes.
2. Recommended actions.
Section 1. Clarification and summarization of each finding, with associated determinations of root causes.
Items reported in May 7, 2024 Report of Findings
Root cause(s)
Issue #1 (Applying different Code Enforcement milestone timeframes to different properties)
Had Code Enforcement (CE) staff been required to review the scope of the permit application for specific items related to
code enforcement, the plan review process would likely have been cause to reject the permit for its failure to address the
previously pervious issue. Current Building Department practice does not include forwarding code enforcement -related
building permit applications to CE staff.
The owner at 7802 N. Atlantic Ave. was afforded an excessive amount of time between the date of initial visit and date of
original NOV. A tool for the evaluation of such timeframes had not historically been employed. However, as a result of this
effort, a monthly reporting tool was created to identify and compare timeframes. This report was instrumental in detecting
that this incident was a statistical anomaly. Statistical anomalies can cause confusion and perceptions that cases are not
handled similarly. Maintaining this tool is important for monitoring cases.
No established procedure for coordinating
code enforcement matters between code
enforcement officers and the Building
Official.
No established target timeframe for
number of days from date of initial site
inspection to date of issuance of NOV
No established tool to identify and
compare cases.
Lack of coordination between CE, Building
Official and Fire Official.
Issue #2 (Incorrect public information)
Mr. Dickey unintentionally asked Brian Palmer to respond to the City Council's request for information incorrectly. Instead,
Mr. Palmer was only asked to provide documents in the BS&A system. Other documents responsive to Council's request also
existed outside of the BS&A system.
Staff did not verify the request for
information which was stated in the
minutes before responding to Council's
request.
Opportunities to improve the Community Development Department as it relates to Code Enforcement
Issue #3 (Maintaining case files — BS&A records)
BS&A contains a word processing program, which can used by Staff to create working draft documents. However, if such
document is "toggled on" to public view, it is represented in the online/public portal as an unopenable link.
In this instance, this triggered a Public Records Request (PRR) for the documents. In fulfillment of this request, these working
draft documents were produced. However, because they were working draft documents, they could be, and had been,
revised and saved -over and no longer contained the same information as the previous version.
When these documents were produced in response to the PRR, this created confusion as to what is or is not an Official
Record Document when such draft document is not marked as "draft".
In addition, it appears in this case that multiple NOVs were prepared and served by staff for the same case. However, the
city's official records only contain the original and 2nd revised NOVs. The original NOV named the property owner as the
Respondent. The 2nd revised NOV named the tenant as Respondent. When asked about the 1St Revised NOV, staff could not
produce the 1St Revised NOV. However, a copy of the 1St Revised NOV later was obtained from the tenant because the tenant
was named as the only Respondent, and she had been served a copy. There is no record of the 1St Revised NOV naming the
property owner the Respondent. The 2nd Revised NOV in the city's official records likewise does not name the property owner
as the Respondent because only the tenant is listed as the Respondent. Department practice is to maintain official copies of
all signed and served NOVs. Not having all these official records caused confusion in this case.
Lack of a full and accurate understanding
that certain document formats appear as
an unopenable link on the Public BS&A
portal.
No established policy regarding the types
of documents which should and should not
be publicly accessible via the Public BS&A
portal.
Failure to differentiate between draft
records and official public records and
properly label such records in response to a
Public Records Request.
Poor recordkeeping.
Issue #4 ("Contention that Brian Palmer stated that code enforcement only sends Notices to the Property owner")
After reviewing the transcript of the YouTube video, Mr. Palmer did not state that "code enforcement only sends Notices to
the Property owner". However, he did state that "we always send the notice to the property owner."
