The most notable portion of the meeting centered around the regulation of signage in various districts within DeFuniak Springs. Members acknowledged the need for distinct rules, particularly comparing the contrasting conditions along Highway 331 with those in the downtown district and the 90 Corridor. A participant emphasized the importance of structured guidelines, cautioning that without them, “you may get something you really don’t want.” There was a consensus on implementing pre-approved standards, especially in the historical district, to prevent inappropriate imagery and maintain community aesthetics.

The council also tackled the challenge of existing signage that may not comply with new regulations. Concerns were raised about billboards that no longer meet current codes yet remain due to grandfathering provisions. One participant highlighted the risk of non-compliant signs proliferating if proactive measures are not taken, expressing, “If we don’t have something in place… we’re going to get a bunch more of these.” This discussion included a specific case involving unauthorized tree removal to enhance billboard visibility.

Signage regulation discussions extended to the potential impact of large and bright signs on community aesthetics. Members explored the balance between aesthetic consistency and individual business needs, considering the implications of excessive regulation. While some regulation was deemed necessary, there was a shared concern about overly strict guidelines leading to burdensome enforcement and potential backlash from the business community. The council plans to gather examples of successful signage regulations from comparable cities and present them in the upcoming April meeting.

The meeting also delved into refining the code enforcement process, focusing on streamlining application modifications and fee structures. Participants debated the number of modifications allowed before a case should proceed to a special magistrate. A proposal was made to limit modifications to two, after which the case would automatically move to mediation. This proposal aimed to prevent unnecessary delays and ensure a clear path to resolution. The fee structure was also discussed, with a consensus that a single application fee should cover up to two modifications and one magistrate hearing, preventing endless loops through the process.

Further discussions addressed the discretion granted to the city manager in reducing fines based on property owners’ expenses incurred to remedy violations. Concerns were raised about the variability of fines, with a suggestion to establish limits on reductions relative to remediation costs. Documentation requirements for property owners claiming expenditures were emphasized. The city manager would have the discretion to determine costs if appropriate receipts were not provided.

The council also considered the complexities of property sales complicated by tax-related violations. The lack of awareness among buyers purchasing properties off tax deeds, often due to insufficient title searches, was highlighted. Members agreed on developing internal policies for handling such transactions, formalized through resolutions to allow flexibility for future adjustments. Discussions included the abatement process, proposing limits on abatements to specific cases and considering a memorandum of understanding with the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) to finance abatements and alleviate the city’s burden.