At the heart of the meeting was a detailed investigation into the issuance of COSOs for properties on Filmore Avenue without an affidavit from the engineer of record and the building official’s awareness of an incomplete retention system. The building official had resigned, citing concerns about the interpretation of the code. The council debated the implications of this for the completion of the storm water system and discussed the need for clear documentation and transparency in the issuance of COSOs.

The city engineer and the new building official evaluated the current status and made recommendations to ensure city codes related to site development are followed. FPL crews installed the underground electrical service after discussions about the storm water system and the relocation of the FPL pole and handhole. There was a debate about the understanding of city code section 110-221, which requires an engineered site plan for four or more residential units, and the implications for drainage plan requirements for single-family residences or multifamily dwellings.

The council also examined the handling of official record documents and notices of violation. Concerns were raised about public records that contained incorrect certified mail numbers and the need to clearly mark draft documents to avoid confusion. The council discussed the timing of sending notices, the importance of ensuring recipients’ timeline for response, and the need for consistency and accuracy in handling code enforcement cases.

Another major discussion point was the need for improved access to the BSNA software for all council members. This access would enable council members to view and run reports independently, providing them with the necessary information to make informed decisions and address residents’ concerns.

The council addressed discrepancies in the records of code enforcement violations and the need for an independent third-party code enforcement person to review policies and practices. The city manager noted that while progress has been made, time is needed to address all recommendations and findings.

In addition, the meeting covered concerns about selective enforcement in the code enforcement department, based on a complaint regarding the paving of a parking lot without a permit. The investigation into this complaint revealed differing perspectives on the timeline of code enforcement actions and interactions regarding the property in question.

The discussion was not limited to these issues, as the council also debated the necessity of calling out all work performed to the property owner and the requirement for the permit scope to cover all work performed. Concerns about the accessibility requirements under the ADA code, the definition of “display” in relation to outdoor merchandise, and the correct classification of units as single-family residences or duplexes based on property lines were also brought to the table.

Public comments during the meeting highlighted perceived discrepancies and dissatisfaction with the handling of certain situations. Residents expressed frustration about various issues, including the handling of code enforcement violations and the need for transparent document management policies.