The Report of Findings delved further into this, finding that there was no intent to imply that tenants are never named as
Respondents. Staff's statement was "we courtesy copy the tenant". This was not qualified with the adjective "always" or
"only", or any other frequency -related adjective. Omitting a qualifying adjective regarding frequency, can leave the statement
open to interpretation. In a follow up clarification, Mr. Palmer stated that department practice is that the Code Enforcement
Officer has the option to courtesy copy the tenant, if deemed appropriate. Because the statement can possibly be viewed as
"never naming the tenant as Respondent", Mr. Palmer later clarified that Department practice is that the Code Enforcement
Officer has the option to name the tenant as Respondent, if deemed appropriate. This last response is consistent with city
code section 2-247, which provides that a violator may include the property owner, tenant, or business entity on the
premises, or any combination thereof.
Established department practice instructs that all NOVs go to the Property Owner, under FL Statutes, if a lien may be imposed
against the property. They can contain a co -Respondent, but in no case should a NOV omit the Property Owner as
Respondent if the property may be liened.
Mr. Palmer's response was incomplete and
was not clarified until later
The initial oral statement was open to
misinterpretation because it was
incomplete.
Code Enforcement employee did not follow
departmental practice to include Property
Owner as Respondent in NOV.
Issue #5 (Debris outside the garage and garage door operation)
At this time, there is no practical way to verify whether the debris was removed and replaced later that same day (as the Code
Enforcement Officer claims) or whether it was never removed at all on June 12, 2023 (as Ms. Schaller claims). Both have stood
by their respective statements.
Code enforcement officers documenting evidence of violations and compliance, especially through the use of date and time
stamped photos is crucial to resolving code enforcement matters. Not documenting such evidence can result in
No uniform department practice had been
implemented to instruct that code
enforcement officers are required to photo
document compliance inspections.
Code Enforcement employee did not follow
departmental practice to personally
investigate and observe evidence of
2
Opportunities to improve the Community Development Department as it relates to Code Enforcement
disagreements and challenges in enforcing city code and achieving code compliance. At the time, there was no established
departmental practice regarding the documentation and/or photo documentation of violations, compliance inspections and
site visits.
In addition, code enforcement officers are required to personally investigate alleged violations and compliance. Without
having seen the door travel fully from a 100% open position to a 0% open position, the Code Enforcement Officer should not
have accepted the owner's statement that the door was capable of closing (to 0% open), and further, should not have
reported to the Code Enforcement Manager that the door opened and closed properly. Accepting verbal information should
not be a substitute for personal investigation of a violation or compliance.
compliance and to verify verbal
statements.
Issue #6 (Cowboy in the chair)
Having found that the chair did not constitute a violation of the city code, the Code Enforcement Officer had no authority to
request the chair and/or the chair's occupant to be moved off of the sidewalk.
Harassing behavior, if observed by a code enforcement officer is to be reported to the BCSO.
Code Enforcement employee did not follow
departmental practice to cease
enforcement efforts when no code
violation exists.
Issue #7 (Fire Issue — securing the unsafe structure from trespass)
Subsequent to a fire that occurred on August 5, 2022, damaging a portion of the roof used as an accessway to the second-
floor apartments, on December 5, 2022, Ms. Schaller notified staff that persons had been periodically accessing the 2nd floor
apartments, placing themselves in danger by traversing a portion of the fire damaged roof. The Code Enforcement Officer
placed caution tape on and around the stairwell in an attempt to prevent unauthorized entry and notified BCSO of a
trespassing concern. Code enforcement staff indicated that the owner declined to execute a Trespass Order.
This was consistent with the established department practice historically employed in similar situations.
Over the next several months, Ms. Schaller stated that she had reported that the efforts were ineffective and that people
continued to access the 2nd floor apartments. Again, the Code Enforcement Officer placed caution tape on and around the
stairwell and notified BCSO.
This pattern repeated a number of times in the months that followed. Staff continued to implement the same method of
placing caution tape and contacting BCSO, despite evidence that the method was ineffective, as reports of people accessing
the upstairs continued. This was reportedly the first time (for current staff) that this historical method was not effective.
After a significant amount of time had passed and frustrations had increased, the code enforcement officer was directed to
issue a NOV to secure the property to keep individuals from accessing the stairs. The NOV was issued on November 1, 2023
(15 months later). The matter was then heard by the Special Magistrate which ultimately led to the boarding up of the stairs
in late January 2024. This effectively restricted access.
No established practice to coordinate with
the Building Official and Fire Official to
expeditiously and effectively restrict access
to fire -damaged properties commensurate
with public safety -related concerns
regarding securing the unsafe structure
from trespass.
The officer should have affected the
securing of the unsafe structure sooner.
The Code Enforcement Manager and
Community & Economic Development
Director should have intervened sooner to
secure the unsafe structure.
Information received subsequent to the May 7, 2024 distribution of the Report of Findings.
Item #8. (Rocks in the Swale Issue)
There is a May 24, 2023 case notes entry indicating that Cowboy filed a complaint regarding rocks in the swale. The Code
Enforcement Officer has maintained that he personally witnessed the rocks in the swale on that date. No corresponding date
and time stamped photos of the violation on that date were taken by the code enforcement officer.
The tenant has maintained that there were no rocks in the swale on May 24, 2023.
The code enforcement employee's notes and the tenant's statement conflict, which led to an inconclusive result.
However, during the May 7, 2024 Special City Council Meeting, the tenant indicated that she had evidence supporting her
claim.
Several days after the May 7, 2024 Special City Council meeting, the tenant produced two items of evidence:
The two items of evidence presented
subsequent to the May 7, 2024 Report of
Findings cast doubt on the accuracy and
reliability of the May 24, 2023 case notes.
Code Enforcement employee did not follow
departmental practice to photo document
the violation on that was allegedly
witnessed on May 24, 2023.
3
Opportunities to improve the Community Development Department as it relates to Code Enforcement
1. An invoice from JPs Tractor Service & Sod, Inc., dated June 2, 2023 with the following itemized description: Track Skid
Steer Rock Driveway, Qty. 1, Rate 925.00 Amount: 925.00. The invoice indicates that it was paid and the balance due is
$0.00
2. A screenshot of a two-party text message which the tenant indicated was between herself and the supplier of the rocks.
The image indicates that the text exchange is dated June 5, 2023 at 9:43 am and includes the question: "What time are
you coming today?" and the answer: "Sorry missed text. We fixing to load up to leave."
This evidence suggests that the rocks were not in the swale on May 24, 2023 because both the invoice and the text message
screenshot are dated after May 24, 2023.
This underscores the need to document
evidence of violations through the use of
date and time stamped photos.
Section 2. Recommended actions.
Retain the services of an experienced code enforcement administrative consultant to assess the city's code enforcement procedures, practices
and organizational structure for purposes of recommending best practices to improve the department's organizational structure, services and
internal controls.
Create a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) manual to establish additional important operational procedures and guidelines to improve the
department's performance. The SOPs will address issues such as:
• Establish guidelines to identify and handle priority cases, such as those that have immediate public safety concerns.
• Internal coordination between code enforcement officers, fire marshal, building official, BCSO, and other officials and agencies involved
in code enforcement matters.
• Establish target timeframes and guidelines to measure performance of key elements of a code enforcement case.
• Best practices for the public BS&A portal, including examples of the types of documents which should and should not be uploaded into
BS&A and identifying which documents should be publicly accessible via the public BS&A portal.
• Best practices for Public Records retention and access, to include clearly differentiating between draft records and official records.
• Best practices and guidelines to identify and cite proper Respondents to an NOV.
• Guidelines to improve personal investigation techniques and evidence documentation related to code enforcement cases.
• Guidelines for securing properties that constitute a public nuisance.
• Guidelines for requesting search warrants.
• Other best practices to be determined internally and through the Consultant's assessment.
Retain the services of an experienced contract Code Enforcement Officer to assist with code enforcement case load.
4